From: Alex / Ali (alexali@surf.net.au)
Date: Tue Dec 12 2000 - 09:07:10 EST
Steve Lo Vullo asked about Romans 3:8 and its diagramming and what might be
the ellipsis:
>Rom 3.8: KAI MH KAQWS BLASFHMOUMEQA KAI KAQWS FASIN TINES hHMAS LEGEIN hOTI
>POIHSWMEN TA KAKA hINA ELQHi TA AGAQA;
The MH suggests to me a question expecting a negative answer, along the
lines of "And it isn't the case, is it, as is slanderously said of us and as
some allege we say, 'Let us do evil in order that good may come'?"
The Grosvernor/Zerwick 'Grammatical Analysis ...' takes the MH as
interrogative, but reads the construction differently, as KAI MH ...
POIHSWMWEN, 'and then ... are we to do evil that good may come?' However,
I'm not convinced that it is correct to take MH POIHSWMEN closely as one
sense unit, if I understand G/Z correctly. When the Lord was asked about
paying taxes to Caesar, DWMEN H MH DWMEN; 'Should we give or should we not
give' (Mark 12:14), it's not the MH which is interrogative but the
subjunctive, and the MH doesn't have that expectation of a negative response
as it does at Romans 3:5 and as is, I think, required here. Moo says, "MH
will then be used because the verb POIHSOMEN is subjunctive (BDF 427#4), or
because, as in v.5, Paul's paraphrase of the opponent already anticipates
his answer." Others construe differently. Shedd summarises, "With MH
supply either LEGWMEN (Calvin), or POIHSWMEN (Luther, Bengel), or regard
hOTI as a recitative particle and construe MH with POIHSWMEN (Vulg.,
Erasmus, Beza)." (Shedd prefers the last, as being simplest.) But still
otherwise, Lightfoot wrote, "It is ... simpler to understand GENHTAI after
MH."
One of the fascinating things about your question, to my mind, Steve, is
that it focuses on a text that can be taken in different ways. Is there a
way you can allow for this in diagramming, or is there a danger that the
diagramming itself can preclude options that are live (as we've spoken on
BGreek often enough of the danger of specifying, say, the particular type of
genitive used in a given passage, as if exclusive of all others)?
(Obviously enough, I ask as a non-diagrammer!)
Best wishes,
Alex Hopkins (Melbourne, Australia)
PS I've not had time to do more than read postings lately, but was
interested in another of Steve's posts some days ago, regarding Rom 3.4
(KAQAPER GEGRAPTAI: hOPWS AN DIKAIWQHS EN TOIS LOGOIS SOU KAI NIKHSEIS
(v.l.-SHS) EN TWi KRINESQAI SE.); Carlton Winbery took EN TWi KRINESQAI SE
as "when you are judged." Carlton, the NIV translates this as "when you
judge", taking KRINESQAI as middle. Do you consider this a valid alternative
to reading it as a passive? [I'm aware, Steve, that this wasn't the point of
your post on Rom 3:4.]
---
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:44 EDT