Grounding status of participle in 1 Peter 3:7

Exploring Albert Rijksbaron's book, The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction, to see how it would need to be adapted for Koine Greek. Much of the focus will be on finding Koine examples to illustrate the same points Rijksbaron illustrates with Classical examples, and places where Koine Greek diverges from Classical Greek.
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2647
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Grounding status of participle in 1 Peter 3:7

Post by Stephen Carlson » February 27th, 2018, 4:07 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 9:55 am
Stephen Carlson wrote:
February 27th, 2018, 4:31 am

Personally, I found Steve’s work (and Levinsohn’s) extremely helpful in my own text-critical work, especially for evaluating textual variants that relate to discourse functions.
Could you give a specific example or two?
The presence of the article in Gal 2:6 comes to mind, as does inclusion of δέ in 2:16. There are others. The gory details are all in my book.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

serunge
Posts: 26
Joined: May 23rd, 2011, 11:07 am
Location: Bellingham, WA
Contact:

Re: Grounding status of participle in 1 Peter 3:7

Post by serunge » February 28th, 2018, 5:09 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
February 26th, 2018, 11:58 pm
So Steve, assuming that your reading of the text is valid in all its particulars, what difference does it make? Should we draw different conclusions from the more traditional grammatical and syntactical reading of the text? If so, what?
You ask a good question, Barry. I would say it does not make as much of a difference as some proponents of discourse analysis would lead you to believe. I do not spend much time in commentaries these days, but I spot-checked the outlines and found the division Mitch proposes is common. In reading closely through the WBC comments here, the author views 2:18-3:7 as about household ethics, citing the direct address forms and repetition of the participle in 2:18 and 3:1 as evidence. But what was missing was any reference to how the dependency relationships among the verbal clauses would have further strengthened his claim, and have offered a better connection of 3:7 to what precedes besides the relation of husband and wife. He has a clear connection, but one that would not differentiate the structuring here with what seems to be a different grouping in Eph 5:18 ff. There v. 22 has no verb at all (dependent on v. 21 which in turn is dependent on v. 18) versus the imperative at 5:25.

So to return to your question, what I am doing is not about arriving at a different reading than most, but about showing how I got there both for precision and to rule out potentially competing alternatives. I don't think the outcomes will be radically different than traditional approaches in most cases, but how they were arrived at will be much more transparent and thus better able to address competing alternatives. If I am claiming a conclusion that no one else has ever claimed before, then I am probably wrong.
Steve Runge

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1204
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Grounding status of participle in 1 Peter 3:7

Post by Barry Hofstetter » February 28th, 2018, 8:53 pm

Steven, this is quite close to the value that I see in discourse analysis. To me, it is another perspective on getting a handle on the text. It's a way of making objective what people who have a fluent or near-fluent control of the text often see intuitively.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest