James 5:13

Subject: James 5:13-19 Mark Markham markhamm at topsurf.com
Mon Jan 3 09:19:20 εστ 2000

John 1:2 ‘The same’ or ‘He’ Ign. Eph. 15:3 Subject: James 5:13-19Dear all,ι am having a mixed reaction concerning the use of several words and the context of this passage. Please put aside the theological implications here without much bias help me see what the Greek says.Sickness. Is it physical or spiritual emotional. ι have seen the word used both ways. Healing: ditto but not so closely divided. Anoint. There appears to be two words use to describe anointing in the ντ. What is the dif? Is it significant? My gut reaction is James is talking about physical mistreatment and perhaps spiritual defeat akin to weariness or depression ( i.e. sin). This seems to be the scope of the healing that involves the elders, oil, prayer, and confession. ι know that is not very mystical but Is this a straight forward understanding of the text?Thanks,Mark MarkhamHeidelberg, Germany————– next part ————–An ητμλ attachment was scrubbed…υρλ: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20000103/9e0b8ccb/attachment.html

John 1:2 ‘The same’ or ‘He’Ign. Eph. 15:3

Subject: James 5:13-19 dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Mon Jan 3 12:40:30 εστ 2000

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Ign. Eph. 15:3 On Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:19:20 +0100 “Mark Markham” <markhamm at topsurf.com>writes:> Subject: James 5:13-19> > Dear all,> ι am having a mixed reaction concerning the use of several words and > the context of this passage. Please put aside the theological > implications here without much bias help me see what the Greek says.> > Sickness. Is it physical or spiritual emotional. ι have seen the > word used both ways. > > Healing: ditto but not so closely divided. > > Anoint. There appears to be two words use to describe anointing in > the ντ. What is the dif? Is it significant? > > My gut reaction is James is talking about physical mistreatment and > perhaps spiritual defeat akin to weariness or depression ( i.e. > sin). This seems to be the scope of the healing that involves the > elders, oil, prayer, and confession. ι know that is not very > mystical but Is this a straight forward understanding of the text?The contrast between ασθενει (v. 14) and καν hAMARTIAS Hi πεποιηκωσαφεθησεται AUTWi (β. 15) seems to suggest a physical illness notnecessarilycaused by the sin of the individual. What ι find interesting is hH ευχ θσ πιστεωσ. What does this mean? Whatis the significance of the definite article? Does the definite article refer us back to the faithful instructionsfollowed in thepreceding verse? That would seem to poise some problems. Or, better,does the article refer us back to the faith taught in the Lord’s Prayer, “ThyKingdomcome, Thy will be done,” and practiced by Christ Himself in the Garden,”nevertheless,not My will, but Thine be done,” the idea being that such prayer, if itis God’s will, will indeed be answered and the sick healed?Paul Dixon

Ign. Eph. 15:3Ign. Eph. 15:3

Subject: James 5:13-19 Daniel λ Christiansen dlc at multnomah.edu
Tue Jan 4 22:50:46 εστ 2000

Fw: Please don’t cite the whole thread! Jude 7 τοβ hOMOION τρπον ι have not seen any responses to this post: perhaps ι have just missedthem. However, ι would like to address a few of the issues raised here.> Mark Markham wrote:> Subject: James 5:13-19> Dear all,> ι am having a mixed reaction concerning the use of several words and> the context of this passage. Please put aside the theological> implications here without much bias help me see what the Greek says.First of all, ι think it should be noted that, in certain instances,decisions regarding meaning cannot be made in the absence of one’stheology/philosophy. This is so, due to the semantic range of the termsinvolved. As you have stated, you have seen the word “used both ways.” When we try defining what a term “means,” we go to clear context. Whenthe context is not entirely clear, we really have to weigh theprobabilities through our other bases of understanding. Having said all this(which ι think is probably obvious), let me say that ι believe thispassage may be one of the troublesome ones.> Sickness. Is it physical or spiritual emotional. ι have seen the word> used both ways.You don’t identify the Greek terms to which you refer: there aremultiple possibilities in the passage. 1) κακοπαθει occurs 4x in λχχ/5in γντ. As far as ι can see, it always refers to some sort of physicaltoil or the weariness produced thereby. 2) ασθενει occurs far moreoften, at 78 in λχχ/91 in γντ. The great majority of times, the contextseems to point clearly to physical weakness or sickness. The referencesto spiritual weakness appear to me to be fairly well marked out. 3)καμνοντα is found 6x in λχχ/2x in γντ. Most of these uses have physicalsickness or weariness in view. The one λχχ citation which is referringto emotional weariness is Job 10:1; the occurrence in Hebrews 12:3 alsorefers to emotional/spiritual weariness. However, it is worthy of notethat both the Hebrews and Job citations pair the verb with hH υυχ;thus, the emotional focus really stems from the noun, and not from theverb itself.So, while the idea of spiritual or emotional sickness is certainlywithin the semantic range of each of these terms, it seems to me thatthe more common meaning is related to physical problems. For theemotional focus to be argued, ι would certainly want to see a contextual basis.> Healing: ditto but not so closely divided.Again, you have not identified the Greek term(s) in question. ι amgoing to hazard a guess, that it is σωσει in verse 15. σωζω is one ofthose “problem children” for the Church. It has been translated by the”save/salvation” word-group; this word-group has then been invested withsuch theological importance, that it is difficult for most readers tosee anything but eschatological implications in the verses where itappears. In truth, σωζω is ageneral term meaning something like”rescue.” The question, then, is what is the object being rescued from?Given that this is the case with σωζω, it is clear that your questionregarding “healing” cannot be answered until the question of “sickness”is first dealt with. > Anoint. There appears to be two words use to describe anointing in the> ντ. What is the dif? Is it significant?ι am going to leave this one alone. Too manytheological/denominational minefields lie on this path :)> > My gut reaction is James is talking about physical mistreatment and> perhaps spiritual defeat akin to weariness or depression ( i.e. sin).> This seems to be the scope of the healing that involves the elders,> oil, prayer, and confession. ι know that is not very mystical but Is> this a straight forward understanding of the text?As far as which reading would be more mystical, ι don’t think that isat all important. To a Christian, all of life is mystical, since it isgiven, regiven, and empowered by the invisible resurrected Christ. But Iwould think that a straightforward reading would include physicalsickness, and physical healing (rescue from sickness). That, due to”straightforward” being synonymous with “most common.”Dan– Daniel λ. ChristiansenDepartment of BibleMultnomah Bible College8435 νε Glisan StreetPortland, ορ 97220(Also Portland Bible College, Prof of Biblical Languages)e-mail: dlc at multnomah.edu

Fw: Please don’t cite the whole thread!Jude 7 τοβ hOMOION τρπον

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Mon Jan 3 11:22:01 εστ 2000

 

Subject: James 5:13-19 Ign. Eph. 15:3 At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready φανησεται προ προσωπου hMWN, EXhWN δικαιωσ αγαπωμεν αυτον. “He/It will be made manifest before our face(i.e., he will be revealed to us ορ it will be made clear to us)…” Butthen what do you make of the plural relative hWN following thepreposition εχ?– Bart Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Subject: James 5:13-19Ign. Eph. 15:3

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jan 3 12:14:48 εστ 2000

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Subject: James 5:13-19 At 11:22 αμ -0500 1/3/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready φανησεται προ προσωπου hMWN, εχ>hWN δικαιωσ αγαπωμεν αυτον. “He/It will be made manifest before our face>(i.e., he will be revealed to us ορ it will be made clear to us)…” But>then what do you make of the plural relative hWN following the>preposition εχ?ι love these puzzles you keep throwing at us. One thought that comes to mymind immediately is that εχ hWN is one of those prepositional phrasesintroducing a clause wherein antecedent is implicitly squeezed into therelative, so that we should understand something like εκεινα/ταυτα εχ hWNDIKAIWS αγαπωμεν αυτον, which could conceivably be the subject of φανησεταιπρο προσωπου hHMWN; hence: “Those factors in consequence of which werightly love him will be manifested before us.” i.e. perhaps the subject ofFANHSETAI is νοτ Christ but rather the relative clause as a substantive.(Well, it seemed worth trying …)Alternatively (ι obviously don’t have the larger context προ προσωπου μου),is there anything in the preceding text that could provide an antecedent tohWN? It could be neuter plural even if relatively vague.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, μο, υσα 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Ign. Eph. 15:3Subject: James 5:13-19

Ign. Eph. 15:3 James Ernest jernest at hendrickson.com
Mon Jan 3 12:53:34 εστ 2000

Subject: James 5:13-19 “Enemy” as gloss for εχθροσ (and Sin, Nun, Aleph) Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) asrough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historicalidentify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent? Idon’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badlyif ι‘m just being dumb here…. ι would try checking βδφ and maybe somesearches in electronic texts.James Ernest—–Original Message—–From: Carl ω. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 12:15 PMTo: Biblical GreekCc: Biblical GreekSubject: Re: Ign. Eph. 15:3At 11:22 αμ -0500 1/3/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready φανησεται προ προσωπου hMWN,εχ>hWN δικαιωσ αγαπωμεν αυτον. “He/It will be made manifest before ourface>(i.e., he will be revealed to us ορ it will be made clear to us)…”But>then what do you make of the plural relative hWN following the>preposition εχ?ι love these puzzles you keep throwing at us. One thought that comes tomymind immediately is that εχ hWN is one of those prepositional phrasesintroducing a clause wherein antecedent is implicitly squeezed into therelative, so that we should understand something like εκεινα/ταυτα EXhWNDIKAIWS αγαπωμεν αυτον, which could conceivably be the subject ofFANHSETAIPRO προσωπου hHMWN; hence: “Those factors in consequence of which werightly love him will be manifested before us.” i.e. perhaps the subjectofFANHSETAI is νοτ Christ but rather the relative clause as a substantive.(Well, it seemed worth trying …)Alternatively (ι obviously don’t have the larger context προ προσωπουμου),is there anything in the preceding text that could provide an antecedenttohWN? It could be neuter plural even if relatively vague.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, μο, υσα 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/— home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/You are currently subscribed to as: jernest at hendrickson.comTo unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu

Subject: James 5:13-19″Enemy” as gloss for εχθροσ (and Sin, Nun, Aleph)

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Alex / Ali alexali at surf.net.au
Tue Jan 4 07:34:17 εστ 2000

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Ign. Eph. 15:3 (fwd) Bart Ehrman asked about Ign. Eph. 15:3 where “we read φανησεται προ PROSWPOUhMWN, εχ hWN δικαιωσ αγαπωμεν αυτον.”Bart,Like Carl, ι enjoy your queries. ι think James Ernest was right in takingEX hWN as a “rough equivalent for ‘therefore’ “. The δικαιωσ and AGAPWMENare interesting, too. Without knowing the context, ι‘d be inclined to takethe αγαπωμεν as (hortatory) subjunctive rather than indicative, and wonderif there’s justification in taking δικαιωσ not so much as “in a just manner”but (roughly) “as is right/fitting”, suggesting a gloss such as “so, as isright, let us love him”.Alex HopkinsMelbourne, AustraliaPS Was there no digest for January 02, 2000? None received here.

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesIgn. Eph. 15:3 (fwd)

Ign. Eph. 15:3 (fwd) Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Tue Jan 4 08:28:12 εστ 2000

Ign. Eph. 15:3 The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Glad *you* love them. 🙂 Responses seriatim, below.On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Carl ω. Conrad wrote:> At 11:22 αμ -0500 1/3/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> > At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready φανησεται προ προσωπου hMWN, εχ> >hWN δικαιωσ αγαπωμεν αυτον. “He/It will be made manifest before our face> >(i.e., he will be revealed to us ορ it will be made clear to us)…” But> >then what do you make of the plural relative hWN following the> >preposition εχ?> > ι love these puzzles you keep throwing at us. One thought that comes to my> mind immediately is that εχ hWN is one of those prepositional phrases> introducing a clause wherein antecedent is implicitly squeezed into the> relative, so that we should understand something like εκεινα/ταυτα εχ hWN> δικαιωσ αγαπωμεν αυτον, which could conceivably be the subject of φανησεται> προ προσωπου hHMWN; hence: “Those factors in consequence of which we> rightly love him will be manifested before us.” i.e. perhaps the subject of> φανησεται is νοτ Christ but rather the relative clause as a substantive.> (Well, it seemed worth trying …) Yes, this was the direction ι was heading as well, understanding therelative to contain an implied demonstrative. But ι thought it wouldprobably be looking forward instead of back in the sentence; there’salready a clear subject for φανησεται — actually two possibly clearsubjects (!). The preceding sentence is “Let us therefore do all thingswhile (because?) he is dwelling in us, that we might be his temples and hemight be our God in us, which very thing he is.” και φανησεαι προπροσωπου hHMWN…. So the subject is either “God” (He will be manifestto us) or the verb is impersonal (“It/This will be made clear tous…). It would seem to be stretching it to have the implieddemonstrative in εχ hWN be the subject. My initial impulse had been to take the demonstrative to refer tothings “done uprightly” as acts of love, so that the clause εχ hWN δικαιωσαγαπωμμεν αυτον would loosely be rendered something like “by the uprightdeeds that we do out of love for him” Sometimes this seems to get thesense right for me; other times not. Problems with it: it takes DIKAIWSnot with αγαπωμεν, as one would expect, but with some kind of implied verb(“do”) relating to the εχ hWN; and it would leave the relationship of thatverb to αγαπωμεν uncertain. (This means, ι think, that it has difficultyaccounting for the relationship of just about all the words in the clause:-)) So ι don’t know if this works or not. Further reflections?> > Alternatively (ι obviously don’t have the larger context προ προσωπου μου),> is there anything in the preceding text that could provide an antecedent to> hWN? It could be neuter plural even if relatively vague.> The only plurals (apart from “us”) in the preceding (quoted above) are”all things” (let us do all things) and “temples” (that we might be histemples); both seem too remote to be of much use. Thanks for your thoughts. Any others would be welcome!– BartBart δ. EhrmanUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> > Carl ω. Conrad> Department of Classics/Washington University> One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, μο, υσα 63130/(314) 935-4018> Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 63130/(314) 726-5649> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> ωωω: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/>

Ign. Eph. 15:3The Purpose of Syntactical Categories

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Tue Jan 4 08:37:23 εστ 2000

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories The Purpose of Syntactical Categories It appears to be taken this way by other translators, but thecommentators pass over it without a note (making me think that there’ssomething obvious here that ι‘m missing), and ι haven’t been able to findanything quite like it anywhere (which probably means it’s all over themap). If you do run across a clear parallel, let me know. (There’ssomething kind of *similar* in the preceding chapter, btw: “Thus who claimto belong to Christ will be seen through the things they do” δι hWNPRASSOUSIN OFQHSONTiAI). Thanks,– BartBart δ. EhrmanUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillOn Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent? ι> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly> if ι‘m just being dumb here…. ι would try checking βδφ and maybe some> searches in electronic texts.> > James Ernest> > > —–Original Message—–> From: Carl ω. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 12:15 πμ> To: Biblical Greek> Cc: Biblical Greek> Subject: Re: Ign. Eph. 15:3> > > At 11:22 αμ -0500 1/3/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> > At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready φανησεται προ προσωπου hMWN,> εχ> >hWN δικαιωσ αγαπωμεν αυτον. “He/It will be made manifest before our> face> >(i.e., he will be revealed to us ορ it will be made clear to us)…”> But> >then what do you make of the plural relative hWN following the> >preposition εχ?> > ι love these puzzles you keep throwing at us. One thought that comes to> my> mind immediately is that εχ hWN is one of those prepositional phrases> introducing a clause wherein antecedent is implicitly squeezed into the> relative, so that we should understand something like εκεινα/ταυτα εχ> hWN> δικαιωσ αγαπωμεν αυτον, which could conceivably be the subject of> φανησεται> προ προσωπου hHMWN; hence: “Those factors in consequence of which we> rightly love him will be manifested before us.” i.e. perhaps the subject> of> φανησεται is νοτ Christ but rather the relative clause as a substantive.> (Well, it seemed worth trying …)> > Alternatively (ι obviously don’t have the larger context προ προσωπου> μου),> is there anything in the preceding text that could provide an antecedent> to> hWN? It could be neuter plural even if relatively vague.> > > Carl ω. Conrad> Department of Classics/Washington University> One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, μο, υσα 63130/(314) 935-4018> Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 63130/(314) 726-5649> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> ωωω: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: jernest at hendrickson.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to> $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: behrman at email.unc.edu> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesThe Purpose of Syntactical Categories

Tue Jan 4 08:40:57 εστ 2000

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? James, Well, a reader response critic would be having a field day with how ι‘mhandling my e-mail this morning — seeing words that ι expect to seeinstead of the ones staring me in the face….. ι don’t know of anyonetaking εχ hWN as “therefore,” but people often *do* take it as”because” (“out of such things” = because?). — BartBart EhrmanUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillOn Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent? ι> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly> if ι‘m just being dumb here…. ι would try checking βδφ and maybe some> searches in electronic texts.> > James Ernest> > > —–Original Message—–> From: Carl ω. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 12:15 πμ> To: Biblical Greek> Cc: Biblical Greek> Subject: Re: Ign. Eph. 15:3> > > At 11:22 αμ -0500 1/3/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> > At the end of Ign. Eph. 15:3 we ready φανησεται προ προσωπου hMWN,> εχ> >hWN δικαιωσ αγαπωμεν αυτον. “He/It will be made manifest before our> face> >(i.e., he will be revealed to us ορ it will be made clear to us)…”> But> >then what do you make of the plural relative hWN following the> >preposition εχ?> > ι love these puzzles you keep throwing at us. One thought that comes to> my> mind immediately is that εχ hWN is one of those prepositional phrases> introducing a clause wherein antecedent is implicitly squeezed into the> relative, so that we should understand something like εκεινα/ταυτα εχ> hWN> δικαιωσ αγαπωμεν αυτον, which could conceivably be the subject of> φανησεται> προ προσωπου hHMWN; hence: “Those factors in consequence of which we> rightly love him will be manifested before us.” i.e. perhaps the subject> of> φανησεται is νοτ Christ but rather the relative clause as a substantive.> (Well, it seemed worth trying …)> > Alternatively (ι obviously don’t have the larger context προ προσωπου> μου),> is there anything in the preceding text that could provide an antecedent> to> hWN? It could be neuter plural even if relatively vague.> > > Carl ω. Conrad> Department of Classics/Washington University> One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, μο, υσα 63130/(314) 935-4018> Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 63130/(314) 726-5649> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> ωωω: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: jernest at hendrickson.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to> $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: behrman at email.unc.edu> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesTemple and New world translation of holy scriptures?

Tue Jan 4 08:45:03 εστ 2000

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? The Purpose of Syntactical Categories οκ, thanks. This might work if the sentence was repunctuated with afull stop after hMWN and the φανησεται clause is taken with the precedingsentence. Then it would be something like … and he is our God in us,which very thing both is and will be manifest before us. For thesereasons, let us love him in an upright way.” Do you know of any parallels to this usage?– Bart EhrmanOn Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Alex / Ali wrote:> Bart Ehrman asked about Ign. Eph. 15:3 where “we read φανησεται προ προσωπου> hMWN, εχ hWN δικαιωσ αγαπωμεν αυτον.”> > Bart,> > Like Carl, ι enjoy your queries. ι think James Ernest was right in taking> εχ hWN as a “rough equivalent for ‘therefore’ “. The δικαιωσ and αγαπωμεν> are interesting, too. Without knowing the context, ι‘d be inclined to take> the αγαπωμεν as (hortatory) subjunctive rather than indicative, and wonder> if there’s justification in taking δικαιωσ not so much as “in a just manner”> but (roughly) “as is right/fitting”, suggesting a gloss such as “so, as is> right, let us love him”.> > Alex Hopkins> Melbourne, Australia> > ψ Was there no digest for January 02, 2000? None received here.> > > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: behrman at email.unc.edu> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?The Purpose of Syntactical Categories

Tue Jan 4 08:48:25 εστ 2000

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Digest for January 2, 2000 ι should add here, for what it’s worth, that when ι saw James Ernest’s noteon this ι felt instinctively that he was right. Of course, as Bart says,one would like to know something is right by something stronger thaninstinct. What occurred to me is that δι‘ hWN is probably one of thosephrases comparable to Latin θυαπροπτερ or θυαμοβρεμ or δε θυα ξαυσα whichtend to become single words or phrases with a single sense, all synonymousin the sense of “therefore.” There are so many such compounds; ι recall aninteresting thread a couple years back on hINATI = hINA τι.At 8:37 αμ -0500 1/4/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> It appears to be taken this way by other translators, but the>commentators pass over it without a note (making me think that there’s>something obvious here that ι‘m missing), and ι haven’t been able to find>anything quite like it anywhere (which probably means it’s all over the>map). If you do run across a clear parallel, let me know. (There’s>something kind of *similar* in the preceding chapter, btw: “Thus who claim>to belong to Christ will be seen through the things they do” δι hWN>πρασσουσιν OFQHSONTiAI).> > Thanks,> >— Bart> >Bart δ. Ehrman>University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> > > >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> >> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as>> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical>> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent? ι>> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly>> if ι‘m just being dumb here…. ι would try checking βδφ and maybe some>> searches in electronic texts.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, μο, υσα 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesDigest for January 2, 2000

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Tue Jan 4 10:00:26 εστ 2000

Digest for January 2, 2000 The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Personally, when Paul uses a different construction ι don’t say to myself”he just meant the same thing as if he had said…” because if he had wantedto say … he would have said …. and so ι look for what might be a subtlebut profound difference.For an inquiry into a very profound difference, look at the similar sectionin Romans 5:12Romans 5:12DIA τουτο ωσπερ δι ενοσ ανθρωπου η αμαρτια εισ τον κοσμονεισηλθεν και δια θσ αμαρτιασ ο θανατοσ και ουτωσ εισ παντασ ανθρωπουσ οθανατοσ διηλθεν ****εφ ω**** παντεσ ημαρτον (breathing marks omitted)The words εφ hW are commonly translated “because.” ι personally object tothis. In the same sentence Paul uses δια for that purpose. The words areliterally “upon which” as in Acts 7:33:Acts 7:33 ειπεν δε αυτω ο κυριοσ λυσον το υποδημα των ποδων σου ο γαρ τοποσ****εφ ω**** εσθκασ γη αγια ESTINThis leads me to the conclusion that, to Paul, the first phrase is theantecedent of the second, not the result. That is “all died, upon which [εφω] all sinned” not “all died, because [δια] all sinned”Bill RossTo download John 1:1-3 in Koine set to music, go to the download page at:http://members.xoom.com/woundedego

Digest for January 2, 2000The Purpose of Syntactical Categories

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Bill Rodgers billfred at erols.com
Tue Jan 4 12:08:25 εστ 2000

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Bart and Carl:  ι would like to make two points:l.  You may well be right  about hINATI.    This is certainly what has happened withGIATI in modern Greek.2.  But ι think ι might still read it another way.  The full sentence reads:  πανταουν ποιωμεν ωσ αυτου εν hMIN κατοικουντοσ, hINA ωμεν αυτου ναοι και αυτοσ εν hMINQEOS hMWN, οπερ και εστιν και φανησεται προ προσωπου hMWN, εχ hWN δικαιωσ αγαπωμεναυτον.ι would translate:  “Since he dwells within us, let us do all things so that we maybe his temples and he may be our God within us, and since he is and will be presentbefore us, by these means let us rightly love him.”ι see “παντα” as the antecedent to “εχ hWN,”  and read both ποιωμεν ανδ αγαπωμεν ashortatory.Bill Rodgers “Carl ω. Conrad” wrote:> ι should add here, for what it’s worth, that when ι saw James Ernest’s note> on this ι felt instinctively that he was right. Of course, as Bart says,> one would like to know something is right by something stronger than> instinct. What occurred to me is that δι‘ hWN is probably one of those> phrases comparable to Latin θυαπροπτερ or θυαμοβρεμ or δε θυα ξαυσα which> tend to become single words or phrases with a single sense, all synonymous> in the sense of “therefore.” There are so many such compounds; ι recall an> interesting thread a couple years back on hINATI = hINA τι.> > At 8:37 αμ -0500 1/4/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> >   It appears to be taken this way by other translators, but the> >commentators pass over it without a note (making me think that there’s> >something obvious here that ι‘m missing), and ι haven’t been able to find> >anything quite like it anywhere (which probably means it’s all over the> >map).  If you do run across a clear parallel, let me know.  (There’s> >something kind of *similar* in the preceding chapter, btw: “Thus who claim> >to belong to Christ will be seen through the things they do” δι hWN> &gt;πρασσουσιν OFQHSONTiAI).> >> >   Thanks,> >> >– Bart> >> >Bart δ. Ehrman> >University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> >> >> >> >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> >> >> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as> >> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical> >> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent?  ι> >> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly> >> if ι‘m just being dumb here….  ι would try checking βδφ and maybe some> >> searches in electronic texts.> > Carl ω. Conrad> Department of Classics/Washington University> One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, μο, υσα 63130/(314) 935-4018> Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 63130/(314) 726-5649> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> ωωω: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: billfred at erols.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu————– next part ————–α non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: billfred.vcfType: text/x-vcardSize: 138 bytesDesc: Card for Bill RodgersUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20000104/cc000500/attachment.vcf

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesThe Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4?

Tue Jan 4 12:16:29 εστ 2000

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Ign. Eph. 15:3 Thanks for the suggestion! So are you taking hOPER to mean “since”?– Bart Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel HillOn Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Bill Rodgers wrote:> Bart and Carl:  ι would like to make two points:> > l.  You may well be right  about hINATI.    This is certainly what has happened with> γιατι in modern Greek.> > 2.  But ι think ι might still read it another way.  The full sentence reads:  παντα> ουν ποιωμεν ωσ αυτου εν hMIN κατοικουντοσ, hINA ωμεν αυτου ναοι και αυτοσ εν hMIN> θεοσ hMWN, οπερ και εστιν και φανησεται προ προσωπου hMWN, εχ hWN δικαιωσ αγαπωμεν> αυτον.> > ι would translate: “Since he dwells within us, let us do all things so> that we may be his temples and he may be our God within us, and since> he is and will be present before us, by these means let us rightly> love him.”> > ι see “παντα” as the antecedent to “εχ hWN,”  and read both ποιωμεν ανδ αγαπωμεν as> hortatory.> > Bill Rodgers>  > > “Carl ω. Conrad” wrote:> > &gt; ι should add here, for what it’s worth, that when ι saw James Ernest’s note> > on this ι felt instinctively that he was right. Of course, as Bart says,> > one would like to know something is right by something stronger than> > instinct. What occurred to me is that δι‘ hWN is probably one of those> > phrases comparable to Latin θυαπροπτερ or θυαμοβρεμ or δε θυα ξαυσα which> > tend to become single words or phrases with a single sense, all synonymous> > in the sense of “therefore.” There are so many such compounds; ι recall an> > interesting thread a couple years back on hINATI = hINA τι.> >> > At 8:37 αμ -0500 1/4/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> > >   It appears to be taken this way by other translators, but the> > >commentators pass over it without a note (making me think that there’s> > >something obvious here that ι‘m missing), and ι haven’t been able to find> > >anything quite like it anywhere (which probably means it’s all over the> > >map).  If you do run across a clear parallel, let me know.  (There’s> > >something kind of *similar* in the preceding chapter, btw: “Thus who claim> > >to belong to Christ will be seen through the things they do” δι hWN> > &gt;πρασσουσιν OFQHSONTiAI).> > >> > >   Thanks,> > >> > >– Bart> > >> > >Bart δ. Ehrman> > >University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> > >> > >> > >> > >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> > >> > >> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as> > >> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical> > >> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent?  ι> > >> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly> > >> if ι‘m just being dumb here….  ι would try checking βδφ and maybe some> > >> searches in electronic texts.> >> > Carl ω. Conrad> > Department of Classics/Washington University> > One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, μο, υσα 63130/(314) 935-4018> > Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 63130/(314) 726-5649> > cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> &gt; ωωω: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> >> > —> > home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> > You are currently subscribed to as: billfred at erols.com> > To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave–389J at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4?Ign. Eph. 15:3

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jan 4 12:17:17 εστ 2000

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 At 9:00 αμ -0600 1/4/00, Bill Ross wrote:>Personally, when Paul uses a different construction ι don’t say to myself>“he just meant the same thing as if he had said…” because if he had wanted>to say … he would have said …. and so ι look for what might be a subtle>but profound difference.Bill, ι don’t want to say nor do ι mean that you’re wrong about this, but Ido think you ought to consider an alternative to what you’re assertinghere. Do υου, in writing an e-mail or in conversation, sometimes say “since…” and sometimes say “because …” without meaning any significantdifference whatsoever? ι think it’s worth taking into account that, whileparts of Paul’s letters certainly are composed with painstaking rhetoricalintricacy, large parts of them are really formulated in very colloquiallanguage. If you εχπεξτ to find a subtle but profound difference in meaningin every exercise of an option for a different “synonym” you may very wellfind it because you’re expecting it, even if it isn’t there. So what ι‘mcautioning against here is the all too facile ασσυμπτιον that differentphrasing means a profoundly different sense.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, μο, υσα 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Ign. Eph. 15:3Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Bart Ehrman behrman at email.unc.edu
Tue Jan 4 12:19:23 εστ 2000

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Thanks for the comment. Seems that εφ hW has its own problems (i.e.,apart from εχ nWN); ι should think that context would affect how it’s tobe translated in each instance. What you understand your translation ofRom. 5:12 to *mean*? Also, how would you then translate Ign. Eph. 15:3?– Bart Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel HillOn Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Bill Ross wrote:> Personally, when Paul uses a different construction ι don’t say to myself> “he just meant the same thing as if he had said…” because if he had wanted> to say … he would have said …. and so ι look for what might be a subtle> but profound difference.> > For an inquiry into a very profound difference, look at the similar section> in Romans 5:12> > Romans 5:12DIA τουτο ωσπερ δι ενοσ ανθρωπου η αμαρτια εισ τον κοσμον> εισηλθεν και δια θσ αμαρτιασ ο θανατοσ και ουτωσ εισ παντασ ανθρωπουσ ο> θανατοσ διηλθεν ****εφ ω**** παντεσ ημαρτον (breathing marks omitted)> > The words εφ hW are commonly translated “because.” ι personally object to> this. In the same sentence Paul uses δια for that purpose. The words are> literally “upon which” as in Acts 7:33:> > Acts 7:33 ειπεν δε αυτω ο κυριοσ λυσον το υποδημα των ποδων σου ο γαρ τοποσ> ****εφ ω**** εσθκασ γη αγια εστιν> > This leads me to the conclusion that, to Paul, the first phrase is the> antecedent of the second, not the result. That is “all died, upon which [εφ> ω] all sinned” not “all died, because [δια] all sinned”> > Bill Ross> To download John 1:1-3 in Koine set to music, go to the download page at:> http://members.xoom.com/woundedego> > > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: behrman at email.unc.edu> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12The Purpose of Syntactical Categories

Tue Jan 4 13:02:36 εστ 2000

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Bart:  ι am taking hOPER (ι see ι slipped in the transliteration)  as “indeed” and readingit with the    και εστιν.      α more literal reading of the three words would be “andwhich he indeed is…”  ι think the hOPER is used to intensify the εστιν.BillBart Ehrman wrote:>    Thanks for the suggestion!  So are you taking hOPER to mean “since”?> > — Bart Ehrman>    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> > On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Bill Rodgers wrote:> > > Bart and Carl:  ι would like to make two points:> >> > l.  You may well be right  about hINATI.    This is certainly what has happened with> &gt; γιατι in modern Greek.> >> > 2.  But ι think ι might still read it another way.  The full sentence reads:  παντα> &gt; ουν ποιωμεν ωσ αυτου εν hMIN κατοικουντοσ, hINA ωμεν αυτου ναοι και αυτοσ εν hMIN> &gt; θεοσ hMWN, οπερ και εστιν και φανησεται προ προσωπου hMWN, εχ hWN δικαιωσ αγαπωμεν> &gt; αυτον.> >> &gt; ι would translate: “Since he dwells within us, let us do all things so> > that we may be his temples and he may be our God within us, and since> > he is and will be present before us, by these means let us rightly> > love him.”> >> &gt; ι see “παντα” as the antecedent to “εχ hWN,”  and read both ποιωμεν ανδ αγαπωμεν as> > hortatory.> >> > Bill Rodgers> >> >> > “Carl ω. Conrad” wrote:> >> > &gt; ι should add here, for what it’s worth, that when ι saw James Ernest’s note> > > on this ι felt instinctively that he was right. Of course, as Bart says,> > > one would like to know something is right by something stronger than> > > instinct. What occurred to me is that δι‘ hWN is probably one of those> > > phrases comparable to Latin θυαπροπτερ or θυαμοβρεμ or δε θυα ξαυσα which> > > tend to become single words or phrases with a single sense, all synonymous> > > in the sense of “therefore.” There are so many such compounds; ι recall an> > > interesting thread a couple years back on hINATI = hINA τι.> > >> > > At 8:37 αμ -0500 1/4/00, Bart Ehrman wrote:> > > >   It appears to be taken this way by other translators, but the> > > >commentators pass over it without a note (making me think that there’s> > > >something obvious here that ι‘m missing), and ι haven’t been able to find> > > >anything quite like it anywhere (which probably means it’s all over the> > > >map).  If you do run across a clear parallel, let me know.  (There’s> > > >something kind of *similar* in the preceding chapter, btw: “Thus who claim> > > >to belong to Christ will be seen through the things they do” δι hWN> > > &gt;πρασσουσιν OFQHSONTiAI).> > > >> > > >   Thanks,> > > >> > > >– Bart> > > >> > > >Bart δ. Ehrman> > > >University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James Ernest wrote:> > > >> > > >> Don’t koine texts commonly use phrase with hWN (? ex hwn, di hwn) as> > > >> rough equivalents for “therefore” without any concern for the historical> > > >> identify of hWN as a relative pronoun that should have an antecedent?  ι> > > >> don’t have time to look this up properly, so don’t skewer me too badly> > > >> if ι‘m just being dumb here….  ι would try checking βδφ and maybe some> > > >> searches in electronic texts.> > >> > > Carl ω. Conrad> > > Department of Classics/Washington University> > > One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, μο, υσα 63130/(314) 935-4018> > > Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 63130/(314) 726-5649> > > cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> > &gt; ωωω: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> > >> > > —> > > home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> > > You are currently subscribed to as: billfred at erols.com> > > To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> > > To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >————– next part ————–α non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: billfred.vcfType: text/x-vcardSize: 138 bytesDesc: Card for Bill RodgersUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20000104/a0f8dfd9/attachment.vcf

Tue Jan 4 14:11:19 εστ 2000

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 <Bill>…. and so ι look for what might be a subtle but profound difference.<Carl>Bill, ι don’t want to say nor do ι mean that you’re wrong about this, but Ido think you ought to consider an alternative to what you’re assertinghere. Do υου, in writing an e-mail or in conversation, sometimes say “since…” and sometimes say “because …” without meaning any significantdifference whatsoever?<Bill>Than you, Carl, for your balancing point, which certainly applies to manysituations where words are thoroughly interchangable. “Since” and “because”are indeed often used 100% synonymously with zero difference intended.On the other hand, δια is so commonly used to mean “because” (ie: agency)that the sudden appearance of the words εφ ω (which appear only 4 times inthe ντ) ι feel demand that the reader suspect that there is a reason. Gliblyassuming that it is identical in meaning as “δια” seem profoundly naive tome! Especially in the one verse in the ντ that *seems to* be an explicitreference to “original sin.”And as ι showed its usage in Acts 7:33, it need not be idiomatic at all.Bill Ross

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12

Ign. Eph. 15:3, Romans 5:12 Jeffrey β. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Tue Jan 4 14:47:55 εστ 2000

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? Bill Ross wrote:> Bill, ι don’t want to say nor do ι mean that you’re wrong about this, but ι> do think you ought to consider an alternative to what you’re asserting> here. Do υου, in writing an e-mail or in conversation, sometimes say “since> …” and sometimes say “because …” without meaning any significant> difference whatsoever?> > <Bill>> Than you, Carl, for your balancing point, which certainly applies to many> situations where words are thoroughly interchangable. “Since” and “because”> are indeed often used 100% synonymously with zero difference intended.> > On the other hand, δια is so commonly used to mean “because” (ie: agency)> that the sudden appearance of the words εφ ω (which appear only 4 times in> the ντ) ι feel demand that the reader suspect that there is a reason. Glibly> assuming that it is identical in meaning as “δια” seem profoundly naive to> me! Especially in the one verse in the ντ that *seems to* be an explicit> reference to “original sin.”> Bill,Given (a) that you haven’t taken into account here how δια and εφ ω areused inHellenistic literature outside the New Testament in your assertion aboutwhat theseterms can and cannot or do or do not mean , and (b) that you seem toimply that thesemantic range of a term used in any ντ writing is to be determined byexamining onlythat term’s ντ usage, ι wonder whether your statement that anyone whosays δια andEPH ω are synonymous terms is naive and makes “glib” assumption, is notan instanceof petitio principii?> > And as ι showed its usage in Acts 7:33, it need not be idiomatic at all.> Need not is not the same as is not. And without a full examination ofthe use of theterm in question in the culture in which ντ writers operated and fromwhich theyderived the meanings of the words they used, ι think your claim presumestoo much. SoI wonder whether you are not operating here from the assumption that theway Lukeuses the term is determinative for the way Paul uses it.Yours,Jeffrey Gibson–Jeffrey β. Gibson7423 ν. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?

Tue Jan 4 15:36:43 εστ 2000

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? At 1:11 πμ -0600 1/4/00, Bill Ross wrote:><Bill>…. and so ι look for what might be a subtle but profound difference.> ><Carl>>Bill, ι don’t want to say nor do ι mean that you’re wrong about this, but ι>do think you ought to consider an alternative to what you’re asserting>here. Do υου, in writing an e-mail or in conversation, sometimes say “since>…” and sometimes say “because …” without meaning any significant>difference whatsoever?> ><Bill>>Than you, Carl, for your balancing point, which certainly applies to many>situations where words are thoroughly interchangable. “Since” and “because”>are indeed often used 100% synonymously with zero difference intended.> >On the other hand, δια is so commonly used to mean “because” (ie: agency)>that the sudden appearance of the words εφ ω (which appear only 4 times in>the ντ) ι feel demand that the reader suspect that there is a reason. Glibly>assuming that it is identical in meaning as “δια” seem profoundly naive to>me! Especially in the one verse in the ντ that *seems to* be an explicit>reference to “original sin.”> >And as ι showed its usage in Acts 7:33, it need not be idiomatic at all.ι‘m going to come back to your original point in order to demonstrate moreprecisely what ι meant–and this time ι shall have to say that ι do indeedthink that your argument is fallacious.You first wrote:>For an inquiry into a very profound difference, look at the similar section>in Romans 5:12> >Romans 5:12DIA τουτο ωσπερ δι ενοσ ανθρωπου η αμαρτια εισ τον κοσμον>εισηλθεν και δια θσ αμαρτιασ ο θανατοσ και ουτωσ εισ παντασ ανθρωπουσ ο>θανατοσ διηλθεν ****εφ ω**** παντεσ ημαρτον (breathing marks omitted)> >The words εφ hW are commonly translated “because.” ι personally object to>this. In the same sentence Paul uses δια for that purpose.In fact, however, δια is not used so simply; δια is used with τουτο, TOUTOreferring to the proposition that Paul has just previously stated and διατουτο points backward to that proposition as the ground of what is nowbeing stated. So it’s “For this reason (or ‘because of this’), just asthrough one man sin entered in …” Although δια may be used with arelative pronoun that has fused with it (e.g. διο = δι‘ hO = ‘therefore’),δια doesn’t ever function by itself as a causal adverb meaning ‘because’but rather as a preposition with an object, here τουτο, ‘because of this’>The words are literally “upon which” as in Acts 7:33:> >Acts 7:33 ειπεν δε AUTWi hO κυριοσ: λυσον το hUPODHMA των ποδων σου, hO>γαρ &gt;τοποσ εφ‘ hWi hESTHKAS γη hAGIA εστιεφ‘ hWi here is only superficially comparable to the adverbial conjunctivephrase εφ‘ hWi; here επι is the preposition used with a locative dative”upon” and the hWi is in this instance a relative pronoun referring back tothe antecedent τοποσ.>This leads me to the conclusion that, to Paul, the first phrase is the>antecedent of the second, not the result. That is “all died, upon which [εφ>ω] all sinned” not “all died, because [δια] all sinned”Here are the four γντ texts wherein εφ‘ hWi appears, in every one of whichthe prepositional phrase εφ‘ hWi may legitimately be translated “because”or “since”:Rom 5:12 δια τουτο hWSPER δι‘ hENOS ανθρωπου hH hAMARTIA εισ τον κοσμονεισηλθεν και δια θσ hAMAARTIAS hO θανατοσ, και hOUTWS εισ παντασ ANQRWPOUShO θανατοσ διηλθεν, εφ‘ hWi παντεσ hHMARTON (“… because/since they haveall sinned”)2 ξορ 5:4 και γαρ hOI οντεσ εν TWi σκηνει στεναζομεν βαρουμενοι, εφ‘ HWi ουθελομεν εκδυσασθαι αλλ‘ επενδυσασθαι, hINA KATAPOQHi το θνητον hUPO θσζωησ. (“… because/since we don’t want to strip naked but rather to put onnew clothes …”)Phil 3:12 ουξ‘ hOTI ηδη ελαβον η ηδη τετελειωμαι, διωκω δε ει και καταλαβω,εφ‘ hWi και κατελημφθην hUPO ξριστου [ιησου]. (“… because/since ι toohave been gripped firmly by Christ [Jesus].”)Phil 4:12 εξαῥν δε εν KURIWi μεγαλωσ hOTI ηδη ποτε ανεθαλετε το hUPER εμουφρονειν, εφ‘ hWi και εφρονειτε, ηκαιρεισθε δε. (“… because/since you wereindeed anxious (about me) but your timing was bad.”)In sum, there’s all the difference in the world between δια τουτο and εφ‘hWi; the former means “for this reason” or “because of this” or”therefore”, while the latter means “because” or “since” and functions asan adverbial conjunction introducing the clause explaining the reason forwhat was just asserted.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, μο, υσα 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Wed Jan 5 09:13:02 εστ 2000

θρεαδ ξλοσεδ: Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? Men Only Bart Ehrman asked about examples of the use of εχ hWN.My quick search did not find an example in a sense near enough to thosesuggested; but μ&amp;μ – see under hOS – has some interesting examples of hOSwith prepositions (one of εφ‘ hWi, which was also mentioned in the postingsof yesterday’s digest); there is an example of εχ hOU glossed as”therefore”; μ&amp;μ‘s article on εκ also contains material that may berelevant to you, perhaps especially the causal sense (which can beparalleled in the ντ). If you need examples of εχ hWN, the Duke Databank ofDocumentary Papyri, under Perseus, may help.Alex Hopkins

θρεαδ ξλοσεδ: Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?Men Only