[B-Greek] Phil.1:22-23
Gergely Juhasz
Gergely.Juhasz at arts.kuleuven.ac.be
Tue Mar 18 09:01:04 EST 2003
Dear Bruce,
I do not think it is v. 23 Martin is referring to, though I do not have the
text here with me right now. I wrote my MA thesis on Phil 1,18B-25 in
1997. Here is what I wrote then (fotenotes are enlcosed within {}).
Verse 22 is built up by four clauses. {Most commentators count only three
clauses, taking 22c-d: KAI\ TI/ hAIRH/SOMAI OU GNWRI/ZW as one clause. Note
however, that this bit contains two finite verb forms: hAIRH/SOMAI and
GNWRI/ZW. O'Brien is the only one who recognises "three (possibly four)
clauses in the Greek." (O'Brien, 124)}. The relation of the first three is
grammatically problematic. The first two clauses, continuing the style from
v.21, are verbless. Therefore, the extent of the conditional EI and its
results is taken differently by various exegetes.
(1) Some exegetes take 22a and 22b as the protasis, to which the apodosis
is introduced by KAI/ in 22c {E.g. Grotius, ad. loc. (p. 81); Loh-Nida,
32-33; Hawthorne, 46-47; Silva, 81. Cf. also the translations of JB, TEV,
TOB} This option offers a reseonably good sense of the whole sentence, and
elimintates the need to supply two verbs in 22a-b. But rendering KAI/ as
"then" --which is necessary in this solution-- is very much improbable, as
Lighfoot saw it already in 1868: "the only passage at all analogous in the
NT is 2 Cor 2:2 [...] But the parallel is not exact, for in these instances
[2 Cor 2:2, and Clem, Hom., 2,44] KAI\ [sic] introduces a direct
interrogative. Passages indeed are given in Hartung (1 pp. 130, 131) where
KAI\ [sic] ushers in the apodosis after EI, but these are all poetical. And
even if this use of KAI\ be admissible, the sentence still runs awkwardly"
{Lightfoot, 92.} because --as O'Brien puts it-- "the thought of continued
life as a fruit of previous efforts is difficult." {O'Brien, 124}
(2) The second possibility --the one which we also adopt here-- regards 22b
as the principle cause which depends on 22a and to which 22c and 22d are
joined as a new sentence. {So the vast majority of interpretes: e.g.
G.Barth, 31; Ewald, 87; Fee, 144; Gnilka, 72; Matter(1965), 32; Matter
(1979), 21; Michael, 55; O'Brien, 124; Scott-Wicks, 37.} Fee rightly
observed that "the TOU~TO in the second clause is emphatic, and thus seems
more likely to point to the option itself (=to live in the flesh, this...),
while at the same time serving as a form of 'then'; in the option the
pronoun is not only unnecessary, but cumbersome in the highest degree
(Meyer' and Vincent's appeal that it is emphatic reading 'to live in the
flesh' is hardly helpful, since there is no analogy for such a thing in
Paul)." {Fee, p. 144, n. 25.} Hawthorne also argues that EI in 22a does not
really carry conditional meaning "but may border on causal 'since'."
{Hawthorne, 47.} In fact, p46 reads EI/TE instead of EI DE/. And Fee's
reconstruction of Paul's way of thinking --which would explain the
brokenness of the sentences and the logic-- is rather convincing in our
view: "A follow up to v. 21 could have gone in one of the two directions:
either Paul could contemplate what the two alternatives would mean for him;
or he could contemplate the two alternatives themselves, as to which he
might prefer. What he seems to have done is both. That is, he begins with
the first, what the alternatives would mean to him personally. But het gets
only as far as the first, 'If [it is] <to live> in the flesh, this for me
[means] fruitful labour'. At which point he shifts gears..." {Fee, 144}.
(3) Bloomfield (1828) {Bloomfield, 700} and Lighfoot (1868) {Lighfoot,
92-93} independently from each other suggested a third possibility: to
take 22a and 22b as one conditional clause making TOU~TO depend on EI
(Lightfoot formulates it in the interrogative). According to them, there is
an aposiopesis after E/RGOU, the apodosis is surpressed, and 22c-d
constitute a new sentence. {O'Brien has misunderstood Lightfoot when he
thinks that Lightfoot's solution coincides with the solution we enumerated
in the first place (O'Brien, 124). Lightfoot, indeed mentions that solution
in his commentary as a possible interpretation which deserves
consideration, but rejects it as it has been quoted supra. (Lightfoot,
92).} This hypothesis would give an awkward connection with KAI/ in 21c,
and would not account for this suppression.
(4) Michael's solution suggests that 22a-b were originally marginal notes,
which were later incorporated in the text {Michael, 56.} According to him
22a and b originated from two brief marginal notes: (a) TO ZH~N: EN SARKI
explaining what Paul meant by "living" in 21a and (b) TOU~TO MOI: KARPOS
E/RGOU which was meant to clarify Paul's expression: "this" in 19b. These
notes were later put into the text by a scribe who added EI DE/ to make a
sentence out of the whole. According to Michael the original text of vv
21-22 ran as follows: EMOI\ GA\R TO\ ZH~N XRISTO\S KAI\ TO\ APOQANEI~N
KE/RDOS. KAI\ TI/ hAIRH/SOMAI OU GNWRI/ZW. Though the conjecture is very
intelligent and makes the verses run very smoothly, Free rightly calls it a
"counsel of dispair" {Fee, p. 144, n.24} because his suggestion does not
give any reason why the marginal ntoes would be introduced at this point of
the text, interrupting the logical flow of thougt. Paul sililarly speaks of
fruitful work in 1 Cor 3,6-8 and Rom 1,13.. The lack of external evidence
makes this conjecture impossible.
I hope this help.
Greg
At 08:52 18/03/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Dear all,
>I am presently looking at Philippians 1:22, 23 and have Ralph Martin's
>Commentary before me(Tyndale NT Commentaries, Revised Edition.)
>Martin remarks about the Greek of Paul here as of "broken syntax" and of
>"broken sequence of the words."
>Verse 23 reads: sunekhomai de ek twn duo thn epiqumian ekhwn eis to
>analusai kai sun khristw eimai pollw gar mallon kreisson.
>Could anyone elucidate why Martin says what he does?
>Thanks
>Bruce
>UK
>PS.Thanks George re para/John 17:5!
Juhász Gergely
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Faculteit Letteren, Engelse Literatuur
Blijde Inkomststraat 21, 04.24
B-3000, Leuven, BELGIUM
Tel: + 32 16 32.48.79
Fax: + 32 16 32.50.68
gergely.juhasz at arts.kuleuven.ac.be
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list