[B-Greek] Re: 2 Cor 2:1
George F. Somsel
gfsomsel at juno.com
Sat Jun 12 13:25:20 EDT 2004
Paul,
Part of the problem with the lack of response is that there is little
written regarding the use of the adverb in the standard grammars. Smyth,
e.g. covers it in §§ 1096-1098 divided between 2 pages which combined
might occupy 1 full page. Another part of the problem is that I don't
think you are correctly representing the ESV translation here. "Another
painful visit" does not take PALIN with EN LUPHi but with ELQEIN. Note
that this is an articular infinitive (TO . . . ELQEIN). PALIN thus fits
within this sequence TO MH PALIN . . . ELQEIN. It is difficult for me to
conceive of PALIN as being taken with EN LUPHi. What would this mean ?
A repeated sorrow ? I would take both PALIN and EN LUPHi and PROS hUMAS
as being adverbial in nature and all referencing TO ELQEIN. Thus it is
"another visit" and "a painful visit" and "a visit to you."
gfsomsel
__________
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:36:47 +0100 Paul Toseland
<toseland at blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> Since no one has yet responded to my question, I should like to
> explain why I am asking.
>
> Many of the major English translations, and the vast amajority
> of interpreters take PALIN in 2 Cor 2:1 to modify EN LUPHi.
> So, for example,
>
> ESV For I made up my mind not to make another painful vist
> to you.
>
> And there is a consensus among the vast majority of interpreters
> that it is somehow more natural to take PALIN with EN LUPHi
> than with ELQEIN. Of course, if Paul had made a painful visit to
> Corinth, it would be quite understandable that he would to avoid
> repeating the experience, and the interpretation of the ESV would
> then be perfectly natural. However, I cannot see what is unnatural
> about taking PALIN as a modifier of ELQEIN, together with EN
> LUPHi and PROS hUMAS. All three adverbial expressions fall
> with the span of TO ... ELQEIN. Is there any reason why it would
> be unnatural for each to independently modify the verb?
>
> I am asking for this reason: if the form of expression Paul
> chooses
> here would be odd, strained, in terms of how adverbs normally
> work in articular infinitive clauses, then that would be one factor
> that would weigh in favour of the hypothesis of a painful viisit
> before 2 Corinthians. It would certainly not be decisive, but it
> would need to be weighed, along with other evidence. If not,
> then I am perplexed by the consensus to the contrary.
>
> The suggestion that, strictly speaking, one would expect
> ELQWN to follow PALIN if the sense of the clause is, 'not
> to return to you in sorrow', is due to Baur, a distinguished
> 19th century scholar. Would that be the case in Attic? Is
> Koine more relaxed about this?
>
> Many thanks
> Paul Toseland
>
> ====================
>
> My original message:
>
> 2 Cor 2:1 EKRINA GAR EMAUTWi TOUTO TO MH PALIN
> EN LUPHi PROS hUMAS ELQEIN.
>
> Is there any reason why PALIN and EN LUPHi should not be
> taken to separately qualify ELQEIN; hence, 'I made up my mind
> not to return to you in sorroiw'? Would this strictly require
> ELQWN after PALIN, even in Koine Greek?
>
> Many thanks
> Paul Toseland
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list