2 Cor 6:1 Paul Toseland toseland at blueyonder.co.uk
Sun Jan 5 17:58:44 EST 2003
John 4:29 Is ELEGEN(imperfect) used almost as aorist (EIPEN)? 2 Cor 6:1 SUNERGOUNTES DE KAI PARAKALOUMEN MH EIS KENON THN XARIN TOU QEOU DECASQAI hUMAS.The verb PARAKALEW occurs 12 times in 2 Cor 1-7. In 2:8 and 5:20 it has the sense appeal to (someone); but in at least 9 of the remaining 10 instances it has the sense console. The cognate noun PARAKLHSIS occurs 9 times, always with the sense consolation. It is generally agreed that the background of this language in 2 Cor is in LXX Psalms and Second Isaiah. 2 Cor 6:2 is a quotation from LXX Isa 49:8. Now it has been suggested that PARAKALEW might have this same sense in 2 Cor 6:1. Could the sense be somethihg like, As fellow workers we also console, (declaring that) you have not received Gods grace in vain? Admittedly, also seems to refer back to 5:20, where PARAKALOUNTOS is followed by an exhortation in direct speech, so it seems more natural to take PARAKALOUMEN in the present passage to have the same sense: ‘we exhort you not to receive ’.But if both senses are linguistically feasible, then the readerhas to consider both options; and that would be exegetically significant. So I would welcome any comments.Many thanks.Paul Toseland
John 4:29Is ELEGEN(imperfect) used almost as aorist (EIPEN)?
2 Cor 6:1 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Jan 6 10:11:15 EST 2003
Josephus Antiquities 1:2:34 Reading Greek > 2 Cor 6:1 SUNERGOUNTES DE KAI PARAKALOUMEN MH EIS KENON THN XARIN> TOU QEOU DECASQAI hUMAS.> > The verb PARAKALEW occurs 12 times in 2 Cor 1-7. In 2:8 and 5:20> it has the sense appeal to (someone); but in at least 9 of the> remaining 10 instances it has the sense console. The cognate> noun PARAKLHSIS occurs 9 times, always with the sense> consolation. It is generally agreed that the background of> this language in 2 Cor is in LXX Psalms and Second Isaiah.> 2 Cor 6:2 is a quotation from LXX Isa 49:8. Now it has been> suggested that PARAKALEW might have this same sense in> 2 Cor 6:1. Could the sense be somethihg like, As fellow> workers we also console, (declaring that) you have not> received Gods grace in vain?The word “console” does not make sense in English in this sentence.> > Admittedly, also seems to refer back to 5:20, where> PARAKALOUNTOS is followed by an exhortation in direct speech,> so it seems more natural to take PARAKALOUMEN in the present> passage to have the same sense: ‘we exhort you not to receive ‘.> But if both senses are linguistically feasible, then the reader> has to consider both options; and that would be exegetically> significant. So I would welcome any comments.The sense of a word needs to be derived in conjunction with the other wordsused in the sentence. Since PARAKALEW is here used with a followingaccusative and infinitive, the sense is probably the same as in similarconstructions. It does not seem possible to get any other sense than the onetaken by all translations, i.e. we urge/encourage/beg/entreat/appeal to youto …Iver Larsen
Josephus Antiquities 1:2:34Reading Greek
2 Cor 6:1 Mike Sangrey msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Mon Jan 6 14:37:41 EST 2003
Reading Greek 2 Cor 6:1 On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 17:58, Paul Toseland wrote:> 2 Cor 6:1 SUNERGOUNTES DE KAI PARAKALOUMEN MH EIS KENON THN XARIN> TOU QEOU DECASQAI hUMAS.> > The verb PARAKALEW occurs 12 times in 2 Cor 1-7. In 2:8 and 5:20 > it has the sense appeal to (someone); but in at least 9 of the> remaining 10 instances it has the sense console. The cognate> noun PARAKLHSIS occurs 9 times, always with the sense > consolation. It is generally agreed that the background of > this language in 2 Cor is in LXX Psalms and Second Isaiah. > 2 Cor 6:2 is a quotation from LXX Isa 49:8. Now it has been > suggested that PARAKALEW might have this same sense in > 2 Cor 6:1. Could the sense be somethihg like, As fellow > workers we also console, (declaring that) you have not > received Gods grace in vain? > > Admittedly, also seems to refer back to 5:20, where > PARAKALOUNTOS is followed by an exhortation in direct speech, > so it seems more natural to take PARAKALOUMEN in the present > passage to have the same sense: ‘we exhort you not to receive ‘.> But if both senses are linguistically feasible, then the reader> has to consider both options; and that would be exegetically > significant. So I would welcome any comments.Hi Paul,My mind immediately went to `counsel’; but I haven’t analyzed all thecontexts.However, I did look up the relevant subdomains in Louw & Nida. I’mthinking in terms of: what synonyms might have been used and what Paulchoose not to–IF `counsel’ was intended. Note the second occurrenceyou cite would carry the sense of `strongly counsel’.33:A’ – Advise (note: L&N mention in a footnote that these words carrya nuance of `suggesting a plan’.) SUMBOULEUW PARAINEW TIQHMI BOULHN SUMBOULOS SUMBIBAZW 33.H’ – Recommend, Propose hISTHMI SUNISTHMI or SUNISTANW SUSTATIKOS TASSWI’m not suggesting I think this IS the choice; I’m just suggesting somefurther avenues of analysis.– Mike Sangreymsangrey at BlueFeltHat.orgLandisburg, Pa. “The first one last wins.” “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”
Reading Greek2 Cor 6:1
2 Cor 6:1 Paul Toseland toseland at blueyonder.co.uk
Mon Jan 6 14:47:27 EST 2003
2 Cor 6:1 ANRW for NT studies Iver>>Could the sense be somethihg like, As fellow>>workers we also console, (declaring that) you have not>>received Gods grace in vain?>The word “console” does not make sense in English in this sentence.Yes, of course; Im not much of a linguist, even in my nativetongue! How about,As fellow workers we also console; (we declare that) you havenot received Gods grace in vain?I was thinking about PARAKALEW with infinitive of indirect discourse.Paul Toseland
2 Cor 6:1ANRW for NT studies
2 Cor 6:1 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Jan 6 23:27:03 EST 2003
New Subscriber…Self Introduction, Initial Questions 2 Cor 6:1 > > As fellow workers we also console; (we declare that) you have> not received Gods grace in vain?I still think that such a translation does not make proper sense and doesnot fit the context. One cannot justify the addition of semanticallysignificant words like “we declare that” to the text.Iver Larsen
New Subscriber…Self Introduction, Initial Questions2 Cor 6:1
2 Cor 6:1 Paul Toseland toseland at blueyonder.co.uk
Tue Jan 7 08:19:40 EST 2003
2 Cor 6:1 2 Cor 6:1 >> As fellow workers we also console; (we declare that) you have>> not received Gods grace in vain?>I still think that such a translation does not make proper sense and does>not fit the context. One cannot justify the addition of semantically>significant words like “we declare that” to the text.I would like to pursue this a little, and focus just on the linguisticissues, leaving aside, for the moment, the question of context for themoment. The NT does have examples of PARAKALEW with infinitive of indirectdiscourse; ATR points out the particularly interesting example of Acts14:22, which has the infinitive and hOTI side by side:PARAKALOUNTES EMENEIN THi KAI hOTI DIA POLLWN QLIYEWN hUMAS EISELQEIN EISTHN BASILEIAN TOU QEOULet me try once more. Leaving aside questions of context, could we translate 2 Cor 6:1, ‘As fellow workers we also speak words of consolation saying, ‘You have not received the grace of God in vain’I am still wondering if DECASQAI can be understood as an infinitive ofindirect discourse. Is that really a non-starter?I should, perhaps, at this point cite Norbert Baumert, FilologíaNeotestamentaria 11 (1998) 7-24, who (so far as I know) first suggested this sort of interpretation:http://www.bsw.org/?l=72111&a=Art01.htmlHis discussion of 2 Cor 6:1 is quite brief, and more intriguing thanconvincing; however, he says,PARAKALEIN kann auch bedeuten “aufmunternd sagen, jm. vorstellen, eineermutigende Ansprache halten, (be)stärken, trösten” (MG s.v.; bei Paulusöfter ermutigen).My German is worse than my Greek, but I think this can be translatedroughly,”to speak encouragingly; intoduce, deliver an encouraging address,cheer up, console (MG s.v.; with Paul more frequently ‘encourage’)”.I don’t have ready access to MG, but for this sense of PARAKALEW I have inmind especially such passages as Isa 40:1-2 LXX,PARAKALEITE, PARAKALEITE TON LAON MOU, LEGEI hO QEOS. hIEREIS LALHSATEEIS THN KARDIAN hIEROUSALHM, PARAKALESATE AUTHN, hOTI EPLHSQH hHTAPEINWSIS AHTHS …I am still thinking of a connection between Paul’s PARAKALEW languagehere and that of 1:3-7, where he is definitely dependant upon the LXX of Psalms and Isaiah. I think ‘words of consolation’wouldd be an appositedescription of Isa 49:8 in its original context, which Paul quotes in thefollowing verse.Thanks Mike, BTW, for your contribuaition.Paul Toseland
2 Cor 6:12 Cor 6:1
2 Cor 6:1 Steve Lovullo SLovullo at etcconnect.com
Tue Jan 7 09:19:55 EST 2003
2 Cor 6:1 2 Cor 6:1 > —–Original Message—–> From: Paul Toseland [mailto:toseland at blueyonder.co.uk]> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 7:20 AM> To: Biblical Greek> Subject: [] RE: 2 Cor 6:1 > I would like to pursue this a little, and focus just on the linguistic> issues, leaving aside, for the moment, the question of context for the> moment. The NT does have examples of PARAKALEW with > infinitive of indirect> discourse; ATR points out the particularly interesting example of Acts> 14:22, which has the infinitive and hOTI side by side:> > PARAKALOUNTES EMENEIN THi KAI hOTI DIA POLLWN QLIYEWN hUMAS > EISELQEIN EIS> THN BASILEIAN TOU QEOU> > Let me try once more. Leaving aside questions of context, could we> translate 2 Cor 6:1, > > ‘As fellow workers we also speak words of consolation saying, > ‘You have not received the grace of God in vain’> > I am still wondering if DECASQAI can be understood as an infinitive of> indirect discourse. Is that really a non-starter?Paul, I think you are missing the semantic connection between Acts 14.22 and2 Cor 2.1. Yes, in both cases PARAKALEW introduces indirect speech, but notethat in Acts 14.22 the infinitive clause is semantically equivalent to animperative. The direct speech would be, “Remain in the faith.” The same with2 Cor 6.1, “Do not receive the grace of God in vain.” Of course, taking intoaccount the sense of PARAKALEW in such constructions (“urge”), these wouldprobably best be taken as hortatory imperatives.Steve Lo Vullo
2 Cor 6:12 Cor 6:1
2 Cor 6:1 Steve Lovullo SLovullo at etcconnect.com
Tue Jan 7 10:26:12 EST 2003
2 Cor 6:1 2 Cor 6:1 > —–Original Message—–> From: Steve Lovullo > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 8:20 AM> To: Biblical Greek> Subject: RE: [] RE: 2 Cor 6:1> > > > —–Original Message—–> > From: Paul Toseland [mailto:toseland at blueyonder.co.uk]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 7:20 AM> > To: Biblical Greek> > Subject: [] RE: 2 Cor 6:1> > > I would like to pursue this a little, and focus just on the > linguistic> > issues, leaving aside, for the moment, the question of > context for the> > moment. The NT does have examples of PARAKALEW with > > infinitive of indirect> > discourse; ATR points out the particularly interesting > example of Acts> > 14:22, which has the infinitive and hOTI side by side:> > > > PARAKALOUNTES EMENEIN THi KAI hOTI DIA POLLWN QLIYEWN hUMAS > > EISELQEIN EIS> > THN BASILEIAN TOU QEOU> > > > Let me try once more. Leaving aside questions of context, could we> > translate 2 Cor 6:1, > > > > ‘As fellow workers we also speak words of consolation saying, > > ‘You have not received the grace of God in vain’> > > > I am still wondering if DECASQAI can be understood as an > infinitive of> > indirect discourse. Is that really a non-starter?> > Paul, I think you are missing the semantic connection between > Acts 14.22 and 2 Cor 2.1. Yes, in both cases PARAKALEW > introduces indirect speech, but note that in Acts 14.22 the > infinitive clause is semantically equivalent to an > imperative. The direct speech would be, “Remain in the > faith.” The same with 2 Cor 6.1, “Do not receive the grace of > God in vain.” Of course, taking into account the sense of > PARAKALEW in such constructions (“urge”), these would > probably best be taken as hortatory imperatives.Let me try this one more time (haven’t finished my first cup of coffeeyet!). Considering that PARAKALEW in this type of construction introduces aninfinitive in indirect command or prohibition, it appears obvious to me thatthe sense of PARAKALEW in these cases must be something along the lines of”urge.” This would have the same sense as an imperative in an exhortation.Steve Lo Vullo
2 Cor 6:12 Cor 6:1
2 Cor 6:1 Paul Toseland toseland at blueyonder.co.uk
Tue Jan 7 10:44:41 EST 2003
2 Cor 6:1 2 Cor 6:1 Steve,>>The NT does have examples of PARAKALEW with >> infinitive of indirectdiscourse; ATR points >> out the particularly interesting example of >> Acts 14:22, which has the infinitive and hOTI >> side by side:>> >> PARAKALOUNTES EMENEIN THi KAI hOTI DIA POLLWN >> QLIYEWN hUMAS EISELQEIN EIS THN BASILEIAN TOU >> QEOU>> >> Let me try once more. Leaving aside questions of >> context, could we translate 2 Cor 6:1, >> >> ‘As fellow workers we also speak words of >> consolation saying, ‘You have not received the >> grace of God in vain’> > Paul, I think you are missing the semantic connection> between Acts 14.22 and 2 Cor 2.1. Yes, in both cases > PARAKALEW introduces indirect speech, but note that > in Acts 14.22 the infinitive clause is semantically > equivalent to an imperative. The direct speech would be,> “Remain in the faith.” The same with 2 Cor 6.1, “Do not> receive the grace of God in vain.” Yes, Acts 14:22 isn’t an exact parallel; i haven’t been ableto find one. But according to ATR (1036), there are a numberof verbs for which we have only single instances of theinfinitive of indirect discourse in the NT. Since this would be a rather special use of PARAKALEW not found in secularGreek, I thought that maybe the lack of a parallel might notbe fatal.In Acts 14:22, PARAKALEW has the sense of ‘urge’ or ‘exhort’,so it is to be expected that the dependent infinitve EMMENEINwould be the semantic equivalent of an imperative. But maybe in 2 Cor 6:1, as in many other instances in 2 Cor 1-7,PARAKALEW is not a verb of exhortation, but of consolation.Given this possibility – that in 2 Cor 6:1, PARAKALOUMEN *might* mean, ‘we speak words of consolation’, is there a clear lexical, semantic or syntactical objection to my (quite tentative) suggestion?(Baumert himself paraphrases, ‘ “Als Mitarbeitende stellen wir vor Augen, sagen wir zur Ermutigung = bekräftigen wir, daß ihr die Zuwendung Gottes nicht leer …”)Paul Toseland
2 Cor 6:12 Cor 6:1
2 Cor 6:1 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Jan 7 11:17:37 EST 2003
2 Cor 6:1 2 Cor 6:1 > I would like to pursue this a little, and focus just on the linguistic> issues, leaving aside, for the moment, the question of context for the> moment. The NT does have examples of PARAKALEW with infinitive of indirect> discourse; ATR points out the particularly interesting example of Acts> 14:22, which has the infinitive and hOTI side by side:> > PARAKALOUNTES EMMENEIN THi PISTEI KAI hOTI DIA POLLWN QLIYEWN hUMASEISELQEIN EIS> THN BASILEIAN TOU QEOU> > Let me try once more. Leaving aside questions of context, could we> translate 2 Cor 6:1,> > ‘As fellow workers we also speak words of consolation saying,> ‘You have not received the grace of God in vain’> > I am still wondering if DECASQAI can be understood as an infinitive of> indirect discourse. Is that really a non-starter?We are dealing with two different issues here. One is the meaning ofPARAKALEW, the other is the grammatical construction.PARAKALEW basically means “encourage”. I accept that it can best betranslated by “console/comfort” in several places in the LXX and threeplaces in the NT which probably go back to a Hebrew text, that is: Matt 2:8,Matt 5:4 and Luke 16:25. Comfort has to do with encouraging people who hassuffered in some serious way. All other places in the NT, PARAKALEW isbetter translated by encourage than comfort/console, although the two sensesare close.In 2 Cor 6:1 the context of the chapter suggests that he is encouraging thebelievers to hold on to their belief even if it means suffering, and to livea life that is worthy of a person who has received such great grace fromGod.It is correct that “urge/encourage” imply some kind of speech or message.And it is also true that it is not very easy to translate this versemeaningfully which can be seen from some of the attempts made by Englishversions:RSV: we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.NRSV: we urge you also not to accept the grace of God in vain.NIV: we urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain.NET: we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain.NLT: we beg you not to reject this marvelous message of God’s greatkindness.GNB: we beg you who have received God’s grace not to let it be wasted.CEV: so we beg you: Do not let the grace that you received from God be fornothing.REB: we make this appeal: you have received the grace of God; do not let itcome to nothing.The first four have missed the intended meaning. It is not a matter ofaccepting the grace of God in the future. It is clear that these peoplealready have received the grace of God. Paul urges them that it shall not bein vain that they have received the grace. It would be in vain, if they gaveup their faith or lived a life that was not worthy of their calling. Thereis then a parallel in thought to Acts 14:22 which you mention, where Paulalso urged them to stay in the faith even though they have to go throughmuch persecution.The NLT is supposed to be an idiomatic, meaning-based translation, butoccasionally it misses the point as it has done here, IMO.The last three are the better translations for the intended sense of thisverse. One might render the sense in everyday English as: “We urge you tohang on to the grace of God that you have received.” Or maybe: “We urge youto live in such a way that it will not be in vain that you have received thegrace of God.”If you have a good search program, PARAKALEW SU to search for a combinationof KENOS and PARAKALEW in the same verse, as in 1 Cor 15:10, or just searchfor KENOS.Iver Larsen
2 Cor 6:12 Cor 6:1
2 Cor 6:1 Steve Lovullo SLovullo at etcconnect.com
Tue Jan 7 11:18:43 EST 2003
2 Cor 6:1 2 Cor 6:1 > —–Original Message—–> From: Paul Toseland [mailto:toseland at blueyonder.co.uk]> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 9:45 AM> To: Biblical Greek> Subject: [] RE: 2 Cor 6:1> > Paul, I think you are missing the semantic connection> > between Acts 14.22 and 2 Cor 2.1. Yes, in both cases > > PARAKALEW introduces indirect speech, but note that > > in Acts 14.22 the infinitive clause is semantically > > equivalent to an imperative. The direct speech would be,> > “Remain in the faith.” The same with 2 Cor 6.1, “Do not> > receive the grace of God in vain.” > > Yes, Acts 14:22 isn’t an exact parallel; i haven’t been able> to find one. But according to ATR (1036), there are a number> of verbs for which we have only single instances of the> infinitive of indirect discourse in the NT. Since this would > be a rather special use of PARAKALEW not found in secular> Greek, I thought that maybe the lack of a parallel might not> be fatal.> > In Acts 14:22, PARAKALEW has the sense of ‘urge’ or ‘exhort’,> so it is to be expected that the dependent infinitve EMMENEIN> would be the semantic equivalent of an imperative. But maybe > in 2 Cor 6:1, as in many other instances in 2 Cor 1-7,> PARAKALEW is not a verb of exhortation, but of consolation.> > Given this possibility – that in 2 Cor 6:1, PARAKALOUMEN > *might* mean, ‘we speak words of consolation’, is there a > clear lexical, semantic or syntactical objection to my (quite > tentative) suggestion?Paul, I think Acts 14.22 is a **good** parallel. The only real difference isthat 2 Cor 6.2 is negative. Acts 14.22 is a positive exhortation; 2 Cor 6.2is a negative exhortation. And considering the context of 2 Cor 6.2, I thinkthe suggestion that PARAKALEW there means “comfort” is next to impossible.The fact that PARAKALEW is used earlier in the letter for “comfort” isinteresting, but the nearer context must dictate. I think the combination ofsyntax and context make the sense “urge” practically assured.Steve Lo Vullo
2 Cor 6:12 Cor 6:1
2 Cor 6:1 Steve Lovullo SLovullo at etcconnect.com
Tue Jan 7 11:27:55 EST 2003
2 Cor 6:1 2 Cor 6:1 > —–Original Message—–> From: Iver Larsen [mailto:iver_larsen at sil.org]> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 10:18 AM> To: Biblical Greek> Subject: [] RE: 2 Cor 6:1> > > > I would like to pursue this a little, and focus just on the > linguistic> > issues, leaving aside, for the moment, the question of > context for the> > moment. The NT does have examples of PARAKALEW with > infinitive of indirect> > discourse; ATR points out the particularly interesting > example of Acts> > 14:22, which has the infinitive and hOTI side by side:> >> > PARAKALOUNTES EMMENEIN THi PISTEI KAI hOTI DIA POLLWN QLIYEWN hUMAS> EISELQEIN EIS> > THN BASILEIAN TOU QEOU> >> > Let me try once more. Leaving aside questions of context, could we> > translate 2 Cor 6:1,> >> > ‘As fellow workers we also speak words of consolation saying,> > ‘You have not received the grace of God in vain’> >> > I am still wondering if DECASQAI can be understood as an > infinitive of> > indirect discourse. Is that really a non-starter?> > We are dealing with two different issues here. One is the meaning of> PARAKALEW, the other is the grammatical construction.> PARAKALEW basically means “encourage”. I accept that it can best be> translated by “console/comfort” in several places in the LXX and three> places in the NT which probably go back to a Hebrew text, > that is: Matt 2:8,> Matt 5:4 and Luke 16:25. Comfort has to do with encouraging > people who has> suffered in some serious way. All other places in the NT, PARAKALEW is> better translated by encourage than comfort/console, although > the two senses> are close.> > In 2 Cor 6:1 the context of the chapter suggests that he is > encouraging the> believers to hold on to their belief even if it means > suffering, and to live> a life that is worthy of a person who has received such great > grace from> God.> > It is correct that “urge/encourage” imply some kind of speech > or message.> And it is also true that it is not very easy to translate this verse> meaningfully which can be seen from some of the attempts made > by English> versions:> > RSV: we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.> NRSV: we urge you also not to accept the grace of God in vain.> NIV: we urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain.> NET: we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain.> > NLT: we beg you not to reject this marvelous message of God’s great> kindness.> > GNB: we beg you who have received God’s grace not to let it be wasted.> CEV: so we beg you: Do not let the grace that you received > from God be for> nothing.I think the CEV illustrates a point I made earlier, that when converted todirect speech we would have the equivalent of a hortatory imperative. Thesame for Acts 14.22Steve Lo Vullo
2 Cor 6:12 Cor 6:1
2 Cor 6:1 Paul Toseland toseland at blueyonder.co.uk
Tue Jan 7 18:01:52 EST 2003
2 Cor 6:1 Pronounciation of PNEUMA Steve and IverThank you both for engaging with me on this, and for your patience; I know I am being rather stubborn.There are actually three issues, I think: the meaning of PARAKALEW,the syntactical construction, and context. The last is very complex; Iwould like to share my own perception; in fact, I am writing a book on2 Corinthians – a development of my doctoral dissertation (Bristol 1998).But it wouldn’t be easy to precis the argument in a post of acceptable length. Yet I recongnise that I must answer you this point if am tohave any credibility with you; I will do the best I can.First then, the meaning of PARAKALEW. Iver writes,>I accept that it can best be translated by “console/comfort” in several>places in the LXX and three places in the NT which probably go back to a>Hebrew text, that is: Matt 2:8, Matt 5:4 and Luke 16:25. Comfort has to>do with encouraging people who has suffered in some serious way. Allother>places in the NT, PARAKALEW is better translated by encourage than>comfort/console, although the two senses are close.Well, Isa 49:9-10 LXX, immediately following the passage quotated in 2 Cor6:2, describes the happy situation of the exiles of Israel when Yahwehdelivers them from their chains. They will not hunger or thirst, they will not be scorched by the heat and the sun,ALL’ hO ELEWN AUTOUS PARAKALESEI,for he will lead them by springs of water. Cf. v. 13, alluded to in 2 Cor 7:6. In Isa 40-66 LXX, PARAKALEW speaks not merely of encouragement, butof deliverance. However, the Lord works through mediators, especiallythe Servant, and the process begins with the proclamation of wordsof consolation. The same true of the Psalms. Take Ps 22(23):4. The Psalmist is notafraid of walking in the shadow of death, because hH hRABDOS SOU KAI hH BAKTHRIA SOU, AUTAI ME PARAKALESAN.Turning to 2 Cor 1-7, Paul has just been through a dreadful affliction(1:8-11) and, it would seem, has been miraculously delivered. He introduces 1:8 with GAR, linking this account with his opening eulogy (1:3-7). You may insist, Iver, that even in 1:3-7, PARAKALEW meansonly ‘encourage’, but I think most NT scholars would disagree. Paul isgiving thanks here for his recent experience. PARAKALEW / PARAKLHSIS,which together occur 10 times in these 5 verses, speak of comfort orconsolation in suffering. The same is plainly true of PARAKALEW in 7:6.Second, the context of 6:1. As you recognise, Steve, context must be considered at different levels, and the immediate context is decisive.Neverthless, I will begin at the discourse level of 2 Cor 1-7 as a literary unit. If this post isn’t to get completely out of hand, I must of necessity be rather cryptic.2 Cor 1:3-11 serves as the introduction. Here Paul portrays himself asone who has suffered and been comforted *vicariously, on behalf of*(hUPER) the Corinthians (1:6). If he has been afflicted (by God), it wasfor their comfort and salvation; if he has been comforted (by God), it was for their comfort. I know this sounds like heresy – Christ’s sufferings redeemed them. But cf. Col 1:24. The explanation is that,though Paul’s sufferings are real enough, they are in reality the enactment of a sacred drama. The Corinthians got themselves seriouslyinto sin; Paul, instead of going to Corinth and dealing with them as hehad threatened (2 Cor 13:2), interceded for them as their representative(cf. Exod. 32:32). So God afflicted him, and then delivered him. It wasa re-enactment of the Cross. The point of it was to reveal in Paul’sbody the death and the resurrection life of Jesus (4:10). This revelation of Christ, God’s glory, has a transforming power upon thosewho are being saved (2:14-16a; 3:18), and was made made known to theCorinthians by means of the mission of Titus and the Letter of Tears(2:3-4; 7:8, 12; now lost). But some in Corinth felt that Paul had beenreckless (ELAFREA, 1:17). He had endangered not only his own salvation,but theirs also. He makes his initial response to this charge in 1:18-22,but deals with the matter at length in 1:12-7:15.Now the immediate context. The quickest way to explain my thinking isby way of a translation (5:18-21):18 All this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself in Christ, and has given us the (mediatory) agency of reconciliation – 19 it is as if God were reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not reckoning theirtransgressions against them – and he has entrusted to us the message ofreconciliation. 20 Therefore we are undertaking an embassy on behalf ofChrist, as if God were making an appeal through us. We appeal on behalf of Christ, Be reconciled to God! 21 For our sake he made to be sin himwho knew no sin, so that we might become in him the righteousness of God.6:1 And as fellow-workers we also speak words of consolation: you have not received the grace of God in vain. In the enactment of the sacred drama, Paul fell under God’s (fatherly)wrath, and suffered a severe beating; but God then reconciled him tohimself. So Paul was then in a position to mediate reconciliation to the Corinthians, which he did, I think, in the Letter of Tears. But here he portrays this sort of thing as part and parcel of his apostolicministry. In the sacred drama he plays the role of the Isaianic Servant,and he spells this out in 6:2, by quoting Isa 49:8. But since he is their representative, all that is said to the Servant in Isa 49:1-8applies to them too.So at this point, I think Paul is still explaining and defending hishandling of the recent crisis. His hortatory remarks begin in 6:11. Finally, syntax. Steve, you wrote,> Considering that PARAKALEW in this type of construction introduces an> infinitive in indirect command or prohibition, it appears obvious to me> that the sense of PARAKALEW in these cases must be something along the> lines of “urge.” This would have the same sense as an imperative in an> exhortation. I don’t see how you reason back from the fact of an infinitve of indirectdiscourse constructed with PARAKALEW to the meaning of that verb. Are yousimply saying that ths type of construction occurs only when PARAKALEW has the sense, ‘urge’, and never when it means ‘console’? If so, I amasking whether Paul, following the normal rules of grammar, might havechosen to construct PARAKALEW with an infinitive of indirect discourse,even though this would be unusual, or even unique. He uses KATALASSW in5:18 in a way that appears to have been unique up to that time. I wouldbe happy to accept that the language simply doesn’t work like that; Iwould like to be sure, one way or the other. But I am afraid I am not yet convinced! Best wishesPaul Toseland
2 Cor 6:1Pronounciation of PNEUMA
2 Cor 6:1 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Tue Jan 7 23:59:35 EST 2003
If They Cannot Exercise Self-Control Sorry for Repeat On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 05:01 PM, Paul Toseland wrote:> Finally, syntax. Steve, you wrote,> >> Considering that PARAKALEW in this type of construction introduces an>> infinitive in indirect command or prohibition, it appears obvious to >> me>> that the sense of PARAKALEW in these cases must be something along the>> lines of “urge.” This would have the same sense as an imperative in an>> exhortation.> > I don’t see how you reason back from the fact of an infinitve of > indirect> discourse constructed with PARAKALEW to the meaning of that verb. Are > you> simply saying that ths type of construction occurs only when PARAKALEW> has the sense, ‘urge’, and never when it means ‘console’? If so, I am> asking whether Paul, following the normal rules of grammar, might have> chosen to construct PARAKALEW with an infinitive of indirect discourse,> even though this would be unusual, or even unique. He uses KATALASSW in> 5:18 in a way that appears to have been unique up to that time. I would> be happy to accept that the language simply doesn’t work like that; I> would like to be sure, one way or the other. But I am afraid I am not> yet convinced!Note that I am not simply reasoning back. I have seen this construction many times, but since I was at work today when I responded, I didn’t have time to gather them and present them. The fact is that when Paul uses this construction it is PARAKALEW **invariably** introduces what in Greek I think we could call an indirect exhortation, since the direct speech would be put in the imperative. The imperative, of course, may be used in exhortation. Note **all** the examples in the Pauline corpus of this construction:Rom 12.1 PARAKALW … hUMAS … PARASTHSAI TA SWMATA hUMWN QUSIAN ZWSAN hAGIAN EUARESTON TWi QEWi”I urge … you … to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God”Rom 15.30 PARAKALW … hUMAS … SUNAGWNISASQAI MOI EN TAIS PROSEUCAIS hUPER EMOU PROS TON QEON”I urge … you … to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf”Rom 16.17 PARAKALW … hUMAS … SKOPEIN TOUS TAS DICOSTASIAS KAI TA SKANDALA PARA THN DIDACHN hHN hUMEIS EMAQETE POIOUNTAS”I urge .. you … to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught”2 Cor 2.8 PARAKALW hUMAS KURWSAI EIS AUTON AGAPHN”I urge you to reaffirm your love for him”2 Cor 6.1 PARAKALOUMEN MH EIS KENON THN CARIN TOU QEOU DEXASQAI hUMAS”we urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain”Eph 4.1 PARAKALW … hUMAS … AXIWS PERIPATHSAI THS KLHSEWS hHS EKLHQHTE”I urge … you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called”Phil 4.2 EUODIAN PARAKALW KAI SUNTUCHN PARAKALW TO AUTO FRONEIN”I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to agree in the Lord”1 Th 4.10 PARAKALOUMEN … hUMAS … PERISSEUEIN MALLON”We urge … you … to excel still more”1Tim 1.3 PAREKALESA SE PROSMEINAI EN EFESWi”I urged you to remain in Ephesus”Titus 2.6 TOUS NEWTEROUS hWSAUTWS PARAKALEI SWFRONEIN”Urge the younger men to be self-controlled”It is not just a question of reasoning back from the fact of the infinitive. It is that **in every case without exception** when Paul uses PARAKALEW in the active to introduce an infinitive with an accusative subject (explicit or implied) it is in an indirect exhortation. In fact, as far as I can tell, this is invariably the case in every instance of this construction in the GNT (cf. Mark 5.17; Luke 8.41; Acts 8.31; 11.23; 14.22; 19.31; 24.4; 27.33, 34; Heb 13.19; 1 Pet 2.11; 5.12; Jude 3). Note especially the negative exhortation in Acts 19.31. I think this is one of those happy occasions when the syntactical evidence is so overwhelming that we can reject with certainty those suggestions that run counter to the sense clearly displayed in the mass of parallels.No offense, Paul, but appealing to the “discourse level” strikes me in this case as an example of how **not** to use discourse analysis, i.e., to trump an assured conclusion from syntax, especially since this construction is used in 2 Cor 2.8 and PARAKALEW is used in the sense of “urge” only two verses before this one! And I find making a case on Paul’s quote from Isaiah dubious, since it is based on part of the text of Isaiah that Paul **does not** quote. It is important to determine his purpose for using what he **did** quote, which seems in the context to be to emphasize the need for immediate action. Note the emphatic position of NUN in its two uses in 2 Cor 6.1. It is NOW when they must “be reconciled to God” and must take seriously the exhortation about receiving the grace of God in vain. This strikes me as similar to Rom 13.11-12. There is an **urgency** in the **urging**.It is important to see the connection between 5.20 and 6.1. The sense of 6.1 is, “Because we are fellow workers [with God] we also [along with God] urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain.” When Paul says we ALSO, i.e., along with God, he is calling attention to what precedes in 5.20 (God himself making an urgent appeal to them through Paul to be reconciled) and to what God said in the following quote from Isaiah, which shows that God has the same urgent word for the Corinthians as Paul does. Both he and God emphasize the urgency for reconciliation and the need to avoid receiving the grace of God in vain. Nothing that precedes or follows suggests the that Paul was comforting the Corinthians with the idea that all is well. They needed reconciliation both with God (5.20) and with Paul (6.13). It was urgent that they waste no time in doing both, because NOW is the acceptable time, NOW is the day of salvation. They must not miss their opportunity.=============Steven R. Lo VulloMadison, WI
If They Cannot Exercise Self-ControlSorry for Repeat
2 Cor 6:1 Paul Toseland toseland at blueyonder.co.uk
Wed Jan 8 08:18:02 EST 2003
The scope of flashback: Mark 3:20-31 Sorry for Repeat SteveTnank you once again for your detailed and very helpful response. I wouldlike to make some further observations, but first, let me quote thefinal paragraph of my initial post on this thread:> Admittedly, ‘also’ seems to refer back to 5:20, where PARAKALOUNTOS is > followed by an exhortation in direct speech, so it seems more natural> to take PARAKALOUMEN in the present passage to have the same sense: ‘we> exhort you not to receive …’. But if both senses are linguistically> feasible, then the reader has to consider both options; and that would> be exegetically significant. So I would welcome any comments.You make a strong case for reading 2 Cor 6:1 in a hortatory sense,and I am sure Paul’s original readers would not have missed this.What I wanted – still want – to explore is the possibility ofcreative ambiguity, intentional or unintentional, in Paul’s language.Ambiguity did play an important role in Greco-Roman rhetoric, and I think Paul sometimes uses it as a device to make his readers work thingsthrough for themselves. He normally grounds his hortatory material not on the offer of salvation to unbelievers, but on the reality of thesalvation that his readers have already received. In effect, heargues, ‘You have received the grace of God; now behave accordingly!’ I think 2 Cor 6:1 is no exception. The reconciliation he appeals for in5:20 is that of children with their father; perhaps, therefore, in 6:2 he quotes Isa 49:8 not to tell them that salvation is on offer if theywant it, but to remind them that salvation has been granted. In itsoriginalcontext, the Isaiah passage speaks of events to come; Paul is saying that the salvation Isaiah spoke of has now come about: NOW is the day ofsalvation.Now I want to comment, first on your very helpful list of the PARAKALEW+ infin. + acc. constructions in Paul and the rest of the NT (I still have to find these the old fashioned way), and then on the reference ofKAI in 6:1.Granted, in all 9 of the instances you cite of this construction in thePauline Corpus, and all 13 in the rest of the NT, PARAKALEW has ahortaroty sense, though I am still querying whether its sense might beambiguous in 2 Cor 6:1. But, if I have counted right, outside the PaulineCorpus PARAKALEW only has a non-hortatory sense (‘encourage’ or ‘comfort’)in only 5 instances (Matt 2:18; 5:4; Luke 16:25; Acts 16:40; 20:12) so inthe case of the non-Pauline texts, this result is not a great surprise. Inthe Pauline Corpus, PARAKALEW has a non-hortatory sense in 18 instances (1 Cor 14:31; 2 Cor 1:4 (x3), 1:6; 2:7; 7:6 (x2); 7:13; 13:11;Eph 6:22; Col 2:2; 4:8; 1 Thess 3:2; 3:7; 4:18; 5:11; 2 Thess 2:17), outof a total of about 53 instances of PARAKALEW in the Pauline Corpus, orabout one third. Given that 9 of the 35 or so non-hortatory instancesoccurin constructions with infin. + acc., one might, on the face of it, expect 4 or 5 instances of this construction when PARAKALEW is non-hortatory, if the language works that way. But that would be basedon the assumption that Paul is just as likely to use the constructionwith PARAKALEW when it is non-hortatory as when it is hortatory, andI am not persuaded that we can make that assumption. GINWSKW occurs insuch a construction only once in the NT (Heb. 10:34; ATR 1036). So Idon’t think we can draw a valid conclusion from these statistics. I haven’t made a thorough analysis of the LXX yet, but even if there is nota single construction of this type there, it wouldn’t prove that it issyntactically impossible. Infinitives of indirect speech do occur withnon-hortatory verbs, and yet they can be very rare, as the GINWSKWexample shows.>It is important to see the connection between 5.20 and 6.1. The>sense of 6.1 is, “Because we are fellow workers [with God] we also[>along with God] urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain.”Sure, the text can be read in this way, and I have never denied it.But I think that because Koine Greek is not our native tongue, wefeel a need to pin down the exact force of Paul’s words, to choosebetween alternatives in order to defend a translation, when to his original readers both possible senses might have been evident, and theywould have had to do some thinking themselves. Can we be sure that Paul speaks of himself as *God’s* fellow-worker? This is certainly a possibility (cf. 1 Cor 3:9); but in 2 Cor Paul laysgreat emphasis upon his spiritual partnership with the Corinthians(see especially 1:14), and he might be speaking of himself as theCorinthians’ fellow-worker. So if KAI (in 6:1) does not mean that, inaddition to making his appeal, ‘Be reconciled to God’ – which he makes inhis role of Christ’s envoy – it might mean he *also* consoles, saying ‘Youhave not received the grace of God in vain’ – this time speaking in theroleof the Corinthians’ fellow-worker, their partner in ministry. So he isstillreferring back to 5:20, but from a different perspective.Let me emphasize once more: I am not arguing that this latter interpretation of 6:1 is the one that Paul intended, and the usualone that you defend so ably is not. I am interested in the possibilitiesof ambiguity in the original Greek, and the interpretive processes thatthe original readers must have gone through. Maybe this interest of mine belongs to what is known as Reader Response Criticism; I don’tknow what that field involves. Once again, thanks Steve, and thanks again Iver and Mike for your contributions; hammering these things out with others is so helpful.Best wishesPaul Toseland
The scope of flashback: Mark 3:20-31Sorry for Repeat