[B-Greek] the antecedent of relative pronoun
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Thu Oct 7 06:44:30 EDT 2010
On Oct 7, 2010, at 4:42 AM, John Sanders wrote:
>>
>>
> Just a few comments.
>
>
>
> HH asked about the antecedent of hAI in REV 5:8
>
>
>
> Και ὅτε ἔλαβεν το βιβλιὀν, τα τἐσσαρα ζῷα και οἱ εἵκοσι τἐσσαρες πρεσβὐτεροι
> ἔπεσαν ἐνὠπιον τοῦ ἀρνἰου ἔχοντες ἔκαστος κιθἀραν και φιἀλας χρυσᾶς γεμοὐσας
> θυμιαμἀτων, αἵ εἰσιν αἱ προσευχαι τῶν ἁγἰων.
>
>
>
> KAI hOTE ELABEN TO BIBLION, TA TESSARA ZWA KAI hOI EIKOSI TESSARES
> PRESBUTEROI EPESAN ENWPION TOU ARNIOU EXONTES EKASTOS KIQARAN KAI FIALAS
> XRUSAS GEMOUSAS QUMIAMATWN, hAI EISIN hAI PROSEUXAI TWN hAGIWN.
>
>
>
> Magister Barrius is accurate in identifying FIALAS as the antecedent of hAI.
> But Sometimes as we move from the forest to the tree to the limb to the
> branch to the twig to the leaf, we forget the relationship that exists among
> them all.
>
>
>
> Whereas the FIALH is the hAI PROSEUXAI TWN hAGIWN, it is not just any old
> FIALH; it is not a FIALH MOLUBDOXALKOS. Rather, it is a FIALH XRUSA
> GEMOUSAS QUMAMATWN. The whole family comes along!
>
>
>
> I should think we can even go further, there quite often is baggage that
> comes along also. In this case, these are not shopkeepers putting their
> incense on the shelf for resale. I expect the incense to be lit, that is
> smoldering and the smoke going up to heaven. I think that is a reasonable
> expectation without attempting to brings some form of interpretation into
> the mix.
>
>
>
> Also, HH asked about the antecedent of hO in Ephesians 6:17.
>
>
>
> Και την περικεφαλαἰαν τοῦ σωτηρἰου δἐξασθε και την μἀχαιραν τοῦ πνεὐματος, ὅ
> ἐστιν ῥῆμα θεοῦ.
>
>
>
> KAI THN PERIKEFALAIAN TOU SWTHRIOU DEXASUE KAI THN MACAIRAN TOU PNEUMATOS,
> hO ESTIN hRMA QEOU.
>
>
>
> There are two ways of looking at this phrase. The first is as Magister
> Barrius has suggested, that PNEUMATOS is the hRMA QEOU.
>
>
>
> But, as he also hinted at in his last posting, one can refer to Smyth,
> #2501a:
>
>
>
> “If the main clause as a whole is regarded as the antecedent, the relative
> stands in the neuter singular with or without a demonstrative.”
>
>
>
> In which case it is both the PERIKEFALAIAN and the MAXAIRAN that, together
> is the hRHMA QEOU.
>
>
>
> But again, it is not just any helmet and sword, it is the helmet of
> salvation and the sword of the spirit that would be the word of God.
>
>
>
> I thought Latin had a similar construction, and perhaps Jerome was writing
> decent Latin after all. He was just construing the relationship as the
> latter of our two options.
A couple of thoughts kept coming to me as I read through this not-at-all-unreasonable,
however cumbersome, manner of construing these texts:
(1) We don't really expect the author of Revelation to conform to our
grammatical expectations, after noting some instances in which he hasn't done so;
(2) The Paul who wrote Ephesians is sort of like the Henry James who wrote
"The Ambassadors" -- he's undergone a sea change from the Paul who wrote
Philippians and Romans as has Henry James since he wrote "Portrait of a Lady";
(3) Maybe there is such a thing as "Holy-Ghost Greek" after all.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list