[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #45
b-greek-digest Thursday, 14 December 1995 Volume 01 : Number 045
In this issue:
Re: Participles
Book review of RJ Swanson: NT Greek Manuscripts
Novel Interpretations {formerly Minor correction re: Bildad)
Re: Novel Interpretations {formerly Minor correction re: Bildad)
Re: Novel Interpretations {formerly Minor correction re: Bildad)
English grammar help
Re: Junias Redivivus!
Re: The use of hOTAN (intolerably long)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Fritz Rusch <rusch@inst.augie.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 11:39:42 -0600
Subject: Re: Participles
just an extra thought - i prefer to remind students of attributive and
predicate position adjective use. Then i incorporate circumstantial usage
and supplementary within the predicate position possibility. By the way
in dealing with genitive absolutes, do people alsopoint out the accusative
absolute found with impersonal verb constructions? Perhaps that's best
reserved for a later point in Greek although if one has reached genitive
absolutes it would seem appropriate.
other question - in teaching participles i once used 1 Cor 15 for samples
and was struck by the number of attributive usages - could that be a
reflection of semitic participle usage? just curious what others might
have noticed - i've made no effort at statistical analysis, etc at this
point.
fritz rusch
augustana college, sioux falls
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 12:17:39 PST
Subject: Book review of RJ Swanson: NT Greek Manuscripts
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[I'm posting this to three email lists; pardon if you see duplicates.]
A couple of years ago, Santa brought me a copy of the IGNTP Luke.
This year I couldn't wait for Santa, I ordered one of the first copies to
come off the press of Swanson's mammoth new textual apparatus of the Gospels,
which seems to be both innovative and exhaustive within its compass.
_
_ ed. Swanson, Reuben J.,
_ "New Testament Greek Manuscripts: variant readings arranged
_ in horizontal lines against Codex Vaticanus",
_ Sheffield Acad. Press, Sheffield, Eng. and WCIU Press, Pasadena, CA 1995.
Four soft-bound volumes covering the four gospels in Greek amount to
xxi+304 pp., xix+271 pp., xx+420 pp., and xix+302 pp.
The Foreword by Bruce Metzger and the Introduction by the editor
are duplicated in each volume.
The 71 witnesses collated for this new textual apparatus include the following:
P1 P2 P5 P6 P19 P22 P25 P35 P36 P37 P39 P45(not the P46 named in the intro)
P52 P53 P59 P60 P62 P63 P66 P75 P76 P82
01 A B C D E F G H K L M N P Q S T U W Y
Gamma Delta Theta Lambda Pi Psi Omega 0171
1 2 13 28 33 69 118 124 157 565 579 700 788 1071 1346 1424 1582
Clement of Alexandria, TR Oxford 1873, Westcott-Hort, and UBS4.
No versions, lectionaries, or Patres other than Clement appear in this work.
Observing that most of these papyri are small fragments, and several
other MSS are incomplete, I estimate the total number of collated witnesses
attesting to any single verse would average about 45 or 46,
a hefty trove of material, especially for the work of one man!
Swanson collated all these himself, and did his own typing and typesetting.
The main body of this work is organized on each page into two
sections and four apparatuses. The first and main section presents
the readings found in all the textual witnesses, vertically aligned to
match up corresponding words in each reading, something like this....
EN OLH TH YUXH SOU KAI EN OLH TH ISXUI SOU KAI EN OLH TH DIANOIA
EN OLH YUXH SOU KAI EN OLH ISXUI SOU KAI EN OLH TH DIANOIA
EN OLH TH YUXH SOU KAI EC OLHS THS ISXUOS SOU KAI EN OLH TH DIANOIA
EN OLH TH YUXH SOU KAI EC OLHS THS ISXUI SOU KAI EN OLH THS DIANOIAS
EC OLHS THS YUXHS SOU KAI EC OLHS THS ISXUOS SOU KAI EC OLHS THS DIANOIAS
Each text is quoted in full, but identical readings are collected on one line.
In the right margin of each line of text are the sigla of the witnesses
supporting that text. The reading of Vaticanus is always the first line,
and the Majority reading generally appears last, if different.
Three group sigla are used to save space and mental energy:
Gothic M = E F G H S Y Omega
f1 = 1 118 1582
f13 = 13 69 124 788 1346
and "rell" = all MSS not otherwise cited.
Grouped MSS _are_ cited individually when they defect from their group.
Swanson's finding that 1346 belongs to family 13 contradicts the opinions
of von Soden, Geerlings, and Wisse, who classify it in family Pi.
Readings of the first hand and the corrector are both cited, and brackets
found in UBS4, WH, or TR editions are reflected in their citations.
Accents, breathings, and punctuation appear on all texts, but these
details seem not to be derived from the MSS but uniformly from the editor.
The second section on each page lists MSS with lacunae (lacunibus?)
on that page. Unfortunately, the papyri other than p45 are not listed
here, and the only way to find where they are extant is to check elsewhere,
e.g. the NA27 appendix. The extent of the text collated in each fragmentary
MS can often differ from what is described by Aland, perhaps because the
NA27 list of MSS combines fragments preserved at different sites under
one siglum, if it seems that the fragments were originally part of one MS.
Lacunae are indicated precisely in the main text by ellipses(...), nicely
distinguishing the lacuna from the blank space needed to align shorter texts.
The first apparatus lists spelling problems in the MSS.
The spelling of names is fully documented in the main text section,
but otherwise minor itacisms and transparent blunders are regularized
in the main text and the original spelling noted here.
This helps a lot in uncluttering the presentation of the evidence,
and it also helps the reader identify individual scribal weaknesses and habits.
The second apparatus documents the nomina sacra originally found
in the MSS, before these abbreviations were expanded in the main text.
The third apparatus documents the KEFALAIA, TITLOI, lection ARXH and
TELOS marks, and incipit texts found in the MSS.
The fourth apparatus lists the chapter and section numbers
found in the margins and the Eusebian canon tables.
Pericopes are labeled with English section headings derived from
those in UBS4, with some Greek TITLOI, and with synoptic cross references.
OT quotations are printed in bold, poetry is indented,
and textual variations are highlighted by underlining.
The Clement quotations are given with some context and the portion
matching the scripture is underlined.
A preliminary printing of the Matthew volume appeared in 1994
(which I won't discard because it contains an extra appendix of
textual commentary for Matt ch. 1-19, not found in the final printing),
and I did substantial work with this volume, transcribing the Freer Gospels
text, and looking for singular readings in several uncials. I found the
format clear and easy to work with. I did encounter some minor typographical
glitches involving duplicate entries in the first apparatus, and I found
three or four significant textual errors in 13:15, 13:42(W), 15:30, 19:30(W).
I did not find any material differences at all between the two printings.
Only time will make an assessment of overall accuracy possible,
but Swanson appears to be a careful worker.
This major publication is valuable both for its approachable format
and its no-sparrow-may-fall full coverage of the material.
Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil = o
2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _
San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_)
=== PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil ===
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMM80YmCU4mTNq7IdAQGJUQP+M4zCK2fxP0s3JTFwH4qHRJ26e8gP1RI7
Jz+ycVny8T2qhFH9+upLDy7nM8K25JEvdcnvcHI+K89wSa3oA+GgMFlXh/o+6j8q
hWQtA6fHJFqg59gnZhlpNJizAvDMZP7ogdMT9JFphYfs2gIVLdaMJfRa2dcxf66S
0QIq0o0Su3I=
=IeE5
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 17:00:49 -0500
Subject: Novel Interpretations {formerly Minor correction re: Bildad)
>Bildad the Shuhite was not really the shortest man in the Bible. While
>he was certainly taller than Kneehighmiah, he cannot have been as short
>and as small as Habakkuk, who stood on his watch, or as Peter, who
>slept on his watch. Of course we do not know how big watches were in those
>days, but even a very large "railroad" pocket watch could not support
>anyone as tall as a shoe (be sure not to confuse a sandal with a shoe,
>or you will err on Bildad's height).
>
>Edward
I am just getting around to absorbing this serious contribution of Edward
Hobbs. I must say, it is a bit troubling to me, for the following reasons.
(1) If Peter were that small, then the church founded on that rock must
also be very small. Perhaps that is what lay behind the Swedish hymn that
referred to the "little flock." (2) I have admired the hWOLOGION in the
Roman agora in Athens as a major piece of Roman era architecture and
technology. If Peter stood on this and was of an appropriate size, he was a
major church father. (3) On the other hand, if he stook on a Roman sundial,
he may have had glue on his feet. But then, he could have served as a
gnomon. Perhaps that latent petrine biass underlay the name which the great
Wuerttemberg theologican gave to his one volume commentary: _Gnomon novi
testamenti_; it's Johnann Albrecht Bengel I am referring to of course.
Or is "Edward perhaps falling prey to a misinterpretation of that King
James version passage "Watch ye, therefore, that you enter not into
temptation" [please note that I cite from a very fallible memory!] and is
interpreting "Watch" as a noun and thinking of Peter as the one who needed
the warning.
These interpretive possibilities are truly challenging. I thank Edward for
stimulating this list. If I get the impression that this is a form of
"reader-response criticism," how far off would I be.
You might think that I am stir happy at the end of a term; but if "he who
sitteth in the heavens" can laugh, I trust that the members of B-GREEK can
too.
Thank you, Edward, for an illuminating and challenging posting.
Edgar [nota bene: We are both Ed, but are not otherwise to be confused.]
Edgar Krentz, New Testament
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 East 55th Street
Chicago, IL 60615
Tel.: 312-256-0752; (H) 312-947-8105
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 15:57:31 -0800
Subject: Re: Novel Interpretations {formerly Minor correction re: Bildad)
You wrote:
>
>>Bildad the Shuhite was not really the shortest man in the Bible. While
>>he was certainly taller than Kneehighmiah, he cannot have been as short
>>and as small as Habakkuk, who stood on his watch, or as Peter, who
>>slept on his watch....
>>Edward
>
>I am just getting around to absorbing this serious contribution of Edward
>Hobbs. I must say, it is a bit troubling to me, for the following reasons.
>(1) If Peter were that small, then the church founded on that rock must
>also be very small. Perhaps that is what lay behind the Swedish hymn that
>referred to the "little flock."
nice point!
>.... (3) On the other hand, if he stook on a Roman sundial,
>he may have had glue on his feet. But then, he could have served as a
>gnomon. Perhaps that latent petrine biass underlay the name which the great
>Wuerttemberg theologican gave to his one volume commentary: _Gnomon novi
>testamenti_; it's Johnann Albrecht Bengel I am referring to of course.
"reader-response criticism," how far off would I be.
..
Of course, as I mentioned to Hobbs previously, Bildad as well could have
stood or slept comfortably on a standard sunidal.
Also, FYI, I stood upon my own watch, and it didn't break. I have witnesses!
I did not, however, venture to toss it in my bed to sleep upon it.
...
>Edgar [nota bene: We are both Ed, but are not otherwise to be confused.]
With this, I am greatly impressed, for I find myself constantly confused!!!
Ellen Adams
------------------------------
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 23:21:09 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Novel Interpretations {formerly Minor correction re: Bildad)
On Wed, 13 Dec 1995, Edgar M. Krentz wrote:
> referred to the "little flock." (2) I have admired the hWOLOGION in the
^^^^^^^^^
> Roman agora in Athens as a major piece of Roman era architecture and
> technology. If Peter stood on this and was of an appropriate size, he was a
Few indeed have seen this remarkable instrument, which was
apparently used for measuring eggs. Better Peter should have
egg on his feet than egg on his face.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 23:25:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: English grammar help
I beg the indulgence of list members for a question of English grammar.
Which is correct (grammatically):
A: The Son of Man is the Messiah whom Jesus claims to be.
^^^^
B: The Son of Man is the Messiah who Jesus claims to be.
^^^
Analogously:
A: Jesus claims to be him.
^^^
B; Jesus claims to be he.
^^
We would say:
He thought himself to be the Messiah (objective case).
^^^^^^^
...but this is different, is it not, because there is no direct
object in my examples. I'm sure I could have figured this out
when I was in seventh grade, but now I find myself at a loss.
If pressed: I vote for the nominative.
I suppose an off-list reply would be more appropriate.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 13:04:16 -0600
Subject: Re: Junias Redivivus!
At 12:26 PM 11/30/95, Edward Hobbs wrote:
>Carl Conrad raises the question about the accentuation of Iounian in Rom.16:7
>with a question about how far back these accents go.
> We went through all this a couple of years ago or so; we seem to
>have to re-invent the wheel with regularity!
> The oldest uncials of course do not have accents. Was there a
>(secret, never-revealed) quasi-Masoretic tradition among early Christian
>copyists as to accentuation? To ask the question is to answer it.
> But the really more significant question is: What is the tradition
>of accentuation of this name? And the fact is that the final circumflex is
>VERY RECENT! (I.e., 20th century!). To my knowledge, NO MS. gives this accent!
>Even Hort's 1881 text gives IouNIan, acute on penult, thus feminine. And
>this accentuation is also found inserted by second corrector even in B and D.
> Wierdly enough, Metzger's note on this passage only discusses the
>variant "Ioulian", saying not a word about changing a woman into a man and
>moving+changing the accent from its universal form in the MS tradition!
>
> The feminine name "Iounia" is very common. The (imaginary, masculine)
>name "Iounias" is non-existent. It was invented (clumsily, as Carl notes!)
>to eliminate a female apostle. Bauer's largely-excellent Lexicon is marred
>by this entry as one of his stupidest definitions (that it is the common
>woman's name Iounia "is ruled out by the context"!). If Danker doesn't
>change this is his latest revised translation, I will never drink Scotch
>with him again. [Above: this IN his latest]
>
> Heaven knows, we have enough problems with male chauvinism, without
>having to INSERT them into the text!
Thanks, Edward. I knew we'd discussed this before (repeatedly atque ad
nauseam!), but I don't recall our having talked about the accents before.
I'll call Danker tonight and tell him about the scotch-drinking sessions!
He still makes his home here.
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 21:34:47 -0600
Subject: Re: The use of hOTAN (intolerably long)
I'm sorry if people get two copies of this intolerably long post, but I
don't think it got out of my sender the first time I tried to send it.
>Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 19:47:02 -0600
>To: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
>From: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl W. Conrad)
>Subject: Re: The use of hOTAN (intolerably long)
>Cc: B-Greek@virginia.edu, terry@bible.acu.edu
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>Thank God and all the parties named in the cited posts below for bringing
>discussion to focus on an issue that is at least more immediately
>grammatical, even if it does have theological repercussions, namely, how
>we are to understand hOTAN IN 1 Cor 13:10. I don't see any way to omit
>previous correspondence if the context is to be understood.
>
>At 11:57 AM 12/6/95, Bruce Terry wrote:
>>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.
>
>I have read and re-read this list of passages and the discussion, and
>after pondering it, it has finally occurred to me that something very
>basic seems left out of the accounting here. When I originally studied
>Greek there was a straightforward instruction about basic conditional
>patterns that did admit of some extraordinary modifications, but that
>nevertheless conformed pretty regularly to a norm of behavior, especially
>when the condition is temporal. And this governs the usage of hOTAN in two
>types of temporal conditions:
>
>(1) FUTURE "MORE VIVID" CONDITIONS: Protasis takes present or aorist
>subjunctive + AN (either EAN, hOTAN, or a variant of hOSTIS AN); apodosis
>is future indicative or imperative prescribing what one is to do in that
>future situation. A simple example in classical Attic:
> hOTAN (EAN, hOSTIS AN) ERXHTAI, OCOMEQA AUTON ("Whenever he comes,
>we shall see him." But the protasis may have an aorist, in which case
>normally the condition must be fully satisfied before the result may
>occur:
> hOTAN ELQHi, OCOMEQA AUTON (This I would give a more precise
>translation: "Once he has come, we shall see him.") I would add that the
>latter form is really more precise. The Latin constructions are
>comparable, and those who know their Latin will recognize that Latin much
>prefers the future perfect indicative in the Protasis, corresponding
>precisely to the Greek aorist subjunctive (and, as a matter of historical
>fact, it WAS originally an aorist subjunctive in Latin: VEN-I-SI-T ->
>VENERIT):
> ILLUM CUM VENIT/VENERIT VIDEBIMUS.
>
>(2) PRESENT GENERAL CONDITION: Protasis takes present, less commonly
>aorist subjunctive + AN (EAN, hOSTIS AN), apodosis takes the present
>indicative. A simple example in classical Attic:
> hOTAN ERXHTAI/ELQHi EKEINOS, hORWMEN AUTON.("Whenever he comes/as
>soon as he has arrived, we see him.").
>
>Are these conditional constructions (there are several others, of course,
>including a past general and present and past counter-factual) ever taught
>in courses in Koine? Or is this one of those matters on which Edward Hobbs
>said the compilers of BDF and BAGD made the false assumption that their
>readers would know classical Attic grammar?
>
>Now I want to take up the examples that Bruce says are exceptions to the
>rule about hOTAN cited by David Moore in BAGD:
>
>>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.
>
>Personally I believe that Mark's text is the earliest form, but I don't
>want to get into that argument now. At any rate, Mk and Mt read
>identically, but the two clauses cited by Bruce are followed by a third.
>The whole sequence:
>
> ELEUSONTAI DE hHMERAI hOTAN APARQHi AP' AUTWN hO NUMFIOS, KAI TOTE
> NHSTEUSOUSIN ... (Mk has also EN EKEINHi THi hHMERAi, Mt does not).
>
>Now I would say that this is actually a FUTURE MORE VIVID CONSTRUCTION,
>but the clauses are poorly constructed; the real apodosis to the hOTAN
>clause is KAI TOTE NHSTEUSOUSIN. It is instructive to look at Luke's
>revision of this text (5:35):
>
> ELEUSONTAI DE hHMERAI, KAI hOTAN APARQHi AP' AUTWN hO NUMFIOS,
>TOTE NHSTEUSOUSIN EN EKEINAIS TAIS hHMERAIS.
>
>(Logically the phrasing of Mk and Mt doesn't make any sense: we usually
>translate it, "But the days will come when [not 'whenever'] the bridgroom
>gets taken away from them." It ought to be: "Once the bridegroom gets
>taken away from him, the days will come." I think that we probably
>translate it the way Mark intended it, but I would put this writing down
>as another instance rather careless writing of Greek.
>
>>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.
>
>I'd say this is another instance of a FUTURE MORE VIVID construction, and
>I would translate it, " ... as soon as he/it has said, 'everything has
>been subordinated,' it's obvious that ..." I can appreciate that Bruce may
>want to argue that this is in no way a future construction; on the other
>hand, it is certainly not a present general construction. I conceive the
>logic of it as pointing to the moment in the reading of the text at which
>the implication becomes crystal clear.
>
>>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.
>
>I respectfully submit that ASQENW is present tense, not aorist. The
>construction here, however, is a PRESENT GENERAL condition: "Every single
>time that I am weak is a time when I am strong."
>
>>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.
>
>This is clearly a FUTURE MORE VIVID condition, wherein the present tense
>is not unusual. I think Bruce is right about the use of the present
>subjunctive: this is instruction for the long run of the future, one
>should expect the persecutors to come after believers again and again. The
>imperative in the apodosis, as noted above, is a regular alternative to a
>future tense.
>
>>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."
>
>This in itself is more ambiguous. In form it would appear to resemble more
>closely a PRESENT GENERAL condition: "Just at the moment (whenever it may
>be) that they say, 'Peace,' doom is upon them." In that case I don't think
>it's necessary to pinpoint the time sequence of saying and sudden
>destruction. On the other hand, one could understand EFISTATAI as present
>tense for future, and see this as a FUTURE MORE VIVID construction: "As
>soon as they say, 'Peace,' doom will crash down on them." It strikes me
>that this is precisely one of those sayings of which the Q-Critics like to
>speak of a "wisdom" saying that is readily transformed into an apocalyptic
>warning. And of course this appears in an undisputably apocalyptic
>sequence in 1 Thess.
>
>>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.
>
>Personally I'm inclined to think that the rule in BAGD holds well enough,
>but that one would do better to take note of the normal patterns of
>conditional clauses, particularly those that use hOTAN, the present
>general and the future more vivid.
>
>>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.
>
>I won't comment on the matter about Porter as I must yet read and reckon
>with what he has to say, but in my view the grammar of conditionals and
>the more-or-less standard pattern of tenses and moods used with them is
>quite sufficient to deal with those examples.
>
>>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.
>
>To return to 1 Cor 13:10, hOTAN DE ELQHi TO TELEION, TO EK MEROUS
>KATARGHQHSETAI, this is another clear example of a FUTURE MORE VIVID, and
>I think the aorist is equivalent to a Latin future perfect. I would
>translate, "As soon as the complete has come, the partial will become null
>and void."
>
>I quite agree that context is fundamental to understanding, and I will
>agree that there's a "je ne sais quoi" of truth in the dictum, "The Bible
>is not logical." On the other hand, the Bible is a long way from being
>illogical--it's far more logical than I am. So I am inclined to say of
>this little dictum, "The Bible is not logical," what was said in a blooper
>I will never forget from a student's essay on a philosophy exam many years
>ago: "This statement is good as far as it goes, but it goes too far."
>
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #45
****************************
** 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