From: richard smith (rbsads@aol.com)
Date: Sun Apr 07 2002 - 22:00:23 EDT
KAI ESTAQHSAN SKUQRWPOI. (18)APOKRIQEIS DE hEIS ONOMATI KLEOPAS EIPEN PROS
AUTON, SU MONOS PAROIKEIS IEROUSALHM KAI OUK EGNWS TA GENOMENA EN AUTHi EN
TAIS hHMERAIS TAUTAIS;
There are 3 questions in this post.
1. I realize that there has recently been a question about ISTHMI, but
please consider this as continuing the thread.
My understanding with ISTHMI as an intransitive verb the aorist and future
can mean "stand still, stop." In the perfect and pluperfect, the
intransitive sense is intensive, "have stood" with the emphasis on the
present result of now standing.
How does the passive voice effect the meaning of the verb. The
translations seem to render the verse as "they stood still," which I
understand as intransitive.
Can there be an intransitive passive voice? Might the sense of the verse
be that the stranger's question caused them to stand still?
2. Another question is how to understand the adjective SKUQRWPOI? Is this
considered attributive or predicative? How can it be understood in
relation to the embedded subject?
3. A final question with regard to these verses is how to understand the
whole of verse 18.
The NIV, RSV and NRSV have an almost sarcastic rendering. "Are you the
only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken
place there in these days?"
This reading seems to be rather loose with the Greek. Daniel Wallace in
his grammar, pg 322, gives a similar reading, although he stays closer to
the Greek. But the logic of the sentence does not make sense to me.
"Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem and yet you do not know the
things that have happened in it?"
The KJV seems to me to make the best of the Greek, but the rendering gives
a sense different from these more modern translations. "Art thou only a
stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to
pass there in these days?"
My attempts to translate have tended to the KJV, simply because I cannot
make sense of the implication that the two would think that all strangers
but this one would know of the events in Jerusalem.
But in my attempts I seem to generally treat MONOS as an adverb or
PAROIKEIS as a participle.
My best effort is "Are you living in Jerusalem alone as a stranger, and do
not know of the things which happend in her during these days?"
Is the sense of the verse that the two could not believe that even a
person whom they recognized as a stranger did not know of the crucifixion
or that the two believed the person they met must be a stranger because he
did not know of the crucifixion?
Thanks,
Richard Smith
Chattanoga, TN
---
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 - 15:37:23 EDT