Date: Sun May 04 1997 - 08:31:41 EDT
php 3,7 hghmai & 8 hgoumai
having examined the work of this group for a week, several opinions seem to be
in the process of formulation in my noggin. one will have been that don,
jonathan, carl and maybe a couple of others deserve appreciation for their
patient and florid (not my style at all) explanations of incoming questions
from amateurs and hellenistic novices.
where i had been admonished to be more specific, it may be partly deserved, but
probably not, in the light of two factors:
the highly specific applicability of the few generalizations i have submitted
seems to have passed right over the heads of one or two of this list's bigwigs.
my purpose in this submission will do only a couple of quick things &, as i
find more appropriate material on the subject, i shall pass it on -- perhaps
the first quick thing will have been simply to state that i believe the burden
of proof ought to rest upon those who assert a distinction in import between
the perfect form and the present form of hgeic0ai = hegesthae in php 3,7-8. the
one seems to mean i have begun to regard it thus and still do and the other i
do regard it thus. for me the homework needed to establish a supposed
difference in import would be finding an analogous instance, even of pf. and
pres. forms of some other verb, but with similarly proximate objective
structures, as here, and where a distinction in tense or aspect indication can
be clearly demonstrated.
lat. has for hghmai = hegemae in 3,7 arbitratus sum & for hgoumai = hegumae in
the 2nd quick thing will have been to recapitulate the situation in ogr, where
by far the preponderance of occurrences consist of some form of the ptc.
hgoumevoc as a translation of words like ro'sh or nagid. the sense requisite
for php 3 can be found primarily in 'wisdom lit', e.g. job, wis. (sol.) &
sirach (ecclesiasticus) where aor. & pf. prove readily documentable for words
that mean think, impute, look upon, e.g. chashabh or nachas or yarah (simply
what i've seen so far on this list makes me want to point to the grammatical
genius of the medieval rav solomon son of isaac of troyes, known as rashi, as
a model of grammatical explication. why? because at one and the same time he
offers lucid grammatical explication that comes right to the point on most
matters in question, but at the same time he does it with relative freedom from
the obfuscating baggage of the usually ambiguous or incorrect grammatical
terminology. these qualities in said scholar, however, cannot be appreciated,
unless one at least knows enough of the language in which he wrote to figure
out what the text that underlies the translations (e.g. silberman's is readily
available cheaply) is really saying.
on this list i see glimmers of both conservatism and higher critical
hypotheticism shining through here and there. my impression so far is that most
of this emanates from protestant seminary background. i'm wondering whether
some scholars of western based catholic and eastern based orthodox persuasion
might not be attracted to the list. it might be helpful to centrally protestant
types to see what they have to offer on some of the questions that come up.
e.g. i could mention one from philipppians: the eusebian statement on the
occurrence of cuzugoc as used by paul as proff he was a married man, who had
simply had an agreement with his spouse that they would both live celibate
lives and that the ch. at phpi should care for her. i'm familiar with some of
the typical protestant denial of this. nevertheless, the weight of evidence for
taking the word as equivalent to coniunx could really turn some heads here, and
orthodox/catholic scholars would probably add much to this and othere questions
through their usually broader familiarity with patristic greek sources.
supra please change purpose will do to purpose is to do. thanks.
bearded bill of asheville <email@example.com>
unca not having approved either whom or thereof.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:14 EDT