[B-Greek] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9

Rod Rogers rngrogers at embarqmail.com
Fri Jan 28 12:18:16 EST 2011


Carl, I considered your comments. I'm sure that there are 
indefinite and relative pronouns which introduce a subject and 
probably have no antecedent or at least no clear one but there 
are plenty of verses in the NT where it is debated which is the 
antecedent and we have several (antecedents) to choose from. I 
wish you would have made comment on the fact that I was 
responding to George's post........which by nature included 
Renwick's post but you didn't.

Yes, the (ORIGINAL) question raised was about TINAS in the MH 
BOULOMENOS clause rather than about the TINES of the hWS clause, 
but when you say "I would think that the TINAS of the MH 
BOULOMENOS clause ought to be seen not with reference to some 
specific persons but rather in antithesis to PANTAS, so that the 
paired objects of the two infinitives are TINAS and PANTAS, "any 
(persons)" and "all (persons)" or "anybody" and "everybody." I 
would have to disagree to some extent. TIS is used many times to 
describe/introduce an unknown group of "specific" bodies. The 
texts where we read "certain of the scribes" or "certain of the 
Pharisees" are all indefinite. If you have time for a good laugh 
you might watch Mark Kielar turn an (TIS) indefinite pronoun into 
a definite pronoun exegeting 2 Peter 3:9, 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A5A8XBRVbw&feature=related

So what did Peter say? What was Peter trying to communicate? 
First of all I think most people lose track of the subject in 
this verse. The Lord KURIOS is the subject of each clause. The 
Lord is not slow....The Lord is longsuffering......The Lord is 
not willing.....but......The Lord is willing (all should come). I 
personally think that both the indefinite pronouns TINAS, TINES 
and the substantive adjective have antecedents. They all refer 
back to something in the text. This is the only way to make sense 
out of what Peter said in this chapter. This whole passage is 
about two groups, the "beloved" and the "scoffers/unregenerate". 
There is no reason why TINES could not have been translated 
"certain ones" referring to EMPAIKTHS scoffers. It's the scoffers 
who are charging the Lord with slowness. It is the 
"scoffers/unregenerate" which desperately need the longsuffering 
grace of the Lord. That is why I believe the key to this text is 
not grammatical but lexical. Longsuffering is something the Lord 
is toward the unregenerate not saved people. Therefore, the 
pronoun hUMHAS/hUMHS refers to us/we when we were unregenerate 
and in need of the longsuffering grace of God. You see, while the 
scoffers charge the Lord with slowness the Lord is gracious in 
providing time for them to repent. He does this because HE is not 
willing that any of them should perish. It's the 
scoffers/unregenerate who the Lord is longsuffering toward. It's 
the scoffers/unregenerate who the Lord is not willing any to 
perish and it is the scoffers/unregenerate whom the Lord desires 
would make room for repentance.

Is there an antecedent for the TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9? Yes, it's 
hUMHAS/hUMHS and yes I agree with you Carl PANTAS and TINAS are 
taken together only they refer to hUMHAS/hUMHS not some abstract 
group referring to no one in particular.

rod rogers
bargersville, in














----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: "Rod Rogers" <rngrogers at embarqmail.com>
Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9



On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Rod Rogers wrote:

> I was of the assumption that all pronouns by nature have 
> antecedents (Machen #97; The Use of Pronouns).

With all due respect, this seems a questionable notion to me, and 
I don't think I'd cite Machen as an authority. But in this case 
we're talking about an indefinite pronoun, a kind of pronoun 
which by definition does not refer to a specific person or thing.

No doubt TIS or its plural TINES may be used rhetorically with 
the intention of avoiding overt mention of the person or thing 
referred to (e.g. "There are some in this group with whom I 
wouldn't care to associate," or "There are some things that I 
would never think of eating or drinking.")

Certainly the "scoffers" referred to in the opening paragraph of 
the letter are a fundamental concern of the author, but he writes 
to addressees whom he appears to be warning against the scoffers 
rather than as themselves scoffers.

The question raised was about TINAS in the MH BOULOMENOS clause 
rather than about the TINES of the hWS clause. I would think that 
the TINAS of the MH BOULOMENOS clause ought to be seen not with 
reference to some specific persons but rather in antithesis to 
PANTAS, so that the paired objects of the two infinitives are 
TINAS and PANTAS, "any (persons)" and "all (persons)" or 
"anybody" and "everybody."

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

> Although it may not be proven grammatically I think there is a 
> logical antecedent to TINES, εμπαικται EMPAIKTAI, scoffers who 
> ask "Where is the promise of his coming?" Doesn't TINAS refer 
> back to hHMAS/hUMAS, those who the Lord is longsuffering 
> towards? The real fussing and fighting comes in when you try to 
> find the antecedent of hHMAS/hUMAS. 





More information about the B-Greek mailing list