GAR (previously 1JN 1:4)

boyd at boyd at
Mon Mar 18 17:12:52 EST 2002

Moon wrote:
<<As my previous post indicates, I have no problem with 4.8 even 
though I think here that GAR connects the whole 4.8 to 4.7b. You 
said this about GAR previously. If the GAR clause explains what 
was stated in the previous sentence, we should say that the GAR 
clause "deveops or explains the idea of the whole sentence". Quite 
a long time ago, we talked about what the negative particle OU 
negates. You said OU negates a particular constituent
of the sentence. I said that OU negates the "focused proposition", 
the proposition that focuses a particular constituent. You eventually 
agreed with me, because we were talking about the same thing. 
How about GAR? Shouldn't GAR also develops or explains the 
focused proposition of the previous sentence? For a proposition 
always has the focus.>>

Moon, I confess that I couldn't give you a good definition for 
"focused proposition," but it seems to me that GAR can be used to 
develop or explain any part of the foregoing context, depending on 
the writer's desire.  Levinsohn says, "For example, GAR contrains 
the reader to interpret the material it introduces as _strengthening_ 
an assertion or assumption that has been presented in or implied 
by the immediate context."(1)  

To limit GAR to developing only "the focused proposition of the 
previous sentence" seems too restrictive of its usage.  

You'll have to explain your understanding of "focused proposition.  
For example, what is the "focused proposition" of the long 
sentence comprising Philippians 1:3-8?  In Phil. 1:8 (MARTUS 
SPLAGCNOIS CRISTOU IHSOU), the GAR introduces a further 
explanation of the phrase DIA TO ECEIN ME EN THi KARDIAi 
hUMAS from v. 7.  Is that phrase the "focused proposition" of the 

Jonathan Boyd
Huxley, IA

(1) Stephen Levinsohn, _Discourse Features of New Testament 
Greek, 2d ed. (Dallas: SIL International, 2000), 69.

More information about the B-Greek mailing list