Philippians 1:27

Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Sat Mar 23 23:09:36 EST 2002


In a message dated 3/23/2002 9:56:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
slovullo at mac.com writes:


> 
> 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 EUAGGELIOU
> 
> While I understood (though disagreed with) Manolis Nikolaou's position, I'm
> afraid I still do not understand yours. You seem to be construing the hOTI
> clause with POLITEUESQE, as a subordinate result clause. Manolis understood
> that in order to construe AKOUW with APWN, there must be an elliptical
> subjunctive verb for the hINA clause to function as a purpose clause. He
> chose GNW as the elliptical verb, and understood the hOTI clause as the
> object of GNW. In this case, the correlative clauses would be subordinate to
> the elliptical GNW as well. It seems to me that if we eliminate AKOUW as the
> subjunctive verb with hINA in the purpose clause, this is the route we must
> follow. The way you seem to have construed the hOTI clause leaves us without
> a purpose clause at all, since, in the end, there never is a subjunctive
> verb to construe with hINA, explicit or implied. If hINA introduces a
> purpose clause, and if the correlative clauses (EITE ... EITE) are
> "parenthetical," and if hOTI introduces a result clause, what constitutes
> the purpose clause? hINA alone? We certainly couldn't construe the hOTI
> clause directly with hINA. Then we would have hINA ... hOTI, an impossible
> construction. The correlative clauses are subordinate, and cannot in any
> intelligible way form a purpose clause with hINA.
> 

Let me translate so that my meaning might be clearer.

Only live worthy of the gospel of Christ so that, whether coming and seeing 
you or being absent I hear concerning you, that you stand in one spirit 
laboring together with one mind in the faith of the gospel . . .

Does this follow the nice neat categories of Greek grammar?  No.  Are we to 
contend that Paul and others only wrote "correct" Greek?  I think not.  I 
think that sometimes Paul got carried away with thoughts that popped into his 
mind.  In such situations he may have forgotten his Strunk & White.  It would 
be a mistake to insist that every sentence in the NT be grammatically correct.

gfsomsel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/20020323/cd0f9059/attachment.html 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list