Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5703Re: [John_Lit] T Jn. 4:22 -responses to Mark and Stephen

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    Mar 17, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mar 17, 2009 9:48 PM, Kevin Snapp <kalvachomer@...> wrote:
      >You wrote:
      >>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?

      Well, "impossible" is really the wrong way to go about conceptualizing
      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

      --
      Stephen C. Carlson
      Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
      Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic