[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #825
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 16 August 1995 Volume 01 : Number 825
In this issue:
Re: www archives of b-greek threads
Re: Matt 16:13
Re: www archives of b-greek threads
Re: www archives of b-greek threads
Predicate Adjective
Ancient History
Re: Predicate Adjective
Re: Ancient History
2 Tim. 1:12
Re: 2 Tim. 1:12
Re: Matt 16:13
John 1:1 & the Tetragrammatonm
Re: Matt 16:13
BIBLE GREEK
Re: BIBLE GREEK
John 1:1 & the Tetragrammatonm (fwd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 05:45:57 -0500
Subject: Re: www archives of b-greek threads
At 9:55 PM 8/14/95, Allen Kemp wrote:
>Does anyone know if this server of B-greek offers a web access site
>that can be searched by organized topic threads? So many of you offer
>such great material I'd like to see and use collections of threads
>based on topics. Thanks.
This is something we could pray for, but I think it would probably have to
be arranged for elsewhere than at our host, inasmuch as at present there
isn't even an archive other than what some of us maintain privately (and,
speaking for myself, in a very inefficient manner). What Ioudaios-L has at
Lehigh is really first-rate: if only ...
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, 15 Aug 1995 05:46:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Matt 16:13
At 10:21 PM 8/14/95, LISATIA@aol.com wrote:
>dear Ken,
> What do you say to be the cause of the trouble?" or "Whom do you say to be
>the cause of it?" in English are two sentences with double accusatives in the
>infinitive mode: "you say whom to be the cause of it." One is subject; one
>is object. Examples are rare in English, because we don't regularly use the
>infinitive for indirect discourse. By the way, whom do you expect to be the
>next president?
> best wishes, dick arthur Merrimack NH
Honestly (and I don't mean to be in the least bit sarcastic), don't you
feel a little bit silly when speaking these sentences aloud, even if not
when writing them on paper (or electronic media)? My immediate reaction to
hearing or seeing this construction is that the speaker/writer probably
learned the construction from Greek or Latin grammar. I really think it is
archaic English, and even if it is found occasionally in very formal
writing, it surely has something of a Victorian ring to it, IMHO. I know
there will be those who disagree with this, but that's what I really 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 K. Tauber" <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 19:35:28 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Re: www archives of b-greek threads
> At 9:55 PM 8/14/95, Allen Kemp wrote:
> >Does anyone know if this server of B-greek offers a web access site
> >that can be searched by organized topic threads? So many of you offer
> >such great material I'd like to see and use collections of threads
> >based on topics. Thanks.
Once I finish getting a dedicated server up for the HGrk and ENTMP stuff,
I'll do something about this (give it a few weeks). The way I archive the
greek-grammar mailing list doesn't rely on the fact that the mailing list
originates from the same place as where the archiving is being done, and
so it wouldn't be difficult to archive an external mailing list like
b-greek.
I'll let you all know when it's available.
James K. Tauber <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
University Computing Services and Centre for Linguistics
University of Western Australia, Perth, AUSTRALIA
http://www.uwa.edu.au/student/jtauber
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 07:40:17 -0500
Subject: Re: www archives of b-greek threads
At 6:35 AM 8/15/95, James K. Tauber wrote:
>> At 9:55 PM 8/14/95, Allen Kemp wrote:
>> >Does anyone know if this server of B-greek offers a web access site
>> >that can be searched by organized topic threads? So many of you offer
>> >such great material I'd like to see and use collections of threads
>> >based on topics. Thanks.
>
>Once I finish getting a dedicated server up for the HGrk and ENTMP stuff,
>I'll do something about this (give it a few weeks). The way I archive the
>greek-grammar mailing list doesn't rely on the fact that the mailing list
>originates from the same place as where the archiving is being done, and
>so it wouldn't be difficult to archive an external mailing list like
>b-greek.
>
>I'll let you all know when it's available.
>
>James K. Tauber <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
>University Computing Services and Centre for Linguistics
>University of Western Australia, Perth, AUSTRALIA
>http://www.uwa.edu.au/student/jtauber
Glory to God in the Highest, and no little praise and thanks to you, James
Tauber! It will indeed be a godsend, if and when you can pull this off!
Many, many thanks in advance, if that's any encouragement.
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: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 9:00:03 -24000
Subject: Predicate Adjective
John 6:55 says:
hey gar sarx mou alethes estin brosis, kai to haima mou alethes estin
posis. "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."
Are the uses of alethes attributive or predicate? There is no article
immediately before alethes, and the equative or copulative verb estin may
indicate a predicate usage. If attributive, this seems to be an odd way of
saying this--wouldn't estin brosis alethes/posis alethes or estin alethes
brosis/alethes posis be a more normal attributive structure?
The reason I'm asking is: If it's predicate, how would you translate it: "For
my flesh is food that is true, and my blood is drink that is true"? (This is a
moot point if alethes is in fact attributive.) Is the meaning a little
different if alethes is in fact used predicatively rather than attributively?
If so, how would you bring this out in translation?
Thanks!
------------------------------
From: RLTrapp@aol.com
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 09:49:53 -0400
Subject: Ancient History
My wife is beginning some research on ancient Babylon and wants to know if
there are any mailing lists or bulletin boards devoted to Ancient History,
Historical Archaeology, or other related subjects. My apologies for a
slightly off subject posting, but I told her that some of you might know of
something like she needed.
Thanks,
Lynn Trapp
Coppell Church of Christ
Coppell, TX
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 09:31:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Predicate Adjective
At 4:00 AM 8/25/95, Eric Weiss wrote:
>John 6:55 says:
>
> hey gar sarx mou alethes estin brosis, kai to haima mou alethes estin
> posis. "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."
>
>Are the uses of alethes attributive or predicate? There is no article
>immediately before alethes, and the equative or copulative verb estin may
>indicate a predicate usage. If attributive, this seems to be an odd way of
>saying this--wouldn't estin brosis alethes/posis alethes or estin alethes
>brosis/alethes posis be a more normal attributive structure?
>
>The reason I'm asking is: If it's predicate, how would you translate it:
>"For
>my flesh is food that is true, and my blood is drink that is true"? (This
>is a
>moot point if alethes is in fact attributive.) Is the meaning a little
>different if alethes is in fact used predicatively rather than attributively?
>If so, how would you bring this out in translation?
>
>Thanks!
You don't need an article with an adjective for it to have attributive
sense, but in this particular instance, I think it could reasonably be
argued that ALHQHS is indeed predicative; certainly it is rhetorically
emphasized, and your suggested version, "For my flesh is food that is true,
and my blood is drink that is true" is right on the mark.
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: Bob Allisat <ab330@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 11:30:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Ancient History
List Maintainer -
Please remove my name from
your esteemed mailing list.
The subscribe message was
forged by someone who has
signed my account up for
hundreds of mailing lists.
This fellow's server is at
<janus.pec.co.nz>
You should also change your
list security to require a
reply message to subscribe.
I highly reccommend this
change to save your list a
lot of trouble and to protect
victums of forgery out there
like me.
Bob Allisat
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 14:31:53 -0400
Subject: 2 Tim. 1:12
I wonder why the NRSV committee went back to the translation of 2 Tim. 1:12
found in the KJV, the ASV, and the NIV, when the RSV, CEV, TEV, and the
Translator's Handbook opted for the translation given below.
OIDA GAR hWI PEPISTEUKA, KAI PEPEISMAI hOTI DUNATOS ESTIN THN PARAQHKHN MOU
FULAXAI EIS EKEINHN THN hHMERAN.
For I know in whom I have believed and I am persuaded that he is able to
guard that which he committed to me until that day.
KJV . . . to guard that which I have committed to him . . .
We have had a couple series of post on the subject/objective genitives in
which the consensus was that this must be determined by the context. The
basic arguments in the translator's handbook points the use of the word
PARAQHKHN in I Timothy 6:20 and 2 Tim 2:14 to refer to the "sound doctrine"
which was being entrusted to "Timothy." I would add that the verb form of
the word (PARAQOU) is used in 2 Tim 2:2 in instructing "Timothy" to pass the
tradition on to other faithful teachers who can pass it on to still others.
This mean that the only uses of the word for deposit or tradition in the
context of this verse refers to what has been committed to faithful people to
be kept and passed on to others.
With this translation, the Pastor would be expressing his faith that God (the
Holy Spirit in 1:14) is also involved in helping the faithful ministers in
the task of passing on the tradition. This would mean that the deposit is a
synonym for sound doctrine, the faith, and eventually Christian Scripture.
Grace,
Carlton Winbery
Fogleman Prof. NT & Greek
LA College, Pineville, LA
(318) 487-7241 Fax (318) 487-7425 off. or (318) 442-4996 home
Winbrow@aol.com or Winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 14:48:41 -0400
Subject: Re: 2 Tim. 1:12
An interesting footnote to my recent post. The New Testament in Modern Greek
published by the BIBLIA ETAIRIA in Athens has in the text of 2 Tim 1:12 hOTI
EINAI DUNATOS NA FULAXHI AUTO POU TOU EMPISTEUQHKA, hEWS EKEINHN THN hHMERAN.
. . . that he is able to guard that which I have entrusted (to him) . . .
EMPISTEUQHKA is not a true passive.
In a footnote it has hH, POU ECEI EMPISTEUQH
. . . that which he has entrusted (to me). Note the use of ECEI the
way we use have or has in English.
Note also that the word PARAQHKH does not appear in the modern Greek text.
Grace,
Carlton Winbery
Fogleman Prof. NT & Greek
LA College, Pineville, LA
(318) 487-7241 Fax (318) 487-7425 off. or (318) 442-4996 home
Winbrow@aol.com or Winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 13:42:55 EDT
Subject: Re: Matt 16:13
The English usage of WHO and WHOM is actually relevant to the title of
this thread...
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> At 10:21 PM 8/14/95, LISATIA@aol.com wrote:
> > By the way, whom do you expect to be the
> >next president?
>
> Honestly (and I don't mean to be in the least bit sarcastic), don't you
> feel a little bit silly when speaking these sentences aloud, even if not
> when writing them on paper (or electronic media)? My immediate reaction to
> hearing or seeing this construction is that the speaker/writer probably
> learned the construction from Greek or Latin grammar. I really think it is
> archaic English, and even if it is found occasionally in very formal
> writing, it surely has something of a Victorian ring to it, IMHO. I know
> there will be those who disagree with this, but that's what I really think.
I learned the rules to "who" and "whom" in grade school, but I didn't
understand them until my first year of Latin. The following usage note
from Mirriam-Webster's Ninth Collegiate Edition is instructive:
Observers of the language have been predicting the demise of
WHOM from about 1870 down to the present day <one of the pronoun
cases is visibly disappearing -- the objective case WHOM --
R.G. White (1870)> <WHOM is dying out in England, where "Whom
did you see?" sounds affected -- Anthony Burgess (1980)> Our
evidence shows that no one -- English or not -- should expect
WHOM to disappear momentarily; it shows every indication of
persisting quite a while yet. Actual usage of WHO and WHOM --
accurately described at the entries of this dictionary -- does
not appear markedly different from the usage of Shakespeare's
time. But the 18th century grammarians, propounding rules and
analogies, rejecting other rules and analogies, and usu.
justifying both with appeals to Latin or Greek, have intervened
between us and Shakespeare. It seems clear that the grammarians'
rules have had little effect on the traditional uses. One thing
they have accomplished is to encourage hypercorrect uses of WHOM
<WHOM shall I say is calling?> Another is that they have made
some people unsure of themselves <said he was asked to step
down, although it is not known exactly WHO or WHOM asked him --
REDDING (CONN.) PILOT>
This dictionary describes the usage of WHOM to be stilted, especially
for interrogative use and especially for oral use. This means that
written usages like <to know for WHOM the bell tolls -- John Donne>
(i.e., relative pronoun as an object of the preceding proposition)
is the least stilted.
Interestingly enough, the AV of Mt16:13 shows a "hypercorrect" usage:
"Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" See also "But whom say
ye that I am?" (v15 AV). I can't say that 18th century grammarians
are to blame for this.
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: John Moe <parsonco@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 13:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: John 1:1 & the Tetragrammatonm
On Aug 14, Roland Milanese wrote in objection to the following claim by
John Albu regarding the translation "the word was a god."
<The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.>
>objection: No scriptural evidence is offered to support this claim. In fact,
the evidence is to the contrary: To say that the Word was "a god"
violates the
immediate context, which presents the Word as the creator of all things. Nor
does it do justice to the gospel as a whole, which claims the same honor for
the Son as is given to the Father (5:23; 20:28). Nor does it honor the
context
of scripture which teaches that there is one true god and that all other
so-called "gods" are idols (Is 43:10,11; 1Cor 8:4-6; 1Jn 5:20,21).
I (John Moe) would like to add the objection that John Albu's
unsubstantiated
claim overlooks the Scriptural ascription of the "Name which is above
every name." to Jesus. The LXX tradition of rendering the tetragrammaton
KURIOS is carried into the NT. Who would deny that ANGALOS KURIOU is an
echo of the Heb. MALACK YEHWEH heard through LXX ears. Who better than
JWs should recognize that the "Name that is above every name" is not
Jesus but the tetragarmmaton. There is room for argument about the many
uses of KURIOS in the NT but every tongue that confesses KRIOUS IHSOUS
CRISTOS must, I believe, find "The Word was God" at John 1:1 a rendering
the corectness of which is "confirmed by the Sacred Scriptures."
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 16:19:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Matt 16:13
At 12:42 PM 8/15/95, Stephen Carlson wrote:
>The English usage of WHO and WHOM is actually relevant to the title of
>this thread...
>
>Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>> At 10:21 PM 8/14/95, LISATIA@aol.com wrote:
>> > By the way, whom do you expect to be the
>> >next president?
>>
>> Honestly (and I don't mean to be in the least bit sarcastic), don't you
>> feel a little bit silly when speaking these sentences aloud, even if not
>> when writing them on paper (or electronic media)? My immediate reaction to
>> hearing or seeing this construction is that the speaker/writer probably
>> learned the construction from Greek or Latin grammar. I really think it is
>> archaic English, and even if it is found occasionally in very formal
>> writing, it surely has something of a Victorian ring to it, IMHO. I know
>> there will be those who disagree with this, but that's what I really think.
>
>I learned the rules to "who" and "whom" in grade school, but I didn't
>understand them until my first year of Latin. The following usage note
>from Mirriam-Webster's Ninth Collegiate Edition is instructive:
>
> Observers of the language have been predicting the demise of
> WHOM from about 1870 down to the present day <one of the pronoun
> cases is visibly disappearing -- the objective case WHOM --
> R.G. White (1870)> <WHOM is dying out in England, where "Whom
> did you see?" sounds affected -- Anthony Burgess (1980)> Our
> evidence shows that no one -- English or not -- should expect
> WHOM to disappear momentarily; it shows every indication of
> persisting quite a while yet. Actual usage of WHO and WHOM --
> accurately described at the entries of this dictionary -- does
> not appear markedly different from the usage of Shakespeare's
> time. But the 18th century grammarians, propounding rules and
> analogies, rejecting other rules and analogies, and usu.
> justifying both with appeals to Latin or Greek, have intervened
> between us and Shakespeare. It seems clear that the grammarians'
> rules have had little effect on the traditional uses. One thing
> they have accomplished is to encourage hypercorrect uses of WHOM
> <WHOM shall I say is calling?> Another is that they have made
> some people unsure of themselves <said he was asked to step
> down, although it is not known exactly WHO or WHOM asked him --
> REDDING (CONN.) PILOT>
>
>This dictionary describes the usage of WHOM to be stilted, especially
>for interrogative use and especially for oral use. This means that
>written usages like <to know for WHOM the bell tolls -- John Donne>
>(i.e., relative pronoun as an object of the preceding proposition)
>is the least stilted.
>
>Interestingly enough, the AV of Mt16:13 shows a "hypercorrect" usage:
>"Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" See also "But whom say
>ye that I am?" (v15 AV). I can't say that 18th century grammarians
>are to blame for this.
>
>Stephen Carlson
Inspired by Stephen's fine research, and thinking to myself there is a
certain relativity to dictionaries and that the Ninth Edition of MWCD is
not the most recent, I betook myself to the pages of the Tenth Edition
(1993), wherein I found Stephen's note on "whom" still present. I then
looked at "who," and found the following:
"used by speakers on all educational levels and by many reputable writers,
though disapproved by some grammarians, as the object of a verb or a
following preposition ('a character who we are meant to pity--TIMES
LITERARY SUPP.).
Yes, there are always those grammarians looking down their noses at us!
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: RStanfi347@aol.com
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 17:28:40 -0400
Subject: BIBLE GREEK
I am wanting to learn the Greek language. To better understand the" King
James Version". And also I want to Know what you think of the other versions?
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 21:28:34 -0400
Subject: Re: BIBLE GREEK
RStanfi347@aol.com wrote,
"I am wanting to learn the Greek language. To better understand the" King
James Version". And also I want to Know what you think of the other
versions?"
Why not learn Greek to better understand the Greek New Testament and then
make your own judgments about the other versions?
Carlton Winbery
Fogleman Prof. NT & Greek
LA College, Pineville, LA
(318) 487-7241 Fax (318) 487-7425 off. or (318) 442-4996 home
Winbrow@aol.com or Winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
------------------------------
From: John Moe <parsonco@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 19:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: John 1:1 & the Tetragrammatonm (fwd)
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 13:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Moe <parsonco@netcom.com>
To: b-greek@virginia.edu
Subject: John 1:1 & the Tetragrammatonm
On Aug 14, Roland Milanese wrote in objection to the following claim by
John Albu regarding the translation "the word was a god."
<The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.>
>objection: No scriptural evidence is offered to support this claim. In fact,
the evidence is to the contrary: To say that the Word was "a god"
violates the
immediate context, which presents the Word as the creator of all things. Nor
does it do justice to the gospel as a whole, which claims the same honor for
the Son as is given to the Father (5:23; 20:28). Nor does it honor the
context
of scripture which teaches that there is one true god and that all other
so-called "gods" are idols (Is 43:10,11; 1Cor 8:4-6; 1Jn 5:20,21).
I (John Moe) would like to add the objection that John Albu's
unsubstantiated
claim overlooks the Scriptural ascription of the "Name which is above
every name." to Jesus. The LXX tradition of rendering the tetragrammaton
KURIOS is carried into the NT. Who would deny that ANGALOS KURIOU is an
echo of the Heb. MALACK YEHWEH heard through LXX ears. Who better than
JWs should recognize that the "Name that is above every name" is not
Jesus but the tetragarmmaton. There is room for argument about the many
uses of KURIOS in the NT but every tongue that confesses KRIOUS IHSOUS
CRISTOS must, I believe, find "The Word was God" at John 1:1 a rendering
the corectness of which is "confirmed by the Sacred Scriptures."
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #825
*****************************
** 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