Sunday, August 20, 2017

Possible Significance of Theos/QEOS and Kurios

Something old from my files on Lord and other terms:

KURIOS and QEOS are not synonyms. Therefore, its possible for God to be Lord and yet it is also possible for a lord not to be God (or a god). For example, Abraham was called "lord" by Sarah (1 Pet. 3:6). Does this mean that he was also her god? Tertullian wrote in Adv. Hermogenes that God became Lord and Father when he brought forth his Son (Part 3). Thus while I would not deny that a QEOS can also be a KURIOS--even Jesus is likely called both in John 20:28--I believe that Paul intentionally made a distinction in 1 Cor. 8:5, 6 between QEOS and KURIOS. One source I will quote is the Interpreter's
Bible. Commenting on 1 Cor. 8:5, 6, Clarence T. Craig penned the following:

"Paul chose his prepositions [ex and dia] carefully in order to distinguish
between God the Father, who is the ultimate source of creation, and Christ,
the Lord, through whom [dia] this activity takes place . . . it is perfectly
clear what Paul wants to affirm. Neither Caesar nor Isis is Lord, but only
Jesus Christ. When Paul ascribed Lordship to Christ, in contrast to later
church dogma, he did not mean that Christ was God. Christ was definitely
subordinated to God" (Craig 93-94).

For proof of Craig's assertion, see 1 Cor. 3:23; 11:3; 15:24-28. The corresponding word for "Lord" in Latin is dominus, whereas pater stands for "father" as it does in Greek.

33 comments:

Duncan said...

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uYrlDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=roman+kurios+landowner&source=bl&ots=cmJS3u_sdI&sig=1Wz6VhMc9xUR0BTgRXDz_qgiQDM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQvPjI4erVAhXBD8AKHc12BnkQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=roman%20kurios%20landowner&f=false

Duncan said...

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7we3BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=roman+kurios+landowner&source=bl&ots=toFnnyJN4o&sig=LQ-zVoS7pmP1Z8ldUCOsUXc229k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQvPjI4erVAhXBD8AKHc12BnkQ6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=kurios%20landowner&f=false

Duncan said...

An interesting point here:-

http://www.ancient.eu/article/483/

"Women citizens had to marry as a virgin and marriage was usually organised by the father, who chose the husband and accepted from him a dowry. If a woman had no father, then her interests (marriage prospects and property management) were looked after by a guardian (kurios), perhaps an uncle or other male relative. "

Edgar Foster said...

The first link doesn't necessarily prove that kurios means/denotes "landowner" and I am not sure that was the writer's intent anyway as one reads through the pages of that work. Notice what he says about Hurtado.

On the other quote, I can see kurios being used for a guardian, and hat might be applicable to Jesus although I believe there's more to it. Note John 4:11; 11:27; Acts 2:36; Eph 5:22.

Edgar Foster said...

See the comments here on Lord: http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Christological_Titles.htm#Lord

Edgar Foster said...

If you review the LSJ entry for kurios, you'll se that they list "guardian" as one of the senses/denotations for kurios. I posted the link for LSJ recently.

Duncan said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1435299/Nobility-baronets-knightage.html

It is a pity that such additional status terms did not exist and that some confusion still exists today.

Duncan said...

What I found interesting is the "male relative" - In recent English this would be "sir".

Edgar Foster said...

In the case of Jesus, I believe the meaning is basically clear. Sir is used at John 4:11. Trinitarians want to identify the Lord Jesus with the Lord Jehovah, but Jesus as Lord could be understood in a messianic sense without resorting to Trinitarian vocabulary.

Edgar Foster said...

Unfortunately, we have to work with the categories that are available.

JW Apología Bíblica said...

Hello Edgar, I want to ask you about a biblical text John 20:28 about the Smart rule and I would also like if you can find a link where you can download the dictionary that has this comment


Smart's First Rule - 45 examples in the GNT and no exceptions.

In native [not translation] KOINE Greek when the copulative KAI connects two substantives of personal description in regimen [i.e. both or neither have articles] and the first substantive alone is modified by the personal pronoun in the genitive or repeated for perspicuity [Winer 147-148;155] two persons or groups of persons are in view.


"In native1 KOINE Greek when the copulative KAI connects two or more titles of personal description [viz. singular nouns, plural nouns, article noun kai noun constructions 2 or compound proper names3] which are both either articular or anarthrous4 and a personal pronoun in the genitive case modifies the first of the said titles, and the personal pronoun is repeated or absent7 with respect to the second title, there are always two persons5 or groups of persons6 in view."

1 "Translation Greek" as in LXX quotations and LXX O.T. Greek are excepted. 21Th 3:11; 32Th 2:16; 4Lu 8:21; 5(Jn 20:28; 1Th 3:11; 2Th 2:16; 1Ti 1:1); 6Mt 12:49; Mk 3:33-34 ; 7e.g. only one personal pronoun in the genitive case modifies the conjunctive phrase and separates the substantive terms. (i.e. Mk 3:35; Lu 2:33)

JW Apología Bíblica said...

If it is possible for you, friend Edgar, could you make an exposition about John 20:28 in the form that we should understand it both in its contextual form and grammatical structure? I would like to thank you very much, my friend.

Philip Fletcher said...

Why I can't give an exposition. I know that it doesn't help Trinitarians with scriptures like John 20:28 or John 1:1 for that matter, if anything they might prove a duality but no trinity. Dualities are unacceptable to trinitarians.

Duncan said...

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YrnUAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=kurios+semantics&source=bl&ots=k759UBbxI8&sig=PT7yGbF_njwFqK5yR4vh5VjpD6U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGrpyZ9OzVAhUrJcAKHS_8Bx4Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=kurios%20semantics&f=false

Duncan said...

https://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/word_studies/greek/kurios.pdf

This looks very useful for further investigation.

Edgar Foster said...

If no one else beats me to it, I will add a few points this weekend.

JW Apología Bíblica said...

Thanks Edgar, for answer I will be waiting for a hug your friend (Omar)

Edgar Foster said...

Duncan: that page does look useful.

Omar: You're welcome, my friend.

Edgar Foster said...

Omar, I found a free copy of Sharp's book. See https://books.google.com/books?id=Ick7AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=sharp%27s+rule&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTvqSbyvbVAhXE2SYKHV-rA3E4FBDoAQgsMAE#v=onepage&q=sharp's%20rule&f=false

JW Apología Bíblica said...

Thanks Edgar, I will keep it in my notes, and on the other rule that I mentioned the rule Smart's I would like to consult you, if in fact this rule is valid in the Greek koine? And if we can apply it to John 20:28 in the phrase ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου? (Omar)

JW Apología Bíblica said...

In my first comment quote a comment that talks about how to apply this rule (Smart's) to that structure that appears in Jn20: 28, I'm not sure if that rule is valid because it makes a distinction between the Koine Greek NT and Of the LXX, I would appreciate you to help me understand this friend (Omar)

Edgar Foster said...

You're welcome, Omar. Sorry that I first thought you were talking about Sharp's rule instead of Smart's. I am familiar with Smart's rule; he is a Witness, who formulated this rule. It was once discussed on BGreek (an email form) and many students of Greek took exception to the "rule." I do not think you will find Smart's rule in a book and it has been a long time since I read it online. Right now, it is hard for me to say if the rule is valid: like all rules, if it's correct, there are likely exceptions.

John 20:28 could have one or two persons in view--not just grammar, but context is going to determine how we understand the text. Furthermore, Winer is good in many places of his grammar, but much of what he wrote has now been overturned. He must be read critically or carefully.

Koine and LXX Greek might be different at certain points, but even that idea has been questioned by LXX scholars. I believe the WT brothers have struck a good balance with John 20:28. Both aspects of the verse could apply to Christ Jesus or possibly not. We have discussed this verse before on the blog and elsewhere. Maybe some blog links would be helpful.

Edgar Foster said...

Here is something I wrote before about John 20:28

What I'm trying to say about John 20:28 and 2 Cor 4:4 is that we don't simply have ho theos [in these verses], but there are qualifiers appended to the noun phrase in each case. For 2 Cor 4:4, it's not simply "the God," but "the God/god of this age." John 20:28 also has Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου. μου qualifies the nominative construction for "the God" and "the Lord." To show that we're not necessarily talking about two persons in John 20:28, see Psalm 34:23 (LXX), which is a prayer to YHWH:

ὁ Θεός μου καὶ ὁ Κύριός μου

Compare Revelation 4:11 and its variants.

It's not just Sharp's view of Jn 1:1 that tilts the interpretation in favor of one person at John 20:28. Thomas said the words to Jesus (καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ). Why would Thomas address Jesus by calling him (Jesus) "Lord" and referring to God the Father as his "God" (καὶ ὁ Θεός μου). That makes less sense to me than understanding the words as a reference to one person, Jesus himself.

See also Rev. 4:11, where Jehovah is addressed in a similar manner: Ἄξιος εἶ, ὁ Κύριος καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν . . ."

Definitely not more than one person being mentioned in that account. Compare John 13:13.

Ps. 34:23 is in reverse order, but it's syntactically parallel to John 20:28. I don't know what you mean about the definite article since it is the same in terms of the structure: ὁ Θεός μου καὶ ὁ Κύριός μου . . .("the God of me and the Lord of me")

But one thing to consider here is that Max Zerwick suggests John 20:28 could be a nominative of exclamation rather than a nominative for a vocative (i.e., a nominative of address).

Edgar Foster said...

Another verse to consider is Psalm 5:2 in LXX.

JW Apología Bíblica said...

Interesting explanation Edgar, it is very clear then that every rule has exceptions and be the one and the other the context will determine the meaning, and taking this clear I would like to make a last query on the subject, the phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ always indicates address to the person who Is it addressed or can there be exceptions?

JW Apología Bíblica said...

¿crees que LXX1Samuel 20:12 sea compatible con Juan20:28?

JW Apología Bíblica said...

I would appreciate edgar if you can provide me some blog links on the subject. Many thanks friend (omar)

Edgar Foster said...

Hello Omar,

I believe εἶπεν αὐτῷ normally means that one speaker is addressing another, like Jesus speaking to Thomas. But if John 20:28 is a nominative of exclamation (as Zerwick suggests it could be), then although Christ speaks to Thomas, he would be making a statement directed toward his Father. In fact, one church father said John 20:28 is spoken about the Father, but the church obviously rejected that understanding of the text.

On 1 Sam 20:12, there seems to be a different syntactical structure there: κύριος ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ

Edgar Foster said...

Omar,

here are some links that might be helpful:

https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/09/john-2028-further-reflections.html

https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/11/john-2028-and-definite-article-cfd-moule.html

JW Apología Bíblica said...

thanks to Edgar, I used these links a lot and all the information you gave me, maybe you could give me more examples where the noun is modified by the genitive as it is in Jn 20:28 and 2Cor 4: 4 and if you could enable other reference works on this application.

Edgar Foster said...

Omar,

See Rev 11:13; Ephesians 1:17; Romans 15:13; Romans 16:20. Also see Jn 8:54 and Daniel 2:44 (LXX).

These pages might be helpful with uses of the genitive:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0052%3Aform%3Dgen

http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=61150

JW Apología Bíblica said...

Thanks Edgar now if I already have all the material I need and congratulations for the good work you do in doing these studies is a great benefit that Jehovah continues to give you knowledge, a greeting from Peru (Omar)

Edgar Foster said...

Omar,

You're welcome, Brother. Glad I could offer some small assistance. Greetings from North Carolina.