From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Thu Jan 25 1996 - 09:59:14 EST
Hello, all. We raised a couple of questions in a Ph.D. seminar on Philippians
yesterday, and have not yet been able to answer them. So I thought I'd toss
them out to the group.
1.) In 1.22, the apodisis reads: KAI TI hAIRJSOMAI OU GNWRIZW. BDF sect 368
suggests that this is *not* an example of the future indicative used in a
deliberative sense, because a question mark should be inserted after
hAIRJSOMAI. I find this puzzling.
First, doesn't putting a question mark after hAIRJSOMAI make this a
deliberative future (i.e., "What shall I do? I don't know--I'm torn between
the two, . . . .")
Second, if one reads this as a statement instead of a question (i.e., "I don't
know what I shall do. I'm torn . . .")--which is how it's punctuated in the
NA26/UBS text--then wouldn't one expect an infinitive instead of a finite
future verb?
2.) What is the function of hINA in 2.2? BAGD notes that hINA is sometimes
used in constructions to carry out the force of an imperative, and cites Eph
5.33. Is the same thing going on here (Ph 2.2)?
3.) What are the ins and outs of punctuating hEKASTOI in Ph 2.4? With the
singular hEKASTOS earlier in the verse connected to a plural participle, the
plural hEKASTOI at the end of the verse seems problematic. Does this influence
the decision one makes re. punctuation, and whether hEKASTOI belongs with 2.4
or 2.5?
Then again, doesn't hEKASTOI seem kind of solecistic in and of itself?
"Puzzled in Peoria"
Grace amd peace,
Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:36 EDT