[B-Greek] PAS and POLUS
James Ernest
j.d.ernest at bc.edu
Tue Jan 18 12:11:29 EST 2011
Mark,
Zerwick doesn't give a rule! The (bogus) rule about the article comes from
elsewhere.
>Context is King
That's tough. BASILEUEI hH AKOLOUQIA ??
James
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>wrote:
> I had heard of the notion that POLUS for PAS is an established semiticism,
> but did not know about how the article could affect the construction. Nor
> did I know about Zerwick's "rule."
>
> I would argue that Mark 10:45 violates Zerwick's rule, because I do think
> POLLWN does means PANTWN here. But we know that the article can be ommitted
> with prepositions where we would expect it without.
>
> By the way, how would one say "Context is King" is Koine?
>
> Mark L
>
>
> FWSFOROS MARKOS
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* James Ernest <j.d.ernest at bc.edu>
> *To:* B-GREEK list <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> *Sent:* Tue, January 18, 2011 8:33:23 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [B-Greek] PAS and POLUS
>
> Yep--Zerwick is right on. (Not sure what "your book" means--I wish it were
> my book!)
>
> For the Latinless, Mario is quoting Zerwick, who says, roughly: HOI POLLOI
> here = "all" (cf. 18). In semitic idiom, HOI POLLOI does not imply
> opposition to "all"; so "many" can be understood as referring to the "all,"
> who are many.
>
> What I was trying to suggest was that HOI POLLOI could be understood in
> terms of the preceding PAS; but further, that PAS in this Pauline context
> cannot necessarily be equated without further ado with whatever "all" may
> mean in the context of the contemporary interests of Sam's interlocutors.
>
> Incidentally, Zerwick provides no support for the aforequoted rule (PAS
> with
> article = ALL, without article = MANY), so I still don't know there that
> came from, but no matter. My intent wasn't to single out Mario for a
> bashing, just to express wonder at how these things crop up and spread
> around, and to voice once again, for the benefit of any newbies on the list
> who might be misled by such a "rule," the caveat, often raised here by
> others, that theological, hermeneutical, and exegetical problems raised by
> or touched on by particular texts are generally not subject to easy
> solution
> through facile rules (which are often bogus anyway) or even competent
> lexicography. Let's see, how to say in Latin . . . would that be "Contextus
> rex"?
>
> James Ernest
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Mario Trinchero
> <mariotrinchero at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Hi James
> > do you know Max Zerwick S.I.
> > and your book Analysis Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci?
> >
> > pag 344
> > ad romanos 5:19
> > οἱ πολλοί hic = omnes (cf 18); semitice in οἱ πολλοί non subauditur
> oppos.
> > ad "omnes",
> > ideo "multi" intellegi possunt omnes, qui multi sunt (cf Matt 20;28)
> >
> > Mario Trinchero
> >
> >
> >
> > 2011/1/18 James Ernest <j.d.ernest at bc.edu>
> >
> >> > PAS with article = ALL
> >> > without article = MANY
> >>
> >> Really? Who made that rule? (Rules like this always remind me of Lucy's
> >> "little-known facts." When Charlie Brown asks her how, if they're
> >> little-known, she comes to know them. "I make 'em up.")
> >>
> >> > the argument was made that because 'many' does not mean 'all', then
> >> > the use of POLUS in Romans 5:19 necessarily limits the scope of PAS in
> >> v. 18.
> >>
> >> You could just as plausibly say that the scope of POLUS (which in a
> >> one-versus-many context could quite naturally imply "all") is limited by
> >> the
> >> preceding PAS: "all" always has a frame of reference (all what? or all
> >> who?)
> >> Doesn't the Adam/Christ discussion in Romans 5 occur in the context of a
> >> Jews/all-humanity discussion in the epistle as a whole?
> >>
> >> I don't know what "all" means in the context of the conversation that
> >> prompted the initial post. If it's an argument about universalism (in
> the
> >> sense of the salvation of every individual human), I don't think Paul is
> >> addressing that question here. If you want to address it, Sam, you'll
> have
> >> to do so in the context of a larger exegetical, hermeneutical, and
> >> theological project. Lexicon entries and rules about articles
> (especially
> >> bogus rules) won't help you (or, in this case, your opponents).
> >>
> >> James Ernest
> >> ---
> >> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> >> B-Greek mailing list
> >> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
> >>
> >
> >
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list