[B-Greek] Is GRAFH ever used as a proper noun in the NT?

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Aug 18 07:09:43 EDT 2006


On Aug 18, 2006, at 5:44 AM, Leonard Jayawardena wrote:

> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
> From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Is GRAFH ever used as a proper noun in the NT?
> To: Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at sltnet.lk>,
> b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <20060815175045.18331.qmail at web38503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> GFS: That partly depends upon how you wish to understand these  
> passages.  2 Tim 3.16 can be understood to say "Every inspired  
> writing is also . . ."  1 Pet 2.6 can be read as "For it says in  
> writing . . ." (note there is no article before GRAFHi and it is  
> singular).  2 Pet 1.20 probably has the greatest claim to being  
> used as a sort of proper name.  This is because it is in the  
> genitive.  If it were the same case as PROFHTEIA it would be  
> understood as "prophetic writing."  Even as a genitive, however, it  
> could be a simple common noun.  Robertson refers to the genitive as  
> the "specifying case" in the quotation below.
>
> LJ: You are right about 2 Peter 1:20.  This is the most difficult  
> occurrence of GRAFH for anyone wishing to maintain that in the NT  
> GRAFH in the singular never refers to the entire OT.  How best can  
> PASA PROFHTEIA GRAFHS IDIAS EPILUSEWS OU GINETAI in 2 Pet. 1:20 be  
> translated without taking GRAFH as a proper noun?  If, as you say,  
> even as a genitive, GRAFH could be a simple noun, what would be the  
> translation that reflected it?
>
> I raised the subject question in the first instance mainly because  
> of the implications the answer to that question have on the  
> translation of PASA GRAFH in 2 Timothy 3:16.  Many translations,  
> including KJV, render it "All scripture."  In his article "Every  
> Scripture Inspired of God," J. W. Roberts says, "The rule of Greek  
> as expressed by Souter's lexicon is that [PAS] as an adjective in  
> the singular without the article means ['every or every kind of'];  
> in the singular with the article preceding or following it means  
> the ['whole,' 'all the']; in the plural without the article it  
> means ['all'].  Thus 'every scripture' is the expected  
> translation.  'All scripture' would be possible if scripture could  
> have the collective sense of 'every passage of scripture taken  
> together.'  But we have seen that it is always used of the  
> individual passage and never in the collective sense. Hence  
> strictly speaking 'all scripture' is somewhat of a solecism in the  
> N.T.  Paul certainly means 'every
>  passage of Scripture.'"
>
> (My own understanding is that in 2 Tim. 3:16 Paul says, "Every God- 
> breathing (or God-breathed) writing is also profitable...."  The  
> reference, I think, is to books or letters, such as Paul's, other  
> than the OT.)
>
> However, in his article titled "Biblical Inspiration in 2 Timothy  
> 3:16" ("Bibliotheca Sacra"), H. Wayne House argues in favour of the  
> construction "All scripture" on the basis that when the noun  
> accompanying PAS is a proper noun or collective term, the adjective  
> may be translated "the whole" or "all," the authorities he cites  
> being J. H. Thayer's lexicon and Arndt and Gingrich.
>
> I mentioned in my last post that B. B. Warfield considers the  
> anarthrous GRAFH in 1 Pet. 2:6, 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Timothy 3:16 to  
> be a proper noun.  Is GRAFH treated as a proper noun by some in the  
> above verses because it is thought also to have a collective sense  
> (as, e.g., in Galatians 3:22), or because it is used anarthrously  
> there or for both reasons?  I am really confused.  What is the  
> exact relationship in Greek between the definite article and proper  
> nouns?
>
> It appears that ultimately the validity of the translation "All  
> scripture" depends on the presupposition that GRAFH is elsewhere  
> used in the NT in the singular in a collective sense to refer to  
> the entire OT.

I frankly don't see how this could be demonstrated, especially if you  
mean not only the Law and the Prophets but also the Writings.
And I would hope that we aren't opening up a discussion of our  
hermeneutical presuppositions: this is not a forum for that sort of  
discussion.

> I would greatly appreciate your further comments on this and the  
> comments of anyone who can contribute to this.
>
> Leonard Jayawardena
> Colombo, Sri Lanka
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/





More information about the B-Greek mailing list