[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #659
b-greek-digest Monday, 10 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 659
In this issue:
UMI Dissertations Order Form
Matthew
"Standard" translations and NIV
Re: Canon
Re: Redeemer
RE: Apostolic authorship
Re: Palm Sunday reflections
Re:Apostolic Authorship
Re: Palm Sunday reflections
Re: Palm Sunday reflections
Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, Mt 10:6/10:23
Phil. 1:3
Software for Learning Greek?
Hobbs Challenge, Canon Debate, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tyler Williams <twilliam@epas.utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 01:23:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: UMI Dissertations Order Form
I wasn't able to find the e-mail address for UMI (I'm not sure if they
take orders via e-mail), but below you will find a fax number for
international orders on the order form that can be found on their internet
site.
You can access their internet site through the University of Toronto
gopher (epas.utoronto.ca) in the following subdirectory:
Centre for Computing in the Humanities/ Other academic resources by
discipline/ religious studies and theology/ UMI Dissertation Abstracts
I hope this helps,
Tyler
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler F. Williams Wycliffe College
Internet: twilliam@epas.utoronto.ca Toronto School of Theology
Voice/Fax: (416) 963-9082 University of Toronto
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 09:08:23 -0400
From: Tyler Williams <twilliam@epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: UMI Dissertations Order Form (ASCII Text)
Ordering Information
Many of the dissertations listed here are available for sale through University Microfilms Inc. (UMI) in
Ann Arbor, MI. To order dissertation Copies, please have the following information on hand:
o dissertation author and title
o dissertation order number
o billing name and address
o shipping name and address
o credit card (American Express, Master Card, Visa) number, expiration date, name and telephone
number.
In the United States and Canada, softcover, paper copies are $36.00 for academic buyers (faculty, staff and
students); non-academic price is $55.00. Other formats (microfiche, microfilm, and hardcover paper) are
also available for most titles.
>From within the United States, call 1-800-521-3042
>From Canada, call 1-800-343-5299
International requests can be faxed to 313-973-2088; please indicate your name and return fax number
with city code and county code clearly noted. A customer service representative will fax a return message
with appropriate international pricing and shipping information.
------------------------------
From: "Edward D. Thompson" <ethompso@ozarks.sgcl.lib.mo.us>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 06:09:43 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Matthew
*lurk mode <off>*
and all this time I just thought Matthew was cross-eyed
*lurk mode<on>*
(I enjoy the list and discussions
thx everyone for some wonderful insights)
- --ed
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 12:21:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: "Standard" translations and NIV
Leroy Huizenga comments that the NIV also translates"sat on THEM." I am
quite aware of that--and that a multitude of translations in this century
have done the same. My term "standard" was intended to refer to the
tradition of "official" or "authorized by the churches [and King!]"
translations, the tradition from the Great Bible of 1539 through Bishops
and "King James" and Revised Version and American Standard and Revised
Standard. I quickly chose the word "standard" (would "official" have
been better? "authorized"?) to refer to this tradition of translations,
which have a special status in the tradition of English translations.
The irony is, of course, that the "father" of this translation,
William Tyndale (1525 NT), was not only not authorized or official, but
was burned at the stake in 1536 for his trouble.
I hesitated to say "official" or "authorized" (neither of which would
really apply to the NIV) because of the New American Bible, which IS official,
for Roman Catholics. In fact, it anticipated the NRSV in translating "honestly"as a church-authorized translation. "The Catholic Study Bible", amazingly,
footnotes this verse with "Upon them: upon the two animals; an awkward picture
resulting from Matthew's misunderstanding of the prophecy."
This too more courage than the NRSV, to my mind! And this Bible
carries the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur.
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: William Raines <wraines@emmental.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 95 16:44:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Canon
On 9 April The Rev. David R. Graham <merovin@halcyon.com> wrote:
> I was trying to place it in a group of three co-controlling factors
> that were emerging from the list discussion on canonicity. The
> three seemed to be -- and I feel they are all accurate --
> (1) apostolic authorship, (2) rule of faith and (3) piety,
There are probably other factors or criteria of selection at work as
well: for example, "catholicity" - the canon should contain works
suitable for the whole church everywhere. Those NT epistles which
are genuine letters carry with them the problem of 'particularity',
that is, the question of whether specific advice and teaching directed
toward the particular circumstances facing a particular congregation
has any universal value for the church as a whole.
Lucas Grollenberg once made the half-serious comment that if Paul had
ever imagined his letters would one day be treated as Holy Scripture,
he might well have added to some parts the instruction 'Please burn
after reading'.
But catholicity is clearly a secondary test and the evidence regularly
gets twisted to conform to the general principle. Thus, seven being
the number of completeness, Muratori claims that Paul (by intention
and "following the pattern of John, his predecessor" [gasp!] ) wrote
seven letters to seven churches because he's really addressing the one
great church. The Muratorian writer blandly states this even though he
can see 13 Pauline epistles in front of him. Quite amusing, really.
> What has been bearing in my mind over night is the thought that by
> saying traditio apostolica and regula fidei and (mine) piety were
> elements for selecting canon, we are saying that there is a canon of
> the canon. There is a meta-canon. The writings of the fathers that
> we have show them actually formulating what this meta-canon -- the
> canon for selecting the canon -- is.
Well, yes. But all you are saying is that the books which form the
NT were selected through some process, they didn't choose themselves.
Who could disagree?
The scriptures of some religions are self-validating,in the sense that
they claim for themselves divine inspiration and authority. The Qu'ran
of Islam, for example, portrays itself as a Heavenly Book, pre-existent
and preserved in heaven until written down and revealed through the
Prophet. The Qu'ran, from its inception, would have to be treated as
canonical or false - there isn't any middle ground.
But the books of the NT (with the exception of Rev. 22:18f) make in
general no such claims. They are not obvious candidates for
canonisation. One could imagine various ways in which these diverse
writings might feature in the life of the church, without ever
becoming Holy Writ.
And among the writings finally excluded from the NT there are some
which would seem to have equally good, if not better, a priori claims
to eventual canonicity. For instance, the Didache and the Shepherd,
which are treated with respect by Athanasius, who holds them to be
suitable reading for catechumens, though not to be ranked as Scripture.
Or 1 Clement, a fair proportion of which is recycled Paul. Or the
letters of Ignatius.
My main contention is that, if you examine what's in and what's out,
you can't avoid the conclusion that the bedrock standard applied was
apostolic authorship. Everything that could plausibly be attributed
to an apostle (or to an 'apostolic man' such as Luke) was included. If
one of Paul's shopping lists had survived, I'd bet it would appear in
our Bibles today. Every writing that was definitely not apostolic was
excluded. And books, such as Hebrews, which clearly exemplified the
rule of faith but were of uncertain, anonymous origin, had a bumpy
ride: it took a while for Christians to convince themselves that this
epistle 'had to be' by an apostle.
> The technical demonstration of this truth was produced in recent
> years by Kurt Godel, who did it, significantly, about the same time
> Schweitzer produced The Quest. This demonstration shut down all
> efforts to prove anything in any field whatsoever, including science.
Significantly? "Von Reimarus zu Wrede" appeared in 1906, Godel's
Second Theorem (the incompleteness theorem) in 1931. I'm not aware
that science and mathematics have shut down since Godel. Scientists
have merely become more careful about stating their axioms/assumptions.
Regards,
Bill
- --
The Revd. William Raines || Tel: 061-224 1310
197 Old Hall Lane || Email:
Manchester M14 6HJ || wraines@emmental.demon.co.uk
United Kingdom || wraines@cix.compulink.co.uk
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 95 09:33:38 PDT
Subject: Re: Redeemer
>
> I have a question about the word redeemer. In
> the Hebrew Old Testament there are several
> different words which seem to have some
> overlap in meaning. All of them seem to be
> translated in the LXX by one family (I'm not
> sure if family is the right nomenclature) of
> Greek words. For example, GO'EL is translated
> as LUTROUMENOS in Isaiah 41:14. If I am not
> mistaken, this comes from LUTROW. In Exodus
> 21:30 KOPER and PIDYON (from PADA) are both
> translated LUTRA, which I think is from
> LUTRON. AGORAZO and EXAGORAZO are used for
> redemption in the GNT, but not in the LXX.
>
> My question is more theological, but it's the
> Greek that is confusing me. GO'EL can be used
> of God as a kinsman-redeemer. Isaiah 63:16
> especially seems to be using GO'EL to say
> that God is Israel's kinsman-redeemer. But I
> cannot find the kinsman-redeemer motif in the
> New Testament. If it is, and someone out
> there can point me to it I would be happy. If
> it is not, I am wondering why not? Could it
> be because the LXX makes no distinction
> between GO'EL and PADA or KOPER. Atonement
> and ransom seem to be present in the New
> Testament, but not kinsman-redeemer (or even
> blood redeemer).
>
> Does the force of the Greek word LUTROW push
> the writers of the New Testament away from
> the meaning of GO'EL?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --
> Terry A. Larm | Yale Divinity School
> ad510@osfn.rhilinet.gov | STM '95
>
Jerry,
I can't answer all your questions,but I would think that some spent
looking up words of the lutru- root in the New Int'l Dict of NT Theology,
Kittel's (bewaring of its shortcomings) and especailly reading in
Leon Morris's _Apostolic Preaching of the Cross_, which goes into
word groups and such in some detail (I personally eat that kind of stuff
up with relish) should provide you with a fair amount of material on
the subject and likely in the process (though I don't keep that
at work obviously -- I don't have enough shelf space for programming
books) deal with your specific question about the Greek equivalent for
go'el.
Ken
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 95 09:39:33 PDT
Subject: RE: Apostolic authorship
> William,
>
> Nice notes on canon. Here is another piece for the cranium: there was no
> serious canon issue until very late, until Marcion. Orthodox (so-called)
> had to scramble to get a standard. Actually, they had to scramble to
> distance themselves from Marcion, who was one of them. One of the major
I would just note that since Paul himself comments on what were apparently
forged letters from him sent to the Thessalonians, that the issue of
"canon", though not expressed in that way, was an early issue, not a
late issue.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
> items is that canon did not even rise as an issue until relatively late
> (mid 2nd century), which is late as these things (religious formations) go.
> Not only so, but Christian community was content with unitarian monotheism
> and a mix of mild trinitarian monotheism until this time. Jesus was a
> unitarian monotheist. Even the texts which became canon have no developed
> trinitarian monotheism, only rudiments, nothing like what Origen and
> especially Tertullian developed.
>
> So, canon is (1) late and (2) by implication contentedly unitarian
> monotheistic and (3) a scramble only in the presence of Marcion. When the
> scramble was on, of course, you are right that apostolic authorship became
> an immediate issue, but there was not any more proof of that then than there
> is now, and so other factors were adduced. The chief of these was merely
> what the winning political forces were able to carry, which meant the
> bishops, who as you know were hardly united. The bishops' word on the
> matter was the regula fidei. Theoretically -- and often actually,
> fortunately -- the regula fidei reflected the traditio apostolica, which was
> not necessarily but could be presumed to be apostolic authorship. So, you
> and your disputant are both right. But you're not saying enough.
>
> What I am saying is that there was something else involved and that we can
> identify that something else. It was the way the piety worked, for Jesus
> and for Christians. The way it worked was the real canon for selecting text
> as scripture or not. But even that was done only under the goad of Marcion.
> Canon was not a priority before his work. The thing I am pointing to is
> the existential component inside both traditio apostolica and regula fiedi.
> Neither one of these things is operative without that existential
> component. Or as Cyril Richardson used to say, Christians won the empire
> merely because they were more moral than anyone else. Or as my wife likes
> to say, after everything is said and done, life is really very personal.
>
> We keep looking for an objective standard, and this is fine and salutary,
> but we must keep in mind that the puissance of any external standard is an
> existential component, lacking which an external standard is mere tyranny
> and not long for use.
>
> All the best,
>
> David
> -------------------------------------
> The Rev. David R. Graham
> Adwaitha Hermitage
> Professor of Philosophy
> Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
> EADEM MUTATA RESURGO
>
> E-mail: merovin@halcyon.com
> Date: 04/06/95
> Time: 13:41:10
> -------------------------------------
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 10:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Palm Sunday reflections
Whenever I read this passage as a teen I pictured something like those B
adventure movies where the barbarian hero has a foot on the backs of two
horses, stands on them with reins in one hand and somesort of weapon in
the other.
So much for ruminations. The common sense solutions are probably close
to fact, either rides one and leads the other(most likely) or else
alternates between the two. Someone mentioned rabbinic literalism which
could also play a part here. As well as taking the 2nd AUTWN as a
reference to the cloaks. None of these is particularly satisfying is it?
But what other possiblities are there for what Matthew might be saying?
- -Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@billings.lib.mt.us
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 10:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re:Apostolic Authorship
On Mon, 10 Apr 1995, William Raines wrote:
> We are not too far apart here, Larry, but I would phrase it differently.
> What I think is important is that the document be perceived as being by
> an apostle or, at least, very close to an apostolic source. That's what
> I was trying to bring out in the Tertullian quote from an earlier posting
> of mine.
I think I see what you mean here. You are looking at it as necessary to have
a tie to an apostle to be canonical. I am looking at it from the aspect
of the classical world that a work or writer to be canonical it must be
perceived as from what Eliade calls "in illo tempore", a sort of golden
age from which we in the present have fallen. Thus, the church's
perpsective is that what we call the Apostolic Age is that golden period
that ispreserved in the texts. In the end perhaps we are not apart at all.
And it is this "apostolic" connection which lends the regula fidei its
authority, which Irenaeus is so at pains to demonstrate.
> Now, that's an appeal to the rule of faith if ever I heard one!
> But we won't find Ignatius' letters in the canon. Why not?
And yet some have argued that since texts Sinaiticus and ALexandrinus
include I Clement after Revelation that this is a sign that he was
considered canonical for those communities.Second, I would argue, in
contrast to a great majority of folk, that the canonical process was
already underway, and solidified enough to make Ignatius letters read in
150 and in living memory of Polycarp, (yes I know, they were written app.
110) difficult to accept as Primary canon, although they work very well
as extra canonical, or secondary canon documents. Briefly, Primary canon
is that set of documents, oral and written, which forms the kernel. On
top of that then are interpretations, traditors, commentaries, etc which
become canonical, although have less authority than the primary level.
Hence, we have the Torah, then the prophets, then the writings in
Judaism, each level less authoritative and less central than the
previous. ANd then we have the DSS and the "Oral Torah" being developed
which eventually forms the second element of Judaisms Dual Torah. I
think that the same process happened in Christianity and began very early.
> It seems to me that at some point in the 2nd century the criteria for
> valuing Christian literature underwent a dramatic change and that
> this phenomenon might be connected with the emergence of the canon.
> I would like to speculate this this may be in large part the legacy
> of Marcion.
I would introduce a caveat. Stick with the legacy of Marcion. It
doesn't appear that his impact was felt in his lifetime, no one, not even
Justin writing in Rome only a few years later has anything to say about
Marcion's canon. It is close to half a century later, and more to
Tertullian, before Marcion's canon becomes an issue. As if the later
movement was more a threat than the man himself. But I would also point
out that one of the hallmarks of canonical development for what we now
call the NT had happened before Marcion even came on the scene. That is
Basilides commentary on the gospel of John. And of course my comments above.
And Bill, thanks for a lively discussion.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: GLENN WOODEN <glenn.wooden@acadiau.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 14:37:38 ADT
Subject: Re: Palm Sunday reflections
Larry asks:
> So much for ruminations. The common sense solutions are probably close
> to fact, either rides one and leads the other(most likely) or else
> alternates between the two. Someone mentioned rabbinic literalism which
> could also play a part here. As well as taking the 2nd AUTWN as a
> reference to the cloaks. None of these is particularly satisfying is it?
> But what other possiblities are there for what Matthew might be saying?
Might it be that he pictures Jesus sitting "side saddle" using the
cole as a foot rest? Possibly the picture is supposed to be one of a
king with his footstool?
Just a thought--and a far-out one at that!
Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.
Canada
wooden@acadiau.ca
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 14:29:14 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Palm Sunday reflections
On Mon, 10 Apr 1995, GLENN WOODEN wrote:
> Larry asks:
>
> > So much for ruminations. The common sense solutions are probably close
> > to fact, either rides one and leads the other(most likely) or else
> > alternates between the two. Someone mentioned rabbinic literalism which
> > could also play a part here. As well as taking the 2nd AUTWN as a
> > reference to the cloaks. None of these is particularly satisfying is it?
> > But what other possiblities are there for what Matthew might be saying?
>
> Might it be that he pictures Jesus sitting "side saddle" using the
> cole as a foot rest? Possibly the picture is supposed to be one of a
> king with his footstool?
My original question was in terms of what Matthew believed he was saying
in verse 7. But now, it seems to me, IF we account for Matthew's two
animals by saying that he got them the text of Zech 9:9, does that not
imply that Matthew is conforming his account of what happened to the
prophetic text in order to confirm explicitly that scripture was
fulfilled in this event? I would think this a question of considerable
concern to those who hold in the historical veracity of the evangelist.
Incidentally, I have checked the LXX. Matthew 21:5 cites it:
PRAUS KAI EPIBEBHKWS EPI ONON
KAI EPI PWLON HUION HUPOZUGIOU.
The LXX (Rahlfs) gives it (Zech 9:9):
PRAUS KAI EPIBEBHKWS EPI HUPOZUGION KAI PWLON NEON.
I think it was Edward Hobbs who suggested that the KAI in Matthew 21:5
might be a mis-translation/mis-understanding of a Hebrew vav. Is there a
consensus on the form of Matthew's OT citations where they differ from
our LXX readings?
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: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 19:32:35 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, Mt 10:6/10:23
It may appear that I am seeking out all the "hard" passages and raising
questions about them, but I assure you that most of the passages I've
raised questions about are closely involved with some synoptic
comparative studies I'm doing in a small work-group. At the moment I'm
working on the Matthaean Missionary Discourse of Chapter 10. By just
about every reckoning we are here confronting a composite of materials
drawn by the evangelist from more than once source, probably from more
even than two: there is material closely related to if not drawn directly
from Mark's missionary passage, more material closely related to passages
in Luke and commonly deemed Q, and then there are these uniquely
Matthaean pieces. Today it occurred to us that this entire discourse
might be conceived by the evangelist as a "program" for the mission of
Peter as succinctly characterized by Paul in Gal 2, "apostolhn ths
peritomhs." In the course of our discussions it occurred to us that the
two verses that have been so problematic to Schweitzer especially but to
others also may in fact not have reference to a crash mission to
Palestinian Jews at all but rather to a drive to evangelize the Jews of
the Diaspora. Is this a new idea or (more likely) one that has been
thoroughly aired in the scholarly literature and found adherents and
detractors?
Specifically, with regard to the first passage: Mt 10:5-6 EIS HODON EQNWN
MH APELQHTE KAI EIS POLIN SAMARITWN MH EISELQHTE; POREUESQHE DE MALLON
PROS TA PROBATA TA APOLWLOTA OIKOU ISRAHL--
In the first place, the phrase, EIS HODON EQNWN, strikes me as strangely
expressed; is it a semitism? It is singular, so it seems an odd way to
say, "roads leading to Gentiles"; could it mean "on a (missionary)
journey/expedition to Gentiles"?
More particularly, however, I am curious about the range of possible
meanings for TA PROBATA TA APOLWLOTA OIKOU ISRAHL. It would seem for one
thing that Israel is clearly the PEOPLE here, not the land. I don't know
the contemporary extra-biblical Jewish literature, but does "Israel" ever
mean anything other than the whole people? Does it ever have that
distinctive geographical sense that the Zionists clearly have in mind
when they speak not of the AM but of ERETZ ISRAEL? And if it is NOT
geographical but ethnic in its fundamental sense, does not the phrase as
a whole, "lost sheep of the House of Israel" refer most appropriately to
the Jews of the Diaspora rather than to the Jews of Palestine. Does the
phrase have links to Deuteronomic language? Does it appear with reference
to the tribes of the northern kingdom re-settled by the Assyrians
throughout the Fertile Crescent? Is it possible to construe this phrase
as referring to the Jews of the Diaspora.
IF SO, then the structure of the chapter as a whole might be more
coherent than has been supposed; rather than a first section (10:5-15)
giving instructions for an immediate mission of the twelve in Palestine,
and a longer section (10:16-42) to be understood as instruction for the
long-term mission in the years of the church ahead, when witnessing will
be accompanied by conflict, persecution, appearances before authorities
both Jewish and Roman, and will test the endurance of the
missionaries--instead we might see an integral discourse intended as
instruction in particular for the Jewish mission that has as its
counterpart Paul's Gentile mission. Certainly the second and longer part
looks to a long-term future--BUT it has heavy eschatological overtones,
and some of the same material appears again in Matthew's apocalyptic
discourse (Mt 24) in the context of WORLD-WIDE mission that is to go on
until the consummation (24:14). But the focus in Chapter 10 would be the
WORLD-WIDE mission specifically to JEWS.
And now, the other verse, the really "hard" one: Mt 10:23b AMHN GAR LEGW
HUMIN, OU MH TELESHTE TAS POLEIS TOU ISRAHL HEWS AN ELQHI HO HUIOS TOU
ANQRWPOU--
What are the POLEIS TOU ISRAHL? Must they be understood properly and
solely of Jewish cities of Palestine? And if not, if they refer to the
communities of Diaspora Jews throughout the Mediterranean world, doesn't
the prophecy of Jesus here gain greatly in plausibility over against the
way that Albert Schweitzer understood it as referring to a missionary
effort in a single summer in Palestine?
Just testing the waters here, partly to see whether they've been crossed
before, partly to see whether this is an altogether crackpot notion.
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: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 22:53:58 -0400
Subject: Phil. 1:3
To All,
I would like to ask about another significant subjective/objective genitive
in addition to the one discussed earlier--Philippians 1:3. Moffatt treats
the HUMWN as a subjective genitive in the phrase EPI PASHI THI MNEIA HUMWN ,
"at" or perhaps "because of your every remembrance." BAGD has no provision
for MNEIA with the meaning of gift. In Phil. 4:10 when Paul clearly refers
to the gift, he uses the term thinking (FRONEIN). If he could use the word
think as a way of refering to the gift, it is not a big jump to using the
image of remembering to refer to the same thing. I can find no reference in
Moulton and Milligan that could be translated as a gift either. An indicator
in the text of the introductory prayer of Phil. that suggest that the
subjective genitive is intended is verse 5. Verse 4 is a parenthetical
statement and so verse 5 indicates further the cause of Paul's thanksgiving.
EPI THI KOINWNIAI HUMWN EIS TO EUAGGELION, "because of your (subjective)
sharing in the gospel." The two prepositional phrases beginning with EPI
would indicate two causes for thanksgiving, "because of your remembrance" and
"because of your sharing." Could the ERGON AGATHON of verse 6 also refer to
the gift? Verse 7 also indicates that they had been "partners" with him of
the grace (his ministry?). This would mean that (if Philippians is one
letter) Paul did not wait until the end to refer to the gift.
Do any of our clasical scholars know of a place where MNEIA or one of the
words of this root is used to refer to a tangible gift?
Carlton Winbery
Louisiana
------------------------------
From: Ken Penner <kpenner@unixg.ubc.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 19:54:02 -0700
Subject: Software for Learning Greek?
What software have you used in teaching or learning Greek?
I'm starting to compile a list of computer products and services related to learning biblical Greek and Hebrew, and I'm looking for your suggestions, recommendations, and even advice on what to stay away from.
I'll be a first-year Greek T.A. and would like to be able to make the students aware of the kinds of learning aids avaiable these days.
We'll be using Bill Mounce's _Basics of Biblical Greek_ text for the first time this year, so we'll be getting the accompanying "Teacher's Packet." (I think Bill has the best approach I've seen in a Greek textbook. Thanks, Bill. My only criticism would be that the theological bias is not the same as mine, but I suppose that can't be helped unless I write my own grammar ;)
Thanks in advance!
Ken Penner
Regent College
------------------------------
From: Robert Kraft <kraft@ccat.sas.upenn.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 23:11:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Hobbs Challenge, Canon Debate, etc.
> > From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
> > I am aware of Stendahl's attribution of this to earlier Christians,
> > and of his doing the same with other puzzling features of Matthew. His
> > doctoral dissertation already referred to (_The School of St. Matthew_) was
> > indeed a ground-breaking work; but he has not been followed in this aspect
> > of his book except by his own students. He knows more about Matthew than I
> > do, but he has not developed this view during recent decades. Krister has
> > been a good friend for forty years, and we have even been Harvard
> > colleagues, so I am all the more hesitant to reject his 1954 stance on
> > Matthew. Nevertheless, Matthew or his school was surely much more
> > "literal" (and thus "rabbinic" in *that* sense) than Krister was willing to
> > ascribe to him.
> >
> > (I fully expect Bob Kraft to prove that I am wrong in this. But Bob,
> > you have more important things to do, don't you?)
Thanks to Ed Hobbs for the spur (ouch!). Actually, the more important
things I needed to do are very relevant not so much for the debate over
Matthew's two animals (where I suspect that neither Matthew nor its
predecessors were all that interested in visualizing the results of
their exegesis -- the passage says two animals, so two animals it is.
What's the problem?!), but for the continuation of the "great canon
debate" that took place some years ago on IOUDAIOS with reference to the
Jewish scriptures, and now has been resumed here for the early (and
later) Christian attitudes.
I have not read every word of that debate as posted on this list, but it
is clear to me that Walter Bauer's <t>Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest
Christianity</> has more than passing relevance for the discussion, if
only for the mass of data it discusses. Since, when it went out of print
in English some years back, I wrested the electronic publication rights
from the German and American copyright holders, and for years I have
pecked away at getting it all verified and reformatted for electronic
use, and since my hope was to get it "out there" completely this term
for my "Varieties of Early Christianity" class, Ed's challenge pushed me
along to the next stage.
Some of you are aware of the fact that part of Bauer has been on the
ccat.sas.upenn.edu gopher for a long time. Now the complete volume is
there, although the later chapters (8-10 and appendix 1) are still "in
process" with regard to proofreading (especially the notes) and
reformatting. But you are invited to use it, and to communicate
with me about any major problems (or to volunteer to help finish the
task!). The easiest way to get the material (and lots of other related
goodies) for those who use WWW access, is through my homepage --
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html --
and thence to courses > RelSt 535. Alternatively, gopher to the ccat
address and access Credit Courses > Religious Studies > 535. If you
really care about the problems of how early Christian attitudes towards
authority, texts, competition, etc., developed, don't ignore Bauer. You
might not like his conclusions, but you will need to grapple with the
same evidence! You can start with the second appendix that reviews the
reviewers of Bauer and sets out most of the main points of dispute.
Bob Kraft, UPenn *
*Student of Michelson, Neuman, Kantzer, Holmes and Luchies at Wheaton;
of Stendahl, Koester, Nock, Cross and Wilder at Harvard;
Colleague of Bruce, Ehrhard, Zuntz, Allegro and Brandon at Manchester --
I've pretty much heard it all, and "I feel your pain!"
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #659
*****************************
** 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