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

Rod Rogers rngrogers at embarqmail.com
Thu Apr 1 23:05:09 EDT 2010


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yancy Smith" <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>
To: "'greek B-Greek'" <B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] question regarding 1 Tim 6:10


> 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.


Yancy, first of all, I have no sword out. I'm not out to get 
anyone. A lot of people have said (And I'm in agreement) that we 
are open to anything linguists have to offer as long as they are 
honest advances in exegesis. As of yet I have not heard of 
anything of substance.

>
> 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.


Yancy, please pay attention, the original question raised by Ray 
Marion was, "Does anyone agree with my translation of 1St Timothy 
6:10?" His translation was, "For a root of all the evils is the 
love of money". My comments have centered around identifying the 
subject and predicate nominative. So what in the world does what 
Dan Wallace's comments have to do with anything I said? Here is 
what Dan says on page 265:

     (1) “the love of money is a root of all evils,”
      (2) “the love of money is the root of all evils,”
      (3) “the love of money motivates all evils,”
      (4) “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils,”
      (5) “the love of money is the root of all kinds of evils,”
      (6) “the love of money motivates all kinds of evils.”

Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). Greek Grammar Beyond the 
Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (265). Zondervan 
Publishing House and Galaxie Software.

Is Dan Wallace having any problems understanding what the subject 
is. NO! Do Dan Wallace and I agree on the subject prediacte 
nominative construction in 1 Tim 6:10? YES!


>
> 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
>


Just a minute, Yancy, on 3/29/2010 you said "At some point one 
has to
venture out beyond the pin hole view of the Greco-Roman World as 
seen
through the New Testament and read some texts, look at some 
ancient
art, view some ruins and use the to reimagine our texts".

You are the one who brought up the subject not me. Also, how can 
you say, "you didn't tell us how the text tells us what it wants 
us to know"? How plain do I have to tell you, the subject is 
"Love of money" and the predicate nominative is "root". I gave my 
translation on 1 Tim 6:10. Is yours any different? I still 
disagree with Mark and Ray's translation.

rod rogers
bargersville, in









More information about the B-Greek mailing list