1 Corinthians 14:2

On 1 Corinthians 14:2 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sun Sep 22 01:51:01 EDT 2002

 

ENESTERNISMENOI (Was: De-Inflection Software?) John 17 On Saturday, September 21, 2002, at 12:06 AM, waldo slusher wrote:> hO GAR LALWN GLWSSHi OUK ANQRWPOIS LALEI ALLA QEWi,> OUDEIS GAR AKOUEI, PNEUMATI DE LALEI MUSTHRIA> > I am trying to understand OUDEIS GAR AKOUEI.> > So far, I have something like, “The one speaking with> a (particular) tongue or language does not speak to> men but to (some, a) god.”Hi Waldo:As Iver already said, it is not necessary for QEOS to have the article in order for it to designate the one and only God whom Paul worshiped. That this is what is in mind here is confirmed by a comparison with v. 26:1 Cor 14.2 hO GAR LALWN GLWSSHi OUK ANQRWPOIS LALEI ALLA QEWi, OUDEIS GAR AKOUEI, PNEUMATI DE LALEI MUSTHRIAFor the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him [except God], but he speaks mysteries in the Spirit.1Cor 14.28 EAN DE MH Hi DIERMHNEUTHS, SIGATW EN EKKLHSIAi, hEAUTWi DE LALEITW KAI TWi QEWiBut if there is no interpreter [of tongues], let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to GodIn the first case there is no article; in the second there is. In the first the indicative informs us that the person speaking in a tongue is not speaking to men, since they do not understand him, but to God, who (it is implied) does. In the second the imperative enjoins the tongues speaker to keep silent if there is no interpreter, and to speak to himself and to God, no doubt because, as stated earlier, people do not understand him without an interpreter, whereas God does.============Steven R. Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

ENESTERNISMENOI (Was: De-Inflection Software?)John 17

On 1 Corinthians 14:2 Richard A. Stauch rstauch at charter.net
Sun Sep 22 11:49:09 EDT 2002

 

ENESTERNISMENOI (Was: De-Inflection Software?) On 1 Corinthians 14:2 Hi Steve and Waldo,It seems to me that we have glossed over an important point, that the”definite article” in Greek is not the same as it is in English. Formsof hO, hH and TO (the article in Greek) do not usually make theirsubjects definite in the way that “the” does in English. They underlinetheir subjects, or highlight them, adding emphasis. Smyth talks aboutthis in sections 1099-ff. See particularly sections 1126-1130 withrespect to this question. In section 1126, Smyth writes, “The article isoften omitted … when a word is sufficiently definite by itself.”Remember that QEOS is a common, not a proper noun, so it is not the nameof the deity (which would usually take the article). In context,therefore, QEWi does not need the article to make it definite in verse2.Until then,Richard Allan StauchLong Beach, CAhttp://www.rstauch.com > —–Original Message—–> From: Steven Lo Vullo [mailto:slovullo at mac.com]> Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 10:51 PM> To: Biblical Greek> Subject: [] Re: On 1 Corinthians 14:2> > On Saturday, September 21, 2002, at 12:06 AM, waldo slusher wrote:> > > hO GAR LALWN GLWSSHi OUK ANQRWPOIS LALEI ALLA QEWi,> > OUDEIS GAR AKOUEI, PNEUMATI DE LALEI MUSTHRIA> >> > I am trying to understand OUDEIS GAR AKOUEI.> >> > So far, I have something like, “The one speaking with> > a (particular) tongue or language does not speak to> > men but to (some, a) god.”> > Hi Waldo:> > As Iver already said, it is not necessary for QEOS to have the article> in order for it to designate the one and only God whom Paul worshiped.> That this is what is in mind here is confirmed by a comparison with v.> 26:> > 1 Cor 14.2 hO GAR LALWN GLWSSHi OUK ANQRWPOIS LALEI ALLA QEWi, OUDEIS> GAR AKOUEI, PNEUMATI DE LALEI MUSTHRIA> For the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for> no one understands him [except God], but he speaks mysteries in the> Spirit.> > 1Cor 14.28 EAN DE MH Hi DIERMHNEUTHS, SIGATW EN EKKLHSIAi, hEAUTWi DE> LALEITW KAI TWi QEWi> But if there is no interpreter [of tongues], let him keep silent in> church, and let him speak to himself and to God> > In the first case there is no article; in the second there is. In the> first the indicative informs us that the person speaking in a tongueis> not speaking to men, since they do not understand him, but to God, who> (it is implied) does. In the second the imperative enjoins the tongues> speaker to keep silent if there is no interpreter, and to speak to> himself and to God, no doubt because, as stated earlier, people do not> understand him without an interpreter, whereas God does.> ============> > Steven R. Lo Vullo> Madison, WI> > >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [rstauch at charter.net]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave–> 145275F at franklin.oit.unc.edu> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>

 

ENESTERNISMENOI (Was: De-Inflection Software?)On 1 Corinthians 14:2

On 1 Corinthians 14:2 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sun Sep 22 15:49:13 EDT 2002

 

On 1 Corinthians 14:2 On 1 Corinthians 14:2 On Sunday, September 22, 2002, at 10:49 AM, Richard A. Stauch wrote:> It seems to me that we have glossed over an important point, that the> “definite article” in Greek is not the same as it is in English. Forms> of hO, hH and TO (the article in Greek) do not usually make their> subjects definite in the way that “the” does in English. They underline> their subjects, or highlight them, adding emphasis. Smyth talks about> this in sections 1099-ff. See particularly sections 1126-1130 with> respect to this question. In section 1126, Smyth writes, “The article > is> often omitted … when a word is sufficiently definite by itself.”> Remember that QEOS is a common, not a proper noun, so it is not the > name> of the deity (which would usually take the article). In context,> therefore, QEWi does not need the article to make it definite in verse> 2.Yes, all that is true. But just saying that QEWi does not *need* the article (which both Iver and I said) to make it definite, doesn’t in itself determine whether QEWi in 1 Cor 14.2 should be understood as indefinite or definite, “a god,” or “God.” Contextual indicators are necessary for that, which is why I offered the parallel from v. 28. Of course, there are closer contextual indicators, but I chose v. 28 because of the verbal parallels.============Steven R. Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

On 1 Corinthians 14:2On 1 Corinthians 14:2

On 1 Corinthians 14:2 Richard A. Stauch rstauch at charter.net
Sun Sep 22 16:00:27 EDT 2002

 

On 1 Corinthians 14:2 ENESTERNISMENOI (Was: De-Inflection Software?) Finally, I get something right!Feeling better about it all,Richard Allan StauchLong Beach, CAhttp://www.rstauch.com > —–Original Message—–> From: Steven Lo Vullo [mailto:slovullo at mac.com]> Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 12:49 PM> To: Biblical Greek> Subject: [] Re: On 1 Corinthians 14:2> > On Sunday, September 22, 2002, at 10:49 AM, Richard A. Stauch wrote:> > > It seems to me that we have glossed over an important point, thatthe> > “definite article” in Greek is not the same as it is in English.Forms> > of hO, hH and TO (the article in Greek) do not usually make their> > subjects definite in the way that “the” does in English. Theyunderline> > their subjects, or highlight them, adding emphasis. Smyth talksabout> > this in sections 1099-ff. See particularly sections 1126-1130 with> > respect to this question. In section 1126, Smyth writes, “Thearticle> > is> > often omitted … when a word is sufficiently definite by itself.”> > Remember that QEOS is a common, not a proper noun, so it is not the> > name> > of the deity (which would usually take the article). In context,> > therefore, QEWi does not need the article to make it definite inverse> > 2.> > Yes, all that is true. But just saying that QEWi does not *need* the> article (which both Iver and I said) to make it definite, doesn’t in> itself determine whether QEWi in 1 Cor 14.2 should be understood as> indefinite or definite, “a god,” or “God.” Contextual indicators are> necessary for that, which is why I offered the parallel from v. 28. Of> course, there are closer contextual indicators, but I chose v. 28> because of the verbal parallels.> ============> > Steven R. Lo Vullo> Madison, WI

 

On 1 Corinthians 14:2ENESTERNISMENOI (Was: De-Inflection Software?)

[] I Cor 14.2 QEWi Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 7 05:50:28 EST 2007

 

[] Phil 2:10-11 [] I Cor 14.2 QEWi hO GAR LALWN GLWSSHi OUK ANQRWPOIS LALEI ALLA QEWiOUDEIS GAR AKOUEI PNEUMATI DE LALEI MUSTHRIA My question is the anarthrous QEWi. What is the rulefor anarthrous nouns in this structure? (Is it God,the God, a god, a God?)Mitch LarramoreSugar Land, Texas__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

 

[] Phil 2:10-11[] I Cor 14.2 QEWi

[] I Cor 14.2 QEWi Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Nov 7 06:30:47 EST 2007

 

[] I Cor 14.2 QEWi [] I Cor 14.2 QEWi On Nov 7, 2007, at 5:50 AM, Mitch Larramore wrote:> hO GAR LALWN GLWSSHi OUK ANQRWPOIS LALEI ALLA QEWi> OUDEIS GAR AKOUEI PNEUMATI DE LALEI MUSTHRIA> > My question is the anarthrous QEWi. What is the rule> for anarthrous nouns in this structure? (Is it God,> the God, a god, a God?)“rule”? What rule?According to BDAG:3. God in Israelite/Christian monotheistic perspective, God the predom. use, somet. with, somet. without the art.Then in 3.a. and 3.b. respectively are listed numerous instances of QEOS with the article and of QEOS without the article.My impression is that QEOS has become a proper noun in Judaic usage; proper nouns in ancient Greek quite commonly do take an article, but they are not uncommonly found without any article.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Ret)

 

[] I Cor 14.2 QEWi[] I Cor 14.2 QEWi

[] I Cor 14.2 QEWi Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Wed Nov 7 11:26:45 EST 2007

 

[] I Cor 14.2 QEWi [] I Cor 14.2 QEWi Dear Mitch,I would check out Blass-DeBrunner-Funk, paragraphs 254-255, pages 133-134.Para. 254. The article with nouns designating persons like QEOS, KURIOS, NEKROI,EQNH. (1). QEOS and KURIOS (= YHWH but also Christ) designate beings of whichthere is only one of a kind, and these words (especially KURIOS) frequently comevery close to being proper names; the article appears when the specific Jewishor Christian God or Lord is meant (not ‘a being of divine nature’ or ‘a Lord’),but it is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions (APO QEOU Jn 3:2)[butsubsequently hO QEOS], frequently EN KURIWi) and with a genitive which dependson an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun): Mt 27:43 hOTI QEOU EIMIhUIOS, Lk 3:2 EGENETO RhHMA (subject) QEOU. Cf. Papyri (Mayser II 2, 25ff.). Soalso UIE DIABOLOU A 13:10. …Para. 255. The article can be omitted in prepositional phrases (formulae fromthe earlier stage of the language): (1). QP’ ARGOU, EN AGRWi, EIS AGRON, butalso EN TWi AGRWi etc. (without reference to a particular field) with genericarticle (as in TA KRINA TOU AGROU Mt 6:28). (2). AP’ AGORAS Mk 7:4; EPI QURAISMt 24:33. (3). Often in designations of time (also classical); PROS hESPERAN Lk24:29; EN KAIRWi = hOTAN KAROS Hi Mt 24:25; AP’ (EXi) ARXHS, EN ARXHi. (4). EPIPROSWPON PIPTEIN Lk 5:12 etc., KATA PR. 2 C 10:7.-Cf. also paragraphs 263f.,256ff. Mayser II 2, 14f., 35ff.; Eakin 333.QEWi is in the same case as ANQRWPOIS. “For the one who is speaking in tonguesis not speaking to men, but to God.” How you translate ANQRWPOIS, which is alsoanarthrous, will also apply to QEWi.En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III—– Original Message —– From: “Mitch Larramore” <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com>To: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 2:50 AMSubject: [] I Cor 14.2 QEWi> hO GAR LALWN GLWSSHi OUK ANQRWPOIS LALEI ALLA QEWi> OUDEIS GAR AKOUEI PNEUMATI DE LALEI MUSTHRIA> > My question is the anarthrous QEWi. What is the rule> for anarthrous nouns in this structure? (Is it God,> the God, a god, a God?)> > Mitch Larramore> Sugar Land, Texas> > __________________________________________________> 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/> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy ofCom-Pair Services!> > > >> No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG Free Edition.> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.23/1113 – Release Date: 11/06/0710:04 AM> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!

 

[] I Cor 14.2 QEWi[] I Cor 14.2 QEWi

[] I Cor 14.2 QEWi Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 7 15:56:45 EST 2007

 

[] I Cor 14.2 QEWi [] tutor Mitch:hO GAR LALWN GLWSSHi OUK ANQRWPOIS LALEI ALLA QEWiOUDEIS GAR AKOUEI PNEUMATI DE LALEI MUSTHRIA For the rules on the anarthrous article, see GGBB p.243ff. You can take QEWi here as “a god,” especially becausethis opening section is framed as a rebuke against theCorinthians for whatever they were doing. Eddie MishoePastor__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

 

[] I Cor 14.2 QEWi[] tutor

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

2 thoughts on “1 Corinthians 14:2

  1. Troy Day says:

    Here we go Brian Roden Randal W Deese 1 cor 14:2 in original greek context. Read carefully and ask your questions on the text

    Donald Gee, the famed Pentecostal scholar, in his book Concerning spiritual gifts, rightly wrote: ‘It is distinctly affirmed that when these twin gifts of Tongues and Interpretation were exercised in proper order in the church, they equaled the gift of Prophecy (1 Cor. 14:5); and it is generally conceded that, since such is the case, they provide an equivalent method by which the Holy Spirit can cause His voice to be heard in the church.

  2. Troy Day Troy Day says:

    Here we go Brian Roden Randal W Deese 1 cor 14:2 in original greek context. Read carefully and ask your questions on the text

    Donald Gee, the famed Pentecostal scholar, in his book Concerning spiritual gifts, rightly wrote: ‘It is distinctly affirmed that when these twin gifts of Tongues and Interpretation were exercised in proper order in the church, they equaled the gift of Prophecy (1 Cor. 14:5); and it is generally conceded that, since such is the case, they provide an equivalent method by which the Holy Spirit can cause His voice to be heard in the church.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.