From: JŸrg Buchegger (j.buchegger@datacomm.ch)
Date: Tue Dec 22 1998 - 08:49:59 EST
Hi B-Greekers,
I'm currently working (as a NT-exegete) on Rom 12:1-2 and need some input
from "real" philologians concerning my observations. This is to say, I am
especially interested in what you have to say on the formal, grammtical and
syntactical side of my questions (of course none of them is just a question
of grammar or syntax). So here are my 6 questions:
1. What can be said about the function of the KAI in Rom 12:2, connecting
V.1 and V.2. As far as I know, on the grammatical level there are the two
main options: a) either KAI is a normal conjunction or b) the beginning of a
new sentence (hebr. -waw). - A Conjunction is more likely. So what then is
the relationship between the two propositions in the two verses? The options
are:
- neutral, gleichwertig nebeneinander, parallel, ergŠnzend
- explanatory, erklŠrend
- folgernd, concluding??
My main question with this is: Is there any hint on the gramm.-syntact.
level to decide the two parts of this question, or is it definitely a
decision which is made only on "inhaltlichen" (content?) grounds?
2. What about the unusual continuing of the PARAKALW+Infinitive phrase (in
V.1) with the Imperatives in V.2? - Is it correct to say, that one would
expect Infinitves in V.2? What would you call this anomaly? A "oratio
variata" (Winer p.509f)?
3. V.2 has two imperative passive verbs (formally they could be medium too,
and NEV, NIV, NJB take the first as such). - In my opinion, the second verb
is unquestionably a passive. Are there hints on the formal level of language
to decide medium/passive? - And: What does an Imperative passive want to
say, means how much can I make a point on the theological level out of the
fact that here we have an imperative and at the same time this is a passive?
Anyone have a hint to a good treatment of this form of a verb (imp pass)?
4. And: What does a philologian say about pauline neologisms? Are there any?
I'm aware of the statistical problem and the question of the innovative
force of Christianity. Again my interest here is in contributions from the
perspective of the Greek language. My research so far showed, that
ANAKAINOW/WSIS (V.2) seems definitly to be such a pauline neologism. What
can one say about the appearing of new words in Greek (I have read some
general remarks on the invention of new words especially in the time of
Koine through the encounter with other cultures and parts and countries of
the world (broadening of the physical horizon brings broadening of the
Wortschatz?) Are there other explanations? Literature about this? Is there a
specialist in the history and development of the Greek language (or another
comparable language) out there?
5. If ANAKAINWSIS is a word Paul coined (see question 4), what would you say
about the preposition ANA-? Would it be too much to follow the reasoning
that ANA- was chosen because Paul thinks the renewing brings something back
that was lost earlier (of course this goes into theological questions)? What
can be said about the renewing, given the fact that Paul constructed the new
word with ANA-?
6. And finally: The verb + dative + genitive in V.2 (METAMORPHOUSTHE TH
ANAKAINWSEI TOU NOOS) makes me to stop and think intensely about who is
doing what through what and where? How to interpret that? Again, from the
perspective of grammar and syntax first.
I guess this are enough questions for the moment. I'm looking forward to
your suggestions and help (they may be in German too :-); I'm sorry I had to
mix english and German at some points).
Juerg Buchegger, Bern, Switzerland
--- 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 - 15:40:11 EDT