ONTES Eph 4:18 – which participle? c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Oct 3 15:17:32 EDT 2001
Eph 4:19 Vice List What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS A disagreement exists about which participle ONTES should be joined with inEph 4:18. ESKOTWMENOI – H.A.W. Meyer, E. Best, H. Alford, P.T. Obrien, UBSGNT3APHLLOTRIWMENOI – Eadie, and BDF (#352) vid*.*I may be misreading BDF on this but I don’t think so.It is humorous after 120 years to read Alford warning us to “beware” ofEadie’s analysis. Verb Aspectologists might want to take a look at S.E. Porter, Verb Aspect p.475 and B. Fanning, pp. 416-18 for their discussion of this construction.I would be curious to here the pros and cons from anyone who has taken alook at this issue for more than ten minutes.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Eph 4:19 Vice ListWhat To Do With PNEUMATIKOS
ONTES Eph 4:18 – which participle? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Oct 5 10:00:46 EDT 2001
What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS At 12:17 PM -0700 10/3/01, c stirling bartholomew wrote:>A disagreement exists about which participle ONTES should be joined with in>Eph 4:18.> >ESKOTWMENOI – H.A.W. Meyer, E. Best, H. Alford, P.T. Obrien, UBSGNT3> >APHLLOTRIWMENOI – Eadie, and BDF (#352) vid*.> >*I may be misreading BDF on this but I don’t think so.> >It is humorous after 120 years to read Alford warning us to “beware” of>Eadie’s analysis.> >Verb Aspectologists might want to take a look at S.E. Porter, Verb Aspect p.>475 and B. Fanning, pp. 416-18 for their discussion of this construction.Sorry, I don’t have these at hand; Fanning, which I’d really like to read,is OP.>I would be curious to here the pros and cons from anyone who has taken a>look at this issue for more than ten minutes.17 TOUTO OUN LEGW KAI MARTUROMAI EN KURIWi, MHKETI hUMAS PERIPATEIN, KAQWSKAI TA EQNH PERIPATEI EN MATAIOTHTI TOU NOOS AUTWN, 18 ESKOTWMENOI THiDIANOIAi ONTES, APHLLOTRIWMENOI THS ZWHS TOU QEOU …Well, I’ve looked at it for more than 10 minutes but haven’t read any ofthe commentaries. Quite frankly, I can’t see any factor in favor ofunderstanding ONTES with APHLLOTRIWMENOI, nor can I see either why itmatters, since it would be understood in either case. More interesting isthe agreement of both m. nom. pl. participles, presumably with TA EQNH asan instance of CONSTRUCTIO AD SENSUM. At any rate, it seems to me that theposition of ONTES is appropriate at the end of a participial phrase,inasmuch as the copula quite commonly falls in this position, allowing thegreater emphasis upon the predicate adj/ptc and its modifier. Of course,it’s true that the punctuation of UBS4 assumes that ONTES construes withESKOTWMENOI.Am I missing something? Probably. I can see how some MIGHT want tounderstand ESKOTWMENOI adverbially with PERIPATEI: the gentiles walk in astate of mental disarray BECAUSE their minds are in a state of darkness,and then ONTES would construe with APHLLOTRIWMENOI so that this phrasefunctions as an appositional relative clause, “who are alienated …”Nevertheless, it seems a more natural way of construing the elements tounderstand BOTH participles in vs. 18 so that ONTES construes primarilywith ESKOTWMENOI and implicitly–secondarily–with APHLLOTRIWMENOI. So: “SoI urge you and entreat you in the Lord not to “walk” any longer as theGentiles also ‘walk” in their futility of insight–the Gentiles, who areshrouded in mental darkness, alienated from God’s life …”Of course now that I, shrouded in my own mental darkness, have offered anopinion on this verse, perhaps some more enlightened persons will take onClay’s challenge.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSWhat To Do With PNEUMATIKOS
ONTES Eph 4:18 – which participle? c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Fri Oct 5 12:10:43 EDT 2001
OFF-TOPIC (was: What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS) ti in Luke 16.2 Carl,Thank you for taking more than 10 minutes. I have now spent more the 10looking over your post which seems to me a very sound evaluation of theissue. on 10/5/01 7:00 AM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> KAI TA EQNH PERIPATEI EN MATAIOTHTI TOU NOOS AUTWN, 18 ESKOTWMENOI THi> DIANOIAi ONTES, APHLLOTRIWMENOI THS ZWHS TOU QEOU …> > Well, I’ve looked at it for more than 10 minutes but haven’t read any of> the commentaries. Quite frankly, I can’t see any factor in favor of> understanding ONTES with APHLLOTRIWMENOI, nor can I see either why it> matters, since it would be understood in either case.Yes, agreed. This was my first take on this. Who cares? ONTES doesn’t seemto add much to the meaning of the verse. E. Best (Eph. ICC, p418) states: “Periphrastic tenses incorporating perfectparticiples serve to emphasize an existing state.” He gives the followingreferences on this: S.E. Porter, Verb Aspect p. 475 and B. Fanning, pp.416-18, N. Turner p.89, BDR (BDF) #352, Burton #155. I checked all of theseexcpet Porter and Fanning (don’t have them). Was surprised to find BDF #352apparently in agreement with John Eadie in joining ONTES withAPHLLOTRIWMENOI. That is what promted me to raise the question.{snip … }> > Nevertheless, it seems a more natural way of construing the elements to> understand BOTH participles in vs. 18 so that ONTES construes primarily> with ESKOTWMENOI and implicitly–secondarily–with APHLLOTRIWMENOI.This is similar to the reading in E. Best, who I misrepresented in my firstpost. He joins ONTES with both participles.Thank you Carl for your valuable comments.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
OFF-TOPIC (was: What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS)ti in Luke 16.2