[B-Greek] Is GRAFH ever used as a proper noun in the NT?
Matthew Winzer
mwinzer at pap.com.au
Sat Aug 19 05:12:32 EDT 2006
It might be worthwhile comparing GRAFH in the LXX with and without the
article. E.g., DANIHL 5:25, and 10:21.
In 2 Pet. 1:20, there does not appear to be any compelling reason to regard
PROFHTEIA as a species within a genus. The NT is known to categorise a
non-prophetic OT writer as a PROFHTHS, e.g., David, Acts 2:30; it also
speaks of PROFHTWN generically, Acts 3:21, for writers of Scripture.
Incidentally, the stated speaker on both occasions is the apostle Peter,
which will be significant if the traditional view of 2 Peter authorship is
accepted.
Yours sincerely,
Rev. Matthew Winzer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leonard Jayawardena" <leonardj at sltnet.lk>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 7:44 PM
Subject: [B-Greek] Is GRAFH ever used as a proper noun in the NT?
> 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 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
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.2/422 - Release Date: 17/08/2006
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list