[B-Greek] hH PERITOMH subject Phil. 3:3?
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon Mar 2 00:26:42 EST 2009
On Mar 1, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Carl Conrad wrote:
>
> On Mar 1, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:
>
>> Phil. 3:2 Βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας, βλέπετε
>> τοὺς
>> κακοὺς ἐργάτας, βλέπετε τὴν
>> κατατομήν. 3 ἡμεῖς γάρ ἐσμεν ἡ
>> περιτομή, οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ
>> λατρεύοντες καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν
>> Χριστῷ
>> Ἰησοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες
>>>> BLEPETE TOUS KUNAS, BLEPETE TOUS KAKOUS ERGATAS, BLEPETE THN
>> KATATOMHN. 3 hHMEIS GAR ESMEN hH PERITOMH, hOI PNEUMATI QEOU
>> LATREUONTES KAI KAUCWMENOI EN CRISTWi IHSOU KAI OUK EN SARKI
>> PEPOIQOTES<<,
>>
>>
>>
>> N.T. Wright, in his book on Justification (2009) claims that hH
>> PERITOMH is the subject because it has the article. I wonder what
>> both
>> traditional grammar and also text linguistics would have to say about
>> this.
>
>
> Speaking only for traditional grammar, I would question why the verb
> is 1 pl. if the subject is hH PERITOMH. For that matter, I'd also
> ask why we have the emphatic pronoun hHMEIS at the front and why all
> the apparently appositional substantival nominative plural
> participles.
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
>
>
Thank you Carl,
N.T. Wright's comment on page 120 about the position of the article
indicating that hH PERITOMH is the subject not hHMEIS leaves me
wondering what other position might the article take? The article
tells us that the referent is considered accessible to the intended
audience. What is Paul saying about KATATOMHN? If the focus falls on
hHMEIS, is he saying we and not the KATATOMHN are the true heirs of
Abraham, that is N.T. Wright's major theme.
In terms of pragmatics, how would we parse the first clause in 3:3?
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list