[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #850
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 6 September 1995 Volume 01 : Number 850
In this issue:
...no subject...
Re: TO SHMEION THS SHS PAROUSIAS
Re: Syn. Apoc. (Parable of the Fig Tree)
intro Gk (was no subject)
Re:Funk's Workbook
Re: Syn. Apoc. (Parable of the Fig Tree)
Re: TO SHMEION THS SHS PAROUSIAS
Re: Syn. Apoc. (Parable of the Fig Tree)
Re: eight case or five?
*Updated* WWW Page of Software "TONISMOS"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 95 8:13:55 -24000
Subject: ...no subject...
A few months ago, someone (Carl Conrad?) recommended to me Robert Funk's now
out-of-print Beginning-Intermediate Grammar as a good one for 1st year Greek
(I am attempting to teach 1st year Greek to a few church members using
Mounce's book, the one I used when I took 1st year Greek last year, while I
take 2nd year Greek, and I've found it helpful to read other grammars on
various points).
I found a set (it's 3 volumes, spiral-bound) in a used bookstore, and it
appears that 22 years ago when Funk wrote it he was taking his approach
because he found that those who learned the grammar, i.e., paradigms, etc.,
often couldn't read Greek very well after 1 year, while those who learned
using a more linguistic approach, which his Grammar I guess is supposed to
do, without knowing all the rules of grammar could actually do quite well in
reading the Greek New Testament, even if they did poorly when tested on
grammatical knowledge. With all this, I have a couple questions some of you
might be able to help me answer:
1) Funk mentions an Exercise book based on his selected texts that goes with
this Grammar. Is that a 4th volume that I need to try to locate if I want to
use his Grammar or parts of it? If so, does anyone know where I can get a
copy? Since Funk says the teacher may after a while want to make up his own
exercises, can someone give me an idea what this Exercise volume (if that's
what it is) consists of?
2) To those of you who teach Greek, what is your opinion of Funk's book(s)?
20 years after he wrote it, grammars (like Mounce) still seem to be taking a
grammatical approach for 1st year Greek. Is Funk's grammar good to use for
or good to incorporate into a 1st year Greek course? The fact that it's out
of print makes me think that his idea didn't catch on. Why is that?
3) What is your opinion of LaSor's 2-volume inductive grammar based on the
text of Acts? Besides the typeface being very hard to get used to, I found
it confusing to read. But someone on this board, I believe, recently said
that though LaSor was not good as a reference grammar, he was able to learn
verb morphology in just one week using it. That impressed me.
Thanks!
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 11:02:32 -0500
Subject: Re: TO SHMEION THS SHS PAROUSIAS
While I have limited time at the moment, I wanted to say that I am very
gratified by Edgar's response to my suggestion that we discuss the matter
of Jesus and SHMEIA, and I look forward to Carlton Winbery's promised
comments on the subject as well (and of course to contributions of all and
sundry who may care to comment on the topic!).
Just a couple notes at this time:
(1) I would hope that people who discuss this question will be clear about
their assumptions when they comment. I have stated before now that I assume
Marcan priority and a redaction of Mark's gospel by Matthew and Luke, which
is why I prefer to deal with the Marcan form of a common pericope first; I
realize that some do not share this assumption and I'm hoping that those
who don't will indicate that clearly when dealing with a relevant SHMEION
text in Matthew and/or Luke.
(2) Edgar cites Mt 24:29 KAI hAI DUNAMEIS TWN OURANWN SALEUQHSONTAI and
suggests that this might relate to the world view of Col 2. Wouldn't it
relate as well to the possible world view of Romans 8:38-39, i.e., that
there may be astral powers in the planetary spheres, perhaps subject to
Satan or the KOSMOKRATWR THS SKOTIAS THS PAROUSHS? (don't know if I've
cited that correctly!)
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, 5 Sep 1995 11:02:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Syn. Apoc. (Parable of the Fig Tree)
Bruce, it has been my assumption hitherto in considering the Parable of the
Fig Tree that (1) we have to look at Mark's version first, but, more
importantly, (2) we have to look at this in association with the incident
of the fig tree cursed by Jesus that withers overnight (Mk 11:12-14, 20-21,
par.) As this incident as Mark relates it sandwiches in the "Cleansing of
the Temple," the withering of the fig tree surely, it seems to me, is a
portent of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Moreover, if one
interprets (as is my inclination) Mark's Apocalypse in chapter 13 to mean
that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is part and parcel of the
train of events associated with the apocalyptic end-time, it would seem
that Jesus approaches the Temple seeking the "fruits of righteousness" in
accordance with the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen and, not finding them,
pronounces doom upon Temple and City. Is this an outrageous interpretation?
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: Marilyn Parry <marilyn@noc4.u-net.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 19:42:16 -0000
Subject: intro Gk (was no subject)
While I hesitate to comment on books, I do teach a lot of basic Greek to
adult learners. An inductive approach seems to work well and a book
available here in the U.K. is particularly useful if somewhat irritating to
those who take a paradigm/strictly grammatical approach. It is John H.
Dobson _Learn New Testament Greek_, Bible Society, Swindon, 1988, rev 1992.
ISBN 0-564-08225-2. It has an accompanying tape. Most of the work is based
on the text of the NT and all exercises come with answers alongside and
notes on translation. I find my ordinands (all over 30) gain a great deal
of confidence and enthusiasm from the book and many eventually make the
transition to a more technical study. All are enriched by the attempt
rather than discouraged.
Marilyn Marie Parry
Marilyn@NOC4.U-NET.COM
tel. +44 (0)1204 572819
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 15:58:41 -0400
Subject: Re:Funk's Workbook
>1) Funk mentions an Exercise book based on his selected >texts that goes
with this Grammar. Is that a 4th volume that >I need to try to locate if I
want to use his Grammar or parts >of it?
The Title of it is Workbook for A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of
Hellenistic Greek by Lane C. McGaughy IV Exercises, Reading Assignments,
Translation Notes, Scholars Press Sources fior Biblical Study 6.
Someone from Scholar's press may be able to tell you where you can find it.
Funk's approach is a good one. It helps students to understand the language
as they master form. The Workbook simply gives the student written practice
of each element of the language as it is studied.
LaSor's two volume word giving an inductive study of Greek using Acts is a
good presentation of an inductive approach. I found that it took students
more time to use this than the paradigm method. That may have been more
because Luke's Greek is more difficult to learn as a beginning study.
Another such study was by Wahlther using I John, but I do not remember the
publisher, Maybe the University of Chicago.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Religion
LaCollege Pineville, La
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 13:22:26 CST
Subject: Re: Syn. Apoc. (Parable of the Fig Tree)
On Tue, 5 Sep 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>Bruce, it has been my assumption hitherto in considering the Parable of the
>Fig Tree that (1) we have to look at Mark's version first, but, more
>importantly, (2) we have to look at this in association with the incident
>of the fig tree cursed by Jesus that withers overnight (Mk 11:12-14, 20-21,
>par.) As this incident as Mark relates it sandwiches in the "Cleansing of
>the Temple," the withering of the fig tree surely, it seems to me, is a
>portent of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Moreover, if one
>interprets (as is my inclination) Mark's Apocalypse in chapter 13 to mean
>that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is part and parcel of the
>train of events associated with the apocalyptic end-time, it would seem
>that Jesus approaches the Temple seeking the "fruits of righteousness" in
>accordance with the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen and, not finding them,
>pronounces doom upon Temple and City. Is this an outrageous interpretation?
I personally have no problem with looking at Mark's version first here; Matt.
24:32-36 and Mark 13:28-32 share 77 exact words and only differ in 14. None
of the variations are significant, with the possible exception of Matthew's
PANTA TAUTA for Mark's TAUTA.
I don't think your interpretation is outrageous, but I'm not sure it is
compelling either. Both the fig tree incident and the fig tree parable do
relate to Israel's coming destruction as a nation. There are, however, quite
a number of differences. Especially notable is that the fig tree in the
incident withers while in the parable it puts on leaves.
The Parable of the Fig Tree must be seen in the context of the synoptic
apocalypse before it is seen in the context of Mark since it is found in all
three synoptic gospels. Also significant is Luke's expansion KAI PANTA TA
DENDRA "and all the trees." The point of the parable is not dependent on the
fact that it is a fig tree. Any and all trees (except evergreens, of course)
put forth leaves as summer approaches. The point of the parable is "X implies
that Y is near."
On a related note, a passage from Earle MacMillian's commentary on Mark is
worth quoting:
"The blending of the destruction of the Temple and the end of the world must
confirm the view that it is here understood that the two things--however far
they may ultimately be separated in time--were two parts of the same thing."
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 17:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: TO SHMEION THS SHS PAROUSIAS
On Tue, 5 Sep 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> (2) Edgar cites Mt 24:29 KAI hAI DUNAMEIS TWN OURANWN SALEUQHSONTAI and
> suggests that this might relate to the world view of Col 2. Wouldn't it
> relate as well to the possible world view of Romans 8:38-39, i.e., that
> there may be astral powers in the planetary spheres, perhaps subject to
> Satan or the KOSMOKRATWR THS SKOTIAS THS PAROUSHS? (don't know if I've
> cited that correctly!)
I am not saying that the astral powers are not in view, but I don't think
that they are in the foreground here. Rather I think this as a reference
to Hagai 2.6, where the promise is that He will shake the heavens and
earth and all nationsprepaatory to filling "this house" (the rebuilt
Temple) with glory. In Matt 24.29 this reference along with other
prophetci references to Is 13, Joel 2 etc is used to describe the coming
of the Son of Man-these things will happen to prepare for that ultimate
filling with glory at His coming, the Day of the Lord.
I find it interesting that DUNAMIS is used in Matthew in reference either
to a miracle or wonder (Christ's power) or to the Father's power. This
is the only place in Matthew where DUNAMIS may be used of something not
associated with God. I don't know quite what to make of it, but I find
it interesting. I haven't checked out usage in Mark and Luke yet.
A quick word on the fig tree, lest we read too much into it here. While
it is true that the fig tree is sometimes a symbol of Israel in the
Hebrew Bible, and is probably used soch 21.18-21, to paraphrase Freud,
sometimes a fig tree is just a fig tree.
I also am not convinced that Mt 21.18-21 or the fig tree refer to the
destruction of Jerusalem or the end of the Jewish nation. Judea is not
at this time a "nation", and while there are elements there that would
wish it were, there are other elements contentedly enjoying the fruits of
the occupation. Rather I would propose that the fig tree's withering is
to be read as a final rejection by God through Jesus of an Israel who has
rejected the Son of Man.
Any way, a few disjointed thoughts.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 19:03:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Syn. Apoc. (Parable of the Fig Tree)
At 2:22 PM 9/5/95, Bruce Terry wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Sep 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
>>Bruce, it has been my assumption hitherto in considering the Parable of the
>>Fig Tree that (1) we have to look at Mark's version first, but, more
>>importantly, (2) we have to look at this in association with the incident
>>of the fig tree cursed by Jesus that withers overnight (Mk 11:12-14, 20-21,
>>par.) As this incident as Mark relates it sandwiches in the "Cleansing of
>>the Temple," the withering of the fig tree surely, it seems to me, is a
>>portent of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Moreover, if one
>>interprets (as is my inclination) Mark's Apocalypse in chapter 13 to mean
>>that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is part and parcel of the
>>train of events associated with the apocalyptic end-time, it would seem
>>that Jesus approaches the Temple seeking the "fruits of righteousness" in
>>accordance with the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen and, not finding them,
>>pronounces doom upon Temple and City. Is this an outrageous interpretation?
>
>I personally have no problem with looking at Mark's version first here; Matt.
>24:32-36 and Mark 13:28-32 share 77 exact words and only differ in 14. None
>of the variations are significant, with the possible exception of Matthew's
>PANTA TAUTA for Mark's TAUTA.
>I don't think your interpretation is outrageous, but I'm not sure it is
>compelling either. Both the fig tree incident and the fig tree parable do
>relate to Israel's coming destruction as a nation. There are, however, quite
>a number of differences. Especially notable is that the fig tree in the
>incident withers while in the parable it puts on leaves.
Let me expand a bit here, first making a general comment about the Marcan
sequence from chapter 11 through 15. I have always thought Kaesemann's
statement regarding Mark's gospel extraordinarily insightful--that it is "a
Passion Narrative with an extended introduction." The idea is not original
by any means with me that the gospel was "backwards-composed" and composed
with a remarkable symmetry. There is the Passion Narrative in 14-15 that
climaxes a sort of drama entitled, "The King Must Die," heralded since the
first Controversy Sequence of 2:1-3:6 which ended in the plotting of
Pharisees with the partisans of Herod's family to get Jesus executed. This
is preceded by the Apocalyptic Discourse, chapter 13 with its initial
pronouncement of the imminent doom of the Temple followed soon afterwards
by the Coming of the Son of Man on the clouds. Before that are chapters
11-12: (a) "triumphal" entry followed by a visit to the Temple mount and a
recognition (11:11) that the hour is too late; (b) Jesus views the fig tree
in leaf and goes to it looking for fruit; disappointed that there is no
fruit, he curses the fig tree; (c) he enters into the Temple and drives out
the moneychangers; (d) the next morning he again sees the fig tree he had
cursed, and behold, it has withered; (e) back within the Temple and asked
on what authority he acts as he has done there, he responds by telling the
Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen who refuse to yield the fruits in season
to the landlord's agents, including his Son, and then stating outright that
the vineyard will be taken from its owners and given to outsiders; (f)
there follow two sets of three episodes that are tests put to Jesus by
Jewish groups and his own observations about the quality of Israel's piety.
Then comes chapter 13, beginning with its pronouncement of doom upon the
Temple and ending with the prophecies surrounding the "Coming" of the Son
of Man. The Parable of the Fig tree is the second-to-last item in Chapter
13.
>The Parable of the Fig Tree must be seen in the context of the synoptic
>apocalypse before it is seen in the context of Mark since it is found in all
>three synoptic gospels.
I would not agree with the first assertion here, that "the Parable of the
Fig Tree must be seen in the context of the synoptic apocalypse before it
is seen in the context of Mark since it is found in all three synoptic
gospels." I would argue that the parable of the fig tree is a piece of the
oral Jesus tradition BEFORE it is incorporated into the Synoptic Apocalypse
(which, in my opinion, is the MARCAN APOCALYPSE before it is taken up and
redacted by Matthew and Luke). Whether or not the incident is fully
historical (and it may well be historical) or not, it is evident that Mark,
by dividing the fig-tree episode into two halves,--11:12-14 (Jesus' quest
for fruit from the tree and his curse upon it when he discovers there is no
fruit) and 11:20-21 (the observation that the tree has withered)--dividing
it into two halves and putting the narrative of the "cleansing of the
Temple" between the two halves, has chosen to employ this narrative for
symbolic rather than historically factual narrative. It may be that the
story was originally told of a different tree; it is a singularly
unedifying story about Jesus, if I may dare to say so: hungry and cursing a
tree because it doesn't bear fruit before the harvest season is ready--this
seems more a child's behavior than a story about the actual historical
behavior of Jesus. Personally I can make no sense of it EXCEPT in its
symbolic dimension as FRAMING the narrative of the cleansing of the Temple.
It's worth noting that Matthew has redacted Mark's narrative by reuniting
the two halves (Mt 21:18-22) and making it independent of the Cleansing of
the Temple. Matthew tells the story as a real historical incident. Of
course it is possible that the story was at one time a unit and that
Matthew renders it in accordance with the oral tradition, while Mark has
deliberately split it and given it a symbolic dimension. Luke, who is
generally much more careful to report only what he apparently feels has
verisimilitude (he makes the real Sanhedrin trial of Jesus take place at
dawn rather than in the middle of the night, for instance), has omitted the
story of the cursing and withering of the fig tree altogether.
> Also significant is Luke's expansion KAI PANTA TA
>DENDRA "and all the trees." The point of the parable is not dependent on the
>fact that it is a fig tree. Any and all trees (except evergreens, of course)
>put forth leaves as summer approaches. The point of the parable is "X implies
>that Y is near."
The parable begins "From the fig tree learn its lesson: hOTAN HDH hO KLADOS
AUTHS hAPALOS GENHTAI KAI EKFUHi TA FULLA, GINWSKETE hOTI EGGUS TO QEROS
ESTIN. ..." We are to observe the fig tree when it is first putting out
leaves, as Jesus does to the fig tree in Mk 11:13. It should be noted that
QEROS means not just "summer" but "harvest-time" (QERIZEIN is the verb for
"reap"). Jesus comes to the Temple seeking the fruits of righteousness from
Israel in accordance with the parable that he tells the chief priests,
scribes, and elders of Israel in 12:1-12. He doesn't find them and he
pronounces doom, first upon the fig tree which represents the Temple, and
later (13:2) upon the Temple itself.
>On a related note, a passage from Earle MacMillian's commentary on Mark is
>worth quoting:
>
>"The blending of the destruction of the Temple and the end of the world must
>confirm the view that it is here understood that the two things--however far
>they may ultimately be separated in time--were two parts of the same thing."
This is a nice comment, but I question whether it is really applicable to
the other versions of the Synoptic Apocalypse so well as it is to Mark's
version.
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: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 22:50:55 -0600
Subject: Re: eight case or five?
Bill Chapman recently cited what I had written about the origins=
of the
eight case system and then asked some questions.
>> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:54:35 -0600
>> From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
>
>> Historical grammar lets us know that there were eight cases. There=
are
>> vestiges of some of these cases in unusual words. Greek XAMAI=
("on the
>> ground") is often identified as a survival of the locative case.
>>=20
>> So where do linguists stand on this? Historical linguists (using=
a
>> diachronic method) understand how the usages of the five case=
system
>> reflect the earlier eight case system in the usage of Greek or=
Latin.
>> Descriptive structural linguists (using a synchronic analysis=
of language
>> in a given period or collection of texts, such as the Septuagint=
or the New
>> Testament, e.g. Nida) seek to describe the use of the language=
as it occurs
>> in these texts.=20
>> Cordially, Ed Krentz
>
>In the sections I quoted above, it seems that you describe an "older"=
=20
>language with more "form-ality" that devolves into a "younger"=20
>language with less complexity. If I pursue that line of reasoning
>(mine, not necessarily implied by your post), and look at a "modern"
>language like English with only a subjective and objective case,
>the pattern appears to hold true.
>
>This is very curious. From whence does the advanced, yet ancient,
>form-full, language come? Now, I am thinking of cave-people grunting
>and pointing (like we see in the movies), and wonder how a formal,=
=20
>eight-case language could have come about, particularly if languages
>tend to simplify over time.
>
>Can some Historical Linguist help me?
>
>Thanks, Bill
I don't know that any historical linguist can answer the question=
of
origins. S/he can only describe what can be documented from surviving
languages. I can only surmise that at one point it was significant=
for
speakers to distinguish ablative from dative or genitive forms because=
the
difference was signficant to them. Why does Finnish need more cases=
than
we? Why did ancient Greek have so many words for "love"?=20
What Lindsay Whaley wrote you is also good. Simplification in one=
area of
language may lead to greater complexity in another. Let me add an
illustration to his. We used to distinguish between "shall" and "will"=
as
auxiliary verbs for the future tense in English. Today we make little
distinction. In part that is because American spoken English is in=
the
process of losing these future formations. "I'm going to eat pizza
tonight." has become the oral form of the future tense for many,=
i.e. the
verb "go" followed by an infinitive is the future of preference in=
many
situations, while =E6shall" or "will" formations either express
intentionality with emphasis or sound a bit archaic or formal. English=
is
simpler in the number of cases, but more complex in puteting words=
into the
proper order. We normally put the indirect object before the direct:=
"Write
him a letter," not "Write a letter him." Greek word order was less=
complex
because its inflected forms clarified meaning apart from word order.
Thus the future in one sense is losing some formations and adopting=
others.
Is that simplification or not?
In modern demotic Greek the locution EIS TEN has befome STHN.
Simplification? In Greek of the Hellenistic-Romana era, the every=
day
speech (koine) tended to use verbs compounded with prepositions and=
then
repeat the preposition later in the sentence. This is more complex.
Historically, prepositions originated as adverbs used to make the=
sense of
cases more clear--a more complex structure.
Ultimately the test of language is, does it enable a writer or speaker=
to
communicate what s/he means to say.
Sorry I did not get to answering you sooner. And I hope that this=
resonse
gives some clarity to what puzzled you.
Ccordially, Ed Krentz
Edgar Krentz <emkrentz@mcs.com>
New Testament, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Voice: 312-753-0752; FAX: 312-753-0782
------------------------------
From: George Chryssogelos <geo@prometheus.hol.gr>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 07:41:21 +0200
Subject: *Updated* WWW Page of Software "TONISMOS"
The WWW Page demonstrating the Software "TONISMOS" has been updated with
new fonts
(including Super Greek), TeX users format.
"TONISMOS" converts Single (Uni) - Accent Ascii (DOS 437) Greek Text Files to
Multi (polytonic) - Accent ones, in various formats (WIN - DOS - MAC) for
various
multi-accent Greek Fonts .
There are examples of the convertion as GIF images .
The URL is http://www.hol.gr/business/tonismos
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
Data - Soft,
Software Development Enterprise,
George Chryssogelos,
Calymnou 16, 172 37 Daphne, Athens - Greece
Tel: +30 (01) 92.51.154, Fax: +30 (01) 92.51.154
e-mail : geo@prometheus.hol.gr
WWW Page : http://www.hol.gr/business/tonismos
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #850
*****************************
** 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