[B-Greek] Philippians 1:3-4 - MNEIA - DEHSIS
Kimmo Huovila
kimmo.huovila at kolumbus.fi
Fri Aug 21 12:08:35 EDT 2009
On perjantai, 21. elokuuta 2009, bccox99 at tx.rr.com wrote:
> I guess if I were to change Phi. to be a closer parallel, I would have it
> like so:
>
> ...PANTOTE hUPER PANTWN hUMWN EPI PASH TH MNEIA hUMWN EN PASH DEHSEI MOU
META
> XARAS THN DEHSIN POIOUMENOS
That would change the hUPER PANTWN hUMWN so that it no longer defines THN
DEHSIN.
>
> For hUPER instead of PERI, note Eph 1:16. Worded like the above, it lines
> up a little more closely with the other parallels, for example:
>
> 1Th 1:2 - PANTWTE PERI PANTWN hUMWN MNEIAN POIOUMENOI
> Phi 1:3 - PANTOTE hUPER PANTWN hUMWN EPI PASH TH MNEIA hUMWN
If my interpretation is correct, the parallelism breaks down at MNEIAN
POIOUMENOI vs EPI PASHi THi MNEIAi hUMWN. Of course, if I am wrong here, the
parallelism would hold.
>
> 1Th 1:2 - EPI TWN PROSEUXWN hHMWN
> Phi 1:3 - EN PASH DEHSEI MOU
>
> So, the phrases MNEIAN POIOUMENOI and EPI PASH TH MNEIA hUMWN are somewhat
> parallel in meaning...and compare (at the "same" parallel position)
Philemon's
> MNEIAN SOU as compared with Philippians TH MNEIA hUMWN.
>
> And then, I take EPI TWN PROSEUXWN and EN PASH DEHSEI to mean very close to
> the same thing.
Yes.
>
> That is what I meant by how the text of Philippians seems somewhat "out
> of order" to me when compared with parallels.
OK. Perhaps this out-of-orderness is explained by a semantic difference with
EPI expressing the content of thanks in Philippians (and used with a different
case).
>
> In pointing this out, I don't mean to imply some sort of conjectural
emendation,
> but I do think that it *might* aid in better understanding the phrasing.
What
> do you think?
Your comparison of the passages is interesting, and possibly helps us
understand Paul's thought better. Thanks.
Kimmo Huovila
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list