Lk 7:37 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Mon Jun 8 18:14:27 EDT 1998
SBL in Poland URGENT WARNING Friends,Lk 7:37 contains an interesting adjective, hamartwlos. This adjectivemodifies gunh. Now, according to Moulton, this particular adjective can,indeed, take a masculine (looking?) form. What is puzzling is why.Brugmann thinks that a few adjectives were originally nouns. In any event,Moulton goes on to say that this usage is in accord with the sole orpredominant usage in earlier Greek.Does this mean that the adjective ‘hamartwlos’, originally referred only tomales, and that as time progressed it was also applied to females? Thisseems to be the implication which Rengstorf offers in TDNT when he says thatthe word “denotes intelectual inferiority and failure, e.g., by reason ofdeficient education” (because only males were educated?). R. takes the wordin Lk 7:37 as a substantive. But this does still not explain the formationof the case ending.Thanks,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDAdjunct Professor of BibleQuartz Hill School of Theologyjwest at highland.net
SBL in PolandURGENT WARNING
accusative in Gal 1.9 Ian Scott iscott at unixg.ubc.ca
Fri Jun 12 15:36:04 EDT 1998
Exodus 9:11 phrase relationship to 1 Kings 8:11 LXX 1 Kings 8:11 Dear b-Greekers,I’m working on Galatians 1.9 and am confused by what seems to be the useof the accusative case for the indirect object. The problem clause isthis one:ei tis umas euaggelizetai par’ o parelabeteIs umas to be considered the direct object of euaggelizetai, or is it anindirect object (to you). In the latter case I suppose the direct objectwould be an implied “Gospel” which serves as the understood antecedent ofthe relative pronoun in o parelabete. Or am I just reading this wrong?Thanks for your help,Ian W. ScottGrad student in Religious Studies, McMaster University
Exodus 9:11 phrase relationship to 1 Kings 8:11LXX 1 Kings 8:11
accusative in Gal 1.9 Edward Hobbs EHOBBS at WELLESLEY.EDU
Fri Jun 12 16:51:35 EDT 1998
accusative in Gal 1.9 Gal. 1:9 accusative of person to whom Ian Scott asks:->>>>>>>>>>>I’m working on Galatians 1.9 and am confused by what seems to be the useof the accusative case for the indirect object. The problem clause isthis one:ei tis umas euaggelizetai par’ o parelabeteIs umas to be considered the direct object of euaggelizetai, or is it anindirect object (to you). In the latter case I suppose the direct objectwould be an implied “Gospel” which serves as the understood antecedent ofthe relative pronoun in o parelabete. Or am I just reading this wrong?Ian W. ScottGrad student in Religious Studies, McMaster University <<<———The answer is that EUAGGELIZOMAI takes the accusative for the content of the proclamation, and EITHER dative (as in Gal. 1:8) OR accusative (as inGal. 1:9) for the recipient of the proclamation. Dative is more common.See Bauer, 2.a.gamma.Edward HobbsPS: Your distinguished faculty used to include Ben Meyer (now deceased), Ed Sanders (now at Duke), and John Robertson (still there?), all old friends–Ben was a colleague of mine in Berkeley back in the 1960’s, Ed went to SMU/Perkins in 1958 to study with me (just as I left for Berkeley!), and John was a student of mine at SMU, I seem to recall.
accusative in Gal 1.9Gal. 1:9 accusative of person to whom
accusative in Gal 1.9 Ks. Krzysztof Bardski bard at wmsd.edu.pl
Fri Jun 12 16:50:06 EDT 1998
LXX 1 Kings 8:11 accusative in Gal 1.9 On Fri, 12 Jun 1998, Ian Scott wrote:> > Dear b-Greekers,> > I’m working on Galatians 1.9 and am confused by what seems to be the use> of the accusative case for the indirect object. The problem clause is> this one:> > ei tis umas euaggelizetai par’ o parelabete> > Is umas to be considered the direct object of euaggelizetai, or is it an> indirect object (to you). In the latter case I suppose the direct object> would be an implied “Gospel” which serves as the understood antecedent of> the relative pronoun in o parelabete. Or am I just reading this wrong?> Of course umas is a direct object of euaggelizomai. The person orcommunity to which the Gospel is preached is the object of that action.The same happens in many languages (spanish, italian, polish). In polishyou use the pronoun in accusative just like in greek (ewangelizowac -kogo? co? – nas). Krzysztof Bardski
LXX 1 Kings 8:11accusative in Gal 1.9
Gal. 1:9 accusative of person to whom MISS DIANA N SHAW BLFR64A at prodigy.com
Fri Jun 12 18:29:01 EDT 1998
accusative in Gal 1.9 Further on Gal 1:9 acc of person Although dative of person was the more usual, Thayer and BAG both describe this usage with the middle voice of EUAGGELIZW. Thayer calls it “a constr. unkown to the earlier Grks. (cf. Lob. ad Phryn. p.268),” but cites several passages from contemporary or later Hellenistic writers, other than the NT (Eusebius, Justin Martyr, Alciphron and Heliodorus.) BAG doesn’t make any special comment on the peculiarity of the usage and cites a longer list of examples from both NT & other writers. They add Polycarp and the author of the Petruskerygma to the list of non-NT writers using it.Several other NT passages are cited by both Thayer and BAG, including Lk 3:18, Acts 16:10, I Pet. 1:12..BAG’s list is quite long. Happy to send you full quotes fro mboth dictionaries if you’d like, off-line. Liddell & Scott might add more insights, but I didn’t look up, since these two seemed to support the construction fully. Will also find & type L&S for youoff line, if you need & don’t have handy.____Diana N. Shaw, BLFR64A at prodigy.comHome: http://pages.prodigy.com/BLFR64A
accusative in Gal 1.9Further on Gal 1:9 acc of person
Further on Gal 1:9 acc of person MISS DIANA N SHAW BLFR64A at prodigy.com
Fri Jun 12 18:57:15 EDT 1998
Gal. 1:9 accusative of person to whom The Third Heaven Maybe a better answer to your question (whether hUMAS is an indir or a dir obj) is in Blass-Debrunner-Funk, sec. 152, which says, “Accusative alternating with or supplanting classical dative is found in the NT with…(2) EUAGGELIZESQAI TINA (probably followiing the pattern of EULOGEIN, etc. [sec 15(11)]; Attic dative of person [Phryn. 266], accusative of thing)…”In their further notes below on that subtopic, they go on to observe, “(not in LXX: Helb., Kas. 233) rather often Lk and Acts, also G 1:9 (dat.8), 1P 1:12; tini ti Lk 1:19 etc.; with double acc. A 13:32, where, however, THN EPAGGELIAN is in anticipation of the hOTI clause.”Other verbs covered in this section, as using same construction, are (1) “‘verbs meaning ‘to censure. revile, curse’ (following the pattern of Attic LOIDOIREIN TINA…and UBRIZEIN…),” (3) PARAINEIN (absolutely A 27:9, acc. 22 after the analogy of PARAKALEIN; Ursing 32), (4) XRHSQAI” They also cross-refer to their sections 162ff., regarding the supplantation of the classical genitive by the accusative.Glad to look it up in Moule’s Idiom Book, if you want more. He may cover it. ____Diana N. Shaw, BLFR64A at prodigy.comHome: http://pages.prodigy.com/BLFR64A
Gal. 1:9 accusative of person to whom The Third Heaven
accusative in Gal 1.9 Daniel Riaño danielrr at mad.servicom.es
Sun Jun 14 07:38:36 EDT 1998
The Third Heaven Where may I obtain a certain font pkg? A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 3363 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19980614/e0a20280/attachment.bin
The Third HeavenWhere may I obtain a certain font pkg?
KAQWS GEGRAPTAI EP’ AUTON Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Thu Jun 18 12:19:30 EDT 1998
John 11:35 Tradent On Thu 18 Jun 98 (02:32:12), hologos at aol.com wrote:> HLIAS ELHLUQEN, KAI EPOIHSAN AUTW hOSA HQELON, KAQWS GEGRAPTAI EP’> AUTON. (Mark 9:13)> > I take it the AUTON is about Elijah. Does anyone know of a passage in> the LXX that Mark could be talking about? Dear David, Here is HB Swete’s comment /ad loc/: “KAQWS GEGRAPTAI EP’ AUTON] So Mark only. In this case Scripture had foretold the future not by prophecy but by a type. The fate intended for Elijah (1 Kings 19:2, 10) had overtaken John: he had found his Jezebel in Herodias. Origen /in Mt./: ALLOS D’AN EIPOI hOTI TO /ALL’ EPOIHSAN/ KTL, OUK EPI TOUS GRAMMATEIS ALL’ EPI THN hHRWiDIADA KAI THN QUGATERA AUTHS KAI TON hHRWiDHN ANAFERETAI. “The identification of Elijah with John was so evident that, as Matthew adds, it was understood by the Three at the time (Mt. TOTE SUNHKAN hOI MAQHTAI hOTI PERI IWANOU TOU BAPTISTOU EIPEN AUTOIS). On another and earlier occasion, according to Mt., it had been made in express terms (Mt 11:14 EI QELETE DEXASQAI, AUTOS ESTIN HLEIAS hO MELLWN ERCESQAI). The reference in Malachi 4:5 to ‘the great and terrible day of the Lord’ led the ancient church to expect an appearance of Elijah himself before the end; cf Justin /Dial. 49, Chrysostom /ad loc./, Augustine /Tract. in Jo./ 4:5-6.” (HB Swete, /The Gospel according to St Mark/, Macmillan, London, 3rd ed. 1920, p 194). CEB Cranfield, /St Mark/, (in the Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary), Cambridge University Press, 1955, p 299, has a very terse comment: “KAQWS GEGRAPTAI EP’ AUTON. Is 1 Kgs xix.2, 10 in mind? Possibly also traditions lying behind Rev. xi.3-13? (See further Jeremias in T.W.N.T. [Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament] II, pp 930-43 (esp. 941-3).)” As I don’t have access to TWNT here, you’ll have to hunt about for it. HTH Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
John 11:35Tradent
accusative in Gal 1.9 Ian Scott iscott at unixg.ubc.ca
Fri Jun 12 15:36:04 EDT 1998
Exodus 9:11 phrase relationship to 1 Kings 8:11 LXX 1 Kings 8:11 Dear b-Greekers,I’m working on Galatians 1.9 and am confused by what seems to be the useof the accusative case for the indirect object. The problem clause isthis one:ei tis umas euaggelizetai par’ o parelabeteIs umas to be considered the direct object of euaggelizetai, or is it anindirect object (to you). In the latter case I suppose the direct objectwould be an implied “Gospel” which serves as the understood antecedent ofthe relative pronoun in o parelabete. Or am I just reading this wrong?Thanks for your help,Ian W. ScottGrad student in Religious Studies, McMaster University
Exodus 9:11 phrase relationship to 1 Kings 8:11LXX 1 Kings 8:11
accusative in Gal 1.9 Edward Hobbs EHOBBS at WELLESLEY.EDU
Fri Jun 12 16:51:35 EDT 1998
accusative in Gal 1.9 Gal. 1:9 accusative of person to whom Ian Scott asks:->>>>>>>>>>>I’m working on Galatians 1.9 and am confused by what seems to be the useof the accusative case for the indirect object. The problem clause isthis one:ei tis umas euaggelizetai par’ o parelabeteIs umas to be considered the direct object of euaggelizetai, or is it anindirect object (to you). In the latter case I suppose the direct objectwould be an implied “Gospel” which serves as the understood antecedent ofthe relative pronoun in o parelabete. Or am I just reading this wrong?Ian W. ScottGrad student in Religious Studies, McMaster University <<<———The answer is that EUAGGELIZOMAI takes the accusative for the content of the proclamation, and EITHER dative (as in Gal. 1:8) OR accusative (as inGal. 1:9) for the recipient of the proclamation. Dative is more common.See Bauer, 2.a.gamma.Edward HobbsPS: Your distinguished faculty used to include Ben Meyer (now deceased), Ed Sanders (now at Duke), and John Robertson (still there?), all old friends–Ben was a colleague of mine in Berkeley back in the 1960’s, Ed went to SMU/Perkins in 1958 to study with me (just as I left for Berkeley!), and John was a student of mine at SMU, I seem to recall.
accusative in Gal 1.9Gal. 1:9 accusative of person to whom
accusative in Gal 1.9 Ks. Krzysztof Bardski bard at wmsd.edu.pl
Fri Jun 12 16:50:06 EDT 1998
LXX 1 Kings 8:11 accusative in Gal 1.9 On Fri, 12 Jun 1998, Ian Scott wrote:> > Dear b-Greekers,> > I’m working on Galatians 1.9 and am confused by what seems to be the use> of the accusative case for the indirect object. The problem clause is> this one:> > ei tis umas euaggelizetai par’ o parelabete> > Is umas to be considered the direct object of euaggelizetai, or is it an> indirect object (to you). In the latter case I suppose the direct object> would be an implied “Gospel” which serves as the understood antecedent of> the relative pronoun in o parelabete. Or am I just reading this wrong?> Of course umas is a direct object of euaggelizomai. The person orcommunity to which the Gospel is preached is the object of that action.The same happens in many languages (spanish, italian, polish). In polishyou use the pronoun in accusative just like in greek (ewangelizowac -kogo? co? – nas). Krzysztof Bardski
LXX 1 Kings 8:11accusative in Gal 1.9
Gal. 1:9 accusative of person to whom MISS DIANA N SHAW BLFR64A at prodigy.com
Fri Jun 12 18:29:01 EDT 1998
accusative in Gal 1.9 Further on Gal 1:9 acc of person Although dative of person was the more usual, Thayer and BAG both describe this usage with the middle voice of EUAGGELIZW. Thayer calls it “a constr. unkown to the earlier Grks. (cf. Lob. ad Phryn. p.268),” but cites several passages from contemporary or later Hellenistic writers, other than the NT (Eusebius, Justin Martyr, Alciphron and Heliodorus.) BAG doesn’t make any special comment on the peculiarity of the usage and cites a longer list of examples from both NT & other writers. They add Polycarp and the author of the Petruskerygma to the list of non-NT writers using it.Several other NT passages are cited by both Thayer and BAG, including Lk 3:18, Acts 16:10, I Pet. 1:12..BAG’s list is quite long. Happy to send you full quotes fro mboth dictionaries if you’d like, off-line. Liddell & Scott might add more insights, but I didn’t look up, since these two seemed to support the construction fully. Will also find & type L&S for youoff line, if you need & don’t have handy.____Diana N. Shaw, BLFR64A at prodigy.comHome: http://pages.prodigy.com/BLFR64A
accusative in Gal 1.9Further on Gal 1:9 acc of person
Further on Gal 1:9 acc of person MISS DIANA N SHAW BLFR64A at prodigy.com
Fri Jun 12 18:57:15 EDT 1998
Gal. 1:9 accusative of person to whom The Third Heaven Maybe a better answer to your question (whether hUMAS is an indir or a dir obj) is in Blass-Debrunner-Funk, sec. 152, which says, “Accusative alternating with or supplanting classical dative is found in the NT with…(2) EUAGGELIZESQAI TINA (probably followiing the pattern of EULOGEIN, etc. [sec 15(11)]; Attic dative of person [Phryn. 266], accusative of thing)…”In their further notes below on that subtopic, they go on to observe, “(not in LXX: Helb., Kas. 233) rather often Lk and Acts, also G 1:9 (dat.8), 1P 1:12; tini ti Lk 1:19 etc.; with double acc. A 13:32, where, however, THN EPAGGELIAN is in anticipation of the hOTI clause.”Other verbs covered in this section, as using same construction, are (1) “‘verbs meaning ‘to censure. revile, curse’ (following the pattern of Attic LOIDOIREIN TINA…and UBRIZEIN…),” (3) PARAINEIN (absolutely A 27:9, acc. 22 after the analogy of PARAKALEIN; Ursing 32), (4) XRHSQAI” They also cross-refer to their sections 162ff., regarding the supplantation of the classical genitive by the accusative.Glad to look it up in Moule’s Idiom Book, if you want more. He may cover it. ____Diana N. Shaw, BLFR64A at prodigy.comHome: http://pages.prodigy.com/BLFR64A
Gal. 1:9 accusative of person to whom The Third Heaven
accusative in Gal 1.9 Daniel Riaño danielrr at mad.servicom.es
Sun Jun 14 07:38:36 EDT 1998
The Third Heaven Where may I obtain a certain font pkg? A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 3363 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19980614/e0a20280/attachment.bin
The Third HeavenWhere may I obtain a certain font pkg?