Page 1 of 1
James 1:5 αἰτείτω παρὰ τοῦ διδόντος θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς καὶ μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος parsing
Posted: February 3rd, 2022, 10:48 am
by Steve Page
I'm parsing the phrase from James 1:5,
αἰτείτω παρὰ τοῦ διδόντος θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς καὶ μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος
and coming up with
you must ask of the giving God with all sincerity and not reproaching
I realize that no one translates it that way.
τοῦ διδόντος is clearly an attributive participle and describes God as generous.
Where I seem to be going astray is that ἁπλῶς is an adverb that I have modifying αἰτείτω. Can an adverb modify an attributive participle? Is there a grammatical reason that it must modify the participle and not the verb?
Also, I see that μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος could be functioning attributively under τοῦ. However, the presence of the conjunction καὶ seems to interfere, given the genitive construction requires the article. Would a construction τοῦ διδόντος καὶ μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος θεοῦ make sense? Is it grammatically possible that καὶ μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος is a gentive absolute and μὴ introduces an element of uncertainty?
Thanks in advance for any input.
Re: James 1:5 αἰτείτω παρὰ τοῦ διδόντος θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς καὶ μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος parsing
Posted: February 4th, 2022, 12:06 pm
by Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Steve Page wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2022, 10:48 am
Would a construction τοῦ διδόντος καὶ μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος θεοῦ make sense?
τοῦ διδόντος [καὶ μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος] θεοῦ makes sense to me.
Supposing this is so, one does wonder about the grammar and sense of πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς. Could it be "to all [who ask] simply"? Or "[giving, without reproaching] to all simply (lit. without folds)"?
Re: James 1:5 αἰτείτω παρὰ τοῦ διδόντος θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς καὶ μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος parsing
Posted: February 4th, 2022, 7:51 pm
by Jonathan Robie
Steve Page wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2022, 10:48 am
Would a construction τοῦ διδόντος καὶ μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος θεοῦ make sense?
I would add πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς to that, as follows:
αἰτείτω παρὰ τοῦ ( (διδόντος πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς) καὶ (μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος ) ) Θεοῦ
let him ask of God - the one giving to all freely and not reproaching.

- Screen Shot 2022-02-04 at 18.52.33.png (81.63 KiB) Viewed 6019 times
57.107 ἁπλοῦς, ῆ, οῦν; ἁπλῶς: pertaining to willing and generous giving—‘generous, generously, liberal.’
ἁπλοῦςb: ἐὰν οὖν ᾖ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ἁπλοῦς, ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου φωτεινὸν ἔσται ‘if you (literally ‘your eye’) are generous, then your whole body will be filled with light’ Mt 6:22. In Mt 6:22 and the corresponding passage in Lk 11:34, most scholars understand ἁπλοῦς in the sense of ‘to be healthy’ or ‘to be sound’ (see 23.132).
ἁπλῶς: αἰτείτω παρὰ τοῦ διδόντος θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς ‘let that person ask from God, who gives to all generously’ Jas 1:5.
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). In Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 569). United Bible Societies.
Re: James 1:5 αἰτείτω παρὰ τοῦ διδόντος θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς καὶ μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος parsing
Posted: February 7th, 2022, 9:23 pm
by Steve Page
Thanks for the replies.
I was looking at the author's intent incorrectly. I was seeing the phrases following θεοῦ and did not want to move them forward toward the article. I realized that the author moved θεοῦ forward to emphasize it, which is why the phrases were interrupted.
So, the [giving with sincerity and not reproaching] God.
Re: James 1:5 αἰτείτω παρὰ τοῦ διδόντος θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς καὶ μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος parsing
Posted: February 8th, 2022, 3:23 am
by Eeli Kaikkonen
θεοῦ is not moved forward, διδόντος is fronted for "emphasis" (although many here who know linguistics abhor the word emphasis).
This is hyperbaton, discontinuous syntax, a flagship of more complex "style" (another abhorred word). The first part including the interrupting word forms the core thought: God who gives, which is a complete phrase and thought in itself and would be enough for the syntax and flow of thought in the immediate context to make it meaningful. "God" interrupts the participle phrase. The rest of the interrupted phrase adds something to the first part but couldn't work in the context without the first part.
For me the mental effect feels like there's "emphasis" in the first part because of the inverted word order, and the tail "emphasizes" it even more because it digs deeper into the thought.