Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

12

This argument is incorrect. Participles have a wide range of interpretive possibilities and sometimes choosing the correct one is difficult. Here is a resource that may help as I go along. The argument that since βαπτίζοντες follows μαθητεύσατε it must mean that it is a later action is a grammar myth along the lines of the abused aorist. So, it is true ...


10

Gesenius in his Hebrew Grammar (Kautzsch/Cowley edition, commonly GKC) spends several pages on "Agreement between Members of a Sentence, especially between Subject and Predicate in respect of Gender and Number." He gives many examples of when the number of the verb and the noun disagree. This is section 145 of the book. In my edition, this is page ...


10

This is just to add to Mike's answer, not to replace it. Joshua does not transliterate into Greek exactly. There are letters in Hebrew that are simply not there in Greek. The Greek of Luke 3:29, Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 all have Ἰησοῦ/s for Joshua. Translators render it as Joshua instead of Jesus because that is the name readers will be familiar with. ...


10

In Hebrew the name Joshua is: יְהוֹשׁוּעַ Yehoshua or יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Yehoshua “the LORD is salvation.” In Greek it is the transliteration of the Hebrew: Ιησους (Iēsous, sounds like ee-ay-soos). Therefore in the Greek New Testament Jesus and Joshua are both Iēsous. Up until now the names are the same and even in the Latin Vulgate they remained the same. In ...


8

There are a couple of different ways to answer your first question. I will attempt an answer from a linguistics perspective, specifically with regards to the lexical aspect of the verb in question. The dominant perspective on lexical aspect of verb tenses for the last few decades has been Actionsart. This deals with how the verb interacts with time. ...


8

The verse: πρὸς ὃ δύνασθε ἀναγινώσκοντες νοῆσαι τὴν σύνεσίν μου ἐν τῷ μυστηρίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ.(ESV) [With reference] to which, reading, you are able to know...(my overly literal rendition) Indeed, ὃ is the object of the preposition. That’s a relative pronoun, here declined ...


7

The NET Bible textual criticism note is helpful here: The MT has simply “and Cain said to Abel his brother,” omitting Cain’s words to Abel. It is possible that the elliptical text is original. Perhaps the author uses the technique of aposiopesis, “a sudden silence” to create tension. In the midst of the story the narrator suddenly rushes ahead to what ...


6

According to Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon1, the spelling difference is inconsequential. The spelling difference does not change the meaning and has more to do with transliteration (from Greek) than translation. The only way of distinguishing grammatical number is through diacritics, which were not added to the language until a couple centuries after the writing ...


6

Wikipedia has a nice summary of the aorist and more details can be found in the the article on the ancient Greek aorist in particular. This is from the first link. In the Ancient Greek, the indicative aorist is one of the two main forms used in telling a story; it is used for undivided events, such as the individual steps in a continuous process ...


6

I believe the simplest explanation is that God sent Moses to be His mouthpiece, but Moses complained he couldn't do it, so God added his older brother Aaron to the equation. The two were joined into one mouthpiece: He shall speak for you to the people, and he shall be your mouth, and you shall be as God to him. Using the singular verb forms, then, is ...


6

It's a great question, and the truth is that the sentence is fairly ambiguous despite attempts to translate it otherwise (as in the ChaBaD translation brought in @crownjewel82's answer). Here's the verse - note that the closest we get to punctuation are the cantillation marks, which have a zaqef qaton (a minor disjunctive, like a comma or semicolon) at the ...


6

I don't think there is much to debate about what was graciously given or bestowed (ἐχαρίσθη not ἐδόθη). The οὐ μόνον ("not only") in antithesis to ἀλλὰ καὶ ("but also") seems to clearly indicate not only one thing but also another was given to the Christians. That is, it was graciously given to them by God (cp. 1 Cor. 2:12) not only (1) to believe in Christ, ...


6

Kennedy summarizes his view on p. 5, and OP's sense that the paseq is a rough equivalent to how we use [sic] strikes me as about right. Kennedy's view, however, doesn't seem like a plausible -- or at least certainly not a sufficient -- explanation of this masoretic notation. On the one hand, there are just too many instances in which no such "warning" is ...


5

I think you may be trying to read far too much into this verse that the grammar won't support. The first translation of each verse in its simplest form is really the best translation and says pretty much everything the grammar allows. The rest is reading more into the text than the grammar would support. I also think you are misunderstanding some of the ...


5

John 14:15 reads in the NA27 (and NA28): Ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶτέ με, τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐμὰς τηρήσετε However, there is a manuscript discrepancy that would render the last word as τηρήσατε. According to Metzger in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.), A majority of the Committee preferred the future tense τηρήσετε, read by B L Ψ 1010 1071 ...


5

Simple answer, building on Ron’s longer one: The words “every man” at the end of the verse is not gender-specific, but can also be translated as “everyone”. Try this translation on for size: They came, both men & women; all the generous of heart brought clasp, nosering, ring, and vulva-cover, all gold implements—everyone that brought an offering of ...


5

The ESV offers a good essentially literal translation, rendering the verse this way: But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. Acts 13:50 Looking at the following items I found, I think that we can conclude ...


5

καταλλάγητε is the 2nd plural aorist passive imperative of καταλλάσσω. Breaking this down, 2nd plural is you (all) "y'all." Passive makes the subject of the verb the recipient of the action. Imperatives are commands and aorist imperatives generally indicate a command to start something. So what would "we reconcile them" look like? καταλλάσoμεν αὐτοῦς. ...


5

וְשֶׂ֣רֶט לָנֶ֗פֶשׁ לֹ֤א תִתְּנוּ֙ בִּבְשַׂרְכֶ֔ם וּכְתֹ֣בֶת קַֽעֲקַ֔ע לֹ֥א תִתְּנ֖וּ בָּכֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֽה Grammatically speaking, "the dead" isn't even mentioned in the original Hebrew text. It was simply "the soul." In Hebraic thought, the soul is the unified body and spirit. The soul can be dead, or the soul can be alive. The text doesn't say one ...


5

The aorist tense "presents an occurrence in summary, viewed as a whole from the outside, without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence."1 Wallace explains, This contrasts with the present and imperfect, which portray the action as an ongoing process. It may be helpful to think of the aorist as taking a snapshot of the action while the ...


5

It is Passive The verb is ἐκρατοῦντο (ekratounto), which is the imperfect passive indicative 3rd plural of the verb κρατέω (krateō), which in this context has the idea of "restrain."1 However, it is not that they did not "see" Jesus (v.15) in some respect, but that when they saw Him, they did not "know" (ἐπιγνῶναι; epignōnai) it was Him, hence the NRSV ...


5

The context (see verse 6) justifies translating the v' as "but." Furthermore, it clearly demonstrates that she is not actually black but simply very darkly tanned. Do not stare at me because I am swarthy [i.e. dark], For the sun has burned me. My mother’s sons were angry with me; They made me caretaker of the vineyards, But I have not taken care ...


5

Yes, the imperative is an accurate translation.1 The text in question: ἐγερθεὶς ἆρόν σου τὴν κλίνην καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου. (NA28) “Rise, pick up your bed and go home.” (ESV) The first two words I will label: ἐγερθεὶς: participle (aorist passive) ἆρόν: main verb (2nd person, aorist active imperative) This usage of the participle is ...


5

There are two, possibly inter-related, issues here. One is the preposition expected with the root mlk in the hifil; the other is the relationship between the prepositions ʾel and ʿal. 1. MLK + ?? Typically the verb mlk takes the preposition ʿal, "rule over", and in the Hifil it appears so on at least six occasions (1 Sam. 12:1; 2 Ki. 8:20; 1 Chr. 28:4; 2 ...


5

Partitive or Switched Subject is Nearly Certain as Correct K. Grayston makes an argument for the inclusive view,1 but is challenged by both K. L. McKay's brief reply,2 and P.W. van der Horst's more lengthy reply,3 both upholding a partitive view. Grayston argues the inclusive view largely upon two points. First, the inclusive is the case in the primary ...


5

I will limit my comments to the question is the “inclusive” reading of οἱ δὲ grammatically impossible rather than merely improbable which is the majority view: Stephanie Black objects to Grayston's approach, observing that οἱ δὲ signals discontinuity and would be highly unlikely if there were continuity of subject with the previous sentence. (Stephanie ...


4

I know that the other answers explain this in more depth, but the simple answer is really that the early Christians read the Greek Septuagint (LXX), and this translation of the Hebrew Tanakh and apocryphal works rendered יֵשׁוּעַ / יְהוֹשֻׁעַ as Ἰησοῦς. From there it was transliterated into Latin (Iesus) and became the name associated with the Christian ...


4

Hard Question, Soldarnal Peter O'Brien says of this verse in his Colossians commentary: This verse has been described as one of the most contested passages in the NT, presenting great difficulties in language and content. And Douglas Moo, in his: This verse furnishes the most important evidence about the false teaching, but it is also arguably the ...


4

Here's the problem concerning the singular/plural distinction: I found an online Peshitta forum post by Paul Younan (who prepared a scholarly Peshitta text) that mentions that there was no way to distinguish between the singular and plural in Aramaic until at least the 6th century. He states: Notice the only difference between the two is the Syame ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible