Dale M. Wheeler (dalemw@teleport.com)
Wed, 18 Sep 1996 14:32:20 -0700

I'm wondering about the following statement in BAGD (sv, hEWS
II1b) "w. the gen. of the relative pron. in the neut...".
The troublesome part is the statement that hOU in the
phrase hEWS hOU is neuter. What makes me wonder is the
(I think) parallels with AXRIS/MEXRIS hOU; for example
BAGD says (sv, AXRI 2a) "w. rel. AXRI hOU (=AXRI XRONOU
hWi)..." Robertson (Gr., p. 720) seems to agree when he
says, "But in AXRI hOU (Rev. 2:25) we really have AXRI
KAIROU hWi (or EN hWi)." Now if these phrases are parallel,
and what we are dealing with is a pregnant phrase in which
the XRONOU/KAIROU hWi has been compressed to hOU, then
shouldn't the implied gender of hOU in every case be
Masculine and not Neuter ??????

Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com