[B-Greek] implicit hUPOTAGHTE

Grammata1 at aol.com Grammata1 at aol.com
Thu Jun 15 23:50:14 EDT 2006

Yes Carl, the matter of a "missing" link leaves me a bit  uncomfortable.  
Reading left to right,
ALLHLOIS was more easily construed with an implicit hUPOTAGHTE  corresponding 
to the preceding PRESBUTEROIS, than with EGKOMBWSASQE (at  least at first 
Interestingly p72 supplies EN ALLHLOIS, which,  one could say, either reads 
easier because its original or a scribe  thought ALLHLOIS was a wee awkward 
too, and supplied EN.
Thanks to both Carl and Webb for the response.
Jon R. Venema 
In a message dated 6/15/2006 6:11:21 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:

I think  it is perfectly reasonable to assume hUPOTAGHTE to be  
understood  with PANTES DE ALLHLOIS, but what I find upsetting about  
the  suggested restructuring of the text is the abrupt new sentence   
conjectured to begin with THN TAPEINOFROSUNHN EGKOMBWSASQE. If we  had  the 
participle (EGKOMBSAMENOI) instead of the imperative   
EGKOMBWSASQE, it would be easier to link the participial phrase to   
what precedes. But I don't think a new sentence THN TAPEINOFROSUNHN   
EGKOMBWSASQE can begin without some particle linking the new clause   
to what precedes.

>> Subject: [B-Greek] IPeter 5:5 Implicit  hUPOTAGHTE
>> Is it not possible that this could READ as  hOMOIWS, NEWTEROI,  
>> Likewise, you younger men, be subject to the older  men; for that  
>> matter, all of you [be subject] to  one another.  Clothe yourselves with  
>> humility,   for God . . .
>> Jon R. Venema,  PhD


More information about the B-Greek mailing list