“`html An Exegetical Examination of Matthew 1:23 and Isaiah 7:14 LXX: The Verbal Forms of καλεῖν body { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, ‘Book Antiqua’, Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; } h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; } h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 30px; } h3 { color: #555; margin-top: 20px; }…
“`html An Exegetical Study of 1 John 4:19: The Mood of ἀγαπῶμεν An Exegetical Study of 1 John 4:19: The Mood of ἀγαπῶμεν This exegetical study of 1 John 4:19 is based on a b-greek discussion from May 19, 2007. The initial inquiry focused on the grammatical mood of the verb ἀγαπῶμεν within the sentence…
“`html An Exegetical Examination of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: The Nature of the Prohibited λαλείν and its Contextual Implications An Exegetical Examination of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: The Nature of the Prohibited λαλεῖν and its Contextual Implications This exegetical study of ‘Women or Wives in Acts 21:5’ and ‘Women in the Church’ is based on a b-greek…
An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 12:31a: The Mood of ζηλοῦτε This exegetical study of “1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide” is based on a b-greek discussion from August 27, 2004. The initial query concerned the grammatical parsing of the Greek verb ζηλοῦτε in 1 Corinthians 12:31, specifically why most English translations render it…
The following academic exegesis transforms an email discussion from a b-greek list into a structured scholarly analysis of Acts 1:10. An Exegetical Analysis of Acts 1:10: The Grammatical Function of πορευομένου αὐτοῦ This exegetical study of Acts 1:10 is based on a b-greek discussion from Tue May 11 06:30:28 EDT 1999. The initial inquiry posed…
Exegetical Analysis of Key Grammatical and Lexical Issues in Acts 2:17-18 body { font-family: Georgia, serif; line-height: 1.6; } h1, h2, h3 { font-family: “Palatino Linotype”, “Book Antiqua”, Palatino, serif; } h2 { color: #2C3E50; border-bottom: 2px solid #2C3E50; padding-bottom: 5px; } h3 { color: #34495E; border-bottom: 1px solid #34495E; padding-bottom: 3px; } p {…
The following document presents an academic biblical exegesis of 1 John 1:1, focusing on the genitive construction `τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς`. An Exegetical Analysis of the Genitive Construction in 1 John 1:1: The ‘Genitive of Connection’ and its Alternatives This exegetical study of ‘1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?’ is based on a b-greek discussion from…
An Exegetical Study of Ephesians 2:1-3 This exegetical study of Ephesians 2:1-3 is based on a b-greek discussion from March 17, 2009. The initial inquiry posed questions regarding the translation of the Greek participle ὄντας in Ephesians 2:1, specifically why a seemingly present tense word is often rendered in the past. Further questions concerned the…
An Exegetical Analysis of Romans 1:20: The Participle νοούμενα and its Relationship to καθορᾶται body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; } h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; } h2 { font-size: 1.8em; margin-top: 2em; } h3 { font-size: 1.4em; margin-top: 1.5em; } p { margin-bottom: 1em; } blockquote { border-left:…
“`html An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 body { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, ‘Book Antiqua’, Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; } h2, h3 { color: #333; } blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; font-style: italic; } b { font-weight: bold; } i { font-style: italic; } ul {…
An Exegetical Study of Romans 1:17: “From Faith to Faith” and the Righteousness of God An Exegetical Study of Romans 1:17: “From Faith to Faith” and the Righteousness of God This exegetical study of Romans 1:17: An Examination of “From Faith to Faith” and the Righteousness of God is based on a b-greek discussion from…
Michael Abernathy wrote:
Years ago I read an article (I can’t remember which one) that argued that when the verb for permit is followed by two infinitives the second infinitive often states the purpose of the first infinitive. As I remember the author gave the example of Matthew 8:21 to substantiate his claim.
κύριε, ἐπίτρεψον μοι πρω̂τον ἀπελθει̂ν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου.
Lord, permit me first to go and to bury my father.
We do this in English with a few verbs like ‘go’ and ‘try’.
‘Go and buy some milk’ = ‘go to buy some milk’
‘Try and fix your bicycle’ = ‘try to fix your bicycle’
It seems to me that this happens because the verb demands a complement of this sort. ‘Try’ is inherently purposeful, and purpose is implicit with going, because it is not the going that is the purpose, but whatever one does when one reaches the destination.
My English dictionary, under entry ‘and’, has an addendum which reads:
A small number of verbs, notably ‘try’, ‘come’ and ‘go’ can be followed by ‘and’ with another verb, as in sentences like ‘we’re going to try and explain it to them..’ The structures in these verbs correspond to the use of the infinitive ‘to’, as in ‘we’re going to try to explain it to them..’ .. Since these structures are grammatically odd – for example, the use is normally only idiomatic with the infinitive of the verb and not with other forms (i.e. it is not possible to say ‘I tried and explained it to them’) – they are regarded as wrong by some traditionalists. However, these uses are extremely common in just about every context and can certainly be regarded as standard English.
In English, this isn’t idiomatic with most verbs. And ‘I will teach [you] and fix your bicycle’ would not mean ‘I will teach [you] to fix your bicycle’.
I suspect that the same sort of thing is happening with ἐπίτρεψον μοι πρω̂τον ἀπελθει̂ν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου. καὶ is connective; I think one understands that the terms are sequential – to go and then to bury – and one infers purpose. So I don’t find this example convincing as regards showing anything about ἐπιτρέπω followed by two infinitives. I suspect this is something that happens naturally with ἔρχομαι.
Andrew
Statistics: Posted by Andrew Chapman — March 17th, 2014, 1:54 pm
καθὼς is correlative to the deictic adverb οὕτως which somewhat clumsily follows it, instead of preceding it. A more natural rendering would be as follows:
ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν ὀφείλει οὕτως, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν, καὶ αὐτὸς [οὕτως] περιπατεῖν.
He who says that he abides in him should thus, as he walked, also himself walk.
Statistics: Posted by Robert Crowe — November 15th, 2016, 10:49 pm
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος
This is always translated as “In the beginning”, but from the little I
understand of Greek grammar, one shouldn’t append the definite article in
English if the article is absent in Greek.
Is this “hyer-literal” translation accurate:
“In origin was the Word”
http://catholic-resources.org/John/Outl … ologue.htm
ὅτι ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει
“For the devil sins from the beginning.”
The devil has an article, in both Greek and English, but again, beginning
has none.
Apologies for a simplistic question, I’m only two words into the text and
I’m confused.
Can someone clear this up for me?
Danny Diskin
Statistics: Posted by Danny Diskin — April 14th, 2014, 10:40 pm
cwconrad wrote:Stephen Carlson wrote:Randall Tan wrote:One could assume an elided participle–but γεγονυῖα is actually what would need to be elided, not ὤν (a widow is not currently the wife of one husband)–but the contextually-easily-supplied ὤν is more likely to be elided than the more affected form γεγονυῖα in the first place. This consideration contributed further to our conclusion that ὤν was elided in relation to ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα & that γεγονυῖα belongs with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.I suppose γενομένη could be supplied to get the appropriate sense.
It seems to me that γεγονυῖα is an integral part of the idiomatic expression meaning “x years old”, while construing γεγονυῖα with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή — a Greek equivalent of the idiomatic Latin laudatory epithet univira, “committed life-long to one husband” — strikes me as absurd. I think that the μὴ does qualify just the phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα and that the genitive phrase is clearly a genitive of comparison construed with ἔλαττον. I see no problem with assuming an elliptical ὢν with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.
People are duscussing the relatives strengths of the (merel hypothetical /conjectured) participles, I would like to change that emphasis. I think that the strength (or recognisability ) of the element with which the particle is used will have bearing on the tendencies for elision.
If ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή was a readily recognisable laudatory epithet (as claimed) (virtually = adjectival unit) for an older woman (alive or no longer alive) then it would be less likely to need the aid of the (a) participle to bring attention to bear on it’s meaning, than the variable phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα would need.
I think the force of the statement ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή requires a participle that can give the force of “she has always been”. The ούσα suggested above may or may not convey that, and I feel that the suggestion of
γενομένη might do so, but the best would be a doubling of the γεγονυῖα.
If it was doubled, then it would be lost from the strongest (independent – self-standing) element and retained by the weakest (non-independent, the one that needs help to stand, least-able-stand-by-itself) element.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 29th, 2014, 4:41 pm
An Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 3:15: The Force of the Future Indicative in a Context of Eschatological Judgment This exegetical study of 1 Cor 3:15 (The force of the future indicative) is based on a b-greek discussion from April 1, 2002. The initial inquiry concerns the interpretation of Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 3:15,…
An Exegetical Study of Titus 1:12-13 This exegetical study of Titus 1:12-13 is based on a b-greek discussion from Tue Dec 8 22:33:55 2009. The initial query sought to identify the specific classical Greek source for the poetic quotation found in Titus 1:12, particularly the line beginning with Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται. The inquiry notes a…
“`html An Exegetical Analysis of the Tripartite Anthropological Terms in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 2em; } h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } h2 { font-size: 1.5em; } h3 { font-size: 1.2em; } p { margin-bottom:…
Exegetical Study of 1 Timothy 2:4-5 This exegetical study of 1 Timothy 2:4-5 is based on a b-greek discussion from Thu Nov 2 11:20:39 EST 2006. The initial query in the discussion, as presented in the primary content, challenged the assumption that the Greek relative pronoun ὅς (hos) in 1 Timothy 2:4 inherently carries a…
An Exegetical Analysis of Matthew 1:20: The Discontinuous Construction of ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου This exegetical study of the Greek construction at Matthew 1:20 is based on a b-greek discussion from Sun May 28 08:57:32 2006. The initial inquiry focused on the distinctive syntax of the phrase “Holy Spirit” in the latter part of Matthew 1:20,…
