Question re Greek grammar in 2 Timothy 3:16

[adriancombe]

Fratres: Omne gaudium Solemnitatis Resurrectionis Domini Nostri Jesi Christi vobiscum sit.

All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness (HCSB)

πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν πρὸς ἔλεγχον, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ

Question for those with knowledge of biblical Greek, and this has been nagging me, literally, for decades:

In the Greek, why is θεόπνευστος (theopneustos) merely in its lexical form, when it is modifying γραφὴ (graphe)? That is to ask, why doesn’t it agree with the grammatical gender of the noun it is modifying? I have looked all over the internet and such for a plausible answer, but few, if any, seem to even ask the question. I have some possible answers, but none of them are particularly convincing (to me, at any rate).

1. Θεόπνευστος is indeclinable. Issues with this idea:
   a. Since it is a hapax legomenon, there is no way to verify/refute this.
   b. The only usage of which I am aware, in which an adjective is not declined, is when it serves as an adverb, such as μόνον (monon=only) in Matt. 5:47, Matt 14:36 et al. Moreover, in that case, it is grammatically neuter, not masculine.
   c. Since the other adjective modifying scripture, ‘profitable’ (ὠφέλιμος) is also masculine, we have another problem, and a. and b. are superfluous.
2. There is a usage or dialect in which ‘scripture’ is masculine. But the only nouns I know of that have an ending that doesn’t agree with the gender are not feminine endings with masculine gender, but rather the reverse, i.e., masculine endings with feminine gender, e.g., ὁδὸς. But I have no evidence for this. As near as I can tell, all other usages of graphe are feminine.
3. There is some masculine noun in the context of the preceding and following verses that these two adjectives are intending to modify. I looked. Not so much.
4. There is some sort of deeper theological implication which Paul serves by intentionally throwing two very obvious grammatical ‘errors’ (and the same error both times!) For instance, if I am Timothy, I might think:
   a. Paul used the wrong grammatical gender. He must have been having a bad day.
   b. But Paul is way too smart, and doesn’t make those sort of mistakes.
   c. And since he made it twice, it was actually intentional.
   d. In the larger hermeneutical context, what could he mean?
   e. The Scripture is the Word of God, but so is Jesus, so Paul is referencing the mystical unity of these two senses of the Word to imply that it is because of Jesus that the Scripture is inspired and profitable (Jesus being not only grammatically, but also physically, masculine.
   
   Thoughts? I am not ‘married’ to any of these ideas. Really just grasping at straws, and hoping someone knows the answer. Many thanks in advance.

 

[Tomyris]

Look in William D. Mounce’s Morphology of Biblical Greek. This word is a-3a as on page 230. It consistently uses two endings,one for masculine and feminine adjectives, and a second for neuter adjectives. Mounce lists 338 words that act like this.

No deeper, hidden meaning.

 

[po18guy]

You could also call Fr. Mitch Pacwa on his EWTN radio show Open Line, or Dr. David Anders on EWTN’s Call to Communion for a bit more explanation. Since the scriptures we have are copies of copies of copies of copies, made by numerous hands over numerous centuries, by monks in different nations speaking different native languages, it is utterly amazing that we have the scriptures and that any of their original intent (or integrity) has been preserved. Not even Saint Jerome in the late 300s had a single autographed manuscript - all of them having perished long before.

 

[Gorgias]

πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν πρὸς ἔλεγχον, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ

In the Greek, why is θεόπνευστος (theopneustos) merely in its lexical form, when it is modifying γραφὴ (graphe)? That is to ask, why doesn’t it agree with the grammatical gender of the noun it is modifying?

Umm… it does agree with *γραφὴ *. They’re both nominative feminine singular.

*θεόπνευστος * is a second declension adjective. In the second declension, masculine and feminine adjectives have the same endings.

Since the other adjective modifying scripture, ‘profitable’ (ὠφέλιμος) is also masculine, we have another problem

I bet you’re expecting this answer by now, but… ὠφέλιμος is a second-declension adjective, too – and is also feminine in this sentence.

 

[DaveBj]

So far everyone is overlooking the fact that the word ὠφέλιμος (“profitable”) is also in its lexical (“dictionary”, in this case masculine singular form. I just went thru all the commentaries I have, and none of them even took note of this.

 

[Tomyris]

Look in William D. Mounce’s Morphology of Biblical Greek. This word is a-3a as on page 230. It consistently uses two endings,one for masculine and feminine adjectives, and a second for neuter adjectives. Mounce lists 338 words that act like this.

No deeper, hidden meaning.

So far everyone is overlooking the fact that the word ὠφέλιμος (“profitable”) is also in its lexical (“dictionary”, in this case masculine singular form. I just went thru all the commentaries I have, and none of them even took note of this.

ὠφέλιμος is also a-3a.

I overlooked nothing. Did you ask about ὠφέλιμος? No. You need to find a Greek grammar, not a commentary. They serve different purposes.

 

[DaveBj]

ὠφέλιμος is also a-3a.

I overlooked nothing. Did you ask about ὠφέλιμος? No. You need to find a Greek grammar, not a commentary. They serve different purposes.

But good commentators will point out seeming discrepancies like these. That said, I checked in my Thayer’s Lexicon; no mention of either being a-3a. I need to get myself a Mounce

 

[adriancombe]

Look in William D. Mounce’s Morphology of Biblical Greek. This word is a-3a as on page 230. It consistently uses two endings,one for masculine and feminine adjectives, and a second for neuter adjectives. Mounce lists 338 words that act like this.

No deeper, hidden meaning.

Never heard of this, nor seen it in any other NT text. Is there an online source? You are saying what exactly? That certain adjectives in the nominative singular have the -os ending regardless of masc/fem.?

 

[adriancombe]

Look in William D. Mounce’s Morphology of Biblical Greek. This word is a-3a as on page 230. It consistently uses two endings,one for masculine and feminine adjectives, and a second for neuter adjectives. Mounce lists 338 words that act like this.

No deeper, hidden meaning.

Found what you were talking about online too

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D2%3Achapter%3D13%3Asection%3D21

Very strange that this was never covered in class, nor the book, and I have never come across it in any other verse. Thank you very much.

 

[Tomyris]

But good commentators will point out seeming discrepancies like these. That said, I checked in my Thayer’s Lexicon; no mention of either being a-3a. I need to get myself a Mounce

Actually Thayer’s does give you a hint, showing -os, -on without any other forms. This is all I would expect.

If you don’t mind some advice…

You mentioned Thayer. I would recommend you move to BDAG 5th Edition for two reasons. One is that Thayer finished his work, admirable at the time, in the 1880s I think, when the papyri were discovered. What I recall reading was that just as it was being published it was already outdated. Secondly, Thayer’s theological bias creeps into some of his definitions, I have been told. They just updated to the 5th edition of the BDAG, which is the standard professional reference nowadays and includes the papyri and just about anything else. It is somewhat deficient on the Septuagint, I have noticed, but if you are working from the NT on it is very, very good. Thayer misses some things. I keep Thayer because of that cheat sheet forms of verbs in the back can keep my hair intact, as opposed to tearing it out sometimes. But it also misses things, usually the sort of obscure form that is a real stumper.

Mounce’s Morphology is shoved at beginning Greek students to terrify them and maybe get them to take something easier, like advanced statistical partial differential equations. I would suggest you work through Rod Decker’s Koine Greek Reader or Rodney A Whiteaacre’s A Patristic Greek Reader before shelling out for Morphology. Both are wonderful, friendly readers with helpful hints that give a great survey of Greek literature in an enjoyable fashion. Those will keep you busy for five years or so, during which you can procure whatever else you want or take up advanced statistical partial differential equations if your interest wanes. On the other hand, Morphology is inexpensive, although you can’t really take it to parties to do trivia with.

I don’t think they tell beginning Greek students things like 'by the way, you know that there are these adjectives with three sets of endings? Some only have two…" Greek is bad enough for the beginner as is. A friend of mine said that when they were introduced to the verb, lecture one, someone asked in a frightened voice, “Are there ANY verbs in Greek that are completely regular?” The professor stood silently for ten minutes, the class breathlessly awaiting his answer. Those would be the verbs to learn. But he finally said, “No, I don’t think so - except for - no, that has exceptions, too. No.” Three students walked out.

There are regular patterns in Greek. The key to learning Greek is to learn those patterns. But, yeah, there are a lot of them.

 

[DaveBj]

Actually Thayer’s does give you a hint, showing -os, -on without any other forms. This is all I would expect.

If you don’t mind some advice…

snip

Thanks, I appreciate it. My Greek is all self taught, and as you’ve probably already figured out, just a little shallow. At my age (born in the first Truman administration), I don’t think it would be worth it to invest more time and expense in Greek studies. I should have started this when I was a youth – back when Koine Greek was still a current language

 

[Tomyris]

Thanks, I appreciate it. My Greek is all self taught, and as you’ve probably already figured out, just a little shallow. **At my age (born in the first Truman administration), I don’t think it would be worth it to invest more time and expense in Greek studies. ** I should have started this when I was a youth – back when Koine Greek was still a current language

All the more reason to. That’s like saying you are too old to visit a museum, a garden or pick up a book. Or eat a meal. Fluency is not needed.

 

[DaveBj]

All the more reason to. That’s like saying you are too old to visit a museum, a garden or pick up a book. Or eat a meal. Fluency is not needed.

I could try to fit in in between keeping up with my correspondence, keeping up with my yardwork, preparing for a solo competition, preparing for two recitals . . . shall I go on? There are some subjects in which it is enough that I know where to go to ask the questions

 

[Tomyris]

I could try to fit in in between keeping up with my correspondence, keeping up with my yardwork, preparing for a solo competition, preparing for two recitals . . . shall I go on? There are some subjects in which it is enough that I know where to go to ask the questions

The thought has crossed my mind from time to time that some people don’t have all the time in the world to devote to Greek. I am dimly aware of the remote possibility that other people have other things to do with their time.

I assume that is a solo Greek oration, possibly one of Gregory Nazienzen’s orations, from memory (some are so long it is doubtful they were ever delivered orally).

And a recital of something Greek…Yes, of course…

And of course your correspondence is in Greek!