1 Cor 12:2

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 3 06:38:22 EDT 1998


At 9:32 PM -0500 9/02/98, pwiles wrote:
>Content-Type: text/html
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by extra.ucc.su.OZ.AU
>id MAA14083
>
>Hi
>
>I have  a question re 1 Corinthians 12:2 specifically with reference to
>the prepositional phrase     pro\ß ta\ ei¡dwla ta\ a¡fwna (I realise that
>this verse is inherently difficult due to being an anacolouthon)
>
>Is it syntactically possible to see this phrase as adverbially
>qualifying   h¡gesqe in the subordinate clause  w*ß a·n h¡gesqe  ie can it
>be syntactically part of a subordinate clause when it precedes  the clause
>marker (w*ß a·n)?
>
>My resulting translation is:
>
>"You know that when you were Gentiles, when ever you were led to dumb
>idols, you (were) being led astay."
>(I am assuming that there is an implied h™te so that the participle is
>effectively a periphrastic imperfect

I'd be more inclined to understand APAGOMENOI not as the participle of a
periphrastic imperfect but circumstantially with HGESQE AN.

>
>I would appreciate comment as to wheher this is an acceptable translation?

I'm not sure that I'd call this an anacoluthon in the proper sense; it
seems to me that the remarkable thing about it is the foreward-thrusting
PROS TA EIDWLA TA AFWNA, which indeed should, I think, be construed with
the claus hWS AN HGESQE APAGOMENOI. But two points that seem to me missed
in the version here: (1) the hWS is functioning to introduce the noun
clause which functions as the object of OIDATE; and (2) the AN should, I
think, be construed with HGESQE. In fact, this AN with HGESQE is the most
extraordinary thing about this clause: it seems to be used here to indicate
iteration in what is, for practical purposes, a past general condition
(although the older classical conditional construction uses an AN in the
apodosis ONLY of contrary to fact or future less vivid conditions. I read
this as: "You know how (hWS) you used to be drawn in rapture (APAGOMENOI)
toward speechless idols, when you were pagan." I've always understood this
to mean that Paul is here endeavoring to (preparing to) draw a distinction
between pagan ecstatic religious experience and Christian ecstatic
religious experience, suggesting that in outward appearance they are
perhaps not readily distinguishable.

What's awkward, it seems to me is the AN with HGESQE APAGOMENOI; it's as if
there's a conflation here between two older constructions: (a) present
contrary to fact ("If you were pagan, you would be drawn in rapture toward
speechless idols") and past general ("when you were pagan, you used to be
drawn in rapture toward speechless idols"). But here we have the
introductory hOTE of a past general condition used in conjunction with AN +
imperfect more characteristic of a future less vivid (should/would)
condition.

I really need to go back and check the NT grammars on AN in an apodosis;
with loss of the optative from standard usage, there seems to be a change
in the usage of AN.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3949 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/19980903/ea5f5431/attachment.bin 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list