Question on Mt. 7:22

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.
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3340
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Question on Mt. 7:22

Post by Jonathan Robie » January 8th, 2018, 10:45 am

daveburt wrote:
January 7th, 2018, 6:14 am
Jonathan, can you easily find parallel passages matching the pattern (where ου governs a set of clauses linked with και) with your treebank powers?
Here are a few passages matching the pattern.

Matt.6.24
οὐ δύνασθε Θεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ μαμωνᾷ.

Matt.7.22
πολλοὶ ἐροῦσίν μοι ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ Κύριε Κύριε, οὐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι ἐπροφητεύσαμεν, καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι δαιμόνια ἐξεβάλομεν, καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι δυνάμεις πολλὰς ἐποιήσαμεν;

Matt.13.55
οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται Μαριὰμ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Σίμων καὶ Ἰούδας;

Acts.3.6
εἶπεν δὲ Πέτρος Ἀργύριον καὶ χρυσίον οὐχ ὑπάρχει μοι· ὃ δὲ ἔχω, τοῦτό σοι δίδωμι· ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου περιπάτει.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Ed Martirosyan
Posts: 13
Joined: January 5th, 2018, 11:41 am
Location: Queens, NY

Re: Question on Mt. 7:22

Post by Ed Martirosyan » January 8th, 2018, 11:55 am

Ed Martirosyan wrote:
January 6th, 2018, 5:35 pm
And here they claim that he should recognize them since they lived in the same streets. But elsewhere Christ was saying that unless people proclaim his name he would not proclaim theirs in the presence of the Father.
What is the word used in that passage?
The word used was λέγω ... to say, relate. They came and told him that they lived on the same street with him, ate with him, so he should know them. And I can speak for myself when I say I still do not know most of the people who live on my street. :)
Matt 10:32 wrote:Πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ὁμολογήσει ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς·
Would you translate ὁμολογέω as "agree with" the two times it occurs in this verse? Luke is parallel:
Luke 12:8 wrote:8 Λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁμολογήσει ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ·
Yes, homologeō means agree with, not to deny, confess, acknowledge.
In fact, this verb is never translated "agree with" in the ESV:
It does. It uses "acknowledge". Similar word for 'agree with' - agree with what you said.
Some others use "confess", which also means agree with you.
Christ agrees with their statement when he tells them to depart from him in Mt 7:23. He tells them they should depart based on Christ agreeing with what they said. And there is no way Christ tells them to depart from him because they did many works, prophecies and other works in his name.
However, if they respond to his question - Did you do these things in MY name? And they say "No, we did not", then everything fall into place. Then Christ tells them (agrees with them), because you did not do this in my name I never knew you. Depart from me.


Barry cited BDAG, the best New Testament lexicon for most purposes. You cited Thayer's earlier, I'll enclose the original definition found in Thayer's, taken from the printed edition. Sorry for the fuzziness, this is a Google scan.
clip
Any reference to homologeō as "declare, proclaim" is an accent, emphasis on the core meaning of homologeō as acknowledge, agree with confess. Declare, proclaim are just the forms of the way agreement is presented.

Thanks you for your response.
Ed

Ed Martirosyan
Posts: 13
Joined: January 5th, 2018, 11:41 am
Location: Queens, NY

Re: Question on Mt. 7:22

Post by Ed Martirosyan » January 8th, 2018, 11:58 am

daveburt wrote:
January 7th, 2018, 6:14 am
Ed Martirosyan wrote:
January 6th, 2018, 11:39 am
Concerning kai. Yes, ουδε is better: "We did not prophesy... nor cast out... nor perform..."
However, kai may also be translated (and often is) as "also". Maybe even "as well". Or, kai may be substituted by a comma. Yes, ουδε is better, but does it definitely decide for the traditional translation?
In English "not X and Y and Z" means "not all", or "(not X) but (Y and Z)" not "not any." I would expect η (or) rather than και for the logic (which would be most clearly expressed by ουδε) unless the Greek και represents a different logical operator than English 'and' (which I doubt).
Yes, it is "not all". ou is only used once and the rest is listed connected with kai.

Ed Martirosyan
Posts: 13
Joined: January 5th, 2018, 11:41 am
Location: Queens, NY

Re: Question on Mt. 7:22

Post by Ed Martirosyan » January 8th, 2018, 12:24 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
January 7th, 2018, 11:54 am
Ed, nobody has ever read this as anything other than a question, as far back as Jerome, who uses "nonne" (a particle in Latin which introduces a question expecting a "yes" answer).
Yes, I know that very well, Barry. But the reason they do so is not because it is a grammatical must. They do so because they all follow specific context they learned from each other. I believe there is another context that is more faithful to the text. That is why I am here, to check the grammar. :)
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
January 7th, 2018, 11:54 am
1) While it is true that, out of context, one might be able to read the sentence the way you propose, it is so unlikely in the context as to approach an impossibility. οὐ is regularly used of questions which expect a "yes" answer (μή is regularly used of questions which expect a "no" answer). That usage makes the best sense here.
There are other places where ou is used in a non-question format.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
January 7th, 2018, 11:54 am
2) I do not agree that "agree" is the best translation of ὁμολογέω in this context. What does Jesus ὁμολογεῖ? The object clauses, ὅτι gives us the content of the action expressed in the verb, Οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς, "I never knew you." ὁμολογέω is used here of a public declaration:

④ to acknowledge someth., ordinarily in public, acknowledge, claim, profess, praise

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 708). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

He is therefore not agreeing with them, he is declaring "to them," dative of indirect object.
Of course it is a public declaration. But the public declaration is not the true meaning of the word. It is the emphasis, or accent upon the actual meaning of the word, which is "acknowledge, agree with, not to deny".
He delivered to them his public agreement with what they said.

Thanks,
Ed

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1199
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Question on Mt. 7:22

Post by Barry Hofstetter » January 8th, 2018, 2:22 pm

Ed Martirosyan wrote:
January 8th, 2018, 12:24 pm

Yes, I know that very well, Barry. But the reason they do so is not because it is a grammatical must. They do so because they all follow specific context they learned from each other. I believe there is another context that is more faithful to the text. That is why I am here, to check the grammar. :)
I'm sorry, but another context? There is one context for the text, and that hasn't changed since the text was written.
There are other places where ou is used in a non-question format.
And in those contexts, οὐ is used adverbially usually in close proximity (just preceding) the adjective, adverb or verb which it negates. When used in the initial position in the clause, and not in close proximity to anything it could potentially negate, it's nearly always used as the question word. That does not mean that it cannot be placed in other positions and still be the question word -- of course it can, but that the placement in this context practically guarantees that the question is intended.
Of course it is a public declaration. But the public declaration is not the true meaning of the word. It is the emphasis, or accent upon the actual meaning of the word, which is "acknowledge, agree with, not to deny".
He delivered to them his public agreement with what they said.
There is no such thing as "the true meaning of the word." There is only the usage of the word in context. To use my favorite example:

The captain can run the ship with a run in her stocking while the crew members run a race on the run on deck 10.

What is the "true meaning" of run? Each one of the usages above is valid and clear from the context. Similarly with ὁμολογέω. It does not mean "agree" in Matt 7:22 for precisely the syntactic reasons I already gave.

Now, let me be clear. You are flat out wrong on this, and you will never convince anyone. You are essentially claiming that you know better than everyone else, including ancient writers who were fluent in the language. You might want to consider redirecting your energies elsewhere.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3340
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Question on Mt. 7:22

Post by Jonathan Robie » January 8th, 2018, 6:24 pm

Ed Martirosyan wrote:
January 6th, 2018, 5:35 pm
Thank you for your response. :)
Jonathan Robie wrote:
January 6th, 2018, 1:14 pm
I don't think the grammar rules this out,
It is important for me to know that there are no grammatical objections. Thank you for that.
Like Barry, I also think there are grammatical reasons to think that this meaning is not likely, I don't think it fits the context of the passage, and I don't think it takes into account the way that this word is used in other New Testament passages. It is also out of keeping with all other translations and with the commentaries.

You seem to think that one particular gloss is the "true meaning" of the verb, and trying to force fit it into that gloss. Perhaps you are doing this because that gloss matches the parts of the word.

Do you know what "root fallacy" or "etymological fallacy" means? The English word 'decimate' once meant 'cut into 10 pieces', but that's not the 'true meaning' of the word today. The English word comes from a word meaning ἀπολογία, a speech in defense, but that's not the 'true meaning' of the word today. And you have to look at context - the words 'grow' and 'climb' have very different meanings in phrases like 'grow smaller' or 'climb down'.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Ed Martirosyan
Posts: 13
Joined: January 5th, 2018, 11:41 am
Location: Queens, NY

Re: Question on Mt. 7:22

Post by Ed Martirosyan » January 8th, 2018, 10:20 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
January 8th, 2018, 2:22 pm
Ed Martirosyan wrote:
January 8th, 2018, 12:24 pm

Yes, I know that very well, Barry. But the reason they do so is not because it is a grammatical must. They do so because they all follow specific context they learned from each other. I believe there is another context that is more faithful to the text. That is why I am here, to check the grammar. :)
I'm sorry, but another context? There is one context for the text, and that hasn't changed since the text was written.
When I said 'another context' I misspoke.
I meant another rendition of the same context.
And another rendition of the same context is that they said they did not do this and that in HIS name, so Christ told them to depart.
Same context yet more faithful to v.23 where he acknowledged that what they said.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
January 8th, 2018, 2:22 pm
There are other places where ou is used in a non-question format.

And in those contexts, οὐ is used adverbially usually in close proximity (just preceding) the adjective, adverb or verb which it negates. When used in the initial position in the clause, and not in close proximity to anything it could potentially negate, it's nearly always used as the question word. That does not mean that it cannot be placed in other positions and still be the question word -- of course it can, but that the placement in this context practically guarantees that the question is intended.
But if it is nearly always used as the question word it means it is not always used as a question word. So the true grammar of v.23 word for "agree, acknowledge, not to deny" must absolutely be taken into consideration. And if that is the case then the question format of v.22 must be replaced with a plain sentence.
Ed Martirosyan wrote:
January 8th, 2018, 12:24 pm
Of course it is a public declaration. But the public declaration is not the true meaning of the word. It is the emphasis, or accent upon the actual meaning of the word, which is "acknowledge, agree with, not to deny".
He delivered to them his public agreement with what they said.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
January 8th, 2018, 2:22 pm
There is no such thing as "the true meaning of the word." There is only the usage of the word in context. To use my favorite example:

The captain can run the ship with a run in her stocking while the crew members run a race on the run on deck 10.

What is the "true meaning" of run? Each one of the usages above is valid and clear from the context. Similarly with ὁμολογέω. It does not mean "agree" in Matt 7:22 for precisely the syntactic reasons I already gave.
Of course there is a true meaning of the word. Why do you have this forum then? Why speak Greek?
If I say to you that "to me" an apple is an orange just because it was found among the bunch of oranges, are you going to accept that?

In your example you use the word 'run' as a figure of speech.
Christ did not use figures of speech in v.23 when he "agreed, acknowledged, did not deny" that what they said. No way. No figure of speech.
And what they said (probably in response to his question at the last judgment) was that they did do all these things (all these good works), but not in HIS name.
So he agreed with them and declared that because of this they should depart from him, since he never knew them.

How can this not make sense?

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
January 8th, 2018, 2:22 pm
Now, let me be clear. You are flat out wrong on this, and you will never convince anyone. You are essentially claiming that you know better than everyone else, including ancient writers who were fluent in the language. You might want to consider redirecting your energies elsewhere.
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. Please believe me on that. If I would claim I know better than you I would not ask, I would tell.
Yet I ask questions and do not preach the answers.


Thank you for your response.
Ed

Ed Martirosyan
Posts: 13
Joined: January 5th, 2018, 11:41 am
Location: Queens, NY

Re: Question on Mt. 7:22

Post by Ed Martirosyan » January 8th, 2018, 10:43 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
January 8th, 2018, 6:24 pm
Ed Martirosyan wrote:
January 6th, 2018, 5:35 pm
Thank you for your response. :)
Jonathan Robie wrote:
January 6th, 2018, 1:14 pm
I don't think the grammar rules this out,
It is important for me to know that there are no grammatical objections. Thank you for that.
Like Barry, I also think there are grammatical reasons to think that this meaning is not likely, I don't think it fits the context of the passage, and I don't think it takes into account the way that this word is used in other New Testament passages. It is also out of keeping with all other translations and with the commentaries.

You seem to think that one particular gloss is the "true meaning" of the verb, and trying to force fit it into that gloss. Perhaps you are doing this because that gloss matches the parts of the word.

Do you know what "root fallacy" or "etymological fallacy" means? The English word 'decimate' once meant 'cut into 10 pieces', but that's not the 'true meaning' of the word today. The English word comes from a word meaning ἀπολογία, a speech in defense, but that's not the 'true meaning' of the word today. And you have to look at context - the words 'grow' and 'climb' have very different meanings in phrases like 'grow smaller' or 'climb down'.
Yes, languages evolve and meanings become fluent.
That is why I refer to the word meanings in Koine as defined by English translators and workers.
I would not refer to English King James rendition because the English of 1600 no longer carries the true meaning of English of today.

My intent is not to attack. However, I see that some folks are getting irritated. It is not my intent. If I press against the well-being of this forum I can move on, no problems. Really.
I do have other questions similar in nature, but I can move on.
Please let me know.
Thanks,
Ed

Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 397
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Question on Mt. 7:22

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen » January 9th, 2018, 5:45 am

As a one who has for a long time followed this forum I believe that everyone here agrees with Jonathan and Barry. It's very difficult to answer to you because you don't believe those who know quite much Greek, here or elsewhere. You seem to have have faulty presuppositions and methodologies and it's very difficult to refute them because you don't know the correct ones nor seem to be able to accept them.

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3340
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Question on Mt. 7:22

Post by Jonathan Robie » January 9th, 2018, 9:20 am

I'm fishing around for other possible sources of confusion - why is it that you find it so hard to see this as a question? - and I found this:
Ed Martirosyan wrote:
January 5th, 2018, 8:23 pm
I do not see any interrogative pronouns in the Greek text nor the ἆρα (687 Strong's) to suggest the sentence to be in a question format.
Perhaps you think that questions in Greek normally require an interrogative pronoun? That's not the only thing that suggests a question in Greek. Here are a few more questions in very similar form to Matthew 7:22, again without the interrogative pronoun:

Matt.13.55 οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται Μαριὰμ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Σίμων καὶ Ἰούδας;
Matt.6.25 οὐχὶ ἡ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς καὶ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ἐνδύματος;

And questions without relative pronouns are quite common in New Testament Greek, this kind of negation is one of the more common ways to phrase a question. These examples are in Matthew because I started looking at the beginning.

Matt.5.46 οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ τελῶναι τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν;
Matt.5.47 οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν;
Matt.6.26 οὐχ ὑμεῖς μᾶλλον διαφέρετε αὐτῶν;
Matt.6.30 εἰ δὲ τὸν χόρτον τοῦ ἀγροῦ σήμερον ὄντα καὶ αὔριον εἰς κλίβανον βαλλόμενον ὁ Θεὸς οὕτως ἀμφιέννυσιν, οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ὑμᾶς, ὀλιγόπιστοι;
Matt.10.29 οὐχὶ δύο στρουθία ἀσσαρίου πωλεῖται;
Matt.12.3 Οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν Δαυεὶδ ὅτε ἐπείνασεν καὶ οἱ μετ’ αὐτοῦ;
Matt.13.27 Κύριε, οὐχὶ καλὸν σπέρμα ἔσπειρας ἐν τῷ σῷ ἀγρῷ;
Matt.13.55 οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός;
Matt.13.56 καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσιν;

Or with Μὴ:

Matt.9.15 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς Μὴ δύνανται οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος πενθεῖν ἐφ’ ὅσον μετ’ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ὁ νυμφίος;
Matt.11.23 καὶ σύ, Καφαρναούμ, μὴ ἕως οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθήσῃ;
Matt.12.23!1 καὶ ἐξίσταντο πάντες οἱ ὄχλοι καὶ ἔλεγον Μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς Δαυείδ;

But you don't need negation to create a question without an interrogative pronoun:

Matt.11.2 Σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ἢ ἕτερον προσδοκῶμεν;
Matt.3.14 Ἐγὼ χρείαν ἔχω ὑπὸ σοῦ βαπτισθῆναι, καὶ σὺ ἔρχῃ πρός με;
Matt.9.28 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς Πιστεύετε ὅτι δύναμαι τοῦτο ποιῆσαι;
Matt.13.51!1 Συνήκατε ταῦτα πάντα;
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