“`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:…
Exegetical Analysis of Genitive Constructions in Mark 11:22 and 2 Peter 3:9 This exegetical study of ‘Genitive Usage in 1 Peter 3:9 and Mark 11:22’ is based on a b-greek discussion from August 24, 1998. The initial inquiry centers on the translation of ἔχετε πίστιν Θεοῦ in Mark 11:22, questioning whether the genitive Θεοῦ should…
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…
An Exegetical Study of 1 Peter 3:7: Syntax, Lexicon, and Nuance in Marital Relations This exegetical study of 1 Peter 3:7 is based on a b-greek discussion from Wednesday, September 8, 1999. The initial inquiry sought clarification on the syntax of the verse, specifically regarding the function of the participle συνοικοῦντες and the interpretation of…
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
