From: Carl W. Conrad (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jun 19 2001 - 08:51:48 EDT
At 10:12 PM -0700 6/18/01, Ken Smith wrote:
>> My question for you right now is: What significance is
>> there in the fact that John wrote in verse four: "APO
>> hO WN KAI hO HN KAI hO ERCAMENOS"? Why did he not use
>> the genitive: APO TOU ONTOS... KTL?
>A number of commentators have suggested that hO WN, from the LXX of Ex.
>3:14, had taken on the nature of a fixed formula, enough so that John,
>whose Greek was marginal (albeit better than most of ours), didn't notice
>or didn't care about the agreement.
>In addition, Barclay, in a suggestion perhaps not original with him, has
>pointed out that there isn't an aorist participle form of EIMI, and that
>something like GENOMENOS would introduce an element of changeableness or
>becoming. So the writer chose the distinctly ungrammatical HN to "mark"
>the unchangeableness of God.
>Clay, Carl, et al., what *would* the correct, grammatical options for this
APO hO WN KAI hO HN KAI hO ERCOMENOS ...
I'd probably have written something like AP' EKEINOU TOU NUN TE KAI AEI
ONTOS KAI ERCOMENOU. It's worth noting that the final member (APO TWN hEPTA
PNEUMATWN) is grammatical after all.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
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 - 15:36:59 EDT