[B-Greek] Titus 2:13
William Ross
woundedegomusic at gmail.com
Fri Aug 25 16:16:56 EDT 2006
Here is what Wallace said about plurals the GS Rule:
"Although Sharp discusses here only personal substantives in the singular,
it is not clear from this statement whether he intended to restrict his rule to
such. However, a perusal of his monograph reveals that he felt the rule could
be applied absolutely only to personal, singular, non-proper
nouns.4040" (Wallace GGBB pg 272)
That was not, however, what I was referring to. I was referring to
what constituted a proper noun as opposed to a common noun. That
relates to the noun in question's ability to be pluralized:
"42 42. A proper noun is defined as a noun which cannot be
"pluralized"—thus it does
not include titles. A person's name, therefore, is proper and
consequently does not fit
the rule. But θεός is not proper because it can be pluralized—thus,
when θεός is in a
TSKS construction in which both nouns are singular and personal, it
fits Sharp's rule.
Since θεοί is possible (cf. John 10:34), θεός is not a proper name.
For a detailed
discussion on the grammatical use of θεός in the NT, cf. B. Weiss,
"Der Gebrauch des
Artikels bei den Gottesnamen," TSK 84 (1911) 319-92, 503–38; R. W. Funk, "The
Syntax of the Greek Article: Its Importance for Critical Pauline
Problems" (Ph.D.
dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1953) 46, 154–67; Wallace, "The
Article with
Multiple Substantives," 260–63."
Wallace GGBB footnote 42.
My musings related to the issue of THEOU being part of a title that
could not be pluralized. I was wondering if it ought, therefore, to be
treated as a proper, as opposed to common, noun.
Your example was not syntactically identical in that the two nouns are
within the title and do not constitute the linking of a proper and a
common noun but rather two common (or perhaps two proper) nouns.
William Ross
VGB, Argentina
On 8/25/06, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure what you are trying to get at when you state " I infer that Sharp's Rule does not apply is that the title "the Great God" would not be pluralized." Sharp's rule doesn't speak of the possibility of being pluralized. It states that it DOES NOT COVER plurals.
>
> You wrote, "Your example would be syntactically equivalent if it had the following structure: . . ." Why? I see no problem with ONOMATOS TOU PATROU TWN hOLWN. Why are you attempting to put so many conditions upon it which aren't really relevant?
>
> __________________
>
>
>
> Wounded Ego <woundedegomusic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thank you for your response, George. I apologize for the misleading
> reference to Revelation in the subject of my response. It was there because
> it was in that thread that the post to which I was responding appeared. I
> have changed the subject heading.
>
>
>
> The logic by which I infer that Sharp's Rule does not apply is that the
> title "the Great God" would not be pluralized. THEOI is a legitimate plural
> but "the Great Gods" – if indeed "the Great God" is a title would not – at
> least not without some irony – at least in monotheistic circles.
>
>
>
> The example you give from Justin would not be equivalent to Titus in that
> Sharp's Rule is only relevant to the construction of the title itself – the
> title would include both nouns: "in the name of god, the Father and Master
> of All…" That is, "father and master" are linked to each other per Sharp's
> Rule, rather than the title "the father of all" being linked to another noun
> like this "the Father of All (and master)."
>
>
>
> I also think that "Father and Master of All" is more descriptive than a
> title, per se, than "the Great God" but I won't argue that if you consider
> it both as laying claim to being formal titles.
>
>
>
> What we would want to find an example of would be a title that is
> intrinsically singular (and not realistically liable to be pluralized), with
> the article, being linked to a noun qualified by hHMWN. Ie: Your example
> would be syntactically equivalent if it had the following structure:
>
>
>
> EP' ONOMATOS TOU PATROS TWN hOLWN KAI DESPOTOU hHMWN IHS. XT.
>
>
>
> What I meant by "perfect" is that Paul or the author of Titus is, I believe,
> generally conceded to be a native Greek speaker while John is often
> suspected to have Greek as a second language.
>
>
>
> Would it be off topic for me to mention how inconsistent with history it
> seems to me that Paul addresses a crowd in Jerusalem in the first century in
> Hebrew? Wasn't it a dead language then? Even if Paul really were a Jew
> (which does not seem likely) and were really raised at Gamaliel's feet,
> learning Hebrew (which does not seem likely), would the crowd have
> understood a public address in Hebrew? Wasn't it a dead language by then?
>
>
>
> William Ross
>
> VGB, Argentina
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: George F Somsel [mailto:gfsomsel at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 11:21 AM
> To: William Ross; B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Titus 2:13 / Revelation 12:14
>
>
>
> Text
>
> PROSDEXOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOCHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU
> KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU XRISTOU
>
>
>
> I must confess that you have me puzzled in several respects.
>
>
>
> 1. What does Tit 2.13 have to do with Re 12.14?
>
> 2. Does your comment regarding "the appearance of the glory" have some
> connection to your other comments? These seem to be separate concerns.
>
> 3. By what logic do you conclude that Sharp's rule does not apply? Because
> you conceive of "The Great God" as a title? The exception to Sharp's rule,
> to the best of my knowledge does not include titles but only proper names.
>
>
>
> I refer you to Justin Martyr's First Apology 61 where he states
>
>
>
> EP' ONOMATOS TOU PATROS TWN hOLWN KAI DESPOTOU QEOU KAI TOU SWTHROS hHMWN
> IHS. XT. KAI TOU PNEUMATOS
>
>
>
> Note that here "the Father of all things" could equally be taken as a title
> yet DESPOTOU QEOU clearly refers to the same. On the other hand, TOU
> SWTHROS hHMWN has its own article and therefore is not to be identified with
> PATROS TWN hOLWN. The same is true with regard to TOU PNEUMATOS. It should
> also be noted that SWTHR KAI QEOS was a term used with regard to Ptolemy I.
> It would be unthinkable to say regarding this usage that it designated two
> separate individuals.
>
>
>
> There is another problem with what you wrote -- or rather two problems:
>
> 1. Paul's Greek was not perfect.
>
> 2. It is dubious that Paul was the author of Titus.
>
>
> ________
>
>
>
>
>
> William Ross wrote:
>
> This question was not addressed. I also would like to know how this
> conclusion was reached as it does not at all appear correct to me. I would
> think that Paul is referring to "the appearance of the glory" for several
> reasons:
>
> * Paul uses the adjectival form many times, so he is not thinking Hebrew
> about the correct way to be adjectival
> * in other places, Paul uses the noun form exclusively as a noun, as far as
> I can see.
> * Paul's greek is perfect as he was a highly literate, natural born greek
> speaker and only employs "semitisms" when he is quoting the LXX (which are
> then technically "septuagintisms" I should think)
> * the context is his contrasting the appearance of [the time of] "god's
> favor" in the preceding verse with the appearance of "glory"
>
> Am I mistaken on any of these points?
>
> Also, if "the Great God" is conceived of as a title that would only apply to
> the one true god, would this then indicate that Sharp's Rule does not apply?
> In effect, doesn't the appearance of the definite article "clash" with
> hHMWN?
>
> I apologize in advance if these questions are stupid and ignorant.
>
> Thanks,
>
> William Ross
> VGB, Argentina
>
>
>
>
> On 8/15/06, Jason Hare wrote:
> >
> > Carl,
> >
> > This is a bit off-topic of the present discussion (attributive v.
> > predicate
> > position and article-noun linkage), but I was just wondering -- since you
> > mentioned that THS DOXHS ôçò äïîçò is functioning adjectivally in Titus
> > 2:13
> > -- if this is a semiticism.
> >
> > In other words, do you think that Paul was using something similar to the
> > Hebrew construct phrase? Or it a natural feature of the Greek language to
> > link two nouns together (using the genitive in the second) to express a
> > adjectival relationship?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jason
> >
> >
> > On 8/15/06, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 14, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Jason Kerrigan wrote:
> > >
> > > > Revelation 12:14: TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU, reads, "great eagle."
> > > > Likewise I have bellieved that: THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU in Titus 2:13
> > > > would read, "Great Glory." Can anyone shed some light on why
> > > > MEGALOU would be descriptive of the antecedent noun in Revelation
> > > > 12:14 but not in Titus 2:13? I am open to correction.
> > >
> > > Jason, this is Greek 101, lesson 3 or 4: positions of the article in
> > > relation to adjective and noun when all are in agreement as to
> > > number, gender, and case:
> > >
> > > Standard Attributive position: TO MEGA BIBLION: "the big book" --
> > > (article, adjective, and noun are all neuter singular; the adjective
> > > is "sandwiched" between the article and the noun)
> > > Alternative Attributive position TO BIBLION TO MEGA: "the big book"
> > > or "the book, the big (one)" -- the article-noun group is followed by
> > > a repeated article and adjective agreeing with the noun; the function
> > > of the repeated article here is to reference the immediately
> > > preceding noun and relate the adjective to that preceding noun; this
> > > is very similar to apposition of "the book" and "the big one" and it
> > > is also very similar to a relative clause with ellipsis of the verb:
> > > "the book which (is) big."
> > >
> > > Note that in both these constructions the adjective is "embraced" by
> > > the article which, like the adjective, has the same number, gender,
> > > and case as the noun.
> > >
> > > Different from the above are versions of the Predicate position:
> > >
> > > MEGA TO BIBLION, TO BIBLION MEGA -- in both these formulations the
> > > verb "be" is in ellipsis (that's standard Greek practice). Both
> > > formulations mean "The book is big."
> > >
> > > The formulation in Rev 12:14 is what I have above called the
> > > "Alternative attributive position": TOU AETOU TOU MEGALOU is the
> > > genitive-case form of "the eagle, the big (one)" or identical in
> > > meaning to "the big eagle."
> > >
> > > But in Titus 2:13 you're isolating elements that belong together
> > > grammatically () and linking elements that don't belong together
> > > grammatically
> > >
> > > PROSDECOMENOI THN MAKARIAN ELPIDA KAI EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU
> > > MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU ...
> > > lit. "awaiting the happy expectation and appearing of the glory of
> > > our great God and savior Jesus Christ ... "
> > >
> > > THS DOXHS is genitive singular feminine dependent upon the preceding
> > > noun EPIFANEIAN (here functioning as if it were an adjective: "of
> > > glory" = "glorious), but TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN is
> > > genitive singular masculine dependent upon the preceding noun
> > > EPIFANEIAN: "appearing of our great God and saviior."
> > >
> > > In sum, you could not at all view the relationship between TOU AETOU
> > > TOU MEGALOU and THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU as comparable if you really
> > > understood something that is very basic to ancient Greek syntax. You
> > > have focused upon the superficial fact that the phrases you've cited
> > > from Rev 12:14 and Titus 2:13 each consist of a genitive article and
> > > genitive noun followed by another genitive article followed by
> > > another genitive form in agreement with the article -- but you have
> > > failed to see the syntactic relationship of the elements in the
> > > larger group and have actually isolated THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU from
> > > the larger syntactic group in which it belongs.
> > >
> > > 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/
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jason A. Hare
> > jaihare at gmail.com
> > Joplin, Missouri (USA)
> > ---
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> William Ross
> VGB, Argentina
> ---
> 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
>
>
>
>
> george
> gfsomsel
> _________
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new
>
> isers> Yahoo! Mail.
>
>
> ---
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> george
> gfsomsel
> _________
>
>
> ________________________________
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great
rates starting at 1¢/min.
>
>
>
--
William Ross
VGB, Argentina
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list