I thought "χριστος" is both a title and a proper noun, as there are places in which it can only function as a title but there are too many places where the article is dropped as if it has become so greatly associated with a particular person in the new testament that it was used as a proper noun. So I also think "εν κυριω" is used where "lordship" is concerned and I think "εν χριστω" is used where "personal relationship with Christ" is concerned. Any thoughts?Tony Pope wrote:If you study ἐν χριστῷ and ἐν κυρίῳ it's noticeable that ἐν κυρίῳ is used less commonly than ἐν χριστῷ. I subscribe to the view that the two nouns are titles not proper names, and it then becomes interesting to try and find reasons why one is used rather than the other. I have not read all the literature but I have observed that ἐν κυρίῳ is often used in a context of service to the Master/Lord or being under the Master/Lord's authority. At least in some passages this seems clear (e.g. 1 Cor. 15.58 ὁ κόπος ὑμῶν οὐκ ἔστιν κενὸς ἐν κυριῷ) and in others it would fit quite well.
Phil 1:14 ἐν κυρίῳ
Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Re: Phil 1:14
δαυιδ λιμ
Re: Phil 1:14
Yes I know that my view is not the "standard" but it somehow makes so much more logical sense to me. The optionality of the equative verb in Greek does not to me remove its presence (as a mental link) in the minds of the audience, and I therefore view adverbs and prepositional clause as modifying that link. But I do not really understand what you mean by "predicate adjective", because I considered the prepositional clause "in Christ" to function as an adverb, which cannot normally modify an adjective, whether predicate or not. So I consider the equative verb as the head of the verb clause "the brothers are faithful", which is then modified by "in Christ". What do you think?MAubrey wrote:In English, one might say that, but that's not the case in Greek were the verb in such a clause is completely optional--and even in English that's not the standard view of predicate adjectives if you look at the grammars. Linking verbs are simply not the same as full verbs.David Lim wrote:Actually even in that case I see the prepositional clause "in Christ" in "the brothers are faithful in Christ" to modify the verb "are" rather than "faithful". In other words: "the brothers are faithful".. how (in what way or by what means) are they faithful? "in Christ".
δαυιδ λιμ
Re: Phil 1:14
Well, whether it seems logically necessary to you or not is rather irrelevant. It's not there. It can't be modified. You're not thinking in Greek. That's all there is to it.David Lim wrote:Yes I know that my view is not the "standard" but it somehow makes so much more logical sense to me. The optionality of the equative verb in Greek does not to me remove its presence (as a mental link) in the minds of the audience, and I therefore view adverbs and prepositional clause as modifying that link.
Prepositional phrases can modify both verbs and noun. If it modifies a noun, then its adjectival and if it modifies a verb, then its adverbial. Πίστος can function as either a substantive or modifier.David Lim wrote:But I do not really understand what you mean by "predicate adjective", because I considered the prepositional clause "in Christ" to function as an adverb, which cannot normally modify an adjective, whether predicate or not. So I consider the equative verb as the head of the verb clause "the brothers are faithful", which is then modified by "in Christ".
I think you're making things excessively more complicated than they are.David Lim wrote:What do you think?
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
Re: Phil 1:14
I don't think you can deny that anyone who thinks about an equative statement in any language has to have a mental link between the two noun clauses. It is not a matter of whether the equative verb is explicit or not. The fact that it is sometimes used, with no discernible difference in meaning between its presence and its absence, is evidence that the link is there whether or not explicitly mentioned.MAubrey wrote:Well, whether it seems logically necessary to you or not is rather irrelevant. It's not there. It can't be modified. You're not thinking in Greek. That's all there is to it.David Lim wrote:Yes I know that my view is not the "standard" but it somehow makes so much more logical sense to me. The optionality of the equative verb in Greek does not to me remove its presence (as a mental link) in the minds of the audience, and I therefore view adverbs and prepositional clause as modifying that link.
δαυιδ λιμ
Re: Phil 1:14
That's not the issue. The issue is:David Lim wrote:I don't think you can deny that anyone who thinks about an equative statement in any language has to have a mental link between the two noun clauses. It is not a matter of whether the equative verb is explicit or not. The fact that it is sometimes used, with no discernible difference in meaning between its presence and its absence, is evidence that the link is there whether or not explicitly mentioned.
1) The existence of such a "mental link" has absolutely nothing to do with dependency.
2) Even if there were a linking verb, the predicate adjective would still not be structurally dependent on it--the fact that you find it "more logical" to see it that way doesn't change that fact.
3) Choice implies meaning. If there are two different structures, there are two different meanings--even if the difference isn't intuitively obvious to native speakers. And a non-verbal predicate with a linking verb is going to be processed differently than a non-verbal predicate without one. While English the former (with the linking verb) is the more basic form, in Greek, the latter (without the linking verb) is the more basic form.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 8:57 am
Re: Phil 1:14
Tony,Tony Pope wrote: Also perhaps worth noting is that H A W Meyer does not regard ἐν κυρίῳ as fronted for "emphasis" but "placed first as the correlative of the ἐν Χριστ., ver. 13". He does not make ἐν κυρίῳ modify the verb only, but the whole clause πεποιθότας τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου. Presumably this would come out as "because I am in the Lord's service they are confident about my chains (= my imprisonment)". This would, I suppose, not be focus at all but Levinsohn's point of departure ("frame" in Steve Runge's terminology?).
Thank you for this interesting suggestion to take it as a point of departure (or frame). I have some trouble with the idea, though. If we take ἐν κυρίῳ with πεποιθότας, the problems is that then it would not refer to Paul's imprisonment.
If we take it with τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου, as in your suggestion, then we have to explain a discontinuous point of departure. I know discontinuous foci, but do we really have discontinuous points of departure?
Kimmo Huovila
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 8:57 am
Re: Phil 1:14
I realize quite a few expositors take the dative of τοῖς δεσμοῖς as expressing the source of confidence ('because of my chains they have confidence'). Is this a viable option? Does a dative behave this way with πέποιθα?
Kimmo Huovila
Re: Phil 1:14
Yes, so is there any evidence that the presence and absence of the equative verb in Greek causes the audience to mentally perceive different structures? I did not notice any, but if there is I will definitely agree that there would be different meanings.MAubrey wrote:That's not the issue. The issue is:David Lim wrote:I don't think you can deny that anyone who thinks about an equative statement in any language has to have a mental link between the two noun clauses. It is not a matter of whether the equative verb is explicit or not. The fact that it is sometimes used, with no discernible difference in meaning between its presence and its absence, is evidence that the link is there whether or not explicitly mentioned.
1) The existence of such a "mental link" has absolutely nothing to do with dependency.
2) Even if there were a linking verb, the predicate adjective would still not be structurally dependent on it--the fact that you find it "more logical" to see it that way doesn't change that fact.
3) Choice implies meaning. If there are two different structures, there are two different meanings--even if the difference isn't intuitively obvious to native speakers. And a non-verbal predicate with a linking verb is going to be processed differently than a non-verbal predicate without one. While English the former (with the linking verb) is the more basic form, in Greek, the latter (without the linking verb) is the more basic form.
δαυιδ λιμ
Re: Phil 1:14 ἐν κυρίῳ
It is true that it is widely believed that χριστός started out as a title but was later used as a proper noun especially in the epistles. This understanding seems to be based on the supposition that non-Jewish converts were unable to understand the Jewish background of an expected Messiah. This ignores the fact that the gospel was first spread through Jewish synagogues where many non-Jews attended. In the Christian church "the fundamentally Jewish rootedness of early Christianity [has been] screened out" (N.T. Wright in his recent paperDavid Lim wrote: I thought "χριστος" is both a title and a proper noun, as there are places in which it can only function as a title but there are too many places where the article is dropped as if it has become so greatly associated with a particular person in the new testament that it was used as a proper noun.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_SBL_ ... essage.htm). Wright translates the word as "King" in an attempt to redress this balance for 21st century readers, which is no doubt open to criticism but at least he's trying to get the point across.
It needs to be appreciated that in Greek the use or non-use of the article has not a lot to do with whether a word is a title or proper name. In either case words have the article according to their function in the sentence or at higher levels in the discourse. See S H Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed, chapter 9.
Not necessarily personal, i.e. individual, relationship with the Messiah. Often the context shows it is a matter of the Messianic community, a point that we easily miss coming from our individualistic culture.David Lim wrote:So I also think "εν κυριω" is used where "lordship" is concerned and I think "εν χριστω" is used where "personal relationship with Christ" is concerned. Any thoughts?
Re: Phil 1:14 ἐν κυρίῳ
Agreed, but I tend to be a little inclined to think that a statistically significant difference in the usage of an article with a noun does indicate some difference. Of course I am considering each situation (like grammatical construction in which it is found) separately. But I did not assume or mean to imply that it was because non-Jewish believers in Christ did not understand the Messianic notion. Rather I speculated that it could be because there was only one such person according to both Jewish and Christian faith.Tony Pope wrote:It is true that it is widely believed that χριστός started out as a title but was later used as a proper noun especially in the epistles. This understanding seems to be based on the supposition that non-Jewish converts were unable to understand the Jewish background of an expected Messiah. This ignores the fact that the gospel was first spread through Jewish synagogues where many non-Jews attended. In the Christian church "the fundamentally Jewish rootedness of early Christianity [has been] screened out" (N.T. Wright in his recent paperDavid Lim wrote: I thought "χριστος" is both a title and a proper noun, as there are places in which it can only function as a title but there are too many places where the article is dropped as if it has become so greatly associated with a particular person in the new testament that it was used as a proper noun.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_SBL_ ... essage.htm). Wright translates the word as "King" in an attempt to redress this balance for 21st century readers, which is no doubt open to criticism but at least he's trying to get the point across.
It needs to be appreciated that in Greek the use or non-use of the article has not a lot to do with whether a word is a title or proper name. In either case words have the article according to their function in the sentence or at higher levels in the discourse. See S H Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed, chapter 9.
Yes I could not find a good word for it; I meant not an individualistic "personal" but rather an "intimate" (surely this is not quite the word for it either) relationship, or to put it another way, "communion/fellowship" with Christ. At least I expected some sort of difference between "εν κυριω" and "εν χριστω" along these lines, based on my inclination to consider one as a proper noun and the other as a title in these particular usages.Tony Pope wrote:Not necessarily personal, i.e. individual, relationship with the Messiah. Often the context shows it is a matter of the Messianic community, a point that we easily miss coming from our individualistic culture.David Lim wrote:So I also think "εν κυριω" is used where "lordship" is concerned and I think "εν χριστω" is used where "personal relationship with Christ" is concerned. Any thoughts?
δαυιδ λιμ