Rev2:23ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ,6:11αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ,21:21ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος

Forum rules
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. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Rev2:23ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ,6:11αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ,21:21ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος

Post by Stephen Hughes » October 28th, 2014, 10:58 pm

Revelations 2:23 wrote:καὶ δώσω ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν.
Revelations 6:11 wrote:Καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ στολὴ λευκή
Is there an explanation why ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ would have been written that way rather than ἑκάστῳ ὑμῶν, or αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ rather than ἑκάστῳ αὐτῶν? There must have been a systematic error in the authour's understanding of Greek syntax to prompt them to produce the same syntax consistently. They clearly feel that the group should be mentioned before the individual

The same (mis-)understanding also seems to be implied in Revelations 20:13
Revelations 20:13 wrote:καὶ ἐκρίθησαν ἕκαστος κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν.
Which if it had agreement between verb and subject would be καὶ ἐκρίθησαν {αὐτοὶ} ἕκαστος κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν, which might imply that they felt that the verb ἐκρίθησαν itself implied enough of the subject.

Is there something about how a similar word is used in another language, or is this an indication of a later development?

On another point, it seems that in regard to the ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος τῶν πυλώνων in
Revelations 21:21 wrote:Καὶ οἱ δώδεκα πυλῶνες, δώδεκα μαργαρῖται· ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος τῶν πυλώνων ἦν ἐξ ἑνὸς μαργαρίτου· καὶ ἡ πλατεῖα τῆς πόλεως χρυσίον καθαρόν, ὡς ὕελος διαυγής.
It seems that the smoothing out of the Greek - that presumably happened in the period before the widespread acceptance of the Book of Revelations into the canon - that we can see in Matthew 26:22, could help give us a justification for a (conjectured) smoothed out version of this ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος τῶν πυλώνων, rather than just relying on our own common sense.
Matthew 26:22 (Byz. 2005 Text) wrote:Καὶ λυπούμενοι σφόδρα ἤρξαντο λέγειν αὐτῷ ἕκαστος αὐτῶν, Μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι, κύριε;
Matthew 26:22 (Eclectic text) wrote:Καὶ λυπούμενοι σφόδρα ἤρξαντο λέγειν αὐτῷ εἷς ἕκαστος, Μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι, κύριε;
I mean that we could substitute the ἕκαστος αὐτῶν (from the smoothing out in Matthew) for the εἷς ἕκαστος (in Revelations) and then match the case to the needs of the preposition, giving ἀνὰ ἕκαστον τῶν πυλώνων.

I don't want to put it into the signature, because it is not so important to be stated more than once, but I do feel I am picking up stones and trying to explain mountains.
0 x


Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Rev2:23ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ,6:11αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ,21:21ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστο

Post by cwconrad » October 29th, 2014, 7:01 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Revelations 2:23 wrote:καὶ δώσω ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν.
Revelations 6:11 wrote:Καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ στολὴ λευκή
Is there an explanation why ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ would have been written that way rather than ἑκάστῳ ὑμῶν, or αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ rather than ἑκάστῳ αὐτῶν? There must have been a systematic error in the authour's understanding of Greek syntax to prompt them to produce the same syntax consistently. They clearly feel that the group should be mentioned before the individual

The same (mis-)understanding also seems to be implied in Revelations 20:13
Revelations 20:13 wrote:καὶ ἐκρίθησαν ἕκαστος κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν.
Which if it had agreement between verb and subject would be καὶ ἐκρίθησαν {αὐτοὶ} ἕκαστος κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν, which might imply that they felt that the verb ἐκρίθησαν itself implied enough of the subject.

Is there something about how a similar word is used in another language, or is this an indication of a later development?

On another point, it seems that in regard to the ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος τῶν πυλώνων in
Revelations 21:21 wrote:Καὶ οἱ δώδεκα πυλῶνες, δώδεκα μαργαρῖται· ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος τῶν πυλώνων ἦν ἐξ ἑνὸς μαργαρίτου· καὶ ἡ πλατεῖα τῆς πόλεως χρυσίον καθαρόν, ὡς ὕελος διαυγής.
It seems that the smoothing out of the Greek - that presumably happened in the period before the widespread acceptance of the Book of Revelations into the canon - that we can see in Matthew 26:22, could help give us a justification for a (conjectured) smoothed out version of this ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος τῶν πυλώνων, rather than just relying on our own common sense.
Matthew 26:22 (Byz. 2005 Text) wrote:Καὶ λυπούμενοι σφόδρα ἤρξαντο λέγειν αὐτῷ ἕκαστος αὐτῶν, Μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι, κύριε;
Matthew 26:22 (Eclectic text) wrote:Καὶ λυπούμενοι σφόδρα ἤρξαντο λέγειν αὐτῷ εἷς ἕκαστος, Μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι, κύριε;
I mean that we could substitute the ἕκαστος αὐτῶν (from the smoothing out in Matthew) for the εἷς ἕκαστος (in Revelations) and then match the case to the needs of the preposition, giving ἀνὰ ἕκαστον τῶν πυλώνων.

I don't want to put it into the signature, because it is not so important to be stated more than once, but I do feel I am picking up stones and trying to explain mountains.
Or perhaps like a mountain in labor delivering a mouse? Camus managed to convert the labors of Sisyphus into a paradigm of absurd but heroic endeavor. I'm not sure that this document merits a thorough analysis of its author's Greek usage. BDF devotes a section (§136) to the weirdnesses of this author's Greek
Revelation exhibits a quantity of striking solecisms which are based especially on inattention to agreement (a rough style), in contrast to the rest of the NT and to the other writings ascribed to John
Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (p. 75). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Rev2:23ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ,6:11αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ,21:21ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστο

Post by Stephen Hughes » October 30th, 2014, 12:22 am

cwconrad wrote:I'm not sure that this document merits a thorough analysis of its author's Greek usage. BDF devotes a section (§136) to the weirdnesses of this author's Greek
Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (p. 75). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. wrote:Revelation exhibits a quantity of striking solecisms which are based especially on inattention to agreement (a rough style), in contrast to the rest of the NT and to the other writings ascribed to John
That is something that I have been thinking about for some time.

My conclusion is that students should learn to read Greek from the Byzantine text for long enough to get used to its turn of phrase in straightened out Greek, and then read the eclectic text with its most probably accurate (somewhere in the early stages of transmission) text. Alternatively, students should read Greek for long enough that the strangeness of the Greek in the eclectic text of the New Testament becomes evident.

Taking BDF's comment on its head, the Book of Revelations is probably the best place for intermediate students to do that, because it did not go through the redaction that other texts - even represented as seen in early manuscripts. Although that is conjecture to some extent, even the eclectic text we have is weird enough in itself. Randall seems to be the only one currently commenting on this here, and frankly, it is a few steps beyond my level of Greek to see much of it, but it is facinating.

One of the upshots of the state of the Greek in the eclectic text is that translations of the Bible that we have do not reflect the roughness of the Greek, but rather reflect the more polished literary state of the Byzantine text. That is to say, that for a translation to really reflect the feeling of reading the New Testament in the recently widely-adopted eclectic text the English should sound like someone from another language background wrote it / translated it. It presently comes across in English at least, as a great work of literature. Indulge me one theological comment for a moment - For me that raises Isaiah 53:2 issues.
cwconrad wrote:I'm not sure that this document merits a thorough analysis of its author's Greek usage.
Specifically to show students the type of vessels that carried the message. Those who learn Greek from the eclectic text will not have the same impression of the Greek of their text as those coming to it with a competency which was developed by reading the text with better Greek. The Book of Revelations in Greek affords students with adequate reading experience an opportunity to be shocked at state of Greek, and realise it is the message not the medium that is the most important thing.

As a language teacher - not of Greek of course - I was wondering what might have caused that obvious error in his Greek. It's the type of thing that I spend a good deal of time doing with my own students.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3006
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Rev2:23ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ,6:11αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ,21:21ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστο

Post by Stephen Carlson » October 30th, 2014, 12:36 am

There is no Byzantine text in Revelation. There are two types of text found in Byzantine manuscripts and these text-types hold for pre-Byzantine manuscripts as well.

Every major section of the New Testament has its own textual history and notions from the Gospels or Paul, say. about the transmission of the text are not generally applicable outside of their major section. Revelation has its own textual history and its own quirks.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Rev2:23ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ,6:11αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ,21:21ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστο

Post by Stephen Hughes » October 30th, 2014, 1:58 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:There is no Byzantine text in Revelation. There are two types of text found in Byzantine manuscripts and these text-types hold for pre-Byzantine manuscripts as well.
...
Revelation has its own textual history and it
Byzantine here seems to have a technical sense, rather than historical one.
Stephen Carlson wrote:Every major section of the New Testament has its own textual history and notions from the Gospels or Paul, say. about the transmission of the text are not generally applicable outside of their major section.
At what stage / time frame did the serious redaction process happen in the Byzantine text-form?
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3006
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Rev2:23ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ,6:11αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ,21:21ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστο

Post by Stephen Carlson » October 30th, 2014, 3:17 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:Every major section of the New Testament has its own textual history and notions from the Gospels or Paul, say. about the transmission of the text are not generally applicable outside of their major section.
At what stage / time frame did the serious redaction process happen in the Byzantine text-form?
There seems to be two periods of particular importance. The fourth century appears to be one in which there was some recensional activity in the Gospels and Paul. The other happened in the minuscule handwriting revolution of the eighth or ninth century when older uncial manuscripts ceased to be copied, and thereby removed a lot of variants from circulation. The latter period's influence on the text is more of a bottleneck in the transmission than a deliberate attempt to redact the text.

Of course, Revelation is a -whole-nother ball of wax, with two major textual streams stemming from antiquity.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Rev2:23ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ,6:11αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ,21:21ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστο

Post by Stephen Hughes » October 30th, 2014, 4:00 am

Wes Wood in a PM (by permission) wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:Alternatively, students should read Greek for long enough that the strangeness of the Greek in the eclectic text of the New Testament becomes evident.
...
I would be surprised if most people who study New Testament Greek get much further than about where I am right now.

I have come to the conclusion that most of the resources that are available for introductory/intermediate New Testament Greek are partially to blame because they only serve to promote the idea that one can read greek rather than to help the learner actually understand it. I say this because our readings have repeatedly highlighted my own glaring deficiencies and, in my case at least, these weaknesses are due to the lack of attention to necessary details, both on my part and on the part of my texts. Things like which verbs take what case aren't "important" when you are largely familiar with your corpus and can guess what is going on, but are indispensable when one is actually trying to understand the Greek. It is difficult for a student to know that he or she is inadequately prepared if there were no warnings along the way.

I just don't think many reach the proficiency you speak of in this quote.
Learning to read involves recognising genre, style, and the general standard of the work. That is learnt by experience and extensive reading along with some instruction.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Rev2:23ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ,6:11αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ,21:21ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστο

Post by cwconrad » October 30th, 2014, 7:29 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Wes Wood in a PM (by permission) wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:Alternatively, students should read Greek for long enough that the strangeness of the Greek in the eclectic text of the New Testament becomes evident.
...
I would be surprised if most people who study New Testament Greek get much further than about where I am right now.

I have come to the conclusion that most of the resources that are available for introductory/intermediate New Testament Greek are partially to blame because they only serve to promote the idea that one can read greek rather than to help the learner actually understand it. I say this because our readings have repeatedly highlighted my own glaring deficiencies and, in my case at least, these weaknesses are due to the lack of attention to necessary details, both on my part and on the part of my texts. Things like which verbs take what case aren't "important" when you are largely familiar with your corpus and can guess what is going on, but are indispensable when one is actually trying to understand the Greek. It is difficult for a student to know that he or she is inadequately prepared if there were no warnings along the way.

I just don't think many reach the proficiency you speak of in this quote.
Learning to read involves recognising genre, style, and the general standard of the work. That is learnt by experience and extensive reading along with some instruction.
Which is to say: it requires diligence, commitment, and considerable effort. "You get what you pay for."
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1854
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Rev2:23ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ,6:11αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ,21:21ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστο

Post by Barry Hofstetter » October 30th, 2014, 10:27 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
My conclusion is that students should learn to read Greek from the Byzantine text for long enough to get used to its turn of phrase in straightened out Greek, and then read the eclectic text with its most probably accurate (somewhere in the early stages of transmission) text. Alternatively, students should read Greek for long enough that the strangeness of the Greek in the eclectic text of the New Testament becomes evident.
This actually happened to me. I was taking a course in Greek orators in graduate school, and a history course which involved studying the history of the ancient church in relationship to the broader culture from the perspective of persecution. I decided to do my paper on Revelation, and sat down to read through the text in Greek. I was literally shocked at how strange and really off the Greek was compared to the Attic authors that I had been reading. It struck me that this was precisely the response that an educated ancient reader might have on encountering the text...
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Rev2:23ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ,6:11αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ,21:21ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστο

Post by Stephen Hughes » October 31st, 2014, 12:02 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:I was literally shocked at how strange and really off the Greek was compared to the Attic authors that I had been reading. It struck me that this was precisely the response that an educated ancient reader might have on encountering the text...
There is of course a very good reason for not correcting the Greek of Revelations, given at the end of the work, viz.
Revelations 22:18, 19 wrote:Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου, ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσαι ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ· 19 καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφέλοι ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.
Curses (negative promises) like that might dampen a pious redactor's spirit somewhat.

What I want to do is to make a translation in English which reflects the un-Greekness of the Greek in a few sample verses, to do that, I think I will need to know what good Greek might have been, and based on the apparent error, I would need to make a similar error in the English.

Before I work on the bad English, can anybody see something unidiomatic in the Greek of these three verses, which I have missed?
Revelations 6:9 - 11 wrote:9 Καὶ ὅτε ἤνοιξεν τὴν πέμπτην σφραγῖδα, εἶδον ὑποκάτω τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἐσφαγμένων διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τοῦ ἀρνίου ἣν εἶχον, 10 καὶ ἔκραξαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, λέγοντες, Ἕως πότε, ὁ δεσπότης, ὁ ἅγιος καὶ ἀληθινός, οὐ κρίνεις καὶ ἐκδικεῖς τὸ αἷμα ἡμῶν ἐκ τῶν κατοικούντων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; 11 Καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ στολὴ λευκή, καὶ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς ἵνα ἀναπαύσωνται ἔτι χρόνον, ἕως πληρώσωσιν καὶ οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν, καὶ οἱ μέλλοντες ἀποκτένεσθαι ὡς καὶ αὐτοί.
  • ὅτε ἤνοιξεν τὴν πέμπτην σφραγῖδα - I think that in a narrative portion of the text, this would be expressed as a genitive absolute, and the unwritten subject would be expressed as a passive or as an intransitive verb.
  • εἶδον ὑποκάτω τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἐσφαγμένων διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ - the word order of phrases would move ὑποκάτω τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου to the end,
  • ὑποκάτω would be a regular preposition rather than an adverb (irregular preposition),
  • διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ the preposition would be different (so that it wouldn't sound like the word of God was the means of their being slayed),
  • καὶ διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τοῦ ἀρνίου ἣν εἶχον, - the preposition would be changed to give the (presumably) desired effect.
  • ἣν εἶχον - ambiguity of subject here is part of the language that people would have been used to, Is this a Late-latinism here, taking the verb ἔχειν as a modal?
  • καὶ ἔκραξαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, λέγοντες, - should λέγοντες here more idiomatically be a full verb?
  • Ἕως πότε ... οὐ κρίνεις καὶ ἐκδικεῖς ... - What sort of grammar produced this tense construction? What are the writer's assumptions about the language?
  • κρίνεις ... τὸ αἷμα ἡμῶν - should κρίνεις rightly be used of the blood judged? I would expect that people or a case would be judged and the blood would be in a different case or after a preposition.
  • ἐκδικεῖς τὸ αἷμα ἡμῶν - I think that it would be idiomatic to say that he is avenging them for their blood
  • ἐκδικεῖς τὸ αἷμα ἡμῶν ἐκ τῶν κατοικούντων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς - the use of ἐκ is presumably detaching it from the front of the verb and repeating it.
  • τῶν κατοικούντων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς - the use of ἐπὶ seems peculiar. It would perhaps have the meaning of "overlooking".
  • κατοικούντων - this seems to be a specialised word being used in a general sense.
  • ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ στολὴ λευκή - this is what I started this discussion (thread) with. the word order would probably be different if αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ were constructed correctly with στολὴ λευκή put just after the verb.
  • ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς ἵνα ἀναπαύσωνται ἔτι χρόνον - this phrase uses an inappropriate mixture of registers.
  • ἔτι - this adverb presumably goes with second verb or perhaps with the whole phrase
  • ἐρρέθη ... ἵνα ἀναπαύσωνται - the first verb is highly formal and the second at the other (very colloquial) end of the spectrum, something like saying, "Yo dude, you listening to me? Visitors must refrain from smoking in covered areas of the hotel" (I reversed the order of register change there)
  • ἔτι χρόνον - loosely connected elements of the construction added sort of like after thoughts because he couldn't fit them in grammatically.
  • ἵνα ἀναπαύσωνται ἔτι χρόνον, ἕως πληρώσωσιν - both of these verbs seem to have reached then gone beyond the ordinary envelops of their meaning.
  • ἀναπαύσωνται - this verb means the act of refraining from something which is being done so as to no longer do it, but here it means the extended rest, a verb that means have a rest would be more suitable.
  • ἕως - is it just my vague imagination, or should this have been ἕως ἂν?
  • πληρώσωσιν - presumably this meant that the promise of God would happen for all the groups of people who he lists, but he really hasn't got his meaning across clearly. He is using religious sounding language - ἐρρέθη and πληρώσωσιν - to set the background for what he will say, without actually saying "a promise was given and you should wait in expectation for it to be fulfilled".
  • καὶ οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν, καὶ οἱ μέλλοντες ἀποκτένεσθαι ὡς καὶ αὐτοί. - the non-use of case or preposition here makes it difficult to guess whether this should have been written with a second or third person imperative (cf. textual variants in Ephesians 5:22, where the same need was felt in the Greek), or with the imperative in ἵνα as before in this section (too colloquial in my opinion), or whether we should understand that the scripture / promise that had been spoken / commanded would be fulfilled for them too. This seems to be an example of somebody who thinks his meaning is clear without the use of sound grammar - probably relying on word order and particles / conjunctions rather than cases and prepositions.
  • ὡς καὶ αὐτοί - which verb did he mean this to go with? In the writers mind it was probably clear, but for us there is a large degree of ambiguity. Poor control of the language means he is not writing clearly and unambiguously.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”