[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

b-greek-digest V1 #812




b-greek-digest             Sunday, 6 August 1995       Volume 01 : Number 812

In this issue:

        Re: Phil 1:7 
        Phil 1:7; 2 accs. w/ inf.; Oedipus Tyrannus 
        Re: Phil 1:7
        Re: Phil 1:7 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 10:51:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Phil 1:7 

Carl Conrad wrote,
".  .  .  Personally I do think that the sequence between 3:1 and 3:2 is nigh
unto incredible for a continuous composition, but I'm less confident about
arguments for partition in chapter 4. Be that as it may, the relevance of
this question to the interpretation of 1:7 is simply this: isn't the endeavor
to read the second accusative in 1:7 (hUMAS) as the SUBJECT of the infinitive
(EXEIN) really based upon interpreting it with reference to what we learn of
the gift of the Philippian congregation in 4:10ff? Perhaps that makes sense
enough if one is satisfied of the integrity of Philippians as a single
letter, but it still seems more likely to me that Paul would have said
something about the gift in the immediate context of those Salutation and
Thanksgiving formulae at the beginning of the letter. As things stand, I
don't really think his initial sequence in Philippians differs from what is
more or less standard for him in the opening sequences of letters: a
salutation suited to the congregation addressed, then a thanksgiving that
commonly mentions how Paul thinks of the congregation especially in his
prayers."

That was my main point exactly.  I said that the NRSV translators apparently
thought that the gift was in Paul's mind and if that was true, they should
have translated  hUMWN in1:3 as a subjective genitive.  I'm not so sure that
either is correct.  In fact I think that in most instances in the NT the
accusative nearest the verb is the "subject."

Carl also said,
"Now I may well be reading 1:7 in a very subjective way, but I've tried to
show how it seems to me that my reading fits the larger context of the
opening sequence."

I agree with your gut and with Mark.

Carl also said,
"One other item regarding the two accusatives with an infinitive. I don't
have a text handy or remember the exact phrasing, but there is a crucial
sequence in the Oedipus Tyrannus in a dialogue between Oedipus and Tiresias
in which the two accusatives are situated on either side of the infinitive,
and the same question arises, which one is the subject and which is the
object of the infinitive? As I recall, this line is crucial because it bears
on the question of whether the gods really have decreed the destruction of
Oedipus. I'll check out and cite the lines tomorrow, but I recall also that
the frustrated reader of this text is driven up the walls
by the fact that the two accusative pronouns, a ME and a SE, are REVERSED in
one or more of the MS variants! One wonders what the scribes copying this
text thought!"

There are several of these (infinitive with an accusative before and after)
in the NT.  One is in Philippians I think, but I will have to find it with a
concording program.  My hunch is that most of the time the one that follows
the verb is the "subject" and the one before is the object.  I have some
notes on this somewhere and will have to dig them out.

Carlton Winbery
Prof. Rel.
LA College, Pineville, LA

------------------------------

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 11:07:56 -0500
Subject: Phil 1:7; 2 accs. w/ inf.; Oedipus Tyrannus 

Last night, while discussing the interpretation of Phil 1:7 and the
question of which of two accusatives used with an infinitive is more likely
to be the subject and which the object, I referred to a celebrated passage
in Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus where this question is crucial to
interpreting not only the passage but also the question of Apollo's
pre-determination of the doom of Oedipus.

First let me say that I have attempted to work through the relevant
sections of Smyth-Messing and Blass-Debrunner-Funk in quest of any rule
governing positioning of subject and object accusatives with infinitive
when both are present. I may have overlooked it, but I didn't find
anything.

Here, however, is the passage from the OT of Sophocles. I realize that this
is somewhat alien to the proper subject matter of B-Greek, but it is an
interesting passage (I think) and one of considerable importance for
interpretation of the play. My memory of it was wrong, however, in one
significant respect: it is not a matter of two accusatives with an
infinitive but rather of one accusative which must be construed as the
subject of the infinitive (which here has a passive sense) and a PROS +
gen. "agent" construction.

In OT 370f. Oedipus, after being told by Teiresias that he, Oedipus, is in
fact the pollution which Apollo wants removed from Thebes, lashes out at
Teiresias as "blind of ears and mind and eyes; in 374f. Oedipus goes on to
say that no one who has vision would ever harm Teiresias, who is nurtured
of solitary night. Then in 375, Teiresias responds, acc. to the text of the
MSS:

        OU GAR ME MOIRA PROS GE SOU PESEIN, EPEI
        hIKANOS APOLLWN, hWi TAD' EKPRAKSAI MELEI.

        "True, for it's not destiny for me to be put down at your hands, since
        Apollo is sufficient, whose concern it is to accomplish that."

I would understand this to mean that Apollo, who installed Teiresias as his
prophet in Thebes, is the only one who may legitimately remove him from
that office. However, Jebb and subsequent editors, not content with this
understanding and perhaps under the spell of the old Victorian
interpretation that Oedipus is destroyed because of his hUBRIS, want to
make the verse state that Apollo is the one responsible for the removal of
Oedipus from the throne of Thebes (although a careful reading of the play
should convince anyone that Oedipus himself alone brings upon himself his
doom through his persistence in asking the questions that no one wants to
answer). Therefore they have accepted an "emendation" of Brunck to reverse
the sequence of pronouns in line 375 to:

        OU GAR SE MOIRA PROS G' EMOU PESEIN, EPEI
        hIKANOS APOLLWN, hWi TAD' EKPRAKSAI MELEI.

I'm sorry that this little passage does not help solve the question about
subject- and object-accusatives with an infinitive, but I felt obliged,
having mentioned the passage in my post last night, to follow up on it.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu  OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



------------------------------

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 12:28:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Phil 1:7

At 11:18 AM 8/5/95, WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
>Carl,
>Here is an eg. from Paul where the infinitive has the accusative as "subject"
>following with the object following.
>1Ths. 1:8    ALLA EN PANTI TOPWI H PISTIS hUMWN H PROS TON QEON EXELHLUQEN,
>hWSTE (MH CHREIAN ECHEIN hHMAS) LALEIN TI
>"But in every place your faith which is toward God has gone out, with the
>result that (you have no need) to say anything."
>
>I think that most of the time in the NT in this situation, the "subject"
>follows the infinitive.
>Carlton Winbery

Thanks very much for the example. Certainly no one would suppose that the
position of XREIAN, following as it does upon the MH, would indicate any
standard positioning of the object as the first accusative with an
infinitive, the second accusative being the subject--or would anyone? I
believe this is certainly the case in the articular infinitive and in
instances like the above, where the infinitive follows upon something like
hWSTE.

Here's another one, from a passage that we were looking at last week (Rom
1:20):

        EIS TO EINAI AUTOUS ANAPOLOGHTOUS

where the subject follows immediately upon the infinitive, and then comes
the predicate accusative (whereas, I think, in a direct statement, the
word-order would be DIO ANAPOLOGHTOI EISIN EKEINOI).

My apologies for misunderstanding what you were arguing in the earlier
post, Carlton, It must be a perilous business to sit on one of those
committees with responsibility for a major translation or a major version
of the GNT. I don't suppose this business in Phil 1:7 really matters at all
in any theological sense, but there must be passages wherein there are very
strong opinions held by both a majority and a minority on the right way to
read a passage; I'd feel very uncomfortable serving on a committee like
that and being on either the majority or the minority side of a very
controversial decision on a text or translation.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu  OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



------------------------------

From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 1995 15:49:24 CST
Subject: Re: Phil 1:7 

On Sat, 5 Aug 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:

>At 11:18 AM 8/5/95, WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
>>Carl,
>>Here is an eg. from Paul where the infinitive has the accusative as "subject"
>>following with the object following.
>>1Ths. 1:8    ALLA EN PANTI TOPWI H PISTIS hUMWN H PROS TON QEON EXELHLUQEN,
>>hWSTE (MH CHREIAN ECHEIN hHMAS) LALEIN TI
>>"But in every place your faith which is toward God has gone out, with the
>>result that (you have no need) to say anything."
>>
>>I think that most of the time in the NT in this situation, the "subject"
>>follows the infinitive.
>>Carlton Winbery
>
>Thanks very much for the example. Certainly no one would suppose that the
>position of XREIAN, following as it does upon the MH, would indicate any
>standard positioning of the object as the first accusative with an
>infinitive, the second accusative being the subject--or would anyone?

I have to agree, Carl.  This OVS word order is placing emphasis on the need
(or lack thereof).  If one is wondering whether SVO or OVS is more usual in
the GNT with infinitives, I would have to go with SVO.  My databases for James
and 1 Corinthians show 1 example of SVO for James and 5 for 1 Corinthians and
no examples of OVS for infinitives in either book.

To turn to Phil. 1:7, that is an interesting question.  I have not yet been
able to find an analogous passage, although I have searched my databases and
looked at all of the present active infinitives and some of the aorist active
infinitives in the Clapp, Friberg, and Friberg grammatical focus concordance. 
It is very unusual to have two accusative pronouns following the infinitive.

In looking for an analogous passage, these factors have to be kept in mind:
1) Greek word order may vary between clauses that contain nouns and those that
contain pronouns, especially if the nouns are modified by articles.
2) Greek word order may vary depending upon the semantic category of the verb,
especially if the verb is equative or a verb of speech.  In other words, a
good parallel would not use examples with EIMI or LEGW, since these verbs can
affect word order.
3) Clauses that contain both a noun and a pronoun are not a good example,
because Radney has shown that in such cases the pronoun tends to be found next
to the verb, whether it is subject or object.  This means that passages such
as
2 Cor 2:13 MH hEUREIN ME TITON ("I did not find Titus")
2 Cor 8:6  EIS TO PARAKALESAI hHMAS TITON ("we encouraged Titus")
are not good examples to compare with Phil. 1:7. 
4) Questions and object emphasis affect word order; negatives may affect word
order; voice (i.e., whether active or passive) will sometimes affect word
order.
5) The verb initial order is preferred following a preposition, as in Phil.
1:7.
6) The subject precedes the object in about 90% of the cases in Greek (to make
a guess--sorry, I don't have good statistics on this one).  Therefore I would
favor Phil. 1:7 ECEIN ME IN TH KARDIA hUMAS being translated "I have you in my
heart."  The thing that bothers me about this is that a locational
prepositional phrase is more likely to follow the object.  Could hUMAS be an
afterthought "subject" tagged on?  It could, but on the whole I favor the VSO
order in this case.

I will be away from my computer next week as I visit the Navajo Reservation. 
You will have to finish this one without me.

********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry                            E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station		       Phone:  915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699		       Fax:    915/674-3769
********************************************************************************

------------------------------

End of b-greek-digest V1 #812
*****************************

** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **

To unsubscribe from this list write

majordomo@virginia.edu

with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content.  For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".

For further information, you can write the owner of the list at

owner-b-greek@virginia.edu

You can send mail to the entire list via the address:

b-greek@virginia.edu