Ephesians 3.1 Al Lukaszewski alski at fuller.edu
Tue May 4 00:25:00 EDT 1999
FWIW: Relatively easy classical Greek texts Help with PhD Dissertation Pre-topic Dear Listmembers:I would be interested in hearing what everyone thinks of the syntax, inEphesians 3.1, of TOUTOU XARIN and whether the sentence should beunderstood as with an understood EIMI or without. In the WBC series,Lincoln suggests it is the beginning of a sentence that is not resumedagain until v. 14 (Lincoln, _Ephesians_, 172; also cf. Barth, _Ephesians1-3_, 326ff). This is in contrast to the Peshitta, Chrysostom, et al. whorender the verse as TOUTOU XARIN EGW PAULOS EIMI O DESMOS TOU XRISTOU….I do not have access presently to Chrysostom but the Peshitta renders itsomewhat woodenly (with the exception of the second pronoun), assumablydirectly from the Greek as it was understood early on: METULL HANA) )ENA)PAWLAWS )ASIRA) )NA) DYE#UW( …I would like to know how others see this verse and how best to understandTOUTOU XARIN in the syntax of the passage — i.e., suggestions on how todiagram it. If anyone has access to Best’s NICC commentary that just cameout I would be interested to hear what he suggests for this passage.Thanks for any help in advance.Al LukaszewskiFTSalski at fuller.edu
FWIW: Relatively easy classical Greek textsHelp with PhD Dissertation Pre-topic
Ephesians 3.1 Al Lukaszewski alski at fuller.edu
Tue May 4 00:25:00 EDT 1999
FWIW: Relatively easy classical Greek texts Help with PhD Dissertation Pre-topic Dear Listmembers:I would be interested in hearing what everyone thinks of the syntax, inEphesians 3.1, of TOUTOU XARIN and whether the sentence should beunderstood as with an understood EIMI or without. In the WBC series,Lincoln suggests it is the beginning of a sentence that is not resumedagain until v. 14 (Lincoln, _Ephesians_, 172; also cf. Barth, _Ephesians1-3_, 326ff). This is in contrast to the Peshitta, Chrysostom, et al. whorender the verse as TOUTOU XARIN EGW PAULOS EIMI O DESMOS TOU XRISTOU….I do not have access presently to Chrysostom but the Peshitta renders itsomewhat woodenly (with the exception of the second pronoun), assumablydirectly from the Greek as it was understood early on: METULL HANA) )ENA)PAWLAWS )ASIRA) )NA) DYE#UW( …I would like to know how others see this verse and how best to understandTOUTOU XARIN in the syntax of the passage — i.e., suggestions on how todiagram it. If anyone has access to Best’s NICC commentary that just cameout I would be interested to hear what he suggests for this passage.Thanks for any help in advance.Al LukaszewskiFTSalski at fuller.edu
FWIW: Relatively easy classical Greek textsHelp with PhD Dissertation Pre-topic
Ephesians 3.1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 4 07:09:28 EDT 1999
Help with PhD Dissertation Pre-topic UPAKOUW + case? At 9:25 PM -0700 5/3/99, Al Lukaszewski wrote:>Dear Listmembers:> >I would be interested in hearing what everyone thinks of the syntax, in>Ephesians 3.1, of TOUTOU XARIN and whether the sentence should be>understood as with an understood EIMI or without. In the WBC series,>Lincoln suggests it is the beginning of a sentence that is not resumed>again until v. 14 (Lincoln, _Ephesians_, 172; also cf. Barth, _Ephesians>1-3_, 326ff). This is in contrast to the Peshitta, Chrysostom, et al. who>render the verse as TOUTOU XARIN EGW PAULOS EIMI O DESMOS TOU XRISTOU….> >I do not have access presently to Chrysostom but the Peshitta renders it>somewhat woodenly (with the exception of the second pronoun), assumably>directly from the Greek as it was understood early on: METULL HANA) )ENA)>PAWLAWS )ASIRA) )NA) DYE#UW( …> >I would like to know how others see this verse and how best to understand>TOUTOU XARIN in the syntax of the passage — i.e., suggestions on how to>diagram it. If anyone has access to Best’s NICC commentary that just came>out I would be interested to hear what he suggests for this passage.I suspect there’s not going to be a whole lot of consensus on this one, butI’ll thrown in my 2c worth:The verse reads (in UBS4): TOUTOU CARIN EGW PAULOS hO DESMIOS TOU CRISTOUhUPER hUMWN TWN EQNWN–The editors, by punctuating thus, have pretty clearly indicated that theysee this as a sentence fragment, and I find it difficult to thinkotherwise; I think it may be easiest to see, as you say Lincoln evidentlyfeels, this is “the beginning of a sentence that is not resumed again untilv. 14.” I don’t really see how the problems here are resolved by assumingan EIMI; it seems to me that TOUTOU CARIN and hUPER hUMWN TWN EQNWN reallyneed to construe with a verb of action.(a) While the genitive TOU CRISTOU can, I think, be legitimately attachedto hO DESMIOS, I think that hUPER hUMWN TWN EQNWN cannot; I really thinkthis phrase would need an additional article to give it attributive linkageto hO DESMIOS, and without that linkage, I think some indication of whatthe writer HAS DONE “on behalf of you Gentiles” is required to attach thephrase to;(b) To an only slightly lesser extent do I also think that’s true of TOUTOUCARIN: I’m really troubled even by the notion that TOUTOU has the precedingseveral verses as a meaningful antecedent–and forms of hOUTOS do normallyrefer to what has immediately preceded rather than to what follows–and Idon’t personally see how one can point to Eph 2:14-22 as clearly statingthe REASON (“And that is why …”) for the writer’s being the prisoner ofChrist. On the other hand, I can see it as referring to the precedingverses if TOUTOU CARIN belongs syntactically to a verb of action that neverappears in the extant verse–presumably because we have an anacoluthon atthe end of verse 1 and a brand new beginning in verse 2. I think someintended verb of action must be understood with which TOUTOU CARIN andhUPER hUMWN TWN EQNWN must BOTH construe syntactically.Others may very well feel that there’s nothing syntactically problematicabout these two phrases, but my own feeling is that both are adverbial innature and need to construe with an action verb rather than with an EIMIthat is nothing more than a copula linking a subject and predicatenominative.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.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Help with PhD Dissertation Pre-topicUPAKOUW + case?
Ephesians 3.1 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 4 07:09:28 EDT 1999
Help with PhD Dissertation Pre-topic UPAKOUW + case? At 9:25 PM -0700 5/3/99, Al Lukaszewski wrote:>Dear Listmembers:> >I would be interested in hearing what everyone thinks of the syntax, in>Ephesians 3.1, of TOUTOU XARIN and whether the sentence should be>understood as with an understood EIMI or without. In the WBC series,>Lincoln suggests it is the beginning of a sentence that is not resumed>again until v. 14 (Lincoln, _Ephesians_, 172; also cf. Barth, _Ephesians>1-3_, 326ff). This is in contrast to the Peshitta, Chrysostom, et al. who>render the verse as TOUTOU XARIN EGW PAULOS EIMI O DESMOS TOU XRISTOU….> >I do not have access presently to Chrysostom but the Peshitta renders it>somewhat woodenly (with the exception of the second pronoun), assumably>directly from the Greek as it was understood early on: METULL HANA) )ENA)>PAWLAWS )ASIRA) )NA) DYE#UW( …> >I would like to know how others see this verse and how best to understand>TOUTOU XARIN in the syntax of the passage — i.e., suggestions on how to>diagram it. If anyone has access to Best’s NICC commentary that just came>out I would be interested to hear what he suggests for this passage.I suspect there’s not going to be a whole lot of consensus on this one, butI’ll thrown in my 2c worth:The verse reads (in UBS4): TOUTOU CARIN EGW PAULOS hO DESMIOS TOU CRISTOUhUPER hUMWN TWN EQNWN–The editors, by punctuating thus, have pretty clearly indicated that theysee this as a sentence fragment, and I find it difficult to thinkotherwise; I think it may be easiest to see, as you say Lincoln evidentlyfeels, this is “the beginning of a sentence that is not resumed again untilv. 14.” I don’t really see how the problems here are resolved by assumingan EIMI; it seems to me that TOUTOU CARIN and hUPER hUMWN TWN EQNWN reallyneed to construe with a verb of action.(a) While the genitive TOU CRISTOU can, I think, be legitimately attachedto hO DESMIOS, I think that hUPER hUMWN TWN EQNWN cannot; I really thinkthis phrase would need an additional article to give it attributive linkageto hO DESMIOS, and without that linkage, I think some indication of whatthe writer HAS DONE “on behalf of you Gentiles” is required to attach thephrase to;(b) To an only slightly lesser extent do I also think that’s true of TOUTOUCARIN: I’m really troubled even by the notion that TOUTOU has the precedingseveral verses as a meaningful antecedent–and forms of hOUTOS do normallyrefer to what has immediately preceded rather than to what follows–and Idon’t personally see how one can point to Eph 2:14-22 as clearly statingthe REASON (“And that is why …”) for the writer’s being the prisoner ofChrist. On the other hand, I can see it as referring to the precedingverses if TOUTOU CARIN belongs syntactically to a verb of action that neverappears in the extant verse–presumably because we have an anacoluthon atthe end of verse 1 and a brand new beginning in verse 2. I think someintended verb of action must be understood with which TOUTOU CARIN andhUPER hUMWN TWN EQNWN must BOTH construe syntactically.Others may very well feel that there’s nothing syntactically problematicabout these two phrases, but my own feeling is that both are adverbial innature and need to construe with an action verb rather than with an EIMIthat is nothing more than a copula linking a subject and predicatenominative.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.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Help with PhD Dissertation Pre-topicUPAKOUW + case?