From: Carlton Winbery (winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net)
Date: Thu Jan 25 1996 - 16:13:19 EST
>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, . . . .")
>
>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?
The accented TIS/TI can function as a relative clause. Punctuated as it is
in the UBS text the relative clause serves as the object of the verb. "I
cannot tell what I shall (should) choose." It is a form of indirect
question.
>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)?
The hINA clause is probably used here as a form of indirect command
following verbs of command. eg. Mt.16:20 "He rebuked the disciples that
they should tell no one."
>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?
In the first instance of hEKASTOS there is a textual problem. There are
weighty witnesses on the side of the singular, but internal evidence for me
would indicate that Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and some others may be right.
A scribe would much more likely change the singular to the plural. Then we
have a solecism with the singular used with the plural verb. There is some
evidence that the second instance is also singular, but the Vaticanus and
Alexandrinus are on the other side there. This greatly weakens the
evidence. Likely then the two instances of the pronoun in the nominative
give emphasis to the command to the negative command.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:36 EDT