Gal 4:4 EXAPESTEILEN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 12 21:16:21 EDT 2002
Some thoughts on a new NA Gal 4:4 (Some thoughts on a new NA) At 5:47 PM -0700 7/12/02, Glen L Naftaniel wrote:>Dear er’s, I have a question regarding the order of events in Gal 4:4.> >The verse is: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth>his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (Gal 4:4 KJV)> >hOTE DE HLQEN TO PLHRWMA TOU CRONOU EXAPESTEILEN O QEOS TON hUION AUTOU>GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS, GENOMENON hPO NOMON (Gal 4:4 N-A)> >Now, my question is does “EXAPESTEILEN” occur prior to “GENOMENON”? Also,>how do we know?Generally a temporal clause preceding and defining the time of an eventindicated by a main verb is going to indicate what happens prior to theevent referred to in the main verb. In this instance, even in theElizabethan (Jacobean?) English of KJV, “was come” is pluperfect, whilemodern English would make it “had come.” While it doesn’t necessarilyALWAYS work, it’s generally the case that the tense of a temporal clausesignals how it relates to the time of a main clause: if PRESENT tense, theaction is roughly contemporaneous with that of the main verb; if AORISTtense, the action is prior to that of the main verb; if FUTURE tense, theaction is posterior to that of the main verb. English equivalents:(a) When it rains, it pours (e.g. hOTAN hUHi, EKCEI); (b) When he had thusspoken, he departed (hOUTWS EIPWN APHLQEN = hOTE TAUTA EIPEN, APHLQEN); (c)When he is going to come, he will give no warning (EKEINOS ELEUSOMENOS OUMH hUPODEIXHi hUMIN).– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Some thoughts on a new NAGal 4:4 (Some thoughts on a new NA)
Gal 4:4 (Some thoughts on a new NA) Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Jul 13 07:10:25 EDT 2002
Gal 4:4 EXAPESTEILEN 1 Thess 4:4 TO hEAUTOU SKEUOS KTASQAI … > —–Original Message—–> From: Glen L Naftaniel [mailto:glensmail at juno.com]> Sent: 13. juli 2002 02:47> To: Biblical Greek> Subject: [] Re: Some thoughts on a new NA> > > Dear er’s, I have a question regarding the order of events> in Gal 4:4.> > The verse is: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent> forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (Gal 4:4 KJV)> > hOTE DE HLQEN TO PLHPWMA TOU CRONOU EXAPESTEILEN O QEOS TON hUION> AUTOU GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS, GENOMENON hPO NOMON (Gal 4:4 N-A)> > Now, my question is does “EXAPESTEILEN” occur prior to> “GENOMENON”? Also, how do we know?> As Carl has said an aorist participle regularly, but not always denotes anaction prior to the main verb. In this case, I would take the two parallelclauses with participles as further explaining the event of the main verb.All the events are semantically narrative past tense and therefore use theaorist as the default narrative tense. So I see the function of theparticiples as subordinating these events to the main verb and the functionof the aorist as denoting completed aspect (and past tense). How did Godsent his Son from Heaven to earth? First, he was born as a human being – notsent as a full grown man who suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Second, hewas born into a Jewish family and was taught to live under the Jewishreligious laws, the Torah, as any other Jewish boy.One could say that the “sending” covers a unified set of events: Jesus beingborn, his upbringing, his ministry, death, resurrection and ascension. Ifso, the two participles would be the initial events of his birth andupbringing, but it does not make sense to me to think of his birth as havingoccurred prior to his being sent forth. That would entail a restriction ofthe meaning of “sending forth” to his public ministry which I don’t think issupported by the context.It is of interest that Paul uses the present participle of GINOMAI only onceand that this is in a situation where there is strong emphasis on theuncompleted and ongoing aspect of the event being referred to (Eph 5:12). Heuses the default narrative past aorist participle 8 times apart from Gal 4:4(Rom 1:7; 7:3; 2 Cor 1:8; Gal 3:13; Phil 2:7,8; 3:6; 2 Tim 1:17). Generallyspeaking, the aorist form is much more common (102 times in the GNT) thanthe present from (17 times).Iver Larsen
Gal 4:4 EXAPESTEILEN1 Thess 4:4 TO hEAUTOU SKEUOS KTASQAI …
[] Gal 4:8: TOIS MH OUSIN QEIOS moon at mail.sogang.ac.kr moon at mail.sogang.ac.kr
Sun Apr 25 21:02:58 EDT 2004
[] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN [] Gal 4:8: TOIS MH OUSIN QEIOS I recently read Gal 4:8-9, and found out something that lookunfamiliar to me. ALLA TOTE MEN OUK EIDOTES QEON EDOULEUSATE TOIS FUSIS MH OUSIN QEIOS.NUN DE GNONTES QEON MALLON DE GNWSQENTES hUPO QEOU.(1) In this context, TOIS MH OUSIN QEIOS refer to other gods they were serving. Then, it implies that TW WN QEOIS would refer to Yaweh, the only true god. Then it implies that QEIOS is a property that can be attributed only to Yaweh the only true god, not to other gods. But the above interpretation of word QEIOS seems to be againt the common usage of word QEIOS, which would be used to describe gods less than Yaweh the only true god. I wonder if TOIS MH OUSIN QEOS would better serve Paul’s purpose here, or my understanding of QEIOS is wrong. I ask this question because some say that John in 1.1c did not write QEIOS HN hO LOGOS but QEOS HN ho LOGOS, and think that the two convey quite different meanings. (2) EIDOTES QEON, GNONTES QEON: The context certainly implies that they came to know Yaweh, the only true god, the god of Jesus Christ, the god of Abraham and Issac and Jacob. But I wonder why Paul did not write TON QEON in this context. I searched for QEON in NT, and found out 150 matches. I searched for the cases where QEON is used as the direct object of a verb. I excluded PP + QEON (It is well known that after prepositions, nouns are typically without articles). Also I excluded the cases where QEON is used as a predicate noun (e.g. John 10.33, 2. Thess 2.4). In most of the remaining cases, TON QEON is used rather than QEON. The exceptions are John 1:18: QEON OUDEIS EWRAKEN PWPOTE. 2John 1:9: PAS hO PROAGWN KAIMH MENWN EN TH DIDACH TOU CRISTOU QEON OUK EXEI. Titus 1:16 QEON hOMOLOGOUSIN EIDENAI, TOIS DE ERGOIS ARNOUNTAI. 2 Thess 1:8: DIDONTOS EKDIKHSIN TOIS MH EIDOSIN QEON Gal 4.8,9.Paul is able to write GNONTES TON QEON (Rom 1:21) instead of GNONTES QEON (Gal 4:8).So, I wonder if the two phrases have different nuances or no difference at all.SincerelyMoonMoon Ryul JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea Moon R. JungAssociate ProfessorDept of Media TechnologyGraduate School of Media CommSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
[] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN[] Gal 4:8: TOIS MH OUSIN QEIOS
[] Gal 4:8: TOIS MH OUSIN QEIOS Barry nebarry at verizon.net
Sun Apr 25 21:30:13 EDT 2004
[] Gal 4:8: TOIS MH OUSIN QEIOS [] the indefinite article in Modern Greek —– Original Message —– From: <moon at mail.sogang.ac.kr>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 9:02 PMSubject: [] Gal 4:8: TOIS MH OUSIN QEIOSBelow:> (1) In this context, TOIS MH OUSIN QEIOS refer to other gods they wereserving.> Then, it implies that TW WN QEOIS would refer to Yaweh, the only true god.> Then it implies that QEIOS is a property that can be attributed only to> Yaweh the only true god, not to other gods.> > But the above interpretation of word QEIOS seems to be againt the common> usage of word QEIOS, which would be used to describe gods less than Yaweh> the only true god.> > I wonder if TOIS MH OUSIN QEOS would better serve Paul’s purpose here, or> my understanding of QEIOS is wrong.It would only serve Paul’s purpose better if Paul did not know Greek. You havemisread and mistransliterated the word: it is QEOIS, the dative plural of QEOS,precisely the word you are seeking (not the adjective QEIOS, which would make nosense grammatically). Note that the article, which modifies QEOIS, is alsodative plural.> (2) EIDOTES QEON, GNONTES QEON:> > The context certainly implies that they came to know Yaweh, the only> true god, the god of Jesus Christ, the god of Abraham and Issac and Jacob.> But I wonder why Paul did not write TON QEON in this context. I searched> for QEON in NT, and found out 150 matches. I searched for the cases> where QEON is used as the direct object of a verb. I excluded PP + QEON> (It is well known> that after prepositions, nouns are typically without articles). Also I> excluded the cases where QEON is used as a predicate noun (e.g. John 10.33,> 2. Thess 2.4). In most of the remaining cases, TON QEON is used rather thanQEON. With proper names and titles, the article is optional, though it appears withGod (the Father) in regular usage (and is probably used more frequently with allnames and titles than not, though I’ve never confirmed that statistically).However, I wonder if the lack of the article here tends to de-emphasize the nounto a certain extent call attention to the actions of knowing? In other words,the point is not so much God as a person as knowing God as a fact orprinciple…BarryA little Learning is a dang’rous Thing;Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,And drinking largely sobers us again. –Alexander Pope, “An Essay on Criticism”http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1yfx7/
[] Gal 4:8: TOIS MH OUSIN QEIOS[] the indefinite article in Modern Greek
[] Re: Gal 4:8: TOIS MH OUSIN QEIOS moon at mail.sogang.ac.kr moon at mail.sogang.ac.kr
Mon Apr 26 00:31:50 EDT 2004
[] the indefinite article in Modern Greek [] the indefinite article in Modern Greek Perhaps, my previous message was unreadable. I am sending again.Sorry for the inconvenience.Moon> > > I recently read Gal 4:8-9, and found out something that look> unfamiliar to me. > > ALLA TOTE MEN OUK EIDOTES QEON EDOULEUSATE TOIS FUSIS MH OUSIN QEIOS.> NUN DE GNONTES QEON MALLON DE GNWSQENTES hUPO QEOU.> > > (1) In this context, TOIS MH OUSIN QEIOS refer to other gods they were serving.> Then, it implies that TW WN QEOIS would refer to Yaweh, the only true god. > Then it implies that QEIOS is a property that can be attributed only to > Yaweh the only true god, not to other gods.> > But the above interpretation of word QEIOS seems to be againt the common> usage of word QEIOS, which would be used to describe gods less than Yaweh> the only true god. > > I wonder if TOIS MH OUSIN QEOS would better serve Paul’s purpose here, or> my understanding of QEIOS is wrong.> > I ask this question because some say that John in 1.1c did not write> QEIOS HN hO LOGOS but QEOS HN ho LOGOS, and think that the two convey> quite different meanings.> > > (2) EIDOTES QEON, GNONTES QEON:> > The context certainly implies that they came to know Yaweh, the only> true god, the god of Jesus Christ, the god of Abraham and Issac and Jacob.> But I wonder why Paul did not write TON QEON in this context. I searched> for QEON in NT, and found out 150 matches. I searched for the cases> where QEON is used as the direct object of a verb. I excluded PP + QEON> (It is well known> that after prepositions, nouns are typically without articles). Also I > excluded the cases where QEON is used as a predicate noun (e.g. John 10.33,> 2. Thess 2.4). In most of the remaining cases, TON QEON is used rather than QEON. > > The exceptions are> > John 1:18: QEON OUDEIS EWRAKEN PWPOTE.> 2John 1:9: PAS hO PROAGWN KAIMH MENWN EN TH DIDACH TOU CRISTOU QEON OUK EXEI.> Titus 1:16 QEON hOMOLOGOUSIN EIDENAI, TOIS DE ERGOIS ARNOUNTAI.> 2 Thess 1:8: DIDONTOS EKDIKHSIN TOIS MH EIDOSIN QEON> Gal 4.8,9.> > Paul is able to write GNONTES TON QEON (Rom 1:21) instead of GNONTES QEON (Gal 4:8).> So, I wonder if the two phrases have different nuances or no difference at all.> > Sincerely> Moon> > Moon Ryul Jung> Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea> > > > > > > > Moon R. Jung> Associate Professor> Dept of Media Technology> Graduate School of Media Comm> Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea> > > Moon R. JungAssociate ProfessorDept of Media TechnologyGraduate School of Media CommSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
[] the indefinite article in Modern Greek [] the indefinite article in Modern Greek
[] Re: Gal 4:8: TOIS MH OUSIN QEOIS Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Apr 27 12:38:26 EDT 2004
[] Re: Digest, Vol 16, Issue 28 [] Is there a downloadable file of all emails, etc? Note the corrected subject-header; this was sent as “Re: Digest,Vol 16, Issue 28.” May I remind digest-receiving list-members please toindicate the subject-header of the original message to which they areresponding rather than simply letting the digest # stand in thesubject-header.At 9:51 AM +0900 4/27/04, moon at mail.sogang.ac.kr wrote:>Dear Barry,> >Thanks for correcting me about QEIOS vs QEOIS.>But still, we can consider significant the fact> that Paul the monotheist considers all the other>“gods” as hOI MH ONTES QEOIS (those who are not gods),>and by implication only Yaweh as hO WN QEOS (the one who is god).> >Paul can say PANTA LEGOMENON QEON (all called god)>(2 Thess 2.4), but not PANTA ONTES QEON, it seems.>Let me talk about 2 Thess 2.4 a bit more; it is>interesting.Not “all called god” but rather “every so-called god”: PAS in the singularis generally Englished as “every” rather than “all”; I think you meantPANTA ONTA QEON rather than PANTA ONTES QEON but that may have something todo with confusion of number-forms.>2 Thess 2.4: hO ANTIKEIMENOS KAI hUPERAIROMENOS> EPI PANTA LEGOMENON QEON hH SEBASMA,H> hWSTE AUTON EIS TON NAON TOU QEOU KAQISAI> APODEIKNUNTAI hEAUTON hOTI ESTIN QEOS. APODEIKNUNTATransliteration:(a) the second line should read QEON H SEBASMA; one really ought to becareful to distinguish the article hH with its rough breathing from theconjunction H with its smooth breathing. Our convention marks only therough breathing; at any rate, it’s “every so-called god OR object ofreverence.”(b) the fourth line should read APODEIKNUNTA hEAUTON hOTI ESTIN QEOS — theverb form is an accusative singular participle rather than a middle-passive3d-pl indicative.>Here the referent of QEON is different from that of QEOS.>He is aginst all those called god. Here god refers to many gods>who are considered so. He sits on the temple of the god claiming that>he is god. Here god refers to one who sits on the temple of the god,>the only true god. the different referents of QEOS seem to be>indicated by the predicates associated with QEOS. In one case,>they are CALLED (LEGOMENON) QEOS, and in the other case,>he claims that he IS (ESTIN) QEOS.The hWSTE clause should be understood rather, “so that he takes his seatwithin God’s temple, demonstrating that he himself is God.” Here theconstruction with hEAUTON hOTI ESTIN is a form of indirectstatement/discourse with APODEIKNUMI as an introductory verb.>Can we assume that when a monotheist uses the expression ESTIN QEOS,>does he or she always in mind the only true god, at least the quality>equivalent to that of the only true god.I think it would be preferable to examine textual instances in their owncontext rather than seek to lay down a rule to cover all cases.>Would it give some hint to the interpertation of QEOS HN hO LOGOS in>John 1.1c?We’ve probably well over a Megabyte of archives on John 1:1c; my own viewis that that verselet more or less attests the need to examine textualinstances in their own context rather than seek to lay down a rule to coverevery case. You know very well (a) that there’s more than one way tounderstand the text of John 1:1c and (b) that those holding alternativeunderstandings of this text are firmly convinced of the grammaticalcorrectness of their view. What complicates issues here is that QEOS is notthe subject but the predicate nominative of the clause; the recurrentdispute has been with respect to whether QEOS here is a proper name or ageneric noun. Holders of alternative views on this question both appeal totheir understanding of the broader context to resolve a question that isnot simply a matter of grammar.>———————————————————————-> >About TON QEON vs QEON, see my further question below.I’ll leave that further question for anyone who wants to tackle it, notingonly that I have serious doubts whether you’ll resolve the question simplyby appealing to grammatical principles and observations.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Re: Digest, Vol 16, Issue 28[] Is there a downloadable file of all emails, etc?
[] Gal 4:4 Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at comcast.net
Mon Jul 3 20:07:59 EDT 2006
[] John 1:1c [] Gal 4:4 It is correct to think that the participles in Gal. 4:4 (GENOMENON [EKGUNAIKOS], GENOMENON hUPO NOMON) are adjectival participles and, morespecifically, ascriptive attributive participles?Yours,Jeffrey–Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)1500 W. Pratt Blvd.Chicago, Illinoise-mail jgibson000 at comcast.net
[] John 1:1c[] Gal 4:4
[] Gal 4:4 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 3 20:19:25 EDT 2006
[] Gal 4:4 [] Gal 4:4 On Jul 3, 2006, at 8:07 PM, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:> It is correct to think that the participles in Gal. 4:4 (GENOMENON [EK> GUNAIKOS], GENOMENON hUPO NOMON) are adjectival participles and, more> specifically, ascriptive attributive participles?I have to confess to ignorance of what an “ascriptive attributive participle” is, nor have I found it in a quick check of indexes of the grammars I regularly consult. I do think I’d call these participles adjectival, equivalent to relative clauses.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Gal 4:4[] Gal 4:4
[] Gal 4:4 frjsilver at optonline.net frjsilver at optonline.net
Mon Jul 3 20:28:13 EDT 2006
[] Gal 4:4 [] Gal 4:4 Dear Friends –In a nutshell, all participles of whatever tense or mood are adjectives, or — perhaps more precisely — verbs in adjectival aspect. Of course, tense and mood must color our understanding and translation of these forms.And then we have gerunds and gerundives, but that’s another story…. [[;-)33Peace and blessings to all.Father James SilverMonk JamesOrthodox Church in America—– Original Message —–From: “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>Date: Monday, July 3, 2006 8:19 pmSubject: Re: [] Gal 4:4> > On Jul 3, 2006, at 8:07 PM, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:> > > It is correct to think that the participles in Gal. 4:4 > (GENOMENON [EK> > GUNAIKOS], GENOMENON hUPO NOMON) are adjectival participles > and, more> > specifically, ascriptive attributive participles?> > I have to confess to ignorance of what an “ascriptive attributive > participle” is, nor have I found it in a quick check of indexes of > > the grammars I regularly consult. I do think I’d call these > participles adjectival, equivalent to relative clauses.> > > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad2 at mac.com> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>
[] Gal 4:4[] Gal 4:4
[] Gal 4:4 Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at comcast.net
Mon Jul 3 20:30:49 EDT 2006
[] Gal 4:4 [] John 1:1,3 staircase pattern “Carl W. Conrad” wrote:> On Jul 3, 2006, at 8:07 PM, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:> > > It is correct to think that the participles in Gal. 4:4 (GENOMENON [EK> > GUNAIKOS], GENOMENON hUPO NOMON) are adjectival participles and, more> > specifically, ascriptive attributive participles?> > I have to confess to ignorance of what an “ascriptive attributive> participle” is, nor have I found it in a quick check of indexes of> the grammars I regularly consult. I do think I’d call these> participles adjectival, equivalent to relative clauses.It is what is listed as category #1 in William G. Macdonald’s discussion ofadjectival participles in his _Greek Enchiridion_ (see p. 58).Jeffrey–Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)1500 W. Pratt Blvd.Chicago, Illinoise-mail jgibson000 at comcast.net
[] Gal 4:4[] John 1:1,3 staircase pattern
[] Gal 4.4 Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 21 23:10:45 EDT 2009
[] accent descrepencies [] Gal 4.4 …EXAPESTEILEN O QEOS TON UION AUTOU, GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS…Is there an alternative to GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS? To say someone came from a woman/mother seems insulting to mention, assuming the reading audience is north of imbeciles. How could someone bring themselves to include this in a serious piece of communication?Mitch LarramoreAugusta, GA
[] accent descrepencies[] Gal 4.4
[] Gal 4.4 Barry nebarry at verizon.net
Tue Jul 21 23:21:20 EDT 2009
[] Gal 4.4 [] Gal 4.4 ————————————————–From: “Mitch Larramore” <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:10 PMTo: “B- Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Subject: [] Gal 4.4> > …EXAPESTEILEN O QEOS TON UION AUTOU, GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS…> > Is there an alternative to GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS? To say someone came from > a woman/mother seems insulting to mention, assuming the reading audience > is north of imbeciles. How could someone bring themselves to include this > in a serious piece of communication?<<Is there a question about the Greek somewhere here? I can think of more than one theological and contextual reason why Paul might feel the need state this, but that gets into areas beyond the scope of this list, I should think. Oh, and according to NA, there are no variants worthy of mention.N.E. Barry HofstetterAdjunct Faculty, Classics @ Montclairhttp://www.montclair.edu/Classics Instructor, The American Academyhttp://www.theamericanacademy.net/And me: http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog
[] Gal 4.4[] Gal 4.4
[] Gal 4.4 Tom Moore tom at katabiblon.com
Wed Jul 22 00:14:06 EDT 2009
[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi SKEUEI in1Peter 3:7”) [] Absurdity of Koine Greek accents (was “Allegory aboutlearning Koine Greek”) “Born of woman” would be a given for the son of an ordinary man, but not necessarily so when talking about the son of a god. So “born of a woman” clarifies that God’s son was human.Regards,Tom Moore> ——-Original Message——-> From: Mitch Larramore <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com>> Subject: [] Gal 4.4> Sent: Jul 22 ’09 03:10> > > …EXAPESTEILEN O QEOS TON UION AUTOU, GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS…> > Is there an alternative to GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS? To say someone came from a woman/mother seems insulting to mention, assuming the reading audience is north of imbeciles. How could someone bring themselves to include this in a serious piece of communication?> > Mitch Larramore> Augusta, GA> > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>
[] Construing 1 Peter 3:7 (was “ASQENESTERWi SKEUEI in1Peter 3:7”)[] Absurdity of Koine Greek accents (was “Allegory aboutlearning Koine Greek”)
[] Gal 4.4 Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 22 08:36:36 EDT 2009
[] Gal 4.4 [] ASQENESTERWi SKEUEI in 1 Peter 3:7 (was “Re: Gal 4.4” Barry:I don’t know if there is anything in the Greek here; that’s why I asked!! The translation seems so painfully obvious that I couldn’t help but think that perhaps there are alternate meanings to this phrase that might help me understand the verse. That is what b-Greek helps me think through. As a great example, I ran across the other day in the archives the famous passage of women being the “weaker vessel.” The poster (Mark Wilson) suggests that ‘weaker’ be translated ‘more vulnerable.’ More vulnerable, by the way, was understood in a positive sense, a vulnerability that accentuates a woman’s femininity. That changed the whole way I looked at that passage. (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//2003-May/025342.html) I know I had read 50+ books/articles on that one phrase and had yet to find anything that made sense to me, until that post. So, that was the driving force behind my asking. If you don’t see anything in the Greek, that’s fine. But perhaps a Mark Wilson is out there who has done some serious digging (original research, not checking more lexica) on that phrase. I don’t feel like I’m wasting anyone’s time and many times my questions are, in the end, sophomoric and, as it turns out, not very helpful, but I just have yet to figure out how to know which question is dumb before I ask it 😮 )Mitch LarramoreAugusta, GA— On Tue, 7/21/09, Barry <nebarry at verizon.net> wrote:> From: Barry <nebarry at verizon.net>> Subject: Re: [] Gal 4.4> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2009, 10:21 PM> > > ————————————————–> From: “Mitch Larramore” <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:10 PM> To: “B- Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Subject: [] Gal 4.4> > >> > …EXAPESTEILEN O QEOS TON UION AUTOU, GENOMENON EK> GUNAIKOS…> >> > Is there an alternative to GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS? To> say someone came from > > a woman/mother seems insulting to mention, assuming> the reading audience > > is north of imbeciles. How could someone bring> themselves to include this > > in a serious piece of communication?<<> > Is there a question about the Greek somewhere here? I> can think of more > than one theological and contextual reason why Paul might> feel the need > state this, but that gets into areas beyond the scope of> this list, I should > think. Oh, and according to NA, there are no variants> worthy of mention.> > N.E. Barry Hofstetter> Adjunct Faculty, Classics @ Montclair> http://www.montclair.edu/> Classics Instructor, The American Academy> http://www.theamericanacademy.net/> > And me: http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog> > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>
[] Gal 4.4[] ASQENESTERWi SKEUEI in 1 Peter 3:7 (was “Re: Gal 4.4”