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

John Milton

Well-known member
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.
Unity does not mean that the things joined are necessarily distinguished by quantity. It's as simple as that.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I didn't know you were Oneness ;)
"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with himself, and the word was himself. He was with himself in the beginning." John 1:1-2a understood the way you understand it does sound remarkably like an argument you would make. It's no wonder to me that you embrace it.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with himself, and the word was himself. He was with himself in the beginning." John 1:1-2a understood the way you understand it does sound remarkably like an argument you would make. It's no wonder to me that you embrace it.

I think you have me confused with the guy who takes θεός at 1:1c as definite and identifies θεός there as the θεός at 1:1b.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
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
@John Milton


Here is the entire section from BDF 276.3 and also W.-S. § 18, 7d(!); which they say to compare. Apparently BDF has a similar view of Titus 2:13.


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). M; Mlt. 84 [134f.]; A. T. Robertson, The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ (Exp. VIII 21 [1921] 182–8).
 

Attachments

  • D4850222-A571-4B5B-B95D-531A53539284.jpeg
    D4850222-A571-4B5B-B95D-531A53539284.jpeg
    242.2 KB · Views: 4

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
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.

Of course the words τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν have one referent. The exegetical issue here however is whether Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is in apposition to τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν or to τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν. It's a no brainer which is the correct reading. Certainly there is no "proof text" for Christ's so-called "Deity" here.
 
Top