[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #811
b-greek-digest Saturday, 5 August 1995 Volume 01 : Number 811
In this issue:
Differences between neos and kainos
NRSV Differences
Charis
luke 23:56
Charis
Eric Weiss inquiry about "charin"
Re: Charis
Two Requests
Re: Differences between neos and kainos
Re: Differences between neos and kainos
Re: Romans 8:28
Subscription
Re: Rom. 8:28
Re: Rom. 8:28
Re: NRSV Differences
Phil 1:7
Re: Phil 1:7
Re: Phil 1:7
Re: Phil 1:7
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" <mauros@iol.ie>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 09:23:51 +0100
Subject: Differences between neos and kainos
GAlanC@aol.com wrote:
>>> I was recently reviewing some notes on Rev. 21 for a Bible study I
participate in. I ran across a reference to the new heaven and new earth in
which my professor stated that the word (kainos) meant new in quality or
nature and not new in the sense that it never existed before. <<<
Louw-Nida has this note:
"Some persons see in the use of kainos in contrast with neos a distinction
based upon that which is novel and different in contrast with that which is
young and recent. Though this distinction may be applicable to certain
contexts and is more in accordance with classical usage, it is not possible
to find in all occurrences of kainos and neos this type of distinction. "
Regards,
Maurice
Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]
mauros@iol.ie
[using Eudora 2.0.3]
------------------------------
From: KBARRON@dscc.cc.tn.us
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 08:18:57 -0600 (CST)
Subject: NRSV Differences
Re Phil 1:7 - I don't have my GNT with me - what's the MSS situation?
Eph 2:14-15 - this appears to be simply a matter of what "in his flesh"
relates to - once again, what's the MSS situation?
Kevin Barron Dyersburg, TN kbarron@dscc.cc.tn.us
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date:
Subject: Charis
Forwarded to: Internet[b-greek@virginia.edu]
cc:
Comments by: Eric Weiss@OSP@ACF.DAL
Comments:
Here's a resend. I left the .edu off the address the first time.
-------------------------- [Original Message] -------------------------
I was reading John and noticed 1:16b reads "kai charin anti charitos."
Isn't the accusative singular form of charis,-itos "charita" rather than
"charin"? At least that's the normal accusative singular form of a 3rd
declension noun like charis, if I remember correctly (according to Mounce's
grammar, remove genitive singular ending -os and add either alpha or nu, in
this case alpha, i.e., charit + alpha = charita). Or is the accusative form
of charis just an irregular noun form (the other instances of charis in the
accusative singular I was briefly able to check on are also "charin")?
------------------------------
From: Jim Brownson <BROWNSONJ@hope.cit.hope.edu>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 10:57:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: luke 23:56
I have my doubts about whether it is possible to reconcile the chronologies
of the various gospels here, but for what it's worth, the last section of
verse 56 clearly must be linked not with what precedes it, but with what
follows (note the men . . . de construction). This structure suggests to
me that the preparation of spices in 56a is intended to be part, actually
the conclusion of the paragraph beginning in verse 50 which deals with the
burial of Jesus. 56b begins a new paragraph on the resurrection. This
paragraph structure discourages any attempt at making the two occur
simultaneously in time.
Jim Brownson
WEstern Theological Seminary
Brownsonj@hope.edu
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 95 11:15:47 -24000
Subject: Charis
(I seem to be having difficulty sending this. If you get more than one copy,
please ignore this one.)
I was reading John and noticed 1:16b reads "kai charin anti
charitos." ("and grace for grace")
Isn't the accusative singular form of charis,-itos "charita"
rather than "charin"? At least that's the normal accusative
singular form of a 3rd declension noun like charis, if I remember
correctly (according to Mounce's grammar, remove genitive
singular ending -os and add either alpha or nu, in this case
alpha, i.e., charit + alpha = charita). Or is the accusative
form of charis just an irregular noun form (the other instances
of charis in the accusative singular I was briefly able to check
on are also "charin")?
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 11:46:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Eric Weiss inquiry about "charin"
The normal accursative of "charis" in classical Greek is "charin". The
form "charita" occurs a couple of times in Herodotus, but otherwise seems
to be a Hellenistic form, increasing in frequency as time passed. The NT
exhibits both -- "charin" forty-odd times, with "charita" occurring zero to
three times, depending on which MSS. you read.
The "rules" in the grammars are descriptions of the evidence,
deductions therefrom; they do not demand that the ancient writers confrom to
them. They are helpful for learning forms; but the forms that occur do, in
fact, occur.
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 11:52:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Charis
eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov wrote,
"Isn't the accusative singular form of charis,-itos "charita" rather than
"charin"? At least that's the normal accusative singular form of a 3rd
declension noun like charis."
CHARIS/CHARIN is used as one pattern for dental nouns on page 63. Footnote 1
on Page 63 of Brooks & Winbery Morphology reads, "Dental stem nouns not
accented on the penult, i.e. barytone (x 78), tend to have N rather than A in
the accusative singular. The dental drops before the N (not an established
rule of phonetic change). For example CHARIN (accent on penult) appears 42
times, CHARITA only twice. ELPIS, being accented on the ultima, has only A,
but examples of N in the accusative of D-stem nouns are ERIS/ERIN,
KLEIS/KLEIN, (despite being accented on the ultima; also KLEIDA), and
PROFHTIS/PROFHTIN. The HS/HTOS nouns, however, always have A."
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Rel.
LA College, Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 12:01:45 -0400
Subject: Two Requests
Folks:
I am looking for two pieces of information.
First, does anyone have a good, yet not overly long, study on Colossians 1:20
lying around they could send me? Or a good study of katallassw at hand? I
am swamped and need to work on the passage.
Second, could someone give me Bill Mounce's current e-mail address?
Oh, BTW, for those of you interested: the series of programs on the KJV issue
on the John Ankerberg Show are currently airing on the Family Channel and in
various other venues. The programs included three KJV Only advocates, Dr.
Thomas Strouse (TR-Only), Dr. Samuel Gipp (a student of Ruckman's), and Dr.
Joe Chambers (representing Gail Riplinger's views). On the other side we had
myself, Dr. Daniel Wallace, Dr. Kenneth Barker, Dr. Don Wilkins, and Dr. Art
Farstad. It was, well, enjoyable. :)
BTW, Riplinger, Ruckman, and D.A. Waite, were all invited to participate, but
they all declined.
*************************************************************
* Recte Ambulamus ad Veritatem Evangelii *
* James White *
* Scholar In Residence Director of Ministries *
* College of Christian Studies Alpha and Omega Ministries *
* Grand Canyon University Orthopodeo@aol.com *
* Adjunct Professor---Golden Gate Seminary *
*************************************************************
------------------------------
From: GAlanC@aol.com
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 13:13:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Differences between neos and kainos
In a message dated 95-08-03 14:26:26 EDT, you write:
>There is a very definite distinction. To put it succintly, KAINOS is to
>PALAIOS as NEOS is to GERAIOS/GERWN. NEOS and GERAIOS/GERWN are used
>fundamentally of biological age: "young" and "old," although NEWS can in
>fact mean "recently." KAINOS and PALAIOS, hwoever, are used more of
>artifacts or created things. So KAINOS means fundamentally, "of
>recent/brand-new minting," while PALAIOS means "having existed for quite
>some time or from of old." Still another word, ARXAIOS means "original" or
>"existing since the beginning."
Thank you Carl for your very informative insights. But I have one further
question. In Rev. 21:1 would OURANON KAINON KAI GHN KAIVHV be referring to a
newly created heaven and earth or that heaven and earth would be renewed?
And, could the idea of "renewal" simply be John's use of the word.
Thanks
Alan Cassady
GAlanC@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 14:30:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Differences between neos and kainos
At 1:13 PM 8/4/95, GAlanC@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 95-08-03 14:26:26 EDT, you write:
>
>>There is a very definite distinction. To put it succintly, KAINOS is to
>>PALAIOS as NEOS is to GERAIOS/GERWN. NEOS and GERAIOS/GERWN are used
>>fundamentally of biological age: "young" and "old," although NEWS can in
>>fact mean "recently." KAINOS and PALAIOS, hwoever, are used more of
>>artifacts or created things. So KAINOS means fundamentally, "of
>>recent/brand-new minting," while PALAIOS means "having existed for quite
>>some time or from of old." Still another word, ARXAIOS means "original" or
>>"existing since the beginning."
>
>Thank you Carl for your very informative insights. But I have one further
>question. In Rev. 21:1 would OURANON KAINON KAI GHN KAIVHV be referring to a
>newly created heaven and earth or that heaven and earth would be renewed?
> And, could the idea of "renewal" simply be John's use of the word.
Well, now, I hope we can consider this without getting into controversial
territory (but I'm not sure that's possible, because it takes us right
straight into eschatology, where everything is pretty murky and the footing
is not very steady). If we are thinking in terms of an analogy, let's say,
with tires, there are brand new tires (KAINA) and there are re-treads
(shall we say: hWS KAINA?). Are we to understand the "New Heaven" and "New
Earth" of Revelation as "retreads" of the original creation? Doesn't sound
very nice, does it? On the other hand, however, do we really want to say
that there's no continuity between the original creation and the new
creation?
Let me say, right off the bat, I really think we get into trouble when we
try to take the metaphorical language of eschatology and start asking
precise questions about how the language is being used. Paul talks in 1 Cor
15 about bodies in several metaphors, one of them being changing from an
old suit of clothes into a new one. He speaks of the difference between the
PRWTOS ANQRWPOS as a CUXH ZWSA, the ESXATOS ADAM as PNEUMA ZWOPOIOUN (1 Cor
15:45). I'm not sure how far that will take us, but he seems to be talking
about a qualitative difference. On the other hand, in the same chapter, he
uses the agricultural metaphor of Burial = Planting a seed and Resurrection
= Sprouting of the new plant, wherein continuity of selfhood seems implied.
I've always thought that one major reason that Christians have difficulty
with any notion of reincarnation is that a real doctrine of reincarnation
does not seem to take individual personal selfhood seriously. I take it
that one important feature of the story of Thomas in John 20 is the
unmistakable continuity between the Jesus who was crucified and the risen
Lord who appears to the disciples without and with Thomas.
At any rate, I'd like to think of a New Heaven and a New Earth as something
better than a re-tread or something that a second-hand dealer foists off
upon me with the words, "It's like new!"
A good passage showing both KAINOS AND NEOS is the synoptic parable of new
wine and new wineskins: Mt 9:17 OINON NEON EIS ASKOUS KAINOUS -- where
"young" wine is put into "new-made" wineskins. Another passage is Mark's
account of Jesus' first teaching in a synagogue, to which the audience
reacts with the phrase, "DIDAXH KAINH KAT' EKSOUSIAN" as opposed to the
"re-cycled" teachings of the scribes. On the other hand, Matthew's "scribe
trained for the Kingdom of Heaven" seems to teach the new covenant while
retaining what is good in the old: hOMOIOS ESTIN ANQRWPWi OIKODESPOTHi
hOSTIS EKBALLEI EK TOU QHSAUROU AUTOU KAINA KAI PALAIA.
I think that by and large the usage of the words as pretty much as I first
characterized it, but when we start talking eschatology, it may be that our
vocabulary is not quite adequate and our metaphors are rather murky.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: John Albu <tunon@phantom.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 15:26:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Romans 8:28
This is in answer to the message posted on Aug 3, 1995, from
WINBROW@aol.com. An extensive comment on this verse was published in the
Watchtower magazine, April 1, 1980, pp. 23-26. Herewith I am quoting this
comment. I trust this information is useful.
Sincerely yours,
John Albu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOD'S WORKS SURE TO COOPERATE
FOR GOOD
We are not hoping for too much to be realized, if it is written in
God's Word. Nothing written will be impossible for him! He cannot fall
short of his glorious promise, as he is the Almighty God. If we love him
and prove it by our obedience, he will not fail to make all his good
promise a glorious reality. Along with the apostle Paul of the first
century C.E., we know this. In Romans 8:28-30, written about 56 C.E.,
Paul made this affirmation:
"Now we know that God makes all his works cooperate together for the
good of those who love God,* those who are the ones called according to
his purpose; because those whom he gave his first recognition he also
foreordained to be patterned after the image of his Son, that he might be
the firstborn among many brothers. Moreover, those whom he foreordained
are the ones he also called; and those whom he called are the ones he
also declared to be righteous. Finally those whom he declared righteous
are the ones he also glorified." [The footnote reads:] *This reading is
according to the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, the Alexandrine Manuscript,
and Papyrus No. 46. See The Syriac New Testament by Dr. James Murdock.
In the King James Version of the Bible Romans 8:28 reads: "And we know
that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who
are the called according to his purpose." Quite a number of modern
translations of this Bible verse read the same way. However, Byington's
The Bible in Living English reads: "And we know that to those who love
God, God gives all cooperation for good, to those who, as suited his
purpose, are called." Rotherham's The Emphasised Bible reads: "We know
further that unto them who love God God causeth all things to work
together for good." Lattey's The New Testament reads: "And we know that
for them that love God he worketh all things together for good."-See also
Schonfield's The Authentic New Testament, p. 338, paragraph 2.
All the things set out in Romans 8:28-30 are God's works, not man's.
It is God's works that, according to the record, he makes cooperate
together for the good of the called ones who love him, because he wants
them to gain the Kingdom to which he has called them. But if anyone who
claims to be a baptized Christian in line for the heavenly kingdom acts
out of harmony with his heavenly calling, we cannot expect God to make
such action work good for the offender, or even that his action will
automatically work for his good. For instance, if a professed Christian
with the heavenly calling engages too vigorously in a sport during his
recreation and breaks a leg or fractures his ankle, does God make that
injury work for the sportsman's good? Or if, in a period of weakness and
wrong leanings, a called Christian chooses to pass through a red-light
district out of curiosity or to see other men being lured into immorality
with prostitutes and he himself falls victim to the solicitations of a
harlot and commits fornication, can God be expected to make that
experience work for the sinner's good? Does such putting of God to the
test work for good?
The outcome of such a physical or moral injury all depends upon the
individual affected as to how he reacts to the consequences of his
ill-advised course. He might learn a lesson from such a hard experience.
But does his learning a lesson make the whole affair one of God's works,
especially because He may exercise mercy in the matter? Certainly not! It
should not be included among the "all things" mentioned by Paul in Romans
8:28.
When we go on to read verses 29, 30 and note the
works of God as recounted therein, we discern that, without exception,
all of God's works toward the foreordained, called Christian are good.
Also, they work together for the good of the Kingdom heir at every stage
of God's handling of matters. Reversing the stages, Paul writes: "Because
those whom he gave his first recognition he also foreordained to be
patterned after the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn
among many brothers. Moreover, those whom he foreordained are the ones he
also called; and those whom he called are the ones he also declared to be
righteous. Finally those whom he declared righteous are the ones he also
glorified."
When does God do the glorifying? When he gives favored ones the
splendor of the knowledge of his firstborn Son now exalted to His right
hand. Thus God sets them in the way that leads to heavenly glory. After
this initial work of God, he can next declare them to be righteous, but
only if they put faith in the glorified Christ to the point of handing
themselves over or dedicating themselves to God without any reservations.
How, now, does God call a dedicated, baptized disciple of his
glorified Son, in order that he might be 'transferred into the kingdom of
the Son of his love'? (Col. 1:13) God does so by begetting him with His
spirit to become a spirit-begotten son of God. Then it is that God can
call or invite such a spiritual son to become part of the heavenly
kingdom, which can be enjoyed only by those who are finally resurrected
to spirit life in heaven. (1 Cor. 15:43-50) God foreordained that
there should be associated with his Son a body of brothers having the
same divine nature and being patterned after the image of his firstborn
Son, Jesus Christ. So, after being called, the spirit-begotten child of
God becomes a member of the foreordained class, in which he must prove
faithful till his earthly death. God foreordained this class, not any
particular individual by name, who gets into that class. God foreordained
that the number of Christ's heavenly brothers should be 144,000, no
individuals being named in that connection.-Rev. 14:1-3.
In Romans 8:29, 30 the apostle Paul points out that to the class of
Christians whom God proceeds to glorify or honor and dignify, to declare
righteous, to call and to foreordain, he "gave his first recognition."
This is what God did away back in the garden of Eden when he gave his
prophecy concerning the "seed" of his own "woman" and the victorious
exploit of that "seed." (Gen. 3:15) Thus, millenniums before that "seed"
came into existence, God was the first one to recognize the need of it
and its special assignment of work. From then on God gave "his first
recognition" to his obligation to produce such a "seed." So this came
first in God's program. Accordingly, what God considered worthy of "his
first recognition" he kept in mind and heart all the way down to
producing that "seed" in his Son Jesus Christ and the faithful
spirit-begotten disciples of this Son. During all the time down till the
arising of that "seed" God foreknew it and gave specially favored
recognition to it.
Hence, from start to finish, whose are the "works" that are detailed
for us in Romans 8:28-30? They are God's "works." And since he is a
consistent God, in perfect harmony with himself in all his dealings, he
"makes all his works cooperate together for the good of those who love
God." Not one of "all his works" is out of line, out of accord, with all
his other purposeful works. These works proceed orderly, the one leading
up to the other and preparing for it. God's purpose is magnificent,
and he knows exactly how to carry it out successfully. So "those who are
the ones called according to his purpose" can be sure that he will never
fail. If they stay faithful and lovingly cooperate with him, they are
certain to have a part in the accomplishment of his purpose by
having an active share in his heavenly kingdom with Jesus Christ.
------------------------------
From: dtw86847@acuvax.acu.edu
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 14:57:54 CST
Subject: Subscription
Please add me to B-greek, Thank you
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 17:03:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Rom. 8:28
Nichael wrote in response to my statement that the footnote in the NRSV at
Romans 8:28 is misleading,
"But as is made clear in the intro to the NRSV "Other ancient authorities" is
merely a code phrase for the fact that some alternate reading also exists in
a noteworthy portion of the textual history."
The statement in the introduction to the NRSV reads,
"Here and there in the footnotes the phrase, 'Other ancient authorities
read,' identifies alternative readings preserved by Greek manuscripts and
early versions. In both Testaments, alternative renderings of the text are
indicated by the word "Or."
My point is that at this place the translating making God the subject of the
verb is possible even if the text which does not have O QEOS is not present.
The footnote in the NRSV leaves the English reader with the idea that there
is only a textual variation, when in fact many who accept the same textual
reading as the KJV translate it differently than the KJV and the NRSV. A
clear footnote would be Or "He makes all things . . ." Other ancient
authorities add the word God as the subject. We are clearly dealing with
both a variation in translation of text and a variation in text.
I think this is the point that I made in my original post. I never used the
word "unconventional" in any of my post. That was someone else.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Rel.
LA College, Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 95 16:56:16 CST
Subject: Re: Rom. 8:28
Original message sent on Fri, Aug 4 3:03 PM by WINBROW@aol.com :
> I think this is the point that I made in my original post. I never used the
> word "unconventional" in any of my post. That was someone else.
With respect to Prof. Winbery, it was I who used the term "unconventional" in
connection to a question I appended to his original posting. I'm sorry if this
caused some unnecessary confusion.
Mark O'Brien
Dallas Theological Seminary
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 95 17:44:50 CST
Subject: Re: NRSV Differences
Original message sent on Fri, Aug 4 2:18 AM by KBARRON@dscc.cc.tn.us :
> Re Phil 1:7 - I don't have my GNT with me - what's the MSS situation?
Taking just this example, the Greek text of interest is in the _dia_ clause.
Most people would tend to take the first pronoun (_me_) as the subject, but the
NRSV folks took the latter (_humas_) as the subject. I know this is not an
impossible rendering, but does it not seem strange?
Mark O'Brien
Dallas Seminary
------------------------------
From: Ken Penner <kpenner@mail.unixg.ubc.ca>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 18:05:13 -0800
Subject: Phil 1:7
On 4 Aug 95 at 17:44, Mark O'Brien wrote:
> Taking just this example, the Greek text of interest is in the
> _dia_ clause. Most people would tend to take the first pronoun
> (_me_) as the subject, but the NRSV folks took the latter
> (_humas_) as the subject. I know this is not an impossible
> rendering, but does it not seem strange?
If we are arguing based on what seems "natural", we might take the
pronoun immediately following the verb as the direct object.
I would most naturally read DIA TO EXEIN ME EN THi KARDIAi hUMAS
with hUMAS as subject and ME as object. Do you consider this
rendering strange because KARDIAi is singular and hUMAS is plural?
I'd like to know what people who have more of a feel for the
language think.
Ken Penner
Regent College, Vancouver
kpenner@unixg.ubc.ca
http://www.netshop.bc.ca/~kpenner/
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 21:24:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Phil 1:7
Mark Obrien wrote,
> Taking just this example, the Greek text of interest is in the
> _dia_ clause. Most people would tend to take the first pronoun
> (_me_) as the subject, but the NRSV folks took the latter
> (_humas_) as the subject. I know this is not an impossible
> rendering, but does it not seem strange?
Several years (if not decades) ago I studied a number of situations where an
infinitive had both a direct object and an accusative of reference (subject
of the inf.). I will have to dig for those notes. They probably are in two
boxes of notes used for the Syntax book. As I recall in such situations the
accusative closest to the infinitive (in front or following) was usually the
"subject" and the one further removed was the object. If one preceded and
the other followed, the "subject" usually followed. I think this is right.
I will go back and check my list if I can find it. I wish I had had a
computer back then.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Rel.
La College, Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 22:09:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Phil 1:7
Mark,
One place that I did remember where the infinitive has both a "subject" and
object is Acts 15:7.
EXELEXATO hO QEOS DIA TOU STOMATOS MOU AKOUSAI TA EQNH TON LOGON TOU
EUAGGELION . . .
"God chose through my mouth for the Gentiles to hear the word of the gospel."
Here the subject comes first. I think this is far more frequent than
vice-versa.
Further thought on Phil. 1:7, the NRSV translators must think that Paul is
thinking about the gift that they had sent Paul. If that thought was
dominant in his mind, I would translate 1:3 as though the hUMWN were a
subjective genitive, i.e., "I thank my god every time you remember (me)."
That seems to me to be more likely, if Paul in this paragraph is thinking
about the gift.
Grace,
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Rel.
LA College, Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 23:08:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Phil 1:7
At 10:09 PM 8/4/95, WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
>Mark,
>One place that I did remember where the infinitive has both a "subject" and
>object is Acts 15:7.
>EXELEXATO hO QEOS DIA TOU STOMATOS MOU AKOUSAI TA EQNH TON LOGON TOU
>EUAGGELION . . .
>"God chose through my mouth for the Gentiles to hear the word of the gospel."
> Here the subject comes first. I think this is far more frequent than
>vice-versa.
>
>Further thought on Phil. 1:7, the NRSV translators must think that Paul is
>thinking about the gift that they had sent Paul. If that thought was
>dominant in his mind, I would translate 1:3 as though the hUMWN were a
>subjective genitive, i.e., "I thank my god every time you remember (me)."
> That seems to me to be more likely, if Paul in this paragraph is thinking
>about the gift.
I'm trying hard now NOT to respond to a query before checking the rest of
the incoming mail and seeing what others have to say. But on this issue I
shall have to put $.02 in.
In the first place, I find it hard to accept your view, Carlton, that hUMWN
in 1:3 is subjective genitive. Grammatically there can not really be any
objection to taking it as such--the similar construction of the preceding
dative-case phrase, TWi QEWi MOU, certainly shows MOU as subjective
genitive; but the logic of verses 3 and 4 together really seem to me to
make a reading of hUMWN in the phrase at the end of 1:3 very improbable. It
really seems to me [they always tell you not to write "it seems" because it
sounds like you don't really believe what you're saying; however, I don't
want to be dogmatic about what is a very subjective "gut feeling."] -- it
really seems to me (pardon my anacoluthon) that verse 4 expands and
clarifies the sense of verse 3; I would translate the two verses rather
loosely as follows: "I thank my God every time I think of you--always,
every time and in every petition I offer on behalf of you all, and joyfully
do I offer my petition ... "
Now, proceeding in true hysteron-proteron fashion to the original question
regarding the two accusatives with an infinitive, my "gut" feeling--based
not on a grammatical rule but rather on lots of reading--is that in this
situation the first accusative is more likely to be the subject of the
infinitive, the second accusative the object. For this reason I would have
to be convinced by pretty strong evidence to understand 1:7 other than as:
"... even as it is right for me to take this stance for the sake of all of
you because I hold you in my heart ..." The sequence of thought within the
larger context appears to me to be concerned wholly with Paul's attitude
toward and feelings about the congregation at Philippi, and not primarily
with their attitude toward and feelings about himself.
It would perhaps muddy the waters at this point to note that some scholars
think Philippians is a composite of three original letter-fragments.
Personally I do think that the sequence between 3:1 and 3:2 is nigh unto
incredible for a continuous composition, but I'm less confident about
arguments for partition in chapter 4. Be that as it may, the relevance of
this question to the interpretation of 1:7 is simply this: isn't the
endeavor to read the second accusative in 1:7 (hUMAS) as the SUBJECT of the
infinitive (EXEIN) really based upon interpreting it with reference to what
we learn of the gift of the Philippian congregation in 4:10ff? Perhaps that
makes sense enough if one is satisfied of the integrity of Philippians as a
single letter, but it still seems more likely to me that Paul would have
said something about the gift in the immediate context of those Salutation
and Thanksgiving formulae at the beginning of the letter. As things stand,
I don't really think his initial sequence in Philippians differs from what
is more or less standard for him in the opening sequences of letters: a
salutation suited to the congregation addressed, then a thanksgiving that
commonly mentions how Paul thinks of the congregation especially in his
prayers.
Now I may well be reading 1:7 in a very subjective way, but I've tried to
show how it seems to me that my reading fits the larger context of the
opening sequence.
One other item regarding the two accusatives with an infinitive. I don't
have a text handy or remember the exact phrasing, but there is a crucial
sequence in the Oedipus Tyrannus in a dialogue between Oedipus and Tiresias
in which the two accusatives are situated on either side of the infinitive,
and the same question arises, which one is the subject and which is the
object of the infinitive? As I recall, this line is crucial because it
bears on the question of whether the gods really have decreed the
destruction of Oedipus. I'll check out and cite the lines tomorrow, but I
recall also that the frustrated reader of this text is driven up the walls
by the fact that the two accusative pronouns, a ME and a SE, are REVERSED
in one or more of the MS variants! One wonders what the scribes copying
this text thought!
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #811
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu