[B-Greek] SUGKEKERASMENOUS in Hebrews 4:2
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Aug 29 06:37:49 EDT 2008
On Aug 29, 2008, at 12:49 AM, Leonard Jayawardena wrote:
>
> Hebrews 4:2--KAI GAR ESMEN EUHGGELISMENOI KAQAPER KAKEINOI, ALL' OUK
> WFELHSAN hO LOGOS THS AKOHS EKEINOUS MH SUGKEKERASMENOUS THi PISTEI
> TOIS AKOUSASIN.
>
> Why is SUGKEKERASMENOUS in the accusative and why is it plural,
> since it is to be understood with hO LOGOS THS AKOHS?
> SUGKEKERASMENOS, which is what, I think, would be grammatically
> correct, is found in some manuscripts, but the editors of the
> critical text of Nestle Aland and UBS appparently thought
> SUGKEKERASMENOUS most probably stood in the original text. Is the
> form of the word due its proximity to EKEINOUS? and Is it a
> "solecism"?
I'm not going to reproduce it here, but a a couple earlier efforts I
made to elucidate the problems of this text are set forth in a message
which I addressed to the list on September 24, 2003 8:37:36 AM EDT
under the subject header, "Re: [B-Greek] Two datives in Heb. 4:2." In
the archives at:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2003-September/026418.html
= http://tinyurl.com/6ck7yw
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list