From: David Moore (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Oct 02 1995 - 12:58:10 EDT
On Mon, 2 Oct 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> 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.
You are quite right. Pardon my oversight in not noting it in my
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
email@example.com Department of Education
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:28 EDT