Can a verb subordinates participle semantically?

[andley]

Romans 4:19 καὶ μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστει κατενόησεν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα [ἤδη] νενεκρωμένον,

Moo (NICNT, 2018) comments '.. Almost all commentators make “weakening” subordinate to “observed,” the normal relationship between a participle and finite verb. But Greek does allow for a reversal of these roles, with the finite verb expressing the subordinate thought...'

Other than Zerwick §263 & 376, is there any reference grammar supporting Moo's argument ?

Any thought would be greatly appreacied.

p.s. I posted this at FB (Nerdy Biblical Language Majors) but no response ...

[MAubrey]

The signal to noise ratio at Nerdy Language Majors on FB is such that I rarely frequent it any more, otherwise I would have seen your post there.

I generally quite cynical about these kinds of ideas. But there is a technical term in linguistics for something parallel: 'insubordination' involves constructions where normally subordinate clauses are used as main clauses—see Ezra La Roi's work on insubordinate conditionals and others: https://ugent.academia.edu/EzralaRoi

The problem in biblical studies, as represented by Mounce here, is that biblical scholars aren't very good at grammatical analysis. I suspicious as to whether Moo would be able to structurally represented, much less motivated his own proposal. Zerwick's discussion isn't much of a discussion, either. He basically says: it feels like the event of the participle is the "principle action" and the main verb is the "secondary action". He cites Kuhner & Gerth's Ausfuhrliche Grammatik Der Griechischen Sprache and says they provide more examples, which I haven't had time to check (perhaps someone with better German than me would be willing to do the work there), but what's important here is the Zerwick is not making assertions about syntax. He's making assertions about "good Greek style." He writes:

It is not uncommon in good Greek style (and the passage in question is in the epistle to the Hebrews) that a principal action should be expressed by a participle and a subordinate one by a main verb.

This is important to acknowledge. Placing the "principle action" in the subordinate clause does not by itself invert the syntax and calling it "semantic subordination" is a confusion of terms. Moo's statement garbles Zerwick's statement.

Moo is an excellent and close reader of the text, but biblical scholars are, almost universally, not very good at grammatical analysis.

[andley]

Mike, thanks for the feedback. I'm not equipped to discern Moo/Zerwick's 'gut feeling' of Greek style ——just finding their comment contradictory to what I've been taught since Greek 101.

Recently I stumbled across Cotterell & Turner's Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation, pp.199-200

Screenshot_2.png (546.63 KiB) Viewed 13716 times

Screenshot_3.png (676.21 KiB) Viewed 13716 times

Even though I am suspicious about their conclusion('that you might prophecy' is semantically the most prominent part of the section), but seems like Cotterell/Turner are making the same argument as Moo/Zerwick ...

Any thought ?

Thanks again.

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

Διώκετε τὴν ἀγάπην
ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ πνευματικά
μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφητεύητε.

I see an ellipsis of a main verb there, we must assume ζηλοῦτε belonging to the third line, too. It's μᾶλλον δὲ which makes ἵνα προφητεύητε more prominent. It's not the verbs which are compared, it's τὰ πνευματικά in general vs. ἵνα προφητεύητε especially. I would keep the first part separate so that Διώκετε τὴν ἀγάπην doesn't compete with ἵνα προφητεύητε -- that would go against what Paul just said in previous section. Actually THGNT punctuates Διώκετε τὴν ἀγάπην· ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ πνευματικά, μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφητεύητε. And notice the first δὲ which signals new development, not just continuation (which is lost in English translations). Διώκετε τὴν ἀγάπην is "only" a summary from the previous section, setting the stage for what's said next.

In short, I agree with those expositors that μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφητεύητε is the most prominent.

[andley]

Eeli,

Thanks for the response. I agree with your analysis -- but do you agree with Cotterell/Turnewr's comment that

"This is an example of the common phenomenon in language of a skewing between grammatical and semantic structure" ?

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

Indeed I agree that meaning and purpose of a text can't be reduced to grammatical or syntactic (or even discourse) analysis, but using the word "semantic(ally)" feels suspicious. What is semantics? Can it be separated from grammar on the one hand and pragmatics on the other? Do Cotterell/Turner use that word here in linguistic sense or more widely, meaning "what the writer wants to communicate"?

I have often noticed that wooden grammatical, syntactic or other textual analysis may lead to wooden conclusions about a writer's purpose. Reducing language and "parole" to rules is fertile soil for eisegesis, too. As far as I can see the quoted grammarians/exegetes want to avoid that and say that grammatical subordination is only a grammatical rule and doesn't necessarily correspond with the flow of the message of an author.

Note that I'm not a linguist and don't try to undermine what for example Mike Aubrey as a linguist says here. I'm trying to use common sense with a hint of layman linguistic background.

[MAubrey]

Apologies for the slow reply.

Cotterell & Tuner are using "semantic" here for describing a skewing between form and meaning in the way that was common for linguistics in the mid-twentieth century, but would definitely not be the case today.