[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #691
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 3 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 691
In this issue:
Re: James 1:20, Contra NIV
Re: CARL CONRAD'S REQUEST FO
Re: areth
Mark 6:1-6
Re: The Message
Greek aspect
Re: The Message
Re: Translations
Re: Translations
Re: LXX, NT and Apostolic Fa. Word lists
Re: Jn 19:39 -- Altered Reality
I Corinthians 5:8 -- responsibilities of widows or families
Re: Translations (fwd)
Re: Contra NIV
Re: eis with accusative
N-A27 & UBS4
Gal 1:8-9
unsubscribe
PROTON, PROTOS or PROI
Re: 1 Cor. 7:36
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 02:47:43 -0400
Subject: Re: James 1:20, Contra NIV
To: b-greek@virginia.edu
cc: PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu
from: Timster132@aol.com (Tim Staker)
>One indication of an accurate translation is that it will
>preserve ambiguity found in the Greek text (unless, of course,
>the larger context removes ambiguity). The NIV is often
>too quick to remove ambiguity. Witness its translation
>of... [DELETIONS].... The NIV should not, in any case, have
>settled this matter via translation.
Before I went to seminary, I used to "Live by the Niv". I
knew it was a somewhat Dynamic translation (which is
promoted by the UBS and Eugene Nida). But I didn't
question the evangelical bias or look for any eisegetical interpretations
before that time, even though I knew Greek.
When I switched to RSV (and later NRSV) I began to see
those little NIV nuances.
While Nida is interested in getting the Bible into the
hands of people (of many languages) who may never
have read it, when it comes to a closer study of the text,
a more literal translation is required. The NIV is freer and
at times goes a little beyond translation and ventures into
a further interpretation of the text.
Still I would rather have someone reading the NIV
than reading Ken Taylor's _The Living Bible_ with his
commentary placed right into the text!
I have recently bought Peterson's _The Message_
and I find it reads well and I predict some success for
his own dynamic renderings. But don't have your
English-reading non-Greek folk do a word study using it!
Just some rambling thoughts on translations.
Peace,
Tim
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 02:47:34 -0400
Subject: Re: CARL CONRAD'S REQUEST FO
TO: B-Greek@virginia.edu
perry.stepp@chrysalis.org said....
>Am I the only one who thinks there has been an honest >misunderstanding (or
a series of honest misunderstandings)
>here? And am I the only one who thinks that network
>protocols were invented for precisely this reason--to
>avoid such misunderstandings?
I think everyone overreacted pretty quickly on all sides of this
deal. Since both Brian and Carl don't have a problem and have cleared up the
misunderstandings between themselves,
we should all just forget about it. All this talk about flaming
was blown way out of proportion.
As one of the great philosophers once said: "Paranoia will
Destroy ya". Let's get a hold of ourselves!
Peace,
Tim Staker
Pastor, Poseyville Indiana USA
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 02:47:37 -0400
Subject: Re: areth
TO: B-Greek@Virginia.edu
cc: kassutor@clark.net
Kent said on 5-1-95...
> This is an intriquing word. I have never been satisfied
>with the glosses that say "moral goodness" for this word.
>Does the new nature just keep us in the realm of good
>moral living. (For example, do we live in moral light
>or spiritual light?) Anyway, could ARETH mean spiritual
>integrity?
Is there a difference? The gospel of God's love for all leads
us into moral/ethical living. How could someone have "spiritual
integrity" (what you mean by this exactly?) without moral
goodness?
Interestingly enough, many early Christian theologians
felt they found in Plato-- with all his virute-- a kindred believer,
even a pre-Christian Christian (especially those Christians with
Neoplatonist leanings). They would wonder if anyone could
have moral virtue without a spiritual connection with God
who is Truth.
I am inclined to agree.
The problem today is that "virtue" is often understoond in
a moralistic or even legalistic sense as a code to live up to,
rather than an expression of one's transcendent experience
with Truth (in the Neoplatonic sense) or of one's transcendent experience
with Christ.
Peace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: SMurray417@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 03:13:49 -0400
Subject: Mark 6:1-6
I could possibly use this groups help in attempting to do a microstudy of
this particular pericope. I feel like the statement in verse 4 may have been
from a sayings or possibly just a common proverb-type statement, but cannot
find the basis of the rest of this particular text. I would sure appreciate
any help related to this little section dealing with Jesus' rejection at his
hometown as to where the rest of this story might have come from. Thanks in
advance to anyone who wishes to respond.
Stanton Murray (SMurray@aol.com)
MDiv student, Phillips Graduate Seminary
(Does anyone ever actually finish this degree?)
------------------------------
From: "Schumacher DW(Don)" <ADWSNC4@osispec.com>
Date: Wed, 03 May 95 08:02:00 PDT
Subject: Re: The Message
I have found the Peterson paraphrase compelling from a devotional
perspective. Yet uses cliched English in places and butchers the apparent
meaning of the Greek in others. I would recommend Ray Ortlund's recent
review in Christianity Today of the new Psalms addition as a unnecessarily
harsh but helpful insight into this translation. His comments on abuse of
the Hebrew I have found to be parallelled in the NT.
Don Schumacher
----------
From: owner-b-greek
To: b-greek
Cc: PMOSER
Subject: Re: James 1:20, Contra NIV
Date: Wednesday, May 3, 1995 2:47AM
To: b-greek@virginia.edu
cc: PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu
from: Timster132@aol.com (Tim Staker)
>One indication of an accurate translation is that it will
>preserve ambiguity found in the Greek text (unless, of course,
>the larger context removes ambiguity). The NIV is often
>too quick to remove ambiguity. Witness its translation
>of... [DELETIONS].... The NIV should not, in any case, have
>settled this matter via translation.
Before I went to seminary, I used to "Live by the Niv". I
knew it was a somewhat Dynamic translation (which is
promoted by the UBS and Eugene Nida). But I didn't
question the evangelical bias or look for any eisegetical interpretations
before that time, even though I knew Greek.
When I switched to RSV (and later NRSV) I began to see
those little NIV nuances.
While Nida is interested in getting the Bible into the
hands of people (of many languages) who may never
have read it, when it comes to a closer study of the text,
a more literal translation is required. The NIV is freer and
at times goes a little beyond translation and ventures into
a further interpretation of the text.
Still I would rather have someone reading the NIV
than reading Ken Taylor's _The Living Bible_ with his
commentary placed right into the text!
I have recently bought Peterson's _The Message_
and I find it reads well and I predict some success for
his own dynamic renderings. But don't have your
English-reading non-Greek folk do a word study using it!
Just some rambling thoughts on translations.
Peace,
Tim
------------------------------
From: Vincent DeCaen <decaen@epas.utoronto.ca>
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 08:43:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Greek aspect
I'm working on the earliest pioneers of Hebrew "aspect" and trying to
reconstruct their argumentation. it appears that the cogency of the
early 19th century proposals rests on an implicit analogy between the
Hebrew suffixed form's value and the Greek aorist. crucially, it
appears that the aorist is the marked member in a binary contrast.
what I need is an explicit, representative statement on Greek aspect
from the first half of the 19th century to help make sense of this
business. I'm looking for the source of perfective/aorist aspect =
"before" (ie, past tense).
------------------------------
From: GGoolde@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 10:11:22 -0400
Subject: Re: The Message
My overall recommendations are either the New American Standard Bible or the
New King James Bible, depending on your textual preferences. I read and
preach from the New King James Version, doing my study from Greek texts in
the NT, although, for me, this is not primarily a text based decision.
George
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 09:53:46 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Translations
While we are on this subject, let me add just about one cent worth--maybe
less? ;-) I do think it's good that we have a variety of translations,
and that some are a lot better for liturgy, others for simple reading
(whatever that is), others for careful study. In this latter category,
has anybody else found anything about the NRSV to recommend it? I find it
annoying; I don't see that it does anything but alter the masculine
pronouns into something that will satisfy the needs of inclusive
language. But this is precisely the problem with a study Bible, I think.
I have always thought that the real beauty of the RSV was that it stayed
close to the Greek bzw. Hebrew and did not attempt to overcome any
ambiguity, although it might indicate it in a footnote. I too would like
the ambiguities to remain visible in the version for the reader to
recognize. And as a pedagogical tool, I am distressed that the old
Throckmorton Synopsis has been redone using NRSV--which makes it
relatively worthless, IMHO, for doing any kind of synoptic comparisons in
English.
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: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 11:32:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translations
On Wed, 3 May 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> I have always thought that the real beauty of the RSV was that it stayed
> close to the Greek bzw. Hebrew and did not attempt to overcome any
> ambiguity, although it might indicate it in a footnote. I too would like
> the ambiguities to remain visible in the version for the reader to
> recognize. And as a pedagogical tool, I am distressed that the old
> Throckmorton Synopsis has been redone using NRSV--which makes it
> relatively worthless, IMHO, for doing any kind of synoptic comparisons in
> English.
This is indeed distressing. Even the RSV obliterates the distinction
between "historical" present, imperfect, and aorist tenses in narrative
(one of my pet peeves), but the NRSV even takes out things like IDOU and
other structurally significant markers. I have decided to use Aland's
Synopsis in English (RSV) next year instead of the NRSV Throckmorton.
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 10:46:42 -0600
Subject: Re: LXX, NT and Apostolic Fa. Word lists
>Hello,
> I was wondering if since I am fairly a new
>Christian, but want to learn Greek because it
>was the New Testament's language, if these books can get me started on
>my wa to learning Greek.
>Are they comprehensive enough, and do they help one learn Greek?
>Jim
>##3
>
No, these books do not teach New Testament Greek. They give help to a
student who has completed a basic Greek course and wants to increase his
vocabulary stock in New Testament Greek. You can best learn Greek by
registering for a course at a college, university, or seminary.
I have not kept up with books written to help one learn Greek on one's own,
privately. Someone else may be able to supply that bibliography to you.
Since your communication did not give me your address, I cannot suggest
either a campus or a person close to you geographically who could give you
some more direct help. Sorry not to be of more help on this one.
Edgar Krentz <emkrentz@mcs.com>
New Testament, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 East 55th St., Chicago, IL 60615
(Voice) Home: 312/947-8105; Off.: 312-753-0752
------------------------------
From: Timothy Bratton <bratton@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 11:04:15 -35900
Subject: Re: Jn 19:39 -- Altered Reality
On Tue, 2 May 1995, The Rev. David R. Graham wrote:
> The blood and water issuing from the side is another matter. Medically,
> this means that the heart is still pumping. When the heart stops, neither
> blood nor water flows.
Dr. Timothy L. Bratton bratton@acc.jc.edu
Department of History/Pol. Science work: 1-701-252-3467, ext. 2022
6006 Jamestown College home: 1-701-252-8895
Jamestown, ND 58405 home phone/fax: 1-701-252-7507
Wrong. When the heart stops pumping, the arteries collapse,
forcing blood into the venous system. Since veins contain small valves
that prevent backflow, the end result is the accumulation of blood in the
venous system. This is why Aristotle and other early anatomists thought
that arteries carried air; they were never full of blood by the time the
Greek physicians got around to dissecting them. Had the Roman soldier hit
a vein, gravity alone would have been sufficient for "blood and water"
(John 19:34) to have issued from Christ's side. Had He been _alive_ when
pierced, the separation of blood into plasma and corpuscles would _not_
have taken place. That Pilate wondered why Jesus had died within only
three hours after crucifixion is not surprising when one considers that
our Lord had been scourged 39 times, beaten and mocked by the Roman
soldiers, had a crown of thorns thrust upon his head, carried a heavy
wooden cross through a jeering crowd, and been nailed to it.
As a professional historian, I am bothered that so many of your
arguments appear to be based upon the _Argumentum ad Ignoratiam_, the
appeal to ignorance; for example, because the Gospels do not mention much
about Jesus's early life and do not specifically _deny_ that He studied
with wise men in India, this somehow becomes transformed in your logic to
statements that He _did_ study in India. It also violates Occam's Razor,
i.e., the simplest explanation with the fewest questionable assumptions
is best. If the Gospels said that Jesus went with His parents to Egypt
and returned to Galilee when it was safe to do so, why assume that He
wandered the world instead? As my own minister pointed out a few weeks
ago, save for the journey to Egypt, Jesus never wandered farther than 70
miles in radius from his origins. For your hypotheses to work, you have
to assume that (a) there was a conspiracy by the Gospel writers to
protect Jesus's family (from whom?), (b) that Jesus's seemingly
insignicant followers somehow contrived to stage His mock death on the
cross, (c) that there was _another_ conspiracy by Pilate and the
centurion to hide the fact that Jesus had not died on the cross, (d) that
somehow Jesus got past the guards in front of His tomb, and so forth. As
John Maynard Keynes pointed out in his _Treatise on Probability_, when
one piles improbable hypotheses on top of improbable hypotheses, the
likelihood of one's conclusions being correct does not inspire
confidence. Historians require _hard evidence_, and so far I have not
seen very much.
An earlier critic stated somewhat sarcastically that one might as
well state that Jesus had been carried off by little green men in flying
saucers. He did point out the dangers of the argument from ignorance,
however. Based on the silence of the surviving sources, one could just
as well argue that Jesus had spent his youth in a Zealot terrorist camp,
living in an Essene community, studying Neo-Platonic philosophy in
Alexandria, learning sympathetic magic from Nubian witch doctors, etc.
This is nothing but idle speculation unless backed by solid historical
facts. I shall be interested to see what the members of the list think
about this.
------------------------------
From: Bill Chapman <billc@housing.msstate.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 11:08:31 CST
Subject: I Corinthians 5:8 -- responsibilities of widows or families
I sent this request about I Corinthians 5:8 earlier and received
some personal relpies as to the identity of Erasmus, but not any
pointers to textual variants or interpretation clues.
The situation is a counseling scenario in which the goal is to do
"the biblical" thing. One side says this verse only refers to the
need for the departed husband to have set aside support for the
family; one side says it is instruction for the children to take care
of the mother; and one says it is instruction that the widow has
responsibility for the family. Of course, the role of the church is
also involved.
The verse is preceded and followed by instructions concerning widows,
but uses the non-specific "tis."
ei de tis twn idiwn kai malista oikeiwn ou pronoei, thn pistin
hrnhtai kai estin apistou xeirwn.
Who is intended by TIS? Is it "any widow," or "any person?"
Calvin's commentary has:
Erasmus has translated it, "If any woman do not provide for her
own," making it apply exclusively to females. But I prefer to
view it as a general statement. . . .
Is there any textual tradition for Erasmus' translation, or is there
some grammatical point that would clarify the interpretation of the
verse, or do you think the ambiguity is intended?
Thank you for any light you can shed on this matter.
Bill Chapman (BS, MCS, MDiv. [but it didn't take--no divinity rubbed
off on me in seminary ;).])
- --
Bill Chapman:WCC1@ra.msstate.edu:POBox 1262:MSU, MS 39762
(601)325-2042
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 12:11:57 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Translations (fwd)
The following message, to which I've appended my response, came to me
from a list-member whom I shall not identify. As I indicate, I don't
think this is really a political-correctness issue at all (am I in a tiny
minority?) but of translations with integrity for pedagogical purposes.
Let me add that the Oxford Study Bible has also adopted the NRSV;
curiously, they offer me a free one while noting that there are still
some copies left with the RSV if I am interested in them!
To Phil Graber and others inclined as he says he is about using Aland's
English synopsis next time, I think I read somewhere that it too is going
to be redone using the NRSV. At this rate, people may be forced to learn
Greek just in order to find out what the NT actually says!
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
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 11:58:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Translations
On Wed, 3 May 1995, xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Prof. C:
>
> I pretty much agree with you about the NRSV, but I use it because it
> comes along with the Harper-Collins Study Bible, which has useful
> notes. Within the Biblical Studies guild, however, I bet you won't
> find too many people who would hazard voicing a politically incorrect
> opinion such as yours....
I hasten to add that I am all in favor of inclusive language in the
liturgy, but when I'm doing careful study of the phrasing of the NT, I
don't want the sense of the Greek shrouded in periphrasis.
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: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 13:14:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Contra NIV
Tim,
I am sure you did not intend to leave the impression that Gene Nida had
anything to do with the NIV! He was for many years Director of Translation
for the ABS and was a prime mover in the TEV. The NIV came from the old NYBS
that became the International Bib. Soc. You also had to sign a statement of
faith to work on the NIV but not the TEV.
Carlton Winbery
LA College
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 13:23:32 -0400
Subject: Re: eis with accusative
Bruce,
I would agree with what you have said, "I think it is helpful here to make
Ken Pike's distinction between semantics
and the conceptual (which he usually calls "referencial") realm." I would
also tend to deal with Acts 2:38 EIS AFESIN in much the same way. I would
not see this necessarily as an accusative of purpose or result, but as part
of the conceptual world of repentance, forgiveness, baptism.
Carlton Winbery
LA College
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 13:26:18 -0400
Subject: N-A27 & UBS4
One difference in the text is the the UBS4 uses caps for the beginning of
direct quotations and the N-A26/27 do not.
Carlton Winbery
LA College
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 13:35:26 -0400
Subject: Gal 1:8-9
I sent the following post yesterday but it never showed up at my address. I
wanted to make sure that it got through, so I'm sending it through again.
The whole Internet was down for a while last evening.
Sorry,
Carlton Winbery
Shaughn Daniel wrote on 5/1/95:
"Basically, I need to know if Gal. 1.8f fits a category of an imperative of
condition (Brooks & Winbery term, p. 117); thus, rendered as:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach
to you a gospel other than what we preached to you,
then he is accursed.
As we have said, and now I repeat, if anyone preaches (is preaching) to you
a gospel other than what you accepted, then he is accursed."
The Winbery half of Brooks and Winbery would not classify the imperatives in
these verses as imperatives of condition. They are the verbs of the main
clauses that are modified by a EAN plus subjunctive clause in verse 8 and EI
plus indicative clause in verse 9. An imperative of condition would express
the condition which if met would cause the main clause to be true. I would
see these imperatives as positive demand. Such a person as Paul is talking
about must be considered ANATHEMA. Also read the note on p. 129 concerning
third person imperatives. EAN plus subjunctive clause in verse 8 probably is
used because Paul is giving a hypothetical case. EI plus indicative clause
in verse 9 is used probably because Paul knows that someone in their midst is
proclaiming "contrary to that which you received."
Carlton Winbery
Prof. & Chair Religion Dept.
Louisiana College
------------------------------
From: RAMOSPM@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Date: Wed, 03 May 1995 15:01:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: unsubscribe
unsubscribe ramospm@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
------------------------------
From: Yirah@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 16:00:51 -0400
Subject: PROTON, PROTOS or PROI
Need help in determining which is the original reading in John 1:41. Four
possibilities exist (according to the apparatus in my UBS 3c anyway).
(1) prOton: Has the best textual attestation. (a) as an adjective it agrees
with "brother" and has the idea that "Andrew found his own brother first,
then found someone else." (b) as an adverb it conveys the sense "The first
thing Andrew did was to find his brother."
(2) prOtos: has some good textual attestations. This would be a superlative
adjective--which is adapted as a comparative--referring to the subject of the
sentence. It carries the sense "Andrew, before the other of the two disciples
found his own brother." This implies, I think, that the other disciple later
found his brother.
(3) prOi ("early" ie the next morning): looks like it is found in only a few
mss. of old Latin and Syriac. But it seems to be the one that would fit best.
The text seems to state implicitly that the two disciples found Jesus in the
10th hour (v. 39), stayed with Him the rest of the day and then early the
next day Andrew found his brother. This fits well, too, with the well-known 7
days that are found in John 1-2.
(4) omitted altogether in some mss.
Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.
William Brooks
Port Angeles, WA
------------------------------
From: Pat Tiller <ptiller@husc.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 16:31:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: 1 Cor. 7:36
On Thu, 27 Apr 1995, Watkins Randy CDT wrote:
> Would somebody be willing to do an exegises on 1 Cor. 7:36 for me?
Some of the following observations are relatively trivial,
others are more substantial. All of them are only my own
initial thoughts (sorry for the rather long post). I would
be very happy to receive responses and corrections to any
or all of these observations.
IMHO, it does no good to try to propose an exegesis of the
verse without first dealing with each of the problems. This
process will make some interpretations impossible, others
possible, and if we are lucky (which in this case we probably
aren't) one may be made probable.
There are several problems that need to be solved as part of
an exegesis of 1 Cor 7:36: (1) textual--gameitwsan or
gameitw; (2) lexical--asxhmonein, epi (+ acc), parqenos,
uperakmos, gamew, gamizw (vs 39); (3) syntactical--clause
structure, subject of ofeilei, and subject of personal verbs;
(4) historical/social--meaning of "his virgin"; (5) immediate
context (vss 37-38 at least); and (6) no doubt others that I
have not thought of.
1. Text
gameitwsan ('let them marry') is read by virtually all
modern editions (critical and TR). Gameitw ('let him
marry') is read by so-called "western" Greek mss (D*FG), the
old Latin d (same ms as D--it's an interlinear if I remember
correctly), the Syriac Peshitta, the Stuttgart edition of
the Vulgate, and a few other Greek mss. This is not exactly
overwhelming support, but neither is it insignificant. A
final decision will have to be postponed until we have done
the rest of our exegesis and can understand the implications
of either reading--both for ourselves and for the ancient
scribe(s) who made the change.
2. Vocabulary
asxhmonew `to behave unseemly', `disgrace oneself'
(LSJ).
epi (+ acc) Possible meanings are `toward', `against',
`in the presence of'
uperakmos According to LSJ this means `sexually well-
developed'. For this meaning they cite 1 Cor 7:36 and
Sor[anus] 1.22. In fact in Sor 1.22 the word seems to mean
`beyond one's (sexual) prime'. I did a search of the TLG
for all occurrences of the word through the 6th century.
The first occurrence is from i BCE (probably) in _Praecepta
Salubria_ where it is contrasted with en akmh and seems to
mean `past one's prime'. All other references are either
unclear (i.e. a quotation of 1 Cor 3:36 without any
indication of how the word is understood) or mean `past
one's prime'. For example (if I understand it correctly) in
Suetonius, _Peri blasfhmiwn kai poqen ekasth_, Ekdromades:
<oi akolastainontes _uperakma_, ws paradedramhkotes thn wran
kai anapalin ontes tois prwton uphnhtais>. (`Those who have
surpassed the age of youth: Those who are licentious _beyond
their prime_, since they have become servants of the
"springtime of life" and are back again (with) those who are
just getting a beard for the first time'.) But I'm not sure
what the pointy brackets (<>) are doing here; they don't
seem to indicate editorial emendations. I don't have an
edition of Suetonius handy to check it.
gamew In classical Greek, the active applies to a man
(`to marry') and the middle applies to a woman or parents
(`to give [oneself or one's children] in marriage'), but in
the NT (and I imagine for koine generally) the active is
used of both men and women and means simply `to marry'.
gamizw `to give in marriage'. The -izw ending is
causative. There has been some discussion that since in
Hellenistic Greek some -izw verbs have lost their causative
force, this one may also have done so. But no one has been
able to cite any instance of this verb being used in any
sense other than the causative.
(3) Syntax
This verse is a complex condition. The protasis (if
clause) extends from ei de tis to gameitw(san). The
apodosis (then clause) consists of three juxtaposed,
independent clauses: `let him do what he wishes', `he does
not sin', and `let them/him marry' (genders are uncertain;
see below for the possibility that kai outws ofeilei
genesqai is also part of the apodosis). Contained within
the protasis is another condition: the protasis is `if
he/she is past his/her prime' and the apodosis is everything
else. N27 prints a comma after nomizei but not after
uperakmos, which seems to me to be misleading. The clause
kai outws ofeilei ginesqai is either part of the ei ...
condition (if someone thinks ... and he/it ought to be so)
or it is parenthetical (if someone thinks ... [and so it
should be] ...) or kai should be understood adverbially (if
someone thinks ... even so should it be, let him do ...).
So the syntax is something like: If someone thinks he is
behaving disgracefully toward/against his virgin, if he/she
is past his/her prime, and he/it ought to be so, let him do
..."
Subject of ofeilei. It could either be personal and the
same as the subject of the other personal verbs (`and so
he/she ought to be'), or it could be impersonal (`and so it
ought to be'). Neither option is very clear. He/she/it
ought to be how? It seems to be opposed to mh exwn anagkhn
in the next verse. What necessity?
Subject of personal verbs and gender of tis. I would
prefer masculine for all except h uperakmos since the
following verses clearly have a masculine subject and seem
to present another option for the one who is the subject of
the verbs in vs. 36. I except h uperakmos from this
generalization because the context may require us to take it
to refer to the virgin.
(4) historical/social--meaning of "his virgin";
This, unfortunately, is the one thing that we don't
know. If we did, we would be able to understand the verse.
Father/daughter is unlikely since "his virgin" is a very
strange way to speak of someone's daughter and "let them
marry" is awkward if it requires the reader to understand an
unmentioned male suitor. If one thinks this refers to
fathers (or guardians) and daughters, it would be better to
read gameitw. It also seems unlikely that it refers to a
man and woman who live together while remaining celibate
since such arrangements are otherwise unknown for this
period and because the alternatives in vs 38 are whether to
give in marriage or not. Could it refer to a master who
must decide whether to allow his female slave to get
married? I don't know.
(5) immediate context (vss 37-38 at least)
This may help a little. According to vs. 38 the options
are whether to give one's virgin in marriage or not. It
does not seem that marriage between the one who has the
virgin and the virgin is an option. Accordingly we probably
should read gameitw in vs 36, unless we prefer gameitwsan as
the more difficult reading which requires the reader to
supply an unnamed suitor for the virgin. Vs 37 seems to say
that not marrying one's virgin off is a good option for one
who (1) has no external obligation to let her get married
and (2) has made a firm decision. Vs 38 makes it impossible
to understand parqenos as `virginity'. One cannot give one's
virginity in marriage. Where did this interpretation come from
anyway?
Conclusions
It seems to me that this verse probably refers to
someone who has authority over an unmarried woman who is
"past her prime" and who may have the opportunity (whether
desired or not) to get married. The one in authority may
have external (social) obligations to allow her to marry.
If so, he should, but if not and if he is confident of his
decision not to allow her to marry, then he should not.
What this would mean in practical terms is quite beyond
me. What kind of authority (paternal, slave-owner, other)?
What kind of external obligation? Why only if she is past
her prime? (I suppose it could mean if the one in authority
[male or female] is past his/her prime, but I can't make any
sense of that at all.)
If it could be shown that gamizw means `to marry
someone' and not only `to give in marriage', then my
interpretation would no longer be necessary.
gameitw fits the sense of the passage better, but
gameitwsan is the more difficult reading. Either gameitw is
a scribal improvement, and gameitwsan should be preferred;
or gameitwsan was introduced to imply an understanding of
the text as referring to the problem of celibate men and
women living together, and gameitw should be preferred.
Pat Tiller
Harvard Divinity School
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #691
*****************************
** 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