Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Diana N. Shaw DINOSAUR2LIST at prodigy.net
Tue Oct 2 04:36:11 EDT 2001
Instructions for a beginner….? Parsing of Gal 3:11 While I’m interrupting with questions, there was one awhile back I couldn’tanswer for myself. There is no article in the phrase “EN KALWi” here, so itcould be masculine, as well as neuter. The context in Galatians wouldcertainly support a reference to human agency, rather than neuterinstrumentality. And BDF allows EN + (dative/instrumental) to be used forpersonal agency. Why, then, is this phrase translated (by all versionsI’ve checked) as “in a good cause,” rather than “by a good person”? Isthere a reason in Greek grammar; or is it merely that translators feel Paulwould not refer to himself as “good” or imply the opposite of otherChristians, personally, by contrast, even though he has been forcefullysaying these other Christians’ suborning of doctrinal felonies among theGalatians was quite bad? (Rats! Parse that sentence!)[Dictionaries I checked may have leaned toward the (non-personal)instrumental as more usual for such phrases, but not totally clear. Bothallowed.]Diana N. Shawdinosaur2 at prodigy.nethttp://pages.prodigy.net/dinosaur2http://pages.prodigy.net/dinosaur2/private/itiswrit.htm
Instructions for a beginner….?Parsing of Gal 3:11
Gal. 4:18 KALWi Diana N. Shaw DINOSAUR2LIST at prodigy.net
Fri Oct 5 16:22:02 EDT 2001
What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Roman Names into Greek Thanks to Dennis Hukel for putting me onto KALOS/AGATHOS differences!Checked Thayer first and found active in this question, not so muchthe meaning difference, but the following differences inapplication:1. KALOS seems to be applied in NT occasionally to people, but onlyex officio: the good shepherd, the good servant, etc; whereasAGATHOS is (occasionally) used of persons as such. (BAG’streatment confirms, though less explicit.) But see #2.2. AGATHOS itself seems rarely applied to people, a fact whichseems to derive from #3.3. A LXX usage is noted at the end of Thayer’s entry. Note says,quoting a scholar named Zezschwitz, “It is to be regarded as apeculiarity in the usage of the Sept. that TOV “good” ispredominantly rendered by KALOS….The ANHR AGATHOS is peculiaronly to the Prov…solitary instance in 1 Kings ii.32. Thus evenin the usage of the O.T. we are reminded of Christ’s words, Mk. x.18, ‘OUDEIS AGATHOS EI MH hEIS hO QEOS.'”Now I have two well supported answers:I. #1 above shows the NT & early Christian word usage, not mygrammatical concerns, would forbid KALWi’s application to Paul oranother human agent.II. #2 and #3, on the other hand, in a way confirm my wild guessthat (English) translators would assume that our background ofJudaeo-Christian puritanism would prevent Paul’s calling himself”good”; but they confirm it “with a (highly informative)vengeance,” showing this attitude dates all the way back at leastto LXX translators!So, thank you, Dennis Hukel, for putting me onto the word usagehere! I had checked dictionaries, but only for EN’s grammaticalusages, totally ignoring the adjective itself. Very stupid!Diana N. Shawdinosaur2 at prodigy.nethttp://pages.prodigy.net/dinosaur2http://pages.prodigy.net/dinosaur2/private/itiswrit.htm
What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSRoman Names into Greek
Gal. 4:18 KALWi Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Oct 6 04:18:09 EDT 2001
Virus warning Roman Names into Greek > > 1. KALOS seems to be applied in NT occasionally to people, but only> ex officio: the good shepherd, the good servant, etc; whereas> AGATHOS is (occasionally) used of persons as such. (BAG’s> treatment confirms, though less explicit.) But see #2.> It is an interesting distinction. I think it is comparable to thedistinction in English between evil and bad.A bad teacher is a teacher who does not do his job properly, but an evilteacher is a person who is evil and does evil things. A mean one.So, AGAQOS relates to ethically good people and good deedswhile KALOS relates more to what is good value, efficient, nice, well done,someone highly capable.Let me compareMAT 7:17 PAN DENDRON AGAQON KARPOUS KALOUS POIEILUK 6:43 OU GAR ESTIN DENDRON KALON POIOUN KARPON SAPRONMy guess is that when Matthew uses AGAQON he is thinking of the person thatthe tree is an illustration for, a good or evil person, whereas Luke isthinking more of the tree and its qualities, a rotten tree or a good tree.The slave in Matthew 25;21 is called DOULE AGAQE KAI PISTE. AGAQOS seems toindicate that he was a good person with good intentions and deeds. PISTOSthen describes his faithfulness. The two words are not synonyms.A good servant is mentioned in 1 Tim 4:6 KALOS DIAKONOS. I could not findany examples of KALOS with DOULOS, which is understandable. Slaves have nochoice like servants do.When Jesus is addressed as DIDASKALE AGAQE rather than the normal DIDASKALEalone, it is not a matter of evaluating him as a teacher, good or bad, butas a person, good or evil.There are probably situations where the distinction is hard to draw and itmay not be significant, just as there are cases where it is hard todistinguish between bad and evil in English.Luk 8:8 KAI hETERON EPESEN EIS THN GHN THN AGAQHNLUK 8:15 TO DE EN THi KALHi GHi, hOUTOI EISIN hOITINES EN KARDIAi KALHi KAIAGAQHi…I don’t know why Luke uses AGAQH in v. 8 and KALH in v. 15, but the heart isboth KALH and AGAQH. This may reflect that the Hebrew concept of “heart”covers both “heart” and “mind” in English. In my thinking AGAQOS relates toa good heart and KALOS to a good mind.When John talks about Jesus as hO POIMHN hO KALOS he may be thinking of acapable shepherd. In any case, Jesus is a shepherd who is both KALOS andAGAQOS.Thanks for an interesting lexical study,Iver Larsen
Virus warningRoman Names into Greek
Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Tue Oct 9 05:09:22 EDT 2001
IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Dear Diana,I could find no place in the NT Greek where either KALOS or AGAQOS areused as a substantive for a person. They seem to always be used as a quality or characteristic.Harry Jones> While I’m interrupting with questions, there was one awhile back I couldn’t> answer for myself. There is no article in the phrase “EN KALWi” here, so it> could be masculine, as well as neuter. The context in Galatians would> certainly support a reference to human agency, rather than neuter> instrumentality. And BDF allows EN + (dative/instrumental) to be used for> personal agency. Why, then, is this phrase translated (by all versions> I’ve checked) as “in a good cause,” rather than “by a good person”? Is> there a reason in Greek grammar; or is it merely that translators feel Paul> would not refer to himself as “good” or imply the opposite of other> Christians, personally, by contrast, even though he has been forcefully> saying these other Christians’ suborning of doctrinal felonies among the> Galatians was quite bad? (Rats! Parse that sentence!)> > [Dictionaries I checked may have leaned toward the (non-personal)> instrumental as more usual for such phrases, but not totally clear. Both> allowed.]> > Diana N. Shaw> dinosaur2 at prodigy.net> http://pages.prodigy.net/dinosaur2> http://pages.prodigy.net/dinosaur2/private/itiswrit.htm
IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)Gal 4:18 EN KALWi
Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Oct 9 07:08:12 EDT 2001
Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Luke 7:39 At 5:09 AM -0400 10/9/01, Harry W. Jones wrote:>Dear Diana,> >I could find no place in the NT Greek where either KALOS or AGAQOS are>used as a substantive for a person. They seem to always be used as a>quality or characteristic.You might want to consider the following:Mt 19:17 hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOSRom 5:7 hUPER TOU AGAQOU TACA TIS KAI TOLMAi APOQANEIN1 Pet 2:18 hOI OIKETAI hUPOTASSOMENOI EN PANTI FOBWi TOIS DESPOTAIS, OUMONON TOIS AGAQOIS KAI EPIEIKESIN ALLA KAI TOIS SKOLIOISMoreover there are several instances of the antithetical PONHROS used as asubstantive, among them Mt 13:19, 34, 39; Lk 6:45; 1 Cor 5:13. Furthermorethere is some question regarding whether a couple instances of substantivePONHROS traditionally thought neuter ought not to be considered masculine:Mt 6:13 hRUSAI hHMAS APO TOU PONHROU.2 Tj 3″3 PISTOS DE ESTIN hO KURIOS, hOS STHRIXEI hUMAS KAI FULAXEI APO TOUPONHROUBut in reality a host of instances of these adjectives used as neutersubstantives wouldn’t prove that KALWi in Gal 4:18 can NOT be masculine. >> While I’m interrupting with questions, there was one awhile back I couldn’t>> answer for myself. There is no article in the phrase “EN KALWi” here, so it>> could be masculine, as well as neuter. The context in Galatians would>> certainly support a reference to human agency, rather than neuter>> instrumentality. And BDF allows EN + (dative/instrumental) to be used for>> personal agency. Why, then, is this phrase translated (by all versions>> I’ve checked) as “in a good cause,” rather than “by a good person”? Is>> there a reason in Greek grammar; or is it merely that translators feel Paul>> would not refer to himself as “good” or imply the opposite of other>> Christians, personally, by contrast, even though he has been forcefully>> saying these other Christians’ suborning of doctrinal felonies among the>> Galatians was quite bad? (Rats! Parse that sentence!)>> >> [Dictionaries I checked may have leaned toward the (non-personal)>> instrumental as more usual for such phrases, but not totally clear. Both>> allowed.]>> >> Diana N. Shaw>> dinosaur2 at prodigy.net>> http://pages.prodigy.net/dinosaur2>> http://pages.prodigy.net/dinosaur2/private/itiswrit.htm> >—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: [cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]>To unsubscribe, forward this message to>$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu— 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/
Gal 4:18 EN KALWiLuke 7:39
Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Tue Oct 9 18:32:38 EDT 2001
What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Dear Carl,I appreciate your help on this but I only was trying point out to Dianathat KALWi didn’t seem to be used as a substantive for a person in theNT Greek and so that could account for why the translators translated itthe way they did. It doesn’t seem like it AGAQOS was used that way eitherexcept possibly in Ro. 5:7 and 1Pet. 2:18. Of course theoretically KALWicould be used as a substantive for a person but that doesn’t seem to bethe case in the NT Greek text. At 5:09 AM -0400 10/9/01, Harry W. Jones wrote:> >Dear Diana,> >> >I could find no place in the NT Greek where either KALOS or AGAQOS are> >used as a substantive for a person. They seem to always be used as a> >quality or characteristic.> > You might want to consider the following:> > Mt 19:17 hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOS> Rom 5:7 hUPER TOU AGAQOU TACA TIS KAI TOLMAi APOQANEIN> 1 Pet 2:18 hOI OIKETAI hUPOTASSOMENOI EN PANTI FOBWi TOIS DESPOTAIS, OU> MONON TOIS AGAQOIS KAI EPIEIKESIN ALLA KAI TOIS SKOLIOIS> > Moreover there are several instances of the antithetical PONHROS used as a> substantive, among them Mt 13:19, 34, 39; Lk 6:45; 1 Cor 5:13. Furthermore> there is some question regarding whether a couple instances of substantive> PONHROS traditionally thought neuter ought not to be considered masculine:> > Mt 6:13 hRUSAI hHMAS APO TOU PONHROU.> 2 Tj 3″3 PISTOS DE ESTIN hO KURIOS, hOS STHRIXEI hUMAS KAI FULAXEI APO TOU> PONHROU> > But in reality a host of instances of these adjectives used as neuter> substantives wouldn’t prove that KALWi in Gal 4:18 can NOT be masculine.> > >> While I’m interrupting with questions, there was one awhile back I couldn’t> >> answer for myself. There is no article in the phrase “EN KALWi” here, so it> >> could be masculine, as well as neuter. The context in Galatians would> >> certainly support a reference to human agency, rather than neuter> >> instrumentality. And BDF allows EN + (dative/instrumental) to be used for> >> personal agency. Why, then, is this phrase translated (by all versions> >> I’ve checked) as “in a good cause,” rather than “by a good person”? Is> >> there a reason in Greek grammar; or is it merely that translators feel Paul> >> would not refer to himself as “good” or imply the opposite of other> >> Christians, personally, by contrast, even though he has been forcefully> >> saying these other Christians’ suborning of doctrinal felonies among the> >> Galatians was quite bad? (Rats! Parse that sentence!)> >>> >> [Dictionaries I checked may have leaned toward the (non-personal)> >> instrumental as more usual for such phrases, but not totally clear. Both> >> allowed.]> >>> >> Diana N. Shaw> >> dinosaur2 at prodigy.net> >> http://pages.prodigy.net/dinosaur2> >> http://pages.prodigy.net/dinosaur2/private/itiswrit.htm> >> >—> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> >You are currently subscribed to as: [cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> >To unsubscribe, forward this message to> >$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> >To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > — > > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)> Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSGal 4:18 EN KALWi
Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Steven Lo Vullo themelios at earthlink.net
Tue Oct 9 20:10:29 EDT 2001
Gal 4:18 EN KALWi IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) on 10/9/01 5:32 PM, Harry W. Jones at hjbluebird at aol.com wrote:> Dear Carl,> > I appreciate your help on this but I only was trying point out to Diana> that KALWi didn’t seem to be used as a substantive for a person in the> NT Greek and so that could account for why the translators translated it> the way they did. It doesn’t seem like it AGAQOS was used that way either> except possibly in Ro. 5:7 and 1Pet. 2:18. Of course theoretically KALWi> could be used as a substantive for a person but that doesn’t seem to be> the case in the NT Greek text.The substantival use of AGAQOS for persons is indisputable. You seem toreject Carl’s example of Mt 19.17 even though it is modified by the articleand therefore must be taken as substantival. And Rom 5.7 and 1 Pet 2.18 arenot only possible, but certain. In addition to those Carl offered, there isalso the certain example of Mt 5.45 (AGAQOUS, “good people).– Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
Gal 4:18 EN KALWiIOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)
Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Thu Oct 11 05:01:33 EDT 2001
OIKIAS/OIKOS What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Dear Steve,With all due respect to Carl, I feel like hO AGAQOS is being usedattributively with respect to EIS in Mt. 19:17 and upon closer examination I believe that TOIS AGAQOIS is being used attributivelywith respect to TOIS DESPOTAIS in 1 Pet. 2:18. And all the differenttranslations that I have looked at, seem to bear this out.That would seem leave only two possible substantive uses of AGAQOS. Onein Ro. 5:7 and the one you mentioned in Mt. 5:45.Best Regards,Harry Jones> on 10/9/01 5:32 PM, Harry W. Jones at hjbluebird at aol.com wrote:> > > Dear Carl,> > > > I appreciate your help on this but I only was trying point out to Diana> > that KALWi didn’t seem to be used as a substantive for a person in the> > NT Greek and so that could account for why the translators translated it> > the way they did. It doesn’t seem like it AGAQOS was used that way either> > except possibly in Ro. 5:7 and 1Pet. 2:18. Of course theoretically KALWi> > could be used as a substantive for a person but that doesn’t seem to be> > the case in the NT Greek text.> > The substantival use of AGAQOS for persons is indisputable. You seem to> reject Carl’s example of Mt 19.17 even though it is modified by the article> and therefore must be taken as substantival. And Rom 5.7 and 1 Pet 2.18 are> not only possible, but certain. In addition to those Carl offered, there is> also the certain example of Mt 5.45 (AGAQOUS, “good people).> — > > Steven Lo Vullo> Madison, WI
OIKIAS/OIKOSWhat To Do With PNEUMATIKOS
Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Steven Lo Vullo themelios at earthlink.net
Thu Oct 11 18:49:19 EDT 2001
Jud 3:17 (LXX) Jud 3:17 (LXX) on 10/11/01 4:01 AM, Harry W. Jones at hjbluebird at aol.com wrote:> With all due respect to Carl, I feel like hO AGAQOS is being used> attributively with respect to EIS in Mt. 19:17On what basis? The structure here suggests a subject-predicate relationshipbetween hEIS and hO AGAQOS (Wallace lists hO AGAQOS in this verse under “TheIndependent or Substantival Use of the Adjective”). Furthermore, thirdposition adjectives are exceedingly rare. And when they are found, they havean appositional sense to them. This clearly doesn’t fit here, since it wouldyield “one, that is, the good one, is.” Is what? We are left with nopredicate, which makes no sense in light of the question Jesus is asked andthe first part of his response to it. Is Jesus simply stating “the Good Oneexists” or “there is One who is ultimate Good” with the implication that ifyou want to know about good, he is the One to consult? If the former, hehasn’t really said anything that complements his rhetorical question.> and upon closer examination I believe that TOIS AGAQOIS is being used> attributively with respect to TOIS DESPOTAIS in 1 Pet. 2:18. And all the> different translations that I have looked at, seem to bear this out.I checked ten different translations and found not one that rendered TOISAGAQOIS as an attributive adjective. Rather, every one has a comma (or evena semicolon or a period) somewhere between “masters” and the articularadjectives in question. Though TOIS DESPOTAIS is *understood* with TOISAGAQOIS KAI EPIEIKESIN and TOIS SKOLIOIS, these adjectives are in no way inan attributive relationship with TOIS DESPOTAIS. Rather, as indicated by thepresence and intervention of OU MONON, an *additional idea* is beingexpressed, with OU MONON modifying hUPOTASSOMENOI and the dative articularadjectives functioning as substantival direct objects of hUPOTASSOMENOI (seePerschbacher, _Refresh Your Greek_, p. 933). Note that both UBSGNT 4 andNA27 punctuate with a comma after DESPOTAIS. > That would seem leave only two possible substantive uses of AGAQOS. One> in Ro. 5:7 and the one you mentioned in Mt. 5:45.As I said in my last post, these are not just possible, they are certain.– Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
Jud 3:17 (LXX)Jud 3:17 (LXX)
Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Thu Oct 11 22:36:53 EDT 2001
Jud 3:17 (LXX) Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Dear Steve,You posted;> on 10/11/01 4:01 AM, Harry W. Jones at hjbluebird at aol.com wrote:> > > > With all due respect to Carl, I feel like hO AGAQOS is being used> > attributively with respect to EIS in Mt. 19:17I believe made I made a mistake about hO AGAQOS being attributive. Ibelieve hO AGAQOS is actually a predicate adjective with hEIS functioningas a substantive for hO QEOS. Therefore hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOS would beequivalent to, hO QEOS ESTIN hO AGAQOS. But in any case, I believe hO QEOSpredicates hEIS.> > On what basis? The structure here suggests a subject-predicate relationship> between hEIS and hO AGAQOS (Wallace lists hO AGAQOS in this verse under “The> Independent or Substantival Use of the Adjective”). Furthermore, third> position adjectives are exceedingly rare. And when they are found, they have> an appositional sense to them. This clearly doesn’t fit here, since it would> yield “one, that is, the good one, is.” Is what? We are left with no> predicate, which makes no sense in light of the question Jesus is asked and> the first part of his response to it. Is Jesus simply stating “the Good One> exists” or “there is One who is ultimate Good” with the implication that if> you want to know about good, he is the One to consult? If the former, he> hasn’t really said anything that complements his rhetorical question.> > > and upon closer examination I believe that TOIS AGAQOIS is being used> > attributively with respect to TOIS DESPOTAIS in 1 Pet. 2:18. And all the> > different translations that I have looked at, seem to bear this out.> I havn’t seen one translation,that translates TOIS AGAQOIS as a noun butonly as an adjective. Also,if it is being used as a noun then it shouldn’tagree with TOIS DESPOTAIS in case, gender and number like it does. SoI just cann’t see it being a substantive.> I checked ten different translations and found not one that rendered TOIS> AGAQOIS as an attributive adjective. Rather, every one has a comma (or even> a semicolon or a period) somewhere between “masters” and the articular> adjectives in question. Though TOIS DESPOTAIS is *understood* with TOIS> AGAQOIS KAI EPIEIKESIN and TOIS SKOLIOIS, these adjectives are in no way in> an attributive relationship with TOIS DESPOTAIS. Rather, as indicated by the> presence and intervention of OU MONON, an *additional idea* is being> expressed, with OU MONON modifying hUPOTASSOMENOI and the dative articular> adjectives functioning as substantival direct objects of hUPOTASSOMENOI (see> Perschbacher, _Refresh Your Greek_, p. 933). Note that both UBSGNT 4 and> NA27 punctuate with a comma after DESPOTAIS.> > > That would seem leave only two possible substantive uses of AGAQOS. One> > in Ro. 5:7 and the one you mentioned in Mt. 5:45.> > As I said in my last post, these are not just possible, they are certain.> — > > Steven Lo Vullo> Madison, WIHarry Jones
Jud 3:17 (LXX)Gal 4:18 EN KALWi
Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Steven Lo Vullo themelios at earthlink.net
Fri Oct 12 00:08:17 EDT 2001
Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Gal 4:18 EN KALWi on 10/11/01 9:36 PM, Harry W. Jones at hjbluebird at aol.com wrote:> I believe made I made a mistake about hO AGAQOS being attributive. I> believe hO AGAQOS is actually a predicate adjective with hEIS functioning> as a substantive for hO QEOS. Therefore hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOS would be> equivalent to, hO QEOS ESTIN hO AGAQOS. But in any case, I believe hO QEOS> predicates hEIS.I think there is a bit of confusion in the above comments. hO AGAQOS is notfunctioning as a predicate adjective. If it were, it would not and could nothave the article. And while hEIS has God *in view*, it is not *equivalent*to hO QEOS, for the point is not simply that *God* is good, but that thereis only One who is good in an ultimate sense, which I believe is the forceof the article with AGAQOS. So it is not accurate to say that hEIS isfunctioning as a substantive for hO QEOS, as if the two wereinterchangeable, or as if hEIS were a metonym for hO QEOS. And I do not knowwhat you mean when you say that hO QEOS predicates hEIS. There is no hOQEOS.> I havn’t seen one translation,that translates TOIS AGAQOIS as a noun but> only as an adjective.This is simply mistaken. When the English translations use “those who aregood” (or similar phrases), they are absolutely *not* translating TOISAGAQOIS as an adjective, but rather as a substantive. What they clearly saywhen “those who are good” is construed with “be submissive” (which is whatis intended, otherwise no sense can be made of the sentence) is “besubmissive to … those who are good.” No noun is necessary with thisphraseology, which would not be the case with an adjective, which would be,”be submissive to … good.” I think the mistake you are making here is totake “good” in isolation from the larger phrase that is being used to conveyTOIS AGAQOIS. As I mentioned earlier, every translation I consulted haspunctuation between “masters” and the adjectives in question. Could youexplain to me how in that case the adjectives can possibly be contrued asattributive adjectives with “masters?”> Also,if it is being used as a noun then it shouldn’t> agree with TOIS DESPOTAIS in case, gender and number like it does.Why not? I have no idea why you would make such a statement, but the fact isthat since TOIS AGAQOIS is a direct object of hUPOTASSOMENOI, it must bedative in case, since hUPOTASSW in the middle/passive takes a dative object.And it must be the same gender and number as DESPOTAIS since DESPOTAIS isunderstood. All substantival adjectives imply a noun, whether that noun isin the context or not. (I suggest you read the definition of a substantivaladjective from Smyth that Carl shared with us.) What other case, gender, andnumber could these adjectives possibly be? You’re point is a non sequitur.– Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
Gal 4:18 EN KALWiGal 4:18 EN KALWi
Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Fri Oct 12 10:00:33 EDT 2001
Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Gal 4:18 EN KALWi In a message dated 10/11/01 9:37:25 PM, hjbluebird at aol.com writes <omission>>> > With all due respect to Carl, I feel like hO AGAQOS is being used>> > attributively with respect to EIS in Mt. 19:17> >I believe made I made a mistake about hO AGAQOS being attributive. I>believe hO AGAQOS is actually a predicate adjective with hEIS functioning>as a substantive for hO QEOS. Therefore hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOS would be>equivalent to, hO QEOS ESTIN hO AGAQOS. But in any case, I believe hO QEOS>predicates hEIS.> hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOSI agree with Steve that hO AGAQOS is clearly substantival functioning as the predicate nominative. The presence of the article following the verb to be makes that very clear. A predicate adjective would be hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS = “God is good.” Carlton WinberyLouisiana College
Gal 4:18 EN KALWiGal 4:18 EN KALWi
Gal 4:18 EN KALWi Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Fri Oct 12 21:47:43 EDT 2001
Gal 4:18 EN KALWi OIKIAS/OIKOS Dear Steve,I believe that you have finally convinced me that you are right about Mt. 19:17 and 1Pet. 2:18.I had a misunderstanding of substantive adjectives in NT Greek. I wasconfusing the English grammatical use of adjectives with their use inNT Greek. I now realize that any adjective that doesn’t have either anattributive or predicate position with a noun is either a substantiveadjective or an adjective functioning as an adverb.I appreciate your help in this matter.Best,Harry Jones
Gal 4:18 EN KALWiOIKIAS/OIKOS