[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #892
b-greek-digest Friday, 6 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 892
In this issue:
Some questions on Mark 9:1-5
Logos' Follow-up Reply
Re: Romans 3:19-20
Re: Some questions on Mark 9:1-5
Re: Romans 3:19-20
Re: Some questions on Mark 9:1-5
Re: Logos Tech Support Rates "F"
Re: Some questions on Mark 9:1-5
Re: The aorist = unmarked aspect
Olsen on aorist
From Logos Technical Support...
Lexicons
Re: Some questions on Mark 9:1-5
Unfit for the Dunghill
[Fwd: Re: Some questions on Mark 9:1-5]
no subject
Analytical Lexicon
Beginning Grammars
Analytical Lexicons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 22:49:44 +0800
Subject: Some questions on Mark 9:1-5
I have a few grammatical questions regarding Mark 9. I hope these aren't
things I'm supposed to know already.
1. 9:1 has Qanatou in the genitive. Bauer says that the verb yeuomai takes
the accusative. What's the genitive doing here, or rather, what does it
signify case-wise?
2. In 9:3 and possibly 9:7, egeneto appears and seems to form some sort of
compound "tense" with a present participle. I've never read a description of
such a construction. Can ginomai replace eimi to form a periphrastic
participle (knowing, however, that Mark does use eimi in the same block
of text to form a perhiphrastic makes me doubt that)?
3. wphqH in 9:4 is singular, yet it seems to have a plural subject,
Elijah with Moses, or is Elijah the sole subject of the verb, with the data
Mwusei an additional qualification upon the subject, but not part of the
subject itself? I'm aware of neuter plural subjects taking the singular of
eimi, but not of other finite verbs.
By the way, what would be a goodf replacement for my Dana and Mantey from which
I derive many of my grammatical terms? I know there are works written by
members of this list, but I'm not clear which would function in the role of
an intermediate grammar, adn I gather that D&M if not looked on too
kindly these days. THanks in advance.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: "L. E. Brown" <budman@sedona.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 05:24:06 GMT
Subject: Logos' Follow-up Reply
In all fairness to the folks at Logos (for whom, despite Bro.
McGuire's misreading of my missive, I have warmest regards) I need to
post their follow-up reply.
=====================================================================
Dr. Brown,
I would like to apologize that you did not receive immediate technical
support when you called in today. Unfortunately, tech support has
been caught in the confluence of several circumstances, and we are a
bit behind.
We do anticipate that our backlog will be eliminated within the next
week or so. In the meantime, we do appreciate the patience of our
users who are awaiting callbacks.
One major source of calls on Logos 2.0 has been a manufacturing defect
which has resulted in hundreds, if not thousands, of CD's that are at
least partially unreadable. This has resulted in many reports of
installation problems and even more reports of random errors the
cannot be duplicated.
Our team is working on getting a new CD ready for duplication, and it
will contain both some needed textual corrections and will hopefully
be flawless in the manufacturing process. At the same time, the
development team has continued to tune the code for the executable,
and we have repaired the majority of the reported bugs. Thus, the new
executable and the new CD will be ready at about the same time. God
willing, we will be shipping these replacements later this month.
One area of the program which has been completely reworked is the note
facility. I have been testing it in several ways, and it appears to
be working properly. One thing that seemed to cause serious problems
previously was a note that had no text attached to it. Such notes did
not save properly, and if a note were saved with the workspace, it
often resulted in Logos producing a GPF on startup.
Another area of pretty general concern has been the User's Guide. In
the new CD the User's Guide should appear on the Library Browser as a
searchable (and printable) text. That will supplement the help files
.. which are also being beefed up, I am told.
Please let me know if you have additional questions about Logos 2.0
.. I do try to get through my e-Mail and fax messages daily.
In His service,
Steve Phillips
SteveP@logos.com
=================================================
Dr. L. E. Brown, Jr. West Sedona Baptist Church
Sedona, Az.
"Fresh Sermon Illustrations:"
http://www.sedona.net/~budman/illustr.html
=================================================
------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 00:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Romans 3:19-20
If you are saying the theos in Jn 1:1c is referring to the same person
identified as the theon is 1:1b, then this is Sabellianism, that is, that
the Logos is God the Father.
It seems you are considering only two possibilities - either definiteness
or indefiniteness. Have you considered that theos in 1:1c may be
qualitative? This seems to make good sense, for the first two clauses
bring out two qualities of the Logos: His eternality or preexistence, and
His distinct personhood or personality (from that ity. Also, the
contrast with 1:14 where His acquisition of humanity at a point in time
is set in contrast to His eternal deity.
Paul Dixon
On Thu, 5 Oct 1995 BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
> 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
>
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 06:25:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Some questions on Mark 9:1-5
At 9:49 AM 10/5/95, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> I have a few grammatical questions regarding Mark 9. I hope these aren't
>things I'm supposed to know already.
>1. 9:1 has Qanatou in the genitive. Bauer says that the verb yeuomai takes
>the accusative. What's the genitive doing here, or rather, what does it
>signify case-wise?
I really hate to say this, but if Bauer (I assume you mean BAGD) says that
GEUOMAI takes an accusative, he's flat out wrong. Many verbs of sense
perception, among them AKOUW, GEUOMAI, AISQANOMAI, regularly take a
partitive genitive. There's a danger in overrating the authority of a
lexicon; one ought at least to check it against others and, on a point like
this, grammars, as this is a point usually dealt with in first-year
vocabulary lists.
>2. In 9:3 and possibly 9:7, egeneto appears and seems to form some sort of
>compound "tense" with a present participle. I've never read a description of
>such a construction. Can ginomai replace eimi to form a periphrastic
>participle (knowing, however, that Mark does use eimi in the same block
>of text to form a perhiphrastic makes me doubt that)?
I think there are two factors involved in these instances: (1a) yes, a
periphrastic tense with an auxiliary and a participle is by no means
uncommon in Koine narrative, and (1b) as EIMI has no aorist, forms of
GINOMAI do service for it when an aorist equivalent of EIMI is wanted; and
(1c) you might very well understand STILBONTA LEUKA in 9:3 more as
predicate adjectives than true participles; (2) there may be a spin-off of
the usage of EGENETO as a semitism representing something equivalent to
Hebrew WAYYeHI KI (although I doubt it in this instance).
>3. wphqH in 9:4 is singular, yet it seems to have a plural subject,
>Elijah with Moses, or is Elijah the sole subject of the verb, with the data
>Mwusei an additional qualification upon the subject, but not part of the
>subject itself? I'm aware of neuter plural subjects taking the singular of
>eimi, but not of other finite verbs.
Actually WFQH in 9:4 has only one subject, since the second figure is
indicated as SUN MWUSHi; there then follows a second clause with the plural
(periphrastic imperfect) verb HSAN SULLALOUNTES taking into account both
Elijah and Moses.
>By the way, what would be a goodf replacement for my Dana and Mantey from which
>I derive many of my grammatical terms? I know there are works written by
>members of this list, but I'm not clear which would function in the role of
>an intermediate grammar, adn I gather that D&M if not looked on too
>kindly these days. THanks in advance.
I would like an answer to this myself, as I'm not very comfortable with any
of the NT grammars that I HAVE used. Edward Hobbs has promised us, when he
gets the time, another of his extended treatises on this subject comparable
to the one on lexicons, and I'm eager to read and profit from it. The work
in which I place the most credence at this point is still Smyth, but that
is really a grammar of Classical Attic rather than koine, and koine
certainly does not follow all of the rules of Classical Attic (nor, for
that matter, does Classical Attic follow all of the "rules" of Classical
Attic all the time!).
Hope this helps a little.
Cheers, cwc
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: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 10:26:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Romans 3:19-20
In a message dated 95-10-06 03:38:21 EDT, Paul Dixon writes:
>If you are saying the theos in Jn 1:1c is referring to the same person
>identified as the theon is 1:1b, then this is Sabellianism, that is, that
>the Logos is God the Father.
>It seems you are considering only two possibilities - either definiteness
>or indefiniteness. Have you considered that theos in 1:1c may be
>qualitative?
The issue I discussed was not definiteness or indefiniteness. Rather, I
discussed the identification of what THEOS refers to. The anarthrous noun
retains its qualitative force and yet points back to the previous THEOS for
its substance and identification.
I did not say that John 1:1c was saying the Person's where the same. I
was showing that the essense was the same. See my point concerning the
impossiblibity of having articles on both sides of this copulative clause.
In it I stated that you cannot have an article on both sides of John 1:1c.
This is because it would cause the totality of the personage of God to be
the Son, and we know that God's essense includes the Holy Spirit and the
Father also. God is not limited to the the Son alone.
I hope that clears up my position.
Jim McGuire
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 10:39:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Some questions on Mark 9:1-5
"Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> quoted and wrote:
>At 9:49 AM 10/5/95, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>> I have a few grammatical questions regarding Mark 9. I hope these aren't
>>things I'm supposed to know already.
>>1. 9:1 has Qanatou in the genitive. Bauer says that the verb yeuomai takes
>>the accusative. What's the genitive doing here, or rather, what does it
>>signify case-wise?
>I really hate to say this, but if Bauer (I assume you mean BAGD) says that
>GEUOMAI takes an accusative, he's flat out wrong. Many verbs of sense
>perception, among them AKOUW, GEUOMAI, AISQANOMAI, regularly take a
>partitive genitive. There's a danger in overrating the authority of a
>lexicon; one ought at least to check it against others and, on a point like
>this, grammars, as this is a point usually dealt with in first-year
>vocabulary lists.
Baur lists s.v. GEUOMAI, under #2, "fig[urative meaning], come to
know someth[ing]...W[ith] gen[itive] of the thing...."
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 10:53:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Logos Tech Support Rates "F"
On Thu, 5 Oct 1995 BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
> As a Greek Professor, I am sorry to clutter up your mailboxes, but I must
> clear up a little matter here regarding Logos which I feel offers the best
> software out there for Greek and Hebrew and other tools even on CD Rom.
You've never tried Bible Windows from Silver Mountain Software, have you?
Disclaimer: I don't work for them, don't speak for anyone else, blah blah
yackety schmackety...
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 08:47:04 +0800
Subject: Re: Some questions on Mark 9:1-5
David Moore wrote:
> Baur lists s.v. GEUOMAI, under #2, "fig[urative meaning], come to
> know someth[ing]...W[ith] gen[itive] of the thing...."
>
>
> David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
> Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
> dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
>
David,
Well, I guess that's what I get from trying to translate late in the
evening while trying to control two little boys, but it really looked to
me like def #1 fit the context better, and that is supposed to take the
accusative. Thanks.
Ken
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 12:18:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: The aorist = unmarked aspect
On Thu, 5 Oct 1995, Edward Hobbs wrote:
> 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 wish Mari Broman Olsen would join this discussion. Her dissertation
addresses this whole issue in detail. Aorist is certainly unmarked, but
with regard to what? Mari argues (effectively IMO) that Porter is
incorrect to state that all "tense" forms only grammaticalize aspect, but
it may be that some of them do. Perhaps the reason aorist and present are
dominant forms in non-indicative moods is that they DO grammaticalize only
aspect--in indicative as well as non-indicative moods. Mari argues that
present and aorist forms are marked for aspect but not tense, future forms
are marked for tense but not aspect, and imperfect, perfect, and
pluperfect are marked for both tense and aspect [note that Mari's claims
are only for Koine Greek]. Some of the confusion about these matters has
been a failure to take into account 1) that aspect is compositional (as
Vincent DeCaen has pointed out in a previous message), and must take into
account other factors than grammatical aspect (the "tense" forms) such as
LEXICAL aspect (of verbs, their arguments, temporal adverbials, etc.); and
2) that pragmatic implicature can account for aspectual interpretation in
cases that are not SEMANTICALLY marked for aspect. These factors cause a
great deal of variablility in how any given aorist verb might be
interpreted.
I wish Mari's dissertation were more widely available. Are you publishing
it, Mari?
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: Vincent DeCaen <decaen@epas.utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 12:57:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Olsen on aorist
my understanding is that it will be out very soon: I think she
something about Oxford.
I have read the first half, and can never seem to finish it. there
are a number of technical problems in that first half, especially the
representation of the perfective. but it looks really good on the
whole. but maybe I will have to qualify my praise when I actually get
to her analysis of Greek.
- ---------------------------------------------------
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: mike@logos.com
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 10:27:51 +0100
Subject: From Logos Technical Support...
To all who have been receiving the series of messages about our tech. =20
support department and Logos 2.0:
Thank you so much for your passion for Logos and concern for our =20
technical services. The major reasons we have received so many calls =20
are: 1) The massive shipments of the new version with only 3 people =20
(initially) to handle the incoming calls; 2) The CD we shipped has been =20
plagued with problems that we have narrowed down to a bad "pressing" - =20
some of the CD's were bad from the duplicator; and 3) A few minor =20
problems with the program, the majority of which are installation =20
problems, and a few others - the note file problem being one of them.
To combat this situation we have hired more Support Engineers, and have =20
nearly eliminated the "call back list" - our standard is still same-day =20
or 24 hour service. Also, we are pressing new CDs, and every registered =20
user will receive a new CD free of charge. (We appreciate everyone's =20
patience in this matter - hang in there.) Lastly, we are continuing to =20
improve and update the program. Since we have decided not charge =20
anything for the program all our users will be able to get updates and =20
new versions free of charge from our BBS, WWW site, and Compuserve.
If anyone has further questions or comments feel free to send them to me =20
at the following address: mike@logos.com.
Mike Hatch
Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Technical Support Supervisor =20
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 95 14:12:55 -24000
Subject: Lexicons
Re: trying to buy lexicons
George Abbot-Smith's lexicon (Greek) which was unanimously recommended as a
cheaper and more portable alternative to BAGD (plus, it makes use of the
papyri) is still in print at $33.95. Look in any current BOOKS IN PRINT for
the ISBN number and publisher (there is a U.S. publisher in addition to T&T
Clark of England). Dallas Theological Seminary Bookstore told me they could
order it NO PROBLEM. So could Taylor's (a secular bookstore here in the
Dallas metroplex--but DTS gives a 20% discount!).
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 13:14:36 CST
Subject: Re: Some questions on Mark 9:1-5
On Fri, 6 Oct 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>David Moore wrote:
>
>> Baur lists s.v. GEUOMAI, under #2, "fig[urative meaning], come to
>> know someth[ing]...W[ith] gen[itive] of the thing...."
>>
>David,
>
> Well, I guess that's what I get from trying to translate late in the
>evening while trying to control two little boys, but it really looked to
>me like def #1 fit the context better, and that is supposed to take the
>accusative. Thanks.
Ken, if you will look closely, even def #1 is mostly in the genitive. Only
one NT passage is listed for the accusative: Jn. 2:9. Then BAG says, "W. gen.
of the thing." I admit it is hidden and not easy to see, which is why Greek
should not be done late in the evening :).
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "JOHN HAYDEN, JEWELL, IA" <hayden@duke.iccc.cc.ia.us>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 13:24:43 -0500
Subject: Unfit for the Dunghill
>From: SMTP%"mikadams@ix.netcom.com" 6-OCT-1995 09:15:04.61
>To: "JOHN HAYDEN, JEWELL, IA" <hayden@duke.iccc.cc.ia.us>
>CC:
>Subj: Re: Fit for the land
>
>You wrote:
>>
>>I can see the "fitness" of salt for the land to curse it, as in Judges
>9:45.
>>Can someone suggest how salt (if it is salty) is "fit" for the
>dunghill?
>>I have an idea, but I'd like to hear from others. See Luke 14:34-35.
>>
>I see you haven't gotten much response. Perhaps there's not much to say
>on this subject. I vaguely remember hearing a sermon in which this was
>mentioned, something to the effect that weak salt was tossed on
>dunghills because it was not strong enough for anything else except to
>maybe aid a little in the process of decomposition. However, this is a
>vague rememberance of a sermon I think heard from someone, but I can't
>remember who(m). You merely have a thought on which to reflect rather
>than an authority to quote.
>
>As for my thoughts, savorless salt would be an ugly bulky encumbrance.
>If I kept it in my household, I would be setting myself up for constant
>dissapointment as its presence would tempt me to try to use it for one
>purpose or another. It would be like keeping a bottle of peroxide in
>the medicine cabinet long after all the bubbles were fizzled out.
>Because of its appearance, I wouldn't buy new, but would find I had
>nothing useful when the need arose. The peroxide would be well-poured
>down the drain. The rock salt would be well-placed in the dumpster (or
>dung heap.)
>
>No big revelation here, but oh well.
>
>Have a good one.
>
>Ellen Adams
>Wife, mom.
Thanks, Ellen. I think Merrill Unger has suggested (in his Dictionary)
that salt was used to hasten the decomposition of manure. This, presumably,
is SALTY salt. Jesus said, "Salt is GOOD: but if the salt has LOST its
savor . . . it is [not] fit for the . . . dunghill; but men cast it out."
(Luke 14:34-35).
Salty salt may curse the land or "sweeten" the manure pile. What I suspect
is that this might be a little like Paul saying, "To the one we are the
aroma of death to death; and to the other the aroma of life to life." Is
Jesus saying (considering the context in Luke 14) that those who follow him
will, like salt, be either a blessing or a curse to those whom they
encounter -- depending on their (i.e., the ones encountered) character?
Sure preaches good!
John Hayden
teacher, etc.
------------------------------
From: "Paul J. Bodin" <pjbodin@sirius.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 95 12:08:39 EDT
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Some questions on Mark 9:1-5]
Upon checking my mail log, I noticed that I sent the following messages
to individuals rather than to the list. With apologies to all for my
clumsiness, here they are:
On Fri, 6 Oct 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>At 9:49 AM 10/5/95, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>> [...]>>1. 9:1 has Qanatou in the genitive. Bauer says that the verb yeuomai takes
>>the accusative. What's the genitive doing here, or rather, what does it
>>signify case-wise?
>
>I really hate to say this, but if Bauer (I assume you mean BAGD) says that
>GEUOMAI takes an accusative, he's flat out wrong. Many verbs of sense
>perception, among them AKOUW, GEUOMAI, AISQANOMAI, regularly take a
>partitive genitive. There's a danger in overrating the authority of a
>lexicon; one ought at least to check it against others and, on a point like
>this, grammars, as this is a point usually dealt with in first-year
>vocabulary lists.
One might add here that there is a danger in treating a lexicon as a
dictionary. A lexicon is not intended to give a simple, one-line
definition as a dictionary attempts to do. If one reads the full
article on GEUOMAI in BAGD and considers the citations, one finds that
GEUOMAI is used both with the accusative, in some contexts, and with the
genitive in other contexts. Considering the citations also gives one a
chance to develop a feel for the shades of meaning that a word may
convey. A good lexicon is an entry point for the student; by following
up on the references one can develop a feeling for the actual usage of a
word _in_situ_ rather than settling for a gloss.
[and a little later...]
On Fri, 6 Oct 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> Well, I guess that's what I get from trying to translate late in the
>evening while trying to control two little boys, but it really looked to
>me like def #1 fit the context better, and that is supposed to take the
>accusative. Thanks.
Again, if you will read the article closely, you will find that,
according to Bauer, GEUOMAI also takes the genitive in sense #1. The
citations for the genitive usage follow immediately after the citations
for the accusative usage.
_______________________________________________________________________
Paul J. Bodin Internet: pjbodin@sirius.com
Seminary Pastor smail: 1333 66th Street
Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary Berkeley, CA 94702
------------------------------
From: MarlinW246@aol.com
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 15:25:35 -0400
Subject: no subject
subscribe b-greek
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 95 15:36:02 -24000
Subject: Analytical Lexicon
I must correct an erroneous impression I gave.
It must have been a poorly-printed or cheap paper copy of Mounce's Analytical
Lexicon I had seen when I said Pershbacher's was easier to read (this was
1-1/2, maybe 2 years ago). I just compared copies of each and agree with
Bill Mounce that his is at least as easy to read. In view of the other
comments he made in response to my post a couple weeks ago, for only a few
dollars more Mounce seems to be the better choice of the two if you need an
analytical lexicon--and I will so tell my (few remaining) Greek students. I
appreciate his gracious response to my comments/criticisms, hasty though some
of them may have been.
------------------------------
From: Frank Judd <juddff@email.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 16:01:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Beginning Grammars
To Whomever Can Help:
I am brand new to this list and also a new grad student. I am looking
for suggestions for a beginner-intermediate grammer for _biblical_ Greek.
I learned Greek a few years ago with a classical grammar (Chase and
Phillips). Can anyone point me in the right direction for a good grammar
or two, both to use to teach in the future and to brush on my fundamentals?
Respectfully,
Frank Judd
UNC-Chapel Hill
juddff@email.unc.edu
------------------------------
From: Matthew Morgan <mmorgan@masters.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 15:21:25 -0700
Subject: Analytical Lexicons
I have a question. Do any of you know of a good exegetical digest for the
book of First, Second, and Third John. Thanks for the help!!
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #892
*****************************
** 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