[b-greek] Re: 2 Cor 12:7

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 17 2001 - 09:33:26 EST


Perhaps I should be sending this only off-list and to those who have
participated in this thread, but I'm uncomfortable with what I wrote last
night. Therefore: my apologies for the obtuseness and dull-wittedness of my
response last night, at least with regard to some of my specific responses
to you, Iver. Here's what I should have said or meant to say:

(1) It's true I never saw any citation from the KJV in the earlier
correspondence on this from Iver.
(2) My statement, "perhaps this is too traditional a view of the passage
for anyone who's looking for something more far-out" wasn't really on the
mark at all. I looked at the passage in UBS4 and noted that the sentence
was punctuated there with a period after APOKALUYEWN. I didn't look at any
of the versions at all, although I had read Clay's response to Iver. I just
wanted to say that I thought the Greek text made perfectly good sense as
printed in UBS4 with KAI THi hUPERBOLHi TWN APOKALUYEWN construed with what
preceded, and that to me the attempt to construe the phrase with what
followed upon hINA seemed to me misconceived. I still believe that, but I
was NOT really aware that the traditional mode of construing the
questionable phrase was in (as Iver indicated in his response to me) with
the hINA clause following it. So what I really meant--or what I should have
written in the final sentence of my first response was rather: " ...
perhaps this acceptance of the reasonability of the critical text
(UBS4,NA27) is not convincing to anyone who's looking for something more
far-out."
(3) I read the later response of Steven LoVullo and his "second thoughts"
following upon Clay's challenge to find any undisputed instance of an
element preceding a DIO construed with what followed the DIO. It seemed to
me that Steven in his last response was understanding the text as I
understood it. And that's what I was referring to in my response to Iver,
penned only AFTER I'd read the rest of the thread. But I don't think I made
myself clear at all. I only hope I'm doing better now (and I'm really only
trying to clarify what I apparently obfuscated previously.
(4) Finally,I might note that I usually don't look at modern translations
until after I've tried to make up my mind about the Greek critical text in
UBS4/NA27. I realize, of course, that that text represents a majority view
of a committee about how the text is to be constituted from the tradition
of the MSS. But I've always felt that's the place to start, even if I end
up feeling that an alternative way of construing the text is preferable.
It's only then that I start looking at the modern versions, if at all. So
my use of "traditional view of the passage" was really misleading, and what
I should have said was, "the way the text is constructed in UBS4/NA27,"
which seemed to me reasaonable enough.

At 5:57 PM -0600 12/16/01, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>At 8:58 PM +0100 12/16/01, Iver Larsen wrote:
>>> At 7:32 AM +0100 12/14/01, Iver Larsen wrote:
>>> >FEIDOMAI DE MH TIS EIS EME LOGISHTAI hUPER hO BLEPEI ME H AKOUEI EX EMOU
>>> >KAI THi hUPERBOLHi TWN APOKALUYEWN (DIO) hINA MH hUPERAIRWMAI EDOQH MOI
>>> >SKOLOY THi SARKI
>>> >
>>> >What is the function of the dative THi hUPERBOLHi TWN APOKALUYEWN?
>>> >Does the dative phrase belong to the previous sentence or the following?
>>>
>>> As a "silent grammarian (without portfolio)" I just want to say, after
>>> reading the exchange between Iver and Clay thus far, that for my part I
>>> would really prefer to take THi hUPERBOLHi TWN APOKALUYEWN with what
>>> precedes it and then punctuate after it with a period or raised dot. It
>>> seems to me that the phrase adds a particular reason for someone esteeming
>>> Paul too highly. To me it seems intolerable that the phrase
>>> should construe with a purpose clause introduced by a hINA that follows
>>it, and if the DIO
>>> is retained, I think it makes more sense as introducing a new sequence,
>>> "And for that reason, so that ..." But perhaps this is too traditional a
>>> view of the passage for anyone who's looking for something more far-out.
>>> --
>>> Carl W. Conrad
>>
>>Your last sentence begs for a response.
>>As far as English (and Danish) Bible translations go, the traditional view
>>is to take the dative phrase with the purpose clause or at least the
>>following sentence rather than the previous one. I quoted the KJV as a
>>representative of the traditional view, but can add many more like RSV, NIV,
>>NCV, TEV, REB, NASB, JBPhillips, etc. It is only a few recent translations
>>that have left the tradition and tried to construe it with the preceding
>>sentence. It may be that the KJV was using a text without the DIO.
>>It is hard for me to see which is most "far-out" since both are awkward.
>>But if we take it with the preceding one, how would you explain the strange
>>KAI and the unmotivated dative? The dative is not the normal way of adding a
>>reason and the KAI does not connect with the previous sentence. If I
>>translate the first part as "I avoid (boasting) so that no one should credit
>>to me beyond that which they see me (doing) or hear from me" how can I get
>>that to fit with "and by the extraordinary revelations"? I just cannot
>>connect it with LOGISHTAI and i don't see what else to connect it with.
>>I am not looking for a final answer, Carl, and I know you won't offer one. I
>>am just trying to understand how you can possibly connect it with the
>>preceding sentence grammatically. I have read the NET, NLT and the few
>>others who try to translate KAI with "even", but their translations just do
>>not make sense to me.
>
>I hadn't noted that you cited KJV in your earlier and introductory post
>raising this issue. I don't think that most of those versions you're citing
>accept the DIO at all; my chief objection was to construing the dative
>phrase with the hINA clause which follows it.That just strikes me as more
>strange than taking KAI THi hUPERBOLHi TWN APOKALUYEWN with what preceded.
>Steven LoVullo has set forth precisely the way I understand the passage. As
>for my last sentence in my message, I simply meant that I saw no reason to
>go against the traditional view. I had looked at the NET and can only say
>that the translation of KAI with "even" seemed to me to make perfectly good
>sense.
>
>NET: "12:6 For even if I wish to boast, I will not be a fool, for I would
>be tellin5 the truth, but I refrain from this so that no one may regard me
>beyond what he sees in me or what he hears from me, 12:7 even because of
>the extraordinary character of the revelations. Therefore, so that I would
>not become arrogant, a thorn in the flesh was given to me,"
>--
>
>Carl W. Conrad
>Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
>Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
>cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad@ioa.com
>WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
>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

--

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad@ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

---
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 - 15:37:14 EDT