[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #76
b-greek-digest Saturday, 13 January 1996 Volume 01 : Number 076
In this issue:
Phil 1:8 "gar"
Re: Phil 1:8 "gar"
hINATI' in Didache 5
Re: Almost biblical Greek questions
Re: Almost biblical Greek questions
Porter on elided verbs
Re: PAS as all, every, or any
PAS as all, every, or any
Re: PAS as all, every, or any
Re: PAS as all, every, or any
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Marshall T. Brown" <74731.176@compuserve.com>
Date: 12 Jan 96 06:16:47 EST
Subject: Phil 1:8 "gar"
Greetings in Christ from Vsetin, Czech Republic!
I've got a question as to the use of the "gar" in Phil 1:8.
1) Is the "gar" illative, explanatory, or emphatic?
I see that the NASB translates it 'for' which leaves it ambiguous,
while a Czech translation of the Bible known as the Kralicky translation
translates it "zajiste" meaning "certainly." I've also noticed that a few
translations, both English and Czech, do not translate it at all.
2) Based upon your answer in #1 then what do you see it pointing back to
or explaining?
Thank you for your input!
Marshall T. Brown Vsetin, Czech Republic
74731.176@compuserve.com
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 07:59:39 +0400
Subject: Re: Phil 1:8 "gar"
Marshall Brown wrote;
> Greetings in Christ from Vsetin, Czech Republic!
>
> I've got a question as to the use of the "gar" in Phil 1:8.
>
> 1) Is the "gar" illative, explanatory, or emphatic?
> I see that the NASB translates it 'for' which leaves it ambiguous,
>while a Czech translation of the Bible known as the Kralicky translation
>translates it "zajiste" meaning "certainly." I've also noticed that a few
>translations, both English and Czech, do not translate it at all.
>
> 2) Based upon your answer in #1 then what do you see it pointing
>back to
>or explaining?
The New Revised Standard simply renders the verse with "For God is . . ."
The new Contemporary English Version translates, "God himself knows . . ."
The NRSV assumes that the verse gives a reason or bases for Vs. 7, "For me
to think this way about you is right." The CEV makes the use of GAR
emphatic, strenthening the claim made in vs. 7. I would tend to agree with
the CEV.
Grace and peace,
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 10:11:18 -0600
Subject: hINATI' in Didache 5
This may bore others to death, but it's the sort of tidbit of linguistic
history that I personally find fascinating.
As a follow-up to yesterday's discussion of some problems Ken Litwak
brought up in the Greek text of the Didache, I have done some further
checking on the usage of the relatively rare hINATI' or hINA TI' as it
appears in verse 5, cited by Ken as (with revised transliteration,
hopefully for the sake of greater clarity):
OUAI TWi LAMBONONTI. EI MEN GAR XREIAN EXWN LAMBANEI TIS, AQWOS ESTAI. hO
DE MH XREIAN EXWN DWSEI DIKAN, hINA TI' ELABE KAI EIs TI'?
I was able to check LSJ9 at the Perseus web site last night (great resource
for those using Netscape with either Mac or Windows and having either
SuperGreek or SMK Greek fonts that they can put as "fixed-width font"
option) and found listed as a relatively rare secondary usage:
c. hIna TI' (sc.GENHTAI?); to what end? either abs. or as a question,
Aristoph. Eccl. 719; or with a Verb following, IDEM = Aristoph. Peace 409,
cf. Plat. Apol. 26d, etc.; hINA DE TI' ; Aristoph. Cl. 1192.
I then found the following in BAGD:
BAGD: hINATI' (often written separately; for hINA TI' GENHTAI?' "in order
that what might happen?" Bld-D#1,3; W-S.#5, 7e; Rob. 739) why, for what
reason?
NT examples: Mt 9:4; 27:46 (Ps 21:2); Lk 13:7; Acts 74:25 (Ps 2:1)); 7:26;
1 Cor 10:29; 1 Cl 4:4 (Gen. 4:6); 35:7 (Ps 49:16); 46:5, 7; B 3:1 (Is
58.4). W. EIS TI' why and for what? D 1:5. Bl-D.#299, 4. Moulton &
Milligan. s.v. hINA.
Most interesting in particular was the last listing in LSJ9--a citation
from the lexicographer Hesychius, who wrote at the turn of the millennia.
He glossed, it appears, hINA TI' with DIA TI' and ES TI'. It seems very
like (to me, at least) that any implicit "GENHTAI" functioning as a
subjunctive of purpose with the subject TI' has long since receded from the
consciousness of the user of the language and that hINA has in fact become
the equivalent in this phrase of a preposition used with TI' understood as
a neuter accusative. The unified spelling in hINATI' (comparable to the
very common unified DIATI' and DIOTI for "why?" and "because ...") suggests
the same conclusion.
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: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 13:54:45 -0600
Subject: Re: Almost biblical Greek questions
At 1:38 PM 1/12/96, Bruce Terry wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Jan 1996, Kenneth Litwak wrote (in part):
>
>>4. Finally, II:7 says ou mishseis panta anqrwpou. I think this says
>>"You shall not hate every person", while Lightfoot translates it as
>>"thou shalt not hate any man". I don't think I accept translating pas as
>>"any". that's what tis is for. Comments?
>
>The rule of thumb here is to translate PAS as "any" when used with a negative.
>This is because Greek PAS is used with different meaning than English "all"
>with negatives. If you translate this, "You shall not hate every person,"
>some English speaker is bound to say, "I don't hate every person; it's just
>so-and-so that I hate."
Nevertheless, Bruce, I think this must be a Semitism. In Attic Greek PANTA
ANQRWPON used thus would have to mean "every person." I really think this
derives from Hebrew QOL's usage. BDF note this as "Hebraizing" at #302.
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: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 13:38:20 CST
Subject: Re: Almost biblical Greek questions
On Thu, 11 Jan 1996, Kenneth Litwak wrote (in part):
>3. In II:4, pagis gar qanatou (h diglwssia, does the definite article specify
>that diglwssia is the subject and pagis is the object or vice-versa or what?
>I know this has been somewhat discussed in the context of John 1:1 but I've
>gotten lost in that discussion by the critiques of various rules about this.
The rule of thumb on this is that if one NP has the article and the other does
not, the one with the article is the subject and the one without is the
predicate nominative, regardless of word order. Exceptions are rare but
include examples where the anartharous subject is definite anyway, such as
when it is a name.
>4. Finally, II:7 says ou mishseis panta anqrwpou. I think this says
>"You shall not hate every person", while Lightfoot translates it as
>"thou shalt not hate any man". I don't think I accept translating pas as
>"any". that's what tis is for. Comments?
The rule of thumb here is to translate PAS as "any" when used with a negative.
This is because Greek PAS is used with different meaning than English "all"
with negatives. If you translate this, "You shall not hate every person,"
some English speaker is bound to say, "I don't hate every person; it's just
so-and-so that I hate."
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 13:47:22 CST
Subject: Porter on elided verbs
On Thu, 11 Jan 1996, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>I'm wondierng
>if the ginou should be seen as implied in the following coordinated mhd
>clauses, or if isqe is implied or if these should be understood with no
>verb at all. I would previously have gone for the first or second choice
>except that I've now read Porter arguing that the undestanding of
>nominal clauses as having an elided auxillary verb is incorrect (anyone want
>to comment on that argument?).
Ken--
Could you give a reference to this Porter statement? Also, do you mean
copula or linking verb rather than auxillary verb? Where the copula is
optional, one's theory of linguistic deep structure goes a long way in helping
to decide whether an underlying verb has been elided or not.
- --Bruce
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 14:47:38 -0600
Subject: Re: PAS as all, every, or any
>At 2:50 PM 1/12/96, Bruce Terry wrote:
>>On Fri, 12 Jan 1996, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>>>At 1:38 PM 1/12/96, Bruce Terry wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 11 Jan 1996, Kenneth Litwak wrote (in part):
>>>>
>>>>>4. Finally, II:7 says ou mishseis panta anqrwpou. I think this says
>>>>>"You shall not hate every person", while Lightfoot translates it as
>>>>>"thou shalt not hate any man". I don't think I accept translating pas as
>>>>>"any". that's what tis is for. Comments?
>>>>
>>>>The rule of thumb here is to translate PAS as "any" when used with a
>>>>negative.
>>>>This is because Greek PAS is used with different meaning than English "all"
>>>>with negatives. If you translate this, "You shall not hate every person,"
>>>>some English speaker is bound to say, "I don't hate every person; it's just
>>>>so-and-so that I hate."
>>>
>>>Nevertheless, Bruce, I think this must be a Semitism. In Attic Greek PANTA
>>>ANQRWPON used thus would have to mean "every person." I really think this
>>>derives from Hebrew QOL's usage. BDF note this as "Hebraizing" at #302.
>>
>>My point, Carl, is that the English is capable of sustaining two meanings, one
>>of which I don't think the Greek contains (but perhaps I am wrong; you have
>>read much more extensively in Classical Greek than I). English "every person"
>>can mean not only "each and every person" viewed individually (i.e. "each and
>>every person you shall not hate" or "you shall not hate any person at all"),
>>but also "all the people" viewed collectively ("you shall not hate every
>>single last person" or "you shall not hate the sum total of the people"). If
>>I am not mistaken, the Greek only allows the former. The reason for
>>translating PAS as "any" does not have to do with what Greek or Hebrew means,
>>but with the ambiguity in the English. Does this ambiguity also exist in the
>>Greek? Can PANTA ANQRWPON mean "all the people" as English can?
>>
>>The meaning is obviously the former in the passage at hand, but the convention
>>of translating PAS as "any" is to reduce the ambiguity and keep some wit from
>>taking the other possible meaning in English.
>
>I think I see your point, but I wonder whether you're expressing it as
>clearly as it might be put (more likely I'm misunderstanding, I guess). Is
>it really that _English_ is capable of sustaining two meanings or that the
>Greek PAS is thus capable. It seems to me that English normally uses
>either the indirect article (a, an) or "any," which, I think, is another
>form of the indirect article) to express what Greek normally expresses
>using TIS. PAS in Greek normally expresses wholeness singly or plurally. I
>think it's where the Hellenistic or specifically Hebraizing Greek uses PAS
>for "any" that English-speakers have problems. The phrase we have in the
>Didache above,
>OU MISHSEIS PANTA ANQRWPON is, in fact, not "normal idiomatic Greek"--not
>even, I believe, normal Hellenistic idiomatic Greek. Rather one would find
>OU MH MISHSHiS MHDENA ANQRWPON (in fact, I think that even the use of the
>future indicative with MH is a Semitism). So I think it's the use of PAS
>in the Greek that's the anomaly, rather than something ambiguous in
>English.
>
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: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 14:50:30 CST
Subject: PAS as all, every, or any
On Fri, 12 Jan 1996, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>At 1:38 PM 1/12/96, Bruce Terry wrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Jan 1996, Kenneth Litwak wrote (in part):
>>
>>>4. Finally, II:7 says ou mishseis panta anqrwpou. I think this says
>>>"You shall not hate every person", while Lightfoot translates it as
>>>"thou shalt not hate any man". I don't think I accept translating pas as
>>>"any". that's what tis is for. Comments?
>>
>>The rule of thumb here is to translate PAS as "any" when used with a negative.
>>This is because Greek PAS is used with different meaning than English "all"
>>with negatives. If you translate this, "You shall not hate every person,"
>>some English speaker is bound to say, "I don't hate every person; it's just
>>so-and-so that I hate."
>
>Nevertheless, Bruce, I think this must be a Semitism. In Attic Greek PANTA
>ANQRWPON used thus would have to mean "every person." I really think this
>derives from Hebrew QOL's usage. BDF note this as "Hebraizing" at #302.
My point, Carl, is that the English is capable of sustaining two meanings, one
of which I don't think the Greek contains (but perhaps I am wrong; you have
read much more extensively in Classical Greek than I). English "every person"
can mean not only "each and every person" viewed individually (i.e. "each and
every person you shall not hate" or "you shall not hate any person at all"),
but also "all the people" viewed collectively ("you shall not hate every
single last person" or "you shall not hate the sum total of the people"). If
I am not mistaken, the Greek only allows the former. The reason for
translating PAS as "any" does not have to do with what Greek or Hebrew means,
but with the ambiguity in the English. Does this ambiguity also exist in the
Greek? Can PANTA ANQRWPON mean "all the people" as English can?
The meaning is obviously the former in the passage at hand, but the convention
of translating PAS as "any" is to reduce the ambiguity and keep some wit from
taking the other possible meaning in English.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 14:48:00 -0600
Subject: Re: PAS as all, every, or any
>At 2:50 PM 1/12/96, Bruce Terry wrote:
>>On Fri, 12 Jan 1996, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>>
>>>At 1:38 PM 1/12/96, Bruce Terry wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 11 Jan 1996, Kenneth Litwak wrote (in part):
>>>>
>>>>>4. Finally, II:7 says ou mishseis panta anqrwpou. I think this says
>>>>>"You shall not hate every person", while Lightfoot translates it as
>>>>>"thou shalt not hate any man". I don't think I accept translating pas as
>>>>>"any". that's what tis is for. Comments?
>>>>
>>>>The rule of thumb here is to translate PAS as "any" when used with a
>>>>negative.
>>>>This is because Greek PAS is used with different meaning than English "all"
>>>>with negatives. If you translate this, "You shall not hate every person,"
>>>>some English speaker is bound to say, "I don't hate every person; it's just
>>>>so-and-so that I hate."
>>>
>>>Nevertheless, Bruce, I think this must be a Semitism. In Attic Greek PANTA
>>>ANQRWPON used thus would have to mean "every person." I really think this
>>>derives from Hebrew QOL's usage. BDF note this as "Hebraizing" at #302.
>>
>>My point, Carl, is that the English is capable of sustaining two meanings, one
>>of which I don't think the Greek contains (but perhaps I am wrong; you have
>>read much more extensively in Classical Greek than I). English "every person"
>>can mean not only "each and every person" viewed individually (i.e. "each and
>>every person you shall not hate" or "you shall not hate any person at all"),
>>but also "all the people" viewed collectively ("you shall not hate every
>>single last person" or "you shall not hate the sum total of the people"). If
>>I am not mistaken, the Greek only allows the former. The reason for
>>translating PAS as "any" does not have to do with what Greek or Hebrew means,
>>but with the ambiguity in the English. Does this ambiguity also exist in the
>>Greek? Can PANTA ANQRWPON mean "all the people" as English can?
>>
>>The meaning is obviously the former in the passage at hand, but the convention
>>of translating PAS as "any" is to reduce the ambiguity and keep some wit from
>>taking the other possible meaning in English.
>
>I think I see your point, but I wonder whether you're expressing it as
>clearly as it might be put (more likely I'm misunderstanding, I guess). Is
>it really that _English_ is capable of sustaining two meanings or that the
>Greek PAS is thus capable. It seems to me that English normally uses
>either the indirect article (a, an) or "any," which, I think, is another
>form of the indirect article) to express what Greek normally expresses
>using TIS. PAS in Greek normally expresses wholeness singly or plurally. I
>think it's where the Hellenistic or specifically Hebraizing Greek uses PAS
>for "any" that English-speakers have problems. The phrase we have in the
>Didache above,
>OU MISHSEIS PANTA ANQRWPON is, in fact, not "normal idiomatic Greek"--not
>even, I believe, normal Hellenistic idiomatic Greek. Rather one would find
>OU MH MISHSHiS MHDENA ANQRWPON (in fact, I think that even the use of the
>future indicative with MH is a Semitism). So I think it's the use of PAS
>in the Greek that's the anomaly, rather than something ambiguous in
>English.
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: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 17:16:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: PAS as all, every, or any
Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
>At 2:50 PM 1/12/96, Bruce Terry wrote:
>>On Fri, 12 Jan 1996, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>>
>>>At 1:38 PM 1/12/96, Bruce Terry wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 11 Jan 1996, Kenneth Litwak wrote (in part):
>>>>
>>>>>4. Finally, II:7 says ou mishseis panta anqrwpou. I think this says
>>>>>"You shall not hate every person", while Lightfoot translates it as
>>>>>"thou shalt not hate any man". I don't think I accept translating pas as
>>>>>"any". that's what tis is for. Comments?
>>>>
>>>>The rule of thumb here is to translate PAS as "any" when used with a
>>>>negative.
>>>>This is because Greek PAS is used with different meaning than English "all"
>>>>with negatives. If you translate this, "You shall not hate every person,"
>>>>some English speaker is bound to say, "I don't hate every person; it's just
>>>>so-and-so that I hate."
>>>
>>>Nevertheless, Bruce, I think this must be a Semitism. In Attic Greek PANTA
>>>ANQRWPON used thus would have to mean "every person." I really think this
>>>derives from Hebrew QOL's usage. BDF note this as "Hebraizing" at #302.
>>
>>My point, Carl, is that the English is capable of sustaining two meanings, one
>>of which I don't think the Greek contains (but perhaps I am wrong; you have
>>read much more extensively in Classical Greek than I). English "every person"
>>can mean not only "each and every person" viewed individually (i.e. "each and
>>every person you shall not hate" or "you shall not hate any person at all"),
>>but also "all the people" viewed collectively ("you shall not hate every
>>single last person" or "you shall not hate the sum total of the people"). If
>>I am not mistaken, the Greek only allows the former. The reason for
>>translating PAS as "any" does not have to do with what Greek or Hebrew means,
>>but with the ambiguity in the English. Does this ambiguity also exist in the
>>Greek? Can PANTA ANQRWPON mean "all the people" as English can?
>>
>>The meaning is obviously the former in the passage at hand, but the convention
>>of translating PAS as "any" is to reduce the ambiguity and keep some wit from
>>taking the other possible meaning in English.
>
>I think I see your point, but I wonder whether you're expressing it as
>clearly as it might be put (more likely I'm misunderstanding, I guess). Is
>it really that _English_ is capable of sustaining two meanings or that the
>Greek PAS is thus capable. It seems to me that English normally uses
>either the indirect article (a, an) or "any," which, I think, is another
>form of the indirect article) to express what Greek normally expresses
>using TIS. PAS in Greek normally expresses wholeness singly or plurally. I
>think it's where the Hellenistic or specifically Hebraizing Greek uses PAS
>for "any" that English-speakers have problems. The phrase we have in the
>Didache above,
>OU MISHSEIS PANTA ANQRWPON is, in fact, not "normal idiomatic Greek"--not
>even, I believe, normal Hellenistic idiomatic Greek. Rather one would find
>OU MH MISHSHiS MHDENA ANQRWPON (in fact, I think that even the use of the
>future indicative with MH is a Semitism). So I think it's the use of PAS
>in the Greek that's the anomaly, rather than something ambiguous in
>English.
This construction, PAS...OU (MH), sounds idiomatic to me because
my reading has been mainly in the NT and collaterally in the LXX. (I
understand the passage from the Didache as, "You shall not hate anyone.")
But it is identified as "Biblical" Greek by Turner (Mouton's grammar,
III:196), and he says that it comes from the Hebrew LO'...KOL = KOL...LO',
which is used idiomatically just as PAS...OU in biblical Greek.
Turner cites Mat. 24:22; Mk 13:30, OUK AN ESWQH PASA SARC, Jn.
12:46 PAS hO PISTEUWN...MH MEINHi, and many other illustrations of the
construction (_Ibid._).
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #76
****************************
** 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