From: Jim Beale (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Oct 06 1997 - 02:37:58 EDT
Thanks for the response!
At 5:40 PM +0200 10/5/97, Martin Arhelger wrote:
>In your suggested translation ("the testing of you, of the faith")
>you created a similar construction as it is valid in Mat 26:28 (cf.
>Mrc 14:14), where
>TO hAIMA MOU THS DIAQHKHS is
>"my blood of the covenant"
>(and not: "the blood of my covenant")
Exactly; MOU modifies hAIMA rather than DIAQHKHS. So, the construction
can at least *possibly* be translated as I wondered.
>But in 1 Peter 1:7 this interpretation is, I think, not very
>In TO DOKIMION hUMWN THS PISTEWS we would have TWO classifications
>of the DOKIMON:
>1) the DOKIMION "of you"
>2) the DOKIMION "of the faith".
>Now it is not very likely, that Peter wrote in such a vague manner,
>connecting the DOKIMION of persons with the DOKIMION of an abstract
I'm not sure I understand this part of your response. Why would
there be two classifications of TO DOKIMION? Wouldn't it be one
or the other?
>(More likely, Peter would have written TO DOKIMION
>hUMWN, TO THS PISTEWS in this case.)
>It is not unusual , that hUMWN is before the rest of the genitive.
>Compare e. g. 1 Peter 3:16 hUMWN THN AGAQHN EN CRISTW ANASTROFHN,
>where hUMWN refers to ANASTROFHN. Or 1 Cor 1:24 hUMWN THS PISTEWS =
It seems a _little_ unusual (to me at least) that hUMWN precede
what it modifies. I should think there would be some reason for
constructing it that way. I just don't understand why. :-(
The worth and excellence of a soul is to
be measured by the object of its love.
~ Henry Scougal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:31 EDT