John 15:5

Months ago, I lookt up John 15 in order to confirm a similarity to verses 4-5 in a hymn text I was translating ("Du Lebensbrod, Herr Jesu" by Johann Rist).  Specifically, I referenced the NKJV, in which verse 5 appears as:

"I am the vine, you are the branches.  He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing."

The italics indicate a word that's supplied in the NKJV translation that's not in the Greek:

ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος, ὑμεῖς τὰ κλήματα. ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ, οὗτος φέρει καρπὸν πολύν· ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν.

The verb is explicit in the first clause ("'I am the vine'"), but it's merely implied in the second ("'you [are] the branches'").  The same is true of the Latin Vulgate:

ego sum vitis vos palmites qui manet in me et ego in eo hic fert fructum multum quia sine me nihil potestis facere

By itself, "you the branches" is just a phrase.  Semantically, it can't stand by itself (formally speaking, at least).  The preceding "I am the vine" sets up an instance of ellipsis, indicating that the copulative verb is implied and that this is, in fact, a complete clause.  Grammatically, then, the second clause has a sort of dependence on the first to make its meaning clear, and this matches the broader idea behind the metaphor here ("'without Me you can do nothing'").

According to my Greek textbook (New Testament Greek for Laymen: An Introductory Grammar by Michael A. Merritt, which I got as a .pdf for free from the Daily Dose of Greek website), "Greek differs from English in that the verb εἰμί (to be) may be omitted from a sentence if it is understood from the context" (p. 54), so I'm not sure how applicable my comments are to the Greek (or to the Latin, which I think is comparable in this regard).

Luke 15:11-32

Luke 15:1-3, 11-32 (the Parable of the Prodigal Son) was the reading for the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service on 1 April:

I'm not sure if these are very significant, but I noticed some parallels between this parable and the account of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4.  The most obvious is that each story is about two brothers who have contrasting qualities.  Also in both, the elder brother becomes angry with the younger brother, who - in the older brother's view, at least - receives preferential treatment (Abel's sacrifices are accepted by God, but Cain's aren't; the prodigal son is honored by a party upon his return, but his older brother never received even a young goat), and each younger brother deals with livestock of a sort:  Abel kept sheep, and the prodigal son fed pigs.

Matthew 13:20

Back in March, I watched the Daily Dose of Greek video on Matthew 13:20:

ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη σπαρείς, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων καὶ εὐθὺς μετὰ χαρᾶς λαμβάνων αὐτόν.

In the ESV, this is:

"As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy"

In both my German and French translations of the New Testament, the pronoun referring to the word is drawn forward in the clause:

Bei dem aber auf felsigen Boden gesät ist, das ist, der das Wort hört und es gleich mit Freuden aufnimmt

Celui qui a reçu la semence dans les endroits pierreux, c'est celui qui entend la parole et la reçoit aussitôt avec joie

As far as I can tell, this placement is just because of the syntax of each of these languages, not a sort of inversion to create some emphasis, but to some degree, it does indicate the eagerness with which the word is received.

Proverbs 24:4

When I read Proverbs 24 in the ESV months ago, I noticed a small feature in verse 4:  "by knowledge the rooms are filled with all precious and pleasant riches."  The words precious and pleasant alliterate, and they have the same number of syllables (with the emphasis falling on the same syllable in each).  To some degree, the euphony of these features matches the meaning.

Matthew 13:16

Months ago, the Daily Dose of Greek went over Matthew 13:16:

Ὑμῶν δὲ μακάριοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ὅτι βλέπουσιν καὶ τὰ ὦτα ὑμῶν ὅτι ἀκούουσιν.

In the ESV, this is:

"But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear."

I've been following along in my French New Testament and noticed a feature specific to that translation:

Mais heureux sont vos yeux, parce qu'ils voient, et vos oreilles, parce qu'elles entendent!

"Heureux" ("blessed") and "yeux" ("eyes") rhyme, and this resemblance highlights the relationship between the two words:  that they're being equated in this copulative sentence and therefore, as subject and predicate nominatives, are in the same case.

Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34

The divine vocatives in Daniel 9:19 that I wrote about last week got me thinking about Matthew 27:46:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Mark 15:34 is a parallel verse:

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

I think it may be significant that "My God" is repeated here.  Of course, this is a quotation of Psalm 22:1, where אֵלִי appears twice, but in this context, where Jesus is experiencing a separation from God as part of the punishment for sin, it's almost as if each "My God" is directed to an-other Person in the Trinity:  one to God the Father and one to the Holy Spirit.  The verbs here are singular, though.

Daniel 9:19

A few months ago, I watched the Daily Dose of Hebrew video on Daniel 9:19:

אֲדֹנָי ׀ שְׁמָעָה אֲדֹנָי ׀ סְלָחָה אֲדֹנָי הַֽקֲשִׁיבָה וַעֲשֵׂה אַל־תְּאַחַר לְמַֽעֲנְךָ אֱלֹהַי כִּֽי־שִׁמְךָ נִקְרָא עַל־עִירְךָ וְעַל־עַמֶּֽךָ׃

In the ESV, this is:

"O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive.  O Lord, pay attention and act.  Delay not, for your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people are called by your name."

There are three vocatives referring to God in roughly the first half of the verse ("'O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive.  O Lord, pay attention and act.'"), and these are paralleled with a single vocative in the second half ("'Delay not, for your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people are called by your name.'").  To some degree, the placement of these vocatives indicates the Trinity:  three Persons but one God.

Ruth 2:4

Months ago, the Daily Dose of Aramaic went over Targum Ruth 2:4:

As I follow along in the series, I've been referencing the Vulgate, in which this verse is:

et ecce ipse veniebat de Bethleem dixitque messoribus Dominus vobiscum qui responderunt ei benedicat tibi Dominus

In the ESV, it's:

And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem.  And he said to the reapers, "The LORD be with you!"  And they answered, "The LORD bless you."

In the Vulgate, I found an-other instance of a feature I've noted a few other times.  As usual, the prepositional phrase "cum vobis" ("with you") is inverted and condensed into one word (vobiscum).  Because this immediately follows "Dominus," the words for "the LORD" and "you" are directly next to each other, lending a slightly greater sense of this accompaniment.

Psalm 1:2

Months ago, I watched the Worship Anew program for 16 February (Sixth Sunday after Epiphany).  The Psalm was Psalm 1, and in verse 2, I found the same sort of feature that I'd previously noticed in Psalm 145:5:  the object of the man's meditation comes first in the clause, and to some degree, this placement illustrates its importance for him:

But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.  [ESV]

This structure is also in the Hebrew:

כִּי אִם בְּתוֹרַת יְהוָה חֶפְצוֹ וּֽבְתוֹרָתוֹ יֶהְגֶּה יוֹמָם וָלָֽיְלָה׃

and the Latin Vulgate:

sed in lege Domini voluntas eius et in lege eius meditabitur die ac nocte

I'd previously noticed (but didn't think it significant enough to note on its own) that "day and night" is a temporal merism.

Luke 6:17

When I watched the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 18 February, I found the same feature that I'd noticed in the reading from Luke 5 the previous week.

The reading for this service was Luke 6:17-26.  I was following along in the Vulgate, where verse 17 is:

Et descendens cum illis stetit in loco campestri et turba discipulorum eius et multitudo copiosa plebis ab omni Iudaea et Hierusalem et maritimae Tyri et Sidonis

In the ESV, this is:

And he [Jesus] came down with them and stood on a level place, with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon

In the Latin, the phrase "multitudo copiosa" (translated as "a great multitude" in the ESV) is redundant (something like "an abundant multitude"), but this redundancy lends a greater sense of the large number of people.

Again like Luke 5:6, the phrase alliterates in Greek (πλῆθος πολὺ), and the repetition involved also suggests a great quantity.  Here's the full verse:

καὶ καταβὰς μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔστη ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ. καὶ ὄχλος πολὺς μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ πλῆθος πολὺ τοῦ λαοῦ ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ τῆς παραλίου Τύρου καὶ Σειδῶνος

John 12:6

Months ago, I watched the Daily Dose of Latin video on John 12:6:

dixit autem hoc non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum sed quia fur erat et loculos habens ea quae mittebantur portabat

In the ESV, this is:

He [Judas Iscariot] said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.

Where the ESV has "not because he cared about the poor," the Latin has "non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum."  This is something like:  "not because about the destitute, it pertained to him."  The Greek text is comparable:

εἶπεν δὲ τοῦτο οὐχ ὅτι περὶ τῶν πτωχῶν ἔμελεν αὐτῷ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι κλέπτης ἦν καὶ τὸ γλωσσόκομον ἔχων τὰ βαλλόμενα ἐβάσταζεν.

Like the Latin pertinēre, the Greek verb μέλω is impersonal.  I'm not sure if a native speaker of either of these languages would take it this way, but it seems to me that this sort of construction (where Judas isn't the subject of the verb) lends a greater sense of the distance between him and the poor.  Even grammatically, there's less of a relationship between them.

Ruth 1:21

A few months ago, I watched the two Daily Dose of Aramaic videos on Targum Ruth 1:21:

I was following in the Latin Vulgate and noticed a feature specific to that translation:

Egressa sum plena et vacuam reduxit me Dominus cur igitur vocatis me Noemi quam humiliavit Dominus et adflixit Omnipotens

In the ESV, this is:

"I went away full, and the LORD has brought me back empty.  Why call me Naomi, when the LORD has testified against me and the Almighty has brought calamity upon me?"

In the Vulgate, there's a chiasm that highlights the opposites "went away" and "brought back" ("egressa sum" and "reduxit") and "full" and "empty" ("plena" and "vacuam"):

Egressa sum

plena et

vacuam

reduxit me Dominus

Following this word order, an English translation of this section of the verse would be something like:  "I went away full, and empty brought me back the LORD."