Heb 1:1-3

Roger Thornhill

Active member
The articles in this passage most likely depend on the Hebrew writer's knowledge of the source material. You have no evidence that would suggest that he changed them for his own purposes.
Of course the writer knew his sources!

While NT writers do apply LXX texts freely, my arguments here don't assume or leverage this fact.
 
Of course the writer knew his sources!

While NT writers do apply LXX texts freely, my arguments here don't assume or leverage this fact.
Your "argument" didn't consider the fact the author of Hebrews (most likely) did not make choices concerning the use of the article; the translator of the Psalm did. For this reason your thoughts about anaphora aren't relevant.

Also, you never responded to my question: have you ever gone by the screen name Georg Kaplin?
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
Your "argument" didn't consider the fact the author of Hebrews (most likely) did not make choices concerning the use of the article; the translator of the Psalm did. For this reason your thoughts about anaphora aren't relevant.

Also, you never responded to my question: have you ever gone by the screen name Georg Kaplin?

I have considered this. Verses 8-9, minus (πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν) are from the same contiguous discourse. Didn't you already make the point that the writer of Hebrews quoted what he had knowledge of? You would have a point if I had attempted find the antecedent of the anaphoric article outside of a contiguous single narrative.

Therefore, the writer of Hebrews words, πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν, applies what follows to what is said about ο υιός του θεού.

So the context (see Barry, I do use context!) identifies the speaker as God the Father.

In the LXX of the Psalm, anaphora identifies the first ο θεός as someone other than the Hebrew king.

Also, in both Hebrews and the LXX of the Psalm, the first ο θεός is identified through anaphora as the one who anoints the Hebrew king.

As for your second question, why should I provide details about my personal life to someone who hides behind the identity of an old dead poet?

;)
 
Last edited:
I have considered this. Verses 8-9, minus (πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν) are from the same contiguous discourse. Didn't you already make the point that the writer of Hebrews quoted what he had knowledge of? You would have a point if I had attempted find the antecedent of the anaphoric article outside of a contiguous single narrative.

Therefore, the writer of Hebrews words, πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν, applies what follows to what is said about ο υιός του θεού.

So the context (see Barry, I do use context!) identifies the speaker as God the Father.

In the LXX of the Psalm, anaphora identifies the first ο θεός as someone other than the Hebrew king.

Also, in both Hebrews and the LXX of the Psalm, the first ο θεός is identified as the one who anoints the Hebrew King through anaphora.

As for your second question, why should I provide details about my personal life to someone who hides behind the identity of an old dead poet?
Hebrews 1 is a single chapter, but it isn't a single, continuous narrative. The author's thoughts are interspersed with quotations/allusions from other sources. The wording of the quotation is mostly, or perhaps entirely, fixed. Unless it can be demonstrated that the author intentionally changed the quotation for his own purposes, the articles should not be considered anaphoric. The Hebrew author is not directly responsible for them.

I didn't ask you about your personal life. I asked you whether or not you have used the screen name Georg Kaplin because of the connection between it and Roger Thornhill. At first you ignored the question. Now, you are considering it personal, and are sniping at me. Perhaps you feel that this was a personal question because of the question about Buzzard. Interesting.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
Hebrews 1 is a single chapter, but it isn't a single, continuous narrative. The author's thoughts are interspersed with quotations/allusions from other sources. The wording of the quotation is mostly, or perhaps entirely, fixed. Unless it can be demonstrated that the author intentionally changed the quotation for his own purposes, the articles should not be considered anaphoric. The Hebrew author is not directly responsible for them.

I didn't ask you about your personal life. I asked you whether or not you have used the screen name Georg Kaplin because of the connection between it and Roger Thornhill. At first you ignored the question. Now, you are considering it personal, and are sniping at me. Perhaps you feel that this was a personal question because of the question about Buzzard. Interesting.

I did not call Hebrews 1 contiguous narrative. Hebrews 1:8-9 is from the same narrative.

Therefore, the anaphoric article from ο θεός at 1:9b co-identifies with θεός at 1:9a and 1:9a with 1:8.

The same is true in the original LXX.

Thats enough to identify ο θεός at 1:8 as the one who anoints.

The grammar contradicts the mere contextual reasons given by those who see it as vocative.

That the one who performs the anointing is the Father comes from how the writer integrates the passage into his narrative.
 
I did not call Hebrews 1 contiguous narrative. Hebrews 1:8-9 is from the same narrative.

Therefore, the anaphoric article from ο θεός at 1:9b co-identifies with θεός at 1:9a and 1:9a with 1:8.

The same is true in the original LXX.

Thats enough to identify ο θεός at 1:8 as the one who anoints.

The grammar contradicts the mere contextual reasons given by those who see it as vocative.

That the one who performs the anointing is the Father comes from how the writer integrates the passage into his narrative.
I know what you said, and you explicitly linked the articular phrases involving God in Heb. 1:8-9 to Hebrews 1:1 via anaphora.
Roger Thornhill said:
ὁ θεὸς is identified as the Father (ie the one who has a Son) in verse 1.

Naturally, as in the example of τῶν ἀγγέλων, in a cohesive discourse, when the same articular term follows, the article is inserted to identify the entity as the previous occurrence.


(NA28) 8 πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν· ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ⸋τοῦ αἰῶνος⸌, oκαὶ ⸂ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος⸃ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας ⸀σου. 9 ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ⸀ἀνομίαν· διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου.

In 9, there are two occurrences of ὁ θεός which anaphoricly co-identify with the Father. It is highly likely that the insertion of the article before θεὸς in verse 8 is intended to identify θεὸς in 9 as the θεὸς in 8 and also in verse 1.
This won't work for the reasons I have already given.
 
You appear to be talking about things that you don't actually understand, but I want to be sure that I have read the situation correctly. What is your process for identifying anaphoric articles?
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
I know what you said, and you explicitly linked the articular phrases involving God in Heb. 1:8-9 to Hebrews 1:1 via anaphora.
This won't work for the reasons I articles in Hebrews 1:8-9 to ο θεός in

I explicitly said that the anaphoric link was entirely grammatical in verses 8-9 and contextual to identify the Father based on how the writer introduced it at the beginning of 8 and the identification in verse 1.

If I said something inadvertently to the contrary or you have misunderstood me in some way, I hope this clarifies the matter.

As for how I use anaphora, you can read Wallace, Middleton and Apollonius Dyscolus.

All of them see the article (defined as individualizing, per Wallace) as having pronominal functionality.

See Wallace for more details. I am not advocating any unique views on the anaphoric article.

Also, I would prefer that you quote me with a link instead of citing me, particularly if you won't allow me to clarify my own words. I am not sure what your agenda is.
 
I explicitly said that the anaphoric link was entirely grammatical in verses 8-9 and contextual to identify the Father based on how the writer introduced it at the beginning of 8 and the identification in verse 1.

If I said something inadvertently to the contrary or you have misunderstood me in some way, I hope this clarifies the matter.

As for how I use anaphora, you can read Wallace, Middleton and Apollonius Dyscolus.

All of them see the article (defined as individualizing, per Wallace) as having pronominal functionality.

See Wallace for more details. I am not advocating any unique views on the anaphoric article.

Also, I would prefer that you quote me with a link instead of citing me, particularly if you won't allow me to clarify my own words. I am not sure what your agenda is.
I asked you how you identify anaphoric articles because I want to know what process you use to distinguish between different article uses. Given the complexity of the article, I don't feel that this was an unreasonable question. If I thought you were following the standard grammatical usage of the term, I wouldn't have asked you. I find it strange that in a single post you have taken issue with me for (allegedly) not giving you a chance to clarify your words and for asking you for clarification.

As for quoting you with a link, I will do it if I can find a way to do it easily. I am not very familiar with this forum yet.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
I asked you how you identify anaphoric articles because I want to know what process you use to distinguish between different article uses. Given the complexity of the article, I don't feel that this was an unreasonable question. If I thought you were following the standard grammatical usage of the term, I wouldn't have asked you. I find it strange that in a single post you have taken issue with me for (allegedly) not giving you a chance to clarify your words and for asking you for clarification.

As for quoting you with a link, I will do it if I can find a way to do it easily. I am not very familiar with this forum yet.

Here is a paper that provides the explanation.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
A paper from another author can't provide an explanation of how you distinguish the different uses of the article, so I'm out.

I understand. While this is how I distinguish the different usages of the article, and I have already said it's just like what's in Wallace's grammar, it's a bit overwhelming. It's just intermediate Greek.

If you decide to study so as to engage the Greek text, and I am still alive, please let me know. :)

I do have a paper that analyzes Jesus' prehuman existence from John 8 which I did write, if you would like to discuss that instead.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
Well, now we see where you are getting it all from. When the introduction mentions "Trinitarian apologists" and "A new “rule” of Greek grammar" I want to run away and find something more productive to do.

I was told Wallace was going to assign a student to research the paper over a year ago. He was seen downloading it by the author.

I have tried finding an exception but anaphora is axiomatic to Greek exegesis.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
I was told Wallace was going to assign a student to research the paper over a year ago. He was seen downloading it by the author.

I have tried finding an exception but anaphora is axiomatic to Greek exegesis.
The anaphoric use of the article is part of the broader category of "identifiability," which includes quite a bit more than just previously mentioned nouns.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
The anaphoric use of the article is part of the broader category of "identifiability," which includes quite a bit more than just previously mentioned nouns.

When you asked me earlier what elements of Greek grammar I considered to be axiomatic, I provided more than anaphora.

You did not add anything extra at that time, but did make an appeal for "context."

I do admit to limiting what I consider to be axiomatic to grammar.

I consider grammar to be axiomatic because while subject, vocabulary and style are choices made by writers, the grammar is something to which they must adhere to when writing intelligible Greek.

Thus it's where I start, and I rank it higher than more subjective elements.

That being said, I don't ignore context, even though different people view it differently. "Context" that is often not carefully defined and adequately supported is subject to abuse.

So, what elements of a discourse do you think I am ignoring in Hebrews 1, which are not subject to individual interpretation by the exegete?
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
The anaphoric use of the article is part of the broader category of "identifiability," which includes quite a bit more than just previously mentioned nouns.

After re-reading what you wrote again, I would like to also say that what is often missed regarding the article, is that while the description "anaphoric" often includes various nuances, the individualizing article is said to be generally (I find always) pronominal.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
After re-reading what you wrote again, I would like to also say that what is often missed regarding the article, is that while the description "anaphoric" often includes various nuances, the individualizing article is said to be generally (I find always) pronominal.
You find it to be so. Others, not so much:


(1) Ὁ ἡ τό As a Pronoun


249. Introduction.
The original use of ὁ ἡ τό as a demonstrative pronoun is retained in classical usage in certain fixed phrases; the forms of the old relative pronoun ὅς ἥ ὅ replace it occasionally in classical and more frequently in Hellenistic times. The origin of this confusion was, on the one hand, the old sigmatic alternative form of ὁ: ὅς which in Greek had become identical with the relative in form; and, on the other, the Epic and dialectal use of ὁ ἡ τό as a relative pronoun (cf. the article der in German which serves as article, relative and demonstrative; in English that is both demonstrative and relative and is related to the article). Cf. K.–G. ii 227. In the NT (except the Epic quotation from Aratus in A 17:28 where τοῦ = τούτου) there are preserved only ὁ μὲν … ὁ δέ (ὃς μὲν … ὃς δέ) ‘the one … the other’ and ὁ δέ ‘but he’, ὁ μὲν οὖν ‘now he’. Other expressions like καὶ ὅς (Homil Clem 6.2.13 καὶ ὃς ἔφη), καὶ τόν ‘and he, him’, τὸν καὶ τόν ‘such and such’, or ‘so and so’, πρὸ τοῦ ‘formerly’ have completely disappeared.

Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (p. 131). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1099. The article ὁ, ἡ, τό, was originally a demonstrative pronoun, and as such supplied the place of the personal pronoun of the third person. By gradual weakening it because the definite article, It also served as a relative pronoun (1105). (Cp. Germ. der, demonstrative article and relative; French le from ille.) ὁ as a demonstrative is still retained in part in Attic prose (1106), while the beginnings of its use as the article are seen even in Homer (1102).


Smyth, H. W. (1920). A Greek Grammar for Colleges (p. 284). New York; Cincinnati; Chicago; Boston; Atlanta: American Book Company.

You can read on in the grammars if you wish to see just how limited the "pronominal" use actually is in Attic, even less so in Koine.
 
Top