[B-Greek] MNEIA hUMWN Phil 1:3
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Oct 22 09:25:03 EDT 2008
On Oct 21, 2008, at 6:12 PM, brainout wrote:
> What if it's a genitive 'circle', process of generation (pun
> intended)? In the
> last two years before my pastor retired, in the daily classes he
> went over and
> over the subjective, objective, and plenary use of the genitive with
> respect to
> the AGAPE TOU THEOU clauses in the Bible. The goal was to
> distinguish which was
> which, since apparently the Drama Greek rule was that you couldn't
> have all of
> them referenced, but only one rule controlling. Yet isn't the
> Bible's language
> often multistoried, multi-entendre, and linked in a causal relation,
> to give you
> a whole doctrine? So maybe subjective would be 'first in line' in a
> given
> usage, but the other uses would follow? So yes, every time Paul
> thinks of them,
> he is 'caused' to thank God, and at that point they are the 'object'
> of his
> thanking, which then is a plenary completion, a circle of
> thanksgiving.
>
> I look forward to more on the topic with extreme relish. Thank you.
This is, I fear, an old peeve of mine: the notion that an adnominal
genitive, even when attached to a verbal noun, has any number of
inherent nuanced distinctive possibilities in the mind of the Greek
speaker/writer. These nuanced distinctions exist only in the mind of a
translator who is not content with "mention of you" or "thought of
you" -- or, to put it even more simply, "you-thought." The Greek
construction MNEIA hUMWN doesn't in and of itself offer any hint of
how to go about analyzing the mind of the writer. We may look for
hints in the context, but indications are to be found only in the
context -- if there -- or not at all. Otherwise there are no resources
enabling us to peer inside Paul's head.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
> To: "greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] MNEIA hUMWN Phil 1:3
>
>
> |
> | On Oct 20, 2008, at 10:54 AM, s Huovila wrote:
> |
> | > There is some debate about the meaning of MNEIA hUMWN in Phil.
> 1:3.
> | > Some think
> | > it is a subjective genitive and others that it is an objective
> | > genitive. Did
> | > Paul thank God for his memory of the Philippians or for the
> | > Philippians'
> | > remembering Paul in prison?
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
> | PHIL. 1:3 EUCARISTW TWi QEWi MOU EPI PASHi THi MNEIAi hUMWN 4
> PANTOTE
> | EN PASHi DEHSEI MOU hUPER PANTWN hUMWN, META CARAS THN DEHSIN
> | POIOUMENOS, 5 EPI THi KOINWNIAi hUMWN EIS TO EUAGGELION APO THS
> | PRWTHS hHMERAS ACRI TOU NUN, 6 PEPOIQWS AUTO TOUTO, hOTI hO
> | ENARXAMENOS EN hUMIN ERGON AGAQON EPITELESEI ACRI hHMERAS CRISTOU
> IHSOU:
> |
> | P.T.O'Brien (Phil. NIGTC pp. 56-60) makes a case for reading EPI
> PASHi
> | THi MNEIAi hUMWN as causative rather than temporal. Some of
> O'Brien's
> | hellenistic evidence from Josephus and Philo for EUCARISTW with EPI
> | marking cause is cited below. He also cites 1Cor 1:4, 1Thes 3:9, and
> | Phil 1:5.
> |
> | Josephus
> | 1 AJ, 1.1.193.1
> | AITIAN DE THS PERITOMHS hHMWN EN ALLOIS DHLWSW. PUQOMENWi DE 2
> | hABRAMWi KAI PERI TOU ISMAHLOU, EI ZHSETAI, POLUCRONION TE
> APESHMAINEN
> | hO QEOS KAI MEGALWN EQNWN PATERA. KAI hABRAMOS MEN EPI 4 TOUTOIS
> | EUCARISTHSAS TWi QEWi PERITEMNETAI PARACRHMA KAI PANTES 5 hOI PAR
> | AUTOU KAI hO PAIS ISMAHLOS, hOU KAT EKEINHN THN hHMERAN 6
> | TRISKAIDEKATON ETOS ECONTOS AUTOS ENENHKOSTON PROS TOIS ENNEA 7
> DIHGEN.
> |
> | Philo
> | 24 SPEC, .1.1.283.1
> |
> | TA PAR hHMIN ADUNATA. DEI DH TON MELLONTA QUEIN SKEPTESQAI, MH EI
> 2 TO
> | hIEREION AMWMON, ALL EI hH DIANOIA hOLOKLHROS AUTWi KAI PANTELHS 3
> | KAQESTHKE. DIEREUNATW MENTOI KAI TAS AITIAS, hWN hENEKA ANAGEIN
> AXIOI
> | 4 QUSIAS: HTOI GAR EUCARISTWN EPI PROUPHRGMENAIS EUERGESIAIS H
> | BEBAIOTHTA PARONTWN H MELLONTWN KTHSIN AGAQWN AITOUMENOS H KAKWN
> | PARONTWN 6 H PROSDOKWMENWN APOTROPHN, EF hOIS hAPASIN hUGEIAN KAI
> | SWTHRIAN EKPORIZEIN OFEILEI TWi LOGISMWi. EITE GAR EPI
> PROUPHRGMENAIS
> | EUCARISTEI, 2 MH ACARISTHSATW FAULOS GENOMENOS h SPOUDAIWi GAR
> | EDOQHSAN hAI 3 CARITES h , EITE BEBAIOUMENOS TA PARONTA AGAQA KAI
> | CRHSTA PERI TWN 4 MELLONTWN PROSDOKWN, AXION hAUTON PARECETW TWN
> | EUPRAGIWN ASTEIOS 5 WN, EITE KAKWN TINWN FUGHN AITOUMENOS, MH DRATW
> | KOLASEWN EPAXIA 6 KAI TIMWRIWN.
> |
> | Assuming that O'Brien has made his case for a causal reading of
> EPI +
> | dative in Phil. 1:3, why does he also assume that this reading is
> | invariably linked with the subjective reading of hUMWN in PI PASHi
> THi
> | MNEIAi hUMWN? Why wouldn't the causal reading also accommodate an
> | objective reading of hUMWN? Paul's remembrance of the Philipians
> being
> | a reason/occasion for his giving thanks.
> |
> |
> | Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list