From: MikeBzley (MikeBzley@aol.com)
Date: Sat Apr 18 1998 - 17:01:39 EDT
Dear B-Greekers,
There has been a great deal of correspondence recently about whether Peter
called Jesus QEOS in 2 Peter 1:1. Without wishing to reopen the discussion, I
have to say that it seems to me, as a novice, that the GS rule does apply in
that case.
Some of us have also exchanged views about punctuation and its effect on both
reading and interpretation.
May I ask for help in translating another verse which has been used by many as
evidence for Christ's membership of the Trinity; Romans 9:5: WN hOI PATERES,
KAI EX WN hO CRISTOS TO KATA SARKA; hO WN EPI PANTWN QEOS EULOGHTOS EIS TOUS
AIWNAS, AMHN.
Here, it seems to me, the interpretation is dependent more on assumptions
about punctuation than about grammar. The key to the translation being
whether in fact there is a stop of any sort after PANTWN.
All the translations and commentaries I have read are definite that CRISTOS
and QEOS are one and the same, but it seems to me that the passage could be
read just as easily as:
... of whom is Christ, concerning the flesh, who is over all - God be blessed
forever, Amen.
rather than the usual:
... of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God, blessed
forever. Amen.
Am I right that the difference in interpretation lies purely in assumptions
about the punctuation, or are there grammatical or linguistic nuances that tie
CRISTOS and QEOS firmly together?
Lest I be misunderstood; I personally believe in Christ's place in the
Trinity, but I am not convinced that this verse is arguing that particular
point.
CARIS hUMIN KAI EIRHNH
Mike Beazley,
Bushey, Hertfordshire, UK
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:24 EDT