[B-Greek] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MH
Steve Runge
srunge at logos.com
Thu Jun 11 11:22:57 EDT 2009
Iver,
From my standpoint, it is more helpful to attribute the emphasis and prominence to the decision to take the long way of disclosing something, rather than to attribute it to EI MH. The latter is just a tool. Jump down to your Esther example, it is a great one.
-----Original Message-----
From: Iver Larsen [mailto:iver_larsen at sil.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:06 PM
To: Steve Runge; B Greek
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] FW: Galatians 1:6-7 and EI MH
Hi, Steve,
At the moment I don't have a lot of time to research this interesting question in detail, but I think it would be helpful to approach it from a different angle also.
You mentioned the possibility of emphatic usage, and I like that. A certain emphasis seems to be present in all examples of EI MH, maybe akin to the emphasis in OU MH.
EI MH x is at times equivalent to "surely x". The writer may set up a scenario, usually by a question, and then he gives an answer that may be obvious, but surely is seen by the speaker to be correct and emphatic.
For instance, in Esther 6:6 we find:
εἶπεν δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῷ Αμαν Τί ποιήσω τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, ὃν ἐγὼ θέλω δοξάσαι; εἶπεν δὲ ἐν ἑαυτῷ Αμαν Τίνα θέλει ὁ βασιλεὺς δοξάσαι εἰ μὴ ἐμέ;
EIPEN DE hO BASILEUS TWi AMAN: TI POIHSW TWi ANQRWPWi hON EGW QELW DOXASAI?
EIPEN DE EN hEAUTWi AMAN: TINA QELEI hO BASILEUS DOXASAI EI MH EME?
The question Haman puts to himself is: Who could the king want to honor? Surely, it must be me! Who else?
It seems a stretch to demand that the question is rhetorical and especially that the expected answer is: No one. But I accept that the EI MH appears to narrow down the answer to one idea or person. So, I would be more inclined to consider "no one else/nothing else".
SER: We need to recognize that Haman did NOT need to ask a question. He more simply could have stated, "Surely the king wants to honor me." This would have communicated the same content without drawing out the main point. By using the rhetorical question, a void or blank is opened up by the interrogative that the reader needs to fill in. The answer to the question is provided in the exceptive clause.
I would say rather than wondering about the use of EI MH versus ALLA, the more relevant distinction is EI MH versus direct disclosure. It is this choice to take the longer, more complex way of disclosing something that results in the added emphasis attributed to the answer. Each of the examples below could probably be rephrased to eliminate the exception, avoiding the circumlocution. Doing so also has the effect of softening the rhetorical impact of the statement.
I am out of time for the rest of the week for grading, so I hereby bow out of this discussion. Back to lurking.
Steve
Let me move down to the other examples below:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Runge" <srunge at logos.com>
To: "B Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 10. juni 2009 23:30
Subject: [B-Greek] FW: Galatians 1:6-7
>
> Iver,
>
> So far as I have been able to determine, there will be an expectation of a
> negative answer, no matter how slight that negative is. This does not mean
> that there will be no instance where a writer does not follow this principle,
> but I know that I can account for all NT tokens of EI MH. The example from Eph
> 4:9 is one of those marginal ones. What I have outlined is a principle, not a
> rule. I expect there will be exceptions. ;-) That was for you, Carl.
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iver Larsen [mailto:iver_larsen at sil.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 11:55 AM
> To: Steve Runge; Elizabeth Kline; B Greek
> Cc: Charles Johnson
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Galatians 1:6-7
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Runge" <srunge at logos.com>
> To: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>; "B Greek"
> <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Cc: "Charles Johnson" <cpj5117 at gmail.com>
> Sent: 10. juni 2009 21:27
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Galatians 1:6-7
>
>
>> Here is an excerpt from my blog post that accounts for both your cited
>> exception from 2 Cor, and that from Cooper.
>>
>> "What about εἰ μή? Can it be used in non-negative contexts? The answer
>> in most every case is “no”. But there is one exception (pun intended):
>> rhetorical questions. This apparent exception confused me even more
>> than the original problem, since it seemed to break with the expected
>> pattern of negation. Then I realized that even though the rhetorical
>> questions are technically positive, they expected a negative answer
>> where εἰ μή was used . In other words, the expected answer to the question
>> is nothing or no one.
>> -BREAK-
>
> Does the question have to expect a negative answer? Does this apply to the
> following examples?
>
> Rom 11:15: εἰ γὰρ ἡ ἀποβολὴ αὐτῶν καταλλαγὴ κόσμου, τίς ἡ πρόσλημψις εἰ μὴ ζωὴ
> ἐκ νεκρῶν; EI GAR hH APOBOLH AUTWN KATALLAGH KOSMOU, TIS hH PROSLHMYIS EI MH
> ZWH EK NEKRWN
What will there acceptance result in? Surely, life from the dead. (What else
than life from death?)
> Eph 4:9 τὸ δὲ Ἀνέβη τί ἐστιν, εἰ μὴ ὅτι καὶ κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατώτερα [μέρη] τῆς
> γῆς; TO DE ANEBH TI ESTIN, EI MH hOTI KAI KATEBH EIS TO KATWTERA MERH THS GHS
What does the "he went up" mean? Surely, it meant that he also had gone down to
the lower parts of the earth.
>
> 1Jn 2:22 Τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀρνούμενος ὅτι ᾽Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ
> Χριστός; TIS ESTIN hO YEUSTHS EI MH hO ARNOUMENOS hOTI IHSOUS OUK ESTIN hO
> CRISTOS
Who is THE liar? Surely, it is the one who denies that Jesus is (not) the
Messiah.
1 Cor 7:17: Εἰ μὴ ἑκάστῳ ὡς ἐμέρισεν ὁ κύριος, ἕκαστον ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ θεός, οὕτως
περιπατείτω.
EI MH hEKASTWi hWS EMERISEN hO KURIOS, hEKASTON hWS KEKLHKEN hO QEOS, hOUTWS
PERIPATEITW
Surely, as the Lord has apportioned it to each person, as God has called each
on, him/her should live in that way. How else?
I agree that when the EI MH clause is connected to another clause that is
negative, the basic sense is "except, unless". The EI MH clause usually follows,
in which case "except" works fine in English. When the EI MH clause precedes its
counterpart, English prefers "unless" or "if not", e.g.
Jhn 9:33 Unless/If not this man was from God, he could not do anything (like
this).
There are examples where EI MH is not connected to a negative clause nor to a
question, e.g.
Act 26:32 Ἀπολελύσθαι ἐδύνατο ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος εἰ μὴ ἐπεκέκλητο Καίσαρα.
APOLELUSQAI EDUNATO hO ANQRWPOS hOUTOS, EI MH EPEKEKLHTO KAISARA
This man could have been released, if he had not appealed to Caesar.
1 Cor 14:5 μείζων δὲ ὁ προφητεύων ἢ ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσαις ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ
MEIZWN DE hO PROFHTEUWN H hO LALWN GLWSSAIS, EKTOS EI MH DIERMHNEUHi
The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues unless
he/she explains the meaning.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list