[b-greek] Re: Concerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI

From: c stirling bartholomew (cc.constantine@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Tue Nov 27 2001 - 16:49:10 EST

on 11/27/01 6:30 AM, jerker karlsson wrote:

> Hi!
> I am near the completion of an essay on “Paul and natural theology”, but
> have recently stumbled over an interpretation of the NOOUMENA KATHORATAI in
> Romans 1: 20 which I cant make any sense of.
> B. Gärtner wrights in “The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation” p. 136
> that the participle NOOUMENA should be interpreted as Participum Explicandi
> Causa Verbo Adiectum. (with a reference to Przychocki G. “De gregorii
> Naziamzeni Epistulis”. Krakow, 1913, p. 278.). Gärtner later identifies this
> grammatical construction with the one found in Blass-Debrunner “Grammatik”
> pp 187ff., but Blass-Debrunner talks of “das Ptz. zur Ergränzung von Verben
> des Wahrnehmens und Erkennens”. This later function of the participle I’m
> well aware off and therefore I’m struck with wonder then Gärtner goes on to
> say that “the meaning of KATHORATAI is determined by the explicative
> participle NOOUMENA”. He brings this out in the translations which runs “For
> men see and understands...”, but the problem is that this translation has
> nothing to do with participles Ergränzung von Verben des Wahrnehmens und
> Erkennens. The participle in such constructions relates to the object clause
> of the sentence and does not as in the translation by Gärtner modify the
> meaning of the main verb.
> The problems that I would like to have some help to solve is A) Does anyone
> know under what modern grammatical label the Latin phrase Participum
> Explicandi Causa Verbo Adiectum goes? B) Have I misunderstood the function
> of participles flanking a verb that denotes perception and/or feeling? C)
> (Under the condition that I make any sense) Does anyone make sense of what
> Gärtner is saying?
> Regards
> Jerker Karlsson
> Lund, Sweden


What a question!

BDF #416 Title: "The Suplementary Participle with Verbs of Perception and
Cognition" states:

 "In Classical Greek the participle takes the nominative case if it refers
to the subject of the verb [. . . ]
Except with the passive verbs the nominative does not appear in the NT
referring to the subject . . ."

BDF #416(2) cites Matt. 1:18 hUREQH EN GASTRI ECOUSA as an example of the
passive verb with the nominative participle. In this case the participle
refers back to the subject stated explicitly in the previous clause as
MARIAS and limits the passive verb hUREQH.

In Rom 1:20 we find KATHORATAI tagged passive by Gramcord and Frieberg. I
would understand TA AORATA as the subject of KATHORATAI and NOOUMENA as the
"explicative participle" referring back to TA AORATA and limiting

For this reason I don't see any contradiction in what B. Gärtner says and
what BDF #416 says.

Perhaps I have missed the point entirely.



Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:12 EDT