[B-Greek] 1 Timothy 4:4-5 -- syntax
Mark Lightman
lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 15 20:18:33 EDT 2010
Doug wrote
<The conditional construal also has the
problem that it leaves open the possibility that things can be rejected if
they are not received with gratitude, as position I don't think Paul wants
to allow.>
συμφημι συμφημι συμφημι (SUMFHMI)
If it does not affect the meaning, I don't give a hoot whether one takes
something as conditional, temporal, casual, casual-temporal, or
conditional-casual, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-historical-pastoral;
scene individable, or poem unlimited. But Doug has show that to take META
EUCARISTIAS LAMBANOMENON as conditional DOES affect the meaning, and he is
correct to reject this.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________
From: Doug Knighton <douglas.knighton at gmail.com>
To: rhutchin at aol.com
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Fri, October 15, 2010 4:07:36 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1 Timothy 4:4-5 -- syntax
Roger, I appreciate your response. You're correct in seeing that the
argument really begins in verse 1, which leads to the declaration of verse
3, with vv 4-5 being a progressive explanatory comment on this verse,
introduced by hOTI (= "the fact is that"). However, I don't think Paul's use
of PAN at the beginning of v. 4 needs to be restricted to food, because he
seems to be using an a fortiori argument now to support his initial
assertion. So the PAN KTISMA encompasses marriage (as representative of all
relationships) and food (as representative of the physical world). He then
makes two assertions about "all of God's creations" that broaden his initial
assertion somewhat.
The first assertion is in the predicate adjective KALON (= perfectly
conceived & executed [as opposed to the moral good conveyed by AGAQOS]). The
second assertion follows KAI and includes v. 5. You say in your arugment
that you will address "the basis for the conditional," but I can't find
anything in what you say that addresses the conditional. It seems to me that
you understand the participle to convey an adverbial temporal idea: "when."
This is where I've finally settled, thanks to some of the other comments on
this post. So I'd render the second half of v. 4 as "nothing is rejected
when it is received with gratitude." The conditional construal also has the
problem that it leaves open the possibility that things can be rejected if
they are not received with gratitude, as position I don't think Paul wants
to allow.
In your final paragraph you seem to understand the prayer at the end of five
as a prayer of thanks. But that would be redundant and would not fit with
the meaning of the word selected for prayer. That word (ENTEUXEWS) indicates
an interview in which someone asks a favor of someone else, a petition. So
the argument of v. 5 seems to be that God's creative gifts are designated as
holy/good in his word and recognized as such when we petition him for them.
This reality then supports (= GAR) the need to receive what he gives us with
gratitude, such a reception validating the goodness (KALON) of the creative
gift.
Again, thanks for your thoughtful response. This and the ones from Barry,
Mark and David, have been truly helpful.
Doug Knighton
-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of rhutchin at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:03 AM
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1 Timothy 4:4-5 -- syntax
I think we need to go back to v3 and before, to capture the sense of the
passage and the basis for the conditional.
Beginning with v1 we read:
...EN hUSTEROIS KAIROIS APOSTHSONTAI TIVES THS PISTEWS...APEXESQAI BRWMATWN
hA hO QEOS EKTISEN EIS METALHMFIN META EUXARISTIAS...
then in v4
hOTI PAN KTISMA QEOU KALON...
As God has created all foods to be received with thanksgiving (v3) we know
that all foods can be eaten. The issue in v4 seems to be whether the
emphasis is (1) that which is created by God is good and not to be refused
on the condition that it be received with thanksgiving or (2) that which is
created by God is good and not to be refused regardless; it is to be
received with thanksgiving.
The argument derives from those who would forbid the eating of certain
foods. Paul's response (v3) is that everything created by God is to be
received (eaten) with thanksgiving. He does not argue initially that it is
good (which may not be significant).
V4-5 now seem to expand on, and strengthen, that which we read in v3. Every
food created by God is good and your translation explains the significance
of being good. The ESV translators seem to be saying that, as God created
all foods to be received with thanksgiving (v3) then all foods must be
received with thanksgiving (v4). So, we have two lines of thought and both
are true.
However, we then read that it is in the giving of thanks that the food is
sanctified (which even your translation says). So, while it is true that
all food is good and should be received with gratitude it is also true that
food can only be made holy by the giving of thanks making the giving of
thanks a necessity and this appears to be what supports the conditional.
Roger Hutchinson
------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:57:35 -0600
From: "Doug Knighton" <douglas.knighton at gmail.com>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: [B-Greek] 1 Timothy 4:4-5 -- syntax
Message-ID: <99F3B6792D1942BBA9556B4FCD79559C at DougKnighton>
I am struggling with the syntax of 1 Timothy 4:4-5. The text reads: PAN
KTISMA QIOU KALON KAI [OUDEN APOBLHTON META EUCARISTIAS LAMBANOMENON]
hAGIAZETAI GAR DIA LOGOU ktl; in particular the portion in brackets.
Most English renderings treat PAN ... KALON as a clause and OUDEN ...
LAMBANOMENON as a separate (conditional) clause, followed by another clause
in verse 5. E.g. the ESV: "Everything created by God is good, and nothing is
to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by
the word of God and prayer."
I don't understand how an imperatival construct is justified between OUDEN &
APOBLHTON, nor do I understand how the present participle of LAMBANW
suggests a condition. Maybe this is just a hermeneutical issue, but I could
use some expertise on understanding the syntax of the sentence.
For what it's worth, it seems more natural to me to hold both KALON and
OUDEN APOBLHTON as predicate adjectives modifying KTISMA. This would mean
that the participle (construed directly with the GAR clause) would also
modify the head noun. So I would render the idea this way: Every creation of
God is perfectly conceived & executed (= KALON), and nothing is thrown away;
[each to be] received with gratitude, for it is made holy by means of the
word of God and prayer.
Doug Knighton
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
---
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