[B-Greek] Lexical Semantics and METASCHMATIZW (1 Cor 4:6)
Harold R. Holmyard III
hholmyard at ont.com
Thu Apr 22 14:17:47 EDT 2004
Dear Paul,
Since you have not had a response yet, let me offer this, although it
does not follow your guidelines.
>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.
HH: But the question of what it means is central to the whole discussion.
>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'.
HH: I think that this objection raised is based on the results if the
regular meaning is given. Does Paul transform these things into
himself? That is how EIS seems used with the verb in 2 Cor 11:13-14.
However, there is no clear pattern for usage. So the question is,
does the regular meaning give a good sense?
>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).
HH: Yes, I think it makes a lot of sense to say that things as
objects affects the meaning. Paul's not really transforming these
things into himself and Apollos, or for himself and Apollos, or
regarding himself and Apollos. I think you have to look at what
SCHMATIZW means (chi=C; [mu,nu,] xi=X), and LSJ has a nice treatment
(under SCHMATIAIOS). The first meaning is "assume a certain form." So
with META- the idea of "transform" is natural. But The fourth meaning
given for SCHMATIZW is "adapt." You add a prefixed META- implying
"across," and you get what most translations have, something like
"transfer." The Holman Christian Standard Bible has "apply."
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list