Thanks, I can see that, and it seems to fit with the idea that the noun and the second adjective are considered as a single idea in these cases. Looking more carefully at Winer Moulton, p. 166 (3rd ed), Moulton's note 3:David Lim wrote:I don't get what Robertson means by "predicative". In my view, as in 1 Cor 10:3, the core noun in 1 Pet 1:18 is "αναστροφης πατροπαραδοτου", which is then modified by "υμων" and then "ματαιας", resulting in "your vain { manner of life handed down from forefathers }", which answers the question "who has that manner of life handed down from forefathers, and of what kind is it?" If it had been "εκ της ματαιας υμων αναστροφης της πατροπαραδοτου", it would have meant "out of { your vain manner of life } ( that is handed down from [your] forefathers )", which answers the question "from where did you get your vain manner of life?".Andrew Chapman wrote:With regard to 1 Peter 1.18, Robertson (2nd ed, p. 656) suggests that πατροπαραδότου 'may very well be predicative' - I am not sure I understand that, does he mean something like 'from your empty way of life [which was] handed down from your fathers':
εἰδότες ὅτι οὐ φθαρτοῖς, ἀργυρίῳ ἢ χρυσίῳ, ἐλυτρώθητε ἐκ τῆς ματαίας ὑμῶν ἀναστροφῆς πατροπαραδότου
[1 Peter 1.18 falls] directly under a rule thus given by Kruger (p.121): "When an attributive is inserted between the article and the noun, a second attributive sometimes follows the noun without a second article"
I meant that I could not understand their point, because it seemed to me that an adjective plus the noun that it modifies generally do coalesce to form a single idea. I may have missed the thought that the idea of πολυς is contained within οχλος - I am not sure if that is what they meant.David Lim wrote:I'm not sure what you mean here. The NU manuscripts are divided, and SBLGNT goes with having no article. If the article is not actually there, then there is no problem since adjectives typically don't take an article when modifying an indefinite noun. I'd prefer to have examples with clear textual support before any generalizations.Andrew Chapman wrote:Perhaps the clearest example is John 12.9:
Ἔγνω οὖν [ὁ] ὄχλος πολὺς ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ὅτι ἐκεῖ ἐστιν...
where Winer and Robertson agree that the words coalesce to form a single idea [but isn't that generally true of an adjective modifying a noun - don't 'green' and 'carpet' coalesce to form the single idea of a green carpet?]
Back to the original question, based on my viewpoint I think "ουτοι οι λογοι αληθινοι του θεου εισιν" in Rev 19:9 means "{ ουτοι οι λογοι } { αληθινοι του θεου } εισιν" = "these words are true [words] of God", in parallel with Rev 21:5 and Rev 22:6. But as Stephen Carlson pointed out it's hard to guess when we don't know whether this author is following ordinary Greek grammar here!
Robertson quotes Jebb on Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus 1199 in support of the single idea thesis for John 12.9:
τὰν γαμψώνυχα παρθένον χρησμῳδόν (the crooked-talonned prophesying maiden - 'the maiden with crooked talons who sang darkly' [Jebb])
upon which Jebb comments: 'The place of the second adjective may be explained by viewing παρθένον-χρησμῳδόν as a single idea'
but this comes under Kruger's rule above, and the point may be, in line I think with your alternative bracketing possibilities, that she is to be conceived of as a prophetess with crooked talons, rather than a maiden with crooked talons who prophesies.
J.H. Moulton also points to the difference that the first adjective makes [Prologomena 84]:
Your rendering makes sense to me, if it is OK to treat αληθινοι as a substantive, if that is the way to put it.A very curious misplacement of the article occurs in the ὁ ὄχλος πολύς of John 12.9. As Sir R. C. Jebb notes on Sophocles OT 1199 f., the noun and adjective may be fused into a single composite idea; but Jebb's exx. (like 1 Peter 1.18 and the cases cited in W. F. Moulton's note, WM 166) illustrate only the addition of a second adjective after the groups article-adjective-noun..
Andrew