From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Mon Feb 03 1997 - 13:45:23 EST

At 9:35 AM -0600 2/3/97, James H. Vellenga wrote:
>From Carl Conrad:
>> Here's where the ACCENTS are important, Jonathan. It's: hO\. Unless the
>> article hO is followed by an enclitic (e.g. hO/ GE), it NEVER has an
>> accent; when you see a hO with an accent and there's NO following enclitic,
>> it can only be a relative pronoun, as it is in fact here: relative
>> pronoun acc., object of NOHSAI, and I think I would explain this as an
>> anticipatory relative clause in apposition to THN SUNESIN MOU, deeming PROS
>> as having THN SUNESIN MOU as its chief object.
>Would it be possible to interpret the hO\ as a backward rather
>than a forward reference? I'm weak on my genders, but could
>it refer back to the "mystery", or even the act of having
>previously written? Thus,
> "the secret ... just as I wrote to you briefly before, in view of which
> (PROS hO\) you are able ...."

I think that could certainly be possible, but it seems to me to leave THN
SUNESIN MOU hanging too loosely, and God forbid anybody should be
encouraged to think it is an accusative absolute! ;-) At any rate, it
certainly does pick up the notion of MUSTHRION from the preceding clause
with a view to clarifying how Paul came to understand it. I just find it
easier to understand it as, " ... with regard to which thing--my
understanding of the mystery of Christ--you can get a sense of as you read

ON THE OTHER HAND, linkage of phrases and clauses in this "letter" is
hardly the most transparent quality of the writing.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018 OR

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:04 EDT