Date: Sun Sep 08 1996 - 16:48:44 EDT
Paul, we seem to be near an impasse in what has become something of a Socra-
tic argument, and like Socrates I don't know how much longer our colleagues
on the list can put up with us (I probably shouldn't compare myself with
Socrates in any sense; one might as well compare ants to elephants).
Our chief problem, as it seems, continues to be the EIS clause. I appreciate
your willingness to take it as result, but "...the result of which is that when he is revealed (you will know him)..." is still an attempt to rewrite the
text. The apostle does not say "when" nor indicate it in any way by the gram-
mar. You could assume something like, "so that he will be revealed at his
proper time (and you will know it)", but then you still have the problem I
described in my last post (i.e. the result of a result which seems to make
little sense). I can at least allow that taking MUSTERION as explanatory of
TO KATECWN is not ruled out by grammar, though it may not be the most pro-
bable interpretation. I appreciate the fact that this time you did not men-
tion the neuter gender as an argument (unless that was merely an oversight).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:51 EDT