From: Michael McCoy (MMccoy7872@cs.com)
Date: Thu Dec 09 1999 - 11:18:18 EST
On 12/05/99, "Carlton Winbery <winberyc@speedgate.net>" wrote:
> Michael Luper wrote;
>
> >I am working through Romans for a class I am teaching next semester. I have
> >come across an issue that has frequently created questions in my mind and I
> >thought I would throw it out to those on the list in the hopes that I might
> >gain some clarity.
> >
> >In many of the Greek Grammars that I have used over the years, GAR is
> >presented as a "coordinating conjunction" which is defined as one that
> >connects units of equal structure, as opposed to other conjunctions such as
> >hINA that are classified as "subordinating conjunctions" which are defined
> >as conjunctions that connect dependent clauses to main clauses. Richard
> >Young, in his Grammar, does address the problem of GAR functioning in both
> >roles as a coordinating conjunction "to link independent units" and as a
> >subordinating conjunction "to introduce dependent clauses." His brief
> >explanation notwithstanding (pp. 182), it seems to me that often the
> >determination of a clause in which GAR is used as being dependent or
> >independent is a matter of opinion on how dependent or independent one
> >thinks the following thought actually is, rather than on strict grammatical
> >rules or indicators in the text.
> >
> >Let me illustrate the point I am trying to make. In Rom. 1:16-17 there are
> >three uses of GAR (typically understood to be used as coordinating
> >conjunctions) and one use of KATHWS (understood to be a subordinating
> >conjunction). How is one to know that in Paul's mind the three clauses
> >introduced by GAR are any more independent than the clause introduced by
> >KATHWS? Consider the three statements introduced by GAR:
> > "For (GAR) I am not ashamed of the gospel"
> > "For (GAR) it is the power of God for salvation"
> > "For (GAR) in it the righteousness of God is revealed"
> >
> >These statements seem every bit as dependent on something written previously
> >as the statement
> > "as (KATHWS) it is written"
> >
>
> One of the most interesting treatments of GAR that I know is the short
> discussion by Zerwick and Smith, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples,
> paragraphs 472-477. I agree with Zerwick that the vast majority of the NT
> egs. of GAR are causal or explanatory. These I take as subordinating. Those
> that are not clearly causal are very difficult and require several
> different explanations. The most difficult are those that he sees as
> followed by a parenthetical statement # 477. My approach is to treat all
> instances as causal that I cannot find compelling evidence in the contex to
> explain some other way.
>
> >Thinking that a better grasp of English grammar on this matter might shed
> >some light, I went back to a basic English Grammar book and found that "for"
> >was understood to be a coordinating conjunction and was used in the
> >following sentence:
> > "Jack went to bed early, 'for' he was very tired."
> >
> >Then, I looked up subordinating conjunctions and found the following
> >sentence:
> > "Gerald read the book 'because' I recommended it."
> >
> >In both of these sentences it would appear that "for" and "because" are
> >serving the same function, to introduce a cause or reason, and yet they are
> >classified differently.
> >
> >Perhaps my problem with GAR goes back to a faulty training in English
> >grammar, but if someone could shed some light on this matter I would
> >appreciate it.
> >
> I would suggest that perhaps we flee to the English too quickly. The real
> question may well be what the Greek meant to the original readers. Would it
> carry causal implications for them?
>
> Zerwick suggest that sometimes GAR seems to substitute for DE and probably
> should not be translated.
>
>
> Dr. Carlton L. Winbery
> Foggleman Professor of Religion
> Louisiana College
> winbery@speedgate.net
> winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
> Ph. 1 318 448 6103 hm
> Ph. 1 318 487 7241 off
Maybe I am displaying complete ignorance here, so, it will be an
opportunity for me to learn. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish
between cause and reason in our English minds. In their treatment of GAR,
Dana and Mantey say nothing about the use of GAR to show cause (sec. 213),
but it used to show ground or reason, to explain, or for emphasis. If a
N.T. writer intended to show cause, would he not have used OTI rather than
GAR? Does GAR not simply serve as a basis for a previous statement as if
the writer were supporting his argument that he is making? Could it be
that the repetitive uses of GAR, in the Romans example, are used as a basis
for the same thing? These are questions I have based upon what I have
read.
Michael McCoy
Pastor, Little Elm Missionary Baptist Church
Farmington, AR
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:48 EDT