[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #913
b-greek-digest Monday, 16 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 913
In this issue:
Question on Luke 2:7
Re: UBS4or Na27 on disk?
eclectic method in textual criticism
Re: Needed: a source for Hatch and Redpath
2 more Q refs, etc.
Sermon Illustrations Vol. 1 #7 (10/16/95)
Eph. 4:9 and the Genitive THS GHS
Questions about verbal aspect
Some questions on Mark 1
Off topic: Rise and persistence of Form criticism
Re: Questions about verbal aspect
Re: Off topic: Rise and persistence of Form criticism
Re: Off topic: Rise and persistence of Form criticism
Linquist's Software
Ken Liwak's questions on Mark 1
Philip Graber on aspect and translation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Keith A. Clay" <keithc@ramlink.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 04:51:03 -0400
Subject: Question on Luke 2:7
In luke 2:7, there is a phrase, "OUK NV AUTOIJ TOPOJ EV TW KATALUMATI".
Does this mean that there was no room for them (specifically them, but
plenty of room for anyone else) or the "no vancy" sign was on. D.B. Wallace
in his Preliminary Draft ( May1994) of "An Exegetical Syntax Of The Greek
New Testament", under the "Dative Case" ( pg 122 - "Dative of Possession")
says that it can be translated, "There was no place for them in the inn", or
"They had no place in the inn". It seems to me there is a difference here,
is there?
Keith A. Clay
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith A. Clay Tri-State Oxygen, Inc
4013 Blackburn Avenue 2927 Greenup Avenue
Ashland, KY 41101-5019 P.O. Box 121
(606)325-8331 Ashland, KY 41105-0121
(606)329-9638
(800)828-1620
School Address:
100 Academic Parkway
Kentucky Christian College
Box 171
Grayson, KY 41143
e-mail: keithc@ramlink.net
Fax: (606)325-8331 -- my computer answers both my phone and receives faxes.
(606)325-9962 -- work fax
==========================================================================
"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found
difficult and left untried." -- G. K. Chesterton
==========================================================================
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date:
Subject: Re: 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
Linguist's Software (Phil Payne) has the text in several formats, though it
wasn't cheap when I bought it about 8 years ago (before there were any
research programs available--other than Gramcord's early version that
didn't run on Mac or PC yet). It may be cheaper now. I don't have contact
info at home; holler if you need it and I'll track it down. I think Phil
has an email address, but I don't know what it is. Don't know if they're on
the WWW or not; you might try a net search to see.
Rod
__________________________________________________________________
|=[]========================== About... ===========================|
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary |
| Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd. |
| rdecker@accunet.com Kansas City, Missouri 64147 |
|__________________________________________________________________|
------------------------------
From: Michael Holmes <holmic@homer.acs.bethel.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 09:09:48 CST
Subject: eclectic method in textual criticism
At the risk of appearing to toot my own horn, may I suggest for those
interested in why scholars who all claim to use the "eclectic method"
produce divergent results--e.g., Wikgren vs. Metzger vs. Aland vs.
whomever--the following article:
Mike Holmes, "Reasoned Eclecticism in New Testament Textual Criticism," in
_The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research_ (ed. by Bart
Ehrman and Mike Holmes; Eerdmans, 1995) 336-369.
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 08:48:50 +0800
Subject: Re: Needed: a source for Hatch and Redpath
Thanks to all for their responses on my question. I've now gotten
multiple sources, including GTU's bookstore, which has the highest price
($94.95).
Ken Litwak
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 10:54 CDT
Subject: 2 more Q refs, etc.
Students of Q would do well to read Arland Hultgren,
*The Rise of Normative Christianity* (Fortress, 1994),
31-41, "The Q Community." See also A. Polag, "The
Theological Center of the Sayings Source," in P.
Stuhlmacher, ed., *The Gospels and the Gospels*
(Eerdmans, 1991).
It is certainly dubious at best to assume that the
Q sources alone ever served as a "gospel" for an
early Christian community. Koester and Crossan
need to assume otherwise to prop up their untenable
account of the origins of Christianity, but their
unfortunate speculations can and should be
separated from the issue of Q sources. For decisive
criticisms of the Koester/Crossan speculations
about Christian origins, see: C.M. Tuckett, "Q and
Thomas," *Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses* 67 (1991),
346-60; Harold Attridge, "Reflections on Research into
Q," *Semeia* 55 (1992), 222-34; and E.P. Meadors,
"The Orthodoxy of the Q Sayings of Jesus," *Tyndale
Bulletin* 43 (1992), 233-57. On Crossan's peculiar
wishful thinking, see R.E. Brown, "The Gospel of Peter
and Canonical Gospel Priority," *New Testament Studies*
33 (1987), 321-43. We certainly should throw out
the bath water, but not the baby with it.--Paul Moser,
Loyola University of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: "L. E. Brown" <budman@sedona.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 14:55:16 GMT
Subject: Sermon Illustrations Vol. 1 #7 (10/16/95)
The 10/19/95 edition of "Fresh Sermon Illustrations" is now available.
New features include:
(1) A Netscape 2.0 specific version (way cool frames)
(2) Additional links to other sites with homiletic tools.
(3) Links to sites that provide theological education over the 'net
(4) Half a dozen new sermon illustrations
(5) Interesting Statistics on the current state of retail marketing
(6) Illuminating and amusing quotations.
The standard edition is available at:
http://www.sedona.net/~budman/illustr.html
The Netscape 2.0 specific version is available at:
http://www.sedona.net/~budman/main.html
=================================================
L. E. Brown, Jr. West Sedona Baptist Church
"Fresh Sermon Illustrations:"
http://www.sedona.net/~budman/illustr.html
Netscape 2.0 Specific
http://www.sedona.net/~budman/main.html
=================================================
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 12:48:07 -0500
Subject: Eph. 4:9 and the Genitive THS GHS
In response to Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov> Carl Conrad wrote:
"Well, here we go again, on another new adventure into the world outside the
GNT itself. I suspect that the traditional view is right, that "the lower
regions" refers to the earth itself, and not to "some subterranean cavity."
And I suspect that there'a a background to some of the peculiar language in
Ephesians, as, for instance 6.12 KOSMOKRATORES TOU SKOTOUS TOUTOU, and it
is in the same realm as astrology and the notion that there are powers
governing the planetary spheres, each sphere being a "heaven" (whence
"seventh heaven"). I think that there's a conception of the universe as a
celestial sphere with the earth in the center constituting the "lower
parts." We don't use the term "genitive of definition" in Greek, but we do
use it in Latin, and it seems to me that's what we have here. I've never
heard the term "epexegetic genitive," but it would appear to be the same
thing as "genitive of definition"; I've also heard the term "genitive of
apposition" used. What do the real grammarians say about this?"
"Calvin D. Redmond" <102630.1150@compuserve.com> wrote
>>It should be clear that the translation "the lower parts, which consist of the
>>earth" or something similar is at least possible. The grammatical category is
>>recognized by the major grammarians, although it appears that all my other
>>grammars are in my library office which lacks a phone line.The question as to
>>whether this translation is correct will depend more on one's understanding of
>>the context and one's theology.
I agree with that last sentence completely.
David Moore responded:
> Robertson has an interesting comment on this verse. He says we
>probably do not have a genitive of apposition or definition here, but the
>ablative (read ablative use of the genitive) after the comparative
>(Robertson, _Grammar of the Greek New Testament_, p. 499).
>
> Blass-DeBrunner comes to about the same conclusion without
>expressing it in quite the same words: "TA KATWTERA (MERH) THS GHS is not
>partitive ... or appositive ('the lower regions', i.e. the earth ...), but
>'the regions under the earth' (Buchsel, TW III 641f.)" (Bl-DeB, _A Greek
>Grammar of the New Testament_, #167).
>
> IMO, the mention of Christ's ascention hUPERANW PANTWN TWN OURANWN
>(v. 10) is meant to contrast with the passage we are considering in verse
>9 - i.e. beneath the earth (in physical terms, a reference to His burial
>after death) serves as couterpoint to his ascention above all the heavens.
>So v. 9 needs to be taken in its most emphatic sense.
>
>David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
>Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
>dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
My comment. I am not the "real grammarian" that Carl invites to comment,
but I will try nonetheless to shed a little light:
We have now had two different grammatical analyses of TA KATWTERA (MERH)
THS GHS. (1) Carl Conrad suggests that a genitive of appostion or
definition (i.e. the earth = the lower regions) is possible.
(2) David Moore cites A. T. Robertson and BDF in favor of an ablative
genitive (also called by some grammarians a genitive of separation; i.e. =
"regions lower than the earth").
Both constructions are grammatically possible; and both find support in
what Carl calls "another new adventure into the world outside the GNT
itself." He is right, of course. One needs to do at least two things to
decide between these two interpretations: (a) determine what else in the
pauline corpus might support either interpretation; (b) ask what there is
in the world of the NT to which Ephesians might be alluding or on which it
might be building.
In support of David Moore one might cite Phil 2:10 "every knee of beings in
the superheavenly regions and of beings on the earth and of beings in the
lower regions should bend." Rev. 20:3 speaks of the "abyss," which also
supports the idea of regions below the earth. One could also go to the
literature of contemporary Jewish apocalyptic to find similar notions.
But there are also passages which support the idea that some people in the
first century thought of there being seven areas of rulership above the
earth, each ruled by one of the seven governors (the sun, moon, and five
planets they could detect with the naked eye). Ancients at least from Plato
on identified these heavenly bodies as sentient. They were also regarded as
the fulness of God extending into the universe (the PLHRWMA). (See the
description, parly based on Genesis, in the first tractate of the _Hermetic
Corpus_, the _Poimandres_, for such a view.) In this view the supreme god
dwells in the regions above the seven regions (the "ogdoad," the
EPOURANIOI). Colossians seems to use this view as it speaks of "thrones,
lordships, dominions, and powers" (Col 1:15-16) which threaten human kind.
According to Colossians Jesus alone is the PLHRWMA of God; he is both the
creator of these beings and the one who made peace between God and them by
the cross. He led them in triumphal possession.
Both are possible. Where does Ephesians stand in all this? One needs to
examine its language to see if one can discover indications. Like
Colossians it seems to speak of heavenly beings. See Eph 6:12, which
describes them as KOSMOKRATORES TOU SKOTOUS (the phrase Carl cited). In the
phrase "of darkness" the author argues against these beings having anything
to do with the illumination of the mind that comes only via baptism (cf.
Eph. 5:8-14). That is, he turns the language of the supporters of these
beings on its head! I find this supported by the phrases in Eph 2:2: KATA
TON AIWNA TOU KOSMOU TOUTOU, KATA TON ARCHONTA THE EXOUSIAS TOU AEROS< etc.
That is, Ephesians refers to the god Aion, whose statue one can see in the
Vatican Museums, a leontocepehalos human, around whose body a snake coils.
He represents the rule of time (measured by the heavenly powers) over
humanity.
Both interpretations given above are grammatically possible. But the other
linguistic data in Ephesians, IMHO, support the genitive of apposition, not
the ablative genitive.
Those interested in this topic might want to consult Hugo Odeberg, _The
View of the Universe in the Epistle to the Ephesians_.Lunds Universitets
Aersskrift. N.F. Avd. 1, Bd 29. Nr. 6. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1934.
Odeberg was the quite conservative Professor of NT at that university in
the 1930s.
Incidentally, I think that this same attitude is reflected in Mark
13:24-25, where the "powers of heaven" are these heavnenly bodies,
dethroned by the enthronement of the Son of Man who (as in Dan 7) goes to
the Ancient of Days on the clouds with power and great glory. But that is
another topic.
Ephesians' views, by the way, are immensely relevant in our own day in
which people (including a recent president's wife) consult "seers" who
interpret the signs of the zodiac as powers affecting human life. The
enslavement to the powers has not disappeared from history.
Peace,
Edgar Krentz, New Testament
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Edgar Krentz, New Testament
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Tel.: 312-256-0752; (H) 312-947-8105
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 11:01:56 +0800
Subject: Questions about verbal aspect
I'm slooowwwly working my way through Porter's _Idioms_, and he makes much
of the significance of verbal aspect as opposed to categories invented
by earlier grammarians, like historical present, gnomic present, etc.
Yet, when he comes to a present used for narration (what I'd call an
historical present), he translates it the same way I would. So I don't see
what significance his distinction or critique has in this case. How is an
historical present different from a prsent tense with a verbal aspect such that
it is translated with a past referent? I think, in fact, that my profs should
be critiquing students in my seminar who translate this construction as
present tense, which happens a lot, given that we are in Mark all the time.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 11:16:16 +0800
Subject: Some questions on Mark 1
I would appreciate some help with a few syntactical questions on Mark 1:21-
44.
1. In 1:21 Mark has tois Sabbasin, a dat. pl., even though it would seem he
is describing an event which happened on one Sabbath day (presumably one does
not immediately appear in a synagogue several Sabbath days in a row). Why the
plural?
2. 1:24. The demon(s) say Ti (hmin kai soi, meaning something like
What is there to us and to you, I think. What kind of sentence is that?
Is the spirit stupid as well as unclean?
3. 1:26. Is it reasonable to take the two occurences of kai in this
sentence as going together "After having both convulsed the man and
cried out with a great cry, the unclean spirit..."?
4. 1:35. prwi ennucha lian is a problem for me. prwi means early.
ennuchos, according to BAGD, means at night. lian means very, exceedingly.
Yet, BAGD says this phrase means "early in the morning" or "while it was
still quite dark". Neither of those seems to follow from the meanings of
the individual words, and I didn't get from BAGD that this is some sort of
common idiom. It seemed more like one of mark's tortured cosntructions.
Am I missing something here?
Thanks in advance.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 11:53:35 +0800
Subject: Off topic: Rise and persistence of Form criticism
I'd like to pose a question which I hope won't be too inflamatory.
I spent the weekend reading about form criticism, both from Bultmann himself,
and from his critics, like Kelber. As I was reading Bultmann, he seemed to me
to be making a lot of assertions without evidence and special pleading and
basing a lot on hypothetical possibilities. It's not surprising others have
come along and criticized his approach.
What I don't understand is why it became so popular in the first place, and
why, in light of all its criticisms, it still appears pervasive in NT studies,
with its assertins used as the basis for further work without any seeming
recognition of the challlenges to this methodology. I don't understand
this. I am confident it is not because I'm all wise and those who first
read Bultmann were incompetent. How then can we explain the ready acceptacne
Bultmann's ideas received and their continuing effect on NT studies?
Were they guided by their presuppositions to accept anything that seemed
to further their own research or am I missing something gained through
hindsight? Thanks.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:27:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Questions about verbal aspect
On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> I'm slooowwwly working my way through Porter's _Idioms_, and he makes much
> of the significance of verbal aspect as opposed to categories invented
> by earlier grammarians, like historical present, gnomic present, etc.
> Yet, when he comes to a present used for narration (what I'd call an
> historical present), he translates it the same way I would. So I don't see
> what significance his distinction or critique has in this case. How is an
> historical present different from a prsent tense with a verbal aspect such that
> it is translated with a past referent?
Once again, what it means and how you translate it are two different
things. Having said that, I suppose someone really should do some work on
how to translate the forms into English. I am somewhat disturbed whenever
I see imperfects, aorists, and present forms in the same passage all
treated by the translation as though they are the same thing--they are
not. But I don't know at this point how the translators should handle it.
I think Porter's real point is against those who think that the present is
a real tense, and that its use in narrative "brings the past into the
present, making it more vivid" or other such things which really do not
account for the distribution of these things at all. English speakers have
a very strong tendancy to use simple past verbs in narrative to carry the
story lines, past progressives to give background information, and
occasionally present tense at the peak of narratives (this can easily be
overdone). So when translating, English speakers tend to want to make
everything they perceive as part of the story line into a simple past.
That does not mean that they have perceived correctly, nor does it mean
that the forms they have translated are "really" functioning as past
tense. I think the translation of these forms (including Porter's
translation) really have more to do with perceptions about what are the
events that move the story forward plus the requirements of English in
expressing these perceptions than they do with Greek tense or aspect.
Just because Porter translates a verb with an English simple past doesn't
mean he does so because of the aspect of the Greek verb.
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:38:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Off topic: Rise and persistence of Form criticism
On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> What I don't understand is why it became so popular in the first place, and
I assume by "it" you mean form criticism.
> am I missing something gained through
> hindsight?
I think the point is not to be gained by hindsight, but by trying to put
yourself in the place of those who first read Bultmann's work, and of
Bultmann himself. Look at the history of scholarship leading up to Barth
and Bultmann and what it was they were reacting and responding to, and
how they dealt with it differently. I don't think Bultmann's use of form
criticism can be adequately understood at all apart from his position
with regard to the Quest for the Historical Jesus that came before him.
Bultmann gave up on that quest, going so far that his students tried to
revive the quest. But from Bultmann's perspective, ask yourself, if the
quest for the historical Jesus has failed, what do we do now? Bultmann's
use of form criticism was part of his answer.
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 16:25:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Off topic: Rise and persistence of Form criticism
At 10:53 PM 10/15/95, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> I'd like to pose a question which I hope won't be too inflamatory.
>I spent the weekend reading about form criticism, both from Bultmann himself,
>and from his critics, like Kelber. As I was reading Bultmann, he seemed to me
>to be making a lot of assertions without evidence and special pleading and
>basing a lot on hypothetical possibilities. It's not surprising others have
>come along and criticized his approach.
>
> What I don't understand is why it became so popular in the first place, and
>why, in light of all its criticisms, it still appears pervasive in NT studies,
>with its assertions used as the basis for further work without any seeming
>recognition of the challenges to this methodology. I don't understand
>this. I am confident it is not because I'm all wise and those who first
>read Bultmann were incompetent. How then can we explain the ready acceptance
>Bultmann's ideas received and their continuing effect on NT studies?
>Were they guided by their presuppositions to accept anything that seemed
>to further their own research or am I missing something gained through
>hindsight? Thanks.
I have read Phil Graber's response to this question, and I have no quarrel
with it, but I'd like to go at the question in a different way. It seems to
me that, while quite a few of the CONCLUSIONS Bultmann drew and several of
his analyses have NOT stood the test of time, his METHOD by and large has
indeed stood the test of time and has become the unavoidable foundation of
other methodologies of gospel criticism, in particular redaction criticism
(in a broad rather than narrow sense) as an effort to understand how the
particular evangelists have used material from oral and written traditions
to re-shape the gospel they received into a new format upon which they
could stamp the theological reflection and understanding of their own
community of believers for a new time frame in which they write. It is also
an inescapable fact that Form Criticism itself is pretty much grounded in
Source Criticism and cannot proceed very far without some theoretical
assumptions about the relationship of the gospels (chiefly the synoptic,
but John's gospel also, to some extent) to each other in terms of relative
chronology and relative dependence. (An aside: The fact that you or another
person may find Source Criticism to be entirely too speculative and even
tentative conclusions reached by one or another solution of the Synoptic
Problem not worth considering seriously would have to pre-dispose one, I'd
think, against expecting anything of value to be achieved by the method of
Form Criticism)
However, Form Criticism did not begin with Bultmann or Dibelius but rather
in a serious way with the OT scholar Hermann Gunkel who started analyzing
the stories in Genesis in terms of the characteristics of oral
transmission. In fact, there has sprung up a whole discipline since those
post World War I days concerned with "orality" and "literacy," and with the
distinctive mind-sets of a culture that tells stories and passes them down
from one generation to the next and a culture that writes and reads books
and mulls intellectually over the written word. And at the same time that
Bultmann and Dibelius were working on Form Criticism and studying how oral
tradition works, Milman Parry was working in eastern Europe in
Serbo-Croatia with living oral poets and studying how oral tradition and
oral performance of traditional material work, and then he was applying
that to an earth-shaking doctoral dissertation at Paris on Homer and oral
poetry.
Briefly then--I don't want to write the introduction to a book here--the
methodology of Bultmann (and Dibelius) remains valuable, even if it has
been modified and needs more modification: You start out by clipping the
narrative units in the gospels and eliminating from them the setting and
any material that one suspects has been added by the evangelist: that is,
you try to get back to the "raw--the uncooked" form of the oral tradition
as it appears in Mt, in Mk, in Lk, perhaps even in Jn. Then you take your
clippings and put them in piles as you would arrange playing cards by
suits, except that you try to develop categories into which the clippings
belong because they share certain characteristic story-telling patterns or
parable instruction, or the like. Then you try to trace the PROBABLE
history of the development of a story or parable of controversy-narrative
or eschatological pronouncement or what-not.
That's very brief. Obviously there's refinement needed in application of
the method. But the method itself has not lost but rather has gained
support among many of the groups that once found it anathema because it has
led to other useful methods of analyzing and understanding the work of the
evangelists. Jeremias on the parables remains a very valuable work which is
form-critical fundamentally, and I'd be surprised, Ken, if you didn't find
it a valuable resource. But that's just scratching the surface. I really
think it is the methodology developed by Bultmann and Dibelius that has
really made a profound difference in study of the gospels, rather than
particular conclusions that either of them reached by using it.
Bultmann wrote a little book on Form Criticism that's a lot clearer than
HoST. What surprises me is how much I find still very useful in HoST in
discussions of particular units of tradition. Then there once was a neat
book published by Fortress Press, _What is Form Criticism_ in the series
that Edgar Krentz has also contributed to --or is that the very volume he
did? But I think Perrin's book on Redaction Criticism in the same series
shows why the methodology has continued to be very important. If you take
seriously AT ALL the proposition that Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn produced their
gospels by amalgamating elements of oral tradition, then there is something
to be learned and applied in the methodology of Form Criticism, however
much you may think it needs still to be refined more.
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: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 18:38:47 -0400
Subject: Linquist's Software
Ken Litwak asked about a copy of the Greek NT either Gnt4 of N-A27.
Someone recommended Linquist's Software, Inc. The address is P.O. Box 580
Edmonds, WA 98020-0580 (206) 775-1130
Philip Payne developed a very good company. The NT is available in the GNT4
in either MacWrite or MS Word format as editable text. I have both the 3rd
ed. and the 4th edition. (Upgrades are cheap.) I use it regularly when
copying and pasting sentences for Greek exercises or exams. It is much
faster than typing Greek for me.
Also, Ken, the exact title of (Edwin) Hatch & (Henry A.) Redpath is A
Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the OT
(Including the Apocryphal Books) in Three Volumes (Vols. 2 & 3 are combined
in my copy.)
Grace,
Carlton Winbery
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 16:52:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Ken Liwak's questions on Mark 1
To Ken Litwak's questions of Mark 1:21-44------------
1, The plural "sabbasin" is not odd at all; the plural is about
as common as the singular to refer to a single sabbath day, at
least from 3rd century BCE on, including Plutarch and Philo and
Josephus. "Why the plural?" Because that's the way they said
it. In English, we don't talk this way -- but then, we aren't
talking Greek, are we? Bauer gives you plenty of info on this.
2. "TI `HMIN KAI SOI?" isn't stupid. The phrase is used in
classical Greek, in singular and plural for each pronoun, and
means "What do we have in common?"; it is used a lot in
Hellenistic texts, and it also is in LXX as a direct translation
of the Hebrew which is literally the same. In John 2:4 Jesus
says it to his mother. It's all part of learning Greek: Greek is
not a code for English, so matching words one-to-one isn't how to
understand the Greek language.
3. I'm not sure where your problem lies. To give the
"schoolboy translation" for the aorist participles, it would run:
"And after the unclean spirit had convulsed him, and after it had
cried out with a great cry, it left him." Or. also "schoolboy
participle," "The unclean spirit having convulsed him, and
having cried out with a great cry, it left him." Such a
translation is too wooden, and lays too much of a burden on the
notion of relative temporality for the aorist participle (see
Moule's _Idiom Book_ discussion of it, where he says it works
more often than it should!); but it surely allows the "kai...kai"
to make perfect sense. If your question is, Does Mark mean that
the convulsion and the cry were simultaneous? the answer is that
we can't tell from this sentence.
4. The three adverbs in a row (1:35, PRWI ENNUCA LIAN) are a
bit unusual, probably due to Mark's liking to say things more of
less twice; but the meaning is obvious. Early in the morning,
still dark, very much so -- Either: Very early in the morning,
while still dark (likelier), or Early in the morning, while it
was still very dark (slightly less likely).
But surely your own professors of Greek at the GTU could answer
these questions.
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 17:01:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Philip Graber on aspect and translation
Just after I sent off my post re: Litwak's questions on Mark, I received
Philip Graber's reply to him on aspect. My reason for posting is simply to
second everything he said (a needless thing to do, I know), and also
to underscore a major point he made. UNDERSTANDING A SENTENCE/PASSAGE
IN GREEK IS NOT THE SAME AS TRANSLATING IT. UNDERSTANDING AND TRANSLATING
INTO ANOTHER LANGUAGE ARE DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER.
For quite a few years I did not permit students to translate the Greek into
English, unless they gave two alternative translations, both of which they
could support. Languages aren't one-to-one with each other in much of
anything, not in vocabulary, syntax, or whatever.
Thank you Philip, for pressing this important point.
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #913
*****************************
** 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