From: Dale M. Wheeler (
Date: Fri Sep 20 1996 - 17:42:49 EDT

D. Lembo wrote:

>No.What hEWS hOU compresses is not hEWS TOU XRONOU (KAIROU) hWi but hEWS
>TOUTOU (EKEINOU) hWi, where the neuter pronoun TOUTO (EKEINO) replaces the
>masc. noun, i.e. we have not ellipsis but (stronger and simpler) deixis.
>The mere neuter (= "point") for a masc./fem./neuter noun like XRONOS,
>KAIROS, hEMERA etc. is common in Greek. For instance, in hEWS TOU NUN (Mt
>24.21) TOU NUN is the gen. of TO NUN (neuter), not of TOU NUN XRONOU/KAIROU
>(masculine) minus XRONOU/KAIROU.

I agree that TOUTO/EKEINO is the other option, but what I'm wondering,
as Carl Conrad mentioned in his post, is whether there are any example
of the entire phrase anywhere, before it became a compressed idiomatic
usage; I don't seem to be able to find any in any tools or texts I've
checked so far. I also agree with what Don Wilkins said and have the
"gut level" feeling (now there's a receipe for disaster :-) ) that the
hOU is acting like TOUTO in this case and is a neuter substitute referring
back to a "whatever" case noun phrase, a not uncommon situation--since
BAGD doesn't give any specific passages to demonstrate their choice of
neuter for hOU, I'd guess that they are operating under the same

I also considered the hEWS TOU NUN uses, but decided that they weren't
clear enough evidence, since one could argue that the neuter article is
simply being used to substantize the adverb (a common phenomenon).

From what I've seen so far in trying to chase this, the evidence is
at best ambiguous; I'd sure appreciate seeing any passages anyone might
run into which could shed some specific light on this problem. Thanks
for the input...

Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:52 EDT