[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