Looks like a Duck

[Robin Riley]

The words do look exactly the same in the oldest manuscripts – ZHLW or "zElO gar humas theou zElO"

2co 11:2 zElO gar humas theou zElO hErmosamEn gar humas heni andri parthenon hagnEn parastEsai tO christO

 for you I be zealous unto a zeal of God; for you I joined unto one husband, a pure virgin to present unto the Christ.

I be zealous {2206 V-PAI-1S} for {1063 CONJ} to you {4771 P-2AP} of God {2316 N-GSM} unto a zeal {2205 N-DSM} I joined {0718 V-AMI-1S} for {1063 CONJ} to you {4771 P-2AP} unto one {1520 A-DSM} unto a husband {0435 N-DSM} to a virgin {3933 N-ASF} to a pure {0053 A-ASF} to present {3936 V-AAN} unto the {3588 T-DSM} unto Christ {5547 N-DSM}

 

(Robin)

I'm just a simple layman, when something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I tend to think that, very likely, it's a duck ...That is, since the two words look exactly alike, what's the reasoning behind our understanding the first use to be a verb, and the second use to be a noun, especially when they are used in the same verse, same context, almost next to each other?

I be zealous {2206 V-PAI-1S}

unto a zeal {2205 N-DSM}

 Can "see" where we can reason the "noun" is singular; and perhaps even masculine (from context), but the dative seems rather subjective; that is, if the dative masculine were, in fact factual, wouldn't we also be able to say this about the word as a verb?

{2206 V-PAI-1DSM}

That is, the reading of this word, as a noun, seems all very conjectured; why not rather, suspect that if it quacks like a duck, then in both cases, its a verb! Perhaps it's an repetition intended for emphasis ...

 

"for you I be zealous

of God I be zealous;

for you I joined unto one husband,

a pure virgin to present unto the Christ."