[B-Greek] Philippians 1:3-4 - MNEIA - DEHSIS
Beata Urbanek
beata.urbanek at op.pl
Thu Aug 20 05:13:15 EDT 2009
Thanks for all your answers.
So as far as it goes I understand that the questuon is whether EPI means
"for" (thank for) or "at" (temporal) which is connetcet to the meaning of
MNEIA (action or content). Did I get it right?
What about taking hUMWN as genetivus subiectivus and translating: "I thank
God because of all your remebrance of me"? [as e.g. Peter T.
O'Brien in his commentary on the epistle suggests]
Beata Urbanek
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kimmo Huovila" <kimmo.huovila at kolumbus.fi>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Philippians 1:3-4 - MNEIA - DEHSIS
> On keskiviikko, 19. elokuuta 2009, Carl Conrad wrote:
>
> KH:
>> > I take EUCARISTW EPI in the sense of 'to thank for', giving the
>> > content of
>> > gratitude. Cf. 1 Cor 1:4
>
> CC:
>> As in Bob Hope's celebrated theme song, "Thanks for the memory"?
>> My sense of MNEIA is rather that it means a calling-to-mind, a
>> thinking-about (a person or persons).
>
> If I remember correctly (perhaps this should be verified), excluding the
> idiom
> MNEIAN POIEOMAI, it is often used with the content of remembering and
> seldom
> with reference to the occasion, time, or activity of remembering (such as
> adverbials of time like NUN/hOTE ECEI MNEIAN). It is not that often used
> with
> any contextual emphasis on time.
>
> Nor does it commonly refer to an activity (if I remember correctly; idiom
> MNEIAN POIEOMAI excluded). In other words, in most contexts the time or
> the
> activity of remembering is not the issue but the content of memories. Paul
> had
> good memories of the Philippians (and perhaps bad ones too?), and in his
> prayers he was thankful for them all.
>
> A clear and very common exception to all this above is, of course, the
> idiom
> MNEIAN POIEOMAI, which refers to something that is done rather than that
> which
> is had.
>
>> It's regularly used with
>> POIOUMAI in the sense "mention." So BDAG, MNEIA:
>>
>> 2. mention μνείαν ποιεῖσθαί τινος [MNEIAN
>> POIEISQAI TINOS] mention someone (Pla., Phdr. 254; Diog. L. 8, 2, 66;
>> IPriene 50, 10; PEdg 14 [=Sb 6720], 3 [256 BC]; UPZ 59, 6; cp. Ps
>> 110:4) in our lit. only of mentioning in prayer (BGU 632, 5
>> μνείαν σου ποιούμενος παρὰ τοῖς
>> ἐνθάδε θεοῖς [MNEIAN SOU POIOUMENOS PARA TOIS ENQADE
>> QEOIS] ; Kaibel 983, 2ff [79 BC] Δημήτριος ἥκω πρὸς
>> μεγάλην Ἶσιν θεάν, μνείαν ἐπ᾿
>> ἀγαθῷ τ. γονέων ποιούμενος; [DHMHTRIOS hHKW
>> PROS MEGALHN ISIN QEAN, MNEIAN EP᾿ AGAQWi T. GONEWN POIOUMENOS;] not
>> in prayer Iren. 1, 9, 2 [Harv. I 83, 2]) Ro 1:9; 1 Th 1:2 v.l.; Phlm
>> 4. The gen. is supplied fr. the context Eph 1:16; 1 Th 1:2. ἐπὶ
>> πάση τῇ μ. ὑμῶν [EPI PASHi THi MNEIAi hUMWN] as often as
>> I make mention of you (in prayer) Phil 1:3
>
> MNEIA is indeed often used with POIEOMAI. I would say the collocation is
> so
> strong that it is an idiom of its own. Here there is no POIEOMAI (the
> POIEOMAI
> in verse 4 relates to DEHSIN), and therefore the idiom is not in question
> here. The sense of mention (as opposed to memory of something) strongly
> correlates with this idiom.
>
>>
>> See also Louw & Nida §29.7
>
> My suggestion differs from theirs. EPI+dative can be used for "at the
> time"
> (BDAG EPI 18). In this sense EPI usually takes a word that readily
> suggests a
> temporal interpretation. MNEIA does not in itself suggest that. With
> EUCARISTEW taking the object of thanks with EPI (or PERI or hUPER)
> followed by
> a word that does not evoke a temporal reference, the interpretation of
> MNEIA
> as memory is more likely and natural than reference to the time when Paul
> remembers the Philippians. MNEIA is commonly used in the sense of memory
> of
> something when not used with POIEOMAI.
>
> I am sorry to offer just claims with no evidence at this point. I did a
> thorough study on this word a while ago (focusing on a different detail,
> though), but I cannot find the corpus anywhere (I probably have discarded
> it by
> now). So all I have (besides standard works of reference) is my memory,
> which
> may not be all that accurate. MONHN MNEIAN ECW PERI THS ZHTHSEWS MOU.
>
> On the other hand, against my interpretation and for a temporal
> interpretation, one could argue that EPI PASHi THi MNEIAi hUMWN is a
> paraphrase for PANTOTE MNEIAN hUMWN POIOUMENOS or PANTOTE hOTE MNEIAN
> hUMWN
> POIOUMAI. That would bring it closer to some of the other epistles (thanks
> Bryan for the list). Can anyone find any parallels that would confirm
> this?
>
> Kimmo Huovila
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list