Date: Sun Jun 03 2001 - 19:27:50 EDT
I would like to make the argument that one can make a unique distinction in
the Greek depending on whether one places hOUTOS before or after a noun.
Thus, in referring to a man in one's immediate physical presence, one would
say, hOUTOS hO ANQRWPOS. To refer to a man possessing certain
characteristics previously described, but who would not necessarily be in
one's immediate presence, one would say, hO ANQRWPOS hOUTOS.
I found 21 verses having the phrase OUTOS hO (noun), that include the
Luke 14:30 LEGONTES hOTI hOUTOS hO ANWRWPOS HRXATO OIKODOMEIN KAI OUK
Luke 15:24 hOTI hOUTOS hO hUIOS MOU NEKROS HN...
John 7:46 APEKRIQHSAN hOI hUPHRETAI OUDEPOTE OUTWS ELALHSEN ANQRWPOS WS
OUTOS hO ANQRWPOS (one variant)
In each case, hOUTOS hO (noun) seems to refer to a person in one's immediate
presence. I am not sure that I could support my argument as strongly using
all the other verses having the phrase hOUTOS hO (noun) although I think that
the verses tend to agree with my argument.
I would then like to draw the conclusion that hH GENEA hAUTH in Matthew 24:34
and elsewhere should be taken to refer only to a generation having
characteristics described in the preceding context and should not be
understood to mean those to whom Christ was speaking, i.e., those in his
immediate presence, unless they also exhibited the specified characteristics.
Would it be legitimate for me to argue that the difference between "hOUTOS hO
(noun)" and "hO (noun) OUTOS" is as I have hypothesized above?
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 - 15:36:58 EDT