Steven Lo Vullo
slovullo at mac.com
Sat Mar 23 17:44:20 EST 2002
on 3/23/02 10:18 AM, boyd at huxcomm.net at boyd at huxcomm.net wrote:
> MONON AXIWS TOU EUAGGELIOU TOU CRISTOU
> POLITEUESQE, hINA EITE ELQWN KAI IDWN hUMAS EITE
> APWN AKOUW TA PERI hUMWN, hOTI STHKETE EN hENI
> PNEUMATI, MIAi YUCHi SUNAQLOUNTES THi PISTEI TOU
> 1) With which words does the AKOUW go? In my thinking, it is
> the main verb of the hINA clause. e.g. hINA . . . AKOUW TA PERI
> hUMWN. The hOTI then introduces the content of what he wants
> to hear.
I agree. The simplest and most natural way of treating AKOUW is as a
subjunctive in a purpose clause introduced by hINA. TA PERI hUMWN is the
direct object of AKOUW, and hOTI introduces a nominal clause in apposition
to TA PERI hUMWN. Without AKOUW, there is no explicit purpose expressed by
the hINA clause. And it is very common for a hOTI clause to function as the
object of AKOUW (see, e.g., Phil 2.26), so it is, in turn, very natural for
it to function as an appositive to a direct object of AKOUW. In this case,
as an appositive, it would be perfectly natural, if we were to take away TA
PERI hUMWN, for the hOTI clause to function as the direct object of AKOUW.
(This is a good test for determining if a word or clause is an appositive.)
Note the construction in Gal 1.13: AKOUSATE GAR THN EMHN ANASTROFHN POTE EN
TWi IOUDAISMWi, hOTI KAQ' hUPERBOLHN EDIWKON THN EKKLHSIAN TOU QEOU KAI
EPORQOUN AUTHN... Here we have basically the same construction: AKOUSATE,
followed by its direct object (THN EMHN ANASTROFHN), followed by a hOTI
clause in apposition to the direct object. This all seems less than
mysterious to me.
Even if we accept the reading AKOUSW, there is no good reason not to
understand it as subjunctive. But what if we took it as a future indicative?
I would still construe the same way, since it is not incredibly uncommon for
a future indicative to stand in a purpose clause with hINA where we would
expect a subjunctive (see, e.g., Luke 14.10; 20.10; John 7.3; Acts 21.24;
Gal 2.4; Eph 6.3 [ESHi]; 1 Pet 3.1).
> Another understanding is that AKOUW goes with APWN. In
> this understanding, a verb needs to be supplied in order to
> understand the hOTI clause (e.g. NJB: "I shall find," NIV: "I will
> know"). If this were the case, wouldn't we expect to see something
> like, EITE APWN KAI AKOUWN TA PERI hUMWN?
EITE ... EITE are coordinating correlative conjunctions, forming a "whether
... or" construction. It seems most natural that the participle APWN is
introduced by the second EITE, not the verb AKOUW, since the first EITE
clause features two participles (ELQWN and IDWN). APWN is contrasted with
ELQWN and IDWN. In light of this, my first impulse is to ask, "In what way
does AKOUW go with APWN?" If we take seriously the symmetry of the EITE
clauses, and conclude that the second introduces APWN, then how could we
explain a subordinate participle construed with a finite verb to which it is
NOT subordinate (APWN with AKOUW)? Seems like a stretch to me. It is far
more natural to understand all three participles a subordinate to AKOUW. And
how common is it for a purpose clause introduced by hINA to have no explicit
verb? I would think it is not very common at all.
> 2) Is STHKETE EN hENI PNEUMATI better understood as "in one
> Spirit" (like 1 Cor. 12:13 & Eph. 2:18) or "in one spirit" (i.e. esprit
> de corps). Against the majority, Gordon Fee in his NICNT
> commentary argues for the first option. This question might better
> be addressed off-list.
I think I will leave this one alone! :-)
Steven Lo Vullo
slovullo at mac.com
More information about the B-Greek