Re: rel. pron. in Mt 21:35

From: Philip L. Graber (
Date: Mon Oct 02 1995 - 11:47:31 EDT

On Mon, 2 Oct 1995, David Moore wrote:

> Philip is correct in noting that v. 36 is a continuation of the
> thoughts begun in v. 35, but he is not correct in thinking that the
> participle LABONTES should agree with the subject of the following
> verb.

The problem to which I was referring is that the fact that LABONTES is
nominative case, which normally means that the "subject" of that verb
must be the same as the finite verb on which the participle is
"dependent". But the agreement is clearly with the subject of the verbs
in the hON clauses and not with the independent finite verb in v. 36. If
v. 35 and v. 36 are related to each other the way you (and I) want to say
they are, I would expect the case of the participle LABONTES to be other
than nominative (a genitive absolute, perhaps?).

Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University Atlanta, GA 30322 USA

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:28 EDT