The Evangelical Universalist Forum

In Whom, or in which?

(robin)
I think Colossians is one of my favorite Pauline epistles … it was written to an ecclesia, that hadn’t been founded by Paul, but one which was of the body of Christ (of the same Christ-centerd beliefs), towards which he anticipated to soon visit (and to strengthened their beliefs). That is, those in Kolassai, were much like many of us today, we haven’t had the gift of Paul directly teaching us, but only what we’ve gleaned, in God’s grace, from lesser teachers … to them, to us, Paul reaches out, dearly yearning to impart a clearer understanding of his gospel, the Christ-centered evangel …

“For to you I will to have had perceived, [that] to a prime-statured struggle I hold, about you, and of the [ones] in Laodikeia,
and as-many [ones], to the face in flesh of me they have had seen not, so-that they should be beside-called,
the hearts of same [ones] having been together-united in love, and into every riches of the assurance of the intelligence,
into a recognition of the secret of the God and Father, and of the Anointed,
in which a [secret] be all the away-hidden stores of the wisdom, and the knowledge.” (~Robin)

What prompted me to post this particular thought, is the interesting, very different reading discovered about verse 2:3 …

en hO eisin pantes hoi thEsauroi tEs sophias kai tEs gnOseOs apokruphoi
“in which a [secret] be all the away-hidden stores of the wisdom, and the knowledge.”

… that is, to a fault, every other translation I’ve seen, reads this as, “in Whom,” instead of, “in which a [thing]” …
in {1722 PREP} unto which a [thing] {3739 R-DSN}
… that is, the relative pronoun “ho” {3739 R-DSN} is neuter, not masculine. The point being, that if it were referring
back to “tou christou,” or Christ, in the previous verse, then the pronoun would have been masculine … but rather, the
pronoun is neuter, so the only “thing” that this opening phrase in verse 23 can be referring to, is “the secret” …

Which, then, takes us back to what Paul has previously said, starting with verse 1:25 …

“… of which an [ecclesia] I, I had become a servant according-to the house-administration of the God;
the [house-administration] having been given unto me, for’ you, to fulfill the word of the God;
to the secret, the [secret] having had been away-hidden from the eons, and from the generations,
yet right-now, was manifested unto the sanctified [ones] of Same;
unto which [ones], the God He had willed to acknowledge what [be] the riches of the glory of the secret,
this [secret] among the nations:
[The] Anointed among you, Which be, the expectation of glory” (~Robin)

…in which a [secret] be all the away-hidden stores of the wisdom, and the knowledge.


2:3* in which a [secret] be all the away-hidden stores of the wisdom, and the knowledge.

ἐν ᾧ εἰσιν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ τῆς γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι.
en hO eisin pantes hoi thEsauroi tEs sophias kai tEs gnOseOs apokruphoi

in {1722 PREP} unto which a [thing] {3739 R-DSN} there be {1510 V-PAI-3P} all [ones] {3956 A-NPM} the [ones] {3588 T-NPM} stores {2344 N-NPM} of the [one] {3588 T-GSF} of a wisdom {4678 N-GSF} and {2532 CONJ} of the [one] {3588 T-GSF} of a knowledge {1108 N-GSF} away-hidden [ones] {0614 A-NPM}

Robin, how do you know that ᾡ (or “hO” as you represent it) is neuter and not masculine in Colossians 2:3?
In the dative singular, the neuter and masculine forms are identical. Thus ᾡ can be either neuter or masculine.

An example in which “ἐν ᾡ” is clearly masculine occurs in Matthew 3:17

“This is My beloved Son, in whom (ἐν ᾡ) I am well pleased.”

You wouldn’t translate that as "“This is My beloved Son, in which I am well pleased,” would you?

So doubtless this is the reason that, in Colossians 2:3, all the translators render the phrase as “in whom” since they believe ᾡ to be masculine with “Christ” as its antecedant. The word “χριστου” immediately precedes “ἐν ᾡ” and ususally the antecedant of a relative pronoun is the noun that is most proximate.

2:3* in which a [secret], be all the away-hidden stores of the wisdom, and the knowledge.
ἐν ᾧ εἰσιν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ τῆς γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι.
en hO eisin pantes hoi thEsauroi tEs sophias kai tEs gnOseOs apokruphoi

(Paidion)
…how do you know that ᾡ (or “hO” as you represent it) is neuter and not masculine in Col 2:3?

(robin)
Many Greek words can be read in more than one way, but the parsings/ declensions given here reflect that found in “The New Testament In The Original Greek - Byzantine Textform 2005,” (RP2005) by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpoint.
And a comparison, here, of the “Byzantine Greek New Testament” (MSS collations of Kr/f35), by Wilber Pickering was in agreement, here, with the RP2005” (Kx Byzantine Kappa textform).

However, that “hO” was just my transliteration (the “h” should have appeared italicized),
see the real Greek lettering above my transliteraton… ᾧ …

(Paidion)
In the dative singular, the neuter and masculine forms are identical.
Thus ᾡ can be either neuter or masculine ….

(robin)
Again, I defer to the conclusions of the real experts, Maurice Robinson and William Pierpoint …
And they have it, in this verse as … unto which a [thing] {3739 R-DSN} …

2:3* in which a [secret], be all the away-hidden stores of the wisdom, and the knowledge.

But do notice, that I’ve put the neuter word “[secret]” in the brackets, in place of “[thing] because, it’s the antecedent, the object being referred to, in the previous verse …
“…into a recognition of the secret, of the God and Father, and of the Anointed…”

(Paidion)
In the dative singular, the neuter and masculine forms are identical.
Thus ᾡ can be either neuter or masculine ….

(robin)
Just in case anyone is actually reading this post, and didn’t follow just what you’re saying, here’s a little chart that I’ve constructed for the 24 different combinations of Case, Number, and Gender:

3588 GK3836 ho the [one/ One] T-NSM.01
3588 GK3836 tou of the [one/ One] T-GSM.02
3588 GK3836 tO unto the [one/ One] T-DSM.03
3588 GK3836 ton to the [one/ One] T-ASM.04
3588 GK3836 hoi the [ones] T-NPM.05
3588 GK3836 tOn of the [ones] T-GPM.06
3588 GK3836 tois unto the [ones] T-DPM.07
3588 GK3836 tous to the [ones] T-APM.08
3588 GK3836 hE the [one] T-NSF.09
3588 GK3836 tEs of the [one] T-GSF.10
3588 GK3836 tE unto the [one] T-DSF.11
3588 GK3836 tEn to the [one] T-ASF.12
3588 GK3836 hai the [ones] T-NPF.13
3588 GK3836 tOn of the [ones] T-GPF.14
3588 GK3836 tais unto the [ones] T-DPF.15
3588 GK3836 tas to the [ones] T-APF.16
3588 GK3836 to the [thing] T-NSN.17
3588 GK3836 tou of the [thing] T-GSN.18
3588 GK3836 tO unto the [thing] T-DSN.19
3588 GK3836 to to the [thing] T-ASN.20
3588 GK3836 ta the [things] T-NPN.21
3588 GK3836 tOn of the [things] T-GPN.22
3588 GK3836 tois unto the [things] T-DPN.23
3588 GK3836 ta to the [things] T-APN.24

(Paidion)
An example in which “ἐν ᾡ” is clearly masculine occurs in Matthew 3:17
“This is My beloved Son, in whom (ἐν ᾡ) I am well pleased.”

You wouldn’t translate that as "“This is My beloved Son, in which I am well pleased,” would you?

(robin)
Again, just for anyone (?) following along, here’s the actual Greek, and the parsing/ declinations provided by Maurice Robinson (who is still alive and kicking, by the way, so if you have any arguments, I can give you his email address … and you can ask him about such things.

Καὶ ἰδού, φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, λέγουσα, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα.

and {2532 CONJ} be you regarding {2400 V-2AAM-2S} a voice {5456 N-NSF} out {1537 PREP} of the [ones]{3588 {T-GPM} of heavens {3772 N-GPM} saying {3004 V-PAP-NSF} this [One] {3778 D-NSM} He be {2076 V-PXI-3S} the [One] {3588 T-NSM} a Son {5207 N-NSM} of Me {1473 P-1GS} the [One] {3588 T-NSM} a loveable [One] {0027 A-NSM} in {1722 PREP} unto which a [One] {3739 R-DSM} I had delighted {2106 V-AAI-1S}

(Paidion)
An example in which “ἐν ᾡ” is clearly masculine occurs in Matthew 3:17
“This is My beloved Son, in whom (ἐν ᾡ) I am well pleased.”

You wouldn’t translate that as “This is My beloved Son, in …which… I am well pleased,” …
would you?

(robin)
Yes, as a mater of fact I would, indeed …
”This One, He be the Son of Me, the loveable [One] in Which I had delighted”

Couple other things to point out, I try my best to be consistent with the “to be” verb …
The Greek adjective ends in “-tos,” so I consistently read such modifiers with an “-able” ending …
The final verb is Aorist Active Indicative (AAI), the one form that I’ve found to have a timeliness’ (past tense) about it …Also, “to please” is yet another Greek word 0700 “areskein” V-PAN
whereas, what we have, here, is the “to delight” word family, as in God, He has delighted in His loveable Son
2106 “eudokEsen” He had delighted V-AAI-3S

But back to your specific question, about “Whom” or “Which” …
Why complicate matters, why not just be consistent with this word family 3739 GK4005 ,
which, by the way is different from the word 3588 GK3836

That is, just chuck the “Whom” and go consistently with “Which” … you loose, absolutely nothing,
And you gain concordant consistency … Or is it the intent of some translators to only make the reader throw up their hands, in defeat, and say, “It’s Greek to me!” Give the layman a fighting chance …

3739 GK4005 hos which a [one/ One] R-NSM.01
3739 GK4005 hou of which a [one/ One] R-GSM.02
3739 GK4005 hO unto which a [one/ One] R-DSM.03
3739 GK4005 hon to which a [one/ One] R-ASM.04
3739 GK4005 hOn of which [ones] R-GPM.06
3739 GK4005 hois unto which [ones] R-DPM.07
3739 GK4005 hous to which [ones] R-APM.08
3739 GK4005 hEs of which a [one] R-GSF.10
3739 GK4005 hE unto which a [one/ One] R-DSF.11
3739 GK4005 hEn to which a [one] R-ASF.12
3739 GK4005 hOn of which [ones] R-GPF.14
3739 GK4005 hais unto which [ones] R-DPF.15
3739 GK4005 has to which [ones] R-APF.16
3739 GK4005 ho which a [thing] R-NSN.17
3739 GK4005 hou of which a [thing] R-GSN.18
3739 GK4005 hO unto which a [thing] R-DSN.19
3739 GK4005 ho to which a [thing] R-ASN.20
3739 GK4005 ha which [things] R-NPN.21
3739 GK4005 hOn of which [things] R-GPN.22
3739 GK4005 hois unto which [things] R-DPN.23
3739 GK4005 ha to which [things] R-APN.24

(robin)
The reason is, I’m thinking, is that many Greek words can, indeed, be read in different ways … the declensions and parsings are problematic …
so perhaps, someone, like the KJV decided to go a particular way, and everyone else just followed along …and then, along comes a Maurice Robinson, and William Pierpoint, and Wilber Pickering, who say …“Hey, wait just a minute, here, we need to rethink our reading of this or that word” …

Maybe it is time to rethink a thing or two … maybe “all translators” doesn’t necessarilly make a thing so?

As for Christ being the antecedent (correct spelling), are you mixing up verses, here … ? …
Sure, the Anointed is previously mentioned, as is God and Father, but look carefully …
it’s the secret and it’s recognition that’s the subject, the true antecedent.

“…into a recognition of the secret, of the God and Father, and of the Anointed…”
in which a [secret],
be all the away-hidden stores of the wisdom, and the knowledge

Do you think William D. Mounce, is not one of “the true experts” in Hellenistic Greek? He is the author of Greek Grammar book and Greek courses.
In his book, “Basics of Biblical Greek” on page 110, he provided a chart with the various forms of the relative pronoun. On that chart, he indicated
“ᾡ” is the Greek form for both the dative singular masculine and the dative singular neuter? Every Greek expert with whom I have checked, affirms the same. Why are you unable to accept that fact?

The word “Christ” is closer to “in whom” than is “mystery” (or “secret” which is probably better). Thus “Christ” is more likely to be the antecedent.

I don’t care if you want to translate “χριστος” as “anointed one.” It could also be translated as “Messiah.” But why do you have a problem with the word “Christ”? It is but a transliteration of “χριστος” (christos). We get many English words that are transliterations of Greek words. “Bible” is a transliteration of “βιβλος” (biblos). “βιβλος” means “book.” “Theology” is a transliteration of two Greek words “θεος” (theos) and “λογος” (logos). “θεος” means “God” and “λογος” means “a discourse” . “Theology” is a discourse about God. Or “a study of God.” So “Christ” is just another one of the many transliterations. I don’t see why you insist on “anointed one.” There’s nothing wrong with “anointed one.” But most people wouldn’t understand you if you went around talking about the anointed one. But no one would fail to understand to whom you were referring if you called Him “Christ.”

Good English uses “in whom” when referring to people and “in which” when referring to things. Is the “Loveable One” a person? Or a thing?
Also, why do you translate “εστιν” as “be” instead of “is”? The New Testament needs to be translated into readable English, if we expect people to understand it. Our translation is no less literal by doing so.

(robin)
… distract, distract, distract … the name of your game

Paidion said:

Very valid point :exclamation:

And he (robin) says we’re " are all puff and silly stuff"

You offer him a reasoned rebuttal and all he says is “distract, distract, distract”

:unamused: :unamused: :unamused: