Luke 1:35
Jason Hare
language_lover64801 at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 5 04:45:42 EDT 2000
Joseph,
The fact that it is neuter (TO GENNWMENON hAGION) comes most likely from the fact that most words for children are neuter. TEKNION and PAIDION are two that come to mind. Also, when GENNAW is used in this way, it seems to function as a substantive and often takes a neuter sense (just like the two example nouns). Note 1 John 5.4: hOTI PAN TO GEGENNHMENON EK TOU QEOU NIKAi TON KOSMON.... Here, the same kind of thing is used. It basically means a child, just as hO GENNWN would mean 'the one begetting,' i.e., the parent. I hope this helps.
In Christ,
Jason Hare
Ozark Christian College
Joplin, MO 64801
----- Original Message -----
From: J. Garnier
To: Biblical Greek
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 12:54 AM
Subject: [b-greek] Re: Luke 1:35
>At 10:18 04/09/00, "Rosangela Lira" <lira at escelsa.com.br> wrote:
>>Luke 1:35 says, "KAI TO GENNWMENON hAGION KLHQHSETAI hUIOS QEOU". It seems
>>the word GENNWMENON doesn't appear in all the manuscripts.
>On 04 Sep 2000, "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" <mauros at iol.ie>responded:
>Moule's view [ Moule, C.F.D. An Idiom Book of N.T Greek. Cambridge: C.U.P,
>1984.] at p.107 this is " a distinctly irregular usage " As against this
>treatment of hAGION as a substantative, the commnetators prefer the
>predicate use, either in a verbless clause " will be holy" " will be called
>Son of God " or as the predicate of KLHQHSETAI
>i.e as you quote:
My questions: isn't TO GENNWMENON hAGION a nominative phrase in which GENNWMENON is a further development of the idea TO hAGION? Is there precedent for breaking the phrase apart, and inserting TO hAGION in the predicate, as Moule suggests?
>The Modern King James Version
>puts it: "Therefore also that Holy Being who shall be born of thee shall be
>called the Son of God"; the New King James Version renders it:
>"Therefore,
>also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God";
Is there extra-biblical documentation enabling the neuter to be rendered being or one? I understand that thing (as in KJV) is distasteful to our ears, but if that is what it says, are we not obligated to translate accordingly?
Joseph Garnier
Seattle WA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/20000905/c31150e4/attachment.html
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list