[B-Greek] TI in 1 Cor 3:5
Steve Runge
srunge at logos.com
Thu Jan 31 16:11:05 EST 2008
3:5 ?? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ??' ?? ??????????? ??? ?????? ?? ? ?????? ??????
3:5 TI OUN ESTIN APOLLWS TI DE ESTIN PAULOS DIAKONOI DI hWN EPISTEUSATE KAI hEKASTWi hWS hO KURIOS EDWKEN
Ian,
I take the two TI references as rhetorical interrogatives, used to create anticipation of the answer to both questions in the last part of the verse: DIAKONOI DI hWN EPISTEUSATE KAI hEKASTWi hWS hO KURIOS EDWKEN.
The questions serve to draw more attention to the information in the answer than would have been the case in skipping over them. The answers then become the basis for analysis of what role each played, highlighting that God was the one giving the growth (v. 6). The presence of ALLA in v. 6 suggests reading the first two statements as counter points, and the statement about God as the point. However, there is no MEN at the beginning of v. 6, leaving this counter point-point relation implicit.
Paul could have more simply stated that 'We are ministers through whom...', but this would not have carried nearly the force that results from the rhetorical questions.
The same kind of cataphoric (i.e. forward-pointing) use of interrogatives is found elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, where Paul asks a question to pique interest, and then answers it straight away (marked by **).
2:11 ??? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ???????? **?? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ????
2:11 TIS GAR OIDEN ANQRWPWN TA TOU ANQRWPOU **EI MH TO PNEUMA TOU ANQRWPOU TO EN AUTWi hOUTWS KAI TA TOU QEOU OUDEIS EGNWKEN EI MH TO PNEUMA TOU QEOU
He could have much more simply stated that the things of a person are known by the person's spirit. Using the rhetorical question adds a lot more zing to the proposition, highlighting the most important element of his point.
10:19 ?? ??? ???? **??? ??????????? ?? ????? ? ??? ??????? ?? ?????
10:19 TI OUN FHMI **hOTI EIDWLOQUTON TI ESTIN H hOTI EIDWLON TI ESTIN
This answer also contains a counter point-point strategy, with two counter points and then a point following ALLA.
He could have skipped the question all together without affecting the propositional content, just the punch that it was delivered with.
14:26 ?? ??? ????? ??????? **???? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ?????????? ???? ??????? ???? ????????? ???? ????? ???? ????????? ???????
14:26 TI OUN ESTIN ADELFOI **hOTAN SUNERCHSQE hEKASTOS YALMON ECEI DIDACHN ECEI APOKALUYIN ECEI GLWSSAN ECEI hERMHNEIAN ECEI PANTA PROS OIKODOMHN GINESQW
Here the answer to the interrogative is given in the balance of the verse beginning with hOTAN. Here again the question could have been eliminated, it simply functions to pique interest.
I would advocate taking the pronouns in 3:5 as interrogatives.
I am nearly ready to release a Greek NT database that annotates things like forward-pointing references, counter point-point relationships, along with about 20 other concepts. It should be out in the next few months.
There is a paper describing the rhetorical use of forward-pointing pronouns in Luke, mainly focusing on demonstratives but interrogatives are discussed. The full text is available at:
http://www.logos.com/media/academic/runge/cataphoric_pronouns.pdf
Steven Runge, DLitt (Biblical Languages)
Scholar-in-Residence
Logos Research Systems, Inc.
http://www.logos.com/academic/bio/runge
-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Ian Scott
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:28 PM
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [B-Greek] TI in 1 Cor 3:5
Hi folks,
I'm working through 1 Cor 3 with a class and it occurred to me that there is an ambiguity in the opening TI of 3:5 that is not usually recognized (at least not in the literature I'm familiar with). It's usually translated (and accented) as an interrogative pronoun, "what?" But could it be a simple indefinite pronoun, "something?" In that case we would take TI as the predicate of the clause, rather than the interrogative subject. The resulting translation would be "Is Paul, then, something (i.e., significant)?" I suspect that this is not usually entertained because TI at the opening of a question is usually interrogative, but is there any reason it could not simply be indefinite? In favor of that reading I notice that Paul's statement in 3:7 seems like a direct answer to the question of 3:5 - - "neither the planter nor the waterer is anything (ESTIN TI) . . ."
Cheers,
Ian
Ian W. Scott, Ph.D. (McMaster)
Assistant Professor of New Testament
Tyndale Seminary
Toronto, Canada
email: iscott at tyndale.ca
url: http://www.ian-w-scott.com ( http://www.ian-w-scott.com/ ) ===================================
Implicit Epistemology in the Letters of Paul: Story, Experience, and the Spirit (WUNT II/205; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). ( http://www.tyndale.ca/~iscott/main/viewpage.php?pid=67 ) ===================================
The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha
http://www.purl.org/net/ocp
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list