[B-Greek] Syntax of Col 1:22
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Aug 17 17:16:45 EDT 2009
On Aug 17, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:
> A "sentence" in Paul is probably the minimal meaningful context.
>
> Col 1:21-23
> 21 Καὶ ὑμᾶς ποτε ὄντας
> ἀπηλλοτριωμένους καὶ ἐχθροὺς τῇ
> διανοίᾳ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς
> πονηροῖς, 22 νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατήλλαξεν
> ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ διὰ
> τοῦ θανάτου παραστῆσαι ὑμᾶς
> ἁγίους
> καὶ ἀμώμους καὶ ἀνεγκλήτους
> κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ, 23 εἴ γε
> ἐπιμένετε
> τῇ πίστει τεθεμελιωμένοι καὶ
> ἑδραῖοι καὶ μὴ μετακινούμενοι ἀπὸ
> τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου οὗ
> ἠκούσατε, τοῦ κηρυχθέντος ἐν πάσῃ
> κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν, οὗ
> ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ Παῦλος διάκονος.
>
> 21 KAI hUMAS POTE ONTAS APHLLOTRIWMENOUS KAI ECQROUS THi DIANOIAi EN
> TOIS ERGOIS TOIS PONHROIS, 22 NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN EN TWi SWMATI THS
> SARKOS AUTOU DIA TOU QANATOU PARASTHSAI hUMAS hAGIOUS KAI AMWMOUS KAI
> ANEGKLHTOUS KATENWPION AUTOU, 23 EI GE EPIMENETE THi PISTEI
> TEQEMELIWMENOI KAI hEDRAIOI KAI MH METAKINOUMENOI APO THS ELPIDOS TOU
> EUAGGELIOU hOU HKOUSATE, TOU KHRUCQENTOS EN PASHi KTISEI THi hUPO TON
> OURANON, hOU EGENOMHN EGW PAULOS DIAKONOS.
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 17, 2009, at 1:30 AM, Oun Kwon wrote:
>
>> Can you help me to see the syntax of Col 1:22?
>>
>> I'm quoting the verse (except the last phrase with is not relevant),
>> putting
>> down the way I see it.
>>
>>
>>
>> NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN
>>
>> EN TWi SWMATI THS SARKOS
>>
>> AUTO DIA TOU QANATOU,
>>
>> PARASTHSAI hUMAS hAGIOS
>>
>>
>> νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατήλλαξεν
>>
>> ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς
>>
>> αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου,
>>
>> παραστῆσαι ὑμᾶς ἁγίους
>>
>>
>> (1) Here I have disconnected AUTOU from the preceding word SARCOS.
>> By making
>> it to go with third line I am trying to show that it can be seen to
>> modify
>> QANATOU rather than SARKOS.
>
> That is an interesting idea, it actually occurred to me as an optional
> parsing before I read your question. However, I think word order and
> the flow of thought is against it. I would prefer to join AUTO with
> the constituent TWi SWMATI THS SARKOS or perhaps with THS SARKOS.
>
>>
>> Am I doing much violence to the text, esp. with (1)?
>
> I don't know off hand if Paul ever puts a genitive modifier in front
> of a prepositional phrase containing the head noun. It would be
> unusual, perhaps not impossible.
>
> I may have more to say on this later. I want to take some time and
> read Clinton Arnold's discussion of it.
By far the more common usage is placement of possessive genitive forms
of AUTOS immediately following the qualified noun, rarely immediately
preceding the qualified noun.
I did a search and found 126 instances of genitive of AUTOS preceding
a preposition that takes a genitive object
Several were elminated wherein the pronoun was part of a genitive
absolute; of those left, I found only two that might arguably be
deemed instances of a genitive pronoun dependent upon the noun object
of a preposition following it.
Acts 9:18 καὶ εὐθέως ἀπέπεσαν αὐτοῦ
ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ὡς λεπίδες,
ἀνέβλεψέν τε καὶ ἀναστὰς
ἐβαπτίσθη [KAI EUQEWS APEPESAN AUTOU APO TWN OFQALMWN hWS
LEPIDES, ANEBLEYEN TE KAI ANASTAS EBAPTISQH]
Here it might be argued that AUTOU should be construed with OFQALMWN.
To be sure the clause would be Englished as “There fell from his eyes
something like scalles .. “ I think however that AUTOU here
probably construes directly with APEPESAN rather than with OFQALMWN.
Rev. 16:10 Καὶ ὁ πέμπτος ἐξέχεεν τὴν
φιάλην αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον τοῦ
θηρίου, καὶ ἐγένετο ἡ βασιλεία
αὐτοῦ ἐσκοτωμένη, καὶ ἐμασῶντο τὰς
γλώσσας αὐτῶν ἐκ τοῦ πόνου, [KAI hO PEMPTOS
EXECEEN THN FIALHN AUTOU EPI TON QRONON TOU QHRIOU, KAI EGENETO hH
BASILEIA AUTOU ESKOTWMENH, KAI EMASWNTO TAS GLWSSAS AUTWN EK TOU
PONOU, ]
Here it might be argued that AUTWN should be construed with PONOU
rather than with TAS GLWSSAS or should be construed APO KOINOU with
both. In my judgment AUTWN properly construes in this instance with
TAS GLWSSAS.
With regard to Elizabeth's question whether Paul "ever puts a genitive
modifier in front of a prepositional phrase containing the head noun,"
I've found no Pauline instance of it, unless the passage in question
is judged a legitimate instance.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list