From: Theo (hmpope@concentric.net)
Date: Mon Sep 29 1997 - 03:31:36 EDT
Martin and Carl,
Thank you both for your responses to my question. Martin you are correct in
what I was asking.
I have only finished a 2nd year of N.T. Greek and syntax is still very very
fuzzy in my brain. I have made some assumptions that I am not sure are
correct. I am assuming that when my grammars tell me that certain Greek
words are nouns, adjectives, adverbs, etc. that I can apply the same
questions I learned from my English grammar to the Greek. For example, 1
Pet. 2:11 PARAKALW is the verb( I assume a transitive verb) and I ask the
question PARAKALW whom? or PARAKALW what? to determine the object.
The whom is not stated so it could be implicit, in this case hUMAS. Do I
stop there because in English we use the word "exhort" in reference to
people or do I look and see if there is any usage of "exhort" with things in
greek or do I look for a phrase or clause that would answer either question?
In the last case, perhaps, because it is the Greek language and not English,
it would be perfectly acceptable to take the entire "APECESQAI TWN SARKIKWN
EPIQUMIWN AITINES STRATEUONTAI KATA THS YUCHS" as the object of PARAKLW?
Using my English background I stop at whom.
I then looked at hWS PAROIKOUS KAI PAREPIDHMOUS and said hWS looks like it
is an adverb from the lexicon so I think( in English) adverb +acc noun
+conjunction +acc noun is an adverbial phrase. Adverb phrases act like
adverbs so it must modify a verb, adjective, or another adverb. PARAKALW is
a verb therefore it must modify PARAKALW.
Then I see APECESQAI. My lexicon tells me it is a pres/mid/infinitive. I
look up what an infinitive is in my grammar and it tells me an infinitive is
a verbal noun. Ok, I remember from class that it could be used either as a
verb or noun. I look up the lexical meaning of APECESQAI and I get "to
abstain from". Using what I now have as the meaning it looks like to me
there is more action in this meaning than person, place, or thing so I take
it as more verbal than noun.
At this point, I say to myself, self, it is possible that hWS PAROIKOUS
KAI PAREPIDHMOUS being an adverbial phase could modify this verbal force
infinitive but I don't know so I will see what others say. I consult
Alford's Greek Testament and he says "These words, PAROIKOUS KAI
PAREPIDHMOUS, belong, not to PARAKLW, as Huther, al., but to APECESQAI.
They form the ground why the readers should abstain, not why the Writer
should exhort." Then he moves on. I understand what he said so I look at
how he translated the verse.
He translates it "Beloved, I exhort you as sojourners and strangers to
abstain from the carnal lusts which war against the soul." I would have
expected it to be translated based upon what he said like Martin showed "2)
I exhort you, to abstain from fleshly lusts as sojourners and pilgrims ..."
Hence my confusion and my question.
It now appears that both of you would translate the verse having hWS ...
modify PARAKALW. But it also appears that another translation is given by
Kuehl
"But the thought of Kuehl was, that this hUMAS must have been
EXPLICITLY in the WRITTEN text to adopt the first translation;
and seeing, that it is NOT in the written text, Kuehl adopts the
second translation. And that form of argument is, what I denied
and still deny."
While I understand entirely what you have both said, I am not sure of the
underlying assumptions (which I assume must be grammatically correct
according to some standard) which make your conclusions, let me say
"grammatically correct" and Kuehl and Aland not grammatically correct.
Thank you for your patience in reading this long response but I am trying to
make my thinking explict so you all can help me learn.
Grace and peace, Theo
Am I following the right thinking process here, making the right assumptions?
C.W.Conrad wrote as to my answer concerning 1Peter 2:11 ("I
think it modifies PARAKALW. Here are some reasons"):
>Perhaps this may seem a quibble, but in formal >grammatical
analysis I think
>we'd want to say that hWS PAROIKOUS KAI >PAREPIDHMOUS must
construe with and therefore >technically *modify* an implicit
accusative *object* of >PARAKALW.
>It is those who are being exhorted who are to be >exhorted just
as strangers
>and sojourners would be exhorted. So, I think that (see >note
below on what
>Kuehl says) that hUMAS must be implicit here, even if >not
expressed, and to
>get this into English, at least, we do have to supply the
>object pronoun,
>"I exhort YOU as ..."
ok.
I think the problem of Theo was, to decide between the two
following translations:
1) I exhort you as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from
fleshly lusts ...
2) I exhort you, to abstain from fleshly lusts as
sojourners and pilgrims ...
Am I right, that you agree with me, as to the preference of the
FIRST translation?
Of course, the hWS PAROIKOUS KAI PAREPIDHMOUS must construe with
an implicit hUMAS as accusative object of PARAKALW (and this
hUMAS is expressed in English - and in German as well).
But the thought of Kuehl was, that this hUMAS must have been
EXPLICITLY in the WRITTEN text to adopt the first translation;
and seeing, that it is NOT in the written text, Kuehl adopts the
second translation. And that form of argument is, what I denied
and still deny.
=============================================================================
Theophelous(Theo) Michael Pope Work Phone (510) 294-1378
1265 Countryside Lane Home Phone (209) 825-6615
Manteca, CA. 95337-6700
E-mail hmpope@concentric.net
"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in
synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said
nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they
know what I said." John 18:20-21
============================================================================
=========
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:31 EDT