2 Peter 3:9

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

 

[] Hebrews 13:4 [] anarthrous KURIOS in 2 Peter 3 2 Peter 3:9aOU BRADUNEI KURIOS TNS EPAGGELIAS…2 Peter 3:13aKAINOUS DE OURANOUS KAI GHN KAINHN KATA TO EPAGGELMA AUTOU PROSDOKWMEN,…I am wondering if there is any significant difference in the words EPAGGELIAand EPAGGELMA is these verses. The author of 2 Peter repeats a lot ofvocabulary in this section (I’m translating the RCL pericope for Sunday, 2Peter 3:8-15a), and I’m curious why two different but clearly related wordsare used rather than repeating EPAGGELIA.Thanks and Blessings,Lorinda HooverPastor and Stay-at-Home Mom

 

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

[] EPAGGELIA/EPAGGELMA 2 Peter 3:9, 13 Yancy Smith Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
Thu Dec 1 16:05:19 EST 2005

 

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

 

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

[] EPAGGELIA/EPAGGELMA 2 Peter 3:9, 13 George F Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Thu Dec 1 16:44:12 EST 2005

 

[] Hebrews 13:4 KOITH not KOINTH [] anarthrous KURIOS 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> > OU BRADUNEI KURIOS TNS EPAGGELIAS…> > 2 Peter 3:13a> > KAINOUS DE OURANOUS KAI GHN KAINHN KATA TO EPAGGELMA AUTOU > PROSDOKWMEN,…> > > I am wondering if there is any significant difference in the words > EPAGGELIA> and EPAGGELMA is these verses. The author of 2 Peter repeats a lot > of> vocabulary in this section (I’m translating the RCL pericope for > Sunday, 2> Peter 3:8-15a), and I’m curious why two different but clearly > related words> are used rather than repeating EPAGGELIA.> > Thanks and Blessings,> > Lorinda Hoover> Pastor and Stay-at-Home Mom___________9. OU BRADUNEI KURIOS THS EPAGGELIAS, hWS TINES BRADUTHTA hGOUNTA, ALLAMAKROQUMEI EIS hUMAS, MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EISMETAMOIAN XWRHSAI.10. KAINOUS DE OURANOUS KAI GHN KAINHN KATA TO EPAGGELMA AUTOUPROSDOKWMEN, EN hOIS DIKAIOSUNH KATOIKEI.These two words, EPAGGELIA and EPAGGELMA, are generally treated as beingvirtually identical. If there is a difference, I would tend to see it inEPAGGELIA signifying the act of promising whereas EPAGGELMA 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 KOITH not KOINTH[] anarthrous KURIOS in 2 Peter 3

[] 2 Pet 3:9 and MAKROQUMEI EIS hHMAS Craig J newsgroupstuff at gmail.com
Thu Jun 15 12:40:10 EDT 2006

 

[] Beginning NT Greek [] 2 Pet 3:9 and MAKROQUMEI EIS hHMAS I was looking at 2 Pet 3:9 and the phrase MAKROQUMEI EIS hHMAS, and noticedthat MAKROQUMEW used EIS here (maybe only time in NT) though more often itseems to be used with EPI (at least 4 times I think: Matt 18:26, 18:29, Luke18:7, James 5:7; also PROS in 1 Thess 5:14).I am wondering if there could be any significant difference between meaningof EIS and meaning of EPI with MAKROQUMEW in 2 Pet 3:9? EPI seems toindicate those with whom someone is being MACROQUMIA. 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 MACROQUMIA?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 NT Greek[] 2 Pet 3:9 and MAKROQUMEI EIS hHMAS

[] 2 Pet 3:9 and MAKROQUMEI EIS hHMAS George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 15 13:09:34 EDT 2006

 

[] 2 Pet 3:9 and MAKROQUMEI EIS hHMAS [] 2 Pet 3:9 and MAKROQUMEI EIS hHMAS Robertson in his _Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research_ notes 7. Compared with EPI, PARA and PROS. The growth in the use of EIS is shown by its appearance where EPI or PROS would be expected in the older Greek. Cf. ERXETAI EIS POLIN (Jo. 4:5), where the point is not ‘into,’ but ‘to.’ So 11:31, hUPAGEI EIS TO MNHMEION. In 11:38 D has EPI, not EIS. So in Mk. 3:7, ANEZWRHSEN PROS THN QALASSAN, DHP have EIS. Cf. Mk. 2:13, à has EIS for PARA and in 7:31 àBD have EIS, not PROS. Robertson, A. (1919; 2006). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (596). Logos. _________________Craig J <newsgroupstuff at gmail.com> wrote: I was looking at 2 Pet 3:9 and the phrase MAKROQUMEI EIS hHMAS, and noticedthat MAKROQUMEW used EIS here (maybe only time in NT) though more often itseems to be used with EPI (at least 4 times I think: Matt 18:26, 18:29, Luke18:7, James 5:7; also PROS in 1 Thess 5:14).I am wondering if there could be any significant difference between meaningof EIS and meaning of EPI with MAKROQUMEW in 2 Pet 3:9? EPI seems toindicate those with whom someone is being MACROQUMIA. 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 MACROQUMIA?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 MAKROQUMEI EIS hHMAS[] 2 Pet 3:9 and MAKROQUMEI EIS hHMAS

[] 2 Pet 3:9 and MAKROQUMEI EIS hHMAS Craig J newsgroupstuff at gmail.com
Thu Jun 15 19:34:36 EDT 2006

 

[] 2 Pet 3:9 and MAKROQUMEI EIS 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. I want toknow if there is a reasonable possibility that it could be as I havesuggested below, at end of the message. –Craig JohnsonBrisbane, AustraliaBlog Experiment: http://bloggledegook.blogspot.com/ —–Original Message—–From: George F Somsel [mailto:gfsomsel at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, 16 June 2006 3:10 AMTo: Craig J; at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] 2 Pet 3:9 and MAKROQUMEI EIS hHMASRobertson in his _Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light ofHistorical Research_ notes 7. Compared with EPI, PARA and PROS. The growth in the use of EIS is shownby its appearance where EPI or PROS would be expected in the older Greek.Cf. ERXETAI EIS POLIN (Jo. 4:5), where the point is not ‘into,’ but ‘to.’ So11:31, hUPAGEI EIS TO MNHMEION. In 11:38 D has EPI, not EIS. So in Mk. 3:7,ANEZWRHSEN PROS THN QALASSAN, DHP have EIS. Cf. Mk. 2:13, à has EIS for PARAand in 7:31 àBD have EIS, not PROS. <http://us.f385.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?box=Inbox&Mid=2454_3403688_69426_2798_621_0_1454_1059_2595665524&inc=&Search=&YY=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=&YY=25233&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b#_ftnref1> Robertson, A. (1919; 2006). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in theLight of Historical Research (596). Logos._________________Craig J <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 MAKROQUMEI EIS 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 EDT 2007

 

[] PISTIS, 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 I do have a question which I 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 I read my analytical, ANY and ALL are pronounal adjectives. Am I correct in the following analysis?The antecedant to both adjectives (timas and pantas) is YOU- 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 NIV misrepresented the verse and Peter’s intent, and belied the translators’ bias?Any insight would be appreciated.Ronz ____________________________________________________________________________________Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV’s Comedy with an Edge to see what’s on, when. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222 ____________________________________________________________________________________Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL

 

[] PISTIS, 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 EDT 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 NIV 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”. A righteous remnant of eight! PAS PASA PAN means “all”; but also “some of all sorts”: compare Mark 1:5 where “there went out unto him ALL the land of Judaea, and were ALL baptised by him in the River Jordan…”. Surely there were some who missed out. TIS means “someone, anyone”: e.g. PLOUSIOS TIS in Luke 16:19, “A certain rich man” who clearly was not saved, although the beggar Lazarus just as clearly was saved. Compare ANQRWPOS TIS in Luke 12:16. He was the rich fool whose soul was required of him before he was ready. The NIV doesn’t seem to be any different from the others; they all seem to be fair renditions of the Greek, IMHO. ERRWSQE Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF ZFC W <ben.crick at NOSPAM.argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)*Acorn RPC700, RO4.03+Kinetic Card, 126MB, 4.3GB HD, x32CDROM*Castle Iyonix X100, RO5.06, 600MHz XScale processor, 512MB DDR RAM, 114GB HD, CD-RW, 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 EDT 2007

 

[] Greek Manuscripts: Nestle Aland etc [] 1 John 2:15 Greetings allA Lurker here, who promised not to make a peep, however I do have a question which I 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 I read my analytical, ANY and ALL are pronounal adjectives. Am I correct in the following analysis?The antecedant to both adjectives (timas and pantas) is YOU- 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 NIV 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

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

 

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

 

[] Hebrews 2:3[] TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9

[] TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 26 19:05:42 EST 2011

 

[] TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] TIVAS 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.OU BRADUNEI KURIOS THS EPAGGELIAS, hWS TINES BRADUTHTA hGOUNTAI, ALLA MAKROQUMEI EIS hUMAS, MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN XWRHSAI. Neither instance of τὶς, τὶ TIS, TI (neither τινες TINES nor τινας TINAS) has an antecedent.  They are simply indefinite pronouns.  In the first instance τινες TINES is the subject of ἡτοῦνται hHGOUNTAI while in the second instance τινας TINAS is the subject of the infinitive ἀπολέσθαι APOLESQAI.    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: [] TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9Is there an antecedent for the TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9?Ren Preston— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

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

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

 

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 On Jan 26, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Renwick Preston wrote:> Is there an antecedent for the TIVAS 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 OU BRADUNEI KURIOS THS EPAGGELIAS, hWS TINES BRADUTHTA hHGOUNTAI, ALLA MAKROQUMEI EIS hUMAS, MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN CWRHSAI.]I suppose you must be referring to τινας [TINAS], the only word that looks anything like TIVAS — I suppose you’re using “V” for nu.TINAS is an indefinite pronoun, nom. pl. common gender, meaning “some (persons)” ot “any (persons) (at all).” I hardly think there’s any antecedent referred to; rather there’s a clear antithesis of MH … TINAS and PANTAS , “not any ones at all” and “everybody.”Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9[] TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9

[] TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Wed Jan 26 19:15:25 EST 2011

 

[] TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] Re : “a cheap familiarity with New Testament Greek” (CarlConrad) Dear Ren,First, the verse in question:9a OU BRADUNEI KURIOS THS EPANGELIAS,9b hWS “TINES” BRADUTHTA hHGOUNTAI,9c ALLA MAKROQUMEI EIS hUMAS,9d MH BOULOMENOS “TINAS” APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN XWRHSAI.The quotation marks around “TINES” and “TINAS” are to show that “TINAS” isemphatic (acute on ulitma of BOULOMENOS) and is the subject of APOLESQAI and”TINES” which is the subject of hGOUNTAI. The second clause 9b is parentheticalto the first clause 9a.En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III—– Original Message —– From: “Renwick Preston” <presto47 at gmail.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 3:44 PMSubject: [] TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9> Is there an antecedent for the TIVAS 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 AVG Free Edition.> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 – Release Date: 02/21/20073:19 PM> >

 

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

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

 

[] TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 I was of the assumption that all pronouns by nature have antecedents (Machen #97; The Use of Pronouns). Although it may not be proven grammatically I think there is a logical antecedent to TINES, εμπαικται EMPAIKTAI, scoffers who ask “Where is the promise of his coming?” Doesn’t TINAS refer back to hHMAS/hUMAS, those who the Lord is longsuffering towards? The real fussing and fighting comes in when you try to find the antecedent of hHMAS/hUMAS.rod rogersbargersville, in—– Original Message —– From: “George F 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: [] TIVAS 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.> OU BRADUNEI KURIOS THS EPAGGELIAS, hWS TINES BRADUTHTA > hGOUNTAI, ALLA MAKROQUMEI> EIS hUMAS, MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS > METANOIAN XWRHSAI.> > Neither instance of τὶς, τὶ TIS, TI (neither τινες TINES nor > τινας TINAS) has> an antecedent. They are simply indefinite pronouns. In the > first instance> τινες TINES is the subject of ἡτοῦνται hHGOUNTAI while in the > second instance> τινας TINAS is the subject of the infinitive ἀπολέσθαι > APOLESQAI.> > 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 PM> Subject: [] TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9> > Is there an antecedent for the TIVAS 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/>

 

[] TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9

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

 

[] TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Rod Rogers wrote:> I was of the assumption that all pronouns by nature have antecedents (Machen #97; The Use of Pronouns).With all due respect, this seems a questionable notion to me, and I don’t think I’d cite Machen as an authority. But in this case we’re talking about an indefinite pronoun, a kind of pronoun which by definition does not refer to a specific person or thing.No doubt TIS or its plural TINES may be used rhetorically with the intention of avoiding overt mention of the person or thing referred to (e.g. “There are some in this group with whom I wouldn’t care to associate,” or “There are some things that I would never think of eating or drinking.”)Certainly the “scoffers” referred to in the opening paragraph of the letter are a fundamental concern of the author, but he writes to addressees whom he appears to be warning against the scoffers rather than as themselves scoffers.The question raised was about TINAS in the MH BOULOMENOS clause rather than about the TINES of the hWS clause. I would think that the TINAS of the MH BOULOMENOS clause ought to be seen not with reference to some specific persons but rather in antithesis to PANTAS, so that the paired objects of the two infinitives are TINAS and PANTAS, “any (persons)” and “all (persons)” or “anybody” and “everybody.”Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> Although it may not be proven grammatically I think there is a logical antecedent to TINES, εμπαικται EMPAIKTAI, scoffers who ask “Where is the promise of his coming?” Doesn’t TINAS refer back to hHMAS/hUMAS, those who the Lord is longsuffering towards? The real fussing and fighting comes in when you try to find the antecedent of hHMAS/hUMAS.> —– Original Message —– From: “George F Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>> To: “Renwick Preston” <presto47 at gmail.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 7:05 PM> Subject: Re: [] TIVAS 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.>> OU BRADUNEI KURIOS THS EPAGGELIAS, hWS TINES BRADUTHTA hGOUNTAI, ALLA MAKROQUMEI>> EIS hUMAS, MH BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI ALLA PANTAS EIS METANOIAN XWRHSAI.>> >> Neither instance of τὶς, τὶ TIS, TI (neither τινες TINES nor τινας TINAS) has>> an antecedent. They are simply indefinite pronouns. In the first instance>> τινες TINES is the subject of ἡτοῦνται hHGOUNTAI while in the second instance>> τινας TINAS is the subject of the infinitive ἀπολέσθαι APOLESQAI.>> >> george>> gfsomsel>> ________________________________>> From: Renwick Preston <presto47 at gmail.com>>> To: at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Wed, January 26, 2011 4:44:57 PM>> Subject: [] TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9>> >> Is there an antecedent for the TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9?>> >> Ren Preston

 

[] TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9

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

 

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 Carl, I considered your comments. I’m sure that there are indefinite and relative pronouns which introduce a subject and probably have no antecedent or at least no clear one but there are plenty of verses in the NT where it is debated which is the antecedent and we have several (antecedents) to choose from. I wish you would have made comment on the fact that I was responding to George’s post……..which by nature included Renwick’s post but you didn’t.Yes, the (ORIGINAL) question raised was about TINAS in the MH BOULOMENOS clause rather than about the TINES of the hWS clause, but when you say “I would think that the TINAS of the MH BOULOMENOS clause ought to be seen not with reference to some specific persons but rather in antithesis to PANTAS, so that the paired objects of the two infinitives are TINAS and PANTAS, “any (persons)” and “all (persons)” or “anybody” and “everybody.” I would have to disagree to some extent. TIS is used many times to describe/introduce an unknown group of “specific” bodies. The texts where we read “certain of the scribes” or “certain of the Pharisees” are all indefinite. If you have time for a good laugh you might watch Mark Kielar turn an (TIS) indefinite pronoun into a definite pronoun exegeting 2 Peter 3:9, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A5A8XBRVbw&feature=relatedSo what did Peter say? What was Peter trying to communicate? First of all I think most people lose track of the subject in this verse. The Lord KURIOS is the subject of each clause. The Lord is not slow….The Lord is longsuffering……The Lord is not willing…..but……The Lord is willing (all should come). I personally think that both the indefinite pronouns TINAS, TINES and the substantive adjective have antecedents. They all refer back to something in the text. This is the only way to make sense out of what Peter said in this chapter. This whole passage is about two groups, the “beloved” and the “scoffers/unregenerate”. There is no reason why TINES could not have been translated “certain ones” referring to EMPAIKTHS scoffers. It’s the scoffers who are charging the Lord with slowness. It is the “scoffers/unregenerate” which desperately need the longsuffering grace of the Lord. That is why I believe the key to this text is not grammatical but lexical. Longsuffering is something the Lord is toward the unregenerate not saved people. Therefore, the pronoun hUMHAS/hUMHS refers to us/we when we were unregenerate and in need of the longsuffering grace of God. You see, while the scoffers charge the Lord with slowness the Lord is gracious in providing time for them to repent. He does this because HE is not willing that any of them should perish. It’s the scoffers/unregenerate who the Lord is longsuffering toward. It’s the scoffers/unregenerate who the Lord is not willing any to perish and it is the scoffers/unregenerate whom the Lord desires would make room for repentance.Is there an antecedent for the TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9? Yes, it’s hUMHAS/hUMHS and yes I agree with you Carl PANTAS and TINAS are taken together only they refer to hUMHAS/hUMHS not some abstract group referring to no one in particular.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: [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Rod Rogers wrote:> I was of the assumption that all pronouns by nature have > antecedents (Machen #97; The Use of Pronouns).With all due respect, this seems a questionable notion to me, and I don’t think I’d cite Machen as an authority. But in this case we’re talking about an indefinite pronoun, a kind of pronoun which by definition does not refer to a specific person or thing.No doubt TIS or its plural TINES may be used rhetorically with the intention of avoiding overt mention of the person or thing referred to (e.g. “There are some in this group with whom I wouldn’t care to associate,” or “There are some things that I would never think of eating or drinking.”)Certainly the “scoffers” referred to in the opening paragraph of the letter are a fundamental concern of the author, but he writes to addressees whom he appears to be warning against the scoffers rather than as themselves scoffers.The question raised was about TINAS in the MH BOULOMENOS clause rather than about the TINES of the hWS clause. I would think that the TINAS of the MH BOULOMENOS clause ought to be seen not with reference to some specific persons but rather in antithesis to PANTAS, so that the paired objects of the two infinitives are TINAS and PANTAS, “any (persons)” and “all (persons)” or “anybody” and “everybody.”Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> Although it may not be proven grammatically I think there is a > logical antecedent to TINES, εμπαικται EMPAIKTAI, scoffers who > ask “Where is the promise of his coming?” Doesn’t TINAS refer > back to hHMAS/hUMAS, those who the Lord is longsuffering > towards? The real fussing and fighting comes in when you try to > find the antecedent of hHMAS/hUMAS.

 

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

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Jan 28 18:06:44 EST 2011

 

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 On Jan 28, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Rod Rogers wrote:> Carl, I considered your comments. I’m sure that there are indefinite and relative pronouns which introduce a subject and probably have no antecedent or at least no clear one but there are plenty of verses in the NT where it is debated which is the antecedent and we have several (antecedents) to choose from. I wish you would have made comment on the fact that I was responding to George’s post……..which by nature included Renwick’s post but you didn’t.> > Yes, the (ORIGINAL) question raised was about TINAS in the MH BOULOMENOS clause rather than about the TINES of the hWS clause, but when you say “I would think that the TINAS of the MH BOULOMENOS clause ought to be seen not with reference to some specific persons but rather in antithesis to PANTAS, so that the paired objects of the two infinitives are TINAS and PANTAS, “any (persons)” and “all (persons)” or “anybody” and “everybody.” I would have to disagree to some extent. TIS is used many times to describe/introduce an unknown group of “specific” bodies. The texts where we read “certain of the scribes” or “certain of the Pharisees” are all indefinite. If you have time for a good laugh you might watch Mark Kielar turn an (TIS) indefinite pronoun into a definite pronoun exegeting 2 Peter 3:9, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A5A8XBRVbw&feature=relatedBut according to my dictionary “certain one” as an English equivalent of Greek TIS (τις) is “used when mentioning the name of someone not known to the reader or hearer.”As for this particular instance of TINAS in 2 Pet 3:9, the negation MH in BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI doesn’t mean “doesn’t want certain unnamed individuals to perish” but means rather “doesn’t want any individuals to perish.I grant that TINES may in some instances be understood in the sense, “some persons whose names I know but shall not mention” — but the question whether that is to be understood in this text is one that I don’t think can be answered. As for TINES TWN FARISAIWN and such like expressions, I take them to mean that they were Pharisees but their identities is unknown.> So what did Peter say? What was Peter trying to communicate? First of all I think most people lose track of the subject in this verse. The Lord KURIOS is the subject of each clause. The Lord is not slow….The Lord is longsuffering……The Lord is not willing…..but……The Lord is willing (all should come). I personally think that both the indefinite pronouns TINAS, TINES and the substantive adjective have antecedents. They all refer back to something in the text. This is the only way to make sense out of what Peter said in this chapter. This whole passage is about two groups, the “beloved” and the “scoffers/unregenerate”. There is no reason why TINES could not have been translated “certain ones” referring to EMPAIKTHS scoffers. It’s the scoffers who are charging the Lord with slowness. It is the “scoffers/unregenerate” which desperately need the longsuffering grace of the Lord. That is why I believe the key to this text is not grammatical but lexical. Longsuffering is something the Lord is toward the unregenerate not saved people. Therefore, the pronoun hUMHAS/hUMHS refers to us/we when we were unregenerate and in need of the longsuffering grace of God. You see, while the scoffers charge the Lord with slowness the Lord is gracious in providing time for them to repent. He does this because HE is not willing that any of them should perish. It’s the scoffers/unregenerate who the Lord is longsuffering toward. It’s the scoffers/unregenerate who the Lord is not willing any to perish and it is the scoffers/unregenerate whom the Lord desires would make room for repentance.And with regard to TINES in the first part of 3:9, I grant that the scoffers referred to previously should probably be included among them, but it seems to me that the reference of TINES is broader than that and will include any persons or groups who suppose that God’s measures of time are commensurate with their own. In grammatical terms, I don’t think there’s a justification for equating TINES in this text with EKEINOI hOUS ARTI ELEGON.> > Is there an antecedent for the TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9? Yes, it’s hUMHAS/hUMHS and yes I agree with you Carl PANTAS and TINAS are taken together only they refer to hUMHAS/hUMHS not some abstract group referring to no one in particular.> —– Original Message —– From: “Carl Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com>> To: “Rod Rogers” <rngrogers at embarqmail.com>> Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 11:34 AM> Subject: Re: [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9> > > > On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Rod Rogers wrote:> >> I was of the assumption that all pronouns by nature have antecedents (Machen #97; The Use of Pronouns).> > With all due respect, this seems a questionable notion to me, and I don’t think I’d cite Machen as an authority. But in this case we’re talking about an indefinite pronoun, a kind of pronoun which by definition does not refer to a specific person or thing.> > No doubt TIS or its plural TINES may be used rhetorically with the intention of avoiding overt mention of the person or thing referred to (e.g. “There are some in this group with whom I wouldn’t care to associate,” or “There are some things that I would never think of eating or drinking.”)> > Certainly the “scoffers” referred to in the opening paragraph of the letter are a fundamental concern of the author, but he writes to addressees whom he appears to be warning against the scoffers rather than as themselves scoffers.> > The question raised was about TINAS in the MH BOULOMENOS clause rather than about the TINES of the hWS clause. I would think that the TINAS of the MH BOULOMENOS clause ought to be seen not with reference to some specific persons but rather in antithesis to PANTAS, so that the paired objects of the two infinitives are TINAS and PANTAS, “any (persons)” and “all (persons)” or “anybody” and “everybody.”> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> >> Although it may not be proven grammatically I think there is a logical antecedent to TINES, εμπαικται EMPAIKTAI, scoffers who ask “Where is the promise of his coming?” Doesn’t TINAS refer back to hHMAS/hUMAS, those who the Lord is longsuffering towards? The real fussing and fighting comes in when you try to find the antecedent of hHMAS/hUMAS. > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9[] TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sat Jan 29 05:28:51 EST 2011

 

[] William Harper Rainey’s Textbook [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 This very interesting message was clearly intended for the list, although sent, so far as I can tell, directly to me alone.I do think he probably slipped up in referring to Paul as the author of the letter, but that’s not central to his point.On Jan 28, 2011, at 11:56 PM, Alastair Haines wrote:> Dear BGreek people,> > discussions about indefinite pronouns always grab my attention.> I enjoy an excuse to revist> Martin Haspelmath, Indefinite Pronouns, Oxford studies in typology and linguistic theory, (OUP, 2001).> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=M2gK50x8xNoC> > Rod and Carl, please correct me if I’m missing the key issue you’re debating.> It seems to me Rod leans towards reading TINES in 3:9 as <SPECIFIC>,> with EMPAIKTAI as antecedent, based on semantic evidence in the broader context;> whereas Carl is more open to a range of other possible readings.> > Here’s a little from Haspelmath, that may explain why there is an issue with TINES in 2 Peter 3:9.> > “In some languages, different indefinite series are used depending on whether the NP is SPECIFIC or NON-SPECIFIC. The concept of specificity is a key concept in the semantics of reference and has been discussed extensively in the literature. There is no universal agreement on what phenomena fall under this concept.” (37)> > Haspelmath does, however, provide an example sentence to illustrate what researchers do agree is the basic issue.> > * Nobuko wants to marry a native speaker of Ainu.> > This is ambiguous (in English) for SPECIFIC/NON-SPECIFIC readings: i.e. whether Nobuko wants to marry _a certain_ native speaker or whether any native speaker of Ainu will do. Of course, _both_ readings of the NP are indefinite, the ambiguity lies on the dimension of specificity.> > Is this not unlike TINES in 2 Peter 3:9?> > Perhaps Rod is correct to infer a specific antecedent given the considerable information available from prior context. Though it seems Carl is well supported by the literature in pushing Rod to retain the “burden of proof” in regard to his reading. Speaking only for myself, I read TINES in 2 Peter 3:9 as not only INDEFINITE, but _also_ NON-SPECIFIC. In other words, it doesn’t refer to any antecedent discourse referent, it _introduces_ a new one: those (from among us or from among scoffers) who think the Lord is slow.> > Indeed, precisely the same “discourse logic” is at play (on my reading) in regard to TINAS. TINES and TINAS do _not_ “refer to the same antecedent”, as has been pointed out by others on this list, since indefinite pronouns can (not must) function in non-referential ways (including as logical variables, or to introduce new discourse referents).> > It seems Paul uses the Greek indefinite pronoun for precisely the same reason in both cases in verse nine. He cannot rely on the inflected form of the verb alone, as that would suggest an extant antecedent. He cannot use AUTOS for similar reasons. Greek provides him with an indefinite pronoun to mark the introduction of two new (and once only) discourse referents: those (whoever they may be) who CURRENTLY think God is slow, and those (whoever they may be) who will perish IN FUTURE. Other languages would present the semantic propositions Paul wants to make according to different strategies. Here, Paul uses precisely the same Greek strategy twice in the same verse.> > I look forward to any corrections of matters of fact, or indications that I’m unclear in expressing the facts.> > Best regards,> alastair> > > —– Original Message —– From: “Carl Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com>> To: “Rod Rogers” <rngrogers at embarqmail.com>> Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 10:06 AM> Subject: Re: [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9> > >> >> On Jan 28, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Rod Rogers wrote:>> >>> Carl, I considered your comments. I’m sure that there are indefinite and relative pronouns which introduce a subject and probably have no antecedent or at least no clear one but there are plenty of verses in the NT where it is debated which is the antecedent and we have several (antecedents) to choose from. I wish you would have made comment on the fact that I was responding to George’s post……..which by nature included Renwick’s post but you didn’t.>>> >>> Yes, the (ORIGINAL) question raised was about TINAS in the MH BOULOMENOS clause rather than about the TINES of the hWS clause, but when you say “I would think that the TINAS of the MH BOULOMENOS clause ought to be seen not with reference to some specific persons but rather in antithesis to PANTAS, so that the paired objects of the two infinitives are TINAS and PANTAS, “any (persons)” and “all (persons)” or “anybody” and “everybody.” I would have to disagree to some extent. TIS is used many times to describe/introduce an unknown group of “specific” bodies. The texts where we read “certain of the scribes” or “certain of the Pharisees” are all indefinite. If you have time for a good laugh you might watch Mark Kielar turn an (TIS) indefinite pronoun into a definite pronoun exegeting 2 Peter 3:9, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A5A8XBRVbw&feature=related>> >> But according to my dictionary “certain one” as an English equivalent of Greek TIS (τις) is “used when mentioning the name of someone not known to the reader or hearer.”>> As for this particular instance of TINAS in 2 Pet 3:9, the negation MH in BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI doesn’t mean “doesn’t want certain unnamed individuals to perish” but means rather “doesn’t want any individuals to perish.>> >> I grant that TINES may in some instances be understood in the sense, “some persons whose names I know but shall not mention” — but the question whether that is to be understood in this text is one that I don’t think can be answered. As for TINES TWN FARISAIWN and such like expressions, I take them to mean that they were Pharisees but their identities is unknown.>> >>> So what did Peter say? What was Peter trying to communicate? First of all I think most people lose track of the subject in this verse. The Lord KURIOS is the subject of each clause. The Lord is not slow….The Lord is longsuffering……The Lord is not willing…..but……The Lord is willing (all should come). I personally think that both the indefinite pronouns TINAS, TINES and the substantive adjective have antecedents. They all refer back to something in the text. This is the only way to make sense out of what Peter said in this chapter. This whole passage is about two groups, the “beloved” and the “scoffers/unregenerate”. There is no reason why TINES could not have been translated “certain ones” referring to EMPAIKTHS scoffers. It’s the scoffers who are charging the Lord with slowness. It is the “scoffers/unregenerate” which desperately need the longsuffering grace of the Lord. That is why I believe the key to this text is not grammatical but lexical. Longsuffering is something the Lord is toward the unregenerate not saved people. Therefore, the pronoun hUMHAS/hUMHS refers to us/we when we were unregenerate and in need of the longsuffering grace of God. You see, while the scoffers charge the Lord with slowness the Lord is gracious in providing time for them to repent. He does this because HE is not willing that any of them should perish. It’s the scoffers/unregenerate who the Lord is longsuffering toward. It’s the scoffers/unregenerate who the Lord is not willing any to perish and it is the scoffers/unregenerate whom the Lord desires would make room for repentance.>> >> And with regard to TINES in the first part of 3:9, I grant that the scoffers referred to previously should probably be included among them, but it seems to me that the reference of TINES is broader than that and will include any persons or groups who suppose that God’s measures of time are commensurate with their own. In grammatical terms, I don’t think there’s a justification for equating TINES in this text with EKEINOI hOUS ARTI ELEGON.>>> >>> Is there an antecedent for the TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9? Yes, it’s hUMHAS/hUMHS and yes I agree with you Carl PANTAS and TINAS are taken together only they refer to hUMHAS/hUMHS not some abstract group referring to no one in particular.>> >>> —– Original Message —– From: “Carl Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com>>>> To: “Rod Rogers” <rngrogers at embarqmail.com>>>> Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 11:34 AM>>> Subject: Re: [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9>>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Rod Rogers wrote:>>> >>>> I was of the assumption that all pronouns by nature have antecedents (Machen #97; The Use of Pronouns).>>> >>> With all due respect, this seems a questionable notion to me, and I don’t think I’d cite Machen as an authority. But in this case we’re talking about an indefinite pronoun, a kind of pronoun which by definition does not refer to a specific person or thing.>>> >>> No doubt TIS or its plural TINES may be used rhetorically with the intention of avoiding overt mention of the person or thing referred to (e.g. “There are some in this group with whom I wouldn’t care to associate,” or “There are some things that I would never think of eating or drinking.”)>>> >>> Certainly the “scoffers” referred to in the opening paragraph of the letter are a fundamental concern of the author, but he writes to addressees whom he appears to be warning against the scoffers rather than as themselves scoffers.>>> >>> The question raised was about TINAS in the MH BOULOMENOS clause rather than about the TINES of the hWS clause. I would think that the TINAS of the MH BOULOMENOS clause ought to be seen not with reference to some specific persons but rather in antithesis to PANTAS, so that the paired objects of the two infinitives are TINAS and PANTAS, “any (persons)” and “all (persons)” or “anybody” and “everybody.”>>> >>> Carl W. Conrad>>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)>>> >>>> Although it may not be proven grammatically I think there is a logical antecedent to TINES, εμπαικται EMPAIKTAI, scoffers who ask “Where is the promise of his coming?” Doesn’t TINAS refer back to hHMAS/hUMAS, those who the Lord is longsuffering towards? The real fussing and fighting comes in when you try to find the antecedent of hHMAS/hUMAS.>>> >>> >>> —>>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>>> mailing list>>> at lists.ibiblio.org>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> >> Carl W. 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 W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

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

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

 

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] TINAS 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: [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9This very interesting message was clearly intended for the list, although sent, so far as I can tell, directly to me alone.I do think he probably slipped up in referring to Paul as the author of the letter, but that’s not central to his point.On Jan 28, 2011, at 11:56 PM, Alastair Haines wrote:> Dear BGreek people,> > It seems Paul uses the Greek indefinite pronoun for precisely the same > reason in both cases in verse nine. He cannot rely on the inflected form > of the verb alone, as that would suggest an extant antecedent. He cannot > use AUTOS for similar reasons. Greek provides him with an indefinite > pronoun to mark the introduction of two new (and once only) discourse > referents: those (whoever they may be) who CURRENTLY think God is slow, > and those (whoever they may be) who will perish IN FUTURE. Other languages > would present the semantic propositions Paul wants to make according to > different strategies. Here, Paul uses precisely the same Greek strategy > twice in the same verse.> > I look forward to any corrections of matters of fact, or indications that > I’m unclear in expressing the facts.> > Best regards,> alastair

 

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

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 Rod Rogers rngrogers at embarqmail.com
Sat Jan 29 15:53:24 EST 2011

 

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 I’ll reply to this post hoping that all will see me replying to both Carl’s and Alastair’s posts. Alistair, thanks for the link to the Google book, I’ll look into it. I can’t deny that my palms get sweaty went Carl and I go head to head. I’m sure all of us on the list have no problem giving Carl his due. That said, I have a couple of comments. First, I don’t know who agrees with whom. Carl said, “but the question whether that is to be understood in this text is one that I don’t think can be answered.” which is what I tried to convey at the beginning of my first post, “Although it may not be proven grammatically I think there is a logical antecedent to TINES”. I was trying to convey the idea that this verse is one historically problematic to theologians. I’m not demanding anything in this verse. Sorry if it came across that way.Second, let me say that I don’t think we are that far off on limiting/not limiting the scope of the scoffers. If you will remember, I included unregenerate with those scoffers. I don’t think you can expand the scope of the scoffers any farther than what I did. As far as the antecedent of TINES goes, I think it’s a little hard to ignore the fact that those scoffers in verse 4 were scoffing in regards to the delay of the Lords coming (λεγοντες που εστιν η επαγγελια της παρουσιας ; LEGONTES POU ESTIN hH EPANGGELIA THS PAROUSIAS). I think Peter is using TINES in verse 9 instead of scoffers to refer to the same people saying the same thing. I’ll not fight over this point but I still think it is a little more than obvious to me, sorry.Alastair, you said:> Indeed, precisely the same “discourse logic” is at play (on my > reading) in regard to TINAS. TINES and TINAS do _not_ “refer to > the same antecedent”, as has been pointed out by others on this > list, since indefinite pronouns can (not must) function in > non-referential ways (including as logical variables, or to > introduce new discourse referents).If the antecedents of both TINES and TINAS refer back to unregenerate people and scoffers in particular then I personally don’t see a problem. I see nothing restricting Peter from continually speaking TO the brethren ABOUT the scoffers/unregenerate in this whole passage. Peter does this defending the Lord’s (μακροθυμει MAKROQUMEI) delay.In closing I will say that I believe that Carl hit the nail on the head when he said, “I don’t think (being dogmatic about the antecedents) can be answered”. Thank you for putting up with so much said with so little grammatical proof …. but I think we just established the lack of that proof. I would like to state once more that this verse, 2 Peter 3:9, became clear to me once I understood that it unfolds with the understanding of μακροθυμει MAKROQUMEI.rod 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: [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9This very interesting message was clearly intended for the list, although sent, so far as I can tell, directly to me alone.I do think he probably slipped up in referring to Paul as the author of the letter, but that’s not central to his point.On Jan 28, 2011, at 11:56 PM, Alastair Haines wrote:> Dear BGreek people,> > discussions about indefinite pronouns always grab my attention.> I enjoy an excuse to revist> Martin Haspelmath, Indefinite Pronouns, Oxford studies in > typology and linguistic theory, (OUP, 2001).> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=M2gK50x8xNoC> > Rod and Carl, please correct me if I’m missing the key issue > you’re debating.> It seems to me Rod leans towards reading TINES in 3:9 as > <SPECIFIC>,> with EMPAIKTAI as antecedent, based on semantic evidence in the > broader context;> whereas Carl is more open to a range of other possible > readings.> > Here’s a little from Haspelmath, that may explain why there is > an issue with TINES in 2 Peter 3:9.> > “In some languages, different indefinite series are used > depending on whether the NP is SPECIFIC or NON-SPECIFIC. The > concept of specificity is a key concept in the semantics of > reference and has been discussed extensively in the literature. > There is no universal agreement on what phenomena fall under > this concept.” (37)> > Haspelmath does, however, provide an example sentence to > illustrate what researchers do agree is the basic issue.> > * Nobuko wants to marry a native speaker of Ainu.> > This is ambiguous (in English) for SPECIFIC/NON-SPECIFIC > readings: i.e. whether Nobuko wants to marry _a certain_ native > speaker or whether any native speaker of Ainu will do. Of > course, _both_ readings of the NP are indefinite, the ambiguity > lies on the dimension of specificity.> > Is this not unlike TINES in 2 Peter 3:9?> > Perhaps Rod is correct to infer a specific antecedent given the > considerable information available from prior context. Though > it seems Carl is well supported by the literature in pushing > Rod to retain the “burden of proof” in regard to his reading. > Speaking only for myself, I read TINES in 2 Peter 3:9 as not > only INDEFINITE, but _also_ NON-SPECIFIC. In other words, it > doesn’t refer to any antecedent discourse referent, it > _introduces_ a new one: those (from among us or from among > scoffers) who think the Lord is slow.> > Indeed, precisely the same “discourse logic” is at play (on my > reading) in regard to TINAS. TINES and TINAS do _not_ “refer to > the same antecedent”, as has been pointed out by others on this > list, since indefinite pronouns can (not must) function in > non-referential ways (including as logical variables, or to > introduce new discourse referents).> > It seems Paul uses the Greek indefinite pronoun for precisely > the same reason in both cases in verse nine. He cannot rely on > the inflected form of the verb alone, as that would suggest an > extant antecedent. He cannot use AUTOS for similar reasons. > Greek provides him with an indefinite pronoun to mark the > introduction of two new (and once only) discourse referents: > those (whoever they may be) who CURRENTLY think God is slow, > and those (whoever they may be) who will perish IN FUTURE. > Other languages would present the semantic propositions Paul > wants to make according to different strategies. Here, Paul > uses precisely the same Greek strategy twice in the same verse.> > I look forward to any corrections of matters of fact, or > indications that I’m unclear in expressing the facts.> > Best regards,> alastair> > > —– Original Message —– From: “Carl Conrad” > <cwconrad2 at mac.com>> To: “Rod Rogers” <rngrogers at embarqmail.com>> Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 10:06 AM> Subject: Re: [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9> > >> >> On Jan 28, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Rod Rogers wrote:>> >>> Carl, I considered your comments. I’m sure that there are >>> indefinite and relative pronouns which introduce a subject >>> and probably have no antecedent or at least no clear one but >>> there are plenty of verses in the NT where it is debated >>> which is the antecedent and we have several (antecedents) to >>> choose from. I wish you would have made comment on the fact >>> that I was responding to George’s post……..which by nature >>> included Renwick’s post but you didn’t.>>> >>> Yes, the (ORIGINAL) question raised was about TINAS in the MH >>> BOULOMENOS clause rather than about the TINES of the hWS >>> clause, but when you say “I would think that the TINAS of the >>> MH BOULOMENOS clause ought to be seen not with reference to >>> some specific persons but rather in antithesis to PANTAS, so >>> that the paired objects of the two infinitives are TINAS and >>> PANTAS, “any (persons)” and “all (persons)” or “anybody” and >>> “everybody.” I would have to disagree to some extent. TIS is >>> used many times to describe/introduce an unknown group of >>> “specific” bodies. The texts where we read “certain of the >>> scribes” or “certain of the Pharisees” are all indefinite. If >>> you have time for a good laugh you might watch Mark Kielar >>> turn an (TIS) indefinite pronoun into a definite pronoun >>> exegeting 2 Peter 3:9, >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A5A8XBRVbw&feature=related>> >> But according to my dictionary “certain one” as an English >> equivalent of Greek TIS (τις) is “used when mentioning the >> name of someone not known to the reader or hearer.”>> As for this particular instance of TINAS in 2 Pet 3:9, the >> negation MH in BOULOMENOS TINAS APOLESQAI doesn’t mean >> “doesn’t want certain unnamed individuals to perish” but means >> rather “doesn’t want any individuals to perish.>> >> I grant that TINES may in some instances be understood in the >> sense, “some persons whose names I know but shall not >> mention” — but the question whether that is to be understood >> in this text is one that I don’t think can be answered. As for >> TINES TWN FARISAIWN and such like expressions, I take them to >> mean that they were Pharisees but their identities is unknown.>> >>> So what did Peter say? What was Peter trying to communicate? >>> First of all I think most people lose track of the subject in >>> this verse. The Lord KURIOS is the subject of each clause. >>> The Lord is not slow….The Lord is longsuffering……The >>> Lord is not willing…..but……The Lord is willing (all >>> should come). I personally think that both the indefinite >>> pronouns TINAS, TINES and the substantive adjective have >>> antecedents. They all refer back to something in the text. >>> This is the only way to make sense out of what Peter said in >>> this chapter. This whole passage is about two groups, the >>> “beloved” and the “scoffers/unregenerate”. There is no reason >>> why TINES could not have been translated “certain ones” >>> referring to EMPAIKTHS scoffers. It’s the scoffers who are >>> charging the Lord with slowness. It is the >>> “scoffers/unregenerate” which desperately need the >>> longsuffering grace of the Lord. That is why I believe the >>> key to this text is not grammatical but lexical. >>> Longsuffering is something the Lord is toward the >>> unregenerate not saved people. Therefore, the pronoun >>> hUMHAS/hUMHS refers to us/we when we were unregenerate and in >>> need of the longsuffering grace of God. You see, while the >>> scoffers charge the Lord with slowness the Lord is gracious >>> in providing time for them to repent. He does this because HE >>> is not willing that any of them should perish. It’s the >>> scoffers/unregenerate who the Lord is longsuffering toward. >>> It’s the scoffers/unregenerate who the Lord is not willing >>> any to perish and it is the scoffers/unregenerate whom the >>> Lord desires would make room for repentance.>> >> And with regard to TINES in the first part of 3:9, I grant >> that the scoffers referred to previously should probably be >> included among them, but it seems to me that the reference of >> TINES is broader than that and will include any persons or >> groups who suppose that God’s measures of time are >> commensurate with their own. In grammatical terms, I don’t >> think there’s a justification for equating TINES in this text >> with EKEINOI hOUS ARTI ELEGON.>>> >>> Is there an antecedent for the TIVAS in 2 Pet. 3:9? Yes, it’s >>> hUMHAS/hUMHS and yes I agree with you Carl PANTAS and TINAS >>> are taken together only they refer to hUMHAS/hUMHS not some >>> abstract group referring to no one in particular.>> >>> —– Original Message —– From: “Carl Conrad” >>> <cwconrad2 at mac.com>>>> To: “Rod Rogers” <rngrogers at embarqmail.com>>>> Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 11:34 AM>>> Subject: Re: [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9>>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Rod Rogers wrote:>>> >>>> I was of the assumption that all pronouns by nature have >>>> antecedents (Machen #97; The Use of Pronouns).>>> >>> With all due respect, this seems a questionable notion to me, >>> and I don’t think I’d cite Machen as an authority. But in >>> this case we’re talking about an indefinite pronoun, a kind >>> of pronoun which by definition does not refer to a specific >>> person or thing.>>> >>> No doubt TIS or its plural TINES may be used rhetorically >>> with the intention of avoiding overt mention of the person or >>> thing referred to (e.g. “There are some in this group with >>> whom I wouldn’t care to associate,” or “There are some things >>> that I would never think of eating or drinking.”)>>> >>> Certainly the “scoffers” referred to in the opening paragraph >>> of the letter are a fundamental concern of the author, but he >>> writes to addressees whom he appears to be warning against >>> the scoffers rather than as themselves scoffers.>>> >>> The question raised was about TINAS in the MH BOULOMENOS >>> clause rather than about the TINES of the hWS clause. I would >>> think that the TINAS of the MH BOULOMENOS clause ought to be >>> seen not with reference to some specific persons but rather >>> in antithesis to PANTAS, so that the paired objects of the >>> two infinitives are TINAS and PANTAS, “any (persons)” and >>> “all (persons)” or “anybody” and “everybody.”>>> >>> Carl W. Conrad>>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)>>> >>>> Although it may not be proven grammatically I think there is >>>> a logical antecedent to TINES, εμπαικται EMPAIKTAI, scoffers >>>> who ask “Where is the promise of his coming?” Doesn’t TINAS >>>> refer back to hHMAS/hUMAS, those who the Lord is >>>> longsuffering towards? The real fussing and fighting comes >>>> in when you try to find the antecedent of hHMAS/hUMAS.>>> >>> >>> —>>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>>> mailing list>>> at lists.ibiblio.org>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> >> Carl W. 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 W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

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

 

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Rod Rogers <rngrogers at embarqmail.com> wrote:> > I’ll reply to this post hoping that all will see me replying to both Carl’s> and Alastair’s posts. Alistair, thanks for the link to the Google book, I’ll> look into it. I can’t deny that my palms get sweaty went Carl and I go head> to head. I’m sure all of us on the list have no problem giving Carl his due.> That said, I have a couple of comments. First, I don’t know who agrees with> whom. Carl said, “but the question whether that is to be understood in this> text is one that I don’t think can be answered.” which is what I tried to> convey at the beginning of my first post, “Although it may not be proven> grammatically I think there is a logical antecedent to TINES”. I was trying> to convey the idea that this verse is one historically problematic to> theologians. I’m not demanding anything in this verse. Sorry if it came> across that way.> <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.

 

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

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sat Jan 29 16:31:00 EST 2011

 

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 On Jan 29, 2011, at 4:07 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Rod Rogers <rngrogers at embarqmail.com> wrote:>> >> I’ll reply to this post hoping that all will see me replying to both Carl’s>> and Alastair’s posts. Alistair, thanks for the link to the Google book, I’ll>> look into it. I can’t deny that my palms get sweaty went Carl and I go head>> to head. I’m sure all of us on the list have no problem giving Carl his due.>> That said, I have a couple of comments. First, I don’t know who agrees with>> whom. Carl said, “but the question whether that is to be understood in this>> text is one that I don’t think can be answered.” which is what I tried to>> convey at the beginning of my first post, “Although it may not be proven>> grammatically I think there is a logical antecedent to TINES”. I was trying>> to convey the idea that this verse is one historically problematic to>> theologians. I’m not demanding anything in this verse. Sorry if it came>> across that way.>> > <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.OK, 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 I 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. I noted earlier that TINES might be used rhetoricallyand that may well be the case here. I’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.I’ve always been amused at this because I enjoy reading Tibullus morethan Propertius myself.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

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

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 Alastair Haines afhaines at tpg.com.au
Sat Jan 29 22:03:28 EST 2011

 

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 It seems we’re all agreed the grammar leaves the question open.I’m still a little reluctant to accept unregenerate scoffers as THE specific logical referent in our verse.That’s because I’m reading them as a SUBSET of each of two distinct intended groups in verse 9.Isn’t it quite possible NOT 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 ACTUALLY 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 NT adopts existential periphrastic structures to render this verse.Having said all that, though, I feel I should admit I 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: [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9On Jan 29, 2011, at 4:07 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Rod Rogers <rngrogers at embarqmail.com> > wrote:>> >> I’ll reply to this post hoping that all will see me replying to both >> Carl’s>> and Alastair’s posts. Alistair, thanks for the link to the Google book, >> I’ll>> look into it. I can’t deny that my palms get sweaty went Carl and I go >> head>> to head. I’m sure all of us on the list have no problem giving Carl his >> due.>> That said, I have a couple of comments. First, I don’t know who agrees >> with>> whom. Carl said, “but the question whether that is to be understood in >> this>> text is one that I don’t think can be answered.” which is what I tried to>> convey at the beginning of my first post, “Although it may not be proven>> grammatically I think there is a logical antecedent to TINES”. I was >> trying>> to convey the idea that this verse is one historically problematic to>> theologians. I’m not demanding anything in this verse. Sorry if it came>> across that way.>> > <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.OK, 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 I 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. I noted earlier that TINES might be used rhetoricallyand that may well be the case here. I’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.I’ve always been amused at this because I enjoy reading Tibullus morethan Propertius myself.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

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

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 Rod Rogers rngrogers at embarqmail.com
Sat Jan 29 22:09:19 EST 2011

 

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9 [] Iver Larsen on ἐν [EN] If this is to be discussed any further I 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: [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9It seems we’re all agreed the grammar leaves the question open.I’m still a little reluctant to accept unregenerate scoffers as THE specificlogical referent in our verse.That’s because I’m reading them as a SUBSET of each of two distinct intendedgroups in verse 9.Isn’t it quite possible NOT 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 ACTUALLY 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 NT adopts existential periphrastic structuresto render this verse.Having said all that, though, I feel I should admit I 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: [] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9On Jan 29, 2011, at 4:07 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Rod Rogers > <rngrogers at embarqmail.com> wrote:>> >> I’ll reply to this post hoping that all will see me replying >> to both Carl’s>> and Alastair’s posts. Alistair, thanks for the link to the >> Google book, I’ll>> look into it. I can’t deny that my palms get sweaty went Carl >> and I go head>> to head. I’m sure all of us on the list have no problem giving >> Carl his due.>> That said, I have a couple of comments. First, I don’t know >> who agrees with>> whom. Carl said, “but the question whether that is to be >> understood in this>> text is one that I don’t think can be answered.” which is what >> I tried to>> convey at the beginning of my first post, “Although it may not >> be proven>> grammatically I think there is a logical antecedent to TINES”. >> I was trying>> to convey the idea that this verse is one historically >> problematic to>> theologians. I’m not demanding anything in this verse. Sorry >> if it came>> across that way.>> > <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.OK, 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 I 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. I noted earlier that TINES might be used rhetoricallyand that may well be the case here. I’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.I’ve always been amused at this because I enjoy reading Tibullus morethan Propertius myself.Carl W. 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/

 

[] TINAS in 2 Pet. 3:9[] Iver Larsen on ἐν [EN]

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

Ren Preston
—