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

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun May 30 01:41:03 EDT 2010


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>
To: "B Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 29. maj 2010 21:20
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 2 Peter 1:20 and context


> As with many cruci interpretum, as Carl says, more than one reading is equally 
> probable. I am inclined to the possibility is that Οὐ γὰρ σεσοφισμένοις μύθοις 
> OU GAR SESOFISMENOIS MUQOIS opens up a contrast frame in which charlatans and 
> those who speak for God are implicitly contrasted. The first person "we 
> language" (v. 16, 18) begins a contrast between "we" and "they" that runs 
> through chapters 1-2 between true apostles/prophets and false prophets, who 
> are explicitly introduced in 2:1. Though 2Peter does not mention prophets 
> explicitly at all until v. 21 φερόμενοι ... ἄνθρωποι FEROMENOI ... ANQRWPOI, 
> prophets, who are inherently considered trust worthy, are exemplified in those 
> who "became eyewitnesses" γενηθέντες ... ἐπόπται EGENHQENTES ... OPOPTAI 
> experience of Peter, the apostles, and Christ. The words spoken by God, which 
> quote prophetic texts (ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός μου hO hUIOS MOU AGAPHTOS MOU and 
> οὗτός ἐστιν εἰς ὃν ἐγὼ εὐδόκησα hOUTOS ESTIN EIS hON EGW EUDOKHSA) of the OT 
> (Ps 2, Is 42), are also contrasted with those who speak σεσοφισμένοις μύθοις 
> ESOFISMENOIS MUQOIS
>

IL: I am not sure whether we are progressing in our discussion or not, but let 
me try to explain why I do not accept your arguments.
SESOFISMENOIS MUQOIS does not refer to or imply false prophets. The contrast is 
between the teaching and witness of the apostles and other clever stories, 
including false theological teaching.
It is misleading to lump apostles and prophets together. They are very 
different.
False prophets are not introduced until chapter 2 and it is too early to invoke 
them here. Peter does have a progression of thought that should not be 
overturned.
The voice of God on the mountain is not a quote from a prophetic text, neither 
Psa 2 or Isa 42:1, as if God himself needed to rely on prophecies by people. 
Hebrews quotes Psa 2, but that is a human apologetic argument.
It is a statement of fact by God about Jesus. That David and (deutero) Isaiah 
had a number of prophetic utterances that turned out to be fulfilled in Jesus 
does lend credence to them as prophets.

> ἐγνωρίσαμεν ὑμῖν  leads to the description of a theophany in which Jesus was 
> glorified, i.e. the transfiguration. There a prophetic experience took place 
> in which a voice was heard, a recurrent prophetic experience, παρὰ θεοῦ πατρὸς 
> τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῷ PARA QEOU PATROS TIMHN KAI DOXAN FWNHS 
> ENECQEISHS AUTWi  The word "φέρω, FERW" used 4 times, provides an interesting 
> point of coherence in the entire passage. In each case it refers to prophetic 
> experience:
> φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῷ FWNHW ENECQEISHS AUTWi
> ταύτην τὴν φωνὴν ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐνεχθεῖσαν TAUTHN THN FWNHN hHMEIS 
> HKOUSAMEN EX OURANOU ENEXQEISAN
> οὐ γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπου ἠνέχθη προφητεία OU GAR QELHMATI ANQRWPOU HNECQH 
> PROFHTEIA
> ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι hUPO PNEUMATOS hAGIOU 
> FEROMENOI ELALHSAN APO QEOU ANQRWPOI
>

IL: The voice from heaven was not a prophetic experience. It was God himself 
speaking, theophany if you want, and Peter was one of 3 eye witnesses. It is 
this concept of eye witnesses that lends credence to the apostles' teachings 
above and against some other people who bring clever myths without having seen 
what Peter and the other apostles have seen.

> The prophetic texts about Jesus are confirmed by the theophany. It is the 
> prophetic word made βεβαιότερον. The words of God, then, are an authoritative 
> and real interpretation of the prophetic texts. This is a further contrast 
> with ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως IDIAS EPILUSEWS. So the interpretation of prophetic texts 
> and the prophetic experience of the apostles contrasts with a mere "private 
> interpretation."

IL: No, the words of God is not an interpretation of any prophetic texts. The 
statement is straightforward and not like a parable of Jesus that might need an 
explanation/interpretation. You are introducing the concept of "interpretation" 
here because your presupposition from the start is that this is what EPILUSIS 
means. And there is no contrast to IDIAS. One must exegete IDIAS in the context 
of verses 20 and 21.


 οὐ γίνεται is copulative, but ablative of source, as Roberson avers, is not 
really the idea, rather the genetive would function as a simples specifying 
genitive, a way of characterizing the prophecy. We might translate, "should not 
be interpreted however anyone might wish."

IL: I do not agree that GINETAI is simply copulative here, but I can accept the 
two possible interpretations of the genitive. The genitive characterizes 
Scriptural prophecy, but the specific point is the ablative/genetive source, 
namely that the prophecy does not happen/come about (GINETAI) by itself, nor 
does it originate from within itself or from within the prophet, as it is made 
clear by v. 21.


>The GAR clause tells why this is true, because, since the prophecy did not ever 
>come about by the will of a human being, οὐ γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπου ἠνέχθη 
>προφητεία ποτέ OU GAR QELHMATI ANQRWPOU HNECQH PROFHTEI POTE, etc, it should 
>not be interpreted however a human being wishes to interpret it.
>
IL: No, the GAR is not hOTI. It explains and fills out the intended sense of v. 
20. Peter is not here talking about how people may interpret or misinterpret 
prophecy. He is talking about Scripture being trustworthy in terms of what they 
said about the Messiah. This is a foundation that the hearers need to be 
reminded of before they have a solid basis for rejecting false prophecy. 
EPILUSIS is not describing what the hearer of a prophecy is supposed to do in 
terms of interpreting what they hear. The verses describe Scriptural prophecies 
as trustworthy because they do not originate from the prophet, but from the Holy 
Spirit. In fact, the test of false prophets is that their messages do not 
originate from the Holy Spirit, but from their own ideas.

Iver Larsen 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list