From: Paul Schmehl (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Nov 19 2001 - 21:34:40 EST
I want to quote something I read and then ask for comment *only* on the
issue of Greek syntax. Please, no theology.
Matt 16:18: KAGW DE SOI LEGW hOTI SU EI PETROS KAI EPI TAUTH TH PETRA
OIKODOMHSW MOU THN EKKLHSIAN KAI PULAI hADOU OU KATISXUSOUSIN AUTHS.
"In normal [Greek] syntax a phrase like KAI EPI TAUTHi
THi PETRAi can only refer to something outside of the
speaker AND his interlocutor. Therefore, if this
phrase here--contrary to syntax--is to be referred to
Peter, some very good reasons for this anomaly will
need to be presented. However, to date no one seems to
have been able to produce any such reasons.
Consequently, it must be firmly asserted that Greek
syntax goes against the assumption that PETRA refers
to PETROS, and since there is no valid explanation for
this violation of syntax, it must be concluded that
there are no objective grounds for referring PETRA
to PETROS" (_Peter and the Rock_, Chrys Caragounis, p.
All I want to know is this; does this argument accurately relect the
syntactical issues in this passage?
Paul Schmehl firstname.lastname@example.org
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 - 15:37:12 EDT