The common element in all my playlists is helping you learn more about the Greek New Testament. Some of the playlists are for memorizing vocabulary, a few are about my books and apps, and other are about Greek exegesis and the translation process. I hope you learn and enjoy.
If that is a " special use of the participle" is believe in John 3:16 NOT a special use and should be translated "believING" ? Since you asked for input on John 3:16
Not to mention that judgement is not always a bad thing. God please judge me so I may know where I am missing the mark and where I may be deceived right?!?!?
Bill Mounce is my favorite biblical Greek teacher! Some others are good too, but I like how Mounce explains everything in great detail and also offers a lot of encouragement along the way.
Deponency might not be widely accepted but given his audience it is easier to explain it as deponent rather than the fact that these words, by definition, include some amount of subject affectedness, thus the mid/pass endings. Their being active in translation is primarily due to English. Mounce’s audience for this video do not read Greek. While I don’t agree with deponency and prefer the other explanation, Mounce’s approach ends up in practically the same place and it might be easier to grasp by the audience of this video.
Then you are advocating creating an incorrect term and concept (or, in this case, intentionally propagating one that has been debunked), and then using it as a crutch. I don't think that is a good idea. In response to "that pastor," he could have just pointed out that causality is not built into the spelling of the word. In other words, the source of "shame" is not specified, so you can't use the grammar as a pretext to deduce, "No one can cause me to be ashamed."
@@GarthDWiebe I wasn’t advocating for his explanation. I actually said I disagreed with it. I merely said it was understandable to go that route. It’s also important to understand that not all scholars have rejected deponency even though most have.
@@mattfuller651 I don't see how it is "understandable" if it is wrong. Of course, you are right that "not all scholars have rejected deponency," and we are looking at one example in this video, case in point. Sadly, I think that the issue is that the many who have written textbooks and other published material would need to walk back what they have published in print, which would be an embarrassment and discredit to their scholarship. Sadly, many times academics will just dig their heels in, ad populum, ad antiquitatem, ad vericundiam.
Thanks. You are right. It's much easier to say the word deponent and convey the idea that while it's passive in form, it's active and meaning then to go into a discussion of the nuances of the middle.
The whole concept of deponency in Greek was debunked many years ago. See papers by Pennington and others. If it is in the middle or passive voice it is for a reason. To get specific about this particular word, I thought to look up and noticed a reference in LSJ and Brill to Nonnus of Panopolis, Dionysiaca 20.61 επαισχυνεις, also 42.421 επαισχυνει, which are both active voice. In any case, to be "ashamed" in Romans 1 :16 is certainly a middle/passive sense, as I would expect the active sense would be to "shame" a person. In saying this I am certainly not endorsing the paster he is complaining about, but what I am saying is that this word in Romans 1 :16 can hardly be thought of as having an "active" meaning.
Debunked as a little strong word. Dan Wallace still accepts opponent. One of his students just did a PhD in England on deponency. It will be interesting to see where this discussion goes overtime.
Sir, can you make a video on explaining why these deponent verbs are now being considered inaccurate/incorrect? I've seen other Greek-teaching channels saying that deponency is "dead" or something of the like. But I've not actually seen anyone yet break down why it's "dead." Thank you for your content!
I have your textbook, workbook and vocabulary cards that I am working through. These videos are very helpful, especially with my pronunciation. Thank you and regards. I am also Bill
The concept of the Holy trinity is very similar to the "Trimurthi" (three forms) in hinduism. Many Hindus also believe in one God and consider God existing in many different persons/forms. While there are significant theological differences, the basic structure of both concepts include a unified divine essence expressed in different forms or roles - Both the Trimurti and the Christian Trinity maintain the belief in one ultimate reality that expresses itself in different forms or persons. Just as Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva have distinct roles in creation, preservation, and destruction, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have distinct roles in the Christian narrative of creation, salvation, and sanctification. Sorry, but Christianity is not as unique as many claim to be. I can share even more similarities.
Thank you very much. That may explain why the Critical Text has the aorist tense at Mt 6:12, in the Lord's Prayer, "as we forgave". Sort of like a "standing present", then. Whereas the T.R., and hence the traditional English, has the Greek present tense. I pray C.T. in the morning, traditional English at bedtime. And am perplexed. I have asked other scholars, "Do they mean the same?', and none had answers. How appropriate that you have answered my riddle, on Thanksgiving Day in Canada! [BTW, I just now finished reading the NT in Greek for the 60th time.] [God is gracious!]
Given what I said in my other comment, Matt 6:12 says, hyper-literally, "and let-off/away to-us the debts of-us as also we let-off/away to-{the debtors} of-us, or, "and let-off/away to-us the debts of-us as also we are-letting-off/away to-{the debtors} of-us," depending on the manuscript variation. So, it is either "as also we forgive our debtors" (aorist tense) or "as also we are forgiving our debtors" (present tense, χρονος ενεστως) and it doesn't really much matter to the meaning of it, at least not in this context.
This is incorrect. Greek has no "past tense." Any "past tense" rendering is a mistranslation, or at least an English language accommodation. All Greek aorist tense (Greek χρονος αοριστος) instances are, categorically, not marked for time or aspect/progress/completion (which is what the Greek word α-οριστος means, "without-definition, unbounded, indefinite"). They can always be best mapped to the English present simple (not progressive/continuous) tense. That just doesn't sit well with the English language mindset and good English writing style and composition. But this isn't English! For example, I can tell you that "I play the piano." That said, I am not making a statement of when or any sense of progress (and in fact I am sitting at a computer, not a piano, right now), but just expressing the verb "play" as fact. For written historical narratives, we use the English past tense but Greek has no past tense. Rather, historical narratives were told from the perspective of the speaker putting himself in the frame of reference of being in the past observing the events happen as they occurred. We do that in English colloquially and informally, usually in oral speech, using the English simple present tense, but not in formal writing.
My concern is, that if it keeps changing to suit changes in the English language and gender, it will quickly go off track. It should reflect the times, countries and accurate history that the Bible was written in, and not modern day times. Where do we draw the line? 🤷🏻 Just saying
I am loving these! Such a simple but valuable exercise. I would be helped (and I assume others as well) if you could comment along the way on some of the verb conjugations etc. I find I remember some intuitively (but can't always remember exactly why) and other times I unconsciously cheat by virtue of just knowing the verse in english. Thanks for this!
Older doesn't necessarily mean more reliable or correct. The source of the texts is what's important. People were corrupting and misinterpreting scripture from the beginning, as we see in Paul's letters to the first churches. If you assume that God's plan is to offer the gift of salvation to everyone, wouldn't the Holy Spirit write the correct version that He knew was to be the first book printed and used to spread the Gospel throughout the world? Surely God wouldn't mislead everyone. Modern scholars, impressed with the age of the scraps of versions they recently discovered could.
The best translation for δε is "moreover," as it is an indicator providing additional content. και would be "and" or "also," correlating one thing to another, and αλλα would be "contrariwise," a stronger word than "but," where English "but" has too broad a semantic range and is too weak a word to use, in my opinion. The thing is that repeatedly using "moreover" for so very many repeated instances in Greek does not make for good English composition and style. Good English composition and style prescribes varying words so as not to be repetitive, but Koine Greek is much more mechanical and does not have such composition and style rules.
@@tooprime9938 Actually if you go deep into the linguistics it isn't phonetic - Benjamin Kantor has done excellent work in "how the ancients pronounced their Greek". Mounce seems to use academic pronunciation which is phonetic and easy, designed for use among academics, and what one would expect from an English-speaking or German-speaking preacher who is using Greek in the limited manner afforded during preaching. It's not the "right" pronunciation to either a modern speaker of Greek nor an ancient speaker of Greek, however.
The whole concept of deponency in Greek was debunked many years ago. See papers by Pennington and others. If it is in the middle or passive voice it is for a reason.
By the way, to get specific about the word, I thought to look up and noticed a reference in LSJ and Brill to Nonnus of Panopolis, Dionysiaca 20.61 επαισχυνεις, also 42.421 επαισχυνει, which are both active voice. In any case, to be "ashamed" in Romans 1 :16 is certainly a middle/passive sense, as I would expect the active sense would be to "shame" a person. In saying this I am certainly not endorsing whatever "theological tangent" the paster he is complaining about went on, but what I am saying is that this word in Romans 1 :16 can hardly be thought of as having an "active" meaning.
Well, if that pastor made it completely unrecognizable then I do sympathize, but in general this complaint is uncalled for, since we do not know how it was pronounced two thousand years ago, as we have no audio recordings and scant ancient Greek documents referencing pronunciations. Language, dialects, accents, and so on change with time, and also with geography. Koine Greek was the lingua franca of a huge geographical area at the time, and wasn't even the original native tongue of many. For example, who knows what an Aramaic accent sounded like in Judea and Galilee? And the Galileans were called out for their accents (the account of Peter's denial of Jesus, the apostles in Acts 2, etc.) Even in American English, northerners would say that southerners mispronounce things, and vice-versa, also variants in Texas, the northeast, and so on. Since Koine Greek is no longer spoken, I think there should be some grace given. Personally, I try to over-pronounce Greek words. For example, I would end this particular word with -ma-ee to emphasize the dipthong, rather than English long-I, as pronounced in this video. After all, we are now only concerned anymore with how it is spelled.
I agree with your sentiment that Bill is being overly indignant, but we do know how to pronounce many Koine words due to the few documents we have on pronunciation being enough. We can piece together other pronunciation from those based on mispelled words and how language changed over time.
@@ryanphelps9943 Again, the ancient Greek documents on pronunciation are scant, and cannot possibly cover the span of the centuries of just Koine Greek or the geography. Again, what would Greek have sounded like with an Aramaic accent by those living in Judea, or by Jesus and his Galilean buddies? My point is that it doesn't matter, since it is a language not spoken anymore. We have anglicized many foreign language words, and I think a good strategy is just to pronounce these words in English, anglicized in such a way so as to maximize word recognition by other English speakers. Pretended accents are just drama at this point, and all else is just snobbery on the part of the academic elite, or those who yearn to conform to the academic elite. We have enough variation of American English in the U.S. already, and then you would need to consider British English and whether we Americans even have the right to pronounce English the way we do, considering that the roots of our English trace back to England fewer hundreds of years ago than the span of Koine Greek or the time since. And then even the British would also have Irish, Scottish, Welsh...
@@GarthDWiebe Benjamin Kantor has done some excellent work in the field of pronunciation of Ancient Greek - ironically, his work proves Mounce's pronunciation, which appears to be the standard modern academic pronunciation (different to modern Greek native pronunciation) to be incorrect. The way the ancients spoke it is somewhere between how academics pronounce Greek and how modern Greek speakers do - but we do have a fairly precise idea of how ancients spoke it, and even variants around the Mediterranean world.
@@joelmcleay In the end we don't know how the referenced "preacher" he is complaining about pronounced it, and he's never going to name the "preacher." For all we know, the preacher pronounced a small omega as "w," eta as "n," nu as "v," gamma as "y," rho as "p," and mu as "u." (Sorry, if I type too many characters in Greek font I think that is one thing that makes RU-vid shadow-ban me.) That would certainly make a lot of Greek words unrecognizable to the ear. It would have been helpful if he repeated how he heard the word pronounced by the "preacher."
Why can't you understand that? It has been understood for Centuries. If you can't understand the king James version. There's something drastically wrong with you.
Too much explanation for a simple answer. Sin is simply a violation of a written law. If a law is not written or doesn't exist, it can't be violated. That is why when a driver commits an infraction, they get cited with a code of that citation that was broken according to the written law.
Sin is more against God as things that are not in his light, more shown by when he talks about walking in the light compared to the darkness throughout all the gospels
I guess I got shadow-banned by RU-vid again. (Count the number of comments you see.) To see my last previous comment, use the drop-down "Sort by" and select "Newest first"
Why always so smug about that the NA28 is always correct and variants are where "some scribe is just trying to smooth things out," etc. You cannot know that for sure, and you could be wrong. How do you know that "some scribe" didn't look at ελαλει//λαληση/λαλησει and decided that couldn't be right because it is usually αποκριθη in instances like this? Well, perhaps you may be justified in that there were three variations of that word. But that is not far-fetched, either, because if one scribe substituted ελαλει (imperfect), then another scribe perhaps corrected it to λαλησει (future), then another scribe perhaps corrected it to λαληση (aorist), maybe the next scribe decided to change it to αποκριθη, so, who knows, maybe you are on the fourth generation of alterations. Likewise in ησαν vs. εγενοντο, "has-been-being" (usually translated "were") vs. "becomes" (usually translated "became"). Remember, by the time you get to the fifth century, koine is morphing to byzantine, while the scribes know Latin best. The bottom line is that you don't have the original, so you don't know for sure. You say that you should never consider a variant without considering significance, and that is well put; by the same token, it was significant enough to a scribe to make changes, even though it seemingly made no difference to the overall meaning. Then we could get into why on earth Constantine Simonides, the professional forger, would have a motive, something to gain, by asserting that he was the author of ℵ/Aleph/Sinaiticus, but I digress. In other words, this is not unlike the U.S. political arena of Democrats vs. Republicans, with one party always saying that, of course, the other is always wrong. (And I am equally critical of KJV/TR-only conspiracy theorists, to be fair.)
