ou(= in Luke 3:17

[Bert]

Luke 3:17 reads; οὗτὸ πτύον á¼￾ν τῇ χειÏ￾ὶ αá½￾τοῦ διακαθᾶÏ￾αι τὴν ἅλωνα αá½￾τοῦ καὶ συναγαγεῖν το\ν σῖτον εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην αá½￾τοῦ, τὸ δὲ ἄχυÏ￾ον κατακαύσει πυÏ￾ὶ ἀσβέστῳ.

I am befuddled. What is the purpose of the relative pronoun οὖ?

[Kopio]

Luke 3:17 reads; οὗτὸ πτύον á¼￾ν τῇ χειÏ￾ὶ αá½￾τοῦ διακαθᾶÏ￾αι τὴν ἅλωνα αá½￾τοῦ καὶ συναγαγεῖν το\ν σῖτον εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην αá½￾τοῦ, τὸ δὲ ἄχυÏ￾ον κατακαύσει πυÏ￾ὶ ἀσβέστῳ.

I am befuddled. What is the purpose of the relative pronoun οὖ?

I looked through several different grammars, and none of them had this listed...so....I'll give you my best guess....

I would say that it is probably being used sort of like an article in further specifying the subject of the sentence. If the sentence read του τὸ πτύον á¼￾ν τῇ χειÏ￾ὶ αá½￾τοῦ . I'm guessing that you wouldn't be asking the same question. Note the agreement of the relative with the following pronoun. I think what is happening is that Luke is using the relative to define the substantive furthermore. It is not simply "the winnowing fork in his hand", it is "the winnowing fork, the one which is in his hand"

Does that make sense at all?? BTW, I did a quick search and this kind of construction occurs all over the NT. I do remember the first time I read through the Gospels seeing this sort of thing and wondering the same thing that you stated. I believe that is what is going on with it. It does seem weird at times just to see a relative just hanging around where you don't expect to see it!

[IreneY]

well, I don't have a Bible around (not at home and I can't seem to access the only site with the texts I know) so I am don't know what is before it and whether it is at the beginning of a new sentence or not , so I am just guessing here but it seems that Kopio's suggestion makes sence.

The relative after all is often used instead of ostis etc

[Bert]

Thanks to both of you.
I think that when ever I run into this construction again, it will put me dead in my tracks again. Even now, I cannot read this sentence without translating it in my mind.

[Bert]

I asked the same question on another forum.
There the answer I got was that it refers back to á½￾ ἰσχυÏ￾ότεÏ￾ος of verse 16.
That does make sense seeing that the οὖ of verse 16 refers to that as well.

[Kopio]

I asked the same question on another forum.
There the answer I got was that it refers back to á½￾ ἰσχυÏ￾ότεÏ￾ος of verse 16.
That does make sense seeing that the οὖ of verse 16 refers to that as well.

Not only does it make more sense....it also comes from a much more reliable sorce! Hofstetter is pretty solid

[Bert]

Not only does it make more sense....it also comes from a much more reliable sorce! Hofstetter is pretty solid

You found my post.

[Kopio]

You found my post.

Yes I did....I follow B-Greek quite a bit. From time to time I even ask questions....and even more rarely....I'll chime in when a question is asked and I feel I have something to add (although this has been rarely indeed!) FWIW, you give a perfectly good example, and Albert is simply refusing to concede the point!

Carl Conrad is my hero. I wanna be just like him when I grow up.....really....I mnean it!