Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net Thu Jun 21 05:28:59 εδτ 2001 Rev 4.9 (Double Accentuation) Rev 4.11 (breaking of Sharp’s Rule) > Revelation 4.11> αχιοσ ει, hO κυριοσ και hO θεοσ hHMWN,> λαβειν θν δοχαν και θν τιμην και θν δυναμιν,> hOTI συ εκτισασ τα παντα> και δια…
This academic exegesis addresses the interpretive challenge posed by the phrase ἀστεῖος τῷ θεῷ in Acts 7:20. The primary exegetical issue concerns whether this construction should be understood as a literal statement about Moses’ beauty in God’s estimation or as a Semitic idiom functioning as a superlative, signifying exceptional or exceeding beauty. The varying interpretations…
An Exegetical Examination of θεότης in Colossians 2:9 The term θεότης in Colossians 2:9 presents a critical point of exegetical inquiry regarding the nature of Christ’s divine being. This analysis aims to explore the precise semantic range of this term, differentiate it from closely related Greek vocabulary, and evaluate its usage within both biblical and…
Exegetical Analysis of John 7:39: The Nature and Presence of the Spirit John 7:39 presents a pivotal interpretive challenge regarding the nature and presence of the Spirit in the nascent Christian community. The exegetical issue centers on two primary linguistic features of the clause οὔπω γὰρ ἦν πνεῦμα: first, the anarthrous use of πνεῦμα (spirit/Spirit),…
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Per BDAG μηδείς 2bβ (p. 647), μηδέν = in no way
Ah I see. That makes perfect sense, though I don’t have BDAG. 
Stephen Hughes wrote:Stephen Carlson wrote:Per BDAG μηδείς 2bβ (p. 647), μηδέν = in no wayIt seems weaker than examples like:
Luke 4:35 wrote:
Καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, λέγων, Φιμώθητι, καὶ ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Καὶ ῥίψαν αὐτὸν τὸ δαιμόνιον εἰς μέσον ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν.Acts 16:28 wrote:
Ἐφώνησεν δὲ φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ὁ Παῦλος λέγων, Μηδὲν πράξῃς σεαυτῷ κακόν· ἅπαντες γάρ ἐσμεν ἐνθάδε.
Thanks for the examples!
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Compare this instance, though, where οὐ is used different to οὐδένMark 14:60 wrote:Καὶ ἀναστὰς ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰς μέσον ἐπηρώτησεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν, λέγων, Οὐκ ἀποκρίνῃ οὐδέν; Τί οὗτοί σου καταμαρτυροῦσιν;
Isn’t this just the double negative, where “ουκ αποκρινη ουδεν” just means “do you not answer anything?”
Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 25th, 2014, 6:26 am
An Exegetical Analysis of Hebrews 10:14: The Aspect of τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους Hebrews 10:14 presents a significant exegetical challenge in understanding the interplay between the perfect tense verb **τετελείωκεν** (“he has perfected”) and the present passive participle **τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους** (“those who are being sanctified” or “those who are sanctified”). The tension arises from the apparent contrast…
NA28 and Kittel Theological Dictionary (Lemma : απαιτεω) say that Lk 12:20 refers to LXX Sap. (σοφια σαλομονος) 15:8 :The LXX uses a Passive: το της ψυχης απαιτηθεις χρεος (Rahlfs II, 368) (when the soul, which was lent him is demanded back; A new eng…
An Exegetical Analysis of Luke 18:4a: The Temporal Expression ἐπὶ χρόνον This exegetical analysis focuses on Luke 18:4a, specifically the temporal phrase ἐπὶ χρόνον, to elucidate its grammatical function, semantic range, and contextual implications within the immediate narrative of the Parable of the Persistent Widow and the broader Lucan corpus. The central exegetical issue revolves…
An Exegetical Examination of Philippians 2:6: Interpreting οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο The interpretation of Philippians 2:6, particularly the phrase οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο (not something to be grasped/robbery), stands as a crucial point of scholarly debate concerning Christology and the ethical implications for the Philippian community. This passage, situated within Paul’s exhortation to humility and unity (Phil…
OK, I’m sorry I even mentioned Kant. I didn’t mean to suggest that I take him to be my guide to understanding Rom 1:20, or that anybody else should.What I’m really after is how the word νοούμενα fits into the sentence. Various translations I’ve looked…
The following analysis transforms an informal discussion concerning the Greek rhetorical figure of hendiadys into a formal academic biblical exegesis of Matthew 5:12. The original discourse highlighted scholarly debate regarding the application of hendiadys to verbal constructions, referencing its treatment in lexica such as BDAG and its limited acceptance in translations like the NRSV for…
“`html An Exegetical Analysis of ῥαββουνί in John 20:16 An Exegetical Analysis of ῥαββουνί in John 20:16 The address ῥαββουνί used by Mary Magdalene to the resurrected Jesus in John 20:16 presents a nuanced exegetical challenge. This term, explicitly identified as Aramaic and translated as διδάσκαλε (“Teacher”) by the evangelist, prompts questions regarding its precise…
καὶ ἐπεδόθη αὐτῷ βιβλίον τοῦ προφήτου Ἠσαΐου καὶ ἀναπτύξας τὸ βιβλίον εὗρεν τὸν τόπον οὗ ἦν γεγραμμένον,I’m not sure whether this implies that Jesus did what was expected, reading the passage of the day, or whether it implies that he scrolled to a dif…
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I find this neither coherent nor plausible. It simply violates the sense of the texts in question and seeks to use them for a purpose clearly not intended by the authors.Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — D…
“`html An Exegetical Analysis of Revelation 1:18: The Significance of ἐγενόμην νεκρός body { font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.6; } h2, h3 { color: #333; } blockquote { border-left: 5px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; } b { font-weight: bold; } i { font-style: italic; } ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }…
Exegetical Analysis of Revelation 22:15 body { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, Palatino, ‘Book Antiqua’, Georgia, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 2em; max-width: 900px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; } h1, h2, h3 { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, Palatino, ‘Book Antiqua’, Georgia, serif; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } h2 { font-size: 1.8em; color: #2C3E50; border-bottom: 1px solid #CCC; padding-bottom: 0.2em;…
An Exegetical Analysis of the Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews This exegetical study of Did Paul Author Hebrews? is based on a b-greek discussion from September 8, 1998. The initial query, posed by a participant, sought an assessment of the grammatical and syntactical arguments for and against the Pauline authorship of the Epistle…
An Exegetical Analysis of Hebrews 13:4a: Indicative Statement or Imperative Command? This exegesis examines the grammatical and rhetorical implications of Hebrews 13:4a, focusing on whether the verbless clause Τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσιν καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος should be understood as an indicative statement or an imperative command. The discussion highlights the ambiguity inherent in…
An Exegetical Analysis of καί in Matthew 26:73 Matthew 26:73 presents a concise and impactful statement from the bystanders accusing Peter of being a follower of Jesus. The precise function of the initial particle καί in the clause καὶ γὰρ ἡ λαλιά σου δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ constitutes a significant exegetical question. This analysis will explore…
An Exegetical Analysis of 2 Thessalonians 2:11: The Function of the Definite Article in τῷ ψεύδει The biblical text of 2 Thessalonians 2:11 presents an intriguing exegetical challenge, particularly concerning the precise nuance and translation of the phrase εἰς τὸ πιστεῦσαι αὐτοὺς τῷ ψεύδει. This passage describes a divine judgment upon those who reject the…
