[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #679
b-greek-digest Sunday, 23 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 679
In this issue:
1 Tim 2:12, AUTHENTEIN
Gal. 3:8--An Optative?
Re: "Biblical" Greek?
Re: UBS4 & NA27
Re: UBS4 & NA27
Re: "narrow" or "difficult"? ...
N27 and UBS editions
Mt. 18:18
Re: Acts 19:1
Re: Biblical languages for the blind
Re: Software for Learning Greek?
Re: Greek verbs
Re: Memorisation of Principal Parts
Re: 1 Tim 2:12, AUTHENTEIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: craig@tmh.chattanooga.net
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 23:54:41 EST5
Subject: 1 Tim 2:12, AUTHENTEIN
On (Fri 21 Ap) Timster132@aol.com wrote to All...
T > I have a question from 1 Tim 2:12.
T > Does AUTHENTEIN have a significantly different meaning than
T > EXSOUSIADZW?
Yes, check your lexicon, especially Louw & Nida's Lexicon according to
Semantic Domains.
AUTHENTEIN is "to act alone, without input from others," or "to dominate".
--- PPoint 1.92
* Origin: (8:2077/6504)
SEEN-BY: 2077/0 10 6504
PATH: 2077/6504 0
- -----------------------------------------------------------
The Missions Helpline * Give glory to God! * Cleveland,TN
- -----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: craig@tmh.chattanooga.net
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 23:34:02 EST5
Subject: Gal. 3:8--An Optative?
On (Thu 20 Ap) terry@bible.acu.edu wrote to All...
t > A query for those among you who are good in morphology and syntax:
t > Gal. 3:8 reads in part:
t > PROIDOUSA DE (H GRAFW (OTI EK POSTEWS DIKAIOI TA EQNH (O QEOS . . .
t > "Now the scripture having foreseen that God 'would justify' the Gentiles
t > by
t > faith . . ."
t > This is translated by most English translations as if DIKAIOI is a
t > subjunctive
t > or an optative. The NASV does have a marginal note saying the literal
t > rendering is "justifies," which would seem to indicate that for those
t > translators at least the addition of "would" is just an accommodation to
t > the
t > needs of English grammar.
This syntax is common for Hebrew writers (I do not recall other NT examples,
although there may be some), and Paul's Semitic may be interfering with his
Greek. The Hebrew writer would say "The Scripture saw (past) that God
justifies (present)." In English, however, we must make the second clause
a future perfect (I think that is the correct English term). "The Scripture
saw that God WOULD justify." It is not optative. Again, this approach to
time sequence may be common in Greek, but I have never noticed it before.
--- PPoint 1.92
* Origin: (8:2077/6504)
SEEN-BY: 2077/0 10 6504
PATH: 2077/6504 0
- -----------------------------------------------------------
The Missions Helpline * Give glory to God! * Cleveland,TN
- -----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 12:30:30 -0400
Subject: Re: "Biblical" Greek?
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
FROM: TIMSTER132@AOL.COM
While various NT authors have their own styles and used Hebraisms, NT
Greek shouldn't be considered a different kind of Greek from
Hellenistic/Koine.
Probably the best way to get a feel for Koine Greek is to read the many
papyri, especially personal letters, from this period. Any collection of
papyri from Oxyrhynchus or Zenon would do well.
Peace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Jeff Kloha <kloha@sauron.multiverse.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 95 13:52:05 EDT
Subject: Re: UBS4 & NA27
On Fri, 21 Apr 1995 22:38:08 -0600 Edgar M. Krentz wrote:
>--omitted material
>
>Some might be interested in Kurt Aland's own description of the two
>editions of the Greek New Testament many years ago:
>
>--omitted material (here is the German text)
I had to work through the translation myself--thought I'd post it if
anyone is interested:
"Certainly without doubt the _Greek New Testament_ is needed by a
whole variety of students. It is also probably the basis of
instruction in many theological seminaries. But that is not the
intention of either the editorial committee nor of the Bible
Societies responsible for drafting the edition. Because for one
(and it is also in the derived sense) scholarly work with the
text of the New Testament is possible only in an edition which
offers a text-critical apparatus in more than one or two places
per page, such as is the case in the _Greek New Testament._ So it
has been prepared from the start by the editorial committee --
which for both editions is identical -- with a division of task
in view. What the _Greek New Testament_ is has been described
above; what the _Nestle-Aland_ is will become evident to the user
at the outset: it offers (by retention of its sign-system) a
text-critical apparatus which contains everything that can be
expected from a inexpensive scholarly hand-edition."
>
>[_Bericht der Stiftung zur Forderung der neutestamentlichen Textforschung
>fur das Jahr 1969_. M=FCnster/Westfalen; p. 25.]
>
>--omitted material
>
///////+\\\\\\\
Jeff Kloha [] Lakewood, OH
kloha@po.multiverse.com [] KCICXC
------------------------------
From: Ken Penner <kpenner@unixg.ubc.ca>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 14:19:47 -0700
Subject: Re: UBS4 & NA27
At 11:13 AM 4/21/95 CDT, 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.
Agreed. The UBS *might* be better suited for English-speaking translators
and casual readers, but the marginal notes to verbal parallels, the Canons
of Eusebius, and the greater number of variants listed make the NA more
useful for exegesis, textual criticism and general study.
Ken Penner
Regent College
------------------------------
From: BBezdek@aol.com
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 17:51:47 -0400
Subject: Re: "narrow" or "difficult"? ...
Jeff:
Thanks, You are quite correct. It is, however, our first obligation in
interpreting the New Testament, to see how the words are used
there, and then go on to the other sources.
Thanks again,
Byron T. Bezdek (Tab)
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 17:20:00 -0700
Subject: N27 and UBS editions
are sufficiently different that they complement one another. The text,
of course, is the same in the two editions, but it is sometimes
paragraphed differently which can help one to see different possible
ways of organizing the thoughts the text expresses.
The notes on punctuation in the various translations included in
the UBS editions can also be helpful, as has already been mentioned.
Although the latter include textual notes in the apparatus on a reduced
number of variants, those which are treated are normally dealt with
more in depth than in the Nestle editions.
The fairly reasonable price of the UBS GNT makes it not too
difficult to pick it up as an auxilary to the Nestle 27th which
undoubtedly is the most generally useful of the two. (It is hard for
me to imagine any translator relying *only* on UBS3.) It might be
interesting to note that the specialist's specialists (especially for
textual matters) rely more on von Soden than on Nestle because of the
former's more complete reporting of the variants.
I take Edward Hobb's statement, "So, to go one further than a
recent poster, put your old NA25 (not 26), or earlier edition, in your
pocket! (And get a new pair of glasses, of course,)" as hyperbole.
That the text itslef of the N27 may not be better than that of the N25
could be arguable, but doesn't the more ample and exact reporting of
the variants in the N27 provide basis for better informed textual
decisions.
On the _Textual Commentary on the GNT_: I can't say its
explanations have kept me awake nights, but that could be because I try
to limit its use in my exegesis to cases in which I want to have an
explanation of how the committee arrived at its decision.
It would be interesting (at least to me) to dedicate some
bandwidth on B-Greek to going over some of the specific texts that
might be improved by employing a reading other than that of the N27.
Regards,
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: Steve Febbraro <stefeb@oasis.ot.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 95 21:21:59 EDT
Subject: Mt. 18:18
Hi All,
Used all the sources at my disposal (very limited and basic) to determine
exactly what is meant by the words, "binding" and "loosing." I believe I
have a general understanding of the words to be in reference to matters of
church discipline and not to forgiveness of sins.
But, I am still at a loss as to how something "bound" on earth is "bound" in
heaven. Needless to say, the same loss of undertanding exists with the word
"loosed".
I heard an evangelist use this verse in conjuction with healing. He said,
"Whatever disease we bind on earth is bound in heaven." Can this statement
be relevant to this verse? Am I missing something?
Eagerly awaiting your replies.
His,
Steve
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is always a way. For with God nothing shall be impossible (Luke 1:37)
http://www.ot.com/~stefeb/home.html
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 23:57:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Acts 19:1
On Mon, 17 Apr 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 1995, Micheal Palmer wrote:
>
> >If the infinitive functions as a complement of the main verb
> >of the matrix clause, and its subject is identical with the subject of
> >that main verb it is usually not expressed, but if any modifiers of it
> >are expressed, they are given NOMINATIVE case. A few examples follow:
>
> ***************most examples deleted*****************
>
> >7. Nom. Inf.
> >deomai de to mh parwn qarrhsai (2 Corinthians 10:2)
> >and I beg not being present to show boldness
> >and I beg that being present [I might] not [have] to show boldness. . .
> >[While the subject is not given explicitly, the participle (parw;n) which
> >modifies it is given in the nominative case. Notice that the entire
> >infinitival clause functions as an internal argument for deomai (as is
> >indicated by the article before MH.]
>
> ***************more examples deleted*****************
>
> Micheal--
>
> This is interesting. Most of your examples use the copula plus an adjective.
> This is very similar to the predicate adjective construction where the PA
> occurs in the same case as the subject. Is something like this going on for
> infinitive clauses as well? Your exception is with a participle. I wonder,
> since the participle is referring to the writer, Paul, should we expect
> something other than the nominative here?
>
Sorry it's taken so long to respond to this. I've been out of town.
Yes, most of my examples are predicate adjective constructions. Since
predicate adjectives agree with the case of the subject, and they are
NOMINATIVE in the examples I cited, they indicate that the subject of the
infinitive is NOMINATIVE. This only happens when the infinitive functions
as a complement of the matrix verb and the subject of the infinitive is
identical with the subject of the matrix verb.
As far as the participle in 2 Corinthians 10:2 goes, that it refers to
the author of the book would make little difference in the case
assignment within an infinitival clause. The key issue is that Paul is
also the subject of the matrix verb (DEOMAI). Let's imagine that he had
written AITEI ("he asks") rather than DEOMAI ("I beg"). In that case the
participle would probably by accusative case to match the case of the
subject of the infinitive (QARRHSAI) which would be accusative since it
would not be identical with the subject of the matrix clause. It seems
quite unlikely to me, however, that Paul would have used this
construction. He would have probably reworked the sentence by using a
clause with OTI or some other subordinate clause rather than the
infintive since the use of the accusative subject of an infinitive to
refer to himself may have been somewhat awkward. I have found no examples
where the matrix verb is second or third person, yet the subject of an
infinitival complement clause refers to the author of the work in question.
Does anyone know if such a construction actually occurs somewhere?
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <billm@on-ramp.ior.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 21:58:10 -0700
Subject: Re: Biblical languages for the blind
>It is likely that one or two blind students will be coming to our university
>in the fall in biblical studies. While we have had several blind students, we
>have never had students who wanted to study the biblical languages. I would
>appreciate in information from those of you who may have had experience in
>the matter.
>
>Michael Moss
>David Lipscomb University
>Nashville, TN
>mosscm@dlu.edu
I believe Machen is in braille, but I do not know any specifics. I saw a
Macintosh program that works from Mac texdt files and creates the braille
document, but that was a few years ago. If you are not bale to locate
anything, let me know. I have my grammar on mac disks. It is FrameMaker
right now but could be converted to Word.
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <bill.mounce@on-ramp.ior.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 21:57:45 -0700
Subject: Re: Software for Learning Greek?
>We'll be using Bill Mounce's _Basics of Biblical Greek_ text for the first
>time this year, so we'll be getting the accompanying "Teacher's Packet."
>(I think Bill has the best approach I've seen in a Greek textbook. Thanks,
>Bill. My only criticism would be that the theological bias is not the same
>as mine, but I suppose that can't be helped unless I write my own grammar
>;)
>
Aren't theological biases fun?! IT was a difficult question of how to write
the grammar. I personally don't like sterile grammars even though they can
be very precise. But that is not why I teach.
I am interested in one hting, though. The only overtly "theological" thing
I wrote was the insight on the perfect tense. I exercised no editorial
review over the others. Why do you think you know my theological bias? I am
genuinely interested.
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <bill.mounce@on-ramp.ior.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 21:57:54 -0700
Subject: Re: Greek verbs
>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
Carlton,
Thank you for the gracious comment. Isn't it frustrating to have no
published work on morphology for years, and then have yours and mine come
out so close together. I have especially enjoyed your frequency listings of
the inflected forms. Very helpful.
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <bill.mounce@on-ramp.ior.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 21:57:50 -0700
Subject: Re: Memorisation of Principal Parts
Check the back of my textbook for the list of principal parts (there, I
used the term). It shows which ones you need to memorize and which ones you
don't.
Its not so much that I don't like the term "principal parts," its that I
couldn't get a could, clean definition of it, and I couldn't get my friends
in English grammar to agree on an English definition.
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <billm@on-ramp.ior.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 21:58:14 -0700
Subject: Re: 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
See discussions by George Knight and Kroeger for the two sides of the debate.
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #679
*****************************
** 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