2 Peter 2:2

2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent? Timothy Duke tduke at accsoft.com.au
Wed May 26 08:24:08 EDT 1999

 

ICHQUS 2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent? After a long time without a computer, I return to !2 Peter 2:2 reads:KAI POLLOI …AUTWN..DI’ hOUS…My question is this: which is the antecedent: POLLOI or AUTWN? Most commentaries I have access to confidently assert POLLOI, but do not give any reasons. but I would have thought that AUTWN, being closer, would certainly qualify as well.How can I decide? Are there general rules to follow when gender and number do not nail it? Which grammatical textbook discusses this????Tim DukeSydney

 

ICHQUS2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent?

2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 26 08:46:34 EDT 1999

 

2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent? Christian At 8:33 AM -0400 5/26/99, Timothy Duke wrote:>After a long time without a computer, I return to !> >2 Peter 2:2 reads:>KAI POLLOI …AUTWN..DI’ hOUS…>My question is this: which is the antecedent: POLLOI or AUTWN? Most>commentaries I have access to confidently assert POLLOI, but do not give>any reasons. but I would have thought that AUTWN, being closer, would>certainly qualify as well.>How can I decide? Are there general rules to follow when gender and number>do not nail it? Which grammatical textbook discusses this????One does have to read this closely in context and be sure also what is theantecedent of AUTWN, but that, I think, must be the YEUDODIDASKALOI in thehWS KAI clause of verse 1. And I would agree with you that the more likelyantecedent of DI’ hOUS is AUTWN, those false teachers: they, after all, arethe authoritative figures, aren’t they, who in this future context are tobe the factor in so much distortion and leading astray? I am assuming thatAUTWN is to be construed as possessive genitive dependent upon TAISASELGEIAIS, and NOT as partititive genitive dependent upon POLLOI; it seemsto me TAIS ASELGEIAIS really needs this possessive qualifier for thesentence to be clear; otherwise we have “And many of them in their trainwill follow licentiousness.”The only thing that is just a little odd here is the use of the dativeASELGEIAIS for a behavior when EXAKOLOUQEW seems more normally to require adative of persons; but, no doubt, this is an instance of a metonymy whereinthe behavior of persons = persons thus behaving.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent?Christian

2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent? Timothy Duke tduke at accsoft.com.au
Wed May 26 08:24:08 EDT 1999

 

ICHQUS 2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent? After a long time without a computer, I return to !2 Peter 2:2 reads:KAI POLLOI …AUTWN..DI’ hOUS…My question is this: which is the antecedent: POLLOI or AUTWN? Most commentaries I have access to confidently assert POLLOI, but do not give any reasons. but I would have thought that AUTWN, being closer, would certainly qualify as well.How can I decide? Are there general rules to follow when gender and number do not nail it? Which grammatical textbook discusses this????Tim DukeSydney

 

ICHQUS2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent?

2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 26 08:46:34 EDT 1999

 

2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent? Christian At 8:33 AM -0400 5/26/99, Timothy Duke wrote:>After a long time without a computer, I return to !> >2 Peter 2:2 reads:>KAI POLLOI …AUTWN..DI’ hOUS…>My question is this: which is the antecedent: POLLOI or AUTWN? Most>commentaries I have access to confidently assert POLLOI, but do not give>any reasons. but I would have thought that AUTWN, being closer, would>certainly qualify as well.>How can I decide? Are there general rules to follow when gender and number>do not nail it? Which grammatical textbook discusses this????One does have to read this closely in context and be sure also what is theantecedent of AUTWN, but that, I think, must be the YEUDODIDASKALOI in thehWS KAI clause of verse 1. And I would agree with you that the more likelyantecedent of DI’ hOUS is AUTWN, those false teachers: they, after all, arethe authoritative figures, aren’t they, who in this future context are tobe the factor in so much distortion and leading astray? I am assuming thatAUTWN is to be construed as possessive genitive dependent upon TAISASELGEIAIS, and NOT as partititive genitive dependent upon POLLOI; it seemsto me TAIS ASELGEIAIS really needs this possessive qualifier for thesentence to be clear; otherwise we have “And many of them in their trainwill follow licentiousness.”The only thing that is just a little odd here is the use of the dativeASELGEIAIS for a behavior when EXAKOLOUQEW seems more normally to require adative of persons; but, no doubt, this is an instance of a metonymy whereinthe behavior of persons = persons thus behaving.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent?Christian

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>