Re: rel. pron. in Mt 21:35

From: David Moore (
Date: Mon Oct 02 1995 - 14:48:04 EDT

"Philip L. Graber" <> quoted and wrote:

>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?).

        I see what you mean, it is the hON clauses which are in apposition
to the aorist nominative participle.

        I'm thinking that probably the relative pronouns should be taken
as Mark Durie and Domenico Lembo have suggested: as demonstrative pronouns
here. Or as Carl Conrad has explained: still relative, but understood in
English prose as demonstrative. Understanding them so would explain why
the editors have put a period at the end of v.35 and why most translators
render 35 and 36 as two sentences.

David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God Department of Education

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