[b-greek] Re: John 11:5-6 DE...MEN

From: Rbsads@aol.com
Date: Mon Mar 11 2002 - 07:37:35 EST

Next message: Carl W. Conrad: "[b-greek] Re: Archive between 1/30/02 and 3/6/02?"
Previous message: Iver Larsen: "[b-greek] Re: John 11:5-6 DE...MEN"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

<x-html>
<HTML>In a message dated 3/11/02 2:19:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, glennblank@earthlink.net writes: 
 
"anaphora, all other things being equal, tend to look for their referents not to the most recent antecedent, but to the antecedent that is closest to it *structurally* " 
 
Dear Glenn, 
 
Thanks for the new word "anaphora." <g> 
 
And thanks very much for the helpful explanation of MEN and DE.  The deeper consideration of sentence structure is something I am just starting to begin to study.  (As soon as my recognition and reading of the pluperfect is a little better.<g>) Iver has sent some helpful information with regard to word order.  And thanks Iver for your comments on this question of the syntactical use of OUN. 
 
Chuck had mentioned in his last post for the "learning Greek" thread, about thinking in Greek. I suppose that eventually I will be able to place subordinate thoughts in their proper place, without regard to word, phrase, and clause order.  It is difficult to see a word that implies consequence, and understand that the referent might not be close by. Right now I am still treating Greek as "English by another name." 
 
Anyway, Glenn, your explanation of the passage syntax has helped. 
 
The use of antecedents in the passage, though, has now come to the front of my questioning. 
 
hAUTN hH ASQENEIA OUK ESTIV PROS QANATON ALL 'hUPER THS DOZHS TOU QEOU, hINA DOZASQH hO hUIOS TOU QEOU DI' AUTHS." 
 
The final AUTHS might seem to be in the same subordinated sentence structure as the possible antecedent THS DOZHS, or perhaps to flow structurally as a subordinate to the preposition hUPER THS DOZHS. 
 
This would support THS DOZHS as being the antecedent, it would seem to me. 
 
I do however think that the antecedent is hH ASQENEIA.  Please consider my reasons to see if my thinking is acceptable given Greek grammar considerations. 
 
My understanding is that, as you explained so clearly, hUPO "signals something more agentive (hence DOXHS TOU QEOU characterizing God's person) whereas DIA signals a less personal cause or instrument (hence hH ASQENEIA)." 
 
Additionally, could it be possible that the Father's work in this glorification of the Son is expressed by the "divine passive" of DOZASQH? Now we have "the glory of God glorifying the Son of God through this illness." 
 
The other antecedents in this passage that bring questions to me are in verse 16. 
 
Thomas is speaking, "AGWMEN KAI hHMEIS hIVA APAQANWMEN MET' AUTOU." 
 
When Thomas speaks does the hMEIS include Jesus? 
 
And when Thomas speaks does the AUTOU refer to Jesus or to Lazarus? 
 
Thanks for your help. 
 
Richard Smith 
Chattanooga, TN 
 

--- 
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 
 

</html>

</x-html>

Next message: Carl W. Conrad: "[b-greek] Re: Archive between 1/30/02 and 3/6/02?"
Previous message: Iver Larsen: "[b-greek] Re: John 11:5-6 DE...MEN"
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 - 15:37:20 EDT