Jehovah's Witnesses translation of John 1

[Georg Kaplin]

Just Passing Through:
One thing you miss, that isn’t adequately observed in the grammars either, is that the rules change whenever there are additional nouns in apposition. When two bare nouns are united with a kai, Koine never repeats the possessive pronoun, unless it is in translation. (You say that NT never makes mistakes in Greek grammar when translating, the way the LXX does, but this is not a mistake, merely an unnecessary word, in the sense that it does not in any way change the meaning). When there is anything in apposition, the individual appositions, however, may require repetition of possessive pronouns because they do not have the same high degree of presumed coordination. That is, in a phrase like “the cat, my pet, and feline, my best friend,” you couldn’t use a solitary “my” to describe both pet and friend, so appositions change the rules. As far as I can tell, that’s the only time Greek repeats a possessive pronoun.
John 20:28 is thereby clearly shown to be translation, and it is an exact correlation to the LXX translation of Psalm 35:24 (34:23), but with God and Lord reversed (The God of me and the Lord of me). There it is clearly one and the same God and Lord, with both article and pronoun repeated because Hebrew repeats both. :


If you look at any study of Hebraisms in the Gospels, you’ll notice that Hebrew style and grammar come out most frequently in quotations, as the Gospel writers might choose a slightly more wooden translation for the sake of reproducing the original Aramaic statements precisely. Thomas’ words were translated precisely, with each article and pronoun repeated, that we might know exactly what he said.
Most of your study of possessive pronouns fails to account for whether the pronoun is tied to a bare noun or to an appositional noun.

Georg:
The paper does not include John 20:28 as an example of identification by Anaphora because it is not a contiguous narrative. I have researched that verse but have not presented it here. In any event the repeated possessives pronouns would have no bearing on Anaphora. I have provided references to Wallace and Middleton on Anaphora and neither mentions this.

That being said, I don't apply the rule I. Anaphora to John 20:28.


Just Passing Through:
You claim that God in 2 Peter 1:1 is differentiated from Jesus. On the contrary, Jesus has already been mentioned at the beginning of the verse; therefore the next reference to him is supposed to have the anaphoric article.

Georg:
May I suggest you re-read the references from BDF, Wallace and Middleton that I quote in my paper.

When the SAME noun is repeated, the Anaphoric article is inserted before it. The article-same.noun is an Anaphoric reference. The Anaphoric article is not attached to a different noun.


American Standard Version
2 Peter 1:1
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God=articular and the Saviour=anarthrous Jesus Christ:

2 May undeserved kindness and peace be increased to you by an accurate knowledge of God=articular and of Jesus our Lord=articular

In verse 1 God and Lord are articular. In verse 2, God is articular. In the grammar in verse 2, God and Lord are distinguished. In verse 2, God is not Jesus.

Verse 2 could read,

2 May undeserved kindness and peace be increased to you by an accurate knowledge of the God [who was just mentioned] and of Jesus our Lord.


Just Passing Through:
It does. “The God our and Savior Jesus Christ.” One article with two nouns, by Sharp’s rule, one individual. Then in verse two: “of the God and Jesus, the Lord of us.” Both the second article and possessive pronoun are attached to the apposition, so they don’t change the primary usage, once again of a single article with “God and Jesus,” one individual. I find it bizarre when you say that because righteousness is a singular concept, that that explains why God and Savior are a singular concept even though you think they are not a singular individual. What Smyth was talking about only applies to plurals, in that a crowd made up of generals and captains could be regarded as a single crowd, as denoted by a single plural definite article, or possibly with abstract nouns, where something like faithfulness and truthfulness might be viewed as a single concept (I don’t recall if that ever happens in Greek with regard to the article). If you have an example of the same concept combining a single individual and another single individual as if they were a single concept (with a single singular article), I’d love to see it.

My paper addresses 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 in that way. See my paper for exact verbiage.


Georg:
Sharp's rule is not a real grammatical rule. Smyth’s observation is not said to be limited to plurals just because his example was for plurals.


Smyth 1143. “ A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion”

Smyth and Sharp's is the same thing except Sharp's excludes plurals and a variety of nouns that would otherwise invalidate the self-serving rule designed to “prove” Jesus is God.



Just Passing Through:
In Hebrews 1:8, you must contend with the fact that this is a direct quote of the LXX translation of the psalm. I believe the psalm was an intermediate prophecy, with a partial application to an OT human king, but with prophetic and greater application to Christ. As such, the articles in the LXX were appropriate for the context. There is a brief address, directly to God, “Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever,” reminding us that there are two thrones, the one the anointed earthly king sits on, and God’s eternal throne in heaven. (I don’t even know what “your throne is God” even means).
When Hebrews quotes the psalm and applies both verses to Christ, it unites the two thrones into one eternal throne of Christ, who is both God (and therefore there is one eternal throne belonging not just to God’s unending kingdom but to this one specific king), and man (who according to his human nature was anointed by God to be the Christ). The article is there in verse 9 because he is quoting the LXX, not because he is promoting a modalism of the Son anointing the Son. It is not an error in Greek grammar, but a quotation from a different context, and the mystery of the incarnation, that the Son who is one with God the Father can also be distinguished in that only God the Son (not God the Trinity) became man, only God the Son (not God the Trinity) was anointed to be the Christ, and on the cross the Son could be forsaken by the Father, with whom he did not cease to be one. How do Hebrews 1:10-12 apply at all to Christ and to this context of proclaiming how the Son is unique and on a different level than the angels, unless the Son is the very Lord addressed in that passage? He has identified Christ as an eternal king, and he now equates that eternal king with the Lord who made heaven and earth, who is eternal, while nothing he created is eternal.

Georg:
You are making a contextual argument. But not everyone agrees with your subjective view of the context.

But Anaphora is grammatical, not contextual. A pure hermeneutic will use grammar to determine what the text can say before it determines what it means.


Just Passing Through:
In Titus 2:13, you try to override Sharp’s rule by claiming God has an anaphoric reference all the way back to 1:4, where God the Father is mentioned. But you don’t mention that God has been mentioned twice in the meantime, both without any article (1:7 and 16). The first four verses of Titus mention God five times, only two of which have the article, one of which calls God our Savior before applying that title specifically to Christ in the next verse. If anything, the article in Titus 2:13 is most directly linked to the word Savior, not God, so it should be anaphoric to the previous mention of a Savior, which would be “God our Savior” in 2:10, which is also anaphoric to the previous mention of Savior, “Christ our Savior,” in 1:3.

Georg:
The anarthrous first mention in a discourse introduction is specifically mentioned in my references. It's not the same kind of Anaphora as those with the definite article.

Just Passing Through:
You argue against the clear example of Sharp’s rule in Rom.9:5 by claiming an anaphoric article in verse 8, and say that can’t be Christ because he has no children, but Hebrews 2:13 has Jesus saying, “Here am I, and the children God has given me.”

Georg:
God gave him the children. It does not say they are his children. They are in fact his brothers.



Just Passing Through:
In 2 Thess. 1:12, you overrule a very clear example of Sharp’s rule by claiming an anaphoric article reaching all the way back to verse 4, but, once again, God has been mentioned twice in the meantime without the article. If those do not specifically refer to God the Father from verse 4, then how can you insist that an article that should point back to the closest reference, an anarthrous noun that does not point back to any previous reference at all, still must refer to the Father, in spite of its clear connection in this verse to God the Son.

In other words, your anaphoric articles are more subjective and arbitrary than any rule any actual Greek scholar before you has identified.

Georg:
See my previous comment on Titus 2:13. The rules are not subjective but very objective and tight. Read the footnotes for the rule.

I also don't override the Sharp's constructions. I harmonize them with the grammar. That is also in my paper.

In all cases God and Jesus are seen working together in a common cause, a single notion.

Also see Ephesians 5:5, the kingdom of Christ and God. A single notion.

So the true grammatical force is not being overridden. Rather a self-serving “rule” with known exceptions is being properly understood.

[Just Passing Through]

I had read two of your papers, the one you cite here and Smart’s “Smarter” Rule, which seemed necessary to understand your take on the rule which you are repeatedly contradicting. I apologize if bringing in that was off-subject.

Georg:
May I suggest you re-read the references from BDF, Wallace and Middleton that I quote in my paper.

When the SAME noun is repeated, the Anaphoric article is inserted before it. The article-same.noun is an Anaphoric reference. The Anaphoric article is not attached to a different noun.

I don’t have BDF or Middleton, but I did read your paper where you said:

Middleton also states that we would look for the same noun occurring earlier, something he calls “renewed mention,” and that this could be a synonym as well, if the same noun is not found.

With a long footnote that applies it even when there’s no word at all. Isn’t Middleton referring to the same anaphoric article you are?

Georg:
Sharp's rule is not a real grammatical rule. Smyth’s observation is not said to be limited to plurals just because his example was for plurals.


Smyth 1143. “ A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion”

Smyth and Sharp's is the same thing except Sharp's excludes plurals and a variety of nouns that would otherwise invalidate the self-serving rule designed to “prove” Jesus is God.

Then show me an example in the singular where two singular nouns (not abstract), such as two different people, are united by a single article to produce the effect of a single notion.

Georg:
You are making a contextual argument. But not everyone agrees with your subjective view of the context.

But Anaphora is grammatical, not contextual. A pure hermeneutic will use grammar to determine what the text can say before it determines what it means.

You mean like when you made the contextual argument that “God” in Romans 5 couldn’t be the Son because he doesn’t have children?

Georg:
The anarthrous first mention in a discourse introduction is specifically mentioned in my references. It's not the same kind of Anaphora as those with the definite article.

That sentence doesn’t make any sense. The anarthrous mention isn’t the same kind of Anaphora? It isn’t any kind of Anaphora at all. How does that answer my point?

I also don't override the Sharp's constructions. I harmonize them with the grammar.

How is the denial of every one of Sharp’s constructions when it applies to Christ a harmonization?

In all cases God and Jesus are seen working together in a common cause, a single notion.

Also see Ephesians 5:5, the kingdom of Christ and God. A single notion.

Again, can you show me a single example where two individual persons with one article for the pair are treated as a single notion because they are working together? You only apply that notion to Christ and God, because you (subjectively) will not see them as one God. “God” in Ephesians 5:5 is anarthrous, therefore you have no grammar, nothing but your subjective predetermination that God and Christ are not one here.

[Georg Kaplin]

Thanks for the response. I will assume that since you did not reply when I corrected your understanding of how Anaphora works using your missapplication at 2 Peter 1:1, that you concede the point. There are as yet no exceptions to my rule.

As for Romans 9:5, you also did not address my response, and yet you continue making the same argument. Read the entire chapter of the text you quoted and see that the ones called children are Christ's brothers; they are not children of Christ but remain “children of God.”

That being said, the classic anarthrous θεος as Anaphoric antecedent which I cite from Greek grammarians is found in Romans 1:1. Because it is found there, and continues to the salutation and explicitly identifies God as the Father, it conforms to my existing rule and identifies God at 9:5 as the Father as well.

Your other points on Sharp's rule don't impact my rule. My rule is based on a grammatical rule that was defined in 2AD.

Sharp's is based merely on carefully manufactured statistics that finds pretexts to eliminate contradictory texts.

The legitimate rule in Smyth's cannot be accused of theological bias and properly includes plurals, but does not exclude singulars.

That being said, my rule does not rely on Sharp's rule in any way and I don't pretend to cover the subject. I don't need to as my legitimate rule based on REAL Greek grammar refutes Sharp's rule.

Should you wish to help recover Sharp's from the trash bin, you need to refute my rule.

[Just Passing Through]

I will assume that since you did not reply when I corrected your understanding of how Anaphora works using your missapplication at 2 Peter 1:1, that you concede the point.

If you mean where you responded, “When the SAME noun is repeated, the Anaphoric article is inserted before it. The article-same.noun is an Anaphoric reference. The Anaphoric article is not attached to a different noun.” I responded by quoting your own paper to say that it doesn’t have to be the same noun.
If you mean your response: “My paper addresses 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 in that way. See my paper for exact verbiage.” Answering an objection by saying some paper somewhere answers some question (I’m not sure what specifically), is no answer at all. You can’t assume that because I’m not going to bother going back and rereading some paper on some other website which I didn’t think was worth reading the first time that it means I’m conceding anything.
And does that mean that you have conceded every single point I’ve made that you have failed to specifically address? Good. Because there have been virtually no specific responses to specific points. All you do is say, “I’ve covered that,” and “Yeah, but my approach is grammar.”
As you’ve said nothing new, and I’m getting tired of being ignored in my specifics, I’d say we’re done here (or at least I am).

[Georg Kaplin]

The same noun or a synonym. Not a completely different noun.

Again, that's in the paper, and so far there are no exceptions. The example given in my references was the verb baptize for the noun, if I recall.

I don't use that in any of my statistics, I just include it because my references do.

[Georg Kaplin]

Sharp's rule says that a singular articular noun και anarthrous singular noun always identifies the same thing. Smyth says that they articulate one notion.

Here is an example from Aristotle with two singular nouns.

http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-b...01039a&getid=0


φανερὸν δʼ ἐξ αὐτῶν τούτων τὸ συμβαῖνον καὶ τοῖς 1039a.25τὰς ἰδέας λέγουσιν οὐσίας τε χωριστὰς εἶναι καὶ ἅμα τὸ εἶδος ἐκ τοῦ γένους ποιοῦσι καὶ τῶν διαφορῶν. εἰ γὰρ ἔστι τὰ εἴδη, καὶ τὸ ζῷον ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ ἵππῳ, ἤτοι ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν τῷ ἀριθμῷ ἐστὶν ἢ ἕτερον· τῷ μὲν γὰρ λόγῳ

16. Aristotle. Metaphysics (English) [ Arist. Metaph. section 1039a line 20 ]
that substance is the only or chief subject of definition; but on this showing there is no definition even of substance. Then there can be no definition of anything; or rather in a sense there can, and in a sense cannot. What this means will be clearer from what follows later. From these same considerations it is clear also what consequence follows for those who maintain that the Forms are substances and separable, and who at the same time make the species consist of the genus and the differentiae. If there are Forms,

and if "animal" is present in the man and the horse, [εἰ γὰρ ἔστι τὰ εἴδη, καὶ τὸ ζῷον ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ ἵππῳ]

it is either numerically one and the same with them, or not. (In formula they are clearly one; for in each case the speaker will enunciate the same formula.) If, then, there is in some sense an Absolute Man, who is an individual and exists separately, then the constituents, e.g. "animal" and "two-footed," must have an individual meaning and be separable and substances. Hence there must be an Absolute Animal too. (i) Then if the "animal" which is in the horse and the man is one and the same, as you are one and the same with yourself, how can the one which in things

[Just Passing Through]

Okay, I said I was done, but since this is actually something new, I’ll respond. You’re correct that they are in fact singular nouns, but they are not a singular man and a singular horse, but collective nouns, so they might as well be plurals. He’s not saying the notion of man and horse can be associated together. He’s not saying a single man and a single horse are either one thing or treated as if they were one thing because they’re working in unity for the same thing. He’s saying that all of humanity and all of horse-dom actually are one and the same thing because there is only one kind of life. Other than using a collective singular instead of nouns that are plural in form, this is exactly the same as “the generals and captains” that formed one crowd, in fact it's even more unifying than that example, because there is no distinction at all between man and horse in this great crowd of the same flesh. As much one and the same thing as you are one and the same with yourself.

[Georg Kaplin]

I had read two of your papers, the one you cite here and Smart’s “Smarter” Rule, which seemed necessary to understand your take on the rule which you are repeatedly contradicting. I apologize if bringing in that was off-subject.



I don’t have BDF or Middleton, but I did read your paper where you said:



With a long footnote that applies it even when there’s no word at all. Isn’t Middleton referring to the same anaphoric article you are?



Then show me an example in the singular where two singular nouns (not abstract), such as two different people, are united by a single article to produce the effect of a single notion.



You mean like when you made the contextual argument that “God” in Romans 5 couldn’t be the Son because he doesn’t have children?


That sentence doesn’t make any sense. The anarthrous mention isn’t the same kind of Anaphora? It isn’t any kind of Anaphora at all. How does that answer my point?


How is the denial of every one of Sharp’s constructions when it applies to Christ a harmonization?



Again, can you show me a single example where two individual persons with one article for the pair are treated as a single notion because they are working together? You only apply that notion to Christ and God, because you (subjectively) will not see them as one God. “God” in Ephesians 5:5 is anarthrous, therefore you have no grammar, nothing but your subjective predetermination that God and Christ are not one here.

Mt 27:56 where James and Joses have the same mother.
5) among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee

[Georg Kaplin]

Okay, I said I was done, but since this is actually something new, I’ll respond. You’re correct that they are in fact singular nouns, but they are not a singular man and a singular horse, but collective nouns, so they might as well be plurals. He’s not saying the notion of man and horse can be associated together. He’s not saying a single man and a single horse are either one thing or treated as if they were one thing because they’re working in unity for the same thing. He’s saying that all of humanity and all of horse-dom actually are one and the same thing because there is only one kind of life. Other than using a collective singular instead of nouns that are plural in form, this is exactly the same as “the generals and captains” that formed one crowd, in fact it's even more unifying than that example, because there is no distinction at all between man and horse in this great crowd of the same flesh. As much one and the same thing as you are one and the same with yourself.

I see an example of one man and one horse. I just quickly reviewed Wallace and don't see the distinction you make.
Also, you are busted on Mt 27:56, based on the verbiage in your challenge in the other post.

[Bill the Cat]

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Mr. Kaplin, please do not link to your personal site in your posts. You are welcome to place a single link in your signature block and refer people to your site, but that is the extent we allow for advertising.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Just Passing Through]

I wondered if you’d ever get to the distinction Sharp made that when proper names are used, since there was no chance of confusing them, they could be treated as a single crowd of two or three, with one article to emphasize that they’re not being viewed as individuals but the family, the group, or the inner circle, the crowd, whether “of the James and Joseph,” being treated as one set of children, or the Barnabas and Saul teamup in Acts 13:32, or the Peter, James, and John, inner circle in Matt 17:1.
Such a construction requires proper names so that there is no possible confusion between a crowd and an individual. “God” is not treated as a name, since the writers can also speak of other gods. And a construction like “God and Lord” or “God and Savior,” are not specific enough since the Father and Son both can be Lord and Savior. That's been a clear part of Sharp's construction since it was first articulated.

[Georg Kaplin]

I wondered if you’d ever get to the distinction Sharp made that when proper names are used, since there was no chance of confusing them, they could be treated as a single crowd of two or three, with one article to emphasize that they’re not being viewed as individuals but the family, the group, or the inner circle, the crowd, whether “of the James and Joseph,” being treated as one set of children, or the Barnabas and Saul teamup in Acts 13:32, or the Peter, James, and John, inner circle in Matt 17:1.
Such a construction requires proper names so that there is no possible confusion between a crowd and an individual. “God” is not treated as a name, since the writers can also speak of other gods. And a construction like “God and Lord” or “God and Savior,” are not specific enough since the Father and Son both can be Lord and Savior. That's been a clear part of Sharp's construction since it was first articulated.

The example of Matthew 27:45 was not given as an example that is an exception to Sharp's rule. It dealt with your assertion regarding Smyth: 1143. A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion.


You said it only worked with plurals, remember?

You said:
“Again, can you show me a single example where two individual persons with one article for the pair are treated as a single notion”

So Smyth’s superior rule really does work with all types of nouns and represents a legitimate and universal rule.

It is to this universal rule that I appeal at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.

When Georg’s rule (really Apollonius, Middleton and ironically Wallace) is harmonized with it, there is no doubt that two persons are in view.

[Just Passing Through]

I’ll admit that when I wrote that I had briefly forgotten the proper name exception. But it only applies where there is no possible confusion and merging of James and Joseph into one Siamese twin, and therefore it’s natural and unmistakable that they are being presented as one unified crowd, and if you’re going to insist that the exception also applies to the Christological passages, then that is context and your own presumption, not grammar. Then your newly-discovered grammar can’t distinguish which of the individuals in this crowd is supposed to be anaphoric. You can’t have it both ways, that the article stresses that multiple individuals are supposed to be seen as a unit, a crowd as if there was no distinction between members of the crowd, and that the article splits the crowd up and points specifically and only to one member of the crowd, with no reference to the other(s). It can’t be both unifying and separating at the same time. I've given reason why such a construction would be reasonably avoided when speaking, not of named individuals, but of God and Lord or God and Savior. And grammar and context are in harmony with the text and with 2000 years of universal understanding by Christ's Church.

[Georg Kaplin]

Just Passing Through said:
Today 11:58 AM
I’ll admit that when I wrote that I had briefly forgotten the proper name exception.


Georg:
And again, the example has NOTHING to do with Sharp's rule. Here is the post are replying to:

###
The example of Matthew 27:45 was not given as an example that is an exception to Sharp's rule. It dealt with your assertion regarding Smyth: 1143. A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion.


You said it only worked with plurals, remember?

You said:
“Again, can you show me a single example where two individual persons with one article for the pair are treated as a single notion”

So Smyth’s superior rule really does work with all types of nouns and represents a legitimate and universal rule.

It is to this universal rule that I appeal at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.

When Georg’s rule (really Apollonius, Middleton and ironically Wallace) is harmonized with it, there is no doubt that two persons are in view.

###

Just Passing Through said:
But it only applies where there is no possible confusion and merging of James and Joseph into one Siamese twin, and therefore it’s natural and unmistakable that they are being presented as one unified crowd, and if you’re going to insist that the exception also applies to the Christological passages, then that is context and your own presumption, not grammar. Then your newly-discovered grammar can’t distinguish which of the individuals in this crowd is supposed to be anaphoric. You can’t have it both ways, that the article stresses that multiple individuals are supposed to be seen as a unit, a crowd as if there was no distinction between members of the crowd, and that the article splits the crowd up and points specifically and only to one member of the crowd, with no reference to the other(s). It can’t be both unifying and separating at the same time. I've given reason why such a construction would be reasonably avoided when speaking, not of named individuals, but of God and Lord or God and Savior. And grammar and context are in harmony with the text and with 2000 years of universal understanding by Christ's Church.

Georg:
Again you misconstrue the rule on Anaphora. It is not intended to identify every verse in the NT, nor is Sharp's.

Mt 27:56 has nothing to do with anaphora.

My rule remains without an exception.

What you have just done is make a case for Sharp's being reliant upon context.

But my rule on Anaphora is pure grammar. So Sharp's rule must bend it’s knees and serve its master.

[Georg Kaplin]

Okay, I said I was done, but since this is actually something new, I’ll respond. You’re correct that they are in fact singular nouns, but they are not a singular man and a singular horse, but collective nouns, so they might as well be plurals. He’s not saying the notion of man and horse can be associated together. He’s not saying a single man and a single horse are either one thing or treated as if they were one thing because they’re working in unity for the same thing. He’s saying that all of humanity and all of horse-dom actually are one and the same thing because there is only one kind of life. Other than using a collective singular instead of nouns that are plural in form, this is exactly the same as “the generals and captains” that formed one crowd, in fact it's even more unifying than that example, because there is no distinction at all between man and horse in this great crowd of the same flesh. As much one and the same thing as you are one and the same with yourself.

Hi,
You wanted to talk about Sharp's when I did not refer to it, so just for you, I updated the paper. I was told by the Admin that I could put the link to the files in my .signature.

Best Regards
Georg

-------
Signature: https://independent.academia.edu/GeorgKaplin