[] Acts 17:26-27 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon Oct 30 11:33:47 EST 2006
[] Dr. William Mounce’s New Greek Grammar [] Acts 17:26-27 ACTS 17:26 EPOIHSEN TE EX hENOS PAN EQNOS ANQRWPWN KATOIKEIN EPI PANTOS PROSWPOU THS GHS, hORISAS PROSTETAGMENOUS KAIROUS KAI TAS hOROQESIAS THS KATOIKIAS AUTWN 27 ZHTEIN TON QEON, EI ARA GE YHLAFHSEIAN AUTON KAI hEUROIEN, KAI GE OU MAKRAN APO hENOS hEKASTOU hHMWN hUPARCONTA.Culy & Parsons state that ZHTEIN TON QEON … is in apposition to KATOIKEIN EPI PANTOS PROSWPOU THS GHS. Finding this puzzling I looked up appositive/apposition in two dictionaries of linguistics R.L.Trask and David Crystal. Trask limited apposition to noun phrases but David Crystal did not, he defined it as any two constituents at the same grammatical level which are co-referential.I was under the mistaken impression that second constituent in some way needed to qualify or give further explanation about the first constituent. Two constituents can be co-referential without the second one qualifying the first.Crystal comments that “apposition” is a traditional grammatical term which has significant theoretical problems, for example, there are cases where one of the conditions is met but not the other.I didn’t find Culy & Parsons use of the term apposition very helpful in this context.Elizabeth Kline
[] Dr. William Mounce’s New Greek Grammar[] Acts 17:26-27
[] Acts 17:26-27 Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 30 22:03:41 EST 2006
[] Acts 17:26-27 [] Acts 17:26-27 Elizabeth: On this…— Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>wrote:> ACTS 17:26 EPOIHSEN TE EX hENOS PAN EQNOS ANQRWPWN> KATOIKEIN EPI > PANTOS PROSWPOU THS GHS, hORISAS PROSTETAGMENOUS> KAIROUS KAI TAS > hOROQESIAS THS KATOIKIAS AUTWN 27 ZHTEIN TON QEON,> EI ARA GE > YHLAFHSEIAN AUTON KAI hEUROIEN, KAI GE OU MAKRAN APO> hENOS hEKASTOU > hHMWN hUPARCONTA.> > Culy & Parsons state that ZHTEIN TON QEON … is in> apposition to > KATOIKEIN EPI PANTOS PROSWPOU THS GHS. Finding this> puzzling I looked > up appositive/apposition in two dictionaries of> linguistics R.L.Trask > and David Crystal. Trask limited apposition to noun> phrases but David > Crystal did not, he defined it as any two> constituents at the same > grammatical level which are co-referential.> > I was under the mistaken impression that second> constituent in some > way needed to qualify or give further explanation> about the first > constituent. Then you say…Two constituents can be co-referential> without the > second one qualifying the first.How so?Eddie MishoePastor__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[] Acts 17:26-27[] Acts 17:26-27
[] Acts 17:26-27 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon Oct 30 23:48:19 EST 2006
[] Acts 17:26-27 [] Acts 17:26-27 On Oct 30, 2006, at 7:03 PM, Eddie Mishoe wrote:> Then you say…> > Two constituents can be co-referential>> without the>> second one qualifying the first.> > How so?Eddie,That is in fact what my question was about. How can this be?Culy & Parsons state that ZHTEIN TON QEON … is in a second purpose clause of EPOIHSEN in apposition to KATOIKEIN EPI PANTOS PROSWPOU THS GHS.David Crystal (Dict. Ling. & Phon. 4th ed) apposition(al) … a sequence of units which are constituents at the same grammatical level, and which have identity or similarity of reference.Crystal then gives an example “John Smith, the butcher, came in” with two noun phrases and notes that they have the same syntactic function so that either can be eliminated without breaking down the structure of the clause.In what sense do the two “purpose clauses” (?) ZHTEIN TON QEON … and KATOIKEIN EPI PANTOS PROSWPOU THS GHS have the same referent? Are we calling EPOIHSEN the referent? I cannot see how the second purpose clause qualifies or gives more information about the first purpose clause. They both point back to EPOIHSEN.My best guess, and it is only a guess, is that Culy & Parsons are using the term apposition here to tell us that in a generative parsing tree the two “purpose clauses” are at the same level and are attached to the same higher level constituent EPOIHSEN.Elizabeth KlineOn Oct 30, 2006, at 8:33 AM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:> ACTS 17:26 EPOIHSEN TE EX hENOS PAN EQNOS ANQRWPWN KATOIKEIN EPI> PANTOS PROSWPOU THS GHS, hORISAS PROSTETAGMENOUS KAIROUS KAI TAS> hOROQESIAS THS KATOIKIAS AUTWN 27 ZHTEIN TON QEON, EI ARA GE> YHLAFHSEIAN AUTON KAI hEUROIEN, KAI GE OU MAKRAN APO hENOS hEKASTOU> hHMWN hUPARCONTA.> > Culy & Parsons state that ZHTEIN TON QEON … is in apposition to> KATOIKEIN EPI PANTOS PROSWPOU THS GHS. Finding this puzzling I looked> up appositive/apposition in two dictionaries of linguistics R.L.Trask> and David Crystal. Trask limited apposition to noun phrases but David> Crystal did not, he defined it as any two constituents at the same> grammatical level which are co-referential.> > I was under the mistaken impression that second constituent in some> way needed to qualify or give further explanation about the first> constituent. Two constituents can be co-referential without the> second one qualifying the first.>
[] Acts 17:26-27[] Acts 17:26-27
[] Acts 17:26-27 Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 31 18:17:59 EST 2006
[] Acts 17:26-27 [] Acts 17:26-27 Elizabeth:I’m trying to understand how ‘verbal assertions’ couldfunction appositionally to each other. I think thestandard notation is that infinitives functionepexegetically, not appositionally. How does this inf.function?EMOI GAR TO ZHN CRISTOS…Phil 1.21aEddie MishoePastor ____________________________________________________________________________________Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business (http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com)
[] Acts 17:26-27[] Acts 17:26-27
[] Acts 17:26-27 frjsilver at optonline.net frjsilver at optonline.net
Tue Oct 31 19:49:40 EST 2006
[] Acts 17:26-27 [] Difficulties of Learning Greek Think of it as a noun here.Father James SilverMonk JamesOrthodox Church in America—– Original Message —–From: Eddie Mishoe Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 6:18 pmSubject: Re: [] Acts 17:26-27To: Elizabeth Kline , greek > Elizabeth:> > I’m trying to understand how ‘verbal assertions’ could> function appositionally to each other. I think the> standard notation is that infinitives function> epexegetically, not appositionally. How does this inf.> function?> > EMOI GAR TO ZHN CRISTOS…Phil 1.21a> > > > Eddie Mishoe> Pastor> > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________> Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small > Business > (http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com) > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>
[] Acts 17:26-27[] Difficulties of Learning Greek
[] EX hENOS [hAIMATOS], Acts 17:26 Webb Mealy webb at selftest.net
Sun Nov 11 23:39:37 EST 2007
[] XENIZONTA TINA–Acts 17:20 [] EX hENOS [hAIMATOS], Acts 17:26 I wonder if EX hENOS hAIMATOS (the Western reading) can mean “from the bloodof one man”, rather than “from one blood”. Any comments? Would it have tohave read, EX hAIMATOS hENOS ? Webb Mealy
[] XENIZONTA TINA–Acts 17:20[] EX hENOS [hAIMATOS], Acts 17:26
[] EX hENOS [hAIMATOS], Acts 17:26 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Nov 12 05:49:52 EST 2007
[] EX hENOS [hAIMATOS], Acts 17:26 [] EX hENOS [hAIMATOS], Acts 17:26 On Nov 11, 2007, at 11:39 PM, Webb Mealy wrote:> I wonder if EX hENOS hAIMATOS (the Western reading) can mean “from > the blood> of one man”, rather than “from one blood”. Any comments? Would it > have to> have read, EX hAIMATOS hENOS ?Interesting question. I think it unlikely that it can mean “from the blood of one man.” I rather think that alternative would have to be spelled out more fully EK TOU hAIMATOS hENOS ANQRWPOU or EX hAIMATO hENOS ANQRWPOU.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
[] EX hENOS [hAIMATOS], Acts 17:26[] EX hENOS [hAIMATOS], Acts 17:26
[] EX hENOS [hAIMATOS], Acts 17:26 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 12 09:33:36 EST 2007
[] EX hENOS [hAIMATOS], Acts 17:26 [] A Question on 2nd year Grammars & what some call 3rdyr grammars Obviously, you are using the Byzantine Majority textform which reads εποιησεν τε εξ ενος αιματος παν εθνος ανθρωπων κατοικειν επι παν το προσωπον της γης ορισας προστεταγμενους καιρους και τας οροθεσιας της κατοικιας αυτων EPOIHSEN TE EC The Critical Text reads ἐποίησέν τε ἐξ ἑνὸς πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ παντὸς προσώπου τῆς γῆς, ὁρίσας προστεταγμένους καιροὺς καὶ τὰς ὁροθεσίας τῆς κατοικίας αὐτῶν EPOIHSEN TE EC hENOS PAN EQNOS ANQRWPWN KATOIKEIN EPI PANTOS PROSOPOU THS GHS, hORISAS PROSTETAGMENOUS KAIROUS KAI TAS hOROQESIAS THS KATOIKIAS AUTWN Metzger notes in his _Textual Commentary_ regarding this 17.26 ἐξ ἑνός EC hENOS {B} The Western text, with the support of a wide range of early versions and patristic witnesses, adds αἵματος after ἑνός hENOS. This reading passed into the Textus Receptus and lies behind the AV In support of the longer text is the palaeographical consideration that αἵματος hAIMATOS may have been accidentally omitted because it ends in the same letters as the preceding ἑνός hENOS. It is also possible, though perhaps not probable, that someone deliberately deleted the word, since it appears to contradict the statement in Genesis that God made man from dust not blood (Gn 2.7). Likewise, there is some force in the consideration that αἵματος hAIMATOS is not a very natural gloss on ἑνός hENOS for that one would have expected ἀνθρώπου ANQRWPOU or something similar. On the other hand, a majority of the Committee was impressed by the external evidence supporting the shorter text, and judged that αἵματος hAIMATOS was a typical expansion so characteristic of the Western reviser. Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (404). London; New York: United Bible Societies. The greater support seems to be for the reading of the Critical Text as cited by Tischendorff εξ ενος EC ENOS sine additam cum אAB 13. 14* 27. 29. 40. 61. 96. escr vg Novum Testamentum graece. 1869-94 (C. v. Tischendorf, C. R. Gregory & E. Abbot, Ed.) (2:154). Lipsiae: Giesecke & Devrient. Text critical questions aside, however, my initial impression before I had even bothered to look at the full text was to think of the use of εἷς, μία, ἕν in the Apocalypse. In several places it is used simply as a work-around for the lack of an indefinite article in Greek. I cite but one example from Re 9.13 Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἀετοῦ πετομένου ἐν μεσουρανήματι λέγοντος φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· οὐαὶ οὐαὶ οὐαὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν φωνῶν τῆς σάλπιγγος τῶν τριῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν μελλόντων σαλπίζειν. KAI EIDON, KAI HKOUSA hENOS AETOU PETOMENOU EN MESOURANHMATI LEGONTOS FWNHi MEGALHi OUAI OUAI TOUS KATOIKOUNTAS EPI THS GHS EK TWN LOIPWN FWNWN THS SALPIGGOS TWN TRIWN AGGELWN TWN MELLONTWN SALPIZEIN Here the intent is not to use ἑνὸς hENOS strictly as a number. It would seem that in the Byz Maj textform this is NOT what was intended. I think it would definitely be emphasizing “ONE blood”, i.e. a sense more in keeping with LSJ’s entry under αἷμα hAIMA III. blood relationship, kin, αἷ. τε καὶ γένος Od.8.583; αἵματός εἰς ἀγαθοῖο 4.611; οὶ σῆς ἐξ αἵματός εἰσι γενέθλης Il.19.111; τὸ αἷ. τινος his blood or origin, Pi.N.11.34; αἷ. ἐμφύλιον incestuous kinship, S.OT1406; τοὺς πρὸς αἵματος Id.Aj.1305, cf. Arist.Pol.1262a11; μητρὸς τῆς ἐμῆς ἐν αἵματι akin to her by blood, A.Eu.606, cf. Th.141; ἀφ᾽ αἵματος ὑμετέρου S.OC245; of the Hyperboreans, πολυχρονιώτατον αἶ. Call.Fr.67.7 Pf., Del.282. Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon. “With a revised supplement, 1996.” (Rev. and augm. throughout) (38). Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press. The sense would then be to emphasize the common ancestry of all mankind. georgegfsomsel Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death. ___________Webb Mealy <webb at selftest.net> wrote: I wonder if EX hENOS hAIMATOS (the Western reading) can mean “from the bloodof one man”, rather than “from one blood”. Any comments? Would it have tohave read, EX hAIMATOS hENOS ?Webb Mealy— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/georgegfsomselTherefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death. – Jan Hus_________ __________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[] EX hENOS [hAIMATOS], Acts 17:26[] A Question on 2nd year Grammars & what some call 3rdyr grammars