1 Samuel 1:5-- contradictory translations!

[Huiou_Theou]

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.

And that is basically where I went wrong – because I normally have to analyze a sentence without accents and things, John Calivin by being helpful fed me some information which caused more trouble than it solved.

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.

Right, but this brings up the odd thing about these passages again.

Agapa is not Eros (erotic love) – and in all three of these passages mentioned in the thread the author does not use Eros.
In all of these passages, the immediate context is reproduction for the sake of children (since it isn’t Eros) – and in all three agapa is the kind of love being discussed.

In some non-scriptural books that I have read (eg: licentuous Greek commentary, histories, etc), from whence we get the word for pedophile – and other such terms –
which is literally “friend” of a “child” – It becomes quite apparent that the Alexandrian Greek seems totally oblivious to the way that it was used in secular Greek culture.

Since Agape is a theological word, used with St. John to explain some of God’s relationship with us – these very odd sexual over-toned based passages which all use Agape are quite – um – unsettling.

The entire passage in 2Samuel 10-13 is concerning with the setting up of the situation where he can perform a “sin” against tamar, the virgin, ( Who by rights, it appears, he could have married if he had merely asked permission ) – and then we have this odd sequence where the scriptural author uses the highly ironic word “Agape” to describe the kind of love he had for her before the rape – which was planned all along.

It makes me quite leery about what kind of love either Anna or Elkanna had for each other – and also, since I am seeing other examples of exception clauses which have no explicit subject – just a subject implied by the person of the verb. I am still not convinced that “Elkanna” is the subject of the exception clause.

More later when I have had a chance to really think things over – but it may take a few days.

Thanks for the thoughtful conversation, Adrian.

 

[John_Calvin]

And that is basically where I went wrong – because I normally have to analyze a sentence without accents and things, John Calivin by being helpful fed me some information which caused more trouble than it solved.

Right, but this brings up the odd thing about these passages again.

Agapa is not Eros (erotic love) – and in all three of these passages mentioned in the thread the author does not use Eros.
In all of these passages, the immediate context is reproduction for the sake of children (since it isn’t Eros) – and in all three agapa is the kind of love being discussed.

In some non-scriptural books that I have read (eg: licentuous Greek commentary, histories, etc), from whence we get the word for pedophile – and other such terms –
which is literally “friend” of a “child” – It becomes quite apparent that the Alexandrian Greek seems totally oblivious to the way that it was used in secular Greek culture.

Since Agape is a theological word, used with St. John to explain some of God’s relationship with us – these very odd sexual over-toned based passages which all use Agape are quite – um – unsettling.

The entire passage in 2Samuel 10-13 is concerning with the setting up of the situation where he can perform a “sin” against tamar, the virgin, ( Who by rights, it appears, he could have married if he had merely asked permission ) – and then we have this odd sequence where the scriptural author uses the highly ironic word “Agape” to describe the kind of love he had for her before the rape – which was planned all along.

It makes me quite leery about what kind of love either Anna or Elkanna had for each other – and also, since I am seeing other examples of exception clauses which have no explicit subject – just a subject implied by the person of the verb. I am still not convinced that “Elkanna” is the subject of the exception clause.

More later when I have had a chance to really think things over – but it may take a few days.

Thanks for the thoughtful conversation, Adrian.

I would hesitate to assert that ἀγάπη is a theological word. Derivatives of it are used in Greek literature which make it not so theological. E.g. Crates Thebanus in the iv c used it in the sense of “darling.” In LXX Jer 2.1 we find

Καὶ εἶπεν Τάδε λέγει κύριος Ἐμνήσθην ἐλέους νεότητός σου καὶ ἀγάπης τελειώσεώς σου τοῦ ἐξακολουθῆσαί σε τῷ ἁγίῳ Ισραηλ, λέγει κύριος

This refers to marital love which has a certain amount of sexual connotation. Koine was definitely the language of the common man, not some sacred language used only in the Church.

BTW: What was it that I “fed” you which was not helpful. It would seem from what you said to have something to do with accents, but the only comment I made regarding such was that modern Greek no longer uses the accents found in the ancient texts.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I would hesitate to assert that ἀγάπη is a theological word. Derivatives of it are used in Greek literature which make it not so theological. E.g. Crates Thebanus in the iv c used it in the sense of “darling.” In LXX Jer 2.1 we find

Καὶ εἶπεν Τάδε λέγει κύριος Ἐμνήσθην ἐλέους νεότητός σου καὶ ἀγάπης τελειώσεώς σου τοῦ ἐξακολουθῆσαί σε τῷ ἁγίῳ Ισραηλ, λέγει κύριος

I’ll have to look Crates Thebanus up when I get the chance – probably next weekend.

bible.oremus.org/?passage=Jeremiah+2:1-13

My comment about ‘agape’ being a theological word is with respect to the way St. John will use it in his gospels in the future. Although a certain amount of sexual connotation is included in marriage – The Jeremiah passage is not comparing the love of a moment which ends in rape, ( which casts doubt on whether the prince ever “really” loved Tamar in any honorable sense. ), nor is it clear that the author of Jeremiah intends the love there to include the sexual act, per. se – so the Agapa (αγαπ-ης) (BTW:which looks like a feminine noun now…) in Jeremiah easily brings to mind the best of what is to be had in marriage. In the NT Jesus does say that in heaven there will be no more marriage for the individual – when asked the carnal question about fleshly rights.

bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew+22:23-30

BTW: What was it that I “fed” you which was not helpful. It would seem from what you said to have something to do with accents, but the only comment I made regarding such was that modern Greek no longer uses the accents found in the ancient texts.

John, how many accents do you see in the ancient text from ~400AD, eg: Tishendorf (photofaximilies available of the vellum) ?

www.reltech.org
choose the link, “biblical manuscripts project”
login to the free login, (instructions are on the login prompt - no registration necessary), and find the Codex Sinaiticus – it has some absolutely beautiful photos of the vellum. (Volume II is really nice.)

That is also a very “ancient” text, even more-so than Rahlf’s edition from the logos library collection.

The accents, et. all, are mostly later to middle ages additions to Greek – which again, (in sort of a pendulum swing) according to what you say are – no longer used in modern Greek. They appear to be going back toward their roots which are simpler.

I am quite happy at what you wrote – it just happened to be the reason I made an assumption that I would not have made otherwise. As I said, that your “feeding” was the occasion of my going astray – I in no way accused you of doing it on purpose.


To tie the general concepts together, the milieu of the word Agapa is not the wondrous thing that theologians on EWTN seem to make it out to be (probably innocently enough). And this, since it makes KOIN greek seem on par with common English – makes passages which seem to overlook the possible connotations which were present even in those times (especially in those times?) strikes me as very odd – and makes me think that there is a general principle of interpretation which is being overlooked. There must be clues as to which way to take Agape in the text – and I don’t see what those are yet.

 

[John_Calvin]

I’ll have to look Crates Thebanus up when I get the chance – probably next weekend.

bible.oremus.org/?passage=Jeremiah+2:1-13

My comment about ‘agape’ being a theological word is with respect to the way St. John will use it in his gospels in the future. Although a certain amount of sexual connotation is included in marriage – The Jeremiah passage is not comparing the love of a moment which ends in rape, ( which casts doubt on whether the prince ever “really” loved Tamar in any honorable sense. ), nor is it clear that the author of Jeremiah intends the love there to include the sexual act, per. se – so the Agapa (αγαπ-ης) (BTW:which looks like a feminine noun now…) in Jeremiah easily brings to mind the best of what is to be had in marriage. In the NT Jesus does say that in heaven there will be no more marriage for the individual – when asked the carnal question about fleshly rights.

bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew+22:23-30

Yes, ἀγάπη is most definitely a fem nound. Do you perhaps mean Dinah rather than Tamar? Tamar was Judah’s daughter-in-law while Tamar was a sister who was raped by Shechem and avenged by Levi and Simeon. Yes, Shechem “had the hots” for Dinah.

John, how many accents do you see in the ancient text from ~400AD, eg: Tishendorf (photofaximilies available of the vellum) ?

www.reltech.org
choose the link, “biblical manuscripts project”
login to the free login, (instructions are on the login prompt - no registration necessary), and find the Codex Sinaiticus – it has some absolutely beautiful photos of the vellum. (Volume II is really nice.)

That is also a very “ancient” text, even more-so than Rahlf’s edition from the logos library collection.

The accents, et. all, are mostly later to middle ages additions to Greek – which again, (in sort of a pendulum swing) according to what you say are – no longer used in modern Greek. They appear to be going back toward their roots which are simpler.

I am quite happy at what you wrote – it just happened to be the reason I made an assumption that I would not have made otherwise. As I said, that your “feeding” was the occasion of my going astray – I in no way accused you of doing it on purpose.

I should perhaps have said “accents which appear in modern editions of ancient texts.” I had no intention of implying that one would generally find a fully accented text in the ancient editions. While the principles of accentuation were set forth in ancient times, it was rarely used to any great extent until later.

To tie the general concepts together, the milieu of the word Agapa is not the wondrous thing that theologians on EWTN seem to make it out to be (probably innocently enough). And this, since it makes KOIN greek seem on par with common English – makes passages which seem to overlook the possible connotations which were present even in those times (especially in those times?) strikes me as very odd – and makes me think that there is a general principle of interpretation which is being overlooked. There must be clues as to which way to take Agape in the text – and I don’t see what those are yet.

That’s koine (or koiné, if you wish to get fussy about accents), not “koin.”

 

[RobbyS]

The Hebrew reads “choice porton”. We do not know if that was an extra share or if it was one share of better quality.

Remember translation is interpretation. One translator took it to mean an extra share while the other likely had quality in mind.

If you are reading, I commend you for good advise. Even the best translators cannot pretend to know exactly what was in the mind of the writer, nor can we know what is in the mind of the translator. This is why “modernists” annoy me: they pretend they know the minds of people whose lives ended thousands of years ago. We can scarce understand how our own grandparents thought when they were setting down words.

 

[RobbyS]

Yes, ??? is most definitely a fem nound. Do you perhaps mean Dinah rather than Tamar? Tamar was Judah’s daughter-in-law while Tamar was a sister who was raped by Shechem and avenged by Levi and Simeon. Yes, Shechem “had the hots” for Dinah.

I should perhaps have said “accents which appear in modern editions of ancient texts.” I had no intention of implying that one would generally find a fully accented text in the ancient editions. While the principles of accentuation were set forth in ancient times, it was rarely used to any great extent until later.

That’s koine (or koiné, if you wish to get fussy about accents), not “koin.”

I have a question. English as a common language varies considerably from place to place. Generally speaking, how much variation is there among the different parts of the Greek New Testament texts? Does this help scholars localize the specific writings?

 

[adriancombe]

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.

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?

There are probably copies of the book at other libraries closer to you than Steubenville.

How is linux working for you? I have never had the guts to try it. Do you still need windows for some things?

I have not tried too much copying and pasting with the interlinear from the pdf files.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

How is linux working for you? I have never had the guts to try it. Do you still need windows for some things?

I have not tried too much copying and pasting with the interlinear from the pdf files.

Linux works great, although I have been using it for over 13 years – and it is FAR easier to use now than 13 years ago.
Mostly, though, I do my Greek from Macintosh OS-X, as I became addicted to the miniature laptop (10" sit on a desk screen size, 5+ hours battery life) in college and it still has Unix underneath. The Windows PC has gotten away from me, since windows 2000 Advanced server was the last system I have used (IIS et. all, ick) – and so when I am forced to use it, I am always a bit slower than I once was.
I once had to keep three different versions of windows for three different pieces of software which would ONLY run correctly on the particular version they each liked, so I had a bunch of old computers. Every time I would be forced to upgrade, the software replacement was $1000’s more than the computer replacement. (Engineering software really bites the $)
Now, when I get stuck, I can still run windows programs on my Macintosh using QEMU so it isn’t much of a problem, and if it dies – I can just push a button and a new copy comes up. No more blue screens of death or corrupted registries…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Do you perhaps mean Dinah rather than Tamar? Tamar was Judah’s daughter-in-law while Tamar was a sister who was raped by Shechem and avenged by Levi and Simeon. Yes, Shechem “had the hots” for Dinah.

I am pretty sure it is Dinah in most translations. Unfortunately, the one I have here says Tamar (I am not at my battle computer, but only an internet terminal today.)

It is for Eg: 2Sam 13:2, 13:15.

That’s koine (or koiné, if you wish to get fussy about accents), not “koin.”

Ok, but when I search Γoogle, it suggests κοινη.


BTW: Do you know of a spell checker plug in for firefox, that does Greek?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I have a question. English as a common language varies considerably from place to place. Generally speaking, how much variation is there among the different parts of the Greek New Testament texts? Does this help scholars localize the specific writings?

Robby, There is going to a spectrum of opinions, but a couple of comments might be helpful.

Literacy is a relatively new thing, most people in earlier ages were not literate. So, there is a difference between the writings of the “common” man today and those of a “scribe” at the time of Jesus.

I am not sure to what extent Jewish literacy was different from Greek — but I do know that the Jewish people were invaluable as translators at the time ( They often were money changers, eg: Matthew the tax collector, and so had to read/write multiple languages.)

So, even though John Calvin here is talking about “common” Greek – it is similar to common English written by Oxford graduates. ( With their humor sliding in. )
Whether or not the message was crude from the one dictating it, the scribe would affect the final form of the writing. St. Paul is one of the few who claims to write in his own handwriting.

As another comment, there are definitely Jewish ways of thinking which show up much stronger in the Gospel of Matthew than in the Gospel of Luke (for example) – certain ways of constructing sentences which don’t look much like other Greek (non-scriptural) writers of the time. So, in that sense – You can tell that some of scripture is written by more Jewish writers, and other scriptures are by more Greek writers (Although they may have both been Jews by faith.)
I don’t put a huge amount of trust in these kinds of distinctions, but they are useful when trying to decide between two hair splitting alternatives of what is meant – such as in the present passage of 1Sam1:5.

 

[John_Calvin]

I have a question. English as a common language varies considerably from place to place. Generally speaking, how much variation is there among the different parts of the Greek New Testament texts? Does this help scholars localize the specific writings?

There is variation in the GNT texts, but it is not such as to localize specific writings. The variation is more in regard to style of writing – whether polished or more vulgar. Luke tends to be more polished. Hebrew and the Petrine epistles are more difficult than most. Paul tends to go off on all sorts of tangents whenever a thought occurs to him. These are not differences of locale.

 

[adriancombe]

:idea:

I have a question. English as a common language varies considerably from place to place. Generally speaking, how much variation is there among the different parts of the Greek New Testament texts? Does this help scholars localize the specific writings?

I do not think it works that way. The quality of the NT texts is dependent on the Greek language skills of the human authors. John’s writings are the easiest to read because he apparently knew the least Greek vocabulary. Paul’s are at the other end of the spectrum because he was raised speaking Greek.

What Huiou Theou said about the language being influenced by Hebrew is true. It is also true that often the word choice is very often consciously imitating the LXX so you can tell what Hebrew/Aramaic term they have in mind when they write the Greek NT. For instance Kyrios means Lord. In the LXX, when used with the definite article, it is translating Adonai, but when used without the definite article, it is translating Yahweh. The NT follows this same usage, but unfortunately, to my knowledge, no translations make use of this distinction when translating to English (maybe I will do my own some day :newidea: )

Adrian

 

[jcrichton]

…Even the best translators cannot pretend to know exactly what was in the mind of the writer, nor can we know what is in the mind of the translator. This is why “modernists” annoy me: they pretend they know the minds of people whose lives ended thousands of years ago. We can scarce understand how our own grandparents thought when they were setting down words.

***Hi, RobbyS!

…and here I thought that was my own pet peeve…

I’m glad that someone else is truly aware of how annoying their attitude can be!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

…For instance Kyrios means Lord. In the LXX, when used with the definite article, it is translating Adonai, but when used without the definite article, it is translating Yahweh. The NT follows this same usage, but unfortunately, to my knowledge, no translations make use of this distinction when translating to English… Adrian

***Hi, Adrain!

…I used to own a Bible that contained many of these names (Adonai, El, El Roi, El Shaddai, Yahweh Sabbaot…); it’s long lost (loaned out and never returned)… if there are no translations which show these distinctions… is there a source which contains the various names of the Lord–or is it LORD?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[adriancombe]

***Hi, Adrain!

…I used to own a Bible that contained many of these names (Adonai, El, El Roi, El Shaddai, Yahweh Sabbaot…); it’s long lost (loaned out and never returned)… if there are no translations which show these distinctions… is there a source which contains the various names of the Lord–or is it LORD?

Maran atha!

Angel***

Not to my knowledge…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

***Hi, Huiou Theou!

…consider too that it is Yahweh who determines that Sarah’s offspring is the child of the Promise… conversely, we find that very example with Hanna’s–though Peninnah had had several children (one of whom could have been a male child), …

Angel

---

jcrichton,

I wanted to pick up on what you said here, and add some thoughts since I absolutely loved this post, but was distracted by other things at the time.

I would heartily agree that God is the one who joins the man and woman in marriage. Even in the first marriage it was God who made the woman from Adam, of his flesh and bone. Although we speak of sacramental marriage because of the incarnation, there is not a shred of doubt that even in natural marriage it is God who joins them. Jesus alludes to this in the presence of an enemy who would refuse to recognize Jesus himself, but would recognize the Torah / Law of Moses.

Matth 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Matth 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

There is no revelation where God sanctions polygamy.
Since Jesus refers to the “two” becoming one, and not the “three” the precedence makes a difference although perhaps not in civil law. Moses allowed divorce for hardness of heart – to protect women from being killed in order to solve the man’s problem. But that was not God’s plan for man and women from the beginning.

In the passage 1Sam1:5, although the Haydock Commentary alludes to it – no one seems to have noticed the reference to the pedigree, and the promise in 1Sam1:1-2.

I am not certain Haydock’s speculation concerning the geography is exactly right (thanks Manford)
haydock1859.tripod.com/id611.html, but the author of 1Sam bothers to indicate the “Ephramite” origin with no clarification – which would lead me to believe the author did not think it important that Elkanah was a Levite – and for some reason wished to bring the Ephramite lineage up (not as an irrelevant fact).
No later editor ever deletes this reference in preference of a Levite reading…
In contrast: note Jesus being from “Nazareth” is brought up in the Gospel to explain why no one knew where he came from, but the Gospel does take care to emphasize “Bethlehem” as the truth.

As Haydock notes
1Chron 6:16 is a geneology of the sons of Levi; and Elkanah with his son is included in that geneology. However, Haydock does not seem to notice that geneology can trace according to biology (literal father & mother) or covenant – so there is probably more than one reason to call him an Ephramite or a Levite (he could be both), The child, “Samuel”, would have been a Levite by covenental offering. And his geneology would reflect the covenant if politically expedient.

However, We do know that even Elkanah was considered in the priestly line by the time of Chronicles.
( Josephus, a turncoat in Jesus’ time makes a great deal out of the purity of marriage / tribal laws, but himself marries a foreigner! – the “pedigree” was a snobish, pharisaical desire – not a hard and fast rule, although it was discouraged. )

Although some of the scholarship is dubious, the traditions associated with Ephraimite give another reason a vague reference to “double portion” might have been desired by the author of 1Sam. ( A pun ).
Eg: The author of 1Sam may have been PURPOSELY calling him an Ephramite to recall how fertile Joseph (the tribe of Egypt) who had both Hebrew and Egyptian wives was doubly fertile. (Although the “Half-tribe” Manassah was ostracized for not being a “pureblood”)

low scholarship link with a intriguing reference:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephraim

The second thing I would like to point out is that in the naming of the wives (1Sam 1:2) they are not just called Annah “and” Penniah, but the “deutero” or second wife was “Penniah”. Like Abraham and Sarah, then, I would expect Elkanah to have married one woman first – and the second in desperation.
Is it not also possible that the second wife was a slave of Hannah? (and therefore not a true wife, since Hannah had rights over her and the child?)

The order is in 1Sam 1:2

1Samu 1:2 And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children

1Samu 1:2 και τουτω δυο γυναικες ονομα τη μια αννα και ονομα τη δευτερα φεννανα και ην τη φεννανα παιδια και τη αννα ουκ ην παιδιον

Yet Hannah is the one he married first is suggested quite strongly in the second verse, because she is his “woman” first. If she was not a whore, then even if sterile – she was his wife. And since bidirectional love is required for marriage – that is more important to me than the grammatical constructions, and is in part why I am determined to find out as close as possible the amount of freedom allowed in the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

:idea:
…
In the LXX, when used with the definite article, it is translating Adonai, but when used without the definite article, it is translating Yahweh. The NT follows this same usage, but unfortunately, to my knowledge, no translations make use of this distinction when translating to English (maybe I will do my own some day :newidea: )

Adrian

and with a good bishop to allow it to be published…?

But this brings one reason I did not translate LORD as Yahweh or Adonai – since there are pagan lords too, and we had not yet determined what is what in that passage, a lord without a definite article could refer to any lord. I would agree, that it is very likely that LORD in 1Sam 1:5 would read YAHWEH, but is there a way to be more certain?

Also note in the revelation to Moses, although three revelations of the “name” of god happen, only one reference is made to LORD – not two. As a guess, would the personal name YAHWEH have been the likely candidate (I haven’t checked) – I just understand Adonai as a less personal name, and am surmising from the context that it should be “lord” without the personal article…

Excellent point.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Let me sum up what I have seen so far, and why I am still stuck,
and perhaps someone can untangle this mess.

Adrian made the excellent point that a verb needs to have a subject – Unfortunately, several Greek sentence fragments imply the subject my be implied by the verb itself, and there may be no explicit subject in a prepositional/exception phrase. The “person” 1st(I,me) 2nd(you,you all) 3rd( He, She, It) is always the clue in the case where the subject is implied – not explicit. So which person is implied by the verb “loved” is important.

“Loved” is definitely a verb in 1Sam1:5 in the Greek. Even though it looks like a possible noun, there is plenty of examples of real nouns (love) which end in newer ( ης ) feminine endings, which makes the older endings oddities ( α, αν ) – so the mixed endings show the reasonableness that the older endings are really verb endings.
So I accept that both John and Adrian are correct, “loved” is a verb in 1Sam1:5 – and a verb must have a subject as Adrian points out.

Hannah has the appearance of a declined word ( A word which is honestly Greek and not a Hebrew transliteration ), but if this is true, then Hannah’s name would seem to indicate she was a foreigner, which is somewhat of an embarassment to the “pureblood” ideology of the Jewish people not to mention that historically, since this story is Pre-Alexandrian (the Great Macedonian/Greek conqueror) Greek women were NOT at all likely (to my knowledge), to be in the promised land.
So her name being inflected/declined in Greek is an oddity.

(Is the second wife’s name a transliteration of Hebrew, John?)

So, I wonder if the extra “n” on Hanna’s name is really a mistake of some kind injected by a later Greek scholar – or perhaps it is just a ν (nu) movable added for purely sound based reasons.
Analogically: In English we say “a” or “an” but these words have the same meaning, the extra “n” is just to help pronunciation of the next word in the sentence. “an apple”, “a pear”

In either event, I am still having trouble figuring out for certain who is the subject of the Verb – Elkannah or Hannah (or perhaps neither?). How can we three nail it down? ]

There is no definite evidence that either Hannah or Elkannah is the subject of the sentence, because the Greek author left off the definite article from Elkannah’s name (which would have solved the problem for us a LONG time ago.), but at least Hanna has what could be a definite article before her name.

The Latin (and my Latin is weak) does not speak of Elkanah at all with respect to the verb “love” diligibat. Only Hannah is spoken of, so unless ‘diligibat’ is passive (I don’t believe it is) – then at least the Latin REQUIRES that Hannah loved Elkanah.
That Elkanah also loves Hannah is beyond dispute – since in the later part of the passage, he clearly shows his love for her.

The final point, I am considering is:
In the Greek, the sentence does not use the standard “but” to say
Hannah had no child BUT Elkanah loves her “anyway”, rather it says she had no child “except that” — followed by an ambiguous phrase.

My experience with “except” πλην is that it is used where a list of similar items has one item not like the other (in fact an opposite). Since τλην in my experience is an exception to a noun list, and it would appear the last Noun was a child – it seems that there may be a child which is not a man. ( Admittedly a weak argument, but the “beyond this” refers to a female, and I would like to eliminate the possibility of it referring to a female child if possible).

Does anyone know of another Greek example where πλην οτι does NOT reverse the last noun referenced (an exception to the listed absolute statement?) or equivalently is there a way to prove what “beyond this” actually refers to at the end of 1Sam1:5?

That would (hopefully) allow us to pin the OP question down, for we do appear to have a possible contradiction between the Latin and the Greek, and we don’t yet know what the Hebrew actually says either.

Amazing that such a simple sentence can defy interpretation with so many pieces of evidence to consider…

–Thanks,
–Andrew.

 

[John_Calvin]

Let me sum up what I have seen so far, and why I am still stuck,
and perhaps someone can untangle this mess.

Adrian made the excellent point that a verb needs to have a subject – Unfortunately, several Greek sentence fragments imply the subject my be implied by the verb itself, and there may be no explicit subject in a prepositional/exception phrase. The “person” 1st(I,me) 2nd(you,you all) 3rd( He, She, It) is always the clue in the case where the subject is implied – not explicit. So which person is implied by the verb “loved” is important.

“Loved” is definitely a verb in 1Sam1:5 in the Greek. Even though it looks like a possible noun, there is plenty of examples of real nouns (love) which end in newer ( ης ) feminine endings, which makes the older endings oddities ( α, αν ) – so the mixed endings show the reasonableness that the older endings are really verb endings.
So I accept that both John and Adrian are correct, “loved” is a verb in 1Sam1:5 – and a verb must have a subject as Adrian points out.

Hannah has the appearance of a declined word ( A word which is honestly Greek and not a Hebrew transliteration ), but if this is true, then Hannah’s name would seem to indicate she was a foreigner, which is somewhat of an embarassment to the “pureblood” ideology of the Jewish people not to mention that historically, since this story is Pre-Alexandrian (the Great Macedonian/Greek conqueror) Greek women were NOT at all likely (to my knowledge), to be in the promised land.
So her name being inflected/declined in Greek is an oddity.

(Is the second wife’s name a transliteration of Hebrew, John?)

So, I wonder if the extra “n” on Hanna’s name is really a mistake of some kind injected by a later Greek scholar – or perhaps it is just a ν (nu) movable added for purely sound based reasons.
Analogically: In English we say “a” or “an” but these words have the same meaning, the extra “n” is just to help pronunciation of the next word in the sentence. “an apple”, “a pear”

No, this is not from Greek. Pronounce the ‘X’ in the following as ‘ch’ as in Scottish “loch.” It is transliterated from the Hebrew as “Xanna.” While there is actually only one nun in the text, it has a dagesh (a dot) which indicates that it is to be doubled. It is derived from the verb Xanan “favor” thus indicating that she is the favored one.

In either event, I am still having trouble figuring out for certain who is the subject of the Verb – Elkannah or Hannah (or perhaps neither?). How can we three nail it down? ]

There is no definite evidence that either Hannah or Elkannah is the subject of the sentence, because the Greek author left off the definite article from Elkannah’s name (which would have solved the problem for us a LONG time ago.), but at least Hanna has what could be a definite article before her name.

The Latin (and my Latin is weak) does not speak of Elkanah at all with respect to the verb “love” diligibat. Only Hannah is spoken of, so unless ‘diligibat’ is passive (I don’t believe it is) – then at least the Latin REQUIRES that Hannah loved Elkanah.
That Elkanah also loves Hannah is beyond dispute – since in the later part of the passage, he clearly shows his love for her.

This is a simple question to answer. Certain forms in Hebrew relate to males or to females but not to both. In this instance, the Hebrew word for “to love” is 3 m sg so there can be no question but that Elkanah is the subject.

The final point, I am considering is:
In the Greek, the sentence does not use the standard “but” to say
Hannah had no child BUT Elkanah loves her “anyway”, rather it says she had no child “except that” — followed by an ambiguous phrase.

My experience with “except” πλην is that it is used where a list of similar items has one item not like the other (in fact an opposite). Since τλην in my experience is an exception to a noun list, and it would appear the last Noun was a child – it seems that there may be a child which is not a man. ( Admittedly a weak argument, but the “beyond this” refers to a female, and I would like to eliminate the possibility of it referring to a female child if possible).

Does anyone know of another Greek example where πλην οτι does NOT reverse the last noun referenced (an exception to the listed absolute statement?) or equivalently is there a way to prove what “beyond this” actually refers to at the end of 1Sam1:5?

That would (hopefully) allow us to pin the OP question down, for we do appear to have a possible contradiction between the Latin and the Greek, and we don’t yet know what the Hebrew actually says either.

Amazing that such a simple sentence can defy interpretation with so many pieces of evidence to consider…

–Thanks,
–Andrew.

Stop relying on the Greek. The Greek is not the authority here. The Hebrew is what is to be consulted. The πλὴν here in the LXX is an interpretation of the simple waw conjuntivum which is used in Hebrew to join everything together. It can be used to signify “when” or “because” or (as here) “but” or “except.”

 

[Huiou_Theou]

No, this is not from Greek. Pronounce the ‘X’ in the following as ‘ch’ as in Scottish “loch.” It is transliterated from the Hebrew as “Xanna.” While there is actually only one nun in the text, it has a dagesh (a dot) which indicates that it is to be doubled. It is derived from the verb Xanan “favor” thus indicating that she is the favored one.

Please clarify: This is the name for Anna, and you are saying it IS a transliteration from the hebrew, or not?

This is a simple question to answer. Certain forms in Hebrew relate to males or to females but not to both. In this instance, the Hebrew word for “to love” is 3 m sg so there can be no question but that Elkanah is the subject.

Sο, you are saying that in Hebrew there is a “masculine” verb?
(That’s new to me! Do you have a link you could point everyone to, to show this – I’m probably not the only one interested in learning Hebrew).
And this is 3rd person (he - only) masculine?

Stop relying on the Greek. The Greek is not the authority here. The Hebrew is what is to be consulted. The πλὴν here in the LXX is an interpretation of the simple waw conjuntivum which is used in Hebrew to join everything together. It can be used to signify “when” or “because” or (as here) “but” or “except.”

We’ve already had this conversation. I see no reason to grant authority to any present day text exclusively. The Hebrew is useful, but not to be trusted exclusively. I like to verify everything by looking at multiple translations.

If it is a simple interpretation – show another example as I have asked in Greek. You are a Greek Major, then it shouldn’t be that difficult to find a “clear” example of where πλην does not reverse the sense of a noun list, but brings in a totally unrelated concept?

Why jump to the Hebrew to interpret the Greek? – I am simply trying to interpret the Greek to see what the translators THOUGHT. I would like to fully master Greek, and then Hebrew and Latin. I do appreciate your adding these tidbits, for I don’t know Hebrew (and after our conversation, I trust your comments a bit less than I otherwise might. The reverse is true for you? )