From: Carl W. Conrad (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Oct 02 1995 - 12:07:59 EDT
At 10:01 AM 10/2/95, David Moore wrote:
[I won't repeat the entire lengthy correspondence, with one exception]
> There is a factor that has not been taken into consideration in
>either Carl's analysis or in that presented by Mark Durie, but it is
>key to understanding this passage.
> 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 relationship indicated is one of time, not of personal
>identity. The aorist tense of the participle LABONTES indicates here
>that the incidents of mistreatment of the owner's messengers had
>already taken place when he sent other of his servants.
> This factor is integral to the story of the parable, since
>finally, and with full knowledge of the tenants actions, the owner
>sends his own son (v. 37).
Actually I think this reading of LABONTES _is_ there in my original
response to Phil, viz.:
> ... I think the
> sense of the construction might best be conveyed thus: "And the
> vine-dressers took the slaves, of whom they flayed one, killed one, and
> stoned one." It is a common narrative device in Greek to use a participle
> (or two or three) in the aorist and then an indicative to indicate a
> sequence of actions where English would prefer to use coordinate
> indicatives, as I have done in effect in my version above.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
email@example.com OR firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:28 EDT