hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com Sun Sep 5 18:38:14 EDT 2004  About Eph.2:6  hOUTWS KAI in 1 Cor 15.45 Hi all:hOUTWS KAI GEGRAPTAI: EGENETO hO PRWTOS ANQRWPOS ADAM EIS YUCHN ZWSAN, hO ESCATOS ADAM EIS PNEUMA ZWiOPOIOUN.hOUTWS may refer to what precedes or what…
 1 Pet. 3:21 syntax Kimmo Huovila kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi Mon Jul 17 03:06:43 EDT 2006  2 Kings 5:18 in the Greek Septuagint  1 Pet. 3:21 syntax What is the syntactic relationship between hO, ANTITUPON, and BAPTISMA in 1. Pet. 3:21?hO KAI hUMAS ANTITUPON NUN SWiZEI BAPTISMA, OU SARKOS APOQESIS hRUPOU ALLA…
John 2:23 backusfam1 at bluefrognet.net backusfam1 at bluefrognet.net Wed Apr 3 13:28:32 EST 2002 Greetings from Japan Textbooks for Principles of Exegesis Class My question is in regard to John 2:23 as to the use of the dative plural of the word Jerusalem in the Greek text. Why is this in the plural form?…
1 Thess 5:10 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org Tue Jan 29 15:39:15 EST 2002 DOMATA in Mal 1:3 1 Thess 5:10 Thank you very much to those who responded to my query on 1 Tim 2:7. Therewas no clear preference for option 1 or 2, and some wanted to sit on thefence saying both.…
 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212) rel21x at charter.net Sun May 14 22:44:01 EDT 2006  1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect  1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect Friends and scholars,Both infinitive and participle are substantives morphologically; theparticiple still declines, although the infiintive is now fixed. Both takearticles,…
 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 and spiritual gifts/manifestations Kuzus at aol.com Kuzus at aol.com Wed Jul 23 20:29:00 EDT 2003  Septuagint translated by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton  Re: 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 and spiritual gifts/manifestations  Septuagint translated by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton Re: 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 and spiritual gifts/manifestations  Re: 1 Corinthians 12:7-11…
 Matt 23:9b …. for One is your Heavenly Father Jay Adkins jayadkins264 at gmail.com Sat May 8 05:20:35 EDT 2010  οὔτις ἔσθ’ ὃς οὔ S.Ajax 725 & Jn 1:3  Matt 23:9b …. for One is your Heavenly Father Can some please explain to me why most English translations translate Matt23:9b as they…
Matthew 12:6 Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 2 23:54:06 EDT 2002 Neofiti 1, OFFLIST response requested IOKOBOS to JAMES LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI TOU hIEROU MEIZON ESTIN hWDEI tell you that something greater than the temple is here.Can someone help me understand this comment I read ina commentary on MEIZON:”If we take…
Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com Mon Dec 20 20:36:43 EST 1999 Philippians 2:6 Philippians 2:6 Interpretations of 8.35:Paul Dixon (PD):> > << whoever desires to save his life (eternally) shall lose it> (temporally)> > and whoever loses his life temporally on account of me and the> > gospel, shall find it…
 Col 1:21: Meaning of EXQROUS Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net Sun Sep 23 15:59:19 EDT 2007  Col 1:21: Meaning of EXQROUS  Pronounciation of upsilon On Sep 23, 2007, at 8:10 AM, Stephen Baldwin wrote:> > Ladies and Gentlemen:> A small point about which I am a little perplexed:>> From my reading,…
Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 Robert R. Monti robemon at regent.edu Fri Jul 2 00:57:33 EDT 1999 [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Right now I’m working my way through I John to keep up my Greek translationwork up on my own. I’d like some…
Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Tue Mar 30 11:38:27 EST 1999 the usage of PROGINOSKW in 1 Pet 1:2&20 Perseus fonts From: GregStffrd at aol.comDate: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 20:33:15 ESTTo: cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduCc: church at elp.rr.com, at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Subject: Re: Acts 20:28 Whose blood?Since I discuss this text at length…
2 Cor 5:17 sandra hack polaski shpolaski at btsr.edu Tue Jul 23 14:09:04 EDT 2002 Gal 6:2 and 6:5 – bearing burdens Gal 6:2 and 6:5 – bearing burdens I’m considering the famously terse 2 Cor 5:17a:hWSTE EI TIS EN CRISTW KAINH KTISISwith the help, as it turns out, of my _Precise Parallel NT_…
Luke 22:38 wrote:
Οἱ δὲ εἶπον, Κύριε, ἰδού, μάχαιραι ὧδε δύο. Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Ἱκανόν ἐστιν.
Is the sense of Ἱκανόν ἐστιν. to say that two swords were adequate weapons, or that Jesus was suggesting that there should be no talk of bringing weapons?
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — February 6th, 2017, 8:55 pm
We are finally able to provide the published text of the article on the “cry of dereliction” from the Brill volume, The Language Environment of First Century Judaea, Randall Buth and R Steven Notley edd., (Brill, 2014, ISBN 9789004263406). The PDF of Randall Buth, “The Riddle of Jesus’ Cry from the Cross: the Meaning of ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι (Matthew 27:46) and the Literary Function of ελωι ελωι λειμα σαβαχθανι (Mark 15:34)” is avaiable at:
www.biblicalLanguageCenter.com under “community” “BLC blog”
It is a fitting read/study for passion week.
Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — April 17th, 2014, 4:54 am
Msindisi wrote: ↑June 27th, 2017, 4:33 amAs the context must govern the referent it would make sense that εΦ ω would signify ‘upon which’ rather than ‘upon whom’ for three major reasons.
1. Though Hebrews speaks of Levi being in the loins of Abraham when he paid tithes, the immediate context of Romans 5 does not speak of our pre-existence in Adam but it does speak of our helpless sinful condition, verse 6, 8 and possibly verse 10. Therefore, verse 12 may easily be seen as explaining the reason why we are sinful which speaks of inheriting a sinful condition.
2. The following 2 verses do not speak of sin at the time of the fall but the condition of sin when there was no law. The whole discourse concerns the committing of sin by people and the mastery of death over people who sin. The idea of inheriting guilt would therefore be of secondary importance and tangential to the whole discussion Paul is expounding.
3. There is a logical progression, which makes sense in light of the context. Not a simple chiasmus that has the last point returning back to the same event mentioned in the first point. Not.
A. One man sins.
B. Sin came into the world.
C. Death came into the world through sin.
B’. Death spread to all men.
A’. In Adam all sinned.
Rather A- B’ show a consequential progression and so it would make sense that as B’ is a consequence of C that A’ is also a consequence of B’. Though this argument is not conclusive by itself it is strong in light of arguments numbers 1 & 2.
Secondary strengths of this interpretation, but not decisive points are that, aside from a Pelagian reading of the passage, all viewpoints can agree on this understanding. We all agree that we sin because we have inherited a sin nature. This is consistent with the Jewish concept of ‘היצר הרע’ ‘hayetser Hara’ or the evil impulse. It is consistent with the reformed understanding of original sin in the concept that people inherit both sin nature and guilt of Adam’s sin. It also agrees with the Arminian view that we inherit the sin nature though not the guilt but become guilty of Adam’s sin when we sin in like manner.
Also it preserves a systematic approach from misinterpreting a passage through reading it according to a presupposed theological stance but ties the theology to the exegesis of that passage in a way that is governed by that particular text and minimises the danger of prooftexting.
Thirdly, even people with reformed theological understanding, such as Thomas Schreiner, recognise the strength of the “upon which” argument in his exegetical commentary on Romans (BECNT). Though this is not conclusive regarding the referent in the passage it does raise questions concerning the strength of the argument itself when one whose theology has been heavily influenced by a reformed soteriology disregards the referent that more clearly supports the reformed position even though the interpretation that he sided with does not in itself contradict a reformed understanding of original sin.
Talk about resurrection, this is quite an old thread. Please note that on B-Greek we focus on on issues of grammar and syntax, understanding the Greek as Greek, and not issues of theology. In this case of Romans 5:12, what tips it for me is not the theological content, but that the phrase is really a stock phrase used adverbially elsewhere, and particularly in the plural, ἐφ οἷς, but not unknown in the singular. Now, whether it’s consecutive or causal is a matter of some debate in the history of interpretation. This article by Cranfield is supposed to be quite exhaustive on the subject:
“On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.12,” SJT 22 (1969): 324–41
But I can’t comment further since the Scottish Journal of Theology is not accessible through JSTOR (the first time I’ve been let down on that regard).
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — June 29th, 2017, 11:02 am
Yeah, my objective with Sahidic is even less ambitious than a similar project with Syriac. I thought it would be useful to look at the architecture of the language and see to what extent the versions could be trusted in textual criticism. I thought it would be about as difficult as Syriac coming from Hebrew. I was wrong.
Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — May 23rd, 2017, 3:11 pm
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑April 17th, 2017, 11:59 pm
As far as I can tell, there’s no simple relation between the two. They’re different things. The fact that they share the term “topic” seems to be creating expectations they are more closely related, but they are not.
I really do think I’ve heard some other people imply that there is a closer relationship than that, but those people may be confused too.
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑April 17th, 2017, 11:59 pmLambrecht’s books has been very popular and influential. He provides (his own) definitions for topic and focus. It is similar to what Levinsohn is doing, but not identical. I think Levinsohn follows Simon Dik more (whom I haven’t read). So does Helma Dik.
I have Simon Dik’s book. It is very clearly written, I should work my way through it.
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑April 17th, 2017, 11:59 pmLevinsohn has actually published quite a bit. To understand him, that’s the first and best place to go. His coursebook, though dated, lays out several of the concepts, but he’s been updating them in other publications. Many of these are on his website. If you can read Spanish, you may find his introduction to his Galatians analysis helpful.
Thanks, I’ll look there. My … Spanish … is not great. But that kind of technical Spanish may or may not be possible.
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 18th, 2017, 10:19 am
Heb 6:6 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net Sun Jul 12 15:57:04 EDT 1998 Previous message: Reitzenstein Poimandres 1904 Next message: Rom. 1:4 EN DUNAMEI adverbial or adjectival You wrote:>> To Whom does the aorist participle PARAPESONTAS in Heb. 6:6 refer?Does it refer to believers? If so, what is the writer saying aboutsuch ones? Conversely, could…
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
Salience marking of the anarthrous definite noun is a difficult concept for some of us to adjust to. It seems counter intuitive at least to English language natives. But it is affirmed by several of the widely read authors in NT text-linguistics.
Yeah, though I’d feel better if I could find some study outside of Koine or ancient Greek that addressed this.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — December 9th, 2013, 4:02 am