[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #884
b-greek-digest Monday, 2 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 884
In this issue:
Romans 3:29-31
re: PISTIS in Romans 1, yet
rel. pron. in Mt 21:35
Re: Romans 3:29-31
Re: More questions on Mark/EGW EIMI
Re: rel. pron. in Mt 21:35
Re: rel. pron. in Mt 21:35
Persius Project
Re: rel. pron. in Mt 21:35
Re: rel. pron. in Mt 21:35
Books on the Synoptic Problem
Re: rel. pron. in Mt 21:35
Greek numerals? (fwd)
Re: Comments on Greek lexicons, updated
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: JClar100@aol.com
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 08:00:17 -0400
Subject: Romans 3:29-31
1) Suggested translation:
29) "Is God the God of the Jews only?"
30) "Indeed there is one God who will justify circumcision by faith and
uncircumcision through faith."
31) "Do we not render the law ineffective through faith? By no means.
On the contrary, we establish the law."
2) v. 30, 31 -- Is there any technical difference in the use of the
prepositions EK and DIA? What's the diffrence between "from" or "out of" and
"through?"
3) v. 30, 31 -- Does PISTEWS translate into "human faith" or "God's
reliability?" Strictly from the word usage and meaning is there any way to
tell the difference? Does "faith" here indicate "God's trustworthiness" to
justify...
4) v. 31 -- Is there any way from the Greek construction to determine
whether Paul means by NOMON "the law of Moses" or "moral law?" These are two
distinct possibilities. Which is more likely? Is it the ten commandments
which are rendered ineffective or is it the "moral law" which is nullified?
Does moral law transcend the law of Moses and thus carry a higher qulality?
Or neither?
5) Is there a better English word with which to translate DIAKAISEI instead
of "make righteous" or "justify?" These technical terms are jargon to so
many people. What words would be better for communication to the layperson?
Thanks,
JClar100@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 95 8:38:20 -24000
Subject: re: PISTIS in Romans 1, yet
A couple of postings indicated that I responded to David Mills' question
about Romans 1:17 by explaining what EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN meant. What I did
was quote to him (with full references) what Richard Young had to say about
this phrase in his Intermediate NT Greek grammar. I am by no means capable
of making definite pronouncements on the text, and I don't want anyone to
even assume that I have scholarly credentials--I'm just a second-year NT
Greek student. Whether Young has correctly explained what Paul means [Young
calls it a "difficult expression"] I'll have to leave to those who know Greek
better than I, but I thought Young's was a valid explanation that David Mills
should consider. All I can say is that I would think that what Paul means by
the "EK PISTEWS" part should probably be akin to what it means in Habbakuk
2:4 (in the Greek) ... which leaves EIS PISTEWS and what the whole phrase
means still up for debate.
Modestly,
Eric Weiss
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 08:01:59 -0700
Subject: rel. pron. in Mt 21:35
"Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu> wrote, and Carl Conrad answered:
>>I am a bit puzzled by the grammar of this verse. Is there another way
you
>>might expect this verse to be written?
>Probably; I read the sentence first, before even looking at your
question.
>It IS puzzling; I then looked at Mark's version which I assume to have
been
>redacted by Matthew (although I'm much more cautious about taking that
for
>granted than I used to be; isn't it interesting, by the way, how Ken
Litwak
>so underhandedly admits that the only books he has on source criticism
are
>those who are "agin' it"?), and behold, Mark's version of this
sentence
>makes more sense, but I think Matthew's is confusing because he has
tried
>to reshape it into a better-told story.
Specifically, are
relative
>>pronouns--occurrences of O(/N in this verse--usually used in
independent
>>clauses this way, or are these not truly independent clauses?
>I think there are a couple problems in the way you've formulated the
>question; for one thing, I'm not altogether sure that it's fair to say
that
>Greek narrative operates with independent clauses in the way we'd say
they
>do in English; i.e., the unit of discourse in Greek is the paragraph,
and I
>rather think that our methods of punctuation are in many instances
applied
>rather artificially to Greek. Secondly, but dependent upon that first
note,
>within the paragraph it's not at all uncommon to designate with a
relative
>pronoun a referent that has already been named (or even that will soon
>thereafter be named) with a relative pronoun. It is perhaps more
common in
>Latin than in the Greek of the Synoptic gospels (but also common, I
think,
>in Paul's letters) for what we'd call a new sentence or independent
clause
>to begin with a relative pronoun which we tend in English to translate
with
>a demonstrative, e.g.:
> hON DE EN THi hODWi EIDOMEN
> "And that man [or "him"] we saw in the street."
>>I tend to
>>want to translate Mt 21:35 as a series of dependent clauses,
dependent on
>>the following verse: "And when the vine-dressers had received his
slaves,
>>one of whom they beat, another they killed, and another they stoned,
again
>>he sent other slaves, more than the first, and they did to them the
same
>>thing."
>Although your version certain expresses the meaning of the text, it
>doesn't, as I think you realize (and this is precisely why you're
puzzled)
>convey exactly the sense of the construction in the Greek text. I
think the
>sense of the construction might best be conveyed thus: "And the
>vine-dressers took the slaves, of whom they flayed one, killed one,
and
>stoned one." It is a common narrative device in Greek to use a
participle
>(or two or three) in the aorist and then an indicative to indicate a
>sequence of actions where English would prefer to use coordinate
>indicatives, as I have done in effect in my version above.
>>What makes this reading particularly awkward is that LABO/NTES OI(
>>GEWRGOI\ is nominative, but does not agree with the subject of the
>>independent verb A)PE/STEILEN in v. 36. What do [you] make of all
this? Does my
>>translation reflect a valid understanding of the text? It seems to me
that
>>the use of the participle and the relative pronouns certainly serves
to
>>subordinate the actions described at least pragmatically to what
follows;
>>i.e. that the point of the two verses combined is to emphasize that
many
>>servants were sent more than once, and all were mistreated--the
series
>>of sendings and mistreatments being treated as a single narrative
>>"event". Is this a valid understanding of the grammar?
>Well, I really don't think I'd link the two verses that way, and I
suspect
>that, given our present philosophy of punctuation, the editors of GNT4
>(what I'm looking at right now) have got it right by putting a period
at
>the end of v. 35.
>It seems to me that v. 35 deals solely with the action of the
>husbandmen/vine-dressers (those are both pretty archaic words in
English,
>aren't they?). I think (but I may be wrong) that you are trying to see
in
>that participle LABONTES an indication that v. 35 as a whole is
supposed to
>be subordinate to v. 36. You asked if there wasn't another way this
could
>be phrased, and I'd say that a rather nice (IMHO) formulation of vv.
35-36
>as you want to read them would be:
> LABONTWN DE TWN GEWRGWN TOUS DOULOUS AUTOU, TON MEN DEIRANTWN,
TON DE
> APOKTEINANTWN, TON DE LIQOBOLHSANTWN, PALIN APESTEILEN ALLOUS
DOULOUS
> ...
>Certainly v. 35 would be better Greek, in my opinion, if it were
phrased thus:
> hOI DE GEWRGOI TOUS DOULOUS AUTOU LABONTES APEKTEINAN, TON MEN
> DEIRANTES, TON DE LIQOBOLHSANTES.
>It's really pretty awkward to put APEKTEINAN in the middle between
EDEIRAN
>and ELIQOBOLHSAN.
>And yes, the relative pronouns are somewhat awkward too, although not,
I
>think, really anomalous. If in fact Matthew had Mark's text in front
of him
>and tried to improve on it, it's too bad he couldn't have done better
than
>this. Still, those relative clauses aren't really so bad as the ones
in
>that opening sequence of Ephesians!
>How about, when the SBL committee gets around to revising BDF, we ask
them
>to work out a new scheme of punctuation at the same time? I haven't
read
>that monster of a book on the history of punctuation that was
published two
>or three years ago, but from the reviews of it I gather that
stabilization
>of punctuation conventions is a relatively recent phenomenon about
which
>there is not yet universal consensus. I really think something better
could
>be worked out for Greek that is not derivative from western European
>languages and is more consistent with its actual normative structures
(if
>we can ever define them--but that's your profession, isn't it?)
There is a factor that has not been taken into consideration in
either Carl's analysis or in that presented by Mark Durie, but it is
key to understanding this passage.
Philip is correct in noting that v. 36 is a continuation of the
thoughts begun in v. 35, but he is not correct in thinking that the
participle LABONTES should agree with the subject of the following
verb. The relationship indicated is one of time, not of personal
identity. The aorist tense of the participle LABONTES indicates here
that the incidents of mistreatment of the owner's messengers had
already taken place when he sent other of his servants.
This factor is integral to the story of the parable, since
finally, and with full knowledge of the tenants actions, the owner
sends his own son (v. 37).
Regarding the punctuation of v. 35, the period at the end of the
verse seems to correspond more to the usual translation rendering than
to the Greek construction. It is easier for us to translate "When the
tenants had received his servants, they beat one, killed another, and
another they stoned. Again (the owner) sent other servants....," than
to than to work up something that joins the two clauses into a single
sentence. Nevertheless, something like "Even though the tenants, upon
the arrival of his servants, had beaten one, killed another, and stoned
a third, (the owner) again sent other servants...." might work alright
and preserves the relationship between the clauses.
I'm sending a copy of this post to b-greek. Please feel free to
answer to that list, as this post is somewhat off-topic for the
Greek-Grammar list where I picked up the thread.
David L. Moore Department of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 08:45:09 -0700
Subject: Re: Romans 3:29-31
Your questions are very provocative this time, so I will venture to
throw in my comments. Keep in mind I am no scholar, but am a true
hacker in Greek, so take my comments merely as opionion. I hope,
however, that they provide some valuable insight.
>2) v. 30, 31 -- Is there any technical difference in the use of the
>prepositions EK and DIA? What's the diffrence between "from" or "out
of" and
>"through?"
>
Not a whole lot. It has beeb suggested that the wording was chosen
primary for variation, to avoid redundancy.
However, if you would like to distinguish, I do not think it a strech
to note the difference between source and means. For the circumcised,
who have the foundation of the law and "oracles of God", the real
source of justification is not the law, but rather faith. (This is
clealy the theme here, and it is further stressed in chapter four in
the discussion of Abraham.) As for the uncircumcised, who have no other
foundation than the testimony creation and conscience, their means of
justification is also faith.
>3) v. 30, 31 -- Does PISTEWS translate into "human faith" or "God's
>reliability?" Strictly from the word usage and meaning is there any
way to
>tell the difference? Does "faith" here indicate "God's
trustworthiness" to
>justify...
Faith is faith. Context is the only way to determine whether in one
case it speaks of God's faithfulness or man's.
Ultimately God is the source of man's faith. Indeed how can someone
believe what he has not perceived? And how can one perceive the things
of God unless they are by some means revealed? But in this instance, as
I believe is most instances in the New Testament, the focus is on man's
faith, his response to accept, believe, and his commitment to act
faithfully upon his understanding of that which is revealed to him
concerning God and Christ.
>
>4) v. 31 -- Is there any way from the Greek construction to determine
>whether Paul means by NOMON "the law of Moses" or "moral law?" These
are two
>distinct possibilities. Which is more likely? Is it the ten
commandments
>which are rendered ineffective or is it the "moral law" which is
nullified?
> Does moral law transcend the law of Moses and thus carry a higher
qulality?
> Or neither?
Law is law. Here the writer appears to focus on the law of Moses. When
we speak of law, moral or Mosaic, there is an understanding we gain
from the rest of scripture that we speak of a code of behavior founded
upon love. #1 love of God. #2. love of neighbor as self. Any code of
ethics, or pattern of behavior based on any other motive is in fact
lawlessness. Again, if love of God is the first and only foundation to
fulfilling law, then quite obviously, one cannot fulfill law, Mosaic or
moral apart from faith. You cannot love a God you do not believe in, or
that you do not perceive as a good God.
Note that in verse 12 it says: ouk estin ho poiwn Xrhstothta...
No one does good. That word also means mercy or kindness. Is our
"goodness" then measured in terms of mercy and kindness? All of
scripture seems to affirm this. And can we act in true mercy or
kindness unless we believe in higher values than our own... unless we
covet the eternal values over temporal? I think not. Apart from eternal
values, all apparent acts of goodness or kindness must by nature be
performed with some temporal reward in mind, and therefore would
ultimately not be kindness, but glorified selfishness, thus "filthy
rags."
Consider someone who drives a car, but has no license. He may obey all
the rules of the road. He may even be more likely to do so for fear of
getting caught. But without the proper authorization, he cannot operate
the vehicle legally. If confronted he may argue, "I obey all the rules,
and pay all the tolls." But ultimately he is aware of his own
culpability.
>
>5) Is there a better English word with which to translate DIAKAISEI
instead
>of "make righteous" or "justify?" These technical terms are jargon to
so
>many people. What words would be better for communication to the
layperson?
>
I have no clue! I am equally anxious to hear from the classicists who
have a broader understanding of Greek.
Ellen Adams
Housewife and mom.
P.S. I am getting brave, am I not! I have subscribed to this list a
long time, but have ventured little in the way of "meaty" comments. For
a good reason, too. There are many here far more qualified to speak.
But I really wanted to take a stab at this one. If I deserve a pat on
the back or a slap on the wrist, please let me know.
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 11:47:00 -0400
Subject: Re: More questions on Mark/EGW EIMI
In a message dated 95-09-30, Bruce Terry writes:
>I have no quarrel with the idea that John 8:24 and 58 are references to the
>divinity of Jesus; certainly 8:58 is at the very least a claim for his
>pre-existence (cf. 1:1). I do have qualms about Jesus' saying "it's me" as
>he
>walks on the water being a claim for divinity. The same words in different
>contexts do not always mean the same things.
>
>*****************************************************************************
***
>Bruce Terry
Besides the LXX, another extra-biblical EGW EIMI reference is a hymn to
Isis that is referred to by Diodorus (1 cent. BCE). Here's an excerpt.
(EISIS = Isis).
EISIS EGW EIMI H TUPANNOS PASHS XWRAS...
EGW EIMI KRONOU QUGATHR PRESBUTATH.
EGW EIMI GUNH KAI ADELFH OSEIREOS BASILEOS
EGW EIMI QEOU KUNOS ASTRW EPITELOUSA.
EGW EIMI H PARA GUNAIKSI QEOS KALOUMENH...
The phrase EGW EIMI evidently has a divine quality to it here as well.
Since the Isis religion was widespread, perhaps the divine connotation of
EGW EIMI was also present for Mark's readers, beyond or in addition to the Ex
3 and Isaiah passages.
Peace,
Tim Staker
Pastor, Christian Church
Poseyville, IN
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 11:47:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: rel. pron. in Mt 21:35
On Mon, 2 Oct 1995, David Moore wrote:
> Philip is correct in noting that v. 36 is a continuation of the
> thoughts begun in v. 35, but he is not correct in thinking that the
> participle LABONTES should agree with the subject of the following
> verb.
The problem to which I was referring is that the fact that LABONTES is
nominative case, which normally means that the "subject" of that verb
must be the same as the finite verb on which the participle is
"dependent". But the agreement is clearly with the subject of the verbs
in the hON clauses and not with the independent finite verb in v. 36. If
v. 35 and v. 36 are related to each other the way you (and I) want to say
they are, I would expect the case of the participle LABONTES to be other
than nominative (a genitive absolute, perhaps?).
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 11:07:59 -0500
Subject: Re: rel. pron. in Mt 21:35
At 10:01 AM 10/2/95, David Moore wrote:
[I won't repeat the entire lengthy correspondence, with one exception]
> There is a factor that has not been taken into consideration in
>either Carl's analysis or in that presented by Mark Durie, but it is
>key to understanding this passage.
>
> Philip is correct in noting that v. 36 is a continuation of the
>thoughts begun in v. 35, but he is not correct in thinking that the
>participle LABONTES should agree with the subject of the following
>verb. The relationship indicated is one of time, not of personal
>identity. The aorist tense of the participle LABONTES indicates here
>that the incidents of mistreatment of the owner's messengers had
>already taken place when he sent other of his servants.
>
> This factor is integral to the story of the parable, since
>finally, and with full knowledge of the tenants actions, the owner
>sends his own son (v. 37).
Actually I think this reading of LABONTES _is_ there in my original
response to Phil, viz.:
> ... I think the
> sense of the construction might best be conveyed thus: "And the
> vine-dressers took the slaves, of whom they flayed one, killed one, and
> stoned one." It is a common narrative device in Greek to use a participle
> (or two or three) in the aorist and then an indicative to indicate a
> sequence of actions where English would prefer to use coordinate
> indicatives, as I have done in effect in my version above.
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: Larry Chouinard <fa78935@kcc.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 12:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Persius Project
Could any please provide the address for the Persius Project out of Tufts
University?
Thanks,
Larry Chouinard
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 12:58:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: rel. pron. in Mt 21:35
On Mon, 2 Oct 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> At 10:01 AM 10/2/95, David Moore wrote:
> [I won't repeat the entire lengthy correspondence, with one exception]
>
> > There is a factor that has not been taken into consideration in
> >either Carl's analysis or in that presented by Mark Durie, but it is
> >key to understanding this passage.
> >
> > Philip is correct in noting that v. 36 is a continuation of the
> >thoughts begun in v. 35, but he is not correct in thinking that the
> >participle LABONTES should agree with the subject of the following
> >verb. The relationship indicated is one of time, not of personal
> >identity. The aorist tense of the participle LABONTES indicates here
> >that the incidents of mistreatment of the owner's messengers had
> >already taken place when he sent other of his servants.
> >
> > This factor is integral to the story of the parable, since
> >finally, and with full knowledge of the tenants actions, the owner
> >sends his own son (v. 37).
>
> Actually I think this reading of LABONTES _is_ there in my original
> response to Phil, viz.:
>
> > ... I think the
> > sense of the construction might best be conveyed thus: "And the
> > vine-dressers took the slaves, of whom they flayed one, killed one, and
> > stoned one." It is a common narrative device in Greek to use a participle
> > (or two or three) in the aorist and then an indicative to indicate a
> > sequence of actions where English would prefer to use coordinate
> > indicatives, as I have done in effect in my version above.
>
You are quite right. Pardon my oversight in not noting it in my
previous post.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 14:48:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: rel. pron. in Mt 21:35
"Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu> quoted and wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Oct 1995, David Moore wrote:
>> Philip is correct in noting that v. 36 is a continuation of the
>> thoughts begun in v. 35, but he is not correct in thinking that the
>> participle LABONTES should agree with the subject of the following
>> verb.
>The problem to which I was referring is that the fact that LABONTES is
>nominative case, which normally means that the "subject" of that verb
>must be the same as the finite verb on which the participle is
>"dependent". But the agreement is clearly with the subject of the verbs
>in the hON clauses and not with the independent finite verb in v. 36. If
>v. 35 and v. 36 are related to each other the way you (and I) want to say
>they are, I would expect the case of the participle LABONTES to be other
>than nominative (a genitive absolute, perhaps?).
I see what you mean, it is the hON clauses which are in apposition
to the aorist nominative participle.
I'm thinking that probably the relative pronouns should be taken
as Mark Durie and Domenico Lembo have suggested: as demonstrative pronouns
here. Or as Carl Conrad has explained: still relative, but understood in
English prose as demonstrative. Understanding them so would explain why
the editors have put a period at the end of v.35 and why most translators
render 35 and 36 as two sentences.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 95 15:40:50 EDT
Subject: Books on the Synoptic Problem
In a cross-posting to B-GREEK, a reference was made to books attacking or
supporting the most widely held solution to the Synoptic Problem, viz. the
Two-Source Hypothesis (2SH). I'm asking this list for some books that
support the 2SH.
>From my initial survey of material on the Synoptic Problem, it seems
that only the opponents to the 2SH, especially the Neo-Griesbachians
(Farmer, Orchard, Riley), are really motivated to write books on this
issue. The 2SH proponents seem to have more interesting questions on
their minds, like form criticism of Q. (Other books on the Synoptic
Problem are next to useless: one "solution" asserts that Judas Iscariot
was the real author of Matthew and Jesus was captured by a UFO!)
I've looked at Kloppenborg's FORMATION OF Q, but he devotes little space
to a defense of that hypothesis, finding other questions more interesting.
Mack's THE LOST GOSPEL Q, written for popular consumption, pretty much
assumes Q as the (near-)certain result of scholarship.
I'm aware of B. H. Streeter's THE FOUR GOSPELS (1924), but my university
library does not carry it, and criticism of that work indicates: (a) that
most of his arguments are at best inconclusive (the Lachmann Fallacy),
and (b) that the purpose of the work is not to argue for the 2SH (or 4SH)
but to dispense with the Ur-Marcus theory of Holtzmann.
Two modern works are very good, but they are explicitly "neutral" on
the question: Bellinzoni's anthology, THE TWO-SOURCE HYPOTHESIS: A
Critical Reappraisal, which is out of print, and David Neville's
ARGUMENTS FROM ORDER IN SYNOPTIC SOURCE CRITICISM.
So what I'm asking is: if there are books out there defending the 2SH,
what are they?
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: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 15:09:50 -0500
Subject: Re: rel. pron. in Mt 21:35
At 1:48 PM 10/2/95, David Moore wrote:
>
> I'm thinking that probably the relative pronouns should be taken
>as Mark Durie and Domenico Lembo have suggested: as demonstrative pronouns
>here. Or as Carl Conrad has explained: still relative, but understood in
>English prose as demonstrative. Understanding them so would explain why
>the editors have put a period at the end of v.35 and why most translators
>render 35 and 36 as two sentences.
Actually, in my last note directly on the question of hON MEN ... hON DE
..., I've accepted the proposition that they must in fact be
demonstratives, that this is, in fact, a survival of a usage of hOS as a
demonstrative that is as old as Homer. I did question the suggestion or
assertion of Domenico Lembo that this originates as a usage of the relative
AS a demonstrative from such expressions as ESTIN hOS (TAUTA PRATTEI H TI
hOMOION).
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: Mari Olsen <molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 15:57:11 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Greek numerals? (fwd)
A good friend writes:
Mari, we have a Sunday morning adult ed class for choir members that's
being taught by a nice guy from the choir [stuff deleted]. [Y]esterday
he told us that next week he would talk about something called "theomatics", which apparently is a sort of
numerology. As I understand it, people who espouse this assert that
none of the three Biblical languages (I assume he means Hebrew,
Aramaic, and koine Greek) has numerals and that instead they assign
number values to their alphabetic characters. (I guess where he's
going to go from here is to show that there are amazing things based
on the number values of words in the Bible, the idea being that only
God could have planned something so complicated).
What I'm wondering is this: is it true that Greek had no numerals?
Jim can't remember one way or another, and I can't find my Greek
textbook.
[stuff deleted]
Anyone have information on 'theomatics', or can otherwise read between
the lines of this to help her? You can answer to me, and I'll forward
it on (I'm curious, too).
------------------------------
From: turquoyz <turquoyz@databank.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 15:56:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Comments on Greek lexicons, updated
What? No mention of Kittel???
- -----------------------------------------------
EDWARD C. HOBBS on GREEK LEXICA
>
> ( I'm a long-time lexicon addict, owning every kind and type and
>example, studying them assiduously, and criticizing them constantly. I own
>two, or even three, of almost all of these, so I'll be sure to have one
>whether I'm in either of my offices or in my study.)
>
> ---Classical Greek---
>
> The (financially) bad news is that really there is no choice for
>Classical Greek except the *only* current one: "New (9th) Edition" of
>Liddell-Scott-Jones-McKenzie.
>
> _A Greek-English Lexicon_ compiled by Henry George Liddell
> and Robert Scott. Revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry
> Stuart Jones, with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie and with
> the co-operation of many scholars. With a supplement, 1968,
> edited by E. A. Barber. Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1968.
> [List price, $135]
>
> Oxford has announced a partially-new version of the 9th Edition with a
>completely revised supplement (2378 total pp.) The revised supplement by
>Glare will also be available separately (288 pp.) The new printing was
>promised for June 1995; as of October 1995, it has been re-scheduled for
>publication in March 1996. The good news is that the price has been
>dropped $10, to $125; even better news is that they have reinstated the
>pre-publication offer-- order before January 31, 1996, and it will cost
>only $100! (All prices plus $3.50 shipping.) The new version:
>
> _A Greek-English Lexicon: Ninth Edition with Revised
> Supplement_ compiled by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott.
> Revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones, with
> the assistance of Roderick McKenzie and with the co-operation of
> many scholars. Supplement edited by P. G. W. Glare. Oxford, at
> the Clarendon Press, 1996.
> [List price, $125] [Supplement separately, $65]
>
> WARNING: Since both Liddell and Scott died over a century ago, the
>"Intermediate" [$35] and the "Abridged" [$30] Liddell-Scott, which fit in a
>book-bag, are in fact not based on the L-S-J-M, but are over a century old
>(1888 or 1889), based on the 7th ed. published in 1883 (usually and
>incorrectly cited as 1882, based on the Preface date). Since there is no
>choice, one takes what one can get. So either you shell out $135/$125 and
>be happy, or you pay $35 (Intermediate, 914 pp.) or $30 (Abridged, 808 pp.)
>and curse yourself every time you encounter the inadequacies AND the
>antiquities of the latter. (Incidentally, "Liddell" is pronounced
>"LID-'l", as though spelled "Liddle", never Lid-DELL. He was quite
>insistent on it! His daughter Alice was the Alice of "Alice in
>Wonderland.")
>
> There is a Langenscheidt "pocket" edition, commended by Carl Conrad.
>I do not possess it myself, but I trust Carl's judgment.
>
>
> ---New Testament Greek---
>
> There is still only one adequate choice:
>
> Walter Bauer, _A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
>Early Christian Literature_; translated into English by William F. Arndt
>and F. Wilbur Gingrich from 4th edition; "Second Edition [1979], revised
>and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker from Walter
>Bauer's 5th edition, 1958." University of Chicago Press; also available
>from Zondervan. [About $55]
>
> Unhappily, all three translators (Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, the
>latter two being friends of mine) chose to "revise" and to "augment" in
>addition to translating; they are none of them any match for Bauer in
>lexicography, with the consequences quite evident. Often they simply
>attack Bauer's entries, instead of translating them! (See, as a really
>hilarious example, "skenepoios".) The absurd "causal eis," invented by J.
>R. Mantey to support his fundamentalist-Baptist doctrine of John's baptism
>(a matter of "translation driven by theology", as Gary Brower called it in
>one of his postings!), was given a full five-line special entry in the 1st
>ed. by Arndt & Gingrich; at least it was reduced in the 2nd ed. to three
>lines, and credited solely to Julius Mantey (who obviously couldn't read
>non-biblical Greek very well, as the great Greek scholar Ralph Marcus
>carefully pointed out in two separate articles, despite Mantey's co-writing
>a "grammar"). The result is that, although it is the best lexicon of the
>Greek New Testament available in English, it still suffers from the
>additions of its three translators.
>
> The more recent (6th) edition of Bauer (edited by Kurt and Barbara
>Aland, 1988) is better; but it is in German, with no English translation
>available for non-readers of German.
>
> [Footnote on Bauer-in-German:] Even Bauer was guilty of "translation
>driven by male-chauvinism" at times, the most incredible example being the
>entry for "Junias". This completely non-existent name is listed by Bauer
>with the fanciful guess that it must have been a nickname for `Junianus',
>and a statement that the purely theoretical possibility that the name is
>`Junia' (a very common woman's name) is rendered impossible by the context!
>The "impossible" is that Paul's remarkable lady-relative Junia was an
>apostle! Horrors! SURELY Phoebe was no deacon (a term Paul applies to
>himself), and Junia was no apostle (a term Paul applies to himself)! How
>can a WOMAN have been chosen by God for REAL ministry? Thank God, the NRSV
>and a few other recent translations have now restored Junia to her place in
>the apostolate, where even the King James Version had her.
> Even the great Bauer had his blindnesses!
>
>-------
> [Additional comments by Edgar Krentz concerning forthcoming revision
> by Danker of the A-G-D translation of Bauer:]
>
> Fred Danker delivered the completed manuscript of the third edition to
> the University of Chicago Press in early April. (Can one call
> something on a hard disk a manuscript?) I called Fred Danker about
> it; he tells me the target date for its appearance in print is the
> Society of Biblical Literature meeting in 1996, i.e. approximately
> Thanksgiving of that year. I no longer have students purchase the 2nd
> edition because that date is close. If you want more accurate
> information, you might drop a note to Prof. Frederick W. Danker, 3438
> Russell Ave., St. Louis, MO 63104. Tel.: 314-772-5757.
>-------
>
> Wilbur Gingrich once prepared a small edition (_Shorter Lexicon of the
>Greek New Testament_); a 2nd edition, with Fred Danker, came out in 1983,
>and costs $30 for 221 pp. It is SO small and costs so much that I consider
>it not worth the bother. Some like it for portability. I tried using it
>with students for a few years after it came out, but it was SO brief, had
>so few "helps", and cost such a high proportion of the complete B-AG, that
>I switched to requiring B-AG (later B-AGD).
>
> If I were to recommend a "portable" lexicon for New Testament Greek,
>I'd try for Abbott-Smith, should it be still available and at a reasonable
>price. _A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament_ by G. Abbott-Smith (a
>Canadian!). This came out in 1921, 1923, and 1937 (editions 1 through 3),
>and has been reprinted frequently since then, by T. & T. Clark (Edinburgh).
>I'm not sure if it is still in print, nor at what price. But it was beyond
>question the lexicon of choice prior to the appearance of Bauer in English;
>I used it with my classes in those pre-1957 years. It includes quite a bit
>of information from the papyri, it gives many references to use of words in
>LXX with the original Hebrew word (even pointed!) behind the Greek term or
>word or usage, and includes a plethora of passages cited. It also gives
>etymologies (dangerous though that is?).
>
> To supplement Carl Conrad's brief warning on the Newman lexicon
>published by the United Bible Societies: The English-speaking Bible
>Societies decided to have a small English lexicon bound with some printings
>of UBS's _The Greek New Testament_, and Barclay M. Newman, Jr., got the job
>(with the advice of, among others, my old roommate Erroll Rhodes). This
>lexicon is deceptive, misleading the very persons who use it -- beginners.
>It gives, in the main, the RSV translations of each Greek word. If one
>wants that, one can read an English New Testament, to wit, the RSV!. It
>isn't frightful, but since it is a poor lexicon on the whole, it is largely
>useless. Too bas that it's the only one bound with the UBS _Greek New
>Testament_.
>
> The Louw & Nida lexicon is often mentioned.
> _Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on
> Semantic Domains_ edited by Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida,
> 2 volumes; United Bible Societies [available through American
> Bible Society]. First Edition 1988; Second Edition, 1989. Price
> is $35 for two-volume set-- would probably be $80-100 from any
> other publisher.
> While it does not replace the need for Liddell-Scott-Jones nor
>for Bauer, it fills a real gap among lexica. It has a rather specialized
>use. Not only is it organized "semantically," which requires using the
>index volume constantly to discover where the desired word is to be found,
>but it is primarily written for the use of translators of the New Testament
>into languages not yet having Bibles in the vernacular. It is very
>"translation-oriented," which isn't usually what a researcher wants or
>needs (unless one is a translator).
> (Incidentally, and happily, they ALWAYS refer to Bauer's lexicon
> as "Bauer's lexicon" or "Bauer's dictionary"; they initially
> mention it "as translated and revised by Gingrich and Danker".
> Since no one refers to _Crime and Punishment_ as written by
> Constance Garnett, I don't understand why Americans like to refer
> to Bauer's lexicon as though it were written by its translators.)
>The quickest way to see its virtues is to read their "Introduction" (pp.
>vi-xx, same in both 1st and 2nd editions), and then to sample one article
>in Vol. 1 and one in Vol. 2.
>
>-------
> [Additional comments by Edgar Krentz concerning Louw & Nida:]
>
> Louw & Nida is difficult for a beginning student to use. The more
> acquaintance one has with ancient Greek literature beyond the Greek
> Bible, the more intelligently one can use it. It is *no substitute*
> for a traditional, alphabetically arranged lexicon. I would probably
> elect to have students use the old Abbott-Smith lexicon (T & T Clark)
> as a first lexicon, and send them to the library to use B-AGD, 2nd ed.
>-------
>
>
> ---Patristic Greek---
>
> Even when you have paid a small fortune for the LSJM, you will not
>have a lexicon for the Church Fathers (Patristics), since that body of
>literature was deliberately excluded from it.
>
> The only serious option is: G. W. H. Lampe, _A Patristic Greek
>Lexicon_, Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1961-1968. No longer listed in
>Oxford's catalogs, but still in print. It is hideously expensive at $285,
>hence is the only important lexicon of ancient Greek which I do not own;
>I jog to the library when I need it.
>
>
> ---"Septuagint" Greek---
>
> In LSJM, the LXX is given fairly short shrift, with the result that
>many students find the older 8th edition (1897) better for LXX. But, in
>fact, there is NO really good lexicon yet for the LXX. The reason is
>pretty obvious: It is a translated collection, and one is often left
>wondering whether to give the meaning of the Hebrew (or Aramaic) original
>behind a word, or to give the (supposed) meaning in the head(s) of the
>translator(s) based on other Hellenistic usage. The Deutsche
>Bibelgesellschaft has such a lexicon under way, though it is somewhat
>sketchy, doing little of what such a lexicon should do (perhaps for the
>reasons I outlined above). The A-I volume (paperback), which came out in
>1992, is $24 plus handling charge and tax. It has 217 pages, plus
>introduction. The rest is planned for release by Christmas of 1995.
> _A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint_,
> compiled by J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, with the
> collaboration of G. Chamberlain.
>
> ---"Parsing Lexicons"---
>
> Concerning inflected-forms dictionaries: The antique Liddell-Scott
>Abridged (over a century old, which should have been replaced decades ago
>but hasn't been) parses forms which an English schoolboy reading Xenophon
>et alia in "Public" School might have trouble with. It covers few of the
>forms New Testament readers are likely to find daunting.
> The old "Analytical Greek Lexicon" covered almost all forms in the New
>Testament, but was filled with so many hundreds of errors that it was worse
>than nothing, since the novice cannot spot these errors. However, FEAR
>NOT! The dreadful 1852 Analytical Lexicon (1852, despite "1970" in
>reprint!) was "corrected and revised" by Harold K. Moulton, published by
>Bagster [original publisher of 1852 edition!] in 1977, in London, and in
>1978 in the USA by Zondervan. Title: _The Analytical Greek Lexicon
>Revised_: 1978 Edition. Harold is the son of James Hope Moulton, and
>grandson of W. F. Moulton, two great Greek grammarians. This edition works
>from photos of the early printing, with errors and misprints corrected, and
>then has an addendum giving the forms which were omitted from the original
>Bagster's Lexicon. Wesley J. Perschbacher has also edited a corrected and
>revised version of the 1852 edition: _The New Analytical Greek Lexicon_,
>published by Hendrickson in 1990. This version is newly type-set, with a
>slightly better appearance on the page.
> Max Zerwick, S.J., of the Biblicum in Rome published his _Analysis
>Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci_ at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in
>1953; I have the 3rd ed., 1966. It goes through the New Testament verse by
>verse, parsing odd forms, explaining the grammatical structures, solving
>puzzles (Zerwick's solutions, of course), with references to his useful but
>brief grammar. It's in Latin, but for those who read only English and want
>to learn Greek, Mary Grosvenor made a translation (also "revised and
>adapted") in two volumes, 1974 (through Acts) and 1979 (Romans through
>Apocalypse), titled _An Analysis of the Greek New Testament_. Later came
>out in a single volume; very handy, small format.
> A similar help, though much more "written down" to the beginner, a bit
>patronizing, and uncomfortably protestant-conservative, is the Cleon Rogers
>translation of Fritz Rienecker's _Sprachlicher Schluessel zum Greek New
>Testament_: _Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament_ (1976, 1980;
>perhaps later editions), issued by Zondervan. Also small, handy format.
> Sakae Kubo produced a nifty vocabulary guide for rapid reading of the
>Greek New Testament: _A Reader's Greek-English Lexicon of the New
>Testament_ (1967 through 1975, when a "beginner's guide" was added).
>Zondervan. It gives many helpful frequency tables, verb charts, inflection
>charts, in addition to its main job: Going through the Greek New Testament
>chapter by chapter, listing every word which occurs fewer than 5 times in
>that book. He assumes you know the 301 words occurring more than 50 times
>in the Greek New Testament (he gives a list), then lists all words in the
>book-in-hand (e.g., Romans) occurring more than 5 times in that book but
>less than 50 in the whole New Testament. One needs to know these to use
>the volume for rapid-reading. Then the infrequent words are given, with
>quickie translations, verse by verse. A VERY helpful tool for novices. He
>also gives a list of unusual or hard-to-spot forms, actually an abridgement
>of the long list in Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon.
> Finally, a book doing the same thing as the Analytical Lexicon, except
>that it is arranged in the order the words occur in the New Testament
>(i..e., one starts reading Matthew, and it parses every word in order (with
>some high-frequency exceptions): Nathan E. Han, _A Parsing Guide to the
>Greek New Testament_, Herald Press, 1971. It was printed from typed copy,
>tolerably readable (but could be better).
>
>
>
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #884
*****************************
** 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