From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 16 1999 - 12:48:11 EST
<x-charset iso-8859-1>At 11:03 AM -0500 12/16/99, CEP7@aol.com wrote:
>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).
I'll agree readily enough to the possibility of construing the EI GE clause
primarily with PARASTHSAI but that raises the further question of how
PARASTHSAI relates to APOKATHLLAXEN; while I wouldn't want to be dogmatic
about this, my inclination would be to understand PARASTHSAI as a purpose
infinitive dependent upon APOKATHLLAXEN, one that would normally be
introduced with a hWSTE or as an articular infinitive with EIS TO ... or a
TOU ... . My own inclination,however, would still be to understand the EI
GE CLAUSE as dependent upon APOKATHLLAXEN.
>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 eventóit
>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.
I said previously that this is certainly different from a tight conditional
construction with an EAN (GE) + subjunctive protasis, where I would
understand it to mean "if and only if"--but the EI GE clause seems to be
attached not so much as a rigid condition upon which the APOKATHLLAXEN
attaches is dependent for its validity, but with almost colloquial force,
as if to say, "assuming, of course, that you stick with your basic
grounding and follow through in spite of the challenges you meet, etc.,
etc." If people want to hang all the distinctions between pure and impure
Calvinism and Arminianism on this, that's their business, but I really
think our author has a more practical pastoral concern for those he's
writing to--and Paul was always having to fight off those who wanted to
interpret his conception of salvation in terms of "money already in the
bank."
--Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics/Washington University One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018 Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649 cwconrad@artsci.wustl.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
</x-charset>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:50 EDT