[B-Greek] Use of KAI and pronouns

Luke Hartman lists at mrturtle.com
Mon Feb 27 08:22:47 EST 2006


Fellow quasi-scholars (and real scholars if you are one),

I was reading Gal. 1:3 and was curious about the use of the pronoun  
hHMWN.

The text in question: CHARIS hUMIN KAI EIRHNH APO QEOU PATROS hHMWN  
KAI KURIOU IHSOU CRISTOU TOU DONTOS...		

Does it go with QEOU or QEOU and IHSOU CRISTOU? I guess I am curious  
how the KAI works in this instance. Does the KAI 'join' the pronoun  
with both words because they are in the same case?  (though as I am  
writing this I see the same thing in the first part of the sentence  
with hUMIN, so perhaps I've answered my question...).

luke hartman


On Feb 26, 2006, at 11:00 AM, b-greek-request at lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

> Send B-Greek mailing list submissions to
> 	b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	b-greek-request at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	b-greek-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of B-Greek digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. TAUTAS in Acts 1:5 (Richard Lindeman)
>    2. Other Idioms (Richard Lindeman)
>    3. Re: Other Idioms (Mike Sangrey)
>    4. Ancient Greek-Grammar war? (Randall Buth)
>    5. Re: TAUTAS in Acts 1:5 (Carl W. Conrad)
>    6. Re: Other Idioms (Carl W. Conrad)
>    7. Re: Ancient Greek-Grammar war? (Barry)
>    8. Re: Periphrastic construction in Jn 3:28 (Carl W. Conrad)
>    9. Re: Periphrastic construction in Jn 3:28 (correction)
>       (Carl W. Conrad)
>   10. Ancient Greek - Why English /Greek Grammar (L. Harris)
>   11. Teaching and Learning Tools (****** ****)
>   12. 2 Cor 6:7 right hand weapon (Iver Larsen)
>   13. Re: 2 Cor 6:7 right hand weapon (George F Somsel)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:07:33 -0600
> From: "Richard Lindeman" <oblchurch at msn.com>
> Subject: [B-Greek] TAUTAS in Acts 1:5
> To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <BAY0-SMTP081D86525DF516DFA91D3AA3F00 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="utf-8"
>
> Acts 1:5 BAPTISQHSESQE hAGIO OU META POLLAS TAUTAS HMERAS
>
>
>
> What is the antecedent of TAUTAS?  Is there an idiom at work here  
> in POLLAS TAUTAS HMERAS?  Is this an idiomatic way of expressing  
> the English  ?in a few days??
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Rich Lindeman
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:15:10 -0600
> From: "Richard Lindeman" <oblchurch at msn.com>
> Subject: [B-Greek] Other Idioms
> To: "B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <BAY0-SMTP0461FB31D9FCC372F9FFACA3F00 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="utf-8"
>
> Acts 1:15-16  KAI EN TAIS HMERAIS TAUTAIS ANASTAS PETROS EN MESW  
> TWN MAQHTWN EIPEN HN TE OXLOS ONOMATWN EPI TO AUTO HWSEI HKATON  
> EIKOSI ANDRES ADELFOI
>
>
>
> This passage seemed a bit awkward to me for a few reasons.  First  
> of all, EIPEN is quite a distance from the beginning of his actual  
> speech found in ANDRES ADELFOI. Does TE give an adequate warning  
> signal to the reader that a parenthetical thought is being expressed?
>
>
>
> Secondly, OXLOS ONOMATWN seems unusual to me. I assume that it is  
> idiomatic and means ?Crowd of people??
>
>
>
> Thirdly, ANDRES ADELFOI ?Men and brothers?.  Two plural vocatives  
> used in apposition seems to be a common form of address used by  
> Paul when he is speaking to a group of listeners. I know that I  
> have seen various other expressions similarly formulated by Paul.   
> Is this unique to Paul or is this a very common way of addressing a  
> crowd formally?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Rich Lindeman
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:30:18 -0500
> From: Mike Sangrey <MSangrey at BlueFeltHat.org>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Other Idioms
> To: Biblical Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <1140899418.12636.9.camel at mike.sangrey.home>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 14:15 -0600, Richard Lindeman wrote:
>> Acts 1:15-16  KAI EN TAIS HMERAIS TAUTAIS ANASTAS PETROS EN MESW TWN
>> MAQHTWN EIPEN HN TE OXLOS ONOMATWN EPI TO AUTO HWSEI HKATON EIKOSI
>> ANDRES ADELFOI
>>
>> Thirdly, ANDRES ADELFOI ?Men and brothers?.  Two plural vocatives  
>> used
>> in apposition seems to be a common form of address used by Paul when
>> he is speaking to a group of listeners. I know that I have seen
>> various other expressions similarly formulated by Paul.  Is this
>> unique to Paul or is this a very common way of addressing a crowd
>> formally?
>
> I've wondered whether this was the Greek way of saying something like,
> "Respected comrades..."  I've always thought there was a  
> connotation of
> 'respect' in the word ANHR.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> -- 
> Mike Sangrey                               (msangrey AT  
> BlueFeltHat.org)
> Exegetitor.blogspot.com
> Landisburg, Pa.
>                         "The first one last wins."
>             "A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:35:11 +0200
> From: "Randall Buth" <randallbuth at gmail.com>
> Subject: [B-Greek] Ancient Greek-Grammar war?
> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> 	<5680d1940602251235g20471b2bi7e4899dbd9e5528a at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>> I found another very interesting article by a UWM professor David
>> Mulroy in
>> the Classics
>> and how the war on grammar is effecting his field to the point of
>> extinction.
>> This can be read at http://www.ateg.org/monographs/mulroy.php
>>
>> Regards,
>> Linda Harris
>
> Another perspective. (davar aHer)
> I profoundly agree and strongly disagree with the perspecitve of that
> article. It is very sad that students will not be learning Greek. But
> the culprit is not English. The culprit is Greek teaching itself.
> Notice the oxymoron here. Mulroy complains that students cannot learn
> Greek without knowing English grammar metalanguage (last term mine).
> since when did Plato or Luke need to know English grammar terms in
> order to learn Greek? Did Isaiah or Hillel need English in order to
> learn Hebrew?
> What students need to learn any language is a good, efficient course
> in that language.
>
> How does one tell a good course from a bad one? If 90% of class time
> is spent in the language being learned, then the course is probably a
> good one, and students will probably make efficient progress. If only
> 10% of the language in class is the language being learned, but 90% is
> English talking about the languag, then those students will probably
> never internalize and learn that language. At least, not in the way
> that human languages are to be learned and used.
> I sympathize with Professor Mulroy, but I think he is complaining
> about a deadend alley instead of walking down tree-lined street. Well,
> that's how I see it. Sadly, I had to write this in English. I see that
> as a much bigger trajedy than students who don't know what an "English
> gerund" is. (Let the English teachers complain about English gerunds!
> DEI HMAS DEIKNUNAI TOIS MAQHTAIS THN GLWSSAN EN XRHSEI KAI EN
> PRAGMASI. XAIRETE, OUPW TO TELOS.)
> Anyway, the "war" can be won by using Greek.
> ERRWSQE
> Randall Buth
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il
> randallbuth at gmail.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:18:01 -0500
> From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] TAUTAS in Acts 1:5
> To: Richard Lindeman <oblchurch at msn.com>
> Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <9B4C2B39-57BB-46FB-A235-BB9BD90E5EA0 at artsci.wustl.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
> On Feb 25, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Richard Lindeman wrote:
>
>> Acts 1:5 BAPTISQHSESQE hAGIO OU META POLLAS TAUTAS HMERAS
>>
>>
>>
>> What is the antecedent of TAUTAS?  Is there an idiom at work here
>> in POLLAS TAUTAS HMERAS?  Is this an idiomatic way of expressing
>> the English  ?in a few days??
>
> ATR (Word Pictures): "Not many days hence (OU META POLLAS TAUTAS
> hHMERAS). A neat Greek idiom difficult to render smoothly into
> English: "Not after many days these." The litotes (not many=few) is
> common in Luke (Lu 7:6, 15:13, Ac 17:27, 19:11, 20:12, 21:39, 28:14,
> 28:2, ). The predicate use of ?????? (without article) is to be
> noted. "These" really means as a starting point, "from
> these" (Robertson, Grammar, p. 702). It was ten days hence. This
> idiom occurs several times in Luke (Lu 24:21, Ac 24:21, ), as
> elsewhere (Joh 4:18, 2Pe 3:1, ). In Lu 2:12 the copula is easily
> supplied as it exists in Lu 1:36, 2:2, . "
>
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
> cwconrad2 at mac.com
> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:40:19 -0500
> From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Other Idioms
> To: Richard Lindeman <oblchurch at msn.com>
> Cc: B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <83B7CED3-FB7B-40A3-B94F-A1720BFF5AE6 at artsci.wustl.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes;
> 	format=flowed
>
>
> On Feb 25, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Richard Lindeman wrote:
>
>> Acts 1:15-16  KAI EN TAIS HMERAIS TAUTAIS ANASTAS PETROS EN MESW
>> TWN MAQHTWN EIPEN HN TE OXLOS ONOMATWN EPI TO AUTO hWSEI hEKATON
>> EIKOSI ANDRES ADELFOI
>
> A little punctuation would help here; UBS4/NA27 has a raised dot
> after EIPEN and another after EIKOSI. I think we have to understand
> the clause HN TE OCLOS ... hEKATON EIKOSI as a parenthesis " ... ?and
> the throng of persons (gathered) at the same place was about a
> hundred and twenty) ..."
>
>> This passage seemed a bit awkward to me for a few reasons.  First
>> of all, EIPEN is quite a distance from the beginning of his actual
>> speech found in ANDRES ADELFOI. Does TE give an adequate warning
>> signal to the reader that a parenthetical thought is being expressed?
>
> Yes, I think so; it certainly indicates that HN introduces an
> additional factor that the narrator wants the reader/listener to be
> aware of; but the clause is certainly awkward.
>
>> Secondly, OXLOS ONOMATWN seems unusual to me. I assume that it is
>> idiomatic and means ?Crowd of people??
>
> Yes; see BDAG under ONOMA 2: "person."
>
>> Thirdly, ANDRES ADELFOI ?Men and brothers?.  Two plural vocatives
>> used in apposition seems to be a common form of address used by
>> Paul when he is speaking to a group of listeners. I know that I
>> have seen various other expressions similarly formulated by Paul.
>> Is this unique to Paul or is this a very common way of addressing a
>> crowd formally?
>
> ANDRES is used here as a noun, ADELFOI as adjectival modifier,
> something like "fellow-believing gentlemen." This is another idiom,
> ANHR functioning often, especially in older Greek much as the "man"
> in traditional English compounds like "postman," "chairman,"
> "highwayman," or even "gentleman." In the ecclesia in Athens speakers
> addressed the citizen body as ANDRES AQHNAIOI; in the courtroom
> pleaders addressed the jury as ANDRES DIKASTAI, something like our
> now very archaic "gentlemen of the jury."
>
> Of course your lexicon will tell you that ADELFOS is simply a noun,
> but in fact it is an adjective used substantivally hO ADELFOS, hH
> ADELFH; it is in origin and still in some traditional expressions
> adjectival.
>
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
> cwconrad2 at mac.com
> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:46:59 -0500
> From: "Barry" <nebarry at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Ancient Greek-Grammar war?
> To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <004701c63a76$88a42ad0$2f01a8c0 at barry>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8;
> 	reply-type=original
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randall Buth" <randallbuth at gmail.com>
> To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 3:35 PM
> Subject: [B-Greek] Ancient Greek-Grammar war?
>
>> Another perspective. (davar aHer)
>> I profoundly agree and strongly disagree with the perspecitve of that
>> article. It is very sad that students will not be learning Greek. But
>> the culprit is not English. The culprit is Greek teaching itself.
>> Notice the oxymoron here. Mulroy complains that students cannot learn
>> Greek without knowing English grammar metalanguage (last term mine).
>> since when did Plato or Luke need to know English grammar terms in
>> order to learn Greek? Did Isaiah or Hillel need English in order to
>> learn Hebrew?
>> What students need to learn any language is a good, efficient course
>> in that language.
>
> I agree with practically everything in this post (including the  
> comments I cut
> to save space).  A note: when did I really learn formal English  
> grammar?  Not
> from my English teachers, but from good 'ol Mrs. Aiken, from whom I  
> took Latin
> in High School as an elective (and who instilled in me a love for  
> Classics that
> carried me through the M.A. before switching to formal theological  
> studies).
> And why did I do well in Latin for those two years?  The credit has  
> to go to
> Mrs. Aiken, who was one of the best teachers that I had before  
> college itself...
>
> N.E. Barry Hofstetter
>
> Fecisti nos ad te et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in  
> te...
>     -- Augustine, Confessions 1:1
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry/
> http://my.opera.com/BarryHofstetter/blog/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:15:04 -0500
> From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Periphrastic construction in Jn 3:28
> To: RRedden604 at aol.com
> Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <F12C7FB3-53E7-45A1-9DE5-CB760AC56E4C at artsci.wustl.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> I hesitate to attempt a response to this question, but nobody has yet
> attempted a response and my experience has been that when I attempt a
> belated response to an unanswered query, it usually evokes -- or is
> the occasion for -- alternative responses.
>
> On Feb 24, 2006, at 8:17 PM, RRedden604 at aol.com wrote:
>
>> Considering the nature of the question, I think Robb was hoping
>> for  more.
>> What is the significance of the perfect tense in John  3:28?
>> Turner (83)
>> sees the abundance of perfects in John  intentional.  "We may
>> ascribe this to the
>> peculiar style of the Fourth  Gospel, its love of emphasis and
>> solemnity, its
>> stress on the abiding  significance of everything."  To say as
>> Morris ( 240)
>> that John's use  of the perfect in John 3:28 "may be meant to
>> indicate that
>> his permanent  character was that of a man of God sent from God
>> (1:6) to be the
>> forerunner of  the Messiah" seems to be squeezing more out of the
>> perfect than
>> is there!
>
> Yes, I think so -- and it also ignores the adverbial addition.
> According to the  text John (the B) says, "OUK EIMI hO CRISTOS, ALL'
> hOTI APESTALMENOS EIMI EMPROSQEN EKEINOU" I don't think this says
> anything more than that John's status is the antecessor of the
> Messiah. This is, of course, what John affirms in both Synoptic and
> Johannine gospels. I don't really think there's anything about
> "permanent character" other than what Whitehead (I think) once called
> "the permanence of past objective fact" -- and I doubt that an aorist
> APESTALHN EMPROSQEN EKEINOU would indicate more or less than the
> periphrastic perfect that meets our eye in this text.
>
>> I would like someone who is much more advanced than I am  to  point
>> out the
>> meaning of the perfect tense in the GNT compared with the
>> Classical use.  Has
>> the perfect infringed upon the Aorist domain, and lost  some of its
>> resultant
>> punch by the first century?   Have some of  the elementary Greek
>> grammars done
>> more harm than good in defining the perfect  tense simply as
>> denoting the
>> present state resultant upon a past action?  (Machen)
>
> Well, I've said before that I think Machen oversimplifies grammatical
> accounts as well as offers sentences for translation that are
> questionable Greek. I think that the NT Koine perfect tense TENDS to
> overlap the aorist in usage (one reason we can so frequently
> translate an aorist as an English present passive or French "past
> indefinite"), but that it does often underscore the sense of
> eventuality as something complete, as in John's account of Jesus'
> final TETELESTAI (Jn 19:28) or Mark's formulation of Jesus' prophecy
> about the arrival of the K of G: THN BASILEIAN TOU QEOU ELHLUQUIAN EN
> DUNAMEI (Mk 9:1) in comparison with the formulation in Matthew (TON
> hUION TOU ANQRWPOU ERCOMENON EN THi BASILEIAi AUTOU Mt 16:28) or the
> formulation in Luke (THN BASILEIAN TOU QEOU Lk 9:27). It seems to me
> that ELHLUQUIAN in Mk 9:1 is about as forceful a word-choice as we
> could find. Then there's the text frequently mentioned for a pefect
> periphrastic, Eph 2:8 THi GAR CARITI ESTE SESWiSMENOI DIA PISTEWS --
> where the emphasis surely lies upon present reality (and would also,
> I think, if the form were SESWiSQE).
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
> cwconrad2 at mac.com
> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:20:18 -0500
> From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Periphrastic construction in Jn 3:28
> 	(correction)
> To: B-Greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <3A2BE9D9-140F-455C-8683-C1257C50428E at artsci.wustl.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=US-ASCII;	delsp=yes;	format=flowed
>
> From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
> Date: February 26, 2006 9:15:04 AM EST
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Periphrastic construction in Jn 3:28
>
> Well, I've said before that I think Machen oversimplifies grammatical
> accounts as well as offers sentences for translation that are
> questionable Greek. I think that the NT Koine perfect tense TENDS to
> overlap the aorist in usage (one reason we can so frequently
> translate an aorist as an English present passive or ...
>
> That should, of course, be "English present perfect" as HLQON: "I've
> come."
>
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
> cwconrad2 at mac.com
> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:03:24 -0600
> From: "L. Harris" <ljoharris at ckt.net>
> Subject: [B-Greek] Ancient Greek - Why English /Greek Grammar
> To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <001601c63add$68efd790$38fa31d8 at pardner>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Randal Buth :"since when did Plato or Luke need to know English  
> grammar terms in
> order to learn Greek? Did Isaiah or Hillel need English in order to
> learn Hebrew?"
>
> As babies of course they did not need to learn grammar, but to  
> write what they then later spoke, they did. But why do you need to  
> learn English grammar to come to the place where you can understand  
> what they wrote? Because English grammar was adopted from the  
> Greeks through the Romans. In other words even though it's called  
> "English grammar" it's for the most part in reality "Greek grammar"
>
> The following is just a short list of some of the things we  
> inherited from Greece.
>
>
> Our literature would not exist as it dose without the Greek tradition.
>
> Our Alphabet came from Greece through Rome.
>
> Our language is littered with Greek words.
>
> Our science has forged an internationl language through Greek terms;
>
> OUR GRAMMAR and rhetoric came to us from Greece,  even the  
> punctuation and
> paragraphing are Greek inventions
>
> Our literary genres are Greek-the lyric, the ode, the idyl, the  
> novel, the
> esaay, the oration, the biography, the history, and above all the  
> drama;
> again nearly all the words are Greek.
>
> The terms and forms of the modern drama-tragedy, comedy, and  
> pantomine-are
> Greek;
>
> The comic drama has come down almost unchanged from Menander and  
> Philemon
> through Plautus and Terence, Ben Jonson and Moliere.
>
> The Greek dramas themselves are among the richest portions of our
> inheritance. (Will Durrant, The Life of Greece,  Our Greek Heritage)
>
> We are not as much interested in "speaking the Greek they spoke", as
> we are in, "READING THE GREEK THEY WROTE!" and understanding it.
>
> Regards,
> Linda Harris
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:24:40 +0000 (GMT)
> From: ****** **** <koine_greek_language at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: [B-Greek] Teaching and Learning Tools
> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <20060226152440.76926.qmail at web26106.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Hello Everybody
>
>   Could anybody please provide me with some information on these  
> two publication with regard to learnig and teaching purposes,1)  
> "Greek An Intensive Course" by Hardy Hansen and "Athenaze : "An  
> Introduction to Ancient Greek" by Maurice Balme and Gilbert Lawall.
>
>
>   Thank You
>
>   Andrew
>
> 		
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger  NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide  
> with voicemail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:54:52 +0100
> From: "Iver Larsen" <iver at larsen.dk>
> Subject: [B-Greek] 2 Cor 6:7 right hand weapon
> To: "BG" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <002301c63afd$bfe439e0$4600a8c0 at IverAcer>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8";
> 	reply-type=original
>
> In 2 Cor 7, Paul is describing his attitude and behavior when  
> confronted with attacks and when going through other
> hardships.
> In v. 7 we read:
>
> DIA TWN hOPLWN THS DIKAIOSUNHS TWN DEXIWN KAI ARISTERWN
> through the instruments of righteousness (or righteous equipment/ 
> armor) of the right (hands) and left (hands)
>
> I have not been able to find a parallel for this in the GNT or the  
> LXX.
> In Ezk 39:3 the bow is held in the left hand and the arrows in the  
> right hand, but I doubt that this is what Paul has in
> mind.
>
> Is there any parallel from other contemporary Greek literature?
>
> I assume that what is held in the left hand is a shield and what is  
> held in the right hand is a sword. Is that supported
> by other evidence?
> Comparing this with Ef 6:16-17, the shield could be the shield of  
> faith and the sword the word of God.
>
> What bothers me is the assumption that the right hand instrument is  
> considered to be for offense or attack, whereas it
> seems better in the context of this passage, of Paul and of the  
> whole NT to talk about the sword used as a defensive
> weapon to ward off any sword blows from the enemy. This is how  
> Jesus used the word of God in his defense against Satan
> in Matt 4. It was Satan who attacked by using the word of God, but  
> Jesus only defended himself and warded off the attack
> by the same means, the word of God. He did not strike back.
>
> BAGD says:
> "weapons used w. the right hand, and those used w. the left=weapons  
> for offense and defense (cf. Plut, Mor. 201d;
> Polyaenus 8, 16, 4 ARISTERA and DEXIA of weapons for defense and  
> offense) 2 Cor 6:7"
>
> Do the references mentioned clearly refer to an offensive attack or  
> just to a sword being used?
>
> A sword can in theory be used for either attack or defense, so why  
> is it assumed to be an offense weapon here?
>
> The translation of hOPLON as "weapon" can be misleading, because  
> the word is broader and means an instrument or tool or
> some kind of equipment. The word "weapon" normally connotates an  
> attack unless qualified.
>
> KJV: by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left.
>
> JBP: Our sole defence, our only weapon, is a life of integrity
>
> NCV: We use our right living to defend ourselves against everything.
>
> If we look at the PANOPLION (whole armor) in Eph 6, the attack  
> weapons like spears, arrows and stones are conspicuously
> absent which would suggest that this whole armor is for protection  
> rather than attack.
>
> Can the interpretation of an offensive attack weapon be defended  
> for the right hand of 2 Cor 6:7?
>
> Iver Larsen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 12:15:16 -0500
> From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at juno.com>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 2 Cor 6:7 right hand weapon
> To: iver at larsen.dk
> Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <20060226.121516.-331461.1.gfsomsel at juno.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:54:52 +0100 "Iver Larsen" <iver at larsen.dk>  
> writes:
>> In 2 Cor 7, Paul is describing his attitude and behavior when
>> confronted with attacks and when going through other
>> hardships.
>> In v. 7 we read:
>>
>> DIA TWN hOPLWN THS DIKAIOSUNHS TWN DEXIWN KAI ARISTERWN
>> through the instruments of righteousness (or righteous
>> equipment/armor) of the right (hands) and left (hands)
>>
>> I have not been able to find a parallel for this in the GNT or the
>> LXX.
>> In Ezk 39:3 the bow is held in the left hand and the arrows in the
>> right hand, but I doubt that this is what Paul has in
>> mind.
>>
>> Is there any parallel from other contemporary Greek literature?
>>
>> I assume that what is held in the left hand is a shield and what is
>> held in the right hand is a sword. Is that supported
>> by other evidence?
>> Comparing this with Ef 6:16-17, the shield could be the shield of
>> faith and the sword the word of God.
>>
>> What bothers me is the assumption that the right hand instrument is
>> considered to be for offense or attack, whereas it
>> seems better in the context of this passage, of Paul and of the
>> whole NT to talk about the sword used as a defensive
>> weapon to ward off any sword blows from the enemy. This is how Jesus
>> used the word of God in his defense against Satan
>> in Matt 4. It was Satan who attacked by using the word of God, but
>> Jesus only defended himself and warded off the attack
>> by the same means, the word of God. He did not strike back.
>>
>> BAGD says:
>> "weapons used w. the right hand, and those used w. the left=weapons
>> for offense and defense (cf. Plut, Mor. 201d;
>> Polyaenus 8, 16, 4 ARISTERA and DEXIA of weapons for defense and
>> offense) 2 Cor 6:7"
>>
>> Do the references mentioned clearly refer to an offensive attack or
>> just to a sword being used?
>>
>> A sword can in theory be used for either attack or defense, so why
>> is it assumed to be an offense weapon here?
>>
>> The translation of hOPLON as "weapon" can be misleading, because the
>> word is broader and means an instrument or tool or
>> some kind of equipment. The word "weapon" normally connotates an
>> attack unless qualified.
>>
>> KJV: by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the
>> left.
>>
>> JBP: Our sole defence, our only weapon, is a life of integrity
>>
>> NCV: We use our right living to defend ourselves against
>> everything.
>>
>> If we look at the PANOPLION (whole armor) in Eph 6, the attack
>> weapons like spears, arrows and stones are conspicuously
>> absent which would suggest that this whole armor is for protection
>> rather than attack.
>>
>> Can the interpretation of an offensive attack weapon be defended for
>> the right hand of 2 Cor 6:7?
>>
>> Iver Larsen
> ___________
>
> Plummer in his 1915 ICC commentary on 2 Cor notes
>
> He adds TWN DECIWN KAI ARISTERWN to intimate that he is thoroughly
> equipped; his panoply is complete. On the right hand, etc. (AV,  
> RV), is
> ambiguous; ‘ for the right hand,’ is better, i.e. ‘right-hand and
> left-hand weapons,’ offensive and defensive armour, the shield being
> carried on the left arm. Chrys. interprets ARISTERA as afflictions,  
> which
> not only do not cast down but fortify. So also Thdrt.; DECIA DE  
> KALEI TA
> DOKOUNTA QUMHRH, ARISTERA DE TA ENATIA.  But the meaning of success  
> and
> failure— ne prosperis elevemur, nec frangamur adversis—is alien to the
> passage and to N.T. usage.
>
> Plummer, A. (1915). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Second
> epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. (198). New York: Scribner.
>
> Thrall in the 2004 edition of the ICC writes
>
> The further description of the weapons as ‘for the right hand and the
> left’ could mean that they are both offensive (the sword carried in  
> the
> right hand) and defensive (the shield carried in the left). But it  
> would
> probably overload the metaphor to suggest some specific connection
> between types of weaponry and aspects of Paul’s spiritual warfare.  
> It is
> better to suppose that he is simply indicating the completeness of his
> spiritual equipment.
>
> Thrall, M. E. (2004). A critical and exegetical commentary on the  
> Second
> Epistle of the Corinthians (462). London; New York: T&T Clark
> International.
>
> Harris in the NIGTC states
>
> A hOPLON DECION is a weapon used in the right hand and a hOPLON  
> ARISTERON
> is a weapon used in the left, so that TA hOPLA TA DECIA KAI  
> ARISTERA will
> refer to weapons, presumably two in number,?? one for the right hand,
> another for the left. The sword in the right hand (cf. Eph. 6:17)  
> is used
> for offense, the shield in the left (cf. Eph. 6:16) for defense.?? We
> should not, however, take the next step and identify the sword as hH
> MAXAIRA TOU PNEUMATOS and the shield as hO QUREOS THS PISTEWS as in
> Ephesians 6, for that degree of specificity lies beyond the time of 2
> Corinthians. But some commentators find in the qualification TWN  
> DECIWN
> KAI ARISTERWN simply a reference to Paul’s readiness to repel an  
> attack
> from any quarter (Hughes 231) or “the completeness of the equipment
> provided by God” (Barrett 188).??
>
> Harris, M. J. (2005). The Second Epistle to the Corinthians : A
> commentary on the Greek text (478). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Milton  
> Keynes,
> UK: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.; Paternoster Press.
>
> While these may be impressive opinions, they are necessarily only
> opinions which ** are not founded on any extant ancient text  
> indicating
> that it would refer to a sword and a shield, ** i.e. an offensive  
> weapon
> and a defensive one.  I think in light of this that Thrall's  
> comment that
> "It is better to suppose that he is simply indicating the  
> completeness of
> his spiritual equipment" is best.
>
> george
> gfsomsel
> ___________
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
> End of B-Greek Digest, Vol 38, Issue 25
> ***************************************
>
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list