BDF on 2 Peter 1:1 - It's shocking

[Roger Thornhill]

Blass-Debrunner-Funk Greek Grammar (BDF §276.3) says that σωτῆρος is definite at 2 Peter 1:1, and so “σωτῆρος ἡμ. ᾽Ι. Χρ. may be taken by itself and separated from the preceding.”


BDF §276 (3) Cf. 2 P 1:1 (but here S has κυρίου for θεοῦ, probably correctly; cf. 11, 2: 20, 3: 2, 18); however σωτῆρος ἡμ. ᾽Ι. Χρ. may be taken by itself and separated from the preceding (cf. §268(2) for the omission of the art. elsewhere).


BDF §268 (2) Appositives with anarthrous θεός (§254(1)) can dispense with the article, but only in formal and solemn contexts such as the introduction to an epistle (§261(5)): R 1: 7 ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου ᾽Ι. Χρ. This applies also to κύριος (§254(1)) in apposition to ᾽Ιησ. Χρ ., although it too is not common outside epistolary introductions.

What say ye?

 

[Gryllus Maior]

I think we are looking at another post about the Trinity/Deity of Christ disguised as a biblical languages discussion. However, I found it interesting that in 276 BDF also says:

The article is (naturally) omitted with the second of two phrases in apposition connected by καί: T 2:13 (τὴν) ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χρ.

Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (p. 145). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

BDF seems to exclude 2 Pet 1 from this rule simply because of the possible omission of the article in "formal and solemn contexts such as the introduction to an epistle." I'm not sure that's good enough. When looking at syntactical constructions where more than one explanation is likely, Occam's razor needs to be applied. Which is more common, and which is contextually more likely? For me personally, Sharp's rule seems the most likely explanation, but feel free to toss that off to Trinitarian bias, ἐγὼ ὢν ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ Βαάλ ὅ εἰμι.

Since nearly all your arguments derive from appeals to authority, here is another perspective:

τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

This phrase is a crux interpretum. The syntax of τοῦ θεοῦ … καὶ σωτῆρος is an example of the Granville Sharp Rule: two nouns (θεοῦ and σωτῆρος) that are personal but not proper names, are in the same case, and are preceded by a definite article that is not repeated before the second noun refer to the same person (see also v. 11). Here, that person is then identified as Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, who is thus described as both “God” and “Savior” (see the discussion in Wallace, 270–77; MHT, 3:181; 1:84). While these titles would not have been that unusual used for kings, Codex א and several later manuscripts and versions conformed this phrase to more usual statements about Jesus by using κύριου instead of θεοῦ.

Davids, P. H. (2011). 2 Peter and Jude: A Handbook on the Greek Text (p. 42). Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

RJM will now observe that this writer is a naughty Trinitarian and therefore we can't trust him.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I think we are looking at another post about the Trinity/Deity of Christ disguised as a biblical languages discussion. However, I found it interesting that in 276 BDF also says:




Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (p. 145). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

BDF seems to exclude 2 Pet 1 from this rule simply because of the possible omission of the article in "formal and solemn contexts such as the introduction to an epistle." I'm not sure that's good enough. When looking at syntactical constructions where more than one explanation is likely, Occam's razor needs to be applied. Which is more common, and which is contextually more likely? For me personally, Sharp's rule seems the most likely explanation, but feel free to toss that off to Trinitarian bias, ἐγὼ ὢν ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ Βαάλ ὅ εἰμι.

Since nearly all your arguments derive from appeals to authority, here is another perspective:



Davids, P. H. (2011). 2 Peter and Jude: A Handbook on the Greek Text (p. 42). Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

RJM will now observe that this writer is a naughty Trinitarian and therefore we can't trust him.

No, Dear Cricket, this lexicon, revered and quoted by grammarians like Wallace, is the beginning of wisdom!

Unlike your use of Smyth to argue for a definite θεός at 1:1c, I do have significant grammatical arguments for the verse.

The reason BDF is shocking to me, is that while Wallace and Harris quote the same section from BDF to support Sharp's at 2 Peter 1:1, they both omit this part of the quote.

Why would they do this?

I almost dropped my copy of BDF when I found this because it's not in any of the discussions I have seen.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I think we are looking at another post about the Trinity/Deity of Christ disguised as a biblical languages discussion. However, I found it interesting that in 276 BDF also says:




Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (p. 145). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

BDF seems to exclude 2 Pet 1 from this rule simply because of the possible omission of the article in "formal and solemn contexts such as the introduction to an epistle." I'm not sure that's good enough. When looking at syntactical constructions where more than one explanation is likely, Occam's razor needs to be applied. Which is more common, and which is contextually more likely? For me personally, Sharp's rule seems the most likely explanation, but feel free to toss that off to Trinitarian bias, ἐγὼ ὢν ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ Βαάλ ὅ εἰμι.

Since nearly all your arguments derive from appeals to authority, here is another perspective:



Davids, P. H. (2011). 2 Peter and Jude: A Handbook on the Greek Text (p. 42). Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

RJM will now observe that this writer is a naughty Trinitarian and therefore we can't trust him.

I would think Middleton (p32) would know better. He wrote:

§1 Renewed mention.
When a person or thing recently mentioned is spoken of again, the Article, as is well known, is inserted when the mention is renewed: and this happens, not only when the same Noun is repeated, but also when a synonymous one is used expressive of the same person or thing, of which the existence is so inferred, has the Article prefixed

Occam's razor applies here. The article for θεός at 2 Peter 1:2 is inserted to identify Θεός at 1:1.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

I would think Middleton (p32) would know better. He wrote:

§1 Renewed mention.
When a person or thing recently mentioned is spoken of again, the Article, as is well known, is inserted when the mention is renewed: and this happens, not only when the same Noun is repeated, but also when a synonymous one is used expressive of the same person or thing, of which the existence is so inferred, has the Article prefixed

Occam's razor applies here. The article for θεός at 2 Peter 1:2 is inserted to identify Θεός at 1:1.

And here we see the subjective nature of the standard. The interpreter tends to go with what seems theologically most satisfying.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

And here we see the subjective nature of the standard. The interpreter tends to go with what seems theologically most satisfying.

Sharp's is more than subjective. It's presuppositional. Sharp required the copulative και, and Middleton just specifies 'copulative.' But Wallace's "sharper rule" just specifies any old και.

That is circular reasoning, and I have never seen anyone who claims Sharp's rule applies to a particular verse even attempt to identify και there as copulative. They just assume it is.

That is circular reasoning.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

No, Dear Cricket, this lexicon, revered and quoted by grammarians like Wallace, is the beginning of wisdom!

Sharp's is more than subjective. It's presuppositional. Sharp required the copulative και, and Middleton just specifies 'copulative.' But Wallace's "sharper rule" just specifies any old και.

That is circular reasoning, and I have never seen anyone who claims Sharp's rule applies to a particular verse even attempt to identify και there as copulative. They just assume it is.

That is circular reasoning.

I'm beginning to agree with JM. I often find myself scratching my head at your posts to figure out where you are getting this stuff, and it's clear you don't always, or even often, understand the sources you are using. It's pretty clear when καί is copulative, and the reason people don't discuss that is because of that clarity. if you are going to try to get to your theological goal disputing how καί is used (as you've tried to do before), you won't get out of the starting gate.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I'm beginning to agree with JM. I often find myself scratching my head at your posts to figure out where you are getting this stuff, and it's clear you don't always, or even often, understand the sources you are using. It's pretty clear when καί is copulative, and the reason people don't discuss that is because of that clarity. if you are going to try to get to your theological goal disputing how καί is used (as you've tried to do before), you won't get out of the starting gate.

Clear? Can you elaborate how to tell the difference? What if there are two ways to view a verse that are clear to two different persons in a different way?

The ASV renders it similar to the following. Adding "also" works here and that makes και adjunctive, not copulative.

2 Peter 2:1b
in the righteousness of our God
[who is the same God in the next verse] and the Savior Jesus Christ: 2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you by an accurate knowledge of [the] God [just mentioned] and [also] of Jesus our Lord.

 

[John Milton]

And here we see the subjective nature of the standard. The interpreter tends to go with what seems theologically most satisfying.

Exactly.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I'm beginning to agree with JM. I often find myself scratching my head at your posts to figure out where you are getting this stuff, and it's clear you don't always, or even often, understand the sources you are using. It's pretty clear when καί is copulative, and the reason people don't discuss that is because of that clarity. if you are going to try to get to your theological goal disputing how καί is used (as you've tried to do before), you won't get out of the starting gate.

The use of και is pretty clear?

Consider that in the year 2000 Danker added a qualification to σωτηρ at Titus 2:13 based on the use of και that was not in BAG or BAGD.


> BDAG σωτηρ - ὁ μέγας θεὸς καὶ σ. ἡμῶν Χρ. Ἱ. our great God and Savior Christ Jesus Tit 2:13 (cp. PLond III, 604b, 118 p. 80 [47 AD] τῷ μεγάλῳ θεῷ σωτῆρι; but the presence of καί Tit 2:13 suggests a difft. semantic aspect and may justify the rendering in NRSV mg)

So, the latest scholarship of Danker moves away from the earlier entry which was not a strong endorsement in the first place.

What is it about και at Titus 2:13 that justifies the rendering of the NRSV with 2 persons in view?

It may be clear to you, but I preordered BDAG and had it from 2000. I puzzled over this for the better part of two decades.

The key is in the different usages of και.

If it's clear, easy and obvious, what is your explanation? I think mine is reasonable.

To just say it is "obvious" is to commit Carson's Obviously fallacy.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Exactly.

Not me. I dig for the grammatical reason. And if I fail, I keep on digging.

 

[John Milton]

Not me. I dig for the grammatical reason.

Even if this is true,

And if I fail, I keep on digging.

It does you no good, because you don't recognize when you have failed.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Even if this is true,

It does you no good, because you don't recognize when you have failed.

Not this time. I finally really understand the Emperor's New Clothes!

So many tried to defeat Sharp's because their gut told them it was wrong, and a major reason was accepting the presuppositional drivel that forms the basis of its fallaciousness. I did that for years.

It's so simple once one sees it, just like the little boy who cried out, "He's naked!"

 

[John Milton]

Not this time. I finally really understand the Emperor's New Clothes!

So many tried to defeat Sharp's because their gut told them it was wrong, and a major reason was accepting the presuppositional drivel that forms the basis of its fallaciousness. I did that for years.

It's so simple once one sees it, just like the little boy who cried out, "He's naked!"

You argue over how many "people" are in view in ambiguous passages to dispute Jesus's divinity and ignore the fact that scripture clearly teaches Jesus's pre-existence and involvement in creation in John 1, Col. 1, and Heb. 1. What you need to understand is that you are the emperor, and, since you are buck naked, you need to get some clothes on.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

You argue over how many "people" are in view in ambiguous passages to dispute Jesus's divinity and ignore the fact that scripture clearly teaches Jesus's pre-existence and involvement in creation in John 1, Col. 1, and Heb. 1. What you need to understand is that you are the emperor, and, since you are buck naked, you need to get some clothes on.

I certainly do believe in the prehuman existence of the Word and that he was both the intermediate agent and the instrument of the Ultimate agent, the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

That's unrelated to Sharp's fallacious rule.

 

[John Milton]

I certainly do believe in the prehuman existence of the Word and that he was both the intermediate agent and the instrument of the Ultimate agent, the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

So what do you think Jesus is, then? God, a god, an angel?

That's unrelated to Sharp's fallacious rule.

I'm not sure what Sharp's rule has to do with your initial post. Have you have gone off on a tangent or did you have two ideas closely in mind but expressed them separately? Is it something else?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

So what do you think Jesus is, then? God, a god, an angel?

I'm not sure what Sharp's rule has to do with your initial post. Have you have gone off on a tangent or did you have two ideas closely in mind but expressed them separately? Is it something else?

So what do you think Jesus is, then? God, a god, an angel?

I'm not sure what Sharp's rule has to do with your initial post. Have you have gone off on a tangent or did you have two ideas closely in mind but expressed them separately? Is it something else?

This thread is about Greek grammar. As for the OP and Sharp's rule, @Gryllus Maior made that connection. Maybe he will explain it to you. In a way it's obliquely related to his view that θεός at J 1:1c is definite, except it actually had a basis in discourse grammar.

 

[John Milton]

This thread is about Greek grammar.

No, it never was. It is another of your "I-don't-think-that-Jesus-is-god-but-I-don't-have-the-courage-to-outright-say-it" threads in disguise.

As for the OP and Sharp's rule, @Gryllus Maior made that connection. Maybe he will explain it to you. In a way it's obliquely related to his view that θεός at J 1:1c is definite, except it actually had a basis in discourse grammar.

You were the one proclaiming that you have overthrown it. You can't blame that on Gryllus.

 

[civic]

Titus 2:13 facts. Besides the truth of sharps rule set aside for a moment there is "CONTEXT " .

Never and I repeat never in the GNT does ἐπιφάνειαν ever refer to the Father but always to the Son. The same is true with παρουσίας as it always refers to the Son and never the Father. It is the Son who is Coming again not the Father. So Titus 2:13 cannot refer to the Father but only the Son.

hope this helps !!!

 

[John Milton]

Titus 2:13 facts. Besides the truth of sharps rule set aside for a moment there is "CONTEXT " .

Never and I repeat never in the GNT does ἐπιφάνειαν ever refer to the Father but always to the Son. The same is true with παρουσίας as it always refers to the Son and never the Father. It is the Son who is Coming again not the Father. So Titus 2:13 cannot refer to the Father but only the Son.

hope this helps !!!

Facts don't have any effect on Roger Thornhill or The "Real" John Milton, I'm afraid.