Titus 1:6

πιστοσ in Titus 1:6 David McKay music at fl.net.au
Sat Sep 18 16:46:20 εδτ 1999

 

Footnote of λχχ Genesis 6:2 [Synoptic-λ] Re: Synoptic Concordance? What do you think τεκνα εξων πιστα means in Titus 1:6?Most translations render this something like ‘having children who believe’though a small number, like the κψβ translate ‘having faithful children.’Do you think there are any clues to its interpretation, or is it ambiguous?David McKaymusic at fl.net.au

Footnote of λχχ Genesis 6:2[Synoptic-λ] Re: Synoptic Concordance?

πιστοσ in Titus 1:6 Carlton Winbery winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net
Sat Sep 18 22:43:04 εδτ 1999

Footnote of λχχ Genesis 6:2 δε David McKay wrote;>What do you think τεκνα εξων πιστα means in Titus 1:6?>Most translations render this something like ‘having children who believe’>though a small number, like the κψβ translate ‘having faithful children.’> >Do you think there are any clues to its interpretation, or is it ambiguous?> The adjective πιστοσ can have an active meaning “trusting” or “believing”or a passive meaning “trustworthy” or “faithful.” It can also be usedadverbially, “in a trustworthy manner.” The adverbial use is out in thiscontext. ι am not sure that we could rule either of the other options out.In the list of qualifications either meaning could be significant. It maybe that the writer is thinking that the children of a leader should be bothtrusting and trustworthy.Dr. Carlton λ. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at andria.lacollege.eduwinberyc at popalex1.linknet.netPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

Footnote of λχχ Genesis 6:2DE

Titus 1:6 and Children Paul, Doug Doug.Paul at GDC4S.Com
Mon Jan 14 12:27:02 εστ 2002

1st John 4:13 λατιν ανδ γρεεκ συμμερ σχοολ 2002 In Titus 1:6 are found some of the qualifications for being an elder. Itsays:ει τισ εστιν ανεγκλητοσ μιασ γυναικοσ ανηρ τεκνα εξων πιστα μη εν καθγοριαασωτιασ η ανυποτακτα.The phrase τεκνα εξων πιστα has been translated to mean “children that arebelievers”. Since πιστα is the adjective πιστοσ could the translation mean”children that are trustworthy”?Thanks.______________________________________________Doug Paul doug.paul at GDC4S.com______________________________________________

1st John 4:13LATIN ανδ γρεεκ συμμερ σχοολ 2002

Titus 1:6 and Children Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jan 14 14:01:58 εστ 2002

λατιν ανδ γρεεκ συμμερ σχοολ 2002 νιπτω At 12:27 πμ -0500 1/14/02, Paul, Doug wrote:>In Titus 1:6 are found some of the qualifications for being an elder. It>says:> >ει τισ εστιν ανεγκλητοσ μιασ γυναικοσ ανηρ τεκνα εξων πιστα μη εν καθγορια>ασωτιασ η ανυποτακτα.> >The phrase τεκνα εξων πιστα has been translated to mean “children that are>believers”. Since πιστα is the adjective πιστοσ could the translation mean>“children that are trustworthy”?Yes; actually there’s a whole range of possible senses, including”faithful, trustworthy, believing (in Christian doctrine), etc.The little glossary by β.Newman accompanying the UBS4 offers this range:πιστοσ, η. ον faithful, trustworthy, reliable; believing (often believer,Christian; hO εκ περιτομησ. Jewish Christian Ac 10:45); sure, true,unfailing (τα π. sure promises or blessings Ac 13:34).– Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu ορ cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

λατιν ανδ γρεεκ συμμερ σχοολ 2002NIPTW

Titus 1:6 and Children Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Jan 15 02:46:50 εστ 2002

νιπτω νιπτω > > In Titus 1:6 are found some of the qualifications for being an elder. It> says:> > ει τισ εστιν ανεγκλητοσ μιασ γυναικοσ ανηρ τεκνα εξων πιστα μη εν> καθγορια ασωτιασ η ανυποτακτα.> > The phrase τεκνα εξων πιστα has been translated to mean “children that are> believers”. Since πιστα is the adjective πιστοσ could the> translation mean “children that are trustworthy”?Dear Doug,ι understand you to imply that “believers” is a somewhat misleadingtranslation in this context, and ι think you are right. If one thinks ofbelief as a personal, inner conviction, then the parents cannot control theconvictions of their children, although they can do much to lead themtowards faith, mainly by their example, less by their preaching. What Paulis looking for is probably the fact that you can learn a lot about parentsby looking at the behaviour of their children.In the somewhat parallel passage in 1 Tim 3:4, Paul says:τεκνα εξοντα εν hUPOTAGHiSince πιστοσ can mean both trusting and trustworthy, reliable, faithful,truthful, it makes more sense to me to understand Titus 1:6 together with 1Tim 3:4 to refer to children being non-rebellious, trusting and trustworthy.Thanks for bringing it up,Iver Larsen

νιπτωνιπτω

Titus 1:6 and Children Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Tue Jan 15 21:28:49 εστ 2002

νιπτω Romans One: Verses 3 and 4 In a message dated 1/15/2002 2:46:02 αμ Eastern Standard Time, iver_larsen at sil.org writes:> >> > In Titus 1:6 are found some of the qualifications for being an elder. It> > says:> >> > ει τισ εστιν ανεγκλητοσ μιασ γυναικοσ ανηρ τεκνα εξων πιστα μη εν> > καθγορια ασωτιασ η ανυποτακτα.> >> > The phrase τεκνα εξων πιστα has been translated to mean “children that > are> > believers”. Since πιστα is the adjective πιστοσ could the> > translation mean “children that are trustworthy”?> > Dear Doug,> > ι understand you to imply that “believers” is a somewhat misleading> translation in this context, and ι think you are right. If one thinks of> belief as a personal, inner conviction, then the parents cannot control the> convictions of their children, although they can do much to lead them> towards faith, mainly by their example, less by their preaching. What Paul> is looking for is probably the fact that you can learn a lot about parents> by looking at the behaviour of their children.> > One does not need to consider the “children” as being literally the flesh and blood decendents of the parent. The term “father” and “child” were used of the relationship between a teacher and his disciples. This may be the case here. Frederick Weidmann ( _Polycarp and John_, Notre Dame, ιν: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999), pp 84-92, makes precisely this point noting 1 Tim. 1.2 and Tit. 1.4 in this regard. The requirement then becomes: What about his pupils? gfsomsel

NIPTWRomans One: Verses 3 and 4

Titus 1:6 and Children Bryant ψ. Williams ιιι bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Wed Jan 16 11:55:16 εστ 2002

νιπτω: Thread ξλοσεδ πυριζω?? Dear Polycarp66:α straight forward reading of the context indicate that “father and child”are referring to a familial relationship, not one based on a “spiritual”relationship. The use of the ITm 1:4 and Tit 1:4 to mean other than a”normal” relationship of father and child is an attempt to justify celibacyof the priesthood which is not supported by any text.En Xpistw,Rev. Bryant ψ. Williams ιιι—– Original Message —–From: <Polycarp66 at aol.com>To: “Biblical Greek” < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 6:28 PMSubject: [] ρε: Titus 1:6 and Children> In a message dated 1/15/2002 2:46:02 αμ Eastern Standard Time,> iver_larsen at sil.org writes:> > > > >> > > In Titus 1:6 are found some of the qualifications for being an elder.It> > > says:> > >> > &gt; ει τισ εστιν ανεγκλητοσ μιασ γυναικοσ ανηρ τεκνα εξων πιστα μη εν> > &gt; καθγορια ασωτιασ η ανυποτακτα.> > >> > > The phrase τεκνα εξων πιστα has been translated to mean “children that> > are> > > believers”. Since πιστα is the adjective πιστοσ could the> > > translation mean “children that are trustworthy”?> >> > Dear Doug,> >> &gt; ι understand you to imply that “believers” is a somewhat misleading> > translation in this context, and ι think you are right. If one thinks of> > belief as a personal, inner conviction, then the parents cannot controlthe> > convictions of their children, although they can do much to lead them> > towards faith, mainly by their example, less by their preaching. WhatPaul> > is looking for is probably the fact that you can learn a lot aboutparents> > by looking at the behaviour of their children.> >> >> > One does not need to consider the “children” as being literally the fleshand> blood decendents of the parent. The term “father” and “child” were usedof> the relationship between a teacher and his disciples. This may be thecase> here. Frederick Weidmann ( _Polycarp and John_, Notre Dame, ιν:University> of Notre Dame Press, 1999), pp 84-92, makes precisely this point noting1> Tim. 1.2 and Tit. 1.4 in this regard. The requirement then becomes: What> about his pupils?> > gfsomsel> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [bjwvmw at com-pair.net]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> &gt;

νιπτω: Thread ξλοσεδπυριζω??

Wed Jan 16 17:30:58 εστ 2002

hOMIWS 1Pt 3:1 particula transeundi? Titus 1:6 and Children In a message dated 1/16/2002 11:50:50 αμ Eastern Standard Time, bjwvmw at com-pair.net writes:α straight forward reading of the context indicate that “father and child”are referring to a familial relationship, not one based on a “spiritual”relationship. The use of the ITm 1:4 and Tit 1:4 to mean other than a”normal” relationship of father and child is an attempt to justify celibacyof the priesthood which is not supported by any text.Au contraire, Pierre. It has nothing to do with celibacy. The relationship between a philosopher or other teacher was that of a father to his pupil (“child”). This says nothing about celibacy. Moreover, personally ι don’t believe in celibacy. “It is not good that man should be alone.”gfsomsel

hOMIWS 1Pt 3:1 particula transeundi?Titus 1:6 and Children

Titus 1:6 and Children Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Thu Jan 17 06:15:54 εστ 2002

Titus 1:6 and Children Titus 1:6 and Children On Tuesday, January 15, 2002, at 08:28 πμ, Polycarp66 at aol.com wrote:> In a message dated 1/15/2002 2:46:02 αμ Eastern Standard Time,> iver_larsen at sil.org writes:> > >>> >>> In Titus 1:6 are found some of the qualifications for being an >>> elder. It>>> says:>>> >>> ει τισ εστιν ανεγκλητοσ μιασ γυναικοσ ανηρ τεκνα εξων πιστα μη εν>>> καθγορια ασωτιασ η ανυποτακτα.>>> >>> The phrase τεκνα εξων πιστα has been translated to mean “children that>> are>>> believers”. Since πιστα is the adjective πιστοσ could the>>> translation mean “children that are trustworthy”?>> >> Dear Doug,>> >> ι understand you to imply that “believers” is a somewhat misleading>> translation in this context, and ι think you are right. If one thinks >> of>> belief as a personal, inner conviction, then the parents cannot >> control the>> convictions of their children, although they can do much to lead them>> towards faith, mainly by their example, less by their preaching. What >> Paul>> is looking for is probably the fact that you can learn a lot about >> parents>> by looking at the behaviour of their children.>> >> > > One does not need to consider the “children” as being literally the > flesh and> blood decendents of the parent. The term “father” and “child” were > used of> the relationship between a teacher and his disciples. This may be the > case> here. Frederick Weidmann ( _Polycarp and John_, Notre Dame, ιν: > University> of Notre Dame Press, 1999), pp 84-92, makes precisely this point > noting 1> Tim. 1.2 and Tit. 1.4 in this regard. The requirement then becomes: > What> about his pupils?Well, that opens up possibilities ι have never before considered. This must indicate that the injunction about having “one wife” (μιασ γυναικοσ) in Tit 1.6 means the teacher was allowed only one research assistant?==========Steven Lo VulloMadison, ωι

Titus 1:6 and ChildrenTitus 1:6 and Children

Thu Jan 17 06:51:44 εστ 2002

Titus 1:6 and Children Titus 1:6 and Children On Thursday, January 17, 2002, at 05:43 αμ, Polycarp66 at aol.com wrote:> In a message dated 1/17/2002 6:16:39 αμ Eastern Standard Time, > doulos at merr.com writes:> > > > Well, that opens up possibilities ι have never before considered. This> must indicate that the injunction about having “one wife” (μιασ> γυναικοσ) in Tit 1.6 means the teacher was allowed only one research> assistant?> > _____________________________________________> > If you wish.  ι think though that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.Yes, and sometimes τεκνα are just τεκνα.==========Steven Lo VulloMadison, ωι

Titus 1:6 and Children Jonathan Burke jburke at sprint.com.au
Thu Jan 17 06:56:54 εστ 2002

Titus 1:6 and Children Titus 1:6 and Children: ενουγη? This was a good point:> If you wish. ι think though that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.> And so was this:> Yes, and sometimes τεκνα are just τεκνα.> Perhaps sometimes ‘feet’ are just ‘feet’? ;)Jonathan Burke.

Titus 1:6 and ChildrenTitus 1:6 and Children: ενουγη?

Titus 1:6 and Children: ενουγη? Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jan 17 08:07:40 εστ 2002

Titus 1:6 and Children Civil Discourse Unless something substantive can be adduced regarding the question underconsideration, let’s call a halt, please, to this silly little game of”‘Tis so!” “No, ’tisn’t!”– Carl ω. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington Universitycwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu ορ cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Titus 1:6 and ChildrenCivil Discourse

Titus 1:6 OTEROFAMILY4 at aol.com OTEROFAMILY4 at aol.com
Mon Aug 5 21:01:26 εδτ 2002

Romans 1:17 Titus 1:6 Dear List, Ti 1:6 : ει τισ εστιν ανεγκλητοσ μιασ γυναικοσ ανηρ τεκνα εξων πιστα μη εν καθγορια ασωτιασ η ανυποτακτα ι‘m trying to determine if the phrase “μη εν καθγορια ασωτιασ η ανυποτακτα” refers to the τεκνα or to the τισ/church leader. Virtually every translation refers it to the children, or simply inserts an ambiguous comma without explicit reference. The νασβ seems to be the only one connecting it to the leader.However, it seems to me that for a number of reasons it should refer to the leader:1. Grammatically, ι would expect to see a relative connecting it to the children (in fact, some older translations add a relative). The author doesn’t seem to be opposed to using relatives (cf. 1:10,11,κτλ)2. The general “style” of vv. 6-11 seems to be one of short, non hypotactic clauses (except for v. 11, which has 3 relatives)3. β. 6 seems to be a sort of self contained unit describing the arch-characteristic of ανεγκλητοσ. The next phrases seem to expound on this characteristic by relating to a) wife, b) children, and then c) self – the whole household in effect (ι know this touches on hermeneutics/ exegesis, but it bears somewhat on the passage).Any suggestions are appreciated (especially in regards to linguistic analyses)Esteban OteroTampa, φλ

Romans 1:17Titus 1:6

Titus 1:6 lance w seevers lws39 at juno.com
Mon Aug 5 21:25:29 εδτ 2002

Titus 1:6 2 Cor. 3:14 It was my understanding that τεκνα, πιστα and ανυποτακτα agreed with oneanother.Walt SeeversOn Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:01:26 εδτ OTEROFAMILY4 at aol.com writes:> Dear List, > > Ti 1:6 : ει τισ εστιν ανεγκλητοσ μιασ γυναικοσ ανηρ τεκνα εξων πιστα > μη εν > καθγορια ασωτιασ η ανυποτακτα> > ι‘m trying to determine if the phrase “μη εν καθγορια ασωτιασ η > ανυποτακτα” > refers to the τεκνα or to the τισ/church leader. Virtually every > translation > refers it to the children, or simply inserts an ambiguous comma > without > explicit reference. The νασβ seems to be the only one connecting it > to the > leader.> However, it seems to me that for a number of reasons it should refer > to the > leader:> 1. Grammatically, ι would expect to see a relative connecting it to > the > children (in fact, some older translations add a relative). The > author > doesn’t seem to be opposed to using relatives (cf. 1:10,11,κτλ)> > 2. The general “style” of vv. 6-11 seems to be one of short, non > hypotactic > clauses (except for v. 11, which has 3 relatives)> > 3. β. 6 seems to be a sort of self contained unit describing the > arch-characteristic of ανεγκλητοσ. The next phrases seem to expound > on this > characteristic by relating to a) wife, b) children, and then c) self > – the > whole household in effect (ι know this touches on hermeneutics/ > exegesis, > but it bears somewhat on the passage).> > Any suggestions are appreciated (especially in regards to linguistic > > analyses)> > Esteban Otero> Tampa, φλ > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [lws39 at juno.com]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to > $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to > subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > ________________________________________________________________GET ιντερνετ αξξεσσ φρομ ψυνο!Juno offers φρεε or πρεμιυμ Internet access for less!Join Juno today! For your φρεε software, visit:http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

Titus 1:62 Cor. 3:14

Titus 1:6 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Mon Aug 5 21:59:09 εδτ 2002

2 Cor. 3:14 Rom. 1:17 In a message dated 8/5/02 8:24:53 πμ, lws39 at juno.com writes:>It was my understanding that τεκνα, πιστα and ανυποτακτα agreed with one>another.>Walt Seevers>On Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:01:26 εδτ OTEROFAMILY4 at aol.com writes:>> Dear List, >> >> Ti 1:6 : ει τισ εστιν ανεγκλητοσ μιασ γυναικοσ ανηρ τεκνα εξων πιστα> >> μη εν >> καθγορια ασωτιασ η ανυποτακτα>> >> ι‘m trying to determine if the phrase “μη εν καθγορια ασωτιασ η >> ανυποτακτα” >> refers to the τεκνα or to the τισ/church leader. Virtually every >> translation >> refers it to the children, or simply inserts an ambiguous comma >> without >> explicit reference. The νασβ seems to be the only one connecting it >> to the >> leader.>> However, it seems to me that for a number of reasons it should refer> >> to the >> leader:>> 1. Grammatically, ι would expect to see a relative connecting it to >> the >> children (in fact, some older translations add a relative). The >> author >> doesn’t seem to be opposed to using relatives (cf. 1:10,11,κτλ)>> >> 2. The general “style” of vv. 6-11 seems to be one of short, non >> hypotactic >> clauses (except for v. 11, which has 3 relatives)>> >> 3. β. 6 seems to be a sort of self contained unit describing the >> arch-characteristic of ανεγκλητοσ. The next phrases seem to expound >> on this >> characteristic by relating to a) wife, b) children, and then c) self> >> – the >> whole household in effect (ι know this touches on hermeneutics/ >> exegesis, >> but it bears somewhat on the passage).>> >> Any suggestions are appreciated (especially in regards to linguistic> >> >> analyses)>> >> Esteban Otero>> Tampa, φλ >> ει τισ εστιν ανεγκλητοσ, μιασ γυναικοσ ανηρ, τεκνα εξων πιστα, μη εν KATHGORIAi ασωτιασ η ανυποτακτα.As Walt Seevers has pointed out the noun and two adjectives ending in α all agree in case gender and number, thus the two adjectives modify τεκνα. The μη . . . η . . . link the last adjective with the phrase εν KATHGORIAi ασωτιασ so it also must modify τεκνα. εξων the participle agrees with τισ in case gender and number and thus modifies the subject of the sentence. Hence “If there is anyone who has faithful children (who are) not under accusation of wantonness nor unruly.” Then we must assume that these are candidates for the rolls of Elders.Carlton WinberyLouisiana College

2 Cor. 3:14Rom. 1:17

Titus 1:6 Richard Allan Stauch rstauch at charter.net
Tue Aug 6 21:53:11 εδτ 2002

Romans 1:17 ιοκοβοσ to ψαμεσ > Ti 1:6 : ει τισ εστιν ανεγκλητοσ μιασ γυναικοσ ανηρ τεκνα εξων πιστα μη εν> καθγορια ασωτιασ η ανυποτακτα> > ι‘m trying to determine if the phrase “μη εν καθγορια ασωτιασ η> ανυποτακτα” refers to the τεκνα or to the τισ/church leader.> [snip]> Esteban Otero> Tampa, φλEsteban,It seems to me that the question is moot, since both could easily beexpected to be “not reportedly reckless or uncontrolled” (to use my owntranslation). ι might agree with you as a question of interpretation (itis “any man” who is to be tested for office), but as far as that goes itcould also be the “children”. Technically, children are by their verynature “reckless or uncontrolled.” They have to be taught to beself-controlled. But that is the whole question for considering someonefor ministry: Can they teach others to control themselves?It is an unfortunate fact of life that the original autographs are lost tous, and the earliest manuscripts (in this case π. Rylands 5, aka P32,which does not include this verse) lacked the punctuation we might use tohelp the reader determine the original intent.On balance, though, ι would go with the adult being considered forministry: The adult should “not [be] reportedly reckless or uncontrolled.”If they are “reckless or uncontrolled,” even “reportedly,” then they willbring disgrace upon the Church by being in a place of importance, ανδ (ifactually so) they will not likely be any good in that position, anyway.Well, that’s my story, and ι‘m sticking to it,Richard Allan StauchLong Beach, ξα

Romans 1:17IOKOBOS to ψαμεσ

Titus 1:6 Dan and Rachel King dan_rach at ntlworld.com
Wed Aug 7 12:09:59 εδτ 2002

Sentences in Greek Sentences in Greek Isn’t there just an (imaginary) οντα after ασωτιασ giving us 3 things thatthe children must be: a) πιστα, b)μη εν καθγορια ασωτιασ (οντα), c)μηανυποτακτα.These are neut.plur. and can only refer to the children…Dan King—– Original Message —–From: “Richard Allan Stauch” <rstauch at charter.net>To: “Biblical Greek” < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 2:53 AMSubject: [] Re: Titus 1:6> > Ti 1:6 : ει τισ εστιν ανεγκλητοσ μιασ γυναικοσ ανηρ τεκνα εξων πιστα μηεν> &gt; καθγορια ασωτιασ η ανυποτακτα> >> &gt; ι‘m trying to determine if the phrase “μη εν καθγορια ασωτιασ η> &gt; ανυποτακτα” refers to the τεκνα or to the τισ/church leader.> > [snip]> > Esteban Otero> > Tampa, φλ> > Esteban,> > It seems to me that the question is moot, since both could easily be> expected to be “not reportedly reckless or uncontrolled” (to use my own> translation). ι might agree with you as a question of interpretation (it> is “any man” who is to be tested for office), but as far as that goes it> could also be the “children”. Technically, children are by their very> nature “reckless or uncontrolled.” They have to be taught to be> self-controlled. But that is the whole question for considering someone> for ministry: Can they teach others to control themselves?> > It is an unfortunate fact of life that the original autographs are lost to> us, and the earliest manuscripts (in this case π. Rylands 5, aka P32,> which does not include this verse) lacked the punctuation we might use to> help the reader determine the original intent.> > On balance, though, ι would go with the adult being considered for> ministry: The adult should “not [be] reportedly reckless or uncontrolled.”> If they are “reckless or uncontrolled,” even “reportedly,” then they will> bring disgrace upon the Church by being in a place of importance, ανδ (if> actually so) they will not likely be any good in that position, anyway.> > Well, that’s my story, and ι‘m sticking to it,> Richard Allan Stauch> Long Beach, ξα> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [dan_rach at ntlworld.com]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >

Sentences in GreekSentences in Greek

Titus 1:6 Braulio Barillas parakal at quetzal.net
Wed Aug 21 22:52:36 εδτ 2002

Less than Greek 101… identifying sentences —–Mensaje original—–De: OTEROFAMILY4 at aol.com [mailto:OTEROFAMILY4 at aol.com]Enviado el: Lunes, 05 de Agosto de 2002 07:01 p.m.Para: Biblical GreekAsunto: [] Titus 1:6Ti 1:6 : ει τισ εστιν ανεγκλητοσ μιασ γυναικοσ ανηρ τεκνα εξων πιστα μη ενκαθγορια ασωτιασ η ανυποτακτα ι‘m trying to determine if the phrase “μη εν καθγορια ασωτιασ ηανυποτακτα“refers to the τεκνα or to the τισ/church leader. Virtually every translationrefers it to the children, or simply inserts an ambiguous comma withoutexplicit reference. The νασβ seems to be the only one connecting it to theleader.However, it seems to me that for a number of reasons it should refer to theleader:1. Grammatically, ι would expect to see a relative connecting it to thechildren (in fact, some older translations add a relative). The authordoesn’t seem to be opposed to using relatives (cf. 1:10,11,κτλ)2. The general “style” of vv. 6-11 seems to be one of short, non hypotacticclauses (except for v. 11, which has 3 relatives)3. β. 6 seems to be a sort of self contained unit describing thearch-characteristic of ανεγκλητοσ. The next phrases seem to expound on thischaracteristic by relating to a) wife, b) children, and then c) self – thewhole household in effect (ι know this touches on hermeneutics/ exegesis,but it bears somewhat on the passage).Any suggestions are appreciated (especially in regards to linguisticanalyses)—–Mensaje original—–De: Clwinbery at aol.com [mailto:Clwinbery at aol.com]Enviado el: Lunes, 05 de Agosto de 2002 07:59 p.m.Para: Biblical GreekAsunto: [] Re: Titus 1:6As Walt Seevers has pointed out the noun and two adjectives ending in α allagree in case gender and number, thus the two adjectives modify τεκνα. TheMH. . . η . . . link the last adjective with the phrase εν KATHGORIAi ASWTIASso it also must modify τεκνα. εξων the participle agrees with τισ in casegender and number and thus modifies the subject of the sentence. Hence “Ifthere is anyone who has faithful children (who are) not under accusation ofwantonness nor unruly.” Then we must assume that these are candidates forthe rolls of Elders.Carlton WinberyLouisiana CollegeHola amigos,les saluda Braulio Barillas; me parecio que esta respuesta deCarlton es muy acertada. Deseo agregar un asunto mas que me pareceimportante senalar.Conviene recordar que en toda traduccion existe el problema de la nocorrespondencia entre las lenguas, y este es un caso tipico. Tito 1:6 tieneuna limitacion de caracter linguistico que consiste en que el castellano notiene participio presente para traducir adecuadamente el participio εξων,por consiguiente no se puede traducir literalmente teniendo que acudir a unaconstruccion de relativo (el que tiene) En Ingles se puede usar el gerundioo participio (having)o tambien la oracion de relativo: anyone who has, or hewho has. La traduccion puede escribirse asi:(El candidato, τισ) que tiene hijos fieleshaving faithful childrenOtro caso similar esta en Mt. 28:19 en que πορευζεντεσ (participiopresente)se suele traducir en castellano con el imperativo por lainexistencia de un participio presente.Gracias por su atencion los saludaBraulio Barillasparakal at quetzal.netGuatemala City Centro America

Less than Greek 101…identifying sentences

Titus 1:6 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Thu Aug 22 04:38:45 εδτ 2002

identifying sentences Smyth’s grammar In a message dated 8/21/2002 10:51:41 πμ Eastern Daylight Time, parakal at quetzal.net writes:Hola amigos,les saluda Braulio Barillas; me parecio que esta respuesta deCarlton es muy acertada. Deseo agregar un asunto mas que me pareceimportante senalar.Conviene recordar que en toda traduccion existe el problema de la nocorrespondencia entre las lenguas, y este es un caso tipico. Tito 1:6 tieneuna limitacion de caracter linguistico que consiste en que el castellano notiene participio presente para traducir adecuadamente el participio εξων,por consiguiente no se puede traducir literalmente teniendo que acudir a unaconstruccion de relativo (el que tiene) En Ingles se puede usar el gerundioo participio (having)o tambien la oracion de relativo: anyone who has, or hewho has. La traduccion puede escribirse asi:(El candidato, τισ) que tiene hijos fieleshaving faithful childrenOtro caso similar esta en Mt. 28:19 en que πορευζεντεσ (participiopresente)se suele traducir en castellano con el imperativo por lainexistencia de un participio presente.Gracias por su atencion los saludaBraulio Barillas____________________________Hello friends, Braulio Barillas greets you, It seems to me that Carlton’ response is very correct. ι wish to add one more point which seems important to me to recognize.It is important to remember that in all translation there is the problem of lack of correspondence between the languages, and this is a typical case. Titus 1.6 has a linguistic limitation of character which is that in Spanish there is no present participle to adequately translate εξων, with the consequence that one cannot translate literally ‘teniendo’ so must resort to a relative construction (el que tiene). In English you may use the gerund or participle (having) as well as the relative clause: ‘anyone who has’ or ‘he who has.’ The translation would go thus:(The candidate, τισ) que tiene hijos fieleshaving faithful childrenAnother similar case is in Mt. 28:19 in which προευζεντεσ (present participle) is generally translated in Spanish with the imperative due to the lack of the present participle.Thanks for you consideration,Braulio Barillas______________________gfsomsel

identifying sentencesSmyth’s grammar

[] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what? Jeff Smelser jeffsmelser at ntgreek.net
Fri Sep 2 10:10:24 εδτ 2005

[] Mt 9:28a [] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what? Thanks, Harold, for the comment.Again, for any who may have forgotten the previous posts (after all, more than a week has passed), the phrase under consideration is μη εν KATHGORIAi ασωτιασ η ανυποτακτα (μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα, “not in accusation of profligacy or rebellious”).Now if ι am right in supposing that only the genitive noun ασωτιασ is to be connected with εν KATHGORIAi, the question might be asked why a mere accusation of profligacy with regard to the children would be disqualifying while only actual rebellion, and not merely an accusation of rebellion, would be disqualifying.Zerwick suggests the meaning of εν KATHGORIAi with a genitive is “not liable to a charge of.” That makes sense to me, and what ι want to suggest (and ι‘d like some feedback here, because ι‘m speculating with little sense of the usage of καθγορια other than what ι read in the discussions in βδαγ, λσψ, Moulton-Milligan, and the brief note by βüchsel in τδντ) is that the preposition εν might suggest more than a gratuitous accusation. The fact that one might be “in” accusation of something suggests the accusation has sufficient basis to stand (hence it might be said the accused is “liable” to the charge). If it were completely unmerited, it would have been dismissed and the person who had been accused could not rightly be said to remain “in accusation of” something. Now that’s really just speculation on my part regarding the significance of the preposition here, but it seems likely to me. Any thoughts?The practical upshot would be that Paul doesn’t mean to suggest that a mere (groundless) accusation regarding a man’s children is sufficient to disqualify him even with regard to profligacy. Both in terms of profligacy and rebelliousness, it would be the actual existence of the characteristic that would be disqualifying.My previous comments are below…Jeff Smelserwww.ntgreek.netwww.centrevillechurchofchrist.orgJeff Smelser wrote:> It seems to me some translations miss it in Titus 1:6, but ι‘d like to > run this by list members in the event ι‘m the one who is missing > something. The phrase in question is μη εν KATHGORIAi ασωτιασ η > ανυποτακτα (μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα, “not in accusation > of dissipation or rebellious”).> > Some translations (those that ι think miss it) take both ασωτιασ and > ανυποτακτα as being governed by εν KATHGORIAi. But ασωτιασ is a gen. > noun specifying the kind of accusation in view, while ανυποτακτα is an > adjective, neuter acc., agreeing with τεκνα. So then ι understand the > text to indicate that the children shouldn’t be accused of dissipation > and they shouldn’t be rebellious. That’s the meaning rather than “not > accused of dissipation or rebellion” (νασ), which construes ανυποτακτα > as a noun and suggests that the point is the children shouldn’t be > open to accusation of either dissipation or rebellion.> > Any thoughts?> > Jeff Smelser> www.ntgreek.net> www.centrevillechurchofchrist.org> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >

[] Mt 9:28a[] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what?

[] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what? Harold ρ. Holmyard ιιι hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Sep 2 12:10:48 εδτ 2005

[] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what? [] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what? Dear Jeff,>The practical upshot would be that Paul doesn’t mean to suggest that >a mere (groundless) accusation regarding a man’s children is >sufficient to disqualify him even with regard to profligacy. Both in >terms of profligacy and rebelliousness, it would be the actual >existence of the characteristic that would be disqualifying.ηη: Right, ι never assumed that it was a groundless accusation. α groundless accusation can be made against anybody. βαγδ translates καθγορια as “charge.” No charge of profligacy should be able to be brought against them.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what?[] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what?

[] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what? malcolm robertson mjriii2003 at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 2 14:01:15 εδτ 2005

[] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what? [] substantia(ousia) in Luke 15:13?? Dear Jeff, While ι too agree with Harold and your conclusion about εν KATAGORHi ασωτιασ η ανυποτακτα generally, ι still think the point of Paul’s placing this statement into his epistle is being overlooked or minimized. If the elder is unable to manage his own household then he is unqualified to manage the Church’s flock. He must abandon his pursuit of this office and devote his attention and efforts to his own family. In addition although Greek is an inflected landuage, word order still has it’s weight and sway. Since ανυποτακτα is separated by η plus not being in the dative makes it impossible to construe ανυποτακτα with εν. Cordially in Jesus, Malcolm Robertson________________________________-Jeff Smelser <jeffsmelser at ntgreek.net> wrote:Thanks, Harold, for the comment.Again, for any who may have forgotten the previous posts (after all, more than a week has passed), the phrase under consideration is μη εν KATHGORIAi ασωτιασ η ανυποτακτα (μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας á¼¢ ἀνÏπότακτα, “not in accusation of profligacy or rebellious”).Now if ι am right in supposing that only the genitive noun ασωτιασ is to be connected with εν KATHGORIAi, the question might be asked why a mere accusation of profligacy with regard to the children would be disqualifying while only actual rebellion, and not merely an accusation of rebellion, would be disqualifying.Zerwick suggests the meaning of εν KATHGORIAi with a genitive is “not liable to a charge of.” That makes sense to me, and what ι want to suggest (and ι‘d like some feedback here, because ι‘m speculating with little sense of the usage of καθγορια other than what ι read in the discussions in βδαγ, λσψ, Moulton-Milligan, and the brief note by βüchsel in τδντ) is that the preposition εν might suggest more than a gratuitous accusation. The fact that one might be “in” accusation of something suggests the accusation has sufficient basis to stand (hence it might be said the accused is “liable” to the charge). If it were completely unmerited, it would have been dismissed and the person who had been accused could not rightly be said to remain “in accusation of” something. Now that’s really just speculation on my part regarding the significance of the preposition here, but it seems likely to me. Any thoughts?The practical upshot would be that Paul doesn’t mean to suggest that a mere (groundless) accusation regarding a man’s children is sufficient to disqualify him even with regard to profligacy. Both in terms of profligacy and rebelliousness, it would be the actual existence of the characteristic that would be disqualifying.My previous comments are below…Jeff Smelserwww.ntgreek.netwww.centrevillechurchofchrist.orgJeff Smelser wrote:> It seems to me some translations miss it in Titus 1:6, but ι‘d like to > run this by list members in the event ι‘m the one who is missing > something. The phrase in question is μη εν KATHGORIAi ασωτιασ η > ανυποτακτα (μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας á¼¢ ἀνÏπότακτα, “not in accusation > of dissipation or rebellious”).> > Some translations (those that ι think miss it) take both ασωτιασ and > ανυποτακτα as being governed by εν KATHGORIAi. But ασωτιασ is a gen. > noun specifying the kind of accusation in view, while ανυποτακτα is an > adjective, neuter acc., agreeing with τεκνα. So then ι understand the > text to indicate that the children shouldn’t be accused of dissipation > and they shouldn’t be rebellious. That’s the meaning rather than “not > accused of dissipation or rebellion” (νασ), which construes ανυποτακτα > as a noun and suggests that the point is the children shouldn’t be > open to accusation of either dissipation or rebellion.> > Any thoughts?> > Jeff Smelser> www.ntgreek.net> www.centrevillechurchofchrist.org> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > — home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

[] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what?[] substantia(ousia) in Luke 15:13??

Fri Sep 2 16:17:44 εδτ 2005

[] substantia(ousia) in Luke 15:13?? [] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what? Thanks for the comments, Malcom. While your point about the overall thrust of Paul’s remark is certainly on target, what ι‘m really interested in at this point is the precise significance of εν KATHGORIAi (ἐν κατηγορίᾳ). Is it this construction in particular that warrants Zerwick’s notion of being liable to an accusation as opposed to being merely the target of an accusation?Looking at the uses cited in λσψ (at least those to which ι have access), ι don’t find another example of the preposition εν with KATHGORIAi. While Zerwick’s comment certainly seems to make sense in the context of Titus 1:5ff, ι‘d like to see a more compelling case made than the mere fact that it seems unfair to me for a man to be disqualified by any accusation at all against his children, with or without merit.What ι‘d really like to know is simply if anyone on the list can verify that when it is said someone was εν KATHGORIAi of something, did that indicate the καθγορια had some credibility, that a man who is said to be εν KATHGORIAi of something is more clearly indicated to be open to an accusation than a man who is merely said to have been the object of a καθγορια?To put it another way, we say someone “stands accused” of something. But we don’t generally say that if the consensus is that the accusation is baseless. The expression “stands accused” suggests the verdict remains an open question. What ι‘m wondering is if “εν KATHGORIAi of something” carried a similar import.Jeff Smelserwww.ntgreek.netwww.centrevillechurchofchrist.org

[] substantia(ousia) in Luke 15:13??[] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what?

[] Titus 1:6 α. ψ. Birch αψβιρχ at terra.es
Fri Sep 2 16:38:31 εδτ 2005

[] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what? [] Downloadable interlinear Greek-English, Kalos ι don’t know whether the use of εν with KATHGORIAi is significant or not, but (and ι can’t remember whether or not this has already been mentioned) the other three ‘appearances’ of καθγορια in the New Testament (Luke 6:7, John 18:29 and 1st Timothy 5:19) all seem to point to the idea of a φορμαλ accusation, as opposed to a περσοναλ, νον–οφφιξιαλ accusation. Is that supported by other literature?Andrew ψ. BirchPalma de Mallorca, Spain

[] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what?[] Downloadable interlinear Greek-English, Kalos

Tue Sep 6 10:45:47 εδτ 2005

[] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what? [] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what? To any interested,ι notice the νιβ has “open to the charge” for εν KATHGORIAi (ἐν κατηγορίᾳ).And for the sake of accurate sourcing, where ι had previously mentioned “Zerwick’s notion of being liable to an accusation as opposed to being merely the target of an accusation,” ι should have cited Mary Grosvenor. If ι understand the prefaces, Zerwick passed away before volume ιι of An Analysis of the Greek New Testament was completed, and Grosvenor, who had “translated, revised, and adapted” volume ι in collaboration with Zerwick, finished the 2nd volume.Jeff Smelserwww.ntgreek.netwww.centrevillechurchofchrist.org

Thu Sep 8 11:58:41 εδτ 2005

[] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what? [] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what? Dear Jeff, Your point is well posed. In light of the other occurences of καθγορια in the ντ (Jn 18:9; 1 Tim 5:19) it would appear that καθγορια is a general unbiased term that may or may not be groundless. The term βλασφημια is generally groundless – but not exclusively cf Jude 9 κρισιν …βλασφημιασ. ι think 1 Tim 5:19 requires some sort of reliable substantiated proof of any καθγορια. Zerwick may be pressing the point too far here grammatically – although the caution and care that is required to take necessary precautions to avoid any pitfalls that καθγορια might entail are wholesome examples of prudent Christian conduct. Paul may have had in mind what developed into a later semantic sense (in addition to the sense of accusation) when he used εν KATHGORIAi. This will have to be determined both by a synchronic and diachronic analysis of the use of the word. α search of Thesaurus linguae graecae (τλγ) produced a number of results for εν KATHGORIAi. ι have listed a few below. Demosthenes Orat. Pro Megalopolitanis sect. 19.3 εν καθγοριασ μερει ποιεισθαι Plato Phil. Phaedrus (Stephanus) pg 267 sect a line 2 εν KATHGORIAi τε και APOLOGIAi Julius Pollux Gramm. Onomasticon Bk 8 sect 66 line 7 εν KATHGORIAi φονου αξρι κρισεωσ Later writers and commentators use and understood καθγορια as *a category.* Hence such examples as εν KATHGORIAi τιθεται or ουδε τιθεται εν καθγορια ορθωσ. Joannes Chrysostomus wrote in Greek and produced comments on 1 Cor and Titus. You might profit from a perview there and how he understood Paul. Cordially in Jesus, Malcolm Robertson___________________________ Jeff Smelser <jeffsmelser at ntgreek.net> wrote:Thanks for the comments, Malcom. While your point about the overall thrust of Paul’s remark is certainly on target, what ι‘m really interested in at this point is the precise significance of εν KATHGORIAi (ἐν κατηγορίᾳ). Is it this construction in particular that warrants Zerwick’s notion of being liable to an accusation as opposed to being merely the target of an accusation?Looking at the uses cited in λσψ (at least those to which ι have access), ι don’t find another example of the preposition εν with KATHGORIAi. While Zerwick’s comment certainly seems to make sense in the context of Titus 1:5ff, ι‘d like to see a more compelling case made than the mere fact that it seems unfair to me for a man to be disqualified by any accusation at all against his children, with or without merit.What ι‘d really like to know is simply if anyone on the list can verify that when it is said someone was εν KATHGORIAi of something, did that indicate the καθγορια had some credibility, that a man who is said to be εν KATHGORIAi of something is more clearly indicated to be open to an accusation than a man who is merely said to have been the object of a καθγορια?To put it another way, we say someone “stands accused” of something. But we don’t generally say that if the consensus is that the accusation is baseless. The expression “stands accused” suggests the verdict remains an open question. What ι‘m wondering is if “εν KATHGORIAi of something” carried a similar import.Jeff Smelserwww.ntgreek.netwww.centrevillechurchofchrist.org— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/——————————— Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

Sat Sep 10 10:19:04 εδτ 2005

[] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what? [] Titus 1:6 Malcolm,You have understood my question exactly. Thanks for the references. ι‘m eager to have a look at them, but it will be a few days before ι‘ll have access to them. εν KATHGORIAi φονου αξρι κρισεωσ looks especially interesting.Jeff Smelsermalcolm robertson wrote:>Dear Jeff,> >Your point is well posed. In light of the other occurences of καθγορια in the ντ (Jn 18:9; 1 Tim 5:19) it would appear that καθγορια is a general unbiased term that may or may not be groundless. The term βλασφημια is generally groundless – but not exclusively cf Jude 9 κρισιν …βλασφημιασ.> >ι think 1 Tim 5:19 requires some sort of reliable substantiated proof of any καθγορια. Zerwick may be pressing the point too far here grammatically – although the caution and care that is required to take necessary precautions to avoid any pitfalls that καθγορια might entail are wholesome examples of prudent Christian conduct.> >Paul may have had in mind what developed into a later semantic sense (in addition to the sense of accusation) when he used εν KATHGORIAi. This will have to be determined both by a synchronic and diachronic analysis of the use of the word.> >α search of Thesaurus linguae graecae (τλγ) produced a number of results for εν KATHGORIAi. ι have listed a few below.> >Demosthenes Orat. Pro Megalopolitanis sect. 19.3> >εν καθγοριασ μερει ποιεισθαι> >Plato Phil. Phaedrus (Stephanus) pg 267 sect a line 2> >εν KATHGORIAi τε και APOLOGIAi> >Julius Pollux Gramm. Onomasticon Bk 8 sect 66 line 7> >εν KATHGORIAi φονου αξρι κρισεωσ> >Later writers and commentators use and understood καθγορια as *a category.* Hence such examples as εν KATHGORIAi τιθεται or ουδε τιθεται εν καθγορια ορθωσ.> >Joannes Chrysostomus wrote in Greek and produced comments on 1 Cor and Titus. You might profit from a perview there and how he understood Paul.> >Cordially in Jesus,> >Malcolm Robertson>___________________________> > >Jeff Smelser <jeffsmelser at ntgreek.net> wrote:>Thanks for the comments, Malcom. While your point about the overall >thrust of Paul’s remark is certainly on target, what ι‘m really >interested in at this point is the precise significance of εν KATHGORIAi >(ἐν κατηγορίᾳ). Is it this construction in particular that warrants >Zerwick’s notion of being liable to an accusation as opposed to being >merely the target of an accusation?> >Looking at the uses cited in λσψ (at least those to which ι have >access), ι don’t find another example of the preposition εν with >KATHGORIAi. While Zerwick’s comment certainly seems to make sense in the >context of Titus 1:5ff, ι‘d like to see a more compelling case made than >the mere fact that it seems unfair to me for a man to be disqualified by >any accusation at all against his children, with or without merit.> >What ι‘d really like to know is simply if anyone on the list can verify >that when it is said someone was εν KATHGORIAi of something, did that >indicate the καθγορια had some credibility, that a man who is said to >be εν KATHGORIAi of something is more clearly indicated to be open to an >accusation than a man who is merely said to have been the object of a >καθγορια?> >To put it another way, we say someone “stands accused” of something. But >we don’t generally say that if the consensus is that the accusation is >baseless. The expression “stands accused” suggests the verdict remains >an open question. What ι‘m wondering is if “εν KATHGORIAi of something” >carried a similar import.> >Jeff Smelser>www.ntgreek.net>www.centrevillechurchofchrist.org> >—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > > > >———————————> Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.>—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > >

[] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what?[] Titus 1:6

[bible passage=”Titus 1:6″]

What is the precise meaning of πιστα in Titus 1:6? Faithful, believing,
full of faith, trustworthy? Would you agree with the commentator below? Is this
an accurate conclusion based on ντ usage etc.?

Pistos is a verbal adjective that passively means
“trustworthy”, or “faithful” (as κψβ), and actively means to believe,
as rendered here. Some commentators believe that Paul is using only the
passive sense here and is simply referring to children who are
well behaved, who can be trusted to do what is right and are faithful to their
parents.

In the New Testament pistos is used
passively of God’s faithfulness (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 1:9; 10:13; 2 Cor. 1:18), of
Christ’s faithfulness (see e.g., 2 Thess.3:3; Heb. 2:17; 3:2), of the
faithfulness, or trustworthiness, of God’s words (see, e.g., Acts 13:34; 1 Tim.
1:15; 2 Tim. 2:11; Titus 1:9; 3:8). It is also used passively many times of
people in general. But it is significant that, except for this sometimes
disputed text (Titus 1:6), it always is used of people whom the context clearly
identifies as believers (see e.g., Matt. 25:21,23; Acts 16:15; 1 Cor. 4:2, 17;
Eph. 6:21; Col. 1:7; 4:7; Rev. 2:10, 13; 17:14). Unbelievers are never referred
to as faithful. That fact alone argues strongly for the rendering here of
children who believe, that is, who have placed their faith in
Jesus Christ. Even if the idea were that of faithfulness to parents, the use of
pistos in those other passages would argue for its referring to the
faithfulness of believing children.”

Thanks,

Mark Markham
Heidelberg, Germany