Gal 4:18 εν KALWi Diana ν. Shaw DINOSAUR2LIST at prodigy.net
Tue Oct 2 04:36:11 εδτ 2001
Instructions for a beginner….? Parsing of Gal 3:11 While ι‘m interrupting with questions, there was one awhile back ι couldn’tanswer for myself. There is no article in the phrase “εν 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 βδφ allows εν + (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 ι checked may have leaned toward the (non-personal)instrumental as more usual for such phrases, but not totally clear. Bothallowed.]Diana ν. 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 ν. Shaw DINOSAUR2LIST at prodigy.net
Fri Oct 5 16:22:02 εδτ 2001
What To Do With πνευματικοσ Roman Names into Greek Thanks to Dennis Hukel for putting me onto καλοσ/αγαθοσ differences!Checked Thayer first and found active in this question, not so muchthe meaning difference, but the following differences inapplication:1. καλοσ seems to be applied in ντ occasionally to people, but onlyex officio: the good shepherd, the good servant, etc; whereasAGATHOS is (occasionally) used of persons as such. (βαγ‘streatment confirms, though less explicit.) But see #2.2. αγαθοσ itself seems rarely applied to people, a fact whichseems to derive from #3.3. α λχχ 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 τοβ “good” ispredominantly rendered by καλοσ….The ανηρ αγαθοσ is peculiaronly to the Prov…solitary instance in 1 Kings ii.32. Thus evenin the usage of the ο.τ. we are reminded of Christ’s words, Mk. x.18, ‘ουδεισ αγαθοσ ει μη hEIS hO θεοσ.'”Now ι have two well supported answers:ι. #1 above shows the ντ & early Christian word usage, not mygrammatical concerns, would forbid KALWi’s application to Paul oranother human agent.ιι. #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 λχχ translators!So, thank you, Dennis Hukel, for putting me onto the word usagehere! ι had checked dictionaries, but only for εν‘s grammaticalusages, totally ignoring the adjective itself. Very stupid!Diana ν. 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 εδτ 2001
Virus warning Roman Names into Greek > > 1. καλοσ seems to be applied in ντ occasionally to people, but only> ex officio: the good shepherd, the good servant, etc; whereas> αγαθοσ is (occasionally) used of persons as such. (βαγ‘s> treatment confirms, though less explicit.) But see #2.> It is an interesting distinction. ι think it is comparable to thedistinction in English between evil and bad.α 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. α mean one.So, αγαθοσ relates to ethically good people and good deedswhile καλοσ relates more to what is good value, efficient, nice, well done,someone highly capable.Let me compareMAT 7:17 παν δενδρον αγαθον καρπουσ καλουσ ποιειλυκ 6:43 ου γαρ εστιν δενδρον καλον ποιουν καρπον SAPRONMy guess is that when Matthew uses αγαθον 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 δουλε αγαθε και πιστε. αγαθοσ seems toindicate that he was a good person with good intentions and deeds. PISTOSthen describes his faithfulness. The two words are not synonyms.α good servant is mentioned in 1 Tim 4:6 καλοσ διακονοσ. ι could not findany examples of καλοσ with δουλοσ, which is understandable. Slaves have nochoice like servants do.When Jesus is addressed as διδασκαλε αγαθε 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 και hETERON επεσεν εισ θν γην θν αγαθηνλυκ 8:15 το δε εν THi KALHi GHi, hOUTOI εισιν hOITINES εν KARDIAi KALHi KAIAGAQHi…ι don’t know why Luke uses αγαθη in v. 8 and καλη in v. 15, but the heart isboth καλη and αγαθη. This may reflect that the Hebrew concept of “heart”covers both “heart” and “mind” in English. In my thinking αγαθοσ relates toa good heart and καλοσ to a good mind.When John talks about Jesus as hO ποιμην hO καλοσ he may be thinking of acapable shepherd. In any case, Jesus is a shepherd who is both καλοσ andAGAQOS.Thanks for an interesting lexical study,Iver Larsen
Virus warningRoman Names into Greek
Gal 4:18 εν KALWi Harry ω. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Tue Oct 9 05:09:22 εδτ 2001
ιουδαιουσ τε και hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Gal 4:18 εν KALWi Dear Diana,ι could find no place in the ντ Greek where either καλοσ or αγαθοσ areused as a substantive for a person. They seem to always be used as a quality or characteristic.Harry Jones> While ι‘m interrupting with questions, there was one awhile back ι couldn’t> answer for myself. There is no article in the phrase “εν 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 βδφ allows εν + (dative/instrumental) to be used for> personal agency. Why, then, is this phrase translated (by all versions> ι‘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 ι checked may have leaned toward the (non-personal)> instrumental as more usual for such phrases, but not totally clear. Both> allowed.]> > Diana ν. Shaw> dinosaur2 at prodigy.net> http://pages.prodigy.net/dinosaur2> http://pages.prodigy.net/dinosaur2/private/itiswrit.htm
ιουδαιουσ τε και hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)Gal 4:18 εν KALWi
Gal 4:18 εν KALWi Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Oct 9 07:08:12 εδτ 2001
Gal 4:18 εν KALWi Luke 7:39 At 5:09 αμ -0400 10/9/01, Harry ω. Jones wrote:>Dear Diana,> >ι could find no place in the ντ Greek where either καλοσ or αγαθοσ 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 εστιν hO AGAQOSRom 5:7 hUPER του αγαθου ταξα τισ και TOLMAi APOQANEIN1 Pet 2:18 hOI οικεται hUPOTASSOMENOI εν παντι FOBWi τοισ δεσποταισ, ουμονον τοισ αγαθοισ και επιεικεσιν αλλα και τοισ SKOLIOISMoreover there are several instances of the antithetical πονηροσ 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 απο του πονηρου.2 Tj 3″3 πιστοσ δε εστιν hO κυριοσ, hOS σθριχει hUMAS και φυλαχει απο TOUPONHROUBut in reality a host of instances of these adjectives used as neutersubstantives wouldn’t prove that KALWi in Gal 4:18 can νοτ be masculine. >> While ι‘m interrupting with questions, there was one awhile back ι couldn’t>> answer for myself. There is no article in the phrase “εν 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 βδφ allows εν + (dative/instrumental) to be used for>> personal agency. Why, then, is this phrase translated (by all versions>> ι‘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 ι checked may have leaned toward the (non-personal)>> instrumental as more usual for such phrases, but not totally clear. Both>> allowed.]>> >> Diana ν. 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 ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu ορ cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Gal 4:18 εν KALWiLuke 7:39
Tue Oct 9 18:32:38 εδτ 2001
What To Do With πνευματικοσ Gal 4:18 εν KALWi Dear Carl,ι appreciate your help on this but ι 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 αγαθοσ 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 ντ Greek text. At 5:09 αμ -0400 10/9/01, Harry ω. Jones wrote:> >Dear Diana,> >> >ι could find no place in the ντ Greek where either καλοσ or αγαθοσ 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 εστιν hO αγαθοσ> Rom 5:7 hUPER του αγαθου ταξα τισ και TOLMAi αποθανειν> 1 Pet 2:18 hOI οικεται hUPOTASSOMENOI εν παντι FOBWi τοισ δεσποταισ, ου> μονον τοισ αγαθοισ και επιεικεσιν αλλα και τοισ σκολιοισ> > Moreover there are several instances of the antithetical πονηροσ 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> πονηροσ traditionally thought neuter ought not to be considered masculine:> > Mt 6:13 hRUSAI hHMAS απο του πονηρου.> 2 Tj 3″3 πιστοσ δε εστιν hO κυριοσ, hOS σθριχει hUMAS και φυλαχει απο του> πονηρου> > But in reality a host of instances of these adjectives used as neuter> substantives wouldn’t prove that KALWi in Gal 4:18 can νοτ be masculine.> > >> While ι‘m interrupting with questions, there was one awhile back ι couldn’t> >> answer for myself. There is no article in the phrase “εν 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 βδφ allows εν + (dative/instrumental) to be used for> >> personal agency. Why, then, is this phrase translated (by all versions> >> ι‘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 ι checked may have leaned toward the (non-personal)> >> instrumental as more usual for such phrases, but not totally clear. Both> >> allowed.]> >>> >> Diana ν. 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 ω. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)> Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu ορ cwconrad at ioa.com> ωωω: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSGal 4:18 εν KALWi
Gal 4:18 εν KALWi Steven Lo Vullo themelios at earthlink.net
Tue Oct 9 20:10:29 εδτ 2001
Gal 4:18 εν KALWi ιουδαιουσ τε και hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) on 10/9/01 5:32 πμ, Harry ω. Jones at hjbluebird at aol.com wrote:> Dear Carl,> > ι appreciate your help on this but ι only was trying point out to Diana> that KALWi didn’t seem to be used as a substantive for a person in the> ντ Greek and so that could account for why the translators translated it> the way they did. It doesn’t seem like it αγαθοσ 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 ντ Greek text.The substantival use of αγαθοσ 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 (αγαθουσ, “good people).– Steven Lo VulloMadison, ωι
Gal 4:18 εν KALWiIOUDAIOUS τε και hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)
Thu Oct 11 05:01:33 εδτ 2001
οικιασ/οικοσ What To Do With πνευματικοσ Dear Steve,With all due respect to Carl, ι feel like hO αγαθοσ is being usedattributively with respect to εισ in Mt. 19:17 and upon closer examination ι believe that τοισ αγαθοισ is being used attributivelywith respect to τοισ δεσποταισ in 1 Pet. 2:18. And all the differenttranslations that ι have looked at, seem to bear this out.That would seem leave only two possible substantive uses of αγαθοσ. Onein Ro. 5:7 and the one you mentioned in Mt. 5:45.Best Regards,Harry Jones> on 10/9/01 5:32 πμ, Harry ω. Jones at hjbluebird at aol.com wrote:> > > Dear Carl,> > > > ι appreciate your help on this but ι only was trying point out to Diana> > that KALWi didn’t seem to be used as a substantive for a person in the> > ντ Greek and so that could account for why the translators translated it> > the way they did. It doesn’t seem like it αγαθοσ 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 ντ Greek text.> > The substantival use of αγαθοσ 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 (αγαθουσ, “good people).> — > > Steven Lo Vullo> Madison, ωι
οικιασ/OIKOSWhat To Do With πνευματικοσ
Thu Oct 11 18:49:19 εδτ 2001
Jud 3:17 (λχχ) Jud 3:17 (λχχ) on 10/11/01 4:01 αμ, Harry ω. Jones at hjbluebird at aol.com wrote:> With all due respect to Carl, ι feel like hO αγαθοσ is being used> attributively with respect to εισ in Mt. 19:17On what basis? The structure here suggests a subject-predicate relationshipbetween hEIS and hO αγαθοσ (Wallace lists hO αγαθοσ 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 ι believe that τοισ αγαθοισ is being used> attributively with respect to τοισ δεσποταισ in 1 Pet. 2:18. And all the> different translations that ι have looked at, seem to bear this out.ι checked ten different translations and found not one that rendered τοισαγαθοισ 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 τοισ δεσποταισ is *understood* with τοισαγαθοισ και επιεικεσιν and τοισ σκολιοισ, these adjectives are in no way inan attributive relationship with τοισ δεσποταισ. Rather, as indicated by thepresence and intervention of ου μονον, an *additional idea* is beingexpressed, with ου μονον modifying hUPOTASSOMENOI and the dative articularadjectives functioning as substantival direct objects of hUPOTASSOMENOI (seePerschbacher, _Refresh Your Greek_, p. 933). Note that both υβσγντ 4 andNA27 punctuate with a comma after δεσποταισ. > That would seem leave only two possible substantive uses of αγαθοσ. One> in Ro. 5:7 and the one you mentioned in Mt. 5:45.As ι said in my last post, these are not just possible, they are certain.– Steven Lo VulloMadison, ωι
Jud 3:17 (λχχ)Jud 3:17 (λχχ)
Thu Oct 11 22:36:53 εδτ 2001
Jud 3:17 (λχχ) Gal 4:18 εν KALWi Dear Steve,You posted;> on 10/11/01 4:01 αμ, Harry ω. Jones at hjbluebird at aol.com wrote:> > > > With all due respect to Carl, ι feel like hO αγαθοσ is being used> > attributively with respect to εισ in Mt. 19:17ι believe made ι made a mistake about hO αγαθοσ being attributive. Ibelieve hO αγαθοσ is actually a predicate adjective with hEIS functioningas a substantive for hO θεοσ. Therefore hEIS εστιν hO αγαθοσ would beequivalent to, hO θεοσ εστιν hO αγαθοσ. But in any case, ι believe hO QEOSpredicates hEIS.> > On what basis? The structure here suggests a subject-predicate relationship> between hEIS and hO αγαθοσ (Wallace lists hO αγαθοσ 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 ι believe that τοισ αγαθοισ is being used> > attributively with respect to τοισ δεσποταισ in 1 Pet. 2:18. And all the> > different translations that ι have looked at, seem to bear this out.> ι havn’t seen one translation,that translates τοισ αγαθοισ as a noun butonly as an adjective. Also,if it is being used as a noun then it shouldn’tagree with τοισ δεσποταισ in case, gender and number like it does. SoI just cann’t see it being a substantive.> ι checked ten different translations and found not one that rendered τοισ> αγαθοισ 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 τοισ δεσποταισ is *understood* with τοισ> αγαθοισ και επιεικεσιν and τοισ σκολιοισ, these adjectives are in no way in> an attributive relationship with τοισ δεσποταισ. Rather, as indicated by the> presence and intervention of ου μονον, an *additional idea* is being> expressed, with ου μονον modifying hUPOTASSOMENOI and the dative articular> adjectives functioning as substantival direct objects of hUPOTASSOMENOI (see> Perschbacher, _Refresh Your Greek_, p. 933). Note that both υβσγντ 4 and> NA27 punctuate with a comma after δεσποταισ.> > > That would seem leave only two possible substantive uses of αγαθοσ. One> > in Ro. 5:7 and the one you mentioned in Mt. 5:45.> > As ι said in my last post, these are not just possible, they are certain.> — > > Steven Lo Vullo> Madison, ωιHarry Jones
Jud 3:17 (λχχ)Gal 4:18 εν KALWi
Fri Oct 12 00:08:17 εδτ 2001
Gal 4:18 εν KALWi Gal 4:18 εν KALWi on 10/11/01 9:36 πμ, Harry ω. Jones at hjbluebird at aol.com wrote:> ι believe made ι made a mistake about hO αγαθοσ being attributive. ι> believe hO αγαθοσ is actually a predicate adjective with hEIS functioning> as a substantive for hO θεοσ. Therefore hEIS εστιν hO αγαθοσ would be> equivalent to, hO θεοσ εστιν hO αγαθοσ. But in any case, ι believe hO θεοσ> predicates hEIS.ι think there is a bit of confusion in the above comments. hO αγαθοσ 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 θεοσ, for the point is not simply that *God* is good, but that thereis only One who is good in an ultimate sense, which ι believe is the forceof the article with αγαθοσ. So it is not accurate to say that hEIS isfunctioning as a substantive for hO θεοσ, as if the two wereinterchangeable, or as if hEIS were a metonym for hO θεοσ. And ι do not knowwhat you mean when you say that hO θεοσ predicates hEIS. There is no hOQEOS.> ι havn’t seen one translation,that translates τοισ αγαθοισ 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 τοισαγαθοισ 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.” ι think the mistake you are making here is totake “good” in isolation from the larger phrase that is being used to conveyTOIS αγαθοισ. As ι mentioned earlier, every translation ι 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 τοισ δεσποταισ in case, gender and number like it does.Why not? ι have no idea why you would make such a statement, but the fact isthat since τοισ αγαθοισ 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 δεσποταισ since δεσποταισ isunderstood. All substantival adjectives imply a noun, whether that noun isin the context or not. (ι 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, ωι
Gal 4:18 εν KALWiGal 4:18 εν KALWi
Gal 4:18 εν KALWi Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Fri Oct 12 10:00:33 εδτ 2001
Gal 4:18 εν KALWi Gal 4:18 εν KALWi In a message dated 10/11/01 9:37:25 πμ, hjbluebird at aol.com writes <omission>>> > With all due respect to Carl, ι feel like hO αγαθοσ is being used>> > attributively with respect to εισ in Mt. 19:17> >ι believe made ι made a mistake about hO αγαθοσ being attributive. ι>believe hO αγαθοσ is actually a predicate adjective with hEIS functioning>as a substantive for hO θεοσ. Therefore hEIS εστιν hO αγαθοσ would be>equivalent to, hO θεοσ εστιν hO αγαθοσ. But in any case, ι believe hO θεοσ>predicates hEIS.> hEIS εστιν hO αγαθοσι agree with Steve that hO αγαθοσ is clearly substantival functioning as the predicate nominative. The presence of the article following the verb to be makes that very clear. α predicate adjective would be hEIS εστιν αγαθοσ = “God is good.” Carlton WinberyLouisiana College
Fri Oct 12 21:47:43 εδτ 2001
Gal 4:18 εν KALWi οικιασ/οικοσ Dear Steve,ι believe that you have finally convinced me that you are right about Mt. 19:17 and 1Pet. 2:18.ι had a misunderstanding of substantive adjectives in ντ Greek. ι wasconfusing the English grammatical use of adjectives with their use inNT Greek. ι 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.ι appreciate your help in this matter.Best,Harry Jones
Gal 4:18 εν KALWiOIKIAS/οικοσ