[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #63
b-greek-digest Monday, 1 January 1996 Volume 01 : Number 063
In this issue:
Re: Grammar in Mt 6 and 7
Re: Grammar in Mt 6 and 7
Grammar in Mt 6 and 7
Hamartia, cHata, and related concepts :)
Re: Grammar in Mt 6 and 7
Re: Hamartia, cHata, and related concepts :)
Re: Hamartia, cHata, and related concepts :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: KevLAnder@aol.com
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 03:18:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Grammar in Mt 6 and 7
Ken,
Maybe these comments will help:
Matt 6:24--I believe hENOS and hETEROU may be genitives of reference, "cling
(with reference to) the one, and despise (with reference to) the other." Is
it possible that the gen. case is being used in tandem with the prepositions
(ANTI and KATA) in the two compound verbs?
Matt 7:4--Nunn, in _A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek_ (sec. 119) notes
that the first person sg. hortatory subj. can be prefixed by APHES. He
translates: "Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye." Burton (74) also
writes, "Occasionally the first person singular is used with APHES or DEURO
prefixed, the exhortation in that case becoming a request of the speaker to
the person addressed to permit him to do something. Mt. 7:4; See also Lk.
6:42; Acts 7:34 . . . ."
Matt 7:9,10--What you remember about the uses of OU and MH in questions
probably serves you well here. MH indicates that the question anticipates a
negative response: "he will not give him a stone [will he]? . . . he will
not give him a serpent [will he]?" The answer, of course, is "No!"
Kevin L. Anderson
Concord, CA
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 07:29:32 -0600
Subject: Re: Grammar in Mt 6 and 7
Briefly, on top of Kevin's helpful comments:
At 2:18 AM 12/31/95, KevLAnder@aol.com wrote:
>Ken,
>
>Maybe these comments will help:
>
>Matt 6:24--I believe hENOS and hETEROU may be genitives of reference, "cling
>(with reference to) the one, and despise (with reference to) the other." Is
>it possible that the gen. case is being used in tandem with the prepositions
>(ANTI and KATA) in the two compound verbs?
Partitive genitive is called for with ANTEXOMAI which is similar to
hAPTOMAI; KATA- verbs, where the KATA- means "against" regularly take a
genitive.
>Matt 7:4--Nunn, in _A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek_ (sec. 119) notes
>that the first person sg. hortatory subj. can be prefixed by APHES. He
>translates: "Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye." Burton (74) also
>writes, "Occasionally the first person singular is used with APHES or DEURO
>prefixed, the exhortation in that case becoming a request of the speaker to
>the person addressed to permit him to do something. Mt. 7:4; See also Lk.
>6:42; Acts 7:34 . . . ."
This is correct; it's comparable to the Latin use of the imperative SINE,
SINITE ("allow," "permit") or DA, DATE ("grant," "give") with a hortatory
subjunctive. This construction has become the standard modern Greek
imperative, by the way:
Koine AFES EKBALW --> MG: AS NA BGALW (where AS is syncopated AFES, NA is
clipped hINA, and BGALW is the equivalent of a new verb derived from the
aorist of ancient EKBALLW, pronounced "vya'lo").
>Matt 7:9,10--What you remember about the uses of OU and MH in questions
>probably serves you well here. MH indicates that the question anticipates a
>negative response: "he will not give him a stone [will he]? . . . he will
>not give him a serpent [will he]?" The answer, of course, is "No!"
Precisely.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" <mauros@iol.ie>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 20:48:23 +0000
Subject: Grammar in Mt 6 and 7
Ken Litwak wrote:
1.
>Mt 6:24: I can't figure out why (enos and (eterou are genities.
>I don't see that the verbs used require genitives.I can't think
>of a form of genitive that fits readily. Suggestions?
Well, according to L,S, & J 'entechw' is one of those verbs which, in both
the active and middle, is " c. acc and gen ", with examples of " c. gen
only " and "c. dat ". Indeed, the middle L & S gives the example:
4. c. dupl. gen. pers. et rei, a)nqe/cetai/ sou tw=n xrhma/twn will lay
claim to the property from you, dispute it with you, Ar.
But more precisely to the point of Mt. 6:24, Balz and Schneider, vol. 1 of
the Exegetical Dictionary of the NT" write:
" 'antechomai': In the NT, as in the LXX, this vb. appears only in mid. and
always with gen."
2.
As regards katafrone/w:
again the middle L & S lists:
katafronew fut. h/sw I. to think down upon, i. e. to look down upon,
think slightly of, tino/j Hdt., Eur., etc.
so it's just a matter of fact that the verb takes the genetive. I don't see
the point of trying to " ....... think of a form of genitive that fits
readily. " and as for your request for "suggestions" I will content myself
with remarking that the middle L & S is neither too heavy nor too expensive <g>.
You might like to have a look at the other eight of the nine NT occurences
of katafronew, and examine the usage there.
Lk 16:13 [ II to Mt. 6:24 ]
1 Co. 11:22
2 P. 2:10
Mt 18:10
1 Tim. 4:12
6:2
Ro. 2:4
Hb. 12:2
3.
>>Mt 7:4 D&M says aphes ekbalw <<
Zerwick, Grosvenor " Grammatical Analysis of the GNT " notes:
aor. impv used before hort. subj. w. virtually auxiliary force ( allow
me/let me take )" and, of course, ekbalw here is aor. subj.
EDGNT notes: " the Hellenistic formula of request also appears in 'afihmi' "
and refers the reader to Blass, Debrunner and Funk par. 364
I did a quick SEARCH on aor. impv of 'afihmi' + any aor. subj -- with no
interval between the words --and came up with:
Matt 7:4
Matt 27:49
Mark 15:36
Luke 6:42
4.
As for >> Mt 7:11 mh liqon epidwsei au.<< you obviously meant Mt 7:9
Here 'mh' can be described as " Latin _num, interr. particle expecting the
answer "No", ' (he will not) .... will he?' [ Zerwick, Grosvenor again ]
Hope this of some help
Happy New Year
Maurice
Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]
mauros@iol.ie
[using Eudora Pro v 2.1.2 ]
------------------------------
From: Russell D Southern <russ@ionet.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 15:54:25 -0600
Subject: Hamartia, cHata, and related concepts :)
>From: Indepen <adc8@columbia.edu>
>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 10:20:13 -0500 (EST)
>Subject: The Temptation of Deity
>perhaps a more manageable topic would be the meaning of the word
>"sin" in the Bible. In Hebrew, KHATAUAU, in Greek hAMARTIA. Are these
>the same? I don't know Hebrew so I can't comment for certain, though I
>have the impresssion that it simply means breaking the law. But the Greek
>term has the sense of a missing of the goal, or a straying away from the
>right path.
From my undergrad studies, the Hebrew "cHata" carries a meaning more
closely related to "taking the wrong path." I think this is considerably
different than the Greek "hamartia" - "missing the mark."
"Hamartia" brings to mind the image of an archery target "bullseye." The
mark is the exact center of the target. To hit an outer ring is
"hamartanein," to miss the mark. Applied to the category of sin, anything
less than absolute perfection in performance would be "missing the mark."
"cHata", on the other hand, is related much more closely to a lifestyle
perspective. "Walking the wrong path" is less concerned about individual
actions than overall ways of living. I understand that the OT is also
concerned with actions of the individual, but the emphasis seems to be
centered around how a person lives life, not on the specific things that he
or she does. "cHata" reflects this.
We see this emphasis also in the Hebrew word for repentance, "shub." (I
think it is "shub." I'll backtrack if this is in error.) "Shub" means "to
turn around," which is what one does when correcting for walking the wrong
path. The NT word, "metanoein" also carries the connotation of change,
lit. "changing one's mind," but Hebrew is a more visual language.
Hope this fuels some discussion, but please be kind. It's my first post to
such a scholarly list. Thanks, Russ
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 15:43:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Grammar in Mt 6 and 7
On Sat, 30 Dec 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> Mt 7:11 mh liqon epidwsei au. This is a question, at least
> according to UBS punctuation. So it looks like Jesus asks,
> "Who of you does not give him a stone?" Obviously, that's not right.
> So, instead, I'm inclined to fall back on what I was told in 2nd yr. Greek,
> that ou introduces questions expecting a positive answer and mh is
> used for questions assuing a negative answer, although after the reading I've done
> in Porter I'm not usre anything I learned in 3 years of Greek has any validity except paradigms). Should that be the understanding of mh here?
> "Who of you, if his son asks for bread,
> he will not give him a stone will he? Of course not" Is that how
> others would understand it?
Isn't this what's referred to as a rhetorical question? Your
extrapolations from second-year Greek seem correct. Some languages have a
construction that implies a negative answer to the question posed. In
Spanish, for instance, such a question might begin with "_Acaso_....." In
English, we might say something like, "Would you be likely to give him a
stone?" (So Phillips) which in the context would pretty clearly indicate a
negative answer is expected.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@inf.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 20:08:22 -0600
Subject: Re: Hamartia, cHata, and related concepts :)
> "Hamartia" brings to mind the image of an archery target "bullseye." The
>mark is the exact center of the target. To hit an outer ring is
>"hamartanein," to miss the mark. Applied to the category of sin, anything
>less than absolute perfection in performance would be "missing the mark."
The NT pix of sin is, IMHO, something more than hitting the outer ring of a
target. Too often the etymologizing approach goes to the slingsmen of the
OT who could cast a stone at a handsbreadth and not 'sin'--i.e., miss
('harmartanw' in LXX). It is more like shooting at the _wrong target_. It
is not that people try to "hit God's mark" but come a bit short. "Sin"
points to a deliberate rebellion against his standard (to mix the metaphors
a bit). This explan. cannot be based on the "mng." of the word 'harmartia'
but comes from the biblical theology of sin (context, not etymology).
These notes from memory and I don't have resources at home to check the
ref. for you. If I've remembered wrong ['missed the mark'?!] I'm sure
someone will sling the appropriate stone my way. :)
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
rdecker@inf.net Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 00:52:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Hamartia, cHata, and related concepts :)
On Sun, 31 Dec 1995, Rod Decker wrote:
> > "Hamartia" brings to mind the image of an archery target "bullseye." The
> >mark is the exact center of the target. To hit an outer ring is
> >"hamartanein," to miss the mark. Applied to the category of sin, anything
> >less than absolute perfection in performance would be "missing the mark."
>
> The NT pix of sin is, IMHO, something more than hitting the outer ring of a
> target. Too often the etymologizing approach goes to the slingsmen of the
> OT who could cast a stone at a handsbreadth and not 'sin'--i.e., miss
> ('harmartanw' in LXX). It is more like shooting at the _wrong target_. It
> is not that people try to "hit God's mark" but come a bit short. "Sin"
> points to a deliberate rebellion against his standard (to mix the metaphors
> a bit). This explan. cannot be based on the "mng." of the word 'harmartia'
> but comes from the biblical theology of sin (context, not etymology).
The passage that comes to mind right away is Rom. 3:23, "For all
have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Gross rebellion against
God is sometimes pointed out as sin in the NT, but it appears that sin is
not limited to that. We should take into account also Paul's statements
about those who try to please God by the "flesh." These certainly may
not be aware of any rebellion against God on their part, but they sin in
falling short of the righteousness God has provided.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #63
****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu