From: jerker karlsson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Nov 28 2001 - 01:26:32 EST
Thanks for a god answer on a clumsy stated question. I’ll try to express
more clearly what the problem is that I see in Gärtner’s interpretation of
the supplementary participle.
The reference Gärtner makes to Blass-Debrunner is perfectly clear and in
accordance with what you are to expect when a participle is used with a
Verba Sentiendi for example as in the phrase WS DENDRA ORW TOUS ANTHRWPOUS
PERIPATOUNTAS (Luk. 8: 24) or as in the passive hUREQH EN GASTRI ECOUSA. The
source of my confusion was partly due to the fact that Gärtner identified
this as a “explicative participle”, but mostly my confusion drives from the
way in which he translates, and I quote also that which precedes,: “And the
term [NOOUMENA] means ‘to see with understanding‘, that is to say, ‘see and
understand‘. The translation of the verse would then read ‘For men see and
The reason that I jumped high at “explicative participle” is that I
understood it as if he intended a modification of the verb KATHORATAI and
not the nominative AORATA, and even thou I might have misinterpreted what he
meant by explic. ptc. I found that he is doing exactly what I suspected in
his translation. To further explain: In Matt 1: 18 the meaning of hEREQH is
not modified by ECOUSA, but MARIAN is i.e. the finding is still a finding
but the object found is modified, and as a consequence the scope of the verb
is limited. Maria was not found herself but her “having in the belly” was.
But this is not the case in Gärtner, instead of modifying AORATA with
NOUMENA he add is on top of KATHORATAI and thus renders it with “to see
>From: c stirling bartholomew <email@example.com>
>To: jerker karlsson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Biblical Greek
>Subject: Re: [b-greek] Concerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI
>Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:49:10 -0800
>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
> > Romans 1: 20 which I cant make any sense of.
> > B. Gärtner wrights in “The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation” p.
> > that the participle NOOUMENA should be interpreted as Participum
> > Causa Verbo Adiectum. (with a reference to Przychocki G. “De gregorii
> > Naziamzeni Epistulis”. Krakow, 1913, p. 278.). Gärtner later identifies
> > grammatical construction with the one found in Blass-Debrunner
> > pp 187ff., but Blass-Debrunner talks of “das Ptz. zur Ergränzung von
> > des Wahrnehmens und Erkennens”. This later function of the participle
> > well aware off and therefore I’m struck with wonder then Gärtner goes
> > say that “the meaning of KATHORATAI is determined by the explicative
> > participle NOOUMENA”. He brings this out in the translations which runs
> > men see and understands...”, but the problem is that this translation
> > nothing to do with participles Ergränzung von Verben des Wahrnehmens und
> > Erkennens. The participle in such constructions relates to the object
> > 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
> > know under what modern grammatical label the Latin phrase Participum
> > Explicandi Causa Verbo Adiectum goes? B) Have I misunderstood the
> > of participles flanking a verb that denotes perception and/or feeling?
> > (Under the condition that I make any sense) Does anyone make sense of
> > Gärtner is saying?
> > Regards
> > Jerker Karlsson
> > Lund, Sweden
>What a question!
>BDF #416 Title: "The Suplementary Participle with Verbs of Perception and
> "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
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:37:12 EDT