[B-Greek] Luke 17: 20-21

rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Fri Sep 18 23:04:53 EDT 2009


 I am still involved in a discussion on Luke 17.

Can anyone tell me how often we find the combination? ENTOS + plural? appearing in Greek writings (hopefully, involving a group of people) outside the NT about the same time as the NT period and how it would/might be translated?

Roger Hutchinson



 -----Original Message-----

From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: rhutchin at aol.com
Cc: iver_larsen at sil.org; b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:22 am
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Luke 17: 20-21










On Sep 17, 2009, at 8:38 AM, rhutchin at aol.com wrote:?
?

>?

> Apparently, this verse has engendered more discussion over the years > that I was aware of.  I don't think a grammatical analysis resolves > the issue or, at least, not to everyone's satisfaction.  A lot of > people argue against your position.?

>?

> I was referred to a comment that Dr. Conrad made back in 1998 on > this when he wrote, "I just did a check of the Perseus LSJ on ENTOS > and find it regularly?

> used with a partitive genitive of the boundaries within which X is?

> located, including in particular TEIXEWN (calculations,) HUMWN (our?

> Lucan passage), MAQHMATWN (learning), GRAMMATWN (literature). Most of?

> these are not instances of a group of persons, so that I don't know?

> that it would be the normal way to say "among", but to be very precise?

> about the sense of a partitive genitive, I'd think it is not so?

> terribly different from epi + genitive = "somewhere within the?

> boundaries of X" -- so ENTOS + genitive = "at some point within the?

> boundaries of X."?

>?

> Roger Hutchinson?
?

Perhaps I was more perceptive 11 years ago  ; -)  -- Gee, I'm glad we have the archives!?

Iver did call attention to a very important and commonly-ignored aspect of this much-disputed text: that hUMWN, the object of ENTOS, is plural and therefore must refer to a grouping of persons. I'm not sure that makes the Jesus-saying less cryptic or less open to a broad range of interpretations dependent upon the assumptions underlying approaches to it, but the fact that it refers to a group of persons does make some of the common interpretations less plausible.?
?

And, for what it's worth, I agree with your judgment, "I don't think a grammatical analysis resolves the issue or, at least, not to everyone's satisfaction." But I also agree with Iver  that "GAR never introduces a contrast." I think the notion that it does is a dead horse that needs no more flailing.?
?

Carl W. Conrad?

Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)?
?

?



 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list