Pros

CWestf5155 at aol.com CWestf5155 at aol.com
Wed Jun 2 12:27:37 EDT 1999


Donald,

In a message dated 6/1/99 4:30:29 AM Mountain Daylight Time, 
dshaf45917 at aol.com writes:

> 
>  The implied oneness for PROS is my conclusion.  If I am wrong, I want to
>  know.  But if I am right, I would like everyone to know.  It would make a 
>  big
>  difference in what our Bibles are saying.
>  

Somewhere in the archives, I also wrote about how certain constructions with 
PROS did involve some kind of relationship of some kind of component with a 
whole, such as the relationship of individuals to a group to which the 
individual belonged. This relationship didn't seem to follow with other 
stative verbs or other occurences. 

The 'collocation' that I saw as significant was EIMI + PROS (not including 
pariphrastics): there were only a few (Jn. 1:1; Mt. 13:56; Mk. 6:3; 9:19; 
14:49; Lk. 9:41; I Thess. 3:4; 2 Thess. 2:5; 2 Thess. 3:10; I Jn. 1:2).  I 
concluded that there might be enough evidence of association of a 'part to a 
whole' to justify a study of the collocation of EIMI + PROS in Hellenistic 
literature.  The number of occurences in the NT are too few to draw any 
conclusions that can be taken seriously, and each occurrence might be 
contested . 

I think that you can say at this point that the use of PROS does not EXCLUDE 
oneness, as some have claimed, though I don't think that 'oneness' is the 
best inclusive description of the relationship.  For that matter, I'm not 
comfortable with 'part to whole' either. 

So, the hypothesis that I would test is not that PROS indicates this kind of 
relationship or that it has a 'meaning' of oneness, but whether the 
collocation of EIMI and PROS might indicate this kind of relationship, since 
a pattern seemed to emerge in the occurances.

Cindy Westfall
PhD Student, Roehampton



More information about the B-Greek mailing list