Mattew 28:17

Matt 28:17 some or all doubted? Tim Duke tduke at accsoft.com.au
Mon Jul 19 08:54:31 EDT 1999

Greek/Hebrew and Bibliographic Programs John 1.3 “KAI IDONTES AUTON PROSEKUNHSAN, hOI DE EDISTASAN.”ought the hOI DE in Matt 28:17 be translated ‘some’, or does it refercollectively to the whole group?I can find no parallel instance where such a construction has beentranslated ‘some’.Most translations are otherwise quite consistent: they use ‘some’ totranslate a hOI MEN, …., hOI DE phrase or a TINES + Genitive Plural,but never a hOI DE phrase by itself.Tim DukeSydney

Greek/Hebrew and Bibliographic ProgramsJohn 1.3

Matt 28:17 some or all doubted? Tim Duke tduke at accsoft.com.au
Mon Jul 19 08:54:31 EDT 1999

Greek/Hebrew and Bibliographic ProgramsJohn 1.3

Matt 28:17 some or all doubted? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 19 11:47:19 EDT 1999

Greek courses John 1.3 At 10:54 PM +1000 7/19/99, Tim Duke wrote:>“KAI IDONTES AUTON PROSEKUNHSAN, hOI DE EDISTASAN.”> >ought the hOI DE in Matt 28:17 be translated ‘some’, or does it refer>collectively to the whole group?>I can find no parallel instance where such a construction has been>translated ‘some’.>Most translations are otherwise quite consistent: they use ‘some’ to>translate a hOI MEN, …., hOI DE phrase or a TINES + Genitive Plural,>but never a hOI DE phrase by itself.I think that the hOI DE is “others” in antithesis to 18:16 hOI DE hENDEKA;of course the DE there is simply a continuative particle, but it certainlywould appear that the hOI DE as subject to EDISTASAN must indicate a groupantithetical to the Eleven.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Greek coursesJohn 1.3

Matt 28:17 some or all doubted? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 19 11:47:19 EDT 1999

Greek coursesJohn 1.3

Matt 28:17 some or all doubted? Pete Phillips p.m.phillips at cliff.shef.ac.uk
Mon Jul 19 12:08:21 EDT 1999

Greek courses Greek courses Yes, but, the text says that the 11 are the only ones in the narrative frame. Do these OI DE refer to a group who are antithetical to the 11 and also outside this narrative frame? Either the doubters are a subset of the 11 or why doesnlt Matthew use ETEROI or some similar marker to point outside this narrative frame?Pete Phillips—–Original Message—–From:Carl W. Conrad [SMTP:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]Sent:Monday, July 19, 1999 4:47 PMTo:Biblical GreekCc:Biblical GreekSubject:Re: Matt 28:17 some or all doubted?At 10:54 PM +1000 7/19/99, Tim Duke wrote:>“KAI IDONTES AUTON PROSEKUNHSAN, hOI DE EDISTASAN.”> >ought the hOI DE in Matt 28:17 be translated ‘some’, or does it refer>collectively to the whole group?>I can find no parallel instance where such a construction has been>translated ‘some’.>Most translations are otherwise quite consistent: they use ‘some’ to>translate a hOI MEN, …., hOI DE phrase or a TINES + Genitive Plural,>but never a hOI DE phrase by itself.I think that the hOI DE is “others” in antithesis to 18:16 hOI DE hENDEKA;of course the DE there is simply a continuative particle, but it certainlywould appear that the hOI DE as subject to EDISTASAN must indicate a groupantithetical to the Eleven.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/— home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/You are currently subscribed to as: p.m.phillips at cliff.shef.ac.ukTo unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu

Greek coursesGreek courses

Matt 28:17 some or all doubted? Pete Phillips p.m.phillips at cliff.shef.ac.uk
Mon Jul 19 12:08:21 EDT 1999

Greek coursesGreek courses

Matt 28:17 some or all doubted? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 19 12:26:38 EDT 1999

Greek courses Citations from previous messages in thread At 5:08 PM +0100 7/19/99, Pete Phillips wrote:>Yes, but, the text says that the 11 are the only ones in the narrative>frame. Do these OI DE refer to a group who are antithetical to the 11 and>also outside this narrative frame? Either the doubters are a subset of>the 11 or why doesnlt Matthew use ETEROI or some similar marker to point>outside this narrative frame?I’m assuming that Matthew’s chapter 28 has some unity; 28:10 has the womenbeing told, hUPAGETE APAGGEILATE TOIS ADELFOIS MOU hINA APELQWSIN EIS THNGALILAIAN, KA’KEI ME OYONTAI. I would assume that it is NOT only the elevenwho go to Galilee in Mt’s perspective but a larger group. I’d also beinclined to think there’s redaction of a tradition going on here, but evenapart from that, for my part, I think that Mt does assume a larger groupthan the Eleven are present for this event.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Greek coursesCitations from previous messages in thread

Matt 28:17 some or all doubted? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 19 12:26:38 EDT 1999

Greek coursesCitations from previous messages in thread

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Albert & Julia Haig albert_and_julia at yahoo.com.au
Sat Apr 8 08:03:11 EDT 2006

[] PRWI [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Hello!KAI IDONTES AUTON PROSEKUNHSAN, hOI DE EDISTASANThe last phrase of this verse seems to be always rendered, “but some doubted”. My question is, why can’t it be translated “and they doubted”, or “but they were also of two minds”. Is there any grammatical reason? Is it just because it is assumed that you can’t both worship and doubt simultaneously? I think you might be able to. Put this in context: the disciples seem the risen Jesus, they are totally amazed and overcome with awe, they worship him. Couldn’t they also have had a great deal of doubt about what this all meant?Where are the translators getting the concept of “some” from? If the author of Matthew wanted to say “some”, couldn’t he have used TINES, as he does in 27:47 for instance? Are we just reluctant to admit that the disciples might have had their doubts, too?All the best,Dr Albert Haig.Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

[] PRWI[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Apr 8 09:29:03 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN On Apr 8, 2006, at 8:03 AM, Albert & Julia Haig wrote:> Hello!> > KAI IDONTES AUTON PROSEKUNHSAN, hOI DE EDISTASAN> > The last phrase of this verse seems to be always rendered, “but > some doubted”. My question is, why can’t it be translated “and they > doubted”, or “but they were also of two minds”. Is there any > grammatical reason? Is it just because it is assumed that you can’t > both worship and doubt simultaneously? I think you might be able > to. Put this in context: the disciples seem the risen Jesus, they > are totally amazed and overcome with awe, they worship him. > Couldn’t they also have had a great deal of doubt about what this > all meant?> > Where are the translators getting the concept of “some” from? If > the author of Matthew wanted to say “some”, couldn’t he have used > TINES, as he does in 27:47 for instance? Are we just reluctant to > admit that the disciples might have had their doubts, too?Sure, but the key element here is the DE with hOI, indicating a shift of focus to another group or sub-group.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Mike Sangrey MSangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Sat Apr 8 17:38:28 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 09:29 -0400, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> On Apr 8, 2006, at 8:03 AM, Albert & Julia Haig wrote:> > Where are the translators getting the concept of “some” from? If > > the author of Matthew wanted to say “some”, couldn’t he have used > > TINES, as he does in 27:47 for instance? Are we just reluctant to > > admit that the disciples might have had their doubts, too?> > Sure, but the key element here is the DE with hOI, indicating a> shift > of focus to another group or sub-group.This appears to be essentially what Harold Holmyard says:> DE is contrastive, and hOI can function as a demonstrative > pronoun implying “some.” If Matthew had wanted to say that everybody > doubted who worshipped, he could have left out the hOI.According to Stephen Levinsohn, DE in a narrative always adds somethingDISTINCTIVE. Something ‘distinctive’ easily implies that sometimes itwill be contrastive; however, it need not be. Now, I think there issomething contrastive going on here, but I think there is a betterreading than what has been presented so far. And this reading is moreeasily seen if we think in terms of a distinctive addition to thenarrative given so far.The issue here is really that hOI, in a discourse, must point tosomething sufficiently in the context in order for the reader to get theconnection. We don’t have that in this discourse. One of the thingsthat an author uses to develop a narrative in the GNT, is theparticipants in the discourse. There are plenty of times when theparticipants are not named; that’s true. And TINES is appropriate inthose cases. However, using hOI seems very odd to me to do that. hOIhas to point to something.So, I would lean toward what Albert is suggesting. ISTM the referent ofhOI is the group considered as a group. It wasn’t as if there wereindividuals within the group that were unbelieving. It was more likethe group could be characterized as uncertain. Perhaps they wereasking, “What does this REALLY mean?” I’d lean toward translatingsomething along the lines of: “But, these people were not certain.”Keep in mind that PROSKUNEW was more common then, than now. That is,our word ‘worship’ is not a perfect synonym to PROSKUNEW. ‘Worship issomething we would do to ONLY a god, for example. So, don’t immediatelyassume that if a person worships someone, he or she will not doubt also.That’s reading the modern definition of ‘worship’ back into the Greekdefinition of PROSKUNEW.Also, one of the things Levinsohn points out in his discussion of DE isthat it is not only introduces something distinctive, but, he says, DEintroduces something that furthers the development of the narrative.So, the natural question to ask is, “Does this develop the narrative?If one assumes a contrastive group or sub-group, then there is nodevelopment. It just hangs there as new information. Notice theimmediately following context is meant to encourage and assure thedisciples that the task they were about to embark on would not only beaccompanied by Jesus himself, but, that Jesus was given completeauthority to see that it is accomplished. He was certain! They were tobe certain, too. I think that flows very nicely.– Mike Sangrey (msangrey AT BlueFeltHat.org)Exegetitor.blogspot.comLandisburg, Pa. “The first one last wins.” “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Sat Apr 8 16:24:52 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] ECOMEN or ECWMEN – Rom. 5.1 Dear Albert,>KAI IDONTES AUTON PROSEKUNHSAN, hOI DE EDISTASAN> >The last phrase of this verse seems to be always rendered, “but some >doubted”. My question is, why can’t it be translated “and they >doubted”, or “but they were also of two minds”. Is there any >grammatical reason? Is it just because it is assumed that you can’t >both worship and doubt simultaneously? I think you might be able to. >Put this in context: the disciples seem the risen Jesus, they are >totally amazed and overcome with awe, they worship him. Couldn’t >they also have had a great deal of doubt about what this all meant?> >Where are the translators getting the concept of “some” from? If the >author of Matthew wanted to say “some”, couldn’t he have used TINES, >as he does in 27:47 for instance? Are we just reluctant to admit >that the disciples might have had their doubts, too?HH: DE is contrastive, and hOI can function as a demonstrative pronoun implying “some.” If Matthew had wanted to say that everybody doubted who worshipped, he could have left out the hOI.Yours,Harold Holmyard> >All the best,> >Dr Albert Haig.> > >Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com>—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] ECOMEN or ECWMEN – Rom. 5.1

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Albert & Julia Haig albert_and_julia at yahoo.com.au
Sat Apr 8 23:34:40 EDT 2006

[] DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU – Rom. 3.22 [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN > [Carl] Sure, but the key element here is the DE with hOI, indicating a shift of focus to another group or sub-group.> [Harold] DE is contrastive, and hOI can function as a demonstrative pronoun implying “some.” If Matthew had wanted to say that everybody doubted who worshipped, he could have left out the hOI.Sorry Carl and Harold, but I think I can prove you wrong on this point!59 verses in Matthew include the phrase hOI DE. Of these, only 27 occur without a following masculine plural noun (or masculine plural participle funtioning as a noun) and hence are strictly analogous to this case. In 25 of these cases this phrase is standardly translated “and they …” or “but they”, and the hOI completely obviously refers to the entire group of people in the context, not just to some of them. These 25 cases are:2:5, 2:9, 4:20, 4:22, 8:32, 9:31, 14:17, 14:21, 14:33, 15:34, 15:38, 16:7, 16:14, 20:5, 20:31, 21:25, 22:5, 22:19, 26:15, 26:66, 27:4, 27:21, 27:23, 27:66, 28:15The remaining two cases are 26:67 and the verse in dispute, 28:17. In 26:67, as in 28:17, most translations read “and some slapped him”, or “and others slapped him”. However, this seems to me to be very dubious, as the verse could easily be read, “then they spat on his face and beat him with their fists, and they also slapped him, and said …”. In other words, hOI DE in 26:67 could refer to the same people doing the beating. Indeed, in light of the 25 cases I have cited above, that seems to be overwhelmingly more likely.That leaves us with the case in point, 28:17. Even if we accept the sense of “some” is legitimate in 26:67, which I don’t, the a priori chances of that reading here are 1 in 26 (of the 26 other cases of the grammatical construction in Matthew, only 1 might mean “some”). Futhermore, the reading “but they also doubted” seems to me more eminently reasonable in context.Therefore I conclude that it is the overwhelmingly more likely reading. Indeed, most likely Matthew simply never uses hOI DE to mean “some”, irrespective of its meaning in broader Greek. His characteristic meaning seems to be to refer to all the group.God bless,Albert Haig.Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

[] DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU – Rom. 3.22[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Mike Sangrey MSangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Sat Apr 8 18:13:44 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 17:38 -0400, Mike Sangrey wrote:> The issue here is really that hOI, in a discourse, must point to> something sufficiently in the context in order for the reader to get> the> connection. We don’t have that in this discourse. That should say, “We don’t have that in this discourse with the typicalexplanations of “other group” or “sub-group.”Sorry for the confusion.– Mike Sangrey (msangrey AT BlueFeltHat.org)Exegetitor.blogspot.comLandisburg, Pa. “The first one last wins.” “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Sun Apr 9 08:42:30 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Dear Albert,>>[Carl] Sure, but the key element here is the DE with hOI, indicating a shift of focus to another group or sub-group.>> >> > > > >>[Harold] DE is contrastive, and hOI can function as a demonstrative pronoun implying “some.” If Matthew had wanted to say that everybody doubted who worshipped, he could have left out the hOI.>> >> > >Sorry Carl and Harold, but I think I can prove you wrong on this point!> >59 verses in Matthew include the phrase hOI DE. Of these, only 27 occur without a following masculine plural noun (or masculine plural participle funtioning as a noun) and hence are strictly analogous to this case. In 25 of these cases this phrase is standardly translated “and they …” or “but they”, and the hOI completely obviously refers to the entire group of people in the context, not just to some of them. These 25 cases are:> >2:5, 2:9, 4:20, 4:22, 8:32, 9:31, 14:17, 14:21, 14:33, 15:34, 15:38, 16:7, 16:14, 20:5, 20:31, 21:25, 22:5, 22:19, 26:15, 26:66, 27:4, 27:21, 27:23, 27:66, 28:15> >The remaining two cases are 26:67 and the verse in dispute, 28:17. In 26:67, as in 28:17, most translations read “and some slapped him”, or “and others slapped him”. However, this seems to me to be very dubious, as the verse could easily be read, “then they spat on his face and beat him with their fists, and they also slapped him, and said …”. In other words, hOI DE in 26:67 could refer to the same people doing the beating. Indeed, in light of the 25 cases I have cited above, that seems to be overwhelmingly more likely.> >That leaves us with the case in point, 28:17. Even if we accept the sense of “some” is legitimate in 26:67, which I don’t, the a priori chances of that reading here are 1 in 26 (of the 26 other cases of the grammatical construction in Matthew, only 1 might mean “some”). Futhermore, the reading “but they also doubted” seems to me more eminently reasonable in context.> >Therefore I conclude that it is the overwhelmingly more likely reading. Indeed, most likely Matthew simply never uses hOI DE to mean “some”, irrespective of its meaning in broader Greek. His characteristic meaning seems to be to refer to all the group.> > HH: I agree that hOI followed by a verb does not have to mean “some,” but Carl’s point still stands. If you look at all the examples you cite, there is a shift from one subject to another with hOI. Sometimes the shift may be subtle, as in the cases of the miraculous feeding, where it may not be stated who picked up the leftovers. But we know it was the apostles, so “the ones (hOI) eating” in the next verse is a slight shift.Yours,Harold Holmyard> >

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN George F Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Sun Apr 9 01:18:54 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 13:34:40 +1000 (EST) Albert & Julia Haig<albert_and_julia at yahoo.com.au> writes:> > [Carl] Sure, but the key element here is the DE with hOI, > indicating a shift of focus to another group or sub-group.> > > [Harold] DE is contrastive, and hOI can function as a > demonstrative pronoun implying “some.” If Matthew had wanted to say > that everybody doubted who worshipped, he could have left out the > hOI.> > Sorry Carl and Harold, but I think I can prove you wrong on this > point!> > 59 verses in Matthew include the phrase hOI DE. Of these, only 27 > occur without a following masculine plural noun (or masculine plural > participle funtioning as a noun) and hence are strictly analogous to > this case. In 25 of these cases this phrase is standardly translated > “and they …” or “but they”, and the hOI completely obviously > refers to the entire group of people in the context, not just to > some of them. These 25 cases are:> > 2:5, 2:9, 4:20, 4:22, 8:32, 9:31, 14:17, 14:21, 14:33, 15:34, 15:38, > 16:7, 16:14, 20:5, 20:31, 21:25, 22:5, 22:19, 26:15, 26:66, 27:4, > 27:21, 27:23, 27:66, 28:15> > The remaining two cases are 26:67 and the verse in dispute, 28:17. > In 26:67, as in 28:17, most translations read “and some slapped > him”, or “and others slapped him”. However, this seems to me to be > very dubious, as the verse could easily be read, “then they spat on > his face and beat him with their fists, and they also slapped him, > and said …”. In other words, hOI DE in 26:67 could refer to the > same people doing the beating. Indeed, in light of the 25 cases I > have cited above, that seems to be overwhelmingly more likely.> > That leaves us with the case in point, 28:17. Even if we accept the > sense of “some” is legitimate in 26:67, which I don’t, the a priori > chances of that reading here are 1 in 26 (of the 26 other cases of > the grammatical construction in Matthew, only 1 might mean “some”). > Futhermore, the reading “but they also doubted” seems to me more > eminently reasonable in context.> > Therefore I conclude that it is the overwhelmingly more likely > reading. Indeed, most likely Matthew simply never uses hOI DE to > mean “some”, irrespective of its meaning in broader Greek. His > characteristic meaning seems to be to refer to all the group.> > God bless,> > Albert Haig.___________I’m not so sure that you have proven your case. Mt 2.5 might or mightnot indicate only SOME. Other cases of the appearance of hOI DE arepart of a participial clause which would therefore be “those who *ing . ..” I haven’t checked every instance which you cite since I’m still inthe process of evaluating your conclusion, but my initial reaction is asabove. To establish your argument you will need to restrict yourself toinstances of hOI DE followed by a finite verb.georgegfsomsel___________

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Sun Apr 9 15:25:59 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] ECOMEN or ECWMEN – Rom. 5.1 Dear list,>I’m not so sure that you have proven your case. Mt 2.5 might or might>not indicate only SOME. Other cases of the appearance of hOI DE are>part of a participial clause which would therefore be “those who *ing . .>.” I haven’t checked every instance which you cite since I’m still in>the process of evaluating your conclusion, but my initial reaction is as>above. To establish your argument you will need to restrict yourself to>instances of hOI DE followed by a finite verb.HH: Right. The participles can require hOI if they are to be substantive, so they should not really be included in this survey of Matthew’s usage. I forgot that when I made my earlier comment.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] ECOMEN or ECWMEN – Rom. 5.1

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN bitan buth ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il
Sun Apr 9 10:57:37 EDT 2006

[] ECOMEN or ECWMEN – Rom. 5.1 [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Sangrey egrapsed:>So, the natural question to ask is, “Does this develop the narrative?If one assumes a contrastive group or sub-group, then there is nodevelopment.> This appears to confuse metalanguage. If another group did somethingdifferent, then that would certainly be a ‘development’, too. The problem ofcourse, is that everything could be called a development. But DE can alsomark parenthetical information and descriptions that have nothing to do withplot development. DE can go ‘off-line’ and back ‘on-line’.Actually, I don’t like the term ‘development’ for DE and said so in aquasi-review 25 years ago, before Levinsohn wrote his book. He is free todisagree. I prefer to see DE as having two simple features <+change,+connection>. Back to Mt 28:17–if the same group were both bowing down/worshipping anddoubting I would expect either a participle DISTAZONTES or else KAIEDISTASAN. The text as it stands seems to reflect a very common Greek practice ofmarking a change of subject with simply an article O/H/TO/OI/AI/TA plus DE.(Yes, it is possibly to have a subject change and not MARK it, but thesimple way to mark this is to add DE.) A text comes to mind– Acts 17:32AKOUSANTES DE ANASTASIIN NEKRWN and havingheard the resurrection of the dead OI MEN EXLEUAZON On the one hand some were mockingOI DE EIPEN and others saidAKOUSOMEQA SOU PERI TOUTOU KAI PALIN we will listen to you about this again, yes. This is pretty close. The first DE switches from Paul to his audience. Theaudience has a dual reaction that makes two ‘groups’. Both groups are introduced by OI instead of TINES. MEN // DE separate them into two. In any case the last group is just OI DE”and others”. Luke only bothers to use TINES with a more significant subsettwo verses later who join Paul’s movement. ERRWSQERandall Buth Randall Buth, PhDBiblical Language Centerwww.biblicalulpan.orgc/o margbuth at gmail.comalso, Director, Biblical Studies in Israelunder Rothberg International School,Hebrew Universityybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il

[] ECOMEN or ECWMEN – Rom. 5.1[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Iver Larsen iver at larsen.dk
Sun Apr 9 12:34:33 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN >> [Carl] Sure, but the key element here is the DE with hOI, indicating a shift of focus to another group or sub-group.> >> [Harold] DE is contrastive, and hOI can function as a demonstrative pronoun implying “some.” If Matthew had wanted to>> say that everybody doubted who worshipped, he could have left out the hOI.> > Sorry Carl and Harold, but I think I can prove you wrong on this point!Sorry, Albert, but Carl is right again – as are the Bible translations you question.> 59 verses in Matthew include the phrase hOI DE. Of these, only 27 occur without a following masculine plural noun (or> masculine plural participle functioning as a noun) and hence are strictly analogous to this case. In 25 of these cases> this phrase is standardly translated “and they …” or “but they”, and the hOI completely obviously refers to the> entire group of people in the context, not just to some of them. These 25 cases are:> > 2:5, 2:9, 4:20, 4:22, 8:32, 9:31, 14:17, 14:21, 14:33, 15:34, 15:38, 16:7, 16:14, 20:5, 20:31, 21:25, 22:5, 22:19,> 26:15, 26:66, 27:4, 27:21, 27:23, 27:66, 28:15It looks like you are being mislead by the English, somewhat ambiguous, “they”. Try to look at all instances of thenominative hO DE (singular) and hOI DE (plural). It is not significant whether there is a following masculine noun ornot, since the noun only makes explicit what otherwise is implicit. Think of a scene in a theater. There are two orsometimes more than two groups on stage. One of the groups may be one person only. Then think of someone moving thespotlight. When one group/person is speaking or acting, the spotlight is on that person. When the other group/personresponds or reacts, the spotlight shifts to that other group. That is exactly what the hO(I) DE does. It moves thespotlight to another group/person who becomes the actor/speaker. You can try to go through all your examples and supplyfrom context who the actor or speaker is, and you will see more clearly the spotlight shift from the person who spoke oracted in the immediately preceding sentence. If you have time, go through all the 158 examples of a nominative hO/hOIfollowed by DE in Matthew (or the 601 such constructions in the GNT).And Mike, although the DE may indicate a new theme development, this is not the case when it occurs after the nominativearticle. Then it indicates a shift in subject. Randall Buth has a better general rule of thumb: DE indicates a *change*of some kind (and there are different kinds of change in different contexts. They can be categorised, but that wouldtake too long to do here.)> The remaining two cases are 26:67 and the verse in dispute, 28:17. In 26:67, as in 28:17, most translations read “and> some slapped him”, or “and others slapped him”. However, this seems to me to be very dubious, as the verse could> easily be read, “then they spat on his face and beat him with their fists, and they also slapped him, and said …”.> In other words, hOI DE in 26:67 could refer to the same people doing the beating. Indeed, in light of the 25 cases I> have cited above, that seems to be overwhelmingly more likely.In 26:67 we still have a spotlight shift, but this time from the whole group to a subgroup. It is actually quitesimilar, because you can think of all the people on stage as one big group, and then a subgroup as those who now come inthe spotlight. That is why it is correct to supply “some” or “others” in this verse as all translations do.> That leaves us with the case in point, 28:17. Even if we accept the sense of “some” is legitimate in 26:67, which I> don’t, the a priori chances of that reading here are 1 in 26 (of the 26 other cases of the grammatical construction in> Matthew, only 1 might mean “some”). Furthermore, the reading “but they also doubted” seems to me more eminently> reasonable in context.You are correct to compare these two verses, because in both of them the shift is from the whole group to a subgroup.That is why the word “some” needs to be added in English in order to be faithful to the intended meaning of the text.Even the KJV adds “some”. See also the note in NET for 28:17. There is no way the text can be taken to mean “and theyalso doubted” referring to the whole group.Iver Larsen

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Stephen C. Carlson scarlson at mindspring.com
Mon Apr 10 12:34:40 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU – Rom. 3.22 At 04:57 PM 4/9/2006 +0200, bitan buth wrote:>A text comes to mind– Acts 17:32>This is pretty close. The first DE switches from Paul to his audience. The>audience has a dual reaction that makes two ‘groups’. > >Both groups are introduced by OI instead of TINES. BDF offers Matt 26:67 as an example similar to Matt 28:17:TOTE ENEPTUSAN EIS TO PROSWPON AUTOU KAI EKOLAFION AUTON,hOI DE ERAPISAN, 68 LEGONTES …(Note: Codex Bezae makes it even more explicit, ALLOI DEERAPEISAN AUTON).Stephen Carlson — Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson at mindspring.comWeblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU – Rom. 3.22
[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Albert & Julia Haig albert_and_julia at yahoo.com.au
Wed Apr 12 23:33:15 EDT 2006

[] Mark 3:14 [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Sorry for the delay in responding!> [GFS] I’m not so sure that you have proven your case. Mt 2.5 might or might not indicate only SOME. Other cases of the appearance of hOI DE are part of a participial clause which would therefore be “those who *ing . ..” I haven’t checked every instance which you cite since I’m still in the process of evaluating your conclusion, but my initial reaction is as above.Your claim about Matthew 2:5 is a stretch I think. Verse 4 states that the chief priests and scribes were gathered and Herod asked them (EPUNQANETO PAR AUTWN) about the Christ’s birthplace, and then verse 5 reports their reply (“and they said to him”, hOI DE EIPAN). Surely the ones replying have to be the same ones who were asked!As for the question of participles, I avoided verses where it seemed to me that the participle was functioning as a noun and the word hOI was therefore not functioning as a pronoun, but rather as the definite article (i.e “the *ing ones” or something like that). However, such judgments are subjective. If you want to exclude all cases where a participle follows, that’s fine by me. It only serves to reinforce my point.> [HH] I agree that hOI followed by a verb does not have to mean “some,” but Carl’s point still stands. If you look at all the examples you cite, there is a shift from one subject to another with hOI. Sometimes the shift may be subtle, as in the cases of the miraculous feeding, where it may not be stated who picked up the leftovers. But we know it was the apostles, so “the ones (hOI) eating” in the next verse is a slight shift.First of all, in many of these 25 cases I don’t see any marked shift in subject – certainly no more marked then is found elsewhere with other conjunctions or particles – though of course, if you look hard enough and want to find such a shift, you always can. However, there is a huge difference between a shift of subject, and a shift in pronomial reference. Not one of the 25 cases I gave in which the word hOI functions as a pronoun, involve a shift in the group to which the pronoun refers. This only leaves 1 unconvincing example (26:67) and the example under dispute. So saying that hOI followed by a verb does not have to mean “some” is an understatement. At best, you should say that “in Matthew, hOI followed by a verb might on rare occasions mean “some””. But I remain entirely unconvinced.> [RB] The problem of course, is that everything could be called a development.As usual, spot on. This is the point I was making above. I challenge people to show me a use of, say, KAI that does not involve development. I’ll bet I can argue a case that there is development going on. Only a phrase which was a strict tautology following on would not involve “development”.> [IL] It looks like you are being mislead by the English, somewhat ambiguous, “they”. Try to look at all instances of the nominative hO DE (singular) and hOI DE (plural). It is not significant whether there is a following masculine noun or not, since the noun only makes explicit what otherwise is implicit.No, I think you are mistaken here. There is a fundamental difference whether or not the word hOI is followed by a masculine plural nominative noun. If it is, then it functions as *the definite article*. If it is not, then it functions as a *pronoun*. These are quite distinct functions. In the translations you claim are correct of 28:17, it is assumed that the noun which the pronoun references changes because of the DE. But in all other 26 examples bar possibly one (26:67), it does not. Hence my scepticism.> [IL] There is no way the text can be taken to mean “and they also doubted” referring to the whole group.It seems to me to naturally read that way, and if some had been intended, then it could easily have been said using TINES as Matthew does on many other occasions (e.g. 28:11, 27:47, etc).> [SCC] BDF offers Matt 26:67 as an example similar to Matt 28:17: TOTE ENEPTUSAN EIS TO PROSWPON AUTOU KAI EKOLAFION AUTON, hOI DE ERAPISAN, 68 LEGONTES …This is the case I discussed earlier, which leaves me very unconvinced. It seems to read very naturally, “They they spat in his face and beat him with their fists, and they slapped him, and said, “prophesy to us …”.Please show me an example where the context *demands* that a shift in reference for the pronoun is required, and I will believe you. If hOI DE has the meaning you claim, then such examples should be findable.God bless,Albert Haig.———————————On Yahoo!7 Music: Create your own personalised radio station.

[] Mark 3:14[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Stephen C. Carlson scarlson at mindspring.com
Thu Apr 13 01:28:58 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN At 01:33 PM 4/13/2006 +1000, Albert & Julia Haig wrote:>> [SCC] BDF offers Matt 26:67 as an example similar to Matt 28:17: TOTE ENEPTUSAN EIS TO PROSWPON AUTOU KAI EKOLAFION AUTON, hOI DE ERAPISAN, 68 LEGONTES …> >This is the case I discussed earlier, which leaves me very unconvinced. It seems to read very naturally, “They they spat in his face and beat him with their fists, and they slapped him, and said, “prophesy to us …”.> >Please show me an example where the context *demands* that a shift in reference for the pronoun is required, and I will believe you. If hOI DE has the meaning you claim, then such examples should be findable.The remark “prophesy to us” as a taunt makes the most senseif those hitting Jesus were not in his line of sight, i.e.,they are hitting him from behind. On the other hand, thosespitting in his face are in front of him. (Matthew mentionsno blindfold, as it would have been out of place or removedfor those spitting on his face.) The Matthean context thereforeindicates two different groups beating him up in two differentways, so the context does call for understanding hOI DE as ashift in reference.For a fuller explanation, please see Michael Goulder, “TwoSignificant Minor Agreements (Mat. 4:13 Par.; Mat. 26:67-68Par.),” Novum Testamentum 45 (2003): 365-373.Stephen Carlson — Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson at mindspring.comWeblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Albert & Julia Haig albert_and_julia at yahoo.com.au
Thu Apr 13 05:58:25 EDT 2006

[] A less pejorative reading of PARADIDWMI in Matt. 26? [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN > [SCC] The remark “prophesy to us” as a taunt makes the most sense if those hitting Jesus were not in his line of sight, i.e., they are hitting him from behind. On the other hand, those spitting in his face are in front of him. (Matthew mentions no blindfold, as it would have been out of place or removed for those spitting on his face.) The Matthean context therefore indicates two different groups beating him up in two different ways, so the context does call for understanding hOI DE as a shift in reference.This kind of explanation is what worries me, because it is overly pedantic and fails to appreciate how language is used in practice. Unfortunately such lines of reasoning are common in biblical scholarship. Suppose that I say, “the mob of students in Paris smashed the windows of the Department of Employment, and afterwards they chanted slogans”. The pronoun “they” in this sentence clearly refers back to “the mob of students”, and indeed, could be replaced by the words “the mob” or something like that without altering the meaning. But obviously, the person who made the statement does not believe that *every, single student* in the mob was involved in the smashing of windows, or that *every, single student* in the mob necessarily chanted slogans, or that there were not some who did one but not the other. We speak of “the mob” as a whole, without this implying that we somehow think that everybody in the group did everything which we attribute to “the mob”. That would just be a woodenly literal, or overly pedantic, interpretation of language.Arguing that the pronoun hOI must refer to a different group in 26:67 is like arguing that the pronoun “they” in the above sentence must refer to a different group because only a few people could have smashed windows but nearly everybody was chanting. But such a line of reasoning would be obviously wrong. It is equally wrong when applied to Matthew 26:67.All the best,Albert.Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

[] A less pejorative reading of PARADIDWMI in Matt. 26?[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Mike Sangrey MSangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Thu Apr 13 09:13:08 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 01:28 -0400, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:> At 01:33 PM 4/13/2006 +1000, Albert & Julia Haig wrote:> >Please show me an example where the context *demands* that a shift in reference for the pronoun is required, and I will> believe you. If hOI DE has the meaning you claim, then such examples should be findable.> > The remark “prophesy to us” as a taunt makes the most sense> if those hitting Jesus were not in his line of sight, i.e.,> they are hitting him from behind. On the other hand, those> spitting in his face are in front of him. (Matthew mentions> no blindfold, as it would have been out of place or removed> for those spitting on his face.) The Matthean context therefore> indicates two different groups beating him up in two different> ways, so the context does call for understanding hOI DE as a> shift in reference.This assumes ‘prophesy’ is predictive or somehow supernatural in vision.If you take ‘prophecy’ more along the lines of “preaching or declaringsinful or correct behavior” then you have the taunting nature of “preachat us, tell us we’re doing something wrong, go ahead…” In this case,two groups aren’t required.I haven’t had the time to analyze each case, but my cursory skip throughthe occurrences in Luke shows me that exegeting all occurrences as twogroups is completely unsupportable.Frankly, I think the discussion would be helped by generating a clearand more accurate definition of DISTAZW, since it appears to me thatwhat’s driving the ‘two groups’ idea is the semantic interaction betweenPISTIS and DISTAZW.– Mike Sangrey (msangrey AT BlueFeltHat.org)Exegetitor.blogspot.comLandisburg, Pa. “The first one last wins.” “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Stephen C. Carlson scarlson at mindspring.com
Thu Apr 13 09:38:06 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN >>This assumes ‘prophesy’ is predictive or somehow supernatural in vision.>>If you take ‘prophecy’ more along the lines of “preaching or declaring>>sinful or correct behavior” then you have the taunting nature of “preach>>at us, tell us we’re doing something wrong, go ahead…” In this case,>>two groups aren’t required.The question in the text after the “Prophesy”, however, is “Who hit you?”.That taunt fits the first option much better than the second one. In fact,I cannot really accept the second option as a viable interpretation.>I haven’t had the time to analyze each case, but my cursory skip through>the occurrences in Luke shows me that exegeting all occurrences as two>groups is completely unsupportable.Surely evidence from the same author (here Matt 26:67) is more relevantthan evidence from another?>Frankly, I think the discussion would be helped by generating a clear>and more accurate definition of DISTAZW, since it appears to me that>what’s driving the ‘two groups’ idea is the semantic interaction between>PISTIS and DISTAZW.We’re back to Matt 28:17, and I’ll let someone deal with that, but I wouldagree with you that getting a better sense of DISTAZW would be helpful.For what it is worth, LSJ also gives the meaning of “hesitate.”Stephen Carlson–Stephen C. Carlson, mailto:scarlson at mindspring.com “Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words.” Shujing 2.35

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Mike Sangrey MSangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Thu Apr 13 10:32:39 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 09:38 -0400, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:> The question in the text after the “Prophesy”, however, is “Who hit> you?”.> That taunt fits the first option much better than the second one. In> fact,> I cannot really accept the second option as a viable interpretation.I won’t belabor this point, so please allow just one clarification.The “Who hit you” can easily be a demand that the prophecy be specificto the exact individuals. That is, that the declaration of sinfulbehavior be quite pointed. This certainly doesn’t rule out what you’vesaid. After all, Jesus is blindfolded. However, the collocation ofPROFHTEUW and BLASFHMEW suggest a direct attack on Christ prophetic (inthe sense I’m using it) ministry. And that’s really what I’msuggesting. I didn’t want people to walk away from this somewhattangential sub-thread and be thinking that “the Greek says it” as youhave stated it. Also, note I’m not trying to put you in a bad lighthere. I’m just trying to give a balancing perspective. One that youwill likely, and justifiably, disagree with. The disagreement reallyhinges on the meaning of PROFHTEUW and that’s too far a field from thisthread.> We’re back to Matt 28:17, and I’ll let someone deal with that, but I would> agree with you that getting a better sense of DISTAZW would be helpful.> For what it is worth, LSJ also gives the meaning of “hesitate.”I’ve had this “feeling” that DISTAZW is NOT quite an antonym to’conviction’. ISTM it’s a word that would be used when someone says,”O!, I don’t know, I just can’t be completely certain.” In Greek, theperson would say DISTAZW to capture most of that entire Englishsentence.– Mike Sangrey (msangrey AT BlueFeltHat.org)Exegetitor.blogspot.comLandisburg, Pa. “The first one last wins.” “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Apr 13 17:45:41 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] 2nd Year Greek On Apr 13, 2006, at 9:38 AM, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:>>> This assumes ‘prophesy’ is predictive or somehow supernatural in >>> vision.>>> If you take ‘prophecy’ more along the lines of “preaching or >>> declaring>>> sinful or correct behavior” then you have the taunting nature of >>> “preach>>> at us, tell us we’re doing something wrong, go ahead…” In this >>> case,>>> two groups aren’t required.> > The question in the text after the “Prophesy”, however, is “Who hit > you?”.> That taunt fits the first option much better than the second one. > In fact,> I cannot really accept the second option as a viable interpretation.> >> I haven’t had the time to analyze each case, but my cursory skip >> through>> the occurrences in Luke shows me that exegeting all occurrences as >> two>> groups is completely unsupportable.> > Surely evidence from the same author (here Matt 26:67) is more > relevant> than evidence from another?> >> Frankly, I think the discussion would be helped by generating a clear>> and more accurate definition of DISTAZW, since it appears to me that>> what’s driving the ‘two groups’ idea is the semantic interaction >> between>> PISTIS and DISTAZW.> > We’re back to Matt 28:17, and I’ll let someone deal with that, but > I would> agree with you that getting a better sense of DISTAZW would be > helpful.> For what it is worth, LSJ also gives the meaning of “hesitate.”In the course of this thread, I have tried to consider alternatives, but I am, in fact, more than ever convinced that the conventional reading of hOI DE EDISTASAN in Mt 28:17 as meaning “but some doubted” is correct.For what it’s worth, I’ll bring in some of the data from BDAG:1. The definition of DISTAZW (This won’t alter the understanding of hOI DE, but only of what hOI DE did):DISTAZW (DIS + ?) fut. DISTASW; 1 aor. EDISTASA (Pla.+; OGI 315, 66; UPZ 110, 57; PSI 1315, 6 [both II BC]; PGiss 18, 9; BGU 388, 17; Sb 6663, 35 al. pap; EpArist 53; Jos., Bell. 2, 182) gener. ‘to be uncertain, to have second thoughts about a matter’.1. to have doubts concerning something, doubt, waver abs. (Diod. S. 20, 15, 3) Mt 14:31; 28:17 (IEllis, NTS 14, ’67/68, 574–80; KMcKay, JSNT 24, ’85, 71f the subject is a subgroup of the apostles; for another interpr. of Mt 28:17 s. 2 below); GMary Ox 3525, 10. THi YUCHi within oneself 1 Cl 23:3. Also THi KARDIAi 2 Cl 11:2. ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ Hm 9:5. PERI TINOS have doubts concerning someth. (Diod. S. 4, 62, 3; 19, 36, 5; Plut., Mor. 62a) 1 Cl 11:2; Hs 9, 28, 7. W. indirect quest. foll. (Pla., Aristot.; Polyb. 12, 26c, 2) TINI DWiS consider to whom you should give Hm 2:4.2. to be uncertain about taking a particular course of action, hesitate in doubt (Diod. S. 10, 4, 4; Dositheus 71, 5; Just., D. 28, 2; 39, 6) perh. Mt 28:17 abs.; w. inf. foll. DOUNAI D 4:7 and B 19:11; AITEISQAI to make a request Hs 5, 4, 3.—DELG s.v. δί. M-M. TW.2. Under hO/hH/hO. The usage of hOI DE to indicate the behavior/ action of a subgroup of those whose action has been described just previously): hO MEN … hO DEb. 28:17 hOI DE introduces a second class; just before this, instead of the first class, the whole group is mentioned (cp. X., Hell. 1, 2, 14, Cyr. 3, 2, 12; KMcKay, JSNT 24, ’85, 71f)=but some (as Arrian, Anab. 5, 2, 7; 5, 14, 4; Lucian, Tim. 4 p. 107; Hesych. Miles. [VI AD]: 390 fgm. 1, 35 end Jac.).And here a couple of those relevant texts:(a) Xenophon Hellenica 1.2.14 … hOI AICMALWTOI SYRAKOSIOI … APODRANTES NUKTOS WiCONTO EIS DEKELEIAN, hOI D’ EIS MEGARA. ” … the Syracusan prisoners … escaping by night got away to Decelea, but some of them to Megara.”(b) Xenophon, Cyropaedia 3.2.12 EN DE TOUTWi PROSAGOUSI TWi KURWi TOUS AICMALWTOUS DEDEMENOUS, TOUS DE TINAS KAI TETRWMENOUS … “At this time they bring before Cyrus the prisoners in chains, some of them also wounded … “Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] 2nd Year Greek

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Bert de Haan b_dehaan at sympatico.ca
Thu Apr 13 19:03:24 EDT 2006

[] 2nd Year Greek [] Luke 3:17 Relative pronoun hOU <albert_and_julia at yahoo.com.au> wrote:>Please show me an example where the context *demands* that a shift in >reference>for the pronoun is required, and I will believe you. If hOI DE has the >meaning>you claim, then such examples should be findable.Smyh refers to this exact usage in section 2838 b.http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007&layout=&loc=2838I hope this’ll help.(I understand that BDF also refers to it using this verse as example.)Bert de Haan.

[] 2nd Year Greek[] Luke 3:17 Relative pronoun hOU

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Apr 14 09:15:50 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Dear Albert,>This is not the point. I’m simply looking for cases that are >strictly analogous to the one in 28:17 to see if a shift in >reference for the pronoun is possible.HH: But you have been shown good examples by Carl and Bert. Did you somehow miss them?Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Elizabeth Kline kline-dekooning at earthlink.net
Fri Apr 14 13:25:27 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Luke 3:17 Relative pronoun hOU On Apr 14, 2006, at 5:53 AM, Albert & Julia Haig wrote:> Matthew was not writing a formal theological thesis. Maybe he > wanted us to think deeply about the interaction of faith and doubt > in our own lives and their paradoxical coexistence.Are we confusing Matthew with Dostoevsky?Elizabeth Kline

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Luke 3:17 Relative pronoun hOU

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Albert & Julia Haig albert_and_julia at yahoo.com.au
Sun Apr 16 10:05:46 EDT 2006

[] Gal. 3:24,25 hINA [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN > [RB] In the example DE would signal a change of subject/topic.Thanks for this, Randall. I think I’m coming to understand the point at issue. Briefly, here are three relevant examples of the use of DE in Matthew. There doesn’t seem to be any change of subject/topic in any of these cases except for the shift in speaker/actor (i.e. person(s) A say something, and then person(s) B reply). Is this enough to constitute a shift in terms of the use of DE?Mt. 2:4-5 KAI SUNAGAGWN PANTAS TOUS ARCIEREIS KAI GRAMMATEIS TOU LAOU EPUNQANETO PAR AUTWN POU hO CRISTOS GENNATAI. hOI DE EIPAN AUTWi, EN BHQLEEM THS IOUDAIAS …Mt.4:19-20 KAI LEGEI AUTOIS DEUTE OPISW MOU, KAI POIHSW hUMAS hALIEIS ANQRWPWN. hOI DE EUQEWS AFENTES TA DIKTUA HKOLOUQHSAN AUTWi.Mt. 14:16-17 hO DE EIPEN AUTOIS OU CREIAN ECOUSIN APELQEIN, DOTE AUTOIS hUMEIS FAGEIN. hOI DE LEGOUSIN AUTWi OUK ECOMEN hWDE EI MH PENTE ARTOUS KAI DUO ICQUAS.> [RB] Just the opposite, the LXX choose KAI as its conjunction to match vav, since both KAI and VAV could be used to join nouns together as well as clauses. It takes extra energy for someone to add DE to a text when the default was KAI. That means that they do it for a reason.This seems to be generally true but not always. Looking through Genesis, I came upon 2:6:LXX: PHGH DE ANEBAINEN EK THS GHS KAI EPOTIZEN …Heb: ve’ed ya`aleh min-ha’aretz vehishqah …In one case vav is translated as DE, and in the other as KAI. Presumably the translators thought that vav was used to shift the topic in the first case but not the second? If so, then the semantic range of vav in Hebrew seems to encompass both meanings. If this is true, it would seem possible that a native Hebrew speaker writing in Greek might confuse the meanings or not appreciate the distinction (since the distinction is lacking in Hebrew). Indeed, isn’t this what I’ve done because I’m a native English speaker, in which language the distinction is also lacking?> [RB] So how would Greeks have heard Mt 28:17? OI DE ‘and others’ DE marks a change and OI means a different group.OK, I see the point now. So is it impossible that the DE marks a change of topic from faith to doubt? Why?The other thing that is puzzling about Mt. 28:17, compared to the other examples, is that the preceding context presents only two actors. The actors are “Jesus” and “the eleven disciples”. I can understand the use of DE to alternate between previously established actors (whether groups or individuals) in the context. But it seems strange to use it to introduce a new group of actors by means of a pronoun without specifying who they are. It is even stranger when the new group is a sub-group of one of the established groups, and not a distinct group. In this respect, Mt. 28:17 is not even analagous to 26:67, where the group which is introduced by means of a pronoun and DE is at least arguably distinct from the preceding group.But, OK, I’m convinced, it should read “but some doubted”. Mea culpa, mea culpa. Though this use, in which a pronoun and DE are used to introduce an otherwise unspecified and elsewhere unmentioned group, does seem to be rare.> [EK] Are we confusing Matthew with Dostoevsky?Is that worse than confusing him with Athanasius, or Augustine, or Calvin? Seems to me a common human frailty.All the best,Albert.Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

[] Gal. 3:24,25 hINA[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Apr 16 11:54:03 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN On Apr 16, 2006, at 10:05 AM, Albert & Julia Haig wrote:>> [RB] In the example DE would signal a change of subject/topic.> > Thanks for this, Randall. I think I’m coming to understand the > point at issue. Briefly, here are three relevant examples of the > use of DE in Matthew. There doesn’t seem to be any change of > subject/topic in any of these cases except for the shift in speaker/ > actor (i.e. person(s) A say something, and then person(s) B reply). > Is this enough to constitute a shift in terms of the use of DE?> > Mt. 2:4-5 KAI SUNAGAGWN PANTAS TOUS ARCIEREIS KAI GRAMMATEIS TOU > LAOU EPUNQANETO PAR AUTWN POU hO CRISTOS GENNATAI. hOI DE EIPAN > AUTWi, EN BHQLEEM THS IOUDAIAS …> > Mt.4:19-20 KAI LEGEI AUTOIS DEUTE OPISW MOU, KAI POIHSW hUMAS > hALIEIS ANQRWPWN. hOI DE EUQEWS AFENTES TA DIKTUA HKOLOUQHSAN AUTWi.> > Mt. 14:16-17 hO DE EIPEN AUTOIS OU CREIAN ECOUSIN APELQEIN, DOTE > AUTOIS hUMEIS FAGEIN. hOI DE LEGOUSIN AUTWi OUK ECOMEN hWDE EI MH > PENTE ARTOUS KAI DUO ICQUAS.> >> [RB] Just the opposite, the LXX choose KAI as its conjunction to >> match vav, since both KAI and VAV could be used to join nouns >> together as well as clauses. It takes extra energy for someone to >> add DE to a text when the default was KAI. That means that they do >> it for a reason.> > This seems to be generally true but not always. Looking through > Genesis, I came upon 2:6:> > LXX: PHGH DE ANEBAINEN EK THS GHS KAI EPOTIZEN …> > Heb: ve’ed ya`aleh min-ha’aretz vehishqah …> > In one case vav is translated as DE, and in the other as KAI. > Presumably the translators thought that vav was used to shift the > topic in the first case but not the second? If so, then the > semantic range of vav in Hebrew seems to encompass both meanings. > If this is true, it would seem possible that a native Hebrew > speaker writing in Greek might confuse the meanings or not > appreciate the distinction (since the distinction is lacking in > Hebrew). Indeed, isn’t this what I’ve done because I’m a native > English speaker, in which language the distinction is also lacking?I don’t think that the Greek DE in Gen 2:6 is simply translating VE; I think it’s indicating the shift of focus to the spring rising; the KAI ahead of the second clause here does convey the simple continuative sense of the second VE. I’d like to see what Al Pietersma has to say on this, but it appears to me that the LXX translator has in this instance correctly used the DE to indicate a shift of focus, here to the spring.> >> [RB] So how would Greeks have heard Mt 28:17? OI DE ‘and others’ >> DE marks a change and OI means a different group.> > OK, I see the point now. So is it impossible that the DE marks a > change of topic from faith to doubt? Why?It marks a shift from focus upon those (of the disciples) who responded in faith to at least two others (of the disciples) who responded with doubt.> The other thing that is puzzling about Mt. 28:17, compared to the > other examples, is that the preceding context presents only two > actors. The actors are “Jesus” and “the eleven disciples”. I can > understand the use of DE to alternate between previously > established actors (whether groups or individuals) in the context. > But it seems strange to use it to introduce a new group of actors > by means of a pronoun without specifying who they are. It is even > stranger when the new group is a sub-group of one of the > established groups, and not a distinct group. In this respect, Mt. > 28:17 is not even analagous to 26:67, where the group which is > introduced by means of a pronoun and DE is at least arguably > distinct from the preceding group.> > But, OK, I’m convinced, it should read “but some doubted”. Mea > culpa, mea culpa. Though this use, in which a pronoun and DE are > used to introduce an otherwise unspecified and elsewhere > unmentioned group, does seem to be rare.The citations from Xenophon’s Hellenica and Cyropaedia which I gave you earlier (you said you would have to hunt them up, but I had done that, gave you the citations as well as my own English version of them) involved the same sort of shift to a sub-group of those cited in what precedes the clause in which the pronoun hO + DE appears. That is also what is pointed at in the BDAG subsection of the entry on hO/hH/TO that I cited> 2. Under hO/hH/hO. The usage of hOI DE to indicate the behavior/> action of a subgroup of those whose action has been described just> previously): hO MEN … hO DE> b. 28:17 hOI DE introduces a second class; just before this, instead> of the first class, the whole group is mentioned (cp. X., Hell. 1, 2,> 14, Cyr. 3, 2, 12; KMcKay, JSNT 24, ’85, 71f)=but some (as Arrian,> Anab. 5, 2, 7; 5, 14, 4; Lucian, Tim. 4 p. 107; Hesych. Miles. [VI> AD]: 390 fgm. 1, 35 end Jac.).and in the reference to Smyth’s grammar cited by Bert de Haan:> > Smyh refers to this exact usage in section 2838 b.> http://tinyurl.com/qyumd“§2838. δέ without μέν.–A clause with δέ often has no correlative particle in the clause with which it is contrasted. Here μέν is not used because the opposition in the first clause was too weak, or because the speaker did not intend to announce a following contrast or did not think he was going to use a contrasted δέ clause. Sometimes the entire first clause may have to be supplied in thought from the general connection or from what has gone before. δέ without μέν in such cases is common in poetry, but not rare in prose, even in brief antitheses, as ἃ πάντες ἀεὶ γλίχονται λέγειν, ἀξίως δ’ οὐδεὶς εἰπει̂ν δεδύνηται exploits which everybody continually desires to recount, but which no one has been able to set forth adequately D. 6.11. See also 2835.”b. οἱ δέ, when opposed to a larger number of persons or things, is often used without οἱ μέν, as προεληλυθότες ἐπὶ χῑλόν, οἱ δ’ ἐπὶ ξύλα having gone for fodder, and some for fuel X. C. 6.3.9. [p. 646]”In sum, then, what we have in verse 17 of Mt 28 is a statement of the “general” reaction of the eleven disciples to the appearance of Jesus: they did obeisance to him, and then the specific response of at least two of the eleven who are not named: they weren’t quite sure.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN Albert Pietersma albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Sun Apr 16 21:32:18 EDT 2006

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Question on DE On Apr 16, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>> This seems to be generally true but not always. Looking through>> Genesis, I came upon 2:6:>> >> LXX: PHGH DE ANEBAINEN EK THS GHS KAI EPOTIZEN …>> >> Heb: ve’ed ya`aleh min-ha’aretz vehishqah …>> >> In one case vav is translated as DE, and in the other as KAI.>> Presumably the translators thought that vav was used to shift the>> topic in the first case but not the second? If so, then the>> semantic range of vav in Hebrew seems to encompass both meanings.>> If this is true, it would seem possible that a native Hebrew>> speaker writing in Greek might confuse the meanings or not>> appreciate the distinction (since the distinction is lacking in>> Hebrew). Indeed, isn’t this what I’ve done because I’m a native>> English speaker, in which language the distinction is also lacking?It is methodologically incorrect to retroject from the target language (Greek) onto the source language (Hebrew). Thus all one can conclude in Gen 2:6 is the translator, rather than doggedly sticking to his default (VE = KAI), caters to Greek usage.> > I don’t think that the Greek DE in Gen 2:6 is simply translating VE;> I think it’s indicating the shift of focus to the spring rising; the> KAI ahead of the second clause here does convey the simple> continuative sense of the second VE. I’d like to see what Al> Pietersma has to say on this, but it appears to me that the LXX> translator has in this instance correctly used the DE to indicate a> shift of focus, here to the spring.Quite so. The translator, in the target language (Greek), marks a shift (from one means of watering to another), which is unmarked in the source language (Hebrew). Thus in this case he caters to Greek usage rather than slavishly mimicking his source, as he does all too often.Al>> >> —Albert PietersmaProfessor of Septuagint and Hellenistic GreekNear & Middle Eastern CivilizationsUniversity of TorontoHome: 21 Cross Street,Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.caHomepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm

[] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Question on DE

2 thoughts on “Mattew 28:17”

Mike Partyka says:

The “doubt” there shouldn’t be confused with a refusal of truth. “Distazein” means more of hesitation. They did not doubt he was the Messiah just not sure how to respond to him.


July 7, 2020 at 4:59 pm
RichardAnna Boyce says:

Matthew 28:16-17 Who were those who doubted? Thomas’s doubts and those of the other ten disciples have already been extinguished (John 20:28). Possibly some disciples beside the Eleven doubted. Matt 28:16 in no way limits those present to the Eleven. Paul wrote that over five hundred people saw the risen Lord at one time (1 Cor 15:6). That Matthew mentions the presence of doubters shows he was not sanitizing the story.


July 7, 2020 at 5:36 pm

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

People who read this article also liked:

2 thoughts on “Mattew 28:17”

Leave a Reply