3700 & 3708

Phillip J. Long plong at gbcol.edu
Tue Oct 13 16:35:07 EDT 1998

On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:55:15 -0700, you wrote:

>Is Strong #3700 considered a defective verb?

I don't think so.....if I understand this correctly (and please some
one correct me if I am wrong!).  what is listed as a different verb in
the Englishmen's / Strongs lexicon is a form or ORAW, a Future Passive
Indicative.  Which is why BAG lists it under ORAW.   I have never
really understood the thinking behind some of the Strong's numbers;
seems to me that he is thinking that #3700 is a *different word* than
ORAW, which it is not.   i am using Logos, which hyperlinks to ORAW
from entry #3700.

Now to be a defective verb, the verb is not used in all three voices.
ORAW is present in all three voices (48 Active occurances, 33 middle
occurances, 22 passive occurances.) Therefore ORAW is not defective.

>Those of you who may surely have looked into this before, can you explain
>why these ambiguities?

I have never even thought about this before.  

>Is there anywhere a list available of all defective verbs used in Scripture
>showing their omissions?

 I am not certain that this is a complete list, but I did a reverse
search on BAG on the word "defective" and came up with this list:


The Strong's / Englishman's Lexicon also mentions heilissw

Not included are a couple of places were BAG says that the text is
defective or spelling is defective on an adjective.

Phillip J. Long
Asst. Prof. Bible & Greek
Grace Bible College

More information about the B-Greek mailing list