ScottS

So a Greek substantive participle in English is often translated as a relative clause "I am he who fights fires." But in Greek is really more equivalent to having an actual noun, "I am a firefighter."

It is not technically the "article" translated as "he," but the combined concept contained in a substantive participle; recall in a prior note I said: "'He who' comes from the ὁ ... ἀπιὼν (articular participle) relationship, not the εἰμι."

A copy of Wallace's Greek Grammar, note specifically the section on "substantival (independent)" use where he notes: "The translation is often the one who/the thing which with the participle then translated as a finite verb" (or if gender is known, then he/she who...).

I gave: "I am he who is not far away but remaining beside"; more woodenly literal, "I am the not distant but remaining near [person]." This is fairly basic Greek grammar: the "he who" in English is a common way a substantive participle (a participle made into a noun, if terminology is too technical) is rendered. So English makes a relative clause out of a Greek articular participle (a participle with the article), but it is not relative in Greek. When I say it matches Cambridge, the participle has become the noun complement. The relative pronoun information is irrelevant in this context.

Correction: The Perseus link gives three example groups, but two possible parsings (the first two groups show the same parsing, but from different lexical sources). So my prior note mistakenly noted "three possible parsings."

The masculine article makes the most sense in context: (1) ειμι expects a complement, (2) αρχών and παραμένων are masculine participle forms, (3) the subject of the ἐγώ is a male (Σωκράτης).

I already provided the translation for my view. The translation of a substantive participle into English uses a relative pronoun in English to convey the Greek idea of the participle. But also, Perseus (when you click on the ὁ)mi&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0175:text=Alc.%201:section=131d&i=2), gives the three possible parsings, and actually states the most likely is the masculine article (see highlight on last entry) as I am taking it (and I'm sure those men previously mentioned take it).

Where we disagree is that I do not see ὁ as the neuter relative pronoun (as you do), but the masculine article ("the") that makes the participle αρχών into a noun (making it a substantive), and so as a noun, it is functioning exactly as your lexicon has noted: a noun finishing the complement to the verb. Substantive participles tend to be translated as "he/she who..." or "the one who..." (whatever the verb is indicating the person is "being" like; so here it is "I am he who is not far away but remaining beside"; more woodenly literal, "I am the not distant but remaining near [person]").

I don't acknowledge that. I'm saying it has a predicate. The English translation proves nothing, as substantive participles are often rendered in English that way (or as "the one," so "I am the one not quitting but remaining"). But in the Greek, the articular participle is still the predicate to the being verb in this example. "He who" comes from the ὁ ... ἀπιὼν (articular participle) relationship, not the εἰμι.

Since ἀπιὼν is masculine, and ὁ is the neuter of the relative pronoun, likely the ὁ is the article for the masculine participle phrase answering the predicate aspect of "I am ...." Even so, if a sentence has any given "answer" to what the "I am" refers to, rather than simply "I am" (without further comment on what the person is "being"), then it is not an absolute use of the "I am" (and so not parallel to the Jn 8:58 use). The accepted answer gives more than just Barrett (Williams, Lampe, Stauffer, Richter, etc.) as finding no absolute use prior to the biblical source material.

That would not qualify as an example, because it has a predicate (not implied). The "ὁ οὐκ ἀπιὼν ἀλλὰ παραμένων" is the predicate to ἐγώ εἰμι. The example that would need to be found would have nothing following ἐγώ εἰμι to act as predicate (like the John 8:58 use).

Just posting to help keep the "library" active ... hope everyone is doing well.

@Dɑvïd By all means, live out the Scriptures :-).

@Dɑvïd Wasn't really fishing for someone else's 100 rep, but I appreciate the gesture of what you did on hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/39483/2070

@JackDouglas I suspected so. Like I told the awarder, it is not a big deal. But I did think it worth asking if there was a system for moderators et al. to correct if it did occur. So thanks for looking into it.

@JackDouglas (or other moderator) Not a big deal if it cannot be done, but if someone accidentally awarded the bounty to the wrong answer, can that be corrected?

The sound of ... quiet. What most libraries strive for, but somehow not really what the intention of The Library as the BH.SE chat room is striving for. :-)

@Bach I don't know for sure what you refer to, but maybe this link to the Markdown language will help. The main "highlighting" I've seen of a text is either the yellow of a >blockquote or the gray box of backticks.

cricket, cricket (just some noise to keep the room open :-) )

@Susan I definitely see them as related questions, but not really duplicate (the two questions seem distinct enough to me).

@Dɑvïd Thanks for the circuitous ping. Shows how long its been since I posted in the Library (though I "lurk" here observing fairly regularly). Yes, I did find that link very interesting, so thanks for sharing.

In an effort to get it reopened

Just added my own edit to the title of this:

@JamesShewey That is great!

But no need to belabor this. Your posting of the Tweet is taken for what you intended, just communicating there is a publisher out there really wanting some diversity in the submissions. Thanks for putting out these informative/motivational Tweets here.

And of course a statement can come across as racist/sexist when one really does not hold a view that their "own race [or gender] is superior," so that complicates things all the time with communication.

@BESW Oxford Dictionary, "racism" is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." It need not be "institutional," only individual.

@BESW I agree the publisher is not specifically saying rejecting white male submissions, but the implication by adding that statement is that the preference would be to not get more of those, but rather more from X group.

It just hit a nerve with me, the way it was phrased. Normally I’m not that sensitive, so I’m not sure why it bothered me. That the publisher desires more diversity in submissions is clear, and obviously in that case needs more diversity in race and gender of authors beyond white men. But it could have been stated better to be seeking greater diversity, without the implied side bashing of “white men” in the process.

@BESW Oh its definitely explanatory. And racist/sexist. And marginalizing of white men (since it is implying the overflowing submissions by white men are essentially "insignificant" for what the publisher desires). The Tweet is illustrative of what frustrates me, a white man who does not tend toward having racist/sexist views, when there is any specifically "white man" vs. others (whatever the group) statement put forth, which is not an inclusive statement.

@BESW Depending on what part of the world (or even region/city in a part), white men can be just such a minority and "consider themselves" so. So the publisher did not word that call very well if what was desired was simply more submissions from anyone other than white men.

@Edlothiad That is a different story... I misclicked on the chat room's, just reading the first two lines of the description to this room "General discussion ...," when the room I really intended originally to jump into was the "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" to check out the main site's "General discussion." So purely accidental initially to come in here, and didn't realize the error until later. :-)

I just noticed an edit on a low voted answer that happened 14 hours ago, so that is what is generating the views / votes on my answer. Mystery solved.

@TheLethalCarrot I was getting a lot of recent activity on this answer: scifi.stackexchange.com/a/139045/31437 so I popped in to see if it had something to do with a comment in the chat room, and perhaps even this comment, but that was not it. So I don't know why the activity, but I don't mind it.

If you return to this room with more questions, just but the @ sign in front of my name to flag me to return.

How God would have delivered is unclear, but yes, I would say He would not have done it via Assyria. I lean toward the view that Luke is Mary's genealogy (since Christ's only directly human parent is Mary, his bloodline connection to David is through her), Matthew is Joseph's. But even Eusebius's view prevents Ahaz from biologically being connected to Christ.

I don't think the Eli parallel works, but maybe. Ahaz is still in the ruling line of Christ (Mt 1:9), but not the biological line (Lk 3:23-38), which is how I read the genealogies. Ahaz failing to be established for lack of faith (Isa 7:9) is likely a judgment against his bloodline.

God had already promised Ahaz to not worry about Rezin and Remaliah, and yes, that deliverance still occurred, but Ahaz did so by contracting with Assyria (2 Kg 16:5-20) instead of believing God (Isa 7:9), so that was Ahaz's downfall into greater rejection of God (as the 2 Kings passage notes), and the later issues with Assyria as prophesied would happen before the sign was complete (Isa 7:17).

I think God wanted to give a sign of hope, initially for His proclamation against Syria/Ephraim (v.7-8) to help Ahaz' to not disbelieve (v.9). But when Ahaz refused, God's sign was for the future hope of the house of David (to any who would believe).

This sign of Isa 7:14-16 I believe functioned at both levels of judgment and salvation. That is, based on how I've interpreted it, v.16 is a judgment verse (since Ahaz is currently king over the land he abhors, Israel, and so God is saying the reign of his house will end before this child comes/grows very old). Yet the sign itself, when it comes, is a sign of hope: Immanuel, God with us.

@diegob It will only alert you to my posting if I put your name with the @ sign before it. Otherwise, you can just come and check if I've replied on your time.

So near prophecy fulfillment + faithfulness to YHWH meant by implication the opposite of Dt 18:22, that the people should "fear" that prophet who is the true prophet. This honor then allowed God to show his people He was speaking through that person (per Dt 18:21), even if a far future prophecy.

The prophets often "interchange" between near and far prophecy. This is something of which I believe is vital to their being recognized as prophets, as Dt 18:22 demands that a prophet demonstrate fulfillment of prophecy to be believed. Yet the "far future" prophecies cannot be so proven, so God always had true prophets demonstrate their calling by near term prophecies. Additional requirements, even if something DID happen, were that they not seek to steer people to other gods (Dt 13:1-5).

I take the child in chapter 8:1-10 as a child of that day, by Isaiah and his wife (v.1, 3), as a sign for timing of the events of v.4-10; of which Isaiah and his children are acting as signs (v.18). But in v.13 the subject changes to "the LORD of hosts" who will be the one who is prophesied as "a stone of stumbling," etc., v.14. So in chapter 9, the focus is back toward the messianic prophecies in vv.1-7, before turning again to items of Isaiah's day in vv.8ff.

And then Jamieson-Fausset-Brown mention a commentary by "Horsley" (which I have not looked into) that took the two kings similar to me "Horsley takes it, 'The land (Judah and Samaria) of (the former of) which thou art the plague (literally, 'thorn') shall be forsaken,' &c.; a prediction thus, that Judah and Israel (appropriately regarded as one "land") should cease to be kingdoms (Lu 2:1; Ge 49:10) before Immanuel came."

Chiefly, this explanation is my own (as I was unsatisfied with other explanations with respect to how this prophecy related to Christ, which the NT makes clear that it was such in Mt 1:23). The concepts I've connected are not unprecedented. The link to commentaries I give in that answer shows some that take the term as "abhor" (like I do) not "fear."

@diegob So did you decide you had no questions?

Sure, I'll answer as I have time.

This room was created in reply to this request: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/26369/…