Lange's use of προγινώσχειν in Romans 8:29

In Lange's commentary on Romans 8:29, I'm confused as to why he uses the word προγινώσχειν. I don't see that word in either the NIV or KJV reverse interlinears. Nor can I find a translation for it in my Logos library or on the internet. I assume the word relates to προγινώσκω, which is translated as foreknew in the NIV and as foreknow in the KJV, but if so, I don't understand why the difference in the Greek word forms.

I expect there will be some who roll their eyes, amazed at how the laity (or at least some of them) can be so clueless, but that's where I'm at. I run across these sorts of differences often enough in commentaries that I decided to use this instance as an example. Embarrassed

Here's what I see in the commentary and the reverse interlinears.

COMMENTARY

NIV

KJV

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Everett Headley

It is the same root with a different TVM. I don't have Lange's open to dig deeper ATM.

Mark Barnes

It should be προγινώσκειν, not προγινώσχειν. I checked the print version, and it's hard to tell whether it's a transcription error or a typo in the original: https://archive.org/stream/epistleofpault00lang#page/278/mode/2up

Why that, not προγινώσκω? The -ειν ending represents the infinitive, which some authors prefer to using the lemma when they're discussing a Greek verb.

I think that's because in English we use the infinitive form of the verb as the lemma, whereas in Greek you use the first-person singular present indicative. So in English, we'd talk about the verb "to be" (infinitive), rather than the verb "am" (first-person singular present indicative). When writing in English, but citing a Greek word, some authors prefer the English "rule" (infinitive) to the Greek rule (first-person singular present indicative).

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/720256#Comment_720256

It is the same root with a different TVM. I don't have Lange's open to dig deeper ATM.

Thanks for the reply, Everett!

I guess that's part of what I'm trying to understand. I.e. Why a different form of the word? Why a different TVM? As noted in my original post, I was just using Lange's commentary as an example because that's where I happened to be when my frustration level and curiosity finally got the best of me. I run across it more often than I would have expected and since I don't know Greek, it always leaves me checking and rechecking the text to make sure I'm not suffering from Dyslexia. And when satisfied it's not a reading issue on my part, it leaves me thinking there must be an interpretation/translation issue I'm just not seeing.

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/720257#Comment_720257

It should be προγινώσκειν, not προγινώσχειν. I checked the print version, and it's hard to tell whether it's a transcription error or a typo in the original: https://archive.org/stream/epistleofpault00lang#page/278/mode/2up

Why that, not προγινώσκω? The -ειν ending represents the infinitive, which some authors prefer to using the lemma when they're discussing a Greek verb.

I think that's because in English we use the infinitive form of the verb as the lemma, whereas in Greek you use the first-person singular present indicative. So in English, we'd talk about the verb "to be" (infinitive), rather than the verb "am" (first-person singular present indicative). When writing in English, but citing a Greek word, some authors prefer the English "rule" (infinitive) to the Greek rule (first-person singular present indicative).

Thank you, Mark. I didn't read your comment until after I replied to Everett, but your explanation helps a lot. I'd love to take the -ειν ending and run with the idea that infinitives will always end that way, but I'm thinking it's extremely likely that infinitives are represented by a variety of endings, hence not as easy as just looking for -ειν. [:)]

Regarding Lange's commentary though, after enlarging the sample you provided from his book, I'm thinking it was κειν in the printed version and it was just carried over incorrectly as χειν in the Logos version. Either way though, seeing χειν in the commentary made for an extra wrinkle, and I struggle enough as it is when there aren't any wrinkles.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/720271#Comment_720271

I'm thinking it's extremely likely that infinitives are represented by a variety of endings, hence not as easy as just looking for -ειν

ειν is by far the most common. There are only a handful of exceptions — εἶναι (to be) is the one that really matters. If you're really interested in seeing a list of all NT infinitives that don't end in -ειν, this search will do it (you'll have to change the resource you're searching to a Greek New Testament):

Or use this search to show all the ones that do end in -ειν. You'll see there are many more.

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/720292#Comment_720292

Thank you, Mark. You've been very helpful. I'm actually looking forward now to my next encounter with something like this now that I have a good feel for what's going on.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/720257#Comment_720257

It should be προγινώσκειν, not προγινώσχειν. I checked the print version, and it's hard to tell whether it's a transcription error or a typo in the original: https://archive.org/stream/epistleofpault00lang#page/278/mode/2up

Thanks a lot, Mark!

It seems, further below there's another transcription error:

"προχγινώσχειν, in the classical sense, never means any thing but foreknowledge"

The text you linked clearly reads προγινώσκειν here, too - what they print looking like a small x and thus theoretically could be a chi clearly is meant as kappa, if we look at words like kai or kata in the archive.org scan.

But to me this seems to be a systematic error in the Logos resource, look at

"To be conformed to the image of his Son, συμμόρφονς τῆς εἰχόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ."

Someone needs to check this for all the Greek kappas.

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/720357#Comment_720357

It should be προγινώσκειν, not προγινώσχειν. I checked the print version, and it's hard to tell whether it's a transcription error or a typo in the original: https://archive.org/stream/epistleofpault00lang#page/278/mode/2up

Thanks a lot, Mark!

It seems, further below there's another transcription error:

"προχγινώσχειν, in the classical sense, never means any thing but foreknowledge"

The text you linked clearly reads προγινώσκειν here, too - what they print looking like a small x and thus theoretically could be a chi clearly is meant as kappa, if we look at words like kai or kata in the archive.org scan.

But to me this seems to be a systematic error in the Logos resource, look at

"To be conformed to the image of his Son, συμμόρφονς τῆς εἰχόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ."

Someone needs to check this for all the Greek kappas.

Thanks for the backup/additional voice, NB.Mick.. In the past, I've just struggled with these scenarios, figuring the problem lies in the fact that I don't know Greek. I guess I'll be more comfortable enquiring about this sort of thing going forward. To be clear, I wasn't picking on this particular commentary. As noted in my original post, I run across these sorts of differences often enough in commentaries that I decided to use this instance as an example. I was just tired of being confused and trying to figure out where these words used in the resources were located in the manuscripts.