From: Dan Parker (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Feb 02 2001 - 15:35:31 EST
> >> Possessive pronoun repeated for perspicuity (21) - (Mt 12:47,49;
> >> Mk 3:31 ,32 ,33 ,34 ; 6:4 7:10 ; 8:20, 21 Lu 8:21 ; Jn 2:12
> >> ; 4:12; Ac 2:17; Ro 16:21 ; 1Th 3:11 ; 2Th 2:16 ; 1Ti 1:1;
> >> 2Ti 1:5; Heb 8:11; Re 6:11) [Heb 1:7 is a LXX quote and is
> >> therefore translation Greek.]
> >> Single possessive - both substantives anarthrous (10) - (Mk 3:35;
> >> Ro 1:7; 1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Ga 1:3; Ep 1:2; Php 1:2; 2Th 1:1,2;
> >> Phil 1:3)
> >> Single possessive pronoun - both substantives arthrous (12) -
> >> (Mk 6:21; 10:7,19; 16:7; Lk 2:23; 14:26; 18:20; Jn 11:5; Eph 6:2;
> >> Ac 7:14; 10:24; Re 11:18)
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Dan Parker
> Allow me to make a comment from a semantic and modern linguistics point of view.
> In looking up some of the references cited above, I noticed that many of them
> were referring to mother, father or relatives, e.g.
> Mk 10:7,19 TON PATERA AUTOU/SOU KAI THN MHTERA
> Mk 3:35 hOUTOS ADELFOS MOU KAI ADELFH KAI MHTHR ESTIN
> Mk 3:31 hH MHTHR AUTOU KAI hOI ADELFOI AUTOU
> No one needs a rule to see that the nouns father, mother, brother, and sister
> refer to different persons. Whether or not the nouns are modified by a personal
> pronoun does not determine whether they are different in terms of reference. The
> linguistic reason that the pronoun is not repeated is that it is carried over
> from context and that the nouns are considered a natural unit. KAI connects two
> or more words at the same level and that is why the sense of a modifier can be
> carried over, unless there is a change or an additional aspect.
I fail to see what whether or not one "needs" a rule has anything to do
with the validity of a rule. Rules are determined from usage, not need.
Could you please cite some linguistic references which state that the
repetition of the possessive has the sense that you give it?
Murray J. Harris states that in his view "the repeated MOU" at John
20:28 would be "necessarily indicating two distinct addressees" except
that in his view it "simply reflects the repetition of the pronominal
suffix with copulated nouns in Hebrew and Aramaic." (Harris, Murray
J. _Jesus as God_ Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992, page 106-107) However, the
prevailing view is that the GNT as a whole does not have a syntax that
is different from the KOINE Greek of it's time.
The example that he uses to support his view is Psalm 5:3 which is
acknowledged to one of the books of the LXX where the Greek _translation_
from the Hebrew has this defect. This is precisely the reason that
modern Sharp's revisionists have eliminated the LXX from being used to
provide exceptions to Sharp's newly sharpened rule.
With this understanding we now come back to Harris' original statement
that the repeated MOU is very significant here.
Winer states that Hebraic influence in the NT is slight and that "In
a grammatical point of view the N.T. idiom bears few traces of Hebrew
influence," and that even the Greek Septuagint contains accurate Greek
because "Even the Seventy have succeeded for the most part in recasting
Hebrew constructions into accurate Greek," but that "in a few passages"
"the translators have not duly adverted to the meaning of the text,
or have given it a nervously literal rendering; as, Ps. cxix. 50;
cxviii. 23" to which he footnotes with the added comment that "The
translation of the Psalms is, in general, one of the most heedless. That
of Nehemiah is little better" [Winer, 37-38]
Porter also demonstrates that "Semitic influence does not affect the
grammar of the language" (The poor man's Porter, Rodney J. Decker)
> In English you can say:
I don't believe that any arguments from _English_ can have any bearing on
_Greek_ syntax. There were posts on this last October/November which you
can see in the archives. Can you provide any grammarian who makes his
primary arguments with respect to Greek syntax by appealing to English?
> Iver Larsen
> Kolding, Denmark
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:36:49 EDT