[B-Greek] Phil. 1:13
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri May 14 14:37:47 EDT 2004
I have the impression, Iver, that we've been talking past ech other rather
than to each other--that neither of us is understanding what the other
says--or at least what the other means.
At 6:27 PM +0300 5/14/04, Iver Larsen wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>
>I am afraid I cannot see the fundamental grammatical difference, because TON
>AGAPHTON MOU is a noun phrase (an adjective being used substantively).
My point--what I intended to say here--was that in 16:8 EN KURIWi qualifies
AGAPHTON, not AMPLIATON and not the phrase as a whole--and even more
important that in 16:11 (not 16:10, actually) EN KURIWi falls within the
participial phrase with ONTAS showing that it (EN KURIWi) is in the
predicate.
>In Rom 16:8 we have a verb which semantically can hardly be construed with
>the EN phrase, and the same applies to Phil 1:13:
>hWSTE TOUS DESMOUS MOU FANEROUS EN CRISTWi GENESQAI EN
>hOLWi TWi PRAITWRIWi KAI TOIS LOIPOIS PASIN
>
>Then we have a noun phrase consisting of a head noun and a possessive
>pronoun:
>(1) TON AGAPHTON MOU
>(2) TOUS DESMOUS MOU
>
>And we have a similar EN phrase
>(1) EN KURIWi
>(2) EN CRISTWi
>
>I accept that there is an event idea underlying the substantive TON AGAPHTOS
>(be loved), but there is also an event idea underlying DESMOUS (be put in
>chains).
This is the first point at which I have gathered a clue as to what it is
you're arguing; certainly it is true that hOI DESMOI can bear a
metaphorical sense of "imprisonment"--and if what you're trying to say is
that TOUS DESMOUS MOU is the equivalent of TO EME DESMWTHN EINAI, then I
can understand what you mean, even if I still find it dubious. I think it
easier to understand a participle ONTAS or GENOMENOUS as a predicate to
TOUS DESMOUS MOU: so that the participial phrase/clause is TOUS DESMOUS MOU
FANEROUS EN CRISTWi ONTAS GENESQAI: "that my imprisonment is manifestly
recognized as being in Christ's cause."
>I am not aware of any translation that links EN CRISTWi to FANEROUS
>GENESQAI. They all somehow link it to TOU DESMOUS MOU:
>
>KJV: my bonds in Christ are manifest (not: my bonds are manifest in Christ)
This is a literal reproduction of the Greek structure and of questionable
intelligibility as English today.
>RSV: It has become known [to them] that my imprisonment is for Christ
>REB: It has become common knowledge ... that my imprisonment is in Christ's
>cause
>NET: ...knows that I am in prison for the sake of Christ
>NLT: ... knows that I am in chains because of Christ
>NIV: It has become clear ... that I am in chains for Christ
But you see that every one of these last five versions expresses TOUS
DESMOUS MOU EN CRISTWi as a subject or object of the verb conveying the
sense FANEROUS GENESQAI: RSV: subject of "it has become known"; REB:
subject of "it has become common knowledge"; NET & NLT: object of "knows";
NIV: subject of "it has become clear ..." And I think that all these imply
that the equivalent of an entire clause here with subject and predicate is
the subject of FANEROUS GENESQAI.
>I agree that a prepositional phrase in most cases functions adverbially, but
>how could one translate Phil 1:13 if EN CRISTWi was to modify the verb?
>My imprisonment became clear to them through Christ? or
>My imprisonment became clear to them because of Christ? or
>Christ caused my imprisonment to become clear to them?
I've never argued that EN CRISTWi belongs to FANEROUS GENESQAI; what I've
argued is that EN CRISTWi must construe as the predicate phrase with an
implicit ONTAS or GENOMENOUS so that the subject of FANEROUS GENESQAI is
TOUS DESMOUS MOU EN CRISTWi ONTAS/GENOMEOUS.
>I am still puzzled,
>Iver Larsen
And we may continue to disagree, but perhaps we're closer: I can grasp what
you mean by saying that TOUS DESMOUS MOU EN CRISTWi means "I am in prison
for Christ's sake"; but I still can't see EN CRISTWi as attributive to TOUS
DESMOUS; I think there must be an implicit ONTAS.
--
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