It's about "him."

οὗτος ἦλθεν εἰς μαρτυρίαν ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσιν δι' αὐτοῦ

Last week week looked at this verse from John 1:7 and the question came up, "Is the αὐτοῦ referring to οὗτος or to φωτός ?" In other words, is John saying that the testimony was so that all might believe through John the Baptist, or through the light?

Grammatically "this one" is masculine while "the light" is neuter and the pronoun seems like it could refer to either one as the form is the same.

I talked to Dr. R. about this and he referred to Barrett who comments that the preposition "dia" shows that "autou" must refer to John because if he was refering to "the light," or "Jesus," he would have used "eis." We believe "in" Jesus, but "through" John. This theological argument seems sound to me and points to the need for clear exegesis. Thanks, Dr. R. for profound insight.

On another note:
I won't be at Seminary today, so I hope some of you check the blog.

peace,
--- marty ---

Objectively Speaking

καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεός καὶ αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν

We might translate,
"And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his son."

I was reviewing the midterm with a student on Saturday and one of the questions was a true or false about this verse in 1 John 5:11. The student had answered "true" to the question, "Is υἱῷ the indirect object?" ( I may not have the question exactly right)

I thought, "Well, its obviously in the dative case, so, yes, it must be the indirect object," but it had been marked wrong. I was at a loss to explain, and thought, well I would surely have gotten that question wrong if I had taken the test.

Then, somewhere from the deep recesses of my memory I recalled Jim saying that the dative case can be used for the indirect object AND for the object of a preposition. That is the situation we have here and it is a good example to remember. (seems I remember mistakes more than correct answers)

Perhaps that was the object of the question...

Playing the numbers

πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν

We were reading John 1:3 at Seminary yesterday and the question came up, "Why do we have a neuter plural subject but an aorist singular verb?"

Panta is plural, but egeneto is singular. I was going to ask Dr. Staats about this last night, but neglected to do so...sorry.

But I happened to think this morning a little about it and I wonder if it is a little like in John 10 where we have "The sheep"(plural) "hear" (singular) "the voice of me." Could panta be considered something like a collective noun in this case?

I found a little more information from a website that has an online Greek class using the Croy text. That site is (www.mythfolklore.net/bibgreek/)

6.39 Neuter Plural Subjects with Singular Verbs

You already know one unusual and important thing about neuter nouns in Greek, which is that the nominative and accusative forms are identical. This is actually true for neuter nouns in all of the Indo-European languages. You can actually see this even in English, which still has gender and case in its pronoun system:

nominative		accusative
She is standing over there.		Do you see her?
He is waiting outside.		Do you see him?
It is in the cupboard.	=	Do you see it?
They are in the yard.		Do you see them?

In addition to the "nominative=accusative" rule for neuter nouns in Greek, there is a very peculiar rule about plural neuter nouns. Sometimes a plural neuter noun will take a singular verb! This is not always the case in Biblical Greek, but you should not be surprised if you see sentences like this:

τὰ τέκνα λεγει.

The children are speaking.

This information is from: http://www.mythfolklore.net/bibgreek/croy/other/039.htm


--- marty ---

How Full is Full?

I was reading Luke 6:45 this morning and was wondering about the word "perisseumatos," so i did a word study on "perisseuma" using the tools at www.zhubert.com.

As you can see, Qoheleth did not display in the NASB from the database so I looked in my LXX which translated it, "And I said in my heart, As the event of the fool is, so shall it be to me, even to me; and to what purpose have I gained wisdom? I said moreover in my heart, This is also vanity, because the fool speaks of his abundance."

So my question is, "Are we speaking of that which spills over, an overabundance, or simply full?"

Note the Mark 8 passage where they took up what was left over.
As we fill ourselves up with God's Word, what will spill out?

Word Study

Qoheleth 2:15	Qoheleth 2:15
καὶ εἶπα ἐγὼ ἐν καρδίᾳ μου ὡς συνάντημα τοῦ ἄφρονος καί γε ἐμοὶ συναντήσεταί μοι καὶ ἵνα τί ἐσοφισάμην ἐγὼ τότε περισσὸν ἐλάλησα ἐν καρδίᾳ μου διότι ἄφρων ἐκ περισσεύματος λαλεῖ ὅτι καί γε τοῦτο ματαιότης	(NASB)
Matthew 12:34	Matthew 12:34
γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν πῶς δύνασθε ἀγαθὰ λαλεῖν πονηροὶ ὄντες ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ περισσεύματος τῆς καρδίας τὸ στόμα λαλεῖ	"You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. (NASB)
Mark 8:8	Mark 8:8
καὶ ἔφαγον καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν καὶ ἦραν περισσεύματα κλασμάτων ἑπτὰ σπυρίδας	And they ate and were satisfied; and they picked up seven large baskets full of what was left over of the broken pieces. (NASB)
Luke 6:45	Luke 6:45
ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ τῆς καρδίας προφέρει τὸ ἀγαθόν καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ προφέρει τὸ πονηρόν ἐκ γὰρ περισσεύματος καρδίας λαλεῖ τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ	"The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart. (NASB)
2 Corinthians 8:14	2 Corinthians 8:14
ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ τὸ ὑμῶν περίσσευμα εἰς τὸ ἐκείνων ὑστέρημα ἵνα καὶ τὸ ἐκείνων περίσσευμα γένηται εἰς τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα ὅπως γένηται ἰσότης	at this present time your abundance being a supply for their need, so that their abundance also may become a supply for your need, that there may be equality; (NASB)
2 Corinthians 8:14	2 Corinthians 8:14
ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ τὸ ὑμῶν περίσσευμα εἰς τὸ ἐκείνων ὑστέρημα ἵνα καὶ τὸ ἐκείνων περίσσευμα γένηται εἰς τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα ὅπως γένηται ἰσότης	at this present time your abundance being a supply for their need, so that their abundance also may become a supply for your need, that there may be equality; (NASB)

Any Helpful Tips?

I wonder if anyone has any helpful tips for new greek students.

Here are a few things that have helped me, maybe they will help others. It would be nice to add to this list, so please comment if you have found something helpful.

1.) The iota subscript in the Dative case. For the longest time i never noticed that in the Dative case there is always an iota in the definate article. Sometimes it's as a subscript (in the singulars) but even in the plurals it is there.

2.) The "v" in the Accusative. Kind of like the iota in the Dative.

3.) My wife came up with this one. I used to be confused between the case of the direct object and the case of the indirect object. When i am accused of something, i want to confront my accuser directly. So the accusitive case is the case of the direct object.

The indirect object is the other one, namely the dative case.

4.) I always remember Jim saying in class one day, "By the time we're done with Greek, we'll oWN genative plural." A good way to remember the Omega Nu ending on genative plural nouns.

5.) Can't sleep at night? Try running through your paradigms in your head. A great way to make the most of your time.

Got any more?

Interlinear or Not?

Is an interlinear (a bible with Greek and English both side by side) a help or a hindrance for students of Greek? Perhaps there is not a firm answer to this question, but here are a few of my own thoughts and I would welcome any discussion on this question.

I notice that when I read the New Testament with only my UBS Greek New Testament in hand that my mind seems to make a shift in focus as I try to parse and translate while I am reading. It is helpful to read with someone who is very proficient as I have found reading with Dr. Staats to force me to be more exact with my parsing and translating. If I read alone, I can tend to be lazy and "approximate" my translation. The Word of God should not be treated with laziness.

If I read with an Interlinear in hand my mind does not seem to make as complete a shift in focus and almost seems to be encouraged to "approximate" because I put a certain amount of trust in the translator of the interlinear. Sometimes, however, the interlinear will point out, as I am reading, false assumptions I might make when parsing a particular word or even a "misread" I might make. In this case, the translator becomes similar to reading with someone else.

I am wondering if an interlinear might be a help in acquiring vocabulary. I don't really have enough experience with this to answer. I am considering reading for a while with an interlinear in order to formulate an opinion.

Perhaps after I reach the place that a complete mental shift becomes automatic and parsing becomes second nature, then an interlinear would be not unlike an ongoing discussion with the interlinear translator, as I think about why they chose a particular English word or phrase while I might choose another. Until I have come that far, however, I am wanting to be cautious about over use of the interlinear to the point that it hinders my linguistic growth.

What's the Subject?

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

When we were reading John 1:1 and we came to the third clause after the second "kai," i was pointing out the two nominatives and said that, "the one with the article is the subject."
I was listening to a tape of Jim's class and there was one of Croy's practice sentences where there was a demonstrative pronoun used as the subject and the nominative that had the article was a predicate nominative rather than the subject.

Soooo.....maybe this is not a hard and fast rule. I'll try to do some more checking on this.