From: Randy LEEDY (Rleedy@bju.edu)
Date: Thu Sep 17 1998 - 14:40:27 EDT
Let me float another question about 2 Cor. In 2:6-7 Paul writes: hIKANON TWi TOIOUTWi hH EPITIMIA hAUTH . . . hWSTE TOUNANTION MALLON hUMAS CARISASQAI KAI PARAKALESAI . . . .
The half-dozen or so translations I've consulted all supply "is" as the copula in v. 6, then supply "ought" or something to that effect in rendering the infinitives in v. 7. This handling of the infinitives after hWSTE doesn't seem very natural to me. What seems a little better is to supply an imperative as the copula: "Let this punishment be sufficient...so that you forgive and comfort." Then the sense of obligation carries over to the infinitives from the imperatival nature of the main clause. Turner and Blass-DeBrunner indicate that the ellipsis of ESTW is rare, but Robertson seems to make more allowance for it, though he doesn't cite specific passages. Can anyone cite further exx. either of the ellipsis of ESTW or of the infinitive used to express obligation without any sort of helping verb such as DEI or OFEILW? I do know about the imperatival infinitive, but it seems strange to think of it as being introduced by hWSTE.
Thanks.
By the way, I'll be a little slow responding to any answers. I get only the digest, and my mornings are full of teaching duties on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
****************************
In love to God and neighbor,
Randy Leedy
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC
RLeedy@bju.edu
****************************
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:01 EDT