[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #919
b-greek-digest Friday, 20 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 919
In this issue:
Re: Eph. 4:9 again
Re: Q?????
Re: Wallace grammer
Netscape 2.0
Wallace's Grammar
Re: Porter on the present
Re: ethical considerations
Re: ethical considerations
Netscape 2.0 -- a beta version
Re: Netscape 2.0
Re: ethical considerations
Re: ethical considerations
RE > Ethical Considerations
Re: ethical considerations
Re: 2 Tim 2:15
Copywrite
[none]
Ephesians 4:11ff
Re: Ephesians 4:11ff
Re: ethical considerations
Re: Porter on the present
Re: Ethical considerations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 15:05:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Eph. 4:9 again
Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov> quoted his previous post and wrote:
>>If, as Young and Zerwick claim, it should be translated "into
>>the lower parts, that is, the earth," rather than referring to
>>Christ's descent into the underworld, 1) who or what are the
>>captives Christ led (4:8), and 2) how is He to fill all things
>>(4:10) if He doesn't also descend into the lower parts of the
>>earth (cf. Phil. 2:10)?
(snip)
>Our computers were down the last few days, so I may not have gotten all the
>responses. WERE THERE OR ARE THERE other comments on or responses to my
>questions 1) and 2) above? It seems to me that this phrase ("lower parts of
>the earth") must be understood in the context of the "captives" and who/what
>they are, and my understanding of the "captives"--either the righteous dead
>or the spiritual powers of the underworld--would support the traditional
>understanding that He went into the lower parts of the earth, i.e.,
>sheol/hades. (Again, maybe Lincoln's discussion in his commentary addresses
>this, and I hope to track down a copy soon.)
A couple of suggestions for pertinent passages of Scripture
relating to question 1, about who the captives are: see Col. 2:14, 15;
and Mat. 12:29 and parallels. These would indicate that what Paul may
have in mind is Christ's making prisoners of those forces that stand in
the way of mankind's receiving the full blessing that God has for them.
The figure of the public procession of prisoners - common to victory
celebrations of that time - probably corresponds to the APEKDUSAMENOS TAS
ARXAS KAI TAS ECOUSIAS EDEIGMATISEN EN PARRHSIA, QRIAMBEUSAS AUTOUS EN
AUTWi of Col. 2:15.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: "Michael W. Holmes" <holmic@homer.acs.bethel.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 08:53:49 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Q?????
Re the following posting by Matthew Morgan a few days ago:
1) I heartily agree with Carl Conrad's judicious reply;
2) Linnemann's book (and article) is the passionate and heartfelt cry of
a "convert," and must be respected as such, but that does not make it a
reasoned academic discourse in the customary sense of the term, to which
a reasoned reply can be made;
3) Bultmann himself, some decades ago, wrote a justly famous essay whose
title asked, "Is exegesis without presuppostions possible?" His answer,
as I recall it, was a resounding "no". To write as if Linnemann suddenly
discovered something new seems a bit naive (to put it politely).
- --Mike Holmes
On Wed, 18 Oct 1995, Matthew Ashley Morgan wrote:
> Has anyone else bothered to mention Eta Linneman's article in last
> month's Bible Review? Here we have one of the foremost former Bultmann
> scholars who is basically saying that it is all garbage. The case is closed
> as far as I'm concerned. Even the rejoinder in this month's Bible Review
> said absolutely nothing that we don't already know. Linneman's point is
> exactly right! We're talking about two completely different world views
> here as to how we even approach the issue. It all begins with
> presuppostions, and I most happily will affirm that I have a Christian
> Evangelical presupposition holding to firm view of Scripture. I'm just
> waiting for ALL critics to announce that they too have
> presuppostions...We're waiting!!!
>
>
> Matthew Morgan
> The Master's College
>
>
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 09:02:59 CST
Subject: Re: Wallace grammer
Original message sent on Thu, Oct 19 4:11 AM by eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov (Eric
Weiss) :
> ALSO (to respond to a post referencing Wallace's grammar): Last week the
> guys at the DTS bookstore told me that MARCH 1996 (first it was August 95,
> then November 95, then December 95) is now the expected date of Dan Wallace's
> grammar. Xerox copies of the first half (nouns, adjectives, etc.) are
> available and are being used by the 2nd year Greek students at DTS. No
> drafts of the second half (verbs, participles, etc.) are for sale. With no
> disrespect to Dr. Wallace intended (I fully understand why deadlines and
> desired publication dates are sometimes missed), maybe Zondervan should
> change the title of his book to "Wallace 96."
Dan Wallace is more than aware of the lateness of this work... he
commented the other day that it was "March or die"!
Mark O'Brien
------------------------------
From: Larry Chouinard <fa78935@kcc.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 11:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Netscape 2.0
I have noticed since downloading Netscape 2.0 the usual home pages I
generally visit now have this annoying background colors that make it
difficult to read texts. Is there a way to eliminate this color scheme
to make it easier to read? Certainly those who put together their page
must see the problem.
Any suggestions?
Larry Chouinard
Kentucky Christian College
------------------------------
From: "JOHN HAYDEN, JEWELL, IA" <hayden@duke.iccc.cc.ia.us>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:23:55 -0500
Subject: Wallace's Grammar
I had Wallace for three semesters in '82. At that time he thought it would
be published in 1990!
John Hayden
Iowa Central Community College
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:18:27 CST
Subject: Re: Porter on the present
On Wed, 18 Oct 1995, Mari Olsen wrote:
>The theory is just cleaned up, so that what we THOUGHT was English and
>Greek 'tense' is not. The longer answer is that the Greek present is
>marked for imperfective aspect (not tense), and the English present is
>unmarked for both tense and aspect. The English form may therefore,
>by pragmatic implicature (e.g. in the context you mentioned) take on
>the imperfective meaning, namely focus on a situation as it is
>unfolding in time (rather than the perfective focus on a complete(d)
>situation). In other words, to understand what the Greek present means, you
>need to look at what imperfective aspect is, rather than what the
>English translation is in a particular case.
To better understand my response, I offer to the list for your consideration
and discussion the following chart on Greek tense. Please note that Mari and
I are using different vocabulary to a certain extent--hers is more in the
tradition of modern linguistics, mine more in the tradition of traditional
Greek linguistics (although I have incorporated the language of marked/
unmarked from the work of the Prague school).
TENSE in Greek for the Indicative Mode:
TIME: Past Unmarked Future
ASPECT: +--------------+--------------+--------------+
| | | |
| | | |
Unmarked | Aorist | --- | Future |
| | | |
| | | |
+--------------+- - - - - - --+- - - - - - --+
| | | |
| | | |
Continuous | Imperfect | Present | --- |
| | | |
| | | |
+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| | | |
| | | Future |
Completed | Pluperfect | Perfect | |
| | | Perfect |
| | | |
+--------------+--------------+--------------+
Of the nine possible tenses in Greek, only seven are actually used. This
means that the Present and the Future tenses must do double duty: they must
be used for both continuous and unmarked action. In the case of the future,
the question is mute, since the future is unmarked for aspect and thus may be
used for continuous action anyway (this is part of the definition of
unmarked). In actual usage, Greek tends to use paraphrastic forms for future
continous action.
The issue is more complicated and controversial in the case of the present.
If a Greek wanted to express a present time, punctiliar aspect idea using an
indicative verb, he or she was not limited from doing so by the lack of a
tense. Normally, punctiliar aspect would be encoded as unmarked aspect and
present time by unmarked time. Since no such tense form exists, time takes
precedence over aspect and the present tense form was used. This means that
the present tense form was used both to encode continuous action and/or any
kind of action.
The exegetical consequence of this is that it is invalid to reason from a
present indicative verb that the action was viewed as continuous by the
writer.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 10:57:26 EDT
Subject: Re: ethical considerations
perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:
> My thinking is: when a message is offered to the entire list, it becomes
> property of each participant. Therefore, as long as one uses a message in
> context and doesn't alter the meaning of a message (i.e., "rewriting" someone
> else's post), participants should be free to print, concatenate, and share
> material from B-Breek at their discretion.
I'm not going to address the ethical considerations (except to note that
messages to B-Greek are probably not in a polished form that is intended
to be cited), there are copyright issues to consider as well. Generally,
a person is not free to copy, modify, or publically distribute a copy-
righted work without permission, except for fair use. That copyright
exists from the moment the message is written. So I object to the notion
that a message becomes the property of each participant; the author still
retains the copyright.
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 11:23:18 -0500
Subject: Re: ethical considerations
I will defer to any copyright lawyers on the list.
However, there is no implied copyright on E-mail unless a notice appears,
anymore than material in a postal letter is presumed copyrighted. Were a
full article or complete work to be E-mailed, a case might be made in court
for an implied copyright. To enhance such a claim, attach, rather than
include, the material. If the author has an anticipation of copyrighting,
he/she should include the proper notice. Unlike a postal letter to a single
addressee, an e-mail to an unrestricted list will put the material in the
public domain. To copyright everything by putting a notice in your
signature, for example, merely devalues your legitimate copyright claims.
Software and fonts are easier to claim implied copyrights for, but such
claims are also easily circumvented for source materials, throwing it into
the courts.
Copyrighted material must, of course, itself be an original expression. It
is not designed to safeguard privacy or great ideas.
So, use a copyright notice, and clearly delineate copyrighted from public
domain material. As always, secrecy is the best protection for
pre-publication materials. Or, you can seek a non-disclosure agreement from
the parties to whom you wish to distribute.
Purely ethical considerations are a different matter and depend upon your
field. On a public list, standards will vary with the participants
backgrounds and, even home countries.
I have recently seen a threat on another mailing list of a lawsuit for
unauthorized use of copyrighted material. (It was delivered in anger and is
most likely frivolous.)
Regard, Will
- ----------------------
This>perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:
>> My thinking is: when a message is offered to the entire list, it becomes
>> property of each participant. Therefore, as long as one uses a message in
>> context and doesn't alter the meaning of a message (i.e., "rewriting" someone
>> else's post), participants should be free to print, concatenate, and share
>> material from B-Breek at their discretion.
>
>I'm not going to address the ethical considerations (except to note that
>messages to B-Greek are probably not in a polished form that is intended
>to be cited), there are copyright issues to consider as well. Generally,
>a person is not free to copy, modify, or publically distribute a copy-
>righted work without permission, except for fair use. That copyright
>exists from the moment the message is written. So I object to the notion
>that a message becomes the property of each participant; the author still
>retains the copyright.
>
>Stephen Carlson
>--
>Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
>scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
>(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 13:05:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Netscape 2.0 -- a beta version
Larry Chouinard asks about Netscape 2.0 which he downloaded, and its
nasty practice of messing up lots of homepages.
This has two answers:
(1) Netscape 2.0 should be labeled 2.0b or 2.0-beta. It is not yet in
commercial release (when it will cost $50), and has hundreds of bugs
commercial release (when it will cost $50), and has hundreds of bugs
still in it -- they will give you a reward if you fix any of them!
(2) When it is ready for release commercially, it will still probably
mess up homepages. They clearly intend to set the standards themselves,
meaning that those who do not follow their (new) standards will be
penalized by having Netscape browsers get a lot of garbage on their
screens. Sorry!
To make it pleasanter for yourself, remove the Netscape 2.0b you
downloaded, and go back to whatever you were using before. But one of
these days, no doubt, we will all be stuck.
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 12:11:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Netscape 2.0
At 1:30 PM 10/20/95, Larry Chouinard wrote:
>I have noticed since downloading Netscape 2.0 the usual home pages I
>generally visit now have this annoying background colors that make it
>difficult to read texts. Is there a way to eliminate this color scheme
>to make it easier to read? Certainly those who put together their page
>must see the problem.
>
>Any suggestions?
I think this is a bug in the beta software; I have noticed it thus far at
only one site and then not every time I go to it. I'm sure this will be
taken care of in the process of finalizing version 2.0. Macintosh users of
the beta software might note that a splendid little hack called "Netscape
Defrost" takes care of a bug causing freezes on 68040 machines; it's
available in the Info-Mac mirror archives and most easily found at the new
MIT HyperArchive.
Alternatively, you can go back to using version 1.12 which users were
advised not to throw away. There are still relatively few sites which have
the new "frames" that Netscape 2.0 touts.
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: "Alan D. Bulley" <s458507@aix1.uottawa.ca>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 13:33:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: ethical considerations
On Fri, 20 Oct 1995, Will Wagers wrote:
> I will defer to any copyright lawyers on the list.
It seems to me that ethical questions often veer off too quickly into the
legal realm (this isn't by way of a swipe at Will Wagers, it just happens
that his is the latest post I've received on this topic)...
The concern over reproducing the text of discussions on B-Greek is surely
not due to copyright restrictions.
There are other good reasons for not copying and distributing e-mail
discussions, and I think the most important among them are social (as are
a good number of the issues to be settled regarding the exploding use of
Information Technology). B-Greek, like most e-mail discussion groups,
depends upon a climate of good-natured exchange in order to function
properly. People feel free to express themselves on issues in a much
more rapid way than they would if they were preparing an item for
publication (hey, just look at the kinds of discussions we keep having here!
:-)). This freedom keeps the exchange moving along at a good clip.
I am concerned, however, that if group members fear
that their off-the-cuff remarks are likely to be "written down and
[potentially] used against them," people will be much less likely to
participate in free and open debate.
If other people are so interested in the fruit of what goes on in the
B-Greek discussion group, let's encourage them to become participants
themselves.
Alan D. Bulley
Faculty of Theology/Faculte de theologie |s458507@aix1.uottawa.ca
Saint Paul University/Universite St-Paul |abulley@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca
Ottawa, Canada
Fax: (613) 782-3005
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <DGOWLER@micah.chowan.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 14:47:53 EST
Subject: Re: ethical considerations
> The concern over reproducing the text of discussions on B-Greek is surely
> not due to copyright restrictions.
>
> There are other good reasons for not copying and distributing e-mail
> discussions . . . .
I would suggest that an ethical, legal, and polite approach would
be to send a *private* request to the author of a post, asking
that author for permission to quote, use, or discuss that post in
a particular context.
You may quote me on that! :-)
David
********************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Director, Writing Across the Curriculum
Chowan College
dgowler@micah.chowan.edu
------------------------------
From: Karen Pitts <karen_pitts@maca.sarnoff.com>
Date: 20 Oct 1995 14:35:34 U
Subject: RE > Ethical Considerations
RE > Ethical Considerations 10/20/95 2:13 PM
On 19 Oct, Perry Stepp wrote:
>I have a question, one that may have already been covered. Several
>times over the past few months I've wanted to take messages from this
>group and share them with other people. I'm wondering: are there some
>ethical guidelines regarding use of these messages outside the group?
I have to say that I've already forwarded to my pastor several of the things
that have come across the reflector and reprinted several things for others in
my Greek reading class, especially Edward Hobbs' wonderful commentary on
lexicons. Other people view me as a screen or filter for getting information
on Greek for which they don't have the time or the access. And other people
do that for me (one of my friends is on the evolution reflector). As in any
matter, you have to use ethics and common sense, but why not share the
information? Isn't that what this medium and this forum is all about?
Karen Pitts
Hopewell Presbyterian Church, Hopewell, NJ, teacher of NT Greek
David Sarnoff Research Center, Princeton, NJ, statistician
kpitts@sarnoff.com
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 15:05:21 EDT
Subject: Re: ethical considerations
Will Wagers wrote:
> However, there is no implied copyright on E-mail unless a notice appears,
> anymore than material in a postal letter is presumed copyrighted.
[...]
Notice has not been a requirement for copyright protection since the
United States joined the Berne Convention in 1989. "Implied copyright"
is not a legal concept.
[...]
> Copyrighted material must, of course, itself be an original expression. It
> is not designed to safeguard privacy or great ideas.
[...]
Yes, copyright does protect expression, not ideas. It seems to me that
the ethical standards within academic communities are meant to protect
the reputation of those who produce ideas. Thus, it is plagiarism to
take someone else's idea without attribution. And that goes for taking
ideas from this list, too.
Furthermore, since the ideas that are posted here have not gone through
the editing process that publication requires, I think that B-Greek
ought to be viewed as "personal communication" for ethical purposes.
So, I think that permission should be required. I know that I certainly
would not want my half-baked ideas cited (unless I actually published them).
Am I out-to-lunch here?
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 16:10:59 -0400
Subject: Re: 2 Tim 2:15
John Marotta wrote;
>>> The question both
here and in the curse in Genesis is "Is it just child-birth, or
else the whole process of child-raising, parallel to Adam's work (toiling
with the weeds of the ground) being cursed so is Eve's work of raising the
children.<<<<
It was a miracle that I survived my children. There mother made it better
than I. I once saw a bumper sticker that read, "Insanity is hereditary, we
get it from our children."
Perhaps there needs to be some discussion of the word SWQHSETAI. It comes
from a root that can carry the idea of wholeness and health. Does it have to
refer to a point when a person turns to God.
Carlton Winbery
------------------------------
From: Bill Renner <WILLARD@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 16:45:51 EDT
Subject: Copywrite
David Gowler gave the best answer. The posts have a return address so ask
the writer off list. I feel it only good manners to ask the writer if it
is alright to use their material.
Bill Renner
1427 Cardinal Dr.
West Columbia, SC 29169
email: BILLYRAY@sc.edu
------------------------------
From: Matthew Ashley Morgan <mmorgan@masters.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 14:00:54 -0700
Subject: [none]
Just a suggestion,
I pretty much got what was comming to me when I went out on a "limb" arguing
about the whole 'Q' issue. Whether you agree with me or not, Mr Conrad did
have a point [I must confess] that this is a "GREEK" list, and for us to
waste time arguing over things such as "copyright laws" is really cursory
to the real issues. Maybe these kinds of things need discussing
periodically, and I do acknowledge their improtance. I'm only asking [as
Carl asked me] for us to get back to what we're here for....And that's to
discuss GREEK. Let's not turn this list into a bunch of corrupt politions!!!
With Much Gratitude,
Matthew Morgan
The Master's College
mmorgan@masters.edu
------------------------------
From: rbarnes@ucoc.dgsys.com
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 18:07:51 PDT
Subject: Ephesians 4:11ff
Before I ask my question, I just want to say that it has been a
privilege to read the mail from this list for the last year and a
half. It is refreshing to read the many faceted perspectives when
discussing various biblical passages, and I hope that I too may
reap the benefits of your input.
My questions have to do with Ephesians 4:11ff:
1. Do any of you know any specific resources that focus on the
historical background to the way these five terms were understood
in the First Century?
2. Can "tous de poimenas kai didaskalous" be understood as two
separate and distinct roles? Many have joined these two together
(Pastor-teachers). I'm not so sure about this, because it seems
that Luke may have understood didaskalos in Acts 13:1 as a distinct
role from that of Elder in Acts 20 (that is if you see Pastor and
Elder as the same role and function). What do ya'll think?
- -------------------------------------
Name: Robert D. Barnes
E-mail: rbarnes@dgs.dgsys.com, or rabrnes@ucoc.dgsys.com
Date: 10/29/95
Time: 18:40
Phone: 703-914-0599
This message was sent by Chameleon
- -------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 16:13:47 +0800
Subject: Re: Ephesians 4:11ff
> Before I ask my question, I just want to say that it has been a
> privilege to read the mail from this list for the last year and a
> half. It is refreshing to read the many faceted perspectives when
> discussing various biblical passages, and I hope that I too may
> reap the benefits of your input.
>
> My questions have to do with Ephesians 4:11ff:
>
> 1. Do any of you know any specific resources that focus on the
> historical background to the way these five terms were understood
> in the First Century?
>
Not to seem uncooperative, but you should be able to obtain the
info asked for in #1 (and probably #2) in any good commentary on
Ephesians (Bruce, Reicke, etc.) or possibly, NIDNNT, ed. by Colin
Brown. The same would apply to #2, where you may also find bibliography
pointing you to further information. This is not to say these questions
are inappropriate here, but often nothing is quite like reading a
commentary which focuses on the Greek text and provides additional
bibliography.
Ken
> 2. Can "tous de poimenas kai didaskalous" be understood as two
> separate and distinct roles? Many have joined these two together
> (Pastor-teachers). I'm not so sure about this, because it seems
> that Luke may have understood didaskalos in Acts 13:1 as a distinct
> role from that of Elder in Acts 20 (that is if you see Pastor and
> Elder as the same role and function). What do ya'll think?
>
> -------------------------------------
> Name: Robert D. Barnes
> E-mail: rbarnes@dgs.dgsys.com, or rabrnes@ucoc.dgsys.com
> Date: 10/29/95
> Time: 18:40
> Phone: 703-914-0599
> This message was sent by Chameleon
> -------------------------------------
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 19:41:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: ethical considerations
On Fri, 20 Oct 1995, Stephen Carlson wrote:
> I know that I certainly
> would not want my half-baked ideas cited (unless I actually published them).
Does this mean that you WOULD want your half-baked ideas cited if you
published them? Sorry. I couldn't resist.
Philip
Emory
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 19:51:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Porter on the present
On Fri, 20 Oct 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
> Normally, punctiliar aspect would be encoded as unmarked aspect and
> present time by unmarked time. Since no such tense form exists, time takes
> precedence over aspect and the present tense form was used. This means that
> the present tense form was used both to encode continuous action and/or any
> kind of action.
>
> The exegetical consequence of this is that it is invalid to reason from a
> present indicative verb that the action was viewed as continuous by the
> writer.
Bruce,
Mari's position (and I would tend to agree with her) is that the present
encodes imperfective aspect but NOT tense. (BTW, imperfective aspect does
not necessarily mean "continuous action.") In the case of the "historical
present" the question for your position is why the present, which you say
encodes present tense, is used in ways which clearly do NOT indicate
present tense? Isn't it better to say (as Mari does) that the present
form is unmarked for tense? The same goes for the aorist. If they are
unmarked for tense, this goes some way toward explaining the widespread
use of the present and aorist for participles in a way that does not
indicate time.
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: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 19:54:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Ethical considerations
At 4:00 PM 10/20/95, Matthew Ashley Morgan wrote:
>Just a suggestion,
>
>I pretty much got what was comming to me when I went out on a "limb" arguing
>about the whole 'Q' issue. Whether you agree with me or not, Mr Conrad did
>have a point [I must confess] that this is a "GREEK" list, and for us to
>waste time arguing over things such as "copyright laws" is really cursory
>to the real issues. Maybe these kinds of things need discussing
>periodically, and I do acknowledge their improtance. I'm only asking [as
>Carl asked me] for us to get back to what we're here for....And that's to
>discuss GREEK. Let's not turn this list into a bunch of corrupt politions!!!
While I appreciate support for my request that we not let our very real
theological differences enter overtly into our discussion of issues of the
meaning of Greek texts and I do indeed think that ourprimary focus should
be on Greek texts and matters that have a direct bearing on our
understanding of the Greek text (and let me say that I find this current
thread on Present and Aorist usage very helpful--I'm learning things I
could have used thirty years ago!), I want to say that I think this matter
of the proper use and crediting of materials posted to the list is not at
all tangential. We are in relatively uncharted waters here and I am not
altogether satisfied that copyright laws bear upon list communications in a
way that courts would support (of course, I would hope that these
communications wouldnever enter into courtroom dispute). But it is
important, I think, that we have conventions of agreed legitimate use of
materials posted to the list. It seems to me that reproduction of materials
to and for members of the list is fair (for that matter, the archive set up
so kindly for us by James Tauber is publicly accessible, whether or not we
would say that those materials are in the "public domain." My own
considered opinion on this matter is that use of these materials off of the
list or reproducing them for use of non-list members ought to be done only
with the permission of participants. That's the policy I followed earlier
this year myself in reproducing here postings to the Ioudaios list on the
Magdalen College Matthew papyrus. It seems not too much to ask.
I would hope that we could agree readily upon policy here, whether or not
we have any means of enforcing it. I do think the matter is important to
the functioning of the list, despite the fact that it's, as was once
protested, "OUDEN PROS TON DIONUSON."
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/
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #919
*****************************
** 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