[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #815
b-greek-digest Monday, 7 August 1995 Volume 01 : Number 815
In this issue:
Faith of God (fwd)
Re: Not a Science
Re: Phil 1:7
Re: Phil 1:7
Subjunctive present durative?
Craig's question on "eis"
Re: Not a Science
Re: Subjunctive present durative?
Re: Fwd: John 1:1c
Re: Titus 2:13, 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 95 16:46:17 EDT
Subject: Faith of God (fwd)
The following message was intended for the entire list (and forwarded
with permission):
Eric Weiss wrote:
> From eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov Mon Aug 7 12:43:24 1995
> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 95 12:32:26 -24000
> Message-Id: <vines.O1I8+J6Y7kb@vines12.acf.dhhs.gov>
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> To: <scc@reston.icl.com>
> From: "Eric Weiss" <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
> Subject: Faith of God
>
> "Faith in God" vs. 'Faith of God"
>
> It seems to me that to translate the phrase as "faith of God" (i.e., the
> faith that God has--subjective genitive, I believe) would by its nature be
> incorrect. Taking Hebrews 11:1 as a kind of definition of faith would rule
> out God from having or needing to have faith, since there is nothing He only
> hopes for and nothing He does not see. Hence one cannot speak of God's
> faith, but only of faith toward God. (One can, though, speak of God's
> faithfulness.)
Yes, and as far as I'm aware, most of the arguments in favor of the
subjective genitive understand PISTIS to mean "faithfulness."
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 16:12:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Not a Science
At 3:20 AM 8/7/95, Craig Martin wrote:
>Friends,
>One thing I have learned in the 25 years I have been studying the Bible
>(with the inevitabe causual interest in Greek) is that this is not a
>science. Most folk unfamiliar with the ancient languages will stand silent
>before those "in the know", and just assume that they who know Heb/Gk will
>settle every issue. There is the misconception that this is like algebra or
>calc, where you can translate the text word for word and come out with the
>truth. Yet in reading many of the writings of respected experts, I find
>there is not a lot of agreement when discussing some specfic passages. An
>example:
Well, certainly it is a mistake to assume that anyone holds authority that
in any and all cases is deservedly undisputable. On the other hand, one
does develop a sense of respect for the opinions of those who have
consistently, and more often than not, been right. And certainly the
opinion that can be backed up by reasoning should bear more weight than one
that can't.
I wouldn't say that translation is a "science" but rather that it is a
"skill"--what Aristotle calls an EMPEIRIA or even a combination of TEXNH
and EMPEIRIA. The TEXNH is a matter of knowing the grammar (morphology AND
syntax) and the vocabulary. The vocabulary or phrasing is partly a matter
of assimilation of common words and collocations, partly a matter of having
traversed a given terrain back and forth sufficiently over a number of
years to know the idioms and anticipate the rises and falls of the terrain
traversed. Neverthelss, in dealing with a language that nobody now alive
learned as a child the way that one learns one's native language, there are
bound to be gaps, some larger and others smaller, in the most accomplished
scholar's linguistic expertise. The lexicons and grammars are the
cumulative wisdom of generations of scholars, but an accumulation of 1 + 1
+ 1 + 1 etc, etc. can never add up to perfect understanding.
I really think that all of that is pretty obvious, and I wouldn't have
bothered to state it but for the probing, troubled post that I am
responding to.
>Mark 11:22
>...echete pistin theou...
>>From my limited knowledge of the Greek, I would translate this "have faith
>of God". Yet most translators render it "have faith in God". I understand
>that theou is the objective "of" denoting possession, and could even be
>translated "God's faith".
>I searched out every instance where theou is used in Mark, and found no case
>where it was (or could be) translated "in God". Most were phrases like
>"kingdom of God", and "Son of God. Obviously "kingdom in God" and "Son in
>God" make no sence. Yet in this one instance it is rendered "in God".
>
>Also I see differences in the way that "eis" is translated. From my
>textbooks, it is illustrated as a preposition denoting action or change:
>starting at the "outside" of an object and ending at the "inside": hence
>"into". Yet in John 3:16 the word is rendered "in" by almost everyone.
>
>"pisteuon eis auton" = believe into him?
>
>Hence my conclusion that some translation is the _opinion_ of the
>translator, and not rote.
Now, in the above instances, we are dealing with phraseology that is by no
means uncommon. In the case of Mark 11:22 we are clearly dealing with an
everyday type of expression, an OJBECTIVE GENITIVE where the noun in the
genitive case qualifies a noun that has a verbal notion. If that verbal
noun were a verb Greek would normally have a dative-case complement:
PISTEUETE TWi QEWi would be an exact equivalent. Could it be a SUBJECTIVE
GENITIVE? Theoretically yes, in which case, the persons addressed would be
urged to hold God's faith. That is very unlikely in this instance, but it
is the possibility of this construction that has opened the way to the
discussion we have had in recent months of the possibility of understanding
PISTIS IHSOU XRISTOU as a subjective genitive and seriously considering
that Paul's notion of "faith righteousness" is NOT the righteousness of
one who has faith IN CHRIST but rather is the righteousness of one who
emulates and appropriates CHRIST'S FAITH.
On this sort of a question there is legitimate dispute, I would say. I
would also guess that one's theological bias is likely to have an impact on
what one thinks the Greek allows, but we might hope that we are more
impartial in our judgments!
Now, as for "believe in" (PISTEUEIN EIS), I really think that is a
grammatical alternative to PISTEUEIN + Dative. There may be a Semitism
behind this; I'm not so sure of that.
However, going back to the question, why the phrase PISTIN QEOU should be
translated in normal English as "faith IN God," the reason has to do with a
different structure for verbal nouns in Greek and in English. English will
permit a prepositional phrase ("in God") to function adjectivally to modify
a noun; Greek will NOT permit a prepositional phrase to act that way unless
it is enclosed with an article or an adjective (hH EIS TON QEON PISTIS,
ALHQINH EIS TON QEON PISTIS). So we have to use the normal ENGLISH
structure to translate a GREEK structure which is different.
At any rate, if you look at a concordance (I've been looking at Schmoller),
you'll see numerous instances of PISTIS with an objective genitive such as
should be translated "faith in ..." and you'll see numerous instances of
the verb PISTEUEIN construed with EIS + accusative in the sense "believe in
..."
>Question:
>Is there a pure word for word translation somewhere that does not reflect
>the opinion of a translator? I have an interlinear, and find similar
>difference in it. I have Young's "Literal", and see similar inconsistancies.
>
>Am I missing something? Or am I correct in saying that we are putting our
>faith in the personal opinions of nevertheless good men.
I think that the answer to your question is both YES and NO. There are
numerous phrases in one language that will be translated in the same way
into another by competent persons who know both languages. On the other
hand, there are numerous phrases that are genuinely ambiguous and honest
interpreters will disagree over which of dual or multiple possibilities is
preferable. There are still other phrases that will always be grist for
translators and theologians because they are murky in the Greek and a
"literal" translation of them into English will not help much to make them
intelligible.
I don't know if this helps much or not. But, to sum up, I'd say that
there's an awful lot of any text that should not be in dispute whatsoever
as to right translation; there are other points in the text where ambiguity
opens the way to honest difference of opinion over the right translation;
there are still other passages that are obscure to a greater or lesser
extent and we try to exercise our collective problem-solving ability on
them but may never reach a fully satisfactory consensus.
Sorry I couldn't condense this more. Cheers, cwc
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Ken Penner <kpenner@mail.unixg.ubc.ca>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 15:13:05 -0800
Subject: Re: Phil 1:7
On 7 Aug 95 at 11:08, Mikeal Parsons wrote:
> for a convincing (to me at least) defense of the integrity of
> philippians, see David Garland's essy in Novum Testamentum
> (1985) on "The Integrity of Philippians: Some Neglected Literary
> Factors."
More recently, Gordon Fee argues for the integrity of Philippians
on literary grounds, in his commentary released last month (my copy
is in the mail).
My first impression of Philippians was also that there was an
irreconcilable break after that TO LOIPON sentence. I found Fee's
case to be quite strong after reading some articles on rhetorical
criticism and standard letter-genres in the Greco-Roman world.
Philippians seems to fit the category of a friendly letter of
exhortation.
Ken Penner
Regent College, Vancouver
kpenner@unixg.ubc.ca
http://www.netshop.bc.ca/~kpenner/
------------------------------
From: Ken Penner <kpenner@mail.unixg.ubc.ca>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 15:13:05 -0800
Subject: Re: Phil 1:7
Summary of Bruce's qualifications:
1) Pronouns may affect word order differently than nouns.
2) Equative verbs and verbs of speech are special cases.
3) The pronoun (if only one) tends to be found next to the verb.
4) Questions, emphasis, negatives, and voice may all affect word order.
5) The verb initial order is preferred following a preposition.
6) Generally, the subject precedes the object."
We can add Carlton's point to this list:
7) Purpose and hOTI clauses could be factors as well.
On 6 Aug 95 at 21:36, WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
> My first reaction would be that it will be hard to find many
> examples in the Greek NT that would not be qualified by one of
> these or some other.
I suspect you're right about the rarity of such examples... would
we need to go beyond the NT in our search?
> I have found a few examples but I have not checked them
> against this list.
> I have left them in the English form of the Greek font for Mac
> from Linquist Software.
Thanks for the examples. Here they are edited and sorted:
SVO:
Acts 19:10 hWSTE PANTAS TOUS KATOIKOUNTAS THN ASIAN AKOUSAI TON
LOGON TOU KURIOU
OSV:
John 1:48 PRO TOU SE FILIPPON FWNHSAI
OVS:
Acts 10:43 AFESIN AMARTIWN LABEIN DIA TOU ONOMATOS AUTOU PANTA TON
PISTEUONTA EIS AUTON. [with prepositional phrase]
VSO:
Acts 26:18 TOU LABEIN AUTOUS AFESIN AMARTIWN KAI KLHRON EN TOIS
HGIASMENOIS PISTEI TH EIS EME.
The others are not applicable because the infinitive does not have
both a subject and an object, usually because of DEI: Matt 25:27,
16:21, Mark 8:31, Luke 9:22, 17:25, 24:26, Acts 19:21; also Mark
1:17, Acts 2:27, 24:4.
> I will have some more egs. when I have time to get into my files
> and pull out egs. I looked up when I was working on the Syntax
> book 15 years ago.
That would be great. In this list we have one case of verb-initial
order (Acts 26:18). Here the subject precedes the object.
Complicating factors are:
a) Bruce's point #3 (pronouns being found next to the verb);
b) the change of subject from SE to AUTOUS;
c) Carlton's point (#7) regarding purpose clauses.
I shouldn't forget the example from a previous post:
> Acts 15:7. EXELEXATO hO QEOS DIA TOU STOMATOS MOU AKOUSAI TA EQNH
> TON LOGON TOU EUAGGELION . . .
And Carl's:
>Rom 1:20 EIS TO EINAI AUTOUS ANAPOLOGHTOUS
This are similar VSO examples. I'm starting to lean toward the "I
have you in my heart" interpretation, but I also am intrigued by
Mikeal Parsons' suggestion:
> given the evidence cited by hawthorne and the general drift of
> this discussion, would this phrase alshave been ambiguous to a
> native hearer? in other words, could the ambiguity be
> rhetorically intentional?
What are your opinions about intentional ambiguity?
Paul makes special effort to bring out the reciprocity of his
relationship with the Philippians. They are friends in the
Greco-Roman sense; they do not have a patron-client relationship
like Paul has with other churches. They are the only ones who
EKOINWNHSEV EIS LOGON DOSEWS KAI LHMYEWS. Could Paul be playing on
that special reciprocal relationship between equals in the
ambiguous construction of 1:7? Is this any more likely than the
idea that hUMAS is an "afterthought" subject?
Ken Penner
Regent College, Vancouver
kpenner@unixg.ubc.ca
http://www.netshop.bc.ca/~kpenner/
------------------------------
From: DBWILLIS@aol.com
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 19:31:03 -0400
Subject: Subjunctive present durative?
David Willis here,
I have read in A.T. Robertson's Historical Grammar of the NT that while the
present indicative is ambiguous as to its state of completed action (it may
be either punctiliar or durative), this "defect" (as he puts it) is not also
found in the subjunctive and optative moods. The present subjunctive is
always durative.
Question 1:
Is this true? Do other "authorities" differ on this point?
The relevance is found in passages such as I Jn. 1:6-7. Is "if we walk in
the light" durative? Surely it is, I would think. But more to my point, are
"we have fellowship" and "the blood of Christ cleanses" (which are
indicatives) also to be thought of as unambiguously durative?
So, question 2:
In a subjunctive clause with the present, are BOTH the protasis (the "if"
clause) and the apotasis (the "then clause") to be considered always
unambiguously durative, or does that apply only to the protasis?
Please, (at least for now) I would prefer not to enter into theological or
doctrinal arguments about cleansing...but rather what (if anything) can be
said authoritatively from a purely Greek grammatical argument. Once we can
form a conclusion from the grammar, we can allow that to direct us
doctrinally.
To be sure that I receive your response could you please forward a copy to
both the list and to me personally at DBWILLIS@aol.com Thanks much.
David Willis
DBWILLIS@aol.com
6728 Silver Tree Dr.
Indianapolis, IN 46236
(317) 823-4858
------------------------------
From: DBWILLIS@aol.com
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 19:31:09 -0400
Subject: Craig's question on "eis"
David Willis here responding to Craig who wrote:
<<Mark 11:22
...echete pistin theou...
>From my limited knowledge of the Greek, I would translate this "have faith
of God". Yet most translators render it "have faith in God". I understand
that theou is the objective "of" denoting possession, and could even be
translated "God's faith".
I searched out every instance where theou is used in Mark, and found no case
where it was (or could be) translated "in God". Most were phrases like
"kingdom of God", and "Son of God. Obviously "kingdom in God" and "Son in
God" make no sence. Yet in this one instance it is rendered "in God".
Also I see differences in the way that "eis" is translated. From my
textbooks, it is illustrated as a preposition denoting action or change:
starting at the "outside" of an object and ending at the "inside": hence
"into". Yet in John 3:16 the word is rendered "in" by almost everyone.
"pisteuon eis auton" = believe into him?
Hence my conclusion that some translation is the _opinion_ of the
translator, and not rote.
Question:
Is there a pure word for word translation somewhere that does not reflect
the opinion of a translator? I have an interlinear, and find similar
difference in it. I have Young's "Literal", and see similar inconsistancies.
Am I missing something? Or am I correct in saying that we are putting our
faith in the personal opinions of nevertheless good men.
forever humble
Craig>>
I realize his is a broader question about "pure" translations rather than one
tainted by the doctrinal opinions of the translators, but I would like to
address the two specific cases he cited.
His first case seems to be a question of the subjective versus the objective
use of the genitive. That is: is God the one _doing_ the believing or is He
the _object_ of another's belief? Both are proper uses of the genitive, and
as Robertson says "It (the subjective) can be determined from the objective
use only by the context." Perhaps a "pure" translation of "God's faith"
could leave that conclusion up to the reader, but it would probably presume
that the average English reader was aware of both possibilites. Apparently
the translators considered the context sufficiently clear to let them give an
English rendition that presumed the objective meaning. "Faith in God" is the
way that idea is properly expressed in English, even though the static
meaning of "in" is not what is meant here.
The second example Craig gives is more interesting to me because I believe
considerable doctrinal error has occurred over how the meaning of "eis" has
been distorted to fit a particular doctrinal viewpoint as to the purpose of
baptism in Ac. 2:38. Passages such as John 3:16, or a more frequently cited
example such as Mt. 12:41 ("they repented at (eis) the preaching of
Jonah"--does eis mean "because of?") are offered as evidence that eis can
sometimes mean something other than its primary meaning "into or unto."
"Believe into him" may not be all that doctrinally significant, but
"repented because of the remission of sins" rather than "unto..." is of
considerable doctrinal significance. I think that all these verses are
properly understood in light of the primary meaning of eis. In Jn. 3:16 the
idea of "unto" or "toward" fits well the context. The believer's faith has
Jesus as its object. Actually our English idiom of faith "in" something is
probably what is at fault, not the Greek. One places his faith INTO or
TOWARD its object, so we probably should be saying "faith into Christ" as our
normal English usage anyway! Similarly, those who repented when Jonah
preached not only repented as a causal result of what Jonah preached, but
they repented TOWARD Jonah's preaching. They repented away from their
previous practices UNTO or TOWARD what Jonah's instruction was. Their
repentance was both the result of and the object of their repentance. So the
use of eis in Mt. 12:41 does not establish a possible causal meaning of eis.
BTW, the phrase "unto (eis) the remission of sins" is also found in Mt. 26:28
when Jesus spoke of his blood being shed "unto the remission of sins."
"Because of" would certainly be an improper rendition of eis in that verse.
And so is it improper in Acts 2:38.
David Willis
DBWILLIS@aol.com
6728 Silver Tree Dr.
Indianapolis, IN 46236
(317) 823-4858
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 18:43:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Not a Science
>Friends,
>One thing I have learned in the 25 years I have been studying the Bible
>(with the inevitabe causual interest in Greek) is that this is not a
>science. Most folk unfamiliar with the ancient languages will stand silent
>before those "in the know", and just assume that they who know Heb/Gk will
>settle every issue. There is the misconception that this is like algebra or
>calc, where you can translate the text word for word and come out with the
>truth. Yet in reading many of the writings of respected experts, I find
>there is not a lot of agreement when discussing some specfic passages. An
>example:
...
>Craig
>
Others have addressed specifics of your examples. Let me suggest some
reading that will do more to put such concerns in proper perspective than
anything else I know. Read Moises Sila's excellent (and fairly short) book:
_God, Language, and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General
Linguistics_ ( Vol. 4 of Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1990). It will provide a very helpful perspective on
what language is all about and how we ought to understand the biblical
languages in that light. I require all my second-year students to read it
and interact with it critically. Most have voiced the opinion that it has
been one of the most helpful books they have read.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 19:08:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Subjunctive present durative?
>David Willis here,
>
>I have read in A.T. Robertson's Historical Grammar of the NT that while the
>present indicative is ambiguous as to its state of completed action (it may
>be either punctiliar or durative), this "defect" (as he puts it) is not als=
o
>found in the subjunctive and optative moods. The present subjunctive is
>always durative.
>
>Question 1:
>
>Is this true? Do other "authorities" differ on this point?
...
>
>So, question 2:
>
>In a subjunctive clause with the present, are BOTH the protasis (the "if"
>clause) and the apotasis (the "then clause") to be considered always
>unambiguously durative, or does that apply only to the protasis?
...
The terminology and discussion from ATR are that of 50+ years ago. This
entire issue takes a very different form these days in light of the work of
Stan Porter and Buist Fanning on verbal aspect. Using Porter's appraoch,
the verb form only grammaticalizes aspect: how the speaker chooses to
portray the action. It is not an objective statement of how the
action/condition actually exists/happens in reality. (That is closer to
Aktionsart, which is based on context and lexis.) As such, the present
tense in any mood grammaticalizes imperfective aspect; i.e., the speaker
chooses to portray it as a continuing, ongoing event. That does _not_ mean
that it could not also be described in its totality (perfective aspect,
aorist form). Fanning would phrase it somewhat differently.
Since your question, in part, asked:
>what (if anything) can be said authoritatively from a purely Greek
>grammatical argument,
you'll have to decide if you want to continue working with the old system
or be willing to consider more recent research. (Most have choosen to stay
with the old at this point--but that's largely because "most" (whoever they
are!) aren't aware of the more recent work on verbal aspect, and if they
are, haven't read either Porter or Fanning. For those that want to, here
are the refs.:
Fanning, Buist. _Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek._ Oxford
Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. (This is one of the
major works on aspect. It is the published version of Fanning's
dissertation.)
McKay, K. L. _Greek Grammar for Students: A Concise Grammar of
Classical Attic with Special Reference to Aspect in the Verb._ Canberra:
Australian National University, 1974; 2d ed., 1977. (This is probably the
seminal work on aspect in recent years.)
________. _A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An
Aspectual Approach._ Studies in Biblical Greek, 5. New York: Peter Lang,
1994.
Porter, Stanley E. _Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New
Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood._ Studies in Biblical Greek, 1.
New York: Peter Lang, 1989. (This is the major work; it is the published
version of Porter's dissertation.)
________. _Idioms of the Greek New Testament._ Sheffield: JSOT,
1992. (This is an intermediate level grammar.)
Silva, Mois=E9s. _God, Language and Scripture: Reading the Bible in
the Light of General Linguistics._ Foundations of Contemporary
Interpretation, 4. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. (See esp. 111-18.)
Silva will provide the "easiest" introduction to the subject, followed by
Porter's _Idioms_. The best treatment of these listed is, IMHO, Porter's
_Verbal Aspect_ (it's only $50 in pbk.!). Also worth reading for your
original question in D. A. Carson's _Exegetical Fallacies_ (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1984).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=20
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 20:38:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Fwd: John 1:1c
At 10:28 PM 8/6/95, MR ALAN R CRAIG wrote:
>-- [ From: Alan R. Craig * EMC.Ver #2.10P ] --
>
>Again, because I didn't receive any help on this request, I will post
>it yet once again:
>
>> Date: Friday, 21-Jul-95 10:32 AM
>> From: Alan R. Craig \ PRODIGY: (CSRT29A)
>> To: Greek \ Internet: (b-greek@virginia.edu)
>> Subject: John 1:1c
>> Because there appear to be a number of different ones here who either
>have
>> access to some remarkable libraries or to some comprehensive CD-ROM
>> materials, I would be interested in having someone do a search for
>me. I
>> am trying to locate other examples from the N.T. Greek, LXX, or even
>> Classical Greek which parallel the exact word order and precise
>sentence
>> structure as that of John 1:1c; e.g., Acts 28:4; Mark 2:28; Esther 10:
>3
>> (LXX).
>> Thanks in advance, A. Craig.
>
>Thanks again, A. Craig.
I think the real reason why nobody who has been regular on this list has
tackled this question is that there was an exhaustive discussion of
precisely this verselet and all the questions of the anarthrous predicate
noun QEOS in it in the late winter or early spring. I think that everything
which anybody wanted to say was pretty much said then. It's a shame we
don't have a public archive for the list; I think I can put together the
entire correspondence for that thread and send it to you off-line if you
would like, but I really don't think people want to rehearse the very
extensive discussion from earlier in the year.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: John Albu <tunon@phantom.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 21:48:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Titus 2:13, 14
On August 7, 1995, Daniel Hedrick <hedrickd@ochampus.mil> wrote:
> I was curious if the greek presents a strong
> representation of Jesus as God in Titus 2:13,14.
In 1778 Granville Sharp began writing a work in an attempt to identify
Jesus Christ with Jehovah God from the use of the definite article in the Greek
text in certain passages such as Titus 2:13, where the definite article
occurs before "great God" but it is not repeated before "Savior of us,
Christ Jesus." In order to achieve his goal, Sharp set forth the rule
that when the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the
definite article precedes the first noun and is not repeated before the
second noun, the latter always relates to the same person that is
expressed by the first noun. Eventually, Sharp published his work in 1798
in London under the title "Remarks on the Uses of the Definite Article in
the Greek Text of the New Testament." This was not the first attempt in
this undertaking. Before this, Herman Royaards published his work
"Diatribe de divinitate Iesu Christi," Traiecti ad Rhenum, 1791.
Sharp's work came under severe criticism, first by Gregory Blunt (a
pseudonym in contrast to "Sharp") in his work "Six More Letters to
Granville Sharp, Esq., on his Remarks upon the Uses of the Article in the
Greek Testament," London, 1803. Likewise, Calvin Winstanley, in his work
"A Vindication of Certain passages in the Common English Version of the
New Testament" (the American edition was published at Cambridge in 1819),
demonstrated by many examples that Sharp's rule was incorrect.
Still another attempt to identify Jesus with the Almighty God from the
use of the article in the Greek text was made by T. F. Middleton in his
work "The Doctrine of the the Greek article," published in 1808. This
work also came under criticism, in "The Monthly Review," Vol. 62, 1810,
pp. 161-178, 273-290. Also, John Jones in his work "An Explanation of the
Greek Article," London, 1827, pp. 1-45 dealt with the "Analysis and
Refuatation of Dr. Middleton's Theory."
Yet another attempt to identify Jesus Christ with Jehovah God was made
by Daniel Veysie in his work "On the Greek Prepositive Article, its Nature
and Uses," Oxford, 1810. This work also came under attack, in "The
Monthly Review," Vol. 67, 1812, pp. 161-178, 273-290. The reviewer wrote
on pp. 284, 285: "Yet Mr. Veysie has added further limitations to those
which were invented by Mr. Sharp. . . . Verily, this adding of limitation
to limitation appeareth to us to be 'all vanity and vexation of spirit!'
We would advise the advocates for the rule to be contended with _one_
limitation, which we are rather surprised that they have not long ago
adopted; since it requires no great comprehension of mind to see that it
will furnish them with all that they seek, will cut off every example
that can possibly lift up his head against the rule, and will render it
really inviolable. We would recommend it to the to say that, if one of
the nouns be theos and the other any personal description of Jesus, in
that case they _must_ denote one and the same individual."
A detailed presentation of Titus 2:13 is found in "New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures," published by Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society, Brooklyn, New York, 1984, Appendix 6E, pp. 1581-82.
Herewith I am sending a quotation of this Appendix.
Sincerely yours,
John Albu
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
6E "Of the Great God and of [the] Savior of Us, Christ Jesus"
Tit 2:13--Gr., tou me.ga'lou The.ou' kai so.te'ros he.mon' Khri.stou' I.e.sou'
1934 "of the great God and of our The Riverside New
Savior Christ Jesus" Testament,Boston and
New York.
1935 "of the great God and of our A New Translation of the
Saviour Christ Jesus" Bible, by James Moffatt, New
York and London.
1950 "of the great God and of our New World Translation of
Savior Christ Jesus" the Christian Greek
Scriptures, Brooklyn.
1957 "of the great God and of our La Sainte Bible, by Louis
Savior Jesus Christ"* Segond, Paris.
1970 "of the great God and of our The New American Bible,
Savior Christ Jesus" New York and London.
1972 "of the great God and of The New Testament in
Christ Jesus our saviour" Modern English, by
J. B. Phillips, New York.
In this place we find two nouns connected by kai, "and," the first noun
being preceded by the definite article <G<to=>G> (tou, "of the") and the
second noun without the definite article. A similar construction is found
in 2Pe 1:1, 2, where, in vs 2, a clear distinction is made between God
and Jesus. This indicates that when two distinct persons are connected by
kai, if the first person is preceded by the definite article it is not
necessary to repeat the definite article before the second person.
Examples of this construction in the Greek text are found in Ac 13:50;
15:22; Eph 5:5; 2Th 1:12; 1Ti 5:21; 6:13; 2Ti 4:1. This construction is also
found in LXX. (See Pr 24:21 ftn.) According to An Idiom Book of New
Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, the
sense "of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ . . . is
possible in koi.ne' Greek even without the repetition [of the definite
article]."
A detailed study of the construction in Tit 2:13 is found in The
Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays, by Ezra Abbot,
Boston, 1888, pp. 439-457. On p. 452 of this work the following comments
are found: "Take an example from the New Testament. In Matt. xxi. 12 we
read that Jesus 'cast out all those that were selling and buying in the
temple,' tous po.loun'tas kai a.go.ra'zon.tas. No one can reasonably
suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and
buying. In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of
tous before a.go.ra'zon.tas; here it is safely left to the intelligence
of the reader to distinguish them. In the case before us [Tit 2:13], the
omission of the article before so.te'ros seems to me to present no
difficulty,--not because so.te'ros is made sufficiently definite by the
addition of he.mon' (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ is often
called "our Saviour," he do'xa tou me.ga'lou The.ou' kai so.te'ros
he.mon', standing alone, would most naturally be understood of one
subject, namely, God, the Father; but the addition of I.e.sou' Khri.stou'
to so.te'ros he.mon' changes the case entirely, restricting the so.te'ros
he.mon' to a person or being who, according to Paul's habitual use of
language, is distinguished from the person or being whom he designates as ho
The.os', so that there was no need of the repetition of the article to
prevent ambiguity. So in 2 Thess. i. 12, the expression ka.ta' ten
kha'rin tou The.ou' he.mon' kai ky.ri'ou would naturally be understood of
one subject, and the article would be required before ky.ri'ou if two
were intended; but the simple addition of I.e.sou' Khri.stou' to ky.ri'ou
makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear without the
insertion of the article."
Therefore, in Tit 2:13, two distinct persons, Jehovah God and Jesus
Christ, are mentioned. Throughout the Holy Scriptures it is not possible
to identify Jehovah and Jesus as being the same individual.
[The footnote reads:] *Translated from French.
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #815
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu