[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #807
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 1 August 1995 Volume 01 : Number 807
In this issue:
re: Great Greek Books!!
re: Great Greek Books!!
Astronomy and the Nativity
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
Current evaluations of Deissmann's works
re: Great Greek Books!!
Re: More on Jesus the Cynic
re: Great Greek Books!!
BBG and the index
Re: Easter Challenge
Re: Current evaluations of Deissmann's works
Cynicism and Hellenism
Re: Morphologies
Unsubscribe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov
Date:
Subject: re: Great Greek Books!!
Forwarded to: Internet[b-greek@virginia.edu]
cc:
Comments by: Eric Weiss@OSP@ACF.DAL
Comments:
Has anyone out there compared Mounce's Morphology book with the one by Brooks
and Winberry I describe in the following note? Any Comments? Since I have
and am teaching from Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek, his book would be
keyed to my text and so would probably be more helpful, but the reviews of
this other book sound really good. Thanks. - Eric Weiss
-------------------------- [Original Message] -------------------------
Regarding your $30.00 offer on Mounce's Morphology of Biblical Greek ...
If you have examined it, I was wondering how Mounce's MORPHOLOGY OF
BIBLICAL GREEK compares (advantages, disadvantages) with the new
one by Brooks and Winbery which has received the following
praises. Thanks for your response. - Eric Weiss
A MORPHOLOGY OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK
A Review and Reference Grammar
By James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery
May 1994, 478 pp. University Press of America
ISBN 0-8191-9491-3 $39.50 paper
ISBN 0-8191-9490-5 $65.00 cloth
"After teaching Greek for more than thirty years and
examining many textbooks, I can say without reservation that
this is the best book on Greek morphology that I have
seen...."--R.E. Glaze, Jr., Professor Emeritus, New Orleans
Baptist Theological Seminary
"Brooks and Winbery's MORPHOLOGY OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK is
totally comprehensive in scope and definitive in detailed
analysis."--Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament
Emeritus, Princeton Theological Seminary
"After years of hard work, Brooks and Winbery have produced
the most comprehensive and definitive treatment of New
Testament Greek morphology. This book will become a
standard reference book for all students and scholars of the
Greek New Testament for the next generation. I recommend it
without reservation."--Bennie R. Crockett, Jr., William
Carey College
------------------------------
From: eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov
Date:
Subject: re: Great Greek Books!!
Forwarded to: Internet[b-greek@virginia.edu]
cc:
Comments by: Eric Weiss@OSP@ACF.DAL
Comments:
Let me make another attempt to send this.
=======================================================================
Forwarded to: Internet[b-greek@virginia.edu]
cc:
Comments by: Eric Weiss@OSP@ACF.DAL
Comments:
Has anyone out there compared Mounce's Morphology book with the one by Brooks
and Winberry I describe in the following note? Any Comments? Since I have
and am teaching from Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek, his book would be
keyed to my text and so would probably be more helpful, but the reviews of
this other book sound really good. Thanks. - Eric Weiss
-------------------------- [Original Message] -------------------------
Regarding your $30.00 offer on Mounce's Morphology of Biblical Greek ...
If you have examined it, I was wondering how Mounce's MORPHOLOGY OF
BIBLICAL GREEK compares (advantages, disadvantages) with the new
one by Brooks and Winbery which has received the following
praises. Thanks for your response. - Eric Weiss
A MORPHOLOGY OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK
A Review and Reference Grammar
By James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery
May 1994, 478 pp. University Press of America
ISBN 0-8191-9491-3 $39.50 paper
ISBN 0-8191-9490-5 $65.00 cloth
"After teaching Greek for more than thirty years and
examining many textbooks, I can say without reservation that
this is the best book on Greek morphology that I have
seen...."--R.E. Glaze, Jr., Professor Emeritus, New Orleans
Baptist Theological Seminary
"Brooks and Winbery's MORPHOLOGY OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK is
totally comprehensive in scope and definitive in detailed
analysis."--Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament
Emeritus, Princeton Theological Seminary
"After years of hard work, Brooks and Winbery have produced
the most comprehensive and definitive treatment of New
Testament Greek morphology. This book will become a
standard reference book for all students and scholars of the
Greek New Testament for the next generation. I recommend it
without reservation."--Bennie R. Crockett, Jr., William
Carey College
------------------------------
From: Timothy Bratton <bratton@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 14:52:49 -35900
Subject: Astronomy and the Nativity
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
Dear Friends,
Thanks you for your many comments, critiques, and queries about
my posting on the Star of Bethlehem. I hope to provide another posting
on this topic soon, but one of my hard drives (the one with most of my
astronomy programs!) lost its file allocation tables this morning, and I
had to reformat the entire drive. I do not anticipate that it will be up
and running before I leave on a brief vacation. In any event, I shall
try to respond (barring further mishap) before the end of August. In the
event that I should unsubscribe from B-Greek temporarily in order not to
have too much mail pile up, you can send me mail about the Nativity issue
_directly_ at my E-mail address above. Thank you for your consideration.
------------------------------
From: Timothy Bratton <bratton@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 14:33:17 -35900
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Shaughn Daniel wrote:
> Dr. Bratton,
>
> I enjoyed your post most thoroughly concerning the triple convergence of
> Jupiter and Saturn. I need a nice, fully-packed book on chronology and
> calendars. You seem to have some interaction with the establishing of the
> calendar according to planetary movements. Is there any one book that would
> introduce me to the topic of calendaric issues that you would recommend?
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
If you don't mind using a variety of sources instead of one, I
suggest several alternatives. Guy Ottewell's *Astronomical Companion*
($14; Astronomical Workshop, Furman University, Greenville, South
Carolina 29613) has a extensive section on various calendars. Ottewell
is a gifted artist as well as a physicist, and his ability to represent
three-dimensional scenes in just two dimensions through the use of
perspective is uncanny. His annual *Astronomical Calendar* ($16 from the
same source) offers commentaries on calendar problems as they arise.
Zephyr Services (1900 Murray Ave., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15217) has a
software program, *CalMaster 2000*, which is supposed to convert
Gregorian or Julian dates into the modern Jewish and ancient Hebrew
calendar. I believe that it is selling for $39.95 right now. I don't
have it, but intend to order it. As somebody else commented earlier,
ascertaining when a Jewish month or holiday _ought_ to have begun
astronomically is not necessarily when it began in actuality. Both the
Jews and the modern Arabs dated the beginning of months by the first
sighting of the young evening crescent Moon. If the sky were overcast,
the month might begin a few days late (from an astronomical perspective)
until two reputable witnesses had spotted the Moon. Have you looked at
some BBSs in Germany and abroad? I have encountered at least two
programs that perform Gregorian/Julian/Jewish calendar conversions, but
neither handles B.C. dates.
Check *Astronomy* and *Sky & Telescope* for lists of
astronomy-oriented BBSs. See Stuart J. Goldman's "Astronomy on the
Internet," *S&T* (Aug. 1995): 21-27, for useful Internet addresses.
*S&T* has opened its own Internet page at: http://www.skypub.com. The
magazine offers a cumulative computer index to all its past issues for
$24.95, with $6.95 annual upgrades. You might then be able to locate all
past articles on calendars, the Star of Bethlehem, the crucifixion, etc.
Does this help??
------------------------------
From: Timothy Bratton <bratton@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 14:03:05 -35900
Subject: Re: Astronomy and the Nativity
On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Shaughn Daniel wrote:
> Dr. Bratton,
>
> I enjoyed your post most thoroughly concerning the triple convergence of
> Jupiter and Saturn. I need a nice, fully-packed book on chronology and
> calendars. You seem to have some interaction with the establishing of the
> calendar according to planetary movements. Is there any one book that would
> introduce me to the topic of calendaric issues that you would recommend?
>
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
Unfortunately, I can't think of a _single_ reference book that
would satisfy your needs, but there are several works which, if used
together, might be satisfactory. First and foremost is Guy Ottewell's
*Astronomical Companion* (Astronomical Workshop, Furman University,
Greenville, South Carolina 29613; $14). Ottewell is both a physicist and
a superb artist, with an uncanny knack for depicting three-dimensional
situations in two dimensions through his use of perspective. There is an
extensive section on calendars in this work. Ottewell also publishes an
annual *Astronomical Calendar* from the same source ($16), which often
delves into calendar issues as they arise. Zephyr Services (1900 Murray
Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15217) offers a software program,
*CalMaster 2000*, which includes the modern Jewish and ancient Hebrew
calendars. It is on sale now at $39.95, I believe. I do not own this
program yet, but plan to buy it myself. As another writer on this system
commented, calculating when Passover _ought_ to have begun astronomically
(with the sighting of the young lunar crescent) is _not_ necessarily when
it began historically. In the ancient Hebrew calendar, as in the modern
Arabic calendar, the new month did not begin until reputable witnesses had
spotted the slim crescent Moon in the evening sky, so bad weather could
have postponed the opening of the new month or holiday by a day or more
until such a sighting took place. Finally, have you looked at any BBSs in
Germany or abroad? Several of them have extensive shareware libraries of
both astronomical and religious software, one of which might suit your
purposes. I have encountered at least two programs that will convert the
Gregorian and Julian calendar into the Jewish calendar, but regrettably
neither program is designed to deal with B.C. dates. If you look at back
issues of *Astronomy* and *Sky & Telescope*, they will publish directories
of astronomy-oriented BBSs; see also Stuart J. Goldman, "Astronomy on the
Internet," *Sky & Telescope* (Aug. 1995): 21-27. There is a cumulative
computer index to *Sky & Telescope* (fax: 617-864-6117; $24.95, with $6.95
for annual upgrades); you could scan through this for appropriate
references. *Sky & Telescope* now has its own Internet address:
http://www.skypub.com. Does this help?
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 95 10:25:31 PDT
Subject: Current evaluations of Deissmann's works
I've got a question, while we're all talking about classical vs.
Hellenistic Greek. How valuable, or in step with current
views are the works by Deismann _Light from the Ancient Past_
and _Bible Studies_? They both sound interesting but one always
wonders about a work that is nearly a century old. I guess in that
context I might ask the same about J.B. Lightfoot's commentaries on
the Greek text. Are those works too dated in terms of our state
of knowledge to be of any value? Put another way, will I get laughed
at if I think Lightfoot got it right and cite him in doctoral level
work? Thanks.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
Soon to be of GTU,
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 12:49:57 -0500
Subject: re: Great Greek Books!!
At 8:52 AM 7/31/95, eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov wrote:
>Forwarded to: Internet[b-greek@virginia.edu]
> cc:
>Comments by: Eric Weiss@OSP@ACF.DAL
>Comments:
>
>Has anyone out there compared Mounce's Morphology book with the one by Brooks
>and Winberry I describe in the following note? Any Comments? Since I have
>and am teaching from Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek, his book would be
>keyed to my text and so would probably be more helpful, but the reviews of
>this other book sound really good. Thanks. - Eric Weiss
>
Gutsy question to put to a list to which both authors subscribe? But a good
question nevertheless. Perhaps the principals in question would themselves
like to respond? (I haven't used either myself, since I normally teach
Classical rather than Biblical Greek, although I've used the Mounce basic
textbook this summer for a crash course in Koine).
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: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 15:38:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: More on Jesus the Cynic
On Fri, 28 Jul 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> It would be difficult if not impossible to know how the
> average Jew in Galilee would have been affected by the culture. My
> point was to suggest that some things in Hellenistic culture might be
> known about by Jesus but promptly rejected.
Agreed. My point, however (and not directed to you specifically), was
that even in rejection, the parties participating in communication are
changed/affected. You, for example, have been "contaminated" with the
terms I use and the definitions I hold for certain terms -- if you wish to
communicate with me. That's true even though you reject what I have to
say (heaven forbid!). And the same goes for what my understanding of what
you have to say -- but then I never reject anything you say!
>Just as I, as a Christian,
> know a little bit about Islam, but reject it, so that Islamic thought
> does not influence my thoughts or ideas at all (at least so far as I
> know),
"so far as I know" -- exactly. I wonder if you were communicating your
faith to a Muslim you might change aspects of your discourse to make it
more understandable to them. That is being "affected" in a small way,
although your central message wouldn't change. Some Christians also might
be affected more than that.
> Jesus could well have been aware of any number of philosophical
> or religious ideas (and I'd be happy to know that he was aware of other
> ideas but rejected them, rather than troubled by that), but
> immediately upon learning about them rejected them because they did not
> fit into his worldview.
My argument is that many of those elements were *already* in his
worldview, simply because he was a first-century Jew growing up in
Palestine. If a person truly believes in the doctrine of the
Incarnation, wouldn't that be even more necessary, instead of the old
"water through a tube" theory?
>They created no cognitive dissonance for him.
Luke says something about "growing in wisdom and stature." Perhaps Jesus
had to learn things throughout his life, no?
> I would think that Cynic ideas, what little I know about them, would fall
> in this category, so that any similarities would have to be understood
> as coming from a different source (or originating with Jesus himself,
> given that I would allow him some thoughts and ideas of his own, unlike
> some schools of NT criticsim).
Several things:
1. Some cynic ideas are very similar to the sayings reported to be from
Jesus (like parts of the Sermon on the Mount). There are also many other
aspects of comparison, such as social location and social critique, etc.
If I may humbly recommend the last three or four pages of my *Semeia* 64
article, I briefly treat this latter idea in Luke's narrative.
2. As Vaage tries to make clear, this is not a case of "background" type
or "genealogical" information. That is often the critique of those only
trained in historical-critical modes of investigation (so it should not
the history-of-religions "parallelomania" that Sandmel spoke against).
The similarities call for a more complex analysis.
3. At the least, Vaage, Downing, and others have demonstrated that some
early Christians utilized cynic-type language. They argue that it goes
back to Jesus. If so, that doesn't mean, however, that Jesus "copied"
them.
4. Scholars who dismiss hellenistic influences do so for three primary
reasons:
a. Theological -- They want Jesus to be completely "unique,"
untainted by hellenistic influences and superior to his Jewish
contemporaries.
b. Sociological/methodological -- They still (wrongly) assume the
"direct influence" model of the history of religions school.
c. Training -- NT scholars used to be required to have some
classical training; that, sadly, is no longer the case.
Once again, much of this posting is not directed specifically to Ken.
Best wishes,
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <billm@teknia.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 12:59:57 -0700
Subject: re: Great Greek Books!!
>>Has anyone out there compared Mounce's Morphology book with the one by Brooks
>>and Winberry I describe in the following note? Any Comments? Since I have
>>and am teaching from Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek, his book would be
>>keyed to my text and so would probably be more helpful, but the reviews of
>>this other book sound really good. Thanks. - Eric Weiss
>
>Gutsy question to put to a list to which both authors subscribe? But a good
>question nevertheless. Perhaps the principals in question would themselves
>like to respond? (I haven't used either myself, since I normally teach
>Classical rather than Biblical Greek, although I've used the Mounce basic
>textbook this summer for a crash course in Koine).
>
Okay Conrad, lets see....
Actually, I didn't get to see BW's text except for about 3 hours before
mine went to the printers, and unfortunately I have only had time to skim
it since then.
While there is lots of overlap between the two texts, BW's does have lots
of statistical information that is very helpful to the high-end user
(excuse the lapse into computereze). That's really helpful to me. I have
also found their statistics and paradigms very reliable.
I think mine is helpful didactically in terms of layout and usability,
especially the paradigms and the tie-ins to my other texts. I maybe wrong
here -- and I am sure I will be corrected if so, and I should be -- but I
think there are more morphological rules that are tied into the different
words and paradigms in MBG.
What happened is unfortunate in one sense. The academic community went for
so long without anything, and then in a short span of several months two
good grammars come out. I talked with Jim at SBL several years ago as he
was looking over MBG and he said that we would have "a little friendly
competition." I like that attitude, but frankly if their stuff had been out
several years earlier I am not sure I would have written mine (except that
I did start mine over 20 years ago, and one hates to see his "baby" not
come to completion regardless).
I think both do a good job, and to some degree it is a matter of taste and
need that will determine which text you use.
Bill Mounce
- -------------------------------
Teknia Software, Inc.
1306 W. Bellwood Drive
Spokane, WA 99218-2911
Internet: billm@teknia.com (preferred)
AOL: Mounce
CIS: 71540,2140 (please, only if necessary)
"It may be Greek to you, but it is life to me."
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <billm@teknia.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 13:00:02 -0700
Subject: BBG and the index
BBG Users
In the fourth printing of Basics of Biblical Greek, just sent to the
publisher, I corrected all errors that had been reports (one of these days
I am going toget rid of those things for good). Zondervan also gave me an
additional 16 pages so I made an Index for the grammar and included a few
alternate paradigms (e.g., log-os and not logo-s) for those who are more
traditional. There are only 1,5000 texts of the third printing left, so I
would guess grammars that come out after September will be the fourth
printing.
When I get my new copy of FrameMaker, in about a month, I can convert the
index to a word file, and I will post it at my ftp site. I will announce it
when I have done so. You are free to distribute the Index to your students.
Bill Mounce
- -------------------------------
Teknia Software, Inc.
1306 W. Bellwood Drive
Spokane, WA 99218-2911
Internet: billm@teknia.com (preferred)
AOL: Mounce
CIS: 71540,2140 (please, only if necessary)
"It may be Greek to you, but it is life to me."
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 16:01:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Easter Challenge
On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Eric Weiss wrote:
> gospels are or purport to be. And as [the gospels] become less "factual"
and more
> "theological" and "propagandistic," one then has to decide how one determines
> what Jesus really said and did. If you go far enough down this road, you end
> up with The Jesus Seminar.
A new version of the old "slippery-slope argument?"
Since the Jesus Seminar is everyone's favorite whipping boy these days, I
won't detail my differences with its conclusions.
Yet may I make a general plea? (one not directed at Eric specifically).
Can we make critiques more substantive when the Seminar is mentioned?
(like the one person who listed some articles recently that criticized
the Jesus Seminar with reasoned arguments).
In addition, does everyone understand the various and divergent scholarly
paths that led to the "non-eschatological Jesus?" Like some of the work
by Robinson and Koester. The "Temperate Case for a Non-eschatological
Jesus," by Marcus Borg a few years ago. The work on Q by Kloppenborg and
others. And dozens of other studies. Many disparate elements and
separate investigations eventually led to the convergence of the "Jesus"
that the Seminar has found. It didn't pop up out of thin air.
I disagree with Borg's position on the Son of Man, for example, and that
is part of what leads me to believe that Jesus, as reported in the
Synoptics, actually did predict the imminent end of the world in the first
century. I also disagree with Robert Funk's need for publicity (of a
certain type), and other things about the Seminar.
On the other hand, the Seminar's quest is a valid one (although ultimately
grail-like in its impossibility). After you read and understand where
they (and they are a very diverse group, with many different ideas about
Jesus) are coming from, you may not like their view. But then we can
discuss it in detail (again! -- big sigh -- I'm actually rather tired of
hearing about it).
Maybe the books by Sanders or Meier or whomever would be more acceptable
to different people. That's the nature of the quest and of the materials
we have to work with.
I know this is a diatribe (Whoa! Did I "get" that word directly from the
Cynics? -- sorry, different thread), but we go through the same motions
every few months or so with no progress or end in sight.
Did I mention that it was hot here?
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 15:09:38 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Current evaluations of Deissmann's works
On Mon, 31 Jul 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> I've got a question, while we're all talking about classical vs.
> Hellenistic Greek. How valuable, or in step with current
> views are the works by Deismann _Light from the Ancient Past_
> and _Bible Studies_? They both sound interesting but one always
> wonders about a work that is nearly a century old. I guess in that
> context I might ask the same about J.B. Lightfoot's commentaries on
> the Greek text. Are those works too dated in terms of our state
> of knowledge to be of any value? Put another way, will I get laughed
> at if I think Lightfoot got it right and cite him in doctoral level
> work? Thanks.
All of Deissmann's books above (+ his book on Paul, though less so) are
major contributions still of enormous value, esp. Light from ancient East
and his Bible STudies vols. *Many, many* of today's generation of NT
scholars will *never* have actually consulted these works, and their
grasp of many "realia" is the poorer for it.
Lightfoot's commentaries continue to be of value, though they
have suffered the unavoidable process of being dated in some matters.
But Lightfoot was a superb scholar, with a good nose for analysis. Some
of the essays in his commentary volumes continue to be major
contributiosn that must be consulted for thorough scholarly work. His
5-vol. work on the Apostolic Fathers is *must* reading for anyone working
on that body of early Christian material, unsurpassed in English to this day.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 95 15:13 CDT
Subject: Cynicism and Hellenism
In the wake of Martin Hengel's seminal work on
Hellenism and Judaism, hardly anyone denies that
Hellenism had extensive influence on first-century
Palestine, including Galilee. We must not, however,
infer that Cynicism had a similar influence, as
Hellenism doesn't entail Cynicism; nor do we have
any salient evidence indicating that Jesus of
Nazareth borrowed from Cynic teachings (as Charlesworth,
Aune, Betz, Boyd, and others have noted). As for the
influence of Hellenism, the original canonical gospels were,
after all, written in Greek, and they "have at least
as much in common with Graeco-Roman bioi as the bioi
have with each other" (Richard Burridge, *What are the
Gospels?*, Cambridge UP, 1992, p. 258). Given
Burridge's careful argument, we may regard the
canonical gospels as falling within the genre of
Graeco-Roman biography and thus meriting treatment
as purportedly historical rather than fictional
(contra Mack, e.g.). Still, such obvious Greek
influence does nothing to welcome use of a
Cynic model to explain the Jesus movement (as
Sean Freyne has observed).--Paul Moser, Loyola
University of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 16:33:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Morphologies
Eric Weiss wrote,
"Has anyone out there compared Mounce's Morphology book with the one by
Brooks and Winberry (sic) I describe in the following note? Any Comments?
Since I have and am teaching from Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek, his
book would be
keyed to my text and so would probably be more helpful, but the reviews of
this other book sound really good. Thanks. - Eric Weiss"
James Brooks of Bethel Theological Seminary is at present working through
Mounce's Morphology point by point in order to check our work against his. I
have seen Mounce's work in a pre-publication form and must say that they are
very similar, especially in the sections on Phonology. Our book came out in
March of 94 and Mounce's two or three months later, but Eerdman's and Mounce
were gracious enough to share early copies with us. I'll wait until I can
get some of James Brook's comments before comparing the two.
Now I will share some of what we did in our Morphology. Our basic intention
was not to produce new insights into Greek Morphology, but to provide an
orderly reference book with which students who had had an introduction to the
language could review and learn in a systematic way the morphological changes
for every word in the Greek New Testament (UBS 3rd). We wanted it to be in
the order that seemed most natural for the Greek.
Part one is a brief introduction to Phonology, including pronunciation (4
systems side by side), Phonetic change (more complete for the NT), and
accent.
Part two deals with the forms of substantives (including nouns, adjectives,
pronouns, and numerals. Types of each of these are given followed by a list
of every noun in the NT that follows that pattern. The list are
comprehensive made primarily from Aland, Vollstandige Konkordanz, Band II
corrected from other sources where he counts forms not included in the text
of the UBS 3.
Part three deals with the forms of the verb (including infinitives and
participles). Chapter VIII (Introduction to the Verb) seeks to present in
good order various aspects of verb morphology such as augments, etc. Then
under a section on stem, all verbs in the NT are classed into six types.
This section was heavily influenced by Funk's work on Hellenistic Greek. We
have modified some of his classes. After the discussion of each subclass, we
have listed every verb in the NT that is of that class. These classes are
also keyed to an appendix where we give in alphabetic order every verb in the
NT followed by the principle parts which occur in the NT and the subforms
built on each P.P. Under the various moods we have dealt with the
morphological changes unique to each tense, mood, voice followed again by
lists of verbs that behave in each pattern and irregular behavior.
I think the comprehensive lists and the master list (appendix A) of all verbs
enable students to find forms with which they are unfamiliar much easier than
say (A.T. Robertson). There is little need for extensive indexes. The
classification system is, I think, sensible and easy to learn.
We started this work thirteen years ago hoping to put something in the hands
of students who came to seminary or graduate school without mastering
anything beyond introductory morphology. We did not intend to include much
gramatical analysis. We had already done the little syntax book for that and
felt that any number of good works already existed for that purpose. I would
note that Mounce's Morphology has more grammatical analysis that we.
Hope this helps,
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Rel.
La College, Pineville, La.
P.S. The reviews that Univ. Press of Am racked up came from two former
teachers and a former student. Take them that way.
------------------------------
From: Apokrisis@aol.com
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 23:37:47 -0400
Subject: Unsubscribe
unsubscribe b-greek
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #807
*****************************
** 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