Date: Wed Jun 02 1999 - 12:27:37 EDT
In a message dated 6/1/99 4:30:29 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> The implied oneness for PROS is my conclusion. If I am wrong, I want to
> know. But if I am right, I would like everyone to know. It would make a
> difference in what our Bibles are saying.
Somewhere in the archives, I also wrote about how certain constructions with
PROS did involve some kind of relationship of some kind of component with a
whole, such as the relationship of individuals to a group to which the
individual belonged. This relationship didn't seem to follow with other
stative verbs or other occurences.
The 'collocation' that I saw as significant was EIMI + PROS (not including
pariphrastics): there were only a few (Jn. 1:1; Mt. 13:56; Mk. 6:3; 9:19;
14:49; Lk. 9:41; I Thess. 3:4; 2 Thess. 2:5; 2 Thess. 3:10; I Jn. 1:2). I
concluded that there might be enough evidence of association of a 'part to a
whole' to justify a study of the collocation of EIMI + PROS in Hellenistic
literature. The number of occurences in the NT are too few to draw any
conclusions that can be taken seriously, and each occurrence might be
I think that you can say at this point that the use of PROS does not EXCLUDE
oneness, as some have claimed, though I don't think that 'oneness' is the
best inclusive description of the relationship. For that matter, I'm not
comfortable with 'part to whole' either.
So, the hypothesis that I would test is not that PROS indicates this kind of
relationship or that it has a 'meaning' of oneness, but whether the
collocation of EIMI and PROS might indicate this kind of relationship, since
a pattern seemed to emerge in the occurances.
PhD Student, Roehampton
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:29 EDT