[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #529
b-greek-digest Saturday, 31 December 1994 Volume 01 : Number 529
In this issue:
Re: Virgin or Young Woman
Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
Re: Paradise ( was Thief)
Re: Paradise ( was Thief)
Unsubscribe
Re: Today in Paradise
Re: Paradise ( was Thief)
Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
Re: Virgin or Young Woman
Re: Virgin or Young Woman
We need an archive
MATTHEW -- new fragments?
Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
Re: Virgin or Young Woman
Re: Paradise ( was Thief)
Re: Paradise/Thief
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>
Date: 29 Dec 94 23:57:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Virgin or Young Woman
In a message dated 12-25-94 Carl W Conrad wrote to Steve Schaper:
CC> (2) an implicit assumption that there is only one kind of
CC> "Bible-believing person" and only one set of propositions regarding
CC> the truth of scripture. Have I misunderstood that implication?
CC> Carl W. Conrad
Carl,
In American vernacular the term which offends you is a term applied by
orthodox protestants to themselves. I am not aware that it is used by any
other group. (What's the term again for a multi-word symbol?)
As to the subject of the line, I first took Hebrew from Richard Whitaker who
worked on the Ugaritic concordance, and I must note that his beliefs and mine
are not the same (so far as I know), so my views should not be
indiscriminately applied to him. I _recall_ (and this is wetware memory,
hence unreliable), him saying in class that the Isaianic prophecy used the
term >almah (this late, I doubt my spelling or typing is of worth) was used
rather than betullah, because the latter was a Canaanite goddess, and the
prophet would have appeared to have been saying that YHWH was going to have a
child by a Canaanite goddess. This would have earned him the death penalty
under the Laws of Moses. So the less precise term >almah was used, and in the
context of a holy maid, virginity would be naturally assumed. (It is a sign
given to the king who claimed he didn't want a sign, no obvious reason to
believe it was meant to be fulfilled in the near future. Wonderful, counsellor,
the Mighty God, a mere man? In the orthodox Jewish cosmology which the
prophet obviously held to? I think not.
-> Alice4Mac 2.4.4 E QWK Eval:11Sep94
- --- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.03R1
- --
|Fidonet: STEVE SCHAPER 1:100/435
|Internet: STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
------------------------------
From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>
Date: 30 Dec 94 00:06:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
In a message dated 12-20-94 Carl W Conrad wrote to Steve Schaper:
CC> I'd like some clarification from those who are more likely to know
CC> that I am, but can we really say that where the LXX differs from
CC> Masoretic text of the Hebrew, it is unreliable? Or do we know which
CC> parts of the Hebrew text are particularly problematic in the LXX
CC> version(s)? I thought it was the case that, since the MT as we have
CC> it (except for fragments in the Qumran texts and the like) is no
CC> earlier than 9th c. A.D., the LXX reading is often a safer indication
CC> of what stood "originally" in the Hebrew text. Would someone who
CC> knows clarify this issue (if
I was somehow under the impression that there was a complete Isaiah scroll as
well as various fragments found in the caves in the Qumran vicinity. Am I
mistaken?
If there are, then it may be of interest that Logos now has a Dead Sea Scrolls
CD ROM with the photo archive on it, as well as much commentary from the
people who have charge of the artifacts. Perhaps translations as well.
-> Alice4Mac 2.4.4 E QWK Eval:11Sep94
- --- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.03R1
- --
|Fidonet: STEVE SCHAPER 1:100/435
|Internet: STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
------------------------------
From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>
Date: 30 Dec 94 00:01:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Paradise ( was Thief)
In a message dated 12-27-94 Vincent Broman wrote to Steve Schaper:
VB> I've wondered whether "TRITOU" counts third from the top down or
VB> from the bottom up, and whether the total count of heavens being
VB> considered was three, seven, or some other number. In any case there
VB> were other heavens that Paul conceived of besides the one his friend
VB> visited, which Paul called Paradise.
Weel, for what it's worth. . .. Might not it be as Tolkien had it that the
first heaven was the atmosphere, the second heaven the cosmos, and the third
heaven, Heaven, however it is meant (not having been there yet myself).
-> Alice4Mac 2.4.4 E QWK Eval:11Sep94
- --- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.03R1
- --
|Fidonet: STEVE SCHAPER 1:100/435
|Internet: STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 94 08:28:59 PST
Subject: Re: Paradise ( was Thief)
steve.schaper@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org wrote:
> Might not it be as Tolkien had it that the
> first heaven was the atmosphere, the second heaven the cosmos, and the third
> heaven, Heaven...
Interesting, but I wonder whether the ancients reliably distinguished
the atmosphere from the cosmos from the abode of God.
In the context of Jewish religion, I think more of the pseudepigraphical
tours of heaven, like Enoch's, which started on the earth and progressed
upwards through layers, each layer being a spiritual realm with its
own grade of excellence/glory.
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Phone: +1 619 553 1641
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Email: broman@nosc.mil
------------------------------
From: Silace@aol.com
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 12:46:16 -0500
Subject: Unsubscribe
Unsubscribe
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 94 09:45:50 PST
Subject: Re: Today in Paradise
Dennis@lewis.mt.net emailed me privately and mentioned the point
that AMHN LEGW UMIN/SOI is formulaic and normally takes no modifiers.
I checked the 69 other occurrcences of "AMHN LEGW" in the NT,
and the great majority were pure formula. Otherwise, only four instances
had some other relevance to understanding Luke 23:43 SHMERON.
Matt 18:19 PALIN [AMHN] LEGW UMIN OTI EAN DUO UMWN SUMFWNHSWSIN...
Mark 14:30 ...AMHN LEGW SOI OTI SU SHMERON TAUTH TH NUKTI ... ME APARNHSH.
John 1:51 ...AMHN AMHN LEGW UMIN [AP ARTI] OYESQE TON OURANON ANEWGOTA...
John 8:58 ...AMHN AMHN LEGW UMIN PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EIMI
The PALIN in Matt 18 I think of as a punctuation word, setting the following
saying off from the preceding complex pair of conditionals, and referring
to the entire verse, not just modifying AMHN LEGW, as if there was something
remarkable about Jesus teaching two truths in a row.
In Mark 14, the not-strictly-necessary OTI SU might have been inserted after
LEGW SOI for clarity, because the main verb is so far removed that
doubt could arise whether all three adverbial phrases relate to
APARNHSH instead of LEGW. Since Luke 23 lacks OTI, when it could have
been added for clarity, this verse casts a tiny weight on the scales
in favor of LEGW-UMIN-SHMERON.
In John 1 and 8, there is no ambiguity as to whether the adverbial phrases
of time relate to LEGW or the following verb, because the phrases of time
wouldn't make sense attached to LEGW.
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Phone: +1 619 553 1641
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Email: broman@nosc.mil
------------------------------
From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>
Date: 30 Dec 94 00:01:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Paradise ( was Thief)
In a message dated 12-27-94 Vincent Broman wrote to Steve Schaper:
VB> I've wondered whether "TRITOU" counts third from the top down or
VB> from the bottom up, and whether the total count of heavens being
VB> considered was three, seven, or some other number. In any case there
VB> were other heavens that Paul conceived of besides the one his friend
VB> visited, which Paul called Paradise.
Weel, for what it's worth. . .. Might not it be as Tolkien had it that the
first heaven was the atmosphere, the second heaven the cosmos, and the third
heaven, Heaven, however it is meant (not having been there yet myself).
-> Alice4Mac 2.4.4 E QWK Eval:11Sep94
- --- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.03R1
- --
|Fidonet: STEVE SCHAPER 1:100/435
|Internet: STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
------------------------------
From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>
Date: 30 Dec 94 00:06:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
In a message dated 12-20-94 Carl W Conrad wrote to Steve Schaper:
CC> I'd like some clarification from those who are more likely to know
CC> that I am, but can we really say that where the LXX differs from
CC> Masoretic text of the Hebrew, it is unreliable? Or do we know which
CC> parts of the Hebrew text are particularly problematic in the LXX
CC> version(s)? I thought it was the case that, since the MT as we have
CC> it (except for fragments in the Qumran texts and the like) is no
CC> earlier than 9th c. A.D., the LXX reading is often a safer indication
CC> of what stood "originally" in the Hebrew text. Would someone who
CC> knows clarify this issue (if
I was somehow under the impression that there was a complete Isaiah scroll as
well as various fragments found in the caves in the Qumran vicinity. Am I
mistaken?
If there are, then it may be of interest that Logos now has a Dead Sea Scrolls
CD ROM with the photo archive on it, as well as much commentary from the
people who have charge of the artifacts. Perhaps translations as well.
-> Alice4Mac 2.4.4 E QWK Eval:11Sep94
- --- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.03R1
- --
|Fidonet: STEVE SCHAPER 1:100/435
|Internet: STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
------------------------------
From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>
Date: 29 Dec 94 23:57:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Virgin or Young Woman
In a message dated 12-25-94 Carl W Conrad wrote to Steve Schaper:
CC> (2) an implicit assumption that there is only one kind of
CC> "Bible-believing person" and only one set of propositions regarding
CC> the truth of scripture. Have I misunderstood that implication?
CC> Carl W. Conrad
Carl,
In American vernacular the term which offends you is a term applied by
orthodox protestants to themselves. I am not aware that it is used by any
other group. (What's the term again for a multi-word symbol?)
As to the subject of the line, I first took Hebrew from Richard Whitaker who
worked on the Ugaritic concordance, and I must note that his beliefs and mine
are not the same (so far as I know), so my views should not be
indiscriminately applied to him. I _recall_ (and this is wetware memory,
hence unreliable), him saying in class that the Isaianic prophecy used the
term >almah (this late, I doubt my spelling or typing is of worth) was used
rather than betullah, because the latter was a Canaanite goddess, and the
prophet would have appeared to have been saying that YHWH was going to have a
child by a Canaanite goddess. This would have earned him the death penalty
under the Laws of Moses. So the less precise term >almah was used, and in the
context of a holy maid, virginity would be naturally assumed. (It is a sign
given to the king who claimed he didn't want a sign, no obvious reason to
believe it was meant to be fulfilled in the near future. Wonderful, counsellor,
the Mighty God, a mere man? In the orthodox Jewish cosmology which the
prophet obviously held to? I think not.
-> Alice4Mac 2.4.4 E QWK Eval:11Sep94
- --- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.03R1
- --
|Fidonet: STEVE SCHAPER 1:100/435
|Internet: STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 13:48:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Virgin or Young Woman
On 29 Dec 1994, STEVE SCHAPER wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12-25-94 Carl W Conrad wrote to Steve Schaper:
> CC> (2) an implicit assumption that there is only one kind of
> CC> "Bible-believing person" and only one set of propositions regarding
> CC> the truth of scripture. Have I misunderstood that implication?
>
> Carl,
> In American vernacular the term which offends you is a term applied by
> orthodox protestants to themselves. I am not aware that it is used by any
> other group. (What's the term again for a multi-word symbol?)
>
Not to intrude, but WHOA! Almost all Christians would claim that they
are "Bible-believing." It implies no necessary Scripture-interpretive
strategy, but rather an attitude toward the interpretive result, which is
fairly universal among Christians.
What is an "orthodox protestant" anyway? The Ecclesiastical branches
would regard it as an oxymoron, and among Protestants it seems merely
divisive.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Maurice O'Sullivan <mauros@iol.ie>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 19:06:38 GMT
Subject: We need an archive
Responding to msg on Fri, 30 Dec 1:20 AM
>From: Greg Carey <CAREY@library.vanderbilt.edu>
>Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 15:07:51 -0600 (CST)
>Subject: Re: Textlinguistics/Discourse Analysis
>
>I was nomail over the holidays, and missed Steve's post
>about his dissertation.
Isn't this a good reason for having an archive facility on this
list?
And there is the additional reason that a bounced message
results in an UNSUBSCRIBE, and several days traffic can be
missed before getting re-subscribed [ there was, many will
remember, a spate of bounced messages a couple of months ago
for reasons totally outside subscribers' control ]
Regards
Maurice
Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]
mauros@iol.ie
------------------------------
From: "A.T. Kraabel" <kraabela@martin.luther.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 94 15:27:33 CST
Subject: MATTHEW -- new fragments?
THIS CAME OUT ON A.O.L. (I ASSUME TIMES = LONDON TIMES.) ANYONE KNOW
ANYTHING MORE ABOUT IT?
LONDON (Reuter) - A German scholar has found the first material evidence that
the Gospel according to St. Matthew was an eyewitness account written by
contemporaries of Jesus Christ, The Times newspaper reported Saturday.
The newspaper said the evidence was a potentially important breakthrough
in biblical scholarship on a par with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
in 1947.
St. Matthew's Gospel was generally thought to have been written in the
late 2nd century.
But after examining the writing style of three scraps of the Gospel in
the library of Oxford University's Magdalen College, German papyrologist
Carsten Thiede believes it was written a generation after Christ's
crucifixion, or even earlier.
``The Magdalen fragment now appears to belong to a style of handwriting
that was current in the first century B.C. and slowly petered out around the
first-century A.D.," Thiede told The Times.
``Even a hesitant approach to questions of dating would therefore seem to
justify a date in the first century, about a hundred years earlier than was
previously thought."
The Times said the claim, which Thiede will publish in a specialist
German journal next month, was likely to produce fierce controversy among
biblical scholars.
Professor Peter Parsons, an Oxford papyrologist, called Thiede's argument
``sloppy" and said it was based on wrong assumptions.
transmitted: 94-12-24 12:59:57 EST
------------------------------
From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>
Date: 30 Dec 94 00:06:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
In a message dated 12-20-94 Carl W Conrad wrote to Steve Schaper:
CC> I'd like some clarification from those who are more likely to know
CC> that I am, but can we really say that where the LXX differs from
CC> Masoretic text of the Hebrew, it is unreliable? Or do we know which
CC> parts of the Hebrew text are particularly problematic in the LXX
CC> version(s)? I thought it was the case that, since the MT as we have
CC> it (except for fragments in the Qumran texts and the like) is no
CC> earlier than 9th c. A.D., the LXX reading is often a safer indication
CC> of what stood "originally" in the Hebrew text. Would someone who
CC> knows clarify this issue (if
I was somehow under the impression that there was a complete Isaiah scroll as
well as various fragments found in the caves in the Qumran vicinity. Am I
mistaken?
If there are, then it may be of interest that Logos now has a Dead Sea Scrolls
CD ROM with the photo archive on it, as well as much commentary from the
people who have charge of the artifacts. Perhaps translations as well.
-> Alice4Mac 2.4.4 E QWK Eval:11Sep94
- --- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.03R1
- --
|Fidonet: STEVE SCHAPER 1:100/435
|Internet: STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
------------------------------
From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>
Date: 29 Dec 94 23:57:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Virgin or Young Woman
In a message dated 12-25-94 Carl W Conrad wrote to Steve Schaper:
CC> (2) an implicit assumption that there is only one kind of
CC> "Bible-believing person" and only one set of propositions regarding
CC> the truth of scripture. Have I misunderstood that implication?
CC> Carl W. Conrad
Carl,
In American vernacular the term which offends you is a term applied by
orthodox protestants to themselves. I am not aware that it is used by any
other group. (What's the term again for a multi-word symbol?)
As to the subject of the line, I first took Hebrew from Richard Whitaker who
worked on the Ugaritic concordance, and I must note that his beliefs and mine
are not the same (so far as I know), so my views should not be
indiscriminately applied to him. I _recall_ (and this is wetware memory,
hence unreliable), him saying in class that the Isaianic prophecy used the
term >almah (this late, I doubt my spelling or typing is of worth) was used
rather than betullah, because the latter was a Canaanite goddess, and the
prophet would have appeared to have been saying that YHWH was going to have a
child by a Canaanite goddess. This would have earned him the death penalty
under the Laws of Moses. So the less precise term >almah was used, and in the
context of a holy maid, virginity would be naturally assumed. (It is a sign
given to the king who claimed he didn't want a sign, no obvious reason to
believe it was meant to be fulfilled in the near future. Wonderful, counsellor,
the Mighty God, a mere man? In the orthodox Jewish cosmology which the
prophet obviously held to? I think not.
-> Alice4Mac 2.4.4 E QWK Eval:11Sep94
- --- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.03R1
- --
|Fidonet: STEVE SCHAPER 1:100/435
|Internet: STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
------------------------------
From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>
Date: 30 Dec 94 00:01:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Paradise ( was Thief)
In a message dated 12-27-94 Vincent Broman wrote to Steve Schaper:
VB> I've wondered whether "TRITOU" counts third from the top down or
VB> from the bottom up, and whether the total count of heavens being
VB> considered was three, seven, or some other number. In any case there
VB> were other heavens that Paul conceived of besides the one his friend
VB> visited, which Paul called Paradise.
Weel, for what it's worth. . .. Might not it be as Tolkien had it that the
first heaven was the atmosphere, the second heaven the cosmos, and the third
heaven, Heaven, however it is meant (not having been there yet myself).
-> Alice4Mac 2.4.4 E QWK Eval:11Sep94
- --- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.03R1
- --
|Fidonet: STEVE SCHAPER 1:100/435
|Internet: STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
------------------------------
From: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 00:18:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Paradise/Thief
wraines@emmental.demon.co.uk (The Revd. William Raines) quotes and comments:
>David L. Moore <Dvdmoore@aol.com> wrote:
>> It is also worth noting, that the "thief" (He was probably a Jewish
>>freedom fighter rather than a thief as such.) asked for the Lord's help in
>>some remote future: "when you come in (EIS) your kingdom." Jesus answered
>>that the recompense of the man's faith is to be immediate - that very day!
>(1) I thought lEstEs was the usual word to use when one wanted to hint that
>someone was a freedom-fighter or accused of being such, e.g. Luke 22:52. In
>chapter 23, Luke uses kakourgos [evil-doer]. Further, the penitent criminal
>admits that his condemnation is the just reward for his deeds - an unlikely
>statement from a political terrorist.
Yes, LHSTHS is the word normally used for the Jewish freedom fighters.
A look at a Greek synopsis of the NT will show, however, that Matthew refers
to those crucified with Jesus as LHSTAI (Mat. 27:38, 44). Barabbas is also
called LHSTHS in John (18:40), and his activities (see Mk. 15:7) would agree
with his being identified as an insurrectionist. It is probably pertinent to
remember that, had the crowd not asked Pilate for Barabbas's liberty, it is
he who would have suffered crucifixion with the two LHSTAI who where
crucified with Jesus. This may indicate they were being crucified for
similar offenses as Barabbas. We should probably also remember that the
trumped-up charge brouhgt against Jesus was essentially political (i.e. that
He was a rival to Caesar's kingship). It is also unlikely that common
thieves would have merited the attention of Roman authorities for crucifixion.
Luke's use of KAKOURGOI presents no problem for identifying the two
crucified with Jesus as insurrectionists. KAKOURGOI is an ample term, which
has the general meaning "evildoer" it could be used in reference to
perpetrators of any immoral or lawless act. Matthew's LHSTAI, on the other
hand, is more specific. Luke's saying they were "evildoers" could certainly
include the idea that they were insurrectionists, especially if they had
committed some specific sinful act in their insurrection. And it is possible
that the LHSTAI crucified with Jesus were those referred to in Mk. 15:7 who,
with Barabbas, had committed murder.
>(2) Is it grammatically possible to attach sEmeron either to the previous
>words of Jesus ["Truly, I say to you ..."] or to the thief's previous
>request ["... when you come in your kingdom"]? That is, might one translate
>23:43 something like:
> "Truly, today I say to you, you will be with me in paradise"
>which would make it a statement that Jesus can determine the man's salvation
>now, no need to wait for judgement at the parousia. Or, alternatively, gloss
>the phrase as
> "Today is the day I will come into my kingdom and you will ..."?
>I guess this is pretty unlikely, but it would fit in with some sort of
>Albert Schweitzer type eschatological understanding.
Really no need to go to an eschatology like A. Schweitzer's: Paul says,
"For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (Phil. 1:21). This implies
that those who die in Christ experience immediate reward. IMHO, Jesus'
response to the "thief" does not preclude a future eschatological coming of
Jesus in His kingdom (Cf. Olivet discourse.). It simply affirms that the
benefits of that kingdom will be immediately available to a man who is about
to die trusting in Christ.
>(3) What, if any, is the relationship between paradise and the peculiar
>eschatology of Luke 16:19-31? Should "Abraham's bosom" be understood as a
>synonym for paradise?
It certainly refers to a state of bliss, and union with the righteous
dead. Going beyond that probably gets more into theology than exegesis.
David L. Moore
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #529
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu