>Perhaps this may seem a quibble, but in formal >grammatical
analysis I think
>we'd want to say that hWS PAROIKOUS KAI >PAREPIDHMOUS must
construe with and therefore >technically *modify* an implicit
accusative *object* of >PARAKALW.
>It is those who are being exhorted who are to be >exhorted just
as strangers
>and sojourners would be exhorted. So, I think that (see >note
below on what
>Kuehl says) that hUMAS must be implicit here, even if >not
expressed, and to
>get this into English, at least, we do have to supply the
>object pronoun,
>"I exhort YOU as ..."
ok.
I think the problem of Theo was, to decide between the two
following translations:
1) I exhort you as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from
fleshly lusts ...
2) I exhort you, to abstain from fleshly lusts as
sojourners and pilgrims ...
Am I right, that you agree with me, as to the preference of the
FIRST translation?
Of course, the hWS PAROIKOUS KAI PAREPIDHMOUS must construe with
an implicit hUMAS as accusative object of PARAKALW (and this
hUMAS is expressed in English - and in German as well).
But the thought of Kuehl was, that this hUMAS must have been
EXPLICITLY in the WRITTEN text to adopt the first translation;
and seeing, that it is NOT in the written text, Kuehl adopts the
second translation. And that form of argument is, what I denied
and still deny.
To the rest of your e-mail I fully agree.
I apologise for my bad English, that may have led to some
uncertainty.
______________________________
| |
| Martin Arhelger |
| D-53121 Bonn |
| Germany |
| martin.arhelger@metronet.de |
|______________________________|
> At 4:57 AM -0500 9/28/97, Martin Arhelger wrote:
> >Theo wrote:
> >
> >> Questions on the text of 1 Pet. 2:11-16
> >...
> >> Does hWS PAROIKOUS KAI PAREPIDHMOUS modify PARAKALW or
> >APECESQAI?.
> >...
> >
> >
> >I think it modifies PARAKALW. Here are some reasons:
>
> Perhaps this may seem a quibble, but in formal grammatical
analysis I think
> we'd want to say that hWS PAROIKOUS KAI PAREPIDHMOUS must
construe with and
> therefore technically *modify* an implicit accusative *object*
of PARAKALW.
> It is those who are being exhorted who are to be exhorted just
as strangers
> and sojourners would be exhorted. So, I think that (see note
below on what
> Kuehl says) that hUMAS must be implicit here, even if not
expressed, and to
> get this into English, at least, we do have to supply the
object pronoun,
> "I exhort YOU as ..."
>
> >1) PARAKALW + hWS is found also in 1 Timothy 5:1: Rebuke not
an
> >elder, but exhort him as a father; the younger men as
brethren
> >(PRESBUTERWi MH EPIPLHXHS ALLA PARAKALEI WS PATERA, NEWTEROUS
WS
> >ADELFOUS ... ). Here it is evident, that WS PATERA and WS
> >ADELFOUS are the motives and reasons for the exhortations.
>
> But here too, although an object of PARAKALEI is not formally
expressed, it
> is clearly implied by the dative PRESBUTERWi that was just
used with the
> negative imperative (aor. subj., to be precise) MH EPIPLHXHiS,
so that we
> must understand an implicit accusative object of PARAKALEI (in
English we
> have to supply a "him": "... but exhort *him* as (you would
exhort) a
> father. Moreover, the object is supplied in what follows
immediately as
> another parallel pair with PARAKALEI: it is NEWTEROUS the
object, then
> predicative hWS ADELFOUS.
>
> >2) The section of 1 Peter 2:11 - 17, and especially Verses 11
> >and 12 deal with the subject: The Christian and the
authorities
> >of this world. Now the motive to be strangers and sojourners
(in
> >this world) are a strong reason to BOTH verses, and not only
to
> >the appeal to "keep from the fleshly desires". So it is more
> >convincing, to combine "as strangers ..." with "I exhort".
> >
> >Some (Kuehl, e.g.) think, to connect of PARAKALW and hWS
> >PAROIKOUS would make the addition of hUMAS indispensable:
> >PARAKALW hUMAS hWS PAROIKOUS. But in Jude 1:3 there is no
> >accusative in connection with PARAKALEW as well.
> >
> >By the way: There is another instances, where the connection
of
> >PARAKALEW has been discussed sometimes: 1 Timothy 2:1:
Connect
> >PRWTWN PANTWN with PARAKALW (the common, and I think correct
> >notion) or with POIEISTHAI DEHSEIS ... ?
> >
> > ______________________________
> >| |
> >| Martin Arhelger |
> >| D-53121 Bonn |
> >| Germany |
> >| martin.arhelger@metronet.de |
> >|______________________________|
>
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics/Washington University
> One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
> Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
> cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
>