Re: Eph.4:19

From: Carlton Winbery (
Date: Fri Feb 23 1996 - 16:47:30 EST

Steve Glock wrote;

>We were in Ephesians 4:19 this morning.
>Question 1. Re PAREDWKAN, I've assumed forever (in oft-encountered
>instances of similar verbal forms) that this is a kappa-aorist of
>PARADIDWMI. But because 4:18 has two perfect participles and 4:19 opens
>with a perfect participle, adverbially modifying PAREDWKAN, the thot just
>popped into my head: Why couldn't this actually be a perfect instead of
>an aorist? (I realize that the syntax doesn't require such a conclusion,
>rather, it was merely the juxtaposition of these other perfect forms to
>this form that prompted my thinking.) My limited resources only provide
>accidental forms for DIDWMI without prepositions in composition with the
>root. So the question is, then - would the perfect spelling of PARADIDWMI
>be PAREDWKAN OR PARADEDWKAN? (Based on my understanding that perfective
>reduplication in a verb in composition with a preposition takes the form
>of an augment - it seems PAREDWKAN could be either aorist or perfect.)

PAREDWKA is a K aorist. The perfect form is PARADEDWKA. Note the the
lexical for is also reduplicated with I. PARADIDWMI.

>Question 2. Re PASHS (in the phrase "unto every filthy deed"). I at
>first thought this to be either a mere descriptive Genitive modifying
>AKAThARSIAS. One student suggested that PASHS stood in apposition to
>AKAThARSIAS in the sense that PASHS is a more particular reference to
>what AKAThARSIAS is generally. Although I follow this reasoning, my
>understanding is that in a true appositional genitive, both the genitive
>and the word it modifies should be in the same class, as in the instance
>"the word of truth". Am I right here, or does the general nature of the
>term PASHS actually allow it to be either descriptive and/or appositional?

PASHS is an adjective agreeing with and modifying AKAQARSIAS, hence "every
kind of impurity."

>Question 3. Our discussion re PASHS led to a further puzzler (which made
>me wonder, because I thought I had all this straightened out long ago)
>whether I was losing my mind!?). Another student then thought that PASHS
>was actually an objective genitive with a noun of action, modifying
>ERGASIAN exactly as AKAThARSIAS (which we took to be an objective
>genitive with a noun of action in relation to ERGASIAN). His reasoning
>was that however we classified AKAThARSIAS we must necessarily do the
>same with PASHS as both are genitives and since both are actually
>modifying ERGASIAN.

PASHS is an adjective modifying the objective genitive but as such would
not be an objective genitive.

>My first response was that his reasoning would be justified IF the
>adjectives were both in an attributive relation to the noun. Right? (And
>doesn't a true attributive adjective have to share the same case, gender
>and number as the noun it modifies?) I concluded then that since
>AKAThARSIAS and PASHS were both genitives (albeit feminine singulars)
>they were not strictly attributively modifying ERGASIAN, thus, the case
>classification of the one adjective should not be assumed for the second.
>Right or wrong?

There is only one adjective here, PASHS. AKAQARSIAS is a noun in the
genitive. Since ERGASIAN implies action the noun in the genitive can be
objective genitive. If its not objective, I would describe it as
descriptive. To some degree all genitives describe.

Carlton Winbery
Chair Religion/Philosophy
LA College,
fax (318) 442-4996 or (318) 487-7425

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:38 EDT