Steven Avery
Administrator
https://www.facebook.com/groups/354...id=610612002370044&offset=0&total_comments=69
New Testament Greek Study
JA Goebel ·
This is perhaps more of a textual criticism question, nevertheless... How can 1 Timothy 3:16 in unicals be considered accurate in the use of "he who/which" when referring to someone who was manifested in the flesh...ie...a person is not a neuter "which"? ...ie...related to the common contraction of theos & the omission/addition of the stroke inside the Omicron, making it a Theta...doesn't context itself cry out for "God" instead of "who/which"? Is there any sound grammatical legitimacy to the popular position, despite its adherence perhaps overly influenced by scholarly peer pressure? I want honest opinions and not those that seem to be following the majority translation of "he who". Neuter comments anyone? Honest inquiry, no agenda.
===================================
Steven Avery
.
One of the difficulties in this topic is that those who do try to defend the Critical Text solecism use a variety pack of conflicting theories of grammatical explanation, so the discussions can be a bit like nailing jelly to a tree.
.
The hymn theory is often used today (since Hort rested his case on the hymn). It is attractive because it gives an ethereal antecedent, which can not be contested grammatically because it is unknown! The grammar is shifted outside the NT and Paul is said to have mish-a-moshed the hymn or liturgy or confession fragment with his own writing, creating an ungrammatical text. Yet there is not even a hint of this hymn being sung, not even centuries later. And it is far more likely that Paul's 60 AD writing, majestic, precise and rhythmic, would set the stage for any future hymn creation, than that Paul would take an ultra-early 50 AD source, without a hint of attribution, and mangle it grammatically into his epistle.
.
Sometimes it is claimed there is no special grammatical difficulty and far-fectched analogy verses are given, to claim the nominative subject is included in the relative pronoun. Sometimes a remote antecedent of Christ Jesus is claimed, or the Living God is claimed as the antecedent.
Constructio ad sensum is another, the mystery having supposedly been subject to masculinization (which makes no sense, look at 1 Timothy 3:9 and the Colossians verse.) This creates a sentence without a predicate (as Burgon pointed out about the ERV, and often this is discussed in the protasis/apodosis context, trying futilely to create a sensible sentence). As well as contextual / doctrinal difficulties. As well as claiming a resolution of the gender discord that really has no grammatical basis (Winer pointed out that constructio ad sensum applies to animate objects, living beings. Not two-step imbued concepts combined with intellectual doctrinal recognition through postcedent analysis.)
btw, Burgon was one of a number of writers who dealt with the deficiencies of the hymn theory attempt. And Burgon referred to the ὅς attempt as "so patent an absurdity .... a depravation of the text" and was, quite astutely, supported on the grammar by Frederick Field, who had been on the Revision committee.
.
The hymn theory for 1 Timothy 3:16 became popular shortly after Griesbach placed ὅς in his Greek New Testament. (Afaik, the first GNT or commentary support of the "who" text.)
.
=====
.
Gordon Donald Fee (b. 1934) even de facto acknowledged that the reason hymn theory became popular was because otherwise the CT is ungrammatical.
.
To what End Exegesis?: Essays Textual, Exegetical, and Theological
Philippians 2:5-11: Hymn or Exalted Pauline Prose? (2001, originally 1992)
Gordon D. Fee
http://books.google.com/books?id=b3rAGJa6Nm8C&pg=PA175
.
1 Tim. 3:16.... the connection of the ὅς to the rest of the sentence is ungrammatical, thus suggesting that it belonged to an original hymn (and should be translated with a "soft" antecedent, "he who").
.
=====
.
A number of modern writers point out the problem, e.g. Daniel Wallace said the text has "no real antecedent", Greek Grammer and the Personality of the Holy Spirit, p. 20 and goes right into hymn theory. Earlier Hort referred to the "apparent solecism", NT in the Original Greek, 1881, p133.. Murray J. Harris refers to "two grammatical difficulties" and "the lack of concord with μυστήριον and the absence of an explicit antecedent." Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, 2008, p. 267.
.
99% of the Greek mss support θεός, pointing to antiquity (2nd century or autographic earlier, by any sound genealogical theory.) This means all the variants were almost surely extant in the 2nd century (the common situation on major variants, per Scrivener) .. negating the "explains other variants" common textual criticism fallacy, which is based on not understanding the symmetry of transmission from distinct starting points, reaching a mid-point irrespective of which variant is authentic.
.
The ECW give abundant support, including Ante-Nicene references.
.
The grammar is part of the cake, and icing. It is a study that needs careful revisiting.
.
1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.
.
================================
.
"The fact that representative grammarians and critics who adopt it (ὅς) disagree in their mode of accounting for and explaining the construction is sufficient in itself to arouse doubts in the mind as to its genuineness."
Francis Tilney Bassett, An examination of some of the more important texts in the New Testament that relate to the deity ... 1883, p. 105.
.
Ironically, Bassett added his own redaction theory to the long list of previous attempts.
.
================================
.
Steven Avery
New Testament Greek Study
JA Goebel ·
This is perhaps more of a textual criticism question, nevertheless... How can 1 Timothy 3:16 in unicals be considered accurate in the use of "he who/which" when referring to someone who was manifested in the flesh...ie...a person is not a neuter "which"? ...ie...related to the common contraction of theos & the omission/addition of the stroke inside the Omicron, making it a Theta...doesn't context itself cry out for "God" instead of "who/which"? Is there any sound grammatical legitimacy to the popular position, despite its adherence perhaps overly influenced by scholarly peer pressure? I want honest opinions and not those that seem to be following the majority translation of "he who". Neuter comments anyone? Honest inquiry, no agenda.
===================================
Steven Avery
.
One of the difficulties in this topic is that those who do try to defend the Critical Text solecism use a variety pack of conflicting theories of grammatical explanation, so the discussions can be a bit like nailing jelly to a tree.
.
The hymn theory is often used today (since Hort rested his case on the hymn). It is attractive because it gives an ethereal antecedent, which can not be contested grammatically because it is unknown! The grammar is shifted outside the NT and Paul is said to have mish-a-moshed the hymn or liturgy or confession fragment with his own writing, creating an ungrammatical text. Yet there is not even a hint of this hymn being sung, not even centuries later. And it is far more likely that Paul's 60 AD writing, majestic, precise and rhythmic, would set the stage for any future hymn creation, than that Paul would take an ultra-early 50 AD source, without a hint of attribution, and mangle it grammatically into his epistle.
.
Sometimes it is claimed there is no special grammatical difficulty and far-fectched analogy verses are given, to claim the nominative subject is included in the relative pronoun. Sometimes a remote antecedent of Christ Jesus is claimed, or the Living God is claimed as the antecedent.
Constructio ad sensum is another, the mystery having supposedly been subject to masculinization (which makes no sense, look at 1 Timothy 3:9 and the Colossians verse.) This creates a sentence without a predicate (as Burgon pointed out about the ERV, and often this is discussed in the protasis/apodosis context, trying futilely to create a sensible sentence). As well as contextual / doctrinal difficulties. As well as claiming a resolution of the gender discord that really has no grammatical basis (Winer pointed out that constructio ad sensum applies to animate objects, living beings. Not two-step imbued concepts combined with intellectual doctrinal recognition through postcedent analysis.)
btw, Burgon was one of a number of writers who dealt with the deficiencies of the hymn theory attempt. And Burgon referred to the ὅς attempt as "so patent an absurdity .... a depravation of the text" and was, quite astutely, supported on the grammar by Frederick Field, who had been on the Revision committee.
.
The hymn theory for 1 Timothy 3:16 became popular shortly after Griesbach placed ὅς in his Greek New Testament. (Afaik, the first GNT or commentary support of the "who" text.)
.
=====
.
Gordon Donald Fee (b. 1934) even de facto acknowledged that the reason hymn theory became popular was because otherwise the CT is ungrammatical.
.
To what End Exegesis?: Essays Textual, Exegetical, and Theological
Philippians 2:5-11: Hymn or Exalted Pauline Prose? (2001, originally 1992)
Gordon D. Fee
http://books.google.com/books?id=b3rAGJa6Nm8C&pg=PA175
.
1 Tim. 3:16.... the connection of the ὅς to the rest of the sentence is ungrammatical, thus suggesting that it belonged to an original hymn (and should be translated with a "soft" antecedent, "he who").
.
=====
.
A number of modern writers point out the problem, e.g. Daniel Wallace said the text has "no real antecedent", Greek Grammer and the Personality of the Holy Spirit, p. 20 and goes right into hymn theory. Earlier Hort referred to the "apparent solecism", NT in the Original Greek, 1881, p133.. Murray J. Harris refers to "two grammatical difficulties" and "the lack of concord with μυστήριον and the absence of an explicit antecedent." Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, 2008, p. 267.
.
99% of the Greek mss support θεός, pointing to antiquity (2nd century or autographic earlier, by any sound genealogical theory.) This means all the variants were almost surely extant in the 2nd century (the common situation on major variants, per Scrivener) .. negating the "explains other variants" common textual criticism fallacy, which is based on not understanding the symmetry of transmission from distinct starting points, reaching a mid-point irrespective of which variant is authentic.
.
The ECW give abundant support, including Ante-Nicene references.
.
The grammar is part of the cake, and icing. It is a study that needs careful revisiting.
.
1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.
.
================================
.
"The fact that representative grammarians and critics who adopt it (ὅς) disagree in their mode of accounting for and explaining the construction is sufficient in itself to arouse doubts in the mind as to its genuineness."
Francis Tilney Bassett, An examination of some of the more important texts in the New Testament that relate to the deity ... 1883, p. 105.
.
Ironically, Bassett added his own redaction theory to the long list of previous attempts.
.
================================
.
Steven Avery