ARTI ETELEUTHSEN / TEQNHKEN Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no Sun Jun 7 18:48:13 EDT 1998 Hardening of the Categories (Arteries?) ARTI ETELEUTHSEN / TEQNHKEN Matt 9:18 hH QUGATHR MOU *ARTI ETELEUTHSEN*Luke 8:49 *TEQNHKEN* hH QUGAHR SOUIs there any difference in force between ARTI ETELEUTHSEN and TEQNHKEN?Should ARTI ETELEUTHSEN be seen as “has just died”,…
Luke 16:1-7 The clever agent Mark & Mary Markham markhamm at topsurf.com Wed Feb 11 17:24:59 EST 1998 None If I understand the meaning of the word slander as used in Greek– it can betrue info used negitively. Can anyone else confirm this understanding?MarkCBCHeidelberg, Germany—–Original Message—–From: WFWarren at aol.com <WFWarren at aol.com>To: Biblical Greek…
Mark ch 15, v. 2 HoLogos at aol.com HoLogos at aol.com Tue Jun 9 01:43:29 EDT 1998 BHS Received!! BHS Received!! Dear George,Thank’s for your e-mail. I had brought up the SU LEGEIS of Jesus to Pilate inMark 15:2.To answer your question as to whether my question had been answered: EdgarFoster suggested a book…
IWANNHN hUPHRETHN Acts 13:5 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net Mon Jul 13 15:00:00 EDT 1998 Taped NT Rom. 1:4 EN DUNAMEI adverbial or adjectival F.F. Bruce suggests rather tentatively that John (Mark) might have beenperforming a service somewhat beyond that of a water boy when he was with Pauland Barnabas in SALAMINI. The…
OIDAMEN or OIDA + MEN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Sat Jun 30 20:53:44 EDT 2001 OIDAMEN or OIDA + MEN At 12:13 AM +0000 7/1/01, Mark Wilson wrote:>Romans 7:14a> >OIDAMEN GAR hOTI hO NOMOS PNEUMATIKAS ESTIN EGO DE SARKINOS EIMI…> > >In light of all the first persons in this chapter, I…
Here is the accented text to help those who are still struggling learning the language:
Heb 2.8-10: 8 πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. ἐν τῷ γὰρ ὑποτάξαι [αὐτῷ] τὰ πάντα οὐδὲν ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ ἀνυπότακτον. Νῦν δὲ οὔπω ὁρῶμεν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ὑποτεταγμένα· 9 τὸν δὲ βραχύ τι παρʼ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένον βλέπομεν Ἰησοῦν διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον, ὅπως χάριτι θεοῦ ὑπὲρ παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου. 10 Ἔπρεπεν γὰρ αὐτῷ, διʼ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ διʼ οὗ τὰ πάντα, πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν διὰ παθημάτων τελειῶσαι.
Nestle, E., Nestle, E., Aland, B., Aland, K., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M., & Metzger, B. M. (1993). The Greek New Testament (27th ed.) (565). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Concerning the comment
“The crowning with glory and honour must, on any natural rendering of the Greek, precede the death.” (A Nairne)
The participle in the phrase δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον is perfect (= it has already happened in the writer’s viewpoint and the state continues), but it’s (ἐστεφανωμένον) head/referent is not τὸ πάθημα, but rather βλέπομεν Ἰησοῦν . . .ἐστεφανωμένον. “We see him who has been crowned in glory and honour.”
Statistics: Posted by Louis L Sorenson — January 16th, 2014, 11:07 am
Shirley Rollinson wrote: ↑January 5th, 2018, 8:55 pmIn Matthew 14:25 Jesus walks ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν – but in the next verse the disciples see him walking ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης – could it be that in the first instance the thought is that he is walking ‘toward…
Pat Ferguson wrote:
ΑΠΟΦΕΡΕΣΘΑΙ (αποφερεσθαι) appears in some mss (P38 P74 01 02 03 08 33 323 945 1175 1241 1739; cp. N-A²⁸), and EPIΦΕΡΕΣΘΑΙ (επιφερεσθαι) appears in other source documents (05 18 020 044 424 614 1505).Also, αποφερεσθαι appears in the translations of Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles at Acts 19:12. But επιφερεσθαι is seen in TR, and in the works of Griesbach and Scholz. Both words are pres. inf. pass. according to Moulton, Analytical Greek Lexicon-Revised (Bagster & Sons, London 1977; Zondervan, Grand Rapids 1978).
Personally, I read Acts 19:12 to say something like: so that even handkerchiefs or aprons from his skin were brought [and applied]* to those who were sick.
_________________________
* Cp. Moulton, et al.
Hi Pat,
I assume by “translations of Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles” you are referring to their edited critical texts of the NT.
Looks like the New Living Translation is in agreement with my reading ot the text in Bezae. I am sure they didn’t use Bezae as their vorlage. The idea being a transfer of some object which made physical contact with the miracle worker to physical contact with the person needing the miracle.
Acts 19:12 NLT When handkerchiefs or aprons that had merely touched his skin were placed on sick people, they were healed of their diseases, and evil spirits were expelled. Source: BibleGateway
It seems to me this is the plain meaning of the text, not a fanciful extrapolation.
Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — January 11th, 2014, 9:54 pm
Michael Abernathy wrote:
Years ago I read an article (I can’t remember which one) that argued that when the verb for permit is followed by two infinitives the second infinitive often states the purpose of the first infinitive. As I remember the author gave the example of Matthew 8:21 to substantiate his claim.
κύριε, ἐπίτρεψον μοι πρω̂τον ἀπελθει̂ν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου.
Lord, permit me first to go and to bury my father.
We do this in English with a few verbs like ‘go’ and ‘try’.
‘Go and buy some milk’ = ‘go to buy some milk’
‘Try and fix your bicycle’ = ‘try to fix your bicycle’
It seems to me that this happens because the verb demands a complement of this sort. ‘Try’ is inherently purposeful, and purpose is implicit with going, because it is not the going that is the purpose, but whatever one does when one reaches the destination.
My English dictionary, under entry ‘and’, has an addendum which reads:
A small number of verbs, notably ‘try’, ‘come’ and ‘go’ can be followed by ‘and’ with another verb, as in sentences like ‘we’re going to try and explain it to them..’ The structures in these verbs correspond to the use of the infinitive ‘to’, as in ‘we’re going to try to explain it to them..’ .. Since these structures are grammatically odd – for example, the use is normally only idiomatic with the infinitive of the verb and not with other forms (i.e. it is not possible to say ‘I tried and explained it to them’) – they are regarded as wrong by some traditionalists. However, these uses are extremely common in just about every context and can certainly be regarded as standard English.
In English, this isn’t idiomatic with most verbs. And ‘I will teach [you] and fix your bicycle’ would not mean ‘I will teach [you] to fix your bicycle’.
I suspect that the same sort of thing is happening with ἐπίτρεψον μοι πρω̂τον ἀπελθει̂ν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου. καὶ is connective; I think one understands that the terms are sequential – to go and then to bury – and one infers purpose. So I don’t find this example convincing as regards showing anything about ἐπιτρέπω followed by two infinitives. I suspect this is something that happens naturally with ἔρχομαι.
Andrew
Statistics: Posted by Andrew Chapman — March 17th, 2014, 1:54 pm
Gregory Hartzler-Miller wrote:
I am experimenting with a perhaps novel argument to explain the textual variant in Gal 4:14 — καὶ τὸν πειρασμν μου [ὑμῶν] ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου. I would like feedback on the argument.Thesis: μου is Paul’s wording/intention, and ὑμῶν is a later interpretation of his meaning.
To Stephen Carlson and all,
I have studied Carlson’s wonderful dissertation on the text of Galatians. I stand corrected. The combination of high quality manuscripts (as assessed using by state of the art stemmatics analysis) and the principle of the more difficult reading weigh overwhelmingly in favor of καὶ τὸν πειρασμν ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου
Best,
Gregory
Statistics: Posted by Gregory Hartzler-Miller — August 6th, 2016, 4:56 am
2 Corinthians 10:1-6 wrote:
Αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ Παῦλος παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς διὰ τῆς πρᾳότητος καὶ ἐπιεικείας τοῦ χριστοῦ, ὃς κατὰ πρόσωπον μὲν ταπεινὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἀπὼν δὲ θαρρῶ εἰς ὑμᾶς· 2 δέομαι δέ, τὸ μὴ παρὼν θαρρῆσαι τῇ πεποιθήσει ᾗ λογίζομαι τολμῆσαι ἐπί τινας τοὺς λογιζομένους ἡμᾶς ὡς κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦντας. 3 Ἐν σαρκὶ γὰρ περιπατοῦντες, οὐ κατὰ σάρκα στρατευόμεθα — 4 τὰ γὰρ ὅπλα τῆς στρατείας ἡμῶν οὐ σαρκικά , ἀλλὰ δυνατὰ τῷ θεῷ πρὸς καθαίρεσιν ὀχυρωμάτων — 5 λογισμοὺς καθαιροῦντες καὶ πᾶν ὕψωμα ἐπαιρόμενον κατὰ τῆς γνώσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ αἰχμαλωτίζοντες πᾶν νόημα εἰς τὴν ὑπακοὴν τοῦ χριστοῦ, 6 καὶ ἐν ἑτοίμῳ ἔχοντες ἐκδικῆσαι πᾶσαν παρακοήν, ὅταν πληρωθῇ ὑμῶν ἡ ὑπακοή.
I have two questions:
First.
The phrase:
2 Corinthians 10:1 wrote:
ὃς κατὰ πρόσωπον μὲν ταπεινὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἀπὼν δὲ θαρρῶ εἰς ὑμᾶς·
consists of a relative + an adjective + a participle (all in the nominative) + the verb. I can’t think of another example in the New Testament that follows that pattern.
Are there other instances of this pattern in a relative clause?
Is this pattern a way of expressing emphasis?
Second.
Is the δέομαι δέ part of the relative clause?
Can relative clauses be structured by using a δέ?
Can the relative ᾗ be a nested relative clause inside the ὃς relative clause?
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 15th, 2016, 1:42 am
I was currently working on translating chapter 4 of Revelation for class, when I came across what seems to be this awkward construction. However My Greek class uses “Basics of Biblical Greek” written by William D. Mounce, as it’s text book, in which I recently had to check something similar. I don’t think that is should be counted as awkward, or weird, just not normal. It is however more normal than one might think. For me what seemed odd was not the needing of “someone” but the absence of the article as found in verse 4. the result would be one is sitting; the one who is setting; something of this nature, as the participle is functioning substantial. This usually has the presence of the article as in verse 4. typically without the article we would not translate the participle adjectival but adverbially(key words being while, after, had, depending on the tense.) on Page 272 Mounce makes it clear that in most cases we can determine if it is adverbial or adjectival by the presence of the article, however not always. context becomes the end factor, because not always will there be an article for the use of adjectival. It seems here the absence, only my speculation, is due to the prepositional phrase. With the same word being used in the next verse with the articular it is fairly clear that it should be translated adjectival; one is sitting, or the one who is sitting.
I hope this is helpful.
Steven Jensen
[email protected]
Statistics: Posted by Steven Jensen — April 23rd, 2014, 6:53 pm
John 7:38 wrote:
ποταμοὶ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ ῥεύσουσιν ὕδατος ζῶντος.
Here is a syntactic parallel for an adverbial genitive with ῥέω.
Proverbs 3:20 wrote:
νέφη δὲ ἐρρύησαν δρόσους
Νέφος is a form of liquid. It seems like flowing on a solis is in the accusative. There is also a use with the genitive.
Is there a good example with a genitive so far separated from the word it governs? ποταμοὶ … ὕδατος ζῶντος seem too far apart.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — August 17th, 2016, 9:09 am
Stephen Hughes wrote:
What logic or syntactic knowledge could / should be applied here to determine whether οὐ μὴ πιστεύσω is aorist subjunctive or future?John 20:25 wrote:ἐὰν μὴ ἴδω ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων, καὶ βάλω τὸν δάκτυλόν μου εἰς τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων, καὶ βάλω τὴν χεῖρά μου εἰς τὴν πλευρὰν αὐτοῦ, οὐ μὴ πιστεύσω.
If, as I assume (perhaps wrongly) that you’re asking about how usage may be changing in Hellenistic Greek of the period in which this was composed, it’s an interesting question. We know that the future indicative was used in the LXX formulation of the commandments of the Decalogue, where older Greek might have used μή or οὐ μή with a subjunctive. In the 1st sg. forms we don’t know if the -ω is indicative or subjunctive. I don’t have access to Muraoka, but I wonder what he has to say about forms such as these. Another question is whether this author (or other NT authors) have learned their Greek in a school or where and how they have learned it. Do the ancient grammarians like Apollonius Dyscolus have anything useful to say on an issue like this? If an author did not learn to speak and write Greek in a school but reproduces what he has seen and heard spoken, how would he understand the grammar of it?
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — December 15th, 2016, 9:33 am
I am questioning whether the verb παραβαλεῖν εἰς τόπον actually means come (sail) to the land as suggested by LSJ and apparently all English translations (The English word “touch” in this context means “stop or dock briefly at”).
It seems to me that it means sail along the land, but in a special technical sense when used of an open sea voyage with the preposition εἰς. That is to say that παραβαλεῖν εἰς τόπον (when used of sailing) is “to sail over open water till one sights land and then sail along parallel to the land without landing”.
[The word is used in the NT twice and only once in this sense.]
The verse it is used in is
Acts 20:15 (Byz2005) wrote:
τῇ δὲ ἑτέρᾳ παρεβάλομεν εἰς Σάμον· καὶ μείναντες ἐν Τρωγυλλίῳ
And on the next day we sailed across to Samos then along the coast and waited (for some time) on the Trogylium Promontory
LSJ gives the meaning in this sense as:
LSJ παραβάλλειν B.II wrote:
go by sea, cross over, “παρέβαλε νηυσὶ ἰθὺ Σκιάθου” Hdt.7.179, cf. Philipp. ap. D.12.16, Arist.Mir.836a29; of ships, “ναῦς Πελοποννησίων ἐς Ἰωνίαν π.” Th.3.32.
Now, the usual sense of παραβάλλειν is “to lie parallel to”, “run parallel to”, and in reference to boats it can mean “to bring a boat alongside”.
It seems to me that the meaning “to go by sea”, “to cross over” is a very general translation for a rather specific manoeuvre, specifically that one would sail across the open ocean in the direction (as best as it was possible to judge it) to find landfall and then to sail parallel to the coast in the intended direction to get to the destination.
In this case, leaving Chios, they sailed south across the open ocean till they caught sight of the coast of Samos, then they would turn to port (left) and sail along the coast till they could see Mount Mycale and then navigate from that down through the Straits of Samos till they reached a suitable spot on the Trogyllium Promontory (on the mainland of Asia Minor) to do whatever it is they did there. 
Aparently, from that understanding, the verb implies that they never put into Samos. The εἰς refers to the landfall that they expected to see (not “to land at”) at the end of the open sea and the παραβάλειν refers to the running parallel after sighting land.
I want to put it up for discussion because the standard reference work doesn’t explain it, and none of the English translations seem to have captured the sense of that, and usually when that is the case…
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 6th, 2014, 3:59 pm
Vladislav Kotenko wrote:
Hello,Could anyone please tell me whether there is a difference between Greek words τέλος (tel’-os) and συντελείας (soon-tel’-i-ah) used at Matthew 24:14 and 28:20 respectively? Can they refer to the same thing? Do they have the same derivation?
Kind regards,
Vlad Kotenko
If you are asking whether τὸ τέλος and ἡ συντελεία τοῦ αἰῶνος in Matthew 24:14 and 28:20 respectively refer to the same point of time prophetically, the simple answer is yes. τὸ τέλος and ἡ συντελεία τοῦ αἰῶνος are used interchangeably in vv. 3, 6 and 14 in Matthew 24. Since ἡ συντελεία τοῦ αἰῶνος has a uniform meaning throughout the New Testament, we have the equation τὸ τέλος in Matthew 24:14 = ἡ συντελεία τοῦ αἰῶνος in Matthew 28:20.
However, τέλος in the NT is not always identical with ἡ συντελεία τοῦ αἰῶνος , even in a prophetic context. Mt. 24:13-14 reads
13ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος οὗτος σωθήσεται. 14καὶ κηρυχθήσεται τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ εἰς μαρτύριον πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, καὶ τότε ἥξει τὸ τέλος.
The second τέλος is the equivalent of ἡ συντελεία τοῦ αἰῶνος but the first τέλος is not. It rather refers to the end of the earthly life of each believer (cf. John 13:1: Πρὸ δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ πάσχα εἰδὼς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἦλθεν αὐτοῦ ἡ ὥρα ἵνα μεταβῇ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ἀγαπήσας τοὺς ἰδίους τοὺς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἰς τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς, where τέλος refers to the end of Jesus’ earthly life).
Statistics: Posted by leonardjayawardena — July 7th, 2014, 12:48 am
Stephen, perfect explanation. I got it.
In the case of Acts 26:16b-17, I should have known that
the relative pronoun, as an anaphoric pronoun like “this”, “that”, “it”, “they”, etc,
can refer to anything that has been introduced to the context so far,
as long as the reader can identify the referent.
I should have remembered the class I once took about “discourse analysis” ^^
Moon Jung
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 10th, 2014, 5:20 am
Louis L Sorenson wrote:
Stephen wroteσυμφέρω in the next verse suggests movement..
Yes, that is what I thought. Movement is surely involved because they all brought their magical books to the same pile to burn.
But I also think ‘ἦλθον ὀμολογούμενοι’ is odd. It’s missing something (εἰς, πρός, κτλ. The default usage is like Mk 1.45 ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτόν.). Perhaps the problem (where I’m led astray) is the English use where ‘began’ has to be a modal auxiliary verb.Carl wrote:
And to underscore that, wouldn’t an imperfect for ἄρχομαι here be odd? “They kept on beginning”?But cf. Thucydides 1.25.4
(ᾗ
καὶ μᾶλλον ἐξηρτύοντο τὸ ναυτικὸν καὶ ἦσαν οὐκ ἀδύνατοι·
τριήρεις γὰρ εἴκοσι καὶ ἑκατὸν ὑπῆρχον αὐτοῖς ὅτε ἤρχοντο
πολεμεῖν),— would not we read that as ‘when they began to fight’? or is it ‘when they came to the fight’?
But then again, Luke likes to be ambiguous where he can. There are no textual variants here – so I guess I would go with the traditional rendering. For those who are trying to recreate a spoken Koine, this may be an example to avoid or rule to follow. i.e. use the aorist of ἄρχομαι with the infinitive, not the imperfect.
(1) Thucydides’ account of the buildup to the Peloponnesian War is vivid in its description of the ongoing process, and the imperfects contribute to that: “And they kept outfitting the fleet all the more (and they were not wanting in military might: in fact, they had a hundred and twenty triremes at the time when they were just starting hostilities.”
(2) Luke’s description of this process is vivid too, although I don’t personally think it’s ambiguous. I’m reminded of vivid literary descriptions of Savonarola’s great conflagration of books in Florence’s Piazza della Signoria. Awesome and frightening, as is the course of events in Ukraine right now.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — March 2nd, 2014, 10:37 am
Barry Hofstetter wrote:Peter Streitenberger wrote:Dear friends,Ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς πίστεως, ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς, (1Tim 6,12) – why is the first imperative in the present tense and the second in the Aorist? Is it a call to an ongoing fight of faith and a grasping of eternal live seen as a singe event (if so is it already done or a future event – I mean the grasping).
Thanks !
PeterI would see the force of ἐπιλαβοῦ as “grasp,” “seize firmly.” In my mind the aorist imperative simply looks at the action as a whole, and I wonder if this isn’t really an aktionsart issue?
When I was a kid many, many moons ago (later 1940’s), a popular ditty was “You’ve got to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch on to the affirmative, don’t mess with Mr. Inbetween.” “Latch on to” seems to me perfect colloquial English idiom for ἐπιλαβέσθαι — “get a firm grip on.”
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — May 22nd, 2014, 2:42 pm
Wow, talk about a newb mistake. ἐμοί is the correct accentuation for the emphatic form of the dative pronoun and the nominative plural of ἐμός. The circumflex is used with the genitive of the emphatic, ἐμοῦ… So much for my reputation for absolute infallibility…. hahahaha, I crack myself up!
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — June 17th, 2014, 3:32 pm
