John 5:26 John Oaklands j_m_oaklands at yahoo.com.au Sat May 8 19:10:12 EDT 1999 Hebrews 11:1 Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? HiHow is EDWKEN understood in John 5:26? Does this refer to theincarnation as of John 1:4 EN AUTWi ZWH HN or, as some have evensuggested, to the resurrection? How does EDWKEN make…
 solecisms John 8:9 EIS KAQ EIS Randall Buth randallbuth at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 06:03:29 EDT 2008  “Word-Guessing” vs. Reading  solecisms John 8:9 EIS KAQ EIS While on the subject of solecisms, how do you all likeεἷς καθ’ εἷςEIS KAQ’ EIS ?It seems intentional enough with the correct dropping ofthe vowel in…
 John 3:16 “so” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net Tue Dec 15 17:54:15 EST 2009  Capital theta in John 1:18?  John 3:16 “so” Dear list,I have been studying a controversy in John 3:16:*John 3:16* οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς…
John 7:8 dano at ott.net dano at ott.net Thu May 6 18:42:43 EDT 1999 Acts 2:6 John 7:8 Here is one that was brought up to me today that has got me stumped..Am posting while checking the archives at the same time :)(John 7:8 KJV) Go ye up unto this feast: I go not…
John 11:35 Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com Wed Jun 17 12:11:15 EDT 1998 Hebrews 6:6-PARASEPONTAS Marcan Leitmotifs (was: Mark 2:23b) A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 2260 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19980617/603debc8/attachment.bin Hebrews 6:6-PARASEPONTASMarcan Leitmotifs (was: Mark 2:23b) John 11:35 Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com Wed Jun 17 12:11:15 EDT 1998…
OIDAMEN or OIDA + MEN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Sat Jun 30 20:53:44 EDT 2001 OIDAMEN or OIDA + MEN At 12:13 AM +0000 7/1/01, Mark Wilson wrote:>Romans 7:14a> >OIDAMEN GAR hOTI hO NOMOS PNEUMATIKAS ESTIN EGO DE SARKINOS EIMI…> > >In light of all the first persons in this chapter, I…
John 7:38 wrote:
ποταμοὶ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ ῥεύσουσιν ὕδατος ζῶντος.
Here is a syntactic parallel for an adverbial genitive with ῥέω.
Proverbs 3:20 wrote:
νέφη δὲ ἐρρύησαν δρόσους
Νέφος is a form of liquid. It seems like flowing on a solis is in the accusative. There is also a use with the genitive.
Is there a good example with a genitive so far separated from the word it governs? ποταμοὶ … ὕδατος ζῶντος seem too far apart.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — August 17th, 2016, 9:09 am
Stephen Hughes wrote:
What logic or syntactic knowledge could / should be applied here to determine whether οὐ μὴ πιστεύσω is aorist subjunctive or future?John 20:25 wrote:ἐὰν μὴ ἴδω ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων, καὶ βάλω τὸν δάκτυλόν μου εἰς τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων, καὶ βάλω τὴν χεῖρά μου εἰς τὴν πλευρὰν αὐτοῦ, οὐ μὴ πιστεύσω.
If, as I assume (perhaps wrongly) that you’re asking about how usage may be changing in Hellenistic Greek of the period in which this was composed, it’s an interesting question. We know that the future indicative was used in the LXX formulation of the commandments of the Decalogue, where older Greek might have used μή or οὐ μή with a subjunctive. In the 1st sg. forms we don’t know if the -ω is indicative or subjunctive. I don’t have access to Muraoka, but I wonder what he has to say about forms such as these. Another question is whether this author (or other NT authors) have learned their Greek in a school or where and how they have learned it. Do the ancient grammarians like Apollonius Dyscolus have anything useful to say on an issue like this? If an author did not learn to speak and write Greek in a school but reproduces what he has seen and heard spoken, how would he understand the grammar of it?
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — December 15th, 2016, 9:33 am
Wow, talk about a newb mistake. ἐμοί is the correct accentuation for the emphatic form of the dative pronoun and the nominative plural of ἐμός. The circumflex is used with the genitive of the emphatic, ἐμοῦ… So much for my reputation for absolute infallibility…. hahahaha, I crack myself up!
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — June 17th, 2014, 3:32 pm
cwconrad asked, “Am I alone in finding the position of παρὰ σοί here strange?” Information available at, inter alia, newadvent.org, indicates you’re not alone.
In several English translations of patristic allusions related to John 17:5, Irenaeus, Novatian, and Origen put παρὰ σοί in front of πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι. Also, Ignatius omitted παρὰ σοί, and Hippolytus left out the phrase πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.
Statistics: Posted by Pat Ferguson — March 8th, 2014, 6:54 pm
Stephen Carlson wrote:
OK. Having checked now Brown commentary, such an appendix was not to be. (There was one on Johannine vocabulary, though, and his use of synonyms.).
It’s been years since I looked at that. I do remember the appendix on Johannine vocabulary, but I also remember a discussion of Johannine use of the perfect; it may have been within the commentary itself with regard to some particular interesting usage of perfect tense.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — May 9th, 2014, 7:54 am
[John 5:4 Byz] αγγελος γαρ κατα καιρον κατεβαινεν εν τη κολυμβηθρα και εταρασσεν το υδωρ ο ουν πρωτος εμβας μετα την ταραχην του υδατος υγιης εγινετο ω δηποτε κατειχετο νοσηματι
What exactly does the imperfect tense of “εγινετο” here mean?
Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 25th, 2014, 5:27 am
[John 1:9] ην το φως το αληθινον ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον
I’ve always thought that there were only two possibilities:
(1) “το φως το αληθινον ο …” is the subject of the periphrastic “ην ερχομενον …”; “the true light which illuminates every man was coming into the world”
(2) “ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον” adjectivally modifies “παντα ανθρωπον”, and “το φως το αληθινον” is subject of “ην” with predicate as the indefinite relative “ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον”; “the true light was that which illuminates every man who comes into the world”
And I previously thought that (1) was more likely given how it would flow naturally into the next sentence, although (2) could be arguable given John’s liking for using similar words in different places in close proximity with different meanings.
But I happened to look at that verse again today and thought of a third possibility:
(3) “το φως το αληθινον” is subject of “ην” with predicate as the indefinite relative “ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον”, and “ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον” is a circumstantial adverbial modifying “φωτιζει”; “the true light was that which, coming into the world, illuminates every man”
On thinking of that it seemed similar to other occasions of such present tense circumstantial adverbials in John’s writing such as 1:48 (“οντα υπο την συκην ειδον σε”), 4:9 (“πως συ ιουδαιος ων παρ εμου πειν αιτεις γυναικος σαμαριτιδος ουσης”).
So which do you all think is the most likely, if we make the assumption that John isn’t intentionally trying to make an ambiguous sentence? I’m thinking (3) now.
My search turned up only two results:
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=1461, which didn’t clearly identify the grammatical structure, and where there wasn’t really a clear consensus
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-arch … 23803.html, where Carl concluded on (1) but didn’t mention (3). Any comments, Carl?
Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 25th, 2014, 1:12 am
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος
This is always translated as “In the beginning”, but from the little I
understand of Greek grammar, one shouldn’t append the definite article in
English if the article is absent in Greek.
Is this “hyer-literal” translation accurate:
“In origin was the Word”
ὅτι ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει
“For the devil sins from the beginning.”
The devil has an article, in both Greek and English, but again, beginning
Apologies for a simplistic question, I’m only two words into the text and
Can someone clear this up for me?
Statistics: Posted by Danny Diskin — April 14th, 2014, 10:40 pm
moon jung wrote:
But as long as we assume that the ἱνα clause represents a desirable state of affairs in general,
my rendering can be obtained.
At the expense of the context, as I’ve already explained. I hope you seriously reconsider why you are pushing your opinions on “ινα” so strongly, because if we disregard context, we can always argue for anything we like and find excuses for everything that doesn’t quite fit. No doubt, the context has to be interpreted, so again you are free to disregard everyone’s interpretation except those whom you agree with.
moon jung wrote:
My understanding seems to be consistent with the observation of Sim’s dissertation: […]
You can choose whatever you like, but I feel that you are just trying to get someone to agree with you, and at the same time you seem to also let your opinions drive your linguistic claims. For example, you keep trying to use what others say in order to prove your original claims, and you press people in that direction as far as you can. Thus I urge you to instead start learning Greek simply as a language rather than as a tool to be wielded. And it would be good for you to be aware of confirmation bias. No one is immune to it, so the best we can do is to provide objective evidence. For a natural language, it seems that only statistical evidence (with a sufficiently large sample size) is objective enough, as other types of evidence all turn upon interpretation, hence the multitude of opinions based on them. You will have to decide for yourself what you consider as sufficient evidence, but don’t expect me to agree with you if you do not provide corpus-based evidence but only your opinions concerning solitary instances.
Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 13th, 2014, 10:47 pm
There are really two different issues being discussed in this thread — agency and instrumentality. Agency is usually expressed with a preposition + the genitive, instrumentality is usually expressed with the dative, sometimes (and especially in Koine) with the preposition ἐν + dative. Agency is usually personal, instrumentality impersonal. I would take ἐν αὐτῷ with ζωὴ ἦν, which would meant that the λόγος is the source of life.
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — September 27th, 2016, 1:53 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote:
The SBLGNT punctuation uses parentheses around verse 15:14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας· 15 (Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων· Οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον· Ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν·) 16 ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος· 17 ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο.
This implies that the ὅτι in verse 16 continues from the last clause of verse 14:
πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας … ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν
Makes sense to me …
Wow! It makes sense. The fact that the witness of the Baptist begins from John 1:19 makes it reasonable
to think that the statement in John 1:15 about the Baptist is parenthetical. The only problem seems whether
such a parenthetical insertion without any discourse particle (e.g. δε ) is an established method of narration.
Statistics: Posted by moon jung — July 12th, 2014, 10:19 pm
Dear friends and collegues,
John 6:6 Τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγεν πειράζων αὐτόν· αὐτὸς γὰρ ᾔδει τί ἔμελλεν ποιεῖν.
Why used John the Imperfect ἔλεγεν and not an Aorist form? What intended force could that imply? Is he saying that while/as/during Jesus was saying that he wanted to test his disciple?
Thanks for all help – even suggestions are highly welcome !
Statistics: Posted by Peter Streitenberger — April 4th, 2014, 8:25 am
Another way of approaching this is to ask if the genitive is relating to the comparative or to the adjective πολύς and its possibly implied noun.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — November 25th, 2016, 1:26 am