[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #137
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 6 March 1996 Volume 01 : Number 137
In this issue:
Parsing
Re: QEMELIOS/-ON
Re: QEMELIOS/-ON
Re: Eph.4:19
Re: QEMELIOS/-ON
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Carlton L. Winbery" <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:36:06 -0600
Subject: Parsing
Dale M. Wheeler wrote on Feb 29;
>>Thanks Carlton and Carl. I hope you are having as much fun with these as I
am (no smiley face...I'm serious...which of course to a large number of
people means I'm very ill and in serious need of help, so you guys may not
want to admit that this is interesting and fun !!).<<
For those interested parsing problems, here are some problems I found in
the Vollstandige Konkordanz Band II, "Woerter und Formen." In the
Introduction, they indicate that they will distinguish forms that are the
same except for the accent. Otherwise they do not print accents (nor iota
subscripts either).
FANHi (under FAINW) plus FANHiS (Matt. 6:18). The first are found in Rom.
7:13, Rev. 8:12; 18:23. One that is clearly distinguished is the two
occurences of FANERWSEI in II Cor. 4:2 and I Cor. 4:5. One is a verb and
one a third declension noun.
Another that is interesting is to distinguish the forms of SWQHTE in John
5:34 and Acts 2:40 which the VKNT fail to do.
or the two instances of PERISSEUSAI in 2Cor. 9:8 and 1Ths. 3:12 (VKNT Band
II just list 2 occurences). In all these forms the addition of accents
helps.
The form PERIPATEI occurs 10 times in the NT. The VKNT Band II divides
them equally between the present indicative and present imperative (5 and
5). That can't possibly be right. How many belong in each form? They
occur in; Matt. 9:5, Mark 2:9, Luke 5:23, John 5:8, John 5:11, John 5:12,
Acts 3:6, Eph. 4:17, 1Pet. 5:8, and 1John 2:11.
Matt. 8:4 hO/RA Mark 1:44 hO/RA Hebr. 8:5 hO/RA Rev. 19:10 hO/RA Rev.
22:9 hO/RA Luke 16:23 hORAi=. In VKNT listed as hORA (3) hO/RA (3). (no
indication of I subscript in VKNT.)
LALEI in VKNT Band II LALEI= (19) LA/LEI (2), But count them in
Matt. 12:34, Mark 2:7, Mark 11:23, Luke 5:21, Luke 6:45, John 3:31,
John 3:34, John 7:26, John 8:44, John 16:18, Acts 18:9 (LA/LEI), Rom. 3:19,
1Cor. 14:2 (2), 1Cor. 14:3, 1Cor. 14:27, Titus 2:1 (LA/LEI), Titus 2:15
(LA/LEI), Hebr. 11:4, 1Pet. 4:11, Jude 16 All from UBS4.
Can you work out the instances of KRINW Luke 19:22, John 5:30, John 8:15,
John 8:16, John 12:47 (2), Acts 7:7, Acts 15:19. VKNT Band II shows KRI/NW
(6), KRINW= (2). Of the 6 KRI/NW, I would judge 2 to be subjunctive, but
which subj. pres. or aor.? Interestingly UBS1 & 2 treated Luke 19:22 as
pres. ind. while all editions of N-A (as far as I can tell including 26 &
27) treated it as future, hence VKNT Band II would be correct. UBS 3 & 4
agree with N-A26.
In VKNT the two forms of IAQHTE are not distinguished, but see James 5:16
IAQHTE (clause intro. by hOPWS), and 1Pet. 2:24 IAQHTE (quote from Is 53:5
(LXX hUMEIS IAQHMEN).
APOKRIQHTE (3) listed in VKNT. The instances are in Mark 11:29,
Mark 11:30, and Luke 22:68. Two are imperatives, one is subjunctive. The
accents in the UBS, N_A help.
This is what happens to people who try to write morphology books.
Carlton Winbery
Chair Religion/Philosophy
LA College,
Pineville,La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
fax (318) 442-4996 or (318) 487-7425
------------------------------
From: "Carlton L. Winbery" <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 14:35:58 +0400
Subject: Re: QEMELIOS/-ON
Dale Wheeler wrote;
>This raises one of the interesting problems of lexicography, namely at what
>point to substantival adjectives stopped being percieved by speakers as
>adjectives with an article on the front of them and are only percieved as
>nouns. The masc form goes back to Thucydides (5thBC) and the neuter form
>back to Aristotle (4thBC). BAGD's treatment seems to indicate that they
>believe that by the time of Koine speakers no longer thought of these as
>substantival adjectives, but as simple nouns. Moreover, BAGD seems
>unimpressed by the suggestion of BDF (#49.3) and Robertson (Gr., p. 263f.)
>that the neuter plural forms are a result of the fluctuation of gender; they
>seem to think we are simply dealing with two different nouns. I'm leaning
>towards the idea that Lukan usage is all neuter (cf., Acts 16:26), while
>everyone else uses the masc (cf., Paul - 2Tim 2:19; John - Rev 21:19; and
>Barnabas [my preference] - Heb 11:10; though some will obviously disagree on
>certain authorship selections...but that is really not the point here).
>
You are probably right about QEMELIOS/ON being thought of as a noun in the
Hellenistic period, but it seems (I still use the old Grimm/Wilke/Thayer
unabridged) that it resulted in two nouns, one neuter and one masculine and
both of the second declension which results in the same problem in the
accusative sing, dative, and genitive. I haven't checked to see what
individual writers prefer. Some writers seem to delight in using two forms
that have the same referent, like in I John 1:5 SKOTIA and 1:6 SKOTEI from
SKOTOS.
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
------------------------------
From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <dalemw@teleport.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 12:02:02 -0800
Subject: Re: QEMELIOS/-ON
Carlton L. Winbery wrote:
>QEMELIOS/ON is really an adjective of the 2nd declension. When it is used
>as a substantive in the acc sing. without the article or in the dative,
>there is no way to be sure if it is masculine or neuter. It is used both
>ways for the foundation of a building.
This raises one of the interesting problems of lexicography, namely at what
point to substantival adjectives stopped being percieved by speakers as
adjectives with an article on the front of them and are only percieved as
nouns. The masc form goes back to Thucydides (5thBC) and the neuter form
back to Aristotle (4thBC). BAGD's treatment seems to indicate that they
believe that by the time of Koine speakers no longer thought of these as
substantival adjectives, but as simple nouns. Moreover, BAGD seems
unimpressed by the suggestion of BDF (#49.3) and Robertson (Gr., p. 263f.)
that the neuter plural forms are a result of the fluctuation of gender; they
seem to think we are simply dealing with two different nouns. I'm leaning
towards the idea that Lukan usage is all neuter (cf., Acts 16:26), while
everyone else uses the masc (cf., Paul - 2Tim 2:19; John - Rev 21:19; and
Barnabas [my preference] - Heb 11:10; though some will obviously disagree on
certain authorship selections...but that is really not the point here).
***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com
***********************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "James H. Vellenga" <jhv0@viewlogic.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 96 16:22:01 EST
Subject: Re: Eph.4:19
Re: ERGASIAN AKAQARSIAS PASHS
- -------
>From Gary Shogren:
ERGASIAN I can see as a nice solid example of an
action noun, making AKATHARSIAS an objective (or perchance subjective)
genitive.
- -------
>From Carlton Winbery:
It is clear that AKAQARSIAS cannot be subjective genitive since those who
are practicing (ERGASIAN) uncleanness are the ones who have given
themselves over to wantonness. It is not the uncleanness that is doing it
but the people about whom Paul is speaking. The objective genitive would
be the object of the action implied by the noun (or noun substitute) which
the word in the genitive modifies. The subjective genitive on the other
hand would have to denote the agent of the action implied by the noun that
it modifies. Take ERGASIAN and make it into a verb. AKAQARSIAS could be
the object of such a verb but not the subject of it.
- -------
My own thoughts:
It seems to me that ERGASIA (in general) is not necessarily a noun of action.
Consider Acts 19.24 ("Demetrius ... was providing no little ERGASIAN to the
artisans") or Acts 16.19 ("her masters, seeing that the hope of their ERGASIAS
had gone ..."). In these contexts, ERGASIA seems to mean "business,"
"occupation," or "way of making a living."
This interpretation seems strengthened by the phrase "EN PLEONEXIAi" ("by means
of acquisitiveness") at the end of the sentence here in Eph 4.19.
So it seems more natural to me to interpret AKARQIAS as a descriptive genitive,
and to read the phrase as something like "handed themselves over by means of
acquisitiveness to the unbridled lust for a business [characterized by] impurity
of every [kind]."
Regards,
Jim V.
James H. Vellenga | jvellenga@viewlogic.com
Viewlogic Systems, Inc. __|__ 508-480-0881
293 Boston Post Road West | FAX: 508-480-0882
Marlboro, MA 01752-4615 |
http://www.viewlogic.com
------------------------------
From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <dalemw@teleport.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 12:49:47 -0800
Subject: Re: QEMELIOS/-ON
In the last post, in defense of the "pauline" usage, I forgot to mention the
masc article in 1Cor 3:12, and the subsequent subst. ptc. which refers back
to "foundation" TON KEIMENON in 1Cor 3:11.
***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com
***********************************************************************
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #137
*****************************
** 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