From: Dan Parker (stoixein@sdf.lonestar.org)
Date: Tue Oct 24 2000 - 16:18:01 EDT
Randall,
Thanks for participating in the search for an exception to Smart's rule.
Even though you profess to be new to Greek you certainly have found
and interesting passage with a similar structure.
However, Smart's rule specifies that the same posessive pronoun must
be used to modify both terms co-joined by KAI. Nether TWN or the
participles that follow them in the genitive qualify.
Sincerely,
Dan Parker
---
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
From ???@??? Mon Oct 30 10:01:45 2000
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection0: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection1: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection2: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection3: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection4: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection5: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection6: X
Return-Path: <bounce-b-greek-327@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Received: from franklin.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.22.59])
by walker.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with SMTP id svbteb.2lda.37kbi73
for <jwrobie@mindspring.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:49:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org ([63.68.131.237]) by franklin.oit.unc.edu with SMTP (Lyris List Manager SOLARIS/SPARC version 4.0); Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:47:35 -0400
Received: (from stoixein@localhost)
by sdf.lonestar.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e9OJhC626393;
Tue, 24 Oct 2000 19:43:12 GMT
From: Dan Parker <stoixein@sdf.lonestar.org>
Message-Id: <LYRIS-327-87061-2000.10.24-16.48.19--jwrobie#mindspring.com@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: [b-greek] Re: Smart's rule and John 20:28
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-98171-86759-2000.10.23-10.27.29--stoixein#sdf.lonestar.org@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
"from Kevin W. Woodruff at Oct 23, 2000 10:28:17 am"
To: Biblical Greek <b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 19:43:11 +0000 (GMT)
CC: Biblical Greek <b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL82 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Reply-To: Dan Parker <stoixein@sdf.lonestar.org>
> Murray Harris comments on this passage:
>
> On the first view each half of of Thomas's affirmation is directed to a
> different addressee:HO KURIOS MOU to Jesus; HO THEOS MOU to the the Father,
> either as indwelling Jesus or as dwelling in Heaven. This decidedly aberrant
> interpretation is rendered inplausible by the presence of KAI by the absence
> of a distinguishing vocative (IHSOU or PATER), and by the frequent
> conjunction of KURIOS and THEOS in various combinations in the LXX in
> reference to one person. In addition, the immediate context contains
> numerous reference to Jesus but none to the Father, so that a sudden
> apostrophe ishighly improbalbe, espeicailly since the whole statement is
> introduced by EIPEN AUTW. Finally the repeated MOU, so far from neceaarily
> indicating two distinct addressees, simply reflects the repetition of the
> pronomial suffix with copulated nouns in Hebrew and Aramaici (as shown in
> the LXX's Ps 5:3 by HO BASILEUSD MOU MAI HO THEOS MOU) and has the effect of
> personalizing Thomas's response
> (Harris, Murray J. _Jesus as God_ Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992, page 106-107)
>
> >Kevin W. Woodruff, M. Div.
Kevin,
Thanks for the quote from Harris. I have read him on this. A few
comments.
1) Porter (The poor man's Porter, Rodney Decker) and Winer (35-38)
do not agree that the grammar of the NT is affected by any Hebraic or
Aramaic influence.
2) BDF (81) agrees and considers the LXX and "passages translated from
a Semitic language" to have Hebraic influence.
3) Therefore Harris' example of Ps 5:3 is not a good parallel to John
20:28, because Winer says that although most of the LXX manages to
produce good Greek, Psalms generally does not and that "The translation
of the Psalms is, in general, one of the most heedless." (Winer 35-38)
Also, I do not understand how the rest of Harris' arguments helps him.
Perhaps someone can assist me with the following:
4) LXX Occurrences of KURIOS and QEOS - frequent conjunction of KURIOS
and QEOS in the LXX with reference to one person -
96% of the time in the Greek bible a morphological form of the vocative
is included when KURIOS and QEOS are combined to form a composite title.
In the GNT of the 4 times that this title is applied to God (Re 4:11;
1:17; 15:3 and 16:7) it takes the form KURIE hO QEOS. The remaining
example has one possessive pronoun modifying both terms and therefore
conforms to Smart's rule. In the LXX only 1/3038 occurrences of KURIOS
is considered to be vocative (Ps 35:23; also see #3). Of the other 21
verses where QEOS is considered vocative (by BibleWorks) 10 contain
KURIE and none contain KURIOS. (Jg. 16:28; 21:3; 2Sa 7:25; 2Ch 14:11;
20:6, 12; Ne. 1:5; Is 26:12; 26:13; Ez. 4:14)
2) Absence of a distinguishing vocative -
This favors the view that there is no comparison between John 20:28 and
the LXX occurrences of KURIOS and QEOS with respect to one person because
96% of them contain QEE or KURIE. Even Revelation 4:11 indicators
of personal deixis because the grammatical second person of the verb
hACIOS and the pronoun reference to the second person with SU. (Porter
Idioms, 304)
3) The presence of KAI -
All but one example in the LXX and one in the GNT do not contain KAI and
are instances of KURIOS and QEOS being applied to one person as in KURIE
hO QEOS. In addition, the use of KAI is what makes it grammatically
possible that two persons are in view! What does Harris mean by this?
4) EIPEN AUTWi -
John as an eye-witness faithfully recorded Thomas' exclamation even
though it was ambiguous and being the good reporter that he was, he
explained it in his narrative in the following verses (Cf. John 20:31).
Also see Davies explanation. Jesus specifically told Thomas that both
the Father and Son were to be objects of faith. Thomas's exclamation
was a confession of that. (Cf John 14:1-6; John 20:28-31)
Sincerely,
Dan Parker
PS For those who have asked, Smart's rule has not been published.
However, it is my understanding that Sharp's rule is accepted by
most because of the fact that it has no exceptions. I have found no
exceptions to Smart's rule. Therefore, anyone who accepts Sharps should
also accept Smarts, agreed?
---
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 - 15:36:39 EDT