From: James P. Ware (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Mar 15 1998 - 21:13:56 EST
Re Randy's question:
> I would like to see some discussion on Luke 22:20. The NASB translates:
> Luke 22:20
> 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, =
> "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
> They say that the Greek grammar makes it the "cup" that is "poured out." =
> I have looked at the Greek and see what I think is their reasoning. I =
> wonder if any of the scholars on the list could show why it is not =
> necessarily so.
> In my opinion, two reasons cause me to reject the necessity of =
> translating it so (three if my prejudice, be included): 1) the fact that =
> the cup was drunk, not poured out. His blood was poured out (Bible =
> interpreting the Bible); and 2) the vast number of translations in which =
> it is not translated that way.
> Does the grammar allow the verse to be translated either way?
> In translating the Bible, how much must one rely on the whole context =
> (verse, paragraph, chapter, book, etc.)?
I find I must disagree with George Athas' reply that the text is ambiguous
in Luke 22:20 as to whether it is the blood or the cup which is poured
out. An attributive adjectival participle, like any adjective, agrees with
the noun it modifies not only in gender and number, but also in case. In
order for the participle here to modify haimati, it would normally
have to be in the dative, unless one were to argue for some contructio ad
sensum such as one finds in the papyri or the book of Revelation; this
seems unlikely for Luke. Or am I underestimating this possibility, or
missing something else?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:11 EDT