From: Carl W. Conrad (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Apr 15 1997 - 13:20:57 EDT
At 11:23 AM -0500 4/15/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>At 07:08 AM 4/15/97 -0500, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>>At 5:26 AM -0500 4/15/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>>I'm having problems understanding this sentence, and I think my point of
>>>confusion is the ETI...ETI KATA KAIRON formulation:
>>>Roma 5:6 (GNT) ETI GAR CRISTOS ONTWN hHMWN ASQENWN ETI KATA KAIRON hUPER
>>>Some manuscripts, incidentally, say EI GAR, which I can read and understand
>>>- in this case ONTWN hHMWN ASQENWN ETI becomes one phrase. But I simply
>>>don't know how to read the ETI...ETI in the version I quoted above.
>>I would understand the first ETI as to be understood with the genitive
>>absolute ONTWN hHMWN ASQENWN, and I would understand the ETI KATA KAIRON
>>phrase as in apposition to it. While it seems a bit strange for the ETI to
>>be removed from the adverbial phrase with which it is to be understood and
>>separated from that phrase by the subject CRISTOS, the rhetorical emphasis
>>upon the ETI is powerful, underscored all the more by the succeeding GAR.
>>What makes the construction awkward is that CRISTOS is also competing for
>>that rhetorical highlighting at the beginning of the sentence. My weak
>>attempt to convey the rhetorical force:
>>"For it was even then that Christ--while we were helpless, even at the
>>opportune moment--he died for us impious (creatures)."
>Might the second ETI actually go with CRISTOS too, and just be repeated for
I really don't see how: it's an adverb and one used most frequently to
emphasize a temporal adverb or phrase--which is what we have in this
instance--in fact very much like German "noch." I don't see how it would be
used to emphasize a noun subject.
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 - 15:38:13 EDT