From: Steven R. Lo Vullo (doulos@chorus.net)
Date: Tue Dec 12 2000 - 11:03:42 EST
On 12/12/00 8:07 AM, Alex / Ali wrote:
> 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.
This seems to "run over" hOTI. If I properly understand the rest of the
structure of this sentence, the hOTI clause seems to demand a verb of
perception, probably speech, to which it is the direct object. POIHSWMEN is
itself the verb in the direct discourse. It can't be negated by MH, for that
would produce the opposite of what is intended. I don't have G/Z, but I'm
not sure from the above information if that is what was in mind.
> 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.
Actually, I think the above passage brings us closer to what we are looking
for. The above subjunctives are deliberative, which I think is what is
called for in Rom 3.8. The reason I think that a subjunctive is needed is
that MH in this case seems to need a mood other than the indicative to go
with. It may be used with the indicative in a question expecting a negative
answer, but I don't think that's exactly what is called for here, although
when all is said and done it is a rhetorical question that is in view. If we
used the indicative we would have something like "And we do not say, 'Let us
do evil that good may come,' do we?" The reason I think this misses the mark
is that in the context Paul is introducing arguments in question form from
the perspective of an opponent and then dismissing them (vv. 3-4, 5-6). It
seems probable, then, that the questions in vv. 7-8 are those expected of a
critic as well. So the indicative seems to be out, since the critic *does*
propose saying "Let us do evil that good may come." But since MH is the
negative used with moods other than indicative, a subjunctive fits well,
especially since it can be used deliberatively in a rhetorical question,
"Should we not..."
> Moo says, "MH will then be used because the verb POIHSOMEN is subjunctive (BDF
> 427#4)
I may be missing something, but, as I said above, I don't see how MH can be
taken to modify POIHSWMEN.
> Others construe differently. Shedd summarises, "With MH supply either LEGWMEN
> (Calvin),
This is exactly the conclusion I came to last night. Supplying the
subjunctive verb LEGWMEN fits MH, supplies a fitting verb for the direct
discourse of the hOTI clause, and asks a rhetorical question. (The
punctuation of UBS 4/NA27 recognizes that a question is in view here. Just
thought I would throw that in.) It is also easy to infer LEGWMEN here from
LEGEIN in the following parenthetical comparative clause, i.e., "why not say
... (as some say that we say)." I think that one further twist may be
needed, though, as hinted at above. Paul has just asked a "why" question in
v. 7 using the interrogative pronoun TI adverbially. Perhaps (and it seems
natural) part of the reason for the ellipsis of v. 8 is that the "why" (TI)
of v. 7 is implied also in v. 8. The KAI at the beginning of v. 8 makes such
a connection felicitous as well. In this case the elliptical TI is implied
by the question in v. 7 and the elliptical LEGWMEN is implied from the
following LEGEIN, which was spoken in the same breath. In this case vv. 7-8
could be roughly translated as follows: "But if the truthfulness of God
abounds to his glory through my falsehood, why am I stilled condemned as a
sinner? And why not say (as we are slandered and some affirm that we say)
'Let us do evil, that good may come'? Their condemnation is just!" If anyone
has any comments on this, please let me know.
> 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!)
Usually, if there is more than one way to understand the grammar or syntax
(that I am aware of), I will either note it by an alternate parallel diagram
in the same file (in Accordance) or, if it is major, I will have an
alternate file or files covering the passage. Yes, there is a danger that
diagramming can preclude live options if you are not careful, since cohesion
is one of the desired results. But I think that the benefits outweigh the
pitfalls. Diagramming forces one to deal with questions of grammar and
syntax that are sometimes easily overlooked, and which can color one's
interpretation of the text.
Steve
---
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