Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? Joseph Brian Tucker music at riverviewcog.org
Sun May 30 20:06:10 EDT 1999
Gal 4:29 What type of conditional? Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? GreetingsThe contextual (introductory formula) perfective present seems to best describe LEGEI this way. That is, the statement was spoken in the past, it still speaks today and is binding on the hearers. Is LEGEI a Perfective Present in Gal 4:30? Secondly, the two genitive phrases (h hUIOS TAS PAIDISKAS and TOU hUIOU TAS ELEUTHERAS seem to be genitives of relationship. I am not sure because genitives of relationship are so rare and I don’t know if it meets the level of acceptance of this type here. Is it a genitive of relationship or a simple genitive of possession? Thirdly, I am interested in the presence of OU MA before KLARONOMASEI, what is the reason of both, does it have anything to do with seeing KLARONOMASEI as a future active indicative or an aorist active imperative? Fourthly, EKBALE position in the sentence and in the argument is exceptional, I am thinking that it is a permissive imperative or a conditional imperative instead of a simple command, any thoughts?Thank You for you attention to my rather ponderous quesitonBrian Tucker, M.A.Riverview, MI
Gal 4:29 What type of conditional?Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present?
Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? Joseph Brian Tucker music at riverviewcog.org
Sun May 30 20:06:10 EDT 1999
Gal 4:29 What type of conditional? Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? GreetingsThe contextual (introductory formula) perfective present seems to best describe LEGEI this way. That is, the statement was spoken in the past, it still speaks today and is binding on the hearers. Is LEGEI a Perfective Present in Gal 4:30? Secondly, the two genitive phrases (h hUIOS TAS PAIDISKAS and TOU hUIOU TAS ELEUTHERAS seem to be genitives of relationship. I am not sure because genitives of relationship are so rare and I don’t know if it meets the level of acceptance of this type here. Is it a genitive of relationship or a simple genitive of possession? Thirdly, I am interested in the presence of OU MA before KLARONOMASEI, what is the reason of both, does it have anything to do with seeing KLARONOMASEI as a future active indicative or an aorist active imperative? Fourthly, EKBALE position in the sentence and in the argument is exceptional, I am thinking that it is a permissive imperative or a conditional imperative instead of a simple command, any thoughts?Thank You for you attention to my rather ponderous quesitonBrian Tucker, M.A.Riverview, MI
Gal 4:29 What type of conditional?Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present?
Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon May 31 08:15:47 EDT 1999
Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16? At 6:36 AM -0400 5/31/99, Joseph Brian Tucker wrote:I find it easier personally to see the whole verse discussed before mewhile considering the question:Gal 4:30 ALLA TI LEGEI hH GRAFH? EKBALE THN PAIDISKHN KAI TON hUION AUTHS:OU GAR MH KLHRONOMHSEI hO hUIOS THS PAIDISKHS META TOU hUIOU THS ELEUQERIAS.Let me just note here that our most commonly-used conventionaltransliteration scheme uses H for Eta rather than A (which we generally useto represent Alpha); I gather that you’re using A because of the Englishlong-A pronunciation.>The contextual (introductory formula) perfective present seems to best>describe LEGEI this way. That is, the statement was spoken in the past, it>still speaks today and is binding on the hearers. Is LEGEI a Perfective>Present in Gal 4:30?I don’t see any particular value in terming this a “perfective present”;that makes more sense either with such verbs as hHKW or PAREIMI that have asemantic force of completed action (or classical Greek ERRW), or theparticular usage of EIMI in a context implying that it must be perfective(such as TOSOUTWi CRONWi with EIMI in John 14:9). But in Gal 4:30 I seenothing implicit in the phrasing to underscore the perfective aspect. Theuse of the present LEGEI with hH GRAFH is by no means uncommon.>Secondly, the two genitive phrases (h hUIOS TAS>PAIDISKAS and TOU hUIOU TAS ELEUTHERAS seem to be genitives of>relationship. I am not sure because genitives of relationship are so rare>and I don’t know if it meets the level of acceptance of this type here. Is>it a genitive of relationship or a simple genitive of possession?Here too I have to say I see no point in seeking a category in which topigeonhole what I take to be a simple instance of the standard adnominalgenitive where the meaning of the phrase created by the genitive dependenton a noun is perfectly clear. Call it “pertinentive” or “possessive” andhave done with it.>Thirdly,>I am interested in the presence of OU MA before KLARONOMASEI, what is the>reason of both, does it have anything to do with seeing KLARONOMASEI as a>future active indicative or an aorist active imperative? Fourthly, EKBALE>position in the sentence and in the argument is exceptional, I am thinking>that it is a permissive imperative or a conditional imperative instead of a>simple command, any thoughts?I believe this is a Semitism with imperatival force; one does notordinarily find OU MH with the future in classical Attic but it is commonin the LXX, from which this text is being cited–my recollection is thatthis is the way the LXX translators conveyed an infinitive absoluteconstruction (is that the right term? I know very little Hebrew grammar).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 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present?EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16?
Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon May 31 08:15:47 EDT 1999
Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16? At 6:36 AM -0400 5/31/99, Joseph Brian Tucker wrote:I find it easier personally to see the whole verse discussed before mewhile considering the question:Gal 4:30 ALLA TI LEGEI hH GRAFH? EKBALE THN PAIDISKHN KAI TON hUION AUTHS:OU GAR MH KLHRONOMHSEI hO hUIOS THS PAIDISKHS META TOU hUIOU THS ELEUQERIAS.Let me just note here that our most commonly-used conventionaltransliteration scheme uses H for Eta rather than A (which we generally useto represent Alpha); I gather that you’re using A because of the Englishlong-A pronunciation.>The contextual (introductory formula) perfective present seems to best>describe LEGEI this way. That is, the statement was spoken in the past, it>still speaks today and is binding on the hearers. Is LEGEI a Perfective>Present in Gal 4:30?I don’t see any particular value in terming this a “perfective present”;that makes more sense either with such verbs as hHKW or PAREIMI that have asemantic force of completed action (or classical Greek ERRW), or theparticular usage of EIMI in a context implying that it must be perfective(such as TOSOUTWi CRONWi with EIMI in John 14:9). But in Gal 4:30 I seenothing implicit in the phrasing to underscore the perfective aspect. Theuse of the present LEGEI with hH GRAFH is by no means uncommon.>Secondly, the two genitive phrases (h hUIOS TAS>PAIDISKAS and TOU hUIOU TAS ELEUTHERAS seem to be genitives of>relationship. I am not sure because genitives of relationship are so rare>and I don’t know if it meets the level of acceptance of this type here. Is>it a genitive of relationship or a simple genitive of possession?Here too I have to say I see no point in seeking a category in which topigeonhole what I take to be a simple instance of the standard adnominalgenitive where the meaning of the phrase created by the genitive dependenton a noun is perfectly clear. Call it “pertinentive” or “possessive” andhave done with it.>Thirdly,>I am interested in the presence of OU MA before KLARONOMASEI, what is the>reason of both, does it have anything to do with seeing KLARONOMASEI as a>future active indicative or an aorist active imperative? Fourthly, EKBALE>position in the sentence and in the argument is exceptional, I am thinking>that it is a permissive imperative or a conditional imperative instead of a>simple command, any thoughts?I believe this is a Semitism with imperatival force; one does notordinarily find OU MH with the future in classical Attic but it is commonin the LXX, from which this text is being cited–my recollection is thatthis is the way the LXX translators conveyed an infinitive absoluteconstruction (is that the right term? I know very little Hebrew grammar).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 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present?EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16?
Galatians 4:30-31
4:30. In Genesis Abraham was commanded to “Cast out the bondwoman and her son.” He did so reluctantly, for he loved Ishmael. Yet God was portraying a deeper truth via typology. Ishmael represents the way of legalism and fleshly efforts to do God’s will. That is to be “cast out.”
Here Paul mentions for the first time the idea of active inheritance. Ishmael, “the son of the bondwoman,” would “not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” This does not mean Ishmael’s line would not be in the kingdom. Believers in many of the nations that descended from Ishmael will be in the kingdom (e.g., Egypt). This verse means that Ishmael will not be a co-heir with Isaac. He will not receive a portion of the Promised Land. Thus by typology he pictures the believer who seeks to please God by the flesh. That believer will not be an heir with the believer who actually inherits the kingdom of God. While all believers are heirs of God, only some believers will be co-heirs with Christ in the messianic kingdom (cf. Rom 8:17; Gal 5:19-21; 6:7-9).
4:31. As the next verse makes plain, Paul is speaking here of the position of the believers in Galatia (and of himself). The reference to brethren signals the end of a discussion. It is a mini-inclusio with v 28 where the same term is used. There Paul said, “we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.” Here he says, So then, brethren, we are…children of the…free [woman]. The promise (v 28) and the Spirit (v 29) are linked with freedom (here and in vv 22,23,26,30). The Law and the flesh (vv 21,23,24,29) are associated with bondage (here and in vv 22,23,24,25,30).
The word order here is significant. The last word is eleutheras (free). It is placed last for emphasis. It is also the first word in the next sentence. This back-to-back arrangement is a powerful way of emphasizing words, especially in a letter that was to be read publicly.