Reputation
11,946
Next tag badge:
101/100 score
16/20 answers
Badges
1 22 53
Newest
 Yearling
Impact
~89k people reached

May
2
revised Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?
added link and bit of tidying - good content. :)
May
1
comment Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?
Thanks for these references + example. I find Cooper's account of this syntax fascinating: "In the very few places where the substantive article with δέ merely reiterates the subject there is strong hypercharacterisation... This is an effect which Attic authors picked up from Homer and Herodotus (cf. 1.50.1.10). In those authors it is so common that it is not always felt as strongly as it is in the Attic imitations." (Greek Syntax, vol. 1, p. 355). For the banter, Smyth, para. 1112 is less full, and cautious, and without examples of "same subject".
May
1
revised Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?
couple typos + formatting + old Loeb link + Google Books links
May
1
revised Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?
couple typos + formatting + old Loeb link
Apr
26
awarded  Yearling
Apr
25
revised Where is the 'Arabia' that Paul went to?
Just making reference clear: the comment thread suggests respondents aren't picking this up!
Apr
23
accepted Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?
Apr
22
comment What exactly did the disciples doubt in Matt 28:17?
See also the related question: "Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?"
Apr
22
comment What are the arguments for the documentary hypothesis?
@Arun - Reading Friedman and Baden + Hayes' lectures should be enough to tell you that the DH is alive and kicking. There is lively debate about the formation of the Pentateuch in current scholarship. You're reading the right stuff to become informed. See also reviews of Baden, e.g. in JHS Online and JNES, to get a flavour of the debate. Be aware that there are "regional" preferences: see, e.g. A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in ... European Interpretation. Hope that helps.
Apr
22
awarded  Nice Answer
Apr
21
revised What are the arguments for the documentary hypothesis?
tidy + book link
Apr
21
comment What are the arguments for the documentary hypothesis?
There are several good questions lurking here, but as posed, this agenda is simply too broad for this Q&A format. It would help to know what research you have already done. Standard textbooks of a recent vintage will cover this ground. Is e.g., this one available in a library near you? See also Nicholson's survey.
Apr
20
asked Should Matthew 28:17b be understood in a “partitive” or “inclusive” sense?
Apr
18
revised When did Esarhaddon conquer Egypt?
typo in name
Apr
18
comment What are the arguments for and against Johannine Comma?
@DickHarfield - For some reason you've worded the UBS4 bit to read as if it's an innovation in that edition. In fact, it's absent from Westcott & Hort's 1881 text, and was never in the UBS edition. See also W&H's textual notes in which they remark (by way of corroboration for your bullet list): "There is no evidence for the inserted words in Greek, or in any laguage but Latin, before Cent. XIV, when they appear in a Greek work written in defence of the Roman communion, with clear marks of translation from the Vulgate." Caveat lector.
Apr
17
comment The fifth rib in Abner
I have edited your question to fit into this site's guidelines, and made some corrections. I've cited a translation that reflects your question's interest. Do feel free to edit with a different translation if you prefer.
Apr
17
revised The fifth rib in Abner
typo
Apr
17
comment The fifth rib in Abner
See related on Judaism.SE: "What's with the 5th rib killing?"
Apr
17
revised The fifth rib in Abner
edited; added texts; x-refs for source; re-tagged
Apr
17
revised Why is “maranatha” in 1 Cor 16:22?
tiny typo - hates 'em