Steven R. Lo Vullo doulos at appleisp.net
Sun Sep 23 03:10:13 EDT 2001

on 9/22/01 11:11 PM, Wayne Leman at wayne_leman at sil.org wrote:

> Charles, you have made an important observation about PANTWN ANQRWPWN being
> in the near context of PANTAS ANQRWPOUS of 1 Tim. 2:4. My own sense is that
> if the author of the book had intended PANTAS to directly modify the list of
> authority figures in v. 2, he would have left out ANQRWPWN at the end of v.
> 1. I don't know if we can say with certainty what the relationship is
> between PANTWN ANQRWPWN of v. 1 and the prepositional phrased headed by
> hUPER at the beginning of v. 2, but I do think that we need to take
> seriously the presence of ANQRWPWN before hUPER.

I don'think Charles was implying that PANTWN directly modifies the authority
figures in v. 2. The point is that the author uses specific examples of what
he means by PANTWN ANQRWPWN, which indicates that he has prayer for
individuals in mind and that PANTWN ANQRWPWN therefore must mean "all kinds"
rather than "all without exception." In light of the fact that this prayer
and thanksgiving is not simply of the "God-bless-the-whole-wide-world"
variety, it is hard to take PANTWN as all-inclusive, since it is simply
impossible to pray for every individual under heaven.

In addition, it is hard to see any great significance in the distinction
between PAS with ANQRWPOS and PAS without it. In v. 4 he uses it with, and
in v. 6 without. Does anyone seriously think there is any significant
difference between the two?

> With hUPER, I would be not so eager to consider v. 2 to be in apposition to
> PANTWN ANQRWPWN of v. 1. Instead, I would prefer to view PANTWN ANQRWPWN as
> meaning generic "everyone", and then the hUPER listing to be a more specific
> subset of "everyone."

First, apposition is the most likely construction, since there is no
intervening conjunction and the hUPER of v. 2 most naturally repeats the
hUPER of v. 1. The apposition need not correspond exactly to that to which
it is in apposition, merely clarify. He tells them that he wants them to
pray for all kinds of people, then gives examples in an appositional

> Hence, I would prefer "pray for ... everyone, including kings and all other
> people in authority."

This still does not deal with the obvious problem: "All people" cannot refer
to every single person in the world, since it would be impossible to pray
for every person without exception. And the fact that the author wants
prayer to be made for specific people, rather than simply for a faceless
lump of humanity, is made clear by his mention of specific kinds of people
for which prayer should be made.

> It might not have been expected to pray for the authority figures since those
> in power at that time were not always benevolent, especially with whom those
> to whom Timothy was ministering, so the author wanted to be sure that people
> included the authority figures in their prayers.

I have no doubt that this is true. But it only goes to prove that the author
had in view prayer for specific individuals known to the supplicants. So
again, it is more natural to think of PANTWN ANQRWPWN in terms of "all kinds
of people," certain kinds of which the writer delineates.

Steve Lo Vullo
Madison, WI

More information about the B-Greek mailing list