“`html An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Peter 3:21: The Syntactic Role of Βάπτισμα and the Meaning of Ἐπερώτημα body { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 2em; max-width: 900px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; } h1, h2, h3 { font-family: ‘Georgia’, serif; color: #333; } h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #eee; padding-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top:…
An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Peter 4:16 and the Term χριστιανός An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Peter 4:16 and the Term χριστιανός This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Peter 4:16 and the Term χριστιανός is based on a b-greek discussion from May 26, 1999. The initial contribution raised the question of the…
An Exegetical Analysis of ἀπειθήσασιν in 1 Peter 3:20 This exegetical study of ‘1 Peter 3:20: ἀπειθήσασιν‘ is based on a b-greek discussion from Monday, May 1, 2000. The initial inquiry focused on the challenging passage of 1 Peter 3:18ff, specifically drawing attention to the participle ἀπειθήσασιν in verse 20. The common interpretation in translations…
An Exegetical Analysis of the Relative Pronoun Antecedent in 2 Peter 2:2 This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of the Relative Pronoun Antecedent in 2 Peter 2:2 is based on a b-greek discussion from May 26, 1999. The initial query concerned the identification of the antecedent for the relative pronoun δι’ οὓς in 2…
An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Peter 1:7: The Recipient of Praise, Glory, and Honor This exegetical study of ‘I Peter 1:7: Whose Praise, Glory and Honor?’ is based on a b-greek discussion from Friday, May 14, 1999. The initial query posed a fundamental interpretive dilemma regarding the referent of the praise, glory, and honor mentioned…
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
Paul-Nitz wrote:
Thanks. That’s simpler and helpful. The addition of either ημιν and υμιν are variant readings here, by the way.
Why would we expect a Dative Ptc?
(I just read Smyth Section 1497 and 1498 about the Dative Ptc. Those descriptions don’t seem to fit here.)
Because ἀρκετός normally takes the dative + infinitive, so a participle modifying ὐμῖν or ἡμῖν would also normally be in the dative, πεπορευομένοις. That’s what motivates people to try to explain the accusative…
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — May 3rd, 2014, 6:49 am
