[B-Greek] PANTWS in 1 Cor 9:10
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon Jun 1 14:46:44 EDT 2009
On Jun 1, 2009, at 5:23 AM, Emanuel Contac wrote:
> 1 Cor. 9:9-10 says as follows:
> 9 EN GAR TW MWUSEWS NOMW GEGRAPTAI: OU KHMWSEIS BOUN ALOWNTA. MH TWN
> MELEI TW QEW 10 H DI hHMAS PANTWS LEGEI? DI hHMAS GAR EGRAFH OTI
> OFEILEI EP
> ELPIDI ktl.
> I would be curious to know what the value of PANTWS is here. Should
> it be
> 1) completely/entirely
> 2) mostly/par excellence/essentially?
> If we choose the first choice, it appears that Paul is denying
> the "literal" meaning, which has to do with maintaining a humane
> towards animals (e.g. oxen threshing).
> I for one am inclined to take the second view, simply for the fact
> Paul could not have been "spiritualizing" the text by denying its
> meaning. However, I would like to know what other people, more
> in Greek, have to say.
1Cor. 9:9 ἐν γὰρ τῷ Μωϋσέως νόμῳ
γέγραπται· οὐ κημώσεις βοῦν
ἀλοῶντα. μὴ τῶν βοῶν μέλει τῷ θεῷ 10
ἢ δι᾿ ἡμᾶς πάντως λέγει; δι᾿ ἡμᾶς
γὰρ ἐγράφη ὅτι ὀφείλει ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι
ὁ ἀροτριῶν ἀροτριᾶν καὶ ὁ ἀλοῶν
ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι τοῦ μετέχειν.
1COR. 9:9 EN GAR TWi MWUSEWS NOMWi GEGRAPTAI· OU KHMWSEIS BOUN
ALOWNTA. MH TWN BOWN MELEI TWi QEWi 10 H DI᾿ hHMAS PANTWS LEGEI;
DI᾿ hHMAS GAR EGRAFH hOTI OFEILEI EP᾿ ELPIDI hO AROTRIWN AROTRIAN
KAI hO ALOWN EP᾿ ELPIDI TOU METECEIN.
This is mostly a hermeneutical problem. Looking at Fee, Robertson-
Plummer, Thiselton(no greek), it seems that we come to the text
with assumptions about what Paul the Pharisee is likely to do with a
citation from TOU NOMOU. We assume that a "good Pharisee" would NOT
deny the plain sense of TOU NOMOU and that assumption functions as a
control on how we read 1 Cor 9:9-10. Paul's use of the OT in general
and TOU NOMOU in particular is a complex issue and a topic outside the
focus of this forum. Fee's treatment is worth reading, I sent you two
pages off list.
Fee's comment (pages 407-8) "... that does not mean that he [Paul] is
contradicting the meaning of the OT text, or that he is allegorizing,
or that he is arguing from 'lesser to greater'. ... The first part of
the question exists strictly to set up the second part: 'or does it
(the Law) undoubtedly (assuredly, by all means) speak for our
I think Fee is on the right track here, the assumption is that hO
NOMOS is paradigmatic, it has specific teachings that apply directly
to specific situations but also provide a model that is applicable
outside of the specific situation addressed. That is how we should
read H DI᾿ hHMAS PANTWS LEGEI. Fee's "undoubtedly, assuredly, by all
means" probably gives a fair reading of PANTWS in this context.
Having agreed with Fee, I admit that most of this is driven by factors
outside of greek grammar and lexical semantics.
Thiselton comments on his english translation, which is his normal
modus operandi. Fee has footnotes on greek issues.
More information about the B-Greek