1 Corinthians 14:27

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Trevor M Peterson spedrson at juno.com
Tue Jun 16 11:37:24 EDT 1998

 

Mark 2:23b Mark 2:23b Well, this is my first post since the changeover; hopefully it will comeout all right.I’ve come out of lurking once again with more of a question than ananswer. In dialogue about 1 Corinthians 14, an acquaintance raised aview I had never heard before, that he claims came from a Classicsscholar (so I’d be especially interested in comments from any of similarbackground!). In v. 27, EITE GLWSSHi TIS LALEI, KATA DUO H TO PLEIOTONTREIS KAI ANA MEROS, KAI hEIS DIERMHNEUETW, does KATA DUO H TO PLEIOTONTREIS refer to LOGOI (from v. 19) or to speakers (as most of the versionsseem to render it)? His arguments for LOGOI were as follows:1) The singular TIS requires that only one person be in view as aspeaker, which rules out the possibility of two or three speakers.2) The singular LALEI also requires that only one person be in view as aspeaker.Basically, what it comes down to is the lack of number agreement betweenTIS LALEI and DUO H TO PLEIOTON TREIS. My initial thought is that theprepositional phrase does not require numerical agreement and that TIScould be singular to focus on the idea of one speaker at a time. Furthermore, ANA MEROS would seem a bit odd as requiring that two orthree oracles or proclamations be issued individually. How else wouldone person speak them? Finally, I know that hEIS can be used as a simplepronoun, but in a context where one sentence includes DUO, TREIS, andhEIS, I’m tempted to take all three as applying to the same sort ofthing; i.e., people.My lack of understanding as to how numerals tend to function in Greek isa handicap for me in this situation. But I am trying to consider all theangles. Even if there is a rigid requirement that they agree inClassical, would there necessarily be the same in Koine? A bit furtheroff the topic of this list, could Semitic number agreement have affectedPaul’s wording, since Hebrew tends to use numerals with singular forms?Trevor Peterson, M.Div.Capital Bible SeminaryLanham, MD_____________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

Mark 2:23bMark 2:23b

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Tue Jun 23 18:14:59 EDT 1998

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement new student with old questions At 05:55 PM 6/23/98 -0400, you wrote:>At 5:37 PM -0400 6/23/98, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>>not LOGOI. I’ll respond to the specifics below, but let me say that my>>basic reason for this is that DUO and TREIS are identical in the nominative>>and superlative, LOGOUS really ought to be spelled out if it were intended>>to be understood with DUO H TREIS.> >Did I actually write that? Homer may nod, but Conrad goes into a deep>slumber when penning responses to , it would appear.> >Of course, what SHOULD be read in that clause in the second line cited>above is: “… that DUO and TREIS are identical in the nominative and>accusative …”I wondered when I saw that, if it represented a subtle move back towardthe eight-case system :-)David L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreementnew student with old questions

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Tue Jun 23 22:24:53 EDT 1998

 

What did Nicodemus hear? [bg768 at lafn.org] At 05:37 PM 6/23/98 -0400, you wrote:>Since this has sat in my BG In-box for a week with no answer, I’ll venture>a response as something (as Jonathan puts it) “for the rest to shoot down.”> >At 11:37 AM -0400 6/16/98, Trevor M Peterson wrote:>> >>I’ve come out of lurking once again with more of a question than an>>answer. In dialogue about 1 Corinthians 14, an acquaintance raised a>>view I had never heard before, that he claims came from a Classics>>scholar (so I’d be especially interested in comments from any of similar>>background!). In v. 27, EITE GLWSSHi TIS LALEI, KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON>>TREIS KAI ANA MEROS, KAI hEIS DIERMHNEUETW, does KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON>>TREIS refer to LOGOI (from v. 19) or to speakers (as most of the versions>>seem to render it)? His arguments for LOGOI were as follows:> >Let me say at the outset that I think the DUO and TREIS refer to persons,>not LOGOI. I’ll respond to the specifics below, but let me say that my>basic reason for this is that DUO and TREIS are identical in the nominative>and [acusative], LOGOUS really ought to be spelled out if it were intended>to be understood with DUO H TREIS. I would translate the whole verse>LOOSELY as “And if there’s to be any speaking in tongues, then it should be>by pair or group of three persons, each speaking in turn, and a single>person should interpret.”> >>1) The singular TIS requires that only one person be in view as a>>speaker, which rules out the possibility of two or three speakers.> >I think that’s treating the logic too strictly; I rather suppose that EITE>TIS LALEI GLWSSHI means, “If anyone (at all) speaks in a tongue …,” and>then we must suppose Paul is willing to accept this possibility that>SOMEONE may do it, but that he wants to LIMIT the extent of this activity>in public worship, and so he says, “If anyone does it at all, then no more>than two or three should do it at a time, and they should do it in turn,>and there should always be a single interpreter.” That’s how I’d understand>it. I will admit, however, and perhaps it is important that I state this>clearly, that I understand Paul in this chapter to be urging that what is>done in worship should be primarily in terms of shared intelligible>experience rather than in the private mystical expression of individual>worshipers.Since one of Paul’s major concerns in this section is for an orderlyworship service, we should understand KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON TREIS not asof groups of two or three speaking at once but as two or three (at most)messages in tongues in any single meeting. Note hOTAN SUNERCHSQE in v. 26with the following enumeration of possible contributions to the worship.The specifics on tongues in v. 27 come as a further explanation of what maytake place in the meeting with special reference to this gift and should beunderstood with the context of v. 26. The KAI ANA MEROS which followsKATA…TREIS also instructs along these lines calling for an orderlypresentation of any messages. The hEIS of KAI hEIS DIERMHNEUETO is mostprobably the indefinite “someone” rather than instructions that there beonly one interpreter.I realize that my experience of worship services which contain elementscorresponding to the ones named here probably influence my understanding ofthis passage, but I offer my observations on the text for whatever helpthey may be.David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

What did Nicodemus hear?[bg768 at lafn.org]

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jun 24 05:48:34 EDT 1998

 

Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped? Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped? At 10:24 PM -0400 6/23/98, David L. Moore wrote:> >Since one of Paul’s major concerns in this section is for an orderly>worship service, we should understand KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON TREIS not as>of groups of two or three speaking at once but as two or three (at most)>messages in tongues in any single meeting. Note hOTAN SUNERCHSQE in v. 26>with the following enumeration of possible contributions to the worship.>The specifics on tongues in v. 27 come as a further explanation of what may>take place in the meeting with special reference to this gift and should be>understood with the context of v. 26. The KAI ANA MEROS which follows>KATA…TREIS also instructs along these lines calling for an orderly>presentation of any messages. The hEIS of KAI hEIS DIERMHNEUETO is most>probably the indefinite “someone” rather than instructions that there be>only one interpreter.I don’t really agree with the above interpretation, but I think it is aplausible reading of the Greek with one exception: I don’t believe thathEIS could function as TIS does for an “indefinite ‘someone’.”>I realize that my experience of worship services which contain elements>corresponding to the ones named here probably influence my understanding of>this passage, but I offer my observations on the text for whatever help>they may be.I appreciate this, David. I think that all of us who seriously study 1 Cor12-14 bring our own experience and theological presuppositions to bear uponit; perhaps it is impossible for us to read it directly in the spirit inwhich it was originally written or read, although I think it’s something weshould always ENDEAVOR to do.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/

 

Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped?Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped?

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Trevor M Peterson spedrson at juno.com
Wed Jun 24 07:13:30 EDT 1998

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement What did Nicodemus hear? On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 22:24:53 -0400 “David L. Moore”<dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com> writes:[snipped]>Since one of Paul’s major concerns in this section is for an >orderly>worship service, we should understand KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON TREIS not >as>of groups of two or three speaking at once but as two or three (at >most)>messages in tongues in any single meeting. Note hOTAN SUNERCHSQE in >v. 26>with the following enumeration of possible contributions to the >worship.This touches on another issue we discussed in this verse. Whether itrefers to LOGOUS or to people, why make it “two or three [in a service]”? He suggested “two or three,” followed by interpretation, then “two orthree” more and more interpretation, etc.Trevor Peterson, M.Div.Capital Bible SeminaryLanham, MD_____________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreementWhat did Nicodemus hear?

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Trevor M Peterson spedrson at juno.com
Wed Jun 24 07:13:30 EDT 1998

 

couple o’ quick questions 1 Cor 14:27–number agreement On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 17:37:02 -0400 “Carl W. Conrad”<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:[snipped]>LOGOUS really ought to be spelled out if it were >intended>to be understood with DUO H TREIS.That was my basic point. But the person I was discussing this withseemed to think that the number agreement reverses the burden, since onlyan implication of the object would allow them to disagree.[snipped]> >I think that’s treating the logic too strictly; I rather suppose that >EITE>TIS LALEI GLWSSHI means, “If anyone (at all) speaks in a tongue …,” >and>then we must suppose Paul is willing to accept this possibility that>SOMEONE may do it, but that he wants to LIMIT the extent of this >activity>in public worship, and so he says, “If anyone does it at all, then no >more>than two or three should do it at a time, and they should do it in >turn,>and there should always be a single interpreter.”Not only did I suggest this to the other person, but I also mentionedthat the placement of the numerals in a prepositional phrase might loosenthe number agreement rules. The response was that I would have to”adduce occurrence of such distributively functioning prepositions wherethe setting demonstrates the kind of break here claimed for it, namely analteration in number from singular to plural (& it cannot be based onoctic=hostis or some similar word, which would per se be opener tonumeric vagueness as being more like our ‘whoever’.” Now, while I don’tthink this is a fair assignment of the burden of proof, I would certainlyfeel a lot better if some parallel construction could be found anywherein Greek literature, whether Attic or Koine.[snipped]> >Actually I think the TIS could have been used the same way in >Classical>Attic.The scholar this man was quoting seemed to oppose that idea. Would youhappen to know of any corroborating evidence, either from some standardgrammar or more preferably from actual usage?Trevor Peterson, M.Div.Capital Bible SeminaryLanham, MD_____________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

couple o’ quick questions1 Cor 14:27–number agreement

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Wed Jun 24 09:08:57 EDT 1998

 

Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped? 1 Cor 14:27–number agreement At 05:48 AM 6/24/98 -0400, you wrote:>At 10:24 PM -0400 6/23/98, David L. Moore wrote:>> >>Since one of Paul’s major concerns in this section is for an orderly>>worship service, we should understand KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON TREIS not as>>of groups of two or three speaking at once but as two or three (at most)>>messages in tongues in any single meeting. Note hOTAN SUNERCHSQE in v. 26>>with the following enumeration of possible contributions to the worship.>>The specifics on tongues in v. 27 come as a further explanation of what may>>take place in the meeting with special reference to this gift and should be>>understood with the context of v. 26. The KAI ANA MEROS which follows>>KATA…TREIS also instructs along these lines calling for an orderly>>presentation of any messages. The hEIS of KAI hEIS DIERMHNEUETO is most>>probably the indefinite “someone” rather than instructions that there be>>only one interpreter.> >I don’t really agree with the above interpretation, but I think it is a>plausible reading of the Greek with one exception: I don’t believe that>hEIS could function as TIS does for an “indefinite ‘someone’.”Well, BAGD, sv. hEIS has a section 3 that is headed “someone = class. TIS,whereby hEIS can mean exactly the same thing as the indef. art.” AndBlass-DeBrunner notes this usage in #247 (2) where it implies that theHebrew _echad_ or the Aramaic _chad_ are the model for this usage in the NT.Regards,David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped?1 Cor 14:27–number agreement

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Wed Jun 24 09:25:40 EDT 1998

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement On Ralph Earle At 07:13 AM 6/24/98 EDT, you wrote:> >On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 17:37:02 -0400 “Carl W. Conrad”><cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:> >[snipped]> >>LOGOUS really ought to be spelled out if it were >>intended>>to be understood with DUO H TREIS.> >That was my basic point. But the person I was discussing this with>seemed to think that the number agreement reverses the burden, since only>an implication of the object would allow them to disagree.To respond to both Trevor’s post to me and this one as well: IMO, Carl iscorrect in maintaining that “LOGOUS should be spelled out if it wereintended to be understood with DUO H TREIS.” If this referred to *words*,why would we have the additional admonition KAI ANA MEROS? This latterphrase is certainly in reference to the members of the congregation who arespeaking. And words are always spoken ANA MEROS :-)David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreementOn Ralph Earle

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jun 24 13:15:04 EDT 1998

 

What did Nicodemus hear? 1 Cor 14:27–number agreement At 7:13 AM -0400 6/24/98, Trevor M Peterson wrote:>On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 17:37:02 -0400 “Carl W. Conrad”><cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:> >[snipped]> >>LOGOUS really ought to be spelled out if it were>>intended>>to be understood with DUO H TREIS.> >That was my basic point. But the person I was discussing this with>seemed to think that the number agreement reverses the burden, since only>an implication of the object would allow them to disagree.Well, let me carry this one step further: I would question whetherglossolalia could be described as LOGOI in any case; so far as I am aware,LOGOS always refers to articulate, intelligible speech in Greek; it hardlyseems applicable to ecstatic speech that requires an interpreter to make itintelligible.>>I think that’s treating the logic too strictly; I rather suppose that>>EITE>>TIS LALEI GLWSSHI means, “If anyone (at all) speaks in a tongue …,”>>and>>then we must suppose Paul is willing to accept this possibility that>>SOMEONE may do it, but that he wants to LIMIT the extent of this>>activity>>in public worship, and so he says, “If anyone does it at all, then no>>more>>than two or three should do it at a time, and they should do it in>>turn,>>and there should always be a single interpreter.”> >Not only did I suggest this to the other person, but I also mentioned>that the placement of the numerals in a prepositional phrase might loosen>the number agreement rules. The response was that I would have to>“adduce occurrence of such distributively functioning prepositions where>the setting demonstrates the kind of break here claimed for it, namely an>alteration in number from singular to plural (& it cannot be based on>octic=hostis or some similar word, which would per se be opener to>numeric vagueness as being more like our ‘whoever’.” Now, while I don’t>think this is a fair assignment of the burden of proof, I would certainly>feel a lot better if some parallel construction could be found anywhere>in Greek literature, whether Attic or Koine.> >[snipped]>> >>Actually I think the TIS could have been used the same way in>>Classical>>Attic.> >The scholar this man was quoting seemed to oppose that idea. Would you>happen to know of any corroborating evidence, either from some standard>grammar or more preferably from actual usage?Is this “classical Greek scholar” whom your friend cites endowed with aname and proper identity? I’ve probably published far too little to make aclaim to be a “classical Greek scholar,” but I have taught classical Greekfor 40 odd years. If your friend deems Smyth’s grammar sufficientlyauthoritative, he may check out #1267. “In the singular, TIS is used in acollective sense …”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/

 

What did Nicodemus hear?1 Cor 14:27–number agreement

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jun 24 14:01:02 EDT 1998

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement 1 Cor 14:27–number agreement At 9:08 AM -0400 6/24/98, David L. Moore wrote:>At 05:48 AM 6/24/98 -0400, you wrote:>> >>I don’t really agree with the above interpretation, but I think it is a>>plausible reading of the Greek with one exception: I don’t believe that>>hEIS could function as TIS does for an “indefinite ‘someone’.”> >Well, BAGD, sv. hEIS has a section 3 that is headed “someone =>class. TIS,>whereby hEIS can mean exactly the same thing as the indef. art.” And>Blass-DeBrunner notes this usage in #247 (2) where it implies that the>Hebrew _echad_ or the Aramaic _chad_ are the model for this usage in the NT.I confess I was too lazy to check BAGD and/or BDF, both of which I haveready to hand here. Sorry, I ought always to allow for that Semitizinginfluence. Nevertheless, I note, upon checking BDF #247 (2) that all theinstances cited in BDF are from the gospels and Revelation, none from Paul.And upon checking BAGD (3) I get the same impression. Nevertheless, sinceENAS (= anc. hEIS) does serve as the modern Greek indefinite article (manyMG words and usages are to be seen in the Koine), I’d have to grant this isindeed possible. I would personally be inclined to doubt, however, thatPaul is using the Semitism here.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/

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement1 Cor 14:27–number agreement

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Trevor M Peterson spedrson at juno.com
Wed Jun 24 14:01:41 EDT 1998

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement new student with old questions On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 13:15:04 -0400 “Carl W. Conrad”<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:[snipped]> >Well, let me carry this one step further: I would question whether>glossolalia could be described as LOGOI in any case; so far as I am >aware,>LOGOS always refers to articulate, intelligible speech in Greek; it >hardly>seems applicable to ecstatic speech that requires an interpreter to >make it>intelligible.And I guess some of that question would get into whether Paul is referingto ecstatic speech or to a normal, foreign language as seems to have beenin view in Acts 2. But to avoid that sidetrack and keep things incontext, the basis for inserting LOGOI was supposed to be v. 19, wherePaul saysQELW PENTE LOGOUS TWi NOI MOU LALHSAI, . . . H MURIOUS LOGOUS EN GLWSSHi [LALHSAI].Presumably, however he was using it here, there was no problem withspeaking LOGOUS in a tongue. > [snipped]> >Is this “classical Greek scholar” whom your friend cites endowed with >a>name and proper identity?I don’t recall anything being mentioned. “Scholar” was probably my term,since he clearly views him as authoritative. He’s a pesonal acquaintanceof some sort, apparently with decades of experience like yourself (or sohe says). That’s partly why I wanted to bring this one to the list, sothat I could get some input from others with more experience than myself.>I’ve probably published far too little to >make a>claim to be a “classical Greek scholar,” but I have taught classical >Greek>for 40 odd years. If your friend deems Smyth’s grammar sufficiently>authoritative, he may check out #1267. “In the singular, TIS is used >in a>collective sense …”Thanks. I’ll have to check that out and see if it bears passing along. I doubt that it will make much difference to him, but it’s worth a try.Trevor PetersonAdj. Prof. Bible/TheologyWashington Bible CollegeLanham, MD_____________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreementnew student with old questions

[] Information about 1 Corinthians 14:27 Marion Fox mrfox1 at gmail.com
Sat Jan 9 14:52:37 EST 2010

 

[] Luke 9:20 [] Information about 1 Corinthians 14:27 In 1 Cor. 14:27 we find:… KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON TREIS …Am I correct to interpret TREIS as being in the neuter gender?If it is in the neuter gender, to what does it refer?Yours in His service,– Marion Foxhttp://www.fivefpublishing.comhttp://www.okcsbs.com

 

[] Luke 9:20[] Information about 1 Corinthians 14:27

[] Information about 1 Corinthians 14:27 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Jan 9 15:14:13 EST 2010

 

[] Information about 1 Corinthians 14:27 [] Information about 1 Corinthians 14:27 The number of those SPEAKing. georgegfsomsel … 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: Marion Fox <mrfox1 at gmail.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Sat, January 9, 2010 12:52:37 PMSubject: [] Information about 1 Corinthians 14:27In 1 Cor. 14:27 we find:… KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON TREIS …Am I correct to interpret TREIS as being in the neuter gender?If it is in the neuter gender, to what does it refer?Yours in His service,– Marion Foxhttp://www.fivefpublishing.comhttp://www.okcsbs.com— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Information about 1 Corinthians 14:27[] Information about 1 Corinthians 14:27

[] Information about 1 Corinthians 14:27 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Jan 10 00:05:19 EST 2010

 

[] Information about 1 Corinthians 14:27 [] you command εἴτε γλώσσῃ τις λαλεῖ, κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς καὶ ἀνὰ μέροςEITE GLWSSHi TIS LALEI, KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON TREIS KAI ANA MEROSThe distributive KATA governs accusative and TREIS is masculine/feminine,accusative plural, referring back to the plural speakers in tongues, introducedby TIS. The masculine (and feminine) nominative is also TREIS. The neuternominative and accusative is TRIA. (Dative TRISI(N), genitive TRIWN).The most famous verse with TRIA is probably:1 Cor 13:13 νυνὶ δὲ μένει πίστις, ἐλπίς, ἀγάπη, τὰ τρία ταῦτα· μείζων δὲ τούτωνἡ ἀγάπηNUNI DE MENEI PISTIS, ELPIS, AGAPH, TA TRIA TAUTA. MEIZWN DE TOUTWN hH AGAPH.Now these THREE things remain: faith, hope, love. But GREATEST of these is love.(I use capitals to indicate stress in English).Iver Larsen—– Original Message —– From: “Marion Fox” <mrfox1 at gmail.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 9. januar 2010 22:52Subject: [] Information about 1 Corinthians 14:27> In 1 Cor. 14:27 we find:> > … KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON TREIS …> > Am I correct to interpret TREIS as being in the neuter gender?> > If it is in the neuter gender, to what does it refer?> > > Yours in His service,> > >> Marion Fox

 

[] Information about 1 Corinthians 14:27[] you command

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Wed Jun 24 18:11:46 EDT 1998

 

Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped? Definition of terms At 02:01 PM 6/24/98 -0400, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>At 9:08 AM -0400 6/24/98, David L. Moore wrote:>>At 05:48 AM 6/24/98 -0400, you wrote:>>> >>>I don’t really agree with the above interpretation, but I think it is a>>>plausible reading of the Greek with one exception: I don’t believe that>>>hEIS could function as TIS does for an “indefinite ‘someone’.”>> >>Well, BAGD, sv. hEIS has a section 3 that is headed “someone =>>class. TIS,>>whereby hEIS can mean exactly the same thing as the indef. art.” And>>Blass-DeBrunner notes this usage in #247 (2) where it implies that the>>Hebrew _echad_ or the Aramaic _chad_ are the model for this usage in the NT.> >I confess I was too lazy to check BAGD and/or BDF, both of which I have>ready to hand here. Sorry, I ought always to allow for that Semitizing>influence. Nevertheless, I note, upon checking BDF #247 (2) that all the>instances cited in BDF are from the gospels and Revelation, none from Paul.>And upon checking BAGD (3) I get the same impression. Nevertheless, since>ENAS (= anc. hEIS) does serve as the modern Greek indefinite article (many>MG words and usages are to be seen in the Koine), I’d have to grant this is>indeed possible. I would personally be inclined to doubt, however, that>Paul is using the Semitism here.Turner mentions that Luke’s, use of hEIS as a substitute for TIS does notseem to be a Semitism (Turner, _Syntax_, Moulton, III:195), but it doesappear that this usage is mainly found in the Gospels and Acts.I went over a search of Paul for instances of hEIS and found only oneother passages where we might have it used as indefinite. In 1Cor. 4:6Paul says, hINA MH hEIS hUPER TO hENOS FUSIOUSQE KATA TOU hETEROU. Thisuse of hEIS may be an idiom – like hEIS hEKASTOS. But if not, it may be aninstance of its being used as indefininte.I must admit that this is pretty scant supporting evidence for indefiniteuse in 1Cor. 14:27. The use of hEIS as a number, emphasizing unity orsingle quality is Paul’s characteristic way of using this word. I’m looking at the whole passage and trying to harmonize some of thethings that Paul says. Relative to the question of whether KATA DUO H …TREIS means “two or three at a time,” v. 29 may provide a parallel withPROFHTAI DE DOU H TREIS LALEITWSAN which appears to mean “two or three inany meeting.” And v. 30 suggests that these are speaking one by one.Although hEIS in v. 27 may mean “one,” the context at v. 13, where Paulinstructs that he who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret, givesthe impression that the “one” who interprets may be whomever receives theinterpretation.David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped?Definition of terms

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jun 23 17:55:13 EDT 1998

 

Col. 2:11 1 Cor 14:27–number agreement At 5:37 PM -0400 6/23/98, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>not LOGOI. I’ll respond to the specifics below, but let me say that my>basic reason for this is that DUO and TREIS are identical in the nominative>and superlative, LOGOUS really ought to be spelled out if it were intended>to be understood with DUO H TREIS.Did I actually write that? Homer may nod, but Conrad goes into a deepslumber when penning responses to , it would appear.Of course, what SHOULD be read in that clause in the second line citedabove is: “… that DUO and TREIS are identical in the nominative andaccusative …”And I do remember one of my students once trying to tell me about theVocative tense, too. I think in my present slumber I would have been liketo agree.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/

 

Col. 2:111 Cor 14:27–number agreement

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jun 23 17:37:02 EDT 1998

 

1 Tim 4:10 (was I Cor. 14:18) Col. 2:11 Since this has sat in my BG In-box for a week with no answer, I’ll venturea response as something (as Jonathan puts it) “for the rest to shoot down.”At 11:37 AM -0400 6/16/98, Trevor M Peterson wrote:> >I’ve come out of lurking once again with more of a question than an>answer. In dialogue about 1 Corinthians 14, an acquaintance raised a>view I had never heard before, that he claims came from a Classics>scholar (so I’d be especially interested in comments from any of similar>background!). In v. 27, EITE GLWSSHi TIS LALEI, KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON>TREIS KAI ANA MEROS, KAI hEIS DIERMHNEUETW, does KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON>TREIS refer to LOGOI (from v. 19) or to speakers (as most of the versions>seem to render it)? His arguments for LOGOI were as follows:Let me say at the outset that I think the DUO and TREIS refer to persons,not LOGOI. I’ll respond to the specifics below, but let me say that mybasic reason for this is that DUO and TREIS are identical in the nominativeand superlative, LOGOUS really ought to be spelled out if it were intendedto be understood with DUO H TREIS. I would translate the whole verseLOOSELY as “And if there’s to be any speaking in tongues, then it should beby pair or group of three persons, each speaking in turn, and a singleperson should interpret.”>1) The singular TIS requires that only one person be in view as a>speaker, which rules out the possibility of two or three speakers.I think that’s treating the logic too strictly; I rather suppose that EITETIS LALEI GLWSSHI means, “If anyone (at all) speaks in a tongue …,” andthen we must suppose Paul is willing to accept this possibility thatSOMEONE may do it, but that he wants to LIMIT the extent of this activityin public worship, and so he says, “If anyone does it at all, then no morethan two or three should do it at a time, and they should do it in turn,and there should always be a single interpreter.” That’s how I’d understandit. I will admit, however, and perhaps it is important that I state thisclearly, that I understand Paul in this chapter to be urging that what isdone in worship should be primarily in terms of shared intelligibleexperience rather than in the private mystical expression of individualworshipers.>2) The singular LALEI also requires that only one person be in view as a>speaker.But I’ve said I think this is a loose way of indicating the possibilitythat there be any speaking in tongues at all–as when we say, “Does anyonehave an objection?” and we may very well anticipate that there will be halfa dozen objections. So, I take it, Paul suggests the possibility and thenwarns that he’s NOT prepared for half a dozen individuals speaking intongues, and certainly not simultaneously.>Basically, what it comes down to is the lack of number agreement between>TIS LALEI and DUO H TO PLEISTON TREIS. My initial thought is that the>prepositional phrase does not require numerical agreement and that TIS>could be singular to focus on the idea of one speaker at a time.>Furthermore, ANA MEROS would seem a bit odd as requiring that two or>three oracles or proclamations be issued individually. How else would>one person speak them? Finally, I know that hEIS can be used as a simple>pronoun, but in a context where one sentence includes DUO, TREIS, and>hEIS, I’m tempted to take all three as applying to the same sort of>thing; i.e., people.I agree. But take notice that the DUO and TREIS are accusative and (atleast in terms of NT Koine) plural, whereas hEIS is nominative and singularto agree with DIERMHNEUETW.>My lack of understanding as to how numerals tend to function in Greek is>a handicap for me in this situation. But I am trying to consider all the>angles. Even if there is a rigid requirement that they agree in>Classical, would there necessarily be the same in Koine? A bit further>off the topic of this list, could Semitic number agreement have affected>Paul’s wording, since Hebrew tends to use numerals with singular forms?Actually I think the TIS could have been used the same way in ClassicalAttic. Nor do I think there’s any Semitic influence involved here; whilePaul has Jewish phrasing in certain phrases such as EIS DOXAN QEOU, I thinkthat he has these from long-since Hellenized expressions and that the Greekhe speaks, he speaks as a native of a Greek-speaking city, Tarsus and notas a second language.So, after a week, the target is up for sharpshooters.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/

 

1 Tim 4:10 (was I Cor. 14:18)Col. 2:11

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Trevor M Peterson spedrson at juno.com
Tue Jun 16 11:37:24 EDT 1998

 

Mark 2:23b Mark 2:23b Well, this is my first post since the changeover; hopefully it will comeout all right.I’ve come out of lurking once again with more of a question than ananswer. In dialogue about 1 Corinthians 14, an acquaintance raised aview I had never heard before, that he claims came from a Classicsscholar (so I’d be especially interested in comments from any of similarbackground!). In v. 27, EITE GLWSSHi TIS LALEI, KATA DUO H TO PLEIOTONTREIS KAI ANA MEROS, KAI hEIS DIERMHNEUETW, does KATA DUO H TO PLEIOTONTREIS refer to LOGOI (from v. 19) or to speakers (as most of the versionsseem to render it)? His arguments for LOGOI were as follows:1) The singular TIS requires that only one person be in view as aspeaker, which rules out the possibility of two or three speakers.2) The singular LALEI also requires that only one person be in view as aspeaker.Basically, what it comes down to is the lack of number agreement betweenTIS LALEI and DUO H TO PLEIOTON TREIS. My initial thought is that theprepositional phrase does not require numerical agreement and that TIScould be singular to focus on the idea of one speaker at a time. Furthermore, ANA MEROS would seem a bit odd as requiring that two orthree oracles or proclamations be issued individually. How else wouldone person speak them? Finally, I know that hEIS can be used as a simplepronoun, but in a context where one sentence includes DUO, TREIS, andhEIS, I’m tempted to take all three as applying to the same sort ofthing; i.e., people.My lack of understanding as to how numerals tend to function in Greek isa handicap for me in this situation. But I am trying to consider all theangles. Even if there is a rigid requirement that they agree inClassical, would there necessarily be the same in Koine? A bit furtheroff the topic of this list, could Semitic number agreement have affectedPaul’s wording, since Hebrew tends to use numerals with singular forms?Trevor Peterson, M.Div.Capital Bible SeminaryLanham, MD_____________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

Mark 2:23bMark 2:23b

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Wed Jun 24 18:11:46 EDT 1998

 

Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped? Definition of terms At 02:01 PM 6/24/98 -0400, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>At 9:08 AM -0400 6/24/98, David L. Moore wrote:>>At 05:48 AM 6/24/98 -0400, you wrote:>>> >>>I don’t really agree with the above interpretation, but I think it is a>>>plausible reading of the Greek with one exception: I don’t believe that>>>hEIS could function as TIS does for an “indefinite ‘someone’.”>> >>Well, BAGD, sv. hEIS has a section 3 that is headed “someone =>>class. TIS,>>whereby hEIS can mean exactly the same thing as the indef. art.” And>>Blass-DeBrunner notes this usage in #247 (2) where it implies that the>>Hebrew _echad_ or the Aramaic _chad_ are the model for this usage in the NT.> >I confess I was too lazy to check BAGD and/or BDF, both of which I have>ready to hand here. Sorry, I ought always to allow for that Semitizing>influence. Nevertheless, I note, upon checking BDF #247 (2) that all the>instances cited in BDF are from the gospels and Revelation, none from Paul.>And upon checking BAGD (3) I get the same impression. Nevertheless, since>ENAS (= anc. hEIS) does serve as the modern Greek indefinite article (many>MG words and usages are to be seen in the Koine), I’d have to grant this is>indeed possible. I would personally be inclined to doubt, however, that>Paul is using the Semitism here.Turner mentions that Luke’s, use of hEIS as a substitute for TIS does notseem to be a Semitism (Turner, _Syntax_, Moulton, III:195), but it doesappear that this usage is mainly found in the Gospels and Acts.I went over a search of Paul for instances of hEIS and found only oneother passages where we might have it used as indefinite. In 1Cor. 4:6Paul says, hINA MH hEIS hUPER TO hENOS FUSIOUSQE KATA TOU hETEROU. Thisuse of hEIS may be an idiom – like hEIS hEKASTOS. But if not, it may be aninstance of its being used as indefininte.I must admit that this is pretty scant supporting evidence for indefiniteuse in 1Cor. 14:27. The use of hEIS as a number, emphasizing unity orsingle quality is Paul’s characteristic way of using this word. I’m looking at the whole passage and trying to harmonize some of thethings that Paul says. Relative to the question of whether KATA DUO H …TREIS means “two or three at a time,” v. 29 may provide a parallel withPROFHTAI DE DOU H TREIS LALEITWSAN which appears to mean “two or three inany meeting.” And v. 30 suggests that these are speaking one by one.Although hEIS in v. 27 may mean “one,” the context at v. 13, where Paulinstructs that he who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret, givesthe impression that the “one” who interprets may be whomever receives theinterpretation.David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped?Definition of terms

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Trevor M Peterson spedrson at juno.com
Wed Jun 24 14:01:41 EDT 1998

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement new student with old questions On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 13:15:04 -0400 “Carl W. Conrad”<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:[snipped]> >Well, let me carry this one step further: I would question whether>glossolalia could be described as LOGOI in any case; so far as I am >aware,>LOGOS always refers to articulate, intelligible speech in Greek; it >hardly>seems applicable to ecstatic speech that requires an interpreter to >make it>intelligible.And I guess some of that question would get into whether Paul is referingto ecstatic speech or to a normal, foreign language as seems to have beenin view in Acts 2. But to avoid that sidetrack and keep things incontext, the basis for inserting LOGOI was supposed to be v. 19, wherePaul saysQELW PENTE LOGOUS TWi NOI MOU LALHSAI, . . . H MURIOUS LOGOUS EN GLWSSHi [LALHSAI].Presumably, however he was using it here, there was no problem withspeaking LOGOUS in a tongue. > [snipped]> >Is this “classical Greek scholar” whom your friend cites endowed with >a>name and proper identity?I don’t recall anything being mentioned. “Scholar” was probably my term,since he clearly views him as authoritative. He’s a pesonal acquaintanceof some sort, apparently with decades of experience like yourself (or sohe says). That’s partly why I wanted to bring this one to the list, sothat I could get some input from others with more experience than myself.>I’ve probably published far too little to >make a>claim to be a “classical Greek scholar,” but I have taught classical >Greek>for 40 odd years. If your friend deems Smyth’s grammar sufficiently>authoritative, he may check out #1267. “In the singular, TIS is used >in a>collective sense …”Thanks. I’ll have to check that out and see if it bears passing along. I doubt that it will make much difference to him, but it’s worth a try.Trevor PetersonAdj. Prof. Bible/TheologyWashington Bible CollegeLanham, MD_____________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreementnew student with old questions

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jun 24 14:01:02 EDT 1998

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement 1 Cor 14:27–number agreement At 9:08 AM -0400 6/24/98, David L. Moore wrote:>At 05:48 AM 6/24/98 -0400, you wrote:>> >>I don’t really agree with the above interpretation, but I think it is a>>plausible reading of the Greek with one exception: I don’t believe that>>hEIS could function as TIS does for an “indefinite ‘someone’.”> >Well, BAGD, sv. hEIS has a section 3 that is headed “someone =>class. TIS,>whereby hEIS can mean exactly the same thing as the indef. art.” And>Blass-DeBrunner notes this usage in #247 (2) where it implies that the>Hebrew _echad_ or the Aramaic _chad_ are the model for this usage in the NT.I confess I was too lazy to check BAGD and/or BDF, both of which I haveready to hand here. Sorry, I ought always to allow for that Semitizinginfluence. Nevertheless, I note, upon checking BDF #247 (2) that all theinstances cited in BDF are from the gospels and Revelation, none from Paul.And upon checking BAGD (3) I get the same impression. Nevertheless, sinceENAS (= anc. hEIS) does serve as the modern Greek indefinite article (manyMG words and usages are to be seen in the Koine), I’d have to grant this isindeed possible. I would personally be inclined to doubt, however, thatPaul is using the Semitism here.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/

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement1 Cor 14:27–number agreement

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jun 24 13:15:04 EDT 1998

 

What did Nicodemus hear? 1 Cor 14:27–number agreement At 7:13 AM -0400 6/24/98, Trevor M Peterson wrote:>On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 17:37:02 -0400 “Carl W. Conrad”><cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:> >[snipped]> >>LOGOUS really ought to be spelled out if it were>>intended>>to be understood with DUO H TREIS.> >That was my basic point. But the person I was discussing this with>seemed to think that the number agreement reverses the burden, since only>an implication of the object would allow them to disagree.Well, let me carry this one step further: I would question whetherglossolalia could be described as LOGOI in any case; so far as I am aware,LOGOS always refers to articulate, intelligible speech in Greek; it hardlyseems applicable to ecstatic speech that requires an interpreter to make itintelligible.>>I think that’s treating the logic too strictly; I rather suppose that>>EITE>>TIS LALEI GLWSSHI means, “If anyone (at all) speaks in a tongue …,”>>and>>then we must suppose Paul is willing to accept this possibility that>>SOMEONE may do it, but that he wants to LIMIT the extent of this>>activity>>in public worship, and so he says, “If anyone does it at all, then no>>more>>than two or three should do it at a time, and they should do it in>>turn,>>and there should always be a single interpreter.”> >Not only did I suggest this to the other person, but I also mentioned>that the placement of the numerals in a prepositional phrase might loosen>the number agreement rules. The response was that I would have to>“adduce occurrence of such distributively functioning prepositions where>the setting demonstrates the kind of break here claimed for it, namely an>alteration in number from singular to plural (& it cannot be based on>octic=hostis or some similar word, which would per se be opener to>numeric vagueness as being more like our ‘whoever’.” Now, while I don’t>think this is a fair assignment of the burden of proof, I would certainly>feel a lot better if some parallel construction could be found anywhere>in Greek literature, whether Attic or Koine.> >[snipped]>> >>Actually I think the TIS could have been used the same way in>>Classical>>Attic.> >The scholar this man was quoting seemed to oppose that idea. Would you>happen to know of any corroborating evidence, either from some standard>grammar or more preferably from actual usage?Is this “classical Greek scholar” whom your friend cites endowed with aname and proper identity? I’ve probably published far too little to make aclaim to be a “classical Greek scholar,” but I have taught classical Greekfor 40 odd years. If your friend deems Smyth’s grammar sufficientlyauthoritative, he may check out #1267. “In the singular, TIS is used in acollective sense …”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/

 

What did Nicodemus hear?1 Cor 14:27–number agreement

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Wed Jun 24 09:25:40 EDT 1998

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement On Ralph Earle At 07:13 AM 6/24/98 EDT, you wrote:> >On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 17:37:02 -0400 “Carl W. Conrad”><cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:> >[snipped]> >>LOGOUS really ought to be spelled out if it were >>intended>>to be understood with DUO H TREIS.> >That was my basic point. But the person I was discussing this with>seemed to think that the number agreement reverses the burden, since only>an implication of the object would allow them to disagree.To respond to both Trevor’s post to me and this one as well: IMO, Carl iscorrect in maintaining that “LOGOUS should be spelled out if it wereintended to be understood with DUO H TREIS.” If this referred to *words*,why would we have the additional admonition KAI ANA MEROS? This latterphrase is certainly in reference to the members of the congregation who arespeaking. And words are always spoken ANA MEROS :-)David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreementOn Ralph Earle

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Wed Jun 24 09:08:57 EDT 1998

 

Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped? 1 Cor 14:27–number agreement At 05:48 AM 6/24/98 -0400, you wrote:>At 10:24 PM -0400 6/23/98, David L. Moore wrote:>> >>Since one of Paul’s major concerns in this section is for an orderly>>worship service, we should understand KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON TREIS not as>>of groups of two or three speaking at once but as two or three (at most)>>messages in tongues in any single meeting. Note hOTAN SUNERCHSQE in v. 26>>with the following enumeration of possible contributions to the worship.>>The specifics on tongues in v. 27 come as a further explanation of what may>>take place in the meeting with special reference to this gift and should be>>understood with the context of v. 26. The KAI ANA MEROS which follows>>KATA…TREIS also instructs along these lines calling for an orderly>>presentation of any messages. The hEIS of KAI hEIS DIERMHNEUETO is most>>probably the indefinite “someone” rather than instructions that there be>>only one interpreter.> >I don’t really agree with the above interpretation, but I think it is a>plausible reading of the Greek with one exception: I don’t believe that>hEIS could function as TIS does for an “indefinite ‘someone’.”Well, BAGD, sv. hEIS has a section 3 that is headed “someone = class. TIS,whereby hEIS can mean exactly the same thing as the indef. art.” AndBlass-DeBrunner notes this usage in #247 (2) where it implies that theHebrew _echad_ or the Aramaic _chad_ are the model for this usage in the NT.Regards,David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped?1 Cor 14:27–number agreement

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Trevor M Peterson spedrson at juno.com
Wed Jun 24 07:13:30 EDT 1998

 

couple o’ quick questions 1 Cor 14:27–number agreement On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 17:37:02 -0400 “Carl W. Conrad”<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:[snipped]>LOGOUS really ought to be spelled out if it were >intended>to be understood with DUO H TREIS.That was my basic point. But the person I was discussing this withseemed to think that the number agreement reverses the burden, since onlyan implication of the object would allow them to disagree.[snipped]> >I think that’s treating the logic too strictly; I rather suppose that >EITE>TIS LALEI GLWSSHI means, “If anyone (at all) speaks in a tongue …,” >and>then we must suppose Paul is willing to accept this possibility that>SOMEONE may do it, but that he wants to LIMIT the extent of this >activity>in public worship, and so he says, “If anyone does it at all, then no >more>than two or three should do it at a time, and they should do it in >turn,>and there should always be a single interpreter.”Not only did I suggest this to the other person, but I also mentionedthat the placement of the numerals in a prepositional phrase might loosenthe number agreement rules. The response was that I would have to”adduce occurrence of such distributively functioning prepositions wherethe setting demonstrates the kind of break here claimed for it, namely analteration in number from singular to plural (& it cannot be based onoctic=hostis or some similar word, which would per se be opener tonumeric vagueness as being more like our ‘whoever’.” Now, while I don’tthink this is a fair assignment of the burden of proof, I would certainlyfeel a lot better if some parallel construction could be found anywherein Greek literature, whether Attic or Koine.[snipped]> >Actually I think the TIS could have been used the same way in >Classical>Attic.The scholar this man was quoting seemed to oppose that idea. Would youhappen to know of any corroborating evidence, either from some standardgrammar or more preferably from actual usage?Trevor Peterson, M.Div.Capital Bible SeminaryLanham, MD_____________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

couple o’ quick questions1 Cor 14:27–number agreement

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Trevor M Peterson spedrson at juno.com
Wed Jun 24 07:13:30 EDT 1998

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement What did Nicodemus hear? On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 22:24:53 -0400 “David L. Moore”<dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com> writes:[snipped]>Since one of Paul’s major concerns in this section is for an >orderly>worship service, we should understand KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON TREIS not >as>of groups of two or three speaking at once but as two or three (at >most)>messages in tongues in any single meeting. Note hOTAN SUNERCHSQE in >v. 26>with the following enumeration of possible contributions to the >worship.This touches on another issue we discussed in this verse. Whether itrefers to LOGOUS or to people, why make it “two or three [in a service]”? He suggested “two or three,” followed by interpretation, then “two orthree” more and more interpretation, etc.Trevor Peterson, M.Div.Capital Bible SeminaryLanham, MD_____________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreementWhat did Nicodemus hear?

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jun 24 05:48:34 EDT 1998

 

Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped? Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped? At 10:24 PM -0400 6/23/98, David L. Moore wrote:> >Since one of Paul’s major concerns in this section is for an orderly>worship service, we should understand KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON TREIS not as>of groups of two or three speaking at once but as two or three (at most)>messages in tongues in any single meeting. Note hOTAN SUNERCHSQE in v. 26>with the following enumeration of possible contributions to the worship.>The specifics on tongues in v. 27 come as a further explanation of what may>take place in the meeting with special reference to this gift and should be>understood with the context of v. 26. The KAI ANA MEROS which follows>KATA…TREIS also instructs along these lines calling for an orderly>presentation of any messages. The hEIS of KAI hEIS DIERMHNEUETO is most>probably the indefinite “someone” rather than instructions that there be>only one interpreter.I don’t really agree with the above interpretation, but I think it is aplausible reading of the Greek with one exception: I don’t believe thathEIS could function as TIS does for an “indefinite ‘someone’.”>I realize that my experience of worship services which contain elements>corresponding to the ones named here probably influence my understanding of>this passage, but I offer my observations on the text for whatever help>they may be.I appreciate this, David. I think that all of us who seriously study 1 Cor12-14 bring our own experience and theological presuppositions to bear uponit; perhaps it is impossible for us to read it directly in the spirit inwhich it was originally written or read, although I think it’s something weshould always ENDEAVOR to do.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/

 

Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped?Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped?

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Tue Jun 23 22:24:53 EDT 1998

 

What did Nicodemus hear? [bg768 at lafn.org] At 05:37 PM 6/23/98 -0400, you wrote:>Since this has sat in my BG In-box for a week with no answer, I’ll venture>a response as something (as Jonathan puts it) “for the rest to shoot down.”> >At 11:37 AM -0400 6/16/98, Trevor M Peterson wrote:>> >>I’ve come out of lurking once again with more of a question than an>>answer. In dialogue about 1 Corinthians 14, an acquaintance raised a>>view I had never heard before, that he claims came from a Classics>>scholar (so I’d be especially interested in comments from any of similar>>background!). In v. 27, EITE GLWSSHi TIS LALEI, KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON>>TREIS KAI ANA MEROS, KAI hEIS DIERMHNEUETW, does KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON>>TREIS refer to LOGOI (from v. 19) or to speakers (as most of the versions>>seem to render it)? His arguments for LOGOI were as follows:> >Let me say at the outset that I think the DUO and TREIS refer to persons,>not LOGOI. I’ll respond to the specifics below, but let me say that my>basic reason for this is that DUO and TREIS are identical in the nominative>and [acusative], LOGOUS really ought to be spelled out if it were intended>to be understood with DUO H TREIS. I would translate the whole verse>LOOSELY as “And if there’s to be any speaking in tongues, then it should be>by pair or group of three persons, each speaking in turn, and a single>person should interpret.”> >>1) The singular TIS requires that only one person be in view as a>>speaker, which rules out the possibility of two or three speakers.> >I think that’s treating the logic too strictly; I rather suppose that EITE>TIS LALEI GLWSSHI means, “If anyone (at all) speaks in a tongue …,” and>then we must suppose Paul is willing to accept this possibility that>SOMEONE may do it, but that he wants to LIMIT the extent of this activity>in public worship, and so he says, “If anyone does it at all, then no more>than two or three should do it at a time, and they should do it in turn,>and there should always be a single interpreter.” That’s how I’d understand>it. I will admit, however, and perhaps it is important that I state this>clearly, that I understand Paul in this chapter to be urging that what is>done in worship should be primarily in terms of shared intelligible>experience rather than in the private mystical expression of individual>worshipers.Since one of Paul’s major concerns in this section is for an orderlyworship service, we should understand KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON TREIS not asof groups of two or three speaking at once but as two or three (at most)messages in tongues in any single meeting. Note hOTAN SUNERCHSQE in v. 26with the following enumeration of possible contributions to the worship.The specifics on tongues in v. 27 come as a further explanation of what maytake place in the meeting with special reference to this gift and should beunderstood with the context of v. 26. The KAI ANA MEROS which followsKATA…TREIS also instructs along these lines calling for an orderlypresentation of any messages. The hEIS of KAI hEIS DIERMHNEUETO is mostprobably the indefinite “someone” rather than instructions that there beonly one interpreter.I realize that my experience of worship services which contain elementscorresponding to the ones named here probably influence my understanding ofthis passage, but I offer my observations on the text for whatever helpthey may be.David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

What did Nicodemus hear?[bg768 at lafn.org]

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Tue Jun 23 18:14:59 EDT 1998

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement new student with old questions At 05:55 PM 6/23/98 -0400, you wrote:>At 5:37 PM -0400 6/23/98, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>>not LOGOI. I’ll respond to the specifics below, but let me say that my>>basic reason for this is that DUO and TREIS are identical in the nominative>>and superlative, LOGOUS really ought to be spelled out if it were intended>>to be understood with DUO H TREIS.> >Did I actually write that? Homer may nod, but Conrad goes into a deep>slumber when penning responses to , it would appear.> >Of course, what SHOULD be read in that clause in the second line cited>above is: “… that DUO and TREIS are identical in the nominative and>accusative …”I wondered when I saw that, if it represented a subtle move back towardthe eight-case system :-)David L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

1 Cor 14:27–number agreementnew student with old questions

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jun 23 17:55:13 EDT 1998

 

Col. 2:11 1 Cor 14:27–number agreement At 5:37 PM -0400 6/23/98, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>not LOGOI. I’ll respond to the specifics below, but let me say that my>basic reason for this is that DUO and TREIS are identical in the nominative>and superlative, LOGOUS really ought to be spelled out if it were intended>to be understood with DUO H TREIS.Did I actually write that? Homer may nod, but Conrad goes into a deepslumber when penning responses to , it would appear.Of course, what SHOULD be read in that clause in the second line citedabove is: “… that DUO and TREIS are identical in the nominative andaccusative …”And I do remember one of my students once trying to tell me about theVocative tense, too. I think in my present slumber I would have been liketo agree.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/

 

Col. 2:111 Cor 14:27–number agreement

1 Cor 14:27–number agreement Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jun 23 17:37:02 EDT 1998

 

1 Tim 4:10 (was I Cor. 14:18) Col. 2:11 Since this has sat in my BG In-box for a week with no answer, I’ll venturea response as something (as Jonathan puts it) “for the rest to shoot down.”At 11:37 AM -0400 6/16/98, Trevor M Peterson wrote:> >I’ve come out of lurking once again with more of a question than an>answer. In dialogue about 1 Corinthians 14, an acquaintance raised a>view I had never heard before, that he claims came from a Classics>scholar (so I’d be especially interested in comments from any of similar>background!). In v. 27, EITE GLWSSHi TIS LALEI, KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON>TREIS KAI ANA MEROS, KAI hEIS DIERMHNEUETW, does KATA DUO H TO PLEISTON>TREIS refer to LOGOI (from v. 19) or to speakers (as most of the versions>seem to render it)? His arguments for LOGOI were as follows:Let me say at the outset that I think the DUO and TREIS refer to persons,not LOGOI. I’ll respond to the specifics below, but let me say that mybasic reason for this is that DUO and TREIS are identical in the nominativeand superlative, LOGOUS really ought to be spelled out if it were intendedto be understood with DUO H TREIS. I would translate the whole verseLOOSELY as “And if there’s to be any speaking in tongues, then it should beby pair or group of three persons, each speaking in turn, and a singleperson should interpret.”>1) The singular TIS requires that only one person be in view as a>speaker, which rules out the possibility of two or three speakers.I think that’s treating the logic too strictly; I rather suppose that EITETIS LALEI GLWSSHI means, “If anyone (at all) speaks in a tongue …,” andthen we must suppose Paul is willing to accept this possibility thatSOMEONE may do it, but that he wants to LIMIT the extent of this activityin public worship, and so he says, “If anyone does it at all, then no morethan two or three should do it at a time, and they should do it in turn,and there should always be a single interpreter.” That’s how I’d understandit. I will admit, however, and perhaps it is important that I state thisclearly, that I understand Paul in this chapter to be urging that what isdone in worship should be primarily in terms of shared intelligibleexperience rather than in the private mystical expression of individualworshipers.>2) The singular LALEI also requires that only one person be in view as a>speaker.But I’ve said I think this is a loose way of indicating the possibilitythat there be any speaking in tongues at all–as when we say, “Does anyonehave an objection?” and we may very well anticipate that there will be halfa dozen objections. So, I take it, Paul suggests the possibility and thenwarns that he’s NOT prepared for half a dozen individuals speaking intongues, and certainly not simultaneously.>Basically, what it comes down to is the lack of number agreement between>TIS LALEI and DUO H TO PLEISTON TREIS. My initial thought is that the>prepositional phrase does not require numerical agreement and that TIS>could be singular to focus on the idea of one speaker at a time.>Furthermore, ANA MEROS would seem a bit odd as requiring that two or>three oracles or proclamations be issued individually. How else would>one person speak them? Finally, I know that hEIS can be used as a simple>pronoun, but in a context where one sentence includes DUO, TREIS, and>hEIS, I’m tempted to take all three as applying to the same sort of>thing; i.e., people.I agree. But take notice that the DUO and TREIS are accusative and (atleast in terms of NT Koine) plural, whereas hEIS is nominative and singularto agree with DIERMHNEUETW.>My lack of understanding as to how numerals tend to function in Greek is>a handicap for me in this situation. But I am trying to consider all the>angles. Even if there is a rigid requirement that they agree in>Classical, would there necessarily be the same in Koine? A bit further>off the topic of this list, could Semitic number agreement have affected>Paul’s wording, since Hebrew tends to use numerals with singular forms?Actually I think the TIS could have been used the same way in ClassicalAttic. Nor do I think there’s any Semitic influence involved here; whilePaul has Jewish phrasing in certain phrases such as EIS DOXAN QEOU, I thinkthat he has these from long-since Hellenized expressions and that the Greekhe speaks, he speaks as a native of a Greek-speaking city, Tarsus and notas a second language.So, after a week, the target is up for sharpshooters.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/

 

1 Tim 4:10 (was I Cor. 14:18)Col. 2:11

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

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>