Heb 1:1-3

[Roger Thornhill]

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 don't know about the other fellows you mention but I use pronominal in its primary linguistic sense.

 

[John Milton]

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.

The grammar allows multiple interpretations. You have already said that this is true. This likely means that your comments here are motivated by theological rather than grammatical concerns.

 

[John Milton]

The grammar allows multiple interpretations. You have already said that this is true. This likely means that your comment here are motivated by theological rather than grammatical concerns.

[Posting error. Was trying to fix the error "comment" to comments, but hit reply instead of edit.]

 

[Roger Thornhill]

The grammar allows multiple interpretations. You have already said that this is true. This likely means that your comments here are motivated by theological rather than grammatical concerns.

You are not quoting me accurately. I said that it was grammatical to take a nominative as vocative.

In this case, the articular θεός at Hebrews 1:9 is a renewed mention of 1:8. This means that they co-identify.

This is without the need to identify who in particular they identify.

But we can say that if the article is pronominal (ie functions as a pronoun) they cannot refer to two different referents.

This is the third time I have asked you to comment on this and it will be the last.

 

[John Milton]

You are not quoting me accurately. I said that it was grammatical to take a nominative as vocative.

In this case, the articular θεός at Hebrews 1:9 is a renewed mention of 1:8. This means that they co-identify.

This is without the need to identify who in particular they identify.

But we can say that if the article is pronominal (ie functions as a pronoun) they cannot refer to two different referents.

This is the third time I have asked you to comment on this and it will be the last.

πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν· ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου. ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν· διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου.

There is no reason to think that there must be two different referents. You have assumed that there are. It is possible to take both of the underlined phrases above as vocatives and have the remaining phrase ὁ θεός σου act as the subject of ἔχρισέν. Whether or not the article is pronominal is of no consequence. When you said it was grammatical to take a nominative for a vocative, I thought that you understood this. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

For what it's worth, I don't think the article with a noun functions as a pronoun. Right off the top of my head, I would say that I would expect a pronoun to require a finite verb, not a participle (as I believe Middleton suggested). I don't even think an implied εἰμί verb would work, but I could well be wrong.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

There is no reason to think that there must be two different referents. You have assumed that there are. It is possible to take both of the underlined phrases above as vocatives and have the remaining phrase ὁ θεός σου act as the subject of ἔχρισέν. Whether or not the article is pronominal is of no consequence. When you said it was grammatical to take a nominative for a vocative, I thought that you understood this. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

For what it's worth, I don't think the article with a noun functions as a pronoun. Right off the top of my head, I would say that I would expect a pronoun to require a finite verb, not a participle (as I believe Middleton suggested). I don't even think an implied εἰμί verb would work, but I could well be wrong.

I have not assumed it. Apollonius Dyscolus says the article functions that way.

According to Middleton it's a certainty and according to Wallace it's a probability. The fact that Wallace argues for vocative based on theology does not change what he says about the article.

I cannot see what is on the top of your head, and what is in it is unsubstantiated.

 

[John Milton]

I have not assumed it. Apollonius Dyscolus says the article functions that way.

According to Middleton it's a certainty and according to Wallace it's a probability. The fact that Wallace argues for vocative based on theology does not change what he says about the article.

I cannot see what is on the top of your head, and what is in it is unsubstantiated.

I think we were focused on different aspects of what you have said. I'm going to summarize for the sake of clarity.

1) In Heb. 1:8-9 there is no* grammatical reason that prevents "θεός" from having a single referent: God the Father. (*I suppose it is possible that "θεός" could refer to the son's throne, but I don't know of anyone who would.)
2) In Heb. 1:8-9 there is no grammatical reason that prevents "θεός" from having two, different referents: God the Father and the son.
3) There is no grammatical reason why the phrase "ὁ θεός" in Heb. 1:9 must have a previous referent in Heb. 1:8.
4) According to Middleton, Apollonius Dyscolus wrote that articles and pronouns are not the same thing, but the article becomes a pronoun if it does not govern a substantive (The Doctrine of the Greek Article: Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament, page 3). This is a correction to what you wrote immediately above.
5) The nature of the article (specifically whether or not it is pronominal or anaphoric) does not affect all of the grammatical possibilities concerning the word "θεός" or its phrases in Heb. 1:8-9.
6) The nature and use of the article is still debated. Nothing that Apollonius or Middleton or Wallace has suggested must be accepted as definitive.

I ask that you voice your approval and/or disagreement to each item by number and add to the list if you feel the need. Hopefully, I haven't made any errors, and what I wrote is clear. If you feel otherwise, I will clarify if you bring it to my attention.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I think we were focused on different aspects of what you have said. I'm going to summarize for the sake of clarity.

1) In Heb. 1:8-9 there is no* grammatical reason that prevents "θεός" from having a single referent: God the Father. (*I suppose it is possible that "θεός" could refer to the son's throne, but I don't know of anyone who would.)
2) In Heb. 1:8-9 there is no grammatical reason that prevents "θεός" from having two, different referents: God the Father and the son.
3) There is no grammatical reason why the phrase "ὁ θεός" in Heb. 1:9 must have a previous referent in Heb. 1:8.
4) According to Middleton, Apollonius Dyscolus wrote that articles and pronouns are not the same thing, but the article becomes a pronoun if it does not govern a substantive (The Doctrine of the Greek Article: Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament, page 3). This is a correction to what you wrote immediately above.
5) The nature of the article (specifically whether or not it is pronominal or anaphoric) does not affect all of the grammatical possibilities concerning the word "θεός" or its phrases in Heb. 1:8-9.
6) The nature and use of the article is still debated. Nothing that Apollonius or Middleton or Wallace has suggested must be accepted as definitive.

I ask that you voice your approval and/or disagreement to each item by number and add to the list if you feel the need. Hopefully, I haven't made any errors, and what I wrote is clear. If you feel otherwise, I will clarify if you bring it to my attention.

What you fail to note is that my analysis assumes that Wallace and Middleton are correct. If they are, then all or most individualizing articles are anaphoric. I have already said this once before.

I also maintain that if they are not correct, it should be easy to give a counter example. The end of the paper gives examples of how to falsify the proposition.

You said before that you don't believe that the article ever functions as a pronoun. You are free to voice your opinion, but that means that you are not a good candidate for further discussion, particularly since you won't provide an example of an individualizing article that cannot be anaphoric.

The burden of proof I accept is to prove the "rule" of the paper assuming Wallace is correct. It's your burden of proof to prove Wallace is wrong, or that the rule can be disproved with a counter example.

That is because Wallace is the target audience for this paper.

Note: I went back and reread what Middleton said about Apollonius. You have only quoted partially and misconstrue. I suggest you add to that snippet taken out of context the other quotes from the paper and harmonize them.

 

[John Milton]

What you fail to note is that my analysis assumes that Wallace and Middleton are correct. If they are, then all or most individualizing articles are anaphoric. I have already said this once before.

I was unaware until this last post that you intended this to be a theoretical exercise about the strength of your argument if your view of the article were correct. I cannot be faulted for this because you have claimed throughout this discussion to have a "powerful argument" when all you have, now by your own admission, is an unfounded assumption.

I also maintain that if they are not correct, it should be easy to give a counter example. The end of the paper gives examples of how to falsify the proposition.

How many times must I remind you that I have not been interacting with the paper? I am only interested in the claim(s) that you have made about Hebrews 1:8-9. Putting aside the profound absurdity of your suggestion that I should look to the paper of another author for ways to refute your claim, I will remind you that I have already demonstrated that your preferred interpretation is not the only one possible, even if I assume that all of your claims about the nature of the article are true.

You said before that you don't believe that the article ever functions as a pronoun.

You have misrepresented me. I have said that I don't think the article with a noun ever functions as a pronoun.

You are free to voice your opinion, but that means that you are not a good candidate for further discussion, particularly since you won't provide an example of an individualizing article that cannot be anaphoric.

You have misrepresented me again. I've already given you a reason why I don't think articles with nouns function as pronouns; you would know why I didn't provide an example if you understood what I said. I'm not surprised you missed it, though. There is always the deictic article whose major purpose, as it seems to me, is to introduce something near at hand which was specifically not a part of the previous narrative. Wallace's grammar doesn't indicate that the deictic article is anaphoric, so I might add that you have misrepresented his position as well.

The burden of proof I accept is to prove the "rule" of the paper assuming Wallace is correct. It's your burden of f proof to prove Wallace is wrong. That is because Wallace is the target audience for this paper.

Then you need to go back to the drawing board, because Wallace, to my knowledge, never claims that the article is ALWAYS anaphoric. (Also, I'm not sure how you can claim to be "assuming Wallace is correct" since he thinks this passage contains a nominative for the vocative...)

Most individualizing articles will be anaphoric in a very broad sense.

Since you have have finally accepted the burden of proof that was always yours in the first place, what reasons do you have for thinking the "God" articles in Heb. 1:8-9 must be anaphoric?




To your knowledge was this paper ever published in a peer-reviewed publication?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I was unaware until this last post that you intended this to be a theoretical exercise about the strength of your argument if your view of the article were correct. I cannot be faulted for this because you have claimed throughout this discussion to have a "powerful argument" when all you have, now by your own admission, is an unfounded assumption.


How many times must I remind you that I have not been interacting with the paper? I am only interested in the claim(s) that you have made about Hebrews 1:8-9. Putting aside the profound absurdity of your suggestion that I should look to the paper of another author for ways to refute your claim, I will remind you that I have already demonstrated that your preferred interpretation is not the only one possible, even if I assume that all of your claims about the nature of the article are true.


You have misrepresented me. I have said that I don't think the article with a noun ever functions as a pronoun.


You have misrepresented me again. I've already given you a reason why I don't think articles with nouns function as pronouns; you would know why I didn't provide an example if you understood what I said. I'm not surprised you missed it, though. There is always the deictic article whose major purpose, as it seems to me, is to introduce something near at hand which was specifically not a part of the previous narrative. Wallace's grammar doesn't indicate that the deictic article is anaphoric, so I might add that you have misrepresented his position as well.


Then you need to go back to the drawing board, because Wallace, to my knowledge, never claims that the article is ALWAYS anaphoric. (Also, I'm not sure how you can claim to be "assuming Wallace is correct" since he thinks this passage contains a nominative for the vocative...)

Since you have have finally accepted the burden of proof that was always yours in the first place, what reasons do you have for thinking the "God" articles in Heb. 1:8-9 must be anaphoric?




To your knowledge was this paper ever published in a peer-reviewed publication?

I really cannot understand why you did not understand the focus of the article. It's quite clear it assumes the view of Wallace which he got from Middleton.

What I have posted here was for the purpose of trying to get you to understand what is in the paper and done in haste. So it's to be expected that you can find fault with what and how I have tried to do this in an informal setting.

This forum is supposed to be collegiate, not combative.

I expect a certain civility here, and not an atmosphere which is quite common in adversarial apologetics settings. Trying to catch contradictions to prove ones own superiority and not accepting the explanations for them is not acceptable in an academic setting. You appear to thrive on such interaction.

I have no desire to convince you of anything. You are not my target audience.

 

[John Milton]

I really cannot understand why you did not understand the focus of the article. It's quite clear it assumes the view of Wallace which he got from Middleton.

What I have posted here was for the purpose of trying to get you to understand what is in the paper and done in haste. So it's to be expected that you can find fault with what and how I have tried to do this in an informal setting.

This forum is supposed to be collegiate, not combative.

I expect a certain civility here, and not an atmosphere which is quite common in adversarial apologetics settings. Trying to catch contradictions to prove ones own superiority and not accepting the explanations for them is not acceptable in an academic setting. You appear to thrive on such interaction.

I have no desire to convince you of anything. You are not my target audience.

I haven't been hateful to you or claimed to be superior to you in the slightest regard. You, alone, are guilty of the things you just mentioned. Here is an example:

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.

Nevertheless, I am sorry you felt I was being disrespectful to you. Which of my post(s) offended you?

 

[The Real John Milton]

NT

 

[The Real John Milton]

There is no reason to think that there must be two different referents. You have assumed that there are. It is possible to take both of the underlined phrases above as vocatives and have the remaining phrase ὁ θεός σου act as the subject of ἔχρισέν. Whether or not the article is pronominal is of no consequence. When you said it was grammatical to take a nominative for a vocative, I thought that you understood this. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

For what it's worth, I don't think the article with a noun functions as a pronoun. Right off the top of my head, I would say that I would expect a pronoun to require a finite verb, not a participle (as I believe Middleton suggested). I don't even think an implied εἰμί verb would work, but I could well be wrong.

The much more likely reading is to take ὁ Θεός (rather than ὁ θεός σου) as the subject of ἔχρισέν and ὁ θεός σου as being in simple apposition to ὁ Θεός.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Again, my use of the anaphoric article does not assume a particular identification. Your use of Plato shows you did not engage my argument.

I don't argue that ο θεός has an invariant meaning in the NT. I don't argue that the only way to identify a referent is anaphora. You imply that was my argument when you deduce Apollo was ο θεός from your understanding of his writings and from the context as if this conflicts with my argument.

I did argue that when the anaphoric article is present it co-identifies with a previous reference close to it, in this case the same or previous verse.

If ones view of context forces an interpretation that the two synonymous nouns co-identified are not the same referent based upon dubious "context" I consider that to incorrectly violate an objective grammatical axiom.

If you read my post on how I arrived at the identification of ο θεός at Hebrews 1:1, it is the Father because He has a Son, Christ Jesus. That is context. The identification of ο θεός at 1:9b is also context.

What is not context is the grammatical axiom of the anaphoric article that identifies ο θεός at 1:8 as the same referent at 1:9ab.

That is grammar.

That is true. Also in the writings of apostle Paul, ο θεός (or even θεός) not once irrefutably refers to Jesus.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I don’t think anyone reasonable and honest could conclude that “God” is the “son” after reading what the apostle says in the very first verse. Here is the English:

Notice the apostle identifies “God” as not the “Son.”

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

 

[civic]

Oh boy look what the cat dug up, the fake jm who couldn't exegete a passage in its "context" if his life depended upon it. He can only see things through his unitarian lens which is nothing but eisegesis reading ones own bias into the text.

next..........................

hope this helps !!!

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I don’t think anyone reasonable and honest could conclude that “God” is the “son” after reading what the apostle says in the very first verse. Here is the English:

Notice the apostle identifies “God” as not the “Son.”

In my opinion, questioning the honestly or motive of those with whom you don't agree is out of bounds for a discussion of the languages

It is true that the natural interpretation of this passage distinguishes between θεός in verse 1 and His Son.

Perhaps you are not aware that the participants of this forum agree that God in verse 1 is not the Son?

Also, if I understand you correctly from previous posts on this passage, you take θεός at verse 8 to be vocative and thus a reference to the Son. That being the case, you have already established that θεός in your view has more than one sense in Hebrews 1. So I find an argument that assumes just one sense of θεός (ie not God the Father) to be inconsistent at best. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

That being said, a natural reading of verse 10 would establish the prehuman existence of the Son, don't you agree?

 

[The Real John Milton]

In my opinion, questioning the honestly or motive of those with whom you don't agree is out of bounds for a discussion of the languages

It is true that the natural interpretation of this passage distinguishes between θεός in verse 1 and His Son.

Perhaps you are not aware that the participants of this forum agree that God in verse 1 is not the Son?

Also, if I understand you correctly from previous posts on this passage, you take θεός at verse 8 to be vocative and thus a reference to the Son. That being the case, you have already established that θεός in your view has more than one sense in Hebrews 1. So I find an argument that assumes just one sense of θεός (ie not God the Father) to be inconsistent at best. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

That being said, a natural reading of verse 10 would establish the prehuman existence of the Son, don't you agree?

No, I take it as a nominative. Also at verse 8 we do not have θεός but ὁ θεός and no one ever calls it a vocative , they take it rather as a nominative for vocative (or else as a vocative of address). The vocative form for θεός is θεέ

πρὸς δὲ τὸν Υἱόν Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

No, I take it as a nominative. Also at verse 8 we do not have θεός but ὁ θεός and no one ever calls it a vocative , they take it rather as a nominative for vocative (or else as a vocative of address). The vocative form for θεός is θεέ

You said this, and now you equivocate?

"It is possible to take both of the underlined phrases above as vocatives"

 

[The Real John Milton]

You said this, and now you equivocate?

"It is possible to take both of the underlined phrases above as vocatives"

You must have me confused with the person who usurped my old Carm. moniker. Remember, I'm the Real John Milton.