[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #865
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 20 September 1995 Volume 01 : Number 865
In this issue:
[none]
RE: STYLE ANALYSIS
RE: LET THE WOMEN BE SILENT
Re: RE: LET THE WOMEN BE SILENT
Synoptic Problem exegesis resources requested
Re: Let the Women be silent
RE: STYLE ANALYSIS
Teaching accents
mark 12.28ff
Ghost Riters in Disguise?
Re: Teaching accents
Re- Teaching accents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DDDJ@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 12:24:22 -0400
Subject: [none]
did the word of God come from you, or arrive to you alone?
A quote from the letter doesn't fit well in this structure.>>
But 36 says to me that he is disagreeing with the above as he does in the
other quotes he disagrees with in 6 and 7.
I think he is saying the women can speak because the Word of God did not come
from you (the men) alone.
<<conceptual chiasmus:>>
conceptual chiasmus as a concept has always troubled me. Why is it that I can
read different scholars who come up with different conceptual chiasmus that
contradict each other. I have noticed this is Isaiah 58. I also noticed that
Milgrom in his commentary on numbers has a conceptual chiasmus that starts in
Exodus and goes all the way to Deut!! Frankly I doubt it
<< Then again, I want to argue
that 1 Cor 11:2-4, at least, is a quote of the Corinthians, since
I'm convinced Paul is arguing for the very opposite of what he is
accused of teaching here.>>
This is the problem. How many remember the great Carnak on Johhny Carson
where He would first answer the question and then give the answer. Very
Funny! I think that one or the other has to be a quote. Notice that verse 16
seems to be agaisnt something, where the quote lies I am not sure. I would
guess hair length.
Positive Dennis
------------------------------
From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 14:38:02 -0600
Subject: RE: STYLE ANALYSIS
Hello, all.
Being in the middle of preaching Ephesians, I have had occasion this past
couple of months to muddle through the Greek of this letter. I find it rather
puzzling, to say the least.
In terms of style analysis: Paul (?) seems to use clauses differently here than
in Galatians and Romans (both of which I've also read in Greek). But how is it
different? I *know* it's different, but I'm not sure how to articulate and
describe the differences. Who has done a syntactical/stylistic analysis of
this puzzling letter?
Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
------------------------------
From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 14:38:00 -0600
Subject: RE: LET THE WOMEN BE SILENT
Hello, all.
Several years ago, Carrol Osburn gave a lecture at ACU re. this verse. He made
a couple of points:
1. Not until the mid-20th century was 1 C 14.33b grouped with what followed
instead of what preceded.
2. The force of a present infinitive in a prohibitive command is different
(less decisive and absolute) than an aorist infinitive. The best discussion of
this that I can recall is in A. T. Robertson.
Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
------------------------------
From: SHelton886@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 17:01:00 -0400
Subject: Re: RE: LET THE WOMEN BE SILENT
On Date: Tue, Sep 19, 1995 3:57 PM EDT Perry Stepp wrote,
>>Several years ago, Carrol Osburn gave a lecture at ACU re. this verse. He
made a couple of points:
I was Dr. Osburn's grad. asst. at the time. This, though, does not make me
his interpreter; but I can help this discussion. Dr. Osburn's thoughts on
this passage is distilled in Carroll D. Osburn, ed., *Essays on Women in
Earliest Christianity,* vol. 1 [Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993. You will
find his art. ("The Interpretation of 1 Cor. 14.34-35") on pp. 219-242.
>>1. Not until the mid-20th century was 1 C 14.33b grouped with what followed
instead of what preceded.
More precisely Osburn argues that the mss. evidence for moving or deleting
these verses are unconvincing. Only in the mid-20th century did scholars
seek to use the mss. evidence to remove the obvious difficulty this passage
has in such "liberating times" Conzelmann rejects the verses on internal
grounds only; Fee, more recently, to lessen the tension between prophecy as a
gift to men and women (1 Cor. 11) and this text.
>>2. The force of a present infinitive in a prohibitive command is different
(less decisive and absolute) than an aorist infinitive. The best discussion
of this that I can recall is in A. T.Robertson.
This refers to the use of <<lalein>> in vv. 34.-35.
Osburn writes, "xthere is no clear contextual indication of what is meant,
but there is a significant grammatical indication. In moods other than the
indicative, the present doesn not necessarily refer to past time, the
distinction being rather in the manner in which the action is viewed. Thus,
the aorist infinitive refers to the action without indication anything about
it continuance or repetition; the pres. inf., on the other hand, specifically
refers to the action as continuing or being repeated in some way [ref. to
Robertson, 890] xIt seems improbable that they were merely "chatting," paying
no attention to the speaker and thus disturbing the learnersx Rather,
*lalein* should be taken here to mean that they were "piping up," giving free
rein to "irresistable impulses" to ask question after question either of the
speaker or of their husbands, creating chaos in the assembly by interfering
with communication [pp. 233-234].
Dr. Osburn greatest contribution here is the way he reads the whole text. He
sees correctly that Paul tells three groups of people to "shut up." and for
the same reason; they are causing chaos in the gathering.
Helpfully, I hope,
Stan Helton
shelton886@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 14:04:45 PDT
Subject: Synoptic Problem exegesis resources requested
I am working on a class assignment to compare the narrative of John
the Baptist from Mark 1 with its parallels in Matt and Luke, particularly
looking at how this comparison works out under both Markan priority and
Griesbach. I'm not sure if I should be looking at commentaries for this
and if so, which commentaries (to avoid saying which ones, which I think
is a grammatical problem, even if it is common), or if I should be looking
at works on the Synoptic problem. I have a couple of books on the latter,
one a defense of Griesbach and the other an argument for a third alterna-
tive with less literary dependence. I'd appreciate any suggestions. Since
this is slightly off-topic, please feel free to send replies to me
privately at kenneth@sybase.com (which I can then pass on to my fellow
doctoral comrade at GTU who is part of this list). Thanks in advance.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 17:06:40 CST
Subject: Re: Let the Women be silent
On Mon 18 Sep 1995, Marty Brownfield wrote:
>I take it then that you consider verse 33b to be taken with what
>follows (with RSV and NIV), rather than with verse 33a (following
>the verse divisions and some modern commentators). I have heard the
>argument that since some MSS (D F G and some latin texts) place
>vv. 34-35 after verse 40 but do NOT take verse 33b with them that
>that argues for interpreting v. 33b with v. 33a.
>
>I think it makes more sense the way you present it above, but does
>the textual evidence on vv. 34f have any bearing on this?
Certainly it has a bearing. It says that the scribes of these "Western" MSS,
as well as the translators of the KJV, NASV, and NKJV did not see any problem
with saying, "God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the
churches of the saints." Personally, I'm not sure what adding that phrase in
33b does for this. Did the Corinthians think that God was a God of confusion
in some churches? IMHO, the absolute statement about the character of God is
a lot stronger than one that ties His character to the churches. I note in
passing that WH try to solve this problem by putting 32 and 33a in parentheses
and having the phrase modify verse 31, a solution that I do not find
satisfactory. I might be driven to that if Paul never began sentences with
hWS, but he does, in 4:18 and 10:15 in this letter. So, yes, I do agree with
the translators of the ASV, RSV, NEB, JB, TEV, NIV, and NAB and editors of the
NA/UBS Greek text that this section starts with 33b.
As for the shift of verses 34 and 35 to the end of the chapter in several
"Western" witnesses, I have to admit that I don't put a lot of stock in this
as being significant. The text is stable in p46, all Alexandrian, all
Byzantine, and a number of "Western" witnesses. If one is to jump every time
"Western" witnesses vary from the usual text, we would be doing a jig. I just
don't trust a variation that could well have been introduced in the fourth or
fifth century in a tradition that introduces many variations.
On Mon, 18 Sep 95, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>I find this chiastic structure interesting from the perspective that
>some, without MS evidence, have argued that 14:34 is an interpolation.
>Your analysis would seem to show the verse to be more integral -- no
>less problematic -- but clearly integral. Then again, I want to argue
>that 1 Cor 11:2-4, at least, is a quote of the Corinthians, since
>I'm convinced Paul is arguing for the very opposite of what he is
>accused of teaching here.
Actually there is MS evidence here, for as Ed Hobbs has noted in a separate
post, an unstable text is sometimes evidence of interpolation; however, as I
have noted above, the evidence is too little, too late to be convincing.
Would I be tarred and feathered if I should suggest that these verses are
often seen as an interpolation in an effort to save Paul (to say nothing of
God) from falling victim to being politically incorrect in the 20th century?
I agree, with many scholars, that 11:2 is picking up the language of the
Corinthians' letter. I doubt that this use continues into verse 3 because of
the QELW DE hUMAS EIDENAI: first person verb, adversative conjunction, second
person object. Paul is now presenting his teaching to the Corinthians.
On Tue, 19 Sep 1995, Dennis <DDDJ@aol.com> wrote to me off-list (but the point
is well-taken and deserves to be addressed on-list):
>But 36 says to me that he is disagreeing with the above as he does in the
>other quotes he disagrees with in 6 and 7.
>I think he is saying the women can speak because the Word of God did not come
>from you (the men) alone.
The difference is that in 6:12, 13 and 7:1, Paul follows the apparent
quotation from the Corinthians' letter with an adversative conjunction, either
ALLA or DE. In 14:36 he uses the alternative conjunction H. The pattern is
that one of the following three things is true:
1. let the women keep silent in the assembly
2. *or* the word of God came out from the Corinthians
3. *or* the word of God came only to the Corinthians
Paul's use of the rhetorical questions in 2 and 3 shows that he does not think
these two options are true.
I really doubt that Paul uses hUMEIS in any of its forms to refer only to men.
Besides, that has consequences for political correctness that I wouldn't touch
with a ten-foot pole.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 17:56:31 -0500
Subject: RE: STYLE ANALYSIS
At 3:38 PM 9/19/95, perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:
>Hello, all.
>
>Being in the middle of preaching Ephesians, I have had occasion this past
>couple of months to muddle through the Greek of this letter. I find it rather
>puzzling, to say the least.
>
>In terms of style analysis: Paul (?) seems to use clauses differently here than
>in Galatians and Romans (both of which I've also read in Greek). But how is it
>different? I *know* it's different, but I'm not sure how to articulate and
>describe the differences. Who has done a syntactical/stylistic analysis of
>this puzzling letter?
Well, for one important thing, the use of participial phrases, or to be
more accurate, of dependent clauses in general, is, in some parts of
Ephesians more or less chaotic. It is often quite difficult to determine
the linkage of one dependent clause to another, and punctuation is at
points an editor's worst nightmare. A high-school freshman would not get
away with writing the English equivalent of Ephesians 1:1-14, and I suspect
that only the name of Paul attached to the letter makes some people
hesitant to find fault with the Greek. Of the MUSTHRIA of which the epistle
has much to say, the greatest of all is its style. This is one major reason
why I find it difficult to believe that it is authentically Pauline.
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: "DR. KEN PULLIAM" <thedoc@aztec.asu.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 16:18:59 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Teaching accents
I have a question for those who teach Koine Greek. How valuable
is it for the first year student to be taught the rules for
accenting?
- --
Ken R. Pulliam, Ph.D.
Chandler, Arizona
thedoc@aztec.asu.edu
------------------------------
From: russell williamson <RJWILLIA%SAMFORD.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 18:18:21 CDT
Subject: mark 12.28ff
this is the first time i've dealt with any septuagint quotations and i'm
having some difficulty. in mark 12.28 the phrase KURIOS O QEOS HMWN KURIOS
occurs. is this the common form for the covenant name of God in LXX?
In Deuteronomy 6.5, the LXX has DUNAMEWS where the na27 reads DIANOIAS. am
i correct that there are no known greek mss of mark conforming to the LXX
for this reading?
In 12.33, the scribe repeats Jesus' commandment, using SUNESEWS in place of
PSUXH or DIANOIAS, and then dropping the other term. to which idea does
SUNESEWS more closely relate? i feel that soul, intelligence, and mind
are closely related terms; their differences are more ambiguous than their
affinities.
many thanks,
russell williamson
rjwillia@mailbox.samford.edu OR rjwillia%samford.bitnet@uga.cc.uga.edu
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 18:06:31 -0700
Subject: Ghost Riters in Disguise?
Sounds like a catchy name for a song, doesn't it?
Actually this is my very uneducated hypothesis regarding style
analysis: Is is possible that some N.T. authors, i.e.
uneducated fishermen, or even a highly educated man concerned that
every word written would be taken literally, would submit their
writing to respected friends for comments and/or
editing before sending them out to the general public.
It is very common today. Why wouldn't it have been then?
Depending on how many different people assisted or how much
leeway they were offered in revising, the style of a single
writer could appear to vary considerably even at the time
of original publication, even before multitudes of helpful scribes
were able to include their adjustments.
(Perhaps I should keep silent and not post my distracting questions
in this forum. I could ask my husband privately, only he hasn't
studied Greek.)
Pardon my frivolity, but while reading the many postings regarding
particular styles I keep thinking I see Ghosts. Do any REAL Greek
Scholars also believe in Ghosts?
Ellen Adams
Housewife, Mom,
Amateur linguist.
------------------------------
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 21:19:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Teaching accents
On Tue, 19 Sep 1995, DR. KEN PULLIAM wrote:
> I have a question for those who teach Koine Greek. How valuable
> is it for the first year student to be taught the rules for
> accenting?
Very valuable. Builds self-esteem. My formula for this as for
many other things: Learn them for a quiz. Forget some of them.
Relearn slowly for keeps through long practice. Why deprive
them of these rules and have their next prof. think they're
goof-offs?
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: Karen Pitts <karen_pitts@maca.sarnoff.com>
Date: 19 Sep 1995 22:26:02 U
Subject: Re- Teaching accents
On Tue, 19 Sep 1995, DR. KEN PULLIAM wrote:
> I have a question for those who teach Koine Greek. How valuable
> is it for the first year student to be taught the rules for
> accenting?
I've shephered two classes of adults through Koine Greek through our church
where what the seminary covers in a semester takes us 2 to 3 years. Believe
me, I try to keep it as simple as possible. I think accents are essential.
There are several words that differ only in accent. EI (if) without an
accent, and EI (you are) with a circumflex are examples of early vocab which
require knowing the accents. I don't think the accents are any more confusing
than conjugation for native English speakers, the concepts of tenses that
convey type of action rather than time, or the middle voice. At least accents
have fairly straightforward rules.
Karen Pitts
Hopewell Presbyterian Church, Hopewell, NJ, teacher of Koine Greek
David Sarnoff Research Center, Princeton, NJ, statistician
kpitts@sarnoff.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #865
*****************************
** 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