John 20:25

[] Nail print, John 20:25 Awohili at aol.com Awohili at aol.com Wed May 3 16:40:12 EDT 2006   [] Rod Decker's LXX Vocabulary List [] Nail print, John 20:25 John 20:25: EAN MH IDW EN TAIS CERSIN AUTOU TON TUPON TWN hHLWN KAI BALW TON DAKTULON MOU EIS TON TUPON TWN hHLWN KAI BALW MOU THN CEIPA EIS THN PLEURAN AUTOU OU MH PISTEUSW. What is the grammatical significance, if any, between "prints" (plural) of the nails and "print" (singular) of the nails, as here, as identifying one nail or at least two? Whereas we can say "nailprint" in English and have it understood as singular or plural (we don't say "nailsprint"), what about the Greek? Also, I notice that the 2nd century manuscript p66 does have the plural form: TOUS TUPOUS, "the prints" at John 20:25. (The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, by Comfort and Barrett, 2001, p. 466) Thank you. Solomon Landers   [] Rod Decker's LXX Vocabulary List[] Nail print, John 20:25 [] Nail print, John 20:25 gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com Wed May 3 16:52:22 EDT 2006   [] Nail print, John 20:25 [] Would "legitimate" be a better translation of DIKAIOS? An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...Name: not availableUrl: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20060503/a32f6baf/attachment.pl   [] Nail print, John 20:25[] Would "legitimate" be a better translation of DIKAIOS?
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
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.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — December 14th, 2016, 10:55 pm

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]