[B-Greek] 1Co11:17 TOUTO DE PARAGGELLWN

Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Sat Sep 5 08:27:29 EDT 2009


Elizabeth,

1 Cor 11:2 EPAINW DE hUMAS hOTI PANTA MOU MEMNHSQE KAI, KAQWS PAREDWKA hUMIN, TAS PARADOSEIS KATECETE. 3 QELW DE hUMAS EIDENAI hOTI PANTOS ANDROS hH KEFALH hO CRISTOS ESTIN, KEFALH DE GUNAIKOS hO ANHR, KEFALH DE TOU CRISTOU hO QEOS. 

1 Cor 11:17 TOUTO DE PARAGGELLWN OUK EPAINW hOTI OUK EIS TO KREISSON ALLA EIS TO hHSSON SUNERCESQE.  

The generativists studying information structure have found an interesting thing: contrast is not so much part of the construction, but the context. This is not unlike the issue of "senses" of the genitive, most of which are derived from the context than the morph. In this context, I think that TOUTO receives marked focus primarily because of its cataphoric function, not so much based on contrast with the preceding context. There is indeed a change in topic, but it is not a sharp one.

If we look as what is accomplished by v. 2, it is not the introduction of a new topic. The issue of headship is not raised until v. 3 with what Porter calls a catenative construction. I understand EPAINW in v. 2 as a meta-comment, what the form critics would call a disclosure formula. Paul essentially affirms them for doing something that they are not really doing well. He has taught them a number of things, and they have drifted away from them. This is the basic problem with the Eucharist discussion introduced in v. 17 ff. Verse 2 is a set up for v. 17. He praises them for something that he is going to call them to sharpen, viz. holding fast to what he has taught rather than allowing practices to be so heavily influenced by their culture.

The contrast in the passage lies primarily in the positive-negative relationship between the two occurrences of EPAINW. I do not see the headship discussion relating particularly closely with "coming together." Verses 2 and 17a seem to be operating at a macro level, in that they could be removed from the discourse without significantly harming the core arguments that follow. If Paul had simply begun QELW DE hUMAS EIDENAI... Or OUK EIS TO KREISSON ALLA EIS TO hHSSON SUNERCESQE..., the comments that follow would be completely understandable. What would suffer is the transition between the pericopes. Removing these introductions would make for very abrupt transitions. Praising someone for something that you are going to correct them about couches things quite differently than beginning by telling them they are doing a lousy job and then elaborating on exactly how.

I think that the majority of contrast present in the context resides in the macro-level introductions, not so much in some inherent contrast of the content that follows. He has good news and bad news. The two do not really relate to one another, but good and bad do contrast.

HTH, back to historical presents.

Steve Runge


-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Kline
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:19 PM
To: greek B-Greek
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1Co11:17 TOUTO DE PARAGGELLWN


1Cor. 11:17 Τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλων οὐκ
ἐπαινῶ ὅτι οὐκ εἰς τὸ κρεῖσσον
ἀλλὰ εἰς τὸ ἧσσον συνέρχεσθε.
.
1COR. 11:17 TOUTO DE PARAGGELLWN OUK EPAINW hOTI OUK EIS TO KREISSON ALLA EIS TO hHSSON SUNERCESQE.
.
The clause initial TOUTO ...  OUK EPAINW hOTI ... suggests contrastive focus which raises the question where in the preceding discourse was he EPAINWV his addressees or more specifically to what point in the discourse should we look to draw the contrast?
.
Elizabeth Kline




---
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