[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #610
b-greek-digest Monday, 13 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 610
In this issue:
Re: Text Types; Erasmus
Marcion
Re: lexical evidence of James 5:14-16's meaning
Re: orality and the NT
Re: Text Types; Erasmus
Re: Text Types; Erasmus
Re: Text Types; Erasmus
Re: lexical evidence of James...
Re: UBS3 is Poison
JOhn 17:5, an articular infinitive
Re: JOhn 17:5, an articular infinitive
Re: JOhn 17:5, an articular infinitive
Re: orality and the NT
Re: Mack on Q1 and Cynics
Re: JOhn 17:5, an articular infinitive
James 5 "faith"
John 17:5 - articular infinitive
potential optative equivalents?
Sturz and Text Types
Re: Sturz and Text Types
Re: potential optative equivalents?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DDDJ@aol.com
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 07:12:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Text Types; Erasmus
<< Have you read Harry Sturz's The Byzantine Text-type and New Testa-
ment Textual Criticism?>>
I have read it and as I said I tend to suport the Byzantine text type
although of an eclectic style
Dennis
------------------------------
From: DDDJ@aol.com
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 07:12:48 -0500
Subject: Marcion
<<[Marcion during
A.D. 150 comes to mind as one example .... the ole boy didn't care too much
for Paul's writings I guess...]. >>
No the exact opposite that plus Luke was all he would use.
<<I personally believe that Origin
was the true father of Arianism (because Origin liked to mix Greek philosphy
{Platonic??} with Christianity, Athanasius thought so during the Nicean
Council of 325, and because Origin's disciple, Eusebius, was a semi-Arian>>
THis does not ring true about Origin he seemed to be unclear in many places.
Proto trinitarian really. But since I am a semi arian I guess I am tainted
myself
Dennis
------------------------------
From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 08:00:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: lexical evidence of James 5:14-16's meaning
Thanks Bruce for your informative post on 1 Cor 12:7-11. This was
exactly the kind of info. which I hoped to surface. The items
you noted concerning the lack of correspondence between A and A' etc.
constituted my reticence to pursue the model. I thought perhaps there
were other avenues which would match. The rhetorical parallelism
is certainly interesting. ANY BIBLIOGRAPHY SUGGESTIONS for _this_
particular kind of rhetorical structure? The faith/healings/miracles
part seems a bit asymetrical, but I assume this has a rationale in the
model you suggest.
How can I get a SIL mailing on their pubs.? I know of their work but do
not normally see a list of their publications. I have an ongoing
interest in 1 Cor and will certainly pick up your work.
Shalom
Gary Meadors
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 09:22:04 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: orality and the NT
A few bibliog. refs. for your inquiry:
John Halverson, "Oral and Written Gospel: A Critique of Werner Kelber,"
New Testament STudies 40(1994), 180-95.
Paul J. Achtemeier, "Omne Verbum Sonat: The New Testament and the Oral
Environment of Late Western Antiquity," Journal of Bib. Literature
109(1990), 3-27.
L. W. Hurtado, "The Gospel of Mark: Evolutionary or Revolutionary
Document?" Journal for the STudy of the NT 49(1990), 15-32.
L. W. Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: John Baima <jbaima@onramp.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 10:37:10 -0600
Subject: Re: Text Types; Erasmus
> Have you read Harry Sturz's The Byzantine Text-type and New Testa-
>ment Textual Criticism? Pages 145-159 contain 150 example of readings
>that Sturz says are "distinctively Byzantine readings now found to have
>early Egyptian papyri supporting them."
> Perhaps we should reconsider the latenes of the Byzantine text.
Harry Sturz (a fine gentleman) has died without making many disciples. One
of his students, and former advocate, Daniel Wallace (Dallas Seminary), has
on further examination rejected almost all of these examples as supporting
Sturz's position. As a result, he has rejected Sturz's theory and method of
textual criticism. It's too bad that Dan is not on the net.
- -John Baima
Silver Mountain Software
------------------------------
From: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 12:09:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Text Types; Erasmus
> I have always repsected the Byz family, but have felt that the
> conflations, scribal explanatory notes, and lateness of many of the
> Byz mss point to a text less representative of the original text.
<Have you read Harry Sturz's The Byzantine Text-type and New Testa-
ment Textual Criticism? Pages 145-159 contain 150 example of readings
that Sturz says are "distinctively Byzantine readings now found to have
early Egyptian papyri supporting them."
Perhaps we should reconsider the latenes of the Byzantine text.>
I, too, was interested in Sturz's work. Then I spoke with Daniel Wallace at
Dallas, and he indicated that 1) Sturz backed off from his own position at a
later point regarding the number of significant Byzantine readings found in
the papyri, and 2) Wallace himself had abandoned that viewpoint, and claimed
that his own study of Sturz's material found only 8 significant passages that
could possibly be used to support the thesis. Too bad Sturz died a few years
ago.
James>>>
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 11:23:40 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Text Types; Erasmus
It looks as if several on this list have their minds made up already on
some very important text-critical issues/matters, even though it appears
to me that they seem not to have spent much time studying the relevant
early evidence, slugging through manuscript collation, or following
modern scholarly discussion of text-critical method. As someone with
some competence in the subject, I find this annoying but
understandable--esp. given the misguidedly religious red-herrings that
have been introduced over the years (e.g., to engage in textual criticism
is to cave in to the view that the Word of God has suffered corruption
and that God has not preserved his Word, etc.).
For anyone who is willing to "pay the dues" and invest the effort
involved in becoming acquainted with the subject, I recommend the
following very important works as vital starting points and major
contributions.
B. M. Metzger, _The Text of the New Testament_ (3rd ed.; Oxford Univ.
Press, 1992).
E. J. Epp, G. D. Fee, _Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament
Textual Criticism_ (SD 45; Eerdmans, 1993).
And may I respectfully point out that long before Sturtz's book
we knew that some individual readings favored by the Byzantine text-type
mss., were attested in earlier mss. But the presence of isolated
readings does not constitute a text-type. We have early mss. that show
preferences for some of the readings also favored in the Byzantine
text-type, but we don't have any mss. that are full representatives of
the Byzantine text-type from the earliest mss. (i.e., none of the
earliest mss. shows a sufficient number of agreements with Byzantine
witnesses to be linked with them). This is only one of many important
methodological points that are still unfortunately regularly ignored in
the misguided zeal of some who think something is served in approaching
text-critical questions with the attitude of some sort of crusader.
L. W. Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 22:16:03 cst
Subject: Re: lexical evidence of James...
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
CC: DJM5G@VIRGINIA.EDU (DAVID JOH
FROM: TIMSTER132@AOL.COM
David, you gave this request 3/10/95...
> I am trying to work on understanding James 5:14-16, and I would >like to
know how people take this passage. Which commentaries >take the passage as
"weak in faith" instead of "physically sick"? >What do those on the list
think of that idea? What lexical evidence >is significant?
I think this is a hard text for us moderns since we are aware that
bacteria, viruses, genetics, etc. are involved in disease.
The greek text in this passages reveals the Biblical pre-scientific world
view, that sin and evil forces are responsible for illness.
There were doctors in the Greek tradition that applied practices and
treatments based on reason and what they understood from philosophy (ie, the
four elements), but it looks like James is not encouraging these doctors to
be sought out.
A person who was sick (asthenei) was encouraged go to an elder, who would
put on oil (medicine?) with a prayer.
"The weak" would be healed/saved (=swsei) and forgiven. Would a person of
the first century make a distinction between weakness in belief and weakness
in body as we do today?
James understands faith more along the lines of nominitive "belief" rather
than Paul's verbal "trusting". So for James a deficeincy in faith is
possible, and a prayer may restore the weak/sick.
Just some reflections here. Maybe it can get some sparks going, maybe not.
Tim Staker --- Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 21:56:23 cst
Subject: Re: UBS3 is Poison
TO: KENNETH@SYBASE.COM
FROM:TIMSTER132@AOL.COM
Ken, on Mar 10, you said
> I wanted to stay out of this discussion... but I can't stand it
>anymore.
I know what you mean. My initial instincts told me not to jump in, but I
just couldn't hold back.
But it's getting old now, tho, for me. I just don't like downloading my
waiting mail and reading "UBS3 is Poison" on a zillion headers anymore.
Tim Staker ----Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 95 11:22:18 PST
Subject: JOhn 17:5, an articular infinitive
I wonder if anyone out there can help me with a small grammar point.
JOhn 17:5 reads in part,
pro tou ton kosmon einai
I realize it's an articular infinitive plus ton kosmon. What I haven't
figured out is: what does pro go with; and how to translate tou einai.
In general, I translate art. infinitives that just have tou as a normal
infinitive. That doesn't work here very well, so I'm looking for
suggestions. Thanks.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 20:40:04 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: JOhn 17:5, an articular infinitive
On Mon, 13 Mar 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> I wonder if anyone out there can help me with a small grammar point.
> JOhn 17:5 reads in part,
> pro tou ton kosmon einai
> I realize it's an articular infinitive plus ton kosmon. What I haven't
> figured out is: what does pro go with; and how to translate tou einai.
> In general, I translate art. infinitives that just have tou as a normal
> infinitive. That doesn't work here very well, so I'm looking for
> suggestions. Thanks.
>
> Ken Litwak
> Emeryville, CA
>
Ken, this is the infinitive in a prepositional phrase set-up, which
effectively becomes an adverbial clause. pro/en/meta are common,
"_before_ the world was..."; "_while_..."; "_after_...". Thus, you can
have three different temporal clauses. eis/pros provide purpose clauses
and dia a causal clause.
This phenonmenon is very common, e.g. dia 33x, eis 72x, en 55x, meta 15x,
pro 9x, and pros 12x (per Black's elements grammar). You should find
this phenonmenon treated in whatever first year...grammars you might have
access to. Check the infinitive chapter. You can also check the
intermediate grammar by Brooks and Winbery (Univ. Press of Am).
Hope this helps (and is not redundant with other responses!).
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 14:44:01 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: JOhn 17:5, an articular infinitive
On Mon, 13 Mar 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> I wonder if anyone out there can help me with a small grammar point.
> JOhn 17:5 reads in part,
> pro tou ton kosmon einai
> I realize it's an articular infinitive plus ton kosmon. What I haven't
> figured out is: what does pro go with; and how to translate tou einai.
> In general, I translate art. infinitives that just have tou as a normal
> infinitive. That doesn't work here very well, so I'm looking for
> suggestions. Thanks.
Gee, how pleasant it is to get a simple question of Greek! This is an
articular infinitive, yes, which would normally have the form TO TON
KOSMON EINAI, and which would normally best be translated with a gerund
("the world's existing") or, in this instance, a verbal noun phrase, "the
existence of the world." In this instance the articular infinitive is
governed by the preposition PRO which is construed with a genitive,
wherefore the neuter article TO goes into the genitive form, TOU, and the
whole phrase means "before the existence of the world" or "before the
world existed."
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: barry wong <bwong@envirolink.org>
Date: Mon Mar 13 15:45:30 1995
Subject: Re: orality and the NT
Are you the Larry Hurtado who wrote the NIBC commentary on Mark? If so, I
just wanted to let you know I appreciate your work. Where are you teaching
these days?
- ---
Barry Wong, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship
bwong@envirolink.org
Copyright 1995, All Rights Reserved
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be
delivered." Joel 2:32
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Gregory Bloomquist <GBLOOMQUIST@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 15:41:22 EDT
Subject: Re: Mack on Q1 and Cynics
Not to get into a long and complicated discussion on hypotheses,
facts, data, and other assorted philosophical intricacies, but.....
Larry's comments of a couple of days ago beg for response.
> A couple of small responses to Greg Bloomquist on hypotheses. First,
> Greg, when you say something like "there are no facts apart from
> hypotheses", you must be using "facts" differently than I. By
> distinguishing "facts" from hypotheses, I had in mind the "fact" that Mt
> and Lk have an impressive amount of VERY similar or sometimes identical
> material, almost entirely sayings material attributed to Jesus. The Q
> hypothesis by distinction is an attempt to account for this & related
> facts. If you prefer the term "data" to refer to the sort of things I
> meant, OK. But then please clarify for me how you're using the word
> "facts".
What Larry and I are engaging in is a clarification of two different
models for approaching material for hypothesisation: Larry's
positivistic approach and my relativistic approach. What I
understand Larry to be arguing for is the existence of facts
independent of any hypothesis; what I am arguing is that there is no
such thing. If I am wrong, Larry, correct me.
You may say: we don't know yet if it is a FACT that O.J. Simpson
killed Nicole Brown Simpson, but surely it is a FACT that Nicole
Brown Simpson is dead or has been killed. That would seem to be a
FACT. While this may seem nit-picking to some, I would argue that it
is a fact only within the hypothesis that tries to explain life
in physical bodies. If you ask, when did she die? When her brain
failed, when her heart stopped, ... you get into the nuances of this
model. But, if I add that from the vantage point of a theological
framework, it may be that Nicole Brown Simpson is not dead at all but
in purgatory, in hell, in heaven, etc., then it becomes clear that to
say "NBS is dead" is not necessarily true. (Please note: not UBS!! I
do not want to get into THAT one! :-)
You may say that it is a fact that the earth revolves around the sun.
Yes, in the hypothetical framework of our solar system. But, anyone
who has seen the beautiful picture of the whole nighttime sky
revolving around the north star will clearly realise just how
relative the earlier statement is. And note: the earlier statement
is not wrong -- just as it is not wrong to say that Nicole Brown
Simpson is dead. In common use, both are right. But, if one probes,
one finds that they are right only relative to their explanatory
hypothesis.
In sum: from where I stand, the positivistic model simply strikes me
as a model that has IMPLICIT or CONVENTIONAL hypotheses that we may
say are commonly or popularly agreed on so that we can call some
things facts rather than constantly having to explain ourselves.
But, if we probe behind the popular agreement what we in fact find
ARE hypotheses. That these are not regularly stated does not mean
that they don't exist.
Likewise in Gospel parallels: it would seem a FACT that Mt and Lk
have common material. Yes, it is a fact, if what you are talking
about is understood in a LEXICAL framework. It is surely NOT the
case that Mt and Lk have common material in a semantic framework. If
we were able to probe the SONORAL framework, it may be that the two
were not pronounced the same. Etc. I do not wish to nit-pick. All
I wish to say is that there is an hypothetical framework that lies
behind the statement: Mt and Lk have material in common.
Well, at least that's how I see it, but I am willing to be corrected?
After all, thorough-going relativists must be thoroughly willing to
change their minds at any point! :-)
Does this have implications for our ongoing discussion? Yes it does.
The observed statement of a kingdom of God in the Gospels is
oftentimes understood within the context of Hebrew or Aramaic
categories. It is furthermore understood to be FACTually able to be
analysed as such. But is it? Is not the Hebrew/Aramaic
categorisation of the kingdom of God in the Gospels as much a
hypothetical construct as the perceived cynic influence in the Gospel
strata? If not, why not? Surely an hypothesis that calls for some
engagement is the one that suggests that the hellenistic Jewish
environment in which the Gospels are produced may have presupposed
a kingdom of God language that was dependent on, say, cynic
categories. (I fully agree with Larry's second point,
as long as we take fully seriously the contention that every tool we
use in historical study is hypothetically based. This is the only
route, I would think, to true scholarly humility.)
It is at Larry' third point that the matter becomes clear:
> Thirdly, I hardly think it incautious to indicate that John the
> Baptist is consistently referred to in available sources as a
> prophet-figure, that Jesus is consistently linked with John the Baptist
> and is likewise referred to as a prophet figure in the minds of
> contemporaries, and that this thus has a much more compelling force as a
> model for Jesus than the non-Jewish Cynic philosophers some lean toward
> today.
Larry's words re. JBap are of course true relative to the general
context of Christian literature. But, when one turns to Josephus
Ant. 18.116-119, I'm not too sure. For there JBap is said to have
been "a good man and one who commanded the Jews to practice virtue
and acts with justice toward one another and with piety toward God".
This is a statement that W. Barnes Tatum takes to be at variance with
the Gospel tradition in which, as Larry notes, JBap is a prophet;
Tatum notes that in Josephus JBap is not a prophet but a
Hellenistic sage. (Strikingly, in spite of this evidence, the Jesus
Seminar, whose voting record Tatum is unpacking in his book, voted to
see JBap as a prophet, following the Gospel tradition rather than
Josephus.)
Also, while Jesus and John are linked in some Gospel records, in
others, notably Lk and Jn, the two are distinguished. Even in Jesus
own day, the two appear to have been clearly distinguished as to
their practice (e.g., eating and drinking vs. not eating and
drinking).
This theme, then, might bear reflection in light of Larry's
subsequent comment:
>So, ascetic tendencies in John the baptist
> might well reflect the Jewish encounter with ascetic themes in Hellenism,
> but the question is how any given item functioned within a given
> religio-cultural setting.
As such, it also may suggest that the Larry's attempt to boil the
picture down is too quick and not sufficiently nuanced. (I am being
nice, Larry! That's a fact! :-)
My humble apologies to B-Greek'ers. I am done. If Larry wishes to
respond on this question of hypotheses, I shall indeed let him have
the last word. I have learned not to try emailers' patience too, too
much.
Greetings!
L. 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: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 95 12:50:40 PST
Subject: Re: JOhn 17:5, an articular infinitive
Thanks for the information. If I had seen dia or pros there, I
would have been fine. Since I hadn't encountered pro + art. plus inf.
before, and didn't have a grammar handy< i wasn't sure what to do with it.
Thanks.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Allenkemp@aol.com
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 16:06:36 -0500
Subject: James 5 "faith"
On Friday March 10 Allen Kemp wrote in response to David Marotta's questi=
on
re. 1 Cor 12:7 and James 5 on faith, faith for healing vs faith as trust=
"This is what we Presbyterian "charismatics" call a "manifestational" gif=
t
(as opposed to "functional"). This is when the Holy Spirit comes on some=
one
for a limited time period and enables him/her to have such a faith that h=
e or
she is able to really pray in faith for something to happen that clearly =
is
beyond any human capability, e.g. a truly miraculous healing, a miraculou=
s
provision, etc. The list here in 1 Cor. 12 perhaps can be distinguished =
from
the list in Ro. 12 as "manifestational" whereas Ro. 12 is "functional." =
David asked Allen for some bibliographical material:
A very new book by Gordon Fee on "God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spi=
rit
in the Letters of Paul" (Hendrickson Press) will most certainly address i=
ssues
related to question of the gift of faith. C.f. Fee's commentary on 1 C=
or.
in the NICNT series. Gordon Fee is prof. at Regent College, was
Gordon-Conwell Seminary. He is a first class exegete and Pentecostal bel=
iever
(and a good basketball player, too). =
Re. some refs on the above distinction re. functional vs. manifestational=
gifts: sorry, the distinction was made by some Presbyterian Renewal
leader/teachers in seminars. There is no bibliography. The basis for th=
e
assertion is Ro. 12:4 "the members do not have the same function (action,=
deed
s, works) "praxin". In 1 Cor 12:7 fanerwsiV (manifestation, a =93bringing=
to
light, disclosure=94) is used to describe a list of spiritual gifts (Sorr=
y, AOL
does not have greek font capability- Word 6.0 greek fonts came in this wa=
y).
This is a =93revealing=94 or a =93making known=94 =93of the Spirit.=94 =
One seems more
tied to the work of the Spirit, the other to the body, i.e. the believer.=
Again, this is inference here. I wouldn=92t start a new theology on thi=
s
premise (or denomination at that).
------------------------------
From: Kent Sutorius <kassutor@clark.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 16:13:45 +0500
Subject: John 17:5 - articular infinitive
The infinitive often finds itself in combination with a preposition.
The purpose is to define the relationship between the infinitive and the
verb in reference to time.
<pro> and the articular infinitive expresses that the action of the
verb took place before the action expressed by the infinitive.
The use of the preposition <en> expresses that the action of the
verb occurs during the action of the infinitive.
The use of <meta> states that the action of the verb took place
after the infinitive.
Kent Sutorius
Maryland Bible College and Seminary
------------------------------
From: Gregory Bloomquist <GBLOOMQUIST@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 17:25:21 EDT
Subject: potential optative equivalents?
To atone for my sins (of keeping B-GREEKers out of Greek and to
continue to delight Carl Conrad with Greek questions :-):
In Rom 5.7 Paul uses the construction TAXA + TOLMA(i). I would
have assumed TOLMA(i) here to be subjunctive -- because of the
presence of TAXA --, even though morphologically it looks exactly
like the indicative. In parsing aids and BDF 385i, it is clearly
indicated to be an indicative -- though BDF lists as its only
examples Rom 5.7 and Clem Homil 13.21.2. As BDF indicates TAXA +
indicative is one of three equivalents to the potential optative (the
other two being the future indicative -- the most common equivalent
in the NT -- and the deliberative subjunctive). Of three commentaries
- - - Cranfield, Dunn, Fitzmyer - - I have consulted, only Fitzmyer
addresses the nature of TOLMA(i), but he does so simply by noting BDF
385i.
On further investigation, I can find TAXA + verb in only two cases in
the LXX: Wisd 13.6 TAXA + PLANWNTAI (thus, another contract verb that
could be either indic. or subj.) and Wisd 14.19, which does appear to
be the clincher.
A simple question then: is TAXA + indicative a well-known substitute
for the potential optative? If not, could it not simply be a
subjunctive, expressing the same thing as the potential optative?
(The only reason I can see for not calling TOLMA(i) a deliberative
subjunctive is because the phrase has TIS in it, contrary to the norm
as stated in BDF 366.
Greetings!
L. 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: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 95 15:20:42 PST
Subject: Sturz and Text Types
Orthopodeo@aol.com wrote:
> Sturz backed off from his own position at a
> later point regarding the number of significant Byzantine readings found in
> the papyri.... Wallace ...found only 8 significant passages....
Any references I can check up on?
On what grounds were the readings originally listed by Sturz later discarded?
Not purely Byzantine? Not significant?
Still, 8 passages is about the same amount of evidence as what
Hort adduced to characterize the Byzantines as "conflated".
Sturz did nevertheless seem to prove what,
as Hurtado reminds us, many believed on other grounds already:
that the Byzantine tradition did preserve some pre-4th-century
textual material that was not preserved elsewhere.
Besides, looking beyond Sturz's lists of variants I was more impressed
by his general arguments regarding Atticism in the 4th and 19th centuries,
regarding the "plain style" of writing, regarding the relative preponderance
of insertions/deletions and mistakes/corrections, regarding the geographical
distribution of text types and the lack of positive evidence for or against
the early existence of Byzantine-like texts between Antioch and Constantinople.
Any reason for him to backtrack on those points?
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
------------------------------
From: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 19:14:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Sturz and Text Types
> Sturz backed off from his own position at a
> later point regarding the number of significant Byzantine readings found in
> the papyri.... Wallace ...found only 8 significant passages....
<Any references I can check up on?>
Your best bet would be to look at Wallace's recent article in JETS (June, 94
as I recall). Other than that, it's the old "he told me so." :)
If you are referring to passages, let me grab the blueline of my book and see
if I put them in an endnote...OK, on page 153 I have, "There are, of course,
exceptions to the rules. Daniel Wallace, for example, cites Philippians 1:14
as an example of a uniquely Byzantine reading that is found in the papyri
manuscripts. This exception, however, proves the rule, as there are not more
than eight such examples to be found." I have an endnote at that point that
reads,"Wallace notes that of these eight, six are not "distinctively
Byzantine," specifically, Luke 10:21; 14:3, 34; 15:21; John 10:38; 19:11."
<On what grounds were the readings originally listed by Sturz later
discarded?
Not purely Byzantine? Not significant?>
Both.
<Still, 8 passages is about the same amount of evidence as what
Hort adduced to characterize the Byzantines as "conflated".>
I don't think that was from want of further examples, however.
<Sturz did nevertheless seem to prove what,
as Hurtado reminds us, many believed on other grounds already:
that the Byzantine tradition did preserve some pre-4th-century
textual material that was not preserved elsewhere.>
No question. But, as Hurtado also mentioned, echoing, possibly, Gordon Fee,
a few readings does not a text-type make. :)
<Any reason for him to backtrack on those points?>
Not that I know of, though the primary thesis would be dependent upon the
lists he produced regarding allegedly early Byzantine readings. You might
wish to corresponde with Dr. Wallace about the specifics.
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 18:28:18 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: potential optative equivalents?
On Mon, 13 Mar 1995, Gregory Bloomquist wrote:
> To atone for my sins (of keeping B-GREEKers out of Greek and to
> continue to delight Carl Conrad with Greek questions :-):
Well, yes, but the other one WAS a simple one; this is an interesting
challenger!
> In Rom 5.7 Paul uses the construction TAXA + TOLMA(i). I would
> have assumed TOLMA(i) here to be subjunctive -- because of the
> presence of TAXA --, even though morphologically it looks exactly
> like the indicative. In parsing aids and BDF 385i, it is clearly
> indicated to be an indicative -- though BDF lists as its only
> examples Rom 5.7 and Clem Homil 13.21.2. As BDF indicates TAXA +
> indicative is one of three equivalents to the potential optative (the
> other two being the future indicative -- the most common equivalent
> in the NT -- and the deliberative subjunctive). Of three commentaries
> - - Cranfield, Dunn, Fitzmyer - - I have consulted, only Fitzmyer
> addresses the nature of TOLMA(i), but he does so simply by noting BDF
> 385i.
>
> On further investigation, I can find TAXA + verb in only two cases in
> the LXX: Wisd 13.6 TAXA + PLANWNTAI (thus, another contract verb that
> could be either indic. or subj.) and Wisd 14.19, which does appear to
> be the clincher.
> A simple question then: is TAXA + indicative a well-known substitute
> for the potential optative? If not, could it not simply be a
> subjunctive, expressing the same thing as the potential optative?
> (The only reason I can see for not calling TOLMA(i) a deliberative
> subjunctive is because the phrase has TIS in it, contrary to the norm
> as stated in BDF 366.
First off, let me shirk real responsibility and call in the assistance of
Micheal Palmer, Bruce Terry, et al. Then I will venture an OPINION that I
would assume it is subjunctive rather than indicative. You've already
done your checking in Biblical Greek; I'd be curious to see what we might
find with TAXA in other Hellenistic Greek texts--perhaps a selective
check with TLG in 1st c. A.D. texts. I might try to run one tomorrow.
Does Ted Brunner have an opinion on this? Very interesting; there are so
many instances where the subjunctive does come to take the place of
optative in secondary sequence, and the subjunctive in HINA clauses
appears to "imperialize" in this era, taking over so many functions from
more rigidly-defined older constructions, that it wouldn't surprise me if
"we" haven't yet finished sorting out Hellenistic subjunctive
applications. Nevertheless, this is no more than a guess, and I'm eager
to hear other judgments.
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
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #610
*****************************
** 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