From: clayton stirling bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Apr 05 1998 - 06:55:43 EDT
Paul and Carl,
On James 1:3, BDF (263.2) follows Deissmann by reading DOKIMIOS = DOKIMOS. BDF
calls this a neuter singular adjective used as an abstract with a dependent
genitive. Joseph B. Mayor (James, 1910) disagrees with Diessmann on this.
Mayor joins hUMWN with THS PISTEWS. J. E. Huther (Meyer's Handbook) makes the
intriguing remark that THS PISTEWS could be omitted from this text (as in B(3)
81 Syr.) without changing the sense at all. If I am reading BDF, Deissmann and
Huther correctly, they all consider hUMWN to belong with TO DOKIMION. As far
as the word order goes. It appears that the word order would allow hUMWN to be
connected with either substantive.
I have no opinions on this. I thought these comments might help confuse
matters a little bit.
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
"April is the cruellest month, breeding Lilacs out of the dead land, . . ."
The Waste Land, T.S. Eliot
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:21 EDT