Greek Scholars please help

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,709
3,651
113
#21
Thank you crossnote

Robertson and Wuest, while not specifically addressing Gal 4:4 do shed light on the same contextual issues; and their thoughts seem close to my own.
Funny, those quotes of theirs was taken directly from their Commentaries on Gal 4:4.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
689
113
#22
I am writing my commentary on Galatians Chapter 4; and was not as sure of my skills here as I would like to be.

I often cite published commentary; but only when it substantially agrees with my own exegesis and is especially well worded, IMO.
Are you proficient in Aramaic?
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,782
2,947
113
#23
Are you proficient in Aramaic?
The New Testament was witten in Koine Greek with the occasional loan word, in esp, in Mark in Aramaic, the earliest of the gospels.

Marc reads Hebrew well , and has said Aramaic can be read by most people who know Hebrew. The back of my Hebrew lexicon lists the few Aramaic words found in the bible.

So the New Testament is written in Greek. Got that?
 
Last edited:
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
689
113
#24
The New Testament was witten in Koine Greek with the occasional loan word, in esp, in Mark in Aramaic, the earliest of the gospels.

Marc reads Hebrew well , and has said Aramaic can be read by most people who know Hebrew. The back of my Hebrew lexicon lists the few Aramaic words found in the bible.

So the New Testament is written in Greek. Got that?
The Targums weren't, though. I have a translational issue there that I would like to resolve someday.
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#25
I consider myself to be reasonably competent at Greek exegesis; but not nearly as competent as I am with Hebrew.
I would appreciate it if those more competent than I am at Greek translation would critique my work here.

Gal 4:4

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, brought forth (or born) of a woman, brought forth (or born) under the law,

brought forth (or born) this is γενόμενον the aorist middle participle and means literally caused to become (with your own participation). Many translations render this ‘born ’, and if the active voice were used, I would prefer it. Because the middle voice is used; I believe brought forth is a better choice.
Made would be better expressed by ποιέμενον.

In English made has the sense of brought into being. Jesus is eternal! He only changed form and residence temporarily. I admit that γενόμενον is consistently rendered made in the KJV; but I believe it is an unfortunate choice on the translators’ part.
The Old Testament scriptures (prophecy) comes to mind about a body being made for Christ...so not sure the translation would contradict any truth that I hold.... (off to work) maybe we can discuss later :)
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
#26
I consider myself to be reasonably competent at Greek exegesis; but not nearly as competent as I am with Hebrew.
I would appreciate it if those more competent than I am at Greek translation would critique my work here.

Gal 4:4

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, brought forth (or born) of a woman, brought forth (or born) under the law,

brought forth (or born) this is γενόμενον the aorist middle participle and means literally caused to become (with your own participation). Many translations render this ‘born ’, and if the active voice were used, I would prefer it. Because the middle voice is used; I believe brought forth is a better choice.
Made would be better expressed by ποιέμενον.

In English made has the sense of brought into being. Jesus is eternal! He only changed form and residence temporarily. I admit that γενόμενον is consistently rendered made in the KJV; but I believe it is an unfortunate choice on the translators’ part.
excellent question!

I don't consider myself a greek scholar to a high degree, but I would go with 'born', because

1) it seems to carry the right meaning,

2) people who are greek scholars use it (e.g. NASB)

in the end, of course, when moving from one language to another some data is always added, some lost... but imo you're on the right track.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
689
113
#27
I think it's a distinction without a difference. The word did not exist as flesh before the son was born. His flesh had to be assembled from just one human cell, so the son was made (begotten, conceived) in the womb, then born into the world.
 
G

GaryA

Guest
#28
I consider myself to be reasonably competent at Greek exegesis; but not nearly as competent as I am with Hebrew.
I would appreciate it if those more competent than I am at Greek translation would critique my work here.

Gal 4:4

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, brought forth (or born) of a woman, brought forth (or born) under the law,

brought forth (or born) this is γενόμενον the aorist middle participle and means literally caused to become (with your own participation). Many translations render this ‘born ’, and if the active voice were used, I would prefer it. Because the middle voice is used; I believe brought forth is a better choice.
Made would be better expressed by ποιέμενον.

In English made has the sense of brought into being. Jesus is eternal! He only changed form and residence temporarily. I admit that γενόμενον is consistently rendered made in the KJV; but I believe it is an unfortunate choice on the translators’ part.
It is not an unfortunate choice. It is the right choice. The word 'made' really is the better word in this context. The word 'born' and the words 'brought forth' actually break / destroy the core meaning of the word -- by adding something into the meaning that is not there in the original Greek word.

The core meaning, according to Strong's, is 'to become' / 'come into being'. Keep in mind that we are talking about the meaning of the word 'made' at the time that the KJV was translated. The English language was "at its zenith" during that time. In [ KJV ] English, the word 'made' means 'come into being', not 'brought into being'. The word 'born' and the words 'brought forth' have a component of "something else doing the bringing", not just the "come into being" of the core meaning. With the word 'born' or the words 'brought forth' - combined with 'of a woman' - the focus is on His childbirth. With the word 'made' - combined with 'of a woman' - the focus is on His humanity. The phrase 'of a woman' in this context is being used to indicate that He "came into being as a human" ( the 'manner' in which He 'came into being' ); likewise, "came into being under the law" is indicated by the phrase 'under the law'. In both statements, it is referring to the 'condition' / 'state' of His coming into being. He 'came into being' as a man ( human ), and 'under the law' - i.e., under ( 'into' ) the Old Testament 'law' system.

Jesus is eternal. However, that is outside of the context of the verse. It is not talking about His coming into being in 'existance' terms. It is talking about His coming into being in terms of His entering into humanity on Earth. And, it is specifically talking about His 'Sonship'.


( I must get ready to go to work. :eek::( I will try to continue this later... :D :cool: )


:)
 
Last edited:

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,709
3,651
113
#29
New International Version
But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

New Living Translation
But when the right time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, subject to the law.

English Standard Version
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

Berean Study Bible
But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

Berean Literal Bible
But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, having been born of a woman, having been born under theLaw,

New American Standard Bible
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

King James Bible
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Holman Christian Standard Bible
When the time came to completion, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

International Standard Version
But when the appropriate time had come, God sent his Son, born by a woman, born under the Law,

NET Bible
But when the appropriate time had come, God sent out his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But when the end of time arrived, God sent his Son and he was from a woman and was under The Written Law,

GOD'S WORD® Translation
But when the right time came, God sent his Son [into the world]. A woman gave birth to him, and he came under the control of God's laws.

New American Standard 1977
But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

Jubilee Bible 2000
but when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

King James 2000 Bible
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

American King James Version
But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

American Standard Version
but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

Douay-Rheims Bible
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law:

Darby Bible Translation
but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, come of woman, come under law,

English Revised Version
but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

Webster's Bible Translation
But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

Weymouth New Testament
But, when the time was fully come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born subject to Law,

World English Bible
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent out his Son, born to a woman, born under the law,

Young's Literal Translation
and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come of a woman, come under law,

(Taken from Biblehub.com)
 
I

Is

Guest
#30
I consider myself to be reasonably competent at Greek exegesis; but not nearly as competent as I am with Hebrew.
I would appreciate it if those more competent than I am at Greek translation would critique my work here.

Gal 4:4

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, brought forth (or born) of a woman, brought forth (or born) under the law,

brought forth (or born) this is γενόμενον the aorist middle participle and means literally caused to become (with your own participation). Many translations render this ‘born ’, and if the active voice were used, I would prefer it. Because the middle voice is used; I believe brought forth is a better choice.
Made would be better expressed by ποιέμενον.

In English made has the sense of brought into being. Jesus is eternal! He only changed form and residence temporarily. I admit that γενόμενον is consistently rendered made in the KJV; but I believe it is an unfortunate choice on the translators’ part.
Maybe not, my Henry Morris KJV Study Bible notes say:

"4:4 made of a woman. This phrase, "made of a woman," may mean merely that, when God sent Him forth, the Son became part of the human family. There is, however, a strong probability that it refers to His miraculous conception and virgin birth.

The word rendered "made" (Greek ginomai) is not the usual word for "born (gennao), and was never so rendered by the King James scholars. The word for "born" normally refers to male procreation, although it can also refer to the actual birth process of the mother. Paul deliberately rejected this word meaning "born," and instead used the standard word for "made," evidently to emphasize that the human birth of Jesus was unique, different from all other human births. He was to be, in a one-time-only sense, the Seed of the woman, as promised by God in the very beginninig (Ge.3:15), not made from a male seed. In fact, His human body was specially "prepared" by God (He.10:5) so as to be born without inherent sin or genetic defects from either parent.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#31
Funny, those quotes of theirs was taken directly from their Commentaries on Gal 4:4.
I take your word for that; but there was no mention of Gal 4:4 in either citation!:)
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,709
3,651
113
#32
I take your word for that; but there was no mention of Gal 4:4 in either citation!:)
Sorry, I was copying from a tablet, not a laptop...a little more messy operation.:cool:
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#33
Are you proficient in Aramaic?
With regard to the Aramaic used in first century Israel (which was significantly different from Syrian or Babylonian Aramaic)' virtually anyone competent in Biblical Hebrew is competent in Aramaic.

The roots are identical and the minor changes in pronominal suffixes case endings, and tense and voice indicators can be mastered in less than an hour.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
689
113
#34
With regard to the Aramaic used in first century Israel (which was significantly different from Syrian or Babylonian Aramaic)' virtually anyone competent in Biblical Hebrew is competent in Aramaic.

The roots are identical and the minor changes in pronominal suffixes case endings, and tense and voice indicators can be mastered in less than an hour.
What can you tell me about this? I know what the words mean, I'm just not sure if the syntax I want to use works for the first 3 words (bolded); Aramaic is a little different than Hebrew so I don't want to presume. I'm not real sure how the דְ prefix works.

I'm not going to tell you what this is because I don't want to bias your judgment, but it is from Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. Possibly Early Imperial Aramaic, Jewish Literary Aramaic of the Targums, or Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. If you just want to translate the first 3 words, that works for me.

וְיִסתְתֵים חִילָא דְטוּרַיָא אֲרֵי יִמטֵי חִילַת טוּרַיָא לְאָצַל וְתִערְקוּן כְמָא דַעֲרַקתוּן מִן קֳדָם זְיָעָא דַהֲוָה בְיֹומֵי עוּזִיָה מַלַך שִבטָא דְבֵית יְהוּדָה וְיִתגְלֵי יוי אֲלָהִי כָל קַדִישֹוהִי עִמֵיה
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
#35
Moulton and Milligan illustrate this, the "most original meaning, to be born," from a papyrus of the 3rd cent. B.C.:

κόρον ἔτεκε, δς εὐθὺς γενόμενος αὐτὸς ἀπὸ τὰς κράνας ἐλοῦτο, and refer also to Joh_8:58 (Expositor, VII. 6, 1908, p. 382).
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#36
What can you tell me about this? I know what the words mean, I'm just not sure if the syntax I want to use works for the first 3 words (bolded); Aramaic is a little different than Hebrew so I don't want to presume. I'm not real sure how the דְ prefix works.

I'm not going to tell you what this is because I don't want to bias your judgment, but it is from Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. Possibly Early Imperial Aramaic, Jewish Literary Aramaic of the Targums, or Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. If you just want to translate the first 3 words, that works for me.

וְיִסתְתֵים חִילָא דְטוּרַיָא אֲרֵי יִמטֵי חִילַת טוּרַיָא לְאָצַל וְתִערְקוּן כְמָא דַעֲרַקתוּן מִן קֳדָם זְיָעָא דַהֲוָה בְיֹומֵי עוּזִיָה מַלַך שִבטָא דְבֵית יְהוּדָה וְיִתגְלֵי יוי אֲלָהִי כָל קַדִישֹוהִי עִמֵיה
This is Syriac Aramaic; It is enough different from the pidgin Babylonian Aramaic of Daniel that I am not at all comfortable with it. I would not presume to translate it. It was the pidgin Babylonian Aramaic that was used in First century Israel.

I have a page of notes that explains the few minor differences between pidgin Babylonian Aramaic and Hebrew.

Abraham must have used Babylonian Aramaic in Padan-Aram. In the less than 500 years between Padan Aram and Biblical Hebrew there were apparently fewer changes than what I see here; or the two dialects may have changed in tandem.
 
Last edited:
A

atwhatcost

Guest
#37
The New Testament was witten in Koine Greek with the occasional loan word, in esp, in Mark in Aramaic, the earliest of the gospels.

Marc reads Hebrew well , and has said Aramaic can be read by most people who know Hebrew. The back of my Hebrew lexicon lists the few Aramaic words found in the bible.

So the New Testament is written in Greek. Got that?
Which makes this whole thread "Greek to me."
 
O

oldthennew

Guest
#38
how could not our Father always not have been 'fully God and Fully Human'??
at His choice, for He is to our knowledge 'always' existed???
but at His precise timing allowed He has allowed us a peak....
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
689
113
#39
This is Syriac Aramaic; It is enough different from the pidgin Babylonian Aramaic of Daniel that I am not at all comfortable with it. I would not presume to translate it. It was the pidgin Babylonian Aramaic that was used in First century Israel.

I have a page of notes that explains the few minor differences between pidgin Babylonian Aramaic and Hebrew.

Abraham must have used Babylonian Aramaic in Padan-Aram. In the less than 500 years between Padan Aram and Biblical Hebrew there were apparently fewer changes than what I see here; or the two dialects may have changed in tandem.
How do you know it's Syriac? Would that be the same as Palestinian?
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#40
How do you know it's Syriac? Would that be the same as Palestinian?
I assume that it is Syriac based on how much it differs from the Aramaic of Daniel.

Those are the two major dialects. There may be other dialects that I am totally unfamiliar with.

The Aramaic of Daniel is a pidgin of Babylonian Aramaic and Hebrew.