Time for a new Greek Interlinear

Another word I am totally flummoxed with: γνοῖ  as in:

καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἐπανελθεῖν αὐτὸν λαβόντα τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ εἶπεν φωνηθῆναι αὐτῷ τοὺς δούλους τούτους οἷς δεδώκει τὸ ἀργύριον, ἵνα γνοῖ τί διεπραγματεύσαντο. BGT (Bible works greek text which is based on LXX/BNT were BNT is Greek New Testament, Nestle-Aland 27th Edition)

γνοῖ  is apparently aorist, subjunctive, active, 3rd person , singular. But why? It looks more like a masculine plural noun.

Ah, its γνῷ in the BYZ (majority text) which makes a bit more sense. Root is *γνο->γνοει->γνοηι->γνῶι->γνῷ. Simple The connecting vowel is lengthened, contracts with the omega, and the verb ending subscripts. Guess  γνοῖ  is some kind of odd variant.

I was actually reading it in my RVS Interlinear based on the 21st edition of Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece. I think I need a new interlinear. Bill Mounce to the rescue once again with his recently published interlinear. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0310492963/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00 . Looks like it’s got grammatical markers in which should help  cut down the number of times I need my analytical lexicon.

…

It’s just arrived. It’s great but very small writing. Or perhaps I need glasses. Its also very heavy but  helpful for quickly checking the grammar of particular words if I am away from the computer.

Greek five tricky words that crop up a lot

If you are not a fan of New Testament Greek then read no further but if you are here are five tricky customers for you to enjoy.

So far I have unearthed the following from Mounce’s books : Morphology of Biblical Greek, The Analytical Lexicon and Basics of biblical Greek.

1) οἶδα “I know”

roots of οἶδα:

It has two roots *οιδ and *Fιδ (pronounced “vid” as in “video”).

The present of οἶδα:

It is a perfect that is used as a present so the present looks like the perfect tense based on the root: *οιδ:

οἶδα

οἶδασ

οἶδε(ν)

—–

οἶδαμεν

οἶδατε

οἶδασι(ν)

 

The future of οἶδα :

The future is from the root *Fιδ > εὶδήσω

 

The aorist of οἶδα:

The plu-perfect is used as the aorist so the undefined tense of this verb looks like a plu perfect and is based on the root *Fιδ

ᾖδειν

ᾖδεισ

ᾖδει

—–

ᾖδειμεν

ᾖδειτε

ᾖδεισαν

I have always wanted to know what  plu-perfect was so was thrilled when I read in Basics of Biblical Greek that it is

“used to describe an action that was completed and whose effects are felt at a time after the completion but before the time of the speaker”.

Now I know. Like the perfect there are unfortunately 1st and second plu-perfects, and like the perfect the first takes tense formative κ and the second has no tense formative. Both use the connecting vowels ει and secondary endings. Looking at the above paradigm it looks like οἶδα is a second plu-perfect as there are no κ’s and yes, there are the ει connecting vowels before regular (or a version of – see first aorist ending in third person plural) secondary endings.

Use of οἶδα in ὁράω:

The second aorist εἶδον is formed from *Fιδ which was taking over the function of the aorist in ὁράω “I see”.

2) ερχομαι “I come”

ερχομαι is another common word that is pretty tricky. It also has two roots *ερχ and *ελευθ.

Present επχομαι from *ερχ

Future ελεύσομαι from *ελευθ

Aorist ἦλθον from *ελθευ? Is this a mistake in the book (Morphology of Biblical Greek page 260, note 7) or have I missed something. I was expecting it to be ελευθ. I have probably missed something. Anyway, it’s of no mater because the word is formed from the zero grade root, ie the root without any vowels ie *ελθ.

Active perfect ἐλήλυθα from *ελθευ. There is attic reduplication at the start. That can happen when a word starts with α, ε or ο in which case the vowel and the consonant are duplicated and the first vowel is lengthened. Oh, and the ε has dropped out.

3) ἐχω “I have”

ἐχω is another interesting word because its root is *σεχ. The ς is replaced with a rough breathing unless their is another aspirate in the word. Aspirates are φ, χ and θ. They are sort of “huffy” and I guess the greeks didn’t want two huffs in a word. So in the present *σεχ > ἑχω > ἐχω. But in the future, *σεχ > ἑχσω > ἑξω. The huffy rough breathing stays put because the huffy χ has been changed with the ς into a ξ.

The aorist uses the zero form of the root, ie the ε vowel drops out leaving *σχ. An ε augment is added at the start, and the normal connecting vowel and secondary endings are added. *σχ > ἐσχ > ἐσχον.

The perfect again uses the zero form of the root, but a η is added at the end. *σεχ > *σχ > σχη > ἔσχη > ἔσχηκα. Note 45.3 in Morphology of Biblical Greek says that 10 words in the NT add an η after the verbal root and the perfect active tense formative. There are some quite common ones that do this ie : ἁμαρτάνω, βάλλω, εύρισκω and μένω. ie perfect of μένω is μεμένηκα.

4) ἀφίημι “I let go, leave, permit, forgive”

I came across this word recently: ἀφῆτε. On page 337 of Basics of Biblical Greek I found it’s root is *σε. Also, “like ἵστημι, the reduplicated sigma dropped off and was replaced with a rough breathing. The initial sigma was also dropped because it was intervocalic”. σε > σισε > ἱσε > ἱε > ἱημι.” Then we add the first bit of the compound verb απο. απ’ + ἱημι  > αφίημι as the π has joined with the vowel and rough breathing to become φ. Page 61 of Basics of Biblical Greek says that happens in general with απο and page 337 says it specifically happens here.

5) λέγω “I say”

uses multiple roots.

*λεγ

*Fεπ

*Fρη (>Fερ)

present tense:

λέγο     *λεγ

Future :

ἐρῶ

*Fρη+εσ+ω > Fερ+εσ+ω > ερ+εσ+ω > ερεσω > ερεῶ > ερῶ (liquid future +εσ tense formative. Intervocalic sigma drops out).

aorist:

εἶπον

ε+*Fεπ > ε+επ > εἶπ

It’s a shame these words have to be so tricky.

PS. ooo hello…Just came across the word χάριν when translating Ephesians 3:1 and thought it was singular, accusative of “grace”, which it is. But turns out there is another word spelt exactly the same that means “on account of” and this is what is meant in Eph 3:1. The plot thickens!

see also “Stopped in my tracks again” for φερω roots.

Watching the bible being written

Here is a video of the ESV bible being written. What a cool insight into the process behind this really helpful translation.

What a great and godly bunch of bible scholars. I’d love to have a few hours in that room for Q&A.

Great Hebrew videos

When trying to remember what a Metheg was I found a great youtube video then this amazingly helpful site. It has a whole course of hebrew lectures on it. A great resource as I wait for my  other DVDs to arrive. It goes through the alphabet so I made a few notes:

א: silent or h in honest

ב

ג he says no real diff between ג and גּ

ד historicaly prohnounces th as in this. in modern hebrewe its the same as דּ as in dog
ה h as in house

ו histroicaly w as in way, but modern hebrew its v as in van

ז z as in zero

ח ch as in bach or loch

ט teach

י

…

ק never qu as in queen, but k as in king.

in psalm 119 there are 22 lots of 8 verses because שׁ and שׂ are seen as one.

ת and תּ both t as in teach in modern Hebrew but in biblical Hebrew ת is pronounces th as in thin.

Also he answers something that has been bugging me for a while. Why do people seem to pronounce the long and short a vowels ָ  ַ

the same and have one long, as in Father, and the other short as in bat? Well again in modern Hebrew they are both pronounced the same. Could be a bit in the middle but more like the short sound bat I think. He also says that the reduced vowels are all pronounced pretty much the same.

Most helpful was the bit on writing Hebrew which is different from that which I have learned so far:

Another diagram I found helpful was his vowel chart which kind of filled in some blanks in the one I had:

PS. I have now got the Basics of Biblical Hebrew lectures and this how they write stuff:

BTW I have written the alphabet out in the wrong direction both times I numbered the strokes

The ultimate challenge

In His soap box recently David Mitchell ranted amusingly and insight-fully about the way we try to frame problems as challenges. “No!” he says, some things are just awful problems and we wish with all our heath that things were different. At the end he imagines one “challenge monger” speaking at another’s funeral.

“We are here to celebrate the life of Daren Smiley, tireless challenge taker and opportunity grabber. And what an exciting time for him this is as he is presented with his most exciting challenge to date. To force open his lifeless eyes, reboot his defunct system, kick apart his coffin and join us at the wake in time for nibbles. If I know Daren at all I’m sure he’s finding the challenge incredibly exciting and will be relishing the chance to demonstrate that rising from the dead is an opportunity that can only be seized by people lucky enough to have died.”

Brilliant. I know I have been guilty of being a bit of a challenge monger at times by over emphasising the positive of a particular situation. But some problems are indeed challenges, for example in the business world, if you discover a problem that has not been solved and can solve it, you just might be able to market the solution. Some problems though, are just problems and once you are dead no amount of ingenuity, self will, or thinking around the problem is going to make any difference.

Facing death though is a different matter and in one sense knowing we are going to die is an opportunity, if it provokes us to look for a solution. If we do that, then at some stage, after ruling out things like the modern day embalming techniques of cryogenics or eating lots of broccoli and fresh fish, we will come across the gospel.

We will discover that a man called Jesus claimed to have come to make a safe way through death. If we are willing to trust him he will lead us along a narrow path, through death, and out the other side. It’s our moral failure  he says, that will keep us in the grave. In dyeing on the cross he bares the weight of it so that like him we might rise to live a new life. This life starts now although our literal physical bodily resurrection is some way in the future. It is a life of knowing God’s love for us, having true meaning and purpose, walking free of harmful hurts and habits, and a growing deepening, overflowing joy as we get to know Jesus. What was a huge problem has lead to a massive opportunity.

Jesus gave credibility of his claims by calling one or two people to come out of their coffins and join in the wake. I may not do that but I will one day rise from the grave and join in the biggest party that has ever been held, not a wake but a wedding.

The Shroud of Turin

Read this recently:

[6]Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, [7]and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. (ESV)John 20:6-7

I noticed that the face cloth seemed to be separate from the body wrap and got side tracked looking for anything on the rumors surrounding the cloth placed on Jesus head.

I came across some information on the possible significance of the “face cloth”, placed apart from the other sheets.

1) The first is wrong but enticing. It says that in those says a slave would set the table and then step back and wait to clear up until his master had finished eating. This was signaled when the master left the table but what if the master was just popping out for a few minutes  To single he had really finished and was not coming back, it is alleged that he would screw up his napkin, while to show he was coming back he would fold it neatly. The implication? Jesus is coming back again! Which he did a few days later! Sadly I found no supporting evidence for this urban legend.

2) The second is possible but not certain. When Jesus rose, his body went through the sheets of linen that were wrapped round him so the head one would be perhaps slightly away from the others. Johns description is just about consistent with this but I would have through that the head wrap would have been at least touching the body wrap.

3) Others go a bit further and suggest that the spices and stuff were still making the sheets hold their shape as they had been around Jesus body. Perhaps the main body one had caved in a bit but the head wrap was keeping gits shape better and had even rolled away a bit. John Stott suggests that what the disciples saw was ‘like a discarded chrysalis from which the butterfly has emerged’.

4) For some unknown reason Jesus re-wrapped his head linen and put it to one side.

In any case most commentators agree that there is a stark contract between this scene and the one where Lazarus emerges from the tomb in his grave clothes.

Interestingly the shroud of Turin has the face on the same sheet as the body. Still not sure if its real or not though. The jury is still out on that one despite radiocarbon dating.

But what of early reports of a “mandelion” with only the face on? (Mandelion = little towel.) Why only the face? It has been suggested that the shroud could have been doubled in four in such a way as to reveal only the face. There are such fold marks on the shroud so that’s certainly possible. Historical records of the mandelion are said to disappear at the point where records of the shroud begin.

But if the shroud is an full image of Jesus’ head and body what what the bit of material placed away from the body?

There is another bit of material called the Sudarium Oviedo which is thought by some to be the linen placed over the face and taken off before the shroud was placed on it. Apparently the blood types match as do some of the markings. See here for that and other stuff on the shroud.

Video about the shroud:

Rumer of the folded napkin

http://www.propheticrevelation.net/misc/the_folded_napkin.htm

A Self defeating statement

John Lennox has some issues with Hawkins book “The grand design”.

One quote stood out for me:

“What science cannot tell us mankind cannot know.” Bertram Rustle.

But that is not a scientific sentence says Lennox. Very true.

I am reminded of another self defeating statement. In the back story of the game Assasin’s creed, Hassan-i Sabbah, who supposedly lead the Assassin Order in the 11th century, came up with the phrase “Nothing is true; everything is permitted”. It’s a slogan that seems to offer a key to wonderful freedoms. The problem of course that it is a phantom, a mirage. If the statement is true then nothing is true and the statement is false. It is self defeating. The conclusion “everything is permitted” may or may not be true but we certainly cannot get it from the premise “nothing is true”. The door to do what we like without moral restraint remains firmly shut to us.

The apostle Paul knew that people like to try to pry open this Pandora’s box ever now and then. In this case it was with the “grace” key. When he wrote to the church in Rome raising the question:

“shall we keep on sinning so that grace may abound?”

In other words, given that God is glorified when he forgives us, why not keep on doing things that are wrong to give God more opportunities to look good in his forgiving. Paul’s  answer was “by no means!”. When we trusted in Jesus we died to sin. We realised it is not good for us. That doing things God’s way is the best way for us and all other ways damage us. In another context he says “everything is permissible.” he says but “Not everything is beneficial.”  Far from glorifying God when a follower of Jesus persists in sin, it kind of calls into question the effectiveness of Jesus’ salvation. If he died to rescue us from sin why are we still wallowing in it and being damaged by it rather than wading out of it and bring freed from it?

The gospel itself would be self defeating if it only produced people who are evidently not being saved.