Heb 1:1-3

Roger Thornhill

Active member
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.

Of course I have read all of them. There are lots of properties about the article. What you quote from Smyth and BDF does not contradict the proposition that the individualizing article never loses its pronominal force, in fact those quotes are more general.

Middleton says, “it becomes evident that there is no ground whatever for making a distinction between the nature of the Article o` and the Pronoun o` and that the “near relation” is in truth no other than perfect identity.” (Middleton, T. F. (1833). The Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 13)

Modern Greek linguists understand that the article has a primary function of identification. Greek 101 grammars say it is to make something definite and that's just plain wrong.

So, let's reason together. If an individualizing article serves to identify, the only time it is not pronominal is when the entity is first mentioned. Sometimes this is seen without the article and later repeated with the article.

If the individualizing article frequently is not pronominal, it should not be too hard for you to give examples.
 
Last edited:
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.
Well, Wallace says
GGBB 217 said:
the first mention of the substantive is usually anarthrous because it is merely being introduced.
I asked you about your methodology since your discussion about this passage went beyond the scope of Wallace's remarks about anaphora. I don't know why it was a problem for you since understand Greek grammar. :)

Wallace says
GGBB 218 said:
to call an article anaphoric is not enough: one has to probe to see if it belongs more specifically to some other category as well
but you have implied that the "anaphoric" label excludes or diminishes the probability of other grammatical labels.

You have claimed that "God" in Hebrews 1 is a specific reference to God the Father. This is similar to the position held by the Jehovah's Witnesses which Wallace criticizes in GGBB page 41 footnote 14:
it is argued that since John 1:1b states that "the Word was with God," John 1:1c cannot mean "The Word was God": "Someone who is 'with' another person cannot be the same as that other person" (27). This argument seems to assume that all S-PN constructions are of the convertible proposition type.
Even though you weren't discussing S-PN constructions, this observation is relevant because it demonstrates that Wallace has no problem entertaining the idea that Jesus could be God without being God the Father [subset proposition], and this same construction is found in Hebrews 1:8 about which Wallace writes
Wallace GGBB 59 said:
There are three syntactical possibilities for θεός here: as a subject ("God is your throne"),...predicate nom. ("your throne is God"),...and nom. for voc. (as in the translation above)....It is our view that the nom. for voc. view is to be preferred...[Wallace gives three reasons to support his conclusion at this point. I am resuming the quote with the fourth] (4) This view takes seriously the μέν...δέ construction in vv 7-8, while the S-PN view does not adequately handle these conjunctions. Specifically, if we read v 8 as "your throne is God"...the δέ loses its adversative force, for such a statement could also be made of the angels, viz., that God reigns over them.
It is obvious that you disagree with Wallace concerning the nominative for vocative proposition. It seems to me that you must also be in disagreement about the significance of the article in this passage. Wallace is trying to determine the relationship between θεός and θρόνος, but you are insisting that θεός is linked to God the Father in Heb. 1:1. (I should also ask you if Wallace's treatment of the grammar conflicts with your "grammatical axiom" about "equative predicate nominatives." I don't know what you meant.)

I think it is fair to say that you don't appear to be in lockstep with Wallace.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
JM:
Well, Wallace says
GGBB 217 said:
the first mention of the substantive is usually anarthrous because it is merely being introduced.
I asked you about your methodology since your discussion about this passage went beyond the scope of Wallace's remarks about anaphora. I don't know why it was a problem for you since understand Greek grammar. :)


Roger:
First of all, Wallace says “usually.” This is for a particular “classic” form of anaphora of the form:

Once upon a time there was a man who said he could read Greek. This man has the name Milton.

But he also says: “most individualizing articles will be anaphoric in a very broad sense"

This means that they identify a previous mention of the same noun, even if it is not anaphora “classic.”

For my purposes identification is all I am concerned with.


JM:
Wallace says
GGBB 218 said:
to call an article anaphoric is not enough: one has to probe to see if it belongs more specifically to some other category as well but you have implied that the "anaphoric" label excludes or diminishes the probability of other grammatical labels.


Roger:
You misunderstood Wallace here. He is not saying that the anaphoric article is mutually exclusive with these other labels. They are subsets of anaphoric.


Look at Chart 19 that goes with this caption:

Chart 19 depicts the semantic relationships of the individualizing article. The chart is designed to show the student in pictorial form that the seven categories of the individualizing article are not entirely distinct. Rather, they are related, for
the most part, in a general-to-specific manner. That is, every monadic article is, in a sense, a specific kind of par excellence article (in the sense that the only one of a class is, ipso facto, the best of a class). And every par excellence article is well known (but it is more specific, for it is well known because it is the best of a class). And every well known article is anaphoric (in the broadest sense possible). But it is more specific than a simple anaphoric article would be.


Wallace says most individualizing articles are anaphoric in a broad sense. My study sees that every individualizing article has an antecedent. But I am open to being convinced otherwise, I just have not found any.


JM:
You have claimed that "God" in Hebrews 1 is a specific reference to God the Father.

I thought you agreed to quote me. I believe I said God at Hebrews 1:1 could only be the Father as he has a Son. Even Wallace agrees there.

Yes, Wallace sees God at Hebrews 1:8 as the Son based upon his view of the context and an appeal/assumption that it is vocative.

But in his own own grammar he contradicts himself. Not just here but in 2 Peter 2:1 and a few other places he holds dear.

If you follow his flow chart on anaphora you can demonstrate that for yourself.
 
JM:
Well, Wallace says
GGBB 217 said:
the first mention of the substantive is usually anarthrous because it is merely being introduced.
I asked you about your methodology since your discussion about this passage went beyond the scope of Wallace's remarks about anaphora. I don't know why it was a problem for you since understand Greek grammar. :)


Roger:
First of all, Wallace says “usually.” This is for a particular “classic” form of anaphora of the form:

Once upon a time there was a man who said he could read Greek. This man has the name Milton.

But he also says: “most individualizing articles will be anaphoric in a very broad sense"

This means that they identify a previous mention of the same noun, even if it is not anaphora “classic.”

For my purposes identification is all I am concerned with.
I never said it was a problem. I said it prompted me to ask you about your methodology.


JM:
Wallace says
GGBB 218 said:
to call an article anaphoric is not enough: one has to probe to see if it belongs more specifically to some other category as well but you have implied that the "anaphoric" label excludes or diminishes the probability of other grammatical labels.


Roger:
You misunderstood Wallace here. He is not saying that the anaphoric article is mutually exclusive with these other labels. They are subsets of anaphoric.
I haven't misunderstood Wallace. I am saying that you appear to be using anaphora to the exclusion of other categories. I think you will see this if you reread this part of my last post.


Look at Chart 19 that goes with this caption:

Chart 19 depicts the semantic relationships of the individualizing article. The chart is designed to show the student in pictorial form that the seven categories of the individualizing article are not entirely distinct. Rather, they are related, for
the most part, in a general-to-specific manner. That is, every monadic article is, in a sense, a specific kind of par excellence article (in the sense that the only one of a class is, ipso facto, the best of a class). And every par excellence article is well known (but it is more specific, for it is well known because it is the best of a class). And every well known article is anaphoric (in the broadest sense possible). But it is more specific than a simple anaphoric article would be.
See my last comment. You are confused.


Wallace says most individualizing articles are anaphoric in a broad sense. My study sees that every individualizing article has an antecedent. But I am open to being convinced otherwise, I just have not found any.
I have given you one. A quotation is a break in the narrative. It does, of course, relate to the preceding passage, but the articles in the quotation cannot refer to referents outside of the quote because the use and placement of the articles in the quotation was determined by the author of the original source. That author could not possibly predict how the passage might be cited by another author. You shouldn't consider anaphora a possibility unless you have evidence that the author wasn't directly quoting a source or making deliberate changes to it. I don't know why you are unable to comprehend this!

I thought you agreed to quote me.
I am genuinely shocked that you would need me to remind you of what we discussed yesterday.

I believe I said God at Hebrews 1:1 could only be the Father as he has a Son. Even Wallace agrees there.
My whole point is that the articles used in Hebrews 1:8-9 do not form a link to the preceding text.


This is one of the places where you said there was a direct relationship between Heb. 1:1 and 1:8-9.

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.


Yes, Wallace sees God at Hebrews 1:8 as the Son based upon his view of the context and an appeal/assumption that it is vocative.

But in his own own grammar he contradicts himself.
How so?

Not just here but in 2 Peter 2:1 and a few other places he holds dear.
Let's just focus on this one.

If you follow his flow chart on anaphora you can demonstrate that for yourself.
I guess you have forgotten what you said...

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
You claimed that you distinguish between the different usages of the article just like Wallace. Now you claim that Wallace is confused. This means that you are confused, and (perhaps for the first time) I can wholeheartedly agree with you!
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
I never said it was a problem. I said it prompted me to ask you about your methodology.



I haven't misunderstood Wallace. I am saying that you appear to be using anaphora to the exclusion of other categories. I think you will see this if you reread this part of my last post.



See my last comment. You are confused.



I have given you one. A quotation is a break in the narrative. It does, of course, relate to the preceding passage, but the articles in the quotation cannot refer to referents outside of the quote because the use and placement of the articles in the quotation was determined by the author of the original source. That author could not possibly predict how the passage might be cited by another author. You shouldn't consider anaphora a possibility unless you have evidence that the author wasn't directly quoting a source or making deliberate changes to it. I don't know why you are unable to comprehend this!


I am genuinely shocked that you would need me to remind you of what we discussed yesterday.


My whole point is that the articles used in Hebrews 1:8-9 do not form a link to the preceding text.


This is one of the places where you said there was a direct relationship between Heb. 1:1 and 1:8-9.





How so?


Let's just focus on this one.


I guess you have forgotten what you said...


You claimed that you distinguish between the different usages of the article just like Wallace. Now you claim that Wallace is confused. This means that you are confused, and (perhaps for the first time) I can wholeheartedly agree with you!

I suggest you read the paper I provided to start with. I am not going to rehash it here In detail.

Wallace says most instances of the individualizing article are anaphoric (ie pronominal) in a broad sense.

This means ο θεος at Hebrews 1:9 has the same identity as 1:8.

I am not interested in the sort of nitpicking and arguing about words as you appear to be.

If you come up with something substantial that impacts the conclusion of the paper, I am interested, but not with the sort of dialogue that you appear to thrive on.
 
If you don't wish to discuss your claims, perhaps you shouldn't make them. It is painfully apparent that you are aping your sources.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
If you don't wish to discuss your claims, perhaps you shouldn't make them. It is painfully apparent that you are aping your sources.


Wallace says most instances of the individualizing article are anaphoric (ie pronominal) in a broad sense.

This means ο θεος at Hebrews 1:9 has the same identity as 1:8.

This is enough to make my point, which is why you ignored it.
 
Wallace says most instances of the individualizing article are anaphoric (ie pronominal) in a broad sense.

This means ο θεος at Hebrews 1:9 has the same identity as 1:8.
That's not what that means. "Most instances" is not "every instance." It is possible that ὁ θεός in v. 9 refers to v. 8 anaphorically, but it is more likely that it doesn't. In order to make that determination you would need to carefully examine the use of the articles there. That's why I asked you about your process for identifying them, but you were unwilling to provide that information. And even if an article is "anaphoric in a broad sense," the article is most often used with another purpose in mind. (It is debated whether or not anaphoric articles, or articles in general, are generally pronominal.)

This is enough to make my point, which is why you ignored it.
I keep having to "remind" you that your entire argument was that Heb. 1:8-9 used anaphoric articles to refer back to Hebrew 1:1 and other places, proving that the Son is not God the Father. I can only assume that you are now omitting the references outside of Heb. 1:8-9, because you've abandoned the lost position. I have been very specific about what I've been discussing. I haven't ignored anything relevant to that discussion.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
Just a thought: Middleton published his treatise in 1828 (I have the 1838 revised edition), when William IV was king of England. The revised edition was published in the second year of Queen Victoria's reign (now the second longest reigning monarch in British history). I would be cautious about depending too much on it -- a lot of linguistic water has flowed under the bridge in the last 2 centuries....
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
That's not what that means. "Most instances" is not "every instance." It is possible that ὁ θεός in v. 9 refers to v. 8 anaphorically, but it is more likely that it doesn't. In order to make that determination you would need to carefully examine the use of the articles there. That's why I asked you about your process for identifying them, but you were unwilling to provide that information. And even if an article is "anaphoric in a broad sense," the article is most often used with another purpose in mind. (It is debated whether or not anaphoric articles, or articles in general, are generally pronominal.)

I keep having to "remind" you that your entire argument was that Heb. 1:8-9 used anaphoric articles to refer back to Hebrew 1:1 and other places, proving that the Son is not God the Father. I can only assume that you are now omitting the references outside of Heb. 1:8-9, because you've abandoned the lost position. I have been very specific about what I've been discussing. I haven't ignored anything relevant to that discussion.

So you agree that if ο θεός at Hebrews 1:9 is anaphoric to 1:8 vocative is not in view.

That's the only part of the argument that matters. I produce powerful convincing evidence that contextually the Father is the only alternative. But that's not my argument and not presented that way in the paper.


Remember, even Wallace agrees most individualizing articles are pronominal. But did you know, he never gives one example of one that is not? I believe this is because when he puts something in print he wants some wiggle room, just in case.

That's as close as anyone can get to an affirmative in biblical exegesis, did you know that? But as you acknowledge, Middleton tips it even closer.

Now, when one looks at 2 Peter 2:1 and 1 John 5:20, if MOST instances are anaphoric , what are the odds and why is it that just texts where some say Jesus is called θεός that are the only exceptions?

The anaphoric article applies to all Koine Greek, not just Hebrews 1.

It's axiomatic.
 
Last edited:

Roger Thornhill

Active member
Just a thought: Middleton published his treatise in 1828 (I have the 1838 revised edition), when William IV was king of England. The revised edition was published in the second year of Queen Victoria's reign (now the second longest reigning monarch in British history). I would be cautious about depending too much on it -- a lot of linguistic water has flowed under the bridge in the last 2 centuries....

Wallace says in his grammar that Middleton remains the most comprehensive treatise on the article. As you have surmised, the paper for the anaphoric article targets Wallace and his followers.

If one follows the flow chart in his grammar for a host of proof-texts, the results are contradictory to his position on those texts.

That's damaging evidence because there is little to no hard objective grammatical evidence in favor of those views.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
Just a thought: Middleton published his treatise in 1828 (I have the 1838 revised edition), when William IV was king of England. The revised edition was published in the second year of Queen Victoria's reign (now the second longest reigning monarch in British history). I would be cautious about depending too much on it -- a lot of linguistic water has flowed under the bridge in the last 2 centuries....

I agree. Much of the information on the article was greatly influenced by German scholars like BDF who you quoted.

It is said that their views of the article are influenced by the use of the article in German.

The view which influences my use of the anaphoric article is that the article is primarily for identification.

And certainly Apollonius cannot be considered as influenced in that way, writing as a native speaker of Greek.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
Wallace says in his grammar that Middleton remains the most comprehensive treatise on the article. As you have surmised, the paper for the anaphoric article targets Wallace and his followers.

If one follows the flow chart in his grammar for a host of proof-texts, the results are contradictory to his position on those texts.

That's damaging evidence because there is little to no hard objective grammatical evidence in favor of those views.
I need to take more time to work through the arguments, and I honestly don't have a lot of time right now. I'd rather be reading Greek than arguing about! :) However, I will note that you are the only one really to have seen this (if you are the same as the author of the paper, otherwise there's two of you). Wallace certainly doesn't see it as a contradiction, and my overall sense is that you've got a somewhat distorted view of how anaphora works. Idiosyncractic language like pronominal (here's looking at you Wallace and Middleton) doesn't help the discussion either.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
I need to take more time to work through the arguments, and I honestly don't have a lot of time right now. I'd rather be reading Greek than arguing about! :) However, I will note that you are the only one really to have seen this (if you are the same as the author of the paper, otherwise there's two of you). Wallace certainly doesn't see it as a contradiction, and my overall sense is that you've got a somewhat distorted view of how anaphora works. Idiosyncractic language like pronominal (here's looking at you Wallace and Middleton) doesn't help the discussion either.

I thought no one noticed this before as well, but later found something similar by Hartley. See footnote 33.

The fact is that Wallace uses the anaphoric article in exegesis in other contexts and Harris makes a brief mention of it, both in the paper.
 
So you agree that if ο θεός at Hebrews 1:9 is anaphoric to 1:8 vocative is not in view.
Not necessarily.

That's the only part of the argument that matters. I produce powerful convincing evidence that contextually the Father is the only alternative. But that's not my argument and not presented that way in the paper.
The paper blatantly misrepresents the positions of both Wallace and Middleton. It erroneously assumes throughout that anaphora is a primary and exclusive category of the Greek article rather than a background feature common to most all uses of the article.

Remember, even Wallace agrees most individualizing articles are pronominal. But did you know, he never gives one example of one that is not? I believe this is because when he puts something in print he wants some wiggle room, just in case. That's as close as anyone can get to an affirmative in biblical exegesis, did you know that?

But as you acknowledge, Middleton tips it even closer.
I didn't acknowledge anything that I remember. You'll have to be more specific.

Now, when one looks at 2 Peter 2:1 and 1 John 5:20, if MOST instances are anaphoric , what are the odds and why is it that just texts where some say Jesus is called θεός that are the only exceptions?

The anaphoric article applies to all Koine Greek, not just Hebrews 1.

It's axiomatic.
I'm afraid you simply don't know what you are talking about.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
I agree that the nominative can be used for vocative, but have you considered that the prologue and what follows it frequently use anaphora for cohesion?

https://forums.carm.org/threads/heb-1-1-3.21/post-34056

I am sure you are aware that writers frequently establish the participants in their introductions and rely on this thereafter for cohesion.

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.

It appears that in the entire NT, when an articular substantive follows within one verse of the same noun or synonym having the same sense, the article has been inserted for anaphoric identification.

This is a strong grammatical argument against vocative in verse 8.

Yep, and that is not to mention all the other important factors such as the best manuscript evidence saying της βασιλειας αυτου rather than της βασιλειας σου. The antecedent of αυτου is obviously ὁ θεὸς.

The nominative for vocative interpretation is pitifully feeble. But that's the narrative that men are conditioned and charged to follow.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
Yep, and that is not to mention all the other important factors such as the best manuscript evidence saying της βασιλειας αυτου rather than της βασιλειας σου. The antecedent of αυτου is obviously ὁ θεὸς.

The nominative for vocative interpretation is pitifully feeble. But that's the narrative that men are conditioned and charged to follow.

The text critical issue is not quite so straightforward as that:

σου (2) {B}


Although the reading αὐτοῦ, which has early and good support (𝔓46 א B), may seem to be preferable because it differs from the reading of the Old Testament passage that is being quoted (Ps 45:7 [= LXX 44:7] σου), to which, on this point of view, presumably the mass of New Testament witnesses have been assimilated, a majority of the Committee was more impressed (a) by the weight and variety of the external evidence supporting σου, and (b) by the internal difficulty of construing αὐτοῦ. Thus, if one reads αὐτοῦ the words ὁ θεός must be taken, not as a vocative (an interpretation that is preferred by most exegetes), but as the subject (or predicate nominative), an interpretation that is generally regarded as highly improbable. Even if one assumes that καί, which is absent from the Hebrew and the Septuagint of the Psalm, was inserted by the author with the set purpose of making two separate quotations, with ver. 8a in the second person and 8b in the third person, the strangeness of the shift in persons is only slightly reduced.


Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 592–593). London; New York: United Bible Societies.
 
The text critical issue is not quite so straightforward as that:

σου (2) {B}


Although the reading αὐτοῦ, which has early and good support (𝔓46 א B), may seem to be preferable because it differs from the reading of the Old Testament passage that is being quoted (Ps 45:7 [= LXX 44:7] σου), to which, on this point of view, presumably the mass of New Testament witnesses have been assimilated, a majority of the Committee was more impressed (a) by the weight and variety of the external evidence supporting σου, and (b) by the internal difficulty of construing αὐτοῦ. Thus, if one reads αὐτοῦ the words ὁ θεός must be taken, not as a vocative (an interpretation that is preferred by most exegetes), but as the subject (or predicate nominative), an interpretation that is generally regarded as highly improbable. Even if one assumes that καί, which is absent from the Hebrew and the Septuagint of the Psalm, was inserted by the author with the set purpose of making two separate quotations, with ver. 8a in the second person and 8b in the third person, the strangeness of the shift in persons is only slightly reduced.


Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 592–593). London; New York: United Bible Societies.
I still think you could take ὁ θεός as a vocative.
ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος , καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ.
Your throne, O God, [is] forever, and the scepter of uprightness [is] [the] scepter of his kingdom.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
The text critical issue is not quite so straightforward as that:

σου (2) {B}


Although the reading αὐτοῦ, which has early and good support (𝔓46 א B), may seem to be preferable because it differs from the reading of the Old Testament passage that is being quoted (Ps 45:7 [= LXX 44:7] σου), to which, on this point of view, presumably the mass of New Testament witnesses have been assimilated, a majority of the Committee was more impressed (a) by the weight and variety of the external evidence supporting σου, and (b) by the internal difficulty of construing αὐτοῦ. Thus, if one reads αὐτοῦ the words ὁ θεός must be taken, not as a vocative (an interpretation that is preferred by most exegetes), but as the subject (or predicate nominative), an interpretation that is generally regarded as highly improbable. Even if one assumes that καί, which is absent from the Hebrew and the Septuagint of the Psalm, was inserted by the author with the set purpose of making two separate quotations, with ver. 8a in the second person and 8b in the third person, the strangeness of the shift in persons is only slightly reduced.


Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 592–593). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

Seems like at every turn this passage is interpreted based on theology and not grammar. What is most disturbing is that the UBS allows a doctrinal interpretation to override the science of textual criticism.
 
Top