From: George Athas (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Mar 16 1998 - 02:12:38 EST
James P. Ware wrote:
> [...] I find I must disagree with George Athas' reply that the text is
> 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
> the noun it modifies not only in gender and number, but also in case.
> 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
> 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?
> Jim Ware
Jim and Thomas,
If TO hUPER hUMWN EKCUNNOMENON is attributive, then yes, it must refer
cup (TO POTHRION). However, another legitimate reading (which I prefer)
To hUPER hUMWN EKCUNNOMENON is predicative of TW hAIMATI MOU, hence
the nominative case. It makes more sense for the blood to be spilled
cup - indeed, it is idiomatic to talk of blood being spilled by using
EKCUNW/EKCEW. The other synoptics also support the blood being spilled -
although Luke is his own writer and must be taken on his own grounds, it
still quite legitimate to see EKCUNNOMENON as qualifying TW hAIMATI MOU.
as if the the TO in *TO* hUPER hUMWN EKCUNNOMENON is acting like a
pronoun. Indeed, whether you take it as referring to the cup or the
must translate it as a relative pronoun. I guess it's a case of take
to which it refers.
PhD (Cand.), University of Sydney
Tutor of Hebrew, Moore Theological College
Phone: 0414 839 964 ICQ#: 5866591
(Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website at)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:11 EDT