[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #115
b-greek-digest Thursday, 15 February 1996 Volume 01 : Number 115
In this issue:
Matthew 24:20
Ephesians 4:10
Re: Matthew 24:20
Re: Ephesians 4:10
I Peter 1:7
Re: Matthew 24:20
I Peter 1:7
Re: Ephesians 4:10
Re: Ephesians 4:10
Re: Ephesians 4:10
Re: Matthew 24:20
Eph. 4
Prophecy Paper
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russ Reeves <russr@pe.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 04:56:53 +0000
Subject: Matthew 24:20
The first phrase of Matthew 24:30 (I'm not sure if I'm
transliterating in the standard way for this group - I'm using "H"
for eta) "KAI TOTE PHANHSETAI TO SHMEION TOU UIOU TOU ANTHROPOU EN
OURANW," is usually rendered "the sign of the Son of Man will appear
in the sky" (NIV) or along those lines. But is it the "sign" that
is in heaven or the "Son of Man"? Is it grammatically possible that
the "sign" is that the Son of Man is in heaven?
Thank you,
Russ Reeves
russr@pe.net
------------------------------
From: Northland Bible College <northlan@soonet.ca>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:47:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Ephesians 4:10
Hi folks!
Before I ask another question, I'd just like to say thanks to those
who've taken the time to tutor me on a few questions these past few
weeks. Much appreciated. Another question (a bit tongue in cheek):
What's a guy like me to do (besides enroll in a 6 year doctoral program
<:)> when 3 experts arrive at different interpretations of a syntactical
question? Is classifying still such an evolving art?
No offense intended. Just wondering.
I've got another question, this time on Ephesians 4:10. We find
Nominatives separated by ESTIN: HO KATABAS AUTOS and HO ANABAS.
HO KATABAS as I understand it should be taken as the subject. AUTOS (in
relation to HO KATABAS) is predicate, but the whole clause HO KATABAS
AUTOS stands together as the subject of ESTIN. No?
Would not then HO ANABAS following, be predicate in relation to the first
clause? Problem: Both nominatives have the article. How to tell which
is Subjective and which is Predicate?
Even worse, I'd followed the rule (first yr Grk) that the Nominative with
the article is "always" the subject when two nominatives are found with a
stative verb. But just this morning, re-reading Dana and Mantey, they
said this is only "usually" true, and that "sometimes" the subject
nominative will LACK the article whereas the predicate can HAVE the article.
Can anybody clarify this seeming impasse?
Sincerely,
Steve Clock
Northlan@soonet.ca
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 08:04:52 -0600
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:20
On 2/13/96, Russ Reeves wrote:
> The first phrase of Matthew 24:30 (I'm not sure if I'm
> transliterating in the standard way for this group - I'm using "H"
> for eta) "KAI TOTE PHANHSETAI TO SHMEION TOU UIOU TOU ANTHROPOU EN
> OURANW," is usually rendered "the sign of the Son of Man will appear
> in the sky" (NIV) or along those lines. But is it the "sign" that
> is in heaven or the "Son of Man"? Is it grammatically possible that
> the "sign" is that the Son of Man is in heaven?
Yes, I think so.
This is an interesting question, and one that I don't think we ever
addressed in our lengthy discussion of the phrasing of this passage in the
Synoptic apocalypse last year.
My initial reaction is to think the construction of TOU hUIOU TOU ANQRWPOU
here is a defining genitive, i.e., the Son of Man is himself the sign that
will appear in the sky.
BDF #165 lists constructions of this sort as "Genitive of Quality" and
calls it a Hebraism, but it lists at #167 other genitives under the
heading, "Genitive of content and apposition" and rightly says that this is
a classical Greek usage; among examples is Rom 4:11 SHMEION PERITOMHS.
Frankly, I can't see a vast difference between these two, although some of
what's cited under #165 clearly do seem to reflect attached nouns in the
construct state.
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: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:21:58 -0600
Subject: Re: Ephesians 4:10
On 2/14/96, Northland Bible College wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> Before I ask another question, I'd just like to say thanks to those
> who've taken the time to tutor me on a few questions these past few
> weeks. Much appreciated. Another question (a bit tongue in cheek):
> What's a guy like me to do (besides enroll in a 6 year doctoral program
> <:)> when 3 experts arrive at different interpretations of a syntactical
> question? Is classifying still such an evolving art?
>
> No offense intended. Just wondering.
I don't think there was really any substantive difference over how the text
construes and what it means. But your observation, "Is classifying still
such an evolving art?" is not so far amiss. Although it's not quite so bad
as the old Latin aphorism, QUOT HOMINES TOT SENTENTIAE (viewpoints are as
numerous as people), one might well argue that QUOT GRAMMATICI TOT
SENTENTIAE. Grammarians are among the most stubborn of people; they don't
like the precise language that other people have used and prefer to make up
their own names for the same thing. Sometimes, of course, they analyze a
construction differently. In my own view, there's been too much
sub-categorization of most grammatical categories.
> I've got another question, this time on Ephesians 4:10. We find
> Nominatives separated by ESTIN: HO KATABAS AUTOS and HO ANABAS.
>
> HO KATABAS as I understand it should be taken as the subject. AUTOS (in
> relation to HO KATABAS) is predicate, but the whole clause HO KATABAS
> AUTOS stands together as the subject of ESTIN. No?
>
> Would not then HO ANABAS following, be predicate in relation to the first
> clause? Problem: Both nominatives have the article. How to tell which
> is Subjective and which is Predicate?
Yes, I'd say you've construed it quite properly. And you've raised a good
question. Other's might want to bring up the Colwell principle in response
to this, but I'd say two things:
(1) If you have two article-nominative phrases athwart a copula, the second
MAY but NEED NOT be the subject (because Greek word-order has a definite
tendency to put the predicate word first in a noun sentence--BUT rhetorical
emphasis can interfere at any point with that tendency so that the subject
may be first after all for the sake of emphasis.
(2) It may seem a grammatical heresy (at least not a theological one), but
I don't really think it matters so much which one you consider the subject;
the point of the construction is the equation of the two noun-phrases.
(3) However, a third factor in this instance is the AUTOS, which does
indeed belong to hO KATABAS. And the nominative AUTOS/AUTH/AUTO does more
normally (but not always!) go with the subject.
In the context, what is evident is that the writer here wants to identify
the person refered to in the Psalm as having ascended to the height. I
think either of the following versions would suffice:
"It is the very one who descended that ascended ..."
"The one who ascended ... is the very one who descended."
Reflecting analytically over this, I guess that I would say the second
phrase, hO ANABAS ... is the subject and the first, hO KATABAS AUTOS, is
the predicate.
> Even worse, I'd followed the rule (first yr Grk) that the Nominative with
> the article is "always" the subject when two nominatives are found with a
> stative verb. But just this morning, re-reading Dana and Mantey, they
> said this is only "usually" true, and that "sometimes" the subject
> nominative will LACK the article whereas the predicate can HAVE the article.
>
> Can anybody clarify this seeming impasse?
Well, you'll find other grammarians not too happy with that statement. I
think they really ought to display some examples of this last construction
if they insist that it's true. On the other hand, I think it's just as well
not to make apodictic statements about grammatical constructions. And I
think, to revert to the initial discussion in this response, that
grammatical analysis is an after-the-fact descriptive analysis of an
instance of usage, and that grammatical "rules" are somewhat like
scientific hypotheses--explanations that account for most instances of a
behavior that tends to be regular but is sometimes ornery enough to diverge
from the norm. At any rate, one certainly should be aware that grammarians
do not ESTABLISH the norm; rather USAGE does; grammarians come later and
try to make sense of observed usage.
I hope I haven't made the whole issue more confusing than it was before!
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: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 11:31:17 EST
Subject: I Peter 1:7
Re: I Peter 1:7
Many translations I've seen translate the hINA TO DOKIMION UMWN THS PISTEWS
POLUTIMOTERON CHRUSIOU as if it's one's faith (PISTEWS) that is more precious
(POLUTIMOTERON) than gold (CHRUSIOU), yet the gender and case of the
participle lead me to believe that it's the testing or genuineness (DOKIMION)
of one's faith--and not the faith itself--that is being compared to gold.
Can anyone help me with this, or explain why many translate POLUTIMOTERON as
if it's modifying PISTEWS?
Thanks!
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:47:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:20
On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Russ Reeves wrote:
> The first phrase of Matthew 24:30 (I'm not sure if I'm
> transliterating in the standard way for this group - I'm using "H"
> for eta) "KAI TOTE PHANHSETAI TO SHMEION TOU UIOU TOU ANTHROPOU EN
> OURANW," is usually rendered "the sign of the Son of Man will appear
> in the sky" (NIV) or along those lines. But is it the "sign" that
> is in heaven or the "Son of Man"? Is it grammatically possible that
> the "sign" is that the Son of Man is in heaven?
>
What is called the epexegetical genitive (or genitive of content), with
"Son of Man" being an explanation of "sign," is identified by many here.
In answer to the question: yes, it is grammatically possible to understand
that the Son of Man is referred to as appearing in heaven.
Others have identified the "sing of the Son of Man" with
Constantine's vision of the cross in the clouds, still others, by taking
SHMEION in the sense of "ensign" or "standard" understand "sign of the Son
of Man" as His banner which unfurls in the heavens at His coming. See D.
A. Carson's treatment of these three possibilities in his commentary on
Mat. in the _Expositor's Bible Commentary_ series(vol. 8, p. 505). He
takes SHMEION in the latter sense and presents fairly convincing arguments
for his choice.
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: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date:
Subject: I Peter 1:7
Forwarded to: Internet[b-greek@virginia.edu]
cc:
Comments by: Eric Weiss@OSP@ACF.DAL
Comments:
Sorry ... I meant to say the gender and case of the ADJECTIVE
(POLUTIMOTERON), not "participle," in the message below which I just sent
-------------------------- [Original Message] -------------------------
Re: I Peter 1:7
Many translations I've seen translate the hINA TO DOKIMION UMWN THS PISTEWS
POLUTIMOTERON CHRUSIOU as if it's one's faith (PISTEWS) that is more precious
(POLUTIMOTERON) than gold (CHRUSIOU), yet the gender and case of the
participle lead me to believe that it's the testing or genuineness (DOKIMION)
of one's faith--and not the faith itself--that is being compared to gold.
Can anyone help me with this, or explain why many translate POLUTIMOTERON as
if it's modifying PISTEWS?
Thanks!
------------------------------
From: Bill Chapman <BILLC@nn.sarc.msstate.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 12:13:10 GMT+6
Subject: Re: Ephesians 4:10
> Date sent: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:47:56 -0500 (EST)
> From: Northland Bible College <northlan@soonet.ca>
>
> <:)> when 3 experts arrive at different interpretations of a syntactical
> question? Is classifying still such an evolving art?
>
....
> Even worse, I'd followed the rule (first yr Grk) that the Nominative with
> the article is "always" the subject when two nominatives are found with a
> stative verb. But just this morning, re-reading Dana and Mantey, they
> said this is only "usually" true, and that "sometimes" the subject
> nominative will LACK the article whereas the predicate can HAVE the article.
>
> Can anybody clarify this seeming impasse?
Steve:
Your problem is one for which there is no easy answer, but it is not
related to Greek, alone, but to any language which develops over time.
For example, in 10th Grade English, I was taught never to end a
sentence with a preposition. Now, three decades later, my daughter,
enrolled in a prestigious school, writes a paper for her English
class, using the rules I taught her (She was home-schooled.).
Her teacher asked why she made an awkward-sounding sentence, and
my daughter replied, "...so as not to end the sentence with a
preposition." The teacher said, "We don't do that, anymore."
Do rules come first, or does the language come first? In the case
of Biblical Greek, the texts come first, in the context of other texts
from Classical Greek and other documents. If the language changes
over time, one set of rules cannot apply to all documents.
And all rules have exceptions. It takes much study to determine
whether a particular sentence should follow the rule, or is an
exception. Be patient. Much association with the language will
get you the feel for the language that the rules are trying to
woodenly inculcate in you.
- --
Bill Chapman mailto:billc@sarc.msstate.edu 601-325-2042
School of Architecture - Mississippi State University
http://www2.msstate.edu/~wcc1/index.html
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 14:27:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Ephesians 4:10
On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Northland Bible College wrote:
>
> I've got another question, this time on Ephesians 4:10. We find
> Nominatives separated by ESTIN: HO KATABAS AUTOS and HO ANABAS.
>
> HO KATABAS as I understand it should be taken as the subject. AUTOS (in
> relation to HO KATABAS) is predicate, but the whole clause HO KATABAS
> AUTOS stands together as the subject of ESTIN. No?
>
> Would not then HO ANABAS following, be predicate in relation to the first
> clause? Problem: Both nominatives have the article. How to tell which
> is Subjective and which is Predicate?
>
> Even worse, I'd followed the rule (first yr Grk) that the Nominative with
> the article is "always" the subject when two nominatives are found with a
> stative verb. But just this morning, re-reading Dana and Mantey, they
> said this is only "usually" true, and that "sometimes" the subject
> nominative will LACK the article whereas the predicate can HAVE the article.
>
> Can anybody clarify this seeming impasse?
AUTOS functions as an auxilary pronoun here, giving emphasis to hO
KATABAS and emphasizing its identity with hO ANABAS. hO ANABAS is a
predicate nominative, joined to the subject and its auxilary by the
verb ESTIN. The meaning of the sentence is something like, "He who
descended: this same one is he who also ascended far above all the heavens
that He might fill all things."
Since both the subject and the predicate nominative have the
article, the one that is before the verb (ESTIN) functions as the subject.
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: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 17:18:24 +0400
Subject: Re: Ephesians 4:10
Steve Clock wrote;
>Before I ask another question, I'd just like to say thanks to those
>who've taken the time to tutor me on a few questions these past few
>weeks. Much appreciated. Another question (a bit tongue in cheek):
>What's a guy like me to do (besides enroll in a 6 year doctoral program
><:)> when 3 experts arrive at different interpretations of a syntactical
>question? Is classifying still such an evolving art?
I have read the response of others on this. I didn't think that there was
much difference in the way we have responded so far. However, where there
are grammarians there will be differences of opinion. I often tell my
students that studying language is like studying psychology. We are
dealing with the way people think. We would have to get inside Paul's head
to be sure what he was thinking.
>I've got another question, this time on Ephesians 4:10. We find
>Nominatives separated by ESTIN: HO KATABAS AUTOS and HO ANABAS.
>
>HO KATABAS as I understand it should be taken as the subject. AUTOS (in
>relation to HO KATABAS) is predicate, but the whole clause HO KATABAS
>AUTOS stands together as the subject of ESTIN. No?
>
>Would not then HO ANABAS following, be predicate in relation to the first
>clause? Problem: Both nominatives have the article. How to tell which
>is Subjective and which is Predicate?
>
>Even worse, I'd followed the rule (first yr Grk) that the Nominative with
>the article is "always" the subject when two nominatives are found with a
>stative verb. But just this morning, re-reading Dana and Mantey, they
>said this is only "usually" true, and that "sometimes" the subject
>nominative will LACK the article whereas the predicate can HAVE the article.
>
I would agree with those who have said that either HO KATABAS or HO ANABAS
could be the subject. AUTOS is used emphatically. I would prefer to
render it in English as "The one who descended himself is the one who
ascended."
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 12:45:37 +0400
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:20
>The first phrase of Matthew 24:30 (I'm not sure if I'm
>transliterating in the standard way for this group - I'm using "H"
>for eta) "KAI TOTE PHANHSETAI TO SHMEION TOU UIOU TOU ANTHROPOU EN
>OURANW," is usually rendered "the sign of the Son of Man will appear
>in the sky" (NIV) or along those lines. But is it the "sign" that
>is in heaven or the "Son of Man"? Is it grammatically possible that
>the "sign" is that the Son of Man is in heaven?
>
Perhaps TOU UIOU is what B&W in the Syntax of the NT call a genitive of
apposition, i.e., the sign is the Son of Man.
Grace,
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: GSHOGREN@shrsys.hslc.org
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 22:12:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Eph. 4
Northlan wrote: is the art of classifying an evolving art?
It is, although in my research my sense was that despite differences
in nomenclature, the sort of classifications that one finds in the major
grammars falls along similar lines. The apparent differences are often
along the "what do you call it when...?" lines.
What has helped in the last few decades is the realization that language
doesn't always fall into neat categories. Thus, in the passage in Matt. 24
that we've discussed this week - "the sign of the Son of man" - it can be
fruitfully debated whether it is epexegetical (my choice) or qualitative or
content --- but in the end, once you've scouted out what the genitive
MAY do, it helps just to stand back and look at the text and ask
"Yes, but what is Matthew SAYING?"
Language - even an alleged "precision-language" like Koine, is sloppy;
it spills over the containers we set up for it, and at the end of the day
it's people saying what's on their minds, just in an archaic language.
Hope this doesn't sound too simplistic - I've written a book on syntax
and appreciate the help that GRAMCORD and the grammars give, but in the
end "CONTEXT LEX" - context is king (forgive the pig Latin). Now, if I can
just get my exegesis students to believe me!
In Christ,
------------------------------------------------
Gary S. Shogren
Associate Professor of New Testament
Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield PA
Fax 215-368-7002
email gshogren@hslc.org
------------------------------
From: GSHOGREN@shrsys.hslc.org
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 22:16:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Prophecy Paper
Sorry folks - I've just been swamped by requests for my paper. I'll send out
copies to those who asked as of 2/14, but I'll have to cut it off, unless
you're extremely interested. I hope to publish it soon.
Thanks a lot for your enthusiasm.
------------------------------------------------
Gary S. Shogren
Associate Professor of New Testament
Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield PA
Fax 215-368-7002
email gshogren@hslc.org
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #115
*****************************
** 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