From: Matthew W. Farrell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Apr 06 2001 - 18:14:05 EDT
Blahoslav Cicel wrote:
> Hello list,
> I have a question about Eph 4:6
> Ephesians 4:6
> hEIS QEOS KAI PATHR PANTWN hO EPI PANTWN KAI DIA PANTWN KAI EN PASIN hUMIN
> to what is hUMIN at the end linked.
> It is obvious, that it is explicitly linked to the preceding PASIN. But,
> may it be understood as implicitly linked to PANTWN even befor?
> It means, it is posible to read it this way?
> hEIS QEOS KAI PATHR PANTWN (hUMWN)
> hO EPI PANTWN (hUMWN)
> KAI DIA PANTWN (hUMWN)
> KAI EN PASIN hUMIN
> I know that there is a accord of gender case and number expected. But
> even in czech (my language) which has a lot of similarities with greek,
> it is possible to neglect this rule in the case of cumulation. So in
> czech even when it is not the very correct way to say it, it is
> accepted. What about greek?
Matthew Farrell Responds:
You raise a good question. First of all, the majority of manuscripts do not include
hUMIN. The majority of manuscripts, including the "best" ones, end at PASIN. According
to O'brien, the addition of hUMIN, (and even more broadly represented hHMIN) were
added to restrict the reference of "all" to believers. Therefore, whether the
hUMIN/hHMIN is related to the whole string (more likely) or simply the last
prepostional phrase (less likely), theologically, the additions would make a
significant difference in the letter of Ephesians.
Matthew W. Farrell
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 - 15:36:54 EDT