Hot answers tagged

20

That's not feminine; that's masculine. These are "pausal forms", so when the preposition lamed plus 2 msc sg suffix would normally be lĕkā, in "pause" it is lāk -- which is the same form as the 2 fem sg, and thus the confusion. See Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (2nd edn; Clarendon Press, 1910), at § 29n, p. 97 (last line of that ...


12

The Tetragram in Hebrew is a proper name, and names do not have articles in Hebrew any more than they do in English. The article "the" arises in OP's KJV example because of the convention (beginning as early as the Septuagint) of representing the divine name by the word "Lord", which then has the knock on effect of requiring an article in English usage. ...


11

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. ...


11

The MT for Jonah 1:11 is: וַיֹּאמְר֤וּ אֵלָיו֙ מַה־נַּ֣עֲשֶׂה לָּ֔ךְ וְיִשְׁתֹּ֥ק הַיָּ֖ם מֵֽעָלֵ֑ינוּ כִּ֥י הַיָּ֖ם הוֹלֵ֥ךְ וְסֹעֵֽר The translation (mine) is: And they said to him, "What should we do with you, that will quiet the sea for us?", because the sea was increasingly stormier" In this verse, לָּ֔ךְ is the second person ...


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 ...


10

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 ...


10

The short answer is because they chose to. This "quip" answer reveals the challenge of answering most "why" questions, as "why" normally requires inference of motive, rather than actually interpreting anything directly from the text (unless the text gives insight into motive, in which case the "why" question would likely not even be a question, as it would ...


10

Wallace offers a very good explanation of the use of the term in the original language. It may help to understand exactly what is meant by the term εἰς τὸ ὄνομα - into the name of. I am not going to try to quote Wallace. I will just give the sense of his explanation. In the classical style of the first century language, the phrase "εἰς τὸ ὄνομα" - "into ...


9

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. ...


9

I have been looking at this same verse the past few days. There are three important questions in my opinion for understanding this verse: (1) what is the subject of συνεργεῖ, (2) what is the syntax of the dative τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν θεὸν, and (3) what is the syntax of πάντα? The evidence indicates to me that the subject of the verb συνεργεῖ is the Holy Spirit ...


9

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 ...


9

I submit that there can be no fuller answer to this question than that given by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones some 70 years ago in a lecture on this verse.1 He summarizes the factors to consider in making a decision on how to translate this verse, and interpret it, presents evidence from the best scholarship of the 20th Century, and a short list of theologians ...


9

From: B. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Eisenbrauns, 1990), § 21.2.3e, p. 361: +-------------+------+------------+------+ | Occurrences | Roots used* | | # % | # % | +----------+-------------+------+------------+------+ | Qal | 49180 | ...


9

It is true that the "anarthrous" usage of "Jesus" (Ἰησοῦς) in Mark 1:9 is unusual. Of 82 occurrences of the name in Mark, only eight of them lack the article (1:1, 9, 24; 5:7; 10:47[x2]; 16:6, 19). There is something of a pattern, though, as aside from 1:1, 9; and 16:19 (which is in the disputed "long ending" of Mark), these ...


9

The expression διὰ παντός means always, continually, constantly (BDAG, "διὰ", A.2.a) This is a formulaic adverbial phrase, but it isn't really so hard to arrive at from the literal meaning of the two words if one understands διὰ as "throughout, through, during" (A.2.a). The following word is the genitive form of the adjective "all" (the genitive being ...


9

This is definitely a grammatical problem and is subtle. The matter at hand in John 10:33 is what Daniel B Wallace in "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" (GGBB) calls "Qualitative Predicate Nominatives. Let is take some non-threatening examples. In each of these case we will have two nouns in the nominative case connected or correlated by a ...


8

It's not a feminine pronoun (although it looks like one)! Lakh (לָךְ) in this case is a form of the male pronoun lekha known as "pausal," which because of its position as the final word of the verse. Pausal forms generally expand a shva or e-vowel into a qamatz; for example, at the end of Genesis 1:1 eretz becomes aretz. See for example the chart here, or ...


8

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 ...


8

The heart of the problem is that the earliest manuscripts-the uncials and papyri don't have punctuation. There has got to be a comma and or period in there, but where? Murray Harris in his study of this question (Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus [Baker, 1992], ch. 6, pp. 143-172) found that, of the 56 commentaries he ...


8

The differences between and the new believers were prepared for eternal life (OP) and and all who were appointed for eternal life believed (NIV) are the flip-flopping of the finite verb and the participle and the translation of τεταγμένοι as “prepared” or “were appointed”. Although I understand how the OP arrived at this translation given the ...


8

The most common explanation for this text and its perplexing syntax -- without recourse to emendation -- is that רֹבֵץ is said to be a "nominalized participle", and thus not subject to the gender agreement of a typical participle or adjective. So the solution is not to be found in some nuanced understanding of חַטָּאת, which is where I would first have ...


8

TL;DR: That is a dagesh lene, and the vowels match those of the qal and not the pi'el in any case. The dagesh forte that you're using for your diagnostic must follow a vowel other than sheva. For more detail, read on... Dagesh lene There are two types of motivations for the use of a dagesh in Biblical Hebrew. (This may be review for you, but I believe it'...


8

ἀββα is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic אַבָּא. In both Hebrew and Aramaic, the vocative is often indicated by definitizing a noun.1 Hence, we can interpret אַבָּא into English as the nominative “the father” (e.g., as the subject of a sentence) or the vocative “father” (e.g., in an address). In each of its three occurrences in the Greek NT,2 it is ...


8

I do not like this proposed rule for several reasons, apart from the fact that it is confusing and misleading and never required. If the rule is correct (which I doubt) then John 20:28 is a clear exception. I cannot find an instance of where the Apostolic Fathers suggested that part of John 20:28 is addressed to God the Father rather than entirely to Jesus ...


7

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 ...


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