An Exegetical Analysis of **πίστος** in Titus 1:6: Familial Responsibility and Ecclesiastical Leadership Qualifications
This exegetical study of **πίστος** in Titus 1:6 is based on a b-greek discussion from Sat Sep 18 16:46:20 1999. The initial inquiry centers on the precise meaning of **τέκνα ἔχων πιστά** in Titus 1:6, questioning whether **πίστος** should be understood as “believing” (implying spiritual conviction) or “faithful/trustworthy” (referring to observable conduct and obedience). While most translations lean towards “children who believe,” a notable minority, such as the KJV, renders it “faithful children.” The discussion also probed whether contextual clues disambiguate this interpretation or if an inherent ambiguity persists.
The main exegetical issue under consideration is the semantic range of **πίστος** (adjective, neuter plural **πιστά**) when applied to **τέκνα** (children) within the context of qualifications for eldership. The term **πίστος** possesses both an active sense (“believing,” “trusting”) and a passive sense (“trustworthy,” “faithful”). Determining which sense is intended by the author significantly impacts the interpretation of this qualification for church leadership. Furthermore, the precise scope and nuance of the subsequent phrase, **μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα**, are examined, particularly whether it modifies the children or the elder, and the implications of the idiom **ἐν κατηγορίᾳ**.
Greek text (Nestle 1904)
εἴ τις ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα.
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- There are no significant textual differences in Titus 1:6 between the Nestle 1904 text and the SBLGNT (2010) edition. Both present the same Greek wording for this verse.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)
The critical apparatus of the NA28 (Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed.) for Titus 1:6 reveals no significant textual variants that would alter the primary phrases under discussion, namely **πιστά** or **ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα**. The text is remarkably stable across major manuscript traditions.
Lexical Notes:
- πίστος (pistos): (BDAG, s.v. “πίστος”) This adjective is central to the exegetical problem. It carries a broad semantic range, encompassing both active and passive meanings.
- Active: “trusting, believing, confident” (e.g., of those who believe in Christ, Acts 10:45; 1 Cor 4:17). When applied to individuals, especially in the Pauline corpus, it often denotes a Christian believer.
- Passive: “trustworthy, dependable, faithful, loyal” (e.g., of God’s faithfulness, 1 Cor 1:9; of Christ’s faithfulness, Heb 3:2; of God’s word, 1 Tim 1:15). When applied to people, it can refer to reliability and trustworthiness in conduct.
(KITTEL, TDNT, s.v. “πιστεύω, πίστις, πίστος”) Kittel emphasizes the theological depth of **πίστος**, tracing its use from Old Testament concepts of covenant faithfulness to its New Testament applications, where it signifies adherence to God’s saving act in Christ (active sense) and the resultant integrity and dependability (passive sense). The challenge in Titus 1:6 lies in discerning whether Paul primarily emphasizes the children’s internal faith or their outward, observable conduct as a reflection of the father’s leadership.
- τέκνα (tekna): (BDAG, s.v. “τέκνον”) This term typically refers to “children” in the sense of one’s biological offspring, descendants. While it can occasionally be used metaphorically for “disciples” or “spiritual children” (e.g., 1 Tim 1:2; Titus 1:4), the context of household management alongside “husband of one wife” strongly indicates biological children in Titus 1:6. The metaphorical interpretation is generally dismissed in this context due to the specific familial qualifications.
- ἀνέγκλητος (anegklētos): (BDAG, s.v. “ἀνέγκλητος”) Meaning “blameless, irreproachable, free from accusation.” This sets the overarching standard for the elder’s character.
- μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ (mias gynaikos anēr): (BDAG, s.v. “ἀνήρ” and “γυνή”) Literally “a husband of one wife,” meaning a man committed to monogamy, potentially prohibiting polygamy, divorce and remarriage, or even sexual promiscuity.
- ἔχων (echōn): (BDAG, s.v. “ἔχω”) Participle of “to have,” indicating possession.
- κατηγορία (katēgoria): (BDAG, s.v. “κατηγορία”) “accusation, charge.” The discussion in the forum highlighted that NT usage (e.g., Luke 6:7; John 18:29; 1 Tim 5:19) suggests a “formal” or “substantiated” accusation rather than a baseless one.
- ἀσωτία (asōtia): (BDAG, s.v. “ἀσωτία”) “dissipation, debauchery, profligacy, wastefulness.” It denotes a reckless and extravagant lifestyle, often associated with moral looseness.
- ἀνυπότακτα (anypotakta): (BDAG, s.v. “ἀνυπότακτος”) “unruly, disobedient, rebellious.” This describes children who are insubordinate to parental authority.
- ἐν κατηγορίᾳ (en katēgoria): The prepositional phrase “in accusation” is crucial. As noted in the discussion, some scholars (e.g., Zerwick-Grosvenor) suggest it means “liable to a charge of,” implying that the accusation has some credibility or foundation, rather than merely being the target of a groundless complaint. This nuance is supported by broader ancient Greek usage, where `ἐν κατηγορίᾳ φόνου ἄχρι κρίσεως` (“in accusation of murder until judgment”) suggests a standing, credible charge. This implies that the children should not actually be living in such a way that they are credibly accused of profligacy.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The core of the translation challenge lies in the phrase **τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα**. Grammatically, **πιστά** is a neuter plural adjective, agreeing with **τέκνα**. It can indeed convey both active (“believing”) and passive (“trustworthy,” “faithful”) meanings, necessitating contextual interpretation. The subsequent phrase, **μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα**, clarifies the nature of the expected conduct of these children.
Grammatical Analysis:
- τέκνα ἔχων πιστά: The participle **ἔχων** (“having”) agrees with the implied subject of the main clause (“if anyone,” **εἴ τις**), indicating that the elder must possess such children. **πιστά** is an adjective modifying **τέκνα**.
- μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα: This entire clause is grammatically linked to **τέκνα**.
- **ἀνυπότακτα** is a neuter plural adjective, agreeing with **τέκνα**, and stands in parallel with **πιστά**. It denotes children who are not rebellious.
- **ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας** is a prepositional phrase, where **ἀσωτίας** is a genitive noun dependent on **κατηγορίᾳ**. This phrase functions adjectivally, modifying **τέκνα**. The conjunction **ἢ** (“or”) connects this prepositional phrase with the adjective **ἀνυπότακτα**. This grammatical structure strongly indicates that both **ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας** and **ἀνυπότακτα** describe the children, not the elder. The alternative interpretation, linking these characteristics to the elder (**τὶς**), would require a strained grammatical reading, such as a significant ellipsis or an unusual shift in modification.
- The phrase **ἐν κατηγορίᾳ** suggests not merely a groundless accusation, but a credible charge that has gained some standing, implying that the elder’s children should not be genuinely prone to such behavior.
Rhetorical and Contextual Analysis:
- Meaning of **πίστος** (“believing” vs. “faithful/trustworthy”):
- Argument for “Believing”: Proponents of “believing” (e.g., Mark Markham in the original post) emphasize that in the New Testament, when **πίστος** refers to people, it almost exclusively denotes “believers” or “Christians.” If this holds true here, the elder’s children must profess Christian faith. This would imply that an elder’s spiritual leadership is validated by his ability to lead his own family to Christ.
- Argument for “Faithful/Trustworthy”: Those advocating for “faithful” or “trustworthy” (e.g., Carlton Winbery, Iver Larsen in the discussion) highlight the context of elder qualifications, which heavily emphasize observable character and effective household management. Paul’s parallel instruction in 1 Timothy 3:4, where an elder must manage his household well, “having children in submission (**τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ**),” supports a behavioral interpretation. It is the visible conduct of children, their obedience and reliability, that reflects on a parent’s capacity for leadership, rather than their internal spiritual state, which parents cannot directly control. The subsequent clauses “not in accusation of dissipation or unruly” further reinforce this emphasis on observable conduct. It is highly probable that a Christian leader’s children would be expected to be “believers” naturally, but the explicit qualification centers on their conduct as a visible testimony.
Given the focus on observable qualifications for leadership, the passive sense of **πίστος**—”faithful” or “trustworthy” in conduct—appears more consistent with the immediate context and the broader Pauline household codes. Such faithfulness often stems from belief, but the visible demonstration of order and discipline within the home is the direct qualification.
- Meaning of **τέκνα** (“biological children” vs. “disciples”): The context of qualifications for an elder (e.g., “husband of one wife”) strongly points to a biological family. The attempt to redefine **τέκνα** as “disciples” (as suggested by “Polycarp66”) is not supported by the surrounding familial language and appears to be an anachronistic theological reinterpretation, as noted by “Bryant Williams.” The humorous reductio ad absurdum by “Steven Lo Vullo” regarding the “one wife” qualification for a “teacher’s assistant” effectively highlights the natural reading of **τέκνα** as biological children.
- Scope of **μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα**: The grammatical agreement (neuter plural adjectives/phrases modifying neuter plural noun **τέκνα**) overwhelmingly supports this phrase referring to the children. The elder’s blamelessness is partially demonstrated by the exemplary conduct of his children, who should not be credibly accused of a profligate lifestyle nor be openly rebellious. This visible evidence of effective parenting is considered essential for the management of God’s household (the church).
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on the grammatical structure and rhetorical context of Titus 1:6, the qualifications concerning children primarily refer to their observable conduct and the effectiveness of their father’s household management. The term **τέκνα** refers to biological children. The phrase **μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα** consistently modifies these children, emphasizing their freedom from credible accusations of dissipation and their obedient, non-rebellious character. The adjective **πίστος**, while having an active sense of “believing,” more strongly conveys the passive sense of “faithful” or “trustworthy” in this context, aligning with the observable nature of an elder’s qualifications.
Here are three translation suggestions for Titus 1:6, reflecting different nuances:
- If anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who are faithful, not credibly accused of dissipation or rebellious.
This translation emphasizes the observable conduct of the children as a reflection of the father’s faithful leadership and management of his household, and interprets **ἐν κατηγορίᾳ** as implying a credible accusation. - If anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who are trustworthy, who are not under a charge of profligacy or unruly.
This rendering prioritizes the children’s reliability and good behavior, using “under a charge” for **ἐν κατηγορίᾳ** to reflect the legalistic overtone of the Greek. - If anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who are believers and well-behaved, not subject to accusation of wild living, and not disobedient.
This option attempts to incorporate both the “believing” and “faithful” aspects of **πίστος** by adding an explanatory phrase, while clearly linking the negative qualifications to the children’s conduct.
Mark,
There is a kind of circularity of argument that crops up all the time in
discussions of lexical semantics. The argument runs, signifier X never
points to signified Y in corpus Z, therefor this instance of signifier X
which is in corpus Z cannot point to signified Y.
There are significant problems with this sort of reasoning. One is that
each individual instance of signifier X within corpus Z must be
semantically unambiguous for this argument to carry any weight.
Semantically unambiguous uses of a given signifier might crop up once in
a while but it would be very odd to find a common word like PISTA being
semantically unambiguous across the entire corpus Z (e.g. New
Testament).
In a corpus as small as the NT, instances of a given signifier in a
given context having semantic properties which are statistically
irregular within the NT corpus are legion. In simple language, there are
plenty of examples of common NT words which show up once and only once
with a semantic property unattested elsewhere in the NT. The whole idea
that the NT has a distinct vocabulary which is used with a sort of
mechanical precision is IMHO wrong. For this reason I am very
unimpressed by arguments of this sort, since they rest on the assumption
that the NT is a unified corpus with regard to questions of lexical
semantics.
Only the detailed analysis of the immediate context can serve as a final
arbitrator in cases like this and if the immediate context does not
settle the question then the question remains unsettled.
Clay
—
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
I agree with your observations:
> There is a kind of circularity of argument that crops up all the time in
> discussions of lexical semantics. The argument runs, signifier X never
> points to signified Y in corpus Z, therefor this instance of signifier X
> which is in corpus Z cannot point to signified Y.
I guess my question is one of preponderance of evidence. Do the NT writers
(esp. Paul) seem to limit the use of this word to believers only? Would this
be the linguistic exception?
Secondly, the use of PISTA in a verbal fashion seems to mean believing as
the more modern translations bear out. Are there any clues in the context
that I have missed? Also what would the object of the belief be? Or are no
answers to be found?
Grace,
Mark Markham
Heidelberg, Germany
In Titus 1:6 are found some of the qualifications for being an elder. It
says:
EI TIS ESTIN ANEGKLHTOS MIAS GUNAIKOS ANHR TEKNA ECWN PISTA MH EN KATHGORIA
ASWTIAS H ANUPOTAKTA.
The phrase TEKNA ECWN PISTA has been translated to mean “children that are
believers”. Since PISTA is the adjective PISTOS could the translation mean
“children that are trustworthy”?
Thanks.
______________________________________________
Doug Paul
Yes; actually there’s a whole range of possible senses, including
“faithful, trustworthy, believing (in Christian doctrine), etc.
The little glossary by B.Newman accompanying the UBS4 offers this range:
PISTOS, H. ON faithful, trustworthy, reliable; believing (often believer,
Christian; hO EK PERITOMHS. Jewish Christian Ac 10:45); sure, true,
unfailing (TA P. sure promises or blessings Ac 13:34).
—
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
[email protected] OR [email protected]
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Thanks for the comments, Malcom. While your point about the overall
thrust of Paul’s remark is certainly on target, what I’m really
interested in at this point is the precise significance of EN KATHGORIAi
(ἐν κατηγορίᾳ). Is it this construction in particular that warrants
Zerwick’s notion of being liable to an accusation as opposed to being
merely the target of an accusation?
Looking at the uses cited in LSJ (at least those to which I have
access), I don’t find another example of the preposition EN with
KATHGORIAi. While Zerwick’s comment certainly seems to make sense in the
context of Titus 1:5ff, I’d like to see a more compelling case made than
the mere fact that it seems unfair to me for a man to be disqualified by
any accusation at all against his children, with or without merit.
What I’d really like to know is simply if anyone on the list can verify
that when it is said someone was EN KATHGORIAi of something, did that
indicate the KATHGORIA had some credibility, that a man who is said to
be EN KATHGORIAi of something is more clearly indicated to be open to an
accusation than a man who is merely said to have been the object of a
KATHGORIA?
To put it another way, we say someone “stands accused” of something. But
we don’t generally say that if the consensus is that the accusation is
baseless. The expression “stands accused” suggests the verdict remains
an open question. What I’m wondering is if “EN KATHGORIAi of something”
carried a similar import.
Jeff Smelser
http://www.ntgreek.net
http://www.centrevillechurchofchrist.org
To any interested,
I notice the NIV has “open to the charge” for EN KATHGORIAi (ἐν
κατηγορίᾳ).
And for the sake of accurate sourcing, where I had previously mentioned
“Zerwick’s notion of being liable to an accusation as opposed to being
merely the target of an accusation,” I should have cited Mary Grosvenor.
If I understand the prefaces, Zerwick passed away before volume II of An
Analysis of the Greek New Testament was completed, and Grosvenor, who
had “translated, revised, and adapted” volume I in collaboration with
Zerwick, finished the 2nd volume.
Jeff Smelser
http://www.ntgreek.net
http://www.centrevillechurchofchrist.org
Dear Jeff,
Your point is well posed. In light of the other occurences of KATHGORIA in the NT (Jn 18:9; 1 Tim 5:19) it would appear that KATHGORIA is a general unbiased term that may or may not be groundless. The term BLASFHMIA is generally groundless – but not exclusively cf Jude 9 KRISIN …BLASFHMIAS.
I think 1 Tim 5:19 requires some sort of reliable substantiated proof of any KATHGORIA. Zerwick may be pressing the point too far here grammatically – although the caution and care that is required to take necessary precautions to avoid any pitfalls that KATHGORIA might entail are wholesome examples of prudent Christian conduct.
Paul may have had in mind what developed into a later semantic sense (in addition to the sense of accusation) when he used EN KATHGORIAi. This will have to be determined both by a synchronic and diachronic analysis of the use of the word.
A search of Thesaurus linguae graecae (TLG) produced a number of results for EN KATHGORIAi. I have listed a few below.
Demosthenes Orat. Pro Megalopolitanis sect. 19.3
EN KATHGORIAS MEREI POIEISQAI
Plato Phil. Phaedrus (Stephanus) pg 267 sect a line 2
EN KATHGORIAi TE KAI APOLOGIAi
Julius Pollux Gramm. Onomasticon Bk 8 sect 66 line 7
EN KATHGORIAi FONOU ACRI KRISEWS
Later writers and commentators use and understood KATHGORIA as *a category.* Hence such examples as EN KATHGORIAi TIQETAI or OUDE TIQETAI EN KATHGORIA ORQWS.
Joannes Chrysostomus wrote in Greek and produced comments on 1 Cor and Titus. You might profit from a perview there and how he understood Paul.
Cordially in Jesus,
Malcolm Robertson
Malcolm,
You have understood my question exactly. Thanks for the references. I’m
eager to have a look at them, but it will be a few days before I’ll have
access to them. EN KATHGORIAi FONOU ACRI KRISEWS looks especially
interesting.
Jeff Smelser
I don’t know whether the use of EN with KATHGORIAi is significant or not, but (and I can’t remember whether or not this has already been mentioned) the other three ‘appearances’ of KATHGORIA in the New Testament (Luke 6:7, John 18:29 and 1st Timothy 5:19) all seem to point to the idea of a FORMAL accusation, as opposed to a PERSONAL, NON-OFFICIAL accusation. Is that supported by other literature?
Andrew J. Birch
Palma de Mallorca, Spain
Mark,
There is a kind of circularity of argument that crops up all the time in
discussions of lexical semantics. The argument runs, signifier X never
points to signified Y in corpus Z, therefor this instance of signifier X
which is in corpus Z cannot point to signified Y.
There are significant problems with this sort of reasoning. One is that
each individual instance of signifier X within corpus Z must be
semantically unambiguous for this argument to carry any weight.
Semantically unambiguous uses of a given signifier might crop up once in
a while but it would be very odd to find a common word like PISTA being
semantically unambiguous across the entire corpus Z (e.g. New
Testament).
In a corpus as small as the NT, instances of a given signifier in a
given context having semantic properties which are statistically
irregular within the NT corpus are legion. In simple language, there are
plenty of examples of common NT words which show up once and only once
with a semantic property unattested elsewhere in the NT. The whole idea
that the NT has a distinct vocabulary which is used with a sort of
mechanical precision is IMHO wrong. For this reason I am very
unimpressed by arguments of this sort, since they rest on the assumption
that the NT is a unified corpus with regard to questions of lexical
semantics.
Only the detailed analysis of the immediate context can serve as a final
arbitrator in cases like this and if the immediate context does not
settle the question then the question remains unsettled.
Clay
—
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
I agree with your observations:
> There is a kind of circularity of argument that crops up all the time in
> discussions of lexical semantics. The argument runs, signifier X never
> points to signified Y in corpus Z, therefor this instance of signifier X
> which is in corpus Z cannot point to signified Y.
I guess my question is one of preponderance of evidence. Do the NT writers
(esp. Paul) seem to limit the use of this word to believers only? Would this
be the linguistic exception?
Secondly, the use of PISTA in a verbal fashion seems to mean believing as
the more modern translations bear out. Are there any clues in the context
that I have missed? Also what would the object of the belief be? Or are no
answers to be found?
Grace,
Mark Markham
Heidelberg, Germany
In Titus 1:6 are found some of the qualifications for being an elder. It
says:
EI TIS ESTIN ANEGKLHTOS MIAS GUNAIKOS ANHR TEKNA ECWN PISTA MH EN KATHGORIA
ASWTIAS H ANUPOTAKTA.
The phrase TEKNA ECWN PISTA has been translated to mean “children that are
believers”. Since PISTA is the adjective PISTOS could the translation mean
“children that are trustworthy”?
Thanks.
______________________________________________
Doug Paul
Yes; actually there’s a whole range of possible senses, including
“faithful, trustworthy, believing (in Christian doctrine), etc.
The little glossary by B.Newman accompanying the UBS4 offers this range:
PISTOS, H. ON faithful, trustworthy, reliable; believing (often believer,
Christian; hO EK PERITOMHS. Jewish Christian Ac 10:45); sure, true,
unfailing (TA P. sure promises or blessings Ac 13:34).
—
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
[email protected] OR [email protected]
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Thanks for the comments, Malcom. While your point about the overall
thrust of Paul’s remark is certainly on target, what I’m really
interested in at this point is the precise significance of EN KATHGORIAi
(ἐν κατηγορίᾳ). Is it this construction in particular that warrants
Zerwick’s notion of being liable to an accusation as opposed to being
merely the target of an accusation?
Looking at the uses cited in LSJ (at least those to which I have
access), I don’t find another example of the preposition EN with
KATHGORIAi. While Zerwick’s comment certainly seems to make sense in the
context of Titus 1:5ff, I’d like to see a more compelling case made than
the mere fact that it seems unfair to me for a man to be disqualified by
any accusation at all against his children, with or without merit.
What I’d really like to know is simply if anyone on the list can verify
that when it is said someone was EN KATHGORIAi of something, did that
indicate the KATHGORIA had some credibility, that a man who is said to
be EN KATHGORIAi of something is more clearly indicated to be open to an
accusation than a man who is merely said to have been the object of a
KATHGORIA?
To put it another way, we say someone “stands accused” of something. But
we don’t generally say that if the consensus is that the accusation is
baseless. The expression “stands accused” suggests the verdict remains
an open question. What I’m wondering is if “EN KATHGORIAi of something”
carried a similar import.
Jeff Smelser
http://www.ntgreek.net
http://www.centrevillechurchofchrist.org
To any interested,
I notice the NIV has “open to the charge” for EN KATHGORIAi (ἐν
κατηγορίᾳ).
And for the sake of accurate sourcing, where I had previously mentioned
“Zerwick’s notion of being liable to an accusation as opposed to being
merely the target of an accusation,” I should have cited Mary Grosvenor.
If I understand the prefaces, Zerwick passed away before volume II of An
Analysis of the Greek New Testament was completed, and Grosvenor, who
had “translated, revised, and adapted” volume I in collaboration with
Zerwick, finished the 2nd volume.
Jeff Smelser
http://www.ntgreek.net
http://www.centrevillechurchofchrist.org
Dear Jeff,
Your point is well posed. In light of the other occurences of KATHGORIA in the NT (Jn 18:9; 1 Tim 5:19) it would appear that KATHGORIA is a general unbiased term that may or may not be groundless. The term BLASFHMIA is generally groundless – but not exclusively cf Jude 9 KRISIN …BLASFHMIAS.
I think 1 Tim 5:19 requires some sort of reliable substantiated proof of any KATHGORIA. Zerwick may be pressing the point too far here grammatically – although the caution and care that is required to take necessary precautions to avoid any pitfalls that KATHGORIA might entail are wholesome examples of prudent Christian conduct.
Paul may have had in mind what developed into a later semantic sense (in addition to the sense of accusation) when he used EN KATHGORIAi. This will have to be determined both by a synchronic and diachronic analysis of the use of the word.
A search of Thesaurus linguae graecae (TLG) produced a number of results for EN KATHGORIAi. I have listed a few below.
Demosthenes Orat. Pro Megalopolitanis sect. 19.3
EN KATHGORIAS MEREI POIEISQAI
Plato Phil. Phaedrus (Stephanus) pg 267 sect a line 2
EN KATHGORIAi TE KAI APOLOGIAi
Julius Pollux Gramm. Onomasticon Bk 8 sect 66 line 7
EN KATHGORIAi FONOU ACRI KRISEWS
Later writers and commentators use and understood KATHGORIA as *a category.* Hence such examples as EN KATHGORIAi TIQETAI or OUDE TIQETAI EN KATHGORIA ORQWS.
Joannes Chrysostomus wrote in Greek and produced comments on 1 Cor and Titus. You might profit from a perview there and how he understood Paul.
Cordially in Jesus,
Malcolm Robertson
Malcolm,
You have understood my question exactly. Thanks for the references. I’m
eager to have a look at them, but it will be a few days before I’ll have
access to them. EN KATHGORIAi FONOU ACRI KRISEWS looks especially
interesting.
Jeff Smelser
I don’t know whether the use of EN with KATHGORIAi is significant or not, but (and I can’t remember whether or not this has already been mentioned) the other three ‘appearances’ of KATHGORIA in the New Testament (Luke 6:7, John 18:29 and 1st Timothy 5:19) all seem to point to the idea of a FORMAL accusation, as opposed to a PERSONAL, NON-OFFICIAL accusation. Is that supported by other literature?
Andrew J. Birch
Palma de Mallorca, Spain