From: Thomas Bond (lpbond@pldi.net)
Date: Sun Mar 15 1998 - 23:43:56 EST
James P. Ware wrote:
> I find I must disagree with George Athas' reply that the text is ambiguous
> in Luke 22:20 as to whether it is the blood or the cup which is poured
> out. An attributive adjectival participle, like any adjective, agrees with
> the noun it modifies not only in gender and number, but also in case. In
> order for the participle here to modify haimati, it would normally
> have to be in the dative, unless one were to argue for some contructio ad
> sensum such as one finds in the papyri or the book of Revelation; this
> seems unlikely for Luke. Or am I underestimating this possibility, or
> missing something else?
>
> Jim Ware
I have to agree with this. Perhaps it is because of my limited
experience, but the participle seems to clearly modify "cup." In the
earlier part of the verse TO POTHRION was repeated twice. Why would not
the third time the neuter article TO was used, in the phrase TO UPER
UMWN EKXUNNOMENON, still be a reference to the earlier uses of TO
POTHRION? And yes, the participle is in the wrong case to agree with
hAIMATI.
Thomas Bond
lpbond@pldi.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:11 EDT