[B-Greek] Titus 2:11

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Aug 19 07:01:55 EDT 2007


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
>
> On Aug 18, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:
>
>> Dear Father James,
>>
>> Now I have a question for you (and for Carl).
>>
>> If we look at the alternative reading which includes the article:
>>
>> EPEFANH GAR hH CARIS TOU QEOU hH SWTHRIOS PASIN ANQRWPOIS
>>
>> Would you say that the second article could function as a relative
>> pronoun?
>
> No, not as a relative pronoun, but as an indicator that SWTHRIOS is
> attributive to CARIS.
>
> BUT, I think we generally assert that an attributive adjective  functions
> like a relative clause -- and that amounts to the same  thing that you're
> saying: that it's equivalent to hH\ SWTHRIO/S ESTIN  as a relative clause
> qualifying CARIS.

That is the point I was trying to make, namely that the repeated definite
article can function to introduce a rankshifted relative (verbless) clause
in the same way as a relative pronoun would do. The advantage of this
analysis is that it is then easier to see that the final dative could be
part of such a relative clause. I believe you normally prefer to talk about
appositions where I prefer to talk about the article functioning to
introduce a rankshifted clause. With an apposition, I suppose it would be:
"the grace of God, the salutary (grace) for all people." In any case, what I
am looking at is that even with the article present, the final dative could
still be construed as a beneficiary for the adjective SWTHRIOS.

> But:
> (a) the reading you suggest is the reading of TR and MT;

Yes, I am aware of that, which is partly why it is worth looking at.

> (b) in terms of the traditional grammar with which I am familiar hH
> SWTHRIOS in the text  of TR and MT is in fact an adjective  attributive
> (NOT predicative) to hH CARIS;

Yes, but what I was hinting at is that if we interpret hH SWTHRIOS PASIN
ANQRWPOIS as (equivalent to) a relative verbless clause, then the whole
clause is attributive to CARIS, but within the clause itself SWTHRIOS is the
predicate, since what it is saying is that this CARIS can be described as
SWTHRIOS. I have earlier (Jan 2001) argued that the terms predicative and
attributive position do more harm than good, and they often cause confusion
as illustrated by your interchange with James.

> (d) The KJV version, "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation  hath
> appeared to all men," does reflect that reading of the TR;

But is this a correct translation of the TR? I note that they have used a
relative construction with "that" reflecting the hH, which I am happy with,
but it seems to me that this interpretation/translation would fit a
different text:

EPEFANH GAR PASIN ANQRWPOIS hH CARIS TOU QEOU hH SWTHRIOS

This is a matter of interpretation and as we have earlier agreed we prefer
to construe the dative with SWTHRIOS, and my point is that this is equally
possible with the TR version. I would prefer to translate the TR version as:
"For the grace of God, which is a means of salvation for all people, has
appeared/been revealed"
or "For the grace of God as a means of salvation for all people has
appeared/been revealed"
or "For the grace of God has been revealed as a means of salvation for all
people".
I think the reason that the KJV did not want to say that the grace of God
"brings salvation to all people" is that such a statement is not agreeing
with the NT. However, if they had understood that the problem is in the word
"bring" (that is not in the text) and that SWTHRIOS has the sense "a means
of salvation" in all its occurrences in the GNT, then they would probably
have made a different translation.

It may be worhtwhile to compare Tit 2:11 with a similar sentence in Tit 3:4:

ὅτε δὲ ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία ἐπεφάνη τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν
θεοῦ
hOTE DE hH CRHSTOTHS KAI hH FILANQRWPIA EPEFANH TOU SWTHROS hHMWN QEOU
(When the goodness and love-for-people of our Saviour, God, appeared).

Here we have the same verb without any dative as to who it appeared to, and
the goodness and love is very close to grace. God is here seen as the agent
of this salvation. This supports the suggestion that the dative in 2:11 is
not to be construed with EPEFANH. Rather, all people are the objects of 
God's love, goodness and saving grace.

The repeated article functioning to introduce the equivalent of a relative
clause is fairly common with adjectives, but more so with participles. One
example that comes to mind is Gal 1:11:

Γνωρίζω δε (or: γὰρ) ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ
εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ
GNWRIZW DE hUMIN, ADELFOI, TO EUAGGELION *TO* EUAGGELISQEN hUP' EMOU
(I want you to understand, brothers, the gospel *that* has been preached by
me)

> (e) the eclectic text of NA27/UBS4 reads EPEFANH GAR hH CARIS TOU  QEOU
> SWTHRIOS PASIN ANQRWPOIS -- without the article preceding  SWTHRIOS; in
> that text, I still say that SWTHRIOS functions  predicatively with
> EPEFANH.

It is not clear to me what the last sentence is supposed to mean. Maybe you
can explain?

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list