Gal 6:16 Tony Costa tmcos at hotmail.com Fri Sep 17 13:33:19 EDT 1999 Matt 19:9 MH EPI PORNEIA KANWN Dear Friends,This is not really a question on grammar. In Gal 6:16, Paul speaks of the “Israel of God”. There has been some debate over this term. Is it a reference to the Jewish believers…
Gal 1:6 Byron Knutson byronk at open.org Fri Dec 10 04:20:55 EST 1999 Grammars Grammars List members:I am wondering what it is I’m missing in Gal 1:6. It reads as follows:…APO TOU KALESANTOS UMAS EN CARITI CRISTOU….Every English version I consulted translated this in the same fashion, e.g.,KJV:…from him that called you into the…
 Galatians 4:9 Stephen Walch swalchy at thewaytoyahuweh.com Mon Oct 1 11:27:15 EDT 2007  trapeza  Galatians 4:9 νῦν δὲ γνόντες θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ, πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα οἷς πάλιν ἄνωθεν δουλεύειν θέλετεNUN DE GNONTES QEON MALLON DE GNWSQENTES hUPO QEOU PWS EPISTREPHETE PALIN EPI…
 Galatians 2:8 ellipsis lws39 at juno.com lws39 at juno.com Sat Feb 16 23:29:24 EST 2008  Is GRAFH in the singular used in Josephus or Philofor all the scriptures?  Galatians 2:8 ellipsis Galatians 2:8O GAR ENERGHSAS PETRW EIS APOSTOLHN THS PERITOMHS ENHRGHSEN KAI EMOI EIS TA EQNHMy question pertains to the phrases:EIS…
The grammar of this verse, especially in the variant that is currently in the critical text,
has been the subject of controversy for over 300 years.
1 Timothy 3:16 (AV)
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.
The Critical Text does not have “God was manifest”, the distinction is well known:
θεός – Received Text, almost all Greek mss
ὃς – Critical Text – a few Greek mss – translated variously
And I won’t go into the ECW and versional support since that involves also evaluating a 3rd variant:
ὃ – Codex Bezae, non-TR reading until Griesbach, supported by Grotius, Newton, Wetstein
So we have the Critical Text, and check your Bibles for the wider section (which you may need for considering antecedents.)
3:16 (CT) καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ
The history on this debate is very rich, a lot of fun to study, and little known. We are looking at that on Facebook forums the last week or so.
And the debate is complicated by the late 1800s development of the hymn (or confession or poem) theory for the verse. An idea that was mildly considered and often rejected … until it was kick-started by Fenton Hort. Once Hort gave his approval, the die was cast, and the theory remains very popular today in textual circles. And it is not my idea to discuss that theory here, however it would be remiss to raise the grammatical issue of the verse without mentioning the theory. The hymn theory says that the antecedent resides in the ethereal hymn and since it is a quotation, no proper antecedent has to be in the NT text for grammar solidity.
Now as to the grammar of the Critical Text:
As an example, Daniel Wallace has a number of comments on the grammar, including (emphasis added):
…1 Tim 3:16 most likely has an entirely different reason for the masculine relative pronoun—namely, because it is probably an embedded hymn fragment, there is no real antecedent. – Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit (2003)
Basically, I am wondering what you think of the grammar. And references you might want to share. The Critical Text is the question. Putting aside hymn theory, which is not really a b-greek discussion, since it goes outside the NT to a text unknown to complete the grammar components.
Hort talked of an “apparent solecism”. Metzger says that the text was changed from ὃς, which he considered the authentic autographic text, “to bring the relative into concord with μυστήριον”.
Statistics: Posted by Steven Avery — June 15th, 2014, 9:55 am
Statistics: Posted by timothy_p_mcmahon — March 18th, 2017, 10:59 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
Here’s one way you could do that: use a text editor to make lists of verses like this:
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:
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