tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post8046704073308652427..comments2024-03-28T19:21:17.654+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Don't Tell Your Greek ClassP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-44605628207020522862013-10-11T10:56:28.786+01:002013-10-11T10:56:28.786+01:00The problem, Benjamin, with this one, that I could...The problem, Benjamin, with this one, that I couldn't see a possible Semitism behind the harmonisation of the case of the επι-phrase to that of the participle. It is almost as if the phrase is morphologically treated as an adjective.Dirk Jongkindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06759927266909478390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1015006596187047572013-10-11T09:51:45.430+01:002013-10-11T09:51:45.430+01:00This is a typical feature of Revelation. Beale is ...This is a typical feature of Revelation. Beale is adamant that all of what others might consider errors can be explained e.g. as semitisms, e.g. Rev 1:4 "χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ⸀ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος" where the participles take the nominative case despite being part of a prepositional phrase. Clearly they form a title that is supposed to allude back to the OT. Similarly, where John uses the accusative υἱὸν instead of the dative in 1:13 or the mismatching genitive participle in V. 15, Beale assumes references to Daniel. This would fit John's very semitic writing style, e.g. using many elliptic sentences. <br /><br />However, not all commentators agree with him on this, as in some other cases those attempted explainations as OT references are straining plausibility. It is no wonder that later textual traditions have smoothed out these stylistic pecularities. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18288630669841414538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-60232905259267145392013-10-10T04:24:51.347+01:002013-10-10T04:24:51.347+01:00One brother earlier alluded to John's grammar ...One brother earlier alluded to John's grammar calling attention to an O.T allusion. I'd like to hear him track that out. That might be a valid path worth considering in solving this exegetical mystery. <br /><br />Just some thoughts here. Lets say if John was thinking in Hebrew while he was writing Greek (which is likely), do we see such semantic flexibility with prepositions in the Hebrew? The preposition בְּ (bay, meaning "in") has the same type of semantic flexibility as ἐπί. It can also mean "on", "at", "by", "means of", and has similar functions of use as a dative of means, or genitive of relationship or accusative in its respective Hebrew usage. <br /><br />Whatever was going through John's mind as he wrote Revelation, the concept of material inerrancy (the idea that the original wording of the autographs being inerrant) would say that in the autographa of Revelation, the Spirit would had led John to pick the right case as was fitting in the semantic range of those words. <br /><br />The Spirit's choice of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek was providential, since in the subsequent preservation of the copies, any variance of case in those copies would not violate what is termed formal inerrancy (God's preservation of the doctrines derived from the inerrant autographs).mahlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16398857921080520475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-68505048003921898112013-10-09T23:09:34.165+01:002013-10-09T23:09:34.165+01:00Maybe John was working without his amanuensis when...Maybe John was working without his amanuensis when he was on Patmos, and coming up with the sort of garbled grammar a lot of people have when they try to write in their second language. Kephahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00999385775493831638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-42240611809306397022013-10-09T05:11:14.947+01:002013-10-09T05:11:14.947+01:00What confusion are you specifically concerned abou...What confusion are you specifically concerned about--that the pattern itself occurs or that there are variants around the pattern? If ἐπί didn't have such a broad semantic range (it has the subtlety of blunt force trauma), I think there would be an even more interesting grammatical pattern taking place.<br /><br />Last week my second year class covered prepositions in Decker's reading from Revelation 19 and I was thinking about how using the dative with ἐπί was intriguing in καὶ προσεκύνησαν τῷ θεῷ τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ (v. 4). And, ta da!, there are variants that use the genitive instead. W. Andrew Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06448030311090865571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-18308841715986623242013-10-09T04:26:36.553+01:002013-10-09T04:26:36.553+01:00I was looking at A.T Robertson's Grammar of th...I was looking at A.T Robertson's Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research, Pages 600-601. Robertson notes how "epi" was used perhaps with more cases than any other. As the Koine Greek was experiencing a shift in its cases usages, with the accusative being sort of a "work horse" case and thus the appearance of the anomalies you cited. He even mentions Mt 13:29; Rev 3:20; 4:2 as examples.mahlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16398857921080520475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-86634328577002739272013-10-08T18:09:16.644+01:002013-10-08T18:09:16.644+01:00Grammatical anomalies that call our attention to ...Grammatical anomalies that call our attention to an OT allusion. ibexdrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11818257304740696496noreply@blogger.com