EULOGHMENOS hO ERCOMENOS EN ONOMATI KURIOU Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk Tue Oct 19 09:24:47 EDT 1999 FW: GAR and Paratactic Connectors a good greek bible On Tue 19 Oct 1999 (02:57:20), spuluka at hotmail.com wrote:> Psalm 117:26 (118:26) is sung during the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in > the Orthodox tradition right…
 Mark 5:9 Singular explained as Plural? Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com Thu Dec 22 20:30:14 EST 2005  Mark 2:19 DUNAMAI  Mark 5:9 Singular explained as Plural? KAI EPHRWTA AUTON, TI ONOMA SOI; KAI LEGEI AUTWiLEGIWN ONOMA MOI, hOTI POLLOI ESMEN.Is not LEGEI singular? And isn’t MOI singular? TheMOI…POLLOI at first looked…
KJV Mt. 2:4 Ted Mann theomann at earthlink.net Mon Jun 11 17:00:44 EDT 2001 Questions about questions KJV Mt. 2:4 In Mt. 2:4, whereas the NASB, NIV, etc., translate EPUQAVETO as “he asked,”or “inquired,” I notice the KJV has “demanded,” which produces quite adifferent sense to me. Is “demanded,” a less apt translation or is…
Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Jonathan Robie jonathan.robie at sagus.com Mon May 17 17:08:49 EDT 1999 Glassman Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Here’s a phrase that has thrown me for a loop. The Scribes of thePharisees? I thought they were two distinct groups.How is this to be understood?Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek…
Mk 16:2 Constituent Order c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net Tue Jun 26 14:57:36 EDT 2001 Sorry The text of Luke 2:2 and word order Anyone have anything to say about why ANATEILANTOS TOU hHLIOU shows up atthe end of the clause in Mk 16:2. Mark piles up so many adverbials in thisclause that…
Mark 3:16-19: what a strange construction! Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr Wed Jan 8 06:56:00 EST 2003 Sorry for Repeat Mark 3:16-19: what a strange construction! Hi all, I am reading Mark. This time it goes well. I hope to finish it this timeMark 3:16 – 19:[KAI EPOIHSEN TOUS DWDEKA](1) KAI EPEQHKEN ONOMA TWi SIMONI…
 Mark 16:18 AROUSIN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Tue Feb 4 06:08:55 EST 2003  SE in Mark 1:24  Mark 16:18 AROUSIN Forwarded for Harry Jones:From: “Harry W. Jones” <hwjones2 at earthlink.net>Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 02:17:57 -0800Hello All,My question concerns KAI EN TAIS CERSIN OFEIS AROUSIN.I have noticed that some translations…
Ekklesia Tony Calman tcalman at optusnet.com.au Sun May 9 19:10:57 EDT 1999 dia + genitive John 5:26 I have been considering the difference between a “congregation” and a “church” (if any)? The hebrew words qahal or edah seems to be translated by the word ekklesia in the LXX, which is often translated by the…
Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com Mon Dec 20 20:36:43 EST 1999 Philippians 2:6 Philippians 2:6 Interpretations of 8.35:Paul Dixon (PD):> > << whoever desires to save his life (eternally) shall lose it> (temporally)> > and whoever loses his life temporally on account of me and the> > gospel, shall find it…
Mark ch 15, v. 2 HoLogos at aol.com HoLogos at aol.com Tue Jun 9 01:43:29 EDT 1998 BHS Received!! BHS Received!! Dear George,Thank’s for your e-mail. I had brought up the SU LEGEIS of Jesus to Pilate inMark 15:2.To answer your question as to whether my question had been answered: EdgarFoster suggested a book…
We are finally able to provide the published text of the article on the “cry of dereliction” from the Brill volume, The Language Environment of First Century Judaea, Randall Buth and R Steven Notley edd., (Brill, 2014, ISBN 9789004263406). The PDF of Randall Buth, “The Riddle of Jesus’ Cry from the Cross: the Meaning of ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι (Matthew 27:46) and the Literary Function of ελωι ελωι λειμα σαβαχθανι (Mark 15:34)” is avaiable at:
www.biblicalLanguageCenter.com under “community” “BLC blog”
It is a fitting read/study for passion week.
Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — April 17th, 2014, 4:54 am
Wes Wood wrote:
Thanks for the responses the indirect question makes perfect sense. And the second part I don’t have a problem with either. I am meaning authorial foreshadowing inside the pericope, however. Nothing more than the author tipping his hand to what is going to happen in the narrative.
It’s a completely ordinary phrase as Timothy pointed out. It is easy to find its usage as simply “arise” in places like Mat 2:13, 9:19 26:46, Mark 10:49 14:42,. It clearly implies rising from a settled position, but nothing more. In fact, Luke 6:8 makes very clear what “εγειρε”/”εγειραι” in Mark 3:3 means.
Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 17th, 2014, 7:18 am
καὶ ἤνεγκαν αὐτὸν πρὸς αὐτόν. καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν τὸ πνεῦμα εὐθὺς συνεσπάραξεν αὐτόν, καὶ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκυλίετο ἀφρίζων.
I can see two ways of reading this – either the boy is the one who ἰδὼν Jesus, or the spirit within him (so masc. part. is CAS).
Looking at the other participles in the verse, they clearly describe physical actions that the boy is doing (πεσὼν … ἀφρίζων), so my initial instinct is to read ἰδὼν as referring to the boy, and not the spirit. Would then account for the mention of τὸ πνεῦμα as giving a separate subject for the action of the verb συνεσπάραξεν.
A third option would be to not think of the two as separate entities, and so it’s not a case of “either/or” but “both”, as they’re rather intertwined at this moment.
I see a similar thing in Mark 9:26 – καὶ κράξας καὶ πολλὰ σπαράξας ἐξῆλθεν – the participles describe the physical actions of the boy, and the verb is the action that the spirit does (‘And after crying out and convulsing violently, it departed’).
Statistics: Posted by S Walch — February 18th, 2017, 8:30 pm
If anything, I’d simply like to add here what I think is really pretty clear from the outset: the problem being raised here and the solution(s) being offered don’t hinge on the phrasing of the Greek text.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — June 6th, 2014, 1:22 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote:If John was in the thick of it, he was relating a part event that Peter wasn’t an ear-witness to.I fear that taking this position is wrapping an assumption in another assumption. If Matthew and Mark are taking a bird’s eye view, t…
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
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
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑April 17th, 2017, 11:59 pm
As far as I can tell, there’s no simple relation between the two. They’re different things. The fact that they share the term “topic” seems to be creating expectations they are more closely related, but they are not.
I really do think I’ve heard some other people imply that there is a closer relationship than that, but those people may be confused too.
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑April 17th, 2017, 11:59 pmLambrecht’s books has been very popular and influential. He provides (his own) definitions for topic and focus. It is similar to what Levinsohn is doing, but not identical. I think Levinsohn follows Simon Dik more (whom I haven’t read). So does Helma Dik.
I have Simon Dik’s book. It is very clearly written, I should work my way through it.
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑April 17th, 2017, 11:59 pmLevinsohn has actually published quite a bit. To understand him, that’s the first and best place to go. His coursebook, though dated, lays out several of the concepts, but he’s been updating them in other publications. Many of these are on his website. If you can read Spanish, you may find his introduction to his Galatians analysis helpful.
Thanks, I’ll look there. My … Spanish … is not great. But that kind of technical Spanish may or may not be possible.
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 18th, 2017, 10:19 am
I also got the black faux leather version. I have to say that it is the nicest looking GNT I’ve seen. Even the black box it comes in is really well done. Two big thumbs up. The page layout is excellent and uncluttered. The paragraph break format…
Syntax Mark 8:4 Jim West jwest at highland.net Mon May 3 07:30:10 EDT 1999 Syntax Mark 8:4 subjunctive contingency At 07:02 AM 5/3/99 +0000, you wrote:>I think the basic intent of the passage is clear, but I am having trouble >on just how best to translate the passage for myself as a result, (I…