Reputation
6,532
Next tag badge:
88/100 score
19/20 answers
Badges
1 6 26
Newest
 Civic Duty
Impact
~53k people reached

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.
Apr
29
revised What happens ‘by nature’ in Romans 2:14?
Added conclusion
Apr
29
revised What happens ‘by nature’ in Romans 2:14?
Added Greek discussion
Apr
29
revised What happens ‘by nature’ in Romans 2:14?
Fixed typo
Apr
29
comment Which Greek NT passage has proven to have the most variant readings?
I agree the process has been done by apparatuses, but this question is to help get an understanding of the maximum amount of decisions that a textual critic might have to sift through to come to a conclusion on the original reading. It is a question related to the text critical process at the maximum extreme.
Apr
29
comment Which Greek NT passage has proven to have the most variant readings?
@swasheck: It is not that "quantity of variants can help one ascertain the original text" (emphasis added), but rather that some (such as myself) believe "every text is preserved within the extant manuscript tradition," that is, the original reading is among the extant mss readings. This question is purely about knowing what has been recognized as the "most" variant section of Scripture, and thus would be the exemplar of the most number of texts one might need to examine to find the original reading.
Apr
29
answered What happens ‘by nature’ in Romans 2:14?
Apr
29
comment Which Greek NT passage has proven to have the most variant readings?
@balinjdl: I am not aware of any such comprehensive source (as I note in the question, many of the Byzantine manuscripts are still in need of more extensive study). The NA28 apparatus generally only lists (1) the most likely, or (2) most common, or (3) oldest of the extant variant readings, not necessarily all the variant readings of a text. But perhaps someone else knows of a more comprehensive database of readings.
Apr
23
revised What are “unnatural” relations or relations “use beyond nature”?
Revised quotation format
Apr
23
comment What are “unnatural” relations or relations “use beyond nature”?
@Tau: Historically, a slight "prescription" at the end of a good exegesis is tolerated on BH.SE (i.e. the logical conclusion of the exegesis is...). Primarily, it is those answers that prescribe only or excessively that have been the issue. However, having said that, I do not even get any feel of "prescription" at all from the "Comments" section of the answer. It is more a "Summary" of what was argued, with an historical addendum about how homosexuality was viewed by OT law and NT Christians. That's my take.
Apr
22
revised Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?
Added links
Apr
22
revised Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?
Major edit adding support for partitive
Apr
20
answered Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?