I’ve got a grammar question here.
In Luke 8:20, it is said of Jesus APHGGELH DE AUTW (And it was reported to him).
The construction of APHGGELH is singular, but does that assume a singular person
doing the reporting? OOW, if several people were saying it, would APHGGELH have
to take a plural form?
To complicate matters, most manuscripts add LEGONTWN (some further add OTI).
This is in the plural, thus answering my question–or so it appears.
But does the omission of LEGONTWN (saying) only make the plurality of the
speaker(s) less blatant, or remove all certainty? Any further speculation, of
course, should be confined to a different list.
Daniel Buck
—
Luke 8:20 ἀπηγγέλη δὲ αὐτῷ· ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου
ἑστήκασιν ἔξω ἰδεῖν θέλοντές σε.
[APHGGELH DE AUTWi· hH MHTHR SOU KAI hOI ADELFOI SOU
hESTHKASIN EXW IDEIN QELONTES SE.]
APHGGELH is passive; the subject is the whole clause,
hH MHTHR … QELONTES SE. One might have expected a hOTI
introducing this clause, but it is clearly the content of what those
bringing the message to him reported. There’s no indication at all
of the person or persons bringing the report, but PROS AUTOUS in
the next verse indicates that it was more than one.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
—
ἀπηγγέλη δὲ αὐτῷ· ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἑστήκασιν ἔξω ἰδεῖν θέλοντές
σε.
No, this would not be plural since it is a passive with the subject being that
all-time favorite “it” — “It was reported …” The reading with λεγότων
LEGONTWN is a bit puzzling since it is a genitive participle unless it is taken
as some form of agent “by those saying …”
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Sat, February 5, 2011 3:34:38 PM
I’ve got a grammar question here.
In Luke 8:20, it is said of Jesus APHGGELH DE AUTW (And it was reported to him).
The construction of APHGGELH is singular, but does that assume a singular person
doing the reporting? OOW, if several people were saying it, would APHGGELH have
to take a plural form?
To complicate matters, most manuscripts add LEGONTWN (some further add OTI).
This is in the plural, thus answering my question–or so it appears.
But does the omission of LEGONTWN (saying) only make the plurality of the
speaker(s) less blatant, or remove all certainty? Any further speculation, of
course, should be confined to a different list.
Daniel Buck
—
Luke 8:20 ἀπηγγέλη δὲ αὐτῷ· ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου
ἑστήκασιν ἔξω ἰδεῖν θέλοντές σε.
[APHGGELH DE AUTWi· hH MHTHR SOU KAI hOI ADELFOI SOU
hESTHKASIN EXW IDEIN QELONTES SE.]
APHGGELH is passive; the subject is the whole clause,
hH MHTHR … QELONTES SE. One might have expected a hOTI
introducing this clause, but it is clearly the content of what those
bringing the message to him reported. There’s no indication at all
of the person or persons bringing the report, but PROS AUTOUS in
the next verse indicates that it was more than one.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
—
ἀπηγγέλη δὲ αὐτῷ· ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἑστήκασιν ἔξω ἰδεῖν θέλοντές
σε.
No, this would not be plural since it is a passive with the subject being that
all-time favorite “it” — “It was reported …” The reading with λεγότων
LEGONTWN is a bit puzzling since it is a genitive participle unless it is taken
as some form of agent “by those saying …”
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Sat, February 5, 2011 3:34:38 PM
I’ve got a grammar question here.
In Luke 8:20, it is said of Jesus APHGGELH DE AUTW (And it was reported to him).
The construction of APHGGELH is singular, but does that assume a singular person
doing the reporting? OOW, if several people were saying it, would APHGGELH have
to take a plural form?
To complicate matters, most manuscripts add LEGONTWN (some further add OTI).
This is in the plural, thus answering my question–or so it appears.
But does the omission of LEGONTWN (saying) only make the plurality of the
speaker(s) less blatant, or remove all certainty? Any further speculation, of
course, should be confined to a different list.
Daniel Buck
—