οντεσ Eph 4:18 – which participle? c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Oct 3 15:17:32 εδτ 2001
Eph 4:19 Vice List What To Do With πνευματικοσ α disagreement exists about which participle οντεσ should be joined with inEph 4:18. εσκοτωμενοι – η.α.ω. Meyer, ε. Best, η. Alford, π.τ. Obrien, UBSGNT3APHLLOTRIWMENOI – Eadie, and βδφ (#352) vid*.*ι may be misreading βδφ on this but ι 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 σ.ε. Porter, Verb Aspect p.475 and β. Fanning, pp. 416-18 for their discussion of this construction.ι 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.ο. Box 255 Seahurst ωα 98062
Eph 4:19 Vice ListWhat To Do With πνευματικοσ
οντεσ Eph 4:18 – which participle? Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Oct 5 10:00:46 εδτ 2001
What To Do With πνευματικοσ What To Do With πνευματικοσ At 12:17 πμ -0700 10/3/01, c stirling bartholomew wrote:>α disagreement exists about which participle οντεσ should be joined with in>Eph 4:18.> >εσκοτωμενοι – η.α.ω. Meyer, ε. Best, η. Alford, π.τ. Obrien, UBSGNT3> >αφλλοτριωμενοι – Eadie, and βδφ (#352) vid*.> >*ι may be misreading βδφ on this but ι 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 σ.ε. Porter, Verb Aspect p.>475 and β. Fanning, pp. 416-18 for their discussion of this construction.Sorry, ι don’t have these at hand; Fanning, which ι‘d really like to read,is οπ.>ι 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 τουτο ουν λεγω και μαρτυρομαι εν KURIWi, μηκετι hUMAS περιπατειν, καθωσκαι τα εθνη περιπατει εν ματαιοθτι του νοοσ αυτων, 18 εσκοτωμενοι THiDIANOIAi οντεσ, αφλλοτριωμενοι θσ ζωησ του θεου …Well, ι‘ve looked at it for more than 10 minutes but haven’t read any ofthe commentaries. Quite frankly, ι can’t see any factor in favor ofunderstanding οντεσ with αφλλοτριωμενοι, nor can ι see either why itmatters, since it would be understood in either case. More interesting isthe agreement of both m. nom. pl. participles, presumably with τα εθνη asan instance of ξονστρυξτιο αδ σενσυμ. At any rate, it seems to me that theposition of οντεσ 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 οντεσ construes withESKOTWMENOI.Am ι missing something? Probably. ι can see how some μιγητ want tounderstand εσκοτωμενοι adverbially with περιπατει: the gentiles walk in astate of mental disarray βεξαυσε their minds are in a state of darkness,and then οντεσ would construe with αφλλοτριωμενοι so that this phrasefunctions as an appositional relative clause, “who are alienated …”Nevertheless, it seems a more natural way of construing the elements tounderstand βοθ participles in vs. 18 so that οντεσ construes primarilywith εσκοτωμενοι and implicitly–secondarily–with αφλλοτριωμενοι. 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 ι, shrouded in my own mental darkness, have offered anopinion on this verse, perhaps some more enlightened persons will take onClay’s challenge.– Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu ορ cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSWhat To Do With πνευματικοσ
Fri Oct 5 12:10:43 εδτ 2001
οφφ–τοπιξ (was: What To Do With πνευματικοσ) ti in Luke 16.2 Carl,Thank you for taking more than 10 minutes. ι 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 αμ, Carl ω. Conrad wrote:> και τα εθνη περιπατει εν ματαιοθτι του νοοσ αυτων, 18 εσκοτωμενοι THi> DIANOIAi οντεσ, αφλλοτριωμενοι θσ ζωησ του θεου …> > Well, ι‘ve looked at it for more than 10 minutes but haven’t read any of> the commentaries. Quite frankly, ι can’t see any factor in favor of> understanding οντεσ with αφλλοτριωμενοι, nor can ι see either why it> matters, since it would be understood in either case.Yes, agreed. This was my first take on this. Who cares? οντεσ doesn’t seemto add much to the meaning of the verse. ε. Best (Eph. ιξξ, p418) states: “Periphrastic tenses incorporating perfectparticiples serve to emphasize an existing state.” He gives the followingreferences on this: σ.ε. Porter, Verb Aspect p. 475 and β. Fanning, pp.416-18, ν. Turner p.89, βδρ (βδφ) #352, Burton #155. ι checked all of theseexcpet Porter and Fanning (don’t have them). Was surprised to find βδφ #352apparently in agreement with John Eadie in joining οντεσ withAPHLLOTRIWMENOI. That is what promted me to raise the question.{snip … }> > Nevertheless, it seems a more natural way of construing the elements to> understand βοθ participles in vs. 18 so that οντεσ construes primarily> with εσκοτωμενοι and implicitly–secondarily–with αφλλοτριωμενοι.This is similar to the reading in ε. Best, who ι misrepresented in my firstpost. He joins οντεσ with both participles.Thank you Carl for your valuable comments.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.ο. Box 255 Seahurst ωα 98062
οφφ–τοπιξ (was: What To Do With πνευματικοσ)ti in Luke 16.2