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

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Jul 29 14:38:43 EDT 2004


>
> 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 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 invalid and
the specific form is so restrictive that it does not adequately capture a
linguistic principle. As Tony pointed out, it fails to settle the matter in
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. It is
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 is not
common, which means that we sometimes have to translate a Hebrew waw or
Greek KAI with nothing in English - or something else than "and" - in order
not to confuse the readers. The problem I have with the hendiadys notion is
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 or phrases
share the feature of definiteness by having one shared definite article in
front of the coordinated phrase rather than in front of each part, then the
two parts are likely to form a unit of some kind. Very often the second
further describes the first. Definiteness is better considered a feature of
the phrase than the word. In some cases that unity is identity, but whether
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 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 no
article before the last word. The general rule without restrictions is
invalid, and that is why the restrictions were added, so the general rule is
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 last two
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 the two
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 well as
experience has an important role to play in exegesis. That claim is squarely
based 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 it
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 teacher to
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 Feb 19,
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 not allowed
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 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.

3) Teaching is considered as leading into truth or into falsehood. It is not
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 in the
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 in the
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





More information about the B-Greek mailing list