[B-Greek] implicit hUPOTAGHTE
Grammata1 at aol.com
Grammata1 at aol.com
Thu Jun 15 23:50:14 EDT 2006
Yes Carl, the matter of a "missing" link leaves me a bit uncomfortable.
Reading left to right,
ALLHLOIS was more easily construed with an implicit hUPOTAGHTE corresponding
to the preceding PRESBUTEROIS, than with EGKOMBWSASQE (at least at first
blush).
Interestingly p72 supplies EN ALLHLOIS, which, one could say, either reads
easier because its original or a scribe thought ALLHLOIS was a wee awkward
too, and supplied EN.
Thanks to both Carl and Webb for the response.
Jon R. Venema
In a message dated 6/15/2006 6:11:21 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:
I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume hUPOTAGHTE to be
understood with PANTES DE ALLHLOIS, but what I find upsetting about
the suggested restructuring of the text is the abrupt new sentence
conjectured to begin with THN TAPEINOFROSUNHN EGKOMBWSASQE. If we had the
participle (EGKOMBSAMENOI) instead of the imperative
EGKOMBWSASQE, it would be easier to link the participial phrase to
what precedes. But I don't think a new sentence THN TAPEINOFROSUNHN
EGKOMBWSASQE can begin without some particle linking the new clause
to what precedes.
>> Subject: [B-Greek] IPeter 5:5 Implicit hUPOTAGHTE
snip
>> Is it not possible that this could READ as hOMOIWS, NEWTEROI,
>> hUPOTAGHTE PRESBUTEROIS; PANTES DE [hUPOTAGHTE] ALLHLOIS[.] >> THN
TAPEINOPHROSUNHN EGKOMBWSASQE, hOTI . . .
>>
>> Likewise, you younger men, be subject to the older men; for that
>> matter, all of you [be subject] to one another. Clothe yourselves with
>> humility, for God . . .
>>
>> Jon R. Venema, PhD
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list