From: Maurice A. O'Sullivan (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jul 13 2000 - 11:44:46 EDT
<x-flowed>At 13:01 13/07/00, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>I would say that
>EPIKALESAMENOS agrees with the implicit subject of the 2d sg. aorist middle
>imperatives. BAPTISAI and APOLOUSAI and is to be understood as indicating
>coincident rather than prior action, and as showing HOW one is to get
>baptized and have one's sins washed away.
N/A ( and Swanson ) record one source -- P74 -- as reading EPIKALOUMENOS.
So it looks as if one scribe and/or his community back in the 7th, century
to clear up any ambiguity about this question': or perhaps it had been
raised long before that and was firmly part of their tradtion?
However, Swanson has one variant reading --- in 33 -- of APOLUSE.
Can I take this to be an unaugmented aorist?
And how common was this in mss. of that period, I wonder?
Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]
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