[B-Greek] 1 Peter 1:20

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon Aug 28 16:55:50 EDT 2006


I am responding to an off list question which I will not quote per  
FAQ etiquette.

The whole "sentence" reads:

1PET. 1:17 KAI EI PATERA EPIKALEISQE TON APROSWPOLHMPTWS KRINONTA  
KATA TO hEKASTOU ERGON, EN FOBWi TON THS PAROIKIAS hUMWN CRONON  
ANASTRAFHTE,  18 EIDOTES hOTI OU FQARTOIS, ARGURIWi H CRUSIWi,  
ELUTRWQHTE EK THS MATAIAS hUMWN ANASTROFHS PATROPARADOTOU  19 ALLA  
TIMIWi hAIMATI hWS AMNOU AMWMOU KAI ASPILOU CRISTOU,  20  
PROEGNWSMENOU MEN PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU FANERWQENTOS DE EP' ESCATOU  
TWN CRONWN DI' hUMAS  21 TOUS DI' AUTOU PISTOUS EIS QEON TON  
EGEIRANTA AUTON EK NEKRWN KAI DOXAN AUTWi DONTA, hWSTE THN PISTIN  
hUMWN KAI ELPIDA EINAI EIS QEON.

Peter is a man of many contrasts :-)
The first contrast takes the form of a conditional statement:

EI PATERA EPIKALEISQE TON APROSWPOLHMPTWS KRINONTA KATA TO hEKASTOU  
ERGON

EN FOBWi TON THS PAROIKIAS hUMWN CRONON ANASTRAFHTE

The second contrast is formed around OU ... ALLA

The third contrast is a deeply embedded constituent which describes  
CRISTOU and uses a  MEN .. DE construction.

S.Levinshon suggests that MEN in a MEN .. DE construction often  
serves to demote the status of the MEN clause in relation to the DE  
clause. Levinshon's discussion pertains primarily to narrative so it  
may not apply here. However I think we can see a pattern here:

IF THIS ... THEN THAT
NOT THIS ... BUT THAT
HAVING BEEN THIS ... WILL BE THAT

These are not translations, just suggestions of how to sort out the  
logic.



Elizabeth Kline







More information about the B-Greek mailing list