infinitive -> finite verb

c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at
Fri May 24 15:11:46 EDT 2002

on 5/24/02 12:51 AM, hefin jones wrote:

> In that article Koestenberger
> seems to argue that the two infinitives are to be taken as two separate
> activities, both of which are viewed similarily and both prohibited by Paul.
> What do people think? What evidence is there to posit that the OUDE is
> explicative? How would one respond to Koestenberger's claim?

Greetings Hefin,

Actually,  *Koestenberger's main thesis is that both constituents joined by
OUDE are either viewed positively or negatively. This is a response to P.B.
Payne's study of this. Koestenberger does however (see page 90) address the
issue of the second constituent, following OUDE being adverbial (or

Koestenberger's argument is impressive but even more impressive is the way
he presents the evidence. Just a hour spend looking through this evidence,
which is presented separately from his argument, is enough to blow away most
of the obfuscation which surrounds this question.

Iver's most recent post in this thread looks like what one would expect from
a member of the Paul Jewett school of Pauline Studies. Thomas Schreiner*
(see page 107) has some kind words for Jewett and the proceeds to disagree
with him. What completely undermines this position is the way Paul grounds
his argument in 1 Tim 2. Paul builds the argument on the same foundation he
uses in Romans 5, Genesis 1-3.

This has all been said before many times so why belabor it.

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

* 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