[] Acts 2:41A LOGOS waldo slusher waldoslusher at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 22 15:25:08 EDT 2003
[] Questions about Col 2:16+17 [] Acts 2:41A LOGOS hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI TON LOGON AUTOU EBAPTISQHSANThe NET Bible has a footnote on this verse byindicating that the word translated here as “message”is “Grk ‘word'”.Dr. Larkin from University of Durham (Ph. D.) has acommentary on this Book. At this juncture, he has”message (literally, word)…”This seems most remarkable to me that these scholarsgive the impression that LOGOS “literally” means word,which implies that it doesn’t “literally” mean message(since they seem to be clarifying this translation).Why would someone at such scholarly levels imply thatLOGOS has only one literal meaning? Doesn’t thiscontradict the understanding gained by the works oflinguists and lexographers over the years? LOGOS hasmany literal meaning, not one! If a translation gives LOGOS the translation “word”here in Acts 2:41, would we not say that “LOGOSliterally means ‘message’ here”?=====Waldo SlusherCalgary, AB__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! SiteBuilder – Free, easy-to-use web site design softwarehttp://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
[] Questions about Col 2:16+17[] Acts 2:41A LOGOS
[] Acts 2:41A LOGOS Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jul 22 17:02:36 EDT 2003
[] Acts 2:41A LOGOS [] Linguistic question on Luke 1:1 At 12:25 PM -0700 7/22/03, waldo slusher wrote:>hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI TON LOGON AUTOU EBAPTISQHSAN> >The NET Bible has a footnote on this verse by>indicating that the word translated here as “message”>is “Grk ‘word'”.> >Dr. Larkin from University of Durham (Ph. D.) has a>commentary on this Book. At this juncture, he has>“message (literally, word)…”> >This seems most remarkable to me that these scholars>give the impression that LOGOS “literally” means word,>which implies that it doesn’t “literally” mean message>(since they seem to be clarifying this translation).>Why would someone at such scholarly levels imply that>LOGOS has only one literal meaning? Doesn’t this>contradict the understanding gained by the works of>linguists and lexographers over the years? LOGOS has>many literal meaning, not one!> >If a translation gives LOGOS the translation “word”>here in Acts 2:41, would we not say that “LOGOS>literally means ‘message’ here”?I’m not at all clear just what question is being raised in this “message.”I’m not even sure whether it’s a question of lexicography or of translationphilosophy. Moreover, it seems to me that there’s certainly somethinghighly questionable about talking about a “literal” meaning of LOGOS,insofar as that might suggest there’s one precise English equivalent of theGreek word LOGOS while any other English word used to convey the sense ofLOGOS is somehow secondary or metaphorical. And Waldo is right to ask thequestion “why someone would imply that LOGOS has only one literal meaning?”I suspect that neither Larkin nor the NET annotator was thinking veryclearly when formulating the phrasing that Waldo has cited–but show me the”scholar” who is thinking very clearly AT EVER MOMENT when formulating thephrasing of anything! I suspect, however, that what both Larkin and the NETannotator intended or meant was that the #1 dictionary equivalent of LOGOSis “word.” That is, of course, not telling us anything that is very useful.I’d personally think that it would have been better in this instance tostate that the word LOGOS in the text in question (Acts 2:41a) clearlymeans the “message” in the sense of the “proclaimed gospel.”If “word” is what LOGOS means in the literal sense, then what does hRHMAmean? If one were to speak in abstract terms only, the literal sense ofLOGOS might well be said to be “account”–whether “account” be understoodin a literary or a mathematical or clerical context. I think that there areseveral passages in the GNT where “message” is quite appropriate andprobably the single most appropriate word to convey the sense in English ofthe Greek LOGOS.– 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/
[] Acts 2:41A LOGOS[] Linguistic question on Luke 1:1
[] hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI (Acts 2:41) Ted & Robin Shoemaker shoes6 at juno.com
Sat Dec 27 15:11:00 EST 2008
[] 1 Sam 2:26 AGAQON [] hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI (Acts 2:41) Greetings.Acts 2:41 reads, in part:hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI TON LOGON AUTOU EBAPTISQHSAN. . . . (English: “The ones who received his word were baptized . . . .”)I’m trying to figure out MEN. (My grasp of Greek particles in general is slippery.) My best understanding is:MEN emphasizes the word(s) it is near. In spoken English we might say an emphasized word louder; in written English we use underlines and bold type; in written Koine Greek we use MEN.In this passage, then, MEN highlights the fact that those who received the message — as distinct from those who did not — were the ones baptized.Is this a satisfactory handling of the text?Thank you for all answers.Ted Shoemaker Some people don’t care if you go forwards or backwards, or sit still. They just want to be the squeaky wheel. ____________________________________________________________Click to make millions by owning your own franchise.http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/PnY6rbuspuLT3Zw7iENh0shmXF0nemDOlWkZEAkFC6SOtZIN9a35m/
[] 1 Sam 2:26 AGAQON[] hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI (Acts 2:41)
[] hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI (Acts 2:41) George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 27 15:45:41 EST 2008
[] hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI (Acts 2:41) [] hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI (Acts 2:41) οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀποδεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθησαν καὶ προσετέθησαν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ψυχαὶ ὡσεὶ τρισχίλιαι. hOI MEN OUN APODECAMENOI TON LOGON AUTOU EBAPTISQHSAN KAI PROSETEQHSAN EN THi hHMERAi EKEINHi YUXAI hOSEI TRISXILIAINormally μὲν [MEN] is used with particles such as δὲ [DE] to indicate a contrast. As BDAG notes ⓓμέν[MEN] followed by καί[KAI] is not customary (Ael. Aristid.31, 19 K.=11 p. 133 D.; IAsMinSW325, 10ff μὲν …καί[MEN … KAI]; POxy1153, 14 [I a.d.] two armbands ἓν μὲν σανδύκινον καὶ ἓν πορφυροῦν[hEN MEN SANDUKINON KAI hEN PROFUROUN]; TestJob40:7f; ApcMos15) Mk 4:4ff; Lk 8:5ff; MPol2:4. Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. (3rd ed.) (s.v. μέν 630). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. As you may note, it doesn’t give much guidance regarding this, but I do have the Martyrdom of Polycarp. There it reads ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ οἱ εἰς τὰ θηρία κατακριθέντες ὑπέμειναν δεινὰς κολάσεις, κήρυκας μὲν ὑποστρωννύμενοι καὶ ἄλλαις ποικίλων βασάνων ἰδέαις κολαφιζόμενοι ἵνα, εἰ δυνηθείη, διὰ τῆς ἐπιμόνου κολάσεως εἰς ἄρνησιν αὐτοὺς τρέψῃ· πολλὰ γὰρ ἐμηχανᾶτο κατʼ αὐτῶν ὁ διάβολος. hOMOIWS DE KAI hOI EIS TA QHRIA KATAKRIQENTES hUPEMEINAN DEINAS KOLASEIS, KHRUKAS MEN hUPOSTRWNNUMENOI KAI ALLAIS POIKILWN BASANW IDEAIS KOLAFIZOMENOI hINA, EI DUNHQEIH, DIA THS EPIMONOU KOLASEWS EIS ARNHSIN AUTOUS TREYHi; POLLA GAR EMHXANATO KAT’ AUTWN hO DIABOLOS. Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (228). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books. When used in this connection it appears to be additive rather than adversative. It is not “on the one hand … but.” It is rather “X and Y.” georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Ted & Robin Shoemaker <shoes6 at juno.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 3:11:00 PMSubject: [] hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI (Acts 2:41)Greetings.Acts 2:41 reads, in part:hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI TON LOGON AUTOU EBAPTISQHSAN. . . . (English: “The ones who received his word were baptized . . . .”)I’m trying to figure out MEN. (My grasp of Greek particles in general is slippery.) My best understanding is:MEN emphasizes the word(s) it is near. In spoken English we might say an emphasized word louder; in written English we use underlines and bold type; in written Koine Greek we use MEN.In this passage, then, MEN highlights the fact that those who received the message — as distinct from those who did not — were the ones baptized.Is this a satisfactory handling of the text?Thank you for all answers.Ted ShoemakerSome people don’t care if you go forwards or backwards, or sit still. They just want to be the squeaky wheel. ____________________________________________________________Click to make millions by owning your own franchise.http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/PnY6rbuspuLT3Zw7iENh0shmXF0nemDOlWkZEAkFC6SOtZIN9a35m/— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI (Acts 2:41)[] hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI (Acts 2:41)
[] hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI (Acts 2:41) Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Dec 28 03:49:19 EST 2008
[] hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI (Acts 2:41) [] 1 Sam 2:26 AGAQON —– Original Message —– From: “Ted & Robin Shoemaker” <shoes6 at juno.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 27. december 2008 23:11Subject: [] hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI (Acts 2:41)> Greetings.> > Acts 2:41 reads, in part:> hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI TON LOGON AUTOU EBAPTISQHSAN. . . .> > (English: “The ones who received his word were baptized . . . .”)> > I’m trying to figure out MEN. (My grasp of Greek particles in general is slippery.) My best > understanding is:> MEN emphasizes the word(s) it is near. In spoken English we might say an emphasized word louder; > in written English we use underlines and bold type; in written Koine Greek we use MEN.> > In this passage, then, MEN highlights the fact that those who received the message — as distinct > from those who did not — were the ones baptized.> > Is this a satisfactory handling of the text?I don’t think so. MEN is a correlative particle that points forward to another related and complementary thought. Usually that other thought is introduced by DE. At times, the second thought is implicit. The two related thoughts may be in contrast or the second may simply add another aspect to the scenario.In this case, we need to look at more context, so I’ll quote a bit more:hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI TON LOGON AUTOU EBAPTISQHSAN KAI PROSETEQHSAN EN THi hHMERAi EKEINHi YUCAI hWSEI TRISCILIAI. HSAN DE PROSKARTEROUNTES THi DIDACHi TWN APOSTOLWN KAI THi KOINWNIAi…Consequently (to hearing the message), not only did those who received the message get baptized and added to the group of believers – as a first step, but they also – as a second step – devoted themselves continuously/repeatedly to the teaching of the apostles, the fellowship etc.MEN OUN often occur together. Of the 39 instances in the NT, 27 are in Acts. That does not mean that the two particles go together as a unit. They have different and separate functions. OUN points backward and often introduces a consequence or summary, while MEN points forward and sets the scene for an additional, related thought. When you have heard a), you expect to hear a b). MEN refers to the a).Iver Larsen
[] hOI MEN OUN APODEXAMENOI (Acts 2:41)[] 1 Sam 2:26 AGAQON