[B-Greek] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what?

malcolm robertson mjriii2003 at yahoo.com
Thu Sep 8 11:58:41 EDT 2005


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
___________________________
   

Jeff Smelser <jeffsmelser at ntgreek.net> wrote:
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
www.ntgreek.net
www.centrevillechurchofchrist.org

---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek





		
---------------------------------
 Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.


More information about the B-Greek mailing list