Titus 1:10 Kevin Smith kgs at iafrica.com
Mon Apr 10 16:17:40 EDT 2000
Previous message: Pasting in Greek text from software Next message: Book Evaluation Requested GreetingsI have two questions. The second conerns the Tit 1:10 which reads: EISIN GAR POLLOI [KAI] ANUPOTAKTOI, MATAIOLOGOI KAI FRENAPATAI.Firstly, what is TLG?Secondly, Metzger (TCGNT 584) says, “It is difficult to decide whether KAI was added in accordance with the rhetorical usage known as hendiadys….” My understanding of hendiadys comes from Roy Zuck who defines it as “two co-ordinate terms representing a single concept in which one of the elements defines the other.” I can see how ANUPOTAKTOI [KAI] MATAILOGOI could be a hendiadys, but I don’t understand how Metzger construes [KAI] ANUPOTAKTOI, MATAIOLOGOI as such. Could someone please explain Metzger’s explanation to this little Greek.Thanks a millionKevin SmithSouth Africakgs at iafrica.com————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20000410/dbfbf033/attachment.html
Previous message: Pasting in Greek text from softwareNext message: Book Evaluation Requested
Titus 1:10 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Tue Apr 11 18:28:35 EDT 2000
Previous message: Greek diagraming Next message: Greek diagraming Dear Kevin, TLG is a CD tool for searching ancient Greek Literature. I am onlyguessing, but perhaps Metzger meant that POLLOI [KAI] ANUPOTAKTOI was thepossible hendiadys in Titus 1:10.Yours,Harold Holmyard
Previous message: Greek diagramingNext message: Greek diagraming
[] Titus 1:10-13 rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Tue Mar 3 08:46:35 EST 2009
[] resend: Matt 13:17 [] Titus 1:10-13 In Titus 1:10-13, we read:10 EISIN GAR POLLOI ANUPOTAKTOI MATAIOLOGOI KAI FRENAPATAI MALIOTA hOI EK THS PERITOMHS11 hOUS DEI EPISTOMIZEIN, hOITIVES hOLOUS OIKOUS ANATREPOUSIN DIDASKONTES hA MH DEI AISCROU KERDOUS CARIN.12 EIPEN TIS EX AUTWN IDIOS AUTWN PROFHTHS…13 hH MARTURIA hAUTH ESTIN ALHQHS DI hHN AITIAN ELEGCE AUTOIS APOTOMWS…I have read the commentaries and have some questions.1. In v 12, do we take AUTWN (in both instances) to refer back to the POLLOI ANUPOTAKTOI and MALIOTA hOI EK THS PERITOMHS. If not, what is the antecendent?2. Can we read v 12 to be an example of these MATAIOLOGOI are saying?3. In v 13, must hH MARTURIA hAUTH ESTIN ALHQHS refer only to v 12 or can it refer to all that Paul says in v 10-13?4. To whom does Paul refer when he says, ELEGCE AUTOIS APOTOMWS? Does AUTOIS take us back to the POLLOI ANUPOTAKTOI of v 10 as opposed to the Cretians of v 12 (which seems to be what the commentaries say)? If Titus was to reprove the Cretians (following the commentaries), don’t we have Paul agreeing with the POLLOI ANUPOTAKTOI when he seems to be speaking against them.Roger Hutchinson
[] resend: Matt 13:17[] Titus 1:10-13
[] Titus 1:10-13 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Mar 3 15:10:58 EST 2009
[] Titus 1:10-13 [] 1 Peter 3:21 On Mar 3, 2009, at 5:46 AM, rhutchin at aol.com wrote:> In Titus 1:10-13, we read:> > 10 EISIN GAR POLLOI ANUPOTAKTOI MATAIOLOGOI KAI FRENAPATAI MALIOTA > hOI EK THS PERITOMHS> > 11 hOUS DEI EPISTOMIZEIN, hOITIVES hOLOUS OIKOUS ANATREPOUSIN > DIDASKONTES hA MH DEI AISCROU KERDOUS CARIN.> > 12 EIPEN TIS EX AUTWN IDIOS AUTWN PROFHTHS…> > 13 hH MARTURIA hAUTH ESTIN ALHQHS DI hHN AITIAN ELEGCE AUTOIS > APOTOMWS…> > I have read the commentaries and have some questions.> > 1. In v 12, do we take AUTWN (in both instances) to refer back to > the POLLOI ANUPOTAKTOI and MALIOTA hOI EK THS PERITOMHS. If not, > what is the antecendent?> > 2. Can we read v 12 to be an example of these MATAIOLOGOI are saying?> > 3. In v 13, must hH MARTURIA hAUTH ESTIN ALHQHS refer only to v 12 > or can it refer to all that Paul says in v 10-13?> > 4. To whom does Paul refer when he says, ELEGCE AUTOIS APOTOMWS? > Does AUTOIS take us back to the POLLOI ANUPOTAKTOI of v 10 as > opposed to the Cretians of v 12 (which seems to be what the > commentaries say)? If Titus was to reprove the Cretians (following > the commentaries), don’t we have Paul agreeing with the POLLOI > ANUPOTAKTOI when he seems to be speaking against them.> > Roger HutchinsonTitus 1:10 Εἰσὶν γὰρ πολλοὶ [καὶ] ἀνυπότακτοι, ματαιολόγοι καὶ φρεναπάται, μάλιστα οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς, 11 οὓς δεῖ ἐπιστομίζειν, οἵτινες ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσιν διδάσκοντες ἃ μὴ δεῖ αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν. 12 εἶπέν τις ἐξ αὐτῶν ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης· Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί. 13 ἡ μαρτυρία αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀληθής. δι᾿ ἣν αἰτίαν ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόμως, ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει, 14 μὴ προσέχοντες Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις καὶ ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων ἀποστρεφομένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν.TITUS 1:10 EISIN GAR POLLOI [KAI] ANUPOTAKTOI, MATAIOLOGOI KAI FRENAPATAI, MALISTA hOI EK THS PERITOMHS, 11 hOUS DEI EPISTOMIZEIN, hOITINES hOLOUS OIKOUS ANATREPOUSIN DIDASKONTES hA MH DEI AISCROU KERDOUS CARIN. 12 EIPEN TIS EX AUTWN IDIOS AUTWN PROFHTHS: KRHTES AEI YEUSTAI, KAKA QHRIA, GASTERES ARGAI. 13 hH MARTURIA hAUTH ESTIN ALHQHS. DI hHN AITIAN ELEGCE AUTOUS APOTOMWS, hINA hUGIAINWSIN EN THi PISTEI, 14 MH PROSECONTES IOUDAIKOIS MUQOIS KAI ENTOLAIS ANQRWPWN APOSTREFOMENWN THN ALHQEIAN.There is some referential ambiguity (confusion?) here. I would suggest (tentatively) that the rebuke in v13 address both POLLOI ANUPOTAKTOI and those influenced by their behavior and/or teaching, with the primary focus on on the ‘hard core’ perpetrators. hOUS in hOUS DEI EPISTOMIZEIN in v. 11a along with hOITINES in hOITINES hOLOUS OIKOUS ANATREPOUSIN are coreferential with AUTOUS in v. 13b.The next step in my analysis is a “long shot” (dubious). In regard to hUGIAINWSIN v.13b, I would suggest (very tentative) that the personal reference is not exactly identical with the immediately preceding AUTOUS. In other words, the rebuke is primarily directed at the hard core group of trouble makers who are perhaps beyond rescue. Paul’s concern is for the correction and rescue of the whole group including both some of the marginal perpetrators and some who are influenced by them, while the hard core perpetrators are not expected to change their ways. The primary target of the rebuke are not the ones who will benefit most from the rebuke. Those who hear the hard core perpetrators being rebuked will benefit.Elizabeth Kline
[] Titus 1:10-13[] 1 Peter 3:21
[] Titus 1:10-13 rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Wed Mar 4 14:15:16 EST 2009
[] Mounce/BBG: Another correction? [] Titus 1:10-13 I wonder if ELEGCE in v 13 may be taken in the positive sense (perhaps in the sense of warn)and refer back to v 5 and those who are to be ordained as PRESBUTEROUS.Following the instructions for appointing the PRESBUTEROUS, Paul begins v 10 with, EISIN GAR POLLOI ANUPOTAKTOI…, from which he then concludes, DI hHN AITIAN…, in v 13.Could we take AUTOUS in V 13 to refer back to the PRESBUTEROUSto be appointed per v 5-9? Does the greek text point, in any way, to what Paul has in view without resorting to exegesis.Roger Hutchinson ——————————Message: 4Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 12:10:58 -0800From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>Subject: Re: [] Titus 1:10-13To: greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>Message-ID: <A51764C3-058C-48AA-91E1-133A7948CB3D at earthlink.net>On Mar 3, 2009, at 5:46 AM, rhutchin at aol.com wrote:> In Titus 1:10-13, we read:> > 10 EISIN GAR POLLOI ANUPOTAKTOI MATAIOLOGOI KAI FRENAPATAI MALIOTA > hOI EK THS PERITOMHS> > 11 hOUS DEI EPISTOMIZEIN, hOITIVES hOLOUS OIKOUS ANATREPOUSIN > DIDASKONTES hA MH DEI AISCROU KERDOUS CARIN.> > 12 EIPEN TIS EX AUTWN IDIOS AUTWN PROFHTHS…> > 13 hH MARTURIA hAUTH ESTIN ALHQHS DI hHN AITIAN ELEGCE AUTOIS > APOTOMWS…> > I have read the commentaries and have some questions.> > 1. In v 12, do we take AUTWN (in both instances) to refer back to > the POLLOI ANUPOTAKTOI and MALIOTA hOI EK THS PERITOMHS. If not, > what is the antecendent?> > 2. Can we read v 12 to be an example of these MATAIOLOGOI are saying?> > 3. In v 13, must hH MARTURIA hAUTH ESTIN ALHQHS refer only to v 12 > or can it refer to all that Paul says in v 10-13?> > 4. To whom does Paul refer when he says, ELEGCE AUTOIS APOTOMWS? > Does AUTOIS take us back to the POLLOI ANUPOTAKTOI of v 10 as > opposed to the Cretians of v 12 (which seems to be what the > commentaries say)? If Titus was to reprove the Cretians (following > the commentaries), don?t we have Paul agreeing with the POLLOI > ANUPOTAKTOI when he seems to be speaking against them.> > Roger Hutchinson[Deleted because it comes through as garbage in the message I receive.]TITUS 1:10 EISIN GAR POLLOI [KAI] ANUPOTAKTOI, MATAIOLOGOI KAI FRENAPATAI, MALISTA hOI EK THS PERITOMHS, 11 hOUS DEI EPISTOMIZEIN, hOITINES hOLOUS OIKOUS ANATREPOUSIN DIDASKONTES hA MH DEI AISCROU KERDOUS CARIN. 12 EIPEN TIS EX AUTWN IDIOS AUTWN PROFHTHS: KRHTES AEI YEUSTAI, KAKA QHRIA, GASTERES ARGAI. 13 hH MARTURIA hAUTH ESTIN ALHQHS. DI hHN AITIAN ELEGCE AUTOUS APOTOMWS, hINA hUGIAINWSIN EN THi PISTEI, 14 MH PROSECONTES IOUDAIKOIS MUQOIS KAI ENTOLAIS ANQRWPWN APOSTREFOMENWN THN ALHQEIAN.There is some referential ambiguity (confusion?) here. I would suggest (tentatively) that the rebuke in v13 address both POLLOI ANUPOTAKTOI and those influenced by their behavior and/or teaching, with the primary focus on on the ‘hard core’ perpetrators. hOUS in hOUS DEI EPISTOMIZEIN in v. 11a along with hOITINES in hOITINES hOLOUS OIKOUS ANATREPOUSIN are coreferential with AUTOUS in v. 13b.The next step in my analysis is a “long shot” (dubious). In regard to hUGIAINWSIN v.13b, I would suggest (very tentative) that the personal reference is not exactly identical with the immediately preceding AUTOUS. In other words, the rebuke is primarily directed at the hard core group of trouble makers who are perhaps beyond rescue. Paul’s concern is for the correction and rescue of the whole group including both some of the marginal perpetrators and some who are influenced by them, while the hard core perpetrators are not expected to change their ways. The primary target of the rebuke are not the ones who will benefit most from the rebuke. Those who hear the hard core perpetrators being rebuked will benefit.Elizabeth Kline A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
[] Mounce/BBG: Another correction?[] Titus 1:10-13
[] Titus 1:10-13 Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Wed Mar 4 16:34:48 EST 2009
[] Titus 1:10-13 [] Death by categories Roger,> I wonder if ELEGCE in v 13 may be taken in the positive sense (perhaps > > in the sense of warn)and refer back to v 5 and those who are to be > > ordained as PRESBUTEROUS.> HH: ELEGCE is not a positive word here. it is due to the fact that Cretans are liars, evil beasts, and lazy bellies. Therefore Titus is to reprove them severely. The word AUTOUS in verse 13 clearly refers back to AUTWN in verse 12, whose reference is to the Cretans. The pronoun precedes its referent.> Following the instructions for appointing the PRESBUTEROUS, Paul > > begins v 10 with, EISIN GAR POLLOI ANUPOTAKTOI…, from which he > > then concludes, DI hHN AITIAN…, in v 13.> HH: DI hHN AITIAN in verse 13 refers back to the quotation in verse 12, and the fact that the Cretans are this way.> Could we take AUTOUS in V 13 to refer back to the PRESBUTEROUS> > to be appointed per v 5-9? Does the greek text point, in any way, > > to what Paul has in view without resorting to exegesis.> HH: Of course, AUTOUS would include any elders that Titus would appoint, but he was to reprove the whole church.Yours,Harold Holmyard
[] Titus 1:10-13[] Death by categories
[] Titus 1:10-13 rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Mon Mar 9 20:04:13 EDT 2009
[] commas and periods in the original text [] Titus 1:10-16 I have placed additional comments after HH comments.? AOL seems to be double-spacing my messages as well as inserting question marks everywhere.? If someone knows why, please talk to me about it.? Another thing.? The lines wrap in this paragraph but below, when I comment after HH, line wrapping does not occur.? I just upgraded to OS10.4.11 and maybe that has something to do with it.Roger HutchinsonDate: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:34:48 -0600From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>Subject: Re: [] Titus 1:10-13To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Message-ID: <49AEF3F8.2050007 at earthlink.net>Roger,> I wonder if ELEGCE in v 13 may be taken in the positive sense (perhaps > in the sense of warn)and refer back to v 5 and those who are to be > ordained as PRESBUTEROUS. HH: ELEGCE is not a positive word here. it is due to the fact that Cretans are liars, evil beasts, and lazy bellies. Therefore Titus is to reprove them severely. The word AUTOUS in verse 13 clearly refers back to AUTWN in verse 12, whose reference is to the Cretans. The pronoun precedes its referent.RH: I agree that AUTOUS in verse 13 clearly refers back to AUTWN inverse 12 but this seems to refer back to v10 and the ANUPOTAKTOI (whoare probably Cretans) but the focus seems to be on those whom Paulhas directed our attention in v10. Paul seems to be telling Titus torebuke the ANUPOTAKTOI. If Paul now means to direct the reader’s attention to the Cretans, he has lost me in the argument he has crafted.> Following the instructions for appointing the PRESBUTEROUS, Paul > begins v 10 with, EISIN GAR POLLOI ANUPOTAKTOI…, from which he > then concludes, DI hHN AITIAN…, in v 13. HH: DI hHN AITIAN in verse 13 refers back to the quotation in verse 12, and the fact that the Cretans are this way.RH: DI hHN AITIAN refers immediately back to hH MARTURIA and then to something. If DI hHN AITIAN refers back to the description of the Cretans,Why should we care? How does that fit into the argument that Paul beginsin v10? Is it possible that hH MARTURIA refers back to that which Paulhas said in v10-12 with v12 being and example of that which he describes in v10-11?> Could we take AUTOUS in V 13 to refer back to the PRESBUTEROUS> to be appointed per v 5-9? Does the greek text point, in any way, > to what Paul has in view without resorting to exegesis. HH: Of course, AUTOUS would include any elders that Titus would appoint, but he was to reprove the whole church.RH: Because of a seeming (to me) slander by one of the ANUPOTAKTOI who aresubverting whole houses for financial gain? Are we to believe that thereis not even one Cretan who is not a liar, evil beast, and lazy belly. That description seems to be somewhat extreme but consistent with thatwhich the ANUPOTAKTOI might be saying and not necessarily true.
[] commas and periods in the original text[] Titus 1:10-16
[] Titus 1:10-16 rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Mon Mar 9 20:10:17 EDT 2009
[] Titus 1:10-13 [] Titus 1:10-16 Do we read Titus 1:10-16 as a continuous whole so that we understand Paul to say, “10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:…They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.”Or does Paul end one chain of thought at the end of v14 and begin a new thought with v 15?Roger Hutchinson
[] Titus 1:10-13[] Titus 1:10-16
[] Titus 1:10-16 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Mar 9 20:32:54 EDT 2009
[] Titus 1:10-16 [] Mark1:11 On Mar 9, 2009, at 8:10 PM, rhutchin at aol.com wrote:> Do we read Titus 1:10-16 as a continuous whole so that we understand > Paul to say, “10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and > deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:…They profess that > they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and > disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.”> > Or does Paul end one chain of thought at the end of v14 and begin a > new thought with v 15?> > Roger HutchinsonIs this a question about the Greek text?Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Ret)
[] Titus 1:10-16[] Mark1:11