From: Clwinbery@aol.com
Date: Tue Feb 26 2002 - 20:28:59 EST
In a message dated 2/26/02 7:06:57 AM, cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu writes:
>Rom 7.10: EGW DE APEQANON KAI hEUREQH MOI hH ENTOLH hH EIS ZWHN, hAUTH EIS
>QANATON
omission
>i.e. hAUTH is, as the convention for demonstratives requires, in a
>predicative position to hH ENTOLH hH EIS ZWHN,
>
>BUT: it is positioned somewhat oddly FOLLOWING an appended attributive
>phrase that must be construed with hH ENTOLH. I do NOT think that either
>the hAUTH or the hH ENTOLH hH EIS ZWHN should be viewed as "hanging"--I
>think that they must be construed together. Finally I agree with you that
>hAUTH is all the more emphatic in this final position. It may be that the
>editors (there's no note on this verse in Metzger's _Testual Commentary_)
>have understood this hAUTH as a sort of appositive to hH ENTOLH hH EIS
>ZWHN:
Interested that Carl should "feel" the possibility for a variant here.
Griesbach (according to Nestle editio vicesima prima - only thing other than
UBS that I have at home at the moment) conjectured that instead of hAU/TH
Paul wrote AUTH/. If that were so, we would still translate it as ". . . and
it (the commandment) (is) unto death."
Carlton Winbery
Louisiana College
---
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 - 15:37:19 EDT