Anaphoric Article

Post Reply
Michelle Churmage
Posts: 3
Joined: May 29th, 2020, 3:17 pm

Anaphoric Article

Post by Michelle Churmage » May 29th, 2020, 3:35 pm

I am in a discussion about the meaning of 2 Peter 1:1 which I understand Sharp's Rule applies to the phrase τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and so means "the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ." The other person says Sharp's Rule does not apply because the article in verse 2 makes θεοῦ anaphoric to θεοῦ in verse 1. Accordingly the meaning in verse 1 is set by that in verse 2. They also say this is an example of renewed mention:

Verse 1: Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
Verse 2: χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν

I see examples of anaphoric articles and renewed mention but never where the first item also has the article like τοῦ θεοῦ in verse 1.

Is renewed mention and the anaphoric article a valid grammatical claim when the article is used for both nouns? So either the meaning of the first verse is determined by the second or possibly there is ambiguity to question the text as saying "the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ?
0 x



Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3020
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Anaphoric Article

Post by Stephen Carlson » May 29th, 2020, 5:51 pm

This is a technically difficult passage, but your interlocutor's claim, assuming you've understood and conveyed it correctly, is bogus. If you want to follow up, ask the person for references, preferably well-chosen examples.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Michelle Churmage
Posts: 3
Joined: May 29th, 2020, 3:17 pm

Re: Anaphoric Article

Post by Michelle Churmage » May 29th, 2020, 11:08 pm

They cite Daniel Wallace. Saying the flow chart on p. 230 in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics if followed leads to their conclusion.
0 x

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1878
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Anaphoric Article

Post by Barry Hofstetter » May 30th, 2020, 7:45 am

Michelle Churmage wrote:
May 29th, 2020, 3:35 pm
Moderator Note: 1) Please let us know your real name so we can change your screen name to match, per B-Greek policy. 2) I am allowing this through because of the grammatical issue, but please let's refrain from descending into theological discussion... --BH

**********


I am in a discussion about the meaning of 2 Peter 1:1 which I understand Sharp's Rule applies to the phrase τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and so means "the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ." The other person says Sharp's Rule does not apply because the article in verse 2 makes θεοῦ anaphoric to θεοῦ in verse 1. Accordingly the meaning in verse 1 is set by that in verse 2. They also say this is an example of renewed mention:

Verse 1: Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
Verse 2: χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν

I see examples of anaphoric articles and renewed mention but never where the first item also has the article like τοῦ θεοῦ in verse 1.

Is renewed mention and the anaphoric article a valid grammatical claim when the article is used for both nouns? So either the meaning of the first verse is determined by the second or possibly there is ambiguity to question the text as saying "the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ?
There is something gone wrong with your interlocutor's logic. Precisely how does this work? Because the article is supposed to be anaphoric in verse two (and I fail to see how it is), it somehow changes the usage in verse 1? What the person needs to argue is why this is the case.

As for citing Wallace, really? That appears to be a classic example of the pick and choose fallacy, where someone finds something in a grammar or lexicon that they can force to fit their argument, and then cite it as though their reading of it is somehow authoritative.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

Michelle Churmage
Posts: 3
Joined: May 29th, 2020, 3:17 pm

Re: Anaphoric Article

Post by Michelle Churmage » May 31st, 2020, 2:35 pm

It seems like they are trying use valid principles but in an improper way. But is there a simple rebuttal? What I mean is, θεοῦ in verse 1 has the article. So to me, either the first use should govern (if there is any relationship based on the use of the article), or each should be considered independent of the other since they are really the same. I find discussion on anaphoric articles and renewed mention, but never where both (i.e. the first also) have the article. So it seems like they are applying these valid grammatical terms (anaphoric and renewed mention) improperly because the first noun has the article, something they chose to ignore (or arbitrarily make of lesser importance).

But I hesitate to say that because I'm not sure if there are examples where what they claim is accepted. So is it fair to say their entire position is invalid simply because both uses of θεοῦ are with the article?
0 x

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1101
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Anaphoric Article

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » May 31st, 2020, 7:12 pm

Your question, perhaps inadvertently, opens up fundamental issues about the Ancient Greek article. Some of us have in the past expressed dissatisfaction with the explanations provided in traditional grammar. If my memory is correct, Murray J.Harris covered the syntax of 2Pet 1:1 in his book Jesus as God. It seemed[1] to me Harris did a good job working within the traditional framework. Wallace frequently cites Harris https://bible.org/article/jesus-θεός-go ... xamination.

Academia has Ronald D. Peters 2012 dissertation where he reviews at length the traditional approach and the sets out an SFL (Systemic Functional Linguistics) treatment. I read the first 90 pages this morning and I am just now getting to the SFL part. Unlike my past experience with this SFL authors, I have no problem understanding R. Peters.

The Greek Article: A Functional Grammar of ὁ-items in the Greek New Testament with Special Emphasis on the Greek Article. By Ronald D. Peters.
https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-ab ... 76/2386123

[1] I no longer have the book.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1101
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Anaphoric Article

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » May 31st, 2020, 9:59 pm

The book by Murray J Harris is found at the link provided. It is a image of the book 16mb. He does discuss 2Pt 1:1 on p229-238.

**********

[Moderator Intervention]

Link Removed.

Stirling, please find an alternative. Fair use allows the quoting up to 400 lines (as I recall) as long as proper citation is given, or you may summarize Murray's arguments if you would like. --BH
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 477
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Anaphoric Article

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen » June 1st, 2020, 4:40 am

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
May 31st, 2020, 9:59 pm
The book by Murray J Harris is found at the link provided.
Somehow just looking at the link text my inner sense tells me it's a completely legitimate legal copy, shared to the public with the consent of the copyright owners...
0 x

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1878
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Anaphoric Article

Post by Barry Hofstetter » June 1st, 2020, 8:50 am

Michelle Churmage wrote:
May 31st, 2020, 2:35 pm
It seems like they are trying use valid principles but in an improper way. But is there a simple rebuttal? What I mean is, θεοῦ in verse 1 has the article. So to me, either the first use should govern (if there is any relationship based on the use of the article), or each should be considered independent of the other since they are really the same. I find discussion on anaphoric articles and renewed mention, but never where both (i.e. the first also) have the article. So it seems like they are applying these valid grammatical terms (anaphoric and renewed mention) improperly because the first noun has the article, something they chose to ignore (or arbitrarily make of lesser importance).

But I hesitate to say that because I'm not sure if there are examples where what they claim is accepted. So is it fair to say their entire position is invalid simply because both uses of θεοῦ are with the article?
Well, as Steven pointed out, this verse is a real crux interpretum, and there is a lot of ink spilled over it. The simple rebuttal is just no, the fact that the article is repeated with θεοῦ a second time has nothing really to do with the first use of the article. They each are there for their own syntactic reasons in the context. The question then becomes what each article is doing.

Now, if you go to the commentaries and grammars, absolutely nobody (that I was able to find) interacts with the argument that the person is making. This means the people who have spent years in the language and years studying the text do not have it on their radar screen, which is a good indication that it's not a valid argument.
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. This phrase is a crux interpretum. The syntax of τοῦ θεοῦ … καὶ σωτῆρος is an example of the Granville Sharp Rule: two nouns (θεοῦ and σωτῆρος) that are personal but not proper names, are in the same case, and are preceded by a definite article that is not repeated before the second noun refer to the same person (see also v. 11). Here, that person is then identified as Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, who is thus described as both “God” and “Savior” (see the discussion in Wallace, 270–77; MHT, 3:181; 1:84). While these titles would not have been that unusual used for kings, Codex א and several later manuscripts and versions conformed this phrase to more usual statements about Jesus by using κύριου instead of θεοῦ.
Davids, P. H. (2011). 2 Peter and Jude: A Handbook on the Greek Text (p. 42). Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

Ha. He said crux interpretum too. Latin is good.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3020
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Anaphoric Article

Post by Stephen Carlson » June 1st, 2020, 6:48 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
May 31st, 2020, 7:12 pm
Academia has Ronald D. Peters 2012 dissertation where he reviews at length the traditional approach and the sets out an SFL (Systemic Functional Linguistics) treatment. I read the first 90 pages this morning and I am just now getting to the SFL part. Unlike my past experience with this SFL authors, I have no problem understanding R. Peters.
I don’t recommend it. It does the approach typical for his school of rejecting polysemy and prototypes and instead posits a single monosemic meaning that turns out to be too general to be useful.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”