Galatians 4:29

Gal 4:29 What type of conditional? Joseph Brian Tucker music at riverviewcog.org
Sat May 29 23:33:25 EDT 1999

 

AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVE Gal 4:29 What type of conditional? GreetingsGal 4:29 seems to be a conditional sentence. The particles hOSPER (protasis) and hOUTWS (apodosis) seem to relate to TOTE (protasis) and NUN (apodosis). My question is, what class of conditional sentence is this? Secondly, what is the semantic analysis of Gal 4:29? Thirdly, what are the eschatological implications of identifying this sentence as a conditional?Thank YouBrian TuckerRiverview, MI

 

AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVEGal 4:29 What type of conditional?

Gal 4:29 What type of conditional? Joseph Brian Tucker music at riverviewcog.org
Sat May 29 23:33:25 EDT 1999

 

AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVE Gal 4:29 What type of conditional? GreetingsGal 4:29 seems to be a conditional sentence. The particles hOSPER (protasis) and hOUTWS (apodosis) seem to relate to TOTE (protasis) and NUN (apodosis). My question is, what class of conditional sentence is this? Secondly, what is the semantic analysis of Gal 4:29? Thirdly, what are the eschatological implications of identifying this sentence as a conditional?Thank YouBrian TuckerRiverview, MI

 

AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVEGal 4:29 What type of conditional?

Gal 4:29 What type of conditional? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun May 30 08:10:34 EDT 1999

 

Gal 4:29 What type of conditional? Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? At 11:33 PM -0400 5/29/99, Joseph Brian Tucker wrote:>Greetings> >Gal 4:29 seems to be a conditional sentence. The particles hOSPER>(protasis) and hOUTWS (apodosis) seem to relate to TOTE (protasis) and NUN>(apodosis). My question is, what class of conditional sentence is this?>Secondly, what is the semantic analysis of Gal 4:29? Thirdly, what are the>eschatological implications of identifying this sentence as a conditional?The sentence in full: ALL’ hWSPER TOTE hO KATA SARKA GENNHQEIS EDIWKEN TONKATA PNEUMA, hOUTWS KAI NUN. The context is Paul’s allegoricalinterpretation of the story of Abraham’s two sons by Hagar and by Sarahrespectively as representing adherents of the Sinai Covenant and the NewCovenant respectively.(1) Gal 4:29 is NOT really a conditional sentence at all: there is nocontingency such as would be represented by an EI/if. What we have here israther an assertion that two FACTS are analogous, and both clauses haveindicative verbs, assuming that we should supply DIWKEI along with thesubject and object from the TOTE clause mutatis mutandis. Nor is there anytemporal contingency between the two clauses: it’s not as if thepersecution of the spiritual child by the fleshly child in antiquity were acausal factor of the current persecution of the church by Israel; nothingmore is asserted beyond the parallelism of the two facts.(2) I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “semantic analysis” in thisinstance; in terms of grammatical structure we have parallel subjects (hOKATA SARKA GENNHQEIS) and parallel objects (TON KATA PNEUMA <GENNHQENTA>),parallel verbs (EDIWKEN and <DIWKEI>), and parallel adverbial conjunctivephrases (hWSPER TOTE and hOUTWS KAI NUN). I would understand the referentsof the persecutor and persecuted in the parallel instances as Ishmael andIsaac in former time, Israel and Christian believers now.(3) Finally, I don’t see how there’s anything explicitly or implicitlyeschatological here, at least insofar as the analogous assertions madeabout time past and time present One may say that this analogy standswithin a larger contextual assertion of Paul that the present time is thetime of fulfilment of the promises made to Abraham, but I don’t think Paulis asserting within this verse (4:29) anything more than an analogousrelationship between the fleshly child and the spiritual child, although inthe larger context his primary object would seem to be to ground yet morecompletely his assertion about the free status of the spiritual child asopposed to the enslaved status of the fleshly child. And that is alreadygoing beyond the ordinary boundaries of discussion, where weendeavor to clarify the legitimate possibilities of understanding the Greektext and leave the theological interpretation open to each individual.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Gal 4:29 What type of conditional?Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present?

Gal 4:29 What type of conditional? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun May 30 08:10:34 EDT 1999

 

Gal 4:29 What type of conditional? Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? At 11:33 PM -0400 5/29/99, Joseph Brian Tucker wrote:>Greetings> >Gal 4:29 seems to be a conditional sentence. The particles hOSPER>(protasis) and hOUTWS (apodosis) seem to relate to TOTE (protasis) and NUN>(apodosis). My question is, what class of conditional sentence is this?>Secondly, what is the semantic analysis of Gal 4:29? Thirdly, what are the>eschatological implications of identifying this sentence as a conditional?The sentence in full: ALL’ hWSPER TOTE hO KATA SARKA GENNHQEIS EDIWKEN TONKATA PNEUMA, hOUTWS KAI NUN. The context is Paul’s allegoricalinterpretation of the story of Abraham’s two sons by Hagar and by Sarahrespectively as representing adherents of the Sinai Covenant and the NewCovenant respectively.(1) Gal 4:29 is NOT really a conditional sentence at all: there is nocontingency such as would be represented by an EI/if. What we have here israther an assertion that two FACTS are analogous, and both clauses haveindicative verbs, assuming that we should supply DIWKEI along with thesubject and object from the TOTE clause mutatis mutandis. Nor is there anytemporal contingency between the two clauses: it’s not as if thepersecution of the spiritual child by the fleshly child in antiquity were acausal factor of the current persecution of the church by Israel; nothingmore is asserted beyond the parallelism of the two facts.(2) I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “semantic analysis” in thisinstance; in terms of grammatical structure we have parallel subjects (hOKATA SARKA GENNHQEIS) and parallel objects (TON KATA PNEUMA <GENNHQENTA>),parallel verbs (EDIWKEN and <DIWKEI>), and parallel adverbial conjunctivephrases (hWSPER TOTE and hOUTWS KAI NUN). I would understand the referentsof the persecutor and persecuted in the parallel instances as Ishmael andIsaac in former time, Israel and Christian believers now.(3) Finally, I don’t see how there’s anything explicitly or implicitlyeschatological here, at least insofar as the analogous assertions madeabout time past and time present One may say that this analogy standswithin a larger contextual assertion of Paul that the present time is thetime of fulfilment of the promises made to Abraham, but I don’t think Paulis asserting within this verse (4:29) anything more than an analogousrelationship between the fleshly child and the spiritual child, although inthe larger context his primary object would seem to be to ground yet morecompletely his assertion about the free status of the spiritual child asopposed to the enslaved status of the fleshly child. And that is alreadygoing beyond the ordinary boundaries of discussion, where weendeavor to clarify the legitimate possibilities of understanding the Greektext and leave the theological interpretation open to each individual.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Gal 4:29 What type of conditional?Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present?

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>