[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #931
b-greek-digest Saturday, 28 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 931
In this issue:
DOS FLashWorks and WWW page
Re: Unsubscribe
Re: Porter on the present
LXX Foundation
unsubscribe
Re: LXX Foundation
Statistics on LEGW in the G
Re: Anonymous posting on textual criticism
New Testament Hymns & Greek Hymns
Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
Re: New Testament Hymns & Greek Hymns
Re: New Testament Hymns & Greek Hymns
Re: New Testament Hymns & Greek Hymns
Re: New Testament Hymns & Greek Hymns
rom 7.18-25
Re: rom 7.18-25
Re: Periphrastic Aorist
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <billm@teknia.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 22:37:06 -0700
Subject: DOS FLashWorks and WWW page
All,
I just finished setting up my WWW page. It's really pretty easy, if you
get a good web program. My software, etc. can now be accessed through it
at
www.teknia.com/teknia
I also uploaded the DOS version of FlashWorks.
Thanks for those who notified me that they have my hangman game, Peter's
Faith. No one is reporting problems/bugs, so unless you tell me I will
assume it is stable. Thank you for your help.
Bill Mounce
billm@teknia.com
------------------------------
From: MAbendroth@aol.com
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 02:25:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Unsubscribe
unsubsribe b-greek
------------------------------
From: MAbendroth@aol.com
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 02:30:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Porter on the present
unsubscribe b-greek
------------------------------
From: Daniel Hedrick <hedrickd@ochampus.mil>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 06:27:19 -0600
Subject: LXX Foundation
I asked a friend of mine who usually ministers to
the Anti-Missionaries who are Jews attempting
to thwart the work of Christian missionaries.
He said the number one mistake that Christians make
when speaking with Jews(scholars) is that the
Christian will site some OT passage and the Jew
will say that is not what the OT says. And so the
Christian loses credibility immediately.
The reason is because the NT writers most often used
the LXX as apposed to the Masoretic text and so
the foundation for determining scriptural references
to the OT is different.
Does this make sense? Please clarify.
Daniel
------------------------------
From: RRLynn@aol.com
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:34:06 -0400
Subject: unsubscribe
RE: unsubscribe RRLynn
------------------------------
From: "James M. Macleod" <jmac@loc.gov>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 09:14:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: LXX Foundation
Hi, Dnaiel, and all:
On Fri, 27 Oct 1995, Daniel Hedrick wrote:
>
> I asked a friend of mine who usually ministers to
> the Anti-Missionaries who are Jews attempting
> to thwart the work of Christian missionaries.
This seems a bit tendentious. "Attempting to thwart"? Maybe they
have other motivations that are not quite so negative?
> He said the number one mistake that Christians make
> when speaking with Jews(scholars) is that the
> Christian will site some OT passage and the Jew
> will say that is not what the OT says. And so the
> Christian loses credibility immediately.
I doubt that such Jews are likely to "say that is not what the OT
[=Old Testament] says." Perhaps they will say something about "the Bible"
[=for them, the Hebrew Scriptures] does not say thus and so.
Jim MacLeod jmac@loc.gov
My opinions are my own, not those of the Library of Congress.
------------------------------
From: Karen Pitts <karen_pitts@maca.sarnoff.com>
Date: 27 Oct 1995 11:05:47 U
Subject: Statistics on LEGW in the G
Statistics on LEGW in the Gospels 10/27/95 10:17 AM
Thanks to Stephen Carlson for the data on the forms of LEGW in the Gospels
(it's dangerous to give a statistician data!).
The correct way to look at this is to scale the occurances by the total usage
of all forms of LEGW in each Gospel. Or we can crank the numbers through a
chi-squared test of independence and look at the deviations. Both are
presented below. Note that the Gospels are alphabetized, not in NT order.
I'm only including the table that has all the Gospels. The big differences
are that Luke uses EIPEN much more than the others (and Mark uses it less),
Mark uses ELEGEN more, Luke uses ELEGON less (and John more), Luke uses LEGEI
much less (and John more), Matthew uses LEGONTES more (and John less), Luke
uses LEGOUSIN much more (and Mark less), and Matthew uses LEGWN more (and John
less). I conclude from this that Luke is the most different, so I excluded
Luke and compared Matthew to Mark and John to Mark. I won't reproduce the
complete tables, but the major conclusion is that in Matthew vs. Mark, Matthew
prefers EIPEN, LEGONTES, LEGOUSIN while Mark prefers ELEGEN, ELEGON, and
LEGEI. For John vs. Mark, John prefers EIPEN and LEGOUSIN while Mark prefers
ELEGEN and LEGWN. All the usage differences are statistically significant.
In assessing differences I examined the big contributors to the chi-square.
If anyone wants more gory detail, let me know.
So I think that my observation is supported by the statistics. Mark uses
imperfect more than the others and uses aorist less.
Crosstabs
LEGW form Gospel
Count John Luke Mark Matt Row Totals
Col %
Deviation
EIPAN 26 28 9 16 79
5.80 4.4 3.2 3.7
6.3 0.1 -3.5 -2.9
EIPEIN 0 7 2 2 11
0.0 1.1 0.7 0.5
-2.7 3.1 0.3 -0.6
EIPEN 115 231 59 119 524
25.7 36.4 20.9 27.7
-15.8 45.9 -23.6 -6.5
ELEGEN 13 20 31 3 67
2.9 3.2 11.0 0.7
-3.7 -3.7 20.4 -13.1
ELEGON 35 4 19 8 66
7.8 0.6 6.7 1.9
18.5 -19.3 8.6 -7.8
LEGEI 123 14 62 54 253
27.5 2.2 21.9 12.6
59.8 -75.4 22.1 -6.6
LEGEIN 1 12 8 5 26
0.2 1.9 2.8 1.2
-5.5 2.8 3.9 -1.2
LEGONTES 10 36 15 47 108
2.2 5.7 5.3 10.9
-17.0 -2.1 -2.0 21.1
LEGOUSA 2 4 1 8 15
0.5 0.6 0.4 1.9
-1.7 -1.3 -1.4 4.4
LEGOUSIN 115 231 59 119 524
25.7 36.4 20.9 27.7
-15.8 45.9 -23.6 -6.5
LEGWN 8 47 18 49 122
1.8 7.4 6.4 11.4
-22.4 3.9 -1.2 19.8
Totals 448 634 283 430 1795
Tests
Source DF -LogLikelihood RSquare (U)
Model 30 190.5472 0.0570
Error 1755 3150.0799
C Total 1785 3340.6271
Total Count 1795
Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq
Likelihood Ratio 381.094 0.0000
Pearson 357.663 0.0000
Karen Pitts
Hopewell Presbyterian Church, Hopewell, NJ, teacher of NT Greek
David Sarnoff Research Center, Princeton, NJ, statistician
kpitts@sarnoff.com
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 08:32:13 CST
Subject: Re: Anonymous posting on textual criticism
Original message sent on Thu, Oct 26 9:07 AM by EHOBBS@wellesley.edu (Edward
Hobbs) :
>> Actually, due to the work of Colwell, Clark, Streeter, Royse,
>> and Head, it has been shown that due to various factors scribes
>> were more likely to omit than to add to the text.
> This statement is nonsense. Colwell was my teacher. Clark was
> my friend. Royse was my student (I was on his dissertation
> committee, one of three, and the only text-critic). And Streeter's
> writings on this subject were my bread and butter long before I took
> my Ph.D., almost half a century ago. The ONLY one of them who
> argued that scribes tended to add rather than omit was my student
> Jim Royse (at that time also teaching philosophy at San Francisco
> State, where he may still be), who over-generalized the results of
> his extremely limited study of a few papyri. If several dozen more
> dissertations on the issue, studying some uncials, above all
> post-300CE uncials, were to show the same, we would have to
> rethink this question.
I think I do recall recently reading some article by Keith Elliott that
espoused the view that scribes tended to omit rather than add. I think
that his argument revolved around the notion that it takes a lot more
mental effort to add something than it does to just drop it out, either
accidentally or intentionally. I don't think he spent a lot of time on
this point, but I do definitely recall him making it. (I can dig up the
reference at home if anyone desires it.)
Mark O'Brien
Grad. Student, Dallas Theological Seminary
------------------------------
From: "Calvin D. Redmond" <102630.1150@compuserve.com>
Date: 27 Oct 95 13:44:10 EDT
Subject: New Testament Hymns & Greek Hymns
I'm doing some research involving the New Testament "hymns" (John 1:1-14, Col.
1:15-20, Phil. 2, etc). I'm out of my area of limited knowledge and wonder if
someone can help me with the following question: Where can I find some
description of a "standard form" for classical or Koine hymns or poems? I have
read most of the standard literature on the NT "hymns," which generally says
the NT "hymns" are not really in Greek hymn form, but I haven't been able to
define the form to try to reach any judgment on my own.
Thanks for your help!
Cal Redmond
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
102630.1150@compuserve.com
------------------------------
From: LISATIA@aol.com
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 14:48:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
dear Steve,
how did you generate those wonderful numbers?
richard arthur, Merrimack, NH
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 13:51:51 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: New Testament Hymns & Greek Hymns
On 27 Oct 1995, Calvin D. Redmond wrote:
> I'm doing some research involving the New Testament "hymns" (John 1:1-14, Col.
> 1:15-20, Phil. 2, etc). I'm out of my area of limited knowledge and wonder if
> someone can help me with the following question: Where can I find some
> description of a "standard form" for classical or Koine hymns or poems? I have
> read most of the standard literature on the NT "hymns," which generally says
> the NT "hymns" are not really in Greek hymn form, but I haven't been able to
> define the form to try to reach any judgment on my own.
The work that most subsequent studies of NT christological hymns depend
upon is Eduard Norden, _Agnostos Theos_ (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1956
reprint), which attempted an analysis of forms in religious poetry in
Greek. More recently, the indispensible reference work is Michael
Lattke, _Hymnus: Materialien zu einer Geschichte der antiken Hymnologie_
(Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, 19; Goettingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1991).
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Nichael Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 15:40:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: New Testament Hymns & Greek Hymns
On 27 Oct 1995, Calvin D. Redmond wrote:
> I'm doing some research involving the New Testament "hymns" (John 1:1-14, Col.
> 1:15-20, Phil. 2, etc) [...]
A related question that I've been wondering about for some time:
Although many authors on the topic (e.g. Brown) discuss the hymn at the
beginning of the fourth Gospel at great length, the question typically
remains open as to the hymn was original to the author of the fourth
Gospel, or was he simply quoting (or perhaps recasting) an existing work
known to his audience? Is there any general consensus on this question?
(The question also holds for the other passges Calvin cites.)
Clearly a definitive answer is not really possible, but at the moment I'm
just fishing for pointers on this topic.
Thanks
Nichael Cramer
nichael@sover.net
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 14:35:08 -0500
Subject: Re: New Testament Hymns & Greek Hymns
At 12:44 PM 10/27/95, Calvin D. Redmond wrote:
>I'm doing some research involving the New Testament "hymns" (John 1:1-14, Col.
>1:15-20, Phil. 2, etc). I'm out of my area of limited knowledge and wonder if
>someone can help me with the following question: Where can I find some
>description of a "standard form" for classical or Koine hymns or poems? I have
>read most of the standard literature on the NT "hymns," which generally says
>the NT "hymns" are not really in Greek hymn form, but I haven't been able to
>define the form to try to reach any judgment on my own.
An "oldie but goodie" is a work by the major German scholar of the early
part of this century, Eduard Norden, _Agnostos Theos_ (1913). As I recall
(can't give the exact reference) there is an analysis of standard hymnic
structure in both classical and Hellenistic Greek prayer and hymn. Other
magnificent works by Norden: _Die Antike Kunstprosa_ and a commentary on
the sixth book of the Aeneid that's been re-issued in
I-don't-know-how-many-editions-most-recently because it touches on so many
issues that are ancillary to Vergil's poetry itself (like varieties of
ancient eschatology!).
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: Michael Moss <mosscm@dlu.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 15:07:55 -0500
Subject: Re: New Testament Hymns & Greek Hymns
- -- [ From: Michael Moss * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
You might like to consult an article by W. Hulitt Gloer, "Homologies and
Hymns in the New Testament: Form, Content and Criteria for Identification,"
Perspectives in Religious Studies, 11 [1984] 116ff.
- --
Michael Moss
Graduate Bible Studies
David Lipscomb University
Nashville, Tennessee
------------------------------
From: LISATIA@aol.com
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 17:41:20 -0400
Subject: rom 7.18-25
What is Paul saying in Rom 7.18-25? Is there something confessional in
this passage, something about sexual lust, alluded to in the words melos,
sarx, and nomos?
Myself? I don't get it, but that might be my hangup.
richard arthur Merrimack, NH
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 15:26:08 +0800
Subject: Re: rom 7.18-25
Richard,
Just a quick note on a very difficult passage, which has consumed
gallons of ink. There are several different views of what is going on
in Romans 7
1. It is autobiographical, before conversion
2. It refers to humans in general
3. It refers to Israel
4. It is autobiographical, after conversion
There may be other views, but these seem to be the main contenders.
I can't begin to rehearse all the argumetns for or against. What I
found really helpful was to read in parallel Cranfield, Moo and Dunn
on Romans, each giving a somewhat different view, therefore arguing
better for or against other views. Cranfield in particular is good
at listing positions, though I disagree with him that this is
post-coversion autobiographical. If that is the case, it would seem
Romans 8 makes no sense contextually.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 00:54:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Periphrastic Aorist
I came across Acts 6:2 OUK ARESTON ESTIN hHMAS KATALEIYANTAS ...
It sure seems like a Periphrastic Aorist to me. Is there any reason not to
accept it as a periphrastic Aorist? Certainly KATALEIYANTAS directly
complements ESTIN !
A.T. Robertson says there is only one periphrastic aorist in the N.T.
(Robertson's big grammar, p. 375. It is interesting that Robertson footnotes
Blass for the facts on this. But, Blass/DeBrunner seems to include John
18:30 EI MH HN hOUTOS KAKON POIHSAS (p. 180, Sect. 355).
Any help from some experts?
Jim McGuire
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #931
*****************************
** 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