[b-greek] Re: EPEI in Rom 3.6 and GAR

From: Iver Larsen (alice-iver_larsen@wycliffe.org)
Date: Wed Dec 13 2000 - 03:41:10 EST


> >>On 12/10/00 8:05 PM, Carl W. Conrad wrote (in response to Stephen
> >>LoVullo's follow-up question to my assertion to which Iver Larsen takes
> >>exception):
> >>
> >>Stephen: Am I correct to assume that it would be a coordinating explanatory
> >>conjunction in the above case?
> >
> >Yes, and it seems to me that the GAR is frequently used ...
> >to add a rhetorical question:

A rhetorical question can have many different functions or purposes, and it
doesn't make sense to me that GAR would "add a rhetorical question." That is a
structural observation, not a discourse function.

What I am trying to communicate is that modern linguistics with its emphasis on
discourse considerations has produced a more adequate description of the
function of GAR as a discourse particle than the out-of-date standard
definitions you may find in Greek grammar books and lexicons.

> >
> >1 Cor 2:10 ... TO GAR PNEUMA PANTA ERAUNA, KAI TA BAQH TOU QEOU; 11 TIS GAR
> >OIDEN ANQRWPWN TA TOU ANQRWPOU EI MH TO PNEUMA TOU ANQRWPOU TO EN AUTOU?

According to the alternative discourse description the GAR in 10b explains how
"God through the Spirit revealed to us" in 10a. The Spirit can reveal such
things because "it searches even the depth of God." The GAR in 11 then goes on
to comment on the "the Spirit of God searching the depth of God" saying that
even as the spirit of man searches/knows the depth of man so does the Spirit of
God search/know the depth of God. The function of GAR as a discourse particle is
to pick up some idea from the preceding context and then elaborate, comment on,
explain it further. English does not have anything in its grammar that
corresponds exaxtly to this function, although "for" is the closest. In many
cases, then, GAR cannot be translated by a particular word in English, but an
understanding of the function of GAR helps a lot in understanding the discourse
flow of the text. The rhetorical question in the quote above functions to
emphasize what should be obvious or already known to the reader. There is no
direct correlation between the use of GAR and the use of a rhetorical question.

> >
> >1 Cor 2:15 hO DE PNEUMATIKOS ANAKRINEI [TA] PANTA, AUTOS DE hUP' OUDENOS
> >ANAKRINETAI. 16 TIS GAR EGNW NOUN KURIOU, hOS SUMBIBASEI AUTON?

Here the GAR connects the statement "the spiritual person discerns all things"
with the explanatory comment which includes the whole of verse 16, not just 16a
as quoted above. The connection is that "although no one - in the OT era - knew
the mind of God, we who have the Spirit of God do have the mind of Christ" (my
summary of verse 16) and that explains why such spiritual people have a
spiritual discernment by the Spirit of Christ.
>
> I think that these rhetorical questions are in fact very much like that in
> Romans 3:6 (MH GENOITO: EPEI PWS KRINEI hO QEOS TON KOSMON?) and that Paul
> COULD just as well have written MH GENOITO: PWS GAR KRINEI hO QEOS TON
> KOSMON?

But the fact remains that Paul never did write PWS GAR. He used GAR 398 times
and PWS 27 times, but never together. In the whole NT (UBS text) GAR occurs 1041
times and PWS 117, but only once do the two occur together - somewhat by
coincidence, and that is in Acts 8:31. Philip has just asked the Ethiopian
whether he understood what he was reading. The expected answer is no, and the
Ethiopian knows that Philip expects him not to be able to understand it. This
implied "no" is then explained - indicated by GAR - through another question
"How can I unless someone guides me?" To translate this GAR by "then" as some
interlinear versions do would be a misunderstanding. Even the KJV does not
translate GAR here, and rightly so. The meaning is carried in English by
context.

> whether or not it is etymologically valid, I have come to understand the
> way GAR works most adequately by seeing it as derivative from an original
> enclitic, GE that follows upon a preceding word to underscore its
> importance + an ARA which itself has a broad range of meanings, one
> significant one being to mark a conclusion being drawn (= "then," "in that
> case"), the combination yielding the linkage, "Yes indeed, because ..." And
> particularly when GAR follows upon an interrogative word (such as TIS in 1
> Cor 2:11 or TIS in 1 Cor 2:15), its sense seems to me to be "in that case"
> or "if that's the case." And that's why I think Paul might just as well
> have written MH GENOITO; PWS GAR KRINEI hO QEOS TON KOSMON?

ARA and GE do occur together in the NT four times. But the order is invariably
ARA+GE. The hypothesis that GAR should be a contraction of GE+ARA does not have
any linguistic basis (why would the final "a" be dropped, if that was the
case?), and therefore cannot be used to assist in deriving or describing the
meaning or function of GAR.

Since GAR is a discourse particle (sentence connector), the most fruitful way to
analyze its function is by discourse analysis.

Sincerely,
Iver Larsen


---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:36:44 EDT