From: Carl W. Conrad (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Feb 03 1997 - 09:05:48 EST
At 7:25 AM -0600 2/3/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>Ephesians 3:4 PROS hO DUNASQE ANAGINWSKONTES NOHSAI THN SUNESIN MOU
>Sorry, but OU DUNASKW ANAGINWSKEIN. At least, I'd like a little confirmation
>that I'm reading it correctly. I'm reading it like this:
> hO DUNASQE ANAGINWSKONTES NOHSAI
> THN SUNESIN MOU
>The last phrase, THN SUNESIN MOU, is fairly clear. If my phrasing is
>correct, then this leaves a few questions:
>1. hO DUNASQE ANAGINWSKONTES NOHSAI. This parsing makes sense to me: "the
>your-being-able during-the-reading to-contemplate". Is it correct? My grasp
>of infinitives and participles is still pretty weak! Robertson says that the
>ANAGINWSKONTES implies that the letter will be read in public - does it
>really, or could it apply equally to reading in private?
Here's where the ACCENTS are important, Jonathan. It's: hO\. Unless the
article hO is followed by an enclitic (e.g. hO/ GE), it NEVER has an
accent; when you see a hO with an accent and there's NO following enclitic,
it can only be a relative pronoun, as it is in fact here: n.sg. relative
pronoun acc., object of NOHSAI, and I think I would explain this as an
anticipatory relative clause in apposition to THN SUNESIN MOU, deeming PROS
as having THN SUNESIN MOU as its chief object.
>2. PROS. Several of the senses in Louw and Nida seem reasonable:
I think PROS here is used more simply with THN SUNESIN MOU as a preposition
clarifying the sense in which the accusative is used: "regarding," "with
respect to," or some such preposition or prepositional phrase.
>89.60 for (purpose) - "the mystery was made known to me through a
>revelation, as I have already written briefly, *in order that* when it is
>read you will be able to contemplate...". Paul wrote previously in order
>that they would be able to grasp the understanding that was revealed to him
>when they read.
>89.44 end in (result) - "the mystery was *made known to me* through a
>revelation, as I have already written briefly, *with the result that* when
>it is read you will be able to contemplate...". The result of the mystery
>being made known to Paul is that they too may grasp Paul's understanding
>when they read. This seems to fit the context well. Another, more boring
>interpretation, is that he wrote it, with the result that they can read it,
>but that doesn't seem likely.
>67.16 at (time) - "the mystery was made known to me through a revelation, as
>I have already written briefly, so that *at* the reading you will be able to
>What are the PROS and cons of these different readings?
All of these are obviated by a right understanding of the initial hO\: you
seem to have had the notion that hO ... NOHSAI was an articular infinitive
and to have been looking for a usage of PROS with an articular infinitive.
BUT: an articular infinitive always has a NEUTER SG. ARTICLE; here it would
have to be TO\; what we have here is something altogether different.
Understand hO\ DUNASQE ANAGINWSKONTES NOHSAI as "which (thing) you can
discern even while you're reading ..." = "as you can discern even as you
The phrase, to mean what you took it to mean as an articular infinitive,
would have to have been: TO DUNASQAI hUMAS ANAGINWSKONTAS NOHSAI.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
email@example.com OR firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:04 EDT