As an addition, as I could not edit the former text: M. Psellus, In E. Nic. 549.6: “δυνατὸν δὲ αὐτοὺς νικῆσαι οὐκ ἐκ προφανοῦς πο- λέμου”. “it is possible now that they win not out of a forseen battle”. Same author (Oratoria min. 2.37: ” ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῷ μάχεσθαι νικᾶν τε καὶ εἰρήνην ἐκ πολέμου…
Yes, you can say that both egeneto structures provide setting material. However, they are two structures and it is useful to track them separately. The subject structure will introduce participants. The subjectless structure will provide a setting.
Commentators on Acts and Luke have led themselves astray by missing the distinction and making statements like “Luke uses the egeneto structure in both Luke-Acts,” implying that there is no qualitative difference. But there is. And it leads to a significant reappraisal of both works and fits well with other data.
Randall, thanks for the answer. So, are you saying:
(1) The EGENETO + subject structure is both found in Luke and LXX, and can be used to introduce a participant/character as sort of “setting” for a story..
(2) But this subject structure is NOT unique to LXX [Hebrew Bible], and can be a good Greek idiom.
(3) So, only the subjectless EGENETO structure can indicate the relatedness to Hebrew source.
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 21st, 2014, 10:03 pm
Ἐτάραξαν δὲ τὸν ὄχλον καὶ τοὺς πολιτάρχας ἀκούοντας ταῦτα
Robert Emil Berge wrote:
The participle doesn’t need to indicate another causality, and if it did it would be strange, and at least there should have been a hint at what that was.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
Why would the participle indicate a different causality?
The addition of the ταῦτα suggests that meaning may be bigger than the grammatical structures or to say that another way there is a certain ungrammaticalness about the sentence.
If ταῦτα refers to the Ἐτάραξαν δὲ τὸν ὄχλον (a summary (or topicalising restatement) of all that went on before in the previous few verses), then the verb – in an implied form is in καὶ τοὺς πολιτάρχας ἀκούοντας ταῦτα would need to be in the second half too.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
what they were hearing was the actual cause for their being upset (if we were convert this to some kind of passive construction)
For the second half of the sentence, conversion to a passive makes sense.
The unbelieving Jews aggitated the crowd – they are the first causality and the result is the crowd’s aggitation, then upon hearing about these things, the rulers were upset too – the first cause and result is the second causality. That has been harmonised into a string of accusatives following Ἐτάραξαν, rather than re-stating the verb again in another form (perhaps ἐταράχθησαν). The sense of the text moves on to the city-rulers with the λαβόντες τὸ ἱκανὸν παρὰ τοῦ Ἰάσονος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν, ἀπέλυσαν αὐτούς. It seems that that picks up on the implied passive construction.
This seems to be a convoluted form of verb ommission involving syntactic rearrangement, without loss of the change of the flow of the sense.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — September 9th, 2016, 9:01 pm
At least for certain types of verbs, the future ptc is the ‘normal’ way, in literary classical Gk,of expressing purpose. From when I was taught Gk many years ago I remember this as a sort of default setting, as in
ὡρμησαντο ἐπι το τειχισμα ἐπιθησομενοι – they rushed towards the fortification so as to attack it
Statistics: Posted by Dan King — February 13th, 2014, 1:48 am
David Lim wrote:Alan Patterson wrote:Barry wrote:Well, then, what do you think it means? Yes, it’s God’s heart, but it describes David as being a man after God’s heart, following God. How can it mean otherwise than being devoted to God?
It is not DAVID’s devotion to, but it is GOD’s appreciation of…. At least, that’s how it appears on the surface, imo.
I don’t see “appreciation” written in that phrase, but I see the same that Barry says. The phrase just means “a man who does things according to God’s heart”. That is pretty much the same as “a man devoted to God”.
Right. It’s telling us what David is like, not what God is like.
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — May 2nd, 2014, 7:47 pm
Yeah, my objective with Sahidic is even less ambitious than a similar project with Syriac. I thought it would be useful to look at the architecture of the language and see to what extent the versions could be trusted in textual criticism. I thought it would be about as difficult as Syriac coming from Hebrew. I was wrong.
Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — May 23rd, 2017, 3:11 pm
1Th. 4:15 Τοῦτο γὰρ ὑμῖν λέγομεν ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου, ὅτι ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι εἰς τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου οὐ μὴ φθάσωμεν τοὺς κοιμηθέντας· 16 ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ, καταβήσεται ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον, 17 ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ οὕτως πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα.
Spent some time looking over the exegetical history from John Calvin to J. Weima.
He employs the term κελεύσματος, (shout,) and afterwards adds, the voice of the archangel, by way of exposition, intimating what is to be the nature of that arousing shout—that the archangel will discharge the office of a herald to summon the living and the dead to the tribunal of Christ.
Paul is invoking an eschatological – apocalyptic scenario where 98% of the scenario is left to be filled in by the reader. Not sure what can be assumed about the Thessalonian’s familiarity with Second Temple Apocalyptic literature but that isn’t the problem. Paul invokes the scenario as if they were familiar with it. In the apocalyptic literature divine commands are often delivered by a subordinate agent, for example the opening of the seals in the Apocalypse where The Lamb opens the seals but a command is given by one of the living beings:
Rev. 6:1 Καὶ εἶδον ὅτε ἤνοιξεν τὸ ἀρνίον μίαν ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ σφραγίδων, καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων λέγοντος ὡς φωνὴ βροντῆς· ἔρχου.
J. Weima disagrees, he thinks that αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος nails down ὁ κύριος as the agent of κελεύσματι. I don’t follow that. ἐν κελεύσματι is an attendant circumstance. The pronoun αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος draws attention to identity of the agent in the main verb καταβήσεται ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ.
Ran across a somewhat tangential observation about the constituent order in this passage. αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος is a point of departure followed by a long marked focal constituent ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ in the pre-verbal slot. This doesn’t particularly address the question at hand but I thought someone might like to read this paper.
 a Google search: φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου who is speaking, delivered among others J. Weima 2014,
1-2 Thessalonians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)
By Jeffrey A. D. Weima, 2014
 See page 25, Greek Word Order in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11 Stephen Wunrow April 16, 2013
https://www.academia.edu/25302324/Greek … _4_13_5_11
Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — January 20th, 2017, 4:06 pm
J. Robie, thanks. I read the passage from Jannaris and noticed this phrase, “Nevertheless, it is not rigidly adhered to even by A[ttic?] writers. etc.” This points out what probably happened in my thinking. I falsely imagined that language had a mathematical precision to it!! Hopefully, I will learn from this. More Regards.
No such thing as mathematical precision in any language. In the case of the neuter plural/singular verb, the verb most often goes into the plural when people are the referent of the noun, though even that is not an absolute usage.
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — January 1st, 2017, 9:16 am
My rule of thumb is that if a verb is missing and it’s not in immediate parallelism with a preceding clause, try using a form of the verb εἶναι “to be.” That’s how some translations take it anyway.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — March 12th, 2014, 1:36 am
cwconrad wrote:Stephen Hughes wrote:Mark 4:26-29 wrote:Καὶ ἔλεγεν, Οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, ὡς ἐὰν ἄνθρωπος βάλῃ τὸν σπόρον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ καθεύδῃ καὶ ἐγείρηται νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν, καὶ ὁ σπόρος βλαστάνῃ καὶ μηκύνηται ὡς οὐκ οἶδεν αὐτός. Αὐτομάτη γὰρ ἡ γῆ καρποφορεῖ, πρῶτον χόρτον, εἶτα στάχυν, εἶτα πλήρη σῖτον ἐν τῷ στάχυϊ. Ὅταν δὲ παραδῷ ὁ καρπός, εὐθέως ἀποστέλλει τὸ δρέπανον, ὅτι παρέστηκεν ὁ θερισμός.
In BDAG the meaning is παραδῷ “allow”, while the natural sense in the sequence if growth is ”ripen”.
Any thoughts either way?
παραδῷ is aorist; “ripen” is a process word. I’d think that idiomatic English would have to be “is ripe” or better, “is ready for harvest (has yielded its crop)”.
I think Carl’s gloss, “yield”, is the most helpful thing on this thread thus far. “When the crop yields…” It does fit nicely with the more popular usages of the verb.
Statistics: Posted by Jordan Day — May 10th, 2014, 12:15 pm
Stephen Carlson wrote:
As a matter of logic, “If you do X and Y, you will get Z” means that X and Y are sufficient for Z, not that they are necessary for Z. Occasionally, people imply “only if” with their conditionals (which makes it necessary rather than sufficient), but that is a matter of context and, I’m afraid in this case, theology. As a matter of language, it is not precise enough to settle without looking beyond the construction.
Imperative -> if -> only if, that is a lot of scafolding already.
Can anyone recall an example of this in Greek, which is very clearly not requiring both things (only if). Perhaps something like, “Smoke 5 packs of cigarettes per day, eat as much saturated fat as you can, never do exercise, and you will die before you’re 60”. Or an example that does seem to require them like, “Put the key in the lock, and turn the key, and the door will open”.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 31st, 2014, 2:54 am
I don’t know if you would find this helpful, but a really technical analysis of Ancient Greek participles and their relation to the main verb is found here in a article by Dag Haug and Corien Bary: http://semprag.org/article/download/sp.4.8/pdf_1 A poster of their views in brief can be found here: http://www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/english/rese … poster.pdf
The participles you point out would be considered “elaborations” and their function is to provide more information about the main verb. They are not intended to interact with the time of the context (just that of the main verb) or to introduce a new event time into the discourse. In Wallace’s terms, they would be classified as a circumstance participle of manner or something like that.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — February 14th, 2014, 4:31 pm
Thank you, Dr. Carlson. I thought that may have been what you were meaning. I did not notice the “point of departure” in the first example. It is worse when I admit I was reading Levinsohn prior to making that post.
Dr. Conrad, your post contained some information that I need to investigate. Thank you.
Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — January 29th, 2014, 8:31 am
Wes Wood wrote:
Thank you for your reply. Is it safe to say that ἵνα μὴ only negates a main verb? I cannot think of a time when I have heard/seen ‘lest’ where it did not link to a main verb. What I am not sure of is whether Greek works the same way. I am trying to determine what a good English equivalent for this phrase would be, if such a thing exists.
Also, I cannot find a parallel usage except for the one listed in LSJ. The words used appear to be too common for a Perseus search. If anyone would be willing to provide some examples of this phrase being used in other passages (Koine or otherwise), I would greatly appreciate it.
Well, you now have the listing of ἵνα μή clauses in the GNT. I’m not sure what you’re indicating in your comment. I think that “lest” is more or less archaic English: although I grew up with it, practically the only place I ever saw it was in grammar explanations of Latin ne or Greek ἵνα μή clauses. Certainly the ἵνα μή clauses are subordinate to a main verb, as here where the main verb is αἴρει in αἴρει τὸν λόγον ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν. We could raise the question whether the ἵνα μή indicates purpose or result, since ἵνα + subj. is being used in the Koine that way: “The devil makes them forget the word so that …” or “The devil comes along and makes them forget, the result being that they … “
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — December 3rd, 2016, 9:22 am
Barry, I don’t have a clue how long this error has been there in the SBLGNT at STEP bible site. I edited meanings and manuscripts for the Apocalypse of John several years back and didn’t notice it. You would think anyone that read it would report it. …
I concur that Schmid is a good resource on the text of Revelation. I also found that Hoskier was a great resource when working with this text.
Hoskier, Herman Charles. Concerning the text of the Apocalypse: collations of all existing available Greek documents with the standard text of Stephen’s third edition, together with the testimony of versions, commentaries and fathers; a complete conspectus of all authorities Vol. 1. 2 vols., 1929.
Regarding the Byzantine text tradition, at least some of the variation here can be attributed to the fact that Revelation does not appear at all in the lectionary tradition of the Church. We find much greater consistency in the texts that are regularly used in the liturgical services.
Statistics: Posted by spuluka — February 28th, 2014, 10:51 pm
Hefin J. Jones wrote:
Focusing on the forest might take us out of b-greek.
That depends partly on which forest you focus on, but I do think we need to be careful. Here’s a forest that interests me: my impression is that John is very careful in his use of antecedents and pronouns. Iver’s interpretation seems to require a level of imprecision that I would expect in Mark but not in John, but this is purely my impression, based largely on the wonderfully precise and poetic use of reference in the first chapters of John and 1 John.
I have not yet looked carefully at the passages Iver has brought up, I am going to take a look and see if I can find similar examples of imprecise use of antecedents in John. Can anyone think of such examples?
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — March 14th, 2014, 9:39 am
Statistics: Posted by timothy_p_mcmahon — March 18th, 2017, 10:59 pm
Levinsohn is using strengthening as a technical term. It is a fallacy to assume that a technical term means what the non-technical meaning might suggest. One has to study his usage of the term to understand what it means. I haven’t seen any disagreement yet on the actual substance, just unwarranted extrapolations from the particular name he gave to the function. Labels aren’t definitions.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — June 26th, 2014, 11:39 am
Lee Moses wrote:Stephen Hughes wrote:It would seem – correct me if I’ve skipped one – that this supplied “you ” of verse 20 is the only exclusive “we” in a chapter of inclusive “we”‘s.
If you mean inclusive of the addressees, I do not believe this is correct. Vv. 11-13 make clear that “we” includes Paul, but not the Corinthians:
11 Εἰδότες οὖν τὸν φόβον τοῦ κυρίου ἀνθρώπους πείθομεν, θεῷ δὲ πεφανερώμεθα· ἐλπίζω δὲ καὶ ἐν ταῖς συνειδήσεσιν ὑμῶν πεφανερῶσθαι.
12 οὐ πάλιν ἑαυτοὺς συνιστάνομεν ὑμῖν ἀλλὰ ἀφορμὴν διδόντες ὑμῖν καυχήματος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα ἔχητε πρὸς τοὺς ἐν προσώπῳ καυχωμένους καὶ μὴ ἐν καρδίᾳ.
13 εἴτε γὰρ ἐξέστημεν, θεῷ· εἴτε σωφρονοῦμεν, ὑμῖν.
In this chapter, he is discussing all that he has done and continues to do, as he tells the Corinthians, ὑμῖν.
Yes, you seem to be right about those verses. Thank you for your correction and giving me a chance to look at this question again more closely.
The majority of NTG 1st person plural pronouns are inclusive of somebody at least. [The pronoun can refer on a scale from incuding all of humanity to including just the speaker concerned.] It seems that in this chapter there are 3 plausible inclusivities. There are:
2 Corinthians 5:10 wrote:
Τοὺς γὰρ πάντας ἡμᾶς φανερωθῆναι δεῖ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος τοῦ χριστοῦ
“For we must all present ourselves before the judgement of Christ”
This verse seems to be inclusive referring to all peopl e – something for our common humanity.
2 Corinthians 5:5 (RP) wrote:
Ὁ δὲ κατεργασάμενος ἡμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο θεός, ὁ καὶ δοὺς ἡμῖν τὸν ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύματος.
This verse seems to refer to all christians.
Εἴτε γὰρ ἐξέστημεν, θεῷ· εἴτε σωφρονοῦμεν, ὑμῖν.
“For if are beside ourselves, it is for you. If we are soberminded- it is for you.”
Here the inclusivity is for Paul and his fellow ministers, who are the “we” and the Corinthians are the “you”.
The vere we are looking at, verse 20, could possibly be any one of those scale of inclusivities. Which one of them is most plausible is ultimately that is a matter of discussion and interpretation.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — February 4th, 2014, 6:57 am