It sounded to me like Jim was asking whether then phrase
could be parsed as
DOKIMION
\ \_____hUMWN
\__TO \____PISTEWS
\___THS
"the appraisal of you [who belong to] the faith"
and Martin (and others) seemed to appraising the following
parse
DOKIMION
\ \ \_____________PISTEWS
\ \_____hUMWN \___THS
\__TO
"the appraisal of you, [that is,] of the faith"
and Jonathan is reading it as
DOKIMION
\ \________PISTEWS
\__TO \ \___hUMWN
\___THS
"the appraisal of _your_ faith"
I'm not sure how Edgar was parsing what Jim meant -- perhaps
structurally like the second, but treating THS PISTEWS as
a sphere or means
"the appraisal of you [in the area] of the faith"
(but then goes on to say that he doesn't think that this works).
Have I understood everybody correctly?
Regards,
Jim V.
James H. Vellenga | jvellenga@viewlogic.com
Viewlogic Systems, Inc. __|__ 508-303-5491
293 Boston Post Road West | FAX: 508-460-8213
Marlboro, MA 01752-4615 |
http://www.viewlogic.com
"We all work with partial information."
> From owner-b-greek@virginia.edu Mon Oct 6 07:40:26 1997
> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 07:37:58 +0100
> To: Martin Arhelger <martin.arhelger@metronet.de>
> From: Jim Beale <beale@uconect.net>
> Subject: Re: 1 Peter 1:7
> Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> Thanks for the response!
>
> At 5:40 PM +0200 10/5/97, Martin Arhelger wrote:
>
> >In your suggested translation ("the testing of you, of the faith")
> >you created a similar construction as it is valid in Mat 26:28 (cf.
> >Mrc 14:14), where
> >TO hAIMA MOU THS DIAQHKHS is
> >"my blood of the covenant"
> >(and not: "the blood of my covenant")
>
> Exactly; MOU modifies hAIMA rather than DIAQHKHS. So, the construction
> can at least *possibly* be translated as I wondered.
>
> >But in 1 Peter 1:7 this interpretation is, I think, not very
> >appropriate.
> >In TO DOKIMION hUMWN THS PISTEWS we would have TWO classifications
> >of the DOKIMON:
> >1) the DOKIMION "of you"
> >2) the DOKIMION "of the faith".
> >
> >Now it is not very likely, that Peter wrote in such a vague manner,
> >connecting the DOKIMION of persons with the DOKIMION of an abstract
> >term (faith).
>
> I'm not sure I understand this part of your response. Why would
> there be two classifications of TO DOKIMION? Wouldn't it be one
> or the other?
>
> >(More likely, Peter would have written TO DOKIMION
> >hUMWN, TO THS PISTEWS in this case.)
>
> Really? Why?
>
> >It is not unusual , that hUMWN is before the rest of the genitive.
> >Compare e. g. 1 Peter 3:16 hUMWN THN AGAQHN EN CRISTW ANASTROFHN,
> >where hUMWN refers to ANASTROFHN. Or 1 Cor 1:24 hUMWN THS PISTEWS =
> >your faith.
>
> It seems a _little_ unusual (to me at least) that hUMWN precede
> what it modifies. I should think there would be some reason for
> constructing it that way. I just don't understand why. :-(
>
> In Christ,
> Jim
>
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> The worth and excellence of a soul is to
> be measured by the object of its love.
> ~ Henry Scougal
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>
>
>