1 Corinthians 7:15
Polycarp66 at aol.com
Polycarp66 at aol.com
Sun Jan 6 19:14:52 EST 2002
In a message dated 1/6/2002 6:13:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
fconley at airmail.net writes:
> However, I understand CHWRIZESQW to be a third person singular present
> passive imperative. Three questions for the grammarians: (1) Isn't it
> misleading for translations to imply that this is a second person when it
> is
> not? (2) Would it not be more in harmony with the grammar to render
> something like: "Divorce it must be"; or, "it is permitted." See: "They may
> separate"(JB); "it is permitted"(LB); or, as I think Moulton in his
> Prolegomena implies, p. 172, "If the partner insists on divorce, divorce it
> must be." (3) Is this possibly a case of the divine passive?
>
I think the problem here is trying to understand the grammar from the
perspective of the English language (perhaps others as well). In English we
associate the imperative with a command, "Do this." We don't understand "Let
this be done" as an imperative. Moreover, as you indicated "you" is
understood as the subject of such a construction. I would say, however that
such constructions as "divorce it must be" are awkward and unEnglish at best.
In Latin I believe the statement, "let him . . . " would be considered a
jussive (my Latin is extremely rusty, perhaps someone more knowledgeable can
speak to this). I think this is about the best we can do in English.
gfsomsel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/20020106/aefdbcc3/attachment.html
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list