Re: article on Matt 4:1-11

From: Kevin Mullins (
Date: Sat May 30 1998 - 14:02:35 EDT

Jim West wrote:
> At 10:16 PM 5/29/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >Goodwin says that nothing is implied as to the fulfillment of the
> >condition and that "the protasis *simply states* a present or past
> >particular supposition" - Goodwin's Greek Grammar SS-1390
> >
> he is wrong here.

I am willing to be swayed on this but you'll have to be more specific.
To assert simply "he is wrong" will not be enough to convince me
and I hope few others would be convinced by it. Perhaps you could
specify some examples of why he is wrong or maybe even cite some other
sources that say "he is wrong." I would ask for a similar defence from
someone who asserted "Jim is wrong" I promise.

> >Smyth is probably the most specific when he says, "Simple present or
> >past conditions simply *state* a supposition with no implication as to
> >its reality or probability. SS-2298
> that may be true in proper Attic; but it is untrue of Koine.
> Help me here. I know the two are different in certain respects but can
we cite sources and specific examples to support your statement.

Kevin Mullins
Flroence, AL

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:44 EDT