From: Hultberg, Alan (alan_hultberg@peter.biola.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 22 1999 - 17:10:29 EDT
>>ELQONTA is an aorist active participle masculine accusative singular. It
>>modifies AUTON (= Peter). So...
>>
>>When Peter came into the house (where Jesus was), Jesus preceded him (Peter)
>>(in speaking about the didrachma tax), asking, etc.
>That makes a lot of sense.
>Now, would you deem a variant reading in codex D, that has EISELQONTI
>(dative), a scribal blunder or does it have some sense to put a dative
>participle here?
I can see no reason for a dative. It doesn't seem from the textual apparatus
also changed AUTON to a dative; is this correct? The only reason for the
variant, I think, would be an unintentional error on the part of the scribe,
from a smudged exemplar that made the A look like an I? Of from itacism--he
heard I when A was pronounced (though that isn't a normal mistake).
Anyone else have an idea?
Alan
--- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:33 EDT