[B-Greek] 2 Peter 1:20 and context

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat May 29 02:08:25 EDT 2010


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George F Somsel" <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
To: "Kimmo Huovila" <kimmo.huovila at kolumbus.fi>; <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 29. maj 2010 03:13
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 2 Peter 1:20 and context


20 TOUTO PRWTON GIN2WKONTES hOTI PASA PROFHTEIA GRAFHS IDIAS EPILUSEWS OU 
GINETAI; 21 OU GAR QELHMATI ANQRWPOU HNEXQH PROFHTEIA POTE, ALLA hUPO PNEUMATOS 
APO QEOU ANQRWPOI.
20τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες ὅτι πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται· 
21οὐ γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπου ἠνέχθη προφητεία ποτέ, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου 
φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι.

I don't think that will work. Προφήτης is not mentioned. The nearest reference 
is προφητεία so that ἴδιος (ἰδίας) must reference that.
george
gfsomsel
-------------------------------------
Iver:

I agree that hIDIAS grammatically connects to PROFHTEIA, but as soon as the 
writer has penned PROFHTEIA, he has opened what Hoyle would call a prophetic 
scenario, and this implies the existence of a prophet. Prophecies need to be put 
into words by a prophet, so if we say that a prophecy does not come about of its 
own EPILUSEWS, we actually mean that the prophet does not speak it from his own 
imagination/interpretation/understanding. (cf NET: No prophecy of scripture ever 
comes about by the prophet’s own imagination). Making the prophet explicit is a 
matter of translation. By the way, I find it difficult to see how GINETAI can be 
translated "is a matter of".

The genitive is clearly a predicate genitive, but what type? BAGD didn't quite 
know what to do with it, so they tentatively put it under genitive of possessor 
in the entry for GINOMAI, although I find that somewhat difficult. Maybe BDAG 
has changed that? It is not instrumental. I would rather put it under origin or 
a description of the nature of the noun.
Smyth (1303) says that "The genitive may be connected with the noun it limits by 
means of a verb", e.g. hIPPOKRATHS ESTI OIKIAS MEGALHS Hippocrates is of an 
influential house.

If I take this avenue, I could see Peter saying that a prophecy is not of its 
own making/release/interpretation or does not come into being of its own making.

Robertson has a lot more to say
Quote:
The Predicate Genitive.  While having the copula εἶναι, γί-
νεσθαι, etc., in reality it is to be explained as a genitive with sub-
stantives. It is not the copula that affects the case of the genitive
at all. It is just the possessive genitive in the predicate instead
of being an attribute. Often the substantive or pronoun is re-
peated in sense before the predicate genitive. Thus οὐκ ἔστιν ἀκα-
ταστασίας ὁ θεός (1 Cor. 14:33). Cf.  ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς—
ἀλλὰ πίστεως (Heb. 10:39), πᾶσα παιδεία οὐ δοκεῖ χαρᾶς εἶναι (Heb.
12:11). So ἦν γὰρ ἐτῶν δώδεκα (Mk. 5:42).  So Lu. 2:42. Cf.
also ἐάν τινας εὕρῃ τῆς ὁδοῦ ὄντας (Ac. 9:2), and indeed ἐγένετο γνώ-
μης (Ac. 20:3 is to be explained the same way. There is as
much latitude in the predicate genitive as in the attributive
possessive genitive.  We have υἱοὶ φωτός ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ἡμέρας (1 Th.
5:5) and οὐκ ἐσμὲν νυκτὸς οὐδὲ σκότους (1 Th. 5:6) and ἡμέρας ὄντες
(verse 8).  We may continue the illustrations like ἐγώ εἰμι Παύλου
(1 Cor. 1:12), οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν (1 Cor. 6:19), τοῦ θεοῦ οὗ εἰμί (Ac.
27:23), πάντα ὑμῶν ἐστίν (1 Cor. 3:21), οὐχ ὑμῶν ἐστίν γνῶναι,
(Ac. 1:7), ἵνα ἡμῶν γένηται ἡ κληρονομία (Lu. 20:14), τίνος αὐτῶν
ἔσται γυνή (Mk. 12:23), τελείων ἐστὶν ἡ στερεὰ τροφή (Heb. 5:14),
Χριστοῦ εἶναι (2 Cor. 10:7), ὧν ἐστὶν Φύγελος καὶ   Ἑρμογένης (2 Tim.
1:15), ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως ᾗ τοῦ (2 Cor. 4:7), and finally,
though by no means all that can be adduced, ὧν ἔστω οὐχ ὁ-
κόσμος (1 Pet. 3:3). These passages not only illustrate the va-
riety of the predicate genitive, but show that this is essentially a
substantival genitive (cf. predicate nominative) and not a verbal
genitive.
End quote.

He also says: "The predicate ablative of source
in 2 Pet. 1:20 (ἐπιλύσεως) was noticed under the discussion of
substantives."

So, If Robertson says it is an ablative of source, who I am to disagree?

Iver Larsen

________________________________
From: Kimmo Huovila <kimmo.huovila at kolumbus.fi>
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Fri, May 28, 2010 1:36:31 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 2 Peter 1:20 and context

Could the whole thought be paraphrased as "no prophesy is ever a matter of the
prophet's personal resolution/interpretation (of God's will/message), but they
spoke words from God as they are being carried along (inspired) by the Holy
Spirit"? In other words, never is a prophesy the result of the prophets
interpretation but rather it is given by inspiration. This is an attempt to
combine Iver's point about the relationship between the two verses and Carl's
point about the lack of preposition.

TI hUMIN DOKEI?

Kimmo Huovila

On torstai 27 toukokuu 2010, Carl Conrad wrote:
> I really think that GINETAI is more a copula than a verb of generation, and
I
> think that IDIAS EPILUSEWS must be a predicate genitive: "isn't ever a
> matter of personal resolution/interpretation." I don't think there's any
parallel
> of GINETAI with FERW and LALEW and I don't think that IDIAS EPILUSEWS
> as a genitive phrase without a preposition can have an instrumental sense. I
just
> don't think that IDIAS EPILUSEWS OU GINETAI is at all parallel to hUPO
> PNEUMATOS hAGIOU FEROMENOI ELALHSAN APO QEOU ANQRWPOI.





More information about the B-Greek mailing list