[B-Greek] EPI ERGOIS AGAQOIS
virgil newkirk
virgilsalvage1 at msn.com
Tue Jun 15 02:49:18 EDT 2004
To ones following this thread and in particular, Steven.
The moderator has confirmed that this thread is still open. The hope was
expressed that there will at least be something "further" discussed.
Firstly though, in light of Steven's very specific question at the end his
post found below, I am persuaded it begs an answer. One that I would like to
provide. So....
Thank you for your interest and Steven, to you, congratulations on your
intensity and your specific challenges. In view of the subject and what
we've discussed...they are expected, and even though they have been
delivered with and are in fact quite heavy to me, I receive them. I'm not
sure how well I can do on the K's with regard to size; but I will try.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Lo Vullo" <slovullo at mac.com>
To: "virgil newkirk" <virgilsalvage1 at msn.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] EPI ERGOIS AGAQOIS
> On Jun 7, 2004, at 11:06 PM, virgil newkirk wrote:
>
> > Allow me to share something that confirmed (after the evaluation that
> > I did)
> > my impression of the affect that GAR has on this verse.
> >
> >
> >> From "Exercises of the Greek Language" by George Dunbar with
> >> philological
> > remarks on the Prepostions and Conjunctions, &c. Part II. Professor of
> > Greek
> > at the University of Edinburgh. Says: "The Greek particles, as well as
> > the
> > English, form a necessary part of the language; but so little has their
> > power and original application in many places in particular
> > expressions,
> > they might as well have been entirely ommited. It is probable, indeed,
> > that
> > the meaning of several passages, where some of them occur, especially
> > with
> > the poets, may not be much affected by passing them over in the
> > process of
> > translation, or by affixing to them opposite ideas; for that depends
> > in a
> > great degree upon all the words taken in connexion with each other,
> > and not
> > upon a single particle, which generally indicates an obscure relation.
> > But
> > if we were to attempt to write or speak the language, we would be apt
> > to
> > commit several inaccuracies, which a knowledge of the nature of these
> > particles would probably enable us to avoid. In writing or speaking a
> > foreign language, we find it more necessary to weigh the force of every
> > word, and attend to it's particular collocation, that in the use of
> > our own
> > native tongue. In the one, a number of expressions have been long
> > familiar
> > to the ear, and are therefore used without hesitation, and in their
> > proper
> > place; in the other we are better acquainted with individual words than
> > general expressions, and accordingly we find some difficulty and
> > embarrassment in choosing and connecting them so as to form a correct
> > and
> > intelligible sentence, from one train of thought to another, in making
> > conditional statements, or in speaking of contingent events. It is
> > then the
> > particles come into play, particularly in the Greek language; and a
> > good
> > deal of the perspecuity of the discourse, as well as the genuine
> > idiom of
> > the language, will depend upon their correct use and collocation."
And Steven asked,
> How in the world did these generic comments about particles in general
> "confirm" your "impression of the affect that **GAR** has on **this**
> verse"? Neither GAR nor "this verse" (Eph 2.10) are anywhere mentioned,
> much less analyzed! No offense, but the impression given here is of a
> novel idea in desperate search for legitimation.
> Steven Lo Vullo
> Madison, WI
Respectfully Steven...your presumption is not representative of anything
that I'm aware that's in my mind. Rather, I am grateful for the instruction
that Mr Dunbar, as well as others, that have, sometimes by means of a
lifetime of labor, have now handed and supplied to us this wealth of insight
and it sometimes comes to us almost as easily as our going to the 7-11. It
is an amazing humbling thing....
Now, to answer your question from a few lines back;
Because, Steven..GAR in verse 10 is the sign that what follows is going to
make "clearer" what the thought in verse 9 is, (all of this not being out of
a source of works on our part)and is there to maintain the "perspecuity of
that discourse" as Mr. Dunbar says above. It (GAR)and what it indicates is
something there to protect us from losing track of the fact that we are
hearing something explaining what has just been mentioned... as we listen or
read the next statement or statements. GAR tells us something new or
contrary is "not" what follows. It guards us from fogging up the perspecuity
of what follows and the fact that we are to not expect something new or
different. My impression is that what has happened for most in verse 10 with
the term "good works" that is within the boundary of GAR explaining the
because, of why our founding in Christ is not "of" works...is not letting
them see that these "good works" then, have to be something that is
contained in our being a product.., a making, that has as it's
characteristic AUTOU; what is "of" Him. Therefore one would have to conclude
from this alone that these good works referred to here "have" to be
something other than, not only what we have "done" but even anything we
could do...that is, that would result in God being able to found us in
Christ...which by verse 10b has in fact already occurred EN CHRISTWi IHSOU
EPI ERGOIS AGAQOIS ! This is all within GAR's overseeing; as well as GAR's
influence is reminding us that to "walk" in them is to maintain the correct
perspective that this discourse has established. We are of Him and are to
remain in Him. Really from verse 11 and on it is a continuation of the same.
What follows are some comments from Oct,1999 from a thread GAR in Phil 1:8
that I think help make it simply clear what GAR does...anywhere.
First, from Carl on Oct 12, 1999:
> Well, for my part, I don't think I'd ever quite call GAR a paratactic
connector, even if it appears in the opening sentence of what we would
punctuate as a new paragraph or in stichomythia in tragedy or comedy: it
ALWAYS indicates that what is stated in its clause is somehow explanatory
of what immediately preceded it. In dramatic stichomythia one often sees it
in a response to a previous speaker's question, in which context it tends
to mean: "Yes, and the reason for that is ..." I tend to urge students not
to use "for" as the English equivalent of first resort but rather to try,
"That's because ..." and then go on to put it into what works best in the
context in question.
Perhaps I don't quite understand what you mean by a paratactic function of
GAR. It may very well be that I have a different feeling for ordinary Greek
style than the model you're using implies. My own sense is that the vast
array of particles the Greek thinker/speaker/writer has at his/her command
and that """"seem often untranslatable to us play a role in structuring
speech
in larger units.""" (Virgil's quotes) We really have to see the larger
paragraph as the basic
unit of Greek discourse rather than the individual sentence that we so
readily punctuate with a period. I submit that most "periods" used for
punctuation in our Greek texts are of questionable validity or utility, the
reason being (GAR!)
"""that what follows in the ensuing "sentence" is more
often than not a continuation of the same flow of thought and discourse and
NOT, in any significant sense, the start of a new thought. """
What this means
is that one very important aspect of learning to read Greek and think Greek
after the Greeks, is acquiring a feel for the way that Greek speakers
structured their units of thought. If we think first and foremost, when we
are reading Greek, of how this thought is conveyed into an English
structure,
"""we may miss several of the aspects of the unity of the larger
Greek thought structure."""
"""We really have to read and understand the Greek
first, and only after we have done that can we properly turn to determining
how best to convey the content of that thought structure into our very
different structures in our target language."""
Please excuse and understand my putting the """ on Carl's comments but I
think they speak so specifically to our subject and verse at hand.
George Goolde saind on Oct 13, 1999:
As Carl pointed out, your question is a matter of discourse analysis, which
might appear on its surface to be a subject separate from the interests of
b-greek. But as Carl also pointed out in another post, GAR always has the
force of explaining what preceded. I completely agree with your conclusion
that Phil 1:8 is better taken as part of the previous argument because the
GAR explains what went before.And so our understanding of the Greek text
ought to be the primary informant of our determination of the
structure. That produces good exegesis.
Carl then said on Oct 14, 1999:
I would add that another idiomatic English alternative I've suggested to
students for GAR to get away from "for" is "after all."
Virgil here,
..now, would that we would go back and read Ephesians 2:8-10 and hopefully
this will explain why I was so helped by the above referenced comments by
Mr. Dunbar and others concerning the governing and boundaries of
understanding that are established by the author's use of GAR.
I imagine this is a lot of K's...sorry,
Virgil Newkirk
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list