1 Corinthians 12:2

1 Cor 12:2 pwiles pwiles at mail.usyd.edu.au
Wed Sep 2 22:32:48 EDT 1998

 

A SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES CURROUNDING EGW EIMI IN JOHN 8:58 A SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES CURROUNDING EGW EIMI IN JOHN 8:58 HiI have a question re 1 Corinthians 12:2 specifically with reference tothe prepositional phrase proß ta ei¡dwla ta a¡fwna (I realisethat this verse is inherently difficult due to being an anacolouthon)Is it syntactically possible to see this phrase as adverbiallyqualifying h¡gesqe in the subordinate clause w*ß a·n h¡gesqe ie canit be syntactically part of a subordinate clause when it precedes theclause marker (w*ß a·n)?My resulting translation is:”You know that when you were Gentiles, when ever you were led to dumbidols, you (were) being led astay.”(I am assuming that there is an implied hôte so that the participle iseffectively a periphrastic imperfect )I would appreciate comment as to wheher this is an acceptabletranslation?Thanks in advancePerry Wiles————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19980903/335f2b7e/attachment.html

 

A SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES CURROUNDING EGW EIMI IN JOHN 8:58A SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES CURROUNDING EGW EIMI IN JOHN 8:58

1 Cor 12:2 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 3 06:38:22 EDT 1998

 

Sigma (was “Present tencccce copulative verbs”) Jesus Words: Aramaic or Greek? At 9:32 PM -0500 9/02/98, pwiles wrote:>Content-Type: text/html>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by extra.ucc.su.OZ.AU>id MAA14083> >Hi> >I have a question re 1 Corinthians 12:2 specifically with reference to>the prepositional phrase proß ta ei¡dwla ta a¡fwna (I realise that>this verse is inherently difficult due to being an anacolouthon)> >Is it syntactically possible to see this phrase as adverbially>qualifying h¡gesqe in the subordinate clause w*ß a·n h¡gesqe ie can it>be syntactically part of a subordinate clause when it precedes the clause>marker (w*ß a·n)?> >My resulting translation is:> >“You know that when you were Gentiles, when ever you were led to dumb>idols, you (were) being led astay.”>(I am assuming that there is an implied h™te so that the participle is>effectively a periphrastic imperfectI’d be more inclined to understand APAGOMENOI not as the participle of aperiphrastic imperfect but circumstantially with HGESQE AN.> >I would appreciate comment as to wheher this is an acceptable translation?I’m not sure that I’d call this an anacoluthon in the proper sense; itseems to me that the remarkable thing about it is the foreward-thrustingPROS TA EIDWLA TA AFWNA, which indeed should, I think, be construed withthe claus hWS AN HGESQE APAGOMENOI. But two points that seem to me missedin the version here: (1) the hWS is functioning to introduce the nounclause which functions as the object of OIDATE; and (2) the AN should, Ithink, be construed with HGESQE. In fact, this AN with HGESQE is the mostextraordinary thing about this clause: it seems to be used here to indicateiteration in what is, for practical purposes, a past general condition(although the older classical conditional construction uses an AN in theapodosis ONLY of contrary to fact or future less vivid conditions. I readthis as: “You know how (hWS) you used to be drawn in rapture (APAGOMENOI)toward speechless idols, when you were pagan.” I’ve always understood thisto mean that Paul is here endeavoring to (preparing to) draw a distinctionbetween pagan ecstatic religious experience and Christian ecstaticreligious experience, suggesting that in outward appearance they areperhaps not readily distinguishable.What’s awkward, it seems to me is the AN with HGESQE APAGOMENOI; it’s as ifthere’s a conflation here between two older constructions: (a) presentcontrary to fact (“If you were pagan, you would be drawn in rapture towardspeechless idols”) and past general (“when you were pagan, you used to bedrawn in rapture toward speechless idols”). But here we have theintroductory hOTE of a past general condition used in conjunction with AN +imperfect more characteristic of a future less vivid (should/would)condition.I really need to go back and check the NT grammars on AN in an apodosis;with loss of the optative from standard usage, there seems to be a changein the usage of AN.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 3949 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19980903/ea5f5431/attachment.bin

 

Sigma (was “Present tencccce copulative verbs”)Jesus Words: Aramaic or Greek?

1 Cor 12:2 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Thu Sep 3 12:45:06 EDT 1998

 

PSALLO A SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES SURROUNDING EGW EIMI IN JOHN 8:58 On Thu 3 Sep 98 (12:32:48 +1000), pwiles at mail.usyd.edu.au wrote:> I have a question re 1 Corinthians 12:2 specifically with reference to> the prepositional phrase proß ta ei¡dwla ta a¡fwna (I realise> that this verse is inherently difficult due to being an anacolouthon)> > Is it syntactically possible to see this phrase as adverbially> qualifying h¡gesqe in the subordinate clause w*ß a·n h¡gesqe ie can> it be syntactically part of a subordinate clause when it precedes the> clause marker (w*ß a·n)? Perry, Interesting. My GNT has OIDATE hOTI hOTE EQNH HTE PROS TA EIDWLA hWS AN HGESQE APAGOMENOI. The problem is over hOTI hOTE, and the participial predicate with APAGOMENOI. OIDA takes a participial predicate in 2 Corinthians 12:2, OIDA ANQRWPON EN CRISTOWi PRO ETWN DEKATESSARWN… hARPAGENTA TON TOIOUTON hEWS TRITOU OURANOU. In 1 Corinthians 12:2, the hOTI (particle of reported speech) is not strictly necessary; but an adverb or adverbial phrase of time seems necessary, and was inserted by Aleph, A B C and D. Koridethe and some cursives, and Origen’s Latin, have hOTE alone; the Greek (not Latin) of the Dresden G and the Byzantine Text Sigma have hOTI alone. Westcott & Hort plumped for hOTI hOTE because of the “Aleph + B” agreement against the Sigma Byzantine Text. There is a useful discussion in the older commentary by Principal TC Edwards, /A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians/, London, Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1885, page 305f. If you cannot find it in your library resources, I’ll copy it to you by private email. BM Metzger in his invaluable /A Textual Commentary on the GNT/ passes over it in silence. Translation? “We know [as opposed to what we don’t know, verse 1] that [hOTI] whilst [hOTE] you were Gentiles you were being continually led away captive [APAGOMENOI] after the dumb idols, in whatsoever way [hWS AN] you were seduced”. The Present Passive Participle APAGOMENOI is used, as often in Greek, for the “Historical Present”, where the English prefers a Past tense; “were being led away”. My A$0.02. ERRWSQE Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

 

PSALLOA SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES SURROUNDING EGW EIMI IN JOHN 8:58

1 Cor 12:2 pwiles pwiles at mail.usyd.edu.au
Wed Sep 2 22:32:48 EDT 1998

 

A SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES CURROUNDING EGW EIMI IN JOHN 8:58 A SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES CURROUNDING EGW EIMI IN JOHN 8:58 HiI have a question re 1 Corinthians 12:2 specifically with reference tothe prepositional phrase proß ta ei¡dwla ta a¡fwna (I realisethat this verse is inherently difficult due to being an anacolouthon)Is it syntactically possible to see this phrase as adverbiallyqualifying h¡gesqe in the subordinate clause w*ß a·n h¡gesqe ie canit be syntactically part of a subordinate clause when it precedes theclause marker (w*ß a·n)?My resulting translation is:”You know that when you were Gentiles, when ever you were led to dumbidols, you (were) being led astay.”(I am assuming that there is an implied hôte so that the participle iseffectively a periphrastic imperfect )I would appreciate comment as to wheher this is an acceptabletranslation?Thanks in advancePerry Wiles————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19980903/335f2b7e/attachment.html

 

A SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES CURROUNDING EGW EIMI IN JOHN 8:58A SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES CURROUNDING EGW EIMI IN JOHN 8:58

1 Cor 12:2 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 3 06:38:22 EDT 1998

 

Sigma (was “Present tencccce copulative verbs”) Jesus Words: Aramaic or Greek? At 9:32 PM -0500 9/02/98, pwiles wrote:>Content-Type: text/html>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by extra.ucc.su.OZ.AU>id MAA14083> >Hi> >I have a question re 1 Corinthians 12:2 specifically with reference to>the prepositional phrase proß ta ei¡dwla ta a¡fwna (I realise that>this verse is inherently difficult due to being an anacolouthon)> >Is it syntactically possible to see this phrase as adverbially>qualifying h¡gesqe in the subordinate clause w*ß a·n h¡gesqe ie can it>be syntactically part of a subordinate clause when it precedes the clause>marker (w*ß a·n)?> >My resulting translation is:> >“You know that when you were Gentiles, when ever you were led to dumb>idols, you (were) being led astay.”>(I am assuming that there is an implied h™te so that the participle is>effectively a periphrastic imperfectI’d be more inclined to understand APAGOMENOI not as the participle of aperiphrastic imperfect but circumstantially with HGESQE AN.> >I would appreciate comment as to wheher this is an acceptable translation?I’m not sure that I’d call this an anacoluthon in the proper sense; itseems to me that the remarkable thing about it is the foreward-thrustingPROS TA EIDWLA TA AFWNA, which indeed should, I think, be construed withthe claus hWS AN HGESQE APAGOMENOI. But two points that seem to me missedin the version here: (1) the hWS is functioning to introduce the nounclause which functions as the object of OIDATE; and (2) the AN should, Ithink, be construed with HGESQE. In fact, this AN with HGESQE is the mostextraordinary thing about this clause: it seems to be used here to indicateiteration in what is, for practical purposes, a past general condition(although the older classical conditional construction uses an AN in theapodosis ONLY of contrary to fact or future less vivid conditions. I readthis as: “You know how (hWS) you used to be drawn in rapture (APAGOMENOI)toward speechless idols, when you were pagan.” I’ve always understood thisto mean that Paul is here endeavoring to (preparing to) draw a distinctionbetween pagan ecstatic religious experience and Christian ecstaticreligious experience, suggesting that in outward appearance they areperhaps not readily distinguishable.What’s awkward, it seems to me is the AN with HGESQE APAGOMENOI; it’s as ifthere’s a conflation here between two older constructions: (a) presentcontrary to fact (“If you were pagan, you would be drawn in rapture towardspeechless idols”) and past general (“when you were pagan, you used to bedrawn in rapture toward speechless idols”). But here we have theintroductory hOTE of a past general condition used in conjunction with AN +imperfect more characteristic of a future less vivid (should/would)condition.I really need to go back and check the NT grammars on AN in an apodosis;with loss of the optative from standard usage, there seems to be a changein the usage of AN.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 3949 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19980903/ea5f5431/attachment.bin

 

Sigma (was “Present tencccce copulative verbs”)Jesus Words: Aramaic or Greek?

1 Cor 12:2 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Thu Sep 3 12:45:06 EDT 1998

 

PSALLO A SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES SURROUNDING EGW EIMI IN JOHN 8:58 On Thu 3 Sep 98 (12:32:48 +1000), pwiles at mail.usyd.edu.au wrote:> I have a question re 1 Corinthians 12:2 specifically with reference to> the prepositional phrase proß ta ei¡dwla ta a¡fwna (I realise> that this verse is inherently difficult due to being an anacolouthon)> > Is it syntactically possible to see this phrase as adverbially> qualifying h¡gesqe in the subordinate clause w*ß a·n h¡gesqe ie can> it be syntactically part of a subordinate clause when it precedes the> clause marker (w*ß a·n)? Perry, Interesting. My GNT has OIDATE hOTI hOTE EQNH HTE PROS TA EIDWLA hWS AN HGESQE APAGOMENOI. The problem is over hOTI hOTE, and the participial predicate with APAGOMENOI. OIDA takes a participial predicate in 2 Corinthians 12:2, OIDA ANQRWPON EN CRISTOWi PRO ETWN DEKATESSARWN… hARPAGENTA TON TOIOUTON hEWS TRITOU OURANOU. In 1 Corinthians 12:2, the hOTI (particle of reported speech) is not strictly necessary; but an adverb or adverbial phrase of time seems necessary, and was inserted by Aleph, A B C and D. Koridethe and some cursives, and Origen’s Latin, have hOTE alone; the Greek (not Latin) of the Dresden G and the Byzantine Text Sigma have hOTI alone. Westcott & Hort plumped for hOTI hOTE because of the “Aleph + B” agreement against the Sigma Byzantine Text. There is a useful discussion in the older commentary by Principal TC Edwards, /A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians/, London, Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1885, page 305f. If you cannot find it in your library resources, I’ll copy it to you by private email. BM Metzger in his invaluable /A Textual Commentary on the GNT/ passes over it in silence. Translation? “We know [as opposed to what we don’t know, verse 1] that [hOTI] whilst [hOTE] you were Gentiles you were being continually led away captive [APAGOMENOI] after the dumb idols, in whatsoever way [hWS AN] you were seduced”. The Present Passive Participle APAGOMENOI is used, as often in Greek, for the “Historical Present”, where the English prefers a Past tense; “were being led away”. My A$0.02. ERRWSQE Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

 

PSALLOA SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES SURROUNDING EGW EIMI IN JOHN 8:58

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.