From: James S. Murray (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jan 06 2000 - 20:17:36 EST
clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
> Richard A. Young (Intermediate Gk Gram, P20) says this is a difficult
> problem to solve. He cites R.J. Baukham (WBC, 1983) as a proponent of
> the two participle solution and Lenski as favoring the PROKEINTAI
> I don't really think this problem is all that difficult. Both Baukham
> and J.B. Mayor (2Pet & Jude,1907, p 20. ) see the main point of the
> comparison in the APELQOUSAI OPISW SAPKOS hETERAS. I agree with them
> for several reasons. First it is syntactically feasible and second it is
> semantically probable.
> They syntax might permit PROKEINTAI DEIGMA as the point of comparison
> but there is more to this than the analysis of syntax. I don't think
> that PROKEINTAI DEIGMA as the *exclusive* point of comparison is a
> tenable solution. My reason for this is not primarily syntactical but
> has to do with the semantic structure of the context where the pattern
> of ideas suggests strongly that it was the nature of the activity
> engaged in by the Angels and Sodomites that was being compared. This
> would not rule out the inclusion of a comparison of their punishment
> which J.B. Mayor alludes to in his cryptic notes.
Thanks for your thoughts on this and for passing on the references. In terms of
syntax, both are possible and that other factors, such as context, have to guide our
I agree with you that the participle solution makes sense within the broader
contect. If the author's interpretation of Gen. 6:4 was shaped by the Book of Enoch,
which there is evidence of, then this solution is most probable. I believe Alford
also supports this reading of the text.
While I have not read Lenski yet, it seems to me that God's judgment as the point of
comparison also makes very good sense within the broader context. The example in vs.
6 does not have to do with sexual sin and seems out of place if the author is now
focusing on the similarity between the kind of sin in the 2nd and 3rd example. Also,
the arguement seems to lead up to vs. 14 which provides assurance of God's future
judgment. It's also interesting to note that the parallel passage in 2 Pet. 2 seems
to focus on God's judgment, not the specific sin of the angels. Not sure I see any
easy solution, so I guess I'm with Young for the moment.
As an aside, I just finished Calvin's commentary on Jude in which he argues that
TOUTOIS refers to Sodom and Gomorrah, in otherwords, that the surrounding towns
sinned in a manner similar to S&G. This forces him to argue TOUTOIS is masculine
because it refers to the inhabitants of the cities. I find this least probable.
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:53 EDT