[B-Greek] Ephesians 2:3 - TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS
Richard Lindeman
oblchurch at msn.com
Tue Mar 30 17:13:17 EDT 2010
Well then... I stand rightly corrected here. Given your cited examples, it
appears that St. Paul may be in the regular habit of using FUSEI
adverbially.
Thanks!
Rich Lindeman
On 3/30/10 3:16 PM, "Carl Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2010, at 3:51 PM, Richard Lindeman wrote:
>> EN hOIS KAI hHMEIS PANTES ANESTRAFHMEN POTE EN TAIS EPIQUMIAIS THS SARKOS
>> hHMWN POIOUNTES TA QELHMATA THS SARKOS KAI TWN DIANOIWN, KAI HMEQA TEKNA
>> FUSEI ORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI
>>
>> It’s another one of those form/function things. A noun in the dative case
>> (form) seems to lend itself well for either adjectival or adverbial usage
>> (function)??
>> It causes me to wonder which is the more prevalent usage for dative nouns
>> (adjectival or adverbial function). It also causes me to wonder about
>> dative case usage here. If FUSEI is functioning as an adverb the dative case
>> usage vanishes entirely. I don’t think that makes sense. Actually, I am
>> having trouble seeing FUSEI as being construed in any way with the verb.
>> Shouldn’t it would remain adjectival either in relation to “We”, the subject
>> of HMEQA or in relation to TEKNA?
>
> Can you adduce other examples of a dative noun functioning adjectivally?
>
> Here are all the instances of FUSEI dative that I can find in the GNT:
>
> Rom. 2:14 ὅταν γὰρ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα φύσει τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν, οὗτοι
> νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες ἑαυτοῖς εἰσιν νόμος·
> Rom. 2:14 hOTAN GAR EQNH TA MH NOMON ECONTA FUSEI TA TOU NOMOU POIWSIN, hOUTOI
> NOMON MH ECONTES hEAUTOIS EISIN NOMOS·
>
> Gal. 2:15 Ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί·
> Gal. 2:15 hHMEIS FUSEI IOUDAIOI KAI OUK EX EQNWN hAMARTWLOI·
>
> Gal. 4:8 Ἀλλὰ τότε μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες θεὸν ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν
> θεοῖς·
> Gal. 4:8 ALLA TOTE MEN OUK EIDOTES QEON EDOULEUSATE TOIS FUSEI MH OUSIN
> QEOIS·
>
> Eph. 2:3 ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστράφημέν ποτε ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς
> σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ποιοῦντες τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν, καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα
> φύσει ὀργῆς ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί·
> Eph. 2:3 EN hOIS KAI hHMEIS PANTES ANESTRAFHMEN POTE EN TAIS EPIQUMIAIS THS
> SARKOS hHMWN POIOUNTES TA QELHMATA THS SARKOS KAI TWN DIANOIWN, KAI HMEQA
> TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI·
>
> James 3:7 πᾶσα γὰρ φύσις θηρίων τε καὶ πετεινῶν, ἑρπετῶν τε καὶ ἐναλίων
> δαμάζεται καὶ δεδάμασται τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ,
> James 3:7 PASA GAR FUSIS QHRIWN TE KAI PETEINWN, hERPETWN TE KAI ENALIWN
> DAMAZETAI KAI DEDAMASTAI THi FUSEI THi ANQRWPINHi,
>
> Apart from Eph 2:3, where I'm inclined to expect that FUSEI is adverbial with
> HMEQA, it is adverbial with POIWSIN in Rom 2:14, adverbial with an implicit
> ESMEN in Gala 2:15, adverbial with the participle OUSIN in Gal 4:8, and
> adverbial with DAMAZETAI KAI DEDAMASTAI in James 3:7.
>
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
>>>
>>> Well, it may well be that Mark is right about what the author is saying here
>>> about TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS. But I continue to be bothered by the
>>> linguistic formulation wherein the dative noun appears to be used as
>>> if adjectivally with the noun phrase TEKNA ORGHS.
>>>
>>> C'est bon, c'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre! It was said.
>>>
>>> I say, TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS seems intelligible enough, but is it
>>> acceptable Greek?
>>>
>>> To which the question is asked: "What do YOU know about what's
>>> acceptable Greek?"
>>>
>>> To which I reply: if you have to think twice about what the phrase
>>> you read/hear means, there's more than meets the eye/ear in it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Carl W. Conrad
>>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>>>
>>>> --- On Mon, 3/29/10, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Ephesians 2:3 - TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS
>>>> To: "Mark Lightman" <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
>>>> Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org, rhutchin at aol.com
>>>> Date: Monday, March 29, 2010, 12:13 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 28, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Mark Lightman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Sun, 3/28/10, rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <For the following phrases:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...FUSEI TEKNA hORGHS...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...TEKNA hORGHS FUSEI...
>>>>
>>>> Quibble: the word is ORGHS: there's no rough breathing on this noun.
>>>>
>>>>> Does the ordering of the words change how one
>>>>> might understand what the writer means to say
>>>>> or how a person might translate the phrase?>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Not only is Greek word order flexible enough
>>>>> to cover all three arrangements with little or no difference
>>>>> in meaning, it is MORE than flexible enough to do this.
>>>>> It's flexible enough, I mean, to do even MORE than this.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure about this one.
>>>>
>>>> Text:
>>>> Eph. 2:3 ?? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ???????????? ???? ?? ???? ?????????? ???
>>>> ?????? ???? ????????? ?? ???????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ????????, ??? ?????
>>>> ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???????
>>>> [EN hOIS KAI hHMEIS PANTES ANESTRAFHMEN POTE EN TAIS EPIQUMIAIS THS SARKOS
>>>> hHMWN POIOUNTES TA QELHMATA THS SARKOS KAI TWN DIANOIWN, KAI HMEQA TEKNA
>>>> FUSEI ORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI?]
>>>>
>>>> The earlier discussion on this verse focused altogether upon the phase
>>>> TEKNA
>>>> ORGHS. I don't think anything was said about FUSEI here, and as I think
>>>> about
>>>> it, its position in the text between TEKNA and ORGHS seems less than
>>>> transparent to me. I would have supposed that FUSEI construes with HMEQA or
>>>> else with the whole clause HMEQA TEKNA ORGHS. The positioning of FUSEI in
>>>> our
>>>> text between TEKNA and ORGHS strikes me as strange, as I don't really see
>>>> how
>>>> the dative noun can construe with either the nominative or the genitive
>>>> noun,
>>>> as if it were adjectival ("natural children of wrath"). I really think the
>>>> sense in the larger context must be: "we really were, in our inmost
>>>> essence,
>>>> condemned."
>>>>
>>>> Mark may be right, claiming that any of Roger's suggested word-orders is as
>>>> good as any other. But I'm not convinced. Does anyone think that FUSEI is
>>>> intended by the author to be construed with the noun phrase TEKNA ORGHS
>>>> rather than with the verb of the clause?
>>>>
>>>> Carl W. Conrad
>>>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list