From: c stirling bartholomew (cc.constantine@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:44:13 EDT
Trevor,
on 6/5/01 2:55 PM, Trevor & Julie Peterson wrote:
> This is a more or less gut reaction, but it seems like there is some sort of
> distinction between the two examples. For one thing, Mark 2:10 seems to
> indicate in some way that the scribes' conclusion was not altogether
> fallacious.
True, but the passive comes before this and it is agent-less and the scribes
still have to supply the empty agent slot. We find out later that they were
more or less correct in doing this but that does not change the dynamics of
the agent-less passive.
BTW, I am just throwing out Marius Reiser's point as an idea for
discussion. It is not my idea and I don't intend to defend it. Reiser's
point does seem to have implications which can be explored in other passages
like Mk 13:2 and Mk 14:57-59 where we are not told who the agent is (unlike
Mk 2:5ff).
Clay
--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:36:59 EDT