Evan Blackmore wrote: But many of the older commentaries have valuable technical comments on points of Greek, which have tended to be dropped from their successors--even the "Greek text" successors.
if this book succeed in accomplishing anything for the accurate study of the Greek Testament, it will be through what I have learned from Bishop Ellicott's wise counsels, and from his noble Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles.
Evan Blackmore wrote:Here's one example that's fresh in my mind.
Last week, another thread on this forum discussed the role of the ἅμα in ἅμα σὺν αὑτοῖς ἀρπαγησόμεθα (1 Th 4:17). Does it form a kind of compound preposition with σὺν, or is it an adverb modifying ἀρπαγησόμεθα, or what?
Neither of the two recent "Greek text" commentaries on my shelves (WBC and NIGTC) even considered that question. The authors had mentally constructed their comments on the standard English rendering ("together with"), which poses no grammatical puzzles--and although they had then substituted the Greek ἅμα σὺν, they hadn't seen that it required some extra discussion.
By contrast, nearly all of the older commentaries--e.g. Milligan (Macmillan, 1908) and Frame (ICC, 1912)--had helpful discussions of the question.
ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς] 'at the same time together with them,' 'simul... cum illis,' Vulg., Copt. [euson]; i.e. we shall be caught up with them at the same time that they shall be caught up, ἅμα apparently not marking the mere local coherence, 'all together,' Alford, but, as usual, connexion in point of time ('res duas vel plures una vel simul sut esse aut fieri significat,' Klotz, Devar. Vol. II p.95): compare Ammon. s.v., ἅμα μέν ἐστι χρονικὸν ἐπίῤῥημα, ὁμοῦ δὲ τοπικόν, and Tittm. Synon. I. p. 156, who however remarks that in Romans 3.12 (from the LXX) this distinction is not maintained. See notes on ch. 5.10.
ἅμα σὺν αὐτῳ ζήσομεν 'we should together live with Him,' not 'together with him,' Auth.; the ζῆν σὺν Χριστῷ forming the principal idea, while the ἅμα (Heb. יַחְדָּו) subjoins the further notion of aggregation; compare Romans 3.12, and see notes on 4.17, where the previous specifications of time make the temporal meaning more plausible.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 0 guests