[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #677
b-greek-digest Friday, 21 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 677
In this issue:
Re: Truth in John/Objectivity
Re: Bibl. intro. textbooks
Re: "Biblical" Greek?
Herod's pig/son?
Re: Key Synoptic Problem Texts
Re: Getting the ETS paper from Harry Hahne
Re: UBS3, UBS4, NA26, NA27
Re: "Biblical" Greek?
Re: GNT3, Corrected
Re: kurios
1 Tim 2:12, AUTHENTEIN
UBS4 & NA27
Way off topic: German help
Re: UBS4 & NA27
Re: 1 Cor. 15:29
Re: GNT3, Corrected
Re: "narrow" or "difficult"? AND "Biblical" Greek
Re: Biblical Greek
Re: Gal. 3:8--An Optative?
Gk txt analysis
Re: UBS4 & NA27
Re: UBS4 & NA27
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 02:59:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Truth in John/Objectivity
TO: B-GREEK@virginia.edu
cc: merovin@halcyon.com
From: Timster@aol.com
My reply to David's remarks on Leo's response.
david said:
>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.
Let me say that I believe there is an absolute reality, but that are
perceptions of it are never absolute. When we grasp the Absolute (or
rather,when it grabs us), it is still subjective to our experience and not
objectively provable (which doesn't mean it isn't real).
>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.
Right. If you will look back at what I said in my post, rather than the
replies, you will see that I agree with you. Note that I said....
"What I mean by the "epistimological question"... how do we know what to
believe about life, reality and our own perceptions (and how this effects how
we interpret the texts)?"
and--
"What it all comes down to is that we cannot prove with _absolute
certainty_ anything empirically. It means that life itself is an act of
trust and faith-- we must choose what we are to believe is true, since
nothing is provable in an absolute sense."
I am hard pressed to find where in my previous post (which I reread
carefully) where I said that there wasn't an Absolute reality; I have only
stated that we cannot verify anything with empirical means with absolute
certainty.
The replies to my original post did seem to interpret my statements as
meaning that I believed there isn't an absolute. For many people to say
"nothing is provable" means "there isn't any absolutes"--- because this is
the hard empirical method: if you can't prove it, it isn't real. But when it
comes down to it, the truth is that you can't prove anything with _absolute
certainty_ with the empirical method, therefore the need for faith.
>Tim didn't distinguish between reality and the cognitive process. >Few do.
Heisenberg himself did, of course.
Isn't the empirical process in a large part a cognitive one? Maybe I should
have made that connection clearer.
>Most assume either that because their cognition is conditioned >reality
is,or that their cognition coincides with reality. Both
>assumptions arefallacious, obviously. Thanks for your note.
I agree with you. In fact, I am mostly arguing against the second view.
Tim
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 02:59:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Bibl. intro. textbooks
TO: B-Greek@virginia.edu
CC: ernest@mv.mv.com
James,
I found Bernie Anderson's book _Understanding the Old Testament_ to be
very readable, as well as comprehensive.
However, I still reach for John Bright's _A History of Israel_ because of
its usablilty. The 17 pages(!) of Scriptural references in the Appendix
makes it so very handy to use as a quick historical commentary when I am in
the midst of a text and I don't want to waste time wading through chapters to
find exactly what I want. This is the only thing that Anderson's book sorely
lacks.
Peace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Painter2B@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 05:55:47 -0400
Subject: Re: "Biblical" Greek?
Greetings,
In addition to the many fine responses you are getting to your question,
which speak of the grammatical/syntactical evolution of the language from the
classical to the koine period and the Hebraisms used so extensively by the
N.T. writers (with which should also rightly be considered the many, many
O.T. allusions in the N.T.), I would also like to suggest that there are some
semantic distinctions to the N.T. documents.
Some of the words used in the N.T. have "theologically loaded" meanings as
they are used in the N.T. For example, Paul uses the common words SARX and
PNEUMA to achieve a semantic device which is unique to him (or at least he mos
t fully developed it) and not found in the classical writers.
This consideration is closely associated with the Hebraism consideration, yet
should (I feel) be viewed as a N.T. distinction of the language. Simply put,
there are a number of words which have technical meanings in the N.T. which
are unique to that corpus of literature.
Thanks For Your Post,
- -Paul B.
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 05:56:46 -0500
Subject: Herod's pig/son?
Re. Herod the Great:
Could anyone provide me with the text & ref. (preferably the Latin with
English transl.) that records the statement attributed to Augustus that he
would rather be Herod's pig than his son? I assume the statement was made
in Latin, although it assumes a pun in Greek (hus, huios).
Thanks,
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 07:52:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Key Synoptic Problem Texts
On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, The Rev. David R. Graham wrote:
> Gary,
>
> Your note on Linnemann and another makes me smile. You have a problem with
> personal journeys and liberality? These are code words of an agenda you
> have that is charitable? You are not on a personal journey? You don't have
> liberal feelings? You don't have agendas?
>
> You see what I'm saying.
>
Of course, my comments were not an academic judgment but in-house
observations. No one, including scholars, are exempt from their personal
journey. A knowledge of it, particularly in the case of Linnemann, is
sometimes helpful as a window into bias. The reviews of L usually note
these items because they are especially unique for her (cf. TJ 14
[1993]:97-101; WTJ 55 [Fall 1993]:348-350).
The case with Wenham is very different. In response to Stephen's post,
Wenham's resurrection of an oral rather than a literary dependence is
usually noted by his students and friends as a sort of life-long
project--which of course is fine. A return to the oral view over
literary analysis in light of
decades of enlightening discussion concerning first century history and
literary activity is usually not viewed by many as cogent.
Once again, such observations are merely for color, not evaluation of
evidence.
Last of my comments, since color is only to observe not labor.
Best......
------------------------------
From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 10:04:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Getting the ETS paper from Harry Hahne
Sorry about the ",". I sent a msg with the period and it has not been
returned...so I would say we are waiting for Harry to check his mail.
------------------------------
From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 10:10:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: UBS3, UBS4, NA26, NA27
The textual commentary for UBS4 is available. Order ABSociety
(1-800-32BIBLE) and specify SECOND EDITION which is on UBS4.
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 09:13:23 -0500 (GMT-0500)
Subject: Re: "Biblical" Greek?
On Fri, 21 Apr 1995 Painter2B@aol.com wrote:
> Greetings,
> In addition to the many fine responses you are getting to your question,
> which speak of the grammatical/syntactical evolution of the language from the
> classical to the koine period and the Hebraisms used so extensively by the
> N.T. writers (with which should also rightly be considered the many, many
> O.T. allusions in the N.T.), I would also like to suggest that there are some
> semantic distinctions to the N.T. documents.
>
> Some of the words used in the N.T. have "theologically loaded" meanings as
> they are used in the N.T. For example, Paul uses the common words SARX and
> PNEUMA to achieve a semantic device which is unique to him (or at least he mos
> t fully developed it) and not found in the classical writers.
>
> This consideration is closely associated with the Hebraism consideration, yet
> should (I feel) be viewed as a N.T. distinction of the language. Simply put,
> there are a number of words which have technical meanings in the N.T. which
> are unique to that corpus of literature.
I would not disagree with anything here so much as add a qualification to
it. These facts about Paul's special usages of PNEUMA, SARX, etc. (on
which I've thought Bultmann's _Theology of the NT_ is especially good,
regardless of what one thinks of his other projects) are not unique to NT
authors--Plato, Aristotle, Philo, Greek authors of many eras and in many
genres have their own distinctive vocabularies and almost or even
technical usage of particular words. As I think Ken Litwack put it
yesterday, NT Greek is not so much a unique kind of Greek as it is one
spectrum within a much broader spectrum of Hellenistic Greek. Some of it,
particularly in the Synoptic gospels, is, some to a lesser, others to a
greater degree, colored by Semitisms and often by deliberate imitation of
LXX style. Luke's language is fairly polished, although he too
deliberately imitates LXX, especially in the first two chapters of the
gospel, but it is nowhere near as ornate and complex as that of his
near-contemporary, Philo of Alexandria. Paul's Greek would appear to be
pretty standard for the eastern Mediterranean middle-class educated
citizen of a significant Hellenistic city. Surely the range of diction,
syntactic usage, morphology, etc. should be viewed WITHIN the larger
context of Hellenistic Greek.
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: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 10:12:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: GNT3, Corrected
On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Ken Penner wrote:
>
> Now that we're airing our typographical complaints, I'd like to add mine:
> I was really disappointed that the NA grew and 27 no longer fits in my pocket. :( I'll stick with my old 26; gave my 27 away.
> Ken Penner
> Regent College
>
The reason the NA27 grew in size...because it was reformated to fit the
Hebrew text for the combined binding into a new Hebrew-Greek Bible. Now
available from UBS but not yet ABS.
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 09:35:32 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: kurios
On Thu, 20 Apr 1995 LISATIA@aol.com wrote:
> best discussion of Greek "kyrios" is Wilhelm Boussett's book, "KYRIOS
> CHRISTOS", translated by John Steely, Abingdon Press, Nashville (1970).
> Boussett gives evidence that the title "kyrios" is borrowed from Hellenistic
> religions, and in N.T. means "the worshipped Jesus". In Paul's letters, this
> title tends to point to community practices and beliefs, e.g., "in the lord",
> and "from the lord".
Uh, correction due. Though Bousset's [n.b. corrected spelling of name]
_Kyrios Christos_ is *certainly* a landmark volume to which any
subsequent study is both indebted and to which all must react, it was
also fundamentally flawed and incorrect in aspects of its approach. On
"Kyrios" in particular, Bousset has been shown badly off base. The Greek
"Kyrios" is clearly a "translation-equivalent-usage" of the Aramaic
"Mar", which takes us back to the earliest linguistic/cultural layers of
Christian groups (see, esp. 1 Cor. 16:22). Fitzmyer, et alia have shown
the Semitic-language roots. And others have shown that "Kyrios" was in
fact *very limited* in use among Greco-Roman pagan cults, thus not the
ubiquitously-used term Bousset alleged.
May I refer interested parties to an article of mine that
summarizes a lot of this evidence and work: L. W. Hurtado, "New
Testament Christology: A Critique of Bousset's Influence," _Theological
Studies_ 40(1979), 306-17.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 11:40:30 -0400
Subject: 1 Tim 2:12, AUTHENTEIN
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
FROM: TIMSTER132@AOL.COM
I have a question from 1 Tim 2:12.
DIDASKEIN DE GUNAIKA OUK EPITREPO OUDE AUTHENTEIN ANDROS, ALL' EINAI EN
HSUKIA.
When [Dt-]Paul says he does not permit a wife to teach nor "to have
authority" over her husband, the word he uses for "to have authority" is not
EXSOUSIAZW, which is what I expected to find, but instead he uses the word
AUTHENTEIN.
Does AUTHENTEIN have a significantly different meaning than EXSOUSIADZW?
I'd appreciate your input, as my finance and I are approaching our
wedding day, July 1, and we have been studying various biblical texts about
husband/wife relationships. Thanks.
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 11:13 CDT
Subject: UBS4 & NA27
In one of the helpful reviews mentioned by Larry Hurtado
(I believe), J.K. Elliott concludes as follows:
"Given the fact that NA and UBS have the same text, and
given my observation that UBS may not satisfy the requirements
of the clientele to which it is directed, it may be concluded
that there seems to be no practical or academic reason
for the continued existence of the UBS edition.... By using
UBS not only translators but the students, academics, and
clergy who undoubtedly buy this edition are denying themselves
exposure to the riches and variety found in NA27. Perhaps
publicity for UBS4 ought to carry a strong health warning
to that effect" (*Theol. Literat.*, 1994, p. 496). The
suggestion here seems to be that for exegetical and text-
critical work, one ought to go with NA27. I wonder if any
listmembers are inclined to confirm this. --Paul Moser,
Loyola Univ. of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 09:25:38 PDT
Subject: Way off topic: German help
Many thanks to those who kindly offered to help me. I'm working
through one of the many practice German competency exams for GTU.
Ken
------------------------------
From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 12:44:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: UBS4 & NA27
On Fri, 21 Apr 1995, Paul Moser wrote:
> In one of the helpful reviews mentioned by Larry Hurtado
> (I believe), J.K. Elliott concludes as follows:
> "Given the fact that NA and UBS have the same text, and
> given my observation that UBS may not satisfy the requirements
> of the clientele to which it is directed, it may be concluded
> that there seems to be no practical or academic reason
> for the continued existence of the UBS edition.... By using
> UBS not only translators but the students, academics, and
> clergy who undoubtedly buy this edition are denying themselves
> exposure to the riches and variety found in NA27. Perhaps
> publicity for UBS4 ought to carry a strong health warning
> to that effect" (*Theol. Literat.*, 1994, p. 496). The
> suggestion here seems to be that for exegetical and text-
> critical work, one ought to go with NA27. I wonder if any
> listmembers are inclined to confirm this. --Paul Moser,
> Loyola Univ. of Chicago.
>
NA27 has always been our most convenient text for text critical questions
(even though we are all aware that even it is far far from comprehensive
and that the international projects seem to be forever in coming to
fruition), BUT I would certainly miss the notes on punctuation and cross
references in the UBS for classroom instruction concerning the larger
interpretive issues.
Why not combine the best of both in terms of critical apparatus?
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 09:58:19 PDT
Subject: Re: 1 Cor. 15:29
rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu wrote, partly quoting Fee:
> It is never found in any other church in the
> NT, in the early history of the church, "nor in any orthodox Christian
> community in the centuries that immediately followed; nor are there
> parallels or precedents in pagan religion."
This is a bit overstated. While Paul's views on the practice are unknown,
the early church has let some views be known in writing and in practice.
In a missionary movement like Christianity, questions about the salvation
of a convert's dead parents are highly natural, and several early Patres
discuss the need for those who died without knowing Christ to receive
some kind of preaching and/or some kind of "baptism" after death to be saved.
The Marcionites practiced some kind of vicarious baptism of a living
Christian in behalf of a deceased catechumen. This seems to be the
interpretation Tertullian gives for 1cor15:29.
About no precedents or parallels...
Religious ceremonies done for the living in behalf of the dead are
a commonplace, from Egyptian (and other) burial rites, to Japanese
ancestor-honoring altars, to Roman Catholic candle-lighting.
If some early Christians learned about Christ's vicarious sacrifice
for mankind, or about the Jews sacrifice of the scapegoat,
then minimal ingenuity would be required for them to originate or accept
the idea of vicarious baptism. And they would be showing no more flexibility
with the concept of baptism than those who would later "baptise" without
immersion, baptise children without instruction, or accept a baptism
performed by a layman. What I'm waiting to see is Virtual Reality Baptism. :-)
rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu wrote
> We simply do not know to what it was that Paul refers.
> ...My conclusion is that whatever this baptism was, it is not a practice that
> God intended or instituted.
Bit of a non-sequitur, eh?
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 13:18:00 -0400
Subject: Re: GNT3, Corrected
Ken said >I was really disappointed that the NA grew and 27 no longer fits in
my pocket. :( I'll stick with my old 26; gave my 27 away.<
Aaah to be young again. I used to stick my Nestle in my pocket and pull it
out like a gun. Now I have the N-A27 large print.
Carlton Winbery
------------------------------
From: Jeff Kloha <kloha@sauron.multiverse.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 12:05:48 EDT
Subject: Re: "narrow" or "difficult"? AND "Biblical" Greek
On Thu, 20 Apr 1995 09:14:43 -0400 Byron Bezdek wrote:
>
>I would very much appreciate comments on Matthew 7:13-14.
>
>I discovered in my study of thlipsis and thlibo that the participle in 7.14 has been
>translated "narrow", and that this is the only such usage in the New Testament
>
>There is a specific word (stena) that appears in verse 13 and 14. So it appears to me
>that verse 14 (in light of the 50 other passages where these words refer to "difficulty")
>might better read "How narrow is the gate and DIFFICULT (Having been made difficult) is
>the way that leads to life and few there are who are finding it!"
>
>Please address responses to my mailbox as I am not presently subscribed to the list as I
>cannot devote the time that reading the posts diserve due to the demands of my seasonal >business.
>
>Thank You,
>Byron T. Bezdek (Tab)
>bbezdek@aol.com
>
Please note: You mention that you do not subscribe to this list, so my
comments might not make sense, but your example illustrates something
I have noticed in the list, and so I comment on it to the list but
pass along a copy for your info.
This is precisely what I have been noticing in some of the discussion
in this group. The assumption that the other 50 uses of the word in
the NT must determine what this word means in Mt 7:13-14, but no
reference is made outside the NT. Carl Conrad's response is right on.
I'd like to tack on a 1st cen. example:
O(RAi^S O(/TI SY\ SAUTWi^ STENOCWRI/AN PARE/CEIS, SY\ SAUTO\N QLI/BEIS
Epictetus, Discourses I.25.26
Oldfather's Loeb translation reads: "Do you realize that you are
making close quarters for yourself, that you are crowding yourself?"
This in the context of a discussion of where one should sit in the
amphitheatre. The two verbs, STENOCWREI^SQAI and QLI/BEIN, are used
three more times in this section in the same way, running through
I.25.28.
Were we limited to the NT, Bezdek's conclusion would have great
validity. But we are not, and looking outside the NT to its broader
linguistic context enables us to understand and interpret the verses
properly. In other words, a 20th century NT reader could come to
Bezdek's conclusion. A 1st century Greek speaker/reader, I think,
would not.
///////+\\\\\\\
Jeff Kloha [] Lakewood, OH
kloha@po.multiverse.com [] KCICXC
------------------------------
From: Jeff Kloha <kloha@sauron.multiverse.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 09:25:56 EDT
Subject: Re: Biblical Greek
Thanks for the responses. I didn't mean to imply that the Greek in the
NT is identical to classical Greek, though I do not think it can be
described in any was as inferior to classical Greek, simply different,
perhaps less complex. I do think that many times our readings of the
NT would be better off were we to look into the papyri and other
contemporary literature for answers to exegetical questions, rather
than trying to dig deeper and deeper into the NT texts for some
long-hidden "meaning." Finding these contemporary texts are a problem;
reading Epictetus and some documentary papyri, particularly personal
letters, may perhaps bear the most fruit (If someone can suggest some
other contemporary, semi-readily available texts, please let me know).
I'm still not convinced that we have all that much in the way of
unique terminology, and certainly not much, if anything, in the area
of grammar and syntax. As an example of the former, I wonder if, in
every occurence, Paul really imported all the freight into SOMA and
SARX that we do. Septuagintisms are another matter, of course. These
he inherited and made full use of, even in syntax. The question with
Paul and the Gospels is, did they themselves create the special
terminology, or was it picked up by the generation(s) that followed
and, in a sense, redefined. Some classic non-Pauline example are
KYRIOS, as this group has been discussing, and CHRISTOS (did Jesus
ever call himself "the Christ"--our current understanding of the
Judaic context tells us that Jesus would have had some reservations
about being given that title). As examples of the latter, recall some
of the problematic heavily theological interpretations given to the
use of prepositions, esp. EIS and EN, and the verb system, such as the
"abused aorist."
"Context is everything." Admittedly, accurately understanding an
ancient context is a very difficult task (Its what keeps scholars in
business!). I think we run less risk of misreading the NT if we are
aware of its milieu than if we simply read it as an entity entirely
unto itself.
///////+\\\\\\\
Jeff Kloha [] Lakewood, OH
kloha@po.multiverse.com [] KCICXC
------------------------------
From: Pat Tiller <ptiller@husc.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 14:33:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Gal. 3:8--An Optative?
> On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
>
> > A query for those among you who are good in morphology and syntax:
> >
> > Gal. 3:8 reads in part:
> >
> > PROIDOUSA DE (H GRAFW (OTI EK POSTEWS DIKAIOI TA EQNH (O QEOS . . .
> >
> > "Now the scripture having foreseen that God 'would justify' the Gentiles by
> > faith . . ."
[lines deleted]
> > But Hadley in his Greek
> > Grammar says, "The optative often expresses *possibility with past
> > expectation*--that which could be looked for, as a thing that *might be*
> > realized, at some past time" (p, 271, emphasis his).
As Carl noted, this verb can be understood either as optative or as
indicative. The reason for this is that either mood can be construed
after (OTI in indirect discourse when the main verb is in a secondary
tense (impf. aor. pluperf.). Hadley's general statement of what "The
optative often expresses" is not very helpful for these purposes. Moods
do not generally express things. They function in particular grammatical
constructions.
[lines deleted]
> > 2. Would there be a difference in meaning if it was understood as indicative
> > versus a non-indicative mood?
[lines deleted]
I don't think there is much difference in meaning between construing the
verb as indicative or as optative. Subjunctive, as Carl noted, is
impossible. If the verb is optative, then it only substitutes for the
indicative because the main verb is a secondary tense (Carl's response
explains this in more detail). So in either case (optative or indicative)
the meaning is that the scripture knew at some past time that "God
justifies the Gentiles by faith."
On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
[lines deleted]
> However, it seems to me that the reason that English translators turn
> DIKAIOI into "would justify" in Gal 3:8 is to acknowledge the past tense
> of the main verb--which is, ironically (I think), the same reason why
> classical Attic used the optative when that main verb was in the past
> tense. For instance, we say in the present tense: "I approve of this;"
> reported at second hand, this becomes, "he says that he approves of
> this;' but put that main verb into the past tense and you MAY get: "he
> said that he approves of this," but you may just as likely get: "he said
> that he would approve of this." So it seems to me that English usage is
> as flexible as the classical Attic Greek is. In the case of Gal 3:8, my
> guess is that DIKAIOI is present indicative, and that the translators who
> make it "would justify" are making the normal adjustment that our own
> language makes in this context.
It seems to me that the problem is that what we expect is a future
tense. The standard English translation implies that the meaning is that
scripture had some prior knowledge about a future divine justification of
the Gentiles. From the point of view of scripture: "God will justify
the Gentiles." This would be expressed in Greek with the future tense,
even in indirect discourse.
Does Koine differ from classical Greek on this convention (of retaining
the tense of the original statement/thought in indirect discourse)? Or
do I misunderstand the rule (Smyth, para. 2597-2606)?
Perhaps we should translate: "The Scripture already understanding that
God justifies the Gentiles by faith, ... ." In that case, the
justification of the Gentiles would not be understood as future from the
point of view of "Scripture," but as present already.
Pat Tiller
Harvard Divinity School
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 13:43:26 -0500
Subject: Gk txt analysis
>>A most interesting analysis of computerized Greek texts was made by Harry
>>Hahne of Ontario Theo. Sem, "Interpretive Implications of Using
>>Bible-Search Software for New Testament Grammatical Analysis," at the Nov
>>94 ETS in Chicago. He demonstrated that there are
>>a number of problems in these data bases which those who use them for
>>text analysis should be aware.
>>
>>Hahne invited inquiries and offered to email his analysis. I have the
>>following email address in my files: HAHNE@EPAS,UTORONTO.CA
>>
Please note the following e-mail address correction:
HAHNE@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA
(Just change a comma to a period, but it won't work otherwise!)
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Pat Tiller <ptiller@husc.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 14:46:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: UBS4 & NA27
On Fri, 21 Apr 1995, Paul Moser wrote:
> The
> suggestion here seems to be that for exegetical and text-
> critical work, one ought to go with NA27. I wonder if any
> listmembers are inclined to confirm this. --Paul Moser,
In general I agree. Though the UBS text is very good in laying out the
evidence for a variant that it happens to discuss, it discusses so few
variants that one simply cannot rely on it. NA27 itself presents only a
selection of all of the variants that could be discussed, but at least it
usually includes most of the important ones.
The real problem is that UBS implies that there are very few places where
there is any meaningful doubt about the most primitive form of the text.
This is simply not so. Since the committee is not always right in its
editorial decisions, it is extremely important that the exegete/student be
aware of the options and be able to evaluate them. Even where the
committee did choose correctly the reading to print in the text, it is
often helpful to consult the variants to learn how earlier readers have
interpreted the text.
Pat Tiller
Harvard Divinity School
------------------------------
From: Jakob Heckert <heckej@abraham.ccaa.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 14:12:38 +0000 ( )
Subject: Re: UBS4 & NA27
I teach Greek at a college. I use the UBS4 text in translation courses,
for the print is more legible than the NA27 text. I teach a course on
textual criticism. For that course I require that the students get a
NA27 text. UBS4 does not help very much with textual criticism; neither
is it meant to do this. It was created for translators, as I understand.
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #677
*****************************
** 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