Question: How can we “rightly divide” if much of it is left out by “Dynamic Equivalence”?
Thu, 5 Oct 2000
“Ernest C Wilkinson”
I have reviewed your “Que and Ans” section with regards to my question and I now know one answer to a que I had...”What Version do you use? The ans is NKJV... But my confusion is the readings I have done regarding HORT and WESTCOTT and how they have changed all the modern translations per WAITE and DEAN BURGON (bad spelling but you get where I’m comming from) After much comparsion I was convinced the NAS was the most literal.
Then I had to get these books. Keith Blades sold me on the KJV and the Older English... How can we “Rightly Divide the Word of Truth” if much of it has been left out by “Dynamic Equivalence” the adding and subtracting from the MASORETIC TEXT and the TEXTUS RECEPTUS....as with the NIV and other ultra modern English versions. I am NOT a KJV ONLY advocate just someone who is concerned from what I TEACH and PREACH from that will affect the SOULS of others..... Thank-You for your response.
By His Grace, Ernie Wilkinson
Answer: (click here to view the answer)
Dear Ernest,
To begin, the NKJV is translated from the TR. However, fortunately the NKJV has marginal notes that show the reading for both the Majority Text (MT) and the Critical Text (CT). I agree that the CT has a very poor system of textual criticism. if you can get a hold of The Identity of the New Testament Text by Wilbur Pickering, you will find a very able defense of a majority of all the mss. for the real text. The resultant text is different from the TR about 10% of the time, but differs from the CT quite a bit.
The NKJV is not a “Dynamic Equivalence” type translation. It is very close to the original of the TR. Tim and I do our commentary from the MT and generally opt for the NKJV when citing Scripture unless we need to correct the translation from the underlying text. We do have to modify it fairly often, but if we used the KJV, we would have to modify it much more. The NAS is very literal in Galatians, but it is poorer than its marginal readings in books like Eph & Col. I haven’t checked it in other areas. However, it bases its translation on the CT, which we reject.
In order to really understand as much as possible, it’s necessary to learn Greek. You also should spend a great amount of time understanding the principles of textual criticism ala Pickering, Sturz, Farstad, Hodges and others. You can spend a tremendous amount of time doing this, and it isn’t as profitable as it would be to spend the time in the Bible itself, no matter what translation, but preferably the NKJV. I’ve spent over 30 years studying textual criticism, but since I’m a pastor, it would now be a waste of time to do that.
Therefore, I recommend you learn NT Greek.
In Christ,
Bob Hill
Wed, 09 Aug 2000 20:05
"Michael Simmons"
Question:
Hi Bob,
I was just reading Matthew 5:22 in the New American Standard Bible (NT), and they omit the phrase, "without a cause" in their translation of the text. Are they justified in doing this?
Michael
Answer: (click here to view the answer)
Dear Michael,
There is a difference between the texts in Mat 5:22. The word eijkh`/ which is and adverb that means, without cause; in vain, to no avail; to no purpose, is attested by the vast number of mss. of the Majority Text. The Critical Text, in the 4th edition relies, in general, on three mss. in the book of Matthew. In this case, P64, a ms. from approximately 200, agrees with a, Sinaiticus, and B, Vaticanus, that eijkh`/ should be deleted.
I have come to the conclusion that the Majority Text, in general, is the correct text. Most honorable scholars who do textual work disagree with me. I was convinced by a book by Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text. Farstad and Hodges have edited, and Nelson has published this text. This is the one I use. We must be aware of this as we read the different Bibles that are sold today. The NIV, NAS, NLT, NCV, NRSV all use the critical text. The KJV and the NKJV use the Textus Receptus. The NKJV gives the Majority Text notes in the margin.
Therefore, I believe the NAS is wrong here only because the CT does not have the word. The KJV and NKJV have “without a cause” because the TR also has it.
I hope this helps you Michael.
In Christ,
Bob
Question: In Acts 13:43, What is the antecedent to the pronouns who and them?
Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:24
"Jeremy Clark"
Question: In Acts
13:43 there are two sets of actors, Jews and worshipping
proselytes, and Paul and Barnabas. What is the antecedent to the
pronouns who and them?
Bob,
In Acts 13:43 (NKJV) there are two sets of actors, (1) Jews and worshipping (devout) proselytes, and (2) Paul and Barnabas. Both sets of actors are plural. There are two pronouns which follow: "who" and "them" which are both plural in the Greek. What is the antecedent to what pronoun? Either would seem to make sense, but I need a little help with this one.
Thanks!
Jeremy Clark
Answer: (click here to view the answer)
Jeremy,
Because both of the groups are masculine, we cannot be
dogmatic from Greek syntax. But we can be dogmatic from the logic
of the situation. Paul and Barnabas were the missionaries who
brought the gospel to them. In the 43rd verse: “Now
when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout
proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them,
persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.” The “who”
refers to Paul and Barnabas because they were the ones who brought
this “grace of God” to them, “the Jews and devout
proselytes”.
I hope this answers your question.
Question: What is the correct translation of 1 Co 11:16?
Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:31
"Michael Simmons"
Hi Bob,
In 1 Corinthians 11:16, in the NKJV, the verse reads "if anyone seems to be contentious about this [women wearing head-coverings or men having to have short hair], we have no such custom nor do the churches of God." But the NASB is translated "we have no other custom". One translation seems to say that women need to wear head-coverings and the other says that it isn't a forced custom. What is the correct translation?
Micheal
Answer: (click here to view the answer)
Michael,
You have picked a difficult passage to try to explain. I can say that the NASB took great liberty to translate the word, toiauvthn, other. Of the 61 times the Greek word occurred in the KJV and then in the Greek Critical Text, which the NASB is based on, it never translated our word, other, except in the passage you cited, 1 Co 11:16. It did translate the word, like, in Mk 9:37; similar, in Acts 19:25; It said in a f.n. that it was lit. such, in 1 Co 11:16; so, twice, in 1 Co 15:48; and, Like, in Phi 2:29.
Here is the listing for the word in
BGD: toiou`to", auvth, ou`ton (this form of the neut. is predom. in
Attic wr.; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 12; 2, 222; Mt 18:5 v.l.; Ac 21:25 D)
and ou`to
(Zen.-P. Cairo 379, 8; 482, 13 [III bc];
POsl. 17, 9 [136 ad];
Mt 18:5; 1 Cl 43:1; Dg 5:3) correlative adj. of such a kind,
such as this (Hom.+; inscr., pap., LXX, En., Ep. Arist.,
Philo, Joseph.).
1.
correlative oi|o".
. . toiou`to"
(X., Mem. 2, 6, 12; Lucian, Dial. Deor. 4, 4; Sir 49:14) 1 Cor
15:48a, b; 2 Cor 10:11b. toiouvtou"
oJpoi`o"
(Jos., Ant. 7, 385) Ac 26:29.
2.
adj.—a. used w. a noun—a.
w. the art., mostly attributive e}n
tw`n toiouvtwn paidivwn
one child like
this (as
indicated in vs. 36) Mk 9:37. to;n
toiou`ton a[nqrwpon
such a man
2 Cor 12:3 (cf. vs. 2). th`"
toiauvth" diakoniva"
IPhld 10:2 (cf. vs. 1). oiJ
toiou`toi divkaioi
2 Cl 6:9 (cf. vs. 8). Pred. aiJ
dunavmei" toiau`tai
such are the
miracles Mk
6:2. hJ
gnw`si" toiauvth
the knowledge
is of this kind
(as is described in what follows) B 19:1.
b.
without the article ejxousivan
toiauvthn
such power
Mt 9:8.—18:5; Mk 4:33; J 9:16; Ac 16:24; 1 Cor 11:16; 2 Cor 3:4,
12; Hb 7:26; 13:16; Js 4:16.
g.
toi.
can have its mng. made clear by a rel. clause toiauvth
porneiva h{ti" oujde; ejn toi`" e[qnesin
(sc. ajkouvetai)
1 Cor 5:1. toiou`to"
ajrciereuv", o{"
Hb 8:1 (Dio Chrys. 15[32], 7 coro;"
toiou`to". . . , o{"). a[nqrwpoi toiou`toi oi{tine"
B 10:3-5.
b.
toiou`to"
w[n since
I am the sort of person
(who presumes to give you orders) Phlm 9 (foll. by wJ"=in
my character as; Andoc., Alcibiades 16). oJ
path;r toiouvtou" zhtei` tou;" proskunou`nta"
aujtovn the
Father seeks such people to worship him
J 4:23 (double acc. as Vett. Val. 315, 20 tina;"
tou;" toiouvtou";
Jos., Ant. 12, 281). The pleonastic use of toi.
after a relative is due to Semitic infl. (Ex 9:18, 24; 11:6) qli`yi"
oi{a ouj gevgonen toiauvth
tribulation
such as has never been seen
Mk 13:19.
3.
subst.—a. quite predom. w. the art. (Bl-D. §274; Rob.
771)—a.
of persons oJ
toiou`to"
such a person;
either in such a way that a definite individual with his special
characteristics is thought of, or that any bearer of certain
definite qualities is meant Ac 22:22; 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 2:6f;
10:11a; 12:2, 5; Gal 6:1; Tit 3:11. Pl. oiJ
toiou`toi (Aeschyl.,
Thu.+; Test. Ash.2:9; 4:5) Mt 19:14; Mk 10:14; Lk 18:16; Ro 16:18;
1 Cor 7:28; 16:16 al.
b.
of things ta;
toiau`ta
such
or similar things, things like that (X., Cyr. 1, 2, 2 a
catalogue of vices concluding kai;.
. . ta[lla ta; toiau`ta wJ sauvtw".
Sim., Ael. Aristid. 37, 27 K.=2 p. 27 D.; Plut., Mor. 447a)
Ac 19:25; Ro 1:32; 2:2f; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:27. ejn
toi`" toiouvtoi"
in such cases,
under such circumstances
(X., Cyr. 5, 4, 17) 1 Cor 7:15.
b.
without the art. toiau`ta
such things
(Socrat., Ep. 14, 6; Test. Napht. 9:1) Lk 9:9; 13:2 P et al.; Hb
11:14. M-M. BGD, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1979.
The reason this passage is difficult for us today is the feminist influence in our society. When it comes to God’s principles for leadership in the church, it is very explicit. In 1 Co 14:33b-37, it says, “As in all the churches of the saints, 34 let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. 36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? 37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” Further, in 1 Ti 2:8-14, it says, “I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” This epistle was written to Timothy to tell him how to oversee the churches in the Roman province of Asia. This was the second to last epistle that God inspired Paul to write. Paul wrote in 1 Ti 3:14,15, “These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Gen 6:1-6 has an interesting statement about what I believe were the fallen angels who were trying to pollute the whole human race so Christ could not be born to redeem man. I believe the sons of God are the fallen angels. anyway, this is what it says: “Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. 3 And the LORD said, ‘My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.’ 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. 5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD repented that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.”
Later, when God inspired Paul to address some more man and woman issues, I think He had Paul write this about our passage – women having a covering – which I think is long hair. 1 Co 11:2-16 “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. 13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her instead of (I think the Greek ajnti; -- anti, should be translated in its more normal sense of “instead of.) a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom (of women praying without long hair), nor do the churches of God.
When giving the standards for bishops, lit. overseers, it shows that overseers are men. 1 Ti 3:1,2 “This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach.
When you look at all of this Scripture, we can see that God’s word does not fit in our liberal society. That puts us in a dilemma. Who should we let influence us, God or man? When it says, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you; the head of woman is man; Wives, submit to your own husbands; let the wife see that she respects her husband; Let a woman learn in silence with all submission; I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence; obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed; Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord; Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says; And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; it is shameful for women to speak in church”, we must obey God. But we must emphasize that the top priority for every husband is to love his wife.
Question: The definite article and the translation of Romans 1:3-4.
Name: Matthew Yeseta
GraecaII font
Question about the translation of Romans 1:3-4, specifically, the translation of the article” in 3 peri; tou` uiJou` aujtou` tou` genomevnou ejk spevrmato" Daui;d kata; savrka, 4 tou` oJrisqevnto" uiJou` qeou` ejn dunavmei kata; pneu`ma aJgiwsuvnh" ejx ajnastavsew" nekrw`n, jIhsou` Cristou` tou` kurivou hJmw`n before the noun spirit, Greek “pneuma” or “ said verse. Can you explain the translation of the article from the rule that the Greek scholar, A. T. Robertson, formulated? That is: the [article] rule holds wherever the subject has the article and the predicate does not. [Bob Hill, The Deity of Christ and The Trinity of God, page 2]
Romans 1:3-4 "concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" [NKJV]
The NKJV translation has the definite article before the noun “Spirit”. The Greek text does not have an article before the noun, Greek “kata pneuma agiosunes” or
In another translation, namely the Anchor Bible, I have seen these “scholars” change the translation of the article, from definite to indefinite, in order to support their proposed theory that the revelation to the Apostle Paul in Romans, and all his epistles for that matter, had Paul using his own words rather than a received revelation. I’m acutely aware that some scholars would be zealously pleased to find some bit of evidence that would demonstrate that Paul’s revelation was not from God or Christ Jesus resurrected, or that the revelation was to another and that Paul “received” it from another! [Van Buren, According to the Scriptures, 1998, page 11] This would give them amble room to deny the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to [Apostle Paul] for [us – today!].
In the Anchor Bible’s translation of Romans 1:3-4: “his Son, born of David’s stock, according to the flesh, established as Son of God with power, according to a spirit of holiness as of the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.” According to the accompanying commentary by Joseph Fitzmyer on Romans [Anchor Bible, Volumn 33], the words “with power”, and “as of the resurrection from the dead” are Paul’s own words. He and others [scholars] believe these are the stylistic and linguistic grounds to be Paul’s own words rather than a received formulation. [Opt Cit., Van Buren, page 52]
The Anchor Bible translation has the indefinite article before the noun “spirit”. This simple change, similar to the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses where it says “the Logos was a God.”, causes speculation in men’s mind when it is translated as “according to a spirit of holiness”. By this speculation they are rejecting the necessity of God the Holy Spirit as the One “declaring” the Son of God and the resurrection from the dead. Somehow from the change in the translation of the definite article to the indefinite article it makes it possible, in the minds of some “scholars”, that the agent declaring according to “the spirit” is not God the Holy Spirit, but rather, “a spirit” or another spirit or man’s own spirit!
Therefore, these scholars agree: ” We can say that the gospel, even as revelation, was also a human formulation”. [Opt. Cit., Van Buren, Page 12] And, in Romans 1:3-4, that “there he [Paul] quotes the words of institutions and says that he received [them] from the Lord. He surely did not mean that the Lord had spoken to him in a dream or vision [or just literally spoke]. In this context it is far more likely that Jesus was believed to have spoken those words [during the Lord’s public ministry] and that they were handed on [to Paul] by his disciples. The same is true with the gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5: Paul is transmitting what has been passed on to him [from another man].” [Opt. Cit., Van Buren, Page 11]
I find it no small wonder to deduct that they have not even read or believed the scriptures where it says: Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 3:2 If indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I wrote before in a few words…) 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:
Matthew Yeseta
Answer: (click here to view the answer)
Matthew,
When you notice that the Holy Spirit in the Greek phrase, according to the Spirit of holiness, or Holy Spirit (kata; pneu`ma aJgiwsuvnh") appears in a prepositional phrase as the object of (kata;, kata), you are on the way to understanding a syntactical answer.
A.T. Robertson addressed the situations when the article is absent on pp. 790-796 of his, still monumental, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament. I’ll quote a few sections for you. “It is sufficient here to give a resume of the chief idioms in the N.T. which are without the article and are still definite. . . . (c) Prepositional Phrases. These were also often considered definite enough without the article. . . This idiom is not therefore peculiar to Greek. It is hardly necessary to mention all the N.T. examples, so common is the matter.”
We can honestly say, the definite article is implied when a normally articulated noun follows a preposition as it does here. Here are some examples I found in Paul’s epistles. The prepositional phrases are highlighted or have the Greek:
Rom 8:12,13,27 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God (kata; qeo;n ejntugcavnei uJpe;r aJgivwn).
1 Co 1:26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.
1 Co 16:2 On the first day of the week (kata; mivan sabbavtou) let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.
2 Co 1:17 Therefore, when I was planning this, did I do it lightly? Or the things I plan, do I plan according to the flesh, that with me there should be Yes, Yes, and No, No?
2 Co 8:2 that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty (hJ kata; bavqou" ptwceiva aujtw`n) abounded in the riches of their liberality.
2 Co 11:17 What I speak, I speak not according to the Lord (kata; kuvrion), but as it were, foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.
Gal 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face (kata; provswpon), because he was to be blamed.
Question: Question on the translation and usage of the greek verb “logizomai” in Romans chapter 4.
Name: Matthew Yeseta
Bob,
Question on the translation and usage of the greek verb “logizomai” in Romans chapter 4. Why is there a difference in the translation and usage in Romans chapter 4?
The literal translation as found in several interlinear (Eberhard NestleI 21st edition; Stephens 1550 edition) is “reckon”. However, it is translated as several variations, such as impute, reckon, count, and account in the KJV; and translated as impute, count, and account in the NKJV. The context of Romans 4 is that great chapter about Abraham’s righteousness imputed to him apart from his works, circumcision, and observance of law.
We have the following translations:
Romans KJV NKJV
4:3 count account (note: impute)
4:4 reckon count
4:5 reckon account
4:6 impute impute
4:8 impute impute
4:9 reckon account
4:10 reckon account
4:11 impute impute
4:22 impute account
4:24 reckon impute
The same root word is used in each of these verses. The RSV translates “logizomai” as reckon throughout Romans 4.
Why the difference? Is there something I’m missing? Does the greek grammar in these verses justify these translations? I do not see any pattern forming out of the KJV and NKJV translations; especially when these verses occur in such frequency and proximity and all within the same context that the Apostle Paul, through the Holy Spirit, is teaching.
In Christ,
Matthew Yeseta
Answer: (click here to view the answer)
Matthew,
To begin this answer, I want to show you the dictionary in the lexicon most of us use (GraecaII font):
logivzomai impf. ejlogizovmhn;
1 aor. ejlogisavmhn,
pass. ejlogivsqhn;
1 fut. pass. logisqhvsomai.
Mid. dep. (Bl-D. §311; Rob. 816; 819) (Soph., Hdt.+; inscr.,
pap., LXX; En. 99, 2; Ep. Arist., Philo, Joseph., Test. 12 Patr.).
A word esp. used by Paul; cf. GThomas, ET 17, ’06, 211ff. 1.
reckon, calculate—a. count, take into account
ti;
someth.
hJ ajgavph ouj logivzetai to; kakovn
love does not take evil into account 1 Cor 13:5 (cf. Zech 8:17). l.
tiv tini count
someth. against someone, to punish him for it (Simplicius
in Epict. p. 79, 15 th;n
aJmartivan ouj tw`/ pravttonti logivzontai;
Test. Zeb. 9:7) mh; logizovmeno" aujtoi`" ta; paraptwvmata
2 Cor 5:19.—ou| ouj mh; logivshtai kuvrio"
aJmartivan Ro 4:8 (Ps 31:2).
Pass. (Lev 17:4) mh; aujtoi`" logisqeivh
(on the form s. Mlt.-H. 217) 2 Ti 4:16.—But ‘place to one’s
account’ can also mean credit tw`/
ejrgazomevnw/ oJ misqo;" ouj logivzetai kata; cavrin
a workman’s wages are
not credited to him as a favor
(but as a claim) Ro 4:4. w|/ oJ qeo;" logivzetai
dikaiosuvnhn vs. 6. Pass. eij"
to; logisqh`nai aujtoi`" t. dikaiosuvnhn vs. 11.—l. tiniv ti ei[" ti
credit
someth. to someone as someth. pass. ejlogivsqh aujtw`/ eij" dikaiosuvnhn
(after Gen 15:6; cf. Ps 105:31; 1 Macc 2:52) Ro 4:3, 5, 9, 22 (WDiezinger,
NovT 5, ’62, 288-98 [rabbinic use of log.]);
Gal 3:6; Js 2:23.-Cf. also Ro 4:10, 23f.—H-WHeidland, D.
Anrechnung des Glaubens zur Gerechtigkeit ’36; FWDanker,
FWGingrich-Festschr., ’72, 104.—l. ei[" tina
put on someone’s
account, charge to someone
(commercial t.t.: Dit., Or. 595, 15 ta; e{tera ajnalwvmata eJautoi`"
ejlogisavmeqa, i{na mh; th;n povlin barw`men;
PFay. 21, 9) mhv ti" eij" ejme;
logivshtai in
order that no one may credit me
2 Cor 12:6.
b.
as a result of a calculation evaluate, estimate, look upon as,
consider (Hyperid. 2, 20) eij"
oujqe;n logisqh`nai
be looked upon as nothing
(Is 40:17; Wsd 3:17; 9:6) Ac 19:27. ta;
tevkna t. ejpaggeliva" logivzetai eij" spevrma
the children of the
promise are looked upon as seed
Ro 9:8 (cf. La 4:2). oujc hJ ajkrobustiva aujtou` eij" peritomh;n
logisqhvsetai; will not
his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 2:26.—Count,
class (PLond. 328, 8 of a camel’s colt: logizomevnou nuni; ejn teleivoi"=‘which
is now classed among the full-grown’) meta;
ajnovmwn ejlogivsqh
he was classed among the
criminals (Is 53:12) Mk
15:28 t.r.; Lk 22:37. Also (exactly like the LXX) ejn toi`" ajnovmoi" ejlogivsqh
1 Cl 16:13. meta; tw`n ejqnw`n
ejlogivsqhsan they
were counted with the heathen
Hs 8, 9, 3.—oujk ejlogivsqh
he was held in disrespect
1 Cl 16:3 (Is 53:3).—l. tina wJ" w.
acc. consider, look upon someone as: hJma`"
logizevsqw a[nqrwpo" wJ" uJphrevta" Cristou`
1 Cor 4:1. l. hJma`" wJ" kata;
savrka peripatou`nta" 2
Cor 10:2b. Pass. ejlogivsqhmen wJ" provbata sfagh`"
Ro 8:36 (Ps 43:23). l.
tina foll. by acc. and inf.
(Is 53:4) logivzesqe
eJautou;" ei\nai nekrouv"
consider yourselves dead
Ro 6:11.
2.
think (about) , consider, ponder, let one’s
mind dwell on (PsSol 2, 28b; Philo, Leg. All. 3, 227 tau`ta;
Jos., Ant. 6, 211) Phil 4:8. Foll. by o{ti
(PsSol 2, 28a; Philo, Somn. 2, 169; Jos., Ant. 11, 142) J 11:50;
Hb 11:19; B 1:5. tou`to l. o{ti
2 Cor 10:11, 7 (here ejfÆ
[v.l. ajfÆ] eJautou` in
his own mind is added).
W. ejn eJautai`"
and a direct question foll. Lk 24:1 D.—Have in mind, propose,
purpose w. inf. foll. (X., An. 2, 2, 13; 1 Macc 6:19) 2 Cor
10:2a. Think out ti;
someth.
(Ps 51:4) wJ" ejx eJautw`n
as
(if) of ourselves 3:5. Reason or make
plans (Wsd 2:1) wJ" nhvpio"
like a child
1 Cor 13:11.
3. think, believe, be of the opinion w. o{ti
foll. Ro 8:18. W. acc. and o{ti
foll.: logivzh/ tou`to. . . , o{ti;
do you imagine that? 2:3. Foll. by acc. and inf. (Wsd
15:12) logizovmeqa dikaiou`sqai a[nqrwpon
we hold that a man is
justified 3:28. l.
ti koino;n ei\nai 14:14. ejmauto;n
ou[pw l. kateilhfevnai
I consider that I have
not yet attained Phil
3:13. o}n logivzomai kai; tou;"
ajqevou" ejntrevpesqai whom, I believe, even the
godless respect ITr 3:2.
Foll. by the inf. alone 2 Cor 11:5.—wJ" logivzomai
as I think
1 Pt 5:12; Dg 7:3.—H-WHeidland, TW IV 287-95. M-M.**
Bauer,
Gingrich, and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1979.
From this you can see the word has many nuances of meaning.
Many words in Greek and English as well as most other languages
have a number of meanings. Context is the most important thing to
translate. That’s why using an interlinear can be very dangerous
if you don’t know any syntax.
Here is the use in the NKJV:
Mark 11:31 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’
Mark 15:28 So the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And He was numbered with the transgressors.”
Luke 22:37 “For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.”
Acts 19:27 “So not only is this trade of ours in danger of falling into disrepute, but also the temple of the great goddess Diana may be despised and her magnificence destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worship.”
Roma 2:3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?
Roma 2:26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?
Roma 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
Roma 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.” 9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,
Roma 6:11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Roma 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 36 As it is written: “For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”
Roma 9:8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
Roma 14:14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
1Cor 4:1 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
1Cor 13:5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
2Cor 3:5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God,
2Cor 5:19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
2Cor 10:2 But I beg you that when I am present I may not be bold with that confidence by which I intend to be bold against some, who think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. 7 Do you look at things according to the outward appearance? If anyone is convinced in himself that he is Christ’s, let him again consider this in himself, that just as he is Christ’s, even so we are Christ’s. 11 Let such a person consider this, that what we are in word by letters when we are absent, such we will also be in deed when we are present.
2Cor 11:5 For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles.
2Cor 12:6 For though I might desire to boast, I will not be a fool; for I will speak the truth. But I refrain, lest anyone should think of me above what he sees me to be or hears from me.
Gala 3:6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
Phil 3:13 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead,
Phil 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things.
2Tim 4:16 At my first defense no one stood with me, but all forsook me. May it not be charged against them.
Hebr 11:19 concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.
Jame 2:23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God.
1Pet 5:12 By Silvanus, our faithful brother as I consider him, I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God in which you stand.
This is why translation can be extremely difficult at times, depending on the passage. If you have any other questions, let me know.
Bob
Question: Translation of I Timothy 1:16
02
May 2000 14:33
Name:
Matthew Yeseta
Bob,
I
am observing questions by others concerning when believers are
part of the Body of Christ, of which Paul clearly talks about in
Ephesians 3:3-6 and 5:30-32.
I am a Mid-Acts dispensational believer.
I am interested to know if the original language can be
helpful in describing I Timothy 1:16. I know that the translations
of the Greek tenses are difficult at best, and we English (et.
al.) readers cannot fully appreciate a more fuller meaning from
the translations.
In
I Timothy 1:16 Paul writes, [NKJ] "However, for this reason I
obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all
longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on
Him for everlasting life"
Question
concerning the a few greek words:
The word "first" (Gk. prwto" [Translit. protos] and prwtw
[Translit. proto]). What
greek tense does this word have?
Is it aorist? Is "first" describing something that was perfected
in the past? And does
the word "pattern" (Gk. upotupwsin [Translit. upotuposin])
describe something that was completed in the past, but continues
to the present? The
word "going to believe" (Gk. mellontwn [Translit.
mellonton]). The word
is translated with a future tense in mind. Therefore, those whom believe after Paul are those who are
baptized into Christ, the Body of Christ.
Answer: (click here to view the answer)
Matthew,
The first two words, which mean first, are adjectives. Paul
is describing the fact that he was the first one saved into the
body of Christ. The word mellontwn
means, in general, “about to”. So, he is saying that he
would be a pattern of all those who would believe following him
In
Christ,
Bob
Question: Catholics and Inspiration of
Scripture
Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:56
"Paul DeYonghe"
Dear Bob Hill,
Below is a letter I originally
sent to Bob Enyart. I
send it to you as well, because I need all the help in this realm
I can muster. I'd be
happy to hear my question read on-air, but would be satisfied just
to see your e-mail reply. In
any event, may God continue to bless you and your ministry.
Paul DeYonghe
(letter begins) 04/19/2000
Dear Bob,
I have been having debates with a Catholic friend over theology, especially over the "Open View" of God. I have scored a minor victory by showing him that Augustine compromised by building his understanding on Greek philosophy and basing his interpretation of Scripture on this pagan foundation.
A topic that's come up recently is the inspiration of Scripture, and the proof thereof. He says that Protestants have no objective basis for proving the inspiration of Scripture, while Catholics do. His argument is, roughly, as follows: we know the books of the Bible are historically accurate and authentic. We know that Jesus claimed to be nothing less than God Almighty in the flesh; we know by His words and actions that this claim has merit. In Matthew 16, Jesus promises Peter that He would build His Church upon Peter, that Peter would be given the keys to the Kingdom (thus giving him the role of Prime Minister), and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it; Paul later calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)." The capstone of his argument is that the Church, in the fourth century at the councils at Hippo and Carthage and under the authority of one of Peter's successors, declared infallibly and with authority that the 27 books of the New Testament (along with, uh, 46 Old Testament books) are inspired Scripture.
My friend goes on, saying that by rallying around the tentpole "sola Scriptura," Protestants have no basis for determining which books of the New Testament (and which books outside of the New Testament, like "3 Corinthians" and the "Protevangelion of James") are or are not inspired. He's even pointed out a quote from noted Protestant theologian R. C. Sproul, who said that the best we can hope for from the New Testament is a fallible number of infallible books.
My request is: HELP!!! I've read "The Plot," and I find it more reasonable (and a heckuva lot more comforting) than the Catholic interpretation of the Bible, and I know that error was introduced into the Catholic Church's teachings, if only by Augustine's example. And I really don't want to lug around a thicker Bible. Please show me, if possible, an objective way of proving the inspiration of Scripture.
Yr. Friend in Tulsa,
Paul DeYonghe
(letter ends)
Answer: (click here to view the answer)
Dear Paul,
Yes, I got your mail, put it aside to answer, and forgot about it. I’m sorry.
The best rebuttal that I have is that the Bible as we know it was already accepted long before the councils of Hippo and Carthage. The reason that we modern protestants did not accept the apocrypha was that the Jews had not accepted them into the OT canon. In the NT, the closest book to being included, that wasn’t included, was 1 Clement. Look up ch. XXV and read about the resurrection of the Phoenix bird every 500 years. That kind of drivel did not get into the Bible because the Holy Spirit led the early church (Not Roman Catholic, in spite of their assertions.) to not include this kind of literature. Also read ch. LVIII for works for salvation, but not in the same vein as the Circumcision epistles. Also read the Acts of Thecla.
Since the canon existed from the time an inspired book was written, we can see it was accepted by the leading of the Holy Spirit as believers saw the inherent spiritual value of each book. The inspired books were already there when the councils ratified them. The 27 books are so outstanding in their intrinsic value and completely homogeneous as circumcision writings or uncircumcision (Paul’s) writings. Their external testimonials are extraordinary, especially when you consider those documents which were closest to being included.
I recommend you get a hold of some books on
canonicity. There’s one by F.F. Bruce, The
Canon of Scripture, IVP and one by L. McDonald, The Formation of
the Christian Biblical Canon, Hendrickson. Check out our bookstore.
In Christ,
Bob
Question: ...Ephesians 3:9 and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery...
20 Mar 2000 10:59
Name: Quinn Olinger
Question:
I've noticed that you quote Eph 3:9 at the end of your show. Your translation is like this: Ephesians 3:9 and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things;(ASV)
You differ from other translations when you use the word dispensation which comes from the Greek word oikonomia instead of the word fellowship which is said to come from the Greek word koinonia. Which of the two Greek words should it be and why? What's the evidence that this word in Eph 3:9 is oikonomia?
Answer: (click here to view the answer)
Quinn,
The AV-KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus and published in 1611. It has been revised a few times. The NKJV was also translated from this Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus had a history going back to Erasmus (c. 1466-1536), who published the first Greek text. from 6 manuscripts. Later, Stephanus, that is, Robert Estienne, around 1550, used Erasmus’ Greek NT, Ximenes’ Complutension and 15 other manuscripts for his Greek NT. Elzevir published the commercial text based on Stephanus & Beza. The 1633 edition became standard and became known as the Textus Receptus. It was also known as the Received Text. The Geneva Bible was translated, then the A.V.
The Greek according to the Majority Text and the Critical
Text and my translation of Eph 3:9 is: kai fwtisai panta" ti" h
oikonomia tou musthriou tou apokekrummenou apo twn aiwnwn en tw
qew tw ta panta ktisanti dia ihsou cristou and to enlighten all what [is] the dispensation of the
mystery which has been hid from the ages in God who created all
things through Jesus Christ.
The Textus Receptus
and my translation would be kai fwtisai panta" ti"
h koinwnia tou musthriou tou apokekrummenou apo twn aiwnwn en tw qew
tw ta panta ktisanti dia ihsou cristou and to enlighten all what [is] the fellowship of
the mystery which has been hid from the ages in God who created
all things through Jesus Christ.
I believe the Majority Text as presented by Farstad &
Hodges is the system to follow for ascertaining the text for most
of the NT. The book of Revelation has its own problems, but in
general, I would follow the MT there also. Wilbur N. Pickering, in
his “The identity of the New Testament Text”, is the best work
on the subject in my estimation.
Since the vast majority of the ms. evidence supports the
reading, oikonomia,
I believe we should translate it dispensation.
I hope this answers your question.
Question: John 20:20 that Thomas called Jesus "my Lord and my God". that both have the article...
Wed,
1 Mar 2000 12:04 Re:
Deity of Christ
Hi Bob.
I read your treatise, and it was fascinating. As I have studied this, I have found some of the same things you pointed out, but you did it so much more eloquently than I have been able to. Anyway, you mentioned in John 20:20 that Thomas called Jesus "my Lord and my God". that both have the article and you said that was interesting. Why? What is the significance of that? And I still need to understand how the word order is important in that phrase in John 1:1, in the third phrase. I'd heard that the fact that the word theos precedes ho logos is significant in ascribing quality of the word more than the identity of the word. Is that true? if so, what rules of grammar talk about this? Are there other places that have similar construction that show this is the case? I hope you don't mind me digging more, but since i witness to Jehovah's witnesses all the time, I feel it's crucial i understand John 1:1 fully. By the way, I'm not just your average Joe Blow. I took a greek course from you. I was unable to complete it due to work, but I'm brushing up on it for the day I can come back and continue with you. God bless you and thank you for what you sent. I'm sending it out to others on the internet who do what I do with JWs.
Linda Helm
Answer: (click here to view the answer)
Linda,
Check out these verses. These have eimi used contrary to what their assertion is. Lk 1:18; John 6:35; John 6:41; John 6:48; John 8:12; John 10:7; John 10:9; John 10:36; John 11:25; John 14:6; John 15:1; John 15:5; Rev 1:8; Rev 21:6; Rev 22:16
The following have the imperfect form hn. The Greek font is GraecaII. They also debunk the quality statement.
Mat 21:33 [Allhn
parabolhvn ajkouvsate [Anqrwpo"
h\n oijkodespovth" osti" ejfuvteusen ajmpelw'na kaiv
fragmovn aujtw'/ perievqhken kaiv w[ruxen ejn aujtw'/ lhnovn kaiv
wj/kodovmhsen puvrgon kai ejxevdeto aujton gewrgoi'" kaiv
ajpedhvmhsen
Mat 27:54
JO dev eJkatovntarco" kaiv oiJ met aujtou' throu'nte"
ton jIhsou'n ijdovnte"
ton seismon kai ta genovmena ejfobhvqhsan sfovdra levgonte"
jAlhqw'" qeou' uiJo" h\n ou|to"
Mat 28:3
h\n de hJ eijdeva aujtou' wJ" ajstraph kai to e[nduma aujtou'
leukoVn wJ" ciwvn
Mk 7:26
hJ de gunh h\n JEllhniv"
Surofoinivkissa tw'/ gevnei kai hjrwvta aujtovn ina to daimovnion
ejkbavlh/ ejk th'" qugatrov" aujth'"
Mk 15:39
jIdwn dev oJ kenturivwn oJ paresthkw" ejx ejnantiva"
aujtou' oti outw" ejxevpneusen ei\pen
jAlhqw'" ou|to" oJ a[nqrwpo" uiJo" qeou'
h\n
Lk 4:38
jAnasta" de ajpo th'" sunagwgh'" eijsh'lqen
eij" thn oijkivan Sivmwno" penqera dev tou' Sivmwno"
h\n sunecomevnh puretw'/ megavlw/ kai hjrwvthsan aujton peri aujth'"
John
1:4 ejn aujtw'/ zwhv h\n kaiv hJ zwhv h\n to; fw'" tw'n ajnqrwvpwn
John
1:8 oujk h\n ejkei'no" to; fw'" ajll ina marturhvsh/ periv tou' fwtov" 9 hn to fw'"
to ajlhqinovn o} fwtivzei pavnta a[nqrwpon ejrcovmenon eij"
tovn kovsmon
John
5:35 ejkei'no" h\n oJ luvcno" oJ kaiovmeno" kaiv
faivnwn uJmei'" dev hjqelhvsate ajgalliaqh'nai pro" wran
ejn tw'/ fwti aujtou'
John
18:40 ejkrauvgasan ou\n pavlin levgonte" Mh tou'ton ajlla ton
Barabba'n h\n de oJ Barabba'" lh/sthv"
Question: ...John 1:1. I had heard that the fact that “ho logos” had the article instead of “theos”...
28 Feb 2000 12:46
Name: Linda
Comments:
hi bob.
my question deals with the last phrase of John 1:1. I had heard that the fact that “ho logos” had the article instead of “theos” that it was saying in essence that “everything God was, the word was” not the other way around. Also, I’d heard that the placement of “theos” in relation to the rest of the phrase showed the “essence, nature, and quality” of “ho logos”. Is this true? and can you explain this to a person with minimal education in greek what rules of grammar this is talking about, and how I can prove this to Jehovah’s Witnesses who insist that “theos” can legitimately be translated “a god”?
Answer: (click here to view the answer)
Linda,
This is a question generated by the Jehovah’s Witnesses because of their strong desire to deny the deity of Christ. To begin, I believe most of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are very sincere. I also think many of them may be saved. Since I have been teaching Greek for over 40 years and have studied every aspect of John 1:1, I am completely convinced not only from John 1:1 but also from many other portions of Scripture that Jesus Christ is indeed God the Son even though God’s word does not make that exact statement.
I will try to explain it as simply as possible. You can also get a booklet I wrote on it at biblediscount.com. To begin, the Bible clearly shows us that there is only one God. 1 Co 8:6 says, “yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.” This verse is showing God as He is worshipped and as He redeems. But it also seems to show that there is only one God and another person, Jesus Christ. It’s important for us to see, then, who Jesus Christ is. Is He God?
There are a number of reasons why we must say, yes, He is God. The first is found in the passage you mention, John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” However, the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses says, “and the Word was a god.” Charles T. Russell, their founder wrote “the Logos was a God.” “This is the literal translation of the Greek, as can be readily confirmed by anyone, whether a Greek scholar or not. The Greek article ho precedes the first word ‘God,’ in this verse, and does not precede the second word ‘God.’ . . . The entire verse therefore reads – ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [ho theos] the God, and the Word was [theos] a God. The same was in the beginning with [ho theos] the God.’” (Russell, Studies in the Scriptures, Series V, p. 86, originally printed, 1899.)
But is this an accurate statement? Does the absence of the
article make it a god
rather than God
as he and they say? We find from 2 Co 4:4, the answer is
no! “whose minds the god [I’m using the Greek font GraecaII] o
qeo" [ho
theos] of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the
light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of [tou
the in the
genitive case.] God, should shine on them,” it says the god o
qeo" [ho
theos], but that god is not almighty God, it is satan.
Let’s look at the rest of John 1 and see how qeo"
[theos], God, is handled. I’ll translate each passage literally. If
it has the article in any of its forms with any noun, I will
translate it the. If it does not have the article, I will
translate it a. The articles, in the masculine singular forms are,
o,
tou, tw,
or
ton.
So for o
[in the Greek,
the omicron has an apostrophe over it, pointed to the right which
makes it sound like ho in English.], I will translate it the God. If it does not have the o
[ho], I will translate
it a god.
In verse 2, “He was in a beginning with the God (ton
qeon ton theon).”
Verse 13, “not of a will of a man but of a god (qeou, theou), they were born.” Verse 18, “No one has seen a god (qeon,
theon),
ever.”
As you can see, John does not use the definite article in its different forms, oJ, tou, tw/, or ton every time he speaks about almighty God. That great Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, in his, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 767, wrote this about John 1:1: “As already explained, the article is not essential to speech. It is, however, invaluable as a means of gaining precision, e.g. qeo" hn o logo" [the word was God]. As a rule the predicate is without the article, even when the subject uses it. Cf. Mk. 9:50; Lu. 7:8. This is in strict accord with the ancient idiom. . . . the rule holds wherever the subject has the article and the predicate does not.