[B-Greek] Titus 2:11

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Aug 19 07:43:54 EDT 2007


On Aug 19, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:

> ----- 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.

Well, I would agree in any case that PASIN ANQRWPOIS ought to be  
construed with SWTHRIOS rather than with EPEFANH, and to that extent  
I quite agree with your criticism of the KJV version.

>> 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.

Well, it does mean that some scribe at some point felt that SWTHRIOS  
ought to be understood as attributive and therefore added the hH  
preceding it, and that this later became the common reading, even if  
it was not present in the earlier text. I would agree with you that a  
reading common to a majority of later MSS deserves some serious  
consideration -- but, on the other hand, a majority opinion does not,  
by virtue of being the opinion of a majority, become the truth. For  
my part, I believe that one's choice of an alternative reading ought  
to be determined first and foremost by what one thinks was original  
or what the evidence seems to indicate as being original, not be what  
conforms to one's own theological orientation.

>> (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.

Well, I think that interchange demonstrated a misunderstanding of the  
standard usage of the terms "attributive" and "predicative." I  
acknowledge that this is an item of ancient Greek grammar which many  
students find difficult to master (not nearly so difficult to master,  
however, as the voice system). You may not think that distinction is  
helpful, but I think it is, and I think it's useful in this instance.  
On the other hand, I have no problem with understanding an  
attributive construction like this (article + noun linked to a  
substantive) as functioning like a descriptive relative clause.

>> (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

I quite agree, and I think that the position of PASIN ANQRWPOIS makes  
it far better construed with SWTHRIOS than with EPEFANH. And, as  
noted above, I fault the KJV version for the same reason as you.

> 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.

I would not go so far as to accuse the KJV translators of deciding  
phraseology on the basis of doctrinal considerations. I don't say  
that they might not have, but I'd prefer to see notes like Metzger's  
on how and why they decided on the phrasing. I would not assume that  
doctrinal considerations determined their choice between alternative  
phrasings.

> 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)

No question about that.

>> (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?

I mean that SWTHRIOS functions adverbially to EPEFANH: "has become  
manifest so that it is salutary to all people."

It is predicative in the same way as if we had SWTHRIOS EGENETO hH  
CARIS TOU QEOU or SWTHRA is predicative in SWTHRA EQHKEN hO PATHR TON  
IHSOUN.

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/





More information about the B-Greek mailing list