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

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Nonsense to you. Ancient translation witnesses are valuable because they show how ancient authors, with direct experience of Greek as a living language, took the text.

And... I think "to him" is best explained by a following address in this context.

Not with a non existent nominative for vocative Ὁ Κύριός.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Nonsense to you. Ancient translation witnesses are valuable because they show how ancient authors, with direct experience of Greek as a living language, took the text.

And... I think "to him" is best explained by a following address in this context.

The context of a passage where someone said something "to him" followed by a direct address is what is called phenomenal not ontological. To transfer phenomenal to ontological is technically called a big no-no.
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
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.
Perhaps Wallace and Harris drop the BDF comment about a noun being definite if it occurs at the beginning of a writing because they do not support that point.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Perhaps Wallace and Harris drop the BDF comment about a noun being definite if it occurs at the beginning of a writing because they do not support that point.

That's a charitable way of looking at it, but that is BDF's position and I remember verbiage to the effect that that BDF supports them.

I'd have to find that quote.

If a source had a contrary position to the one you use it for, would you do that?
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
That's a charitable way of looking at it, but that is BDF's position and I remember verbiage to the effect that that BDF supports them.
I'd have to find that quote.
If a source had a contrary position to the one you use it for, would you do that?
That Wallace disagrees with one point BDF makes it does not necessarily follow that he must disagree with everything they wrote.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
That Wallace disagrees with one point BDF makes it does not necessarily follow that he must disagree with everything they wrote.

It's obvious that BDF strongly holds to the position that savior is definite. That is their explanation and they spell it out. They do cite but not quote Robertson. That's what Wallace and Harris pick up on. They have to skip over BDF's position to get there though.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Perhaps Wallace and Harris drop the BDF comment about a noun being definite if it occurs at the beginning of a writing because they do not support that point.

Here is what Wallace said and what BDF says:


BDF seem to support the rule in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 (they enlist the support of Robertson’s essay, “The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ”), but also apply it to proper, impersonal (geographical) names (145; §276.3), citing Acts 19:21 (τὴν Μακεδονίαν καὶ ᾿Αχαί>αν)! They make no comment about the plural. (https://bible.org/article/sharp-redivivus-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule)


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). Cf. W.-S. § 18, 7d(!); Mlt. 84 [134f.]; A. T. Robertson, The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ (Exp. VIII 21 [1921] 182–8).
 
Basil the Great Against Eunomius cites Titus 2:13:

Ὁ ἀληθινὸς πρὸς τοὺς ψευδῶς ἀντιδιαστελλόμενος λέγεται· ὁ δὲ ἀσύγκριτος πρὸς πάντα κατὰ πάντα ὑπερέχων. Εἰπὼν οὖν ὁ Ἱερεμίας περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, Οὗτος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, οὐ λογισθήσεται ἕτερος πρὸς αὐτὸν, μείζονα καὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς εἶπεν; Ὅτι δὲ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς, αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰωάνης ἐν τῇ Ἐπιστολῇ φησιν· Ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεόν· καί ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ Υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ.

Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς, καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. Οὔτε οὖν διὰ τὸ, Οὐ λογισθήσεται ἕτερος πρὸς αὐτὸν, μείζονα τοῦ Πατρὸς νοητέον· οὔτε μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν τὸν Πατέρα, ἀλλ' ἀμφότερα πρὸς τοὺς λεγομένους μὲν ψευδῶς, οὐκ ὄντας δέ. Ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Δευτερονομίῳ λέγει· Κύριος μόνος ἦγεν αὐτοὺς, καὶ οὐκ ἦν μετ' αὐτῶν Θεὸς ἀλλότριος. Εἰ μόνος ἀόρατος καὶ σοφὸς ὁ Θεὸς, οὐχ ἅμα καὶ ἐν πᾶσι μείζων πάντων Θεός· ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὑπερέχων πάντων. Ὁ Ἀπόστολος οὖν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸν εἰπὼν τὸν Σωτῆρα, μείζονα καὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς εἶπεν; Ἀλλ' ἄτοπον. Ὁμοίως οὖν καὶ τοῦτο νοητέον. Ὁ μέγας Θεὸς οὐκ ἂν ἐλάττων εἴη ἑτέρου Θεοῦ. Ὁ Ἀπόστολος οὖν, εἰπὼν περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, Ἀπεκδεχόμεθα τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, μείζονα τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐνόησε; Τοῦ γὰρ Υἱοῦ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν καὶ παρουσίαν ἐκδεχόμεθα, οὐ τοῦ Πατρός. Ἀδιακρίτως οὖν εἰς Πατέρα καὶ εἰς Υἱὸν ταῦτα λέγεται, καὶ οὐ παρατετηρημένως. Τὸ, Ἴσα Θεῷ εἶναι, οὐκ ἄλλο ἐστὶ τῷ εἶναι ἴσον Θεῷ. Ὁ οὖν Υἱὸς, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγησάμενος τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, πῶς ἀνόμοιος καὶ ἄνισος Θεῷ; Ἰουδαῖοι δὲ εὐσεβέστεροι Εὐνομίου. Τοῦ γὰρ Σωτῆρος εἰπόντος ἑαυτὸν Υἱὸν Θεοῦ μόνον, ὡς ὀφειλομένου τῷ Υἱῷ, εἰ ἀληθῶς Υἱός ἐστι, καὶ ἴσον αὐτὸν εἶναι τῷ Πατρί· Ἐβούλοντο λιθάσαι, φησὶν, αὐτὸν, οὐχ ὅτι μόνον ἔλυε τὸ Σάββατον, ἀλλ' ὅτι καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν, ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ Θεῷ. Ἴσος οὖν τῷ Πατρὶ καὶ κατὰ τὸν Ἀπόστολον καὶ κατὰ τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ Σωτῆρος, κἂν Εὐνόμιος μὴ θέλῃ.

postscript: I haven't studied this yet but it looked like it might be relevant to the theological issue. Not the syntax issue.
 
Last edited:

OldShepherd

Well-known member
Here is what Wallace said and what BDF says:
BDF seem to support the rule in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 (they enlist the support of Robertson’s essay, “The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ”), but also apply it to proper, impersonal (geographical) names (145; §276.3), citing Acts 19:21 (τὴν Μακεδονίαν καὶ ᾿Αχαί>αν)! They make no comment about the plural. (https://bible.org/article/sharp-redivivus-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule)
Note BDF disagrees with a few other sources and apply Sharp's to "proper, impersonal names.

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). Cf. W.-S. § 18, 7d(!); Mlt. 84 [134f.]; A. T. Robertson, The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ (Exp. VIII 21 [1921] 182–8).
Note, "σωτῆρος ἡμ.᾽Ι.Χρ. may be taken by itself and separated from the preceding." Kind of iffy I'd say.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Note BDF disagrees with a few other sources and apply Sharp's to "proper, impersonal names.

Note, "σωτῆρος ἡμ.᾽Ι.Χρ. may be taken by itself and separated from the preceding." Kind of iffy I'd say.

That verbiage is because the first clause before "however." They supported manuscript 'S' with κυρίου instead of θεού, however the Σωτήρος clause may be separate in any manuscript tradition.
 

OldShepherd

Well-known member
That verbiage is because the first clause before "however." They supported manuscript 'S' with κυρίου instead of θεού, however the Σωτήρος clause may be separate in any manuscript tradition.
Doesn't change anything it still says "may be separate" And this theory as posted has no supporting scholarship. e.g. "as in 'source #1' [quoted]" "source #2 [quoted] etc."
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Doesn't change anything it still says "may be separate" And this theory as posted has no supporting scholarship. e.g. "as in 'source #1' [quoted]" "source #2 [quoted] etc."

Wallace must not have wanted anyone to know that they may be separate.

That kills it as a proof-text.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Yes, interesting. If a native Greek speakers naturally saw the TSKS syntax as describing one person there would be no reason to leap outside the immediate context and make parallels to the appearing and coming not the Son.
The majority of the people who go on about the number of "people" in these types of constructions have a theological axe to grind. This is true for those on both sides. Unfortunately for such people, finely tuned grammar "rules" are not a suitable replacement for a general understanding of how languages function.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
The majority of the people who go on about the number of "people" in these types of constructions have a theological axe to grind. This is true for those on both sides. Unfortunately for such people, finely tuned grammar "rules" are not a suitable replacement for a general understanding of how languages function.

The TSKS construction is valid in that it does indicate a unity. You may be interested in my take on the context when presented with this argument.

---
It's not just epiphinea. It's the blessed hope and appearing of glory. Note the TSKS? It's The Hope and Appearing that is one thing, not just appearing. And it's hope and appearing of glory.

The closest parallel with those two words is in the same book, Titis 3:4-7.

The kindness of God appeared (verb epiphaino) is in verse 4 and results in saving through Jesus (v6) which results in the hope of eternal life (v7).

This is the hope and appearing of God and Christ from Titus 2:13.

This is a parallel from the next chapter of the same book that explains hope and appearing at Titus 2:13.
 
Top