Stephen Hughes wrote:If John was in the thick of it, he was relating a part event that Peter wasn’t an ear-witness to.I fear that taking this position is wrapping an assumption in another assumption. If Matthew and Mark are taking a bird’s eye view, t…
point taken.
Just keeping the interface with prosopa clean.
Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — March 10th, 2014, 2:40 am
Tony Pope wrote: ↑November 29th, 2017, 5:14 amBut is there anyway a problem in the syntax of τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κλώμενον? If the argument is simply that such a complex phrase never occurs elsewhere in Paul and therefore it is unPauline, that is sure…
1Th. 4:15 Τοῦτο γὰρ ὑμῖν λέγομεν ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου, ὅτι ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι εἰς τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου οὐ μὴ φθάσωμεν τοὺς κοιμηθέντας· 16 ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ, καταβήσεται ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον, 17 ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ οὕτως πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα.
Spent some time looking over the exegetical history from John Calvin to J. Weima[1].
He employs the term κελεύσματος, (shout,) and afterwards adds, the voice of the archangel, by way of exposition, intimating what is to be the nature of that arousing shout—that the archangel will discharge the office of a herald to summon the living and the dead to the tribunal of Christ.
John Calvin
Paul is invoking an eschatological – apocalyptic scenario where 98% of the scenario is left to be filled in by the reader. Not sure what can be assumed about the Thessalonian’s familiarity with Second Temple Apocalyptic literature but that isn’t the problem. Paul invokes the scenario as if they were familiar with it. In the apocalyptic literature divine commands are often delivered by a subordinate agent, for example the opening of the seals in the Apocalypse where The Lamb opens the seals but a command is given by one of the living beings:
Rev. 6:1 Καὶ εἶδον ὅτε ἤνοιξεν τὸ ἀρνίον μίαν ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ σφραγίδων, καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων λέγοντος ὡς φωνὴ βροντῆς· ἔρχου.
J. Weima[1] disagrees, he thinks that αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος nails down ὁ κύριος as the agent of κελεύσματι. I don’t follow that. ἐν κελεύσματι is an attendant circumstance. The pronoun αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος draws attention to identity of the agent in the main verb καταβήσεται ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ.
Ran across a somewhat tangential observation about the constituent order in this passage. αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος is a point of departure followed by a long marked focal constituent ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ in the pre-verbal slot[2]. This doesn’t particularly address the question at hand but I thought someone might like to read this paper.
[1] a Google search: φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου who is speaking, delivered among others J. Weima 2014,
1-2 Thessalonians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)
By Jeffrey A. D. Weima, 2014
[2] See page 25, Greek Word Order in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11 Stephen Wunrow April 16, 2013
https://www.academia.edu/25302324/Greek … _4_13_5_11
Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — January 20th, 2017, 4:06 pm
Rhoover60 wrote:
J. Robie, thanks. I read the passage from Jannaris and noticed this phrase, “Nevertheless, it is not rigidly adhered to even by A[ttic?] writers. etc.” This points out what probably happened in my thinking. I falsely imagined that language had a mathematical precision to it!! Hopefully, I will learn from this. More Regards.
No such thing as mathematical precision in any language. In the case of the neuter plural/singular verb, the verb most often goes into the plural when people are the referent of the noun, though even that is not an absolute usage.
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — January 1st, 2017, 9:16 am
I don’t know if you would find this helpful, but a really technical analysis of Ancient Greek participles and their relation to the main verb is found here in a article by Dag Haug and Corien Bary: http://semprag.org/article/download/sp.4.8/pdf_1 A poster of their views in brief can be found here: http://www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/english/rese … poster.pdf
The participles you point out would be considered “elaborations” and their function is to provide more information about the main verb. They are not intended to interact with the time of the context (just that of the main verb) or to introduce a new event time into the discourse. In Wallace’s terms, they would be classified as a circumstance participle of manner or something like that.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — February 14th, 2014, 4:31 pm
Thank you, Dr. Carlson. I thought that may have been what you were meaning. I did not notice the “point of departure” in the first example. It is worse when I admit I was reading Levinsohn prior to making that post. 
Dr. Conrad, your post contained some information that I need to investigate. Thank you.
Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — January 29th, 2014, 8:31 am
Barry, I don’t have a clue how long this error has been there in the SBLGNT at STEP bible site. I edited meanings and manuscripts for the Apocalypse of John several years back and didn’t notice it. You would think anyone that read it would report it. …
Hefin J. Jones wrote:
Focusing on the forest might take us out of b-greek.
That depends partly on which forest you focus on, but I do think we need to be careful. Here’s a forest that interests me: my impression is that John is very careful in his use of antecedents and pronouns. Iver’s interpretation seems to require a level of imprecision that I would expect in Mark but not in John, but this is purely my impression, based largely on the wonderfully precise and poetic use of reference in the first chapters of John and 1 John.
I have not yet looked carefully at the passages Iver has brought up, I am going to take a look and see if I can find similar examples of imprecise use of antecedents in John. Can anyone think of such examples?
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — March 14th, 2014, 9:39 am
Stephen, are you familiar with Raymond Brown’s 1978 book, The Community of the Beloved Disciple? It’s speculative, to be sure, but he argues that the Johannine community developed separately from the apostolic church but merged with it toward the end of the first century, at which point the Johannine community suffered a schism in which a “Gnostic-like” majority group walked out “into the world”. Brown’s proposition is that the Johannine epistles are intended to point the right understanding of the Johannine gospel and to warn against the schismatic group, the second and third letters focusing more on those in the schismatic group. That, at least, is my recollection of it, but something like that must be involved in these letters.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — January 10th, 2014, 10:47 am
cwconrad wrote:
Just to update my current state of thinking/confusion about this text:πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγον, ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις;
Would the construction be better if the φαγεῖν were omitted?
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 8th, 2014, 3:27 pm
To resolve the issue raised in this thread, I googled and hit the following book:
The Greek Article: A functional grammar of o-items in the Greek New Testament by Ronald D Peters et al.
There are some interesting quotes:
p. 3: The article functions as a reduced form of the relative pronoun.
p. 4: Both parts of speech are used by the speaker to indicate that information is
being provided that the recipient is to use FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTIFICATION.
.. This stands in contrast to the English definte article and demonstratives, which indicate
that the recipient posseses the information necessary for identification or direct the recipient
to the information respectively.
p. 77: The article functions as a form similar to that of the relative pronoun because it is demonstrable
that the article is used to produce structures that fill the same slot as relative clauses. This represents
a system of choice, whereby a Greek speaker may choose one form or the other. With regard to the production
of text, both structures will the same slot, and thus perform the same function. However, with regard to
the ideational and interpersonal metafunctions, the choice of one structure over the other reflects a difference
in meaning.
——–
Very interesting viewpoint! It seems quite convincing. It answers to my long-held question:
the article + long participial clause looks almost the same as the relative pronoun + finite clause.
The participial clause which can have all compoments of the finite clause, does not seem to so
different from the finite clause structurally speaking.
My question in Gal 1:7 disappears if it is treated as a reduced form of a relative clause,
The same applies to Jude 4.
Moon Jung
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 16th, 2014, 1:07 am
Χαίρετε, Χριστός Ανέστη.
I thought this is an easy topic for my first post in this forum.
A new greek interpretation of the gospel explains the επενδύτη as a kind of a simple “working garment” (εργατικός σάκκος). Probably a square cloth like apron, still used by fishermen today. So, he just tied hastily the ribbons around his waste. The interpretation explains that he did so in order to go faster to Jesus. Obviously Peter just made some steps into the water but did not swim.
Έρρωσθε.
Statistics: Posted by Georgios — April 20th, 2017, 2:24 pm
Dmitriy Reznik wrote:timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:While hendiadys makes reasonable sense, I’m wondering about the use of the article with both nouns.I found the answer to this in Blass and Debrunner, where there are examples of hendiadys with the article with both nouns:
James 5:10:
τῆς κακοπαθείας καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας (of perseverance in suffering)Luke 2:47:
ἐπὶ τῇ συνέσει καὶ ταῖς ἀποκρίσεσιν αὐτοῦ (at his intelligent answers)Mk 6:26 = Mt 14:9:
διὰ δὲ τοὺς ὅρκους καὶ τοὺς συνανακειμένους (because of the oath taken before the guests)Also, I found that a famous medieval Jewish commentator Rashi understood חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת (lovingkindness and truth) as hendiadys (חסד של אמת, i.e. true lovingkindness)!!
(http://parsha.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-% … iadys.html)Thank you again,
DmitriyP.S. Maybe somebody would like to add something to our discussion?
Thanks.
You must be refrring to Blass, Debrunner here:
§442 (16) The co-ordination of two ideas, one of which is dependent on the other (hendiadys), serves in the NT to avoid a series of dependent genitives
They do suggest translations like “perseverance in suffering” for James 5:10 and “intelligent answers” in Luke 2:47, but I don’t think this is the best or only way of interpreting them.
James 5:10 could as well be understood as the unjust suffering the prophets had to endure and their perseverance in spite of those sufferings. Of course, the two ideas are closely connected and overlapping in time, but is one dependent on the other? I usually think of hendiadys as two nouns where one describes the other and therefore one may be translated by an adjective. There is a tendency to look at the sense of καὶ from an English perspective which sees the two nouns as more distinct than they were intended. Two nouns joined by καὶ are often overlapping in sense, reference or time. It may well be more natural and clear in English to say “patience in the face of suffering” (NIV) than “suffering affliction and of patience” (KJV) or “suffering and patience” (NET).
In Luke 2:47 I am not sure it is accurate to reduce “his understanding and his answers” to “his intelligent answers”, because the previous verse says that Jesus was listening to them and asking questions. I think rather Luke is talking about his insightful questions and his excellent answers to their questions. A Rabbinic dialogue was often in the form of questions and counter-questions in addition to answers.
I have similar hesitation for Mk 6:26. The king could not retract for two reasons: He had made an oath, so he might fear God if he went against it. It would be dangerous. He had made it in public so he would fear the reaction of the guests. It would be shameful.
Nor would I consider it likely that a hendiadys is intended in John 1:17.
ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο.
There are 3 pairs of lexical contrasts/comparisons:
ὁ νόμος — ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια
διὰ Μωϋσέως — διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
ἐδόθη — ἐγένετο
The initial ὅτι probably explains the previous χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος (grace instead of grace). The two words grace and truth also pick up on the same two words in verse 14:
καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.
It seems to me that John is talking about a new and fuller expression of the grace and truth from God which came with Jesus and goes far beyond what was given through Moses. It does not mean that there was no grace or truth in the Torah, but there is a fuller reality of grace and truth through Jesus. So, I think grace and truth are best kept separate rather than trying to make them graceful truth or truthful grace. If there is a true grace, is there also a false grace?
Statistics: Posted by Iver Larsen — July 2nd, 2014, 3:17 am
Thank you, for answers. I’ve met in christianity teaching: once saved, always saved (in sense: believe in Jesus and you will be saved instantly). I thougt that this text may be bear out so teaching. But the words of Jonathan are important: “It’s not telling us when this salvation occurs, it’s telling us that it can occur by the grace of Jesus Christ, without circumcision, for both Jews and Greeks.”
Thanks
Jarek Romanowski
Statistics: Posted by romanjaro — March 24th, 2017, 2:43 pm
ronsnider1 wrote:
My question relates to how one understands and classifies the genitive string in Romans 1:23 that follows the en clause. The entire phrase relates to that which was exchanged for the glory of the incorruptible God, but I am having a little trouble identifying the type of genitives used here.καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν.
It’s pretty clear, I’d say, that εἰκόνος depends upon ὁμοιώματι and that φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν all depend upon εἰκόνος. I would think too that φθαρτοῦ, although linked directly with ἀνθρώπου, is implicitly understood also with the other genitive nouns as well. The four genitive nouns dependent on εἰκόνος all fall under the most basic category of adnominal genitives, whether you call it “possessive” or “genitive of belonging”. Categorizing the adnominal linkage of εικόνος to ὁμοιώματι is perhaps less clearcut (if it really matters — the meaning of the phrase is hardly in doubt!); I think I’d call it an “appositive” or “explanatory” genitive (cf. Smyth, §1322): “a likeness, i.e. an image of … “.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — January 30th, 2014, 11:08 am
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Actually, the phrase is καὶ ἐάν = even if.
WOW. That’s it. Thanks.
Moon
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 13th, 2014, 4:51 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote:Philippians 4:10 wrote:Ἐχάρην δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ μεγάλως, ὅτι ἤδη ποτὲ ἀνεθάλετε τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν· ἐφ’ ᾧ καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε, ἠκαιρεῖσθε δέ.What explanation can be put forward to describe why ἠκαιρεῖσθε is in the middle voice here?
[The antonym εὐκαιρεῖν is used in the active voice, both absolutely ἐλεύσεται δὲ ὅταν εὐκαιρήσῃ. (1 Corinthians 16:12), and in conjunction with an infinitive οὐδὲ φαγεῖν εὐκαίρουν. (Mark 6:31).]
I’ve noted Mike’s comment and the further elaboration Stephen has offered. I think Mke is right here to say we’d have a better notion if we had more instances of the verb’s usage, but DGE (see Logeion) offers additional support for middle-passive usage;
it’s also the case that we don’t have much doubt about what Paul is saying in this rather informally-phrased locution: “Your impulsive thoughtfulness on my behalf has deeply gratified me — the fact that you wanted to do something but had no opportunity.” It seems to me that ἠκαιρεῖσθε here is a personal usage involving deprivation: Subject-affectedness is discerned and expressed in the middle voice here.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — March 18th, 2017, 8:44 am
