Lu 1:58

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

Re: Lu 1:58

Postby Roy Fredrick » October 25th, 2012, 7:43 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:You seem to believe there is a significant difference between "congratulate" and "rejoice with" in English. Can you say a little about the distinction you see, and why you believe that this Greek word makes the same distinction?
αὐτῇ Because the reflexive pronoun reflects the action back to the subject, it is not itself the subject, but is an an object of the verb.
The accent on the penult, is the only thing that distinguishes the demonstrative pronoun αὕτη from the third person pronoun αὐτή. Because the reflexive pronoun reflects the action back to the subject, it is not itself the subject, but is an an object of the verb. The dative case indicates to one or for whom the action occurs.

"μετ" A preposition is a word that usually occurs before a noun or a substantive in order to link that word to a preceding term as a modifer, depending on the thought being expressed by the author.
ὅτι is a conjunction, a particle that connects two clauses. NT writers frequently use ὅτι to introduce a clause that serves as the object.and what we make the subject of the Verb which follows ὅτι freq. stands in the preceding clause,

Naturally verbs meaning to free from, to separate, to deprive of, to hinder from, etc., use the ablative. ῥύομαι (Mt. 6:13),
A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson

Accents are not included in the oldest uncial manuscripts of the GNT. The earliest of these to have any accents is the Cambridge manuscript D, dated ib the 6th Cent. A.D.
In the earliest use accents indicated changes in pitch. However, the different accents have come to signify no difference in sound value; they indicate only that one is to stress the accented syllable.James Hewett in New Testament Greek, A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar.
Thrax's τεχνη γραμματικη was developed into a system by Apollonius Dyscolus (ii/A.D.) and his son Herodian. Dionysius Thrax was born B.C. 166. Dyscolus wrote a systematic Gk. Syntax of accentuation in 20 books (known to us only in epitome) about 200 A.D.
There are no accent marks in the early inscriptions and papyri; in fact tradition ascribes the invention of these signs as a
system to Aristophanes of Byzantium in the third century B.C., though the beginnings appear in the preceding century. He and
his disciple, Aristarchus, made the rules at any rate. The Alexandrian grammarians developed these rules, which have shown a
marvellous tenacity even to the present day in the modern Greek, though, of course, some words would naturally vary in accent
with the centuries.The earlier use of accents and breathings was probably "for the text of poetry written in dialect"3 (cf. our reading-books for children). They were not written out "in ordinary prose till the times of minuscule writing," though Euthalius (A.D. 396) made use of them in his edition of the N. T.4 The Christian hymns early show signs of changing from tone (pitch) to stress as is the rule in modern Greek. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 6.
Krumb., Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn's Zeitschr. fur Sprachl., 1885, p. 521.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACCENT IN THE κοινη. In Greek it is pitch, not stress, that is expressed by the accent, though in modern Greek the accents indicate stress. "In the ancient Sanskrit and the ancient Greek the rise and fall in musical tone was very marked." In English we are familiar with stress-accent. "Hadley has ably argued that the compass of tone used by the Greeks was a musical fifth, i.e. from C= do to G= sol, involving also the intermediate third or E= me." It was not a stronger current of breath, but a higher musical note that we have. It was in a word "das musikalische Moment." Hadley ("Nature and Theory of Gk. Accent," Essays Philol. and Crit., p. 111 f.) points out that προσ& δια comes from a root meaning ‘to sing’ (like the Latin accentus) and so οξ υς and βαρυς answer to our high and low pitch.
Arnold and Conway, The Restored Pronun. of Gk. and Lat., 1895, p. 18. and Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 129.

There was not indeed uniformity among the dialects in the use of accent. They agreed only in the one point of not accenting further back than the third syllable from the end.
Aristotle was not α γραμματος; η γραμματικη then had to do with the letters and was exegetical.
F. Hoffmann, Uber die Entwickelung des Begriffs der Gr. bei den Alten, 1891, p. 1.

Plato does not treat grammar, though the substantive and the adjective are distinguished, but only dialectics, metaphysics, logic.Ib., p. 144. The early Gk. grammarians were "ohne richtiges historisches Bewusstsein" (Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. etc., 1. Tl., 1863, p. 39). Even in Plato's Kratylus we do not see "das Gauze in seiner Ganzheit" (p. 40).
The Roman writers on grammar defined it as the "scientia recte loquendi et scribendi," and hence came nearer to the truth than did the Alexandrian writers with their Stoic philosophy and exegesis.
F. Blass, Hermen. und Krit., 1892, p. 157 f.

The blending of these dialects into the κοινη) was not complete as we shall see.
Moulton points out in his Prolegomena (p. 22). "I will go further and say that if we could only recover letters that ordinary people wrote to each other without being literary, we should have the greatest possible help for the understanding of the language of the N. T. generally" (Bishop Lightfoot, 1863, as quoted in Moulton's Prol., 2d and 3d ed., p. 242).
P. Giles A Short Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901.

It is no longer possible to say, what even Friedrich Blass did in 1894, that the N. T. Greek "is to be regarded something by itself and following laws of its own." That view is doomed in the presence of the papyri. Hatch in particular laboured under this error.

J. H. Moulton's Prol. to the N. T. Gk. Gr., 1906, and A. T. Robertson's
N. T. Syll., 1900, and Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., 1908.

A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson
Thumb's Handbuch. der griech. Dial. (1909) dialects
1Ch 25:5 All these were the sons of Heman the king's seer in the words of God, to lift up the horn.
Roy Fredrick
 
Posts: 21
Joined: October 15th, 2012, 10:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Lu 1:58

Postby MAubrey » October 25th, 2012, 8:38 pm

Roy Fredrick wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:You seem to believe there is a significant difference between "congratulate" and "rejoice with" in English. Can you say a little about the distinction you see, and why you believe that this Greek word makes the same distinction?

αὐτῇ Because the reflexive pronoun reflects the action back to the subject, it is not itself the subject, but is an an object of the verb.
The accent on the penult, is the only thing that distinguishes the demonstrative pronoun αὕτη from the third person pronoun αὐτή. Because the reflexive pronoun reflects the action back to the subject, it is not itself the subject, but is an an object of the verb. The dative case indicates to one or for whom the action occurs.

What in the world are you talking about? There is no reflexive pronoun. And the accentual difference between feminine demonstratives and feminine personal pronouns has nothing to do with the Jonathan's question.
Roy Fredrick wrote:"μετ" A preposition is a word that usually occurs before a noun or a substantive in order to link that word to a preceding term as a modifer, depending on the thought being expressed by the author.
ὅτι is a conjunction, a particle that connects two clauses. NT writers frequently use ὅτι to introduce a clause that serves as the object.and what we make the subject of the Verb which follows ὅτι freq. stands in the preceding clause,

Still haven't answer the question...
Everyone here already knows what μετὰ and ὅτι mean and they have nothing to do with Jonathan's question.
Roy Fredrick wrote:Naturally verbs meaning to free from, to separate, to deprive of, to hinder from, etc., use the ablative. ῥύομαι (Mt. 6:13),
A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson

Great. That's 100% irrelevant.
Roy Fredrick wrote:Accents are not included in the oldest uncial manuscripts of the GNT. The earliest of these to have any accents is the Cambridge manuscript D, dated ib the 6th Cent. A.D.
In the earliest use accents indicated changes in pitch. However, the different accents have come to signify no difference in sound value; they indicate only that one is to stress the accented syllable.James Hewett in New Testament Greek, A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar.
Thrax's τεχνη γραμματικη was developed into a system by Apollonius Dyscolus (ii/A.D.) and his son Herodian. Dionysius Thrax was born B.C. 166. Dyscolus wrote a systematic Gk. Syntax of accentuation in 20 books (known to us only in epitome) about 200 A.D.
There are no accent marks in the early inscriptions and papyri; in fact tradition ascribes the invention of these signs as a
system to Aristophanes of Byzantium in the third century B.C., though the beginnings appear in the preceding century. He and
his disciple, Aristarchus, made the rules at any rate. The Alexandrian grammarians developed these rules, which have shown a
marvellous tenacity even to the present day in the modern Greek, though, of course, some words would naturally vary in accent
with the centuries.The earlier use of accents and breathings was probably "for the text of poetry written in dialect"3 (cf. our reading-books for children). They were not written out "in ordinary prose till the times of minuscule writing," though Euthalius (A.D. 396) made use of them in his edition of the N. T.4 The Christian hymns early show signs of changing from tone (pitch) to stress as is the rule in modern Greek. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 6.
Krumb., Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn's Zeitschr. fur Sprachl., 1885, p. 521.

Yeah, that's irrelevant, too. The history of accents doesn't answer Jonathan's question.
Roy Fredrick wrote:SIGNIFICANCE OF ACCENT IN THE κοινη. In Greek it is pitch, not stress, that is expressed by the accent, though in modern Greek the accents indicate stress. "In the ancient Sanskrit and the ancient Greek the rise and fall in musical tone was very marked." In English we are familiar with stress-accent. "Hadley has ably argued that the compass of tone used by the Greeks was a musical fifth, i.e. from C= do to G= sol, involving also the intermediate third or E= me." It was not a stronger current of breath, but a higher musical note that we have. It was in a word "das musikalische Moment." Hadley ("Nature and Theory of Gk. Accent," Essays Philol. and Crit., p. 111 f.) points out that προσ& δια comes from a root meaning ‘to sing’ (like the Latin accentus) and so οξ υς and βαρυς answer to our high and low pitch.
Arnold and Conway, The Restored Pronun. of Gk. and Lat., 1895, p. 18. and Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 129.

Nothing relevant to Jonathan's question here...
Roy Fredrick wrote:There was not indeed uniformity among the dialects in the use of accent. They agreed only in the one point of not accenting further back than the third syllable from the end.
Aristotle was not α γραμματος; η γραμματικη then had to do with the letters and was exegetical.
F. Hoffmann, Uber die Entwickelung des Begriffs der Gr. bei den Alten, 1891, p. 1.

Still 100% irrelevant to the question at hand.
Roy Fredrick wrote:Plato does not treat grammar, though the substantive and the adjective are distinguished, but only dialectics, metaphysics, logic.Ib., p. 144. The early Gk. grammarians were "ohne richtiges historisches Bewusstsein" (Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. etc., 1. Tl., 1863, p. 39). Even in Plato's Kratylus we do not see "das Gauze in seiner Ganzheit" (p. 40).
The Roman writers on grammar defined it as the "scientia recte loquendi et scribendi," and hence came nearer to the truth than did the Alexandrian writers with their Stoic philosophy and exegesis.
F. Blass, Hermen. und Krit., 1892, p. 157 f.

Who said anything about Plato? You still haven't answered Jonathan's question...or is this some sort of free association thought experiment?
Roy Fredrick wrote:The blending of these dialects into the κοινη) was not complete as we shall see.
Moulton points out in his Prolegomena (p. 22). "I will go further and say that if we could only recover letters that ordinary people wrote to each other without being literary, we should have the greatest possible help for the understanding of the language of the N. T. generally" (Bishop Lightfoot, 1863, as quoted in Moulton's Prol., 2d and 3d ed., p. 242).
P. Giles A Short Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901.

Yes, Moulton did quote Lightfoot as saying that. You're right. What dord that have to do with the difference between "congratulate" and "rejoice with." Oh right, nothing at all.
Roy Fredrick wrote:It is no longer possible to say, what even Friedrich Blass did in 1894, that the N. T. Greek "is to be regarded something by itself and following laws of its own." That view is doomed in the presence of the papyri. Hatch in particular laboured under this error.

That's true. But again, it's irrelevant to the difference between "congratulate" and "rejoice with."
Roy Fredrick wrote:J. H. Moulton's Prol. to the N. T. Gk. Gr., 1906, and A. T. Robertson's
N. T. Syll., 1900, and Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., 1908.

A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson
Thumb's Handbuch. der griech. Dial. (1909) dialects

Those sure are books.

Roy, if you don't actually intend to dialogue with anyone, if you don't intend to actually take the time to answer people's questions when they ask you questions, then perhaps B-Greek isn't the right forum for you. You're more than welcome to participate here, but you need to actually interact with others in a substantive manner. Otherwise, you'll likely find yourself heavily moderated with few posts that you put so much apparent effort into producing actually appearing on the forum for discussion and dialogue. As one of those moderators, you can consider this a warning.
Mike Aubrey
Canada Institute of Linguistics & Trinity Western University Graduate School
MAubrey
 
Posts: 600
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: British Columbia

Re: Lu 1:58

Postby Barry Hofstetter » October 25th, 2012, 10:12 pm

David Lim wrote:
(4) "congratulated her" is wrong because "αυτη" is not accusative and hence cannot be the direct object of "συνεχαιρον"
(5) "συνεχαιρον" means "were rejoicing with" (LSJ)


If you have a look at the usages in both LSJ and BDAG, both "rejoice with" and "congratulate/wish one joy" take the dative case.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Barry Hofstetter
 
Posts: 437
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Lu 1:58

Postby timothy_p_mcmahon » October 25th, 2012, 11:36 pm

MAubrey wrote:or is this some sort of free association thought experiment?

Can't say any other explanation makes any sense on this planet.
timothy_p_mcmahon
 
Posts: 126
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm

Re: Lu 1:58

Postby Jason Hare » October 26th, 2012, 12:26 am

Roy Fredrick wrote:Are we playing a game here or or we earnestly trying to communicate?

Roy Fredrick wrote:Please don't be an "I see a weasel."

Roy Fredrick wrote:I will spell it out for the novice...


Each of these comments could be construed as an attack on another poster. I don't know what you are trying to accomplish here, but you're not earning any points by attacking people who have real knowledge of the ancient Greek tongue. Just to repeat what others have stated above, you are the novice here. Your attacks are completely unacceptable and out of place. You would do well to leave them out of your posts from here on.

Roy Fredrick wrote:αὐτῇ Because the reflexive pronoun reflects the action back to the subject, it is not itself the subject, but is an an object of the verb.


αὐτός ("he") is not a reflexive pronoun. It is a personal pronoun. The reflexive is ἑαυτός ("himself"). I join Mike in not knowing where you are coming from with this baseless claim.

Roy Fredrick wrote:Read the whole thing and present it as it is presented in Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon


You think that we're going to find confirmation that αὐτός is a reflexive pronoun in LSJ?

Roy Fredrick wrote:That was NOT my translation, I simply quoted that verse to show that I am not alone with the use of the word συνεχαιρον.


Well, you actually are alone in this - that you are making a claim without having a sufficient ground of knowledge from which to proclaim yourself correct. It is fine that you might like a given translation more. It is wonderful that you might have an opinion about which translation handles a text better. But, as it stands currently, you don't have the requisite knowledge to denounce the translation work of others. Translation is a hard job, and a good translation is a work of art. Until you've learned enough to engage properly with the text, maybe you should keep your proclamations tamed and under control.

Your claim in the OP, however, is that "the translators" made a discrepancy, without even indicating which translation you were talking about. How many translations do you think there are of the New Testament? Do you think that they are all of the same quality and are the result of the same level of skills? What brings you to attack any specific translators rather than just explaining how you see a given text in Greek?

I won't even engage the rest of the post, which is almost completely unrelated to the topic - as others have pointed out clearly.
Jason A. Hare
Rehovot, Israel
Jason Hare
 
Posts: 378
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Rehovot, Israel

Re: Lu 1:58

Postby David Lim » October 26th, 2012, 4:41 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
David Lim wrote:
(4) "congratulated her" is wrong because "αυτη" is not accusative and hence cannot be the direct object of "συνεχαιρον"
(5) "συνεχαιρον" means "were rejoicing with" (LSJ)


If you have a look at the usages in both LSJ and BDAG, both "rejoice with" and "congratulate/wish one joy" take the dative case.


Hi Barry, yes I know, and as I said I was purposely listing such "discrepancies" as examples of Roy's reasoning. Sorry that I made you think I was serious. ;)
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 822
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Lu 1:58

Postby Barry Hofstetter » October 26th, 2012, 4:53 pm

David Lim wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
David Lim wrote:
(4) "congratulated her" is wrong because "αυτη" is not accusative and hence cannot be the direct object of "συνεχαιρον"
(5) "συνεχαιρον" means "were rejoicing with" (LSJ)


If you have a look at the usages in both LSJ and BDAG, both "rejoice with" and "congratulate/wish one joy" take the dative case.


Hi Barry, yes I know, and as I said I was purposely listing such "discrepancies" as examples of Roy's reasoning. Sorry that I made you think I was serious. ;)


Oh, I get it now, but I still feel better having clarified... 8-)
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Barry Hofstetter
 
Posts: 437
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Previous

Return to What does this text mean?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest