1 Samuel 1:5-- contradictory translations!

[Huiou_Theou]

There is no rough breathing in modern Greek. There is also no acute, grave or circumflex accents – only the tonos.

Great, and my point was that it doesn’t have the rough breathing mark which my title does have. -->H<-- uiou

I assume you are speaking of the sentence…

Yes, that is why I quoted it and capitalized Υιου θεου, it was as explicit as I could make it without painting signs or something.

As such it speak of the “taking on of manhood OF the Son of God.”

Yes, very good, but “OF the Son of God is exactly how I translated it.” so what difference does the rest of the sentence make? I have already admitted my handle is a sentence fragment.

Here Υιού is genitive because it is a genitive of agent.

There are a myriad of genitive, or ablative of, or … ways of describing things. Depending on the particular Grammar you subscribe to, and the point you wish to make, BUT my point is – it still uses both words in the Genitive and it capitalizes them, even.

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.

Yes, the teaching is of-God. But the extra big grammar words don’t help any. If the reader knows θεου is “of God” they already knew the teaching was “of God”. So, what? God’s my agent.

John 6:45
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

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.

Yes, your quarrel is obvious. But, the Greek example sentence I just quoted did not use “του” to speak of a defnitie God anyway. It just said “Υιου Θεου” NOW while I agree that He could have written Υυιου ΤΟΥ θεου to talk about a defnite God – the author of the page did not do so. He was more interested in talking about “the” Son – and everyone knows which God was meant, (except you perhaps?)

God is “a God” as well as “THE God” as well as just “God”

Yes, what is wrong is that it removes the ambiguity. This may, however, need to be given through a footnote rather than a translation.

I don’t mind the ambiguity, otherwise I wouldn’t be having any fun. However, perhaps I will ask the moderator about adding a footnote to my title – a disclaimer of sorts. Or perhaps you ought to – you seem to be quite the motivator, and somehow I bet you have more pull around here – that stuffed shirt syndrome thing.

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.

Well, then, I guess you can give up now.

 

[jcrichton]

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.

***Hi, Huiou Theou!

Thanks for the additional clarification…

Since the language is foreign to me I simply wanted to know if there was a deeper meaning…

…so you’re a manly man, heh!?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Huiou_Theou]

 

[jcrichton]

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.

***Hi, John Calvin!

Thanks for the clarification…

…since, at least in English and Spanish, a play on words can render an opposite meaning to them I wasn’t sure if you were speaking on such terms…

…so it seems that I was worrying about something akin to poetic license…

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The prime consideration is that the verb requires a subject, and Elkana is the only candidate available, because Anna got inflected (Annan).

In the new testament, αγαπ-α -αν -ας is a consistent poetic verb for ‘love’ as used by St. John, but the Septuagint texts I have looked at show quite a few discrepancies, which make it look more like an abused adjective – if you could, would you check for example: Tobit 4:13 in your interlinears, and post what you see. I’m not sure the version I saw is accurate – but it is this line in English: “Therefore, my son, love your kinsmen …”

Tobit 4:13 … νυν παιδιον αγαπα τους αδελφους σου

I don’t have a working link for this clip – but it was credited to UPENN I think, although it was cached.

 

[John_Calvin]

In the new testament, αγαπ-α -αν -ας is a consistent poetic verb for ‘love’ as used by St. John, but the Septuagint texts I have looked at show quite a few discrepancies, which make it look more like an abused adjective – if you could, would you check for example: Tobit 4:13 in your interlinears, and post what you see. I’m not sure the version I saw is accurate – but it is this line in English: “Therefore, my son, love your kinsmen …”

Tobit 4:13 … νυν παιδιον αγαπα τους αδελφους σου

I don’t have a working link for this clip – but it was credited to UPENN I think, although it was cached.

The verse is as follows:

13 καὶ νῦν, παιδίον, ἀγάπα τοὺς ἀδελφούς σου καὶ μὴ ὑπερηφανεύου τῇ καρδίᾳ σου ἀπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου καὶ τῶν υἱῶν καὶ θυγατέρων τοῦ λαοῦ σου λαβεῖν σεαυτῷ ἐξ αὐτῶν γυναῖκα, διότι ἐν τῇ ὑπερηφανίᾳ ἀπώλεια καὶ ἀκαταστασία πολλή, καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀχρειότητι ἐλάττωσις καὶ ἔνδεια μεγάλη, ἡ γὰρ ἀχρειότης μήτηρ ἐστὶν τοῦ λιμοῦ.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Excellent, John,
And I note in your copy there are all the breathing marks, commas, and other niceties which I don’t have. Is this the generic text for Tobit 13, or a special copy?

When I check Tischenorf’s photofaximilie for Tobit 4:13, the niceties are all missing (It’s all capital letters anyway) so that I wasn’t able to verify that codex (Sinaiticus) has the same sentence. So I don’t want to mislead anyone into thinking that this line from Tobit is universally attested to – I am not sure how common it is, and don’t have enough resources to prove it.

So – Ignoring the extra commas for a moment, I will simply note:

Tobit 4:13 … νυν παιδι-ον αγαπ-α τ-ους αδελφ-ους σ-ου

The endings are pretty explicit here.
παιδι-ον is masculine, although it could be neuter theoretically. But the word does refer to a “son” by context.

αγαπ-α is either feminine or neuter, if taken as an adjective. If we use the magic “poetic” grammars, the scholars would like us to think it is a verb in the 3rd person, imperfect, active. eg: he/she/it-had-kept-loving
(eg: Kalos Greek software…)

So, if pαιδι-ον were neuter & nominative( a subject) – this would agree with “child(it) had-kept-loving the brothers of you”

But if παιδι-ον is masculine (as is expected for a son), then it is an accusative (predicate word) and not a subject at all – and therefore not the subject of love. The same is true with respect to “τ-ους αδελφ-ους” which can only be in the masculine accusative (predicate).
So, this sentence fragment has no explicit subject – although the “οf-you” or “your brothers” – would seem to imply the subject was Second person (“you”). – which does not agree with αγαπ-α being a third person poetic verb.

Note, that word order (although a very weak argument, does appear to correctly identify the common translation, and I can’t justify the common translation on other grounds.)

But, I would note – that the context works either way. Love of brothers is supposed to be bi-directional among people of the same father. That is the point of the passage – to marry within the tribe.
This context also bears weight within 1 Samuel 1:5, as knowing who was within the tribe – and who is not would affect the true spouse, and may be a bigger consideration than an ambiguous grammar.

Food for thought.

 

[adriancombe]

αγαπ-α is either feminine or neuter, if taken as an adjective. If we use the magic “poetic” grammars, the scholars would like us to think it is a verb in the 3rd person, imperfect, active. eg: he/she/it-had-kept-loving
(eg: Kalos Greek software…)

Wow! I have never heard of an adjectival form of a verb unless it is a gerund or participle. In any rate, that is not the case here. αγαπ-α is 2nd pers. sing. present imperative active of agapaw. Also, the verb in the 1 Sam verse we started all this with (hgapa) is third person singular imperfect indicative active (not an adjective either).

Adrian

 

[John_Calvin]

Excellent, John,
And I note in your copy there are all the breathing marks, commas, and other niceties which I don’t have. Is this the generic text for Tobit 13, or a special copy?

When I check Tischenorf’s photofaximilie for Tobit 4:13, the niceties are all missing (It’s all capital letters anyway) so that I wasn’t able to verify that codex (Sinaiticus) has the same sentence. So I don’t want to mislead anyone into thinking that this line from Tobit is universally attested to – I am not sure how common it is, and don’t have enough resources to prove it.

So – Ignoring the extra commas for a moment, I will simply note:

Tobit 4:13 … νυν παιδι-ον αγαπ-α τ-ους αδελφ-ους σ-ου

The endings are pretty explicit here.
παιδι-ον is masculine, although it could be neuter theoretically. But the word does refer to a “son” by context.

αγαπ-α is either feminine or neuter, if taken as an adjective. If we use the magic “poetic” grammars, the scholars would like us to think it is a verb in the 3rd person, imperfect, active. eg: he/she/it-had-kept-loving
(eg: Kalos Greek software…)

So, if pαιδι-ον were neuter & nominative( a subject) – this would agree with “child(it) had-kept-loving the brothers of you”

But if παιδι-ον is masculine (as is expected for a son), then it is an accusative (predicate word) and not a subject at all – and therefore not the subject of love. The same is true with respect to “τ-ους αδελφ-ους” which can only be in the masculine accusative (predicate).
So, this sentence fragment has no explicit subject – although the “οf-you” or “your brothers” – would seem to imply the subject was Second person (“you”). – which does not agree with αγαπ-α being a third person poetic verb.

Note, that word order (although a very weak argument, does appear to correctly identify the common translation, and I can’t justify the common translation on other grounds.)

But, I would note – that the context works either way. Love of brothers is supposed to be bi-directional among people of the same father. That is the point of the passage – to marry within the tribe.
This context also bears weight within 1 Samuel 1:5, as knowing who was within the tribe – and who is not would affect the true spouse, and may be a bigger consideration than an ambiguous grammar.

Food for thought.

It is Rahlfs’ LXX text in the Logos format. Logos is quite faithful to the original (If there is a mistake in the original, they won’t change it).

Παιδιον is neuter. It can be construed as either M or F, but if you look at τέκνον, which is a synonym, it is neuter. I would think that παιδιον would be construed in the same manner by analogy (Yes, that happens). It is the subject of the verb ἀγάπα (Well, sort of) which is an imperative. I say “sort of” since the subj of the impv is “you”, but παιδιον might be considered an appositive “You, child, …” It is a 2nd sg impv, not a 3rd impf. I don’t know where you got the notion that it is 3rd.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Wow! I have never heard of an adjectival form of a verb unless it is a gerund or participle. In any rate, that is not the case here. αγαπ-α is 2nd pers. sing. present imperative active of agapaw. Also, the verb in the 1 Sam verse we started all this with (hgapa) is third person singular imperfect indicative active (not an adjective either).

Adrian

The word I have in 1Sam is αγαπα not εγαπα or ηγαπα. It is the same word exactly as in Tobit 4:13 posted above.

The first comment I would have is that although αγαπ-αω is the dictionary entry you cite – It never shows up in any Greek text I have seen, especially NOT a biblical one, so it is a theoretical word as far as I know.

I didn’t say “an adjectival form of a verb” I said an “abused adjective”. As a side comment to the “gerund”, et.all, Have you ever thought of an adverb as sort of a verbal-adjective? It does modify the verb.
EG: “Slow-ly jump the cliff” – but I digress.

Are you familiar with conjugation of verbs and verb charts – or are you just looking at an online lexicon and believing everything you see? ( The “poetic” verb was the only possibility I have seen which MIGHT work. It was from a software lexicon which conjugates verbs rather knee-jerk like – it isn’t my own opinion, since I am uncomfortable classifying the verb – I am using examples to verify Grammars, not Grammars to interpret Greek. )

Here is a table of what the ending of the active Greek verb looks like:
The first column of endings is the “hypothetical” poetic endings from the software program (Kalon/Kalos), the second column is the standard present indicative endings easily found in any standard text. (The non Greek symbols are my notation and may be ignored)

1 -ω_ν -ω _
2 -α_ς -ει_ς
3 -α -ει_=ν
1p -ῶ_μεν -ο_μεν
2p -ᾶ_τε -ε_τε
3p -ω_ν -ου_σι=ν
2pd -ᾶ_τον -ε_τον
3pd -ᾶ_.την* -ε_την

• defunct, usually replaced by 2pd (you two).

The verb ἀγάπ-α only fits the third person singular indicative active (3 -α).
Only the 3rd person ending is α by itself.
And in both passages, 1Samuel 1:5 and Tobit 4:13 the verb ends in the identical letter: αγαπ-α

I find it hard to accept that the word is, as you say, a particular verb when it is spelled identically in both places, but has “different” meanings, and I don’t have other examples of verbs with the same endings ever doing the same – nor a reason why agapa (ἀγάπα) magically does this, when other words do not.
( I’m not saying you are wrong, but I have no way to check what you have said. )

In John Calvin’s conveniently marked version of Tobit – notice the word ends in -α not -ᾷ which is the attic form of the 2nd person future. So that eliminates all the attic endings I could have used – and basically leaves me with no choice but to study the word on its own merits no matter how silly that may seem.

The 2nd imperative looks like:
2 +±ε_ +±ου

So, you are saying that there is a vowel change when αε becomes α, and no contraction mark added? eg: ᾶ. If so, how do you derive the verb?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

It is Rahlfs’ LXX text in the Logos format. Logos is quite faithful to the original (If there is a mistake in the original, they won’t change it).

Παιδιον is neuter. It can be construed as either M or F, but if you look at

τέκνον, which is a synonym, it is neuter. I would think that παιδιον would be construed in the same manner by analogy (Yes, that happens). It is the subject of the verb

Well, I’m jealous, I blew my money to buy the Logos library from CA a few years back, and I didn’t get rahlf’s LXX – only the NA2x new testament. (And my wife wasn’t about to let me buy another CD at those prices).

Yes, the neuter idea occured to me – I am open to παιδιον being neuter, as that would allow it to be either nominative or accusative, although that still makes the standard translation look wrong. For, the author wrote the passage thinking of it in the Neuter where the translation treats it as Masculine. Also, since the context is marriage – it is odd, though, that the “son” should love brothers, rather than sisters. ( αδελφη )
In the neuter, child could also be a collective male or female, I would think. Whether that helps the interpretation is sort of a far tangent – But the derivation of the verb, or better yet – some examples of other words following the same paradigm would be greatly appreciated.

 

[John_Calvin]

Well, I’m jealous, I blew my money to buy the Logos library from CA a few years back, and I didn’t get rahlf’s LXX – only the NA2x new testament. (And my wife wasn’t about to let me buy another CD at those prices).

Yes, the neuter idea occured to me – I am open to παιδιον being neuter, as that would allow it to be either nominative or accusative, although that still makes the standard translation look wrong. For, the author wrote the passage thinking of it in the Neuter where the translation treats it as Masculine. Also, since the context is marriage – it is odd, though, that the “son” should love brothers, rather than sisters. ( αδελφη )
In the neuter, child could also be a collective male or female, I would think. Whether that helps the interpretation is sort of a far tangent – But the derivation of the verb, or better yet – some examples of other words following the same paradigm would be greatly appreciated.

LOL !! You need to remember that these texts were written long before the women’s liberation movement. The masc was generally used to include females as well. We still do that in English today although it is less prevalent than it was a few years ago. If you read the NRSV translation you will note that it uses “brothers and sisters” frequently when the masc ἀδελφός is used. The Declaration of Independence speaks of “all men” being created equal and this is generally understood as being all humans (Yes, I am aware that the distaff side didn’t get the vote for many years). I fail to see how understanding παιδίον as nom would contradict the standard translations. It seems correct to me.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

LOL !! You need to remember that these texts were written long before the women’s liberation movement. The masc was generally used to include females as well. We still do that in English today although it is less prevalent than it was a few years ago. If you read the NRSV translation you will note that it uses “brothers and sisters” frequently when the masc ἀδελφός is used. The Declaration of Independence speaks of “all men” being created equal and this is generally understood as being all humans (Yes, I am aware that the distaff side didn’t get the vote for many years). I fail to see how understanding παιδίον as nom would contradict the standard translations. It seems correct to me.

Because, in English, even before the Feminist movement saying “Son, love your brothers as wife” would be odd.
or again, “Son love your men as wife” would be odd.
The collective nature of the “men” including women isn’t usually applied to a specific instruction to a specific son concerning his wife. I find it far easier to believe that the father is not speaking to his son, specifically, as paidion παιδιον, but is rather addressing a general remark or law.

“Children love their men as wife”, would work because it is a general statement – eg: in the collective: it might mean something vaguely like “Israel love[you] your men as wife” etc. or some such variation. (I haven’t thought it through, it just occurs to me.)

 

[John_Calvin]

Because, in English, even before the Feminist movement saying “Son, love your brothers as wife” would be odd.
or again, “Son love your men as wife” would be odd.
The collective nature of the “men” including women isn’t usually applied to a specific instruction to a specific son concerning his wife. I find it far easier to believe that the father is not speaking to his son, specifically, as paidion παιδιον, but is rather addressing a general remark or law.

“Children love their men as wife”, would work because it is a general statement – eg: in the collective: it might mean something vaguely like “Israel love[you] your men as wife” etc. or some such variation. (I haven’t thought it through, it just occurs to me.)

Well, the RSV translates this as
So now, my son, love your brethren …
which is a somewhat antiquated term applicable to both males and females. The NRSV renders
So now, my son, love your kindred
which is not a commonly used word but might be better than “brethren.” Both seem reasonably accurate if not idiomatic. I see nothing particularly wrong about them.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Yes, you’re right – I just said “odd” not wrong.

 

[adriancombe]

The word I have in 1Sam is αγαπα not εγαπα or ηγαπα. It is the same word exactly as in Tobit 4:13 posted above.

Please check this again. ηγαπα occurs in the Interlinear Septuagint from www.apostolicbible.com as well as the Concordance tools at www.blueletterbible.com. Also, it is the form you originally posted from the LXX in post #26 of this same thread. It also corresponds to the diligebat in the Vulgate, which is also 3rd pers. sing. imperf. indicative active. In other words, ηγαπα is the form used in 1 Samuel.

The first comment I would have is that although αγαπ-αω is the dictionary entry you cite – It never shows up in any Greek text I have seen, especially NOT a biblical one, so it is a theoretical word as far as I know.

Yes it is the dictionary form. It was SOP in my Greek class to post the dictionary form to minimize the chance of misparsing.

I didn’t say “an adjectival form of a verb” I said an “abused adjective”.

Sounds like splitting hairs…an abused adjective is still an adjective, and a verb which is transformed into an adjective is an adjectival form of the verb…but this is a tangent.

As a side comment to the “gerund”, et.all, Have you ever thought of an adverb as sort of a verbal-adjective? It does modify the verb.
EG: “Slow-ly jump the cliff” – but I digress.

Interesting. I wonder if that explains the etymology of the term ‘adverb.’

Are you familiar with conjugation of verbs and verb charts – or are you just looking at an online lexicon and believing everything you see?

My familiarity with the verb charts is above average. In the case of agapaw, I have it memorized. That was also SOP in the Greek class…the parsing I gave you was correct.

( The “poetic” verb was the only possibility I have seen which MIGHT work. It was from a software lexicon which conjugates verbs rather knee-jerk like – it isn’t my own opinion, since I am uncomfortable classifying the verb – I am using examples to verify Grammars, not Grammars to interpret Greek. )

I think I am unfamiliar with your use of the concept of a poetic verb. (I may know exactly what you mean, but if I do, it is under a completely different term). I do not have the advantage of your software either.

( Here is a table of what the ending of the active Greek verb looks like:
The first column of endings is the “hypothetical” poetic endings from the software program (Kalon/Kalos), the second column is the standard present indicative endings easily found in any standard text. (The non Greek symbols are my notation and may be ignored)

1 -ω_ν -ω _
2 -α_ς -ει_ς
3 -α -ει_=ν
1p -ῶ_μεν -ο_μεν
2p -ᾶ_τε -ε_τε
3p -ω_ν -ου_σι=ν
2pd -ᾶ_τον -ε_τον
3pd -ᾶ_.την* -ε_την

• defunct, usually replaced by 2pd (you two).

The verb ἀγάπ-α only fits the third person singular indicative active (3 -α).
Only the 3rd person ending is α by itself.
And in both passages, 1Samuel 1:5 and Tobit 4:13 the verb ends in the identical letter: αγαπ-α

I find it hard to accept that the word is, as you say, a particular verb when it is spelled identically in both places, but has “different” meanings, and I don’t have other examples of verbs with the same endings ever doing the same – nor a reason why agapa (ἀγάπα) magically does this, when other words do not.
( I’m not saying you are wrong, but I have no way to check what you have said. )

Your chart does not look too bad but the a stem in agapao throws everything off. I do not have the fonts to adequately represent this to you.

Here is a partial chart link:

unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=greekSearch.showWordParse&detached=1&lex=%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%B1%CF%80%CE%B1%CF%89&word=%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%B1%CF%80%CE%B1&part=V&lang=eng&db=na26

This is still inadequate because it does not show the accents, nor does it have the form we are looking at. However, it does have the plural (agapate) so I am trusting you can infer that I am correct in that the singular imperative is agapa. You can also see the correct form, albeit in a very rough format, here: modern-greek-verbs.tripod.com/agapao.xml .

In John Calvin’s conveniently marked version of Tobit – notice the word ends in -α not -ᾷ which is the attic form of the 2nd person future. So that eliminates all the attic endings I could have used – and basically leaves me with no choice but to study the word on its own merits no matter how silly that may seem.

You just lost me. I am not familiar with Attic forms but it sounds like you are making the whole thing a lot harder than it actually is.

The 2nd imperative looks like:
2 +±ε_ +±ου

So, you are saying that there is a vowel change when αε becomes α, and no contraction mark added? eg: ᾶ. If so, how do you derive the verb?

That is the way the α & ε normally contract in a- stem verbs. I don’t think I understand your question “how do you derive the verb?”

 

[John_Calvin]

Please check this again. ηγαπα occurs in the Interlinear Septuagint from www.apostolicbible.com as well as the Concordance tools at www.blueletterbible.com. Also, it is the form you originally posted from the LXX in post #26 of this same thread. It also corresponds to the diligebat in the Vulgate, which is also 3rd pers. sing. imperf. indicative active. In other words, ηγαπα is the form used in 1 Samuel.

Yes it is the dictionary form. It was SOP in my Greek class to post the dictionary form to minimize the chance of misparsing.

Your post piqued my interest since I had stated that I found no imperfects of ἀγαπάω. You are correct, however, that 1 Sam 1.5 [LXX] does have an imperfect which means that I must have made some mistake in my search. The Tobit example is NOT the same as in 1 Sam 1.5. In Tobit 4.13 ἀγάπα is used rather than ἠγάπα. Therefore, what I said regarding this being a pres impv in Tobit rather than an impf ind stands.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The software is free, but only the trial version.

kalos-software.com/

I didn’t find it worth buying, but I did analyze the various endings, contractions, etc. that it seemed to use and compared them against the LXX, Euclid, etc. The attic Greek endings are not generally used in Koine Greek, but I was comparing everything I knew because I couldn’t figure out how the verb was conjugated from any examples I have ever seen.

You’re right, the form is ηγαπα, I am not sure how I missed that except that I hit the wrong button when I did my searches.
Tobit, is unfortunately a wasted tangent.

Ok, There is an α-stem verb, which changes the way the contractions happen.
I have never seen a chart for α-stem verbs, nor, other than agapa am I aware of an “a” stem verb which forms the same kind of endings – so, it is simply totally new to me.

I will look at the link you posted, and add it to my collection, but it sounds as if the link is incomplete anyway.

When I was asking about the derivation of the verb, all I was getting at is that if αε contracts to α, normal procedure from the texts I have examined is to mark above the final contraction letter with a ?circumflex? ᾶ. The other marks not being important to interpretation generally. But, I didn’t see this mark in the interlinears given, so I assumed it was not likely a contraction.

Also, I had not proven whether or not αγαπα was at root a verb or an adjective, just looking at the word does not reveal this information. And doing word searches brings up odd things like the rape of Tamar which made me wonder if this was even the same word for selfless love after all or I had made a mistake: Eg: 2Sam 13:2, 13:15.

I know you are thinking that it “had” to be a verb, but I just wasn’t sure. The shorter endings -α -αν which show up often are very much like the endings on an adjective.
So, I was simply staying open to the possibility that it was an adjective until I could prove it was in fact a verb.

Analogically: some paradigms (such as the 2nd aorist) can cause what looks like a subjunctive to really be a simple aorist, etc. So, I have just been looking for evidence of what kind of word I was really looking at – and hadn’t had enough time to make a final decision.

 

[adriancombe]

The software is free, but only the trial version.

kalos-software.com/

I didn’t find it worth buying, but I did analyze the various endings, contractions, etc. that it seemed to use and compared them against the LXX, Euclid, etc. The attic Greek endings are not generally used in Koine Greek, but I was comparing everything I knew because I couldn’t figure out how the verb was conjugated from any examples I have ever seen.

You’re right, the form is ηγαπα, I am not sure how I missed that except that I hit the wrong button when I did my searches.
Tobit, is unfortunately a wasted tangent.

Ok, There is an α-stem verb, which changes the way the contractions happen.
I have never seen a chart for α-stem verbs, nor, other than agapa am I aware of an “a” stem verb which forms the same kind of endings – so, it is simply totally new to me.

I will look at the link you posted, and add it to my collection, but it sounds as if the link is incomplete anyway.

When I was asking about the derivation of the verb, all I was getting at is that if αε contracts to α, normal procedure from the texts I have examined is to mark above the final contraction letter with a ?circumflex? ᾶ. The other marks not being important to interpretation generally. But, I didn’t see this mark in the interlinears given, so I assumed it was not likely a contraction.

The circumflex pops up when you have a contraction of a + ei, such as agapas (2. pers. sing pres. indicative active) there is a circumflex over the third (final) alpha. If you have the imperative, a+e you still get a, a short vowel, and the accent is acute over the second alpha.

The second link is complete, the xml one, just impossible to read smoothly. You just need to do a word search for ‘imperative’ and it is easy then.

Also, I had not proven whether or not αγαπα was at root a verb or an adjective, just looking at the word does not reveal this information. And doing word searches brings up odd things like the rape of Tamar which made me wonder if this was even the same word for selfless love after all or I had made a mistake: Eg: 2Sam 13:2, 13:15.

It is the same word. The author is contrasting the agapao of those verses with the miseo (hate) of the verses after he committed that sin. Before he sinned, he loved, afterwards he hated.

I know you are thinking that it “had” to be a verb, but I just wasn’t sure. The shorter endings -α -αν which show up often are very much like the endings on an adjective.
So, I was simply staying open to the possibility that it was an adjective until I could prove it was in fact a verb.

Analogically: some paradigms (such as the 2nd aorist) can cause what looks like a subjunctive to really be a simple aorist, etc. So, I have just been looking for evidence of what kind of word I was really looking at – and hadn’t had enough time to make a final decision

That makes sense. The book we had for Greek class at Steubenville was really good - Intro to NT Greek by Francis Gignac. Don’t let the ‘Intro’ fool you - there is a wealth of info in there you will have a hard time finding elsewhere. It sounds like you are like me and will save money whenever possible…when I had the class, I never bought the book! I just checked it out from the library and kept renewing it. They had more than one there…so it might be something you can lay hold of for free through inter-library loan. I highly recommend it, it would be a great supplement to the already considerable tools apparently at your disposal.

Also, not sure how good your software is, but if you download all the files from www.apostolicbible.com, you can use advanced word searches by ‘all pdf files in folder’ to find words easily. If you are interested I can give you all the verses (NT and OT) with the ηγαπα form.

(This also works well for subfolders, e.g. NT, OT, torah, Gospels, Epistles etc.)

-Adrian

 

[Huiou_Theou]

That makes sense. The book we had for Greek class at Steubenville was really good - Intro to NT Greek by Francis Gignac. … It sounds like you are like me and will save money whenever possible…when I had the class, I never bought the book! I just checked it out from the library and kept renewing it. They had more than one there…so it might be something you can lay hold of for free through inter-library loan. I highly recommend it, it would be a great supplement to the already considerable tools apparently at your disposal.

I’ll have to find out if University of Portland shares with Steubenville – I don’t avoid buying stuff, but presently my situation makes purchasing anything impossible.

Also, not sure how good your software is, but if you download all the files from www.apostolicbible.com, you can use advanced word searches by ‘all pdf files in folder’ to find words easily. If you are interested I can give you all the verses (NT and OT) with the ηγαπα form.

(This also works well for subfolders, e.g. NT, OT, torah, Gospels, Epistles etc.)

-Adrian

Well, my tools are unix command line AWK, SED, GREP, VI, and all those other strange looking computer command names

I am able to cut paste, search for any combination of words through any combination of sources that I have (so long as I type in the right word ) – the only penalty is that I can’t use the accents in the text or else the searches miss certain combinations some of the time (ergo: use plain text, and check online versions with accents later) – I did have some pdf tools, eg: TRStephanus was a pdf tool – but it was horribly slow to search, and whenever I tried to cut and paste it would change the word cut to inconsistent transliterations ( words become other words upon pasting… )
Is that the problem you are having with cutting and pasting from your PDF sources too?