Skip to content

Tag Archives: 1

1 Peter 4:3

01-Sep-17
Paul-Nitz wrote:
Thanks. That’s simpler and helpful. The addition of either ημιν and υμιν are variant readings here, by the way.
Why would we expect a Dative Ptc?
(I just read Smyth Section 1497 and 1498 about the Dative Ptc. Those descriptions don’t seem to fit here.)

Because ἀρκετός normally takes the dative + infinitive, so a participle modifying ὐμῖν or ἡμῖν would also normally be in the dative, πεπορευομένοις. That’s what motivates people to try to explain the accusative…

Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — May 3rd, 2014, 6:49 am


1 Timothy 5:9

27-Aug-17
cwconrad wrote:

Stephen Carlson wrote:

Randall Tan wrote:One could assume an elided participle–but γεγονυῖα is actually what would need to be elided, not ὤν (a widow is not currently the wife of one husband)–but the contextually-easily-supplied ὤν is more likely to be elided than the more affected form γεγονυῖα in the first place. This consideration contributed further to our conclusion that ὤν was elided in relation to ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα & that γεγονυῖα belongs with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.

I suppose γενομένη could be supplied to get the appropriate sense.

It seems to me that γεγονυῖα is an integral part of the idiomatic expression meaning “x years old”, while construing γεγονυῖα with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή — a Greek equivalent of the idiomatic Latin laudatory epithet univira, “committed life-long to one husband” — strikes me as absurd. I think that the μὴ does qualify just the phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα and that the genitive phrase is clearly a genitive of comparison construed with ἔλαττον. I see no problem with assuming an elliptical ὢν with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.

People are duscussing the relatives strengths of the (merel hypothetical /conjectured) participles, I would like to change that emphasis. I think that the strength (or recognisability ) of the element with which the particle is used will have bearing on the tendencies for elision.

If ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή was a readily recognisable laudatory epithet (as claimed) (virtually = adjectival unit) for an older woman (alive or no longer alive) then it would be less likely to need the aid of the (a) participle to bring attention to bear on it’s meaning, than the variable phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα would need.

I think the force of the statement ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή requires a participle that can give the force of “she has always been”. The ούσα suggested above may or may not convey that, and I feel that the suggestion of
γενομένη might do so, but the best would be a doubling of the γεγονυῖα.

If it was doubled, then it would be lost from the strongest (independent – self-standing) element and retained by the weakest (non-independent, the one that needs help to stand, least-able-stand-by-itself) element.

Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 29th, 2014, 4:41 pm


Revelation 15:2

22-Aug-17

As an addition, as I could not edit the former text: M. Psellus, In E. Nic. 549.6: “δυνατὸν δὲ αὐτοὺς νικῆσαι οὐκ ἐκ προφανοῦς πο- λέμου”. “it is possible now that they win not out of a forseen battle”. Same author (Oratoria min. 2.37: ” ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῷ μάχεσθαι νικᾶν τε καὶ εἰρήνην ἐκ πολέμου […]

1 Thessalonians 4:16

16-Aug-17

1Th. 4:15 Τοῦτο γὰρ ὑμῖν λέγομεν ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου, ὅτι ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι εἰς τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου οὐ μὴ φθάσωμεν τοὺς κοιμηθέντας· 16 ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ, καταβήσεται ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον, 17 ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ οὕτως πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα.

Spent some time looking over the exegetical history from John Calvin to J. Weima[1].

He employs the term κελεύσματος, (shout,) and afterwards adds, the voice of the archangel, by way of exposition, intimating what is to be the nature of that arousing shout—that the archangel will discharge the office of a herald to summon the living and the dead to the tribunal of Christ.
John Calvin

Paul is invoking an eschatological – apocalyptic scenario where 98% of the scenario is left to be filled in by the reader. Not sure what can be assumed about the Thessalonian’s familiarity with Second Temple Apocalyptic literature but that isn’t the problem. Paul invokes the scenario as if they were familiar with it. In the apocalyptic literature divine commands are often delivered by a subordinate agent, for example the opening of the seals in the Apocalypse where The Lamb opens the seals but a command is given by one of the living beings:

Rev. 6:1 Καὶ εἶδον ὅτε ἤνοιξεν τὸ ἀρνίον μίαν ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ σφραγίδων, καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων λέγοντος ὡς φωνὴ βροντῆς· ἔρχου.

J. Weima[1] disagrees, he thinks that αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος nails down ὁ κύριος as the agent of κελεύσματι. I don’t follow that. ἐν κελεύσματι is an attendant circumstance. The pronoun αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος draws attention to identity of the agent in the main verb καταβήσεται ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ.

Ran across a somewhat tangential observation about the constituent order in this passage. αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος is a point of departure followed by a long marked focal constituent ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ in the pre-verbal slot[2]. This doesn’t particularly address the question at hand but I thought someone might like to read this paper.

[1] a Google search: φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου who is speaking, delivered among others J. Weima 2014,

1-2 Thessalonians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)
By Jeffrey A. D. Weima, 2014

[2] See page 25, Greek Word Order in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11 Stephen Wunrow April 16, 2013
https://www.academia.edu/25302324/Greek … _4_13_5_11

Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — January 20th, 2017, 4:06 pm


Revelation 12:8

08-Aug-17

Barry, I don’t have a clue how long this error has been there in the SBLGNT at STEP bible site. I edited meanings and manuscripts for the Apocalypse of John several years back and didn’t notice it. You would think anyone that read it would report it. …

1 Corinthians 11:13

05-Aug-17

Thanks, guys.

Statistics: Posted by timothy_p_mcmahon — March 18th, 2017, 10:59 pm


1 Timothy 2:11

01-Aug-17
Andrew Chapman wrote:
Are not the three from Euripides all genitive plurals of αὐθέντης?

Could be. I didn’t bother to check and it’s the kind of thing that could cause the lemmatizer to go astray.

Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — March 24th, 2014, 2:03 pm


2 John 11

28-Jul-17
Stephen Hughes wrote:

April 20th, 2017, 1:09 am

How difficult is it to make concordance list this into one with verse-either-side or paragraph contexts? Looking them up one by one and finding the element mentioned is tedious.

Here’s one way you could do that: use a text editor to make lists of verses like this:

CODE:

Luke 19:23; John 17:6; John 17:8

Now use a site like Biblegateway that allows you to specify more than one verse at the same time. Here is the format for the URL you need:

CODE:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 19:23; John 17:6; John 17:8&version=SBLGNT

Or you can enter the list of verses into their text box and select SBLGNT, if you prefer. Please start a new thread if you want to discuss the results of that, or put it into your moieties thread.

Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 20th, 2017, 6:16 am


2 John 1

27-Jul-17

Stephen, are you familiar with Raymond Brown’s 1978 book, The Community of the Beloved Disciple? It’s speculative, to be sure, but he argues that the Johannine community developed separately from the apostolic church but merged with it toward the end of the first century, at which point the Johannine community suffered a schism in which a “Gnostic-like” majority group walked out “into the world”. Brown’s proposition is that the Johannine epistles are intended to point the right understanding of the Johannine gospel and to warn against the schismatic group, the second and third letters focusing more on those in the schismatic group. That, at least, is my recollection of it, but something like that must be involved in these letters.

Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — January 10th, 2014, 10:47 am


Matthew 16:18

28-Jun-17

Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 11:29 amJonathan Robie wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 6:01 amI don’t want this to get lost – Timothy is correct here, and this is the one direct response to the question in the OP.ταυτη is not referring back to …

1 Corinthians 15:22

22-Mar-17

1 Cor. 15:22 EN TW ADAM PANTES APOQNHSKOUSIN OUTWS KAI EN TW CRISTW PANTES ZWOPOINQHSONTAI Is there a grammatical argument for why EN TW ADAM or EN TW CRISTW are either adjectival or adverbial in 1 Cor. 15:22? David Weiner

1 Timothy 2:4

01-Mar-17

the text: 4. hOS PANTAS ANQWRWPOUS QELEI SWQHNAI KAI EIS EPIGNQSIN ALHQEIAS ELQEIN 5. hEIS GAR QEOS hEIS KAI MESITHS QEOU KAI ANQRWPWN ANQRWPOS CRISTOS IHSOUS My questions concerns two words. 1. QELW In an article I read an interpretation that there is a distinction between QELW and BOULOMAI here. So, the text says that […]

Acts 17:28

19-Jan-17

Is any body interested to work through maybe a hundred lines of this is some form or another in this thread?

Here are the first four lines that set the background for the Biblical quote (together with a few pointers that I think might be helpful):

Aratus Solensis, Phaenomena, 1-4 wrote:ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα, τὸν οὐδέποτ᾽ ἄνδρες ἐῶμεν
ἄρρητον: μεσταὶ δέ Διὸς πᾶσαι μὲν ἀγυιαί,
πᾶσαι δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἀγοραί, μεστὴ δὲ θάλασσα
καὶ λιμένες: πάντη δὲ Διὸς κεχρήμεθα πάντες.

ἀρχώμεσθα – let’s begin hortative subjunctive, ie. an invitation to join somebody in an action or endeavour that thay are undertaking or planning to undertake
τὸν … ἐάω … ἄρρητον – I let him be …, I am leaving him to be … a verb with two accusatives
ἄρρητος – not spoken of In speaking of his rapture, the Apostle uses ἄρρητος to describe what he heard in heaven – 2 Corrinthians 12:4 ὅτι ἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον, καὶ ἤκουσεν ἄρρητα ῥήματα, ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι.
μεστός – (stuffed) full adjective + genitive of what sth is filled with. It is used in the NT and survives into Modern Greek.
ἀγοραί – markets where people mean for commerce and social interaction, or the interactions that take place
Διὸς – of Zeus the meaning is the pantheistic all pervading world-soul, rather than the fickle olympian
ἀγυιαί – streets, highways a mostly Epic word that does not survive into Modern Greek
λιμήν – harbour the word is third declension masculine. It is used three times in the New Testament. As an illustration of the Modern Greek diglossia, it survives into literary Modern Greek as λιμένας, and has developed into colloquial Modern Greek as λιμάνι.
πάντη – in every way, altogether An adverbial form. It is used by Luke in Acts 24:2-3, Κληθέντος δὲ αὐτοῦ, ἤρξατο κατηγορεῖν ὁ Τέρτυλλος λέγων, Πολλῆς εἰρήνης τυγχάνοντες διὰ σοῦ, καὶ κατορθωμάτων γινομένων τῷ ἔθνει τούτῳ διὰ τῆς σῆς προνοίας, 3 πάντῃ τε καὶ πανταχοῦ ἀποδεχόμεθα, κράτιστε Φῆλιξ, μετὰ πάσης εὐχαριστίας.
κεχρήμεθα – we long for (From LSJ χράω) in pf. κέχρημαι (with pres. sense) c. gen., desire, yearn after, the usual sense in Ep.

Any responses, translations or queries for me or the greater brains trust?

Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — May 20th, 2017, 3:44 am


1 Corinthians 12:2

15-Jan-17

24 Feb 2011 Friends: Moulton and Milligan’s The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, p. 703, cites a parallel to the usage of ὡς (hWS) with the indicative at 1 Cor. 12:2 from the Paris Papyri (46:18) from 152 B.C.: ὡς ἂν εὐκαιρήσω, παραχρῆμα παρέσομαι πρός σε. hWS AN EUKAIRHSW, PARAXRHMA PARESOMAI PROS SE. I’d […]