Concerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI jerker karlsson jerker_k at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 27 14:30:41 EST 2001
SU as part of a vocative? Use of MH Hi!I am near the completion of an essay on Paul and natural theology, but have recently stumbled over an interpretation of the NOOUMENA KATHORATAI in Romans 1: 20 which I cant make any sense of.B. Gärtner wrights in The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation p. 136 that the participle NOOUMENA should be interpreted as Participum Explicandi Causa Verbo Adiectum. (with a reference to Przychocki G. De gregorii Naziamzeni Epistulis. Krakow, 1913, p. 278.). Gärtner later identifies this grammatical construction with the one found in Blass-Debrunner Grammatik pp 187ff., but Blass-Debrunner talks of das Ptz. zur Ergränzung von Verben des Wahrnehmens und Erkennens. This later function of the participle Im well aware off and therefore Im struck with wonder then Gärtner goes on to say that the meaning of KATHORATAI is determined by the explicative participle NOOUMENA. He brings this out in the translations which runs For men see and understands…, but the problem is that this translation has nothing to do with participles Ergränzung von Verben des Wahrnehmens und Erkennens. The participle in such constructions relates to the object clause of the sentence and does not as in the translation by Gärtner modify the meaning of the main verb.The problems that I would like to have some help to solve is A) Does anyone know under what modern grammatical label the Latin phrase Participum Explicandi Causa Verbo Adiectum goes? B) Have I misunderstood the function of participles flanking a verb that denotes perception and/or feeling? C) (Under the condition that I make any sense) Does anyone make sense of what Gärtner is saying?RegardsJerker KarlssonLund, Sweden_________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
SU as part of a vocative?Use of MH
Concerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Tue Nov 27 16:49:10 EST 2001
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi on 11/27/01 6:30 AM, jerker karlsson wrote:> Hi!> > I am near the completion of an essay on Paul and natural theology, but> have recently stumbled over an interpretation of the NOOUMENA KATHORATAI in> Romans 1: 20 which I cant make any sense of.> > B. Gärtner wrights in The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation p. 136> that the participle NOOUMENA should be interpreted as Participum Explicandi> Causa Verbo Adiectum. (with a reference to Przychocki G. De gregorii> Naziamzeni Epistulis. Krakow, 1913, p. 278.). Gärtner later identifies this> grammatical construction with the one found in Blass-Debrunner Grammatik> pp 187ff., but Blass-Debrunner talks of das Ptz. zur Ergränzung von Verben> des Wahrnehmens und Erkennens. This later function of the participle Im> well aware off and therefore Im struck with wonder then Gärtner goes on to> say that the meaning of KATHORATAI is determined by the explicative> participle NOOUMENA. He brings this out in the translations which runs For> men see and understands…, but the problem is that this translation has> nothing to do with participles Ergränzung von Verben des Wahrnehmens und> Erkennens. The participle in such constructions relates to the object clause> of the sentence and does not as in the translation by Gärtner modify the> meaning of the main verb.> > The problems that I would like to have some help to solve is A) Does anyone> know under what modern grammatical label the Latin phrase Participum> Explicandi Causa Verbo Adiectum goes? B) Have I misunderstood the function> of participles flanking a verb that denotes perception and/or feeling? C)> (Under the condition that I make any sense) Does anyone make sense of what> Gärtner is saying?> > > Regards> > Jerker Karlsson> Lund, SwedenJerker,What a question!BDF #416 Title: “The Suplementary Participle with Verbs of Perception andCognition” states: “In Classical Greek the participle takes the nominative case if it refersto the subject of the verb [. . . ] Except with the passive verbs the nominative does not appear in the NTreferring to the subject . . .”BDF #416(2) cites Matt. 1:18 hUREQH EN GASTRI ECOUSA as an example of thepassive verb with the nominative participle. In this case the participlerefers back to the subject stated explicitly in the previous clause asMARIAS and limits the passive verb hUREQH.In Rom 1:20 we find KATHORATAI tagged passive by Gramcord and Frieberg. Iwould understand TA AORATA as the subject of KATHORATAI and NOOUMENA as the”explicative participle” referring back to TA AORATA and limitingKATHORATAI. For this reason I don’t see any contradiction in what B. Gärtner says andwhat BDF #416 says.Perhaps I have missed the point entirely.greetingsClay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWiLk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi
Concerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI jerker karlsson jerker_k at hotmail.com
Wed Nov 28 01:26:32 EST 2001
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi SU as part of a vocative? Thanks for a god answer on a clumsy stated question. Ill try to express more clearly what the problem is that I see in Gärtners interpretation of the supplementary participle.The reference Gärtner makes to Blass-Debrunner is perfectly clear and in accordance with what you are to expect when a participle is used with a Verba Sentiendi for example as in the phrase WS DENDRA ORW TOUS ANTHRWPOUS PERIPATOUNTAS (Luk. 8: 24) or as in the passive hUREQH EN GASTRI ECOUSA. The source of my confusion was partly due to the fact that Gärtner identified this as a explicative participle, but mostly my confusion drives from the way in which he translates, and I quote also that which precedes,: And the term [NOOUMENA] means to see with understanding, that is to say, see and understand. The translation of the verse would then read For men see and understand[…].The reason that I jumped high at explicative participle is that I understood it as if he intended a modification of the verb KATHORATAI and not the nominative AORATA, and even thou I might have misinterpreted what he meant by explic. ptc. I found that he is doing exactly what I suspected in his translation. To further explain: In Matt 1: 18 the meaning of hEREQH is not modified by ECOUSA, but MARIAN is i.e. the finding is still a finding but the object found is modified, and as a consequence the scope of the verb is limited. Maria was not found herself but her having in the belly was. But this is not the case in Gärtner, instead of modifying AORATA with NOUMENA he add is on top of KATHORATAI and thus renders it with to see with understanding.RegardsJerker KarlssonLund, Sweden>From: c stirling bartholomew <cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net>>To: jerker karlsson <jerker_k at hotmail.com>, Biblical Greek >< at franklin.oit.unc.edu>>Subject: Re: [] Concerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI>Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:49:10 -0800> >on 11/27/01 6:30 AM, jerker karlsson wrote:> > > Hi!> >> > I am near the completion of an essay on Paul and natural theology, but> > have recently stumbled over an interpretation of the NOOUMENA KATHORATAI >in> > Romans 1: 20 which I cant make any sense of.> >> > B. Gärtner wrights in The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation p. >136> > that the participle NOOUMENA should be interpreted as Participum >Explicandi> > Causa Verbo Adiectum. (with a reference to Przychocki G. De gregorii> > Naziamzeni Epistulis. Krakow, 1913, p. 278.). Gärtner later identifies >this> > grammatical construction with the one found in Blass-Debrunner >Grammatik> > pp 187ff., but Blass-Debrunner talks of das Ptz. zur Ergränzung von >Verben> > des Wahrnehmens und Erkennens. This later function of the participle >Im> > well aware off and therefore Im struck with wonder then Gärtner goes >on to> > say that the meaning of KATHORATAI is determined by the explicative> > participle NOOUMENA. He brings this out in the translations which runs >For> > men see and understands…, but the problem is that this translation >has> > nothing to do with participles Ergränzung von Verben des Wahrnehmens und> > Erkennens. The participle in such constructions relates to the object >clause> > of the sentence and does not as in the translation by Gärtner modify the> > meaning of the main verb.> >> > The problems that I would like to have some help to solve is A) Does >anyone> > know under what modern grammatical label the Latin phrase Participum> > Explicandi Causa Verbo Adiectum goes? B) Have I misunderstood the >function> > of participles flanking a verb that denotes perception and/or feeling? >C)> > (Under the condition that I make any sense) Does anyone make sense of >what> > Gärtner is saying?> >> >> > Regards> >> > Jerker Karlsson> > Lund, Sweden> >Jerker,> >What a question!> >BDF #416 Title: “The Suplementary Participle with Verbs of Perception and>Cognition” states:> > “In Classical Greek the participle takes the nominative case if it refers>to the subject of the verb [. . . ]> >Except with the passive verbs the nominative does not appear in the NT>referring to the subject . . .”> >BDF #416(2) cites Matt. 1:18 hUREQH EN GASTRI ECOUSA as an example of the>passive verb with the nominative participle. In this case the participle>refers back to the subject stated explicitly in the previous clause as>MARIAS and limits the passive verb hUREQH.> >In Rom 1:20 we find KATHORATAI tagged passive by Gramcord and Frieberg. I>would understand TA AORATA as the subject of KATHORATAI and NOOUMENA as the>“explicative participle” referring back to TA AORATA and limiting>KATHORATAI.> >For this reason I don’t see any contradiction in what B. Gärtner says and>what BDF #416 says.> >Perhaps I have missed the point entirely.> > >greetings> >Clay> >—>Clayton Stirling Bartholomew>Three Tree Point>P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062> > _________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWiSU as part of a vocative?