[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #662
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 12 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 662
In this issue:
Re: Acts 19:3
[none]
Lost Sheep of the House of Israel
Re: Acts 19:3
Re: ehad vs. yaheed
Re: ehad vs. yaheed
Re: Acts 19:3
Acts 19:1
Truth in John (Again)
Re: Palm Sunday
Re: Acts 19:1
Greek verbs
purists
Re: Lost Sheep of the House...
Re: Software for Learning Greek?
Re: Acts 19:1
Re: 1st C. synagoague services?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 13:28:31 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Acts 19:3
I won't repeat the whole context, though some might wish I had done so. I
just want to make a couple points.
(1) With regard to word-order, I didn't mean to leave the impression that
I thought it was altogether fluid; it certainly is not. Postpositives
MUST come second in a sentence (which is why I once said "bah, humbug" to
an argument that Mark's gospel couldn't end at 16:8 because a Greek
sentence can't end with a GAR; when both subject and predicate are
present in EFOBOUNTO, there's no place else for the GAR to come but after
that. What I teach is that there are tendencies in word-order: we can say
that the "natural" order of a simple Greek sentence is
subject-object-verb--to which I add that this is the order you may
actually see 60% of the time--but rhetoric is hardly ever far removed
from Greek expression, and there's another rhetorical tendency for
emphatic elements to gravitate to the beginning or the end of the total
expression.
(2) Regarding the absolute construction: the grand old man who taught
Comparative Greek and Latin Grammar at Harvard when I was there ages ago
(real character: Joshua Whatmough) used to say that there really isn't
such a thing as an accusative absolute--that it is really a nominative
absolute. But, inasmuch as it is a neuter singular participle that is
used, and the nominative and accusative forms are identical, there is no
way to prove whether it is a nominative or an accusative absolute. So
much for dogmatism. I really have no grounds to disagree with Bruce Terry
on this suggested distinction between a nominative and an accusative
absolute. What do the linguists (I know BT is one of them)--the other
ones: Mari Olsen, Phil Graber, Micheal Parsons--have to say about this?
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: "Lawless Bill (915)688-5460" <bill.lawless@mioex.arco.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 13:55:55 CDT
Subject: [none]
unsubscribe
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 13:16:30 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Lost Sheep of the House of Israel
I want to thank those of you who have responded to my question, including
Phil Graber, whose points I think are important and right, although I'd
like to carry the discussion farther somewhat.
One thing I'm unclear about Phil (maybe you are too?): do you think that
Mt 10:6 is Matthew's own redactional composition BASED upon the previous
"sheep w/o shepherd" saying? That certainly is possible, although I would
have thought that the two verses I have highlighted are both "M." It
strikes me that the phrasing "lost sheep of the house of Israel" is
rather distinctive and smacks of tradition.
Beyond that, however, it seems to me that Matthew's gospel is in a
certain sense a balancing act between a forward-moving narrative of the
career of Jesus and the five relatively self-contained discourses that
each appear to represent one book of a "pentateuch" and that each expound
the teaching/instruction of Rabbi Jesus/New Moses on a particular topic, as
here, "Mission." For this reason, I'm not so certain that the Mission
Discourse as a whole, though it is clearly set into the context of the
ongoing narrative of chapters 9 and 11, doesn't have a larger compass
than the immediate. You yourself, Phil, seem to be arguing that we ought
to read this text in the chronological context not of the ministry of
Jesus but rather of the post-70 situation wherein the Rabbinate at Jamnia
are defining formative Judaism. I would not quarrel with that, certainly.
But I am inclined to think that the elements entering into Matthew 10's
redaction have probably come from more than one source, and I'm not sure
that the redaction is seamless--there does seem to be a different
prospect as we move from 10:15 to 10:16ff. And I am wondering whether
still one element in the background of Mt's Mission Discourse might not
be the mission charge to Peter (and the Twelve?) as described by Paul in
Gal 2. It strikes me that our two verses in question (10:6/23) would
indeed fit that context and might conceivably be derivative from sayings
material associated with that division of the mission work at the
Apostolic Council of the year 50. And I do think that Matthew has put the
whole thing together carefully, but not so carefully that the prospect of
a short-term missionary role for the Twelve doesn't suddenly turn into
advice for the long haul all the way to the Parousia.
So, I guess that I want to agree with you to a certain point, Phil, but
still keep the question open of a larger context for Diaspora Judaism
perhaps implied in 10:6/23.
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: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 12:48:11 CST
Subject: Re: Acts 19:3
On Tue, 11 Apr 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
>Postpositives
>MUST come second in a sentence (which is why I once said "bah, humbug" to
>an argument that Mark's gospel couldn't end at 16:8 because a Greek
>sentence can't end with a GAR; when both subject and predicate are
>present in EFOBOUNTO, there's no place else for the GAR to come but after
>that.
Exactly! The people who say this have never read John 13:13 in Greek.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Yirah@aol.com
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 15:41:09 -0400
Subject: Re: ehad vs. yaheed
I've been following this thread with great interest on the side. I've not
seen anyone address the I/US language in Isa. 6:8
I've done a bit of work on this particular passage and hope to have it
published one of these days. The language has given rise to three basic
explanations:
1. It represents the plural of majesty
2. It is God's declaration to the seraphim
3. It is an address to the heavenly hosts in general.
(1) does not explain why one of the pronouns is singular while the other is
plural.
(2) and (3) suggest that Isaiah's commission was from a heavenly committee
which would seem rather odd in a religious system which saw its God as
monolithic and supreme.
The thesis of the paper is that from the vantage point of John 12:40-41,
Isaiah saw (6:1-7) and was commissioned by (6:8-13) the pre-incarnate Christ.
The "I" would be Christ Himself, the "Us" would be the other members of the
Godhead. This would make Isaiah's commission thoroughly divine.
William
------------------------------
From: Yirah@aol.com
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 15:42:57 -0400
Subject: Re: ehad vs. yaheed
Bruce Wildish wrote--
>It is widely recognized today that until late in the second temple
period the Jewish conception of God and His heavenly throne still
retained much of its ancient Canaanite features.
[much ommitted for reasons of space]
Of course, Bruce, you realize that this explanation is only "widely
recognized" by those who believe that Yahwehism evolved from polytheism to
monotheism over the course of time and requires the JEPD textual theory to
explain it. But that's a different discussion for a different list ;-)
Shalom,
William Brooks
------------------------------
From: "Paul J. Bodin" <pjbodin@ocf.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 12:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Acts 19:3
On Tue, 11 Apr 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote that Ken Litwak wrote:
> [...] Here, PAULON not only
> doesn't follow the infinitives, it's not even in the same
> neighborhood, but looks like it is the subject for the 2 Aor participle.
> That is what has me confused.
In addition to Carl's helpful and concise explanations, I am compelled to
add a quibble. My revered Greek teacher would have shuddered at the term
"subject" of the participle, insisting that although the constructions may
be similar to subject/verb constructions, participial constructions do not
have subjects, properly so-called.
Aside from the grammar and linguistics I have learned along the way in
the study of classical languages, I am fairly unsophisticated in such
matters. What would the more linguistically-abled members of the list
say to this observation?
___________________________________________________________________________
Paul J. Bodin Internet: pjbodin@ocf.berkeley.edu
Union Theological Seminary smail: 1333 66th Street
Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary Berkeley, CA 94702
------------------------------
From: David Moore <Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 14:40:08 -0700
Subject: Acts 19:1
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl Conrad) wrote:
>>EGENETO DE EN TWI TON APOLLW EINAI EN KORINQWI PAULON DIELQONTA TA
>>ANWTERIKA MERH [KAT]ELQEIN EIS EFESON KAI HEUREIN TINAS MAQHTAS.
>
>I think, Ken, that your problem lay in assuming at the outset that "the
>subject is included" in EGENETO. Actually the syntax of this sentence
>must understand PAULON KATELQEIN KAI HEUREIN as the real subject of
>EGENETO; DIELQONTA TA ANWTERIKA MERH is simply a participial phrase
>functioning as would an adverbial clause telling WHEN "Paul arrived and
>found", i.e. AFTER passing through the upper regions.
>
>In this sentence the infinitives are NOT (apart from the prepositional
>phrase EN TWI EINAI, which is subordinate to the main construction)
>articular but rather the regular kind of predicate used with accusative
>subject. So that to oversimplify the construction we may re-phrase it
as
>follows: "The fact that Paul arrived and found ..., after having passed
>through ..., happened in the time of Apollos being at Corinth." There
is
>nothing exceptional about the Greek syntax here; I would only say,
>regarding perceived difficulties of the construction, that students DO
>have a very difficult time coming to terms with (a) the fact that
>subjects can come long after the verb with which they are construed,
and
>also with (b) the manifold ways in which the short-hand
subject-predicate
>consisting of accusative noun/pronoun and infinitive can function in a
>larger syntactic relationship.
I am especially intrigued by Carl's reference to PAULON here as
a *subject* in the accusative case. I would understand PAULON as the
*object* of EGENETO with, as Ken said, the the subject understood in the
verb. EN TW TON APOLLW EINAI EN KORINQW should be understood as a
prepositional phrase as Carl implies, and functions as a time referent.
Also, the participial phrase DIELQONTA TA ANWTERIKA MERH functions, as
Carl has pointed out, to explain the time of Paul's arrival at Ephesus.
So, if we remove the two phrases used as time referents, we have
EGENETO DE ... PAULON ... KATELQEIN EIS EFESON KAI E(UREIN TINAS
MAQETAS. The DE should not be overlooked. It is an indicator of change
of focus, since the verses previous to the chapter division have been
discussing Apollos.
In reference to the infinitives about which Ken has asked: their
subject, IMO, would most naturally be the same as that of EGENETO. If
the infinitives (KATELQEIN and E(UREIN) are taken as complements of
EGENETO, it would be natural to take them as referring to the "it" which
is the subject of that verb (See Bl-DeB #392, 1.). So the passage is
saying, "It happened to Paul, however, to come to Ephesus and to find
some disciples," which, of course is very bad English style but gives
the idea of what is being expressed by the Greek here. Injecting the
time-referent phrases in their places would complete the sense of the
verse.
I have no argument with how this verse is normally translated
which makes "Paul" the subject of the sentence as this is probably the
best way to render it to English and, IMO, essentially keeps the sense
of the original.
I would be interested to have references for some examples of
the construction Carl mentions in which the accusative serves as
subject... Or is he simply saying that the infinintive may function as
an object of an (accusative) object?
Regards,
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: RlMackie@aol.com
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 18:47:52 -0400
Subject: Truth in John (Again)
Tim:
Thanks for posting the description of B-GREEK for me. Though I had read it
recently, your comment put it in a context I hadn't thought about. It has
helped me follow the threads containing no Greek with more patience. After
this apology, I'll get back to what I do best--lurking and benefiting from
the insight of the list (including yours, Tim).
Before I do, however, please indulge me as I engage in a lengthy
epistemological reflection (if you're not interested, delete now). If I keep
my promise to relurk, you won't need it. But if my meager scholastic talents
move me to delurk again, at least you will have the tools to flame me more
effectively.
The meaning of Pilate's question which motivated my first article depends on
the intention of the speaker. It might have expressed exasperation, irony,
curiosity, or any number of attitudes. Interpretors can get an _impression_
of the speaker/writers attitude through contextual and comparative studies.
Ultimately, however, what was in Pilate's mind (or the mind of the writer if
you don't think Pilate asked Jesus the question) when he said TIESTINALHQEIA
remains hidden.
Like Pilate's Question, the phrase from the list description "scholarly
study" can have more than one meaning. Though we share a common language and
culture (though not sub-culture, I suspect), differences in temprament,
training, and experience give us differing initial impressions of what those
words mean. Since the person who put those words in the description is
alive, he might describe his intention more specifically to end all debate
(but it's really not necessary--I accept Tim's interpretation). Apart from
further evidence, however, we do not know enough to choose between our
competing impressions about the true meaning.
When we approach Greek texts with the question TI ESTIN ALHQEIA, not only are
the human authors dead, their identity is hidden from us. Although growing,
our knowledge of the origin and context of the texts is limited and will
remain so. We don't know enough to choose between competing claims to
ALHQEIA. What appear to be obvious textual errors to us might not be if we
had a more complete picture of the apostolic and prophetic eras.
The theories of source criticism arouse my speculative instinct. I will not
attempt to disprove them. Yet I believe people like Ken (and myself) can
adopt a different presuppostions and methods and still be engaged in
"scholarly study" of the relevant texts. Since the variety of source
criticism in use for the last century or so leaves me little protection from
my own intellectual conceit (or that of others), I prefer a model which
depends more directly on the authority of ALHQEIA revealed by the texts. I
prefer scholarly methods which place me more directly under the auhtority of
the Word and the text because O LOGOS SARX EGENETO (Jn 1:14) and [O LOGOS
LEGEI] EGW EIMI...H ALHQEIA (Jn 14:6). Since O LOGOS ESTIN H ALHQEIA, I do
not clearly distinguish between "academic" and "personal" uses of the texts
which reveal that O LOGOS to me and my congregation. So to keep from
offending scholars by my use of band-width to promote personal (subjective,
unprovable) understandings of the text, I hereby return to the ranks of the
lurking learners.
Peace in Christ,
Roger
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Roger L. Mackie EKEINON DEI AUXANEIN
301 Sherman PO Box 36 EME DE ELATTOUSQAI
Good Thunder, MN 56037-0036
Phone: (507) 278-3169 e-mail: rlmackie@aol.com
- ------------------------------------------------------------
<set lurk mode <on>>
------------------------------
From: William Raines <wraines@emmental.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 22:57:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Palm Sunday
Just to note en passant that Matthew isn't the only evangelist to
emphasise the fulfilment of prophetic texts by applying them with
strikingly forced literalism.
Consider John 19:23f.
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: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 17:35:57 CST
Subject: Re: Acts 19:1
On Tue, 11 Apr 1995, David Moore wrote:
> I am especially intrigued by Carl's reference to PAULON here as
>a *subject* in the accusative case. I would understand PAULON as the
>*object* of EGENETO with, as Ken said, the the subject understood in the
>verb.
> The DE should not be overlooked. It is an indicator of change
>of focus, since the verses previous to the chapter division have been
>discussing Apollos.
David--
If the subject of an infinitive does not "spread" from the main clause, it is
given in the accusative case. Carl is saying, not just that PAULON is the
subject, but that the whole compound infinitive clause is the subject of
EGENETO. In English we would have to use gerunds:
Paul's going to Ephesus and finding some disciples happened.
^----------------Subject-------------------------^ ^-Verb-^
Where EGENETO takes two arguments, one is subject and the other is object
(Predicate Nominative):
X becomes/is Y.
But where it only takes one argument, that argument is the subject, thus:
X happens.
This is a little overstated because at least in English one can say:
X happened to Z
where Z is an infinitive. I am sure that someone will post an example proving
or disproving this usage for Greek.
However, this infinitive phrase is not the compliment of the verb. "It" did
not happen to come and to find; Paul is the one who came and found.
As for the DE, your point is well taken; however, it has more than just a
change of focus here. Levinsohn has shown that DE marks the beginning of what
he calls Development Units (loosely, major paragraphs). That is why at the
beginning of paragraphs it is often translated "now" instead of "but" as it is
in the middle of a sentence. This is the difference between its sentential
use and its discourse use.
- --Bruce
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 20:01:16 -0400
Subject: Greek verbs
Carl Conrad wrote,
>(1) Very few irregular verbs are irregular in all six forms; one whole
category is made up of those verbs that have liquid futures and aorists:
verbs with stems in LRMN such as menw, fqeirw, stellw. For these just learn
the future and aorist stems (better yet, learn the principle that the futures
are formed by adding -es- to the stem, that the -s- between vowels
evanesces, and that these forms therefore are epsilon-contracts in the
future; similarly that the aorists are formed by adding -sa- to the stem,
but that here sigma between LRMN and the vowel A evanesces, after which the
vowel in the preceding syllable undergoes compensatory lengethening). Now,
if learning the underlying principles of these morphological alterations,
most of which are really phonological in nature, is too much trouble, the
only thing left to do is MEMORIZE, MEMORIZE. My own pet pedagogy, however,
is to teach at the outset how phonology impacts morphology and spelling; it
is then not too difficult to show that most of what appears to be irregular
is not irregular at all.<
I would add that learning phonetic change is very helpful in dealing with
most "irregular" verbs. A new work that is a very fine and comprehensive
(for NT) is Bill Mounce's Morphology. James Brooks of Bethel and myself
published a comprehensive (NT) morphology in the Spring of 94 with Univ.
Press of America. It came out only a few month's before Mounce. It has a
list of all verbs in the NT with the principal parts in bold type and the
forms built on each stem following. This seems to be helpful for the first
review term. A selected group of these verbs should be mastered by the
beginning student. The rules of phonetic change which is found both in
Mounce and Brooks and Winbery will save a bit of memory work.
Carlton Winbery
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 20:05:42 -0400
Subject: purists
Bruce Terry wrote,
>If the subject of an infinitive<
Most grammarians call that an accusative of reference.
Carlton Winbery
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 20:20:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Lost Sheep of the House...
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
FROM: Timster132@aol.com
RE: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
Thanks Carl for bringing up this text. I think it is a good one to
ponder. I also enjoyed the "Two Animal" Palm Sunday thread as well.
Back to Matt 10. I have some redactive thoughts:
Maybe the Matthean church felt discouraged about evangelizing their
fellow Jews because of all the conflict-- so they had concentrated on
evangelizing the Gentiles. Perhaps that is why Matthew reiterates the
apostolic mission to the Jews the way he does here in Matt 10. (Jesus
actually forbids the apostles to go to the Samaritans and Gentiles!-- the
opposite of what they Matthean comunity may have been doing.)
I am thinking that "lost sheep" included all Jews, both diaspora and pales
tinian (and baylonian, etc). They are all "lost sheep" without their
Shepherd, the Messiah, as Matthew, a Jewish Christian, might say.
Since Matthew is writing post-70, it is easy to see how he would probably
think of "all the cities of Israel" meaning all the Jewish towns, cities,
enclaves troughout the diaspora.
Although I find it appealing in thinking that Jesus was referring to the
towns in Palestine, since he says the Son of Man will come back before they
are done-- and that makes the 2nd coming pretty imminent! But considering
when Matthew was writing, I think it is a good argument that Matthew wasn't
thinking of Palestine, but of the "all" the cities of Israel including the
diaspora.
Tim
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 20:20:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Software for Learning Greek?
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU, CC: kpenner@unixg.ubc.ca
From: Timster132@aol.com
Ken Penner (kpenner@unixg.ubc.ca) asked:
>What software have you used in teaching or learning Greek?
While there are a lot of expensive packages out there ($200-$400 or more)
on CD-ROM that would greatly help a new Greek student, let me make two
INEXPENSIVE suggestions:
_Greek Tools_ is an inexpensive program ($70?) by Parsons Technologies
1-800-223-6925. (NOTE: If you can no longer get this from them, just email
me, and I'll see about locating a copy of it for you).
This program is DOS based and it includes a flashcard database of Greek
NT words (it is spuriously called "a lexicon"). It contains almost 1200
words which are used 10 or more times, and a small supplement to these words.
There is also a text editor which uses english, greek and hebrew
characters, and it is easy to switch between them. GT also has the mss.
listed on cards in the program and a worthless "text critcism" program with a
brief explanation of text families.
I would not recommend it to anyone who knows Greek, but it could be
helpful to a beginner who doesn't have windows or a mac or a big pocketbook.
Also for the poor and starving Greek student, there is the _Online Bible_
which has the Greek NT add-on, a SHAREWARE bible program. Searches can be
made on Greek words with wildcards * and Boolean phrases. Not many bells and
whistles on this program, but it will get the beginner up and running Greek
Bible on his or her computer. I found this program on a CD-ROM disk called
"Straight from Heaven" which has the Online Bible with KJV, AV, ASV, French,
German, Spnaish, Hebrew and several Greek versions.
The CD Rom has a lot of other non-scholarly programs, but I bought it for
$10 at a Ham Radio convention last year and it is worth it just to have the
Greek versions. Anyway, the publisher is Most Significant Bits15508 Madison
Ave, Lakewood OH 44107, (216) 529-1888. For the poor Greek student, this DOS
Bible program is really "Straight from heaven" indeed.
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 21:58:50 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Acts 19:1
On Tue, 11 Apr 1995, David Moore wrote:
>
> I am especially intrigued by Carl's reference to PAULON here as
> a *subject* in the accusative case. I would understand PAULON as the
> *object* of EGENETO with, as Ken said, the the subject understood in the
> verb. EN TW TON APOLLW EINAI EN KORINQW should be understood as a
> prepositional phrase as Carl implies, and functions as a time referent.
> Also, the participial phrase DIELQONTA TA ANWTERIKA MERH functions, as
> Carl has pointed out, to explain the time of Paul's arrival at Ephesus.
Now you really have ME intrigued: PAULON is the "object" of the
intransitive verb EGENETO? You apparently understand the meaning of the
sentence as I do, but I don't understand in the slightest how you're
construing it. I can see no other way of understanding PAULON than as the
SUBJECT ofthe two infinitives. The subject of an infinitive is regularly
an accusative, UNLESS the agent is identical with the subject of the main
clause: EFH AUTOS TAUTA POIHSAI: "He said that he himself had done these
things." But EFH TON PAULON HDH PAREINAI: He said that Paul had already
arrived." And yes, I would say that PAULON ... KATELQEIN KAI HEUREIN,
which you could translate into not-very-good English as "Paul's having
come and having found" or "the fact that Paul came and found", is the
SUBJECT of EGENETO. "What Paul did" is the subject; "happened" is the
predicate.
> In reference to the infinitives about which Ken has asked: their
> subject, IMO, would most naturally be the same as that of EGENETO. If
> the infinitives (KATELQEIN and E(UREIN) are taken as complements of
> EGENETO, it would be natural to take them as referring to the "it" which
> is the subject of that verb (See Bl-DeB #392, 1.). So the passage is
> saying, "It happened to Paul, however, to come to Ephesus and to find
> some disciples," which, of course is very bad English style but gives
> the idea of what is being expressed by the Greek here. Injecting the
> time-referent phrases in their places would complete the sense of the
> verse.
If BDF say that "it" is the subject of EGENETO, I think it is one reason
why BDF needs to be replaced. I'll look at that reference tomorrow
morning, but this way of talking about Greek grammar makes it look like
Greek is a bad way of expressing an idea that can only naturally be
expressed in English. In the English sentence, "It happened that Paul
came to Ephesos," IT is an "expletive," a place-filler that satisfies the
English-speaker's psychological need for something to fill the place of a
subject which in English normally precedes the verb. But the real subject
of "happened" is "that Paul came to Ephesos." The way your translating it
does make it clear what you mean by saying that Paul is an object of
"happened," although this is exceedingly strange; your use of the
preposition "to" (TO Paul) indicates that you realize that EGENETO is
intransitive; in this instance we would be reading in the Greek not
PAULON but rather PAULWI.
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: Pat Tiller <ptiller@husc.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 00:30:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: 1st C. synagoague services?
On Fri, 7 Apr 1995, Rod Decker wrote:
>
> Are you sure you have your facts straight on that one? The Gospels are
> filled with references to the synagogue. I've never heard anyone suggest
> that it was a medieval development.
>
The problem is partly semantic. The Gospels are filled with references
to things that in Greek are called SUNAGWGOI. This term is usually
translated "synagogue" but could also be translated "assembly." The
choice depends on whether one thinks that what is referred to is
sufficiently like the later Jewish synagogues. If one believes, on
historical grounds, that there were already in the 1st century in Galilee
religious assemblies that resembled later synagogue services, then one
should translate "synagogue." If not, then one should translate
"assembly." As far as I know, there are only a few places where 1st
century "synagogues" have been excavated: Gamla, Masada (and maybe
Qumran, though no one seems to call it a synagogue there). In no case
is there much evidence about what sorts of things were done in those
synagogues. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the archaeology of
Palestine could help me out here?
Pat Tiller
Harvard Divinity School
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #662
*****************************
** 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