[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #665
b-greek-digest Thursday, 13 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 665
In this issue:
Re: Purity/Impurity
Re: Lost Sheep of the House of Israel
Memorisation of Principal Parts
Re: Memorisation of Principal Parts
ParseWorks
Re: Acts 19:1:
Greek & Hebrew Reference Works
RE: lost sheep/house of Israel
Re: Truth in John/Objectivity
Re: 1st C. synagogue services?
Re: Lost Sheep of the House of Israel
Phil. 1:3
Re: Truth in John/Objectivity
Important new book/set available
Re: Phil. 1:3
Mounce's book and FlashWorks
1 Thess 4:3-6
Re: Lost Sheep of the House of Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 01:44:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Purity/Impurity
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
CC: jbjones@promus.com
From: Timster132@aol.com (Tim Staker)
The greek word in Gal 5:19 is AKATHARSIA, impurity, uncleanliness.
KATHAROS means pure, clean. KATHAROTHS mean purity.
In ealry "primitive religion", the need to be cleansed occurs after an
experience with mysterious power, especially after birth, sex, death, etc. A
period of separation is needed to prepare one for a return to day to day life
after an encounter with the supernatural, whether it be deities or demons.
This may explain a later tradition in rabbincal Judaism where touching
the Scriptures would make one unclean.
In the LXX, AKATHARSIA is usually used in the sense of cultic/ritual
uncleanliness. The holiness of God is central, and the holiness codes of
Lev. are based upon this reverence/respect towrds God's holiness.
Uncleanliness was understood as something that sticks to a person like a
physical disease, like an infection or rash, and can be passed to others.
Uncleanliness was also literally associated with physical illness, so
hygiene is a part of the codes.
The OT Prophets recognized moral purity to be a part of God's holiness,
and they emphasized this aspect.
Wisdom lit also dealt with moral purity: Prov 6:16; 24:9; Wis 2:16.
In rabbinical Judaism, inward cleanliness was critical, and this is
reflected in codes of personal conduct form watching one's words to doing
justice. If one kept inner purity, God promised his enduring presence.
Philo spiritualized cultic purity. He was concerned with moral
impurity (Leg All 2:29)
The NT almost completely emphasizes moral purity. See Peter's vision in
Acts 10 as to the lifting of the Kosher laws.
In Rev 20:27, cultic purity of the New Jerusalem is symbolic.
Moral purity is a major theme in Hebrews, James, John, 1 & 2 Timothy,
Titus and John. In John, the disciples are made clean by Jesus' presence
(15:3) and his word (17:14). In Hebrews, it is Christ's death that cleanses
the conscience (Heb 9).
Cultic cleanliness is insufficient acc. to Jesus in the Gospels (Mt 23:25-
26; Lk 11:41).
In Mt 8:3,4, Jesus cleanses the leper and has him go to the priests to
verify that he is physically, and thus ritually clean.
In Gal 5, uncleanliness is a work of the flesh [SARX]. This is not so
much of a breaking of holiness codes as it is doing works that are contrary
to the Spirit and its fruit.
There is a reocurring connection with PORNEIA: 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Col
3:5; Eph 5:3; Rev 17:4. PORNEIA is a general word for a number of sexual
sins. But PORNEIA is also equated with idolatry and apostasy (ie, spiritual
adultery: Hosea 6:10; Jer 3:2,9; Rev 19:2).
Mark calls spirits unclean, equating uncleanliness with the power and
intentions of Evil.
AKATHARSIA is the opposite of HAGIASMOS in 1 Thess 4:7; Rom 6:19.
How's that for a start?
Peace,
Tim
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 06:00:39 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Lost Sheep of the House of Israel
Again, I have not cited the lengthy pre-history of the discussion.
Thanks for this lengthy response, Phil. I find most of what you have
written quite compelling, but again, I am not so sure that *Mt*'s
redaction is seamless, and I am very much interested in what can be
discerned, determined, hypothesized about the tradition-history of the
materials in the Mission Discourse (I've got a bug and can't shake it!)
On the one hand, your reading of Mt's position as still within Judaism
but engaged in the struggle with the Rabbis of Jamnia (this is what you
meant, isn't it?) over how Israel and the covenant and Torah are to be
understood works very well with those passages in Matthew 5 (not come to
abolish Law ... unless your righteousness exceeds that of Pharisees,
etc.) that are at least superficially anti-Pauline.
On the other hand, I really do think that the Discourses must have been
intended to stand and be used on their own, however well they have been
fitted into the narrative context; each seems VERY carefully constructed
to contain all that pertains to the particular subject. And one aspect
of this is Matthew's recurrent use of the same pieces of tradition when
they have something to contribute to a different general theme; here I
have in mind specifically elements of warning and encouragement to the
missionaries that are found in the Missionary Discourse of chapter 10 and
that are repeated in the Eschatological Discourse of chapter 24. I am
increasingly enamored of the idea (probably long since elaborated by
someone, probably Stendahl, whose book I haven't yet read) that Jesus'
definition of "a scribe learned in the Kingdom of Heaven" as "comparable
to a householder who draws upon stores of things both old and new" is
precisely applicable to the evangelist himself, who would appear to have
vast swatches of tradition stored in memory and so is able to reproduce
them at will in a different context wherever they are applicable.
And back to the matter of tradition history (am I obliged to capitalized
that?), where should we envision the composition of Matthew? Isn't
Antioch the usual candidate? Would you agree with that, Phil, or insist
that it ought to be in the east, at any rate? It's always intrigued me
that the distinctive traditions of the Jerusalem church must have
survived in some shape after the blow-up of 66-70; isn't Matthew's gospel
the logical candidate for a major repository of those traditions? I would
think something comparable to the survival of traditions of the Northern
Kingdom that are evident in the so-called Elohist and Deuteronomic
threads of the Pentateuch and their weaving into the composite of the
Pentateuch in later years and exile and after must very likely be
supposed to have happened in the composition of Matthew's gospel, perhaps
also the letter to the Hebrews and the letter of James.
Finally, Peter seems to vanish suddenly, or should I say, to pop up
sporadically and then vanish from the book of Acts and from the Pauline
correspondence: we seem to have Pauline evidence that he was at Antioch
and at a later date in Corinth. At Antioch he clearly aligns himself with
the pro-Jerusalem faction; do we know anything about his alliances
thereafter? I'm still curious about what Paul says in his account of the
Council of Jerusalem--that there was a mission to the Jews spearheaded by
Peter and comparable to his own mission to the Gentiles.
And finally (I'm not ready yet to shake this bug!), you have said, Phil,
that you think that the "lost sheep" (I wonder whether PROBATA OLWLOTA
might perhaps better be "ruined sheep" or "spoiled sheep"--except that
one does not talk of sheep that way) is a deliberate reference backward
to "sheep without a shepherd" late in chapter 9. I still am curious,
however, about the phrase in Mt 10:6, "the house of Israel" and how
inclusive that is meant to be; it certainly seems to me to be ethnic
rather than geographical, and if so, why shouldn't it include those
scattered sheep all over the world.
In sum, all this cannot be summarized. But again I must say, Phil, that I
find much of what you've written convincing, but I think there's more to
the story of Matthaean composition here. I originally addressed this only
to Phil, but decided to send it to the list once my rambling turned out
to be more than a response to Phil. Forgive me, folks, if I appear to be
simply repeating my earlier ramblings rather than advancing matters.
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: Rod Decker <rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 07:05:03 -0500
Subject: Memorisation of Principal Parts
> 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.
>
> Carl W. Conrad
Last I heard, Carl, you hadn't had a chance to look at Mounce's grammar. In
light of your "pet pedagogy" I think you will find Mounce's approach
ammenable. His emphasis is on learning the basic rules that generate the
changes rather than on massive rote memory. (He'll prob. comment on the
principal part question himself if he hasn't already.)
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rod Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT Kansas City, Missouri
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 07:29:32 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Memorisation of Principal Parts
On Thu, 13 Apr 1995, Rod Decker wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > Carl W. Conrad
>
> Last I heard, Carl, you hadn't had a chance to look at Mounce's grammar. In
> light of your "pet pedagogy" I think you will find Mounce's approach
> ammenable. His emphasis is on learning the basic rules that generate the
> changes rather than on massive rote memory. (He'll prob. comment on the
> principal part question himself if he hasn't already.)
Thanks for this encourgement, Rod, all the more so in that I've agreed to
tutor a student in NT Greek this summer using Mounce's book which comes
so well recommended (although theological bias was objected to by one; I
can't let that disturb me after having taught out of Machen, whose
theology I thought abominable, but whose Greek didn't seem to me
problematic, and which book I refuse to use again owing to its obscene
price!)
This brings up another matter. Mounce sent us a note a few days ago
indicating that he'd uploaded a Mac version of his "Parse Works" to his
FTP site. My endeavors thus far to the site URL he gave keep showing "no
such site exists." Was that address truncated in some way? Of course I
should and shall address this question to himself, since I have that note
stowed away somewhere.
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: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 08:46:22 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: ParseWorks
After reporting my failure hitherto to retrieve Bill Mounce's ParseWorks
from the FTP address he gave, I tried again, this time with success. To
repeat the relevant information (and forestall being asked this by return
mail!), the ftp site is:
on-ramp.ior.com
Go to the subdirectory:
usr/billm/greek
Available are his FlashWorks program (a flash-card program for Greek,
Hebrew, and modern languages as well) in Windows, DOS, and Mac versions,
and ParseWorks, thus far only in a Mac version, but he has promised to
produce versions for the other platforms as well.
I have only just now retrieved the file, haven't tried it yet.
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: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 09:59:26 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Acts 19:1:
4/12: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
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.
> 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.
Isn't it all the more ironic then, that Modern Greek has, in effect,
an infinitive that DOES have personal endings, inasmuch as
(NA + subjunctive) functions for the infinitive!
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: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 95 11:39 CDT
Subject: Greek & Hebrew Reference Works
Recurring questions about Greek lexicons and grammars,
and related reference works, might find some helpful
answers in Frederick Danker, *Multipurpose Tools for
Bible Study*, rev. ed. (Fortress, 1993). The book moves
quickly through its wide range of topics, but is
informative and witty at many points. So far as I
know, this helpful book is unique in scope.--Paul Moser,
Loyola University of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: "The Rev. David R. Graham" <merovin@halcyon.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 95 09:54:06 PDT
Subject: RE: lost sheep/house of Israel
I agree with the emphasis Peter Cepuch is making here. We Christianize
Jesus far too much, viewing Him in light of the developed church. On the
case in point, I believe the sense all the Gospels contain in one apparently
primitive level of their redaction is that Jesus salvic aim was quite
limited and that the view to gentile conversion and even wide Jewish
conversion or re-religionization (such a word!) was likely not in His
agenda. In John 17:4, for example, He says that His Mission is done as of
Thursday evening and goes on to imply that the people He came to save were a
mere handful in number, or if not a handful, at least not numerous and
clearly His contemporaries, not "all the world." The gentile mission is a
church thing, not a Messianic one.
The lost tribes of Israel include those He lived with before and after the
crucifixion, in present-day Pakistan and Kashmir. The tenor of the Gospel
is that He is the Davidic Messiah bringing in all the family, following the
usual prophetic injunction to pay particular care to the welfare of the
weakest: widows, orphans and, in this case, entire lost elements of the
family. This inclusion, par excellence, would be just expected of an actual
Messianic personality.
The church minimized the royal line of Jesus ancestry and the significance
of that -- Kingdom not of this world, etc., etc. This had some reasons
which are not in consonance with Jesus actual Messianic Mission. Jesus was
not a Christian as we think of that. We've pretty much lost sight of what
He was and was about.
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: "The Rev. David R. Graham" <merovin@halcyon.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 95 10:10:04 PDT
Subject: Re: Truth in John/Objectivity
Leo,
I like your point to Tim about objectivity. You are right. Of course,
there is absolute. There is even grasp of it in very rare cases. Tim is
confusing logical types. What he should say is that, ordinarily, there is
no plenary grasp or congnition of an or the absolute. This fact does not
mean, obviously, that there is no absolute. It just means we don't often or
even usually get to it with our epistemological equipment. Tim didn't
distinguish between reality and the cognitive process. Few do.
Heisenberg himself did, of course. Most assume either that because their
cognition is conditioned reality is, or that their cognition coincides with
reality. Both assumptions are fallacious, obviously. Thanks for your note.
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: Rod Decker <rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 13:11:12 -0500
Subject: Re: 1st C. synagogue services?
As a follow-up to my previous post re. first century synagogues (and w/o
having read any possible responses yet), let me append some comments that I
just ran across in another connection that address this specific question.
I gather from them that the position I had not heard articulated before may
stem from an NTS article by H. C. Kee (36 [1990] 1-24). In his recent,
massive (1,069 pp.!) commentary: _Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the
Cross_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), Robert Gundry has this to say of
Kee's article:
"We should not think that 'synagogue' means 'gathering' without reference
to a building specially used for worship and instruction (as thought by
Kee...). Already in 66 C.E., according to Josephus _J.W._ 2.14.4-5 s285,
289, 'the Jews in Caesarea had a synagogue alongside a plot' whose owner
left them only a narrow passage on their way to 'assemble in the
synagogue'... Even earlier, according to Josephus _Ant._ 19.6.3 s300, 305,
an image of Caesar was set up 'in a synagogue' as opposed to 'his own
sanctuary.' These statements can hardly be understood in a
non-architectural sense. Their wording is not satisfied even by a private
house used for gatherings. Luke 7:5 goes so far as to say that a Gentile
centurion 'had built' ... a synagogue for the Jews in Capernaum.... And
right here in Mark 1 the parallels between going into Capernaum, a city
consisting in buildings, and entering into the synagogue there (v 21) and
between going out of the synagogue and into the house of Simon and Andrew
(v 29) favor an architectural understanding of 'synagogue' (... and see E.
P. Sanders, _Jewish Law_ 341-43, nn. 28-29, for devastating criticisms of
Kee's position; also 76-77, 340-41, n. 24; L. I. Levine in _The Synagogue
in Late Antiquity_ 7-31)." (Gundry, 80-81)
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rod Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT Kansas City, Missouri
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 16:18:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Lost Sheep of the House of Israel
First of all I should say that we have had e-mail troubles here, and my
replies (which already lack promptness) are apparently taking a while to
get off campus (there are other strange things happening too--I am
consistently getting replies to posts from certain locations before the
original post reaches me; that can be somewhat confusing!)
I hope this reply is intelligible without including Carl's message. I'm
not sure Mt's redaction is seamless either, but it is one thing to be
able to detect sources and another to reconstruct them enough to tell
what their purposes were in another context (before they were redacted).
I am pessimistic generally about the possibility of the latter (come to
think of it, I'm just generally pessimistic). I'm afraid I've never
caught the bug that is causing your symptoms, Carl.
Regarding the struggle with the rabbis, what I was suggesting does not
depend on the specific stories surrounding Jamnia, the historicity of
which is doubtful (I warned you!). Anthony J. Saldarini's *Matthew's
Christian-Jewish Community* makes an argument in this regard (i.e.
regarding Matthew's community as a deviant Jewish group involved in a
losing struggle with other, more dominant Jewish leaders) that I find very
convincing, and makes it much better than I could hope to (I HIGHLY
recommend this book).
Regarding the "anti-Paulinism" of Mt, I find this very doubtful as well
(surprise!). I think Paul and Mt are addressing very different problems
(as are Paul and James, incidently--see Luke Johnson's forthcoming
commentary on James). What they share in common is that the problems they
address are caused to some degree by the fact they are followers of Jesus
while remaining Jews. This presents a problem for Mt because the dominant
Jewish leaders do not follow Jesus. This presents a problem for Paul
because the majority of people responding to his proclamation of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ are not Jews. I'm not sure I want to take the time
to dig out the evidence for this one, but I suspect that the case for
seeing Mt and Paul in conflict is about as good as the case for seeing Mt
as anti-semitic (i.e. I'm very pessimistic about the possibilities of
successfully making such cases).
As far as the discourses standing on their own, I haven't come to
anything resembling a conclusion on this. I'm not sure why Mt puts
material together this way. If they were to be used independently, I
think the gospel narrative gives a framework which is necessary to
understand what Mt intends these discourses to say, whether the framework
accompanies them or not in their ordinary use (like the questions and
answers in a catechism--you can use the answer independently, but its
intended use is delimited by the question that precedes it). How this
material was intended to be used BEFORE Mt got hold of it is another
question (probably your question, Carl!).
Concerning the location of Mt's community, would you be surprised if I
said that I doubt it can be determined? It probably is in the east, but
I'm not really sure there are good reasons to put it one place in east
rather than another (although I love the idea [purely my imagination
here] that the same community that produced Mt also laid hands on Paul
and Barnabas to send them out from Antioch).
I've probably gone on too long already. But before I quite, I should
probably answer at least one of Carl's questions: Yes, I think it quite
right that the lost sheep of Israel are to be understood as Jews, not as
residents of a particular geographic area (neither Palestine nor the
Diaspora exclusively).
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: Buist Fanning <Buist_Fanning@dts.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 95 15:35:02 CDT
Subject: Phil. 1:3
I am late in reading the thread on MNEIA in Phil. 1:3, so this comment may be
old business. MNEIA as "gift" may not be the best interpretation of the phrase,
but the way to pursue it is not primarily to ask whether MNEIA ever means gift
anywhere else in ancient Greek usage (especially not whether this shows up as a
definition in a lexicon). If it is valid at all in Phil. 1:3, it is is a matter
of "referent" rather than "sense." Or to put it another way, it is a metonymy of
the concrete expression (their gift) put for the more abstract or conceptual
(their remembrance of him; the fact that they have not forgotten him). The
referent or the extended sense (i.e., metonymy) does not usually show up in a
lexical entryit would only do so if this extension becomes a more common or
standard part of the word's usage.
*********
Buist Fanning
Dallas Seminary
3909 Swiss Avenue
Dallas, TX 75204
Office: 214/841-3716
Home: 214/255-6581
e-mail: Buist_Fanning@dts.edu
*********
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 18:00:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Truth in John/Objectivity
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
cc: hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca (Larry W. Hurtado)
cc: PERCERL@baylor.edu (Leo Percer)
FROM: Timster132@aol.com (Tim Staker)
Larry said on 4/12/95...
>Anybody ever heard of the Greek philosopher Pyrrhon (and the >Sceptical
philosophical tradition)? When I see the breathlessly >announced "new"
insights of inter alia "postmodernism" etc., I am >inclined to remember "Plus
ca change . . ."
Of course you (and a lot of others) are skeptical, that's natural (and
healthy, in my opinion). After all, I AM bucking the deeply entrenched
Modern Scientific belief that anything that isn't provable empirically isn't
"real".
Peace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 18:22:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Important new book/set available
Notice of the publication of a classic work in New Testament newly in
English translation has just reached me, which many of you will find
of great interest. One of our regular posters, James D. Ernest, has
translated and edited the work of a great (and late) Dominican
scholar,
Ceslas Spicq, O.P.: THEOLOGICAL LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
It is in three volumes, 1,860 pages, cloth bound, and costs $100.
HOWEVER (the Good News!):
It can be purchased from the publisher (Hendrickson Publishers
(PO Box 3473, Peabody, MA 01961-9948) for $49.97, with the 50%
Professor Discount. Sales tax of 5% is required if you live in
Massachusetts, otherwise none. Postage for this set at this price is
FREE! This is a remarkable bargain, for a great work, by our
colleague James Ernest, who has hidden his light beneath a bushel.
You can order toll-free with credit card: 1-800-358-3111
(I have no financial interest in Hendrickson or in this publication,
nor have I ever met James Ernest. I am not even a Dominican!)
- --Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 18:38:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Phil. 1:3
Buist Fanning said
>If it is valid at all in Phil. 1:3, it is is a matter of "referent" rather
than "sense." Or to put it another way, it is a metonymy of the concrete
expression (their gift) put for the more abstract or conceptual (their
remembrance of him; the fact that they have not forgotten him).<
I agree with that observation, but I was looking for instances where the
MNEIA might have such a referent meaning. I believe that I did say that it
did not necessarily have a lexical entry with that meaning given. I gave the
example of FRONEIN in chapter 4 with a referent meaning.
Carl,
I still think that verse 5 gives a strong hint that HUMWN in verse 3 is
subjective.
Carlton Winbery
------------------------------
From: David Cashmore <atlantis.actrix.gen.nz@actrix.gen.nz>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 13:27:49 +0000
Subject: Mounce's book and FlashWorks
For those of you using (or planning to use) Bill Mounce's book, I can
recommend his FlashWorks program for revising Greek vocabulary.
It brings up the Greek word and asks you the meaning. It tells you
the answer and you can then tell it whether you got it right or not.
Features of interest are:
a. It has the vocabulary keyed to Mounce's chapters. You can tell it
you want to review vocab from chapters 1 to 19, etc.
b. It has degrees of difficulty (1 to 5) for each word. When you
start on a word it starts with 5 (difficult). Ase you get it
right, it lowers the difficulty. This means you can decide to review
the hard words every day and the easier ones each week etc.
I have found it great for vocab review. You can use it for free if
you bought his book or pay $3 if you haven't.
regards David
PS Bill, do I get my $50 now?? :-)
David Cashmore cashmore@actrix.gen.nz
------------------------------
From: William Raines <wraines@emmental.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 95 01:11:48 GMT
Subject: 1 Thess 4:3-6
The recent tread about Purity reminded me that I have never fathomed
1 Thess 4:4. How should one render
eidenai hekaston humOn to heautou skeuos ktasthai en hagiasmO kai timE
and what precisely is Paul getting at in this clause?
Also, while we're here, later in the same sentence [1 Thess 4:3-6],
what do people make of verse 6:
to mE huperbainein kai pleonektein in en tO pragmati ton adelphon
autou
This is the only NT occurence of huperbaineiv I can trace, but it ought
to mean simply "to overstep" or "to overreach", shouldn't it? The
pleovektEs sometimes appears in catalogues of sinners right after the
pornos (e.g. 1 Cor 5:10-11; also note Mk 7:22) but as I understand it
the primary meaning of pleonektein should be "to defraud" or "to cheat"
as in 1 Thess 2:5, 2 Cor 7:2, etc. It would seem pleonexia is a term
taken from commerce rather than sexual ethics, as at Luke 12:15 (about
inheritance) or 2 Cor 9:5 (the Jerusalem collection), so it might even
be natural here to translate tO pragmati as "the transaction".
But then what is this transaction? I presume Paul is still talking
(and has been since 4:3) about porneia (=? adultery in this context).
Bill Countryman, in his book "Dirt, Greed & Sex" (which I guess I'd
recommend as a highly interesting, if rather polemical, discussion of
Purity) cites this passage as one piece of evidence that Paul commonly
thought of women as sexual property. Paul happily uses this financial
vocabulary because he reckons that the sexual sin of adultery is close
kin to fraud: the sinfulness of adultery is effectively that the
adulterer is swindling a brother by stealing what rightfully belongs
to him. Is Countryman right? Or is this rubbish?
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: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 21:31:06 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Lost Sheep of the House of Israel
My explicit and public thanks to Phil Graber for thorough and helpful
responses as well as pointers to further reading. I shall certainly look
up the Saldarini book. Enough said for now, but I do appreciate your
responses. Interesting questions and possibilities about Matthew and
James (and Paul). And no, I'm not looking for a place for Matthew without
some cogent argument in favor of it. As I said before, I'm not doing
anything at this point more than exploring possibilities with a view to
closing off the dead-ends and discerning those worth exploring further.
Thanks again.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #665
*****************************
** 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