[B-Greek] Rom 6:17b;Fronted Relative with Demonstrative Sense
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Apr 9 05:38:59 EDT 2007
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry" <nebarry at verizon.net>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "yancywsmith" <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>
>
>> What is the difference between saying "proleptic" and "fronted
>> relative"? Other than the fact that proleptic is based upon Greek
>> roots? If we were going to use "proleptic" the question would be, is
>> there any special meaning connected with its position, such as
>> demonstrative force.
>>
>> "the form/model/stamp of teaching to which you were delivered"
>> vs.
>> "that form/model/stamp of teaching to which you were delivered"
>
> Exactly. Terminology aside, why make it more complicated than it has to be?
> Objections of interpolation, or creating a antecedent based, as you said
> earlier, on theological (or perhaps, I would say, contextual) grounds is simply
> wasted effort when there is a perfectly good grammatical explanation waiting in
> the wings -- in fact, not even in the wings, right out on center stage.
>
> N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The point of interest here is the pragmatics rather than the syntax and labels. Yancy posed the
question why the relative is fronted.
For instance:
Luke 22:10: AKOLOUQHSATE AUTWi EIS THN OIKIAN EIS hHN EISPOREUETAI
follow him into the house (into) which he is going to enter
Why not: AKOLOUQHSATE AUTWi EIS hHN EISPOREUETAI OIKIAN
follow him into the (or: that very?) house (which) he is going to enter
The hypothesis that Martin Culy hinted at and which I find of interest is whether the fronting does
indeed indicate a demonstrative focus. Or is it only a colloquial (?) variation without any semantic
or pragmatic difference?
In Rom 6:17b we read: EIS hON PAREDOQHTE TUPON DIDACHS
Why not: EIS TON TUPON DIDACHS EIS hON PAREDOQHTE
I am not sure of the answer, but find the question worth pondering,
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list