[B-Greek] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9
Rod Rogers
rngrogers at embarqmail.com
Sat Jan 29 15:53:24 EST 2011
I'll reply to this post hoping that all will see me replying to
both Carl's and Alastair's posts. Alistair, thanks for the link
to the Google book, I'll look into it. I can't deny that my palms
get sweaty went Carl and I go head to head. I'm sure all of us on
the list have no problem giving Carl his due. That said, I have a
couple of comments. First, I don't know who agrees with whom.
Carl said, "but the question whether that is to be understood in
this text is one that I don't think can be answered." which is
what I tried to convey at the beginning of my first post,
"Although it may not be proven grammatically I think there is a
logical antecedent to TINES". I was trying to convey the idea
that this verse is one historically problematic to theologians.
I'm not demanding anything in this verse. Sorry if it came across
that way.
Second, let me say that I don't think we are that far off on
limiting/not limiting the scope of the scoffers. If you will
remember, I included unregenerate with those scoffers. I don't
think you can expand the scope of the scoffers any farther than
what I did. As far as the antecedent of TINES goes, I think it's
a little hard to ignore the fact that those scoffers in verse 4
were scoffing in regards to the delay of the Lords coming
(λεγοντες που εστιν η επαγγελια της παρουσιας ; LEGONTES POU
ESTIN hH EPANGGELIA THS PAROUSIAS). I think Peter is using TINES
in verse 9 instead of scoffers to refer to the same people saying
the same thing. I'll not fight over this point but I still think
it is a little more than obvious to me, sorry.
Alastair, you said:
> Indeed, precisely the same "discourse logic" is at play (on my
> reading) in regard to TINAS. TINES and TINAS do _not_ "refer to
> the same antecedent", as has been pointed out by others on this
> list, since indefinite pronouns can (not must) function in
> non-referential ways (including as logical variables, or to
> introduce new discourse referents).
If the antecedents of both TINES and TINAS refer back to
unregenerate people and scoffers in particular then I personally
don't see a problem. I see nothing restricting Peter from
continually speaking TO the brethren ABOUT the
scoffers/unregenerate in this whole passage. Peter does this
defending the Lord's (μακροθυμει MAKROQUMEI) delay.
In closing I will say that I believe that Carl hit the nail on
the head when he said, "I don't think (being dogmatic about the
antecedents) can be answered". Thank you for putting up with so
much said with so little grammatical proof .... but I think we
just established the lack of that proof. I would like to state
once more that this verse, 2 Peter 3:9, became clear to me once I
understood that it unfolds with the understanding of μακροθυμει
MAKROQUMEI.
rod rogers
bargersville, in
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: "B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Cc: "Alastair Haines" <haines at alastairs.com>; "Rod Rogers"
<rngrogers at embarqmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9
This very interesting message was clearly intended for the list,
although sent, so far as I can tell, directly to me alone.
I do think he probably slipped up in referring to Paul as the
author of the letter, but that's not central to his point.
On Jan 28, 2011, at 11:56 PM, Alastair Haines wrote:
> Dear BGreek people,
>
> discussions about indefinite pronouns always grab my attention.
> I enjoy an excuse to revist
> Martin Haspelmath, Indefinite Pronouns, Oxford studies in
> typology and linguistic theory, (OUP, 2001).
> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=M2gK50x8xNoC
>
> Rod and Carl, please correct me if I'm missing the key issue
> you're debating.
> It seems to me Rod leans towards reading TINES in 3:9 as
> <SPECIFIC>,
> with EMPAIKTAI as antecedent, based on semantic evidence in the
> broader context;
> whereas Carl is more open to a range of other possible
> readings.
>
> Here's a little from Haspelmath, that may explain why there is
> an issue with TINES in 2 Peter 3:9.
>
> "In some languages, different indefinite series are used
> depending on whether the NP is SPECIFIC or NON-SPECIFIC. The
> concept of specificity is a key concept in the semantics of
> reference and has been discussed extensively in the literature.
> There is no universal agreement on what phenomena fall under
> this concept." (37)
>
> Haspelmath does, however, provide an example sentence to
> illustrate what researchers do agree is the basic issue.
>
> * Nobuko wants to marry a native speaker of Ainu.
>
> This is ambiguous (in English) for SPECIFIC/NON-SPECIFIC
> readings: i.e. whether Nobuko wants to marry _a certain_ native
> speaker or whether any native speaker of Ainu will do. Of
> course, _both_ readings of the NP are indefinite, the ambiguity
> lies on the dimension of specificity.
>
> Is this not unlike TINES in 2 Peter 3:9?
>
> Perhaps Rod is correct to infer a specific antecedent given the
> considerable information available from prior context. Though
> it seems Carl is well supported by the literature in pushing
> Rod to retain the "burden of proof" in regard to his reading.
> Speaking only for myself, I read TINES in 2 Peter 3:9 as not
> only INDEFINITE, but _also_ NON-SPECIFIC. In other words, it
> doesn't refer to any antecedent discourse referent, it
> _introduces_ a new one: those (from among us or from among
> scoffers) who think the Lord is slow.
>
> Indeed, precisely the same "discourse logic" is at play (on my
> reading) in regard to TINAS. TINES and TINAS do _not_ "refer to
> the same antecedent", as has been pointed out by others on this
> list, since indefinite pronouns can (not must) function in
> non-referential ways (including as logical variables, or to
> introduce new discourse referents).
>
> It seems Paul uses the Greek indefinite pronoun for precisely
> the same reason in both cases in verse nine. He cannot rely on
> the inflected form of the verb alone, as that would suggest an
> extant antecedent. He cannot use AUTOS for similar reasons.
> Greek provides him with an indefinite pronoun to mark the
> introduction of two new (and once only) discourse referents:
> those (whoever they may be) who CURRENTLY think God is slow,
> and those (whoever they may be) who will perish IN FUTURE.
> Other languages would present the semantic propositions Paul
> wants to make according to different strategies. Here, Paul
> uses precisely the same Greek strategy twice in the same verse.
>
> I look forward to any corrections of matters of fact, or
> indications that I'm unclear in expressing the facts.
>
> Best regards,
> alastair
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Conrad"
> <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
> To: "Rod Rogers" <rngrogers at embarqmail.com>
> Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 10:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9
>
>
>>
>> On Jan 28, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Rod Rogers wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> But according to my dictionary "certain one" as an English
>> equivalent of Greek TIS (τις) is "used when mentioning the
>> name of someone not known to the reader or hearer."
>> As for this particular instance of TINAS in 2 Pet 3:9, the
>> negation MH in BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI doesn't mean
>> "doesn't want certain unnamed individuals to perish" but means
>> rather "doesn't want any individuals to perish.
>>
>> I grant that TINES may in some instances be understood in the
>> sense, "some persons whose names I know but shall not
>> mention" -- but the question whether that is to be understood
>> in this text is one that I don't think can be answered. As for
>> TINES TWN FARISAIWN and such like expressions, I take them to
>> mean that they were Pharisees but their identities is unknown.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> And with regard to TINES in the first part of 3:9, I grant
>> that the scoffers referred to previously should probably be
>> included among them, but it seems to me that the reference of
>> TINES is broader than that and will include any persons or
>> groups who suppose that God's measures of time are
>> commensurate with their own. In grammatical terms, I don't
>> think there's a justification for equating TINES in this text
>> with EKEINOI hOUS ARTI ELEGON.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>> ----- 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>>> B-Greek mailing list
>>> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>>
>>
>> Carl W. Conrad
>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>> B-Greek mailing list
>> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list