[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #800
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 26 July 1995 Volume 01 : Number 800
In this issue:
re: Hurtado on Ioudaios-L
Re: BG: Hort and AlephB
Ph. D. Programmes in Textual Criticism
Re: Ro 1:21 -- DIOTI GNONTES TON QEON
Refs. on Q
Reference of PERISSEUONTES in Col. 2:7
More on Jesus the Cynic
Re: Ro 1:21 -- DIOTI GNONTES TON QEON
Col 2:7
BG: Words Used Only Once in Mark
Re: Words Used Only Once in Mark
Re: Reference of PERISSEUONTES in Col. 2:7
Re: BG: Words Used Only Once in Mark
book
Re: BG: Words Used Only Once in Mark
Re: Reference of PERISSEUONTES in Col. 2:7
Re: Reference of PERISSEUONTES in Col. 2:7
Re: Words Used Only Once in Mark
Word Order in Poetry
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 08:06:25 -0500
Subject: re: Hurtado on Ioudaios-L
B-Greekers who do not subscribe to Ioudaios-L might enjoy reading a glowing
appreciation of Larry Hurtado's _One God, One Lord_ in yesterday's postings
there, as well as Larry's response and some further discussion. I won't
forward that stuff here, but let me repeat the info I gave a couple weeks
back, that Ioudaios-L has a very nice web site, wherein one can read
through the list archives and even do searches, at:
http://www.Lehigh.EDU:80/lists/Archives/ioudaios-l/
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 09:27:48 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: BG: Hort and AlephB
On Tue, 25 Jul 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
(here quoting Hort from the Intro to the W-H Greek NT):
>
> Accordingly, with the exceptions mentioned above, it is our belief (1) that
> readings of AlephB should be accepted as the true readings until strong
> internal evidence is found to the contrary, and (2) that no readings of
> AlephB can be safely rejected absolutely, though it is sometimes right to
> place them only on an alternative footing, especially where they receive
> no support from the Versions or the Fathers.
................................................(excerpted)
> I have no doubt that the major decisions in the Standard Text are for the most
> part correct. Neither do I doubt that Aleph and B are for the most part good
> MSS. But contrary to W-H, they are not the neutral text. The majority of the
> text in GNT3/4 and NA26/27 was not done by the UBS Textual Committee; it was
> done by Hort (whom, if I remember right, did the basic work on W-H). It is not
> the major variants that I question; I wonder about the minor ones.
>
> That Hort was a great scholar I do not question; that his work can be accepted
> unexamined I do, especially in light of the above quote.
1. Nobody in textual criticism advocates accepting Hort's work (or anyone
else's) uncritically. You don't get a reputation in scholarship for
accepting uncritically the work of others.
2. That Hort continues to exercise such influence can be shown to result
from the high quality of the work he did, which continues to be
reinforced in various ways by text-critical work since him.
3. Hort did not bat "1,000", and his "Western non-interpolations" for
example are widely taken differently. But, given the limitations of mss.
evidence available to him, he worked through a *lot* of evidence to
reach, essentially inductively, the conclusions about textual character
of mss. he advocated. Moreover, as I've stated before, by & large, his
lengthy statement of rationale for a critical Greek NT in the lst 150 pp.
or so of his Intro is *still* required reading for anybody who wants to
speak to textual criticism, and still among the best (if not the best)
essay on textual critical thinking I know of.
(Sometimes, sometimes, a scholar obtains a big influence because
he has done his homework, and Hort was one of these.)
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: DC PARKER <PARKERDC@m4-arts.bham.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 15:51:48 GMT
Subject: Ph. D. Programmes in Textual Criticism
I gathered from a letter from Nichael Lynn Cramer that there had been
a correspondence about this in June. I am replying to his query:
What qualifications and background would you expect to see in a
student who approached you as a candidate?
Here in Birmingham we would expect somebody:
(1) to have a first degree that included a good grounding in Greek;
(2) to know from some standard textbooks such as Metzger and the
Alands what the discipline consists in, and to have begun to follow up
some particular areas for study;
(3) to be willing to learn more languages as the need arises.
------------------------------
From: Shprd4Him@aol.com
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 12:01:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Ro 1:21 -- DIOTI GNONTES TON QEON
Hi guys,
I'm preaching through Romans right now. FWIW I think you should consider the
broader context. Paul is going to great length to prove the culpability of
all mankind in Chapters 1-3. Paul is making the point that all men have seen
(and understood) the clear revelation of God in nature and rejected it.
Because of their refusal to acknowledge God as Creator, he has poured his
wrath out on them by giving them up to all sorts of sin. Gnontes doesn't
necessarily mean they had entered into relationship with God. It means they
saw God and recognized him as God and rejected him anyway. Hence the force
of dio in vs 24. Notice the play on words in vs 28: edokimasan...adokimon.
The idea is that they evaluated and rejected God, so he evaluated and
rejected them. I don't think that could be said of believers.
Pastor Kevin
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 11:04 CDT
Subject: Refs. on Q
Perhaps some listmembers will find the following list
of references useful (originally posted on another list).
- --Paul Moser, Loyola University of Chicago.
P.S. I should have included one more: C.M. Tuckett,
"Mark and Q," in C. Focant, ed., *The Synoptic Gospels*
(Leuven Univ. Press, 1993), pp. 149-75.
---------------------------- Text of forwarded message -----------------------
Received: (from LUCCPUA for <ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu> via BSMTP)
Received: (from SMTP@LUCCPUA for MAILER@LUCCPUA via NJE)
(UCLA/Mail V1.500 M-SMTP-3782-50); Wed, 26 Jul 95 10:42:22 CDT
Received: from fidoii.CC.Lehigh.EDU by luccpua.it.luc.edu (IBM MVS SMTP V2R2.1)
with TCP; Wed, 26 Jul 95 10:42:02 LCL
Received: from fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu with
SMTP id <39800-1>; Wed, 26 Jul 1995 11:42:10 EDT
Message-Id: <199507261540.LAA130373@nss1.CC.Lehigh.EDU>
Reply-To: ioudaios-l@LEHIGH.EDU
Originator: ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu
Sender: ioudaios-l@LEHIGH.EDU
Precedence: bulk
From: "Paul Moser" <PMOSER@CPUA.IT.LUC.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list <ioudaios-l@LEHIGH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Re: Resurrection fragment of the DSS
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: First Century Judaism Discussion Forum
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 11:41:59 EDT
In reply to the question about the "Q" source, I should mention
the following:
Frans Neirynck, *Q-Synopsis: The Double Tradition Passages in
Greek* (Leuven University Press, 1988), and
Ivan Havener, *Q: The Sayings of Jesus* (M. Glazier, 1987).
The latter includes an English translation of A. Polag's
reconstruction of Q.
For a useful quick overview of debates about Q, see Arland
Hultgren, *The Rise of Normative Christianity* (Fortress,
1994), pp. 31-41, and C.M. Tuckett, "Q (Gospel Source),"
in *Anchor Bible Dictionary* (1992), Vol. V, 567-72.
For more detailed treatments, see D.R. Catchpole, *The
Quest for Q* (T&T Clark, 1993), and the following essays
by C.M. Tuckett: "Q and Thomas," *Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses* 67 (Dec. 1991), 346-60; "The Son of Man in
Q," in M.C. De Boer, ed., *From Jesus to John* (Sheffield,
1993), 196-215; "On the Stratification of Q," *Semeia* 55
(1992), 213-22; "A Cynic Q?," *Bibilica* 70 (1989), 349-76;
"Q, the Law and Judaism," in B. Lindars, ed., *Law and
Religion* (Cambridge, 1988), 90-101. See also H.W.
Attridge, "Reflections on Research into Q," *Semeia* 55
(1992), 223-34. These works offer a needed correction
to certain influential speculations about Q and its
supposed "community."--Paul Moser, Loyola University of
Chicago.
------------------------------
From: "John L. Moody" <moodyjl@bernstein.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 12:58:35 -0400
Subject: Reference of PERISSEUONTES in Col. 2:7
While working my way (rather slowly, I'm afraid, due to 2 years away from my
Greek) through Colossians 2, I have come across a stumper that I would like
your opinions on. In Col 2:7, is PERISSEUONTES EN EUXARISTIA modifying:
1) EDIDAXQHTE
2) BEBAIOUMENOI
3) the triple conjunction of EPPIZWMENOI, EPOIKODOMOUMENOI, and
BEBAIOUMENOI
or
4) something else that I've missed?
TIA,
John
********************************************************
John L. Moody ** "Grace to you and peace
** from God our Father
** and the Lord Jesus
moodyjl@bernstein.com ** Christ." -- Eph. 1.2
********************************************************
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 12:21 CDT
Subject: More on Jesus the Cynic
In "Jesus and the Cynics," *Journal of Religion* 74
(1994), 453-75, Hans Dieter Betz concludes: "The presumed
presence of Cynics in Galilean society in which Jesus
lived is mostly fanciful conjecture. The evidence for
Cynicism is limited to Gadara and Tyre, Hellenistic cities
outside of Galilee, though smaller cities existed in
Galilee itself, especially Sepphoris. It is, therefore,
wrong to make up for our lack of evidence by projecting
a sophisticated urban culture with Cynics into every part
of Galilee and then to place a Cynic-inspired sayings
source Q together with the Jesus movement in this Galilee"
(pp. 471-2). For more on the Cynics, see A.J. Malherbe,
*Paul and the Popular Philosophers* (Fortress, 1989).--
Paul Moser, Loyola University of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 12:22:28 CST
Subject: Re: Ro 1:21 -- DIOTI GNONTES TON QEON
With regards to my query regarding this verse and its context, I
appreciate the comments I have received both on and off the list.
I asked the question partly in order to jog my memory concerning
some long-forgotten comments made to me by Craig Blaising.
After getting the feeling that I wasn't really getting anywhere, and
my own reading of the passage falling into line with those responding
to me, I decided to call Craig and ask him about it. After dredging up
the context in which we spoke about the passage, it appears he did
put a slight twist on the interpretation of the passage, but nothing to
do with what I asked in this forum. So, I think we can happily
terminate my ill-begotten thread. Sorry to waste your time!
Mark O'Brien
- ----
"I don't speak for nobody, and if I was smarter, I wouldn't even speak
for myself...."
------------------------------
From: F49ADAM@ptsmail.ptsem.edu
Date: 26 Jul 95 19:05:09 GMT
Subject: Col 2:7
Dear John,
I should say that PERISSEUONTES is functioning adverbially, describing how
the Colossians should walk (v 6), so in parallel with the other participles.
Perhaps there is a subtlety that I've missed that inspires your question?
Grace and peace,
A K M Adam
Princeton Theological Seminary
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 13:29:11 CST
Subject: BG: Words Used Only Once in Mark
Consider the following chart of words that are used only one time in Mark.
Chapter Number of Number of Hapax Ratio
Words Used Only Once Verses Legomena WUOO/Verses
1 39 45 6 .86
2 16 28 3 .57
3 13 35 1 .37
4 42 * 41 2 1.02
5 25 43 4 .58
6 46 56 3 .82
7 41 * 37 6 1.11
8 23 38 2 .61
9 43 48 ** 10 .90
10 40 52 5 .77
11 14 33 2 .42
12 46 * 44 5 1.05
13 41 * 37 3 1.11
14 70 72 5 .97
15 53 * 46 ** 5 1.15
16:1-8 6 8 1 .75
16:9-20 13 * 12 1 1.08
Totals 571 675 64 .85
The above chart was compiled from the statistics for infrequently used words
found in Kubo's _Reader's Lexicon_. No guarentee of the absolute accuracy
can be given, due both to possible miscounts and omissions by Kubo, but the
figures are accurate enough for general purposes. Words that were used more
than once within a span of twelve verses were not counted. Chapters that have
more words used once in Mark than verses are marked with an asterisk. A
double asterisk indicates missing verses within a chapter due to a textual
variant.
The ratio of words used only once to verses varies between a low of .37 in
chapter 3 and a high of 1.15 in chapter 15. The ratio of 1.08 for the long
ending of Mark is well within this range, being exceeded by chapters 7, 13,
and 15. The distribution of words used only once is not uniform in Mark. For
example, the first twelve verses of chapter 1 contain 16 words used only once
in Mark, and the first twelve verses of chapter 14 contain 20, even though
both of these chapters have ratios that are less than 1.
The shorter ending of Mark, although only about 2 verses long, contains 9 words
not used in Mark, giving a ratio of 4.5, over 4 times that of the long ending!
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Lindsay J. Whaley" <Lindsay.J.Whaley@dartmouth.edu>
Date: 26 Jul 95 14:55:46 EDT
Subject: Re: Words Used Only Once in Mark
- --- You wrote:
The shorter ending of Mark, although only about 2 verses long, contains 9 words
not used in Mark, giving a ratio of 4.5, over 4 times that of the long ending!
- --- end of quoted material ---
Thanks for the stats Bruce. This is a remarkable discrepancy, but because the
shorter ending is *so* short, the statsitics are not useful as an argument
against the shorter ending. Bruce, in other sectionss with a high density of
new words (1.1-12 and 14:1-12) what was the maximum number of words contained
in any two verse span?
Lindsay Whaley
Dartmouth College
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 13:58:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Reference of PERISSEUONTES in Col. 2:7
At 12:58 PM 7/26/95, John L. Moody wrote:
>While working my way (rather slowly, I'm afraid, due to 2 years away from my
>Greek) through Colossians 2, I have come across a stumper that I would like
>your opinions on. In Col 2:7, is PERISSEUONTES EN EUXARISTIA modifying:
>
>1) EDIDAXQHTE
>2) BEBAIOUMENOI
>3) the triple conjunction of EPPIZWMENOI, EPOIKODOMOUMENOI, and
>BEBAIOUMENOI
>or
>4) something else that I've missed?
I haven't checked any resources on this one, but it appears to me, on
examination of the passage, that the series of participles is basically
parallel, all of the participles to be construed fundamentally with the
chief exhortation, EN AUTWi PERIPATEITE; each participle says something
about the way that "walk" is to be carried on: the "walk" is (i.e. the
"walkers are") rooted and grounded in him and confirmed in faith, and
(finally) abounding in thanksgiving. It appears to me that the
parenthetical clause, KAQWS EDIDAXQHTE, really comments on the first three
participles, linking these aspects of the "walk" to the prior instruction
one has received, while PERISSEUONTES EN EUXARISTIAi describes a manner of
the walk that does not so much depend upon the prior instruction. In sum,
then, I'd say that all four participles, ERRIZWMENOI, EPOIKODOUMENOI,
BEBAIOUMENOI, AND PERISSEUONTES, are essentially parallel and depend upon
the main verb PERIPATEITE.
On the other hand, my impression is that one of the more notorious problems
in Ephesians and Colossians is that the logical structure of the
discourse--the precise dependence of clauses and phrases and adverbs upon
each other in sequence--is in many instances less than crystal-clear, and I
think that's at least one of the reasons why some scholars raise questions
about the Pauline authorship of these letters. So there may well be some
other ways of construing these elements in Col 2:7.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 14:14:42 -0500
Subject: Re: BG: Words Used Only Once in Mark
At 1:29 PM 7/26/95, Bruce Terry wrote:
>Consider the following chart of words that are used only one time in Mark.
>
>Chapter Number of Number of Hapax Ratio
> Words Used Only Once Verses Legomena WUOO/Verses
>
> 1 39 45 6 .86
> 2 16 28 3 .57
> 3 13 35 1 .37
> 4 42 * 41 2 1.02
> 5 25 43 4 .58
> 6 46 56 3 .82
> 7 41 * 37 6 1.11
> 8 23 38 2 .61
> 9 43 48 ** 10 .90
> 10 40 52 5 .77
> 11 14 33 2 .42
> 12 46 * 44 5 1.05
> 13 41 * 37 3 1.11
> 14 70 72 5 .97
> 15 53 * 46 ** 5 1.15
> 16:1-8 6 8 1 .75
> 16:9-20 13 * 12 1 1.08
>
> Totals 571 675 64 .85
>
>The above chart was compiled from the statistics for infrequently used words
>found in Kubo's _Reader's Lexicon_. No guarentee of the absolute accuracy
>can be given, due both to possible miscounts and omissions by Kubo, but the
>figures are accurate enough for general purposes. Words that were used more
>than once within a span of twelve verses were not counted. Chapters that have
>more words used once in Mark than verses are marked with an asterisk. A
>double asterisk indicates missing verses within a chapter due to a textual
>variant.
Bruce, I haven't been much involved in this sort of analysis (although my
doctoral diss. actually did count instances of word-order patterns in
poetic texts), and I certainly can't say that these ratios of
words-used-only-once to verses in the chapter are not significant, but I'm
just wondering, in terms of methodology, whether the length of Mark's
verses is uniform enough to justify formulating the data this way. Might it
not conceivably be more meaningful to formulate the ratios between
words-used-only-once and total-words-in-each-chapter? Or, for that matter,
although it would certainly be a lot more complicated a compilation, but
wouldn't it be still better to make the unit of analysis not the CHAPTER
but the PERICOPE? The chapter is really such an artificial unit in NT
documents as a whole, and chapter lengths too are sufficiently disparate
that I can't help but wonder whether these comparative ratios for chapters
in Mark are as meaningful as they appear.
I'm just asking questions here, not offering criticisms. What do you think?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: James Kuiper <kuiper@mayo.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 95 14:19:31 CDT
Subject: book
Dear Friends,
I've been thinking of buying C. F. D. Moule's Idiom Book. I can't get a peek
at it prior to buying, though. It is referenced all the time in the books I've
been reading. Is it as helpful and respected as it seems? Do you use it often?
James Kuiper
kuiper@Mayo.EDU
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 14:28:35 CST
Subject: Re: BG: Words Used Only Once in Mark
On Wed, 26 Jul 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>Bruce, I haven't been much involved in this sort of analysis (although my
>doctoral diss. actually did count instances of word-order patterns in
>poetic texts), and I certainly can't say that these ratios of
>words-used-only-once to verses in the chapter are not significant, but I'm
>just wondering, in terms of methodology, whether the length of Mark's
>verses is uniform enough to justify formulating the data this way. Might it
>not conceivably be more meaningful to formulate the ratios between
>words-used-only-once and total-words-in-each-chapter? Or, for that matter,
>although it would certainly be a lot more complicated a compilation, but
>wouldn't it be still better to make the unit of analysis not the CHAPTER
>but the PERICOPE? The chapter is really such an artificial unit in NT
>documents as a whole, and chapter lengths too are sufficiently disparate
>that I can't help but wonder whether these comparative ratios for chapters
>in Mark are as meaningful as they appear.
You're exactly right, Carl. This is a quick and dirty version of a chart that
could be compiled in less than an hour using Kubo, since his statistics are so
readily available. If the chart really says anything, it says it because of
averages as relates to verses over a span. But counts of words over pericopes
would be better. Help! Does anybody have a computer setup that could do this
automatically?
I find it interesting that the average ratio increases toward the climax and
denouement of the book, which is what peak theory predicts will happen.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "John L. Moody" <moodyjl@bernstein.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 16:10:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Reference of PERISSEUONTES in Col. 2:7
>At 12:58 PM 7/26/95, John L. Moody wrote:
>>While working my way (rather slowly, I'm afraid, due to 2 years away from my
>>Greek) through Colossians 2, I have come across a stumper that I would like
>>your opinions on. In Col 2:7, is PERISSEUONTES EN EUXARISTIA modifying:
>>
>>1) EDIDAXQHTE
>>2) BEBAIOUMENOI
>>3) the triple conjunction of EPPIZWMENOI, EPOIKODOMOUMENOI, and
>>BEBAIOUMENOI
>>or
>>4) something else that I've missed?
>
>I haven't checked any resources on this one, but it appears to me, on
>examination of the passage, that the series of participles is basically
>parallel, all of the participles to be construed fundamentally with the
>chief exhortation, EN AUTWi PERIPATEITE; each participle says something
>about the way that "walk" is to be carried on: the "walk" is (i.e. the
>"walkers are") rooted and grounded in him and confirmed in faith, and
>(finally) abounding in thanksgiving. It appears to me that the
>parenthetical clause, KAQWS EDIDAXQHTE, really comments on the first three
>participles, linking these aspects of the "walk" to the prior instruction
>one has received, while PERISSEUONTES EN EUXARISTIAi describes a manner of
>the walk that does not so much depend upon the prior instruction. In sum,
>then, I'd say that all four participles, ERRIZWMENOI, EPOIKODOUMENOI,
>BEBAIOUMENOI, AND PERISSEUONTES, are essentially parallel and depend upon
>the main verb PERIPATEITE.
I bow to your assessment about my original question, but your reply has
raised another query: How can the KAQWS clause modify all three prior
participles in this case? I can understand the relation of the teaching of
the Colossians to their being built up and their confirmation in the faith,
but how does it relate to the "firm rooting"? It does relate, of course,
but not at all (or so it seems to me) in the same way as the other two
participles. (I suspect this has something to do with the fact that the
first participle is perfect while the other two are present.)
Now that I have stuck my neck out, I welcome your axes ...
- --John
********************************************************
John L. Moody ** "Grace to you and peace
** from God our Father
** and the Lord Jesus
moodyjl@bernstein.com ** Christ." -- Eph. 1.2
********************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 15:33:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Reference of PERISSEUONTES in Col. 2:7
At 4:10 PM 7/26/95, John L. Moody wrote:
> ... but your reply has
>raised another query: How can the KAQWS clause modify all three prior
>participles in this case? I can understand the relation of the teaching of
>the Colossians to their being built up and their confirmation in the faith,
>but how does it relate to the "firm rooting"? It does relate, of course,
>but not at all (or so it seems to me) in the same way as the other two
>participles. (I suspect this has something to do with the fact that the
>first participle is perfect while the other two are present.)
>
>Now that I have stuck my neck out, I welcome your axes ...
I have no axes to grind (all appearance to the contrary notwithstanding!)
nor to swing. I would think, however, that "grounding" (acquiring a
foundation) and "getting rooted" are really practically synonymous
metaphors for the result at which good instruction aims--and then,
"construction" goes hand in hand with those, doesn't it? Education is a
process that has been described over and over again over the centuries with
different metaphors, beginning with Protagoras' "culture"--nurturing a
plant to mature growth, continuing with Plato's "enlightenment," and
another phase that we have here appears to be the building of a structure
that will last (a house built on rock, to withstand the eschatological
flood?). Ironic, isn't it, that this structure so solidly planted in the
ground and with such firm foundations is supposed to WALK!?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 16:30:27 CST
Subject: Re: Words Used Only Once in Mark
On 26 Jul 95, Lindsay J. Whaley wrote:
>--- You wrote:
>The shorter ending of Mark, although only about 2 verses long, contains 9 words
>not used in Mark, giving a ratio of 4.5, over 4 times that of the long ending!
>--- end of quoted material ---
>
>Thanks for the stats Bruce. This is a remarkable discrepancy, but because the
>shorter ending is *so* short, the statsitics are not useful as an argument
>against the shorter ending. Bruce, in other sections with a high density of
>new words (1.1-12 and 14:1-12) what was the maximum number of words contained
>in any two verse span?
Good point, Lindsay. In most of the high density sections the ratio is
between 2 and 3 in most verses, less in others. However, 14:3 has four words
used only once in Mark and 1:6 has six! With the three of 1:7, that makes
nine words in a two verse span.
To reduce the statistic to words instead of verses, as Carl Conrad would like
me to do, 1:6-7 has nine words out of forty that are not used anywhere else in
Mark (22.5%). The shorter ending has nine words out of thirty-four that are
not used anywhere in Mark (26.5%). That is getting close; I don't know
whether the difference is still statistically significant, but I doubt it.
Checking further, 12:1 has seven out of twenty-four words that are used
nowhere else in Mark (29.2%), but if one adds the zero out of eighteen words
of 12:2, the percentage drops to 16.7%.
You're right, it is hard to apply statistical analysis to so short a section
with meaning.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 16:40:41 CST
Subject: Word Order in Poetry
On Wed, 26 Jul 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>my doctoral diss. actually did count instances of word-order patterns in
>poetic texts
Now there is an interesting topic, especially to those of us who were involved
in an occasional discussion with our major professors as to whether or not
there was a discourse grammatical difference between poetry and prose. Could
you please post the bibliographical info on your dissertation?
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 17:01:10 CST
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
On Mon, 24 Jul 1995, Timothy Bratton wrote:
> As I mentioned in my earlier
>posting, the triple conjunction of 7 B.C. is recorded in
>surviving Babylonian tablets from Sippur. Save for St. Matthew's
>non-technical usage of "leading" and "resting" for astronomical
>behavior, the account can be made to harmonize with natural
>phenomena without recourse to miracles.
I like this explanation of the star, not so much because it avoids the
miraculous, but because it explains how the magi knew what they were looking
for; in fact, I have liked it for 25 years. But I have one problem with it:
when the magi started south to Bethlehem, Matt. 2:9 says it was "going before"
PROHGEN them. Perhaps I am overly influenced by the Jerusalem Bible's "in
front of" them, but it seems to me that the natural usage of this term,
non-technical or not, would indicate that the phenomenon was in the southern
sky. What part of the sky would this conjunction have been in?
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #800
*****************************
** 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