Romans 3:9

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Sun Oct 7 06:53:10 EDT 2001

 

Suggestion for a New NT Course Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA About X TE KAI Y, I read the following in the book THE GREEK PARTICLES vy J.D. Denniston:TE … KAI, “just as much as”, “not only .. but also”.(The emphatic expression may be either the first or thesecond.)This implies that I should translate IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNASin Rom 3:9 as “Jews just as much as Gentiiles” or”not only Jews but also Gentiles”, so that either “Jews” or “Gentiles” gets emphasis, rather thana more neutral “Jews and Gentiles” or “Both Jews and Gentiles”I am experimenting on interpreting the phrase as”Jews just as much as Gentiles”. This is possible if the first term IOUDAIOUS gets emphasis in IOUDAIOUS TE KAIhELLHNAS. Any comments for the explanation of Denniston or for theapplication of his grammar of TE?MoonMoon R. JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea

 

Suggestion for a New NT CourseEph 4:9 TA KATWTERA

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) George Athas gathas at ausisp.com
Sun Oct 7 08:31:50 EDT 2001

 

Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Moon,I think Denniston is close to the mark, though his translations are perhaps a little toostark. He is on the right track in terms of the distinctive quality of the expression, butI don’t think it’s quite as strong as he translates.Contextually, in Romans, I think we need to go for the “not only Jews, but also theGreeks” reading. I wouldn’t put it quite as starkly, but I think it’s a validinterpretation.Best regards,GEORGE ATHAS(Sydney, Australia)

 

Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERAIOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Oct 7 09:30:41 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) At 10:31 PM +1000 10/7/01, George Athas wrote:>Moon,> >I think Denniston is close to the mark, though his translations are>perhaps a little too>stark. He is on the right track in terms of the distinctive quality of the>expression, but>I don’t think it’s quite as strong as he translates.> >Contextually, in Romans, I think we need to go for the “not only Jews, but>also the>Greeks” reading. I wouldn’t put it quite as starkly, but I think it’s a valid>interpretation.While I find Denniston a very valuable resource, I think that in Romans onehas to perceive it in terms of inclusiveness–or of NON-EXCLUSION ofeither. I’ve always felt that one of the grandest formulations Paul everput to paper was Gal 3:28– OUK ENI IOUDAIOS OUDE hELLHN, OUK ENI DOULOSOUDE ELEUQEROS, OUK ENI ARSEN KAI QHLU: PANTES GAR hUMEIS hEIS ESTE ENCRISTWi IHSOU. The remarkable thing here is the nullification of all thecriteria by which humanity establishes hierarchies: ethnic, social, gender,and, I think implicitly, any others. I realize that some want to limit theapplicability of that assertion in ecclesiastical practice, I think thatPaul is aiming at the same end in Romans. Consequently I would render theTE … KAI as intensely as possible without emphasizing either of the twoelements over the other: either “Jews no less than Greeks … ” or “Jewsevery bit as much as Greeks …”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Sun Oct 7 10:05:31 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) George:> >Contextually, in Romans, I think we need to go for the “not only Jews, but> >also the> >Greeks” reading. I wouldn’t put it quite as starkly, but I think it’s a valid> >interpretation.> Carl:> While I find Denniston a very valuable resource, I think that in Romans one> has to perceive it in terms of inclusiveness–or of NON-EXCLUSION of> either. ……Consequently I would render the> TE … KAI as intensely as possible without emphasizing either of the two> elements over the other: either “Jews no less than Greeks … ” or “Jews> every bit as much as Greeks …”> George and Carl seem to take IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS in oppositedirections. George: not only Jews but ALSO GREEKS (1)Carl : JEWS NO LESS than Greeks. (2)In (1), the presupposition is that the proposition in question is considered to hold with respect to Jews.In (2), the presupposition is that the proposition in question is considered to hold with respect to Greeks. Denniston said that in X TE KAI Y, either the first or the second element gets emphasis [depending on the context]. Does the above two renderings imply that both personstake the context of Rom 3:9 differently?MoonMoon R. JungAssociate ProfessorSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Oct 7 13:06:08 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) At 10:05 AM -0400 10/7/01, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>George:>> >Contextually, in Romans, I think we need to go for the “not only Jews, but>> >also the>> >Greeks” reading. I wouldn’t put it quite as starkly, but I think it’s a>>valid>> >interpretation.>> > >Carl:>> While I find Denniston a very valuable resource, I think that in Romans one>> has to perceive it in terms of inclusiveness–or of NON-EXCLUSION of>> either. ……Consequently I would render the>> TE … KAI as intensely as possible without emphasizing either of the two>> elements over the other: either “Jews no less than Greeks … ” or “Jews>> every bit as much as Greeks …”>> > >George and Carl seem to take IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS in opposite>directions.> >George: not only Jews but ALSO GREEKS (1)>Carl : JEWS NO LESS than Greeks. (2)> >In (1), the presupposition is that the proposition in question is> considered to hold with respect to Jews.>In (2), the presupposition is that the proposition in question is> considered to hold with respect to Greeks.> >Denniston said that in X TE KAI Y, either the first or the second>element gets emphasis [depending on the context].>Does the above two renderings imply that both persons>take the context of Rom 3:9 differently?My own assertion was NOT (2) particularly, but rather that NEITHER wasemphasized over the other–and that’s what I continue to hold.I’ve gone back to look at Denniston (and again I thank Clay Bartholomew forthe precious volume!), and I think you’ve misread what he says: on pp.511-12 he refers to TE … KAI “corresponsive”–essentially “both … and”,then on p. 515 the usage you cite, where “the emphatic expression may beeither the first or the second.”, and this appears to be essentially poeticusage. Frankly I think you’re making too much of the possibility that oneof the two is emphasized over the other. I still think that what’semphasized is the inclusiveness of both elements in the totality.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Oct 7 14:29:51 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) > George and Carl seem to take IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS in opposite> directions.> > George: not only Jews but ALSO GREEKS (1)> Carl : JEWS NO LESS than Greeks. (2)> > In (1), the presupposition is that the proposition in question is> considered to hold with respect to Jews.> In (2), the presupposition is that the proposition in question is> considered to hold with respect to Greeks.> > Denniston said that in X TE KAI Y, either the first or the second> element gets emphasis [depending on the context].> Does the above two renderings imply that both persons> take the context of Rom 3:9 differently?> > Moon> Moon R. JungHaving looked at the various occurrences of X TE KAI Y it seems to me thatthis structure implies a close unity between the X and the Y, a unity whichis normally translated in English as “both X and Y”.TE has at least two other functions, I believe. One is as a stylisticvariant for KAI in a long list of many coordinated concepts (e.g. Luk 21:11)Another is when it connects two clauses (propositions, events) rather thanjust two phrases. In that case it ties the two events closely together intowhat I prefer to call “overlapping events”.But back to TE KAI in Rom. 3:9. I doubt the A TE KAI Y in itself impliesemphasis on one or the other of the two elements, which seems to agree withDenniston. On the other hand, the item to the left generally has prominence(sorry, my pet theme). I would be interested in seeing any context where thesecond item could be said to be more prominent than the first. Just a coupleof examples:Acts 1:1 HRXATO hO IHSOUS POIEIN TE KAI DIDASKEIN(doing miracles and teaching go together as a unit, but if any is moreprominent than the other, it would be the first).Acts 1:13 hO TE PETROS KAI IOANNHS KAI IAKWBOS KAI ANDREAS…(Peter was the main spokesman for the apostles, but Peter and John formed ateam in chapter 3, so they appear to be more of a unit than the others.)How do we read the context in Rom 1-3? My understanding is that Paul iswriting to a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. Some of the Jews are not surethey really need the Gospel, since they already have the Law and know God.In 1:18-32 Paul points to the well-known sins of the pagan Gentiles. One canalmost see the Jews nodding (cf. 2.1). They know that the Gentiles aresinners. But then Paul is using the whole section from 2:1 to 3:20 to try toconvince the Jews that they, too, are sinners just as much as the paganGentiles. Paul needs to create that basis before he can present the Gospel,because he must convince the Jews that they need the gospel of grace as muchas the Gentiles do.

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Sun Oct 7 15:23:37 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) on 10/7/01 11:29 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:> But back to TE KAI in Rom. 3:9. I doubt the A TE KAI Y in itself implies> emphasis on one or the other of the two elements, which seems to agree with> Denniston. On the other hand, the item to the left generally has prominence> (sorry, my pet theme). I would be interested in seeing any context where the> second item could be said to be more prominent than the first.Iver,Just for the sake of argument, look at Luke 14:26:. . . TE KAI THV YUXHN hEAUTOU . . .This looks to me like a list objects of MISEI building to a climax at theend of the list. THV YUXHN hEAUTOU is the least likely object of MISEI andfor that reason produces the strongest cognitive disturbance in the auditor.Cognitive disturbance being one means of measuring prominence.greetings,Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Jim West jwest at highland.net
Sun Oct 7 14:47:48 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) At 08:29 PM 10/7/01 +0200, you wrote:> >From this perspective, I would agree that the context points to “Jews as>much as Gentiles”. It does not mean that they are greater sinners, but that>contrary to the thinking of many Jews, they, too, are sinners. But I think>the TE KAI only unites the two, and it is the word order that suggests the>relative prominence.fro my own humble point of view i would render “for jews primarily as wellas greeks…” (i think the abandoned reading of Alexandrinus should berestored).Jim++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDAdjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, Roane State Community CollegeAdjunct Professor of Biblical Studies,Quartz Hill School of TheologyHome Page:Biblical Studies Resourceshttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Sun Oct 7 15:35:37 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) John 1:3-5 on 10/7/01 12:23 PM, c stirling bartholomew wrote:> on 10/7/01 11:29 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:> >> But back to TE KAI in Rom. 3:9. I doubt the A TE KAI Y in itself implies>> emphasis on one or the other of the two elements, which seems to agree with>> Denniston. On the other hand, the item to the left generally has prominence>> (sorry, my pet theme). I would be interested in seeing any context where the>> second item could be said to be more prominent than the first.> > Iver,> > Just for the sake of argument, look at Luke 14:26:> > . . . TE KAI THV YUXHN hEAUTOU . . .> > This looks to me like a list objects of MISEI building to a climax at the> end of the list. THV YUXHN hEAUTOU is the least likely object of MISEI and> for that reason produces the strongest cognitive disturbance in the auditor.> Cognitive disturbance being one means of measuring prominence.> > of course someone is going to say, but you left out ETI in . . . ETI TE KAI THV YUXHN hEAUTOU . . .and that someone will then argue that the presence of ETI changes the wholecomplexion of things and invalidates this as an example. Anyway, I beat thatsomeone to the punch so to speak.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)John 1:3-5

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Sun Oct 7 20:35:40 EDT 2001

 

John 2:3-5 IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) It just occurred to my mind what would be the proper parsing of IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS.In the case of English “both X and Y”, the following bracketingseem correct: (1) [ both [ X and Y] ]That is, “both” modifies “X and Y”. In the case of X TE KAI hELLENAS,do we have the following?(2) [ [ X TE] KAI Y ] In this case, TE modifies only X. Any comments?MoonMoon R. JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea

 

John 2:3-5IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Sun Oct 7 20:40:00 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) > At 08:29 PM 10/7/01 +0200, you wrote:> Jim,would you tell me the basis of your rendering? What is the”abandoned reading of Alexandrinus”?MoonMoon R. JungSogang Univ,Seoul, Korea> >> >From this perspective, I would agree that the context points to “Jews as> >much as Gentiles”. It does not mean that they are greater sinners, but that> >contrary to the thinking of many Jews, they, too, are sinners. But I think> >the TE KAI only unites the two, and it is the word order that suggests the> >relative prominence.> > fro my own humble point of view i would render “for jews primarily as well> as greeks…” (i think the abandoned reading of Alexandrinus should be> restored).> > Jim> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++> > Jim West, ThD> > Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, > Roane State Community College> > Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies,> Quartz Hill School of Theology> > Home Page:> Biblical Studies Resources> http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Sun Oct 7 20:51:13 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Iver:You wrote:——>But back to TE KAI in Rom. 3:9. I doubt the A TE KAI Y in itself implies>emphasis on one or the other of the two elements, which seems to agree with>Denniston. On the other hand, the item to the left generally has prominence>(sorry, my pet theme). I would be interested in seeing any context where >the>second item could be said to be more prominent than the first.—–It is hard for me to see prominence with an item to the left whenthere is no alternative. That is, the writer is forced to put oneitem before the other. And it would seem that under your pet theme,a writer can not mention two items EQUALLY, since one HAS to be mentioned first.I would be more inclined to see prominence or emphasis when a particularconstruct has more than one way of being expressed.Would you comment on this; I am not saying that you arewrong; I am merely trying to understand how a writer gives prominenceto the A of an A TE KAI B construct. In THIS kind of construct, therewould be know way of expressing B TE KAI A, right?Thanks,Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Jim West jwest at highland.net
Sun Oct 7 21:12:12 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) At 08:40 PM 10/7/01 -0400, you wrote:>Jim,>would you tell me the basis of your rendering? What is the>“abandoned reading of Alexandrinus”?Codex Alexandrinus adds “first”. See the critical apparatus ad loc. Ithink that editors err here when they leave it out.bestjim++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDAdjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, Roane State Community CollegeAdjunct Professor of Biblical Studies,Quartz Hill School of TheologyHome Page:Biblical Studies Resourceshttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Oct 7 21:18:30 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) John 1:3-5 At 8:35 PM -0400 10/7/01, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>It just occurred to my mind what would be the proper parsing of>IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS.> >In the case of English “both X and Y”, the following bracketing>seem correct:> >(1) [ both [ X and Y] ]> >That is, “both” modifies “X and Y”. In the case of X TE KAI hELLENAS,>do we have the following?> >(2) [ [ X TE] KAI Y ]> >In this case, TE modifies only X.> >Any comments?Only, for what it’s worth, that, if we return to Denniston’s initialdiscussion of TE KAI (p. 511): “(5) Corresponsive, TE KAI, TE … KAI.This tends very largely to replace TE … TE.”

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)John 1:3-5

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Oct 8 02:06:39 EDT 2001

 

John 1:3-5 Suggestion for a New NT Course > on 10/7/01 12:23 PM, c stirling bartholomew wrote:> > Just for the sake of argument, look at Luke 14:26:> >> > . . . TE KAI THV YUXHN hEAUTOU . . .> >> > This looks to me like a list objects of MISEI building to a> climax at the> > end of the list. THV YUXHN hEAUTOU is the least likely object> of MISEI and> > for that reason produces the strongest cognitive disturbance in> the auditor.> > Cognitive disturbance being one means of measuring prominence.> >> >> > of course someone is going to say, but you left out ETI in> > . . . ETI TE KAI THV YUXHN hEAUTOU . . .> > and that someone will then argue that the presence of ETI changes> the whole> complexion of things and invalidates this as an example. Anyway,> I beat that> someone to the punch so to speak.Thanks for the effort, Clay.Yes, you beat me to it.There are different functions of TE. Sometimes TE-KAI function together tocoordinate two nominals with the meaning “both A and B”. It is called the”correlative TE”.But TE can also function alone. It is called TE Solitarium. (Levinsohndiscusses this at length in chapter 6.3 of his book on NT DiscourseFeatures).With a TE Solitarium, the word immediately before the TE is the key. That iswhy the ETI is the key here, meaning “and *still*” or “and IN ADDITION”.So, a literal translation of . . . ETI TE KAI THN YUXHN hEAUTOU . . . would be”and IN ADDITION even his own LIFE”(I use capitals in English to indicate stress).It is one of the ways the writer can put focus on the last item in a series.So this is not an example of the correlative TE KAI, but an example of TESolitarium followed by KAI as an adverb.A nice example, Clay. Thank you.Iver Larsen

 

John 1:3-5Suggestion for a New NT Course

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Mon Oct 8 09:13:26 EDT 2001

 

John 2:3-5 Luke 7:39 Iver:This may illustrate my question better. You wrote:——>There are different functions of TE. Sometimes TE-KAI function together to>coordinate two nominals with the meaning “both A and B”. It is called the>“correlative TE”.—–In this construct, is A given prominence because it is to the left?So that, we get: both A! and b.Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

 

John 2:3-5Luke 7:39

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Oct 8 14:07:28 EDT 2001

 

Luke 7:39 IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) > Codex Alexandrinus adds “first”. See the critical apparatus ad loc. I> think that editors err here when they leave it out.When a variant reading is supported by only one MS, there would need to bestrong internal support for the variant. This is not the case here as far asI can see.It is most likely that the extra word PRWTON crept in by way of habit,because it occurred in the similar construction IOUDAI.. PRWTON TE KAIhELLHN.. in Rom 1:16, 2:9 and 2:10. In these contexts, the word PRWTON fitswell, because the Gospel was first preached to the Jews before it reachedthe Greek, and similarly the judgment started with the Jews. These contextssuggest a chronological order that is absent from the context of 3:9. Bothinternal and external evidence favour the text without PRWTON in 3:9.Iver Larsen

 

Luke 7:39IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Oct 8 14:07:49 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Luke 7:39 > Iver:> > This may illustrate my question better. You wrote:> > ——> >There are different functions of TE. Sometimes TE-KAI function> together to> >coordinate two nominals with the meaning “both A and B”. It is called the> >”correlative TE”.> —–> > > In this construct, is A given prominence because it is to the left?> So that, we get: both A! and b.> > Mark WilsonI would say: Yes. If it was not the case that “Nai” in Danish means “no” Iwould even say NAI.I am not saying that the prominence is always very significant, but I thinkit is there. And I would still be interested in any example where the seconditem appears to be more prominent than the first. In that case, I’ll revisemy hypothesis.Iver Larsen

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)Luke 7:39

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Alan B. Thomas a_b_thomas at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 8 15:10:16 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Index in the DDD?? Concerning this from Iver…> And I would still be interested in any> example where the second> item appears to be more prominent than the first. In> that case, I’ll revise> my hypothesis.By way of English examples, we have conventionalways of expressing multiple nominals. 1. I now pronounce you HUSBAND/MAN and WIFE2. Would you like a PEANUT BUTTER and JELLY sandwich3. May I introduce MR. and MRS. Smith4. Colors of the Am. flag are RED, WHITE, and BLUE5. The directions are NORTH…(SOUTH or EAST…)I think that apart from conventional ways of expressing multiple nominals, emphasis or prominenceis not in view.It would be rather unusual for me to introducea couple as MRS. and MR. Smith (unless I wereat a NOW convention, perhaps).For me to say that the colors of the Am. flagare WHITE, BLUE, and RED would be equally awkward.To teach children the directions as WEST, NORTH …seems a bit awkward. (I think we tend to putNORTH first.)Perhaps my hypothesis is that unless there is anestablished, conventional way of expressing multiplenominals, no emphasis or prominence can be stressed.The same would be true of conventional syntax.To vary the conventional order of words would surelybe emphatic. But if many sentences in alanguage have the order: SVO, (Subj. Verb Object)I would think that no prominence can be attributedto the S by virtue of the fact that it is “on the left.” =====Sincerely,Alan B. Thomas”Unless God provides indisputable, divine evidence of His revelation to mankind, it must be rejected at all costs….”__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities – quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)Index in the DDD??

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Jim West jwest at highland.net
Mon Oct 8 14:21:48 EDT 2001

 

Luke 7:39 IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) At 08:07 PM 10/8/01 +0200, you wrote:>When a variant reading is supported by only one MS, there would need to be>strong internal support for the variant. This is not the case here as far as>I can see.> this is of course not the only criteria, for as you know- witnesses areweighed, not counted. >It is most likely that the extra word PRWTON crept in by way of habit,or was dropped by an error of sight.>because it occurred in the similar construction IOUDAI.. PRWTON TE KAI>hELLHN.. in Rom 1:16, 2:9 and 2:10.following this logic the phrase will only be genuine in one passage andevery other occurance is a harmonization by the scribes.a dubious approach at best. In these contexts, the word PRWTON fits>well, because the Gospel was first preached to the Jews before it reached>the Greek, and similarly the judgment started with the Jews. These contexts>suggest a chronological order that is absent from the context of 3:9. Both>internal and external evidence favour the text without PRWTON in 3:9.or- from another perspective- internal and external evidence here supportsthe reading of the text as A has it. A is an excellent text. It does notshow a tendency to harmonization, and it is Alexandrian. The fact that Paulwould use the same phrase several times is just as legitimate- and maybemore legitimate- than saying he only used the phrase once or twice.we differ on the value of Alexandrinus i think, and on the way the evidenceshould be viewed.bestjim> >Iver Larsen> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDAdjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, Roane State Community CollegeAdjunct Professor of Biblical Studies,Quartz Hill School of TheologyHome Page:Biblical Studies Resourceshttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

Luke 7:39IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)
IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Oct 8 17:22:02 EDT 2001

 

Index in the DDD?? IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) At 12:10 PM -0700 10/8/01, Alan B. Thomas wrote:>Concerning this from Iver…> >> And I would still be interested in any>> example where the second>> item appears to be more prominent than the first. In>> that case, I’ll revise>> my hypothesis.I think the hypothesis is plausible but more speculative than demonstrable.In addition to what Alan offers, I think the idiomatic construction I’mciting depends upon a degree of prominence for the second item followingthe TE KAI.While I know of no instances of this in the GNT, there is a standard,frequent construction in classical Attic of a form of ALLOS followed by TEKAI and an item in the same case as the form of ALLOS, the semantic forceof the construction being “others and especially X”; one sees this alsowith the adverb ALLWS TE KAI and another adverb where the following adverbis emphatic and the sense is “otherwise and especially X-ly”:LSJ s.v. ALLOS:6. with Art., ho allos, the rest, all besides; in pl., hoi alloi (Ion.contr. hôlloi) all the others, the rest, freq. from Hom. downwards (alloiin same signf., Il.2.1); ta alla, contr. talla, all else, talla plên hochrusos Scol. 1 (Pytherm.); in Att. freq. as Adv., for the rest, esp. inamendments to decrees, ta men alla kathaper ho deina ktl. IG1.27a70, etc.:of Time, = ton allon chronon, X.HG3.2.2; ho a. chronos, = ho loiposchronos, of the future, Lys. 14.4 (but also of the past, D.20.16); têiallêi hêmerai, tôi allôi etei, next day, next year, X.HG1.1.13, 1.2.1;hoite alloi kai . . all others and especially . . , gunaikas allas tepollas kai dêkai basileos thugatera Hdt.1.1 , etc.; alla te dê eipe, kai .. Pl.Tht.142c; (v. allôs 1 ):–to allo is much less freq. than ta alla.LSJ s.v. ALLWS:3. freq. in phrase allôs te kai . . both otherwise and . . , i.e.especially, above all, A.Eu.473, Th.1.70, etc.; strengthd., a. te pantôskai . . A.Pr. 636, Eu.726; freq. followed by ên, ei, epeidê, especially if. . , Hp.VC 21, Th.1.81, 2.3; by part., Id.4.104, 7.80:–without kai, a. teean X.Mem.1.2.59 ; allôs te epeidê Isoc.2.51 , Pl.Men.85e, etc.>By way of English examples, we have conventional>ways of expressing multiple nominals.> >1. I now pronounce you HUSBAND/MAN and WIFE>2. Would you like a PEANUT BUTTER and JELLY sandwich>3. May I introduce MR. and MRS. Smith>4. Colors of the Am. flag are RED, WHITE, and BLUE>5. The directions are NORTH…(SOUTH or EAST…)> >I think that apart from conventional ways of>expressing multiple nominals, emphasis or prominence>is not in view.> >It would be rather unusual for me to introduce>a couple as MRS. and MR. Smith (unless I were>at a NOW convention, perhaps).> >For me to say that the colors of the Am. flag>are WHITE, BLUE, and RED would be equally awkward.> >To teach children the directions as WEST, NORTH …>seems a bit awkward. (I think we tend to put>NORTH first.)> >Perhaps my hypothesis is that unless there is an>established, conventional way of expressing multiple>nominals, no emphasis or prominence can be stressed.> >The same would be true of conventional syntax.>To vary the conventional order of words would surely>be emphatic. But if many sentences in a>language have the order: SVO, (Subj. Verb Object)>I would think that no prominence can be attributed>to the S by virtue of the fact that it>is “on the left.”> > >=====>Sincerely,> >Alan B. Thomas> >“Unless God provides indisputable, divine evidence of His revelation to>mankind,> it must be rejected at all costs….”> >__________________________________________________>Do You Yahoo!?>NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities – quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.>http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1> >—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: [cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]>To unsubscribe, forward this message to>$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu— Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Index in the DDD??IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Mon Oct 8 21:31:06 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Iver:Would not the Ascensive use of KAI have some bearingon the issue of prominence given to the first item?Each “even” “also” “namely” seems to give equality tothe two nominals in such a translation/understanding.In John 3:5:EAN MH TIS GENNHQHi EX hUDATOS KAI PNEUMATOS…Seems like “prominence” ought to be given to the PNEUMATOS,although this is in the unemphatic position.Finally, I note that Smyth translates QEOI KAI ZEUS: “thegods and above all Zeus.” Where the first item is thegeneral term and the second item specific.More thoughts,Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Mon Oct 8 22:01:56 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) In a message dated 10/8/01 8:31:49 PM, emory2oo2 at hotmail.com writes:> >Iver:> >Would not the Ascensive use of KAI have some bearing>on the issue of prominence given to the first item?>Each “even” “also” “namely” seems to give equality to>the two nominals in such a translation/understanding.> >In John 3:5:> >EAN MH TIS GENNHQHi EX hUDATOS KAI PNEUMATOS…> >Seems like “prominence” ought to be given to the PNEUMATOS,>although this is in the unemphatic position.> > >Finally, I note that Smyth translates QEOI KAI ZEUS: “the>gods and above all Zeus.” Where the first item is the>general term and the second item specific.> >More thoughts,> >Mark WilsonThe same emphasis seems to be in Mark 16:7 where you have the group and the individual. ALLA hUPAGETE EIPATE TOIS MAQHTAIS AUTOU KAI TWi PETRWi hOTI . . .”but go tell his disciples and especially Peter that . . .”Carlton Winbery Louisiana College

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) jldrick at juno.com jldrick at juno.com
Mon Oct 8 22:09:53 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Folks,While we are discussing Romans 3: 9,”IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS,” may I ask to whatdoes PANTAS refer?Does it mean all of both groups?Does it mean all hELLHNAS, rememberingthat there were many Gentile nations, but only oneJewish nation? Since IOUDAIOUS is plural, is it better tosee this and hELLHNAS as applying to individualsand not nations?Would it be a better translation to renderthis as, “Jews and all Gentiles are under sin,” oras, “Jews and Gentiles are all under sin?”Jim DrickamerBaton Rouge, La.

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Oct 9 00:09:47 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) At 9:09 PM -0500 10/8/01, jldrick at juno.com wrote:>Folks,> >While we are discussing Romans 3: 9,>“IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS,” may I ask to what>does PANTAS refer?> >Does it mean all of both groups?> >Does it mean all hELLHNAS, remembering>that there were many Gentile nations, but only one>Jewish nation?> >Since IOUDAIOUS is plural, is it better to>see this and hELLHNAS as applying to individuals>and not nations?> >Would it be a better translation to render>this as, “Jews and all Gentiles are under sin,” or>as, “Jews and Gentiles are all under sin?”> >Jim Drickamer>Baton Rouge, La.Text: PROHiTIASAMEQA GAR IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS PANTAS hUF’ hAMARTIAN EINAINo: PANTAS is predicative with EINAI: it must be ” … Jews and Greeks aswell to be all subject to sin.”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Oct 9 03:05:00 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Thanks to several people for their comments.Let me try to respond as briefly as I can in one message:Alan said:> “By way of English examples, we have conventional ways of expressingmultiple nominals.> 1. I now pronounce you HUSBAND/MAN and WIFE> 2. Would you like a PEANUT BUTTER and JELLY sandwich> 3. May I introduce MR. and MRS. Smith> 4. Colors of the Am. flag are RED, WHITE, and BLUE> 5. The directions are NORTH…(SOUTH or EAST…)> I think that apart from conventional ways of expressing multiple nominals,emphasis or prominence is not in view.”To this, I have two comments.First, my hypothesis concerns Greek, not English. The kind of emphasis thatGreek is able to communicate by way of word order choice, cannot, or canonly rarely, be expressed in English by word order choice. The correspondingEnglish method is phonological stress. I am not saying that these are alwaysequal or correspond, but stress in English seems to be the nearest you getto what word order does in Greek.Second, it is correct that most if not all languages have a conventionalorder of particular expressions. This is an underlying cultural choice thatcorrelates with a linguistic choice. And you are right, when there is anunderlying cultural convention, the linguistic choice is absent. Forinstance, it is a cultural choice that the GNT and to some degree alsoEnglish would always say “husband and wife”, never “wife and husband”. Youfind this with “men and women”, “elders and brothers” “officers andsoldiers” etc.Mark Wilson said:> Would not the Ascensive use of KAI have some bearing> on the issue of prominence given to the first item?> Each “even” “also” “namely” seems to give equality to> the two nominals in such a translation/understanding.I am not sure I believe in “ascentive KAI”. But then, I am not sure of thedefinition, either. We do need to distinguish between an adverbial use ofKAI and a coordinating use of KAI.> > In John 3:5:> > EAN MH TIS GENNHQHi EX hUDATOS KAI PNEUMATOS…> > Seems like “prominence” ought to be given to the PNEUMATOS,> although this is in the unemphatic position.Although I don’t think there is any particular emphasis on PNEUMATOS here, Idon’t think there is any emphasis on hUDATOS either. I am more inclined tothink that the contextual stress and emphasis is upon the KAI – “AND”.Whereas the choice of word order is related to prominence, there are alsoother factors that determine the choice of order.We have seen above that cultural conventions play a part.I believe chronology also plays a part. One tends to mention first thethings that happen first. In the case of John 3:5, I believe the birth outof water comes chronologically before the birth from spirit. (Of course, theinterpretation of this verse is disputed. My position is that “born out of awater” stands for the physical, first birth as opposed to the spiritual,second birth.)Another natural order is “from the known to the unknown”. In John 3:5 thespiritual, second birth is the unknown to Nicodemus, the new topic, whereasthe physical, first birth is a known, as is clear from 3:4. The same orderof first talking about physical birth and then spiritual birth is maintainedin 3:6.> > Finally, I note that Smyth translates QEOI KAI ZEUS: “the> gods and above all Zeus.” Where the first item is the> general term and the second item specific.This, I believe, is something different again and has to do with thedifference between KAI in Greek and “and” in English.Carlton had a similar example:> The same emphasis seems to be in Mark 16:7 where you have the group andthe> individual. ALLA hUPAGETE EIPATE TOIS MAQHTAIS AUTOU KAI TWi PETRWi hOTI. .> “but go tell his disciples and especially Peter that . . .”In English, the units coordinated by “and” are expected to be at the samelevel and semantically disjunct. (We have discussed this before).In Greek, the units coordinated by KAI do not have to be semanticallydisjunct. One item can be a subset of the other. Or one item can be a setand the other an element of the set. There are many examples of this, andthe literal translation of KAI in these instances by English “and” ismisleading.I understand ZEUS to be a discrete element in the set of QEOI.Similarly, Peter is a discrete element in the set of disciples.This kind of construction is common in Greek, but does not work in English.This may well be another general expectation of order in Greek, namely thatthe set is mentioned before the element within the set.I do not think that “especially” or “above all” is a correct translation. Ithink that imposes English conventions onto Greek. I believe a more accuratetranslation is “including”:Go and tell his disciples, including Peter.Thanks to all for helping to look at some of the other factors involved inthe choice of word order. These other factors (or rules) are to be appliedbefore the general, default principle of “what is to the left is relativelymore prominent”.Iver Larsen

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)Gal 4:18 EN KALWi

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Tue Oct 9 14:38:10 EDT 2001

 

JACT NT Gk Reader? IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA”Be not troubling of you the heart…”>From: “Iver Larsen”> > Finally, I note that Smyth translates QEOI KAI ZEUS: “the> > gods and above all Zeus.” Where the first item is the> > general term and the second item specific.>This, I believe, is something different again and has to do with the>difference between KAI in Greek and “and” in English.>Carlton had a similar example:> > The same emphasis seems to be in Mark 16:7 where you have the group > > >and the individual. ALLA hUPAGETE EIPATE TOIS MAQHTAIS AUTOU KAI > > TWi >PETRWi hOTI…> > “but go tell his disciples and especially Peter that . . .”>I understand ZEUS to be a discrete element in the set of QEOI.>Similarly, Peter is a discrete element in the set of disciples.>This kind of construction is common in Greek, but does not work in English.>This may well be another general expectation of order in Greek, namely that >the set is mentioned before the element within the set. I do not think that >“especially” or “above all” is a correct translation. Ithink that imposes English conventions onto Greek. I believe a more accurate translation is “including”:>Go and tell his disciples, including Peter.Thanks, Iver, for a marvelous look at KAI. Are you really arguing against its use in Greek as an emphatic? Or just in these set-subset constructions. It would seem that the very mention of Peter and Zeus in the above examples, being utterly particular, would give them some prominence in the construction. When I was taught Attic Greek some 350 years ago, KAI was given a fairly broad range of meanings, among them being ‘even’ and ‘especially’. I mean, why specifically name a particular after having referenced the group, if not for emphasis?Your idea that ’emphasis generally comes from the left’ seems rooted in the function in Greek construction of words that are stated first. Beginnings are important in Greek language in a way that they are not in English. In English, we tend to start out and trust that we will get around to the point eventually. In Greek, the point is clearly in view with the opening words, so that the ‘items to the left’, as you call them, have an emphasis that I prefer to call ‘carry’, for they carry over across the discourse, in that they so often set the theme or purpose or direction of what follows. Which is why I tend to think that in Greek, all words are emphasized, for each has a different function relative to the whole, which is the purpose of the conversation anyway. In English, a language of forgetfulness, where we seem to need billions of gigs of memory in our computers, the ‘natural’ prominence of ‘items on the right’ does seem to have taken over, because the last thing heard is the easiest to remember, and the Greeks, being an oral mnemonic culture, did not fall prey to this degradation of thought. Yet I would argue that theyu as well did not fall prey to the reverse either, giving prominence to the left. Their linguistic focus was centered around wholes.geo_________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

 

JACT NT Gk Reader?IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Oct 9 16:19:50 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS George asked:> Are you really arguing against its use in Greek as an emphatic? Or justin these set-subset> constructions.> It would seem that the very mention of Peter and Zeus in the above> examples, being utterly particular, would give them some> prominence in the construction. When I was taught Attic Greek some 350years ago, KAI was> given a fairly broad range of meanings, among them being ‘even’ and> ‘especially’. I mean, why specifically name a particular after having> referenced the group, if not for emphasis?Let me just respond to this bit. Yes, KAI has several uses.I accept the adverbial use of KAI which intensifies the following word,often translated as “even”.Just one example:Luke 22:33 KURIE, META SOU ETOIMOS EIMI KAI EIS FULAKHN KAI EIS QANATONPOREUESQAI”Lord, when it comes to you, I am ready to go even to jail and to death withyou”The KAI … KAI probably does not mean “both … and”, since Luke uses TEKAI for that. It is more likely that the first KAI is adverbial and thesecond coordinating two nouns.In the instance quoted I argued against “especially” for the coordinatingKAI in preference to “including”.I looked up in the GNT with interlinear gloss just to check which words wereglossed as “especially”. The common one was MALISTA.There was one KAI glossed “especially” in 2 Cor 12:7, but here the gloss isquestionable. An ordinary additive “and” seems as likely, but it is adifficult passage.The only other one was in 3 John 5, but here we have KAI TOUTO “and this” =”especially” where it is the TOUTO that gives the emphasis. It could as wellhave been glossed “even”. RSV says “especially to strangers”, NIV and manyothers says “even though they are strangers”.I won’t comment on the gods and Zeus since I don’t have the context, but forMark 16:7 I would agree that Peter is singled out. But that is not the sameas emphasis or prominence, the way I understand it. Since Peter had betrayedJesus in a way that none of the others had – apart from Judas, one mightexpect someone would have written him off as an apostle. The message here isthat he is still included.If I say “tell the apostles, including Peter” in English I don’t put anyparticular phonological stress on Peter. If anything, there may well be somestress on “including”.Iver Larsen

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Paul Schmehl p.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.net
Tue Oct 9 20:39:43 EDT 2001

 

Gal 4:18 EN KALWi What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS —– Original Message —–From: “George Blaisdell” <maqhth at hotmail.com>To: “Biblical Greek” < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 2:38 PMSubject: [] Re: IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)> > Your idea that ’emphasis generally comes from the left’ seems rooted inthe> function in Greek construction of words that are stated first. Beginnings> are important in Greek language in a way that they are not in English. In> English, we tend to start out and trust that we will get around to thepoint> eventually. In Greek, the point is clearly in view with the openingwords,> so that the ‘items to the left’, as you call them, have an emphasis that I> prefer to call ‘carry’, for they carry over across the discourse, in that> they so often set the theme or purpose or direction of what follows.I have been bothered by this principle for a while, and I’d like to 1)articulate what bothers me and 2) ask for input from the learned members ofthis group. I’m not picking on Iver, because he is not the first toarticulate this principle (nor will he be the last.) I guess I just needhelp understanding this principle better.First, what bothers me: In any language, *something* has to be first. It’ssimply impossible to express *anything* without putting something at thebeginning. Therefore, when a general principle is articulated that “thingsto the left are more important”, my hair stands up on end. I’m well awarethat Greek uses word order for emphasis, but all languages, I think, have”normal” ways of expressing things and then “abnormal” ways of expressionthat provide emphasis.For example, in English we might say, “Stop that now!”, and one *might*conclude that the emphasis is on the word “now” or one might conclude thatthere is no particular emphasis. However, if I rephrased it, “Now stopthat!”, one might conclude the emphasis was on the word “stop”. Perhaps onemight call the former word order “normal” and the latter “abnormal”, because the position of “stop” has been altered.Second, my plea for input:Wouldn’t Greek also have a “normal” word order? And wouldn’t that “normal”word order have no particular emphasis? ISTR that I was taught that”normal” Greek word order is SOV, with the verb generally taking the laterposition in a sentence. So, for example, in Acts 1:1 we read, “TON MENPRWTON LOGON EPOIHSAMHN PERI PANTWN W QEOFILE hWN HRZATO hO IHSOUS POIEIN TEKAI DIDASKEIN”, which in “normal” English we might say “I wrote the firstaccount, beloved of God, concerning all that Jesus began to both do andteach…”, whereas the Greek has it, “The first account I wrote, concerningall, beloved of God, that Jesus began to both do and teach…”Now, I don’t get the sense that there is any emphasis in this Greek at all.It seems to be “normal” to me. So the “principle” that things to the leftare emphasized seems inapplicable to me here. Now, I *do* get the sensethat “normal” Greek word order is more “fluid” than English word orderwithout changing emphasis, but ISTM that arguing that “whatever is left isemphasized” is too rigid and dogmatic. I would prefer to see evidence thata word order is “abnormal” before agreeing that “whatever is left isemphasized”.Am I way off base?Paul Schmehl pauls at utdallas.edup.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.nethttp://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/

 

Gal 4:18 EN KALWiWhat To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Oct 10 04:08:13 EDT 2001

 

JACT NT Gk Reader? What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS > I have been bothered by this principle for a while, and I’d like to 1)> articulate what bothers me and 2) ask for input from the learned> members of> this group. I’m not picking on Iver, because he is not the first to> articulate this principle (nor will he be the last.) I guess I just need> help understanding this principle better.> > First, what bothers me: In any language, *something* has to be> first. It’s> simply impossible to express *anything* without putting something at the> beginning. Therefore, when a general principle is articulated> that “things> to the left are more important”, my hair stands up on end. I’m well aware> that Greek uses word order for emphasis, but all languages, I think, have> “normal” ways of expressing things and then “abnormal” ways of expression> that provide emphasis.Language is complex and there are a number of things going onsimultaneously. Your problem seems to be that you are expecting to apply ageneral principle in a simplistic way. Maybe you understand somethingdifferent by the word “general” than I do? There are other importantprinciples that must also be taken into account. One of them Mark broughtup: If there is no possibility of choice with respect to word order, thenthe “general” principle cannot be applied. There are other factors as well,for instance the style and preferences of a particular author, other meansthat show prominence, and many more.> > For example, in English we might say, “Stop that now!”, and one *might*> conclude that the emphasis is on the word “now” or one might conclude that> there is no particular emphasis. However, if I rephrased it, “Now stop> that!”, one might conclude the emphasis was on the word “stop”.> Perhaps one> might call the former word order “normal” and the latter> “abnormal”, because> the position of “stop” has been altered.We are not helped much by English examples, since English does not have thekind of possibility for word order variation that Greek has. As I saidearlier, English mainly uses stress to indicate prominence, and this is notmarked in normal writing. (Which is a pity, but the English writing systemis deplored by all linguists as being pretty bad.) In your English examplecould you not put stress on different words and by that indicate emphasis?”Stop that NOW” is different from “Stop that now” and “Now, STOP that” and”Stop THAT now”.> > Second, my plea for input:> > Wouldn’t Greek also have a “normal” word order? And wouldn’t> that “normal”> word order have no particular emphasis? ISTR that I was taught that> “normal” Greek word order is SOV, with the verb generally taking the later> position in a sentence.If you are able to go back and read in the archives you will find a lot ofinput on these questions. We need to distinguish between word order withinthe phrase and phrase order within the clause.There is no agreement whether Greek does indeed have a normal phrase order.The reason for this state of affairs is that the phrase order is so open tovariation that to try to establish a “normal” order is very frustrating.What IS “normal”, when things move all over the place?The majority of those who prefer to say that Greek DOES have a normal phraseorder, would say that the order is VSO. If you were taught that it is SOVthat may have been in the context of classical Greek.Whether the V comes first depends on what the verb is and how prominent theconcept covered by the verb is in the total clause. So, for example, in Acts 1:1 we read, “TON MEN> PRWTON LOGON EPOIHSAMHN PERI PANTWN W QEOFILE hWN HRZATO hO> IHSOUS POIEIN TE> KAI DIDASKEIN”, which in “normal” English we might say “I wrote the first> account, beloved of God, concerning all that Jesus began to both do and> teach…”, whereas the Greek has it, “The first account I wrote,> concerning all, beloved of God, that Jesus began to both do and teach…”> > Now, I don’t get the sense that there is any emphasis in this Greek atall.How would you get the “sense” when you are not a native speaker and youdisregard the very principle that would help to give you that sense? Do youget the “sense” from the English translation?> It seems to be “normal” to me. So the “principle” that things to the left> are emphasized seems inapplicable to me here. Now, I *do* get the sense> that “normal” Greek word order is more “fluid” than English word order> without changing emphasis, but ISTM that arguing that “whatever is left is> emphasized” is too rigid and dogmatic.Yes, if it is applied in a simplistic way, it can easily lead to wrongconclusions. And any prominence hinted at by word order choice should fitwith other linguistic clues in the whole co-text.> I would prefer to see evidence that> a word order is “abnormal” before agreeing that “whatever is left is> emphasized”.Fair enough as far as it goes. I could send you an article on this if youare interested. Or you could download it fromhttp://www.egroups.com/files/bible-translation/Let me make a few comments on your example from Acts 1:1TON MEN PRWTON LOGON EPOIHSAMHN PERI PANTWN W QEOFILE hWN HRZATO hO IHSOUSPOIEIN TE KAI DIDASKEIN1. TON PRWTON LOGONNo variation is possible in English: the first account.But what are the possibilities in Greek? One would need to look at the data,and I am limited to the GNT in my search mechanisms. But still there are acouple of interesting examples:Mt 22:38 hAUTH ESTIN hH MEGALH KAI PRWTH ENTOLHEPH 6:2 hHTIS ESTIN ENTOLH PRWTH EN EPAGGELIAiMR 14:12 THi PRWTHi hHMERAi1 COR 15:47 hO PRWTOS ANQRWPOS2 TIM 4:16 EN THi PRWTHi MOU APOLOGIAiHEB 9:15 THi PRWTHi DIAQHKHiREV 4:1 H FWNH H PRWTHREV 13:12 THN EXOUSIAN TOU PRWTOU QHRIOU PASAN..hINA PROSKUNHSOUSIN TOQHRION TO PRWTONREV 20:5 hAUTH hH ANASTASIS hH PRWTH -this is the first resurrectionLuke 15:22 EXENEGKATE STOLHN THN PRWTHN “bring out a robe which is thefirst/best”Here I prefer to take the article as equivalent to a relative, because ofthe lack of an article before STOLHN. This construction is not comparable towhat we have in Acts 1:1.Based on these examples, there are seem to be two possibilities in Greekwhere English has one:TWN PRWTON LOGONTON LOGON TON PRWTONThere is less flexibility with an arthrous noun phrase compared with ananarthrous one and the implications for word order prominence are much lessfor an arthrous NP. For these NPs the variation between authors issignificant. For instance, in Revelation, the second form is common, but itis rare in the rest of the NT. So, caution is needed.It is “normal” for an adjective to follow the head noun in Greek, especiallyin an anarthrous NP. BUT, the word PRWTOS is inherently emphatic because itmeans “first” and therefore implies a contrast to something that is”second”. Therefore, if you check all occurrences of noun phrases modifiedwith this word PRWTOS you will find that the “normal” order for thisparticular combination is to have PRWTOS before the noun (if their is anoun. This word is often used substantively or adverbially).The fronting of PRWTON indicates that it is prominent. But that is normal,because this particular word is almost always prominent.Concerning phrase order, the first clause is OV(S). It would be possible tostart with the verb, but that would give a wrong prominence to the event of”writing/making”.The second, relative, clause is VSO (or VSC if you prefer Complement for theinfinitive). There is some prominence on the concept “began” whichcorrelates with the discourse particle MEN in that the first book/account isthe stepping stone for the second account that Luke is now embarking on.These things are tricky, and a general principle should not be applieddogmatically. But I think it is still a principle that describes part of the”soul” of the Greek language and helps to get a “feel” for the intent of theauthor.Best wishes,Iver Larsen

 

JACT NT Gk Reader?What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Wed Oct 10 14:53:44 EDT 2001

 

PAUW in the middle IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA>From: “Paul Schmehl” > In Greek, the point [of a sentence] is clearly in >view with the > > opening word[s], so that the ‘items to the left’… >have [what] … > > I prefer to call ‘carry’, for they carry over across >the discourse, > > [or sentence] in that they so often set the theme or >purpose or > > direction of what follows.>I guess I just need>help understanding this principle better.>I’m well aware that Greek uses word order for emphasis, but all >languages, >I think, have “normal” ways of expressing things and then >”abnormal” ways >of expression that provide emphasis.I agree. I [with you] do not agree that ‘words to the left’ are naturally emphasized in Greek. They just function somewhat differently from the opening word[s] in English. Your example [following] can illustrate the principle by way of contrast in English:>For example, in English we might say, “Stop that now!”, and one *might*>conclude that the emphasis is on the word “now” or one might conclude >that >there is no particular emphasis.‘Stop’ is a complete sentence.’Stop that’ is a complete sentence.’Stop that now’ is a complete sentence.In English, this is a natural progression. A thinking out loud, as it were.>However, if I rephrased it, “Now stop that!”, one might conclude the > >emphasis was on the word “stop”. Perhaps one might call the former >word >order “normal” and the latter “abnormal”, because the position of >”stop” >has been altered.‘Now’ is not a complete sentence. [It is an attention getter.]’Now stop’ and ‘Now stop that’ are both complete sentences, so the emphasis, if any, shifts to ‘stop’ and ‘that’… The ‘Now’ becomes dimunitive, losing the force of its time designation due to its unsupported and thereby incomplete first position in utterance.Change the order again to “That now stop!”Bad English. Almost gobbledygook. As a run-on sentence, it fails. It COULD make sense if it were divided thus: “That!”… “Now!”… “Stop!” But only in context… But I believe, and am willing to be corrected, that this word order in Greek would not be unusual at all, and would require of the hearer to hold in cognitive suspension until the last word the first word and as well the second. The whole does not make up a complete thought until the last word is uttered, so that the first and second words are cognitively ‘carried’ in memory to the third, which allows them all to fall into place as a cognitive whole.In English we like the sentence to make sense as we go along, and in Greek, we like to hold so far unrelated words in mind until the end that gives them the specifics of relationship intended by the speaker. The Greek is more like a mystery story, where the clues, apparently unrelated words, are assembled in no particular order until the end, when the order makes sense in the denouement. People who talk like this in English are normally avoided! [grin!]Oral culture – Mnemonics play a role, where active engagement of the listener in the ongoing development of not yet understood tension helps a memory that is actively working right along with the speaker’s word order for it to become whole.>Second, my plea for input:>Wouldn’t Greek also have a “normal” word order? And wouldn’t that > >”normal” word order have no particular emphasis? ISTR that I was >taught >that “normal” Greek word order is SOV, with the verb generally >taking the >later position in a sentence.This illustrates the principle above.S = no sentence.O = no sentenceV = Sentence [finally!]See how the tension builds? And this is just a normal Greek thought pattern…>So, for example, in Acts 1:1 we read,TON MEN PRWTON LOGON EPOIHSAMHN PERI PANTWN W QEOFILE hWN HRXATO hO IHSOUS POIEIN TE KAI DIDASKEIN>which in “normal” English we might say>“I wrote the first account, beloved of God, concerning all that Jesus > >began to both do and teach…”,whereas the Greek has it,>“The first account I wrote, concerning all, beloved of God, that Jesus > >began to both do and teach…”>Now, I don’t get the sense that there is any emphasis in this Greek at all. >It seems to be “normal” to me. So the “principle” that things to the left >are emphasized seems inapplicable to me here.I do think that W QEWFILE is a proper name, and is the intended recipient of the epistle, and is announced as such in the first sentence, by his centrality within it: [“O Theophilus”] I would think that this is simply a polite way of opening a letter TO someone, by addressing them centrally in the opening sentence. And notice how as this sentence unfolds linearly, it requires of the reader that [s]he keep words in unresolved cognitive suspension until the last two infinitives, which bring it all into a now understood whole…So that right or wrong, this is how I basically understand Greek word order, and I hope I have been clear. Your question concerning the common and normal way of Greek expression, so as to establish a kind of base-line against which we can then examine the emphases entailed by variations from it, is best left to better minds than mine…geo_________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

 

PAUW in the middleIOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Paul Schmehl p.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.net
Wed Oct 10 20:09:27 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Jud 3:17 (LXX) —– Original Message —–From: “George Blaisdell” <maqhth at hotmail.com>To: <p.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.net>; < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 2:53 PMSubject: Re: [] Re: IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)> > So that right or wrong, this is how I basically understand Greek wordorder,> and I hope I have been clear. Your question concerning the common and> normal way of Greek expression, so as to establish a kind of base-line> against which we can then examine the emphases entailed by variations from> it, is best left to better minds than mine…> Perhaps, but I appreciated your description of “building tension”. It makesa great deal of sense to me, with what little I understand of Greek. I’mnot sure, however, that it helps me understand this idea of leftmost is moreprominent.Paul Schmehl pauls at utdallas.edup.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.nethttp://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)Jud 3:17 (LXX)

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Thu Oct 11 05:24:26 EDT 2001

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Jud 3:17 (LXX) George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA>From: “Paul Schmehl”>I appreciated your description of “building tension”. It makes>a great deal of sense to me, with what little I understand of Greek. >I’m >not sure, however, that it helps me understand this idea of >leftmost is >more prominent.I don’t think it is more prominent. It has more ‘carry’… Needs to be ‘kept in mind’ as the sentence unfolds… But prominence, in the sense of emphasis – I don’t think so…I am very glad that my presentation of Greek word order as ‘dramatic’ [as in drama] – Having and building ‘tension’ – found some usefulness for you. It is very simple to grasp, and does not seem to interfere with other more scholarly and useful schemes that make for a more catalogued and technical understanding.geo_________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSJud 3:17 (LXX)