OU PANTWS in 1 Cor 5:10

[charis humin]

Jaltus (or any Greek fiends out there):

I have a question regard 1 Corinthians 5:9-10, specifically in regards to translating ou pantwV. Every modern translation I’ve checked renders it as something to the effect of “not at all meaning” or “I was not talking about.” I’ve looked in BDAG and nothing in either of these resources justifies this sense, at least strictly speaking. Wallace (GGBB) wasn’t very helpful for me, either.

Now, I concede that Paul’s question in verse twelve, “for what is it to me to judge those on the outside?” probably is what lends weight to the idea that he was clarifying a misunderstanding on the part of the Corinthians, rather than expanding on his original letter. But I hesitate only because verse 11 begins, “but now” which seems to create a contrast with verse 10.

Your input appreciated

[Jaltus]

First, you will notice that your Greek text is edited. THe final sigma is put in by using "V" for some reason. Edit your post in order to see what I mean.

Second, pantwV is an adverb denoting manner of some sort. Thus it generally carries the idea of affirmation: "by all means," or "in all ways." Therefore when coupled with a negation, it becomes "by no means" or "in no way."

The contrast of verse 11 is a clarifying remark, hence the use of de instead of alla. He is trying to put some "semantic space" between the two phrases, yet at the same time show that there is a logical connection. For the same idea, see Hebrews 2:8 which uses the nun de construction to put some space between the OT quotation and the argument even though they are linked in terms of the thought process.

[charis humin]

Jaltus,

Thank you for your reply! Now, I am just about on board with you all the way. But, so that I understand, let me go step by step through this:

-without view of the larger context, ou pantwV could either be in reference to egraya or sunanamignusqai, so:

1)I wrote to you not at all meaning

-or-

2)You are not at all (in no way) to mix in/associate with...

-yet as you say the nun de that begins v.11 sets up a clarification, a sense that NASB flushes out by translating it "but actually I wrote not to associate with anyone called a brother" rather than merely the literal "but now." (By the way, does not the fact that the egraya in v.11 in aorist lend support to your idea that nun de is not simply about setting up a temporal contrast, or am I grasping?)

-and then of course we have Paul's questions in verse 12, which especially have the potential to cause headaches if we accept option 2.

All these lends support to ou pantwV being linked to "I wrote"

How's that?

[charis humin]

this just occurred to me...

because sunanamignusqai is an infinitive wouldn't that have required the negative particlemh instead of ou and therefore option 1 on syntax alone is the only viable one? No? Yes?

[Jaltus]

Yes.

[charis humin]

thx