From: CEP7@aol.com
Date: Thu Dec 16 1999 - 11:03:27 EST
In a message dated 12/16/1999 8:39:44 AM, cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu writes:
<< In sum I DO think there's a condition here with a protasis (the EI GE ...
clause) and an apodosis (the NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN clause); the efficacy
of the action described by APOKATHLLAXEN is dependent upon persistent
effort on the part of those addressed to withstand the challenges yet
facing them. To be sure, it's not a full-scale generalizing or future-more
vivid condition employing EAN GE with a subjunctive in the protasis;
nevertheless the two clauses are related, and I for one don't think we can
read the EI GE as causal. While I might be willing to concede that to a
simple EI + indicative (particularly an indicative in a past tense), I
think the suggested reading ignores the very strong limiting force of the
GE. >>
Why do you connect the EI GE clause to APOKATHLLAXEN rather than PARASTHSAI?
It seems to me that PARASTHSAI is the nearer verbal element and more natural
connection. Two other questions are involved here: What is the relation of
the protasis to the apodosis? Is it cause/effect or grounds/inference? and
should this conditional construction be viewed as biconditional (if and only
if).
As relates to the first question if the connection of EI GE is to
APOKATHLLAXEN, then this may involve a grounds/inference relationship. John
Baima (a member of this list) notes in his thesis "Making Valid Conclusions":
"The protasis can be examined, but the truth of the apodosis is not equally
determined. A true protasis, in this case, cannot cause the apodosis to be
true, but rather, it is evidence of its truth. What seems to be happening
here is that Paul is giving a test by which the truth or falsity of the
apodosis can be determined because the apodosis is not something which can be
measured empirically because of its past time and the nature of the event—it
is an inward experience.
If Paul intended to give a test by which the truth of the apodosis could be
known, then he would need "if and only if" rather than a simple "if." The
implication of understanding this verse as "if and only if" is that Paul
would be saying that a lack of continuing in the faith demonstrates that the
person did not have the past reconciliation described in the apodosis. The
fact that the apodosis is a past event indicates that the person would never
have been saved rather than that the person had the experience in the past
and somehow lost its benefits."
However, if the connection is to PARASTHSAI, then the relationship is
probably one of cause/effect because of the future orientation of the purpose
infinitive (the other reasons are mainly theological so I'll refrain from
discussing them). First Cor 15:2 also has similar issues.
Charles Powell
DTS
cep7@aol.com
--- 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 - 15:40:50 EDT