[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #925
b-greek-digest Monday, 23 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 925
In this issue:
SUggesttion MA thesis topic
Phil 2:12-14/Gen 32:22-32
ethical considerations
FYI Hebrew not tenseless
Re: Greek TMA, II
Re: Porter on the present
Re: Phil 2:12-14/Gen 32:22-32
Re: Greek TMA, II
Re: ethical considerations
Re: Porter on the present
Re: ethical considerations
Ephesians 4:11ff
Re: ethical considerations
books offered
Re: Porter on the present
1 Tim. 2:15
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: L Perez Cruz <lcruzafj@vicnet.net.au>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 19:44:51 +1000
Subject: SUggesttion MA thesis topic
COuld anybody suggest an interesting MA thesis topic on NT greeK?
Your suggestions will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Lito
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 06:05:37 -0500
Subject: Phil 2:12-14/Gen 32:22-32
I'd like to propose for discussion parallel themes in the passages from
Philippians and Genesis cited above. The parallels I have in mind are
perhaps fundamentally literary, although I think that they are also
theological. It may well be that the parallels have been noticed before--I
would suppose there's a good deal of literature on the Philippians passage
that I don't know of and haven't explored; on the other hand the parallels
may exist only in my imagination. The shared themes I see are competitive
struggle between human being and God and the paradox of human striving and
divine initiative.
Phil 1:12 OUX hOTI HDH ELABON H HDH TETELEIWMAI. DIWKW DE EI KAI KATALABW,
EF' hWi KAI KATELHMFQHN hUPO XRISTOU [IHSOU]. 13 ADELFOI, EGW EMAUTON OU
LOGIZOMAI KATEILHFENAI; hEN DE, TA MEN OPISW EPILANQANOMENOS TOIS DE
EMPROSQEN EPEKTEINOMENOS, 14 KATA SKOPON DIWKW EIS TO BRABEION THS
ANWKLHSEWS TOU QEOU EN XRISTWi IHSOU.
This passage has always been fascinating to me in that the athletic
metaphor of the race is so fundamentally Greek in its focus on competitive
endeavor to win the prize for oneself (I think of the much-cited Homeric
line, AIEN ARISTEUEIN KAI hUPEIROXON EMMENAI ALLWN, and I could cite at
least one Pindaric parallel to the racing image Paul uses here). At the
same time the endeavor as Paul's image describes it is NOT a competition
against other racers but rather pursuit of a goal that must (so it would
appear) be reached by running to it; finally, the pursuit has as its
objective an apprehension (KATALABEIN) of something for which the runner
has already been apprehended (KATELHMFQHN) by Christ. So the racing itself
is ordained by Christ and the runner has already been seized by Christ, but
the running is nevertheless an earnest endeavor by the runner to reach an
objective that he has not yet grasped (OU LOGIZOMAI KATELEHFENAI). That
Paul has thought repeatedly about this reciprocal relationship is evident
from 1 Cor 13:12b (in its larger context): GINWSKW EK MEROUS, TOTE DE
EPIGNWSOMAI KAQWS KAI EPEGNWSQHN.
In the Genesis passage there is a culmination of a process sketched over
several chapters by the master storyteller who has shaped the narrative of
Jacob with a delicious irony and playful exploitation of the etymology of
names: Jacob the "heel," the "supplanter" who grasps his brother by the
heel in a determination to come out ahead of him; the outcome of the
night-long wrestling at Peniel, wherein Jacob is told that his new name,
ISRAEL, has been given him because he has "struggled against men and God
and has prevailed," and this despite the fact that the name ISRAEL means
"God prevails" and it is Jacob who, though has persisted and maintained his
grip throughout the night, has been altered and crippled by the wrestling
ending in this strange "blessing" of him by the stranger whom Jacob knows
to have been God, because he names the place of the wrestling PENIEL.
Moreover, there is the recurrent etymological play upon "face" (PANIM); all
this is closely tied to the narrative context of Jacob's "facing" his
brother Esau, so that Jacob evidently cannot "face" Esau until he has
"faced" God. I doubt if the ironies of all this have ever been worked out
in all their implications more masterfully than by Thomas Mann in that
first novel of his "Joseph" tetralogy, _Tales of Jacob_.
One of the striking things about the Jacob narrative is that it doesn't, to
my (very limited) knowledge of the OT text as a whole, appear to have any
repercussions or reflection in later Biblical tradition. And I don't know
whether there's any real linkage between this passage in Genesis and Paul's
racing metaphor, but the parallel aspects of the two seem remarkable to me,
for all the obvious differences. Perhaps the parallelism lies more in the
theological perspective on human endeavor and divine initiative
encapsulated in both images.
Does anyone know of a relationship between these passages observed or
discussed elsewhere? Am I seeing anything here that goes beyond the
superficial structure and imagery of the two passages?
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: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 07:01:19 -0600
Subject: ethical considerations
Hello, all. Let me first express my appreciation to those of you who sent such
considered responses to my question.
I detect a consensus among most respondants, to wit: one should not use
messages from B-Greek outside this forum without specific permission from the
authors of all these messages. Before that consensus is set in stone, please
consider the following.
1.) What we do here is really not analogous to a lecture hall or a journal or a
newsletter, is it? In those places, one expects to find fairly polished,
fairly "final" expressions of someone's views.
What we do here on this list is most analogous to a bunch of people sitting
around a table at Denny's drinking coffee and talking shop (although I've never
taken thousands of dollars of reference books to Denny's!) No one expects--or
at least no one *should* expect--that the opinions expressed here represent the
whole or final form of anyone's thinking on a particular topic. (Pass the
cream, please.)
2.) According to the consensus stated above, I would be transgressing if I were
reading this list in the computer center in the library and buttonholed another
religion major to show them a message on the screen, would I not? I would be
showing material from the list to people it was not sent to--people *not* on
the list. This seems a bit onerous to me.
3.) I know that IPLA (an agency that handles international questions of
intellectual property rights) has done some work in the area of Internet
Newsgroups, but I don't know what provisions they've set forth. Would it be
worth our while to check this out?
4.) When dealing with the printed word, we have "fair use" principles that
allow us to use the material for educational purposes with some degree of
freedom. Would we not all be well served to formulate some sort of "fair use"
agreement for the B-Greek list?
Perhaps our moderator/list owner (who's kind of like God, if you think about
it: everybody knows he's there but no one knows what he looks like, and he
hasn't spoken to us in a long time) has some thoughts on the subject.
Anyway, sorry about the copious spewage. I just think there are some issues
here we should address.
Grace and peace,
Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
------------------------------
From: Vincent DeCaen <decaen@epas.utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 09:47:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: FYI Hebrew not tenseless
I noticed that Porter and others appeal to tenseless Hebrew, etc, to
make the case cross-linguistically viable. let's be clear: Hebrew is
not tenseless. it became tenseless in the early 1800s under pressure
from Indo-European studies. basically, Indo-European began supposedly
from a simpler tenseless system and developed "tense"; fortunately for
the Romantics, only the Aryans managed this feat, while the rest of
the world languished in cognitive inferiority, including those
backwards Orientals (who by right needed to be colonized and pillaged:
can't make a train on time because they speak tenseless languages,
and all that).
the archaeology of tenseless analyses is fascinating, but depressing.
anyway, two points.
1. what makes Hebrew different is a) it has no "perfect"/anterior
(like most languages, including some European ones like Russian) and
b) its selection of aspectual privative (cf. Olsen) is imperfective
(perfective defaulter) vs European perfective (imperfective defaulter).
the irony is that languages like Greek are in the tiny minority on
most "parameters".
2. the model for Hebrew and Arabic in the 1800s is the foundation for
tenseless analyses throughout the world, and by simple osmosis is in
every textbook on TMA. it's simply that the analysis has become
detached from the theory and motivations of those German Romantics.
it's easy to show that the aspectual analysis of Hebrew is
descriptively if not empirically inadequate.
BTW, I assume a strong claim for Universal Grammar: essentially all
languages are the same except for the setting of "parameters". I
assume that TMA systems are essentially the same except for the
setting of aspectual parameter(s). the major difference is the
aspectual selection of privatives that Olsen devotes so much space to.
for what my two-cents is worth.
Vince
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vincent DeCaen decaen@epas.utoronto.ca
Near Eastern Studies, University of Toronto
Religion and Culture, Wilfrid Laurier University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I really do not know that anything has ever been
more exciting than diagraming sentences.
--Gertrude Stein
------------------------------
From: Vincent DeCaen <decaen@epas.utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 09:58:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Greek TMA, II
> > > Then you DO think that C can change constantly from one sentence to the
> > > next? This seems to take away the helpfulness of identifying a C at all.
> >
> > not really. does it take away from personal deixis that the first
> > person jumps back and forth in dialogue? these categories are well
> > established, who would deny them?
>
> This seems quite different to me. First person jumping back and forth is
> part of how we know it is a dialogue. It jumps back and forth because
> there is more than one person. But what does it mean for C to keep
> shifting?
ahh. now we're getting into cognition and narrative. for one thing,
there are several *different* uses, and we have to keep those
separate. there is moving the whole time line around (historical
present, eg.): here it seems that vivid narration is the key. ever
listen to teens talk about the day at school? complete present tense
(I wouldn't argue, BTW, that teens speak tenseless registers of
English). the other major use is the "tense mixing" and this is more
interesting. but it's quite normal. I just read the autobiography of
Feyerabend and it's curious how the mixing is so natural: you'd miss
it if you weren't looking for it. he used the past for the narrative
time line, and the present for any background that extended beyond the
narrow narrative frame. this is quite systematic but I don't intend to
publish a paper on this phenomenon in one text. I would say that these
two major uses are what we find in Hebrew narrative (at least Samuel-Kings).
Can the time of utterance change within an utterance? Personal
> dexis can shift when there is more than one person. Under what conditions
> is there more than one point of reference for time?
there is a mountain of lit on English poetics that discusses this
stuff. I barely cited a couple of these papers in my dissertation. but
the project is there if it interests anyone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vincent DeCaen decaen@epas.utoronto.ca
Near Eastern Studies, University of Toronto
Religion and Culture, Wilfrid Laurier University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I really do not know that anything has ever been
more exciting than diagraming sentences.
--Gertrude Stein
------------------------------
From: Vincent DeCaen <decaen@epas.utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:10:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Porter on the present
> > TENSE in Greek for the Indicative Mode:
> I am not reproducing the table.
> B. COMRIE, Aspect. An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect
> and Related Problems. Cambridge (England): University Press, 1976, p.
> 131, sees the relations between tense and aspect in Ancient Greek as
> follows:
> "Aorist [+PERFECTIVE, +PAST, -FUTURE]
> Imperfect [-PERFECTIVE, +PAST, -FUTURE]
> Present [-PERFECTIVE, -PAST, -FUTURE]
> Future [ -PAST, +FUTURE]"
does anyone not see the glaring asymmetries of this chart?? you've got
a third feature in complementary distribution with perfective in just
the case of -past. you've also got the redundancies of equipollent
features that Olsen so eloquently argues against. so how about this:
aorist [past, perf]
imperfect [past, ]
present [ ]
future [ perf]
this conceptually clean version is where Olsen should lead. I think
the problem of nonpast perfectives should be immediately clear to a
speaker of Czech. what are your intuitions on the Czech perfective
stem with present endings, Ladislav? cf. Russian "I write" pishu vs
perfective napishu "I write(pf)"
> This table seems to me to be more practical. It can be important to
> use the categories of markedness and unmarkedness, but it seems to me
> there are differences in understanding of "marked" and "unmarked"
> Ladislav Tichy,
> Faculty of Theology,
> Palacky University of
> Olomouc,
> Czech Republic
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vincent DeCaen decaen@epas.utoronto.ca
Near Eastern Studies, University of Toronto
Religion and Culture, Wilfrid Laurier University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I really do not know that anything has ever been
more exciting than diagraming sentences.
--Gertrude Stein
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 09:40:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Phil 2:12-14/Gen 32:22-32
At 9:30 AM 10/23/95, Leo Percer wrote:
>Carl:
>
>You do mean Phil. 3, don't you? <grin>
Yes, I do <red-faced>
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: "Lindsay J. Whaley" <Lindsay.J.Whaley@dartmouth.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 95 11:08:13 EDT
Subject: Re: Greek TMA, II
Thanks to Vincent DeCaen (and others!) for providing some interesting proposals
regarding TAM in Greek.
RE: the future, it might be useful to review Vincent's arguments for
recasting the "future" in purely aspectual/modality terms.
- --- Vincent DeCaen wrote:
cross-linguistically there is no strong evidence of a "future" tense.
usually, the so-called futures are subject to decomposition into mood
and/or nonpast tense and/or perfective aspect. e.g., English future is
a) will/would (mood + tense) + verb, or b) going to (aspect + mood [to]).
e.g., French future is the infinitive (mood) plus enclitic of avoir
(tense). I could go on ad nauseam.
- --- end of quoted material ---
IMHO, this is far too strong a claim. In fact, I find plenty of
cross-linguistic evidence for a future tense. In many Bantu languages, for
example, there are future tense particles/affixes which 1) are found in the
slot where other tense markers occur and do not co-occur with these markers; 2)
do co-occur with aspect particles/affixes; and 3) have the statement of a
future event as their primary function. In some, the "distant future" tense
can be employed to indicate epistemic modality (something like may/might in
English), which would be the only reason one might take it as a mood marker.
- --- Vincent DeCaen wrote:
is it a coincidence that in the synchronic system of NTGrk the
"aorist" stem (perfective) with nonpast endings gives the future?? I
'm inclined to doubt it.
- --- end of quoted material ---
Perhaps I am being overly cautious, but arguments from diachrony make me
nervous. The coincidence between the aorist stem and future does indicate a
semantic overlap at some point in the history of Greek, but this overlap does
not *necessarily* get maintained. New grammatical categories do develop through
time, and occasionally, the novel categories disrupt the symmetry of the
erstwhile system into which they are placed.
With these comments in mind, what arguments are left for taking the future as
perfective/non-past? Is it only theoretical elegance? Just wondering...
Lindsay Whaley
Dartmouth College
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 10:25:57 CST
Subject: Re: ethical considerations
I do not see how this forum could be classified as anything but public.
Anyone can sign on (unless there are some restrictions I am not aware
of), and anyone can read any mail addressed to the forum. I fully
agree with showing good manners and integrity, but quite frankly I
don't think there is any way of enforcing this in any way, with the
exception of not participating. Perhaps, in a sense, this ought to make
us more careful of shooting off ill-considered messages (something
which I have certainly done once or twice). Just my .02...
Mark O'Brien
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 12:05:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Porter on the present
On 22 Oct 1995, Karen Pitts wrote:
> What I still don't understand is whether to abandon the system I learned
> (afterall, I have to teach the aorist next week) or whether to let all this
> stuff come in by osmosis and work with an amalgam of linguistic systems. How
> are you all who are teaching Greek approaching this problem? Any thoughts or
> suggestions for a lowly, mostly-self educated, but diligent NT Greek scholar?
The last time I taught Greek, I taught the traditional system as it was
in the book (I was using Machen) because it was in the book and I didn't
want to confuse the students, and because it is the type of system that
they are likely to encounter in the reference books they are likely to
use. But I also introduced Mari's system to them when we started talking
about participles. I introduced it as an alternative that might help them
to understand a bit better what is going on with the participles, and
showed them what difference it might make to their understanding of
finite verbs as well. I think I succeeded in showing them that there is
more than one way to look at it, and in getting them to see that (for
example) the aorist and imperfect are not the same just because they will
often be translated the same. But it also really did help them to understand
participles, which is no easy task.
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date:
Subject: Re: ethical considerations
>From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
>Subject: ethical considerations
>To: b-greek@virginia.edu
...
>I detect a consensus among most respondants, to wit: one should not use
>messages from B-Greek outside this forum without specific permission from the
>authors of all these messages. Before that consensus is set in stone, please
>consider the following.
>
>1.) What we do here is really not analogous to a lecture hall or a journal or a
>newsletter, is it? In those places, one expects to find fairly polished,
>fairly "final" expressions of someone's views.
...
>2.) According to the consensus stated above, I would be transgressing if I were
>reading this list in the computer center in the library and buttonholed another
>religion major to show them a message on the screen, would I not? I would be
>showing material from the list to people it was not sent to--people *not* on
>the list. This seems a bit onerous to me.
Another aspect of this question that hasn't been included is that the
entire discussion of the list is archived on a _publically accessible_ web
server. Then, too, some "list members" are local redistribution lists--
which anyone on the local serer may access. (I accessed the list that way
last year while usin Univ. of Wisc.'s system.) At that point, consensus
among list members becomes a bit moot if a non-list member can retrieve ay
or all the comments and cite them as "published" (in one form or another).
I'm not sure what general practice is in that regard. James, I know, has
set up a policy for citing the papers on his web site, including the
appropraite form for referring to them.
That said, it would still (I think) be common courtesy to ask permission
for many uses, esp. if it were for citation in print or for redistribution
to other lists. (That could become more difficult down the road as email
addresses change from time to time.)
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
rdecker@accunet.com Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: "JOHN HAYDEN, JEWELL, IA" <hayden@duke.iccc.cc.ia.us>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 11:42:35 -0500
Subject: Ephesians 4:11ff
>From: SMTP%"rbarnes@ucoc.dgsys.com" 20-OCT-1995 17:58:25.65
>To: B-GREEK@virginia.edu
>CC:
>Subj: 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
This does not directly address your questions, but I've thought some about
this passage. (Dan Wallace assigned this paragraph to me for NT Exegetical
Methods at GracIS hyphenated, then what we have is a series of only THREE
gift-men.
a series of THREE gift-men: interpreters, publishers, and manager-trainers.
What I find fascinating is the possibility that there is a parallelism at"
clauses in vv12-17, vv14-17 being a (is it possible?) reverse
interpreters...for the ordering...till unity...that knit together
publishers...for the work...till knowledge...that speak truth
manager-trainers...for development...till perfect...that no longer children
My problem is, partly, that I have no other examples of simple parallelism
juxtaposed with chiasborrow a Wallacism) "very gingerly."
John Hayden
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 12:34:39 -0500
Subject: Re: ethical considerations
At 11:28 AM 10/23/95, Rod Decker wrote:
>>From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
>>Subject: ethical considerations
>>To: b-greek@virginia.edu
>...
>>I detect a consensus among most respondants, to wit: one should not use
>>messages from B-Greek outside this forum without specific permission from the
>>authors of all these messages. Before that consensus is set in stone, please
>>consider the following.
>>
>>1.) What we do here is really not analogous to a lecture hall or a
>>journal or a
>>newsletter, is it? In those places, one expects to find fairly polished,
>>fairly "final" expressions of someone's views.
>...
>>2.) According to the consensus stated above, I would be transgressing if
>>I were
>>reading this list in the computer center in the library and buttonholed
>>another
>>religion major to show them a message on the screen, would I not? I would be
>>showing material from the list to people it was not sent to--people *not* on
>>the list. This seems a bit onerous to me.
>
>Another aspect of this question that hasn't been included is that the
>entire discussion of the list is archived on a _publically accessible_ web
>server. Then, too, some "list members" are local redistribution lists--
>which anyone on the local serer may access. (I accessed the list that way
>last year while usin Univ. of Wisc.'s system.) At that point, consensus
>among list members becomes a bit moot if a non-list member can retrieve ay
>or all the comments and cite them as "published" (in one form or another).
>I'm not sure what general practice is in that regard. James, I know, has
>set up a policy for citing the papers on his web site, including the
>appropraite form for referring to them.
>
>That said, it would still (I think) be common courtesy to ask permission
>for many uses, esp. if it were for citation in print or for redistribution
>to other lists. (That could become more difficult down the road as email
>addresses change from time to time.)
>
>Rod
I think this is right on the money (what money?). And, as Mark O'Brien just
noted, there's not any way we can enforce a consensus we settle upon beyond
going to court for copyright infringement, a rather remote contingency, I
would think. It seems to me that, once reasonable efforts have been made to
secure consent of parties responsible for postings cited, they may be used
as indicated to those who have given their consent. There's no mechanism on
this list, other than asking our listowner to remove posting privileges
from someone who violates the courtesies we agree upon, to inhibit the use
of the material. And although the accessibility of previous postings at the
web site which James Tauber has set up does lay open the possibility of
unauthorized use of list materials, I would guess we have to live with this
because the resource of an archive seems to most of us worth the risk.
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: Adalbert Goertz <bl571@freenet.buffalo.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 13:50:14 -0400
Subject: books offered
Books forsale:
Dr.Adalbert Goertz,12934 Buch.Trail E.,Waynesboro PA 17268-9329 USA.
Shipping extra.717-762-7378 5 5
German books: Umlaute: { = ae; | = oe; } = ue; ~ = ss;
internet email: adalbert.goertz@bbs.serve.org OR
be404@yfn.ysu.edu
Atlas:Grosser Historischer Weltatlas,1.Teil:Vorgeschichte und Altertum,
^M}nchen 1964,59pp. 10.00
Beck,Hans-Georg:Das Byzantinische Jahrtausend,dtv,M}nchen 1982, 381 pp.
5.00
Breasted,J.H.:Ancient Times,a history of the early world, Ginn Co NY
1916,742pp. 9.00
Fischer-Weltgeschichte:Byzanz, Frankfurt
^1973,443pp. 5.00
Fischer-Weltgeschichte:Der Hellenismus und der Aufstieg Roms, Frankfurt
^1965,412pp. 5.00
Habenstein,E.:Lateinische Wortkunde,Stuttgart 1948, 84 pp.
5.00
Moule,C.F.D.:An Idiom-Book of the New Testament Greek,Cambrige 1960,246 pp.
10.00
Bien,P.;J.Rassias,C.Bien:Demotic Greek,Hanover NH 1972
286 pp. 5.00
Robertson,A.T.:A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament,NY 1908,249 pp.
12.00
Schiering,E.:Lese- und ]bungsbuch f}r den griechischen Anfangsunterricht,
Frankfurt 1928,240 pp. 8.00
- --
********************* Adalbert Goertz ***************************
retired in Waynesboro PA (65 miles from Baltimore/Washington DC)
Mennonite genealogy; insect studies; insect books wanted/traded
Would anyone trade our PA house for house in CO,NM,AZ, or ? ? ? ?
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 14:51:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Porter on the present
"Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu> wrote:
>But what is the "usual tense content" of a form? That is what is in
>question. If in fact relative time is not encoded in the tense forms at
>all, then thinking that it is will result in faulty exegesis.
Granted there are entire moods in Greek that are not marked for
tense except in the future. (The subjunctive and imperative, of course
lack the future altogether.) But in the indicative, we have the augmented
forms that do appear to usually indicate time. At least many grammarians
see the temporal augment as a time indicator and as having originated for
the purpose of expressing time. Then there are the other forms of the
indicative which have come to have a usual tense content by default, in
their lacking the augment that usually indicates past time and in lacking
the future form that indicates future. (Please don't misunderstand by
thinking I deny that these forms may also express _aktionsart_ or aspect.)
There is also the participle which contains forms that normally indicate
anteriority, but maybe these should be seen as a case apart rather as the
future tense is viewed. Faulty exegesis, may I point out, can grow out of
any false conception related to the grammar of a language.
>It is better
>to pronounce forms unmarked for tense if there is reason to believe that
>they are in fact so unmarked (part of scholarship is just trying to
>increase knowledge of how things really are). It is also practical in that
>(if they are really unmarked for tense) this pronouncement will keep us
>from reading a particular form as having a particular tense when it does
>not.
Let's make a comparison at this point. Just about everyone today
is agreed that Hebrew is practically tenseless. If one compares Greek to
Hebrew on this point, it appears that Greek represents an advance (if
that's the right word to use) from Hebrew in terms of grammaticalization
of time (Bl-DeB, #318). Since Greek expresses, through grammatical form,
certain time factors where Hebrew expresses none, how can we say that
Greek does not grammaticalize time or tense? Could we say, "Greek is
unmarked for tense, and Hebrew is even more unmarked"? Wouldn't that be
an oxymoron?
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: jevaughan@sauaca.saumag.edu
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 13:53:04 CDT
Subject: 1 Tim. 2:15
First I'd like share the same sentiment that I've only been subscribed for
about a week, and I greatly enjoy reading the discussions that have been going
on. I've learned quite a bit and you have opened my eyes to different views of
certain verses.
Now:
I think two keys to understanding a scripture is to understand (1) what the
main idea of the context it's taken from is and (2) how it is related to other
passages dealing with that subject.
Having said that, I'd like to ask what is the context in which this scripture
is taken? In this chapter (2), Paul is instructing us that women are to be in
subjection to men (vss. 11-12) and why they are to be (vss.13-14). Verse 15 is
just a continuation of the thoughts in vss. 13 and 14. Adam and Eve were both
punished for violating God's commandment. Eve (and all of womanhood) was (are)
punished in two ways (Gen 3:16): 1. She (they) would have great sorrow in
childbirth and 2. Her (their) husband would have rule over her (them). Eve,
being the first woman, represents all womanhood. In this scripture, Paul is
obviously equating Eve and women in general. He says (if you take out the
childbearing part as David John Marotta suggested) SHE shall be saved
(SWQHSETAI), if THEY continue (MEINWSIN) in the faith. If he is only referring
to Eve (whom he addressed in the previous 2 verses), then Eve is saved by
someone else's obedience, which most of us would deny. When he says she is
saved by childbirth, he means that without that punishment upon women (in
general, because not all women have children) along with the punishment of
subjection, women (in general) would be in the same state Eve was before she
was punished. But that punishment will not save them alone...they must
"continue on the faith..." So what I'm trying to say is Eve=womanhood;
therefore she=they.
Eric Vaughan
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #925
*****************************
** 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