Reputation
6,568
Next tag badge:
90/100 score
19/20 answers
Badges
1 6 27
Newest
 Scholar
Impact
~56k people reached

10h
answered Is the intent of 2 Kings 23:25 intended to be taken literally?
23h
comment Meaning of (et)“את” and (v'et)“וְאֵ֥ת” in Genesis 1:1
Additionally, the word preceding the et is not as significant as what follows, for Hebrew does not order sentences like English, and the et is often going to relate to the first word in the clause, because the first word is often the verb, and so et, being the direct object marker, relates to the verb more than the subject of the clause. The structure of Hebrew clauses are often (not always) VERB SUBJECT et DIRECT OBJECT. So you place too much weight on the word preceding et because you ignore the objective rules of grammar for the Hebrew language.
23h
comment Meaning of (et)“את” and (v'et)“וְאֵ֥ת” in Genesis 1:1
But your pattern of seven breaks down from the start, because Gen 1:1 has two et's in it, for the "second word" (וְאֵ֥ת) is also the word et, only with the waw conjunction ("and") prefixed to it (which is how Hebrew grammar works with that conjunction). So your count is already objectively off in your analysis, starting at v.1 (and I have not bothered to analyze if you missed any others in your count).
23h
comment Is ἐγώ εἰμι testified in extra-biblical Greek as an expression for saying “I am he”?
I will reevaluate your edit when I have some time later.
1d
awarded  Scholar
1d
accepted Is ἐγώ εἰμι testified in extra-biblical Greek as an expression for saying “I am he”?
1d
revised Is ἐγώ εἰμι testified in extra-biblical Greek as an expression for saying “I am he”?
Removed reference to David's suggestion
1d
revised Is ἐγώ εἰμι testified in extra-biblical Greek as an expression for saying “I am he”?
Added clarification
1d
comment Is ἐγώ εἰμι testified in extra-biblical Greek as an expression for saying “I am he”?
@e.s.kohen: I'm interested in Greek use prior to the LXX, whether that may or may not have had ties to Aramaic is allowable, but showing no ties would be better, since I'm seeking to find out if the Greek itself is really a "meaningless expression." Note, however, that my question is purely about the "absolute" use of ἐγώ εἰμι (which is what Barrett's statement is about), which neither of your examples are: the first has ἄφρων and the second has θεός as predicate nominatives. There are no doubt thousands of examples of the terms in a non-absolute use that are irrelevant to this question.
1d
comment Meaning of (et)“את” and (v'et)“וְאֵ֥ת” in Genesis 1:1
@RevelationLad: Let me turn my above criticism into something constructive on possibly improving your answer. It may be that the particular use or absence of et in Genesis 1-3 does have significance (this is the basic premise of your answer), but your analysis of that should start by acknowledging what is already known about et from the basic Hebrew lexicons and grammars (not English concordances), rather than constructing a theory that totally ignores those facts of the Hebrew language.
1d
comment Meaning of (et)“את” and (v'et)“וְאֵ֥ת” in Genesis 1:1
@Kate: I would encourage you to look at the other answer given. That answer gives a correct understanding of the Hebrew text. Unfortunately, this answer shows some serious ignorance of (1) how the Hebrew language works, especially with word order, (2) the real significance of "et" as the direct object marker, and (3) comes to a false conclusion that it is "the untranslatable name of God."
May
5
revised What's the difference between a “lying tongue” and a “false witness” in Proverbs 6?
Corrected spelling and some other minor points
May
1
comment Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?
@C.StirlingBartholomew: Thanks for how you read it. I know Black emphasized change of "grammatical subject" (161), which the last nominative was οἱ τεταγμένοι. But also, χαλκῆς ὑπαὶ σάλπιγγος ᾖξαν ("by a brazen trumpet they started") would appear to me to refer still to οἱ τεταγμένοι, the one's in charge of the race, initiating the start signal. The following οἱ δ' then tells the reaction of the gripping/shouting of the drivers starting off from the signal . I'm done, no more nit-picking. Good interchange.
May
1
comment Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?
@C.StirlingBartholomew: BTW, I do want to say welcome to the site! Even though I disagree with your analysis and Cooper's examples, you definitely show an understanding of the type of answers expected here on BH.SE, and I appreciate the contribution.
May
1
revised Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?
added 37 characters in body
May
1
comment Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?
Then Xenophon 4.2.6 does not refer back to "οἱ δ᾽ ἔχοντες τὸν ἡγεμόνα" ("Meanwhile the party with the guide") of 2.5, but the volunteer forces to go before them (noted about taking the height in 2.1 and set off in 2.2). The οἱ δ᾽ ἔχοντες τὸν ἡγεμόνα group supposed their side controlled the height, but the other group of the volunteers (οἱ δ᾽) had not taken the height.
May
1
comment Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?
Upon examination, Cooper also misidentifies the other examples, as both switch to prior subjects. Thucydides 1.87 does not refer to Σθενελαΐδας (Sthenelaidas, 1.85) the speaker of 1.86, but to Ἀρχίδαμος (Archidamus, 1.85) the king (1.79), who spoke in 1.80-85, part of which was a call to decide calmly ("βουλεύσωμεν, ἀλλὰ καθ᾽ ἡσυχίαν") about war. So the king is referred back to in 1.87.1, who goes on to declare a count of those for or against war over the uproar from Sthenelaidas's speech (1.87.2).
May
1
comment Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?
@Davïd: As a side note, the example given here from Soph. Electra actually matches the usage upon which I based my theory that it points to the Jews doubting, as it is an example of a switch back to the prior subject group.
May
1
revised Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?
Changed title of lead header to include switched subject idea
May
1
comment Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?
I disagree that it is inclusive and that it "is not used in this context to mark switched reference or discontinuity." The subject of the preceding sentence is "οἱ τεταγμένοι βραβῆς" ("the appointed judges"), so the οἱ δ' is switching back away from that subject to the prior subject of the charioteers. Thus, rather than being an inclusive statement (of either all the judges, or the judges and the charioteers), this is a case of Porter's "switched subject" use, back to "someone prior to the last-named subject" (as I quoted from Wallace). Cooper was wrong to include it as an example.