From: Carlton Winbery (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Sep 29 1999 - 20:49:29 EDT
>SUNECOMAI DE EK TWN DUO, THN EPIQUMIAN EXWN EIS TO ANALUSAI KAI SUN CRISTWi
>EINAI, POLLWi [GAR] MALLON KREISSONĚ| TO DE EPIMENEIN [EN] THi SARKI
>AVAGKAIOTERON DI' hUMAS
>This sentence begins with SUNECOMAI which I take as a descriptive or
>progressive present. The force of the phrase EK TWN DUO is that of a
>genitive of means/instrument. Paul is kept in a dilemma by both of his
>options. The article here is anaphoric (it points back to the two concepts
>in v. 21). EXWN seems to be a circumstantial participle. please correct any
>errors from above, now I am stuck:
>1. What is the use of the infinitive in EIS TO ANALUSAI? What aspect is in
>2. What is the use of the infinitive in EINAI? What aspect is in view?
>3. How would you classify KREISSON? As a simple comparative adjective?
>4. How would you identify AVAGKAIOTERON? Wallace mentions something called
>"comparative for elative" p. 300. Where "the quality expressed by the
>objective is intensified, but not making a comparison."
1. EIS TO ANALUSAI and EINAI are both explaining EPIQUMIAN. Some call them
3. KREISSON is comparative. In this strange structure, something like "more
better by much."
4. AVAGKAIOTERON is also a comparative adjective. You have to understand
that Paul is comparing departing with remaining and thus says remaining is
"more necessary for you" (than departing). I think this one is truly
Dr. Carlton L. Winbery
Foggleman Professor of Religion
Ph. 1 318 448 6103 hm
Ph. 1 318 487 7241 off
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:40 EDT