Does dysnoetas mean nonsense?

[Gregory Thompson]

were leaning wayyy to hard into Paul, to the extent of saying his epistles should be taken above Jesus' from His earthly ministry

Yes, in Baptist circles, I've seen this through emphasis.

 

[JSRG]

Hi all,

I'm new to the forum so please be patient with me if I'm doing anything that isn't proper on the forum. I wanted to get some clarification on 2 Peter 3:14-17. I read a few blog posts from Jesus' Words Only by Douglas del Tondo and wanted to get people's opinions and rebuttals. I know the forum has talked about him and his blog in the past so I apologize if I'm bringing up things the forum feels it has dealt with already, but some things on there seemed pretty convincing. I'm not convinced of everything the author puts forward, but I really have no way to verify if his translation of dysnoetas or "things hard to understand" in verse 15 means nonsense, in the sense that Peter was saying Paul's writings were nonsense (I know zero Greek). I'd appreciate some feedback from you all who have studied Greek. Thank you! Would love @Der Alte perspective on this; after lurking for a while, I can tell the guy knows his stuff.

Here is the article in question: Second Peter: Reference to Paul

I am aware this is from a while ago and some have responded, but there is some additional information I think would be useful to add.

Now, I admit I'm not exactly an expert on Greek, but I am still able to look up things well enough from people who do know Greek that I think what I'm going to say is correct.

Before we get to the claims made by the article you refer to, I should discuss the author. I would recommend looking at this critical review of the book he wrote. While this is targeted at the book, not the specific page you cite, I think it's useful for showing various errors the author engages in, like quoting someone as saying "[The Sermon involves] unimportant truth" when the actual quote is "On the other hand, the Sermon on the Mount is clearly intended to be a definitive statement of Christ's teaching and should not be pushed aside lightly by unnecessary stricture which would relegate it to unimportant truth." (there are other examples in the review) With errors like that, be very cautious trusting anything from him.

However, anyone who knows even the basics of Greek will observe an error he makes over and over and over. The word translated as hard to understand (which he claims actually means nonsensical) in Greek is δυσνοητος, though in 2 Peter 3:16 rendered specifically as δυσνοητα (swapping out the ending ος for α) because it's rendered in the nominative neuter plural. Unlike English, Greek nouns and adjective change their spelling based on their plurality, gender, and grammatical use in the sentence. When discussing them, normally we use the nominative singular masculine as the "base form" for adjectives, which is δυσνοητος. So what's the problem? The author continually renders the Greek word δυσνοητος as dysnoetas. That's incorrect. Now, there are varying ways to romanize (convert to the English/Latin alphabet) Greek letters, so romanizations can differ. υ could be rendered as y or as u, for example. While the typical way to render it nowadays is dusnoetos, dysnoetos works also. However, he uses dysnoetas, with an ending -as, which is flatly wrong. One can't say he's just rendering it in the way it's spelled in 2 Peter 3:16, because that would be dysnoeta, without an S--in fact, if one looks at the various forms of it, there is no form of the word that is spelled dysnoetas (δυσνοητας). It is rather ironic he claims the word means nonsensical, because his spelling of it in English is quite nonsensical; o does not became a! And he does it every time, this isn't some kind of typo.

One might think this is a nitpick. The problem is he does it every time he uses the word. As the author tries to portray himself as knowing Greek well, it's rather surprising he is apparently unaware of very basic romanization for Greek. Why, precisely, should we trust someone regarding the meaing of a word they apparently can't spell correctly?

Now, I will be using dusnoetos as the romanized version, in keeping with the normal standards nowadays. With the above things noted on how we already have indications we should be very suspicious trusting the arguments of the page in question, what are the actual arguments he offers that dusnoetos (which he constantly misspells as dysnoetas) actually means "nonsensical" as he claims?

First, he tries to offer an argument based on the dus (δυσ) prefix and the regular word noetos (νοητος). For the dus he cites the "Liddell & Scott" Greek Dictionary... rather oddly, he cites that rather than the later editions, which are called Liddell-Scott-Jones (LSJ). So for the definition of dus- he offers as the definition from that dictionary "always [understood] with the notion of hard, bad, unlucky, etc., ... destroying the good sense of a word, or increasing its bad sense." (emphasis his) Here is the full definition in the latest and up-to-date version of this dictionary:

δυσ-, insepar. Prefix, opp. εὖ,
un-, mis-, with notion of hard, bad, unlucky, etc., as δυσήλιος, δύσαγνος; destroying the good sense of a word, or increasing its bad sense: hence, joined even to words expressing negation, as δυσάμμορος, δυσανάσχετος; poet. in strong contrasts, as Πάρις Δύσπαρις, γάμος δύσγαμος. Before στ, σθ, σπ, σφ, σχ, the final ς was omitted, v. δυστ-. (Cf. Skt. duṣ-, dur-, e.g. durmanās, = δυσμενής; ONorse tor-, e.g. torsóttligr (δύσμαχος); OIr. du-, do-, e.g. dochruth ‘misshapen’.)

We can see that "with notion of hard, bad, unlucky, etc." and "destroying the good sense of a word, or increasing its bad sense" are used as separate definitions; the first goes with some words, and the latter with others. Note also that it drops the word "always". One wonders why he used an earlier version rather than a later one (though even the earlier version, if one looks at the whole thing, makes it clear it is offering two different definitions). So if dusnoetos is the first one, we can easily simply see "hard" as the meaning (as in hard to understand).

This brings us to an oddity. He cites Liddell and Scott for the prefix, but does not mention that they offer a definition for dusnoetos directly. They have:

δυσνόητος, ον,
hard to be understood, Darius ap. D.L. 9.13, 2 Ep.Pet. 3.16; χρησμοί Luc. Alex. 54.
II.
Act., slow of understanding, Vett.Val. 345.26.

It seems a bit curious to me that he will cite Liddell and Scott for the prefix and try to argue based on that, but won't cite them for the definition of the word itself, which they say is hard to be understood.

Even if his argument about the meaning of dus and noetos was correct (that is, that the meaning of the prefix by itself and the meaning of noetos by itself should mean nonsensical), that doesn't mean that's what the word actually means. A combination of prefix and another word isn't always a combination of what they mean separately. "Anti" means opposed to or against in English, and "Semitic" means referring to people (or languages) of the Middle East, such as Jews and Arabs. Based on those two, one would think the combination anti-Semitic would mean being against people of the Middle East, including Jews and Arabs. But it means oppositions to Jews, and does not include opposition to other Middle Easterners. One cannot always judge a word's meaning simply by its elements.

Now let's delve more into what the word itself means. As noted, the LSJ says dusnoetos means hard to be understood, confirming the definition used for Bible translations. It does not offer nonsensical as a definition. But the LSJ is a bit old; its last version was in 1940. So let's look at a more recent one, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature", also known as the BDAG. Der Alte posted its meaning, but here it goes again:

"“δυσνόητος, ον (s. νοέω, νόημα; Aristot., Plant. 1, 1, 816a, 3; Lucian, Alex. 54; Diog. L. 9, 13 δυσνόητόν τε καὶ δυσεξήγητον) hard to understand 2 Pt 3:16; δ. τινι for someone Hs 9, 14, 4.—TW."

Again, "hard to understand" is the definition.

But what of people who actually used the term, some of which are cited in the definition? Well, the article you cite tries to refer to one, Lucian in his work Alexander (mentioned in the above definition), as evidence it does mean nonsensical. While it is true that's how one translation renders it ("nonsensical" in chapter 54), "hard to understand" is still very possible from the context. As a side note, your source errs when he claims Lucian was a "Christian early writer"--Lucian was not a Christian.

But that is the only example he cites outside of the Bible; what of other cases? There are certainly other examples we see in the BDAG (and for that matter the LSJ, though the BDAG has more). Let's take a look at them. Unfortunately, the shorthand abbreviations means one does need to have a copy of the BDAG to figure out what these abbreviations mean (they're listed at the start of the book), but I did so and can tell you what they are. We'll go through them one by one a they are listed.

"Aristot., Plant. 1, 1, 816a, 3" refers to a work attributed to Aristotle (On Plants), but usually considered nowadays to have been written by someone else. The "1, 1" refers to it being in the first part of the first section, whereas the "816a, 3" is the Bekker number, a common way to reference Aristotle's works. Now, the Greek of this work isn't the original Greek, which has been lost, but rather a translation of a Latin translation. I don't know exactly when the Greek translation was done, but the Latin translation was apparently done in the 13th century, so the Greek would be after that--this means we are dealing with fairly late Greek, and not necessarily indicative of the Greek of the New Testament. Nevertheless, we can take a look. The applicable text in Greek can be found in the original Bekker edition here, or here if you want Greek that's easier to read (unfortunately, the scanning partially cuts off the margins, so the "816a" and "816b" are harder to see). Now, lacking good knowledge of Greek, translating is tricky, but the Greek seems to say "και γαρ δυσνοητον εστι την διοικησιν του φυτον αποδιδοναι τη διοκησει της ψυχης του ζωου" which seems to be saying something like "it is dusnoeton to attribute the management of plants to the management of animals.". Looking at the Latin and the English translation of the Latin (since the Greek is just a translation of the Latin, the English translation of the work was done from the Latin), the Latin says "etenim dificile est plantae functionem attribuere, reddereve animae functioni, quae in animali habetur" which with my rough and overly literal; Latin I translate to "and indeed, it is difficult to attribute a function to a plant, or to return a function to a soul, which is had in animals" ("or to return a function to an animal"--reddereve animae functioni--confuses me as to the meaning). The linked English translation renders this, seemingly loosely, into "for it is difficult to assign any principle to the life of plants except that of the life of nutrition". The bottom line is that the Latin from which the Greek is translated from is clearly saying it is difficult to do something, therefore difficult to understand works here as the meaning, but not a meaning of nonsensical; furthermore, the "nonsensical" definition does not seem to work in the Greek itself.

VERDICT: Hard to understand works here, nonsensical does not.

Next we move onto Lucian's Alexander, which has already been discussed. Thus:

VERDICT: Hard to understand works here, but so does nonsensical.

After that we have "Diog. L. 9, 13". This refers to The Life of Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes, section 13 of Book 9. We can see it here (original Greek here), and this is what is being referred to:

"[13] King Darius, son of Hystaspes, to Heraclitus the wise man of Ephesus, greeting.

"You are the author of a treatise On Nature which is hard to understand and hard to interpret. In certain parts, if it be interpreted word for word, it seems to contain a power of speculation on the whole universe and all that goes on within it, which depends upon motion most divine ; but for the most part judgement is suspended, so that even those who are the most conversant with literature are at a loss to know what is the right interpretation of your work. Accordingly King Darius, son of Hystaspes, wishes to enjoy your instruction and Greek culture. Come then with all speed to see me at my palace. [14] For the Greeks as a rule are not prone to mark their wise men ; nay, they neglect their excellent precepts which make for good hearing and learning. But at my court there is secured for you every privilege and daily conversation of a good and worthy kind, and a life in keeping with your counsels."

This translation renders it as "hard to understand". And indeed, that would seem to be the appropriate translation here rather than nonsensical. It is clear from context this is not a pejorative in any way; it complains that the Greeks do not "mark their wise men" but he is different and is therefore inviting him. "Nonsensical" does not work here, for why would the king be grouping him in with "wise men" if he thought it was nonsensical?

VERDICT: Hard to understand works here, nonsensical does not.

Lastly we have "Hs 9, 14, 4." The H is Shepherd of Hermas (an early Christian document). I suppose I should explain what the "Hs 9, 14, 4" means. The H means Hermsas, and the s says it is referring to the Similitude section (Shepherd of Hermas is split into several sections, one of which is the Similitudes). The applicable Greek can be found here, under the XIV (chapter 14, we are already in Similitude 9), and then in the specific line 4, reading: "Νῦν, φημί, κύριε, δήλωσόν μοι, διατί ὁ πύργος χαμαὶ οὐκ ᾠκοδόμηται, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν πύλην. Ἔτι, φησίν, ἄφρων εἶ καὶ ἀσύνετος; Ἀνάγκην ἔχω, φημί, κύριε, πάντα ἐπερωτᾶν σε, ὅτι οὐδ’ ὅλως ἔνδοξά ἐστι καὶ δυσνόητα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις." Now let's consult a translation. One is available here and while it lacks the line numbers, it still gives us the chapters. If we go to chapter 14 (we're already in Similitude 9), we see the following:

"“Now, sir,” I continued, “show me why the tower was not built upon the ground, but upon the rock and upon the gate.” “Are you still,” he said, “without sense and understanding?” “I must, sir,” I said, “ask you of all things, because I am wholly unable to understand them; for all these things are great and glorious, and difficult for man to understand.”"

From the immediate context of the sentence, nonsensical does not work, because it follows the statement of how what he is describing is "great and glorious." In the larger context of the chapter, here Hermas is talking about divine visions he's receiving. Clearly Hermas is not criticizing these divine visions by saying they're "nonsensical"!

VERDICT: Hard to understand works here, nonsensical does not.

So, of these examples outside of the Bible, the Lucian one has plausibility in meaning nonsensical, but can still be interpreted as hard to understand. The other ones (which, noticeably, the article you refer to never mentions) work only with hard to understand. The conclusion from these examples is that the meaning of the word is, in fact, hard to understand.

There are other claims (and other errors) in your link, but this was the point you asked about so I'll cut it out there (also, this is close to the character limit). But this I expect should demonstrate why one should be careful trusting claims from that source in general. But as one final note, you do bring up in some subsequent posts the claim made that Calvin rejected 2 Peter as canonical on the grounds that he viewed it as anti-Paul. From what I can tell, this is a misrepresentation of Calvin's actual positions. Even if Calvin actually did believe that, I don't particularly care because I'm not a Calvinist, and even Calvinists don't necessarily think Calvin was right about everything.

CONCLUSION:

At this point, it seems to me that "hard to understand" (how Bible versions normally translate it) being the correct definition of dusnoetos is quite strong. The dictionaries only give the "hard to understand" definition. When other writers use it, it can only work as "hard to understand", not as nonsensical (the only exception is Lucian, who can be understood in both manners). None of this is addressed, or even acknowledged, by your link. And as its argument relies so heavily on its claim regarding the word dusnoetos, it largely collapses with it refuted.

 

[Doug Delt]

Hello. This is Douglas Del Tondo. I saw your inquiry, and the responses here. I was taught Greek and Latin in prep school, and received a scholarship as a result. I did a thorough response this week at this YouTube entitled: In Second Peter What Role does Dysnoetas of Paul Play in Ignorant Falling into Error of the Lawless?

The meaning is clear in this context, especially verse 14 and 18, as well as 2 Peter1:10 (where Erasmus' error in transcribing caused drop out of 2 words -- "good works"), that DYSNOETAS here means "nonsensible" at minimum, if not that Paul sometimes says things "highly nonsensical" that leads the ignorant readers thereby fall into "destruction" in the "error of the LAWLESS."

Please pay attention to that last word conjoined with "DESTRUCTION" that preceded it in the same sentence.

Blessings Doug

PS On the drop out on 2 Peter 1:10, I have a video with proof shown on screen of how Erasmus' Greek and draft Latin side by side show precisely when Erasmus made the error to drop "good works" in his Latin translation even though "good works" was in the Greek mss. See

For some unexplained reason, the Textus Receptus did not use the Greek text to preserve the original Greek NT, but instead adopted the mistake Erasmus made in translating into Latin, advising us falsely that the Greek did not have "good works" when it did - as the Museum of Erasmus creation source Greek text reveals and I prove on screen in this You ube.

You will find 2 Peter 1:10 today correct only in the Aramaic NT at biblehub.com -- 2 Peter 1:10 Parallel: Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

When you put that (a) our calling and election is ensured by "good works" (2 Peter 1:10) and not by "faith alone" (cf. James 2:24) with (b) the fact that ANOETOS means "nonsensical" or synonyms each of the six times it appears in the NT yet the prefix A is less pejorative than DYS in Greek; and (c) that the BDAG -- your correspondent says -- has only one provided meaning "difficult to understand" -- when I show you in the DYSNOEAS YouTube linked above that Lucian was translated by non-Christian Greek scholars in 1711, the 1800s and in 1913 as "nonsensible" and several equally pejorative terms, you must infer Christian bias to protect Paul from obvious "faint praise" criticism by Peter explains the BDAG not giving the true option of "nonsensible" - at least the primary meaning of DYSNOETAS, and the that pops out when you read starting with verses 14 and 18.

PPS My video also screenshot's Calvin's objection to Second Peter because he knew that "Peter would not have spoken this way about Paul," -- although he leaves his meaning to be understood by fellow Greek translators -- that the movement to drive Second Peter from canon is by scholars who love Paul. Just in case the Christian laity wake up to our ancestors wrong English translations.

 

[John G.]

Utter Anoesiai!

2 Peter 1:10 "10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall."
Which qualities?
2 Peter 1:5-7: "5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love."
Clearly, this speaks of Christian growth, not salvation. Salvation is by faith alone. The Bible does not contradict itself.

Btw, Dysnoetos (δυσνόητος) in Greek means "hard to understand" not "foolish".
2 Peter 3 refers to Paul as "beloved" and having wisdom (verse 15). There is no negative connotation against him, only against those who twist his words.

Incidentally, those who like Calvin would like to eliminate 2 Peter from the Canon do so because they do not consider the epistle to be authentic not because it speaks negative about the Apostle Paul.