u/faith4phil

I'm having a few problems translating this sentence:

>ὥστε με ἐμαυτὸν ἀνερωτᾶν ὑπὲρ τοῦ χρησμοῦ πότερα δεξαίμην ἂν οὕτως ὥσπερ ἔχω ἔχειν,��� μήτε���� τι�� σοφὸς������� ὢν�� τὴν����� ἐκείνων��������� σοφίαν������ μήτε���� ἀμαθὴς������ τὴν����� ἀμαθίαν���������,��� ἢ��� ἀμ��φότερα ἃ ἐκεῖνοι ἔχουσιν ἔχειν

What I've got is:

>So that I asked myself (ὥστε με ἐμαυτὸν ἀνερωτᾶν) about the oracle whether I would accept this as ἔχω ἔχειν, and hence (???) being neither wise with respect to the wisdom of those [sc. the craftsmen] nor ignorant about [my own] ignorance, or ἀμ��φότερα ἃ ἐκεῖνοι ἔχουσιν ἔχειν

My problems are:

• why is there the ACI με... ἀνερωτᾶν? I don't see any verb that would trigger it
• is the μήτε...μήτε... an incidental like I've translated it? I'm also not super sure about the rest of this sentence tbh
• what's the deal with ἔχω ἔχειν and with ἀμ��φότερα ἃ ἐκεῖνοι ἔχουσιν ἔχειν?

Can anyone help? Thanks!

I've been a staunch zionist for quite some time. The countless times that assimilationism failed seems proof enough for the need of a Jewish state.

However, one might wonder: did it actually increase safety for Jews? Concentrated in one place, hated by all its neighbors?

I guess the main answer would be that not in 48, not in 67, not in 73... Not in 2023 have the Arabs countries actually got close to winning. Also, being a state, in general, allows to have military defenses.

Still, what do you feel like?

HebrewByinbal (on Instagram) said that these two words are "fake duals" in that they are morphologically duals but not semantically and she brings as an example Gen. 1.

They're not duals now, of course, but weren't they dual in the Gen. 1 example? After all, He goes on to separate both two heavens and two waters.

Or is it the opposite? That the author was influenced by it looking dual in saying that there was this separation?

I'm here asking a linguistic question, not a theology one! Basically, at the time when Gen. 1 was written, was there a singular form that was used as a dual since the author _was_ referring to two items?

​

Is Bernard Reich's book "A brief history of Israel" reliable? I don't remember where I've been suggested it, but the first chapter seem to accept the biblical story of ancient Israel as factual, and from what I know this is against the modern historical consensus?

I had chosen this book because it mostly covers the post 48 history, but if it's bad I'd prefer not to