From: Carlton Winbery (winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net)
Date: Thu Jan 11 1996 - 08:43:34 EST
I've now had time to fetch Ken's original post from my office and read it
with the text of the Apostolic Fathers in my hand.
> I'd like to ask some questions about the Didache*, which frequently reminds
>me of NT texts but of course the author feels the need to use
>hapax legomena words for vices every second word. I know it's not quite
>biblical Greek but parts are pretty close.
>1. In Didache III, there are several verses which include mhde .... mhde.
>such as "neither jealous nor contentious nor hot-tempered". These are
>typically preceded by an exhortation beginning with ou ginou.
In Dicache III the phrase is not OU GINOU but MN GINOU the second person
sing. imperative of GINOMAI. Vs. 2 "Do not become given to anger." Vs. 3
"Do not become a lustful person." Vs 4 "Do not become given to omens which
lead to idolatry." Vs. 5 "Do not become a liar." The phrases MHDE . . .
MHDE simply add further prohibitions in words that are often closely
related to the word in the first prohibition. It is a poetic way (even
preachy) covering all bases. For eg. in vs 2 the prohibition "Do not become
given to anger for anger leads to murder," is followed by the additional
prohibitions which can lead to murder, i.e., "nor jealousy nor envy nor
passion."
>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?).
By isqe I suppose you mean ISQI, the present imperative 2nd sing of EIMI.
There are times in the NT where GINOMAI is a synonym for EIMI. Here is
close and can be translated "Do not be . . ."
>2. In I:5, it reads (ina ti elabe kai eis ti. I don't think I've seen any
>thing like that before. I know how Lightfoot translated it but I'd appreciate
>other suggestions and how one would go about figuring out exaclty what this
>should mean. It doesn't seem to follow readily from what preceded it. It
>seems odd to have interrogative pronouns/particles in the middle of a hina
>clause.
See earlier post.
>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.
DIGLWSSIA is the subject and PAGIS is the predicate nominative. The
article does indicate that. The previous post was concerning whether the
fact that QEOS without the article refered to God or should be translated
divine. There was never any doubt that hO LOGOS was the subject.
>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?
PAS in the singular with a singular noun does mean any man when used the
negative. "You shall not hate any person."
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:36 EDT