cwconrad wrote:The formal phasing here might likely be οὐ χρὴ οὐδένα διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς -- but it’s clear that χρείαν ἔχειν + inf. is a standard idiom in NT Koine Greek.
Yes I thought that it was odd for "ου" to negate "χρειαν" but it never occurred to me that "χρειαν εχειν" was idiomatic. Thanks!
cwconrad wrote:I would, in fact, still want to say that a negative adverb doesn’t qualify a noun; rather it qualifies either the verb (whether explicit or implicit in ellipsis) or the entire predicate. I think there is ellipsis of a verb in all the verses that you’ve cited:
Matt 9:13 ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν
I would understand this as elliptical for ἔλεον θέλω καὶ οὐ (θέλω) θυσίαν
1 Thes 4:8 ... ὁ ἀθετῶν οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀθετεῖ ἀλλὰ τὸν θεὸν
I would understand this as elliptical for .. ἀλλ’ (ἀθετεῖ) τὸν θεόν.
James 1:25 … οὐκ ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς γενόμενος ἀλλὰ ποιητὴς ἔργου
I would understand this as elliptical for … ἀλλὰ (γενόμενος) ποιητὴς ἔργου
1 Pet 3:21 σῴζει βάπτισμα, οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν
again I would understand this as elliptical for ὃ οὐκ (ἐστι) σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλὰ (ὅ ἐστι) υνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν …
Oh okay. I did think an ellipsis could explain all except the last one, because it seemed as if "βαπτισμα" was in apposition to "ου σαρκος αποθεσις ρυπου αλλα συνειδησεως αγαθης επερωτημα εις θεον", and thus the phrase would be a noun clause. I asked because it seemed that "ου" always immediately precedes what it negates except for intervening post-positives or some particles, and when I understood it that way it always made sense, so I was wondering if there are any examples where this understanding is clearly wrong.
cwconrad wrote:With respect to (2) it seems to me that there are several possibilities of construing the clauses in relationship to each other. Your text is unpunctuated; there are alternative punctuations based upon alternative construals of the elements. I won’t offer any judgment on that.
I construed the sentence based on the unpunctuated text, and at first found it difficult to identify the relationships between the clauses, so I just decided to ask. Thanks anyway!
Mark Lightman wrote:I like the procedure Carl has followed here. If one can clear up a meta-language hair-split (whether οὐ "modifies" the verb or the noun, a question which David has already said has no effect on the meaning,) by paraphrasing the Greek, one ought to do this first. If this does not work, you can increase the dosage to some English meta-language.
I agree, but it is just in case there are situations in which there is actually a difference in meaning, so I thought I might as well ask since it has been some time that I have not been able to answer my question. Thanks for your advice though!