36 articles New Testament

1 Peter 3:21

[] 1 Pet. 3:21 syntax Kimmo Huovila kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi Mon Jul 17 03:06:43 EDT 2006   [] 2 Kings 5:18 in the Greek Septuagint [] 1 Pet. 3:21 syntax What is the syntactic relationship between hO, ANTITUPON, and BAPTISMA in 1. Pet. 3:21?hO KAI hUMAS ANTITUPON NUN SWiZEI BAPTISMA, OU SARKOS APOQESIS hRUPOU ALLA…

Revelation 19:21

Rev. 19 12  Names Written On What  (was Rev 19 21)

[] Rev 19.11, syntax at ntresources.com at ntresources.com Tue Sep 30 15:34:50 EDT 2003   [] Re: Digest, Vol 9, Issue 29 [] Rev 19.11, syntax Any recommendations as to the best way to describe the syntax of Rev 19.11c?I’m thinking of the adjectival substantival participle, followed by a pres.pass. ptcp. of KALEW (adjectival? adverbial?),…

1 Corinthians 14:5

I Cor. 14 5  LALEIN Alone Or In Context

[] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212) rel21x at charter.net Sun May 14 22:44:01 EDT 2006   [] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect [] 1 Cor 14:5: present infinitive aspect Friends and scholars,Both infinitive and participle are substantives morphologically; theparticiple still declines, although the infiintive is now fixed. Both takearticles,…

1 Corinthians 12 7

1 Corinthians 12 7 11 And Spiritual Gifts Manifestations

[] 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 and spiritual gifts/manifestations Kuzus at aol.com Kuzus at aol.com Wed Jul 23 20:29:00 EDT 2003 [] Septuagint translated by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton [] Re: 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 and spiritual gifts/manifestations [] Septuagint translated by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton[] Re: 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 and spiritual gifts/manifestations [] Re: 1 Corinthians 12:7-11…

Matthew 23:9

Matt 23 9b …. For One Is Your Heavenly Father

[] Matt 23:9b …. for One is your Heavenly Father Jay Adkins jayadkins264 at gmail.com Sat May 8 05:20:35 EDT 2010 [] οὔτις ἔσθ’ ὃς οὔ S.Ajax 725 & Jn 1:3 [] Matt 23:9b …. for One is your Heavenly Father Can some please explain to me why most English translations translate Matt23:9b as they…

Matthew 12:6


Matthew 12:6 Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 2 23:54:06 EDT 2002   Neofiti 1, OFFLIST response requested IOKOBOS to JAMES LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI TOU hIEROU MEIZON ESTIN hWDEI tell you that something greater than the temple is here.Can someone help me understand this comment I read ina commentary on MEIZON:”If we take…

Mark 8:35

Mk 8 35 37, YUCH

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com Mon Dec 20 20:36:43 EST 1999 Philippians 2:6 Philippians 2:6 Interpretations of 8.35:Paul Dixon (PD):> > << whoever desires to save his life (eternally) shall lose it> (temporally)> > and whoever loses his life temporally on account of me and the> > gospel, shall find it…

Colossians 1:21

Col 1 21  Meaning Of EXQROUS

[] Col 1:21: Meaning of EXQROUS Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net Sun Sep 23 15:59:19 EDT 2007   [] Col 1:21: Meaning of EXQROUS [] Pronounciation of upsilon On Sep 23, 2007, at 8:10 AM, Stephen Baldwin wrote:> > Ladies and Gentlemen:> A small point about which I am a little perplexed:>> From my reading,…

1 John 1:4

Pronouns In John 1 1 And 1 John 1 1 4

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 Robert R. Monti robemon at regent.edu Fri Jul 2 00:57:33 EDT 1999   [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Right now I’m working my way through I John to keep up my Greek translationwork up on my own. I’d like some…

Acts 20:28

Acts 20 28   Dia Tou Haimatos Tou Idiou

Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Tue Mar 30 11:38:27 EST 1999 the usage of PROGINOSKW in 1 Pet 1:2&20 Perseus fonts From: GregStffrd at aol.comDate: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 20:33:15 ESTTo: cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduCc: church at elp.rr.com, at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Subject: Re: Acts 20:28 Whose blood?Since I discuss this text at length…

Luke 22:38

New Testament • Lk.22:38 – Ἱκανόν ἐστιν. – “We’re armed!” or “Can it!”
Luke 22:38 wrote:
Οἱ δὲ εἶπον, Κύριε, ἰδού, μάχαιραι ὧδε δύο. Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Ἱκανόν ἐστιν.

Is the sense of Ἱκανόν ἐστιν. to say that two swords were adequate weapons, or that Jesus was suggesting that there should be no talk of bringing weapons?

Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — February 6th, 2017, 8:55 pm

Mark 15:34

Mark 15:34

We are finally able to provide the published text of the article on the “cry of dereliction” from the Brill volume, The Language Environment of First Century Judaea, Randall Buth and R Steven Notley edd., (Brill, 2014, ISBN 9789004263406). The PDF of Randall Buth, “The Riddle of Jesus’ Cry from the Cross: the Meaning of ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι (Matthew 27:46) and the Literary Function of ελωι ελωι λειμα σαβαχθανι (Mark 15:34)” is avaiable at:

www.biblicalLanguageCenter.com under “community” “BLC blog”

It is a fitting read/study for passion week.

Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — April 17th, 2014, 4:54 am

Romans 5:12

New Testament • Re: Rom 5:12 – εφ ω παντες ημαρτον
Msindisi wrote:

June 27th, 2017, 4:33 am

As the context must govern the referent it would make sense that εΦ ω would signify ‘upon which’ rather than ‘upon whom’ for three major reasons.

1. Though Hebrews speaks of Levi being in the loins of Abraham when he paid tithes, the immediate context of Romans 5 does not speak of our pre-existence in Adam but it does speak of our helpless sinful condition, verse 6, 8 and possibly verse 10. Therefore, verse 12 may easily be seen as explaining the reason why we are sinful which speaks of inheriting a sinful condition.

2. The following 2 verses do not speak of sin at the time of the fall but the condition of sin when there was no law. The whole discourse concerns the committing of sin by people and the mastery of death over people who sin. The idea of inheriting guilt would therefore be of secondary importance and tangential to the whole discussion Paul is expounding.

3. There is a logical progression, which makes sense in light of the context. Not a simple chiasmus that has the last point returning back to the same event mentioned in the first point. Not.

A. One man sins.
B. Sin came into the world.
C. Death came into the world through sin.
B’. Death spread to all men.
A’. In Adam all sinned.

Rather A- B’ show a consequential progression and so it would make sense that as B’ is a consequence of C that A’ is also a consequence of B’. Though this argument is not conclusive by itself it is strong in light of arguments numbers 1 & 2.

Secondary strengths of this interpretation, but not decisive points are that, aside from a Pelagian reading of the passage, all viewpoints can agree on this understanding. We all agree that we sin because we have inherited a sin nature. This is consistent with the Jewish concept of ‘היצר הרע’ ‘hayetser Hara’ or the evil impulse. It is consistent with the reformed understanding of original sin in the concept that people inherit both sin nature and guilt of Adam’s sin. It also agrees with the Arminian view that we inherit the sin nature though not the guilt but become guilty of Adam’s sin when we sin in like manner.

Also it preserves a systematic approach from misinterpreting a passage through reading it according to a presupposed theological stance but ties the theology to the exegesis of that passage in a way that is governed by that particular text and minimises the danger of prooftexting.

Thirdly, even people with reformed theological understanding, such as Thomas Schreiner, recognise the strength of the “upon which” argument in his exegetical commentary on Romans (BECNT). Though this is not conclusive regarding the referent in the passage it does raise questions concerning the strength of the argument itself when one whose theology has been heavily influenced by a reformed soteriology disregards the referent that more clearly supports the reformed position even though the interpretation that he sided with does not in itself contradict a reformed understanding of original sin.

Talk about resurrection, this is quite an old thread. Please note that on B-Greek we focus on on issues of grammar and syntax, understanding the Greek as Greek, and not issues of theology. In this case of Romans 5:12, what tips it for me is not the theological content, but that the phrase is really a stock phrase used adverbially elsewhere, and particularly in the plural, ἐφ οἷς, but not unknown in the singular. Now, whether it’s consecutive or causal is a matter of some debate in the history of interpretation. This article by Cranfield is supposed to be quite exhaustive on the subject:

“On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.12,” SJT 22 (1969): 324–41

But I can’t comment further since the Scottish Journal of Theology is not accessible through JSTOR (the first time I’ve been let down on that regard).

Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — June 29th, 2017, 11:02 am

Revelation 15:2

New Testament • Re: νικάω +  ἐκ  in Rev. 15,2

[] Revelation 15:2 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com Fri Aug 20 12:37:19 EDT 2004   [] Revelation 15:2 [] Revelation 15:2 Dear Arie,The function of the MIN in Ps 65:4 may be comparative. The sins were “too strong for me,” or “stronger than me.” That’s how BDB takes it.Yours,Harold Holmyard>After my earlier message…

2 Peter 3:10

New Testament • Re: 2 Peter 3:10  (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται
Jonathan Robie wrote:

May 23rd, 2017, 3:06 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:

May 23rd, 2017, 3:00 pm

Got a good laugh out of that. The suggestion assumes that I know enough coptic to correct the auto parsing mistakes.

Are you copting out?

Yeah, my objective with Sahidic is even less ambitious than a similar project with Syriac. I thought it would be useful to look at the architecture of the language and see to what extent the versions could be trusted in textual criticism. I thought it would be about as difficult as Syriac coming from Hebrew. I was wrong.

Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — May 23rd, 2017, 3:11 pm

Mark 16:1

New Testament • Re: Levinsohn on Mark 16:1-8
Stephen Carlson wrote:

April 17th, 2017, 11:59 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:

April 17th, 2017, 8:12 pm

I am a concrete thinker, so part of what I am looking for is a clear understanding of the relationship between the topics at various levels – the sentence topic and the discourse topic in this passage, for instance.

As far as I can tell, there’s no simple relation between the two. They’re different things. The fact that they share the term “topic” seems to be creating expectations they are more closely related, but they are not.

I really do think I’ve heard some other people imply that there is a closer relationship than that, but those people may be confused too.

Stephen Carlson wrote:

April 17th, 2017, 11:59 pm

Lambrecht’s books has been very popular and influential. He provides (his own) definitions for topic and focus. It is similar to what Levinsohn is doing, but not identical. I think Levinsohn follows Simon Dik more (whom I haven’t read). So does Helma Dik.

I have Simon Dik’s book. It is very clearly written, I should work my way through it.

Stephen Carlson wrote:

April 17th, 2017, 11:59 pm

Levinsohn has actually published quite a bit. To understand him, that’s the first and best place to go. His coursebook, though dated, lays out several of the concepts, but he’s been updating them in other publications. Many of these are on his website. If you can read Spanish, you may find his introduction to his Galatians analysis helpful.

Thanks, I’ll look there. My … Spanish … is not great. But that kind of technical Spanish may or may not be possible.

Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 18th, 2017, 10:19 am