On the other hand, if we assume that this is not a counterfactual condition at all, but a simple condition with no implications: (If x, then y). “If the inheritance is based on law, then it isn’t based on promise. But … ” The present indicative is appropriate then, and indeed no verb is more commonly elliptical than ἐστι(ν).
Yes this is what I meant, except that I thought the statement after this rendered the condition counter-factual at least from the writer’s perspective. To clarify, do you consider the conditions in 1 Cor 15:13,16 to be counter-factual? [1 Cor 15:13,16] ει δε αναστασις νεκρων ουκ εστιν ουδε χριστος εγηγερται […] ει γαρ νεκροι ουκ εγειρονται ουδε χριστος εγηγερται From the writer’s perspective, the consequences are patently false, hence aren’t the conditions called counter-factual? Statistics: Posted by David Lim — September 16th, 2012, 12:24 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// Other Re: τίς ταῦτα έγραψεν;
Posted: 15 Sep 2012 04:13 PM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/Cai6QEcmI9k/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
You’re right about the source. See the Wikipedia article on Heraclitus. Statistics: Posted by Ken M. Penner — September 15th, 2012, 7:13 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Re: verbless conditional Gal. 3:18 what mood?
Posted: 15 Sep 2012 08:52 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/Xxt_zWS_Bm8/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Louis L Sorenson wrote: Funk, A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek §857.4 Contrary to classical usage, ἄv is sometimes omitted in the apodosis: (Cf. Jn 15:22, 24; Gal 4:15.
Some later MSS of Gal will supply the ἄv in 4:15. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — September 15th, 2012, 11:52 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// Other τίς ταῦτα έγραψεν;
Posted: 15 Sep 2012 08:20 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/MErpm69eT2Q/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
τά όντα ἰέναι τε πάντα καί μένειν ουδέν
Can someone identify the author of this for me? I suspect that it’s secular but it could be one of the Church Fathers. It could be Ἡρόκλειτος — πάντα ρεῖ and all that. The infinitives cannot stand by themselves. They must be anchored to some finite verb in the text. I would English it like this: “Present reality passes away and nothing remains.”
Richard Ghilardi Statistics: Posted by Richard Ghilardi — September 15th, 2012, 11:20 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// Word Meanings Re: Verb catalog – lexical aspect
Posted: 15 Sep 2012 08:19 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/B61VpbG7HOs/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Louis L Sorenson wrote: Is the bold text still true today? Funk was written in the 1970’s.
In a word: “Yes.”
But its not as bad as it sounds. Historically, the people who have done the grammar writing have also been the ones who knew the language so incredibly well that their intuitions were rather reliable.
However, the situation today is, well, different. Statistics: Posted by MAubrey — September 15th, 2012, 11:19 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Re: verbless conditional Gal. 3:18 what mood?
Posted: 15 Sep 2012 05:35 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/HA034Eg4NsI/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Funk, A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek §857.4
Contrary to classical usage, ἄv is sometimes omitted in the apodosis: (10) οὐκ εἶχες ἐξουσίαν κατ’ ἐμοῦ οὐδεμίαν, εἰ μὴ ἦv δεδομένον σοι ἄνωθεν Jn 19:11 You would have no power over me, unless it had been given you from above Cf. Jn 15:22, 24; Gal 4:15.
Statistics: Posted by Louis L Sorenson — September 15th, 2012, 8:35 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Re: verbless conditional Gal. 3:18 what mood?
Posted: 15 Sep 2012 05:19 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/2NeU_wEgLzc/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
David Lim wrote: Stirling Bartholomew wrote:Gal. 3:18 εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας· τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ δι᾿ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός.
The protasis εἰ … ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία is assumed to be false and is only stated so it can be shot down. The apodosis οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας leads right into a contrary statement τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ δι᾿ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός.
The unstated verb in the protasis would probably be in a secondary tense. But what mood is it in?
I took it to be in the present indicative in both. In general I think most such statements with ellipsis of the copulative can be understood to be in the present indicative, which is the most generic, while using an explicit copulative would specify more precisely. See Matt 6:23, Rom 11:6, 1 Cor 15:13-17,29, Gal 2:17 for counter-factual conditions and consequences that use present indicatives, whether explicit or omitted. Thus I take Gal 3:18 as referring to the “generic inheritance” as being out of promise, giving Abraham’s inheritance as a counter-example to the contrary hypothesis that “inheritance is out of law”; “If inheritance is truly out of law, it can no longer be out of promise. But to Abraham God granted it through promise.”
Counterfactual conditions in Greek, as was noted in the original query, regularly have secondary indicative tenses in both protasis and apodosis — either imperfect (“present” counterfactual) or aorist (“past” counterfactual). A present tense would in that case be out of question here. I think ἦν is called for here in both clauses: “If inheritance were based on Law, then it would not be based on promise. But the fact is that God gave his grace to Abraham by means of a promise.”
On the other hand, if we assume that this is not a counterfactual condition at all, but a simple condition with no implications: (If x, then y). “If the inheritance is based on law, then it isn’t based on promise. But … ” The present indicative is appropriate then, and indeed no verb is more commonly elliptical than ἐστι(ν). Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — September 15th, 2012, 8:19 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// Word Meanings Re: Verb catalog – lexical aspect
Posted: 15 Sep 2012 04:23 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/yUcQwvYVwmQ/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Funk, A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek. §8090.
Precision regarding tense-aspect in the imperative/subjunctive, as well as in the indicative, is impossible apart from the study of individual verbs. For example, in the sequence of injunctions in Mt. 5:39ff., all injunctive verbs are aorist (five examples), except for ὕπαγε (5:41), which is present imperative. This verb is often used in the imperative in the New Testament and always in the present tense (Bl-D §101, s.v. ἄγειν). In fact, it occurs only in the present (and imperfect) in any mood. It would therefore be a serious error to attach special significance to this present imperative occurring among a series of aorists in Mt 5:39ff. The data for a study of individual verbs have not yet been collected from a significant body of texts (the use of concordances is a cumbersome and time consuming method).For that matter, the data for an analysis of tense-aspect in general are not yet readily available. Traditional Greek grammar has operated largely on intuitions based on theory and a few random examples
Is the bold text still true today? Funk was written in the 1970’s. Statistics: Posted by Louis L Sorenson — September 15th, 2012, 7:23 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// What does this text mean? Re: ANGELO of Rev 2:1
Posted: 14 Sep 2012 10:58 PM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/neztZfeC7CI/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Joe Rutherford wrote: I submit that the indirect object of GRAPSON in Rev 2:1 is simply the words…
No, that’s the direct object — what John writes.
The indirect object (if that’s even the appropriate term here) is the recipient of the writing, which, as David points out immediately above, is the αγγελω. The addressee of a letter in Greek is in the dative. This is the case in every epistle in the NT where the addressee is specified: πασιν τοις ουσιν εν ρωμη; πασιν τοις αγιοις εν χριστω ιησου τοις ουσιν εν φιλιπποις; τιτω γνησιω τεκνω; κτλ.
Joe Rutherford wrote: In conclusion, I suppose this could be considered an issue of interpretation.
Precisely. It’s an issue of you allowing your desired interpretation to override the clear sense of the grammar.
Ironically (moderators: please pardon this brief dalliance), I agree with your theology on the issue. But there are other ways, consistent with the syntax, of deriving it. (If you’d care to PM or email me, please feel free.) Statistics: Posted by timothy_p_mcmahon — September 15th, 2012, 1:58 am