From: Northland Bible College (northlan@soonet.ca)
Date: Thu Feb 22 1996 - 14:27:22 EST
Hi all:
In accord with the dictum that it's better to ask a (dumb) question to
overcome one's ignorance than to remain silent and thus stay ignorant -
here I am again, asking questions!
We were in Ephesians 4:19 this morning.
Question 1. Re PAREDWKAN, I've assumed forever (in oft-encountered
instances of similar verbal forms) that this is a kappa-aorist of
PARADIDWMI. But because 4:18 has two perfect participles and 4:19 opens
with a perfect participle, adverbially modifying PAREDWKAN, the thot just
popped into my head: Why couldn't this actually be a perfect instead of
an aorist? (I realize that the syntax doesn't require such a conclusion,
rather, it was merely the juxtaposition of these other perfect forms to
this form that prompted my thinking.) My limited resources only provide
accidental forms for DIDWMI without prepositions in composition with the
root. So the question is, then - would the perfect spelling of PARADIDWMI
be PAREDWKAN OR PARADEDWKAN? (Based on my understanding that perfective
reduplication in a verb in composition with a preposition takes the form
of an augment - it seems PAREDWKAN could be either aorist or perfect.)
Question 2. Re PASHS (in the phrase "unto every filthy deed"). I at
first thought this to be either a mere descriptive Genitive modifying
AKAThARSIAS. One student suggested that PASHS stood in apposition to
AKAThARSIAS in the sense that PASHS is a more particular reference to
what AKAThARSIAS is generally. Although I follow this reasoning, my
understanding is that in a true appositional genitive, both the genitive
and the word it modifies should be in the same class, as in the instance
"the word of truth". Am I right here, or does the general nature of the
term PASHS actually allow it to be either descriptive and/or appositional?
Question 3. Our discussion re PASHS led to a further puzzler (which made
me wonder, because I thought I had all this straightened out long ago)
whether I was losing my mind!?). Another student then thought that PASHS
was actually an objective genitive with a noun of action, modifying
ERGASIAN exactly as AKAThARSIAS (which we took to be an objective
genitive with a noun of action in relation to ERGASIAN). His reasoning
was that however we classified AKAThARSIAS we must necessarily do the
same with PASHS as both are genitives and since both are actually
modifying ERGASIAN.
My first response was that his reasoning would be justified IF the
adjectives were both in an attributive relation to the noun. Right? (And
doesn't a true attributive adjective have to share the same case, gender
and number as the noun it modifies?) I concluded then that since
AKAThARSIAS and PASHS were both genitives (albeit feminine singulars)
they were not strictly attributively modifying ERGASIAN, thus, the case
classification of the one adjective should not be assumed for the second.
Right or wrong?
Blushing,
Steve Clock
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:38 EDT