James 4:5

James 4:5 Steven Cox scox at Mail.Sparkice.COM.CN
Mon Jul 19 23:32:11 EDT 1999

 

book James 4:5 Where is James quoting from?PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMINSteven

 

bookJames 4:5

James 4:5 N & RJ Hanscamp nar.hanscamp at clear.net.nz
Tue Jul 20 00:37:24 EDT 1999

 

James 4:5 Greek courses >Where is James quoting from?>PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMIN> >StevenApparently Exodus 20.5NigelNigel and Rebecca HanscampTrinity Methodist Theological CollegeAuckland Consortium of Theological Education, New ZealandEmail: nar.hanscamp at clear.net.nz

 

James 4:5Greek courses

James 4:5 Steven Cox scox at Mail.Sparkice.COM.CN
Mon Jul 19 23:32:11 EDT 1999

 

book James 4:5 Where is James quoting from?PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMINSteven

 

bookJames 4:5

James 4:5 N & RJ Hanscamp nar.hanscamp at clear.net.nz
Tue Jul 20 00:37:24 EDT 1999

 

James 4:5 Greek courses >Where is James quoting from?>PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMIN> >StevenApparently Exodus 20.5NigelNigel and Rebecca HanscampTrinity Methodist Theological CollegeAuckland Consortium of Theological Education, New ZealandEmail: nar.hanscamp at clear.net.nz

 

James 4:5Greek courses

James 4:5 Steven Cox scox at Mail.Sparkice.COM.CN
Tue Jul 20 04:27:11 EDT 1999

 

Greek courses James 4:5 Thankyou NigelBut is it possible for FQONOS to be used in a positive sense??Steven>Apparently Exodus 20.5

 

Greek coursesJames 4:5

James 4:5 Steven Cox scox at Mail.Sparkice.COM.CN
Tue Jul 20 04:27:11 EDT 1999

 

Greek courses James 4:5 Thankyou NigelBut is it possible for FQONOS to be used in a positive sense??Steven>Apparently Exodus 20.5

 

Greek coursesJames 4:5

James 4:5 Al Lukaszewski alski at fuller.edu
Tue Jul 20 04:59:10 EDT 1999

 

James 4:5 book The fact that James’ citation makes reference to the spirit of the deitybeing jealous can, IMHO, intimate the use of a tradition *based upon* Exodus20.5 but the text does not seem to suggest that the author had thatparticular text in mind. Of the 7 quotations in James, only 6 are bona fideOT citations — most from Semitic source (IMO). This, the 7th, is from anas yet unidentified source. I think the safer path is to stick to thetraditional perspective that James is citing a text which is yet to bediscovered. Paul does this too when he refers to Jesus as saying that it ismore blessed to give than to receive (assuming a written Jesus traditionhere for illustrative purposes).I think it might be argued that this passage in James may be derived fromthe same text as Paul’s assertion in Gal 5.17, per the NA27 marginalreference.Regards,Albert L. Lukaszewskialski at fuller.edu <mailto:alski at fuller.edu>

 

James 4:5book

James 4:5 Al Lukaszewski alski at fuller.edu
Tue Jul 20 04:59:10 EDT 1999

 

James 4:5 book The fact that James’ citation makes reference to the spirit of the deitybeing jealous can, IMHO, intimate the use of a tradition *based upon* Exodus20.5 but the text does not seem to suggest that the author had thatparticular text in mind. Of the 7 quotations in James, only 6 are bona fideOT citations — most from Semitic source (IMO). This, the 7th, is from anas yet unidentified source. I think the safer path is to stick to thetraditional perspective that James is citing a text which is yet to bediscovered. Paul does this too when he refers to Jesus as saying that it ismore blessed to give than to receive (assuming a written Jesus traditionhere for illustrative purposes).I think it might be argued that this passage in James may be derived fromthe same text as Paul’s assertion in Gal 5.17, per the NA27 marginalreference.Regards,Albert L. Lukaszewskialski at fuller.edu <mailto:alski at fuller.edu>

 

James 4:5book

[Fwd: Re: James 4:5] Jonathan Ryder jpr1001 at cam.ac.uk
Tue Jul 20 07:09:06 EDT 1999

 

book: PLEASE NOTE! book: PLEASE NOTE! Steven Cox wrote:> > Where is James quoting from?> PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMIN> > Steven> >To add to comments already received.Off the top of my head, I think you’ll find that some commentators argue thatJames isn’t quoting here at all, but the sentence can be construed quitedifferently. They argue, variously, that H DOKEITE hOTI KENWS hH GRAFH LEGEI isstandalone ‘Or do you suppose that (the) scripture ‘speaks’ in vain?’, or thatJames has in mind the subsequent scripture in v6, or some other scripture by wayof allusion.Also, as no doubt you’re aware, commentators have various different ways ofconstruing the actual phrase in question: PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hOKATWiKISEN EN hUMIN. The basic questions are ‘is TO PNEUMA …’ subject orobject of EPIPOQEI?’, and ‘whose spirit – God’s (Holy) Spirit or man’s spirit?’See, amongst others, Luke Johnson’s recent contribution to the Anchor Bibleseries for most of the above.Jonathan Ryder

 

book: PLEASE NOTE!book: PLEASE NOTE!

[Fwd: Re: James 4:5] Jonathan Ryder jpr1001 at cam.ac.uk
Tue Jul 20 07:09:06 EDT 1999

 

book: PLEASE NOTE! book: PLEASE NOTE! Steven Cox wrote:> > Where is James quoting from?> PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMIN> > Steven> >To add to comments already received.Off the top of my head, I think you’ll find that some commentators argue thatJames isn’t quoting here at all, but the sentence can be construed quitedifferently. They argue, variously, that H DOKEITE hOTI KENWS hH GRAFH LEGEI isstandalone ‘Or do you suppose that (the) scripture ‘speaks’ in vain?’, or thatJames has in mind the subsequent scripture in v6, or some other scripture by wayof allusion.Also, as no doubt you’re aware, commentators have various different ways ofconstruing the actual phrase in question: PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hOKATWiKISEN EN hUMIN. The basic questions are ‘is TO PNEUMA …’ subject orobject of EPIPOQEI?’, and ‘whose spirit – God’s (Holy) Spirit or man’s spirit?’See, amongst others, Luke Johnson’s recent contribution to the Anchor Bibleseries for most of the above.Jonathan Ryder

 

book: PLEASE NOTE!book: PLEASE NOTE!

James 4:5 Ron Rhoades rrhoades at jps.net
Tue Jul 20 16:14:58 EDT 1999

 

first and second aorist confusion James 4:5 I have it in my notes that James possibly paraphrased such texts asGenesis 6:5;8:21; Proverbs 21:10; and Galatians 5:17.I have no evidence pro or con as to the likelihood of that. Or ofother possiblesources for his quote. Anyone?Ron RhoadesSteven Cox wrote:> Where is James quoting from?> PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMIN> > Steven

 

first and second aorist confusionJames 4:5

James 4:5 Ron Rhoades rrhoades at jps.net
Tue Jul 20 16:14:58 EDT 1999

 

first and second aorist confusion James 4:5 I have it in my notes that James possibly paraphrased such texts asGenesis 6:5;8:21; Proverbs 21:10; and Galatians 5:17.I have no evidence pro or con as to the likelihood of that. Or ofother possiblesources for his quote. Anyone?Ron RhoadesSteven Cox wrote:> Where is James quoting from?> PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMIN> > Steven

 

first and second aorist confusionJames 4:5

James 4:5 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Tue Jul 20 19:02:09 EDT 1999

 

James 4:5 IMHO? On Tue 20 Jul 99 (11:32:11 +0800), scox at mail.sparkice.com.cn wrote:> Where is James quoting from?> PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMIN JA Bengel writes that because FQONOS does not occur in the LXX, James must be quoting from a /New Testament/ Scripture: and he offers 1 Peter 2:1, 2, and 5 as possibilities. He also suggests Galatians 5:17, where FQONOI, envyings, are place among the works of the flesh, and the Spirit is said to have desires contrary to the flesh, and they who are led by this Spirit are not under the Law but under Grace. H Alford, /The Greek New Testament/, Cambridge, 1874, /ad loc/ suggests “There is nothing improbable in the idea that James may have combined the general sense of Scripture on the point of God’s jealousy over his people….” [In Deuteronomy 32:10, 19 LXX are found] “the elements of the sense of that which is cited”. Mitton comments “1. ‘The spirit’ is either (a) subject: ‘the spirit yearns’, or (b) object: ‘(God) yearns over the spirit’. 2. ‘The spirit’ is either (a) the Holy Spirit, given by God to indwell his people, or (b) the spirit which God breathed into man (Gn 2:7). 3. ‘Jealously’ is in the Greek a noun, ‘jealousy’, and signifies either (a) God’s longing for the full devotion of His ‘bride’, or (b) the evil quality which infects the human heart.” In many passages, God’s ‘jealousy’ over his people is expressed: e.g. Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; Ezekiel 39:25; Joel 2:18; Zechariah 1:14; 8:2 (etc). HTH Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

 

James 4:5IMHO?

James 4:5 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Tue Jul 20 19:02:09 EDT 1999

 

James 4:5 IMHO? On Tue 20 Jul 99 (11:32:11 +0800), scox at mail.sparkice.com.cn wrote:> Where is James quoting from?> PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hUMIN JA Bengel writes that because FQONOS does not occur in the LXX, James must be quoting from a /New Testament/ Scripture: and he offers 1 Peter 2:1, 2, and 5 as possibilities. He also suggests Galatians 5:17, where FQONOI, envyings, are place among the works of the flesh, and the Spirit is said to have desires contrary to the flesh, and they who are led by this Spirit are not under the Law but under Grace. H Alford, /The Greek New Testament/, Cambridge, 1874, /ad loc/ suggests “There is nothing improbable in the idea that James may have combined the general sense of Scripture on the point of God’s jealousy over his people….” [In Deuteronomy 32:10, 19 LXX are found] “the elements of the sense of that which is cited”. Mitton comments “1. ‘The spirit’ is either (a) subject: ‘the spirit yearns’, or (b) object: ‘(God) yearns over the spirit’. 2. ‘The spirit’ is either (a) the Holy Spirit, given by God to indwell his people, or (b) the spirit which God breathed into man (Gn 2:7). 3. ‘Jealously’ is in the Greek a noun, ‘jealousy’, and signifies either (a) God’s longing for the full devotion of His ‘bride’, or (b) the evil quality which infects the human heart.” In many passages, God’s ‘jealousy’ over his people is expressed: e.g. Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; Ezekiel 39:25; Joel 2:18; Zechariah 1:14; 8:2 (etc). HTH Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

 

James 4:5IMHO?

James 4:5 Al Lukaszewski alski at fuller.edu
Wed Jul 21 00:51:17 EDT 1999

 

IMHO? OCR While I agree that God’s jealousy for his people is expressed in numerousplaces, I wonder whether there are other examples where authors combine’general senses’ in ways similar to what Alford purports that James hasdone.Being in the middle of a move I do not have access to all my referencematerials. Are there modern scholars who agree with this view? Based onwhat I have read, I do not recall anyone taking up this line in more moderntimes.AlAlbert L. Lukaszewskialski at fuller.edu <mailto:alski at fuller.edu>> H Alford, /The Greek New Testament/, Cambridge, 1874, /ad loc/ suggests> “There is nothing improbable in the idea that James may have combined> the general sense of Scripture on the point of God’s jealousy over> his people….” [In Deuteronomy 32:10, 19 LXX are found] “the elements> of the sense of that which is cited”.

 

IMHO?OCR

James 4:5 Al Lukaszewski alski at fuller.edu
Wed Jul 21 00:51:17 EDT 1999

 

IMHO? OCR While I agree that God’s jealousy for his people is expressed in numerousplaces, I wonder whether there are other examples where authors combine’general senses’ in ways similar to what Alford purports that James hasdone.Being in the middle of a move I do not have access to all my referencematerials. Are there modern scholars who agree with this view? Based onwhat I have read, I do not recall anyone taking up this line in more moderntimes.AlAlbert L. Lukaszewskialski at fuller.edu <mailto:alski at fuller.edu>> H Alford, /The Greek New Testament/, Cambridge, 1874, /ad loc/ suggests> “There is nothing improbable in the idea that James may have combined> the general sense of Scripture on the point of God’s jealousy over> his people….” [In Deuteronomy 32:10, 19 LXX are found] “the elements> of the sense of that which is cited”.

 

IMHO?OCR

[] PROS FQONON James4:5 Rbsads at aol.com Rbsads at aol.com
Mon Sep 15 08:32:22 EDT 2003

 

[] Re: QEOS and KURIOS : a strange choice of words? [] PROS FQONON James4:5 PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hHMINHow is it best to understand the phrase PROS FQONON?Several translation seems to offer different readings, either taking the phrase literally as a preposition or taking the phrase periphrastically as an adverb.”Longs toward envy.” KJV “lusteth to envy””Enviously longs.”The RSV even breaks with most translations by treating TO PHEUMA as the object of EPIPOQEI rather than as its subject.If PROS FQONON is best considered as an adverb, what might be the object of EPIPOQEI?And, given the resolution of PROS FQONON, how might the whole of verse 5 be understood in relation to verse 6 which completes the sentence.The NEB renders the two verses as “(5) Or do you suppose that Scripture has no meaning when it says that the spirit which God implanted in man turns towards envious desires? (6) And yet the grace he gives is stronger.”This rendering seems to require that the referenced indwelling spirit is not the Holy Spirit, but rather something spiritual and good but less the Holy Spirit?Any thoughts are appreciated.Peace,Richard SmithChattanooga, TN

 

[] Re: QEOS and KURIOS : a strange choice of words? [] PROS FQONON James4:5

[] PROS FQONON James4:5 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Sep 15 15:46:17 EDT 2003

 

[] PROS FQONON James4:5 [] PROS FQONON James4:5 At 8:32 AM -0400 9/15/03, Rbsads at aol.com wrote:>PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hHMIN> >How is it best to understand the phrase PROS FQONON?> >Several translation seems to offer different readings, either taking the>phrase literally as a preposition or taking the phrase periphrastically as an>adverb.> >“Longs toward envy.” KJV “lusteth to envy”> >“Enviously longs.”> >The RSV even breaks with most translations by treating TO PHEUMA as the>object of EPIPOQEI rather than as its subject.> >If PROS FQONON is best considered as an adverb, what might be the object of>EPIPOQEI?> >And, given the resolution of PROS FQONON, how might the whole of verse 5 be>understood in relation to verse 6 which completes the sentence.> >The NEB renders the two verses as “(5) Or do you suppose that Scripture has>no meaning when it says that the spirit which God implanted in man turns>towards envious desires? (6) And yet the grace he gives is stronger.”> >This rendering seems to require that the referenced indwelling spirit is not>the Holy Spirit, but rather something spiritual and good but less the Holy>Spirit?A tough nut to crack; I’ve attempted to comment on this before, but I haveno real confidence in any answer to the questions involved in this text.You might, for what it’s worth consult the list archives; I’ve found thefollowing:David J. Rising10:36 AM 11/8/96Questions from James 4:5Randall McRoberts7:56 AM 1/22/97James 4:5Francisco Orozco1:29 PM 4/25/98Re: How to translate Jam 4.5David L. Moore9:22 PM 4/25/98Re: How to translate Jam 4.5Dmitriy Reznik6:13 PM 6/13/99The meaning of FQONOS in Ja 4:5Steven Cox11:32 PM 7/19/99Re: James 4:5N & RJ Hanscamp12:37 AM 7/20/99Re: James 4:5Steven Cox4:27 AM 7/20/99Re: James 4:5Jonathan Ryder7:09 AM 7/20/99Re: James 4:5Ron Rhoades4:14 PM 7/20/99Re: James 4:5Ben Crick7:02 PM 7/20/99Re: James 4:5Harold R. Holmyard III2:27 PM 5/24/00FQONOS in Jas 4:5clayton bartholomew4:22 PM 5/24/00Re: FQONOS in Jas 4:5Carl W. Conrad10:21 AM 5/25/00Re: FQONOS in Jas 4:5Robert_Pirewicz6:36 AM 1/10/01[] PROS FQONONmyron kauk1:07 PM 1/10/01[] Re: PROS FQONON– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] PROS FQONON James4:5[] PROS FQONON James4:5

[] PROS FQONON James4:5 Iver iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Sep 16 02:52:56 EDT 2003

 

[] PROS FQONON James4:5 [] middle voice Richard,This is an interesting and of course difficult and disputed verse. Let meoffer some thoughts, whether original or not.First, I think we need to see v. 5 in the context of v. 4 (and all precedingverses in the chapter) before looking at v. 6:v. 4 MOICALIDES, OUK OIDATE hOTI hH FILIA TOU KOSMOU ECQRA TOU QEOU ESTIN…v. 5 H DOKEITE hOTI KENWS hH GRAFH LEGEI:> PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKISEN EN hHMIN> > How is it best to understand the phrase PROS FQONON?<snip>> “Enviously longs.”Yes.Although the statement is introduced as if it was a quote from the OT, thereis no such passage, so it must be a summary of OT teaching about God’sfeelings of jealousy towards anything that takes our devotion away form him.The verb EPIPOQEW is used a number of times in the GNT, always in a positivesense of “longing (to experience something good)”. Neither the words “lust”or “yearn” are helpful glosses here, IMO. The usual contextual background inthese instances is love and affection coupled with a wish for furtherfellowship.I take God to be the implied subject of the verb which makes TO PNEUMA theobject.TO PNEUMA can hardly be the human spirit or the breath of life from Gen 2:7(LXX uses PNOH, not PNEUMA here). It is more likely the Holy Spirit thatcomes to indwell every believer. (John 20:22, Eph 3:16-17).The previous verses talk about a war between two opposing forces, similar toGal 5: Bad desires that have their origin in FILIA TOU KOSMOU, and gooddesires that have their origin in God and the Holy Spirit. James seems to besaying that a Christian cannot serve two masters at the same time: the worldand God, echoing the words of Jesus. If you leave your devotion to God andbecome devoted to the world, you are adulterous. James calls such peopleMOICALIDES in line with OT terminology. It is from this background that theexpression “towards jealousy” comes in. God longs for the full devotion ofhis people, and is jealous of any other “god” (Mammon or whoever) who getsthe devotion of his people. So, I would take the prepositional phrase as anadverbial phrase that describes God’s longing. He longs very much, even tothe extent of (PROS) being jealous.> > If PROS FQONON is best considered as an adverb, what might be the> object of EPIPOQEI?Grammatically, the object seems to be TO PNEUMA, but something appears to beimplied from the word “longing”. God longs to see and experience the workand fruit of that holy Spirit whom he made to dwell in us and whose task isto counteract the works of the flesh.> > And, given the resolution of PROS FQONON, how might the whole of> verse 5 be understood in relation to verse 6 which completes the sentence.I wouldn’t say that v. 6 completes the sentence (contra NIV). v. 6 adds anew aspect (DE) to the war between the bad desires of the flesh and the goodlonging of God for the work of the Spirit in us to be seen and be effected.If we are humble and devoted to God, he will give us grace, and that powerof grace is greater than the power of the attraction of the world thatoccupies the proud/selfish people.Those were my thoughts, briefly stated,As for translation, I have not found a single English version that Iconsider to give the correct meaning, assuming of course, that my exegesisis correct.My own idiomatic translation that makes some implicit information explicit,would be something like:”It is not without reason when the Scriptures say that God is jealouslylonging to see that the spirit that he caused to live in us is making usfaithful and loyal towards him.”Iver LarsenSIL translation consultant

 

[] PROS FQONON James4:5[] middle voice

[] James 4:5 PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKHSEN ENhHMIN Jonathan Robie jonathan.robie at datadirect.com
Tue Sep 30 13:22:05 EDT 2003

 

[] 1 COR 11.7 [] Re: Digest, Vol 9, Issue 29 I have spent a lot of time chewing on this:James 4:5-4:6a: H DOKEITE hOTI KENWS hH GRAFH LEGEI, PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hOKATWiKHSEN EN hHMIN; MEIZONA DE DIDWSI XARIN.This is hard for me to make sense of, though a few possibilities seem to make sense. The New Oxford Commentary suggests that this might be interpreted as two separate questions: H DOKEITE hOTI KENWS hH GRAFH LEGEI; PROS FQONON EPIPOQEI TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKHSEN EN hHMIN; MEIZONA DE DIDWSI XARIN.This would come out something like, “Or do you think the scripture speaks in vain? [do you think that] he placed his spirit in us for jealousy?” I have to admit that the reason I like this is simply that I don’t think of FQONON as something that is associated with God or with the spirit he placed in us – but does it seem to fit?Or is God being presented as a jealous husband here, who will not tolerate our adultery (see MOICALIDES in James 4:4)? In this case, though, I don’t quite understand the role of TO PNEUMA hO KATWiKHSEN EN hHMIN.Several other translations have been suggested, and I frankly don’t know quite what some of these translations would mean in English. For instance, I can’t quite figure out what the KJV “The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?” means. Is that the same thing as the GNB translation “The spirit that God placed in us is filled with fierce desires”?Help!Jonathan

 

[] 1 COR 11.7[] Re: Digest, Vol 9, Issue 29

James 5:13

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Mon Jan 3 11:22:01 EST 2000

 

Subject: James 5:13-19 Ign. Eph. 15:3 At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN, EXhWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON. “He/It will be made manifest before our face(i.e., he will be revealed to us OR it will be made clear to us)…” Butthen what do you make of the plural relative hWN following thepreposition EX?– Bart Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

 

Subject: James 5:13-19Ign. Eph. 15:3

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jan 3 12:14:48 EST 2000

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Subject: James 5:13-19 At 11:22 AM -0500 1/3/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN, EX>hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON. “He/It will be made manifest before our face>(i.e., he will be revealed to us OR it will be made clear to us)…” But>then what do you make of the plural relative hWN following the>preposition EX?I love these puzzles you keep throwing at us. One thought that comes to mymind immediately is that EX hWN is one of those prepositional phrasesintroducing a clause wherein antecedent is implicitly squeezed into therelative, so that we should understand something like EKEINA/TAUTA EX hWNDIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON, which could conceivably be the subject of FANHSETAIPRO PROSWPOU hHMWN; hence: “Those factors in consequence of which werightly love him will be manifested before us.” i.e. perhaps the subject ofFANHSETAI is NOT Christ but rather the relative clause as a substantive.(Well, it seemed worth trying …)Alternatively (I obviously don’t have the larger context PRO PROSWPOU MOU),is there anything in the preceding text that could provide an antecedent tohWN? It could be neuter plural even if relatively vague.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.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3Subject: James 5:13-19

Ign. Eph. 15:3 James Ernest jernest at hendrickson.com
Mon Jan 3 12:53:34 EST 2000

 

Subject: James 5:13-19 “Enemy” as gloss for EXQROS (and Sin, Nun, Aleph) Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) asrough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historicalidentify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent? Idon’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badlyif I’m just being dumb here…. I would try checking BDF and maybe somesearches in electronic texts.James Ernest—–Original Message—–From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 12:15 PMTo: Biblical GreekCc: Biblical GreekSubject: Re: Ign. Eph. 15:3At 11:22 AM -0500 1/3/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN,EX>hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON. “He/It will be made manifest before ourface>(i.e., he will be revealed to us OR it will be made clear to us)…”But>then what do you make of the plural relative hWN following the>preposition EX?I love these puzzles you keep throwing at us. One thought that comes tomymind immediately is that EX hWN is one of those prepositional phrasesintroducing a clause wherein antecedent is implicitly squeezed into therelative, so that we should understand something like EKEINA/TAUTA EXhWNDIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON, which could conceivably be the subject ofFANHSETAIPRO PROSWPOU hHMWN; hence: “Those factors in consequence of which werightly love him will be manifested before us.” i.e. perhaps the subjectofFANHSETAI is NOT Christ but rather the relative clause as a substantive.(Well, it seemed worth trying …)Alternatively (I obviously don’t have the larger context PRO PROSWPOUMOU),is there anything in the preceding text that could provide an antecedenttohWN? It could be neuter plural even if relatively vague.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.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/— home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/You are currently subscribed to as: jernest at hendrickson.comTo unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu

 

Subject: James 5:13-19″Enemy” as gloss for EXQROS (and Sin, Nun, Aleph)

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Alex / Ali alexali at surf.net.au
Tue Jan 4 07:34:17 EST 2000

 

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Ign. Eph. 15:3 (fwd) Bart Ehrman asked about Ign. Eph. 15:3 where “we read FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOUhMWN, EX hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON.”Bart,Like Carl, I enjoy your queries. I think James Ernest was right in takingEX hWN as a “rough equivalent for ‘therefore’ “. The DIKAIWS and AGAPWMENare interesting, too. Without knowing the context, I’d be inclined to takethe AGAPWMEN as (hortatory) subjunctive rather than indicative, and wonderif there’s justification in taking DIKAIWS not so much as “in a just manner”but (roughly) “as is right/fitting”, suggesting a gloss such as “so, as isright, let us love him”.Alex HopkinsMelbourne, AustraliaPS Was there no digest for January 02, 2000? None received here.

 

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesIgn. Eph. 15:3 (fwd)

Ign. Eph. 15:3 (fwd) Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Tue Jan 4 08:28:12 EST 2000

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3 The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Glad *you* love them. 🙂 Responses seriatim, below.On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> At 11:22 AM -0500 1/3/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> > At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN, EX> >hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON. “He/It will be made manifest before our face> >(i.e., he will be revealed to us OR it will be made clear to us)…” But> >then what do you make of the plural relative hWN following the> >preposition EX?> > I love these puzzles you keep throwing at us. One thought that comes to my> mind immediately is that EX hWN is one of those prepositional phrases> introducing a clause wherein antecedent is implicitly squeezed into the> relative, so that we should understand something like EKEINA/TAUTA EX hWN> DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON, which could conceivably be the subject of FANHSETAI> PRO PROSWPOU hHMWN; hence: “Those factors in consequence of which we> rightly love him will be manifested before us.” i.e. perhaps the subject of> FANHSETAI is NOT Christ but rather the relative clause as a substantive.> (Well, it seemed worth trying …) Yes, this was the direction I was heading as well, understanding therelative to contain an implied demonstrative. But I thought it wouldprobably be looking forward instead of back in the sentence; there’salready a clear subject for FANHSETAI — actually two possibly clearsubjects (!). The preceding sentence is “Let us therefore do all thingswhile (because?) he is dwelling in us, that we might be his temples and hemight be our God in us, which very thing he is.” KAI FANHSEAI PROPROSWPOU hHMWN…. So the subject is either “God” (He will be manifestto us) or the verb is impersonal (“It/This will be made clear tous…). It would seem to be stretching it to have the implieddemonstrative in EX hWN be the subject. My initial impulse had been to take the demonstrative to refer tothings “done uprightly” as acts of love, so that the clause EX hWN DIKAIWSAGAPWMMEN AUTON would loosely be rendered something like “by the uprightdeeds that we do out of love for him” Sometimes this seems to get thesense right for me; other times not. Problems with it: it takes DIKAIWSnot with AGAPWMEN, as one would expect, but with some kind of implied verb(“do”) relating to the EX hWN; and it would leave the relationship of thatverb to AGAPWMEN uncertain. (This means, I think, that it has difficultyaccounting for the relationship of just about all the words in the clause:-)) So I don’t know if this works or not. Further reflections?> > Alternatively (I obviously don’t have the larger context PRO PROSWPOU MOU),> is there anything in the preceding text that could provide an antecedent to> hWN? It could be neuter plural even if relatively vague.> The only plurals (apart from “us”) in the preceding (quoted above) are”all things” (let us do all things) and “temples” (that we might be histemples); both seem too remote to be of much use. Thanks for your thoughts. Any others would be welcome!– BartBart D. EhrmanUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> > 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> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/>

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3The Purpose of Syntactical Categories

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Tue Jan 4 08:37:23 EST 2000

 

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories The Purpose of Syntactical Categories It appears to be taken this way by other translators, but thecommentators pass over it without a note (making me think that there’ssomething obvious here that I’m missing), and I haven’t been able to findanything quite like it anywhere (which probably means it’s all over themap). If you do run across a clear parallel, let me know. (There’ssomething kind of *similar* in the preceding chapter, btw: “Thus who claimto belong to Christ will be seen through the things they do” DI hWNPRASSOUSIN OFQHSONTiAI). Thanks,– BartBart D. EhrmanUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillOn Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent? I> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly> if I’m just being dumb here…. I would try checking BDF and maybe some> searches in electronic texts.> > James Ernest> > > —–Original Message—–> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 12:15 PM> To: Biblical Greek> Cc: Biblical Greek> Subject: Re: Ign. Eph. 15:3> > > At 11:22 AM -0500 1/3/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> > At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN,> EX> >hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON. “He/It will be made manifest before our> face> >(i.e., he will be revealed to us OR it will be made clear to us)…”> But> >then what do you make of the plural relative hWN following the> >preposition EX?> > I love these puzzles you keep throwing at us. One thought that comes to> my> mind immediately is that EX hWN is one of those prepositional phrases> introducing a clause wherein antecedent is implicitly squeezed into the> relative, so that we should understand something like EKEINA/TAUTA EX> hWN> DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON, which could conceivably be the subject of> FANHSETAI> PRO PROSWPOU hHMWN; hence: “Those factors in consequence of which we> rightly love him will be manifested before us.” i.e. perhaps the subject> of> FANHSETAI is NOT Christ but rather the relative clause as a substantive.> (Well, it seemed worth trying …)> > Alternatively (I obviously don’t have the larger context PRO PROSWPOU> MOU),> is there anything in the preceding text that could provide an antecedent> to> hWN? It could be neuter plural even if relatively vague.> > > 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> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: jernest at hendrickson.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to> $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: behrman at email.unc.edu> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

 

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesThe Purpose of Syntactical Categories

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Tue Jan 4 08:40:57 EST 2000

 

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? James, Well, a reader response critic would be having a field day with how I’mhandling my e-mail this morning — seeing words that I expect to seeinstead of the ones staring me in the face….. I don’t know of anyonetaking EX hWN as “therefore,” but people often *do* take it as”because” (“out of such things” = because?). — BartBart EhrmanUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillOn Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent? I> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly> if I’m just being dumb here…. I would try checking BDF and maybe some> searches in electronic texts.> > James Ernest> > > —–Original Message—–> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 12:15 PM> To: Biblical Greek> Cc: Biblical Greek> Subject: Re: Ign. Eph. 15:3> > > At 11:22 AM -0500 1/3/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> > At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN,> EX> >hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON. “He/It will be made manifest before our> face> >(i.e., he will be revealed to us OR it will be made clear to us)…”> But> >then what do you make of the plural relative hWN following the> >preposition EX?> > I love these puzzles you keep throwing at us. One thought that comes to> my> mind immediately is that EX hWN is one of those prepositional phrases> introducing a clause wherein antecedent is implicitly squeezed into the> relative, so that we should understand something like EKEINA/TAUTA EX> hWN> DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON, which could conceivably be the subject of> FANHSETAI> PRO PROSWPOU hHMWN; hence: “Those factors in consequence of which we> rightly love him will be manifested before us.” i.e. perhaps the subject> of> FANHSETAI is NOT Christ but rather the relative clause as a substantive.> (Well, it seemed worth trying …)> > Alternatively (I obviously don’t have the larger context PRO PROSWPOU> MOU),> is there anything in the preceding text that could provide an antecedent> to> hWN? It could be neuter plural even if relatively vague.> > > 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> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: jernest at hendrickson.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to> $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: behrman at email.unc.edu> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

 

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesTemple and New world translation of holy scriptures?

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Tue Jan 4 08:45:03 EST 2000

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? The Purpose of Syntactical Categories OK, thanks. This might work if the sentence was repunctuated with afull stop after hMWN and the FANHSETAI clause is taken with the precedingsentence. Then it would be something like … and he is our God in us,which very thing both is and will be manifest before us. For thesereasons, let us love him in an upright way.” Do you know of any parallels to this usage?– Bart EhrmanOn Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Alex / Ali wrote:> Bart Ehrman asked about Ign. Eph. 15:3 where “we read FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU> hMWN, EX hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN AUTON.”> > Bart,> > Like Carl, I enjoy your queries. I think James Ernest was right in taking> EX hWN as a “rough equivalent for ‘therefore’ “. The DIKAIWS and AGAPWMEN> are interesting, too. Without knowing the context, I’d be inclined to take> the AGAPWMEN as (hortatory) subjunctive rather than indicative, and wonder> if there’s justification in taking DIKAIWS not so much as “in a just manner”> but (roughly) “as is right/fitting”, suggesting a gloss such as “so, as is> right, let us love him”.> > Alex Hopkins> Melbourne, Australia> > PS Was there no digest for January 02, 2000? None received here.> > >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: behrman at email.unc.edu> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?The Purpose of Syntactical Categories

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jan 4 08:48:25 EST 2000

 

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Digest for January 2, 2000 I should add here, for what it’s worth, that when I saw James Ernest’s noteon this I felt instinctively that he was right. Of course, as Bart says,one would like to know something is right by something stronger thaninstinct. What occurred to me is that DI’ hWN is probably one of thosephrases comparable to Latin QUAPROPTER or QUAMOBREM or DE QUA CAUSA whichtend to become single words or phrases with a single sense, all synonymousin the sense of “therefore.” There are so many such compounds; I recall aninteresting thread a couple years back on hINATI = hINA TI.At 8:37 AM -0500 1/4/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> It appears to be taken this way by other translators, but the>commentators pass over it without a note (making me think that there’s>something obvious here that I’m missing), and I haven’t been able to find>anything quite like it anywhere (which probably means it’s all over the>map). If you do run across a clear parallel, let me know. (There’s>something kind of *similar* in the preceding chapter, btw: “Thus who claim>to belong to Christ will be seen through the things they do” DI hWN>PRASSOUSIN OFQHSONTiAI).> > Thanks,> >— Bart> >Bart D. Ehrman>University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> > > >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> >> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as>> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical>> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent? I>> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly>> if I’m just being dumb here…. I would try checking BDF and maybe some>> searches in electronic texts.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.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesDigest for January 2, 2000

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Tue Jan 4 10:00:26 EST 2000

 

Digest for January 2, 2000 The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Personally, when Paul uses a different construction I don’t say to myself”he just meant the same thing as if he had said…” because if he had wantedto say … he would have said …. and so I look for what might be a subtlebut profound difference.For an inquiry into a very profound difference, look at the similar sectionin Romans 5:12Romans 5:12DIA TOUTO WSPER DI ENOS ANQRWPOU H AMARTIA EIS TON KOSMONEISHLQEN KAI DIA THS AMARTIAS O QANATOS KAI OUTWS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS OQANATOS DIHLQEN ****EF W**** PANTES HMARTON (breathing marks omitted)The words EF hW are commonly translated “because.” I personally object tothis. In the same sentence Paul uses DIA for that purpose. The words areliterally “upon which” as in Acts 7:33:Acts 7:33 EIPEN DE AUTW O KURIOS LUSON TO UPODHMA TWN PODWN SOU O GAR TOPOS****EF W**** ESTHKAS GH AGIA ESTINThis leads me to the conclusion that, to Paul, the first phrase is theantecedent of the second, not the result. That is “all died, upon which [EFW] all sinned” not “all died, because [DIA] all sinned”Bill RossTo download John 1:1-3 in Koine set to music, go to the download page at:http://members.xoom.com/woundedego

 

Digest for January 2, 2000The Purpose of Syntactical Categories

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Bill Rodgers billfred at erols.com
Tue Jan 4 12:08:25 EST 2000

 

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Bart and Carl:  I would like to make two points:l.  You may well be right  about hINATI.    This is certainly what has happened withGIATI in modern Greek.2.  But I think I might still read it another way.  The full sentence reads:  PANTAOUN POIWMEN WS AUTOU EN hMIN KATOIKOUNTOS, hINA WMEN AUTOU NAOI KAI AUTOS EN hMINQEOS hMWN, OPER KAI ESTIN KAI FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN, EX hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMENAUTON.I would translate:  “Since he dwells within us, let us do all things so that we maybe his temples and he may be our God within us, and since he is and will be presentbefore us, by these means let us rightly love him.”I see “PANTA” as the antecedent to “EX hWN,”  and read both POIWMEN AND AGAPWMEN ashortatory.Bill Rodgers “Carl W. Conrad” wrote:> I should add here, for what it’s worth, that when I saw James Ernest’s note> on this I felt instinctively that he was right. Of course, as Bart says,> one would like to know something is right by something stronger than> instinct. What occurred to me is that DI’ hWN is probably one of those> phrases comparable to Latin QUAPROPTER or QUAMOBREM or DE QUA CAUSA which> tend to become single words or phrases with a single sense, all synonymous> in the sense of “therefore.” There are so many such compounds; I recall an> interesting thread a couple years back on hINATI = hINA TI.> > At 8:37 AM -0500 1/4/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> >   It appears to be taken this way by other translators, but the> >commentators pass over it without a note (making me think that there’s> >something obvious here that I’m missing), and I haven’t been able to find> >anything quite like it anywhere (which probably means it’s all over the> >map).  If you do run across a clear parallel, let me know.  (There’s> >something kind of *similar* in the preceding chapter, btw: “Thus who claim> >to belong to Christ will be seen through the things they do” DI hWN> >PRASSOUSIN OFQHSONTiAI).> >> >   Thanks,> >> >– Bart> >> >Bart D. Ehrman> >University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> >> >> >> >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> >> >> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as> >> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical> >> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent?  I> >> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly> >> if I’m just being dumb here….  I would try checking BDF and maybe some> >> searches in electronic texts.> > 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> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: billfred at erols.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: billfred.vcfType: text/x-vcardSize: 138 bytesDesc: Card for Bill RodgersUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20000104/cc000500/attachment.vcf

 

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesThe Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4?

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Tue Jan 4 12:16:29 EST 2000

 

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Ign. Eph. 15:3 Thanks for the suggestion! So are you taking hOPER to mean “since”?– Bart Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel HillOn Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Bill Rodgers wrote:> Bart and Carl:  I would like to make two points:> > l.  You may well be right  about hINATI.    This is certainly what has happened with> GIATI in modern Greek.> > 2.  But I think I might still read it another way.  The full sentence reads:  PANTA> OUN POIWMEN WS AUTOU EN hMIN KATOIKOUNTOS, hINA WMEN AUTOU NAOI KAI AUTOS EN hMIN> QEOS hMWN, OPER KAI ESTIN KAI FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN, EX hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN> AUTON.> > I would translate: “Since he dwells within us, let us do all things so> that we may be his temples and he may be our God within us, and since> he is and will be present before us, by these means let us rightly> love him.”> > I see “PANTA” as the antecedent to “EX hWN,”  and read both POIWMEN AND AGAPWMEN as> hortatory.> > Bill Rodgers>  > > “Carl W. Conrad” wrote:> > > I should add here, for what it’s worth, that when I saw James Ernest’s note> > on this I felt instinctively that he was right. Of course, as Bart says,> > one would like to know something is right by something stronger than> > instinct. What occurred to me is that DI’ hWN is probably one of those> > phrases comparable to Latin QUAPROPTER or QUAMOBREM or DE QUA CAUSA which> > tend to become single words or phrases with a single sense, all synonymous> > in the sense of “therefore.” There are so many such compounds; I recall an> > interesting thread a couple years back on hINATI = hINA TI.> >> > At 8:37 AM -0500 1/4/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> > >   It appears to be taken this way by other translators, but the> > >commentators pass over it without a note (making me think that there’s> > >something obvious here that I’m missing), and I haven’t been able to find> > >anything quite like it anywhere (which probably means it’s all over the> > >map).  If you do run across a clear parallel, let me know.  (There’s> > >something kind of *similar* in the preceding chapter, btw: “Thus who claim> > >to belong to Christ will be seen through the things they do” DI hWN> > >PRASSOUSIN OFQHSONTiAI).> > >> > >   Thanks,> > >> > >– Bart> > >> > >Bart D. Ehrman> > >University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> > >> > >> > >> > >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> > >> > >> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as> > >> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical> > >> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent?  I> > >> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly> > >> if I’m just being dumb here….  I would try checking BDF and maybe some> > >> searches in electronic texts.> >> > 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> > WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> >> > —> > home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> > You are currently subscribed to as: billfred at erols.com> > To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave–389J at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>

 

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4?Ign. Eph. 15:3

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jan 4 12:17:17 EST 2000

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 At 9:00 AM -0600 1/4/00, Bill Ross wrote:>Personally, when Paul uses a different construction I don’t say to myself>“he just meant the same thing as if he had said…” because if he had wanted>to say … he would have said …. and so I look for what might be a subtle>but profound difference.Bill, I don’t want to say nor do I mean that you’re wrong about this, but Ido think you ought to consider an alternative to what you’re assertinghere. Do YOU, in writing an e-mail or in conversation, sometimes say “since…” and sometimes say “because …” without meaning any significantdifference whatsoever? I think it’s worth taking into account that, whileparts of Paul’s letters certainly are composed with painstaking rhetoricalintricacy, large parts of them are really formulated in very colloquiallanguage. If you EXPECT to find a subtle but profound difference in meaningin every exercise of an option for a different “synonym” you may very wellfind it because you’re expecting it, even if it isn’t there. So what I’mcautioning against here is the all too facile ASSUMPTION that differentphrasing means a profoundly different sense.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.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Tue Jan 4 12:19:23 EST 2000

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Thanks for the comment. Seems that EF hW has its own problems (i.e.,apart from EX nWN); I should think that context would affect how it’s tobe translated in each instance. What you understand your translation ofRom. 5:12 to *mean*? Also, how would you then translate Ign. Eph. 15:3?– Bart Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel HillOn Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Bill Ross wrote:> Personally, when Paul uses a different construction I don’t say to myself> “he just meant the same thing as if he had said…” because if he had wanted> to say … he would have said …. and so I look for what might be a subtle> but profound difference.> > For an inquiry into a very profound difference, look at the similar section> in Romans 5:12> > Romans 5:12DIA TOUTO WSPER DI ENOS ANQRWPOU H AMARTIA EIS TON KOSMON> EISHLQEN KAI DIA THS AMARTIAS O QANATOS KAI OUTWS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS O> QANATOS DIHLQEN ****EF W**** PANTES HMARTON (breathing marks omitted)> > The words EF hW are commonly translated “because.” I personally object to> this. In the same sentence Paul uses DIA for that purpose. The words are> literally “upon which” as in Acts 7:33:> > Acts 7:33 EIPEN DE AUTW O KURIOS LUSON TO UPODHMA TWN PODWN SOU O GAR TOPOS> ****EF W**** ESTHKAS GH AGIA ESTIN> > This leads me to the conclusion that, to Paul, the first phrase is the> antecedent of the second, not the result. That is “all died, upon which [EF> W] all sinned” not “all died, because [DIA] all sinned”> > Bill Ross> To download John 1:1-3 in Koine set to music, go to the download page at:> http://members.xoom.com/woundedego> > >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: behrman at email.unc.edu> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12The Purpose of Syntactical Categories

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Bill Rodgers billfred at erols.com
Tue Jan 4 13:02:36 EST 2000

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Bart:  I am taking hOPER (I see I slipped in the transliteration)  as “indeed” and readingit with the    KAI ESTIN.      A more literal reading of the three words would be “andwhich he indeed is…”  I think the hOPER is used to intensify the ESTIN.BillBart Ehrman wrote:>    Thanks for the suggestion!  So are you taking hOPER to mean “since”?> > — Bart Ehrman>    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> > On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Bill Rodgers wrote:> > > Bart and Carl:  I would like to make two points:> >> > l.  You may well be right  about hINATI.    This is certainly what has happened with> > GIATI in modern Greek.> >> > 2.  But I think I might still read it another way.  The full sentence reads:  PANTA> > OUN POIWMEN WS AUTOU EN hMIN KATOIKOUNTOS, hINA WMEN AUTOU NAOI KAI AUTOS EN hMIN> > QEOS hMWN, OPER KAI ESTIN KAI FANHSETAI PRO PROSWPOU hMWN, EX hWN DIKAIWS AGAPWMEN> > AUTON.> >> > I would translate: “Since he dwells within us, let us do all things so> > that we may be his temples and he may be our God within us, and since> > he is and will be present before us, by these means let us rightly> > love him.”> >> > I see “PANTA” as the antecedent to “EX hWN,”  and read both POIWMEN AND AGAPWMEN as> > hortatory.> >> > Bill Rodgers> >> >> > “Carl W. Conrad” wrote:> >> > > I should add here, for what it’s worth, that when I saw James Ernest’s note> > > on this I felt instinctively that he was right. Of course, as Bart says,> > > one would like to know something is right by something stronger than> > > instinct. What occurred to me is that DI’ hWN is probably one of those> > > phrases comparable to Latin QUAPROPTER or QUAMOBREM or DE QUA CAUSA which> > > tend to become single words or phrases with a single sense, all synonymous> > > in the sense of “therefore.” There are so many such compounds; I recall an> > > interesting thread a couple years back on hINATI = hINA TI.> > >> > > At 8:37 AM -0500 1/4/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> > > >   It appears to be taken this way by other translators, but the> > > >commentators pass over it without a note (making me think that there’s> > > >something obvious here that I’m missing), and I haven’t been able to find> > > >anything quite like it anywhere (which probably means it’s all over the> > > >map).  If you do run across a clear parallel, let me know.  (There’s> > > >something kind of *similar* in the preceding chapter, btw: “Thus who claim> > > >to belong to Christ will be seen through the things they do” DI hWN> > > >PRASSOUSIN OFQHSONTiAI).> > > >> > > >   Thanks,> > > >> > > >– Bart> > > >> > > >Bart D. Ehrman> > > >University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> > > >> > > >> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as> > > >> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical> > > >> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent?  I> > > >> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly> > > >> if I’m just being dumb here….  I would try checking BDF and maybe some> > > >> searches in electronic texts.> > >> > > 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> > > WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> > >> > > —> > > home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> > > You are currently subscribed to as: billfred at erols.com> > > To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> > > To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: billfred.vcfType: text/x-vcardSize: 138 bytesDesc: Card for Bill RodgersUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20000104/a0f8dfd9/attachment.vcf

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Tue Jan 4 14:11:19 EST 2000

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 <Bill>…. and so I look for what might be a subtle but profound difference.<Carl>Bill, I don’t want to say nor do I mean that you’re wrong about this, but Ido think you ought to consider an alternative to what you’re assertinghere. Do YOU, in writing an e-mail or in conversation, sometimes say “since…” and sometimes say “because …” without meaning any significantdifference whatsoever?<Bill>Than you, Carl, for your balancing point, which certainly applies to manysituations where words are thoroughly interchangable. “Since” and “because”are indeed often used 100% synonymously with zero difference intended.On the other hand, DIA is so commonly used to mean “because” (ie: agency)that the sudden appearance of the words EF W (which appear only 4 times inthe NT) I feel demand that the reader suspect that there is a reason. Gliblyassuming that it is identical in meaning as “DIA” seem profoundly naive tome! Especially in the one verse in the NT that *seems to* be an explicitreference to “original sin.”And as I showed its usage in Acts 7:33, it need not be idiomatic at all.Bill Ross

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Tue Jan 4 14:47:55 EST 2000

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? Bill Ross wrote:> Bill, I don’t want to say nor do I mean that you’re wrong about this, but I> do think you ought to consider an alternative to what you’re asserting> here. Do YOU, in writing an e-mail or in conversation, sometimes say “since> …” and sometimes say “because …” without meaning any significant> difference whatsoever?> > <Bill>> Than you, Carl, for your balancing point, which certainly applies to many> situations where words are thoroughly interchangable. “Since” and “because”> are indeed often used 100% synonymously with zero difference intended.> > On the other hand, DIA is so commonly used to mean “because” (ie: agency)> that the sudden appearance of the words EF W (which appear only 4 times in> the NT) I feel demand that the reader suspect that there is a reason. Glibly> assuming that it is identical in meaning as “DIA” seem profoundly naive to> me! Especially in the one verse in the NT that *seems to* be an explicit> reference to “original sin.”> Bill,Given (a) that you haven’t taken into account here how DIA and EPH W areused inHellenistic literature outside the New Testament in your assertion aboutwhat theseterms can and cannot or do or do not mean , and (b) that you seem toimply that thesemantic range of a term used in any NT writing is to be determined byexamining onlythat term’s NT usage, I wonder whether your statement that anyone whosays DIA andEPH W are synonymous terms is naive and makes “glib” assumption, is notan instanceof petitio principii?> > And as I showed its usage in Acts 7:33, it need not be idiomatic at all.> Need not is not the same as is not. And without a full examination ofthe use of theterm in question in the culture in which NT writers operated and fromwhich theyderived the meanings of the words they used, I think your claim presumestoo much. SoI wonder whether you are not operating here from the assumption that theway Lukeuses the term is determinative for the way Paul uses it.Yours,Jeffrey Gibson–Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jan 4 15:36:43 EST 2000

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? At 1:11 PM -0600 1/4/00, Bill Ross wrote:><Bill>…. and so I look for what might be a subtle but profound difference.> ><Carl>>Bill, I don’t want to say nor do I mean that you’re wrong about this, but I>do think you ought to consider an alternative to what you’re asserting>here. Do YOU, in writing an e-mail or in conversation, sometimes say “since>…” and sometimes say “because …” without meaning any significant>difference whatsoever?> ><Bill>>Than you, Carl, for your balancing point, which certainly applies to many>situations where words are thoroughly interchangable. “Since” and “because”>are indeed often used 100% synonymously with zero difference intended.> >On the other hand, DIA is so commonly used to mean “because” (ie: agency)>that the sudden appearance of the words EF W (which appear only 4 times in>the NT) I feel demand that the reader suspect that there is a reason. Glibly>assuming that it is identical in meaning as “DIA” seem profoundly naive to>me! Especially in the one verse in the NT that *seems to* be an explicit>reference to “original sin.”> >And as I showed its usage in Acts 7:33, it need not be idiomatic at all.I’m going to come back to your original point in order to demonstrate moreprecisely what I meant–and this time I shall have to say that I do indeedthink that your argument is fallacious.You first wrote:>For an inquiry into a very profound difference, look at the similar section>in Romans 5:12> >Romans 5:12DIA TOUTO WSPER DI ENOS ANQRWPOU H AMARTIA EIS TON KOSMON>EISHLQEN KAI DIA THS AMARTIAS O QANATOS KAI OUTWS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS O>QANATOS DIHLQEN ****EF W**** PANTES HMARTON (breathing marks omitted)> >The words EF hW are commonly translated “because.” I personally object to>this. In the same sentence Paul uses DIA for that purpose.In fact, however, DIA is not used so simply; DIA is used with TOUTO, TOUTOreferring to the proposition that Paul has just previously stated and DIATOUTO points backward to that proposition as the ground of what is nowbeing stated. So it’s “For this reason (or ‘because of this’), just asthrough one man sin entered in …” Although DIA may be used with arelative pronoun that has fused with it (e.g. DIO = DI’ hO = ‘therefore’),DIA doesn’t ever function by itself as a causal adverb meaning ‘because’but rather as a preposition with an object, here TOUTO, ‘because of this’>The words are literally “upon which” as in Acts 7:33:> >Acts 7:33 EIPEN DE AUTWi hO KURIOS: LUSON TO hUPODHMA TWN PODWN SOU, hO>GAR >TOPOS EF’ hWi hESTHKAS GH hAGIA ESTIEF’ hWi here is only superficially comparable to the adverbial conjunctivephrase EF’ hWi; here EPI is the preposition used with a locative dative”upon” and the hWi is in this instance a relative pronoun referring back tothe antecedent TOPOS.>This leads me to the conclusion that, to Paul, the first phrase is the>antecedent of the second, not the result. That is “all died, upon which [EF>W] all sinned” not “all died, because [DIA] all sinned”Here are the four GNT texts wherein EF’ hWi appears, in every one of whichthe prepositional phrase EF’ hWi may legitimately be translated “because”or “since”:Rom 5:12 DIA TOUTO hWSPER DI’ hENOS ANQRWPOU hH hAMARTIA EIS TON KOSMONEISHLQEN KAI DIA THS hAMAARTIAS hO QANATOS, KAI hOUTWS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUShO QANATOS DIHLQEN, EF’ hWi PANTES hHMARTON (“… because/since they haveall sinned”)2 COR 5:4 KAI GAR hOI ONTES EN TWi SKHNEI STENAZOMEN BAROUMENOI, EF’ HWi OUQELOMEN EKDUSASQAI ALL’ EPENDUSASQAI, hINA KATAPOQHi TO QNHTON hUPO THSZWHS. (“… because/since we don’t want to strip naked but rather to put onnew clothes …”)Phil 3:12 OUC’ hOTI HDH ELABON H HDH TETELEIWMAI, DIWKW DE EI KAI KATALABW,EF’ hWi KAI KATELHMFQHN hUPO CRISTOU [IHSOU]. (“… because/since I toohave been gripped firmly by Christ [Jesus].”)Phil 4:12 ECARHN DE EN KURIWi MEGALWS hOTI HDH POTE ANEQALETE TO hUPER EMOUFRONEIN, EF’ hWi KAI EFRONEITE, HKAIREISQE DE. (“… because/since you wereindeed anxious (about me) but your timing was bad.”)In sum, there’s all the difference in the world between DIA TOUTO and EF’hWi; the former means “for this reason” or “because of this” or”therefore”, while the latter means “because” or “since” and functions asan adverbial conjunction introducing the clause explaining the reason forwhat was just asserted.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.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Alex / Ali alexali at surf.net.au
Wed Jan 5 09:13:02 EST 2000

 

THREAD CLOSED: Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? Men Only Bart Ehrman asked about examples of the use of EX hWN.My quick search did not find an example in a sense near enough to thosesuggested; but M&M – see under hOS – has some interesting examples of hOSwith prepositions (one of EF’ hWi, which was also mentioned in the postingsof yesterday’s digest); there is an example of EX hOU glossed as”therefore”; M&M’s article on EK also contains material that may berelevant to you, perhaps especially the causal sense (which can beparalleled in the NT). If you need examples of EX hWN, the Duke Databank ofDocumentary Papyri, under Perseus, may help.Alex Hopkins

 

THREAD CLOSED: Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?Men Only

James 2:18

RandallButh wrote: There are also two ways to look at Mt 26.51 ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον 1. One may view αὐτοῦ as attracted to a head phrase for strengthening it, in this case the verb. This is a syntactic device that also fits with what happens with 'enclitics'. 2. Also, the αὐτοῦ may be fronted within the noun phrase, picking up additional mini-focus. A live pronunciation would distinguish these two. In case 1, I would guess that the pronoun may have lost its accent like an enclitic, even though the spelling system retains it. I find myself naturally reading this way when thinking through the clause as in number one, where the pronoun is highly pre-supposed information. Such modern reflexes may indeed reflect antiquity, especially remembering the classic case where Israelis naturally contract "et ha-" -את ה as ta- ת. Even first graders write things like שתיתי תמץ in place of the correct שתיתי את המץ "I drank the juice," without knowing that BarKochba did the same 1900 years ago מעיד אני תשמים "I call heaven as witness," and a few other examples. Such writing was not learned in school. If one reads the written text Mt 26.51 as is, then number 2 is the result. However, the 'mini-focus' would probably have had a normal intonation level, not a full focus intonation like in a hypothetical: αὐτοῦ ἀφεῖλεν τὸ ὠτίον.
This article here http://typo.uni-konstanz.de/ocs-uploads ... on-NTG.pdf suggests that a genitive in this position is an external possessor construction. I still need to evaluate it, but I'm tossing it out there. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — May 19th, 2014, 5:37 pm

James 1:21

Jonathan Robie » February 14th, 2013, 9:33 am

I have a question about ἐν πραΰτητι in James 1:21.

James 1:21 wrote:διὸ ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν ῥυπαρίαν καὶ περισσείαν κακίας ἐν πραΰτητι δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν

Which clause does ἐν πραΰτητι belong to?

  • Α. διὸ ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν ῥυπαρίαν καὶ περισσείαν κακίας ἐν πραΰτητι
  • Β. ἐν πραΰτητι δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν

Both readings make sense to me. Is one preferable to the other? Why?

timothy_p_mcmahon » February 14th, 2013, 1:34 pm

Perhaps the author’s intent goes both ways.

That’s how I’ve always taken Ephesians 1:4-5, ειναι ημας αγιους και αμωμους κατενωπιον αυτου εν αγαπη προορισας ημας εις υιοθεσιαν.

If I had to choose I’d take B, since the prep phrase is closer to the verb that way, but, as you’ve noted, both actions are appropriately done in meekness.

 Stephen Hughes » May 23rd, 2013, 9:01 am

I think if we look at some of the other usages of πρᾳότης (and it’s adjective) it could shed some light on your question.
Let’s first consider the beatitude Μακάριοι οἱ πρᾳεῖς· ὅτι αὐτοὶ κληρονομήσουσιν τὴν γῆν..Mt.5:5 For now, let’s just observe that an ” inheritance ” is something that is given.
For the ὅτι πρᾷός εἰμι καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ· καὶ εὑρήσετε ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν. of Mt.11:29, I’ve always understood this to mean “not overbearing”, The “lean on me” is a passive offering rather than an active one. If it had been written actively, would have been something like “I will support you” (using a verb like in ὑποστηρίζει κύριος πάντας τοὺς καταπίπτοντας Ps.144:14 “The Lord supports all those who fall”.). Also, it says, “You will find rest” not “I will give you rest” or “I will show you the way to find rest” as in the εἰς τόπον χλόης ἐκεῖ με κατεσκήνωσεν ἐπὶ ὕδατος ἀναπαύσεως ἐξέθρεψέν με “he settles me in a place of lush (green) pasture nourishing me beside the waters of rest” of Psalm 22:2.
In one of the other passages where this word is used, ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τοῦ πρᾳέος καὶ ἡσυχίου πνεύματος, 1 Pt.3:4 I think that the two meanings πραΰς and ἡσύχιος are synonyms, with the first referring to the calmness in not needing to reach out to affect things and the second to be a quietness within oneself (pervading stillness / settled-ness), and I take them together to mean “a spirit that wants to understand things and deal with things within the intimacy of a close relationship and deep understanding”, like what you see in couples who have the basic things of relationship settled at a given time and haven’t got an antagonistic or competitive spirit.
For the noun, the passage Τί θέλετε; Ἐν ῥάβδῳ ἔλθω πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἢ ἐν ἀγάπῃ πνεύματί τε πρᾳότητος at 1 Corinthians 4:2 suggests that the Corinthians are being given the option of changing themselves now, or of having the Apostle actively change them later (BTW, I really like what I heard one Bible teacher say about a rod (ῥάβδος), something like, “a shepherd can find a lot more intelligent things to do to a sheep with a rod other than just beating the sheep with it”. In my thinking, that might include blocking the way to danger, beating wolves away, using the rod as a “gate”/”fence” to put the sheep on a good way)
The πρᾳότης, ἐγκράτεια of Galatians 5:23 in my opinion are the external (interpersonal) self restraint and the internal (passions and lusts like hunger/fear) self-restraint synonyms – meaning like control yourself to not force yourself on others and control yourself to not be driven by things and feelings that seem necessary from the point of view of the instant present, but perhaps in the future will not seem like they were so necessary.
In Galatians 6:1, I take ὑμεῖς οἱ πνευματικοὶ καταρτίζετε τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐν πνεύματι πρᾳότητος, σκοπῶν σεαυτὸν μὴ καὶ σὺ πειρασθῇς. to mean that the “spiritual” should help, but not force the repentant to return to righteousness. Like be patient enough to give a person time for the fruits of repentance to ripen in their heart.
In this regard, the μετὰ πάσης ταπεινοφροσύνης καὶ πρᾳότητος, μετὰ μακροθυμίας, ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων ἐν ἀγάπῃ, of Ephesians 4:2 means that we put up with each other without forcing our own foibles on each other. Everyone has his own character, upbringing and is at a different point in their walk with God, and age of life.
Following in this vein 2 Timothy 2:25 ἐν πρᾳότητι παιδεύοντα τοὺς ἀντιδιατιθεμένους· μήποτε δῷ αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς μετάνοιαν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας, sort of means “step back and let God”.
The verse in James 3:13 Τίς σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων ἐν ὑμῖν; Δειξάτω ἐκ τῆς καλῆς ἀναστροφῆς τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἐν πραΰτητι σοφίας. Suggest that when we do (good) deeds, we should do them wisely, I think that “wisely” here means like 2 Corinthians 8:21 προνοούμενοι καλὰ οὐ μόνον ἐνώπιον κυρίου ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπων.
The ἕτοιμοι δὲ ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος, μετὰ πρᾳΰτητος καὶ φόβου· of 1 Peter 3:15 suggests that rather than running up the wicket and playing the ball on the front foot, we should be ready to give an apology after we are asked.
In conclusion, I think that in the verse you are asking about, Διὸ ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν ῥυπαρίαν καὶ περισσείαν κακίας, ἐν πρᾳΰτητι δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον, τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν. James 1:21, has two parts, the first is active (based on ἀποτίθημι) and the second passive (based on δέχομαι). The above usages of πρᾳότης (and it’s adjective) suggest that it should be used with a passive (non) action, so I feel that it may be possible that taking it with δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον, τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν comes more naturally than with the ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν ῥυπαρίαν καὶ περισσείαν κακίας.

James 5:3

Jonathan Robie » February 14th, 2013, 9:53 am

How should I read ὡς πῦρ in this passage – like this?
James 5:2-3 wrote:2 ὁ πλοῦτος ὑμῶν σέσηπεν, καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια ὑμῶν σητόβρωτα γέγονεν, 3 ὁ χρυσὸς ὑμῶν καὶ ὁ ἄργυρος κατίωται, καὶ ὁ ἰὸς αὐτῶν εἰς μαρτύριον ὑμῖν ἔσται καὶ φάγεται τὰς σάρκας ὑμῶν· ὡς πῦρ ἐθησαυρίσατε ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις.
or like this?
James 5:2-3 wrote:2 ὁ πλοῦτος ὑμῶν σέσηπεν, καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια ὑμῶν σητόβρωτα γέγονεν, 3 ὁ χρυσὸς ὑμῶν καὶ ὁ ἄργυρος κατίωται, καὶ ὁ ἰὸς αὐτῶν εἰς μαρτύριον ὑμῖν ἔσται καὶ φάγεται τὰς σάρκας ὑμῶν ὡς πῦρ. ἐθησαυρίσατε ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις.

I see GNTs punctuated both ways. In the first reading, in what sense is storing up things like fire?

ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
Postby Stephen Carlson » February 14th, 2013, 5:59 pm
I can’t make sense of the first reading.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Postby RandallButh » February 15th, 2013, 2:54 am
Stephen Carlson wrote:I can’t make sense of the first reading.

See the Syriac Peshitto for the sense. They read the Greek ωσ πυρ with the following clause.

Postby Stephen Carlson » February 15th, 2013, 3:47 am
RandallButh wrote:

Stephen Carlson wrote:I can’t make sense of the first reading.

See the Syriac Peshitto for the sense. They read the Greek ωσ πυρ with the following clause.

Thanks. As far as I can tell, the Syriac does not translate ὡς or it’s taken as a sentence conjunction and omitted. πῦρ seems to be made the object of ἐθησαυρίσατε.

Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Postby RandallButh » February 15th, 2013, 4:31 am
Yes, the syriac treats ως as the equivalent of ‘seeing that, since’
Re: James 5:3 ὡς πῦρ

Postby Jonathan Robie » February 15th, 2013, 7:20 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:I can’t make sense of the first reading.

It’s the reading in the 1904 Patriarchal edition (with a period, actually):

ὁ χρυσὸς ὑμῶν καὶ ὁ ἄργυρος κατίωται, καὶ ὁ ἰὸς αὐτῶν εἰς μαρτύριον ὑμῖν ἔσται καὶ φάγεται τὰς σάρκας ὑμῶν. ὡς πῦρ ἐθησαυρίσατε ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις.

I couldn’t make sense of it either. Hence my post ;->

ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
Re: James 5:3 ὡς πῦρ

Postby Jonathan Robie » February 15th, 2013, 8:08 am

RandallButh wrote:Yes, the syriac treats ως as the equivalent of ‘seeing that, since’

Since you have stored up fire (for yourselves) in the last days?

James 5:1

James 5:16 πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη.

Postby Jonathan Robie » February 23rd, 2013, 1:39 pm

James 5:16 wrote:πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη.

What is the force of the participle ἐνεργουμένη in this verse? Should I read it as passive or middle?

How would the meaning of the sentence be changed if it were simply omitted? What is the difference between these two sentences:

  • πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη.
  • πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις δικαίου.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
Postby cwconrad » February 24th, 2013, 6:12 am
What is the force of the participle ἐνεργουμένη in this verse? Should I read it as passive or middle?

How would the meaning of the sentence be changed if it were simply omitted? What is the difference between these two sentences:

  • πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη.
  • πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις δικαίου.

In traditional terms, I’d call this a circumstantial participle, “when it is in action” or “when it is actively at work.” The form is pretty clearly middle — so far as I can judge, there are no passive instances of this verb in the GNT. Note what BDAG says of the middle:

b. mid., in our lit. always w. impers. subj. (Diod. S. 13, 85, 2 the siege ‘went into effect’, ‘began’; Herm. Wr. 12, 11c τὰ ἀσώματα) τὰ παθήματα ἐνηργεῖτο ἐν τ. μέλεσιν the passions were at work in our members Ro 7:5 (the εἰς foll. introduces the goal; s. a above on Gal 2:8). ἡ παράκλησις ἡ ἐνεργουμένη ἐν ὑπομονῇ consolation that functions in (the act of) enduring 2 Cor 1:6. ὁ θάνατος ἐν ἡμῖν ἐνεργεῖται death is at work in us 4:12 (Lucian, Charon 2 ἐνεργεῖν τὰ τοῦ θανάτου ἔργα). Of God’s word 1 Th 2:13. δύναμις ἐνεργουμένη ἐν ἡμῖν the power that works in us Eph 3:20; cp. Col 1:29. πίστις δι᾿ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη faith working (=expressing itself) through love Gal 5:6. τὸ μυστήριον ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας the secret force of lawlessness is at work = is in operation 2 Th 2:7. δέησις ἐνεργουμένη effective prayer Js 5:16. τὰ ἐνεργούμενα the forces at work 1 Cl 60:1. τὰ καθ᾿ ἕκαστα βλέποντες ἐνεργούμενα we see how one thing after the other works itself out = comes to pass B 1:7.—JRoss, ἐνεργεῖσθαι in the NT: Exp. 7th ser., 7, 1909, 75–77; JMayor, ibid. 191f; AGarvie, ET 55, ’43/44, p. 97. For the view that the passages in b are passive, not mid., s. the art. by Clark below, p. 98ff and ref. there.

I haven’t see the article by Clark arguing for a passive sense referred to by Danker as KClark, The Mng. of ἐνεργέω and καταργέω in the NT: JBL 54, ’35, 93–101.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Postby Tony Pope » February 25th, 2013, 12:44 pm

K. W. Clark’s article was reprinted in his The Gentile Bias and Other Essays (1980) 183-91, of which unfortunately Google apparently displays only the first few pages, not the part where he deals with the passive uses. His argument is that the agent of the verb is in the NT always some supernatural spiritual force (God or other), that this fits well in a 1st-century religious context, and it is not taken account of if you read the M-P forms as middle, as many do. Clark also refers to J Armitage Robinson, who in an Excursus in his Ephesians commentary takes the same line, at least for the Pauline instances.

“The passive interpretation being thus supported by the early Greek and Latin commentators, as well as by the constant usage in non-biblical Greek, we are naturally led to ask whether there is any necessity for a different explanation in the nine passages of the N.T. in which the word occurs.”
Also: “It is to be observed that in actual meaning ἐνεργεῖν and ἐνεργεῖσθαι come nearly to the same thing. Only the passive serves to remind us that the operation is not self-originated. The powers ‘work’ indeed; but they ‘are made to work’.”
http://archive.org/stream/MN41514ucmf_2#page/n253/mode/2up

On James 5.16, see also J. B. Mayor’s 2 1/2 page discussion of the point.
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924029294844#page/n487/mode/2up

The references given in the Bauer lexicon are not necessarily to be read with the glosses given there. E.g., Diod Sic 13.85.2
οὐ προσδεξαμένων δέ τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει τούς λόγους, εὐθὺς τὰ τῆς πολιορκίας ἐνηργεῖτο is translated by Oldfather (Loeb ed.) “when the inhabitants of the city would not entertain these terms, the siege was begun at once”. (More strictly, I suggest: was put into effect at once.)

This question was also discussed on the Better Bibles Blog http://betterbibles.com/2010/02/22/semantics-put-to-work-on-galatians-56/#comments

John 3:7

Jam 3:7 πᾶσα γὰρ φύσις θηρίων τε καὶ πετεινῶν ἑρπετῶν τε καὶ ἐναλίων δαμάζεται καὶ δεδάμασται τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ:

PASA GAR FUSIS QHRIWN TE KAI PETEINWN ERPETWN TE KAI ENALIWN DAMAZETAI THi FUSEI THi ANQRWPINHi

The sense of this verse is quite simple. However, what sense the word FUSIS in this verse carries? I like to see what it means by saying ‘PASA FUSIS’ (?all nature of such creatures) and ‘TH FUSEI THi ANQRWPINHi’ (? by those partaking the nature of man’). It would be much easier for me if I find the Greek text with this FUSIS, e.g. by simply saying ‘the creatures’ and ‘by man’ (e.g. hUPO~).

Thank you for your help.

Oun Kwon

James 3:16

Keith Yoder » August 27th, 2013, 4:32 am

Do we not have a word play on the name Παῦλος (“Paul”) in the final phrase of James 3:16?
πᾶν φαῦλον πρᾶγμα (“every worthless thing”)
=> πᾶν Παῦλον πρᾶγμα (“every Paul-ish thing”)If the name “Paul” appeared within close textual context of James 3:16, a word play would be apparent. Obviously that is not the case, but if James 2:14-26 is reacting against a text or reputed teachings of Paul, then “Paul” would be in the echo chamber of James’ performance arena.In this alliterative phrase, the initial “ph” sound of φαῦλον could be naturally attracted to the “p” sound of the initial consonant of the preceding and following words. Further, the first syllable of all three contain the same “ah” vowel sound (using the historical Koine pronounciation), which might further encourage attraction to an initial “p” sound for the middle word. See the last three words of James 1:2, πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις, for a similar alliterative triplet using initial “p” as well as other consonance/assonance features – James uses many rhythmic and alliterative word doublets and triplets.

There are actually very few Greek words of the form -αυλο-, where “-” is any single character. Out of a list of all 34,345 lemmas I downloaded in 2010 from the Perseus Greek database, only 6 fit this template. The other 5 besides φαῦλος are: γαυλός (milk-pail), γαῦλος (Phoenician merchant vessel), καυλός (shaft), ναῦλος (passage-fare), σαῦλος (swaggering = “Saul”). Not much to choose from in the entire Greek language for words that rhyme with φαῦλος. Very interesting that the only extant GNT options matching the pattern would be Παῦλος (“Paul”) and his alias Σαῦλος (“Saul”).

The adjective φαῦλος is used 5 other times in the GNT: Jn 3:20, Jn 5:29, Ro 9:11, 2Cor 5:10, and Titus 2:8. None of these are in a noun phrase with πρᾶγμα, although both John references coordinate φαῦλος with a form of the cognate verb πράσσω (“practice” or “do”). The name Παῦλος itself is declinable, the form Παῦλον is used 30 times in the GNT, all in Acts. The form I suggest above (“Paul-ish”) would be nominative neuter, not technically grammatical, but word plays are usually “pragmatic” anyway.

There are no other GNT or LXX combinations of φαῦλος and πρᾶγμα together. φαῦλος occurs 10 times in the LXX, 9 times in Proverbs, Job, and Sirach, mostly in the sense of “worthless”. I did locate 6 classical references for φαῦλον πρᾶγμα on Perseus, where the phrase is glossed with something like “trifling matter/affair”, “light task”, “small/easy thing”, “unimportant business”: Aristophanes, Lysistrata, line 14; Isocrates, Evangoras, 59; Plato, Republic, 2.374e; Plato, Phaedo, 95e; Plato, Symposium, 213c; Xenophon, Anabasis, 6.6.

Keith Yoder
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

======================

Is Paul ever mentioned in James? Is there any reason to believe that James would be referring to him at all, or that he would refer to him in a catty, disrespectful way if he did? I don’t think the similarity in sound of two phrases is much evidence for this view.

Also, have you found phrases like πᾶν Παῦλον πρᾶγμα, substituting any name you want for Paul’s? Is that a common kind of phrase?

 

Stephen Hughes » August 27th, 2013, 10:20 am

Keith Yoder wrote:πᾶν φαῦλον πρᾶγμα (“every worthless thing”)=>πᾶν Παῦλον πρᾶγμα (“every Paul-ish thing”)

This is an interesting proposition.

Let’s consider it in reverse; “Paul” of course is a foreign name in Greek. So if someone who heard the Greek was unfamiliar with Latin names, they may have mistakenly heard it as the next closest Greek word. Close-sonding words that you have suggested may have been substituted by various speakers. (One that you have not mentioned is the null case, αὐλός flute.)

Those sort of mishearings according to what is already known do happen from time to time, but what you (Keith) are implicitly suggesting is something altogether different; that people who were used to listening to Greek would substitute a foreign name for a Greek word. While it is theoretically possible, it would be less likely than the case of subsituting a Greek word for a foreign one.

Your suggestion seems to have a little bit of the “pushing the cart uphill” about it. Perhaps if you could argue that James’ audience were first language Latin (or even first foreign language Latin) and second language Greek (or second foreign language Greek), then the argument in support of mis-hearing would seem more plausible.

Keith Yoder wrote:Παῦλον … Paul-ish

There is a little problem in your logic here. Although Paul comes from the Latin adjective paulus “small”. You are taking it with an adjectival force refering the the Apostle Paul (or another Paul) which (concrete and tangible) person Παῦλος (capital Π) is no longer an adjective, but is now a noun. To do that, you would have to add an adjectival ending to the (now) nominal Paul – perhaps Pauline. Without that extra adjectival ending you might like to consider arguing that paulus as a cognate of φαῦλος was being thought of as a linguistically similar and therefore alternative form of the common Greek adjective φαῦλος. But this too requires you to argue successfully the assumption of a high level of competency in Latin by both James and his audience – higher than their competency in Greek.

Perhaps you could improve your case for a word play be considering the directionality of (intentional) mis-hearing (aka “word play”) and by explaining away the grammatical anomaly of using a masculine noun as a neuter adjective. :o

Keith Yoder » August 28th, 2013, 7:49 am

Thank you Jonathan, Stephen, and Barry for your comments. I will respond in turn:

Jonathan-
Of course we all know that James never singles out any contemporary individual by name or otherwise. Yes, there would be very good reason for James to reference Paul if the discussion of 2:14-26 is in part a reaction to Paul’s preaching or letter writing activity. “Catty and disrepectful” depends on your point of view; I suppose some of the people whom are anathematized in Galatians and Corinthians had the same opinion of Paul. As to searching for more phrases, only φαῦλον πρᾶγμα which I listed already, but not πᾶν ? πρᾶγμα.

Stephen-
Thank you for a serious reply. Another colleague suggested the Latin link, which you confirm. However I do not follow your objection about Greek speakers unlikely to “substitute a foreign name for a Greek word”. Names are the very first part of “foreign” people that we are aware of, especially names of foreigners who exercise political power or who attract attention for whatever reason. Look around in the Western English language cultures, the common people naturally make jokes about “foreign” names especially if it sounds like a word or phrase of our own language. Joking and punning on “foreign” names is universally practiced and is to be expected. “Paulus/Paulos” was not an unknown name in the Mediterranean, either in Latin or Greek form. And are we to suppose that James and his audience were completely unaware of “Paul” the apostle and preacher? Hardly.

I take your grammatical objection as a non-issue. Puns and word plays often “work” just because they are not grammatically correct. I probably should not have even brought this up.

Barry
As to Moises Silva, on a good day I could beat both him and Ray Dillard at the ping pong table when were all at WTS in the late 60’s – just to show you I am too old to worry about being “clever”.

Keith Yoder
Warring States Project
UMass Amherst

Keith Yoder wrote:Of course we all know that James never singles out any contemporary individual by name or otherwise. …
Names are the very first part of “foreign” people that we are aware of, especially names of foreigners who exercise political power or who attract attention for whatever reason. …
And are we to suppose that James and his audience were completely unaware of “Paul” the apostle and preacher? Hardly.

Paul of course does signal out Peter by name. I personally think that the discussions about “those of the circumsiscion” and “foreskins” have something of a distainful character like, “is your only claim to (religious) fame when you go to the public washroom”, which wouldn’t have been evident if a phrase like, “the Jews”, “the descendants of Abraham” had been used.

“Completely unaware” is perhaps too strong a reading of my sentiments, they may just have not been thinking about him at that time. I think, however, that arguments between leaders and groups could have been more robust than discussing things over tea and scones. You would have to argue for the nature of strife and examples of it in the NT Church, and the frequency of ad hominem attacks (even implicit ones), to give your idea a better chance of acceptance.

The most obvious gap in the argument is that the name Paul is not mentioned in the immediate context. To really sure up your argument you will also have to work with the question about whether the suggested anti-Pauline sentiment was noticed before the reformation or not.