Acts 20:28

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

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

cwconrad wrote:
several years ago … I posted a suggestion that the thanksgiving of 1 Cor 1:4-7

1 Corinthians 1:4 wrote:Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῇ χάριτι τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ δοθείσῃ ὑμῖν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 5 ὅτι ἐν παντὶ ἐπλουτίσθητε ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐν παντὶ λόγῳ καὶ πάσῃ γνώσει, 6 καθὼς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐβεβαιώθη ἐν ὑμῖν, 7 ὥστε ὑμᾶς μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν μηδενὶ χαρίσματι ἀπεκδεχομένους τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ·

is ironic or even sarcastic, in view of the attitudes and behavior of the Corinthian congregation which Paul goes on to critique in some detail throughout the letter.

Greek doesn’t seem to use “so called” as much as we do in English. The sense of λεγομένος “are said be” seems to be not so often used or perhaps only a part of the meaning of a broader “so called” in English.

Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 24th, 2014, 8:30 am


Well, these things (along with humour) are always hard to judge and harder to appreciate. I think that during the 20th century when aspect emerged, pretended then reigned in the analysis of verbs, there was a lot of attention given to that one particular clue to meaning. It seems that that fixation on verbal aspect as a trinary discretisation asserted or reinforced the idea that language can be analysed into some thing like a state diagramme. That left questions like this that require a more “softer” analysis on the back burner.

Of course when we read something terse it is easier to see that perhaps there is some impoliteness involved. When it is a question of politeness, we really have to take an educated guess at it. As you say, that is something that there is easily going to be a conscensus about. Analysis of language were the outcome of the analysis is a single right answer makes understanding things such as this unnaturally difficult. There is a need to consider what was not said, but could have been said – “Have you just removed your shoes?” (What’s that smell like dead fish?), OR what was said, and what people could have easily misunderstood – “Every Christmas Bon bon is a Pulitzer Prize” (Pull-it surprise).

Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 24th, 2014, 7:51 am


 

Stephen Hughes wrote:

Acts 20:28 wrote:Προσέχετε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ,

I don’t have a definite opinion on this, but I think that this could be a mild rebuke (reminder) not to mind each other’s business, and get to the job at hand in the face of (coming) outside opposition, rather than quarreling and meddling among themselves. There are two ways of taking the παντὶ, ἐν ᾧ here. One is as all everywhere with out distinction or limitation (all = in every place) and the other is all who are in that particular place (all = don’t neglect any one of them)

I think that is put mildly because if it was very strongly worded, it could be:
διάμενε ἐν τῇ ἐπαύλει / νομῇ σου “Stay in your fold / pasture” (Without respect as a shepherd)
βόσκησον τὰ πρόβατα σου “Tend your sheep.” (Disorganised sheep or small number)
βόσκησον τὸ ἴδικον σου ποίμνιον / τὴν ποίμνην “Tend your own flock.” (Emphasise to keep away from others)
βόσκησον τὸ ποίμνιον σου “Tend your flock.” (Neutral statement, I think)
ποίμαινε τὸ ποίμνιον σου “Shepherd your flock.” (upgrade to a verb involving more skill)
σπούδασον ποιμαίνειν τὸ ποίμνιον σου “Give attention to your shepherding of the flock” (I take commands with σπουδάζω to be an idicator of confidence)
πρόσεχε τὸ ποίμνιον σου “Give heed to your flock” (No specific verb is said, because he trusts their judgement)

Has anyone else
thought about rudeness and politeness in Greek? Could someone criticise my thoughts on the langauge here please.

Well, I’ve thought about it, one time in particular, several years ago, when I posted a suggestion that the thanksgiving of 1 Cor 1:4-7

1 Cor 1:4 Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῇ χάριτι τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ δοθείσῃ ὑμῖν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 5 ὅτι ἐν παντὶ ἐπλουτίσθητε ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐν παντὶ λόγῳ καὶ πάσῃ γνώσει, 6 καθὼς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐβεβαιώθη ἐν ὑμῖν, 7 ὥστε ὑμᾶς μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν μηδενὶ χαρίσματι ἀπεκδεχομένους τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ·

is ironic or even sarcastic, in view of the attitudes and behavior of the Corinthian congregation which Paul goes on to critique in some detail throughout the letter.

Then there’s the obvious sarcasm of Gal 5:12

Ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς.

But this item in Acts 20:28 seems to me a bit more difficult to judge. Why didn’t they have emoticons back in those days? It would have helped to gauge things like this.

I was a bit surprised, Stephen, that you did not make reference to the dialogue of the risen Jesus with Peter in John 21 and the recurrent, slightly-reformulated imperatives, βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου, ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου, βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου. following upon the varied questions, ἀγαπᾷς με;, ἀγαπᾷς με;, φιλεῖς με; — but regarding that dialogue πολλὰ ἀμφισβητητέον. The question is a fascinating one, but I am doubtful that any wholly satisfying consensus on the matter is to be found.

Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — January 24th, 2014, 7:01 am


 

Acts 20:28 wrote:
Προσέχετε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ,

I don’t have a definite opinion on this, but I think that this could be a mild rebuke (reminder) not to mind each other’s business, and get to the job at hand in the face of (coming) outside opposition, rather than quarreling and meddling among themselves. There are two ways of taking the παντὶ, ἐν ᾧ here. One is as all everywhere with out distinction or limitation (all = in every place) and the other is all who are in that particular place (all = don’t neglect any one of them)

I think that is put mildly because if it was very strongly worded, it could be:
διάμενε ἐν τῇ ἐπαύλει / νομῇ σου “Stay in your fold / pasture” (Without respect as a shepherd)
βόσκησον τὰ πρόβατα σου “Tend your sheep.” (Disorganised sheep or small number)
βόσκησον τὸ ἴδικον σου ποίμνιον / τὴν ποίμνην “Tend your own flock.” (Emphasise to keep away from others)
βόσκησον τὸ ποίμνιον σου “Tend your flock.” (Neutral statement, I think)
ποίμαινε τὸ ποίμνιον σου “Shepherd your flock.” (upgrade to a verb involving more skill)
σπούδασον ποιμαίνειν τὸ ποίμνιον σου “Give attention to your shepherding of the flock” (I take commands with σπουδάζω to be an idicator of confidence)
πρόσεχε τὸ ποίμνιον σου “Give heed to your flock” (No specific verb is said, because he trusts their judgement)

Has anyone esle thought about rudeness and politeness in Greek? Could someone criticise my thoughts on the langauge here please.

Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 24th, 2014, 3:27 am


People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]