As opposed to twice the remuneration?Yes.Statistics: Posted by timothy_p_mcmahon — July 11th, 2018, 4:45 pm
Michael Abernathy wrote:
Years ago I read an article (I can’t remember which one) that argued that when the verb for permit is followed by two infinitives the second infinitive often states the purpose of the first infinitive. As I remember the author gave the example of Matthew 8:21 to substantiate his claim.
κύριε, ἐπίτρεψον μοι πρω̂τον ἀπελθει̂ν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου.
Lord, permit me first to go and to bury my father.
We do this in English with a few verbs like ‘go’ and ‘try’.
‘Go and buy some milk’ = ‘go to buy some milk’
‘Try and fix your bicycle’ = ‘try to fix your bicycle’
It seems to me that this happens because the verb demands a complement of this sort. ‘Try’ is inherently purposeful, and purpose is implicit with going, because it is not the going that is the purpose, but whatever one does when one reaches the destination.
My English dictionary, under entry ‘and’, has an addendum which reads:
A small number of verbs, notably ‘try’, ‘come’ and ‘go’ can be followed by ‘and’ with another verb, as in sentences like ‘we’re going to try and explain it to them..’ The structures in these verbs correspond to the use of the infinitive ‘to’, as in ‘we’re going to try to explain it to them..’ .. Since these structures are grammatically odd – for example, the use is normally only idiomatic with the infinitive of the verb and not with other forms (i.e. it is not possible to say ‘I tried and explained it to them’) – they are regarded as wrong by some traditionalists. However, these uses are extremely common in just about every context and can certainly be regarded as standard English.
In English, this isn’t idiomatic with most verbs. And ‘I will teach [you] and fix your bicycle’ would not mean ‘I will teach [you] to fix your bicycle’.
I suspect that the same sort of thing is happening with ἐπίτρεψον μοι πρω̂τον ἀπελθει̂ν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου. καὶ is connective; I think one understands that the terms are sequential – to go and then to bury – and one infers purpose. So I don’t find this example convincing as regards showing anything about ἐπιτρέπω followed by two infinitives. I suspect this is something that happens naturally with ἔρχομαι.
Statistics: Posted by Andrew Chapman — March 17th, 2014, 1:54 pm
Barry Hofstetter wrote:Peter Streitenberger wrote:Dear friends,
Ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς πίστεως, ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς, (1Tim 6,12) – why is the first imperative in the present tense and the second in the Aorist? Is it a call to an ongoing fight of faith and a grasping of eternal live seen as a singe event (if so is it already done or a future event – I mean the grasping).
I would see the force of ἐπιλαβοῦ as “grasp,” “seize firmly.” In my mind the aorist imperative simply looks at the action as a whole, and I wonder if this isn’t really an aktionsart issue?
When I was a kid many, many moons ago (later 1940’s), a popular ditty was “You’ve got to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch on to the affirmative, don’t mess with Mr. Inbetween.” “Latch on to” seems to me perfect colloquial English idiom for ἐπιλαβέσθαι — “get a firm grip on.”
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — May 22nd, 2014, 2:42 pm
The grammar of this verse, especially in the variant that is currently in the critical text,
has been the subject of controversy for over 300 years.
1 Timothy 3:16 (AV)
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.
The Critical Text does not have “God was manifest”, the distinction is well known:
θεός – Received Text, almost all Greek mss
ὃς – Critical Text – a few Greek mss – translated variously
And I won’t go into the ECW and versional support since that involves also evaluating a 3rd variant:
ὃ – Codex Bezae, non-TR reading until Griesbach, supported by Grotius, Newton, Wetstein
So we have the Critical Text, and check your Bibles for the wider section (which you may need for considering antecedents.)
3:16 (CT) καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ
The history on this debate is very rich, a lot of fun to study, and little known. We are looking at that on Facebook forums the last week or so.
And the debate is complicated by the late 1800s development of the hymn (or confession or poem) theory for the verse. An idea that was mildly considered and often rejected … until it was kick-started by Fenton Hort. Once Hort gave his approval, the die was cast, and the theory remains very popular today in textual circles. And it is not my idea to discuss that theory here, however it would be remiss to raise the grammatical issue of the verse without mentioning the theory. The hymn theory says that the antecedent resides in the ethereal hymn and since it is a quotation, no proper antecedent has to be in the NT text for grammar solidity.
Now as to the grammar of the Critical Text:
As an example, Daniel Wallace has a number of comments on the grammar, including (emphasis added):
…1 Tim 3:16 most likely has an entirely different reason for the masculine relative pronoun—namely, because it is probably an embedded hymn fragment, there is no real antecedent. – Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit (2003)
Basically, I am wondering what you think of the grammar. And references you might want to share. The Critical Text is the question. Putting aside hymn theory, which is not really a b-greek discussion, since it goes outside the NT to a text unknown to complete the grammar components.
Hort talked of an “apparent solecism”. Metzger says that the text was changed from ὃς, which he considered the authentic autographic text, “to bring the relative into concord with μυστήριον”.
Statistics: Posted by Steven Avery — June 15th, 2014, 9:55 am
cwconrad wrote:Stephen Carlson wrote:Randall Tan wrote:One could assume an elided participle–but γεγονυῖα is actually what would need to be elided, not ὤν (a widow is not currently the wife of one husband)–but the contextually-easily-supplied ὤν is more likely to be elided than the more affected form γεγονυῖα in the first place. This consideration contributed further to our conclusion that ὤν was elided in relation to ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα & that γεγονυῖα belongs with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.
I suppose γενομένη could be supplied to get the appropriate sense.
It seems to me that γεγονυῖα is an integral part of the idiomatic expression meaning “x years old”, while construing γεγονυῖα with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή — a Greek equivalent of the idiomatic Latin laudatory epithet univira, “committed life-long to one husband” — strikes me as absurd. I think that the μὴ does qualify just the phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα and that the genitive phrase is clearly a genitive of comparison construed with ἔλαττον. I see no problem with assuming an elliptical ὢν with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.
People are duscussing the relatives strengths of the (merel hypothetical /conjectured) participles, I would like to change that emphasis. I think that the strength (or recognisability ) of the element with which the particle is used will have bearing on the tendencies for elision.
If ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή was a readily recognisable laudatory epithet (as claimed) (virtually = adjectival unit) for an older woman (alive or no longer alive) then it would be less likely to need the aid of the (a) participle to bring attention to bear on it’s meaning, than the variable phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα would need.
I think the force of the statement ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή requires a participle that can give the force of “she has always been”. The ούσα suggested above may or may not convey that, and I feel that the suggestion of
γενομένη might do so, but the best would be a doubling of the γεγονυῖα.
If it was doubled, then it would be lost from the strongest (independent – self-standing) element and retained by the weakest (non-independent, the one that needs help to stand, least-able-stand-by-itself) element.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 29th, 2014, 4:41 pm
Andrew Chapman wrote:
Are not the three from Euripides all genitive plurals of αὐθέντης?
Could be. I didn’t bother to check and it’s the kind of thing that could cause the lemmatizer to go astray.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — March 24th, 2014, 2:03 pm
NAUAGEO in 1 Timothy 1:19 First, the Greek: ECWV PISTIN KAI AGAQHN SUNEIDHSIN HN TINES APWSAMENOI PERI THN PISTIN ENAUAGHSAN then the English: keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. [NASB] then the question: A check of online lexicons simply says that NAUAGEO means…
I think this message was misaddressed — it was sent to the list-administrators rather than to the list directly. Please note: messages intended for the discussion list should be addressed to: @lists.ibiblio.org On May 2, 2011, at 8:12 AM, ceejay haymen wrote: > Many translations have something like this”Even so [must their] wives [be] grave,…
 1 Timothy 2:4-5 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com Sat Mar 19 11:07:55 EDT 2011  1 Timothy 2:4-5  1 Timothy 2:4-5 I would say that whoever wishes to understand ὅς hOS as having a causal meaning needs to provide some proof that such can indeed be the case — which I don’t…
How many have heard of Arthur Sanders Way (1847-1930)? Wikipedia has a good description of him as a Greek scholar, teacher and translator. Let me quote a bit from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Way Way’s versions give accurate renderings of the meaning of the originals expressed in vigorous verse. The list of his translations in Miller’s Australian Literature includes…