RE: 2 Peter 1:20

From: wross (wross@farmerstel.com)
Date: Thu Dec 10 1998 - 22:37:58 EST


{Bill}
>* shouldn't GINETAI be translated "is becoming", as opposed to "has come"?

{Alan}
GINETAI is apparently used here in a gnomic (or atemporal--I think Porter
and the aspecters would say) sense here. So not "prophecy is (now presently)
becoming..." but "prophecy (regularly) comes about (at whatever it does come
about)..." (To others [Carl?]: I wouldn't take GINOMAI here as a copula;
would you and why?)

{Bill}
Well, certainly "was" should be ruled out, no? The reference is definitely
not referring to the prophets of old doing the becoming or occurring in any
way. It is something contemporary that the prophecy (or rather, every
prophecy) is (not) doing. Every prophecy of Scripture is not becoming its
own de-knotter.

It seems that PASA without the article supports a reading of "Every", or
even "Every kind", rather than "All". I would have a hard time with a
reading of "All prophecy of Scripture is not becoming its own interpreter.",
but "Every prophecy is not becoming its own interpreter." compares well with
1 Corinthians 2:13 KJV:

"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth,
but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with
spiritual."

In fact, here Paul is again contrasting human faculties for interpreting
human wisdom with spiritual faculties for interpreting spiritual wisdom,
just as Peter continues the thought:

1:21 ou gar yelhmati anyrwpou hnecyh pote profhteia all upo pneumatov agiou
feromenoi elalhsan oi agioi yeou anyrwpoi

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21 KJV).

1:20 touto prwton ginwskontev oti pasa profhteia grafhv idiav epilusewv ou
ginetai

The straight translation is apparently not understood by translators, and is
hence rejected, so it is translated interpretively.

Hence, the NIV is incorrect to put it in the past, and to make IDIAS reflect
to the prophet (who is not even mentioned in the text at all!):

NIV
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by
the prophet's own interpretation.

The Revised is wrong to make IDIAS reflect to "one", also not mentioned in
the text:

RSV
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a
matter of one's own interpretation,

King James is actually linguistically pretty credible, but it communicates
poorly since it leads the reader to believe that "private" reflects toward a
layman, rather than the prophecy:

KJV
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation.

Darby jumps from "becomes" to "is had from" and adds "particular":

DBY
knowing this first, that [the scope of] no prophecy of scripture is had from
its own particular interpretation,

Young follows Darby, also turning "becomes" into "doth come from", and
follows KJV, reflecting private toward the reader:

YLT
this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private
exposition,

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:10 EDT