Re: Luke 22:20

From: George Athas (gathas@mail.usyd.edu.au)
Date: Mon Mar 16 1998 - 20:32:40 EST


Carl W. Conrad wrote:

> [...] One of the beauties of Greek, albeit one that tends to disturb moderns who
>
> think that function is or ought to be determined by word-order and close
> proximity, is that related elements are clearly marked even when
> considerably separated from each other; in this instance it is the TO that
> clearly refers back to the neuter singular POTHRION that constitutes the
> key to comprehension. [...] And lest you think I am talking about Greek
> and Latin poetry and only classical Greek prose, consider this example in 1
> Cor 2:7 ALLA LALOUMEN QEOU SOFIAN EN MUSTHRIWi THN APOKEKRUMMENHN ... Here
> THN APOKEKRUMMENHN is an attributive participle in agreement with
> SOFIAN--and the construction, so far as I can see, is exactly parallel to
> that in Luke 22:20 TOUTO TO POTHRION hH KAINH DIAQHKH EN TWi hAIMATI MOU TO
> hUPER hUMWN EKCUNNOMENON ... in which TO hUPER hUMWN EKCUNNOMENON is an
> attributive participle to be construed with TOUTO TO POTHRION, despite the
> intervening material.

But Carl, the ambiguity with Luk 22:20 is that both POTHRION and hAIMA are
singular neuter nouns, so the singular neuter participle EKCUNOMENON may be the
attributive of POTHRION or the predicate of hAIMATI.

As ever, best regards!
George Athas
 PhD (Cand.), University of Sydney
 Tutor of Hebrew, Moore Theological College
Phone: 0414 839 964 ICQ#: 5866591
Email: gathas@mail.usyd.edu.au

(Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website at)
(http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm)



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:11 EDT