[B-Greek] hOS in 1 Timothy 3:16

George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue May 13 22:43:14 EDT 2008


 
καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον·
ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί,
ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι,
ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις,
ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν,
ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ,
ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.
KAI hOMOLOGOUMENWS MEGA ESTIN TO THS EUSEBEIAS MUSTHRION:
hOS EFANERWQH EN EQNESIN,
EPISTEUQH EN KOSMWi,
ANELHMFQH EN DOCHi.
This is perfectly understandable as it stands.  Ὅς [hOS] functions as a demonstrative pronoun.
 
A.Demonstr. Pron., =οὗτος, ὅδε [hOUTOS, hODE], this, that; also, he, she, it:
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon. "With a revised supplement, 1996." (Rev. and augm. throughout) (1259). Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
It does not refer specifically to the preceding εὐσεβείας μυστήριον [EUSEBEIAS MUSTHRION], but rather to Christ who IS the εὐσεβείας μυστήριον [EUSEBEIAS MUSTHRION].  
 george
gfsomsel


… search for truth, hear truth, 
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, 
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________



----- Original Message ----
From: Jonathan Bailey <baileyjn at hotmail.com>
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org; brian_d_fink at hotmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 3:34:54 PM
Subject: [B-Greek] hOS in 1 Timothy 3:16

Hello all,

I was wondering if the famous, or infamous, hOS in the critical text of 1 Timothy 3:16 is thought to possibly be referring to the MYSTHRION EUSEBEIAS earlier in thhe verse, as a kind of pesonification.

I'm familiar with laxity of gender concord throughout the GNT, and particularly common in John or really anywhere where the PNEUMA HAGION is referred to as masculine. I do seem to remember, just from personal reading, that hOS is found in a number of places where hON and hH would be thought to be found. But I am wondering how common this kind of construction is in Paul.

I've heard the break in 1 Timothy 3:16 be interpreted as a point at which Paul breaks into a quotation where the referent for the relative particle is just missing because it was not quoted. Is this understanding common? Is it really necessary? It seems you either need to emend the text to the Byzantine QEOS or to hON as is found in some manuscripts, or you need to come up with something to explain the lack of concorde such as being quoted from a hymn, or you can make meaning out of the text as it stands. What's wrong with the final option? Can this text just make sense leaving it at hOS and assuming it refers to the MYSTHRION? Does Paul ever do this sort of thing elsewhere? (Still in Iraq, still don't have Bibleworks, still need help).

Regards,

Jon
_________________________________________________________________
Get Free (PRODUCT) RED™  Emoticons, Winks and Display Pics.
http://joinred.spaces.live.com?ocid=TXT_HMTG_prodredemoticons_052008
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek



      


More information about the B-Greek mailing list