[B-Greek] 2COR. 1:8 AGNOEIN hUPER ...

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon May 25 14:57:43 EDT 2009


On May 25, 2009, at 3:59 AM, Carl Conrad wrote:

> On the other hand, this text is very similar to
> 1Th. 4:13 	Οὐ θέλομεν δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν,  
> ἀδελφοί, περὶ τῶν κοιμωμένων, ἵνα  
> μὴ λυπῆσθε καθὼς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ οἱ  
> μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα.
> OU QELOMEN DE hUMAS AGNOEIN, ADELFOI, PERI TWN KOIMWMENWN, hINA MH  
> LUPHQHSQE KAQWS KAI hO;I LOIPOI hOI MH ECONTES ELPIDA.
>
> and BDAG, s.v. hUPER notes as sense A.3:
>
> 	3. marker of general content, whether of a discourse or mental  
> activity, about, concerning (about equivalent to περί  
> [τινος] {PERI TINOS}, w. which it is freq. interchanged in the  
> mss.; ...
>
> I wouldn't affirm Harris' judgment in this instance.

Carl,

I would agree that PERI TWN KOIMWMENWN functions like hUPER ... EN THi  
ASIAi. However, hINA in 1Th. 4:13 looks to me like it introduces a  
desired result (negated by MH), not the content of the ignorance.  
Whereas, in 2COR. 1:8 the hOTI clause appears to be  
"presentational" (M.Sim's term) describing the nature/content of the  
ignorance. This is one thing M.Harris objects to, having two  
descriptions of the content of AGNOEIN. He claims this never happens  
in the Pauline corpus.

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·

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·

M.Harris assumes, as do others (P.E. Huges 1962), that the Corinthians  
allready knew about Paul's QLIYEWS. What they didn't know was the  
severity of it. If that was the case, then the hUPER clause could be  
viewed as contextualizer, something similar to a participle clause  
used in narative to link what follows to what preceeds. That brings up  
the question of constituent order. I was under the impression that  
contextualizers generally preceed the main verb.

Another problem with Harris. He appears to assume that the NT Pauline  
corpus qualifies as a database for grammatical research. Any argument  
that starts out saying "Paul never does this or that ..."  implies  
that we can use a very small collection of texts to determine what is  
permissible, e.g. two clauses describing content with AGNOEIN.



Thank you,
Elizabeth Kline







More information about the B-Greek mailing list