[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #42
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 12 December 1995 Volume 01 : Number 042
In this issue:
Re: John 5:39-40
Re: John 5:39-40
Re: Translations/difinitions
Re: John 5:39-40
Periphrastic
Lexicon
Re: John 5:39-40
Re: Periphrastic
Re: John 5:39-40
The bible and ect.
1 John 3:6&9
Indicative or Imperative: Rom 6:22
RE: Periphrastics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 23:17:33 -0800
Subject: Re: John 5:39-40
You wrote:
>
>John 5:39 ERAUNATE TAS GRAFAS, hOTI hUMEIS DOKEITE EN AUTAIS ZWHN
AIWNION
>EXEIN KAI EKEINAI EISIN hAI MARTUROUSAI PERI EMOU 40 KAI OU QELETE ELQEIN
>PROS ME hINA ZWHN EXHTE.
>
>"You search the Scriptures because _you_ think that you have life in them
>_but_ these are that which bears witness to me and you do not wish to
come
>to me so that you may have life."
>
>Can the first KAI have the function of a mild adversative like DE? Is
not
>there a contrast between the fact that they hoped to find life in the
>Scriptures and Jesus' claim in John that life was to be found in himself?
>The function that he assigns to Scripture then is to witness to him in
whom
>life was to be found.
>
>Is this a possible reading of this sentence?
>
>Calton L. Winbery
It seems to me that either one or the other "kai" has to be adversative.
I've always though of verse 40 as being contrasted to verse 39. Still, the
second half of verse 39 does seem more to oppose rather than add to the
first statement. Yet to translate both kai's as buts would obscure the
meaning.
Your rendering makes a great deal of sense. It's like a mathematical
statement a - (b + c). That is, the second two phrases joined with the
conjunction "and", then the two together contrasted to the first.
Neat insight. I'll buy it.
Ellen
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 05:40:00 -0600
Subject: Re: John 5:39-40
At 11:10 AM 12/10/95, Carlton Winbery wrote:
>John 5:39 ERAUNATE TAS GRAFAS, hOTI hUMEIS DOKEITE EN AUTAIS ZWHN AIWNION
>EXEIN KAI EKEINAI EISIN hAI MARTUROUSAI PERI EMOU 40 KAI OU QELETE ELQEIN
>PROS ME hINA ZWHN EXHTE.
>
>"You search the Scriptures because _you_ think that you have life in them
>_but_ these are that which bears witness to me and you do not wish to come
>to me so that you may have life."
>
>Can the first KAI have the function of a mild adversative like DE? Is not
>there a contrast between the fact that they hoped to find life in the
>Scriptures and Jesus' claim in John that life was to be found in himself?
>The function that he assigns to Scripture then is to witness to him in whom
>life was to be found.
>
>Is this a possible reading of this sentence?
I think it is, but it will have to be granted that this is an extraordinary
usage of KAI, as if it were KAITOI. Frankly, although John's gospel is
easier to read than Mark's, its diction is anomalous at many points. I
wonder whether this KAI might be viewed as a Semitism, a KAI used like a
Hebrew V'.
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: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 08:06:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Translations/difinitions
At 6:26 PM 10/12/95, rrilea wrote:
>While studying Ephesians 1:1 I came across three words that I am not
>familiar with and I could not find them in either "Mastering Greek
>Vocabulary" by Thomas A Robinson or "Lexical Aids For Students of New
>Testament Greek" by Bruce M. Metzger. I am hoping that someone will be
>able to help me translate/define the following words:
>
> TOIS
> hAGIOIS
> OUSIN
>
>Thanks ahead of time for the help.
>
>Rod Rilea
Hi Rod
Speaking as someone who is learning Greek and who still (very) regularly
comes across forms --especially inflected forms-- that I haven't the
slightest idea where they came from, one volume that I find particularly
useful is an analytical lexicon.
A complete version is especially useful in this case because it lists all
the inflected forms that occur in the NT with pointers back to the lemma or
root form.
The particular volume that I have here at my desk is _The Analytical
Lexicon to the Greek NT_ by William D. Mounce (published by Zondervan, I
got my copy throught CBD). Aside from this use, the volume has a number of
other features to recommend it, including a nice grammatical synopsis,
inclusion of variant readings, tables of cross-references, etc. In short,
this book has saved me any number of times.
Hope this helps,
Nichael "... and they opened their thesaurus
nichael@sover.net and brought forth gold,
http://www.sover.net/~nichael and frankincense and myrrh."
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 06:05:11 -0800
Subject: Re: John 5:39-40
>Carlton wrote:
>
>>Can the first KAI have the function of a mild adversative like DE? Is
not
>>there a contrast between the fact that they hoped to find life in the
>>Scriptures and Jesus' claim in John that life was to be found in
himself?
>>The function that he assigns to Scripture then is to witness to him in
whom
>>life was to be found.
>>
>>Is this a possible reading of this sentence?
>
Carl wrote:
>I think it is, but it will have to be granted that this is an
extraordinary
>usage of KAI, as if it were KAITOI. Frankly, although John's gospel is
>easier to read than Mark's, its diction is anomalous at many points. I
>wonder whether this KAI might be viewed as a Semitism, a KAI used like a
>Hebrew V'.
>
>Carl W. Conrad
I haven't anywhere near the same foundation as you or Carlton in language.
Generally, when reading Greek, I must relate it to concepts in English (or
other modern language) and not with classical languages. Sometimes, I
think, it can work to my advantage. In this case, for instance, bringing
the thought over to English, I see nothing extraordinary about it.
For instance, I tell my daughters: "I've explained this time and time
again, but you still don't get it!"
Or I say: "I've explained this time and time again, and you still don't
get it!?!"
The use of and (rather than but) as an adversative conjunction gives a
stronger emphasis, pointing out more vividly the irony of the situation.
My .02.
Ellen
------------------------------
From: Richard Lindeman <richlind@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 06:01:45 -0800
Subject: Periphrastic
I have noted that there appears to be a merging or mixing of some
categories in uses of participles. Forinstance, many participles it
seems, when *following* a transitive verb, can be translated just as if
they were periphrastic. Even though the copulative verb is absent, it
seems as if a transitive verb within itself carries the force of the
verb eimi. I have difficulty classifying all of these participles as
being circumstantial.
It also seems that when the participle *follows* a verb it is
associated with that this participle often seems to have the impact of
"supplementing" the meaning of that verb. I am tempted at such times
to call the participle supplementary instead of circumstantial. In
contrast, when the participle *precedes* the verb that it is
associated with it has the impact of "anticipating" the meaning of that
verb.
Rich Lindeman
- --
=======================================================================
International Society of Online Christians
"Meeting the future boldly with Christ!"
RichardLindeman@xc.org 2155 Northdale Blvd NW - Coon Rapids, MN 55433
=======================================================================
------------------------------
From: Jim Stamper <jstamper@globalcom.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 09:30:53 -0500
Subject: Lexicon
At 08:06 AM 12/11/95 -0400, you wrote:
>The particular volume that I have here at my desk is _The Analytical
>Lexicon to the Greek NT_ by William D. Mounce (published by Zondervan, I
>got my copy throught CBD). Aside from this use, the volume has a number of
>other features to recommend it, including a nice grammatical synopsis,
>inclusion of variant readings, tables of cross-references, etc. In short,
>this book has saved me any number of times.
Thanks for the "review," Nichael. I have Liddell & Scott. Sounds like
Mounce might be more helpful most of the time.
Jim-
James H. Stamper
PO Box 666
Woodstock, VA 22664
(540)459-2720
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 11:50:32 -0600
Subject: Re: John 5:39-40
Carl Conrad wrote;
>I think it is, but it will have to be granted that this is an extraordinary
>usage of KAI, as if it were KAITOI. Frankly, although John's gospel is
>easier to read than Mark's, its diction is anomalous at many points. I
>wonder whether this KAI might be viewed as a Semitism, a KAI used like a
>Hebrew V'.
I would agree that KAI often seems to mimic the V' "consecutive" in Hebrew
such as the occurrence of KAI EGENETO. I have not considered if this is a
similar instance. It is a bit different from the construction in Hebrew
and my first guess would be that it is not.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College,
Pineville,La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
fax (318) 442-4996
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 10:54:26 -0600
Subject: Re: Periphrastic
At 8:01 AM 12/11/95, Richard Lindeman wrote:
>I have noted that there appears to be a merging or mixing of some
>categories in uses of participles. Forinstance, many participles it
>seems, when *following* a transitive verb, can be translated just as if
>they were periphrastic. Even though the copulative verb is absent, it
>seems as if a transitive verb within itself carries the force of the
>verb eimi. I have difficulty classifying all of these participles as
>being circumstantial.
>
>It also seems that when the participle *follows* a verb it is
>associated with that this participle often seems to have the impact of
>"supplementing" the meaning of that verb. I am tempted at such times
>to call the participle supplementary instead of circumstantial. In
>contrast, when the participle *precedes* the verb that it is
>associated with it has the impact of "anticipating" the meaning of that
>verb.
I wish you'd offer us some examples of what you mean. I assume that you are
going beyond the conventional distinction of three kinds of participial
usage as:
(1) adverbial: POREUOMENOI TAUTA DIELOGOUMEQA, "As we traveled, we
discussed these things."
(2) adjectival: TWi FILWi TWi SUN EMOI POREUOMENWi TAUTA EIPON, "I
told these things to my friend who was walking with me."
(3) nominal: TWi POREUOMENWi TAUTA DIHGHSAMHN, "I explained these
things to the traveler."
I'm wondering if you are referring to the usage (which I would not
characterize as periphrastic) of a noun/pronoun + participle as normal
indirect discourse with a verb of perception:
OIDA SE TAUTA PEPOIHKOTA, "I know that you have done these things."
HKOUSA SOU SOFOU ONTOS, "I heard that you were clever." (more idioma-
tically, HKOUSA SOU hWS SOFOS HSQA)
KATA PANTA hWS DEISIDAIMONSTEROUS hUMAS [scil. ONTAS] QEWRW (Acts
17:22), "I see that in every way you are especially reverent"
If it is something DIFFERENT from these usages, give us some examples.
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: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 10:54:31 -0600
Subject: Re: John 5:39-40
At 8:05 AM 12/11/95, Mike Adams wrote:
>>Carlton wrote:
>>
>>>Can the first KAI have the function of a mild adversative like DE? Is
>not
>>>there a contrast between the fact that they hoped to find life in the
>>>Scriptures and Jesus' claim in John that life was to be found in
>himself?
>>>The function that he assigns to Scripture then is to witness to him in
>whom
>>>life was to be found.
>>>
>>>Is this a possible reading of this sentence?
>>
>Carl wrote:
>>I think it is, but it will have to be granted that this is an
>extraordinary
>>usage of KAI, as if it were KAITOI. Frankly, although John's gospel is
>>easier to read than Mark's, its diction is anomalous at many points. I
>>wonder whether this KAI might be viewed as a Semitism, a KAI used like a
>>Hebrew V'.
>>
>>Carl W. Conrad
>
>I haven't anywhere near the same foundation as you or Carlton in language.
>Generally, when reading Greek, I must relate it to concepts in English (or
>other modern language) and not with classical languages. Sometimes, I
>think, it can work to my advantage. In this case, for instance, bringing
>the thought over to English, I see nothing extraordinary about it.
>
>For instance, I tell my daughters: "I've explained this time and time
>again, but you still don't get it!"
>
>Or I say: "I've explained this time and time again, and you still don't
>get it!?!"
>
>The use of and (rather than but) as an adversative conjunction gives a
>stronger emphasis, pointing out more vividly the irony of the situation.
Ellen, you may well be _and_ are right. I've also just now checked BAGD,
s.v. KAI, and I find the following subheading 1.g.: "emphasizing a fact as
surprising or unexpected or noteworthy; _and yet, and in spite of that,
nevertheless_ ... [there follow some older Greek instances then NT
instances] Mt 3:14; cf 6:26, 10:29; Mk 12:12; J 1:5, 10; 3:11, 32; _5:40_
..."
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: "Timothy T. Dickens" <ttd3@columbia.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 13:00:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: The bible and ect.
Hi,
My name is Tim Dickens and I am interested in any free info. you have
that is related to Hebrew and Greek, particularly as it relates to the
Biblical world.
Thanks Tim Dickens
2712 Norseman Dr. Apt#3
Smyrna GA 30080
770 859-9762
------------------------------
From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <dalemw@teleport.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 11:21:48 -0800
Subject: 1 John 3:6&9
With all due respect to Carlton's opinion on the matter (I mean this
sincerely, not flippantly), I would have to vote with Dodd and Marshall
(commentaries) and Kubo (journal article; reference not at hand).
If you want to see a very nice discussion of this issue, there is an
appendix in Buist Fanning's EXCELLENT book on Greek Verbs, _Verbal_Aspect_.
He will take you through the various positions both grammatical and
theological. He ends up agreeing with Marshall, et.al.
As a sidelight to this question, I think its important to realize that the
way the question was originally phrased was in itself misleading. The
question is not whether the present tense is either linear or punctiliar; it
can be either, and a great many other things as well. This is because there
is, for all intents and purposes, only one present time form for the verb in
the indicative mood, the present tense, which thus must cover all of the
verbal nuances of every verb. Some verbs are inherently punctuals ("hit")
and some are inherently linears ("go"), and others have other verbal ideas
involved (prefaced, concluded, etc). The situation in 1John 3:6,9 is not
based on the fact that the tense is present per se, since it could admit
either meaning (and several others as well); the issue, as argued quite
nicely by Marshall, has to do with how John is nuancing the concept of "to
sin" in the letter (which was done in ch 1:8-2:2). That nuance is the
determining factor, not the present tense.
Let me HASTEN to add, that I have neither the time nor the inclination to
get into a Porter vs Fanning thread/debate; as you can see from this and
other postings, I'm inclined toward Fanning's approach to the Greek verb
system and I highly recommend its reading to one and all (since it appears
from many postings that most have read Porter).
***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com
***********************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 09:49:45 +0800
Subject: Indicative or Imperative: Rom 6:22
I would second Carl's plea for a return to appropriate topics. By
way of changing gears, I hope, and so as not to leave others with
the impression that I somehow think Porter is the enemy, Porter, in
discussinng the imperative, suggests that echete in Rom. 6:22 may well
be an imperative: have fruit, rather than an indicative: you have
fruit. This seems both reasonable and likely to me, but Porter said
virtually all commentators take it as indicative. What do others think?
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: Richard Lindeman <richlind@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 19:01:00 -0800
Subject: RE: Periphrastics
You wrote:
>
>
>I wish you'd offer us some examples of what you mean. I assume that you are
>going beyond the conventional distinction of three kinds of participial
>usage as:
> (1) adverbial: POREUOMENOI TAUTA DIELOGOUMEQA, "As we traveled, we
> discussed these things."
> (2) adjectival: TWi FILWi TWi SUN EMOI POREUOMENWi TAUTA EIPON, "I
> told these things to my friend who was walking with me."
> (3) nominal: TWi POREUOMENWi TAUTA DIHGHSAMHN, "I explained these
> things to the traveler."
>
>I'm wondering if you are referring to the usage (which I would not
>characterize as periphrastic) of a noun/pronoun + participle as normal
>indirect discourse with a verb of perception:
>
> OIDA SE TAUTA PEPOIHKOTA, "I know that you have done these things."
> HKOUSA SOU SOFOU ONTOS, "I heard that you were clever." (more
idioma-
> tically, HKOUSA SOU hWS SOFOS HSQA)
> KATA PANTA hWS DEISIDAIMONSTEROUS hUMAS [scil. ONTAS] QEWRW (Acts
> 17:22), "I see that in every way you are especially
reverent"
>
>If it is something DIFFERENT from these usages, give us some examples.
>
OK... so you want actual examples? Well, if I must! :-)
Perhaps I am off the wall on this, but that certainly
wouldn't be the first time. What I am suggesting is that
the participle, when standing adverbially on the right side
of the verb that it modifies, seems often to be more verbal
than adverbial... and that the opposite is true when the
participle stands on the left side of the verb.
When the participle stands on the right - there are times when
I seem to hear an unspoken "eimi" behind the transitive verb
that the participle is modifying. I am not suggesting that this
is an actual case of elipse. Nor am I suggesting that
this is a true periphrastic at all. But rather that when
translated this participle has essentially the same force
as a periphrastic.
Luke 13:22 DIEPOREUETO KATA POLIS KAI KWMAS DIDASKWN KAI POREIAN
POIOUMENOS EIS IEROUSOLUMA.
Luke 11:25 KAI ELQON EURISKEI SESARWMENON KAI KEKOSMHMENON
Luke 8:1 DIWDEUEN KATA POLIN KAI KWMHN KHRUSSWN KAI EUAGGELIZOMENOS
THN BASILEIAN TOU QEOU
Luke 18:43 HKOLOUQEI AUTW DOXAZWN TON QEON
Luke 2:12 EURHSETE BREFOS ESPARGANWMENON KAI KEIMENON EN FATNH
Rich Lindeman
- --
=====================================================================
ISOC - International Society of Online Christians
"Meeting the future boldly with Christ"
======================================================================
RichardLindeman@xc.org 2155 Northdale Blvd NW - Coon Rapids, MN 55433
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #42
****************************
** 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