[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #915
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 18 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 915
In this issue:
UBS electronic version
Re: PHI Telephone Number
Re: PHI Telephone Number
Eph. 4:9 , A.T. Robertson & Blass-Debrunner-Funk
The GRAMCORD Institute
Re: UBS electronic version
Re: Eph. 4:9 , A.T. Robertson & Blass-Debrunner-Funk
"pas" w/o the article
One more Q Ref.
Re:Gramcord Info
Pt 2: why Q fails the test
Pt 1: explanatory power
Pt 3: hypothetical sources
Pt 4: Final observations
Re: UBS electronic version
Re: The GRAMCORD Institute
Re: The GRAMCORD Institute
Re: UBS electronic version
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Per Baekgaard <peb@pine.dk>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 10:47:38 +0100 (MET)
Subject: UBS electronic version
Someone asked for an electronic version of the UBS-4/NA-27 recently, and
as I haven't seen anyone supplying the following info let me add that:
The UBS-3 corr. main text (w/o variants), which is identical to the UBS-4
(as far as I know) can be found at ftp://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/pub/Bible/.
Look for the file greeknt.zip, which also contains parsing info for each
word. There are several .txt files describing the format.
This file is in a format suitable for automated processing, but assuming
one can do a little programming/scripting, it is not all that difficult
to convert it to some other desired format.
I believe James Tauber might have some corrections that should be applied
to it, but I couldn't locate these today.
Maybe this wasn't what was being looked for, but anyway,
- -- Per.
- --
: Per Baekgaard, Pine Tree Systems peb@pine.dk :
: Koegevej 62, 1., DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark :
: Phone: (+45) 43710704 Fax: (+45) 43714342 :
------------------------------
From: "Gordon F. Ross" <gfross@hopf.dnai.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 03:09:51 -0700
Subject: Re: PHI Telephone Number
Hi, Conrad! Thanks for your speedy reply and for the information!
It's interesting that just after I finished talking with the telephone
information operator for the 408 area code area (who had told me that PHI
was not listed in the San Jose area), the following flashed into my mind:
Try Los Altos! <grin> But I didn't act on it. I should use my intuition
more, I guess, huh?
I do appreciate your giving me their CIS address as well, however, since I
subscribe to CompuServe. Writing them there will save me the cost of a long
distance telephone call. Hmm, they might even be on the web.
Thanks, too, for mentioning the "Classics List" web site. Could you tell me
their web address? Someone there should be familiar with the current tools
used for studying the writings of the Latin Fathers and thus be able to
recommend a lexicon for Jerome's Latin or the Vulgate. Come to think of it,
someone who subscribes to the Elenchus message list should know. (I recently
subscribed to that list. It doesn't seem to be very active, though.)
By the way, what does "wustl" in your domain name stand for? Washington
University at St. Louis? (Just a guess.) Are you an instructor there? I
teach English at City College of San Francisco.
All the best --
Gordon
gfross@dnai.com
At 08:51 PM 10/16/95 -0500, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>At 8:13 PM 10/16/95, Gordon F. Ross wrote:
>>Hi, I'm new to the list.
>>
>>I'm interested in purchasing the Packard Humanities Institute CDROM(s) (for
>>IBM and compatibles). Do any of you happen to know the Institute's current
>>location and telephone number? I thought that they were in San Jose
>>(California) (I live in San Francisco), but apparently not.
>
>Here's the latest I find (don't know how current it is, but it's posted on
>the Classics List web site currently):
>
>Packard Humanities Institute
>300 Second St., Suite 201
>Los Altos, CA 94022
>
>Tel: (415) 948-0150
>Fax: (415) 948-5793
>e-mail: 74754.2713@compuserve.com
>
>
>>Also, do any of you happen to know whether there is a message list devoted
>>to studies of the Vulgate? What I'd like to find (buy) is a lexicon of
>>Vulgate Latin, if such an animal exists. :-)
>
>I don't know if there is such an animal. You can consult a Vulgate text on
>a web site called "Virtual Bible," but I don't have that URL handy.
>
>One out of two isn't so bad, huh?
>
>Regards,
>
>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: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 07:50:56 -0500
Subject: Re: PHI Telephone Number
The URL for the Classics List web site:
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~lwright/classics.html
Posted here are the digests of recent messages on the Classics List as well
as info on the list itself, a few FAQs on various questions like software
for Greek, the motto from "Lonesome Dove" (UVA UVAM VARIA FIT VIVENDO) and
sundry other items, as well as some nice links to other Classics sites,
including the major one at U. of Michigan.
The URL for one of the best of the Biblical Studies resource web sites:
http://www.hivolda.no/asf/kkf/rel-stud.html
This will give you access to several different versions in different
languages, including the Latin Vulgate as well as to numerous resources on
various aspects of Biblical studies (this is a scholarly site, not
evangelistically oriented, I might add).
Another worth-while site that has been posted to this list previously but
that deserves more publicity, I think is the site at the Theological
Faculty at Passau in Germany:
http://www.uni-passau.de/ktf/bibelwissenschaft.html
and the very rich site thata calls itself "Guide to Christian Literature on
the Internet:"
http://www.calvin.edu/Christian/pw.html
This is by no means an exhaustive list (sites are literally multiplying
exponentially on the web right now), but one will find links from these to
most of the other significant sites. I think that the most recent and
thorough one to date is the Norwegian one listed first above
(www.hivolda.no).
Oh, and yes, I do teach at Washington University in St. Louis, though more
in Classics than in New Testament.
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: "Calvin D. Redmond" <102630.1150@compuserve.com>
Date: 17 Oct 95 09:14:39 EDT
Subject: Eph. 4:9 , A.T. Robertson & Blass-Debrunner-Funk
After referring to previous discussion, David L. Moore wrote
< 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).
Moore correctly cites Robertson in the large grammar. However, it is
interesting to read ATR's comments on the verse in Word Pictures, vol. IV: The
Epistles of Paul, p. 536:
"If the anabas is the Ascension of Christ, then the katabas would be the Descent
(Incarnation) to earth and t~es g~es would be the genitive of apposition. What
follows in verse 10 argues for this view. Otherwise, one must think of the
death of Christ (the descent into Hades of Acts 2:31)."
Apparently to Robertson, the issue may not have been clear. It is
interesting that his view in Word Pictures, copyright 1931, is apparently his
last word on the subject.
For Blass-Debrunner-Funk, the issue grammatically is also somewhat
uncertain. They write,
< : "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).
I am unable to follow this thought. I would assume that most of those
who argue for a descent of Jesus into hell/Hades/the netherworld would see the
genitive as a partitive genitive, which would lead to the translation "the
lower parts of the earth." I am unfamiliar with the genitive case producing the
sense of "under" without the aid of a preposition.
Nonetheless, I agree with my former comments that one's understanding of
the context and prior theological convictions (as well as the tradition out of
which one comes) will ultimately determine the interpretation of this passage.
Also, to add to the discussion, one might consult two opposing articles
from recent years of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS):
-Wayne Grudem, "He Did Not Descend into Hell: A Plea for Following
Scripture Instead of the Apostles' Creed," JETS 34 (March 1991," 103-113.
-David Scaer, "He Did Descend to Hell: In Defense of the Apostles'
Creed," JES 35 (March 1992), 91-99.
Cal Redmond
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
102630.1150@compuserve.com
------------------------------
From: Brian Bird <brianb@gnn.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 08:00:15
Subject: The GRAMCORD Institute
I'm looking for information on the GRAMCORD Morphological Search Engine. I
have a demo version of it in my SeedMaster shareware Bible study program and
it looks very powerful. Does anyone have the address, phone number or e-mail
address for GRAMCORD?
------------------------------
From: "James K. Tauber" <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 23:07:26 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Re: UBS electronic version
On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Per Baekgaard wrote:
> I believe James Tauber might have some corrections that should be applied
> to it, but I couldn't locate these today.
My apologies. They are at
http://www.entmp.org/HGrk/Database/ccat.html
James K. Tauber <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
University Computing Services and Centre for Linguistics
University of Western Australia, Perth, AUSTRALIA
http://www.uwa.edu.au/student/jtauber finger for PGP key
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 10:14:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Eph. 4:9 , A.T. Robertson & Blass-Debrunner-Funk
I won't cite the whole previous correspondence on the issue, especially as
it is current and can be traced in sequence at the archive, but it occurs
to me that the understanding of TA KATWTERA THS GHS as Hades might perhaps
draw a little support from the common Latin phrase for the underworld,
INFERI (nom. pl., "those below") and the still more common prepositional
phrase IN INFERIS (ab. pl., "among those below") which is one of the more
idiomatic Latin equivalents of the Greek EN hADOU (lit. "in Hades'
[house]").
It's beside the point, I guess, that I personally don't favor this
understanding of TA KATWTERA GHS. In fact, I've also always preferred to
understand the clause in the Apostles' Creed, "he descended into Hell" as
meaning, "he died a real death" (as opposed to a Docetic view, he only
apparently died).
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: 17 Oct 95 11:18:30 EDT
Subject: "pas" w/o the article
When the word PAS lacks the article, does it always lose its inclusive meaning
and become categorical ("all manner of", "every kind of")? How does one know
whether it means all _inclusively_ or categorically- by context alone? Is there
anything in the grammar that helps us out?
please reply to this address, as I am not currently subscribed.
Paul Watkins
Grace College and Seminary
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 10:24 CDT
Subject: One more Q Ref.
For a fine-grained survey of recent work on the two-source
theory and on Luke's relation to Matthew, see T.A.
Friedrichsen, "The Matthew-Luke Agreements against
Mark," in F. Neirynck, ed.,*L'Evangile de Luc*, 2d ed.
(BETL 32; Leuven, 1989), pp. 335-93.--Paul Moser,
Loyola University of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: "Calvin D. Redmond" <102630.1150@compuserve.com>
Date: 17 Oct 95 14:21:27 EDT
Subject: Re:Gramcord Info
Brian Bird asked about information for Gramcord Institute.
Gramcord Institute may be contacted at (360) 576-3000, fax (503) 761-0626,
address 2218 NE Brookview Drive, Vancouver, WA 98686.
Cal Redmond
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
102630.1150@compuserve.com
------------------------------
From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 15:52:26 -0600
Subject: Pt 2: why Q fails the test
Re. why Q "fails the test:"
NI>2] Again, perhaps it would be useful to explain why it "fails the test".
NI>So far, the only of argument presented has been amounts "we don't have a
NI>copy of Q", which as we've seen is of --at most-- margin relevance. The
NI>important question is how well does the 2DH explain the text? On that
NI>topic there has been precious little discussion.
1.) The possibility for which I've argued (that the present state of
Lk and Mt is due to Lk altering Matthean material due to theological
and creative factors) has been largely ignored in the scholarly guild
simply because of the overwhelming (and zealous, might I add--
"fundamentalist hogwash" indeed) popularity of the two document
hypothesis. Too many people have too much work involved in the
hypothesis to want to clearly and fairly consider its shortcomings.
2.) Is the fact that Q has no independent evidence of existence
really of only marginal relevance? Especially when the other
possibility, which relies on demonstrably extant documents, is
plausible? Especially when there is so little unanimity as to the
character, limits, content and thrust of this phantom document?
For example: are we really to assume that Q consists only of the
non-Markan material shared by Mt and Lk? That there were two
documents used by Mt and Lk that had absolutely *no* overlap?
We *could* hypothesize that Q was actually a much larger document
than just the non-Markan shared material. Perhaps it was a large as
(or larger than) canonical Mk, with a passion and resurrection
narrative--that would at least explain the minor agreements. We could
even hypothesize that Q is the source of the extra-gospel *logia*.
All would be just as logical and plausible as the current Q consensus,
if we may even speak of such an animal.
But by this time Q is hardly the "primitive, non-theological,
non-narrative gospel" that the vast majority of modern redaction
criticism assumes it to be.
And even if Q *is* nothing but the non-Markan material shared by Mt
and Lk: we have there a narrative introduction with the preaching of
John the Baptist (note minor agreements there). We have Jesus as the
embodiment of Israel, tempted in the desert and responding with
appropriate sections of Deuteronomy. We have a geneology that
establishes Jesus as the Son of David, son of Abraham (more explicitly
in Mt, but also present in Lk).
Sorry folks--that's hardly the opening section of a primitive,
non-narrative, non-theological gospel. That's Matthew. The most
logical explanation for the current state of Mt and Lk in these
portions is that Lk has taken Mt's account and universalized it
by removing the more overtly Semitic elements.
PLS <sorry, continued again>
- ---
SLMR 2.1a Giving money and power to government is like giving
whiskey and car keys to teen-aged boys.
------------------------------
From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 15:52:23 -0600
Subject: Pt 1: explanatory power
Hello, all.
Well, I made a promise to someone I respect greatly that I'd drop this
"off-topic" stuff. So let me fire a few parting shots. If these seem
excessive, just "skip and delete"--Lord knows I do enough of that.
If anyone's interested, we could probably move this thread to IOUDAIOS-L.
Or we could just get back to Greek and pretend none of this ever happened.
NI>>Perry Stepp wrote:
NI>> Besides, what the heck do you mean by "tremendous explanatory
NI>> value"? Do you mean "usefulness"? How is *that* a criteria for
NI>> which hypothesis is to be accepted?
NI>I, for one, must admit to being bewildered by this question.
NI>The only criterion by which a hypothesis is judged --indeed the only
NI>criterion by which a hypothesis *can* be judged-- is how well it explains
NI>the available data.
Well, now that I'm clear (or at least think I'm clear) on what Pmoser
meant by "tremendous explanatory power," let me simply say that I
don't think that much of the two-source hypothesis's explanatory
power. I don't think it's the best explanation of the state of the
synoptic gospels as we have them before us. It is foundationally
flawed. It is logically inconsistent. It gives short shrift to the
evangelists' creative and theological concerns.
PLS <continued>
- ---
SLMR 2.1a Man, I just love the smell of napalm in the morning!
------------------------------
From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 15:52:30 -0600
Subject: Pt 3: hypothetical sources
Re. basing arguments on hypothetical sources:
NI>> [...] I'd rather work with documents I *know* existed than build sand
NI>> castles on hypothetical foundations.
NI>3] Are you sure you mean this? By this criterion we can accept *no*
NI>arguments for *any* sources behind the Gospels. And I don't think anyone
NI>is going to seriously argue that.
Perhaps I'm being a touch (but only a touch) polemical. Certainly
sources, some written and some oral, lie behind the gospels. But any
argument that relies on, say, supposed layers of redaction within
hypothetical sources, etc.,
[HOT OFF THE PRESSES! REDACTIONAL LAYERS DISCOVERED IN
Q! AMAZE YOUR FRIENDS! PROVE THAT THOMAS IS A FIRST-
CENTURY DOCUMENT! SEE WHAT THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN
COMMUNITIES WERE *REALLY* LIKE!],
is prohibitively speculative. It
depends more on a fanciful Hegelian reconstruction of the history of
early Christianity than a fair reading of the evidence.
For instance, I very much appreciate the way R. Brown handles these
questions in *Death of the Messiah*. He notes great degrees of
similarity in the prayers of Jesus recorded in the gospels, or that Mk
and Jn use a certain OT passage in very similar (but very different)
ways, and suggests that these phenomena spring from layers of
pre-gospel tradition. But he realizes that attempting to build
arguments on these foundations is ludicrous.
PLS <sorry, continued *again*>
- ---
SLMR 2.1a A little government and a little luck are both necessary,
but only a fool trusts either.
------------------------------
From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 15:52:34 -0600
Subject: Pt 4: Final observations
A few final observations:
1.) Re. the "Lachmann" fallacy: the argument from order is no
argument at all. To say: "Mt and Lk consistently follow Mk's
order. They never differ from Mk together: when Mt disagrees with
Mk's order, Lk supports Mk, and vice versa" proves nothing except that
the gospels almost certainly depend on one another for the order of
events. (And that "proof" is often in the eye of the beholder.)
(BTW--I like Linnemann, but I think she's lost in space when
she argues for no literary dependency.)
We could, with the same data, rephrase the above like this: "Mt
follows Lk's order for the most part, except that Mt wants to insert
great discourses throughout the gospel. Mk always follows the common
order. When Mt and Lk disagree, Mk follows first one, then the
other."
Or "Mk follows Mt's order for the most part. Lk, who did not want to
construct his gospel around so many discourses (thus stopping
narrative impetus), either follows Mk or strikes out on his own."
Or (as the Griesbach hypothesis states) "Mt establishes an order based
on geneology plus discourses, with programmatic influence from Isaiah
9.1-2. Lk generally follows this order, changing it at times to
establish a more chronological, less topical outline. Mk, faced with
two gospels that agree in order for the most part, simply follows the
common order. When Mt and Lk disagree, Mk follows one or the other. He
virtually never establishes an independent order."
All of the above are internally plausible. Thus the argument from
order, as it is commonly used, PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING regarding
priority.
2.) Mk is indeed the shortest of the three. But when you compare
episodes/pericopes in the triple tradition, Mk consistently has longer
pericopes with greater descriptive detail. There are cases in which
Mk's fuller account seems to be a conflation of Mt and Lk, especially
in the Passion.
Mk is shorter because it has fewer pericopes, not because Mt (or Lk)
is more "well rounded".
3.) The testimony of the church from the second (Clement-Papias-
Eusebius) to the 19th century is unanimous: Mt was written first,
then Lk and Mk (in varying order), and Jn later.
Augustine expressed two views on the order of the gospels. In book
one of his Harmony, he speaks of Mk as Mt's "epitomizer." This view
later became official dogma. But in 4.10.11, he speaks of Mk
following the order of Mt more often, but also following Lk. Thus
Augustine was a Griesbachian! But this later view was thereafter
ignored.
4.) There is not time to really discuss minor agreements here. Let me
simply point you to Mt 26.67f // Lk 22.63ff and the verbatim agreement
there against Mk 14.65. Is there Mk/Q overlap in the passion
narrative? Think of the can of worms *that* would open!
Anyhow, if anyone's interested in pursuing this further (though to be
honest, right now I can't imagine why), I'll see you on IOUDAIOS-L.
Well, it's been fun. Grace and peace,
Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
- ---
SLMR 2.1a I am Madden of Borg. BOOM! POW! You're assimilated!
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date:
Subject: Re: UBS electronic version
Unless I'm mistaken, aren't these corrections to the Friberg's parsing tags
rather than to the actual UBS text? If that's _not_ the case, James, could
you please comment on the basis of your corrections? Against what did you
compare the printed text to determine it was in error?
>On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Per Baekgaard wrote:
>> I believe James Tauber might have some corrections that should be applied
>> to it, but I couldn't locate these today.
>
>My apologies. They are at
>
> http://www.entmp.org/HGrk/Database/ccat.html
Rod
__________________________________________________________________
|=[]========================== About... ===========================|
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary |
| Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd. |
| rdecker@accunet.com Kansas City, Missouri 64147 |
|__________________________________________________________________|
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date:
Subject: Re: The GRAMCORD Institute
>I'm looking for information on the GRAMCORD Morphological Search Engine. I
>have a demo version of it in my SeedMaster shareware Bible study program and
>it looks very powerful. Does anyone have the address, phone number or e-mail
>address for GRAMCORD?
You can also contact Paul Miller (the "director") at pmiller@gramcord.org
The address suggests that there may be an ftp or WWW site there also, but I
haven't explored that possibility.
Rod
__________________________________________________________________
|=[]========================== About... ===========================|
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary |
| Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd. |
| rdecker@accunet.com Kansas City, Missouri 64147 |
|__________________________________________________________________|
------------------------------
From: David Rising <rising@epix.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 18:40:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: The GRAMCORD Institute
On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Brian Bird wrote:
> I'm looking for information on the GRAMCORD Morphological Search Engine. I
> have a demo version of it in my SeedMaster shareware Bible study program and
> it looks very powerful. Does anyone have the address, phone number or e-mail
> address for GRAMCORD?
>
>
You can contact Paul Miller at pmiller@gramcord.org. He could probably
send you a FAQ he has compiled concerning this as he gets lots of such
requests.
David Rising
------------------------------
From: "James K. Tauber" <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:31:33 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Re: UBS electronic version
On Wed, 18 Oct 1995, Rod Decker wrote:
> Unless I'm mistaken, aren't these corrections to the Friberg's parsing tags
> rather than to the actual UBS text? If that's _not_ the case, James, could
> you please comment on the basis of your corrections? Against what did you
> compare the printed text to determine it was in error?
They are corrections to the lemmata (ie dictionary forms of the word), not
the actual text. I perhaps should have made that clear given the initial
enquiry. Sorry folks.
The URL again for those that missed it is:
> > http://www.entmp.org/HGrk/Database/ccat.html
James K. Tauber <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
University Computing Services and Centre for Linguistics
University of Western Australia, Perth, AUSTRALIA
http://www.uwa.edu.au/student/jtauber finger for PGP key
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #915
*****************************
** 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