Ephesians 1:4

[] Eph 1:4 EN AUTW Andrew Batishko abatish at xmission.com
Tue Aug 8 08:30:18 EDT 2006

 

[] Why Monotonic Greek. Was: Free Polytonic Uncial GreekUnicode Font? [] Eph 1:4 EN AUTW I’m only just now starting to learn biblical greek on my own, so forgive me if the answer to this is obvious.Ephesians 1:4 seems to be frequently translated (in part) as something like “…He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless…”I’m confused as to the usage of “in Him” here. I could see it being attached to three different possible concepts:* He chose us in Him* in Him before the foundation of the world* that we would be (in Him) holy and blamelessThe second I’ll discard, because that just doesn’t seem to mesh with the rest of the bible. The third makes sense to me, but only if “before the foundation of the world” is a parenthetical statement. The first is probably the most likely, but I really don’t understand what it means for Him to choose us in Him.Can someone help me understand the meaning?Thanks,Andrew

 

[] Why Monotonic Greek. Was: Free Polytonic Uncial GreekUnicode Font?[] Eph 1:4 EN AUTW

[] Eph 1:4 EN AUTW George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 8 08:59:26 EDT 2006

 

[] Eph 1:4 EN AUTW [] Eph 1:4 EN AUTWi First, text, Text, TEXT KAQWS ECELECATO hHMAS EN AUTWi PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU EINAI hHMAS hAGIOUS KAI AMWMOUS KATENWPION AUTOU EN AGAPHi Your out of hand dismissal of #2 has nothing to do with the syntax of the sentence. As for your statement that “that just doesn’t seem to mesh with the rest of the bible” — well, a large group feels that it does accord with the rest of the Bible. They are known as Calvinists, and I happen to be one. I’m not going to get into a discussion of theology here since that is strictly against the protocols of this group, but I would caution against eliminating a possibility because of theological concerns. Sometimes we can all be surprised when OUR positions do not seem to be confirmed by the text. Just read the text and seek to understand what it is saying. As to your third option, I see no reason to take EN AUTWi with EINAI hHMAS hAGIOUS KAI AMWMOUS KATENWPION AUTOU EN AGAPHi (i.e. we are “to be IN HIM holy and blameless . . .”. The distance between the two is simply too great. In any case, I think that what we have with EINAI . . . is what A. T. Robertson in his _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research_, pp. 541-42 refers to as the “Infinitive as Final Dative” thus expressing the purpose of the preceding clause (which is that we are “to be holy and blameless . . .”). ____________ Andrew Batishko <abatish at xmission.com> wrote: I’m only just now starting to learn biblical greek on my own, so forgive me if the answer to this is obvious.Ephesians 1:4 seems to be frequently translated (in part) as something like “…He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless…”I’m confused as to the usage of “in Him” here. I could see it being attached to three different possible concepts:* He chose us in Him* in Him before the foundation of the world* that we would be (in Him) holy and blamelessThe second I’ll discard, because that just doesn’t seem to mesh with the rest of the bible. The third makes sense to me, but only if “before the foundation of the world” is a parenthetical statement. The first is probably the most likely, but I really don’t understand what it means for Him to choose us in Him.Can someone help me understand the meaning?Thanks,Andrew— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/georgegfsomsel_________ ———————————Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

 

[] Eph 1:4 EN AUTW[] Eph 1:4 EN AUTWi

[] Eph 1:4 EN AUTWi Andrew Batishko abatish at xmission.com
Tue Aug 8 10:29:55 EDT 2006

 

[] Eph 1:4 EN AUTW [] Eph 1:4 EN AUTWi Thanks for your response, George.You are correct that I have dismissed #2 without proper consideration. My reason for that was because in my mind, #2 kind of states that we were a part of Him (implying we existed) before the world was created. So, I wasn’t really looking at the issue of election in this case. Apparently though, there are other was of interpreting that particular reading that I hadn’t thought about.My problem is that I can’t understand why EN AUTWi is in the text. I could understand if it was just KAQWS ECELECATO hHMAS PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU…I take it from your statement that it is a point of contention whether the verse should be read “KAQWS ECELECATO hHMAS EN AUTWi” or “EN AUTWi PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU…” In other words, there are no clear indications in the text as to which way it should be read. Is that correct?Could you explain to me (off-list if that’s more appropriate) what you would understand “EN AUTWi PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU…” to mean?Andrew BatishkoGeorge F Somsel wrote:> > First, text, Text, TEXT> > KAQWS ECELECATO hHMAS EN AUTWi PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU EINAI hHMAS hAGIOUS > KAI AMWMOUS KATENWPION AUTOU EN AGAPHi> > Your out of hand dismissal of #2 has nothing to do with the syntax of > the sentence. As for your statement that “that just doesn’t seem to > mesh with the> rest of the bible” — well, a large group feels that it does accord with > the rest of the Bible. They are known as Calvinists, and I happen to be > one. I’m not going to get into a discussion of theology here since that > is strictly against the protocols of this group, but I would caution > against eliminating a possibility because of theological concerns. > Sometimes we can all be surprised when OUR positions do not seem to be > confirmed by the text. Just read the text and seek to understand what > it is saying.> > As to your third option, I see no reason to take EN AUTWi with EINAI > hHMAS hAGIOUS KAI AMWMOUS KATENWPION AUTOU EN AGAPHi (i.e. we are “to be > IN HIM holy and blameless . . .”. The distance between the two is > simply too great. In any case, I think that what we have with EINAI . . > . is what A. T. Robertson in his _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament > in the Light of Historical Research_, pp. 541-42 refers to as the > “Infinitive as Final Dative” thus expressing the purpose of the > preceding clause (which is that we are “to be holy and blameless . . .”).> > ____________> > > */Andrew Batishko <abatish at xmission.com>/* wrote:> > I’m only just now starting to learn biblical greek on my own, so> forgive> me if the answer to this is obvious.> > Ephesians 1:4 seems to be frequently translated (in part) as something> like “…He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we> would be holy and blameless…”> > I’m confused as to the usage of “in Him” here. I could see it being> attached to three different possible concepts:> > * He chose us in Him> * in Him before the foundation of the world> * that we would be (in Him) holy and blameless> > The second I’ll discard, because that just doesn’t seem to mesh with> the> rest of the bible. The third makes sense to me, but only if “before the> foundation of the world” is a parenthetical statement. The first is> probably the most likely, but I really don’t understand what it means> for Him to choose us in Him.> > Can someone help me understand the meaning?

 

[] Eph 1:4 EN AUTW[] Eph 1:4 EN AUTWi

[] Eph 1:4 EN AUTWi George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 8 10:47:20 EDT 2006

 

[] Eph 1:4 EN AUTWi [] Lexicon: – B-Hebrew I’m not sure what points you are trying to distinguish by your question regarding whether EN AUTWi should be read with the preceding word or with the following. BOTH — EN AUTWi and PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU — modify ECELECATO. EN AUTWi refers back to EN XRISTWi in the preceding verse to state that it is “in Christ” (or perhaps “for Christ”?) that we are chosen. PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU is a temporal designation designating when this choosing took place. _________ Andrew Batishko <abatish at xmission.com> wrote: Thanks for your response, George.You are correct that I have dismissed #2 without proper consideration. My reason for that was because in my mind, #2 kind of states that we were a part of Him (implying we existed) before the world was created. So, I wasn’t really looking at the issue of election in this case. Apparently though, there are other was of interpreting that particular reading that I hadn’t thought about.My problem is that I can’t understand why EN AUTWi is in the text. I could understand if it was just KAQWS ECELECATO hHMAS PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU…I take it from your statement that it is a point of contention whether the verse should be read “KAQWS ECELECATO hHMAS EN AUTWi” or “EN AUTWi PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU…” In other words, there are no clear indications in the text as to which way it should be read. Is that correct?Could you explain to me (off-list if that’s more appropriate) what you would understand “EN AUTWi PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU…” to mean?Andrew BatishkoGeorge F Somsel wrote:> > First, text, Text, TEXT> > KAQWS ECELECATO hHMAS EN AUTWi PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU EINAI hHMAS hAGIOUS > KAI AMWMOUS KATENWPION AUTOU EN AGAPHi> > Your out of hand dismissal of #2 has nothing to do with the syntax of > the sentence. As for your statement that “that just doesn’t seem to > mesh with the> rest of the bible” — well, a large group feels that it does accord with > the rest of the Bible. They are known as Calvinists, and I happen to be > one. I’m not going to get into a discussion of theology here since that > is strictly against the protocols of this group, but I would caution > against eliminating a possibility because of theological concerns. > Sometimes we can all be surprised when OUR positions do not seem to be > confirmed by the text. Just read the text and seek to understand what > it is saying.> > As to your third option, I see no reason to take EN AUTWi with EINAI > hHMAS hAGIOUS KAI AMWMOUS KATENWPION AUTOU EN AGAPHi (i.e. we are “to be > IN HIM holy and blameless . . .”. The distance between the two is > simply too great. In any case, I think that what we have with EINAI . . > . is what A. T. Robertson in his _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament > in the Light of Historical Research_, pp. 541-42 refers to as the > “Infinitive as Final Dative” thus expressing the purpose of the > preceding clause (which is that we are “to be holy and blameless . . .”).> > ____________> > > */Andrew Batishko /* wrote:> > I’m only just now starting to learn biblical greek on my own, so> forgive> me if the answer to this is obvious.> > Ephesians 1:4 seems to be frequently translated (in part) as something> like “…He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we> would be holy and blameless…”> > I’m confused as to the usage of “in Him” here. I could see it being> attached to three different possible concepts:> > * He chose us in Him> * in Him before the foundation of the world> * that we would be (in Him) holy and blameless> > The second I’ll discard, because that just doesn’t seem to mesh with> the> rest of the bible. The third makes sense to me, but only if “before the> foundation of the world” is a parenthetical statement. The first is> probably the most likely, but I really don’t understand what it means> for Him to choose us in Him.> > Can someone help me understand the meaning?— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/georgegfsomsel_________ ———————————Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

 

[] Eph 1:4 EN AUTWi[] Lexicon: – B-Hebrew

[] Eph 1:4 EN AUTW Brian Abasciano bvabasciano at gmail.com
Tue Aug 8 11:08:40 EDT 2006

 

[] Lexicon: – B-Hebrew [] Lexicon: – B-Hebrew Dear Andrew,I would classify EN AUTW as both instrumental and as a locative of place or sphere. Christ is the insturment through which we are chosen and pictured as the sphere in which we are blessed and chosen. I regard the latter as more basic in this text and to imply the former. Several recent commentators take the governing “in Christ” reference this way in vs 3, usually speaking of “in Christ” as carrying both incorporative and instrumental significance (see O’Brien; Hoehner; Lincoln). It is only natural to take EN AUTW of v. 4 in the same way, meaning that believers are chosen as a consequence of their union with Christ. I think you pose false distinctions in your 3 options. Prepositions typically modify verbs, but do not have to. So it is most natural to take EN AUTW with “He chose”, but the timing of that choice is being located before the foundation of the world. And as George mentioned, your final option indicates the purpose of this election. So 1 on your list is grammatically what EN AUTW attaches to, but it is integrated into the whole idea that is stated.Brian Abasciano*****************************I’m only just now starting to learn biblical greek on my own, so forgive me if the answer to this is obvious.Ephesians 1:4 seems to be frequently translated (in part) as something like “…He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless…”I’m confused as to the usage of “in Him” here. I could see it being attached to three different possible concepts:* He chose us in Him* in Him before the foundation of the world* that we would be (in Him) holy and blamelessThe second I’ll discard, because that just doesn’t seem to mesh with the rest of the bible. The third makes sense to me, but only if “before the foundation of the world” is a parenthetical statement. The first is probably the most likely, but I really don’t understand what it means for Him to choose us in Him.Can someone help me understand the meaning?Thanks,Andrew

 

[] Lexicon: – B-Hebrew[] Lexicon: – B-Hebrew
EPHESIANS 1.4,5 Esteban Otero oterofamily4 at msn.com
Sat Jan 11 21:19:30 EST 2003

 

ANASTASIS NEKRWN vs ANASTATIS EK NEKRWN TE in John 4)KAQWS EXELEXATO hHMAS EN AUTW PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU EINAI hHMAS hAGIOUS KAI AMWMOUS KATENWPION AUTOU EN AGAPH 5)PROORISAS hHMAS EIS UIOQESIONDIA IHSOU CRISTOU EIS AUTON KATA THN EUDOKIANTOU QELHMATOS AUTOUMy questions are in regards to the EINAI clause and its relationship between EXELEXATO and PROORISAS.First, is the EINAI clause a (1)purpose/intended result clause (somewhat epexegetical) or (2)the continued object of EXELEXATO (viewing PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU as parenthetical? Let me give a couple of translations to illustrate in case my question isn’t clear.1) even as he selected us for himself before the foundation of the world, in order that/for the purpose of we might be/us being holy and blameless in his presence2) even as he selected us for himself, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in his presenceThe reasons for my confusion are these:1) if the first hHMAS is the primary object of EXELEXATO and the EINAI clause is a purpose/intended result/epexegetical clause then PROORISAS hHMAS seems to make the first hHMAS redundant as the primary object. The hHMAS of PROORISAS seems to be the primary deictic indicator of person, i.e. object of the whole thought clause, since PROORISAS is an aorist participle antecedent in time to EXELEXATO (I think). If PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU is taken parenthetically, can the hHMAS of the EINAI clause be taken as an expressed resumptive indicicator (basically serving to connect EXELEXATO hHMAS with EINAI hHMAS …)? This would make the object of God’s selection our being holy and blameless as opposed to us being something else. I don’t know if that is valid.2) On the other hand, all the works I have consulted (including Louw & Nida’s offered translations) as well as every translation I’ve looked at take the EINAI clause as purpose, etc. If I am wrong about the relationship of PROORISAS with EXELEXATO, and verse 4 can be taken “absolutely”, then it makes good sense to view the EINAI clause as purpose. Lastly, I think it makes good sense to take EN AUTW to mean “for himself” almost as a way of further expressing the middle of EXELEXATO. Robertson discusses this a bit. Also, a while back Mike Sangrey offered the possibility of reading IN CRISTW as “with respect to Christ” due to seeing EN as merely highlighting the personal aspect of the dative form. Is this a valid translation.Sorry for the length. Any help is greatly appreciated.Esteban OteroTampa, FL_________________________________________________________________Protect your PC – get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

 

ANASTASIS NEKRWN vs ANASTATIS EK NEKRWNTE in John

[b-Greek] EPHESIANS 1.4,5 Long, Fred longf at bethelcollege.edu
Mon Jan 13 11:26:41 EST 2003

 

Greek Instructor Needed? [b-Greek] EPHESIANS 1.4,5 Esteban, My initial response was to resist your notion to take the EN AUTW as “forhimself” rather than as “in him” in accordance with the emphasis on “inChrist” throughout the whole passage and book of Ephesians, whatever we areto make of this (Christ’s agency, corporate representative, mysteriousunion, etc.) See for example: 1:3 EN CRISTW1:6 EN TW HGAPHMENW1:7 EN hW1:9 EN AUTWHowever, I may be open to change this resistance due to evidence fromsearching data that related to your more primary question about EXELEXATOfollowed by the infinitive EINAI and hHMAS repeated. I have found that there are many instances where the verb EXELEXATO is foundwith an infinitive complement (to choose to do something). For example, inthe LXX: Deut 12:5, 11, 21, 26; 14:2, 23, 24; 16:2, etc.; 1 Sam 2:28. Then, I looked more closely at one of these grammatical parallels.Deuteronomy 14:2 “For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and theLORD has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all thepeoples who are on the face of the earth ” (NASB). The Greek is SEEXELEXATO KURIOS hO QEOS SOU GENESQAI SE AUTW LAON PERIOUSION (“The Lord haschosen you to be a choice people for himself”). Due to the correspondenceof theme and grammar, I am inclined to think that Paul’s Greek in Eph 1:4has been influeced by this sort of usage (Hellenistic? or Semitic?) and eventhis particular passage. First, there is the complementary infinitive withEXELEXATO. Second, a verb of being is found as the complement (GINOMAI asopposed to EIMI). Third, the repetition of the direct object in the”subject” of the infinitive is the same (SE…SE in Deut and hHMAS…hHMASin Eph). Fourth, the thematic link of the formation of a “holy” people.Fifth, “for the Lord” or “For himself” in support of your take on the ENAUTW as meaning “For Himself.” Taken together, these correspondences areweighty enough to suggest a direct intertextual influence. Interestingly,the NA26 or UBS3 do not have Deut 14:2 as an allusion. As for the EINAI and hHMAS, the repeated hHMAS is emphatic, I think, and inthe accusative case, since the nominative case is not possible, since it isthe direct object and not the subject of EXELEXATO. As for your main question, I think that simply understanding a complementaryinfinitive (with purpose connotations from the lead verb EXELEXATO) wouldaptly describe what is going in Eph 1:4, with the explanation of hHMAScoming from the grammatical influence of Deut 14:2 or simply the emphasis onhHMAS.Fred Long+++++++++++++++++Fredrick J. Long, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of New TestamentBethel College1001 W. McKinley Ave.Mishawaka, IN 46545(574) 257-2548 longf at bethelcollege.edu> —–Original Message—–> From:Esteban Otero [SMTP:oterofamily4 at msn.com]> Sent:Saturday, January 11, 2003 9:20 PM> To:Biblical Greek> Subject:[] EPHESIANS 1.4,5> > 1:4 kaqw.j evxele,xato h`ma/j evn auvtw/| pro. katabolh/j ko,smou ei=nai> h`ma/j a`gi,ouj kai. avmw,mouj katenw,pion auvtou/ evn avga,ph|( 5> proori,saj h`ma/j eivj ui`oqesi,an dia. VIhsou/ Cristou/ eivj auvto,n(> kata. th.n euvdoki,an tou/ qelh,matoj auvtou/(> > 4)KAQWS EXELEXATO hHMAS EN AUTW PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU EINAI hHMAS hAGIOUS> KAI > AMWMOUS KATENWPION AUTOU EN AGAPH 5)PROORISAS hHMAS EIS UIOQESIONDIA IHSOU> > CRISTOU EIS AUTON KATA THN EUDOKIANTOU QELHMATOS AUTOU> > My questions are in regards to the EINAI clause and its relationship> between > EXELEXATO and PROORISAS.> > First, is the EINAI clause a (1)purpose/intended result clause (somewhat > epexegetical) or (2)the continued object of EXELEXATO (viewing PRO> KATABOLHS > KOSMOU as parenthetical? Let me give a couple of translations to> illustrate > in case my question isn’t clear.> > 1) even as he selected us for himself before the foundation of the world,> in > order that/for the purpose of we might be/us being holy and blameless in> his > presence> > 2) even as he selected us for himself, before the foundation of the world,> > to be holy and blameless in his presence> > The reasons for my confusion are these:> 1) if the first hHMAS is the primary object of EXELEXATO and the EINAI > clause is a purpose/intended result/epexegetical clause then PROORISAS> hHMAS > seems to make the first hHMAS redundant as the primary object. The hHMAS> of > PROORISAS seems to be the primary deictic indicator of person, i.e. object> > of the whole thought clause, since PROORISAS is an aorist participle > antecedent in time to EXELEXATO (I think). If PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU is> taken > parenthetically, can the hHMAS of the EINAI clause be taken as an> expressed > resumptive indicicator (basically serving to connect EXELEXATO hHMAS with > EINAI hHMAS …)? This would make the object of God’s selection our being > holy and blameless as opposed to us being something else. I don’t know if > that is valid.> > 2) On the other hand, all the works I have consulted (including Louw & > Nida’s offered translations) as well as every translation I’ve looked at > take the EINAI clause as purpose, etc. If I am wrong about the> relationship > of PROORISAS with EXELEXATO, and verse 4 can be taken “absolutely”, then> it > makes good sense to view the EINAI clause as purpose.> > Lastly, I think it makes good sense to take EN AUTW to mean “for> himself” > almost as a way of further expressing the middle of EXELEXATO. Robertson > discusses this a bit. Also, a while back Mike Sangrey offered the > possibility of reading IN CRISTW as “with respect to Christ” due to seeing> > EN as merely highlighting the personal aspect of the dative form. Is this> a > valid translation.> > Sorry for the length. Any help is greatly appreciated.> > Esteban Otero> Tampa, FL> > _________________________________________________________________> Protect your PC – get McAfee.com VirusScan Online > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963> > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [longf at bethelcollege.edu]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to> $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>

 

Greek Instructor Needed?[b-Greek] EPHESIANS 1.4,5

[b-Greek] EPHESIANS 1.4,5 Long, Fred longf at bethelcollege.edu
Mon Jan 13 16:15:15 EST 2003

 

[b-Greek] EPHESIANS 1.4,5 Greek Songs for Learning > Esteban, > > My initial response was to resist your notion to take the EN AUTW as “for> himself” rather than as “in him” in accordance with the emphasis on “in> Christ” throughout the whole passage and book of Ephesians, whatever we> are to make of this (Christ’s agency, corporate representative, mysterious> union, etc.) See for example: > > 1:3 EN CRISTW> 1:6 EN TW HGAPHMENW> 1:7 EN hW> 1:9 EN AUTW> > However, I may be open to change this resistance due to evidence from> searching data that related to your more primary question about EXELEXATO> followed by the infinitive EINAI and hHMAS repeated. > > I have found that there are many instances where the verb EXELEXATO is> found with an infinitive complement (to choose to do something). For> example, in the LXX: Deut 12:5, 11, 21, 26; 14:2, 23, 24; 16:2, etc.; 1> Sam 2:28. > > Then, I looked more closely at one of these grammatical parallels.> Deuteronomy 14:2 “For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the> LORD has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the> peoples who are on the face of the earth ” (NASB). The Greek is SE> EXELEXATO KURIOS hO QEOS SOU GENESQAI SE AUTW LAON PERIOUSION (“The Lord> has chosen you to be a choice people for himself”). Due to the> correspondence of theme and grammar, I am inclined to think that Paul’s> Greek in Eph 1:4 has been influeced by this sort of usage (Hellenistic? or> Semitic?) and even this particular passage. First, there is the> complementary infinitive with EXELEXATO. Second, a verb of being is found> as the complement (GINOMAI as opposed to EIMI). Third, the repetition of> the direct object in the “subject” of the infinitive is the same (SE…SE> in Deut and hHMAS…hHMAS in Eph). Fourth, the thematic link of the> formation of a “holy” people. Fifth, “for the Lord” or “For himself” in> support of your take on the EN AUTW as meaning “For Himself.” Taken> together, these correspondences are weighty enough to suggest a direct> intertextual influence. Interestingly, the NA26 or UBS3 do not have Deut> 14:2 as an allusion. > > As for the EINAI and hHMAS, the repeated hHMAS is emphatic, I think, and> in the accusative case, since the nominative case is not possible, since> it is the direct object and not the subject of EXELEXATO. > > As for your main question, I think that simply understanding a> complementary infinitive (with purpose connotations from the lead verb> EXELEXATO) would aptly describe what is going in Eph 1:4, with the> explanation of hHMAS coming from the grammatical influence of Deut 14:2 or> simply the emphasis on hHMAS.> > Fred Long> > +++++++++++++++++> Fredrick J. Long, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor of New Testament> Bethel College> 1001 W. McKinley Ave.> Mishawaka, IN 46545> (574) 257-2548 > longf at bethelcollege.edu>

 

[b-Greek] EPHESIANS 1.4,5Greek Songs for Learning

[b-Greek] EPHESIANS 1.4,5 Pere Porta Roca pporta at tinet.fut.es
Tue Jan 14 00:58:13 EST 2003

 

HN in John 1.1a Use of MHTI GE in 1 Cor 6.3 —– Original Message —–From: “Long, Fred” <longf at bethelcollege.edu>To: “Biblical Greek” < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 5:26 PMSubject: [] RE: AMNOS-ARNIONDear all,I’m seeking for the true difference, if any, between the term ‘AMNOS’, lamb,(John 1:29) and ARNION (Revelation in general, anywhere, for example 5:12,etc.).Is perhaps O AMNOS a different animal from TO ARNION?I’ve not looked at any biblical Dictionary nor know I whether such aDictionary speaks about this. Perhaps if I look at such a work I’ll get theanswer which I’m seeking for?I’m asking myself: If John is the author of both the Evangile and theRevelation is it not a little striking he doesn’t use in both books the sameterm to show or to point to the same animal?Perhaps is an ARNION a horned and a more developped or grown AMNOS?Or, if you prefer, is perhaps an AMNOS the same thing (animal now) as anARNION but one calls AMNOS the animal when it is in the first months of itslife, that’s to say: AMNOS = young/baby ARNION?May we say that in John 1:29 it is not John the evangelist who is speakingbut John the Baptist is speaking so that who uses the word AMNOS is not John(the writer)?I’m from the South Europa area and I’ve seen that generally speaking theBible translations to romanic languages –such as Spanish, Catalan, French,Italian and so on– give of both terms the same translation word: sp.cordero; cat. anyell; fr. agneau, etc.Is it done wrong, in the present case, to translate these two differentsterms into the same word? So should AMNOS be translated into one word andARNION should be translated into another word (if these two different andspecific words exist in the target language, of course)?(Please be not struck by my use of English prepositions: as I said I am notfrom the English or anglophone area)I’ll be grateful to you for your comments.L. Besses

 

HN in John 1.1aUse of MHTI GE in 1 Cor 6.3

[b-Greek] EPHESIANS 1.4,5 Esteban Otero oterofamily4 at msn.com
Tue Jan 14 06:51:47 EST 2003

 

Use of MHTI GE in 1 Cor 6.3 HN in John 1.1a Mr. Long,Thank you for the response to my questions. I will check into the parallelreferences you have given. However, part of my question was in regards toverse 5 as well, your discussion seemed to focus on verse 4 only. I amcurious about the relationship between the hHMAS in PROORISAS hHMAS andthe hHMAS in EXELEXATO hHMAS. I understood you to be saying that the hHMASof the infinitive clause was emphatic, which I can see. I apologize if Imisread you.In regards to taking EN AUTW as “for Himself”, here are a few more reasonswhy:1) It is possibile that what is printed as AUTW might be hAUTW2) Two manuscripts, F(010) and G(012) both dating to the IX cen., haveEAUTW instead, implying that this was understood atleast by some topossibly be taken as hAUTW3) Robertson discusses the “original and continued” reflexive nature ofAUTOS. He even mentions the use of the reflexive pronoun emphasizing thepersonal interest of the Middle voice (pp.680-688, 690-691).Just some thoughts in the morning hours.Esteban OteroTampa, FL

 

Use of MHTI GE in 1 Cor 6.3HN in John 1.1a