[B-Greek] 2COR. 1:8 AGNOEIN hUPER ...
eric.inman at wescorpflex.com
Mon May 25 08:38:51 EDT 2009
In I Cor. 8:1: PERI DE TWN EIDWLOQUTWN, OIDAMEN hOTI ...
Here PERI ... seems to identify the topic and hOTI ... seems to provide information about the topic with the verb being OIDAMEN. This seems to parallel what Harris is suggesting for hUPER, hOTI, and AGNOEIN. If Harris is right, then I would wonder why hUPER is used instead of PERI.
From: Eric Inman [mailto:eric.inman at wescorpflex.com]
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 6:48 AM
To: 'Elizabeth Kline'; 'greek B-Greek'
Subject: RE: [B-Greek] 2COR. 1:8 AGNOEIN hUPER ...
I don't know if this is what you're referring to, but I feel that he has a couple of poor and unnecessary arguments for supporting the idea that the Corinthians lacked information about the severity of the affliction. I think that that conclusion already had enough support just based on his observations of the usage of AGNOEIN and hUPER. As for his comments about the absence of detail in the phrases THS QLIYEWS hHMWN and EN THi ASIAi, I'm not sure that they are valid, and even if they are, I think they are more of a distraction than a help for making his point.
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Kline
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 11:59 PM
To: greek B-Greek
Subject: [B-Greek] 2COR. 1:8 AGNOEIN hUPER ...
2Cor. 1:8 Οὐ γὰρ θέλομεν ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν,
ἀδελφοί, ὑπὲρ τῆς θλίψεως ἡμῶν τῆς
γενομένης ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ, ὅτι καθ᾿
ὑπερβολὴν ὑπὲρ δύναμιν ἐβαρήθημεν
ὥστε ἐξαπορηθῆναι ἡμᾶς καὶ τοῦ
ζῆν· 9 ἀλλὰ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τὸ
ἀπόκριμα τοῦ θανάτου ἐσχήκαμεν,
ἵνα μὴ πεποιθότες ὦμεν ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτοῖς
ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ ἐγείροντι τοὺς
νεκρούς· 10 ὃς ἐκ τηλικούτου θανάτου
ἐρρύσατο ἡμᾶς καὶ ῥύσεται, εἰς ὃν
ἠλπίκαμεν [ὅτι] καὶ ἔτι ῥύσεται, 11
συνυπουργούντων καὶ ὑμῶν ὑπὲρ
ἡμῶν τῇ δεήσει, ἵνα ἐκ πολλῶν
προσώπων τὸ εἰς ἡμᾶς χάρισμα διὰ
πολλῶν εὐχαριστηθῇ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν.
2COR. 1:8 OU GAR QELOMEN hUMAS AGNOEIN, ADELFOI, hUPER THS QLIYEWS
hHMWN THS GENOMENHS EN THi ASIAi, hOTI KAQ᾿ hUPERBOLHN hUPER DUNAMIN
EBARHQHMEN hWSTE EXAPORHQHNAI hHMAS KAI TOU ZHN· 9 ALLA AUTOI EN
hEAUTOIS TO APOKRIMA TOU QANATOU ESCHKAMEN, hINA MH PEPOIQOTES WMEN
EF᾿ hEAUTOIS ALL᾿ EPI TWi QEWi TWi EGEIRONTI TOUS NEKROUS· 10 hOS
EK THLIKOUTOU QANATOU ERRUSATO hHMAS KAI hRUSETAI, EIS hON HLPIKAMEN
[hOTI] KAI ETI hRUSETAI, 11 SUNUPOURGOUNTWN KAI hUMWN hUPER hHMWN THi
DEHSEI, hINA EK POLLWN PROSWPWN TO EIS hHMAS CARISMA DIA POLLWN
EUCARISTHQHi hUPER hHMWN.
According to M.J. Harris:2005 (2Cor NIGTC p153), hUPER ... EN THi
ASIAi is not an argument of AGNOEIN which he claims never (in Paul)
takes a hUPER "clause" as an argument. Harris says that AGNOEIN
typically takes a hOTI clause, an accusative or PERI. He suggests that
the hUPER "clause modifies the whole sentence".
I didn't find anything that directly refutes Harris by a quick look
through TLG :-) However, I have some misgivings about the structure of
his argument. The search string  should get you too the right page
if you are in the USA. I would be interested in any comments on the
validity of the reasoning behind his exegesis on this point. I am not
terrible concerned about the conclusion, just the process of building
Search String for Harris 2005 p153 in google:
"severity of the particular incident" Harris
More information about the B-Greek