[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #100
b-greek-digest Saturday, 3 February 1996 Volume 01 : Number 100
In this issue:
Re: 1 Pet. 2:5
Re: 1 Pet. 2:5
Re: 1 Pet. 2:5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:28:56 -0600
Subject: Re: 1 Pet. 2:5
I don't know whether Tim meant for this to go to the list, but I'll assume
so and forward it with my own response, now that I see Carlton has had some
input into it as well.
Let me add another question to Carlton: would you explain the sentence from
Acts that I've cited below any differently from the way you'd explain the 1
Pet 2:5 construction? It seems to me that the construction is the same
whether we take OIKODOMEISQE to be indicative or imperative.
>Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 10:48:22 -0600
>To: tmclay@atcon.com (Tim McLay)
>From: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl W. Conrad)
>Subject: Re: 1 Pet. 2:5
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>On 2/2/96, Tim McLay wrote:
>
>> Carl,
>>
>> >Actually I think these versions are all reasonable; I would understand
>> >OIKOS PNEUMATIKOS as a predicate nominative rather than as a nominative in
>> >apposition to the subject, i.e., ADVERBIALLY to the verb OIKODOMEISQE. I'm
>> >more used to explaining this type of construction in Latin, but it strikes
>> >me that in classical Attic KAQISTASQAI is used much the same way as FIERI
>> >in Latin:
>>
>> Thank you for an explanation. However, 2 points: without checking each
>> occurrence, LSJ indicates OIKODOMEISQE is followed by an accusative(tho I
>> only have an old 6th ed. at home); it is strange that such a construction
>> has not even garnered a single comment in any of the secondary sources that
>> I have checked. Off hand, I can't think of anything similar in the NT.
>
>I've just looked at LSJ; I think I can safely say that the accusative is
>quite proper with an ACTIVE form of the verb, whereas here we clearly have
>a PASSIVE (I don't see any indication of a usage in the middle voice,
>although that might reasonably be used with an accusative in the sense,
>"build oneself (a house)."
>
>I frankly think it hasn't been commented on because it's not really
>exceptional (I say this while very well aware that the commentaries always
>answer the questions that it occurs to the commentators to ask and all too
>rarely answer the question that I ask!); I was looking for an example of a
>comparable construction in the NT. Here's one:
>
> Acts 1:23 KAI ESTHSAN DUO, IWSHF TON KALOUMENON BARSABBAN, hOS
> EPEKLHQH IOUSTOS ...
>
>I think that the last clause is a reasonable parallel to your passage; and
>I think that there are actually several other verbs like KALEW that could
>be used in a passive with a predicate nominative readily.
>
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: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 16:40:19 +0400
Subject: Re: 1 Pet. 2:5
>I don't know whether Tim meant for this to go to the list, but I'll assume
>so and forward it with my own response, now that I see Carlton has had some
>input into it as well.
>
>Let me add another question to Carlton: would you explain the sentence from
>Acts that I've cited below any differently from the way you'd explain the 1
>Pet 2:5 construction? It seems to me that the construction is the same
>whether we take OIKODOMEISQE to be indicative or imperative.
omission
>>I frankly think it hasn't been commented on because it's not really
>>exceptional (I say this while very well aware that the commentaries always
>>answer the questions that it occurs to the commentators to ask and all too
>>rarely answer the question that I ask!); I was looking for an example of a
>>comparable construction in the NT. Here's one:
>>
>> Acts 1:23 KAI ESTHSAN DUO, IWSHF TON KALOUMENON BARSABBAN, hOS
>> EPEKLHQH IOUSTOS ...
>>
>>I think that the last clause is a reasonable parallel to your passage; and
>>I think that there are actually several other verbs like KALEW that could
>>be used in a passive with a predicate nominative readily.
>>
Carl is really good at finding structures that are very close. I think
that Jim Brooks and I would have dealt with the above example in our
category "nominative of appelation." Another example would be Luke 2:21
EKLHQH TO ONOMA AUTOU IHSOUS, "His name was called Jesus."
Grace,
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: Tim McLay <tmclay@atcon.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 01:17:23 -0400
Subject: Re: 1 Pet. 2:5
Carl, Carlton, David,
Thanks for the input. I only had time for the quick message this morning,
though I should have taken more time. Obviously, it makes a difference that
the construction in 1 Pet. 2:5 is passive (or middle) and not active.
Acts 1:23 doesn't seem quite the same to me, though the predicate
nominative is a logical explanation. 2:5 still seems at least worthy of
mention by someone, because OIKOS PNEU. could be understood in apposition.
anyway.
Tim
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim McLay tmclay@atcon.com
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #100
*****************************
** 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