BDF on πιστευιν ότι = πιστευιν εις at John 20:31 and it's application to 20:28

John Milton

Well-known member
i agree. BDAG set me straight.

That's the old version. I don't use that in the paper. I had to deviate from Davies a bit.
Nah. You listened to someone else telling you the things you had already been told because he shares the same basic assumption about the text that you do. BDAG and reason had nothing to do with it.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Nah. You listened to someone else telling you the things you had already been told because he shares the same basic assumption about the text that you do. BDAG and reason had nothing to do with it.

The deciding factor was that J 20:31 was listed as ποστευιν that is absolute and has no object in BDAG.

That made me decide that Davies needed tweaked.

I have no need for dative any longer. What was also an eye opener was the NET notes where Wallace tries to blend the vocative view with a PN with σύ ει. That's oil and vinegar.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
It listed what now?

That is what your search is all about, after all: what you need.
Yes, I either took Davies too literally or she never thought it through. My goal was to find a grammar that fit her use of John 14:1 and I found it also needed 14:9.

Interestingly both seeing and believing are in the immediate context of John 20:28.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I don't claim to "know" Greek. That does not prevent me from learning it here, does it? And that does not mean I know nothing about Greek.
There is a difference between knowing what others have said about Greek and understanding it for yourself. If you want to learn Greek, why not start with that? Pick up a introductory grammar (or find a free one online) and work through it here.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
There is a difference between knowing what others have said about Greek and understanding it for yourself. If you want to learn Greek, why not start with that? Pick up a introductory grammar (or find a free one online) and work through it here.

I worked through Mounce BBG years ago and use Wallace GGBB as a reference. I have LSJ, BDAG, BAGD, BAG, Danker Concise, Smyth, BDF, Porter's idioms, Robertson and a few assorted others in hardcopy. I also have Zerwick and another reader with vocabulary help for words that don't occur frequently. I have no expectations of being a scholar.

I can't do this full time but I do get pleasure from my "pet" projects as time allows.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I worked through Mounce BBG years ago and use Wallace GGBB as a reference. I have LSJ, BDAG, BAGD, BAG, Danker Concise, Smyth, BDF, Porter's idioms, Robertson and a few assorted others in hardcopy. I also have Zerwick and another reader with vocabulary help for words that don't occur frequently. I have no expectations of being a scholar.

I can't do this full time but I do get pleasure from my "pet" projects as time allows.
Be that as it may, it is clear that you don't remember enough about the language to have undertaken these "'pet' projects." You should either abandon them or put in the work required to do them correctly.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Be that as it may, it is clear that you don't remember enough about the language to have undertaken these "'pet' projects." You should either abandon them or put in the work required to do them correctly.

They are a work in progress. And, as for my paper on the anaphoric article, I think I am on to something. I did not innovate, I merely applied what others say about the article.

I just opened my copy of Mounce to see what he says about the article. It's literally nothing.

The exegetical "insight" covers John 1:1c. It's drivel.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Be that as it may, it is clear that you don't remember enough about the language to have undertaken these "'pet' projects." You should either abandon them or put in the work required to do them correctly.

My current paper on Smarts rule/John 20:28 is solid. How many people who say they know Greek understand that seeing και as copulative at J 20:28 is a Hebraism at best and probably a grammatical solecism?

And of those, how many found out because of my paper?

How many students of Greek at seminary get past the Greek article as more than something that makes a noun definite?

I don't claim to be a scholar or "know" Greek, but what I have discovered was not entirely from parroting what others have already said.

Besides, it's a fun hobby.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
My current paper on Smarts rule/John 20:28 is solid. How many people who say they know Greek understand that seeing και as copulative at J 20:28 is a Hebraism at best and probably a grammatical solecism?

And of those, how many found out because of my paper?

How many students of Greek at seminary get past the Greek article as more than something that makes a noun definite?

I don't claim to be a scholar or "know" Greek, but what I have discovered was not entirely from parroting what others have already said.

Besides, it's a fun hobby.
I told you what you should do. I already knew what you would do. Why not promote your paper on Textkit. I could use a good laugh.
 
Top