Re: 2 Tim 2:25 2nd try.......
David L. Moore (dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com)
Sun, 26 Jan 1997 16:15:21 -0500
At 06:19 AM 1/25/97 -0600, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>At 12:49 AM -0600 1/25/97, Tom Launder wrote:
>>2nd attempt.... :)
>>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I have a question about 2 Tim 2:25
>>
>> MhPOTE DWh AUTOIS O QEOS METANOIAN. . .
>>
>>The mhpote is what I am having a hard time understanding. BAGD 519 3B
>>defines this as an interrogative particle "whether, perhaps." Does this
>>particle then make the clause dependent? Right now I have this clause
>>dependent upon the participle "paideuonta."
>> |
>> |____PAIDEUONTA____
>> /
>> /
>> / MhPOTE
>> /
>> | /
>> ____QEOS___|____DWh______|___METANOIAN__
>> O |
>>
>>Is this correct?
>
>I think so, but it is the subjunctive DWHi as much as MHPOTE that makes the
>clause dependent. I think the sense of MHPOTE here is to introduce what is
>formally an indirect question: "whether or not God might grant them
>repentance to recognition of truth"; but the indirect question in this
>instance assumes the implicit sense: "in hopes that perhaps God may grant
>them ..." That is to say: what in form is an indirect question (by virtue
>of the conjunction MHPOTE) becomes a sort of purpose clause. To me one of
>the most fascinating things about Hellenistic Greek is the way classical
>types of subordinate clause assume new syntactic functions.
MHPOTE is classified in this usage as an interrogative particle, but
isn't it functioning as an adverb which makes the already contingent
subjunctive DWHi quite emphatically contingent. If, for instance we had
"certainly" with an indicative noun, the "certainly" would function
adverbially emphasizing the declarative sense of the verb: doesn't MHPOTE
function in this sentence in relation to DWHi in a similar way, emphasizing
the contingency that the mood of the verb is expressing.
David L. Moore Director
Miami, Florida, USA Department of Education
dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com Southeastern Spanish District
http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore of the Assemblies of God