You sent me a file for MSWord so I figured you would have a greek font to look at it. But maybe not,
the font is Bwgrkl.
BTW, your greek grammar file was interesting. I still like the terminology "aktionsart" in deference to the german grammarians who first coined the terminology. Actually I think it was stolen from the hebrew grammarians who replaced the concept of tense with aspect, much as your paper attempted to do with the aorist. But that is impossible. In my small opinion, the concept of tense in the Hebrew triradical system was successfully done away with , but the same cannot be said of any indoeuropean language.
And though tense may not be a dominant feature for certain verbs, or perhaps even verbal forms, it cannot be completely ignored. Either tense is a mode of thinking for a people as expressed in their language, or it is not.
> >API < prographo means to make a public record of..
> >with the adjectival predicate usage of the PFP participle
> >Transl:
> >"Before whose eyes was Christ made a public record (as)
> >executed on a cross stake"
> >
> >Paul's private
> >letters to the Galatians not recorded in the Bible
> >are not public record, contrary to the current line
> >of commentaries. NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT
> >THEM!
>
> Well, the Galatians presumably did, if such letters existed. For them, such
> letters would have been public record..
Like I say, that's a presumption. And the presumption ignores the meaning of the verb, prographo.
> >The "public record" which the Galatians
> >observed having been made of the crucifixion
> >was the placard written in Aramaic, Latin and
> >GREEK! In otherwords, the Galatians actually
> >witnessed the crucifixion of Christ when they
> >were in Jerusalem! This translation is closest to
> >the NRS!
>
> I see some difficulties with this interpretation. First, Galatians 4:12 -
> 4:20 seems to indicate that the Galatians first received the gospel when
> Paul came to them as the result of a sickness.
13 but you know that it was because of a
bodily illness that I preached the gospel
to you the first time;
I'm not understanding your point. Obiously you don't believe that this passage necessarily
states that this first time any of the Galatians may have heard the gospel. Obiously it is the first time
for the Apostle.
Second, why would the
> Galatians have been in Jerusalem before they became Christians, since the
> Galatian church did not exist before then, and it is hard to imagine that
> all those living in Galatia would have been in Jerusalem at that time?
Somehow either I'm not conveying this concept very clearly, or something, but I never said that the Galatians as a congregation were in Jerusalem. I think the subject of the file makes this clear. The Apostle merely states that the Galatians, as a congregation, observed the crucifixion made a public record. Now that does not exclude the concept that some merely heard the second hand report from others. If this report were merely in writing, the same would hold true. Not everyone in the congregation is going to necessarily read Paul's epistle.
> Yet Galatians 3:1 *does* say "TIS hUMAS EBASKANEN, HOIS KAT' OFQALMOUS
> IHSOUS XRISTOS PROEGRAFH ESTAURWMENOS?" There are two puzzling questions
> here: (1) what does PROEGRAFH mean? (2) what does KAT OFQALMOUS mean - in
> what sense did this happen "before their eyes"?
>
> As for question (1), PRO-GRAFW has two meanings. It can mean either "write
> previously" or "show forth or portray publically, placard publically". The
> word occurs four times in the Greek New Testament, and only the Galatians
> passage is generally translated with the second meaning. Here are the four
> passages:
>
> Roma 15:4 (NASU) For whatever was written in earlier times was written for
> our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the
> Scriptures we might have hope.
The two concepts of "previously written" and "made a public record" are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, if one examines the second meaning in this context, the verb conveys a plethora of meaning that makes the passage clearly stand out as to the conveyance of truth from one generation to the next.
> Gala 3:1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes
> Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed [as] crucified?
Publically yes, portrayed - why!? Portraying is very generally terminology that can be used for what an etch-a-sketch does. The terminology has no place in the concept of recording an event in a document which transmission has lasted almost 2000 years! What are the translators thinking about?
> Ephe 3:3 that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I
> wrote before in brief.
Yes, this is a good example of where Paul documented an event. But Paul does not use the passive voice indiscriminantly . In the case of the Galatian passage, as here, he would have used the active voice to convey the meaning he has done here.
> Jude 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long
> beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the
> grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord,
> Jesus Christ.
Uneqivocably this is my referenced usage. These people have been publically marked for condemnation (not a very pleasant notion, granted) as the Lord was when the soldiers nailed that
placard on the cross.
>
> At first blush, it would seem possible to translate Galatians 3:1 with the
> same meaning given the word in the other passages in the Greek New
> Testament: "before whose eyes Jesus Christ was previously portrayed as
> crucified". That would be easier for me to understand, yet none of the
> translations I'm looking at translate it this way, which makes me think that
> I'm missing something here.
Try the NRS:It was before
your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly
exhibited as crucified!
Louw and Nida suggest "portray vividly" as the
> best translation here:
>
> Louw and Nida 33.191 "PROGRAFW: to provide information in a vivid manner -
> 'to describe vividly; to portray.' ... It would be wrong to assume that
> PROGRAFW in Galatians 3:1 refers to some kind of theatrical demonstration..
> The portrayal mentioned here was evidently a vivid verbal description."
That completely ignores the concept of grapho, to write, it ignores its usage in ALL the
passages you cite. It's one of those literary THANGS translators love to include to dodge
the issue and make it sound pleasant, or even agreeable with some translation.
>
> But if the portrayal was verbal, why was it before their eyes (KAT
> OFQALMOUS)? This brings us to the second question. I wonder if perhaps
> Christ was portrayed as crucified through the life of Paul, who was
> crucified with Christ (Galatians 2:20), and lived among the Galatians?
Nope. We are talking about EYE witnesses. The use of the dative of the relative pronoun makes that unequivocal.
Regards,
Brian L.