1 Cor 6:1

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.

1 Cor 6:1

Postby Justin Cofer » February 21st, 2013, 4:58 pm

Paul says in 1 Cor 6:1,

Τολμᾷ τις ὑμῶν πρᾶγμα ἔχων πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον κρίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων καὶ οὐχὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἁγίων;

My question is the participial clause πρᾶγμα ἔχων πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον. Is it adverbial (indicating circumstance or condition) or is it adjectival (modifying τις)? The translations seem to opt for the adverbial, but couldn't it be adjectival?
Justin Cofer
 
Posts: 47
Joined: October 20th, 2012, 12:25 pm

Re: 1 Cor 6:1

Postby Stephen Carlson » February 22nd, 2013, 6:33 am

I have to admit that I'm a little surprised to see a circumstantial (adverbial) participle between a finite verb and its infinitival complement. That's not what I would have expected, and I would love to see other examples of this. On the other hand, it would be nice to see some examples of adjectival participles with τις.

I think that, with either construal of the participle, the propositional content is pretty much the same, so it's hard to tell whether the subordinate clauses of the English translations are intended to the convey an understanding of the participle as circumstantial.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1952
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: 1 Cor 6:1

Postby RandallButh » February 22nd, 2013, 12:55 pm

In one sense, all "circumstantial" participles are really adjectival.
If one looks at the syntactic glue they are adjectival.
If one looks at how they would have been communicated using finite verbs, then they become "circumstantial".

The bottom line truth is that Greeks structured their communication differently than the English.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 611
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: 1 Cor 6:1

Postby Stirling Bartholomew » February 22nd, 2013, 3:41 pm

RandallButh wrote:In one sense, all "circumstantial" participles are really adjectival.
If one looks at the syntactic glue they are adjectival.
If one looks at how they would have been communicated using finite verbs, then they become "circumstantial". .


Something like this was floating through my mind when I first read this question yesterday.

Now that R. Buth of Jerusalem has put succinctly I will agree with him.

A lot of either/or questions that crop up in discussions of syntax/grammar fail because the question itself represents
a way of looking at things that is flawed at some very fundamental level. Text books are to blame for this
not students.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
 
Posts: 234
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: 1 Cor 6:1

Postby Justin Cofer » February 22nd, 2013, 5:40 pm

thanks for the replies.

Is the following quote from A.T. Robertson discussing the point which you'll are making?

In the true participle, therefore, we are to look for both the adjectival and the verbal aspects, as in the infinitive we have the substantival and the verbal. The emphasis will vary in certain instances. Now the adjectival will be more to the fore as in the attributive articular participle like ὁ καλῶν. Now the verbal side is stressed as in the circumstantial participle. But the adjectival notion never quite disappears in the one as the verbal always remains in the other (barring a few cases noted above). One must, therefore, explain in each instance both the adjectival and verbal functions of the participle else he has set forth only one side of the subject. It is true that the verbal functions are usually more complicated and interesting,6 but the adjectival must not be neglected.


A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Logos Bible Software, 1919), 1101.


The verbal and the adjectival standpoints come together. A number of the grammars apply the term “adverbial” to all the circumstantial participles. But it is more than doubtful if one gains as much as he loses thereby. It is true that logically a sort of adverbial relation may be worked out, an adverbial addition to the sentence. But it does not help much from the syntactical point of view to insist on this fact in the exposition of the circumstantial participle. As to form the circumstantial participle is still adjectival. The adverbial notion is inferential and purely logical.



A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Logos Bible Software, 1919), 1109-10.

When Robertson says "as to the form the circumstantial participle is still adjectival," is that the same thing as when Randall Buth says it is the "semantic glue." I have to admit I had never heard of the phrase "semantic glue" before. What is the participial phrase gluing?

Thanks for your patience,
Justin
Justin Cofer
 
Posts: 47
Joined: October 20th, 2012, 12:25 pm

Re: 1 Cor 6:1

Postby RandallButh » February 23rd, 2013, 12:10 am

"Syntactic glue" would refer to the adjectival endings on participles that act as threads that tie a participle to the rest of the sentence. when those endings are nominative, they tie the participle to the subject of the main verb, even if the subject is not expressed explicitly outside of the verb itself. Thus a participle may be tied to the subject implied in an ending in a finite verb.

Now why describe something with new metaphors instead of standard metalanguage? Because, if standard metalanguage has led to an impass, then it is necessary to loosen things up so that a student may see how the language is supposed to be flowing.
RandallButh
 
Posts: 611
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: 1 Cor 6:1

Postby Justin Cofer » February 23rd, 2013, 12:20 am

RandallButh wrote:"Syntactic glue" would refer to the adjectival endings on participles that act as threads that tie a participle to the rest of the sentence. when those endings are nominative, they tie the participle to the subject of the main verb, even if the subject is not expressed explicitly outside of the verb itself. Thus a participle may be tied to the subject implied in an ending in a finite verb.

Now why describe something with new metaphors instead of standard metalanguage? Because, if standard metalanguage has led to an impass, then it is necessary to loosen things up so that a student may see how the language is supposed to be flowing.



ok ... thanks ..... I'm following what you're saying now.....
Justin Cofer
 
Posts: 47
Joined: October 20th, 2012, 12:25 pm

Re: 1 Cor 6:1

Postby Stirling Bartholomew » February 23rd, 2013, 11:27 am

Robertson's quotes are very helpful IMO. Not sure that a new metalanguage is going to save the day. In linguistics over the last 100 years [1] we have seen many new metalanguages come and go and following the thread of development in modern linguistics requires a familiarity with all of these which leads to what Carl Conrad has frequently called the "Tower of Babel".

Robertson like Guy Cooper (Attic Greek) uses long descriptive paragraphs where metalanguage is not absent but things are explained. You still have to know the technical terms but it isn't like reading BDF or N. Turner which can be a like trying to decider the hieroglyphics on the Rosetta Stone with out the parallel texts.

[1] Ferdinand de Saussure d. 22 February 1913. "Course in General Linguistics (Cours de linguistique générale), was published posthumously in 1916 by former students Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye on the basis of notes taken from Saussure's lectures in Geneva."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_ ... inguistics
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stirling Bartholomew
 
Posts: 234
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: 1 Cor 6:1

Postby Stephen Carlson » February 23rd, 2013, 3:16 pm

I think the discussion about metalanguage has taken us off-track from the original question.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1952
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: 1 Cor 6:1

Postby Justin Cofer » February 23rd, 2013, 3:46 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:I have to admit that I'm a little surprised to see a circumstantial (adverbial) participle between a finite verb and its infinitival complement. That's not what I would have expected, and I would love to see other examples of this. On the other hand, it would be nice to see some examples of adjectival participles with τις.

I think that, with either construal of the participle, the propositional content is pretty much the same, so it's hard to tell whether the subordinate clauses of the English translations are intended to the convey an understanding of the participle as circumstantial.


I agree the propositional content is basically the same. I lean toward the "adjectival" function of the participle at the fore here in 1 cor 6:1, modifying τις. I argue Paul is describing what kind of individual he is about to condemn!!! Thoughts?
Justin Cofer
 
Posts: 47
Joined: October 20th, 2012, 12:25 pm

Next

Return to New Testament

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests