[] Acts 2:41A λογοσ waldo slusher waldoslusher at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 22 15:25:08 εδτ 2003
[] Questions about Col 2:16+17 [] Acts 2:41A λογοσ hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι τον λογον αυτου EBAPTISQHSANThe νετ Bible has a footnote on this verse byindicating that the word translated here as “message”is “Grk ‘word'”.Dr. Larkin from University of Durham (Ph. δ.) has acommentary on this Book. At this juncture, he has”message (literally, word)…”This seems most remarkable to me that these scholarsgive the impression that λογοσ “literally” means word,which implies that it doesn’t “literally” mean message(since they seem to be clarifying this translation).Why would someone at such scholarly levels imply thatLOGOS has only one literal meaning? Doesn’t thiscontradict the understanding gained by the works oflinguists and lexographers over the years? λογοσ hasmany literal meaning, not one! If a translation gives λογοσ the translation “word”here in Acts 2:41, would we not say that “LOGOSliterally means ‘message’ here”?=====Waldo SlusherCalgary, AB__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! SiteBuilder – Free, easy-to-use web site design softwarehttp://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
[] Questions about Col 2:16+17[] Acts 2:41A λογοσ
[] Acts 2:41A λογοσ Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jul 22 17:02:36 εδτ 2003
[] Acts 2:41A λογοσ [] Linguistic question on Luke 1:1 At 12:25 πμ -0700 7/22/03, waldo slusher wrote:>hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι τον λογον αυτου εβαπτισθησαν> >The νετ Bible has a footnote on this verse by>indicating that the word translated here as “message”>is “Grk ‘word'”.> >Dr. Larkin from University of Durham (Ph. δ.) has a>commentary on this Book. At this juncture, he has>“message (literally, word)…”> >This seems most remarkable to me that these scholars>give the impression that λογοσ “literally” means word,>which implies that it doesn’t “literally” mean message>(since they seem to be clarifying this translation).>Why would someone at such scholarly levels imply that>λογοσ has only one literal meaning? Doesn’t this>contradict the understanding gained by the works of>linguists and lexographers over the years? λογοσ has>many literal meaning, not one!> >If a translation gives λογοσ the translation “word”>here in Acts 2:41, would we not say that “λογοσ>literally means ‘message’ here”?ι‘m not at all clear just what question is being raised in this “message.”ι‘m not even sure whether it’s a question of lexicography or of translationphilosophy. Moreover, it seems to me that there’s certainly somethinghighly questionable about talking about a “literal” meaning of λογοσ,insofar as that might suggest there’s one precise English equivalent of theGreek word λογοσ while any other English word used to convey the sense ofLOGOS is somehow secondary or metaphorical. And Waldo is right to ask thequestion “why someone would imply that λογοσ has only one literal meaning?”ι suspect that neither Larkin nor the νετ annotator was thinking veryclearly when formulating the phrasing that Waldo has cited–but show me the”scholar” who is thinking very clearly ατ εβερ μομεντ when formulating thephrasing of anything! ι suspect, however, that what both Larkin and the NETannotator intended or meant was that the #1 dictionary equivalent of LOGOSis “word.” That is, of course, not telling us anything that is very useful.ι‘d personally think that it would have been better in this instance tostate that the word λογοσ in the text in question (Acts 2:41a) clearlymeans the “message” in the sense of the “proclaimed gospel.”If “word” is what λογοσ means in the literal sense, then what does hRHMAmean? If one were to speak in abstract terms only, the literal sense ofLOGOS might well be said to be “account”–whether “account” be understoodin a literary or a mathematical or clerical context. ι think that there areseveral passages in the γντ where “message” is quite appropriate andprobably the single most appropriate word to convey the sense in English ofthe Greek λογοσ.– Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Acts 2:41A λογοσ[] Linguistic question on Luke 1:1
[] hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι (Acts 2:41) Ted & Robin Shoemaker shoes6 at juno.com
Sat Dec 27 15:11:00 εστ 2008
[] 1 Sam 2:26 αγαθον [] hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι (Acts 2:41) Greetings.Acts 2:41 reads, in part:hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι τον λογον αυτου εβαπτισθησαν. . . . (English: “The ones who received his word were baptized . . . .”)ι‘m trying to figure out μεν. (My grasp of Greek particles in general is slippery.) My best understanding is:μεν emphasizes the word(s) it is near. In spoken English we might say an emphasized word louder; in written English we use underlines and bold type; in written Koine Greek we use μεν.In this passage, then, μεν highlights the fact that those who received the message — as distinct from those who did not — were the ones baptized.Is this a satisfactory handling of the text?Thank you for all answers.Ted Shoemaker Some people don’t care if you go forwards or backwards, or sit still. They just want to be the squeaky wheel. ____________________________________________________________Click to make millions by owning your own franchise.http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/PnY6rbuspuLT3Zw7iENh0shmXF0nemDOlWkZEAkFC6SOtZIN9a35m/
[] 1 Sam 2:26 αγαθον[] hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι (Acts 2:41)
[] hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι (Acts 2:41) George φ Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 27 15:45:41 εστ 2008
[] hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι (Acts 2:41) [] hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι (Acts 2:41) οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀποδεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθησαν καὶ προσετέθησαν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ψυχαὶ ὡσεὶ τρισχίλιαι. hOI μεν ουν αποδεξαμενοι τον λογον αυτου εβαπτισθησαν και προσετεθησαν εν THi hHMERAi EKEINHi υυχαι hOSEI TRISXILIAINormally μὲν [μεν] is used with particles such as δὲ [δε] to indicate a contrast. As βδαγ notes ⓓμέν[μεν] followed by καί[και] is not customary (Ael. Aristid.31, 19 κ.=11 p. 133 δ.; IAsMinSW325, 10ff μὲν …καί[μεν … και]; POxy1153, 14 [ι a.d.] two armbands ἓν μὲν σανδύκινον καὶ ἓν πορφυροῦν[hEN μεν σανδυκινον και hEN προφυρουν]; TestJob40:7f; ApcMos15) Mk 4:4ff; Lk 8:5ff; MPol2:4. Arndt, ω., Danker, φ. ω., & Bauer, ω. (2000). α Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. (3rd ed.) (s.v. μέν 630). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. As you may note, it doesn’t give much guidance regarding this, but ι do have the Martyrdom of Polycarp. There it reads ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ οἱ εἰς τὰ θηρία κατακριθέντες ὑπέμειναν δεινὰς κολάσεις, κήρυκας μὲν ὑποστρωννύμενοι καὶ ἄλλαις ποικίλων βασάνων ἰδέαις κολαφιζόμενοι ἵνα, εἰ δυνηθείη, διὰ τῆς ἐπιμόνου κολάσεως εἰς ἄρνησιν αὐτοὺς τρέψῃ· πολλὰ γὰρ ἐμηχανᾶτο κατʼ αὐτῶν ὁ διάβολος. hOMOIWS δε και hOI εισ τα θηρια κατακριθεντεσ hUPEMEINAN δεινασ κολασεισ, κηρυκασ μεν hUPOSTRWNNUMENOI και αλλαισ ποικιλων βασανω ιδεαισ κολαφιζομενοι hINA, ει δυνηθειη, δια θσ επιμονου κολασεωσ εισ αρνησιν αυτουσ TREYHi; πολλα γαρ εμηχανατο κατ‘ αυτων hO διαβολοσ. Holmes, μ. ω. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (228). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books. When used in this connection it appears to be additive rather than adversative. It is not “on the one hand … but.” It is rather “χ and υ.” georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Ted & Robin Shoemaker <shoes6 at juno.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 3:11:00 PMSubject: [] hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι (Acts 2:41)Greetings.Acts 2:41 reads, in part:hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι τον λογον αυτου εβαπτισθησαν. . . . (English: “The ones who received his word were baptized . . . .”)ι‘m trying to figure out μεν. (My grasp of Greek particles in general is slippery.) My best understanding is:μεν emphasizes the word(s) it is near. In spoken English we might say an emphasized word louder; in written English we use underlines and bold type; in written Koine Greek we use μεν.In this passage, then, μεν highlights the fact that those who received the message — as distinct from those who did not — were the ones baptized.Is this a satisfactory handling of the text?Thank you for all answers.Ted ShoemakerSome people don’t care if you go forwards or backwards, or sit still. They just want to be the squeaky wheel. ____________________________________________________________Click to make millions by owning your own franchise.http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/PnY6rbuspuLT3Zw7iENh0shmXF0nemDOlWkZEAkFC6SOtZIN9a35m/— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι (Acts 2:41)[] hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι (Acts 2:41)
[] hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι (Acts 2:41) Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Dec 28 03:49:19 εστ 2008
[] hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι (Acts 2:41) [] 1 Sam 2:26 αγαθον —– Original Message —– From: “Ted & Robin Shoemaker” <shoes6 at juno.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 27. december 2008 23:11Subject: [] hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι (Acts 2:41)> Greetings.> > Acts 2:41 reads, in part:> hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι τον λογον αυτου εβαπτισθησαν. . . .> > (English: “The ones who received his word were baptized . . . .”)> > ι‘m trying to figure out μεν. (My grasp of Greek particles in general is slippery.) My best > understanding is:> μεν emphasizes the word(s) it is near. In spoken English we might say an emphasized word louder; > in written English we use underlines and bold type; in written Koine Greek we use μεν.> > In this passage, then, μεν highlights the fact that those who received the message — as distinct > from those who did not — were the ones baptized.> > Is this a satisfactory handling of the text?ι don’t think so. μεν is a correlative particle that points forward to another related and complementary thought. Usually that other thought is introduced by δε. At times, the second thought is implicit. The two related thoughts may be in contrast or the second may simply add another aspect to the scenario.In this case, we need to look at more context, so ι‘ll quote a bit more:hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι τον λογον αυτου εβαπτισθησαν και προσετεθησαν εν THi hHMERAi EKEINHi υυξαι hWSEI τρισξιλιαι. ησαν δε προσκαρτερουντεσ THi DIDACHi των αποστολων και THi KOINWNIAi…Consequently (to hearing the message), not only did those who received the message get baptized and added to the group of believers – as a first step, but they also – as a second step – devoted themselves continuously/repeatedly to the teaching of the apostles, the fellowship etc.μεν ουν often occur together. Of the 39 instances in the ντ, 27 are in Acts. That does not mean that the two particles go together as a unit. They have different and separate functions. ουν points backward and often introduces a consequence or summary, while μεν points forward and sets the scene for an additional, related thought. When you have heard a), you expect to hear a b). μεν refers to the a).Iver Larsen
[] hOI μεν ουν αποδεχαμενοι (Acts 2:41)[] 1 Sam 2:26 αγαθον