2 Thessalonians 1:12

[] 2 Thess.1:12 Tony Costa tmcos at rogers.com
Wed Jul 28 00:04:04 EDT 2004

 

[] Third aorist;varieties of the AoristRe: [] Third aorist;varieties of the Aorist [] 2 Thess.1:12 I was wondering if the Granville Sharp rule applies to 2 Thess.1:12, KATA THN CHARIN TOU QEOU HMWN KAI KURIOU IHSOU CHRISTOU. There is an article in the first noun QEOU but not on the second KURIOU and they are both joined by the conjunction KAI in reference to one person IHSOU CHRISTOU. Does QEOU and KURIOUS refer to Jesus? A parallel construction appears in 2 Pet.1:1, TOU QEOU HMWN KAI SWTHROS IHSOU CHRISTOU. Titus 2:13 also has the same construction. Most translations and commentators would argree that Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet.1:1 have Jesus as the subject of “God” and “Saviour”. I was wondering why 2 Thess.1:12 is not considered in the same way. I noitced however that the NIV footnote for 2 Thess.1:12 has a variant reading as, “Or God and Lord, Jesus Christ”. Robertson states on this passage, “Here strict syntax requires, since there is only one article with qeou and kuriou that one person be meant, Jesus Christ, as is certainly true in Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1 (Robertson, Grammar, p.786). However, he also notes, “This otherwise conclusive syntactical argument, admitted by Schmiedel, is weakened a bit by the fact that Kurioß is often employed as a proper name without the article, a thing not true of swthr in Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1. So in Ephesians 5:5 en th basileiai tou Cristou kai qeou the natural meaning is in the Kingdom of Christ and God regarded as one, but here again qeoß, like Kurioß, often occurs as a proper name without the article. So it has to be admitted that here Paul may mean “according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ,” though he may also mean “according to the grace of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ.” (Word Pictures, on 2 Thess.1:12) If I may also add since the question of QEOS as a proper name has been raised, Robertson also tends to agree that anarthorous nouns like KURIOS and QEOS can be and are used as proper names.Tony Costa

 

[] Third aorist;varieties of the AoristRe: [] Third aorist;varieties of the Aorist[] 2 Thess.1:12

[] 2 Thess.1:12 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Jul 28 15:20:29 EDT 2004

 

[] 2 Thess.1:12 [] 2 Thess.1:12 > I was wondering if the Granville Sharp rule applies to 2> Thess.1:12, KATA THN CHARIN TOU QEOU HMWN KAI KURIOU IHSOU> CHRISTOU. There is an article in the first noun QEOU but not on> the second KURIOU and they are both joined by the conjunction KAI> in reference to one person IHSOU CHRISTOU. Does QEOU and KURIOUS> refer to Jesus? A parallel construction appears in 2 Pet.1:1, TOU> QEOU HMWN KAI SWTHROS IHSOU CHRISTOU. Titus 2:13 also has the> same construction. Most translations and commentators would> argree that Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet.1:1 have Jesus as the subject of> “God” and “Saviour”. I was wondering why 2 Thess.1:12 is not> considered in the same way. I noitced however that the NIV> footnote for 2 Thess.1:12 has a variant reading as, “Or God and> Lord, Jesus Christ”. Robertson states on this passage, “Here> strict syntax requires, since there is only one article with qeou> and kuriou that one person be meant, Jesus Christ, as is> certainly true in Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1 (Robertson, Grammar,> p.786). However, he also notes, “This otherwise conclusive> syntactical argument, admitted by Schmiedel, is weakened a bit by> the fact that Kurioß is often employed as a proper name without> the article, a thing not true of swthr in Titus 2:13; 2 Peter> 1:1. So in Ephesians 5:5 en th basileiai tou Cristou kai qeou the> natural meaning is in the Kingdom of Christ and God regarded as> one, but here again qeoß, like Kurioß, often occurs as a proper> name without the article. So it has to be admitted that here Paul> may mean “according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus> Christ,” though he may also mean “according to the grace of our> God and Lord, Jesus Christ.” (Word Pictures, on 2 Thess.1:12) If> I may also add since the question of QEOS as a proper name has> been raised, Robertson also tends to agree that anarthorous nouns> like KURIOS and QEOS can be and are used as proper names.> > Tony CostaI probably should read the full treatment in Wallace’s grammar, but I don’thave the book.>From my present understanding of the Granville Sharp rule, the rule itselfseems questionable. It can hardly be used to settle a question of identityof reference. (I just noted that the BibleWorks 6 manual on page 118 basedon Granville Sharp wrongly asserts that POIMENAS and DIDASKALOUS in Eph 4:11″is to be understood as a single office.”)There seems to be a general form of the rule and a restricted form. Therestricted form has extra conditions, such as both nouns must be in thesingular, both must refer to a person, and they may not be proper names -which are difficult to define anyway. These extra conditions appear to bequite arbitrary, and they suggest that the rule itself is questionable.There are extremely few constructions the restricted rule might apply to.There is a general principle in descriptive linguistics that the morecomplex a rule is the less likely it is that it correctly represents how thelanguage works. So my feeling is that the rule is at best superfluous and atworst misleading.The general rule would have problems with the following parallel passages,whereas the restricted rule does not apply because the nouns are plural.Even if the restricted rule does not apply, I think it is worthwhile to lookat some passages:Mt 16:21: POLLA PAQEIN APOTWN PRESBUTERWN KAI ARCIEREWN KAI GRAMMATEWNMk 8:31: POLLA PAQEIN KAI APODOKIMASQHNAI hUPOTWN PRESBUTERWN KAI TWN ARCIEREWN KAI TWN GRAMMATEWNLk 9:22: POLLA PAQEIN KAI APODOKIMASQHNAI APOTWN PRESBUTERWN KAI ARCIEREWN KAI GRAMMATEWNWhen two or more nouns are coordinated at the word or phrase level (implyingsame case) and they are of the same gender and number, it is natural inGreek to let the first article cover all the following nouns, especially ifthey are considered to be forming a group of some kind. If the author wantsto emphasise that EACH group did the same thing, the article may berepeated.So, I would analyze the above three passages by saying that Matthew and Lukeconsider the three groups as jointly responsible (the elders, chief priestsand scribes together) whereas Mark puts some emphasis on each group carryingtheir own responsibility. If this is correct, maybe that nuance could becaught in English by translating the Mark passage as “by both the elders andthe chief priests and the scribes”. In case English cannot “both” threegroups, one could say “both the elders and the chief priests as well as thescribes.” Or one might repeat the preposition: By the elders, by the chiefpriests and by the scribes.There is a similar parallel passage inMt 26:47 APO TWN ARCIEREWN KAI PRESUTERWN TOU LAOUMk 14:43 PARA TWN ARCIEREWN KAI (TWN) GRAMMATEWN KAI (TWN) PRESBUTERWNHere the two last articles are textually disputed and appear not to beoriginal. The presence or absence seems to indicate a fine nuance in termsof perspective, i.e. group or individual focus.Since you mentioned 2 Pet 1:1, you may want to take a look at 2 Pet 1:2,even though the restricted rule does not apply:EN EPIGNWSEI TOU QEOU KAI IHSOU TOU KURIOU hUMWN.Here QEOU and IHSOU refer to different entities. The lack of article in 2Pet 1:2 probably indicates a unity between God and Jesus, but not identity.Knowledge of Jesus as our Lord implies knowledge of God, the Father,according to John’s Gospel.Likewise, I don’t think that the lack of article in 2 Thess 1:12 impliesidentity, but certainly unity in terms of giving grace. Whether the unity inthese general Granville Sharp constructions at times evolves into identityof reference is not a matter of syntax alone, IMO, but rather a matter ofsyntax, semantics and pragmatics together.It is particularly difficult to decide cases of identity involving wordslike Saviour, Lord and God, since all three words are used in the GNT torefer to both the Father and the Son.Iver Larsen

 

[] 2 Thess.1:12[] 2 Thess.1:12

[] 2 Thess.1:12 Remington186 at aol.com Remington186 at aol.com
Wed Jul 28 22:52:18 EDT 2004

 

[] 2 Thess.1:12 [] 2 Thess.1:12 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org Wed Jul 28 15:20:29 EDT 2004>From my present understanding of the Granville Sharp rule, the rule itself seems >questionable. It can hardly be used to settle a question of identity of reference. (I just >noted that the BIbleWorks 6 manual on page 118 based on Granville Sharp wrongly >asserts that POIMENAS and DIDASKALOUS in Eph 4:11 “is to be understood as a >single office.”)> >Iver LarsenIn the sixties I became acquainted with Dr. E. W. Bullinger’s 1100 page tome, Figures of Speach in the Bible. He has sixteen pages on Hendiadys (and two pages on Hendiatris). He aptly calls Hendiadys, Two For One. Twelve of those pages are given to two nouns naming one thing, and two pages are give to two verbs naming one thing. “Literally,” he says, “hendiadys means, one by means of two. Two words employed, but only one thing, or idea, intended. One of the two words expresses the thing, and the other (of synonymous, or even different, signification, not a second thing or idea) intensifies it by being changed (if a noun) into an adjective of the superlative degree, which is, by this means, made especially emphatic. The two words are of the same parts of speech … always joined together by the conjunction ‘and.’ The two nouns are always in the same case.”I’d never heard of the Granville Sharp rule until recently, (still haven’t seen it in print) but recognized it as Hendiadys. We can easily note POIMENAS and DIDASKALOUS in Eph 4:11 as the figure, Hendiadys. Both nouns are accusitive masculine singular joined by kai. Dr. Bullinger writes, “i.e., pastors (or shepherds), yes – shepherds who should feed also; or, teachers, yes – teachers who should shepherd also. Not two classes of persons, but one; implying that a shepherd who did not feed would fail in his duty” etc.Dr. Bullinger devotes one whole page to Matthew 3:11 — “He shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. First note that there are no articles, evn pneu,mati a`gi,w| kai. puri,, with Holy Spirit and fire. With Holy Spirit, yes – and burning purifying spirit too. Not two things, but one thing: Judgment. Remington Mandel

 

[] 2 Thess.1:12[] 2 Thess.1:12

[] 2 Thess.1:12 ann nyland accuratebibles at ozemail.com.au
Wed Jul 28 23:20:23 EDT 2004

 

[] 2 Thess.1:12 [] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS Iver states, I just >noted that the BIbleWorks 6 manual on page 118 based on> Granville Sharp wrongly >asserts that POIMENAS and DIDASKALOUS in Eph 4:11“is> to be understood as a >single office.”)Actually, I didn’t get that email, but hendiadys aside, wouldn’t it bepretty obvious from the basics of Greek that POIMENAS and DIDASKALOUS areconnected closely, as it’s a MEN followed by a series of answering DEs, andthe POIMENAS and DIDASKALOUS are lumped together under the one DE – hardlythe 5 fold ministry that people claim.Ann Nyland—– Original Message —– From: <Remington186 at aol.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 12:52 PMSubject: [] 2 Thess.1:12> Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org> Wed Jul 28 15:20:29 EDT 2004> > >From my present understanding of the Granville Sharp rule, the ruleitself> seems >questionable. It can hardly be used to settle a question ofidentity of> reference. (I just >noted that the BIbleWorks 6 manual on page 118 basedon> Granville Sharp wrongly >asserts that POIMENAS and DIDASKALOUS in Eph 4:11“is> to be understood as a >single office.”)> >> >Iver Larsen> > In the sixties I became acquainted with Dr. E. W. Bullinger’s 1100 pagetome,> Figures of Speach in the Bible. He has sixteen pages on Hendiadys (and two> pages on Hendiatris). He aptly calls Hendiadys, Two For One. Twelve ofthose> pages are given to two nouns naming one thing, and two pages are give totwo> verbs naming one thing. “Literally,” he says, “hendiadys means, one bymeans of> two. Two words employed, but only one thing, or idea, intended. One of thetwo> words expresses the thing, and the other (of synonymous, or evendifferent,> signification, not a second thing or idea) intensifies it by being changed(if a> noun) into an adjective of the superlative degree, which is, by thismeans,> made especially emphatic. The two words are of the same parts of speech…> always joined together by the conjunction ‘and.’ The two nouns are alwaysin the> same case.”> I’d never heard of the Granville Sharp rule until recently, (still haven’t> seen it in print) but recognized it as Hendiadys.> We can easily note POIMENAS and DIDASKALOUS in Eph 4:11 as the figure,> Hendiadys. Both nouns are accusitive masculine singular joined by kai. Dr.Bullinger> writes, “i.e., pastors (or shepherds), yes – shepherds who should feedalso;> or, teachers, yes – teachers who should shepherd also. Not two classes of> persons, but one; implying that a shepherd who did not feed would fail inhis> duty” etc.> Dr. Bullinger devotes one whole page to Matthew 3:11 — “He shall baptize> with the Holy Ghost and with fire. First note that there are no articles,evn> pneu,mati a`gi,w| kai. puri,, with Holy Spirit and fire. With Holy Spirit,yes -> and burning purifying spirit too. Not two things, but one thing: Judgment.> > Remington Mandel

 

[] 2 Thess.1:12[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS

[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Jul 29 14:38:43 EDT 2004

 

[] 2 Thess.1:12 [] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS > > Iver states, I just >noted that the BIbleWorks 6 manual on page> 118 based on> > Granville Sharp wrongly >asserts that POIMENAS and DIDASKALOUS> in Eph 4:11 “is> > to be understood as a >single office.”)> > Actually, I didn’t get that email, but hendiadys aside, wouldn’t it be> pretty obvious from the basics of Greek that POIMENAS and DIDASKALOUS are> connected closely, as it’s a MEN followed by a series of> answering DEs, and> the POIMENAS and DIDASKALOUS are lumped together under the one DE – hardly> the 5 fold ministry that people claim.> > Ann NylandLet me respond to you and Remington together.My point was that the so-called Granville Sharp rule is IMO a mistake. Irealize that I rebel against tradition here. The general form is invalid andthe specific form is so restrictive that it does not adequately capture alinguistic principle. As Tony pointed out, it fails to settle the matter inthe case of 2 Thess 1:12. Of course, I am talking from the perspective ofmodern, descriptive linguistics and a communication theory based onRelevance Theory rather than traditional Greek grammar with an almostexclusive focus on syntax and grammar and little reference to newerdisciplines like semantics and pragmatics.When two words or phrases are coordinated with KAI, the only thing we cansay on the syntactical level is that they are coordinated. Whether thereference is the same or different or whether there is semantic overlapbetween the two words/phrases is a matter of pragmatics and semantics. It iscommon in Hebrew and Biblical Greek to have almost complete semanticoverlap, but partial overlap is also common. When there is complete orpartial overlap, the KAI is sometimes called “epexegetical KAI”, but it isnot a description of KAI in itself, but rather the general usage in thelanguage and in the specific context. In English, synonymous overlap is notcommon, which means that we sometimes have to translate a Hebrew waw orGreek KAI with nothing in English – or something else than “and” – in ordernot to confuse the readers. The problem I have with the hendiadys notion isthat it tends to make us think in two discrete possibilities, either asynonymous relationship (almost complete overlap) or no overlap at all. Inreality there is a whole spectrum of possibilities from no overlap tocomplete overlap.It is correct that when two words or phrases are coordinated and both aremarked for definiteness, they are likely to have no or little semanticoverlap. They have individual identity. If two coordinated words or phrasesshare the feature of definiteness by having one shared definite article infront of the coordinated phrase rather than in front of each part, then thetwo parts are likely to form a unit of some kind. Very often the secondfurther describes the first. Definiteness is better considered a feature ofthe phrase than the word. In some cases that unity is identity, but whetheror not this is the case, is primarily a matter of semantics, not syntax, inmy opinion. Since the feature of definiteness is important, it is alsoimportant whether a word is considered a proper name, which is inherentlydefinite, or a descriptive word, which is inherently not definite, but canbe made definite either syntactically by adding an article or a possessive,or by limitations of usage.My point about Eph 4:11 was that the Granville Sharp rule was invoked to”prove” that the last two entities are co-referential, because there is noarticle before the last word. The general rule without restrictions isinvalid, and that is why the restrictions were added, so the general rule ispretty useless. The restricted rule has some validity – but is too complexand restricted to be adequately descriptive – and the restricted rule doesnot apply to Eph 4:11 anyway, since the words are in plural.In Eph 4:11 we have a list of items where the first is marked with MEN andthe others with DE. The question is whether the list has four or fivemembers. You claim that the lack of a final DE obviously makes the last twoa unit. I claim that the final entry in a list may be different from theothers and the grammar is not conclusive. The reason that I believe the twoterms refer to different offices is based on the rest of the NT: how thesewords are used elsewhere and what they represent. I am not saying that thetwo cannot overlap in some cases, but I do not accept that the two arealways identical. In fact, there is more overlap between the apostle andteacher than the shepherd and teacher in NT usage. (Ann, I think that Icould accept you as teacher in the body of Christ, but do you see yourselfas a shepherd? I know myself well enough that I do not have the ministrygift of a shepherd, but I can see myself as a teacher. You may object thatthis is too subjective. I claim that the whole context of the GNT as well asexperience has an important role to play in exegesis. That claim is squarelybased on Relevance Theory.)Maybe part of the problem is defining the characteristics of these offices?One problem is the unfortunate translation of POIMENAS as “pastors” when itshould be “shepherds”. This means that people read a current concept of”pastor” back into the Greek text, as you say. Another problem is definingwhat a DIDASKALOS is. Most people seem to relate the NT office of teacher tothe current concept of a teacher, but that is questionable. Again, peopleread current practice into the Greek text. I wrote on this topic on Feb 19,2001. Let me quote that mail for the newcomers, and the old hands on thislist can ignore it:> > At 7:35 AM +0100 2/18/01, Iver Larsen wrote:> We should also remember that “teaching” in the NT is not primarily a> matter of pedagogy,> but a question of discerning true teaching from false teaching.> [Carl Conrad asked:]> What is the basis or evidence for this, Iver? In particular, are youmaking> that assertion with regard to the pastoral letters or to the GNT moregenerally?[My response:]Yes, I believe it is general in the GNT and in the time and culture of theNT.There are different kinds of evidence. The main type of evidence not allowedisevidence from modern culture.1) Common sense. There are two aspects to teaching. First, good or badpedagogyresults in a person being described as a good or bad teacher. The focus isonHOW the person teaches not what she teaches. Second, WHAT is being taught.Isthe content of the teaching correct or not? This results in describing apersonas a true or false teacher.2) Teaching is linked with authority, power (Acts 13:12) and declaration ofreligious truth in the GNT. A teacher was considered an authority figure,because he had knowledge that others did not have. Unlike today in Westernculture, it was a very high-status position in society. The title “teacher”wasequivalent to “lord, master”. The Greek DIDASKALOS corresponds to the HebrewRabbi (John 1:38, 20:16). References: Mat 7:29, 8:19, 9:11, 10:24, 23:8, Luk9:38, 12:13, John 9:34, 13:13-14 etc.3) Teaching is considered as leading into truth or into falsehood. It is notconcerned with pleasing people, but with speaking the truth. References: Mat16:20, 22:24, Luk 20:21, John 7:16-17, 14:26, Acts 2:42, 21:21,28, 1 Tim1:3,7,10; 2:7,12; 4:1,6 (“good teaching” here means “correct, trueteaching”),Heb 13:9, James 3:1, 2 Pet 2:1, Rev 2:20.4) Teaching is close to “doctrine” – 1 Tim 6:1,3, 2 Tim 3:10, 2 John 9,10,andshould be “sound” 2 Tim 4:3, Tit 1:9.5) The pedagogical aspect is related more to instruction, and other wordscoverthis area, such as PAIDEUW – 1 Tim 1:20, 2:25. I am not saying the wordsDIDASKALOS/DIDASKW exclude reference to pedagogy, but that aspect does notseemto be a concern in the NT. It is not certain what DIDAKTIKOS in 1 Tim 3:2and 2Tim 2:24 refers to. I think it probably refers to a qualified teacher in thesense of being a good teacher. I take this interpretation from the contextofqualifications for the general office of elders, rather than the morespecificoffice of a teacher. However, it could also mean a qualified teacher in thesense of a person with a thorough understanding of the word of God. Maybebothaspects are included. Hopefully, a good teacher is also a true teacher.Iver Larsen

 

[] 2 Thess.1:12[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS

[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS ann nyland accuratebibles at ozemail.com.au
Fri Jul 30 06:38:58 EDT 2004

 

[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS [] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS Iver says, Of course, I am talking from the perspective of> modern, descriptive linguistics and a communication theory based on> Relevance Theory rather than traditional Greek grammar with an almost> exclusive focus on syntax and grammar and little reference to newer> disciplines like semantics and pragmatics.Hi Iver, yes, I realize you are talking from that persepective. I am alwaysconcerned when new theories are used to explain away something we can see inblack and white. (And of course, I believe that there has been somemisunderstanding of or at least contention about “Relevance Theory” withinthe Wycliffe/SIL ranks.) IMO the rules of Greek grammar shouldn’t be thrownout the window just because someone wants to make a theological point andcannot see it it based on the Greek text. Not that I am saying this is thecase here, of course, I am just making a general observation. I do agreewith you that the terms are not identical, that is clear.As you realize, I am talking from traditional Greek grammar, but I am not somuch a grammar pedant but rather work more on an intituive feel gained afterdecades of reading Greek texts other than the N.T. Time and time again Ihave seen arguments about a NT point (such as Jesus’ address to his motherin John, for example) which would not happen if the writer was familiar withother Greek texts. Also, I don’t speak from a traditional lexicographicalview, I rely on the latest documentary evidence.Iver: “Maybe part of the problem is defining the characteristics of theseoffices? One problem is the unfortunate translation of POIMENAS as “pastors”when it should be “shepherds”. This means that people read a current conceptof “pastor” back into the Greek text, as you say.”Ann: Absolutely, I agree.The Greek suggests that POIMENAS and DIDASKALOUS are grouped together, eventhough they are not interchangeable terms. Just because we don’t know whythey are grouped together at this point in time, doesn’t mean it isn’t so.Someone could find an inscription tomorrow which will explain it. Over 4,000inscriptions have been discovered at Ephesos alone in the last 20 years.Perhaps the Jewish context could be illuminating – synagogue leaders andelders were classified also as teachers, cf. Epiphanius of Salamis,Panarion, 30.18.2 (PG 41.436A); Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 137.Iver: “Another problem is defining what a DIDASKALOS is.”Ann: There isn’t a problem at all, there is an abundance of documentaryevidence for the meaning – teacher, instructor, one who is accorded status,and may be used as a term of respect. See IG VI.209.16 (Laconia, I BC)”Eudaimokles son of Eudaimokles, teacher according to law’; P.Oxy 41.2971.15(Oxyrhynchos, 66 AD), “Herakles. carrying out all the instructions given tohim by Seuthes. the boy being maintained and clothed by the instructorSeuthes”; I.Eph. 7.2.43-40.9 (Ephesos, II AD), dedication to a teacher byher pupil, “Here lies Severa, Jacob’s daughter, may she rest in peace”; PSI8.871.13, (Oxyrhynchos, 66 AD), contract, “wishing that my son Petechon, whois not yet of age, be registered. so that he will be able to learn thecoppersmith’s trade under the tradesman instructor Herakleides.”; IG II21.1.1028.39 (Athens, 100/99 BC), “they continued in harmony with andobedient to the director and the instructors throughout the year”; CII2.1266.b.1 (Jerusalem, II BC – II AD), epitaph, “[Burial place] ofTheodotion, instructor”; FD 3.2.48.18 (Delphi, 97 BC), of players takingpart in the Pythian festival, “Agathokles son of Sokrates comic actor,Ariston son of Menelaos tragic poet, Khairestatos son of Philagrosfellow-competitor, son of Poseidonios fellow competitor in tragedy, andtrainer of the great choir.”. Aristophanes, Acharnians, 628, uses it in thesense “producer” (of a play).Iver: “2) Teaching is linked with authority, power (Acts 13:12) anddeclaration of religious truth in the GNT. A teacher was considered anauthority figure, because he had knowledge that others did not have. Unliketoday in Western culture, it was a very high-status position in society. Thetitle “teacher” was equivalent to “lord, master”. The Greek DIDASKALOScorresponds to the Hebrew Rabbi (John 1:38, 20:16). References: Mat 7:29,8:19, 9:11, 10:24, 23:8, Luk 9:38, 12:13, John 9:34, 13:13-14 etc.”Ann: Do you mean the “he” as a generic he? If not, I should point out thatthere is conclusive documentary evidence that women were teachers too, e.g.I.Eph. 7.2.43-40.9; woman master teacher (Christian context) ZPE 18. Femalesynagogue leaders/elders, e.g. CIJ 2 741 = IGRR 4.1452; CII 731c; CII 741;IGR IV 1452; ISmyrna 1.295.1; CII 756; CII 1514; CII 315; CII 1007; CII 692;CII 581; CIL IX 6226; CII 590; CIL IX 6230; CII 597; CIL IX 6209; SEG27.1201; CII 400.Iver: “It is not certain what DIDAKTIKOS in 1 Tim 3:2and 2 Tim 2:24 refers to.”Ann: No documentary examples have as yet come to light. However, Grimm(followed by Moulton and Milligan) states it is the form of the classicalDIDASKALIKOS (which appears in Modern Greek as DASKALIKOS, “schoolmaster”)and we do have much documentary evidence for DIDASKALOS, as above.Iver: “> 3) Teaching is considered as leading into truth or into falsehood.It is not> concerned with pleasing people, but with speaking the truth.”Ann: Is it then linked with PARRHSIA in the NT? (I mean in its actualmeaning, not the way it has been glossed in English Bible versions.) Haveyou read Foucault on PARRHSIA?Ann Nyland—– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: “ann nyland” <accuratebibles at ozemail.com.au>;< at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 4:38 AMSubject: RE: [] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS> >> > Iver states, I just >noted that the BIbleWorks 6 manual on page> > 118 based on> > > Granville Sharp wrongly >asserts that POIMENAS and DIDASKALOUS> > in Eph 4:11 “is> > > to be understood as a >single office.”)> >> > Actually, I didn’t get that email, but hendiadys aside, wouldn’t it be> > pretty obvious from the basics of Greek that POIMENAS and DIDASKALOUSare> > connected closely, as it’s a MEN followed by a series of> > answering DEs, and> > the POIMENAS and DIDASKALOUS are lumped together under the one DE –hardly> > the 5 fold ministry that people claim.> >> > Ann Nyland> > Let me respond to you and Remington together.> > My point was that the so-called Granville Sharp rule is IMO a mistake. I> realize that I rebel against tradition here. The general form is invalidand> the specific form is so restrictive that it does not adequately capture a> linguistic principle. As Tony pointed out, it fails to settle the matterin> the case of 2 Thess 1:12. Of course, I am talking from the perspective of> modern, descriptive linguistics and a communication theory based on> Relevance Theory rather than traditional Greek grammar with an almost> exclusive focus on syntax and grammar and little reference to newer> disciplines like semantics and pragmatics.> > When two words or phrases are coordinated with KAI, the only thing we can> say on the syntactical level is that they are coordinated. Whether the> reference is the same or different or whether there is semantic overlap> between the two words/phrases is a matter of pragmatics and semantics. Itis> common in Hebrew and Biblical Greek to have almost complete semantic> overlap, but partial overlap is also common. When there is complete or> partial overlap, the KAI is sometimes called “epexegetical KAI”, but it is> not a description of KAI in itself, but rather the general usage in the> language and in the specific context. In English, synonymous overlap isnot> common, which means that we sometimes have to translate a Hebrew waw or> Greek KAI with nothing in English – or something else than “and” – inorder> not to confuse the readers. The problem I have with the hendiadys notionis> that it tends to make us think in two discrete possibilities, either a> synonymous relationship (almost complete overlap) or no overlap at all. In> reality there is a whole spectrum of possibilities from no overlap to> complete overlap.> > It is correct that when two words or phrases are coordinated and both are> marked for definiteness, they are likely to have no or little semantic> overlap. They have individual identity. If two coordinated words orphrases> share the feature of definiteness by having one shared definite article in> front of the coordinated phrase rather than in front of each part, thenthe> two parts are likely to form a unit of some kind. Very often the second> further describes the first. Definiteness is better considered a featureof> the phrase than the word. In some cases that unity is identity, butwhether> or not this is the case, is primarily a matter of semantics, not syntax,in> my opinion. Since the feature of definiteness is important, it is also> important whether a word is considered a proper name, which is inherently> definite, or a descriptive word, which is inherently not definite, but can> be made definite either syntactically by adding an article or apossessive,> or by limitations of usage.> > My point about Eph 4:11 was that the Granville Sharp rule was invoked to> “prove” that the last two entities are co-referential, because there is no> article before the last word. The general rule without restrictions is> invalid, and that is why the restrictions were added, so the general ruleis> pretty useless. The restricted rule has some validity – but is too complex> and restricted to be adequately descriptive – and the restricted rule does> not apply to Eph 4:11 anyway, since the words are in plural.> > In Eph 4:11 we have a list of items where the first is marked with MEN and> the others with DE. The question is whether the list has four or five> members. You claim that the lack of a final DE obviously makes the lasttwo> a unit. I claim that the final entry in a list may be different from the> others and the grammar is not conclusive. The reason that I believe thetwo> terms refer to different offices is based on the rest of the NT: how these> words are used elsewhere and what they represent. I am not saying that the> two cannot overlap in some cases, but I do not accept that the two are> always identical. In fact, there is more overlap between the apostle and> teacher than the shepherd and teacher in NT usage. (Ann, I think that I> could accept you as teacher in the body of Christ, but do you see yourself> as a shepherd? I know myself well enough that I do not have the ministry> gift of a shepherd, but I can see myself as a teacher. You may object that> this is too subjective. I claim that the whole context of the GNT as wellas> experience has an important role to play in exegesis. That claim issquarely> based on Relevance Theory.)> > Maybe part of the problem is defining the characteristics of theseoffices?> One problem is the unfortunate translation of POIMENAS as “pastors” whenit> should be “shepherds”. This means that people read a current concept of> “pastor” back into the Greek text, as you say. Another problem is defining> what a DIDASKALOS is. Most people seem to relate the NT office of teacherto> the current concept of a teacher, but that is questionable. Again, people> read current practice into the Greek text. I wrote on this topic on Feb19,> 2001. Let me quote that mail for the newcomers, and the old hands on this> list can ignore it:> > >> > At 7:35 AM +0100 2/18/01, Iver Larsen wrote:> > We should also remember that “teaching” in the NT is not primarily a> > matter of pedagogy,> > but a question of discerning true teaching from false teaching.> >> [Carl Conrad asked:]> > What is the basis or evidence for this, Iver? In particular, are you> making> > that assertion with regard to the pastoral letters or to the GNT more> generally?> > [My response:]> Yes, I believe it is general in the GNT and in the time and culture of the> NT.> There are different kinds of evidence. The main type of evidence notallowed> is> evidence from modern culture.> > 1) Common sense. There are two aspects to teaching. First, good or bad> pedagogy> results in a person being described as a good or bad teacher. The focus is> on> HOW the person teaches not what she teaches. Second, WHAT is being taught.> Is> the content of the teaching correct or not? This results in describing a> person> as a true or false teacher.> > 2) Teaching is linked with authority, power (Acts 13:12) and declarationof> religious truth in the GNT. A teacher was considered an authority figure,> because he had knowledge that others did not have. Unlike today in Western> culture, it was a very high-status position in society. The title“teacher”> was> equivalent to “lord, master”. The Greek DIDASKALOS corresponds to theHebrew> Rabbi (John 1:38, 20:16). References: Mat 7:29, 8:19, 9:11, 10:24, 23:8,Luk> 9:38, 12:13, John 9:34, 13:13-14 etc.> > 3) Teaching is considered as leading into truth or into falsehood. It isnot> concerned with pleasing people, but with speaking the truth. References:Mat> 16:20, 22:24, Luk 20:21, John 7:16-17, 14:26, Acts 2:42, 21:21,28, 1 Tim> 1:3,7,10; 2:7,12; 4:1,6 (“good teaching” here means “correct, true> teaching”),> Heb 13:9, James 3:1, 2 Pet 2:1, Rev 2:20.> > 4) Teaching is close to “doctrine” – 1 Tim 6:1,3, 2 Tim 3:10, 2 John 9,10,> and> should be “sound” 2 Tim 4:3, Tit 1:9.> > 5) The pedagogical aspect is related more to instruction, and other words> cover> this area, such as PAIDEUW – 1 Tim 1:20, 2:25. I am not saying the words> DIDASKALOS/DIDASKW exclude reference to pedagogy, but that aspect does not> seem> to be a concern in the NT. It is not certain what DIDAKTIKOS in 1 Tim 3:2> and 2> Tim 2:24 refers to. I think it probably refers to a qualified teacher inthe> sense of being a good teacher. I take this interpretation from the context> of> qualifications for the general office of elders, rather than the more> specific> office of a teacher. However, it could also mean a qualified teacher inthe> sense of a person with a thorough understanding of the word of God. Maybe> both> aspects are included. Hopefully, a good teacher is also a true teacher.> > Iver Larsen

 

[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS

[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Jul 31 03:47:12 EDT 2004

 

[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS [] Book Study Concordance of the Greek New Testament – greatprice > > The Greek suggests that POIMENAS and DIDASKALOUS are grouped> together, even> though they are not interchangeable terms. Just because we don’t know why> they are grouped together at this point in time, doesn’t mean it isn’t so.As long as we agree that they are not interchangeable, that is fine. Thatwas actually one of my main points. I see lots of overlap, but not identity.All five terms are grouped together by being in the same list, and I amwilling to accept a relatively greater overlap between the last two than theothers.> Someone could find an inscription tomorrow which will explain it.> Over 4,000> inscriptions have been discovered at Ephesos alone in the last 20 years.> Perhaps the Jewish context could be illuminating – synagogue leaders and> elders were classified also as teachers, cf. Epiphanius of Salamis,> Panarion, 30.18.2 (PG 41.436A); Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 137.Yes, I accept that there is considerable overlap between the terms youmention. Some if not all synagogue leaders and elders would also beinstructing, but not all instructors were synagogue leaders. Elders can beused with different senses in secular and religious contexts, so the sensedepends on context – as always, of course. In the Biblical context I wouldexpect all teachers to be elders in the general sense of a respected leaderwith considerable life experience, but not necessarily in the specific senseof an elder in a local church. In a non-biblical context, you can have aninstructor who is not an elder.There is good reason why the restricted Granville Sharp rule specificallyexcludes plurals and therefore does not apply to Eph 4:11. If a textdescribed a single person as POIMHN KAI DIDASKALOS it is clear that bothwords describe the same person, even though each descriptive word maintainsits specific sense. But as soon as we get into plurals we have theoreticallythree possibilities of membership in the overlapping of group A and group B.1) X belongs to A, but not to B (X may be a shepherd and not a teacher), 2)X belongs to both A and B (X is both a shepherd and teacher), and 3) Xbelongs to B, but not to A (X is a teacher and not a shepherd)So, if we say “some people are shepherds and teachers” that does notnecessarily mean total overlap, i.e. number 2, but it could mean partialoverlap, either 1, 2 or 3. It is similar to the many examples of thecoordinated GRAMMATEIS KAI FARISAIOI.Not all scribes are Pharisees and not all Pharisees are scribes.> Iver: “Another problem is defining what a DIDASKALOS is.”> Ann: There isn’t a problem at all, there is an abundance of documentary> evidence for the meaning – teacher, instructor, one who is> accorded status,> and may be used as a term of respect. See IG VI.209.16 (Laconia, I BC)> “Eudaimokles son of Eudaimokles, teacher according to law’; P.Oxy> 41.2971.15> (Oxyrhynchos, 66 AD), “Herakles. carrying out all the> instructions given to> him by Seuthes. the boy being maintained and clothed by the instructor> Seuthes”; I.Eph. 7.2.43-40.9 (Ephesos, II AD), dedication to a teacher by> her pupil, “Here lies Severa, Jacob’s daughter, may she rest in> peace”; PSI> 8.871.13, (Oxyrhynchos, 66 AD), contract, “wishing that my son> Petechon, who> is not yet of age, be registered. so that he will be able to learn the> coppersmith’s trade under the tradesman instructor Herakleides.”; IG II2> 1.1.1028.39 (Athens, 100/99 BC), “they continued in harmony with and> obedient to the director and the instructors throughout the year”; CII> 2.1266.b.1 (Jerusalem, II BC – II AD), epitaph, “[Burial place] of> Theodotion, instructor”; FD 3.2.48.18 (Delphi, 97 BC), of players taking> part in the Pythian festival, “Agathokles son of Sokrates comic actor,> Ariston son of Menelaos tragic poet, Khairestatos son of Philagros> fellow-competitor, son of Poseidonios fellow competitor in tragedy, and> trainer of the great choir.”. Aristophanes, Acharnians, 628,> uses it in the sense “producer” (of a play).I appreciate your insight and knowledge of the papyrus texts. Have you madesimilar research on the other words used in this verse? APOSTOLOS, PROFHTHS,EUAGGELISTHS, POIMHN. Is it not possible or even likely that these wordswere used in a more specific, technical and biblical sense in the GNT thanin general usage? In modern English there are many Biblical words thatacquire a somewhat special sense when used in the Bible as compared to usagein everyday language. It is the same for any technical vocabulary.My point is that we cannot get a comprehensive understanding of the NT senseof shepherd and teacher from one verse only. We need to look at the wholecontext of the NT church. It is from that context that I see two differentaspects of the teaching ministry. For the pedagogical aspect of instructor Iwould see a great overlap between shepherd and instructor. A shepherd ismore or less equivalent to an elder in the NT, and elders are supposed to beable to be good instructors. For the aspect of teaching ministry thatinvolves guarding and expounding the true doctrine, I see much more overlapbetween teacher and apostle than teacher and shepherd, notwithstanding thegrammar of Eph 4:11. (Cf. 2 Tim 1,11 and James 3,1)I think that most people with a ministry in the NT church had a combinationof ministries, and I do believe that Jesus was all in one: apostle, prophet,evangelist, shepherd and teacher.> Iver: “2) Teaching is linked with authority, power (Acts 13:12) and> declaration of religious truth in the GNT. A teacher was considered an> authority figure, because he had knowledge that others did not> have. Unlike> today in Western culture, it was a very high-status position in> society. The> title “teacher” was equivalent to “lord, master”. The Greek DIDASKALOS> corresponds to the Hebrew Rabbi (John 1:38, 20:16). References: Mat 7:29,> 8:19, 9:11, 10:24, 23:8, Luk 9:38, 12:13, John 9:34, 13:13-14 etc.”> > Ann: Do you mean the “he” as a generic he?Yes, I meant the generic “he”. The “new” English is not yet sufficientlyingrained in my brain. By the way, are there examples of female rabbis inthe papyri about Jewish affairs? Or can’t you tell because the more generalword DIDASKALOS is used to translate rabbi?> Iver: “> 3) Teaching is considered as leading into truth or into> falsehood.> It is not concerned with pleasing people, but with speaking the truth.”> Ann: Is it then linked with PARRHSIA in the NT? (I mean in its actual> meaning, not the way it has been glossed in English Bible versions.) Have> you read Foucault on PARRHSIA?No, I have not read Foucault, and I cannot see any particular connectionbetween PARRHSIA and DIDASKALIA. Are you saying that the normalunderstanding of PARRHSIA is mistaken?L&N says about this word:25.158 … a state of boldness and confidence, sometimes implyingintimidating circumstances – ‘boldness, courage.’Liddell Scott has:PARRHSIA .. freespokenness, openness, frankness, Eur.; 2. in bad sense,licence of tongue, Isocr.PARRHSIAZOMAI -to speak freely, openly, boldly, Plat., etc.PARRHSIASTHS… a free speaker, Arist.;PARRHSIASTIKOS freespoken, Arist.Iver Larsen

 

[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS[] Book Study Concordance of the Greek New Testament – greatprice

[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS ann nyland accuratebibles at ozemail.com.au
Wed Aug 4 22:56:35 EDT 2004

 

[] Beginning Greek texts [] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS Hi Iver,It looks like we agree. There does certainly appear to be lots of overlapbetween the two terms, but not identity.Iver says, > I appreciate your insight and knowledge of the papyrus texts.Have you made> similar research on the other words used in this verse? APOSTOLOS,PROFHTHS,> EUAGGELISTHS, POIMHN. Is it not possible or even likely that these words> were used in a more specific, technical and biblical sense in the GNT than> in general usage? In modern English there are many Biblical words that> acquire a somewhat special sense when used in the Bible as compared tousage> in everyday language. It is the same for any technical vocabulary.Ann: No, at the time the NT was written, such “technical” words appear to beused in their everyday, ordinary sense, but of course this changed withtime. That is to say, there is no evidence that there was a special NTvocabulary, despite (now well and truly discredited) efforts by Turner topush this POV. Documentary lexicographical research has been done on thewords you mention, and they were words used commonly in the secular context.(As you say, Rabbi was the one with religious context, which is to beexpected.)Iver: “Yes, I meant the generic “he”. The “new” English is not yetsufficiently ingrained in my brain. By the way, are there examples of femalerabbis in the papyri about Jewish affairs? Or can’t you tell because themore generalword DIDASKALOS is used to translate rabbi?”Ann: I am just glad I don’t have to write in Danish! (Tho it is not so much”new” English, just a return to the old English.) There is much evidence forwomen synagogue leaders and teachers of the law.Iver: “No, I have not read Foucault, and I cannot see any particularconnection between PARRHSIA and DIDASKALIA. Are you saying that the normalunderstanding of PARRHSIA is mistaken?L&N says about this word:25.158 … a state of boldness and confidence, sometimes implyingintimidating circumstances – ‘boldness, courage.’Liddell Scott has:PARRHSIA .. freespokenness, openness, frankness, Eur.; 2. in bad sense,licence of tongue, Isocr.PARRHSIAZOMAI -to speak freely, openly, boldly, Plat., etc.PARRHSIASTHS… a free speaker, Arist.;PARRHSIASTIKOS freespoken, Arist.”Ann: My response was to your apparent linking of teaching with the declaringof the truth. > > Iver: “2) Teaching is linked with authority, power (Acts13:12) and> > declaration of religious truth in the GNT.”Ann again: The above citations you provide are just ready glosses. PARRHSIAis one of those words which really needs to be expressed by a definitionrather than a ready one word translation. PARRHSIA was an essentialcharacteristic of Athenian democracy and notably linked with truth telling(often in a public situation, and often with the possibility of some dangeror loss to the speaker – such as a subject to a king, or even friend tellingan unwelcome truth to another friend thus putting the friendship at risk).Speakers of PARRHSIA spoke the truth freely, boldly and openly because theywere good citizens, were well born, had a respectful relation to the city,to the law, and to the truth. PARRHSIA constitutes pure frankness and truthtelling in speaking, even to the extent of ignorant outspokenness. PARRHSIAexpresses speaking the truth: the person who uses PARRHSIA says everythingon their mind: such a person does not hide anything. Foucault went on at length about the “parrhesiastic contract”. I quote:”The sovereign, the one who has power but lacks the truth, addresses himselfto the one who has the truth but lacks power, and tells him: if you tell methe truth, no matter what this truth turns out to be, you won’t be punished;and those who are responsible for any injustices will be punished, but notthose who speak the truth about such injustices. This idea of the’Parrhesiastic contract’ became associated with parresia as a specialprivilege granted to the best and most honest citizens of the city.”Foucault had much to say about the connection between PARRHSIA and thetelling of the truth.Ann Nyland—– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: “ann nyland” <accuratebibles at ozemail.com.au>;< at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 5:47 PMSubject: RE: [] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS> >> > The Greek suggests that POIMENAS and DIDASKALOUS are grouped> > together, even> > though they are not interchangeable terms. Just because we don’t knowwhy> > they are grouped together at this point in time, doesn’t mean it isn’tso.> > As long as we agree that they are not interchangeable, that is fine. That> was actually one of my main points. I see lots of overlap, but notidentity.> All five terms are grouped together by being in the same list, and I am> willing to accept a relatively greater overlap between the last two thanthe> others.> > > Someone could find an inscription tomorrow which will explain it.> > Over 4,000> > inscriptions have been discovered at Ephesos alone in the last 20 years.> > Perhaps the Jewish context could be illuminating – synagogue leaders and> > elders were classified also as teachers, cf. Epiphanius of Salamis,> > Panarion, 30.18.2 (PG 41.436A); Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho,137.> > Yes, I accept that there is considerable overlap between the terms you> mention. Some if not all synagogue leaders and elders would also be> instructing, but not all instructors were synagogue leaders. Elders can be> used with different senses in secular and religious contexts, so the sense> depends on context – as always, of course. In the Biblical context I would> expect all teachers to be elders in the general sense of a respectedleader> with considerable life experience, but not necessarily in the specificsense> of an elder in a local church. In a non-biblical context, you can have an> instructor who is not an elder.> > There is good reason why the restricted Granville Sharp rule specifically> excludes plurals and therefore does not apply to Eph 4:11. If a text> described a single person as POIMHN KAI DIDASKALOS it is clear that both> words describe the same person, even though each descriptive wordmaintains> its specific sense. But as soon as we get into plurals we havetheoretically> three possibilities of membership in the overlapping of group A and groupB.> 1) X belongs to A, but not to B (X may be a shepherd and not a teacher),2)> X belongs to both A and B (X is both a shepherd and teacher), and 3) X> belongs to B, but not to A (X is a teacher and not a shepherd)> So, if we say “some people are shepherds and teachers” that does not> necessarily mean total overlap, i.e. number 2, but it could mean partial> overlap, either 1, 2 or 3. It is similar to the many examples of the> coordinated GRAMMATEIS KAI FARISAIOI.> Not all scribes are Pharisees and not all Pharisees are scribes.> > > Iver: “Another problem is defining what a DIDASKALOS is.”> > Ann: There isn’t a problem at all, there is an abundance of documentary> > evidence for the meaning – teacher, instructor, one who is> > accorded status,> > and may be used as a term of respect. See IG VI.209.16 (Laconia, I BC)> > “Eudaimokles son of Eudaimokles, teacher according to law’; P.Oxy> > 41.2971.15> > (Oxyrhynchos, 66 AD), “Herakles. carrying out all the> > instructions given to> > him by Seuthes. the boy being maintained and clothed by the instructor> > Seuthes”; I.Eph. 7.2.43-40.9 (Ephesos, II AD), dedication to a teacherby> > her pupil, “Here lies Severa, Jacob’s daughter, may she rest in> > peace”; PSI> > 8.871.13, (Oxyrhynchos, 66 AD), contract, “wishing that my son> > Petechon, who> > is not yet of age, be registered. so that he will be able to learn the> > coppersmith’s trade under the tradesman instructor Herakleides.”; IG II2> > 1.1.1028.39 (Athens, 100/99 BC), “they continued in harmony with and> > obedient to the director and the instructors throughout the year”; CII> > 2.1266.b.1 (Jerusalem, II BC – II AD), epitaph, “[Burial place] of> > Theodotion, instructor”; FD 3.2.48.18 (Delphi, 97 BC), of players taking> > part in the Pythian festival, “Agathokles son of Sokrates comic actor,> > Ariston son of Menelaos tragic poet, Khairestatos son of Philagros> > fellow-competitor, son of Poseidonios fellow competitor in tragedy, and> > trainer of the great choir.”. Aristophanes, Acharnians, 628,> > uses it in the sense “producer” (of a play).> > I appreciate your insight and knowledge of the papyrus texts. Have youmade> similar research on the other words used in this verse? APOSTOLOS,PROFHTHS,> EUAGGELISTHS, POIMHN. Is it not possible or even likely that these words> were used in a more specific, technical and biblical sense in the GNT than> in general usage? In modern English there are many Biblical words that> acquire a somewhat special sense when used in the Bible as compared tousage> in everyday language. It is the same for any technical vocabulary.> > My point is that we cannot get a comprehensive understanding of the NTsense> of shepherd and teacher from one verse only. We need to look at the whole> context of the NT church. It is from that context that I see two different> aspects of the teaching ministry. For the pedagogical aspect of instructorI> would see a great overlap between shepherd and instructor. A shepherd is> more or less equivalent to an elder in the NT, and elders are supposed tobe> able to be good instructors. For the aspect of teaching ministry that> involves guarding and expounding the true doctrine, I see much moreoverlap> between teacher and apostle than teacher and shepherd, notwithstanding the> grammar of Eph 4:11. (Cf. 2 Tim 1,11 and James 3,1)> > I think that most people with a ministry in the NT church had acombination> of ministries, and I do believe that Jesus was all in one: apostle,prophet,> evangelist, shepherd and teacher.> > > Iver: “2) Teaching is linked with authority, power (Acts 13:12) and> > declaration of religious truth in the GNT. A teacher was considered an> > authority figure, because he had knowledge that others did not> > have. Unlike> > today in Western culture, it was a very high-status position in> > society. The> > title “teacher” was equivalent to “lord, master”. The Greek DIDASKALOS> > corresponds to the Hebrew Rabbi (John 1:38, 20:16). References: Mat7:29,> > 8:19, 9:11, 10:24, 23:8, Luk 9:38, 12:13, John 9:34, 13:13-14 etc.”> >> > Ann: Do you mean the “he” as a generic he?> > Yes, I meant the generic “he”. The “new” English is not yet sufficiently> ingrained in my brain. By the way, are there examples of female rabbis in> the papyri about Jewish affairs? Or can’t you tell because the moregeneral> word DIDASKALOS is used to translate rabbi?> > > Iver: “> 3) Teaching is considered as leading into truth or into> > falsehood.> > It is not concerned with pleasing people, but with speaking the truth.”> > > Ann: Is it then linked with PARRHSIA in the NT? (I mean in its actual> > meaning, not the way it has been glossed in English Bible versions.)Have> > you read Foucault on PARRHSIA?> > No, I have not read Foucault, and I cannot see any particular connection> between PARRHSIA and DIDASKALIA. Are you saying that the normal> understanding of PARRHSIA is mistaken?> L&N says about this word:> 25.158 … a state of boldness and confidence, sometimes implying> intimidating circumstances – ‘boldness, courage.’> Liddell Scott has:> PARRHSIA .. freespokenness, openness, frankness, Eur.; 2. in bad sense,> licence of tongue, Isocr.> PARRHSIAZOMAI -to speak freely, openly, boldly, Plat., etc.> PARRHSIASTHS… a free speaker, Arist.;> PARRHSIASTIKOS freespoken, Arist.> > Iver Larsen

 

[] Beginning Greek texts[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS

[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Aug 5 12:12:14 EDT 2004

 

[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS [] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS > Iver said about APOSTOLOS, PROFHTHS, EUAGGELISTHS, POIMHN:> Is it not possible or even likely that these words> were used in a more specific, technical and biblical sense in> the GNT than in general usage?> > Ann: No, at the time the NT was written, such “technical” words> appear to be> used in their everyday, ordinary sense, but of course this changed with> time. That is to say, there is no evidence that there was a special NT> vocabulary, despite (now well and truly discredited) efforts by Turner to> push this POV. Documentary lexicographical research has been done on the> words you mention, and they were words used commonly in the> secular context.Although I think I am in general agreement, it seems to me from a linguisticpoint of view that you are overstating your case.Technical vocabulary may employ borrowed words. I won’t go into that. If itis not borrowed, it develops in two stages. First, a word in common use isgiven a specific sense by the new context in which it is employed. Suchwords have both a general sense and a more specific, technical sense.Secondly, if the common sense is lost over time, only the technical senseremains.Any word must be and is interpreted in its context. Lexicographers tend toput far too much meaning into the individual words and far too less into thecontextual implications. Your quote from Foucault is a good example of that,IMO. On the other hand, I accept that there is often a fuzzy borderlinebetween what is communicated by the word in question and what iscommunicated by the other words in the context.Take a statement like “Please open another window.” If this is spoken in alecture hall, the “window” referred to is probably an actual window whichlets in fresh air. However, if it spoken in a computer class where eachstudent is sitting with their own computer following instructions, then the”window” is probably used in a technical sense, thanks to Microsoft.APOSTOLOS was used in the common language to mean “messenger, envoy,ambassador”, but when combined with CRISTOU or set in a Christian context,it is coloured by that context and ought to be interpreted within thatcontext. (It is used in at least two rather different senses in the NT. Suchdifferent senses are well known to translators since we often have to employcompletely different words for different senses).EUAGGELION has the following entry in LS:… the reward of good tidings, given to the messenger, Od.; in pl.,EUAGGELIA QUEIN to make a thankoffering for good tidings, Xen., etc.;II. in Christian sense, the Glad Tidings, i.e. the Gospel (Saxongode-spell), N.T.;Maybe the word is used in Hellenistic Greek to mean “good news” in general?In any case, when used in the NT it does not refer to just any good news,but to good news of a specific type and content.On PROFHTHS LS says:… one who speaks for a God and interprets his will to man, a prophet…2. generally, an interpreter, declarer…II. in N.T.,1. one who possesses the gift of PROFHTEIA, an inspired preacher andteacher.2. the revealer of God’s counsel for the future, a prophet (in the modernsense of the word), a predicter of future events.On PROFHTEIA LS says:… the gift of interpreting the will of the gods, Orac. ap. Luc.II. in N.T., the gift of expounding scripture, of speaking and preaching.For these two words, I would agree that the NT sense is so close to thecommon sense, that there is no need to make it a technical term in that timeand culture. The only difference is whether the person is speaking on behalfof God or some other gods. The glosses given for the NT in LS indicate to mehow little these lexicographers have understood of the NT context. PROFETEIAhas nothing to do with expounding Scripture or preaching, but everything todo with speaking on behalf of God through the Holy Spirit. For the usage ofthese words in the NT, Bauer and L&N are much better than LS.Or take words like PNEUMA and hAGIOS. They have a range of everyday senses,but taken together, they acquire a more specific sense in the Bible,especially the NT.Iver Larsen

 

[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS

[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS ann nyland accuratebibles at ozemail.com.au
Thu Aug 5 22:04:31 EDT 2004

 

[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS [] Mounce BBG revised ed errata? Iver: “Lexicographers tend to> put far too much meaning into the individual words and far too less intothe> contextual implications.”Ann. Utter rubbish, Iver, but don’t worry, I wasn’t offended, and in fact Idid have a giggle at your statement, especially after you wrote, “it seemsto me from a linguistic point of view that you are overstating your case.”That is what I call an overstatement of a case, not to say a sweeping andgroundless generalisation based on a clear lack of understanding of thefield, viz., lexicography.Iver: “The glosses given for the NT in LS indicate tome> how little these lexicographers have understood of the NT context.”Ann: Iver, the whole point about modern NT lexicography is that it is basedon the papyri and inscriptions. All published to-date lexica fall way short,and much has been published lamenting this fact. Thus we are in agreement,there is no point citing such lexica to me as you are preaching to thechoir. I agree!Iver: (speaks about Foucault)Ann: Iver, Foucault was a famous philosopher and not a lexicographer. Imentioned him as I thought you might be interested to read him as yousuggested a connection between teaching and truth-telling. I was not tryingto make a point or argue a case, merely give you a helpful lead to a work inwhich I thought you might be interested. At any rate, Foucault wrote atgreat length on PARRHSIA. I cannot see how we can discuss his work as yousay you have not read it. I do not think there is much point in discussing atopic with which you are not familiar.Iver; (speaks of techncial terms and gives examlpes from outdated lexica).Ann: Iver, you present a simplistic and generalised view of technical termsin the N.T. Much research has been done on technical terms in the N.T.(especially the ones which you cite) by noted lexicographers and this workis freely available as it has been published in academic journals which arepublished, freely available and peer-reviewed, not like the Wycliffe/SILin-house publications (which I am sure are also peer-reviewed, withthemselves as the peers) – that is to say, anyone can read this research. Ihave done further work on these terms which is about to be published but Iam sure you will understand if I don’t type out any more unpublished workhere.Iver: “APOSTOLOS was used in the common language to mean “messenger, envoy,ambassador”, but when combined with CRISTOU or set in a Christian context,it is coloured by that context and ought to be interpreted within thatcontext. (It is used in at least two rather different senses in the NT. Suchdifferent senses are well known to translators since we often have to employcompletely different words for different senses).”Ann: Iver, this is simplistic and skimming the surface, ignoring manyfactors. The word means “envoy” – sure the office of Apostle became knownafter the N.T., but the evidence suggests you are reading too much back intothe text from translation. Much work has been done on these terms (examiningevery single instance of their occurrence in all pubpished papyri andinscriptions as well as non-documentary evidence, with detailed commentary)and whether they had a special sense at the time of the NT, it has been doneto death. Turner’s stance was that there was a special meaning for NTvocabulary, and his stance has been completely discredited, not to say,ripped to shreds. This is also freely available for anyone to read in theacademic publications.Iver. “Or take words like PNEUMA and hAGIOS. They have a range of everydaysenses, but taken together, they acquire a more specific sense in the Bible,especially the NT.”Ann: Yes, and that is my point. They *acquire* a religious sense *after* theN.T. times. This is, of course, aside from PNEUMA and hAGIOS together as apersonhood, although I am sure you are not arguing that personhoods aretechnical terms.Ann Nyland—– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: “ann nyland” <accuratebibles at ozemail.com.au>;< at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:12 AMSubject: RE: [] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS> > > Iver said about APOSTOLOS, PROFHTHS, EUAGGELISTHS, POIMHN:> > Is it not possible or even likely that these words> > were used in a more specific, technical and biblical sense in> > the GNT than in general usage?> >> > Ann: No, at the time the NT was written, such “technical” words> > appear to be> > used in their everyday, ordinary sense, but of course this changed with> > time. That is to say, there is no evidence that there was a special NT> > vocabulary, despite (now well and truly discredited) efforts by Turnerto> > push this POV. Documentary lexicographical research has been done on the> > words you mention, and they were words used commonly in the> > secular context.> > Although I think I am in general agreement, it seems to me from alinguistic> point of view that you are overstating your case.> Technical vocabulary may employ borrowed words. I won’t go into that. Ifit> is not borrowed, it develops in two stages. First, a word in common use is> given a specific sense by the new context in which it is employed. Such> words have both a general sense and a more specific, technical sense.> Secondly, if the common sense is lost over time, only the technical sense> remains.> Any word must be and is interpreted in its context. Lexicographers tend to> put far too much meaning into the individual words and far too less intothe> contextual implications. Your quote from Foucault is a good example ofthat,> IMO. On the other hand, I accept that there is often a fuzzy borderline> between what is communicated by the word in question and what is> communicated by the other words in the context.> > Take a statement like “Please open another window.” If this is spoken in a> lecture hall, the “window” referred to is probably an actual window which> lets in fresh air. However, if it spoken in a computer class where each> student is sitting with their own computer following instructions, thenthe> “window” is probably used in a technical sense, thanks to Microsoft.> > APOSTOLOS was used in the common language to mean “messenger, envoy,> ambassador”, but when combined with CRISTOU or set in a Christian context,> it is coloured by that context and ought to be interpreted within that> context. (It is used in at least two rather different senses in the NT.Such> different senses are well known to translators since we often have toemploy> completely different words for different senses).> > EUAGGELION has the following entry in LS:> … the reward of good tidings, given to the messenger, Od.; in pl.,> EUAGGELIA QUEIN to make a thankoffering for good tidings, Xen., etc.;> II. in Christian sense, the Glad Tidings, i.e. the Gospel (Saxon> gode-spell), N.T.;> > Maybe the word is used in Hellenistic Greek to mean “good news” ingeneral?> In any case, when used in the NT it does not refer to just any good news,> but to good news of a specific type and content.> > On PROFHTHS LS says:> … one who speaks for a God and interprets his will to man, a prophet…> 2. generally, an interpreter, declarer…> II. in N.T.,> 1. one who possesses the gift of PROFHTEIA, an inspired preacher and> teacher.> 2. the revealer of God’s counsel for the future, a prophet (in the modern> sense of the word), a predicter of future events.> > On PROFHTEIA LS says:> … the gift of interpreting the will of the gods, Orac. ap. Luc.> II. in N.T., the gift of expounding scripture, of speaking and preaching.> > For these two words, I would agree that the NT sense is so close to the> common sense, that there is no need to make it a technical term in thattime> and culture. The only difference is whether the person is speaking onbehalf> of God or some other gods. The glosses given for the NT in LS indicate tome> how little these lexicographers have understood of the NT context.PROFETEIA> has nothing to do with expounding Scripture or preaching, but everythingto> do with speaking on behalf of God through the Holy Spirit. For the usageof> these words in the NT, Bauer and L&N are much better than LS.> > Or take words like PNEUMA and hAGIOS. They have a range of everydaysenses,> but taken together, they acquire a more specific sense in the Bible,> especially the NT.> > Iver Larsen> >

 

[] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS[] Mounce BBG revised ed errata?

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.