[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