From: James H. Vellenga (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Oct 06 1997 - 14:26:26 EDT
It seems to me that Jim Beale's original question may have
differed from Martin's response (and perhaps that of others).
It sounded to me like Jim was asking whether then phrase
could be parsed as
"the appraisal of you [who belong to] the faith"
and Martin (and others) seemed to appraising the following
\ \ \_____________PISTEWS
\ \_____hUMWN \___THS
"the appraisal of you, [that is,] of the faith"
and Jonathan is reading it as
\__TO \ \___hUMWN
"the appraisal of _your_ faith"
I'm not sure how Edgar was parsing what Jim meant -- perhaps
structurally like the second, but treating THS PISTEWS as
a sphere or means
"the appraisal of you [in the area] of the faith"
(but then goes on to say that he doesn't think that this works).
Have I understood everybody correctly?
James H. Vellenga | firstname.lastname@example.org
Viewlogic Systems, Inc. __|__ 508-303-5491
293 Boston Post Road West | FAX: 508-460-8213
Marlboro, MA 01752-4615 |
"We all work with partial information."
> From email@example.com Mon Oct 6 07:40:26 1997
> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 07:37:58 +0100
> To: Martin Arhelger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> From: Jim Beale <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: 1 Peter 1:7
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Hi Martin,
> 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
> >term (faith).
> 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.)
> Really? Why?
> >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 =
> >your faith.
> 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. :-(
> In Christ,
> 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