Interesting enough, but in the context of a discussion on word order, Pennington doesn’t explicitly state which verb the “intervening” indirect object goes with. Either Herod made some grand statement to all around him, “By Jove, mark my words, I wil…
The synoptic parallel provides one an opportunity to do that.
Matthew 15:34 wrote:Καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Πόσους ἄρτους ἔχετε;
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — September 22nd, 2017, 3:07 pm
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
[John 5:4 Byz] αγγελος γαρ κατα καιρον κατεβαινεν εν τη κολυμβηθρα και εταρασσεν το υδωρ ο ουν πρωτος εμβας μετα την ταραχην του υδατος υγιης εγινετο ω δηποτε κατειχετο νοσηματι
What exactly does the imperfect tense of “εγινετο” here mean?
Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 25th, 2014, 5:27 am
[John 1:9] ην το φως το αληθινον ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον
I’ve always thought that there were only two possibilities:
(1) “το φως το αληθινον ο …” is the subject of the periphrastic “ην ερχομενον …”; “the true light which illuminates every man was coming into the world”
(2) “ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον” adjectivally modifies “παντα ανθρωπον”, and “το φως το αληθινον” is subject of “ην” with predicate as the indefinite relative “ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον”; “the true light was that which illuminates every man who comes into the world”
And I previously thought that (1) was more likely given how it would flow naturally into the next sentence, although (2) could be arguable given John’s liking for using similar words in different places in close proximity with different meanings.
But I happened to look at that verse again today and thought of a third possibility:
(3) “το φως το αληθινον” is subject of “ην” with predicate as the indefinite relative “ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον”, and “ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον” is a circumstantial adverbial modifying “φωτιζει”; “the true light was that which, coming into the world, illuminates every man”
On thinking of that it seemed similar to other occasions of such present tense circumstantial adverbials in John’s writing such as 1:48 (“οντα υπο την συκην ειδον σε”), 4:9 (“πως συ ιουδαιος ων παρ εμου πειν αιτεις γυναικος σαμαριτιδος ουσης”).
So which do you all think is the most likely, if we make the assumption that John isn’t intentionally trying to make an ambiguous sentence? I’m thinking (3) now.
My search turned up only two results:
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=1461, which didn’t clearly identify the grammatical structure, and where there wasn’t really a clear consensus
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-arch … 23803.html, where Carl concluded on (1) but didn’t mention (3). Any comments, Carl?
Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 25th, 2014, 1:12 am
moon jung wrote:
But as long as we assume that the ἱνα clause represents a desirable state of affairs in general,
my rendering can be obtained.
At the expense of the context, as I’ve already explained. I hope you seriously reconsider why you are pushing your opinions on “ινα” so strongly, because if we disregard context, we can always argue for anything we like and find excuses for everything that doesn’t quite fit. No doubt, the context has to be interpreted, so again you are free to disregard everyone’s interpretation except those whom you agree with.
moon jung wrote:
My understanding seems to be consistent with the observation of Sim’s dissertation: […]
You can choose whatever you like, but I feel that you are just trying to get someone to agree with you, and at the same time you seem to also let your opinions drive your linguistic claims. For example, you keep trying to use what others say in order to prove your original claims, and you press people in that direction as far as you can. Thus I urge you to instead start learning Greek simply as a language rather than as a tool to be wielded. And it would be good for you to be aware of confirmation bias. No one is immune to it, so the best we can do is to provide objective evidence. For a natural language, it seems that only statistical evidence (with a sufficiently large sample size) is objective enough, as other types of evidence all turn upon interpretation, hence the multitude of opinions based on them. You will have to decide for yourself what you consider as sufficient evidence, but don’t expect me to agree with you if you do not provide corpus-based evidence but only your opinions concerning solitary instances.
Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 13th, 2014, 10:47 pm
David Lee wrote:
The author (both human and divine) would write in a way that the epistle could be understood by most readers, especially if it was meant to be passed around and read in different churches. I think languages have enough nuance that by using certain vocabulary, word order, and word patterns, a fluent immersed reader would be clear on what the epistle is saying, at least semantically.
The first statement of yours is an assumption, which may not be so easy to justify as you might have assumed. Your second statement is reasonable, but what if a rhetorical question and a rhetorical statement have almost exactly the same semantic meaning? Then there would be no need for the reader to attempt to distinguish between the two. Even in English not everything is a statement or a question… We see people using “…?”, “?!”, “!?!?” and so on, which seems to suggest that some exclamations are ‘in-between’…
Statistics: Posted by David Lim — May 16th, 2014, 5:18 am
There are really two different issues being discussed in this thread — agency and instrumentality. Agency is usually expressed with a preposition + the genitive, instrumentality is usually expressed with the dative, sometimes (and especially in Koine) with the preposition ἐν + dative. Agency is usually personal, instrumentality impersonal. I would take ἐν αὐτῷ with ζωὴ ἦν, which would meant that the λόγος is the source of life.
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — September 27th, 2016, 1:53 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote:
The SBLGNT punctuation uses parentheses around verse 15:14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας· 15 (Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων· Οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον· Ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν·) 16 ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος· 17 ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο.
This implies that the ὅτι in verse 16 continues from the last clause of verse 14:
πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας … ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν
Makes sense to me …
Wow! It makes sense. The fact that the witness of the Baptist begins from John 1:19 makes it reasonable
to think that the statement in John 1:15 about the Baptist is parenthetical. The only problem seems whether
such a parenthetical insertion without any discourse particle (e.g. δε ) is an established method of narration.
Statistics: Posted by moon jung — July 12th, 2014, 10:19 pm
I appreciate what you’re trying to do, but my questions about this clause are not really about its pragmatics but just the low-level stuff of figuring out subjects, antecedents, referents, etc.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — December 27th, 2016, 8:58 am
Another way of approaching this is to ask if the genitive is relating to the comparative or to the adjective πολύς and its possibly implied noun.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — November 25th, 2016, 1:26 am
Feel free to ask for help deciphering BDAG any time.
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — October 21st, 2016, 9:43 am
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
Perhaps I’m simply saying what’s obvious, but the fact that πνευμα in Greek, like ruach in Hebrew and spiritus in Latin, is a metaphoric extension from verbs in these same languages that can mean both “blow” and “breathe” would seem to indicate that the analogy is being drawn to comparable instances of unpredictability in the volatile “substance” for which these languages use the single word.
Yes, that makes sense.
Statistics: Posted by grogers — April 1st, 2014, 12:18 pm
If anything, I’d simply like to add here what I think is really pretty clear from the outset: the problem being raised here and the solution(s) being offered don’t hinge on the phrasing of the Greek text.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — June 6th, 2014, 1:22 pm
I had read somewhere — and can’t recall where now — that there are four kinds of impurities from which the rabbis insisted that Gentiles should abstain if they were to associate with Jews.
For example Craig Keener: the legendary The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Also Hard Sayings of the Bible explains similarly, but doesn’t mention rabbinical opinions. The idea is that those things mentioned are not about morality but necessary compromises so that in mixed congregations both Jews and Gentiles could co-exist and celebrate the Lord’s Supper together.
If you can wait for couple of months, this is the way to go: Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Volume 3. If it’s not there (with every imaginable detail), it’s nowhere. (Despite the name it’s not a full exegetical commentary but about the social and historical background. Yes, 3 vols over 1000 pages each!)
Statistics: Posted by Eeli Kaikkonen — July 14th, 2014, 3:16 am
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
Just keeping the interface with prosopa clean.
Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — March 10th, 2014, 2:40 am
It seems agreed that we distinguish “semantics” and “(discourse) functions” of a word, and
we should not transfer the functions of the word derived from context to the semantics of the word.
In connection with ἱνα I would pose a hypothesis that
ἱνα introduces a non-indicative (modal) content
that is potential, contingent, etc in contrast to the content introduced by a ὁτι clase, which is actual.
That is the semantics of ἱνα. More than that, e.g. wish, intention, purpose, obligation, command, etc
is derived from context.
I think that this is the minimum that Sim proposes after all things that look like over-interpretation are filtered out.
To support this hypothesis, let me cite two more examples in additionn to the one already given.
(1) The original example,
εκηρυσσεν τον Ιησοῦν ὁτι οὗτος εστιν ὁ υἱοσς τοῦ θεοῦ.
He was proclaiming that Jesus is the son of God.
Και εξελθοντες εκηρυξαν ἱνα ὁτιμετανοῶσιν.
Going out, they preached that people should repent.
Here the ὁτι clause and the ὁτι clause correspond to each well.
The only difference seems that the one describes an indicative content, whereas
the other a non-indicative content. The more specific content is derived from the context and the
nature of the main verb.
LXX Exo 6:11.
εισελθε λαλησον Φαρθω βασιλεῖ Αιγυπτου ̔ινα εξαποστειλῃ τους υἱους Ισραελ εκ τῆς αυτοῦ.
KJV: Go in, speak unto Pharaho king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.
Here ̔the ινα clause specifies the content of the request. To think about “a purposed result”
seems to be an over-interpretation.
(3) Num 21:5
και κατελαλει ὁ λαος προσ τον θοεν και κατα Μωυσῆ λεγοντες ἱνα τι εξͅγαγες ἡμας εξ Αιγυπτου..
The people spoke against God and against Moes, saying “Why did you bring out out of Egypt..”
[Similarly with 2Sa 19:12]
Here ̔the ινα clause introduces a direct question, meaning that Moses shouldn’t have done that,
which is a non-indicative content.
Let me present two verses from LXX as examples where the ̔the ινα clause is the content of speech.
If I apply this idea to Rom 3:19, I could obtain:
[With reference to ] what the law says to those in the law, it (= the law) speaks that every mouth
should be stopped and all the world should be guilty before God.
[ It is difficult to express the subtle nuance of Greek subjunctive in English. So, the use of “should” should
be simply taken to indicate that it is a pointer fo the subjunctive verb in Greek. ]
Here I took ὁσα ὁ νομος λεγει τοῖς εν τῷ νομῳ to be an instance of the accusative of reference.
A similar construction is found in Rom 10:5:
Μωυσῆ γαρ γραφει την δικαιοσυνην την εκ τοῦ νομου ὁτι ὁ ποιησας αυτα ανθρωποσ ζησεται εν αυτοις.
Moses writes with reference to the righteousness from the law that the person who does them shall live in them.
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 29th, 2014, 7:34 am
Yes, you can say that both egeneto structures provide setting material. However, they are two structures and it is useful to track them separately. The subject structure will introduce participants. The subjectless structure will provide a setting.
Commentators on Acts and Luke have led themselves astray by missing the distinction and making statements like “Luke uses the egeneto structure in both Luke-Acts,” implying that there is no qualitative difference. But there is. And it leads to a significant reappraisal of both works and fits well with other data.
Randall, thanks for the answer. So, are you saying:
(1) The EGENETO + subject structure is both found in Luke and LXX, and can be used to introduce a participant/character as sort of “setting” for a story..
(2) But this subject structure is NOT unique to LXX [Hebrew Bible], and can be a good Greek idiom.
(3) So, only the subjectless EGENETO structure can indicate the relatedness to Hebrew source.
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 21st, 2014, 10:03 pm