Okay, until then, I'm pretty certain Kathos meant "just as" just as in "Equivalent way" in that context and there's no real proof otherwise.
Nope. No proof. I can quote a lexicon for you, I can link you to the available older editions, or alternatively I could refer you to books on what translation involves (and the fact that there is nothing that
kathos corresponds to in English, because it's sort of generally well-known that the reason language presents such a difficulty for computers, translators, etc., is
1) Lexemes aren't dictionary entries. Not only do they have a far more nebulous quality, but they cannot be seperated from the constructions in which they are found. Take "just as". It's not one word.
kathos is. Just as is a prefab,
kathos is not.
2) There is no strict divide between grammar and the lexicon.
But proof is for mathematics, and as much as I'm sure Chomsky and others would love language to be equivalent to first order logic (or any formal language) it isn't.
I most clearly said in the post to Cataway that from what I understand it's merely an expression or claim of fact.
You said that about the indicative mood?
I'm going out on a limb here to say that you're dodging and diving for a good reason and I have no idea what reason you want to make such un-tenable, unsupportable positions.
Let's start with that. The idea that I am making an unsupportable position. How am I supposed to support it? If I quoted from lexicons, reference grammars, monographs, journals, etc., would you accept these? In other words, for the sake of argument, let's say I spend a good deal of time explaining what "mood" and "modal systems" are, the system used in koine, the semantics of
eimi, and so on, all supported by references to academic literature. Would it matter to you? In fact, is there a way in which I could support anything which contradicts your interpretation which you would accept? If so, I have no problem providing you with any resources or knowledge I have for you to evaluate. I can point you to references, there may even be some which you can access online or which I can and could upload somewhere.
But we have a rather difficult divide. You have no way of evaluating most of what I say, because you lack the familiarity with the language to do so, and the familiarity with the literature on the language (or access to it). So it isn't as if I can simply "prove" the way I might if we dealing with which multidimensional scaling technique is most appropriate for a particular problem or any number of other similar situations. Nor can do what I might if this were a debate over history, in which there might be enough freely and easily available data we could both point to. The issue is a much more difficult one, because we aren't dealing with a situation in which I have certain sources you don't, but rather that whatever sources either of us has, we cannot evaluate them equally.
As if that somehow means I can't understand what you're talking about. Or ask you to actually back your claim with a direct quote on the subject. I can go discuss this with someone who DOES speak Greek however, and I can let you know what they say if you'd like
Nobody speeks ancient Greek. Not even in the way there are some who "speak" Latin. Latin is a dead language, but has been continually spoken over the centuries, and was the language of scholarship. It was spoken on campuses, dissertations were written in it, scholars wrote in Latin in their diaries. That didn't happen for Greek. So the chance of you finding someone who "speaks" ancient Greek the way you might someone who "speaks" Latin is pretty small.
Most importantly, though, there haven't been any native speakers of the language in which the NT was written for centuries. You'd have to find someone who has been educated. But wouldn't it be easier simply to read that link? Goodwin is still used.
I think you're under the idea that only people who speak Greek can discuss the nuances in question here.
No. Only those who can read it.
And I have yet to see a single Trintiarian Greek scholar defend John 10:30 as you're saying.
Yes, but then again, you didn't know what "indicative mood" meant and you made a remark about grammars which seems quite biased (perhaps even prejudiced) it may be that there is a great deal of scholarship you haven't read. Or it's just that we're coming at this from two different worlds. And I couldn't really care less about what a "Trinitarian Greek scholar" means (how on earth does one combine doctrine and linguistic or even philology into a single field?), much less what such an individual would defend (especially when doctrine comes into play; take Wallace's usually excellent NT Grammar when it comes to anarthrous predicate nominatives- the time spent on Colwell's rule and how it has been misused when in the end, even if all of what Wallace says is correct, the basic logic is flawed: it's true that if x then y does not entail if y then x, but it does increase the probability).
So as I say, I'm wondering where you're getting this from, seeing as I find NOTHING on the internetz about this except on CARM, which I wonder if that's where you're getting this from, and I wonder what business you have defending the orthodox view from this angle which I find NO PRECEDENT for even among the orthodox.
Ok. What have you read on copular verbs, their existential semantic connotations, and (this is probably on the interwebs somewhere) when and why the verb "to be" or other copulas are absent? That would be a starting place, because in both your examples, the English tranlsations put "are" (e.g., "just as we
are") when there is no "are" in the Greek. There doesn't have to be, as it is often implied, and in fact when it isn't, but could be, there are reasons for this.
The problem is you made a claim and you don't want to back it.
I told you what it said. You read into this some doctrinal interpretation, and pointed to irrelevant passages to support a different interpretation. But I would be happy to point out why I translated the Greek the way I did, with references to specialist literature on Greek, on the condition that there is some point in me doing so.
Can you present an actual direct quote as well as source that says this is the case that for 10:30 it somehow means they are the same being?
That's the problem. Nobody is debating what it says, but how what is clearly "we are one" means something else. But that's doctrine. And while I seriously doubt that there is any validity to the claim that the trinity was inherent in John, the argument that this is simply equivalent to other unity claims which are rather fundamentally different is not one based on the language.
Okay, so I still have yet to see how "Are one" means "Are the same being" as opposed to a metaphorical use of one necessarily.
It could be metaphorical, sure.
Just because there's no "purpose clause" doesn't mean that it necessarily means it's a "being clause" somehow either.
It is, actually.
I'm still wondering where you are getting this idea and why you're defending this Trinitarian rendition when I can find NO OTHER SOURCE that remotely defends it like this.
It's not trinitarian. There's only two individuals. A trinity would be three.
What skin do you have in this even?
I don't like bad arguments. Other than that, it's mainly just the fact that language interests me, that my undergrad thesis was on the Greek modal system, that history, religion, and similar topics interest me, and that I find it difficult to hear someone adamantly defend the proper interpretation of a language they can't read without at least pointing to some good evidence that the
esmen is included for some reason other than to mean what it does.
Interesting. Are you fully ethnically Jewish by chance?
No. My mother was raised catholic. But my grandfather, although born here (his grandfather was the first reform rabbi in New York), was a German Jew, and was in the OSS during WWII, where his linguistic skills were used to interrogate former SS during the end of the war. So that part of my background is not only the only one I know (I don't know where his wife was from, or my mother's ethnic background), it was also always emphasized more during my life.
Where did I imply that this work was in any way being a minion of the Church? Did you even read what I said?
Yes. And you seem to be under a very wrong impresson about "most greek grammars". And given the relationship between my family and the most comprehensive Greek grammar there is in English, I don't really appreciate such claims, quite apart from the more general problem I have with such a biased view of the literature.
First off, the work you presented doesn't even necessarily indicate your concept of the indicative mood here, so I'm not even accusing it of bias to begin with.
No, just "most greek grammar guides".
But it seems you're unfamiliar with the flood of Greek guides on the market that are biased in favor of the orthodox renderings.
Could be. But whatever markets there are, "most" is not accurate. Especially as any real study of ancient Greek means learning German, French, and/or Italian. Funk translated the German work of Blass and Debrunner, but Schweitzer has no English translation. Nor do the more modern guides, including Duhoux's, which is probably the most comprehensive modern approach to the ancient Greek verb (it's in French).
