The son or the father?

robinriley · May 16, 2020

Today I ran into another tricky verse ...1Cor 5:2 ... where all versions read it as
....."out amidst of you" ...

But actually, the Greek word ..."mesou"... is neuter ...of~amidst~a [thing] {3319 A-GSN}
so I really don't think that the following pronoun ...of~you {1473 P-2GP} ... can be thought of as being neuter; that is, there are 245 instances of "humOn" in Paul's epistles, and they are all masculine (if this one is not the exception to the rule?)

1473 GK1609 humOn (245) was 5216 of~you/ of~yours/ of~your P-2GP.06

...
That's not to say that one could not come up with some logic for this one instance being neuter ... if one falls back on verse 5:1, where Paul is talking about this being a dramatic case of fornication, even, among the "nations" ... that is, "nations" is neuter ... so one might think of this as saying something like
..."he should be out-lifted out ...of~amidst ..." of you nations
However, this adjective "mesou" is singular, and the following pronoun is plural.
But then again, one could make a case for singular neuter words being coupled with the following plural words ... I've found many examples of this.

That said, I'm still not comfortable with reading this as
..." out of~amidst of~you" ...
So I went looking for something within the immediate context that was also singular neutered ... and found it "ergon" to~a~work {2041 N-ASN}
It's not genitive, like "mesou," but I don't know if that disqualifies it ... Ummm
If not, then ... perhaps ... this adjusted reading would be better ...
5:2* And you, having had been inflated you be, and you had mourned not;

so-that rather’

out amidst~a [work]

of~yours.
he should be out-lifted,

the [one] to~this,
the work having done?

kai humeis pephusiOmenoi este kai ouchi mallon epenthEsate hina exarthE ek mesou humOn ho to ergon touto poiEsas

****

Note: Here's yet another oddity about this verse ..."the [one]" is masculine, so the third person verb can be read as "he should be out-lifted"
(see below) ...

he should be out-lifted {1808 V-APS-3S} out {1537 PREP} of~amidst~a [thing] {3319 A-GSN} of~you/ of~yours {1473 P-2GP} the [one] {3588 T-NSM} to~the [thing] {3588 T-ASN} to~a~work

... However, verse 5:1 is sort of ambivalent about this actually being some ...masculine fornication ...

...which~a [fornication] among with~the nations there be named,
as-both to~some woman of~the father to hold....

This almost sounds (to me),
that it is the woman who holds to the act of fornication?
...some woman of the father to hold ...

And even more intriguing... the conjunction "as-both" ... which I've always found to be the introduction to something
concerning more than one person ...

So would this then be indicating that it was
BOTH the woman (wife)
AND her husband
that were committing this act of fornication with their SON ...

Note, too, it's not being called ...."adultery" ... but "fornication"

That is, if the son were ... on his own ... messing with his mother, then that would qualify as adultery ... but if on the other hand, it was the married couple, together, seducing their son ... that would be more likely described as some sort of perverted fornication ...

Which, in turn, would explain why Paul found this particular "fornication" so dramatic ...

5:1* Wholly it be heard, [there be] a~fornication among with~you, and such~a fornication, not-yet any-which~a [fornication] among with~the nations there be named ...

Now then, the question arises ...
Just "who" is Paul directing this at (Verse 5:2) ...

I'm beginning to suspect that Paul is talking more about the ...Father/Husband ...
rather than the son ... being outcasted!

5:2* ...so-that rather’
out amidst~a [work]
of~yours,
he should be out-lifted
the [one] to~this, the work having done?

That is ... is it the son who is guilty
or
is it the father?

Radagast · May 16, 2020

robinriley said:
Today I ran into another tricky verse ...1Cor 5:2 ... where all versions read it as
....."out amidst of you" ...

If they all agree, they're usually right.

robinriley said:
But actually, the Greek word ..."mesou"... is neuter ...of~amidst~a [thing] {3319 A-GSN}

The form μέσου (mesou) is either masculine singular genitive or neuter singular genitive. Context determines which.

And in this case, it applies to the masculine subject of that verb: ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο πράξας ("him who this thing has done").

You should probably learn some actual Greek before you start deciding that all the translators are wrong.

hedrick · May 16, 2020

Yeah. Where the meaning turns on the meaning of some complex word such as justification, I look at a lexicon and make my own judgement. Where it turns on Greek syntax, looking at a dictionary really doesn't put me in a position to make an independent judgement.

The Logos interlinear parses it as genitive neuter.

Radagast · May 16, 2020

hedrick said:
The Logos interlinear parses it as genitive neuter.

A lot of programs do that, presumably hoping that the user remembers that the singular genitive ending ου is the same in neuter and masculine.

One program which does not is: Greek and Hebrew Reader Online

There is a plethora of interlinears and other tools out there. They are often quite deceptive, unless you know at least a little Greek.

robinriley · May 16, 2020

A friendly sort, aren't you ...

(Radagast)
"If all versions agree, they're usually right"

(Robin)
... Perhaps, perhaps not ...
Franklly, I've found that even with this verse, that almost none of them all agree on the reading as a whole, so my hyperbola is no more far fetched than yours ...

(Radagast)
The form μέσου (mesou) is either masculine singular genitive or neuter singular genitive.
Context determines which.

(Robin)
Actually, "mesou" (μέσου) is used four times in the Pauline epistles,
and it's always neuter singular genitive (A-GSN) ... but then, don't take my word for it,
take that up with Maurice A. Robinson ...he has a Ph.D in NT textual criticism, and knows some Greek.
I'd be happy to give you his email address; I've exchanged a few ideas with him, myself ...

(Radagast)
Context determines which.

(Robin)
And that's exactly why I'd put forth the question ... questions.

(Radagast)
You should probably learn some actual Greek
before you start deciding that all the translators are wrong ...

(Robin)
Actually, I did not say that "all the translators are wrong" ...
that's another hyperbola on your part.

And as for whether I've learned some actual Greek ...
Well ...Not only are you rude,
but you appear to ignorantly jump to conclusions
if you are basing your summary conclusions on just this, my one posting ...

But then that's only my summary conclusion,
being based upon just your short, three-sentence posting

(Radagast)
"If all versions agree, they're usually right"

(Robin)
Put your money where your mouth is ...
Can you prove ... provide an logical (airtight case)
for "μέσου" being masculine singular genitive, here?

Context determines which ... as you say ...
And it is, indeed, the context,
about which, I'd opened the discussion about ...

And then, of course, there are the follow-up questions ...
or perhaps it's really the leading question ... of~amidst all my other ramble ...

Why did Paul find this particular "fornication" so dramatic ...and who was he really aiming it at?

Radagast · May 16, 2020

robinriley said:
(Radagast)
"If all versions agree, they're usually right"

I stand by that. And I wish you would use quote tags.

robinriley said:
(Radagast)
The form μέσου (mesou) is either masculine singular genitive or neuter singular genitive.
Context determines which.

I refer you to any basic NT Greek textbook.

robinriley said:
(Robin)
Put your money where your mouth is ...
Can you prove ... provide an logical (airtight case)
for "μέσου" being masculine singular genitive, here?

I already did.

As I said, in this case, it applies to the masculine subject of that verb: ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο πράξας ("him who this thing has done"). That clause is masculine because it's headed by ὁ.

Note that the part of the sentence beginning with ἵνα is grouped liked this: ἵνα ἀρθῇ (ἐκ μέσου ὑμῶν) (ὁ (τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο) πράξας);

hedrick · May 16, 2020

robinriley said:
And then, of course, there are the follow-up questions ...
or perhaps it's really the leading question ... of~amidst all my other ramble ...

Why did Paul find this particular "fornication" so dramatic ...and who was he really aiming it at?

Well, it seems to have started out with concern about a specific person mentioned at the beginning of 5. (It's a bit ambiguous. This could be an example of something wider, but the safest assumption is one person.)

9-13 reads to me like a correction. It would really great to have the other side of this correspondence, but it seems to imply that some people thought they should be judging and cutting themselves off from pagans who violated their moral standards. Paul say that that's impractical. They're only called on to judge their own people. I don't think 12-13 has anyone specific in mind, but is part of a broader reference to their duty to judge their own people.

Note that the final "drive out the wicked from you" is a quotation from Deut 17:7 (LXX)

Mr. M · May 16, 2020

robinriley said:
Today I ran into another tricky verse ...1Cor 5:2 ... where all versions read it as
....."out amidst of you" ...

But actually, the Greek word ..."mesou"... is neuter ...of~amidst~a [thing] {3319 A-GSN}
so I really don't think that the following pronoun ...of~you {1473 P-2GP} ... can be thought of as being neuter; that is, there are 245 instances of "humOn" in Paul's epistles, and they are all masculine (if this one is not the exception to the rule?)

1473 GK1609 humOn (245) was 5216 of~you/ of~yours/ of~your P-2GP.06

...
That's not to say that one could not come up with some logic for this one instance being neuter ... if one falls back on verse 5:1, where Paul is talking about this being a dramatic case of fornication, even, among the "nations" ... that is, "nations" is neuter ... so one might think of this as saying something like
..."he should be out-lifted out ...of~amidst ..." of you nations
However, this adjective "mesou" is singular, and the following pronoun is plural.
But then again, one could make a case for singular neuter words being coupled with the following plural words ... I've found many examples of this.

That said, I'm still not comfortable with reading this as
..." out of~amidst of~you" ...
So I went looking for something within the immediate context that was also singular neutered ... and found it "ergon" to~a~work {2041 N-ASN}
It's not genitive, like "mesou," but I don't know if that disqualifies it ... Ummm
If not, then ... perhaps ... this adjusted reading would be better ...
5:2* And you, having had been inflated you be, and you had mourned not;

so-that rather’

out amidst~a [work]

of~yours.
he should be out-lifted,

the [one] to~this,
the work having done?

kai humeis pephusiOmenoi este kai ouchi mallon epenthEsate hina exarthE ek mesou humOn ho to ergon touto poiEsas

****

Note: Here's yet another oddity about this verse ..."the [one]" is masculine, so the third person verb can be read as "he should be out-lifted"
(see below) ...

he should be out-lifted {1808 V-APS-3S} out {1537 PREP} of~amidst~a [thing] {3319 A-GSN} of~you/ of~yours {1473 P-2GP} the [one] {3588 T-NSM} to~the [thing] {3588 T-ASN} to~a~work

... However, verse 5:1 is sort of ambivalent about this actually being some ...masculine fornication ...

...which~a [fornication] among with~the nations there be named,
as-both to~some woman of~the father to hold....

This almost sounds (to me),
that it is the woman who holds to the act of fornication?
...some woman of the father to hold ...

And even more intriguing... the conjunction "as-both" ... which I've always found to be the introduction to something
concerning more than one person ...

So would this then be indicating that it was
BOTH the woman (wife)
AND her husband
that were committing this act of fornication with their SON ...

Note, too, it's not being called ...."adultery" ... but "fornication"

That is, if the son were ... on his own ... messing with his mother, then that would qualify as adultery ... but if on the other hand, it was the married couple, together, seducing their son ... that would be more likely described as some sort of perverted fornication ...

Which, in turn, would explain why Paul found this particular "fornication" so dramatic ...

5:1* Wholly it be heard, [there be] a~fornication among with~you, and such~a fornication, not-yet any-which~a [fornication] among with~the nations there be named ...

Now then, the question arises ...
Just "who" is Paul directing this at (Verse 5:2) ...

I'm beginning to suspect that Paul is talking more about the ...Father/Husband ...
rather than the son ... being outcasted!

5:2* ...so-that rather’
out amidst~a [work]
of~yours,
he should be out-lifted
the [one] to~this, the work having done?

That is ... is it the son who is guilty
or
is it the father?

After reading this through three times, here is the scenario that would coincide with your analysis.
First, by your reading this is not the case of a second wife committing adultery with a son in law. Since your suspicions are directed toward the father as the party who committed this dramatic act. If the son was a minor, and the father approved of his wife fornicating with his son, such as to take his virginity and "make a man out of him", I would see this as a bizarre act of prostitution, where a man provides a woman for his own son, in the form of his own second wife. Pretty outrageous, and he, the Father would be the responsible, guilty party, and the son would almost be a victim of the father and mother-in-laws odd agreement. Just a theory, but I think would coincide with your grammatical analysis. Either way, it was interesting to follow your thought process again.

Mr. M · May 16, 2020

robinriley said:
This almost sounds (to me),
that it is the woman who holds to the act of fornication?
...some woman of the father to hold ...

CLV 1 Absolutely, it is heard that there is prostitution among you, and such prostitution (which is not even named among the nations), so that someone has his father's wife."
I thought it was odd that CLV translated the verse this way, now maybe not. I don't see any other translation using prostitution here.
Maybe they shared your suspicions...

robinriley · May 16, 2020

(Radagast)
As I said, in this case, it applies to the masculine subject of that verb:
ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο πράξας ("him who this thing has done").
That clause is masculine because it's headed by ὁ.

(Robin)
Ahh, by your above choice of word "πράξας" {4238, praxas, V-AAP-NSM) I see that you are a follower of Westcott and Hort (WH), and yet, in your own translation, you are saying ... "has done" ...
That is, "πράξας" is from the word family "to practice" ... A completely different word family than that of "poiein" {4160, to do V-PAN), or more specifically, here, the aorist, active, participle "poiEsas" {ποιήσας, having done, V-AAP-NSM} ... Notice, too, that both of these word options "πράξας" and "ποιήσας" are participles ... so you've actually mistranslated this verb in two very different ways. So which is it, do you prefer the Byzantine reading, but are referencing to the Alexandrian (WH), or are you just confused?

Besides the lack of a participle, your reading is a bit sketchy in other ways ...
..."him who this thing has done"...ho to ergon touto poiEsas / praxas ...

the [one] {3588 T-NSM} to~the [thing] {3588 T-ASN}
to~a~work {2041 N-ASN} to~this [thing] {3778 D-ASN} having done {4160 V-AAP-NSM}

That is, it's not good Greek to read ... "ho" ... the [one] {3588 T-NSM}
as the cobbled ..."him who" ...but it seems to be a somewhat common practice with all those translators that "all agree and are usually right" ... NOT!

And, where my good fellow did the Greek noun "ἔργον" (2041, ergon, to~a~work, N-ASN} get to, in this Greek to English translation of yours ......"him who this thing has done"...

***

There's that other verb in this latter half of the verse ...
ἐξαρθῇ (exarthE, 1808 V-APS-3S,he should be out-lifted {1808 V-APS-3S}
which, also, directly applies to your ..."him who" ...
...he should be out-lifted, the [one] to~this, the work having done? ...
so I think that, so far, we are (in a sketchy manner of speaking, at least) on
the same page concerning your ..."him who"...

Note: There's a text source variant here ...the rather shallow and eclectic WH
read this as "ἀρθῇ, he should be lifted, 0142 V-APS-3S},
but the more accurate Byzantine reads it as "ἐξαρθῇ, he should be out-lifted {1808 V-APS-3S} ...
I suspect that WH didn't like the two "out" words next to each other ... "exarthE ek" ...

(Radagast)
As I said, in this case, it applies to the masculine subject of that verb:
ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο πράξας ("him who this thing has done").
That clause is masculine because it's headed by ὁ.

(Robin)
Again, there was never any question, any controversy about this section of the verse ... that is, I've already acknowledged that your ὁ headed clause reads accordingly ...
..."the [one] to~this, the work having done?"...

That is, the question was ...is... "what do we do with the mesou" ...
That is if, indeed, μέσου (mesou) doesn't directly relate to your "him who"
then what else might it be related to ....(a bit'o rhyme)

Here's a thought ... Paul starts this verse out with the plural ..."humeis ...este" ...
...And you, having had been inflated you be...
And my question partially concerns the plural ..."humOn" ...
...of~yours/ of~you ...

So then if something is over-inflated, to fix it you take something out ...
...out amidst~a [work] of~yours... the [one] to~this, the work having done...

That is I'm suggestoing that ... perhaps ... it was the Corinthian's "work" that was contaminated,
and the fix was to out-lift (take out) BOTH this person AND the work that he had contributed.

5:2* And you, having had been inflated you be, and you had mourned not; so-that rather’ out amidst~a [work] of~yours he should be out-lifted, the [one] to~this, the work having done?

Καὶ ὑμεῖς πεφυσιωμένοι ἐστέ, καὶ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἐπενθήσατε, ἵνα ἐξαρθῇ ἐκ μέσου ὑμῶν ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο
ποιήσας.

***

Which brings us back around to the original question ... was it the "son"
(who was seduced into perverted fornication)
or was it the "father" (and his wife) that suduced the son ...
That Paul is talking about, here? Who is supposed to be out-lifted?

Note: The common reading (which is supposedly correct, because "everyone agrees")
would have this sexual act be "fornication" ... even though it would most clearly be "adultry" ...
Whereas, if we had two perverted parents, suducing their son, then "fornication" would, indeed,
be the correct word.

Does God mumble ... does God get His words mixed up?

(Radagast)
...I wish you would use quote tags.

(Robin)
And I wish that you would put more effort into your replies ...
as for my method of venue, try it, you might like it!
...

robinriley · May 16, 2020

5:5* [that] to~the such~a [one] to beside-give unto~the Adversary for’ a~distruction of~the flesh, so-that the spirit should be saved, in with~the day of~the Lord Yeshua.

(Hedrick)
Well, it seems to have started out with concern about a specific person mentioned at the beginning of 5. (It's a bit ambiguous. This could be an example of something wider, but the safest assumption is one person.)

(Robin)
And if it was the father (and the mother), seducing the son, in order to make him a "man" ...
(as Minister Monardo suggests; good suggestion, by the way)
Then this could be a suggestion of something wider ... because, if verses 5:9-13 directly relate, then there might even be more to it than just making the boy into a man; that is, perhaps this was a local practice, a temple practice perhaps ...

if-ever he should be a~fornicator, or an~exploiter, or an~idol-liturgist, or an~abusive [one]

(Hedrick)
9-13 reads to me like a correction. It would really great to have the other side of this correspondence, but it seems to imply that some people thought they should be judging and cutting themselves off from pagans who violated their moral standards.

(Robin)
5:9 I had written unto~you, in with~the on-sent-epistle, yourselves~to together-up-mix no[t] with~fornicators; 5:10* and, not at-all with~the fornicators of~this, the regulated-world, or with~the exploiters, or with~rapacious [ones], or with~idol-liturgists, since consequently, out of~the regulated-world you indebt to out-come. 5:11 Yet now, I had written unto~you no[t] yourselves~to together-up-mix [with] any [one] being named a~brother, if-ever he should be a~fornicator, or an~exploiter, or an~idol-liturgist, or an~abusive [one], or an~intoxicater, or a~rapacious [one]; [and] no[t]-yet with~the such~a [one] to together-eat.

5:12* For what [mater] unto~me, to~the [ones] outward to judge, and [yet] to~the [ones] inside, you, you judge not? 5:13* Yet, to~the [ones] outward, the God, He judges: AND, TO~THE WICKED [ONE] YOU WILL OUT-LIFT, OUT OF~YOUR SAME [ONES].

(Hedrick)
Paul say that that's impractical. They're only called on to judge their own people. I don't think 12-13 has anyone specific in mind, but is part of a broader reference to their duty to judge their own people.

Note that the final "drive out the wicked from you" is a quotation from Deut 17:7 (LXX)

(Robin)
Is there a "standard" LXX ... I've found variations in other's quotes from the "LXX" ...not because they were making mistakes, but because they were reading from different versions of "the" LXX ...

Radagast · May 17, 2020

robinriley said:
(Robin)
Ahh, by your above choice of word "πράξας" {4238, praxas, V-AAP-NSM) I see that you are a follower of Westcott and Hort (WH), and yet, in your own translation, you are saying ... "has done" ...

I'm not using "Westcott and Hort," I'm using a more recently edited Greek text.

If you prefer the KJV, you can translate "he that hath done this deed" or, following Greek word order more closely, "he that this deed hath done."

The verbs πράξας and ποιήσας used in different Greek texts are synonymous. The key is that they are aorist nominative singular masculine articular participles.

Since it's aorist, the KJV ("he that hath done this deed") or the ESV ("him who has done this") translate well. The aorist (simple past) form allows the possibility of the deed having only happened once.

robinriley said:
Notice, too, that both of these word options "πράξας" and "ποιήσας" are participles ... so you've actually mistranslated this verb in two very different ways.

I'm guessing that you don't know much about how participles work in NT Greek. They are not the same as English participles.

robinriley said:
That is, it's not good Greek to read ... "ho" ... the [one] {3588 T-NSM}
as the cobbled ..."him who" ...but it seems to be a somewhat common practice with all those translators that "all agree and are usually right"

It's common practice because that's what the Greek means.

robinriley said:
And, where my good fellow did the Greek noun "ἔργον" (2041, ergon, to~a~work, N-ASN} get to, in this Greek to English translation of yours ......"him who this thing has done"...

Both "deed," or "thing," or just "this" are good translations of ἔργον here, being the object of the verb πράξας (or ποιήσας).

robinriley said:
...the rather shallow and eclectic WH
read this as "ἀρθῇ, he should be lifted, 0142 V-APS-3S},
but the more accurate Byzantine reads it as "ἐξαρθῇ, he should be out-lifted {1808 V-APS-3S} ...
I suspect that WH didn't like the two "out" words next to each other ... "exarthE ek" ...

The older manuscripts have ἀρθῇ, but in context, ἐξαρθῇ and ἀρθῇ are synonymous, because of the ἐκ immediately following.

And, as I've said before, if you really plan on producing a better Bible translation than the ones we already have, you should learn some more Greek.

Radagast · May 17, 2020

Minister Monardo said:
CLV 1 Absolutely, it is heard that there is prostitution among you, and such prostitution (which is not even named among the nations), so that someone has his father's wife."

The word is πορνεία (inappropriate contenteia), from which we get "inappropriate contentography." The best translation is probably "sexual immorality" (CSB, CEB, ESV, NET, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, etc.) or "sexual sin" (GW, NCV, NIRV).

robinriley · May 17, 2020

5:1 holOs akouetai en humin inappropriate contenteia kai toiautE inappropriate contenteia
hEtis oude en tois ethnesin onomazetai hOste gunaika tina tou patros echein

(Minister Monardo)
CLV Absolutely, it is heard that there is prostitution among you, and such prostitution (which is not even named among the nations), so that someone has his father's wife."

I thought it was odd that CLV translated the verse this way, now maybe not. I don't see any other translation using prostitution here. Maybe they shared your suspicions...

(Radagast)
The word is πορνεία (inappropriate contenteia), from which we get "inappropriate contentography."
The best translation is probably "sexual immorality"
(CSB, CEB, ESV, NET, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, etc.) or "sexual sin" (GW, NCV, NIRV).

(Robin)
Consider the source, Minister Monardo ... may I call you James? ...
That is, this Greek authority from "down under" hasn't yet translated a single verse correctly,
so you shouldn't be hesitant to consider his "opinions" somewhat dubious ....

That is, there is no "sex" in the Greek word "inappropriate contenteia" ... nor is there any "immorality"
That is, the word is ... simply ... "fornication" ...

Have you noticed that he is no longer attempting to impress us with the Greek lettering ..."πορνεία"...
(it wasn't working; bought him no special credence)

Simply "fornication" ... Paul uses this word family ten times in his epistles (in five different forms) ...
4202 inappropriate contenteia (4) a~fornication N-NSF
4202 inappropriate contenteias (1) of~a~fornication N-GSF
4202 inappropriate contenteia (3) unto~a~fornication N-DSF
4202 inappropriate contenteian (1) to~a~fornication N-ASF
4202 inappropriate contenteias (1) to~fornications N-APF

That is, the so-called "best" translation is not "sexual immorality" ... it is, simply, fornication.

But ... but what is most notable, is that Radagast has yet to address ... any ... any ... of the questions and thoughts of others ... his is only, the tactic of attempting to skirt the issues.
That's "skirt" ... as in a "inappropriate contentographic" photo, perhaps?

Radagast · May 17, 2020

robinriley said:
That is, there is no "sex" in the Greek word "inappropriate contenteia" ... nor is there any "immorality"
That is, the word is ... simply ... "fornication" ...

As always, you claim to know more than the Bible-translators. According to Thayer's lexicon:

πορνεία, πορνείας, ἡ (πορνεύω), the Sept. for תַּזְנוּת, זְנוּת, זְנוּנִים, fornication (Vulg. fornicatio (and (Revelation 19:2) prostitutio)); used
a. properly, of illicit sexual intercourse in general (Demosthenes, 403, 27; 433, 25): Acts 15:20, 29; Acts 21:25 (that this meaning must be adopted in these passages will surprise no one who has learned from 1 Corinthians 6:12ff how leniently converts from among the heathen regarded this vice and how lightly they indulged in it; accordingly, all other interpretations of the term, such as of marriages within the prohibited degrees and the like, are to be rejected); Romans 1:29 Rec.; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 18; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Revelation 9:21; it is distinguished from μοιχεία in Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; and Galatians 5:19 Rec.; used of adultery ((cf. Hosea 2:2 (4), etc.)), Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9.
b. In accordance with a form of speech common in the O. T. and among the Jews which represents the close relationship existing between Jehovah and his people under the figure of a marriage (cf. Gesenius, Thesaurus, i., p. 422{a} following), πορνεία is used metaphorically of the worship of idols: Revelation 14:8; Revelation 17:2, 4; Revelation 18:3; Revelation 19:2; ἡμεῖς ἐκ πορνείας οὐ γεγεννήμεθα (we are not of a people given to idolatry), ἕνα πατέρα ἔχομεν τόν Θεόν, John 8:41 (ἄθεος μέν ὁ ἄγονος, πολύθεος δέ ὁ ἐκ πόρνης, τυφλωττων περί τόν ἀληθῆ πατέρα καί διά τοῦτο πολλούς ἀνθ' ἑνός γονεῖς αἰνιττόμενος, Philo de mig. Abr. § 12; τέκνα πορνείας, of idolaters, Hosea 1:2; (but in John, the passage cited others understand physical descent to be spoken of (cf. Meyer))); of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols, Revelation 2:21.

robinriley said:
That's "skirt" ... as in a "inappropriate contentographic" photo, perhaps?

OK. Now you're resorting to sexual innuendo. :wave:

robinriley · May 17, 2020

>(Robin)
Ahh, by your above choice of word "πράξας" {4238, praxas, V-AAP-NSM)
I see that you are a follower of Westcott and Hort (WH) ...

(Radagast)
I'm not using "Westcott and Hort," I'm using a more recent Greek text.

(Robin)
Actually, considering the confusing mismatch, you are not using any source very consistently.

(Radagast)
If you prefer the KJV, you can translate "he that hath done this deed"
or, following Greek word order more closely, "he that this deed hath done."

(Robin)
Ahh ... attempting to paint me as some "KJV Only" advocate,
only shows how "needy" you are to gain some foothold in credibility ...
It also shows that you don't really know what "Byzantine source texts" means ...
And you STILL haven't tumbled to the fact that the verb, here, is a participle ... for crying out loud!

(Radagast)
The verbs πράξας and ποιήσας used in different Greek texts are synonymous.
The key is that they are aorist nominative singular masculine participles.

(Robin)
The real ..."key" ... here is, that you think that God mumbles, and stumbles over His words!
That is, "πράξας" (#4238 praxas) ...and... "ποιήσας" (#4160 poiEsas)
are two different words, two different word families ... involving two differently nuanced meanings.
And the fact that you do not give God the credit for knowing how to use His own words, says a lot ...
And besides, you have ...yet... to rightly recognize that these are both "-ing" ending participles!

(Radagast)
I'm guessing that you don't know much about how participles work in NT Greek.
They are not the same as English participles.

(Robin)
And I'm guessing that your whole "game" is based on guessing ...

>(Robin)
That is, it's not good Greek to read ... "ho" ... the [one] {3588 T-NSM} as the cobbled ..."him who" ...

(Radagast)
It's common practice because that's what the Greek means.

(Robin)
That may be ... perhaps ... what the Greek means, but that is definitly NOT what the Greek says ...
That is, this word is ... simply ... the nominative, singular, masculine definte article ... there are 24 different variations of this definite article, and nary a one of them include the cobbled reading of "who"

3588 GK3836 ho (438) the [one/ One] T-NSM.01
3588 GK3836 tou (480) of~the [one/ One] T-GSM.02
3588 GK3836 tO (261) unto~the [one/ One] T-DSM.03
3588 GK3836 ton (237) to~the [one/ One] T-ASM.04
3588 GK3836 hoi (172) the [ones] T-NPM.05
3588 GK3836 tOn (126) of~the [ones] T-GPM.06
3588 GK3836 tois (126) unto~the [ones] T-DPM.07
3588 GK3836 tous (118) to~the [ones] T-APM.08
3588 GK3836 hE (290) the [one] T-NSF.09
3588 GK3836 tEs (383) of~the [one] T-GSF.10
3588 GK3836 tE (274) unto~the [one] T-DSF.11
3588 GK3836 tEn (345) to~the [one] T-ASF.12
3588 GK3836 hai (21) the [ones] T-NPF.13
3588 GK3836 tOn (37) of~the [ones] T-GPF.14
3588 GK3836 tais (50) unto~the [ones] T-DPF.15
3588 GK3836 tas (57) to~the [ones] T-APF.16
3588 GK3836 to (185) the [thing] T-NSN.17
3588 GK3836 tou (153) of~the [thing] T-GSN.18
3588 GK3836 tO (91) unto~the [thing] T-DSN.19
3588 GK3836 to (257) to~the [thing] T-ASN.20
3588 GK3836 ta (81) the [things] T-NPN.21
3588 GK3836 tOn (36) of~the [things] T-GPN.22
3588 GK3836 tois (48) unto~the [things] T-DPN.23
3588 GK3836 ta (173) to~the [things] T-APN.24

Come on, Radagast ...
Do you REALLY want to play this game of who knows the Pauline Greek best!
I'm not "playing" ... these are God's words, and best that you remember that.

>(Robin)
And, where did the Greek noun "ἔργον" (2041, ergon, to~a~work, N-ASN} get to, in this Greek to English translation of yours ......"him who this thing has done"...

(Radagast)
Both "deed," or "thing," or just "this" are good translations of ἔργον here,
being the object of the verb πράξας (or ποιήσας).

(Robin)
For those who might be following this ... the above statement is just plain ignorance!
The man is rambling incoherently ... or, at least ...he hasn't a clue about how to present his point.

τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο
ποιήσας

to ergon touto
poiEsas

to~the [thing] {3588 T-ASN} to~a~work {2041 N-ASN} to~this [thing] {3778 D-ASN}
having done {4160 V-AAP-NSM}

>(Robin)
...the rather shallow and eclectic WH read this as "ἀρθῇ, he should be lifted, 0142 V-APS-3S},
but the more accurate Byzantine reads it as "ἐξαρθῇ, he should be out-lifted {1808 V-APS-3S} ...

(Radagast)
The older manuscripts have ἀρθῇ, but in context, ἐξαρθῇ and ἀρθῇ are synonymous.

(Robin)
... That old ploy, the "older manuscripts" ...
Have you happened, Radagast, to have caught up on some of the newer discoveries about NT Greek?
That is the "newer" is now recognized as being just as old, if not older than the WH claimed Alexandrian.

I'd, at least suggest, that you read "The Case for Byzantine Priority," by Maurice Robinson (it's readily available on the internet) ...

Besides that ... that you think/ expose to those,not intellectually prepared to question your dribble, the drastic idea that God, Himself, does not use His words religiously ... well thought out ... That, you present this drastic view of God, Him not being ...able... to use his words in an intelligent and consistent manner ... Well, that says more about you, than it says about God.

(Radagast)
And, as I've said before, if you really plan on producing a better Bible translation
than the ones we already have, you should learn some more Greek.

(Robin)
And, dear fellow ... I've already said (and proved) enough about your ability in this arena ...
That you are unable to hear the knocking (a participle) at the door is God's doing ...
perhaps you should ask Him for some additional insight, or at least, some mercy!

Mr. M · May 17, 2020

robinriley said:
>(Robin)
Ahh, by your above choice of word "πράξας" {4238, praxas, V-AAP-NSM)
I see that you are a follower of Westcott and Hort (WH) ...

(Radagast)
I'm not using "Westcott and Hort," I'm using a more recent Greek text.

(Robin)
Actually, considering the confusing mismatch, you are not using any source very consistently.

(Radagast)
If you prefer the KJV, you can translate "he that hath done this deed"
or, following Greek word order more closely, "he that this deed hath done."

(Robin)
Ahh ... attempting to paint me as some "KJV Only" advocate,
only shows how "needy" you are to gain some foothold in credibility ...
It also shows that you don't really know what "Byzantine source texts" means ...
And you STILL haven't tumbled to the fact that the verb, here, is a participle ... for crying out loud!

(Radagast)
The verbs πράξας and ποιήσας used in different Greek texts are synonymous.
The key is that they are aorist nominative singular masculine participles.

(Robin)
The real ..."key" ... here is, that you think that God mumbles, and stumbles over His words!
That is, "πράξας" (#4238 praxas) ...and... "ποιήσας" (#4160 poiEsas)
are two different words, two different word families ... involving two differently nuanced meanings.
And the fact that you do not give God the credit for knowing how to use His own words, says a lot ...
And besides, you have ...yet... to rightly recognize that these are both "-ing" ending participles!

(Radagast)
I'm guessing that you don't know much about how participles work in NT Greek.
They are not the same as English participles.

(Robin)
And I'm guessing that your whole "game" is based on guessing ...

>(Robin)
That is, it's not good Greek to read ... "ho" ... the [one] {3588 T-NSM} as the cobbled ..."him who" ...

(Radagast)
It's common practice because that's what the Greek means.

(Robin)
That may be ... perhaps ... what the Greek means, but that is definitly NOT what the Greek says ...
That is, this word is ... simply ... the nominative, singular, masculine definte article ... there are 24 different variations of this definite article, and nary a one of them include the cobbled reading of "who"

3588 GK3836 ho (438) the [one/ One] T-NSM.01
3588 GK3836 tou (480) of~the [one/ One] T-GSM.02
3588 GK3836 tO (261) unto~the [one/ One] T-DSM.03
3588 GK3836 ton (237) to~the [one/ One] T-ASM.04
3588 GK3836 hoi (172) the [ones] T-NPM.05
3588 GK3836 tOn (126) of~the [ones] T-GPM.06
3588 GK3836 tois (126) unto~the [ones] T-DPM.07
3588 GK3836 tous (118) to~the [ones] T-APM.08
3588 GK3836 hE (290) the [one] T-NSF.09
3588 GK3836 tEs (383) of~the [one] T-GSF.10
3588 GK3836 tE (274) unto~the [one] T-DSF.11
3588 GK3836 tEn (345) to~the [one] T-ASF.12
3588 GK3836 hai (21) the [ones] T-NPF.13
3588 GK3836 tOn (37) of~the [ones] T-GPF.14
3588 GK3836 tais (50) unto~the [ones] T-DPF.15
3588 GK3836 tas (57) to~the [ones] T-APF.16
3588 GK3836 to (185) the [thing] T-NSN.17
3588 GK3836 tou (153) of~the [thing] T-GSN.18
3588 GK3836 tO (91) unto~the [thing] T-DSN.19
3588 GK3836 to (257) to~the [thing] T-ASN.20
3588 GK3836 ta (81) the [things] T-NPN.21
3588 GK3836 tOn (36) of~the [things] T-GPN.22
3588 GK3836 tois (48) unto~the [things] T-DPN.23
3588 GK3836 ta (173) to~the [things] T-APN.24

Come on, Radagast ...
Do you REALLY want to play this game of who knows the Pauline Greek best!
I'm not "playing" ... these are God's words, and best that you remember that.

>(Robin)
And, where did the Greek noun "ἔργον" (2041, ergon, to~a~work, N-ASN} get to, in this Greek to English translation of yours ......"him who this thing has done"...

(Radagast)
Both "deed," or "thing," or just "this" are good translations of ἔργον here,
being the object of the verb πράξας (or ποιήσας).

(Robin)
For those who might be following this ... the above statement is just plain ignorance!
The man is rambling incoherently ... or, at least ...he hasn't a clue about how to present his point.

τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο
ποιήσας

to ergon touto
poiEsas

to~the [thing] {3588 T-ASN} to~a~work {2041 N-ASN} to~this [thing] {3778 D-ASN}
having done {4160 V-AAP-NSM}

>(Robin)
...the rather shallow and eclectic WH read this as "ἀρθῇ, he should be lifted, 0142 V-APS-3S},
but the more accurate Byzantine reads it as "ἐξαρθῇ, he should be out-lifted {1808 V-APS-3S} ...

(Radagast)
The older manuscripts have ἀρθῇ, but in context, ἐξαρθῇ and ἀρθῇ are synonymous.

(Robin)
... That old ploy, the "older manuscripts" ...
Have you happened, Radagast, to have caught up on some of the newer discoveries about NT Greek?
That is the "newer" is now recognized as being just as old, if not older than the WH claimed Alexandrian.

I'd, at least suggest, that you read "The Case for Byzantine Priority," by Maurice Robinson (it's readily available on the internet) ...

Besides that ... that you think/ expose to those,not intellectually prepared to question your dribble, the drastic idea that God, Himself, does not use His words religiously ... well thought out ... That, you present this drastic view of God, Him not being ...able... to use his words in an intelligent and consistent manner ... Well, that says more about you, than it says about God.

(Radagast)
And, as I've said before, if you really plan on producing a better Bible translation
than the ones we already have, you should learn some more Greek.

(Robin)
And, dear fellow ... I've already said (and proved) enough about your ability in this arena ...
That you are unable to hear the knocking (a participle) at the door is God's doing ...
perhaps you should ask Him for some additional insight, or at least, some mercy!

A couple of other fresh thoughts....
One of the hallmarks of Paul's preaching was :
"God does not dwell in temples made with hands",
and "the gods who are no gods"
So this pagan, who would normally take his son to the fertility goddess temple to
have sex with a prostitute there, you know, to make sure he has a first born son who can sing...
Well, he comes up with a clever alternative in light of this new message.
Remember, the congregation was not the least bit shocked by his action. They were the ones
who were "inflated" over his new alternative sex initiative that avoided the pagan tradition.
The Corinthians make a inappropriate contento.

hedrick · May 17, 2020

While the details of Greek grammar can't be summarized by a single entry, when the question is meaning of a word, lexicons are useful, so I'm using TDNT. inappropriate contenteia was originally prostitution. However by the 1st Cent the meaning had broadened in Jewish usage to any illicit intercourse.

It could still be used in the more specific sense, but it's pretty clear that the instance of inappropriate contenteia that he had in mind was a man living with his father's wife, that would be the broader sense.

Radagast · May 17, 2020

hedrick said:
While the details of Greek grammar can't be summarized by a single entry, when the question is meaning of a word, lexicons are useful, so I'm using TDNT. inappropriate contenteia was originally prostitution. However by the 1st Cent the meaning had broadened in Jewish usage to any illicit intercourse.

That's right, originally the word was from πόρνη (inappropriate contentē), a prostitute. But the broader 1st Century meaning makes "sexual immorality" or "sexual sin" a good translation.

On the incident in question, Calvin says "It is not certain, whether he had seduced her from his father as a prostitute, or whether he kept her under pretense of marriage. This, however, does not much affect, the subject in hand; for, as in the former case, there would have been an abominable and execrable whoredom, so the latter would have involved an incestuous connection, abhorrent to all propriety and natural decency."

This relationship, presumably with the man's step-mother, was something even the Romans found disgusting (and their standards were not exactly high). St. Chrysostom suggests that with the words "his father's wife" Paul is emphasising the severity of the act, but it is more likely to be a reference to Leviticus 20:11 in the LXX (καὶ ἐάν τις κοιμηθῇ μετὰ γυναικὸς τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, ἀσχημοσύνην τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἀπεκάλυψε, θανάτῳ θανατούσθωσαν, ἀμφότεροι ἔνοχοί εἰσι = and if any one should lie with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness: let them both die the death, they are guilty).

Contra to what I said earlier about the aorist participle in verse 2, the present continuous infinitive ἔχειν (echein) = "has" in verse 1 probably implies an ongoing relationship with the step-mother. At least, that is what Anthony C. Thiselton argues on page 386 of his NIGTC commentary on the book (and ditto Craig L. Blomberg in his NIV application commentary, page 104).

pescador · May 17, 2020

If any of you reading this thread are translation experts please speak up. People who simply know what their lexicons tell about what one or two words mean are not qualified to do Bible translation. What does the word(s) mean in context? Where else is it found in Scripture? Is the word part of an idiom?

"It's raining cats and dogs!" "You're a barrel of laughs" "It's hot as hell today!" All English idioms that, if taken literally, are insane.

The same principle applies to Greek and Hebrew. If you don't understand what the words meant to the people of those societies, literally or figuratively, then you should not be translating for the rest of us.

Why do you think there are roughly 60,000 translators' notes in the NET Bible, many of which are alternative meanings of the words and/or explanations of what the text meant to the ancient people?

The son or the father?

Active Member

comes and goes

Senior Veteran

comes and goes

Active Member

comes and goes

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

comes and goes

comes and goes

Active Member

comes and goes

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

comes and goes

Wise old man

Similar threads