[B-Greek] hH PERITOMH subject Phil. 3:3?

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Mar 2 15:57:21 EST 2009


On Mar 2, 2009, at 12:26 AM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:

>
> 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?

Ultimately, I suppose, since ESMEN is equative here, it doesn't make a  
great deal of difference. "We are the Circumcision" = "The  
Circumcision are Us" = "We have met the Circumcision, and They is Us!"  
I would think that hH PERITOMH is intended to mean hOI PERITETMHMENOI.  
I note that the participle of PERITEMNW is found only once in the GNT  
-- 1 Cor 7:18. I somehow don't think, however, that the definitive  
article with PERITOMH settles the question of which is the subject,  
inasmuch as the article is required for the generalized usage of  
PERITOMH.


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)






More information about the B-Greek mailing list