Re: 1Tim.6:9 ὄλεθρον καὶ ἀπώλειαν - sense of differentiation
Posted: August 18th, 2014, 6:27 am
Ultimately, yes they are from the root ὀλ-, but perhaps a closer cognate to ὄλεθρος is ὀλοθρεύειν (+gen.) (ὀλεθρεύειν in the LXX). It may have a flavour of divine, retributive or legal about it, rather than a consequential destruction. Source not extent might be the nuance with this word.Mason Barge wrote:I was interested to see that these are cognates of the same root verb, in plain and augmented flavors. ὄλεθρον is from ὄλλuμι and ἀπώλειαν cognate to ἀπόλλuμι. So, with the dangerous assumption that they follow their cognate verbs, ἂπο- would most likely simply intensify the same meaning. ἀπώλειαν would be a more forceful version with otherwise identical meaning to ὄλεθρον.
Both nouns stretch as far as eternal damnation in the New Testament, and that would surely be supported by the context of the passage.
where it seems to me that θιγγάνειν is an affected / literary (or LXX) sounding word. NB. τὰ πρωτότοκα goes with ὀλοθρεύειν (+acc).Hebrews 11:28 wrote:Πίστει πεποίηκεν τὸ Πάσχα καὶ τὴν πρόσχυσιν τοῦ αἵματος, ἵνα μὴ ὁ ὀλοθρεύων τὰ πρωτότοκα θίγῃ αὐτῶν.
The intensified form of that verse is
Also an LXX context passage, cf. the un-Greek sounding πᾶσα ψυχή. A textual variant in spelling in this verse is ἐξολεθρευθήσεται.Acts 3:23 wrote:Ἔσται δέ, πᾶσα ψυχή, ἥτις ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ τοῦ προφήτου ἐκείνου, ἐξολοθρευθήσεται ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ.
ἀπώλεια might be used of extent. They may also both have a common antonym in σωτηρία, while maybe only ἀπώλεια would have an antonym in ἀσφάλεια. I don't see that being used in a context is enough to dictate antonymy
In this case, I see that while people go on saying among themselves Εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια, all of a sudden, divine destruction ὄλεθρος will come.ὅταν γὰρ λέγωσιν, Εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια, τότε αἰφνίδιος αὐτοῖς ἐφίσταται ὄλεθρος, ὥσπερ ἡ ὠδὶν τῇ ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσῃ, καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐκφύγωσιν.
Following the reasoning that I've set out here on my own terms, I would agree with your conclusion.Mason Barge wrote:Under this theory, the phrase would be a sub-category of a rhetorical pleonasm, since the second would include the first.