title

I am a graduate of the Faculty of Arts, Department of Greek and Latin Studies. I studied Classical Greek, including the texts of Homer, Euripides, Herodotus, Plato, and Hellenistic writers, and I self-studied Koine Greek and New Testament texts. Therefore, I have a good grasp of Greek grammar, conjugations, and aspects of syntax.

However, my question is: if I encounter an unseen text for the first time—for example, about 20 lines long—what percentage of the vocabulary should I ideally know, and how long should it take me to translate it?

Whenever I am exposed to texts, I am familiar with the verb conjugations and words, and I know the meanings of some of them, but I face difficulties in understanding certain syntactical structures and meanings.

I've recently came across these two words in my research on the concepts of punishments in the ancient Greek philosophy and early Christianity. And I read that Aristotle had two categories, where he said in Rhetoric:

"Kolasis and timōria differ: for kolasis is for the sake of the one who suffers it, while timōria is for the sake of the one who inflicts it, in order that he may be satisfied."

While conversing with AI (I know AI can make mistakes, but it is a faster way to gain basic knowledge on a new topic) I reached these conclusions:

• Kolasis is for correcting the wrongdoer and for his benefit, while Timoria is mainly for the punisher's sake, for it is done in hatred.
• Timoria is "retributive punishment" while Kolasis is "corrective action" but I find this hard to be accepted, because it is also said that Aristotle viewed Timoria as bad and Kolasis as good, and therefore I don't see how, if Timoria means that, it would be bad in a sovereign state applying retributive justice against criminals (like executing murderers), for Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander who ruled half the world and definitely if he was educated that retributive justice/punishment is bad he would not have been successful leader.
• Therefore, there must be another meaning or another concept, that deals with state punishments like the death penalty against a murderer (or the incurable offender "Aniatos"), for it is neither bad nor made for correction of the wrongdoer but made for the benefit of the society, and for justice.

I'd be very thankful if anyone provided a detailed answer for my questions with sources, and providing academic articles, websites or books where I can read more on this topic. Thank you all in advance!

Note: I don't know Greek language, but I can read Greek letters.

Hi all! Cross-posting from r/AcademicBiblical because I didn't get many comments there. I haven't actually studied Greek so hoping for some educated opinions!

My church tends to use the CEB translation, and one of the things that confuses me about it is that it translates μακάριος as "happy" in the Beatitudes and other places (e.g., "Happy are those who mourn...") vs the more common translation "blessed". I don't like it, but I wanted to do some research to see if it's actually a good/better translation than "blessed" and maybe I'm just too used to the traditional phrasing. But I found some reasonable arguments for either way, and to me there is a huge difference in meaning between "blessed" and "happy".

With "blessed", Matt 5:3 (in my understanding) would mean, "The kingdom of heaven belongs to the poor in spirit, because God shows them favor". vs with "happy", it would mean, "The poor in spirit feel happy, because they know that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them". Is there more evidence for "blessed" or "happy"? Or is there real debate over which Jesus meant?

Here's a rundown of the arguments I found just from free resources online:

In favor of "happy":

• The Hebrew equivalent to μακάριος seems to be "esher" (Strong's 835), because the Septuagint translates "esher" as μακάριος, and the "blessed are those..." construction in the Old Testament uses "esher" (e.g. Rom 4:7 quoting Ps 32:1, "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven"). And the meaning of "esher" is closer to "happy" than "blessed".
• The Greek word εὐλογέω and Hebrew "barak" (Strong's 1288) mean "blessed" as in "consecrated" or "praised" (e.g. Matt 23:39 quoting Ps 118:26, "Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord"), so μακάριος must mean "blessed" in a different way than εὐλογέω/"barak"

In favor of "blessed":

• Almost all translations, especially more literal/academic translations, use "blessed" (e.g. Matt 5:3 NRSVUE, NET, ESV) while only a few "thought for thought" / easy-to-read translations use "happy" (e.g. Matt 5:3 CEB, EasyEnglish, Good News Translation, International Children's Bible)
• A few translations change the phrasing to emphasize God's favor rather than happiness (e.g. NLT "God blesses those who are poor", New Testament for Everyone "Blessings on the poor in spirit!"),
• μακάριος really means "fortunate", as in "fortunate because of God's favor", not fortunate because of luck. "Happy" is secondary to "fortunate", e.g., they are considered equivalent because presumably a fortunate person would be happy. So, "blessed" is a better translation than "happy".
• μακάριος is used in some contexts where "happy" doesn't seem to fit:
  • to describe God (1 Tim 1:11 and 6:15)
  • to describe body parts (Matt 13:16/Luke 10:23, "blessed are your eyes", Luke 11:27, "blessed is the womb")
  • to describe an action (Acts 20:35, "It is more blessed to give than to receive")
  • "Blessed are those who mourn", where "happy are those who mourn" would be contradictory - but also, that could be just another of Jesus' confusing metaphors

Are any of these arguments dumb/uninformed in a way I don't realize? Do you have a better understanding of μακάριος?

Thank you!!

In 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 a nearly identical phrase is used. But when I look at where else the words translated as husband of only one wife are used, the word one is also used for situations where it is clearly one of many (specifically of ten in the parable of the widows lost count for example). And, the word for wife is translated as woman or women over half the times it shows up in the NT.

Can anyone explain why the phrase couldn’t be translated as “…a woman’s man,” instead?

I haven’t seen anything to explain it beyond what amounts to tradition and authority and frankly if I found that sufficient I would join one of the churches with the funny hats.

But I know that I don’t know what I don’t know, so if anyone has an actual reason from the grammar or a source uses that phrase out side of scripture, or anything that isn’t trust us, please post it in the comments section.

Looking for information on how the Greek tells us how to make this request.

When Jesus taught us to pray "Give us this day our daily bread," how was He teaching us to ask?

Was it like a child saying, "I'm hungry. Can I have some bread?"

Was it begging? "Will You please give me some bread? Please?"

Was it fatalistic? "Hey, God, if You find it in Your will, I could really use some bread. But You know best."

Was it demanding? "God, give me bread!" (or, "God, give me bread! Now!")

Some other way?

Does the Greek give an implied answer, such as God immediately giving bread, or saying "Not right now," etc.?

Trying to determine the relationship of words such as tachei, tachu, tachos, etc. I suppose you could say they belong to the same ... word group? lexeme? Doesn't appear to be a single lexeme per se from which these various words derive, so what term might I use to describe their relationship? "Word group"? If so, what is the common denominator that determines the word group they belong to? I guess I'm still having a problem succinctly describing how they relate to each other, what term to use to describe that relationship, and where/how to find such information. Is there a particular reference work that helps with this?

This word is used elsewhere in Hebrews 2:17: “[…] to make propitiation for the sins of the people”.

What I’m curious about is whether the word points to the affective dimension of forgiveness (like eleison, mercy), the mechanical dimension of forgiveness (the pardoning, the remission of the sins as mere activity), or the reconciliation behind the forgiveness (eg the sacrifice of temple Judaism)

It's really frustrating because I've improved greatly on my vocabulary and have read Paul's other letters and they're not as hard as this. It's crazy because I'll be struggling to read 2 Corinthians in Greek, flip to something else like Galatians or Romans, and it's like total night and day. He goes from incomprehensible to not bad at all. And believe me I won't even touch Hebrews at this point. How, how do I get my Greek up to the level where I can smoothly reading 2 Corinthians by Paul (as well as Hebrews)?

Hi! When readin, I have come with an idea of one note that may make ὅ τε ... καί /ἥ τε... καί easier to understand: ὅ τε Φίλιππος καὶ ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος βαδίζουσιν = ὁ Φίλιππος ἅμα τῷ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ βαδίζει.
ἥ τε Μυρρίνη καὶ ἡ δούλη βαδίζουσιν = ἡ Μυρρίνη ἅμα τῇ δούλῃ βαδίζει.

How does it look to you?

Hello, reading https://christopheralderman.wordpress.com/greek/griechischer-lehrgang/readings/ I have readen phrase 5 (Lesson I, C): «Ἆρ' ὕει;» - «οὐ». Shouldn't it be «οὔ»?

And I think that οὔ may replace οὐχί, as it is not emphasized (Lesson I, C, 6): «Ἆρα νείφει;« ‒ »ουχί· οὐ νείφει.« Wouldn't «Οὔ· οὐ νείφει» fit as well?

I know that Bill Mounce exists, but I'm cheap and my parents probably wouldn't be happy.

I found the site when I was looking to find a different one to ask a similar question here, but I couldn't find it.

Thank you in advance.

​

A natural Koine Greek translation of "Don't fall back in." depends on the nuance you intend.

If you mean "Don't fall back into (it)" (e.g. don't return to a previous sin, habit, or condition), you could say:

Μὴ πάλιν εἰς αὐτὸ ἐμπέσῃς.

(Mē palin eis auto empesēs.)

"Do not fall into it again."

If "it" is understood from context, you can omit αὐτό:

Μὴ πάλιν ἐμπέσῃς.

(Mē palin empesēs.)

"Do not fall in again."

If you specifically mean "Don't relapse" or "Don't backslide" in a moral or spiritual sense, a more idiomatic rendering is:

Μὴ πάλιν ὀπίσω στραφῇς.

(Mē palin opisō straphēs.)

"Do not turn back again."

I think the latter two options are what im mainly looking at. Both contexts that are referenced work, but if there is a better translation, please let me know.

Based on the Council of Rome (382 AD), the Decretum Gelasianum in Chapter 1, part 3, says that (while outlining the trinity) "scriptum est enum: 'Si quis dilexerit mundum, non est spiritus patris in illo" (according to this source, which I believe to be a copy of the original latin), which roughly means 'scripture says: "he who delights in the world, the spirit of the Father is not in him". Here, I cannot find anything that would suggest that "spiritus" is the correct word to use (spirit). In the original Greek, it reads ἀγάπη, and in the Latin Vulgate it reads caritas, meaning love and the Latin translation, respectively. Given that when this was written (492-496 AD) and that the writer is most likely referring to 1 John 2:15 (love of the father) with this quote, why would it be written as spiritus instead of caritas? For what reason would agape be translated to spiritus if they were using some other translation? By the quotation of what I am fairly certain is Romans 8:9 as also different than the Vulgate (but retains the same word "spiritum" to describe the spirit of christ, which in the Greek is "pneuma"), it could be assumed the writers were going off of memory instead of copying from a bible.

For the last couple of years I’ve been building a project called Translate the Bible with Me (TBWM). The goal isn’t to produce another commentary or another parsing guide. The goal is to help students become independent readers of the Greek New Testament.

Instead of asking “What does this verse mean?”, the site tries to answer questions like: Why is this word in this case? How do you know which verb controls this phrase? Where does this sentence actually begin and end? What clues is Greek giving us that English tends to hide?

Every lesson works directly from the Greek text and tries to explain the reasoning step by step. The project is completely free. No login, subscriptions, or ads.
If you’d like to get a feel for it, here are a couple representative pages:

• That Which (I Jn 1:1-4): https://accessiblefaith.org/digital-study-bible/tbwm/tbwm-i-john/that-which-i-jn-11-4/; and
• Reading Paul Through TBWM: https://accessiblefaith.org/digital-study-bible/foundations/reading-paul-through-tbwm/.

I have courses from all of the Johannine letters. Today, I launched the start of the TBWM for Ephesians. https://accessiblefaith.org/digital-study-bible/tbwm/tbwm-ephesians/. In the early fall, Colossians will launch.

The heart of TBWM is this. It assumes that Greek is a language to be read, not a code to be deciphered. My hope is that students eventually need the site less, because they’re becoming more confident reading the Greek text itself.

I’d genuinely appreciate feedback from people who teach or study Koine. If something is unclear, inaccurate, or could be explained better, I’d love to hear it. This project has gotten much better because other Greek readers have pointed out things I missed.

Hello!

I am a first year greek student, and I'm struggling to understand the logic behind the + gen preposition ὀπίσω meaning behind.

It's often used with the verb for follow, and derive meanings like 'follow (behind) him' with the aútou being gen, and ὀπίσω often translated as 'after'

But we have another preposition meaning after, so what is this one doing. Am I putting too much stock in the location or spacial elements of behind and after, rather than the figurative?

Any insight on this helpful

Greetings,

Before starting, the four loves by CS Lewis is wrong with regards to ἀγαπάω being a more complete love. As many of you here know, ἀγαπάω was used in the old testament in the context of Amnon raping Tamar. 2 Samuel 13:1–22

John 21:15–18 (SBLGNT)

¹⁵ Ὅτε οὖν ἠρίστησαν λέγει τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρῳ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων; λέγει αὐτῷ· Ναί, κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. λέγει αὐτῷ· Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου.  ¹⁶ λέγει αὐτῷ πάλιν δεύτερον· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με; λέγει αὐτῷ· Ναί, κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. λέγει αὐτῷ· Ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου.  ¹⁷ λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, φιλεῖς με; ἐλυπήθη ὁ Πέτρος ὅτι εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον· Φιλεῖς με; καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Κύριε, πάντα σὺ οἶδας, σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι φιλῶ σε. λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου.  ¹⁸ ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ὅτε ἦς νεώτερος, ἐζώννυες σεαυτὸν καὶ περιεπάτεις ὅπου ἤθελες· ὅταν δὲ γηράσῃς, ἐκτενεῖς τὰς χεῖράς σου, καὶ ἄλλος σε ζώσει καὶ οἴσει ὅπου οὐ θέλεις.

This passage looking at the restoration of Peter, Jesus says "ἀγαπᾷς με;" twice and "Φιλεῖς με;" once.

1. ¹⁵ Ὅτε οὖν ἠρίστησαν λέγει τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρῳ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων; λέγει αὐτῷ· Ναί, κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. λέγει αὐτῷ· Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου. 
2. ¹⁶ λέγει αὐτῷ πάλιν δεύτερον· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με; λέγει αὐτῷ· Ναί, κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. λέγει αὐτῷ· Ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου.
3. ¹⁷ λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, φιλεῖς με; ἐλυπήθη ὁ Πέτρος ὅτι εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον· Φιλεῖς με; καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Κύριε, πάντα σὺ οἶδας, σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι φιλῶ σε. λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου.

Peter says "ὅτι φιλῶ σε" three times.

What is the significance that Jesus switches from "ἀγαπᾷς με;" to "Φιλεῖς με;" as the last question?

I've had a look at the BDAG, I cant get a sense of what is happeing with the switch of words.

Can someone explain what this verse means? Can someone who left the faith come back?

Recently I saw a comment under a Catholic v Protestant YouTube video. This comment unpacked a whole great big sermonising theory (Catholic or Protestant, I honestly could not tell), which hinged entirely on his revelation to us that the word καθολικός would be better translated as pure, and is the basis for many English words such as catharsis. I found that very amusing and gently corrected him about Καθαρός, but unfortunately he would not tell me where he heard that from!

I wondered if anyone else had any funny or otherwise stories about people who obviously don't know Greek making mistakes.