Reputation
6,653
Next tag badge:
90/100 score
19/20 answers
Badges
1 6 28
Newest
 Nice Answer
Impact
~56k people reached

2d
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.
2d
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).
2d
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.
May
21
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.
May
21
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.
May
21
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
13
comment Are there any medieval commentators to mention the Lukan census (of Quirinius, Lk 2:2) in conjunction with the evidence from Josephus?
Welcome to BH.SE! This appears to be a basis for a good answer, however, at a minimum you should cite the exact references in the commentaries you note to show your work, and better yet, to quote them as well (at least in part with respect to answering the question).
Apr
11
comment Why is “Joseph” used in some translations of Luke 2:33?
@PaulA.Clayton: Yaaaa, poor conjecture on my part. I removed that statement.
Mar
18
comment To what do the “parchments” (and tangentially the “books”) refer in 2 Tim 4:13?
Thank you for pointing out a different speculation, though I do not agree with Skeat's allowing μάλιστα to mean "namely" rather than "especially." I've encountered this elsewhere in reference to 1 Tim 4:10, and I agree with Thomas Schriener that such a view is incorrect. For Schriener's argument against it, see “‘Problematic Texts’ for Definite Atonement in the Pastoral and General Epistles,” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, David and Jonathan Gibson, eds. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2013):380–382.
Mar
18
comment To what do the “parchments” (and tangentially the “books”) refer in 2 Tim 4:13?
I appreciate some of your observations, however, please edit your answer: (1) To support your assertion with documented sources for (a) parchment's availability and (b) its being inexpensive enough to warrant not bringing it pre-owned from a distance (this would dampen my #4 speculation). (2) To clarify your position, which appears is my #3 speculation, with some #1 also; specifically needed is some scholarly reasons why βιβλία should be conceived as referring to the material of papyrus here, rather than its common usage referring to any written document (regardless of material).