Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

Small changes can have the big meaning in a text. If I call Christ, "our Savior" it means he is our Savior. If I say he is "our Lord," he is our Lord. That's one word different, and yet the meaning changes dramatically. I don't know what all of this is trying to prove.

Throwing sand with a totally irrelevant analogy.

Now, very specifically:

Is it your belief that Paul was aware that if he added "our Saviour" to Jesus Christ it would totally change the meaning of the verse?

Yes or No?
 
Isaiah prophesied of Jesus, saying, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God (אֵל גִּבּוֹר), The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6). The Greek μέγας, as we find in Titus 2:13, is one of the words used to translate גִּבּוֹר. How is it, then, a doctrinal disaster to call Christ the very thing it was prophesied he would be called?

Fair enough.

And if you take that all literally, rather than as a special prophetic flourish, you are an ultra-Sabellian since Jesus is the everlasting Father.
And you should accept Noetus against Hippolytus.
 
Last edited:
But I didn't say that the Socinians were the first in "offering the non-identity translation"--there are two in view here, not one. I said they were the ones who originated the interpretation that Christ is the glory of the Great God and Savior which to them is the Father.

You just came up with this when your claim was busted.

And you totally rewrite the posting history, you do not even go back to check the thread.

The same essential things was noted centuries ago by Glassius and Beza--your interpretation was an innovation of the Socinians in particular.

And the only context was simple the Deity of Christ (Jesus is the Great God.)

Why do you just make things up?
Instead of simply accepting correction.

Like the situation with Ambrosius as an interpolator.
Why not simply say "thanks for the correction, I was wrong on that one".

Here is the fuller context, so you do not throw sand again.

=====================

The Real John Milton said:
Like all others, this verse is also dubious for the so-called "Deity of Christ."
Wallace very succinctly sums up the problems that accompany the arguments you are following:
It has frequently been alleged that θεός is a proper name and, hence, that Sharp’s rule cannot apply to constructions in which it is employed. We have already pointed out that θεός is not a proper name in Greek. We simply wish to note here that in the TSKS construction θεός is used over a dozen times in the NT and always (if we exclude the christologically significant texts) in reference to one person. This phenomenon is not true of any other proper name in said construction (every instance involving true proper names always points to two individuals). Since that argument carries no weight, there is no good reason to reject Titus 2:13 as an explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ. (Wallace, Daniel B., The Basics of New Testament Syntax, p. 122).
The same essential things was noted centuries ago by Glassius and Beza--your interpretation was an innovation of the Socinians in particular.
 
Fair enough.

And if you take that all literally, rather than as a special prophetic flourish, you are an ultra-Sabellian since Jesus is the everlasting Father.
And you should accept Noetus against Hippolytus.
It's not my problem that you don't understand the scriptures. Accusing me of "ultra-Sabellianism" for simply quoting a prophecy about Christ is just another senseless comment that can be added to a long list of defamatory personal attacks. This is deliberate, as you know already that I am a Trinitarian and have repeatedly stated that Christ is not God the Father.

Is it your belief that Paul was aware that if he added "our Saviour" to Jesus Christ it would totally change the meaning of the verse?
Jesus is a personal name and does not fit the conditions of the rule. English operates with virtually the same (I don't say identical) convention. "The forum member and Steven Avery" would clearly be interpreted as two persons. But if Steven Avery had multiple titles, they could each be added under a single article and the final could be placed in apposition to the personal name. "The purebible forum administrator and CARM member Steven Avery."

You just came up with this when your claim was busted.

And you totally rewrite the posting history, you do not even go back to check the thread.
And the only context was simple the Deity of Christ (Jesus is the Great God.)

Why do you just make things up?
Instead of simply accepting correction.

Like the situation with Ambrosius as an interpolator.
Why not simply say "thanks for the correction, I was wrong on that one".

Here is the fuller context, so you do not throw sand again.
No, I didn't. I did go back and actually posted my exact quotes. It's not my problem you weren't following the argument correctly and jumped to a hasty conclusion. I was responding to the Real John Milton's argument, last Wednesday at 10:11pm, that:
By the way, Trinitarian Gordon Fee's remarks concerning Romans 9:5 should give all Trinitarians pause for thought:​
Gordon Fee believes that Christ is "the glory," and that "our great God and Savior" refers to the Father. That is what I was responding to this past Wednesday: The Real John Milton's position is that of the Socinians, not Erasmus. Erasmus takes Christ as being the "Savior" rather than "the glory." Like so many other things, you've taken what was actually written and put your own spin on it. Stop being dishonest and putting words in my mouth.

In regards to who instigated the non-identity translation itself, I said in response to cjab on Wednesday at about 2 AM:
Robert Witham (1733), Annotations on the New Testament of Jesus Christ, p. 298 (rightly notes Erasmus and Grotius as the instigators of confusion here)
These are in response two completely different views: one of Erasmus, the other of the Socinians. So no, my story wasn't "busted." The only thing that's been busted is your mistake in being unable to distinguish between two different interpretations--one by Erasmus (Christ = "our Savior"), and the other being that of the Socinians (Christ = "the glory").

Like the situation with Ambrosius as an interpolator.
I never said "Ambrosius," which is the Latin name of Ambrose (Aurelius Ambrosius) of Milan, was an interpolator. I said this of Ambrosiaster (pseudo-Ambrose/Ambrosius), a made-up name given to an author previously thought to be Ambrose, and incorrectly remembered him as an interpolator as most pseudonymous authors are. My comment was only to note that Erasmus misidentified the author, not to attack or impugn the credibility of the author.

Why not simply say "thanks for the correction, I was wrong on that one".
I misspoke and already corrected myself, what more do you want? Are you simply upset that I didn't follow your preferred wording? Apparently, you're incapable of letting it go. I feel like I'm dealing with a petulant child with you.
 
Last edited:
continued from the above post

To recap (continued from above):
On Wednesday, 10:11 PM, TRJM wrote:
By the way, Trinitarian Gordon Fee's remarks concerning Romans 9:5 should give all Trinitarians pause for thought:
Fee believes Christ is "the glory." Erasmus identifies Christ as "our Savior." These are not the same view.

I responded an hour later, immediately below that, that:
your interpretation was an innovation of the Socinians in particular.

In other words, you started with my post, instead of reading the context of the post I was responding to.

As to who set the whole ball rolling in opposition to the testimony of the Greek fathers, I wrote to cjab
at about 2 AM:
brianrw said:
Robert Witham (1733), Annotations on the New Testament of Jesus Christ, p. 298 (rightly notes Erasmus and Grotius as the instigators of confusion here)

This is, of course, because I was talking about two distinctly different interpretations. Again: Socinians/Fee (Christ = "the glory") and Erasmus (Christ = "our Savior"). So you can cut out the nonsense and stop putting words in my mouth.

Erasmus was not calling him Ambrose there. He coined the name Ambrosiaster to show that it was another writer, with some similarity to Ambrose, at least in time and language, but a totally different writer.
Yes, he is. "Ambrosius" is Latin for Ambrose. The "viz. Ambrosiaster" is a note I added in the translation. "Viz." is an abbreviation of the Latin videlicet ("it is permitted to see"), and directs the reader to understand the idea of "namely" or "that is to say." This prevents the reader from confusing, as Erasmus did, the author with the actual Ambrose who was the Bishop of Milan.

You are the one who is mistaken here, on both accounts, and I don't know why you can't just admit it. If you did, I'd be gracious and simply let the misunderstanding go.
 
Last edited:
It's not my problem that you don't understand the scriptures. Accusing me of "ultra-Sabellianism" for simply quoting a prophecy about Christ is just another senseless comment that can be added to a long list of defamatory personal attacks. This is deliberate, as you know already that I am a Trinitarian and have repeatedly stated that Christ is not God the Father.


Jesus is a personal name and does not fit the conditions of the rule. English operates with virtually the same (I don't say identical) convention. "The forum member and Steven Avery" would clearly be interpreted as two persons. But if Steven Avery had multiple titles, they could each be added under a single article and the final could be placed in apposition to the personal name. "The purebible forum administrator and CARM member Steven Avery."



No, I didn't. I did go back and actually posted my exact quotes. It's not my problem you weren't following the argument correctly and jumped to a hasty conclusion. I was responding to the Real John Milton's argument, last Wednesday at 10:11pm, that:

Gordon Fee believes that Christ is "the glory," and that "our great God and Savior" refers to the Father. That is what I was responding to this past Wednesday: The Real John Milton's position is that of the Socinians, not Erasmus. Erasmus takes Christ as being the "Savior" rather than "the glory." Like so many other things, you've taken what was actually written and put your own spin on it. Stop being dishonest and putting words in my mouth.

In regards to who instigated the non-identity translation itself, I said in response to cjab on Wednesday at about 2 AM:

These are in response two completely different views: one of Erasmus, the other of the Socinians. So no, my story wasn't "busted." The only thing that's been busted is your mistake in being unable to distinguish between two different interpretations--one by Erasmus (Christ = "our Savior"), and the other being that of the Socinians (Christ = "the glory").


I never said "Ambrosius," which is the Latin name of Ambrose (Aurelius Ambrosius) of Milan, was an interpolator. I said this of Ambrosiaster (pseudo-Ambrose/Ambrosius), a made-up name given to an author previously thought to be Ambrose, and incorrectly remembered him as an interpolator as most pseudonymous authors are. My comment was only to note that Erasmus misidentified the author, not to attack or impugn the credibility of the author.


I misspoke and already corrected myself, what more do you want? Are you simply upset that I didn't follow your preferred wording? Apparently, you're incapable of letting it go. I feel like I'm dealing with a petulant child with you.
If I can make a suggestion. This poster loves to flood the boards with a million exceptions to what is obviously nonsense. Every time you respond to him, he has another opportunity to spread more. These forums have an ignore feature. Don't feed the trolls. Consider this seriously. God Speed.
 
If I can make a suggestion. This poster loves to flood the boards with a million exceptions to what is obviously nonsense. Every time you respond to him, he has another opportunity to spread more. These forums have an ignore feature. Don't feed the trolls. Consider this seriously. God Speed.
Thank you for the good advice. I've also set him to ignore, I didn't realize that could be done!
 
Thank you for the good advice. I've also set him to ignore, I didn't realize that could be done!
I don't normally like to do this, but I have three such posters on ignore. I think the silence bothers them more. But's it's not a debate tactic just a way to stop the trolls. LOL. Nothing is more important than the gospel of Jesus Christ. ✝️
 
It's not my problem that you don't understand the scriptures. Accusing me of "ultra-Sabellianism" for simply quoting a prophecy about Christ is just another senseless comment that can be added to a long list of defamatory personal attacks. This is deliberate, as you know already that I am a Trinitarian and have repeatedly stated that Christ is not God the Father.
Then how is he the Everlasting Father? Since you accept Isaiah 9:6 literally.

How is the Everlasting Father different from God the Father?

A very simple question that you refuse to answer.
 
I haven't said anything about grammatical rules. Winer gave reasons for the omission of the article in Tit. 2:13 that don't work, and the very first example I provided to Steven (II Tim. 1:5) illustrated that point.
That logic is wrong. I've already given you a very good explanation of why the article may not have been used in Titus 2:13, and 1 Tim 1:1 discloses the justification for my view, where Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν is applied to the Father to the exclusion of the Son (again without the article).

Obviously II Tim. 1:5 is talking about unique familiar relations, of which only one can exist, which isn't the case with σωτήρ.

I guess 1 Tim 1:1 (τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ) is also the authority for why the Socinian interpretation of Titus 2:13 (τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ) is wrong (because there would have been no need for Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν if Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν was being related to Θεοῦ - obviously).

In fact, as others have alluded to, the Trinitarian rendition of Titus 2:13, and so many other Sharpian passages, has to explain why the word καὶ is being used at all. One could have expected τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ had Paul been wanting to make the clear Trinitarian point.

That Paul is being made out by Trinitarians to deliver important doctrine in the form of contrived grammar rules involving the use or otherwise of proper names, and his usage of Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, suggests a wrong approach to theology.

Again. I haven't given any rules of grammar, and I have not claimed to be a Trinitarian. I'm an agnostic on the issue, of sorts, but I'm definitely not oneness/JW. Those two groups can't possibly be right given the evidence we have in the text.

Yes. So you must think both of those terms refer to Jesus, right? You dodged this point earlier.
So you're trying to elicit out of me a theological interpretation of Rev 4:11? I should say it is constructed somewhat similar to Matt 28:19, where both God and Christ (as separate persons) are being denoted as one, in the singular. (We know Christ sits on God's throne at the right hand of the Father.)

Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς
No. The underlined part says "our Lord Jesus."
OK, but my point was there is only one κύριος (Jesus) in the new NT doctrinal convention. In this respect κύριος is most definitely not analogous to σωτήρ but more like mother and father.

προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
The underlined part says, "our savior Jesus Christ."

I've not insisted "on a fixed grammar rule applying to all three passages." You are making things up. The differences among these passages are minor, but feel free to tell me all about them.

It's funny how you insist that the grammar being flexible or inflexible according to your needs. My position on these matters has been consistent at all points and times. These things are evident.
I'm not sure I agree with you here that "These things are evident" or even what your position is, except as a dedicated Sharpian. I would definitely refer all Sharpians to CALVIN WINSTANLEY's comprehensive rebuttal of Sharp before anyone seeks to lay down Sharp as grammatical doctrine. CALVIN WINSTANLEY is orthodox BTW. Go and controvert him, if you want something to do.

This is exactly what Winer is doing, but you don't have the ability to evaluate this claim. It's no matter to you, though. You don't evaluate anything. You just blindly accept whatever supports your position.
I can see reasons for not using the article with σωτήρ - sometimes it is applied to Christ, sometimes to the Father.

As Stephen Avery has pointed out, inserting Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν of itself shouldn't change the construction.

And as Winer has pointed out, "no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ by itself, as referring to a second subject" when Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν is associated with a proper name (or monadic noun - the article is omitted before words which denote objectsof which there is but one in existence, and which therefore are nearly equivalent to proper names).

My favorite among part your baseless slander is the underlined part where you express doubt about things that should be clear even to you.
Meaningless ad hominem, as is your want.
 
Last edited:
I was responding to the Real John Milton's argument, last Wednesday at 10:11pm, that:

Gordon Fee believes that Christ is "the glory," and that "our great God and Savior" refers to the Father. That is what I was responding to this past Wednesday: The Real John Milton's position is that of the Socinians, not Erasmus. Erasmus takes Christ as being the "Savior" rather than "the glory."

You never actually quoted the comment from TRJM about Fee when you made the comment about the Socinians
You did comment to a different Deity of Christ section from TRJM.
And TRJM never said it was his position, just that it was pause for thought.

When I pointed out Erasmus came first, you gave a totally different answer, nothing about the Gordon Fee concepts.

No, it's correct. Erasmus writes, "This can be read in such a way that both belong to Christ, God and Saviour," (Id ita legi potest, ut utrumque pertineat ad Christum, Dei et Servatoris) but then he tries to work around it by appealing to Ambrosiaster, mistaking the interpolator as Ambrose himself (which Beza calls him out on). The individual is Ambrosiaster, which is an interpolator of the writings of Ambrose--a Latin writer and the only one who might appearto depart from the usual Greek and Latin understanding of the passage. He thus negates the attributive usage of τῆς δόξης. Erasmus found himself embroiled in endless controversy for this annotation.

Precisely. Most of the Unitarian and Socinian arguments stem from Erasmus' annotations on these various passages that proclaim the Deity of Christ, where he unnecessarily muddies the waters (though Catholic in name, he admittedly was an Arian at heart). Since the controversy was long, and Erasmus' comments were made in the formative years of Greek study in Europe, many of them became deeply entrenched from an early time.

Your answer was that Erasmus allowed the identity translation as possible, so somehow that would make the Socinians the first one. Even then you did not say you were only referring to the Gordon Fee theory. You only referred to the non-identity, non Deity of Christ theory, which is the context of the Erasmus excellent interpretation, long before the Socinians.

Then you blame me for believing what you actually wrote, and quoted, in the context of your Socinians first comment.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I understand what you are saying about Ambrosiaster. (In one recent post, 1343, I mistakenly wrote Ambrosius where I meant Ambrosiaster.) The curiousity is why the Annotationes call Ambrosiaster the esteemed bishop when in fact Erasmus created the name Ambrosiaster precisely to show that it was not Ambrose. Afaik, Ambrosiaster was never given in a Latin text until Erasmus. Here I am going by the Latin given by cjab, I believe from the Six Letters book, since it has the comment about Mill.

However, that is not your problem.

Here may be part of the answer.

Four. The Function of Ambrosiaster in Erasmus’s Annotations on the Epistle to the Galatians
The Unfolding of Words
Riemer Faber
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.3138/9781442695962-008/pdf
It was not Erasmus who invented the name 'Ambrosiaster.'3 That is a non-pejorative term coined in the late seventeenth century by the Benedictine scholars of St Maur, who use it to denote the author of the first complete commentary on the Pauline Epistles (Hebrews excepted), once ascribed to Ambrose bishop of Milan.4

However, that contradicts any usage by Erasmus, as in the earlier quotes.
So this still needs study and follow-up.

And since this area is so muddy, my apologies for putting you on the spot on this whole question.

========================

And I was very curious why you came up with the interpolator idea.
Was it something you read? Or thought you read?
You never addressed this question directly, which I asked again and again.
Tonight you finally said you "misspoke", which at least finally acknowledges that you are abandoning the interpolator theory.

=========================
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I agree with you here that "These things are evident" or even what your position is, except as a dedicated Sharpian. I would definitely refer all Sharpians to CALVIN WINSTANLEY's comprehensive rebuttal of Sharp before anyone seeks to lay down Sharp as grammatical doctrine. CALVIN WINSTANLEY is orthodox BTW. Go and controvert him, if you want something to do.

Thank you for noting Calvin Winstanley. I was especially impressed with his section on three or more grammatical features that would require the second subject to not have an article. (The intro is quoted above.) While I have found some critique of Winstanley, especially about his quoting methodology, from my studies this non-article aspect has not been addressed by any writer to date.

And this feature of the language simply refutes the Sharp construct, even beyond those who point out that writers can easily adjust the article usage to their writing style and context. And pointing out that the theory is generally about persons, which is placing Trinitarian presuppositions into the actual theory. Ontological beings need not apply, unless they are “persons”. Even beyond those who reject rules with a grab-bag of special pleading exceptions, like "naive modalism" (again based on Trinitarian presuppositionalism, which has no place in grammar studies or even Bible text and translation studies). And pointing out the analogy verses and authorial style.

Granville Sharp was flummoxed by the fact that the Authorized Version was translated with integrity, and Sharp therefore wanted to change eight verses in the AV.

This Winstanley analysis also fits well with the Winer assertion that the possessive pronoun already makes Saviour definite, which would create tension with adding a definite article. Afaik, this also is not addressed by Wallace et al. They spend a lot of worthless energy attacking Winer as the great bogey-man who fogged the minds of grammarians and commentators for a century and more. A good way to avoid his actual arguments. This is a modern ad hominem attempt, against the man, don’t look close at his actual analysis, because he is bad man.

Granted, most writers are weak on logic, and they do not see the imperative of how these features falsify the Sharp theory. (Or at least would require them to add another group of exceptions related to the second subject not easily and properly being able to have a definite article.)

This Winer analysis, the definite part, I saw by instinct. And John Milton gave an attempted analogy in response that really does not work. He would have to indicate where the definite article should be in Titus 2:13 in an alternate text and whether it would connect to Saviour or Jesus Christ. And I look forward to his possible attempt in that regard.

As Stephen Avery has pointed out, inserting Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν of itself shouldn't change the construction.

You saw how brianrw could not deal with that aspect. Instead, he went into a nonsense diversion about how two words can be significant, giving a totally irrelevant analysis.

When looked at sensibly, the Granville Sharp theory is simply a joke. In Titus 2:13 you have to have Paul doing mental findings about whether he should call Jesus our Saviour! Why? Because, according to a grammar book almost 1750 years later, that would impel a totally different construction and meaning to his writing.

Absurd is as absurd does.
It is all a shell game.
 
Last edited:
I think the parallel grammar at Col. 2:2 discounts the Trinitarian reading of Titus 2:13 —
εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ,

Christ is the mystery of God, not that Christ is God. Suffice to say that this again is no “proof text” for Christ’s so-called “ Deity.”

The “ Deity of Christ” seems to me to be a house built upon a weak foundation. If the biblical Jesus was truly God Himself, Trinitarians would not have needed to manipulate vague verses to prove for this “biblical truth” but it would have been clearly & unambiguously declared throughout the pages of scripture, and voluminously discussed at every opportunity in the Bible. Instead, it is apparently hidden away in a half a dozen or so unrelated , enigmatic and ambiguous verses of scripture. Infact Trinitarian scholars sometimes try to explain away this apparent “reluctance” by the bible to call Jesus “God” by suggesting that this was a deliberate stratagem on the part of the apostles and by Jesus himself, to slowly ease believers into this “truth” through post biblical “progressive revelation.” The astute reader will recognize such reasoning to be simply doctrinal propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Jesus is a personal name and does not fit the conditions of the rule. English operates with virtually the same (I don't say identical) convention. "The forum member and Steven Avery" would clearly be interpreted as two persons. But if Steven Avery had multiple titles, they could each be added under a single article and the final could be placed in apposition to the personal name. "The purebible forum administrator and CARM member Steven Avery."
A perfect example of Sharp rule failure.

"The purebible forum administrator and CARM member Steven Avery."

Without the article this could be one or two people. Context is king. Nick Sayers could be the PBF admin and we could be coordinating on a video on the heavenly witnesses. There is no imperative for a definite article, per Sharp inverse rule 6. And the Rule 1 claim that this must be one person is simply false, even absurd.

"The purebible forum administrator and CARM member Steven Avery are hosting the video.”

The article inclusion/omission is simply authorial style.
The context and the plural verb tells you it is two people.

Thanks for refuting your own position.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the good advice. I've also set him to ignore, I didn't realize that could be done!
Posters choice, fine by me.

Here are the two most salient questions that you are avoiding.

1a) Where is your claimed answer to Calvin Winstanley?
With special focus on his showing grammatical forms that simply will not take an article with the second subject, thereby falsifying the Sharp claims.

1b) In fact, in your alternate form, two “persons”, where is the proposed article in Titus 2:13?

2) Do you really think Paul was concerned with Sharpian grammar in deciding to include “our Saviour” with Jesus Christ in Titus 2:13? That Paul was shaking in his boots because the construction and meaning would be radically changed by the inclusion or omission of the two words. That Paul was aware that including “our Saviour” would have him calling Christ the mighty God, but excluding the two words would be the more natural word order flow of two subjects.

All that is your de facto wacky claim.

==============

To the readers:
2) is the simplest total demolition of all the Sharp rule nonsense.

Reductio ad absurbum.

Everything else is commentary. :)
 
Last edited:
τῐς is not the Koine equivalent of the indefinite article. Koine does not have an indefinite article; often the indefinite semantic force is connoted simply by the lack of a definite article. τῐς is an indefinite pronoun.

Here is Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek:
I mainly agree, except that τις can ina secondary sense function just like an article even though it is a pronoun: hence τις ἀνὴρ in Acts 3:2.

Here is what Caragounis in John 1:1 has to say further on the article.
_______________
"Because the Greek article originally (in Homeros, etc.) was a demonstrative
pronoun, which later came to lose much of its demonstrative
force, and to that extent assume the meaning of the article—especially in
Platon's writings, where the article achieved its richest and most varied
uses—it cannot be compared to nor can its uses be determined by the
way in which the English article is applied. If we want to understand the
ways in which the Greek article is used, it is important that we disregard
the uses of the English, German, etc. articles, and that we study the Greek
article against the background of its own usage in Greek literature. This
does not imply that there are no parallel uses of the article between Greek
and English, and German, etc., but that methodologically it is better to
dispense with reliance on the English, etc. article for determining the
meanings of the Greek article.

For example, whereas English would use the anarthrous "Man" or "Humanity"
to indicate class, the Greek would use the arthrous ό άνθρωπος
or ή άνθρωπότης to express the same idea. In other words, the uses of
the English article do not coincide with those of the Greek article, and
we would do well not to impose on NT articular or non-articular constructions
ideas based on the uses of the English article. Thus, when a
Hellene says ό άνθρωπος, the construction is not definite in the sense
that he is speaking of a particular man, but generic: through the use of
the article, he concretizes all men (i.e. humanity) in the arthrous singular
as representative of the entire class of men. In saying ό άνθρωπος the
Hellene thinks of all that belongs to the category of "man", but not of
beasts, etc., that which distinguishes, demarcates, and defines man from
all other categories of creatures, that which belongs to the concept Man,39.

At the same time, the entire group of men (i.e. the whole of humanity) is
thought of as a concrete whole. Thus, ό άνθρωπος θνητός έστιν means
"all human beings [without exception] are mortal". The so-called indefinite
form άνθρωπος τις means "someone of the genus man", in other words, it
describes man as a substance limited, by itself, and as indefinite: "a certain
man". Thus, too, the abstract "man" by receiving the article becomes
concrete or definite: ό άνθρωπος δς ήλθεν έξ 'Αθηνών "the (particular)
man who came from Athens".

Many times the article is used in connection with a person that has
been mentioned before: Acts 4,22: ετών γάρ ήν ... ό άνθρωπος (cf. Acts
3,2, where the same person is described as τις άνηρ). Even though we
translate "the man was ..." in English the force is "i/iar man [of whom I
wrote earlier] was ..." In this capacity the article is used in its original
demonstrative force, rather than in its pure articular sense. But when the
subject is presented as a general concept, without any specification, classification,
etc., it is anarthrous. Thus Platon, Theaitetos 152 a: πάντιυν
χρημάτων με'τρον άνθρωπος means not so much "a man is the measure
of all things" but "anyone who is a man [i.e. who shares in all that makes
up a human being] is the measure of all things". From this it is a small
step to the question of the arthrous or anarthrous predicate.

The predicate is usually anarthrous, because it does not denote a
definite person or kind or class but only property or essence, which is
predicated of the subject."
 
I mainly agree, except that τις can ina secondary sense function just like an article even though it is a pronoun: hence τις ἀνὴρ in Acts 3:2.

Here is what Caragounis in John 1:1 has to say further on the article.
_______________
"Because the Greek article originally (in Homeros, etc.) was a demonstrative
pronoun, which later came to lose much of its demonstrative
force, and to that extent assume the meaning of the article—especially in
Platon's writings, where the article achieved its richest and most varied
uses—it cannot be compared to nor can its uses be determined by the
way in which the English article is applied. If we want to understand the
ways in which the Greek article is used, it is important that we disregard
the uses of the English, German, etc. articles, and that we study the Greek
article against the background of its own usage in Greek literature. This
does not imply that there are no parallel uses of the article between Greek
and English, and German, etc., but that methodologically it is better to
dispense with reliance on the English, etc. article for determining the
meanings of the Greek article.

For example, whereas English would use the anarthrous "Man" or "Humanity"
to indicate class, the Greek would use the arthrous ό άνθρωπος
or ή άνθρωπότης to express the same idea. In other words, the uses of
the English article do not coincide with those of the Greek article, and
we would do well not to impose on NT articular or non-articular constructions
ideas based on the uses of the English article. Thus, when a
Hellene says ό άνθρωπος, the construction is not definite in the sense
that he is speaking of a particular man, but generic: through the use of
the article, he concretizes all men (i.e. humanity) in the arthrous singular
as representative of the entire class of men. In saying ό άνθρωπος the
Hellene thinks of all that belongs to the category of "man", but not of
beasts, etc., that which distinguishes, demarcates, and defines man from
all other categories of creatures, that which belongs to the concept Man,39.

At the same time, the entire group of men (i.e. the whole of humanity) is
thought of as a concrete whole. Thus, ό άνθρωπος θνητός έστιν means
"all human beings [without exception] are mortal". The so-called indefinite
form άνθρωπος τις means "someone of the genus man", in other words, it
describes man as a substance limited, by itself, and as indefinite: "a certain
man". Thus, too, the abstract "man" by receiving the article becomes
concrete or definite: ό άνθρωπος δς ήλθεν έξ 'Αθηνών "the (particular)
man who came from Athens".

Many times the article is used in connection with a person that has
been mentioned before: Acts 4,22: ετών γάρ ήν ... ό άνθρωπος (cf. Acts
3,2, where the same person is described as τις άνηρ). Even though we
translate "the man was ..." in English the force is "i/iar man [of whom I
wrote earlier] was ..." In this capacity the article is used in its original
demonstrative force, rather than in its pure articular sense. But when the
subject is presented as a general concept, without any specification, classification,
etc., it is anarthrous. Thus Platon, Theaitetos 152 a: πάντιυν
χρημάτων με'τρον άνθρωπος means not so much "a man is the measure
of all things" but "anyone who is a man [i.e. who shares in all that makes
up a human being] is the measure of all things". From this it is a small
step to the question of the arthrous or anarthrous predicate.

The predicate is usually anarthrous, because it does not denote a
definite person or kind or class but only property or essence, which is
predicated of the subject."
“A certain man” (τις ἀνὴρ) does not connote the exact same thing as “a man” (ἀνὴρ).
 
“A certain man” (τις ἀνὴρ) does not connote the exact same thing as “a man” (ἀνὴρ).
Per Caragounis, an anarthrous predicate != indefinite

Indefinite

The so-called indefinite form άνθρωπος τις means "someone of the genus man", in other words, it
describes man as a substance limited, by itself, and as indefinite: "a certain man".

Anarthrous subject

But when the subject is presented as a general concept, without any specification, classification,
etc., it is anarthrous. Thus Platon, Theaitetos 152 a: πάντιυν χρημάτων με'τρον άνθρωπος means not so much "a man is the measure of all things" but "anyone who is a man [i.e. who shares in all that makes up a human being] is the measure of all things".

Anarthrous predicate.

The predicate is usually anarthrous, because it does not denote a definite person or kind or class but only property or essence, which is predicated of the subject."
 
Per Caragounis, an anarthrous predicate != indefinite

Indefinite

The so-called indefinite form άνθρωπος τις means "someone of the genus man", in other words, it
describes man as a substance limited, by itself, and as indefinite: "a certain man".
I just told you that. άνθρωπος τις means “ a certain man.” But when Koine wants to say simply “ a man” it uses the anarthrous form άνθρωπος, without τις.
 
Back
Top