John 3:2 – DIDASKALOS: what kind of nominative? Paul Felix paulwfelix at iolusa.com Wed May 19 15:39:11 EDT 1999 Machen’s Greek NT Answer Key. Syntax Mark 8:4 What type of nominative is used for DIDASKALOS in APO QEOU ELHLUQAS DIDASKALOS in John 3:2?Paul Felix————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990519/92c6b947/attachment.html Machen’s…
Question on John 17:3 Robert W Meyers bwmeyers at juno.com Mon Dec 27 11:44:41 EST 1999 Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Question on John 17:3 Would someone tell me whether the Granville Sharp rulehas any applicability here?”The only True God” KAI “Jesus Christ Whom You sent?”Is the ON preceding APESTEILAS regarded…
[] Syntactical Function of a Participle? Erick Venden erickvenden at worksmail.net Sun Apr 17 10:04:24 EDT 2005 [] Query re: Shepherd of Hermas. [] Syntactical Function of a Participle? This is my first time posting to this mailing list. I am struggling withGreek Syntax and especially when it comes to participles. Can someoneplease help me…
John 17:23 Matthew T. Williams kopio at attbi.com Sun Aug 18 17:11:17 EDT 2002 “Continuous, on-going, never ceasing” construct John 17:23 Hello All,My pastor preached in John 17 this morning and as I was following along inmy text I saw something that caught my eye. In 17:23 John writes; hINA WSIN TETELEIWMENOI EIS hENWhat caught…
John 5:26 John Oaklands j_m_oaklands at yahoo.com.au Sat May 8 19:10:12 EDT 1999 Hebrews 11:1 Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? HiHow is EDWKEN understood in John 5:26? Does this refer to theincarnation as of John 1:4 EN AUTWi ZWH HN or, as some have evensuggested, to the resurrection? How does EDWKEN make…
[] solecisms John 8:9 EIS KAQ EIS Randall Buth randallbuth at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 06:03:29 EDT 2008 [] “Word-Guessing” vs. Reading [] solecisms John 8:9 EIS KAQ EIS While on the subject of solecisms, how do you all likeεἷς καθ’ εἷςEIS KAQ’ EIS ?It seems intentional enough with the correct dropping ofthe vowel in…
[] John 3:16 “so” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net Tue Dec 15 17:54:15 EST 2009 [] Capital theta in John 1:18? [] John 3:16 “so” Dear list,I have been studying a controversy in John 3:16:*John 3:16* οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς…
John 7:8 dano at ott.net dano at ott.net Thu May 6 18:42:43 EDT 1999 Acts 2:6 John 7:8 Here is one that was brought up to me today that has got me stumped..Am posting while checking the archives at the same time :)(John 7:8 KJV) Go ye up unto this feast: I go not…
John 11:35 Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com Wed Jun 17 12:11:15 EDT 1998 Hebrews 6:6-PARASEPONTAS Marcan Leitmotifs (was: Mark 2:23b) A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 2260 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19980617/603debc8/attachment.bin Hebrews 6:6-PARASEPONTASMarcan Leitmotifs (was: Mark 2:23b) John 11:35 Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com Wed Jun 17 12:11:15 EDT 1998…
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…
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
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
cwconrad asked, “Am I alone in finding the position of παρὰ σοί here strange?” Information available at, inter alia, newadvent.org, indicates you’re not alone.
In several English translations of patristic allusions related to John 17:5, Irenaeus, Novatian, and Origen put παρὰ σοί in front of πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι. Also, Ignatius omitted παρὰ σοί, and Hippolytus left out the phrase πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.
Statistics: Posted by Pat Ferguson — March 8th, 2014, 6:54 pm
Stephen Carlson wrote:
OK. Having checked now Brown commentary, such an appendix was not to be. (There was one on Johannine vocabulary, though, and his use of synonyms.).
It’s been years since I looked at that. I do remember the appendix on Johannine vocabulary, but I also remember a discussion of Johannine use of the perfect; it may have been within the commentary itself with regard to some particular interesting usage of perfect tense.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — May 9th, 2014, 7:54 am
[John 5:4 Byz] αγγελος γαρ κατα καιρον κατεβαινεν εν τη κολυμβηθρα και εταρασσεν το υδωρ ο ουν πρωτος εμβας μετα την ταραχην του υδατος υγιης εγινετο ω δηποτε κατειχετο νοσηματι
What exactly does the imperfect tense of “εγινετο” here mean?
Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 25th, 2014, 5:27 am
[John 1:9] ην το φως το αληθινον ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον
I’ve always thought that there were only two possibilities:
(1) “το φως το αληθινον ο …” is the subject of the periphrastic “ην ερχομενον …”; “the true light which illuminates every man was coming into the world”
(2) “ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον” adjectivally modifies “παντα ανθρωπον”, and “το φως το αληθινον” is subject of “ην” with predicate as the indefinite relative “ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον”; “the true light was that which illuminates every man who comes into the world”
And I previously thought that (1) was more likely given how it would flow naturally into the next sentence, although (2) could be arguable given John’s liking for using similar words in different places in close proximity with different meanings.
But I happened to look at that verse again today and thought of a third possibility:
(3) “το φως το αληθινον” is subject of “ην” with predicate as the indefinite relative “ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον”, and “ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον” is a circumstantial adverbial modifying “φωτιζει”; “the true light was that which, coming into the world, illuminates every man”
On thinking of that it seemed similar to other occasions of such present tense circumstantial adverbials in John’s writing such as 1:48 (“οντα υπο την συκην ειδον σε”), 4:9 (“πως συ ιουδαιος ων παρ εμου πειν αιτεις γυναικος σαμαριτιδος ουσης”).
So which do you all think is the most likely, if we make the assumption that John isn’t intentionally trying to make an ambiguous sentence? I’m thinking (3) now.
My search turned up only two results:
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=1461, which didn’t clearly identify the grammatical structure, and where there wasn’t really a clear consensus
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-arch … 23803.html, where Carl concluded on (1) but didn’t mention (3). Any comments, Carl? 
Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 25th, 2014, 1:12 am
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος
This is always translated as “In the beginning”, but from the little I
understand of Greek grammar, one shouldn’t append the definite article in
English if the article is absent in Greek.
Is this “hyer-literal” translation accurate:
“In origin was the Word”
http://catholic-resources.org/John/Outl … ologue.htm
ὅτι ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει
“For the devil sins from the beginning.”
The devil has an article, in both Greek and English, but again, beginning
has none.
Apologies for a simplistic question, I’m only two words into the text and
I’m confused.
Can someone clear this up for me?
Danny Diskin
Statistics: Posted by Danny Diskin — April 14th, 2014, 10:40 pm
moon jung wrote:
But as long as we assume that the ἱνα clause represents a desirable state of affairs in general,
my rendering can be obtained.
At the expense of the context, as I’ve already explained. I hope you seriously reconsider why you are pushing your opinions on “ινα” so strongly, because if we disregard context, we can always argue for anything we like and find excuses for everything that doesn’t quite fit. No doubt, the context has to be interpreted, so again you are free to disregard everyone’s interpretation except those whom you agree with.
moon jung wrote:
My understanding seems to be consistent with the observation of Sim’s dissertation: […]
You can choose whatever you like, but I feel that you are just trying to get someone to agree with you, and at the same time you seem to also let your opinions drive your linguistic claims. For example, you keep trying to use what others say in order to prove your original claims, and you press people in that direction as far as you can. Thus I urge you to instead start learning Greek simply as a language rather than as a tool to be wielded. And it would be good for you to be aware of confirmation bias. No one is immune to it, so the best we can do is to provide objective evidence. For a natural language, it seems that only statistical evidence (with a sufficiently large sample size) is objective enough, as other types of evidence all turn upon interpretation, hence the multitude of opinions based on them. You will have to decide for yourself what you consider as sufficient evidence, but don’t expect me to agree with you if you do not provide corpus-based evidence but only your opinions concerning solitary instances.
Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 13th, 2014, 10:47 pm
There are really two different issues being discussed in this thread — agency and instrumentality. Agency is usually expressed with a preposition + the genitive, instrumentality is usually expressed with the dative, sometimes (and especially in Koine) with the preposition ἐν + dative. Agency is usually personal, instrumentality impersonal. I would take ἐν αὐτῷ with ζωὴ ἦν, which would meant that the λόγος is the source of life.
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — September 27th, 2016, 1:53 pm
