From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 25 1996 - 10:58:31 EST
On 1/25/96, perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:
> Hello, all. We raised a couple of questions in a Ph.D. seminar on Philippians
> yesterday, and have not yet been able to answer them. So I thought I'd toss
> them out to the group.
>
> 1.) In 1.22, the apodisis reads: KAI TI hAIRJSOMAI OU GNWRIZW. BDF sect 368
> suggests that this is *not* an example of the future indicative used in a
> deliberative sense, because a question mark should be inserted after
> hAIRJSOMAI. I find this puzzling.
>
> First, doesn't putting a question mark after hAIRJSOMAI make this a
> deliberative future (i.e., "What shall I do? I don't know--I'm torn between
> the two, . . . .")
(a) It's "What shall I _choose_?" Won't this be a simple question in the
future tense, like the sentence I'm writing? (Of course, the TI' here
really means "which of the two," I think. But a deliberative formulation
would rather be "Shall I choose something?"
(b) On the other hand, without the question-mark, it really ought to be
understood as an indirect question with the TI ... hAIRHSOMAI clause
functioning as the object of GNWRIZW.
> Second, if one reads this as a statement instead of a question (i.e., "I don't
> know what I shall do. I'm torn . . .")--which is how it's punctuated in the
> NA26/UBS text--then wouldn't one expect an infinitive instead of a finite
> future verb?
No, for the reason stated above in (b): it's an indirect question. English
may say, "I don't know what to do"--but Greek doesn't (not even MODERN
Greek, which uses a conjugated subjunctive for an infinitive!).
> 2.) What is the function of hINA in 2.2? BAGD notes that hINA is sometimes
> used in constructions to carry out the force of an imperative, and cites Eph
> 5.33. Is the same thing going on here (Ph 2.2)?
Yes, I think that's right. This is one of the expanding functions of the
hINA + subjunctive construction in Hellenistic Greek; it is on the way to
the modern Greek all-purpose subordinate consecutive construction.
> 3.) What are the ins and outs of punctuating hEKASTOI in Ph 2.4? With the
> singular hEKASTOS earlier in the verse connected to a plural participle, the
> plural hEKASTOI at the end of the verse seems problematic. Does this
>influence
> the decision one makes re. punctuation, and whether hEKASTOI belongs with 2.4
> or 2.5?
>
> Then again, doesn't hEKASTOI seem kind of solecistic in and of itself?
You must think of hEKASTOS as a distributive predicative adjective here
with a sense equivalent to "individual(ly)." It makes sense to me to have
the singular with TA hEAUTOU because the selfish individual is concerned
with his own personal interests--and then to have the plural with KAI TA
hETERWN because all those addressed are--severally--to consider the
concerns of the others. As for the punctuation, I would think that hEKASTOI
is far less likely to begin a major new clause; I would think it more
likely placed, if at all in vs. 5, after EN hUMIN.
> "Puzzled in Peoria"
>
> Grace amd peace,
~~~
I see what you mean. But somehow I think St. Louis is closer to Peoria that
Baylor.
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:36 EDT