Matthew 1:20

The forum for those who still struggle with morphology, syntax, and idiom, or who wish to discuss basic questions about the meaning of Greek texts, syntax, or words.
Forum rules
This is not a place for students to ask for the answers to their homework assignments. Users who do that may be banned.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Matthew 1:20

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 4th, 2017, 10:37 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 4th, 2017, 4:03 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 3rd, 2017, 1:38 pm
Do you see the γεννηθέν as part of the subject or complement?
Hi Stephen,

It sounds like you want the predicate to be γεννηθὲν ... ἐστιν ... with the meaning "is begotten ...," but the way to do this in Greek is to use a perfect instead. Even without the segmentation clue afforded by ἐστιν, I don't think this works.
If you are happy just to make this statement, then fine, but if you want to take this beyond your present statement, please address me by PM or in a sub-forum other than the beginners' sub-forum.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2566
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Matthew 1:20

Post by Stephen Carlson » April 5th, 2017, 4:13 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 4th, 2017, 10:37 pm
Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 4th, 2017, 4:03 pm
It sounds like you want the predicate to be γεννηθὲν ... ἐστιν ... with the meaning "is begotten ...," but the way to do this in Greek is to use a perfect instead. Even without the segmentation clue afforded by ἐστιν, I don't think this works.
If you are happy just to make this statement, then fine, but if you want to take this beyond your present statement, please address me by PM or in a sub-forum other than the beginners' sub-forum.
I'm pretty happy with it, but I'm wondering if I somehow misunderstood your position.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Matthew 1:20

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 8th, 2017, 4:46 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 5th, 2017, 4:13 am
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 4th, 2017, 10:37 pm
Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 4th, 2017, 4:03 pm
It sounds like you want the predicate to be γεννηθὲν ... ἐστιν ... with the meaning "is begotten ...," but the way to do this in Greek is to use a perfect instead. Even without the segmentation clue afforded by ἐστιν, I don't think this works.
If you are happy just to make this statement, then fine, but if you want to take this beyond your present statement, please address me by PM or in a sub-forum other than the beginners' sub-forum.
I'm pretty happy with it, but I'm wondering if I somehow misunderstood your position.
Hi Stephen,
In general what you're saying about the perfect participle is true, but have you considered the use of the aorist passive participle in:
1 Peter 1:19-20 wrote:ἀλλὰ τιμίῳ αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου χριστοῦ,
20 προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων τῶν χρόνων δι’ ὑμᾶς,
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3097
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Matthew 1:20

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 8th, 2017, 12:14 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 8th, 2017, 4:46 am
In general what you're saying about the perfect participle is true, but have you considered the use of the aorist passive participle in:
1 Peter 1:19-20 wrote:ἀλλὰ τιμίῳ αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου χριστοῦ,
20 προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων τῶν χρόνων δι’ ὑμᾶς,
But that's not φανερωθέντος ἐστιν.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Matthew 1:20

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 8th, 2017, 1:31 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 8th, 2017, 12:14 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 8th, 2017, 4:46 am
In general what you're saying about the perfect participle is true, but have you considered the use of the aorist passive participle in:
1 Peter 1:19-20 wrote:ἀλλὰ τιμίῳ αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου χριστοῦ,
20 προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων τῶν χρόνων δι’ ὑμᾶς,
But that's not φανερωθέντος ἐστιν.
No. You are correct, it is not. It is an aorist passive participle used adjectivally. I don't understand why one would expect to find ἐστιν in the syntax of first Peter there? The two genitives - προεγνωσμένου and φανερωθέντος are in aposition to χριστοῦ. The are no nominatives or other units that the ἐστιν could coordinate between.

If you read back in the thread a little, you will see that Stephen suggests that γεγεννημένον would be the expected form if an adjective were intended in Matthew 1:20. While that is true for the most part, this φανερωθέντος is an example that tests his grammar.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2566
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Matthew 1:20

Post by Stephen Carlson » April 9th, 2017, 12:12 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 8th, 2017, 1:31 pm
If you read back in the thread a little, you will see that Stephen suggests that γεγεννημένον would be the expected form if an adjective were intended in Matthew 1:20. While that is true for the most part, this φανερωθέντος is an example that tests his grammar.
Sorry for not being too clear previously, but I had in mind a finite perfect for your periphrastic with an aorist participle. Accordingly, your 1 Peter 1:19-20 example is beside the point.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Matthew 1:20

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 9th, 2017, 6:58 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 9th, 2017, 12:12 am
I had in mind a finite perfect for your periphrastic with an aorist participle.
I'm sorry. There appears to be a hole in my grammar. I wasn't aware that there was any periphrastic tense constructed with an aorist participle and ἐστιν. My knowledge of periphrasis with ἐστιν is limited to the present and perfect participles.

One the basis of my ignorance of periphrasis of ἐστιν aorist participles, I had assumed γεννηθὲν was independently adjectival in Matthew 1:20 as the φανερωθέντος is in first Peter.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3097
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Matthew 1:20

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 9th, 2017, 10:15 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 9th, 2017, 6:58 am
I'm sorry. There appears to be a hole in my grammar. I wasn't aware that there was any periphrastic tense constructed with an aorist participle and ἐστιν. My knowledge of periphrasis with ἐστιν is limited to the present and perfect participles.
I think both Stephen and I had thought that you were interpreting Matthew 1:20 as a periphrastic constructed with an aorist participle and ἐστιν. I think Stephen was saying this doesn't work. That's how I interpreted this comment of his:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 4th, 2017, 4:03 pm
It sounds like you want the predicate to be γεννηθὲν ... ἐστιν ... with the meaning "is begotten ...," but the way to do this in Greek is to use a perfect instead. Even without the segmentation clue afforded by ἐστιν, I don't think this works.
But it looks like you have a different understanding:
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 9th, 2017, 6:58 am
One the basis of my ignorance of periphrasis of ἐστιν aorist participles, I had assumed γεννηθὲν was independently adjectival in Matthew 1:20 as the φανερωθέντος is in first Peter.
These two verses have very different structures:

Matthew 1:20 τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου
1 Peter 1:19-20 ἀλλὰ τιμίῳ αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου χριστοῦ, προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων τῶν χρόνων δι’ ὑμᾶς

So I'm not sure how the second is relevant here. Perhaps it would be helpful if you state more precisely how you see Matthew 1:20? Here is my interpretation:

γὰρ
s τὸ
adv ἐν αὐτῇ
v.part γεννηθὲν
p ἐκ Πνεύματός Ἁγίου
vc ἐστιν


When I try to move γεννηθὲν to the predicate, I can't figure out how to do it without using a periphrastic form that I do not see in the Greek New Testament.

I think this would also be grammatical:

γὰρ
s τὸ
adv ἐν αὐτῇ
p ἐκ Πνεύματός Ἁγίου
v γεννηθὲν


I think this would be grammatical:

γὰρ
s τὸ
adv ἐν αὐτῇ
p ἐκ Πνεύματός Ἁγίου
vc ἐστιν

But I don't know how to put both ἐστιν and γεννηθὲν into the predicate without a periphrastic. And as Stephen and you agree, the kind of periphrastic we would need probably doesn't exist.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3332
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Matthew 1:20

Post by Stephen Hughes » April 11th, 2017, 6:18 am

Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 9th, 2017, 10:15 am
I don't know how to put both ἐστιν and γεννηθὲν into the predicate without [it becoming] a periphrastic.
How? Treat it as an adjective.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3097
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Matthew 1:20

Post by Jonathan Robie » April 13th, 2017, 4:17 pm

Alan Bunning wrote:
April 2nd, 2017, 10:41 am
Matthew 1:20, “τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου
I just noticed this text, where ἦν (which is not enclitic) separates a similar phrase in a very similar way.

Luke.2.25 Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος ἦν ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ ᾧ ὄνομα Συμεών, καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος δίκαιος καὶ εὐλαβής, προσδεχόμενος παράκλησιν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ Πνεῦμα ἦν Ἅγιον ἐπ’ αὐτόν·

Does that damage the enclitic theory?
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest