From: Iver Larsen (iver_larsen@sil.org)
Date: Fri Jan 11 2002 - 05:04:13 EST
Dear Carl,
This is an interesting discussion to me, and I am learning from our
different backgrounds, assumptions and traditions. Yes, it may be a can of
worms, but those cans are important for us translators, because that is the
time we need to make hard decisions, especially if we cannot put a long
essay in a footnote.
It seems to me that you are saying that hOSTIS normally gets its gender and
number from a preceding noun that is its antecedent, but in a few cases you
claim it takes its gender and number from a following noun. If I understand
you correctly you are saying that this happens when the pronoun refers to
the idea behind the words rather than a particular word in itself. I am not
quite ready to accept this, because I cannot see that this claim is well
founded. It is interesting that these situations are the ones where one
would expect a neuter form of the pronoun.
Since the relative indefinite pronoun is a close brother to the ordinary
relative pronoun, one would also expect that they behave in similar ways in
this respect. For the ordinary relative, I am quite ready to accept that the
neuter pronoun is ambiguous. Sometimes it refers to a neuter antecedent
noun, but very often it refers to a whole sentence or general concept. I
assume that hO/ TI has a similar function in older Greek, but as you say
this form does not occur in the GNT. I find it hard to accept that one can
just ignore a hHTIS and analyse the text as if there had been a hO/ TI. On
the other hand, hO/ TI is awkward because of the many other hOTI's. It must
be confusing to the reader to separate those. An alternative would be to use
the plural hATINA instead.
One of the blessings of modern technology is that it facilitates systematic
research on the Greek text. To do a thorough research on this can of worms,
I would need more time than I have right now. But in order to make the
research do-able in a short time, I looked at all the occurrences of hOSTIS
in the GNT followed within 3 words by a form of EIMI. Discarding one
instance of hEWS hOTOU there were 28 such instances. (I also had a brief
look at the 81 instances of the ordinary relative pronoun in nominative
followed by a form of EIMI within 3 words.)
Then I did a little test. If hOSTIS is anaphoric then it should be possible
to substitute the form of hOSTIS with a demonstrative and a noun, where the
noun is derived from the previous context and with the same number and
gender as the specific form of hOSTIS. (The same test should be applicable
for the ordinary pronoun.)
To give an example, the first instance was Matt 27:62
THi DE EPAURION, hHTIS ESTIN META TNH PARASKEUHN
Instead of hHTIS I substitute "this day" to get: On the following day - this
day is after the preparation-day.
Doing the same for all these 28 instances I had no problem coming up with
such nouns in all undisputed cases.
There were 11 instances of hHTIS all with a singular feminine noun, such as
day, joy, woman, country, leaven, city, covenant, Jerusalem(city),
commandment, covetousness, life.
There was 1 instance of hAITINES with a plural feminine noun: women.
There were 2 instances of hOSTIS with a singular masculine noun: man/person.
There were 5 instances of hOITINES with a plural masculine noun: people
There were 2 instances of hATINA with a plural neuter noun: these works
(ERGA), these commandments (ENTALMATA)
There were 2 instances of hATINA where the antecedent seemed to be more
diffuse covering several related concepts, so that I would need to
substitute with: these things (Gal 4:24 and Phil 3:7)
I am mentioning one instance separately here because it is a clear case
where hOSTIS does not correspond to its predicate noun:
Eph 1:23 ...THi EKKLHSIAi, hHTIS ESTIN TO SWMA AUTOU - this church is his
body
This leaves the four instances which I call disputed: 1 Cor 3:17, Eph 3:13,
Phil 1:28, 1 Tim 3:15. Now, if the same principle can apply to these, that
would be my preference. And I not yet convinced that this is not the better
analysis.
For 1 Cor 3:17 which has hOITINES I can substitute with "these people" or
"such people", referring to the people who constitute NAOS QEOU.
For Eph 3:13 which has hHTIS, I can substitute "this affliction" (The idea
probably is that you should feel honoured that we are willing to suffer for
you).
For Phil 1:28 which has hHTIS, I can substitute "this faith" and make very
good sense of it - see below.
For 1 Tim 3:15 which has hHTIS, I can substitute "this church" referring to
those who constitute OIKOS QEOU.
Finally, let me comment a bit on your latest response:
> >Eph 3:13 DIO AITOUMAI MH EGKAKEIN EN TAIS QLIYESIN MOU hUPER hUMWN, hHTIS
> >ESTIN DOXA hUMWN
On this I said:
> >Although the antecedent is plural, hHTIS is singular, because
> the thought is on the singular concept QLIYIS, and maybe anticipating the
> singular DOXA.
You commented:
> I would understand this differently, Iver: (a) hHTIS is feminine NOT with
> reference to the preceding QLIYESIN but solely by attraction to
> the number, gender, and case of DOXA; and (b) the antecedent of the hHTIS
is really MH
> EGKAKEIN. A glance at NET's version and note on this passage is superbly
> illustrative of the complexity of this syntactical issue we're wrestling
> with:
I can see your claim, but I find it hard to accept that the antecedent of
hHTIS could be MH EGKAKEIN. NRSV translates hHTIS as "they" obviously
referring to sufferings. TEV has: "I beg you, then, not to be discouraged
because I am suffering for you; it is all for your benefit." NLT has: "So
please don't despair because of what they are doing to me here. It is for
you that I am suffering, so you should feel honored and encouraged."
From NET:
> 3:13 For this reason I ask you31 not to lose heart because of what I am
> suffering for you,32 which33 is your glory.34
>
> 33sn Which. The antecedent (i.e., the word or concept to which this clause
> refers back) may be either "what I am suffering for you" or the larger
> concept of the recipients not losing heart over Paul's suffering for them.
> The relative pronoun "which" is attracted to the predicate nominative
> "glory" in its gender and number (feminine singular), making the
> antecedent ambiguous. Paul's suffering for them could be viewed as their
glory (cf.
> Col 1:24 for a parallel) in that his suffering has brought about their
> salvation, but if so his suffering must be viewed as more than his present
> imprisonment in Rome; it would be a general description of his ministry
> overall (cf. 2 Cor 11:23-27).
The idea of general suffering would support the singular "this suffering"
indicating not only the particular troubles in Rome, but affliction in
general.
> The other option is that Paul is implicitly
> arguing that the believers have continued to have courage in the midst of
> his trials (as not to lose heart suggests) and that this is their glory.
> Philippians 1:27-28 offers an interesting parallel: the believers' courage
> in the face of adversity is a sign of their salvation.
Paul is not arguing anything here. He is praying or asking them not to
despair because he had to endure sufferings for them, or rather for
preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. They should feel honoured and
encouraged. This second option is in my opinion less plausible both for
grammatical and contextual reasons.
Carl:
> As for the problem with the relative pronoun referring to the
> whole clause, isn't that precisely the case in Eph 6:2?
No, I wouldn't say so. In Eph 6:2 we don't have just any clause, we have a
specific and well known commandment which is easily recognized as ENTOLH.
<snip>
Carl:
> ...what we have in Phil 1:28
> is not so much the doctrine promoted and defended by the Philippian
> congregation that is the ENDEIXIS AUTOIS APWLEIAS but rather their solid
> and unshakable resistance to all efforts of their adversaries to undermine
> their committed community that is the unmistakable indication to the
> opponents that they are on the losing side, on the side of LOSS, in fact.
Your comment helps me to see why you interpret this verse differently. You
seem to think of APWLEIA as being on the losing side in a social conflict. I
think of it as opposite to spiritual, eternal salvation.
>
> In my opinion, Iver, you are excessively "hung up" over the fact
> that hHTIS is feminine; for my part, on the other hand (1) PISTEI seems
> pretty far, as an antecedent, removed from hHTIS, while (2) I don't
understand how the
> DOCTRINE espoused by the Philippians can itself ENDEIXAI to the opponents
> their own APWLEIAN: do they really know and understand that doctrine so
> that they can recognize it as an ENDEIXIS AUTOIS THS APWLEIAS?
Well, I don't think I am excessively hung up. I am challenging a traditional
grammatical claim about Greek grammar which I think is questionable.
Your point (1) I have tried to address by showing that in several other
instances, one has to go far back to find the antecedent. It is not so much
a matter of counting words, but looking at the structure. In the last part
of Phil 1:27 the main verbal idea is "contending for the faith of the
gospel", and this is followed by a side comment about how they were
contending for the faith without being intimidated by their opponents. Even
with this comment, the focus is still on contending for the faith.
Why should they fight for the faith? Because the gospel comes from God -
TOUTO APO QEOU - and it talks about salvation for those who believe - hUMWN
DE SWTHRIA - and destruction for those who disbelieve - AUTOIS ENDEIXIS
APWLEIAS. The two ideas of destruction and salvation are clearly contrasted
as to who are the recipients. I understand Paul to be saying that two things
are clear to the opponents (1) their own coming destruction and (2) your
salvation.
As for your point (2) I think the way Paul and the Philippians preached the
Gospel, it would be very foundational that only those who believe are saved
and others are headed for destruction. If they did not make that clear to
their opponents, they would not have preached the gospel. This was no deep
or obscure part of the gospel in those days, even though it may not be part
of the gospel that some people preach today.
Sometimes it is not easy to separate grammatical analysis from lexical
analysis, which quickly leads into theology, so I need to stop here lest I
open more cans of worms. (The "which" refers to lexical analysis, not the
whole clause.)
Iver Larsen
---
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 - 15:37:15 EDT