[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #912
b-greek-digest Monday, 16 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 912
In this issue:
Errata for Workbook
Re: Lexicons
Re: Matthew had a copy of Luke?
need help
Re: need help
RE: HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE
Fwd: The feedings
Yes! Biblical studies on WWW
UBS4or Na27 on disk?
Re: Q. on Metzger and Wikgren
Re: What's Wrong with Q?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <billm@teknia.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 22:42:33 -0700
Subject: Errata for Workbook
I made a list of all the changes that have been made in the workbook for my
grammar. If you would like them they are at my ftp site (on-ramp.ior.com in
the directory usr/billm/bbg). The mac version is Errata_Workbook.mac" and
the Word for Windows is "eratawb.doc". They use the Greek font "Mounce"
that is also in the directory.
I changed the first parsing example from AUTON to ANTHROPON because AUTON
looks like a neuter to someone in chapter 6, and I didn't want them to have
problems on their very first parsing. That is the only substantial change.
Bill Mounce
- -------------------------------
Teknia Software, Inc.
1306 W. Bellwood Drive
Spokane, WA 99218-2911
Internet: billm@teknia.com (preferred)
AOL: Mounce
CIS: 71540,2140 (please, only if necessary)
"It may be Greek to you, but it is life to me."
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <billm@teknia.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 22:42:38 -0700
Subject: Re: Lexicons
>The problem with Zondervan is that it is no longer owned by Christians. It
>is now motivated by the bottom line rather than by the need to provide
>Christians with the tools for effective exegesis. Better get some of this
>stuff up on the net or it is going to be lost .
I have to disagree with this. Zondervan has a strong interest in doing good
books. Yes, they have a bottom line, and it is a bit unrealistic to ask a
company to ignore the bottom line. Yes they are owned by Rupert Murdock,
but neither he nor HarperCollins interfere much with Zondervan.
Take my morphology for an example. They knew they would never make a profit
out of it, but they did it anyway because they recognized the need for such
a book. That's pretty good.
Bill Mounce
- -------------------------------
Teknia Software, Inc.
1306 W. Bellwood Drive
Spokane, WA 99218-2911
Internet: billm@teknia.com (preferred)
AOL: Mounce
CIS: 71540,2140 (please, only if necessary)
"It may be Greek to you, but it is life to me."
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 08:20:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Matthew had a copy of Luke?
At 8:12 PM 10/14/95, BBezdek@aol.com wrote:
>I suppose this is a very "unscholarly" view, but none-the-less:
>
>Is it possible that at least some of the apparant descrepancies between the
>synoptics could be due to different occasions of very similar events? I
>think we know from common experience, that we often have to repeat ourselves,
>and it seldom comes out the same twice, at least it doesn't for me.
>
>Aren't three authors going to present three different views even of the same
>events?
I would think (to state the obvious!) this would have to be judged, at
least partly, in terms of degree of similarity in sequence and details. A
question of this sort can certainly be raised, say, about the two feeding
narratives in Mark and Matthew. It would appear that Mark understands the
first feeding of 5,000 as a "Jewish" feeding with 12 baskets of crumbs left
over, the second feedingof 4,000 as a "Gentile" feeding with 7 baskets of
crums left over. Matthew (a la 2SH) retains the Marcan pattern, but Luke
omits the first feeding--my unprovable suspicion being for reasons of
verisimilitude: he thinks that there must have been only one feeding and
that the story was told twice with different variations. However, if this
was Luke's reason for omitting the first feeding (and he surely had knew
the text of Mark and (perhaps) also that of Matthew, that doesn't mean that
there were not in fact two (or more) feedings.
On the other hand, I find myself very suspicious about the similarity
between the parable of the barren fig tree reported ONLY in Luke (13:6-9)
and the cursing of the fig tree by Jesus in the Synoptic passion-week
narrative (Mk 11 and parallels. This may be altogether unfounded, but in
view of the parable of the fig tree applied in the Synoptic Apocalypse (Mk
13 par.), I really wonder whether at some point in the oral tradition a
parable of Jesus may have become historicized as the story of Jesus looking
for fruit on a fig tree, finding none, and cursing it with the result that
it withered. To me the symbolism of proleptic judgment on Israel in the
context and framing sequence in Mark makes it appear that the story is not
historical but has been created purely for its symbolic value. It wouldn't
surprise me if some form-critic has already suggested this, but I don't
recall having seen this explanation.
In sum then, I see no reason why the Bezdek suggestion may not be valid.
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: Paul Watkins <102737.1761@compuserve.com>
Date: 15 Oct 95 15:21:31 EDT
Subject: need help
I have three questions which I would greatly appreciate some input on:
1. What does "eikh episteusate" mean in 1 Cor. 15:2?
2. What is the difference between the filling, "pimplemi" of the Spirit
and the fulness "plerow" of the Spirit? Is there a difference?
3. What is the difference between "gnwsis" and "epignwsis"? Are they different
types of knowledge or is the latter simply a richer form of the former?
I would really appreciate the help, thank you. Please send responses directly
to me as I am not currently subscribed to the list.
Paul Watkins
Grace College and Seminary
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 15:29:58 -0500
Subject: Re: need help
At 2:21 PM 10/15/95, Paul Watkins wrote:
>I have three questions which I would greatly appreciate some input on:
>
>1. What does "eikh episteusate" mean in 1 Cor. 15:2?
Roughly, "You believed BY CONJECTURE" or" ... RANDOMLY" or " ... FOR NO
GOOD REASON."
>2. What is the difference between the filling, "pimplemi" of the Spirit
>and the fulness "plerow" of the Spirit? Is there a difference?
I don't really think there's much, if any, difference. They are alternative
verb formations from the root PLH, which means "fill."
>3. What is the difference between "gnwsis" and "epignwsis"? Are they different
>types of knowledge or is the latter simply a richer form of the former?
This is going to depend on the context in which the words are being used.
EPIGNWSIS may mean "recognition," "acknowledgement," "familiarity," or
"knowledge." GNWSIS may mean "knowledge," but in 1 Cor it tends to have the
sense "mystical knowledge" of a sort that seems to depend upon an intimate
communion between believer and God (and Paul seems to imply that it
isolates one believer from others, whereas Paul seems normally to view a
believer's relationship to God through Christ not as strictly
private/personal but as also having a corporate dimension bonding the
believer with other believers. In 1 Cor GNWSIS is often set off
pejoratively in antithesis to AGAPH. I think GNWSIS is also negative in 1
Cor 13, but there may be some places where it does not have this mystical
and negative connotation. Certainly it could be used in as many different
ways as the verb GINWSKW, and it would be worth your while to study these
words in an unabridged lexicon of classical Greek as well as in BAGD.
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: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 16:30:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE
On Thu, 12 Oct 1995 perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:
>>
>> Re. 1 Ti 3.2:
>>
>> J. N. D. Kelly notes that the text emphasizes the "one" (MIAS GUNAIKOC ANDRA),
>> which in his opinion lessens the likelihood of a reference to polygamy,
>> adultery. Thus Paul (?) seems to be talking about remarriage.
>>
>> Kelly says: "there is abundant evidence, from both literature and funerary
>> inscriptions, pagan and Jewish, that to remain unmarried after the death of
>> one's spouse or after divorce was considered meritorious, while to marry again
>> was taken as a sign of self-indulgence" (p. 75 of *A Commentary on the Pastoral
>> Epistles*). Of course, he doesn't provide the cross-references for this
>> material, so I'm not sure where to find it.
>>
David R. Mills (drmills@kuhub.cc.ukans.ed) answered:
>I have not followed this thread very well, but the "one man woman" phrase
>in 1 Tim 5.9 surely helps some. Was polyandry very common in the Greek
>world? If not, then the phrase must have something besides polyandry in
>view. Likewise, "one woman man" may have something besides polygamy in
>view. In 1 Tim 5.9, the woman is a widow and so is not remarried. 1 Tim
> 3, on the other hand, does not imply that the bishop is a widower though
>it certainly does not forbid it.
Another source of data that may be of interest in this discussion
are the marriage contracts to be found among the papyri. A marriage
contract from 311 B.C. contains the stipulation, "It shall not be lawful
for Heraclides to bring home another wife [GUNAIKA ALLHN EPEISAGESQAI] in
insult of Demetria nor to have children by another woman..." (_Select
Papyri_, [Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard, 1932] Vol. I, #1). From 92 B.C., we
have a marriage contract which contains the following: "It shall not be
lawful for Philiscus to bring in another wife [GUNAIKA ALLHN EPAGAGESQAI]
besides Apollonia, nor to keep a concubine [PALLAKHN] or boy [PAIDIKON],
nor to have children by another woman while Apollonia lives..." (_Ibid._,
#2). From 13 B.C. is the following: [He] shall not ill-treat her nor
cast her out nor insult her nor bring in another wife [ALLHN GUNAIKAN
EPISAGEIN (l. EPEISAGEIN?)]..." (_Ibid._, #3).
Although none of these is from precisely the 1st Century (or
possibly 2nd Century if you take the Pastorals as non Pauline) period with
which we are interested, they do give us evidence that polygyny was
present in the greek culture. And, besides that, other papyri from the
1st- and 2nd Century periods may also contain such stipulations.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 17:03:57 -0500
Subject: Fwd: The feedings
>Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 15:00:55 -0400
>From: WINBROW@aol.com
>To: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
>Subject: Fwd: The feedings
>Status:
>
>Carl Conrad wrote;
>
>>It would appear that Mark understands the first feeding of >5,000 as a
>"Jewish" feeding with 12 baskets of crumbs left
>>over, the second feedingof 4,000 as a "Gentile" feeding with 7 >baskets of
>crums left over.<
>
>Then Mark 8:4 in tha account of the second feeding is most interesting when
>the disciples respond to Jesus, "How can anyone find enough food to feed so
>many?" They really had faulty memories didn't they?
>
>Carlton Winbery
>LA College, Pineville, LA
I cite the exchange that Carlton and I had subsequently:
- --------------------------------
To: WINBROW@aol.com
From: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl W. Conrad)
Subject: Re: Fwd: The feedings
Yeah, they did! Mark emphasizes THAT, too! My students refer to this as
"Mark's Dumb Disciples theme." What do your students refer to it as?
- --------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 17:43:09 -0400
From: WINBROW@aol.com
To: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: The feedings
Status:
My students like Metzger's term, "dunderheads." I intended to send that post
to the list. If I didn't and you can, please forward it.
Carlton (getting old I guess)
- -----------------------------------------------
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: "Johnny Stovall Ph.D." <suguru@rad.net.id>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 06:54:41 +0700
Subject: Yes! Biblical studies on WWW
Greetings Fellow Servants!
L.E. Brown asked 3 Bible study groups on the internet if anyone knew
where one could do graduate Biblical studies on the internet.
Yes! I've been working with brothers from the USA and Asia to offer
terminal degrees using the internet as our primary vehicle for
instruction for the past 5 months.
History
I came to Singapore and Indonesia in 1971 sponsored by the department
of education in Indonesia. I went back to teach Bible and graduate
computer science in Texas for a few years at the two leading universities
in North Texas. I originally returned to Indonesia teaching again for
the government here. Those students were originally limited to
government officals who were getting graduate degrees from American,
Japanese, British and Australian universities.
Opportunity
Now we have expanded our program to accept students from anywhere
who are willing to really work to obtain an American standard graduate
Biblical education in cooperation with local and American professors.
Many people would like to do advanced biblical education but cannot
afford to leave their service to sit in a classroom for a few years. Our
program is geared to keep them serving while they learn.
I have other contacts in the Ukraine and other places where they are
happy to continue serving.
Please have anyone interested in Biblical education via the WWW
contact me.
Emphasis
Since Jesus quoted LXX more than MT we encourage our students to
become very fluent in Greek though their studies via the WWW and
personal visits from their profressors.
Anyone who wants to see one small example of how effective learning
can be in a non-traditional mode can read my dissertation "A
Comparasion of Recall Among University Bible Students After
Discussion And After Self-Study." One interesting thing about this
dissertation is that it showed that although students thought they
learned more from discussion the unbiased computer grading system
actually showed that they learned more with a little direction and
self-study in the same amount of time.
=================================================
Johnny Stovall Ph.D. locally named suguru (su=good, guru=teacher)
suguru@rad.net.id
------------------------------
From: BAlder2948@aol.com
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 21:49:40 -0400
Subject: UBS4or Na27 on disk?
Would someone please tell me where I may obtain a copy of UBS4or NA27 on 3.5
or CD Rom without having to buy some expensive base module? Thank you for
your help!
Balder2948@Aol.com
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 19:56:43 +0800
Subject: Re: Q. on Metzger and Wikgren
Tim,
I can't help you with your question, but I would point out that there
are differing definitions of "eclectic". In thoery, eclectic should
mean picking the best reading in any given case. In reality, there is
generally a basic set of texts or a single text chosen to serve a a basis
and then other redings are evaluated to determine if that basis needs
changing. Epp has argued I believe for a pure eclectic text, but I'm not
aware of a text from him that does not also begin with some basic text
or edition assuymed. A true eclectic text, which I don't thjink exists
anywhere, would not assume ahead of time any textual family or any
MS as the proper basis, but would truly evaluate every reading. I think
this was attempted in the last century somewhat, but now there is too big
a mass of material for it to be a practical alternative. Thus every
critical edition, is only kinda sorta eclectic.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 20:05:55 +0800
Subject: Re: What's Wrong with Q?
I wonder if Carl would mind explaining what "wave of right-wing fundamentalist
hogwash" is supposed to mean, to whom it applies and what it has to do with
wholly speculative questions about source criticism of the Gospels.
We don't have a Q. We don't have anything but what we've got, and there is
entirely too little knowledge about their origins to formulate any
theory that is much more than speculation. If we want to speak about Greek,
I've been required in class twice this semester so far to read the Greek
text of the Synoptics, in places where the strongest argumetns for Q are
usually made, like the narrative of John the Baptist in Mark 1 and apar.,
and have found none of the documentary theories plausible based on just
looking at the text and not reading any scholars on the subject
(that was the assignment: read nothing but the text itself). Surely
there is nothing "Fundamentalist" aobut finding all current docuentary
theories (or even my own view, which is primarily oral) to lacking in
evidence to put forward seriously, let alone to base exegetical
decisions on. We have the Gospels as they are. I can't expalin their
origin or relationships, and neitgher can anyone else with anything that
even begins to approach an empirically-based approach. I'd
suggest treating the whole thing as insoluble and irrelevant and moving on.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #912
*****************************
** 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