From: David L. Moore (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Apr 12 1997 - 13:45:14 EDT
L. Mark Bruffey wrote:
>Guelich, on p 125 says WSTE
>". . . introduces a result clause that connects 2:28 syntactically with
>2:27. Therefore, to take 2:28 as a summary of 2:23-27 . . . or even the
>larger context of 2:1-26 . . . is to ignore the logic and syntax of 'so
>that' in 2:28 which results from the content of 2:27."
>Can anyone show me evidence to the contrary? That is, can you show
>specific references (not assertions from lexicons) where WSTE functions
>in the way Guelich asserts it cannot?
Although you asked for references rather than "assertions from
lexicons," to consult a good lexicon on this might be helpful. BAGD s.v.
hWSTE includes among this word's usages "introducing independent clauses"
(s.v., 1, a) and "introducing dependent clauses," (s.v., 2, a). The lexicon
gives several references for the former and a few references for the latter.
Geulich has apparently taken hWSTE as introducing a dependent clause
since he mentions the translation "so that." BAGD categorizes hWSTE in Mk.
2:28 as introducing an independent clause. Although the lexicographers'
opinion doesn't necessarily settle the matter, there are reasons to think
their categorization is correct. The expression hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU is
characteristically used by Jesus to refer to Himself. This usage is in
keeping with hWSTE's introducing an independent clause which is in reference
to Jesus' reasonings and pronouncements within the full context of this
pericope from v. 23 through 27.
Regards to all,
David L. Moore
Miami, Florida, USA
Southeastern Spanish District of the A/G Dept. of Education
Home Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:12 EDT