5703Re: [John_Lit] T Jn. 4:22 -responses to Mark and Stephen
- Mar 17, 2009On Mar 17, 2009 9:48 PM, Kevin Snapp <kalvachomer@...> wrote:
>You wrote:Well, "impossible" is really the wrong way to go about conceptualizing
>>The example in Smyth has an antecedent for the relative pronoun in
>>the preceding clause. Where are your antecedents for hO?
>I was taking hO to refer to the thing that is known/non known in each
>case respectively, the final hOTI clause, "that salvation is from the
>Jews." I don't know whether it can be called an "antecedent,"
>because it comes after. "You worship [and] don't know it; we worship
>[and] know it, that salvation is from the Jews." Impossible?
how to understand the grammar. A better way is assess which understanding
of the grammar is the more compelling. Relative probability, not absolute
probability, is what needs to be looked at.
In this case, your objection to the standard understanding (that PROSKUNEW
does not take an accusative) turns out to not be the case, and your own
proposal not only necessitates an unusual usage of the relative clause, but
now with the additional exception that there is no antecedent.
At some point, you just have to throw up your hands and say, "well, it was
worth a shot, at least" -- and I suggest that this point has long since come.
Stephen C. Carlson
Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>