From: Carlton Winbery (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jul 06 2000 - 17:34:38 EDT
gfsomsel replied to Timothy Mills:
>Your understanding of this phrase is, of course dependent upon what you take
>to be the antecedent of TOUTON. My immediate reaction is to understand it as
>referring to what has just preceded it
>THN BRWSIN THN MENOUSAV EIS ZWHN AIWVIOV, HN hO UIOS TOU hANTHRWPOU HMIV
>The problem with this is that TOUTON is masc. whereas THN BRWSIN is fem. OR
>IS THAT REALLY A PROBLEM? When the early church attributed this to its Lord,
>it had an object in view. This is revealed later in the passage --
>EIPEN OUN AUTOIS hO IHSOUS: AMHN AMHN LEGW hUMIN, OU MWUSHS DEDWKEN hUMIN TON
>ARTON EK TOU OURANOU, ALL' hO PATHR MOU DIDWSIN hUMIN TON ARTON EK TOU
>OURANOU TON ALHQINON;
>hO GAR ARTOS TOU QEOU ESTIN hO KATABAINWN EK TOU OURANOU KAI ZWHN DIDOUS TWi
>EIPON OUN PROS AUTON: KURIE, PANTOTE DOS hHMIN TON ARTON TOUTON.
>EIPEN AUTOIS hO IHSOUS: EGW hO ARTOS THS ZWHS.
>We therefore have the equation
>BRWSIN = ARTOS = Christ
>by the early church (an obvious reference to the Eucharist). ARTOS is masc.
>and thereby fulfills the syntactical agreement. It is therefore Christ
>himself which is certified by the Father as the "Bread of Life."
Why go this route when TOUTON is masculine and obviously relates to hUIOS
TOU ANQRWPOU, its antecedent. Hence, the statement is best translated as ".
. . for the Father, God, has sealed him." (The ASV is probably better -
"has set his seal (Spirit) upon him."
Timothy originally wrote:
>>The Greek parses:
>>TOUTOV adjective pron. demonstrative acc. masc. sing.
TOUTON is a demonstrative pronoun whose antecedent is hUIOS.
>>GAR subordinating conjunction
>>hO definite article, nom. masc. sing.
>>PATHR noun nom. masc. sing.
>>hESPHRAGISEV verb imperf. act. acc. 3rd pers. sing.
No,ESFRAGISEN is aorist act indicative 3rd sing from SFRAGIZW.
>>hO definite article nom. masc. sing.
>>THEOSnoun nom. masc. sing.
>>If "hO PATHR" & "hO THEOS" are read as "God the Father" or as "the Father,
>>even God," with "hO THEOS" being an adjective of "hO PATHR," (TOUTOV begins
>>the adjectival phrase), then why is "hESPHRAGISEV" between the two phrases?
>>Would not "hESPHRAGISEV" also be part of the adjectival phrase, thus
>>describing the one sealed as God, rather than "God" being a quality of "the
First, hO THEOS is in apposition to hO PATHR. As such it renames the first
noun, but I would not call it an adjective. This word order does occur in
Hellenistic Greek. Some would claim that there is even some emphasis on the
identification of the Father.
>>Could this be read as "this one the Father sealed as God," Jesus having
>>been sealed by the Father as God?
No, for then hO QEOS would have to be TON QEON. You may want to refer to
the recent discussion on the double accusative or object complement.
Dr. Carlton L. Winbery
Foggleman Professor of Religion
Ph. 1 318 448 6103 hm
Ph. 1 318 487 7241 off
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:31 EDT