Jim
New Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
Posts: 3
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2003 11:03 am Post subject: Singular Neuter Accusative Absolute 16:6 |
 |
|
Hello,
Does the accusative singular neuter aorist active participle tucon (it having happened) in 1 Corinthians 16:6 merely function as a simple adverb, as A.T. Robertson suggests, or does it modify the statement in verse 16:5 (I shall come to you when I pass through Macedonia), Paul saying in verse 16:6 that what is stated in verse 16:5 having happened, he will remain or even winter with the Corinthians? Is it normal to use the aorist form instead of the present form when using a singular neuter participle as a simple adverb? If so, are there any other New Testament examples of this?
Whereas all English versions of the New Testament except the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV) treat anakaluptomenon (it being revealed) in 2 Corinthians 3:14 as a nominative singular neuter adjectival participle modifying the nominative singular neuter noun kalumma (veil), the ASV treats it as an accusative singular neuter adverbial accusative-absolute participle modifying the entire oti (that) clause in general (that in Christ it is inactivated) and the action of that clause in particular (it is inactivated). Can any verb that is expressed in the impersonal form be used as a singular neuter accusative-absolute participle to modify an action instead of a person or thing, or do only those few verbs that are typically considered impersonal verbs qualify for use as a singular neuter accusative absolute? Apparently, the translators of the ASV were of the former opinion.
Sincerely,
Jim
|
|
Klaas
Contributing Member
Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 22
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jim wrote: | | Does the accusative singular neuter aorist active participle “tucon“ (it having happened) in 1 Corinthians 16:6 merely function as a simple adverb, as A.T. Robertson suggests, or does it modify the statement in verse 16:5 (I shall come to you when I pass through Macedonia), Paul saying in verse 16:6 that what is stated in verse 16:5 having happened, he will remain or even winter with the Corinthians? |
5 Ἐλεύσομαι δὲ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ὅταν Μακεδονίαν διέλθω• Μακεδονίαν γὰρ διέρχομαι•
6 πρὸς ὑμᾶς δὲ τυχὸν παραμενῶ ἢ καὶ παραχειμάσω, ἵνα ὑμεῖς με προπέμψητε οὗ ἐὰν πορεύωμαι.
Jim, one thing (Robertson’s suggestion of an adverb) doesn’t exclude the other (the view that τυχὸν more or less recaptures the preceding sentence [i.e. it refers to Μακεδονίαν διέρχομαι]): I think you can easily see τυχὸν as an accusative absolute of an impersonal verb in this case. If such an accusative absolute’s used quite often it can become something of an adverb, since an accusative absolute functions in a sentence as an adverbial phrase.
| Jim wrote: | | Is it normal to use the aorist form instead of the present form when using a singular neuter participle as a simple adverb? If so, are there any other New Testament examples of this? |
No, there’s no logical connection between the occurrence of an acc. abs. and the aorist stem. The aorist stem only explains that the action expressed by the participle is completed [τύγχανον would result in an impossibility, since you can’t stay with the same people while you’re hiking through Macedony (unless you’re hiking in circles)].
I don’t know whether there are any other NT examples, but I know it exists in Classical Greek [δέον while/since/as it’s necessary, ἀναγκαῖον ὄν while/since/as it’s inevitable, ἐξὸν while/since/as it’s possible, δόξαν after/since/as it has seemed (good) / after/since/as X has/have decided to ..]
| Jim wrote: | | Whereas all English versions of the New Testament except the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV) treat “anakaluptomenon“ (it being revealed) in 2 Corinthians 3:14 as a nominative singular neuter adjectival participle modifying the nominative singular neuter noun “kalumma“ (veil), the ASV treats it as an accusative singular neuter adverbial accusative-absolute participle modifying the entire “hoti“ (that) clause in general (that in Christ it is inactivated) and the action of that clause in particular (it is inactivated). |
14 [ἀλλ' ἐπωρώθη τὰ νοήματα αὐτῶν.] ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης μένει, μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον, ὅτι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται.
14 [Maar hun gedachten werden verhard.] Want tot heden toe blijft dezelfde bedekking over de voorlezing van het oude verbond zonder weggenomen te worden, omdat zij slechts in Christus verdwijnt. [Dutch-NBG’51]
14 [But their minds were blinded:] for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. [KJV]
14 [But their minds were hardened:] for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant
the same veil remaineth, it not being revealed [to them] that it is done away in Christ. [ASV]
14 [The people were stubborn,] and something still keeps them from seeing the truth when the Law is read. Only Christ can take away the covering that keeps them from seeing. [CEV]
| Jim wrote: | | Can any verb that is expressed in the impersonal form be used as a singular neuter accusative-absolute participle to modify an action instead of a person or thing, or do only those few verbs that are typically considered impersonal verbs qualify for use as a singular neuter accusative absolute? Apparently, the translators of the ASV were of the former opinion. |
Yes, in theory any impersonal verb can have this accusative absolute form, BUT ἀνακαλυπτόμενον here is nota n impersonal verb, but a passively used form of the verb ‘to reveal’: I’m not sure whether passive forms can easily be treated (participle-wise) as impersonal verbs.
I think it’s grammatically more obvious to see/read μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον as a participle agreeing with τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα [which as subject is nominative].
A litteral translation might be then: But their minds were hardened:] for until the today (day) over the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains/lies/rests, as/while/since it (the veil) is not revealed/’disveiled’/removed, because it is removed/taken away in/by the Messiah/Anointed-One/Christ.
_________________
כח גַּם אֱוִיל מַחֲרִישׁ, חָכָם יֵחָשֵׁב
(משלי פרק יז)
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Usergroups
Calendar
REGISTER
Log in
Log in to check your private messages
