Re: PISTEUW + EPI + dative

From: David L. Moore (dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Sun Jul 19 1998 - 16:51:06 EDT


At 11:45 AM 7/19/98 -0700, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
>Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>>
>> Well, in the first place, I think the word-order IS ordinary enough and
>> points to the usual interpretation of this passage. I like to get students
>> to retain the word-order so far as possible in translation; in this
>> instance, I'd make it: "Then the proconsul, upon seeing what had happened,
>> believed, astounded at the teaching of the Lord."
>>
>> As for the linkage of verb, participle, and the EPI phrase, I rather think
>> that PISTEUW here is used in an absolute sense and that the linkage of EPI
>> THi DIDACHi to EKPLHSSOMENOS is not really unusual.
>
>Carl and David Moore,
>
>I wasn't suggesting that there was anything odd about the word order, nor was
>I suggesting that the traditional translation was wrong. What I was asking
was
>can the verse be read a different way, specifically the last half of it. I
was
>particularly interested in knowing if word order is the controlling issue in
>deciding how to analyze the syntactical function of EKPLHSSOMENOS and EPI THi
>DIDACHi . . . .
>
>It seems very plausible to consider EKPLHSSOMENOS as the beginning of a
>subordinate clause and then connect the clause adverbially to EPISTEUSEN or
>adjectivally to ANQUPATOS. This is how the traditional translations read. I
>was just wondering out loud whether this is the only way this could be read.
>And if it is the only way, what are the key syntactical factors that point to
>this reading. If I read Carl correctly, the key syntactical factor is word
>order, right?

        My take on it, after a reconsideration, is that the aorist participle IDWN
marks out the first clause of the verse, TOTE IDWN hO ANQUPATOS TO GEGONOS,
as preliminary to the action of the main verb EPISTEUSEN. This
construction (aor. part. + aor. verb) is a fairly well attested expression
in which the action described by the aor. part. is previous to that of the
verb. (The common APOKRIQEIS EIPEN, a stereotyped expression, is an
apparent exception to this rule.) EKPLHSSOMENOS, then, as a singular
nominative masculine participle, agrees with the singular nominative
masculine noun ANQUPATOS and so should be taken as a modifier of that noun.
 It does apparently describe his attitude upon believing - I suppose I
understand it that way partly because of word order. As a present
participle, EKPLHSSOMENOS is durative and could be expressing the
proconsul's attitude both leading up to, and after coming to belief as well.

>Also somewhat of an aside,
>David Moore, even though he retracted his original post on this subject
>inadvertently raised a question worth consideration. How common is it for a
>participle to be use as a modifier of another participle. I don't see any
>reason why this could not take place. However, I don't think that
agreement in
>aspect would be an issue here, would it? A participle does not need to agree
>in aspect with a verb when it is functioning adverbially, does it?

        That's a complex question, but reading IDWN correctly as aorist made me
realize that I couldn't take EKPLHSSOMENOS as working directly together
with IDWN to modify hO ANQUPATOS. As it is, IDWN is used verbally and
EKPLHSSOMENOS substantivally as a modifier.

I hope I got it right this time,
David Moore

David L. Moore
Miami, Florida, USA
E-mail: dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com
Home Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

            

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to unsubscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:54 EDT