Matthew 8:16

[] meaning of DAIMONIZOMENOS Morgan Powell mrpowell at tpg.com.au
Wed May 5 09:01:37 EDT 2004

meaning of DAIMONIZOMENOS In verses such as

• Matthew 4:24,
• Matthew 8:16,
• Matthew 8:28,
• Matthew 8:33
• and others, the participleDAIMONIZOMENOS is usually translated as demon-possessed (or sometimesdemoniac as in NASB). Is there any justification for translating the wordas demon-possessed. Could not the word best be defined as demonized.many thanksmorgan powell

[] meaning of DAIMONIZOMENOS Raymond Regalado fwgk5942 at mb.infoweb.ne.jp
Wed May 5 09:42:10 EDT 2004

[] meaning of DAIMONIZOMENOS [] meaning of DAIMONIZOMENOS On 2004.5.5, at 10:01 PM, Morgan Powell wrote:> In verses such as matthew 4:24, 8:16,28,33 and others, the participle> DAIMONIZOMENOS is usually translated as demon-possessed (or sometimes> demoniac as in NASB). Is there any justification for translating the > word> as demon-possessed. Could not the word best be defined as demonized.The lexicons define DAIMONIZOMAI as “be possessed by a hostile spirit” (BDAG). I guess the “justification” for translating the participle as “demon-possessed” is *general English usage*. One’s *theology* of “demon-possession” is a separate matter, though. One may want to say things like “of course only infidels — and not true Christians — can be ‘possessed’ in the sense of ‘owned’, by devils, but anyone can be ‘demonized’ in the sense of ‘tormented’ — including Christians.”My two cents,Raymond RegaladoTokyo, Japan

[] meaning of DAIMONIZOMENOS[] meaning of DAIMONIZOMENOS

[] meaning of DAIMONIZOMENOS Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 5 09:47:23 EDT 2004

[] meaning of DAIMONIZOMENOS [] Mounce support materials?? At 11:01 PM +1000 5/5/04, Morgan Powell wrote:>In verses such as matthew 4:24, 8:16,28,33 and others, the participle>DAIMONIZOMENOS is usually translated as demon-possessed (or sometimes>demoniac as in NASB). Is there any justification for translating the word>as demon-possessed. Could not the word best be defined as demonized.I think that “demon-possessed” is more accurate in terms of what was meantwhen the word was used in Greek. “demonize” in English has more thesense–at least the primary sense–of “turn into a demon”–vilify so as todestroy a person’s reputation; although in its secondary sense(s)”demonize” may come closer to the sense of the Greek verb DAIMONIZW and theparticiple in question, I think that “demonized” is likely to be misleadingwhen used to translate the Greek word in the GNT.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] meaning of DAIMONIZOMENOS[] Mounce support materials??

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Iver Larsen iver at larsen.dk
Thu Apr 13 12:56:17 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] A less pejorative reading of PARADIDWMI in Matt. 26? > {Albert:] First of all, in many of these 25 cases I don’t see any marked shift in subject – certainly no more marked > then is found elsewhere with other conjunctions or particles – though of course, if you look hard enough and want to > find such a shift, you always can. However, there is a huge difference between a shift of subject, and a shift in > pronomial reference. Not one of the 25 cases I gave in which the word hOI functions as a pronoun, involve a shift in > the group to which the pronoun refers. This only leaves 1 unconvincing example (26:67) and the example under dispute. > So saying that hOI followed by a verb does not have to mean “some” is an understatement. At best, you should say that > “in Matthew, hOI followed by a verb might on rare occasions mean “some””. But I remain entirely unconvinced.Iver: If you took the time to look in detail at how hO DE and hOI DE function in Greek, you would see how this construction indicates a shift in subject.>> [IL] It looks like you are being mislead by the English, somewhat ambiguous, “they”. Try to look at all instances of >> the nominative hO DE (singular) and hOI DE (plural). It is not significant whether there is a following masculine >> noun or not, since the noun only makes explicit what otherwise is implicit.> > No, I think you are mistaken here. There is a fundamental difference whether or not the word hOI is followed by a > masculine plural nominative noun. If it is, then it functions as *the definite article*. If it is not, then it > functions as a *pronoun*. These are quite distinct functions. In the translations you claim are correct of 28:17, it > is assumed that the noun which the pronoun references changes because of the DE. But in all other 26 examples bar > possibly one (26:67), it does not. Hence my scepticism.Iver: You cannot argue from how the definite article and pronoun function in English. Yes, they are quite distinct in English, but not so in Greek. What we are dealing with here is what is normally called “participant reference” in discourse linguistics. It would take too long to explain all about how to do a participant reference analysis, but let me take a fairly random example from Mat 8:28-32. I won’t copy the whole paragraph, so please look it up in your Greek text.In v. 28a the first participant mentioned is Jesus, who is referenced by a pronoun, because he is the main and global participant. In 28b two “demonized” are introduced by way of a participle functioning as a noun. In 28c a different participant is introduced by TINES. So, in this verse, we have three different groups of participants, referenced by either a pronoun, a participle/noun and another pronoun (TINES). The third group was only mentioned in passing in the setting, so they no longer appear on stage.In v. 29a the demonized are referred to by a third person plural suffix on the verb. There is a general rule about specificity that says that if a verb affix is sufficiently clear as a reference, then that is used. If a verbal affix would be ambiguous, then a (personal or demonstrative) pronoun is used. If a pronoun would be ambiguous, then you go higher up the hierarchy and use a noun, often a title or description of the participant. If that is not sufficiently clear, one can go all the way to the top and use a proper noun/name like Jesus (if the participant has been named). But, since the two groups on the stage are Jesus and the demonized, the plural suffix is enough to indicate which group is being referred to.v. 30 moves off the storyline into a background comment or “internal setting”. This is indicated partly by the DE which shifts from storyline to background, partly by the verb “to be” (HN). The pigs are introduced by a noun phrase.v. 31 starts hOI DE DAIMONES PAREKALOUN – DE does not mean “but”, but shifts subject/participant from the pigs back to the demonized, or rather to the demons within the demonized people. The main purpose of the noun DAIMONES is to introduce this new group of participants.v. 32a starts KAI EIPEN AUTOIS – It could have said hO DE EIPEN. The third person singular verb is enough to indicate Jesus as the participant. The KAI probably indicates a close connection in the sense that Jesus grants them their request. (So, you can have a subject shift, even when KAI is used.)v. 32b then shifts back to the demons from Jesus by use of hOI DE.v. 32c then shifts again to another participant: the pigs. A singular pronoun (he) would not work, because it might refer to Jesus. A plural pronoun would not work, because it might refer to the demons or the demonized. So, a noun phrase is used.v. 32d has no shift in participants and there is no DE. The third person verb in KAI APEQANON refers to the same subject as in 33c.Well, I am not sure this will convince you, but it is an interesting exercise to do a participant analysis in order to see how participants are introduced and kept track of during a story. The Greek DE functions – among other tasks – to indicate a change in participant reference, but English has no equivalent. English can still use singular and plural pronouns, but one would often have to go higher up the hierarchy in English and use nominals, names or other means like “some” in order not to obscure participant reference. In our training of Bible translators, we often use the KJV of Mark 9:14-29 to show how disastrous it can be if every Greek pronoun is translated by the corresponding English pronoun.An inadequate understanding of how hO DE and hOI DE function in Greek can also lead to wrong assumptions and misleading translations as you have clearly demonstrated.Iver LarsenSIL Translation Consultant.

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] A less pejorative reading of PARADIDWMI in Matt. 26?

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Albert & Julia Haig albert_and_julia at yahoo.com.au
Fri Apr 14 08:53:11 EDT 2006

[] John, LXX:Genesis: PERIPATEW: Walking and Pleasing [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Hello! I don’t mean to be stubborn, but I think the more these things are pushed the more we learn, and for me at least this is a very interesting discussion. Anyway,> [MS] I’ve had this “feeling” that DISTAZW is NOT quite an antonym to ‘conviction’. ISTM it’s a word that would be used when someone says,”O!, I don’t know, I just can’t be completely certain.” In Greek, the person would say DISTAZW to capture most of that entire Englishsentence.Even if DISTAZW is such an antonym, I think we are treating the text too much like a formal treatise rather than a literary work. In creative literature, things don’t always have to strictly make sense in logical terms. Is there any real evidence that April is the cruelest month? Can it really be the best of times and the worst of times at one and the same moment? These questions simply miss the point of the expressions involved! Perhaps Matthew was deliberately juxtaposing two apparently contradictory concepts together – they worshipped, but they doubted – in order to make some deeper point. Matthew was not writing a formal theological thesis. Maybe he wanted us to think deeply about the interaction of faith and doubt in our own lives and their paradoxical coexistence.> [IL] If you took the time to look in detail at how hO DE and hOI DE function in Greek, you would see how this construction indicates a shift in subject.But I did look up every pronomial hOI DE in Matthew, and apart from two disputed examples, it *never* functions to shift the reference *of the pronoun*. Even if we take as granted that hO DE and hOI DE serve to shift reference, which seems to me both a vague and a subjective concept, that does not prove that it can serve to change the reference *of the pronoun itself*. Furthermore, at least the question of a change in the reference of the pronoun is a reasonably objective question, capable of being falsified (apologies to Karl Popper), not a subjective one like the concept of change of reference in general, which I am not sure what could conceivably falsify (indeed, as noted previously, the only statement that would not involve a change of reference in some sense is a tautological restatement of the previous phrase). If hO DE and hOI DE can serve to change the reference of the pronoun, then that seems to me to be quite objective and eminently provable, and I haven’t seen any such example provided by anyone to date. Hence my continued scepticism. Yes, there may be such examples elsewhere that I haven’t seen – Carl mentions two extracanonical examples which I would have to look up in a library. But the sampling in Matthew suggests that such a function is at best, rare.> [IL] You cannot argue from how the definite article and pronoun function in English. Yes, they are quite distinct in English, but not so in Greek.This is not the point. I’m simply looking for cases that are strictly analogous to the one in 28:17 to see if a shift in reference for the pronoun is possible. In cases where hOI functions as the definite article, then it just is not strictly analogous to the case in 28:17 where it does function as a pronoun. Now of course, if you want to argue that there is no sharp distinction in function between the definite article and pronoun in Greek, fine. But that’s just not relevant to the question here. There are an abundance of strictly analogous cases to consider, where hOI functions as a pronoun, so if a shift in reference is possible, it should be possible to demonstrate it from these cases alone. And in any case, however similar the definite article and pronoun might function in Greek in a general sense, in this case there is a crucial relevant difference that can’t be set aside. When hOI functions as the definite article, there is no doubt about the group to which it applies, because that is determined by the following noun/participle. But the question here concerns doubt about which group the hOI applies to, which only arises in the case when it is a pronoun. So the pronomial function, however indistinctly differentiated from the definite article as a general rule, is critical to this discussion, because it involves an ambiguity which is lacking in the definite article function. Cases involving hOI as the definite article simply can’t address the question at issue.> [IL] It would take too long to explain all about how to do a participant reference analysis, but let me take a fairly random example from Mat 8:28-32. I won’t copy the whole paragraph, so please look it up in your Greek text.OK. But the only occurrence of either hOI DE or hO DE – verse 31 – involves its use as the definite article. There is no doubt about who it references, because it says hOI DE DAIMONES PAREKALOUN. It hardly is possible to ask whether it references Jesus or the demonized people or the pigs. So this passage simply doesn’t demonstrate the use of hO DE or hOI DE standing alone, as a pronoun where doubt may arise as to reference, to shift the reference.> [IL] The Greek DE functions – among other tasks – to indicate a change in participant reference, but English has no equivalent.You may be correct about this – although note comments below. But I’d just like to see one example with hO or hOI functions as a pronoun, and where the context confirms that DE shifts their reference, that’s all! I still haven’t been able to find any.BUT – and this is very important – even if everything you have said is 100% correct, and the reference of hOI as a pronoun can be shifted by the use of DE – that still doesn’t prove that there is such a shift in Matthew 28:17. It only proves that such a shift is possible, not that it is actual. Simple statistical odds seem to indicate that such usage is rare, at least in Matthew. So we are left back at square one. Indeed, I could turn your own argument back on you, and argue that the DE serves to shift the narrative from faith to doubt. In other words, Matthew is juxtaposing a suprising combination of faith (worship) and doubt together. DE serves to shift from the worship to the doubt.> [BdH] I hope this’ll help.Yes it does Bert, thank you. But one quote in particular caught my eye:de (postpositive) was *originally* an adverb with a force not unlike that of on the other hand, on the contrary; *later* it became a conjunction commonly represented by but or and, which are, however, mere makeshifts of translation.The words “originally”, and “later”, which I’ve highlighted, are very pertinent. It may be that in classical Greek DE had the function of a change of subject which in koine Greek had been almost lost.One other, very important point. I was critiqued for assuming that the definite article and pronouns function similarly in English and Greek. Let us suppose, for a moment, that the writer of Matthew, or this section of Matthew, was not in fact a native Greek speaker, but a native Hebrew/Aramaic speaker. Would it not be quite possible, therefore, that DE has no “change of reference” function at all, but was treated by him like the vav consecutive or vav conjunction? In other words, the use of DE without any change of reference force may be a semitism. This would fit the data which does not seem to support the claim that there is such a meaning in Matthew (in my opinion). We certainly should not assume classical Greek meaning for someone writing in a second language. If Greek was not the author’s native language, then he may have been no more familiar with the subtleties of Greek particles than I am.God bless,Albert.Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

[] John, LXX:Genesis: PERIPATEW: Walking and Pleasing[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Randall Buth randallbuth at gmail.com
Fri Apr 14 13:15:54 EDT 2006

[] Luke 3:17 Relative pronoun hOU [] Shep 36:6 egrapsen Haig,>But I did look up every pronomial hOI DE in Matthew, and apart fromtwo disputed >examples, it *never* functions to shift the reference*of the pronoun*. Even if we >take as granted that hO DE and hOI DEserve to shift reference, which seems to >me both a vague and asubjective concept, that does not prove that it can serve to >changethe reference *of the pronoun itself*.This confuses the issues. When a linguist says that DE is the particleof choice to mark a changed subject or changed topic, it does not meanthat the pronoun, noun, or morphology involved have a differentmeaning from elsewhere in the context. It means that the subject ortopic of the previous sentence has changed. PARADEIGMATOS XARIN (ore.g. if you prefer Latin):OI PAIDES EPAIZON ‘the children were playingOI DE GONEIS WMILOUN ‘the parents were talking’In the example DE would signal a change of subject/topic. The authorpresents PAIDES and GONEIS as two separate topics for comparison andcontrast. Of course, GONEIS is different all by itself and the sameclauses could be joined by KAI. But in that case there would be nosignal of a change and the two clauses would be grouped together andwould NOT be changing a topic.>If hO DE and hOI DE can serve to change the reference of the pronoun,DE doesn’t change the pronoun, it is adding a different pronoun. It’sfunction is exactly the same as in singular usages O DE, H DE, whereit use signals a change in subject/topic, whether or not a noun isincluded. See an example below.>Carl mentions two extracanonical examples which I would have to lookup in a >library. But the sampling in Matthew suggests that such afunction is at best, rare.Not rare. Every time a topic changes and an author signals this withDE the function is reinforced. And that happens alot. What you aresaying is that it is rare that DE might be the only thing in the wholecontext that marks a change. Language is highly redundant and in manycontexts there is often some other piece of information that wouldallow one to reach the same or similar readings.For example, where you find O DE EIPEN in a dialogue, the O DE will bethe ‘other’ party from the previous comment.Cf. Lu 22:33 O DE EIPEN[the dialogue switches to Peter’s response. DE marks this though fromthe content of the speech this is redundant and could bereconstructed],Luk 22:34 O DE EIPEN[the dialogue switches back to Jesus. Again, DE marks this, though thecontent of the speech makes this redundant.] This even occurs withoutthe article, asLU 22:67 EIPEN DERedundancy is part of language….>So the pronomial function, however indistinctly differentiated fromthe definite >article as a general rule, is critical to thisdiscussion, because it involves an >ambiguity which is lacking in thedefinite article function. Cases involving hOI as >the definitearticle simply can’t address the question at issue.Correct.>> [IL] It would take too long to explain all about how to do aparticipant reference analysis, but let me take a fairly randomexample from Mat 8:28-32. I won’t copy the whole paragraph, so pleaselook it up in your Greek text.> [AH] OK. But the only occurrence of either hOI DE or hO DE – verse 31 –>involves its use as the definite article. There is no doubt about whoit references, >because it says hOI DE DAIMONES PAREKALOUN. It hardlyis possible to ask >whether it references Jesus or the demonizedpeople or the pigs. So this passage >simply doesn’t demonstrate theuse of hO DE or hOI DE standing alone, as a >pronoun where doubt mayarise as to reference, to shift the reference.But a Greek would ask, what is the function of DE? Here it signals achange of topic/subject.>BUT – and this is very important – even if everything you have saidis 100% >correct, and the reference of hOI as a pronoun can be shiftedby the use of DE – >that still doesn’t prove that there is such ashift in Matthew 28:17. It only proves >that such a shift is possible,not that it is actual. Simple statistical odds seem to >indicate thatsuch usage is rare, at least in Matthew.NO, because the function of DE to mark a change in contexts of changedsubjects is very common. We must explain why the author used DE. AGreek listener would immediately interpret the DE ‘on the fly’ withoutfurther ado, that a change is signalled and with OI added(unnecessarily if it were the same subject) then they would alreadyhave opened up a slot in the hearing for a new group.>The words “originally”, and “later”, which I’ve highlighted, are verypertinent. It may >be that in classical Greek DE had the function of achange of subject which in >koine Greek had been almost lost.Be careful here. When classicists say “orignally” they often meanproto-Greek, that is, prior to recorded Greek. They do not usuallyrefer to the time difference between Plato and Luke.>Let us suppose, for a moment, that the writer of Matthew, or thissection of >Matthew, was not in fact a native Greek speaker, but anative Hebrew/Aramaic >speaker. Would it not be quite possible,therefore, that DE has no “change of >reference” function at all, butwas treated by him like the vav consecutive or vav >conjunction? Inother words, the use of DE without any change of reference force >maybe a semitism. This would fit the data which does not seem to supportthe >claim that there is such a meaning in Matthew (in my opinion). Wecertainly >should not assume classical Greek meaning for someonewriting in a second >language. If Greek was not the author’s nativelanguage, then he may have been >no more familiar with the subtletiesof Greek particles than I am.This is also misapplying some good concepts. DE is not a Semitism, notin Matthew, the NT or the LXX. Just the opposite, the LXX choose KAIas its conjunction to match vav, since both KAI and VAV could be usedto join nouns together as well as clauses. It takes extra energy forsomeone to add DE to a text when the default was KAI. That means thatthey do it for a reason.Furthermore, despite Matthew’s less-than-clean Greek style, he seemsto handle DE very well where he uses it. And the function of DE thatwe have been talking about is something that everyone fluent in thelanguage would have heard at that time when stories were being toldand there were switches going on between subjects in dialogues.Cf. Acts 17:18 KAI TINES ELEGON ‘and some were saying …’OI DE … ‘and others [were saying]’If the same people were doing the talking there would have been nobreak in the quotation.So how would Greeks have heard Mt 28:17?OI DE ‘and others’ DE marks a change and OI means a different group.Haggim smeHimRandall Buth–Randall Buth, PhDwww.biblicalulpan.orgybitan at mscc.huji.ac.ilrandallbuth at gmail.com

[] Luke 3:17 Relative pronoun hOU[] Shep 36:6