[B-Greek] Wallace on 2 Timothy 3:16

Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Wed Jul 29 22:05:19 EDT 2009


On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at live.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Daniel B. Wallace, who advocates the translation "Every scripture is inspired and profitable, etc." for Timothy 3:16, writes, inter alia, the following on page 313 of his "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics":
>
> Quote
>
> Since the copula [i.e., ESTIN] is lacking, it needs to be supplied in English. And the most natural place to supply the equative verb is between the subject and the first word that follows it. It is in fact significant that an author typically leaves out the copula when he assumes the audience knows where it should naturally go.
>
> End of quote
>
> The first five words of the Greek verse he comments on read, PASA GRAFH QEOPNEUSTOS KAI WFELIMOS. The first two sentences are clear enough: He means that since ESTIN is unexpressed in this verse, when it is translated into English, the verb should be placed between GRAFH and QEOPNEUSTOS, resulting in "Every (or All) scripture is God-breathed and profitable, etc." My problem is with the third sentence. Since the verb (any many other words) can be virtually anywhere in the clause in Greek, what does he mean by "where it should naturally go"?
>
> Does he mean that, if Paul had meant an attributive QEOPNEUSTOS, which Wallace would consider to be the less natural construction grammatically, he would have (probably) expressed the copula ESTIN and placed it between QEOPNEUSTOS and KAI, resulting in PASA GRAFH QEOPNEUSTOS ESTIN KAI WFELIMOS ...? Or did he intend to write that a Greek writer typically leaves out the copula in instances where an English audiece would supply it in the place where it is deemed most "natural"--in the case of 2 Timothy 3:16 between GRAFH and QEOPNEUSTOS. If latter, is there a confusion here by Wallace between a Greek and an English audience?
>
>
> Leonard Jayawardena
> _________________________________________________________________

In my opinion, the text should read 'naturally' if ESTIN comes after
QEOPNEUSTOS.
Otherwise, anarthrous PASA GRAFH needs to be 'defined' [for the
benefit of the audience] to make a contextual sense. If I use English
expression, logically not every/all scripture (passages, portions).

Oun Kwon.



More information about the B-Greek mailing list