Matthew 28:17

hOI for some in Mt 28:17? richard smith rbsads at aol.com
Sun May 19 23:04:56 EDT 2002

 

The opening of 1 Peter Vine’s Expository Dictionary Mt 28:17 KAI IDONTES AUTON PROSEKUNHSAN,hOI DE EDISTASANAre there grammatical reasons that hOI is generally translated as “some”rather that as “they”?Someone from another list suggested that DE might be considered asswitching subjects, but it seems more reasonable to me to understand DE inthis verse as presenting the doubt in contrast to the worshiping posture.Thanks,Richard SmithChattanooga, TN

 

The opening of 1 PeterVine’s Expository Dictionary

hOI for some in Mt 28:17? Manolis Nikolaou aei_didaskomenos at hotmail.com
Mon May 20 05:23:11 EDT 2002

 

infinitive -> finite verb hOI for some in Mt 28:17? > Mt 28:17 KAI IDONTES AUTON PROSEKUNHSAN,hOI DE EDISTASAN> > Are there grammatical reasons that hOI is generally translated as “some”> rather that as “they”?> > Someone from another list suggested that DE might be considered as> switching subjects, but it seems more reasonable to me to understand DE in> this verse as presenting the doubt in contrast to the worshiping posture.> > Thanks,> > Richard Smith> Chattanooga, TNMt 16: 67 TOTE ENEPTUSAN EIS TO PROSWPON AUTOU KAI EKOLAFISAN AUTON, OIDE ERRAPISAN.This is similar, no? DE does switch subjects somehow in both cases. Youmay also have a look at Acts 17:18. I think “others among them” is thebest way to understand OI DE in such cases.Regards,Manolis NikolaouGreece

 

infinitive -> finite verbhOI for some in Mt 28:17?

hOI for some in Mt 28:17? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon May 20 06:33:04 EDT 2002

 

hOI for some in Mt 28:17? infinitive -> finite verb At 11:04 PM -0400 5/19/02, richard smith wrote:>Mt 28:17 KAI IDONTES AUTON PROSEKUNHSAN,hOI DE EDISTASAN> >Are there grammatical reasons that hOI is generally translated as “some”>rather that as “they”?> >Someone from another list suggested that DE might be considered as>switching subjects, but it seems more reasonable to me to understand DE in>this verse as presenting the doubt in contrast to the worshiping posture.This is a standard usage, as old as Homer and in keeping with the originalfunction of what later became the article as a demonstrative pronoun (=”he/she/it, etc.”). As such this pronominal usage is, in fact, the veryfirst usage listed for the article hO/hH/TO, circled item “c” under “1.”Cf. Wallace, GGBB, pp. 211-12, BDF #251, ATRobertson, pp. 693-5.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

hOI for some in Mt 28:17?infinitive -> finite verb

hOI for some in Mt 28:17? richard smith rbsads at aol.com
Mon May 20 08:01:39 EDT 2002

 

Linguistics:A real eye opener Vine’s Expository Dictionary Dear Manolis and Carl,Thank you.I was not so much questioning the independent use of the article, as I wasquestioning the use of DE as a contrast or as a switch referenceconjunction.Manolis gave 2 other examples at Mt 26:67 and Acts 17:18. There arecertainly many other examples of this switch reference construction, butin general do they not have an obvious referent in preceding verses?The only referent for the pronominal use of the article is the elevendisciples.Then my question is whether the hOI DE means they (all of the eleven),some of the eleven, or some others who are not mentioned as an antecedent.In the first instance, the DE would not be used as a switch reference, butwould have had its contrasting force directed towards the image ofworshiping despite a presence of doubt. (Or so I had thought.)This translation seemed possible to me because I could not find anantecedent for the switch reference force of DE. I did not know of agrammatical or linguistic reason for translating hOI as some. (Iunderstood its independent use had more of a demonstrative force.)Accepting that hOI DE is here a switch reference device, as it is renderedin the translations, and that also it must have an identified antecedent,then I suppose the verse means that some of the disciples doubted.This would, I think, be consistent with the use of hOI DE in Acts 17:18. “and some (KAI TINES) (of the philosophers) said “What would this babblerwant to say? But some (hOI DE) of them said, “He seems to be a proclaimerof foreign gods.” (A contrast of support among a group that is generallyantagonistic. As in Mt 28:17, with a contrast of doubt among a group thatis generally worshiping.)The example in Mt 26:67 is more like how I previously understood theswitch reference use of the article with DE. It refers back to apreviously mentioned antecedent. While this use is correct, I am thankfulfor your help in recognizing this other switch reference use.And Manolis, I think “others/some among them” is exactly how hOI DE shouldbe understood in such cases.Thank you,Richard SmithChattanooga, TN

 

Linguistics:A real eye openerVine’s Expository Dictionary

hOI for some in Mt 28:17? Mike Sangrey msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Mon May 20 12:28:25 EDT 2002

 

Hebrew undertext in John? Reading Group in NYC On Mon, 2002-05-20 at 08:01, richard smith wrote:> I was not so much questioning the independent use of the article, as I was> questioning the use of DE as a contrast or as a switch reference> conjunction.> > Manolis gave 2 other examples at Mt 26:67 and Acts 17:18. There are> certainly many other examples of this switch reference construction, but> in general do they not have an obvious referent in preceding verses?> > The only referent for the pronominal use of the article is the eleven> disciples.> > Then my question is whether the hOI DE means they (all of the eleven),> some of the eleven, or some others who are not mentioned as an antecedent.Stephen Levinsohn says “[DE] is used to mark new developments, in thesense that the information it introduces and builds on what has gonebefore and makes a distinct contribution to the argument.”[1] In thiscontext, and supported by your point that hOI has to “point” toparticipants in the text, this means that the action indicated by thesecond verb is a “new development” but “introduces and builds on” theprevious one. The contrastive force, BTW, comes from the lexicalsemantics of the verbs and not the DE.That, coupled with the fact that these disciples had just got hit alongside the head with a baseball bat the size of a resurrected Messiah whodidn’t overthrow Rome, tends to make me think that those who weren’tcertain were also those who believed. Let me ask you, what state ofmind do you think Paul (Saul) was in between the blinding and Damascus? Well, we don’t know for sure, but he didn’t eat or drink for three days(cf Acts 9:9). One disturbed fellow. I think you can see that we can’texpect these people to just say, “Duh!”In other words, AUTON PROSEKUNHSAN, hOI DE EDISTASAN, “they believed himbut struggled with their uncertainty.” This flows quite nicely into thefollowing statement.—[1] Discourse Features of NT Greek, pg 112– Mike Sangreymsangrey at BlueFeltHat.orgLandisburg, Pa. “The first one last wins.” “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”

 

Hebrew undertext in John?Reading Group in NYC

hOI for some in Mt 28:17? Manolis Nikolaou aei_didaskomenos at hotmail.com
Mon May 20 14:26:46 EDT 2002

 

Books for Beginners Vine’s Expository Dictionary > Stephen Levinsohn says “[DE] is used to mark new developments, in the> sense that the information it introduces and builds on what has gone> before and makes a distinct contribution to the argument.”[1] In this> context, and supported by your point that hOI has to “point” to> participants in the text, this means that the action indicated by the> second verb is a “new development” but “introduces and builds on” the> previous one. The contrastive force, BTW, comes from the lexical> semantics of the verbs and not the DE.> > That, coupled with the fact that these disciples had just got hit along> side the head with a baseball bat the size of a resurrected Messiah who> didn’t overthrow Rome, tends to make me think that those who weren’t> certain were also those who believed. Let me ask you, what state of> mind do you think Paul (Saul) was in between the blinding and Damascus?> Well, we don’t know for sure, but he didn’t eat or drink for three days> (cf Acts 9:9). One disturbed fellow. I think you can see that we can’t> expect these people to just say, “Duh!”> > In other words, AUTON PROSEKUNHSAN, hOI DE EDISTASAN, “they believed him> but struggled with their uncertainty.” This flows quite nicely into the> following statement.> >> [1] Discourse Features of NT Greek, pg 112>> Mike Sangrey> msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org> Landisburg, Pa.> “The first one last wins.”> “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”KAI IDONTES AUTON PROSEKUNHSAN AUTWi, hOI DE EDISTASAN. As Mr. Conrad has written, this is a standard and really old usage of thedefinite article + DE in Greek. A few examples drawn from NT have beenstated, as well. So your way of understanding is not really sound,because:”… but struggled with their uncertainty” would be “EDISTASAN DE” not “hOIDE EDISTASAN”. The article hOI (before DE) is what makes all thedifference here.Regards,Manolis Nikolaou Greece

 

Books for BeginnersVine’s Expository Dictionary

hOI for some in Mt 28:17? Mike Sangrey msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Tue May 21 07:15:31 EDT 2002

 

diachronic explanation of 1st/2nd aorist hOI for some in Mt 28:17? On Mon, 2002-05-20 at 14:26, Manolis Nikolaou wrote:> > KAI IDONTES AUTON PROSEKUNHSAN AUTWi, hOI DE EDISTASAN. > > As Mr. Conrad has written, this is a standard and really old usage of the> definite article + DE in Greek. A few examples drawn from NT have been> stated, as well. So your way of understanding is not really sound,> because:> > but struggled with their uncertainty” would be “EDISTASAN DE” not “hOI> DE EDISTASAN”. The article hOI (before DE) is what makes all the> difference here.Yes, of course. I should have been more careful with my wording. Whatwas on my mind at the time was trying to specifically answer Richard’squestion. He had asked:> Then my question is whether the hOI DE means they (all of the eleven),> some of the eleven, or some others who are not mentioned as an> antecedent.While Carl’s and your answers are helpful, they did not go far enough toanswer this question. That’s why he had to ask it again. I added morematerial in the hopes of providing Richard the information he needed inorder to make an informed choice.The short version of the answer to this question is simply that hOI isfunctioning as a pronoun and the referent of that pronoun is a subset ofthe group in view.The reasons for that, at least as I understand it, are: 1. hOI functioning as pronoun is very standard usage of the article; 2. The referent of a pronoun must easily be accessible to the original audience’s cognitive environment. While this referent is nearly always within the text, communication theory does not demand that this be so 100% of the time. In this text, the eleven are specifically mentioned. There’s nothing, in the text or elsewhere, to indicate there were any others around. 3. DE introduces new material which builds on the previous material. 4. There’s also the socio-linguistic context, which I won’t restate here.BTW, Richard, I also shouldn’t have inferred that PROSKUNEW meant”believe”. That was a slip caused by my focusing on the nature of`certainty’. “Worship” is good. And I’ll add that the nature of thisverb is such that it sets up considerable tension between PROSKUNEW andDISTAZW.– Mike Sangreymsangrey at BlueFeltHat.orgLandisburg, Pa. “The first one last wins.” “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”

 

diachronic explanation of 1st/2nd aoristhOI for some in Mt 28:17?

hOI for some in Mt 28:17? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 21 07:20:31 EDT 2002

 

hOI for some in Mt 28:17? hOI for some in Mt 28:17? At 10:29 PM -0700 5/20/02, Mark House wrote:>Manolis Nikolaou wrote:> >——————————————–>>>KAI IDONTES AUTON PROSEKUNHSAN AUTWi, hOI DE EDISTASAN.> >>>As Mr. Conrad has written, this is a standard and really old usage of the>definite article + DE in Greek. A few examples drawn from NT have been>stated, as well. So your way of understanding is not really sound,>because:> >>>“. but struggled with their uncertainty” would be “EDISTASAN DE” not “hOI>DE EDISTASAN”. The article hOI (before DE) is what makes all the>difference here.<<>——————————————-> >Isn’t it true, though, that the “really old usage” implies (without always>explicitly stating) a “hOI MEN . . . hOI DE . . .” structure? If the meaning>here really is “some worshipped, but others doubted,” shouldn’t we expect to>have seen “hOI (MEN implied) PROSEKUNHSAN AUTWi, hOI DE EDISTASAN”?> >Wallace seems to imply as much when he states:> >“The article is often used in the place of a third person personal pronoun>in the nominative case. It is only used this way with the MEN. DE>construction or with DE alone. (Thus, O MEN. O DE or simply O DE.) These>constructions occur frequently in the Gospels and Acts, almost never>elsewhere.” (211)> >It strikes me that there’s a third alternative that could be thrown into the>hopper. What if the sentence really ends after PROSEKUNHSAN AUTWi? (“And>when they saw him, they worshipped.”) The new sentence would then closely>link the doubting with Jesus’ promise of authority: ” “But they (still)>doubted, and when Jesus had come he spoke to them, saying . . . ” In this>case the hOI DE serves not so much as a contrast (either of subject or of>verbal action) with “worship,” but simply as a narrative link, much like the>beginning of v. 16 (hOI DE hENDEKA . . . ), with a note of mild contrast.>The hENDEKA is not repeated because its closeness to the preceding context>renders it unnecessary.> >TI DE UMIN DOKEI;EMOI MENOUN OUC hOUTWS DOKEI.(1) I don’t think that Wallace is saying that hO DE is a truncated hO MEN… hO DE construction; he’s simply indicating constructions in NT Greekwherein the article is used as a demonstrative pronoun. In fact, the hO DE+ verb construction very likely antedates the development of MEN … DEantithetical phrasing in historical Greek usage; I think Wallace is simplylisting pronominal usages of the article.(2) I think your third alternative is awkward and really rather difficultto understand. You are suggesting that those indicated by the hOI DE arethe same as those who worshipped, but in fact hO DE traditionally in Greekusage indicates a shift of focus to a different individual or group. If thetext should be understood to mean, “… they (the Eleven) worshipped him.But they still doubted,” I think I would expect (a) a stronger pronoun thanhOI or some clearer indication that it is hOI hENDEKA who continued todoubt; (b) an imperfect EDISTAZAN rather than the aorist EDISTASAN.Moreover, it really does strike me as odd that those who worshipped wouldbe here characterized as doubting. Certainly the new departure in vs 18,KAI PROSELQWN hO IHSOUS ELALHSEN AUTOIS LEGWN doesn’t indicate a responseto the doubt at all, so why would hOI DE EDISTASAN be indicated in anisolated sentence?– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

hOI for some in Mt 28:17?hOI for some in Mt 28:17?

hOI for some in Mt 28:17? Mark House mark at thehousehouse.com
Wed May 22 22:43:12 EDT 2002

 

hOI for some in Mt 28:17? Perfective, Imperfective, and Iterative Carl Conrad wrote:> (1) I don’t think that Wallace is saying that hO DE is a truncated hO MEN> … hO DE construction; he’s simply indicating constructions in NT Greek> wherein the article is used as a demonstrative pronoun. In fact, the hO DE> + verb construction very likely antedates the development of MEN … DE> antithetical phrasing in historical Greek usage; I think Wallace is simply> listing pronominal usages of the article.> > (2) I think your third alternative is awkward and really rather difficult> to understand. You are suggesting that those indicated by the hOI DE are> the same as those who worshipped, but in fact hO DE traditionally in Greek> usage indicates a shift of focus to a different individual or group. Ifthe> text should be understood to mean, “… they (the Eleven) worshipped him.> But they still doubted,” I think I would expect (a) a stronger pronounthan> hOI or some clearer indication that it is hOI hENDEKA who continued to> doubt; (b) an imperfect EDISTAZAN rather than the aorist EDISTASAN.> Moreover, it really does strike me as odd that those who worshipped would> be here characterized as doubting. Certainly the new departure in vs 18,> KAI PROSELQWN hO IHSOUS ELALHSEN AUTOIS LEGWN doesn’t indicate a response> to the doubt at all, so why would hOI DE EDISTASAN be indicated in an> isolated sentence?OK, I’ll admit that my alternative rendering of Matt. 28:17f. is a bitawkward, and that we’re not likely to see it in a forthcoming translation ofthe NT. I’ll also admit that it’s quite likely that in the hOI DE in Matt.28:17 we have an ancient, garden variety pronominal article (Robertson’s”demonstrative article” or Moulton’s “substantival article”). What isn’tnearly as much of a foregone conclusion to me is that we have contrastingsubjects in this context, as though the text had indeed said, “somebelieved, but others doubted.” The hOI MEN . . . hOI DE . . . constructionwould indeed be the normal way to set that sort of subject contrast up(although other combinations, such as hOI MEN . . . ALLOI DE or hOI MEN . .. hETEROI DE, are possible as well), were that the writer’s intent.Most of the grammars put the use of hO DE or hOI DE (when it doesn’t followMEN) in a separate category entirely, describing the nominative article + DEconstruction as an alternative to the use of either the personal or the neardemonstrative pronoun. It’s true that most often this occurs in contextswith alternating subjects (“he said . . . and they said . . . and he said .. . ,” etc.). But Robertson refers to contexts (explicitly including Matt.28:17 among them) in which the article + DE combination serves as “thedemonstrative pure and simple without any expressed contrast” (Grammar ofGNT, 694). He does so in the case of Matt. 28:17, one would assume, becausein that context there is no apparent alternation of subjects going on: Thedisciples went away, saw Jesus, and worshipped him. It seems to me quitenatural to follow this up by translating hOI DE EDISTASAN as “But they (orthese ones) wavered” or “But they weren’t convinced” or the like. There isnothing which demands that the wavering occurred at the same instant as theworship, but even if it did, the two actions hardly represent an absolutelogical contradiction. (I can certainly think of instances when I’veworshipped despite lingering doubt.) Nor is the aorist of “wavered”unnatural following the simple, historically unadorned presentation of theaction of worship which precedes it. One might even make the case withrespect to the meaning of the verb that the choice of “wavered” oversomething more decisive such as “disbelieved” was made precisely in thelight of the fact that it was the same subject group (the disciples) whichwas in view.Finally, while too close a connection with v. 17 may indeed seem strained orunnatural, the “new departure” in v. 18, in which Jesus boldly asserts hisuniversal authority and, on that basis, commissions worldwide outreach,seems to me a quite natural response to such wavering.Perhaps, if anyone cares to follow up, some parallel examples of thenominative article + DE (not following MEN) which call for a translationsimilar to “some . . . but others . . .,” in contexts without clear subjectalternation, might be provided. This would certainly help me to “get thepoint” which seems so obvious to others.Mark House

 

hOI for some in Mt 28:17?Perfective, Imperfective, and Iterative

hOI for some in Mt 28:17? Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun May 26 02:00:51 EDT 2002

 

hOI for some in Mt 28:17? syllabification of double nasals > > I had returned to this passage in preparation for Sunday church, as it is> the gospel reading for Trinity Sunday.> > A new question arose, if the list will tolerate a return to the OI DE> diversion.> > Understanding the OI DE as a switch reference construction to refer to> some among the disciples who worshiped Jesus upon seeing Him in Galilee,> should the remaining verses then be understood as being words spoken> primarily to those who wavered?> > This question is based on there being no switching back to the larger> group. This, I do not think, would exclude all the disciples from the> commissioning, but might be considered as Jesus making a special point to> comfort and encourage those who were doubting.> > Verse 18 “PROSELQWN hO IHSOUS ELALHSEN AUTOIS LEGWN”> > Might the participle PROSELQWN imply that Jesus came specifically to those> who were waivering and spoke words to encourage them?

 

hOI for some in Mt 28:17?syllabification of double nasals

hOI for some in Mt 28:17? richard smith rbsads at aol.com
Sat May 25 21:29:37 EDT 2002

 

Imperative or Indicative hOI for some in Mt 28:17? I had returned to this passage in preparation for Sunday church, as it isthe gospel reading for Trinity Sunday.A new question arose, if the list will tolerate a return to the OI DEdiversion.Understanding the OI DE as a switch reference construction to refer tosome among the disciples who worshiped Jesus upon seeing Him in Galilee,should the remaining verses then be understood as being words spokenprimarily to those who wavered?This question is based on there being no switching back to the largergroup. This, I do not think, would exclude all the disciples from thecommissioning, but might be considered as Jesus making a special point tocomfort and encourage those who were doubting.Verse 18 “PROSELQWN hO IHSOUS ELALHSEN AUTOIS LEGWN”Might the participle PROSELQWN imply that Jesus came specifically to thosewho were waivering and spoke words to encourage them?Otherwise, Matthew leaves the doubt unresolved. Why even bring it up?To keep this as a grammatical question, does the lack of a specificswitching back to the larger group imply that the words of 18-20 aredirected primarily to those who are included in the OI DE reference?Thanks,Richard SmithChattanooga, TN

 

Imperative or IndicativehOI for some in Mt 28:17?

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN Albert & Julia Haig albert_and_julia at yahoo.com.au
Mon Apr 17 09:02:28 EDT 2006

 

[] Question on DE [] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN >>> [RB] So how would Greeks have heard Mt 28:17? OI DE ‘and others’ DE marks a change and OI means a different group.>> [Me] OK, I see the point now. So is it impossible that the DE marks a change of topic from faith to doubt? Why? > [CC] It marks a shift from focus upon those (of the disciples) who responded in faith to at least two others (of the disciples) who responded with doubt. I think the above sequence of quotes, and elsewhere in my post, makes clear that I now agree with you on this; but the fact that the “but some doubted” reading is probably correct *does not* mean that we cannot explore other possibilities also. I was just asking whether the other reading was possible, even granted that it is unlikely. Apparently you don’t think so; but you haven’t given me any reason, just restated the more likely reading which is no longer in dispute. I’m asking if there’s a specific reason DE can’t mark a contrasting antithesis of the “they were X, but they were also Y” kind. Consider the English sentence, “they were rich, but they were also poor”. Couldn’t the word “but” be DE in Greek? If so, isn’t the alternative of Mt. 28:17 still a possibility, even if a less likely one?>> [Me] Though this use, in which a pronoun and DE are used to introduce an otherwise unspecified and elsewhere unmentioned group, does seem to be rare. > [CC] The citations from Xenophon’s Hellenica and Cyropaedia which I gave you earlier (you said you would have to hunt them up, but I had done that, gave you the citations as well as my own English version of them) involved the same sort of shift to a sub-group of those cited in what precedes the clause in which the pronoun hO + DE appears.With respect, I think you’re missing the point. I said such usage was, quote, “rare”. Before you gave your examples, I thought there may have been no such instances, but once you had given them, I conceded that such usage occurred, but noted that it was “rare”. And your examples prove my point precisely. If such usage was common, then why were you forced to resort to quoting extracanonical literature? Besides Matthew 28:17 and 26:67, can you show me any other example either from the New Testament or the LXX? If not, isn’t it a fair call to say that such usage is “rare”? Otherwise, what do you think that “rare” means in this context?> [AP] Quite so. The translator, in the target language (Greek), marks a shift (from one means of watering to another), which is unmarked in the source language (Hebrew). Thus in this case he caters to Greek usage rather than slavishly mimicking his source, as he does all too often.Fair enough, but I think we can say more than this. ve in Hebrew does not mark a shift, and yes, the translator has selected DE to mark a shift which is unmarked in the Hebrew. But he has also selected DE to mark the meaning of ve. Otherwise, he has chosen to leave ve untranslated, which he does not do elsewhere. So it seems that the translator thought (a) we need to mark a conjunction (indicated by ve) *and* (b) we need to mark a shift (not indicated in the Hebrew grammar), and consequently chose DE. In short, there does seem to be some overlap between the meaning of DE and the meaning of ve.All the best,Albert Haig.Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

 

[] Question on DE[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN George F Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Mon Apr 17 09:37:58 EDT 2006

 

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Grammatical Concepts for Biblical Greek On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 23:02:28 +1000 (EST) Albert & Julia Haig<albert_and_julia at yahoo.com.au> writes:> >>> [RB] So how would Greeks have heard Mt 28:17? OI DE ‘and others’ > DE marks a change and OI means a different group.> > >> [Me] OK, I see the point now. So is it impossible that the DE > marks a change of topic from faith to doubt? Why? > > > [CC] It marks a shift from focus upon those (of the disciples) who > responded in faith to at least two others (of the disciples) who > responded with doubt. > > I think the above sequence of quotes, and elsewhere in my post, > makes clear that I now agree with you on this; but the fact that the > “but some doubted” reading is probably correct *does not* mean that > we cannot explore other possibilities also. I was just asking > whether the other reading was possible, even granted that it is > unlikely. Apparently you don’t think so; but you haven’t given me > any reason, just restated the more likely reading which is no longer > in dispute. I’m asking if there’s a specific reason DE can’t mark a > contrasting antithesis of the “they were X, but they were also Y” > kind. Consider the English sentence, “they were rich, but they were > also poor”. Couldn’t the word “but” be DE in Greek? If so, isn’t the > alternative of Mt. 28:17 still a possibility, even if a less likely > one?_____________DE does mark some distinction as has been noted, but what you areproposing seems to be not so much a distinction as a contrast. DE is nota strong adversitive but “a marker connecting a series of closely relateddata . . .” (BDAG, s.v. “DE”). For what you are proposing it seems morelikely that ALLA, a stronger adversitive would be used. See Mt 9.24ELEGEN, “ANAXWREITE, OU GAR APEQANEN TO KORASION ALLA KAQEUDEI”He said, “Depart for the girl is ** not dead BUT sleeps ** “georgegfsomsel___________

 

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Grammatical Concepts for Biblical Greek

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Apr 17 10:36:31 EDT 2006

 

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN On Apr 17, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Albert & Julia Haig wrote:>>>> [RB] So how would Greeks have heard Mt 28:17? OI DE ‘and >>>> others’ DE marks a change and OI means a different group.> >>> [Me] OK, I see the point now. So is it impossible that the DE >>> marks a change of topic from faith to doubt? Why?> >> [CC] It marks a shift from focus upon those (of the disciples) >> who responded in faith to at least two others (of the disciples) >> who responded with doubt.> > I think the above sequence of quotes, and elsewhere in my post, > makes clear that I now agree with you on this; but the fact that > the “but some doubted” reading is probably correct *does not* mean > that we cannot explore other possibilities also. I was just asking > whether the other reading was possible, even granted that it is > unlikely. Apparently you don’t think so; but you haven’t given me > any reason, just restated the more likely reading which is no > longer in dispute. I’m asking if there’s a specific reason DE can’t > mark a contrasting antithesis of the “they were X, but they were > also Y” kind. Consider the English sentence, “they were rich, but > they were also poor”. Couldn’t the word “but” be DE in Greek? If > so, isn’t the alternative of Mt. 28:17 still a possibility, even if > a less likely one?If we’re talking about one group, all of whom are declared to be both rich and poor, I would expect the Koine Greek of your proposed English sentence to be something like: (a) PLOUSIOI HSAN, ALLA KAI PTWCOI, or (b) HSAN PLOUSIOI MEN, PTWCOI DE. But I would NOT expect to see the pronoun hOI used with the DE to indicates what you’re suggesting.>>> [Me] Though this use, in which a pronoun and DE are used to >>> introduce an otherwise unspecified and elsewhere unmentioned >>> group, does seem to be rare.>> [CC] The citations from Xenophon’s Hellenica and Cyropaedia which >> I gave you earlier (you said you would have to hunt them up, but >> I had done that, gave you the citations as well as my own English >> version of them) involved the same sort of shift to a sub-group >> of those cited in what precedes the clause in which the pronoun >> hO + DE appears.> > With respect, I think you’re missing the point. I said such usage > was, quote, “rare”. Before you gave your examples, I thought there > may have been no such instances, but once you had given them, I > conceded that such usage occurred, but noted that it was “rare”. > And your examples prove my point precisely. If such usage was > common, then why were you forced to resort to quoting > extracanonical literature? Besides Matthew 28:17 and 26:67, can you > show me any other example either from the New Testament or the LXX? > If not, isn’t it a fair call to say that such usage is “rare”? > Otherwise, what do you think that “rare” means in this context?> >> [AP] Quite so. The translator, in the target language (Greek), >> marks a shift (from one means of watering to another), which is >> unmarked in the source language (Hebrew). Thus in this case he >> caters to Greek usage rather than slavishly mimicking his source, >> as he does all too often.> > Fair enough, but I think we can say more than this. ve in Hebrew > does not mark a shift, and yes, the translator has selected DE to > mark a shift which is unmarked in the Hebrew. But he has also > selected DE to mark the meaning of ve. Otherwise, he has chosen to > leave ve untranslated, which he does not do elsewhere. So it seems > that the translator thought (a) we need to mark a conjunction > (indicated by ve) *and* (b) we need to mark a shift (not indicated > in the Hebrew grammar), and consequently chose DE. In short, there > does seem to be some overlap between the meaning of DE and the > meaning of ve.For my part, I would be content to accept the proposition that the LXX translator interpreted the Hebrew text and put it into Greek formulation consistent with his interpretation rather than slavishly using a literal word-for-word technique of conversion.With respect, this argument reminds me very much of an account I once heard of an argument with a fellow insisting that the moon is really made of green cheese. Numerous tests having been made of materials taken from the moon surface and shown to be not even remotely of the texture or composition of any known green cheese, the proponent of the proposition replied that, if one could penetrate to the very core within the moon, one would surely extract a sample that could be identiified as green cheese. So, the instances cited of the hO DE clauses in ancient Greek in support of the conventional interpretation of hOI DE in Mt 28:17 being extra-canonical except for the instance in Mt 26:67, and that instance having been dismissed on grounds that there’s a conceivable (if unlikely) alternative explanation, it would appear now to be argued that this one text, Mt 18:17 (hOI DE EDISTASAN) might conceivably be an instance of something that is unparalleled but theoretically plausible. It seems to me that this is the very essence of an argument that is conventionally called “purely academic.”Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN Albert Pietersma albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Mon Apr 17 10:45:22 EDT 2006

 

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN On Apr 17, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Albert & Julia Haig wrote:> Fair enough, but I think we can say more than this. ve in Hebrew does > not mark a shift, and yes, the translator has selected DE to mark a > shift which is unmarked in the Hebrew. But he has also selected DE to > mark the meaning of ve. Otherwise, he has chosen to leave ve > untranslated, which he does not do elsewhere. So it seems that the > translator thought (a) we need to mark a conjunction (indicated by ve) > *and* (b) we need to mark a shift (not indicated in the Hebrew > grammar), and consequently chose DE. In short, there does seem to be > some overlap between the meaning of DE and the meaning of ve.If we agree that Hebrew VE DOES NOT mark a shift, we cannot at the same time say that VE DOES mark a shift. That can only make sense, if we shift our categories from what SEPARATES VE and DE, namely, that DE marks contrast and VE does not mark contrast, to what VE and DE HAVE IN COMMON, namely, that both are connectives. But that is like saying that nouns in Greek are like nouns in Hebrew. The point at issue was, it seems to me, WHAT KIND OF CONNECTIVES VE AND DE ARE, respectively. And there the answer remains: DE marks contrast, but VE does not mark contrast.Al—Albert PietersmaProfessor of Septuagint and Hellenistic GreekNear & Middle Eastern CivilizationsUniversity of TorontoHome: 21 Cross Street,Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.caHomepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm

 

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN Randall Buth randallbuth at gmail.com
Mon Apr 17 13:16:31 EDT 2006

 

[] Grammatical Concepts for Biblical Greek [] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN > >>> [RB] So how would Greeks have heard Mt 28:17? OI DE ‘and others’ DE marks a change and OI means a different group.> > >> [Me] OK, I see the point now. So is it impossible that the DE marks a change of topic from faith to doubt? Why?> > > [CC] It marks a shift from focus upon those (of the disciples) who responded in faith to at least two others (of the disciples) who responded with doubt.> > I think the above sequence of quotes, and elsewhere in my post, makes clear that I now agree with you on this; but the fact that the “but some doubted” reading is probably correct *does not* mean that we cannot explore other possibilities also. I was just asking whether the other reading was possible, even granted that it is unlikely. Apparently you don’t think so; but you haven’t given me any reason, just restated the more likely reading which is no longer in dispute. I’m asking if there’s a specific reason DE can’t mark a contrasting antithesis of the “they were X, but they were also Y” kind.… I conceded that such usage occurred, but noted that it was”rare”. And your examples prove my point precisely. If such usage wascommon, then why were you forced to resort to quoting extracanonicalliterature? Besides Matthew 28:17 and 26:67, can you show me any otherexample either from the New Testament or the LXX? If not, isn’t it afair call to say that such usage is “rare”? Otherwise, what do youthink that “rare” means in this context?>What was wrong with examples likeActs 17:18or 17:32?These are not rare.DE marks the change, OI makes it a different subject. One would notrepeat the OI for the same subject if only the verb were beingcontrasted.This is the O DE idiom is being used.So the four plural examples above, plus any others that searchsoftware may bring from the NT, plus all of the singular examples of ODE and H DE which mark a change of speaker or subject/topic, allow oneto recognise one of the devices of Greek for organizing itspresentation.P.X. (paradeigmatos xarin)I was just reading a story from the life of Aesop.One speaker is introduced withH DE participle clause EIPEN <<quote>> [and she-A, …, said << >>]The respondent is immediately introducedH DE <<quote>> [and she-B << >>]followed byH DE noun EKSHGHSATO <<quote>> [and the foolish girl-A explained << >>]This is typical Greek repartee. Especially the middle H DE, which waseven able to drop a verb for ‘saying’. Listening to this kind of giveand take is how anyone learns and internalizes how Greek uses itssignals. You will find it common wherever you got such kinds ofcontexts. I think of it as a “O DE (EIPEN)” idiom, but it is notlimited to the verb EIPEN, just that it is most often seen inconversational exchanges.Haggim smeHim,Randall Buth–Randall Buth, PhDwww.biblicalulpan.orgybitan at mscc.huji.ac.ilrandallbuth at gmail.com

 

[] Grammatical Concepts for Biblical Greek[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN Albert & Julia Haig albert_and_julia at yahoo.com.au
Tue Apr 18 01:57:12 EDT 2006

 

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Eph. 4:11 >> [Me] Though this use, in which a pronoun and DE are used to introduce an otherwise unspecified and elsewhere unmentioned group, does seem to be rare.Then from me again, referring to the above quote:>> [Me] … I conceded that such usage occurred, but noted that it was “rare”. And your examples prove my point precisely. If such usage was common, then why were you forced to resort to quoting extracanonical literature? Besides Matthew 28:17 and 26:67, can you show me any other example either from the New Testament or the LXX? If not, isn’t it a fair call to say that such usage is “rare”? Otherwise, what do you think that “rare” means in this context?> [RB] What was wrong with examples like Acts 17:18 or 17:32? These are not rare. DE marks the change, OI makes it a different subject. One would not repeat the OI for the same subject if only the verb were being contrasted. This is the O DE idiom is being used.Acts 17:18 and 17:32 are clear examples, sorry for not acknowledging that. They are the only NT examples that anyone has yet provided that actually answer the question and unambiguously demonstrate the usage described. But even so, we’re now up to a count of 4 in the entire New Testament. Maybe there are more, but it still seems to me to be accurately described as “rare”.> [AP] If we agree that Hebrew VE DOES NOT mark a shift, we cannot at the same time say that VE DOES mark a shift.And, quite clearly, I didn’t say that it did. I said the semantic domain of ve must overlap with that of DE. That does not, in any sense, imply that ve marks a shift. The semantic domain of “pet” overlaps with the semantic domain of “cats”. That does not mean that a lion is a pet, or that a dog is a cat.> [AP] And there the answer remains: DE marks contrast, but VE does not mark contrast. Which is what I said.> [GS] DE does mark some distinction as has been noted, but what you are proposing seems to be not so much a distinction as a contrast. DE is not a strong adversitive but “a marker connecting a series of closely related data . . .” (BDAG, s.v. “DE”). For what you are proposing it seems more likely that ALLA, a stronger adversitive would be used. See Mt 9.24 ELEGEN, “ANAXWREITE, OU GAR APEQANEN TO KORASION ALLA KAQEUDEI” He said, “Depart for the girl is ** not dead BUT sleeps ** “ > [CC] If we’re talking about one group, all of whom are declared to be both rich and poor, I would expect the Koine Greek of your proposed English sentence to be something like: (a) PLOUSIOI HSAN, ALLA KAI PTWCOI, or (b) HSAN PLOUSIOI MEN, PTWCOI DE. But I would NOT expect to see the pronoun hOI used with the DE to indicates what you’re suggesting. Thanks George and Carl, that’s the kind of answer I was looking for.> [CC] For my part, I would be content to accept the proposition that the LXX translator interpreted the Hebrew text and put it into Greek formulation consistent with his interpretation rather than slavishly using a literal word-for-word technique of conversion.But if you looked at the surrounding text, you would find that he does quite consistently translate ve, typically as KAI, but sometimes as DE. I’ve quickly scanned through and as far as I can see he *never* leaves ve untranslated in the early chapters of Genesis. So I would not be prepared to accept your proposition, at least in regards to the early chapters of Genesis and ve. For obvious reasons, the translators of the LXX adopted a fairly strict approach to the Pentateuch, although they were much less formal elsewhere in the OT.> [CC] With respect, this argument reminds me very much of an account I once heard of an argument with a fellow insisting that the moon is really made of green cheese. Numerous tests having been made of materials taken from the moon surface and shown to be not even remotely of the texture or composition of any known green cheese, the proponent of the proposition replied that, if one could penetrate to the very core within the moon, one would surely extract a sample that could be identiified as green cheese. So, the instances cited of the hO DE clauses in ancient Greek in support of the conventional interpretation of hOI DE in Mt 28:17 being extra-canonical except for the instance in Mt 26:67, and that instance having been dismissed on grounds that there’s a conceivable (if unlikely) alternative explanation, it would appear now to be argued that this one text, Mt 18:17 (hOI DE EDISTASAN) might conceivably be an instance of something that is unparalleled but theoretically plausible. It seems to me that this is the very essence of an argument that is conventionally called “purely academic.”So far, we have 2 unambiguous and 2 probable instances of the usage in question from the entire NT. We have no instance of the alternative. That makes the reading you support very likely, but it is hardly overwhelming evidence is it? Whereas the evidence that the moon is not made of green cheese, as I understand it, consists of a slightly more substantial body of data. If you think that raising questions about the former is on a par with questions about the latter, then I think the discussion ought to shift to principles of inductive reasoning – which, of course, is outside the scope of this forum. It also leaves me kind of wondering, what is the point of the discussion list? Obviously not to debate the pros and cons of alternative ways of reading the Greek.All the best,Albert. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

 

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Eph. 4:11

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN George F Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Apr 18 10:03:57 EDT 2006

 

[] Eph. 4:11 [] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:57:12 +1000 (EST) Albert & Julia Haig<albert_and_julia at yahoo.com.au> writes:> > > [AP] If we agree that Hebrew VE DOES NOT mark a shift, we cannot > at the same time say that VE DOES mark a shift.> > And, quite clearly, I didn’t say that it did. I said the semantic > domain of ve must overlap with that of DE. That does not, in any > sense, imply that ve marks a shift. The semantic domain of “pet” > overlaps with the semantic domain of “cats”. That does not mean that > a lion is a pet, or that a dog is a cat.> > > [AP] And there the answer remains: DE marks contrast, but VE does > not mark contrast. > > Which is what I said.> > > [GS] DE does mark some distinction as has been noted, but what you > are proposing seems to be not so much a distinction as a contrast. > DE is not a strong adversitive but “a marker connecting a series of > closely related data . . .” (BDAG, s.v. “DE”). For what you are > proposing it seems more likely that ALLA, a stronger adversitive > would be used. See Mt 9.24 ELEGEN, “ANAXWREITE, OU GAR APEQANEN TO > KORASION ALLA KAQEUDEI” He said, “Depart for the girl is ** not dead > BUT sleeps ** “> > > [CC] If we’re talking about one group, all of whom are declared to > be both rich and poor, I would expect the Koine Greek of your > proposed English sentence to be something like: (a) PLOUSIOI HSAN, > ALLA KAI PTWCOI, or (b) HSAN PLOUSIOI MEN, PTWCOI DE. But I would > NOT expect to see the pronoun hOI used with the DE to indicates > what you’re suggesting. > > All the best,> > Albert._____________One last note regarding the snippet above. I would not say that “We” inHebrew “marks” a contrast (pace above) but I would say that it can beused EITHER as a continuation or as a contrast (which is usuallyunderstood from the context). It requires “translating by the seat ofyour pants” so to speak. DE, on the other hand, does MARK a contrast tosome extent though usually not a complete disjunction.georgegfsomsel___________

 

[] Eph. 4:11[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN Albert Pietersma albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Tue Apr 18 10:56:30 EDT 2006

 

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN Sorry, George, to have to demur. You take us back to where we started. I took the argument to be lexicographical in nature, even though both VE and DE are structure words rather than full lexemes. Thus the question is one of semantic range. Therefore, does the notion of contrast fall within the semantic range of VE? Hence would one include it in a dictionary entry as a semantic component? The answer is clearly NO. Would one at times translate VE into English as “but” (etc.)? The answer is YES. Does that then means that VE includes the notion of contrast? The answer is clearly, NO. All it means is that one draws on the larger context rather than specifically on VE.Al On Apr 18, 2006, at 10:03 AM, George F Somsel wrote:> One last note regarding the snippet above. I would not say that “We” > in> Hebrew “marks” a contrast (pace above) but I would say that it can be> used EITHER as a continuation or as a contrast (which is usually> understood from the context). It requires “translating by the seat of> your pants” so to speak. DE, on the other hand, does MARK a contrast > to> some extent though usually not a complete disjunction.> > george> gfsomsel> —Albert PietersmaProfessor of Septuagint and Hellenistic GreekNear & Middle Eastern CivilizationsUniversity of TorontoHome: 21 Cross Street,Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.caHomepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm

 

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN George F Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Apr 18 11:28:59 EDT 2006

 

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Romans 1:28 WFELIMOS On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:56:30 -0400 Albert Pietersma<albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca> writes:> Sorry, George, to have to demur. You take us back to where we > started. > I took the argument to be lexicographical in nature, even though > both > VE and DE are structure words rather than full lexemes. Thus the > question is one of semantic range. Therefore, does the notion of > contrast fall within the semantic range of VE? Hence would one > include > it in a dictionary entry as a semantic component? The answer is > clearly > NO. Would one at times translate VE into English as “but” (etc.)? > The > answer is YES. Does that then means that VE includes the notion of > contrast? The answer is clearly, NO. All it means is that one draws > on > the larger context rather than specifically on VE.> Al> On Apr 18, 2006, at 10:03 AM, George F Somsel wrote:> > > One last note regarding the snippet above. I would not say that > “We” > > in> > Hebrew “marks” a contrast (pace above) but I would say that it can > be> > used EITHER as a continuation or as a contrast (which is usually> > understood from the context). It requires “translating by the > seat of> > your pants” so to speak. DE, on the other hand, does MARK a > contrast > > to> > some extent though usually not a complete disjunction.> >> > george> > gfsomsel> >> —> Albert Pietersma> Professor of Septuagint and Hellenistic Greek> Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations> University of Toronto> Home: 21 Cross Street,> Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8> Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca> Homepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm__________I refer you to Gesenius’ _Hebrew_Grammar_ § 154 Waw copulativum?? (??) serves to connect two or more sentences, or singlewords (on its various vocalization, cf. § 104 d–g). Its use, however, isby no means restricted merely to joining sentences which are actuallyco-ordinate. Frequently the language employs merely the simple connexionby Waw, even to introduce an antithesis (Gn 17:21, 19:19, Lv 2:12, Jb6:25, and very frequently in circumstantial noun-clauses), or when one ofthe two clauses is not co-ordinated, but subordinated to the other. Gesenius, F. W. (2003). Gesenius’ Hebrew grammar (E. Kautzsch & S. A. E.Cowley, Ed.) (2d English ed.) (484). Bellingham, WA: Logos ResearchSystems, Inc.See also Jouon-Muraoka, _A_Grammar_of_Biblical_Hebrew_, ii.646 ff.georgegfsomsel___________

 

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Romans 1:28 WFELIMOS

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>