Col 1:16 jacob cohen cobey at directcon.net
Fri Oct 8 14:22:52 εδτ 1999
Greetings, Thanks, etc… What is this cross? Col 1:16 hOTI εβ AUTWi εκτισθη τα παντα . . . “because everything wascreated by him . . .” should we take AUTWi as a dative of agency ormeans.This seems like an excellent candidate for agency unless AUTWi (referingto Jesus) is being used without Christs personality in veiw (GGBBWallace pg162-3).What say you?Jacob
Greetings, Thanks, etc…What is this cross?
Col 1:16 Garland η. Shinn ghshinn at home.com
Sat Oct 9 08:42:54 εδτ 1999
εν of the personal agent εν of the personal agent Regularly εν with the instrumental when associated with passive voiceverbs (εκτισθη) is considered agency rather than means.Garlandjacob cohen wrote:> > Col 1:16 hOTI εβ AUTWi εκτισθη τα παντα . . . “because everything was> created by him . . .” should we take AUTWi as a dative of agency or> means.> This seems like an excellent candidate for agency unless AUTWi (refering> to Jesus) is being used without Christs personality in veiw (γγββ> Wallace pg162-3).> > What say you?> Jacob> > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: ghshinn at home.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu
εν of the personal agentEN of the personal agent
Colossians 1:16 Michael Abernathy mabernat at cub.kcnet.org
Tue Jun 26 20:47:49 εδτ 2001
Comparing αλλοσ and hETEROS Comparing αλλοσ and hETEROS ι understand that in Colossians 1:16 en autw may be understood as the agent through which the action of creation is accomplished. This raises a couple of questions for me. First, when the action is performed through an intelligent being, is the one doing the action necessarily different from the agent?Second, in this case, the difference between instrumentality and agency sounds rather narrow. ι know that many of the discussions on this list imply a very exact use of the language. My question then, is this, “How precisely did the average Greek speaker use the language?” ι expect to find rather fine distinctions in Plato. Should ι expect the same level of precision in Paul?Thank you for your help.Michael Abernathymabernat at cub.kcnet.org————– next part ————–An ητμλ attachment was scrubbed…υρλ: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20010626/ae953753/attachment.html
Comparing αλλοσ and hETEROSComparing αλλοσ and hETEROS
Colossians 1:16 Rick Stamp rickstamp at gmx.net
Wed Jun 27 00:35:03 εδτ 2001
Comparing αλλοσ and hETEROS Hebrews 1:2 > ι understand that in Colossians 1:16 en autw may be understood as the> agent through which the action of creation is accomplished. This raises a> couple of questions for me. First, when the action is performed through> an intelligent being, is the one doing the action necessarily different> from the agent?> Thank you for your help.> Michael Abernathy> mabernat at cub.kcnet.org Michael,You might consider the instrumental dative at Hebrew 1:1 where the Father first speaks by the prophets and then through His Son.Regards,Rick Stamp– —————–Rick Stamprickstamp at gmx.netSent through γμχ FreeMail – http://www.gmx.net————– next part ————–An ητμλ attachment was scrubbed…υρλ: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20010627/94482642/attachment.html
Comparing αλλοσ and hETEROSHebrews 1:2
[] local dative Col 1:16 kgraham0938 at comcast.net kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Tue Dec 27 18:41:27 εστ 2005
[] Interlinear Greek-English ντ [] local dative Col 1:16 Hey ι just came across something interesting in βδαγ, the argue thathOTI εβ AUTWi εκτισθη τα παντα εν τοισ ουρανοισ should be considered a local dative since εν AUTWi would otherwise be identical with δι αυτοσ.ι always took it as a instrumental dative.–Kelton Graham KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net
[] Interlinear Greek-English ντ[] local dative Col 1:16
[] local dative Col 1:16 Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Dec 27 19:12:58 εστ 2005
[] local dative Col 1:16 [] local dative Col 1:16 εν does normally take a locative dative.On Tuesday, December 27, 2005, at 06:41PM, <kgraham0938 at comcast.net> wrote:>Hey ι just came across something interesting in βδαγ, the argue that> >hOTI εβ AUTWi εκτισθη τα παντα εν τοισ ουρανοισ should be considered a local dative since εν AUTWi would otherwise be identical with δι αυτοσ.Might ι ask for consistent use of “ν” for Nu? We seem frequently to get a hodge-podge of β and ν; here we have a preponderance of ν but one β.>ι always took it as a instrumental dative.Do you understand the sense to be “by (means of) him?” But you don’t normally get an instrumental dative to express agent. That is, the instrumental dative normally is used of an impersonal causal factor.ι think ι would understand εν AUTWi in much the same way as we understand the phrase εν CRISTWi: it indicates the focal point.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] local dative Col 1:16[] local dative Col 1:16
Tue Dec 27 19:51:43 εστ 2005
[] local dative Col 1:16 [] local dative Col 1:16 Hey Dr.Conrad, yes ι normally took it to be “by means of him.” (sorry about the Nun) Here is the weird thing, βδφ says on page 107 $199″The dative of place, which is already extremely limited in the classical period, is missing from the ντ (apart from sterotyped KUKLWi & ξαμαι;.)”Then when discussing εβ on page 117, $ 219, (1) Col 1:16 εν AUTWi εκτισθη – δι αυτου εκτισται originally not instrumental.What do you think βδφ is refering too here in regards to what it originally was? –Kelton Graham KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net————– Original message ————– From: “Carl ω. Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com> > εν does normally take a locative dative. > > On Tuesday, December 27, 2005, at 06:41PM, wrote: > > >Hey ι just came across something interesting in βδαγ, the argue that > > > >hOTI εβ AUTWi εκτισθη τα παντα εν τοισ ουρανοισ should be considered a local > dative since εν AUTWi would otherwise be identical with δι αυτοσ. > > Might ι ask for consistent use of “ν” for Nu? We seem frequently to get a > hodge-podge of β and ν; here we have a preponderance of ν but one β. > > >ι always took it as a instrumental dative. > > Do you understand the sense to be “by (means of) him?” But you don’t normally > get an instrumental dative to express agent. That is, the instrumental dative > normally is used of an impersonal causal factor. > > ι think ι would understand εν AUTWi in much the same way as we understand the > phrase εν CRISTWi: it indicates the focal point. > > > Carl ω. Conrad > Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus) > 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243 > cwconrad2 at mac.com > ωωω: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/ > — > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ > mailing list > at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
Tue Dec 27 22:33:19 εστ 2005
[] local dative Col 1:16 [] Greek-English Interlinear On Tuesday, December 27, 2005, at 07:51PM, <kgraham0938 at comcast.net> wrote:>Hey Dr.Conrad, yes ι normally took it to be “by means of him.” (sorry about the Nun) Here is the weird thing, βδφ says on page 107 $199> >“The dative of place, which is already extremely limited in the classical period, is missing from the ντ (apart from sterotyped KUKLWi & ξαμαι;.)”ι think they’re speaking of the locative dative without a preposition. There can hardly be any question that εν + locative dative is common in the γντ. On the other hand, εν + instrumental dative in the sense of “by means of” does appear, albeit not so very commonly.>Then when discussing εβ on page 117, $ 219, (1) Col 1:16 εν AUTWi εκτισθη – δι αυτου εκτισται originally not instrumental.> >What do you think βδφ is refering too here in regards to what it originally was? ι‘m away from my reference library now and cannot check it; all ι will say at the moment is that ι‘m not convinced that εν αυτωι εκτισθη means “was created/established by him.”>————– Original message ————– >From: “Carl ω. Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com> > >> εν does normally take a locative dative. >> >> On Tuesday, December 27, 2005, at 06:41PM, wrote: >> >> >Hey ι just came across something interesting in βδαγ, the argue that >> > >> >hOTI εβ AUTWi εκτισθη τα παντα εν τοισ ουρανοισ should be considered a local >> dative since εν AUTWi would otherwise be identical with δι αυτοσ. >> >> Might ι ask for consistent use of “ν” for Nu? We seem frequently to get a >> hodge-podge of β and ν; here we have a preponderance of ν but one β. >> >> >ι always took it as a instrumental dative. >> >> Do you understand the sense to be “by (means of) him?” But you don’t normally >> get an instrumental dative to express agent. That is, the instrumental dative >> normally is used of an impersonal causal factor. >> >> ι think ι would understand εν AUTWi in much the same way as we understand the >> phrase εν CRISTWi: it indicates the focal point. >> >> >> Carl ω. Conrad >> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus) >> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243 >> cwconrad2 at mac.com >> ωωω: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/ >> — >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ >> mailing list >> at lists.ibiblio.org >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ >—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] local dative Col 1:16[] Greek-English Interlinear