[B-Greek] John 17:24
timothy mcmahon
targum at msn.com
Sun Jul 18 15:53:33 EDT 2010
Marilyn:
I think you're on the right track.
I don't know that we need to posit the existence of a specific antecedent noun in the neuter singular. In hO, the disciples are a collective; in KAKEINOI, they're individuals. There are other examples of agreement in sense in the NT (the one that comes to mind is LEGONTWN referring back to OCLOU in Revelation 19:1, but there are likely better ones). Apparently what's caught your eye also troubled the ancients, as witnessed in the Byzantine reading hOUS in place of hON.
1. John 17:24 hO and KAKEINOI (Marilyn Phemister)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 10:21:20 -0500
> From: Marilyn Phemister <windmill65 at yahoo.com>
> To: B-Greek <B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: [B-Greek] John 17:24 hO and KAKEINOI
> Message-ID: <4C431BF0.6060800 at yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Scholars:
>
> Here I am with another question.
>
> In John 17:24 we have:
>
> ?????, ? ??????? ???, ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ????,
> PATER, hO DEDWKAS MOI, QELW hINA hOPOU EIMI EGW KAKEINOI WSIN MET EMOU,
>
> Why does John use a neuter singular pronoun hO and then refer back to it
> with a masculine plural demonstrative KAKEIVOI? Shouldn't the two agree
> in gender and number? Is there a rule here I am missing? Is it
> possible that ? hO represented a collective neuter noun such as ????????
> POMNION, and KAKEINOI the members of that group?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Marilyn Phemister
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
> End of B-Greek Digest, Vol 91, Issue 16
> ***************************************
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list