From: Jeffrey B. Gibson (email@example.com)
Date: Sat May 30 1998 - 16:00:33 EDT
Kevin Mullins wrote:
> 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.
Jim, Kevin, and others who wish to respond.
May I suggest that you change the subject heading of this thread to
something like EI = Since?. the debate here is, after all, not so much
on the whole om my article on Matt 4:1-11 (as the present heading now
seems to indicate), but on a claim I made within it on the meaning of EI
within Matt. 4:3, 6. Moreover, when you use the heading "article on
Matt. 4:1-11", and I see it as the subject of a posting to the list, I
keep having my expecations raised that the post is a response to the
Nevertheless, Kevin is quite right to ask for examples.
-- Jeffrey B. Gibson 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A Chicago, Illinois 60626 e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:44 EDT