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…
Stephen, perfect explanation. I got it.
In the case of Acts 26:16b-17, I should have known that
the relative pronoun, as an anaphoric pronoun like “this”, “that”, “it”, “they”, etc,
can refer to anything that has been introduced to the context so far,
as long as the reader can identify the referent.
I should have remembered the class I once took about “discourse analysis” ^^
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 10th, 2014, 5:20 am
Just to update my current state of thinking/confusion about this text:πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγον, ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις;
Would the construction be better if the φαγεῖν were omitted?
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 8th, 2014, 3:27 pm