www.BibleStudents.co.za
Romeine 1:1-5—“Sy Heiligheid deur Opstanding uit die dood”

1—        Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ…κλητòς…

13—        ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2—        ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ

11—        εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως

3—        Ὃ προεπηγγείλατο

10—        δι’ Οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν…ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ

4—        διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις

12—        ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν…ἐν οἷς

5—        περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ

9—        (περὶ tou) Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν

6—        (περὶ) τοῦ γενομένου  |ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ |κατὰ σάρκα,

8—        (περὶ tou) ἁγιωσύνης |ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν,

7—        (περὶ) τοῦ ὁρισθέντος |Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει |κατὰ πνεῦμα         

8—        (περὶ tou) ἁγιωσύνης |ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν,

6—        (περὶ) τοῦ γενομένου  |ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ |κατὰ σάρκα,

9—        (περὶ tou) Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν

5—        περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ

10—        δι’ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν…ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ

3—        Ὃ προεπηγγείλατο

11—        εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως

2—        ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ

12—        ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν…ἐν οἷς

4—        διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις

13—        ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

1—        Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ…κλητòς

Moenie my vra nie, ek weet nie wat ek hier reggekry het nie. Of verbrou het? Glo nie.

Maar ek dink dis uiteindelik wat ek van die staanspoor af probeer doen het, om the wys Romeine 1:3.4 bedoel die Heilige Gees in die Drie-Enige Godheid--reël 7, en behoort met Hoofletters gespel te wees. Terselfdertyd verduidelik die teks op hierdie manier begryp, Jesus Christus, "SY NAAM DIE ALLERHEILIGSTE IN WEDEROPRUSTING" uit die doodsvas van Jesaja 56-58.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/could-accredited-greek-scholars-answer.8045724/#post-72243832

|Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ…

|κλητòς…ἀφωρισμένος

|εἰς εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ ὃ προεπηγγείλατο

|διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις

περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ

(περὶ) τοῦ γενομένου  |ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ  |κατὰ σάρκα,

(περὶ) τοῦ ὁρισθέντος |Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει |κατὰ πνεῦμα

(περὶ) ἁγιωσύνης        |ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν,

(περὶ) Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν

|δι’ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν…ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ

|εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως

|ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν…

|ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

TonyGee11 replied 12-29-17, 07:56 PM

Gerhard, Would you please put your OP in English as I would be very much interested in hearing more on this subject?

Gerhard Ebersoehn replied 12-30-17, 12:58 PM

Romans 1:1-5

1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: 5By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: 6Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:

There is the (double) problem with this, the Masculine Genitive Article for the Feminine Genitive Noun used as a Participle.

(περὶ τοῦ) Ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν

Is it possible despite Grammar, to regard and use a Feminine as if it were a

Masculine?

Is it possible despite Linguistics, to regard and use a Noun like it is a Participle?

How about viewing (περὶ τοῦ) Ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν for a Vocative?

Could accredited Greek scholars answer by providing INCIDENCES of such irregular, seemingly faulty usage?

RadiantGrace said: ↑

Accredited by whom?

GE:

meaning, you are not accredited. Thanks anyway.

DamianWarS said: ↑

You might want to rephrase your question to make it relevant to a theological discussion rather than a Greek discussion. Are you looking at Rom 1:4? What exactly are you trying to figure out?

GE:

I have had a problem with my Afrikaans Bible as well as with the KJV at Romans 1:4 combining "according to [kata] the spirit [pneuma]"-Accusative, and "holiness [hagiohsunehs]"-Genitive, using lowercase indicating it is not the Holy Spirit which is meant, but the 'spirit' and "according to the flesh [kata sarka]" in verse 3- also Accusative. So one either way has the same clashes of the Cases.

How could one solve this contradictory syntax? I thought about it for years, when suddenly I remembered, But Paul is the king of Ellipse and Romans 4:1-5 offers the best of example!

Paul's Elliptical application of the Preposition requiring the Genitive Case made perfect sense to me. Five times in this single pericope! And I grabbed this hah! moment to solve my problem.

The result was astonishing...

"Concerning [peri] the One-Who-Is-a-Coming [tou genoménou]

"(Concerning [peri]) God's Son Jesus Christ our Lord

A: of the seed of David according to the flesh,

"(Concerning [peri]) God's Son Jesus Christ our Lord

B: with Power-according-to-the-Spirit (God, the Holy Spirit)",

"(Concerning [peri]) God's Son Jesus Christ our Lord

C: "HIS HOLINESS by the Resurrection from the dead."

In other words, "Concerning God's Son Jesus Christ our Lord" conceived and born "with Power according to the Holy Spirit", as well as "with Power according to the Holy Spirit by the Resurrection from the dead DECLARED: HIS HOLINESS!" Hence the possible or impossible Vocative exclamation which overwhelms and defies all grammatical rules and explanations? That is my 'problem'.

An enclosed chiasm...

The wider chiasm...

|Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ…

1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ

|κλητòς ἀφωρισμένος

called ... separated

|εἰς εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ ὃ προεπηγγείλατο

unto the Gospel of God 2(Which he had promised afore

|διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις

by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ

3Concerning his Son (Jesus Christ our Lord)

(περὶ) τοῦ Γενομένου |ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ |κατὰ σάρκα,

(concerning Him) which was made |of the seed of David |according to the flesh

(περὶ) τοῦ Ὁρισθέντος |Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει |κατὰ πνεῦμα

(concerning Him which was) declared |the Son of God with power |according to the Spirit

(περὶ) Ἁγιωσύνης |ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν,

(concerning) HIS HOLINESS BY THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD:

(περὶ) Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν

(Omitted in KJV)

|δι' οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν ... ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ

5By whom we have received grace ... for his name

|εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως

for obedience to the faith

|ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν

among all nations

|ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ

"It is all about" - 'περὶ' : the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST BY THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD,

(περὶ) ἁγιωσύνης |ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν,

(concerning) HIS HOLINESS BY THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD:

Acts 2:36 Isaiah 57:15!

"It is all about" - 'περὶ' : the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST,

(περὶ) τοῦ Γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ κατὰ σάρκα

(περὶ) τοῦ Ὁρισθέντος Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Δυνάμει κατὰ Пνεῦμα

(περὶ τοῦ) Ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν

(περὶ τοῦ) Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν

"Though He were a Son yet learned He obedience by the things which he suffered ('pascha'd') and having been MADE PERFECT became the Author of Eternal Salvation…” “…the Called-of-God…” (Romans 1:4) “…High Priest after the order of Indestructible Life…", “…by Resurrection from the dead.”

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/could-accredited-greek-scholars-answer/msg1055091972/#msg1055091972

Wycliffes_Shillelagh

I don't think anybody here is "accredited."  We are but dabblers in Greek.

Is this Romans 1:4 we're talking about?

Anyway, I don't see any articles in this phrase at all.  You are perhaps talking about the sufficing of Ἁγιωσύνης?

Gerhard Ebersöhn:

περὶ _τοῦ_ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ

(περὶ) _τοῦ_ γενομένου  |ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ |κατὰ σάρκα,

(περὶ) _τοῦ_ ὁρισθέντος |Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει |κατὰ πνεῦμα

(περὶ _tou_)  ἁγιωσύνης |ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν,

(περὶ _tou_) Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν

|δι’ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν…ὑπὲρ _τοῦ_ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ

|εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως

|ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν…

|ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Three Articles _τοῦ_ which Paul wrote and two more which he 'left out' unwritten but supposed (Ellipsis). All are Masculine Genitive. Is it possible _τοῦ_ can agree or reconcile with Άγιωσύνης being Feminine? "concerning the Son of God... (concerning THE) = (concerning) HIS Holiness by Resurrection from the dead"?

You may and can regard the Article τοῦ a Pronoun, of course. It makes no difference to whether or not the Masculine Pronoun (Article) can function in combination with the Feminine Noun.

John Milton:

No

Jameson View Post

That is a big mess. ἁγιωσύνης is part of the object of the preposition κατά. That is, κατὰ πεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης "according to the spirit of holiness" (= כרוח הקודש "according to the holy spirit"). The article is not part of that phrase. You've made a huge mess of this verse.

https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/biblical-languages/5048390-attraction-to-the-predicate-s-gender-in-koine-literature

S Walch View Post

κατὰ *is* being used with the accusative in Romans 1:4 - the Accusative πνεῦμα straight after. The genitive ἁγιωσύνης is modifying the accusative πνεῦμα.

Other examples of κατὰ + accusative + genitive:

Matthew 9:29; 16:17; 23:3; Mark 7:5; Luke 1:9, 38; 2:22, 27, 29, 31, 39, 42 etc., etc. (there's quite a few more that don't need listing).

Furthermore, who told you that κατὰ doesn't take the genitive? κατὰ does indeed get used with the genitive.

Some NT examples: Matthew 8:32; 10:35 (x3!); 12:32 (x2); 20:11.

That'll do.

Gerhard Ebersoehn replied 01-31-18

Thanks. It is a lot of homework for me.

'Kata': 'Furthermore, who told you that κατὰ doesn't take the genitive? κατὰ does indeed get used with the genitive.'

... I said, when meaning 'according to', 'kata' gets followed with the Accusative ... always.

Matthew 9:29, Κατὰ τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν γενηθήτω ὑμῖν

16:17, 16ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος 17καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ Μακάριος εἶ Σίμων Βαρ Ἰωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ' ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς 18κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς

Incorrect reference?

23:3, 3πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἂν εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν τηρεῖν τηρεῖτε καὶ ποιεῖτε· κατὰ δὲ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν μὴ ποιεῖτε· λέγουσιν γὰρ καὶ οὐ ποιοῦσιν

Mark 7:5, 5ἔπειτα ἐπερωτῶσιν αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς Διὰτι οἱ μαθηταί σου οὐ περιπατοῦσιν κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀλλὰ ἀνίπτοις χερσὶν ἐσθίουσιν τὸν ἄρτον

Luke 1:9, 8Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἱερατεύειν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ τάξει τῆς ἐφημερίας αὐτοῦ ἔναντι τοῦ θεοῦ 9κατὰ τὸ ἔθος τῆς ἱερατείας ἔλαχεν τοῦ θυμιᾶσαι εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ κυρίου

38, 38εἶπεν δὲ Μαριάμ Ἰδού, ἡ δούλη κυρίου· γένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ' αὐτῆς ὁ ἄγγελος

2:22, 22Καὶ ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῶν κατὰ τὸν νόμον Μωσέως,

27, 27καὶ ἦλθεν ἐν τῷ πνεύματι εἰς τὸ ἱερόν· καὶ ἐν τῷ εἰσαγαγεῖν τοὺς γονεῖς τὸ παιδίον Ἰησοῦν τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτοὺς κατὰ τὸ εἰθισμένον τοῦ νόμου περὶ αὐτοῦ

29, 29Νῦν ἀπολύεις τὸν δοῦλόν σου δέσποτα κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ·

31, 31ὃ ἡτοίμασας κατὰ πρόσωπον πάντων τῶν λαῶν

39, 39Καὶ ὡς ἐτέλεσαν ἅπαντα τὰ κατὰ τὸν νόμον κυρίου ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν αὑτῶν Ναζαρέτ

42, 42καὶ ὅτε ἐγένετο ἐτῶν δώδεκα ἀναβάντων αὐτῶν εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα, κατὰ τὸ ἔθος τῆς ἑορτῆς

 etc., etc.

All your examples are Possessives modified by their Nouns, not by the Preposition ‘kata’ which modified their Nouns.

And none of them is an incidence of ‘kata’ modifying the Ablative while meaning ‘down (over)’[*], like in

Mark 5:13, 13ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν

or with the Genitive meaning ‘throughout’ / ‘all over’, like in

Acts 9:42, 42γνωστὸν δὲ ἐγένετο καθ' ὅλης τῆς Ἰόππης καὶ πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον

or with the Dative meaning ‘with reference to’ like in Philippians 4:11, 11οὐχ ὅτι καθ' ὑστέρησιν λέγω ἐγὼ γὰρ ἔμαθον ἐν οἷς εἰμι αὐτάρκης εἶναι  

…all of which above have the modified words immediately after the modifier, ‘kata’— UNLIKE any of your above ‘examples of κατὰ + accusative + genitive’.

[*Dana & Mantey 114]

CL4P-TP View Post

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that ἁγιωσύνης is an adjective. It is not. It is a noun. It modifies πνεῦμα. (I also find it strange that you are [sic]ing yourself. That error originated with you and was likely copied and pasted directly from what you wrote.)

https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/biblical-languages/5048390-attraction-to-the-predicate-s-gender-in-koine-literature

Gerhard Ebersoehn 01-30-18

κατὰ takes or rules or has the Accusative when meaning "according to". The Accusative which κατὰ governs in this phrase, is Pneuma 'πεῦμα' [Sic.].

If, as you say, Q~ἁγιωσύνης is part of the object of the preposition κατά~Q, ἁγιωσύνης Genitive, would have been, according to you, ἁγιωσύνην Accusative of the Noun, while your interpretation requires that it should be a Genitive Adjective, 'hagiótehs' ἁγιότης or rather according to you, an Accusative Adjective, 'hagiótehn' ἁγιότην . But a Noun Accusative, πνεῦμα, cannot agree with a Genitive Adjective; as also a Neuter Noun cannot agree with a Feminine Adjective.

CL4P-TP View Post

Possessives aren't modified by their nouns. Possessives modify their nouns.

Dana and Mantey 88 [emphasis added]:

...... unless you are implying that since the accusative comes directly after the preposition it somehow changes the meaning of the construction. It doesn't matter if an article follows the preposition before the accusative or not:

You may take issue with a few of them because of how you understand the meaning of the preposition, but this is more than enough to demonstrate there is nothing unusual about the construction in Rom. 1:4.

https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/biblical-languages/5048390-attraction-to-the-predicate-s-gender-in-koine-literature

Gerhard Ebersoehn replied 01-31-18

Re: 'implying that since the accusative comes directly after the preposition it somehow changes the meaning of the construction'

It is not what I am 'implying'; on the contrary, the Accusative is consistently ruled by its antecedent, in this case / in all these cases, by the Preposition 'kata'. 'Kata' is not the antecedent of ἁγιωσύνης, but of πνεῦμα.

And thanks, D&M 88 states, ‘…the Genitive defines by attributing a quality or relationship to the Noun which it modifies’—in this instance, to Άγιωσύνης “(concerning) His Holiness … the Son of God by Resurrection from the dead”.

So yes, 'It doesn't matter if an article follows the preposition before the accusative --Noun-- or not'. Therefore my inserting the Preposition 'peri' with or without the Article as an Ellipse before the Genitive Noun 'Hagiohsunehs'- "concerning His Holiness (the Son of God) by the Resurrection from the dead", should be legitimate to mean Christ ANNOUNCED, "By the Resurrection from

the dead: HIS HOLINESS!"

Why not? No rule of grammar or syntax is overruled (as far as I can see).

Full, due meaning is given to the autonomy of the "in-Power-Spirit"; and

full, due meaning is given to the "Power of His RESURRECTION" and

full, due honour, attributed "the SON OF GOD: HIS HOLINESS BY RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD!"

Thus the 'Full Fellowship of the Trinity'[*] wherein and whereby God raised Jesus from the dead, is PORTRAYED by Paul in Romans 1:1-5.

Which is all I desired to make clear(er).

[*Klaas Schilder]

Barry Hofstetter View Post

Jason could have been a bit more precise, but his main point still stands:

τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν

The article τοῦ is genitive masculine singular and modifies υἱοῦ, also genitive masculine singular. To be more precise, ἁγιωσύνης is feminine genitive singular dependent on πνεῦμα whiich is the object of κατά, so that it's part of the prepositional phrase without itself being the object of the preposition. Since the article τοῦ has an easily identifiable noun to modify, it has nothing to do with ἁγιωσύνης. From your original post, where do you get the idea that anything was left out from ellipsis? Such a supposition is not only unnecessary, but completely wrong.

https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/biblical-languages/5048390-attraction-to-the-predicate-s-gender-in-koine-literature/page2

Gerhard Ebersoehn replied 01-31-18

Now Barry Hofstetter, you have given me the lesson in Greek I needed and, am able to understand better I think now. Of course, in conjunction with you other 'accredited' guys who contributed. Thank you all heartily!

As far as I am concerned "concerning the Son of God HIS HOLINESS BY RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD", "I am become a fool in glorying" in the Glory of God, yet "you have compelled me" that grammatically, I am wrong? Maybe, I.m not so sure, in view of you have stated, Barry Hofstetter, Q~κατά, (is) part of the prepositional phrase without itself being the object of the preposition. Since the article τοῦ has an easily identifiable noun to modify, it has nothing to do with ἁγιωσύνης.~Q Remember that it was I who inserted ‘the article τοῦ’?! "Most gladly will I rather glory in my infirmities ... lest I should be exalted" and not Christ by the Power of His Resurrection; "no man shall stop me of this boasting".

God bless you all

https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/biblical-languages/5048390-attraction-to-the-predicate-s-gender-in-koine-literature

John Milton View Post

Here are two examples from the GNT:

1 Tim. 3:15.

Notice that even though the antecedent of ἥτις is οἴκῳ Θεοῦ (masculine), the relative follows the gender of it's PN ( ἐκκλησία Θεοῦ ζῶντος) which is feminine.

Revelation 4:5.

Notice that even though the antecedent of the relative ἅ is λαμπάδες (feminine plural) , the relative follows the gender of the PN (τὰ ἑπτὰ Πνεύματα τοῦ Θεοῦ, neuter plural) due to attraction.

https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/biblical-languages/5048390-attraction-to-the-predicate-s-gender-in-koine-literature?_=1517170316499

Gerhard Ebersoehn 01-28-18

What does 'PN' stand for?

What is a 'predicate'?

https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/biblical-languages/5048390-attraction-to-the-predicate-s-gender-in-koine-literature

John Milton View Post

PN stands for Predicate Nominative.

A "predicate" in short is a completer of a sentence. Here's a good resource.

In Greek, in a S (Subject) - PN (Predicate Nominative) construction the PN (as the name suggests) is also in the nominative case. A roughly equivalent example of such a construction in English would be "It is I." Notice that "It" is the Subject of the sentence and "I" is the Predicate Nominative.

Gerhard Ebersoehn 01-30-18

Thank you VERY MUCH! This has been very helpful and instructive.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/could-accredited-greek-scholars-answer/new/#5

Wycliffes_Shillelagh « on: Mon Jan 29, 2018 »

It's certainly an oddball case.  Thayer's has marked it out as an irregular usage; something not found in contemporary Greek works.

Usually, where πνεῦμα is followed by an adjective of some form of ἅγιος, the two are intended together as an epithet - "Spirit of the LORD" - where the Hebrew custom of substituting other words for the divine Name is carried on into Greek.  H O W E V E R, all the commentators here seem to agree that this form of the word does not follow in that way.

My observation would be that the parallels between verses 3 & 4 demand that flesh and spirit are being contrasted as criteria, and both seem to be asides, or insertions to the text.  ἁγιωσύνης matches only δυνάμει in its casing, and while it appears to be a noun, I have to wonder if it is meant to describe it.  Perhaps...

Concerning His son,

a creature of David's seed, by flesh

an appointee God's son, in strength of holiness, by spirit

off the resurrection of Jesus Christ, our Lord from the dead

I don't know if that answers the question, but it seems to me that Paul is here meaning to emphasize that quality in Jesus which merited Him as Son.

Gerhard Ebersöhn 01, 2018

BEAUTIFUL! This is GOOD! It gives me new hope! Thanks!

Robertson

THE SENTENCE 397

III. The Expansion of the Subject.

(a) IDEA-WORDS AND FORM-WORDS. There are indeed, as already seen, two sorts of words in general in the sentence, idea-words and form-words, as the comparative grammars teach us.1

The idea-words (called by Aristotle fwnai> shmantikai< have an inner content in themselves (word-stuff), while the form-words (fwnai> a@shmai) express rather relations2 between words. Substantive, verb, adjective, adverb are idea-words, and pronouns, prepositions, some adverbs (place, time, etc.), the copula are form-words. In reality the form-words may have been originally idea-words (cf. ei]mi<, for instance, and the prepositions). The distinction is a real one, but more logical than practical. The form-words, when prepositions, really help out the meanings of the cases.

Word Pictures Mt6:13 The ablative case in the Greek obscures the gender. (emphasis GE)

Pamflet

‘Romeine 1:1-5—“Sy Heiligheid deur Opstanding uit die dood”’

05022018 SDG