From: Mark Wilson (emory2002@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 04 2000 - 23:52:23 EDT
<x-flowed>
Carl wrote:
The truth is
>rather that -QH- forms serve in the aorist exactly the same function as
>MAI/SAI/TAI KTL. and MHN/SO/TO KTL. serve in the other "tenses"--which is
>to say, aorists in -QH- tend to be reflexive or intransitive, depending on
>whether or not there is some clear indicator that the subject is being
>acted upon by an external agent or force.
-----------
Here is the passage:
1 Cor. 7:10b and 11:
GUNAIKA APO ANDROS MH CWRISQHNAI
EAN DE KAI CWRISQHi
MENETW AGAMOS H TWi ANDRI KATALLAGHTW
KAI ANDRA GUNAIKA MH AFIENAI
In 10b, I can not seem to even "force" a passive sense to this prohibition;
it seems Active or Reflexive. However, 11a seems
to slightly indicate a contrast (DE) from what is said in 10b.
Can one give 10b a Reflexive force, and give 11a a Passive sense, yielding
something like:
A wife [is] not to separate herself from her husband.
But, and if, she has been separated from (by her husband)
Is this at least a possibility?
Carl also said:
>If I say, "John and his wife are getting separated", is the verb in this
>instance passive? No--unless what's being emphasized is the action
>performed by a court, which may be the case in a particular context, but
>normally it means that the couple in question are taking steps to dissolve
>their marriage: in Greek the "voice" involved would be middle, I >think.
---------
As this is worded, I almost get the sense that this particular divorce
situation involves mutual consent or agreement.
However, what I am trying to determine is whether or not in 1 Cor 7:11 the
wife is "abandoned." In other words, I am wondering if it is possible that
Paul prohibits a wife from divorcing in 10. And then addresses what her
responsibility is if she is "abandoned."
It seems odd for Paul to prohibit a wife from divorcing her husband, and
then immediately advise her what to do if she does.
Another question:
What would be the main reason a Passive sense should be rejected in 1 Cor
7:11?
May I also ask:
If one were to presume that CWRIZW and AFIHMI are not simply stylistic
variations, what would be a possible reason for using these two different
words?
And my final question (in this post) :o )
Why the switch from Aorist Passive MH CWRISQHNAI for the wives to the
parallel prohibition to the husbands with the Present Active MH AFIENAI?
Thank you,
Mark Wilson
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
</x-flowed>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:33 EDT