2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent? Timothy Duke tduke at accsoft.com.au
Wed May 26 08:24:08 εδτ 1999
ιχθυσ 2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent? After a long time without a computer, ι return to !2 Peter 2:2 reads:και πολλοι …αυτων..δι‘ hOUS…My question is this: which is the antecedent: πολλοι or αυτων? Most commentaries ι have access to confidently assert πολλοι, but do not give any reasons. but ι would have thought that αυτων, being closer, would certainly qualify as well.How can ι 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 ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 26 08:46:34 εδτ 1999
2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent? Christian At 8:33 αμ -0400 5/26/99, Timothy Duke wrote:>After a long time without a computer, ι return to !> >2 Peter 2:2 reads:>και πολλοι …αυτων..δι‘ hOUS…>My question is this: which is the antecedent: πολλοι or αυτων? Most>commentaries ι have access to confidently assert πολλοι, but do not give>any reasons. but ι would have thought that αυτων, being closer, would>certainly qualify as well.>How can ι 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 αυτων, but that, ι think, must be the υευδοδιδασκαλοι in thehWS και clause of verse 1. And ι would agree with you that the more likelyantecedent of δι‘ hOUS is αυτων, 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? ι am assuming thatAUTWN is to be construed as possessive genitive dependent upon ταισασελγειαισ, and νοτ as partititive genitive dependent upon πολλοι; it seemsto me ταισ ασελγειαισ 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 εχακολουθεω 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 ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent?Christian