Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Jehovah's Witnesses translation of John 1

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Georg Kaplin View Post
    You have not addressed the anaphora. Θεος is either vocative or nominative. Either "Your throne O' God" or "God is your throne." The anaphoric article makes the latter the only grammatical alternative.
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    The passage doesn't say that God is anointing himself.
    Originally posted by Georg Kaplin View Post
    Now if you insist on Jesus being called God in verse 8, what that means is that the God who anoints Jesus, the Father, is being identified as the Son. That is modalism.
    Are you a modalist?
    You don't demonstrate the ability to properly interpret even the plain and simple English of my statement. What reason do I have to believe that you would be able to interpret the more complex grammar and foreign language?

    δια τουτο εχρισεν σε ο θεος
    through (because of) - this - (he) anointed - you (acc) - ... - god
    As previously noted: (grammatical considerations) "you" is accusative ... the direct object of an action
    As previously noted: (grammatical considerations) "anointed" is the action which is received by "you."
    The first occurrence of "ο θεος" identifies the "you" receiving that action. (anaphoric?)
    "God has anointed you the god (of what?)"
    "God has anointed you (as) god" ... Only if the "you" being anointed wasn't already god. [Samuel anointed Saul (as) king: before that Saul wasn't king.]

    "Your God (ho theos sou) anointed you, O God, ..."
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #32
      Tabibito:
      You don't demonstrate the ability to properly interpret even the plain and simple English of my
      statement. What reason do I have to believe that you would be able to interpret the more
      complex grammar and foreign language?

      Georg:
      At the beginning of our discussion at post #27 you said your conclusion was based on the
      context.

      You said:
      “to the son he says your (σου) throne the god endures forever. to the son he says your (σου)
      throne O God endures forever. Context shows [through "your" (σου)] that the "o" is
      direct-address/vocative.”

      Here is my hermeneutic rule #1:
      One must decide what the text can say before we determine what it means.
      The objective grammar is used to determine what the Greek text CAN say. From that we decide
      on the best meaning based on the context.

      Do you disagree?

      The way you used the word Anaphoric shows that you don't understand it. I am not criticizing
      you. I have focused on it for months now.

      Please allow me to share my paper on this subject with you.

      Here is the Abstract.
      May 18, 2019 [THE GREEK ANAPHORIC ARTICLE IN BIBLICAL GREEK FOR THE
      IDENTIFICATION OF PERSONS]

      Anaphora (Greek, ‘to bring back, to bring up’) is a word or phrase which depends upon another
      for identification. For example, “Pronouns are anaphors.” When one says, “They refer back to a
      noun,” the word “they” is a pronoun that is anaphoric and the word “Pronouns” is its antecedent.
      Pronouns are very useful in exegesis. In ancient Greek, they developed before definite articles.
      Eventually articles were derived from them. That is why the Greek definite article still retains its
      use as an anaphoric pronoun, in fact, Thomas Franshaw Middleton in his “Doctrine of the Greek
      Article,” says that the definite article ὁ and pronoun ὁ are identical in function.

      While modern grammars document the anaphoric use of the Greek article, it is not commonly
      used in exegesis in the same way as the pronoun. This study will apply what is taught about the
      article in order to help interpret passages which are ambiguous and hotly debated in
      Christological controversies.

      A survey of both ancient and modern treatments on the Greek anaphoric
      article leads into an analysis from Daniel Wallace’s Exegetical Grammar on anaphora. An
      application is made for 2 Peter 1:1, a text that is interpretedby some to refer to two persons (e.g.
      The American Standard Version, ASV), while others see Jesus identified there as God. (E.g. the
      New International Version, NIV)

      The result of applying what scholars like Wallace and Middleton say about the resurrection
      anaphoric definite is shockingly different than their own conclusions and contrary to what they
      teach on the subject. An analysis of “Sharp’s Rule” demonstrates how to harmonize that
      grammatical principle with the anaphoric definite article.

      A new “rule” of Greek grammar is proposed which describes the use of theanaphoric article in 2
      Peter 1:1 and related texts. An analysis of the anaphoric Greek article is applied also to Titus
      2:13, 1 John 5:20, Hebrews 1:8, Romans 9:5 and 2 Thessalonians 1:12. In each of these
      passages, the anaphoric article identifies the Father as God.

      An analysis of a broad range of texts in the Greek New Testament “hardens” the rule by
      providing examples which don’t conform to the description of the anaphoric article. There are
      currently no exceptions in the Greek scriptures to the rule on the anaphoric article.
      Finally, a “roadmap” for falsifying the conclusions of this paper is presented which also provides
      a good summary of all of the categories of the definite article from Wallace’s “Greek Grammar
      Beyond the Basics.”

      Keywords: Koine Greek grammar, anaphora, definite article, linguistics, Sharp’s rule
      Here is the paper.
      https://www.academia.edu/s/cb888d8fa...le-in-biblical
      Last edited by Georg Kaplin; 05-20-2019, 10:34 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        The link doesn't work

        Fixed it
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • #34
          On a skim read, that doesn't look a whole lot different from the way that the definite article in English, with perhaps (maybe, there is some chance) just a little bit of bleed over from the demonstrative article. There is little, if anything, (based on a first reading) that wouldn't be intuitively expected by a native English speaker ... though it is unlikely to be consciously thought out before the information is encountered (or it wasn't by me, anyway)
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            The link doesn't work

            Fixed it
            You got it?

            Comment


            • #36
              Yes - Thanks for that one. I'll have a proper read through when I'm properly awake.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                On a skim read, that doesn't look a whole lot different from the way that the definite article in English, with perhaps (maybe, there is some chance) just a little bit of bleed over from the demonstrative article. There is little, if anything, (based on a first reading) that wouldn't be intuitively expected by a native English speaker ... though it is unlikely to be consciously thought out before the information is encountered (or it wasn't by me, anyway)
                When I first started looking at this, I had a similar thought. Many people have said for these texts that the "context" (ie their gut feeling about them) did not favor the Trinitarian apologetic. In fact, I have been told that verses like 2 Peter 1:1-2 were an overt paradox by the writer.

                But with Anaphora taken into consideration, these gut feelings are no longer mere "context" but based upon a grammatical reason.

                And, in hundreds of years of bickering over these texts, no one has ever applied this grammar that is well documented.
                Last edited by Georg Kaplin; 05-20-2019, 11:18 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Georg Kaplin View Post
                  When I first started looking at this, I had a similar thought. Many people have said for these texts that the "context" (ie their gut feeling about them) did not favor the Trinitarian apologetic. In fact, I have been told that verses like 2 Peter 1:1-2 were an overt paradox by the writer.

                  But with Anaphora taken into consideration, these gut feelings are no longer mere "context" but based upon a grammatical reason.

                  And, in hundreds of years of bickering over these texts, no one has ever applied this grammar that is well documented.
                  I won't affirm context as a matter of "gut feeling," though I know many who don't make the distinction.

                  I can see why 2 Peter 1:1-2 might cause problems - but the worst that could be said is that it is ambiguous. Disambiguation is available elsewhere: 2 Peter 2:20 "our Lord and Saviour" Titus 2:13 "μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου" of our great God and saviour, Jesus Christ" (admittedly - Titus is under a cloud) etc and so forth.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    I won't affirm context as a matter of "gut feeling," though I know many who don't make the distinction.

                    I can see why 2 Peter 1:1-2 might cause problems - but the worst that could be said is that it is ambiguous. Disambiguation is available elsewhere: 2 Peter 2:20 "our Lord and Saviour" Titus 2:13 "μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου" of our great God and saviour, Jesus Christ" (admittedly - Titus is under a cloud) etc and so forth.
                    Tabibito:
                    I won't affirm context as a matter of "gut feeling," though I know many who don't make the
                    distinction.
                    I can see why 2 Peter 1:1-2 might cause problems - but the worst that could be said is that it is
                    ambiguous.

                    Georg:
                    That is not correct. When the Anaphoric article is recognized it is a grammatical issue.

                    Tabibito:
                    Disambiguation is available elsewhere: 2 Peter 2:20 "our Lord and Saviour"

                    Georg:
                    I actually mention that in my paper. The resemblance is based on a superficial appearance, not
                    grammar. The Anaphoric article is grammar.

                    Tabibito:
                    Titus 2:13 "μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου" of our great God and saviour,
                    Jesus Christ" (admittedly - Titus is under a cloud) etc and so forth.

                    Georg:
                    Anaphora also identifies the Father as God at Titus 2:13 as well.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      May I recommend Murray Harris' "Jesus as God"? There he discusses the various texts that could ascribe divinity to Jesus, and concludes that Hebrews 1:8 refers to Jesus as God (substantially based on the Septuagint rendering of Ps. 44:7).

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        There he discusses the various texts that could ascribe divinity to Jesus, and concludes that Hebrews 1:8 refers to Jesus as God (substantially based on the Septuagint rendering of Ps. 44:7).

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        I wasn't aware that any valid alternative reading was available - even without reading Psalm 44:7.
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Lee:
                          May I recommend Murray Harris' "Jesus as God"? There he discusses the various texts that
                          could ascribe divinity to Jesus, and concludes that Hebrews 1:8 refers to Jesus as God
                          (substantially based on the Septuagint rendering of Ps. 44:7).

                          Georg:
                          I have had that book for decades and I still find things in it that are new to me.
                          There is so much information on one subject it can be overwhelmingly. I used to think it was
                          comprehensive, but last year I was researching 2 Peter 1:1-2 and was shocked to find he
                          omitted relevant information. I documented it in my paper.

                          Edited by a Moderator

                          Now, I check every reference for myself. I found that he quoted BDF in favor of his view but that
                          he omitted grammatical evidence in the same BDF section that was contrary to his conclusion. I
                          am in fact the only one to notice this and to quote the footnote from BDF on 2 Peter 2:1.
                          Wallace also follows Harris and quotes the same section for BDF without the omitted evidence
                          in support of Sharps. I can see perhaps that Wallace just copied Harris and did not look at BDF
                          directly. But even the BDF index lists 2 Peter 1:1, so that is not much of an excuse.
                          I quickly re-read his chapter on Hebrews 1:8. He quotes BDF to support nominative for vocative
                          in the NT period. He admits that the word order favors vocative. Then he spends a lot of time
                          on contextual arguments.

                          But close to the end he hints at Anaphora without using the term as he did on a comment in
                          John 1:1.

                          He sees a parallel between 1:8 and 1:9. Based on that, he attempts to say that this is evidence
                          that ο θεος at 1:9 could be vocative. But that is backwards. If 1:9 is not vocative, then 1:8
                          cannot be, based on grammatical Anaphora.

                          And if one takes that route one appeals to a difficult interpretation with God having a God.
                          That's nonsense from a theological perspective, and appeals to paradox.
                          Since Harris omits evidence in his book and does mention Anaphora in another section, I
                          cannot think of a charitable way to represent him here.
                          Last edited by Bill the Cat; 05-23-2019, 01:06 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Anaphora works very well for many occurrences. Same as "the" in English - there has to be a prior introduction of the subject before it can be used.
                            An angel appeared .... the (that same) angel said ...
                            But it isn't the only use of the definite article in either language:
                            Go to the White House (only one White House can possibly be the target, even verbally). There is still only one possible target possible in "Go to the white house on Whatever street:" there is only one white house on Whatever Street, though it isn't THE White House.
                            The angel of the Lord appeared. Only one angel can be referred to - he isn't a normal angel.
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Tabibito:
                              Anaphora works very well for many occurrences. Same as "the" in English - there has to be a prior introduction of the subject before it can be used.
                              An angel appeared .... the (that same) angel said ...
                              But it isn't the only use of the definite article in either language:
                              Go to the White House (only one White House can possibly be the target, even verbally). There is still only one possible target possible in "Go to the white house on Whatever street:" there is only one white house on Whatever Street, though it isn't THE White House.
                              The angel of the Lord appeared. Only one angel can be referred to - he isn't a normal angel.

                              Georg:
                              One cannot exegete Greek with English examples. They do both have the definite article but Greek does not have the indefinite article (τις is not used like “a” in English.)

                              Also, in Greek the definite article evolved from the pronoun, and this is not true of English. I quote Middleton as saying that the definite article ό and pronoun ό are identical. This is not true in English.

                              What you need to falsify the rule are real examples from Greek. My proposed rule is not as narrow as Sharp’s rule. Definite articles that are “individualizing” are very common.

                              I provide a “roadmap” for refuting the rule in my paper. Feel free to make a different argument, but Greek examples are needed.

                              You demonstrated you know how this works when you provided statistics for πριν followed by the accusative noun.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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.

                                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. 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.

                                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.

                                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.

                                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.”

                                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.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X