From: clayton stirling bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Mar 27 2000 - 02:44:04 EST
on 03/26/00 3:42 PM, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:
> In BAG there is a note on the interrogative pronoun construction that
> you point out in Mark 6:36. Under the interrogative pronoun TIS, at 1.b.Z
> (zeta) they speak of the interrogative as a substitute for the relative.
on 03/26/00 3:00 PM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with the text as it stands; you're right:
> TI FAGWSIN is the object of AGORASWSIN. Technically speaking it is an
> indirect question--that's the reason that TI/ is an interrogative pronoun
> and it's also the reason why FAGWSIN is subjunctive.
Thanks to Harold and Carl.
I found several other examples of this idiom using TI FAGWSIN (e.g. MK
8:1,2). There seems to be some of what the Transformational Grammar people
used to call skewing evident here between the grammatical form and the
semantic function since TI FAGWSIN isn't performing the function of a
question in this context or in Mk 8:1,2.
Once we have identified this idiom we still are left with the question
about why the scribes thought this needed to be revised as radically as it
is in the Majority Text and in Codex Bezae. It seems that the scribes didn't
like it for some reason. Wonder why? Perhaps the scribes didn't know NT
Greek any better than I do. A frightening thought.
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
--- 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 - 15:41:03 EDT