JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sun Dec 26, 2021 2:38 amCOULD JUDAS HAVE OBTAINED THE FIELD POSTHUMOUSLY ?
Your analysis so completely misrepresents the point I made and avoids the evidence I linked that I can only assume that you think you're calling a bluff. This must be how sharks feel when they smell blood in the water.
Broadly, you're replying to a nuanced analysis in an academic lexicon by overinterpreting a one-line overview. While I'm hardly an expert and I'm sure there must exist many compelling rebuttals to my claim, this isn't one of them. Before I respond to the few specifics of your argument, I'll expand a bit on why I think the
Liddell-Scott entry for
κτάομαι supports my assertion.
First, the lexicon doesn't merely offer a simple definition, but provides a survey of word usage in extant sources. Usage that is novel or peculiar is mentioned. I suppose there's no guarantee of thoroughness, but I'll point out that the linked definition of
κτάομαι takes up roughly a third of a two-column dictionary page, most of which is individual references to phrases in Greek literature where the word is found. The Strong's definition upon which you've entirely based your argument would barely qualify as a thesaurus entry.
Second, many words shift in meaning depending on grammatical usage, sometime subtly and sometimes not so. The range of meaning between tenses and voices often shifts in ways for which simple grammar rules don't account. When such shifts are apparent in the literature, as they are for
κτάομαι, the lexicon notes them. Strong's does not.
The lexicon separates
κτάομαι into three broad classes of meaning based on verb conjugation:
- Present, imperfect, future, and aorist
- Perfect and pluperfect
- Aorist passive
The verb as it appears in Acts 1:18,
ἐκτήσατο, is aorist tense, middle voice, indicative mood. This corresponds to the first of the three grammatical categories and the "middle voice" here appears to be a clue to meaning. In Greek, the middle voice (rather than active or passive) is normally used to indicate that the subject both causes and is affected by the action (though not an exact analogy, this is similar to a reflexive verb in English). The grammatical implication of this is that the subject both actively performs the acquisition and is the recipient in the sense that one "procures for oneself." While this alone isn't a slam dunk (
κτάομαι never appears in the active voice and is sometimes considered a deponent verb for which active voice takes middle voice endings), the usage examples reinforce this interpretation. The known uses in extant literature all refer to the subject gaining something by virtue of the subject's own actions. The fact that this meaning shifts subtly when the passive voice is used is an indication that the use of middle voice is itself important to the meaning. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the verb is sometimes used to mean that the subject acquires something for someone else, it is never, with the possible, solitary exception of Acts 1:18, used to mean that someone else acquires something for the subject.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sun Dec 26, 2021 2:38 amYes, scriptures are full of actions attributed to one person when we can reasonably assume they were actually carried out by another on that person's behalf:
Whether language can or can't be used in metaphorical and nonliteral ways was not my point. My point was that the
specific verb in question and its grammatical form suggests action on the part of the subject.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sun Dec 26, 2021 2:38 amit is more than probable that it was Luke (a doctor) and not Paul that circumcised Timothy
Bless your heart.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sun Dec 26, 2021 2:38 amThere is no reason to conclude it is impossible the priests bought the field in Judas behalf.
Aside from Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18, that's true.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sun Dec 26, 2021 2:38 amall of which can be achieved through a third party.
You've asserted this, but haven't provided any support or evidence. If you're not bluffing, show us your cards. If you do show us anything, I'm betting it's the equivalent of ten high.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sun Dec 26, 2021 2:38 amIt's the same word used by the fictional Pharisee who boasted " 'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get [ktaomai].' Clearly his boast covered all he possessed whether he bought them personally, was given them as gifts or obtained them through somebody else' s legitimate actions.
How is that clear? You're asserting without support again. Considering the amount of theological dickering over exactly what is subject to the Tithe, you're just inserting your own theological conclusion into the Pharisee's claim. Maybe he meant that and maybe he didn't, but considering that Pharisee's were sticklers for their own specific interpretation of Torah and the Tithe during the Second Temple period referred specifically to agricultural production, the Pharisee may have meant all that he
earned or even all that he
produced himself. In fact, I might even argue that he "clearly" meant that.
All fifteen words of it? Oh, I have. In fact, I'll note it again, just for good measure.
Perhaps you'd return the favor and note the Liddell entry. I linked a thumbnail because it's big.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sun Dec 26, 2021 2:38 amArguably the writer would have used agorazo or oneomai if he had wanted to communicate that Judas had personally performed the transaction himself rather than it legally came into his possessionby some other means.
I'm sure it is arguable. I look forward to you making and supporting the argument.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sun Dec 26, 2021 2:38 amCONCLUSION Matthew explicitly states that it was the priests that bought (agorazo) the field, and there is nothing in the tenses or lexicon that negates the possibility of the field coming into Judas
possession (Ktaomai) after his death.
Bless your heart.
