[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #832
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 23 August 1995 Volume 01 : Number 832
In this issue:
Re: John 20:30-31
Re: Jn. 10:10, PERISSON EXWSIN
Re: Jn. 10:10, PERISSON EXWSIN
Colwell's Rule
[none]
re: Great Greek Books!!
Brackets in Greek Text
Re: Brackets in Greek Text
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 09:09:16 -0400
Subject: Re: John 20:30-31
"Carlton et al.: I should make clear that I didn't see the participle
(PISTEUONTES) as conditional in force. If anything, I would view it as
causal. But I really think it more likely that both subjunctives were in
the present tense."
I read too much into your translation. I think that it is causal and the
likelihood is that both subjunctives are present, though the aorist would fit
better in the style of John (Kilpatrick). The Alexandrian scribes tended
toward grammatical exactness and likely improved the text.
I think also that eternal life in John accompanies an "eternal" faith, i.e.
total commitment.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. NT & Greek
La College, Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 11:24:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Jn. 10:10, PERISSON EXWSIN
"Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
>I don't really think the meaning of [Jn. 10:10] differs significantly from
>one way of reading it to the other, and it may well be that you are right,
>David, in this interpretation, but I'm not sure that the classical examples
>cited are sufficient to prove PERISSON/PERITTON was actually used
>substantivally rather than adverbially.
Thanks, Carl, for the analysis of the classical references. In
the citation from the LXX, however (Prov. 14:23), PERISSON translates the
Hebrew word _mothar_ which means "abundance," "plenty," according to BDBG
lexicon, although Halliday has it "profit," "benefit."
The change in meaning, as you point out, is slight whether one
interprets it as a substantive or an adverb, but I think the immediate
context favors the substantive meaning. Also, I'm wondering why you say
that PERISSON is neuter in Jn. 10:10. Couldn't it as easily be masculine.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@papaya.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 10:49:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Jn. 10:10, PERISSON EXWSIN
At 10:24 AM 8/22/95, David Moore wrote:
>"Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
>
>>I don't really think the meaning of [Jn. 10:10] differs significantly from
>>one way of reading it to the other, and it may well be that you are right,
>>David, in this interpretation, but I'm not sure that the classical examples
>>cited are sufficient to prove PERISSON/PERITTON was actually used
>>substantivally rather than adverbially.
>
> Thanks, Carl, for the analysis of the classical references. In
>the citation from the LXX, however (Prov. 14:23), PERISSON translates the
>Hebrew word _mothar_ which means "abundance," "plenty," according to BDBG
>lexicon, although Halliday has it "profit," "benefit."
>
> The change in meaning, as you point out, is slight whether one
>interprets it as a substantive or an adverb, but I think the immediate
>context favors the substantive meaning. Also, I'm wondering why you say
>that PERISSON is neuter in Jn. 10:10. Couldn't it as easily be masculine.
Theoretically it could be masculine, but that would yield the idea
"superfluous person," hardly what we want in the context, I think. For the
sense "superabundance," we really ought to have the neuter. Let me
reiterate that I'm not sure we ARE, in fact, dealing with an adverbial
usage here; I was just saying that I didn't think the classical references
cited definitely PROVED that we were dealing with a substantive.
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: KevLAnder@aol.com
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 11:52:24 -0400
Subject: Colwell's Rule
Again, I would like to thank Paul Dixon for laying out his reasoning for
rejecting Colwell's Rule as applicable in the interpretation J 1:1c. I have
understood his logical point from his first post on, and I have long been
aware of the misuse of Colwell's Rule, although I did NOT realize that
Colwell himself had logically violated his own rule. However, I would
especially like to thank Paul for presenting at least a summary of the data
he worked with and the conclusions he came to. In doing this he has all but
directly answered the question I have been trying to get an answer to all
along. I am not so much concerned with whether or not Colwell's Rule applies
to J 1:1c, but with whether or not it is a valid canon at all for the usage
of the Greek definite article. From looking at the bit of research that Paul
has provided, it appears to me that Colwell's Rule does not fare very well at
all.
Let me do some summing up on this topic:
(1) Colwell's sampling of data was small and narrow (Colwell admits that he
has selected only DEFINITE anarthrous predicate nouns which precede the
copulative verb).
(2) We have already seen that Colwell reasoned in a circle regarding the
thesis he attempted to put forth.
(3) Others (Paul Dixon and Ed Dewey) have produced data that clearly mitigate
the force of Colwell's Rule.
Until I have the time to do some computerized searches and interpretation of
my own I would have to tentatively set Colwell's Rule aside. In the past I
have taught Greek students (with some caution) that Colwell's Rule was valid.
Now I do not believe I would have the basis for holding up Colwell's Rule as
valid while the jury is still out.
------------------------------
From: Dante Georeno <georeno@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 09:13:20 -0700
Subject: [none]
SUBSCRIBE
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 95 12:31:11 -24000
Subject: re: Great Greek Books!!
2 questions:
What is the status of the English edition of the revision to BAGD, i.e., when
will it be available, what is the retail and discount mail-order price?
Any opinions about Loew and Nida's Lexicon according to Semantic Domains?
Thanks!
------------------------------
From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <dalemw@teleport.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 10:55:42 -0700
Subject: Brackets in Greek Text
>Carl Conrad wrote:
>
>I think it should be noted
>that the text of John 20:30 actually shows the sigma of PISTEU[S]HTE in
>brackets, meaning, unless I have misunderstood the editorial procedures,
>that the editorial committee deemed the aorist-tense form less likely and
>indicated this by bracketing the sigma, but left the bracketed sigma in
>the text because it has almost as good MS support as the present-tense
>form. Therefore, it may very well be that the original text DID have both
>subjunctive verbs in the present tense.
The introductions to both UBS4 and NA27 are not well-written on this point
of brackets in the text, but, unless I have misunderstood them, the intent
of the brackets is exactly opposite of what you suggest, Carl. UBS4 is a
little clearer than NA27, and it says: "Brackets in the text indicate that
the enclosed word, words, or parts of words may be regarded as part of the
text, but that in the present state of New Testament textual shcolarship
this cannot be taken as completely certain. Such passages have a C-rating
in the critical apparatus...." I think that means that they prefer, at a
"C" level the bracketed reading; in this case the Aorist over the Present.
This seems to be the same point from NA27, which says: "...The reading given
in the text shows the preference of the editors..."
On the tenses of the verbs, I would suggest that both you and Carlton are
pushing the tenses a bit too hard. It seems to me, pace Fanning, that the
tense is chosen because of the implicit state/type of action of the verb,
not independently of it. Thus present is the most appropriate for exw since
it has the semantic nuance of either "state" ("He is alive." "He possesses
life.") or possibly "unbounded activity" ("He possesses life."). While I
agree, theologically and exegetically elsewhere, that once one possesses
eternal life they cannot lose it (please don't flame me if you don't agree),
I don't think the present tense here can be pressed to indicate that. If
you do then you run into the problem Carlton felt, namely that you must
"keep on believing" if you want to keep on possessing life. The really
interesting problem here is the switch from aorist to present for pistuew.
What makes this even more interesting is John's use of pisteuw in both the
present and aorist in the Gospel; this can especially be seen in the
substantival participles (you can find them all with one of the GRAMCORD
computer products in about 5 seconds). pistuew is probably best understood
as an "unbounded activity" (which doesn't mean its linear or progressive in
the traditional sense), and thus the present is more natural to it,
especially in the non-indicative moods. In English it would be translated
by "he believes," making no comment on the initiation, completion, etc., of
the action. However, as I think we all realize, pisteuw is not that easy to
define either linguistically or theologically. And John's use of it in the
Aorist makes it even more intruiging. It may be that the aorist (even the
non-indicatives) simply indicate a prior-to-something-else activity; in this
case belief is prior to having life. As you can see, I'm not trying to
solve this problem here, just making some suggestions.
**************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept. Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice:503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail:dalemw@teleport.com
**************************************************************
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 21:05:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Brackets in Greek Text
Dale Wheeler wrote,
"The introductions to both UBS4 and NA27 are not well-written on this point
of brackets in the text, but, unless I have misunderstood them, the intent of
the brackets is exactly opposite of what you suggest, Carl. UBS4 is a little
clearer than NA27, and it says: "Brackets in the text indicate that the
enclosed word, words, or parts of words may be regarded as part of the text,
but that in the present state of New Testament textual shcolarship this
cannot be taken as completely certain."
I must admit that I did (do) not have a copy of the UBS4 at home where I can
get to it. I was going on memory of the UBS3 which stated simply that the
bracketed part of the text is regarded as disputed. Certainly anyone who has
used UBS texts from the beginning is aware of the problem of the use of
brackets and double brackets. If the above statement of the meaning of
single brackets is correct, they have not clarified the use much. I still
think that the present subjunctive in John 20:20 is more likely the original.
If the aorist is original, the combination of the aorist and the present
would surely indicate "coming to faith" (ingressive) and possessing life. If
the present indicates "state" then combined with the aorist (or present)
would almost function as perfected action. I would think that either way the
result is the same. Coming to faith issues into possessing life.
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
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #832
*****************************
** 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