Page 5 of 5

Re: Errors In Revelation?

Posted: November 16th, 2017, 7:59 pm
by Peter Streitenberger
>Peter - is this clear to you now? If not, may I suggest that we take it offline?
No, if it is clear to a "majority", ok, for me in the minority it is not, but not my major point in this debate. If someone wants to contact me, I am ok and thankful, being interested in how the masculine version would be. I agree, that nothing more is to be expected, and I dont want to bother someone or getting on someone`s nerves. If someone can tell me off list the corresponding masculine version, I am happy. So I stopp here. Thanks for all the efforts despite.

Re: Errors In Revelation?

Posted: December 26th, 2017, 5:57 pm
by paorear
This discussion intrigued me for a number of reasons. If I understood Peter's argumentation correctly, he was effectively saying:
  • 2 declension feminine noun forms are not really feminine as borne out by the use of their being paired with masculine adjectives in the corpora, regardless of whether they use feminine articles or what grammars have consistently taught over the years.
  • 2 termination adjectives being ambiguous in form are not valid forms to confirm or deny this assertion due to their ambiguity.
I think Randall's response from Antiq 2:342 was the clearest example of a counter to that assertion:
Αἰγύπτιοι δ᾿ ἐλάνθανον, ἰδίαν ὁδὸν Ἑβραίοις γεγενημένην, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχὶ κοινὴν, ἐπεμβαίνοντες, καὶ μέχρι σωτηρίας τῶν κεκινδυνευκότων πεποιημένην

"but the Egyptians were unaware, getting on a peculiar road made for Hebrews, and not a common road, made for the deliverance of those in danger,"
With ἰδίαν, γεγενημένην, κοινὴν and πεποιημένην all modifying ὁδὸν, and all being unambiguously feminine in form.

What I was thinking along the way was that we need to be able to do searches on this sort of data more effectively. The old CCAT markup of the LXX I believe did include *declension* tagging in addition to simple gender, case, number.

Perhaps a different way of approaching what I think Peter was saying is - when do we agree with what grammars (and lexicons and commentaries) have always told us? What methodology do we have to validate or invalidate their assertions? (cf. John Lee's article that was shared here recently on lexicons, their dependence on earlier lexicons, and continuing to promulgate old, invalid assumptions)

If something like these odd feminine 2nd declension nouns and 2 termination adjectives 'smells funny' - what is our means of verifying what we've always been taught? To prove or disprove Peter's assertions we'd really want to be able to do exhaustive searches on feminine 2nd declension nouns with adjectives.

Just playing devil's advocate here a little. :) Though I'm not convinced Peter is right, I like that he was thinking outside the box a little here.

Re: Errors In Revelation?

Posted: December 26th, 2017, 6:00 pm
by paorear
Similarly, Barry made an equally interesting assertion that should also (ideally) be verifiable:
Similar gender diversity :lol: with these second declension feminines is sometimes seen in the papyri. You do not see it in the NT nor in "published" authors in ancient times.
[emphasis mine]