From: Ben Crick (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Aug 26 1997 - 02:18:36 EDT
On Mon 25 Aug 97 (14:24:35), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> A while ago, Carl Conrad observed that participles are
> not (ordinarily?) used as nouns unless they hang off the definite
> article. Romans 12:15 seems to be an exception:
> XAIREIN META XAIRONTWN, KLAIEIN META KLAIONTWN.
> Why? Is this a quotation from an Aramaic original?
> Or do the participles XAIRONTWN and KLAIONTWN denote something other than
> people who are delighting and crying?
Interesting point. 1 Corinthians 17:30 has KAI hOI KLAIONTES hWS MH KLAIONTES
KAI hOI CAIRONTES hWS MH CAIRONTES ktl.
There is something epigrammatic about XAIREIN META XAIRONTWN, KLAIEIN META
KLAIONTWN. It is one of those Pauline epigrams, such as EMOI GAR TO ZHN
CRISTOS KAI TO APOQANEIN KERDOS (Philippians 1:21).
Or is it a sort of journalistic "headline" style, as in the anarthrous opening
to Mark 1:1, ARCH TOU EUAGGELIOU IHSOU CRISTOU ?
Sorry I have only more questions, not answers.
-- Revd Ben Crick, BA Bristol, 1963 (hons in Theology) <email@example.com> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:26 EDT