[B-Greek] Lexical Semantics and METASCHMATIZW (1 Cor 4:6)

Paul Toseland toseland at blueyonder.co.uk
Wed Apr 21 19:33:28 EDT 2004


I am puzzling over 1 Cor 4:6, again ...

TAUTA DE, ADELFOI, METASCHMATISA EIS EMAUTON KAI APOLLWN
DI' hUMAS ...

BDAG states that the meaning of the verb is 'to change the form of 
something' (active
voice), and 'to feign to be what one is not' (middle); and LSJ concurs. 
However, both
lexicons note the exception of 1 Cor 4:6, where the unique meanings 'to 
show a
connection or bearing of one thing upon another' (BDAG) or 'to transfer 
as in a figure'
(LSJ) are propsed.

I do NOT want to raise here the difficult exegetical question of what
METASCHMATISA *actually means* 1 Cor 4:6. What I do want to raise is a
point made in a (relatively recent) paper dealing with this question.

The point in question is an inference from the following assertion: that 
the usual
construction of the verb is METASXHMATIZEIN TI EIS TI or TINA EIS
TINA. The construction METASXHMATIZEIN TINA EIS TI occurs
occasionally; but there are no unambiguous parallels for the 
construction of the
verb with a neuter accusative object and a preposition with a personal 
object.
THEREFORE it is debatable whether, in the case of 1 Cor 4:6, the verb has
its usual sense of  'transform'.

If the protasis is false, I would be very interested in any 
counter-examples.
However, I would also welcome any comments on the question of whether,
given the protasis, the apodosis really does follow. Is it reasonable, *on
the stated grounds of the distinction between personal objects and
impersonal objects,  to question the only attested sense of the verb in the
singular case of  1 Cor 4:6?  (For the purpose of this discussion, I would
ask, please, that it be presupposed that the sense 'transform' can in 
fact be
shown to make exegetical sense in 1Cor 4:6. I am not quite certain that it
can, but there are those who take this position).

Many thanks

Paul Toseland
Bristol, UK



More information about the B-Greek mailing list