[B-Greek] 1 Tim 1:3-7 1 or 2 sentences

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Nov 6 15:49:13 EST 2007


On Nov 5, 2007, at 8:26 PM, Charles Clayton wrote:

> I was looking at these 5 verses this evening trying to determine if  
> they
> make only one sentence or if they make two.  When I looked to my  
> Bibles for
> help, they only offered confusion.  The UBS and NA indicate a stop  
> at the
> end of verse 4 but it is the stop that is not equivalent to a  
> period in
> English.  The MT (Majority Text) editors indicate a lesser stop  
> than UBS or
> NA (which I think is equivalent to a semi-colon).

What editions of UBS,NA and  MT are you using? Robinson, Pierpont  
2005:480 has a full stop after EN PISTEI in verse four and so do UBS3  
and NA26, NA27.


>
>
>
>
> If ESTIN in verse 5 is considered a main verb, then why should the  
> editors
> not start a new sentence with TO DE TELOS?

They do. See discussion below.

>   If there is a good reason not to
> considered it a sentence, then why even indicate a stop here?  I  
> know that
> the punctuation is something that the editors have added over the  
> years but
> it does not make sense to me here.
>
>
>
> So maybe a few of you can clarify for me what exactly constitutes a  
> sentence
> in Greek (I thought you just needed a finite verb) and possibly what
> advantage there is to noting a stop that is less than a sentence  
> but more
> than a subordinating clause.


1TIM. 1:3 KAQWS PAREKALESA SE PROSMEINAI EN EFESWi POREUOMENOS EIS  
MAKEDONIAN, hINA PARAGGEILHiS TISIN MH hETERODIDASKALEIN  4 MHDE  
PROSECEIN MUQOIS KAI GENEALOGIAIS APERANTOIS, hAITINES EKZHTHSEIS  
PARECOUSIN MALLON H OIKONOMIAN QEOU THN EN PISTEI.  5 TO DE TELOS THS  
PARAGGELIAS ESTIN AGAPH EK KAQARAS KARDIAS KAI SUNEIDHSEWS AGAQHS KAI  
PISTEWS ANUPOKRITOU,  6 hWN TINES ASTOCHSANTES EXETRAPHSAN EIS  
MATAIOLOGIAN  7 QELONTES EINAI NOMODIDASKALOI, MH NOOUNTES MHTE hA  
LEGOUSIN MHTE PERI TINWN DIABEBAIOUNTAI.

Levinsohn 2000:294 [1] defines a sentence as a "single independent  
clause, together with those clauses that are subordinate to it."

Mounce (Past.Epist. WBC) and Marshal (Past.Epist. ICC) read DE in  
1Tim. 1:5 as an adversative which starts a new sentence following an  
unfinished sentence in 1:3-4. Mounce and Marshal understand THS  
PARAGGELIAS in v.5 as in some sense coreferential with PARAGGEILHiS  
in v.3, contra Meyer and Alford.

Levinsohn  2000:112-113  borrowing extensively from Hekert 1996:47-56  
[2] argues that DE when used in either an adversative or a connective  
context indicates development and he departs somewhat from the  
traditional binary analysis of DE as either adversative or  
connective.  "If DE is not adversative marker, yet occurs in contexts  
in which contrast can be discerned, what is it that conveys the  
adversative sense?". Levinsohn argues that the contrast is indicated  
by "at least two opposing pairs of lexical terms" (Longacre 1996:55)  
[3] "which are:
1. perceived as the same in certain respects
2. perceived as different in certain respects
3: compared with respect to one or more of these differences"
Levinsohn:2000 p113 from Mann & Thompson:1987 p8.

Applying this test to 1Tim 1:3-7, identifying with precision the  
point of contrast between the statement in v.5 and what precedes  
isn't all that simple. I am not sure that this passage really passes  
the test as it is defined above. Furthermore it would be interesting  
to know how Levinsohn would demonstrate that DE in v.5 marks a  
development in thought from the preceding context.

Meyer places HS PARAGGELIAS v.5 in contrast with hETERODIDASKALEIN v. 
3 or more precisely TO TELOS THS PARAGGELIAS is contrasted with the  
results of hETERODIDASKALEIN ... EKZHTHSEIS PARECOUSIN (Mounce).

I have difficulty understanding THS PARAGGELIAS in v.5 as in any  
sense coreferential with PARAGGEILHiS in v.3. The article before  
PARAGGELIAS in v.5 could be understood as either exophoric or  
cataphoric. It doesn't need to be anaphoric.

If we want to establish a contrast of some sort between v.5 and  vs. 
3-4 the critical word appears to be TO TELOS, it is the goal or  
result of hETERODIDASKALEIN which is being contrasted with TO TELOS  
THS PARAGGELIAS. In any event, verse five starts a new sentence

Elizabeth Kline

[1] Levinsohn, Stephen Discourse Features of New Testament Greek,2nd Ed.
SIL2000.

[2] Hekert, Jakob A.  "Discourse function of conjoiners in the  
Pastoral Epistles" Dallas:SIL 1996.

[3]Longacre, Robert E. "The Grammar of Discourse"  New York: Plenum  
Press, 2nd edition, 1996



More information about the B-Greek mailing list