2 Peter 3:9

[] επαγγελια/επαγγελμα 2 Peter 3:9, 13 Lorinda Hoover and Jim Mossman hoovmoss at iowatelecom.net
Thu Dec 1 15:45:19 εστ 2005

 

[] Hebrews 13:4 [] anarthrous κυριοσ in 2 Peter 3 2 Peter 3:9aOU βραδυνει κυριοσ τνσ επαγγελιασ…2 Peter 3:13aKAINOUS δε ουρανουσ και γην καινην κατα το επαγγελμα αυτου προσδοκωμεν,…ι am wondering if there is any significant difference in the words EPAGGELIAand επαγγελμα is these verses. The author of 2 Peter repeats a lot ofvocabulary in this section (ι‘m translating the ρξλ pericope for Sunday, 2Peter 3:8-15a), and ι‘m curious why two different but clearly related wordsare used rather than repeating επαγγελια.Thanks and Blessings,Lorinda HooverPastor and Stay-at-Home Mom

[] Hebrews 13:4[] anarthrous κυριοσ in 2 Peter 3

[] επαγγελια/επαγγελμα 2 Peter 3:9, 13 Yancy Smith υ.ω.Smith at tcu.edu
Thu Dec 1 16:05:19 εστ 2005

[] Dative agent in 2 Peter 3:14?? [] Hebrews 13:4 κοιθ not κοινθ On Dec 1, 2005,at 4:02 πμ, Elizabeth Kline wrote: On Dec 1, 2005, at 12:07 πμ,Steve Westfall wrote: My question was are there any qualifiedexegetes that would like to defend the indicative reading ofhH κοινθ αμιαντοσ Hebrews 13:4? Just to correct onemis-spelling that has persisted throughout this thread: theword is κοιθ, not the very un-Greek-sounding κοινθ. επαγγελμα, n. επαγγελια, (derivatives of επαγγελομαι ‘to promise,’ 33.286) the content of what is promised — ‘promise.’ In the New Testament are synonyms, however, in Classical Greek επαγγελμα could be used to refer to one’s profession or calling, i.e., job.Yancy SmithY.ω.Smith at tcu.eduBrite Divinity SchoolTexas Christian University

[] Dative agent in 2 Peter 3:14??[] Hebrews 13:4 κοιθ not κοινθ On Dec 1, 2005,at 4:02 πμ, Elizabeth Kline wrote: On Dec 1, 2005, at 12:07 πμ,Steve Westfall wrote: My question was are there any qualifiedexegetes that would like to defend the indicative reading ofhH κοινθ αμιαντοσ Hebrews 13:4? Just to correct onemis-spelling that has persisted throughout this thread: theword is κοιθ, not the very un-Greek-sounding κοινθ.

[] επαγγελια/επαγγελμα 2 Peter 3:9, 13 George φ Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Thu Dec 1 16:44:12 εστ 2005

[] Hebrews 13:4 κοιθ not κοινθ [] anarthrous κυριοσ in 2 Peter 3 On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:45:19 -0600 Lorinda Hoover and Jim Mossman<hoovmoss at iowatelecom.net> writes:> 2 Peter 3:9a> > ου βραδυνει κυριοσ τνσ επαγγελιασ…> > 2 Peter 3:13a> > καινουσ δε ουρανουσ και γην καινην κατα το επαγγελμα αυτου > προσδοκωμεν,…> > > ι am wondering if there is any significant difference in the words > επαγγελια> and επαγγελμα is these verses. The author of 2 Peter repeats a lot > of> vocabulary in this section (ι‘m translating the ρξλ pericope for > Sunday, 2> Peter 3:8-15a), and ι‘m curious why two different but clearly > related words> are used rather than repeating επαγγελια.> > Thanks and Blessings,> > Lorinda Hoover> Pastor and Stay-at-Home Mom___________9. ου βραδυνει κυριοσ θσ επαγγελιασ, hWS τινεσ βραδυθτα hGOUNTA, αλλαμακροθυμει εισ hUMAS, μη βουλομενοσ τινασ απολεσθαι αλλα παντασ εισμεταμοιαν χωῥσαι.10. καινουσ δε ουρανουσ και γην καινην κατα το επαγγελμα αυτουπροσδοκωμεν, εν hOIS δικαιοσυνη κατοικει.These two words, επαγγελια and επαγγελμα, are generally treated as beingvirtually identical. If there is a difference, ι would tend to see it inEPAGGELIA signifying the act of promising whereas επαγγελμα signifies thecontent of the promise or that which is promised. In any case, Iwouldn’t put too much emphasis on the distinction. It is not uncommon toalter the wording slightly in order to provide a bit of variation in astatement rather than simply repeating oneself.georgegfsomsel___________

[] Hebrews 13:4 κοιθ not κοινθ[] anarthrous κυριοσ in 2 Peter 3

[] 2 Pet 3:9 and μακροθυμει εισ hHMAS Craig ψ newsgroupstuff at gmail.com
Thu Jun 15 12:40:10 εδτ 2006

[] Beginning ντ Greek [] 2 Pet 3:9 and μακροθυμει εισ hHMAS ι was looking at 2 Pet 3:9 and the phrase μακροθυμει εισ hHMAS, and noticedthat μακροθυμεω used εισ here (maybe only time in ντ) though more often itseems to be used with επι (at least 4 times ι think: Matt 18:26, 18:29, Luke18:7, James 5:7; also προσ in 1 Thess 5:14).ι am wondering if there could be any significant difference between meaningof εισ and meaning of επι with μακροθυμεω in 2 Pet 3:9? επι seems toindicate those with whom someone is being μαξροθυμια. Is it possible thatEIS could just mean ‘for the sake of’ or ‘to the benefit of’ without thehHMAS actually being the ones responsible for the μαξροθυμια?In otherwords, could the phrase mean “God is longsuffering (with others) forour sakes” rather than “God is longsuffering with us”? Is the formergrammatical possible and feasible?Thanks–Craig JohnsonBrisbane, AustraliaBlog Experiment: http://bloggledegook.blogspot.com/

[] Beginning ντ Greek[] 2 Pet 3:9 and μακροθυμει εισ hHMAS

[] 2 Pet 3:9 and μακροθυμει εισ hHMAS George φ Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 15 13:09:34 εδτ 2006

[] 2 Pet 3:9 and μακροθυμει εισ hHMAS [] 2 Pet 3:9 and μακροθυμει εισ hHMAS Robertson in his _Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research_ notes 7. Compared with επι, παρα and προσ. The growth in the use of εισ is shown by its appearance where επι or προσ would be expected in the older Greek. Cf. ερχεται εισ πολιν (Jo. 4:5), where the point is not ‘into,’ but ‘to.’ So 11:31, hUPAGEI εισ το μνημειον. In 11:38 δ has επι, not εισ. So in Mk. 3:7, ανεζωῥσεν προσ θν θαλασσαν, δηπ have εισ. Cf. Mk. 2:13, à has εισ for παρα and in 7:31 àβδ have εισ, not προσ. Robertson, α. (1919; 2006). α Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (596). Logos. _________________Craig ψ <newsgroupstuff at gmail.com> wrote: ι was looking at 2 Pet 3:9 and the phrase μακροθυμει εισ hHMAS, and noticedthat μακροθυμεω used εισ here (maybe only time in ντ) though more often itseems to be used with επι (at least 4 times ι think: Matt 18:26, 18:29, Luke18:7, James 5:7; also προσ in 1 Thess 5:14).ι am wondering if there could be any significant difference between meaningof εισ and meaning of επι with μακροθυμεω in 2 Pet 3:9? επι seems toindicate those with whom someone is being μαξροθυμια. Is it possible thatEIS could just mean ‘for the sake of’ or ‘to the benefit of’ without thehHMAS actually being the ones responsible for the μαξροθυμια?In otherwords, could the phrase mean “God is longsuffering (with others) forour sakes” rather than “God is longsuffering with us”? Is the formergrammatical possible and feasible?Thanks–Craig JohnsonBrisbane, AustraliaBlog Experiment: http://bloggledegook.blogspot.com/— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/georgegfsomsel_________ __________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

[] 2 Pet 3:9 and μακροθυμει εισ hHMAS[] 2 Pet 3:9 and μακροθυμει εισ hHMAS

Thu Jun 15 19:34:36 εδτ 2006

[] 2 Pet 3:9 and μακροθυμει εισ hHMAS [] 1 Tim 1:1-2 and Croy Thanks George. Are you saying that is definitely what is happening, or justthrowing in a possibility? Obviously they could mean the same. ι want toknow if there is a reasonable possibility that it could be as ι havesuggested below, at end of the message. –Craig JohnsonBrisbane, AustraliaBlog Experiment: http://bloggledegook.blogspot.com/ —–Original Message—–From: George φ Somsel [mailto:gfsomsel at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, 16 June 2006 3:10 AMTo: Craig ψ; at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] 2 Pet 3:9 and μακροθυμει εισ hHMASRobertson in his _Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light ofHistorical Research_ notes 7. Compared with επι, παρα and προσ. The growth in the use of εισ is shownby its appearance where επι or προσ would be expected in the older Greek.Cf. ερχεται εισ πολιν (Jo. 4:5), where the point is not ‘into,’ but ‘to.’ So11:31, hUPAGEI εισ το μνημειον. In 11:38 δ has επι, not εισ. So in Mk. 3:7,ανεζωῥσεν προσ θν θαλασσαν, δηπ have εισ. Cf. Mk. 2:13, à has εισ for PARAand in 7:31 àβδ have εισ, not προσ. <http://us.f385.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?box=Inbox&Mid=2454_3403688_69426_2798_621_0_1454_1059_2595665524&inc=&Search=&amp;υυ=25233&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b#_ftn1> <http://us.f385.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?box=Inbox&Mid=2454_3403688_69426_2798_621_0_1454_1059_2595665524&inc=&Search=&amp;υυ=25233&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b#_ftnref1> Robertson, α. (1919; 2006). α Grammar of the Greek New Testament in theLight of Historical Research (596). Logos._________________Craig ψ <newsgroupstuff at gmail.com> wrote:In otherwords, could the phrase mean “God is longsuffering (with others) forour sakes” rather than “God is longsuffering with us”? Is the formergrammatical possible and feasible?

[] 2 Pet 3:9 and μακροθυμει εισ hHMAS[] 1 Tim 1:1-2 and Croy

[] Fw: 2 Peter 3:9 Question RZacc rzacc2001 at yahoo.com
Sat May 12 10:54:39 εδτ 2007

[] πιστισ, faith or faithfulness [] Fw: 2 Peter 3:9 Question —– Forwarded Message —-From: RZacc <rzacc2001 at yahoo.com>To: Pete Harwood <pete at pengefamilychurch.org>Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 6:00:39 AMSubject: Re: [] 1 Peter 3:9 QuestionGreetings allA Lurker here, who promised not to make a peep, however ι do have a question which ι will try to phrase in an understandable manner.2 Peter 3:9 is most often translated “God is not desiring that any perish, but that all come to repentance’.As ι read my analytical, ανυ and αλλ are pronounal adjectives. Am ι correct in the following analysis?The antecedant to both adjectives (timas and pantas) is υου– umas. That being the case, should not the verse read:”God is not desiring any of you to perish, but that all of you come to repentance’, which would be in keeping with the distinction he makes in the rest of the letter, between the ‘you’s, the us’s’ [saved, justified persons] and the ‘them’ [ the world}?If my anylasis is correct, then has the νιβ misrepresented the verse and Peter’s intent, and belied the translators’ bias?Any insight would be appreciated.Ronz ____________________________________________________________________________________Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! τβ‘s Comedy with an Edge to see what’s on, when. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222 ____________________________________________________________________________________Get your own web address. Have a ηυγε year through Yahoo! Small Business.http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=βεστδεαλ

[] πιστισ, faith or faithfulness[] Fw: 2 Peter 3:9 Question

[] Fw: 2 Peter 3:9 Question Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Sat May 12 14:48:38 εδτ 2007

[] Fw: 2 Peter 3:9 Question [] Greek Manuscripts: Nestle Aland etc On Sat 12 May 2007 (07:54:39), rzacc2001 at yahoo.com wrote:> If my anylasis is correct, then has the νιβ misrepresented the verse> and Peter’s intent, and belied the translators’ bias? Dear Ron, Not really. God’s attitude to sinners is clear from Ezekiel 18:21-32. This is reflected in 1 Timothy 2:4, sometimes appealed to by universalists who might perhaps be accused of bias. Peter asked Jesus “Lord, are there few that are saved?” (Luke 13:23). The Lord’s answer indicated that yes, that was the case. Peter also comments in 1 Peter 3:20 that “in the days of Noah… few, that is, eight souls were saved by water”. α righteous remnant of eight! πασ πασα παν means “all”; but also “some of all sorts”: compare Mark 1:5 where “there went out unto him αλλ the land of Judaea, and were αλλ baptised by him in the River Jordan…”. Surely there were some who missed out. τισ means “someone, anyone”: e.g. πλουσιοσ τισ in Luke 16:19, “α certain rich man” who clearly was not saved, although the beggar Lazarus just as clearly was saved. Compare ανθρωποσ τισ in Luke 12:16. He was the rich fool whose soul was required of him before he was ready. The νιβ doesn’t seem to be any different from the others; they all seem to be fair renditions of the Greek, ιμηο. ερρωσθε Ben– Revd Ben Crick, βα ξφ ζφξ ω <ben.crick at νοσπαμ.argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (υκ)*Acorn RPC700, RO4.03+Kinetic Card, 126MB, 4.3GB ηδ, x32CDROM*Castle Iyonix X100, RO5.06, 600MHz XScale processor, 512MB δδρ ραμ, 114GB ηδ, ξδ–ρω, etc. *Ethernet networking.

[] Fw: 2 Peter 3:9 Question[] Greek Manuscripts: Nestle Aland etc

[] Fw: Fw: 2 Peter 3:9 Question RZacc rzacc2001 at yahoo.com
Sat May 12 18:43:45 εδτ 2007

[] Greek Manuscripts: Nestle Aland etc [] 1 John 2:15 Greetings allA Lurker here, who promised not to make a peep, however ι do have a question which ι will try to phrase in an understandable manner.2 Peter 3:9 is most often translated “God is not desiring that any perish, but that all come to repentance’.As ι read my analytical, ανυ and αλλ are pronounal adjectives. Am ι correct in the following analysis?The antecedant to both adjectives (timas and pantas) is υου– umas. That being the case, should not the verse read:”God is not desiring any of you to perish, but that all of you come to repentance’, which would be in keeping with the distinction he makes in the rest of the letter, between the ‘you’s, the us’s’ [saved, justified persons] and the ‘them’ [ the world}?If my anylasis is correct, then has the νιβ misrepresented the verse and Peter’s intent, and belied the translators’ bias? Any insight would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.Ron ZaccagniniJust a cowboy from Colorado. ____________________________________________________________________________________It’s here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

[] Greek Manuscripts: Nestle Aland etc[] 1 John 2:15

[] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 Renwick Preston presto47 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 26 18:44:57 εστ 2011

[] Hebrews 2:3 [] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 Is there an antecedent for the τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9?Ren Preston

[] Hebrews 2:3[] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9

[] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 George φ Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 26 19:05:42 εστ 2011

[] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται, ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς, μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι.ου βραδυνει κυριοσ θσ επαγγελιασ, hWS τινεσ βραδυθτα hGOUNTAI, αλλα μακροθυμει εισ hUMAS, μη βουλομενοσ τινασ απολεσθαι αλλα παντασ εισ μετανοιαν χωῥσαι. Neither instance of τὶς, τὶ τισ, τι (neither τινες τινεσ nor τινας τινασ) has an antecedent.  They are simply indefinite pronouns.  In the first instance τινες τινεσ is the subject of ἡτοῦνται hHGOUNTAI while in the second instance τινας τινασ is the subject of the infinitive ἀπολέσθαι απολεσθαι.    georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Renwick Preston <presto47 at gmail.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Wed, January 26, 2011 4:44:57 PMSubject: [] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9Is there an antecedent for the τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9?Ren Preston— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9[] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9

[] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Jan 26 19:13:00 εστ 2011

[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 On Jan 26, 2011, at 6:44 πμ, Renwick Preston wrote:> Is there an antecedent for the τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9?Text:2Pet. 3:9 οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται, ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς, μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι. [Pet. 3:9 ου βραδυνει κυριοσ θσ επαγγελιασ, hWS τινεσ βραδυθτα hHGOUNTAI, αλλα μακροθυμει εισ hUMAS, μη βουλομενοσ τινασ απολεσθαι αλλα παντασ εισ μετανοιαν ξωῥσαι.]ι suppose you must be referring to τινας [τινασ], the only word that looks anything like τιβασ — ι suppose you’re using “β” for nu.τινασ is an indefinite pronoun, nom. pl. common gender, meaning “some (persons)” ot “any (persons) (at all).” ι hardly think there’s any antecedent referred to; rather there’s a clear antithesis of μη … τινασ and παντασ , “not any ones at all” and “everybody.”Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9[] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9

[] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 Bryant ψ. Williams ιιι bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Wed Jan 26 19:15:25 εστ 2011

[] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] Re : “a cheap familiarity with New Testament Greek” (CarlConrad) Dear Ren,First, the verse in question:9a ου βραδυνει κυριοσ θσ επανγελιασ,9b hWS “τινεσ” βραδυθτα hHGOUNTAI,9c αλλα μακροθυμει εισ hUMAS,9d μη βουλομενοσ “τινασ” απολεσθαι αλλα παντασ εισ μετανοιαν χωῥσαι.The quotation marks around “τινεσ” and “τινασ” are to show that “τινασ” isemphatic (acute on ulitma of βουλομενοσ) and is the subject of απολεσθαι and”τινεσ” which is the subject of hGOUNTAI. The second clause 9b is parentheticalto the first clause 9a.En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant ψ. Williams ιιι—– Original Message —– From: “Renwick Preston” <presto47 at gmail.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 3:44 PMSubject: [] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9> Is there an antecedent for the τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9?> > Ren Preston> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > — > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.> Checked by αβγ Free Edition.> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 – Release Date: 02/21/20073:19 πμ> >

[] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9[] Re : “a cheap familiarity with New Testament Greek” (CarlConrad)

[] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 Rod Rogers rngrogers at embarqmail.com
Thu Jan 27 08:59:08 εστ 2011

[] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 ι was of the assumption that all pronouns by nature have antecedents (Machen #97; The Use of Pronouns). Although it may not be proven grammatically ι think there is a logical antecedent to τινεσ, εμπαικται εμπαικται, scoffers who ask “Where is the promise of his coming?” Doesn’t τινασ 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.rod rogersbargersville, in—– Original Message —– From: “George φ Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: “Renwick Preston” <presto47 at gmail.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 7:05 PMSubject: Re: [] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9> οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται, > ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ> εἰς ὑμᾶς, μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς > μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι.> ου βραδυνει κυριοσ θσ επαγγελιασ, hWS τινεσ βραδυθτα > hGOUNTAI, αλλα μακροθυμει> εισ hUMAS, μη βουλομενοσ τινασ απολεσθαι αλλα παντασ εισ > μετανοιαν χωῥσαι.> > Neither instance of τὶς, τὶ τισ, τι (neither τινες τινεσ nor > τινας τινασ) has> an antecedent. They are simply indefinite pronouns. In the > first instance> τινες τινεσ is the subject of ἡτοῦνται hHGOUNTAI while in the > second instance> τινας τινασ is the subject of the infinitive ἀπολέσθαι > απολεσθαι.> > george> gfsomsel> > > … search for truth, hear truth,> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,> defend the truth till death.> > > – Jan Hus> _________> > > > > ________________________________> From: Renwick Preston <presto47 at gmail.com>> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Wed, January 26, 2011 4:44:57 πμ> Subject: [] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9> > Is there an antecedent for the τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9?> > Ren Preston> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

[] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9

[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Thu Jan 27 11:34:39 εστ 2011

[] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:59 αμ, Rod Rogers wrote:> ι 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 ι don’t think ι‘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 τισ or its plural τινεσ 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 ι wouldn’t care to associate,” or “There are some things that ι 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 τινασ in the μη βουλομενοσ clause rather than about the τινεσ of the hWS clause. ι would think that the τινασ of the μη βουλομενοσ clause ought to be seen not with reference to some specific persons but rather in antithesis to παντασ, so that the paired objects of the two infinitives are τινασ and παντασ, “any (persons)” and “all (persons)” or “anybody” and “everybody.”Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> Although it may not be proven grammatically ι think there is a logical antecedent to τινεσ, εμπαικται εμπαικται, scoffers who ask “Where is the promise of his coming?” Doesn’t τινασ 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.> —– Original Message —– From: “George φ Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>> To: “Renwick Preston” <presto47 at gmail.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 7:05 πμ> Subject: Re: [] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9> >> οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ὥς τινες βραδύτητα ἡγοῦνται, ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ>> εἰς ὑμᾶς, μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι.>> ου βραδυνει κυριοσ θσ επαγγελιασ, hWS τινεσ βραδυθτα hGOUNTAI, αλλα μακροθυμει>> εισ hUMAS, μη βουλομενοσ τινασ απολεσθαι αλλα παντασ εισ μετανοιαν χωῥσαι.>> >> Neither instance of τὶς, τὶ τισ, τι (neither τινες τινεσ nor τινας τινασ) has>> an antecedent. They are simply indefinite pronouns. In the first instance>> τινες τινεσ is the subject of ἡτοῦνται hHGOUNTAI while in the second instance>> τινας τινασ is the subject of the infinitive ἀπολέσθαι απολεσθαι.>> >> george>> gfsomsel>> ________________________________>> From: Renwick Preston <presto47 at gmail.com>>> To: at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Wed, January 26, 2011 4:44:57 πμ>> Subject: [] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9>> >> Is there an antecedent for the τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9?>> >> Ren Preston

[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 Rod Rogers rngrogers at embarqmail.com
Fri Jan 28 12:18:16 εστ 2011

[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 Carl, ι considered your comments. ι‘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 ντ where it is debated which is the antecedent and we have several (antecedents) to choose from. ι wish you would have made comment on the fact that ι was responding to George’s post……..which by nature included Renwick’s post but you didn’t.Yes, the (οριγιναλ) question raised was about τινασ in the μη βουλομενοσ clause rather than about the τινεσ of the hWS clause, but when you say “ι would think that the τινασ of the μη βουλομενοσ clause ought to be seen not with reference to some specific persons but rather in antithesis to παντασ, so that the paired objects of the two infinitives are τινασ and παντασ, “any (persons)” and “all (persons)” or “anybody” and “everybody.” ι would have to disagree to some extent. τισ 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 (τισ) indefinite pronoun into a definite pronoun exegeting 2 Peter 3:9, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A5A8XBRVbw&feature=relatedSo what did Peter say? What was Peter trying to communicate? First of all ι think most people lose track of the subject in this verse. The Lord κυριοσ 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). ι personally think that both the indefinite pronouns τινασ, τινεσ 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 τινεσ could not have been translated “certain ones” referring to εμπαικθσ 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 ι 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 ηε 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 τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9? Yes, it’s hUMHAS/hUMHS and yes ι agree with you Carl παντασ and τινασ are taken together only they refer to hUMHAS/hUMHS not some abstract group referring to no one in particular.rod rogersbargersville, in—– Original Message —– From: “Carl Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com>To: “Rod Rogers” <rngrogers at embarqmail.com>Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 11:34 AMSubject: Re: [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:59 αμ, Rod Rogers wrote:> ι 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 ι don’t think ι‘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 τισ or its plural τινεσ 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 ι wouldn’t care to associate,” or “There are some things that ι 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 τινασ in the μη βουλομενοσ clause rather than about the τινεσ of the hWS clause. ι would think that the τινασ of the μη βουλομενοσ clause ought to be seen not with reference to some specific persons but rather in antithesis to παντασ, so that the paired objects of the two infinitives are τινασ and παντασ, “any (persons)” and “all (persons)” or “anybody” and “everybody.”Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> Although it may not be proven grammatically ι think there is a > logical antecedent to τινεσ, εμπαικται εμπαικται, scoffers who > ask “Where is the promise of his coming?” Doesn’t τινασ 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.

[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9

Fri Jan 28 18:06:44 εστ 2011

[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 On Jan 28, 2011, at 12:18 πμ, Rod Rogers wrote:> Carl, ι considered your comments. ι‘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 ντ where it is debated which is the antecedent and we have several (antecedents) to choose from. ι wish you would have made comment on the fact that ι was responding to George’s post……..which by nature included Renwick’s post but you didn’t.> > Yes, the (οριγιναλ) question raised was about τινασ in the μη βουλομενοσ clause rather than about the τινεσ of the hWS clause, but when you say “ι would think that the τινασ of the μη βουλομενοσ clause ought to be seen not with reference to some specific persons but rather in antithesis to παντασ, so that the paired objects of the two infinitives are τινασ and παντασ, “any (persons)” and “all (persons)” or “anybody” and “everybody.” ι would have to disagree to some extent. τισ 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 (τισ) indefinite pronoun into a definite pronoun exegeting 2 Peter 3:9, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A5A8XBRVbw&feature=relatedBut according to my dictionary “certain one” as an English equivalent of Greek τισ (τις) is “used when mentioning the name of someone not known to the reader or hearer.”As for this particular instance of τινασ in 2 Pet 3:9, the negation μη in βουλομενοσ τινασ απολεσθαι doesn’t mean “doesn’t want certain unnamed individuals to perish” but means rather “doesn’t want any individuals to perish.ι grant that τινεσ may in some instances be understood in the sense, “some persons whose names ι know but shall not mention” — but the question whether that is to be understood in this text is one that ι don’t think can be answered. As for τινεσ των φαρισαιων and such like expressions, ι 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 ι think most people lose track of the subject in this verse. The Lord κυριοσ 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). ι personally think that both the indefinite pronouns τινασ, τινεσ 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 τινεσ could not have been translated “certain ones” referring to εμπαικθσ 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 ι 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 ηε 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 τινεσ in the first part of 3:9, ι grant that the scoffers referred to previously should probably be included among them, but it seems to me that the reference of τινεσ 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, ι don’t think there’s a justification for equating τινεσ in this text with εκεινοι hOUS αρτι ελεγον.> > Is there an antecedent for the τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9? Yes, it’s hUMHAS/hUMHS and yes ι agree with you Carl παντασ and τινασ 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: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 11:34 αμ> Subject: Re: [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9> > > > On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:59 αμ, Rod Rogers wrote:> >> ι 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 ι don’t think ι‘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 τισ or its plural τινεσ 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 ι wouldn’t care to associate,” or “There are some things that ι 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 τινασ in the μη βουλομενοσ clause rather than about the τινεσ of the hWS clause. ι would think that the τινασ of the μη βουλομενοσ clause ought to be seen not with reference to some specific persons but rather in antithesis to παντασ, so that the paired objects of the two infinitives are τινασ and παντασ, “any (persons)” and “all (persons)” or “anybody” and “everybody.”> > Carl ω. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> >> Although it may not be proven grammatically ι think there is a logical antecedent to τινεσ, εμπαικται εμπαικται, scoffers who ask “Where is the promise of his coming?” Doesn’t τινασ 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. > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Sat Jan 29 05:28:51 εστ 2011

[] William Harper Rainey’s Textbook [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 This very interesting message was clearly intended for the list, although sent, so far as ι can tell, directly to me alone.ι 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 πμ, Alastair Haines wrote:> Dear BGreek people,> > discussions about indefinite pronouns always grab my attention.> ι enjoy an excuse to revist> Martin Haspelmath, Indefinite Pronouns, Oxford studies in typology and linguistic theory, (ουπ, 2001).> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=M2gK50x8xNoC> > Rod and Carl, please correct me if ι‘m missing the key issue you’re debating.> It seems to me Rod leans towards reading τινεσ in 3:9 as &lt;σπεξιφιξ>,> with εμπαικται 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 τινεσ in 2 Peter 3:9.> > “In some languages, different indefinite series are used depending on whether the νπ is σπεξιφιξ or νον–σπεξιφιξ. 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 σπεξιφιξ/νον–σπεξιφιξ 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 νπ are indefinite, the ambiguity lies on the dimension of specificity.> > Is this not unlike τινεσ 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, ι read τινεσ in 2 Peter 3:9 as not only ινδεφινιτε, but _also_ νον–σπεξιφιξ. 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 τινασ. τινεσ and τινασ 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 αυτοσ 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 ξυρρεντλυ think God is slow, and those (whoever they may be) who will perish ιν φυτυρε. 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.> > ι look forward to any corrections of matters of fact, or indications that ι‘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: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 10:06 αμ> Subject: Re: [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9> > >> >> On Jan 28, 2011, at 12:18 πμ, Rod Rogers wrote:>> >>> Carl, ι considered your comments. ι‘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 ντ where it is debated which is the antecedent and we have several (antecedents) to choose from. ι wish you would have made comment on the fact that ι was responding to George’s post……..which by nature included Renwick’s post but you didn’t.>>> >>> Yes, the (οριγιναλ) question raised was about τινασ in the μη βουλομενοσ clause rather than about the τινεσ of the hWS clause, but when you say “ι would think that the τινασ of the μη βουλομενοσ clause ought to be seen not with reference to some specific persons but rather in antithesis to παντασ, so that the paired objects of the two infinitives are τινασ and παντασ, “any (persons)” and “all (persons)” or “anybody” and “everybody.” ι would have to disagree to some extent. τισ 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 (τισ) 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 τισ (τις) is “used when mentioning the name of someone not known to the reader or hearer.”>> As for this particular instance of τινασ in 2 Pet 3:9, the negation μη in βουλομενοσ τινασ απολεσθαι doesn’t mean “doesn’t want certain unnamed individuals to perish” but means rather “doesn’t want any individuals to perish.>> >> ι grant that τινεσ may in some instances be understood in the sense, “some persons whose names ι know but shall not mention” — but the question whether that is to be understood in this text is one that ι don’t think can be answered. As for τινεσ των φαρισαιων and such like expressions, ι 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 ι think most people lose track of the subject in this verse. The Lord κυριοσ 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). ι personally think that both the indefinite pronouns τινασ, τινεσ 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 τινεσ could not have been translated “certain ones” referring to εμπαικθσ 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 ι 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 ηε 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 τινεσ in the first part of 3:9, ι grant that the scoffers referred to previously should probably be included among them, but it seems to me that the reference of τινεσ 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, ι don’t think there’s a justification for equating τινεσ in this text with εκεινοι hOUS αρτι ελεγον.>>> >>> Is there an antecedent for the τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9? Yes, it’s hUMHAS/hUMHS and yes ι agree with you Carl παντασ and τινασ 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: < at lists.ibiblio.org>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 11:34 αμ>>> Subject: Re: [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9>>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:59 αμ, Rod Rogers wrote:>>> >>>> ι 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 ι don’t think ι‘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 τισ or its plural τινεσ 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 ι wouldn’t care to associate,” or “There are some things that ι 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 τινασ in the μη βουλομενοσ clause rather than about the τινεσ of the hWS clause. ι would think that the τινασ of the μη βουλομενοσ clause ought to be seen not with reference to some specific persons but rather in antithesis to παντασ, so that the paired objects of the two infinitives are τινασ and παντασ, “any (persons)” and “all (persons)” or “anybody” and “everybody.”>>> >>> Carl ω. Conrad>>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)>>> >>>> Although it may not be proven grammatically ι think there is a logical antecedent to τινεσ, εμπαικται εμπαικται, scoffers who ask “Where is the promise of his coming?” Doesn’t τινασ 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.>>> >>> >>> —>>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>>> mailing list>>> at lists.ibiblio.org>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> >> Carl ω. Conrad>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)>> >> >> >> —>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] William Harper Rainey’s Textbook[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9

[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 Alastair Haines afhaines at tpg.com.au
Sat Jan 29 11:21:21 εστ 2011

[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 Dear Carl,many thanks for forwarding my message to the list,and <blush> for jogging my memory that second Peterwas not written by Paul. <he he>alastair—– Original Message —– From: “Carl Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com>To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Cc: “Alastair Haines” <haines at alastairs.com>; “Rod Rogers” <rngrogers at embarqmail.com>Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 9:28 PMSubject: Re: [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9This very interesting message was clearly intended for the list, although sent, so far as ι can tell, directly to me alone.ι 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 πμ, Alastair Haines wrote:> Dear BGreek people,> > 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 αυτοσ 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 ξυρρεντλυ think God is slow, > and those (whoever they may be) who will perish ιν φυτυρε. 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.> > ι look forward to any corrections of matters of fact, or indications that > ι‘m unclear in expressing the facts.> > Best regards,> alastair

Sat Jan 29 15:53:24 εστ 2011

[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 ι‘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, ι‘ll look into it. ι can’t deny that my palms get sweaty went Carl and ι go head to head. ι‘m sure all of us on the list have no problem giving Carl his due. That said, ι have a couple of comments. First, ι don’t know who agrees with whom. Carl said, “but the question whether that is to be understood in this text is one that ι don’t think can be answered.” which is what ι tried to convey at the beginning of my first post, “Although it may not be proven grammatically ι think there is a logical antecedent to τινεσ“. ι was trying to convey the idea that this verse is one historically problematic to theologians. ι‘m not demanding anything in this verse. Sorry if it came across that way.Second, let me say that ι don’t think we are that far off on limiting/not limiting the scope of the scoffers. If you will remember, ι included unregenerate with those scoffers. ι don’t think you can expand the scope of the scoffers any farther than what ι did. As far as the antecedent of τινεσ goes, ι 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 ; λεγοντεσ που εστιν hH επανγγελια θσ παρουσιασ). ι think Peter is using τινεσ in verse 9 instead of scoffers to refer to the same people saying the same thing. ι‘ll not fight over this point but ι 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 τινασ. τινεσ and τινασ 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 τινεσ and τινασ refer back to unregenerate people and scoffers in particular then ι personally don’t see a problem. ι see nothing restricting Peter from continually speaking το the brethren αβουτ the scoffers/unregenerate in this whole passage. Peter does this defending the Lord’s (μακροθυμει μακροθυμει) delay.In closing ι will say that ι believe that Carl hit the nail on the head when he said, “ι 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 ι think we just established the lack of that proof. ι would like to state once more that this verse, 2 Peter 3:9, became clear to me once ι understood that it unfolds with the understanding of μακροθυμει μακροθυμει.rod rogersbargersville, in—– Original Message —– From: “Carl Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com>To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Cc: “Alastair Haines” <haines at alastairs.com>; “Rod Rogers” <rngrogers at embarqmail.com>Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 5:28 AMSubject: Re: [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9This very interesting message was clearly intended for the list, although sent, so far as ι can tell, directly to me alone.ι 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 πμ, Alastair Haines wrote:> Dear BGreek people,> > discussions about indefinite pronouns always grab my attention.> ι enjoy an excuse to revist> Martin Haspelmath, Indefinite Pronouns, Oxford studies in > typology and linguistic theory, (ουπ, 2001).> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=M2gK50x8xNoC> > Rod and Carl, please correct me if ι‘m missing the key issue > you’re debating.> It seems to me Rod leans towards reading τινεσ in 3:9 as > &lt;σπεξιφιξ>,> with εμπαικται 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 τινεσ in 2 Peter 3:9.> > “In some languages, different indefinite series are used > depending on whether the νπ is σπεξιφιξ or νον–σπεξιφιξ. 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 σπεξιφιξ/νον–σπεξιφιξ > 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 νπ are indefinite, the ambiguity > lies on the dimension of specificity.> > Is this not unlike τινεσ 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, ι read τινεσ in 2 Peter 3:9 as not > only ινδεφινιτε, but _also_ νον–σπεξιφιξ. 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 τινασ. τινεσ and τινασ 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 αυτοσ 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 ξυρρεντλυ think God is slow, > and those (whoever they may be) who will perish ιν φυτυρε. > 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.> > ι look forward to any corrections of matters of fact, or > indications that ι‘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: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 10:06 αμ> Subject: Re: [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9> > >> >> On Jan 28, 2011, at 12:18 πμ, Rod Rogers wrote:>> >>> Carl, ι considered your comments. ι‘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 ντ where it is debated >>> which is the antecedent and we have several (antecedents) to >>> choose from. ι wish you would have made comment on the fact >>> that ι was responding to George’s post……..which by nature >>> included Renwick’s post but you didn’t.>>> >>> Yes, the (οριγιναλ) question raised was about τινασ in the μη >>> βουλομενοσ clause rather than about the τινεσ of the hWS >>> clause, but when you say “ι would think that the τινασ of the >>> μη βουλομενοσ clause ought to be seen not with reference to >>> some specific persons but rather in antithesis to παντασ, so >>> that the paired objects of the two infinitives are τινασ and >>> παντασ, “any (persons)” and “all (persons)” or “anybody” and >>> “everybody.” ι would have to disagree to some extent. τισ 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 (τισ) 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 τισ (τις) is “used when mentioning the >> name of someone not known to the reader or hearer.”>> As for this particular instance of τινασ in 2 Pet 3:9, the >> negation μη in βουλομενοσ τινασ απολεσθαι doesn’t mean >> “doesn’t want certain unnamed individuals to perish” but means >> rather “doesn’t want any individuals to perish.>> >> ι grant that τινεσ may in some instances be understood in the >> sense, “some persons whose names ι know but shall not >> mention” — but the question whether that is to be understood >> in this text is one that ι don’t think can be answered. As for >> τινεσ των φαρισαιων and such like expressions, ι 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 ι think most people lose track of the subject in >>> this verse. The Lord κυριοσ 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). ι personally think that both the indefinite >>> pronouns τινασ, τινεσ 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 τινεσ could not have been translated “certain ones” >>> referring to εμπαικθσ 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 ι 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 ηε >>> 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 τινεσ in the first part of 3:9, ι grant >> that the scoffers referred to previously should probably be >> included among them, but it seems to me that the reference of >> τινεσ 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, ι don’t >> think there’s a justification for equating τινεσ in this text >> with εκεινοι hOUS αρτι ελεγον.>>> >>> Is there an antecedent for the τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9? Yes, it’s >>> hUMHAS/hUMHS and yes ι agree with you Carl παντασ and τινασ >>> 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: < at lists.ibiblio.org>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 11:34 αμ>>> Subject: Re: [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9>>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:59 αμ, Rod Rogers wrote:>>> >>>> ι 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 ι don’t think ι‘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 τισ or its plural τινεσ 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 ι wouldn’t care to associate,” or “There are some things >>> that ι 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 τινασ in the μη βουλομενοσ >>> clause rather than about the τινεσ of the hWS clause. ι would >>> think that the τινασ of the μη βουλομενοσ clause ought to be >>> seen not with reference to some specific persons but rather >>> in antithesis to παντασ, so that the paired objects of the >>> two infinitives are τινασ and παντασ, “any (persons)” and >>> “all (persons)” or “anybody” and “everybody.”>>> >>> Carl ω. Conrad>>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)>>> >>>> Although it may not be proven grammatically ι think there is >>>> a logical antecedent to τινεσ, εμπαικται εμπαικται, scoffers >>>> who ask “Where is the promise of his coming?” Doesn’t τινασ >>>> 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.>>> >>> >>> —>>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>>> mailing list>>> at lists.ibiblio.org>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> >> Carl ω. Conrad>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)>> >> >> >> —>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Sat Jan 29 16:07:33 εστ 2011

[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:53 πμ, Rod Rogers <rngrogers at embarqmail.com> wrote:> > ι‘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, ι‘ll> look into it. ι can’t deny that my palms get sweaty went Carl and ι go head> to head. ι‘m sure all of us on the list have no problem giving Carl his due.> That said, ι have a couple of comments. First, ι don’t know who agrees with> whom. Carl said, “but the question whether that is to be understood in this> text is one that ι don’t think can be answered.” which is what ι tried to> convey at the beginning of my first post, “Although it may not be proven> grammatically ι think there is a logical antecedent to τινεσ“. ι was trying> to convey the idea that this verse is one historically problematic to> theologians. ι‘m not demanding anything in this verse. Sorry if it came> across that way.> <clipped>It seems to me that all these have to do with ‘grammaticalantecedent’ vs ‘logical antecedent’. In the case of ‘logical’, it maybe better to say ‘logical referent’ to avoid confusion.Oun Kwon.

Sat Jan 29 16:31:00 εστ 2011

[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 On Jan 29, 2011, at 4:07 πμ, Oun Kwon wrote:> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:53 πμ, Rod Rogers <rngrogers at embarqmail.com> wrote:>> >> ι‘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, ι‘ll>> look into it. ι can’t deny that my palms get sweaty went Carl and ι go head>> to head. ι‘m sure all of us on the list have no problem giving Carl his due.>> That said, ι have a couple of comments. First, ι don’t know who agrees with>> whom. Carl said, “but the question whether that is to be understood in this>> text is one that ι don’t think can be answered.” which is what ι tried to>> convey at the beginning of my first post, “Although it may not be proven>> grammatically ι think there is a logical antecedent to τινεσ“. ι was trying>> to convey the idea that this verse is one historically problematic to>> theologians. ι‘m not demanding anything in this verse. Sorry if it came>> across that way.>> > <clipped>> > It seems to me that all these have to do with ‘grammatical> antecedent’ vs ‘logical antecedent’. In the case of ‘logical’, it may> be better to say ‘logical referent’ to avoid confusion.οκ, so the “scoffers” should be termed the ‘logical referent.”Si non è vero, è ben trovato! It would surely be churlish of me todeny that Rod and ι see pretty much eye to eye on what the authoris trying to communicate: he wants to counteract as vigorously as hecan any assertions that God is being “inconsiderately slow” in Histiming. And yes, this verse is indeed one that has been historicallyproblematic. ι noted earlier that τινεσ might be used rhetoricallyand that may well be the case here. ι‘m reminded of a celebraatedline in Quintilian about the Latin elegists. After noting that Propertiusis undoubtedly the best of them, he writes, “Sunt qui malint Tibullum.” –“Some people prefer Tibullus” — implying that such people are idiots.ι‘ve always been amused at this because ι enjoy reading Tibullus morethan Propertius myself.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Sat Jan 29 22:03:28 εστ 2011

[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 It seems we’re all agreed the grammar leaves the question open.ι‘m still a little reluctant to accept unregenerate scoffers as θε specific logical referent in our verse.That’s because ι‘m reading them as a συβσετ of each of two distinct intended groups in verse 9.Isn’t it quite possible νοτ to scoff,but still to think “the mills of God grind slowly”,albeit that “they grind exceedingly small.”Likewise, those God does not desire to perish,do they not also include those who are αξτυαλλυ saved,which suggests a superset: including the unregenerate scoffers,but not restricted to them specifically.Interestingly (for me) the Indonesian version reads the verse this way,using the “ada … yang” construction (“there exist” … “such that”) so typical of that language.Likewise, the (modern) Hebrew ντ adopts existential periphrastic structures to render this verse.Having said all that, though, ι feel ι should admit ι think Rod’s reading is very helpfulin underlining the evidence that Peter does indeed want us to think of the unregenerate scoffersas we read verse nine. His earlier harsh words concerning them are not all he has to say:he completes his thought with strong assertions of God’s grace.As Rod has noted for us, this is very significant for larger theological issues.—– Original Message —– From: “Carl Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com>To: “Oun Kwon” <kwonbbl at gmail.com>Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 8:31 AMSubject: Re: [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9On Jan 29, 2011, at 4:07 πμ, Oun Kwon wrote:> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:53 πμ, Rod Rogers <rngrogers at embarqmail.com> > wrote:>> >> ι‘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, >> ι‘ll>> look into it. ι can’t deny that my palms get sweaty went Carl and ι go >> head>> to head. ι‘m sure all of us on the list have no problem giving Carl his >> due.>> That said, ι have a couple of comments. First, ι don’t know who agrees >> with>> whom. Carl said, “but the question whether that is to be understood in >> this>> text is one that ι don’t think can be answered.” which is what ι tried to>> convey at the beginning of my first post, “Although it may not be proven>> grammatically ι think there is a logical antecedent to τινεσ“. ι was >> trying>> to convey the idea that this verse is one historically problematic to>> theologians. ι‘m not demanding anything in this verse. Sorry if it came>> across that way.>> > <clipped>> > It seems to me that all these have to do with ‘grammatical> antecedent’ vs ‘logical antecedent’. In the case of ‘logical’, it may> be better to say ‘logical referent’ to avoid confusion.οκ, so the “scoffers” should be termed the ‘logical referent.”Si non è vero, è ben trovato! It would surely be churlish of me todeny that Rod and ι see pretty much eye to eye on what the authoris trying to communicate: he wants to counteract as vigorously as hecan any assertions that God is being “inconsiderately slow” in Histiming. And yes, this verse is indeed one that has been historicallyproblematic. ι noted earlier that τινεσ might be used rhetoricallyand that may well be the case here. ι‘m reminded of a celebraatedline in Quintilian about the Latin elegists. After noting that Propertiusis undoubtedly the best of them, he writes, “Sunt qui malint Tibullum.” –“Some people prefer Tibullus” — implying that such people are idiots.ι‘ve always been amused at this because ι enjoy reading Tibullus morethan Propertius myself.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

Sat Jan 29 22:09:19 εστ 2011

[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] Iver Larsen on ἐν [εν] If this is to be discussed any further ι believe it probably should be done off list.rod rogersbargersville, in—– Original Message —– From: “Alastair Haines” <afhaines at tpg.com.au>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 10:03 PMSubject: Re: [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9It seems we’re all agreed the grammar leaves the question open.ι‘m still a little reluctant to accept unregenerate scoffers as θε specificlogical referent in our verse.That’s because ι‘m reading them as a συβσετ of each of two distinct intendedgroups in verse 9.Isn’t it quite possible νοτ to scoff,but still to think “the mills of God grind slowly”,albeit that “they grind exceedingly small.”Likewise, those God does not desire to perish,do they not also include those who are αξτυαλλυ saved,which suggests a superset: including the unregenerate scoffers,but not restricted to them specifically.Interestingly (for me) the Indonesian version reads the verse this way,using the “ada … yang” construction (“there exist” … “such that”) sotypical of that language.Likewise, the (modern) Hebrew ντ adopts existential periphrastic structuresto render this verse.Having said all that, though, ι feel ι should admit ι think Rod’s reading isvery helpfulin underlining the evidence that Peter does indeed want us to think of theunregenerate scoffersas we read verse nine. His earlier harsh words concerning them are not allhe has to say:he completes his thought with strong assertions of God’s grace.As Rod has noted for us, this is very significant for larger theologicalissues.—– Original Message —– From: “Carl Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com>To: “Oun Kwon” <kwonbbl at gmail.com>Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 8:31 AMSubject: Re: [] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9On Jan 29, 2011, at 4:07 πμ, Oun Kwon wrote:> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:53 πμ, Rod Rogers > <rngrogers at embarqmail.com> wrote:>> >> ι‘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, ι‘ll>> look into it. ι can’t deny that my palms get sweaty went Carl >> and ι go head>> to head. ι‘m sure all of us on the list have no problem giving >> Carl his due.>> That said, ι have a couple of comments. First, ι don’t know >> who agrees with>> whom. Carl said, “but the question whether that is to be >> understood in this>> text is one that ι don’t think can be answered.” which is what >> ι tried to>> convey at the beginning of my first post, “Although it may not >> be proven>> grammatically ι think there is a logical antecedent to τινεσ“. >> ι was trying>> to convey the idea that this verse is one historically >> problematic to>> theologians. ι‘m not demanding anything in this verse. Sorry >> if it came>> across that way.>> > <clipped>> > It seems to me that all these have to do with ‘grammatical> antecedent’ vs ‘logical antecedent’. In the case of ‘logical’, > it may> be better to say ‘logical referent’ to avoid confusion.οκ, so the “scoffers” should be termed the ‘logical referent.”Si non vero, ben trovato! It would surely be churlish of me todeny that Rod and ι see pretty much eye to eye on what the authoris trying to communicate: he wants to counteract as vigorously as hecan any assertions that God is being “inconsiderately slow” in Histiming. And yes, this verse is indeed one that has been historicallyproblematic. ι noted earlier that τινεσ might be used rhetoricallyand that may well be the case here. ι‘m reminded of a celebraatedline in Quintilian about the Latin elegists. After noting that Propertiusis undoubtedly the best of them, he writes, “Sunt qui malint Tibullum.” –“Some people prefer Tibullus” — implying that such people are idiots.ι‘ve always been amused at this because ι enjoy reading Tibullus morethan Propertius myself.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] τινασ in 2 Pet. 3:9[] Iver Larsen on ἐν [εν]

Is there an antecedent for the τιβασ in 2 Pet. 3:9?

Ren Preston
—