antecedents

clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Mon Jul 17 14:37:52 EDT 2000


on 07/17/00 10:49 AM, Rick H Duggin wrote:

> 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?

Rick,

It looks to me like Zedekiah is the subject of  LALHSEI and OYONTAI. Why?
Because Zedekiah is the center of the action in the first two verbs SWQHi
and  PARADOSEI PARADOQHSETAI. I would suspect that he is still the center of
attention in LALHSEI and  OYONTAI.  I have not spent much time on this and
could be wrong about it.
  
> 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.

The answer to this is neither of the above. The expressions:

STOMA AUTOU  PROS  STOMA  AUTOU

hOI  OFQALMOI AUTOU  TOUS  OFQALMOUS

are adverbial constituents which do not require analysis at the word level.
They function like adverbs to limit the verbs  LALHSEI and OYONTAI. There is
no antecedent of "the first STOMA AUTOU" etc.


> 
> Question:    In translating/interpreting/connecting pronouns
> and their antecedents, is there a guideline which applies in
> most cases? 

NT Greek provides morphological clues like gender  and number to help you
determine the antecedent of an anaphoric constituent. However, the semantic
structure of the immediate context is the final authority in cases where
there is ambiguity.

>   Can someone
> PROVE that my explanations above are right or wrong.

Probably not, if you mean something like a mathematical proof.

>is it  a matter of judgment and common sense?

Not really. The analysis of the semantic structure of a text is a learned
skill which requires a good theoretical model plus a lot of practice. Common
sense will not get you there.

Clay 

--  
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062





More information about the B-Greek mailing list