James 1:2

Πᾶσαν -  noun accusative singular “all”.. The word here can refer to intensity (great, all, pure, utmost, greatest) or exclusivity (all, nothing but joy).  I think intensity makes more sense here.  This is a common use in the NT. although it is different than the way we usually translate this word “all”.  Here is how  this use is classified in BDAG  ③ marker of the highest degree of someth., all

ⓐ as adj. w. a noun in the sing. without the art. full, greatest, all

I would prefer to translate it with a word that can be taken either intensely or with the usual understanding of all, but at this time I can’t really think of a good english word that has a similar range of meaning.  I was considering using the term complete, but I think that causes more confusion, because of possible confusion with the normal Greek word for complete.. which I think is a theologically important word.

χαρὰν - noun accusative singular  “joy”

ἡγήσασθε -   aorist middle imperative 2nd person plural fro ἡγέομαι   (BAG def. 2) “to engage in an intellectual process, think, consider, regard”.  This verb is deponent. I think a common translation for this verb in James is “consider”.  I’m not totally comfortable with using that word, but I couldn’t think of a better one… the word “think” was a possibility, but I would have had to add too many words to the sentence to make it flow in english

ἀδελφοί -  ‘brothers” noun vocative plural.  The expression brothers could very easily be rendered “brothers and sisters’.  If I was doing this translation for others I would wrestle with the decision as to whether to translate it brothers or brothers and sisters.  My problem with brothers and sisters is that it adds the conjunction and makes the one word into three words.  I still think of brothers as including females… I know english language has changed a bit and some people don’t naturally think of it as including females.  To me the term brothers and sisters makes it sound like a bit of stress on the including of sisters in his language instead of the tenders relationship that James is seeking to stress.  Therefore since this translation is for me and since I automatically (perhaps due to the fact of being around this type of language in Bibles I have read) read this as inclusive I will (with a note) stick with the term brothers knowing that it means people of both sexes.  I think the decision as to how to translate ἀδελφοs is a contextual decision and can vary from passage to passage.

μου -, “of me “gen. singular this is a genitive of relationship

ὅταν - “whenever” conjunction, adverbial temporal

πειρασμοῖς -  each of these next three words begins with the same greek letter.  I wish I could copy this in my english translation.  this word is a noun dative plural masc.  This greek word can either mean a test or trial to learn the character of something or a temptation or trial to attempt to lead someone or something to wrongdoing..  This noun is in the locative because the verb begs the question where?

περιπέσητε - This verb can refer to ① to move toward someth. and hit against it, strike or ② to encounter at hazard, fall in with, fall into

I really like the use of this verb in Acts 27:41  “But striking a reef, they ran the vessel aground. The bow stuck and remained immovable, and the stern was being broken up by the surf.” Even though the emphasis of the verb is different Acts 27:41 refers to striking, hitting something and in our verse the emphasis seems to be with “falling into, encounter”.  I can’t help but imagine how many people have fallen into temptation and given into the temptation and shipwrecked (as happened to the boat) their faith.  As for the translation I am going to go with a phrase “come up against.  I think this kind of fits with both nuances of this word…The root word for this compound verb means to fall so I’m tempted (ha) to use fall into… but I think the english fall in this translation sort of gives the implication of failing… so I’m going to go with “come up against” instead.

this verb is in the subjunctive.. the use of the subjunctive (according to Wallace) is subjunctive in indefinite temporal clause.  “the subjunctive is frequently used after the temporal conjunction with the meaning whenever.  It indicates a future contingency from the perspective of the time of the main verb..   

this is a  verb aorist active subj. 2nd person plural.

ποικίλοις…  adj. dative plural masc.  this adjective is in a strange position, it is after the noun it modifies, separated by the verb… this seems to draw attention to it.  the word means “pert. to existence in various kinds or modes, diversified, manifold’.

Here is my (somewhat final) translation:

James 1:2

My Brothers(1)  consider it great (2) joy, whenever you come up against (3) various kinds of trials.

1 or “My brothers and sisters”

2 I’m hesitant to translate it great, because this is a bit interpretive, it could be left as all, but I think this gives the false impression of considering everything joyful instead of the sense of degree of joy that I  think James might mean. although I think this concept is stated later in the verse by having “great joy” in all sorts of trials,

3 Literally "fall into".. I thought 'fall into" gave the possible negative connotation of failure, in the moral sense.. where I think the idea expressed in this verse is more likely fall into situations where you will encounter trials/ temptation.

Not all plurals are plural

In our Hebrew Reading Group today we came across what appeared to be a confusing grammatical situation.  In proverbs 1:9 the text is:
כִּי לִוְיַת חֵן הֵם לְרֹאשֶׁךָ וַעֲנָקִים לְגַרְגְּרֹתֶיךָ׃
   The confusing part is that the last word לְגַרְגְּרֹתֶיךָ if taken by it's form means "on your necks".  This doesn't agree with all the previous verses and the first half of verse 9 where the addressee is spoken of in the singular.  I looked this up in Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar and in "An Introduction To Biblical Hebrew Syntax" by Waltke and O'Connor.  It turns out that neck (or outside of the neck as this Hebrew word means) is a plural of extension.  Gesenius calls it "local extension" and Waltke calls it just "extension".  It is found in section 124 of Gesenius' grammar. Here is what he writes:

The plural is by no means used in Hebrew solely to express a number of individuals or separate objects, but may also denote them collectively. This use of the plural expresses either (a) a combination of various external constituent parts (plurals of local extension), or (b) a more or less intensive focusing of the characteristics inherent in the idea of the stem (abstract plurals, usually rendered in English by forms in -hood, -ness, -ship). A variety of the plurals described under (b), in which the secondary idea of intensity or of an internal multiplication of the idea of the stem may be clearly seen, is (c) the pluralis excellentiae or pluralis maiestatis.

 (a): Plurals of local extension denote localities in general, but especially level surfaces (the surface-plural), since in them the idea of a whole composed of innumerable separate parts or points is most evident.

Some of the examples he gives are the Hebrew words for sea, face, back, neck (a different word than the one in Prov 1), place around the head, place around the feet, place on the other side of a river, bed... etc..  We spoke about the Hebrew word for blood (because it also occurs here and is always plural) and it appears that blood is also a plural of local extension.

     Here is what Waltke and O'Conner have in their book- "Plurals of Extension indicate that the referent of the noun is inherently large or complex;the plural quality is the result not of countable multiplicity  but of a multiplicity that is nonetheless perceived as real."  

     They go on to give some examples of how we use this in English.  Literal words like...  waters, guts...  metaphorical words like brains, wits, looks...   and abstract words thanks, amends, auspices"  It is interesting to me how we use these words in English without thinking about the plural forms because we are native speakers of the language...  we certainly are not thrown for a loop like we were when we encountered them in our Hebrew reading.

Colossians 1:1

1 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφὸς

Παῦλος -  noun Nom sing. masc.   "Paul" (nominative absolute  aka. Independent Nominative)

ἀπόστολος -noun  nom sing. masc.  (simple apposition) "an apostle"

Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ - noun Genitive sing. masc.  2x  "of Christ Jesus"  (genitive of possession)

διὰ  -  prep. with the genative ③ marker of instrumentality or circumstance whereby someth. is accomplished or effected, by, via, through^[1]ⓓ of efficient cause via, "through"

θελήματος - noun Genitive sing. neuter  "desire, wish" (genitive after the prep.)

θεοῦ- noun genitive sing. masc. "of God" (subjective genitive)

καὶ -  conj. "and"  (copulative)

Τιμόθεος - Noun nom. sing. masc.  "Timothy" (nominative absolute)

ὁ ἀδελφὸς  - noun nom. sing. masc.  with the definite article  "the brother"  (simple apposition)

Translation- "Paul an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God and Timothy the brother."

---

^[1] Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (224). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Psalm 1:2b

Matthew 5:3

Matthew 5:3 Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι,
ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν.



Μακάριοι adj nominative plural. "blessed, happy" I decided to use the word blessed in my translation because I feel that this term often has a specialized usage in the New Testament(and in this context).. where God is the agent of blessing and the applicable human is the recipient of the blessing from the agent of blessing (God). Happy just seemed to weak of a word to use in this instance and could very very easily lead to a misunderstanding of what Jesus was saying. It is interesting to notice the parallel between Makapios and the use of Blessed in the Hebrew Old Testament (even in the Psalm I have been translating).
I'm going to classify this as a adjective used substantively. I'm going to put the being verb in my translation for fluidity in English.

here are some additional notes I saw on the word.
The special feature of the group μακάριος, μακαρίζειν, μακαρισμός in the NT is that it refers overwhelmingly to the distinctive religious joy which accrues to man from his share in the salvation of the kingdom of God. Thus the verb μακαρίζειν, which occurs only twice in the NT, is used in Lk. 1:48 of the blessing of the mother of the Messiah by all generations (Lk. 11:27), and in Jm. 5:11 of the righteous who endure (ὑπομείναντας). The noun μακαρισμός is found only 3 times, at Gl. 4:15 for the blessedness of receiving the message of salvation, and at R. 4:6, 9 with reference to the remission of sins. In both passages it is used almost technically by Paul. μακάριος is very common in the NT, and it is used almost always in direct beatitudes.40 As in the Gk. world and the OT the reference is to persons. Only occasionally is it to things, e.g., individual members of the body (Mt. 13:16: ὀφθαλμοί, ὦτα; Lk. 11:27: κοιλία, μαστοί).

Here is an interesting not on the paradoxical nature of the Blessings stated in Matthew. This parodixical nature is one of the features of the statements that really causes them to stand out and draw our attention to the statements being made.

Thus the NT beatitudes often contain sacred paradoxes (Mt. 5:3 ff.; Lk. 6:20–22; 1 Pt. 3:14; 4:14; Rev. 14:13). This is particularly true of the striking beatitudes which obviously formed the introduction to the Sermon on the Mount in the very earliest tradition. In the impressive form of beatitudes basic statements are here made about those who may regard themselves as citizens of the kingdom of God. The power of the statements lies in their reversal of all human values. In Lk. the beatitudes consist more of eschatological consolation. Men in certain circumstances, the poor, the hungry, the weeping, the hated, are promised the blessings of the kingdom of God. In Mt. the factor of their own moral and religious conduct is more prominent, and the connection between right conduct and heavenly recompense is emphasised.

. Vol. 4: Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (368). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.



οἱ πτωχοὶ nominative plural (nominative predicate) 1. poor, beggarly, destitute

2. of little value, relatively worthless


τῷ πνεύματι noun dative singular "in the spirit"





here is an important not on the Greek idiom that is present in the text here

88.57 πτωχὸς τῷ πνεύματι: (an idiom, literally ‘poor in spirit’) pertaining to one who is humble with regard to his own capacities (in the one NT occurrence, namely, Mt 5:3, this humility is in relationship to God)—‘to be humble.’ μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι ‘happy are those who are humble before God’ Mt 5:3. A literal translation of πτωχὸς τῷ πνεύματι may lead to serious misunderstanding, since ‘poor in spirit’ is likely to mean either ‘lacking in the Holy Spirit’ or ‘lacking in ambition or drive.’ In order to indicate clearly that this poverty or need is related in some way to spiritual realities, one may translate ‘happy are those who recognize their need of God.’

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (748). New York: United Bible Societies.


The fact that this is a Greek idiom makes this a difficult potion to translate. I'm not sure if i like just translating it "poor in spirit", because this is pretty hard to understand and again easy to misinterpret. I think I am going to go with "spiritually destitute" I think this translation preserves the meaning of the Greek idiom and also fits well with the contrast between poverty (spiritually) now and the Kingdom that these poor will inherit. I like the word destitute because it seems to emphasize the needy the man is without the false negative connotations that other words might be misunderstood to be saying.

So here is my translation of the first half of the verse
wooden - blessed ones (are) the poor in the spirit.
my final translation- "Blessed are the spiritually destitute"

ὅτι - conjunction "for"

αὐτῶν- personal pronoun 3rd person plural genitive masculine "of them" I'm thinking this is the predicate use of the genitive case

ἐστιν - present active indicative third person singular from the being verb εἰμί

ἡ βασιλεία noun nominative singular femin. "the kingdom" (nominative predicate)

τῶν οὐρανῶν noun genitive plural masculine "of the heavens" (Subjective Genitive)

wooden translation- 'blessed ones (are) the poor in spirit, for of them is the kingdom of the heavens."

Final translation "Blessed are the spiritually destitute, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"

I really didn't like just leaving it "theirs is the kingdom..., but I didn't want to add any extra words to try to make it sound smother and make the verse potentially say more than it does in the Greek"

Psalm 1:2a

כִּי אִמ בְּתֹורַת יְהוָה חֶפְצֹו וּבְתֹורָתֹו יֶהְגֶּה יֹוםָם וָלָיְלָה

כִּי אִמ- After a neg. but is expressed by כִּי אִם, Gen. 32:29 לֹא יַֽעֲקֹב ··· כִּי אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל not Jacob but Israel. 1 S. 21:5, 2 K. 23:9, Jer. 16:14, 15. Or simply by כִּי, Gen. 45:8 לֹא אַתֶּם שְׁלַחְתֶּם כִּי א׳ it is not you who sent but God. 1 K. 21:15, 2 Chr. 20:15.

The two conjunctions go together here, after the negatives in the first verse to contrast with the statement about to be made in verse 2

בְּתֹורַת יְהוָה - in the Torah of God. Prefixed prep בְּ "in" (location) - the noun Torah is made definite by the definiteness of "YHWH" . Torah could be translated "law or instruction".. but I think it is a specialized term that may be best translated (at least for my purposes) as Torah. I'm going to label this construct pair as either a subjective genitive or as a possessive genitive. I wasn't sure which to chose... they both made sense to me.

חֶפְצֹו- noun singular "delight, joy, pleasure" - with a pronominal suffix attached to the end (3ms suffix) "his"... I'm going to add the word "is" here in my english translation so it makes a little more sense and flows a little better. So it goes from "but in the Torah of YHWH his pleasure" to (after a little moving around) "but his pleasure is in the Torah of YHWH". I'm not sure if I will move the translation around this way or if I will leave it closer to the way the Hebrew has it structured. The Psalms seems to emphasis the importance of God's Torah and I kind of think that perhaps the phrase "in the Torah of YHWH is placed in the beginning of the phrase in order to draw attention to the phrase. So I may translate it "But in the Torah of YHWH is his joy" I am also not sure which word I will use for חֶפְצֹ "joy, pleasure, or delight" Right now I am leaning toward either delight or joy."

I heard a great illustration from my Greek professor from Moody just last week. He was discussing the practice in Greek (but it also happens in Hebrew) of placing a word out of the normal order for the purpose of drawing attention to the word. He said (not an exact quote), "Suppose you were coming over to my house for a visit and I had just purchased a lovely new chair for my living room that I wanted you to complement me on. During your whole visit you did not even once comment on my new chair. The next time you come for a visit I place the chair in a new spot, so that perhaps you will comment on it during your second visit. This time, when you visit, I place the chair on top of my kitchen table. Will you miss it this time?"

More notes on Psalm 1:1

אַשְׁרֵי־הָאִישׁ* אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָלַךְ בַּעֲצַת רְשָׁעִים וּבְדֶרֶךְ חַטָּאִים לֹא עָמָד וּבְמֹושַׁב לֵצִים לֹא יָשָׁב

A. Here are some figures of speech used in this first verse of Psalm 1.

1. I already made reference to the apparent degregation of the action in the first verse... it goes from walk to stand to sitting. An argument has also been made by some (EW Bullinger in his book "Figures of Speech used in the Bible" pg 429) that this form of Anabasis (aka. Gradual Ascent) is also used in the character of the evil people described. Here is what he wrote, "The first are impious, as to their mind. The second are sinners, who not only think, but carry out the workings of their evil minds. The third are scorners, glorying in their wickedness and scoffing at righteousness."

2. Enantiosis (aka. Contraries) Enantiosis is similiar to antithesis, where two thoughts are placed in contrast to each other in order to make the contrast more striking and to emphasize it. Enantiosis is used when negative and affirmations are used in contrast. In this case the negative in verse one is used in contrast to the affirmation in verse two.. to further instruct us how to live a righteous men and women.

B. I am taking the prefixed preposition בְ in the locative sense meaning in/on.

C. The nouns that are in construct do not have definite articles prefixed to them in any part of the construct chains. I listened to my friend Marty talk about this in the Hebrew class that he taught (second term class 2 part 1 located here for download). His discussion interested me so much I had to stop the class and look up the use of definite articles in construct chains in Waltke and Oconnor's book "Biblical Hebrew Syntax". They noted that in poetic writtings the definite article does not appear at times when it is expected... and grammatically should appear. I am guessing that is what is happening here.

Applications

1. I want the blessing of the Lord.

2. Bad company corrupts good morals. Be careful who and what I allow to be in the sphere of where I walk, stand and sit (both literally and figuratively). When I can't avoid being in the presence of evil men, scoffers, etc... make sure i am not allowing them to be my influence.

3. Moral degradation is a path.. a slippery slope. Once you start down it, it leads further down.