1 Timothy 3:16 - ὃς , the grammar of the Critical Text
Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: February 1st, 2014, 11:01 am
1 Timothy 3:16 - ὃς , the grammar of the Critical Text
Hi,
The grammar of this verse, especially in the variant that is currently in the critical text,
has been the subject of controversy for over 300 years.
1 Timothy 3:16 (AV)
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.
The Critical Text does not have "God was manifest", the distinction is well known:
θεός - Received Text, almost all Greek mss
ὃς - Critical Text - a few Greek mss - translated variously
And I won't go into the ECW and versional support since that involves also evaluating a 3rd variant:
ὃ - Codex Bezae, non-TR reading until Griesbach, supported by Grotius, Newton, Wetstein
adding complexity.
So we have the Critical Text, and check your Bibles for the wider section (which you may need for considering antecedents.)
3:16 (CT) καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ
The history on this debate is very rich, a lot of fun to study, and little known. We are looking at that on Facebook forums the last week or so.
And the debate is complicated by the late 1800s development of the hymn (or confession or poem) theory for the verse. An idea that was mildly considered and often rejected ... until it was kick-started by Fenton Hort. Once Hort gave his approval, the die was cast, and the theory remains very popular today in textual circles. And it is not my idea to discuss that theory here, however it would be remiss to raise the grammatical issue of the verse without mentioning the theory. The hymn theory says that the antecedent resides in the ethereal hymn and since it is a quotation, no proper antecedent has to be in the NT text for grammar solidity.
Now as to the grammar of the Critical Text:
As an example, Daniel Wallace has a number of comments on the grammar, including (emphasis added):
...1 Tim 3:16 most likely has an entirely different reason for the masculine relative pronoun—namely, because it is probably an embedded hymn fragment, there is no real antecedent. - Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit (2003)
Basically, I am wondering what you think of the grammar. And references you might want to share. The Critical Text is the question. Putting aside hymn theory, which is not really a b-greek discussion, since it goes outside the NT to a text unknown to complete the grammar components.
Hort talked of an "apparent solecism". Metzger says that the text was changed from ὃς, which he considered the authentic autographic text, "to bring the relative into concord with μυστήριον".
Your thoughts?
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Bayside, NY
The grammar of this verse, especially in the variant that is currently in the critical text,
has been the subject of controversy for over 300 years.
1 Timothy 3:16 (AV)
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.
The Critical Text does not have "God was manifest", the distinction is well known:
θεός - Received Text, almost all Greek mss
ὃς - Critical Text - a few Greek mss - translated variously
And I won't go into the ECW and versional support since that involves also evaluating a 3rd variant:
ὃ - Codex Bezae, non-TR reading until Griesbach, supported by Grotius, Newton, Wetstein
adding complexity.
So we have the Critical Text, and check your Bibles for the wider section (which you may need for considering antecedents.)
3:16 (CT) καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ
The history on this debate is very rich, a lot of fun to study, and little known. We are looking at that on Facebook forums the last week or so.
And the debate is complicated by the late 1800s development of the hymn (or confession or poem) theory for the verse. An idea that was mildly considered and often rejected ... until it was kick-started by Fenton Hort. Once Hort gave his approval, the die was cast, and the theory remains very popular today in textual circles. And it is not my idea to discuss that theory here, however it would be remiss to raise the grammatical issue of the verse without mentioning the theory. The hymn theory says that the antecedent resides in the ethereal hymn and since it is a quotation, no proper antecedent has to be in the NT text for grammar solidity.
Now as to the grammar of the Critical Text:
As an example, Daniel Wallace has a number of comments on the grammar, including (emphasis added):
...1 Tim 3:16 most likely has an entirely different reason for the masculine relative pronoun—namely, because it is probably an embedded hymn fragment, there is no real antecedent. - Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit (2003)
Basically, I am wondering what you think of the grammar. And references you might want to share. The Critical Text is the question. Putting aside hymn theory, which is not really a b-greek discussion, since it goes outside the NT to a text unknown to complete the grammar components.
Hort talked of an "apparent solecism". Metzger says that the text was changed from ὃς, which he considered the authentic autographic text, "to bring the relative into concord with μυστήριον".
Your thoughts?
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Bayside, NY
Re: 1 Timothy 3:16 - ὃς , the grammar of the Critical Text
Steven, please note carefully the purpose for which B-Greek exists. It for those who have studied and are studying Greek. How far have you progressed in your Greek studies since last we spoke about the issue? At that time you told me that you had learned the alphabet, but little more?
As to the question, I have a little difficulty understanding why Wallace and others come to this conclusion. They seem to have a rather rule-oriented, nearly prescriptive view of the way the grammar "should" operate in this context. I see it simply as a constructio ad sensum, that the mystery of godliness is specified as "the one who..." which is clearly a personal reference.
As to the question, I have a little difficulty understanding why Wallace and others come to this conclusion. They seem to have a rather rule-oriented, nearly prescriptive view of the way the grammar "should" operate in this context. I see it simply as a constructio ad sensum, that the mystery of godliness is specified as "the one who..." which is clearly a personal reference.
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Apposition doesn't need a relative, does it?
This thread doesn't seem to be a question, but rather an invitation to a round table.Steven Avery wrote:Your thoughts?
I've never felt the need for a relative here. The τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον (= the Gospel (message)) is in apposition to θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ, which is the content of the Gospel message.
Are there experts who feel a relative is needed between a noun and what explains it? With my limited Greek, I don't feel the need for it.
In Modern Greek at least, "viz." or "i.e." is expressed by δηλαδή. If anything had to be added between them perhaps it could be that. If there had to be a relative to point out that it was in apposition, perhaps ἐν ᾧ "in which ... (is preached)" might express that.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Re: 1 Timothy 3:16 - ὃς , the grammar of the Critical Text
Very well stated, Stephen. Your "simplicity" serves you well. Apposition is a good word here... 

-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: February 1st, 2014, 11:01 am
Re: 1 Timothy 3:16 - ὃς , the grammar of the Critical Text
Hi,
Personal Pronoun Agreement? - July, 2013
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vie ... =50&t=1964
Stephen Frary pointed out that one problem is that analogous verses have no such constructio ad sensum relating Jesus Christ to "mystery".
«Who Was Manifested In The Flesh? A Consideration Of Internal Evidence In Support Of A Variant In 1 Tim 3:16A» (2003)
Stephen W. Frary
http://www.bsw.org/filologia-neotestame ... e-p12.html
… this does not seem to happen elsewhere in the Pauline corpus. Col 1:27 refers to Christ as a mystery among the gentiles: τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τοῦ μυστηρίου τούτου ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὅ ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης . Although the neuter "mystery” is the antecedent to the relative pronoun, the real subject is the masculine "Χριστὸς" yet the pronoun is the neuter "ὅ " Col 4:3 reads: τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ δι’ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι . If Χριστοῦ is taken here both as an epexegetical genitive and as the nearest antecedent, again there is no gender agreement with the pronoun in the relative clause following. … the pattern, then, is for the relative pronoun not to assimilate to the gender of the antecedent when Christ is described as a mystery …
And I will mention that Stephen Frary is not precise in referencing Archibald Thomas Robertson. The quote from Robertson "real gender (of the antecedent) rather than the grammatical" is not applied by Robertson to 1 Timothy 3:16.
And Robertson is, like many, including Hort, Sadler, Plummer, Moffat, Norden, Elliott, Gundry, Sanders, Lau, Moule, Lenski, Daniel Wallace, clearly an advocate of the "hymn/confession/liturgical" answer.
A grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research (1919)
Archibald Thomas Robertson
http://books.google.com/books?id=sRojAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA422
"As a specimen of an early Christian hymn note 1 Tim. 3:16. Harnack (The Independent, December 28. 1912) takes this as a Christmas hymn."
http://books.google.com/books?id=sRojAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1199
"in 1 Tim. 3 :16 we probably have a fragment of an early Christian hymn"
Yes, I got a
out of "Christmas hymn". Note that it was a December article, maybe Harnack was a-funning?
Steven Avery
Bayside, NY
Thanks. Yes, this idea has often been discussed in the historical literature. (And I noticed just now that there was a thread here in 2013 that discusses some of these issues.)Barry Hofstetter wrote: I see it simply as a constructio ad sensum, that the mystery of godliness is specified as "the one who..." which is clearly a personal reference.
Personal Pronoun Agreement? - July, 2013
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vie ... =50&t=1964
Stephen Frary pointed out that one problem is that analogous verses have no such constructio ad sensum relating Jesus Christ to "mystery".
«Who Was Manifested In The Flesh? A Consideration Of Internal Evidence In Support Of A Variant In 1 Tim 3:16A» (2003)
Stephen W. Frary
http://www.bsw.org/filologia-neotestame ... e-p12.html
… this does not seem to happen elsewhere in the Pauline corpus. Col 1:27 refers to Christ as a mystery among the gentiles: τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τοῦ μυστηρίου τούτου ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὅ ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης . Although the neuter "mystery” is the antecedent to the relative pronoun, the real subject is the masculine "Χριστὸς" yet the pronoun is the neuter "ὅ " Col 4:3 reads: τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ δι’ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι . If Χριστοῦ is taken here both as an epexegetical genitive and as the nearest antecedent, again there is no gender agreement with the pronoun in the relative clause following. … the pattern, then, is for the relative pronoun not to assimilate to the gender of the antecedent when Christ is described as a mystery …
And I will mention that Stephen Frary is not precise in referencing Archibald Thomas Robertson. The quote from Robertson "real gender (of the antecedent) rather than the grammatical" is not applied by Robertson to 1 Timothy 3:16.
And Robertson is, like many, including Hort, Sadler, Plummer, Moffat, Norden, Elliott, Gundry, Sanders, Lau, Moule, Lenski, Daniel Wallace, clearly an advocate of the "hymn/confession/liturgical" answer.
A grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research (1919)
Archibald Thomas Robertson
http://books.google.com/books?id=sRojAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA422
"As a specimen of an early Christian hymn note 1 Tim. 3:16. Harnack (The Independent, December 28. 1912) takes this as a Christmas hymn."
http://books.google.com/books?id=sRojAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1199
"in 1 Tim. 3 :16 we probably have a fragment of an early Christian hymn"
Yes, I got a

Steven Avery
Bayside, NY
-
- Posts: 4235
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: 1 Timothy 3:16 - ὃς , the grammar of the Critical Text
Steven, in your own words, what is your grammatical question?
I'm having a hard time with this line of reasoning:
I'm having a hard time with this line of reasoning:
So if Paul doesn't do it elsewhere, he can't be doing it here? I don't buy that.Stephen Frary pointed out that one problem is that analogous verses have no such constructio ad sensum relating Jesus Christ to "mystery".
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
-
- Posts: 4235
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: 1 Timothy 3:16 - ὃς , the grammar of the Critical Text
If so, he should spend his time in the Beginner's Forum, and perhaps focus on things within his current abilities.Barry Hofstetter wrote:Steven, please note carefully the purpose for which B-Greek exists. It for those who have studied and are studying Greek. How far have you progressed in your Greek studies since last we spoke about the issue? At that time you told me that you had learned the alphabet, but little more?
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vie ... ?f=38&t=11
Jonathan Robie wrote:B-Greek is about Greek texts and the Greek language, and most of the forums in B-Greek require a working knowledge of Biblical Greek; that is:
In the Beginner's Forum, we welcome beginners who do not yet have a working knowledge of Biblical Greek, and are working to learn the language. We want to help. Even basic questions about the meaning of the Greek text are welcome in the Beginner's Forum, and there's no shame in mistakes. Beginners will be gently pushed toward learning these structures over time, pointed to textbooks and other aids that will help them, and coached in how to see these structures in a text. Learning a language is all about learning the structure signals, so we will try to help you learn what these signals are and how to recognize them in a text.
- recognition of inflected forms of verbs, nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and adverbs
- recognition of standard syntactic structures
- a grasp of principal parts of common irregular verbs, and the ability to recognize them in a text
Even in the Beginner's forum, general questions or opinions about doctrine or the meaning of the English text are not welcome.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Basic rules of syntax. The sense of μυστήριον.
I see the relative in Colosians 1:27 as needed because of the demonstrative τοῦτο in τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο. Using that relative, the authour explains which mystery he meant when he indicated it using "this / τοῦτο". That is to say, it is required in the syntax of the language. That would logically be followed by the same gender - neuter.Steven Avery quoting [url=http://www.bsw.org/filologia-neotestamentaria/vol-16-2003/who-was-manifested-in-the-flesh-a-consideration-of-internal-evidence-in-support-of-a-variant-in-1-tim-3-16a/395/article-p12.html]Stephen W. Frary[/url] wrote: … this does not seem to happen elsewhere in the Pauline corpus. Col 1:27 refers to Christ as a mystery among the gentiles: τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τοῦ μυστηρίου τούτου ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὅ ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης . Although the neuter "mystery” is the antecedent to the relative pronoun, the real subject is the masculine "Χριστὸς" yet the pronoun is the neuter "ὅ " Col 4:3 reads: τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ δι’ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι . If Χριστοῦ is taken here both as an epexegetical genitive and as the nearest antecedent, again there is no gender agreement with the pronoun in the relative clause following. … the pattern, then, is for the relative pronoun not to assimilate to the gender of the antecedent when Christ is described as a mystery …
Just to make sure we are on the same page in the grammar book, let me say something about ἐστι. The word ἐστι requires that one of things it refers to be third person singular, and the other can be anything. There is no need for agreement of gender across the verb to be, as is being implied by saying here that the relative should be masculine.
Even if there was some "random" change in grammar to require agreement in gender (as erroneously suggested), the single word Χριστός can't be considered as a "real subject". The pithy phrase expressing a revealed relgious truth (a μυστήριον) is "Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης". It is usual for Greek to refer to whole phrases in the neuter singular. That would require a neuter singular relative too.
The reference to Colosians 4:3 is bold, but unconvincing. Greek is not a language that is primarily understood on a word-order basis. Being as it is neuter, the relative pronoun refers to τὸ μυστήριον - the most recent neuter, that is to say, the μυστήριον - a Christian message to Christians.
The Greek word μυστήριον is not a "mystery" (it's transliterated into English, not translated), or something that is unknown to us, as mystery means in contemporary English. A μυστήριον is part of what we now-a-days refer to as the "Gospel message". At an earlier time the Christian faith was taught in a two-step process - first, what you tell outsiders to let them believe, such as you see in the book of Acts, and then second the other truths of faith were revealed / shared with those who were Christians to explain / give meaning to their ritual or mystical experience of God - not exactly secrets and not exactly fit for general consuption.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: February 1st, 2014, 11:01 am
Re: 1 Timothy 3:16 - ὃς , the grammar of the Critical Text
Hi,
A lot of that type of evaluation about whether a solecism or ungrammatical component is possible depends on your view of the integrity and consistency and excellence of the Gospel text. Which is generally not a b-greek topic.
The reasoning of Stephen Frary, as I see it, is simply that when you look at exceptional grammar claims (And this is a claim, not a textual fact, as a textual variant is involved. There are three possibilities for the autographic text.) ... it is simply proper procedure to see how the author normally writes. Exceptional claims need exceptional support. This type of auxiliary checking is what was done by Stephen Frary.
If you want this as a simple question --
What is the forum opinions of these comments about the Critical Text of 1 Timothy 3:16 (emphases added):
Daniel Wallace - "probably an embedded hymn fragment, there is no real antecedent".
Gordon Fee - 1 Tim. 3:16. ... the connection of the ὅς to the rest of the sentence is ungrammatical,
thus suggesting that it belonged to an original hymn (and should be translated with a "soft" antecedent, "he who").
Murray J. Harris - Coming after the neuter noun μυστήριον, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is the harder reading and was therefore more prone to scribal correction ('The removal of an apparent solecism," WH 2: appendix 133)... (p. 267) two grammatical difficulties— the lack of concord with μυστήριον and the absence of an explicit antecedent ... a "weak" relative pronoun ὅς that lacked an antecedent ..." (p. 268) - Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (2008)
Here are two of the urls, for context.
To what End Exegesis?: Essays Textual, Exegetical, and Theological (2001)
Gordon Donald Fee
http://books.google.com/books?id=b3rAGJa6Nm8C&pg=PA175
Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit - p. 116 (2003)
https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2 ... Spirit.pdf
Many more could be given. Almost a consensus.(Although Maurice Robinson has taken the position that the grammar is fine.) And yet, few seem aware of these comments that point out the grammatical problem. Notice that these comments are given in writings that are not directly about 1 Timothy 3:16 as the main subject. And they presume the hymn solution as the answer. (ie. The grammar is ok if you go outside the NT text, Paul was quoting an unknown source, and that source had the antecedent.)
And I know it is very easy for the scholars to be wrong.
Would you say they are they all trapped in rule-based grammar?
Or perhaps they do have a good Greek sense about this poor relative pronoun?
=============================
As for the question from Barry, I sent him a note in private message. I'll be happy to send you one, if appropriate.
Steven Avery
Bayside, NY
Surely it is possible to believe that an apostolic author writes in an exceptional way in the NT text. Against their style and in a manner that men like Wallace, Fee and Harris peg as ungrammatical internally. (Allowing that they consider the antecedent to be external in an unknown hymn or liturgy or confession.)Jonathan Robie wrote:Steven, in your own words, what is your grammatical question?
I'm having a hard time with this line of reasoning:So if Paul doesn't do it elsewhere, he can't be doing it here? I don't buy that.Stephen Frary pointed out that one problem is that analogous verses have no such constructio ad sensum relating Jesus Christ to "mystery".
A lot of that type of evaluation about whether a solecism or ungrammatical component is possible depends on your view of the integrity and consistency and excellence of the Gospel text. Which is generally not a b-greek topic.
The reasoning of Stephen Frary, as I see it, is simply that when you look at exceptional grammar claims (And this is a claim, not a textual fact, as a textual variant is involved. There are three possibilities for the autographic text.) ... it is simply proper procedure to see how the author normally writes. Exceptional claims need exceptional support. This type of auxiliary checking is what was done by Stephen Frary.
If you want this as a simple question --
What is the forum opinions of these comments about the Critical Text of 1 Timothy 3:16 (emphases added):
Daniel Wallace - "probably an embedded hymn fragment, there is no real antecedent".
Gordon Fee - 1 Tim. 3:16. ... the connection of the ὅς to the rest of the sentence is ungrammatical,
thus suggesting that it belonged to an original hymn (and should be translated with a "soft" antecedent, "he who").
Murray J. Harris - Coming after the neuter noun μυστήριον, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is the harder reading and was therefore more prone to scribal correction ('The removal of an apparent solecism," WH 2: appendix 133)... (p. 267) two grammatical difficulties— the lack of concord with μυστήριον and the absence of an explicit antecedent ... a "weak" relative pronoun ὅς that lacked an antecedent ..." (p. 268) - Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (2008)
Here are two of the urls, for context.
To what End Exegesis?: Essays Textual, Exegetical, and Theological (2001)
Gordon Donald Fee
http://books.google.com/books?id=b3rAGJa6Nm8C&pg=PA175
Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit - p. 116 (2003)
https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2 ... Spirit.pdf
Many more could be given. Almost a consensus.(Although Maurice Robinson has taken the position that the grammar is fine.) And yet, few seem aware of these comments that point out the grammatical problem. Notice that these comments are given in writings that are not directly about 1 Timothy 3:16 as the main subject. And they presume the hymn solution as the answer. (ie. The grammar is ok if you go outside the NT text, Paul was quoting an unknown source, and that source had the antecedent.)
And I know it is very easy for the scholars to be wrong.
Would you say they are they all trapped in rule-based grammar?
Or perhaps they do have a good Greek sense about this poor relative pronoun?
=============================
As for the question from Barry, I sent him a note in private message. I'll be happy to send you one, if appropriate.
Steven Avery
Bayside, NY
-
- Posts: 4235
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: 1 Timothy 3:16 - ὃς , the grammar of the Critical Text
My request:
No, sorry, these are not your own words. I can't tell if you are capable of discussing Greek texts, or only able to quote authorities on a subject that interests you. That's why I asked. I know you can cut and paste and cite authorities, but as far as I can tell, you aren't really engaging the grammatical discussion in this thread.
Stephen and Barry have already responded to your question, can you paraphrase their responses in your own words? Keep it simple please, and please don't quote a whole bunch of opinions from other people, paraphrase what they said, and explain whether you agree that they have provided a plausible reading for this text, and why. I don't think you need a long post to do so.
Your response:Jonathan Robie wrote:Steven, in your own words, what is your grammatical question?
Steven Avery wrote:If you want this as a simple question --
What is the forum opinions of these comments about the Critical Text of 1 Timothy 3:16 (emphases added):
Daniel Wallace - "probably an embedded hymn fragment, there is no real antecedent".
Gordon Fee - 1 Tim. 3:16. ... the connection of the ὅς to the rest of the sentence is ungrammatical,
thus suggesting that it belonged to an original hymn (and should be translated with a "soft" antecedent, "he who").
Murray J. Harris - Coming after the neuter noun μυστήριον, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is the harder reading and was therefore more prone to scribal correction ('The removal of an apparent solecism," WH 2: appendix 133)... (p. 267) two grammatical difficulties— the lack of concord with μυστήριον and the absence of an explicit antecedent ... a "weak" relative pronoun ὅς that lacked an antecedent ..." (p. 268) - Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (2008)
No, sorry, these are not your own words. I can't tell if you are capable of discussing Greek texts, or only able to quote authorities on a subject that interests you. That's why I asked. I know you can cut and paste and cite authorities, but as far as I can tell, you aren't really engaging the grammatical discussion in this thread.
Stephen and Barry have already responded to your question, can you paraphrase their responses in your own words? Keep it simple please, and please don't quote a whole bunch of opinions from other people, paraphrase what they said, and explain whether you agree that they have provided a plausible reading for this text, and why. I don't think you need a long post to do so.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/