[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #808
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 2 August 1995 Volume 01 : Number 808
In this issue:
Hello
Re: Great Greek Books!!
hades
Re: Christ-hymn
"Babuloni" in Jer 29:10 LXX
Re: hades
Re: "Babuloni" in Jer 29:10 LXX
Re: "Babuloni" in Jer 29:10 LXX
Re: Cynicism and Hellenism
Deissmann and J. B. Lightfoot
Aorist stem = future
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Songbird88@aol.com
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 03:16:05 -0400
Subject: Hello
Hello friends,
I am new to the list and thought I would say hello, and let you know I will
be doing a lot of lurking around here in the furture.
I have been looking into Greek on and off for years, and have finally decided
to get serious about it!
Well... as serious as anyone in self study can be that is.
I am going through a "Greek in 30 minutes a day" book, and an encouraged by
it. For the first time I seem to be making progress.
If any of you have any recommendations that might help, please send them on.
Thanks for this list, and I look forward to reading your insights and drawing
from your knowledge.
In Jesus
Craig
------------------------------
From: CBCBooks@aol.com
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 09:33:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Great Greek Books!!
>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
I only have had two years of Greek myself and do not feel qualified (at the
current time) to make such a comparison.
ALSO, I have an "emotional" tie to MBG because I used Mounce's INTRO for
first year Greek therefore, MBG "flows" well with my thought pattern.
HOWEVER, as a Future Pastor My philosophy is: Variety is NOT ONLY the Spice
of Life it is the Goal for One's Library!"
I would listen to the comments put forth by others more qualified do to
so--such as the authors' and many of their contempories which also are
online.
Jerry Taylor, Mgr
Calvary Bookstore
Calvary Bible College and Theological Seminary
15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, MO 64147
(816) 331-0947
CBCBooks@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Paul Watkins <bennywp@community.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 08:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: hades
Could someone take a few minutes and give me an exposition on the word
Hades, and specifically its relationship to SHeOL of the Hebrew?
Please Cc me a copy, as I am not currently subscribed to the list.
Thank you,
Paul
------------------------------
From: Westwinds1@aol.com
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 11:41:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Christ-hymn
L. Hurtado, the kind of info. you passed on in your comments is exactly the
reason I joined this list 2 weeks ago. I was hoping for substantial and
solid interaction. Thanks for enriching our list.
------------------------------
From: Jan S Haugland <jan.haugland@uib.no>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 17:35:45 +0000
Subject: "Babuloni" in Jer 29:10 LXX
Hello!
I hope one of you can give me a reference showing that the text in LXX Jer
29:10 is correctly translated "Seventy years *for* Babylon". KJV and derivates
use "AT" Babylon as a translation of "LeBabel" (Hebrew). A guy claimed that in
LXX "Babuloni" is in dative meaning "at Babylon" but that has to be wrong.
Locative in Greek is genetive, so the text in LXX means "*for* Babylon",
right, or did I miss something?
As far as I know there are only two English translations of the LXX available,
one by Sir Lancelot Brenton in 1851. Brenton keyed off the KJV and used "AT
Babylon" here, which may be a source of this problem.
Can anyone provide any *references* we can use to prove this point in a
writeup? Of course, quotable statements from people with degrees (you know how
it is...) will be appreciated as well. I know this sounds a bit strange but
there is a very natural explanation :-)
Cheers,
- - Jan
- --
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with
themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 12:57:52 -0500
Subject: Re: hades
At 8:35 AM 8/1/95, Paul Watkins wrote:
>Could someone take a few minutes and give me an exposition on the word
>Hades, and specifically its relationship to SHeOL of the Hebrew?
>
>Please Cc me a copy, as I am not currently subscribed to the list.
>
>Thank you,
>
>
>Paul
Quite frankly, I am better equipped to say something about Hades than I am
about Sheol; so perhaps someone else should add a note on Sheol.
I am not going to go into very great detail here. You'd best consult
something like _The Oxford Classical Dictionary_ (2nd ed.).
(1) Originally, Hades is the name of the lord of the underworld and from
the earliest Greek traditions this was understood to be the brother of Zeus
(whose proper sphere is heaven) and Poseidon (whose proper spheres are
earth & sea). Other names are also used: _Pluto_ (grk. PLOUTWN, "the rich
one", Lat. _Dis_, syncopated form of _Dives_).
The best known (because associated with the very-much esteemed cult of
Demeter & Persephone at Eleusis near Athens) story about Hades is that he
carried off Persephone (also called "daughter" or _Kore_), the daughter of
the earth-mother Demeter, whereupon she roamed the earth and let it go
infertile for months, unti ultimately an arrangement was made whereby she
spends several months in the upper world, while earth is fertile, and the
other months with her husband Hades in the underworld.
(2) In Greek the regular formulation of "in Hades" is EN hADOU, lit. "in
the (house) of Hades"; "to Hades" is EIS hADOU, lit "to the (house) of
Hades"
There is not one single but rather there are several different conceptions
of the underworld in the Greek tradition; one of the earliest is reflected
in Book 11 of the Odyssey: the dead exist somehow as phantom potencies of
the once living that have no power or voice unless or until they are
allowed to drink blood, in which case they acquire memory and voice, as do
the heroes and heroines whom Odysseus questions in Odyssey 11. A second
conception is that found in Hesiod's _Works and Days_: in the land beyond
the sunset--the far west (which somehow is also down under!) reigns Kronos
together with his consort Rhea, and they rule over the heroic, aristocratic
dead (who alone have a meaningful existence) in a sort of paradise where
the characteristic activities of the living are practiced always. Later
there is an Orphic-Pythagorean conception of an underworld to which souls
of the dead go between reincarnations to be punished or enjoy rewards, but
ultimately to drink of the river/lake of Lethe (forgetting their past) and
be reborn into new bodies. A version of this notion can be seen in Plato's
Phaedo and in the Myth of Er in Book 10 of the Republic.
That's a sketch of three schemes. There are others and there are
combinations; there is no single "orthodox" understanding of the
underworld.
Now I can't really say with any authority how any one scheme compares with
the OT notion of Sheol; my impression is that the closest approximation to
Sheol is that first Homeric notion outlined above--that Sheol is the
underworld, the place of the buried dead, which have only a shadowy,
insubstantial reality. And does even this belief have any "orthodox" status
in OT thinking? or isn't it rather a matter of pagan popular belief? My
impression is that the oldest stratum of OT belief doesn't have any notion
of an underworld or afterlife at all.
Probably this sketch is of little value, and a better answer might have
been gotten from the B-Hebrew list (also @virginia.edu). I'd welcome some
enlightenment on the range of possible meanings for "Sheol." I wouldn't
suppose this is something appropriate for a regular B-Greek thread, but
perhaps I can legitimize it as such by posing the question what other
B-Greekers understand Mt 16:18 to mean by the "gates of Hades" in
KAI EPI TAUTHi THi PETRAi OIKODOMHSW MOU THN EKKLHSIAN KAI
PULAI hADOU OU KATISXOUSOUSIN AUTHS.
What does the last clause actually mean? Anything more than that the Church
thus established transcends death?
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: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 13:19:03 -0500
Subject: Re: "Babuloni" in Jer 29:10 LXX
At 12:35 PM 8/1/95, Jan S Haugland wrote:
>Hello!
>
>I hope one of you can give me a reference showing that the text in LXX Jer
>29:10 is correctly translated "Seventy years *for* Babylon". KJV and derivates
>use "AT" Babylon as a translation of "LeBabel" (Hebrew). A guy claimed that in
>LXX "Babuloni" is in dative meaning "at Babylon" but that has to be wrong.
>Locative in Greek is genetive, so the text in LXX means "*for* Babylon",
>right, or did I miss something?
>
>As far as I know there are only two English translations of the LXX available,
>one by Sir Lancelot Brenton in 1851. Brenton keyed off the KJV and used "AT
>Babylon" here, which may be a source of this problem.
>
>Can anyone provide any *references* we can use to prove this point in a
>writeup? Of course, quotable statements from people with degrees (you know how
>it is...) will be appreciated as well. I know this sounds a bit strange but
>there is a very natural explanation :-)
LXX Jer 36:10 = MT Jer 29:10. The Greek text reads hOTI hOUTWS EIPEN
KURIOS: hOTAN MELLHi PLHROUSQAI BABULWNI hEDOMHKONTA ETH, EPISKECOMAI hUMAS
KAI ...
I'd understand BABULWNI as a true dative and read it as "for Babylon." I
don't know, however, where the notion came from that the Locative in Greek
is genitive(it is in Latin for first- and second-declension nouns, but
never was for Greek); that's simply not true; the Dative is used, normally
with the preposition EN in expressions of Place. I would think that might
be reason enough why this should not be understood as a Locative. And if MT
reads "LeBabel," that would seem to seal the point that the LXX translator
has correctly conveyed the Hebrew into Greek.
Sorry, can't give you a reference, can only interpret what the Greek says
and what I think it must legitimately mean.
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: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 95 11:31:15 PDT
Subject: Re: "Babuloni" in Jer 29:10 LXX
>
> I hope one of you can give me a reference showing that the text in LXX Jer
> 29:10 is correctly translated "Seventy years *for* Babylon". KJV and derivates
> use "AT" Babylon as a translation of "LeBabel" (Hebrew). A guy claimed that in
> LXX "Babuloni" is in dative meaning "at Babylon" but that has to be wrong.
> Locative in Greek is genetive, so the text in LXX means "*for* Babylon",
> right, or did I miss something?
>
> As far as I know there are only two English translations of the LXX available,
> one by Sir Lancelot Brenton in 1851. Brenton keyed off the KJV and used "AT
> Babylon" here, which may be a source of this problem.
>
> Can anyone provide any *references* we can use to prove this point in a
> writeup? Of course, quotable statements from people with degrees (you know how
> it is...) will be appreciated as well. I know this sounds a bit strange but
> there is a very natural explanation :-)
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Jan
The dative form in Greek can have dative, locative or instrumental
force: to/for Babylon; in/at Babylon; or by (the aid of) Babylon
(what has been called a dative of means for those who don't like the
8 case system, though I don't see what all the fuss is about whether
there are 5 or 8 cases). I don't have the text before me to make a
decision, but which way the noun is being used would depend on analysing
the context. The dative is the case for location primarily, not the
genitive.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 16:27:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Cynicism and Hellenism
On Mon, 31 Jul 1995, Paul Moser wrote:
> 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).
The use of terms such as "borrowing" (and the rest of his post) indicates
that Paul is still not talking about the same type of "influences" that I
am. So this posting has little to do with my major points about social
and cultural discourses.
Thus I will not comment further, since it appears that he is still
utilizing the old (inadequate) modes of critique. I will allow him to
defend what was not attacked or postulated.
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 1995 16:54:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Deissmann and J. B. Lightfoot
Our system was shut down for 18 hours, with the result that much stuff was lost,
including the post from Litwak about Deissmann and J. B. Lightfoot. I had felt
that I should reply, as perhaps the oldest member of the list (nearer to their
time!), but then everything went down.
Now, however, I see that Larry Hurtado has replied, and since he
has said exactly what I would have said, my guilt is assuaged. (And just
imagine--Larry was the student of my YOUNGER friend from his USC days,
Eldon Epp! So maybe being old isn't any guarantee. Horrors! After waiting
all these years to be respected and wise [at least respected]! But then,
didn't Elihu complain about that--namely, the elders should have been wise,
but weren't? --On the third hand, surely I WAS wise, but our computer
system loused me up. I'll blame it on technology.)
Seriously, Larry put it just right. I still read Lightfoot's
work, despite its age and attendant inadequacies, just as I read Hort
for his brilliance and ingenuity, although a century of discoveries have
ensued. And Deissmann, despite the changes in detail which the near-century
have produced, is still basic grist for our mills. Few there be today
of the calibre of either of these two.
- --Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Vincent DeCaen <decaen@epas.utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 21:29:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Aorist stem = future
S. R. Driver, whose claim to fame is the popularization of Ewald's
work on the Hebrew verbal system, has borrowed the three-aspect system
of Curtius 1846/passim and applied it to Hebrew in a curious fashion.
Now, in Curtius's system there are three aspects based on three stems:
1. ly-
2. le-ly-k-
3. ly-s-
corresponding to relative present, relative past, and note, relative
"future". this last is somewhat puzzling, and I was hoping someone
might comment on it. I'm assuming that Curtius is heavily influenced
by the value of third stem *throughout* the paradigm:
nonpast lysei
past elysen
infinitive lysai
participles lysontos
lysantos
Further question: to what extent was this view of the "aorist" stem as
"future" picked up later? from what I saw in Fanning and Porter, not
at all (??).
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #808
*****************************
** 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