From: Ronald Wong (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Feb 26 1997 - 23:46:33 EST
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> At 9:05 PM -0600 2/26/97, L. E. Brown wrote:
> >Two Questions ---
> >I've been working on Galatians 5:16-6:8, to determine whether or not
> >this passage warns us that not only will we 'reap' a corrupt nature
> >(6:8), but we will also lose our rewards in the kingdom (5:21).
> >Of particular interest is the phrase, "inherit the kingdom." Thus far
> >in my study it seems that "inherit the kingdom" ( = inherit eternal
> >life in the Synoptics) refers to taking possession of or being
> >rewarded with a share in kingdom rewards. But I don't have a lot of
> >lexical resources available (only the standard stuff).
> >QUESTION 1 -
> >So does anyone out there have any extra-biblical references that might
> >cast further light on the possible fields of meaning for KLHRONOMEW?
> I leave it to others to deal with KLHRONOMEW, noting only that it is the
> regular term for "inherit" in the sense of acquiring property rights to the
> familial estate. I would think the fundamental metaphor in play here is
> assuming at maturity the status to which a "son"--an adoptive child of
> God--is then entitled.
> >My question is this. In Luke 18:18 and Mark 10:17 the same form of the
> >verb KLHRONOMEW is used. Yet Mark 10:17 is parsed as an aorist
> >subjunctive and Luke 18:18 is parsed as a future indicative. The only
> >difference b/t the two is the 'ina in Mark 10:17. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
> >REASONS WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BOTH BE PARSED THE SAME WAY -- EITHER BOTH
> >AORIST SUBJUNCTIVES OR FUTURE INDICATIVES?
> If the only difference between the two instances of KLHRONOMHSW is that one
> follows upon a hINA, that's quite enough to assure that we have an aorist
> subjunctive in that instance. In Luke 18:18, however, a direct question is
> put to Jesus, TI POIHSAS ZWHN AIWNION KLHRONOMHSW--that's a future
> It is true that in the 1st sg. the future indicative and aorist subjunctive
> active (the middle will do the same) will be spelled identically, simply
> because the -W ending may represent either the W othe W/H subjunctive sign
> or the regular thematic 1st sg. ending. The fact that the first-aorist stem
> and the future stem are identical is no accident, since, morphologically,
> the future tense derives historically from the usage of aorist subjunctive
> to express sure intent.
> In any case, what each of these identically-spelled forms is cannot be
> doubted:the hINA requires a subjunctive, the straightforward question an
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University
> One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
> (314) 935-4018
> email@example.com OR firstname.lastname@example.org
> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
whoa...Bud...Carl and others..
disregard my earlier post on the Mk 10 being the same...didn't remember
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:07 EDT