Philippians 2:7 Specifically ἑαυτὸν

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
This citation has nothing to do with it. You talked about the pronoun, and now you bait and switch with the adverb. You clearly don't know what "second position" means. As for σήμερον, it stands outside of the stock phrase, and so must be taken with what follows, not what precedes.
I talked about the pronoun and the verb.

I said:
However, this exegesis is flawed. While the phrase “Amen I say to you” looks the same in English in the 74 instances he analyzes, the Greek does not. The Greek shows that the order of the verb and personal pronoun in these 74 examples is reversed only at Luke 23:43.

In the majority of the examples, the Greek word order is ‘Truly I say to you…’ but at Luke 23:43 it is ‘Truly to you I say today…’

This may seem like a minor difference, but it is not. Rob argued from the English rendering and ignored

It's ironic that he accuses others of doing exactly what he did and in the same exegesis.

In the majority of the examples, the Greek word order is ‘Truly I say to you…’ but at Luke 23:43 it is ‘Truly to you I say today…’ This may seem like a minor difference, but it is not. This is because in Greek, an adverb regularly takes “second place” (BDF, 1961) to the verb. In Luke 23:43 this means that Jesus said “to you I say[1] today[2]” where the adverb “today” modifies the verb rendered “say.” According to BDF the adverb is normally found in second place to the verb.

BDF says:
The position of nouns and adverbs. … (2) An adverb which further defines an adjective (or verb) also takes second position 10 (BDF §474, 1961)

Get it now? Bowman never disputed BDF and his argument based on what seemed overwhelming evidence from the English alone turned into a desperate attempt to prove that even though the majority of similar uses of σήμερον was really decisive that a few exceptions from other adverbs provided a slight chance for Luke 23:43. He went from offense to defense in a hurry.

So my final rule still stands:

When the Greek adverb σήμερον takes second position to a verb in a separate sentence of direct discourse21 it always further modifies the verb in the first position, without exception, in the corpus of the Greek Septuagint and Greek New Testament.22

Or, simply: When σήμερον follows a verb in Koine where Greek syntax allows for it to modify23 the verb it follows, it always does.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I talked about the pronoun and the verb.

I said:


In the majority of the examples, the Greek word order is ‘Truly I say to you…’ but at Luke 23:43 it is ‘Truly to you I say today…’ This may seem like a minor difference, but it is not. This is because in Greek, an adverb regularly takes “second place” (BDF, 1961) to the verb. In Luke 23:43 this means that Jesus said “to you I say[1] today[2]” where the adverb “today” modifies the verb rendered “say.” According to BDF the adverb is normally found in second place to the verb.

BDF says:
The position of nouns and adverbs. … (2) An adverb which further defines an adjective (or verb) also takes second position 10 (BDF §474, 1961)

Get it now? Bowman never disputed BDF and his argument based on what seemed overwhelming evidence from the English alone turned into a desperate attempt to prove that even though the majority of similar uses of σήμερον was really decisive that a few exceptions from other adverbs provided a slight chance for Luke 23:43. He went from offense to defense in a hurry.

So my final rule still stands:

When the Greek adverb σήμερον takes second position to a verb in a separate sentence of direct discourse21 it always further modifies the verb in the first position, without exception, in the corpus of the Greek Septuagint and Greek New Testament.22

Or, simply: When σήμερον follows a verb in Koine where Greek syntax allows for it to modify23 the verb it follows, it always does.
I don't know which is more ridiculous: your selective use of BDF or the "rule" you have proposed.

Luke 23:39-43 said:
39 Εἷς δὲ τῶν κρεμασθέντων κακούργων ἐβλασφήμει αὐτὸν λέγων· οὐχὶ σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός; σῶσον σεαυτὸν καὶ ἡμᾶς. 40 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ ἕτερος ἐπιτιμῶν αὐτῷ ἔφη· οὐδὲ φοβῇ σὺ τὸν θεόν, ὅτι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κρίματι εἶ; 41 καὶ ἡμεῖς μὲν δικαίως, ἄξια γὰρ ὧν ἐπράξαμεν ἀπολαμβάνομεν· οὗτος δὲ οὐδὲν ἄτοπον ἔπραξεν. 42 καὶ ἔλεγεν· Ἰησοῦ, μνήσθητί μου ὅταν ἔλθῃς εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν σου. 43 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἀμήν σοι λέγω, σήμερον μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ.
The reason that σοι does not follow the verb is because it was fronted for emphasis. If you read the passage leading up to this point, you will see that Jesus only addresses the people who have demonstrated concern for or belief in him. He did not reply to the Jewish leaders, the Roman soldiers, or the crucified man who mocked him. But he says emphatically to the thief who asked to be remembered "Truly, to you I say...."
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I don't know which is more ridiculous: your selective use of BDF or the "rule" you have proposed.

The reason that σοι does not follow the verb is because it was fronted for emphasis. If you read the passage leading up to this point, you will see that Jesus only addresses the people who have demonstrated concern for or belief in him. He did not reply to the Jewish leaders, the Roman soldiers, or the crucified man who mocked him. But he says emphatically to the thief who asked to be remembered "Truly, to you I say...."
Thanks for your opinion. It's really amazing that you can tell the intent of the author to emphasize a certain word in a self-serving way. If the word order is so emphatic why don't the English versions reflect it?

What is a fact is that in each of the alleged parallel examples the word order is different. So Luke 24:43 stands apart from all of them and Bowman erred in looking at just the English.

BDF is spot on in saying that the adverb takes second place to it's verb.

And, if you think the rule is bogus, all you need to do is find an exception. Here is a head start:


A computer aided search of the Greek uncovers some 332 instances of σήμερον found in 314[16] verses. Of these there are 68[17] verses where the adverb σήμερον follows a verb 72 times in the same sentence of direct discourse[18]. These examples are the subset which parallels the syntax found in Luke 23:43 where σήμερον also follows a verb in direct discourse. When these are analyzed it is apparent that when σήμερον takes second place to a verb in the first position in the same independent Greek sentence[19] of direct discourse, the relationship between this verb[1]-adverb[2] pair is not flexible.


16 Gen. 4:14; 19:37f; 21:26; 22:14; 24:12, 42; 25:31, 33; 26:33; 30:16, 32; 31:43, 46; 35:4, 20; 40:7; 41:9, 41; 42:13,32; 47:23; 50:20; Exod. 2:18; 5:14; 13:4; 14:13; 16:25; 19:10; 32:29; Lev. 9:4; 10:19; Num. 22:30; Deut. 1:10, 39;2:18; 4:1f, 4, 8, 26, 38ff; 5:3; 6:2, 6, 24; 7:11; 8:1, 11, 18f; 9:1, 3, 6; 10:13; 11:2, 4, 7f, 13, 22, 26ff, 32; 12:8, 11, 14;13:1, 19; 15:5; 19:9; 20:3; 26:3, 17f; 27:1, 4, 10; 28:1, 13ff; 29:9, 11, 14; 30:2, 8, 11, 15f, 18f; 31:2, 21, 27; 32:46; Jos.4:9; 5:9; 6:25; 7:19, 25; 9:27; 10:27; 13:13; 14:10f; 22:3, 16, 18, 29, 31; 24:15, 27, 31; Jdg. 6:17; 9:18; 11:27; 21:3, 6;Ruth 2:19; 3:18; 4:9f, 14; 1 Sam. 4:3, 7, 16; 9:12, 19f, 27; 10:2, 19; 11:13; 12:5, 17; 14:28, 30, 38, 41, 44f; 15:28;16:5; 17:10, 36, 45f; 20:27; 21:3, 6; 22:15; 24:11f, 19f; 25:10, 32ff; 26:8, 19, 21, 23f; 27:10; 29:6; 30:13, 25; 2 Sam.3:8, 39; 6:20; 11:12; 14:22; 15:20; 16:3; 18:31; 19:6ff, 21, 23, 36; 1 Ki. 1:25, 48, 51; 2:24, 31; 5:21; 8:15, 28, 56;18:15, 36; 21:13; 22:5; 2 Ki. 2:3, 5; 4:23; 6:28, 31; 1 Chr. 29:5; 2 Chr. 6:19; 10:7; 18:4; 35:21, 25; 1 Es. 8:74, 86; Neh.1:6, 11; 5:11; 9:36; Est. 1:18; 5:4; Jdt. 6:2; 7:28; 8:12, 18, 29; 12:18; 13:11, 17; Tob. 6:11; Tbs. 7:12; 1 Ma. 2:63;3:17; 4:10; 5:32; 6:26; 7:42; 9:30, 44; 10:20, 30; 13:39; 16:2; 3 Ma. 5:20; 6:13; Ps. 2:7; 94:7; Odes 7:37, 40; 11:19;Prov. 7:14; Sir. 10:10; 20:15; 38:22; 47:7; Isa. 10:32; 37:3; 38:19; 58:4; Jer. 1:10, 18; 41:15; Bar. 3:8; Ezek. 2:3; 20:29,31; 24:2; Sus. 1:55; Dan. 3:37, 40; Dat. 3:37, 40; Matt. 6:11, 30; 11:23; 16:3; 21:28; 27:8, 19; 28:15; Mk. 14:30; Lk.2:11; 4:21; 5:26; 12:28; 13:32f; 19:5, 9; 22:34, 61; 23:43; Acts 4:9; 13:33; 19:40; 20:26; 22:3; 24:21; 26:2, 29; 27:33;Rom. 11:8; 2 Co. 3:14f; Heb. 1:5; 3:7, 13, 15; 4:7; 5:5; 13:8; Jas. 4:13 – 332 instances in 314 verses.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
Thanks for your opinion.
Once again, you demonstrate that you can't tell the difference between facts and opinions.
It's really amazing that you can tell the intent of the author to emphasize a certain word in a self-serving way.
The author emphasized σοι when he fronted it. That much is indisputable. The question for the astute reader is: why did he choose to do so? I think a close examination of the text reveals the author's motive. What I pointed out were the things that the author chose to tell us. Jesus didn't speak to just anyone on the way to the cross. The people he chose to address all had something in common as I pointed out. And not all the people present at the cross were mocking Jesus, but he didn't choose to speak to them either.

If the word order is so emphatic why don't the English versions reflect it?
Look at the part of BDF you chose to suppress, Roger. I provided the text mentioned in the parenthetic explanation and put it in brackets [...].
BDF 472 (1)(d) & (2) said:
(d) Unemphatic pronouns tend to follow immediately on the verb, as do other parts of the sentence governed by the verb, especially when the subject is expanded: Lk. 1:11 ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος κυρίου ἑστὼς ἐκ δεξιῶν.
(2) These positions, however, are by no means mandatory. Any emphasis on an element in the sentence causes that element to be moved forward; thus Lk. 1:67 Καὶ Ζαχαρίας ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ...(in contrast with the neighbors who were the preceding subject of the narrative [καὶ ἔθεντο πάντες οἱ ἀκούσαντες]), 57 Τῇ δὲ Ἐλισάβετ ἐπλήσθη ὁ χρόνος τοῦ τεκεῖν αὐτὴν.

This type of emphasis isn't usually brought out in English translations. In fact much of the emphasis and stress in Greek is not captured in English translation. This is especially true for particles.
What is a fact is that in each of the alleged parallel examples the word order is different. So Luke 24:43 stands apart from all of them and Bowman erred in looking at just the English.
I don't know if Bowman looked "at just the English." Do you know this for a fact or are you assuming it? Either way, the word order can be different for a number of reasons. Your problem is that you picked the wrong reason, and you are looking at the wrong information. You might as well be trying to prove sharks don't exist by examining Great Bear Lake.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Once again, you demonstrate that you can't tell the difference between facts and opinions.

The author emphasized σοι when he fronted it. That much is indisputable. The question for the astute reader is: why did he choose to do so? I think a close examination of the text reveals the author's motive. What I pointed out were the things that the author chose to tell us. Jesus didn't speak to just anyone on the way to the cross. The people he chose to address all had something in common as I pointed out. And not all the people present at the cross were mocking Jesus, but he didn't choose to speak to them either.


Look at the part of BDF you chose to suppress, Roger. I provided the text mentioned in the parenthetic explanation and put it in brackets [...].


This type of emphasis isn't usually brought out in English translations. In fact much of the emphasis and stress in Greek is not captured in English translation. This is especially true for particles.

I don't know if Bowman looked "at just the English." Do you know this for a fact or are you assuming it? Either way, the word order can be different for a number of reasons. Your problem is that you picked the wrong reason, and you are looking at the wrong information. You might as well be trying to prove sharks don't exist by examining Great Bear Lake.
The fact remains that
1. The adverb takes second place
2. There are no exceptions for σήμερον

As usual you attempt to address a legitimate grammatical feature of the language and make an exception based on your view of the "context."

In addition you make a false dichotomy. If the fronting serves to emphasize, that in no way nullifies the grammatical feature where the adverb takes second place.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
The fact remains that
1. The adverb takes second place
2. There are no exceptions for σήμερον
The fact remains that
1. This does not matter.
2. You are confused.
As usual you attempt to address a legitimate grammatical feature of the language
What you are describing isn't "a legitimate grammatical feature of the language." It is an argument made by cherry-picking the data of a limited corpus and excluding the data points that don't fit (Like Lk. 23:43) in order to deceive people who don't know the language well enough to know that's what you've done. If this is a rule, why did you only examine the LXX and the NT? Why not run the same test with words like "αὔριον," "ἐχθές," "νῦν," and other similar adverbs in the LXX and NT and see what you get?

and make an exception based on your view of the "context."
My argument had nothing to do with context. σοι is fronted. Do you deny this? Do you deny that BDF said that this shows emphasis?
In addition you make a false dichotomy. If the fronting serves to emphasize, that in no way nullifies the grammatical feature where the adverb takes second place.
Why do you say "if?" BDF said it did. You worship your sources as infallible gods as long as they agree with you. And when they don't, you ignore them, O cherry-picker extraordinaire!
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
The fact remains that
1. This does not matter.
2. You are confused.

What you are describing isn't "a legitimate grammatical feature of the language." It is an argument made by cherry-picking the data of a limited corpus and excluding the data points that don't fit (Like Lk. 23:43) in order to deceive people who don't know the language well enough to know that's what you've done. If this is a rule, why did you only examine the LXX and the NT? Why not run the same test with words like "αὔριον," "ἐχθές," "νῦν," and other similar adverbs in the LXX and NT and see what you get?


My argument had nothing to do with context. σοι is fronted. Do you deny this? Do you deny that BDF said that this shows emphasis?

Why do you say "if?" BDF said it did. You worship your sources as infallible gods as long as they agree with you. And when they don't, you ignore them, O cherry-picker extraordinaire!
Did you read what I wrote? It does not appear you did. You make a false dichotomy to say being fronted for emphasis and packing parts of speech together that go together are mutually exclusive. The fact remains that the adverb being in second position to it's verb is the most natural way to take it, even if there is added emphasis.

--
§473 Closely related elements in the sentence, e.g. noun and attributive, noun and dependent gen., several subjects or objects connected by καὶ , etc., are usually padded together in simple speech. (BDF, 1961)
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Did you read what I wrote? It does not appear you did
I did read what you wrote. I told you what it is: rubbish.
You make a false dichotomy
No, I didn't.
to say being fronted for emphasis and packing parts of speech together that go together are mutually exclusive.
I never said anything about "packing parts of speech together that go together." This "false dichotomy" accusation is a result of your error or misunderstanding.
The fact remains that the adverb being in second position to it's verb is the most natural way to take it, even if there is added emphasis.
No, it's not the most reasonable way to take it. Why would Jesus need to say "Truly, I tell you today?" This may be the dumbest explanation you've offered for a Greek text yet. And that is saying something! Do you think the man on the cross didn't realize that already? If not, I guess it's a good thing Jesus specified that "today" he was telling the man on the cross that he would join him in paradise. Otherwise, he might have thought Jesus's words were spoken the day before or, perhaps, to be spoken the day after.
§473 Closely related elements in the sentence, e.g. noun and attributive, noun and dependent gen., several subjects or objects connected by καὶ , etc., are usually padded together in simple speech. (BDF, 1961)
What about it? What's confusing you now?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I did read what you wrote. I told you what it is: rubbish.

No, I didn't.

I never said anything about "packing parts of speech together that go together." This "false dichotomy" accusation is a result of your error or misunderstanding.

No, it's not the most reasonable way to take it. Why would Jesus need to say "Truly, I tell you today?" This may be the dumbest explanation you've offered for a Greek text yet. And that is saying something! Do you think the man on the cross didn't realize that already? If not, I guess it's a good thing Jesus specified that "today" he was telling the man on the cross that he would join him in paradise. Otherwise, he might have thought Jesus's words were spoken the day before or, perhaps, to be spoken the day after.

What about it? What's confusing you now?
At least Bowman was polite. And he understood his book had an error. He did not double down as bad as you. ;)

The fact is that there is a grammatical reason to take the adverb in second place to it's verb and no grammatical reason violate the convention.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
At least Bowman was polite. And he understood his book had an error. He did not double down as bad as you. ;)

The fact is that there is a grammatical reason to take the adverb in second place to it's verb and no grammatical reason violate the convention.
I haven't made an error, Roger. You have. I have treated you far more kindly than you deserve.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I haven't made an error, Roger. You have. I have treated you far more kindly than you deserve.
And yet you still have no grammatical reason to overturn BDAG.

You do make a false dichotomy if you say fronting and the adverb taking second place are mutually exclusive.

--
Grammar is King
Fallacies are Bad
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
And yet you have no grammatical reason to overturn BDAG.
We weren't discussing BDAG. We were discussing BDF. I already asked you if you denied that σοι was fronted according to what was written in BDF, and you didn't respond. You know I'm right.
You do make a false dichotomy if you say fronting and the adverb taking second place are mutually exclusive.
As I told you above, I never made any claims about mutual exclusivity. Since this is the second time you have falsely accused me of doing this, and I have corrected you once before already. I want either a citation that proves your claim or an admission from you that you are mistaken. I expect I'll get no relevant response from you; I already know you are vile.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
We weren't discussing BDAG. We were discussing BDF. I already asked you if you denied that σοι was fronted according to what was written in BDF, and you didn't respond. You know I'm right.

Sorry for the typo.
And yet you have no grammatical reason to overturn BDF.

As for fronting, I said:
You do make a false dichotomy if you say fronting and the adverb taking second place are mutually exclusive.

I don't see any grammar or lexicon that says it is fronted. While I have no objection to your pet theory, I don't see the relevance. Your contextual theory has no bearing on the grammar that the adverb is in second place.



As I told you above, I never made any claims about mutual exclusivity. Since this is the second time you have falsely accused me of doing this, and I have corrected you once before already. I want either a citation that proves your claim or an admission from you that you are mistaken. I expect I'll get no relevant response from you; I already know you are vile.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
Sorry for the typo.
And yet you have no grammatical reason to overturn BDF.
😂🤣😂

I'm not overturning BDF. I'm quoting it and using it appropriately.
As for fronting, I said:
I didn't ask you about what you said. I asked you where you got that idea. You didn't get it from me. You falsely attributed it to me.
I don't see any grammar or lexicon that says it is fronted.
σοι is before the verb in the phrase ἀμήν σοι λέγω when it normally is found after the verb. That means it's fronted. This is more proof of your profound ignorance.
While I have no objection to your pet theory, I don't see the relevance.
You've done nothing but object to what I have said and to what you've imagined I've said, but you haven't dared answer my simple questions to you. Don't say you don't see the relevance. You see it, and you know you've got no answers.
Your contextual theory
It's not contextual. It's straight from BDF. For the third time, do you deny this?
has no bearing on the grammar that the adverb is in second place.
The adverb is in the first position in the start of a new clause, where it is often found.
Luke 19:5 with emphasis added said:
καὶ ὡς ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον, ἀναβλέψας ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν· Ζακχαῖε, σπεύσας κατάβηθι, σήμερον γὰρ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ σου δεῖ με μεῖναι.
It appears from this sentence that the undisclosed source of your cut and paste job was not accurate. This is direct speech and the position of γὰρ makes it clear that the first word in the clause is σήμερον, even though it follows a verb. You are wrong. Your source was wrong. And you have no integrity. That sums it up.

Have a good one.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
😂🤣😂

I'm not overturning BDF. I'm quoting it and using it appropriately.

.

Luke 19:5 would be an exception to the statement that an adverb is always in second place to it's verb. Neither I or BDF said that.

Γαρ does make σήμερον the first word in it's clause and so it cannot follow it's verb. It modifies the only verb in it's clause that is can grammatically modify.

The fact that these sorts of examples are so rare just proves how well the BDF statement applies to adverbs being in second place. If I remember correctly, it was the only "exception" that Rob could muster up.

His original argument based on the English seems very convincing until one looks at the Greek and sees the syntax is really different than all his examples.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Luke 19:5 would be an exception to the statement that an adverb is always in second place to it's verb. Neither I or BDF said that.

Γαρ does make σήμερον the first word in it's clause and so it cannot follow it's verb. It modifies the only verb in it's clause that is can grammatically modify.

The fact that these sorts of examples are so rare just proves how well the BDF statement applies to adverbs being in second place. If I remember correctly, it was the only "exception" that Rob could muster up.

His original argument based on the English seems very convincing until one looks at the Greek and sees the syntax is really different than all his examples.
I know you will always have some sleazy workaround like this that you think shields you. It'll be: "It's not in second position." or "It's not in the New Testament." or "That example uses the word αὔριον," or "that's not direct speech." Etc, etc.

Every time you say my view is contextual, you are telling a lie. Every time you refuse to acknowledge that my view comes from BDF you demonstrate that fact.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I know you will always have some sleazy workaround like this that you think shields you. It'll be: "It's not in second position." or "It's not in the New Testament." or "That example uses the word αὔριον," or "that's not direct speech." Etc, etc.

I'm making a purely grammatical argument. Grammar is King.

Every time you say my view is contextual, you are telling a lie. Every time you refuse to acknowledge that my view comes from BDF you demonstrate that fact.

To say something is fronted for emphasis is contextual and also subjective. But that's not an argument against the adverb taking second position to it's verb at all.

So I guess you have not made an argument, just various comments unrelated to the question as to how to grammatically determine what verb the adverb modifies at Luke 23:43.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I'm making a purely grammatical argument. Grammar is King.
Bunk. All those stipulations on your "rule" have nothing to do with grammar.
To say something is fronted for emphasis is contextual and also subjective.
The fronting is the sign of emphasis. The fact that it is fronted shows you it's emphatic. There's nothing subjective about it.
But that's not an argument against the adverb taking second position to it's verb at all.
An adverb doesn't always take the first or second position; it doesn't have to. In Luke 19:5 it doesn't. It is common for temporal adverbs to come at the beginning of a sentence or clause. Your biggest problem is that you have not correctly identified the phrase boundaries. On second thought, it may not be your biggest problem, but it is a big one.
So I guess you have not made an argument, just various comments unrelated to the question as to how to grammatically determine what verb the adverb modifies at Luke 23:43.
The clause ends at λέγω. It would normally end at σοι, but it was fronted for emphasis. There is no adverb in that phrase unless that's how you choose to classify ἀμήν. As I said, you are trying to prove sharks don't exist by looking in Great Bear Lake.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
The clause ends at λέγω.

That's an assertion.


It would normally end at σοι, but it was fronted for emphasis.

That's an assertion that the word order changed for emphasis.

What's being emphasized differently than the other 73 to which Bowman appealed?

I can claim the word order was changed to make it clear that "today" goes with what directly precedes it as is the case in the vast majority of instances.

There is no adverb in that phrase unless that's how you choose to classify ἀμήν. As I said, you are trying to prove sharks don't exist by looking in Great Bear Lake.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
That's an assertion.
It is an assertion. It's also a fact.
That's an assertion that the word order changed for emphasis.
No. The fact that σοι is fronted shows it's emphatic.
What's being emphasized differently than the other 73 to which Bowman appealed?
The pronoun is being emphasized here. I don't intend to look at the other 73 examples, so I can't speak for them. The generic formula is ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν. If the pronoun comes before the verb in any of those examples, it's emphatic.
I can claim the word order was changed to make it clear that "today" goes with what directly precedes it as is the case in the vast majority of instances.
:ROFLMAO: I'm sure you can make the claim, but it would be false. If "today" were moved, it would be before the verb it goes with. You wouldn't move it to the front to show that it goes with the previous verb. Your ignorance is showing again.
 
Top