[B-Greek] John 17:24

timothy mcmahon targum at msn.com
Sun Jul 18 15:53:33 EDT 2010


Marilyn:
I think you're on the right track.
I don't know that we need to posit the existence of a specific antecedent noun in the neuter singular. In hO, the disciples are a collective; in KAKEINOI, they're individuals. There are other examples of agreement in sense in the NT (the one that comes to mind is LEGONTWN referring back to OCLOU in Revelation 19:1, but there are likely better ones). Apparently what's caught your eye also troubled the ancients, as witnessed in the Byzantine reading hOUS in place of hON.
 1. John 17:24 hO and KAKEINOI (Marilyn Phemister)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 10:21:20 -0500
> From: Marilyn Phemister <windmill65 at yahoo.com>
> To: B-Greek <B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: [B-Greek] John 17:24 hO and KAKEINOI
> Message-ID: <4C431BF0.6060800 at yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> Scholars:
> 
> Here I am with another question.
> 
> In John 17:24 we have:
> 
> ?????, ? ??????? ???, ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ????,
> PATER, hO DEDWKAS MOI, QELW hINA hOPOU EIMI EGW KAKEINOI WSIN MET EMOU,
> 
> Why does John use a neuter singular pronoun hO and then refer back to it 
> with a masculine plural demonstrative KAKEIVOI?  Shouldn't the two agree 
> in gender and number?  Is there a rule here I am missing?  Is it 
> possible that ? hO represented a collective neuter noun such as ???????? 
> POMNION, and KAKEINOI the members of that group? 
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Marilyn Phemister
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
> 
> End of B-Greek Digest, Vol 91, Issue 16
> ***************************************
 		 	   		  


More information about the B-Greek mailing list