[B-Greek] question regarding 1 Tim 6:10

Yancy Smith yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Thu Apr 1 12:58:14 EDT 2010


Rod said: Interesting, "the love of money cannot possibly the root of 100% of all evils" and yet "the linguistic meaning is precisely that." This does not sound like a positive endorsement of linguistics to me.

YWS: when speaking of linguistic meaning, perhaps I should have said the meaning according to the grammar and syntax, the code decoded according to traditional rules, the literal meaning. I didn't mean to cast aspersion on linguistics as a discipline. Remember, I am neither a linguist nor the son of one. Touché, you got me.

Rod said: Since we are dealing with a predicate nominative construction and 
FILARGURIA is articular and hRIZA is not, hRIZA is the unknown 
and FILARGURIA the known, FILARGURIA is only a subset of hRIZA, 
how much easier could this sentence be to translate? I see no 
need to visit a museum, look at ancient paintings or marble 
statues. The text tells us what it wants us to know and Greek 
Grammar shows us how to exegete the text.

YWS: On page 265 of my much used edition of Wallace we have an illustration of the weakness of the approach of Wallace. He says that "This is a difficult text to translate" and lists 6 options. He even admits, "Grammatically it would be difficult to take RIZA as indefinite, since this is the least attested meaning for the anarthrous pre-verbal PN in the NT." Then he goes on to give his understanding of the "idea." Which is problematic, because it assumes that there is skewing between Paul's idea and Paul's text. The literal meaning does not give Paul's idea. We can talk about the grammar till we are blue in the face and it won't literally give us Paul's idea. Pure and simple. That is why Wallace gives us his understanding of Paul's idea, which is quite distinct from Paul's literal (or linguistic) meaning. If the assumption seems to be that the code must result in a logically true statement we are in tall cotton. But if we take a breath and accept that Paul can exaggerate like other speakers and writers of Hellenistic Greek and understand that his audience even expects it from time to time, all is peace and calm, besides being intelligible. 

Rod said: I see no 
need to visit a museum, look at ancient paintings or marble 
statues. The text tells us what it wants us to know and Greek 
Grammar shows us how to exegete the text.

YWS: I don't either, but you didn't tell us how the text tells us what it wants us to know. You just talked about what you don't see the need, things that are N/A in this discussion. In rhetoric we might call this move an ad hominem or a reductio ad absurdum. But in this case the visual imagery as such is a simple metaphor RIZA. So, perhaps your reference to museums and what not is an ANTIPERISPASMOS: a red herring or rubber chicken?

Yancy

-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Rod Rogers
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 10:47 AM
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] question regarding 1 Tim 6:10


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>
To: "greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] question regarding 1 Tim 6:10

<CUT>

 Mark is correct to infer that Paul's meaning cannot possibly be 
that the love of money is actually the root of 100% all evils, 
despite the fact that the linguistic meaning is precisely that. 
But we must allow Paul the freedom we give ourselves, to quote 
and shape and exaggerate and skew linguistic and speaker meaning.
<CUT>

My comments:
Interesting, "the love of money cannot possibly the root of 100% 
of all evils" and yet "the linguistic meaning is precisely that."
This does not sound like a positive endorsement of linguistics to 
me. May I suggest another approach. Pick up a good Greek Grammar, 
like Dan Wallace's GGBB and look up Predicate Nominatives 
starting on page 40.

Since we are dealing with a predicate nominative construction and 
FILARGURIA is articular and hRIZA is not, hRIZA is the unknown 
and FILARGURIA the known, FILARGURIA is only a subset of hRIZA, 
how much easier could this sentence be to translate? I see no 
need to visit a museum, look at ancient paintings or marble 
statues. The text tells us what it wants us to know and Greek 
Grammar shows us how to exegete the text.

rod rogers
bargersville, in



II. Predicate Nominative
A. Definition
The predicate nominative (PN) is approximately the same as the 
subject (S) and is joined to it by an equative verb, whether 
stated or implied. The usage is very common. The equation of S 
and PN does not necessarily or even normally imply complete 
correspondence (e.g., as in the interchangeability of A=B, B=A in 
a mathematical formula). Rather, the PN normally describes a 
larger category (or state) to which the S belongs. It is 
important to keep in mind, however, that there are two distinct 
types of S-PN constructions; these will be discussed below.
B. Amplification
1. The Kinds of Verbs Used
The verbs used for this “equation” are, most frequently, εἰμί, 
γίνομαι, and ὑπάρχω. In addition, the passives of some transitive 
verbs can also be used: e.g., καλέω (φίλος θεοῦ ἐκλήθη [“he was 
called the friend of God”] in Jas 2:23), εὑρίσκω (εὑρέθημεν καὶ 
αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί [“we ourselves were even found to be sinners”] 
Gal 2:17), etc.
2. Translation of Subject-Predicate Nominative Clauses
English translation requires that the S be translated first. Such 
is
41
not the case in Greek. In John 1:1, for example, θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος 
should be translated “the Word was God” rather than “God was the 
Word.” But since Greek word order is far more flexible than 
English, this creates a problem: How do we distinguish S from PN 
if word order is not a clear guide? The following section will 
offer a detailed solution.
3. The Semantics and Exegetical Significance of the 
Subject-Predicate Nominative Construction
a. Two Kinds of Semantic Relationships
The significance of the S-PN construction affects more than mere 
translation precisely because S and PN do not normally involve 
total interchangeability. The usual relationship between the two 
is that the predicate nominative describes the class to which the 
subject belongs. This is known as a subset proposition (where S 
is a subset of PN). Thus the meaning of “the Word was flesh” is 
not the same as “flesh was the Word,” because flesh is broader 
than “the Word.” “The word of the cross is foolishness” (1 Cor 
1:18) does not mean “foolishness is the word of the cross,” for 
there are other kinds of foolishness. “God is love” is not the 
same as “love is God.” It can thus be seen from these examples 
that “is” does not necessarily mean “equals.”
But there is another, less frequent semantic relationship between 
S and PN. Sometimes called a convertible proposition, this 
construction indicates an identical exchange. That is to say, 
both nouns have an identical referent. The mathematical formulas 
of A=B, B=A are applicable in such instances. A statement such as 
“Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player in NBA history” 
means the same thing as “the greatest player in NBA history is 
Michael Jordan.” There is complete interchange between the two.
42
These two kinds of relationships are graphically represented in 
the chart below.
Chart 4
Semantic Relation of Subject and Predicate Nominative
Thus in examining S-PN clauses, two fundamental questions need to 
be answered: (1) How can we distinguish between S and PN since 
word order is not an infallible guide? and (2) what is the 
semantic relationship between the two: Is the S a particular 
within the larger class of the PN, or is it interchangeable with 
the PN?
b. How to Distinguish Subject from Predicate Nominative
The general principle for distinguishing S from PN is that the S 
is the known entity. This principle is valid for both kinds of 
S-PN constructions. In Greek equative clauses, the known entity
43
(S) will be distinguished from the PN in one of three ways 
(discussed below).
The significance of the following three rules is that when only 
one nominative substantive has such a grammatical “tag,” the 
semantic relationship will be that of particular (subject) to 
class (predicate nominative). That is, the construction will be a 
subset proposition.
1) The subject will be a pronoun, whether stated or implied in 
the verb.
2) The subject will be articular.
3) The subject will be a proper name.

                              c. The “Pecking” Order
What if both S and PN have one of these three tags? Which is the 
S? And what is the semantic relationship? First, when both 
substantives bear such grammatical tags, the “pecking” order is 
as follows:
1) The pronoun has greatest priority: It will be the S regardless 
of what grammatical tag the other substantive has.
2) Articular nouns and proper names seem to have equal priority. 
In instances where one substantive is articular and the other is 
a proper name (or where both are articular), word order may be 
the determining factor.

d. The Semantic Relationship: Convertible Proposition
Second, the semantic relationship in such instances is that of a 
convertible proposition. That is to say, when both substantives 
meet one of the three qualifications for S, then they become 
interchangeable. (See examples in the preceding section.)

Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). Greek Grammar Beyond the 
Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (40). Zondervan 
Publishing House and Galaxie Software.


---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek




More information about the B-Greek mailing list