[B-Greek] Is GRAFH ever used as a proper noun in the NT?
Curtis Hinson
curtis at curtishinson.com
Sat Aug 19 01:44:35 EDT 2006
I only have two cents to contribute and then I will be quiet on the matter.
3:15 και οτι απο βρεφους [τα] ιερα γραμματα οιδας τα δυναμενα σε σοφισαι
εις σωτηριαν δια πιστεως της εν χριστω ιησου
KAI OTI APO BREFOUS TA IERA GRAMMATA OIDAS TA DUNAMENA SE SOFISAI EIS
SWTHRIAN EIS SWTHRIAN DIA PISTEWS THS EN CRISTW IHSOU
3:16 πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωφελιμος προς διδασκαλιαν προς ελεγμον
προς επανορθωσιν προς παιδειαν την εν δικαιοσυνη
PASA GRAFH QEOPNEUSTOS KAI WFELIMOS PROS DIDASKALIAN PROS ELEGMON PROS
EPANORQWSIN PROS PAIDEIAN THN EN DIKAIOSUNH
There's no particular need for me to render a fresh translation here to
make my point. 15 reads to me that we're talking about Temple Scrolls
-- Torah and Tanakh. Timothy is supposed to remember that which he has
learned from infancy and those who taught it to him.
Backing up to 1:5 in the same letter Paul brings up Timothy's mom Eunice
and his grandmother Lois who were faithful. Luke tells us over in Acts
16:3 that Paul circumcised Timothy himself, so granted Eunice and Lois
were Jews. If we don't want to wander over there, I'd think the
internal evidence still points where I'm looking.
So from context it really looks to me like Paul has just a few words
back referred to temple scrolls and Timothy's good Jewish upbringing, so
I'm hesitant to see him suddenly widening the scope. After all, he's
talking to Timothy, not everybody out there, and there wouldn't have
been much else in the way of writings for Timothy to have had from
infancy. Whatever points are made about GRAFH making a wider scope
should take that into account, for fear of missing the contextual forest
for the grammatical trees.
Bless the Name
Curtis Hinson
http://curtishinson.com
Leonard Jayawardena wrote the following on 8/18/2006 10:51 PM:
> 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
>
>
> ---
> 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
>
>
--
My local weather at the time of this email:
86F (30C), Fair
Server status:
00:15:02 up 62 days, 3:29, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.05, 0.06
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list