Fwd: Re: ECEIN PROS TINA - 2 Cor 5:12

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Sep 16 16:42:34 EDT 2002


Forwarded for George Somsel:

>In a message dated 9/16/2002 11:02:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>toseland at blueyonder.co.uk writes:
>
>>OU PALIN hEAUTOUS SUNISTANOMEN hU(MIN, ALLA AFORMHN DIDONTES UMIN
>>KAUCHMATOS hUPER hHMWN, hINA ECHTE PROS TOUS EN PROSWPWi
>>KAUXWMENOUS KAI MH EN KARDIAi.
>>
>>I would like to canvass opinion concerning a recent interpretation
>>of the hINA clause of 2 Cor 5:12.
>>
>>Most interpreters assume that an object for ECHTE is to be
>>supplied, maybe KAUCHMA or AFORMHN or TI LEGEIN. But a recent
>>commentator claims that Paul is using an abbreviated form of a
>>common idiom expressing hostitlity, ECEIN PROS TINA with adverb
>>such as ALLOTRIWS, APECQWS, or KAKWS. Thus he commpares, for
>>example, 3 Mac 5:3,
>>
>>SUNAGAGWN ’Ķ THS STRATIAS APECQWS PROS TOUS IOUDAIOUS
>>
>>(’Äò[When he had given these orders he returned to his feasting
>>together with his friends and] of the army who were especially
>>hostile toward the Jews’Äô ’Äì NRS’Äô)
>>
>>He also cites Josephus, Ant. 1.166; 7.186; 8.117; 13.35, 85,
>>195, 288; 14.8, 164, 404; 15.81; 16.267; 17.290; 20.162;
>>Life 375, 384, 392; War 7.56.
>>
>>So in 2 Cor 5:12, he implies, we should supply not an object, but
>>an adverb of hostility. He translates, ’Äòin order that you may be
>>hostile to those who boast in the face and not in the heart’Äô.
>>
>>This is an interesting proposal. The wording of 5:12 closely
>>resembles that of 1:14, where he expresses the hope that through
>>what he is now writing the Corinthians will realise that
>>
>>KAUCHMA hUMWN ESMEN KAQAPER KAI hUMEIS hHMWN EN THi hHMERAi TOU
>>KURI/OU [hHMWN] IHSOU.
>>
>>The realisation that they have such a partnership with Paul could
>>only lead to their enmity with his enemies. It is quite likely
>>that he does not want his readers to answer his opponents; it
>>would almost certainly be a lost cause (4:3-4). Rather, he wants
>>them to have nothing to do with the false apostles (6:11-7:4).
>>
>>But does this interpretation ask too much of the text? Was the
>>idiom well enough established that it would be obvious that
>>something like APECQWS was to be supplied?
>>
>
>
>Some passages you failed to mention are Mt. 5.23; Mk 11.25; Rev 2.4, 14.
>These use the prepostition KATA as does Ant. 7.186 which you mention.  Mt
>5.23, e.g., states
>
>hO ADELFOS SOU EXEI TI KATA SOU
>
>Rev 2.4 has
>
>ALLA EXW KATA SOU hOTI THN AGAPHN SOU THN PRWTHN AFHKES
>
>Others are similar.
>
>With the prep. PROS it is somewhat similar.  BGAD cites
>
>Acts 24.19 EI TI EXOIEN PROS ME
>        25.19 ZHTHMATA DE TINA PERI THS IDIAS DEISIDAIMONIAS EIXON PROS AUTON
>
>Note the last.  Here it appears that it appears that the idiom signifies
>that the "questions" which are at issue are "with" PROS someone (here with
>Paul).  It would thus appear that PROS would signify the person to whom
>one responds in a debate whereas KATA would signify the one to whom some
>animus is directed. 
>
>gfsomsel





More information about the B-Greek mailing list