[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #890
b-greek-digest Thursday, 5 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 890
In this issue:
Re: Romans 3:19-20
Re: Romans 3:19-20
B-GRK "unmarked" aorist
Re: Romans 3:19-20
Re: Aorist as unmarked aspect
Re: Romans 3:22-23
Re: Romans 3:22-23
Online aids
The Clapp/Friberg Concordances
RE > Abused Aorist
Logos Tech Support Rates "F"
Re: Aorist as unmarked aspect
Re: Logos Tech Support Rates "F"
Re: Logos Tech Support Rates "F"
Lexicons
The aorist = unmarked aspect
Re: Romans 3:19-20
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 03:12:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Romans 3:19-20
In a message dated 95-10-05 00:05:01 EDT, James Clardy writes:
>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?
Answer: It is a common practice for Greek literature to preceed the first
noun with an article in a given context and leave the article off in
succeeding references within the context. For example look at John 1:1 where
the first THEOS has the article, and the latter does not and also John 1:12
does not.
Jim McGuire
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 06:08:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Romans 3:19-20
At 2:12 AM 10/5/95, BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 95-10-05 00:05:01 EDT, James Clardy writes:
>
>>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?
>
>Answer: It is a common practice for Greek literature to preceed the first
>noun with an article in a given context and leave the article off in
>succeeding references within the context. For example look at John 1:1 where
>the first THEOS has the article, and the latter does not and also John 1:12
>does not.
We return once more, it appears, to the repeatedly hashed and re-hashed (if
that has a redundant ring to it, then I got it right!) question of how John
1:1c (KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS) is to be understood. As in the case of those
questions regarding the synoptic apocalypse, I doubt if all those who have
voiced their various views on the question are eager to enter the same fray
again, and this is precisely where an archive is most valuble.
I do think that the NOMOS referred to it the passage in question is the
Torah; while I'm not sure that it ought to be put in the category of
Semitisms, this kind of genitive, which I would call "adjectival," is
common in Paul and is similar in construction, even if not derived from,
the "construct" form of a noun in Hebrew that is added to another noun.
I would venture (foolhardy, as ever!) a theological interpretation, but
only because Paul has, in the opening chapter of this letter, referred to
the status of gentiles before God in terms analogous to the status of the
Jew before God: I think that Paul is referring specifically to the Torah in
this passage, BUT I think that he means to apply the proposition
universally to all humanity. Moreover, I don't think he is referring to a
forensic conception in any pagan religion specifically, but more probably
to a Stoic conception of conscience which he analogizes to the Jewish
conscience at Rom 2:14-16. And for this reason, I think that here (and in
Galatians as well) one may extrapolate a theological and ethical principle
that any endeavor to distinguish the "worth" of one individual over another
in terms of moral accomplishment in the view of God, is illegitimate, so
that we would have to say that, not only all humanity generally, but every
human being specifically, falls short of the authentic humanity God seeks
in each created human being. Is that too absolute an assertion, or is it
less--or more--than Paul really means to assert here?
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: Vincent DeCaen <decaen@epas.utoronto.ca>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 08:34:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: B-GRK "unmarked" aorist
re aorist as unmarked aspect, etc.
Prof John Wevers (emeritus) here at U of Toronto subscribes to the
view, and we've had several "interesting" ;-) exchanges on the
question. I don't think the facts support it, nor do my theoretical
investigations in tense-aspect support it.
I'd like to "float" some ideas too. but first I want to make sure
we're talking about the same things.
- ---------------------------------------------------
let's define "aspect" as the internal temporal contour of an "event
structure" using a time line T of points t. Two points at time index
i and j are selected such that i<j. the event begins at ti, continues
over a definite span, and terminates at tj, followed by a steady state
(= stative-resultative).
the aspects are defined on this internal time line:
- -inceptive x=i
- -durative/progressive i<x<j
- -terminative x=j
- -"perfect" or better, "anterior" j<x
- -perfective/punctiliar x=(i through/including j)
these are good enough. we could quibble whether the anterior includes
j, and how to "conflate" the time line for perfective. I don't
believe languages grammaticalize x=i or x=j, so that leaves us, not
coincidentally, with three possible aspects. not every language
possesses a grammatical anterior, and they get by very well, thankyou.
notice also that there is nothing corresponding to an unmarked or
natural aspect in this scheme.
- --------------------------------------------------------------
terms:
STRICT COMPOSITIONALITY
simply that the semantics should be derived straightforwardly from the
morphosyntax or "form" rather than independent stipulation (on the
traditional view). e.g., rather than defining independently an
anterior for English, we notice that the auxiliary have is inflected
for tense and that the participle has the extra bit -en/-ed. we
should be able to assign each bit a little semantic content, and by
strict composition arrive at the semantics of "anterior".
DEFAULT(ING)
*not* synonymous with unmarked ("unmarked" where required content is
not offered; for me = "underspecified"). a default is clearly
specified, but can be overridden (so it's not clear whether it's
semantics or pragmatics). in English, the default aspect is
perfective, so the simple past tense is perfective (unless
overridden), as is the simple present, or so I would claim. In such
systems, a separate and obligatory progressive is required (it turns
out most systems outside of Europe are perfective defaulters; major
exception, Athapaskan family).
- ---------------------------------------------------
1. "completed" "complete"
I think this is where the confusion starts. let us define these away
as "completed" = anterior/perfect and "complete" = perfective/punct.
1B.
"completed in the past"
confuses the obvious aspectual implicature of the past tense with the
aspectual reading. let us make sure "completed" isn't in fact past tense.
2. subjunctive is a "tense" in the sense of INFL projecting to a
maximal IP (for all those syntax fans: if you're not, just ignore
this). "form before meaning," is my motto.
3. how many aspects?!? formally there are 4-5, based on formal criteria
and the number of columns in the traditional paradigms. the question
is whether synchronically we can divide out "future stem" from "aorist
stem" (I don't think so).
__________________________________________________
some floating:
1. the aspectual value of the verb is only one of several factors
determining the overall tense-aspect reading: nature of subject,
nature of object, adverbials, lexical value of verb stem, pragmatics,
etc, etc. so on this view it is possible to get perfective readings
of an "imperfect"; and similarly, non-punctiliar readings of the
perfective "aorist". remember COMPOSITIONALITY over the whole clause.
2. formally, looking at the *productive* processes, we see that the bare
stem is generally associated with the durative, and that extra
stuff/processes is associated with the other aspects. it is
reasonable to assume that this correlates with the configuration of
the system.
3. let us define Greek's aspectual default as "nonperfective", so that
the simple forms are durative/progressive. the nondurative is
therefore obligatorally encoded, in this case by the perfective
("aorist stem"). as is generally the case, the anterior/perfect is an
add-on orthogonal to the basic contrast.
3B. in such systems, tack on the present inflection to the perfective
stem, and presto! "future tenses". hmmmm. do we want to separate out
"future" and "aorist" stems on a strictly compositional approach??
4. the gnomic reading of Greek perfectives is no different from that
of Russian which works the way I described Greek, nor from the English
simple tenses which overlap in many ways (although in many ways, you
get mirror-image phenomena). this is why we translate, eg., proverbs
with the simple present in -s (ie. nonpast perfective).
- ---------------------------------------------------
this has been "floating" and not in any way definitive. these views
are driven by a theory for tense-aspect in Universal Grammar. if any
of you are "into UG" we could follow this up offlist in a more
technical way.
ciao
- ---------------------------------------------------
Vincent DeCaen decaen@epas.utoronto.ca
Near Eastern Studies, University of Toronto
Religion and Culture, Wilfrid Laurier University
"The wise ones of Agarttha study all holy languages
in order to arrive at the universal language,
which is Vattan." Eco, Foucault's Pendulum
------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 07:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Romans 3:19-20
To argue that an anarthrous noun is definite in a context where it occurs
earlier with the article may be a begging of the question. How does one,
then, explain the significance of the repeated use of the article (e.g.,
the anaphoric article)? Furthermore, how would the author express a
qualitative force of the noun, if it already occurred with the article?
Certainly, your appealing to John 1:1 as an example is way off base.
The qualitative force of theos in 1:1c is far preferrable to
definiteness, as that would equate the Logos to God the Father (1:1b).
Do not appeal to Colwell's Rule here, as its application here has been
shown to be incorrect.
Paul Dixon
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:13:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Aorist as unmarked aspect
Bruce Terry wrote;
>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) [I wish Ellen would post more, cw]
>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.
I agree, if by "unmarked" you mean unlimited or undefined. I have never been
comfortable with the word "punctiliar" tho we used in in our Syntax book
(that was written in the early seventies. Carl Conrad's way of putting it
seems to me to make sense ("get x accomplished"). The writer using the
aorist often seems to be thinking of the fact that the event happens, but my
motto is "meaning in context."
Carlton Winbery
LA College, Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:12:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Romans 3:22-23
Carl Conrad wrote;
>(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.<
Carl, that's an excellent way of putting the point that Paul is making in
Romans 1-3. In these chapter and later in 5 he seems almost to anticipate
those theologians who seem to think that sin is biologically transmitted from
Adam. He insists that each is guilty of his/her own sin.
I really did not mean to appear supercilious, a thousand apologies!
Carlton Winbery
Prof. NT & Greek
LA College, Pineville, La
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:05:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Romans 3:22-23
At 9:12 AM 10/5/95, WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
>I really did not mean to appear supercilious, a thousand apologies!
I would have written this privately to Carlton, but I want all to know that
I knew when I typed "supercilious" that it was the wrong word. Would "wry"
be any better?
And I take it that you really DID mean "Whatmouth" (in one of its many senses)?
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: Karen Pitts <karen_pitts@maca.sarnoff.com>
Date: 5 Oct 1995 11:23:03 U
Subject: Online aids
Here is how to get the Greek aids I mentioned in my post on keeping up. All
these are Mac-based.
Patricia's Greek and Theos Tutor I downloaded from AOL. I don't remember now
where I found them, but here are their designers and how to reach them. I
suspect I found info on them in the newsgroups, religion.soc, or somesuch.
1. Patricia's NT Greek Vocab Review. Hypercard stack with 1167 most
frequently used words (all frequencies of >= 9). I've used this and found it
fun and helpful. It's shareware (5$).
Contact: Laurence W Veinott
Rt, 2 Bix 378
Lisbon, NY 13658
(315) 393-1085
He says he's LVeinott at AOL which I'm assuming translates to
LVeinott@AOL.com.
It requires Alexandria font (comes with Zondervan's Greek MacBible)
2. Theos Tutor is a product of Charlie Woods, Vision Ministries, who is at
DTS. He also has Torah Greek, Hebrew and some games. I've not used this at
all.
Contact Charlie at: Charles R. Woods c/o
Pastoral Ministries Dept.
Dallas Theological Seminary
3909 Swiss Ave.
Dallas Texams 75204
CharlieFSU@aol.com
3. Online Bible lists the Greek and Hebrew texts as well as online lexicons
and claims to be a successful competitor to Zondervan's MacBible. You can get
more information by contacting
Ken Hammel
Box 168
Oakhurst, NJ 07755
908-741-4298
4. Bill Mounce's Greek Hangman, which I and my kids thoroughly enjoy (Thanks
Bill!), was recently listed here on B-Greek. I'm reproducing his post below.
>My Greek hangman game for the Macintosh is done!
>"Peter's Faith" can be downloaded from my ftp site and used for free. It
uses the story of Peter walking on the water. You choose the chapters in
BASICS OF BIBLICAL GREEK, it gets the vocabulary, mixes them, and then
plays the game. With every mistake you shift to the next scene in the
story. Great graphics and sound! Your students will love it, and it will
help provide that periodically needed break from first year Greek (or any
year, really).
>"Peter's Faith" is writeware. If you use it, please write and tell me,
especially if you find any problems with it.
>When you get it, click anywhere on the screen for a popup menu with the
different options, including "Help."
>It can be downloaded from "on-ramp.ior.com" in the directory
"usr/billm/greek/mac". Log on as anonymous.
You need both "Peter.sea.bin" (628 K) and "SCPlayer.sea.bin" (638 K). Sorry
about the size, but multimedia is worth it. The second file is the
SuperCard Player. I kept it separate from the program to make subsequent
games smaller to download. It can also be downloaded directly from
Allegiant at "allegiant.com" (or "www.allegiant.com" on the Web) in the
directory "SuperCard/SuperCard-Player/SuperCard-Player-2.5.sit.hqx".
>"Peter's Faith" requires a Macintosh (68020 or greater), a 14" color
monitor (256 colors minimum, 640 x 480 pixel display), System 7, 5
megabytes of RAM available, and 4 megabytes available on the hard disk.
>I hope it helps your students learn Greek.
>Bill Mounce
Happy Hunting
Karen Pitts
Hopewell Presbyterian Church, Hopewell, NJ, teacher of NT Greek
David Sarnoff Research Center, Princeton, NJ, statistician
kpitts@sarnoff. com
------------------------------
From: Nichael Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 12:29:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: The Clapp/Friberg Concordances
re: The recent discussion concerning the Clapp/Friberg Concordance.
For those interested:
Yesterday's mail brought a "Fall Clearance Catalogue" from CBD of Peabody
MA which includes both volumes of the C/F Concordance --the Lexical and
the Grammatical Focus-- for $29.95 each or $49.90 as a two-volume set
(which represnts something approaching 25% of list price).
Nichael
<include standard disclaimers re the disinterestedness of the poster>
------------------------------
From: Karen Pitts <karen_pitts@maca.sarnoff.com>
Date: 5 Oct 1995 12:57:18 U
Subject: RE > Abused Aorist
I, too, found the following article very useful. When I hit aorist
subjunctive and infinitive, I was very confused about the difference between
aorist and present, especially given the actual use of aorist subjunctive in
the NT. Here's are the stats if you want to get your own personal copy.
"The Abused Aorist", Frank Stagg, Journal of Biblical Literature,
91 (1972), pp. 222-231.
Karen Pitts
Hopewell Presbyterian Church, Hopewell, NJ, teacher of NT Greek
David Sarnoff Research Center, Princeton, NJ, statistician
kpitts@sarnoff. com
------------------------------
From: "L. E. Brown" <budman@sedona.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 14:04:06 GMT
Subject: Logos Tech Support Rates "F"
Dear Bible Student,
Attached is a copy of an e-mail message I sent to Logos Research
Systems concerning their technical support. I have posted it hear just
to warn those who are considering this product to think twice. I still
think it is the finest software out there, but unless you are
technically inclined, know how computer programmers think and can
figure things out without tech support, you'd better think twice.
For the time being I am counseling those who consider Logos to wait
until their tech support problems are resolved.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
To: tech@logos.com
From: "L. E. Brown" <budman@sedona.net>
Subject: Logos Tech Support Rates "F"
ATTENTION: TECH SUPPORT
LOGOS RESEARCH SYSTEMS
RE: A complaint and a bug.
************************
** First, the complaint
************************
It is outrageous that tech support call backs are taking a week! I
called this morning with a problem and was told that you are a week
behind. That is absolutely absurd and it is inexcusable.
I have been bragging on your product to everyone I know; and (not to
toot my own horn) I have friends in high places. Two seminary
presidents, a college president and several well known authors and
scholars. Now I could kick myself because _if_ these people license
your product as I strongly suggested, and they then have problems, I'm
going to look like a real ass.
Ridiculous
************************
** Now, the problem.
************************
I observe that either the documentation for the note taking facility
is incorrect, unclear, or the note taking facility has a serious bug
that renders it useless.
The dialog box which allows one to add a note permits entering a note
title without a reference. When one adds a note and assigns a title
rather than a verse reference, the file will not save, an internal
error is generated and several attempts to save result in an
unrecoverable GPF.
To wit; I was surveying the fields of meaning of the soteria/sozo word
group in context. To record my observations I created a new note file
and entered a note entitled "Set free." I then added several other
notes entitled, "from demons," "from guilty conscience," "from
besetting sin," and "from slavery." Each of the "from" notes was
indented once to display them as subordinate to the "Set free" note.
Each of the "from" notes had a cross reference in it.
Several attempts to save this file with various titles was
unsuccessful. But, contrary to what Logos reported, part of the file
_did_ save to disk. When I opened the note file with a disk editor, I
observed that the file was truncated at the end of the "Set Free"
string.
What's going on here?
Mark me down as someone who loves Logos 2.0; it's a wonderful product.
But I cannot in good conscience recommend to anyone and will in fact
steer those who ask for my recommendation to another product -- until
tech support is adequate.
Please advise me when your tech support staff is back up to speed so
that people get same day service. Then I'll put you back on my
"recommended" list.
BTW: This letter is going to be posted on about a half dozen different
news groups.
=================================================
Dr. L. E. Brown, Jr. West Sedona Baptist Church
Sedona, Az.
"Fresh Sermon Illustrations:"
http://www.sedona.net/~budman/illustr.html
=================================================
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 13:39:52 CST
Subject: Re: Aorist as unmarked aspect
On Thu, 5 Oct 1995, Carlton Winbery wrote:
>Bruce Terry wrote;
>> The aorist tense is unmarked as to aspect.
>I agree, if by "unmarked" you mean unlimited or undefined.
Isn't that the meaning of AORISTOS? If I understand Prague School linguistic
termonology correctly, to say that the aorist tense is unmarked as to aspect
means that it is not limited to or defined as continuous or completed action.
More than that, while it may encode either of those aspects, it also is used
to encode the other major aspect, punctiliar. It just cannot be limited to or
defined as punctiliar aspect.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Randy Heskett <rheskett@epas.utoronto.ca>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 15:26:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Logos Tech Support Rates "F"
On Thu, 5 Oct 1995, L. E. Brown wrote:
> Dear Bible Student,
>
> Attached is a copy of an e-mail message I sent to Logos Research
> Systems concerning their technical support. I have posted it hear just
> to warn those who are considering this product to think twice. I still
> think it is the finest software out there, but unless you are
> technically inclined, know how computer programmers think and can
> figure things out without tech support, you'd better think twice.
>
> For the time being I am counseling those who consider Logos to wait
> until their tech support problems are resolved.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> To: tech@logos.com
> From: "L. E. Brown" <budman@sedona.net>
> Subject: Logos Tech Support Rates "F"
>
> ATTENTION: TECH SUPPORT
> LOGOS RESEARCH SYSTEMS
>
> RE: A complaint and a bug.
>
> ************************
> ** First, the complaint
> ************************
>
> It is outrageous that tech support call backs are taking a week! I
> called this morning with a problem and was told that you are a week
> behind. That is absolutely absurd and it is inexcusable.
>
> I have been bragging on your product to everyone I know; and (not to
> toot my own horn) I have friends in high places. Two seminary
> presidents, a college president and several well known authors and
> scholars. Now I could kick myself because _if_ these people license
> your product as I strongly suggested, and they then have problems, I'm
> going to look like a real ass.
>
> Ridiculous
>
> ************************
> ** Now, the problem.
> ************************
>
> I observe that either the documentation for the note taking facility
> is incorrect, unclear, or the note taking facility has a serious bug
> that renders it useless.
>
> The dialog box which allows one to add a note permits entering a note
> title without a reference. When one adds a note and assigns a title
> rather than a verse reference, the file will not save, an internal
> error is generated and several attempts to save result in an
> unrecoverable GPF.
>
> To wit; I was surveying the fields of meaning of the soteria/sozo word
> group in context. To record my observations I created a new note file
> and entered a note entitled "Set free." I then added several other
> notes entitled, "from demons," "from guilty conscience," "from
> besetting sin," and "from slavery." Each of the "from" notes was
> indented once to display them as subordinate to the "Set free" note.
> Each of the "from" notes had a cross reference in it.
>
> Several attempts to save this file with various titles was
> unsuccessful. But, contrary to what Logos reported, part of the file
> _did_ save to disk. When I opened the note file with a disk editor, I
> observed that the file was truncated at the end of the "Set Free"
> string.
>
> What's going on here?
>
> Mark me down as someone who loves Logos 2.0; it's a wonderful product.
> But I cannot in good conscience recommend to anyone and will in fact
> steer those who ask for my recommendation to another product -- until
> tech support is adequate.
>
> Please advise me when your tech support staff is back up to speed so
> that people get same day service. Then I'll put you back on my
> "recommended" list.
>
> BTW: This letter is going to be posted on about a half dozen different
> news groups.
>
> =================================================
> Dr. L. E. Brown, Jr. West Sedona Baptist Church
> Sedona, Az.
> "Fresh Sermon Illustrations:"
> http://www.sedona.net/~budman/illustr.html
> =================================================
>
The same goes for "Bible Works by Hermeneutica"
______________________________________________________________________________
Randall Heskett
E-Mail: rheskett@epas.utoronto.ca
Emmanuel College, Toronto School of Theology, University of Toronto
------------------------------
From: Buggs Bugnon <buggs@atc.ameritel.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 17:30:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Logos Tech Support Rates "F"
> Attached is a copy of an e-mail message I sent to Logos Research
> Systems concerning their technical support. I have posted it hear just
I'd be very much interested in the reply you get before posting this
anyplace else. I'm saving it until I hear from you about the reply.
Many thanks for the post; now we wait more.
..Buggs
\\\// Southern Maryland Christian Information Service BBS
(o o) Sysop: Buggs Bugnon - On Line since Feb '88
---ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------------
\ Dial-up access: 301-862-3160 14.4 \
\ Member of PhileoNet, One_Net and \ _ ______ |
\ Christian Political Networks \ / \___-=0`/|0`/__|
\---------------------------------------\------\ / | / )
/ Full access on first call, over 75 / `/-==__ _/__|/__=-|
/ conferences mostly Christian. Over / * \ | |
/ 150 Megs of Christian ZIP files, etc / (o)
----------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Karl_Schulte-CKS005@email.mot.com
Date: 5 Oct 95 17:00:05 -0500
Subject: Lexicons
Hi,
After contacting Zondervan, I was sad to learn that all of the lexicons
recommended in the recent and most welcome review of available helps are
out of stock there. They are permanently so, with one exception, and that
was questionable. I was told that they have dropped most of the "deeper" or
more thorough lexicons, due to lack of sales. A sad com,mentary. I was
told to check obituaries for deceased clergy and approach the widow
(assuming an other-than-Catholic priest in most instances). I prefer a less
morbid shopping style! As it is, I usually buy any old Greek books I can at
book sales, library clearances, to supplement my collection of classics and
liturgical books (to my wife's dismay). I was looking for a smaller (but
not tiny) portable lexicon with Papyrii and perhaps early Byz. Greek in it
for $20-35. Still looking. Anyone trying to make room on his/her bookshelf?
(No. I won't hold my breath).
Best Regards,
Karl
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 19:03:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: The aorist = unmarked aspect
As one who has served his sentence for writing overmuch on Greek tenses
many times over, may I write in (almost) total support of Bruce Terry's post
on the aorist. (The "almost" means that I am not a Prague school linguist,
but a committed transformational-generative, or Chomskyan, grammarian.) But
in any case, the issue of the aorist has been pretty well settled, I thought,
It turns out to be just what the grammarians 2000 years ago called it --
"unmarked" or undefined. The indicative marks tenses (augment, etc.).
Other moods do not, and the aorist is plainly the unmarked "tense"
(read, correctly, "aspect").
I was raised on the "punctiliar" notion, having drunk deeply of the well of
the comparative-historical philology school of the late-19th and early 20th
centuries. But Bruce is on the mark. (On this I'm not altogether an amateur,
being one of few members of the list who have published Greek grammars and
trained Ph.D.'s in Greek linguistics.) The problem is that almost all of the
grammars are somewhat out-of-date on this issue (including my own, which is
only 18 years old).
Aoristically yours,
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:54:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Romans 3:19-20
II. JOHN 1:1 INTERPRETATION OF THEOS (GOD) WITHOUT THE ARTICLE
There are those who do not see the Word being declared to be God, but rather
they say He is "a god." They say this because there is no article before the
final "theos" (God) in John 1:1. But as you will see, this is all quite
normal in Greek.
I go through John 1:1 in Greek class every year. There, I present seven
exegetical observations from the Greek text that show the Word to be God, not
merely "a god." This is bolstered by the context which declares the Word to
be the creator of all things, etc.
1. The proximity of the previous "theos" (God). The word order in the Greek
is reversed from the normal word order in the final clause, bringing God in
close proximity to the previous God with the article. The latter "theos" is
explained in context to be the same as the previous "theos" (God). If John
had intended to write that the Word was "a god," he would not have put them
right next to each other. In the original manuscripts, there wasn't any
punctuation or spaces between the words (lit., "THEONTHEOS...").
2. The impossibility of putting an article before nouns on both sides of a
copulative phrase. When you put an article before nouns on both sides of a
linking verb in Greek, you are saying that the totality of the one is the
other, and vise-versa. This would make God out to be nothing else besides
the Second Person of the Trinity. But God is more than this, He is also the
Father and the Holy Spirit. For an in-depth discussion of this, see
Robertson's Grammar, pages 767ff. See John 4:24 and 1 John 4:8 where the
article on one side is missing also (cf. Robertson's Word Pictures, Volume
IV, p. 223 on 2 Corinthians 3:17; cf. also his Grammar, p. 767f.)
3. The Word was "pros ton theon" (face to face with God). This is a very
strong phrase showing how the Word was on a level with God, face to face.
4. The "kai" (and) in John 1:1 is an epexegetical kai. Kai can be translated
a number of different ways ("and, also, indeed, even" just to name a few).
John especially uses kai to continue and further explain the previous
clauses or sentences. This is an epexegetical use. In John 1:1, John is
building on each of the previous thoughts to a climax. "In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." A.T. Robertson
has an excellent section on kai in his Grammar, p. 1179-1183.
5. It is common for Koine Greek writers to reference the first use of a given
person with the article, then often without the article on subsequent uses in
the same passage. So where God has the article in the second clause of John
1:1, it doesn't in the third, but refers to the same God, not "a god" that is
different.
6. John 1:12 references God without the article in Greek. "To as many as
believed in Him, He gave the right to become children of God..." It is
interesting to note how many cults and the like try to interpret the latter
reference in John 1:1 of God to be "a god" because it doesn't have the
article, but then proceed to interpret John 1:12 as "God" unquestionably!
The point is that both in the passage refer to God the Father Himself.
7. Reversed word order in the Greek. The final clause of John 1:1 is
reversed from the normal word order. One good reason why is to bring the
THEOS into proximity with the previous THEOS to make the identification
clear.
Finally, in conclusion here, John meant to write that Jesus, the Word (cf.
John 1:14) was God. He wouldn't have written John 1:1ff. so confusing if he
didn't mean this. There are so many things that make it clear that John was
saying Jesus was God here. If he didn't mean this, then he really made a lot
of mistakes to confuse his readers.
Jim McGuire
Greek Professor at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #890
*****************************
** 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