From: Carabine@aol.com
Date: Wed Sep 13 1995 - 01:45:53 EDT
To All:
I hope I have found the forum that can give critical (constructive)
comment on some of my observations and questions--mostly questions--I have
amassed after years of poring over critical commentaries and works dealing
with Greek grammar. For example, does anyone know of anything that purports
to vitiate any of Lane McGaughy's rules by which we may determine the
subjects in equative sentences? (See Lane McGaughy, _Toward a Descriptive
Analysis of EINAI as a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek_ [Missoula, MT:
SBL, 1972].)
Consider a surprising effect upon translation that can result from a
certain application of McGaughy's "Rule 3d": "If both words or word clusters
[subject and subjective complement] are determined by an article, the first
one is the subject" (p. 53). Specifically, it seems to me that this rule
should have a bearing on translation of John 1:1c. How so? Consider: If
John had wished to write John 1:1c commensurate with trinitarianism, then he
could have written it just as we see it in Codex L (KAI hO QEOS JN hO LOGOS),
for concerns about syntactical ambiguity in equative sentences (i.e., 'What
is the subject--what is the predicate--in the example taken from Codex L?')
cannot obtain in the light of McGaughy's Rule 3d--provided it is valid.
Sincerely,
Al Kidd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:27 EDT