[] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ dstorm at sorenkierkegaard.org dstorm at sorenkierkegaard.org
Sat May 22 14:07:38 εδτ 2004
[] New Koine Greek Study Group [] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ Romans 11.26 says, αποστρευει ασεβειασ απο ιακωβ.ι have checked all ντ references to αποστρεφω, and see that it takes an accusative d.o. Am ι correct in understanding ασεβειασ to be acc. plural? And if so, is the sense acts of godlessless?However, sometimes the preposition can follow the noun. Is there any chance that ασεβειασ is gen. sg. and that the verse means “he will turn Jacob from ungodliness”?δ. Anthony StormRedmond, WAdstorm at sorenkierkegaard.org
[] New Koine Greek Study Group[] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ
[] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ α. Philip Brown ιι pbrown at γβσ.εδυ
Sat May 22 14:20:39 εδτ 2004
[] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ [] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ ι can think of no instance in the ντ where an object of a prepositionprecedes the preposition. If there are such cases, ι would like to knowabout them.ι know places where a genitive pronoun will precede the noun it modifies,rather than the normal syntact of substantive followed by genitive.α quick scan through βδαγ‘s entry for απο identified no instances in whichAPO is preceded by its object.Further, since this is a quote from the λχχ and the Hebrew of Isa. 59:20unequivocally has ‘transgression’ as the direct object of the verb, ι wouldthink taking ασεβειασ as the object of απο is impossible.Philip Brown> —–Original Message—–> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org> [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of> dstorm at sorenkierkegaard.org> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 2:08 πμ> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: [] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ> > > Romans 11.26 says, αποστρευει ασεβειασ απο ιακωβ.> > ι have checked all ντ references to αποστρεφω, and see that it takes an> accusative d.o. Am ι correct in understanding ασεβειασ to be acc.> plural? And> if so, is the sense acts of godlessless?> > However, sometimes the preposition can follow the noun. Is there> any chance> that ασεβειασ is gen. sg. and that the verse means “he will turn> Jacob from> ungodliness”?> > δ. Anthony Storm> Redmond, ωα> dstorm at sorenkierkegaard.org> > > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ[] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ
[] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat May 22 17:04:52 εδτ 2004
[] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ [] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ At 2:20 πμ -0400 5/22/04, α. Philip Brown ιι wrote:>ι can think of no instance in the ντ where an object of a preposition>precedes the preposition. If there are such cases, ι would like to know>about them.> >ι know places where a genitive pronoun will precede the noun it modifies,>rather than the normal syntact of substantive followed by genitive.In Classical Attic hENEKA “for the sake of” regularly follows a genitivecase form; in the γντ it’s more commonly hENEKEN and generally the genitivecase follows hENEKA, but Luke has it in Acts 19:32 … ουκ HiDEISAN TINOShENEKA συνεληλυθεισαν; ι suppose one might argue that τινοσ hENEKA is aphrase simply equivalent to δια τι, “why?”, but ι‘d guess that the usage inActs is a survival or deliberate usage of literary Greek.In Classical Attic poetry it’s common for a disyllabic preposition toappear at the end of a line, in which case the accent recedes to the penultfrom its normal position on the ultima.– Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
Sat May 22 19:34:20 εδτ 2004
[] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ [] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ Thanks, Carl. Is hENEKA the only preposition you know of that does this?As you mentioned, βδαγ suggests τινοσ hENEKA is an idiom for ‘why?’Philip Brown
[] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ Maurice α. ο‘Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Sat May 22 20:52:43 εδτ 2004
[] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ [] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ At 19:20 22/05/2004, α. Philip Brown ιι wrote:>Further, since this is a quote from the λχχ and the Hebrew of Isa. 59:20Not quite the same — Fitzmyer [ Anchor Bible 33 ] points out that: >> Paul quotes Is. 59:20-21a in a form closer to the λχχ than to the μτ<<and that >> Paul changes the prep. hENEKEN ” for the sake of ” to εκ “from” perhaps under the influence of Ps.13(14):7 “τισ δωσει εκ σιον“Maurice α. ο‘Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie
Sat May 22 21:11:41 εδτ 2004
[] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ [] study aids wanted Thanks for the correction, Maurice.ι should have been more technically precise and said this is a quote fromthe οτ, either Paul quotes the λχχ or translates the Hebrew text himself.However, it strikes me as odd that the singular pesha’ is translated by theLXX with a plural ασεβειασ, which is also mirrored in Rom. 11:26. Thishappens in the λχχ only here in Isa. 59:20 and 2/3x in Micah (3:8, 6:7?,7:18). Interestingly enough, there are two other times in Micah where thesingular pesha’ is translated with a singular asebeian (1:5 2x). Makes mewonder if the λχχ translator considered pesha’ a collective noun, withsingularity/plurality determined by context.Philip Brown> —–Original Message—–> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org> [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Maurice α.> ο‘Sullivan> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 8:53 πμ> To: α. Philip Brown ιι> Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: ρε: [] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ> > > At 19:20 22/05/2004, α. Philip Brown ιι wrote:> > >Further, since this is a quote from the λχχ and the Hebrew of Isa. 59:20> > Not quite the same — Fitzmyer [ Anchor Bible 33 ] points out that:> >> Paul quotes Is. 59:20-21a in a form closer to the λχχ than to the μτ<<> and that> >> Paul changes the prep. hENEKEN ” for the sake of ” to εκ> “from” perhaps> under the influence of Ps.13(14):7 “τισ δωσει εκ σιον“> > > Maurice α. ο‘Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]> mauros at iol.ie> > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ[] study aids wanted
Sun May 23 10:50:04 εδτ 2004
[] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ [] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ At 7:34 πμ -0400 5/22/04, α. Philip Brown ιι wrote:>Thanks, Carl.> >Is hENEKA the only preposition you know of that does this?> >As you mentioned, βδαγ suggests τινοσ hENEKA is an idiom for ‘why?’Actually, it’s simply glossed as “why”–it’s not indicated as an idiom assuch. ι know of no other “postpositions” in the γντ; ι mentioned this oneonly to inject a ‘diachronic; note into what seemed to me too absolute a’synchronic’ assertion. It’s sometimes argued that the elements in suchexpressions as καθ‘ hOLOU and κατα μεροσ in the sense of “generally” and”partially” respectively are not thought of as distinct elements; ι knowthat ultimately such items do fuse together, but ι submit that people whouse “on the whole” for “generally” in English are (generally) well enoughaware of what each word in the phrase “on-the-whole’ means. ι don’t thinkthis is really worth arguing about, since obviously reasonable argumentscan be advanced on both sides of the issue.– Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
Mon May 24 16:18:27 εδτ 2004
[] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ [] Romans 11.26: ασεβειασ Carl wrote: ι mentioned this one only to inject a ‘diachronic; note into what seemed tome too absolute a ‘synchronic’ assertion.Thanks, Carl,ι appreciate & agree with your insistence that synchronic study must not beconducted to the exclusion of the diachronic. Thanks for the reminder.Also thanks to Jon Boyd for bringing ξαριν to my attention.Philip Brown