[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #664
b-greek-digest Thursday, 13 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 664
In this issue:
Re: Acts 19:1
Longer Post on Corinthian Headwear
Re: Acts 19:1
Re: Lost Sheep of the House of Israel
lost sheep/house of Israel
Re: 1st C. synagoague services?
Re: Acts 19:1
Re: Acts 19:1
Re: Acts 19:1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 12:03:40 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Acts 19:1
I won't cite all the preceding stuff.
I just want to say, David, that I did take a look at BDF acc. to your
reference this morning and was APPALLED at the lack of clarity in its
accounting for constructions with EGENETO--which in fact, are probably so
common in Biblical Greek because they mimic the Hebraic narrative
construction (if I can transliterate it), WAYYEHI' KI ..., and also at
its lack of clarity (as Micheal Palmer noted) in dealing with accusative
and especially accusative + infinitive constructions.
Let me just note one other matter; I was surprised yesterday at
objections to my referring to accusative subjects of the infinitive. I
gather this is terminology not so common in Koine' usage? On the other
hand, it's stock in trade in classical Greek and Latin to speak of
accusative subjects of infinitives. I'm sorry if I sounded offensive
yesterday.
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: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 14:15:24 CST
Subject: Longer Post on Corinthian Headwear
On Fri, 7 Apr 95, Kenneth Litwak wrote a response to Mark Staker and posted it
to B-Greek. Since the second chapter of my recently published book _A
Discourse Analysis of First Corinthians_ contains six pages discussing the
historical evidence, from both literary and graphic art, that lies behind the
rhetorical situation of 1 Cor. 11, I will make some response here too. The
thesis of my second chapter is that *every* situation that Paul addressed grew
out of conflict between Christianity and Greek culture. It was a true mission
field situation where the new Christians were still being influenced by the
practices of their former life. In line with this, I argue that the evidence
favors a cultural situation in which Greek women usually worshipped
bareheaded.
Mark Staker's question was:
> Does Paul's injunction that a man should pray with his head ('kephalis')
> uncovered and a woman with her's covered in 1 Cor. 11:4-15 refer to their
> face? And is this a reference to a veil? Are there any published sources
> that deal with the history of Jewish women covering their faces during prayer?
The RSV leaves the wrong impression with the translation "veiled." To us a
"veil" covers the face, but that was not rule in the ancient world (at least
in the West). One should not read the modern Islamic custom into the ancient
world, although apparently the face veil was used in Tarsus. Dio Chrysostom
notes in his _Orationes_ 33.48: "nobody could see any part of them, neither of
the face nor of the rest of the body . . ." (Note that this reference is a
misprint in TDNT 3:562, which gives it as 33.46, which caused me no end of
trouble in locating this passage). As to the last question, John Lightfoot
in _A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica_ states of
Jewish women: "when they resorted unto holy service they took off their veils,
and exposed their naked faces" (4:231).
On to Ken's response:
>First, it should be pointed out that there is disagreement as to whether Paul
>is referring to a veil or long hair and no easy way to decide.
This should not be difficult. The reference is to some kind of covering, the
form of which is unspecified by the text, since the Greek text uses verbs
rather than nouns to describe it. Since this is posted to B-Greek where
anyone can respond who wishes, I will make the blanket statement that the
translation in the footnotes of the NIV on 1 Cor. 11 is one of the worse
examples of translation that I have ever seen, being neither good exegesis nor
good translation. It is a crass example of rewriting the Bible to make it
speak to the question of short hair on men. To show that my contention that
this passage is referring to covering the head and not to hair length is true,
I submit the evidence of early church practice in the second and subsequent
centuries.
>There is no evidence of a practice in Corinth at this time regarding hair or
>veils that Paul would be writing against, in spite of some maintaining that
>prostitutes in Corinth went without veils. There is no evidence for this at
>this time.
In fact, there is evidence against it! Verena Zinserling's book _Women in
Greece and Rome_ contains nine illustrations of Greek hetaerae, taken mostly
from Greek pottery. Of the thirteen women in these illustrations, only one is
completely bareheaded (she is not wearing anything else either). Six of these
women are wearing headbands and six are wearing a special horn-shaped
headdress that seems to be a kind of uniform (for four of the women in the
illustrations, it is all the uniform they have on).
>Furthermore, I would argue, citing the arguments made by Alan Padgett in JSNT
>(1984 I think) and Tyndale Bulletin (1994:2 I believe) that in fact Paul is
>NOT arguing for women to be veiled or wear long hair, but is arguing the exact
>opposite.
Then why in the course of his argument does he give the command KATAKALUPTESQW
"let her be covered" (11:6)?
>Paul is arguing basically that women have authority concerning their own
>physical head (see parallel language in Revelation of exousia, and Mark 2:10)
>to do as they wish,
I am familiar with Ramsey's argument about EXOUSIA in 11:10 and generally
agree, but I doubt that anyone has the authority to do as they wish. If a
head covering will get you that(!), I better get one.
>that nature (and here I think phusis clearly does NOT mean custom but is meant
>in the way we mean nature) doesn't say anything about hair length
Men's and women's hair naturally grow the same. It is only within society
that hair length is "naturally" different.
>(taking this as a question: Nature does not teach this, does it? a usage
>comparable to other examples of negative particles in 1 Cor -- that's my own
>research, not Padgett's)
The question in 11:14 begins with OUDE, implying a yes answer: "Does not
nature teach this?"
>finally Paul concludes that if anyone wants to be contentious about it, the
>churches have no custom on the matter of veils/hair length so none should be
>imposed.
I realize that this point has sometimes been made, but it does not fit the
context. As Neil Lightfoot said at a lecture at this school back in 1975,
"This cannot mean, 'If anyone strives over this or causes trouble, then
dismiss the whole subject.' Paul would not give prolonged reasoning for the
veiling of women and then drop the subject with one statement."
I must also disagree with Edgar Krentz that during the first century Corinth
was a Roman city following Roman customs such as those that Plutarch
discusses, as Art Marmorstein quoted. Dio Chrysostom said to the Corinthians
in the first century, "he has become thoroughly hellenized, even as your own
city has" (_Orationes_ 37.26).
Finally, I will note that besides the literary evidence that Greek women were
often bareheaded in society (see Oepke, TDNT 3:562-563), there is evidence
from the surviving graphic artwork that shows the same. If fact, of the 15
Greek women shown worshipping in illustrations in Zinserling's book (on page
19 and in plates 21, 28, 43, 49, 51, 66, 71), only one is wearing a
headcovering, and she is a priestess.
Thanks for your patience with this long post. Thanks also to those who posted
bibliography on this subject.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Paul J. Bodin" <pjbodin@ocf.berkeley.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 17:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Acts 19:1
On Wed, 12 Apr 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> Let me just note one other matter; I was surprised yesterday at
> objections to my referring to accusative subjects of the infinitive. I
> gather this is terminology not so common in Koine' usage? On the other
> hand, it's stock in trade in classical Greek and Latin to speak of
> accusative subjects of infinitives. I'm sorry if I sounded offensive
> yesterday.
If this is a reference to my "quibble", please note that my quibble took
issue with speaking of the accusative subject of a *participle*, not the
subject of an infinitive...
___________________________________________________________________________
Paul J. Bodin Internet: pjbodin@ocf.berkeley.edu
Union Theological Seminary smail: 1333 66th Street
Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary Berkeley, CA 94702
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 10:45:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Lost Sheep of the House of Israel
I have just reviewed this message, and find it much too long. I
apologize in advance to those who bother to read it.
Philip
On Tue, 11 Apr 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> 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.
This may very well be. I have never been much into source critical
issues. Whether Mt composed these words or co-opted an existing tradition,
my interest is in what he does with the words. I suppose if Bakhtin is
right and all texts are dialogical, then it works out the same either way
(I hope I haven't opened a can of worms here--I'm really only interested
in understanding the text of Mt, not in an ideological discussion of
other sorts at this point). As I have said before (in another context),
there is a difference between what someone says and what their words are
used to say by someone else. Of course, if it could be established just
what the tradition was that Mt uses, that might help to understand
whether Mt is using the tradition as a polemic specifically against those
who used the tradition before him. At what point did I begin to ramble?
> . . . 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."
I'm a little wary of this imagery. I think Mt is more interested in
establishing Jesus as the ultimate rabbi who fulfills the law and the
prophets than as a new Moses. I think that would in fact harm his
argument, and feed the charge that Jesus came to destroy the l & p.
> . . . 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.
This opens up a large can of worms. But, briefly, I think that seeing Mt
as transparent is not an either/or proposition. My current understanding
is that Mt is a [minority] part of the struggle to define what is the
Jewish religion in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem (not that the
struggle started then, but it definitely took an interesting and urgent
turn then). In retrospect, formative Judaism is a description of those
who won the larger struggle, and Mt is only in retrospect called
"Christian" because his views lost out in the struggle to define the
"true" Jewish religion (the same process with defining orthodox Christianity
later).
> . . . 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.
It seems clear to me (again, for what that's worth) that Mt has
definitely gone beyond describing short-term work, for whatever reason.
Either he got so caught up in where the discourse took him (he started
out with a story about Jesus, but really does seem to end up talking
about Mt's own time by the end of the discourse) that he forgot to go
back, or this was the intent from the start. In any case, the narrative
picks up without ever describing anyone actually carrying out the
instructions given in Mt 10, or even anyone returning from such a
mission. I can only conclude that Mt sees this as instructions given by
Jesus to his followers, which for Mt includes the leadership of his own
community, and are still in the process of being carried out. But. . .
> 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.
. . . I still think that *Mt* (not necessarily whatever sources he might
have used) is not referring to Diaspora Judaism when he uses the language
of "lost sheep", but is engaged in a polemic over who is the legitimate
leadership of God's people Israel. The polemic may be strong and take an
eschatalogical turn at times (disciples sitting on the thrones judging
the 12 tribes, etc) because Mt can see that the struggle is in imminent
danger of being lost in the termporal plane (but of course that does not
prove to Mt that he is wrong--God will put things right at the end of the
ages).
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: Pete Cepuch <pcepuch@diag1.iac.honeywell.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 95 18:51:11 MST
Subject: lost sheep/house of Israel
Is it possible that Jesus stating that he was sent to the lost sheep of the
House of Israel means exactly what it says? If the gospel accounts are
viewed in their "Jewish-context"then this statement speaks for itself. In
Matt. 10:1 He calls the twelve Disciples...and gives them authority...
Matt 10:2 ..names of the twelve Apostles....
Matt 10:5 "Instructions...not in the way of the gentiles etc.
As far as the gentiles were generally viewed:
Matt 15:26 ...it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to
the dogs....
It's also possible to see that in the sense of progressive revelation that
the gentiles were certainly in view as in Galatians 2 where the apostleship
to the circumcision and uncircumcison is divided up per this progressive
revelation.
I think it's most helpful not to "Christianize" Jesus in the gospel accounts
but to view the books in the Jewish/Hebraic context in which we find them.
just my 2 shekalim...
Pete Cepuch
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 21:17:09 -0500
Subject: Re: 1st C. synagoague services?
>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...
>
>Pat Tiller
Interesting--and a thesis I had not encountered previously (guess that
doesn't prove much!). I've not done much work on this, but off the top of
my head (I know, that's dangerous!),
-- if the Gospels describe various Jewish people meeting together,
-- for the purpose of preaching & reading/studying Scripture together,
-- if that same pattern is seen not just in Jerusalem (where the
Temple was located), but in other places in Palestine (e.g.,
Capernaum) and in the Diaspora,
-- if these groups had official leaders
-- if these meetings are held in a physical building called a synagogue,
-- and if this information comes form first-century sources,
Then on what basis is there any question that this is not the same as the
synagogue known from centuries later? I grant that there may well be
physical differences in the buildings themselves (look at the enormous
diversity in 17 centuries of church buildings), and perhaps is the "order
of service" as well, but such variety would not seem adequate to justify
something different. Assemblies in connection with the Temple are totally
inadequate to explain the references to "synagogue" in the Gospels and
Acts.
We don't know much of the origins of the synagogue, but it surely must come
out of the intertestamental period. Traditions re. its origin with Ezra are
not likely reliable, but there is no indication of such an institution in
the late books of the OT (and perhpas not in the Apocrypha either, though I
haven't checked there specifically for this). If it appears in the Gospels
in "full flower," it must have originated then.
My understanding is that the Temple was dominated by the Sadducees (the
"aristocracy" focused in Jerusalem), whereas the synagogue was the "power
base" of the Pharisees (distributed across Palestine and the Diaspora).
Am I missing something? Or making assumptions not supported by the text?
Thanks,
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rod Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT Kansas City, Missouri
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 20:52:59 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Acts 19:1
On Wed, 12 Apr 1995, Paul J. Bodin wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
>
> > Let me just note one other matter; I was surprised yesterday at
> > objections to my referring to accusative subjects of the infinitive. I
> > gather this is terminology not so common in Koine' usage? On the other
> > hand, it's stock in trade in classical Greek and Latin to speak of
> > accusative subjects of infinitives. I'm sorry if I sounded offensive
> > yesterday.
>
> If this is a reference to my "quibble", please note that my quibble took
> issue with speaking of the accusative subject of a *participle*, not the
> subject of an infinitive...
No, I had in mind rather the "purists" saying this is properly an
"accusative of reference." I have found, more in Latin grammars than in
Greek ones, a distressing proliferation of grammitical terms for
identical constructions. I'm not sure why this should be so, unless it is
that every grammarian has a sense that someone else's grammatical terms
are inadequately descriptive, wherefore they must invent a
more-adequately descriptive term. HWSTE + inf./indic. is called a
"consecutive" construction in one grammar, a "result" construction in
another. I think almost every grammar has its own name for the sort of
conditional construction that takes the Optative in both Protasis and
Apodosis with AN in the Apodosis. Take your pick: "Future Less Vivid
condition," "Potential condition," "Should-would condition," "Remote
possible condition." My favorite misnomer is what Latin grammars call a
"Greek accusative"--which is nothing more than an object of a verb in the
middle voice (but they call it an accusative of specification with a verb
in the passive voice), e.g. VINCTUS EST MANUS; it gets translated
artificially as "he was tied with respect to his hands," although one
would normally say in English, "His hands were tied." I would understand
the Greek construction as "He tied his hands." That may sound artificial
(I guess it really is!) but the passive idea came initially to be
expressed by use of the middle voice, and I think that the accusative
MANUS is syntactically best understood as the direct object of a verb in
the middle voice. But then I'm a nut for trying to explain things
historically.
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: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 00:43:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Acts 19:1
On Wed, 12 Apr 1995, David Moore wrote:
> Your explanation is very clear, and I'm beginning to think you
> and Carl are right in understanding the infinitive phrase PAULON
> KATELQEIN EIS EFESON KAI EU(REIN TINAS MAQHTAS as the subject of the
> sentence. The accusati
> ve PAULON not functioning as an object, however, throws me for a loop.
> Turner writes of the accusative with inf. with verbs like EGENETO in
> Moulton, III:148f. But he doesn't make clear whether the acc. is used
> as a dire
> ct object or only as the subject of the infinitive. I recognize that
> an accusative can be subject of an infinitive, but usually such an
> accusative also functions as an object: PROSETACEN ... AUTOUS ...
> BAPTISQHNAI (Acts
> 10:48) for instance.
>
> Can anyone point out other passages where an accusative, whithout
> functioning itself as an object, functions as subject of an infinitive.
> Bruce says, "If the subject of an infinitive does not 'spread' from
> the main clau
> se, it is given in the accusative case." Can you give me a reference
> in a grammar for that rule? As I said, I'm intrigued.
The following are a couple of examples of accusatives which function as
subjects of infinitives but without functioning as objects.
1. Inf. Acc. (Matthew 26:32)
meta de to egerqhnai me proavxw humas eis thn Galilaian
But after the to be raised me I will go ahead of you into Galilee
But after I am raised up I will go ahead of you into Galilee
2. Inf. Acc. (Luke 2:4)
anebh de kai Iwshf... eis thn Ioudaian... dia to einai auton...
And Joseph also went up... to Judea... because to be him...
And Joseph also went up... to Judea... because he was. . .
There are plenty more like these. Most are found in infinitival clauses
which function adverbially--i.e. to specify time, cause, location, etc.
for the action or state expressed by the main finite verb.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 00:54:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Acts 19:1
On Wed, 12 Apr 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> Let me just note one other matter; I was surprised yesterday at
> objections to my referring to accusative subjects of the infinitive. I
> gather this is terminology not so common in Koine' usage? On the other
> hand, it's stock in trade in classical Greek and Latin to speak of
> accusative subjects of infinitives. I'm sorry if I sounded offensive
> yesterday.
The objection is a longstanding one popularized by Robertson (pp.
489-490) at least in koine studies. He took the lack of person endings
for the infinitive to make it incapable of having a subject. Of course
modern linguistics has found other ways to define "subject" which make
his objection pointless.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #664
*****************************
** 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