[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