infinitive -> finite verb

c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Mon May 20 17:03:38 EDT 2002


on 5/20/02 5:30 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:

>> 
>> 1TIM. 2:12 DIDASKEIN DE GUNAIKI OUK EPITREPW OUDE AUQENTEIN ANDROS, ALL'
>> EINAI EN hHSUCIAi.

> 
> In my understanding of
> Greek word order, it is highly significant that DIDASKEIN is in first
> position and is followed by DE. The DE indicates the contrast to the verbs
> in the preceding sentence: GUNH EN hHSUCIA MANQANETW EN PASHi hUPOTAGHi.

Thanks Iver, this is a valuable insight. I have some other questions.

1TIM. 2:8 BOULOMAI OUN PROSEUCESQAI TOUS ANDRAS EN PANTI TOPWi EPAIRONTAS
hOSIOUS CEIRAS CWRIS ORGHS KAI DIALOGISMOU.  9 hWSAUTWS [KAI] GUNAIKAS EN
KATASTOLHi KOSMIWi META AIDOUS KAI SWFROSUNHS KOSMEIN hEAUTAS, MH EN
PLEGMASIN KAI CRUSIWi H MARGARITAIS H hIMATISMWi POLUTELEI,  10 ALL' hO
PREPEI GUNAIXIN EPAGGELLOMENAIS QEOSEBEIAN, DI' ERGWN AGAQWN.  11 GUNH EN
hHSUCIAi MANQANETW EN PASHi hUPOTAGHi:  12 DIDASKEIN DE GUNAIKI OUK EPITREPW
OUDE AUQENTEIN ANDROS, ALL' EINAI EN hHSUCIAi.

There are at least three related issues I am exploring here; Topic, Focus
and Point of Departure, as these terms are used in text linguistics. Let's
look at verse 11. 

1Tim 2:11 GUNH EN hHSUCIAi MANQANETW EN PASHi hUPOTAGHi

GUNH is clause initial. It links what follows thematically to verses 9-10.
Does that make it a Point of Departure? Is it the Topic of its clause? The
Focus? 

1Tim 2:12 DIDASKEIN DE GUNAIKI OUK EPITREPW OUDE AUQENTEIN ANDROS, ALL'
EINAI EN hHSUCIAi. 

DIDASKEIN ties into a concept (DIDACH) introduced by MANQANETW in verse 11.
Does that make it a Point of Departure? Levinshon* notes that a concept may
be introduced in the comment of one clause to be taken up in the next clause
as the Point of Departure. Looks like that is what we have here. MANQANETW
introduces the concept DIDACH in the comment which is picked up in the next
clause by DIDASKEIN (clause initial position).

What about DIDASKEIN  as Topic or Focus?

One question  lingers after we identify the pragmatic function of DIDASKEIN.
What then is the pragmatic function of AUQENTEIN? Does it share the
pragmatic status of DIDASKEIN by virtue of being linked to it by OUDE?

This last question is of central importance for Andreas Kostenberger's
argument**.  But Kostenberger does not address pragmatic function in his
analysis of this text.

--  
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

*See page 23, Levinsohn, Stephen Discourse Features of New Testament
Greek,2nd Ed.
 SIL2000

**Women in the Church -- A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 edited by
Andreas Kostenberger, Thomas Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin Baker, 1995





More information about the B-Greek mailing list