βλασφημοῦντες
-
- Posts: 259
- Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm
Re: βλασφημοῦντες
It's a masculine nominative plural present participle.
Re: βλασφημοῦντες
Thank you.
Now here's a more basic question.
Is it masculine because the soldiers were male, or because Jesus was male?
Now here's a more basic question.
Is it masculine because the soldiers were male, or because Jesus was male?
-
- Posts: 3353
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: βλασφημοῦντες
How about an even more basic question: what verse are you citing???
(The number-gender agreements are a package deal--they together apply to the same constituent that governs them, so, a plural form is not going to agree with a singular Jesus, but the plural soldiers would be OK. )
(The number-gender agreements are a package deal--they together apply to the same constituent that governs them, so, a plural form is not going to agree with a singular Jesus, but the plural soldiers would be OK. )
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
Re: βλασφημοῦντες
Thank you.Stephen Carlson wrote:How about an even more basic question: what verse are you citing???
(The number-gender agreements are a package deal--they together apply to the same constituent that governs them, so, a plural form is not going to agree with a singular Jesus, but the plural soldiers would be OK. )
I was thinking of Luke 22:65.
-
- Posts: 259
- Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm
Re: βλασφημοῦντες
It's masculine plural to agree with the subject, the ανδρες of v.63. The gender and number of the object are irrelevant.
Re: βλασφημοῦντες
Mike, in the future, please remember that it's a requirement when discussing Greek from a particular passage to quote that passage.
Thanks...
Thanks...