From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Thu Feb 01 1996 - 14:36:44 EST
I'm sending this through a second time because I don't know whether it got
through the first time; our server has been extremely erratic the last
couple days (I was bumped twice from both b-greek and another list while
our system wasn't receiving mail).
On 1/31/96, KevLAnder@aol.com wrote:
> I have a few minor questions about some reading I have done in the Apostolic
> Fathers.
>
> (1) Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 7:1
>
> EUCHARISTIAS KAI PROSEUCHHS APECHONTAI, DIA TO MH hOMOLOGEIN THN
> EUCHARISTIAN SARKA EINAI TOU SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CHRISTOU THN hPER TWN
> hAMARTIWN hHMWN PATHOUSAN, hHN THi CHRHSTOTHTI hO PATHR HGEIREN.
>
> Here both THN . . . PATHOUSAN and hHN . . . hO PATHR ktl. make the best sense
> with IHSOU CHRISTOU as their antecedent, but they agree in gender with
> EUCHARISTIAN. Is this simply a syntactically creative way for Ignatius to
> point out the, as it were, "corporeal" connection between the Eucharist and
> Christ's Passion/Resurrection? Contextually, of course, Ignatius is dealing
> with a docetic heresy.
This won't do; the gender in THN ... PAQOUSAN and in hHN ... HGEIREN is too
clearly marked as feminine, and the only feminine noun to which they can
refer as an antecedent is SARKA. The persons herein described deny that
SUBSTANCE offered in the Eucharist is in very fact the FLESH of our Savior
Jesus Christ, the very same FLESH that actually suffered for our sins, the
very same FLESH that that Father resurrected to life ...
> (2) Didache 7:3
>
> EAN DE AMPHOTERA MH ECHHiS, EKCHEON EIS THN KEPHALHN TRIS hUDWR EIS ONOMA
> PATROS KAI hUIOU KAI hGIOU PNEUMATOS.
>
> Here I have a simple parsing question. My guess is that EKCHEON is a Pres.
> Act. Ptc. neut. sg. nom. of EKCHEW. I would also surmise that if my parsing
> is correct, the ptc. is being used imperativally. Can anyone confirm or
> disconfirm this?
It is not a participle but a real 2nd sg. aor. active imperative of EKXEW.
This verb is one of two Greek verbs (I think they're the only ones, but I
could be mistaken) that are anomalous as far back as Homer in that they
have first aorist forms without a sigma: HNEGKA (from FERW) and EKXEA from
EKXEW). So this is a straightforward aorist sg. imperative active in the
passage cited.
> (3) Didache 16:5
>
> TOTE hHXEI hH KTISIS TWN ANTHRWPWN EIS THN PURWSIN THS DOKIMASIAS, AND
> SKANDALISTHHSONTAI POLLOI AN APOLOUNTAI, hOI DE hUPOMEINANTES EN THi PISTEI
> AUTWN SWTHHSONTAI hUP' AUTOU TOU KATATHEMATOS.
>
> My question concerns the very last phrase, hUP' AUTOU TOU KATATHEMATOS. The
> Loeb translation (Kirsopp Lake) has, " . . . but 'they who endure' in their
> faith 'shall be saved' BY THE CURSE ITSELF." Lake also provides a note
> indicating that the meaning here is obscure. But I was wondering if, by any
> stretch of the imagination, one could take TOU KATATHEMATOS as an ablative of
> separation, thereby providing a more sensible translation such as, "they . .
> . shall be saved by him from the curse." The trouble here, however, may be in
> tracking down an antecedent for AUTOU.
>
> Of course, part of the whole problem lay in the precise meaning of KATATHEMA,
> which I have not adequately researched.
(a) Have you perhaps transcribed the "AND" at the end of the first line
above erroneously for "KAI"? And what about the "AN" between POLLOI and
APOLOUNTAI? Of course this doesn't bear on your question, but I can't
understand an AN with a future tense such as APOLOUNTAI.
(b) While I don't claim to understand what the last clause actually means,
I do find the phrasing very problematic. Kirsopp Lake's reading is
appropriate to the text as it stands: hUPO + genitive should indicate the
agent of the action of the passive verb SWQHSONTAI, but it is somewhat odd
(albeit not unheard of) that the "agent" is not a person, unless, of
course, the KATAQEMA is thought of as personified, as Paul sometimes
represents Sin and Death as personified powers. That may be the answer
here, but it is definitely a personal agent construction. I do not see how
hUPO could properly introduce an (ablatival) genitive of separation here
("from under the curse") in view of the standard construction for agent.
But might the text itself be corrupt?
It strikes me that this verse is a little bit like the vieldiskutiertes 1
Tim 2:15, apparently on the salvation of woman/women: SWQHSETAI DE DIA THS
TEKNOGONIAS, EAN MEINWSIN EN PISTEI KAI AGAPHi KAI hAGIASMi META
SWFROSUNHS. Here however the preposition is DIA, and of course there's no
question of an ablatival function for the genitive.
Sorry that this is only a negative comment on your last question, but I'm
sure that illumination is on the way from our colleagues.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:37 EDT