Re Titus 3:1

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at
Thu Nov 4 06:49:52 EST 1999

At 10:12 PM +0000 11/4/99, alexali wrote:
>The comments of Ronald Ross and Carl regarding Titus 3:1 in the digest I
>received today have been very interesting to me, in making me look again at
>a difficulty that in my reading of the passage I have glossed over.  The
>textual aspect of the question is not something I can comment on.  My query
>is whether it is necessary to take the ARCAIS as adjectival to yield the
>correct meaning (I am assuming that the meaning is not contentious, but
>rather the text and its construction)?  I can find such a sense of ARCH
>supported in the lexica no more than did Ronald.  I would find it easier to
>read a KAI between ARCAIS and EXOUSIAIS;  but if the text is taken without
>it, could not the EXOUSIAIS be taken as in apposition to ARCAIS, virtually
>epexegetical, the phrase thus yielding a sense tantamount to "ruling
>authorities"?  (I see nothing parallel in BDF; as Ronald mentioned, this
>questions the text, saying, "ARCAIS EXOUSIAS is dubious;  if this is
>correct, then because of the following asyndeton."  Other commentaries I
>have to hand seem to skirt around the matter - as indeed I normally would!
>Smyth 976ff discusses apposition with classical examples.)

I considered this possibility when asking, hypothetically, why the editors
did not choose to punctuate with a comma between the two words as they did
between the two infinitives, which appear also to be synonymous. I
certainly have no objection to understanding it as apposition (which would
fit my parallel also with the Latin phrase PATRES CONSCRIPTI).

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad at

More information about the B-Greek mailing list