[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #714
b-greek-digest Saturday, 20 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 714
In this issue:
Learning B-Greek with PC
[none]
X-Confirm-Reading-To: "J.W.Cressey" <EM1JWC@Rivelin.shef.ac.uk>
Mail Check
Priority: normal
Re: Manuscript photographs
Re: Apostolic Fathers Concordance
Re: Manuscript photographs
Re: Colwell rule
Re: Kenyon
A Useful Bibliography
Re: Colwell rule
Re: Colwell rule
Re: washing of regeneration (fwd)
Re: Colwell rule
Re: washing of regeneration (fwd)
Re: Manuscript photographs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tel +352-4301-34392 <Ramon.Gomez@eurostat.cec.be>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 09:01:17 +0200
Subject: Learning B-Greek with PC
Hello all:
I am a software developer working for the European Union in Luxembourg.
I am currently thinking about developing an interactive system to learn
B-Greek using a PC. ( I have no commercial intentions ).
But first of all I want to be sure the such software does not exist or in not
being developed already.
Can you help me ?
------------------------------
From: Steven Luker <sluker@interaccess.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 02:56:22 -0500
Subject: [none]
Info b-greek
------------------------------
From: "J.W.Cressey" <J.W.Cressey@sheffield.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 12:30:52 +0100
Subject: X-Confirm-Reading-To: "J.W.Cressey" <EM1JWC@Rivelin.shef.ac.uk>
unsubscribe
- ------------------------------
Jon Cressey
Grace Christian Fellowship
J.W.Cressey@sheffield.ac.uk
If I can help you - tell me!
------------------------------
From: "Schumacher DW(Don)" <ADWSNC4@osispec.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 95 08:56:00 PDT
Subject: Mail Check
I have not received any mail from B-Greek for 2 days. Something must be
amis.
Don Schumacher
adwsnc4@osi.com
DWSchumach@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "J.W.Cressey" <J.W.Cressey@sheffield.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 14:37:26 +0100
Subject: Priority: normal
Unsubscribe
- ------------------------------
Jon Cressey
Grace Christian Fellowship
J.W.Cressey@sheffield.ac.uk
If I can help you - tell me!
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 09:03:52 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Manuscript photographs
If anyone wishes to examine photographs of biblical mss., the best
N.American location from which to procure them is:
The Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center, P. O. Box 670, Claremont, Calif.,
91711. The have microfilms of 100s of mss., and aim to have films of all
available, many of which they have rights to copy & can sell these
copies.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 09:07:48 -0600
Subject: Re: Apostolic Fathers Concordance
On May 4 Robert Kraft wrote:
>Goodspeed's Index, if I recall correctly, does not give contexts=
for the
>alphabetized entries. The Concordance to the Apostolic Fathers by=
H.
>Kraft (no relation, to my knowledge) that came out maybe 30 years=
ago
>from the Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft von Darmstadt is much=
more
>helpful in that regard. Wonder where my copy is?
Bob is correct. The Goodspeed volume is an index verborum, not a
concordance. Thanks to James D. Ernest for the information that it=
is still
in print. Some readers might be interested to know that the Kraft
concordance is still in print. It is listed on p. 390 of Wissenschaftliche
Buchkgesellschat Jahreskatalog 1995.=20
H. Kraft, _Clavis patrum apostolicorum (Konkordanz zu den apostolischen
V=E4ter)_. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964. DM=
68,00.
If people who read German don't know the Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, they are missing a great source for primary texts,=
e.g.
E. Lohse's edition of many Qumran texts in pointed Hebrew, with facing
German translation and notes.They also sell the 5 vol _Kleine Pauly=
for DM
168. NO, I AM NOT AN AGENT FOR THEM.
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: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Fri, 19 May 95 07:56:35 PDT
Subject: Re: Manuscript photographs
hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca said of the ABMC:
> they have rights to copy & can sell these copies.
Do they in fact make and sell copies of microfilms?
The catalog I got from them didn't mention this possibility.
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: Shaughn Daniel <zxmli05@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 15:24:37 +0000
Subject: Re: Colwell rule
roy r. millhouse wrote:
>BTW, I knew better than to "invoke" the Colwell rule to my conversant, seeing
>as I had questions concerning it. Besides, he had already given me such gems
>as PAS being normally translated as "another of a different kind," and
>telling me that because a particular word (I forget which) had a particular
>definition occuring first in Liddell and Scott, the definition should
>indiciate the primary usage of the word in the Bible! All of this was a good
>reminder to me to be sure of myself and responsible in my scholarship before
>opening my mouth and inserting my foot!
recent endeavors in reading greek texts from my tlg cdrom have brought me
across many vocabulary words which nt authors have changed. i never thought
about it much, but did a little checking to see what i could come up with
from my german and english grammars on greek about this topic. maybe you
can use these in your canon of greek arguments against whomever you wish.
=)
to explain the phenomenon of greek words used in the nt which are filled
with christian meaning, one basically has no less than two sources for the
phenomenon: 1) the lxx interpreted by christians (a stage after semitism)
and 2) hellenistic vocabulary which was changed directly by christians.
when i speak of change i don't mean that they changed the spelling, but
rather the content or meaning of the term in view (i.e., semantics).
the difference between koine and classical greek reflected in the nt due to
semitic or lxx influence--according to hoffmann and siebenthal (griechische
grammatik zum neuen testament, pp. 3, 598-620), there are around 470
vocabulary items which are found nowhere before in pre-christian
literature. AMHN, for example, is direct from hebrew, as well as GEENNA,
SABBATON; and PASXA from aramaic. DOKSA in pre-christian literature has in
profane greek the meaning of "opinion", but this is totally lost in the nt
due to the influence of the hebrew word KABOD. hoffmann and siebenthal
remind us that we can't read the nt in isolation from literature of the
time outside of the nt, however. for example, the language of christian
apocalyptic has many traits contained in non-christian literature.
syntax is greatly influenced--
a) predicates are positioned more often in the middle of a sentence in
classical, more often at the beginning in nt (cf. hebrew);
b) number and genus are influenced in nt by hebraism, i.e., a singular
noun with distributive meaning is used where in classical the plural would
be expected; e.g., luke 24.4 ANDRES DUO EPESTHSAN AUTAIS EN ESQHTI
ASTRAPTOUSHi where the singular ESQHTI is used instead of its plural;
c) neuter diminutives are loved, but don't carry the idea of "little"; mark
has more than a few examples (others: KUNARION, ONARION, PROBATION,
STROUQION, ARNION, WTARION, EPIFION, KERATION, NHSION, NOSSION, SXOINION,
KLINARION, PINAKIDION, see BDF $111(3)).
d) articles: prepositional phrases in nt without article; governing
articles are dropped (e.g., DOKSA TOU QEOU instead of hH DOKSA TOU QEOU);
article dropped from the genitive as well (DOKSA QEOU); articles added in
nt (STOLH hH PRWTH when PRWTH is not a determiner); PAS without article
(classic hH PASA hH OIKODOMH, sometimes PASA OIKODOMH in nt); genitive
articles dropped (hO ANHR hO TOU OIKOU, in nt hO ANHR TOU OIKOU).
e) adjectives: sometimes postive instead of comparitive (KOLON instead of
KOLLION; MEGAS instead of MEGISTOS); elative function of the comparitive
(MEGISTOS in classical, MEIZWN often in nt).
f) pronouns: without emphasis sometimes when personal pronoun is included
in nt; 3s personal pronoun mostly with AUTOS instead of hOUTOS/EKEINOS,
AUTOU, etc; hebraism of YUXHN for reflexive (THN YUXHN AUTOU APWLESE
instead of hEAUTON APWLESE); sometimes hEIS TON hENA instead of ALLHLOUS);
hEIS changing to meaning of "first" in nt from "a/one" in classical.
g) verbs: fut mid of active verbs --> often, fut act in nt; fut/aor mid of
deponents --> fut/aor passive; middle often changed to active.
== there are about 15 more pages of stuff, so i'll stop here.
just from the short excursus into some examples, i think that one can say
with confidence that the view of vocabulary items listed in liddell-scott
should dictate biblical usage is indeed in error. bruce metzger put it well
when he calls the OT the lexicon one must use when understanding the NT and
not classical greek! but then again, martin hengel, together with a host of
other students of judaism, remind us that the difference between lxx, ot,
and classical writings, and the influence of hellenism on judaism is not to
be seen as a great gap like the grand canyon. the gap exists moderately.
there is also the phenomenon of the greek language being filled with
judaistic ideas. amazingly, origen in his "against celsus" discusses a lot
of this in relation to celsus' idea that the greek of the nt was inferior
to classical writers; the latter being far more capable of expression
vis-a-vis the nt. origen's comments are built mostly on theological
grounds, not from semantics. for origen, the inferiority of the language of
the nt in comparison to classical literature simply reflects the adage of
paul: "...not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of christ be
emptied of its power."
finding a balanced and well-thought-out approach to this subject is more
than difficult. it requires more or less a lifetime of study to grasp, and
even in the end, we will still carry with us the feeling that we don't
really know that much.
from another viewpoint, arguments over greek with folks like the jehovah
witnesses don't really lead me anywhere. if we never get past anarthrous
constructions, how in the world do we get to the deeper areas of nt greek!
to me, it is mostly an exercise in exasperating mumbo-jumbo--riding on an
ant, attempting to drive it like a camel. he is there to give his spill on
the little greek he knows, and if i interrupt or argue the contrary, then
my house is marked anathema on the jehovah witnesses' city map.
from the edge,
shaughn daniel
(the man who exists as an x on jehovah witnesses' maps
of fairfield, texas and tuebingen, germany)
bibliography to see on semitisms:
moulton-howard, vol. 2, pp. 431-485.
black m., an aramaic approach to the gospels and acts.
moule c.f.d., an idiom book of new testament greek
------------------------------
From: "Rex A. Koivisto" <rexk@teleport.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 09:05:44 -0700
Subject: Re: Kenyon
>A (vaguely) related question: Is Kenyon's _Text of Greek Bible_ still in
>print/available anywhere?
>
I picked up a new copy of the 3rd revised, augmented edition of
Kenton (1975) in the mid 1980's. It is published by Gerald Duckworth &
Company, Ltd. 43 Gloucester Crescent, London NW1. I think I had our
bookstore order it in from them. You might check to see if it is still in
print.
Rex Koivisto
*********************************************
Rex A. Koivisto Email: rexk@teleport.com
Dept. of Bible and Theology Voice: 503/255-0332x415
Multnomah Bible College, Portland, OR FAX: 503/254-1268
*********************************************
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 May 95 11:34 CDT
Subject: A Useful Bibliography
Listmembers may benefit from the helpful bibliography
and abstracts in Thomas Robinson (et al.), *The Early
Church: An Annotated Bibliography* (American Theological
Library Assoc., 1993). The book lists and summarizes
important books and articles on such topics as:
canon and textual criticism, christology, gnosticism
and related movements, orthodoxy and heresy, patristic
exegesis, and regional distribution of Christianity.
Robinson is author of *The Bauer Thesis Examined: The
Geography of Heresy in the Early Christian Church*
(Mellen, 1988). --Paul Moser, Loyola University of
Chicago.
------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 12:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Colwell rule
I did my Th.M. thesis at Dallas Seminary (1975) entitled, "The
Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John's Gospel."
It dealt with the abuse of Colwell's rule. It summary here it is.
Colwell's rule says that definite predicate nouns preceding the
copulative verb tend to be anarthrous. He started with and considered
only definite nouns. It is logically invalid, therefore, to deduce
anything about the definiteness of anarthrous nouns because of his rule.
That would be a clear case of asserting the converse (If A, then B does
not imply If B, then A.).
This is what has Colwell incorrectly did himself, and those who
have followed him (e.g., Morris in NIC commentary on John concerning Jn
1:1). We cannot use Colwell's rule to deduce that the anarthrous theos
in Jn 1:1 is definite. Colwell's rule does not say that. Remember, it
assumes definiteness then asserts probability of articularity (which can
be clearly seen from the text anyhow).
What my thesis did was to consider the converse of what Colwell
did. I examined anarthrous predicate nouns, then determined definiteness.
Colwell's rule is valid only for textual criticism purposes.
If further interested, see me.
Paul Dixon
On Fri, 19 May 1995, Shaughn Daniel wrote:
> roy r. millhouse wrote:
>
> >BTW, I knew better than to "invoke" the Colwell rule to my conversant, seeing
> >as I had questions concerning it. Besides, he had already given me such gems
> >as PAS being normally translated as "another of a different kind," and
> >telling me that because a particular word (I forget which) had a particular
> >definition occuring first in Liddell and Scott, the definition should
> >indiciate the primary usage of the word in the Bible! All of this was a good
> >reminder to me to be sure of myself and responsible in my scholarship before
> >opening my mouth and inserting my foot!
>
> recent endeavors in reading greek texts from my tlg cdrom have brought me
> across many vocabulary words which nt authors have changed. i never thought
> about it much, but did a little checking to see what i could come up with
> from my german and english grammars on greek about this topic. maybe you
> can use these in your canon of greek arguments against whomever you wish.
> =)
>
> to explain the phenomenon of greek words used in the nt which are filled
> with christian meaning, one basically has no less than two sources for the
> phenomenon: 1) the lxx interpreted by christians (a stage after semitism)
> and 2) hellenistic vocabulary which was changed directly by christians.
> when i speak of change i don't mean that they changed the spelling, but
> rather the content or meaning of the term in view (i.e., semantics).
>
> the difference between koine and classical greek reflected in the nt due to
> semitic or lxx influence--according to hoffmann and siebenthal (griechische
> grammatik zum neuen testament, pp. 3, 598-620), there are around 470
> vocabulary items which are found nowhere before in pre-christian
> literature. AMHN, for example, is direct from hebrew, as well as GEENNA,
> SABBATON; and PASXA from aramaic. DOKSA in pre-christian literature has in
> profane greek the meaning of "opinion", but this is totally lost in the nt
> due to the influence of the hebrew word KABOD. hoffmann and siebenthal
> remind us that we can't read the nt in isolation from literature of the
> time outside of the nt, however. for example, the language of christian
> apocalyptic has many traits contained in non-christian literature.
>
> syntax is greatly influenced--
> a) predicates are positioned more often in the middle of a sentence in
> classical, more often at the beginning in nt (cf. hebrew);
> b) number and genus are influenced in nt by hebraism, i.e., a singular
> noun with distributive meaning is used where in classical the plural would
> be expected; e.g., luke 24.4 ANDRES DUO EPESTHSAN AUTAIS EN ESQHTI
> ASTRAPTOUSHi where the singular ESQHTI is used instead of its plural;
> c) neuter diminutives are loved, but don't carry the idea of "little"; mark
> has more than a few examples (others: KUNARION, ONARION, PROBATION,
> STROUQION, ARNION, WTARION, EPIFION, KERATION, NHSION, NOSSION, SXOINION,
> KLINARION, PINAKIDION, see BDF $111(3)).
> d) articles: prepositional phrases in nt without article; governing
> articles are dropped (e.g., DOKSA TOU QEOU instead of hH DOKSA TOU QEOU);
> article dropped from the genitive as well (DOKSA QEOU); articles added in
> nt (STOLH hH PRWTH when PRWTH is not a determiner); PAS without article
> (classic hH PASA hH OIKODOMH, sometimes PASA OIKODOMH in nt); genitive
> articles dropped (hO ANHR hO TOU OIKOU, in nt hO ANHR TOU OIKOU).
> e) adjectives: sometimes postive instead of comparitive (KOLON instead of
> KOLLION; MEGAS instead of MEGISTOS); elative function of the comparitive
> (MEGISTOS in classical, MEIZWN often in nt).
> f) pronouns: without emphasis sometimes when personal pronoun is included
> in nt; 3s personal pronoun mostly with AUTOS instead of hOUTOS/EKEINOS,
> AUTOU, etc; hebraism of YUXHN for reflexive (THN YUXHN AUTOU APWLESE
> instead of hEAUTON APWLESE); sometimes hEIS TON hENA instead of ALLHLOUS);
> hEIS changing to meaning of "first" in nt from "a/one" in classical.
> g) verbs: fut mid of active verbs --> often, fut act in nt; fut/aor mid of
> deponents --> fut/aor passive; middle often changed to active.
> == there are about 15 more pages of stuff, so i'll stop here.
>
> just from the short excursus into some examples, i think that one can say
> with confidence that the view of vocabulary items listed in liddell-scott
> should dictate biblical usage is indeed in error. bruce metzger put it well
> when he calls the OT the lexicon one must use when understanding the NT and
> not classical greek! but then again, martin hengel, together with a host of
> other students of judaism, remind us that the difference between lxx, ot,
> and classical writings, and the influence of hellenism on judaism is not to
> be seen as a great gap like the grand canyon. the gap exists moderately.
> there is also the phenomenon of the greek language being filled with
> judaistic ideas. amazingly, origen in his "against celsus" discusses a lot
> of this in relation to celsus' idea that the greek of the nt was inferior
> to classical writers; the latter being far more capable of expression
> vis-a-vis the nt. origen's comments are built mostly on theological
> grounds, not from semantics. for origen, the inferiority of the language of
> the nt in comparison to classical literature simply reflects the adage of
> paul: "...not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of christ be
> emptied of its power."
>
> finding a balanced and well-thought-out approach to this subject is more
> than difficult. it requires more or less a lifetime of study to grasp, and
> even in the end, we will still carry with us the feeling that we don't
> really know that much.
>
> from another viewpoint, arguments over greek with folks like the jehovah
> witnesses don't really lead me anywhere. if we never get past anarthrous
> constructions, how in the world do we get to the deeper areas of nt greek!
> to me, it is mostly an exercise in exasperating mumbo-jumbo--riding on an
> ant, attempting to drive it like a camel. he is there to give his spill on
> the little greek he knows, and if i interrupt or argue the contrary, then
> my house is marked anathema on the jehovah witnesses' city map.
>
> from the edge,
>
> shaughn daniel
> (the man who exists as an x on jehovah witnesses' maps
> of fairfield, texas and tuebingen, germany)
>
> bibliography to see on semitisms:
> moulton-howard, vol. 2, pp. 431-485.
> black m., an aramaic approach to the gospels and acts.
> moule c.f.d., an idiom book of new testament greek
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 95 13:34:23 PDT
Subject: Re: Colwell rule
> I did my Th.M. thesis at Dallas Seminary (1975) entitled, "The
> Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John's Gospel."
> It dealt with the abuse of Colwell's rule. It summary here it is.
> Colwell's rule says that definite predicate nouns preceding the
> copulative verb tend to be anarthrous. He started with and considered
> only definite nouns. It is logically invalid, therefore, to deduce
> anything about the definiteness of anarthrous nouns because of his rule.
> That would be a clear case of asserting the converse (If A, then B does
> not imply If B, then A.).
> This is what has Colwell incorrectly did himself, and those who
> have followed him (e.g., Morris in NIC commentary on John concerning Jn
> 1:1). We cannot use Colwell's rule to deduce that the anarthrous theos
> in Jn 1:1 is definite. Colwell's rule does not say that. Remember, it
> assumes definiteness then asserts probability of articularity (which can
> be clearly seen from the text anyhow).
> What my thesis did was to consider the converse of what Colwell
> did. I examined anarthrous predicate nouns, then determined definiteness.
> Colwell's rule is valid only for textual criticism purposes.
> If further interested, see me.
>
> Paul Dixon
>
Paul, please tell us what you found from your study. I, at least, would
like to know. Thanks.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Jim Beale <jbeale@gdeb.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 95 16:37:08 EDT
Subject: Re: washing of regeneration (fwd)
Carlton Winbery wrote:
>
> Jim Hill asked about Titus 3:5 and quoted a statement that contained the
> following line,
> >LOUTROU since while both are nominatives, PALIGGENESIAS is a genitive
> nominative.<
> That sentence is obviously garbled. Both are genitives, the first a genitive
> of means and the second modifies the first in some way. It is very difficult
> to see it as a genitive of apposition for it is difficult to see the two
> nouns as identical. This may be like the situation with Acts 2:38. Both
> nouns are generally related but not identical; hence, the washing (clearly
> baptism) that is related to regeneration. It is difficult to keep the
> theological wars that we fight out of the exegetical process.
>
> Carlton Winbery
> LA College
>
Ouch! I admit that my sentence was garbled, because I was sleeping when
I wrote it. A nominative-genitive is like a square circle. Forgive my
stupidity!!
1. Both LOUTROU and PALIGGENESIAS are genitives. If LOUTROU
is considered as a genitive of means, then PALIGGENESIAS
modifies it. The real question is, is this the washing
of-regeneration, or the regeneration of-washing? The former
implies that the regeneration washes, whereas the latter that
the washing regenerates! If it is as you say, then
He saved us by the regeneration-washing
seems to make perfect sense.
2. Must LOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS imply water baptism? It seems to make
more sense in context to consider it as the baptism done by the Holy
Spirit. This is admittedly partly a theological interpretation influenced
by other passages.
3. If PALIGGENESIAS is defining of LOUTROU then I don't see why
PALIGGENESIAS couldn't be a genitive of apposition. It seems
reasonable and fits in quite naturally with the rest of the passage.
I guess that depends on the definition of regeneration that one accepts.
At any rate, this is the way Charles Hodge interprets the passage, in his
Systematic Theology, Vol III.
4. If LOUTROU is defining of PALIGGENESIAS then the phrase,
LOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS KAI ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS AGIOU
and LOUTROU PALIGGENESIAS is taken as water baptismal regeneration,
and considering that ANAKAINWSEWS PNEUMATOS AGIOU means the renewing
of the Holy Spirit, which is certainly regeneration, then, the meaning
would be,
He saved us by regeneration and regeneration
This seems to me to indicate the KAI might be an apposition,
as in Luke 3:16 where it says,
AUTOS UMAS BAPTISEI EN PNEUMATI AGIW KAI PURI.
No one thinks that baptism with fire is a good thing, I don't think.
So, is there any reason that the passage can't be interpreted
to read,
He saved us by the regeneration-washing of the Holy Spirit; ?
Comments?
Please tell me if anything is garbled! :-)
In Christ,
Jim Beale
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 13:45:44 -0700
Subject: Re: Colwell rule
Paul Dixon (pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org) wrote:
> What my thesis did was to consider the converse of what Colwell
>did. I examined anarthrous predicate nouns, then determined
definiteness.
> Colwell's rule is valid only for textual criticism purposes.
> If further interested, see me.
>
I, for one, would be interested to see a summation of your
processes and conclusions. Maybe others on the list would also be
interested.
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 17:48:48 -0400
Subject: Re: washing of regeneration (fwd)
Jim Beale wrote
"If PALIGGENESIAS is defining of LOUTROU then I don't see why
PALIGGENESIAS couldn't be a genitive of apposition."
I don't think that there is any doubt the PALIGGENESIAS modifies LOUTROU.
For LOUTROU to be a modifier of PALIGGENESIAS the article would have to
appear before it, i.e., the of washing regeneration.
Whether PALIGGENESIAS is a genitive of apposition or not depends on whether
it is identical with LOUTROU or not. If it is, it must be translated "the
washing which consist of regeneration." This seems to me to be unlikely. I
think that the sense is a reference to baptism in the context of
regeneration. The writer shows signs elsewhere of being in a more liturgical
context and thinks of regeneration not so much as a single act but a
celebrated act based on faith. He had not yet gone through all our
theological controversies.
Carlton Winbery
LA College
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 17:17:59 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Manuscript photographs
In answer to Vincent Broman's query about whether the Ancient Biblical
Ms. Center sells microfilms of mss., I purchased a couple several years
ago, and I presume that this can still be done. But this is possible
only if the Center has rights to make copies of the ms. you want to look
at. Otherwise, you have to consult their copy only.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #714
*****************************
** 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