Technical question about the Greek of 2 Peter 1:4 as relates (or not) to theology

[dzheremi]

Hi all,

A recent thread has caused me to look for information on the exact meaning of κοινωνοι as it is found in 2 Peter 1:4 (the famous "partakers of the divine nature" verse). Not knowing Greek, what little I have found suggests that it might be more literally translated as "sharers" (as here), though I'm not sure what if any difference this would make to the understanding of the verse.

Similarly, because of the nature of the dispute concerning this verse as it has appeared in some of Fr. Matta El Miskeen's writings, some have made some noise about the form of the preposition that is to go with it, as Fr. Matta apparently renders it "in" -- i.e., "partakers in the divine nature" -- while the verse in the original is clearly "of", θείας apparently being a genitive feminine singular adjective, i.e., "partakers of the divine nature". Same as the last question: what if any difference does this make to the understanding of the verse? I assume that if there is to be an important difference worth arguing about, it will be found here, though I'm having trouble finding a way to express it at first glance, and I figure you guys have all/most of the Greek, so any help would be much appreciated. Thank you.

 

[ArmyMatt]

to venture a guess, for us it would depends on how you are looking at it. just like how (sorry, not trying to derail, just that this is what comes to mind) saying Christ is of two Natures (because Christ is indivisibly and inseparably one) doesn't contradict saying Christ is in two Natures (because the fullness of Divinity and humanity are preserved in Him without confusion or change).

any error looking at either translation would be to take it to the extreme.

maybe?

 

[HardHead]

I don't read Greek but I take that as 'obtaining/having a part of'. The idea of 'share' does not convey the idea of partitioning or portions, at least not to me. The NRSV renders it as 'participants of' which invokes the idea of 'part' to some degree. Using 'partakers of' is similar but this is somehow passive to my ears relative to the NRSV rendering.

Some notes from the NET bible are here but you probably have seen these already ...

2 Peter 1:4
N19 sn Although the author has borrowed the expression partakers of the divine nature from paganism, his meaning is clearly Christian. He does not mean apotheosis (man becoming a god) in the pagan sense, but rather that believers have an organic connection with God. Because of such a connection, God can truly be called our Father. Conceptually, this bears the same meaning as Paul’s “in Christ” formula. The author’s statement, though startling at first, is hardly different from Paul’s prayer for the Ephesians that they “may be filled up to all the fullness of God” (Eph_3:19).

2 Peter 1:4
N20 tn The aorist participle ἀποφυγόντες (apophugontes) is often taken as attendant circumstance to the preceding verb γένησθε (genēsthe). As such, the sense is “that you might become partakers…and might escape…” However, it does not follow the contours of the vast majority of attendant circumstance participles (in which the participle precedes the main verb, among other things). Further, attendant circumstance participles are frequently confused with result participles (which do follow the verb). Many who take this as attendant circumstance are probably viewing it semantically as result (“that you might become partakers…and [thereby] escape…”). But this is next to impossible since the participle is aorist: Result participles are categorically present tense.

 

[dzheremi]

to venture a guess, for us it would depends on how you are looking at it. just like how (sorry, not trying to derail, just that this is what comes to mind) saying Christ is of two Natures (because Christ is indivisibly and inseparably one) doesn't contradict saying Christ is in two Natures (because the fullness of Divinity and humanity are preserved in Him without confusion or change).

any error looking at either translation would be to take it to the extreme.

maybe?

Yes, taking it to the extreme would be a problem, but this isn't really about that, Father. This is about specifically that verse. The argument which has been rehashed in a recent thread on Voice of the Desert forum concerning the conflict between HH Pope Shenouda III and Fr. Matta El Miskeen (I guess I should call him Matthew the Poor here, but it's difficult to remember to do that when I primarily know him by his Arabic name; apologies) over theosis and what is proper and not proper to say regarding it, seems to the best of my knowledge to hinge upon what it would mean to say we are "partakers" (or whatever the word should be) of the divine nature or in the divine nature.

When I was looking for the widest variety of views from within my own communion on this question, basically everyone (Syriacs, Indians, Ethiopians, and Armenians) all said some variation of "Yes, of course we believe in Theosis as the EO seem to teach it, since we recognize it in this father, and that one, etc." But some also said that it was wrong for Fr. Matta to say "in the divine nature" rather than the scriptural and patristic "of the divine nature". I'm struggling to figure out what the difference is, if it's something I should be concerned about as well, and how to best approach the topic overall in light of these distinctions that I'm not sure I even understand.

 

[HardHead]

are categorically present tense

This tense is an important point.

 

[dzheremi]

Why?

 

[HardHead]

If its future tense it's not a partitioning that is now, in the moment. To me it's the difference between 'you have' and 'you will have' the portion, or 'you are' vs. 'you will be'. I'm not sure if that makes sense or not. It's just a guess on my part.

 

[dzheremi]

But that's about verb tense, not prepositions or how to best understand the noun.

 

[HardHead]

i know. i'm just saying that this is something you may want to consider in general regarding understanding the verse.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes, taking it to the extreme would be a problem, but this isn't really about that, Father. This is about specifically that verse. The argument which has been rehashed in a recent thread on Voice of the Desert forum concerning the conflict between HH Pope Shenouda III and Fr. Matta El Miskeen (I guess I should call him Matthew the Poor here, but it's difficult to remember to do that when I primarily know him by his Arabic name; apologies) over theosis and what is proper and not proper to say regarding it, seems to the best of my knowledge to hinge upon what it would mean to say we are "partakers" (or whatever the word should be) of the divine nature or in the divine nature.

When I was looking for the widest variety of views from within my own communion on this question, basically everyone (Syriacs, Indians, Ethiopians, and Armenians) all said some variation of "Yes, of course we believe in Theosis as the EO seem to teach it, since we recognize it in this father, and that one, etc." But some also said that it was wrong for Fr. Matta to say "in the divine nature" rather than the scriptural and patristic "of the divine nature". I'm struggling to figure out what the difference is, if it's something I should be concerned about as well, and how to best approach the topic overall in light of these distinctions that I'm not sure I even understand.

no, what I meant was both are okay provided extremism is avoided. I don't think there necessarily is a difference. it's probably not wrong to say in, provided you have a proper understanding.

 

[dzheremi]

Ah, okay. Makes sense. Thank you, Father. I agree.

Is there a difference between the two, though? Or a difference between "partakers" and "sharers" (assuming either of those are acceptable translations of the Greek)?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ah, okay. Makes sense. Thank you, Father. I agree.

Is there a difference between the two, though? Or a difference between "partakers" and "sharers" (assuming either of those are acceptable translations of the Greek)?

I don't think so really, at least not to get hung up on. we are partakers in that we do commune with God fully, but we are also sharers in that it's God's by nature that He gifts it to us.

 

[HardHead]

but we are also sharers in that it's God's by nature that He gifts it to us.

Well said. A gift given with grace and love.

 

[archer75]

I don't think you need to hear this from me, @dzheremi , but I'll say it anyway: prepositions are notoriously wacky across languages and even in one.

So as far as getting the verse to line up with one's theology, I guess anyone will privilege the theology and make the verse fit. And if one were going to start from the verse...well, it seems an extensive, if not exhaustive, study of relevant Koine syntax would be the first step? And a study of how to express the meaning of the verse using a preposition in a modern language would be step two?

Sorry if this sounds crazy. But if we looked at a non-theological example set in English, we would probably find that the uses of "in" and "of" are not so cut and dried...

 

[dzheremi]

I don't think you need to hear this from me, @dzheremi , but I'll say it anyway: prepositions are notoriously wacky across languages and even in one.

Well yeah...that's why I made this thread.

So as far as getting the verse to line up with one's theology, I guess anyone will privilege the theology and make the verse fit. And if one were going to start from the verse...well, it seems an extensive, if not exhaustive, study of relevant Koine syntax would be the first step?

I was hoping someone here for whom Greek is of particular interest might've already done that.

And a study of how to express the meaning of the verse using a preposition in a modern language would be step two?

I guess.

Sorry if this sounds crazy. But if we looked at a non-theological example set in English, we would probably find that the uses of "in" and "of" are not so cut and dried...

Prepositions definitely aren't my specialty, but you're probably right.

I started this thread on the assumption that there is such a difference between the two, but only because someone else had pointed out that the phrase as found in Fr. Matta's work (I don't know which one) did not match the phrase in the original. I'm still at a loss as to why I should care about that difference (theologically), as I agree with Fr. Matt that it probably wouldn't be wrong to say either if you had a proper understanding of whatever you were meaning to convey, but that in itself doesn't tell me what that difference is.

 

[JohnTh]

Saint Gregory Palamas solved the problem hundredths of years ago.
Here we should note that there are different grades of κοινωνία (partaking) according to our status.
Also, knowing a little about the divine light and deification shows us a glimpse from this.
However, only the personal experience will solve the problem - especially in this case.