From: Gary S. Shogren (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Feb 23 1996 - 21:44:35 EST
At 02:27 PM 2/22/96 -0500, Steve Clock 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.)
Yes, you were right that this is an aorist form. The perfect of PARADIDWMI
appears only in Lukan material in the NT: Luke 4:6 and Acts 14:26
(middle-passive forms) and Acts 15:26 (perfect active partic.). The perfect
form reduplicates off the delta - PARADEDWKA, etc. The juxtaposition of one
tense against verbs of another tense may be exegetically significant;
nonetheless, it doesn't force the finite verb to be of the same tense. The
RSV renders the verb "they have given themselves over...", rendering it
similarly a perfect tense in meaning, but it's still aorist! Some may label
it Culminative Aorist, which would yield that shade of meaning - like the
aorist in Rom. 3:23.
>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?
You're right in putting the PASHS with the AKATHARIAS, but a simple
anarthrous attributive position would explain it as "all uncleanness."
That's very different from a Descriptive Genitive, an example of which could
be "man of sin." If it were apposition, it might sound something like:
"They gave themselves over to uncleanness, [that is] wickedness", and that's
only if you could rule out an epexegetical genitive.
>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
>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?
Yeah, I think you gave a good answer, although PASHS is best viewed as
attributive to ERGASIAN. ERGASIAN I can see as a nice solid example of an
action noun, making AKATHARSIAS an objective (or perchance subjective)
genitive. Even though you have two genitives next to each other, they can
(usually do!) have different syntactical functions (check out the string of
genitives in Mark 1:1 as a good example). Your students sound like mine - I
have to constantly remind them not to pursue those just-plausible theories
about syntax too far. Many genitives, you can with some imagination make
any and every possibility work - I tell them to remember, this is just a guy
making a statement and another guy writing it down.
And Steve, listen - it's a good question, and I'm glad you felt free to ask
B-GREEK. Personally, I think issues of this nature are a good exercise for
all of us.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:38 EDT