2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun - which antecedent?

From: Timothy Duke (tduke@accsoft.com.au)
Date: Wed May 26 1999 - 08:24:08 EDT

Next message: Carl W. Conrad: "Re: 2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun - which antecedent?"
Previous message: Micheal Palmer: "Re: Pros"
Next in thread: Carl W. Conrad: "Re: 2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun - which antecedent?"
Maybe reply: Carl W. Conrad: "Re: 2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun - which antecedent?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

After a long time without a computer, I return to b-greek!

2 Peter 2:2 reads:
KAI POLLOI ...AUTWN..DI' hOUS...
My question is this: which is the antecedent: POLLOI or AUTWN? Most
commentaries I have access to confidently assert POLLOI, but do not give
any reasons. but I would have thought that AUTWN, being closer, would
certainly qualify as well.
How can I decide? Are there general rules to follow when gender and number
do not nail it? Which grammatical textbook discusses this????

Tim Duke
Sydney

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu

Next message: Carl W. Conrad: "Re: 2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun - which antecedent?"
Previous message: Micheal Palmer: "Re: Pros"
Next in thread: Carl W. Conrad: "Re: 2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun - which antecedent?"
Maybe reply: Carl W. Conrad: "Re: 2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun - which antecedent?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:28 EDT