[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #33
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 6 December 1995 Volume 01 : Number 033
In this issue:
Re: FREE 1 jr Magazine etc etc
[none]
James 4,1-10
Markan conversation and spelling
Re: LS&J on Computer Media ?
Re: Markan conversation and spelling
Re: Markan conversation and spelling
Re: errors
Re: tag line
Re: "biblical" vs. "modern" textual criticism
Re: Women, etc. (long)
re: objective and subjective genitive
Re: FREE 1 jr Magazine etc etc
Re: "biblical" vs. "modern" textual criticism
Male and Female
The use of hOTAN
Re: FREE 1 jr Magazine etc etc
The Preservation of the Word
Greek orthography
[none]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rrilea <rrilea@cnw.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 22:34:19 -0800
Subject: Re: FREE 1 jr Magazine etc etc
Eric wrote:
>Re: repeated offers at B-Greek of cheap US magazines (VERY long messages)
>
>Is it perhaps a good idea to refuse from now on publication of this kind of
>advertisement at B-Greek? Imho, it doesn't belong at a scholarly discussion
>group like B_Greek.
>
>Hope David Marotta agrees,
>
>Greetings, Erik van Halsema, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
I strongly agree with Eric. I am tired of receiving these advertisements
that do not pertain to anything that is being discussed hear. Is there any
way that they can be stopped.
Rod Rilea
------------------------------
From: Frank Simon <fsimon@aixterm1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 11:54:10 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [none]
who b-greek
------------------------------
From: Frank Simon <fsimon@aixterm1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 11:53:44 +0100 (CET)
Subject: James 4,1-10
Hello!
I am new on the list and does not know if my requests are in the right
form or place (if not please look over it).
Right now I'm working on James 4,1-10 and would apreciate any exegetical
support, new literature hints or any tips.
Especially I would like to get response concerning Vers 4 the expression
"moichalides" (Adultress). How do you understand this expression?
And how do you translate Vers 5, the scripture says ... ?
Many thanks for all your help,
Frank Simon
fsimon@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de
------------------------------
From: Bart Ehrman <behrman@email.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 06:18:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Markan conversation and spelling
The postings on Markan style have been quite stimulating. I have
two, genuine, questions.
(1) Rodney Decker wrote:
> The Greek of the NT has been described as conversational Greek
>(in contrast to literary and vernacular Greek).
THis is a judgment with which others have concurred. My question:
How do we know, really, what conversational Greek was like?
(2) Edgar M. Krentz wrote:
> In comparison to the non-literary papyri Mark stands out as one who [at
> least in the text we have] spells correctly [little evidence of
> itacism].
Again, is there any way to know, really, whether Mark could spell?
Thanks, again, to both contributors. These postings have been quite
useful.
- -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 05:53:10 -0600
Subject: Re: LS&J on Computer Media ?
At 12:00 AM 12/6/95, Wes C. Williams wrote:
>Does anyone know of the availability of LS&J in electronic form?
>
>How about Robertson's Grammar ? Moultons ?
LSJ can be consulted now on the web at the Perseus site at Tufts, the URL
of which is:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu
Most of what is at the Perseus site if part of the forthcoming Perseus 2.0
program, which has been awaited for some time. It is to be on 5 CD-ROMS and
WILL include the unabridged LSJ, though not the new one which is just now
being published by Oxford. Perseus 1.0, which is available at Yale U.P.,
DOES have the Intermediate LS (Victorian!) on its single CD-ROM.
I know not of Robertson or Moulton available electronically thus far. But
these days anything is possible. Allen & Greenough's Latin Grammar is on
the web at Jim O'Donnell's web site at U.Pa.
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: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 06:13:29 -0600
Subject: Re: Markan conversation and spelling
At 5:18 AM 12/6/95, Bart Ehrman wrote:
> The postings on Markan style have been quite stimulating. I have
>two, genuine, questions.
>
>(1) Rodney Decker wrote:
>
> > The Greek of the NT has been described as conversational Greek
> >(in contrast to literary and vernacular Greek).
>
> THis is a judgment with which others have concurred. My question:
>How do we know, really, what conversational Greek was like?
Some help is provided by non-literary papyri from Egypt. I haven't done any
extensive exploring, but I've seen a couple letters from children to
parents that appear to be pure colloquialism to me. Another place to see it
is in literary dialogue, although you may not find it at quite the same
level as what we see in Mark, and I don't know if there's material that is
really contemporary with Mark in this category. I am thinking of the genre
of Mime; a good piece to look at is Theocritus #15 (I think that's the
right #), usually called "Women of Syracuse." This is practically a script
of the ongoing chatter between two women of Sicilian background who meet in
the home of one of the women and go downtown in Alexandria to view a
festival of Adonis taking place there. It's loaded with Doric dialect
stuff, but the style is conversational. It is from roughly three centuries
before Mark. There are other pieces in this genre, however, which lends
itself to colloquial diction; I just don't know enough of this particular
literature to know whether there are mimes extant from Mark's period--but
it certainly would not surprise me. One should remember that literary Greek
(not just Jewish and Christian religious materials) was being written by
and among people right in Palestine (one of the major poets of the early
Christian era is Meleager of Gadara!)
>(2) Edgar M. Krentz wrote:
>
> > In comparison to the non-literary papyri Mark stands out as one who [at
> > least in the text we have] spells correctly [little evidence of
> > itacism].
>
> Again, is there any way to know, really, whether Mark could spell?
I don't know about spelling, and I don't see how we could know without
having an autograph of Mark's work. We certainly can see spelling
confusions of all sorts in contemporary papyri from Egypt where they AY
sound may be spelled with an alpha-iota combination or with an epsilon
within the same text; or Itacism: you may find H, EI, Y, I used
interchangeably to spell the EE sound. What is "properly" spelled
LAMBANETAI you may well find spelled LAMBANETE and you must be careful in
the context and realize that this is not a 2 pl. active verb.
One of the awkward places in Mark that has always bothered me is the
old/new cloth passage (2:21): OUDEIS EPIBLHMA RAKOUS AGNAFOU EPIRAPTEI EPI
hIMATION PALAION: EI DE MH, AIREI TO PLHRWMA AP' AUTOU TO KAINON TOU
PALAIOU KAI XEIRON SXISMA GINETAI. This is certainly intelligible, but the
word-order of the second clause tends to confound almost every student I've
had upon first seeing it.
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: Rod Decker <rdecker@inf.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 07:37:27 -0600
Subject: Re: Markan conversation and spelling
Bart Ehrman wrote:
> The postings on Markan style have been quite stimulating. I have
>two, genuine, questions.
>
>(1) Rodney Decker wrote:
>
> > The Greek of the NT has been described as conversational Greek
> >(in contrast to literary and vernacular Greek).
>
> THis is a judgment with which others have concurred. My question:
>How do we know, really, what conversational Greek was like?
I have _opinions_ on how that might be judged, but I will be the first to
acknowledge that this question is out of my range as to making any sort of
definitive statement. As noted, others (whom I respect as far better
qualified) have argued this, and I am accepting their judgment at this
point. My opinion (and only that) is that part of the question will be on
the basis of analogy. We can read the variety of first century documents
and compare their style, etc. Since we have a similar range in modern
spoken languages, it might be appropriate to suggest that the koine data of
the NT is analogous to what we might call conversational English (or
whatever other language you prefer) today. If this is compared with what
more objective data we have as to "proper" style from ancient times (e.g.,
Edgar Krentz has referred to Phrynichos' comments re. word choice), it may
verify that we are on the right track to some extent. (Phrynichos is 2d C.
AD, but still, I think, close enough to 1st C. to be relevant at this
point.) Beyond that, I'll listen for the responses of those whom I know
have worked with the range of available data.
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
rdecker@inf.net Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@inf.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 07:38:36 -0600
Subject: Re: errors
Edgar M. Krentz wrote (interspersed with quotes >> from my msg):
>I have been reading the submissions on Mark's Greek with some interest. The
>judgment about his stylistic and linguistic level is not a judgment about
>the content of his gospel, but about his own linguistic background and,
>perhaps, about that of his original readers. Hence this submission.
>
>Rodney Decker wrote:
>
>>I think it is an overstatement to view Mark's style as "so bad" (comparing
>>it with substandard English) as to contain "ignorance or careless lapses."
...
>
>This is a generally helpful evaluation. I agree with Rod Decker that one
>should compare Mark to writers of Greek in the early Roman empire, not to
>English style. But that is the very reason for commenting that Mark is, as
>Rod says, not literary in style.
>
>>I doubt very many on this
>>list are qualified to judge much beyond that. What may appear to be poor
>>Greek may as often as not be the judge's problem! (I note that my students
...
>
>Here I differ with Rod. Carl Conrad has read a good bit of Greek
>literature, as have Fred Danker and I [sometimes in the same graduate
>seminar]. And that includes reading ancient grammarians, literary critics,
...
>IMHO, one ought not pass judgment on Mark's literary ability unless one has
>read extensively in later Greek literature, Greek inscriptions, and papyri.
I think the difference is not that great. Note that I didn't say that
_none_ were qualified! There are several on this list that do have the
appropriate credentials upon which to judge this issue--you have correctly
identifed several of those for whom I have considerable respect in this
regard. (There are a few others also [e.g., Ed Hobbs], but most of us are
not on the "short list"--hence the point of my caution.)
Your list or Markan characteristics (paratactic style, redundancy in
expression, and popular, not literary vocabulary) are all well-taken
examples. I'm not sure I'd call any of them "errors" (the point of the
original query), but they def. identify Mark as "non-literary."
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
rdecker@inf.net Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: CAROL CLARK TAYLOR <TAYLOC@micah.chowan.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 08:55:28 EST
Subject: Re: tag line
I, too, am guilty of lurking and now wish to jump into something.
John Hall recently wrote:
> Biblical Textual Criticism [BTC] and Modern Textual Criticism [MTC]
are
> different in their foundational authority and in their purpose. While MTC's
> authority comes from human intellect and reasoning, BTC's authority is
> Scripture. The purpose of MTC is to "recover" the original text of the NT,
> the purpose for BTC is to "identify" the original text of the NT.
My question is, when push comes to shove, what's the real difference
between "recover" and "identify" when used in this context? It seems
to me, the bottom line is trying to "unearth" the original text, and
that's a task that most everybody I've read admits is impossible
because no matter how close you think you are, it's still only
hypothetical.
And to put in a good word for scholars, the MTC kind, their authority
IS Scripture. I've not seen evidence of any of them trying to
outreason God, but they do take seriously Jesus' own admonition to
love the Lord your God with all your "mind."
To tell you the truth, I think your dichotomy is unfair and divisive.
In another post there was the judgment of people not believing in the
inerrancy of Scripture as being "foolish men." Check Matthew 5:22,
and 7:1-2.
Now it's my turn to rejoin the wallflowers.
Carol Taylor
------------------------------
From: "Michael W. Holmes" <holmic@homer.acs.bethel.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 08:51:59 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: "biblical" vs. "modern" textual criticism
In the future, please don't "clarify" your point by misquoting mine: the
only thing I described as unsupportable was your implication that BTC did
not utilize reason and intellect. Your withdrawal of that implication in
your reply is noted.
------------------------------
From: BBezdek@aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 10:01:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Women, etc. (long)
In a message dated 95-12-05 02:37:46 EST, mikadams@ix.netcom.com (Mike Adams)
writes:
>I attest that in his case this is not empty rhetoric. Being both female and
>"unlettered", I nonetheless post my comments in this forum. Carl (like a few
>others here) assesses my work based entirely upon content, accepting or
>disputing each point on its own merit. For this I am most grateful.
Ellen:
I like your comments on women very much.
I appreciate your comments on this list. Your perspective is quite
refreshing.
Byron T. Bezdek
Elder, First Church of Christ
East Palestine, Ohio
------------------------------
From: Calvin David Redmond <credmond@usa.pipeline.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 10:35:23 -0500
Subject: re: objective and subjective genitive
Richard Lindeman wrote,
>BTW. I saw an excellent example on the news the other day that
>I wanted to share concerning the objective and subjective >genitive:
>The football coach had a very bad day. His team played terribly >and
>they lost the game. When the news announcer asked him, "So,
>what do you think of the execution of your team today?" he
>quiped back, "I'm all for it!"
>It seems to me that objective and subjective are not so much
>case uses as they are merely a reflection of the ambiguity of
>language.
I enjoyed your illustration! As to your last point, are not case uses our
attempts to organize and systematize some of the ambiguities of language?
It does help, I think, to be aware of such patterns.
Concerning Rich's posting on women, while I respectfully disagree, I think
we're all ready to try to move back closer to grammar after our excursus.
Cal Redmond
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
------------------------------
From: Allan Lyons <lyons@dlcwest.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 09:50:52 -0600
Subject: Re: FREE 1 jr Magazine etc etc
On 5 Dec 95 at 22:34, rrilea wrote:
> Eric wrote:
>
> >Re: repeated offers at B-Greek of cheap US magazines (VERY long
> >messages)
> >
> >Is it perhaps a good idea to refuse from now on publication of this
> >kind of advertisement at B-Greek? Imho, it doesn't belong at a
> >scholarly discussion group like B_Greek.
>
> I strongly agree with Eric. I am tired of receiving these
> advertisements that do not pertain to anything that is being
> discussed hear. Is there any way that they can be stopped.
If this was SPAM that was sent through the list then someone
spending a large number of hours acting as moderator might help.
HOWEVER, if you examine the message headers very closely, you will
see that they do not look like regular B-Greek messages. Note for
example the "long" TO: field (it is not addressed to b-greek!) and
the odd reply-to field. Personally, I'm getting tired of these
repeated adds which I think all come from the same source even though
they are supposedly from different people in different countries.
This is not just a problem on b-greek. Once I received virtually
this same SPAM with the return-path set to the owner of a mailing
list that I didn't even know existed.
Allan
lyons@dlcwest.com
------------------------------
From: Timothy Bratton <bratton@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 10:35:16 -36000
Subject: Re: "biblical" vs. "modern" textual criticism
On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, John Calvin Hall wrote:
> My foundation is Scripture. I can go to the Word of God and prove what
> I believe from the Bible. The MTC cannot, because their authority is
> not Scripture, but human intellect. . . . biblical-scholasticism ought
> not be based on the level of a person's intellect alone, but must rest
> mainly on the subserviance of their intellect to the Word of God.
> There are many people today who are considered to be Bible-scholars,
> but are not. So what if he sits on the Council of Five, and has
> written X number of books on Textual Criticism; if that man rejects the
> inerrency of Scripture, he's nothing more than a foolish man.
So this makes St. Jerome and Erasmus major-grade sinners because
both men had to make editorial choices between different manuscript
traditions? What about the committee that compiled the KJV? And of
course the Hebrew scholars who translated the Septuagint into Greek must
be suspect, too. I don't think anybody on this list would disagree that
the Bible is the Word of God, but the sad truth is that it is always
mediated through fallible, imperfect, and sometimes just tired and
careless scribes. Think of that old party game where children pass
around an oral statement from child to child, and how garbled the
original sentence has become by the time it reaches the last child!
Indeed, I marvel rather that ancient scribes were trained well enough
that the errors are so relatively few! And if God were so determined to
preserve a particular Biblical text as canonical -- for example, the
*Textus Receptus* of 1611 -- why did He permit the discovery of
*Sinaiticus*, *Vaticanus*, the Chester Beatty papyri, and other
previously unknown sources within the last century? Or are you going to
claim that Satan is stirring up strife in Christian circles by deluding
Prof. Metzger and his associates? For all the abuse you insist on
heaping on members of this list, they are studying the Bible intently,
trying to extract every nuance of expression, in order to understand the
Word of God more clearly. Finally, your onw line of reasoning can be
turned against your argument. Might it not be that God has chosen to
reveal additional manuscripts because the "standard" text was being
misinterpreted or misapplied, so that He, in His infinite wisdom, led
Biblical scholars to find these?
Dr. Timothy L. Bratton bratton@acc.jc.edu
Department of History/Pol. Science work: 1-701-252-3467, ext. 2022
6006 Jamestown College home: 1-701-252-8895
Jamestown, ND 58405 home phone/fax: 1-701-252-7507
"All ignorance is dangerous, and most errors must be dearly
paid. And good luck must he have that carries unchastised an error in
his head unto his death." -- Arthur Schopenhauer.
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 11:34:06 EST
Subject: Male and Female
Since Galatians 3:28 has been brought up in the discussion of Junia, I find
it interesting that Paul writes (excuse my less than standard
transliteration):
ouk eni Ioudaios OUDE Ellhn,
ouk eni doulos OUDE eleuqeros,
but
ouk eni arsen KAI qhlu
"there is not Jew OR Greek
"there is not slave OR free
"there is not male AND female"
(rather than "male OR female")
This appears to be a allusion to the creation in Genesis 1:27, as also quoted
by Jesus at Matthew 19:4. Is Paul thus further stressing something about the
New Creation (see Galatians 6:15); that is, while the old creation made
mankind "male and female," the new creation has no such distinction? Perhaps
it's stylistic, but in Colossians 3:11 Paul does join Ellhn and Ioudaios (and
peritomh and akrobustia) with KAI, so he appears to want to make a
distinction here in Galatians 3:28 between the relationship(s) of Ioudaios to
Ellhn and doulos to eleuqeros with that of arsen to qhlu. If Paul's use of
words here is significant, does that have any bearing on the role of females
in the body of Christ? (Maybe the "male and female" in the New Creation is
now Christ the New Man and the church (made up of human males and females) as
His bride?)
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 11:57:26 CST
Subject: The use of hOTAN
On Fri, 24 Nov 1995, David Moore responded to my post:
>Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu> wrote:
>
>>For me, a more crucial question than the meaning of TO TELEION is the
>>significance of hOTAN in verse 10. Edward Irving argued that this implied
>>that TO EK MEROUS "the thing in part" would not cease (except for times of
>>corruption in the church) *until* TO TELEION should come. I no longer believe
>>this follows. In verse 11, Paul says, hOTE GEGONA ANHR, KATHRGHKA TA TOU
>>NHPIOU "When I became a man [NRSV adult], I put away the things of the child."
>>Paul did not retain all his childish speech, thinking, and reasoning until the
>>age of manhood. Those things gradually passed away as they were no longer
>>needed or appropriate. I see no real difference between hOTE in verse 11 and
>>hOTAN in verse 10 as regards this; he uses hOTAN in verse 10 because the time
>>of the coming of TO TELEION was indefinite and hOTE in verse 11 because he
>>knew when he had become a man. But neither means "At the time of and not a
>>whit before" as oft imagined both by Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals alike.
>
> Caution is certainly advisable when we are dealing with a
>passage the carries as much theological weight, practically speaking, as
>this one. Bruce has mentioned hOTAN and hOTE. The first, used with the
>aorist subjunctive, indicates that the action of the subordinate clause
>precedes that of the main clause (BAGD s.v. hOTAN). I.e., TO TELEION will
>come before "that which is in part" will be done away. hOTE, used in v.
>11 with the imperfect, refers to some extended time that, with his use of
>the perfect of 11b, Paul simply indicates came to an end with the
>establishment of a new situation. It is important to understand that these
>matters from Paul's personal life simply serve as an illustration of what
>he is trying to convey. We must not put more weight on such an
>illustration than it is able to carry.
Thanks, David, for bringing the entry in BAGD to my attention. It basically
says that hOTAN is used with the present subjunctive "when the action of the
subordinate clause is contemporaneous w. that of the main clause" and with the
aorist subjunctive "when the action of the subordinate clause precedes that of
the main clause." I have looked at a number of passages using hOTAN in a
Greek concordance and am prepared to say that as a rule of thumb this seems to
be the case. The problem is that there are exceptions to it as well.
With the AORIST:
Compare Matthew 9:15 (paralleled by Mark 2:20):
ELEUSONTAI DE hHMERAI hOTAN APARQHi AP' AUTWN hO NUMFIOS
"but days will come whenever the bridegroom is taken from them"
The days do not come after the bridegroom is taken from them, but when.
Granted that this one is stative in nature, and thus the days continue.
Compare I Cor. 15:27:
hOTAN DE EIPHi hOTI PANTA hUPOTETAKTAI, DHLON hOTI . . .
"but whenever it says that all things have been subjected, it is clear that"
It is clear at the time that it says this.
Compare II Cor. 12:10:
hOTAN GAR ASQENW, TOTE DUNATOS EIMI.
"for whenever I am weak, then I am strong."
This is at the time, not just afterwards.
With the PRESENT:
Compare Matthew 10:23:
hOTAN DE DIWKWSIN hUMAS EN THi POLEI TAUTHi, FEUGETE EIS THN hETERAN
"but whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to a different one"
Here the fleeing does take place after the persecution. The present tense is
probably used in this case because the action may be repeated.
Compare I Thess. 5:3:
hOTAN LEGWSIN, EIRHNH KAI ASFALEIA, TOTE AIFNIDIOS AUTOUS EFISTATAI OLEQROS
"whenever they say, "Peace and safety," then sudden destruction comes on them"
Here the destruction comes after they say "Peace and safety."
These are enough examples to show that the "rule" in BAGD does not always
hold. Actually the sense of subsequent or contemporaneous action comes not
from the grammar but from the conceptual picture drawn. It is not so much the
aspect as the Aktionsart that is important. Even more than that, the context
clarifies the action.
Ken Litwak has been asking about Porter's view on grammar. If I am not
mistaken, this is a good illustration of Porter's point. The grammar does not
make the meaning here. (This is probably a better way of saying it than to
say that it does not mean anything). Rather, the grammar is often used to
accompany a certain meaning. But there is a world of difference in saying
that the grammar makes a passage mean something and in saying that it is often
used with a certain meaning. To pick up on Ken's example, the negative
present imperative is often used when the writer wants to command someone to
stop doing an action that is on-going, but it does not "mean" to stop an
action; the contruction can be used with other meanings as well.
To return to I Cor. 13:10, I seriously doubt that "the thing in part" is done
away with *after* "the perfect" comes. Rather, the process of doing away will
be finally completed when the perfect arrives. The word hOTAN is not a
mathematical term that means "when and only when." Edward Irving used it like
that in the 1830's; I learned it that way as a child; but now I have learned
enough about the nature of language to understand what one of my mathematics
teachers meant when he once said, "The Bible is not logical." It is written
in human language, and although there is a logic to language, it is not logic
in the mathematical sense. Everything must be understood in context.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 11:03:07 CST
Subject: Re: FREE 1 jr Magazine etc etc
My own personal response is to send several replies to the sender of
these messages saying, "Do NOT send this junk out to the whole
world!" (I also include all the trash they sent to me.)
I figure that if every annoyed recipient was to send these multiple
replies and flood the sender's mailbox with garbage, they might
get the idea that I don't want it!
Mark O'Brien
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 12:04:40 EST
Subject: The Preservation of the Word
This is probably going to label me as scripturally ignorant, but in light of
the recent postings about Biblical Textual Criticism (BTC) vs. Modern Textual
Criticism (MTC), I'd like to ask: Where in the Scriptures does God
explicitly promise to preserve His Word (as the proponent of BTC seems to
say) where "Word" means the written Scriptures or especially the canon of
Scripture, including its each and every letter? Does the Scripture use the
phrase "the Word of God" to mean the written Scriptures? If so, where?
I'm asking for explicit statements in Scripture to that effect, not
inferential or derived arguments or creedal statements.
(I'm not trying to pick a fight or argue that the Scripture does not say
this; I'm just asking. It's always seemed odd to me when discussing the
question of the preservation of the original innerant text that the one New
Testament book (the Apocalypse) which contains a warning about adding to or
subtracting from its words is as I understand it one of the worst attested to
as to its original text in the manuscript tradition. If I'm wrong about that
statement, please let me know. But if it's true, it does raise the question
that if God promised to preserve His canonical written word, why did He do
such a poor job with the Apocalypse?)
With fear and trembling,
Eric Weiss
"NotAScholarJustASecondYearGreekStudent"
- - Eric Weiss
"NotAScholarJustASecondYearGreekStudent"
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 12:44:55 -0500
Subject: Greek orthography
In a message dated 95-12-05, "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com> writes:
>One mark of scholarship in Greek is the ability to read various Greek fonts
>and hands
It seems most of the printed fonts are based on the various handwritten
forms that predate them. A familiarity with the manuscripts helps one in
reading those printed fonts.
BTW, I've been looking for a book that will help me better decipher
miniscule cursive. Any suggestions?
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Information Desk Main Library <infodesk@bigmac.mta.ca>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 14:11:53 -0400
Subject: [none]
Subscribe B-GREEK Brian McNally
Infodesk
Main Floor
Ralph Pickard Bell Library
506-364-2564
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #33
****************************
** 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