From: Manolis Nikolaou (aei_didaskomenos@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 17 2002 - 09:47:42 EDT
> At 8:08 AM -0400 4/17/02, Manolis Nikolaou wrote:
> >> At 10:53 AM +0000 4/17/02, Jack Stewart wrote:
> >> >Dear All,
> >> >
> >> >We read in Eph. 5:5:
> >> >
> >> >TOUTO GAR ISTE GINWSKONTES -
> >> >
> >> >I am unfamiliar with this construction - having a perfect imperative
> >> >followed by a present participle. I suppose literally it is something like
> >> >"Know this knowing...etc." i.e.: meaning "Certainly know this...etc. Is
> >> >this right? Does this construction have a particular grammatical
> >> >designation?
> >>
> >> While ISTE could be an imperative, it could just as well be (and I think it
> >> is) an indicative. That ISTE is perfect tense is not really problematic,
> >> because this verb (actually the same as EIDON, aorist) has the sense "know"
> >> only in the perfect (just as hESTHKA has the sense "be standing" only in
> >> the perfect).
> >>
> >> The grammatical construction here is the use of the participle in
> >> conjunction with verbs of perception (OIDA is indeed a verb of perception
> >> as the perfect of EIDON) for indirect discourse, whereas indirect discourse
> >> more normally takes an infinitive when the verb is of speaking.
> >>
> >> So the phrase means: "For you know that you know this ..." or, if one does
> >> read ISTE as imperative rather than indicative, "For know (you/ye) that you
> >> know this ..."
>
> >Semantically speaking: don't you think that the Byzantine version
> >TOUTO GAR *ESTE* GINWSKONTES (instead of *ISTE* GINWSKONTES) seems to make
> >more sense in this case?
>
> Not really, and evidently the committee producing the critical text didn't
> even deem it worth noting in the apparatus. One might as well write
> GINWSKETE: one could interpret it too as either imperative or indicative!
> And I don't think there's really anything exceptionable about ISTE
> GINWSKONTES.
> --
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
> Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
> cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad@ioa.com
> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Since GINWSKETE could have been, as you've mentioned, interpreted either
as imperative or indicative, I wonder if an imperative like ESTE
GINWSKONTES could have been Paul's way to prevent exactly that kind of
confusion. Anyway, since such imperative forms seem to occur elsewhere as
well,
[…ISQI EUNOWN TWi ANTIDIKWi SOU… (Matthew 5:25)
…ISQI EXOUSIA ECWN… (Luke 19:17)]
,I can't really see why the version ESTE GINWSKONTES should be considered
less possible than ISTE GINWSKONTES in this case.
Regards,
Manolis Nikolaou
Greece
---
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 - 15:37:24 EDT