/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Re: GNT books from easiest to hardest
Posted: 17 Sep 2012 09:47 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/V-n7BcD44Cw/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
In Mounce’s “Graded Reader”, he covers about 30 verses from the following books (each one increasing in difficulty)
1 John John Mark Col Matt Rom James Philippians 1 Pet 1 Tim Luke Eph Acts 2 Thes Heb Rev Statistics: Posted by GlennDean — September 17th, 2012, 12:47 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Re: verbless conditional Gal. 3:18 what mood?
Posted: 17 Sep 2012 09:38 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/AcRFFp9W5iU/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
cwconrad wrote: Stirling Bartholomew wrote:cwconrad wrote:No, I would say that neither Gal 3:19 nor 1 Cor 15:13, 16 is counter-factual. By definition counter-factual constructions are imaginary and hypothetical …
This discussion has taken an interesting turn. I have a follow on question. How do we identify contrary to fact conditionals in Koine? Do we do it based surface structural , i.e. formal characteristics?
You’re probably looking for a response from a linguistic perspective. I can only say that the patterns I learned to recognize in earlier Greek certainly seem to hold in NT Koine, i.e. present counterfactuals with imperfect in both protasis and apodosis, past counterfactuals with aorist in both protasis and apodosis, ἄν in the apodosis in both present and past counterfactuals. Here are a few examples of that pattern from different strata of the GNT:
Matt 11:23 … εἰ ἐν Σοδόμοις ἐγενήθησαν αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ γενόμεναι ἐν σοί, ἔμεινεν ἂν μέχρι τῆς σήμερον.
Mark 13:20 καὶ εἰ μὴ ἐκολόβωσεν κύριος τὰς ἡμέρας, οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ·
Luke 7:39 …οὗτος εἰ ἦν προφήτης, ἐγίνωσκεν ἂν τίς καὶ ποταπὴ ἡ γυνὴ ἥτις ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἁμαρτωλός ἐστιν.
Luke 12:39 …ι εἰ ᾔδει ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης ποίᾳ ὥρᾳ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται, οὐκ ἂν ἀφῆκεν διορυχθῆναι τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ.
John 5:46 εἰ γὰρ ἐπιστεύετε Μωϋσεῖ, ἐπιστεύετε ἂν ἐμοί· περὶ γὰρ ἐμοῦ ἐκεῖνος ἔγραψεν.
Gal 1:10 … εἰ ἔτι ἀνθρώποις ἤρεσκον, Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην.
1 Cor 11:31 εἰ δὲ ἑαυτοὺς διεκρίνομεν, οὐκ ἂν ἐκρινόμεθα·
So it appears that we identify by formal characteristics supported by the inability to come up with counter examples. I wasn’t able to find any. I just looked through 41 examples in Accordance based on εἰ + indicative ἂν + indicative and they all appeared to be contrafactual. What are the implications of John 14:28b: John 14:28 ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπον ὑμῖν· ὑπάγω καὶ ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς. εἰ ἠγαπᾶτέ με ἐχάρητε ἂν ὅτι πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν.
εἰ ἠγαπᾶτέ με is contrafactual, who is He addressing here? Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — September 17th, 2012, 12:38 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////// Septuagint and Pseudepigrapha Re: Jonah 2:1 προσέταξεν, 2:11 προσετάγη
Posted: 17 Sep 2012 08:24 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/67imq6LQNkc/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
I’m not sure from your comment whether you are reading προσετάγη as active or passive. It is an aorist passive. The label “second” aorist passive just means this verb doesn’t use the theta in its sixth principal part. Whether the aorist active uses the sigma (“first”) or thematic vowel (“second”) is entirely unrelated. Statistics: Posted by Ken M. Penner — September 17th, 2012, 11:24 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Re: verbless conditional Gal. 3:18 what mood?
Posted: 17 Sep 2012 07:52 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/cdyHwionDeM/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Stirling Bartholomew wrote: cwconrad wrote:No, I would say that neither Gal 3:19 nor 1 Cor 15:13, 16 is counter-factual. By definition counter-factual constructions are imaginary and hypothetical …
This discussion has taken an interesting turn. I have a follow on question. How do we identify contrary to fact conditionals in Koine? Do we do it based surface structural , i.e. formal characteristics?
You’re probably looking for a response from a linguistic perspective. I can only say that the patterns I learned to recognize in earlier Greek certainly seem to hold in NT Koine, i.e. present counterfactuals with imperfect in both protasis and apodosis, past counterfactuals with aorist in both protasis and apodosis, ἄν in the apodosis in both present and past counterfactuals. Here are a few examples of that pattern from different strata of the GNT:
Matt 11:23 … εἰ ἐν Σοδόμοις ἐγενήθησαν αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ γενόμεναι ἐν σοί, ἔμεινεν ἂν μέχρι τῆς σήμερον.
Mark 13:20 καὶ εἰ μὴ ἐκολόβωσεν κύριος τὰς ἡμέρας, οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ·
Luke 7:39 …οὗτος εἰ ἦν προφήτης, ἐγίνωσκεν ἂν τίς καὶ ποταπὴ ἡ γυνὴ ἥτις ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἁμαρτωλός ἐστιν.
Luke 12:39 …ι εἰ ᾔδει ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης ποίᾳ ὥρᾳ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται, οὐκ ἂν ἀφῆκεν διορυχθῆναι τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ.
John 5:46 εἰ γὰρ ἐπιστεύετε Μωϋσεῖ, ἐπιστεύετε ἂν ἐμοί· περὶ γὰρ ἐμοῦ ἐκεῖνος ἔγραψεν.
Gal 1:10 … εἰ ἔτι ἀνθρώποις ἤρεσκον, Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην.
1 Cor 11:31 εἰ δὲ ἑαυτοὺς διεκρίνομεν, οὐκ ἂν ἐκρινόμεθα· Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — September 17th, 2012, 10:52 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// Septuagint and Pseudepigrapha Jonah 2:1 προσέταξεν, 2:11 προσετάγη
Posted: 17 Sep 2012 07:25 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/HYCegfZ1rA0/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
I was surprised to see προσέταξεν and προσετάγη both used in Jonah 2. I would have expected a given author to use either the first aorist or the second aorist, but generally not both, especially in the same chapter.
How common is this? I assume the author does not intend any distinction in meaning? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — September 17th, 2012, 10:25 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// What does this text mean? Re: ANGELO of Rev 2:1
Posted: 17 Sep 2012 06:40 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/f_NarzKweIc/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Joe Rutherford wrote: The ‘instrumental dative’ indicates the instrument with which one does something.
It’s my impression that the instrumental dative works with non-animate objects, not a human. Do you have examples of instrumental datives for people? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — September 17th, 2012, 9:40 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// What does this text mean? Re: ANGELO of Rev 2:1
Posted: 17 Sep 2012 05:46 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/PqGj3GIv1X0/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
klriley wrote: Joe Rutherford wrote:Hey Timothy, I’d be delighted to hear your analysis of the topic. PM or post if you’d like. I’m sure it would be a blessing. In your above post you refer to ” the clear sense of the grammer”. On that topic, one thing that stands out in this discussion is the constant reminder that AGGELWi is in the dative. What has not been pointed out, is that there are three general categories of the dative. Indirect object is one category. Instrumental is a dative category which no one has addressed in relation to AGGELWi. Is there some widely recognized grammatical rule which would forbid AGGELWi in Rev 2:1 to be classified as an instrumental dative?
The ‘instrumental dative’ indicates the instrument with which one does something. If you can find a situation in which John writing with an AGGELOS makes sense, then feel free to consider it a possibility. Until then, I would go with the traditional reading of John writing TO an AGGELOS rather than WITH one. I hope we can ignore the locative category of the dative. It is probably possible to find some way in which either an instrumental or locative meaning can be found in AGGELWi, but surely the dative meaning is the most obvious and most logical one? The suggestion of the possibility that the dative be understood as instrumental is based on the fact that John is an instrument in the hand of the Lord for the purpose of writing to the 7 Churches. Context is that God is speaking to John and calls him TWi AGGELWi / then speaks the Church John is appointed to as angelic minister / then orders John to write / then John is told the message he is to write for each Church. The usual greeting to the seven Churches from John is written in vs 1:4, and John is not writing another individualized greeting, but is writing what God says. So again, I see this as a possibility of the grammer. This is also based on my belief that John is the 7 angels to the 7 Churches Statistics: Posted by Joe Rutherford — September 17th, 2012, 8:46 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Re: Matt 3:2 μετανοεῖτε
Posted: 17 Sep 2012 04:58 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/fvYf-tiR6Es/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Stephen Carlson wrote: Matt 3:2 presents John the Baptist’s famous preaching as follows:
Matt 3:2 wrote:Μετανοεῖτε · ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἣ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. Repent! For the kingdom of God has come near.
What’s the sense of the present imperative here?
So simple as Alan Patterson suggests? I don’t quite think so. The action called for is one of radical reorientation of one’s life. My take on the imperfective imperative is that the addressees are bidden to get started on the process of this radical reorientation. It’s a process suggested, I think, not a “presto-change-o” makeover. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — September 17th, 2012, 7:58 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Re: Matt 3:2 μετανοεῖτε
Posted: 17 Sep 2012 04:32 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/g3-WWYTZD8U/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Stephen,
What’s your hunch? This seems pretty straight forward.
I take the Present Tense Command of μετανοεῖτε to be something as simple as, “there is no time to waste, all of you get started immediately.” It would then follow that the Aorist is “Be Done with it, Complete the Action.” I don’t see anything in the context that would warrant some meaning more complex. Could John’s message be that simple? Statistics: Posted by Alan Patterson — September 17th, 2012, 7:32 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Matt 3:2 μετανοεῖτε
Posted: 17 Sep 2012 02:56 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/rKN14ikAUgM/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Matt 3:2 presents John the Baptist’s famous preaching as follows:
Matt 3:2 wrote: Μετανοεῖτε · ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἣ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. Repent! For the kingdom of God has come near.
What’s the sense of the present imperative here? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — September 17th, 2012, 5:56 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// Writing Greek Re: Word order in Koine composition
Posted: 17 Sep 2012 12:44 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/ZHjrW5g3fEA/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
There are two different systems at work in the citations of Runge versus Larsen.
Larsen has a simple scaler: the more to the left the more prominent.
Runge, Levinsohn, H. Dik, S. Dik, myself, and many functionally oriented linguists differentiate fronted constituents as Topical/Contextualizing vs Focal. If the left-placed constituent is the most salient piece of information, then it is called “Focus” (or synonym), while a left-placed item that is not the most salient (important, reason for statement of the clause) is viewed as marked for contextual/relational reasons, to set up a topic/context span, name an entity for comparison/contrast, break the default foregrounded chaining.
The differentiated, multi-reason is the majority view in linguistics. In terms of signal, it is assumed that left-placed constitutents will also interact with the intonation/tonal system of a language so that a differentiated signal is possible in a language for a left-placed item.
Of course, this does not answer all questions for readers where texts do not have intonational/stress/tone differences marked in a text. The reader must supply their own reading and interpret left-placed constituents as either normal-left-placed (contextualizing contstituents) or marked left-placed (focus constituents).
For those working with Greek it is recognized that multiple frontings may occur, and relatively frequently in comparison with other languages. The default order ends up Verb-Subject-Other, with various options available for fronting and interlacing between Verb and Subject or Other. [PS: a constituent may be more than one word, a whole phrase, or sometimes a partial constituent, a word from a phrase.) Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — September 17th, 2012, 3:44 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// Books Re: Books on Greek word order?
Posted: 17 Sep 2012 12:38 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/ghkM7RNyxJA/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
There are two different systems at work in the citations of (Runge and Levinsohn) versus (Larsen).
Larsen has a simple scaler: the more to the left the more prominent.
Runge, Levinsohn, H. Dik, S. Dik, myself, and many functional linguists differentiate fronted constituents as Topical/Contextualizing vs Focal. If the left-placed constituent is the most salient piece of information, then it is called “Focus” (or synonym), while a left-placed item that is not the most salient (important, reason for statement of the clause) is viewed as marked for contextual/relational reasons, to set up a topic/context span, name an entity for comparison/contrast, break the default foregrounded chaining.
The differentiated, multi-reason is the majority view in linguistics. In terms of signal, it is assumed that left-placed constitutents will also interact with the intonation/tonal system of a language so that a differentiated signal is possible in a language for a left-placed item.
Of course, this does not answer all questions for readers where texts do not have intonational/stress/tone differences marked in a text. The reader must supply their own reading and interpret left-placed constituents as either normal-left-placed (contextualizing contstituents) or marked left-placed (focus constituents).
[PS: a constituent may be more than one word, a whole phrase, or sometimes a partial constituent, a word from a phrase.) Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — September 17th, 2012, 3:38 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// Beginners Forum Re: ANASTASIS in Acts 17:18
Posted: 16 Sep 2012 11:14 PM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/3nIHq-ey0gs/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Stephen Carlson wrote: NA27 does not give any variant reading with Anastasia (though it is not exhaustive). I would avoid such works and authors. I hope they’re not scholarly.
Stephen,
No, I’m afraid that I’m finding this in only journal articles, as I would not look at anything else for what I’m doing. I could certainly understand some random web site getting this wrong but I would have hoped that journal articles would not. Of course, they’re not from NTS or JBL, so I guess the peers that reviewed them might have not thought about it. I’m just to know that no one here has a good reason for using “Anastasia.”
Ken. Statistics: Posted by klitwak — September 17th, 2012, 2:14 am