From: Mark Wilson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Mar 25 2002 - 13:30:05 EST
> > 2:2
> > EIS TO MH TACEWS SALEUQHNAI hUMAS APO TOU NOOS,
> > MHTE QROEISQAI MHTE DIA PNEUMATOS
> > MHTE DIA LOGOU MHTE DI' EPISTOLHS hWS DI' hHMWN
> > hWS hOTI ENESTHKEN hH hHMERA TOU CRISTOU
> > 2:3
> > MH TIS hUMAS EXAPATHSHi KATA MHDENA TROPON
> > hOTI EAN MH ELQHi Hh APOSTASIA PRWTON
> > KAI APOKALUFQHi hO ANQRWPOS TAS hAMARTIAS
> > hO hUIOS THS APWLEIAS
> > According to an article I read this weekend,
> > the apodosis that needs to be supplied from
> > verse 2 for verse 3 should be:
> > "the Day of the Lord is not present"
> > (rather than, "that day shall not come")
> > Since the supplied apodosis is not stated as
> > such in verse 2, I am wondering how such an
> > argument could be made?
>The suggested ellipsis, the Day of the Lord is not present, is apparently
>based on the interpretation/translation of ENESTHKEN as "has come,"
>rather than "is at hand."
The commentary takes ENESTHKEN as "is present." Really, ENESTHKEN
can bear no other meaning than a present state. I'll have to reread
Alan's reply, but he appears to be in agreement with the
commentary, the author of which is also a Thomas :o )
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
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 - 15:37:22 EDT