[B-Greek] Is GRAFH ever used as a proper noun in the NT?
Leonard Jayawardena
leonardj at sltnet.lk
Fri Aug 18 23:51:11 EDT 2006
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:09:43 -0400
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Is GRAFH ever used as a proper noun in the NT?
To: Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at sltnet.lk>
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <5FC3B7DC-1323-4CF6-947A-BCFEBE26C9C8 at artsci.wustl.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
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.
LJ: It seems that my question has not been understood properly, so I'll rephrase it. If you agree that, in the NT, GRAFH in the singular, with or without the article, always refers to a particular passage of the OT (subject to the special case of 2 Peter 1:20), then are there GRAMMATICAL reasons for preferring the translation "All scripture" over "every scripture" or, as I prefer, "every writing"? (In translations taking QEOPNEUSTOS in 2 Timothy 3:16 as an attributive adjective, PASA is always rendered "every.")
Or does the translation of PASA as "all," as opposed to "every," entirely depend on the presupposition that GRAFH in the singular is elsewhere used in the NT sometimes to refer to the entire OT (as some think it does, e.g. in Gal. 3:22)? This is not at all a hermeneutical issue.
I also wanted to know how PASA PROFHTEIA GRAFHS IDIAS EPILUSEWS OU GINETAI in 2 Pet. 1:20 can be translated without taking GRAFH as a proper noun.
Leonard Jayawardena
Colombo, Sri Lanka
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list