Some Uses of DIA in the GNT

As with other prepositions, the Bible employs DIA in many ways. Therefore, I have chosen focus on the context of agency but we know that DIA functions other ways. This is also just a sampling of cases where the writer is communicating the idea of agency.

Matthew 1:22 (WH)-Τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος

Hebrews 1:1-2 (WH)-ἐπ' ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι' οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας·

Hebrews 2:2 (WH)-εἰ γὰρ ὁ δι' ἀγγέλων λαληθεὶς λόγος ἐγένετο βέβαιος, καὶ πᾶσα παράβασις καὶ παρακοὴ ἔλαβεν ἔνδικον μισθαποδοσίαν,

Hebrews 2:10-Ἔπρεπεν γὰρ αὐτῷ, δι' ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα, πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν διὰ παθημάτων τελειῶσαι.

1 Peter 1:12 (WH)-οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς ὑμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν αὐτά, ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελισαμένων ὑμᾶς πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἀποσταλέντι ἀπ' οὐρανοῦ, εἰς ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι.

1 Peter 1:21 (WH)- τοὺς δι' αὐτοῦ πιστοὺς εἰς θεὸν τὸν ἐγείραντα αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ δόξαν αὐτῷ δόντα, ὥστε τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐλπίδα εἶναι εἰς θεόν.

1 Peter 2:5 (WH)-καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσθε οἶκος πνευματικὸς εἰς ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον, ἀνενέγκαι πνευματικὰς θυσίας εὐπροσδέκτους θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ·

1 Peter 5:12 (WH)-Διὰ Σιλουανοῦ ὑμῖν τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, ὡς λογίζομαι, δι' ὀλίγων ἔγραψα, παρακαλῶν καὶ ἐπιμαρτυρῶν ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ· εἰς ἣν στῆτε.

Resources for Esther and the Tetragrammaton

 https://www.galaxie.com/article/bsac171-684-04

https://sats.ac.za/blog/2021/03/01/surprises-in-esther/

https://www.academia.edu/10195380/ACCIDENT_OR_ACRONYMY_THE_TETRAGRAMMATON_IN_THE_MASORETIC_TEXT_OF_ESTHER

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/42751218.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa58bc3114ebc8336b2b48b215a83555b&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1

https://www.jewishideas.org/article/why-name-god-not-mentioned-megillat-esther

https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/the-hidden-hand-of-god/

http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2016/03/esthers-acrostic-secret.html

What Some Theologians Are Saying About God and Evil

"We know that God Himself never does that which is evil. Nevertheless, He also ordains whatsoever comes to pass. Though He does not do evil and does not create evil, He does ordain that evil exists."

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/why-does-god-allow-evil

My question: What do you mean by "ordain"? How does God ordain "whatsoever comes to pass," and still not cause evil?

Another theologian states:

"God is certainly sovereign over evil. There's a sense in which it is proper even to say that evil is part of His eternal decree. He planned for it. It did not take Him by surprise. It is not an interruption of His eternal plan. He declared the end from the beginning, and He is still working all things for His good pleasure (Isaiah 46:9-10). But God's role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good (Romans 8:28)."

https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A189/is-god-responsible-for-evil

Trent Horn writes:

"Jeremiah avoids detracting from God’s sovereignty by admitting that the Lord causes grief. But God doesn’t just stand by and helplessly watch it happen or delight in our suffering for its own sake. Jeremiah makes that clear by saying God “does not willingly afflict or grieve” us (Lam. 3:33). Instead, God uses suffering to call us to repentance. This is the context in which Lamentations 3:38 is best understood."

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-god-the-author-of-evil

Part of the Westminster Confession declares:

"The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin."

http://www.romans45.org/articles/cause.htm

See the part on this website where God is called the "final cause of evil but not its efficient cause.

J.G. Machen: "When God causes the bringing to pass of the evil actions of men, he does that in still a different way. He does not tempt the men to sin; he does not influence them to sin. But he causes the bringing to pass of those deeds by the free and responsible choices of personal beings. He has created those beings with the awful gift of freedom of choice. The things that they do in exercise of that gift are their acts. They do not, indeed, surprise God by the doing of them; their doing of them is part of his eternal plan; yet in the doing of them they, and not the holy God, are responsible."

See https://faculty.wts.edu/posts/did-god-ordain-sin/

God Does Not Will Evil Acts (A Deductively Valid Argument)

In certain contexts, one can define "validity" in deductive terms: if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Richard Arthur defines validity as something along these lines (An Introduction to Logic, page 29). If an argument is valid, "it would be inconsistent to deny an argument's conclusion while simultaneously accepting its premises."

Here is a short valid argument in opposition to the idea that God wills/ordains evil:

1) God only wills actions that bring honor to his name.
2) No hypocritical actions bring honor to the name of God.
3) Therefore, God does not will hypocritical actions.

See Romans 2:24.

Another slightly different version of this argument:

1) All acts willed by God bring honor to his name.
2) No hypocritical acts bring honor to the name of God.
3) Therefore, God does not will hypocritical acts.

Romans 15:4 (ὅσα γὰρ προεγράφη)

Greek: ὅσα γὰρ προεγράφη, εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν διδασκαλίαν ἐγράφη, ἵνα διὰ τῆς ὑπομονῆς καὶ διὰ τῆς παρακλήσεως τῶν γραφῶν τὴν ἐλπίδα ἔχωμεν.

Potential date of writing for Romans: Written between 55-60 CE.

Within the context of verse 4, Paul has just exhorted those who are "strong" in Rome to bear the frailties of those who are "weak." Much of the discussion concerns eating and drinking or matters of conscience. The apostle urges his readers to act for the good of their neighbors, then he appeals to Christ's example as he quotes Psalm 69:9. From there, the letter refers to ὅσα γὰρ προεγράφη or "For whatever was written in former times . . ."

γὰρ obviously makes a connection with what comes before it ("for"), but what is the referent of the things that were written beforehand? Is Paul including secular and sacred literature of the Greco-Roman world? Does the passage include Tanakh and the NT? After all, he employs ὅσα in this correspondence.

The context reveals that Paul likely has Tanakh in mind (the Hebrew Bible), and he quotes from the Psalms, which adds some credibility to this view. It is very doubtful that the apostle is referring to literature outside of Scripture that was written to upbuild or encourage Christians (εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν διδασκαλίαν ἐγράφη). He is talking about the Torah, the Prophets and the writings: these things were composed to give hope and encouragement--to help Christians endure (Romans 15:5). Cf. 2 Timothy 3:14-17.

Another thing that helps us to perceive what the things written beforehand are, is διὰ τῆς παρακλήσεως τῶν γραφῶν. Yes, comfort issues forth through the holy writings (Scripture). It is not just any writings that impart hope and help us to endure but it's God's Word, which encompasses the Tanakh along with the NT that supply these things. Compare the use of γραφάς in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

Lampe's Patristic Lexicon Entry for Protoktistos (Image)

 

The Early Church Fathers Quoted Paul's Writings

Origen of Alexandria (De Principiis I.2.1)- "The first-born, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same. Finally, the Apostle Paul says that Christ (is) the power of God and the wisdom of God."

Cyprian of Carthage (On the Advantage of Patience): "But that hope and faith may attain to their result, there is need of patience. For we are not following after present glory, but future, according to what Paul the apostle also warns us, and says, 'We are saved by hope; but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? But if we hope for that which we see not, then do we by patience wait for it.' Therefore, waiting and patience are needful, that we may fulfil that which we have begun to be, and may receive that which we believe and hope for, according to God’s own showing."

Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, Book III)- "In us it is not only the spirit which ought to be sanctified, but also our behaviour, manner of life, and our body. What does the apostle Paul mean when he says that the wife is sanctified by the husband and the husband by the wife?"

Tertullian of Carthage (Against Marcion, Book V):-"Should you, however, disapprove of these types, the Acts of the Apostles, at all events, have handed down to me this career of Paul, which you must not refuse to accept. Thence I demonstrate that from a persecutor he became an apostle, not of men, neither by man; thence am I led to believe the Apostle himself; thence do I find reason for rejecting your defense of him, and for bearing fearlessly your taunt. Then you deny the Apostle Paul. I do not calumniate him whom I defend. I deny him, to compel you to the proof of him. I deny him, to convince you that he is mine. If you have regard to our belief you should admit the particulars which comprise it."

Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book IV.2.7)-"And many more Samaritans, it is said, when the Lord had tarried among them, two days, 'believed because of His words, and said to the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying, for we ourselves have heard [Him], and know that this man is truly the Saviour of the world.' (3) And Paul likewise declares, 'And so all Israel shall be saved;' (4) but he has also said, that the law was our pedagogue [to bring us] to Christ Jesus. (5) Let them not therefore ascribe to the law the unbelief of certain [among them]."

Jesus as the "First Creation"? (Clement of Alexandria)

 

S. Vernon McCasland and Heinrich Lausberg on Metonyms/Metaphors

McCasland provides an illuminating definition for the term “metonym.” He demonstrates that this literary device involves exchanging names between things that share conceptual relations. For example, “bottle” might be used to rename “drunkenness" or a writer might substitute "crown" for "royalty." See S. Vernon McCasland, “Some New Testament Metonyms for God,” JBL 68.2 (June 1949): 99-113.

Heinrich Lausberg notes that the distinction between metaphor and metonymy is fluid, especially when it comes to personal (emblematic) metonymy. See his Handbook of Literary Rhetoric, §571. On the other hand, McCasland considers “Father” a metonym (see Matthew 6:4, 6; Luke 11:2) and he lists three senses in which God is Father: for the Jewish nation, for the Messiah and for those whom God regenerates spiritually through Christ. Moreover, McCasland documents other significant metonyms in the NT (see “Some New Testament Metonyms for God,” pages 99-113).

Words of the Month (October 2023)

1. χάρις (Greek)-The KJV famously translates this word as "grace," but that is somewhat vague. χάρις apparently occurs 156 times in the NT and KJV renders it "grace" 130 times. However, other ways to render the word are "undeserved kindness" or "unmerited favor." Paul employs the term over 100 times.

2. δόξα (Greek)-Depending on the context, the word may denote "glory, reputation, opinion" or "splendor/radiance." See https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/doxa

Compare 2 Corinthians 3:18

3. Secularism (English)-"the belief that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country" (Cambridge English Dictionary).

Opinion, Belief, Understanding and Knowledge in Platonic Thought--How Applied to Theology?

Plato makes the following epistemic distinctions in his work, the Republic (509d-510a). These steps go in ascending order: in other words, d) comes before c), etc. I have called these steps--"the epistemic ladder." Others make use of this terminology but sometimes apply it differently at times; see 

https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=phil

https://academic.oup.com/book/32898/chapter/276569490

In any event, here are the four distinctions that Plato makes along with the objects of their episteme:

a) dialectic thought (noesis)-contemplation of the Platonic Forms/Ideas

b) understanding (dianoia)-reflection on or use of mathematics/geometry

c) belief (pistis)-immediately apprehends sensory sensation

d) opinion (eikasia)-rooted in sensory phenomena

How do these distinctions apply to theology? Thomas Aquinas delineates one potential way:

"The truths that we confess concerning God fall under two modes. Some things true of God are beyond all the competence of human reason, as that God is Three and One. Other things there are to which even human reason can attain, as the existence and unity of God, which philosophers have proved to a demonstration under the guidance of the light of natural reason" (Aquinas, SCG 1.3).

To be clear, Aquinas' theology owes more to Aristotle than to Plato, but I'm just showing how the epistemic distinctions of Plato might be applied to theological methods in general. Historically, theologians did make use of Platonic philosophy to shape the contours of their thought: Augustine of Hippo and Justin Martyr are prime examples among the church fathers.

The Dative in Colossians 1:16

Greek: ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·

I think it would be fair to say that ἐν + the dative case here could be rendered "in him." As for the dative case itself, I originally learned that it describes how action affects the indirect object: I equally learned that casus dativus/ἡ δοτικὴ πτῶσις is the "to" or "for" case. But while these observations are technically correct, the matter becomes more complex with Greek prepositions and cases.

For instance, context is a factor that one must consider when translating the dative case. Additionally, one must reflect on the usus loquendi of the particular dative being analyzed. What is its particular usage within a determinate context?

For example, ἐν + dative could be locative (maybe locative of sphere) or it could be instrumental. The Old Vine's Dictionary used to describe constructions like Colossians 1:16 that way. Compare 2 Cor. 5:19.

Nevertheless, I prefer to say that Colossians 1:16 is probably a dative of agent while I acknowledge that it could be understood differently. Cf. also Heb. 1:1-3.

The Word of God and the Will of God (A Brief Reflection)

I think it was Bruce Laurin who wrote (or he penned words to this effect): "not everything that happens in the word of God is the will of God." From what I recall, he was talking about the "holy war" that occurs in the Hebrew Bible. Yes, there is war in the Tanakh: people are slaughtered, hacked, and run through. However, I believe that Laurin has a point. For while some of the "violence" in the Hebrew Bible was certainly said to be sanctioned by YHWH (Jehovah), not all of it was. There is also a question about how we should define violence or categorize it. For example, is all violence morally objectionable? Furthermore, what counts as violence?

Another way I want to address the violence in the Hebrew Bible is to distinguish between prescription and description: much of what I find in the Tanakh is a description of how imperfect humans acted as they rebelled against the dictates of God, not a prescription to commit violence. In fact, Psalm 11:5 condemns the person who loves violence and says that YHWH "hates" such an individual. Another consideration is that even when YHWH used Israel or other nations for the cause of war, God set limits, which limits imperfect humans transgressed.

The accounts of holy war are part of the Bible's candor; Scripture may utilize euphemisms at times but it likewise supplies very open accounts that honestly lay bare human iniquity. On the other hand, the justice of God can be severe and Scripture doesn't hide that fact either. See Hebrews 10:26-31.

In the spirit of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, I believe we can learn many lessons from the accounts of war found in the Hebrew Bible.

The McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia contains some interesting remarks under its entry for "war":

It has been questioned whether wars are, under any circumstances, justifiable from Jewish example. While it is certain that the practice of offensive' wars cannot be defended by reference to sacred history, it is equally clear, if wars must be, that they can only be consistent with the light of that dispensation which breathes forgiveness and forbearance on the clear and obvious ground of necessity and self-defense. When the principles of the Bible shall have illuminated the minds of all nations, wars shall cease from the ends of the earth, and all men will give glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace and good-will will universally prevail (Ps 46:9; Ps 76:3; Isa 2:4; Eze 39:9; Lu 2:14).

Proverbs 8:22 (New Interpreter's Bible, Vol. V, Page 98)

 See also pages 92-93.

Matthew 6:22 and the Simple Eye

Commenting on Matthew 6:22, Blomberg writes:

[Note] 76: “ 'Good' is actually the more specific word , [haplous] implying single-minded devotion and/or generosity."

Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary) (p. 135). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

I think the context of Matthew 6:22 also supports this understanding of the text (Mt. 6:24-33).

On the other hand, Zerwick-Grosvenor take haplous in 6:22 to mean "simple, unmixed, clear/clear-sighted" when used of the eye in contrast to an eye that is poneros (possibly unhealthy or not clear-sighted).

From Vincent's Word Studies:

"Single (ἁπλοῦς)

The picture underlying this adjective is that of a piece of cloth or other material, neatly folded once, and without a variety of complicated folds. Hence the idea of simplicity or singleness (compare simplicity from the Latin simplex; semel, once; plicare, to fold). So, in a moral sense, artless, plain, pure. Here sound, as opposed to evil or diseased. Possibly with reference to the double-mindedness and indecision condemned in Matthew 6:24."

See BDAG, page 91.

Matthew 6:9 and the Tetragrammaton

Greek: ὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· Ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου·

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers: "The words 'Jehovah, hallowed be His name,' were familiar enough to all Israelites, and are found in many of their prayers, but here the position of the petition gives a new meaning to it, and makes it the key to all that follows. Still more striking is the fact, that this supplies a link between the teaching of the first three Gospels and that of the fourth. Thus the Lord Jesus taught His disciples to pray—thus, in John 12:28, He prayed Himself, 'Father, glorify Thy name.' "

Additionally, here is a footnote from a Journal Article, "The Fourteen Triads of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21-7:12)" written by Glen H. Stassen:

"83 Dale C. Allison, Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press 172-73, 176-77, 180. Allison demonstrates the connection between Matt 5:1-2 and Moses ascending Sinai in Exod 19 and 20; he also shows that it was understood well before Matthew's time that Moses ascended to heaven to get the commandments. This could be another connection with 'Our Father who art in heaven.' Allison's account does not connect Matt 5:1-2 with 6:9, although in a personal communication, he did connect Matt 6:9 with the Tetragrammaton. For insightful discussion, see also Davies, Setting, 85, 93, 99, 116-18."

On page 305, Stassen writes: " 'Hallowed be thy name' (surely the Tetragrammaton, YHWH) in the first petition of the Lord's prayer is probably also connected with the revelation of YHWH in Exod 19 and 20."

So at least three scholars agree with Jehovah's Witnesses that Matthew 6:9 alludes to the Tetragrammaton. I'm sure that research will uncover more who agree, but it would be nice to find some ancient witnesses who likewise concur. However, one problem is what happened with the divine name during the Second Temple period. 

Two Kinds of Sealing (Ephesians 1:13-14)

I wrote this piece back in 2012 on another forum; edited 9/18/23.

A friend recently asked me about the subject of "sealing" in the Bible. For example,
"in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,-- in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God's own possession, unto the praise of his glory" (Ephesians 1:13-14 ASV).

Notice that the Ephesians "were sealed" (past tense) with the holy spirit. But if they were sealed in the past, then why does the Bible indicate that a future sealing will occur? See Ephesians 4:30; Revelation 7:1-8.

A beloved Christian sister once explained to me that there are two phases of God's sealing. Jehovah seals a Christian when he/she is anointed, but the seal must be kept until death or the system's end (2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:1-5; Matthew 24:13; James 1:12; Revelation 2:10). When anointed, the seal is written with a pencil (so to speak), but the final sealing is done with a pen that is made of indelible ink. I always liked her explanation. It helped me to see how there could be two phases to the divine sealing carried out by Jehovah. See also Romans 8:23.

Choosing Good Friends (Nehemiah 13:1-5)-Modified Talk

One of the most important decisions we can make is our choice of friends: friendships affect our relationship with Jehovah in a positive or negative way. Therefore, loyalty to Jehovah is paramount even when choosing our associates. 

In Nehemiah's day, High Priest Eliashib faced a challenge that tested his loyalty and it could have resulted in adverse consequences for the nation of Israel, if Nehemiah had not decided to take swift action. Please turn to Nehemiah 13:1-2; it tells us about a restriction that Jehovah placed on Israel. Learning about this law will help us to understand tonight's material in our Treasures talk.

(After reading)

Since the Ammonites and Moabites adamantly opposed Jehovah's people Israel and would not assist the Israelites as they entered the Promised Land, the Mosaic law commanded that no Ammonite or Moabite could enter the congregation of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:3). What this command likely meant was that no Ammonite or Moabite could ever gain full legal membership to the Israelite nation or have full privileges like natural Israelites did. We learn this point from the example of Ruth and Zelek, one of David's chief warriors. However, despite this prohibition, notice what Eliashib did, according to Nehemiah 13:4-5.

Eliashib permitted Tobiah, an Ammonite, to use the dining hall in Jehovah's temple. Why did Eliashib allow this Ammonite to use part of the temple in defiance of Jehovah's law? 

Tobiah had become a close associate of Eliashib; furthermore, Tobiah and his son Jehohanan married Jewish women and evidently gained the favor of numerous Jews (Neh. 6:17-19). One of Eliashib’s grandsons was married to an intimate associate of Tobiah. (Neh. 13:28) These familial and social bonds may account for why High Priest Eliashib allowed an unbelieving opposer to influence him. However, Nehemiah refused to let this bad associate of Eliashib's infect Jehovah's holy nation. Please read Nehemiah 13:7-9 with me.

Nehemiah threw all of Tobiah’s household furniture out of the storeroom, then he cleansed them. In this way, Nehemiah demonstrated loyalty to Jehovah because he did not allow God's High Priest to associate with a known enemy of Jehovah. What lesson does this account teach us?

How does Jehovah feel if we choose friends who do not love him? The disciple James wrote: “Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God.” (James 4:4)

We do not want to associate with any willful sinners since the Bible cautions us about mixing clean with unclean things (2 Corinthians 6:14-17). Moreover, if we're going to be loyal to Jehovah, would this not include avoiding bad association in person and on television or with other forms of entertainment like social media?

Discuss the picture and "ask yourself" question at the end.

Glosses Versus Definitions (Lexicality)

1) The problem of how to render Greek or Hebrew words is an ongoing challenge, but lexicographers normatively differentiate glosses from word definitions. The word "love" for ἔρως is a gloss: not entirely wrong, but admittedly not all that illuminating either. Lexica and monographs suggest "real definitions" for these words. Admittedly, what constitutes a real definition is debatable but one major improvement is when lexica give sentential definitions over terse glosses.

2) Literary context generally is the determinant for what a word denotes. Who is using the word, and under what circumstances? I agree that we have to be careful about Koine or Classical word definitions; however, it is interesting that the Septuagint (LXX) does not use ἔρως in the Song of Songs or in 2 Samuel 13, where a sexual violation occurs because of human lust, passion or ἔρως. I believe the word only appears in the sapiential book, Proverbs, but 2 Samuel uses agape instead.

George Yule on Hyponymous Relations and How It Applies to Greek (Linguistics)

Back in 2012, I felt the same way about this subject as I do now. My ideas about employing hyponymy and cognitive semantics to advance the study of Greek and Latin are stuck in the inchoate stage partly because I get distracted by other subjects or activities, including work.

Linguistically, hyponymy may refer to a specific kind of relationship obtains between particular signifiers. By "signifier," I mean a word's sound, graphic form or imagistic representation, which is distinguished from its semanticity. George Yule provides a diagram of hyponymous relations in his book The Study of Language (page 119). I will somewhat simplify and rework his diagram below:

Animate entities

|

|

|

animal plant human

| | |

| | |

dog tree man

Hyponymous relations are arranged hierarchically. Interpreted psychologically and pedagogically, this means that Greek would be taught in a way that's easy to retain and apprehend, in a manner that would allow a student to organize data according to conceptual hierarchies. Cognitive semantics is a related concept that I will not discuss now, but the thoughts in this post need to be developed and revised. Hopefully, writing them down and posting my reflections will assist me in that endeavor. I've already edited some things that I wrote back in 2012.