Abram K-J Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Two things stand out reading through the genealogy in Matthew 1:1-17: 1. Some names are declinable, i.e., take different forms in accusative when compared to the name in the nominative case. Others are not, so that the two times you see the name (accusative and nominative), it looks identical. I have only done a quick grammars search, but am not sure if there are rules that govern which names (i.e., proper nouns) are declinable and which are not... or if there are ways to be able to guess, based on the name, if it will decline or not. 2. The definite article helps a lot in determining case, of course. Interesting, though, that a name in this passage is preceded by a definite article when in the accusative case but not the nominative case. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) interesting point. Robertson and BDF have some discussion of it. Robertson includes some notes under The Article for names with the article. I haven't read them all yet. That said, without a consistent approach to name declension it would be harder to determine the subject from the object of the verb, so perhaps it was just a simple expedient and then once the pattern was established it made sense to follow it. thx D Edited January 2, 2018 by דָנִיאֶל Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarcher Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) With regards to the names, I believe Mounce also makes short mention of names in his grammar (3rd edition, pg. 48) as well as in his Morphology book. Since most names in the list come to us from another language they don't follow usual declension patterns. Edited January 2, 2018 by jarcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve King Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 I found it interesting that not only is Bathsheba not named all she gets is a definite article! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkgayle Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Any significance to the transliteration Ῥαχάβ vs the Ῥαάβ, the LXX transliteration in Joshua B and the one in Hebrews & in James? The latter (also not declinable) is always accompanied with the declined appellation πόρνης, τὴν πόρνην, ἡ πόρνη. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύχνις Δαν Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Interesting - I had a quick look. My first thought was some attempt to capture the 'ch' sound in the ח in the Hebrew. I note that with Rachel we have Ραχηλ for the Hebrew רָחֵל which is a rather similar case I think. Ῥαχάβ for רָחָב, yet there is no Ραηλ form is attested in the NT or LXX. Thx D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abram K-J Posted January 2, 2018 Author Share Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) Looks like BDF (sections 39, 53-57) has some discussion on names and declension. Edited January 2, 2018 by Abram K-J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c3123c857d1029f98e39c9394adc358d.png)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now