Just Passing Through:
One thing you miss, that isn’t adequately observed in the grammars either, is that the rules change whenever there are additional nouns in apposition. When two bare nouns are united with a kai, Koine never repeats the possessive pronoun, unless it is in translation. (You say that NT never makes mistakes in Greek grammar when translating, the way the LXX does, but this is not a mistake, merely an unnecessary word, in the sense that it does not in any way change the meaning). When there is anything in apposition, the individual appositions, however, may require repetition of possessive pronouns because they do not have the same high degree of presumed coordination. That is, in a phrase like “the cat, my pet, and feline, my best friend,” you couldn’t use a solitary “my” to describe both pet and friend, so appositions change the rules. As far as I can tell, that’s the only time Greek repeats a possessive pronoun.
John 20:28 is thereby clearly shown to be translation, and it is an exact correlation to the LXX translation of Psalm 35:24 (34:23), but with God and Lord reversed (The God of me and the Lord of me). There it is clearly one and the same God and Lord, with both article and pronoun repeated because Hebrew repeats both. :
If you look at any study of Hebraisms in the Gospels, you’ll notice that Hebrew style and grammar come out most frequently in quotations, as the Gospel writers might choose a slightly more wooden translation for the sake of reproducing the original Aramaic statements precisely. Thomas’ words were translated precisely, with each article and pronoun repeated, that we might know exactly what he said.
Most of your study of possessive pronouns fails to account for whether the pronoun is tied to a bare noun or to an appositional noun.
Georg:
The paper does not include John 20:28 as an example of identification by Anaphora because it is not a contiguous narrative. I have researched that verse but have not presented it here. In any event the repeated possessives pronouns would have no bearing on Anaphora. I have provided references to Wallace and Middleton on Anaphora and neither mentions this.
That being said, I don't apply the rule I. Anaphora to John 20:28.
Just Passing Through:
You claim that God in 2 Peter 1:1 is differentiated from Jesus. On the contrary, Jesus has already been mentioned at the beginning of the verse; therefore the next reference to him is supposed to have the anaphoric article.
Georg:
May I suggest you re-read the references from BDF, Wallace and Middleton that I quote in my paper.
When the SAME noun is repeated, the Anaphoric article is inserted before it. The article-same.noun is an Anaphoric reference. The Anaphoric article is not attached to a different noun.
American Standard Version
2 Peter 1:1
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God=articular and the Saviour=anarthrous Jesus Christ:
2 May undeserved kindness and peace be increased to you by an accurate knowledge of God=articular and of Jesus our Lord=articular
In verse 1 God and Lord are articular. In verse 2, God is articular. In the grammar in verse 2, God and Lord are distinguished. In verse 2, God is not Jesus.
Verse 2 could read,
2 May undeserved kindness and peace be increased to you by an accurate knowledge of the God [who was just mentioned] and of Jesus our Lord.
Just Passing Through:
It does. “The God our and Savior Jesus Christ.” One article with two nouns, by Sharp’s rule, one individual. Then in verse two: “of the God and Jesus, the Lord of us.” Both the second article and possessive pronoun are attached to the apposition, so they don’t change the primary usage, once again of a single article with “God and Jesus,” one individual. I find it bizarre when you say that because righteousness is a singular concept, that that explains why God and Savior are a singular concept even though you think they are not a singular individual. What Smyth was talking about only applies to plurals, in that a crowd made up of generals and captains could be regarded as a single crowd, as denoted by a single plural definite article, or possibly with abstract nouns, where something like faithfulness and truthfulness might be viewed as a single concept (I don’t recall if that ever happens in Greek with regard to the article). If you have an example of the same concept combining a single individual and another single individual as if they were a single concept (with a single singular article), I’d love to see it.
My paper addresses 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 in that way. See my paper for exact verbiage.
Georg:
Sharp's rule is not a real grammatical rule. Smyth’s observation is not said to be limited to plurals just because his example was for plurals.
Smyth 1143. “ A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion”
Smyth and Sharp's is the same thing except Sharp's excludes plurals and a variety of nouns that would otherwise invalidate the self-serving rule designed to “prove” Jesus is God.
Just Passing Through:
In Hebrews 1:8, you must contend with the fact that this is a direct quote of the LXX translation of the psalm. I believe the psalm was an intermediate prophecy, with a partial application to an OT human king, but with prophetic and greater application to Christ. As such, the articles in the LXX were appropriate for the context. There is a brief address, directly to God, “Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever,” reminding us that there are two thrones, the one the anointed earthly king sits on, and God’s eternal throne in heaven. (I don’t even know what “your throne is God” even means).
When Hebrews quotes the psalm and applies both verses to Christ, it unites the two thrones into one eternal throne of Christ, who is both God (and therefore there is one eternal throne belonging not just to God’s unending kingdom but to this one specific king), and man (who according to his human nature was anointed by God to be the Christ). The article is there in verse 9 because he is quoting the LXX, not because he is promoting a modalism of the Son anointing the Son. It is not an error in Greek grammar, but a quotation from a different context, and the mystery of the incarnation, that the Son who is one with God the Father can also be distinguished in that only God the Son (not God the Trinity) became man, only God the Son (not God the Trinity) was anointed to be the Christ, and on the cross the Son could be forsaken by the Father, with whom he did not cease to be one. How do Hebrews 1:10-12 apply at all to Christ and to this context of proclaiming how the Son is unique and on a different level than the angels, unless the Son is the very Lord addressed in that passage? He has identified Christ as an eternal king, and he now equates that eternal king with the Lord who made heaven and earth, who is eternal, while nothing he created is eternal.
Georg:
You are making a contextual argument. But not everyone agrees with your subjective view of the context.
But Anaphora is grammatical, not contextual. A pure hermeneutic will use grammar to determine what the text can say before it determines what it means.
Just Passing Through:
In Titus 2:13, you try to override Sharp’s rule by claiming God has an anaphoric reference all the way back to 1:4, where God the Father is mentioned. But you don’t mention that God has been mentioned twice in the meantime, both without any article (1:7 and 16). The first four verses of Titus mention God five times, only two of which have the article, one of which calls God our Savior before applying that title specifically to Christ in the next verse. If anything, the article in Titus 2:13 is most directly linked to the word Savior, not God, so it should be anaphoric to the previous mention of a Savior, which would be “God our Savior” in 2:10, which is also anaphoric to the previous mention of Savior, “Christ our Savior,” in 1:3.
Georg:
The anarthrous first mention in a discourse introduction is specifically mentioned in my references. It's not the same kind of Anaphora as those with the definite article.
Just Passing Through:
You argue against the clear example of Sharp’s rule in Rom.9:5 by claiming an anaphoric article in verse 8, and say that can’t be Christ because he has no children, but Hebrews 2:13 has Jesus saying, “Here am I, and the children God has given me.”
Georg:
God gave him the children. It does not say they are his children. They are in fact his brothers.
Just Passing Through:
In 2 Thess. 1:12, you overrule a very clear example of Sharp’s rule by claiming an anaphoric article reaching all the way back to verse 4, but, once again, God has been mentioned twice in the meantime without the article. If those do not specifically refer to God the Father from verse 4, then how can you insist that an article that should point back to the closest reference, an anarthrous noun that does not point back to any previous reference at all, still must refer to the Father, in spite of its clear connection in this verse to God the Son.
In other words, your anaphoric articles are more subjective and arbitrary than any rule any actual Greek scholar before you has identified.
Georg:
See my previous comment on Titus 2:13. The rules are not subjective but very objective and tight. Read the footnotes for the rule.
I also don't override the Sharp's constructions. I harmonize them with the grammar. That is also in my paper.
In all cases God and Jesus are seen working together in a common cause, a single notion.
Also see Ephesians 5:5, the kingdom of Christ and God. A single notion.
So the true grammatical force is not being overridden. Rather a self-serving “rule” with known exceptions is being properly understood.
One thing you miss, that isn’t adequately observed in the grammars either, is that the rules change whenever there are additional nouns in apposition. When two bare nouns are united with a kai, Koine never repeats the possessive pronoun, unless it is in translation. (You say that NT never makes mistakes in Greek grammar when translating, the way the LXX does, but this is not a mistake, merely an unnecessary word, in the sense that it does not in any way change the meaning). When there is anything in apposition, the individual appositions, however, may require repetition of possessive pronouns because they do not have the same high degree of presumed coordination. That is, in a phrase like “the cat, my pet, and feline, my best friend,” you couldn’t use a solitary “my” to describe both pet and friend, so appositions change the rules. As far as I can tell, that’s the only time Greek repeats a possessive pronoun.
John 20:28 is thereby clearly shown to be translation, and it is an exact correlation to the LXX translation of Psalm 35:24 (34:23), but with God and Lord reversed (The God of me and the Lord of me). There it is clearly one and the same God and Lord, with both article and pronoun repeated because Hebrew repeats both. :
If you look at any study of Hebraisms in the Gospels, you’ll notice that Hebrew style and grammar come out most frequently in quotations, as the Gospel writers might choose a slightly more wooden translation for the sake of reproducing the original Aramaic statements precisely. Thomas’ words were translated precisely, with each article and pronoun repeated, that we might know exactly what he said.
Most of your study of possessive pronouns fails to account for whether the pronoun is tied to a bare noun or to an appositional noun.
Georg:
The paper does not include John 20:28 as an example of identification by Anaphora because it is not a contiguous narrative. I have researched that verse but have not presented it here. In any event the repeated possessives pronouns would have no bearing on Anaphora. I have provided references to Wallace and Middleton on Anaphora and neither mentions this.
That being said, I don't apply the rule I. Anaphora to John 20:28.
Just Passing Through:
You claim that God in 2 Peter 1:1 is differentiated from Jesus. On the contrary, Jesus has already been mentioned at the beginning of the verse; therefore the next reference to him is supposed to have the anaphoric article.
Georg:
May I suggest you re-read the references from BDF, Wallace and Middleton that I quote in my paper.
When the SAME noun is repeated, the Anaphoric article is inserted before it. The article-same.noun is an Anaphoric reference. The Anaphoric article is not attached to a different noun.
American Standard Version
2 Peter 1:1
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God=articular and the Saviour=anarthrous Jesus Christ:
2 May undeserved kindness and peace be increased to you by an accurate knowledge of God=articular and of Jesus our Lord=articular
In verse 1 God and Lord are articular. In verse 2, God is articular. In the grammar in verse 2, God and Lord are distinguished. In verse 2, God is not Jesus.
Verse 2 could read,
2 May undeserved kindness and peace be increased to you by an accurate knowledge of the God [who was just mentioned] and of Jesus our Lord.
Just Passing Through:
It does. “The God our and Savior Jesus Christ.” One article with two nouns, by Sharp’s rule, one individual. Then in verse two: “of the God and Jesus, the Lord of us.” Both the second article and possessive pronoun are attached to the apposition, so they don’t change the primary usage, once again of a single article with “God and Jesus,” one individual. I find it bizarre when you say that because righteousness is a singular concept, that that explains why God and Savior are a singular concept even though you think they are not a singular individual. What Smyth was talking about only applies to plurals, in that a crowd made up of generals and captains could be regarded as a single crowd, as denoted by a single plural definite article, or possibly with abstract nouns, where something like faithfulness and truthfulness might be viewed as a single concept (I don’t recall if that ever happens in Greek with regard to the article). If you have an example of the same concept combining a single individual and another single individual as if they were a single concept (with a single singular article), I’d love to see it.
My paper addresses 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 in that way. See my paper for exact verbiage.
Georg:
Sharp's rule is not a real grammatical rule. Smyth’s observation is not said to be limited to plurals just because his example was for plurals.
Smyth 1143. “ A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion”
Smyth and Sharp's is the same thing except Sharp's excludes plurals and a variety of nouns that would otherwise invalidate the self-serving rule designed to “prove” Jesus is God.
Just Passing Through:
In Hebrews 1:8, you must contend with the fact that this is a direct quote of the LXX translation of the psalm. I believe the psalm was an intermediate prophecy, with a partial application to an OT human king, but with prophetic and greater application to Christ. As such, the articles in the LXX were appropriate for the context. There is a brief address, directly to God, “Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever,” reminding us that there are two thrones, the one the anointed earthly king sits on, and God’s eternal throne in heaven. (I don’t even know what “your throne is God” even means).
When Hebrews quotes the psalm and applies both verses to Christ, it unites the two thrones into one eternal throne of Christ, who is both God (and therefore there is one eternal throne belonging not just to God’s unending kingdom but to this one specific king), and man (who according to his human nature was anointed by God to be the Christ). The article is there in verse 9 because he is quoting the LXX, not because he is promoting a modalism of the Son anointing the Son. It is not an error in Greek grammar, but a quotation from a different context, and the mystery of the incarnation, that the Son who is one with God the Father can also be distinguished in that only God the Son (not God the Trinity) became man, only God the Son (not God the Trinity) was anointed to be the Christ, and on the cross the Son could be forsaken by the Father, with whom he did not cease to be one. How do Hebrews 1:10-12 apply at all to Christ and to this context of proclaiming how the Son is unique and on a different level than the angels, unless the Son is the very Lord addressed in that passage? He has identified Christ as an eternal king, and he now equates that eternal king with the Lord who made heaven and earth, who is eternal, while nothing he created is eternal.
Georg:
You are making a contextual argument. But not everyone agrees with your subjective view of the context.
But Anaphora is grammatical, not contextual. A pure hermeneutic will use grammar to determine what the text can say before it determines what it means.
Just Passing Through:
In Titus 2:13, you try to override Sharp’s rule by claiming God has an anaphoric reference all the way back to 1:4, where God the Father is mentioned. But you don’t mention that God has been mentioned twice in the meantime, both without any article (1:7 and 16). The first four verses of Titus mention God five times, only two of which have the article, one of which calls God our Savior before applying that title specifically to Christ in the next verse. If anything, the article in Titus 2:13 is most directly linked to the word Savior, not God, so it should be anaphoric to the previous mention of a Savior, which would be “God our Savior” in 2:10, which is also anaphoric to the previous mention of Savior, “Christ our Savior,” in 1:3.
Georg:
The anarthrous first mention in a discourse introduction is specifically mentioned in my references. It's not the same kind of Anaphora as those with the definite article.
Just Passing Through:
You argue against the clear example of Sharp’s rule in Rom.9:5 by claiming an anaphoric article in verse 8, and say that can’t be Christ because he has no children, but Hebrews 2:13 has Jesus saying, “Here am I, and the children God has given me.”
Georg:
God gave him the children. It does not say they are his children. They are in fact his brothers.
Just Passing Through:
In 2 Thess. 1:12, you overrule a very clear example of Sharp’s rule by claiming an anaphoric article reaching all the way back to verse 4, but, once again, God has been mentioned twice in the meantime without the article. If those do not specifically refer to God the Father from verse 4, then how can you insist that an article that should point back to the closest reference, an anarthrous noun that does not point back to any previous reference at all, still must refer to the Father, in spite of its clear connection in this verse to God the Son.
In other words, your anaphoric articles are more subjective and arbitrary than any rule any actual Greek scholar before you has identified.
Georg:
See my previous comment on Titus 2:13. The rules are not subjective but very objective and tight. Read the footnotes for the rule.
I also don't override the Sharp's constructions. I harmonize them with the grammar. That is also in my paper.
In all cases God and Jesus are seen working together in a common cause, a single notion.
Also see Ephesians 5:5, the kingdom of Christ and God. A single notion.
So the true grammatical force is not being overridden. Rather a self-serving “rule” with known exceptions is being properly understood.
Comment