From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Tue Feb 24 1998 - 07:00:27 EST
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
> At 5:01 AM -0600 2/24/98, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
> >The first item is the position of AUTOU in the phrase APEPESAN AUTOU APO TWN
> >OFQALMWN. I am prepared to accept that a possessive pronoun may precede it's
> >noun but I was not quite prepared for this kind of separation. It seemed
> >rather harsh to have a possessive pronoun modify a noun in a prepositional
> >phrase following the pronoun. My surprise at this construction is just one
> >more piece of evidence that I still have a "tin ear" when it comes to NT
> >greek. According to BDF 473.1 this construction is nothing to be alarmed
> >about. There is another clear example in Mat. 8:8 which reads MOU hUPO THN
> >STEGHN. This is not an emphatic position according to BDF 473.1.
>
> There may be other views, but I'd be inclined personally to understand that
> AUTOU as an immediate ablatival genitive complement to APEPESAN clarified
> by the following APO TWN OFQALMWN: "fell from him from the eyes"; i.e., I
> don't really think it's a possessive pronoun at all.
>
Carl
When I first encountered this I tried to read it the way you have described,
even though I didn't have the terminology to label it. After pondering the
problem for a while I broke my own rules and looked at the most literal
English translations I could find and all of them seemed to translate it as a
possessive pronoun. So I concluded that I must be wrong. Perhaps it is best to
steer clear of the English when trying to solve this kind of problem.
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:06 EDT