[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #889
b-greek-digest Thursday, 5 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 889
In this issue:
digest #888
Re: digest #888
Re: Romans 3:22-23
Re: Romans 3:22-23
Romans 3:19-20
Aorist as unmarked aspect
New Phone Number for The GRAMCORD Institute
UNSUBSCRIBE (6TH REQUEST!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mari Olsen <molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 17:20:28 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: digest #888
Everything in this issue (#888) of the digest gets to be true, since
888 is the value of the Greek letters in Jesus.
Thanks for all the help on the numer-als/ology.
Mari Broman Olsen
Northwestern University
Department of Linguistics
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208
molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
molsen@babel.ling.nwu.edu
------------------------------
From: Deborah Milam Berkley <dberkley@babel.ling.nwu.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 17:42:15 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: digest #888
> Everything in this issue (#888) of the digest gets to be true, since
> 888 is the value of the Greek letters in Jesus.
>
I just finished reading through all the responses! Sounds like
letters were sometimes used for numerals, but often with special marks
to distinguish them. And the numerology part sounds definitely like
it is NOT proven.
> Thanks for all the help on the numer-als/ology.
>
Shall I still send them a thanks myself? I was just going to.
Debbie
------------------------------
From: Timothy Bratton <bratton@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 20:53:07 -35900
Subject: Re: Romans 3:22-23
On Wed, 4 Oct 1995 WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
> Timothy Bratton wrote;
> > But this verse just doesn't make sense. If the aorist tense is understood
> > as a one time completed action in the past, how could "all have sinned."
> Is
> > Paul perhaps taking some poetic license here?
>
> I would agree with others who have suggested that you are using the aorist in
> too restricted a sense. I think also that Frank Stagg published an article
> in the JBL years ago entitled, "The Abused Aorist."
>
> In Brooks & Winbery Romans 3:23 is used as an example of the Gnomic Aorist
> (I'm not sure what Prof. Whatmouth would call it). By Gnomic we take it to
> be a statement of a general maxim, i.e., something that is universally true.
> Remember the sentence begins in vs. 22, "There is no distinction (between
> Jew and Gentile) because all sin and continually come short of the glory of
> God." This is the summation of the point that Paul has been making since
> 1:18. Don't think of aorist as "one time" action or as all in the past. It
> can be but often is not.
>
> I hope Ellen gets her toilet fixed.
>
> Carlton Winbery
> Pineville, LA
>
Dr. Timothy L. Bratton bratton@acc.jc.edu
Department of History/Pol. Science work: 1-701-252-3467, ext. 2022
6006 Jamestown College home: 1-701-252-8895
Jamestown, ND 58405 home phone/fax: 1-701-252-7507
"All ignorance is dangerous, and most errors must be dearly
paid. And good luck must he have that carries unchastised an error in
his head unto his death." -- Arthur Schopenhauer.
Dear Dr. Winbery:
Thank you for your prompt reply. However, I did not originate
the passage you cited, which I quoted from the sender, the mysterious
"JClar100@aol.com." I do wish that people would make more effort to
identify themselves.
I share your sentiments about Ellen and her toilet problems, but
I am sure that by now she is flushed with success. 8-[)
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 22:26:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Romans 3:22-23
At 5:03 PM 10/4/95, WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
>Timothy Bratton wrote;
>> But this verse just doesn't make sense. If the aorist tense is understood
>> as a one time completed action in the past, how could "all have sinned."
> Is
>> Paul perhaps taking some poetic license here?
>
>I would agree with others who have suggested that you are using the aorist in
>too restricted a sense. I think also that Frank Stagg published an article
>in the JBL years ago entitled, "The Abused Aorist."
>
>In Brooks & Winbery Romans 3:23 is used as an example of the Gnomic Aorist
>(I'm not sure what Prof. Whatmouth would call it). By Gnomic we take it to
>be a statement of a general maxim, i.e., something that is universally true.
> Remember the sentence begins in vs. 22, "There is no distinction (between
>Jew and Gentile) because all sin and continually come short of the glory of
>God." This is the summation of the point that Paul has been making since
>1:18. Don't think of aorist as "one time" action or as all in the past. It
>can be but often is not.
>
>I hope Ellen gets her toilet fixed.
This missive (?) strikes me as Carlton Winbery at his finest, most
supercilious, and yea, verily, gnomic, so much so that I take the liberty
of citing it IN TOTO prior to offering my own grubby little comments.
(1) Was that "Whatmouth" deliberate? or deliberative? I knew Joshua
Whatmough once, a truly gnome-like little (perhaps he was taller than 4
feet, but he didn't seem it) Welshman with a grand KLEOS as comparative
linguist. I frankly don't remember hearing him talk about aorists; it
seemed that he talked most that year about Hittite and laryngeals and how
all the mysteries of Umlaut would be understood by one who could fathom the
mysteries of newly-deciphered Hittite. And when he wasn't talking about
that, he was talking about shooting pigeons with molten tar in a water
pistol, which struck me as a sticky, unlikely, and most unpleasant exercise
in futility. I learned a lot more from his successor, Calvert Watkins. What
I DO remember Whatmough talking about was the Nominative Absolute in Greek
(everyone else calls it an accusative absolute, but since the participle is
neuter, who can tell?) and the genitive of the sphere.
(2) It seems to me that the aorist often has the force of "get x
accomplished," as opposed to the present tense's force of "endeavor to do
x." If that has any validity, then the Pauline aorist in the text in
question might be understood to mean: "everyone manages to succeed at
sinning ..."--which strikes me as most probably true.
(3) I too hope that Ellen gets her toilet fixed (in the best sense of the
aorist tense, whatever the best sense of the aorist tense may be).
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: JClar100@aol.com
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 23:56:37 -0400
Subject: Romans 3:19-20
I sincerely appreciate and have enjoyed reading all the responses to my
posting on Romans 3:29-31. I have a received some good insight plus some
thought-provoking information which still lingers on...
Perhaps I have the Pauline Plague. Seriously, I'm trying to work through
the Book of Romans and will continue to ask for help.
So...
In Romans 3:19 Paul uses the terms HO NOMOS and TW NOMW. But in verse 20 the
term is simply NOMOU and it's repeated once. In this verse (20), in both
cases, it's without the article.
QUESTION: What is the significance of the term with and without the article?
I am tempted to conclude, or at least it's a possibility, that Paul in the
latter case might mean "any legal system" as opposed to that of the Mosaic
Law. If so, would the argument he has been making be a stronger case with
this more inclusive indictment of the Greeks as well as the Jews? I
understand that Greek religion was also accompanied with a great deal of
legalism. "Forensic aspects," I think, is the term which is used.
Anyway, I'm not trying to be so theological. I am really soliciting an
answer to the question as to whether or not this possiblity stands or falls
with such an understanding of the language found in these verses.
Thanks,
JClar100@aol.com
James Clardy
Mt. Juliet, Tennessee
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 1995 22:59:59 CST
Subject: Aorist as unmarked aspect
On Wed, 4 Oct 1995, JClar100@aol.com, whoever that is, wrote:
>If the aorist tense is understood as a one time completed action in the past,
Since several have written about this, and Carlton has correctly identified
the passage in question as a gnomic aorist, I thought I would float (sorry,
Ellen) a concept on the aorist itself past the list and see what reaction I
might get.
Greek tense is composed of both time and aspect in the indicative. In the
subjunctive it shows only aspect. There are three aspects in Greek. In the
spirit of the Prague School with its concept of marked and unmarked, I would
like to suggest that the three aspects are unmarked, marked as completed, and
marked as continuous. The aorist tense is unmarked as to aspect. This means
that in any given passage, it may represent punctiliar action, continuous
action, or completed action. The aorist tense does not say what kind of
action is represented by the verb. Thus it is a mistake to say that the
aorist tense represents punctiliar action, as used to be a common statement in
grammars; however, punctiliar action may be expressed by using an aorist tense
since it is not marked as either completed or continuous.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Paul A. Miller" <pmiller@gramcord.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 1995 22:11:56 -0700
Subject: New Phone Number for The GRAMCORD Institute
We are well aware that the recent change in The GRAMCORD Institute area code
has been an inconvenience for some of you. The new number is indeed
360-576-3000. (The old area code was 206.)
Some institutional phone systems, PBX's, and even some local phone company
exchanges have not been reprogrammed to accept the strange "360" area code.
The U.S. telephone area code system has traditionally used "0" or "1" as the
middle digit but when all such permutations were exhausted, the "360" area
code was one of the first "untraditional" ones introduced. If you are unable
to call us via the new phone number, please try a residential phone or a
different long distance carrier AND/OR complain to the appropriate party.
You can also reach The GRAMCORD Institute by our unchanged FAX number
(503-761-0626) or via my email at pMiller@GRAMCORD.org
*************************************************************
Prof. Paul A. Miller (Email: pmiller@GRAMCORD.org)
The GRAMCORD Institute
2218 NE Brookview Dr., Vancouver, WA 98686, U.S.A.
Voice (360)576-3000; FAX (503)761-0626
Computer-Assisted Biblical Language Research (IBM & MAC)
*************************************************************
------------------------------
From: MR JOHN H MCBRIDE <VXTX21A@prodigy.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 00:49:33 EDT
Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE (6TH REQUEST!)
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #889
*****************************
** 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