[B-Greek] Phil. 1:13
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu May 13 18:13:21 EDT 2004
This has, I think, been a useful discussion, whether or not we reach a
fully satisfying resolution of the problems. Having read this verse far
more times than I could count (it's certainly one of my favorite Pauline
letters), I realize that I've always been troubled by it even while at the
same time I've always felt pretty confident about what it means
fundamentally. That is to say: I think we agree--Iver and I as well as
others--about WHAT it means; but we haven't as yet reached a consensus
about HOW it means that. Some list-members may be finding this exchange
tedious, and I guess it does seem a bit strange to argue about HOW a text
can mean what we seem to agree that it DOES mean.
At 10:08 PM +0300 5/13/04, Iver Larsen wrote:
>> >> TOUS DESMOUS MOU is the subject of GENESQAI and FANEROUS is a predicate
>> >> adjective with EN CRISTWi as a modifier of FANEROUS GENESQAI;
>> >
>> >One small comment.
>> >I would construe EN CRISTWi with TOUS DESMOUS MOU for semantic
>> reasons (my
>> >chains in Christ). The "chains" is a metonym for the event of
>> being kept in
>> >prison, and often the word is best translated as imprisonment or being
>> >(kept) in prison. CRISTWi is a metonym for the event of
>> preaching the gospel of Christ.
>> >
>> >NET says: "I am in prison for the sake of Christ."
>> >
>> >The guards/soldiers and everyone else around are aware that he
>> is in prison
>> >not as a criminal but for his preaching of the gospel of Christ.
>>
>> But doesn't this suggest that EN CRISTWi is NOT simply "attributive" (like
>> MOU) to TOUS DESMOUS? that somehow EN CRISTWi belongs to the predicate
>> FANEROUS GENESQAI, perhaps as an implicit "predicative" phrase? That is to
>> say, there seems to be implicit in FANEROUS EN CRISTWi GENESQAI something
>> like hWS ONTAS or hWS GENOMENOUS: "so that to the whole praetorium and to
>> everyone else it has become clear that my imprisonment is/has come about
>> through Christ/because of Christ. It really seems to me that the
>> formulation here is a bit compressed.
>
>Yes, I agree. First, it is not simply attributive in the sense of being a
>constituent of the NP like MOU is. Secondly, one can certainly assume an
>implied predicate that would serve to connect the noun DESMOUS with the
>prepositional phrase EN CRISTWi. You have suggested "has come about" to
>connect "my imprisonment" with "because of Christ" and I would agree with
>that. However, I don't see EN CRISTWi as belonging to the predicate FANEROUS
>GENESQAI. I would rather see TOUS DESMOUS MOU EN CRISTWi as the subject for
>FANEROUS GENESQAI.
I wish I felt as confident that "one can certainly assume an implied
predicate that would serve to connect the noun DESMOUS with the
prepositional phrase EN CRISTWi." I feel that there OUGHT to be such an
implied predicate, but I feel even more that there ought to be an EXPLICIT
predicate connecting the two such as ONTAS or, as I said previously,
GENOMENOUS. The fact that it is NOT explicit here is precisely what leaves
me with a sense that the Greek text is incomplete--and yet there are no
variants indicated in the critical notes.
>Let me take another example:
>Rom 16:8: ASPASASQE AMPLIATON TON AGAPHTON MOU EN KURIWi
>and compare with
>Rom 16:10 ASPASASQE TOUS EK TWN NARKISSOU TOUS ONTAS EN KURIWi
>
>I don't see the greeting to be "in (the) Lord", but rather that EN KURIWi
>qualifies TON AGAPHTON MOU.
Both these instances seem fundamentally different from the construction of
TOUS DESMOUS MOU EN CRISTWi FANEROUS GENESQAI. I agree with you that EN
KURIWi in these two instances should not be understood with ASPASASQE but
rather with verbal elements, AGAPHTON in Rom 16:8 and ONTAS in Rom 16:10.
>When a prepositional phrase is attached to a noun, we may assume an implicit
>verb/predicate, often in the form of "to be". "The woman in the window" is
>short for "The women who is/was standing/sitting in the window." In
>descriptive linguistics the relative clause "who was standing in the window"
>is said to be in an attributive relationship to the head noun as a
>constituent which happens to be a rankshifted clause.
>The semantic function of prepositions in this kind of constructions is
>similar to the function of the genitive. As the genitive joins two nouns
>together with the context specifying the relationships, a preposition can
>join two nouns together with the context specifying the relationship.
The two instances from Rom 16 and the explanatory paragraph above remain of
questionable relevance, in my opinion, to the construction in Phil 1:13: EN
KURIWi in both instances lies within what amounts to a substantive
clause--the one an appositional phrase wherein ONTA is clearly implicit,
the other a substantive participial phrase where ONTAS is explicitly
present; moreover, both these phrases are headed by the article TON and
TOUS respectively; in each of them the prepositional phrase EN KURIWi is
qualifying a verbal element, AGAPHTON and ONTAS respectively. I don't see a
like construction in Phil 1:13.
As for "the woman in the window," I can readily grasp that in English "in
the window" can function adjectivally--or like a relative
clause--qualifying "the woman." But I find that improbable in terms of
Greek idiom: I would expect hH EN THi QURIDi GUNH or hH GUNH hH EN THi
QURIDI, but I would think in such a sequence as hH GUNH EN THi QURIDI, EN
THi QURIDI would be understood predicatively: "the woman is in the window."
And that's the construction we actually have in Phil 1:13; I continue to
think that EN CRISTWi must function adverbially, NOT adjectivally--and that
it must belong to the predicate FANEROUS GENESQAI.
One possible way out of the difficulty occurs to me; in classical Attic a
very common idiomatic construction is a clause with a subject followed by a
verbal phrase DHLOS/H/ON ESTIN meaning "is manifestly" followed by a
predicate expression: an adjective, participle, even a prepositional
phrase. For instance, in the sentence DHLOS ESTIN hOUTOS hO ANHR PAIZWN,
"This man is obviously playing games," PAIZWN is complementary to DHLOS
ESTIN. Sometimes the participle is omitted, particularly if it is clear in
the context, as perhaps we might say it is DHLOS ESTIN EN OIKWi (WN) "He's
obviously at home." I rather think that FANEROS/A/ON functions the same way
with a copula (EIMI, GINOMAI) as did DHLOS/H/ON ESTIN. That might be an
explanation in Phil 1:13: that the construction should be understood thus:
hWSTE TOUS DESMOUS MOU FANEROUS GENESQAAI EN CRISTWi (ONTAS). But it is
important to realize in this connection that FANEROS/A/ON EINAI/GENESQAI
must be understood as "is/are manifestly ..." and that EN CRISTWi is
predicative in the clause. I would think that the word-order (TOUS DESMOUS
MOU FANEROUS GENESQAI EN CRISTWi) also favors this interpretation.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list