From: alexali (alexali@surf.net.au)
Date: Thu Nov 04 1999 - 17:12:08 EST
The comments of Ronald Ross and Carl regarding Titus 3:1 in the digest I
received today have been very interesting to me, in making me look again at
a difficulty that in my reading of the passage I have glossed over. The
textual aspect of the question is not something I can comment on. My query
is whether it is necessary to take the ARCAIS as adjectival to yield the
correct meaning (I am assuming that the meaning is not contentious, but
rather the text and its construction)? I can find such a sense of ARCH
supported in the lexica no more than did Ronald. I would find it easier to
read a KAI between ARCAIS and EXOUSIAIS; but if the text is taken without
it, could not the EXOUSIAIS be taken as in apposition to ARCAIS, virtually
epexegetical, the phrase thus yielding a sense tantamount to "ruling
authorities"? (I see nothing parallel in BDF; as Ronald mentioned, this
questions the text, saying, "ARCAIS EXOUSIAS is dubious; if this is
correct, then because of the following asyndeton." Other commentaries I
have to hand seem to skirt around the matter - as indeed I normally would!
Smyth 976ff discusses apposition with classical examples.)
Alex Hopkins
(Melbourne, Australia)
--- 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 - 15:40:44 EDT