Mistranslation of Luke’s Genealogy?

[sethknorr]

I did a good bit of research in proving a specific emphatic rule for Simple Apposition in the New Testament and found the only disputed verse that is currently translated differently than the rule I proved is part of Luke’s genealogy, which it seems no one has been able to figure out.

I researched the rule in all digital Koine and Attic writings I could find and based on my research I believe very strongly I have enough evidence to show it’s probably a mistranslation.

I wrote a paper with the results of my research and at the end I show all examples found.

You can view the full paper in PDF here:
http://www.smartbiblesearch.com/xntn.pdf

I’m curious to hear everyone’s thoughts on it.

[MAubrey]

You lists of data at the end would be more useful in a spreadsheet.

Also, just for clarification, how are you defining "emphatic" here?

Thanks.

[sethknorr]

Mike,

Thanks for your response.

Clarifying what I mean by emphatic; in the New Testament every appearance of this structure is always simple apposition. I would presume the only verse anyone would challenge is Luke 3:23, which my research led me to believe is also simple apposition and not a genitive of relationship.

To clarify, I am only saying the rule is emphatic in the NT and the earliest church fathers. I believe the grammar and technique proves this. In other writings the rule is not emphatic, but generally followed.

I will send a link to the spreadsheet shortly.

[sethknorr]

I formatted all references into a spreadsheet.

You can download the list of all references in Excel:
http://www.smartbiblesearch.com/XNTN.xlsx

Compatibility version:
http://www.smartbiblesearch.com/XNTN.xls

Note, on the references that I had as (x2), ie. two identical phrases in the same passage, will only appear once in the spreadsheet.

[Barry Hofstetter]

Where to begin? This is a very clever research project, from which I'm sure you learned a great deal, but it's not going to convince anybody.

1) I don't know what emphatic means in the context of your paper. Mike asked you, but you didn't really answer.

2) I'm pretty sure the reason each of the names in the genealogy are articular is because they are indeclinable Hebrew names, and the writer wants us to know that they are all nonetheless understood in Greek as genitives. It has nothing to do with how appositives or "genitives of relation" or Apollonius' canon work in other contexts. You've always got to be careful arguing from statistics in language -- there is just as often as not some local contextual or syntactical variable which negates the claim.

3) The reason nobody has noticed this or commented on it is that the consensus understanding (and by consensus I mean universal) is based on the way the Greek normally works in such contexts. I doubt seriously it has anything to do with theological bias. While arguments from silence are often fallacious, here we have to ask that if your understanding were syntactically permissible why someone in ancient times, native speaker of the language, wouldn't have noticed it and commented on it? They wouldn't have talked about modern grammatical categories, but they might have said something along the lines of "Hey, what Luke really means here is this dude 'Joseph Eli' not Joseph the son of Eli."

4) Why skip a generation? The genealogy starts with the most recent and works backward culminating in τοῦ θεοῦ (structurally drawing the parallel between Christ and Adam and their source in God). If you were to render υἱός as descendent, where precisely in the structure does "Joseph the Eli guy" fit? I don't think either that you can use Matthew's genealogy as a parallel. He starts with a summary showing that Jesus descends from two of the most important figures in redemptive history, and then launches into the genealogy proper. Luke launches right into his genealogy, and there is not convincing evidence otherwise that he's doing something different. The reason some things look, quack and act like ducks is because they are ducks.

5) You spend a lot of time talking about your rule, but I'm a bit surprised you didn't compare other genealogies to see if there is anything parallel to what you want. I don't think there is, but some discussion of it would be helpful, and if you did find something incontestable, it would strengthen your argument.

The different genealogies are a problem in modern inerrantist theological frameworks but the answer isn't going to be found in some hidden grammatical point, but in wider hermeneutical and theological discussion.

[Jonathan Robie]

I agree with Barry.

I do not yet understand the approach to proof in this paper. Here are a few more concerns I noted:

• Did you propose a test that proves whether a particular example is emphatic or not? An objective test along those lines would be helpful. I didn't see it. An objective test cannot depend on your preferred translation, that is circular, it has to depend on something in the original text.
• It claims this rule only applies in the New Testament and a specific list of early church fathers (Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Diognetus, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and the writer of The Shepherd of Hermas). For secular writers you say it is generally not emphatic. In general, I assume that the language of the GNT is not distinct from Hellenistic Greek as a whole.
• Working on this small corpus, it explores a phenomenon that states quite a few conditions, which means you are reasoning from a small number of examples. It feels a bit like p-hacking. Even then, you need to argue that one of the verses is simply mistranslated.
• You dismiss some of these examples as "poor grammar," saying you were shocked by Ἰησοῦ τοῦ τοῦ Ναυὴ, and telling us "all other secular writers would instead have written Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναυὴ". I don't think we know that. We have to interpret the corpus we have, assuming they generally knew Greek better than we do. Greek will feel strange to us sometimes. We should embrace examples that feel strange to us, they teach us how the language works.

[sethknorr]

Thank you to everyone for taking the time to read and critique my research. I appreciate all the feedback, and you both have opened my eyes to some areas of the paper that I need to add additional information and also the parts that need more clarity. I tried not to overload the paper with too much information, as it already contains so much I didn’t want to go overboard, but I see your points in where I could add more.

First, let me clarify, at the outset I was simply studying simple apposition and this construction. I had no agenda or anything that I was trying to prove. So I did not set out to prove Luke’s genealogy was mistranslated, it was only after a long study that I came to that conclusion based on studying this construction and the grammar and technique in the NT. My conclusion is not based on theology at all. My conclusion is solely based on the grammar and technique that I see used in the New Testament and Earliest church fathers versus the grammar and technique used in other secular Koine and even Attic writings and the LXX. As supporting evidence, I do mention other aspects found in regards to Luke’s genealogy, but I would only ever use this as secondary evidence.

The theme I think for both critiques, it seemed to be: what was my process in arriving at my conclusion and the rule itself. So I think the below information will shine some light in this area.

When I started this research, I was solely researching simple apposition (nouns in regimen) and had no agenda. Since I didn't define "simple apposition," in the paper, I will do that now so everyone can be on the same page. Wallace defines simple apposition as "The first substantive can belong to any category (e.g., subject, predicate nom., etc.) and the second is merely a clarification, description, of who or what is mentioned. Thus the appositive 'piggy-backs' on the first nominative's use, as it were."

Wallace's definition deals with all appositives, where as I am only dealing with appositives where the first is a proper name. When the first substantive is a proper name, the second appositive basically forms a title, since that second word equals the first. With double proper names, it is describing a second name of the person. Ie. Judas Iscariot (Ἰούδας ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης)

When I say the second equals the first, if you had Elisha the Prophet (Ἐλισαίου τοῦ προφήτου) it can be an appositive because Elijah = Prophet, ie. He is a prophet. One area where Bible translations do error on occasion is when a location is an appositive. For instance many translations would translate Matthew 26:71 “Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου” as “Jesus of Nazareth”, instead of translating it as “Jesus the Nazarene.” The difference being that Nazareth cannot be in Simple Apposition to Jesus, because Jesus doesn’t equal Nazareth. On the other hand, Jesus would be in Simple Apposition to Nazarene, because he was one.

Ironically, the NKJV and KJV translate Matthew 2:23 “He shall be called a Nazarene”, but then their translations never again call Jesus a Nazarene. The ESV only uses that title once in Mark 16:47 and the NIV twice Mark 16:16, 47. This can be proven simply by looking at the LXX and seeing how the Masoretic Text translated the same passages, assuming the LXX was grammatically equivalent.

For example: Genesis 16:3 Ἄγαρ τὴν Αἰγυπτίαν Hagar the Egyptian, Judges 11:1 Ἰεφθάε ὁ Γαλααδίτης Jephthah the Gileadite, 1 Samuel 6:18 Ὠσηὲ τοῦ Βαιθσαμυσίτου Joshua the Bethshemite, 2 Samuel 11:24 Οὐρίας ὁ Χετταῖος Uriah the Hittite, etc…

The NET Bible, actually corrects this error, and always translates this construct as “Jesus the Nazarene” (Matthew 26:71, Mark 10:47, John 18:5, John 18:7, Luke 18:37, Luke 24:19, Acts 2:22, Acts 6:14, Acts 22:8 and Acts 26:9)

All statements I make in the paper are based on the extensive research and data found in the books I researched. Any facts stated in the paper are obviously confined to that set of data researched. It is obviously impossible to make statements of generalizations in some cases about the Greek language universally, since we probably only have a small fraction of what was written available for us to study. However, making observations based on the books we do have available to us, I find valid and necessary for any study, as this is how we understand any language. Obviously, just because something is rare or even nonexistent in the writings we have now, doesn’t mean it was rare or nonexistent during the Koine period or make it invalid. Therefore, my goal in researching secular writings was to see what would be possible and plausible. I also used statistical analysis to determine plausibility.

Initially my area of focus was when a singular anarthrous proper noun was followed by an articular noun, substantived adjective or participle, in which all three words match in case, number and gender. I started in the New Testament and worked through all examples. There were 154 examples with articular nouns, 58 with participles and 16 with adjectives. I noticed that 153 of the articular noun results were simple apposition (nouns in regimen), and noticed that Luke’s genealogy was the lone genitive of relationship exception. I had up to that point never given any thought to the differences between the Matthew and Luke genealogies and so I spent a bit of time studying the background to see if I could glean any information on the topic.

I then looked at the LXX and looked at all proper names followed by articular nouns that match in case, gender and number. Of the 1721 results that match this construct, 20 were definitely not simple apposition (nouns in regimen) in the LXX.

Since there was only one exception in the New Testament and very few exceptions to the rule in the Old Testament I started researching more on the only exception, Luke’s genealogy. All verses that would be translated in English as “son of” I looked at all the different constructs used in the NT. I then asked the question, and pointed my attention to research, could Luke’s genealogy be a mistranslation.

I then looked at secular writings, focusing on the exceptions of Apollonius’ Canon. I focused on nominative and genitive anarthrous proper names followed by articular proper names. I also focused on titles with anarthrous proper names followed by an article and either βασιλεὺς or βασιλέως. It would make sense that if Apollonius’ Canon had exceptions, it was probably due to another grammar rule they were following. These proper names were only looked at if they were capitalized. My main focus and interest was the genitive case, since this structure in the genitive can either be a genitive of relationship or simple apposition (nouns in regimen). I also researched the nominative case to see if the percent of double proper names that were simple apposition versus genitive, to identify the percentage of appearance.

I also focused on similar genealogical genitive chains, and if simple apposition is possible within a genealogical chain.

I noticed that an article or δὲ plus an article in this construct had the same meaning, and researched all of these constructs. I also noticed that many times in secular literature the word following the article did not match the proper name in case, gender or number. Many times this was the case with locations. I noticed, for instance: Κύρου τοῦ Περσῶν βασιλέως has the same meaning as Κύρου τοῦ βασιλέως Περσῶν.

I then looked at the Early Church Fathers Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Diognetus, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and the writer of The Shepherd of Hermas.

After the research I wrote my conclusion and what I believed to be a rule that was followed in the NT and by the early Church Fathers.

This was the rule I concluded from the data:

When an anarthrous singular proper name (including Θεὸς, Κύριος, and Χριστός); is followed by a contiguous articular noun or δὲ plus articular singular noun, that agree in case and number, and the article also agrees in case, gender and number; the articular noun will always be in simple apposition (nouns in regimen) to the anarthrous proper name. If both nouns are proper names they are always equivalent, and would be a second name of that person. Words following and preceding this construction may also be appositional, but based on context. This rule is applicable to all cases that have an article including; Nominative, Genitive, Dative and Accusative. When this construction occurs it always forms a personal title of Simple Apposition (nouns in regimen).

On this main rule in the New Testament of the 154 results, I found the one exception (Luke’s genealogy) that would obviously be debatable, but came to personally believe it was a mistranslation. The other 153 results I found to be definite simple apposition. Therefore I said the rule was emphatic, which means whenever the construct is found, the rule applies, and the construct is always simple apposition (nouns in regimen). In the paper I left it up to the reader to decide on the substantived adjectives and participles. These weren’t the focus of the paper, but I added them to show how often the rule was followed, even in these situations.

I am not saying the rule does not apply to other Greek literature, it obviously does. It’s just that when the structure appears it is definitely not always simple apposition (nouns in regimen). (Therefore not emphatic) So the only change to the rule in other literature would be changing the word “always” to “generally.”

Ie. In other literature:

When an anarthrous singular proper name (including Θεὸς, Κύριος, and Χριστός); is followed by a contiguous articular noun or δὲ plus articular singular noun, that agree in case and number, and the article also agrees in case, gender and number; the articular noun will GENERALLY be in simple apposition (nouns in regimen) to the anarthrous proper name. If both nouns are proper names they are GENERALLY equivalent, and would be a second name of that person. Words following and preceding this construction may also be appositional, but based on context. This rule is applicable to all cases that have an article including; Nominative, Genitive, Dative and Accusative. When this construction occurs it GENERALLY forms a personal title of Simple Apposition (nouns in regimen).


As I stated in the LXX of the 1721 appearances of the construct, 20 were not simple apposition. So in the LXX 98.8% of the time the rule applies.

Note, through my research, I discovered 2,915 examples of this construct of simple apposition.

Based on the criteria of the secular literature I researched, I mainly focused on the statistics of the genitive case when it was simple apposition versus a genitive of relationship with two proper names. Before Pausanias 24% of the time this construct with two proper names in the genitive is simple apposition versus 76% genitive of relationship. From my research, when the construct appears it is generally simple apposition. If I had to guess, probably about 90+% of the time the rule applies. Obviously most of these are titles such as king, and are less often double proper names.

Since the focus on this paper was the New Testament, for all references I add the translation based on simple apposition. I did this so the reader could easily see the validity of the rule. All appositional words are in bold. So you can determine if you agree by looking at the translations from page 10-12 to determine if each is simple apposition.

Setting aside Luke’s genealogy, and whether the rule always applies, it sounds like from both responses, you both question the validity of the rule in general. If that is true, on the other 157 New Testament examples of the primary rule (ignoring Luke’s genealogy), do you agree these are all simple apposition (nouns in regimen)? If not, what specific verses would you dispute?

Here is the list of secular books I went through:
Aeschines, Speeches
Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Aeschylus, Eumenides
Aeschylus, Libation Bearers
Aeschylus, Persians
Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound
Aeschylus, Seven Against Thebes
Aeschylus, Suppliant Women
Andocides, Speeches
Antiphon, Speeches
Apollodorus, Library
Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica
Appian, Civil Wars
Appian, The Gallic History
Appian, The Hannibalic War
Appian, The Illyrian Wars
Appian, Concerning Italy
Appian, Concerning the Kings
Appian, Macedonian Affairs
Appian, The Mithridatic Wars
Appian, Numidian Affairs
Appian, The Punic Wars
Appian, The Samnite History
Appian, Of Sicily and the Other Islands
Appian, The Wars in Spain
Appian, The Syrian Wars
Aretaeus, Treatment of Acute Diseases
Aretaeus, Treatment of Chronic Diseases
Aretaeus, Causes and Symptoms of Acute Diseases
Aretaeus, Causes and Symptoms of Chronic Diseases
Aristophanes, Acharnians
Aristophanes, Birds
Aristophanes, Clouds
Aristophanes, Ecclesiazusae
Aristophanes, Frogs
Aristophanes, Knights
Aristophanes, Lysistrata
Aristophanes, Peace
Aristophanes, Plutus
Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae
Aristophanes, Wasps
Aristotle, Athenian Constitution
Aristotle, Economics
Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics
Aristotle, Metaphysics
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
Aristotle, Poetics
Aristotle, Politics
Aristotle, Rhetoric
Bacchylides, Odes
Demades, On the Twelve Years
Demosthenes, Exordia
Demosthenes, Letters
Demosthenes, Speeches
Dinarchus, Speeches
Diodorus Siculus, Library
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers
Epictetus, Discourses
Epictetus, Enchiridion
Euclid, Elements
Euripides, Ion
Euripides, Iphigenia in Aulis
Euripides, Alcestis
Euripides, Andromache
Euripides, Bacchae
Euripides, Cyclops
Euripides, Electra
Euripides, Hecuba
Euripides, Helen
Euripides, Heracleidae
Euripides, Heracles
Euripides, Hippolytus
Euripides, Iphigenia in Tauris
Euripides, Medea
Euripides, Orestes
Euripides, Phoenissae
Euripides, Rhesus
Euripides, Suppliants
Euripides, Trojan Women
Galen, Natural Faculties
Herodotus, Histories
Hesiod, Shield
Hesiod, Theogony
Hesiod, Works and Days
Hippocrates, Aphorisms
Hippocrates, Regimen in Acute Diseases
Hippocrates, Airs, Waters, Places
Hippocrates, Ancient Medicine
Hippocrates, Epidemics
Hippocrates, Fistulae
Hippocrates, Fractures
Hippocrates, Head Injuries
Hippocrates, Hemorrhoids
Hippocrates, Joints
Hippocrates, Law
Hippocrates, Mochlicus
Hippocrates, Nutrition
Hippocrates, Oath
Hippocrates, Precepts
Hippocrates, Prognostics
Hippocrates, Sacred Disease
Hippocrates, Surgery
Hippocrates, Ulcers
Homer, Iliad
Homer, Odyssey
Hyperides, Speeches
Isaeus, Speeches
Isocrates, Letters
Isocrates, Speeches
Josephus, Antiquities
Josephus, Against Apion
Josephus, Life
Josephus, Wars
Lycurgus, Speeches
Lysias, Speeches
Pausanias, Description of Greece
Pindar, Odes
Plato, Alcibiades
Plato, Apology
Plato, Charmides
Plato, Cleitophon
Plato, Cratylus
Plato, Critias
Plato, Crito
Plato, Epinomis
Plato, Euthydemus
Plato, Euthyphro
Plato, Gorgias
Plato, Hipparchus
Plato, Hippias Major
Plato, Hippias Minor
Plato, Ion
Plato, Laches
Plato, Laws
Plato, Letters
Plato, Lovers
Plato, Lysis
Plato, Menexenus
Plato, Meno
Plato, Minos
Plato, Parmenides
Plato, Phaedo
Plato, Phaedrus
Plato, Philebus
Plato, Protagoras
Plato, Republic
Plato, Sophist
Plato, Statesman
Plato, Symposium
Plato, Theaetetus
Plato, Theages
Plato, Timaeus
Plutarch, Alcibiades
Plutarch, Aristides
Plutarch, Cimon
Plutarch, Lysander
Plutarch, Nicias
Plutarch, Pericles
Plutarch, Solon
Plutarch, Themistocles
Plutarch, Comparison of Theseus and Romulus
Polybius, Histories
Sophocles, Ajax
Sophocles, Antigone
Sophocles, Electra
Sophocles, Ichneutae
Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus
Sophocles, Oedipus at Tyrannus
Sophocles, Philoctetes
Sophocles, Trachiniae
Strabo, Geography
Thucydides, Peloponnesian War
Xenophon, Agesilaus
Xenophon, Anabasis
Xenophon, Apology
Xenophon, On the Cavalry Commander
Xenophon, Cyropaedia
Xenophon, Economics
Xenophon, Hellenica
Xenophon, Hiero
Xenophon, On the Art of Horsemanship
Xenophon, On Hunting
Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaimonians
Xenophon, Memorabilia
Xenophon, Symposium
Xenophon, Ways and Means

186 works on Persus as well as the LXX, the New Testament, and Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Diognetus, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and the writer of The Shepherd of Hermas.

[sethknorr]

1) I don't know what emphatic means in the context of your paper. Mike asked you, but you didn't really answer.

What I meant: whenever this construct appears in the NT, the rule applies, and the structure is always simple apposition (Two nouns in Regimen). Ie. The anarthrous proper name is in apposition to the adjacent articular noun. This structure, stated in the rule, appears 158 times in the NT. Of these only one instance is currently translated contrary to this Luke 3:23, which I am asserting is very possibly a mis-translation. If that is true, then 100% of the time, the rule applies in the NT. Starting on page 10 to page 16, all 158 examples are listed with translations.

2) I'm pretty sure the reason each of the names in the genealogy are articular is because they are indeclinable Hebrew names, and the writer wants us to know that they are all nonetheless understood in Greek as genitives. It has nothing to do with how appositives or "genitives of relation" or Apollonius' canon work in other contexts. You've always got to be careful arguing from statistics in language

Firstly, I bring up Appollonius because it appears that due to the rule, it seems translators default their translations to a genitive of relationship versus simple apposition. My point being, that the exception to the rule is proper names and therefore Appollonius cannon does not apply to this structure.

I agree with your analysis that these are indeclinable Hebrew names. However, this point actually further proves my point. They were all indeclinable Hebrew names. Therefore if the writer wanted us to understand them as genitives, why doesn’t Ἰωσὴφ have a genitive article before it, since it’s also indeclinable?
Luke 3:23 ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἡλεὶ τοῦ Ματθὰτ τοῦ Λευεὶ τοῦ Μελχεὶ τοῦ Ἰανναὶ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ

As I pointed out elsewhere with indeclinable names they had the article in similar situations, ie.
2 Peter 2:15, ὁδῷ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ τοῦ Βεώρ “The way of Balam the son of Beor.”
Βαλαὰμ would have been already in the genitive case based on ὁδῷ so why have the article there? Also John 1:45 “Ἰησοῦν υἱὸν τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ” and Mark 6:3 “υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας.” In both instances the article is completely unnecessary because the reader already would know the name is a singular genitive male/female. So why add it? And at the same time, not add it to Ἰωσὴφ. I believe this is all to be additional convincing evidence to show that Luke 3:23 could certainly be mistranslated.

I agree, you have to be very careful on statistical analysis. However you must judge the grammar and technique on the whole of the work and look at other evidence that is out of the norm of classical Koine, such as the example of 2 Peter 2:15, John 1:45 and Mark 6:3. When I studied the entire New Testament and all the earliest church fathers, if “Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἡλεὶ” is a “son of” genitive of relationship, then it is the only one in all of the New Testament and all the early church fathers that uses a single article τοῦ to connect two proper names that are genitives in this manner.

In Clement of Rome’s 1 Corinthians 12:2, he wrote “Ἰησοῦ τοῦ τοῦ Ναυὴ,” translated “Joshua, the son of Nun.” Why did he write τοῦ τοῦ instead of just τοῦ once? I have never seen this before and I have researched this extensively. In secular Koine writings in all instances I have seen they would have simply written “Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναυὴ.”

there is just as often as not some local contextual or syntactical variable which negates the claim.

As I stated I went through the entire NT, and the only verse that is translated contrary to this rule is Luke 3:23. That means there are 157 provable examples, and only one debatable one. Unless you are debating the translations of the examples from page 10 to page 16. I realize that it is possible that Luke 3:23 could be an actual and valid exception. My point is to show it is certainly possible that it is a mistranslation from what I found. After doing the thorough research and comparing the NT to other Koine writings, I personally believe the translation of Luke 3:23 is incorrect.

As I stated, I discovered a total of 2,915 examples of this construct of simple apposition.

3) The reason nobody has noticed this or commented on it is that the consensus understanding (and by consensus I mean universal) is based on the way the Greek normally works in such contexts. I doubt seriously it has anything to do with theological bias. While arguments from silence are often fallacious, here we have to ask that if your understanding were syntactically permissible why someone in ancient times, native speaker of the language, wouldn't have noticed it and commented on it? They wouldn't have talked about modern grammatical categories, but they might have said something along the lines of "Hey, what Luke really means here is this dude 'Joseph Eli' not Joseph the son of Eli."

You are correct; I am not asserting there was theological bias. My conclusion was never theological. I only point out the other genealogy since the two are debated, and since this rule gives a logical conclusion to the debate, it offers some supporting evidence to prove my data.

Essentially I think you are saying that if a Koine genealogy was written as Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου τοῦ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λάγου, it would have to be translated Ptolemy son of Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy son of Lagus. However, I doubt anyone would translate it that way, because Ptolemy Philadelphus is a known historical figure, therefore translators that knew history would translate it as Ptolemy Philadelphus, the son of Ptolemy, who was the son of Lagus. If they knew nothing about history, then I would agree, they would translate it as the “Ptolemy son of Philadelphus.” On your fourth point below, I will comment on the evidence from the chains I studied.

I also agree, obviously a Greek is not going to see a phrase and think in their mind, hey that is “simple apposition”, or that is a “genitive of relationship.” These are obviously just categories we use to easily identify the grammar we are referring to. However, I can illustrate how they would have seen it I believe, with an example in English. Say that everyone in a city knew who Bobby Ray was, he was a local celebrity. Then someone wrote a book and made one reference to Bobby Ray. As someone who knows English, has spoken English your whole life, and are a native speaker; 200 years later, not knowing who Bobby Ray is, would you know if Ray was his last name, middle name or second first name? Most would think it was a second first name, but it certainly could be his last name. If it was his second first name, it would have been a good idea, based on technique not grammar, to add his last name, so you can differentiate that. However, they probably wouldn’t have because at the time everyone knew who Bobby Ray was.

Similarly this is true in Greek with two proper names that are genitives, where one is anarthrous and the other is articular. Because Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου is valid to be translated as “Ptolemy son of Philadelphus” or “Ptolemy Philadelphus.” Understanding can only be based on your knowledge of the parties involved. Even if you’re a native Greek your understanding is completely based on your knowledge of the parties involved. Are you disagreeing that Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου could be translated either way?

What I am saying is that everyone knew that Joseph was Jesus’ father/step-father. My point being if Mary’s father was also named Joseph, which would not be unusual because it was a common name (Jesus even had a brother named Joseph), then if Luke was referring to Mary’s father who was named Joseph, and if he also went by the name Eli, then this genealogy would make perfect sense to everyone who was familiar with Jesus’ family at the time. However, 200 years later if they didn’t know who Mary’s father was, then they would just presume this was speaking of Jesus’ father Joseph and never have thought twice about it. Other than the reference I had in the paper, have you ever seen any reference in any literature to the name of Mary’s father?

I agree, there is current universal consensus now, however, we don’t know how universal the consensus was in all history. 130 years is a long time lapse, especially when you are speaking of a genealogy, which I would presume most probably ignored, as most do today.

It seems you are saying that a native speaker will never misunderstand what is written in their native language. Think of English, how often people misunderstand what they read. I would presume there were also misunderstandings of what Greeks read in their time, just like in any other language.

Also as per universal consensus, this is why I brought up the examples of simple apposition between different cases. Wallace stated "Simple apposition requires that both nouns be in the same case (whether nom., gen., dat., acc., voc.), while the genitive of apposition requires only the second noun to be in the genitive case." So basically he is saying this is not possible, it’s a universal consensus. But as I show, not only is that rule incorrect, just about every time it does occur, mistranslations occur. My point being, just because there is universal consensus doesn’t mean it is correct. I would assume we only have a very small fraction of writings available to us today compared to all material written at the time. So it is possible this structure was way more common than the limited number of works make it appear. I give this just as an example of universal consensus not always being the correct way to understand it.

Obviously grammar and technique changes over time, and even in short periods of time it can be influenced by teachers, region, etc…

4) Why skip a generation? The genealogy starts with the most recent and works backward culminating in τοῦ θεοῦ (structurally drawing the parallel between Christ and Adam and their source in God). If you were to render υἱός as descendent, where precisely in the structure does "Joseph the Eli guy" fit? I don't think either that you can use Matthew's genealogy as a parallel. He starts with a summary showing that Jesus descends from two of the most important figures in redemptive history, and then launches into the genealogy proper. Luke launches right into his genealogy, and there is not convincing evidence otherwise that he's doing something different. The reason some things look, quack and act like ducks is because they are ducks.

If Joseph Eli was the name of Mary’s father, then understanding this genealogy as I have outlined, would make perfect sense to the readers of the time. I mentioned Matthew’s genealogy because he was using υἱὸς in reference to descendants. The point being, Luke may have similarly been using υἱὸς as descendant.

My translation was “He was, as was held, the grandson [or descendant] of Joseph Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi...” If you are asking how my translation works word for word with the Greek, then use the below as an example:
Ὢν [He was] υἱός [the descendant], ὡς [as] ἐνομίζετο [was held], Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ [of Joseph Eli], τοῦ Μαθθὰτ [of Matthat], τοῦ Λευὶ [of Levi]…

5) You spend a lot of time talking about your rule, but I'm a bit surprised you didn't compare other genealogies to see if there is anything parallel to what you want. I don't think there is, but some discussion of it would be helpful, and if you did find something incontestable, it would strengthen your argument. The different genealogies are a problem in modern inerrantist theological frameworks but the answer isn't going to be found in some hidden grammatical point, but in wider hermeneutical and theological discussion.

Starting with an anarthrous genitive, there were only 8 genitive strings previous to Pausanias and Pausanias contains 12. The type of genealogic construction found in Luke is not very common in the literature I sorted through. All of these are in the paper. As for the examples that prove what I am saying, here are some examples from my paper:

“Πελίου τοῦ Αἰγινήτου τοῦ Δηρείτου τοῦ Ἁρπάλου τοῦ Ἀμύκλα τοῦ Λακεδαίμονος,” as I showed in the paper, “Pelias the Aeginetan,” would be simple apposition and would prove the rule in a genealogic construction.

Also I mentioned, in Strabo Geography 7.7.8 Πύρρῳ τῷ Νεοπτολέμου τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως, which W. Falconer translated “Pyrrhus, the son of Neoptolemus the son of Achilles.” On the other hand, H. L. Jones translated the same text as, “Pyrrhus Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles.”
Pyrrhus Neoptolemus is a historical figure, and therefore in my opinion would be the proper translation. My point being, just because this genealogic type construction appears, doesn’t mean the first two names on the list must be a son of construction.

Herodotus Histories 2.71.4 Σέλευκος ὁ Σελεύκου τοῦ Καλλινίκου καὶ Πώγωνος ἐπικληθέντος, which as has been translated “Seleucus, son of Seleucus who had the double surnames of Callinicus and Pogon.”

There is already so much information in the paper I didn’t want to overload it, but here are some examples not in the paper that I think also give evidence. I didn’t put them in as I thought the evidence I showed was enough to already warrant the translation as a possibility. The point being just because several names are connected by multiple articles doesn’t mean they all have to be son of constructions.

Apollodorus Library Epit.1.2 Σκείρωνα τὸν Κορίνθιον τοῦ Πέλοπος
Sciron the Corinthian, son of Pelops

Herodotus Histories 2.98.2 Ἀρχάνδρου τοῦ Φθίου τοῦ Ἀχαιοῦ
Arkhandrus son of Phthius the Achaean

Appian. The Syrian Wars 45 Ἀντίοχος ὁ Ἀντιόχου τοῦ μεγάλου
Antiochus, the son of Antiochus the Great

Diogenes Laertius 1.9 Εὐθύφρων δ’ ὁ Ἡρακλείδου τοῦ Ποντικοῦ
Euthyphro, the son of Heraclides the Pontic

Plutarch Themist 32.1 Ἀρχίππης τῆς Λυσάνδρου τοῦ Ἀλωπεκῆθεν
Archippe, the daughter of Lysander, of the deme Alopece

Aeschines Speeches 3.85 Μνησάρχου τοῦ Χαλκιδέως τοῦ Καλλίου καὶ Ταυροσθένους πατρός
Mnesarchus the Chalcian (of Chalcis), father of Callias and Taurosthenes

Polybius Histories 6.11a.7 Λεύκιος ὁ Δημαράτου τοῦ Κορινθίου υἱὸς
Lucius, the son of Demaratus the Corinthian

Xenophon Anabasis 7.8.8 Ἑλλάδι τῇ Γογγύλου τοῦ Ἐρετριέως γυναικὶ
Hellas, the wife of Gongylus the Eretrian

Pausanias Description of Greece
6.17.3
Πτολεμαῖον δὲ τὸν Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λάγου
Ptolemy, the son of Ptolemy Lagus

plutarch_theseus 8.3
Δηϊονεῖ δὲ τῷ Εὐρύτου τοῦ Οἰχαλιέως
Deioneus, son of Eurytus the Oechalian


If we look at all Koine and Attic writings before Pausanias, we find that when two genitive, masculine proper names, when the first is anarthrous and the second articular, in other literature, 31 are simple apposition (double name, in regimen) and 98 are “son of” Genitive of Relationship. That means that 24% of the time, these are simple apposition (double name, in regimen). This assumes that the translations made by other translators was correct. Since there are some names we have no background on, it’s possible there are some translated as genitive of relationships that could be simple apposition.

Examples Simple Apposition (Two proper names in regimen) 31 Occurrences

Xenophon Hellenica 2.3.39 Σελεύκου τοῦ Νικάνορος (Seleucus Nicanor)
Diogenes Laertius 5.3 Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου (Ptolemy Philadelphus)
Polybius Histories 2.41.10 Ἀντιγόνου τοῦ Γονατᾶ (Antigonus Gonatas)
Polybius Histories 5.40.5 Σελεύκου τοῦ Καλλινίκου (Seleucus Callinicus)
Polybius Histories 5.67.6 Ἀντιγόνου τοῦ Μονοφθάλμου (Antigonus One-Eyed)
Strabo Geography 9.5.14 Ἀπόλλωνος τοῦ Φυλλίου (Apollo Phyllian)
Strabo Geography 11.2.18, 12.3.34, 12.8.16 Μιθριδάτου τοῦ Εὐπάτορος (Mithridates Eupator)
Strabo Geography 12.8.20 Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Φιλαλήθους (Alexander Philalethes)
Strabo Geography 13.4.1 Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Κεραυνοῦ (Ptolemy Ceraunus)
Strabo Geography 14.1.34 Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ Μυός (Apollonius Mys)
Strabo Geography 14.3.3 Σερουιλίου τοῦ Ἰσαυρικοῦ (Servilius Isauricus)
Strabo Geography 14.3.3 Πομπηίου τοῦ Μάγνου (Pompey Magnus)
Strabo Geography 14.5.2 Σελεύκου τοῦ Νικάτορος (Seleucus Nicator)
Josephus Antiquities 12.118 Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου (Ptolemy Philadelphus)
Josephus Antiquities 13.269 τοῦ Δημητρίου παιδὸς Ἀντιόχου τοῦ Γρυποῦ ἐπικληθέντος (Antiochus Grypus)
Josephus Antiquities 13.271 Ἀντιόχου τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπικληθέντος (Antiochus Soter)
Josephus Antiquities 13.273 Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Ζαβιναίου (Alexander Zebina)
Josephus Antiquities 13.278, 13.328 Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λαθούρου (Ptolemy Lathyrus)
Josephus Antiquities 13.418 Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Μενναίου (Ptolemy Menneus)
Josephus Antiquities 10.276, 12.393, 13.243, 13.292 Ἀντιόχου τοῦ Ἐπιφανοῦς (Antiochus Epiphanes)
Josephus Antiquities 20.234 βασιλέως Ἀντιόχου τοῦ Εὐπάτορος (Antiochus Eupator)
Plutarch Nicias 5.2 Διονυσίου τοῦ Χαλκοῦ προσαγορευθέντος (Dionysus Chalcus)
Appian Civil Wars 1.5.40 Πομπηίου τοῦ Μάγνου (Pompey Magnus)
Appian Civil Wars 5.1.10 Σελεύκου τοῦ Νικάτορος (Seleucus Nicator)
Appian Spain 65 Κοΐντου Πομπηίου τοῦ Αὔλου (Quintus Pompeius Aulus)



Examples Genitive of Relationship, “Son of” (98 Occurrences)

Isocrates Speeches 4.68, 12.193 Εὐμόλπου τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος (Eumolpus, the son of Poseidon)
Isocrates Speeches 11.37 Περσέως τοῦ Διὸς (Perseus, the son of Zeus)
Xenophon Memorabilia 4.8.4 Ἑρμογένους τοῦ Ἱππονίκου (Hermogenes, the son of Hipponicus)
Xenophon Hellenica 1.2.8 Ἡρακλείδου τοῦ Ἀριστογένους (Heracleides, the son of Aristogenes)
Xenophon Hellenica 1.7.15 Σωκράτους τοῦ Σωφρονίσκου (Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus)
Xenophon Hellenica 2.3.39 Νικηράτου τοῦ Νικίου (Niceratus, the son of Nicias)
Plato Republic 1.327a Γλαύκωνος τοῦ Ἀρίστωνος (Glaucon, the son of Ariston)
Plato Republic 1.327a Ἠρὸς τοῦ Ἀρμενίου (Er, the son of Armenius)
Plato Symposium 1.172b Φοίνικος τοῦ Φιλίππου (Phoenix, the son of Philip)
Plato Phaedrus 244a Φαίδρου τοῦ Πυθοκλέους (Phaedrus, the son of Pythocles)
Plato Phaedrus 244a Στησιχόρου τοῦ Εὐφήμου (Stesichorus, the son of Euphemus)
Plato Phaedrus 263d Λυσίου τοῦ Κεφάλου (Lysias, the son of Cephalus)
Plato Letters 314e Ἡγησίππου τοῦ Ἀρίστωνος (Hegesippus, the son of Ariston)
Plato Letters 357c Ἱππαρίνου τοῦ Διονυσίου (Hipparinus, the son of Dionysius)
Plato Ion 532e Πολυγνώτου τοῦ Ἀγλαοφῶντος (Polygnotus, the son of Aglaophon)
Plato Ion 533a Δαιδάλου τοῦ Μητίονος (Daedalus, the son of Metion)
Plato Ion 533b Ἐπειοῦ τοῦ Πανοπέως (Epeius, the son of Panopeus)
Diogenes Laertius 5.1 Νικομάχου τοῦ Μαχάονος τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ (Nicomachus, the son of Machaon)
Diogenes Laertius 5.2 Σοφοκλέους τοῦ Ἀμφικλείδου (Sophocles, the son of Amphiclides)
Diogenes Laertius 9.8 Ἀρχαγόρου τοῦ Θεοδότου (Archagoras, the son of Theodotus)
Diogenes Laertius 9.11 Βρύσωνος τοῦ Στίλπωνος (Bryson, the son of Stilpo)
Diogenes Laertius 6.2 Πασιφῶντος τοῦ Λουκιανοῦ (Pasiphon, the son of Lucian)
Polybius Histories 4.35.10 υἱὸν δ’ Ἀγησιπόλιδος τοῦ Κλεομβρότου (son of Agesipolis, the son of Cleombrotus)
Polybius Histories 4.35.13 υἱὸς Ἀγησιλάου τοῦ Εὐδαμίδου (son of Archidamus, the son of Eudamidas)
Polybius Histories 4.52.4 Κώθωνος τοῦ Καλλιγείτονος (Cothon, the son of Callisthenes)
Polybius Histories 5.67.10 Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λάγου (Ptolemy, the son of Lagus)
Polybius Histories 21.26.7 Σιβύρτου τοῦ Πετραίου (Sibyrtus, the son of Petraeus)
Polybius Histories 22.15.1 Κύδα τοῦ Ἀντάλκους (Cydas, the son of Antalces)
Polybius Histories 30.31.6 Ἀντιόχου τοῦ Σελεύκου (Antiochus, the son of Seleucus)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 1.3.3 Πιέρου τοῦ Μάγνητος (Pierus, the son of Magnes)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 1.4.1 Πανὸς τοῦ Διὸς (Pan, the son of Zeus)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 1.5.3 Ἀσκαλάφου τοῦ Ἀχέροντος (Ascalaphus, the son of Acheron)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 1.8.4 Ἱπποστράτου τοῦ Ἀμαρυγκέως (Hippostratus, the son of Amarynceus)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 1.9.5 Κυνόρτα τοῦ Ἀμύκλα (Cynortas, the son of Amyclas)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 2.6.2 Δηιφόβου τοῦ Ἱππολύτου (Deiphobus, the son of Hippolytus)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 2.8.2 Τισαμενοῦ τοῦ Ὀρέστου (Tisamenus, the son of Orestes)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 3.1.2 Ἀτυμνίου τοῦ Διὸς (Atymnius, the son of Zeus)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 3.5.5 Νυκτέως τοῦ Χθονίου (Nycteus, the son of Chthonius)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 3.5.8 Αἵμονος τοῦ Κρέοντος (Haemon, the son of Creons)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 3.7.2 Θερσάνδρου τοῦ Πολυνείκους (Thersander, the son of Polynices)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 3.7.3 Λαοδάμαντος τοῦ Ἐτεοκλέους (Laodamas, the son of Eteocles)
Diodorus Library 9.36.3 Ὀρέστου τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος (Orestes, the son of Agamemnon)
Diodorus Library 11.48.6 Θρασυδαίου τοῦ Θήρωνος (Thrasydaeus, the son of Theron)
Diodorus Library 15.54.6 Ἀρχιδάμου τοῦ Ἀγησιλάου (Archidamus, the son of Agesilaus)
Diodorus Library 16.36.5 Ἱππαρίνου τοῦ Διονυσίου (Hipparinus, the son of Dionysius)
Diodorus Library 17.5.5 Ἀρσάνου τοῦ Ὀστάνου (Arsanes, the son of Ostanes)
Diodorus Library 17.17.4 Φιλώτου τοῦ Παρμενίωνος (Philotas, the son of Parmenion)
Strabo Geography 7.6.2 Φιλίππου τοῦ Ἀμύντου (Philip, the son of Amyntas)
Strabo Geography 7.7.6 Γόργου τοῦ Κυψέλου (Gorgus, the son of Cypselus)
Strabo Geography 7.7.12 Φιλίππου τοῦ Ἀμύντου (Philip, the son of Amyntas)
Strabo Geography 8.3.5 Τληπολέμου τοῦ Ἡρακλέους (Tlepolemus, the son of Hercules)
Strabo Geography 8.5.5 Ἄγιδος τοῦ Εὐρυσθένους (Agis, the son of Eurysthenes)
Strabo Geography 8.6.22 Τέννου τοῦ Κύκνου (Tennus, the son of Cycnus)
Strabo Geography 8.7.1 Ἴωνος τοῦ Ξούθου (Ion, the son of Xuthus)
Strabo Geography 8.7.1 Τισαμενοῦ τοῦ Ὀρέστου (Tisamenus, the son of Orestes)
Strabo Geography 9.5.23 Θετταλοῦ τοῦ Αἵμονος (Thettalus, the son of Haemo)
Strabo Geography 9.5.23 Ἕλληνος τοῦ Δευκαλίωνος (Hellen, the son of Deucalion)
Strabo Geography 9.5.23 Νέσσωνος τοῦ Θετταλοῦ (Nesson, the son of Thettalus)
Strabo Geography 10.1.3 Ἔλλοπος τοῦ Ἴωνος (Ellops, the son of Ion)
Strabo Geography 10.2.14, 20 Κεφάλου τοῦ Δηιονέως (Cephalus, the son of Deioneus)
Strabo Geography 10.3.2 Αἰτωλοῦ τοῦ Ἐνδυμίωνος (Aetolus, the son of Endymion)
Strabo Geography 10.3.2 Ὀξύλου τοῦ Αἵμονος (Oxylus, the son of Haemon)
Strabo Geography 12.3.28 Ἀντιπάτρου τοῦ Σίσιδος (Antipater, the son of Sisis)
Strabo Geography 12.8.18 Κελαινοῦ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος (Celaenus, the son of Poseidon)
Strabo Geography 13.1.11 Μέμνονος τοῦ Τιθωνοῦ (Memnon, the son of Tithonus)
Strabo Geography 14.1.27 Ἀμφιλόχου τοῦ Ἀμφιαράου (Amphilochus, the son of Amphiaraus)
Strabo Geography 14.3.10 Λύκου τοῦ Πανδίονος (Lycus, the son of Pandion)
Strabo Geography 14.5.16 Μόψου τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος (Mopsus, the son of Apollo)
Josephus Wars 1.476 Δαρείου τοῦ Ὑστάσπεως (Darius, the son of Hystaspes)
Josephus Against Apion 1.210 Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λάγου (Ptolemy, the son of Lagus)
Josephus Against Apion 1.244 Ἀμενώφεως τοῦ Παάπιος (Amenophis, the son of Papis)
Josephus Antiquities 1.113 Χάμου τοῦ Νώχου (Ham, the son of Noah)
Josephus Antiquities 11.79 Ἰούδα τοῦ Ἀμιναδάβου (Judas, the son of Aminadab)
Josephus Antiquities 11.270 Ἀμάνου τοῦ Ἀμαδάθου (Haman, the son of Ammedatha)
Josephus Antiquities 11.304 Παυσανίου τοῦ Κεράστου (Pausanias, the son of Cerastes)
Josephus Antiquities 12.3 Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λάγου (Ptolemy, the son of Lagus)
Josephus Antiquities 12.265 Ματταθίας υἱὸς Ἰωάννου τοῦ Συμεῶνος τοῦ Ἀσαμωναίου (...John, the son of Simeon...)
Josephus Antiquities 12.419 Ἰάσονος τοῦ Ἐλεαζάρου (Jason, the son of Eleazar)
Josephus Antiquities 14.149 Διονυσίου τοῦ Ἀσκληπιάδου (Dionysius, the son of Esculapius)
Josephus Antiquities 14.256 Μέμνονος τοῦ Ἀριστείδου (Memnon, the son of Orestidas)
Josephus Antiquities 15.23 Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Ἀριστοβούλου βασιλέως (Alexander, the son of Aristobulus the king)
Josephus Antiquities 18.134 Ἰωσήπου τοῦ Ἰωσήπου (Joseph, the son of Joseph)
Plutarch Alcibiades 19.2 Θεσσαλοῦ τοῦ Κίμωνος (Thessalus, the son of Cimon)
Plutarch Alcibiades 33.1 Κριτίου τοῦ Καλλαίσχρου (Critias, the son of Callaeschrus)
Plutarch Cimon 16.4 Ἀρχιδάμου τοῦ Ζευξιδάμου (Archidamus, the son of Zeuxidamus)
Plutarch Lysander 14.5 Θηραμένους τοῦ Ἅγνωνος (Theramenes, the son of Hagnon)
Plutarch Nicias 1.3 Ἑρμοκράτους τοῦ Ἕρμωνος (Hermocrates, the son of Hermon)
Plutarch Pericles 8.3 Θουκυδίδου τοῦ Μελησίου (Thucydides, the son of Melesias)
Plutarch Solon 26.2 Δημοφῶντος τοῦ Θησέως (Demophon, the son of Theseus)
Plutarch Theseus 8.3 Μελανίππου τοῦ Θησέως (Melanippus, the son of Theseus)
Appian Civil Wars 2.10.68 Ἴλου τοῦ Αἰνείου τὸ τῶν Ἰουλίων γένος (Ilus, the son of Aeneas of the Julian Race)
Appian Civil Wars 4.10.80 Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Φιλίππου (Alexander, the son of Philip)
Appian Kings 1 Αἰνείου τοῦ Ἀγχίσου τοῦ Κάπυος (Aeneas, the son of Anchises, the son of Capys)
Appian Kings 2 Ταρκυνίου Λευκίου τοῦ Ταρκυνίου (Tarquinius Lucius, the son of Tarquinius)
Appian The Mithridatic Wars 112 Δαρείου τοῦ Ὑστάσπου Περσῶν βασιλέως (Darius, the son of Hystaspes, king of the Persians)
Appian The Mithridatic Wars 115 Δαρείου τοῦ Ὑστάσπου (Darius, the son of Hystaspes)

[sethknorr]

Jonathan, here are the answers to your questions.

Did you propose a test that proves whether a particular example is emphatic or not?

Emphatic was a reference to application of the rule, not to how a verse was translated. See above post, I think it is now easier to understand what I meant.

An objective test along those lines would be helpful. I didn't see it. An objective test cannot depend on your preferred translation, that is circular, it has to depend on something in the original text.

Correct. The study was based on the study of an extremely large sample of Greek constructs. I never used preferred translations. I only used translations to verify the data that was processed.

It claims this rule only applies in the New Testament and a specific list of early church fathers (Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Diognetus, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and the writer of The Shepherd of Hermas). For secular writers you say it is generally not emphatic.

See my previous post. The rule applies to all Greek literature. However, my point was that when the construct appears in the NT, I believe it is always simple apposition (which would make the rule emphatic, ie. It always applies), where as in other literature and the LXX it applies a large percentage of the time. For instance in the LXX the rule is valid 98.8%. I put all these exceptions at the bottom of the paper.

In general, I assume that the language of the GNT is not distinct from Hellenistic Greek as a whole. Working on this small corpus, it explores a phenomenon that states quite a few conditions, which means you are reasoning from a small number of examples. It feels a bit like p-hacking. Even then, you need to argue that one of the verses is simply mistranslated.

Obviously the language is the same, but the grammar does vary from author to author and obviously over time. For instance, Wallace assigns four different grammar categories of Koine, “Vernacular, Literary, Conversational, and Attistic.” Interestingly enough, he placed the New Testament in the “Conversational” category and no other authors. I have seen other grammarians critique the grammar and classify authors into various categories, and even critique particular books of the Bible. This seems to be very common.

I wouldn’t call this “p-hacking.” Through my research, I discovered 2,915 examples of this construct of simple apposition, and placed all examples in the paper.

With that said, I focus more on the technique than grammar in the NT. I believe technique is overlooked. What I mean by that is Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου is perfectly fine and proper grammar. However, if you are writing a historical record it isn’t always great technique, because if the reader gets to Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου and they don’t know who Ptolemy Philadelphus is, they wouldn’t know if Philadelphus was Ptolemy’s father, or if Philadelphus was a second name of Ptolemy. This was also my point with Ἰησοῦ τοῦ τοῦ Ναυὴ, using τοῦ τοῦ was excellent technique because there could be no misunderstanding what the writer was saying. Likewise, the technique of the NT was excellent when it comes to this structure. That was my point.

You dismiss some of these examples as "poor grammar," saying you were shocked by Ἰησοῦ τοῦ τοῦ Ναυὴ, and telling us "all other secular writers would instead have written Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναυὴ". I don't think we know that. We have to interpret the corpus we have, assuming they generally knew Greek better than we do. Greek will feel strange to us sometimes. We should embrace examples that feel strange to us, they teach us how the language works.

I was shocked, because I had never seen τοῦ τοῦ before in any Greek literature in a genitive of relationship and always wondered if it was a possibility. So yes, I was surprised to find that.
I agree with your point, in that, we don’t know everything about Greek and may never, because of course we probably only have a small fraction of everything ever written. As to my comments, my reference was to what I had personally seen in my research. I was certainly not saying that no one else had ever used “τοῦ τοῦ” in a genitive of relationship. It is obviously possible. But I had never seen it. As I stated before, my paper is not about what I feel or about theology, it is about looking at a large sampling of Greek literature and from that drawing conclusions.

Also to be fair, I started by saying that “τοῦ τοῦ does appear in other Greek literature” “but this is the only instance I’ve seen used in a Genitive of Relationship construction.”
My next sentence, I should have been clearer, by stating “All other secular writers [that were studied in this paper] would have instead written Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναυὴ, or if they followed the rule Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Ναυὴ or something similar.”

Also I did not state it was poor grammar, I said “I assume this would have been.” I would never be dogmatic about Greek universally. The central point is answering why Clement used “τοῦ τοῦ” instead of just “τοῦ.” Whether this was bad or proper grammar, either way it shows that he didn’t want to use a single “τοῦ” for a genitive of relationship. My main point is that it appears, that Clement was probably more concerned with technique, than possibly using poor grammar, if that was the case.