[B-Greek] FW: FW: 2 Peter 1:1 EN as "by" or "in"
George F Somsel
gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 28 10:58:12 EDT 2008
Looking at the Hebrew and the LXX together it becomes evident that CDQ (v) / CDQ (adj) CDQH and DIKAIOW / DIKAIOS /DIKAIOSUNH are considered to be rather equivalent. It has been noted by most commentators that the Petrine view of DIKAIOSUNH is that of the OT CDQ. While there is a judicial element to the term, it also refers to community loyalty. See Ps 119.138
.
צִוִּיתָ צֶדֶק עֵדֹתֶיךָ וֶאֱמוּנָה מְאֹד׃
CiW.YTf ("DoTeYKf We):eMW.NfH M:)oD
.
LXX
ἐνετείλω δικαιοσύνην τὰ μαρτύριά σου καὶ ἀλήθειαν σφόδρα
ENETEILW DIKAOSUNHN TA MARTURIA SOU KAI ALHQEIAN SFODRA
.
You have appointed your decrees in righteousness
and in all faithfulness.
.
Here CDQ is parallelled by ):eMW.NfH or steadfastness. The LXX uses MARTURIA for ):eMW.NfH thus linking it to the Ark of the Testimony and the covenant with Israel. It is thus a covenant loyalty. Similarly in Hos 2.21 we find
.
וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי לְעוֹלָם וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי בְּצֶדֶק וּבְמִשְׁפָּט וּבְחֶסֶד וּבְרַחֲמִים׃
W:)"&:T.iYK LiY L"(oWLfM W:)"Ra&:T.iYK LiY B.:CeDeQ W.B:MiW:P.f+ W.B:XeSeD W.B:RaX:aMiYM
.
And I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy.
.
It thus becomes a covenant obligation with covenant loyalty.
.
george
gfsomsel .
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
_________
----- Original Message ----
From: Nicholas Lamme <nlamme at midamerica.edu>
To: B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 6:43:10 PM
Subject: [B-Greek] FW: FW: 2 Peter 1:1 EN as "by" or "in"
Hello all,
Thank you for some very thoughtful responses to my query. I have an
couple of additional thoughts for clarity sake. First, does what Bryant
wrote apply here: "DIKAIOSUNH + cognates translate the Hebrew TSADDIQ +
cognates in the LXX." I cannot discern the subsequent presence of any
cognates. I would be interested in a possible/viable OT connection here, and
would be solicitous of any specific references in LXX.
Additionally, I have two primary remarks to make. First, Bryant has
written: "Be that as it may, it is being used as the "means or agency" of
DIKAIOSUNH." I have read this in commentaries, it is reflected in all
standard translations, and of course, it has been defended here. Still, two
questions I have raised remain unanswered. So, I will state them clearly.
Is it significant that PISTIS and EN DIKAIOSUNHi are juxtaposed? Why does
Peter not place PISTIS between TOIS and LAXOUSIN? There may be a
grammatical reason that I am overlooking, but barring that, it would seem
that EV DIKAIOSUNHi...(with all that follows it) logically modifies the noun
PISTIS instead of the participle + modifiers TOIS...LAXOUSIN. If this is
the case, I find means/agency hard to understand in this context.
This leads to my second question. Granted I am wrong and Peter implies
means/agency here, what does he mean. I am asking for an interpretive leap
here. If EN DIKAIOSUNHi...CRISTOU somehow referred to ISOTIMON hHMIN (in
other words, to the nature of quality of the faith) then it would be more
understandable. Through the righteousness of God, their faith is of "like
preciousness" (I like the Spanish: igualmente preciosa que la nuestra),
having the same cause. But, I simply don't see how that is viable
grammatically. If EV DIKAOSUNHi refers rather to the receiving of faith, I
confess that I am confused as to its implication or meaning. How do
believers receive faith "by means of" or "through" the righteousness of
Jesus Christ? To piggy back that, what Peter says may be as important as
what he doesn't say. This may be simply rhetorical, but why not simply use
DIA? It's far more straight forward. I hope my questions with regard to
this verse are clarifying.
My second remark is about the full phrase: EN DIKAIOSUNHi TOU QEOU hHMWN
SWTHROS INSOU XRISTOU. This is unique. DIKAIOSUNHi TOU QEOU is familiar
enoough, but this is unique. The question that arises is why does Peter
feel the need to modify DIKAIOSUNHi in this way? Why not simply "the
righteousness of God" or "the righteousness of Jesus Christ"? I think the
question is only answered with reference to the context of the book (as far
as this is discernable). What I have written before applies here, that
Peter's statement is quite understandable by contrast to the antithesis,
i.e. the false false teachers of chapter 2. Among other things, Gnostic
sects (or proto-Gnostic as the case may be) are fundamentally
anti-historical and they deny the imminence and personality of God who is
active in the lives of men (and women). These are two fundamental
assumptions that the whole Christian faith hangs on. In one verse, Peter
strikes at the very foundation of their false teaching. Nowhere is there
greater proof of and imminent and personal God who is actively involved in
the history and lives of his people than in the historical person of Jesus
Christ. He was not a cleverly devised myth/tale (1:16), but real and
historical. This is anathema to any form of Gnostic teaching. The two are
incompatible and Peter begins his polemic in defense of the faith once for
all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) in his very first verse (albeit
indirectly). At least this is how I am interpreting his intentions in
writing. My point is this: I wholeheartedly agree that " This
righteousness is necessary for our own justification both in its forensic
and ethical aspects. It is impossible to have otherwise". I think that this
is more than implied here. But there is more going on behind the scenes
than this. The Gnostic or proto-Gnostic faith is completely antithetical to
the Christian faith. They have two different objects. The Christian faith
is in the historical work of the person of our God and Savior Jesus Christ
and the other is not. I hope this was clarifying.
Nicholas Lamme
CLIR
Guadalupe, Costa Rica
www.clir.net
What Peter is addressing in v.1
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicholas Lamme" <nlamme at midamerica.edu>
To: "B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 27. september 2008 02:43
Subject: [B-Greek] FW: 2 Peter 1:1 EN as "by" or "in"
>
> Elizabeth,
>
> I certainly think you are right to take into account the different
> authorial styles. I know I am venturing off the strictly grammatical here,
> but my overall reading of the book obviously influences my interpretations
> of its parts, even these grammatical questions. I promise that the
> following will have a point. My understanding of 2 Peter revolves around
> the supposed antagonists of chapter 2, who appear to be incipient Gnostics,
> who by their teaching have denied two principle presuppositions upon which
> the Christian faith rests: 1) a personal and imminent God who is actively at
> work in the lives of his people as well as in the affairs of pagan nations;
> 2) the historicity of the scriptural witness. Even in his first two verses,
> he seems to be attacking (albeit indirectly) the very core of the
> destructive teachings of the false teachers in chapter 2.
>
> Now to the point:
>
> 2 Peter is not primarily concerned with the ethical. I think that he
> labors to show how ones life flows form ones doctrine. A faulty foundation
> issues forth in a weak and ultimately fallen structure. I do not think that
> Peter has in mind forensic justification in the way Paul would. If he does,
> he certainly does not express himself like Paul. But is it not possible
> that by the DIKAIOSUNH...IHSOU CRISTOU he has in mind the whole work of God
> on behalf of his people? Thus, their faith is of equal value or like
> preciousness because the faith of the Apostle and the faith of the reader
> share the same object. By this reading, DIKAIOSUNH is a synecdoche for the
> whole work of Jesus Christ.
>
> I hope that I have been clear about my thought process. If EN is in
> fact a marker of means or agency, and the thrust is primarily ethical, then
> what does he mean by the "justice" of our God and Savior Jesus Christ? And
> how does the justice of God issue forth in faith? In other words, how have
> these believers come to obtain faith "by means of" God's justice? It seems
> hard to square this with the overall teaching of the NT. I'd appreciate any
> thoughts or critique of my process if I seem to be failing at some point.
> Thanks.
>
> Nicholas Lamme
> CLIR
> Guadalupe, Costa Rica
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III wrote:
Dear Nicholas,
It is always a problem when dealing with EN. It is a preposition that
overtaking
the use of EIS. Be that as it may, it is being used as the "means or agency"
of
DIKAIOSUNH.
DIKAIOSUNH + cognates translate the Hebrew TSADDIQ + cognates in the LXX.
Furthermore, with regards to the passage. DIKAIOSUNH can be used of ethical
and
forensic righteousness/justification. Both are always present, BUT the
context
will usually determine which aspect is being emphasized. Here I think,
though,
that you have forgotten what the rest of the verse says (I'll quote entire
verse),
SUMEWN PETROS DOULOS KAI APOSTOLOS INSOU XRISTOU TOIS ISOTIMON hHMIN
LAXOUSIN PISTIN EN DIKAIOSUNHi TOU QEOU hHMWN SWTHROS INSOU XRISTOU.
The phrase, TOU QEOU hHMWN SWTHROS INSOU XRISTOU, qualifies the EN
DIKAIOSUNHi.
Instead of the forensic/ethical righteousness, it is referring to the
DIKAIOSUNH
of "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (I will not go against list guidelines
on
the theological ramifications of this clause). This entire clause of the
"righteousness of God" is used, as you know, in Romans. I think that it is
referring to that which is inherent in God = Jesus Christ. The KJV and NIV,
translate it as "through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus
Christ."
This righteousness is necessary for our own justification both in its
forensic
and ethical aspects. It is impossible to have otherwise.
En Xristwi,
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
------ Forwarded Message
From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:42:35 +0300
To: Nicholas Lamme <nlamme at midamerica.edu>, B-Greek
<b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] FW: 2 Peter 1:1 EN as "by" or "in"
Thanks for a good question.
As George has clarified, EN can have a wide range of meanings in different
contexts. Having just
gone
through Ephesians again, I remember the phrase EN CRISTWi which is so
predominant in that letter.
The meaning is usually "by means of", "by way of" or - to spell it out more:
"on the basis of and by
means of what X has done."
You are right that DIKAIOSUNH does not mean "justice". I am dismayed to see
how poorly standard
English translations have handled this verse. They are either so literal
that the meaning is
obscure, or if they try to be clearer, they only make their
misunderstandings clear. Well, I suppose
they are just echoing the commentaries which all seem to flounder. This puts
me in the awkward
position to claim that pretty much all commentators and translations have
misunderstood the word. At
least all those I have been able to check.
Louw and Nida explains DIKAIOSUNH as follows: "the act of doing what God
requires - 'righteousness,
doing what God requires, doing what is right,'" or you could say "doing the
will of God." This is
the sense of the word in all 6 occurrences in 1 and 2 Peter.
In 2 Peter 1:1, we are reminded that Jesus did the will of God through
giving his life as a ransom
for us, and our acceptance of and faith in this fact is precious.
In a sense, then, the word does point to the work of Christ, but the focus
is on the the work he did
to save us as indicated by the description of Jesus as "our Saviour".
Iver Larsen
SIL Bible Translation Consultant
------ End of Forwarded Message
------ End of Forwarded Message
---
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
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list