[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #764
b-greek-digest Monday, 26 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 764
In this issue:
Re: "blood of prophets"
OT Canon
artifical vs real
B-GRK thanx re Grk aspectology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leonard Adams <leoadams@pixi.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 20:18:47 -1000
Subject: Re: "blood of prophets"
>Dear Expert in Gospels and/or Canonicity issues,
>
>What does "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah" (Lk 11.51)
>allude to? Does this passage in any way "establish" or "affirm" an accepted
>OT canon by Jesus and the early church? Just need some hard facts and fast.
>My library is very "bare" in the Gospel commentary section and this is a
>side-issue for me at the moment, for a remote conversation in another
>dimension... :-\
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Shaughn Daniel
>Tuebingen, Germany
I can offer to you this explanation. Jesus was speaking to interpreters and
teachers
of the Mosaic law that refused to accept the truth of His teachings, because it
threatened their well-established sense of superiority. Furthermore, their
actions
implied consent of the actions of those who had murdered prophets sent by
God in
times past. Lastly, Jesus knew that prophets would come after His death,
proclaiming the
good news of the Gospel and be rejected, persecuted and killed by these
same teachers
of the Law. Therefore, Jesus was saying that He would hold them
accountable for the
deaths of all the prophtes of times past, from the blood of Abel to the
blood of Zechariah.
I hope this information helped.
Sincerely,
Leonard Adams
Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S.A.
------------------------------
From: "DR. KEN PULLIAM" <thedoc@aztec.asu.edu>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 07:58:19 -0700 (MST)
Subject: OT Canon
This is in reply to the question as to whether the statement by Jesus
that the scribes were guilty of all the righteous blood from Abel to
Zechariah had any significance for the OT canon.
I believe it defines the scope of the OT canon. As you must know the Hebrew
Bible is arranged according to the Law, Prophets, and the Writings. Chronicles
is the last book of the writings and thus the last book of the Hebrew Bible
Thus Jesus was saying that they were guilty of all the righteous blood
shed from the first book to the last book of their Scriptures.
- --
Ken R. Pulliam, Ph.D.
Chandler, Arizona
thedoc@aztec.asu.edu
------------------------------
From: Bill Renner <WILLARD@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 95 13:32:11 EDT
Subject: artifical vs real
I have taken 10 semesters of Greek after the age of 62. This is
definitly punishment of an old mind. As you know an old mind is not as
receptive as a young mind. I took one semester of New Testament and the
rest was reading Homer down through the classical period. The book that
I like the best is by Donald J. Mastronarde INTRODUCTION TO ATTIC GREEK
copywrite 1993. The book tends to feed vocabulary, morphology, syntax
and grammar as needed from the beginning. I realize that NT Koine does
not follow, in a lot of cases, good attic but it helps me alot in
knowing good grammar. My professor keep reminding us that to understand
greek"you have to learn to think like a Greek".I liked learning with
artifical and gradually working into real, whether Plato,Euripides,Homer
or NT.
------------------------------
From: Vincent DeCaen <decaen@epas.utoronto.ca>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 17:13:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: B-GRK thanx re Grk aspectology
I want to take an opportunity to thank the many respondents who helped
with the early history of Greek aspectology in reconstructing the
earliest work on Semitic "aspect". It was an enlightening study.
1) I have solved a long-standing problem in comparing Ewald with
Driver on Hebrew aspect: Ewald is on the wrong side of the minor
revolution in Greek aspectology kicking in mid-century (clearly
separating out for the first time aspect from tense), and surfacing
only in 20th cent Greek grammars. Once you establish the background
for Ewald, everything follows.
Of course, the delicious irony here is that it is Ewald and not Driver
that is the source of the modern consensus on Hebrew aspect reflected
in the textbook tradition.
2) I have developed much respect for the work of Fanning on Greek
aspect, which up until recently I have only given a cursory reading.
His ch. 1 on the history of aspectology is truly the best to date. It
is clear, concise, in the best English prose; and is a gold mine for
bibliography on the topic.
Buist M. Fanning. 1990. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford
Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon.
3) I'm writing up the paper now "Ewald and Driver on Biblical Hebrew
Aspect" and should have a preliminary draft soon. Its angle is the
history of ideas, sociology of knowledge, etc. I was expecting to
submit it to Hebrew Studies, but we'll see.
thanx again,
Vince
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #764
*****************************
** 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