[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #632
b-greek-digest Sunday, 26 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 632
In this issue:
Intro to Greek
Col. 1:23
Re: FlashWorks info
Re: Textual "Corruptions"
Re: "This generation ...": Mk 13:34 par.; Mk 9:1 par.
Re: "This generation ...": Mk 13:34 par.; Mk 9:1 par.
X-Mailer: <PC Eudora Version 1.4>
Re: "This generation ...": Mk 13:34 par.; Mk 9:1 par.
Re: James 1:13
Re: "This generation ...": Mk 13:34 par.; Mk 9:1 par.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: RRilea1@aol.com
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 02:22:36 -0500
Subject: Intro to Greek
As a graduate student in Educational Ministries at Wheaton College I was
required to take a few course for the Bible and Theology Department. While
there I took a class in hermenutics and my prof continually
encouraged to learn the languages the Bible was written if we truly
wanted to be able to more full interpret it. I was not able to do so at the
time, and I find myself becoming more and more interested in learning
Greek. I have begun to study the language on my own using Jim
Found's book "Basic Greek In 30 Minutes a Day." I would appreciate it
if anyone could help me by pointing me in the direction of some good
resources that would learn language at home.
I am finding this list is helpful in that it brings up some interesting
topics and has been very thought provoking.
In Christ,
Rod Rilea
rrilea1@aol.com
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 10:54:08 -0500
Subject: Col. 1:23
ROD
Tim
It is easy to let the theological controverses slip back into what the writer
was saying. Keep in mind what he was trying to accomplish with his
readers--1:22 "to present you holy, blameless and without fault before him"
(God); and 1:28-29 "to present every person mature in Christ." For the
writer here the objective is not some status for all eternity but effective
service in the present, when it was/is really needed.
Carlton Winbery
Louisiana College
------------------------------
From: "Kevin D. Johnson" <logos@primenet.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 11:10:11 -0700
Subject: Re: FlashWorks info
At 09:52 PM 3/24/95 -0700, Bill Mounce wrote:
>I have received several requests about downloading FlashWorks. In order to
>send an application over Internet, it can be only seven bit, but
>applications are eight bit. So once the files are xipped they are ENCODED
>and in that format sent out. If you download them you must first decode
>them, then you can unzip them.
>
>I use a free program called WINCODE available from most places, including
>CIS. DECODE the files and then unzip them.
For those interested, I downloaded the program and then had to download the
compression stuff which I found in the UTIL directory at the same site where
the Flashworks program is available.
The directory is /pub/pc/utils at on-ramp.ior.com and the file you need is
uudecode.exe.
Then, you have to unzip the file if I remember correctly.
Charis humin,
>>>KEVIN
------------------------------
From: "The Rev. David R. Graham" <merovin@halcyon.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 11:33:00 -0800
Subject: Re: Textual "Corruptions"
Vincent,
This is all right, so long as you have the autographs. But you don't know
that you do. You accept that you do and you can argue from this and that
that you do but you really don't know that you do. And there are very many
who insist downrightly that you don't. And they've been saying this for
over 200 years and it hasn't gone away. Nor will it.
Fortunately, as you imply, there is soteriological benefit from the texts
even though we do not know that we have autographs. This implies,
incidentally, that there is the possibility of "apostolic authority" --
meaning soteriological puissance -- apart from any certain knowledge of
autograph, and this implies, in turn, that there is or at least may be such
apostolic authority in people other than apostles. And that implies, as you
no doubt realize, that the canon is always de facto open and
expanding/contracting -- breathing, if you like.
The Original Examplars or Autographs we have are stochastic structures.
Someone made them. They have soteriological puissance, some of them. The
evidence for that is overwhelming. To say that they are not autographs is
not to say that they are useless soteriologically, which is, of course, the
concern of all of us. It is to expand the awareness of what apostolic
authority is and even and especially where and who it is. It is to expand
our awarness of what is in fact soteriologically puissant.
That, ultimately, is my point. I don't think you'd disagree with that.
All the best,
The Rev. David R. Graham
Resident, Adwaitha Hermitage
Professor of Philosophy, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
merovin@halcyon.com
EADEM MUTATA RESURGO
------------------------------
From: "The Rev. David R. Graham" <merovin@halcyon.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 12:01:10 -0800
Subject: Re: "This generation ...": Mk 13:34 par.; Mk 9:1 par.
Carl,
Not a bulk to add, but there is this much: Tauta Panta and Panta Tauta are,
so far as I am concerned, synonyms. What I wanted to mention is that Panta,
as you know, means five, and this is perhaps more significant than we
usually give it the credits for being.
Behind this usage, which is Stoical, is the Vedic "Prapancha" which, as you
can see, contains the root (pant[ch]) of the Greek Panta.
Panta is much more than 'things.' It means "the made-from-five." So the
question is, the five what? Or, what five? The Vedic Prapancha, which also
means things in the sense of world, or the world, meaning the whole thing,
or better, all things (i.e., tauta panta), also means "the made-from-five."
So, a critical question here is, "What are the five that are referred to by
this word, Panta?" Obviously, it's not the only question, but it's a
critical one. We have the same root in the word Pentacost. What does this
mean? What are the five that are referred to?
I am always amused at how little attention is paid to the fact that almost
all of Eastern and Western Europe speak languages which are known to derive
from Sanskrit. The meta-phenomenon here is a unitary cultural, religious
and even ethnological system running from the Himalayas to the Berkshires
across the northern lattitudes, at least, based on Sanskrit/Vedic usage and
predating anything we like to admit as our origins.
As time goes on, we are going to be introduced to evidence that our own
Saviour is connected with this old system in some very practical ways.
All the best,
The Rev. David R. Graham
Resident, Adwaitha Hermitage
Professor of Philosophy, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
merovin@halcyon.com
EADEM MUTATA RESURGO
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 14:34:47 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: "This generation ...": Mk 13:34 par.; Mk 9:1 par.
On Sat, 25 Mar 1995, The Rev. David R. Graham wrote:
> Not a bulk to add, but there is this much: Tauta Panta and Panta Tauta are,
> so far as I am concerned, synonyms. What I wanted to mention is that Panta,
> as you know, means five, and this is perhaps more significant than we
> usually give it the credits for being.
>
> Behind this usage, which is Stoical, is the Vedic "Prapancha" which, as you
> can see, contains the root (pant[ch]) of the Greek Panta.
>
> Panta is much more than 'things.' It means "the made-from-five." So the
> question is, the five what? Or, what five? The Vedic Prapancha, which also
> means things in the sense of world, or the world, meaning the whole thing,
> or better, all things (i.e., tauta panta), also means "the made-from-five."
>
> So, a critical question here is, "What are the five that are referred to by
> this word, Panta?" Obviously, it's not the only question, but it's a
> critical one. We have the same root in the word Pentacost. What does this
> mean? What are the five that are referred to?
Positively astounding! Neopythagoreanism in the fashion of Philo of
Alexandria and Theon of Smyrna, but derived from ancient India! I don't
doubt you're right about an etymological linkage of Greek PAS, PASA, PAN
to Sanskrit pancha, and I would hazard a pure guess that the association
has to do with the fingers of a whole hand, but: as I am in fact from
Missouri, you'll have to SHOW me that the average speaker of Koine Greek
was aware of any association between his root word PANT- and his root
word PENTA-. Etymology is an interesting game indeed; I remember being
very surprised two years ago at learning that our common English word
"man," so many uses of which are objectionable to feminists, is evidently
derivative from the Indo-European word for "hand"; the linkage to
"cowhand" and "hired hand" and "an extra hand" becomes clear, as does the
cognate Latin MANUS, etc., etc. But the etymological relationship
certainly does not have anything to do with the normal usage or thinking
of the ordinary English-speaker. Or do you really believe so?
> I am always amused at how little attention is paid to the fact that almost
> all of Eastern and Western Europe speak languages which are known to derive
> from Sanskrit. The meta-phenomenon here is a unitary cultural, religious
> and even ethnological system running from the Himalayas to the Berkshires
> across the northern lattitudes, at least, based on Sanskrit/Vedic usage and
> predating anything we like to admit as our origins.
This proposition runs counter to what I was taught and have thought to be
true, without ever having investigated it deeply, that Sanskrit and the
European languages are kindred to each other, rather than that the latter
is derived from the former. Does that old distinction between "centum"
and "satem" languages no longer hold true. There are real linguists on
this list. Help me. I am not quite ready for the "credo quia absurdum"
thing.
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: "The Rev. David R. Graham" <merovin@halcyon.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 12:39:47 -0800
Subject: X-Mailer: <PC Eudora Version 1.4>
The Exegetical Method I would like to suggest is this:
1- Identify, as well as is possible, the texts which originate from the same
source. There are numerous grounds on which to make such identifications.
This work was finished, except for minor adjustments, by about 30 years ago.
2- Detail and define the theological views or characteristics of these
groups of text which have been identified by source. Much of this work has
been done, but not enough systematically, and not enough is widely grasped.
3- Discover who in the first @ 150 years of the CE would have the
theological views that have been detailed and defined in the second step.
If individuals cannot be identified, identify groups that would have these
theological views. If necessary, identify sub-groups within the groups, to
illuminate differences of theological nouance. Some of this work has been
done, but huge lacunae exist in our awarness of who was bustling about in
the first 150 years and why. We are smug about what we know, thinking it to
be near to plenary or at least near enough to necessary.
4- Identify the spiritual excellence of the individuals or groups who had
the theological views which produced the groups of texts. The measure of
their spiritual excellence is the measure of two things: (1) the potential
soteriological puissance of a group of texts and (2) the canonicity of a
group of texts. The spiritual excellence of an individual or group is
measured as their congruence with the final statement by Jesus of His Nature
("I and My Father are One."). In philosophical terminology, this statement
is known as the ontology of non-dualism, "not two," or as Maimonides put it,
"via negativa." (With this language, Maimonides was quoting the Vedic
principle of "neti" -- "not only that/this, but also ....") Work in this
area is restricted by the fact that it takes one to know one.
Traditionally, this work proceeds in the convents, where spirituality can
receive its needed focus, amidst the pillars and pools of silence.
5- Or, coming full circle, establish at the start that the principle of
canonicity is the ontology of non-dualism ("I and My Father are One.") and
merely commence the exegetical duty from that grasp of the facts. Then, I
submit, everything is, if not easy, at least, not a problem. This work can
proceed now and anywhere. I predict that from now, it will gain inexorably
in momentum and scope.
All the best,
David
The Rev. David R. Graham
Resident, Adwaitha Hermitage
Professor of Philosophy, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
merovin@halcyon.com
EADEM MUTATA RESURGO
------------------------------
From: Kelly McGrew <kmcgrew@halcyon.halcyon.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 14:57:49 -1200
Subject: Re: "This generation ...": Mk 13:34 par.; Mk 9:1 par.
>What I wanted to mention is that Panta,
>as you know, means five, and this is perhaps more significant than we
>usually give it the credits for being.
>
>Behind this usage, which is Stoical, is the Vedic "Prapancha" which, as you
>can see, contains the root (pant[ch]) of the Greek Panta.
>
Panta is generally seen as being derived from "pas, pasa, pan" meaning all.
Pente, indeed, means "five".
>I am always amused at how little attention is paid to the fact that almost
>all of Eastern and Western Europe speak languages which are known to derive
>from Sanskrit.
Really! From my linguistic studies I was under the impression that Vedic
Sanskrit was of roughly the same age as Attic-Ionic Greek and some of the
other, early dialects of the Greeks. While I've always read, heard, and
learned that most European languages derive from the same
proto-Indo-European mother tongue, this is the first I've read/heard that
Sanskrit actually predates most of the languages of Europe. Can you give
me more information or a reference?
Kelly McGrew
kmcgrew@halcyon.com
Olympia, Washington
------------------------------
From: George Baloglou <baloglou@oswego.oswego.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 22:05:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: James 1:13
On Sat, 25 Mar 1995, Kent Sutorius wrote:
> In the phrase "o gar theos apeirastos estin kakon", we find the only
> occurance of "apeirastos" in the NT and Septuagint. "apeiratos" is
^^^^^^^^^
> commonly found in classical writings. They may be akin to one another.
*As written above*, the classical meaning of the term, according to Liddell
& Scott, is "boundless"/"infinite" (just like "apeiros"); I am not aware of
any more recent meanings.
> "peiraoo" means experienced, so we can say that God has no experience in
> evil, i.e., he is holy. Therefore he cannot tempt man to do evil.
At some point (?) in the course of the Greek language (probably, but not
certainly, after the first century), "peirazoo" acquired the (additional)
meaning of "tease"; therefore, there is a possibility of "apeirastos"
standing not only for "experienced evil", but for "teased by evil" as
well. (And this can be extended to "peirasmos" = "temptation", etc.)
Of course, it is quite possible that the exact opposite happened over
the years/centuries, with "tempt" gradually turning into "tease". (In
*modern* Greek, "peirasmos" = "temptation", "peiragma" = "teaser".)
> Also, am
> I correct in interpreting the last portion of verse 13 to be an elliptical
> clause - For God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man
> with evil.
>
> We cannot confuse the use of temptation in verses 1-12 and the verb
> form in verse 13. The context to temptations is due to the trials that come
> due to the details and outward circumstances of life. These trials reveal
> the genuineness of our faith. The verb form expresses the inner
> solicitation of evil. The tempter is Satan and/or the lusts of our soul.
> As a generalization, "peirazoo" is commonly linked with Satan and
> "dokimazoo" (test - for the purpose of succeeding) is linked with God.
>
George Baloglou
"Memory of my people, your name is Pindos, your name is Athos" ("AXION ESTI")
"MNHMH TOU LAOU MOU, SE LENE PINDO, SE LENE ATHW" [Odysseas Elytis]
------------------------------
From: George Baloglou <baloglou@oswego.oswego.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 22:53:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: "This generation ...": Mk 13:34 par.; Mk 9:1 par.
On Fri, 24 Mar 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
>
> In Mk 13:30 (Apocalyptic Discourse, following upon the
> prophecy of the coming of the Son of Man and the Parable of
> the Fig Tree), Jesus says:
>
> AMHN LEGW HUMIN HOTI OU MH PARELQHI
> HE GENEA HAUTH MEXRIS HOU TAUTA PANTA GENHTAI
> "I tell you truly that this generation shall not
> pass away until all these things have taken place."
>
> The parallel texts in Mt and Lk differ only in that:
>
> (1) Mt 24:34 & Lk 21:32 both have HEWS AN instead
> of MEXRIS HOU before the subjunctive;
>
> (2) Whereas Mt 24:34 has the same demonstrative
> phrase as Mk 13:30 (PANTA TAUTA, in reverse order
> from Mk, but with no difference in meaning), Lk
> 21:32 has simply PANTA "everything," rather than
> TAUTA PANTA or PANTA TAUTA.
>
> My first question: does anyone discern any real difference
> of meaning between (a) TAUTA PANTA/PANTA TAUTA and (b)
> PANTA?
>
I venture to respond to this question based primarily on intuition
(as well as "native knowledge" of Greek from another era), hoping
to offer insights for a more scientific attack :-)
First, let me say that I cannot distinguish between PANTA TAUTA
and TAUTA PANTA; from here on, I use only PANTA TAUTA (which I suspect
to be vastly more common than TAUTA PANTA in all forms of Greek.)
Next, it is my impression (and only that!) that PANTA is "neutral",
while PANTA TAUTA is somewhat "motivational"; for example, I would
speculate that someone who believes in God but *refuses to live by
His doctrines* would say O THEOS PANTA EPOIHSEN, while someone who
looks at God's creations feeling that s/he *should "respond" to all
that* would say O THEOS PANTA TAUTA EPOIHSEN.
I fully admit that I am on weak ground here, but I suspect that a
search through all appearences (if sufficiently many) of PANTA and
PANTA TAUTA in the NT *might* either corroborate or disprove my
modest claim ...
George Baloglou
"Memory of my people, your name is Pindos, your name is Athos" ("AXION ESTI")
"MNHMH TOU LAOU MOU, SE LENE PINDO, SE LENE ATHW" [Odysseas Elytis]
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #632
*****************************
** 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