[B-Greek] 2 Thess.1:12, POIMHN and DIDASKALOS
ann nyland
accuratebibles at ozemail.com.au
Fri Jul 30 06:38:58 EDT 2004
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 always
concerned when new theories are used to explain away something we can see in
black and white. (And of course, I believe that there has been some
misunderstanding of or at least contention about "Relevance Theory" within
the Wycliffe/SIL ranks.) IMO the rules of Greek grammar shouldn't be thrown
out the window just because someone wants to make a theological point and
cannot see it it based on the Greek text. Not that I am saying this is the
case here, of course, I am just making a general observation. I do agree
with you that the terms are not identical, that is clear.
As you realize, I am talking from traditional Greek grammar, but I am not so
much a grammar pedant but rather work more on an intituive feel gained after
decades of reading Greek texts other than the N.T. Time and time again I
have seen arguments about a NT point (such as Jesus' address to his mother
in John, for example) which would not happen if the writer was familiar with
other Greek texts. Also, I don't speak from a traditional lexicographical
view, I rely on the latest documentary evidence.
Iver: "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."
Ann: Absolutely, I agree.
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.
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.
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).
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? If not, I should point out that
there 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. Female
synagogue 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; SEG
27.1201; CII 400.
Iver: "It is not certain what DIDAKTIKOS in 1 Tim 3:2
and 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 classical
DIDASKALIKOS (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 actual
meaning, not the way it has been glossed in English Bible versions.) Have
you read Foucault on PARRHSIA?
Ann Nyland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iver Larsen" <iver_larsen at sil.org>
To: "ann nyland" <accuratebibles at ozemail.com.au>;
<b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 4:38 AM
Subject: RE: [B-Greek] 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 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