antecedents

Rick H Duggin rduggin at juno.com
Mon Jul 17 13:49:04 EDT 2000


 Jeremiah 39:4 (LXX) warns that Zedekiah will not
be saved out of the hand of the Chaldeans, 
hOTI   PARADOSEI PARADOQHSETAI  EIS  CEIRAS
BASILEWS  BABULWNOS,  KAI  LALHSEI  STOMA 
AUTOU  PROS  STOMA  AUTOU,  KAI  hOI  OFQALMOI
AUTOU  TOUS  OFQALMOUS  AUTOU  OYONTAI.

As I was reading this passage, I was a little uncertain
about the pronoun/antecedent connection.    I think the 
"he" in LALHSEI  refers to Nebuchadnezzar, not to 
Zedekiah.   Is this right?

Assuming this to be correct, then the first STOMA AUTOU
must surely refer to Nebuchadnezzar, and the second must
refer to Zedekiah.     Right again?  

Finally, assuming these things to be correct, I would think
that the OFQALMOI AUTOU refers to Nebuchadnezzar, 
while the OFQALMOUS AUTOU refers to Zedekiah.

Question:    In translating/interpreting/connecting pronouns 
and their antecedents, is there a guideline which applies in 
most cases?     (E.g., a pronoun usually agrees with its nearest 
antecedent.)    Wallace says, "What might be the nearest antecedent 
contextually might not be the nearest antecedent in the author's mind"
(Gk. Grammar Beyond Basics, p.326, discussing demonstratives).
Does this mean that the issue rests merely upon the context of 
the passage, as my suggestions above indicate?      Can someone
PROVE that my explanations above are right or wrong, or is it
a matter of judgment and common sense?     

Thanks for your comments.

Rick Duggin
Murfreesboro, TN  37129
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.



More information about the B-Greek mailing list