[B-Greek] Col. 1:13a causal pronoun FOLLOW Up2

waldo slusher waldoslusher at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 20 00:17:12 EDT 2004


Dr. Wheeler:


--- Dr Dale M Wheeler <dalemw at multnomah.edu> wrote:
> At 12:39 PM 4/18/2004 -0700, waldo slusher wrote:
> >Dr. Wheeler:
> >
> >Matt 3:1
> >EN DE TAIS hHMERAIS EKEINAIS PARAGINETAI IWANNHS hO
> >BAPTISTHS KHRUSSWN EN THi ERHMWi THS IOUDAIAS
> >
> >This may seem like a crazy question, but I wonder
> if
> >you would indulge me. In the above expression,
> IWANNHS
> >hO BAPTISTHS, can we take their relationship as one
> of
> >concessive, and understand it: John, although a
> >baptizer, ?
> >
> >I think my understanding your answer to this
> question
> >may help me to understand where we might, if at
> all,
> >disagree on Semantics.
> 
> hO BAPTISTHS is not a relative pronoun clause, but
> rather is an adjectival 
> ptc to IWANNHS.  I can't see how this fits what
> we've been discussing.

In a previous post, you wrote:

----------
I would suggest (in defense of the "neat list") that
there are only a 
limited number of ways that two clauses/ideas can be
linked together, not 
an infinite number.  The list I gave (means, manner,
purpose, result, 
reason, condition, concession...to which one could
add: time) is, you will 
note, the list of possibilities for circumstantial
participles.  The reason 
I'd say that such a list is complete is illustrated by
the use of the 
circumstantial ptc, which itself is semantically
neutral, but admits just 
these relationships (there are sub-categories to these
relationships, eg., 
Means...Reason; Purpose...Result; cf., Beekman/Callow,
Translating the Word 
of God, which was picked up by Tom Schreiner in his
Interpreting the 
Pauline Epistles; but these I've listed are the main,
overarching 
ones.).  Thus I would argue that simply adapting such
a list to ALL 
semantically neutral structural markers is valid.
------------

It is this last statement that led me to ask the above
question. I simply took IWANNHS hO BAPTISTHS as being
a "semantically neutral structural marker" and
wondered if you would try to apply Means, Reason,
Purpose, etc, to even these kinds of structures. I had
a feeling that you would not, but I had to confirm
that in my own mind. 

When you implied (and perhaps I misunderstood you)
adverbial categories as valid categories for any
"semantically neutral structure marker" I assume you
had something other in mind than the way I took it. 

What I wanted to illustrate was that it seems to me
arbitrary for you to apply adverbial semantic
categories to adjectival clauses and not to structures
such as IWANNHS hO BAPTISTHS. (BAPTISTHS =
participle??). Why apply adverbial semantic categories
to relative pronouns and not to structures as IWANNHS
hO BAPTISTHS. I was hoping to find out your reasoning
for not divining such categories even with such
phrases as IWANNHS hO BAPTISTHS.

Anyway, I think we've beat this dead horse enough.
Thanks for the insightful comments, even those I've
misunderstood  :o )





=====
Waldo Slusher
Calgary, AB


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash



More information about the B-Greek mailing list