1 Samuel 1:5-- contradictory translations!

[John_Calvin]

Hmmm … this smacks of a science symposium I once went to at OSU back in my high-school days. I was elected moderator, and the question my group was to discuss was “How is the Pope like Hitler.”

Now, the statement “the translator is a traitor” is not a literal statement. It is a quip on the difficultly of translating language.
You aren’t trying to imply that the 70+ Jewish scholars who translated the Septuagint(LXX) before the time of Christ were actual traitors, are you?

Now, as “John Calvin”, I might expect you would think Jerome was a traitor… But then, why do the “reformed” tout him so often for translating from the Hebrew?

The problem with your answer, is that it sort of avoids the deeper question – the Hebrew people who maintained the text of the Massoretic version (the Hebrew version) – were anti-christian. Christianity was a Heresy to them.

Someone else has already responded regarding the Italian origin of that statement so I will let that pass. The statement simply attempts to call attention to the fact that, when anything is translated, it is impossible to convey all of the implications contained in the original in the translation. Words in one language do not map on a one to one basis to those in another. There is overlap in some cases. In other cases there is omission. Sometimes there are implications of certain words in one language which would absolutely be foreign to those in another. For this reason one cannot rely simply on a translation in any field whether that involves theology or animal husbandry.

BTW: Why do you use the handle Huiou Theou? Since both words are in the genitive we seem to be missing the nominative to which it refers. I would have expected Huios tou Theou (υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ).

As regards Hebrew being preferable, that follows from the fact that translations cannot contain everything without some alteration which is in the original. There is, however, another point to note. That is that the Hebrew texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls show a remarkable fidelity to the texts which have been handed down to us by the Massoretes. There are a few instances where some of the DSS texts seem to provide a Vorlage which would give rise to the LXX version, but for the most part they support the MT. There are also places in which the Samaritan Pentateuch is forshadowed by the DSS.

Yes, and a vowel is in there – um, what does that look like in the Hebrew Glyphs you used before?

I gave this before, but since you admit you don’t know Hebrew you probably didn’t realize what you were seeing. In Hebrew it is אפים

Hardly. Although it is true that the “law” was lost DURING the reign of the kings – it was none-the-less given by Moses just prior to entering the Promised land which is the time of the Judges.
Where exactly did this “loss” occur historically, or scriptural account?? And how do you know that this particular law, about inheritence, is only Deuteronomic (and a later addition to the law).
The torah, as eventually written down, was oral tradition at least partially memorized before the actual writing of it.

The “law” reflected in Deuteronomy was not “lost” for any long period of time. It simply did not exist. Deuteronomy is the only place where you will find a centralization of the cult in Jerusalem. This must be understood as a reaction to the establishment of a Yahwistic cult in Bethel
*
25 Then Jeroboam built Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and resided there; he went out from there and built Penuel. 26 Then Jeroboam said to himself, “Now the kingdom may well revert to the house of David. … 28 So the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold. He said to the people, “You have gone up to Jerusalem long enough. Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” 29 He set one in Bethel, and the other he put in Dan. *

The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (1 Ki 12:25-33). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Jerome does not belong exclusively to Roman Catholics. At that time the Roman Catholic Church had not yet evolved. You will find, if you trouble yourself to read Calvin, that he was well qualified in his knowledge of patristics. While I am largely Reformed in doctrine, I am an Anglican.

 

[jcrichton]

No, the Deuteronomic law was not known as is indicated by all accounts until the scroll containing Deuteronomy was “found” in the temple during the reign of Josiah who then proceeded to centralize the cult in Jerusalem in accordance with its provisions.

***Hi, John Calvin!

…form the Gospels, my understanding is that there existed two forms of Teachings: the Sacred Writings (Scrols) and the Oral Tradition (passed from father to son), would this not be inclusive of that particular time in Israel’s history? If so, would the Law not be adhered to by those of orthodoxy and their immediate family, friends, and acquaintances…?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hey huioi theou,
Where are you getting your Greek info from? The LXX from www.apostolicbible.com has the following:

and in greek font… that is:
και τ-η Ανν-α εδω-κ-ε μεριδα μιαν οτι ουκ ην αυτ-η
πλ-ην οτη τ-ην Ανν-αν ηγαπα Ελκανα `υπερ Πεννανν-αν και κθρι-ος απεκλεισε το περι τ-ην μητ-ρ-αν αυτ-ης

See my above posts… (hopefully I didn’t add typos transcribing your copy.) I add the dashes where I think I recognize (off the top of my head) the endings, particles, etc. So if I am making a mistake, it is easier for others to see where I have done so.

Where Annan is the accusative of Anna, i.e. the Septuagint states that Elkana loved Anna, not Anna loved Elkana as you state. The exception is not a ‘feminine exception’ either - the ‘thn’ is the article agreeing with Annan, it has nothing to do Anna having a feminine child.

Adrian

Adrian, the word for except is πλην (pl–hn this is the word which is used as an exception to a list. It does have the ην ending too – which makes it look like an accusative case word – although I don’t know that it actually is (I haven’t traced the origin yet) The entire phrase after ‘except’ appears to be in the accusative – if you check my post above, I did not parse `elkanah’s name for a possible ending. It’s a man’s name, so ending in -α would be quite odd in my experience. I am not sure the name is Greek yet – though it could be. So, I have no way of proving that the Accusative case of Annan, isn’t simply because she is meant to be part of the exception clause πλην.
I have not said that it is the only reading of the Greek – just that based on what I am seeing, another possibility exists.

When I have a situation like this, and the Greek does not use a definite article to show a proper name is the subject (elkanah) I use word order and look at other examples to find out what is common. More later … when I have some definite information to bring forward.

As to where I get my Greek – from all over the place. I collect it, and grammars as I come across them. My LXX has edits where I compare various versions I find in places where interesting tidbits come up. For example, I am making notes on this thread’s passage as we go – and noting things that I need to investigate further to absolutely prove the point one way or another.

I’ll keep you posted as I learn more.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

… when anything is translated, it is impossible to convey all of the implications contained in the original in the translation …

Yes, but then one could argue that what God said in his own internal language never made the translation into Hebrew perfectly either.

My problem is – who is the author of the translation – are all translations, then purely translating – or is it not possible for God to author his scriptures (inspire them) during translation too?
Or else, we have no truly inspired scripture…

BTW: Why do you use the handle Huiou Theou? Since both words are in the genitive we seem to be missing the nominative to which it refers. I would have expected Huios tou Theou (υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ).

Because I am not, the only (singular) son of God – but merely “of son of God” our brother, under our father. Also, I figure putting more than two words in the handle would confuse people more – it looks like a name to them as it is.
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction – If I used the handle “Andrew F. Robinson” would you believe it?
Sometimes, I just make the nominative Andrew – which if you know Greek, is a fun teaser. Andrew `υιου θεου.

Besides, I am not taken to seriously this way – if they think I am a Bozo – the arguments are honest. I have no intention of becoming an academic stuffed shirt like some of my teachers!

As regards Hebrew being preferable, that follows from the fact that translations cannot contain everything without some alteration which is in the original. There is, however, another point to note. That is that the Hebrew texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls show a remarkable fidelity to the texts which have been handed down to us by the Massoretes. There are a few instances where some of the DSS texts seem to provide a Vorlage which would give rise to the LXX version, but for the most part they support the MT. There are also places in which the Samaritan Pentateuch is forshadowed by the DSS.

That doesn’t surprise me – I wouldn’t expect the Hebrew’s to have wholesale corrupted the Masorah in order to torpedo the Christian Faith – but that they might have emphasized certain things whose meaning has changed. Eg: Language is not static – and without external sources to compare against, it is quite difficult to say the present day connotation of a word matches with the historical one.
The ‘young woman’ as opposed to the ‘virgin’ is typical of the messianic prophecy issue. Yes – young women are SUPPOSED to be virgins by implication, but the meaning has become obscured through time – The Greek is far clearer there, and says “parthenos” which is not a young girl, but a virgin. External witnesses to the common meaning of the word are plentiful.
I am not sure to what extent Hebrew is substantiated outside of the scriptures for the time of Jesus, etc.

I would also note, that in translating (especially if multiple translations exist in different languages) each of them provides a comparison point for the meaning. Between the various translations (especially early ones), some parts of scripture can be known with more certainty because ambiguities are emphasized in the translator’s difficulties – especially if the history and bias of the translators are known.

I like the Dead Sea scrolls, although their biases are somewhat of a mystery, However, I have discovered some things which have deepened my understanding of Christianity because of that non-mainstream Jewish (highly ritualized) sect. It isn’t the scriptural doctrines, but the attitude outside of scripture which is so valuable to me in understanding the common interpretation of words. This leads me to my favorite question, what is the “original” scripture, since God inspires the writer and preserves it somehow through the ages of ever changing slang…

 

[jcrichton]

BTW: Why do you use the handle Huiou Theou? Since both words are in the genitive we seem to be missing the nominative to which it refers. I would have expected Huios tou Theou (υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ).

***Hi, John Calvin!

…the name sounded familiar… but my thought is that, for the most part, people who frequent Bible sites are truly searching for God and that they wouldn’t willfully seek to desecrate Yahweh God.

Since the language is foreign to me, are you intimating that there is a valid reason why “tou” was omitted from Huiou Theou’s screen name? If so, what would this omission mean?

Maran atha!

Angel

PS: Never mind, I’ve just gotten to Huiou’s reply!***

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I gave this before, but since you admit you don’t know Hebrew you probably didn’t realize what you were seeing. In Hebrew it is אפים

Of course, Now that you have broken it out – I have an idea of what a dual looks like in Hebrew – before I wasn’t sure which part was which – so is the beginning of the word on the right EG the "א
"?

The “law” reflected in Deuteronomy was not “lost” for any long period of time. It simply did not exist. Deuteronomy is the only place where you will find a centralization of the cult in Jerusalem. This must be understood as a reaction to the establishment of a Yahwistic cult in Bethel

That’s a nice hypothesis – but must believe is pretty strong in this particular case. I am not very fond of historical critical analysis – I find laughable conclusions quite often. Although there may be historical credibility to the cult approach you are speaking of – it isn’t an open and shut case for many of the conclusions.

Jerome does not belong exclusively to Roman Catholics. At that time the Roman Catholic Church had not yet evolved. You will find, if you trouble yourself to read Calvin, that he was well qualified in his knowledge of patristics. While I am largely Reformed in doctrine, I am an Anglican.

That’s fine. I do not believe the Catholic church had not evolved – but as John Henry Newman put it – the doctrines had not fully developed. Some of these side issues need to be broken down into other threads, otherwise this one will become seriously cluttered, but I will continue to answer the tangents as long as we don’t go too far astray.

 

[John_Calvin]

Because I am not, the only (singular) son of God – but merely “of son of God” our brother, under our father. Also, I figure putting more than two words in the handle would confuse people more – it looks like a name to them as it is.
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction – If I used the handle “Andrew F. Robinson” would you believe it?
Sometimes, I just make the nominative Andrew – which if you know Greek, is a fun teaser. Andrew `υιου θεου.

Besides, I am not taken to seriously this way – if they think I am a Bozo – the arguments are honest. I have no intention of becoming an academic stuffed shirt like some of my teachers!

That makes no sense. I was a Greek major in college so don’t try to pull that one on me.

The ‘young woman’ as opposed to the ‘virgin’ is typical of the messianic prophecy issue. Yes – young women are SUPPOSED to be virgins by implication, but the meaning has become obscured through time – The Greek is far clearer there, and says “parthenos” which is not a young girl, but a virgin. External witnesses to the common meaning of the word are plentiful.
I am not sure to what extent Hebrew is substantiated outside of the scriptures for the time of Jesus, etc.

In Hebrew alma does not signify unequivocally a virgo intacta. Neither does παρθενος in Greek unequivocally signify such. In the Iliad we find

οἳ δ’ Ἀσπληδόνα ναι̂ον ἰδ’ Ὀρχομενὸν Μινύειον,
τῶν ἦρχ’ Ἀσκάλαφος καὶ Ἰάλμενος υἷες Ἄρηος
οὓς τέκεν Ἀστυόχη δόμῳ Ἄκτορος ᾽Αζεΐδαο,
παρθένος αἰδοίη ὑπερώϊον εἰσαναβᾶσα
Ἀρηϊ κρατερῷ·

which is translated by Samuel Butler Yeats as

Askalaphos and Ialmenos, sons of Ares, led the people that dwelt in Aspledon and Orkhomenos the realm of Minyas. Astyoche a noble maiden bore them in the house of Aktor son of Azeus

Obviously if she bore children to Ares then she was not a virgo intacta.

Further, if you read Is 7 you will see that the woman could not possibly have been understood as a virgin (unless you wish to confess more than one virgin birth) since this was to be a sign to Ahaz. A sign which is not seen by the person to whom it is intended to function as a sign is NO SIGN.

This is not to say that it is not the intention of the gospel to assert that Jesus was born of a virgo intacta, but this is evident from the rest of the passage where she states, πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω; or “How can this be since I have not had relations with a man?”

 

[adriancombe]

and in greek font… that is:
και τ-η Ανν-α εδω-κ-ε μεριδα μιαν οτι ουκ ην αυτ-η
πλ-ην οτη τ-ην Ανν-αν ηγαπα Ελκανα `υπερ Πεννανν-αν και κθρι-ος απεκλεισε το περι τ-ην μητ-ρ-αν αυτ-ης

See my above posts… (hopefully I didn’t add typos transcribing your copy.) I add the dashes where I think I recognize (off the top of my head) the endings, particles, etc. So if I am making a mistake, it is easier for others to see where I have done so.

Adrian, the word for except is πλην (pl–hn this is the word which is used as an exception to a list. It does have the ην ending too – which makes it look like an accusative case word – although I don’t know that it actually is (I haven’t traced the origin yet) The entire phrase after ‘except’ appears to be in the accusative – if you check my post above, I did not parse `elkanah’s name for a possible ending. It’s a man’s name, so ending in -α would be quite odd in my experience. I am not sure the name is Greek yet – though it could be. So, I have no way of proving that the Accusative case of Annan, isn’t simply because she is meant to be part of the exception clause πλην.
I have not said that it is the only reading of the Greek – just that based on what I am seeing, another possibility exists.

When I have a situation like this, and the Greek does not use a definite article to show a proper name is the subject (elkanah) I use word order and look at other examples to find out what is common. More later … when I have some definite information to bring forward.

As to where I get my Greek – from all over the place. I collect it, and grammars as I come across them. My LXX has edits where I compare various versions I find in places where interesting tidbits come up. For example, I am making notes on this thread’s passage as we go – and noting things that I need to investigate further to absolutely prove the point one way or another.

I’ll keep you posted as I learn more.

When you get a chance, let me know how you get that to show up in Greek font on here…

Plhn is non-declinable. It is not a feminine form. It is a conjunction, rather than a noun. (together with oti, in this sentence = ‘except that’).

The whole clause is not in the accusative. Elkana is not a Greek name, it is simply the transliteration of the Hebrew. Elkana is the subject of the sentence, the doer of the action ‘loved’ (hgapa). (You are right that Elkana is not declined by case in the LXX, as cf. 1 Sam 2:20 - but Elkana is still the subject.) Word order is frequently irrelevant in Greek subject object determination. The prime consideration is that the verb requires a subject, and Elkana is the only candidate available, because Anna got inflected (Annan).

I primarily use the interlinear Septuagint from www.apostolicbible.com and when in doubt I check it against www.blueletterbible.org concordance tools.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

That makes no sense. I was a Greek major in college so don’t try to pull that one on me.

Which thing makes makes no sense — my name, or the reason for using `υιου θεου?

In Hebrew alma does not signify unequivocally a virgo intacta. Neither does παρθενος in Greek unequivocally signify such. In the Iliad we find

οἳ δ’ Ἀσπληδόνα ναι̂ον ἰδ’ Ὀρχομενὸν Μινύειον,
τῶν ἦρχ’ Ἀσκάλαφος καὶ Ἰάλμενος υἷες Ἄρηος
οὓς τέκεν Ἀστυόχη δόμῳ Ἄκτορος ᾽Αζεΐδαο,
παρθένος αἰδοίη ὑπερώϊον εἰσαναβᾶσα
Ἀρηϊ κρατερῷ·

which is translated by Samuel Butler Yeats as

Askalaphos and Ialmenos, sons of Ares, led the people that dwelt in Aspledon and Orkhomenos the realm of Minyas. Astyoche a noble maiden bore them in the house of Aktor son of Azeus

Obviously if she bore children to Ares then she was not a virgo intacta.

I’m sorry, the font doesn’t show on my machine well because It doesn’t seem to be the universal utf-8.

But, What I see in the particular text you cite, there is no specific word saying the woman had sexual relations while being parthenos (I mean penetration). She was perhaps a virgin at one time – eg: the first wife of a man is allowed to keep the title in Greek and I think that appears on epitaphs – to indicate a woman was a first wife married to no other before her first husband.

But you see, the word when used explicitly in connection with sexuality – indicates a desirable quality of “purity”. There are whores called virgins because they have hymen that stretch rather than reveal that they have had relations – but the very reason the word is applied it that the appearance of virginity remains.
No doubt parthenos could sarcastically be used to relate to the temple prostitutes by some of the baser sorts. But, the true temple virgin was expected to REMAIN virgin on pain of death.
The bulk of the examples show this to be the case.

Now, as to the SIGN as proposed before – and some natural explanations:

A female who gives birth without a father in the real world usually has what is called a τερατομα / τερατογεν (if I spelled it right)-- in Greek it means a wonder (eg: a sign). Medically, this is usually a leg or hairballs or other weird things which come even out of a virgin womb. They happen all the time, but they are never Male to my knowledge. (eg: a female child like benign tumor)

Once the virgin has had a child, they are opened and not virgin by normal understanding (no longer intact). The wonder, is how a woman can become pregnant without sexual intercourse, and penetration of the hymen, in that day and age – and it could happen technically – so that they bring forth a male. Invitro fertilization is one such way. At the time, medical science wasn’t that advanced – but God certainly could have told the prophet how to place the seed, or have transferred the natural seed, without a man penetrating a woman. (Greek god’s seem to be able to do that too.)

However, that doesn’t mean the pregnancy was through sexual intercourse – and to the common person that could be a “wonderous” sign especially if one of the kings virgins became pregnant without any indication of how.

So, yes, it is possible Ahaz could have witnessed a virgin bring something to birth in the natural scheme of things in multiple ways. I think you have a limited imagination.

 

[John_Calvin]

Which thing makes makes no sense — my name, or the reason for using `υιου θεου?

I’m sorry, the font doesn’t show on my machine well because It doesn’t seem to be the universal utf-8.

But, What I see in the particular text you cite, there is no specific word saying the woman had sexual relations while being parthenos (I mean penetration). She was perhaps a virgin at one time – eg: the first wife of a man is allowed to keep the title in Greek and I think that appears on epitaphs – to indicate a woman was a first wife married to no other before her first husband.

But you see, the word when used explicitly in connection with sexuality – indicates a desirable quality of “purity”. There are whores called virgins because they have hymen that stretch rather than reveal that they have had relations – but the very reason the word is applied it that the appearance of virginity remains.
No doubt parthenos could sarcastically be used to relate to the temple prostitutes by some of the baser sorts. But, the true temple virgin was expected to REMAIN virgin on pain of death.
The bulk of the examples show this to be the case.

Now, as to the SIGN as proposed before – and some natural explanations:

A female who gives birth without a father in the real world usually has what is called a τερατομα / τερατογεν (if I spelled it right)-- in Greek it means a wonder (eg: a sign). Medically, this is usually a leg or hairballs or other weird things which come even out of a virgin womb. They happen all the time, but they are never Male to my knowledge. (eg: a female child like benign tumor)

Once the virgin has had a child, they are opened and not virgin by normal understanding (no longer intact). The wonder, is how a woman can become pregnant without sexual intercourse, and penetration of the hymen, in that day and age – and it could happen technically – so that they bring forth a male. Invitro fertilization is one such way. At the time, medical science wasn’t that advanced – but God certainly could have told the prophet how to place the seed, or have transferred the natural seed, without a man penetrating a woman. (Greek god’s seem to be able to do that too.)

However, that doesn’t mean the pregnancy was through sexual intercourse – and to the common person that could be a “wonderous” sign especially if one of the kings virgins became pregnant without any indication of how.

So, yes, it is possible Ahaz could have witnessed a virgin bring something to birth in the natural scheme of things in multiple ways. I think you have a limited imagination.

I can see that it is useless to attempt to speak reasonably with you. You will squirm and twist and attempt by any means possible to avoid the truth. I’m through with you.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I think I have admitted when I am wrong in the past, so I don’t see how you come to that conclusion. But fine, I was starting to enjoy the conversation.

If you really were a Greek major, you would have known that the Parthenon is where the word comes from – and it was FAMOUS for its temple virgins…

Now, I never claimed I was a Greek major, just someone checking the facts.

 

[jcrichton]

Quote:
Because I am not, the only (singular) son of God – but merely “of son of God” our brother, under our father. Also, I figure putting more than two words in the handle would confuse people more – it looks like a name to them as it is.
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction – If I used the handle “Andrew F. Robinson” would you believe it?
Sometimes, I just make the nominative Andrew – which if you know Greek, is a fun teaser. Andrew `υιου θεου.

Besides, I am not taken to seriously this way – if they think I am a Bozo – the arguments are honest. I have no intention of becoming an academic stuffed shirt like some of my teachers!

That makes no sense. I was a Greek major in college so don’t try to pull that one on me.

***Hi, John Calvin!

I posted earlier in reference to this very specific notation that you made…

I thought that it would be answered by Theou’s post but you seem to disagree with his explanation… this leads me to believe that you feel that there is something deeper going on than a simple omission of an article.

I have no knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, or Latin so please understand that I am not being difficult.

It simply occurred to me that on this site anyone can join using any type of screen name… I’ve even asked a member to drop the particular name which was being used (Apocalypse 9:11)… I believe that the administration should use stricter policies and that if a member realizes that a screen name is blasphemous they should bring it to light (in an amicable manner) so that the user may change the screen name. If there is persistance in such behavior then the administration should be made aware of the infraction and offer the option to change the name or terminate the membership.

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

Because I am not, the only (singular) son of God – but merely “of son of God” our brother, under our father. Also, I figure putting more than two words in the handle would confuse people more – it looks like a name to them as it is.
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction – If I used the handle “Andrew F. Robinson” would you believe it?
Sometimes, I just make the nominative Andrew – which if you know Greek, is a fun teaser. Andrew `υιου θεου.

Besides, I am not taken to seriously this way – if they think I am a Bozo – the arguments are honest. I have no intention of becoming an academic stuffed shirt like some of my teachers!

***Hi, Huiou Theou!

I ran into the query by John Calvin and posted him my concern:

Hi, John Calvin!

…the name sounded familiar… but my thought is that, for the most part, people who frequent Bible sites are truly searching for God and that they wouldn’t willfully seek to desecrate Yahweh God.

Since the language is foreign to me, are you intimating that there is a valid reason why “tou” was omitted from Huiou Theou’s screen name? If so, what would this omission mean?

Maran atha!

Angel

PS: Never mind, I’ve just gotten to Huiou’s reply!

---

…as soon as I finished posting I saw your reply and added the PS…

…yet, when returning to the topic I found the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Calvin

BTW: Why do you use the handle Huiou Theou? Since both words are in the genitive we seem to be missing the nominative to which it refers. I would have expected Huios tou Theou (υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ).

…so I reposted John Calvin asking him for further clarification… I’m not nit-picking, could you please clarify:

Is there more to the use of this particular screen name or is it just simple misunderstanding?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Huiou_Theou]

When you get a chance, let me know how you get that to show up in Greek font on here…

Plhn is non-declinable. It is not a feminine form. It is a conjunction, rather than a noun. (together with oti, in this sentence = ‘except that’).

Yes, I kind of figured that was the case – but I wasn’t sure.
That’s why I didn’t decline it in the original example, but did when I explained my reservation.

I get the Greek fonts by adding Greek polytonic to my (name removed by moderator)ut methods under OS-X open international. On the PC, I am not sure how it works – but you can try cut and pasting.
Under Linux there is the x-windows keyboard driver which can let you enter Greek too – although it has been a while since I used that one.

πλην is normally followed by the genitive, and dative, in the few examples I have seen – so this phrase is unusual in that it has no genitives at all. I suppose that is because ‘οτι’ follows πλην.

The whole clause is not in the accusative. Elkana is not a Greek name, it is simply the transliteration of the Hebrew. Elkana is the subject of the sentence, the doer of the action ‘loved’ (hgapa). (You are right that Elkana is not declined by case in the LXX, as cf. 1 Sam 2:20 - but Elkana is still the subject.) Word order is frequently irrelevant in Greek subject object determination. The prime consideration is that the verb requires a subject, and Elkana is the only candidate available, because Anna got inflected (Annan).

I primarily use the interlinear Septuagint from www.apostolicbible.com and when in doubt I check it against www.blueletterbible.org concordance tools.

Thanks for the links. I’ll have to peek at those – but part of the challenge for me is to actually verify things by other examples.
So, let’s peek at a few πλην οτι constructions:

See Deut: 2:28. … και πιο-μαι πλην οτι παρελευ-σ-ο-μαι (FutMid) τ-οις πο-σι-ν

Ok, here again is πλην οτι followed by: I-will-pass-through/FutMid The/D,Pl feet/(Old style D,Pl).

the exception is to paying – so let me walk without paying, although for food and water I do pay in silver. It still fits the exception usage… and the subject is implied, not explicit.

Ok, how about –
1Samu 8:9 … πλην οτι διαμαρτυρ-ο-μεν-ος διαμαρτυρ-η αυτ-οις

crudely:
listen to the sound/voice of them
… except that witnessing/protesting/Ns [you]-shall-teach to-them/Dp

So the reversal happens again, listen to sound becomes witnessing to-them

There is no explicit subject here either… Just a reversal.

hmmm…

I’ll have to look some more, your argument is tempting – but it would seem that the reversal of the listed item is consistent and the verb typically implies the subject from before the except.
It is odd, that since `ελκανα is assumed not inflected, that the Greek author didn’t put a definite article before it in the texts I have seen. I’ll have to check that out too. But there may be a way that it works with an implied subject…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

***Hi, Huiou Theou!

I ran into the query by John Calvin and posted him my concern:

…as soon as I finished posting I saw your reply and added the PS…

…yet, when returning to the topic I found the following:

…so I reposted John Calvin asking him for further clarification… I’m not nit-picking, could you please clarify:

Is there more to the use of this particular screen name or is it just simple misunderstanding?

Maran atha!

Angel***

If there is more to it, I don’t know. From the Old Testament books, sequences of Genitives do occur as lists of attributes.
The genitive means the one something belongs to.
Huiou – means I belong to a son. Theou means I belong to a God. It was nothing more than that in my choice of words.

Has someone found something objectionable that I am unaware of?

And to be complete, Andrew, means manly in Greek.
It comes from ανδρος the word for a male kind of man.

 

[John_Calvin]

***Hi, John Calvin!

I posted earlier in reference to this very specific notation that you made…

I thought that it would be answered by Theou’s post but you seem to disagree with his explanation… this leads me to believe that you feel that there is something deeper going on than a simple omission of an article.

I have no knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, or Latin so please understand that I am not being difficult.

It simply occurred to me that on this site anyone can join using any type of screen name… I’ve even asked a member to drop the particular name which was being used (Apocalypse 9:11)… I believe that the administration should use stricter policies and that if a member realizes that a screen name is blasphemous they should bring it to light (in an amicable manner) so that the user may change the screen name. If there is persistance in such behavior then the administration should be made aware of the infraction and offer the option to change the name or terminate the membership.

Maran atha!

Angel***

Other than the fact that having both Huiou and Theou in the genitive makes no sense and reveals a lack of knowledge of Greek, I have no objection to his screen name. It was his attempt to attach a meaning to his use of the genitive for Huios which it cannot bear that I found unacceptable. I’m not at all sure that he understands Greek.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Other than the fact that having both Huiou and Theou in the genitive makes no sense and reveals a lack of knowledge of Greek, I have no objection to his screen name. It was his attempt to attach a meaning to his use of the genitive for Huios which it cannot bear that I found unacceptable. I’m not at all sure that he understands Greek.

Well, John, are you trying to say that the two words never appear next to each other in real Greek?

Mark 1:1 αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου υιου θεου]

Roman 1:4 του ορισθεντος υιου θεου εν δυναμει κατα πνευμα αγιωσυνης εξ αναστασεως νεκρων ιησου χριστου του κυριου ημων

Or are you trying to say, the the genitive does not mean ‘of’.
Or that even in modern Greek, one can’t start a new idea with a capital letter?

Or are you implying that `υιου θεου is only used of one Person whom is called Jesus Christ? – of whom said – Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?

And that this use is fixed magically in Greek Grammar with no ambiguity?

Please, do tell, what is the problem with my screen name other than it being a fragment of a sentence, and not the whole thought?

It doesn’t matter to me, I know why I chose it.

 

[John_Calvin]

Well, John, are you trying to say that the two words never appear next to each other in real Greek?

Mark 1:1 αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου υιου θεου]

Roman 1:4 του ορισθεντος υιου θεου εν δυναμει κατα πνευμα αγιωσυνης εξ αναστασεως νεκρων ιησου χριστου του κυριου ημων

Or are you trying to say, the the genitive does not mean ‘of’.
Or that even in modern Greek, one can’t start a new idea with a capital letter?

Or are you implying that `υιου θεου is only used of one Person whom is called Jesus Christ? – of whom said – Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?

And that this use is fixed magically in Greek Grammar with no ambiguity?

Please, do tell, what is the problem with my screen name other than it being a fragment of a sentence, and not the whole thought?

It doesn’t matter to me, I know why I chose it.

You need to be aware of the reason that υἱοῦ appears in the genitive. It does not normally appear in the genitive with θεοῦ also in the genitive. In this passage it appears thus because it is in apposition with Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ which is in the genitive as being either the one concerning whom the gospel deals or the “owner” of the gospel. It would not normally share the genitive case with θεοῦ.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

And yet, even a 30 second search of modern Greek pages can come up with another counter example.

orthodoxia.gr/show.cfm?id=414&obcatid=3&questionID=15&AnswerID=50& - 78k -

Where on this page appears:

… Η ενσάρκωση του Υιού Θεού είναι η σαρκωμένη αγάπη του Θεού προς τον άνθρωπο.

of course this is a modern orthodox web page – and a modern Greek speaker – and he is speaking of belonging to THE son of God, so the definite article του is used (in the genitive too).

Which is quite clearly the capitalized Υιου Θεου minus one rough breathing mark “of-THE son of-God”

Google search this page and hit the Translate button – I appear to be in good company with Google.

I just left the definite article off, because I am not THE son of God – just A son of God.

Andrew υιος θεος.

Now, considering there are only two instances of this word combination “υιου θεου” in the entire bible – your statistics are rather easy to come by. It isn’t a common usage of that combination of words – yes – so making up technical statistic points is easy to do when limited to this particular combination of words. (Most copies of it will be a biblical reference to the two passages already cited.)

But if your statistics are right, fine, one technical point to you.
By the way, Andrew is an English derivative and is not declined here . I could add a definite article should I wish to be less ambiguous, but I don’t see the point.

Do you see anything wrong with the Greek arguments about samuel 1:5 that you can actually prove? eg: do you have an opinion about the right way to translate that passage, and why?

 

[John_Calvin]

And yet, even a 30 second search of modern Greek pages can come up with another counter example.

orthodoxia.gr/show.cfm?id=414&obcatid=3&questionID=15&AnswerID=50& - 78k -

Where on this page appears:

of course this is a modern orthodox web page – and a modern Greek speaker – and he is speaking of belonging to THE son of God, so the definite article του is used (in the genitive too).

Which is quite clearly the capitalized Υιου Θεου minus one rough breathing mark “of-THE son of-God”

Google search this page and hit the Translate button – I appear to be in good company with Google.

There is no rough breathing in modern Greek. There is also no acute, grave or circumflex accents – only the tonos. I assume you are speaking of the sentence Άπειρη η Αγάπη του Θεού δια της Θείας ενανθρωπήσεως του Υιού Θεού. Here it speaks of the Son of God becoming man. As such it speak of the “taking on of manhood OF the Son of God.” Here Υιού is genitive because it is a genitive of agent. Cf. Jn 6.45 ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τοῖς προφήταις· καὶ ἔσονται πάντες διδακτοὶ θεοῦ· πᾶς ὁ ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μαθὼν ἔρχεται πρὸς ἐμέ. Here the one who is teaching is God who is put in the genitive as the agent.

I just left the definite article off, because I am not THE son of God – just A son of God.

Andrew υιος θεος.

I have a quarrel with this. This is not the way it should be written. You should write υιος του θεου with God in the genitive and making God definite while not indicating that you are the only son of God. Actually, while Greek had a definite article, it did not have an indefinite article. In the Apocalypse this is solved by use of the numeral εἷς as in Re 8.13 Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἀετοῦ πετομένου ἐν μεσουρανήματι λέγοντος φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· οὐαὶ οὐαὶ οὐαὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν φωνῶν τῆς σάλπιγγος τῶν τριῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν μελλόντων σαλπίζειν. Literally this is "I saw and heard one eagle … but is best translated as "I saw and heard an eagle …

By the way, Andrew is an English derivative and is not declined here. I could add a definite article should I wish to be less ambiguous, but I don’t see the point.

Yes, I am aware of the origin of the name Andrew. See
Mt 4.18; 10.2
Mk 1.16, 29; 3.18; 13.3
Lk 6.14
Jn 1.40, 44; 6.8; 12.22

Do you see anything wrong with the Greek arguments about samuel 1:5 that you can actually prove? eg: do you have an opinion about the right way to translate that passage, and why?

Yes, what is wrong is that it removes the ambiguity. This may, however, need to be given through a footnote rather than a translation. The Hebrew אפּים is something of an unknown factor so that it is difficult to be certain what is meant. To appear to know precisely what it intends is to overstate the case.