From: Mary L B Pendergraft (pender@wfu.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 24 1997 - 07:00:04 EST
I'm writing not to correct Rev. Craig, but to suggest a slightly different
way of understanding TRIXWN
XRUSIWN ,hIMATIWN: I might call them objective genitives, because they
represent the objects of the verbal notion in the nouns EMPLOKHS
PERIQESEWS ENDUSEWS. That is, what do you plait? Hair. and so on.
Perhaps the negative is OU and not MH because it's thought of not as
negating the verb, but the kind of KOSMOS that is next described, and
stands in contrast to the the hidden KOSMOS of v. 4, made parallel by ALL':
"let them have not external ornament but hidden...."
With every good Christmas wish,
Mary
At 09:07 PM 12/23/97 EST, Revcraigh wrote:
>
>In a message dated 12/20/97 7:47:30 PM, you wrote:
>
>>I'm a little cloudy on the uses of the genitive cases in 1 Peter 3:3.
>>Could they be drawn by attraction to WN or is there something else I
>>need to consider?
>>
>>
>>WN ESTW OUX O ECWQEN EMPLOKHS TRIXWN KAI PERIQESEWS XRUSIWN H ENDUSEWS
>>IMATIWN KOSMOS
>>
>>Respectfully,
>>
>>Kevin Mullins
>
>I haven't seen any replies to your post, Kevin, so I'll give it a try. If
I go
>astray someone will point out my error in a future post, but it would be a
>shame to ignore your question altogether as it is a perfectly proper question
>for our list. Here goes.
>
>I believe these genitives (EMPLOKHS, PERIQESEWS, and ENDUSEWS) are genitives
>of content or apposition describing those things of which a woman's adornment
>ought not to consist.
>
>Let me take the elements out of their Greek order and put them into English
>order:
>
>The relative WN (= whose or of whom), a possessive genitive, relates back to
>TWN GUNAIWN of verse 2.
>
>The subject here is hO KOSMOS, in the old sense of the adornment (whence we
>get our word "cosmetic").
>
>ESTW is the present imparative 3rd pers. sing. (which has no exact
parallel in
>English) which I approximate as (it's attrocious English but gives the
>imparative sense) "be it". This command is negatived by OUX, as opposed to MH
>which one normally expects to find with imparatives. (BTW, can anyone explain
>why?)
>
>ECWQEN is an adv. stating that women's adornment ought not to be of the
>outward kind.
>
>Next we take the genitives of which you ask: EMPLOKHS TRIXWN KAI PERIQESEWS
>XRUSIWN H ENDUSEWS hIMATIWN. As I say, I see these as appositive genitives or
>genitives of content (see Blass, Debrunner, Funk section 167, p. 92 for an
>explanation).
>
>In other words Peter says that a woman's adornment should not be outward
>[consisting] of braiding of hair and of decorations of gold or of putting on
>of clothing.
>
>Hope this helps and have a blessed holiday.
>Rev. Craig R. Harmon.
>
>
Mary Pendergraft
Associate Professor of Classical Languages
Wake Forest University
Winston-Salem NC 27109 910-759-5331 pender@wfu.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:41 EDT