Question on John 17:3 Robert W Meyers bwmeyers at juno.com
Mon Dec 27 11:44:41 EST 1999
Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Question on John 17:3 Would someone tell me whether the Granville Sharp rulehas any applicability here?”The only True God” KAI “Jesus Christ Whom You sent?”Is the ON preceding APESTEILAS regarded as a seconddefinite article disqualifying the Granville Sharp here?In that case, does it negate the possibility of identifyingto two phrases as an identity? (cf 1 John 5:20, etc)?Or, are there other texts that do not have the ON?Thank you.Bob
Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4Question on John 17:3
Question on John 17:3 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 27 15:03:18 EST 1999
Question on John 17:3 Question on John 17:3 At 8:44 AM -0800 12/27/99, Robert W Meyers wrote:>Would someone tell me whether the Granville Sharp rule>has any applicability here?> >“The only True God” KAI “Jesus Christ Whom You sent?”> >Is the ON preceding APESTEILAS regarded as a second>definite article disqualifying the Granville Sharp here?> >In that case, does it negate the possibility of identifying>to two phrases as an identity? (cf 1 John 5:20, etc)?The text reads hON APESTEILAS here; hON is the relative pronoun acc. sg.m.: “whom you sent.” So no article is involved here at all, and no GS; adistinction is clearly being made.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Question on John 17:3Question on John 17:3
Question on John 17:3 Dan Parker stoixein at sdf.lonestar.org
Mon Dec 27 15:36:17 EST 1999
Question on John 17:3 septuagint on-line: where A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: textSize: 1665 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991227/0468baf2/attachment.pl
Question on John 17:3septuagint on-line: where
Question on John 17:3 George Goolde goolde at mtnempire.net
Mon Dec 27 18:45:58 EST 1999
Luke 2:2, prote as “before” instead of “first”? Luke 2:2, prote as “before” instead of “first”? >Would someone tell me whether the Granville Sharp rule>has any applicability here?> >“The only True God” KAI “Jesus Christ Whom You sent?”This does not follow the pattern of Granville Sharp (article sing. personal noun KAI sing. personal noun).I would see this as a simple adjunctive use of KAI.GeorgeGeorge A. GooldeProfessor, Bible and TheologySouthern California Bible College & SeminaryEl Cajon, Californiagoolde at mtnempire.net
Luke 2:2, prote as “before” instead of “first”?Luke 2:2, prote as “before” instead of “first”?
Question on John 17:3 Dan Parker stoixein at sdf.lonestar.org
Mon Dec 27 19:33:31 EST 1999
Luke 2:2, prote as “before” instead of “first”? Beck’s Translation A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: textSize: 988 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991227/42410ca3/attachment.pl
Luke 2:2, prote as “before” instead of “first”?Beck’s Translation
Question on John 17:3 Jay Adkins JAdkins264 at aol.com
Tue Dec 28 06:10:28 EST 1999
Beck’s Translation septuagint on-line: where Therefore if hON APESTEILAS in ‘TON MONON ALHQINON QEON KAI hON APESTEILAS’ is a substantive, why does the lack of article before hON APESTEILAS not make this a GS construction?Sincerely, Dan Dear Dan,The GS rule is not used in John 17:3 mainly do I think to the use of a proper name, “Jesus.”There appears to be only 3 passages (according to Wallace) in the NT that have Christologically significance wherein the Granville Sharp rule clearly applies (Titus 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1; 1 John 5:20). The rule itself has been used with several other texts with uncertain textual variants (Acts 20:28; Jude 4) “and others had proper names (Eph 5:5; 2 Thess 1:12; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1).” (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 276)The TSKS construction has further limitations to be considered before it comes under the GS rule. “(1). Neither is impersonal; (2) neither is plural; (3) neither is a proper name” (Wallace, page 272).As I am but the Littlest of Greeks could some else please confirm this.Sola Gratia.JayAlways Under Grace!
Beck’s Translationseptuagint on-line: where
Question on John 17:3 Dan Parker stoixein at sdf.lonestar.org
Tue Dec 28 11:28:55 EST 1999
septuagint on-line: where John 8:58 (Does anybody have anything NEW to say?) A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: textSize: 2602 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991228/f043098c/attachment.pl
septuagint on-line: whereJohn 8:58 (Does anybody have anything NEW to say?)
Question on John 17:3 Daniel L Christiansen dlc at multnomah.edu
Tue Dec 28 13:47:29 EST 1999
John 8:58 (Does anybody have anything NEW to say?) Question on John 17:3 Dan Parker wrote [snipped]:> > I have to admit that the whole GS sharp business> confuses me somewhat. There seem to be so many “side-rules” associated> with it.Unfortunately, Sharp attempted to “prove” too much with his rules (therule we are discussing, here, is his first . . . there are six relatedrules discussed in his “Remarks.”) And the parameters of even thisfirst rule are not clearly laid out in a single paragraph. So, don’tfeel discouraged if you have trouble grasping GS: even major publishedgrammars have mis-stated and mis-applied it. Of course, the majortrouble with most students’ (mis)understanding of Granville Sharp, isthat they don’t actually read it: they are content to read someoneelse’s synopsis of Sharp. I could understand this attitude, if we weretalking about Denniston on Particles ($70 doorstop), but Sharp’s entirearticle is only 72 half-size pages, including the examples and index.Sharp’s desire to demonstrate Christ’s deity on purely grammaticalgrounds was unfortunate. This desire caused him to narrow down theapplicability of his rules to a handful of passages, laying so manylimitations on the construction that, IMO, it becomes almost useless. Much better to remove all the limitations as to personality, propriety,and plurality, and describe what the article-substantive-KAI-substantivethen represents: a contextually-determined unity of expression. Todescribe this unity, I prefer the phrase “a certain intimate relation.”However, since we are actually discussing GS proper . . . I think theremay be some confusion with regard to the construction of the twopassages mentioned: John 17:3 and Titus 2:13. Sharp did, indeed, applyhis rules to the Titus passage, but not to the Gospel verse.Jay Adkins wrote [snipped]:> The GS rule is not used in John 17:3 mainly do I think to the use of a > proper name, “Jesus.”To which Dan Parker responded:> However, it seems to me that Titus 2:13 has the same limitation as> John 17:3 with respects to the position of the proper name IHSOUS> XRISTOS.Actually, the presence of a proper name is not the issue in either ofthese verses, since in neither instance is that proper name immediatelyfollowing the KAI. In each instance, the name stands in apposition toanother phrase, which phrase immediately follows the KAI. In Titus2:13, the word in question is SWTHROS, while in John 17:3, it is hON. SWTHROS qualifies under GS1, while hON is questionable. The problemwith hON, is that Sharp never addresses the issue of pronouns, though heappears to exclude them by non-mention. An application of BishopMiddleton’s discussion regarding pronouns would seem to clinch theargument: hON is as specific as an article, and therefore does notqualify under GS1.So, Titus 2:13 would result in QEOS=SWTHROS, where both are apposed byIHSOUS. John 17:3 would result in QEOS + hON APESTEILAS, where only thelatter is apposed by IHSOUS. Of course, there is a more difficultproblem, here, since the first substantival element in the supposed GSconstruction of Titus 2:13 is QEOS. It is not clear whether QEOS shouldbe taken as a title (in which case it would qualify under GS1) or as aname (in which case it would not qualify).As I mentioned earlier, I believe that a more general approach isfruitful, rather than the over-burdened method laid out by Sharp. Ifanyone is really interested, I can send a short article (only about2,000 words) which I prepared for my students. It lays out the method Iprefer, and its results when applied to various passages.Dan– Daniel L. ChristiansenDepartment of BibleMultnomah Bible College8435 NE Glisan StreetPortland, OR 97220(Also Portland Bible College, Prof of Biblical Languages)e-mail: dlc at multnomah.edu
John 8:58 (Does anybody have anything NEW to say?)Question on John 17:3
Question on John 17:3 Dan Parker stoixein at sdf.lonestar.org
Tue Dec 28 15:41:59 EST 1999
Question on John 17:3 Question on John 17:3 A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: textSize: 2844 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991228/a52f99a7/attachment.pl
Question on John 17:3Question on John 17:3
Question on John 17:3 Daniel L Christiansen dlc at multnomah.edu
Tue Dec 28 20:49:00 EST 1999
Question on John 17:3 Wever’s Note’s on Greek text of Genesis Dan Parker wrote [snipped]:> This relates to a question I posed earlier:> > According to Smyth (2493) hOS can “refer to a particular and> individual person or thing.” Would it not then be the equivalant> to a “personal noun?”> > Would it not be true that if hON functions as a noun at John 17:3 that> it takes on all the properties of a noun and that if it refers to a person> it is then a “personal noun” that fits the description Granville Sharp> gives? Is not a pronoun a category or sub-class of noun?I would say “no.” It is a subclass of the article, more than of nounsproper, IMO. (Though I am not suggesting we actually taxonimize ourgrammars in this manner.) As far as the Smyth quote goes (with which Ihave no argument), it should be noted that the same may be said for thearticle. In fact, one may profitably split a discussion of the articleinto its “particularizing” and “generalizing” functions. The questionis not whether a part of speech can refer (function) to a person, butwhether it is (form) a substantive under Granville Sharp’s definition. As I mentioned, Sharp seems to have at least tacitly excluded pronounsfrom his rules.> I think I would like to read up> on Middleton’s theories. Do you have a reference?Sure: The Doctrine of the Greek Article Applied to the Criticism andIllustration of the New Testament, by the late Right Reverend ThomasFanshaw Middleton, Lord Bishop of Calcutta. London & Cambridge: J. G.F. & J. Rivington and J. & J.J. Deighton, 1841.But, be forewarned, this is not like Granville Sharp’s “Remarks.” Middleton is 500+ full pages of 19th century prose. I have had numerousstudents vigorously and excitedly begin Middleton, only to bediscouraged after the first 20 or so pages because he doesn’t “get tothe point.” However, it is worth reading, even though its style is notthe best, and its information is far out of date with regard to thecritical text, linguistic vocabulary, etc.However, I don’t believe Middleton is in print anywhere. You’d have tolocate it in a library, or at a garage sale. OK, OK., stop laughing!…just because none of you have ever actually SEEN such a garage sale,doesn’t prove it doesn’t exist. Have any of you mockers ever SEEN SantaClaus ? :)Dan– Daniel L. ChristiansenDepartment of BibleMultnomah Bible College8435 NE Glisan StreetPortland, OR 97220(Also Portland Bible College, Prof of Biblical Languages)e-mail: dlc at multnomah.edu
Question on John 17:3Wever’s Note’s on Greek text of Genesis
[] John 17,3 present and future? Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 31 10:03:34 EDT 2003
[] Heb 2:10 – AGAGONTA [] “inclusio” hAUTH DE ESTIN hH AIWNIOS ZWN, hINA GINWSKWSIN SE TONMONON ALHQINON QEON KAI hON APESTEILAS IHSOUN CRISTONDiscussing the present tense, my book describes it as’continuous’ or ‘repeated’ action. Then it says ofGINWSKWSIN that it means “keeps on knowing”. So thiswould seem to me to be saying that the present tensealso includes the future (tense). Do I take thisright? And my followup question; Would the differencebetween the present and future be that the futureaction has yet to start, while the present tense saysthat the action is at that present time going on and”keeps on going into and including the future”?=====Mitch LarramoreSpring Branch, TexasStudent/Memorial High School__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! SiteBuilder – Free, easy-to-use web site design softwarehttp://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
[] Heb 2:10 – AGAGONTA[] “inclusio”
[] difference between TR and MT in John 17:3 david at lapointenclick.com david at lapointenclick.com
Sun Jul 10 23:57:22 EDT 2005
[] Traditional Greek grammar (was: Ephesians 5:5 “TOUXRISTOU KAI QEOU”) [] difference between TR and MT in John 17:3 Dear subscribers,I’m completely new to the list, and am just starting to learn Greek. So,please forgive me for asking a simple question. I was working onunderstanding GINOSKOS yesterday and found a difference between the TextusReceptus and the Majority Text as made available through E-Sword. Itsounds to me from some posts I’ve read from the archives that the TextusReceptus was a particular document published in 1550 and the “MajorityText” was more of a strain of or family of manuscripts maintained overcenturies…a group to which the Textus Receptus belongs. So, I’m notsure what is meant in E-Sword by labelling one of their Greek NT’s as”Majority Text”…but anyway, what they distribute under that titlediffers from the TR in John 17:3…by one character (not to mention thelack of accents, breathing marks and some punctuation, because thosedifferences are uniform throughout the documents). (any correction of anymisunderstandings I might have in the above would be welcome…I supposeit may not have much to do with my actual question, but I thought I’dbring it up anyway as the whole thing with the various available sourcesof the greek seems interesting to me.)So, my question is, my TR has GINOSKOSIN whereas my MT only has GINOSKOSI:what difference would that make to the meaning of the verse?Thank you for your help.Dave LaPointe
[] Traditional Greek grammar (was: Ephesians 5:5 “TOUXRISTOU KAI QEOU”)[] difference between TR and MT in John 17:3
[] difference between TR and MT in John 17:3 Cirk Bejnar eluchil404 at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 11 00:46:55 EDT 2005
[] difference between TR and MT in John 17:3 [] <heis> <mia> <hen> — david at lapointenclick.com wrote:> It sounds to me from some posts I’ve read from the> archives that the Textus> Receptus was a particular document published in 1550> and the “Majority> Text” was more of a strain of or family of> manuscripts maintained over> centuries…a group to which the Textus Receptus> belongs.Oversimplified but essentially accurate. As the nameimplies the “Majority Text” can be found by examiningthe total corpus of extant NT manuscripts and choosingthe reading read by an absolute majority ofManuscripts. This text, as is the TR, is of the typecommonly known as Byzantine.> So, I’m not> sure what is meant in E-Sword by labelling one of> their Greek NT’s as> “Majority Text”…but anyway, what they distribute> under that title> differs from the TR in John 17:3…by one character> (not to mention the> lack of accents, breathing marks and some> punctuation, because those> differences are uniform throughout the documents). I am pretty sure that the “Majority Text” in E swordis _The New Testament in the Original Greek Accordingto the Byzantine / Majority Textform_ edited byMaurice Robinson and William Pierpont. This textomits breathings, accents, and punctuation becausethese marks were not in the original copies of the NTand are instead inserted into modern texts accoring tothe opinion of the editors. Though their origins areancient they were not in common use until the MiddleAges. Indeed, most early manuscripts lack even spacesbetween words. There is only real doubt in a very fewcases but there is no need to belabor the point.> So, my question is, my TR has GINOSKOSIN whereas my> MT only has GINOSKOSI:> what difference would that make to the meaning of> the verse?> > Thank you for your help.> Dave LaPointeChecking my Robinson Pierpont (First Edition),however, I find GINWSKWSIN. Maybe the TR readsGINWSKWSI? This appears to be an example of “movablenu”. See e.g. Smyth 134<http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007&layout=&loc=134> Normally this N is dropped before a followingconsonant but Robinson and Pierpont have chosen toretain it throughout their text. It is purely amatter of spelling and does not effect the meaning ofthe text in any way.Yours in His Grace,Cirk R. Bejnar__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[] difference between TR and MT in John 17:3[] <heis> <mia> <hen>
Jn 17:3 and 10 richard smith rbsads at aol.com
Tue May 7 08:30:38 EDT 2002
How we know what we know–about Koine? Definite Article Two separate questions concerning this passage.17:3 hAUTH DE ESTIN AIWNIOS ZWH hINA GINWSKWSIN SE TON MONON ALHQINON QEONKAI hON APESTEILAS IHSOUN CRISTONThe accusatives, TON MONON ALHQINON QEON and CRISTOS, are normallytranslated in apposition. Can they be understood as the complementaccusatives in an object-complement construction?The verse would be something like “And this is eternal life that they knowyou as the only true God and Jesus, whom you sent, as Christ.”It may be telling that I have found no translation that treat theaccusatives in such a way. However, GINWSKW is listed by Wallace as averb that can take object-complements.The second question is about the referent in verse 10.17:10 KAI TA EMA PANTA SA ESTIV KAI TA SA EMA, KAI DEDOXASMAI EN AUTOIS.Do the neuter plurals TA and SA refer to the disciples? or is there someimpersonal referent that I am missing? Is this a use of the neuter pluralarticle as a personal/demonstrative pronoun for people?Thank you,Richard SmithChattanooga, TN
How we know what we know–about Koine?Definite Article