What is Reddit's opinion of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

It would help, yes. From what I know Modern/Demotic Greek despite being 2000 years removed from Koine retains a lot of the same vocabulary and grammar. I assume that's largely thanks to regular reading and study of the Bible and other important Greek works.

But learning Modern Greek is a huge undertaking. It would be a ton of effort, more than learning Koine. I would only recommend it if you can move to Greece for total immersion. Otherwise those efforts are better spent studying Koine.

I'd recommend buying an Intermediate Grammar. Online resources are of various quality and use. This one is amazing. Extremely thorough.

>I assume that you're translating from the same manuscripts of which the Concordant Literal does (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus) - is that correct?

I'm translating from NA27, which takes into account the "big 4" (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Ephraemi) as well as the thousands of other extant Greek NT manuscripts. And I always keep Metzger's Textual Commentary right behind me on my bookshelf.

>Ephesians 1:1

Sure, P^(46), Aleph, B, 424, and 1739 leave it out. But every other extant manuscript at the time Metzger wrote his commentary has it in. Several quotations by early writers also do not have it. So, sure, it might be an encyclical. Tradition says it's to Ephesus. Tons of manuscripts have it in. It's an either or. So I'd go with what the NA27 concludes: leave it in, put it in brackets, add a footnote.

>Ephesians 1:3

The relative clause in question is:

• ο ευλογησας ημας εν παση ευλογια πνευματικη εν τοις επουρανιοις εν Χριστω
• the [one-who-is-]blessing us in every blessing spiritual in the heavenlies in Christ

The preposition εν is... well it's an extremely versatile word. Here's Wallace's description:

>᾽Εν is the workhorse of prepositions in the NT, occurring more frequently and in more varied situations than any other. It overlaps with the simple dative uses to a great extent, but not entirely. The following categories are for the most part painted with broad strokes.
>
>1. Spatial/Sphere: in (and various other translations)
>
>2. Temporal: in, within, when, while, during
>
>3. Association (often close personal relationship): with
>
>4. Cause: because of
>
>5. Instrumental: by, with
>
>6. Reference/Respect: with respect to/with reference to
>
>7. Manner: with
>
>8. Thing Possessed: with (in the sense of which possesses)
>
>9. Standard (=Dative of Rule): according to the standard of
>
>10. As an equivalent for εἰς (with verbs of motion)

So... it can do a lot lol. That said, the word επουρανιοις is one of those Greek words where they stick a preposition on the front of it to give it a new connotation. The word ουρανος is the word typically translated "heaven," and the preposition επι is "on/upon/near" and a host of other ideas. So it's referring to heaven, but with a nuance.

It was used in 2 and 3 Maccabees in reference to "God in heaven," and in Psalm 67:14/15 in the LXX as a translation for the title of God שַׁדַּי, "Almighty." The only place outside of Paul it's used in the New Testament is when Jesus uses it in John 3:12: "If I have told you people about επιγεια/earthlies/earthly things and you don't believe, how will you believe if I tell you about επουρανια/heavenlies/heavenly things?"

All that to say: I don't think "among the celestials" captures the intent here. Celestials brings a lot of connotation that doesn't seem to be there originally. When I see "celestials" I also include in that category things like "angels" as well. I'm just not sure it's a useful translation, precisely because of the new ideas it can introduce.

Probably the best translation would be "in the heavenly places." But honestly, if I were translating this into my own style of speech, I think this conveys what Paul was trying to get across: "who blessed us in Christ with every blessing known to God!"

>A final point - the CLV deals fairly with the various words traditionally translated to "hell" (Gehenna, Hades and Tartarus).

I do appreciate the transliterations. And I do think it is more beneficial to transliterate the names of these places today, because it raises questions of what is meant by referencing these locations.

But at the same time I recognize that what is meant by referencing these locations is very often "the opposite of heaven." Yes, Gehenna was a pit outside Jerusalem where dead bodies were disposed of, which required constant fires to prevent the putrefaction from overcoming the area. But when someone uses this place to reference whatever the opposite of heaven is, that person probably isn't referring to the concrete Gehenna outside Jerusalem. They're talking about some form of post-mortem judgment that's... unpleasant, to say the least. Not permanent, mind you, but very unpleasant.

>the only One who can clear things up is not currently answering questions!

I'm not saying that you're doing this, but it comes off as slightly contradictory to me to profess that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God etc., and yet feel the need to clarify the ambiguous statements therein. Yes, God is the one who could clarify all the ambiguity... but he put it there to begin with. Maybe he wants it to be ambiguous? Just random thoughts nobody asked for :D

>Looking to other translations when curiosity arises has benefited me but this practice has also trapped me in unnecessary rabbit holes with no clear conclusion. Any tips?

Well, there's always r/AskBibleScholars. I'm a (very infrequent) contributor there, but I'm happy to answer questions, as are a host of others. Beyond that, when comparing translations, keep track of a few things:

1. What the translation is doing: word-for-word? thought-for-thought? mix?
2. Put the WfW translations in a group, and the TfT translations in another group.
3. See what concept the TfT translations are trying to convey.
4. Pair that concept up with the words used in the WfW translations.
5. A pattern of word-concept association should pop out. That's probably closest you'll get to the Greek without learning the Greek.

In the case of Ephesians 1:3 for example, I haven't seen one translation so far that I've checked out during this reply that conveys something besides heaven as a place-concept. Even the Message and the Amplified versions translate it as heaven-as-a-place! So you very likely won't lose any theological substance from reading it as heaven-as-a-place. And now, having looked at the Greek, I can confirm that is the case.

Edit: one more thing to keep in mind: language is just a vehicle for transmitting concepts and ideas. I can say or do anything in the world, but as long as I've gotten my concepts to you, and you've understood them, we've used a language effectively, even if that language is one we invented, and even if it primarily uses farts to transmit the concepts. Still a language.

>There isn’t only one God. The Bible teaches that, while there are many gods out there in the universe (it would be difficult for the Father to be the God of gods if there were no other gods out there to be the God of), there is only one Almighty God (who created all the other gods), who has no equals or co-equals.

There is only one God. The Bible teaches that, ontologically, there is only one God who is definitionally divine. Other so-called "gods" are references to something sub-divine, something either non-existant, or otherwise a demon.

>(Please note the presence of the definite article before the first instance of the word “God” there, but the lack of it before the second instance, which I see as an important distinction that most translations ignore.)

You are right to note the anarthrous θεος in John 1:1c. There is a rather simple syntactical reason for this, behind which there is a complex discussion of the significance of the absence of the article.

In the first place, in a Subject-Predicate Nominative (S-PN) construction, the subject will be identified in one of three ways: 1) The subject will be a pronoun, 2) The subject will be articular, or 3) The subject will be a proper name. In the case of John 1:1c is identified using point 2; ο λογος is articular, therefore it is the subject.

In the second case, with regards to the significance of the absence of the article, I'll quote Wallace at length. The question at hand is, "Is the anarthrous θεος in John 1:1c indefinite, definite, or qualitative?" The following excerpt is from Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, page 269.

>The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammat­ically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nomi­natives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ . . . θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But θεός was his nature from eternity (hence, εἰμί is used), while σάρξ was added at the incarnation (hence, γίνομαι is used).
>
>Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with ref­erence to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be mis­leading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.

Now I want to return to the discussion of the first ecumenical council. Quickly, I want to say that the article by Aaron Welch you linked in another reply is, frankly, nothing more than a verbose claim that "The majority of 'church' isn't the true church because they don't believe what I believe." It hinges on reinterpretation of what Paul considered the truth, and comes to unnecessarily extreme exclusionary conclusions.

But returning to your reply, I think you've made a rather interesting statement which I want to address.

>So it came down to what the majority at the time believed. Which is okay if that’s what happened. It just happened that the majority didn’t believe what Scripture teaches (at least according to my understanding of Scripture). This wasn’t unusual, though.

One, it is what happened. What the majority believed at the time is what fueled the visceral reaction against Arius' teaching.

But the bigger issue at hand is your claims that, 1) the majority didn't believe what Scripture teaches, and 2) this wasn't unusual.

As for 1, if we are to understand that those with the correct interpretation are guided to such by the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit will be evident in a person's life by the kinds of fruits that they bear, then it should be without question that the attendants at this council had the correct interpretation of Scripture, because they had just endured a persecution and remained faithful. As church historian Justo González puts it, "In order to see [the council] from the perspective of those who were there, it is necessary to remember that several of those attending the great assembly had recently been imprisoned, tortured, or exiled, and that some bore on their bodies the physical marks of their faithfulness." If you wish to pursue the line of reasoning that these men did not have the correct interpretation of scripture, then you must assume their faith was misplaced, and in so doing you sever the link between the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the fruits of the Spirit, which not only contradicts Scripture but leaves us groping in the dark when it comes to identifying godliness and truth.

As for 2, my simple reply would be, "Where is the evidence for this claim?" Such a blanket statement, that it is not unusual for the majority to not believe what Scripture teaches, probably needs some qualification on your part. I grant that the majority of the world might not believe in a correct interpretation of Scripture, but that is because they do not believe in Scripture. Within the context of the church, with regards to the orthodoxy laid out in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, how do you support the claim that it is not unusual for the majority to not believe what Scripture teaches?

Here, I'll refer to Wallace (pages 266-267):

>► 6. Application of Colwell’s Construction to John 1:1John 1:1 states: ᾽Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. In the last part of the verse, the clause καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1c), θεός is the PN. It is anarthrous and comes before the verb. Therefore, it fits Colwell’s construction, though it might not fit the rule (for the rule states that definiteness is determined or indicated by the context, not by the grammar). Whether it is indefinite, qualitative, or definite is the issue at hand.
>
>c. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Qualitative? The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammat­ically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nomi­natives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ . . . θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But θεός was his nature from eternity (hence, εἰμί is used), while σάρξ was added at the incarnation (hence, γίνομαι is used).Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with ref­erence to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be mis­leading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.