CWRISQHi - follow up

Mark Wilson emory2002 at hotmail.com
Fri Aug 4 23:52:23 EDT 2000



Carl wrote:

The truth is
>rather that -QH- forms serve in the aorist exactly the same function as
>MAI/SAI/TAI KTL. and MHN/SO/TO KTL. serve in the other "tenses"--which is
>to say, aorists in -QH- tend to be reflexive or intransitive, depending on
>whether or not there is some clear indicator that the subject is being
>acted upon by an external agent or force.
-----------

Here is the passage:

1 Cor. 7:10b and 11:

GUNAIKA APO ANDROS MH CWRISQHNAI

EAN DE KAI CWRISQHi
MENETW AGAMOS H TWi ANDRI KATALLAGHTW
KAI ANDRA GUNAIKA MH AFIENAI


In 10b, I can not seem to even "force" a passive sense to this prohibition; 
it seems Active or Reflexive. However, 11a seems
to slightly indicate a contrast (DE) from what is said in 10b.

Can one give 10b a Reflexive force, and give 11a a Passive sense, yielding 
something like:

A wife [is] not to separate herself from her husband.
But, and if, she has been separated from (by her husband)

Is this at least a possibility?



Carl also said:


>If I say, "John and his wife are getting separated", is the verb in this
>instance passive? No--unless what's being emphasized is the action
>performed by a court, which may be the case in a particular context, but
>normally it means that the couple in question are taking steps to dissolve
>their marriage: in Greek the "voice" involved would be middle, I >think.
---------

As this is worded, I almost get the sense that this particular divorce 
situation involves mutual consent or agreement.

However, what I am trying to determine is whether or not in 1 Cor 7:11 the 
wife is "abandoned." In other words, I am wondering if it is possible that 
Paul prohibits a wife from divorcing in 10. And then addresses what her 
responsibility is if she is "abandoned."

It seems odd for Paul to prohibit a wife from divorcing her husband, and 
then immediately advise her what to do if she does.


Another question:

What would be the main reason a Passive sense should be rejected in 1 Cor 
7:11?


May I also ask:

If one were to presume that CWRIZW and AFIHMI are not simply stylistic 
variations, what would be a possible reason for using these two different 
words?


And my final question (in this post)  :o )


Why the switch from Aorist Passive MH CWRISQHNAI for the wives to the 
parallel prohibition to the husbands with the Present Active MH AFIENAI?

Thank you,

Mark Wilson


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com




More information about the B-Greek mailing list