[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #599
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 7 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 599
In this issue:
Re: Mack on Q1 and Cynics
Re: Q1 and Mack.
Re: Mack on Q1 and Cynics
Re: Mack on Q1 and Cynics
Re: Mack on Q1 and Cynics
Re: Mack on Q1 and Cynics
Re: Mack on Q1 and Cynics
Bible Pgm Review (Long Post)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 05:43:04 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Mack on Q1 and Cynics
On Tue, 7 Mar 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> Hi friends:
> [DELETIONS]
> As for Q, I don't see anything from Q that would reflect the Cynics.
> Apocalypticism and Cynicism aren't very similar at all.
I don't mean to be flippant here, but I must say that I think this is a
rather "short-sighted" viewpoint. Hellenistic culture with its universal
receptivity for alien ideas is pretty thick everywhere, and borrowings
need not be deliberate. Martin Hengel has shown (I think I've mentioned
this on B-Greek before) how deeply impacted the Essene movement was by
Greek and Persian astrological and eschatological notions. In this
cultural milieu ideas are LITERALLY infectious and can be caught without
deliberate imitation. In this instance it is ascetic tendencies in the
one cultural strain that may appeal to a fringe group that is alienated
from its own culture's institutional leadership.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: PaleoBill@aol.com
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 09:37:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Q1 and Mack.
Ceary's observation is correct. Fischel in his "Studies in Cynicism and
the Ancient Near East..." in _Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of
Erwin Ransdall Goodenough_:372-411, shows that the early rabbis also used
similar forms to chreia collections and for similar purposes. Hope this has
been helpful.
------------------------------
From: Gregory Bloomquist <GBLOOMQUIST@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 10:07:25 EDT
Subject: Re: Mack on Q1 and Cynics
I am forwarding a note received from Vernon Robbins, who, gracious as
always, suggests that the note can be re-posted. (I omit from the
note only a housekeeping question having to do with the ACTS-L list.
The rest of the note is intact. PS: Now don't you wish that the
early authors had been that explicit about their redaction of earlier
materials!! :-)
Greg Bloomquist
- - - - - - - - Forwarded Message Follows - - - - - - -
Dear Greg,
You have asked many excellent questions here. I will begin at the
beginning to answer a couple of them. Within two months of communcations,
I think we could pretty well cover all the bases you have in view.
This is a superb set of questions. It is a pleasure to see how
deeply you are into this material.
Vernon K. Robbins
On Fri, 3 Mar 1995, Gregory Bloomquist wrote:
> In working through some of the implications raised by Burton Mack in
> his _Lost Gospel_ (San Francisco: Harper, 1993) I have become stumped
> by a point. Perhaps you can help me:
>
> According to Mack , QS 39 (12.22-31) "bears the marks of reflection
> upon a Cynic-like movement in the process of social and ethical
> formation." (Lost Gospel, 123) In order to draw this conclusion,
> Mack analyses the rhetorical pattern of argumentation found in the
> unit. He finds in it the rhetorical device known as "thesis" or
> "elaboration", which he defines as an injunction set forth in the
> form of a thesis and argued as a principle. The analogies (usually
> taken from the natural order) and examples (usually taken from life)
> present in the text are used as proofs, with the conjunction of them
> being considered a complete argumentation (Lost Gospel, 121-122).
>
> Thesis: One should not worry about life (food) or body (clothing)
>
> Reason: Life is more than food and body more than clothing
>
> Analogy: Ravens do not work for food; God provides for them and you
> are worth more than birds
>
> Example: No one can add a day to his life by worrying
>
> Analogy: Lilies do not work and yet are clothed
>
> Example: Solomon in all his splendour was not as magnificent as the
> lilies
>
> Analogy: Notice the grass: if God puts beautiful clothes on the
> grass, won't he put clothes on you?
>
> Conclusion: One should not worry about food and drink
>
> Example: All the Gentiles worry about such things
>
> Exhortation: Instead, make sure of God's Kingdom over you and all of
> these things will be yours as well.
>
> I am unclear whether Mack sees this rhetorical elaboration as an
> example of Cynic rhetoric or not.
I will answer this one first. The beginning point is to be clear
about the basis for this kind of rhetorical elaboration. The two
clearest examples exist in the Rhetorica ad Herennium (80s BCE) and
Hermogenes' Progymnasmata (2d Century CE).
First, see Rhet ad Her IV.xliii.56-xliv.58 (Loeb Classical
Library, pp. 369-375). Here you see seven parts of an elaboration
(ergasia, exergasia, expolitio), which include thesis, reason, restatement,
contrary, analogy, example, and conclusion.
Second, see Hermogenes' elabortion of the chreia in Ronald F.
Hock & Edward N. O'Neil, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1986. P. 177. Here you see eight parts of an
elaboration (ergasia), which include praise, chreia/thesis, reason,
opposite, analogy, example, citation of written authority, and conclusion.
There are many discussions of individual parts in rhetorical
treatises, and there are other important exhibitions that show variations
that fall within an elaboration that will make a complete argument.
You will want at some time to see Mack's chapter on "Elaboration
of the Chreia in the Hellenistic School," pp. 31-67 in Burton L. Mack &
Vernon K. Robbins, _Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels_. Sonoma, CA:
Polebridge Press, 1989. There you will see references to various patterns.
So the initial answer is that Mack is showing an example of
"rhetorical elaboration" in Q based on these examples in rhetorical
treatises. This elaboration pattern is not something specifically
Cynic. It is a conventional elaboration pattern in Mediterranean discourse.
The question concerning whether this is an example of Cynic
rhetoric requires a much more complex answer. The answer, based on work
we have been doing here at Emory is, "Yes, this is an example of the manner
in which Cynic rhetorical elaboration works."
One of the most important things about Cynic rhetoric is the
manner in which it uses "argument from the contrary." This takes us into a
very complex, and at times controversial, discussion. You see the
examples of Cynic anecdotes Mack displays on pp. 116-117 in _Lost
Gospel_. The first and fourth ones are enacting "argument from the
contrary" in the "thesis itself." This is a typical Cynic mode of
argumentation.
As it happens, the elaboration you quote above is the passage of
one the students currently in my Rhetorical Criticism Seminar here, and
we are refining Mack's analysis of it. I have written an account of
some of the refinements to date in the introduction to Semeia 64
(1993) on "The Rhetoric of Pronouncement." We are currently taking
things still further.
You will notice that Mack does not label any item as a
"Contrary." The reason is that it is not easy to see, because of the
nature of Cynic rhetoric. Notice how the thesis itself is couched in
negative terms: "Do not worry about life (food) or body (clothing)."
Then notice how the elaboration works down to positive statements at the end.
This is one of the characteristics of Cynic rhetorical
elaboration. The result is a significant move toward "domesticating"
individual Cynic anecdotes.
I must go to dinner now. This can get us started.
Vernon K. Robbins
***************************************************************************
Vernon K. Robbins Home Address:
Internet: 1634 Stonecliff Drive
relvkr@unix.cc.emory.edu Decatur, GA 30033 USA
Phone:
404/982-0174 (home) Office Address:
404/727-6466 (office) Religion, 312 Physics Building
404/727-7597 (Fax) Emory University
Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 09:43:14 PST
Subject: Re: Mack on Q1 and Cynics
On Tuesday, March 7 Carl Conrad wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Mar 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> > Hi friends:
> > [DELETIONS]
> > As for Q, I don't see anything from Q that would reflect the Cynics.
> > Apocalypticism and Cynicism aren't very similar at all.
>
> I don't mean to be flippant here, but I must say that I think this is a
> rather "short-sighted" viewpoint. Hellenistic culture with its universal
> receptivity for alien ideas is pretty thick everywhere, and borrowings
> need not be deliberate. Martin Hengel has shown (I think I've mentioned
> this on B-Greek before) how deeply impacted the Essene movement was by
> Greek and Persian astrological and eschatological notions. In this
> cultural milieu ideas are LITERALLY infectious and can be caught without
> deliberate imitation. In this instance it is ascetic tendencies in the
> one cultural strain that may appeal to a fringe group that is alienated
> from its own culture's institutional leadership.
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University
> One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
> (314) 935-4018
> cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
>
I don't want to seem flippant either but I have a serious methodolgocal
problem with the whole subject under discussion. Let's see. First
we have Mack talking about the nature of "Q", a document whose existence
is little more than a hypothesis with serious objections to it (I don't
want to start that discussion again --just putting this in perspective).
Next Mack goes on to talk about the nature of an earlier substratum of
the Q tradition. Then he goes on to argue for a Cynic=related orgin
for the tradition that informed this early substratum in Q. Have I got
that right? Doesn't it bother anyone else that this is an awful lot of
hypothetical levels? From that sort of argument one could contend that
just about anything is the basis of the current Q (to borrow off a
software term) vaportext. That has so many assumptions and leaps of
logic in it that I can't even take it seriously. All that one needs
do with this string of weak arguments and grasps at straws is break one
weak link, and the whole argument is dead, and that's pretty easy to do,
as Carl has shown. If all I have to do is formulate an unkonwn tradition
for an unrecoverable layer of tradition for a document that may not
have existed, and if it did, who knows what was or was not in it, I can
argue for just about anything.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Gregory Bloomquist <GBLOOMQUIST@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 14:06:08 EDT
Subject: Re: Mack on Q1 and Cynics
> On Tuesday, March 7 Ken Litwak wrote:
> I don't want to seem flippant either but I have a serious methodolgocal
> problem with the whole subject under discussion. Let's see. First
> we have Mack talking about the nature of "Q", a document whose existence
> is little more than a hypothesis with serious objections to it (I don't
> want to start that discussion again --just putting this in perspective).
> Next Mack goes on to talk about the nature of an earlier substratum of
> the Q tradition. Then he goes on to argue for a Cynic=related orgin
> for the tradition that informed this early substratum in Q. Have I got
> that right? Doesn't it bother anyone else that this is an awful lot of
> hypothetical levels? From that sort of argument one could contend that
> just about anything is the basis of the current Q (to borrow off a
> software term) vaportext. That has so many assumptions and leaps of
> logic in it that I can't even take it seriously. All that one needs
> do with this string of weak arguments and grasps at straws is break one
> weak link, and the whole argument is dead, and that's pretty easy to do,
> as Carl has shown. If all I have to do is formulate an unkonwn tradition
> for an unrecoverable layer of tradition for a document that may not
> have existed, and if it did, who knows what was or was not in it, I can
> argue for just about anything.
I know the feeling, Ken. But -- having started this little problem -
- -, I also know that it is a feeling that one must fight against.
Why? Well, I used the notion of sub-atomic particles recently. I
could have also used the analogy of cosmology and origins of the
universe. I did so consciously since what we as those who use the
scientific method are after is not easily or at present within our
grasp (be they sub-atomic particles, the first milliseconds in the
existence of the universe, or the original, un-Gospelised sayings
of Jesus). The only way to get at any of these in terms of the
scientific method is to propose a hypothesis, and let the
researchers out there sound it out. It is a public debate in the
public forum and everyone -- even those who would modify the
findings, in which group I would class myself -- has a shot at it.
The danger of other approaches is that they make the matter a
private one, in which no public debate is possible, and in which
case the matter boils down to a question of who can shout most
loudly or longest. If the hypothesis is confirmed, then we go on
from there. If it is not, we move to alternative hypotheses.
I too have some problems with the Q approach. But, if that is the
case, it is up to me to suggest alternatives. So far, there has
been no reason conclusively to move to an alternative hypothesis.
There may one day be one. I also feel, however, that as a scientist,
I can thus discuss the value of the Q hypothesis until it is shown to
be less useful than another.
I realise that this is quick but it seemed to me that having started
this particular thread, I ought to add a note that suggests that I am
willing to follow it through wherever it may lead. As one of my
thesis judges said to me: the mark of a good thesis is that it takes
a method and follows it through to its conclusion, even if we don't
always like the conclusion. As a person of faith, I also have the
conviction that if I am a good scientist and not prejudiced as to the
results I personally want to find, then these results will work
toward the overall picture that will be the one I want to live with.
Greetings!
GREGORY BLOOMQUIST
Faculty of Theology | Faculte de Theologie
Saint Paul University | Universite Saint-Paul
(University of Ottawa | Universite d'Ottawa)
223 Main, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 1C4 CANADA
Email: GBLOOMQUIST@SPU.STPAUL.UOTTAWA.CA
Voice: 613-236-1393 (messages) / 613-782-3027 (direct)
Fax: 613-236-4108
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 13:58:32 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Mack on Q1 and Cynics
Thanks to Greg Bloomquist for cogent and patient comments about the
usefulness of hypothesis-making in Christian Origins. I too support the
validity-in-principle of hypothesis-making, even when they cannot be
fully verified or falsified. Their usefulness is largely in whether they
help us to provide a provisional explanation for data that might
otherwise be unexplained or less adequately explained without the
hypothesis.
But of course one must always retain a distinction between
hypothesis and data, and between a hpothesis that is almost totally
untestable on the one hand, and a hypothesis that is to some significant
extent testable. It is a common temptation in scholarship to treat
yesterday's hypothesis as today's fact, when the hypothesis was never
sufficiently tested in the lst place.
On the specific question of the usefulness of Cynic parallels to
Q material, I'd like to raise a couple of methodological qualms. Given
the eclectic nature of the Hellenistic/Greco-Roman period, it is VERY
difficult to establish direct influence/borrowing. Various traditions
were just "in the air" or "in the groundwater" all over, and remember
that Jewish tradition had been in contact with GReek culture for over 300
yrs. by the time of Jesus, so a lot had probably become "domesticated" as
"Jewish" that might once have derived from non-Jewish sources.
Moreover, Samuel Sandmel long ago (in his classic SBL
presidential address published in JBL) warned the guild about
"parallelomania"--the facile use of analogies of this or that to
establish direct connection/influence. The address clearly needs to be
dusted off and re-read, sadly, even by members of the guild old enough to
have read it already! It is not enough to find something roughly
analogous in form or even content to some Jesus saying to be able to
posit a direct influence/borrowing, or even to label it--e.g., "cynic"
etc. The item in question must be sufficiently DISTINCTIVE of this or
that source to make the borrowing/influence and label appropriate. In
the present case offered by Greg from Mack, this hardly appears to be the
case!
Moreover, as Greg noted, it is always an important question as to
whether alleged influences (e.g., Cynic) may have become imported into
the Jesus tradition in the course of its being "traditioned" in early
Christian groups and activities. So, even if one were able to posit a
cogent case of influence of this or that, the further question is at what
stage and under what circumstances the influence might have had its
effect. Given the immense amount of special pleading put forth by Mack
et alia against the masive evidence of Jesus as a Jewish prophet-figure,
operating under the influence of another such figure (John the Baptist),
and in the orbit of Jewish revitalization movements of the time (with
strong eschatological orientations), I am not impressed with the idea
that the Cynic paradigm is useful or correct in understanding Jesus or
the earliest stages of the Jesus tradition.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 14:36:13 PST
Subject: Re: Mack on Q1 and Cynics
Larry Hurtado has offerred, as always, some well-balanced comments
on the subject of hypotheses, Q and the issue of Cynic influence on
Q1. As most readers of this list know by now, the only Q I believe in
is in the 25th Century (Star Trek for the non-Illuminati :-) ). In all
the works I have seen that discuss Q in NT studies, there is much talk
about how Matthew or Luke modified this or that Q saying. Whenever
I read this srot of stuff, I am always left wondering, "what's your
point"? So I will open this up here and hope to get educated. If the
Q hypothesis is correct, as opposed to my own view (the Synoptics are
based primarily on the common preaching of the Jersusalem Church), how
does this hypothesis help me in understanding the text as it stands
(which is hard enough, never mind any theoretical antecedents)?
I'm absolutely serioius. The articles that I have read that talk about
Q seem to argue that some saying had some form in Q as opposed to
MT/Lk. The authors seem to imply that MT/Lk have thus engaged in
highly creative activity and invented their version of the story.
That doesn't help me understand the text much as it is. How does Q
inform my exegesis of Mt/Lk? Thanks.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
> Thanks to Greg Bloomquist for cogent and patient comments about the
> usefulness of hypothesis-making in Christian Origins. I too support the
> validity-in-principle of hypothesis-making, even when they cannot be
> fully verified or falsified. Their usefulness is largely in whether they
> help us to provide a provisional explanation for data that might
> otherwise be unexplained or less adequately explained without the
> hypothesis.
> But of course one must always retain a distinction between
> hypothesis and data, and between a hpothesis that is almost totally
> untestable on the one hand, and a hypothesis that is to some significant
> extent testable. It is a common temptation in scholarship to treat
> yesterday's hypothesis as today's fact, when the hypothesis was never
> sufficiently tested in the lst place.
> On the specific question of the usefulness of Cynic parallels to
> Q material, I'd like to raise a couple of methodological qualms. Given
> the eclectic nature of the Hellenistic/Greco-Roman period, it is VERY
> difficult to establish direct influence/borrowing. Various traditions
> were just "in the air" or "in the groundwater" all over, and remember
> that Jewish tradition had been in contact with GReek culture for over 300
> yrs. by the time of Jesus, so a lot had probably become "domesticated" as
> "Jewish" that might once have derived from non-Jewish sources.
> Moreover, Samuel Sandmel long ago (in his classic SBL
> presidential address published in JBL) warned the guild about
> "parallelomania"--the facile use of analogies of this or that to
> establish direct connection/influence. The address clearly needs to be
> dusted off and re-read, sadly, even by members of the guild old enough to
> have read it already! It is not enough to find something roughly
> analogous in form or even content to some Jesus saying to be able to
> posit a direct influence/borrowing, or even to label it--e.g., "cynic"
> etc. The item in question must be sufficiently DISTINCTIVE of this or
> that source to make the borrowing/influence and label appropriate. In
> the present case offered by Greg from Mack, this hardly appears to be the
> case!
> Moreover, as Greg noted, it is always an important question as to
> whether alleged influences (e.g., Cynic) may have become imported into
> the Jesus tradition in the course of its being "traditioned" in early
> Christian groups and activities. So, even if one were able to posit a
> cogent case of influence of this or that, the further question is at what
> stage and under what circumstances the influence might have had its
> effect. Given the immense amount of special pleading put forth by Mack
> et alia against the masive evidence of Jesus as a Jewish prophet-figure,
> operating under the influence of another such figure (John the Baptist),
> and in the orbit of Jewish revitalization movements of the time (with
> strong eschatological orientations), I am not impressed with the idea
> that the Cynic paradigm is useful or correct in understanding Jesus or
> the earliest stages of the Jesus tradition.
>
> Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
>
------------------------------
From: TimWalk@aol.com
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 17:54:12 -0500
Subject: Bible Pgm Review (Long Post)
If this is a repeat I appologize. I had a transmission error on a previo=
us
attempt...
Cover Story
COMPARSION REVIEW: ORIGINAL LANGUAGES BIBLE STUDY SOFTWARE
By Tim Walker
November 1994
VOL. 6 NO. 11
Copyrighted by Christian Computing Magazine
All rights reserved
Christian Computing Magazine
P.O. Box 198
Raymore, MO 64083
Phone: (816) 331-3881
For Subscription Information, Call 1-800-456-1868
SPECIAL NOTE - The orginal article as published in Christian Computing
contained Greek
Fonts. For the file to be uploaded and read online, the font will appear =
as
garbage in the =
translation to ASCII.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -----
- -------------------------------------------------
- -
There are several Bible study packages on the market today that can make
studying the Bible in its =
original languages easier and more meaningful. (I wish I would have had o=
ne
of these when I was in =
seminary!) Let=92s look at six of these, concentrating on how each helps =
you to
study the Greek and =
Hebrew Bibles.
We=92ll look at the currently available packages which contain both the G=
reek
and Hebrew Bibles and =
display them in their respective alphabets. No transliterations here! All=
of
them enable you to search for =
words and phrases. Some packages have the Greek and Hebrew text, but do n=
ot
have morphological tags or =
lexical forms. That is, they might have pare/lqwsin in Matt. 24:25, but
cannot tell you that it is a 3rd =
person plural aorist active subjunctive verb from pare/rxomai. Logos Bibl=
e
Study Software 1.6 and the =
Online Bible fall into this category. In the other category are Bible
Windows, BibleWorks for Windows, =
Bible Word Plus, and The Word Advanced Study System which have both the t=
ext
and morphological =
information.
As I was examining the morphological packages it became clear that the
databases used are far from =
perfect, so care must be taken before accepting the results of an analysi=
s.
All of the packages use the =
Westminster Theological Seminary Hebrew morphological database as the bas=
is
for the parsings in the =
Hebrew Old Testament. Those which have the Septuagint parsings, use the C=
ATSS
morphological database =
from the University of Pennsylvania. Here the only differences are when a=
vendor has corrected errors they =
have found.
In the New Testament things are more diverse. Each package in the review =
uses
a different combination =
of roots and tags for the New Testament morphological databases. This lea=
ds
to differences such as e)rh/m% =
in Mat. 3:1 being considered an adjective in BibleWorks for Windows and B=
ible
Windows, a noun by =
Gramcord, and a pronoun by TheWord. Because of this variation, I exported=
each of the databases and put =
them into a form that allowed direct comparison so I could assess the str=
ength
s of each database. As I =
progressed it became clear that the difficulty is not in getting the data=
,
but in determining a fair metric for =
measuring its accuracy. It would be unfair to speak ill of a database wit=
hout
an objective means of measuring =
the accuracy, so I have not included any direct comparisons. Instead, I
provide the source of the database =
used by each package so you can gather relevant information, and encourag=
e
those who have suggestions =
for a fair and accurate metric to contact me (see the about the author bo=
x
for my e-mail addresses).
Bible Windows 2.5
Bible Windows (Silver Mountain Software) is an MS Windows based package t=
hat
supports full =
morphological searches of the Old and New Testaments. The New Testament
morphological information is =
from Timothy Friberg with the lexical forms from Spiritware. In both
testaments, it offers a very nice =
interlinear mode, dictionaries, lexicons, and is one of the two packages
which support morphological =
analysis of the Septuagint. (Version 3.0 of Bible Windows is due to be
released about the time this review =
comes out, but was not available for review. Among many other improvemen=
ts
it is supposed to fix the =
problems indicated below.)
Original Language Support
Bible Windows offers instant parsings and definitions. Each parsing or
definition gets a separate =
window: looking things up causes windows to quickly multiply! The Hebrew
definitions are from Silver =
Mountain Software=92s Simple Electronic Hebrew Glossary. These are simple=
and
direct giving you the basic =
meaning of a word. The Greek definitions come from the UBS Greek-English
dictionary. One outstanding =
resource available with Bible Windows is the Greek-English Lexicon of the=
New
Testament based on =
Semantic Domains by Louw and Nida. The lexicon adds the ability to instan=
tly
access detailed information =
for a Greek word and is well worth the $50 add-on price.
Bible Windows supports up to eight elements in its morphological searches=
=2E
Searches can be saved and =
retrieved for later use, and when a search is finished, the results are
placed in a separate window. Items in =
the results list can be deleted, or the entire list can be copied to the
clipboard. This makes getting the results =
from Bible Windows into the program of your choice a snap.
Implementation
Bible Windows is ahead of its time with =93Power Mousing.=94 This is Sil=
ver
Mountain Software=92s term for =
using the right mouse button to pop up a context sensitive menu. This men=
u
enables you to perform =
common actions without having to move the mouse up to the window menu or
toolbar. Microsoft is making =
this the standard action for the right mouse button in the upcoming Windo=
ws
95, so by incorporating it now =
Bible Windows has a jump on the competition. =
There were several areas where Bible Windows is a little rough around the=
edges. Bible Windows does =
not allow the addition of notes, unlike the other packages reviewed. In
addition, the Power Mousing menus =
are not always updated correctly. For example, the interlinear check mark=
shows the state of the last time =
you toggled it, not the state of the current window. Keyboard support is =
also
inconsistent. Using the tab key =
to move through a dialog often takes you randomly through the controls.
Trying to extend the selection =
using the standard keys does not work. =
We have learned just as we are going to press with this issue, that Silve=
r MT
is expecting to release =
their newest version, 3.0 by the time you are reading this article. They
claim to have fixed all of the items =
mentioned above and to have added the notes and other features as well. Y=
ou
can read more about their new =
version in the News of Interest section in this issue of CC Mag.
One limitation of Bible Windows is that it is hard to get more than a cha=
pter
of text out of the package =
at a time. This =93limitation=94 is a design decision made by Silver Moun=
tain
Software to comply with their =
understanding of the fair use rules of copyrighted text. To export more t=
han
a chapter you would have =
repeat the single chapter export as many times, or contact Silver Mountai=
n
Software to determine how to =
use the data directly from their databases.
Overall Impression
Bible Windows is one of the most complete of the original language Bible
study software packages, =
giving you a full set of tools for doing serious original language study =
on
your PC. The strongest points are =
depth of the language coverage, the interlinear mode, and the Louw & Nida=
lexicon.
Bible Windows 2.5 requires system 286 or higher, 45M of HD space, and
Microsoft Windows. The price =
is $325. For more information write Silver Mountain Software, 1029 Tangle=
wood,
Cedar Hill, TX 75104, or =
call 1-800-214-2144.
BibleWorks for Windows Version 3.0
BibleWorks for Windows (Hermeneutika Bible Software) is the Microsoft Win=
dows
based program with =
the widest range of language resources of the six reviewed here. It has f=
ull
morphological support for the =
Old Testament and New Testaments, as well as the Septuagint. Version 3.0
sports a new New Testament =
morphological database with both parsings and lexical forms from the
Analytical Greek New Testament by =
Friberg and Friberg. It also contains the Latin Vulgate, a Bible diction=
ary,
lexicons, and numerous English =
versions.
Original Language Support
BibleWorks for Windows puts a tremendous amount of information on your
screen. By double clicking =
on a word you can get its parsing, definition, how many times it is used,=
and
a list of where it is used. When =
you click on the lexical form, you see everywhere that root is used. Clic=
k on
the specific form and you are =
provided with a list of where that form is used.
Searches can be constructed using the command line or via dialogs, and ar=
e
saved so they can be =
recalled later. BibleWorks for Windows searching allows matches on
morphological tags and lexical forms. =
The results of a search are put into a list box and can be copied to the
included editor.
Notes can be added to verses, and can contain both Greek and Hebrew. This=
is
the only Windows based =
package that allows both Greek and Hebrew to be typed into the notes.
Implementation
BibleWorks for Windows is unique in giving detailed statistics on word us=
age.
For example when =
looking up le/gw, you see that it is used 2,344 times in the New Testamen=
t:
613 times as the third person =
singular aorist active indicative, 338 as third person singular present
active indicative, and so forth. It also =
reports on the occurrences by book and chapter. This information is simp=
ly
not available in any other =
package.
BibleWorks for Windows offers two main ways of specifying the relationshi=
p
between the programs =
windows. First, all the windows can be contained within a main window. T=
his
is how most Windows =
programs operate. Second, it allows you to separate each of the windows =
so
there is no main window =
containing them all. It then further subdivides these two, giving a total=
of
four different modes. However you =
cannot have a main window without also having the program fix the relativ=
e
sizes of some of the child =
windows. This non-standard interface can be annoying when your idea of th=
e
ideal layout includes having a =
main window - but not the enforced child window sizing.
Overall Impression
BibleWorks for Windows is the most comprehensive of the packages reviewed=
and
it offers an =
incredible amount of data and power. It packs more information onto the
screen than any other package. =
The statistics given here are not available in any of the other packages,=
and
its search capabilities are =
impressive. For original language work, BibleWorks for Windows is the Bi=
ble
software to beat.
BibleWorks For Windows 3.0 requires system 386 or higher, 4-8M RAM, 2M-10=
2M
of HD space =
(depends on number of resources you install), and Microsoft Windows. The
price is $350 on Disk and $300 =
on CD-ROM. For more information write Hermeneutika, PO Box 98563, Seattle=
, WA
98198, or call: (206) =
824-9673. Internet: bibleworks@aol.com
Bible Word Plus 3.10 & Gramcord
Bible Word Plus and Gramcord (The Gramcord Institute) is a combination of=
two
products available =
separately but which can be combined into a full morphological original
language study package. Bible Word =
Plus is a DOS based program that gives the Bible interface and the Old
Testament morphological capabilities =
to the set. Gramcord is a highly specialized program for grammatical
searching of the Greek New =
Testament. By combining the two, you get a capable Bible Study program wi=
th
the best New Testament =
morphological search engine.
Original Language Support
Bible Word Plus runs in either graphics or text mode. Text mode yields a =
trans
literated set of Greek and =
Hebrew characters. In graphics mode, you get fully accented and cantillat=
ed
Hebrew characters as well as =
fully accented Greek characters.
The Gramcord Institute maintains the New Testament morphological database=
and
its database contains =
the most detailed morphological information available. For example, it br=
eaks
conjunctions into 17 different =
subclasses, compared to four in the nearest competitor. Combine this with=
the
most powerful search engine =
available and you have the best New Testament morphological search availa=
ble.
To do a morphological search in Bible Word Plus and Gramcord, you specify=
sets of grammatical tags =
and an optional list of lexical forms to include or exclude. Up to ten of=
these sets can be included in an Old =
Testament search or 12 in a New Testament search. The Old Testament searc=
hes
in Bible Word Plus are =
comparable to what is available in the other packages, but in the New
Testament the power of Gramcord =
shines forth. Gramcord gives you an array of commands and keywords which =
give
unparalleled search =
capabilities.
Bible Word Plus uses the DOS interface program for Gramcord=92s search en=
gine
to find information and =
display it for you. The interface between the two programs is reasonably
transparent, yet there a couple of =
places where it is clear that the two are not one. First, Bible Word Plus=
does not highlight the matches from =
the Gramcord search, making it difficult to see just what matched in
searches. Second, because the data is in =
Gramcord=92s database you cannot get instant parsings for a Greek word fr=
om
Bible Word Plus.
Implementation
Although the morphological capabilities are complete, there are few suppo=
rt
tools for Bible Word Plus. =
There were no dictionaries or lexicons with the review package. A
non-morphological Septuagint is =
available, and a lot of work has gone into ensuring that it remains
synchronized with the BHS Old Testament =
even when the versification differs. In integrating with other programs,
Bible Word Plus offers integration =
with other DOS word processors such WordPerfect and Chi Writer, and a cou=
ple
of freeware utilities to =
integrate with Window=92s based word processors. These extra are availab=
le
from Bible Word=92s BBS or may =
be requested free of charge when you order.
Overall Impression
Bible Word Plus and Gramcord together are a powerful combination,
particularly for those who are =
specializing in New Testament grammatical studies. The Old Testament
capabilities of Bible Word Plus are =
comparable to the other morphological packages. In the New Testament,
Gramcord=92s searches are far =
superior to those in other packages.
Bible Word Plus 3.10 & Gramcord requires system 8086 or higher, 640K RAM,=
12M
of HD space, and =
MS-DOS. The price is $375. For more information write: The Gramcord
Institute, 2218 NE Brookview Dr., =
Vancouver, WA 98686, or call (206) 576-3000. Fax: (503) 761-0626.
Logos Bible Study Software 1.6
Logos Bible Study Software (Logos Research systems) is Windows based Bibl=
e
software that contains =
the original language texts, but does not have grammatical or morphologic=
al
information. (Version 2.0 of =
Logos should be released soon and reportedly will contain full morphologi=
cal
support for the Old and New =
Testaments. Version 2.0 was not available in time for this review.)
Original Language Support
In the area of original language studies, Logos=92 strength is its breadt=
h of
coverage. It contains the BHS =
Hebrew text and four Greek versions. Yet apart from the texts themselves,=
there is little support for original =
language study. There is no version of the Septuagint available.
Although Logos offers add-ons such as the Tense-Voice-Mood (TVM) and the
Strong=92s lexicon, they =
are designed to be used with the King James version of the Bible, not the=
Greek or Hebrew versions. This =
does allow access to some Greek and Hebrew morphological information to t=
he
English Bible user. =
However the TVM tags are only for verbs, and the KJV translation is not b=
ased
on the Greek text used by =
most people today. This means that for the person interested in original=
languages the amount of =
information given by TVM is limited, and where it does exist will not alw=
ays
match what is in current Greek =
texts.
Although Logos Bible Study software will allow notes to be attached to an=
y
verse, there is no support in =
the notes for Greek or Hebrew. =
Overall Impression
If you want access to the original languages but do not need the full pow=
er
of a morphological database, =
Logos Bible Study is an excellent tool. The interface is clean and
consistent, and it is the most stable of the =
Windows packages reviewed. However for original language study its value =
is
limited.
Logos Bible Study 1.6 requires system 386 or higher, 2M RAM, 20M HD spac=
e,
and Microsoft =
Windows. The price is $286. For more information write: Logos Research
Systems, 2117 200th Ave. West, =
Oak Harbor, WA 98277-4049, or call: (800) 87-LOGOS.
The Online Bible 6.12
The Online Bible (Online Bible USA) is a DOS based graphics mode package =
that
offers the text of the =
Old and New Testaments at a bargain price. =
The Hebrew and Greek in the package are unpointed and unaccented; the Onl=
ine
Bible does not contain =
any morphological data. Like all of its lexical only companions, the Onl=
ine
Bible only has access to verb =
information(not noun) through embedded numbers in the KJV text. Unlike
Logos, the Online Bible does =
allow both Greek and Hebrew in the notes attached to a verse.
The price of the Online Bible is much less than buying the printed texts =
of
the languages, and any =
computerized Bible will be easier and faster to search than its printed
counterpart. For those who want =
access to the original languages on a budget, the Online Bible is a real =
gem
The Online Bible 6.12 requires system 8086 or higher, 348K RAM, 10M -120=
M of
HD space for =
Disks, or 1/2M for CD-ROM. Requires MS-DOS. The price is $220 on Disk and=
only $20 on CD-ROM. For =
more information write: Online Bible USA, PO Box 21, Bronson, MI 49028, o=
r
call: (800) 369-2195. Voice =
(517) 369-2195. FAX: (517) 369-2518. Online Bible (Canada) Afternoons: (5=
19)
664-2266 FAX: (519) =
664-1444.
=2E.
SeedMaster for Windows
SeedMaster for Windows (White Harvest Software, Inc.) offers the most of =
all
the non-morphological =
Windows packages for original language studies. It has several versions =
of
the Greek New Testament as =
well as the Septuagint and the BHS Old Testament. (White Harvest Softwar=
e is
working with Gramcord on =
a soon to be released package which will combine SeedMaster for Windows a=
nd
Gramcord=92s database and =
search engine. This promises to add significantly SeedMaster for Windows=
=92
suitability for serious Greek =
New Testament work.)
Original Language Support
Like all of the packages without a morphological database, SeedMaster for=
Windows uses the TVM in =
the King James Version of the Bible to offer information on verbs. Howev=
er
the fully pointed and accented =
texts, presence of the Septuagint, and resources such as Robertson=92s Wo=
rd
Pictures put SeedMaster for =
Windows a step above its competition.
Although SeedMaster for Windows does support Greek and Hebrew, this suppo=
rt
could be better =
integrated into the application. For example, most packages show you Heb=
rew
when you are typing =
Hebrew. SeedMaster for Windows shows English where you type and puts the=
Hebrew equivalent into a =
different field on the screen. There is also no support for Greek or Heb=
rew
in the notes.
Purists may also be bothered by the reversification done to the Septuagin=
t
and the BHS text. Both of =
these were reversified to bring them in line with the English Bible.
Overall Impression
SeedMaster for Windows is a solid non-morphological package which offers =
a
number of resources for =
original language study at a very reasonable price.
SeedMaster requires system 286 or higher, 4M RAM, 0-110M of HD space (if =
you
load to HD), and =
Microsoft Windows. The price is $149 on CD-ROM. For more information writ=
e:
White Harvest Software, =
Inc., PO Box 97153, Raleigh, NC 27624, or call: (800) 318-7333 Fax: (919)=
870-0775.
TheWord Advanced Study System 3.0
TheWord (Wordsoft) is a graphical DOS package that provides full
morphological searches of the =
Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. It uses a uniqu=
e
windowing metaphor that =
surrounds each window with controls, giving access to often used features=
with just a click of a mouse. =
Although the implementation uses windows, it is different enough from MS
Windows that users of that =
environment will take some time to acclimate to TheWord. TheWord=92s disp=
lay is
the most attractive of all =
the DOS packages and easiest to read; something that becomes all the more=
important as you stare at those =
tiny Hebrew pointings.
Original Language Support
The Old Testament database contained by TheWord is likely the best availa=
ble.
Like the other Hebrew =
morphological packages, it is based on the Western Theological Seminary=92=
s
morphologically tagged text of =
the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. However, Wordsoft has done a signific=
ant
amount of work to improve =
the database, especially the Aramaic portions of the text. =
The New Testament morphological database is a combination of the parsings=
from the Center for =
Computer Analysis of Texts (CCAT) database with minor additions from The
Analytical Greek New =
Testament edited by Barbara and Timothy Friberg, with a lexical form data=
base
developed by Word, Inc.
TheWord gives you access to the morphological information using a series =
of
synchronized windows, =
with each window showing a different aspect of the word. To see a word, i=
ts
parsing and lexical form =
require three windows. If you then highlight a word in one window, the
corresponding information is =
highlighted in the other windows. This has the advantage of enabling you =
to
see only what you want (e.g., =
only the word and parsing or only the word and root), but it may require =
a
lot of the screen real estate to get =
the information you=92re after. TheWord is the only package, other than
Gramcord, that enables you to search =
for constructs in textual units other than verses; it is also the only on=
e
that enables you to do so in the Old =
Testament.
Implementation
TheWord enables you to keep notes on verses and individual words within a=
verse. These notes can =
contain both Greek and Hebrew. Each note can be up to 5,000 characters lo=
ng
and you may have as many =
notes as you have disk space to store them.
Although TheWord does a good job with the basics, it does not have some o=
f
the add-ons available in =
the competing packages. There is no dictionary or lexicon available excep=
t
from the King James Version. It =
also lacks any Septuagint support. =
Even though TheWord enables you to do lexical and morphological searches =
in Ar
amaic, Hebrew, and =
Greek, the use of original languages is not fully implemented throughout =
the
package. Some lists of words =
are transliterated, causing the words to be sorted in English alphabetica=
l
order instead of Greek or Hebrew. =
This can be bothersome when trying to find a word.
Overall Impression
For those who want a DOS morphological package with an attractive interfa=
ce
and the corrected Old =
Testament database, TheWord is an excellent choice.
TheWord Advanced Study System 3.0 requires system 8086 or higher, 640K RA=
M,
25M of HD space, =
and MS-DOS. The price is $337. For more information write: WordSoft, 1501=
LBJ
Freeway, Dallas, TX =
75234, or call: (214)721-1031.
About The Author
Tim received his training in Greek and Hebrew in the ThM program at Dalla=
s
Theological Seminary. He is currently a =
software engineer for X-Rite Inc. in Grandville, Michigan. He can be con=
tacte
d on CompuServe at 72020,3260
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #599
*****************************
** 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