As opposed to twice the remuneration?Yes.Statistics: Posted by timothy_p_mcmahon — July 11th, 2018, 4:45 pm
First, there is precedent in the pastorals for Paul’s use of plural anthropos in a gender-specific way. In 2 Timothy 3:8, for instance, Paul writes, “Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth–men [anthrÅpoi] of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.” The anthrÅpoi…
Michael Abernathy wrote:
Years ago I read an article (I can’t remember which one) that argued that when the verb for permit is followed by two infinitives the second infinitive often states the purpose of the first infinitive. As I remember the author gave the example of Matthew 8:21 to substantiate his claim.
κύριε, ἐπίτρεψον μοι πρω̂τον ἀπελθει̂ν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου.
Lord, permit me first to go and to bury my father.
We do this in English with a few verbs like ‘go’ and ‘try’.
‘Go and buy some milk’ = ‘go to buy some milk’
‘Try and fix your bicycle’ = ‘try to fix your bicycle’
It seems to me that this happens because the verb demands a complement of this sort. ‘Try’ is inherently purposeful, and purpose is implicit with going, because it is not the going that is the purpose, but whatever one does when one reaches the destination.
My English dictionary, under entry ‘and’, has an addendum which reads:
A small number of verbs, notably ‘try’, ‘come’ and ‘go’ can be followed by ‘and’ with another verb, as in sentences like ‘we’re going to try and explain it to them..’ The structures in these verbs correspond to the use of the infinitive ‘to’, as in ‘we’re going to try to explain it to them..’ .. Since these structures are grammatically odd – for example, the use is normally only idiomatic with the infinitive of the verb and not with other forms (i.e. it is not possible to say ‘I tried and explained it to them’) – they are regarded as wrong by some traditionalists. However, these uses are extremely common in just about every context and can certainly be regarded as standard English.
In English, this isn’t idiomatic with most verbs. And ‘I will teach [you] and fix your bicycle’ would not mean ‘I will teach [you] to fix your bicycle’.
I suspect that the same sort of thing is happening with ἐπίτρεψον μοι πρω̂τον ἀπελθει̂ν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου. καὶ is connective; I think one understands that the terms are sequential – to go and then to bury – and one infers purpose. So I don’t find this example convincing as regards showing anything about ἐπιτρέπω followed by two infinitives. I suspect this is something that happens naturally with ἔρχομαι.
Statistics: Posted by Andrew Chapman — March 17th, 2014, 1:54 pm
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος
This is always translated as “In the beginning”, but from the little I
understand of Greek grammar, one shouldn’t append the definite article in
English if the article is absent in Greek.
Is this “hyer-literal” translation accurate:
“In origin was the Word”
ὅτι ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει
“For the devil sins from the beginning.”
The devil has an article, in both Greek and English, but again, beginning
Apologies for a simplistic question, I’m only two words into the text and
Can someone clear this up for me?
Statistics: Posted by Danny Diskin — April 14th, 2014, 10:40 pm
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑June 17th, 2017, 11:22 pm
Translations are best thought of more of a guide to how someone interpreted the text rather than a commentary on the grammatical structures per se of the source text.
Of course, but translations seem to follow two very different ways of understanding this particular text. And these two different interpretations seem to be found in commentaries as well.
One interpretation takes ἅγιον to be a substantive, the other takes it to be a predicate complement.
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑June 17th, 2017, 11:22 pmA more literal ‘translation’ would be something like “in accordance with the holy one who called you” and even that does certain transformations like participle to relative clause, adding a “one” to substantive the adjective, etc. These transformations only become problematic with they seem to depart from fidelity to the sense of the source.
That’s a more literal translation of this interpretation (the one shown in my last post):
And that agrees with Meyer, as quoted above. NET and NASB both understand the Greek text this way. Here is NASB:
NASB wrote:but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior;
I think I’ve persuaded myself that I like this understanding best. But ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT, KJV, etc. are based on a different understanding of the Greek text. Here is ESV:
ESV wrote:but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct,
That seems to follow this understanding of the text:
s καὶ αὐτοὶ
+ ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ
Expositor’s Greek argues for this interpretation:
Expositor’s Greek wrote:—ἅγιον is better taken as predicate than as substantive, since ὁ καλέσας (καλῶν) is well-established as a title of God in His relation to Gentile Christians (cf. 1 Peter 2:9, etc.)
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — June 18th, 2017, 12:07 pm
Statistics: Posted by timothy_p_mcmahon — March 18th, 2017, 10:59 pm
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
Scott Lawson » June 17th, 2013, 12:50 pm 6 ἑκ τούτων γάρ ἑισιν οἰ ἐνδύνοντες εἰς τὰς οἱκίας καὶ αἱχμαλωτίζοντες γυναικάρια σεσωρευμένα ἁμαρτίαις, ἁγόμενα ἑπιθυμίαις ποικίλιαις, 7 πάντοτε μανθάνοντα καὶ μηδέποτε εἱς ἑπίγνωσιν ἁληθείᾳ ἑλθειν δυνάμενα. (My apologies…I couldn’t get the circumflex over the iota in ἑλθειν for some reason)γυναικάριον, ου τό is diminutive of γυνή…
 1 Timothy 2:4-5 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com Sat Mar 19 11:07:55 EDT 2011  1 Timothy 2:4-5  1 Timothy 2:4-5 I would say that whoever wishes to understand ὅς hOS as having a causal meaning needs to provide some proof that such can indeed be the case — which I don’t…