perfect tense in I Cor. 7: 15 Denny A Diehl dd-1 at juno.com
Thu Nov 29 11:07:24 EST 2001
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Beware blank e-mails Carl,I would like to again receive . Also I have a question aboutthe perfect tense found in 1 Cor 7:15:OU DEDOULWTAIHow does the perfect tense work in the negative (OU)? As completedaction, the perfect stands as a result of the past. In the case of 1 Cor7:15what would be the past action of OU DEDOULWTAI? Could it meanthe marriage bond, or would the marriage bond be absolutely not underconsideration since the force of the perfect is that “you were neverunder bondage” and now you “are not now under bondage”?Would appreciate your insight into the perfect tense with OU.All the best.Denny Diehlunbeliever. ________________________________________________________________GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWiBeware blank e-mails
perfect tense in I Cor. 7: 15 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Nov 29 13:24:25 EST 2001
Beware blank e-mails SU as part of a vocative? At 10:07 AM -0600 11/29/01, Denny A Diehl wrote:>Carl,> >I would like to again receive . Also I have a question about>the perfect tense found in 1 Cor 7:15:> >OU DEDOULWTAI> >How does the perfect tense work in the negative (OU)? As completed>action, the perfect stands as a result of the past. In the case of 1 Cor>7:15>what would be the past action of OU DEDOULWTAI? Could it mean>the marriage bond, or would the marriage bond be absolutely not under>consideration since the force of the perfect is that “you were never>under bondage” and now you “are not now under bondage”?> >Would appreciate your insight into the perfect tense with OU.As this is an indicative, the OU simply negates the assertion; the force ofthe perfect tense is the standard one here, I think: it is stative:indicates the status now as a consequence of completed action: OUDEDOULWTAI hO ADELFOS H hH ADELFH EN TOIS TOIOUTOIS. “The brother- orsister-in-faith does not stand enslaved in such circumstances.”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington University (retired)Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Beware blank e-mailsSU as part of a vocative?
Fwd: Re: perfect tense in I Cor. 7: 15 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Nov 29 14:12:09 EST 2001
SU as part of a vocative? Matthew 24:40 and 41 >To: cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:57:26 -0800>Subject: Re: [] perfect tense in I Cor. 7: 15>X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-9,11-13,15-38>From: Denny A Diehl <dd-1 at juno.com>> >Hi Carl,> >I’m afraid I didn’t express myself very well.No, and I think I’m going to shunt this right back to the list for othersto respond to. Seems to me that we’ve discussed this several times in thepast year.>> >I would like to again receive . Also I have a question>> >about the perfect tense found in 1 Cor 7:15:>> >>> >OU DEDOULWTAI> >> As this is an indicative, the OU simply negates the assertion; the>> force of the perfect tense is the standard one here, I think: it is>stative:>> indicates the status now as a consequence of completed action: OU>> DEDOULWTAI hO ADELFOS H hH ADELFH EN TOIS TOIOUTOIS. “The>> brother-or sister-in-faith does not stand enslaved in such>circumstances.”> >Does the use of the perfect indicate what the past action was?>Since the perfect is a completion of past action, then what is the>past action of which the “not under bondage”? Two possibilities>as I can ascertain are:> >1) could it be the marriage bond? Since the perfect tense is used,>would that exclude consideration of the marriage bond since the>believer is “not under bondage” or “not under the marriage bond”>since the believer was under the marriage bond previous to the>desertion? Could that be possible with the perfect tense negated?> >or 2) would it have to mean some kind of obligation to follow>the unbeliever around since before the desertion the believer>was obligated to do, but now with the desertion, the believer>is no longer under such an obligation?> >What is necessitated as the past action by use of the perfect>tense in 1 Cor 7:15? Anything?> >All the best.> >Denny> >________________________________________________________________>GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!>Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!>Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:>http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.>
SU as part of a vocative?Matthew 24:40 and 41
1 Corinthians 7:15 Frazier Conley fconley at airmail.net
Sun Jan 6 18:13:44 EST 2002
Did I get lucky, or what? 1 Corinthians 7:15 EI DE hO APISTOS CHWRIZETAI, CHWRIZESQW; OU DEDOULWTAI Ho ADELFOS H hHADELFH EN TOIS TOIOUTAIS; EN DE EIRHNHi KEKLHKEN hUMAS hO QEOS.Translators generally render CHWRIZESQW as “let it be so” or “let himdepart” or “let him go” or “let him leave.” Now I recall from my elementaryor secondary schooling that in an imperative phrase such as “let it alone,””you,” the second person, is understood: “You let it alone.”However, I understand CHWRIZESQW to be a third person singular presentpassive imperative. Three questions for the grammarians: (1) Isn’t itmisleading for translations to imply that this is a second person when it isnot? (2) Would it not be more in harmony with the grammar to rendersomething like: “Divorce it must be”; or, “it is permitted.” See: “They mayseparate”(JB); “it is permitted”(LB); or, as I think Moulton in hisProlegomena implies, p. 172, “If the partner insists on divorce, divorce itmust be.” (3) Is this possibly a case of the divine passive?ThanksFrazier ConleyWhitewright, TX
Did I get lucky, or what?1 Corinthians 7:15
1 Corinthians 7:15 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Sun Jan 6 19:14:52 EST 2002
1 Corinthians 7:15 Did I get lucky, or what? In a message dated 1/6/2002 6:13:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, fconley at airmail.net writes:> However, I understand CHWRIZESQW to be a third person singular present> passive imperative. Three questions for the grammarians: (1) Isn’t it> misleading for translations to imply that this is a second person when it > is> not? (2) Would it not be more in harmony with the grammar to render> something like: “Divorce it must be”; or, “it is permitted.” See: “They may> separate”(JB); “it is permitted”(LB); or, as I think Moulton in his> Prolegomena implies, p. 172, “If the partner insists on divorce, divorce it> must be.” (3) Is this possibly a case of the divine passive?> I think the problem here is trying to understand the grammar from the perspective of the English language (perhaps others as well). In English we associate the imperative with a command, “Do this.” We don’t understand “Let this be done” as an imperative. Moreover, as you indicated “you” is understood as the subject of such a construction. I would say, however that such constructions as “divorce it must be” are awkward and unEnglish at best. In Latin I believe the statement, “let him . . . ” would be considered a jussive (my Latin is extremely rusty, perhaps someone more knowledgeable can speak to this). I think this is about the best we can do in English.gfsomsel————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20020106/aefdbcc3/attachment.html
1 Corinthians 7:15Did I get lucky, or what?
1 Corinthians 7:15 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Sun Jan 6 21:26:06 EST 2002
Did I get lucky, or what? Apoc 1:1 pronominal reference In a message dated 1/6/02 6:15:32 PM, Polycarp66 at aol.com writes:>In a message dated 1/6/2002 6:13:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, >fconley at airmail.net writes:> > >> However, I understand CHWRIZESQW to be a third person singular present>> passive imperative. Three questions for the grammarians: (1) Isn’t it>> misleading for translations to imply that this is a second person when>it >> is>> not? (2) Would it not be more in harmony with the grammar to render>> something like: “Divorce it must be”; or, “it is permitted.” See: “They>may>> separate”(JB); “it is permitted”(LB); or, as I think Moulton in his>> Prolegomena implies, p. 172, “If the partner insists on divorce, divorce>it>> must be.” (3) Is this possibly a case of the divine passive?>> > >I think the problem here is trying to understand the grammar from the >perspective of the English language (perhaps others as well). In English>we >associate the imperative with a command, “Do this.” We don’t understand>“Let >this be done” as an imperative. Moreover, as you indicated “you” is >understood as the subject of such a construction. I would say, however>that >such constructions as “divorce it must be” are awkward and unEnglish at>best. > In Latin I believe the statement, “let him . . . ” would be considered>a >jussive (my Latin is extremely rusty, perhaps someone more knowledgeable>can >speak to this). I think this is about the best we can do in English.> 1 Cor 7:15a IE DE hO APISTOS CWRIZETAI, CWRIZESQW.I think that when you look at the whole sentence, the understanding of the imperative as permissive is as close to what the writer intended as we can get in English. I certainly do not think that Paul had in mind to command the unbeliever to depart (divorce). Hence, “But if the unbeliever separates, then let him go.” We should not think that everytime the 3rd person imperative is used that it has to be permission. I think it often adds a strong sense of oughtness, what the person should do. But, the context here, I think, indicates permission.Carlton WinberyLouisiana College
Did I get lucky, or what?Apoc 1:1 pronominal reference
1 Corinthians 7:15 Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Sun Jan 6 23:19:29 EST 2002
Apoc 1:1 pronominal reference Ruth 2:1 KAI THi NWEMIN ANHR GNWRIMOS TWi ANDRI AUTHS on 1/6/02 5:13 PM, Frazier Conley at fconley at airmail.net wrote:> EI DE hO APISTOS CHWRIZETAI, CHWRIZESQW; OU DEDOULWTAI Ho ADELFOS H hH> ADELFH EN TOIS TOIOUTAIS; EN DE EIRHNHi KEKLHKEN hUMAS hO QEOS.> > Translators generally render CHWRIZESQW as “let it be so” or “let him> depart” or “let him go” or “let him leave.” Now I recall from my elementary> or secondary schooling that in an imperative phrase such as “let it alone,”> “you,” the second person, is understood: “You let it alone.”> > However, I understand CHWRIZESQW to be a third person singular present> passive imperative. Three questions for the grammarians: (1) Isn’t it> misleading for translations to imply that this is a second person when it is> not?I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean they imply that CWRIZESQW is secondperson? If this is what you mean, which versions do you have in mind? Ichecked 10 different versions and found none with the second person: “letthe separation take place” (NJB), “let him separate” (NAB), “let them go”(NLT), “let him do so” (NIV), “let it be so” (RSV & NRSV), “let him depart”(ASV), “let him depart” (KJV), “let him leave” (NASB & NASB95). Even thosethat are more or less paraphrased do not use the second person.It should be noted also that when some versions depart from a more or less”literal” translation, it is still understood that CWRIZESQW means “lethim/her depart.” Note that when RSV/NRSV say “let it be so,” CWRIZESQW isimplied from their rendering of the protasis EI … CWRIZETAI (“if theunbeleiving partner separates”). So “let it be so” means nothing other than”let him/her separate,” since in English the protasis is rendered “if theunbelieving partner separates.”Finally, it is important to understand that in a third person imperative,the subject is not being addressed. The hearer/reader is being addressed,and the subject of the verb is the one acted upon. So it in this way differsfrom the second person imperative, where the subject is also the personaddressed. (I’m aware that this is an oversimplification, and lacks thenecessary nuancing, but I think it meets the needs of the presentdiscussion.) This may be the source of your confusion with regard to “secondperson.” The verbs are third person, but the address is, in a certain sense,”second person,” though this is not a grammatical way of looking at it.> (2) Would it not be more in harmony with the grammar to render> something like: “Divorce it must be”; or, “it is permitted.” See: “They may> separate”(JB); “it is permitted”(LB); or, as I think Moulton in his> Prolegomena implies, p. 172, “If the partner insists on divorce, divorce it> must be.”No, not really. Both verbs, CWRIZETAI in the protasis and CWRIZESQW in theapodosis are third person forms of the same verb, and the permissionexpressed by CWRIZESQW in the apodosis answers to the condition expressed inthe protasis. So it is most natural to assume they have the same subject,i.e., hO APISTOS, though it is expressed in the protasis, but only impliedin the apodosis. The apodosis expresses permission to the subject ofCWRIZESQW to perform the action expressed by CWRIZETAI in the protasis. Theidea is: “If the unbeliever departs, do not stop him/her from departing,”i.e., “let him/her depart.” There’s nothing mysterious here. Rather than tryto stop the unbeliever, the Christian is told to let him/her go so thatthere will be “peace” (EIRHNHi).The above translations you cite are paraphrases. I’m not saying there isnecessarily anything wrong with that, but it is important sometimes to askourselves why certain translators paraphrase in a certain way in any giveninstance. I would almost be willing to bet that in this case the dilemma isNOT that the translators thought CWRIZESQW had a different subject fromCWRIZETAI, but that they found it difficult to bring out in a third personsingular verb without an expressed subject the idea that both sexes aremeant. The subject of CWRIZESQW is implied in the ending of the verb itself.It is the understood hO APISTOS from the protasis, but it is not expresslystated in the apodosis. As for hO APISTOS, even though this noun ismasculine, it is clear from the context that both husbands AND wives are inview (hO ADELFOS H hH ADELFH). When both are in view, Greek will default tothe masculine. But this leaves a dilemma: How do you express the impliedthird person singular subject of CWRIZESQW? You could repeat the subjectfrom the protasis without letting on that it is masculine: “If theunbeliever departs, let the unbeliever depart.” But this is pretty rough andredundant. On the other hand, if you follow the gender of hO APISTOS andrender “let HIM depart,” you will not (in the view of some) adequately bringout the idea that both sexes are meant. Another option is to go with”him/her,” but this is very awkward. Some, like NLT, convert to the plural.So the translators you mention above paraphrase in different ways to getaround this difficulty. In any case, it is not good policy to try tounderstand the Greek on the basis of any English translation.> (3) Is this possibly a case of the divine passive?No. As I explained above, both the third-person verb in the protasis and thethird-person verb in the apodosis, to the highest degree of probability,have the same subject, since one clause answers to another. And both arepassive in form, so there is no reason to believe that one has hO APISTOS assubject, while the other is a so-called theological/divine passive. There isno good grammatical reason to posit any other subject.================Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
Apoc 1:1 pronominal referenceRuth 2:1 KAI THi NWEMIN ANHR GNWRIMOS TWi ANDRI AUTHS
I Cor. 7.15b Marc McDermott caelus at jps.net
Fri Jan 25 15:23:05 EST 2002
John 20:28 I Cor. 7.15b Hello, everyone. I have a question regarding 1 Corinthians 7.15, and yes,I am asking because this passage is relevant to my own life. I needguidance, and since I am not a Greek scholar, I must ask you. Here it is:Can 1 Cor. 7.15b be construed as an imperative? In other words, can it betranslated as such: “Do not become enslaved in such matters, for God hascalled us to peace”? Thanks for any help you can give me.[Marc McDermott: New list-members please note that BG Protocolrequires a full-name signature to be appended to messages sentto the list.]
John 20:28I Cor. 7.15b
[] 1 Cor 7:15a – The Conditional Statement Howard B Justice tjust32 at juno.com
Tue Mar 18 15:16:21 EDT 2008
[] TA PANTA in Ephesians 4:15 [] 1 Cor 7:15a – The Conditional Statement Howard Justice here:My question deals with the tense/mood (i.e., present indicative) of1 Cor 7:15a: “If the unbeliever departs, (then) let him depart.”Would it be correct to understand this passage to say: “If the unbeliever is departing, (then) let him be departing.”?What I am asking is this. Is this use of the present indicative to beviewed here as the progressive present? Does this statement, beinga first class conditional, somehow interfere with the understanding of how the progressive present is normally and predominantly view-ed?Your comments will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.In His service:Howard JusticeHeadland, Ala. 36345
[] TA PANTA in Ephesians 4:15[] 1 Cor 7:15a – The Conditional Statement
[] 1 Cor 7:15a – The Conditional Statement Bill Barton phos at windstream.net
Tue Mar 18 22:33:17 EDT 2008
[] 1 Cor 7:15a – The Conditional Statement [] Mt 9.18a Indefinite articles On Tuesday, March 18, 2008 3:16 PM, Howard B. Justice wrote:> My question deals with the tense/mood (i.e., present indicative) of> 1 Cor 7:15a:> > “If the unbeliever departs, (then) let him depart.”> > Would it be correct to understand this passage to say:> > “If the unbeliever is departing, (then) let him be departing.”?> > What I am asking is this. Is this use of the present indicative to be> viewed here as the progressive present? Does this statement, being> a first class conditional, somehow interfere with the understanding> of how the progressive present is normally and predominantly view-> ed?> > Your comments will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 514) notes the following about the present tense: The present tense’s portrayal of an event “focuses on its development or progress and sees the occurrence in regard to its internal make-up, without beginning or end in view.” It is sometime called progressive: It “basically represents an activity as in process (or in progress).”The Expositor’s Greek Testament (p. 826) apparently views the “leaving” in 1 Cor 7:15 as a progression (rather than punctual). It composes the situation as follows: The Christian wife or husband is not to seek divorce from the non-Christian (12-14); but if the latter insists on separation, it is not to be refused.Regards,Bill Barton> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] 1 Cor 7:15a – The Conditional Statement[] Mt 9.18a Indefinite articles