Greek (SBLGNT): νήψατε, γρηγορήσατε. ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμῶν διάβολος ὡς λέων ὠρυόμενος περιπατεῖ ζητῶν [a]τινα [b]καταπιεῖν·
- ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α΄ 5:8 τινα NIV] τίνα RP; – WH Treg
- ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α΄ 5:8 καταπιεῖν WH Treg NIV] καταπίῃ RP
Morphology: Peter initiates his counsel in this verse with two aorist imperatives, which is where one would expect present imperatives instead (Andreas J. Köstenberger, Benjamin L Merkle, Robert L. Plummer, Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, Rev. Edition). But the apostle evidently has a proclivity for aorist imperatives even when imparting general counsel. See 1 Peter 4:7.
Syntax: ὠρυόμενος and ζητῶν are "adverbial participles of manner modifying the main verb περιπατεῖ" (Going Deeper with New Testament Greek).
The aorist infinitive καταπιεῖν "is probably an infinitive communicating purpose ('in order to devour') or perhaps an epexegetical infinitive explaining the seeking ('that is, to devour')."
See op. cit., supra.
The Following is from 1 Peter: A Handbook on the Greek Text by Mark Dubis, page 168:
ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμῶν διάβολος. The subject ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμῶν along with its appositive διάβολος is fronted to mark the topical shift from “you” to “the devil.”
ὁ ἀντίδικος. Nominative subject of περιπατεῖ. BDAG (88) notes that this term can mean (a) more specifically, “accuser” or “plaintiff” in a legal context (see Job 1:6-11), or (b) more generally, “enemy.” Michaels (299) rightly concludes that the context is “not judicial” but rather one of worldwide antagonism (v. 10), in favor of option (b).
ὑμῶν. Objective genitive.
διάβολος. Nominative in apposition to ἀντίδικος. This substantival adjective (lit. “slanderer”) functions as a title in the NT and refers to the devil. In the NT, it almost always appears, unlike here, with the article. Nevertheless, Wallace (248–49) argues that this singular noun is monadic, i.e., a “one-of-a-kind noun” and, thus, is definite even when anarthrous. Of course, it is also definite by virtue of standing in apposition to a definite noun.
2 comments:
Jon 6:70 , Wallace makes a similar argument about Devil, saying there is only one devil so therefore it must be definite, in this case I agree with Harner and Barnes:
Note the NET bibles footnote which echo's Wallace's opinion
Although most translations render this last phrase as “one of you is a devil,” such a translation presupposes that there is more than one devil. This finds roots in the KJV in which the Greek word for demon was often translated “devil.” In fact, the KJV never uses the word “demon.” (Sixty-two of the 63 NT instances of δαιμόνιον [daimonion] are translated “devil” [in Acts 17:18 the plural has been translated “gods”]. This can get confusing in places where the singular “devil” is used: Is Satan or one of the demons in view [cf. Matt 9:33 (demon); 13:39 (devil); 17:18 (demon); Mark 7:26 (demon); Luke 4:2 (devil); etc.]?) Now regarding John 6:70, both the construction in Greek and the technical use of διάβολος (diabolos) indicate that the one devil is in view. To object to the translation “the devil” because it thus equates Judas with Satan does not take into consideration that Jesus often spoke figuratively (e.g., “destroy this temple” [John 2:19]; “he [John the Baptist] is Elijah” [Matt 11:14]), even equating Peter with the devil on one occasion (Mark 8:33). According to ExSyn 249, “A curious phenomenon has occurred in the English Bible with reference to one particular monadic noun, διάβολος. The KJV translates both διάβολος and δαιμόνιον as ‘devil.’ Thus in the AV translators’ minds, ‘devil’ was not a monadic noun. Modern translations have correctly rendered δαιμόνιον as ‘demon’ and have, for the most part, recognized that διάβολος is monadic (cf., e.g., 1 Pet 5:8; Rev 20:2). But in John 6:70 modern translations have fallen into the error of the King James translators. The KJV has ‘one of you is a devil.’ So does the RSV, NRSV, ASV, NIV, NKJV, and the JB [Jerusalem Bible]. Yet there is only one devil…The legacy of the KJV still lives on, then, even in places where it ought not.”
Barnes:Is a devil - Has the spirit, the envy, the malice, and the treasonable designs of a devil. The word "devil" here is used in the sense of an enemy, or one hostile to him.
(https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/6-70.htm)
wouldn't διάβολος be definite either way, if it wasn't directly next to ὁ ἀντίδικος?
I think the anarthrous διάβολος is definite in 1 Peter 5:8 but qualitative in John 6:70. One can arrive at the idea that the word is definite in 1 Peter 5:8 for more than one reason, as the 1 Peter Handbook says. The noun could be monadic, and it is next to a definite noun phrase. Additionally, context could tell us that the noun is probably definite. What other διάβολος is walking around like a roaring lion seeking to devour Christians? Furthermore, we've learned that anarthrous doesn't necessarily mean a noun is indefinite or qualitative.
Post a Comment