Colossians 1:21

[] Col 1:21: Meaning of EXQROUS Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sun Sep 23 15:59:19 EDT 2007

 

[] Col 1:21: Meaning of EXQROUS [] Pronounciation of upsilon On Sep 23, 2007, at 8:10 AM, Stephen Baldwin wrote:> > Ladies and Gentlemen:> A small point about which I am a little perplexed:>> From my reading, EXQROS means hating, hostile etc. But when used >> substantively, it can mean enemy (BAG).> In Col1:21, Paul speaks of “you at one time being [having been] > alienated…KAI EXQROUS THi DIANOIA EN TOIS ERGOIS…> > I note that this is translated “enemies” in NIV. “hostile in mind” > NASB. Of course, you could argue that there really isn’t much > between the two — but I’m curious about the NIV translation given > the stipulations about the presence or not of an article. Clearly > EXQROUS is anarthous [isn’t it?] and relates back to hUMAS…> > This reference (Col1:21) appears in BAG under the “subst.” heading > therefore as “enemy”, also defined as “abs” (what does “absolute” > mean in this context?)> JAMES 4:4 MOICALIDES, OUK OIDATE hOTI hH FILIA TOU KOSMOU ECQRA TOU QEOU ESTIN; hOS EAN OUN BOULHQHi FILOS EINAI TOU KOSMOU, ECQROS TOU QEOU KAQISTATAI.Absolute can be explained by looking at ECQROS TOU QEOU KAQISTATAI in James 4:4. Here ECQROS is not absolute. The object of the enmity is specified TOU QEOU. Compare hO DIOS ECQROS Aesch.Elizabeth Kline

 

[] Col 1:21: Meaning of EXQROUS[] Pronounciation of upsilon

Colossians 1:21-23 Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.net
Thu Dec 16 05:48:00 EST 1999

 

GENOITO! Colossians 1:21-23 Thought I would throw out these ideas and questions, hoping to get some good feed back.Most English translations of this paragraph (Col. 1:21-23) render it in such a way that a condition seems to exist, based mainly upon the particle EI or EIGE of verse 23. Most render it as “if”, hence…”if indeed you remain in the faith having been and remaining established and steadfast…” {the “having been and remaining” is one of the methods by which I render some prefect passive participles).Instead, I suggest translating EI as “since”, and removing the possible misconception here. Viewing this “EI” as presenting an epexegetical statement demonstrating WHY we will be presented before God as HOLY and BLAMELESS. (Because we do remain in the faith, via the power of Christ).In verse 22, we have an emphatic contrast to the statement presented in verse 21. I accept the aorist infinitive as genuine here (which supports my scheme) APOKATHLLACEN. This fact, this one-time accomplishment, allows Paul to be able to present before God, some of the fruits of his labor. Herein I suggest that Paul is the presenter. What thinketh you?I see no true protasis/apodosis condition existing, if an “if” were correct — we are left with no resolution other than to suppose that “we” would not then be presentable? this seems awkward, but appears to be the reasoning of most English translators.How can one become “unreconciled”? Does “SINCE” make better sense here to some of you? It is a fairly common meaning of this particle (see the lexicons).I realize that some of the above observations may repel some theological persuasions (Arminian vs Calvinism) but I hope to keep this on a contextual/grammatical level. Another point strengthening the aorist “reconcile” of verse 22, is the use of the term in verse 20, it appears to be a timeless reality, a settled fact.Thanks for your input.Mr. Gary S. Dykes email — yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.netSwanson’s Errata List — http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/yhwh3in1/

 

GENOITO!Colossians 1:21-23

Colossians 1:21-23 Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.net
Thu Dec 16 05:54:32 EST 1999

 

Colossians 1:21-23 Clement online? Proofreader needed!!I meant aortist VERB in verse 22, in my prior post, not the infinitive. I assume most saw my error.Gary Dykes

 

Colossians 1:21-23Clement online?

Colossians 1:21-23 Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.net
Thu Dec 16 05:48:00 EST 1999

 

GENOITO! Colossians 1:21-23 Thought I would throw out these ideas and questions, hoping to get some good feed back.Most English translations of this paragraph (Col. 1:21-23) render it in such a way that a condition seems to exist, based mainly upon the particle EI or EIGE of verse 23. Most render it as “if”, hence…”if indeed you remain in the faith having been and remaining established and steadfast…” {the “having been and remaining” is one of the methods by which I render some prefect passive participles).Instead, I suggest translating EI as “since”, and removing the possible misconception here. Viewing this “EI” as presenting an epexegetical statement demonstrating WHY we will be presented before God as HOLY and BLAMELESS. (Because we do remain in the faith, via the power of Christ).In verse 22, we have an emphatic contrast to the statement presented in verse 21. I accept the aorist infinitive as genuine here (which supports my scheme) APOKATHLLACEN. This fact, this one-time accomplishment, allows Paul to be able to present before God, some of the fruits of his labor. Herein I suggest that Paul is the presenter. What thinketh you?I see no true protasis/apodosis condition existing, if an “if” were correct — we are left with no resolution other than to suppose that “we” would not then be presentable? this seems awkward, but appears to be the reasoning of most English translators.How can one become “unreconciled”? Does “SINCE” make better sense here to some of you? It is a fairly common meaning of this particle (see the lexicons).I realize that some of the above observations may repel some theological persuasions (Arminian vs Calvinism) but I hope to keep this on a contextual/grammatical level. Another point strengthening the aorist “reconcile” of verse 22, is the use of the term in verse 20, it appears to be a timeless reality, a settled fact.Thanks for your input.Mr. Gary S. Dykes email — yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.netSwanson’s Errata List — http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/yhwh3in1/

 

GENOITO!Colossians 1:21-23

Colossians 1:21-23 Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.net
Thu Dec 16 05:54:32 EST 1999

 

Colossians 1:21-23 Clement online? Proofreader needed!!I meant aortist VERB in verse 22, in my prior post, not the infinitive. I assume most saw my error.Gary Dykes

 

Colossians 1:21-23Clement online?

Colossians 1:21-23 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 16 09:38:58 EST 1999

 

POxy images tc-list On-line image of P.Oxy. LVI 4499 At 5:26 AM -0600 12/16/99, Mr. Gary S. Dykes wrote:>Thought I would throw out these ideas and questions, hoping to get some>good feed back.> >Most English translations of this paragraph (Col. 1:21-23) render it in>such a way that a condition seems to exist, based mainly upon the particle>EI or EIGE of verse 23. Most render it as “if”, hence…”if indeed you>remain in the faith having been and remaining established and steadfast…”>{the “having been and remaining” is one of the methods by which I render>some prefect passive participles).> >Instead, I suggest translating EI as “since”, and removing the possible>misconception here. Viewing this “EI” as presenting an epexegetical>statement demonstrating WHY we will be presented before God as HOLY and>BLAMELESS. (Because we do remain in the faith, via the power of Christ).> >In verse 22, we have an emphatic contrast to the statement presented in>verse 21. I accept the aorist infinitive as genuine here (which supports my>scheme) APOKATHLLAXEN. This fact, this one-time accomplishment, allows Paul>to be able to present before God, some of the fruits of his labor. Herein I>suggest that Paul is the presenter. What thinketh you?> >I see no true protasis/apodosis condition existing, if an “if” were correct>— we are left with no resolution other than to suppose that “we” would not>then be presentable? this seems awkward, but appears to be the reasoning of>most English translators.> >How can one become “unreconciled”? Does “SINCE” make better sense here to>some of you? It is a fairly common meaning of this particle (see the>lexicons).> >I realize that some of the above observations may repel some theological>persuasions (Arminian vs Calvinism) but I hope to keep this on a>contextual/grammatical level. Another point strengthening the aorist>“reconcile” of verse 22, is the use of the term in verse 20, it appears to>be a timeless reality, a settled fact.You may want to keep this out of the theological realm, but (please doforgive me if I’m mistaken about this) it appears to me that you areseeking an answer to a theological question from this text preciselybecause you find possible implications of the EI GE troublesome.The text:(21) KAI hUMAS POTE ONTAS APHLLOTRIWMENOUS KAI ECQROUS THiDIANOIAi EN TOIS ERGOIS TOIS PONHROIS, (22) NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN EN TWiSWMATI THS SARKOS AUTOU DIA TOU QANATOU PARASTHSAI hUMAS hAGIOUS KAIAMWMOUS KAI ANEGKLHTOUS KATENWPION AUTOU, (23) EI GE EPIMENETE THi PISTEITEQEMELIWMENOI KAI hEDRAIOI KAI MH METAKINOUMENOI APO THS ELPIDOS TOUEUAGGELIOU hOU HKOUSATE TOU KHRUCQENTOS EN PASHi KTISEI THi hUPO TONOURANON, hOU EGENOMHN EGW PAULOS DIAKONOS.I would agree that there’s an emphatic contrast between the statements of21 and 22, BUT I think that you are laying too much weight on the aorist’tense’ of the verb APOKATHLLAXEN in 22 when you say it is “a timelessreality, a settled fact.” I don’t think the aorist can bear that weight andit appears to me that you are wanting to give it the force of a perfecttense form, i.e. indicating that the action is complete and, to use avulgar metaphor, “the money’s in the bank.” In fact, however, it seems tome that 23 stands solidly against such an interpretation with itsenumeration of an array of circumstances that could yet undermine thestatus provisionally gained. EPIMENETE is present tense and should, Ithink, imply a deliberate and ongoing effort to persist in the statusdescribed (TEQEMELIWMENOI, hEDRAIOI, MH METAKINOUMENOI) in view of ongoingthreats to that persistence.In sum I DO think there’s a condition here with a protasis (the EI GE …clause) and an apodosis (the NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN clause); the efficacyof the action described by APOKATHLLAXEN is dependent upon persistenteffort on the part of those addressed to withstand the challenges yetfacing them. To be sure, it’s not a full-scale generalizing or future-morevivid condition employing EAN GE with a subjunctive in the protasis;nevertheless the two clauses are related, and I for one don’t think we canread the EI GE as causal. While I might be willing to concede that to asimple EI + indicative (particularly an indicative in a past tense), Ithink the suggested reading ignores the very strong limiting force of theGE.Here are the other GNT instances of the EI GE combination, all of them inthe Pauline corpus:2 Cor 5:3 EI GE KAI EKDUSAMENOI OU GUMNOI hEURHQHSOMEQA (‘provided, thatis, that once we have disrobed = been stripped of the body, we won’t turnout to be naked = void of discernible identity’)Gal 3:4 TOSAUTA EPAQETE EIKHi? EI GE KAI EIKHI. (‘Did you go through all ofthat for nothing?–if in fact it really WAS for nothing … ‘)Eph 3:2 EI GE HKOUSATE THN OIKONOMIAN THS CARITOS … (“that is, if you didin fact hear about my ministry of grace … “Eph 4:21 EI GE AUTON HKOUSATE KAI EN AUTWi EDIDACQHTE . . .(‘if in fact youreally listened to him and were instructed by/in him …’)Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu ————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 5686 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991216/99c52e1e/attachment.bin

 

POxy imagestc-list On-line image of P.Oxy. LVI 4499

Colossians 1:21-23 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 16 09:38:58 EST 1999

 

POxy images tc-list On-line image of P.Oxy. LVI 4499 At 5:26 AM -0600 12/16/99, Mr. Gary S. Dykes wrote:>Thought I would throw out these ideas and questions, hoping to get some>good feed back.> >Most English translations of this paragraph (Col. 1:21-23) render it in>such a way that a condition seems to exist, based mainly upon the particle>EI or EIGE of verse 23. Most render it as “if”, hence…”if indeed you>remain in the faith having been and remaining established and steadfast…”>{the “having been and remaining” is one of the methods by which I render>some prefect passive participles).> >Instead, I suggest translating EI as “since”, and removing the possible>misconception here. Viewing this “EI” as presenting an epexegetical>statement demonstrating WHY we will be presented before God as HOLY and>BLAMELESS. (Because we do remain in the faith, via the power of Christ).> >In verse 22, we have an emphatic contrast to the statement presented in>verse 21. I accept the aorist infinitive as genuine here (which supports my>scheme) APOKATHLLAXEN. This fact, this one-time accomplishment, allows Paul>to be able to present before God, some of the fruits of his labor. Herein I>suggest that Paul is the presenter. What thinketh you?> >I see no true protasis/apodosis condition existing, if an “if” were correct>— we are left with no resolution other than to suppose that “we” would not>then be presentable? this seems awkward, but appears to be the reasoning of>most English translators.> >How can one become “unreconciled”? Does “SINCE” make better sense here to>some of you? It is a fairly common meaning of this particle (see the>lexicons).> >I realize that some of the above observations may repel some theological>persuasions (Arminian vs Calvinism) but I hope to keep this on a>contextual/grammatical level. Another point strengthening the aorist>“reconcile” of verse 22, is the use of the term in verse 20, it appears to>be a timeless reality, a settled fact.You may want to keep this out of the theological realm, but (please doforgive me if I’m mistaken about this) it appears to me that you areseeking an answer to a theological question from this text preciselybecause you find possible implications of the EI GE troublesome.The text:(21) KAI hUMAS POTE ONTAS APHLLOTRIWMENOUS KAI ECQROUS THiDIANOIAi EN TOIS ERGOIS TOIS PONHROIS, (22) NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN EN TWiSWMATI THS SARKOS AUTOU DIA TOU QANATOU PARASTHSAI hUMAS hAGIOUS KAIAMWMOUS KAI ANEGKLHTOUS KATENWPION AUTOU, (23) EI GE EPIMENETE THi PISTEITEQEMELIWMENOI KAI hEDRAIOI KAI MH METAKINOUMENOI APO THS ELPIDOS TOUEUAGGELIOU hOU HKOUSATE TOU KHRUCQENTOS EN PASHi KTISEI THi hUPO TONOURANON, hOU EGENOMHN EGW PAULOS DIAKONOS.I would agree that there’s an emphatic contrast between the statements of21 and 22, BUT I think that you are laying too much weight on the aorist’tense’ of the verb APOKATHLLAXEN in 22 when you say it is “a timelessreality, a settled fact.” I don’t think the aorist can bear that weight andit appears to me that you are wanting to give it the force of a perfecttense form, i.e. indicating that the action is complete and, to use avulgar metaphor, “the money’s in the bank.” In fact, however, it seems tome that 23 stands solidly against such an interpretation with itsenumeration of an array of circumstances that could yet undermine thestatus provisionally gained. EPIMENETE is present tense and should, Ithink, imply a deliberate and ongoing effort to persist in the statusdescribed (TEQEMELIWMENOI, hEDRAIOI, MH METAKINOUMENOI) in view of ongoingthreats to that persistence.In sum I DO think there’s a condition here with a protasis (the EI GE …clause) and an apodosis (the NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN clause); the efficacyof the action described by APOKATHLLAXEN is dependent upon persistenteffort on the part of those addressed to withstand the challenges yetfacing them. To be sure, it’s not a full-scale generalizing or future-morevivid condition employing EAN GE with a subjunctive in the protasis;nevertheless the two clauses are related, and I for one don’t think we canread the EI GE as causal. While I might be willing to concede that to asimple EI + indicative (particularly an indicative in a past tense), Ithink the suggested reading ignores the very strong limiting force of theGE.Here are the other GNT instances of the EI GE combination, all of them inthe Pauline corpus:2 Cor 5:3 EI GE KAI EKDUSAMENOI OU GUMNOI hEURHQHSOMEQA (‘provided, thatis, that once we have disrobed = been stripped of the body, we won’t turnout to be naked = void of discernible identity’)Gal 3:4 TOSAUTA EPAQETE EIKHi? EI GE KAI EIKHI. (‘Did you go through all ofthat for nothing?–if in fact it really WAS for nothing … ‘)Eph 3:2 EI GE HKOUSATE THN OIKONOMIAN THS CARITOS … (“that is, if you didin fact hear about my ministry of grace … “Eph 4:21 EI GE AUTON HKOUSATE KAI EN AUTWi EDIDACQHTE . . .(‘if in fact youreally listened to him and were instructed by/in him …’)Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu ————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 5686 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991216/99c52e1e/attachment.bin

 

POxy imagestc-list On-line image of P.Oxy. LVI 4499

Colossians 1:21-23 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Thu Dec 16 11:03:27 EST 1999

 

[Synoptic-L] POxy images [Synoptic-L] POxy images In a message dated 12/16/1999 8:39:44 AM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:<< In sum I DO think there’s a condition here with a protasis (the EI GE …clause) and an apodosis (the NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN clause); the efficacyof the action described by APOKATHLLAXEN is dependent upon persistenteffort on the part of those addressed to withstand the challenges yetfacing them. To be sure, it’s not a full-scale generalizing or future-morevivid condition employing EAN GE with a subjunctive in the protasis;nevertheless the two clauses are related, and I for one don’t think we canread the EI GE as causal. While I might be willing to concede that to asimple EI + indicative (particularly an indicative in a past tense), Ithink the suggested reading ignores the very strong limiting force of theGE. >>Why do you connect the EI GE clause to APOKATHLLAXEN rather than PARASTHSAI? It seems to me that PARASTHSAI is the nearer verbal element and more natural connection. Two other questions are involved here: What is the relation of the protasis to the apodosis? Is it cause/effect or grounds/inference? and should this conditional construction be viewed as biconditional (if and only if).As relates to the first question if the connection of EI GE is to APOKATHLLAXEN, then this may involve a grounds/inference relationship. John Baima (a member of this list) notes in his thesis “Making Valid Conclusions”:”The protasis can be examined, but the truth of the apodosis is not equally determined. A true protasis, in this case, cannot cause the apodosis to be true, but rather, it is evidence of its truth. What seems to be happening here is that Paul is giving a test by which the truth or falsity of the apodosis can be determined because the apodosis is not something which can be measured empirically because of its past time and the nature of the event—it is an inward experience.If Paul intended to give a test by which the truth of the apodosis could be known, then he would need “if and only if” rather than a simple “if.” The implication of understanding this verse as “if and only if” is that Paul would be saying that a lack of continuing in the faith demonstrates that the person did not have the past reconciliation described in the apodosis. The fact that the apodosis is a past event indicates that the person would never have been saved rather than that the person had the experience in the past and somehow lost its benefits.”However, if the connection is to PARASTHSAI, then the relationship is probably one of cause/effect because of the future orientation of the purpose infinitive (the other reasons are mainly theological so I’ll refrain from discussing them). First Cor 15:2 also has similar issues.Charles PowellDTScep7 at aol.com

 

[Synoptic-L] POxy images[Synoptic-L] POxy images

Colossians 1:21-23 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Thu Dec 16 11:03:27 EST 1999

 

[Synoptic-L] POxy images [Synoptic-L] POxy images In a message dated 12/16/1999 8:39:44 AM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:<< In sum I DO think there’s a condition here with a protasis (the EI GE …clause) and an apodosis (the NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN clause); the efficacyof the action described by APOKATHLLAXEN is dependent upon persistenteffort on the part of those addressed to withstand the challenges yetfacing them. To be sure, it’s not a full-scale generalizing or future-morevivid condition employing EAN GE with a subjunctive in the protasis;nevertheless the two clauses are related, and I for one don’t think we canread the EI GE as causal. While I might be willing to concede that to asimple EI + indicative (particularly an indicative in a past tense), Ithink the suggested reading ignores the very strong limiting force of theGE. >>Why do you connect the EI GE clause to APOKATHLLAXEN rather than PARASTHSAI? It seems to me that PARASTHSAI is the nearer verbal element and more natural connection. Two other questions are involved here: What is the relation of the protasis to the apodosis? Is it cause/effect or grounds/inference? and should this conditional construction be viewed as biconditional (if and only if).As relates to the first question if the connection of EI GE is to APOKATHLLAXEN, then this may involve a grounds/inference relationship. John Baima (a member of this list) notes in his thesis “Making Valid Conclusions”:”The protasis can be examined, but the truth of the apodosis is not equally determined. A true protasis, in this case, cannot cause the apodosis to be true, but rather, it is evidence of its truth. What seems to be happening here is that Paul is giving a test by which the truth or falsity of the apodosis can be determined because the apodosis is not something which can be measured empirically because of its past time and the nature of the event—it is an inward experience.If Paul intended to give a test by which the truth of the apodosis could be known, then he would need “if and only if” rather than a simple “if.” The implication of understanding this verse as “if and only if” is that Paul would be saying that a lack of continuing in the faith demonstrates that the person did not have the past reconciliation described in the apodosis. The fact that the apodosis is a past event indicates that the person would never have been saved rather than that the person had the experience in the past and somehow lost its benefits.”However, if the connection is to PARASTHSAI, then the relationship is probably one of cause/effect because of the future orientation of the purpose infinitive (the other reasons are mainly theological so I’ll refrain from discussing them). First Cor 15:2 also has similar issues.Charles PowellDTScep7 at aol.com

 

[Synoptic-L] POxy images[Synoptic-L] POxy images

Colossians 1:21-23 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 16 12:48:11 EST 1999

 

[Synoptic-L] POxy images I John 3:2 and I John 2:28 At 11:03 AM -0500 12/16/99, CEP7 at aol.com wrote:>In a message dated 12/16/1999 8:39:44 AM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:> ><< In sum I DO think there’s a condition here with a protasis (the EI GE …>clause) and an apodosis (the NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN clause); the efficacy>of the action described by APOKATHLLAXEN is dependent upon persistent>effort on the part of those addressed to withstand the challenges yet>facing them. To be sure, it’s not a full-scale generalizing or future-more>vivid condition employing EAN GE with a subjunctive in the protasis;>nevertheless the two clauses are related, and I for one don’t think we can>read the EI GE as causal. While I might be willing to concede that to a>simple EI + indicative (particularly an indicative in a past tense), I>think the suggested reading ignores the very strong limiting force of the>GE. >>> >Why do you connect the EI GE clause to APOKATHLLAXEN rather than PARASTHSAI?>It seems to me that PARASTHSAI is the nearer verbal element and more natural>connection. Two other questions are involved here: What is the relation of>the protasis to the apodosis? Is it cause/effect or grounds/inference? and>should this conditional construction be viewed as biconditional (if and only>if).I’ll agree readily enough to the possibility of construing the EI GE clauseprimarily with PARASTHSAI but that raises the further question of howPARASTHSAI relates to APOKATHLLAXEN; while I wouldn’t want to be dogmaticabout this, my inclination would be to understand PARASTHSAI as a purposeinfinitive dependent upon APOKATHLLAXEN, one that would normally beintroduced with a hWSTE or as an articular infinitive with EIS TO … or aTOU … . My own inclination,however, would still be to understand the EIGE CLAUSE as dependent upon APOKATHLLAXEN.>As relates to the first question if the connection of EI GE is to>APOKATHLLAXEN, then this may involve a grounds/inference relationship. John>Baima (a member of this list) notes in his thesis “Making Valid Conclusions”:> >“The protasis can be examined, but the truth of the apodosis is not equally>determined. A true protasis, in this case, cannot cause the apodosis to be>true, but rather, it is evidence of its truth. What seems to be happening>here is that Paul is giving a test by which the truth or falsity of the>apodosis can be determined because the apodosis is not something which can be>measured empirically because of its past time and the nature of the eventóit>is an inward experience.> >If Paul intended to give a test by which the truth of the apodosis could be>known, then he would need “if and only if” rather than a simple “if.” The>implication of understanding this verse as “if and only if” is that Paul>would be saying that a lack of continuing in the faith demonstrates that the>person did not have the past reconciliation described in the apodosis. The>fact that the apodosis is a past event indicates that the person would never>have been saved rather than that the person had the experience in the past>and somehow lost its benefits.”> >However, if the connection is to PARASTHSAI, then the relationship is>probably one of cause/effect because of the future orientation of the purpose>infinitive (the other reasons are mainly theological so I’ll refrain from>discussing them). First Cor 15:2 also has similar issues.I said previously that this is certainly different from a tight conditionalconstruction with an EAN (GE) + subjunctive protasis, where I wouldunderstand it to mean “if and only if”–but the EI GE clause seems to beattached not so much as a rigid condition upon which the APOKATHLLAXENattaches is dependent for its validity, but with almost colloquial force,as if to say, “assuming, of course, that you stick with your basicgrounding and follow through in spite of the challenges you meet, etc.,etc.” If people want to hang all the distinctions between pure and impureCalvinism and Arminianism on this, that’s their business, but I reallythink our author has a more practical pastoral concern for those he’swriting to–and Paul was always having to fight off those who wanted tointerpret his conception of salvation in terms of “money already in thebank.”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu

 

[Synoptic-L] POxy imagesI John 3:2 and I John 2:28

Colossians 1:21-23 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 16 12:48:11 EST 1999

 

[Synoptic-L] POxy images I John 3:2 and I John 2:28 At 11:03 AM -0500 12/16/99, CEP7 at aol.com wrote:>In a message dated 12/16/1999 8:39:44 AM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:> ><< In sum I DO think there’s a condition here with a protasis (the EI GE …>clause) and an apodosis (the NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN clause); the efficacy>of the action described by APOKATHLLAXEN is dependent upon persistent>effort on the part of those addressed to withstand the challenges yet>facing them. To be sure, it’s not a full-scale generalizing or future-more>vivid condition employing EAN GE with a subjunctive in the protasis;>nevertheless the two clauses are related, and I for one don’t think we can>read the EI GE as causal. While I might be willing to concede that to a>simple EI + indicative (particularly an indicative in a past tense), I>think the suggested reading ignores the very strong limiting force of the>GE. >>> >Why do you connect the EI GE clause to APOKATHLLAXEN rather than PARASTHSAI?>It seems to me that PARASTHSAI is the nearer verbal element and more natural>connection. Two other questions are involved here: What is the relation of>the protasis to the apodosis? Is it cause/effect or grounds/inference? and>should this conditional construction be viewed as biconditional (if and only>if).I’ll agree readily enough to the possibility of construing the EI GE clauseprimarily with PARASTHSAI but that raises the further question of howPARASTHSAI relates to APOKATHLLAXEN; while I wouldn’t want to be dogmaticabout this, my inclination would be to understand PARASTHSAI as a purposeinfinitive dependent upon APOKATHLLAXEN, one that would normally beintroduced with a hWSTE or as an articular infinitive with EIS TO … or aTOU … . My own inclination,however, would still be to understand the EIGE CLAUSE as dependent upon APOKATHLLAXEN.>As relates to the first question if the connection of EI GE is to>APOKATHLLAXEN, then this may involve a grounds/inference relationship. John>Baima (a member of this list) notes in his thesis “Making Valid Conclusions”:> >“The protasis can be examined, but the truth of the apodosis is not equally>determined. A true protasis, in this case, cannot cause the apodosis to be>true, but rather, it is evidence of its truth. What seems to be happening>here is that Paul is giving a test by which the truth or falsity of the>apodosis can be determined because the apodosis is not something which can be>measured empirically because of its past time and the nature of the eventóit>is an inward experience.> >If Paul intended to give a test by which the truth of the apodosis could be>known, then he would need “if and only if” rather than a simple “if.” The>implication of understanding this verse as “if and only if” is that Paul>would be saying that a lack of continuing in the faith demonstrates that the>person did not have the past reconciliation described in the apodosis. The>fact that the apodosis is a past event indicates that the person would never>have been saved rather than that the person had the experience in the past>and somehow lost its benefits.”> >However, if the connection is to PARASTHSAI, then the relationship is>probably one of cause/effect because of the future orientation of the purpose>infinitive (the other reasons are mainly theological so I’ll refrain from>discussing them). First Cor 15:2 also has similar issues.I said previously that this is certainly different from a tight conditionalconstruction with an EAN (GE) + subjunctive protasis, where I wouldunderstand it to mean “if and only if”–but the EI GE clause seems to beattached not so much as a rigid condition upon which the APOKATHLLAXENattaches is dependent for its validity, but with almost colloquial force,as if to say, “assuming, of course, that you stick with your basicgrounding and follow through in spite of the challenges you meet, etc.,etc.” If people want to hang all the distinctions between pure and impureCalvinism and Arminianism on this, that’s their business, but I reallythink our author has a more practical pastoral concern for those he’swriting to–and Paul was always having to fight off those who wanted tointerpret his conception of salvation in terms of “money already in thebank.”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu

 

[Synoptic-L] POxy imagesI John 3:2 and I John 2:28

Colossians 1:21-23 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Thu Dec 16 14:38:50 EST 1999

 

I John 3:2 and I John 2:28 2 Samuel 12:31 [2Kings 12:31 LXX] The term “reconciled” APOKATHLLAXEV does not have the same sense as in “reconciled” in English. Etymologically it comes from tearing down a wall. The sense is that one person tore down their side of the wall, not that two were reunited into unity. Hence…2 Cor 6:18 And all things are of God, who **hath reconciled** us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, **be ye** reconciled [tear down your side of the wall] to God.21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we **might be** [subjunctive] made the righteousness of God in him.6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.We see the same in Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we **were reconciled** to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we **shall be saved** by his life.As to Colossians, the whole language used in the passage is one of building or drifting:”if you continue…grounded…settled…not being moved away…”In his summary, he uses the subjunctive about his presenting, showing that he does not consider it a “done deal” but the fruit of his labors of faithful announcing, warning and teaching…28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present [PARASGHSWMEN] every man perfect in Christ Jesus:And how could Paul speak confidently of their future not “moving away” since he said that many would!So, EI is “if” and definitely not “since.”

 

I John 3:2 and I John 2:282 Samuel 12:31 [2Kings 12:31 LXX]

Colossians 1:21-23 Carlton Winbery winberyc at speedgate.net
Thu Dec 16 18:49:12 EST 1999

 

1Jo 2:15-17 Clement online? Bill Ross wrote;>The term “reconciled” APOKATHLLAXEV does not have the same sense as in>“reconciled” in English. Etymologically it comes from tearing down a wall.>The sense is that one person tore down their side of the wall, not that two>were reunited into unity. Hence…LSJ indicates that the basic verb stem ALLASSW was used to denoteexchanging one thing for another. The only meaning given for the doublecompound APOKATALASSW is to “reconcile back” or to restore a relationshipthat is damaged. I do not have the tools at home to check Bill’s etymology,but I do not think it would affect the use of this word in Paul any morethan the fact that “goodby” is affected in our use of it by the fact thatit came from “God be with you.” In the context of Col. 1, the word refersto God reconciling sinners to himself.As often has been pointed out on this list, etymology is interesting andsometimes informative, but usually leads the translator astray.>2 Cor 6: (I think you mean ch. 5)>18 And all things are of God, who **hath reconciled** us to himself by>Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;>19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not>imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of>reconciliation.>20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you>by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, **be ye** reconciled [tear down your>side of the wall] to God.I think what’s in brackets would be very distracting if inserted into thiscontext. The passive form here is what Carl Conrad calls middle and I callreflexive passive. To me it says “be reconciled to God” (Accept foryourself God’s provision of reconciliation).>21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we **might>be** [subjunctive] made the righteousness of God in him.>6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye>receive not the grace of God in vain.> >We see the same in Romans 5:> >10 For if, when we were enemies, we **were reconciled** to God by the>death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we **shall be saved** by his>life.> >As to Colossians, the whole language used in the passage is one of building>or drifting:> >“if you continue…grounded…settled…not being moved away…”> >In his summary, he uses the subjunctive about his presenting, showing that>he does not consider it a “done deal” but the fruit of his labors of>faithful announcing, warning and teaching…> >28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all>wisdom; that we may present [PARASGHSWMEN] every man perfect in Christ>Jesus:> >And how could Paul speak confidently of their future not “moving away”>since he said that many would!> >So, EI is “if” and definitely not “since.”I would say that the subjunctive following hINA in Col. 1:28 indicates thebasic purpose of Paul’s ministry, i.e., to “present every person mature inChrist.”Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at speedgate.netwinbery at andria.lacollege.eduPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

 

1Jo 2:15-17Clement online?

Colossians 1:21-23 Carlton Winbery winberyc at speedgate.net
Thu Dec 16 18:49:12 EST 1999

 

1Jo 2:15-17 Clement online? Bill Ross wrote;>The term “reconciled” APOKATHLLAXEV does not have the same sense as in>“reconciled” in English. Etymologically it comes from tearing down a wall.>The sense is that one person tore down their side of the wall, not that two>were reunited into unity. Hence…LSJ indicates that the basic verb stem ALLASSW was used to denoteexchanging one thing for another. The only meaning given for the doublecompound APOKATALASSW is to “reconcile back” or to restore a relationshipthat is damaged. I do not have the tools at home to check Bill’s etymology,but I do not think it would affect the use of this word in Paul any morethan the fact that “goodby” is affected in our use of it by the fact thatit came from “God be with you.” In the context of Col. 1, the word refersto God reconciling sinners to himself.As often has been pointed out on this list, etymology is interesting andsometimes informative, but usually leads the translator astray.>2 Cor 6: (I think you mean ch. 5)>18 And all things are of God, who **hath reconciled** us to himself by>Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;>19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not>imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of>reconciliation.>20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you>by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, **be ye** reconciled [tear down your>side of the wall] to God.I think what’s in brackets would be very distracting if inserted into thiscontext. The passive form here is what Carl Conrad calls middle and I callreflexive passive. To me it says “be reconciled to God” (Accept foryourself God’s provision of reconciliation).>21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we **might>be** [subjunctive] made the righteousness of God in him.>6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye>receive not the grace of God in vain.> >We see the same in Romans 5:> >10 For if, when we were enemies, we **were reconciled** to God by the>death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we **shall be saved** by his>life.> >As to Colossians, the whole language used in the passage is one of building>or drifting:> >“if you continue…grounded…settled…not being moved away…”> >In his summary, he uses the subjunctive about his presenting, showing that>he does not consider it a “done deal” but the fruit of his labors of>faithful announcing, warning and teaching…> >28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all>wisdom; that we may present [PARASGHSWMEN] every man perfect in Christ>Jesus:> >And how could Paul speak confidently of their future not “moving away”>since he said that many would!> >So, EI is “if” and definitely not “since.”I would say that the subjunctive following hINA in Col. 1:28 indicates thebasic purpose of Paul’s ministry, i.e., to “present every person mature inChrist.”Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at speedgate.netwinbery at andria.lacollege.eduPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

 

1Jo 2:15-17Clement online?

Colossians 1:21-23 Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.net
Thu Dec 16 21:26:42 EST 1999

 

Clement online? I John 3:2 and I John 2:28 I have immensely enjoyed reading some of the responses. I am about to leave for awhile, so I thought I would cap my post with this post.The text of Col. 1:21-23 contains much more than many exegetes seem to see, I often find that most Biblical scholars (pagan or elect) have not spent much time in Paul’s linguistic world.Some of the replies showed good original thinking, and a sincere examination of the evidence. Some (such as Conrad’s) just rehashed old traditional views adding nothing insightful. One implied that theology was seen as the guide as opposed to the grammar.Years ago, I had a particular belief system and felt smug in it, it was well endorsed by the “certified”. But after years of textual analysis, I changed my theology, as BASED upon the grammar. My theology is Word driven.I am glad I made a few souls think. Paul will present some souls “complete” in Christ before God. These are souls who sincerely studied and lived revealed truth and grew. But even if an elected person did not live the Word, his/her election was/is never jeopardized. And all of us waver in our faith, but NOT in one respect….N.B.”remaining in the faith” of verse 23 of our text: is/are those who are elect. This is a constant reality (thus the present tense). The faith is not our faith per se, it is that imputed faith which is of or belongs to Jesus Christ. That same faith given to Abram. It is via His faithfulness wherein I stand. I may go astray, but I am eternally secure. When astray the indwelling Holy Spirit will begin a heavy disapline of me and my wayward ways. Grammatical studies of numerous Pauline passages moved me to this conclusion and freed me from the chains of religion. Galatians 2:16 is a good verse for starters. May it open your eyes. End of this thread.Mr. Gary S. Dykes email — yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.netSwanson’s Errata List — http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/yhwh3in1/

 

Clement online?I John 3:2 and I John 2:28

Colossians 1:21-23 Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.net
Thu Dec 16 21:26:42 EST 1999

 

Clement online? I John 3:2 and I John 2:28 I have immensely enjoyed reading some of the responses. I am about to leave for awhile, so I thought I would cap my post with this post.The text of Col. 1:21-23 contains much more than many exegetes seem to see, I often find that most Biblical scholars (pagan or elect) have not spent much time in Paul’s linguistic world.Some of the replies showed good original thinking, and a sincere examination of the evidence. Some (such as Conrad’s) just rehashed old traditional views adding nothing insightful. One implied that theology was seen as the guide as opposed to the grammar.Years ago, I had a particular belief system and felt smug in it, it was well endorsed by the “certified”. But after years of textual analysis, I changed my theology, as BASED upon the grammar. My theology is Word driven.I am glad I made a few souls think. Paul will present some souls “complete” in Christ before God. These are souls who sincerely studied and lived revealed truth and grew. But even if an elected person did not live the Word, his/her election was/is never jeopardized. And all of us waver in our faith, but NOT in one respect….N.B.”remaining in the faith” of verse 23 of our text: is/are those who are elect. This is a constant reality (thus the present tense). The faith is not our faith per se, it is that imputed faith which is of or belongs to Jesus Christ. That same faith given to Abram. It is via His faithfulness wherein I stand. I may go astray, but I am eternally secure. When astray the indwelling Holy Spirit will begin a heavy disapline of me and my wayward ways. Grammatical studies of numerous Pauline passages moved me to this conclusion and freed me from the chains of religion. Galatians 2:16 is a good verse for starters. May it open your eyes. End of this thread.Mr. Gary S. Dykes email — yhwh3in1 at lightspeed.netSwanson’s Errata List — http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/yhwh3in1/

 

Clement online?I John 3:2 and I John 2:28

Colossians 1:21-23 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Fri Dec 17 09:25:15 EST 1999

 

Philippians 4:3-4 hWN TA ONOMATA EN BIBLW ZWHS Philippians 4:3-4 hWN TA ONOMATA EN BIBLW ZWHS <Bill>>The term “reconciled” APOKATHLLAXEV does not have the same sense as in>“reconciled” in English. Etymologically it comes from tearing down a wall.>The sense is that one person tore down their side of the wall, not that two>were reunited into unity. Hence…<Carlton>LSJ indicates that the basic verb stem ALLASSW was used to denote exchangingone thing for another. The only meaning given for the doublecompound APOKATALASSW is to “reconcile back” or to restore a relationshipthat is damaged.<Bill>APO=fromKATA=downALLASSW=changeI’m afraid I extrapolated the “wall.”How many people are willing to be reconciled, but not unilaterally!<Carlton>…In the context of Col. 1, the word refers to God reconciling sinners tohimself.<Bill>Yes, of course, context….Colossians 1 has the *identical* inference of only *one side* beingreconciled:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him toreconcile ***all things*** unto himself; by him, I say, **whether they bethings in earth, or things in heaven***.21 And [KAI=”even”] you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in yourmind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy andunblameable and unreproveable in his sight:23 If [EIGE=if indeed] ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and benot moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and whichwas preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am madea minister;This expresses the unlimited reconciliation of the atonement in sweepingterms, but its efficacy is conditioned on faith. This is clarified furtherin 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but alsofor the sins of the whole world.This is just the same formula as the Cor 5 passage:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling **the world** unto himself,not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the**word of** reconciliation.>20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you>by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, **be ye** reconciled [tear down your>side of the wall] to God.<Carlton>…I think what’s in brackets would be very distracting if inserted intothis context. The passive form here is what Carl Conrad calls middle and Icallreflexive passive. To me it says “be reconciled to God” (Accept for yourselfGod’s provision of reconciliation).<Bill>Exactly. It is an imperative, so it is impossible to construe as passive ina non-grammatical sense. But it is predicated on the steps made by God.Repent. Believe. Be baptized. The Father is willing to forgive. “I willreturn to my Father…” Our side of the wall is not “half.” His side was thecross, our side is faith. Each are our mutual steps to restoration.So Scriptural context always argues for a one-sided reconciliation (orrather, one side at a time).<Carlton>I would say that the subjunctive following hINA in Col. 1:28 indicates thebasic purpose of Paul’s ministry, i.e., to “present every person mature inChrist.”<Bill>Yes, but the subjunctive highlights that Paul realized that he would notindeed “present every person mature in Christ” though he labored that he”might.”————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991217/7c022e08/attachment.html

 

Philippians 4:3-4 hWN TA ONOMATA EN BIBLW ZWHSPhilippians 4:3-4 hWN TA ONOMATA EN BIBLW ZWHS

Colossians 1:21-23 A K M Adam akm-adam at nwu.edu
Fri Dec 17 11:21:09 EST 1999

 

GENOITO! “He/She” KJV At 8:25 AM -0600 12/17/99, Bill Ross wrote:> >The term “reconciled” APOKATHLLAXEV does not have the same sense as in> >”reconciled” in English. Etymologically it comes from tearing down a wall.><Carlton>>LSJ indicates that the basic verb stem ALLASSW was used to denote >exchanging one thing for another. The only meaning given for the >double compound APOKATALASSW is to “reconcile back” or to restore a >relationship that is damaged.With reference to this topic, we should note that Stanley Porter has a monograph on these verbs:KATALASSW in ancient Greek literature : with reference to the Pauline writings / Stanley E. Porter.Publisher:CCordoba : Ediciones el Almendro,Date:11994.Series:EEstudios de filologÌa neotestamentaria ; 5Caveat lector: I haven’t read it, so this is just a heads-up, FWIW.Grace and peace,A K M Adam– Seabury-Western Theological Seminaryakm-adam at nwu.eduTo translate is human; to parse, divine.————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 1260 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991217/d4afa305/attachment.bin

 

GENOITO!”He/She” KJV

Col 1:21-23 George Goolde goolde at mtnempire.net
Fri Dec 17 11:31:19 EST 1999

 

“He/She” KJV 2 Samuel 12:31 [2Kings 12:31 LXX] wross wrote: (Is that William Ross? I apologize for not knowing your name, but your post was not signed)The term “reconciled” APOKATHLLAXEV does not have the same sense as in”reconciled” in English. Etymologically it comes from tearing down a wall.The sense is that one person tore down their side of the wall, not thattwo were reunited into unity. Hence…How did you determine this was the meaning?GeorgeGeorge A. GooldeProfessor, Bible and TheologySouthern California Bible College & SeminaryEl Cajon, Californiagoolde at mtnempire.net

 

“He/She” KJV2 Samuel 12:31 [2Kings 12:31 LXX]

Col 1:21-23 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Fri Dec 17 21:45:30 EST 1999

 

Lots of Fun! Luther and the biblical langauges <George>wross wrote: (Is that William Ross? I apologize for not knowing yourname, but your post was not signed)<Bill>Yes, but I go by Bill.>The term “reconciled” APOKATHLLAXEV does not have the same sense as in“reconciled” in English. Etymologically it comes from tearing down a wall.The sense is that one person tore down their side of the wall, not thattwo were reunited into unity. Hence…<George>How did you determine this was the meaning?<Bill>The “wall” I extrapolated when I recounted the etymology from memory. Butthe meaning I got from three sources:* the elements of the word do not contain images of “union” but of “awayfrom” and “down” implying change (reconciliation) from removal of something(an obstacle, or a wall);* this is *everywhere* seen in *context* and *usage* of the word inScripture:Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh bythe blood of Christ.14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath **broken down themiddle wall of partition between us**;15 Having **abolished in his flesh the enmity**, even the law ofcommandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain onenew man, so making peace;16 And that he might **reconcile** both unto God in one body by the cross,having **slain the enmity** thereby:17 And came and **preached peace** to you which were afar off, and to themthat were nigh.18 For through him we both have *access* by one Spirit unto the Father.Nowhere in Scripture is reconciliation represented as anything less thanuniversal in scope or more than conditionally effective upon a correspondingresponse by those reconciled.So to answer your question:* the word itself* its usage and context in ScriptureFurther, The Complete Biblical Library has this to say about the classicalGreek usage of KATALLASSW:” …Primarily it describes the actions taken to end the struggle and angerbetween enemies”Hence, God took actions and now we are besought to do the same.To hope to embue the word with the meaning of effectively reuniting twoparties rather than one makes the context unreasonable in the above verseand in every other Biblical usage.Bill Ross

 

Lots of Fun!Luther and the biblical langauges

[] Col 1:21: Meaning of EXQROUS Stephen Baldwin stbaldwi at hotmail.com
Sun Sep 23 11:10:15 EDT 2007

 

[] The Aorist [] Col 1:21: Meaning of EXQROUS Ladies and Gentlemen:A small point about which I am a little perplexed:>From my reading, EXQROS means hating, hostile etc. But when used substantively, it can mean enemy (BAG).In Col1:21, Paul speaks of “you at one time being [having been] alienated…KAI EXQROUS THi DIANOIA EN TOIS ERGOIS… I note that this is translated “enemies” in NIV. “hostile in mind” NASB. Of course, you could argue that there really isn’t much between the two — but I’m curious about the NIV translation given the stipulations about the presence or not of an article. Clearly EXQROUS is anarthous [isn’t it?] and relates back to hUMAS… This reference (Col1:21) appears in BAG under the “subst.” heading therefore as “enemy”, also defined as “abs” (what does “absolute” mean in this context?) Could anyone explain why it might be substantival? Thanks as always… Steve Baldwinstbaldwi at hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________Gear up for Halo® 3 with free downloads and an exclusive offer. It’s our way of saying thanks for using Windows Live™.http://gethalo3gear.com?ocid=SeptemberWLHalo3_WLHMTxt_2

 

[] The Aorist[] Col 1:21: Meaning of EXQROUS

James 4:5

James 4:5 Steven Cox scox at Mail.Sparkice.COM.CN
Mon Jul 19 23:32:11 EDT 1999

 

book James 4:5 Where is James quoting from?PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMINSteven

 

bookJames 4:5

James 4:5 N & RJ Hanscamp nar.hanscamp at clear.net.nz
Tue Jul 20 00:37:24 EDT 1999

 

James 4:5 Greek courses >Where is James quoting from?>PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMIN> >StevenApparently Exodus 20.5NigelNigel and Rebecca HanscampTrinity Methodist Theological CollegeAuckland Consortium of Theological Education, New ZealandEmail: nar.hanscamp at clear.net.nz

 

James 4:5Greek courses

James 4:5 Steven Cox scox at Mail.Sparkice.COM.CN
Mon Jul 19 23:32:11 EDT 1999

 

book James 4:5 Where is James quoting from?PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMINSteven

 

bookJames 4:5

James 4:5 N & RJ Hanscamp nar.hanscamp at clear.net.nz
Tue Jul 20 00:37:24 EDT 1999

 

James 4:5 Greek courses >Where is James quoting from?>PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMIN> >StevenApparently Exodus 20.5NigelNigel and Rebecca HanscampTrinity Methodist Theological CollegeAuckland Consortium of Theological Education, New ZealandEmail: nar.hanscamp at clear.net.nz

 

James 4:5Greek courses

James 4:5 Steven Cox scox at Mail.Sparkice.COM.CN
Tue Jul 20 04:27:11 EDT 1999

 

Greek courses James 4:5 Thankyou NigelBut is it possible for FQONOS to be used in a positive sense??Steven>Apparently Exodus 20.5

 

Greek coursesJames 4:5

James 4:5 Steven Cox scox at Mail.Sparkice.COM.CN
Tue Jul 20 04:27:11 EDT 1999

 

Greek courses James 4:5 Thankyou NigelBut is it possible for FQONOS to be used in a positive sense??Steven>Apparently Exodus 20.5

 

Greek coursesJames 4:5

James 4:5 Al Lukaszewski alski at fuller.edu
Tue Jul 20 04:59:10 EDT 1999

 

James 4:5 book The fact that James’ citation makes reference to the spirit of the deitybeing jealous can, IMHO, intimate the use of a tradition *based upon* Exodus20.5 but the text does not seem to suggest that the author had thatparticular text in mind. Of the 7 quotations in James, only 6 are bona fideOT citations — most from Semitic source (IMO). This, the 7th, is from anas yet unidentified source. I think the safer path is to stick to thetraditional perspective that James is citing a text which is yet to bediscovered. Paul does this too when he refers to Jesus as saying that it ismore blessed to give than to receive (assuming a written Jesus traditionhere for illustrative purposes).I think it might be argued that this passage in James may be derived fromthe same text as Paul’s assertion in Gal 5.17, per the NA27 marginalreference.Regards,Albert L. Lukaszewskialski at fuller.edu <mailto:alski at fuller.edu>

 

James 4:5book

James 4:5 Al Lukaszewski alski at fuller.edu
Tue Jul 20 04:59:10 EDT 1999

 

James 4:5 book The fact that James’ citation makes reference to the spirit of the deitybeing jealous can, IMHO, intimate the use of a tradition *based upon* Exodus20.5 but the text does not seem to suggest that the author had thatparticular text in mind. Of the 7 quotations in James, only 6 are bona fideOT citations — most from Semitic source (IMO). This, the 7th, is from anas yet unidentified source. I think the safer path is to stick to thetraditional perspective that James is citing a text which is yet to bediscovered. Paul does this too when he refers to Jesus as saying that it ismore blessed to give than to receive (assuming a written Jesus traditionhere for illustrative purposes).I think it might be argued that this passage in James may be derived fromthe same text as Paul’s assertion in Gal 5.17, per the NA27 marginalreference.Regards,Albert L. Lukaszewskialski at fuller.edu <mailto:alski at fuller.edu>

 

James 4:5book

[Fwd: Re: James 4:5] Jonathan Ryder jpr1001 at cam.ac.uk
Tue Jul 20 07:09:06 EDT 1999

 

book: PLEASE NOTE! book: PLEASE NOTE! Steven Cox wrote:> > Where is James quoting from?> PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMIN> > Steven> >To add to comments already received.Off the top of my head, I think you’ll find that some commentators argue thatJames isn’t quoting here at all, but the sentence can be construed quitedifferently. They argue, variously, that H DOKEITE hOTI KENWS hH GRAFH LEGEI isstandalone ‘Or do you suppose that (the) scripture ‘speaks’ in vain?’, or thatJames has in mind the subsequent scripture in v6, or some other scripture by wayof allusion.Also, as no doubt you’re aware, commentators have various different ways ofconstruing the actual phrase in question: PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hOKATWiKISEN EN hUMIN. The basic questions are ‘is TO PNEUMA …’ subject orobject of EPIPOQEI?’, and ‘whose spirit – God’s (Holy) Spirit or man’s spirit?’See, amongst others, Luke Johnson’s recent contribution to the Anchor Bibleseries for most of the above.Jonathan Ryder

 

book: PLEASE NOTE!book: PLEASE NOTE!

[Fwd: Re: James 4:5] Jonathan Ryder jpr1001 at cam.ac.uk
Tue Jul 20 07:09:06 EDT 1999

 

book: PLEASE NOTE! book: PLEASE NOTE! Steven Cox wrote:> > Where is James quoting from?> PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMIN> > Steven> >To add to comments already received.Off the top of my head, I think you’ll find that some commentators argue thatJames isn’t quoting here at all, but the sentence can be construed quitedifferently. They argue, variously, that H DOKEITE hOTI KENWS hH GRAFH LEGEI isstandalone ‘Or do you suppose that (the) scripture ‘speaks’ in vain?’, or thatJames has in mind the subsequent scripture in v6, or some other scripture by wayof allusion.Also, as no doubt you’re aware, commentators have various different ways ofconstruing the actual phrase in question: PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hOKATWiKISEN EN hUMIN. The basic questions are ‘is TO PNEUMA …’ subject orobject of EPIPOQEI?’, and ‘whose spirit – God’s (Holy) Spirit or man’s spirit?’See, amongst others, Luke Johnson’s recent contribution to the Anchor Bibleseries for most of the above.Jonathan Ryder

 

book: PLEASE NOTE!book: PLEASE NOTE!

James 4:5 Ron Rhoades rrhoades at jps.net
Tue Jul 20 16:14:58 EDT 1999

 

first and second aorist confusion James 4:5 I have it in my notes that James possibly paraphrased such texts asGenesis 6:5;8:21; Proverbs 21:10; and Galatians 5:17.I have no evidence pro or con as to the likelihood of that. Or ofother possiblesources for his quote. Anyone?Ron RhoadesSteven Cox wrote:> Where is James quoting from?> PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMIN> > Steven

 

first and second aorist confusionJames 4:5

James 4:5 Ron Rhoades rrhoades at jps.net
Tue Jul 20 16:14:58 EDT 1999

 

first and second aorist confusion James 4:5 I have it in my notes that James possibly paraphrased such texts asGenesis 6:5;8:21; Proverbs 21:10; and Galatians 5:17.I have no evidence pro or con as to the likelihood of that. Or ofother possiblesources for his quote. Anyone?Ron RhoadesSteven Cox wrote:> Where is James quoting from?> PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMIN> > Steven

 

first and second aorist confusionJames 4:5

James 4:5 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Tue Jul 20 19:02:09 EDT 1999

 

James 4:5 IMHO? On Tue 20 Jul 99 (11:32:11 +0800), scox at mail.sparkice.com.cn wrote:> Where is James quoting from?> PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMIN JA Bengel writes that because FQONOS does not occur in the LXX, James must be quoting from a /New Testament/ Scripture: and he offers 1 Peter 2:1, 2, and 5 as possibilities. He also suggests Galatians 5:17, where FQONOI, envyings, are place among the works of the flesh, and the Spirit is said to have desires contrary to the flesh, and they who are led by this Spirit are not under the Law but under Grace. H Alford, /The Greek New Testament/, Cambridge, 1874, /ad loc/ suggests “There is nothing improbable in the idea that James may have combined the general sense of Scripture on the point of God’s jealousy over his people….” [In Deuteronomy 32:10, 19 LXX are found] “the elements of the sense of that which is cited”. Mitton comments “1. ‘The spirit’ is either (a) subject: ‘the spirit yearns’, or (b) object: ‘(God) yearns over the spirit’. 2. ‘The spirit’ is either (a) the Holy Spirit, given by God to indwell his people, or (b) the spirit which God breathed into man (Gn 2:7). 3. ‘Jealously’ is in the Greek a noun, ‘jealousy’, and signifies either (a) God’s longing for the full devotion of His ‘bride’, or (b) the evil quality which infects the human heart.” In many passages, God’s ‘jealousy’ over his people is expressed: e.g. Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; Ezekiel 39:25; Joel 2:18; Zechariah 1:14; 8:2 (etc). HTH Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

 

James 4:5IMHO?

James 4:5 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Tue Jul 20 19:02:09 EDT 1999

 

James 4:5 IMHO? On Tue 20 Jul 99 (11:32:11 +0800), scox at mail.sparkice.com.cn wrote:> Where is James quoting from?> PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMIN JA Bengel writes that because FQONOS does not occur in the LXX, James must be quoting from a /New Testament/ Scripture: and he offers 1 Peter 2:1, 2, and 5 as possibilities. He also suggests Galatians 5:17, where FQONOI, envyings, are place among the works of the flesh, and the Spirit is said to have desires contrary to the flesh, and they who are led by this Spirit are not under the Law but under Grace. H Alford, /The Greek New Testament/, Cambridge, 1874, /ad loc/ suggests “There is nothing improbable in the idea that James may have combined the general sense of Scripture on the point of God’s jealousy over his people….” [In Deuteronomy 32:10, 19 LXX are found] “the elements of the sense of that which is cited”. Mitton comments “1. ‘The spirit’ is either (a) subject: ‘the spirit yearns’, or (b) object: ‘(God) yearns over the spirit’. 2. ‘The spirit’ is either (a) the Holy Spirit, given by God to indwell his people, or (b) the spirit which God breathed into man (Gn 2:7). 3. ‘Jealously’ is in the Greek a noun, ‘jealousy’, and signifies either (a) God’s longing for the full devotion of His ‘bride’, or (b) the evil quality which infects the human heart.” In many passages, God’s ‘jealousy’ over his people is expressed: e.g. Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; Ezekiel 39:25; Joel 2:18; Zechariah 1:14; 8:2 (etc). HTH Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

 

James 4:5IMHO?

James 4:5 Al Lukaszewski alski at fuller.edu
Wed Jul 21 00:51:17 EDT 1999

 

IMHO? OCR While I agree that God’s jealousy for his people is expressed in numerousplaces, I wonder whether there are other examples where authors combine’general senses’ in ways similar to what Alford purports that James hasdone.Being in the middle of a move I do not have access to all my referencematerials. Are there modern scholars who agree with this view? Based onwhat I have read, I do not recall anyone taking up this line in more moderntimes.AlAlbert L. Lukaszewskialski at fuller.edu <mailto:alski at fuller.edu>> H Alford, /The Greek New Testament/, Cambridge, 1874, /ad loc/ suggests> “There is nothing improbable in the idea that James may have combined> the general sense of Scripture on the point of God’s jealousy over> his people….” [In Deuteronomy 32:10, 19 LXX are found] “the elements> of the sense of that which is cited”.

 

IMHO?OCR

James 4:5 Al Lukaszewski alski at fuller.edu
Wed Jul 21 00:51:17 EDT 1999

 

IMHO? OCR While I agree that God’s jealousy for his people is expressed in numerousplaces, I wonder whether there are other examples where authors combine’general senses’ in ways similar to what Alford purports that James hasdone.Being in the middle of a move I do not have access to all my referencematerials. Are there modern scholars who agree with this view? Based onwhat I have read, I do not recall anyone taking up this line in more moderntimes.AlAlbert L. Lukaszewskialski at fuller.edu <mailto:alski at fuller.edu>> H Alford, /The Greek New Testament/, Cambridge, 1874, /ad loc/ suggests> “There is nothing improbable in the idea that James may have combined> the general sense of Scripture on the point of God’s jealousy over> his people….” [In Deuteronomy 32:10, 19 LXX are found] “the elements> of the sense of that which is cited”.

 

IMHO?OCR

[] PROS FQONON James4:5 Rbsads at aol.com Rbsads at aol.com
Mon Sep 15 08:32:22 EDT 2003

 

[] Re: QEOS and KURIOS : a strange choice of words? [] PROS FQONON James4:5 PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hHMINHow is it best to understand the phrase PROS FQONON?Several translation seems to offer different readings, either taking the phrase literally as a preposition or taking the phrase periphrastically as an adverb.”Longs toward envy.” KJV “lusteth to envy””Enviously longs.”The RSV even breaks with most translations by treating TO PHEUMA as the object of EPIPOQEI rather than as its subject.If PROS FQONON is best considered as an adverb, what might be the object of EPIPOQEI?And, given the resolution of PROS FQONON, how might the whole of verse 5 be understood in relation to verse 6 which completes the sentence.The NEB renders the two verses as “(5) Or do you suppose that Scripture has no meaning when it says that the spirit which God implanted in man turns towards envious desires? (6) And yet the grace he gives is stronger.”This rendering seems to require that the referenced indwelling spirit is not the Holy Spirit, but rather something spiritual and good but less the Holy Spirit?Any thoughts are appreciated.Peace,Richard SmithChattanooga, TN

 

[] Re: QEOS and KURIOS : a strange choice of words? [] PROS FQONON James4:5

[] PROS FQONON James4:5 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Sep 15 15:46:17 EDT 2003

 

[] PROS FQONON James4:5 [] PROS FQONON James4:5 At 8:32 AM -0400 9/15/03, Rbsads at aol.com wrote:>PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hHMIN> >How is it best to understand the phrase PROS FQONON?> >Several translation seems to offer different readings, either taking the>phrase literally as a preposition or taking the phrase periphrastically as an>adverb.> >“Longs toward envy.” KJV “lusteth to envy”> >“Enviously longs.”> >The RSV even breaks with most translations by treating TO PHEUMA as the>object of EPIPOQEI rather than as its subject.> >If PROS FQONON is best considered as an adverb, what might be the object of>EPIPOQEI?> >And, given the resolution of PROS FQONON, how might the whole of verse 5 be>understood in relation to verse 6 which completes the sentence.> >The NEB renders the two verses as “(5) Or do you suppose that Scripture has>no meaning when it says that the spirit which God implanted in man turns>towards envious desires? (6) And yet the grace he gives is stronger.”> >This rendering seems to require that the referenced indwelling spirit is not>the Holy Spirit, but rather something spiritual and good but less the Holy>Spirit?A tough nut to crack; I’ve attempted to comment on this before, but I haveno real confidence in any answer to the questions involved in this text.You might, for what it’s worth consult the list archives; I’ve found thefollowing:David J. Rising10:36 AM 11/8/96Questions from James 4:5Randall McRoberts7:56 AM 1/22/97James 4:5Francisco Orozco1:29 PM 4/25/98Re: How to translate Jam 4.5David L. Moore9:22 PM 4/25/98Re: How to translate Jam 4.5Dmitriy Reznik6:13 PM 6/13/99The meaning of FQONOS in Ja 4:5Steven Cox11:32 PM 7/19/99Re: James 4:5N & RJ Hanscamp12:37 AM 7/20/99Re: James 4:5Steven Cox4:27 AM 7/20/99Re: James 4:5Jonathan Ryder7:09 AM 7/20/99Re: James 4:5Ron Rhoades4:14 PM 7/20/99Re: James 4:5Ben Crick7:02 PM 7/20/99Re: James 4:5Harold R. Holmyard III2:27 PM 5/24/00FQONOS in Jas 4:5clayton bartholomew4:22 PM 5/24/00Re: FQONOS in Jas 4:5Carl W. Conrad10:21 AM 5/25/00Re: FQONOS in Jas 4:5Robert_Pirewicz6:36 AM 1/10/01[] PROS FQONONmyron kauk1:07 PM 1/10/01[] Re: PROS FQONON– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] PROS FQONON James4:5[] PROS FQONON James4:5

[] PROS FQONON James4:5 Iver iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Sep 16 02:52:56 EDT 2003

 

[] PROS FQONON James4:5 [] middle voice Richard,This is an interesting and of course difficult and disputed verse. Let meoffer some thoughts, whether original or not.First, I think we need to see v. 5 in the context of v. 4 (and all precedingverses in the chapter) before looking at v. 6:v. 4 MOICALIDES, OUK OIDATE hOTI hH FILIA TOU KOSMOU ECQRA TOU QEOU ESTIN…v. 5 H DOKEITE hOTI KENWS hH GRAFH LEGEI:> PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hHMIN> > How is it best to understand the phrase PROS FQONON?<snip>> “Enviously longs.”Yes.Although the statement is introduced as if it was a quote from the OT, thereis no such passage, so it must be a summary of OT teaching about God’sfeelings of jealousy towards anything that takes our devotion away form him.The verb EPIPOQEW is used a number of times in the GNT, always in a positivesense of “longing (to experience something good)”. Neither the words “lust”or “yearn” are helpful glosses here, IMO. The usual contextual background inthese instances is love and affection coupled with a wish for furtherfellowship.I take God to be the implied subject of the verb which makes TO PNEUMA theobject.TO PNEUMA can hardly be the human spirit or the breath of life from Gen 2:7(LXX uses PNOH, not PNEUMA here). It is more likely the Holy Spirit thatcomes to indwell every believer. (John 20:22, Eph 3:16-17).The previous verses talk about a war between two opposing forces, similar toGal 5: Bad desires that have their origin in FILIA TOU KOSMOU, and gooddesires that have their origin in God and the Holy Spirit. James seems to besaying that a Christian cannot serve two masters at the same time: the worldand God, echoing the words of Jesus. If you leave your devotion to God andbecome devoted to the world, you are adulterous. James calls such peopleMOICALIDES in line with OT terminology. It is from this background that theexpression “towards jealousy” comes in. God longs for the full devotion ofhis people, and is jealous of any other “god” (Mammon or whoever) who getsthe devotion of his people. So, I would take the prepositional phrase as anadverbial phrase that describes God’s longing. He longs very much, even tothe extent of (PROS) being jealous.> > If PROS FQONON is best considered as an adverb, what might be the> object of EPIPOQEI?Grammatically, the object seems to be TO PNEUMA, but something appears to beimplied from the word “longing”. God longs to see and experience the workand fruit of that holy Spirit whom he made to dwell in us and whose task isto counteract the works of the flesh.> > And, given the resolution of PROS FQONON, how might the whole of> verse 5 be understood in relation to verse 6 which completes the sentence.I wouldn’t say that v. 6 completes the sentence (contra NIV). v. 6 adds anew aspect (DE) to the war between the bad desires of the flesh and the goodlonging of God for the work of the Spirit in us to be seen and be effected.If we are humble and devoted to God, he will give us grace, and that powerof grace is greater than the power of the attraction of the world thatoccupies the proud/selfish people.Those were my thoughts, briefly stated,As for translation, I have not found a single English version that Iconsider to give the correct meaning, assuming of course, that my exegesisis correct.My own idiomatic translation that makes some implicit information explicit,would be something like:”It is not without reason when the Scriptures say that God is jealouslylonging to see that the spirit that he caused to live in us is making usfaithful and loyal towards him.”Iver LarsenSIL translation consultant

 

[] PROS FQONON James4:5[] middle voice

[] James 4:5 PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKHSEN ENhHMIN Jonathan Robie jonathan.robie at datadirect.com
Tue Sep 30 13:22:05 EDT 2003

 

[] 1 COR 11.7 [] Re: Digest, Vol 9, Issue 29 I have spent a lot of time chewing on this:James 4:5-4:6a: H DOKEITE hOTI KENWS hH GRAFH LEGEI, PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hOKATWiKHSEN EN hHMIN; MEIZONA DE DIDWSI XARIN.This is hard for me to make sense of, though a few possibilities seem to make sense. The New Oxford Commentary suggests that this might be interpreted as two separate questions: H DOKEITE hOTI KENWS hH GRAFH LEGEI; PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKHSEN EN hHMIN; MEIZONA DE DIDWSI XARIN.This would come out something like, “Or do you think the scripture speaks in vain? [do you think that] he placed his spirit in us for jealousy?” I have to admit that the reason I like this is simply that I don’t think of FQONON as something that is associated with God or with the spirit he placed in us – but does it seem to fit?Or is God being presented as a jealous husband here, who will not tolerate our adultery (see MOICALIDES in James 4:4)? In this case, though, I don’t quite understand the role of TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKHSEN EN hHMIN.Several other translations have been suggested, and I frankly don’t know quite what some of these translations would mean in English. For instance, I can’t quite figure out what the KJV “The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?” means. Is that the same thing as the GNB translation “The spirit that God placed in us is filled with fierce desires”?Help!Jonathan

 

[] 1 COR 11.7[] Re: Digest, Vol 9, Issue 29

Ephesians 4:12

Ephesians 4:12 Jay Anthony Adkins Jadkins26438 at cs.com
Thu Jul 11 08:43:27 EDT 2002

 

ERCESQAI, 1 Ephesians 4:12 Dear ‘s,While my efforts to use the Lyris search engine failed, I seem to vaguelyremember a discussion a few years ago on Ephesians 4:12 and the placementor removal of a comma, which could in turn alter the meaning of the verse.Ephe 4:12 (ASV) for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work ofministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ:Ephe 4:12 (NASU) for the equipping of the saints for the work of service,to the building up of the body of Christ;Ephe 4:12 (GNT) PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS, EISOIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS TOU XRISTOU,Should a comma be placed after AGIWN, making a list 3 reasons for God’sgift of Apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers? Or shouldthe comma be omitted as it is in my Greek text and the NASU making theAGIWN the one’s who do works of service to build up the body.In other words, is there some grammatical rule that would help decide theproper use or non-use of a comma in this verse after AGIWN.Sola Gratia, Jay AdkinsAlways Under Grace!

 

ERCESQAI, 1Ephesians 4:12

Ephesians 4:12 Roe d.roe at t-online.de
Thu Jul 11 09:11:32 EDT 2002

 

Ephesians 4:12 Ephesians 4:12 Jay Anthony Adkins schrieb: [snip]> Ephe 4:12 (GNT) PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS, EIS> OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS TOU XRISTOU,> > Should a comma be placed after AGIWN, making a list 3 reasons for God’s> gift of Apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers? Or should> the comma be omitted as it is in my Greek text and the NASU making the> AGIWN the one’s who do works of service to build up the body.Hi Jay,I know of no *rule* which would establish one reading over the other. Itis my understanding, however, that the change of prepositions from PROS toEIS indicates a “more natural or expected” reading close to that of theoft-loosely translated NIV: “to prepare God’s people for works ofservice…” Of course I’m looking at the EIS clauses as subordinate. My question wouldbe, is the second EIS clause (EIS OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS…) subordinate tothe first (EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS), or is it subordinate to TON KATARTISMONTWN AGIWN? That is, is the building up of the body a result of the ERGONDIAKONIAS of the saints, or is it parallel to the ERGON DIAKONIAS and aresult of TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN?DavidD.W. RoeRheinland-Pfalz, Germany

 

Ephesians 4:12Ephesians 4:12

Ephesians 4:12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 11 09:41:50 EDT 2002

 

Ephesians 4:12 EUANGGELION At 3:11 PM +0200 7/11/02, Roe wrote:>Jay Anthony Adkins schrieb:> [snip]> >> Ephe 4:12 (GNT) PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS, EIS>> OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS TOU XRISTOU,>> >> Should a comma be placed after AGIWN, making a list 3 reasons for God’s>> gift of Apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers? Or should>> the comma be omitted as it is in my Greek text and the NASU making the>> AGIWN the one’s who do works of service to build up the body.> > >Hi Jay,> >I know of no *rule* which would establish one reading over the other. It>is my understanding, however, that the change of prepositions from PROS to>EIS indicates a “more natural or expected” reading close to that of the>oft-loosely translated NIV: “to prepare God’s people for works of>service…”> >Of course I’m looking at the EIS clauses as subordinate. My question would>be, is the second EIS clause (EIS OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS…) subordinate to>the first (EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS), or is it subordinate to TON KATARTISMON>TWN AGIWN? That is, is the building up of the body a result of the ERGON>DIAKONIAS of the saints, or is it parallel to the ERGON DIAKONIAS and a>result of TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN?I’d agree with this comment, both in what it asserts and in what it saysabout ambiguity. The two phrases with EIS and verbal nouns are prettystandard in Hellenistic Greek to signal BOTH purpose and result, and it’soften difficult to decide whether the phrase was intended by its author toexpress purpose or result. The same is true of hWSTE with either infinitiveor indicative–such a clause may signal either purpose or result, and it’snot always crystal clear which the author intended.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Ephesians 4:12EUANGGELION

Ephesians 4:12 Jay Anthony Adkins Jadkins26438 at cs.com
Thu Jul 11 18:22:58 EDT 2002

 

A greek defintion of ERCOMAI A greek defintion of ERCOMAI I Asked :(Snipped sections)Ephe 4:12 (GNT) PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS, EISOIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS TOU XRISTOU,Should a comma be placed after AGIWN, making a list 3 reasons for God’sgift of Apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers? Or shouldthe comma be omitted as it is in my Greek text and the NASU making theAGIWN the one’s who do works of service to build up the body.D.W. Roe (David) wrote:I know of no *rule* which would establish one reading over the other. Itis my understanding, however, that the change of prepositions from PROS toEIS indicates a “more natural or expected” reading close to that of theoft-loosely translated NIV: “to prepare God’s people for works ofservice…” Then Carl W. Conrad wrote:I’d agree with this comment, both in what it asserts and in what it saysabout ambiguity. The two phrases with EIS and verbal nouns are prettystandard in Hellenistic Greek to signal BOTH purpose and result, and it’soften difficult to decide whether the phrase was intended by its author toexpress purpose or result. The same is true of hWSTE with eitherinfinitiveor indicative–such a clause may signal either purpose or result, and it’snot always crystal clear which the author intended.First let me thank both people that responded to my query. It makes senseto me as well that the change in prepositions may hold the key, but itwould be most difficult to be dogmatic due to the ambiguity involved. Does anyone know of another verse we can look at to possibly resolve theconflict, either from the Bible or early church fathers? And since this isnow outside of , please respond off list unless your answer bearson the Greek text. Thank you very much.Sola Gratia,Jay AdkinsAlways Under Grace!

 

A greek defintion of ERCOMAIA greek defintion of ERCOMAI

Ephesians 4:12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 12 08:06:25 EDT 2002

 

Revelry (kwmos) 1 Thess 4:4 TO hEAUTOU SKEUOS KTASQAI … At 6:22 PM -0400 7/11/02, Jay Anthony Adkins wrote:>I Asked :(Snipped sections)> >Ephe 4:12 (GNT) PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS, EIS>OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS TOU XRISTOU,> >Should a comma be placed after AGIWN, making a list 3 reasons for God’s>gift of Apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers? Or should>the comma be omitted as it is in my Greek text and the NASU making the>AGIWN the one’s who do works of service to build up the body.> >D.W. Roe (David) wrote:> >I know of no *rule* which would establish one reading over the other. It>is my understanding, however, that the change of prepositions from PROS to>EIS indicates a “more natural or expected” reading close to that of the>oft-loosely translated NIV: “to prepare God’s people for works of>service…”> >Then Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >I’d agree with this comment, both in what it asserts and in what it says>about ambiguity. The two phrases with EIS and verbal nouns are pretty>standard in Hellenistic Greek to signal BOTH purpose and result, and it’s>often difficult to decide whether the phrase was intended by its author to>express purpose or result. The same is true of hWSTE with either>infinitive>or indicative–such a clause may signal either purpose or result, and it’s>not always crystal clear which the author intended.> >First let me thank both people that responded to my query. It makes sense>to me as well that the change in prepositions may hold the key, but it>would be most difficult to be dogmatic due to the ambiguity involved.>Does anyone know of another verse we can look at to possibly resolve the>conflict, either from the Bible or early church fathers? And since this is>now outside of , please respond off list unless your answer bears>on the Greek text. Thank you very much.I really don’t want to leave the realm of at all, and I do hopethat my answer bears on the Greek text fundamentally. Nor do I want in anyway to discourage others with opinions on this text from having a say on it(after all, I’m going to confess that I can’t analyze it to my ownsatisfaction).I’ve changed my mind since yesterday with respect to this verse, and Ireally must thank Jay for not letting the questions here rest. One of thealmost notorious features of the Letter to the Ephesians which some othersand I find particularly unsettling is the “looseness” of the syntax–thedifficulty the reader has in discerning clear connections between phrasesand relating each phrase to a central controlling verb (or even finding, insome instances, a central controlling verb). We have had several threads onthe problems of sorting out phrase relationships in Eph 1:3-10. Thispassage too has a certain looseness to it; it does to me to befundamentally intelligible in terms of its content, and yet, preciselybecause one must settle upon choices of how to link the phrases where thetext itself provides no clear guidance, it is problematic as a text toconvert to a target language, as may quickly be recognized by an overviewof several English versions. Certainly one has to view Eph 4:7-16 as atextual unit, and one must relate EDWKEN in vs. 11 to EDWKEN DOMATA TOISANQRWPOIS, while vs. 12 pretty clearly indicates the intention underlyingthe giving of the gifts and vss. 13ff. indicate the length and breadth ofthe maturation process through which those gifts are intended to assist”the saints.” So: one can without a whole lot of difficulty discern theessential flow of the content of this passage,but when we start dissectingthe passage and analyzing the syntactic flow, I think we do get bogged downpretty badly. I must confess quite honestly that I am far less confidentthis morning about what I wrote yesterday (cited above by Jay in hisreformulation of his original question) than I thought I was yesterday.Perhaps there is no clear differentiation between the usage of PROS and EISin vs. 12–and I almost think that it would be more “honest” to representthe looseness of the Greek in a loose English (for English substitute anyother target language) rather than to attempt a more precise articulation,the effect of which is to tip the scales in favor of one interpretation ofwhat’s ambiguous rather than another. So I’d suggest:”for the equipping of the saints for servanthood-work, for construction ofChrist’s body” The comma following “servanthood-work” reflects thepunctuation of UBS4/NA27, but quite frankly, I think that this constructionis so loose that there’s no way of being sure that EIS OIKODOMHN TOUSWMATOS TOU CRISTOU is intended other than as a parallel to PROS TONKATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN.While I have personally been very impressed by the NET as a whole–and whatI like best about it is that it explains and defends its translators’conception of “how the text means”–, I am inclined to think that NET errsin its attempt to articulate this text in English far more precisely thanit is articulated in the original:”4:12 to equip12 the saints for the work of ministry, that is,13 to buildup the body of Christ, “The translator notes then explain this reading thus:”12tn On the translation of PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN (pros tonkatartismon ton hagion) as “to equip the saints” see BAGD 418 s.v.KATARTISMOS. In this case the genitive is taken as objective and the directobject of the verbal idea implied in KATARTISMOS (katartismo”).”13tn The EIS (eis) clause is taken as epexegetical to the previous EISclause, namely, EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS).”Now I do think this is one perfectly reasonable articulation of theelements of vs. 12, but (a) I don’t find the explanation so cogent that Icannot just as likely conceive EIS OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS TOU CRISTOU to beparallel to PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN.So I ask myself: do we really understand this particular passage betterthrough our efforts at detailed syntactic analysis. As a “grammarian” Iwant to say: “Certainly we do.” But my common-sense and skeptical bentcomes in from the other side and tells me: “You know very well that youunderstand what the whole sequence is saying and that in this instance theold Aristotelian strategy of ‘divide and conquer’ doesn’t work: the moreyou attempt to fine-tune the analysis of this passage, the more puzzlingyou’re likely to find it, and you may even persuade yourself of what youreally know is not true, that you don’t understand the passage at all. Butyou DO understand it; you just can’t ANALYZE it.” Thus my inner dialogue.So, if we/I DO understand this text without being able to analyze it to ourtechnical satisfaction, what does it say? It says that “the risen Christgave human beings gifts, distributing roles among them with a view toturning believers into more adequately functional servants; those roleswhich he gave part of his overall intention to make the body of Christbecome a fully-functional organism.” Now obviously that’s not atranslation, but I think that within its larger context of Eph 4:7-16 thisis what the original audience/readers were meant to understand from theseverses. In this instance, it seems to me, the whole is not only greaterthan the sum of its parts; the whole really cannot be articulatedconvincingly into its parts.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Revelry (kwmos)1 Thess 4:4 TO hEAUTOU SKEUOS KTASQAI …

Ephesians 4:12 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Jul 13 11:10:43 EDT 2002

 

1 Thess 4:4 TO hEAUTOU SKEUOS KTASQAI … ERCESQAI, 1 Carl said:> I really don’t want to leave the realm of at all, and I do hope> that my answer bears on the Greek text fundamentally. Nor do I want in any> way to discourage others with opinions on this text from having a> say on it (after all, I’m going to confess that I can’t analyze it to myown> satisfaction).Let me have a go since you do not discourage it. In the following I am onlykeeping what I’d like to comment on.<snip>> Certainly one has to view Eph 4:7-16 as a> textual unit, and one must relate EDWKEN in vs. 11 to EDWKEN DOMATA TOIS> ANQRWPOIS, while vs. 12 pretty clearly indicates the intention underlying> the giving of the gifts and vss. 13ff. indicate the length and breadth of> the maturation process through which those gifts are intended to assist> “the saints.”<snip>> Perhaps there is no clear differentiation between the usage of> PROS and EIS> in vs. 12–and I almost think that it would be more “honest” to represent> the looseness of the Greek in a loose English (for English substitute any> other target language) rather than to attempt a more precise articulation,> the effect of which is to tip the scales in favor of one interpretation of> what’s ambiguous rather than another. So I’d suggest:> > “for the equipping of the saints for servanthood-work, for construction of> Christ’s body” The comma following “servanthood-work” reflects the> punctuation of UBS4/NA27, but quite frankly, I think that this> construction is so loose that there’s no way of being sure that EISOIKODOMHN TOU> SWMATOS TOU CRISTOU is intended other than as a parallel to PROS TON> KATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN.You are here moving into translation theory and what is most “honest”. I cansee why a literal translation would appear more “honest” to one’sunderstanding of the structure, but I don’t think it is “honest” in terms ofcommunicating the originally intended meaning. I am pretty sure that theabove suggested rendering is much more obscure in English than the originalwas in Greek, partly because English is poor in prepositions compared toGreek, partly because “construction” does not have the metaphorical sensethat OIKODOMH has. And of course, it is not normal English, but what wesometimes call “translationese”.> > While I have personally been very impressed by the NET as a> whole–and what I like best about it is that it explains and defends itstranslators’> conception of “how the text means”–, I am inclined to think that NET errs> in its attempt to articulate this text in English far more precisely than> it is articulated in the original:> > “4:12 to equip12 the saints for the work of ministry, that is,13 to build> up the body of Christ, “> > The translator notes then explain this reading thus:> > “12tn On the translation of PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN (pros ton> katartismon ton hagion) as “to equip the saints” see BAGD 418 s.v.> KATARTISMOS. In this case the genitive is taken as objective and> the direct object of the verbal idea implied in KATARTISMOS (katartismo”).> “13tn The EIS (eis) clause is taken as epexegetical to the previous EIS> clause, namely, EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS).”> > Now I do think this is one perfectly reasonable articulation of the> elements of vs. 12, but (a) I don’t find the explanation so cogent that I> cannot just as likely conceive EIS OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS TOU CRISTOU to be> parallel to PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN.I would say that NET did a good job here in terms of its modified-literaltranslation philosophy, and I agree that the second EIS clause isepexegetical and parallel to the first. As you said, one needs to interpretv. 12 in the context of 7-16, and it is significant that the word OIKODOMHresurfaces in v. 16.V. 16 says EX hOU PAN TO SWMA … KAT’ ENERGEIAN EN METRWi hENOS hEKASTOUMEROUS THN AUXHSIN TOU SWMATOS POIEITAI EIS OIKODOMHN hEAUTOU EN AGAPHiHere it seems that it is the body that produces its own growth in accordancewith the measure of work that each member of the body is able to do towardsthe strengthening/building-up in actions governed by love.Because both v. 12 and v. 16 include word parallels like ERGON-ENERGEIA, EISOIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS-EIS OIKODOMHN hEAUTOU (i.e. TOU SWMATOS) it seemsreasonable to conclude from v. 16 that in both verses it is the individualmembers of the body that are to do the servant ministry of building up thewhole body.In v. 12 the PROS can without problem be taken as purpose or goal for Godgiving the five special ministries, namely that they should train/equip allthe saints for something. That “something” is expressed through the firstgeneric EIS clause: a work of service, and further explained through thesecond parallel EIS clause: building up the body of Christ.So, it seems that Paul expects each member of the body to have its share inbuilding up the other members (which fits with 1 Cor 12-14 where OIKODOMHoccurs frequently). In addition, the five ministries mentioned have theadded responsibility of training the other members (and one another) for thebuilding up of the whole body. Each of the five ministries has three levels:basic level for all, intermediate level in the local church ministry andadvanced level in regional or international ministry. The upper two levelsinclude a training aspect. But now I am moving away from the Greek to thewider context.Iver Larsen

 

1 Thess 4:4 TO hEAUTOU SKEUOS KTASQAI …ERCESQAI, 1

Ephesians 4:12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Jul 14 10:57:17 EDT 2002

 

Beginning Grammar Beginning Grammar At 5:10 PM +0200 7/13/02, Iver Larsen wrote:>Carl said:>> I really don’t want to leave the realm of at all, and I do hope>> that my answer bears on the Greek text fundamentally. Nor do I want in any>> way to discourage others with opinions on this text from having a>> say on it (after all, I’m going to confess that I can’t analyze it to my>> own satisfaction).> >Let me have a go since you do not discourage it. In the following I am only>keeping what I’d like to comment on.Iver, I’ve never discouraged an alternative opinion, provided it isexpressed within the appropriate parameters of discussion. I wouldnote, however, that in the discussion that follows it seems to me that youhave misunderstood my intention; certainly you may dispute my view that theGreek text of this passage is, as I have asserted, “syntactically loose,”and you may go on to assert that it is in fact quite clearly articulatedand that the author’s intent is fully intelligible. But I think in some ofyour comments below you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting (surelyunintentionally) my own intention. My comments below are intended only toclarify my own position regarding this passage.><snip>>> Certainly one has to view Eph 4:7-16 as a>> textual unit, and one must relate EDWKEN in vs. 11 to EDWKEN DOMATA TOIS>> ANQRWPOIS, while vs. 12 pretty clearly indicates the intention underlying>> the giving of the gifts and vss. 13ff. indicate the length and breadth of>> the maturation process through which those gifts are intended to assist>> “the saints.”><snip>>> Perhaps there is no clear differentiation between the usage of>> PROS and EIS>> in vs. 12–and I almost think that it would be more “honest” to represent>> the looseness of the Greek in a loose English (for English substitute any>> other target language) rather than to attempt a more precise articulation,>> the effect of which is to tip the scales in favor of one interpretation of>> what’s ambiguous rather than another. So I’d suggest:>> >> “for the equipping of the saints for servanthood-work, for construction of>> Christ’s body” The comma following “servanthood-work” reflects the>> punctuation of UBS4/NA27, but quite frankly, I think that this>> construction is so loose that there’s no way of being sure that EIS>OIKODOMHN TOU>> SWMATOS TOU CRISTOU is intended other than as a parallel to PROS TON>> KATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN.> >You are here moving into translation theory and what is most “honest”. I can>see why a literal translation would appear more “honest” to one’s>understanding of the structure, but I don’t think it is “honest” in terms of>communicating the originally intended meaning. I am pretty sure that the>above suggested rendering is much more obscure in English than the original>was in Greek, partly because English is poor in prepositions compared to>Greek, partly because “construction” does not have the metaphorical sense>that OIKODOMH has. And of course, it is not normal English, but what we>sometimes call “translationese”.I had no intention of discussing translation theory nor did I intend theEnglish version I offered to be “a literal translation.” Indeed, I putquotation-marks around “honest” and characterized my English version as “aloose English.” I am sorry if I made it appear that my “loose English” wasintended to be “a literal translation.” It does seem to me that you’refaulting me for not doing what it was not my intention to do. Although inmy previous message I didn’t characterize the literary style of this writeras “impressionistic” (and hesitate even now to do so for fear the adjectivemay be misleading), it does seem to me that the phrasing of severalword-groups within the Greek text has a vagueness or imprecisioncontributing to a difficulty in any attempt at precise syntactic andsemantic analysis of details, while at the same time the reader does nothesitate to recognize an intelligibility in the broader textual constructas a totality. My loose English was intended to convey an “impression” ofhow the Greek text works, and if one or more of the words I used wereclearly not “normal English,” then perhaps I was successful in conveying mysense that the phraseology of the Greek of this passage is not quite”normal Greek” either. My sense regarding the prepositions PROS and EIS inthis passage is that they don’t really convey any distinctive normal senseof PROS and EIS with accusative such that one could characterize by saying,”PROS + acc. = ‘toward’ + object”; rather PROS and EIS might either oneconvey what a colloquial user of English means by “with regard to,” or “inrespect of,” or “as to,” or “at,” or even, as an American teen-ager ofrecent era might put it, “like–you know–” (when, more often than not, weby no means do/did know). I suppose I could have used “edification” forOIKODOMH (it’s a not-unuseful equivalent for the way Paul uses the word in1 Cor), but it seems to me that the phraseology of the passage we arediscussing involves a rather strange mixed metaphor of mechanicalengineering and biological growth–one might compare the images Paul usesin 1 Cor 3:6ff for the work of “church-builders.” In 1 Cor 3 the images aredistinct, but here it seems to me that they are blurred so that at onepoint those “given” by the risen Christ are house-builders while at anotherpoint, ALL of us are in a process of growth into an organic whole or anadult that is a corporate “body of Christ.” I can only repeat what I saidbefore: I think the reader can readily envision the activity in the bees’hive that is becoming the body of Christ, but I don’t think one can workout a detailed analysis of the phraseology and syntax.>> While I have personally been very impressed by the NET as a>> whole–and what I like best about it is that it explains and defends its>translators’>> conception of “how the text means”–, I am inclined to think that NET errs>> in its attempt to articulate this text in English far more precisely than>> it is articulated in the original:>> >> “4:12 to equip12 the saints for the work of ministry, that is,13 to build>> up the body of Christ, “>> >> The translator notes then explain this reading thus:>> >> “12tn On the translation of PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN (pros ton>> katartismon ton hagion) as “to equip the saints” see BAGD 418 s.v.>> KATARTISMOS. In this case the genitive is taken as objective and>> the direct object of the verbal idea implied in KATARTISMOS (katartismo”).>> “13tn The EIS (eis) clause is taken as epexegetical to the previous EIS>> clause, namely, EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS).”>> >> Now I do think this is one perfectly reasonable articulation of the>> elements of vs. 12, but (a) I don’t find the explanation so cogent that I>> cannot just as likely conceive EIS OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS TOU CRISTOU to be>> parallel to PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN.> >I would say that NET did a good job here in terms of its modified-literal>translation philosophy, and I agree that the second EIS clause is>epexegetical and parallel to the first. As you said, one needs to interpret>v. 12 in the context of 7-16, and it is significant that the word OIKODOMH>resurfaces in v. 16.>V. 16 says EX hOU PAN TO SWMA … KAT’ ENERGEIAN EN METRWi hENOS hEKASTOU>MEROUS THN AUXHSIN TOU SWMATOS POIEITAI EIS OIKODOMHN hEAUTOU EN AGAPHi> >Here it seems that it is the body that produces its own growth in accordance>with the measure of work that each member of the body is able to do towards>the strengthening/building-up in actions governed by love.> >Because both v. 12 and v. 16 include word parallels like ERGON-ENERGEIA, EIS>OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS-EIS OIKODOMHN hEAUTOU (i.e. TOU SWMATOS) it seems>reasonable to conclude from v. 16 that in both verses it is the individual>members of the body that are to do the servant ministry of building up the>whole body.> >In v. 12 the PROS can without problem be taken as purpose or goal for God>giving the five special ministries, namely that they should train/equip all>the saints for something. That “something” is expressed through the first>generic EIS clause: a work of service, and further explained through the>second parallel EIS clause: building up the body of Christ.> >So, it seems that Paul expects each member of the body to have its share in>building up the other members (which fits with 1 Cor 12-14 where OIKODOMH>occurs frequently). In addition, the five ministries mentioned have the>added responsibility of training the other members (and one another) for the>building up of the whole body. Each of the five ministries has three levels:>basic level for all, intermediate level in the local church ministry and>advanced level in regional or international ministry. The upper two levels>include a training aspect. But now I am moving away from the Greek to the>wider context.Well, Iver, it is quite clear that you find the NET version satisfactoryfor much the same reason that I do not: you are convinced by its accountingfor the details of the Greek construction, while I am not thus convinced.And that means nothing more than that we understand this text in differentways.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Beginning GrammarBeginning Grammar

Acts 1 10

Acts 1:10 John M. Moe John.M.Moe-1 at tc.umn.edu
Tue May 11 06:30:28 EDT 1999

 

Greek Vocabulary Builder Mark 3.1 At Acts. 1:10 POREUOMENOU AUTO is consistently taken as a genitiveabsolute with temporal connotation “as He went up” (NKJV). It seems abit awkward since the verse already has a temporal expression hWSATENIZONTES. My question: could this not be a genitive of apposition?Could hWS ATENIZONTES ASAN EIS TON OURANON POREUOMENOU AOUTOU. Berendered something like “As they stood gazing into the heaven where hewas going?” or would that require the article – TOU POREUOMENOU AUTOU?Thanks!JM–Rev. John M. MoeSt. John’s Lutheran Church, Rich Valleyhttp://www.state.net/sjrv/

 

Greek Vocabulary BuilderMark 3.1

Acts 1:10 John M. Moe John.M.Moe-1 at tc.umn.edu
Tue May 11 06:30:28 EDT 1999

 

Greek Vocabulary Builder Mark 3.1 At Acts. 1:10 POREUOMENOU AUTO is consistently taken as a genitiveabsolute with temporal connotation “as He went up” (NKJV). It seems abit awkward since the verse already has a temporal expression hWSATENIZONTES. My question: could this not be a genitive of apposition?Could hWS ATENIZONTES ASAN EIS TON OURANON POREUOMENOU AOUTOU. Berendered something like “As they stood gazing into the heaven where hewas going?” or would that require the article – TOU POREUOMENOU AUTOU?Thanks!JM–Rev. John M. MoeSt. John’s Lutheran Church, Rich Valleyhttp://www.state.net/sjrv/

 

Greek Vocabulary BuilderMark 3.1

Acts 1:10 John M. Moe John.M.Moe-1 at tc.umn.edu
Tue May 11 12:33:40 EDT 1999

 

journal article Mark 3.1 Carl,Thanks for your response to my question regarding the possibility of a”genitive of Apposition”. You wrote:>(1) I really don’t see how that’s possible. Although some grammarsmight>list it, I don’t really think a “genitive of apposition” exists assuch;Perhaps my choice of terminology was poor. I was thinking in terms ofwhat is described by Benjamin Chapman and Gary Steven Shogren on p. 15of their Greek New Testament Insert, as followsEpexegetical (or Genitive of Apposition, Defining). [WHICH IS or NAMELYor CONSISTING OF] In apposition, two substantives in the same caserefer to the same thing. But an epexegetical genitive may follow asubstantive of any case and further identify that substantive.hO DOUS HMIN TON ARRABWNA TOU PNEUMATOS (2Cor. 5:5)He who gave us the down payment which is the spiritI’m a bit confused at this point (happens all too often when I look toolong and too close at something) and I don’t know if it’s my thinking inEnglish, some hangover of the Hebrew construct, or just fuzzyheadedness, but the double reference to time strikes me as clumsy, andPOREUOMENOU AUTOU seems like it could possibly “further identify” TONOURANON. Can you help me clear my head? or do you think that mightrequire some more violent action than that which is possible by email?:-)JM–Rev. John M. MoeSt. John’s Lutheran Church, Rich Valleyhttp://www.state.net/sjrv/

 

journal articleMark 3.1

Acts 1:10 John M. Moe John.M.Moe-1 at tc.umn.edu
Tue May 11 12:33:40 EDT 1999

 

journal article Mark 3.1 Carl,Thanks for your response to my question regarding the possibility of a”genitive of Apposition”. You wrote:>(1) I really don’t see how that’s possible. Although some grammarsmight>list it, I don’t really think a “genitive of apposition” exists assuch;Perhaps my choice of terminology was poor. I was thinking in terms ofwhat is described by Benjamin Chapman and Gary Steven Shogren on p. 15of their Greek New Testament Insert, as followsEpexegetical (or Genitive of Apposition, Defining). [WHICH IS or NAMELYor CONSISTING OF] In apposition, two substantives in the same caserefer to the same thing. But an epexegetical genitive may follow asubstantive of any case and further identify that substantive.hO DOUS HMIN TON ARRABWNA TOU PNEUMATOS (2Cor. 5:5)He who gave us the down payment which is the spiritI’m a bit confused at this point (happens all too often when I look toolong and too close at something) and I don’t know if it’s my thinking inEnglish, some hangover of the Hebrew construct, or just fuzzyheadedness, but the double reference to time strikes me as clumsy, andPOREUOMENOU AUTOU seems like it could possibly “further identify” TONOURANON. Can you help me clear my head? or do you think that mightrequire some more violent action than that which is possible by email?:-)JM–Rev. John M. MoeSt. John’s Lutheran Church, Rich Valleyhttp://www.state.net/sjrv/

 

journal articleMark 3.1

Acts 1:10 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 11 13:16:15 EDT 1999

 

Mark 3.1 Mark 3.1 At 11:30 AM +0100 5/11/99, John M. Moe wrote:>At Acts. 1:10 POREUOMENOU AUTOU is consistently taken as a genitive>absolute with temporal connotation “as He went up” (NKJV). It seems a>bit awkward since the verse already has a temporal expression hWS>ATENIZONTES. My question: could this not be a genitive of apposition?>Could hWS ATENIZONTES HSAN EIS TON OURANON POREUOMENOU AOUTOU. Be>rendered something like “As they stood gazing into the heaven where he>was going?” or would that require the article – TOU POREUOMENOU AUTOU?(1) I really don’t see how that’s possible. Although some grammars mightlist it, I don’t really think a “genitive of apposition” exists as such;the only construction that might be so-termed of which I am aware is wherean expression such as this is attached to a possessive pronoun oradjective, as, for example:hHYATO MOU THS CEIROS POREUOMENOU “he touched my hand as I walked”(where MOU is a possessive pronoun properly construed with CEIROS)OR–you might see the same expression written with a possessiveadjective thus, still with a genitive of the participle:hHYATO THS EMHS CEIROS POREUOMENOU (likewise “he touched my hand asI walked”). In this instance I think one would say that POREUOMENOU isgenitive because it agrees with an EMOU implicit in the pronominaladjective EMHS. I know I’ve seen this in classical Attic, but I’m not sureI’ve ever seen it in Koine (which, of course, doesn’t mean it isn’t foundthere).(2) On the other hand, the genitive absolute IS appropriate here because itrefers to a person different from the subject of ATENIZONTES HSAN; that isto say, the primary subject of the hWS clause is the plural “they” referingto the disciples–so the force of the genitive absolute is to function asan adverbial clause SUBORDINATE to ATENIZONTES HSAN: “While they werestaring into the sky as he was going …”(3) Apposition to EIS TON OURANON would really need to be introduced bysome adverbial conjunction, I think, such as hOU or hOPOU or hOPOI or hINA(except that hOPOI and hINA are more likely to be seen in classical Atticthan in Koine).Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Mark 3.1Mark 3.1

Acts 1:10 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 11 13:16:15 EDT 1999

 

Mark 3.1 Mark 3.1 At 11:30 AM +0100 5/11/99, John M. Moe wrote:>At Acts. 1:10 POREUOMENOU AUTOU is consistently taken as a genitive>absolute with temporal connotation “as He went up” (NKJV). It seems a>bit awkward since the verse already has a temporal expression hWS>ATENIZONTES. My question: could this not be a genitive of apposition?>Could hWS ATENIZONTES HSAN EIS TON OURANON POREUOMENOU AOUTOU. Be>rendered something like “As they stood gazing into the heaven where he>was going?” or would that require the article – TOU POREUOMENOU AUTOU?(1) I really don’t see how that’s possible. Although some grammars mightlist it, I don’t really think a “genitive of apposition” exists as such;the only construction that might be so-termed of which I am aware is wherean expression such as this is attached to a possessive pronoun oradjective, as, for example:hHYATO MOU THS CEIROS POREUOMENOU “he touched my hand as I walked”(where MOU is a possessive pronoun properly construed with CEIROS)OR–you might see the same expression written with a possessiveadjective thus, still with a genitive of the participle:hHYATO THS EMHS CEIROS POREUOMENOU (likewise “he touched my hand asI walked”). In this instance I think one would say that POREUOMENOU isgenitive because it agrees with an EMOU implicit in the pronominaladjective EMHS. I know I’ve seen this in classical Attic, but I’m not sureI’ve ever seen it in Koine (which, of course, doesn’t mean it isn’t foundthere).(2) On the other hand, the genitive absolute IS appropriate here because itrefers to a person different from the subject of ATENIZONTES HSAN; that isto say, the primary subject of the hWS clause is the plural “they” referingto the disciples–so the force of the genitive absolute is to function asan adverbial clause SUBORDINATE to ATENIZONTES HSAN: “While they werestaring into the sky as he was going …”(3) Apposition to EIS TON OURANON would really need to be introduced bysome adverbial conjunction, I think, such as hOU or hOPOU or hOPOI or hINA(except that hOPOI and hINA are more likely to be seen in classical Atticthan in Koine).Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Mark 3.1Mark 3.1

Acts 1:10 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 11 21:03:29 EDT 1999

 

Request for study recommendations. Acts 1:10 At 5:33 PM +0100 5/11/99, John M. Moe wrote:>Carl,>Thanks for your response to my question regarding the possibility of a>“genitive of Apposition”. You wrote:> >>(1) I really don’t see how that’s possible. Although some grammars>might>>list it, I don’t really think a “genitive of apposition” exists as>such;> >Perhaps my choice of terminology was poor. I was thinking in terms of>what is described by Benjamin Chapman and Gary Steven Shogren on p. 15>of their Greek New Testament Insert, as follows> >Epexegetical (or Genitive of Apposition, Defining). [WHICH IS or NAMELY>or CONSISTING OF] In apposition, two substantives in the same case>refer to the same thing. But an epexegetical genitive may follow a>substantive of any case and further identify that substantive.> >hO DOUS HMIN TON ARRABWNA TOU PNEUMATOS (2Cor. 5:5)>He who gave us the down payment which is the spirit> > >I’m a bit confused at this point (happens all too often when I look too>long and too close at something) and I don’t know if it’s my thinking in>English, some hangover of the Hebrew construct, or just fuzzy>headedness, but the double reference to time strikes me as clumsy, and>POREUOMENOU AUTOU seems like it could possibly “further identify” TON>OURANON. Can you help me clear my head? or do you think that might>require some more violent action than that which is possible by email?>:-)Well, personally I have allergies to more things than I know, but I do feelmy head has become clearer (of allergies, at any rate) with my seasonalshift to the Blue Ridge mountains. Why don’t you come over here to theeastern mountains and see if that won’t clear up your head ;-)More seriously, I now recognize what you meant by “appositional” or”epexegetical” genitive; again, I am not sure this merits a distinct term;it really is a variety of what has been called a genitive of definition asin the English “A Book of Apophthegms”–where “book” hardly means anythingat all without “of apophthegms” and the title might just as well be”Apophthegms.” So in the above Greek example TOU PNEUMATOS ‘defines’ or’delimits’ how ARRABWNA is to be understood, since it is metaphoricallyused.In Acts 1:10 however, I hardly see how POREUOMENOU AUTOU can be defining orappositional to EIS TON OURANON. Again I really don’t see any accountingfor it EXCEPT as a genitive absolute. Perhaps it would help to look at thisgenitive absolute NOT as temporal (since that seems to be part of yourproblem) but causal (genitive absolutes are always adverbial, I think it’ssafe to say); the point of the statement is not so much “while they weregazing at the sky while he was on the way” as “While they were gazing atthe sky, the reason being that he was departing …” Certainly Luke couldhave written hWS ATENIZONTES HSAN EIS TON OURANON KAI hWS EPOREUETO (oreven POREUOMENOS HN). But I don’t think that the content of POREUOMENOUAUTOU is really temporal so much as it is explanatory of the reason why thedisciples were gazing skywards (this despite my earlier endeavor to see itas a parallel temporal clause). But I still can’t see how it can fall intoan appositional/epexegetical type of genitive.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Request for study recommendations.Acts 1:10

Acts 1:10 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 11 21:03:29 EDT 1999

 

Request for study recommendations. Acts 1:10 At 5:33 PM +0100 5/11/99, John M. Moe wrote:>Carl,>Thanks for your response to my question regarding the possibility of a>“genitive of Apposition”. You wrote:> >>(1) I really don’t see how that’s possible. Although some grammars>might>>list it, I don’t really think a “genitive of apposition” exists as>such;> >Perhaps my choice of terminology was poor. I was thinking in terms of>what is described by Benjamin Chapman and Gary Steven Shogren on p. 15>of their Greek New Testament Insert, as follows> >Epexegetical (or Genitive of Apposition, Defining). [WHICH IS or NAMELY>or CONSISTING OF] In apposition, two substantives in the same case>refer to the same thing. But an epexegetical genitive may follow a>substantive of any case and further identify that substantive.> >hO DOUS HMIN TON ARRABWNA TOU PNEUMATOS (2Cor. 5:5)>He who gave us the down payment which is the spirit> > >I’m a bit confused at this point (happens all too often when I look too>long and too close at something) and I don’t know if it’s my thinking in>English, some hangover of the Hebrew construct, or just fuzzy>headedness, but the double reference to time strikes me as clumsy, and>POREUOMENOU AUTOU seems like it could possibly “further identify” TON>OURANON. Can you help me clear my head? or do you think that might>require some more violent action than that which is possible by email?>:-)Well, personally I have allergies to more things than I know, but I do feelmy head has become clearer (of allergies, at any rate) with my seasonalshift to the Blue Ridge mountains. Why don’t you come over here to theeastern mountains and see if that won’t clear up your head ;-)More seriously, I now recognize what you meant by “appositional” or”epexegetical” genitive; again, I am not sure this merits a distinct term;it really is a variety of what has been called a genitive of definition asin the English “A Book of Apophthegms”–where “book” hardly means anythingat all without “of apophthegms” and the title might just as well be”Apophthegms.” So in the above Greek example TOU PNEUMATOS ‘defines’ or’delimits’ how ARRABWNA is to be understood, since it is metaphoricallyused.In Acts 1:10 however, I hardly see how POREUOMENOU AUTOU can be defining orappositional to EIS TON OURANON. Again I really don’t see any accountingfor it EXCEPT as a genitive absolute. Perhaps it would help to look at thisgenitive absolute NOT as temporal (since that seems to be part of yourproblem) but causal (genitive absolutes are always adverbial, I think it’ssafe to say); the point of the statement is not so much “while they weregazing at the sky while he was on the way” as “While they were gazing atthe sky, the reason being that he was departing …” Certainly Luke couldhave written hWS ATENIZONTES HSAN EIS TON OURANON KAI hWS EPOREUETO (oreven POREUOMENOS HN). But I don’t think that the content of POREUOMENOUAUTOU is really temporal so much as it is explanatory of the reason why thedisciples were gazing skywards (this despite my earlier endeavor to see itas a parallel temporal clause). But I still can’t see how it can fall intoan appositional/epexegetical type of genitive.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Request for study recommendations.Acts 1:10

Acts 1:10 John M. Moe John.M.Moe-1 at tc.umn.edu
Wed May 12 05:45:12 EDT 1999

 

Acts 1:10 Greek fonts Carl,You wrote:<I don’t think that the content of POREUOMENOU AUTOU is really temporalso much <as it is explanatory of the reason why the disciples weregazing skywardsThat is the exact point I was getting in my reading but didn’t know howor if it could be justified grammatically. I did some more reading inWallace and realized that I was on the wrong track with the”appositional” or “epexegetical” genitive. Then came your post to clearthings up nicely. Thanks again.Your Blue Ridge Mountains must be wonderful. I shall think wistfully ofthem as I spend a week sailing and fishing midst the Minnesota mosquitosat the end of May. Will you see Bearded Bill of Ashervill this Summer?I keep thinking that one of these days we will see one of his stream ofconsciousness postings on again. They were always well worthwading through.Blessings on you Summer in the clear airJM–Rev. John M. MoeSt. John’s Lutheran Church, Rich Valleyhttp://www.state.net/sjrv/

 

Acts 1:10Greek fonts

Acts 1:10 John M. Moe John.M.Moe-1 at tc.umn.edu
Wed May 12 05:45:12 EDT 1999

 

Acts 1:10 Greek fonts Carl,You wrote:<I don’t think that the content of POREUOMENOU AUTOU is really temporalso much <as it is explanatory of the reason why the disciples weregazing skywardsThat is the exact point I was getting in my reading but didn’t know howor if it could be justified grammatically. I did some more reading inWallace and realized that I was on the wrong track with the”appositional” or “epexegetical” genitive. Then came your post to clearthings up nicely. Thanks again.Your Blue Ridge Mountains must be wonderful. I shall think wistfully ofthem as I spend a week sailing and fishing midst the Minnesota mosquitosat the end of May. Will you see Bearded Bill of Ashervill this Summer?I keep thinking that one of these days we will see one of his stream ofconsciousness postings on again. They were always well worthwading through.Blessings on you Summer in the clear airJM–Rev. John M. MoeSt. John’s Lutheran Church, Rich Valleyhttp://www.state.net/sjrv/

 

Acts 1:10Greek fonts

Acts 1:10 Daniel Riaño danielrr at mad.servicom.es
Thu May 13 10:40:58 EDT 1999

 

Mt 19:9 Word Order: Mark 3.1 Carl W. Conrad wrote:>But I don’t think that the content of POREUOMENOU>AUTOU is really temporal so much as it is explanatory of the reason why the>disciples were gazing skywards (this despite my earlier endeavor to see it>as a parallel temporal clause).Do you mean that the reason why the disciples stood gazing at hisresurrected Master as he was leaving from them was the fact that he wasascending to heaven, but they could have been looking anywhere else in caseJesus had decided leaving the room by, say, just crossing the door?Hmmmmmm, well, maybe that’s just different interpretations, but inPOREUOMENOU AUTOU I just can perceive a temporal semantic value.>hHYATO THS EMHS CEIROS POREUOMENOU (likewise “he touched my hand as>I walked”). In this instance I think one would say that POREUOMENOU is>genitive because it agrees with an EMOU implicit in the pronominal>adjective EMHS. I know I’ve seen this in classical Attic, but I’m not sure>I’ve ever seen it in Koine (which, of course, doesn’t mean it isn’t found>there).The following (trivial) objection does not affect the main argumentof C. Conrad’s posting, here omitted).I’d really like to see such a sentence in classical Attic, for myown research. I could be completely wrong, but I thing that thisconstruction at least with such word order –with a verb like A(/PT,governing the genitive– is very improbable in classical Attic prose (notin other dialects like Herodot’s Ionic, or poetry or earlier Greek). Myobjection is based on the fact that it is construed like a double objectsentence, and the double construction of the whole –POREUOME/NOU– and thepart — TH=S E)MH=S CEIRO/S– is unknown of the classical Attic prose withverbs in the active voice (the passive equivalent of the activeconstruction does appear and is well attested with verbs governing theaccusative). But if anybody know of an example, please do tell me!N.B.: You don’t need to be shocked for the expression “doubleobject construction” applied to verbs governing cases different from theaccusative. You can find several examples in the lexica. I collectedseveral examples for my thesis I am afrait I don’t have here at hand.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Daniel Riaño RufilanchasMadrid, España

 

Mt 19:9Word Order: Mark 3.1

Acts 1:10 Daniel Riaño danielrr at mad.servicom.es
Thu May 13 10:40:58 EDT 1999

 

Mt 19:9 Word Order: Mark 3.1 Carl W. Conrad wrote:>But I don’t think that the content of POREUOMENOU>AUTOU is really temporal so much as it is explanatory of the reason why the>disciples were gazing skywards (this despite my earlier endeavor to see it>as a parallel temporal clause).Do you mean that the reason why the disciples stood gazing at hisresurrected Master as he was leaving from them was the fact that he wasascending to heaven, but they could have been looking anywhere else in caseJesus had decided leaving the room by, say, just crossing the door?Hmmmmmm, well, maybe that’s just different interpretations, but inPOREUOMENOU AUTOU I just can perceive a temporal semantic value.>hHYATO THS EMHS CEIROS POREUOMENOU (likewise “he touched my hand as>I walked”). In this instance I think one would say that POREUOMENOU is>genitive because it agrees with an EMOU implicit in the pronominal>adjective EMHS. I know I’ve seen this in classical Attic, but I’m not sure>I’ve ever seen it in Koine (which, of course, doesn’t mean it isn’t found>there).The following (trivial) objection does not affect the main argumentof C. Conrad’s posting, here omitted).I’d really like to see such a sentence in classical Attic, for myown research. I could be completely wrong, but I thing that thisconstruction at least with such word order –with a verb like A(/PT,governing the genitive– is very improbable in classical Attic prose (notin other dialects like Herodot’s Ionic, or poetry or earlier Greek). Myobjection is based on the fact that it is construed like a double objectsentence, and the double construction of the whole –POREUOME/NOU– and thepart — TH=S E)MH=S CEIRO/S– is unknown of the classical Attic prose withverbs in the active voice (the passive equivalent of the activeconstruction does appear and is well attested with verbs governing theaccusative). But if anybody know of an example, please do tell me!N.B.: You don’t need to be shocked for the expression “doubleobject construction” applied to verbs governing cases different from theaccusative. You can find several examples in the lexica. I collectedseveral examples for my thesis I am afrait I don’t have here at hand.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Daniel Riaño RufilanchasMadrid, España

 

Mt 19:9Word Order: Mark 3.1

Acts 1:10 Daniel Riaño danielrr at mad.servicom.es
Thu May 13 13:52:18 EDT 1999

 

Funny Greek Word Funny Greek Word I wrote:>Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >>But I don’t think that the content of POREUOMENOU>>AUTOU is really temporal so much as it is explanatory of the reason why the>>disciples were gazing skywards (this despite my earlier endeavor to see it>>as a parallel temporal clause).> >Do you mean that the reason why the disciples stood gazing at his>resurrected Master as he was leaving from them was the fact that he was>ascending to heaven, but they could have been looking anywhere else in case>Jesus had decided leaving the room by, say, just crossing the door?>Hmmmmmm, well, maybe that’s just different interpretations, but in>POREUOMENOU AUTOU I just can perceive a temporal semantic value.As I was walking down the street, after writing the quotedparagraph, that teasing voice inside my head started parodying my words:”Do you mean, dear Daniel, that at Luke’s eyes the disciples gazing to thesky and the Lord’s leaving to the skies where just to synchronic events,without causal relation whatsoever?” Well, not: I meant that the syntaxsimply says that all the time the Lord was ascending, the disciples kepttheir eyes on him. The situation as described by the speaker is clearenough to make the hearer deduce a relation between the two actions, but–that was my point– it is not the construction what determines theinterpretation. IMO, the absolute construction with participle, always aconstruction with a temporal value, delimits a range of possibleinterpretations, but the fact that a causal, explicative, etc subordinatecan concur in the same sentence with an absolute construction susceptibleof a causal, explicative, etc value, makes me consider absolute (andpredicative) participles into a separate category.P.D. This time I am CC to myself.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Daniel Riaño RufilanchasMadrid, España

 

Funny Greek WordFunny Greek Word

Acts 1:10 Daniel Riaño danielrr at mad.servicom.es
Thu May 13 13:52:18 EDT 1999

 

Funny Greek Word Funny Greek Word I wrote:>Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >>But I don’t think that the content of POREUOMENOU>>AUTOU is really temporal so much as it is explanatory of the reason why the>>disciples were gazing skywards (this despite my earlier endeavor to see it>>as a parallel temporal clause).> >Do you mean that the reason why the disciples stood gazing at his>resurrected Master as he was leaving from them was the fact that he was>ascending to heaven, but they could have been looking anywhere else in case>Jesus had decided leaving the room by, say, just crossing the door?>Hmmmmmm, well, maybe that’s just different interpretations, but in>POREUOMENOU AUTOU I just can perceive a temporal semantic value.As I was walking down the street, after writing the quotedparagraph, that teasing voice inside my head started parodying my words:”Do you mean, dear Daniel, that at Luke’s eyes the disciples gazing to thesky and the Lord’s leaving to the skies where just to synchronic events,without causal relation whatsoever?” Well, not: I meant that the syntaxsimply says that all the time the Lord was ascending, the disciples kepttheir eyes on him. The situation as described by the speaker is clearenough to make the hearer deduce a relation between the two actions, but–that was my point– it is not the construction what determines theinterpretation. IMO, the absolute construction with participle, always aconstruction with a temporal value, delimits a range of possibleinterpretations, but the fact that a causal, explicative, etc subordinatecan concur in the same sentence with an absolute construction susceptibleof a causal, explicative, etc value, makes me consider absolute (andpredicative) participles into a separate category.P.D. This time I am CC to myself.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Daniel Riaño RufilanchasMadrid, España

 

Funny Greek WordFunny Greek Word

Acts 1:10 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu May 13 15:07:19 EDT 1999

 

Great site for Bible scholars Word Order: Mark 3.1 Daniel wrote:> I meant that the syntax> simply says that all the time the Lord was ascending, the disciples kept> their eyes on him. The situation as described by the speaker is clear> enough to make the hearer deduce a relation between the two actions, but> –that was my point– it is not the construction what determines the> interpretation. IMO, the absolute construction with participle, always a> construction with a temporal value, delimits a range of possible> interpretationsDaniel,Your comments quoted here remind me that in the discussion of therelationship between syntax and semantics there is somewhat of a chickenand egg problem (i.e, which came first). Most of the grammaticalfundamentalists hold to the traditional notion that the semantics of apassage is deciphered from the bottom up. That the analysis of themorphological and syntactical data leads to an understanding of thesemantics.I think this approach is at best simplistic. I am convinced thatunderstanding the semantic structure of a passage sheds more light onthe syntax of the passage than understanding the syntax sheds light onthe semantic structure.Take for example two verbs in Luke 8:23 KATEBH and SUNEPLHROUNTO. Theaspect difference between perfective and inperfective is probablysignificant here. But the precise meaning of SUNEPLHROUNTO isconstrained by the semantic structure of the passage to such an extentthat this verb could have no aspect marking at all and the aspect couldbe inferred from the context with no difficulty. SUNEPLHROUNTO can onlymean that water was coming over the sides of the boat. It cannot meanthat the boat was full of water. The later meaning is renderedimpossible by the detail that Jesus is still sleeping in the boat. Sothe semantic structure of the passage constrains the sense of the verbSUNEPLHROUNTO. It must describe a process and not an already completedpast event.This example is just intended as an illustration of how semanticconstraints function to limit the meaning of clause level constituents.The problem with many discussions of syntax is that they are arguedusing the assumptions of grammatical fundamentalism. They are argued asif all meaning in a text is discovered in a bottom up manner based onmorphology and syntax.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Great site for Bible scholarsWord Order: Mark 3.1

Acts 1:10 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu May 13 15:07:19 EDT 1999

 

Great site for Bible scholars Word Order: Mark 3.1 Daniel wrote:> I meant that the syntax> simply says that all the time the Lord was ascending, the disciples kept> their eyes on him. The situation as described by the speaker is clear> enough to make the hearer deduce a relation between the two actions, but> –that was my point– it is not the construction what determines the> interpretation. IMO, the absolute construction with participle, always a> construction with a temporal value, delimits a range of possible> interpretationsDaniel,Your comments quoted here remind me that in the discussion of therelationship between syntax and semantics there is somewhat of a chickenand egg problem (i.e, which came first). Most of the grammaticalfundamentalists hold to the traditional notion that the semantics of apassage is deciphered from the bottom up. That the analysis of themorphological and syntactical data leads to an understanding of thesemantics.I think this approach is at best simplistic. I am convinced thatunderstanding the semantic structure of a passage sheds more light onthe syntax of the passage than understanding the syntax sheds light onthe semantic structure.Take for example two verbs in Luke 8:23 KATEBH and SUNEPLHROUNTO. Theaspect difference between perfective and inperfective is probablysignificant here. But the precise meaning of SUNEPLHROUNTO isconstrained by the semantic structure of the passage to such an extentthat this verb could have no aspect marking at all and the aspect couldbe inferred from the context with no difficulty. SUNEPLHROUNTO can onlymean that water was coming over the sides of the boat. It cannot meanthat the boat was full of water. The later meaning is renderedimpossible by the detail that Jesus is still sleeping in the boat. Sothe semantic structure of the passage constrains the sense of the verbSUNEPLHROUNTO. It must describe a process and not an already completedpast event.This example is just intended as an illustration of how semanticconstraints function to limit the meaning of clause level constituents.The problem with many discussions of syntax is that they are arguedusing the assumptions of grammatical fundamentalism. They are argued asif all meaning in a text is discovered in a bottom up manner based onmorphology and syntax.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Great site for Bible scholarsWord Order: Mark 3.1

Acts 2:17

[] Acts 2:17 dream: deponens or passive? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Apr 27 17:11:28 EDT 2004

 

[] Very interesting GNT, _A Readers Greek New Testament_ [] Acts 2:17 dream: deponens or passive? Forwarded for: “Hessel + Coby Visser” <hessel.visser at sil.org>To: “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>Subject: Acts 2:17 dream: deponens or passive?Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:46:24 +0200hOI PRESBUTEROI hUMWN ENUPNIOIS ENUPNIASQHSONTAI(Acts 2:17)The word ENUPNIASQHSONTAI is usually taken as a deponens, so the meaningwould be “they dream”. But in a translation I found “”I will make themdream” – apparently based on the interpretation as a (divine) passive. Whichinterpretation is the more probable one? I would welcome your ideas.For your interest: Bauer says it is a “Deponens seit Hippokrates”.It is interesting that the LXX (in Joel) has the accusative for “dreams”(“they will dream dreams”), while Acts 2:17 has a dative (“they will be madeto dream with dreams”)! So I have the impression that Luke may have seen itas a passive.Hessel Visser**************************P.O. Box 500GantsiBotswanatel/fax 6596103hessel.visser at sil.org**************************

 

[] Very interesting GNT, _A Readers Greek New Testament_[] Acts 2:17 dream: deponens or passive?

[] Acts 2:17 dream: deponens or passive? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Apr 27 17:32:12 EDT 2004

 

[] Acts 2:17 dream: deponens or passive? [] What was actually meant?? At 5:11 PM -0400 4/27/04, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>Forwarded for: “Hessel + Coby Visser” <hessel.visser at sil.org>>To: “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>>Subject: Acts 2:17 dream: deponens or passive?>Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:46:24 +0200> >hOI PRESBUTEROI hUMWN ENUPNIOIS ENUPNIASQHSONTAI>(Acts 2:17)> >The word ENUPNIASQHSONTAI is usually taken as a deponens, so the meaning>would be “they dream”. But in a translation I found “”I will make them>dream” – apparently based on the interpretation as a (divine) passive. Which>interpretation is the more probable one? I would welcome your ideas.Except that it’s a future: “they WILL dream”; sounds to me like the versionyou cite is an interpretative extension of the opening of the cited Joelpassage, inasmuch as the prophesied behavior is a consequence of thespirit-empowerment which God says he will perform in the latter days. Thatversion certainly cannot be justified on the basis of the Greek text assuch.>For your interest: Bauer says it is a “Deponens seit Hippokrates”.Yes, and LSJ cites only Aristotle as using it in the active voice.>It is interesting that the LXX (in Joel) has the accusative for “dreams”>(“they will dream dreams”), while Acts 2:17 has a dative (“they will be made>to dream with dreams”)! So I have the impression that Luke may have seen it>as a passive.I hardly think Luke understands it as passive; more likely he views it asan intransitive and construes it with an instrumental dative after themanner of CRAOMAI: “will dream with dreams.” To be sure the LXX regularlyuses it with an accusative direct object.Hessel, if you are new to the list you probably haven’t been aware of myrecurrent harangues against the misguided notion of “deponent” verbs; thisis simply a verb regularly found in the middle voice and commonly taking anaorist and future with -QH- forms. The verb clearly falls into one of thosecategories of verbal notions which commonly fall into the middle voice:voluntary or involuntary physical or mental processes.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Acts 2:17 dream: deponens or passive?[] What was actually meant??

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Eric S. Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Sun May 9 19:50:21 EDT 2010

 

[] Justify- Diakioun [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? The Hebrew text of Joel 2:28-29 (Joel 3:1-2 LXX) seems to read: “I will pour out My Spirit” However, the LXX translation renders it:”I will pour out from (APO) My Spirit” and Acts 2:17-18 keeps the LXX reading.So whereas the Hebrew text has God pouring out His Spirit, and not merely [something] “from” His Spirit, the LXX addition of APO seems to diminish the meaning/effect of the Hebrew.Other places in Acts indicate that people received the Spirit, and not simply [something] “from” the Spirit.So why does the LXX add APO here? I did some searching of EKCEW plus APO in the LXX and Philo and Josephus and the Apostolic Fathers, but couldn’t find a reason for the LXX addition of APO to EKCEW in Joel 3:1-2. – – -Eric S. Weiss

 

[] Justify- Diakioun[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Sun May 9 20:20:51 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? This is a good question Eric. I had noticed it before and wondered about it.One thought is that the LXX translators have a tendency to preserve the transcendence of God a bit more, to make Hima little more remote and less anthropomorphic, perhaps inaccordance with Platonic philosophy. Shedding out a littlesomething from of his Spirit, may have struck the translators as moreworthy of God than pouring out his whole Spirit. Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS________________________________From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 5:50:21 PMSubject: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?The Hebrew text of Joel 2:28-29 (Joel 3:1-2 LXX) seems to read: “I will pour out My Spirit” However, the LXX translation renders it:”I will pour out from (APO) My Spirit” and Acts 2:17-18 keeps the LXX reading.So whereas the Hebrew text has God pouring out His Spirit, and not merely [something] “from” His Spirit, the LXX addition of APO seems to diminish the meaning/effect of the Hebrew.Other places in Acts indicate that people received the Spirit, and not simply [something] “from” the Spirit.So why does the LXX add APO here? I did some searching of EKCEW plus APO in the LXX and Philo and Josephus and the Apostolic Fathers, but couldn’t find a reason for the LXX addition of APO to EKCEW in Joel 3:1-2. – – -Eric S. Weiss — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sun May 9 21:10:27 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? On May 9, 2010, at 7:50 PM, Eric S. Weiss wrote:> The Hebrew text of Joel 2:28-29 (Joel 3:1-2 LXX) seems to read: > > “I will pour out My Spirit” > > However, the LXX translation renders it:> > “I will pour out from (APO) My Spirit” > > and Acts 2:17-18 keeps the LXX reading.> > So whereas the Hebrew text has God pouring out His Spirit, > and not merely [something] “from” His Spirit, the LXX addition > of APO seems to diminish the meaning/effect of the Hebrew.> > Other places in Acts indicate that people received the Spirit, > and not simply [something] “from” the Spirit.> > So why does the LXX add APO here? I did some searching of > EKCEW plus APO in the LXX and Philo and Josephus and > the Apostolic Fathers, but couldn’t find a reason for the LXX > addition of APO to EKCEW in Joel 3:1-2.Conybeare and Stock’s little Grammar of LXX Greek, §92. ἀπό. a. ἀπό [APO] in the LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our English ‘of,’ provided that the genitive be partitive.That suggests that the LXX translator had the sense in mind, “some of my spirit.”See also BDAG: s.v. APO 1.f as a substitute for the partitive gen. … ἐκχεῶ ἀ. τοῦ πνεύματός μου [EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU] Ac 2:17f (Jo 3:1f). Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Eric S. Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Sun May 9 21:56:21 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? That suggests to me that the LXX translators engaged in a bit of interpretation.Maybe for something like the “remoteness” reason Mark L. suggested? I.e., they wanted to take a bit of a step away from the idea that it would in fact be God’s Spirit – period – that He would pour out on His people, so they added the qualifying “some of”? – – -Eric S. Weiss From: Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.comConybeare and Stock’s little Grammar of LXX Greek,  §92. ἀπό. a. ἀπό  [APO] in the LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our English ‘of,’ provided that the genitive be partitive.That suggests that the LXX translator had the sense in mind, “some of my spirit.”See also BDAG: s.v. APO 1.f as a substitute for the partitive gen. … ἐκχεῶ ἀ. τοῦ πνεύματός μου [EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU] Ac 2:17f (Jo 3:1f). Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Albert Pietersma albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Sun May 9 22:27:33 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? On May 9, 2010, at 9:56 PM, Eric S. Weiss wrote:> That suggests to me that the LXX translators engaged in a bit of > interpretation.> > Maybe for something like the “remoteness” reason Mark L. suggested?> > I.e., they wanted to take a bit of a step away from the idea that it > would in fact> be God’s Spirit – period – that He would pour out on His people, so > they added> the qualifying “some of”?I would suggest that the so-called partitive genitive not be interpreted too narrowly. Of interest is certainly the long list of uses Smyth groups under the heading of “partitive genitive” (§§ 1341-1371). As I see it, the point the LXX underscores is simply that God, rather than giving away his spirit, is making humans to share in it. While the Hebrew may be less explicit than the Greek, its sense would seem to be the same.Al P.> > – – –> Eric S. Weiss> > From: Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com> > Conybeare and Stock’s little Grammar of LXX Greek, §92. ἀπό. a. > ἀπό [APO] in the> LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our > English ‘of,’ provided that> the genitive be partitive.> > That suggests that the LXX translator had the sense in mind, “some > of my spirit.”> See also BDAG: s.v. APO 1.f as a substitute for the partitive gen.> … ἐκχεῶ ἀ. τοῦ πνεύματός μου [EKCEW APO > TOU PNEUMATOS MOU] Ac 2:17f (Jo 3:1f).> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > > > >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/—Albert Pietersma PhD21 Cross Street,Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.caHomepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sun May 9 22:54:57 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? I don’t think that the LXX translators were stepping away from the idea that it would be God’s Spirit.  It rather seems that they were emphasizing the fact that it was not the whole of God’s Spirit.  That is why a partitive is used. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 6:56:21 PMSubject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?That suggests to me that the LXX translators engaged in a bit of interpretation.Maybe for something like the “remoteness” reason Mark L. suggested? I.e., they wanted to take a bit of a step away from the idea that it would in fact be God’s Spirit – period – that He would pour out on His people, so they added the qualifying “some of”? – – -Eric S. Weiss From: Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.comConybeare and Stock’s little Grammar of LXX Greek,  §92. ἀπό. a. ἀπό  [APO] in the LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our English ‘of,’ provided that the genitive be partitive.That suggests that the LXX translator had the sense in mind, “some of my spirit.”See also BDAG: s.v. APO 1.f as a substitute for the partitive gen. … ἐκχεῶ ἀ. τοῦ πνεύματός μου [EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU] Ac 2:17f (Jo 3:1f). Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)      — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon May 10 05:31:12 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? On May 9, 2010, at 10:54 PM, George F Somsel wrote:> I don’t think that the LXX translators were stepping away from the idea that it would be God’s Spirit. It rather seems that they were emphasizing the fact that it was not the whole of God’s Spirit. That is why a partitive is used.I think the reason for the partititive is simpler: PNEUMA is thought of a substance (one with which one can be “full”, something that has PLHRWMA). One does not drink OINON or hUDWR but OINOU or hUDATOS.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> ________________________________> From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>> To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 6:56:21 PM> Subject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?> > That suggests to me that the LXX translators engaged in a bit of interpretation.> > Maybe for something like the “remoteness” reason Mark L. suggested? > > I.e., they wanted to take a bit of a step away from the idea that it would in fact > be God’s Spirit – period – that He would pour out on His people, so they added > the qualifying “some of”?> > – – –> Eric S. Weiss > > From: Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com> > Conybeare and Stock’s little Grammar of LXX Greek, §92. ἀπό. a. ἀπό [APO] in the > LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our English ‘of,’ provided that > the genitive be partitive.> > That suggests that the LXX translator had the sense in mind, “some of my spirit.”> See also BDAG: s.v. APO 1.f as a substitute for the partitive gen. > … ἐκχεῶ ἀ. τοῦ πνεύματός μου [EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU] Ac 2:17f (Jo 3:1f).

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? dlpost at comcast.net dlpost at comcast.net
Mon May 10 06:34:55 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? It seems to me the Greek text simply supports the metonymy of the Hebrew usage of Spirit. Moreover, for those believing in the inspiration of Scripture, the Greek of Acts 2:17-18 defines and applies Joel 2:28-29 for us. Something the Spirit would supply – being either genitive of source/ablative. Doug Post —– Original Message —– From: “Eric S. Weiss” <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com> To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Sunday, May 9, 2010 7:50:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? The Hebrew text of Joel 2:28-29 (Joel 3:1-2 LXX) seems to read: “I will pour out My Spirit” However, the LXX translation renders it: “I will pour out from (APO) My Spirit” and Acts 2:17-18 keeps the LXX reading. So whereas the Hebrew text has God pouring out His Spirit, and not merely [something] “from” His Spirit, the LXX addition of APO seems to diminish the meaning/effect of the Hebrew. Other places in Acts indicate that people received the Spirit, and not simply [something] “from” the Spirit. So why does the LXX add APO here? I did some searching of EKCEW plus APO in the LXX and Philo and Josephus and the Apostolic Fathers, but couldn’t find a reason for the LXX addition of APO to EKCEW in Joel 3:1-2.   – – – Eric S. Weiss        — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Kevin Riley klriley100 at gmail.com
Mon May 10 07:53:14 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Some of us believe in the inspiration of all of Scripture and don’t believethat Acts defines Joel, or any other portion of Scripture, as if it weresomehow deficient until Luke wrote Acts to give it a definitive meaning.There are also members of this list who do not believe Scripture isinspired, and I am not sure that your “moreover” adds anything to thediscussion for them either. I am not convinced that whether one believes ininspiration – of any sort – actually changes the basic meaning of the textin any way. When Greek grammar supplies an answer, why turn to divisivetheology?Kevin RileyOn 10 May 2010 20:34, <dlpost at comcast.net> wrote:> > > It seems to me the Greek text simply supports the metonymy of the Hebrew> usage of Spirit. Moreover, for those believing in the inspiration of> Scripture, the Greek of Acts 2:17-18 defines and applies Joel 2:28-29 for> us. Something the Spirit would supply – being either genitive of> source/ablative.> > > > Doug Post> > > > —– Original Message —–> From: “Eric S. Weiss” <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>> To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Sunday, May 9, 2010 7:50:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern> Subject: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU> PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?> > The Hebrew text of Joel 2:28-29 (Joel 3:1-2 LXX) seems to read:> > “I will pour out My Spirit”> > However, the LXX translation renders it:> > “I will pour out from (APO) My Spirit”> > and Acts 2:17-18 keeps the LXX reading.> > So whereas the Hebrew text has God pouring out His Spirit,> and not merely [something] “from” His Spirit, the LXX addition> of APO seems to diminish the meaning/effect of the Hebrew.> > Other places in Acts indicate that people received the Spirit,> and not simply [something] “from” the Spirit.> > So why does the LXX add APO here? I did some searching of> EKCEW plus APO in the LXX and Philo and Josephus and> the Apostolic Fathers, but couldn’t find a reason for the LXX> addition of APO to EKCEW in Joel 3:1-2.> > – – –> Eric S. Weiss> > > >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon May 10 08:21:21 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? On May 10, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Kevin Riley wrote:> Some of us believe in the inspiration of all of Scripture and don’t believe> that Acts defines Joel, or any other portion of Scripture, as if it were> somehow deficient until Luke wrote Acts to give it a definitive meaning.> There are also members of this list who do not believe Scripture is> inspired, and I am not sure that your “moreover” adds anything to the> discussion for them either. I am not convinced that whether one believes in> inspiration – of any sort – actually changes the basic meaning of the text> in any way. When Greek grammar supplies an answer, why turn to divisive> theology?In fact, the question of the inspiration of scripture lies outside the parameters of admissible discussion. Let’s keep the focus upon the Greek text as Greek text, please.BG-FAQ: Our FAQ (ttp://www.ibiblio.org//faq.html) states:” is not a forum for general Bible issues, except insofar as they may bear specifically upon interpretation of a particular Greek text, Neither is it a forum for general or specific hermeneutical or theological issues.”Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, List> On 10 May 2010 20:34, <dlpost at comcast.net> wrote:> >> >> >> It seems to me the Greek text simply supports the metonymy of the Hebrew>> usage of Spirit. Moreover, for those believing in the inspiration of>> Scripture, the Greek of Acts 2:17-18 defines and applies Joel 2:28-29 for>> us. Something the Spirit would supply – being either genitive of>> source/ablative.>> >> >> >> Doug Post>> >> >> >> —– Original Message —–>> From: “Eric S. Weiss” <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>>> To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: Sunday, May 9, 2010 7:50:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern>> Subject: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU>> PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?>> >> The Hebrew text of Joel 2:28-29 (Joel 3:1-2 LXX) seems to read:>> >> “I will pour out My Spirit”>> >> However, the LXX translation renders it:>> >> “I will pour out from (APO) My Spirit”>> >> and Acts 2:17-18 keeps the LXX reading.>> >> So whereas the Hebrew text has God pouring out His Spirit,>> and not merely [something] “from” His Spirit, the LXX addition>> of APO seems to diminish the meaning/effect of the Hebrew.>> >> Other places in Acts indicate that people received the Spirit,>> and not simply [something] “from” the Spirit.>> >> So why does the LXX add APO here? I did some searching of>> EKCEW plus APO in the LXX and Philo and Josephus and>> the Apostolic Fathers, but couldn’t find a reason for the LXX>> addition of APO to EKCEW in Joel 3:1-2.>> >> – – –>> Eric S. Weiss

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Eric S. Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Mon May 10 08:50:20 EDT 2010

 

[] Justify- Diakioun [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Doug Post wrote: > It seems to me the Greek text simply supports the metonymy of the Hebrew> usage of Spirit.  By “the metonymy of the Hebrew usage of Spirit” (I guess to refer to the person him/herself and not to the person’s spirit?), are you saying that the OT references to God’s Spirit were really references to God Himself, and that this fact of Hebrew usage explains/supports the use of APO here in the LXX translation of Joel 3? I.e., it means “I will pour out from Myself”? – – -Eric S. Weiss

 

[] Justify- Diakioun[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? dlpost at comcast.net dlpost at comcast.net
Mon May 10 09:11:42 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? No, not at all. Just the opposite. I am saying that typically the term “Spirit” stands, not for the Spirit Himself, but that which comes from the Spirit, namely miraculous activity. For instance, “And the Spirit came upon him and he prophesied.” The Spirit supplied the ability to prophesy. For your consideration. Doug Post —– Original Message —– From: “Eric S. Weiss” <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com> To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:50:20 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Doug Post wrote:   > It seems to me the Greek text simply supports the metonymy of the Hebrew > usage of Spirit.    By “the metonymy of the Hebrew usage of Spirit” (I guess to refer to the person him/herself and not to the person’s spirit?), are you saying that the OT references to God’s Spirit were really references to God Himself, and that this fact of Hebrew usage explains/supports the use of APO here in the LXX translation of Joel 3? I.e., it means “I will pour out from Myself”?   – – – Eric S. Weiss        — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?
[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Eric S. Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Mon May 10 08:50:20 EDT 2010

 

[] Justify- Diakioun [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Doug Post wrote: > It seems to me the Greek text simply supports the metonymy of the Hebrew> usage of Spirit.  By “the metonymy of the Hebrew usage of Spirit” (I guess to refer to the person him/herself and not to the person’s spirit?), are you saying that the OT references to God’s Spirit were really references to God Himself, and that this fact of Hebrew usage explains/supports the use of APO here in the LXX translation of Joel 3? I.e., it means “I will pour out from Myself”? – – -Eric S. Weiss

 

[] Justify- Diakioun[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Blue Meeksbay bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Mon May 10 09:41:30 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? I noticed Zech. 12:10 does not include APO in describing the Spirit of grace. So it seems, (assuming Spirit of grace is equivalent to the Spirit in Joel), the LXX translators did not have the same concern they had concerning the Spirit in Joel. If that is the case, could not another possibility be that we simply have a different underlying Hebrew text in Joel than that which the Masoretic text supplies? Do the Dead Sea Scrolls help us at all? On the other hand, if that is not the case, I just thought of this, (going back to the thoughts of George Somsel and Carl Conrad),  could Isa. 11:2 perhaps, shed some light of this thought? If the Spirit was thought to be symbolized by various graces or attributes, could not the thought, indeed, be that graces are poured out upon all flesh and not the entirety of the Spirit? –  (*Some of my Spirit* as Carl Conrad suggested).  KAI ANAPAUSETAI EP᾽ AUTON PNEUMA TOU QEOU PNEUMA SOFIAS KAI SUNESEWS PNEUMA BOULHS KAI ISCUOS PNEUMA GNWSEWS KAI EUSEBEIASIsa 11:2  Perhaps, in Jewish thought the entirety of the Spirit was reserved only for the Messiah, (the *whole of God’s Spirit,* as George Somsel said). hON GAR APESTEILEN hO QEOS, TA hRHMATA TOU QEOU LALEI• OU GAR EK METROU DIDWSIN hO QEOS TO PNEUMA. Joh 3:34 Byzantine text For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. KJV Sincerely,Blue Harris________________________________From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>; Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 7:54:57 PMSubject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?I don’t think that the LXX translators were stepping away from the idea that it would be God’s Spirit.  It rather seems that they were emphasizing the fact that it was not the whole of God’s Spirit.  That is why a partitive is used. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 6:56:21 PMSubject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?That suggests to me that the LXX translators engaged in a bit of interpretation.Maybe for something like the “remoteness” reason Mark L. suggested? I.e., they wanted to take a bit of a step away from the idea that it would in fact be God’s Spirit – period – that He would pour out on His people, so they added the qualifying “some of”? – – -Eric S. Weiss From: Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.comConybeare and Stock’s little Grammar of LXX Greek,  §92. ἀπό. a. ἀπό  [APO] in the LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our English ‘of,’ provided that the genitive be partitive.That suggests that the LXX translator had the sense in mind, “some of my spirit.”See also BDAG: s.v. APO 1.f as a substitute for the partitive gen. … ἐκχεῶ ἀ. τοῦ πνεύματός μου [EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU] Ac 2:17f (Jo 3:1f). Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)      — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/      — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Mon May 10 09:59:42 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? As in French one would ask whether one wishes “du café” rather than simply “café” since one does not drink “all of the coffee (in existence)” but “some coffee.” georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>Cc: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 2:31:12 AMSubject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?On May 9, 2010, at 10:54 PM, George F Somsel wrote:> I don’t think that the LXX translators were stepping away from the idea that it would be God’s Spirit.  It rather seems that they were emphasizing the fact that it was not the whole of God’s Spirit.  That is why a partitive is used.I think the reason for the partititive is simpler: PNEUMA is thought of a substance (one with which one can be “full”, something that has PLHRWMA). One does not drink OINON or hUDWR but OINOU or hUDATOS.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> ________________________________> From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>> To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 6:56:21 PM> Subject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?> > That suggests to me that the LXX translators engaged in a bit of interpretation.> > Maybe for something like the “remoteness” reason Mark L. suggested? > > I.e., they wanted to take a bit of a step away from the idea that it would in fact > be God’s Spirit – period – that He would pour out on His people, so they added > the qualifying “some of”?>  > – – –> Eric S. Weiss > > From: Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com> > Conybeare and Stock’s little Grammar of LXX Greek,  §92. ἀπό. a. ἀπό  [APO] in the > LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our English ‘of,’ provided that > the genitive be partitive.> > That suggests that the LXX translator had the sense in mind, “some of my spirit.”> See also BDAG: s.v. APO 1.f as a substitute for the partitive gen. > … ἐκχεῶ ἀ. τοῦ πνεύματός μου [EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU] Ac 2:17f (Jo 3:1f).

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? nebarry at verizon.net nebarry at verizon.net
Mon May 10 11:08:39 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Original Message:—————–From: George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.comDate: Mon, 10 May 2010 06:59:42 -0700 (PDT)To: cwconrad2 at mac.com, papaweiss1 at yahoo.com, at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?>As in French one would ask whether one wishes “du café” rather thansimply “café” since one does not drink “all of the coffee (in existence)”but “some coffee.”<I always ask just for “cafe,” since I really, literally want all the coffeein the world.Barry ——————————————————————–mail2web LIVE – Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology -http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Eric S. Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Mon May 10 12:55:29 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? I don’t think Peter is doing much more with these verses from Joel than quoting them to explain that what happened at Pentecost was its fulfillment. I.e., “This is that….” I.e., the reason Peter says APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of TO PNEUMA MOU is because that’s how Joel 3:1-2 reads in his and his hearers’ Bible, the LXX.(Or, if one is so inclined, that’s how Joel 3:1-2 reads in Luke’s Bible so when he records Peter’s quotation of Joel 3 on the day of Pentecost, he transcribes what LXX Joel 3:1-2 says.)And why would Christian editors change a Septuagintal TO PNEUMA MOU (which is a literal translation of the Hebrew) to APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU (assuming we have any evidence of such a textual variant in Joel 3:1-2), esp. since other passages in Acts indicate that the Spirit, not “part” of the Spirit, fell upon or filled or was received by people? – – -Eric S. Weiss —– Original Message —-From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon at historian.net>To: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 11:40:44 AMSubject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?The Hebrew, even in the DSS, is wehaya ahary-ken eshepok et-ruhy, “and it shall come to pass afterward I will pour out my spirit..” and ET is a marker that signifies “spirit” is an accusative case.  The Acts version has Peter saying, instead of “afterward,” that  “In the last days..” and “I will pour out OF MY SPIRIT..” (genitive case) indicating that of the whole spirit, only part is poured out.I am always on the look-out for Christian editing in the LXX since the Christians were essentially the curators of the LXX and this particular prophecy is important to Christians regarding Pentacost.  Does the LXX translation derive from Acts rather than the reverse?Jack Kilmon

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Jack Kilmon jkilmon at historian.net
Mon May 10 12:40:44 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Justify- Diakioun The Hebrew, even in the DSS, is wehaya ahary-ken eshepok et-ruhy, “and it shall come to pass afterward I will pour out my spirit..” and ET is a marker that signifies “spirit” is an accusative case. The Acts version has Peter saying, instead of “afterward,” that “In the last days..” and “I will pour out OF MY SPIRIT..” (genitive case) indicating that of the whole spirit, only part is poured out.I am always on the look-out for Christian editing in the LXX since the Christians were essentially the curators of the LXX and this particular prophecy is important to Christians regarding Pentacost. Does the LXX translation derive from Acts rather than the reverse?Jack Kilmon————————————————–From: “Eric S. Weiss” <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 6:50 PMTo: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Subject: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?> The Hebrew text of Joel 2:28-29 (Joel 3:1-2 LXX) seems to read:> > “I will pour out My Spirit”> > However, the LXX translation renders it:> > “I will pour out from (APO) My Spirit”> > and Acts 2:17-18 keeps the LXX reading.> > So whereas the Hebrew text has God pouring out His Spirit,> and not merely [something] “from” His Spirit, the LXX addition> of APO seems to diminish the meaning/effect of the Hebrew.> > Other places in Acts indicate that people received the Spirit,> and not simply [something] “from” the Spirit.> > So why does the LXX add APO here? I did some searching of> EKCEW plus APO in the LXX and Philo and Josephus and> the Apostolic Fathers, but couldn’t find a reason for the LXX> addition of APO to EKCEW in Joel 3:1-2.> > – – –> Eric S. Weiss> > > >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Justify- Diakioun

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Blue Meeksbay bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Mon May 10 13:39:06 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? THi DEXIAi OUN TOU QEOU hUYWQEIS, THN TE EPAGGELIAN TOU PNEUMATOS TOU hAGIOU LABWN PARA TOU PATROS, EXECEEN TOUTO hO hUMEIS [KAI] BLEPETE KAI AKOUETE.Act 2:33  KAI EXESTHSAN hOI EK PERITOMHS PISTOI hOSOI SUNHLQAN TWi PETRWi, hOTI KAI EPI TA EQNH hH DWREA TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS EKKECUTAI•  Act 10:45  MHTI TO hUDWR DUNATAI KWLUSAI TIS TOU MH BAPTISQHNAI TOUTOUS, hOITINES TO PNEUMA TO hAGION ELABON hWS KAI hHMEIS;  Act 10:47  What is interesting is that it seems we have a dual understanding of this phenomenon. Apart from the question concerning the understanding of LXX translators, and/or the underlying Hebrew text, it is interesting how Luke understood APOTOU PNEUMATOS.  He does not say in verse Acts 2:33 *he poured out the Spirit,* but he poured out *TOUTO,* which you both see and hear.  This seems to go along with part of what Doug Post suggested.  The *this* would be the ability to prophesy, in this case, through the medium of tongues.  Nevertheless, when Luke writes about the account of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10:45, he has Peter identifying the gift of the Spirit poured out upon the Gentiles, (like was done to them at Pentecost, vs. 47), to be none other than the Spirit Himself and not something *from* or *of* the Spirit.  It seems there is something else going on in this concept that we do not fully understand. I wonder if the imagery of fire (Acts. 2:3) taken from the whole without diminution, contributes anything to the idea. Regards,Blue Harris ________________________________From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>To: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon at historian.net>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 9:55:29 AMSubject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?I don’t think Peter is doing much more with these verses from Joel than quoting them to explain that what happened at Pentecost was its fulfillment. I.e., “This is that….” I.e., the reason Peter says APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of TO PNEUMA MOU is because that’s how Joel 3:1-2 reads in his and his hearers’ Bible, the LXX.(Or, if one is so inclined, that’s how Joel 3:1-2 reads in Luke’s Bible so when he records Peter’s quotation of Joel 3 on the day of Pentecost, he transcribes what LXX Joel 3:1-2 says.)And why would Christian editors change a Septuagintal TO PNEUMA MOU (which is a literal translation of the Hebrew) to APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU (assuming we have any evidence of such a textual variant in Joel 3:1-2), esp. since other passages in Acts indicate that the Spirit, not “part” of the Spirit, fell upon or filled or was received by people? – – -Eric S. Weiss —– Original Message —-From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon at historian.net>To: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 11:40:44 AMSubject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?The Hebrew, even in the DSS, is wehaya ahary-ken eshepok et-ruhy, “and it shall come to pass afterward I will pour out my spirit..” and ET is a marker that signifies “spirit” is an accusative case.  The Acts version has Peter saying, instead of “afterward,” that  “In the last days..” and “I will pour out OF MY SPIRIT..” (genitive case) indicating that of the whole spirit, only part is poured out.I am always on the look-out for Christian editing in the LXX since the Christians were essentially the curators of the LXX and this particular prophecy is important to Christians regarding Pentacost.  Does the LXX translation derive from Acts rather than the reverse?Jack Kilmon      — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Blue Meeksbay bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Mon May 10 19:53:32 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEWAPOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Here is another verse to throw into the mix.  KAI KATABHSOMAI KAI LALHSW EKEI META SOU KAI AFELW APO TOU PNEUMATOS TOU EPI SOI KAI EPIQHSW EP᾽ AUTOUS KAI SUNANTILHMYONTAI META SOU THN hORMHN TOU LAOU KAI OUK OISEIS AUTOUS SU MONOS  Numbers 11:17 Blue Harris

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEWAPOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Tue May 11 01:25:04 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:> > As in French one would ask whether one wishes “du café” rather than simply “café” since one does not drink “all of the coffee (in existence)” but “some coffee.”>  georgeThanks George,Now I have a much clearer idea on a Korean word we use. I put in ourword order ‘COFFEE A LITTE (jom) GIVE’. The verb comes at the end of asentence. Of course, ‘me’ omitted unless it’s emphatic (i.e. it’s measking, not others) since usually it’s known. The Korean word is’jom’ or ‘jogum’ means ‘a little’.I always thought of it as a polite way of asking, but it seemsactually something closer to ‘du’ of ‘du café’ as shown, and may bereplaced with ‘a lot’, if one wishes.Oun Kwon.

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEWAPOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue May 11 05:31:58 EDT 2010

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] PNEUMA hAGION as a proper name On May 10, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Blue Meeksbay wrote:> Here is another verse to throw into the mix.> > > KAI KATABHSOMAI KAI LALHSW EKEI META SOU KAI AFELW APO TOU PNEUMATOS TOU EPI SOI KAI EPIQHSW EP᾽ AUTOUS KAI SUNANTILHMYONTAI META SOU THN hORMHN TOU LAOU KAI OUK OISEIS AUTOUS SU MONOS Numbers 11:17Well, if your intent is simply to add another instance of LXX usage of APO with genitive in a partitive sense, I might as well cite the relevant Conybeare & Stock entry for APO:§92. ἀπό. a. ἀπό in the LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our English ‘of,’ provided that the genitive be partitive.Ex 12:46 καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψετε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ.Josh 9:8 οὐκ ἦν ῥῆμα ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν ἐνετείλατο Μωυσῆς τῷ Ἰησοῖ ὃ οὐκ ἀνέγνω Ἰησοῦς.3 K. [2 Kings.] 18:13 ἔκρυψα ἀπὸ τῶν προφητῶν Κυρίου ἑκατὸν ἄνδρας.Joel 2:28 ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματός μου.2 Esd. [Ezra] 11:2 εἷς ἀπὸ ἀδελφῶν μου.So in N.T. -Lk 6:13 ἐκλεξάμενος ἀπ’ αὐτῶν δώδεκα.Jn 21:10 ἐνέγκατε ἀπὸ τῶν ὀψαρίων ὧν ἐπιάσατε νῦν.[§92. APO. a. APO in the LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our English ‘of,’ provided that the genitive be partitive.Ex 12:46 KAI OSTOUN OU SUNTRIYETE AP’ AUTOU.Josh 9:8 OUK HN hRHMA APO PANTWN hWN ENETEILATO MWUSHS TWi IHSOI hO OUK ANEGNW IHSOUS.3 K. [2 Kings.] 18:13 EKRUYA APO TWN PROFHTWN KURIOU hEKATON ANDRAS.Joel 2:28 EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU.2 Esd. [Ezra] 11:2 hEIS APO ADELFWN MOU.So in N.T. -Lk 6:13 EKLEXAMENOS AP’ AUTWN DWDEKA.Jn 21:10 ENEGKATE APO TWN OYARIWN hWN EPIASATE NUN.]For what it’s worth, English “of” is in fact etymologically cognate with Greek APO, according tot he dictionary:”ORIGIN Old English , of Germanic origin; related to Dutch af and German ab, from an Indo-European root shared by Latin ab and Greek apo.”Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] PNEUMA hAGION as a proper name

Luke 19:11

Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking Mike Sangrey msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Thu Apr 18 14:50:13 EDT 2002

 

Greek computer programs (plus learning strategy for first-year Greek) Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking AKOUONTWN DE AUTWN TAUTA PROSQEIS EIPEN PARABOLHN DIA TO EGGUS EINAIIEROUSALHM AUTON KAI DOKEIN AUTOUS hOTI PARAXRHMA MELLEI hH BASILEIA TOUQEOU ANAFAINESQAIWhat I’m really after is in the phrase: DIA TO EGGUS EINAI IEROUSALHM AUTONIEROUSALHM is indeclinable. But, if you were creating a database whichrequired you to grammatically label it, with what case would you labelit?– Mike Sangreymsangrey at BlueFeltHat.orgLandisburg, Pa. “The first one last wins.” “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”

 

Greek computer programs (plus learning strategy for first-year Greek)Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking

Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking Steve Lovullo SLovullo at etcconnect.com
Thu Apr 18 14:55:12 EDT 2002

 

Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking Mike:I’m at work right now, so I don’t have Accordance handy. But my guess isdative, construed with EGGUS (“near to Jerusalem”).Steve Lo Vullo> —–Original Message—–> From: Mike Sangrey [mailto:msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org]> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 1:50 PM> To: Biblical Greek> Subject: [] Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking> > > AKOUONTWN DE AUTWN TAUTA PROSQEIS EIPEN PARABOLHN DIA TO EGGUS EINAI> IEROUSALHM AUTON KAI DOKEIN AUTOUS hOTI PARAXRHMA MELLEI hH > BASILEIA TOU> QEOU ANAFAINESQAI> > What I’m really after is in the phrase:> DIA TO EGGUS EINAI IEROUSALHM AUTON> > IEROUSALHM is indeclinable. But, if you were creating a > database which> required you to grammatically label it, with what case would you label> it?> >> Mike Sangrey> msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org> Landisburg, Pa.> “The first one last wins.”> “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”> > >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [slovullo at etcconnect.com]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to > $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >

 

Luke 19:11 and grammatical markingLuke 19:11 and grammatical marking

Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking Mike Sangrey msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Thu Apr 18 15:36:31 EDT 2002

 

Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking Gosh, Steve, what takes you so long to reply? <chuckle>BTW, maybe it’s best you don’t have Accordance handy (though I wouldn’tmind knowing how it has labeled it). That means you have to rely onyour intuition. And that might be better, at least initially.I just did some double checks and discovered John 11:18, which is HN DE hH BHQANIA EGGUS TWN hIEROSOLUMWN hWS APO STADIWN DEKAPENTE. Here hIEROSOLUMWN is morphologically genitive but we can think of it asablative and say that Bethany is 15 stadia FROM Jerusalem, especiallysince the case is “helped” along by APO. So, I’m not sure this helps memuch. This is a little different than thinking of being near TOJerusalem. Also, EGGUS is a preposition here and an adverb in Luke19:11; however, that might be pushing English into the Greek.On Thu, 2002-04-18 at 14:55, Steve Lovullo wrote:> Mike:> > I’m at work right now, so I don’t have Accordance handy. But my guess is> dative, construed with EGGUS (“near to Jerusalem”).> > Steve Lo Vullo> > > —–Original Message—–> > From: Mike Sangrey [mailto:msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org]> > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 1:50 PM> > To: Biblical Greek> > Subject: [] Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking> > > > > > AKOUONTWN DE AUTWN TAUTA PROSQEIS EIPEN PARABOLHN DIA TO EGGUS EINAI> > IEROUSALHM AUTON KAI DOKEIN AUTOUS hOTI PARAXRHMA MELLEI hH > > BASILEIA TOU> > QEOU ANAFAINESQAI> > > > What I’m really after is in the phrase:> > DIA TO EGGUS EINAI IEROUSALHM AUTON> > > > IEROUSALHM is indeclinable. But, if you were creating a > > database which> > required you to grammatically label it, with what case would you label> > it?> > > > — > > Mike Sangrey> > msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org> > Landisburg, Pa.> > “The first one last wins.”> > “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”> > > > > > —> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > You are currently subscribed to as: [slovullo at etcconnect.com]> > To unsubscribe, forward this message to > > $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> > To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > > > >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> — Mike Sangreymsangrey at BlueFeltHat.orgLandisburg, Pa. “The first one last wins.” “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”

 

Luke 19:11 and grammatical markingLuke 19:11 and grammatical marking

Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Thu Apr 18 16:10:49 EDT 2002

 

Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking Mike Sangrey <msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org> Sent from the Internet (Details) AKOUONTWN DE AUTWN TAUTA PROSQEIS EIPEN PARABOLHN DIA TO EGGUS EINAI IEROUSALHM AUTON KAI DOKEIN AUTOUS hOTI PARAXRHMA MELLEI hH BASILEIA TOU QEOU ANAFAINESQAI What I’m really after is in the phrase: DIA TO EGGUS EINAI IEROUSALHM AUTON IEROUSALHM is indeclinable. But, if you were creating a database which required you to grammatically label it, with what case would you label it?Mike, Accordance locates IEROUSALHM in this instance as genitive. According to BAGD it is common to use EGGUS with the genitive for local functions. BAGD also gives the dative as an option when EGGUS is local.It is really used here as an adverbial genitive of place and also at John 11:54. It can be used as a dative of place (some say “locative”) such as Acts 9:38 EGGUS . . . THi IOPPHi.Carlton Winbery Louisiana

 

Luke 19:11 and grammatical markingLuke 19:11 and grammatical marking

Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Thu Apr 18 17:03:34 EDT 2002

 

Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking In a message dated 4/18/2002 4:11:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Clwinbery at aol.com writes:>> IEROUSALHM AUTON KAI DOKEIN AUTOUS hOTI PARAXRHMA MELLEI >> hH BASILEIA TOU QEOU ANAFAINESQAI>> What I’m really after is in the phrase:>> DIA TO EGGUS EINAI IEROUSALHM AUTON>> IEROUSALHM is indeclinable. But, if you were creating a database which>> required you to grammatically label it, with what case would you label>> it?> Mike, Accordance locates IEROUSALHM in this instance as genitive. According > to BAGD it is common to use EGGUS with the genitive for local functions. > BAGD also gives the dative as an option when EGGUS is local.___________________________Logos likewise indicates that IEROUSALHM is genitive. Since the form hIEROSOLUMA or IEROUSALHM is apparently not used in any case distinction, it is interesting that Logos/Accordance and BGAD state so confidently that it is genitive. There are a number of instances listed in both the LXX and the NT with dat. following. I’m wondering why the confidence that IEROUSALHM is gen. Any ideas?gfsomsel

 

Luke 19:11 and grammatical markingLuke 19:11 and grammatical marking

Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Apr 18 17:19:09 EDT 2002

 

Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking The Meaning of LOGIZOMAI At 5:03 PM -0400 4/18/02, Polycarp66 at aol.com wrote:>In a message dated 4/18/2002 4:11:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,>Clwinbery at aol.com writes:> >>> IEROUSALHM AUTON KAI DOKEIN AUTOUS hOTI PARAXRHMA MELLEI >> hH>BASILEIA TOU QEOU ANAFAINESQAI> >>> What I’m really after is in the phrase:>>> DIA TO EGGUS EINAI IEROUSALHM AUTON> >>> IEROUSALHM is indeclinable. But, if you were creating a database which>>> required you to grammatically label it, with what case would you label>>> it?> >> Mike, Accordance locates IEROUSALHM in this instance as genitive. According> > to BAGD it is common to use EGGUS with the genitive for local functions.> > BAGD also gives the dative as an option when EGGUS is local.>___________________________> >Logos likewise indicates that IEROUSALHM is genitive. Since the form>hIEROSOLUMA or IEROUSALHM is apparently not used in any case distinction, it>is interesting that Logos/Accordance and BGAD state so confidently that it is>genitive. There are a number of instances listed in both the LXX and the NT>with dat. following. I’m wondering why the confidence that IEROUSALHM is>gen. Any ideas?Well, one good reason is that EGGUS, when it’s a preposition, is in factmore often used with genitive (the ablatival genitive, at that).– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Luke 19:11 and grammatical markingThe Meaning of LOGIZOMAI

Luke 19:11 and grammatical marking Paul O. Wendland wendlanp at wls.wels.net
Fri Apr 19 18:29:18 EDT 2002

 

Helena font keyboard chart?? Greek Palindromes > In a message dated 4/18/2002 4:11:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,> Clwinbery at aol.com writes:> > >> IEROUSALHM AUTON KAI DOKEIN AUTOUS hOTI PARAXRHMA MELLEI >> hH> BASILEIA TOU QEOU ANAFAINESQAI> > > Logos likewise indicates that IEROUSALHM is genitive. Since the form> hIEROSOLUMA or IEROUSALHM is apparently not used in any case> distinction, it> is interesting that Logos/Accordance and BGAD state so> confidently that it is> genitive. There are a number of instances listed in both the LXX> and the NT> with dat. following. I’m wondering why the confidence that> IEROUSALHM is> gen. Any ideas?> > gfsomsel> ——————————–Bible Windows (based on the Fribergs’ Analytical Greek New Testament) offersboth dative and genitive as possibilities for IEROUSALHM, with the dativelisted first.===============================Paul O. Wendland

 

Helena font keyboard chart??Greek Palindromes

1 John 1:4

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 Robert R. Monti robemon at regent.edu
Fri Jul 2 00:57:33 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Right now I’m working my way through I John to keep up my Greek translationwork up on my own. I’d like some input on I John ch. 1, v. 4:KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMAIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN hH PEPLHRWMENH.Concerning hH PEPLHRWMENH, I made the following note:hH PEPLHRWMENH is the periphrastic construction (perfect participleand presentsubjunctive form of EIMI). It emphasizes a state of existence. ForJohn, the completedprocess of writing about the manifested eternal life which theapostles had seen, heardtouched is meant to achieve a durative state in both John and hisintended audience –“that our joy might be completed.”Comments would be appreciated — either on- or off-list is fine. I wouldalso appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strengthto a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOUAUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.Thanks!_________________________________________________________Robert R. MontiM. Div. candidateRegent University School of DivinityVirginia Beach, VArobemon at regent.eduhttp://home.regent.edu/robemon

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48][Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 Robert R. Monti robemon at regent.edu
Fri Jul 2 00:57:33 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Right now I’m working my way through I John to keep up my Greek translationwork up on my own. I’d like some input on I John ch. 1, v. 4:KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMAIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN hH PEPLHRWMENH.Concerning hH PEPLHRWMENH, I made the following note:hH PEPLHRWMENH is the periphrastic construction (perfect participleand presentsubjunctive form of EIMI). It emphasizes a state of existence. ForJohn, the completedprocess of writing about the manifested eternal life which theapostles had seen, heardtouched is meant to achieve a durative state in both John and hisintended audience –“that our joy might be completed.”Comments would be appreciated — either on- or off-list is fine. I wouldalso appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strengthto a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOUAUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.Thanks!_________________________________________________________Robert R. MontiM. Div. candidateRegent University School of DivinityVirginia Beach, VArobemon at regent.eduhttp://home.regent.edu/robemon

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48][Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 Carl Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 2 07:44:58 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:> Right now I’m working my way through I John to keep up my Greek translation> work up on my own. I’d like some input on I John ch. 1, v. 4:> > KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMAIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN hH PEPLHRWMENH.There’s a major transliteration error here that I’m going to correct each time I see it, beginning with transcription of the verse in question. KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMEIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN Hi PLHRWMENH.> Concerning Hi PEPLHRWMENH, I made the following note:> > Hi PEPLHRWMENH is the periphrastic construction (perfect participle> and present> subjunctive form of EIMI). It emphasizes a state of existence. For> John, the completed> process of writing about the manifested eternal life which the> apostles had seen, heard> touched is meant to achieve a durative state in both John and his> intended audience —> “that our joy might be completed.”I think that, in considering this verse, one must be aware that Hi PEPLHRWMENH need NOT be considered a periphrastic construction, although it COULD be. An alternative reading might be to read the Hi as present subjunctive and PEPLHRWMENH as a predicate adjective in the sense “complete.” And I really think that this is probably the easier way to read it.However, we might ask whether this is ultimately another way of saying the same thing, especially as there is no NON-periphrastic form of the perfect passive subjunctive. In either case, I think that the emphasis in the perfect passive partaiciple PEPLHRWMENH is on an achieved state rather than on the achievement of the state: i.e., it’s not a matter of EFFECTING the completion that is emphasized by use of this verb form (as it seems to me you are reading it when you write, “that our joy may be completed”–that idea would better be expressed, I think, with an aorist passive subjunctive, e.g. hINA hH CARA hHMWN PLHRWQHi); rather it’s a matter of the present status of the joy as fully effective–as a fait accompli, so to speak. This is why I say that PEPLHRWMENH might almost as well be viewed as a predicate adjective and the whole clause might almost as well be written hINA hH CARA hHMWN Hi PLHRHS. And I think that the common translations of the clause are right: “that our joy may be COMPLETE”–rather than “COMPLETED.”> Comments would be appreciated — either on- or off-list is fine. I would> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one; to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.”But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing, whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through.

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48][Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 Carl Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 2 07:44:58 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:> Right now I’m working my way through I John to keep up my Greek translation> work up on my own. I’d like some input on I John ch. 1, v. 4:> > KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMAIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN hH PEPLHRWMENH.There’s a major transliteration error here that I’m going to correct each time I see it, beginning with transcription of the verse in question. KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMEIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN Hi PLHRWMENH.> Concerning Hi PEPLHRWMENH, I made the following note:> > Hi PEPLHRWMENH is the periphrastic construction (perfect participle> and present> subjunctive form of EIMI). It emphasizes a state of existence. For> John, the completed> process of writing about the manifested eternal life which the> apostles had seen, heard> touched is meant to achieve a durative state in both John and his> intended audience —> “that our joy might be completed.”I think that, in considering this verse, one must be aware that Hi PEPLHRWMENH need NOT be considered a periphrastic construction, although it COULD be. An alternative reading might be to read the Hi as present subjunctive and PEPLHRWMENH as a predicate adjective in the sense “complete.” And I really think that this is probably the easier way to read it.However, we might ask whether this is ultimately another way of saying the same thing, especially as there is no NON-periphrastic form of the perfect passive subjunctive. In either case, I think that the emphasis in the perfect passive partaiciple PEPLHRWMENH is on an achieved state rather than on the achievement of the state: i.e., it’s not a matter of EFFECTING the completion that is emphasized by use of this verb form (as it seems to me you are reading it when you write, “that our joy may be completed”–that idea would better be expressed, I think, with an aorist passive subjunctive, e.g. hINA hH CARA hHMWN PLHRWQHi); rather it’s a matter of the present status of the joy as fully effective–as a fait accompli, so to speak. This is why I say that PEPLHRWMENH might almost as well be viewed as a predicate adjective and the whole clause might almost as well be written hINA hH CARA hHMWN Hi PLHRHS. And I think that the common translations of the clause are right: “that our joy may be COMPLETE”–rather than “COMPLETED.”> Comments would be appreciated — either on- or off-list is fine. I would> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one; to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.”But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing, whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through.

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48][Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

DE in I John 1:3 (was Re: Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4) Mike Sangrey mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us
Fri Jul 2 15:15:29 EDT 1999

 

1Thess 3:13 I am looking for a Russian “Greek” cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:> On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:[some text deleted]>> … I would>> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength>> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:>> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU>> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.> This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in> a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon> comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to> start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but> curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a> clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS> KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire> clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the> Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.> One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that> it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and> with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.> OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive> description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to> share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the> accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it> might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the> existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be> the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one> expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively> PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.> Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one> you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of> that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn> the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one;> to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even> the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and> with His son Jesus Christ.”> But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing,> whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole> phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an> implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I> rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with> the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).May I share a thought about the use of DE here? Read this as a question: being a sounding board to help with my understanding.Could DE be thought of as a thoughtful pause? The DE would tendto lightly push the hH KOINWNIA away from the hH hHMETERA. Or,alternatively, one could think of it as connecting the two articularwords more loosely than they would normally be connected. We don’t havea simple “our fellowship” because the DE is stuck in there. This use ofDE–if it exists at all–would be similar to a “word” some untrainedspeakers use, namely “ummmm” (which, to my ear, has a similar phonemicquality to DE.) As if John is about to convey something important which hedoes not want his hearers to miss. The result is that the DE addsemphasis to the type of fellowship John wanted for his hearers. (Iwonder, since DE frequently can’t be translated as a word, should it not,at least sometimes, be translated as a space? Keep that thought in mindas I proceed.)Now, having said that the “our” is lightly separated from the”fellowship”, I note that the case pulls them together, and we wouldnaturally expect that from a possesive pronoun. So, John *is* talkingabout “our fellowship”, but there is something more which is added by the”space” which he has introduced by his sentence construction.So, with the hH KOINWNIA, John first focuses his hearers attention onfellowship and not just any fellowship, but a particular fellowship.And then he proceeds, after the pause, with the expansive description ofthat fellowship (as Carl has said above.) Perhaps not great grammar, but,if DE could be thought of as conveying a pause, and that was normal tothe Greek ear, then it would be perfectly good grammar in Greek, thoughterrible grammar in English. [Please don’t pour the blood of startinga ‘good grammar/bad grammar’ discussion at such a little greek’s feet.That would be most unkind. 😉 ]If I could translate the pause, I would have, “…that you also may havefellowship with us; even the fellowship …ummm… [like] our fellowshipwith the Father and with the son Jesus Christ.” Better English grammarwould produce, “…that you also may have fellowship with us; even thefellowship very much like our fellowship with the Father and with theson Jesus Christ.”And, again, I’m very much interested in feedback regarding this (positiveor negative).Carl: regarding the implied ESTIN, does Smyth 1183b apply to an impliedESTIN.> This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril> of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to> the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through. Hmmmmm…is ‘peril’ an hyperbole or are you addicted? 🙂 Actually, ifyour Internet connection goes down it is I who am in peril.I apologize for the longishness; thanks a head of time.– Mike Sangreymike at sojurn.lns.pa.us

 

1Thess 3:13 I am looking for a Russian “Greek”

DE in I John 1:3 (was Re: Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4) Mike Sangrey mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us
Fri Jul 2 15:15:29 EDT 1999

 

1Thess 3:13 I am looking for a Russian “Greek” cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:> On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:[some text deleted]>> … I would>> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength>> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:>> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU>> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.> This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in> a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon> comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to> start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but> curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a> clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS> KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire> clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the> Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.> One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that> it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and> with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.> OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive> description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to> share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the> accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it> might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the> existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be> the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one> expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively> PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.> Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one> you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of> that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn> the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one;> to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even> the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and> with His son Jesus Christ.”> But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing,> whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole> phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an> implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I> rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with> the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).May I share a thought about the use of DE here? Read this as a question: being a sounding board to help with my understanding.Could DE be thought of as a thoughtful pause? The DE would tendto lightly push the hH KOINWNIA away from the hH hHMETERA. Or,alternatively, one could think of it as connecting the two articularwords more loosely than they would normally be connected. We don’t havea simple “our fellowship” because the DE is stuck in there. This use ofDE–if it exists at all–would be similar to a “word” some untrainedspeakers use, namely “ummmm” (which, to my ear, has a similar phonemicquality to DE.) As if John is about to convey something important which hedoes not want his hearers to miss. The result is that the DE addsemphasis to the type of fellowship John wanted for his hearers. (Iwonder, since DE frequently can’t be translated as a word, should it not,at least sometimes, be translated as a space? Keep that thought in mindas I proceed.)Now, having said that the “our” is lightly separated from the”fellowship”, I note that the case pulls them together, and we wouldnaturally expect that from a possesive pronoun. So, John *is* talkingabout “our fellowship”, but there is something more which is added by the”space” which he has introduced by his sentence construction.So, with the hH KOINWNIA, John first focuses his hearers attention onfellowship and not just any fellowship, but a particular fellowship.And then he proceeds, after the pause, with the expansive description ofthat fellowship (as Carl has said above.) Perhaps not great grammar, but,if DE could be thought of as conveying a pause, and that was normal tothe Greek ear, then it would be perfectly good grammar in Greek, thoughterrible grammar in English. [Please don’t pour the blood of startinga ‘good grammar/bad grammar’ discussion at such a little greek’s feet.That would be most unkind. 😉 ]If I could translate the pause, I would have, “…that you also may havefellowship with us; even the fellowship …ummm… [like] our fellowshipwith the Father and with the son Jesus Christ.” Better English grammarwould produce, “…that you also may have fellowship with us; even thefellowship very much like our fellowship with the Father and with theson Jesus Christ.”And, again, I’m very much interested in feedback regarding this (positiveor negative).Carl: regarding the implied ESTIN, does Smyth 1183b apply to an impliedESTIN.> This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril> of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to> the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through. Hmmmmm…is ‘peril’ an hyperbole or are you addicted? 🙂 Actually, ifyour Internet connection goes down it is I who am in peril.I apologize for the longishness; thanks a head of time.– Mike Sangreymike at sojurn.lns.pa.us

 

1Thess 3:13 I am looking for a Russian “Greek”

DE in I John 1:3 (was Re: Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jul 3 06:55:10 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Mark 8:24 “Longishness” seems to be the doom of this concatenation of question andresponses; if anyone is uninterested in the lowly question of the particleDE, I would suggest that now is the time to press the delete button, but ifone IS interested in that lowly question, I think the whole sequence hangstogether.At 3:15 PM -0400 7/2/99, Mike Sangrey wrote:>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:>> On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:> >[some text deleted]> >>> … I would>>> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength>>> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:> >>> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU>>> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.> >> This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in>> a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon>> comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to>> start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but>> curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a>> clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS>> KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire>> clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the>> Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.> >> One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that>> it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and>> with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.> >> OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive>> description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to>> share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the>> accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it>> might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the>> existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be>> the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one>> expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively>> PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.> >> Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one>> you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of>> that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn>> the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one;>> to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even>> the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and>> with His son Jesus Christ.”> >> But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing,>> whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole>> phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an>> implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I>> rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with>> the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).> >May I share a thought about the use of DE here? Read this as a question:> being a sounding board to help with my understanding.> >Could DE be thought of as a thoughtful pause? The DE would tend>to lightly push the hH KOINWNIA away from the hH hHMETERA. Or,>alternatively, one could think of it as connecting the two articular>words more loosely than they would normally be connected. We don’t have>a simple “our fellowship” because the DE is stuck in there. This use of>DE–if it exists at all–would be similar to a “word” some untrained>speakers use, namely “ummmm” (which, to my ear, has a similar phonemic>quality to DE.) As if John is about to convey something important which he>does not want his hearers to miss. The result is that the DE adds>emphasis to the type of fellowship John wanted for his hearers. (I>wonder, since DE frequently can’t be translated as a word, should it not,>at least sometimes, be translated as a space? Keep that thought in mind>as I proceed.)> >Now, having said that the “our” is lightly separated from the>“fellowship”, I note that the case pulls them together, and we would>naturally expect that from a possesive pronoun. So, John *is* talking>about “our fellowship”, but there is something more which is added by the>“space” which he has introduced by his sentence construction.> >So, with the hH KOINWNIA, John first focuses his hearers attention on>fellowship and not just any fellowship, but a particular fellowship.>And then he proceeds, after the pause, with the expansive description of>that fellowship (as Carl has said above.) Perhaps not great grammar, but,>if DE could be thought of as conveying a pause, and that was normal to>the Greek ear, then it would be perfectly good grammar in Greek, though>terrible grammar in English. [Please don’t pour the blood of starting>a ‘good grammar/bad grammar’ discussion at such a little greek’s feet.>That would be most unkind. 😉 ]> >If I could translate the pause, I would have, “…that you also may have>fellowship with us; even the fellowship …ummm… [like] our fellowship>with the Father and with the son Jesus Christ.” Better English grammar>would produce, “…that you also may have fellowship with us; even the>fellowship very much like our fellowship with the Father and with the>son Jesus Christ.”> >And, again, I’m very much interested in feedback regarding this (positive>or negative).I very much like this interpretation of DE as justifying a somewhat awkwardbut necessary and helpful expansion of the notion of “fellowship.” I don’tquite know about ‘ummm…’ — I guess that phonemic quality is differentfrom ‘duhhh …’ — but let me suggest another way of getting to the sameend point: I find it useful occasionally to recall to mind that MEN and DEare weakened/ablauted forms of the particles MHN and DH, which have anoriginal sense something like “to be sure” and “in fact” respectively (ifthey are differentiated at all). Suppose we substitute “in fact” for the”ummm” in your suggested version; we’ll then have: ” … that you also mayhave fellowship with us, even the fellowship, in fact, that we have (hHhHMETERA) with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.”And finally, to banish the “bad grammar” notion once for all, I think thatthis usage of DE is consistent with the “homiletic” or “sermonic” characterof 1 John — and I mean “homiletic” and “sermonic” in the Greek/Latinsenses. We have here carefully structured (rhetorically) discourse thatretains an air of conversational informality–an ease of discourse sharedby speaker/writer and listening audience (as I assume this text, like allNT documents) was written originally for the ear of an audience, not solelyfor the eye of a silent reader).>Carl: regarding the implied ESTIN, does Smyth 1183b apply to an implied>ESTIN.I think what he says in 944 is quite adequate to the point. But I haveaccess to only the online (first edition) of Smyth right now; 1183b in theonline edition really seems to be a different topic.>> This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril>> of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to>> the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through.> >Hmmmmm…is ‘peril’ an hyperbole or are you addicted? 🙂 Actually, if>your Internet connection goes down it is I who am in peril.In fact, I was bumped off three times in the middle of that message and hadto reconnect: it was a KINDUNOS, and what I really feared was that what Ihad already written would be lost before I could get it sent. Of course itonly existed on my machine, but that would have been lost if my browser hadcrashed when my connection failed. Fortunately my home domain is back up sothat I can again respond off-line before dispatching. I won’t respond tothe question of addiction as a matter of customary praetermission.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]Mark 8:24

DE in I John 1:3 (was Re: Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jul 3 06:55:10 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Mark 8:24 “Longishness” seems to be the doom of this concatenation of question andresponses; if anyone is uninterested in the lowly question of the particleDE, I would suggest that now is the time to press the delete button, but ifone IS interested in that lowly question, I think the whole sequence hangstogether.At 3:15 PM -0400 7/2/99, Mike Sangrey wrote:>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:>> On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:> >[some text deleted]> >>> … I would>>> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength>>> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:> >>> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU>>> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.> >> This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in>> a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon>> comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to>> start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but>> curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a>> clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS>> KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire>> clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the>> Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.> >> One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that>> it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and>> with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.> >> OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive>> description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to>> share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the>> accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it>> might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the>> existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be>> the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one>> expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively>> PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.> >> Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one>> you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of>> that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn>> the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one;>> to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even>> the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and>> with His son Jesus Christ.”> >> But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing,>> whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole>> phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an>> implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I>> rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with>> the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).> >May I share a thought about the use of DE here? Read this as a question:> being a sounding board to help with my understanding.> >Could DE be thought of as a thoughtful pause? The DE would tend>to lightly push the hH KOINWNIA away from the hH hHMETERA. Or,>alternatively, one could think of it as connecting the two articular>words more loosely than they would normally be connected. We don’t have>a simple “our fellowship” because the DE is stuck in there. This use of>DE–if it exists at all–would be similar to a “word” some untrained>speakers use, namely “ummmm” (which, to my ear, has a similar phonemic>quality to DE.) As if John is about to convey something important which he>does not want his hearers to miss. The result is that the DE adds>emphasis to the type of fellowship John wanted for his hearers. (I>wonder, since DE frequently can’t be translated as a word, should it not,>at least sometimes, be translated as a space? Keep that thought in mind>as I proceed.)> >Now, having said that the “our” is lightly separated from the>“fellowship”, I note that the case pulls them together, and we would>naturally expect that from a possesive pronoun. So, John *is* talking>about “our fellowship”, but there is something more which is added by the>“space” which he has introduced by his sentence construction.> >So, with the hH KOINWNIA, John first focuses his hearers attention on>fellowship and not just any fellowship, but a particular fellowship.>And then he proceeds, after the pause, with the expansive description of>that fellowship (as Carl has said above.) Perhaps not great grammar, but,>if DE could be thought of as conveying a pause, and that was normal to>the Greek ear, then it would be perfectly good grammar in Greek, though>terrible grammar in English. [Please don’t pour the blood of starting>a ‘good grammar/bad grammar’ discussion at such a little greek’s feet.>That would be most unkind. 😉 ]> >If I could translate the pause, I would have, “…that you also may have>fellowship with us; even the fellowship …ummm… [like] our fellowship>with the Father and with the son Jesus Christ.” Better English grammar>would produce, “…that you also may have fellowship with us; even the>fellowship very much like our fellowship with the Father and with the>son Jesus Christ.”> >And, again, I’m very much interested in feedback regarding this (positive>or negative).I very much like this interpretation of DE as justifying a somewhat awkwardbut necessary and helpful expansion of the notion of “fellowship.” I don’tquite know about ‘ummm…’ — I guess that phonemic quality is differentfrom ‘duhhh …’ — but let me suggest another way of getting to the sameend point: I find it useful occasionally to recall to mind that MEN and DEare weakened/ablauted forms of the particles MHN and DH, which have anoriginal sense something like “to be sure” and “in fact” respectively (ifthey are differentiated at all). Suppose we substitute “in fact” for the”ummm” in your suggested version; we’ll then have: ” … that you also mayhave fellowship with us, even the fellowship, in fact, that we have (hHhHMETERA) with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.”And finally, to banish the “bad grammar” notion once for all, I think thatthis usage of DE is consistent with the “homiletic” or “sermonic” characterof 1 John — and I mean “homiletic” and “sermonic” in the Greek/Latinsenses. We have here carefully structured (rhetorically) discourse thatretains an air of conversational informality–an ease of discourse sharedby speaker/writer and listening audience (as I assume this text, like allNT documents) was written originally for the ear of an audience, not solelyfor the eye of a silent reader).>Carl: regarding the implied ESTIN, does Smyth 1183b apply to an implied>ESTIN.I think what he says in 944 is quite adequate to the point. But I haveaccess to only the online (first edition) of Smyth right now; 1183b in theonline edition really seems to be a different topic.>> This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril>> of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to>> the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through.> >Hmmmmm…is ‘peril’ an hyperbole or are you addicted? 🙂 Actually, if>your Internet connection goes down it is I who am in peril.In fact, I was bumped off three times in the middle of that message and hadto reconnect: it was a KINDUNOS, and what I really feared was that what Ihad already written would be lost before I could get it sent. Of course itonly existed on my machine, but that would have been lost if my browser hadcrashed when my connection failed. Fortunately my home domain is back up sothat I can again respond off-line before dispatching. I won’t respond tothe question of addiction as a matter of customary praetermission.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]Mark 8:24

Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Tue Dec 21 23:01:55 EST 1999

 

1 John 3:9 Luke 23:43 Can the pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1:1-4 be translated “it” as Tyndale and Beck, respectively, have done?In William Tyndale’s translation of John 1:1 we have:”In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God: and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing, that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light shineth in the darkness, but the darkness comprehended it not.”In William Beck’s translation of I John 1:1-4 we have:”It was there from the beginning, we heard It, we saw It with our eyes, we looked at It, and our hands touched It – we’re writing about the Word of Life. That Life showed itself and we saw It, and now we testify and tell you about the everlasting Life that was with the Father and showed itself to us. We saw and heard It, and we tell you about It so that you, too, will have It in fellowship with us. Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. We’re writing this so that our joy may be complete.”Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

1 John 3:9Luke 23:43

Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-4 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Dec 22 09:03:29 EST 1999

 

Blayney Revision of KJV Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 To: Ken Johnson,<< Can the pronouns in John 1:1-5 and I John 1:1-4 be translated “it” as Tyndale and Beck, respectively, have done? >>Can they? They not only can, but they have done so as you yourself have noted. I wonder if the question you really wanted to ask was: Should they? Or perhaps better yet, why did they?It should also be noted that these two passage are quite different.<< In William Tyndale’s translation of John 1:1-5 we have: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God: and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it (a), and without it (b), was made nothing, that was made. In it (c) was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light shineth in the darkness, but the darkness comprehended it (d) not.” >>There are four “its” in this passage which I’ve marked with the letters “a” through “d.” The first three “its” are masculine pronouns referring to the masculine noun LOGOS. The fourth “it” is a neuter pronoun referring to the neuter noun FWS.<< In William Beck’s translation of I John 1:1-4 we have: “It (a) was there from the beginning, we heard It (b), we saw It (c) with our eyes, we looked at It (d), and our hands touched It (e) – we’re writing about the Word of Life. That Life showed itself (f) and we saw It (g), and now we testify and tell you about the everlasting Life that was with the Father and showed itself (h) to us. We saw and heard It (i), and we tell you about It (j) so that you, too, will have It (k) in fellowship with us. Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. We’re writing this so that our joy may be complete.” >>There are eleven “its” in this passage, which I have marked with the letters “a” through “k.” Five of these “its,” those labeled “a,” “b,” “c,” “d,” & “i,” refer to the relative neuter pronoun hO. But six of these “its,” those labeled “e,” “f,” “g,” “h,” “j,” & “k,” refer to no explicit pronoun in the Greek text. As for the five neuter relative pronouns, it is grammatically unclear as to what they refer.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

Blayney Revision of KJVPronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Dec 22 09:50:26 EST 1999

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-4 1 John 3:9 To: Solomon Landers,<< AUTOS is a pronoun that takes the gender of its antecedent. In John 1:1, AUTOU is the same form in both the genitive singular masculine and the genitive singular nueter, but since it refers to hO LOGOS (masculine), a better translation would be “he, him.” >>Why would “he, him” be a better translation? The pronouns AUTOU & AUTWi are only masculine because the Greek term LOGOS is grammatically masculine. But in English the term “word” is considered to be a “thing,” and normally in English we would refer to such a term as “it.” Grammatically, it seems to me that “it” would be the better translation.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-41 John 3:9

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Wed Dec 22 12:09:24 EST 1999

 

Blayney Revision of KJV John 1:1 pronouns Can you tell me how to get a copy of Beck’s translation? I have oftenseen it cited, but cannot find a copy.AUTOS is a pronoun that takes the gender of its antecedent. In John1:1, AUTOU is the same form in both the genitive singular masculineand the genitive singular nueter, but since it refers to hO LOGOS(masculine), a better translation would be “he, him.”However, in 1 John 1, Beck is justified in translating “it” because theantecedent is hOS, [what, that which] and is a neuter singularpronomial. He translates “life” as “it,” though it is feminine in theGreek, but makes better reading in English.Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.org<Ken Johnson writes:><Can the pronouns in John 1:1 amd I John 1:1-4 be translated “it” asTyndale and Beck, respectively, have done?>

 

Blayney Revision of KJVJohn 1:1 pronouns

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Dec 22 14:37:01 EST 1999

 

John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?) John 8:58 To: Solomon Landers,SCM: << Why would “he, him” be a better translation? The pronouns AUTOU & AUTWi are only masculine because the Greek term LOGOS is grammatically masculine. But in English the term “word” is considered to be a “thing,” and normally in English we would refer to such a term as “it.” Grammatically, it seems to me that “it” would be the better translation. >>SL: << You are of course, grammatically correct. But I think the writer’s (John’s) context and target audience enter the picture, as well as the target audience of the translator into English. >>I would concur, that is why “it” would be the better translation. In an earlier message I had written:SCM: << … the Johannine Jesus says: “I do know him [God] and I keep his word” (Jn 8:55). If for John the God’s LOGOS was Jesus, how could the Johannine Jesus keep it? Another example, the Johannine Jesus says: “Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me” (Jn 14:24). Again, the Johannine Jesus speaks as if God’s LOGOS is different from himself! Nowhere does John’s gospel simply identify Jesus as God’s LOGOS. The difference of interpretations of John 1:14 is rooted in the fact that some take God’s LOGOS as an individual, while others (such as myself) take God’s LOGOS in the Johannine prologue as an instrumental force. >>There is no evidence in all of the Johannine Gospel that this author thought of God’s LOGOS as anything other than an instrumental force. Thus given “the writer’s (John’s) context and target audience” as well as “the target audience of the translator into English,” it would more accurately reflect John’s Greek text to translate those pronouns as “it.”-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?)John 8:58

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Wed Dec 22 17:07:52 EST 1999

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and ! John 1-4 John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?) You are of course, grammatically correct. But I think the writer’s (John’s) contextand target audience enter the picture, as well as the target audience of thetranslator into English.Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrainSteven Craig Miller wrote:> > Why would “he, him” be a better translation? The pronouns AUTOU & AUTWi are> only masculine because the Greek term LOGOS is grammatically masculine. But> in English the term “word” is considered to be a “thing,” and normally in> English we would refer to such a term as “it.” Grammatically, it seems to> me that “it” would be the better translation.> > -Steven Craig Miller> Alton, Illinois (USA)> scmiller at www.plantnet.com> Disclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree),> what do I know?”>

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and ! John 1-4John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?)

Pronouns in John 1:1 and ! John 1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Wed Dec 22 17:03:43 EST 1999

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 To: Steven Craig MillerBoyce W. Blackwelder stated:”The noun logos (from the verb lego, to collect, put words side by side, relate, speak, say) means reason, speech, or word. It signifies not only a word in the grammatical sense, but a spoken word which implies an idea or concept. It denotes, therefore, both the thought inwardly conceived in the mind and outwardly expressed through the vehicle of language.”(“Light from the Greek New Testament” (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House), 40.I think “the logos” as an “instrumental force” is probably too limiting. I think “the logos” in the man Christ Jesus was more than God’s “power”, since Jesus Christ was also the “love and wisdom” of God (Paul). He was the Shekinah glory of God in the flesh. The “Expression” of God the Father. Or God the Father expressing himself in a human being. The Son “exegeted him [God the Father]” (Jn. 1:18). As Irenaeus said so well:”The Father is that which is invisible about the Son, the Son is that which is visible about the Father.””…He [John] relates, therefore, with the utmost simplicity of language, the scenes in which Jesus seemed to him most significantly to have revealed His power and His goodness, and most forcibly to have demonstrated that the Father was in Him.”Marcus Dods, “The Expositor’s Bible” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 115.See also: John 8:19; 14:6-10 as evidence that the Father was in Jesus Christ.Ken Johnson (Eph. 4:4-6)Elk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Wed Dec 22 18:06:49 EST 1999

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Jude 9 (Archangel–First in command and/or time?) Well, I don’t want to get theological about what John says at 1:14, but I would haveto say that I fall into the camp of those who think it definitely personalizes theLOGOS.Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.orgSteven Craig Miller wrote:<….The difference of interpretations of John 1:14 is rooted in the fact that sometake God’s LOGOS as an individual, while others (such as myself) take God’s LOGOS inthe Johannine prologue as an instrumental force.>

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4Jude 9 (Archangel–First in command and/or time?)

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Ilvgrammta at aol.com Ilvgrammta at aol.com
Tue Jan 4 11:41:54 EST 2000

 

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Dear ers,1 John 1:4 reads:KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMEIS hINA hH XARA hHMWN Hi PEPLHRWMENH.Does John use the epistolary plural (GRAFOMEN, hHMEIS) here?Thanks in advance,Edgar Foster

 

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesThe Purpose of Syntactical Categories

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jan 4 12:09:54 EST 2000

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Ign. Eph. 15:3 At 11:41 AM -0500 1/4/00, Ilvgrammta at aol.com wrote:>Dear ers,> >1 John 1:4 reads:> >KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMEIS hINA hH XARA hHMWN Hi PEPLHRWMENH.> >Does John use the epistolary plural (GRAFOMEN, hHMEIS) here?> >Thanks in advance,I would think so and in fact I can’t imagine an alternative to this view;certainly he does not list at the outset additional senders (as Paulfrequently does, even when Paul writes in the first person singular). Ofcourse 1 John is a treatise or sermon rather than a real letter, but ituses the literary form of the letter as was commonly done in antiquity forshort treatises, and the first-plural or “editorial” we is pretty common.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3Ign. Eph. 15:3

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Ilvgrammta at aol.com Ilvgrammta at aol.com
Tue Jan 4 17:37:51 EST 2000

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? In a message dated 00-01-04 12:10:11 EST, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:<< I would think so and in fact I can’t imagine an alternative to this view; certainly he does not list at the outset additional senders (as Paul frequently does, even when Paul writes in the first person singular). Of course 1 John is a treatise or sermon rather than a real letter, but it uses the literary form of the letter as was commonly done in antiquity for short treatises, and the first-plural or “editorial” we is pretty common.>>I asked this question because (1) I did not know if this use was prevalent in the first century (2) The usage in 1 John 1:4 has been debated.Young indicates that the plural in 1 John 1:4 is a literary plural. Smalley, in his Word Series Commentary, interprets the plural as “we (the writer, in solidarity with all the representatives of orthodoxy in the church) are writing this.” Brown feels that what John writes “bears more than personal authorization–it is Community tradition from the Community tradition-bearers” (Young 73-74). Here is what Wallace writes:”Is the Elder writing alone or in association with others? Complicating the issue is the fact that in vv 5 and 6 the plural continues, but each time with a different force: In v 5 it seems to refer to the author and other ministers; in v 6, it is an inclusive WE (the author and audience together). The author uses GRAFW another dozen times in this letter, but each time in the singular” (Wallace 396).Hope this adds to the discussion,Edgar Foster

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4?

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jan 4 17:55:04 EST 2000

 

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? temple and NWT of holy scriptures? At 5:37 PM -0500 1/4/00, Ilvgrammta at aol.com wrote:>In a message dated 00-01-04 12:10:11 EST, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:> ><< I would think so and in fact I can’t imagine an alternative to this view;> certainly he does not list at the outset additional senders (as Paul> frequently does, even when Paul writes in the first person singular). Of> course 1 John is a treatise or sermon rather than a real letter, but it> uses the literary form of the letter as was commonly done in antiquity for> short treatises, and the first-plural or “editorial” we is pretty common.>>> >I asked this question because (1) I did not know if this use was prevalent in>the first century (2) The usage in 1 John 1:4 has been debated.> >Young indicates that the plural in 1 John 1:4 is a literary plural. Smalley,>in his Word Series Commentary, interprets the plural as “we (the writer, in>solidarity with all the representatives of orthodoxy in the church) are>writing this.” Brown feels that what John writes “bears more than personal>authorization–it is Community tradition from the Community>tradition-bearers” (Young 73-74).> >Here is what Wallace writes:> >“Is the Elder writing alone or in association with others? Complicating the>issue is the fact that in vv 5 and 6 the plural continues, but each time with>a different force: In v 5 it seems to refer to the author and other>ministers; in v 6, it is an inclusive WE (the author and audience together).>The author uses GRAFW another dozen times in this letter, but each time in>the singular” (Wallace 396).> >Hope this adds to the discussion,Yes, it adds to the discussion (particularly when nobody on hassignificant input into your question) to “cite the learned authorities” andfind out that they hold to a variety of different views, some of whichoverlap. More voices in the discussion. I would still say what I saidabove. As for what the others say, I think Young is saying pretty much whatI’m saying. Smalley and Brown are interpreting on the basis of how theyfeel the treatise was meant to be interpreted (as an assuring warranty thatthe Johannine tradition is not really out of harmony with apostolicorthodoxy, even if the language of it can be interpreted in gnostic terms.It seems to me that Wallace deals more honestly with the actual evidenceand finds that it is insufficiently conclusive. Wherefore, I still must saythat the use of the plural in this situation is not at all uncommon (evenin alternation with a first-person singular), enough so that one needs toshow some convincing evidence that there’s a different reason for use ofthe first-plural here in 1 John than customary usage.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4?temple and NWT of holy scriptures?
Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Wed Dec 22 16:34:58 EST 1999

 

John 13:34 – A hINA Clause with the force of an imperative? Pronouns in John 1:1 and ! John 1-4 To Soloman Landers:I noticed you are writing from the Memra Institute.The Aramaic term “memra” is used in the Targums of John’s day in place of the unmentionable name for the Hebrew G-d, YHVH or YHWH.It is not necessarily a different person than God, and it could have been in the mind of John when he wrote John 1:1-4, since he probably spoke and read Aramaic in his day. Memra is similar to the Greek “Logos”. He probably chose Koine Greek terminology because it was used so much in written correspondence, and he might have been countering allegorical Jewish and incipient Gnosticism tendencies or teachings which were usually written in Hellenistic Greek.However, NT scholar Peter Borgen believes that John’s Prologue is an exposition of Gen. 1:1ff, and written in a manner that reflects Targunic exegesis. In his view certain key words found in Gen 1:1-5 (“in the beginning”, “God”, “life”, “light”) are interpreted in John’s Prologue by means of paraphrasing expansions. The Jerusalem Targum on Gen 3;24 is mentioned as a parallel to the Prologue of John, in an effort to show how each paraphrasing expansion is similar. When comparing John’s Prologue with Jewish thought, Borgen states:”…in Jewish sources there is quite a strong exegetal tradition that interprets Gen. 1:1-ff. as not only referring to the creation of the world, but what preceeded it. The exegetical basis for this is expressed in John 1:1-2 in the light of v. 3: en archee/bereshith in Gen. 1:1 could be developed in Judaism within the thought category of existence at creation, and before, with subsequent revelation.”Peter Borgen, “Observations On the Targumic Character of the Prologue of John,” New Testament Studies, Vol. 16, pp. 288-295.Also, getting back to the term “Memra”…W.F. Albright refers to the ms Targum Neofiti I (a complete Palestinian Targum) in which “the ‘Word’ of God appears as a surrogate for the name of God, Yahweh.”(New Horizons in Biblical Research, London, 1966, p. 45).Memra is used as a name for God himself, especially as God as “self-revealing”. M. McNamara stated, “Johannine tradition may yet well prove to be mainly influenced by liturgical Jewish tradition, particularly of the form found in the Targums.”(“Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Ex 1242)”, ExT LXXIX, 1967-68, pp.117.)If John had “the Memra” in mind when he wrote “the Logos” he was probably not thinking of a second person or being as the Jewish literature was strictly monotheistic as was the Shema of Israel in the LXX and in Mark 12:29 “one” = masculine “heis”- the cardinal number in the Greek.Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

John 13:34 – A hINA Clause with the force of an imperative?Pronouns in John 1:1 and ! John 1-4

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Wed Dec 22 17:47:12 EST 1999

 

John 8:58 Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 To: Solomon LandersWe do want to keep in mind that John’s Logos is not very Greek. His idea of the Logos is not a God who is detached, but one who is very involved with us and where we are, otherwise he would not have taken on humanity and dwelt with us.It is much more than the Greek logos, just as John’s concept of the spirit of God is much more than Stoic in nature.Barclay stated:”John spoke to a world which thought of the gods in terms of passionless apatheia and serene detachment. He pointed at Jesus Christ and said: ‘Here is the mind of God; here is the expression of the thought of God; here is the logos.’ And men were confronted with a God who cared so passionately and who loved so sacrificially that His expression was Jesus christ and His emblem a cross” (Ext, LXX, 1958-1959, p. 82)”Wisdom” “The Law” “The Word [Memra]” are all related to John’s concept of “The Logos”.You might also want to read,M. McNamara, “The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome, 1966) and G.J. Cowling, “New Light on the New Testament? The Significance of the Palestinian Targum” TSF Bulletin, No. 51 (Summer 1968), pp.6 ff.John Goldingday, Principal of St. John’s College, Nottingham, states,”The gospel…is related to scriptural narrative models and both gospels and epistles include many scriptural quotations and sections of explicit midrash (e.g. Mt. 4:1-11; 2 Cor. 3:7-18; Heb. 7:1-10) or Covert Midrash. (e.g. John, 1:1-18 in relation to Gen. 1:1-5 and Lk. 7: 51ff in relation to Dt. 1-26)…But the NT lacks consequtive commentary work, and its characteristic aim is situational rather than expository; it is concerned to interpret themes arising out of its own questions rather than by directly out of Scripture (see e.g. Rom. 9-11, or Hebrews and Revelation generally). In a sense, therefore, the NT is a midrash on Christ, rather than on the scriptures. The real interest of NT interpretation lies much less in Halakah…and much more in Haggidah.”(“Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation” Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-varsity Press, 1990, p. 152.)Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

John 8:58Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Wed Dec 22 19:53:43 EST 1999

 

John 8:58 Jude 9 (Archangel–First in command and/or time?) Thanks for the comments on the Memra. It’s a fascinating concept, the informationon which is continually evolving. I have copies of Targums Neofiti 1 and Onqelos,as well as the treatments by Fitzmyer and others. I consider it, basically, a”bridge concept” and one that, indeed, may have factored in the thinking of thewriter of John.As for the Institute, its purpose is explained on the web page.Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.orgKJohn36574 at aol.com wrote:> To Soloman Landers:> > I noticed you are writing from the Memra Institute.> > The Aramaic term “memra” is used in the Targums of John’s day in place of the> unmentionable name for the Hebrew G-d, YHVH or YHWH.> > It is not necessarily a different person than God, and it could have been in> the mind of John when he wrote John 1:1-4, since he probably spoke and read> Aramaic in his day. Memra is similar to the Greek “Logos”. He probably chose> Koine Greek terminology because it was used so much in written> correspondence, and he might have been countering allegorical Jewish and> incipient Gnosticism tendencies or teachings which were usually written in> Hellenistic Greek.> > However, NT scholar Peter Borgen believes that John’s Prologue is an> exposition of Gen. 1:1ff, and written in a manner that reflects Targunic> exegesis. In his view certain key words found in Gen 1:1-5 (“in the> beginning”, “God”, “life”, “light”) are interpreted in John’s Prologue by> means of paraphrasing expansions. The Jerusalem Targum on Gen 3;24 is> mentioned as a parallel to the Prologue of John, in an effort to show how> each paraphrasing expansion is similar. When comparing John’s Prologue with> Jewish thought, Borgen states:> > “…in Jewish sources there is quite a strong exegetal tradition that> interprets Gen. 1:1-ff. as not only referring to the creation of the world,> but what preceeded it. The exegetical basis for this is expressed in John> 1:1-2 in the light of v. 3: en archee/bereshith in Gen. 1:1 could be> developed in Judaism within the thought category of existence at creation,> and before, with subsequent revelation.”> <snip>

 

John 8:58Jude 9 (Archangel–First in command and/or time?)

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Will Wagers hyle at airmail.net
Thu Dec 23 00:04:45 EST 1999

 

Philipians 2:6 Beck’s Translation, Recovery Version Ken Johnson writes:>We do want to keep in mind that John’s Logos is not very Greek. His idea of>the Logos is not a God who is detached, but one who is very involved with us>and where we are, otherwise he would not have taken on humanity and dwelt>with us.Logos is a concept from Greek philosophy, not mythology. The Greek Logosis not “detached”: it is the very stuff of life; in fact, it *is* life, the intersectionof Form and Matter. As such, it enforms not only us but all living (readanimated) things, including “gods”. The only non-Greek thing in the Prologueis the notion that Logos takes the form of an individual man, when itis already necessarily present in all creation, being, in fact, Creation. Thisis the background of Jn 1:1.Will Wagershyle at airmail.net “Reality is the best metaphor.”

 

Philipians 2:6Beck’s Translation, Recovery Version

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 23 08:15:29 EST 1999

 

Some “No-no’s” Some “No-no’s” At 12:04 AM -0500 12/23/99, Will Wagers wrote:>Ken Johnson writes:> >>We do want to keep in mind that John’s Logos is not very Greek. His idea of>>the Logos is not a God who is detached, but one who is very involved with us>>and where we are, otherwise he would not have taken on humanity and dwelt>>with us.> >Logos is a concept from Greek philosophy, not mythology. The Greek Logos>is not “detached”: it is the very stuff of life; in fact, it *is*>life, the intersection>of Form and Matter. As such, it enforms not only us but all living (read>animated) things, including “gods”. The only non-Greek thing in the Prologue>is the notion that Logos takes the form of an individual man, when it>is already necessarily present in all creation, being, in fact, Creation. This>is the background of Jn 1:1.Ken supplied the Hegelian thesis and Will the antithesis; let me supply asynthesis 😉 that is not likely to please either the former nor thelatter but which is held by many besides myself: that the LOGOS notion inthe Johannine prologue has roots BOTH in Greek pre-Socratic Heraclitean andStoic thought AND in Hebraic-Jewish Hokhma-Sophia speculation such as seenin the OT Wisdom literature and in OT prophetic usage of the term DBR-YHWH.I for one, don’t think it’s a matter of either/or but rather of both/and.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Some “No-no’s”Some “No-no’s”

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Fri Dec 24 13:49:45 EST 1999

 

John 8:58 (I am; Does the Hebrew reveal?) John’s Logos Carl,I appreciate your “synthesis” however, I presented a synthesis too. I not only discussed Jewish origins of John’s Logos, but quoted Blackwelder’s definition which is part of the essential Grecian meaning, at least it is in my lexicons.Where my new insight rest is not just on the word Logos but on the context of the previous phrase “en archee”, which is a Hebrew “In the Beginning” , not a Greek one. While John may have written his Gospel in Greek, his concept reflects a Hebraic origin. Based upon the assumption that John’s concept of en archee is Jewish, his thoughts about the beginning and creation will be completely foreign to Greek cosmology and, as a result, strike at the very core of the Gnostic heresies that he was probably battling at Ephesus in the late first century A.D.Greek Concept Hebrew Conceptbeginning as a decline beginning as an ascentPessimistic/accidental Optimistic/purposefulMatter eternal Matter had a beginningCreation/gods side by side Creator over creationClaude Tresmontant, “A Study of Hebrew Thought” tr. by Michael Francis Gibson (New York Descies Company, 1960), pp. 4-5.Hope I wasn’t too theological, but I think my viewpoint wasn’t presented accurately or possibly not understood. I possibly did not state it clearly enough.Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

John 8:58 (I am; Does the Hebrew reveal?)John’s Logos

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Fri Dec 24 15:00:19 EST 1999

 

John’s Logos THEOS HGAPHSEN To: Ken Johnson,<< Where my new insight rest is not just on the word Logos but on the context of the previous phrase “en archee”, which is a Hebrew “In the Beginning” , not a Greek one. While John may have written his Gospel in Greek, his concept reflects a Hebraic origin. Based upon the assumption that John’s concept of en archee is Jewish, his thoughts about the beginning and creation will be completely foreign to Greek cosmology and, as a result, strike at the very core of the Gnostic heresies that he was probably battling at Ephesus in the late first century A.D. >>It is my personal opinion that the notion of a sharp distinction between a “Greek” mode of thinking versus a “Hebraic” mode of thinking is highly suspect, for the simple reason that there was no common “Greek” mode of thought, nor more than there was a common “Hebraic” mode of thought. But instead of going into what I think would probably be a fruitless debate, allow me to switch subjects here.The Jewish Publication society translates the beginning of Genesis differently than most Christian translations, they give:<< When God began to create heaven and earth — the earth being unformed and void … >>Whereas the NRSV has:<< In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void … >>It seems to me that the LXX conforms more to the Christian interpretation of Genesis 1:1. The Jewish position appears to be that there was already an earth before God began to create. In “The Torah: A Modern Commentary” by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, they note that the JPS translation follows the opinion of Rashi (an “outstanding commentator on the Bible and Talmud,” who lived in the 11th century CE). They go on to write: << Later scholars used the translation “In the beginning” as proof that God created out of nothing (ex nihilo), but it is not likely that the biblical author was concerned with this problem. >>If one were to take the JPS and the commentary by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations as presenting one Jewish POV, then the LXX translation must represent a different Jewish POV.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

John’s LogosTHEOS HGAPHSEN

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Steve Puluka spuluka at hotmail.com
Sat Dec 25 21:05:45 EST 1999

 

John 14:9 EIMI (was John 8:58) Cases >From: Steven Craig Miller <scmiller at www.plantnet.com>> >The Jewish Publication society translates the beginning of Genesis>differently than most Christian translations, they give:> ><< When God began to create (a) heaven and earth — the earth being>unformed and void … >>In the interest of full disclosure, my 1992 reprint of the 1985 edition of the JPS translation contains the following footnote to this text:a Others “In the beginning God Created”Presumably this refers to other Jewish translations of the Hebrew. I believe that most major Christian translations are also working from the Hebrew text as well.Steve PulukaAdult Education InstructorByzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburghhttp://arrive.at/byzantinecatholic______________________________________________________Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

 

John 14:9 EIMI (was John 8:58)Cases

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Sun Dec 26 19:01:36 EST 1999

 

Septuagint and Greek as a sacred language THEOS HGAPHSEN Interpretation of the Hebrew Tanakh vs the Greek LXX has little to do with the different translations of Gen. 1:1 as the Hebrew has been translated both ways as Steve has correctly pointed out, by Hebrew scholars.Steven is possibly working from the notion of the LXX influence on translating the Hebrew rendering of Gen. 1:1 into English, although I’m not convinced all translators who use, “In the beginning” are necessarily doing it only through consideration of the LXX and its influence on English bible format and translation.What I am saying has alot more going for it than the “timing” of the creation of the earth. It has to do with the facts that John quotes the OT much more than any synoptic writer, and was one of the Sons of Thunder, who suggested the Lord call down fire on the unbelieving Samaritans. He was a radical Palistinian Jew who was a strict monotheist. I just don’t believe, even as a Hellenistic Jew, he thought as much about saving Greek philosophers as Jewish unbelievers in Ephesus, who were everywhere their. But these are authorship and background issues that go even beyond the background of the use of vocabulary in a portion of Scripture.Lets remember Paul was Saul of Tarsus and steeped in Greek philosophy, but spent little time discussion doctrine along the lines of Grecian thought even when writing to Greeks in the Church. Christ came first to the lost sheep of Israel, and so did Paul and the other Apostles.The Jerusalem Church has much more to say on Christian beginnings/thought than the Church in Rome or Athens.But this is history and not grammar studies I’m talking about. But then again, who can study vocabulary usage fully without knowledge of historical/cultural backgrounds of that language’s usage and author? How and why should one feel he/she must do that?Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

Septuagint and Greek as a sacred languageTHEOS HGAPHSEN

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 27 10:39:38 EST 1999

 

Septuagint and Greek as a sacred language Question on John 17:3 At 7:01 PM -0500 12/26/99, KJohn36574 at aol.com wrote:>Interpretation of the Hebrew Tanakh vs the Greek LXX has little to do with>the different translations of Gen. 1:1 as the Hebrew has been translated both>ways as Steve has correctly pointed out, by Hebrew scholars.> >Steven is possibly working from the notion of the LXX influence on>translating the Hebrew rendering of Gen. 1:1 into English, although I’m not>convinced all translators who use, “In the beginning” are necessarily doing>it only through consideration of the LXX and its influence on English bible>format and translation.> >What I am saying has alot more going for it than the “timing” of the creation>of the earth. It has to do with the facts that John quotes the OT much more>than any synoptic writer, and was one of the Sons of Thunder, who suggested>the Lord call down fire on the unbelieving Samaritans. He was a radical>Palistinian Jew who was a strict monotheist. I just don’t believe, even as a>Hellenistic Jew, he thought as much about saving Greek philosophers as Jewish>unbelievers in Ephesus, who were everywhere their. But these are authorship>and background issues that go even beyond the background of the use of>vocabulary in a portion of Scripture.>Lets remember Paul was Saul of Tarsus and steeped in Greek philosophy, but>spent little time discussion doctrine along the lines of Grecian thought even>when writing to Greeks in the Church. Christ came first to the lost sheep of>Israel, and so did Paul and the other Apostles.>The Jerusalem Church has much more to say on Christian beginnings/thought>than the Church in Rome or Athens.> >But this is history and not grammar studies I’m talking about. But then>again, who can study vocabulary usage fully without knowledge of>historical/cultural backgrounds of that language’s usage and author? How and>why should one feel he/she must do that?I’d be careful about just what we can assume is history and just how surewe may assume these assumptions you’re taking for granted about the authorof the gospel of John. No, this isn’t the place to discuss those questions(there is a list for discussion of gospel of John, and another list fordiscussion of Paul, yet another for discussion of the Synoptic gospels).The only point I’m trying to make here is that when you write, “What I amsaying has a lot more going for it than …,” you need to be aware thatthere may well be challenges to other things that you’re confident are”going for” your perspective. You dare not assume that others will shareyour notions of what is ‘self-evident’ about the “history” underlying thecomposition of the gospels. There is very little in this area that is notsubject to considerable dispute.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Septuagint and Greek as a sacred languageQuestion on John 17:3

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Stevens, Charles C Charles.Stevens at unisys.com
Wed Dec 29 12:48:36 EST 1999

 

OIKODOMHQH in John 2:20 Luke 2:2 On 24 December 1999 at 12:00PM, .Steven Craig Miller wrote: << The Jewish Publication society translates the beginning of Genesis differently than most Christian translations, they give:<< When God began to create heaven and earth — the earth being unformed and void … >><snip> If one were to take the JPS and the commentary by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations as presenting one Jewish POV, then the LXX translationmust represent a different Jewish POV.>>”The New Jerome Biblical Commentary” article on Genesis 1:1 takes a similarposition, further commenting that the usual English translation “In thebeginning …” (from memory, now; my printed copy is at home:) was “whiletraditional since at least the 2nd century BC as evidenced in the LXX, isunlikely” based on parallel passages and similar usages elsewhere in the OT.Point being, this is not an exclusively *Jewish* perspective; the NJBC bearsboth imprimatur and nihil obstat. I for one have no doubt whatever that John 1:1ff is a conscious reflectionof LXX Gen 1:1ff, but I don’t hold that that means we should interpret Gen1:1ff in any particular way. <<The Jewish position appears to be that there was already an earth before God began to create. >>No, I don’t see that as being required by the Hebrew. “The earth [whosecreation was being begun] being without form and void [until the details anddifferentiations subsequently described herein were brought into being] “strikes me as supportable. The verb forms in the Hebrew of this portion of Genesis strike me as being aparticularly fascinating study. But that, of course, is off-topic for thislist (except perhaps insofar as the LXX reflects, or fails to reflect, thoseverb forms). -Chuck Stevens

 

OIKODOMHQH in John 2:20Luke 2:2

1 John 1:1

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Ilvgrammta at aol.com Ilvgrammta at aol.com
Mon Dec 20 14:15:08 EST 1999

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Dear ers,1 John 1:5 reads:hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO EQEASAMEQA KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS.In his _First John Reader_ S.M. Baugh writes that THS ZWHS is a “genitive of connection.” (where the word in the genitive highlights the subject matter of discourse. In this case, the “word of life.”)What is a genitive of connection? Is this another category formulated to classify and tag syntactical functions? I’ve looked in other grammars and have yet to find a “genitive of connection.” Maybe I’ve been looking in the wrong places, but I would love to know more about this subject.Edgar Foster

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Kevin W. Woodruff cierpke at prodigy.net
Mon Dec 20 14:24:36 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Actually the verse is 1 John 1:1 and I think that most would say that is adescriptive genetiveAt 02:15 PM 12/20/1999 EST, you wrote:>Dear ers,> >1 John 1:5 reads:> >hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO EQEASAMEQA >KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS.> >In his _First John Reader_ S.M. Baugh writes that THS ZWHS is a “genitive of >connection.” (where the word in the genitive highlights the subject matter of >discourse. In this case, the “word of life.”)> >What is a genitive of connection? Is this another category formulated to >classify and tag syntactical functions? I’ve looked in other grammars and >have yet to find a “genitive of connection.” Maybe I’ve been looking in the >wrong places, but I would love to know more about this subject.> >Edgar Foster> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: cierpke at prodigy.net>To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div.Library Director/Reference LibrarianProfessor of New Testament GreekCierpke Memorial LibraryTennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404United States of America423/493-4252 (office)423/698-9447 (home)423/493-4497 (FAX)Cierpke at prodigy.net (preferred)kwoodruf at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate)http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 20 14:34:07 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? At 2:15 PM -0500 12/20/99, Ilvgrammta at aol.com wrote:>Dear ers,> >1 John 1:5 reads:> >hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO EQEASAMEQA>KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS.> >In his _First John Reader_ S.M. Baugh writes that THS ZWHS is a “genitive of>connection.” (where the word in the genitive highlights the subject matter of>discourse. In this case, the “word of life.”)> >What is a genitive of connection? Is this another category formulated to>classify and tag syntactical functions? I’ve looked in other grammars and>have yet to find a “genitive of connection.” Maybe I’ve been looking in the>wrong places, but I would love to know more about this subject.I’m almost glad you’ve asked this question, Edgar. Of course I’ve neverheard of the term either, but if I were writing my own grammar (and it’s aLOT easier to criticize others who attempt it), I rather think that I mightuse that term in preference to what I’ve learned to call the”Pertinentive”–the standard usage of the genitive to relate any one nounto any other;it’s a structural designation and doesn’t have a definedsemantic function at all, which means it is commonly used adjectivally; Iwould distinguish it (as I gather some others would not) from an ablativalgenitive where separation is fundamental to a semantic function and from apartitive genitive, where there’s a semantic function also. I don’t thinkthat calling ZWHS a “genitive of connection” tells us a thing about whatthe relationship between ZWH and LOGOS actually is, only that ZWH dependsupon LOGOS and further distinguishes LOGOS as would any sort of descriptiveor delimiting adjective or adjectival phrase.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Dec 20 15:03:24 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? To: Edgar Foster,Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I present below with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is life.”(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.”(c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about life.”But Brown’s translation merely gives: “about the word of life.”-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Daniel Buck dbuck at briercrest.ca
Mon Dec 20 14:56:54 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? —– Original Message —–From: Kevin W. WoodruffSubject: Re: 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?> Actually the verse is 1 John 1:1 and I think that most would say that is a> descriptive genetiveActually may I suggest a couple other alternatives for understanding thesyntax: (1) a genitive of apposition, meaning “the word which is life,”where the “word” is understood as life itself; (2) an attributive genitive,meaning “the life-giving word,” (Gospel of John 6:35 “the bread of life” and8:12); or (3) an objective genitive, meaning “the word about life,” where”life” is the object of the message, that which is spoken about or revealed.The third option seems most appropriate, because when TOU LOGOU is followedby an impersonal genitive, the genitive usually denotes the content of themessage. Note also that in 1:2 “the eternal life” is the object of theapostolic proclamation.Daniel E. BuckBriercrest Bible CollegeAssistant Professor NT/Theologyhttp://www.briercrest.ca

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 20 15:23:43 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? At 2:03 PM -0600 12/20/99, Steven Craig Miller wrote:>To: Edgar Foster,> >Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I present below>with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.> >(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is>life.”>(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.”>(c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about>life.”> >But Brown’s translation merely gives: “about the word of life.”And rightly so! What’s useful about the term “connective” or “pertinentive”genitive and the recognition that it is only a structural, not a semanticcase is that one comes (hopefully) to realize that most of thesub-categories of the grammars such as the above are strategies forconveying the Greek construction into a target language and have nothing todo with the “meaning” conveyed by the Greek; these categories show how wein English (or others in other languages) make semantic distinctions thatthe Greek, so far as we know, wasn’t ever thinking about.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Mon Dec 20 16:17:32 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? In a message dated 12/20/99 2:16:25 PM Central Daylight Time, Ilvgrammta at aol.com writes:<< 1 John 1:5 reads: hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO EQEASAMEQA KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS. In his _First John Reader_ S.M. Baugh writes that THS ZWHS is a “genitive of connection.” (where the word in the genitive highlights the subject matter of discourse. In this case, the “word of life.”) What is a genitive of connection? Is this another category formulated to classify and tag syntactical functions? I’ve looked in other grammars and have yet to find a “genitive of connection.” Maybe I’ve been looking in the wrong places, but I would love to know more about this subject. >><A HREF=”http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/text?lookup=smyth+1380&vers=english&display=SMK&browse=1″>Genitive of Connection — Smyth</A>gfsomsel

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Dec 20 16:25:57 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? To: Daniel Buck,Steven Craig Miller wrote: << Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I present below with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is life.”(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.”(c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about life.” >>Daniel Buck wrote: << Actually may I suggest a couple other alternatives for understanding the syntax: (1) a genitive of apposition, meaning “the word which is life,” where the “word” is understood as life itself; (2) an attributive genitive, meaning “the life-giving word,” (Gospel of John 6:35 “the bread of life” and 8:12); or (3) an objective genitive, meaning “the word about life,” where “life” is the object of the message, that which is spoken about or revealed. >>It is amazing how you and Brown think so much alike! <grin>-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Mon Dec 20 16:23:39 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? On Mon 20 Dec 1999 (14:15:08), ilvgrammta at aol.com wrote:> hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO> EQEASAMEQA KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS.> > In his _First John Reader_ S.M. Baugh writes that THS ZWHS is a> “genitive of connection.” (where the word in the genitive highlights> the subject matter of discourse. In this case, the “word of life.”) Dear Edgar, For my money it’s a Hebraism; a literal rendering into Greek of the Hebrew phrase D:BaR-HaCaYYiYM, “Word-of Life”. Hebrew being short of adjectives, the “construct relationship” can be used to turn a noun into an adjective; here “Word-of Life” for “Living Word”. The writer is claiming to be an eyewitness of the One who is the Word made flesh, the enfleshed LOGOS, identified in verse 3 as Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. The “eternal life” THN ZWHN THN AIWNION (verse 2) is a reference to Christ’s Resurrection, which the writer claims to have seen and heard. ERRWSQE, Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Mon Dec 20 16:30:01 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Mk 8:35-37, YUCH In a message dated 12/20/99 2:16:25 PM Central Daylight Time, Ilvgrammta at aol.com writes:<< 1 John 1:5 reads: hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO EQEASAMEQA KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS. >> I confess to being very poor at reading Greek in transliteration, but isn’t this 1 John 1.1 rather than 1.5?gfsomsel

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?Mk 8:35-37, YUCH

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Dec 20 16:36:24 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? To: Carl W. Conrad,SCM: << Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I present below with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is life.”(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.”(c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about life.”But Brown’s translation merely gives: “about the word of life.” >>CWC: << And rightly so! What’s useful about the term “connective” or “pertinentive” genitive and the recognition that it is only a structural, not a semantic case is that one comes (hopefully) to realize that most of the sub-categories of the grammars such as the above are strategies for conveying the Greek construction into a target language and have nothing to do with the “meaning” conveyed by the Greek; these categories show how we in English (or others in other languages) make semantic distinctions that the Greek, so far as we know, wasn’t ever thinking about. >>Although what you say here is often true, I’m not for sure that it completely applies in this instance. As for the three interpretation given above, I’m unsure what ‘a’ is supposed to mean, unless perhaps it is saying the same thing as ‘b.’ But it seems to me that ‘b’ and ‘c’ are saying two different things. ‘B’ seems to refer to a “word” which can give life. And ‘c’ seems to refer to a “message” about life. Yes?-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 20 17:10:04 EST 1999

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Philippians 2:6 At 3:36 PM -0600 12/20/99, Steven Craig Miller wrote:>To: Carl W. Conrad,> >SCM: << Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I>present below with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.>(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is>life.”>(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.”>(c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about>life.”>But Brown’s translation merely gives: “about the word of life.” >>> >CWC: << And rightly so! What’s useful about the term “connective” or>“pertinentive” genitive and the recognition that it is only a structural,>not a semantic case is that one comes (hopefully) to realize that most of>the sub-categories of the grammars such as the above are strategies for>conveying the Greek construction into a target language and have nothing to>do with the “meaning” conveyed by the Greek; these categories show how we>in English (or others in other languages) make semantic distinctions that>the Greek, so far as we know, wasn’t ever thinking about. >>> >Although what you say here is often true, I’m not for sure that it>completely applies in this instance. As for the three interpretation given>above, I’m unsure what ‘a’ is supposed to mean, unless perhaps it is saying>the same thing as ‘b.’ But it seems to me that ‘b’ and ‘c’ are saying two>different things. ‘B’ seems to refer to a “word” which can give life. And>‘c’ seems to refer to a “message” about life. Yes?Perhaps we’re talking about different things. I’m saying that those threeinterpretations of the genitive are not items of Greek grammar butstrategies for conversion of what in Greek is unspecified into an Englishthat demands “nicer” or “more transparent” expressions of the possiblemeaning. In fact, I think when we say (you say? Brown says?) “it could be a…”–if we really MEAN that “it COULD be …” — we imply that the Greektext itself doesn’t give us any clue about WHICH of these makes the bestsense. I think that English “of” + a noun is often every bit as vague asthe Greek genitive of a noun linked to another noun. CertainlyGreek-speakers chose to use prepositions when they wanted to distinguishmore sharply how they were using genitive-case forms, but when they didn’t,they sent non-Greek-speakers on a wild-goose chase searching for categoriesinto which to put the genitive uses.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCHPhilippians 2:6

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Blahoslav Cicel cbmost at iol.cz
Tue Dec 21 04:21:18 EST 1999

 

Philippians 2:6 Philippians 2:6 Dne Po, 20 prosinec 1999 jste napsal(a):Steven C Miller:> Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I > present below with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is life.”(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.” (c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about life.”But Brown’s translation merely gives: “about the word of life.”Carl W Conrad:And rightly so! What’s useful about the term “connective” or”pertinentive” genitive and the recognition that it is only a structural,not a semantic case is that one comes (hopefully) to realize that most ofthe sub-categories of the grammars such as the above are strategies forconveying the Greek construction into a target language and have nothing todo with the “meaning” conveyed by the Greek; these categories show how wein English (or others in other languages) make semantic distinctions thatthe Greek, so far as we know, wasn’t ever thinking about. >>SCM…Although what you say here is often true, I’m not for sure that itcompletely applies in this instance. As for the three interpretation givenabove, I’m unsure what ‘a’ is supposed to mean, unless perhaps it is sayingthe same thing as ‘b.’ But it seems to me that ‘b’ and ‘c’ are saying twodifferent things. ‘B’ seems to refer to a “word” which can give life. And’c’ seems to refer to a “message” about life. Yes?CWC… Perhaps we’re talking about different things. I’m saying that those threeinterpretations of the genitive are not items of Greek grammar butstrategies for conversion of what in Greek is unspecified into an Englishthat demands “nicer” or “more transparent” expressions of the possiblemeaning. In fact, I think when we say (you say? Brown says?) “it could be a…”–if we really MEAN that “it COULD be …” — we imply that the Greekttext itself doesn’t give us any clue about WHICH of these makes the bestsense. I think that English “of” + a noun is often every bit as vague asthe Greek genitive of a noun linked to another noun. CertainlyGreek-speakers chose to use prepositions when they wanted to distinguishmore sharply how they were using genitive-case forms, but when they didn’t,they sent non-Greek-speakers on a wild-goose chase searching for categoriesinto which to put the genitive uses.Blaho:It is interesting to see how people speaking digfferent languages have to havedifferent approach to the translation of greek (or wchichever secondlanguage…). The english speaking poeple MUST to do an exegesis whentranslating PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS. We translate it one to one and have not towork out grammatic categories. It is (in czech) o slove zivota. Let thepreacher makes the exegesis 😉 In german it is similar: vom Wort des Lebens.And Carl is right when stating that the greek says nothing more than the ZWH isconnected with the LOGOS.The exegesis has to see the context. My guess is, that John speaking PERITOU LOGOU THS ZWHS speaks about Jesus. See v.2 and cf with John 1:1-3.Blahopastor, Church of Brothers, Most, Czech rep.

 

Philippians 2:6 Philippians 2:6

James 5:13

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Mon Jan 3 11:22:01 EST 2000

 

Subject: James 5:13-19 Ign. Eph. 15:3 At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN, EXhWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON. “He/It will be made manifest before our face(i.e., he will be revealed to us OR it will be made clear to us)…” Butthen what do you make of the plural relative hWN following thepreposition EX?– Bart Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

 

Subject: James 5:13-19Ign. Eph. 15:3

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jan 3 12:14:48 EST 2000

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Subject: James 5:13-19 At 11:22 AM -0500 1/3/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN, EX>hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON. “He/It will be made manifest before our face>(i.e., he will be revealed to us OR it will be made clear to us)…” But>then what do you make of the plural relative hWN following the>preposition EX?I love these puzzles you keep throwing at us. One thought that comes to mymind immediately is that EX hWN is one of those prepositional phrasesintroducing a clause wherein antecedent is implicitly squeezed into therelative, so that we should understand something like EKEINA/TAUTA EX hWNDIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON, which could conceivably be the subject of FANHSETAIPRO PROSWPOU hHMWN; hence: “Those factors in consequence of which werightly love him will be manifested before us.” i.e. perhaps the subject ofFANHSETAI is NOT Christ but rather the relative clause as a substantive.(Well, it seemed worth trying …)Alternatively (I obviously don’t have the larger context PRO PROSWPOU MOU),is there anything in the preceding text that could provide an antecedent tohWN? It could be neuter plural even if relatively vague.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3Subject: James 5:13-19

Ign. Eph. 15:3 James Ernest jernest at hendrickson.com
Mon Jan 3 12:53:34 EST 2000

 

Subject: James 5:13-19 “Enemy” as gloss for EXQROS (and Sin, Nun, Aleph) Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) asrough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historicalidentify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent? Idon’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badlyif I’m just being dumb here…. I would try checking BDF and maybe somesearches in electronic texts.James Ernest—–Original Message—–From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 12:15 PMTo: Biblical GreekCc: Biblical GreekSubject: Re: Ign. Eph. 15:3At 11:22 AM -0500 1/3/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN,EX>hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON. “He/It will be made manifest before ourface>(i.e., he will be revealed to us OR it will be made clear to us)…”But>then what do you make of the plural relative hWN following the>preposition EX?I love these puzzles you keep throwing at us. One thought that comes tomymind immediately is that EX hWN is one of those prepositional phrasesintroducing a clause wherein antecedent is implicitly squeezed into therelative, so that we should understand something like EKEINA/TAUTA EXhWNDIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON, which could conceivably be the subject ofFANHSETAIPRO PROSWPOU hHMWN; hence: “Those factors in consequence of which werightly love him will be manifested before us.” i.e. perhaps the subjectofFANHSETAI is NOT Christ but rather the relative clause as a substantive.(Well, it seemed worth trying …)Alternatively (I obviously don’t have the larger context PRO PROSWPOUMOU),is there anything in the preceding text that could provide an antecedenttohWN? It could be neuter plural even if relatively vague.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/— home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/You are currently subscribed to as: jernest at hendrickson.comTo unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu

 

Subject: James 5:13-19″Enemy” as gloss for EXQROS (and Sin, Nun, Aleph)

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Alex / Ali alexali at surf.net.au
Tue Jan 4 07:34:17 EST 2000

 

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Ign. Eph. 15:3 (fwd) Bart Ehrman asked about Ign. Eph. 15:3 where “we read FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOUhMWN, EX hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON.”Bart,Like Carl, I enjoy your queries. I think James Ernest was right in takingEX hWN as a “rough equivalent for ‘therefore’ “. The DIKAIWS and AGAPWMENare interesting, too. Without knowing the context, I’d be inclined to takethe AGAPWMEN as (hortatory) subjunctive rather than indicative, and wonderif there’s justification in taking DIKAIWS not so much as “in a just manner”but (roughly) “as is right/fitting”, suggesting a gloss such as “so, as isright, let us love him”.Alex HopkinsMelbourne, AustraliaPS Was there no digest for January 02, 2000? None received here.

 

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesIgn. Eph. 15:3 (fwd)

Ign. Eph. 15:3 (fwd) Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Tue Jan 4 08:28:12 EST 2000

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3 The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Glad *you* love them. 🙂 Responses seriatim, below.On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> At 11:22 AM -0500 1/3/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> > At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN, EX> >hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON. “He/It will be made manifest before our face> >(i.e., he will be revealed to us OR it will be made clear to us)…” But> >then what do you make of the plural relative hWN following the> >preposition EX?> > I love these puzzles you keep throwing at us. One thought that comes to my> mind immediately is that EX hWN is one of those prepositional phrases> introducing a clause wherein antecedent is implicitly squeezed into the> relative, so that we should understand something like EKEINA/TAUTA EX hWN> DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON, which could conceivably be the subject of FANHSETAI> PRO PROSWPOU hHMWN; hence: “Those factors in consequence of which we> rightly love him will be manifested before us.” i.e. perhaps the subject of> FANHSETAI is NOT Christ but rather the relative clause as a substantive.> (Well, it seemed worth trying …) Yes, this was the direction I was heading as well, understanding therelative to contain an implied demonstrative. But I thought it wouldprobably be looking forward instead of back in the sentence; there’salready a clear subject for FANHSETAI — actually two possibly clearsubjects (!). The preceding sentence is “Let us therefore do all thingswhile (because?) he is dwelling in us, that we might be his temples and hemight be our God in us, which very thing he is.” KAI FANHSEAI PROPROSWPOU hHMWN…. So the subject is either “God” (He will be manifestto us) or the verb is impersonal (“It/This will be made clear tous…). It would seem to be stretching it to have the implieddemonstrative in EX hWN be the subject. My initial impulse had been to take the demonstrative to refer tothings “done uprightly” as acts of love, so that the clause EX hWN DIKAIWSAGAPWMMEN AUTON would loosely be rendered something like “by the uprightdeeds that we do out of love for him” Sometimes this seems to get thesense right for me; other times not. Problems with it: it takes DIKAIWSnot with AGAPWMEN, as one would expect, but with some kind of implied verb(“do”) relating to the EX hWN; and it would leave the relationship of thatverb to AGAPWMEN uncertain. (This means, I think, that it has difficultyaccounting for the relationship of just about all the words in the clause:-)) So I don’t know if this works or not. Further reflections?> > Alternatively (I obviously don’t have the larger context PRO PROSWPOU MOU),> is there anything in the preceding text that could provide an antecedent to> hWN? It could be neuter plural even if relatively vague.> The only plurals (apart from “us”) in the preceding (quoted above) are”all things” (let us do all things) and “temples” (that we might be histemples); both seem too remote to be of much use. Thanks for your thoughts. Any others would be welcome!– BartBart D. EhrmanUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics/Washington University> One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018> Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/>

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3The Purpose of Syntactical Categories

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Tue Jan 4 08:37:23 EST 2000

 

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories The Purpose of Syntactical Categories It appears to be taken this way by other translators, but thecommentators pass over it without a note (making me think that there’ssomething obvious here that I’m missing), and I haven’t been able to findanything quite like it anywhere (which probably means it’s all over themap). If you do run across a clear parallel, let me know. (There’ssomething kind of *similar* in the preceding chapter, btw: “Thus who claimto belong to Christ will be seen through the things they do” DI hWNPRASSOUSIN OFQHSONTiAI). Thanks,– BartBart D. EhrmanUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillOn Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent? I> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly> if I’m just being dumb here…. I would try checking BDF and maybe some> searches in electronic texts.> > James Ernest> > > —–Original Message—–> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 12:15 PM> To: Biblical Greek> Cc: Biblical Greek> Subject: Re: Ign. Eph. 15:3> > > At 11:22 AM -0500 1/3/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> > At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN,> EX> >hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON. “He/It will be made manifest before our> face> >(i.e., he will be revealed to us OR it will be made clear to us)…”> But> >then what do you make of the plural relative hWN following the> >preposition EX?> > I love these puzzles you keep throwing at us. One thought that comes to> my> mind immediately is that EX hWN is one of those prepositional phrases> introducing a clause wherein antecedent is implicitly squeezed into the> relative, so that we should understand something like EKEINA/TAUTA EX> hWN> DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON, which could conceivably be the subject of> FANHSETAI> PRO PROSWPOU hHMWN; hence: “Those factors in consequence of which we> rightly love him will be manifested before us.” i.e. perhaps the subject> of> FANHSETAI is NOT Christ but rather the relative clause as a substantive.> (Well, it seemed worth trying …)> > Alternatively (I obviously don’t have the larger context PRO PROSWPOU> MOU),> is there anything in the preceding text that could provide an antecedent> to> hWN? It could be neuter plural even if relatively vague.> > > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics/Washington University> One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018> Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: jernest at hendrickson.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to> $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: behrman at email.unc.edu> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

 

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesThe Purpose of Syntactical Categories

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Tue Jan 4 08:40:57 EST 2000

 

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? James, Well, a reader response critic would be having a field day with how I’mhandling my e-mail this morning — seeing words that I expect to seeinstead of the ones staring me in the face….. I don’t know of anyonetaking EX hWN as “therefore,” but people often *do* take it as”because” (“out of such things” = because?). — BartBart EhrmanUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillOn Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent? I> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly> if I’m just being dumb here…. I would try checking BDF and maybe some> searches in electronic texts.> > James Ernest> > > —–Original Message—–> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 12:15 PM> To: Biblical Greek> Cc: Biblical Greek> Subject: Re: Ign. Eph. 15:3> > > At 11:22 AM -0500 1/3/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> > At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN,> EX> >hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON. “He/It will be made manifest before our> face> >(i.e., he will be revealed to us OR it will be made clear to us)…”> But> >then what do you make of the plural relative hWN following the> >preposition EX?> > I love these puzzles you keep throwing at us. One thought that comes to> my> mind immediately is that EX hWN is one of those prepositional phrases> introducing a clause wherein antecedent is implicitly squeezed into the> relative, so that we should understand something like EKEINA/TAUTA EX> hWN> DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON, which could conceivably be the subject of> FANHSETAI> PRO PROSWPOU hHMWN; hence: “Those factors in consequence of which we> rightly love him will be manifested before us.” i.e. perhaps the subject> of> FANHSETAI is NOT Christ but rather the relative clause as a substantive.> (Well, it seemed worth trying …)> > Alternatively (I obviously don’t have the larger context PRO PROSWPOU> MOU),> is there anything in the preceding text that could provide an antecedent> to> hWN? It could be neuter plural even if relatively vague.> > > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics/Washington University> One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018> Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: jernest at hendrickson.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to> $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: behrman at email.unc.edu> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

 

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesTemple and New world translation of holy scriptures?

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Tue Jan 4 08:45:03 EST 2000

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? The Purpose of Syntactical Categories OK, thanks. This might work if the sentence was repunctuated with afull stop after hMWN and the FANHSETAI clause is taken with the precedingsentence. Then it would be something like … and he is our God in us,which very thing both is and will be manifest before us. For thesereasons, let us love him in an upright way.” Do you know of any parallels to this usage?– Bart EhrmanOn Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Alex / Ali wrote:> Bart Ehrman asked about Ign. Eph. 15:3 where “we read FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU> hMWN, EX hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON.”> > Bart,> > Like Carl, I enjoy your queries. I think James Ernest was right in taking> EX hWN as a “rough equivalent for ‘therefore’ “. The DIKAIWS and AGAPWMEN> are interesting, too. Without knowing the context, I’d be inclined to take> the AGAPWMEN as (hortatory) subjunctive rather than indicative, and wonder> if there’s justification in taking DIKAIWS not so much as “in a just manner”> but (roughly) “as is right/fitting”, suggesting a gloss such as “so, as is> right, let us love him”.> > Alex Hopkins> Melbourne, Australia> > PS Was there no digest for January 02, 2000? None received here.> > >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: behrman at email.unc.edu> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?The Purpose of Syntactical Categories

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jan 4 08:48:25 EST 2000

 

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Digest for January 2, 2000 I should add here, for what it’s worth, that when I saw James Ernest’s noteon this I felt instinctively that he was right. Of course, as Bart says,one would like to know something is right by something stronger thaninstinct. What occurred to me is that DI’ hWN is probably one of thosephrases comparable to Latin QUAPROPTER or QUAMOBREM or DE QUA CAUSA whichtend to become single words or phrases with a single sense, all synonymousin the sense of “therefore.” There are so many such compounds; I recall aninteresting thread a couple years back on hINATI = hINA TI.At 8:37 AM -0500 1/4/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> It appears to be taken this way by other translators, but the>commentators pass over it without a note (making me think that there’s>something obvious here that I’m missing), and I haven’t been able to find>anything quite like it anywhere (which probably means it’s all over the>map). If you do run across a clear parallel, let me know. (There’s>something kind of *similar* in the preceding chapter, btw: “Thus who claim>to belong to Christ will be seen through the things they do” DI hWN>PRASSOUSIN OFQHSONTiAI).> > Thanks,> >— Bart> >Bart D. Ehrman>University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> > > >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> >> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as>> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical>> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent? I>> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly>> if I’m just being dumb here…. I would try checking BDF and maybe some>> searches in electronic texts.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesDigest for January 2, 2000

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Tue Jan 4 10:00:26 EST 2000

 

Digest for January 2, 2000 The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Personally, when Paul uses a different construction I don’t say to myself”he just meant the same thing as if he had said…” because if he had wantedto say … he would have said …. and so I look for what might be a subtlebut profound difference.For an inquiry into a very profound difference, look at the similar sectionin Romans 5:12Romans 5:12DIA TOUTO WSPER DI ENOS ANQRWPOU H AMARTIA EIS TON KOSMONEISHLQEN KAI DIA THS AMARTIAS O QANATOS KAI OUTWS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS OQANATOS DIHLQEN ****EF W**** PANTES HMARTON (breathing marks omitted)The words EF hW are commonly translated “because.” I personally object tothis. In the same sentence Paul uses DIA for that purpose. The words areliterally “upon which” as in Acts 7:33:Acts 7:33 EIPEN DE AUTW O KURIOS LUSON TO UPODHMA TWN PODWN SOU O GAR TOPOS****EF W**** ESTHKAS GH AGIA ESTINThis leads me to the conclusion that, to Paul, the first phrase is theantecedent of the second, not the result. That is “all died, upon which [EFW] all sinned” not “all died, because [DIA] all sinned”Bill RossTo download John 1:1-3 in Koine set to music, go to the download page at:http://members.xoom.com/woundedego

 

Digest for January 2, 2000The Purpose of Syntactical Categories

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Bill Rodgers billfred at erols.com
Tue Jan 4 12:08:25 EST 2000

 

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Bart and Carl:  I would like to make two points:l.  You may well be right  about hINATI.    This is certainly what has happened withGIATI in modern Greek.2.  But I think I might still read it another way.  The full sentence reads:  PANTAOUN POIWMEN WS AUTOU EN hMIN KATOIKOUNTOS, hINA WMEN AUTOU NAOI KAI AUTOS EN hMINQEOS hMWN, OPER KAI ESTIN KAI FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN, EX hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMENAUTON.I would translate:  “Since he dwells within us, let us do all things so that we maybe his temples and he may be our God within us, and since he is and will be presentbefore us, by these means let us rightly love him.”I see “PANTA” as the antecedent to “EX hWN,”  and read both POIWMEN AND AGAPWMEN ashortatory.Bill Rodgers “Carl W. Conrad” wrote:> I should add here, for what it’s worth, that when I saw James Ernest’s note> on this I felt instinctively that he was right. Of course, as Bart says,> one would like to know something is right by something stronger than> instinct. What occurred to me is that DI’ hWN is probably one of those> phrases comparable to Latin QUAPROPTER or QUAMOBREM or DE QUA CAUSA which> tend to become single words or phrases with a single sense, all synonymous> in the sense of “therefore.” There are so many such compounds; I recall an> interesting thread a couple years back on hINATI = hINA TI.> > At 8:37 AM -0500 1/4/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> >   It appears to be taken this way by other translators, but the> >commentators pass over it without a note (making me think that there’s> >something obvious here that I’m missing), and I haven’t been able to find> >anything quite like it anywhere (which probably means it’s all over the> >map).  If you do run across a clear parallel, let me know.  (There’s> >something kind of *similar* in the preceding chapter, btw: “Thus who claim> >to belong to Christ will be seen through the things they do” DI hWN> >PRASSOUSIN OFQHSONTiAI).> >> >   Thanks,> >> >– Bart> >> >Bart D. Ehrman> >University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> >> >> >> >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> >> >> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as> >> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical> >> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent?  I> >> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly> >> if I’m just being dumb here….  I would try checking BDF and maybe some> >> searches in electronic texts.> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics/Washington University> One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018> Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: billfred at erols.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: billfred.vcfType: text/x-vcardSize: 138 bytesDesc: Card for Bill RodgersUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20000104/cc000500/attachment.vcf

 

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesThe Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4?

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Tue Jan 4 12:16:29 EST 2000

 

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Ign. Eph. 15:3 Thanks for the suggestion! So are you taking hOPER to mean “since”?– Bart Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel HillOn Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Bill Rodgers wrote:> Bart and Carl:  I would like to make two points:> > l.  You may well be right  about hINATI.    This is certainly what has happened with> GIATI in modern Greek.> > 2.  But I think I might still read it another way.  The full sentence reads:  PANTA> OUN POIWMEN WS AUTOU EN hMIN KATOIKOUNTOS, hINA WMEN AUTOU NAOI KAI AUTOS EN hMIN> QEOS hMWN, OPER KAI ESTIN KAI FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN, EX hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN> AUTON.> > I would translate: “Since he dwells within us, let us do all things so> that we may be his temples and he may be our God within us, and since> he is and will be present before us, by these means let us rightly> love him.”> > I see “PANTA” as the antecedent to “EX hWN,”  and read both POIWMEN AND AGAPWMEN as> hortatory.> > Bill Rodgers>  > > “Carl W. Conrad” wrote:> > > I should add here, for what it’s worth, that when I saw James Ernest’s note> > on this I felt instinctively that he was right. Of course, as Bart says,> > one would like to know something is right by something stronger than> > instinct. What occurred to me is that DI’ hWN is probably one of those> > phrases comparable to Latin QUAPROPTER or QUAMOBREM or DE QUA CAUSA which> > tend to become single words or phrases with a single sense, all synonymous> > in the sense of “therefore.” There are so many such compounds; I recall an> > interesting thread a couple years back on hINATI = hINA TI.> >> > At 8:37 AM -0500 1/4/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> > >   It appears to be taken this way by other translators, but the> > >commentators pass over it without a note (making me think that there’s> > >something obvious here that I’m missing), and I haven’t been able to find> > >anything quite like it anywhere (which probably means it’s all over the> > >map).  If you do run across a clear parallel, let me know.  (There’s> > >something kind of *similar* in the preceding chapter, btw: “Thus who claim> > >to belong to Christ will be seen through the things they do” DI hWN> > >PRASSOUSIN OFQHSONTiAI).> > >> > >   Thanks,> > >> > >– Bart> > >> > >Bart D. Ehrman> > >University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> > >> > >> > >> > >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> > >> > >> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as> > >> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical> > >> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent?  I> > >> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly> > >> if I’m just being dumb here….  I would try checking BDF and maybe some> > >> searches in electronic texts.> >> > Carl W. Conrad> > Department of Classics/Washington University> > One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018> > Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649> > cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> > WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> >> > —> > home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> > You are currently subscribed to as: billfred at erols.com> > To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave–389J at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>

 

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4?Ign. Eph. 15:3

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jan 4 12:17:17 EST 2000

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 At 9:00 AM -0600 1/4/00, Bill Ross wrote:>Personally, when Paul uses a different construction I don’t say to myself>“he just meant the same thing as if he had said…” because if he had wanted>to say … he would have said …. and so I look for what might be a subtle>but profound difference.Bill, I don’t want to say nor do I mean that you’re wrong about this, but Ido think you ought to consider an alternative to what you’re assertinghere. Do YOU, in writing an e-mail or in conversation, sometimes say “since…” and sometimes say “because …” without meaning any significantdifference whatsoever? I think it’s worth taking into account that, whileparts of Paul’s letters certainly are composed with painstaking rhetoricalintricacy, large parts of them are really formulated in very colloquiallanguage. If you EXPECT to find a subtle but profound difference in meaningin every exercise of an option for a different “synonym” you may very wellfind it because you’re expecting it, even if it isn’t there. So what I’mcautioning against here is the all too facile ASSUMPTION that differentphrasing means a profoundly different sense.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Tue Jan 4 12:19:23 EST 2000

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Thanks for the comment. Seems that EF hW has its own problems (i.e.,apart from EX nWN); I should think that context would affect how it’s tobe translated in each instance. What you understand your translation ofRom. 5:12 to *mean*? Also, how would you then translate Ign. Eph. 15:3?– Bart Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel HillOn Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Bill Ross wrote:> Personally, when Paul uses a different construction I don’t say to myself> “he just meant the same thing as if he had said…” because if he had wanted> to say … he would have said …. and so I look for what might be a subtle> but profound difference.> > For an inquiry into a very profound difference, look at the similar section> in Romans 5:12> > Romans 5:12DIA TOUTO WSPER DI ENOS ANQRWPOU H AMARTIA EIS TON KOSMON> EISHLQEN KAI DIA THS AMARTIAS O QANATOS KAI OUTWS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS O> QANATOS DIHLQEN ****EF W**** PANTES HMARTON (breathing marks omitted)> > The words EF hW are commonly translated “because.” I personally object to> this. In the same sentence Paul uses DIA for that purpose. The words are> literally “upon which” as in Acts 7:33:> > Acts 7:33 EIPEN DE AUTW O KURIOS LUSON TO UPODHMA TWN PODWN SOU O GAR TOPOS> ****EF W**** ESTHKAS GH AGIA ESTIN> > This leads me to the conclusion that, to Paul, the first phrase is the> antecedent of the second, not the result. That is “all died, upon which [EF> W] all sinned” not “all died, because [DIA] all sinned”> > Bill Ross> To download John 1:1-3 in Koine set to music, go to the download page at:> http://members.xoom.com/woundedego> > >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: behrman at email.unc.edu> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12The Purpose of Syntactical Categories

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Bill Rodgers billfred at erols.com
Tue Jan 4 13:02:36 EST 2000

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Bart:  I am taking hOPER (I see I slipped in the transliteration)  as “indeed” and readingit with the    KAI ESTIN.      A more literal reading of the three words would be “andwhich he indeed is…”  I think the hOPER is used to intensify the ESTIN.BillBart Ehrman wrote:>    Thanks for the suggestion!  So are you taking hOPER to mean “since”?> > — Bart Ehrman>    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> > On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Bill Rodgers wrote:> > > Bart and Carl:  I would like to make two points:> >> > l.  You may well be right  about hINATI.    This is certainly what has happened with> > GIATI in modern Greek.> >> > 2.  But I think I might still read it another way.  The full sentence reads:  PANTA> > OUN POIWMEN WS AUTOU EN hMIN KATOIKOUNTOS, hINA WMEN AUTOU NAOI KAI AUTOS EN hMIN> > QEOS hMWN, OPER KAI ESTIN KAI FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN, EX hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN> > AUTON.> >> > I would translate: “Since he dwells within us, let us do all things so> > that we may be his temples and he may be our God within us, and since> > he is and will be present before us, by these means let us rightly> > love him.”> >> > I see “PANTA” as the antecedent to “EX hWN,”  and read both POIWMEN AND AGAPWMEN as> > hortatory.> >> > Bill Rodgers> >> >> > “Carl W. Conrad” wrote:> >> > > I should add here, for what it’s worth, that when I saw James Ernest’s note> > > on this I felt instinctively that he was right. Of course, as Bart says,> > > one would like to know something is right by something stronger than> > > instinct. What occurred to me is that DI’ hWN is probably one of those> > > phrases comparable to Latin QUAPROPTER or QUAMOBREM or DE QUA CAUSA which> > > tend to become single words or phrases with a single sense, all synonymous> > > in the sense of “therefore.” There are so many such compounds; I recall an> > > interesting thread a couple years back on hINATI = hINA TI.> > >> > > At 8:37 AM -0500 1/4/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> > > >   It appears to be taken this way by other translators, but the> > > >commentators pass over it without a note (making me think that there’s> > > >something obvious here that I’m missing), and I haven’t been able to find> > > >anything quite like it anywhere (which probably means it’s all over the> > > >map).  If you do run across a clear parallel, let me know.  (There’s> > > >something kind of *similar* in the preceding chapter, btw: “Thus who claim> > > >to belong to Christ will be seen through the things they do” DI hWN> > > >PRASSOUSIN OFQHSONTiAI).> > > >> > > >   Thanks,> > > >> > > >– Bart> > > >> > > >Bart D. Ehrman> > > >University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> > > >> > > >> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as> > > >> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical> > > >> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent?  I> > > >> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly> > > >> if I’m just being dumb here….  I would try checking BDF and maybe some> > > >> searches in electronic texts.> > >> > > Carl W. Conrad> > > Department of Classics/Washington University> > > One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018> > > Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649> > > cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> > > WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> > >> > > —> > > home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> > > You are currently subscribed to as: billfred at erols.com> > > To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> > > To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: billfred.vcfType: text/x-vcardSize: 138 bytesDesc: Card for Bill RodgersUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20000104/a0f8dfd9/attachment.vcf

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Tue Jan 4 14:11:19 EST 2000

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 <Bill>…. and so I look for what might be a subtle but profound difference.<Carl>Bill, I don’t want to say nor do I mean that you’re wrong about this, but Ido think you ought to consider an alternative to what you’re assertinghere. Do YOU, in writing an e-mail or in conversation, sometimes say “since…” and sometimes say “because …” without meaning any significantdifference whatsoever?<Bill>Than you, Carl, for your balancing point, which certainly applies to manysituations where words are thoroughly interchangable. “Since” and “because”are indeed often used 100% synonymously with zero difference intended.On the other hand, DIA is so commonly used to mean “because” (ie: agency)that the sudden appearance of the words EF W (which appear only 4 times inthe NT) I feel demand that the reader suspect that there is a reason. Gliblyassuming that it is identical in meaning as “DIA” seem profoundly naive tome! Especially in the one verse in the NT that *seems to* be an explicitreference to “original sin.”And as I showed its usage in Acts 7:33, it need not be idiomatic at all.Bill Ross

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Tue Jan 4 14:47:55 EST 2000

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? Bill Ross wrote:> Bill, I don’t want to say nor do I mean that you’re wrong about this, but I> do think you ought to consider an alternative to what you’re asserting> here. Do YOU, in writing an e-mail or in conversation, sometimes say “since> …” and sometimes say “because …” without meaning any significant> difference whatsoever?> > <Bill>> Than you, Carl, for your balancing point, which certainly applies to many> situations where words are thoroughly interchangable. “Since” and “because”> are indeed often used 100% synonymously with zero difference intended.> > On the other hand, DIA is so commonly used to mean “because” (ie: agency)> that the sudden appearance of the words EF W (which appear only 4 times in> the NT) I feel demand that the reader suspect that there is a reason. Glibly> assuming that it is identical in meaning as “DIA” seem profoundly naive to> me! Especially in the one verse in the NT that *seems to* be an explicit> reference to “original sin.”> Bill,Given (a) that you haven’t taken into account here how DIA and EPH W areused inHellenistic literature outside the New Testament in your assertion aboutwhat theseterms can and cannot or do or do not mean , and (b) that you seem toimply that thesemantic range of a term used in any NT writing is to be determined byexamining onlythat term’s NT usage, I wonder whether your statement that anyone whosays DIA andEPH W are synonymous terms is naive and makes “glib” assumption, is notan instanceof petitio principii?> > And as I showed its usage in Acts 7:33, it need not be idiomatic at all.> Need not is not the same as is not. And without a full examination ofthe use of theterm in question in the culture in which NT writers operated and fromwhich theyderived the meanings of the words they used, I think your claim presumestoo much. SoI wonder whether you are not operating here from the assumption that theway Lukeuses the term is determinative for the way Paul uses it.Yours,Jeffrey Gibson–Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jan 4 15:36:43 EST 2000

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? At 1:11 PM -0600 1/4/00, Bill Ross wrote:><Bill>…. and so I look for what might be a subtle but profound difference.> ><Carl>>Bill, I don’t want to say nor do I mean that you’re wrong about this, but I>do think you ought to consider an alternative to what you’re asserting>here. Do YOU, in writing an e-mail or in conversation, sometimes say “since>…” and sometimes say “because …” without meaning any significant>difference whatsoever?> ><Bill>>Than you, Carl, for your balancing point, which certainly applies to many>situations where words are thoroughly interchangable. “Since” and “because”>are indeed often used 100% synonymously with zero difference intended.> >On the other hand, DIA is so commonly used to mean “because” (ie: agency)>that the sudden appearance of the words EF W (which appear only 4 times in>the NT) I feel demand that the reader suspect that there is a reason. Glibly>assuming that it is identical in meaning as “DIA” seem profoundly naive to>me! Especially in the one verse in the NT that *seems to* be an explicit>reference to “original sin.”> >And as I showed its usage in Acts 7:33, it need not be idiomatic at all.I’m going to come back to your original point in order to demonstrate moreprecisely what I meant–and this time I shall have to say that I do indeedthink that your argument is fallacious.You first wrote:>For an inquiry into a very profound difference, look at the similar section>in Romans 5:12> >Romans 5:12DIA TOUTO WSPER DI ENOS ANQRWPOU H AMARTIA EIS TON KOSMON>EISHLQEN KAI DIA THS AMARTIAS O QANATOS KAI OUTWS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS O>QANATOS DIHLQEN ****EF W**** PANTES HMARTON (breathing marks omitted)> >The words EF hW are commonly translated “because.” I personally object to>this. In the same sentence Paul uses DIA for that purpose.In fact, however, DIA is not used so simply; DIA is used with TOUTO, TOUTOreferring to the proposition that Paul has just previously stated and DIATOUTO points backward to that proposition as the ground of what is nowbeing stated. So it’s “For this reason (or ‘because of this’), just asthrough one man sin entered in …” Although DIA may be used with arelative pronoun that has fused with it (e.g. DIO = DI’ hO = ‘therefore’),DIA doesn’t ever function by itself as a causal adverb meaning ‘because’but rather as a preposition with an object, here TOUTO, ‘because of this’>The words are literally “upon which” as in Acts 7:33:> >Acts 7:33 EIPEN DE AUTWi hO KURIOS: LUSON TO hUPODHMA TWN PODWN SOU, hO>GAR >TOPOS EF’ hWi hESTHKAS GH hAGIA ESTIEF’ hWi here is only superficially comparable to the adverbial conjunctivephrase EF’ hWi; here EPI is the preposition used with a locative dative”upon” and the hWi is in this instance a relative pronoun referring back tothe antecedent TOPOS.>This leads me to the conclusion that, to Paul, the first phrase is the>antecedent of the second, not the result. That is “all died, upon which [EF>W] all sinned” not “all died, because [DIA] all sinned”Here are the four GNT texts wherein EF’ hWi appears, in every one of whichthe prepositional phrase EF’ hWi may legitimately be translated “because”or “since”:Rom 5:12 DIA TOUTO hWSPER DI’ hENOS ANQRWPOU hH hAMARTIA EIS TON KOSMONEISHLQEN KAI DIA THS hAMAARTIAS hO QANATOS, KAI hOUTWS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUShO QANATOS DIHLQEN, EF’ hWi PANTES hHMARTON (“… because/since they haveall sinned”)2 COR 5:4 KAI GAR hOI ONTES EN TWi SKHNEI STENAZOMEN BAROUMENOI, EF’ HWi OUQELOMEN EKDUSASQAI ALL’ EPENDUSASQAI, hINA KATAPOQHi TO QNHTON hUPO THSZWHS. (“… because/since we don’t want to strip naked but rather to put onnew clothes …”)Phil 3:12 OUC’ hOTI HDH ELABON H HDH TETELEIWMAI, DIWKW DE EI KAI KATALABW,EF’ hWi KAI KATELHMFQHN hUPO CRISTOU [IHSOU]. (“… because/since I toohave been gripped firmly by Christ [Jesus].”)Phil 4:12 ECARHN DE EN KURIWi MEGALWS hOTI HDH POTE ANEQALETE TO hUPER EMOUFRONEIN, EF’ hWi KAI EFRONEITE, HKAIREISQE DE. (“… because/since you wereindeed anxious (about me) but your timing was bad.”)In sum, there’s all the difference in the world between DIA TOUTO and EF’hWi; the former means “for this reason” or “because of this” or”therefore”, while the latter means “because” or “since” and functions asan adverbial conjunction introducing the clause explaining the reason forwhat was just asserted.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Alex / Ali alexali at surf.net.au
Wed Jan 5 09:13:02 EST 2000

 

THREAD CLOSED: Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? Men Only Bart Ehrman asked about examples of the use of EX hWN.My quick search did not find an example in a sense near enough to thosesuggested; but M&M – see under hOS – has some interesting examples of hOSwith prepositions (one of EF’ hWi, which was also mentioned in the postingsof yesterday’s digest); there is an example of EX hOU glossed as”therefore”; M&M’s article on EK also contains material that may berelevant to you, perhaps especially the causal sense (which can beparalleled in the NT). If you need examples of EX hWN, the Duke Databank ofDocumentary Papyri, under Perseus, may help.Alex Hopkins

 

THREAD CLOSED: Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?Men Only

Ephesians 2:3

[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 John Butzu jbutzu at gmail.com
Tue Mar 24 10:48:13 EDT 2009

 

[] Zhubert’s daily greek read [] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 ———- Forwarded message ———-From: John Butzu <jbutzu at gmail.com>Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:01 AMSubject: Ephesians 2:1-3To: at lists.ibiblio.orgHello. Could someone please explain to me why in Ephesians 2:1 the greekword ONTAS is translated as being in the past tense when it seems to bepresent as such. Should it not read something like: “And you, being dead intrespasses”… etc.Also, with addition of the second “you” (hUMWN) would that be correctlytranslated as “and *you* being dead in *your* trespasses and in*your*sins”? Sorry if these questions don’t require alot of mentalexertion toanswer… I’m just trying to learn!Lastly, it seems to me that Ephesians 2:1-3 is quite weird in to read in thegreek… kind of a long fragmented or run on sentence. Do you think thatwas why translators added in different tranlations (KJV, etc.) “hath hequickened”?Thank you for your patience.Sincerely,John Butzujbutzu at gmail.com

 

[] Zhubert’s daily greek read[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3

[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Mar 24 12:11:37 EDT 2009

 

[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 [] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 On Mar 24, 2009, at 7:48 AM, John Butzu wrote:> ———- Forwarded message ———-> From: John Butzu <jbutzu at gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:01 AM> Subject: Ephesians 2:1-3> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> > > Hello. Could someone please explain to me why in Ephesians 2:1 the > greek> word ONTAS is translated as being in the past tense when it seems to > be> present as such. Should it not read something like: “And you, being > dead in> trespasses”… etc.> > Also, with addition of the second “you” (hUMWN) would that be > correctly> translated as “and *you* being dead in *your* trespasses and in> *your*sins”? Sorry if these questions don’t require alot of mental> exertion to> answer… I’m just trying to learn!> > Lastly, it seems to me that Ephesians 2:1-3 is quite weird in to > read in the> greek… kind of a long fragmented or run on sentence. Do you think > that> was why translators added in different tranlations (KJV, etc.) “hath > he> quickened”?> > Thank you for your patience.> > Sincerely,> John Butzu> John,first we need to quote the passageEph. 2:1 Καὶ ὑμᾶς ὄντας νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν, 2 ἐν αἷς ποτε περιεπατήσατε κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, κατὰ τὸν ἄρχοντα τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος, τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ νῦν ἐνεργοῦντος ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς ἀπειθείας· 3 ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστράφημέν ποτε ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ποιοῦντες τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν, καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί·EPH. 2:1 KAI hUMAS ONTAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN KAI TAIS hAMARTIAIS hUMWN, 2 EN hAIS POTE PERIEPATHSATE KATA TON AIWNA TOU KOSMOU TOUTOU, KATA TON ARCONTA THS EXOUSIAS TOU AEROS, TOU PNEUMATOS TOU NUN ENERGOUNTOS EN TOIS hUIOIS THS APEIQEIAS: 3 EN hOIS KAI hHMEIS PANTES ANESTRAFHMEN POTE EN TAIS EPIQUMIAIS THS SARKOS hHMWN POIOUNTES TA QELHMATA THS SARKOS KAI TWN DIANOIWN, KAI HMEQA TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI:Translation is off topic so I will not address it.There is nothing weird here, as “Pauline” verbiage goes this passage is relatively well formed. ONTAS … hAMARTIAIS hUMWN represents an on going state of affairs. The time element is indicated by POTE in EN hAIS POTE PERIEPATHSATE … ANESTRAFHMEN POTE.Elizabeth Kline

 

[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3

[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 Doug Knighton douglas.knighton at verizon.net
Tue Mar 24 12:55:47 EDT 2009

 

[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 [] Rev 4:3, Syntax Translation may be off topic, but if we ask John’s question a littledifferently, I think we can keep it “on”: Why is hHMAS in 2:1 in theaccusative case? I think we need to go to 2:5 to see how this resolves itself: kai. o;ntajh`ma/j nekrou.j toi/j paraptw,masin sunezwopoi,hsen tw/| Cristw/|( KAI ONTAShHMAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN SUNEZWOPOIHSEN TO XRISTW. Here Paul returns to his opening gambit (albeit in a shortened format)following the parenthetical wanderings of 2-4. It seems clear here thathHMAS (and therefore ONTAS) is in the accusative case because it is thedirect object of SUNEZWOPOIHSEN. Once we see this connection, then we canuse Ms Kline’s response concerning the time element. Doug Knighton, Ch Col USAF (Ret) —–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of John ButzuSent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:48 AMTo: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: [] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 ———- Forwarded message ———-From: John Butzu <jbutzu at gmail.com>Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:01 AMSubject: Ephesians 2:1-3To: at lists.ibiblio.org Hello. Could someone please explain to me why in Ephesians 2:1 the greekword ONTAS is translated as being in the past tense when it seems to bepresent as such. Should it not read something like: “And you, being dead intrespasses”… etc. Also, with addition of the second “you” (hUMWN) would that be correctlytranslated as “and *you* being dead in *your* trespasses and in*your*sins”? Sorry if these questions don’t require alot of mentalexertion toanswer… I’m just trying to learn! Lastly, it seems to me that Ephesians 2:1-3 is quite weird in to read in thegreek… kind of a long fragmented or run on sentence. Do you think thatwas why translators added in different tranlations (KJV, etc.) “hath hequickened”? Thank you for your patience. Sincerely,John Butzu jbutzu at gmail.com— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3[] Rev 4:3, Syntax

[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Mar 24 15:36:42 EDT 2009

 

[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 [] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 On Mar 24, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:> There is nothing weird here, as “Pauline” verbiage goes this passage > is relatively well formed. ONTAS … hAMARTIAIS hUMWN represents > an on going state of affairs. The time element is indicated by POTE > in EN hAIS POTE PERIEPATHSATE … ANESTRAFHMEN POTEEph. 2:1 Καὶ ὑμᾶς ὄντας νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν, 2 ἐν αἷς ποτε περιεπατήσατε κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, κατὰ τὸν ἄρχοντα τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος, τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ νῦν ἐνεργοῦντος ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς ἀπειθείας· 3 ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστράφημέν ποτε ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ποιοῦντες τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν, καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί· 4 ὁ δὲ θεὸς πλούσιος ὢν ἐν ἐλέει, διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην αὐτοῦ ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, 5 καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ, – χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι -EPH. 2:1 KAI hUMAS ONTAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN KAI TAIS hAMARTIAIS hUMWN, 2 EN hAIS POTE PERIEPATHSATE KATA TON AIWNA TOU KOSMOU TOUTOU, KATA TON ARCONTA THS EXOUSIAS TOU AEROS, TOU PNEUMATOS TOU NUN ENERGOUNTOS EN TOIS hUIOIS THS APEIQEIAS: 3 EN hOIS KAI hHMEIS PANTES ANESTRAFHMEN POTE EN TAIS EPIQUMIAIS THS SARKOS hHMWN POIOUNTES TA QELHMATA THS SARKOS KAI TWN DIANOIWN, KAI HMEQA TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI: 4 hO DE QEOS PLOUSIOS WN EN ELEEI, DIA THN POLLHN AGAPHN AUTOU hHN HGAPHSEN hHMAS, 5 KAI ONTAS hHMAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN SUNEZWOPOIHSEN TWi CRISTWi, – CARITI ESTE SESWiSMENOI -> There is nothing weird here …When I read this passage this morning, I had been looking at patterns of ellipsis in Ajax. “Sophocles can be startlingly elliptic.” John Tipton (Ajax 2008, p. 106). “Paul’s” broken construction in Eph 2:1-5 didn’t seem very hard to understand, lots of subordination, but the general drift of his thought wasn’t difficult. Some supply a verb from chapter one, others take SUNEZWOPOIHSEN v5 as the main verb. The thread of thought wanders a little bit in the relative clauses but is picked up again either at hO DE QEOS PLOUSIOS … or at ONTAS hHMAS NEKROUS.Elizabeth Kline

 

[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3

[] Ephesians 2:3 rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Mon Mar 22 14:25:24 EDT 2010

 

[] Fwd: [Corpora-List] New Testament corpus [] Ephesians 2:3 Ephesians 2:3 has, in part:…KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”? If yes, what is the rational for the translation?Roger Hutchinson

 

[] Fwd: [Corpora-List] New Testament corpus[] Ephesians 2:3

[] Ephesians 2:3 Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 22 14:56:58 EDT 2010

 

[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 Roger wrote: <Ephesians 2:3 has, in part:…KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”?  If yes, what is the rational for the translation?> Hi,Roger, We have to do with a Hebrew idiom.  ben X can mean not the son of X but something characterized by x.Son of Iniquity means a bad guy. So, I think NIV hit this one out of the park.  Another exampleof where a literal rendering is more misleading.Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS— On Mon, 3/22/10, rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com> wrote:From: rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com>Subject: [] Ephesians 2:3To: at lists.ibiblio.orgDate: Monday, March 22, 2010, 12:25 PMEphesians 2:3 has, in part:…KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”?  If yes, what is the rational for the translation?Roger Hutchinson— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3

[] Ephesians 2:3 Nikolaos Adamou nikolaos.adamou at hotmail.com
Mon Mar 22 15:02:22 EDT 2010

 

[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 <!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face{font-family:”Cambria Math”;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;mso-font-charset:0;mso-generic-font-family:roman;mso-font-pitch:variable;mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;}@font-face{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;mso-font-charset:0;mso-generic-font-family:swiss;mso-font-pitch:variable;mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;}@font-face{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;mso-font-charset:0;mso-generic-font-family:swiss;mso-font-pitch:variable;mso-font-signature:1627400839 -2147483648 8 0 66047 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal{mso-style-unhide:no;mso-style-qformat:yes;mso-style-parent:””;margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}span.greek{mso-style-name:greek;mso-style-unhide:no;}.MsoChpDefault{mso-style-type:export-only;mso-default-props:yes;mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}.MsoPapDefault{mso-style-type:export-only;margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:115%;}@page Section1{size:8.5in 11.0in;margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;mso-header-margin:.5in;mso-footer-margin:.5in;mso-paper-source:0;}div.Section1{page:Section1;}–>καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί·…KAI HMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI…καὶ ἦμεν τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί·…KAI HMEN TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI…Continues ἤμεθα or not ἦμεν ? Nikolaos Adamou, Ph.D.                     Associate Professor of Business Management      BMCC / CUNY        > To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:25:24 -0400> From: rhutchin at aol.com> Subject: [] Ephesians 2:3> > > Ephesians 2:3 has, in part:> > …KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…> > NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”> > The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.> > Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”? If yes, what is the rational for the translation?> > Roger Hutchinson> > > > >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ _________________________________________________________________Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_1

 

[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3

[] Ephesians 2:3 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 22 15:24:01 EDT 2010

 

[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 Yes, the Byzantine text has ἦμεν while the better manuscripts have ἤμεθα.  I realize that you are Orthodox and therefore us the Byz text, but the NA27 had a member named Karavidopoulos  whom I presume to be Orthodox as well.  It’s a matter of evaluating the manuscripts.  Let’s not, however, continue this question since this is not the forum for text-critical questions and there is another forum for that purpose (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/).   I do have one question for you:  Why do your posts sometimes come through with the formatting displayed as below? georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Nikolaos Adamou <nikolaos.adamou at hotmail.com>To: rhutchin at aol.com; b-Greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 12:02:22 PMSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3<!–/* Font Definitions */@font-face    {font-family:”Cambria Math”;    panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;    mso-font-charset:0;    mso-generic-font-family:roman;    mso-font-pitch:variable;    mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;}@font-face    {font-family:Calibri;    panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;    mso-font-charset:0;    mso-generic-font-family:swiss;    mso-font-pitch:variable;    mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;}@font-face    {font-family:Tahoma;    panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;    mso-font-charset:0;    mso-generic-font-family:swiss;    mso-font-pitch:variable;    mso-font-signature:1627400839 -2147483648 8 0 66047 0;}/* Style Definitions */p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal    {mso-style-unhide:no;    mso-style-qformat:yes;    mso-style-parent:””;    margin-top:0in;    margin-right:0in;    margin-bottom:10.0pt;    margin-left:0in;    line-height:115%;    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;    font-size:11.0pt;    font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;    mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;    mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;    mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;    mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;    mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;    mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;    mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;    mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}span.greek    {mso-style-name:greek;    mso-style-unhide:no;}.MsoChpDefault    {mso-style-type:export-only;    mso-default-props:yes;    mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;    mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;    mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;    mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;    mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;    mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;    mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;    mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}.MsoPapDefault    {mso-style-type:export-only;    margin-bottom:10.0pt;    line-height:115%;}@page Section1    {size:8.5in 11.0in;    margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;    mso-header-margin:.5in;    mso-footer-margin:.5in;    mso-paper-source:0;}div.Section1    {page:Section1;}–>καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί·…KAI HMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI…καὶ ἦμεν τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί·…KAI HMEN TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI…Continues ἤμεθα  or not ἦμεν ? Nikolaos Adamou, Ph.D.                         Associate Professor of Business Management       BMCC / CUNY          > To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:25:24 -0400> From: rhutchin at aol.com> Subject: [] Ephesians 2:3> > >  Ephesians 2:3 has, in part:> > …KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…> > NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”> > The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.> > Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”?  If yes, what is the rational for the translation?> > Roger Hutchinson> >  > > >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ > mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/                         _________________________________________________________________Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_1— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3

[] Ephesians 2:3 rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Mon Mar 22 20:26:49 EDT 2010

 

[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 OK, I see the basic rationale. Son of iniquity means a bad guy.Thus, children of wrath can mean the objects of God’s wrath. The lost are the objects of God’s wrath. I can see that. So, v 4, But God…even when we were the objects of His wrath…But, would we say that being the object of God’s wrath is, “By nature.” It appears to me that FUSEI could just as easily extend the description of the lost that we read earlier in this verse perhaps meaning that their nature is that of wrath (or hate) as opposed to love (per the nature of God). Then, v 4, But God…even when we hated Him… As son of iniquity refers to a person ruled by sin, could not children of wrath refer to people ruled by wrath (wrath is their nature)? Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in this case?Can a grammatical analysis sort this out or does it end up being one person’s exegetical position against another’s?Roger Hutchinson—–Original Message—–From: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.org; rhutchin at aol.comSent: Mon, Mar 22, 2010 2:56 pmSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3Roger wrote: <Ephesians 2:3 has, in part:…KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”? If yes, what is the rational for the translation?> Hi,Roger, We have to do with a Hebrew idiom. ben X can mean not the son of X but something characterized by x.Son of Iniquity means a bad guy. So, I think NIV hit this one out of the park. Another exampleof where a literal rendering is more misleading.Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS— On Mon, 3/22/10, rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com> wrote:From: rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com>Subject: [] Ephesians 2:3To: at lists.ibiblio.orgDate: Monday, March 22, 2010, 12:25 PMEphesians 2:3 has, in part:…KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”? If yes, what is the rational for the translation?Roger Hutchinson

 

[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3

[] Ephesians 2:3 walt seevers lws39 at juno.com
Mon Mar 22 21:04:35 EDT 2010

 

[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 Mark 3:17êá&#8054; &#7992;Üêùâïí ô&#8056;í ôï&#8166; Æåâåäáßïõ êá&#8054; &#7992;ùÜííçí ô&#8056;í &#7936;äåëö&#8056;í ôï&#8166; &#7992;áêþâïõ, êá&#8054; &#7952;ðÝèçêåí á&#8016;ôï&#8150;ò &#8000;íüìáôá ÂïáíçñãÝò, &#8005; &#7952;óôéí õ&#7985;ï&#8054; âñïíô&#8134;ò·KAI IAKWBON TON TOU ZEBEDAIOU KAI IWANNHN TON ADELFON TOU IAKWBOU KAI EPEQHKEN AUTOIS ONOMATA BOANHRYES O ESTIN UIOI BRONTHSThese two had wanted to call fire down on some people. So they are referred to as UIOI BRONTHS. In this context the construction would indicate a quality that they possessed. This is the only example I can think of offhand. There are a great deal more, I’m sure.Walt Seevers———- Original Message ———-From: rhutchin at aol.comTo: lightmanmark at yahoo.com, at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:26:49 -0400OK, I see the basic rationale. Son of iniquity means a bad guy.Thus, children of wrath can mean the objects of God’s wrath. The lost are the objects of God’s wrath. I can see that. So, v 4, But God…even when we were the objects of His wrath…But, would we say that being the object of God’s wrath is, “By nature.” It appears to me that FUSEI could just as easily extend the description of the lost that we read earlier in this verse perhaps meaning that their nature is that of wrath (or hate) as opposed to love (per the nature of God). Then, v 4, But God…even when we hated Him… As son of iniquity refers to a person ruled by sin, could not children of wrath refer to people ruled by wrath (wrath is their nature)? Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in this case?Can a grammatical analysis sort this out or does it end up being one person’s exegetical position against another’s?Roger Hutchinson____________________________________________________________Home MortgageClick for free home mortgage rates from top companies. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=viyCmmiuM-hw4ZA2yvlLeAAAJz0IYGV749098zAwOilWZmGwAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQcwAAAAA=

 

[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3

[] Ephesians 2:3 Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 22 21:35:10 EDT 2010

 

[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 <Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in this case?> No, it’s not.  I’m glad you caught that.  I should not havesaid that “children of wrath” is misleading.  Bothtranslations are good, is what I meant. If you look up TEKNON and hUIOS and a few otherwords in Kittel, you will find whether “son of X=characterizedby X” is found in Greek writings independent of the Hebrew.I think I did that one time and found that it is, but I don’t rememberfor sure.   Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS— On Mon, 3/22/10, rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com> wrote:From: rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com>Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3To: lightmanmark at yahoo.com, at lists.ibiblio.orgDate: Monday, March 22, 2010, 6:26 PMOK, I see the basic rationale.  Son of iniquity means a bad guy.Thus, children of wrath can mean the objects of God’s wrath.  The lost are the objects of God’s wrath.  I can see that.  So, v 4, But God…even when we were the objects of His wrath…But, would we say that being the object of God’s wrath is, “By nature.”  It appears to me that FUSEI could just as easily extend the description of the lost that we read earlier in this verse perhaps meaning that their nature is that of wrath (or hate) as opposed to love (per the nature of God).  Then, v 4, But God…even when we hated Him…  As son of iniquity refers to a person ruled by sin, could not children of wrath refer to people ruled by wrath (wrath is their nature)?  Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in this case?Can a grammatical analysis sort this out or does it end up being one person’s exegetical position against another’s?Roger Hutchinson—–Original Message—–From: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.org; rhutchin at aol.comSent: Mon, Mar 22, 2010 2:56 pmSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3Roger wrote: <Ephesians 2:3 has, in part:…KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”?  If yes, what is the rational for the translation?> Hi,Roger, We have to do with a Hebrew idiom.  ben X can mean not the son of X but something characterized by x.Son of Iniquity means a bad guy. So, I think NIV hit this one out of the park.  Another exampleof where a literal rendering is more misleading.Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS— On Mon, 3/22/10, rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com> wrote:From: rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com>Subject: [] Ephesians 2:3To: at lists.ibiblio.orgDate: Monday, March 22, 2010, 12:25 PMEphesians 2:3 has, in part:…KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”?  If yes, what is the rational for the translation?Roger Hutchinson

 

[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3

[] Ephesians 2:3 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 22 21:53:50 EDT 2010

 

[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 The one I always think of is Jn 17.12ὅτε ἤμην μετʼ αὐτῶν ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, καὶ ἐφύλαξα, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπώλετο εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ.  georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: walt seevers <lws39 at juno.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Mon, March 22, 2010 6:04:35 PMSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3Mark 3:17êáὶ ἸÜêùâïí ôὸí ôïῦ Æåâåäáßïõ êáὶ ἸùÜííçí ôὸí ἀäåëöὸí ôïῦ Ἰáêþâïõ, êáὶ ἐðÝèçêåí áὐôïῖò ὀíüìáôá ÂïáíçñãÝò, ὅ ἐóôéí õἱïὶ âñïíôῆò·KAI IAKWBON TON TOU ZEBEDAIOU KAI IWANNHN TON ADELFON TOU IAKWBOU KAI EPEQHKEN AUTOIS ONOMATA BOANHRYES O ESTIN UIOI BRONTHSThese two had wanted to call fire down on some people. So they are referred to  as UIOI BRONTHS.  In this context  the construction would indicate a quality that they possessed. This is the only example I can think of offhand. There are a great deal more, I’m sure.Walt Seevers———- Original Message ———-From: rhutchin at aol.comTo: lightmanmark at yahoo.com, at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:26:49 -0400OK, I see the basic rationale.  Son of iniquity means a bad guy.Thus, children of wrath can mean the objects of God’s wrath.  The lost are the objects of God’s wrath.  I can see that.  So, v 4, But God…even when we were the objects of His wrath…But, would we say that being the object of God’s wrath is, “By nature.”  It appears to me that FUSEI could just as easily extend the description of the lost that we read earlier in this verse perhaps meaning that their nature is that of wrath (or hate) as opposed to love (per the nature of God).  Then, v 4, But God…even when we hated Him…  As son of iniquity refers to a person ruled by sin, could not children of wrath refer to people ruled by wrath (wrath is their nature)?  Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in this case?Can a grammatical analysis sort this out or does it end up being one person’s exegetical position against another’s?Roger Hutchinson____________________________________________________________Home MortgageClick for free home mortgage rates from top companies. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=viyCmmiuM-hw4ZA2yvlLeAAAJz0IYGV749098zAwOilWZmGwAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQcwAAAAA=— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/hOTE HMHN MET’ AUTWN EGW ETHROUN AUTOUS EN TWi ONOMATI SOU hWi DEDWKAS MOI, KAI EFULACA, KAI OUDEIS EC AUTWN APWLETO EI MH hO hUIOS THS APWLEIAS, hINA hH GRAFH PLHRWQHi

 

[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3

[] Ephesians 2:3 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Mar 23 05:05:47 EDT 2010

 

[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 On Mar 22, 2010, at 9:53 PM, George F Somsel wrote:> The one I always think of is Jn 17.12> ὅτε ἤμην μετʼ αὐτῶν ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, καὶ ἐφύλαξα, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπώλετο εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ. > hOTE HMHN MET’ AUTWN EGW ETHROUN AUTOUS EN TWi ONOMATI SOU hWi DEDWKAS MOI, KAI EFULACA, KAI OUDEIS EC AUTWN APWLETO EI MH hO hUIOS THS APWLEIAS, hINA hH GRAFH PLHRWQHiThis is really a translation question, one that perhaps should go over to B-Translation, which I why I cc Wayne Leman: Is a phrase like “Son of Perdition” or “Sons of Thunder” really natural English or doesn’t it always have an exotic alien flavor to it? I think of such phrases from our not-so-distant cultural history like “Mother of all battles” — which mothered a slew of freshly-coined clichés, or “Son of Sam.” The old “son of a gun” is probably altogether different. But somehow these expressions all do seem to me unnatural English.> ________________________________> From: walt seevers <lws39 at juno.com>> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 6:04:35 PM> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3> > Mark 3:17> êáὶ ἸÜêùâïí ôὸí ôïῦ Æåâåäáßïõ êáὶ ἸùÜííçí ôὸí ἀäåëöὸí ôïῦ Ἰáêþâïõ, êáὶ ἐðÝèçêåí áὐôïῖò ὀíüìáôá ÂïáíçñãÝò, ὅ ἐóôéí õἱïὶ âñïíôῆò·> KAI IAKWBON TON TOU ZEBEDAIOU KAI IWANNHN TON ADELFON TOU IAKWBOU KAI EPEQHKEN AUTOIS ONOMATA BOANHRYES O ESTIN UIOI BRONTHS> These two had wanted to call fire down on some people. So they are referred to as UIOI BRONTHS. In this context the construction would indicate a quality that they possessed. This is the only example I can think of offhand. There are a great deal more, I’m sure.> Walt Seevers> > ———- Original Message ———-> From: rhutchin at aol.com> > To: lightmanmark at yahoo.com, at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:26:49 -0400> > OK, I see the basic rationale. Son of iniquity means a bad guy.> > Thus, children of wrath can mean the objects of God’s wrath. The lost are the objects of God’s wrath. I can see that. So, v 4, But God…even when we were the objects of His wrath…> > But, would we say that being the object of God’s wrath is, “By nature.” It appears to me that FUSEI could just as easily extend the description of the lost that we read earlier in this verse perhaps meaning that their nature is that of wrath (or hate) as opposed to love (per the nature of God). Then, v 4, But God…even when we hated Him… As son of iniquity refers to a person ruled by sin, could not children of wrath refer to people ruled by wrath (wrath is their nature)? Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in this case?> > Can a grammatical analysis sort this out or does it end up being one person’s exegetical position against another’s?That, for better or for worse, is a good question: there might indeed be significantly different interpretations of what this phrasing implies in terms of one’s theological and hermeneutical preferences. That, of course, is something we don’t want to get into. But, it strikes me that we do use in English expressions that seem very comparable to TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS, e.g. “a natural-born hell-raiser”, i.e. a person who’s natural inclination seems to be to cause trouble on a major scale. Classical Greek uses GENNAIOS/A/ON that way and the Platonic term GENNAION YEUDOS, often translated “noble life” seems rather to mean “a lie to end all lies” or “a falsehood that could never be called anything but a falsehood.” Perhaps FUSEI in the expression HMEQA TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS could be conveyed by an English expressin such as “we really were hopeless losers.” I note that Eugene Peterson’s Message conveys the sense of Eph 2:3 along those lines and uses natural English: “We all did it, all of us doing what we felt like doing, when we felt like doing it, all of us in the same boat. It’s a wonder God didn’t lose his temper and do away with the whole lot of us.”We can always translate TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS literally, but Roger Hutchinson’s question is a good one, I think. When we do translate the phrase literally, are we conveying what it really intends?Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3

[] Ephesians 2:3 Eric Inman eric-inman at comcast.net
Tue Mar 23 08:10:54 EDT 2010

 

[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Mark 2:9-10 EUKOPOTERON Does anyone see a connection between this discussion and the one on being born again? “Son of x” seems to refer to someone’s inherent nature from birth from their parents. How is that nature changed or replaced? By being born again (or from above), thus obtaining a new (higher) nature from a new (higher) source. There seems to be a semantic theme here involving several words and idioms.When “mother of all battles” struck our ears in an odd way my guess was that in its original language it was probably no more notable than the use of “mother” in motherboard (of a computer) or mother lode, “mother of x” meaning “chief or main x”. In Indonesian it’s used that way. For example a capital city is referred to as ibukota (mother city).—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Carl ConradSent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:06 AMTo: George Somsel; rhutchin at aol.comCc: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3On Mar 22, 2010, at 9:53 PM, George F Somsel wrote:> The one I always think of is Jn 17.12> ὅτε ἤμην μετʼ αὐτῶν ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, καὶ ἐφύλαξα, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπώλετο εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ. > hOTE HMHN MET’ AUTWN EGW ETHROUN AUTOUS EN TWi ONOMATI SOU hWi DEDWKAS > MOI, KAI EFULACA, KAI OUDEIS EC AUTWN APWLETO EI MH hO hUIOS THS > APWLEIAS, hINA hH GRAFH PLHRWQHiThis is really a translation question, one that perhaps should go over to B-Translation, which I why I cc Wayne Leman: Is a phrase like “Son of Perdition” or “Sons of Thunder” really natural English or doesn’t it always have an exotic alien flavor to it? I think of such phrases from our not-so-distant cultural history like “Mother of all battles” — which mothered a slew of freshly-coined clichés, or “Son of Sam.” The old “son of a gun” is probably altogether different. But somehow these expressions all do seem to me unnatural English.> ________________________________> From: walt seevers <lws39 at juno.com>> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 6:04:35 PM> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3> > Mark 3:17> êáὶ ἸÜêùâïí ôὸí ôïῦ Æåâåäáßïõ êáὶ ἸùÜííçí ôὸí ἀäåëöὸí ôïῦ Ἰáêþâïõ, êáὶ > ἐðÝèçêåí áὐôïῖò ὀíüìáôá ÂïáíçñãÝò, ὅ ἐóôéí õἱïὶ âñïíôῆò· KAI IAKWBON > TON TOU ZEBEDAIOU KAI IWANNHN TON ADELFON TOU IAKWBOU KAI EPEQHKEN AUTOIS ONOMATA BOANHRYES O ESTIN UIOI BRONTHS These two had wanted to call fire down on some people. So they are referred to as UIOI BRONTHS. In this context the construction would indicate a quality that they possessed. This is the only example I can think of offhand. There are a great deal more, I’m sure.> Walt Seevers> > ———- Original Message ———-> From: rhutchin at aol.com> > To: lightmanmark at yahoo.com, at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:26:49 -0400> > OK, I see the basic rationale. Son of iniquity means a bad guy.> > Thus, children of wrath can mean the objects of God’s wrath. The lost are the objects of God’s wrath. I can see that. So, v 4, But God…even when we were the objects of His wrath…> > But, would we say that being the object of God’s wrath is, “By nature.” It appears to me that FUSEI could just as easily extend the description of the lost that we read earlier in this verse perhaps meaning that their nature is that of wrath (or hate) as opposed to love (per the nature of God). Then, v 4, But God…even when we hated Him… As son of iniquity refers to a person ruled by sin, could not children of wrath refer to people ruled by wrath (wrath is their nature)? Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in this case?> > Can a grammatical analysis sort this out or does it end up being one person’s exegetical position against another’s?That, for better or for worse, is a good question: there might indeed be significantly different interpretations of what this phrasing implies in terms of one’s theological and hermeneutical preferences. That, of course, is something we don’t want to get into. But, it strikes me that we do use in English expressions that seem very comparable to TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS, e.g. “a natural-born hell-raiser”, i.e. a person who’s natural inclination seems to be to cause trouble on a major scale. Classical Greek uses GENNAIOS/A/ON that way and the Platonic term GENNAION YEUDOS, often translated “noble life” seems rather to mean “a lie to end all lies” or “a falsehood that could never be called anything but a falsehood.” Perhaps FUSEI in the expression HMEQA TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS could be conveyed by an English expressin such as “we really were hopeless losers.” I note that Eugene Peterson’s Message conveys the sense of Eph 2:3 along those lines and uses natural English: “We all did it, all of us doing what we felt like doing, when we felt like doing it, all of us in the same boat. It’s a wonder God didn’t lose his temper and do away with the whole lot of us.”We can always translate TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS literally, but Roger Hutchinson’s question is a good one, I think. When we do translate the phrase literally, are we conveying what it really intends?Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Ephesians 2:3[] Mark 2:9-10 EUKOPOTERON

[] Ephesians 2:3 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Mar 24 12:41:38 EDT 2010

 

[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 —– Original Message —– From: <rhutchin at aol.com>To: <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 23. marts 2010 03:26Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3> > OK, I see the basic rationale. Son of iniquity means a bad guy.> > Thus, children of wrath can mean the objects of God’s wrath. The lost are the > objects of God’s wrath. I can see that. So, v 4, But God…even when we were > the objects of His wrath…> > But, would we say that being the object of God’s wrath is, “By nature.” It > appears to me that FUSEI could just as easily extend the description of the > lost that we read earlier in this verse perhaps meaning that their nature is > that of wrath (or hate) as opposed to love (per the nature of God). Then, v > 4, But God…even when we hated Him… As son of iniquity refers to a person > ruled by sin, could not children of wrath refer to people ruled by wrath > (wrath is their nature)? Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in > this case?> > Can a grammatical analysis sort this out or does it end up being one person’s > exegetical position against another’s?> > Roger HutchinsonAn analysis of the semantic range of the word ORGH in relation to QUMOS might help. Richard Trench suggests that in secular Greek QUMOS is “more of the turbulent commotion, the boiling agitation of feelings (of anger)” while ORGH is “more of an abiding and settled habit of mind with the purpose of revenge.”Another complementary avenue is to look at how Paul uses the word ORGH. It is common in Romans (12 times), and it always in that book refers to God’s righteous anger and consequent punishment. I would therefore suggest that the wrath mentioned here is also most likely the wrath/punishment from God that is awaiting the “sons of disobedience.” (v. 2).A further avenue is to consider the clear contrast to the mercy of God in the next verse directed to the “sons of obedience”. This suggests that the ORGH here is indeed the wrath of God.A literal rendering is the easy way out in that the translators push the necessary research to the reader, and the majority of readers are unable or unwilling to do that research and therefore in reality will be misled or at least greatly puzzled.Iver Larsen

 

[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3

[] Ephesians 2:3 yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Wed Mar 24 12:55:57 EDT 2010

 

[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 Iver, I can’t help but tweak you a bit on this one. Seems like another of several tell-tale semitisms in Ephesians.Yancy Smith, PhDyancywsmith at sbcglobal.netY.W.Smith at tcu.eduyancy at wbtc.com5636 Wedgworth RoadFort Worth, TX 76133817-361-7565On Mar 24, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:> —– Original Message —– > From: <rhutchin at aol.com>> To: <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: 23. marts 2010 03:26> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3> > >> >> OK, I see the basic rationale. Son of iniquity means a bad guy.>> >> Thus, children of wrath can mean the objects of God’s wrath. The lost are the >> objects of God’s wrath. I can see that. So, v 4, But God…even when we were >> the objects of His wrath…>> >> But, would we say that being the object of God’s wrath is, “By nature.” It >> appears to me that FUSEI could just as easily extend the description of the >> lost that we read earlier in this verse perhaps meaning that their nature is >> that of wrath (or hate) as opposed to love (per the nature of God). Then, v >> 4, But God…even when we hated Him… As son of iniquity refers to a person >> ruled by sin, could not children of wrath refer to people ruled by wrath >> (wrath is their nature)? Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in >> this case?>> >> Can a grammatical analysis sort this out or does it end up being one person’s >> exegetical position against another’s?>> >> Roger Hutchinson> > An analysis of the semantic range of the word ORGH in relation to QUMOS might > help. Richard Trench suggests that in secular Greek QUMOS is “more of the > turbulent commotion, the boiling agitation of feelings (of anger)” while ORGH is > “more of an abiding and settled habit of mind with the purpose of revenge.”> > Another complementary avenue is to look at how Paul uses the word ORGH. It is > common in Romans (12 times), and it always in that book refers to God’s > righteous anger and consequent punishment. I would therefore suggest that the > wrath mentioned here is also most likely the wrath/punishment from God that is > awaiting the “sons of disobedience.” (v. 2).> > A further avenue is to consider the clear contrast to the mercy of God in the > next verse directed to the “sons of obedience”. This suggests that the ORGH here > is indeed the wrath of God.> > A literal rendering is the easy way out in that the translators push the > necessary research to the reader, and the majority of readers are unable or > unwilling to do that research and therefore in reality will be misled or at > least greatly puzzled.> > Iver Larsen > >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3

[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Sun Mar 28 16:33:22 EDT 2010

 

[] The literary NT style [] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS For the following phrases:…TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS……FUSEI TEKNA hORGHS……TEKNA hORGHS FUSEI…Does the ordering of the words change how one might understand what the writer means to say or how a person might translate the phrase?Roger Hutchinson

 

[] The literary NT style[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS

[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Sun Mar 28 18:04:42 EDT 2010

 

[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS [] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS — On Sun, 3/28/10, rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com> wrote:<For the following phrases:…TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS……FUSEI TEKNA hORGHS……TEKNA hORGHS FUSEI…Does the ordering of the words change how one might understand what the writer means to say or how a person might translate the phrase?>No,  Not only is Greek word order flexible enoughto cover all three arrangements with little or no differencein meaning, it is MORE than flexible enough to do this.It’s flexible enough, I mean, to do even MORE than this. Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS

 

[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS

[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Mar 29 14:13:16 EDT 2010

 

[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS [] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS On Mar 28, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Mark Lightman wrote:> > — On Sun, 3/28/10, rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com> wrote:> > <For the following phrases:> > …TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…> > …FUSEI TEKNA hORGHS…> > …TEKNA hORGHS FUSEI…Quibble: the word is ORGHS: there’s no rough breathing on this noun.> Does the ordering of the words change how one> might understand what the writer means to say > or how a person might translate the phrase?>> > No, Not only is Greek word order flexible enough> to cover all three arrangements with little or no difference> in meaning, it is MORE than flexible enough to do this.> It’s flexible enough, I mean, to do even MORE than this.I’m not so sure about this one.Text: Eph. 2:3 ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστράφημέν ποτε ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ποιοῦντες τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν, καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί· [EN hOIS KAI hHMEIS PANTES ANESTRAFHMEN POTE EN TAIS EPIQUMIAIS THS SARKOS hHMWN POIOUNTES TA QELHMATA THS SARKOS KAI TWN DIANOIWN, KAI HMEQA TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI·]The earlier discussion on this verse focused altogether upon the phase TEKNA ORGHS. I don’t think anything was said about FUSEI here, and as I think about it, its position in the text between TEKNA and ORGHS seems less than transparent to me. I would have supposed that FUSEI construes with HMEQA or else with the whole clause HMEQA TEKNA ORGHS. The positioning of FUSEI in our text between TEKNA and ORGHS strikes me as strange, as I don’t really see how the dative noun can construe with either the nominative or the genitive noun, as if it were adjectival (“natural children of wrath”). I really think the sense in the larger context must be: “we really were, in our inmost essence, condemned.”Mark may be right, claiming that any of Roger’s suggested word-orders is as good as any other. But I’m not convinced. Does anyone think that FUSEI is intended by the author to be construed with the noun phrase TEKNA ORGHS rather than with the verb of the clause?Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS

[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 30 08:16:40 EDT 2010

 

[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS [] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS Carl wrote:  <Does anyone think that FUSEI is intended by the author to be construed with the noun phrase TEKNA ORGHS rather than with the verb of the clause?> Hi, Carl, I do.  As you suggested in an earlier post “naturally born sinners.””Children by nature” is not redundant because Paul is drawing a contrastwith the way we are born and what we become–adopted children of God throughChrist. (Gal 3:26) Eric wrote: <Does anyone see a connection between this discussion and the one on being born again? “Son of x” seems to refer to someone’s inherent nature from birth from their parents. How is that nature changed or replaced? By being born again (or from above), thus obtaining a new (higher) nature from a new (higher) source. There seems to be a semantic theme here involving several words and idioms.> I think Eric is on to something.  These “son” of and FUSEI and GENmetaphors are used to play off the fixed-nature feudalism of Greekculture.  In reading Homer, you get the idea that ifyou were born KALOS, you stayed that way. How many Homeric heroes does it take to change a light bulb?  None,  Homericheroes don’t change, they merely express their fundamental nature. But Paul says Christians can change, and he uses the “son/children of”metaphor often to make this point.  John the Baptist had alreadydone so:  “God is able to raise children (TEKNA) of Abrahamfrom these stones.” (Mt. 3:9)  God can take a GENAIOS stone andmake it into a GENAIOS receiver of the Kingdom.And yes, I think Eric is correct in observing that Jesus useda similar metaphor in John 3.  Nicodemus represents the skepticismof feudalism  “Can a man really be δευτερον…γεννηθηναι?” (v. 4)(DEUTERON GENNHQHNAI?)  Is the γενναιος (GENAIOS,) the nobleby birth, the genuine-by-being-born-that-way, really open to change?A new creation? The Greek NT tradition says NAI. But the question was about word order.  Even if you take FUSEI with”we were,” can word order really do this?  The FUSEI is still closer toTEKNA, but even if it were not, even if there is a “normal” word orderand even if Paul were to depart from that, can anything be read intothe meaning?  That was Roger’s question.  I still say no. I think this is an instance where we have to apply the “KlineFormula of Semantic Morpho-Syntax,” which states that Meaningprecedes Form.  Whatever this passage means (and I don’t thinkCarl and I disagree, really, about what it means) it is NOTdetermined by form (in this case word order,) not only becauseof the Kline Formula but also because of the Lightman Rule ofLogo-Taxis, which states that, in general, Greek word order hasno semantic, but only stylistic, force. The Lightman Rule of Logo-Taxis may be overstating the case.It is a recent formulation that I came up with after looking carefullyat where ESTIN falls in a clause.  The “normal” word order, I thinkwould be at the end.  AFRONIMOS MARKOS ESTIN.  But I’ve beenre-reading Chariton, the Symposium, and the Gospel of John, andI am telling you right now, the position of ESTIN jumps around andaround with no discernible difference in meaning.  Try it out foryourself. Greek has to be one of the languages were word order has theLEAST semantic force, and English has to be one whereword order has the MOST semantic force.  Which makes thingsfun.Mark LΦωσφοροςFWSFOROS MARKOS— On Mon, 3/29/10, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHSTo: “Mark Lightman” <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org, rhutchin at aol.comDate: Monday, March 29, 2010, 12:13 PMOn Mar 28, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Mark Lightman wrote:> > — On Sun, 3/28/10, rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com> wrote:> > <For the following phrases:> > …TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…> > …FUSEI TEKNA hORGHS…> > …TEKNA hORGHS FUSEI…Quibble: the word is ORGHS: there’s no rough breathing on this noun.> Does the ordering of the words change how one>  might understand what the writer means to say > or how a person might translate the phrase?>> > No,  Not only is Greek word order flexible enough> to cover all three arrangements with little or no difference> in meaning, it is MORE than flexible enough to do this.> It’s flexible enough, I mean, to do even MORE than this.I’m not so sure about this one.Text: Eph. 2:3 ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστράφημέν ποτε ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ποιοῦντες τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν, καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί· [EN hOIS KAI hHMEIS PANTES ANESTRAFHMEN POTE EN TAIS EPIQUMIAIS THS SARKOS hHMWN POIOUNTES TA QELHMATA THS SARKOS KAI TWN DIANOIWN, KAI HMEQA TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI·]The earlier discussion on this verse focused altogether upon the phase TEKNA ORGHS. I don’t think anything was said about FUSEI here, and as I think about it, its position in the text between TEKNA and ORGHS seems less than transparent to me. I would have supposed that FUSEI construes with HMEQA or else with the whole clause HMEQA TEKNA ORGHS. The positioning of FUSEI in our text between TEKNA and ORGHS strikes me as strange, as I don’t really see how the dative noun can construe with either the nominative or the genitive noun, as if it were adjectival (“natural children of wrath”). I really think the sense in the larger context must be: “we really were, in our inmost essence, condemned.”Mark may be right, claiming that any of Roger’s suggested word-orders is as good as any other. But I’m not convinced. Does anyone think that FUSEI is intended by the author to be construed with the noun phrase TEKNA ORGHS rather than with the verb of the clause?Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS

Romans:1 20

Concerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI jerker karlsson jerker_k at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 27 14:30:41 EST 2001

 

SU as part of a vocative? Use of MH Hi!I am near the completion of an essay on “Paul and natural theology”, but have recently stumbled over an interpretation of the NOOUMENA KATHORATAI in Romans 1: 20 which I cant make any sense of.B. Gärtner wrights in “The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation” p. 136 that the participle NOOUMENA should be interpreted as Participum Explicandi Causa Verbo Adiectum. (with a reference to Przychocki G. “De gregorii Naziamzeni Epistulis”. Krakow, 1913, p. 278.). Gärtner later identifies this grammatical construction with the one found in Blass-Debrunner “Grammatik” pp 187ff., but Blass-Debrunner talks of “das Ptz. zur Ergränzung von Verben des Wahrnehmens und Erkennens”. This later function of the participle I’m well aware off and therefore I’m struck with wonder then Gärtner goes on to say that “the meaning of KATHORATAI is determined by the explicative participle NOOUMENA”. He brings this out in the translations which runs “For men see and understands…”, but the problem is that this translation has nothing to do with participles Ergränzung von Verben des Wahrnehmens und Erkennens. The participle in such constructions relates to the object clause of the sentence and does not as in the translation by Gärtner modify the meaning of the main verb.The problems that I would like to have some help to solve is A) Does anyone know under what modern grammatical label the Latin phrase Participum Explicandi Causa Verbo Adiectum goes? B) Have I misunderstood the function of participles flanking a verb that denotes perception and/or feeling? C) (Under the condition that I make any sense) Does anyone make sense of what Gärtner is saying?RegardsJerker KarlssonLund, Sweden_________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

 

SU as part of a vocative?Use of MH

Concerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Tue Nov 27 16:49:10 EST 2001

 

Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi on 11/27/01 6:30 AM, jerker karlsson wrote:> Hi!> > I am near the completion of an essay on “Paul and natural theology”, but> have recently stumbled over an interpretation of the NOOUMENA KATHORATAI in> Romans 1: 20 which I cant make any sense of.> > B. Gärtner wrights in “The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation” p. 136> that the participle NOOUMENA should be interpreted as Participum Explicandi> Causa Verbo Adiectum. (with a reference to Przychocki G. “De gregorii> Naziamzeni Epistulis”. Krakow, 1913, p. 278.). Gärtner later identifies this> grammatical construction with the one found in Blass-Debrunner “Grammatik”> pp 187ff., but Blass-Debrunner talks of “das Ptz. zur Ergränzung von Verben> des Wahrnehmens und Erkennens”. This later function of the participle I’m> well aware off and therefore I’m struck with wonder then Gärtner goes on to> say that “the meaning of KATHORATAI is determined by the explicative> participle NOOUMENA”. He brings this out in the translations which runs “For> men see and understands…”, but the problem is that this translation has> nothing to do with participles Ergränzung von Verben des Wahrnehmens und> Erkennens. The participle in such constructions relates to the object clause> of the sentence and does not as in the translation by Gärtner modify the> meaning of the main verb.> > The problems that I would like to have some help to solve is A) Does anyone> know under what modern grammatical label the Latin phrase Participum> Explicandi Causa Verbo Adiectum goes? B) Have I misunderstood the function> of participles flanking a verb that denotes perception and/or feeling? C)> (Under the condition that I make any sense) Does anyone make sense of what> Gärtner is saying?> > > Regards> > Jerker Karlsson> Lund, SwedenJerker,What a question!BDF #416 Title: “The Suplementary Participle with Verbs of Perception andCognition” states: “In Classical Greek the participle takes the nominative case if it refersto the subject of the verb [. . . ] Except with the passive verbs the nominative does not appear in the NTreferring to the subject . . .”BDF #416(2) cites Matt. 1:18 hUREQH EN GASTRI ECOUSA as an example of thepassive verb with the nominative participle. In this case the participlerefers back to the subject stated explicitly in the previous clause asMARIAS and limits the passive verb hUREQH.In Rom 1:20 we find KATHORATAI tagged passive by Gramcord and Frieberg. Iwould understand TA AORATA as the subject of KATHORATAI and NOOUMENA as the”explicative participle” referring back to TA AORATA and limitingKATHORATAI. For this reason I don’t see any contradiction in what B. Gärtner says andwhat BDF #416 says.Perhaps I have missed the point entirely.greetingsClay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWiLk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi

Concerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI jerker karlsson jerker_k at hotmail.com
Wed Nov 28 01:26:32 EST 2001

 

Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi SU as part of a vocative? Thanks for a god answer on a clumsy stated question. I’ll try to express more clearly what the problem is that I see in Gärtner’s interpretation of the supplementary participle.The reference Gärtner makes to Blass-Debrunner is perfectly clear and in accordance with what you are to expect when a participle is used with a Verba Sentiendi for example as in the phrase WS DENDRA ORW TOUS ANTHRWPOUS PERIPATOUNTAS (Luk. 8: 24) or as in the passive hUREQH EN GASTRI ECOUSA. The source of my confusion was partly due to the fact that Gärtner identified this as a “explicative participle”, but mostly my confusion drives from the way in which he translates, and I quote also that which precedes,: “And the term [NOOUMENA] means ‘to see with understanding‘, that is to say, ‘see and understand‘. The translation of the verse would then read ‘For men see and understand[…]”.The reason that I jumped high at “explicative participle” is that I understood it as if he intended a modification of the verb KATHORATAI and not the nominative AORATA, and even thou I might have misinterpreted what he meant by explic. ptc. I found that he is doing exactly what I suspected in his translation. To further explain: In Matt 1: 18 the meaning of hEREQH is not modified by ECOUSA, but MARIAN is i.e. the finding is still a finding but the object found is modified, and as a consequence the scope of the verb is limited. Maria was not found herself but her “having in the belly” was. But this is not the case in Gärtner, instead of modifying AORATA with NOUMENA he add is on top of KATHORATAI and thus renders it with “to see with understanding”.RegardsJerker KarlssonLund, Sweden>From: c stirling bartholomew <cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net>>To: jerker karlsson <jerker_k at hotmail.com>, Biblical Greek >< at franklin.oit.unc.edu>>Subject: Re: [] Concerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI>Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:49:10 -0800> >on 11/27/01 6:30 AM, jerker karlsson wrote:> > > Hi!> >> > I am near the completion of an essay on “Paul and natural theology”, but> > have recently stumbled over an interpretation of the NOOUMENA KATHORATAI >in> > Romans 1: 20 which I cant make any sense of.> >> > B. Gärtner wrights in “The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation” p. >136> > that the participle NOOUMENA should be interpreted as Participum >Explicandi> > Causa Verbo Adiectum. (with a reference to Przychocki G. “De gregorii> > Naziamzeni Epistulis”. Krakow, 1913, p. 278.). Gärtner later identifies >this> > grammatical construction with the one found in Blass-Debrunner >“Grammatik”> > pp 187ff., but Blass-Debrunner talks of “das Ptz. zur Ergränzung von >Verben> > des Wahrnehmens und Erkennens”. This later function of the participle >I’m> > well aware off and therefore I’m struck with wonder then Gärtner goes >on to> > say that “the meaning of KATHORATAI is determined by the explicative> > participle NOOUMENA”. He brings this out in the translations which runs >“For> > men see and understands…”, but the problem is that this translation >has> > nothing to do with participles Ergränzung von Verben des Wahrnehmens und> > Erkennens. The participle in such constructions relates to the object >clause> > of the sentence and does not as in the translation by Gärtner modify the> > meaning of the main verb.> >> > The problems that I would like to have some help to solve is A) Does >anyone> > know under what modern grammatical label the Latin phrase Participum> > Explicandi Causa Verbo Adiectum goes? B) Have I misunderstood the >function> > of participles flanking a verb that denotes perception and/or feeling? >C)> > (Under the condition that I make any sense) Does anyone make sense of >what> > Gärtner is saying?> >> >> > Regards> >> > Jerker Karlsson> > Lund, Sweden> >Jerker,> >What a question!> >BDF #416 Title: “The Suplementary Participle with Verbs of Perception and>Cognition” states:> > “In Classical Greek the participle takes the nominative case if it refers>to the subject of the verb [. . . ]> >Except with the passive verbs the nominative does not appear in the NT>referring to the subject . . .”> >BDF #416(2) cites Matt. 1:18 hUREQH EN GASTRI ECOUSA as an example of the>passive verb with the nominative participle. In this case the participle>refers back to the subject stated explicitly in the previous clause as>MARIAS and limits the passive verb hUREQH.> >In Rom 1:20 we find KATHORATAI tagged passive by Gramcord and Frieberg. I>would understand TA AORATA as the subject of KATHORATAI and NOOUMENA as the>“explicative participle” referring back to TA AORATA and limiting>KATHORATAI.> >For this reason I don’t see any contradiction in what B. Gärtner says and>what BDF #416 says.> >Perhaps I have missed the point entirely.> > >greetings> >Clay> >>Clayton Stirling Bartholomew>Three Tree Point>P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062> > _________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

 

Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWiSU as part of a vocative?

Acts 20:28

Acts 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiou Peter Osborne. s351016 at student.uq.edu.au
Fri Jul 19 02:12:33 EDT 2002

 

FWS hILARON Acts 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiou Hi,I’d be interested in your comments on the following translation of the lastphrase of Acts 20.28:dia tou haimatos tou idiouthrough the blood of his own.the issue revolves around the correct use of “idios” a word I’m not veryfamiliar with. I note the RSV translates:”with the blood of His own son” – this seems to support the position I’vetaken above.regards,Peter Osborne

 

FWS hILARONActs 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiou

Acts 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiou Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 19 07:12:40 EDT 2002

 

Acts 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiou Acts 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiou At 4:12 PM +1000 7/19/02, Peter Osborne. wrote:>Hi,>I’d be interested in your comments on the following translation of the last>phrase of Acts 20.28:> >dia tou haimatos tou idiou> >through the blood of his own.> >the issue revolves around the correct use of “idios” a word I’m not very>familiar with. I note the RSV translates:> >“with the blood of His own son” – this seems to support the position I’ve>taken above.This passage, which is, of course, heavily charged with theologicalimplications, has been discussed pretty thoroughly with all the significantviews pretty well expressed, I think, in March of 1999. The messages aredated 3/29/99 through 3/31/99; subject-header is “Acts 20:28 Whose blood?”Iintroduced the thread myself as a lengthy response to an off-list inquiryregarding that question; the thread may be read by accessing and using thelinks to responses at:http://www.ibiblio.org//test-archives/html4/1999-03/30484.html– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington University (Emeritus)Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Acts 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiouActs 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiou

Acts 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiou Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Fri Jul 19 07:56:41 EDT 2002

 

Acts 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiou Acts 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiou In a message dated 7/19/2002 7:13:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:At 4:12 PM +1000 7/19/02, Peter Osborne. wrote:>Hi,>I’d be interested in your comments on the following translation of the last>phrase of Acts 20.28:> >dia tou haimatos tou idiou> >through the blood of his own.> >the issue revolves around the correct use of “idios” a word I’m not very>familiar with. I note the RSV translates:> >“with the blood of His own son” – this seems to support the position I’ve>taken above.This passage, which is, of course, heavily charged with theologicalimplications, has been discussed pretty thoroughly with all the significantviews pretty well expressed, I think, in March of 1999. The messages aredated 3/29/99 through 3/31/99; subject-header is “Acts 20:28 Whose blood?”Iintroduced the thread myself as a lengthy response to an off-list inquiryregarding that question; the thread may be read by accessing and using thelinks to responses at:http://www.ibiblio.org//test-archives/html4/1999-03/30484.html_____________________After reading the material in the archives, I reviewed the passage and it’s context. It seems that something has been missed here. The discussion seems to indicate that there is no reference to Christ to which TOU IDIOU might refer. If we look at v. 24 we see ALL’ OUDENOS LOGOU POIOUMAI THN YUXHN TIMIAN EMAUTWi hWS TEIWSAI TON DROMON MOU **hHN ELABON PARA TOU KURIOU IHSOU,** DIAMARTURASQAI TO EUANGGELION THS XARITOS TOU QEOUI would think that this would provide the antecedent for TOU IDIOU in v. 28.gfsomsel

 

Acts 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiouActs 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiou

Acts 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiou Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 19 09:40:39 EDT 2002

 

Acts 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiou 1 Corinthians 11 At 7:56 AM -0400 7/19/02, Polycarp66 at aol.com wrote:>In a message dated 7/19/2002 7:13:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time,>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:> >At 4:12 PM +1000 7/19/02, Peter Osborne. wrote:>>Hi,>>I’d be interested in your comments on the following translation of the last>>phrase of Acts 20.28:>> >>dia tou haimatos tou idiou>> >>through the blood of his own.>> >>the issue revolves around the correct use of “idios” a word I’m not very>>familiar with. I note the RSV translates:>> >>“with the blood of His own son” – this seems to support the position I’ve>>taken above.> >This passage, which is, of course, heavily charged with theological>implications, has been discussed pretty thoroughly with all the significant>views pretty well expressed, I think, in March of 1999. The messages are>dated 3/29/99 through 3/31/99; subject-header is “Acts 20:28 Whose blood?”>Iintroduced the thread myself as a lengthy response to an off-list inquiry>regarding that question; the thread may be read by accessing and using the>links to responses at:>http://www.ibiblio.org//test-archives/html4/1999-03/30484.html>_____________________> >After reading the material in the archives, I reviewed the passage and it’s>context. It seems that something has been missed here. The discussion seems>to indicate that there is no reference to Christ to which TOU IDIOU might>refer. If we look at v. 24 we see> > ALL’ OUDENOS LOGOU POIOUMAI THN YUXHN TIMIAN EMAUTWi hWS TELEIWSAI TON DROMON>MOU **hHN ELABON PARA TOU KURIOU IHSOU,** DIAMARTURASQAI TO EUANGGELION THS>XARITOS TOU QEOU> >I would think that this would provide the antecedent for TOU IDIOU in v. 28.George, I’m sorry, but I don’t understand how you think that’s sufficientto explain what TOU IDIOU in v. 28 refers to. It involves no mention ofhAIMA nor of hO IDIOS. We may supply the assumption that TOU IDIOU refersto the same referent as does KURIOU IHSOU, but there’s surely no way thatTOU IDIOU is referring back to KURIOU IHSOU as the substantive to which itis attributive. Else I have myself missed something here, which may well bepossible, but I don’t see your point.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Acts 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiou1 Corinthians 11

Acts 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiou Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Fri Jul 19 18:07:29 EDT 2002

 

Gospel John 1:2 as redundant Gospel John 1:2 as redundant In a message dated 7/19/2002 9:41:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:George, I’m sorry, but I don’t understand how you think that’s sufficientto explain what TOU IDIOU in v. 28 refers to. It involves no mention ofhAIMA nor of hO IDIOS. We may supply the assumption that TOU IDIOU refersto the same referent as does KURIOU IHSOU, but there’s surely no way thatTOU IDIOU is referring back to KURIOU IHSOU as the substantive to which itis attributive. Else I have myself missed something here, which may well bepossible, but I don’t see your point._______________________Carl, And just why should it contain a reference to hAIMA? It is tou haimatos tou idiou”his own blood” which is stated in v. 28. Perhaps I’m missing something here, but I’m not inclined to think so. A. T. Robertson, _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament_, pp. 62, 83, 134, etc. refers to the pronominal use of IDIOS in the KOINH. It would appear that this is what we have here. It might be translated as “with his own [i.e., TOU IHSOU] blood” referring back to ELABON PARA TOU KURIOU IHSOU in v. 24. If you see an obvious problem that I’ve overlooked, by all means correct me.gfsomsel

 

Gospel John 1:2 as redundantGospel John 1:2 as redundant

[] TOU IDIOU in Acts 20:28 Ken Baumgarten pastor at e-compasspoint.org
Sat Nov 3 11:16:55 EDT 2007

 

[] a prep always takes an object [] Romans 8:28 A little insight please.Do you believe TOU IDIOU in Acts 20:28 to be used attributively (2nd Attributive position) or substantivaly, and why? Thanks.Ken BaumgartenTopsham Maine.

 

[] a prep always takes an object[] Romans 8:28

[] TOU IDIOU in Acts 20:28 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 3 11:45:23 EDT 2007

 

[] Romans 8:28 [] 2nd year NTG on my own / followup προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου. PROSEXETE hEAUTOIS KAI PANTI TWi POIMNIWi EN hWi hUMAS TO PNEUMA TO hAGION EQETO EPISKOPOUS POIMAINEIN THN EKKLHSIAN TOU QEOU, hHN PERIPOIHSATO DIA TO hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU.Let’s excerpt the relevant section here — τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU. Note that what we have is (1) article(2) noun(3) article(4) adjectiveThis is what is known as the 3rd attributive position. When the adjective is in the attributive position, it is always preceded by the article. When the adjective is in the predicate position, the article is used only with the noun (adjective, article, noun OR article, noun adjective so it is evident that this is not in the predicate position. Since our text is a common example of the attributive position of the adjective, one might wonder why one would be inclined to understand it as a substantive — or even what it might mean if it were to be a substantive. It would appear that it could only reasonably be understood as an attributive usage rather than than as a substantive — “through / by his own blood.” georgegfsomsel Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death. – Jan Hus_________—– Original Message —-From: Ken Baumgarten <pastor at e-compasspoint.org>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Saturday, November 3, 2007 10:16:55 AMSubject: [] TOU IDIOU in Acts 20:28A little insight please.Do you believe TOU IDIOU in Acts 20:28 to be used attributively (2nd Attributive position) or substantivaly, and why? Thanks.Ken BaumgartenTopsham Maine.— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

 

[] Romans 8:28[] 2nd year NTG on my own / followup

Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Mar 29 12:54:25 EST 1999

 

Problems with Jude the usage of PROGINOSKW in 1 Pet 1:2&20 Last week I received a message from a former list-member about thispassage, with the problematic nature of which I must confess I have beenunfamiliar. After checking it out a bit more carefully, I sent him a replyon last Saturday indicating the conclusion that I express below, but formore intuitive reasons without having investigated versions or discussionsof the text in the literature. Then yesterday I started investigatingstandard translations and was amazed to see both the numbers of versionsfavoring each of the two likely readings and understandings of the texts,surprised also to see that relatively few of the versions footnoted thefact that the Greek is really ambiguous.With some trepidation I’ve decided to share this with : although theway one reads this text has theological repercussions, it seems to me thatone OUGHT to be able to decide for one or the other of the alternatives (orsuggest yet other alternatives?) on the basis of the Greek grammar andstyle. So here it is.At 7:40 AM -0700 3/25/99, Randall Tidmore wrote:Carl,I left a good while back, just to avoid the volume of e-mail. Ithough I would be able to write directly to you. If you wish to share thiswith the list, I don’t mind. Feel free to adapt it to make it proper forthe list.I know that this passage has some serious theological implications, butwhat I want to know is grammatical. In Acts 20:28, it says that the churchof God was bought/acquired by/through the blood the own. In <a certainversion of the> Bible” they translate it as God purchasing the church bythe blood of His own Son.Is there anything in the grammar that allows <that> translation? Does theGreek leave any doubt as to <whose> blood it was?Thanks Carl!Randall Tidmore<mailto:church at elp.rr.com>church at elp.rr.comThe Greek text of Acts 20:28 is ambiguous: PROSECETE hEAUTOIS KAI PANTI TWiPOIMNIWi, EN hWi hUMAS TO PNEUMA TO hAGION EQETO EPISKOPOUS POIMAINEIN THNEKKLHSIAN TOU QEOU, hHN PERIEPOIHSATO DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU. Therelevant portion is THN EKKLHSIAN TOU QEOU, hHN PERIEPOIHSATO DIA TOUhAIMATOS TOU IDIOU, “the church of God, which he acquired{(a) through (his) own blood}or{(b) through the blood of (his) own (son).”One look at the text makes it evident that this is not really an easyproblem to resolve. Clearly it involves theological issues, since, unless Iseriously misunderstand traditional trinitarian doctrine (which may well bethe case), even if Jesus is said to be identical with God the Father, thepersons are differentiated and it seems strange to say that God acquiredthe church through his own blood rather than through the blood of is son.But of course one might want to argue that “the church of God” here reallymeans “the church of Jesus Christ.” In any case the phrasing seems strange,and I would like to ask the question whether the meaning of DIA TOUhAIMATOS TOU IDIOU can be resolved intelligibly WITHOUT taking theologicalimplications into consideration. While Mr. Tidmore’s question had led me tothink that the understanding of TOU IDIOU as meaning “his own son” was aheterodox view, it occurred to me to check some standard versions and seewhat I found. Had I not been utterly naive about this passage, perhaps Iwould not have been surprised. What I found is this. Versions representing{(a) “through (his) own blood}.”–French LS “par son propre sang.”–German Luther “durch sein eigen Blut.”–KJV “with his own blood.”–NKJV “with His own blood.–NIV “with his own blood.”–Latin-Vulgate”sanguine suo.”–ASV “with his own blood.”–NEB “by his own blood [Or, acc. to some witnesses, ‘by the blood of his Own’]{(b) “through the blood of (his) own (son).”–French Darby “par le sang de son propre [fils].”–German Elber “durch das Blut seines Eigenen.”–RSV “with the blood of his own Son.”[but with footnote indicating variants]–NRSV “with the blood of his own Son.[Or: ‘with his own blood’; Gk ‘withthe blood of his Own.’]–NET “with the blood of his own Son. [footnote 110 on this which I wasn’table to access; the site exhausts even huge memory resources]–TEV) “through the death of his Son [‘the death of his Son’ or ‘his owndeath.’]That is to say, some of these versions resolve the ambiguity one way or theother and do not even indicate in a footnote that alternativeunderstandings of the Greek text are possible, the exceptions being RSV,NET, NEB, and TEV.The problem:(1) DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU could mean either (a) “through his ownblood” or (b) “through the blood of his own (one/son).”(2) The more normal way of expressing the content of “through his ownblood” in classical Attic would be DIA TOU hEAUTOU hAIMATOS or DIA TOUhAIMATOS TOU hEAUTOU; or one might find an instrumental dative instead ofDIA + gen., and, of course, the use of hAIMA here has to be viewed as aSemitism. DIA TOU IDIOU hAIMATOS would also be appropriate for that sense,and in fact, DIA TOU IDIOU hAIMATOS is what the Majority Text shows–butthat’s not in the ancient MSS.(3) While I don’t believe that one could safely argue that DIA TOU hAIMATOSTOU IDIOU is in any way ungrammatical or unintelligible, I DO think onecould easily argue that DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU is unidiomatic if it issupposed to mean “through his own blood.” Although it is a bit awkward tohave a second genitive phrase dependent on another in the same case,gender, and number, this would hardly be a unique NT instance of thatsequence; and so, DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU can very readily be understoodto mean “through the blood of his own (one/son).”(4) There is no really clear antecedent in the text of the sentence or inthe larger context, so far as I can see, of “his own.” There is referenceto the Holy Spirit, which is said to have “made you overseers/bishops toact as shepherds over the church of God”–and one could as easily discern areference to God (the father) either in “the church of God” or in verse 27,THN BOULHN TOU QEOU, “the will of God.” But there is no reference anywherein verse 28 or in the larger complex of verses 25-28 to Jesus.(5) So what are the options? What should we understand to be the subject ofPERIEPOIHSATO?(a) I don’t think I’d understand it to be TO PNEUMA TO hAGION, althoughthat’s not out of the question either, especially since that’s the subjectof hUMAS EQETO EPISKOPOUS;(b) Is it God (the father)? It seems a bit strange for the text to besaying, “God (the father) acquired the church of God through his ownblood,”–doesn’t that sound strange? I think that’s a legitimate way ofunderstanding the Greek text, but I still don’t think it is quite right;(c) The third option, the one which I would prefer because it seems to meto fit Greek usage best is to suppose that hUIOU is IMPLIED by DIA TOUhAIMATOS TOU IDIOU. So, although understanding the text to mean “Godobtained … through God’s own blood” does seem to me for idiomatic reasonsto be justifiable only if one reads DIA TOU IDIOU hAIMATOS, while thereading DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU seems for idiomatic reasons to be betterunderstood as “God obtained … through the blood of His own (son).This morning I’ve checked the commentary of F.F. Bruce, who is certainly aconservative yet careful scholar (F.F.Bruce, _The Acts of the Apostles:Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary_ 3rd ed.). On p. 434 he writes:DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU: “with the blood of his own one; byz reads DIATOU IDIOU hAIMATOS, “with his own blood.” In the present sense IDIOS is theequivalent of Heb. YAHID, “only,” “well-beloved,” otherwise renderedAGAPHTOS, EKLEKTOS, MONOGENHS. For the absolute sense of hO IDIOS (but inthe plural) cf. 4:23; 24:23; also Jn 1:11; 13:1. (Cf. TA IDIA, “one’s ownplace,” 21:6). In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term ofendearment to near relations, e.g. hO DEINA TWi IDIWi CAIREIN [“So-and-soto his own (friend), greeting’]” (J.H. Moulton, MHTI, p. 90). It isunnecessary to conjecture, with Hort, that hUIOU may have fallen out afterIDIOU.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Problems with Judethe usage of PROGINOSKW in 1 Pet 1:2&20

Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Mar 29 12:54:25 EST 1999

 

Problems with Jude the usage of PROGINOSKW in 1 Pet 1:2&20 Last week I received a message from a former list-member about thispassage, with the problematic nature of which I must confess I have beenunfamiliar. After checking it out a bit more carefully, I sent him a replyon last Saturday indicating the conclusion that I express below, but formore intuitive reasons without having investigated versions or discussionsof the text in the literature. Then yesterday I started investigatingstandard translations and was amazed to see both the numbers of versionsfavoring each of the two likely readings and understandings of the texts,surprised also to see that relatively few of the versions footnoted thefact that the Greek is really ambiguous.With some trepidation I’ve decided to share this with : although theway one reads this text has theological repercussions, it seems to me thatone OUGHT to be able to decide for one or the other of the alternatives (orsuggest yet other alternatives?) on the basis of the Greek grammar andstyle. So here it is.At 7:40 AM -0700 3/25/99, Randall Tidmore wrote:Carl,I left a good while back, just to avoid the volume of e-mail. Ithough I would be able to write directly to you. If you wish to share thiswith the list, I don’t mind. Feel free to adapt it to make it proper forthe list.I know that this passage has some serious theological implications, butwhat I want to know is grammatical. In Acts 20:28, it says that the churchof God was bought/acquired by/through the blood the own. In <a certainversion of the> Bible” they translate it as God purchasing the church bythe blood of His own Son.Is there anything in the grammar that allows <that> translation? Does theGreek leave any doubt as to <whose> blood it was?Thanks Carl!Randall Tidmore<mailto:church at elp.rr.com>church at elp.rr.comThe Greek text of Acts 20:28 is ambiguous: PROSECETE hEAUTOIS KAI PANTI TWiPOIMNIWi, EN hWi hUMAS TO PNEUMA TO hAGION EQETO EPISKOPOUS POIMAINEIN THNEKKLHSIAN TOU QEOU, hHN PERIEPOIHSATO DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU. Therelevant portion is THN EKKLHSIAN TOU QEOU, hHN PERIEPOIHSATO DIA TOUhAIMATOS TOU IDIOU, “the church of God, which he acquired{(a) through (his) own blood}or{(b) through the blood of (his) own (son).”One look at the text makes it evident that this is not really an easyproblem to resolve. Clearly it involves theological issues, since, unless Iseriously misunderstand traditional trinitarian doctrine (which may well bethe case), even if Jesus is said to be identical with God the Father, thepersons are differentiated and it seems strange to say that God acquiredthe church through his own blood rather than through the blood of is son.But of course one might want to argue that “the church of God” here reallymeans “the church of Jesus Christ.” In any case the phrasing seems strange,and I would like to ask the question whether the meaning of DIA TOUhAIMATOS TOU IDIOU can be resolved intelligibly WITHOUT taking theologicalimplications into consideration. While Mr. Tidmore’s question had led me tothink that the understanding of TOU IDIOU as meaning “his own son” was aheterodox view, it occurred to me to check some standard versions and seewhat I found. Had I not been utterly naive about this passage, perhaps Iwould not have been surprised. What I found is this. Versions representing{(a) “through (his) own blood}.”–French LS “par son propre sang.”–German Luther “durch sein eigen Blut.”–KJV “with his own blood.”–NKJV “with His own blood.–NIV “with his own blood.”–Latin-Vulgate”sanguine suo.”–ASV “with his own blood.”–NEB “by his own blood [Or, acc. to some witnesses, ‘by the blood of his Own’]{(b) “through the blood of (his) own (son).”–French Darby “par le sang de son propre [fils].”–German Elber “durch das Blut seines Eigenen.”–RSV “with the blood of his own Son.”[but with footnote indicating variants]–NRSV “with the blood of his own Son.[Or: ‘with his own blood’; Gk ‘withthe blood of his Own.’]–NET “with the blood of his own Son. [footnote 110 on this which I wasn’table to access; the site exhausts even huge memory resources]–TEV) “through the death of his Son [‘the death of his Son’ or ‘his owndeath.’]That is to say, some of these versions resolve the ambiguity one way or theother and do not even indicate in a footnote that alternativeunderstandings of the Greek text are possible, the exceptions being RSV,NET, NEB, and TEV.The problem:(1) DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU could mean either (a) “through his ownblood” or (b) “through the blood of his own (one/son).”(2) The more normal way of expressing the content of “through his ownblood” in classical Attic would be DIA TOU hEAUTOU hAIMATOS or DIA TOUhAIMATOS TOU hEAUTOU; or one might find an instrumental dative instead ofDIA + gen., and, of course, the use of hAIMA here has to be viewed as aSemitism. DIA TOU IDIOU hAIMATOS would also be appropriate for that sense,and in fact, DIA TOU IDIOU hAIMATOS is what the Majority Text shows–butthat’s not in the ancient MSS.(3) While I don’t believe that one could safely argue that DIA TOU hAIMATOSTOU IDIOU is in any way ungrammatical or unintelligible, I DO think onecould easily argue that DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU is unidiomatic if it issupposed to mean “through his own blood.” Although it is a bit awkward tohave a second genitive phrase dependent on another in the same case,gender, and number, this would hardly be a unique NT instance of thatsequence; and so, DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU can very readily be understoodto mean “through the blood of his own (one/son).”(4) There is no really clear antecedent in the text of the sentence or inthe larger context, so far as I can see, of “his own.” There is referenceto the Holy Spirit, which is said to have “made you overseers/bishops toact as shepherds over the church of God”–and one could as easily discern areference to God (the father) either in “the church of God” or in verse 27,THN BOULHN TOU QEOU, “the will of God.” But there is no reference anywherein verse 28 or in the larger complex of verses 25-28 to Jesus.(5) So what are the options? What should we understand to be the subject ofPERIEPOIHSATO?(a) I don’t think I’d understand it to be TO PNEUMA TO hAGION, althoughthat’s not out of the question either, especially since that’s the subjectof hUMAS EQETO EPISKOPOUS;(b) Is it God (the father)? It seems a bit strange for the text to besaying, “God (the father) acquired the church of God through his ownblood,”–doesn’t that sound strange? I think that’s a legitimate way ofunderstanding the Greek text, but I still don’t think it is quite right;(c) The third option, the one which I would prefer because it seems to meto fit Greek usage best is to suppose that hUIOU is IMPLIED by DIA TOUhAIMATOS TOU IDIOU. So, although understanding the text to mean “Godobtained … through God’s own blood” does seem to me for idiomatic reasonsto be justifiable only if one reads DIA TOU IDIOU hAIMATOS, while thereading DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU seems for idiomatic reasons to be betterunderstood as “God obtained … through the blood of His own (son).This morning I’ve checked the commentary of F.F. Bruce, who is certainly aconservative yet careful scholar (F.F.Bruce, _The Acts of the Apostles:Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary_ 3rd ed.). On p. 434 he writes:DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU: “with the blood of his own one; byz reads DIATOU IDIOU hAIMATOS, “with his own blood.” In the present sense IDIOS is theequivalent of Heb. YAHID, “only,” “well-beloved,” otherwise renderedAGAPHTOS, EKLEKTOS, MONOGENHS. For the absolute sense of hO IDIOS (but inthe plural) cf. 4:23; 24:23; also Jn 1:11; 13:1. (Cf. TA IDIA, “one’s ownplace,” 21:6). In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term ofendearment to near relations, e.g. hO DEINA TWi IDIWi CAIREIN [“So-and-soto his own (friend), greeting’]” (J.H. Moulton, MHTI, p. 90). It isunnecessary to conjecture, with Hort, that hUIOU may have fallen out afterIDIOU.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Problems with Judethe usage of PROGINOSKW in 1 Pet 1:2&20

Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Mon Mar 29 14:12:43 EST 1999

 

Pronunciation, was Re: Did Paul Speak Greek with a Turkish Accent? Greek Translation of Augsburg Confession {Carl}(b) Is it God (the father)? It seems a bit strange for the text to besaying, “God (the father) acquired the church of God through his ownblood,”–doesn’t that sound strange? I think that’s a legitimate way ofunderstanding the Greek text, but I still don’t think it is quite right;{Bill}The fact that the “normal” way of saying one’s “own blood,” and neither wasthe “normal” syntax for “own Son,” press me to seek an understanding of theterm IDIOU that was used.I understand the meaning of this as “relating to onesself” and take themeaning in context to imply that the blood was not out of God the Father’sbody, but related to God. Thus God incurred cost through blood that was*personal* to Him. In the same way ought the Ephesians to be prepared tosuffer *personal* loss to shepherd the flocks of God.

 

Pronunciation, was Re: Did Paul Speak Greek with a Turkish Accent?Greek Translation of Augsburg Confession

Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Mon Mar 29 14:12:43 EST 1999

 

Pronunciation, was Re: Did Paul Speak Greek with a Turkish Accent? Greek Translation of Augsburg Confession {Carl}(b) Is it God (the father)? It seems a bit strange for the text to besaying, “God (the father) acquired the church of God through his ownblood,”–doesn’t that sound strange? I think that’s a legitimate way ofunderstanding the Greek text, but I still don’t think it is quite right;{Bill}The fact that the “normal” way of saying one’s “own blood,” and neither wasthe “normal” syntax for “own Son,” press me to seek an understanding of theterm IDIOU that was used.I understand the meaning of this as “relating to onesself” and take themeaning in context to imply that the blood was not out of God the Father’sbody, but related to God. Thus God incurred cost through blood that was*personal* to Him. In the same way ought the Ephesians to be prepared tosuffer *personal* loss to shepherd the flocks of God.

 

Pronunciation, was Re: Did Paul Speak Greek with a Turkish Accent?Greek Translation of Augsburg Confession

Acts 20:28 Whose blood? GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Mon Mar 29 20:33:15 EST 1999

 

Conzelmann vol. on CBD clearance sale Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Since I discuss this text at length in the first edition of my book, Jehovah’sWitnesses Defended (Huntington Beach, CA: Elihu Books, 1998), I will simplyrefer to my discussion on pages 30-37. There is a slightly updated discussionin my second edition, due out this summer (www.elihubooks.com). The first page and a half of the discussion is an apologetic against criticsof the NWT rendering of this text, but the balance of the discussion is aninvolved consideration of the grammar and textual variants of this passage.If anyone would like a photocopy of the discussion in the first edition, Iwill gladly send it to you.Greg Stafford

 

Conzelmann vol. on CBD clearance saleActs 20:28 Whose blood?

Acts 20:28 Whose blood? GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Mon Mar 29 20:33:15 EST 1999

 

Conzelmann vol. on CBD clearance sale Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Since I discuss this text at length in the first edition of my book, Jehovah’sWitnesses Defended (Huntington Beach, CA: Elihu Books, 1998), I will simplyrefer to my discussion on pages 30-37. There is a slightly updated discussionin my second edition, due out this summer (www.elihubooks.com). The first page and a half of the discussion is an apologetic against criticsof the NWT rendering of this text, but the balance of the discussion is aninvolved consideration of the grammar and textual variants of this passage.If anyone would like a photocopy of the discussion in the first edition, Iwill gladly send it to you.Greg Stafford

 

Conzelmann vol. on CBD clearance saleActs 20:28 Whose blood?

Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Jim Denley DenleyJT at ponce.navy.mil
Mon Mar 29 20:50:09 EST 1999

 

Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Mark 14:72 EPIBALLW Carl brought up several points of discussion in his presentation. One solution to the theological difficulty, though a textual one, would be if the variant reading KURIOU was the original instead of QEOU as the subject of PERIEPOIHSATO. USB 3rd edition lists QEOU as a {C} reading. I’m not up on more recent textual criticism, and the topic was a grammatical one. The {C} reading, if nothing else, shows that this was also an issue a long time ago: p74, 7th century; A, C*, and D, 5th; etc.I don’t want to redirect the discussion. I’m interested in the grammatical discussion more than the textual issues, but wanted to throw this out as well.Jim DenleyVirginia Beach, VA

 

Acts 20:28 Whose blood?Mark 14:72 EPIBALLW

Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Jim Denley DenleyJT at ponce.navy.mil
Mon Mar 29 20:50:09 EST 1999

 

Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Mark 14:72 EPIBALLW Carl brought up several points of discussion in his presentation. One solution to the theological difficulty, though a textual one, would be if the variant reading KURIOU was the original instead of QEOU as the subject of PERIEPOIHSATO. USB 3rd edition lists QEOU as a {C} reading. I’m not up on more recent textual criticism, and the topic was a grammatical one. The {C} reading, if nothing else, shows that this was also an issue a long time ago: p74, 7th century; A, C*, and D, 5th; etc.I don’t want to redirect the discussion. I’m interested in the grammatical discussion more than the textual issues, but wanted to throw this out as well.Jim DenleyVirginia Beach, VA

 

Acts 20:28 Whose blood?Mark 14:72 EPIBALLW

Subject: Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Rodney J. Decker rdecker at bbc.edu
Tue Mar 30 06:22:59 EST 1999

 

Perseus fonts Pronunciation, was Re: Did Paul Speak Greek with a Turkish Accent? Perhaps the most extensive discussion of this problem is to be found inMurray J. Harris, *Jesus as God: The NT Use of THEOS in Reference toJesus*, ch. 5, pp. 131-41. He addresses both the text critical issues aswell as the grammar and theology, concluding that: “the most appropriatetranslation of these words is ‘the Church of God which he bought with theblood of his own one’ … with hO QEOS construed as a christological title.According to this view, hO QEOS refers to God the Father, not Jesus Christ”(p. 141). Even if one does not agree with Harris (and this is a notablecrux), he leaves few stones unturned in his discussion. It well repayscareful study.Rod****************************************************Rodney J. Decker, Th.D. Baptist Bible SeminaryDept. of NT P.O. Box 800, Clarks Summit, PA 18411http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/The *Resources for NT Study* page is accessible at:http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/rd_rsrc.htm****************************************************

 

Perseus fontsPronunciation, was Re: Did Paul Speak Greek with a Turkish Accent?

Subject: Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Rodney J. Decker rdecker at bbc.edu
Tue Mar 30 06:22:59 EST 1999

 

Perseus fonts Pronunciation, was Re: Did Paul Speak Greek with a Turkish Accent? Perhaps the most extensive discussion of this problem is to be found inMurray J. Harris, *Jesus as God: The NT Use of THEOS in Reference toJesus*, ch. 5, pp. 131-41. He addresses both the text critical issues aswell as the grammar and theology, concluding that: “the most appropriatetranslation of these words is ‘the Church of God which he bought with theblood of his own one’ … with hO QEOS construed as a christological title.According to this view, hO QEOS refers to God the Father, not Jesus Christ”(p. 141). Even if one does not agree with Harris (and this is a notablecrux), he leaves few stones unturned in his discussion. It well repayscareful study.Rod****************************************************Rodney J. Decker, Th.D. Baptist Bible SeminaryDept. of NT P.O. Box 800, Clarks Summit, PA 18411http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/The *Resources for NT Study* page is accessible at:http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/rd_rsrc.htm****************************************************

 

Perseus fontsPronunciation, was Re: Did Paul Speak Greek with a Turkish Accent?

Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Tue Mar 30 11:20:25 EST 1999

 

New Testament Greek links? the usage of PROGINOSKW in 1 Pet 1:2&20 At 11:54 29/03/99 -0600, you wrote:>This morning I’ve checked the commentary of F.F. Bruce, who is certainly a>conservative yet careful scholar (F.F.Bruce, _The Acts of the Apostles:>Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary_ 3rd ed.). Carl:I see that Fitzmyer lists — in addition to Bruce — Knapp, Pesch, Weiseras having preferred to understand this phrase to mean, “with the blood ofhis Own,” i.e., his own Son. And, _pace_ Jim Denley, Fitzmyer sees this not as a grammatical but atext-critical problem. He goes on to say:”Such an absolute use of HO IDIOS is found in Creek papyri as a term ofendearment for relatives. Perhaps, then, it might be used here for Jesus,somewhat like Rom 8:32 or 1 Tim 5:8. That, however, is a last-ditchsolution for this text-critical problem.” [ He has already adduced a listof “all the important MSS”]He goes on to say:”The mention of blood” must refer to the vicarious shedding of the blood ofJesus, the Son. Through his blood the Christian community has become God’sown possession, the people acquired for his renewed covenant. Cf. Eph 1 :14; Heb 9: 12; 1 Pet 2:9-10, which speak of God acquiring a people, echoingan OT motif(1Sa 43:21; Ps 74:2j. Luke may be thinking of the action of Godthe Father and the Son as so close]y related that his mode of speakingslips from one to the other; if so. it resembles the speech patterns of theJohannine Gospel. ” HAIMA, as used in classical and Hellenistic Greek for ‘bloodrelationship,kin” is covered, drawing on the citations in LS, and the suggestion ofK.G.Dolfe that it means ” by means of one nearest to him[self] ” hedismisses as ” really seems farfetched”.His final comment is that ” in any case, one should not miss the triadicnuance of this verse: the explicit nention of”God,” “the Spirit,” and the”b]ood,’ which implies the Son. It is a trinitarian dimension that Lukeassociates with the Christian community and its governance.”To my surprise, Haenchen’s large volume on Acts ignores this issueentirely, whereas Krodel’s much more condensed volume has this to say:”.the church belongs to God ( 1 Cor. 1 :2; 10:32; 15:9) because he has”purchased” or obtained it with the blood of his own Son. This translationof v. 28 in the second edition of the RSV is better than that found in thefirst edition, The Greek text does not contain the word Son, but reads”hisown.’. Like ‘the Beloved’. (Eph. 1:6), so “his own” refers to the Son ofGod. Only once in Acts does Luke speak of the saving efficacy of the deathof Jesus (cf. Rom. 3:25; 1 Cor. 15:3; 1 Peter 2:24; 3: l8) by using atraditional formulation. God redeemed his people, the church, through theatoning death of his Son, Therefore the church is God’s possession.”Perhaps someone on the list can provide the comparison with the RSV firstedition?Incidentally, Ignatius of Antioch had no problem with EN hAIMATI QEOU inhis Eph. 1:1. though I am amused to see that in the old Edinburgh edition( now on Logos CD-ROM) the ‘shorter’ translation preserves ‘ the blood ofGod’ as against ‘the blood of Christ’ in the ‘longer’ translation.Lightfoot, of course, respects the text and gives us ” the blood of God”.On p. 434 he writes:>DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU: “with the blood of his own one; byz reads DIA>TOU IDIOU hAIMATOS, “with his own blood.” In the present sense IDIOS is the>equivalent of Heb. YAHID, “only,” “well-beloved,” otherwise rendered>AGAPHTOS, EKLEKTOS, MONOGENHS. For the absolute sense of hO IDIOS (but in>the plural) cf. 4:23; 24:23; also Jn 1:11; 13:1. (Cf. TA IDIA, “one’s own>place,” 21:6). In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of>endearment to near relations, e.g. hO DEINA TWi IDIWi CAIREIN [“So-and-so>to his own (friend), greeting’]” (J.H. Moulton, MHTI, p. 90). It is>unnecessary to conjecture, with Hort, that hUIOU may have fallen out after>IDIOU.> >Carl W. Conrad>Department of Classics/Washington University>One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018>Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.us>WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: mauros at iol.ie>To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > Maurice A. O’Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie

 

New Testament Greek links?the usage of PROGINOSKW in 1 Pet 1:2&20

Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Tue Mar 30 11:20:25 EST 1999

 

New Testament Greek links? the usage of PROGINOSKW in 1 Pet 1:2&20 At 11:54 29/03/99 -0600, you wrote:>This morning I’ve checked the commentary of F.F. Bruce, who is certainly a>conservative yet careful scholar (F.F.Bruce, _The Acts of the Apostles:>Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary_ 3rd ed.). Carl:I see that Fitzmyer lists — in addition to Bruce — Knapp, Pesch, Weiseras having preferred to understand this phrase to mean, “with the blood ofhis Own,” i.e., his own Son. And, _pace_ Jim Denley, Fitzmyer sees this not as a grammatical but atext-critical problem. He goes on to say:”Such an absolute use of HO IDIOS is found in Creek papyri as a term ofendearment for relatives. Perhaps, then, it might be used here for Jesus,somewhat like Rom 8:32 or 1 Tim 5:8. That, however, is a last-ditchsolution for this text-critical problem.” [ He has already adduced a listof “all the important MSS”]He goes on to say:”The mention of blood” must refer to the vicarious shedding of the blood ofJesus, the Son. Through his blood the Christian community has become God’sown possession, the people acquired for his renewed covenant. Cf. Eph 1 :14; Heb 9: 12; 1 Pet 2:9-10, which speak of God acquiring a people, echoingan OT motif(1Sa 43:21; Ps 74:2j. Luke may be thinking of the action of Godthe Father and the Son as so close]y related that his mode of speakingslips from one to the other; if so. it resembles the speech patterns of theJohannine Gospel. ” HAIMA, as used in classical and Hellenistic Greek for ‘bloodrelationship,kin” is covered, drawing on the citations in LS, and the suggestion ofK.G.Dolfe that it means ” by means of one nearest to him[self] ” hedismisses as ” really seems farfetched”.His final comment is that ” in any case, one should not miss the triadicnuance of this verse: the explicit nention of”God,” “the Spirit,” and the”b]ood,’ which implies the Son. It is a trinitarian dimension that Lukeassociates with the Christian community and its governance.”To my surprise, Haenchen’s large volume on Acts ignores this issueentirely, whereas Krodel’s much more condensed volume has this to say:”.the church belongs to God ( 1 Cor. 1 :2; 10:32; 15:9) because he has”purchased” or obtained it with the blood of his own Son. This translationof v. 28 in the second edition of the RSV is better than that found in thefirst edition, The Greek text does not contain the word Son, but reads”hisown.’. Like ‘the Beloved’. (Eph. 1:6), so “his own” refers to the Son ofGod. Only once in Acts does Luke speak of the saving efficacy of the deathof Jesus (cf. Rom. 3:25; 1 Cor. 15:3; 1 Peter 2:24; 3: l8) by using atraditional formulation. God redeemed his people, the church, through theatoning death of his Son, Therefore the church is God’s possession.”Perhaps someone on the list can provide the comparison with the RSV firstedition?Incidentally, Ignatius of Antioch had no problem with EN hAIMATI QEOU inhis Eph. 1:1. though I am amused to see that in the old Edinburgh edition( now on Logos CD-ROM) the ‘shorter’ translation preserves ‘ the blood ofGod’ as against ‘the blood of Christ’ in the ‘longer’ translation.Lightfoot, of course, respects the text and gives us ” the blood of God”.On p. 434 he writes:>DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU: “with the blood of his own one; byz reads DIA>TOU IDIOU hAIMATOS, “with his own blood.” In the present sense IDIOS is the>equivalent of Heb. YAHID, “only,” “well-beloved,” otherwise rendered>AGAPHTOS, EKLEKTOS, MONOGENHS. For the absolute sense of hO IDIOS (but in>the plural) cf. 4:23; 24:23; also Jn 1:11; 13:1. (Cf. TA IDIA, “one’s own>place,” 21:6). In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of>endearment to near relations, e.g. hO DEINA TWi IDIWi CAIREIN [“So-and-so>to his own (friend), greeting’]” (J.H. Moulton, MHTI, p. 90). It is>unnecessary to conjecture, with Hort, that hUIOU may have fallen out after>IDIOU.> >Carl W. Conrad>Department of Classics/Washington University>One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018>Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.us>WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: mauros at iol.ie>To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > Maurice A. O’Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie

 

New Testament Greek links?the usage of PROGINOSKW in 1 Pet 1:2&20

Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Mar 30 11:38:27 EST 1999

 

the usage of PROGINOSKW in 1 Pet 1:2&20 Perseus fonts From: GregStffrd at aol.comDate: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 20:33:15 ESTTo: cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduCc: church at elp.rr.com, at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Subject: Re: Acts 20:28 Whose blood?Since I discuss this text at length in the first edition of my book, Jehovah’sWitnesses Defended (Huntington Beach, CA: Elihu Books, 1998), I will simplyrefer to my discussion on pages 30-37. There is a slightly updated discussionin my second edition, due out this summer (www.elihubooks.com).The first page and a half of the discussion is an apologetic against criticsof the NWT rendering of this text, but the balance of the discussion is aninvolved consideration of the grammar and textual variants of this passage.If anyone would like a photocopy of the discussion in the first edition, Iwill gladly send it to you.Greg Stafford

 

the usage of PROGINOSKW in 1 Pet 1:2&20Perseus fonts

1 Corinthians 11:14

1 Corinthians 11 David Fox amyraut at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 17 13:23:13 EDT 2002

 

Hebrews 9:6, 12:6 and the usage of DE Hebrews 9:6, 12:6 and the usage of DE Dear all,I have been looking at 1 Corinthians 11.In verses 14-15, the KJV reads, “Doth not even nature itself teach you,that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman havelong hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering”while the Greek reads, “H OUDE AUTH hH FUSIS DIDASKEI hUMAS, hOTI ANHR MENEAN KOMA, ATIMIA AUTO ESTI? GUNH DE EAN KOMA, DOXA AUTH ESTIN? hOTI hHKOMH ANTI PERIBAIOU DEDOTI AUTH;”Which would be translated as, “Does not even nature itself teach you that,if a man have long hair, it is a shame to him? But if a woman has longhair, is it a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”Some say it could even be translated, “Even nature itself does not teachyou, that, if a man has long hair, it is a shame to him, etc.”What is the proper translation? And, if the KJV translators were correcthere, in which way does nature teach us that it is a shame for a man tohave long hair? And could “ANHR” and “GUNH” be translated as “husband” and”wife”?Many Thanks,David Fox

 

Hebrews 9:6, 12:6 and the usage of DEHebrews 9:6, 12:6 and the usage of DE

1 Corinthians 11 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Jul 17 14:18:56 EDT 2002

 

Hebrews 9:6, 12:6 and the usage of DE 1 Corinthians 11 on 7/17/02 10:23 AM, David Fox wrote:> I have been looking at 1 Corinthians 11.> In verses 14-15,1COR. 11:14-15 OUDE hH FUSIS AUTH DIDASKEI hUMAS hOTI ANHR MEN EAN KOMAiATIMIA AUTWi ESTIN, GUNH DE EAN KOMAi DOXA AUTHi ESTIN; hOTI hH KOMH ANTIPERIBOLAIOU DEDOTAI [AUTHi].>in which way does nature teach us that it is a shame for a man to> have long hair?This whole question hangs on Paul’s use of hH FUSIS, a complicated topic.Paul uses the term here to reflect the order of things established increation. He does not always use the term in that sense. For a very detaileddiscussion of this topic you certainly should consult *D. Wold.*Donald J. Wold, Out of Order. : Homosexuality in the Bible & the AncientNear East, Baker Books (1999), page 182. Read the whole book!Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Hebrews 9:6, 12:6 and the usage of DE1 Corinthians 11

1 Corinthians 11 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Jul 17 15:34:14 EDT 2002

 

1 Corinthians 11 Hebrews 9:6, 12:6 and the usage of DE on 7/17/02 11:18 AM, c stirling bartholomew wrote:> on 7/17/02 10:23 AM, David Fox wrote:> >> I have been looking at 1 Corinthians 11.>> In verses 14-15,> > 1COR. 11:14-15 OUDE hH FUSIS AUTH DIDASKEI hUMAS hOTI ANHR MEN EAN KOMAi> ATIMIA AUTWi ESTIN, GUNH DE EAN KOMAi DOXA AUTHi ESTIN; hOTI hH KOMH ANTI> PERIBOLAIOU DEDOTAI [AUTHi].> >> in which way does nature teach us that it is a shame for a man to>> have long hair?> > This whole question hangs on Paul’s use of hH FUSIS, a complicated topic. Paul> uses the term here to reflect the order of things established in creation.David,The classic Pauline passage dealing with created order and hH FUSIS isRomans 1:18-32. Pay particularly close attention to THN FUSIKHN CRHSIN andEIS THN PARA FUSIN in Romans 1:26-27.Again, find a copy of *D. Wold and see what he says about Paul’s doctrineof creation and hH FUSIS, particularly Pages 182-4.*Donald J. Wold, Out of Order. : Homosexuality in the Bible & the AncientNear East, Baker Books (1999)Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

1 Corinthians 11Hebrews 9:6, 12:6 and the usage of DE

1 Corinthians 11 Larry Overton LGO at larryoverton.com
Thu Jul 18 09:28:13 EDT 2002

 

test, please ignore Ro. 8:26 1 Corinthians 11:14 – OUDEI hH FUSIS AUTH DIDASKEI hUMAS hOTI ANHR MEN EANKOMAi ATIMIA AUTWi ESTIN 11:15 – GUNH DE EAN KOMAi DOXA AUTHi ESTIN hOTI hHKOMH ANTI PERIBOLAIOU DEDOTAI [AUTHi]I echo David’s original question:>> in which way does nature teach us that it is a shame for a man to>> have long hair?Clay, your comments on Paul’s reference to the “created order and hH FUSIS”in Romans 1:26 are not that helpful here. I doubt that Paul is saying to theCorinthians that “the order of things established in creation” means longhair is a shameful thing on men. I agree with your assessment that the”whole question hangs on Paul’s use of hH FUSIS,” and that it is “acomplicated topic.” I also agree that the context of Romans 1 warrants aclose connection of FUSIS to the created order. But I would think itsomewhat of an eisegetical assumption to read that understanding into thisCorinthian passage.The typical translation of hH FUSIS AUTH is “nature itself”. This, however,seems unlikely to be what Paul had in mind. If something like “that which isnatural” (in a physical sense) is the intended meaning, then the idea oflong hair being a shame for a man does not square with the fact that lettingnature take its course means a man’s hair will grow long. Is there any(lexical) justification for understanding FUSIS here as “that which isnatural (in a cultural sense)”?Or, what about the rendering, “the appearance of things”? The abridgedLiddell-Scott lists an example of FUSIS in a line from Pindar’s Odes(specifically line 5 of Nemean Ode 6) as referring to “outward form.” Theline reads, ALLA TI PROSFEROMEN EMPAN H MEGAN NOON HTOI FUSIN AQANATOIS(“Nevertheless, we bear some resemblance either in greatness of mind or in*outward form* [FUSIN] to the immortals.”). Other examples of FUSISreferring to physical appearance, the “bodily nature”, are cited in L-S.Would such a rendering in 1 Corinthians 11:14 be stretching things a bit toomuch, or is there some merit to this?Also, the translation of ANTI in verse 15 is typically (KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB,etc.) rendered “for.” Is there a reason for this that I’m missing? I wouldthink that a more acceptable gloss would be “instead of,” which tracks withdefinitions given in lexicons from Thayer to BAGD to L-S. Also, both Darbyand Young render it so in their translations (“in lieu of” and “instead of”,respectively).Larry G. Overton—–Original Message—–From: c stirling bartholomew [mailto:cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net]Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 2:34 PMTo: Biblical GreekSubject: [] Re: 1 Corinthians 11on 7/17/02 11:18 AM, c stirling bartholomew wrote:> on 7/17/02 10:23 AM, David Fox wrote:> >> I have been looking at 1 Corinthians 11.>> In verses 14-15,> > 1COR. 11:14-15 OUDE hH FUSIS AUTH DIDASKEI hUMAS hOTI ANHR MEN EAN KOMAi> ATIMIA AUTWi ESTIN, GUNH DE EAN KOMAi DOXA AUTHi ESTIN; hOTI hH KOMH ANTI> PERIBOLAIOU DEDOTAI [AUTHi].> >> in which way does nature teach us that it is a shame for a man to>> have long hair?> > This whole question hangs on Paul’s use of hH FUSIS, a complicated topic.Paul> uses the term here to reflect the order of things established in creation.David,The classic Pauline passage dealing with created order and hH FUSIS isRomans 1:18-32. Pay particularly close attention to THN FUSIKHN CRHSIN andEIS THN PARA FUSIN in Romans 1:26-27.Again, find a copy of *D. Wold and see what he says about Paul’s doctrineof creation and hH FUSIS, particularly Pages 182-4.*Donald J. Wold, Out of Order. : Homosexuality in the Bible & the AncientNear East, Baker Books (1999)Clay–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/You are currently subscribed to as: [lgo at larryoverton.com]To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu

 

test, please ignoreRo. 8:26

1 Corinthians 11 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Thu Jul 18 21:16:36 EDT 2002

 

Beginning Grammars-dark ages 1 Corinthians 11 In a message dated 7/18/02 6:00:42 PM, LGO at larryoverton.com writes:omission>The typical translation of hH FUSIS AUTH is “nature itself”. This, however,>seems unlikely to be what Paul had in mind. If something like “that which>is natural” (in a physical sense) is the intended meaning, then the idea of>long hair being a shame for a man does not square with the fact that letting>nature take its course means a man’s hair will grow long. Is there any>(lexical) justification for understanding FUSIS here as “that which is>natural (in a cultural sense)”?> omissionOUDE hH FUSIS AUTH DIDASKEI hUMAS . . .In this context it seems we must translate “nature itself.” The use of AUTH demands it.>>Is there any>(lexical) justification for understanding FUSIS here as “that which is>natural (in a cultural sense)”?<<Rom. HMEQA TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS “We were by nature (in our natural state) children of wrath.” BDAG amply illustrates this meaning.Carlton WinberyLouisiana College

 

Beginning Grammars-dark ages1 Corinthians 11

1 Corinthians 11 jburke at sprint.com.au jburke at sprint.com.au
Thu Jul 18 21:23:58 EDT 2002

 

1 Corinthians 11 FWS hILARON Hi Larry,> The typical translation of hH FUSIS AUTH is “nature itself”. This, however,seems unlikely to be what Paul had in mind. > True. But isn’t there a meaning of FUSIS which applies to an establishedpattern of behaviour or custom? That would make more sense, given the factthat in Paul’s day short hair was de rigeur for men.> Is there any (lexical) justification for understanding FUSIS here as “thatwhich is natural (in a cultural sense)”?> I was pretty sure there was. I’ll have to go and check LSJ9 again.Jonathan Burke.——————————————————————–mail2web – Check your email from the web athttp://mail2web.com/ .

 

1 Corinthians 11FWS hILARON

1 Corinthians 11 David Fox amyraut at hotmail.com
Fri Jul 19 10:56:43 EDT 2002

 

Acts 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiou Locative/Instrumental Jay Green’s ‘Modern King James’ translates verse 15 as, “But if a woman should have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hairis given to her in place of a veil.”David Fox

 

Acts 20:28 – dia tou haimatos tou idiouLocative/Instrumental

Luke 24:15

Lluke 24:15 B. D. Colt babc2 at attbi.com
Wed Apr 10 00:28:17 EDT 2002

 

EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN (Ro 1.17) Lluke 24:15 I’m probably asking a dumb question again, but in next Sunday’s gospel I find:Luke 24:15KAI EGENETO EN TWi hOMILEIN *AUTOUS* KAI SUZHTEIN KAI AUTOS IHSOUS EGGISA SUNEPOREUETO AUTOIS.Can someone please clarify for me what the AUTOUS that I’ve marked is doing in this sentence? I’m just not getting it.Barbara D. Colt, mailto:babc2 at attbi.comSt John the Evangelist, San Francisco

 

EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN (Ro 1.17)Lluke 24:15

Lluke 24:15 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Apr 10 00:37:42 EDT 2002

 

Lluke 24:15 Lluke 24:15 on 4/9/02 9:28 PM, B. D. Colt wrote:> Luke 24:15> KAI EGENETO EN TWi hOMILEIN *AUTOUS* KAI> SUZHTEIN KAI AUTOS IHSOUS EGGISA> SUNEPOREUETO AUTOIS.> > Can someone please clarify for me what the AUTOUS that I’ve marked> is doing in this sentence? I’m just not getting it.Barbara,This is not a dumb question. I take AUTOUS as the subject of the infinitivehOMILEIN. I could be wrong.greetings,Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Lluke 24:15Lluke 24:15

Lluke 24:15 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Wed Apr 10 01:14:48 EDT 2002

 

Lluke 24:15 Lluke 24:15 on 4/9/02 11:28 PM, B. D. Colt at babc2 at attbi.com wrote:> I’m probably asking a dumb question again, but in next Sunday’s> gospel I find:> > Luke 24:15> KAI EGENETO EN TWi hOMILEIN *AUTOUS* KAI> SUZHTEIN KAI AUTOS IHSOUS EGGISA> SUNEPOREUETO AUTOIS.> > Can someone please clarify for me what the AUTOUS that I’ve marked> is doing in this sentence? I’m just not getting it.Barbara:An accusative substantive often functions semantically as the subject of aninfinitive when the the infinitive requires a different agent than that ofthe main verb. Older grammars would call this an “accusative of respect.”But from a descriptive and functional perspective, it seems best to treat itas the subject of the infinitive. You have to be careful, though, becausethe accusative substantive functioning as subject of the infinitive may**follow** the infinitive, as in your example above, and thus may beconfused as the direct object, which would also be in the accusative case.But usually context will make clear whether the accusative is the subject ordirect object (sometimes the infinitive will have both). As for the aboveexample: “And it came to pass that, while *they* were talking anddiscussing, Jesus himself approached and began traveling with them.” Themain verb is SUNEPOREUETO, whose subject is IHSOUS. Since the subject of theinfinitive in the prepositional phrase is different from that of the mainverb, it is indicated by AUTOUS.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WIslovullo at mac.com

 

Lluke 24:15Lluke 24:15

Lluke 24:15 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Wed Apr 10 01:23:42 EDT 2002

 

Lluke 24:15 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN (Ro 1.17) In a message dated 4/10/2002 12:38:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net writes:This is not a dumb question. I take AUTOUS as the subject of the infinitivehOMILEIN. I could be wrong.___________________________No, you’re absolutely correct. Wallace, p. 193 has5. Accusative Subject of the Infinitivea. DefinitionThe accusative substantive frequently functions semantically as the subject of the infinitive. Though older grammars insist that technically this is an accusative of respect, from a descriptive and functional perspective, it is better to treat it as subject. This is a common use of the accusative, especially with personal pronouns.b. ClarificationNormally the subject of the infinitive is the same as the subject of the main verb and thus is in the nominative case. For example, in Luke 19:47 we read hOI GRAMMATEIS EZHTOUN AUTON APOLESAI (“the scribes were seeking to kill him”).59 But when the infinitive requires a different agent, it is almost always put in the accusative case.601) English AnalogiesThough this usage of the accusative is difficult to grasp, it is not without some parallels in English. In the sentence “She wanted me to learn something,” “me” is both the direct object of “wanted” and the subject of “to learn.” Greek usage is similar, though more varied (that is to say, the subject of an infinitive is not always going to do double-duty as a direct object, too). Note, for example, Phil 1:12–13: GINWSKEIN DE hUMAS BOULOMAI . . . hWSTE TOUS DESMOUS MOU FANEROUS . . . GENESQAI (“now I want you to know… so that my bonds have become manifest”). In v 12 the accusative is both object of the verbgeorge

 

Lluke 24:15EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN (Ro 1.17)

Lluke 24:15 One of the McKays musicke at ozemail.com.au
Wed Apr 10 22:41:06 EDT 2002

 

Lk 24.17, PAROIKEW 1 Cor. 2:7 Is this the Welsh version?David McKaymusicke at ozemail.com.auhttp://members.ozemail.com.au/~musicke

 

Lk 24.17, PAROIKEW1 Cor. 2:7

Lluke 24:15 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Wed Apr 10 23:27:52 EDT 2002

 

Lk 24.17, PAROIKEW 1 Cor. 2:7 In a message dated 4/10/2002 10:40:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, musicke at ozemail.com.au writes:Is this the Welsh version?____________It would appear that way! :-)gfsomsel

 

Lk 24.17, PAROIKEW1 Cor. 2:7

Lluke 24:15 B. D. Colt babc2 at attbi.com
Thu Apr 11 06:37:44 EDT 2002

 

1 Cor. 2:7 Rev 5:12-13 On 11 Apr 02, at 12:41, David McKay wrote:> Is this the Welsh version?I don’t know whether my keyboard is extra sensitive or my fingers are a bit heavy on the keys, but characters are constantly getting doubled lately. I caught and corrected another one, but that one I missed.Barbara D. Colt, mailto:babc2 at attbi.comSt John the Evangelist, San Francisco

 

1 Cor. 2:7Rev 5:12-13

Lluke 24:15 One of the McKays musicke at ozemail.com.au
Thu Apr 11 10:01:04 EDT 2002

 

Rev 5:12-13 Lluke 24:15 Barbara, You should see what my typing looks like befroe I correct it!I wonder if I should type in a program like Word, and use its correctionfacilities.But, with Welsh blood on my wife’s side, and a house called Lllewellyn[whoops] I couldn’t resistDavid McKaymusicke at ozemail.com.auhttp://members.ozemail.com.au/~musicke

 

Rev 5:12-13Lluke 24:15

Lluke 24:15 Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Thu Apr 11 10:57:44 EDT 2002

 

Lluke 24:15 masc/feminine plural participle At 15:01 11/04/02, One of the McKays wrote:>I wonder if I should type in a program like Word, and use its correction>facilities.Why not switch to Eudora as your mailer — it has an excellent spell checker?You might like to have a look at its features: http://www.eudora.com/email/features/And bearing in mind your .au domain, the choice of U.S or U.K dictionaries might be an enticement <g>Best of all, it shunts attachments into a sub-folder ( with any name you choose ) which very largely defeats all those viruses that depend on the weaknesses inherent in Outlook Express.RegardsMauriceMaurice A. O’Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie

 

Lluke 24:15masc/feminine plural participle

Lluke 24:15 Paul Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Thu Apr 11 11:15:15 EDT 2002

 

masc/feminine plural participle 1 Cor. 2:7 On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:57:44 +0100 “Maurice A. O’Sullivan”<mauros at iol.ie> writes:> At 15:01 11/04/02, One of the McKays wrote:> > >I wonder if I should type in a program like Word, and use its > correction> >facilities.> > > Why not switch to Eudora as your mailer — it has an excellent spell > checker?> You might like to have a look at its features: > http://www.eudora.com/email/features/David:Eudora is fine, but the suggested retail cost is $39.99 (USA). I useJuno. It has a spell checker and some nice features. Best of all, it isfree. Download it at: www.juno.com.Hey, don’t they teach you how to spell down there in Australia? ;)Paul Dixon

 

masc/feminine plural participle1 Cor. 2:7

Lluke 24:15 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Thu Apr 11 12:45:29 EDT 2002

 

1 Cor. 2:7 Luke 24:15 In a message dated 4/11/2002 11:17:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dixonps at juno.com writes:Hey, don’t they teach you how to spell down there in Australia? ;)_______________You need to remember that the are at a disadvantage. They need to transpose everything since they’re upside down! :-)gfsomsel

 

1 Cor. 2:7Luke 24:15

Lluke 24:15 Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Thu Apr 11 14:37:59 EDT 2002

 

e-Greek & information discounts e-Greek & information discounts At 16:15 11/04/02, Paul Dixon wrote:>Eudora is fine, but the suggested retail cost is $39.99 (USA).Actually, it exists in three forms: a “lite” form, free; full but sponsored ( i.e advertising panel ) free; full, at the price you give.Regards,Maurice A. O’Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie

 

e-Greek & information discountse-Greek & information discounts
Luke 24:15 B. D. Colt babc2 at attbi.com
Thu Apr 11 12:59:39 EDT 2002

 

Lluke 24:15 e-Greek & information discounts Much thanks to everyone who answered my plea for help on this.Barbara D. Colt, mailto:babc2 at attbi.comSt John the Evangelist, San Francisco

 

Lluke 24:15e-Greek & information discounts

[] Luke 24:15 KAI EGENETO EN TWi hOMILEIN AUTOUS KAI SUZHTEIN Jonathan Robie jwrobie at mindspring.com
Sat Apr 9 16:31:17 EDT 2005

 

[] How do modern Greeks pronounce Biblical Greek [] Thyatira Luke 24:15 KAI EGENETO [[** EN TWi hOMILEIN AUTOUS KAI SUZHTEIN **]] KAI AUTOS IHSOUS EGGISAS SUNEPOREUETO AUTOIS, 16 hOI DE OFQALMOI AUTWN EKRATOUNTO TOU MH EPIGNWNAI AUTON.I’m trying to grasp the exact meaning of SUZHTEIN in the above text. Some translations suggest it means debating, BDAG has (1) “to carry on a discussion, discuss”, which it flags as the meaning for this verse, or (2) to contend with persistence for a point of view, dispute, debate, argue, or (3) to ponder various aspects of a matter, reflect, meditate.All three senses seem reasonable for this verse, and translations seem to vary in which of these senses they follow. How much can we actually know about the nature and tone of the conversation from this phrase?JonathanLittle Greek and List Owner

 

[] How do modern Greeks pronounce Biblical Greek[] Thyatira

Hebrews 12:14

That Entire Sanctification is a definite act of God’s grace, subsequent to the New Birth, by which the believer’s heart is purified and made holy. It cannot be attained progressively by works, struggle or suppression, but it is obtained by faith in the sanctifying blood of Jesus Christ. Holiness of life and purity of heart are central to Christian living – Luke 1:74,75; John 17:15-17; I Thessalonians 4:3,7,8; 5:22-24; Ephesians 5:25-27; Hebrews 2:11; 10:10,14; 13:11,12; Titus 2:11-14; I John 1:7; Hebrews 12:14; I Peter 1:14-16.

  • The doctrine of entire sanctification is central in the mind of the God-head. The doctrine is at the hub or nucleus of Christian teaching.
  • Sanctification is an instantaneous experience given to a believer to enable him cleave to God without the tendency to want to go astray or go away from the Lord.
  • It is not a protracted or tedious process of growth. You do not grow INTO sanctification, but you can grow IN sanctification.

Holiness’, ‘Perfection’ and ‘Sanctification’ are the definitive terms used interchangeably. Holiness means entire freedom from sin; wholeness, spiritual health, moral integrity and purity. Therefore, holiness means the absence of sin (Luke 1:74,75; Psalm 93:5; I Peter 1:16; Hebrews 12:14).

Heb 12:14 David Scherer scherer at uiuc.edu
Thu Oct 28 13:26:02 EDT 1999

 

word order Heb 12:14 In this verse we find OU CWRIS OUDEIS OPSETAI TON KURION. Frequently the negative OU is translated “without” and treated as a relative pronoun (refering to hAGIASMON AND perhaps TO EIRHNH as well). Why is this preferred? Why not read OU as intensifying CWRIS? In that case, the verse says “Follow peace with all and holiness; alone no one will see the Lord.” In other words, peace and holiness serve to build the community, because that is where the Lord is manifest. This appears to be sensible in context, so why prefer the other translation?Dave

 

word orderHeb 12:14

Heb 12:14 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Oct 28 13:44:52 EDT 1999

 

Heb 12:14 APOKRIQEIS, was Re: Matt 11:25 etc… At 12:36 PM -0500 10/28/99, David Scherer wrote:>In this verse we find OU CWRIS OUDEIS OPSETAI TON KURION. Frequently the>negative OU is translated “without” and treated as a relative pronoun>(refering to hAGIASMON AND perhaps TO EIRHNH as well). Why is this>preferred? Why not read OU as intensifying CWRIS? In that case, the verse>says “Follow peace with all and holiness; alone no one will see the Lord.”>In other words, peace and holiness serve to build the community, because>that is where the Lord is manifest. This appears to be sensible in context,>so why prefer the other translation?(a) If you look at the diacritical marks, you’ll note that it isn’t OUthat’s printed in the text but hOU: this IS a relative pronoun and CWRIS isregularly used in a postpositive position with a preceding genitive object.And this seems to be the easiest way to make sense of this text; BUT(b) If you want to say that these diacritical marks weren’t in the earliestMSS anyway, so how can we know that it isn’t the negating OU instead of therelative pronoun in the genitive singular, one fairly strong indication isthat the construction you’re suggesting would really require, in terms ofordinary Greek idiom, an OUC with the OYETAI–i.e. the ordinary phrasingfor “not separately will anyone ever see the Lord” would probably besomething like “OUDE CWRIS OUC OYETAI OUDEIS TON KURION.” It really seemspreferable to read it the way it’s usually been read, i.e. with theomicron-upsilon understood as hOU, the relative pronoun in the genitivesingular.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu

 

Heb 12:14APOKRIQEIS, was Re: Matt 11:25 etc…

Acts 17:16

[] Acts 17,16 Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 1 22:54:59 EST 2004

 

[] Deponents (was 2nd aorsit … FOLLOW UP) [] Acts 17,16 EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU,PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOSKATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLINWallace lists OUSAN as “indirect discourse” perParsons/Culy (I don’t have the source they havesited). Can someone show me how this participle couldbe considered “indirect discourse”? (Who was involvedin the “direct” discourse and what was imagined tohave been said?)=====Eddie MishoePastor__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

 

[] Deponents (was 2nd aorsit … FOLLOW UP)[] Acts 17,16

[] Acts 17,16 Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 1 22:54:59 EST 2004

 

[] Deponents (was 2nd aorsit … FOLLOW UP) [] Acts 17,16 EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU,PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOSKATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLINWallace lists OUSAN as “indirect discourse” perParsons/Culy (I don’t have the source they havesited). Can someone show me how this participle couldbe considered “indirect discourse”? (Who was involvedin the “direct” discourse and what was imagined tohave been said?)=====Eddie MishoePastor__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

 

[] Deponents (was 2nd aorsit … FOLLOW UP)[] Acts 17,16

[] Acts 17,16 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Thu Apr 1 23:27:22 EST 2004

 

[] Acts 17,16 [] Acts 17,16 On Apr 1, 2004, at 9:54 PM, Eddie Mishoe wrote:> > EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU,> PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOS> KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLIN> > Wallace lists OUSAN as “indirect discourse” per> Parsons/Culy (I don’t have the source they have> sited). Can someone show me how this participle could> be considered “indirect discourse”? (Who was involved> in the “direct” discourse and what was imagined to> have been said?)Certain verbs sometimes have as their object a participial clause expressing indirect discourse. Remember, indirect discourse–maybe not a good name for the phenomenon–may indicate mental activity as well as speech. In this case QEWROUNTOS (a verbal of perception) has as its object the participial clause KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLIN. Though in the accusative case, THN POLIN functions as the semantic subject of OUSAN and KATEIDWLON as the predicate adjective. Paul’s original thought, from which the indirect discourse derives, is something like, “hH POLIS ESTIN KATEIDWLOS” (“The city is full of idols!”).============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

[] Acts 17,16[] Acts 17,16

[] Acts 17,16 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Thu Apr 1 23:27:22 EST 2004

 

[] Acts 17,16 [] Acts 17,16 On Apr 1, 2004, at 9:54 PM, Eddie Mishoe wrote:> > EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU,> PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOS> KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLIN> > Wallace lists OUSAN as “indirect discourse” per> Parsons/Culy (I don’t have the source they have> sited). Can someone show me how this participle could> be considered “indirect discourse”? (Who was involved> in the “direct” discourse and what was imagined to> have been said?)Certain verbs sometimes have as their object a participial clause expressing indirect discourse. Remember, indirect discourse–maybe not a good name for the phenomenon–may indicate mental activity as well as speech. In this case QEWROUNTOS (a verbal of perception) has as its object the participial clause KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLIN. Though in the accusative case, THN POLIN functions as the semantic subject of OUSAN and KATEIDWLON as the predicate adjective. Paul’s original thought, from which the indirect discourse derives, is something like, “hH POLIS ESTIN KATEIDWLOS” (“The city is full of idols!”).============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

[] Acts 17,16[] Acts 17,16

[] Acts 17,16 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Apr 3 07:15:49 EST 2004

 

[] Acts 17,16 [] Acts 17,16 > > EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU,> PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOS> KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLIN> > Wallace lists OUSAN as “indirect discourse” per> Parsons/Culy (I don’t have the source they have> sited). Can someone show me how this participle could> be considered “indirect discourse”? (Who was involved> in the “direct” discourse and what was imagined to> have been said?)> > =====> Eddie Mishoe> PastorI have not read Wallace and I approach the grammar of Greek form a generaldescriptive linguistics background rather than traditional Greek grammar, somy comments my be at variance with tradition.Having said that, I agree with you and Steven that “indirect discourse” isnot a helpful term to use here. Normally, indirect discourse is a clausalobject of a verb of saying or thinking, not “seeing” as here.Would you say that “he saw a man coming down the street” is an example ofindirect discourse?What about “he saw that a man was coming down the street”? Is that indirectdiscourse?In Acts 17,16 Paul is “very upset in his spirit (from) observing the citybeing idolatrous (full of idols)”REB: “he was outraged to see the city so full of idols.”RSV: “as he saw that the city was full of idols.”It is possible in Greek (as in English) to use a full subordinate clause asthe object for these verbs, introduced with hOTI or hINA (that), but it ismore common in Greek just have a noun as object which may then be furtherqualified by a participial phrase/clause.Some verbs take an infinitive with accusative, but QEWREW is not one ofthem.Iver Larsen

 

[] Acts 17,16[] Acts 17,16

[] Acts 17,16 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Apr 3 07:15:49 EST 2004

 

[] Acts 17,16 [] Acts 17,16 > > EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU,> PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOS> KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLIN> > Wallace lists OUSAN as “indirect discourse” per> Parsons/Culy (I don’t have the source they have> sited). Can someone show me how this participle could> be considered “indirect discourse”? (Who was involved> in the “direct” discourse and what was imagined to> have been said?)> > =====> Eddie Mishoe> PastorI have not read Wallace and I approach the grammar of Greek form a generaldescriptive linguistics background rather than traditional Greek grammar, somy comments my be at variance with tradition.Having said that, I agree with you and Steven that “indirect discourse” isnot a helpful term to use here. Normally, indirect discourse is a clausalobject of a verb of saying or thinking, not “seeing” as here.Would you say that “he saw a man coming down the street” is an example ofindirect discourse?What about “he saw that a man was coming down the street”? Is that indirectdiscourse?In Acts 17,16 Paul is “very upset in his spirit (from) observing the citybeing idolatrous (full of idols)”REB: “he was outraged to see the city so full of idols.”RSV: “as he saw that the city was full of idols.”It is possible in Greek (as in English) to use a full subordinate clause asthe object for these verbs, introduced with hOTI or hINA (that), but it ismore common in Greek just have a noun as object which may then be furtherqualified by a participial phrase/clause.Some verbs take an infinitive with accusative, but QEWREW is not one ofthem.Iver Larsen

 

[] Acts 17,16[] Acts 17,16

[] Acts 17,16 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Apr 3 09:19:47 EST 2004

 

[] Acts 17,16 [] Acts 17,16 At 3:15 PM +0300 4/3/04, Iver Larsen wrote:>> >> EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU,>> PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOS>> KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLIN>> >> Wallace lists OUSAN as “indirect discourse” per>> Parsons/Culy (I don’t have the source they have>> sited). Can someone show me how this participle could>> be considered “indirect discourse”? (Who was involved>> in the “direct” discourse and what was imagined to>> have been said?)>> >> =====>> Eddie Mishoe>> Pastor> >I have not read Wallace and I approach the grammar of Greek form a general>descriptive linguistics background rather than traditional Greek grammar, so>my comments my be at variance with tradition.> >Having said that, I agree with you and Steven that “indirect discourse” is>not a helpful term to use here. Normally, indirect discourse is a clausal>object of a verb of saying or thinking, not “seeing” as here.> >Would you say that “he saw a man coming down the street” is an example of>indirect discourse?>What about “he saw that a man was coming down the street”? Is that indirect>discourse?> >In Acts 17,16 Paul is “very upset in his spirit (from) observing the city>being idolatrous (full of idols)”> >REB: “he was outraged to see the city so full of idols.”>RSV: “as he saw that the city was full of idols.”> >It is possible in Greek (as in English) to use a full subordinate clause as>the object for these verbs, introduced with hOTI or hINA (that), but it is>more common in Greek just have a noun as object which may then be further>qualified by a participial phrase/clause.> >Some verbs take an infinitive with accusative, but QEWREW is not one of>them.> >Iver Larsen> >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/— Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Acts 17,16[] Acts 17,16

[] Acts 17,16 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Apr 3 09:19:47 EST 2004

 

[] Acts 17,16 [] Acts 17,16 At 3:15 PM +0300 4/3/04, Iver Larsen wrote:>> >> EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU,>> PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOS>> KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLIN>> >> Wallace lists OUSAN as “indirect discourse” per>> Parsons/Culy (I don’t have the source they have>> sited). Can someone show me how this participle could>> be considered “indirect discourse”? (Who was involved>> in the “direct” discourse and what was imagined to>> have been said?)>> >> =====>> Eddie Mishoe>> Pastor> >I have not read Wallace and I approach the grammar of Greek form a general>descriptive linguistics background rather than traditional Greek grammar, so>my comments my be at variance with tradition.> >Having said that, I agree with you and Steven that “indirect discourse” is>not a helpful term to use here. Normally, indirect discourse is a clausal>object of a verb of saying or thinking, not “seeing” as here.> >Would you say that “he saw a man coming down the street” is an example of>indirect discourse?>What about “he saw that a man was coming down the street”? Is that indirect>discourse?> >In Acts 17,16 Paul is “very upset in his spirit (from) observing the city>being idolatrous (full of idols)”> >REB: “he was outraged to see the city so full of idols.”>RSV: “as he saw that the city was full of idols.”> >It is possible in Greek (as in English) to use a full subordinate clause as>the object for these verbs, introduced with hOTI or hINA (that), but it is>more common in Greek just have a noun as object which may then be further>qualified by a participial phrase/clause.> >Some verbs take an infinitive with accusative, but QEWREW is not one of>them.> >Iver Larsen> >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/— Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Acts 17,16[] Acts 17,16

[] Acts 17,16 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Apr 3 10:00:31 EST 2004

 

[] Acts 17,16 [] Acts 17,16: Apology At 3:15 PM +0300 4/3/04, Iver Larsen wrote:>> >> EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU,>> PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOS>> KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLIN>> >> Wallace lists OUSAN as “indirect discourse” per>> Parsons/Culy (I don’t have the source they have>> sited). Can someone show me how this participle could>> be considered “indirect discourse”? (Who was involved>> in the “direct” discourse and what was imagined to>> have been said?)>> >> =====>> Eddie Mishoe>> Pastor> >I have not read Wallace and I approach the grammar of Greek form a general>descriptive linguistics background rather than traditional Greek grammar, so>my comments my be at variance with tradition.For the sake of those who may be less than fully aware of what “traditionalGreek grammar” actually says on this matter, let me cite Smyth §2110ff:———§2110. Verbs of Perception.–Verbs signifying to see, perceive, hear, learn(i.e. learn by inquiry, hear of), when they denote physical (actual)perception take the participle. When they denote intellectual perceptionthey may take the participle or hoti or hôs with a finite verb. (TheHomeric usage is less strict.)§2111. Such verbs are, in Attic, horô see, aisthanomai perceive, akouôhear, punthanomai learn.§2112. The participle may stand either not in indirect discourse or inindirect discourse.a. Not in Indirect Discourse.–Here verbs of perceiving denote physicalperception–the act perceived or heard of. With akouô and punthanomai theparticiple stands in the genitive; with aisthanomai it usually stands inthe accusative (as with horô), but sometimes in the genitive. (See 1361,1367.)eide Klearchon dielaunonta he saw Clearchus riding through X. A. 1.5.12 ;aisthomenos Lamproklea_ pros tên mêtera chalepainonta perceiving Lamproclesangry with his mother X. M. 2.2.1 , êisthêsai pôpote mou êpseudomarturountos ê su_kophantountos; have you ever noticed me eitherbearing false witness or playing the part of an informer? 4. 4. 11; êkousanautou phônêsantos they heard him speaking X. S. 3 . 13; hôs eputhonto têsPulou kateilêmmenês when they learned of the capture of Pylos T. 4.6 .N. Verbs of physical perception, horô (especially) and akouô, regularlytake the present participle in Attic prose, which usually refuses todistinguish between I see a house burning and I see a house burn. Thecomplexive aorist, summing up the action, does however occur, as hôs eidenelaphon ekpêdêsasan . . . ediôken when he saw a hind break cover he gavechase X. C. 1.4.8 . Cp. pesonta eidon Hdt. 9.22.b. In Indirect Discourse.–Here verbs of perceiving denote intellectual [p.472] perception–the fact that something is perceived or heard of. Withakouô and punthanomai the participle stands in the accusative (as withhorô, aisthanomai). Cp. 1363, 1365, 2144, 2145.horômen panta alêthê onta ha legete we see that everything you say is trueX. A. 5.5.24 , aisthanomai tauta houtôs echonta I perceive that this is soX. M. 3.5.5 , êkouse Kuron en Kilikiai onta he heard that Cyrus was inCilicia X. A. 1.4.5 , hotan kluêi tinos hêxont’ Orestên when she hears fromany one that Orestes will return S. El. 293 , puthomenoi Artaxerxêntethnêkota having learned that Artaxerxes was dead T. 4.50 .§2113. Verbs of Finding.–Verbs of finding and detecting (heuriskô,(kata)lambanô; pass. haliskomai) in their capacity as verbs of perceivingtake the participle (a) not in indirect discourse, of the act or state inwhich a person or thing is found; or (b) in indirect discourse, of the factthat a person or thing is found in an act or state.a. kêrux aphikomenos hêure tous andras diephtharmenous the herald, on hisarrival, found the men already put to death T. 2.6, heurêtai pistôspra_ttôn he has been found to have dealt faithfully D. 19.332 , a_n ar’allon tina lambanêi pseudomenon if then he catch anybody else lying P. R.389d , ên epibouleuôn haliskêtai if he be detected in plotting X. Ag. 8. 3.b. dia tên Iliou halôsin heuriskousi sphisi eousan tên archên tês echthrêsthey conclude that the beginning of their enmity was on account of thecapture of Ilium Hdt. 1.5 .§2114. It is often difficult to distinguish the two constructions of 2113.Thus, katalambanousi neôsti stasei tous tôn Athênaiôn enantiousekpeptôkotas (T. 7.33) may mean they found that the anti-Athenian party hadbeen recently expelled by a revolution (ind. disc.) or them recentlyexpelled (not in ind. disc.). So katalambanousi . . . talla aphestêkotathey found the other cities in a state of revolt T. 1.59 (that they hadrevolted would be possible). In the meaning discover, find katalambanô doesnot take the aorist participle.§2115. poiô meaning represent has the construction of the verbs of 2113.Thus, plêsiazontas tous theous tois anthrôpois hoion t’ autois poiêsai itis possible for them (poets) to represent the gods as drawing nigh to menI. 9.9. Cp. 2142.==========>Having said that, I agree with you and Steven that “indirect discourse” is>not a helpful term to use here. Normally, indirect discourse is a clausal>object of a verb of saying or thinking, not “seeing” as here.Perhaps we should invent a better descriptive term, but those who havelearned that indirect discourse in Greek may take the form of acc.+ inf.with verbs of telling and understanding, of acc. + ptc. with verbs ofperception, or of hOTI + nom. subject and finite verb in the appropriatetense, the usage is not confusing.>Would you say that “he saw a man coming down the street” is an example of>indirect discourse?No, but that construction in Greek is indeed traditionally understood as aform of “indirect discourse” because it is a common collocation. But theEnglish equivalent is really “he saw a man come down the street.”>What about “he saw that a man was coming down the street”? Is that indirect>discourse?Yes, in the traditional understanding.>In Acts 17,16 Paul is “very upset in his spirit (from) observing the city>being idolatrous (full of idols)”> >REB: “he was outraged to see the city so full of idols.”>RSV: “as he saw that the city was full of idols.”There are several different translation strategies; two of the most commonare: (a) transform the acc.-inf/ptc. construction into a dependent nounclause: “I saw that John was running”(b) transform the acc.-inf/ptc. construction into an object + infinitivesequence as complement to the verb: “I saw John run.”>It is possible in Greek (as in English) to use a full subordinate clause as>the object for these verbs, introduced with hOTI or hINA (that), but it is>more common in Greek just have a noun as object which may then be further>qualified by a participial phrase/clause.Yes, and this is equally true of the verbs of perception:Mk 16:4 KAI ANABLEYASAI QEWROUSIN hOTI APOKEKULISTAI hO LIQOSJn 4:19 LEGEI AUTWi hH GUNH: KURIE, QEWRW hOTI PROFHTHS EI SU>Some verbs take an infinitive with accusative, but QEWREW is not one of>them.No; rather QEWREW is one of those verbs of perception that may take aparticiple with an accusative:Mk 5:15 … QEWROUSIN TON DAIMONIZOMENON KAQHMENON hIMATISMENON KAISWFRONOUNTA, TON ESCHKOTA TON LEGIWNALK 10:18 … EQEWROUN TON SATANAN hWS ASTRAPHN EK TOU OURANOU PESONTA.Lk 24:39 … IDETE, hOTI PNEUMA SARKA KAI OSTEA OUK ECEI KAQWS EME QEWREITEECONTA.Jn 6:19 … QEWROUSIN TON IHSOUN PERPATOUNTA EPI THS QALASSHS KAI EGGUS TOUPLOIOU GINOMENON …Jn 6:62 EAN OUN QEWRHTE TON hUIONTOU ANQRWPOU ANABAINONTA hOPOU HN TOPROTERON …Jn 10:12 hO MISQWTOS … QEWREI TON LUKON ERCOMONON KAI AFIHSIN TA PROBATA …– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Acts 17,16[] Acts 17,16: Apology

[] Acts 17,16: Apology Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Apr 3 10:02:47 EST 2004

 

[] Acts 17,16 [] Acts 16,31 I apologize for sending a bare-bones copy of Iver’s post to which I havesent my own addendum; I thought I had lost the copy on which I intended tocomment as I have now done.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Acts 17,16[] Acts 16,31

[] Acts 17,16 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Apr 3 10:00:31 EST 2004

 

[] Acts 17,16 [] Acts 17,16: Apology At 3:15 PM +0300 4/3/04, Iver Larsen wrote:>> >> EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU,>> PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOS>> KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLIN>> >> Wallace lists OUSAN as “indirect discourse” per>> Parsons/Culy (I don’t have the source they have>> sited). Can someone show me how this participle could>> be considered “indirect discourse”? (Who was involved>> in the “direct” discourse and what was imagined to>> have been said?)>> >> =====>> Eddie Mishoe>> Pastor> >I have not read Wallace and I approach the grammar of Greek form a general>descriptive linguistics background rather than traditional Greek grammar, so>my comments my be at variance with tradition.For the sake of those who may be less than fully aware of what “traditionalGreek grammar” actually says on this matter, let me cite Smyth §2110ff:———§2110. Verbs of Perception.–Verbs signifying to see, perceive, hear, learn(i.e. learn by inquiry, hear of), when they denote physical (actual)perception take the participle. When they denote intellectual perceptionthey may take the participle or hoti or hôs with a finite verb. (TheHomeric usage is less strict.)§2111. Such verbs are, in Attic, horô see, aisthanomai perceive, akouôhear, punthanomai learn.§2112. The participle may stand either not in indirect discourse or inindirect discourse.a. Not in Indirect Discourse.–Here verbs of perceiving denote physicalperception–the act perceived or heard of. With akouô and punthanomai theparticiple stands in the genitive; with aisthanomai it usually stands inthe accusative (as with horô), but sometimes in the genitive. (See 1361,1367.)eide Klearchon dielaunonta he saw Clearchus riding through X. A. 1.5.12 ;aisthomenos Lamproklea_ pros tên mêtera chalepainonta perceiving Lamproclesangry with his mother X. M. 2.2.1 , êisthêsai pôpote mou êpseudomarturountos ê su_kophantountos; have you ever noticed me eitherbearing false witness or playing the part of an informer? 4. 4. 11; êkousanautou phônêsantos they heard him speaking X. S. 3 . 13; hôs eputhonto têsPulou kateilêmmenês when they learned of the capture of Pylos T. 4.6 .N. Verbs of physical perception, horô (especially) and akouô, regularlytake the present participle in Attic prose, which usually refuses todistinguish between I see a house burning and I see a house burn. Thecomplexive aorist, summing up the action, does however occur, as hôs eidenelaphon ekpêdêsasan . . . ediôken when he saw a hind break cover he gavechase X. C. 1.4.8 . Cp. pesonta eidon Hdt. 9.22.b. In Indirect Discourse.–Here verbs of perceiving denote intellectual [p.472] perception–the fact that something is perceived or heard of. Withakouô and punthanomai the participle stands in the accusative (as withhorô, aisthanomai). Cp. 1363, 1365, 2144, 2145.horômen panta alêthê onta ha legete we see that everything you say is trueX. A. 5.5.24 , aisthanomai tauta houtôs echonta I perceive that this is soX. M. 3.5.5 , êkouse Kuron en Kilikiai onta he heard that Cyrus was inCilicia X. A. 1.4.5 , hotan kluêi tinos hêxont’ Orestên when she hears fromany one that Orestes will return S. El. 293 , puthomenoi Artaxerxêntethnêkota having learned that Artaxerxes was dead T. 4.50 .§2113. Verbs of Finding.–Verbs of finding and detecting (heuriskô,(kata)lambanô; pass. haliskomai) in their capacity as verbs of perceivingtake the participle (a) not in indirect discourse, of the act or state inwhich a person or thing is found; or (b) in indirect discourse, of the factthat a person or thing is found in an act or state.a. kêrux aphikomenos hêure tous andras diephtharmenous the herald, on hisarrival, found the men already put to death T. 2.6, heurêtai pistôspra_ttôn he has been found to have dealt faithfully D. 19.332 , a_n ar’allon tina lambanêi pseudomenon if then he catch anybody else lying P. R.389d , ên epibouleuôn haliskêtai if he be detected in plotting X. Ag. 8. 3.b. dia tên Iliou halôsin heuriskousi sphisi eousan tên archên tês echthrêsthey conclude that the beginning of their enmity was on account of thecapture of Ilium Hdt. 1.5 .§2114. It is often difficult to distinguish the two constructions of 2113.Thus, katalambanousi neôsti stasei tous tôn Athênaiôn enantiousekpeptôkotas (T. 7.33) may mean they found that the anti-Athenian party hadbeen recently expelled by a revolution (ind. disc.) or them recentlyexpelled (not in ind. disc.). So katalambanousi . . . talla aphestêkotathey found the other cities in a state of revolt T. 1.59 (that they hadrevolted would be possible). In the meaning discover, find katalambanô doesnot take the aorist participle.§2115. poiô meaning represent has the construction of the verbs of 2113.Thus, plêsiazontas tous theous tois anthrôpois hoion t’ autois poiêsai itis possible for them (poets) to represent the gods as drawing nigh to menI. 9.9. Cp. 2142.==========>Having said that, I agree with you and Steven that “indirect discourse” is>not a helpful term to use here. Normally, indirect discourse is a clausal>object of a verb of saying or thinking, not “seeing” as here.Perhaps we should invent a better descriptive term, but those who havelearned that indirect discourse in Greek may take the form of acc.+ inf.with verbs of telling and understanding, of acc. + ptc. with verbs ofperception, or of hOTI + nom. subject and finite verb in the appropriatetense, the usage is not confusing.>Would you say that “he saw a man coming down the street” is an example of>indirect discourse?No, but that construction in Greek is indeed traditionally understood as aform of “indirect discourse” because it is a common collocation. But theEnglish equivalent is really “he saw a man come down the street.”>What about “he saw that a man was coming down the street”? Is that indirect>discourse?Yes, in the traditional understanding.>In Acts 17,16 Paul is “very upset in his spirit (from) observing the city>being idolatrous (full of idols)”> >REB: “he was outraged to see the city so full of idols.”>RSV: “as he saw that the city was full of idols.”There are several different translation strategies; two of the most commonare: (a) transform the acc.-inf/ptc. construction into a dependent nounclause: “I saw that John was running”(b) transform the acc.-inf/ptc. construction into an object + infinitivesequence as complement to the verb: “I saw John run.”>It is possible in Greek (as in English) to use a full subordinate clause as>the object for these verbs, introduced with hOTI or hINA (that), but it is>more common in Greek just have a noun as object which may then be further>qualified by a participial phrase/clause.Yes, and this is equally true of the verbs of perception:Mk 16:4 KAI ANABLEYASAI QEWROUSIN hOTI APOKEKULISTAI hO LIQOSJn 4:19 LEGEI AUTWi hH GUNH: KURIE, QEWRW hOTI PROFHTHS EI SU>Some verbs take an infinitive with accusative, but QEWREW is not one of>them.No; rather QEWREW is one of those verbs of perception that may take aparticiple with an accusative:Mk 5:15 … QEWROUSIN TON DAIMONIZOMENON KAQHMENON hIMATISMENON KAISWFRONOUNTA, TON ESCHKOTA TON LEGIWNALK 10:18 … EQEWROUN TON SATANAN hWS ASTRAPHN EK TOU OURANOU PESONTA.Lk 24:39 … IDETE, hOTI PNEUMA SARKA KAI OSTEA OUK ECEI KAQWS EME QEWREITEECONTA.Jn 6:19 … QEWROUSIN TON IHSOUN PERPATOUNTA EPI THS QALASSHS KAI EGGUS TOUPLOIOU GINOMENON …Jn 6:62 EAN OUN QEWRHTE TON hUIONTOU ANQRWPOU ANABAINONTA hOPOU HN TOPROTERON …Jn 10:12 hO MISQWTOS … QEWREI TON LUKON ERCOMONON KAI AFIHSIN TA PROBATA …– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Acts 17,16[] Acts 17,16: Apology

[] Acts 17,16: Apology Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Apr 3 10:02:47 EST 2004

 

[] Acts 17,16 [] Acts 16,31 I apologize for sending a bare-bones copy of Iver’s post to which I havesent my own addendum; I thought I had lost the copy on which I intended tocomment as I have now done.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Acts 17,16[] Acts 16,31

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sat Oct 14 14:02:46 EDT 2006

 

[] Removal from mailing list [] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI ACTS 17:16 EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOS KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLIN.Parsons/Culy identify QEWROUNTOS as a genitive absolute. Barrett (Acts ICC) suggests that the genitive QEWROUNTOS looks back to AUTOU whereas QEWROUNTI (Byzantine) to AUTWi.Interesting syntax.The main clausePARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi with three qualifying constituentsEN DE TAIS AQHNAISEKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOUQEWROUNTOS KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLINCurious that the identity of the main participant TOU PAULOU would be buried in one of the qualifying constituents.Elizabeth Kline

 

[] Removal from mailing list[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 14 15:09:03 EDT 2006

 

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI [] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI If this were all that we had, I would agree with you regarding the positioning of the main participant. Since, however, Paul is mentioned immediately preceding this as having been left in Athens, I see no particular problem. georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>To: greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 2:02:46 PMSubject: [] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTIACTS 17:16 EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOS KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLIN.Parsons/Culy identify QEWROUNTOS as a genitive absolute. Barrett (Acts ICC) suggests that the genitive QEWROUNTOS looks back to AUTOU whereas QEWROUNTI (Byzantine) to AUTWi.Interesting syntax.The main clausePARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi with three qualifying constituentsEN DE TAIS AQHNAISEKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOUQEWROUNTOS KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLINCurious that the identity of the main participant TOU PAULOU would be buried in one of the qualifying constituents.Elizabeth Kline— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Sat Oct 14 17:58:15 EDT 2006

 

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI [] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI Dear Elizabeth,Would not EKDECOMENOU require a genitive to follow since the preposition EKrequires a genitive? With compounds this may not be necessary, but Iremember something about compound words with EK requiring a subject in thegenitive with accusative direct object such as we have here. This could alsoapply to other compounds with prepositions requiring a dative, etc. MaybeCarl could comment on this?En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III—– Original Message —– From: “Elizabeth Kline” <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>To: “greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:02 AMSubject: [] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI> ACTS 17:16 EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU> PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOS KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN> POLIN.> > Parsons/Culy identify QEWROUNTOS as a genitive absolute. Barrett> (Acts ICC) suggests that the genitive QEWROUNTOS looks back to AUTOU> whereas QEWROUNTI (Byzantine) to AUTWi.> > Interesting syntax.> > The main clause> PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi> > with three qualifying constituents> > EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS> > EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU> > QEWROUNTOS KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLIN> > Curious that the identity of the main participant TOU PAULOU would be> buried in one of the qualifying constituents.> > > Elizabeth Kline> > > > >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesyof Com-Pair Services!> > > >> No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.2/472 – Release Date: 10/11/06> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!

 

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 14 18:21:17 EDT 2006

 

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI [] How can we more efficiently search the archives? Combinations of EK with a verb do not require a genitive. I had thought about this possibility since some verbs do have such requirements. Let us take one transitive verb (It is necessary that it be transitive to have an object) and one book to examine this. And the choice is <drumroll> EKBALLW in Matthew.This appears in 25 verses of Mt.7.4, 5, 228.12, 16, 319.25, 33, 34, 3810.1, 812.20, 24, 26, 27, 28, 3513.5215.1717.1921.12, 3922.1325.30In these verses we have objects such as TO KOFOS, THN DOKON, TA PNEUMATA, hHMAS, TA DAIMONIA, THN KRISIN, etc. So far I have noted three passive constructions which would therefore not have an object which includes one case of a gen abs. It would appears thus that having EK as a preposition does NOT require a genitive object. georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Bryant J. Williams III <bjwvmw at com-pair.net>To: greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>; Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 5:58:15 PMSubject: Re: [] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTIDear Elizabeth,Would not EKDECOMENOU require a genitive to follow since the preposition EKrequires a genitive? With compounds this may not be necessary, but Iremember something about compound words with EK requiring a subject in thegenitive with accusative direct object such as we have here. This could alsoapply to other compounds with prepositions requiring a dative, etc. MaybeCarl could comment on this?En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III—– Original Message —– From: “Elizabeth Kline” <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>To: “greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:02 AMSubject: [] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI> ACTS 17:16 EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU> PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOS KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN> POLIN.> > Parsons/Culy identify QEWROUNTOS as a genitive absolute. Barrett> (Acts ICC) suggests that the genitive QEWROUNTOS looks back to AUTOU> whereas QEWROUNTI (Byzantine) to AUTWi.> > Interesting syntax.> > The main clause> PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi> > with three qualifying constituents> > EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS> > EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU> > QEWROUNTOS KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLIN> > Curious that the identity of the main participant TOU PAULOU would be> buried in one of the qualifying constituents.> > > Elizabeth Kline> > > > >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesyof Com-Pair Services!> > > >> No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.2/472 – Release Date: 10/11/06> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI[] How can we more efficiently search the archives?

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Oct 15 04:44:55 EDT 2006

 

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI [] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI > ACTS 17:16 EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU> PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOS KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN> POLIN.> > Parsons/Culy identify QEWROUNTOS as a genitive absolute. Barrett> (Acts ICC) suggests that the genitive QEWROUNTOS looks back to AUTOU> whereas QEWROUNTI (Byzantine) to AUTWi.BDF (§417) has a nice and clear description. They say:”The circumstantial participle as a clause in the sentence is still very much in use…, either referring to a noun(pronoun) in the same sentence and in agreement with it (conjunctive participle), or used absolutely; in the latter thesubject and participle are in the genitive.”I think it is helpful to think of clauses rather than just phrasal constituents. A sentence is made up of clauses, andclauses are made up of phrases. So, in this complex sentence, we see a main clause with two subordinate clauses. Itshows the power of subordination in Greek. The main focus point is not Paul as such, but the provoking of his spirit,because that is the subject of the main clause. The time and location of this event is indicated by the first clausewhich is a genitive absolute:EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOUThe initial locative phrase is part of the circumstantial clause. Normally (or is it always?), such situationalbackground genitive absolutes occur before the main clause.The reason or occasion for Paul’s feelings is then given in a following conjunctive participle clauseQEWROUNTOS KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLINI believe it is quite common for reason clauses to come after the main clause, but I suppose if the reason clause was tobe emphasized, it could also come before, if there is not already been a genitive absolute clause in that position. Ihaven’t investigated this, but the genitive absolute in, e.g., Matt 25,5 could be said to indicate reason.I would agree with Barret that this is best seen as a conjunctive participle clause rather than a genitive absolute,because it follows the main clause, because it can readily be attached to AUTOU (Paul), and because it parallels thealternative reading with a dative conjunctive participle.Iver Larsen

 

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sun Oct 15 13:46:20 EDT 2006

 

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI [] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI Iver,Thank you for the lucid analysis.ACTS 17:16 EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOUPARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOS KATEIDWLON OUSAN THNPOLIN.RE: QEWROUNTOS KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLIN> > I would agree with Barret that this is best seen as a conjunctive > participle clause rather than a genitive absolute,> because it follows the main clause, because it can readily be > attached to AUTOU (Paul), and because it parallels the> alternative reading with a dative conjunctive participle.Pasons and Culy state:”The use of genitive absolute is necessitated by the syntactic shift in subject from ‘his spirit’ to ‘him.'”I am also inclined to go with Barrett on this one.Elizabeth Kline

 

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sun Oct 15 19:50:29 EDT 2006

 

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI [] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI ACTS 17:15 hOI DE KAQISTANONTES TON PAULON HGAGON hEWS AQHNWN, KAI LABONTES ENTOLHN PROS TON SILAN KAI TON TIMOQEON hINA hWS TACISTA ELQWSIN PROS AUTON EXHiESAN. 16 EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOS KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLIN.On Oct 15, 2006, at 1:44 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:> EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU> The initial locative phrase is part of the circumstantial clause.It looks to me like EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU establishes a point of departure, linking the following narrative unit with the previous v.15 hOI DE KAQISTANONTES TON PAULON HGAGON hEWS AQHNWN …… Paul was brought to Athens …While he was in Athens waiting for them (Silas & Tim.) …Elizabeth Kline

 

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Oct 16 06:56:53 EDT 2006

 

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI [] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI On Oct 14, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Bryant J. Williams III wrote:> Dear Elizabeth,> > Would not EKDECOMENOU require a genitive to follow since the > preposition EK> requires a genitive? With compounds this may not be necessary, but I> remember something about compound words with EK requiring a subject > in the> genitive with accusative direct object such as we have here. This > could also> apply to other compounds with prepositions requiring a dative, etc. > Maybe> Carl could comment on this?I don’t think it’s a genitive absolute but that it is indeed dependent on the AUTOU as a circumstantial participle. Regarding the note in Culy-Parsons, it’s perhaps worth noting that Culy believes that adverbial participles are generally in the nominative case, and that may have something to do with the assertion that QEWROUNTOS must be part of a genitive absolute. See my post of Sept 5, 2005 5:46:23 PM EDT in the archives, “[] Re: Adverbial participles – Culy” and my earlier discussion of the article, April 14, 2004 8:26:32 AM EDT, “Re: [] RE: Acts 22:6 Revisited (cont.).” Culy’s article is cited in the Culy-Parsons bibliography: “The Clue is in the Case: Distinguishing Adjectival and Adverbial Participles, _Perspectives in Religious Studies_ 2004.> ms III> —– Original Message —–> From: “Elizabeth Kline” <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>> To: “greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:02 AM> Subject: [] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI> > >> ACTS 17:16 EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU>> PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOS KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN>> POLIN.>> >> Parsons/Culy identify QEWROUNTOS as a genitive absolute. Barrett>> (Acts ICC) suggests that the genitive QEWROUNTOS looks back to AUTOU>> whereas QEWROUNTI (Byzantine) to AUTWi.>> >> Interesting syntax.>> >> The main clause>> PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi>> >> with three qualifying constituents>> >> EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS>> >> EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU>> >> QEWROUNTOS KATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLIN>> >> Curious that the identity of the main participant TOU PAULOU would be>> buried in one of the qualifying constituents.>> >> >> Elizabeth Kline>> >> >> >> >>>> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a >> courtesy> of Com-Pair Services!>> >> >> >>>> No virus found in this incoming message.>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.>> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.2/472 – Release Date: >> 10/11/06>> >> > > > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a > courtesy of Com-Pair Services!> >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI[] Acts 17:16 QEWROUNTOS/QEWROUNTI

Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions… Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Sat Jun 20 17:04:48 EDT 1998

 

John 1:1 Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions… Help! Isn’t there another verb like EMBRIMAOMAI that is also used todescribe a snorting kind of sound that a horse makes as well as to expressindignation or anger? I seem to recall having run into one that is used inthe gospels, but I can’t find it now…Is it fair to say that Greek verbs used for the emotions are often based onvery concrete sounds and bodily sensations, much more so than theequivalent verbs in English?Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives

 

John 1:1Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions…

Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions… Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Sat Jun 20 17:04:48 EDT 1998

 

John 1:1 Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions… Help! Isn’t there another verb like EMBRIMAOMAI that is also used todescribe a snorting kind of sound that a horse makes as well as to expressindignation or anger? I seem to recall having run into one that is used inthe gospels, but I can’t find it now…Is it fair to say that Greek verbs used for the emotions are often based onvery concrete sounds and bodily sensations, much more so than theequivalent verbs in English?Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives

 

John 1:1Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions…

Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions… Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Sat Jun 20 18:23:19 EDT 1998

 

Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions… Español At 17:04 20/06/98 -0400, you wrote:>Help! Isn’t there another verb like EMBRIMAOMAI that is also used to>describe a snorting kind of sound that a horse makes as well as to express>indignation or anger? I seem to recall having run into one that is used in>the gospels, but I can’t find it now…Perhaps you are thinking of QUMOOMAI [Herod’s anger in Mt. 2:16]Acts seems to abound in verbs of anger, of one kind or another.: PAROCUNOMAI (Ac 17:16) is an example.Maurice A. O’Sullivan[ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ieConfucius said: “To study and not think is a waste. To think and not studyis dangerous.”Analects 2:15

 

Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions…Español

Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions… Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Sat Jun 20 18:23:19 EDT 1998

 

Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions… Español At 17:04 20/06/98 -0400, you wrote:>Help! Isn’t there another verb like EMBRIMAOMAI that is also used to>describe a snorting kind of sound that a horse makes as well as to express>indignation or anger? I seem to recall having run into one that is used in>the gospels, but I can’t find it now…Perhaps you are thinking of QUMOOMAI [Herod’s anger in Mt. 2:16]Acts seems to abound in verbs of anger, of one kind or another.: PAROCUNOMAI (Ac 17:16) is an example.Maurice A. O’Sullivan[ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ieConfucius said: “To study and not think is a waste. To think and not studyis dangerous.”Analects 2:15

 

Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions…Español

Luke 11:28

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 Mark Goodacre M.S.GOODACRE at bham.ac.uk
Wed May 5 12:44:17 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 P. Comfort’s new book I would be grateful for any help on the translation of the following:Luke 11.28: MENOUN MAKARIOI hOI AKOUONTES TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI FULASSONTES.The standard translation is “Blessed *rather* are those who hear the word of God and keep it”. But I am wondering whether it might be legitimate to translate more along the lines of “Indeed — and blessed moreover are those . . .” or some such thing. There seems to be some ground for doing this, e.g. Rom. 10.18 where MENOUNGE might reasonably be translated “Indeed . . .” or Phil. 3.8, also MENOUNGE, “Indeed I count everything as loss . . .”Any thoughts?ThanksMark————————————–Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre at bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512 University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdomhttp://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre Aseneth Home Page Recommended New Testament Web Resources Mark Without Q

 

Hebrews 11:1P. Comfort’s new book

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 Mark Goodacre M.S.GOODACRE at bham.ac.uk
Wed May 5 12:44:17 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 P. Comfort’s new book I would be grateful for any help on the translation of the following:Luke 11.28: MENOUN MAKARIOI hOI AKOUONTES TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI FULASSONTES.The standard translation is “Blessed *rather* are those who hear the word of God and keep it”. But I am wondering whether it might be legitimate to translate more along the lines of “Indeed — and blessed moreover are those . . .” or some such thing. There seems to be some ground for doing this, e.g. Rom. 10.18 where MENOUNGE might reasonably be translated “Indeed . . .” or Phil. 3.8, also MENOUNGE, “Indeed I count everything as loss . . .”Any thoughts?ThanksMark————————————–Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre at bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512 University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdomhttp://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre Aseneth Home Page Recommended New Testament Web Resources Mark Without Q

 

Hebrews 11:1P. Comfort’s new book

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 atombomb at sirius.com atombomb at sirius.com
Wed May 5 14:19:19 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 P. Comfort’s new book CHRIST IS RISEN!Mark Goodacre wrote:> > I would be grateful for any help on the translation of the following:> > Luke 11.28: MENOUN MAKARIOI hOI AKOUONTES TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI FULASSONTES.> > The standard translation is “Blessed *rather* are those who hear the word of> God and keep it”. But I am wondering whether it might be legitimate to> translate more along the lines of “Indeed — and blessed moreover are those . .> .” or some such thing. There seems to be some ground for doing this, e.g. Rom.> 10.18 where MENOUNGE might reasonably be translated “Indeed . . .” or Phil.> 3.8, also MENOUNGE, “Indeed I count everything as loss . . .”Liddell & Scott: *men oun* is freq. used with a corresponding *de*,so that each Particle retains its force, Od. 4.780, Pi. O. 1.111, S.OT 244, 843, Ph. 359, D. 2.5, etc: but frequently also in an absolutesense, “so then”, S. Ant. 65; … especially in replies, sometimes instrong afffirmation, *pantapasi men oun* Plato, Thaeatetus 158d…[but] also to substitute a new statement so as to correct a precedingstatement, “nay rather” [my favorite example is “‘Wipe your nose on myhead?’… ‘Nay rather, on mine!'” Ar. Eq. 9.11]; L&S also quotes thesubject passage (Lk 11.28), translating as “yea rather, pointing to Rm9.20 as an example of the same.Indeed, that’s the way the fathers read it– positive, rather thandisjunctive. Someone recently pointed out to me that in the Britishlanguage, “rather”, pronounced “rah-THER!” can indeed mean, “indeed!”or “rather so!”.I think a translation as positive or affirmative “indeed” would be farmore in keeping with the general thought of St Luke than a disjunctive”rather” (as we tend to read it, really out of an anti-Catholic polemic):”Indeed, happy are those who hear the word of God, and keep it”‘ (Lk11.28), for “the [seed] in the good ground, is those who hear the wordwith a good and noble heart, preserve it and bear fruit in patience”(Lk 8.15). And who is the example of this? Only six verses later Jesussays, “My mother and my brothers are these (outoi) who are hearing theword of God and doing it” (Lk8.21). The theme ofhearing-keeping-doing-bringing forth fruit and blessedness seems to bemore than a little emphasized– Mary is twice portrayed as the one who”kept all these words, turning them over in her heart” (Lk 2.19), orwho “preserved all these words in her heart” (Lk 2.51); she is calledblessed (*makarios*) three times– “blessed is she who believed thatthere will be a completion to the things said to her by the Lord!” (Lk1.45), “Blessed among women… the mother of my Lord”‘! (Lk 1.42-43),and she herself says, “All generations will call me blessed” (Lk1.48). Of course, if “those who hear the word with a good and nobleheart, preserve it and bear fruit” (8.15)– her fruit is most blessed:”Blessed [indeed!] is the fruit of [her] womb” (Lk 1.42)!So the scenario in Lk 11.28 is not that, as we usually read this,Jesus is being cruel to his mother and brothers, who are outsidetrying to see him (I would have trouble with this anyway), but that heis pointing them out as examples of what he’s talking about (faith)and welcoming them in as indeed close to him on that basis. And ofcourse we know that the “brothers of the Lord” played a big role inthe early Christian community, so in the gospel of Luke this phrasewould possibly have been read as some kind of an affirmation of them.The problem is, this gets you into the whole discussion of the placeof the Virgin Mary, which has been such a shibboleth inProtestant-Catholic relations, and is fraught with emotional significance!Indeed he is risen!John Burnett, MA (OT)

 

Hebrews 11:1P. Comfort’s new book

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 atombomb at sirius.com atombomb at sirius.com
Wed May 5 14:19:19 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 P. Comfort’s new book CHRIST IS RISEN!Mark Goodacre wrote:> > I would be grateful for any help on the translation of the following:> > Luke 11.28: MENOUN MAKARIOI hOI AKOUONTES TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI FULASSONTES.> > The standard translation is “Blessed *rather* are those who hear the word of> God and keep it”. But I am wondering whether it might be legitimate to> translate more along the lines of “Indeed — and blessed moreover are those . .> .” or some such thing. There seems to be some ground for doing this, e.g. Rom.> 10.18 where MENOUNGE might reasonably be translated “Indeed . . .” or Phil.> 3.8, also MENOUNGE, “Indeed I count everything as loss . . .”Liddell & Scott: *men oun* is freq. used with a corresponding *de*,so that each Particle retains its force, Od. 4.780, Pi. O. 1.111, S.OT 244, 843, Ph. 359, D. 2.5, etc: but frequently also in an absolutesense, “so then”, S. Ant. 65; … especially in replies, sometimes instrong afffirmation, *pantapasi men oun* Plato, Thaeatetus 158d…[but] also to substitute a new statement so as to correct a precedingstatement, “nay rather” [my favorite example is “‘Wipe your nose on myhead?’… ‘Nay rather, on mine!'” Ar. Eq. 9.11]; L&S also quotes thesubject passage (Lk 11.28), translating as “yea rather, pointing to Rm9.20 as an example of the same.Indeed, that’s the way the fathers read it– positive, rather thandisjunctive. Someone recently pointed out to me that in the Britishlanguage, “rather”, pronounced “rah-THER!” can indeed mean, “indeed!”or “rather so!”.I think a translation as positive or affirmative “indeed” would be farmore in keeping with the general thought of St Luke than a disjunctive”rather” (as we tend to read it, really out of an anti-Catholic polemic):”Indeed, happy are those who hear the word of God, and keep it”‘ (Lk11.28), for “the [seed] in the good ground, is those who hear the wordwith a good and noble heart, preserve it and bear fruit in patience”(Lk 8.15). And who is the example of this? Only six verses later Jesussays, “My mother and my brothers are these (outoi) who are hearing theword of God and doing it” (Lk8.21). The theme ofhearing-keeping-doing-bringing forth fruit and blessedness seems to bemore than a little emphasized– Mary is twice portrayed as the one who”kept all these words, turning them over in her heart” (Lk 2.19), orwho “preserved all these words in her heart” (Lk 2.51); she is calledblessed (*makarios*) three times– “blessed is she who believed thatthere will be a completion to the things said to her by the Lord!” (Lk1.45), “Blessed among women… the mother of my Lord”‘! (Lk 1.42-43),and she herself says, “All generations will call me blessed” (Lk1.48). Of course, if “those who hear the word with a good and nobleheart, preserve it and bear fruit” (8.15)– her fruit is most blessed:”Blessed [indeed!] is the fruit of [her] womb” (Lk 1.42)!So the scenario in Lk 11.28 is not that, as we usually read this,Jesus is being cruel to his mother and brothers, who are outsidetrying to see him (I would have trouble with this anyway), but that heis pointing them out as examples of what he’s talking about (faith)and welcoming them in as indeed close to him on that basis. And ofcourse we know that the “brothers of the Lord” played a big role inthe early Christian community, so in the gospel of Luke this phrasewould possibly have been read as some kind of an affirmation of them.The problem is, this gets you into the whole discussion of the placeof the Virgin Mary, which has been such a shibboleth inProtestant-Catholic relations, and is fraught with emotional significance!Indeed he is risen!John Burnett, MA (OT)

 

Hebrews 11:1P. Comfort’s new book

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 Edgar Krentz ekrentz at lstc.edu
Wed May 5 16:29:46 EDT 1999

 

Machen Greek NT Exercises Machen Greek NT Exercises >I would be grateful for any help on the translation of the following:> >Luke 11.28: MENOUN MAKARIOI hOI AKOUONTES TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI FULASSONTES.> >The standard translation is “Blessed *rather* are those who hear the word of>God and keep it”. But I am wondering whether it might be legitimate to>translate more along the lines of “Indeed — and blessed moreover are>those . .>.” or some such thing. There seems to be some ground for doing this, e.g.>Rom.>10.18 where MENOUNGE might reasonably be translated “Indeed . . .” or Phil.>3.8, also MENOUNGE, “Indeed I count everything as loss . . .”> >Any thoughts?> >Thanks> >MarkCheck LSJ, sv B.II.2: frequently used as an ablsolute: “so then.” Theyclaim that in the NT it means “nay, rather.” I think your translation ispossible++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Edgar KrentzProfessor of New Testament EmeritusLutheran School of Theology at Chicago1100 E. 55th StreetChicago, IL 60615 USA773-256-0752e-mail: ekrentz at lstc.edu (Office) emkrentz at mcs.com (Home)+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Machen Greek NT ExercisesMachen Greek NT Exercises

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 Edgar Krentz ekrentz at lstc.edu
Wed May 5 16:29:46 EDT 1999

 

Machen Greek NT Exercises Machen Greek NT Exercises >I would be grateful for any help on the translation of the following:> >Luke 11.28: MENOUN MAKARIOI hOI AKOUONTES TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI FULASSONTES.> >The standard translation is “Blessed *rather* are those who hear the word of>God and keep it”. But I am wondering whether it might be legitimate to>translate more along the lines of “Indeed — and blessed moreover are>those . .>.” or some such thing. There seems to be some ground for doing this, e.g.>Rom.>10.18 where MENOUNGE might reasonably be translated “Indeed . . .” or Phil.>3.8, also MENOUNGE, “Indeed I count everything as loss . . .”> >Any thoughts?> >Thanks> >MarkCheck LSJ, sv B.II.2: frequently used as an ablsolute: “so then.” Theyclaim that in the NT it means “nay, rather.” I think your translation ispossible++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Edgar KrentzProfessor of New Testament EmeritusLutheran School of Theology at Chicago1100 E. 55th StreetChicago, IL 60615 USA773-256-0752e-mail: ekrentz at lstc.edu (Office) emkrentz at mcs.com (Home)+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Machen Greek NT ExercisesMachen Greek NT Exercises

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 Stephen C. Carlson scarlson at mindspring.com
Thu May 6 00:41:17 EDT 1999

 

Machen Greek NT Exercises MENOUN in Luke 11.28 At 11:19 AM 5/5/99 -0700, atombomb at sirius.com wrote:>Mark Goodacre wrote:>> I would be grateful for any help on the translation of the following:>> >> Luke 11.28: MENOUN MAKARIOI hOI AKOUONTES TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI FULASSONTES.> >I think a translation as positive or affirmative “indeed” would be far>more in keeping with the general thought of St Luke than a disjunctive>“rather” (as we tend to read it, really out of an anti-Catholic polemic):Interestingly, two common Roman Catholic translations, the Rheims Bibleand the New American Bible, both render MENOUN with “rather” as in “Yearather” and “Rather” respectively. Indeed, the “Yea rather” of theRheims agrees with the Authorized (KJV).I suppose that both MENOUN and English “rather” are ambiguous, expressingboth affirmative and negative (or at least contrastive) meanings, dependingon the context. The translations have chosen different ways to handle this:the KJV and the Rheims resolve MENOUN affirmatively (“Yea rather, blessed …”),the NAB ambiguously (“Rather, blessed are thou..), and the leading modernProtestant versions contrastively (“On the contrary, blessed …” NASB;”Blessed rather …” NIV, NRSV, Amplified). My translational preference isfor the translation that is just as ambiguous as the source text, but myexegetical preference is for the affirmative meaning, as argued by Mark andJohn.Stephen Carlson–Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson at mindspring.comSynoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/”Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words.” Shujing 2.35

 

Machen Greek NT ExercisesMENOUN in Luke 11.28

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Thu May 6 05:56:27 EDT 1999

 

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 Acts 2:6 At 00:41 06/05/99 -0400, you wrote:> >Interestingly, two common Roman Catholic translations, the Rheims Bible>and the New American Bible, both render MENOUN with “rather” as in “Yea>rather” and “Rather” respectively. Indeed, the “Yea rather” of the>Rheims agrees with the Authorized (KJV).Stephen;Two more R.C translations are in agreement ( contra the number of times theNJB changes some very odd translations in the JB )JB:’Still happier those who hear the word of God and keep it!’NJB:More blessed still are those who hear the word of God and OTOH, Fitzmyer, in his own translation for the Anchor Bible volume 28A, gives:” Blessed rather are ……..”And on p. 928, he has an informative note, which I won’t attempt toreproduce in full.Initially making the point that here MENOUN is used at the head of asentence, against classical Greek usage.He then goes on to list three different usages:(a) adversative(b) affirmative(c) corrective [ “yes, but rather” ]Citing Thrall in ” Greek Particles in the N.T”, “for Luke the first twouses are to be eliminated ” , quoting Thrall’s reasons.He concludes ” hence, the last corrective sense is to be preferred” and weare referred to Moule’s ‘Idiiom Book’ Hope this is of help.MauriceMaurice A. O’Sullivan[Bray, Ireland ]”Be certain your feet are planted in theright place before you decide to stand firm!”

 

MENOUN in Luke 11.28Acts 2:6

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 Stephen C. Carlson scarlson at mindspring.com
Thu May 6 00:41:17 EDT 1999

 

Machen Greek NT Exercises MENOUN in Luke 11.28 At 11:19 AM 5/5/99 -0700, atombomb at sirius.com wrote:>Mark Goodacre wrote:>> I would be grateful for any help on the translation of the following:>> >> Luke 11.28: MENOUN MAKARIOI hOI AKOUONTES TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI FULASSONTES.> >I think a translation as positive or affirmative “indeed” would be far>more in keeping with the general thought of St Luke than a disjunctive>“rather” (as we tend to read it, really out of an anti-Catholic polemic):Interestingly, two common Roman Catholic translations, the Rheims Bibleand the New American Bible, both render MENOUN with “rather” as in “Yearather” and “Rather” respectively. Indeed, the “Yea rather” of theRheims agrees with the Authorized (KJV).I suppose that both MENOUN and English “rather” are ambiguous, expressingboth affirmative and negative (or at least contrastive) meanings, dependingon the context. The translations have chosen different ways to handle this:the KJV and the Rheims resolve MENOUN affirmatively (“Yea rather, blessed …”),the NAB ambiguously (“Rather, blessed are thou..), and the leading modernProtestant versions contrastively (“On the contrary, blessed …” NASB;”Blessed rather …” NIV, NRSV, Amplified). My translational preference isfor the translation that is just as ambiguous as the source text, but myexegetical preference is for the affirmative meaning, as argued by Mark andJohn.Stephen Carlson–Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson at mindspring.comSynoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/”Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words.” Shujing 2.35

 

Machen Greek NT ExercisesMENOUN in Luke 11.28

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Thu May 6 05:56:27 EDT 1999

 

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 Acts 2:6 At 00:41 06/05/99 -0400, you wrote:> >Interestingly, two common Roman Catholic translations, the Rheims Bible>and the New American Bible, both render MENOUN with “rather” as in “Yea>rather” and “Rather” respectively. Indeed, the “Yea rather” of the>Rheims agrees with the Authorized (KJV).Stephen;Two more R.C translations are in agreement ( contra the number of times theNJB changes some very odd translations in the JB )JB:’Still happier those who hear the word of God and keep it!’NJB:More blessed still are those who hear the word of God and OTOH, Fitzmyer, in his own translation for the Anchor Bible volume 28A, gives:” Blessed rather are ……..”And on p. 928, he has an informative note, which I won’t attempt toreproduce in full.Initially making the point that here MENOUN is used at the head of asentence, against classical Greek usage.He then goes on to list three different usages:(a) adversative(b) affirmative(c) corrective [ “yes, but rather” ]Citing Thrall in ” Greek Particles in the N.T”, “for Luke the first twouses are to be eliminated ” , quoting Thrall’s reasons.He concludes ” hence, the last corrective sense is to be preferred” and weare referred to Moule’s ‘Idiiom Book’ Hope this is of help.MauriceMaurice A. O’Sullivan[Bray, Ireland ]”Be certain your feet are planted in theright place before you decide to stand firm!”

 

MENOUN in Luke 11.28Acts 2:6

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 atombomb at sirius.com atombomb at sirius.com
Thu May 6 13:38:11 EDT 1999

 

Acts 2:6 Acts 2:6 CHRIST IS RISEN!”Maurice A. O’Sullivan” wrote:> > OTOH, Fitzmyer, in his own translation for the Anchor Bible volume 28A, gives:> ” Blessed rather are ……..”> And on p. 928, he has an informative note, which I won’t attempt to> reproduce in full.> Initially making the point that here MENOUN is used at the head of a> sentence, against classical Greek usage.Well, Liddell & Scott does adduce the 2d c. AD Phrynicus (at 322). But clearly, *men* and its permutations are usually postpositive. L&Sgive “yea, rather”; the NT use is unusual among the sources we have.> He then goes on to list three different usages:> (a) adversative> (b) affirmative> (c) corrective [ “yes, but rather” ]> > Citing Thrall in ” Greek Particles in the N.T”, “for Luke the first two> uses are to be eliminated ” , quoting Thrall’s reasons.> He concludes ” hence, the last corrective sense is to be preferred” and we> are referred to Moule’s ‘Idiiom Book’I’d like to see these reasons (unfortunately I have neither Thrall norFitzmeyer handy)– again, we’re perilously close to an area ofhistorically rather heated inter-confessional argument, and it’s notas though scholars have always been entirely unaffected byconfessional prejudice or traditional readings! It’s just hard to seehow a “corrective” makes sense in the light of 8.15,21; 2.19,51; 1.48and also 1.42-43 (where it says *euloghmenh/os* not *makarios* as Isaid the other day–oops!)– all of which seem to be pretty strongstatements about Mary as one who exemplifies the kind of faithfulnessJesus speaks of at 11.28– unless it’s a rather soft corrective–something more along the lines of “Certainly! but it’s because theyare blessed who hear… and keep…”INDEED HE IS RISEN!John Burnett, MA (OT)

 

Acts 2:6Acts 2:6

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 atombomb at sirius.com atombomb at sirius.com
Thu May 6 13:38:11 EDT 1999

 

Acts 2:6 Acts 2:6 CHRIST IS RISEN!”Maurice A. O’Sullivan” wrote:> > OTOH, Fitzmyer, in his own translation for the Anchor Bible volume 28A, gives:> ” Blessed rather are ……..”> And on p. 928, he has an informative note, which I won’t attempt to> reproduce in full.> Initially making the point that here MENOUN is used at the head of a> sentence, against classical Greek usage.Well, Liddell & Scott does adduce the 2d c. AD Phrynicus (at 322). But clearly, *men* and its permutations are usually postpositive. L&Sgive “yea, rather”; the NT use is unusual among the sources we have.> He then goes on to list three different usages:> (a) adversative> (b) affirmative> (c) corrective [ “yes, but rather” ]> > Citing Thrall in ” Greek Particles in the N.T”, “for Luke the first two> uses are to be eliminated ” , quoting Thrall’s reasons.> He concludes ” hence, the last corrective sense is to be preferred” and we> are referred to Moule’s ‘Idiiom Book’I’d like to see these reasons (unfortunately I have neither Thrall norFitzmeyer handy)– again, we’re perilously close to an area ofhistorically rather heated inter-confessional argument, and it’s notas though scholars have always been entirely unaffected byconfessional prejudice or traditional readings! It’s just hard to seehow a “corrective” makes sense in the light of 8.15,21; 2.19,51; 1.48and also 1.42-43 (where it says *euloghmenh/os* not *makarios* as Isaid the other day–oops!)– all of which seem to be pretty strongstatements about Mary as one who exemplifies the kind of faithfulnessJesus speaks of at 11.28– unless it’s a rather soft corrective–something more along the lines of “Certainly! but it’s because theyare blessed who hear… and keep…”INDEED HE IS RISEN!John Burnett, MA (OT)

 

Acts 2:6Acts 2:6

[] luke 11:28, please Mihai Marius mariusmih71 at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 16 17:24:28 EDT 2009

 

[] Luke 17: 20-21 [] luke 11:28, please Hello,My name is Marius Mihai and I`m from Romania. I have study three bibles: protestant, orthodox versus greek. Now, my study has stoped because the word “menoun” from the verset 28 on the 11 chapter of Luke gospels. So, please help me: :menoun” is “rather” or “in-deed”, in english?please help me.God bless you!__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

 

[] Luke 17: 20-21[] luke 11:28, please

[] luke 11:28, please Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Sep 16 17:46:51 EDT 2009

 

[] luke 11:28, please [] luke 11:28, please On Sep 16, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Mihai Marius wrote:> Hello,> My name is Marius Mihai and I`m from Romania. I have study three > bibles: protestant, orthodox versus greek. Now, my study has stoped > because the word “menoun” from the verset 28 on the 11 chapter of > Luke gospels. So, please help me: :menoun” is “rather” or “in-deed”, > in english?Text:Luke 11:28 αὐτὸς δὲ εἶπεν· μενοῦν μακάριοι οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες.[AUTOS DE EIPEN· MENOUN MAKARIOI hOI AKOUONTES TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI FULASSONTES.]BDAG:μενοῦν (also μὲν οὖν [MEN OUN) Lk 11:28 (for negative s. οὐ μὲν οὖν [OU MEN OUN]) and μενοῦνγε (also μενοῦν γε), particles used esp. in answers, to emphasize or correct (B-D-F §450, 4; Rob. 1151f), even—contrary to earlier Gk. usage—at the beginning of a clause (Phryn. 342 Lob. [322 R.]) rather, on the contrary (Soph., Aj. 1363; Pla., Crito 44b; X., Cyr. 8, 3, 37) Lk 11:28 v.l. Indeed Ro 10:18. ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε [ALLA MENOUNGE] more than that Phil 3:8. μενοῦνγε σὺ τίς εἶ . . . [MENOUNGE SU TIS EI … ]; on the contrary, who are you . . . ? (or, who in the world are you to [take issue with God]?) Ro 9:20.—M-M.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

[] luke 11:28, please[] luke 11:28, please

[] luke 11:28, please Edward Andrews edandrews at roadrunner.com
Wed Sep 16 18:02:37 EDT 2009

 

[] luke 11:28, please [] please explain Mihai:?????? is literally “indeed,” but rendered “rather.” It should not be understood as negating the previous statement of the woman in verse 27, but should be viewed as [corrective] “indeed therefore.” In other words: Jesus is is concurring with “indeed,” yet stressing something of more relevance still: “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” While Mary is blessed in that she was afforded the opportunity of giving birth to and raising Jesus, but her greater blessing comes because she had heard the Word of God and kept it.Generally speaking if Luke wanted to refute what the woman had said, he would have used ???? ???? ???? [ouchi lego hymin]. – see Luke 12:51; 13: 3, 5. Edward Andrews —– Original Message —– From: Mihai Marius To: at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:24 PM Subject: [] luke 11:28, please Hello, My name is Marius Mihai and I`m from Romania. I have study three bibles: protestant, orthodox versus greek. Now, my study has stoped because the word “menoun” from the verset 28 on the 11 chapter of Luke gospels. So, please help me: :menoun” is “rather” or “in-deed”, in english? please help me. God bless you! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] luke 11:28, please[] please explain

John 3:16

[] John 3:16 “so” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Tue Dec 15 17:54:15 EST 2009

 

[] Capital theta in John 1:18? [] John 3:16 “so” Dear list,I have been studying a controversy in John 3:16:*John 3:16* οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.hOUTWS GAP HGAPHSEN hO QEOS TON KOSMON, hWSTE TON hUION TON MONOGENH EDWKEN, hINA PAS hO PISTEUWN EIS AUTON MH APOLHTAI ALL’ ECHi ZWHN AIWNION.The controversy concerns the force of hOUTWS and then hWSTE. The lexicons present, though not necessarily for this verse, the claim that the words together can imply an intensive idea where hOUTWS is “so” (“so much”) and hWSTE is “that.” The use of “so” and “that” is, of course, the traditional rendering of the verse. Some recent commentaries, papers, and translations are saying that hOUTWS should be translated “in this way,” with hWSTE possibly rendered as “and so.”This particular construction does not appear elsewhere in the Greek NT from what I have read, or really in the LXX either. So recourse is made to writers like Josephus, Philo, Demosthenes, and Epictetus to clarify the usage. The Loeb Classical Library often translates the construction with an intensive sense, but a paper I just read differed with LCL, claiming that in each case hOUTWS looked back to a previous context and had the meaning “in this way,” rather than being an intensive “so.”Is anyone familiar with this issue sufficiently to have an opinion about it?By the way, please tell me if the Greek text is legible as Greek. I exported John 3:16 from Bibleworks to Word and transferred it from Word to the emailer Thunderbird. It still looks Greek to me but perhaps not to others.Thank you.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Capital theta in John 1:18?[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Tue Dec 15 19:32:28 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” Harold,I would suggest breaking the problem down into smaller components. The first controversy regards which way hOUTWS refers, whether it is anaphoric or cataphoric. The answer to this question will influence the sense you assign it, typically either manner or degree. In reading the literature on this issue, cases are made for both backward- and forward-pointing reference. If it is backward, the antecedent would be the lifting up of the Son of Man as the demonstration of God’s love. The forward-pointing alternative would view the hWSTE clause as the referent. I played and replayed the scenarios. Forward-pointing hOUTWS references are typically resolved in: 1. a quotation (e.g. Mt 2:5 referring to v. 6, or Mt. 6:9); 2. a subordinate clause introduced by hOTI (e.g. Mk 4:26, Lk 19:31), hWS (e.g. 1 Cor 4:1; 9:26; Jas 2:12), hINA (e.g. Mt 18:14); 3. an infinitive (e.g. Lk 1:25). I have not found another instance where a cataphoric hOUTWS reference is resolved by hWSTE. It might could happen, but John 3:16 would be the lone token in the GNT. According to my analysis in the Discourse GNT, John 21:21 is the only forward-pointing hOUTWS reference in the gospel other than the potential one in 3:16. There it is simply a general reference to the events that follow where Jesus reveals himself to the disciples after the resurrection. On the basis of the broader usage and that within John’s gospel, I view the forward-pointing reading of hOUTWS in 3:16 as the harder and less likely one.The second part regards the sense of hOUTWS. I understand hOUTWS to be a “pro-adverb” (sorry Carl, know you hate the terms). It is an adverb in that it modifies a verb, and it is a pro-form in that it can stand in the place of a concept like a pronoun. In 3:16, you need to choose your concept that it stands in place of, which in both cases would be a manner, not a degree. Thus I do not think that there is merit to the degree reading, the only sound option is manner. There is nothing in the preceding or following context describing a degree, only two manners: lifting up the Son of Man, and giving his only son. This is my two cents, though I am sure there will be other opinions.Regards,Steven E. RungeScholar-in-ResidenceLogos Bible Software srunge at logos.com www.logos.comwww.ntdiscourse.org—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Harold HolmyardSent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:54 PMTo: Subject: [] John 3:16 “so”Dear list,I have been studying a controversy in John 3:16:*John 3:16* οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.hOUTWS GAP HGAPHSEN hO QEOS TON KOSMON, hWSTE TON hUION TON MONOGENH EDWKEN, hINA PAS hO PISTEUWN EIS AUTON MH APOLHTAI ALL’ ECHi ZWHN AIWNION.The controversy concerns the force of hOUTWS and then hWSTE. The lexicons present, though not necessarily for this verse, the claim that the words together can imply an intensive idea where hOUTWS is “so” (“somuch”) and hWSTE is “that.” The use of “so” and “that” is, of course, the traditional rendering of the verse. Some recent commentaries, papers, and translations are saying that hOUTWS should be translated “in this way,” with hWSTE possibly rendered as “and so.”This particular construction does not appear elsewhere in the Greek NT from what I have read, or really in the LXX either. So recourse is made to writers like Josephus, Philo, Demosthenes, and Epictetus to clarify the usage. The Loeb Classical Library often translates the construction with an intensive sense, but a paper I just read differed with LCL, claiming that in each case hOUTWS looked back to a previous context and had the meaning “in this way,” rather than being an intensive “so.”Is anyone familiar with this issue sufficiently to have an opinion about it?By the way, please tell me if the Greek text is legible as Greek. I exported John 3:16 from Bibleworks to Word and transferred it from Word to the emailer Thunderbird. It still looks Greek to me but perhaps not to others.Thank you.Yours,Harold Holmyard— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” David McKay davidmckay52 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 15 20:14:05 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” Lots of big words here, Steve.Could you tell us how you think it should be translated, following on fromyour analysis and conclusions, please?David McKay2009/12/16 Steve Runge <srunge at logos.com>> Harold,> > I would suggest breaking the problem down into smaller components. The> first controversy regards which way hOUTWS refers, whether it is anaphoric> or cataphoric. The answer to this question will influence the sense you> assign it, typically either manner or degree. In reading the literature on> this issue, cases are made for both backward- and forward-pointing> reference. If it is backward, the antecedent would be the lifting up of the> Son of Man as the demonstration of God’s love. The forward-pointing> alternative would view the hWSTE clause as the referent.> > I played and replayed the scenarios. Forward-pointing hOUTWS references are> typically resolved in:> 1. a quotation (e.g. Mt 2:5 referring to v. 6, or Mt. 6:9);> 2. a subordinate clause introduced by hOTI (e.g. Mk 4:26, Lk> 19:31), hWS (e.g. 1 Cor 4:1; 9:26; Jas 2:12), hINA (e.g. Mt 18:14);> 3. an infinitive (e.g. Lk 1:25).> I have not found another instance where a cataphoric hOUTWS reference is> resolved by hWSTE. It might could happen, but John 3:16 would be the lone> token in the GNT.> > According to my analysis in the Discourse GNT, John 21:21 is the only> forward-pointing hOUTWS reference in the gospel other than the potential one> in 3:16. There it is simply a general reference to the events that follow> where Jesus reveals himself to the disciples after the resurrection. On the> basis of the broader usage and that within John’s gospel, I view the> forward-pointing reading of hOUTWS in 3:16 as the harder and less likely> one.> > The second part regards the sense of hOUTWS. I understand hOUTWS to be a> “pro-adverb” (sorry Carl, know you hate the terms). It is an adverb in that> it modifies a verb, and it is a pro-form in that it can stand in the place> of a concept like a pronoun. In 3:16, you need to choose your concept that> it stands in place of, which in both cases would be a manner, not a degree.> Thus I do not think that there is merit to the degree reading, the only> sound option is manner. There is nothing in the preceding or following> context describing a degree, only two manners: lifting up the Son of Man,> and giving his only son.> > This is my two cents, though I am sure there will be other opinions.> > Regards,> > Steven E. Runge> Scholar-in-Residence> Logos Bible Software> srunge at logos.com> www.logos.com> www.ntdiscourse.org> > —–Original Message—–> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:> -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Harold Holmyard> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:54 PM> To: > Subject: [] John 3:16 “so”> > Dear list,> I have been studying a controversy in John 3:16:> > *> > John 3:16* οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν> μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν> αἰώνιον.> > hOUTWS GAP HGAPHSEN hO QEOS TON KOSMON, hWSTE TON hUION TON MONOGENH> EDWKEN, hINA PAS hO PISTEUWN EIS AUTON MH APOLHTAI ALL’ ECHi ZWHN AIWNION.> > The controversy concerns the force of hOUTWS and then hWSTE. The lexicons> present, though not necessarily for this verse, the claim that the words> together can imply an intensive idea where hOUTWS is “so” (“so> much”) and hWSTE is “that.” The use of “so” and “that” is, of course, the> traditional rendering of the verse. Some recent commentaries, papers, and> translations are saying that hOUTWS should be translated “in this way,” with> hWSTE possibly rendered as “and so.”> > This particular construction does not appear elsewhere in the Greek NT from> what I have read, or really in the LXX either. So recourse is made to> writers like Josephus, Philo, Demosthenes, and Epictetus to clarify the> usage. The Loeb Classical Library often translates the construction with an> intensive sense, but a paper I just read differed with LCL, claiming that in> each case hOUTWS looked back to a previous context and had the meaning “in> this way,” rather than being an intensive “so.”> > Is anyone familiar with this issue sufficiently to have an opinion about> it?> > By the way, please tell me if the Greek text is legible as Greek. I> exported John 3:16 from Bibleworks to Word and transferred it from Word to> the emailer Thunderbird. It still looks Greek to me but perhaps not to> others.> > Thank you.> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard> > > > > >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> <http://www.ibiblio.org/%0A> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — www.gontroppo.blogspot.com

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Tue Dec 15 20:51:07 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” Hi, David,> Lots of big words here, Steve.> Could you tell us how you think it should be translated, following on from> your analysis and conclusions, please?> David McKay> The way it is translated by several major translations trying to update the traditional rendering is as follows:CSB John 3:16 “For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.GWN John 3:16 God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.NET John 3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.NJB John 3:16 For this is how God loved the world: he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.However, see the NLT:NLT John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.HH: And the NET translation notes argue that the verse can describe both intensity and manner of love, supposedly in John’s style of using double meanings.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” David McKay davidmckay52 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 15 20:59:51 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” Thanks Harold.But what I want to know is what Steve thinks is the best rendering, becauseI can’t follow his argument, due to his use of jargon words I don’tunderstand.Can you or he tell me if he favours one of the translations you’ve givenbelow, based on his argument, please?I am a bear of very little brain, as Winnie the Pooh would say.David McKay

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Tue Dec 15 21:21:52 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” David,I think he would accept any of the translations I gave you. Let me go through his terms.> Harold,> > I would suggest breaking the problem down into smaller components. The first controversy regards which way hOUTWS refers, whether it is anaphoric or cataphoric. Cataphoric = forward-pointing (pointing to something further on in the sentence)of or relating to cataphora; /especially/ *:* being a word or phrase (as a pronoun) that takes its reference from a following word or phrase (as /her/ in /before her Jane saw nothing but desert/) — compare anaphoricAnaphoric = backward-pointing (referring to something earlier in the writing)> The answer to this question will influence the sense you assign it, typically either manner or degree. In reading the literature on this issue, cases are made for both backward- and forward-pointing reference. If it is backward, the antecedent would be the lifting up of the Son of Man as the demonstration of God’s love. The forward-pointing alternative would view the hWSTE clause as the referent. > > I played and replayed the scenarios. Forward-pointing hOUTWS references are typically resolved in: > 1. a quotation (e.g. Mt 2:5 referring to v. 6, or Mt. 6:9); > 2. a subordinate clause introduced by hOTI (e.g. Mk 4:26, Lk 19:31), hWS (e.g. 1 Cor 4:1; 9:26; Jas 2:12), hINA (e.g. Mt 18:14); > 3. an infinitive (e.g. Lk 1:25). > I have not found another instance where a cataphoric hOUTWS reference is resolved by hWSTE. It might could happen, but John 3:16 would be the lone token in the GNT. > HH: Right, it would be a lone instance in the GNT where a cataphoric hOUTWS reference is resolved by hWSTE, but arguments are given for it occurring in other literature.> According to my analysis in the Discourse GNT, John 21:21 is the only forward-pointing hOUTWS reference in the gospel other than the potential one in 3:16. There it is simply a general reference to the events that follow where Jesus reveals himself to the disciples after the resurrection. On the basis of the broader usage and that within John’s gospel, I view the forward-pointing reading of hOUTWS in 3:16 as the harder and less likely one.> HH: Since most references of hOUTWS are backward-looking in John, the forward-looking theory for John 3:16 seems less likely.> The second part regards the sense of hOUTWS. I understand hOUTWS to be a “pro-adverb” (sorry Carl, know you hate the terms). It is an adverb in that it modifies a verb, and it is a pro-form in that it can stand in the place of a concept like a pronoun. In 3:16, you need to choose your concept that it stands in place of, which in both cases would be a manner, not a degree. Thus I do not think that there is merit to the degree reading, the only sound option is manner. There is nothing in the preceding or following context describing a degree, only two manners: lifting up the Son of Man, and giving his only son. > > This is my two cents, though I am sure there will be other opinions.> HH: I have read an argument like this based on the elements of the word hOUTWS, which is supposedly based on hOUTOS (“this”) plus WS (“as, like”). So this is like something else, the other thing being what hOUTWS can substitute for or represent.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Tue Dec 15 21:45:23 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” David and Harold,If you were going to take hOUTWS as referring ahead to the hWSTE clause,the use of the colon in the CSB, GWN, NET and NJB all reflect theforward-pointing interpretation. Rendering hOUTWS as “this way”indicates they understand it as describing manner rather than degree.The “so much” of the NLT indicates understanding it as degree. If youwanted to capture the fronting of hOUTWS for emphasis in Greek, youwould end up with something like:”For it was *in this way* that God loved the word: He gave his one andonly son.” This is a bit stilted, and the asterisk indicates where the primarystress of the reading would be placed. It is not emphasized because itis important in and of itself, but because of what it points ahead to.The point of using such a forward-pointing reference is to drawattention to the hWSTE clause. It is a rhetorical device comparable tome saying “*Here’s* my translation: “For in this….” “Here” is not themost important word, my translation is. But as I said in the last post,I do not think that the forward-pointing reading is the most likely. Onto plan B.I think the most likely reading is to see hOUTWS referring back to vv.14-15.”Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, in this/the sameway must the Son of Man be lifted up. For in this way God loved theworld, so that He gave his one and only Son…”Understood in this way, the hOUTWS is reiterating the content of vv.14-15 that stresses Jesus being lifted up by comparison to the serpentin the wilderness, which is reiterated by hOUTWS. Note that thetranslation looks really similar, the primary difference has to do withthe reference of hOUTWS, whether forward or backward. I gotta run my daughter to youth group, hope this will answer thequestion.Steve Runge—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Harold HolmyardSent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 5:51 PMCc: Subject: Re: [] John 3:16 “so”Hi, David,> Lots of big words here, Steve.> Could you tell us how you think it should be translated, following on > from your analysis and conclusions, please?> David McKay> The way it is translated by several major translations trying to updatethe traditional rendering is as follows:CSB John 3:16 “For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One andOnly Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but haveeternal life.GWN John 3:16 God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son sothat everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternallife.NET John 3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his oneand only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish buthave eternal life.NJB John 3:16 For this is how God loved the world: he gave his onlySon, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may haveeternal life.However, see the NLT:NLT John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one andonly Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but haveeternal life.HH: And the NET translation notes argue that the verse can describe bothintensity and manner of love, supposedly in John’s style of using doublemeanings.Yours,Harold Holmyard— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Tue Dec 15 22:06:08 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” Steve,> > I think the most likely reading is to see hOUTWS referring back to vv.> 14-15.> > “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, in this/the same> way must the Son of Man be lifted up. For in this way God loved the> world, so that He gave his one and only Son…”> > Understood in this way, the hOUTWS is reiterating the content of vv.> 14-15 that stresses Jesus being lifted up by comparison to the serpent> in the wilderness, which is reiterated by hOUTWS. Note that the> translation looks really similar, the primary difference has to do with> the reference of hOUTWS, whether forward or backward. > > I gotta run my daughter to youth group, hope this will answer the> question.> HH: Thanks. Yes, this is the way that the article I read goes about interpreting the verse. It was written by Robert Gundry and someone else and published in /Novum Testamentum/ in the 1999 volume, I think in the first issue of the year. But, Steve, you have not yet handled the hWSTE clause in translation. How would you handle it?HH: And of course the issue still remains whether the Loeb Classical Library and other sources might be correct in handling hOUTWS . . . hWSTE in an intensive way in extra-biblical literature.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 15 22:08:29 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. hOUTWS GAR HGAPHSEN hO QEOS TON KOSMON, hWSTE TON hUION TON MONGENH EDWKEN, hINA PAS hO PISTEUWN EIS AUTON MH APOLHTAI ALL’ EXHi ZWHN AIWNION While I tend to agree with Steve regarding the meaning of the passage, let me present an opposing witness regarding this usage. 1.1 Ἄμωμον διάνοιαν καὶ ἀδιάκριτον ἐν ὑπομονῇ ἔγνων ὑμᾶς ἔχοντας, οὐ κατὰ χρῆσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ φύσιν, καθὼς ἐδήλωσέν μοι Πολύβιος ὁ ἐπίσκοπος ὑμῶν, ὃς παρεγένετο θελήματι θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν Σμύρνῃ, καὶ  ***  οὕτως  μοι συνεχάρη  *** δεδεμένῳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ***  ὥστε  *** με τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος ὑμῶν ἐν αὐτῷ θεωρῆσαι. (2) ἀποδεξάμενος οὖν τὴν κατὰ θεὸν εὔνοιαν διʼ αὐτοῦ, ἐδόξασα εὑρὼν ὑμᾶς, ὡς ἔγνων, μιμητὰς ὄντας θεοῦ. 1.1 AMWMON DIANOIAN KAI ADIAKRITON EN hUPOMONHi EGNWN hUMAS EXONTAS OU KATA KRHSIN ALLA KATA FUSIN, KAQWS EDHLWSEN MOI POLUBIOS hO EPISKOPOS hUMWN, hOS PAREGENETO QELHMATI IHSOU XRISTOU EN SMURNHi, KAI hOUTWS MOI SUNEXARH DEDEMENWi EN XRISTWi IHSOU, hWSTE ME TO PAN PLHQOS hUMWN EN AUTWi QEWRHSAI. (2) APODECAMENOS OUN THN KATA QEON EUNOIAN DI’ AUTOU, EDOCASA hEURWN hUMAS, hWS EGNWN, MIMHTAS ONTAS QEOU. Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (158). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books. I’ll take pity on some of the littler Greeks and provide Holmes’ translation as well. 1. I know that you have a disposition that is blameless and unwavering in patient endurance, not from habit but by nature, inasmuch as Polybius your bishop informed me when, by the will of God and Jesus Christ, he visited me in Smyrna; *** so heartily did he rejoice with me  ***, a prisoner in Christ Jesus, ***  that  *** in him I saw your entire congregation. (2) Having received, therefore, your godly good will through him, I praised God when I found out that you were, as I had learned, imitators of God. Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (159). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Steve Runge <srunge at logos.com>To: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tue, December 15, 2009 7:32:28 PMSubject: Re: [] John 3:16 “so”Harold,I would suggest breaking the problem down into smaller components. The first controversy regards which way hOUTWS refers, whether it is anaphoric or cataphoric. The answer to this question will influence the sense you assign it, typically either manner or degree. In reading the literature on this issue, cases are made for both backward- and forward-pointing reference. If it is backward, the antecedent would be the lifting up of the Son of Man as the demonstration of God’s love. The forward-pointing alternative would view the hWSTE clause as the referent. I played and replayed the scenarios. Forward-pointing hOUTWS references are typically resolved in:     1.  a quotation (e.g. Mt 2:5 referring to v. 6, or Mt. 6:9);     2.  a subordinate clause introduced by hOTI (e.g. Mk 4:26, Lk 19:31), hWS (e.g. 1 Cor 4:1; 9:26; Jas 2:12), hINA (e.g. Mt 18:14);     3.  an infinitive (e.g. Lk 1:25). I have not found another instance where a cataphoric hOUTWS reference is resolved by hWSTE. It might could happen, but John 3:16 would be the lone token in the GNT. According to my analysis in the Discourse GNT, John 21:21 is the only forward-pointing hOUTWS reference in the gospel other than the potential one in 3:16. There it is simply a general reference to the events that follow where Jesus reveals himself to the disciples after the resurrection. On the basis of the broader usage and that within John’s gospel, I view the forward-pointing reading of hOUTWS in 3:16 as the harder and less likely one.The second part regards the sense of hOUTWS. I understand hOUTWS to be a “pro-adverb” (sorry Carl, know you hate the terms). It is an adverb in that it modifies a verb, and it is a pro-form in that it can stand in the place of a concept like a pronoun. In 3:16, you need to choose your concept that it stands in place of, which in both cases would be a manner, not a degree. Thus I do not think that there is merit to the degree reading, the only sound option is manner. There is nothing in the preceding or following context describing a degree, only two manners: lifting up the Son of Man, and giving his only son. This is my two cents, though I am sure there will be other opinions.Regards,Steven E. RungeScholar-in-ResidenceLogos Bible Software srunge at logos.com www.logos.comwww.ntdiscourse.org—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Harold HolmyardSent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:54 PMTo: Subject: [] John 3:16 “so”Dear list,I have been studying a controversy in John 3:16:*John 3:16*  οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.hOUTWS GAP HGAPHSEN hO QEOS TON KOSMON, hWSTE TON hUION TON MONOGENH EDWKEN, hINA PAS hO PISTEUWN EIS AUTON MH APOLHTAI ALL’ ECHi ZWHN AIWNION.The controversy concerns the force of hOUTWS and then hWSTE. The lexicons present, though not necessarily for this verse, the claim that the words together can imply an intensive idea where hOUTWS is “so” (“somuch”) and hWSTE is “that.” The use of “so” and “that” is, of course, the traditional rendering of the verse. Some recent commentaries, papers, and translations are saying that hOUTWS should be translated “in this way,” with hWSTE possibly rendered as “and so.”This particular construction does not appear elsewhere in the Greek NT from what I have read, or really in the LXX either. So recourse is made to writers like Josephus, Philo, Demosthenes, and Epictetus to clarify the usage. The Loeb Classical Library often translates the construction with an intensive sense, but a paper I just read differed with LCL, claiming that in each case hOUTWS looked back to a previous context and had the meaning “in this way,” rather than being an intensive “so.”Is anyone familiar with this issue sufficiently to have an opinion about it?By the way, please tell me if the Greek text is legible as Greek. I exported John 3:16 from Bibleworks to Word and transferred it from Word to the emailer Thunderbird. It still looks Greek to me but perhaps not to others.Thank you.Yours,Harold Holmyard— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Dec 16 00:05:10 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] Wanted, Extensive Greek Word List —– Original Message —– From: “Steve Runge” <srunge at logos.com>To: “Harold Holmyard” <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>; “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 16. december 2009 03:32Subject: Re: [] John 3:16 “so”> Harold,> > I would suggest breaking the problem down into smaller components. The first > controversy regards which way hOUTWS refers, whether it is anaphoric or > cataphoric. The answer to this question will influence the sense you assign > it, typically either manner or degree. In reading the literature on this > issue, cases are made for both backward- and forward-pointing reference. If it > is backward, the antecedent would be the lifting up of the Son of Man as the > demonstration of God’s love. The forward-pointing alternative would view the > hWSTE clause as the referent.> > I played and replayed the scenarios. Forward-pointing hOUTWS references are > typically resolved in:> 1. a quotation (e.g. Mt 2:5 referring to v. 6, or Mt. 6:9);> 2. a subordinate clause introduced by hOTI (e.g. Mk 4:26, Lk 19:31), hWS > (e.g. 1 Cor 4:1; 9:26; Jas 2:12), hINA (e.g. Mt 18:14);> 3. an infinitive (e.g. Lk 1:25).> I have not found another instance where a cataphoric hOUTWS reference is > resolved by hWSTE. It might could happen, but John 3:16 would be the lone > token in the GNT.> > According to my analysis in the Discourse GNT, John 21:21 is the only > forward-pointing hOUTWS reference in the gospel other than the potential one > in 3:16. There it is simply a general reference to the events that follow > where Jesus reveals himself to the disciples after the resurrection. On the > basis of the broader usage and that within John’s gospel, I view the > forward-pointing reading of hOUTWS in 3:16 as the harder and less likely one.> > The second part regards the sense of hOUTWS. I understand hOUTWS to be a > “pro-adverb” (sorry Carl, know you hate the terms). It is an adverb in that it > modifies a verb, and it is a pro-form in that it can stand in the place of a > concept like a pronoun. In 3:16, you need to choose your concept that it > stands in place of, which in both cases would be a manner, not a degree. Thus > I do not think that there is merit to the degree reading, the only sound > option is manner. There is nothing in the preceding or following context > describing a degree, only two manners: lifting up the Son of Man, and giving > his only son.> > This is my two cents, though I am sure there will be other opinions.This has been discussed before, and you will find some interesting posts on it from June 2004 under the same heading John 3:16.What I have so far not seen entering into the discussion is John’s use of hWSTE. Whereas hWSTE was commonly used as a regular result connector in Classical Greek, this has changed in the times of the NT and especially in John. The normal result connector for John is hINA (which can also have other meanings.) John only uses hWSTE in 3:16.Donna Fedukowsky did research on the use of hWSTE which was published as:On The Use Of hwste With The InfinitiveSelected technical articles related to translation, No. 14 (December 1985): 25–32.I can send the article off-list to those who might be interested.She shows that in many cases in the NT, hWSTE indicates an unexpected, surprising result. This suggests that the degree is not derived from hOUTWS in John 3:16, but from hWSTE and the context. hOUTWS indicates the manner, I.e. he showed his love by sending his one and only son.It is these two words in combination enlightened by an understanding of John’s Greek style and language that supports the translation “so much”, which is also a result of a contextual interpretation by those who did not know the special usage of hWSTE in John. (For instance, Living Bible.)Whether hOUTWS points forwards or backwards is related to where the quote ends. I don’t know what Steve says about this, but others who have studied the discourse of John, conclude that v. 15 is the end of Jesus’ speech and v. 16 begins John’s comment, just as is the case with 3:31. I agree with that analysis. Introducing an author comment is one of the functions of GAR, (which is not clear from the English translation “for”).Iver Larsen

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] Wanted, Extensive Greek Word List

[] John 3:16 “so” Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Wed Dec 16 00:25:12 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” See below… —–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Harold HolmyardSent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 7:06 PMTo: Subject: Re: [] John 3:16 “so”Steve,> > I think the most likely reading is to see hOUTWS referring back to vv.> 14-15.> > “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, in this/the same> way must the Son of Man be lifted up. For in this way God loved the > world, so that He gave his one and only Son…”> > Understood in this way, the hOUTWS is reiterating the content of vv.> 14-15 that stresses Jesus being lifted up by comparison to the serpent> in the wilderness, which is reiterated by hOUTWS. Note that the > translation looks really similar, the primary difference has to do > with the reference of hOUTWS, whether forward or backward.> > I gotta run my daughter to youth group, hope this will answer the > question.> HH: Thanks. Yes, this is the way that the article I read goes aboutinterpreting the verse. It was written by Robert Gundry and someone elseand published in /Novum Testamentum/ in the 1999 volume, I think in thefirst issue of the year. But, Steve, you have not yet handled the hWSTEclause in translation. How would you handle it?SER: I had held to a forward-pointing view before reading that article.I found the way they went about their argument by saying what could nothappen unconvincing, but it challenged me to go back and rethink myposition. I failed to find an unambiguous example where hWSTE is thetarget of the reference. In regard to hWSTE, note that the folks that understand hOUTWS ascataphoric typically do not translate hWSTE. The drop it much like onewould normally do with hOTI following a verb of speaking. The treat isas a marker rather than a meaningful particle. If you read hOUTWS as anaphoric, then hWSTE plays a meaningful role byindicating how to relate the subordinate clause to the main clause. Ihave yet to find another case where hWSTE would naturally be dropped.The closest parallel I have found in 1 Cor 5:1, where hWSTE is referringback to TOIAUTH PORNEIA. I will leave the question of broader Koineusage to George and others. My gut feeling is that the KJV has so influenced and popularized thereading of hOUTWS as cataphoric and degree-oriented that one is fightingagainst hundreds of years of tradition. I do not think this is the mostnatural or simplest reading, but it can (and has been) argued. Theanswer to what to do with hWSTE depends on your interpretation of hOUTWSas ana- or cataphoric.SteveHH: And of course the issue still remains whether the Loeb ClassicalLibrary and other sources might be correct in handling hOUTWS . . . hWSTE in an intensive way in extra-biblical literature.Yours,Harold Holmyard— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Wed Dec 16 11:17:55 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” Hi, George,> οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ > ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν > αἰώνιον. > <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftn1> > > <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftnref1> > hOUTWS GAR HGAPHSEN hO QEOS TON KOSMON, hWSTE TON hUION TON MONGENH > EDWKEN, hINA PAS hO PISTEUWN EIS AUTON MH APOLHTAI ALL’ EXHi ZWHN AIWNION> > While I tend to agree with Steve regarding the meaning of the passage, > let me present an opposing witness regarding this usage.> > > 1.1 Ἄμωμον διάνοιαν καὶ ἀδιάκριτον ἐν ὑπομονῇ ἔγνων ὑμᾶς ἔχοντας, οὐ > κατὰ χρῆσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ φύσιν, καθὼς ἐδήλωσέν μοι Πολύβιος ὁ ἐπίσκοπος > ὑμῶν, ὃς παρεγένετο θελήματι θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν Σμύρνῃ, > καὶ *** οὕτως μοι συνεχάρη *** δεδεμένῳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, *** > ὥστε *** με τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος ὑμῶν ἐν αὐτῷ θεωρῆσαι. (2) ἀποδεξάμενος > οὖν τὴν κατὰ θεὸν εὔνοιαν διʼ αὐτοῦ, ἐδόξασα εὑρὼν ὑμᾶς, ὡς ἔγνων, > μιμητὰς ὄντας θεοῦ.> > 1.1 AMWMON DIANOIAN KAI ADIAKRITON EN hUPOMONHi EGNWN hUMAS EXONTAS OU > KATA KRHSIN ALLA KATA FUSIN, KAQWS EDHLWSEN MOI POLUBIOS hO EPISKOPOS > hUMWN, hOS PAREGENETO QELHMATI IHSOU XRISTOU EN SMURNHi, KAI hOUTWS > MOI SUNEXARH DEDEMENWi EN XRISTWi IHSOU, hWSTE ME TO PAN PLHQOS hUMWN > EN AUTWi QEWRHSAI. (2) APODECAMENOS OUN THN KATA QEON EUNOIAN DI’ > AUTOU, EDOCASA hEURWN hUMAS, hWS EGNWN, MIMHTAS ONTAS QEOU.> <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftn1> > > <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftnref1> > Holmes, M. W. (1999). /The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English > translations/ (Updated ed.) (158). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.> > > > I’ll take pity on some of the littler Greeks and provide Holmes’ > translation as well.> > > > *1. *I know that you have a disposition that is blameless and > unwavering in patient endurance, not from habit but by nature, > inasmuch as Polybius your bishop informed me when, by the will of God > and Jesus Christ, he visited me in Smyrna; *** so heartily did he > rejoice with me ***, a prisoner in Christ Jesus, *** that *** in > him I saw your entire congregation. (2) Having received, therefore, > your godly good will through him, I praised God when I found out that > you were, as I had learned, imitators of God.> <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftn1> > > <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftnref1> > Holmes, M. W. (1999). /The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English > translations/ (Updated ed.) (159). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.> HH: Thank you for supplying this passage, George, with both the Greek and the English. This is Ignatius’ /Epistle to the Trallians/, at the start of the first chapter, but it raises the issues that appear in John 3:16: is the author pointing backward or forward with hOUTWS? The first line is addressed to the Trallians as a group.HH: Really Robert Gundry’s article (/Novum Testamentum/, 1999) was trying to break down the paradigm whereby such passages have been translated as above, since he presents many similar passages to argue that a preceding context shows that hOUTWS is looking backward instead of forward. He may be mistaken. I have not studied all the passages. But in this passage, I can see what he might say.HH: First there is mention of the admirable qualities of the Trallians. Then there is mention of Polybius, who was their overseer and had noted these qualities about the Trallians to Ignatius (so Polybius was aware of their significance). Then Ignatius relates that Polybius “hOUTWS rejoiced together with me, bound in Jesus Christ, hWSTE I beheld the whole multitude of you in him.” To me it looks as though Ignatius is saying that Polybius exhibited the very qualities that he had borne witness to as characteristic of the Trallians, a blameless mind that was unwavering in patient endurance. The Trallians were blameless and unwavering in patient endurance in the persecution that they faced for their confession of faith in Christ Jesus. Polybius evidently showed these same qualities by his sympathy for Ignatius, who in the context, was bound as a Christian and was facing martyrdom.HH: Polybius’ rejoicing together with Ignatius was the outgrowth of a quality of other-worldly endurance of suffering for Christ’s sake that marked the Trallian church as a whole and that permitted a perspective of joy with respect to Ignatius’ bondage. Ignatius saw the whole Trallian church in Polybius because he exhibited the same qualities that Polybius admired in his congregation of Trallians. hOUTWS can look backward to the description of the Trallians that Ignatius gives at the start of the letter. Ignatius seems to be saying that Polybius’ rejoicing with him in his bondage was of such a manner that it reflected the character of the entire church as Ignatius had just described it.HH: The argument for HOUTWS looking backward is that Polybius’ rejoicing together with Ignatius in his bondage was due to the fact that he had a blameless mind in Christ and was unwavering in patient endurance in his own life. Thus he was ready to rejoice with Ignatius in what Ignatius had to patiently endure despite being blameless.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 16 11:32:26 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” After all of your verbiage, if I recall correctly, the original question you posed was whether the ὥστε hWSTE in Jn 3.16 indicated degree or manner.  In the Trallians passage Ignatius seems to be using it in the sense of degree though I continue to think that in Jn 3.16 it is used as “manner.” georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wed, December 16, 2009 11:17:55 AMSubject: Re: [] John 3:16 “so”Hi, George,> οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ > ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν > αἰώνιον. > <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftn1> > > <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftnref1> > hOUTWS GAR HGAPHSEN hO QEOS TON KOSMON, hWSTE TON hUION TON MONGENH > EDWKEN, hINA PAS hO PISTEUWN EIS AUTON MH APOLHTAI ALL’ EXHi ZWHN AIWNION>  > While I tend to agree with Steve regarding the meaning of the passage, > let me present an opposing witness regarding this usage.>  >  > 1.1 Ἄμωμον διάνοιαν καὶ ἀδιάκριτον ἐν ὑπομονῇ ἔγνων ὑμᾶς ἔχοντας, οὐ > κατὰ χρῆσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ φύσιν, καθὼς ἐδήλωσέν μοι Πολύβιος ὁ ἐπίσκοπος > ὑμῶν, ὃς παρεγένετο θελήματι θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν Σμύρνῃ, > καὶ  ***  οὕτως  μοι συνεχάρη  *** δεδεμένῳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ***  > ὥστε  *** με τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος ὑμῶν ἐν αὐτῷ θεωρῆσαι. (2) ἀποδεξάμενος > οὖν τὴν κατὰ θεὸν εὔνοιαν διʼ αὐτοῦ, ἐδόξασα εὑρὼν ὑμᾶς, ὡς ἔγνων, > μιμητὰς ὄντας θεοῦ.>  > 1.1 AMWMON DIANOIAN KAI ADIAKRITON EN hUPOMONHi EGNWN hUMAS EXONTAS OU > KATA KRHSIN ALLA KATA FUSIN, KAQWS EDHLWSEN MOI POLUBIOS hO EPISKOPOS > hUMWN, hOS PAREGENETO QELHMATI IHSOU XRISTOU EN SMURNHi, KAI hOUTWS > MOI SUNEXARH DEDEMENWi EN XRISTWi IHSOU, hWSTE ME TO PAN PLHQOS hUMWN > EN AUTWi QEWRHSAI. (2) APODECAMENOS OUN THN KATA QEON EUNOIAN DI’ > AUTOU, EDOCASA hEURWN hUMAS, hWS EGNWN, MIMHTAS ONTAS QEOU.> <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftn1> > > <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftnref1> > Holmes, M. W. (1999). /The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English > translations/ (Updated ed.) (158). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.> >  > > I’ll take pity on some of the littler Greeks and provide Holmes’ > translation as well.> >  > > *1. *I know that you have a disposition that is blameless and > unwavering in patient endurance, not from habit but by nature, > inasmuch as Polybius your bishop informed me when, by the will of God > and Jesus Christ, he visited me in Smyrna; *** so heartily did he > rejoice with me  ***, a prisoner in Christ Jesus, ***  that  *** in > him I saw your entire congregation. (2) Having received, therefore, > your godly good will through him, I praised God when I found out that > you were, as I had learned, imitators of God.> <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftn1> > > <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftnref1> > Holmes, M. W. (1999). /The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English > translations/ (Updated ed.) (159). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.> HH: Thank you for supplying this passage, George, with both the Greek and the English. This is Ignatius’ /Epistle to the Trallians/, at the start of the first chapter, but it raises the issues that appear in John 3:16:  is the author pointing backward or forward with hOUTWS? The first line is addressed to the Trallians as a group.HH: Really Robert Gundry’s article (/Novum Testamentum/, 1999) was trying to break down the paradigm whereby such passages have been translated as above, since he presents many similar passages to argue that a preceding context shows that hOUTWS is looking backward instead of forward. He may be mistaken. I have not studied all the passages. But in this passage, I can see what he might say.HH: First there is mention of the admirable qualities of the Trallians. Then there is mention of Polybius, who was their overseer and had noted these qualities about the Trallians to Ignatius (so Polybius was aware of their significance). Then Ignatius relates that Polybius “hOUTWS rejoiced together with me, bound in Jesus Christ, hWSTE I beheld the whole multitude of you in him.” To me it looks as though Ignatius is saying that Polybius exhibited the very qualities that he had borne witness to as characteristic of the Trallians, a blameless mind that was unwavering in patient endurance. The Trallians were blameless and unwavering in patient endurance in the persecution that they faced for their confession of faith in Christ Jesus. Polybius evidently showed these same qualities by his sympathy for Ignatius, who in the context, was bound as a Christian and was facing martyrdom.HH: Polybius’ rejoicing together with Ignatius was the outgrowth of a quality of other-worldly endurance of suffering for Christ’s sake that marked the Trallian church as a whole and that permitted a perspective of joy with respect to Ignatius’ bondage. Ignatius saw the whole Trallian church in Polybius because he exhibited the same qualities that Polybius admired in his congregation of Trallians.  hOUTWS can look backward to the description of the Trallians that Ignatius gives at the start of the letter. Ignatius seems to be saying that Polybius’ rejoicing with him in his bondage was of such a manner that it reflected the character of the entire church as Ignatius had just described it.HH: The argument for HOUTWS looking backward is that Polybius’ rejoicing together with Ignatius in his bondage was due to the fact that he had a blameless mind in Christ and was unwavering in patient endurance in his own life. Thus he was ready to rejoice with Ignatius in what Ignatius had to patiently endure despite being blameless.Yours,Harold Holmyard— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Wed Dec 16 12:02:31 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” George,> After all of your verbiage, if I recall correctly, the original > question you posed was whether the ὥστε hWSTE in Jn 3.16 indicated > degree or manner. In the Trallians passage Ignatius seems to be using > it in the sense of degree though I continue to think that in Jn 3.16 > it is used as “manner.”HH: You may be right that the usage in the Trallians’ passage indicates degree, but what I was trying to say was that it might indicate manner. That is, Polybius’ rejoicing together with Ignatius occurred “in this way”: a blameless mind that was unwavering in endurance. I’ll give a translation of the text you supplied to reflect that interpretation:> > > 1.1 AMWMON DIANOIAN KAI ADIAKRITON EN hUPOMONHi EGNWN hUMAS EXONTAS OU> > KATA KRHSIN ALLA KATA FUSIN, KAQWS EDHLWSEN MOI POLUBIOS hO EPISKOPOS> > hUMWN, hOS PAREGENETO QELHMATI IHSOU XRISTOU EN SMURNHi, KAI hOUTWS> > MOI SUNEXARH DEDEMENWi EN XRISTWi IHSOU, hWSTE ME TO PAN PLHQOS hUMWN> > EN AUTWi QEWRHSAI. (2) APODECAMENOS OUN THN KATA QEON EUNOIAN DI’> > AUTOU, EDOCASA hEURWN hUMAS, hWS EGNWN, MIMHTAS ONTAS QEOU.I have come to know that you to have a blameless mind and one unwavering in endurance, not according to usage but according to nature, just as Polybius, your overseer, informed me, who came to Smyrna by the will of God and Jesus Christ and in this way rejoiced together with me, bound as I was in Jesus Christ, so that I beheld the whole multitude of you in him. Receiving therefore your godly benevolence through him, I gave glory, finding you, as I have come to know, to be imitators of God.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

John 7:8

John 7:8 dano at ott.net dano at ott.net
Thu May 6 18:42:43 EDT 1999

 

Acts 2:6 John 7:8 Here is one that was brought up to me today that has got me stumped..Am posting while checking the archives at the same time :)(John 7:8 KJV) Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.(John 7:8 NNAS) “Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come.”john-07-08 UMEIS ANABHTE EIS THN EORTHN EGW OUK ANABAINW EIS THN EORTHN TAUTHN OTI O EMOS KAIROS OUPW PEPLHRWTAIThe na27 appears to be saying “I do NOT go”So whats the deal with this one? Any and all help is much appreciated as I have several awaiting answers that I can not find..Have searched thru several commentaries.. which all say different things.. including one that says it is a copyist error.thanks!Pastor Dan OglesbyCommunity Revival Center ChurchWhere God is Alive and Moving by His Spirithttp://www.crcc-oca.org===========================================For the opportunity of a lifetime go to:http://www.tgeinc.com

 

Acts 2:6John 7:8

John 7:8 dano at ott.net dano at ott.net
Thu May 6 18:42:43 EDT 1999

 

Acts 2:6 John 7:8 Here is one that was brought up to me today that has got me stumped..Am posting while checking the archives at the same time :)(John 7:8 KJV) Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.(John 7:8 NNAS) “Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come.”john-07-08 UMEIS ANABHTE EIS THN EORTHN EGW OUK ANABAINW EIS THN EORTHN TAUTHN OTI O EMOS KAIROS OUPW PEPLHRWTAIThe na27 appears to be saying “I do NOT go”So whats the deal with this one? Any and all help is much appreciated as I have several awaiting answers that I can not find..Have searched thru several commentaries.. which all say different things.. including one that says it is a copyist error.thanks!Pastor Dan OglesbyCommunity Revival Center ChurchWhere God is Alive and Moving by His Spirithttp://www.crcc-oca.org===========================================For the opportunity of a lifetime go to:http://www.tgeinc.com

 

Acts 2:6John 7:8

John 7:8 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Thu May 6 19:00:47 EDT 1999

 

John 7:8 Any suggestions on a good NT Lexicon? At 05:42 PM 5/6/99 -0500, you wrote:>Here is one that was brought up to me today that has got me >stumped..> >Am posting while checking the archives at the same time 🙂>john-07-08 UMEIS ANABHTE EIS THN EORTHN EGW OUK >ANABAINW EIS THN EORTHN TAUTHN OTI O EMOS KAIROS >OUPW PEPLHRWTAI> >The na27 appears to be saying “I do NOT go”“You yourselves go up to the feast. I myself am not going to this feast,because my time is not fulfilled”> >So whats the deal with this one? Any and all >help is much appreciated as I have several >awaiting answers that I can not find..> What are ya wondering about? The discrepency of what Jesus says (hisabsolute refusal to go) and the fact that he does go (sort of hinting thathe wasnt telling the truth?).Yes, quite a quandary.Perhaps the answer is fairly simple; as in the story of Lazarus death, whenJesus waits three days to go- because he waited for God’s ok to go- so hereJesus tells the disciples he isnt going. God intervenes after they departand he does indeed go- though not openly.(That seems an effort to ameliorate the difficult doesn’t it).Some mss attempt to clear up the problem by adding “yet” but this obviouseffort to clean up a problem is absent from Sinaiticus and Beza.For my money, the solution is relatively clear. I have no idea! It seemsthat Jesus was saying one thing and doing another…. but here we areplunging headlong into theology aren’t we.>Have searched thru several commentaries.. which >all say different things.. including one that >says it is a copyist error.Yup…Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDPetros Baptist Church- PastorQuartz Hill School of Theology- Adjunct Prof. of Biblefax- 978-231-5986email- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

John 7:8Any suggestions on a good NT Lexicon?

John 7:8 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Thu May 6 19:00:47 EDT 1999

 

John 7:8 Any suggestions on a good NT Lexicon? At 05:42 PM 5/6/99 -0500, you wrote:>Here is one that was brought up to me today that has got me >stumped..> >Am posting while checking the archives at the same time 🙂>john-07-08 UMEIS ANABHTE EIS THN EORTHN EGW OUK >ANABAINW EIS THN EORTHN TAUTHN OTI O EMOS KAIROS >OUPW PEPLHRWTAI> >The na27 appears to be saying “I do NOT go”“You yourselves go up to the feast. I myself am not going to this feast,because my time is not fulfilled”> >So whats the deal with this one? Any and all >help is much appreciated as I have several >awaiting answers that I can not find..> What are ya wondering about? The discrepency of what Jesus says (hisabsolute refusal to go) and the fact that he does go (sort of hinting thathe wasnt telling the truth?).Yes, quite a quandary.Perhaps the answer is fairly simple; as in the story of Lazarus death, whenJesus waits three days to go- because he waited for God’s ok to go- so hereJesus tells the disciples he isnt going. God intervenes after they departand he does indeed go- though not openly.(That seems an effort to ameliorate the difficult doesn’t it).Some mss attempt to clear up the problem by adding “yet” but this obviouseffort to clean up a problem is absent from Sinaiticus and Beza.For my money, the solution is relatively clear. I have no idea! It seemsthat Jesus was saying one thing and doing another…. but here we areplunging headlong into theology aren’t we.>Have searched thru several commentaries.. which >all say different things.. including one that >says it is a copyist error.Yup…Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDPetros Baptist Church- PastorQuartz Hill School of Theology- Adjunct Prof. of Biblefax- 978-231-5986email- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

John 7:8Any suggestions on a good NT Lexicon?

[] John 7:8 in UBS 4 apparatus Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at comcast.net
Sun Feb 1 09:19:54 EST 2004

 

[] IOUDAIOS and metonymy [] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 Does anyone here have the 4th edition of the United Bible Societies’Greek New Testament? (I only have the 3rd ed.)I am in need of seeing what is set out there in the critical apparatusfor Jn 7:8.Reply OFF LIST please.Yours,Jeffrey–Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1Chicago, IL 60626jgibson000 at comcast.net

 

[] IOUDAIOS and metonymy[] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11

[] John 7:8 in UBS 4 apparatus Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at comcast.net
Sun Feb 1 09:19:54 EST 2004

 

[] IOUDAIOS and metonymy [] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 Does anyone here have the 4th edition of the United Bible Societies’Greek New Testament? (I only have the 3rd ed.)I am in need of seeing what is set out there in the critical apparatusfor Jn 7:8.Reply OFF LIST please.Yours,Jeffrey–Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1Chicago, IL 60626jgibson000 at comcast.net

 

[] IOUDAIOS and metonymy[] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11

Acts 2:6

Acts 2:6 dano at ott.net dano at ott.net
Thu May 6 09:51:52 EDT 1999

 

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 Acts 2:6

 

MENOUN in Luke 11.28Acts 2:6

Acts 2:6 Jack Kilmon jkilmon at historian.net
Thu May 6 11:03:17 EDT 1999

 

Acts 2:6 Acts 2:6 dano at ott.net wrote:> >From one of the many lurkers on the list 🙂> > This is a passage that has puzzled me for quite some time and I> would like to ask for help.> > This is the story of the upper room experience.. and the question I> have is this..> > (Acts 2:6 KJV) Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude> came together, and were confounded, because that every man> heard them speak in his own language.> > This gives the connotation that people begin talking about what> they had heard was going on. (noised abroad)> > Darby’s and Young’s agrees with this..> > (Acts 2:6 DNT) But the rumour of this having spread, the multitude> came together and were confounded, because each one heard> them speaking in his own dialect.> > (Acts 2:6 YLT) and the rumour of this having come, the multitude> came together, and was confounded, because they were each one> hearing them speaking in his proper dialect,> > But the NIV and NASB sees it differently..> > (Acts 2:6 NIV) When they heard this sound, a crowd came> together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking> in his own language.> > (Acts 2:6 NNAS) And when this sound occurred, the crowd came> together, and were bewildered because each one of them was> hearing them speak in his own language.> > Gives the connotation that people in the area actually HEARD the> sound themself. (heard this sound)> > acts-02-06 GENOMENHS DE THS FWNHS TAUTHS> SUNHLQEN TO PLHQOS KAI SUNEXUQH OTI HKOUON EIS> EKASTOS TH IDIA DIALEKTW LALOUNTWN AUTWN> There are several ways to take this verse. Mine is that “when this (story) wasnoised/reported in other countries, those people gathered together (in their owncountry) and got to hear it in their own language.”One could also interpret it as saying when this was reported abroad, a crowdfrom those countries assembled in Jerusalem and heard it in their own language.I have problems with the second choice on a number of levels but obviouslythe “talking in tongues” tradition developed rapidly enough for it to be a concernto Paul by 50-55 CE when he wrote to the Corinthians.Jack–______________________________________________taybutheh d’maran yeshua masheecha am kulkonJack Kilmonjkilmon at historian.nethttp://www.historian.net

 

Acts 2:6Acts 2:6

Acts 2:6 dano at ott.net dano at ott.net
Thu May 6 09:51:52 EDT 1999

 

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 Acts 2:6

 

MENOUN in Luke 11.28Acts 2:6

Acts 2:6 Jack Kilmon jkilmon at historian.net
Thu May 6 11:03:17 EDT 1999

 

Acts 2:6 Acts 2:6 dano at ott.net wrote:> >From one of the many lurkers on the list 🙂> > This is a passage that has puzzled me for quite some time and I> would like to ask for help.> > This is the story of the upper room experience.. and the question I> have is this..> > (Acts 2:6 KJV) Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude> came together, and were confounded, because that every man> heard them speak in his own language.> > This gives the connotation that people begin talking about what> they had heard was going on. (noised abroad)> > Darby’s and Young’s agrees with this..> > (Acts 2:6 DNT) But the rumour of this having spread, the multitude> came together and were confounded, because each one heard> them speaking in his own dialect.> > (Acts 2:6 YLT) and the rumour of this having come, the multitude> came together, and was confounded, because they were each one> hearing them speaking in his proper dialect,> > But the NIV and NASB sees it differently..> > (Acts 2:6 NIV) When they heard this sound, a crowd came> together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking> in his own language.> > (Acts 2:6 NNAS) And when this sound occurred, the crowd came> together, and were bewildered because each one of them was> hearing them speak in his own language.> > Gives the connotation that people in the area actually HEARD the> sound themself. (heard this sound)> > acts-02-06 GENOMENHS DE THS FWNHS TAUTHS> SUNHLQEN TO PLHQOS KAI SUNEXUQH OTI HKOUON EIS> EKASTOS TH IDIA DIALEKTW LALOUNTWN AUTWN> There are several ways to take this verse. Mine is that “when this (story) wasnoised/reported in other countries, those people gathered together (in their owncountry) and got to hear it in their own language.”One could also interpret it as saying when this was reported abroad, a crowdfrom those countries assembled in Jerusalem and heard it in their own language.I have problems with the second choice on a number of levels but obviouslythe “talking in tongues” tradition developed rapidly enough for it to be a concernto Paul by 50-55 CE when he wrote to the Corinthians.Jack–______________________________________________taybutheh d’maran yeshua masheecha am kulkonJack Kilmonjkilmon at historian.nethttp://www.historian.net

 

Acts 2:6Acts 2:6

Acts 2:6 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu May 6 12:58:11 EDT 1999

 

Acts 2:6 MENOUN in Luke 11.28 > acts-02-06 GENOMENHS DE THS FWNHS TAUTHS > SUNHLQEN TO PLHQOS KAI SUNEXUQH OTI HKOUON EIS> EKASTOS TH IDIA DIALEKTW LALOUNTWN AUTWNDan,The question as I understand it is:What is the sense and reference of THS FWNHS TAUTHS?The most direct answer to your question is found in Henry Alfords GreekTestament (vol 2 page 17). The more recent works (C.K. Barrett, ICC andFF Bruce, 1954) simply pass over the KJV (Young, etc) rendering withoutcomment.Alford states that the sense “this rumor” fond in Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and the KJV is not a viable option because there are noexamples of THS FWNHS TAUTHS having this sense anywhere to be found. Hementions that the defenders of this sense cite the LXX Gen. xiv.16 andJer xxvii(l.)46 as support for this but Alford denies that thesepassages support this sense.If we eliminate the sense “this rumor” then we still have a problem. THSFWNHS TAUTHS can be coreferential with HCOS in Acts 2:2 or with LALEIVin Acts 2:4. Alford argues in favor of HCOS because of the singularnumber. He doesn’t think THS FWNHS TAUTHS would be used to refer tohETERAIS GLWSSAIS.I don’t find Alfords reasoning particularly compelling. It seems thatTHS FWNHS TAUTHS could very well be a collective singular. So I would gowith FF Bruce and C.K. Barrett and see LALEIV hETERAIS GLWSSAIS as thereferent. I think both the proximity of LALEIV and the semanticstructure of the passage argue in favor of this interpretation.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Acts 2:6MENOUN in Luke 11.28

Acts 2:6 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu May 6 12:58:11 EDT 1999

 

Acts 2:6 MENOUN in Luke 11.28 > acts-02-06 GENOMENHS DE THS FWNHS TAUTHS > SUNHLQEN TO PLHQOS KAI SUNEXUQH OTI HKOUON EIS> EKASTOS TH IDIA DIALEKTW LALOUNTWN AUTWNDan,The question as I understand it is:What is the sense and reference of THS FWNHS TAUTHS?The most direct answer to your question is found in Henry Alfords GreekTestament (vol 2 page 17). The more recent works (C.K. Barrett, ICC andFF Bruce, 1954) simply pass over the KJV (Young, etc) rendering withoutcomment.Alford states that the sense “this rumor” fond in Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and the KJV is not a viable option because there are noexamples of THS FWNHS TAUTHS having this sense anywhere to be found. Hementions that the defenders of this sense cite the LXX Gen. xiv.16 andJer xxvii(l.)46 as support for this but Alford denies that thesepassages support this sense.If we eliminate the sense “this rumor” then we still have a problem. THSFWNHS TAUTHS can be coreferential with HCOS in Acts 2:2 or with LALEIVin Acts 2:4. Alford argues in favor of HCOS because of the singularnumber. He doesn’t think THS FWNHS TAUTHS would be used to refer tohETERAIS GLWSSAIS.I don’t find Alfords reasoning particularly compelling. It seems thatTHS FWNHS TAUTHS could very well be a collective singular. So I would gowith FF Bruce and C.K. Barrett and see LALEIV hETERAIS GLWSSAIS as thereferent. I think both the proximity of LALEIV and the semanticstructure of the passage argue in favor of this interpretation.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Acts 2:6MENOUN in Luke 11.28

Acts 2:6 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu May 6 14:30:26 EDT 1999

 

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 John 7:8 > Alford states that the sense “this rumor” fond in Calvin, Erasmus,> Bezae, Grotius and the KJV is not a viable option because there are no> examples of THS FWNHS TAUTHS having this sense anywhere to be found. He> mentions that the defenders of this sense cite the LXX Gen. xiv.16 and> Jer xxvii(l.)46 as support for this but Alford denies that these> passages support this sense.I took a look at these LXX passages and first of all the Genesis passageis a typo, should be Gen 45:16. Have you ever tried reading a photolithograph of 6 pt type on cheap paper in bad light?The Genesis 45:16 LXX passage does (contra Alford) look like it mightlend some credibility to the rendering adopted by Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and the KJV. I will let someone else work out all thedetails on this one.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

MENOUN in Luke 11.28John 7:8

Acts 2:6 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu May 6 14:30:26 EDT 1999

 

MENOUN in Luke 11.28 John 7:8 > Alford states that the sense “this rumor” fond in Calvin, Erasmus,> Bezae, Grotius and the KJV is not a viable option because there are no> examples of THS FWNHS TAUTHS having this sense anywhere to be found. He> mentions that the defenders of this sense cite the LXX Gen. xiv.16 and> Jer xxvii(l.)46 as support for this but Alford denies that these> passages support this sense.I took a look at these LXX passages and first of all the Genesis passageis a typo, should be Gen 45:16. Have you ever tried reading a photolithograph of 6 pt type on cheap paper in bad light?The Genesis 45:16 LXX passage does (contra Alford) look like it mightlend some credibility to the rendering adopted by Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and the KJV. I will let someone else work out all thedetails on this one.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

MENOUN in Luke 11.28John 7:8

Acts 2:6 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Fri May 7 13:21:09 EDT 1999

 

dia + genitive Hebrews 11:1 Clay wrote:>>>>>>>> Alford states that the sense “this rumor” found in Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and the KJV is not a viable option because there are noexamples of THS FWNHS TAUTHS having this sense anywhere to be found. Hementions that the defenders of this sense cite the LXX Gen. xlv.16 andJer xxvii(l.)46 as support for this but Alford denies that thesepassages support this sense.The Genesis 45:16 LXX passage does (contra Alford) look like it mightlend some credibility to the rendering adopted by Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and the KJV.>>>>>>>> This morning I took a look at H.A.W. Meyer who agreed with Alford, whichis no surprise since Alford often cites Meyer. So I decided to take acloser look at Genesis 45:16 MT/LXX and as it turns out this is anintriguing problem in lexical semantics.The word rendered FWNH in Genesis 45:16 LXX is qol in the MT. There is alot of overlap between the semantic domains of qol and FWNH particularlyin the most common meanings like sound, voice, noise, etc. However theusage of qol in Gen 45:16 as “news or report” is somewhat less commonthan the uses listed above.Now the LXX translator of Genesis used FWNH to render qol in Genesis45:16 because it was the obvious choice based on the most common usageof both words. A better word to would have been FHMH.Now the reason that I must concede that Meyer and Alford are correct issimple. The fact that qol has “news or report” within its semanticdomain does not mean that the semantic domain of FWNH includes “news orreport.” In other words, a less than ideal translation equivalent inGenesis 45:16 LXX does not thereby extend the semantic domain of FWNH.Based on this I would now reject the reading of Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and others.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

dia + genitiveHebrews 11:1

Acts 2:6 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Fri May 7 13:21:09 EDT 1999

 

dia + genitive Hebrews 11:1 Clay wrote:>>>>>>>> Alford states that the sense “this rumor” found in Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and the KJV is not a viable option because there are noexamples of THS FWNHS TAUTHS having this sense anywhere to be found. Hementions that the defenders of this sense cite the LXX Gen. xlv.16 andJer xxvii(l.)46 as support for this but Alford denies that thesepassages support this sense.The Genesis 45:16 LXX passage does (contra Alford) look like it mightlend some credibility to the rendering adopted by Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and the KJV.>>>>>>>> This morning I took a look at H.A.W. Meyer who agreed with Alford, whichis no surprise since Alford often cites Meyer. So I decided to take acloser look at Genesis 45:16 MT/LXX and as it turns out this is anintriguing problem in lexical semantics.The word rendered FWNH in Genesis 45:16 LXX is qol in the MT. There is alot of overlap between the semantic domains of qol and FWNH particularlyin the most common meanings like sound, voice, noise, etc. However theusage of qol in Gen 45:16 as “news or report” is somewhat less commonthan the uses listed above.Now the LXX translator of Genesis used FWNH to render qol in Genesis45:16 because it was the obvious choice based on the most common usageof both words. A better word to would have been FHMH.Now the reason that I must concede that Meyer and Alford are correct issimple. The fact that qol has “news or report” within its semanticdomain does not mean that the semantic domain of FWNH includes “news orreport.” In other words, a less than ideal translation equivalent inGenesis 45:16 LXX does not thereby extend the semantic domain of FWNH.Based on this I would now reject the reading of Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and others.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

dia + genitiveHebrews 11:1

Acts 2:6 David R. Mills dmills at mitec.net
Tue Dec 28 21:39:30 EST 1999

 

John 8:58 (Does anybody have anything NEW to say?) Acts 2:6 Why is the verb plural in the following clause when the subject is singular?hOTI HKOUON hEIS hEKASTOS THi IDIAi DIALEKTWiThanks,David Millshttp://www.mitec.net/~dmills

 

John 8:58 (Does anybody have anything NEW to say?)Acts 2:6

Acts 2:6 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Dec 29 08:31:34 EST 1999

 

Acts 2:6 septuagint on-line: where To: David R. Mills,<< Why is the verb plural in the following clause when the subject is singular?hOTI HKOUON hEIS hEKASTOS THi IDIAi DIALEKTWi >>This is not uncommon. A noun in the singular may denote a number of persons or things (such as OCLOS, PLHQOS, OIKIA, LAOS, etc), these are known as a “collective singular.” With such collective substantives, the verb may or may not be in the plural.For example: HKOLOUQEI DE AUTWi OCLOS POLUS, hOTI EQEWROUN “But a large crowd kept following him because they saw …” (Jn 6:2). Here we have both a singular verb (HKOLOUQEI) and a plural verb (EQEWROUN) with the same collective singular subject! You can find more on this subject in most any reference grammar under the subject of “concord in number.”-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

Acts 2:6septuagint on-line: where