[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #46
b-greek-digest Thursday, 14 December 1995 Volume 01 : Number 046
In this issue:
Re: Help with Col. 1:24
Re: The use of hOTAN (intolerably long)
Re: Novel Interpretations {formerly Minor correction re: Bildad)
I apologize, but I didn't do it
Re: English grammar help
books on textual criticism
books on textual criticism
Re: English grammar help
Re: English grammar help
Re: books on textual criticism
Re: English grammar help
Re: English grammar help
1 John 1:1
Re: English grammar help
Re: 1 John 1:1 Jim Beale
Marcan Pidgin Greek
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 16:21:03 -0600
Subject: Re: Help with Col. 1:24
At 12:43 PM 12/6/95, Jim Beale wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I'm stuck. Col 1:24 reads in part:
>
> NU=N XAI/RW E)N TOI=S PAQH/MASIN U(PE\R U(MW=N
>
>As I understand it:
>
> PAQH/MASIN is dative plural.
> U(MW=N is 2nd person genitive plural.
>
>Why does the NAS translate this:
>
> Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake
>
>If someone asked me right now how I would translate this, I would
>say:
>
> Now I rejoice in your abundant sufferings
>
>That doesn't seem right! I'm sure I've missed something...
You have indeed missed something! hUPER is a preposition normally construed
with the genitive and meaning (most of the time, when it's not "over" in a
spatial sense) "on behalf of," or "for the sake of."
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 19:20:11 -0600
Subject: Re: The use of hOTAN (intolerably long)
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/
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 05:52:20 -0600
Subject: Re: Novel Interpretations {formerly Minor correction re: Bildad)
At 10:21 PM 12/13/95, James D. Ernest wrote:
>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.
Perhaps James has caught the disease from that person named ARRIUS who,
according to Catullus, called himself HARRIUS and was last heard of as
writing back to Rome from the HIONIAN Sea. The WOLOGION suffered many
indignities, to be sure, but to be aspirated for no good reason? Perhaps
what Edgar had in mind originally was hWROLOGION? I think he should get a
GNWMON, and I don't mean one of those little beardy men sitting on his
shoulders.
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: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 06:02:42 -0600
Subject: I apologize, but I didn't do it
I am really sorry that the machine at majordomo@virginia.edu (?) has
suddenly coughed up posts from over a week ago, and particularly sorry that
one of them could threaten to stir up anew the whole question of that
person whose name in the accusative has occasioned a genderal disturbance
that was slight in its quitessence, but very slow in its quiescence.
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: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 06:02:27 -0600
Subject: Re: English grammar help
At 10:25 PM 12/13/95, James D. Ernest wrote:
>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.
Perhaps it would, but (1) this is a pet peeve of mine,and (2) as the list
appears to be bombarded by posts that I mailed out more than a week ago (is
it the eve of Saturnalia?), I'll chime in here.
I too vote for the nominative in the above instances, but I hear in ever
greater frequency the nominative used where it shouldn't, according to the
old-timey rules: "This is the very best thing for HE AND I" and the like.
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: GLLang@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 07:34:24 -0500
Subject: books on textual criticism
I have been off the "air" for some time and I hope my following question
isn't a recent repeat.
I would like to know what books would be helpful in the area of N.T. textual
criticism? Books other than Aland's "The Text of the N.T." and Metzger's
"The Text of the N.T."
Thank you. Appreciate the help!
GLLang (Mark Langley)
------------------------------
From: GLLang@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 10:26:08 -0500
Subject: books on textual criticism
In my previous post I forgot to mention the books I was interested in would
be N.T. textual criticism.
Thanks again.
(GLLang) Mark Langley
------------------------------
From: Liz Fried <friedl@acfcluster.nyu.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:42:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: English grammar help
It is the accusative. The subject of an infinitival phrase is in
the accusative case. always.
liz
On Thu, 14 Dec 1995, Mike Adams wrote:
> You wrote:
> >
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> Concerning who vs. whom, I agree with you and Carl. It is the nominative.
> The -to be- can be a bit deceptive, appearing to be a prepositional
> phrase which would take the objective, but rather being an infinitive
> verb phrase with a linking verb that takes the predicate nominative.
>
> In Hebrews 5:5 we see a linking verb as an infinitive taking the
> nominative case:
>
> ouc heaton edoxasen genhqhnai arcierea....
>
> Also -himself- is not objective, but rather a reflexive pronoun.
>
> I hope this explanation is sufficient for you and I.
>
> Ellen
>
>
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 07:59:49 -0800
Subject: Re: English grammar help
You wrote:
>
>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
>
>
>
Concerning who vs. whom, I agree with you and Carl. It is the nominative.
The -to be- can be a bit deceptive, appearing to be a prepositional
phrase which would take the objective, but rather being an infinitive
verb phrase with a linking verb that takes the predicate nominative.
In Hebrews 5:5 we see a linking verb as an infinitive taking the
nominative case:
ouc heaton edoxasen genhqhnai arcierea....
Also -himself- is not objective, but rather a reflexive pronoun.
I hope this explanation is sufficient for you and I.
Ellen
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 15:22:01 -0400
Subject: Re: books on textual criticism
At 7:34 AM 14/12/95, GLLang@aol.com wrote:
>I have been off the "air" for some time and I hope my following question
>isn't a recent repeat.
>
>I would like to know what books would be helpful in the area of N.T. textual
>criticism? Books other than Aland's "The Text of the N.T." and Metzger's
>"The Text of the N.T."
>
>Thank you. Appreciate the help!
>
>GLLang (Mark Langley)
Mark
Two wonderful recent volumes you might find useful are the collection of
essays by Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee, _Studies in the Theory and Method
of NT Textual Criticism_ and _The Text of the NT in Contemporary Research_
a Festschrift in honor of Metzger's 80th birthday edited by Bart D. Ehrman
and Michael Holmes (both books are published in Eerdmann's "Studies and
Documents" series).
Another book by Metzger that you might care to check out is his
_Manuscripts of the Greek Bible_.
Nichael "... and they opened their thesaurus
nichael@sover.net and brought forth gold,
http://www.sover.net/~nichael and frankincense and myrrh."
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 17:10:15 CST
Subject: Re: English grammar help
On Thu, 14 Dec 1995, James D. Ernest wrote:
>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.
>> ^^
The correct usage is whom and him. The infinitive is a copula, which would
usually take the subjective case, but the infinitive clause is filling an
objective slot of the word claims, making it take the objective case. This
can clearly be seen in the example:
Peter claimed him to be the Messiah.
One would not say in English:
*Peter claimed he to be the Messiah.
Having said that, I must note that although him is not crumbling before he,
whom is being replaced in informal, and now to a certain extent even in
formal, English by who. In two or three more decades, who will be both the
subjective and objective forms and whom will be an archaic objective form.
And Ellen Adams replied:
>Concerning who vs. whom, I agree with you and Carl. It is the nominative.
>The -to be- can be a bit deceptive, appearing to be a prepositional
>phrase which would take the objective, but rather being an infinitive
>verb phrase with a linking verb that takes the predicate nominative.
Rather, the "object" of a linking verb takes the *same* case as its subject.
>In Hebrews 5:5 we see a linking verb as an infinitive taking the
>nominative case:
>
> ouc heaton edoxasen genhqhnai arcierea....
Where?
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Jim Stamper <jstamper@globalcom.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 17:18:38 -0500
Subject: Re: English grammar help
>I hope this explanation is sufficient for you and I.
>
>Ellen
ROFL!
James H. Stamper
PO Box 666
Woodstock, VA 22664
(540)459-2720
------------------------------
From: Jim Beale <jbeale@gdeb.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 17:44:16 EST
Subject: 1 John 1:1
Hello,
I've run into a few difficulties on 1 John 1:1
(I didn't get very far, eh?)
1. Is EYHLAFHSAN imperfect or aorist? My guess would be aorist,
but can this determined by context alone?
2. Why is EQEASAMEQA in the middle voice? What is the significance
of the middle voice in this case?
3. Why is hO neuter when TOU LOGOU is masculine?
It seems to me that the first verse is rather poetic, and since
the relative pronoun is neuter, can TOU LOGOU mean the physical
person of Christ, or does it make more sense to interpret it as
a reference to the Gospel?
Jim
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 16:01:55 -0800
Subject: Re: English grammar help
You wrote:
>
>On Thu, 14 Dec 1995, Ellen wrote:
>
>> In Hebrews 5:5 we see a linking verb as an infinitive taking the
>> nominative case:
>>
>> ouc heaton edoxasen genhqhnai arcierea....
>>
>> Also -himself- is not objective, but rather a reflexive pronoun.
>
>I don't follow you. heauton and arcierea are both accusative....
>...but I am inclinced to agree with you and Carl that my example
>needs a nominative. Still a bit murky for me.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Oops!! I was so excited to find an infinitive that appeared to be a
linking verb that I assumed that it was followed by a nominative, and
glancing very perfunctarily at my Friberg, misread the "N" to mean
nominative rather than noun. (It was really early in the morning, you
understand. And if one stands impetuously upon one's watch, one can end
up with egg on one's face and glass in one's feet.)
I do still wonder if einai might appear in the Greek text, and how a
subsequent noun would be rendered. My Strongs isn't that Exhaustive,
and not having the NT on computer, I can't do a search for that
particular form....
As to Liz's objection that the subject of an infinitive is always
accusative, may I say first that English-speaking persons generally
decline to object, rather than to accuse. (Very civilized, don't you
think?)
Anyhow, an example of a subject of an infinitive would be as follows:
Jesus claimed to be Messiah; the Pharisees thought "him" to be insane.
The example, however, did not take this form.
So after consulting several grammars, I called the Grammar Hotline. The
students and faculty manning (and womanning) the phones were divided as
to proper usage in your example. They were awaiting the final judgment
from their head guru as to which would be correct. As soon as the jury
is in, they will e-mail the results, which I will pass on.
As to the use of "for you and I": some of us do have that errant
inclination to rub their fingernails against the blackboard from time
to time.
Ellen
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 18:42:41 -0600
Subject: Re: 1 John 1:1 Jim Beale
Jim Beale wrote;
>I've run into a few difficulties on 1 John 1:1
>(I didn't get very far, eh?)
>
>1. Is EYHLAFHSAN imperfect or aorist? My guess would be aorist,
>but can this determined by context alone?
EYHLAFHSAN is aorist. The augment on the front and the SA indicate that.
>2. Why is EQEASAMEQA in the middle voice? What is the significance
>of the middle voice in this case?
EQEASAMEQA from QEAOMAI is a deponent verb. It is middle in form but
active in function (Check Bauer on this.)
>3. Why is hO neuter when TOU LOGOU is masculine?
hO is neuter nominative or accusative depending on its function within the
relative clause. John is referring to an event, the incarnation. It is
not unusual in Greek to refer to a general subject of a whole event in the
neuter.
TOU LOGOU is masculine because the word LOGOS is masculine.
>It seems to me that the first verse is rather poetic, and since
>the relative pronoun is neuter, can TOU LOGOU mean the physical
>person of Christ, or does it make more sense to interpret it as
>a reference to the Gospel?
The first verse of I John is an incomplete sentence which is finished in
verse 3. The relative clauses in verse 1 are objects of the verb
APAGGELLOMEN in verse 3. Hence, "we are declaring to you that which was" .
. . .. Verse 2 is an interuption commenting on the life.
Carlton Winbery
Chair Religion/Philosophy
LA College,
Pineville,La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
fax (318) 442-4996 or (318) 487-7425
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 19:20:26 -0600
Subject: Marcan Pidgin Greek
I want to continue the discussion of Marcan Greek that is at best
substandard (in comparison, certainly to Matthean and Lucan Greek) and at
worst barbarous.
While I don't really want to make a big issue of source criticism here, I
will comment in passing, as I cite the versions of the three synoptics,
that I cannot imagine the Marcan text ever having been written as an
improvement upon or a conceivable condensation of either the Matthean or
Lucan form of the text.
The Marcan passage is one that I puzzled over for hours when I first looked
at it in the Fall of 1952. Every time I think I understand it, it slips
away from me again, and I don't find the constructions of the passage that
I've worked out very convincing to myself. am I the only one baffled by it?
Enough of the blurb; on to the passage itself:
Mk 2:21a. OUDEIS EPIBLHMA hRAKOUS AGNAFOU EPIRAPTEI EPI hIMATION PALAION;
21b. EI DE MH, AIREI TO PLHRWMA AP' AUTOU TO KAINON TOU PALAIOU KAI XEIRON
SXISMA GINETAI.
21a is unproblematic, but although the meaning of 21b is clear enough, the
syntax is scarcely decipherable. What is the subject of AIREI? Is it TO
PLHRWMA as a synonym for EPIBLHMA? the patch, the fill-in? "The patch pulls
from it the new (from) the old ..." Or is TO PLHRWMA the object of AIREI,
and the subject must then be TO KAINON? "It pulls the patch away from
it--the new (cloth) does--from the old (cloth) ..." This is what I think is
more likely, but I am far from happy with it, and I can't help but wonder:
couldn't Mark have expressed himself just a little bit more clearly? Or: is
it conceivable that this is, in fact, a dominical saying, this proverb, and
that Mark reproduces what he found in the tradition? That's certainly
possible. Can 2:21b be translated back into Aramaic and make any more
sense? Or is it me (bzw. "I") that am being obtuse here? Seeing a problem
that really isn't there?
Mt 9:16a. OUDEIS DE EPIBALLEI EPIBLHMA hRAKOUS AGNAFOU EPI hIMATIWi
PALAIWi; 16b. AIREI GAR TO PLHRWMA AUTOU APO TOU hIMATIOU KAI XEIRON SXISMA
GINETAI.
Here there's none of this "new and old" (the Greek phrase for the first of
the month) in the second clause. But again there's the question: is TO
PLHRWMA the subject or the object of AIREI? And if it's the object, then
what is the subject? "For the patch pulls away from the garment and the rip
gets worse." Or is it "For it pulls the patch-cloth away from the garment
..." What pulls? At any rate, this is a good deal clearer than Mark's
version, from which it certainly appears to be derived. Let's look at Luke.
Lk 5:36b. OUDEIS EPIBLHMA APO hIMATIOU KAINOU SXISAS EPIBALLEI EPI hIMATION
PALAION; 36c. EI DE MH GE, KAI TO KAINON SXISEI KAI TWi PALAIWi OU
SUMFWNHSEI TO EPIBLHMA TO APO TOU KAINOU.
This is the only altogether clear version of the saying. "Shreds" of KAINON
and PALAION from the patchwork of Mark survive sufficiently, it appears, to
indicate that this is indeed a reformulation of the Marcan text. I'd
translate it, "Nobody tears a patch from a new garment and puts it onto an
old garment, or else the new one will also rip and the patch off of the new
one will not fit the old one."
One final question. the 24th edition of NA was the first GNT I ever owned.
In it the last six words of the Lucan verse were bracketed but left in the
text. NA27 indicates, if I read the apparatus correctly (I'm not very
competent and not a bit confident), it appears that the word-order of the
last words is different in Vaticanus and a couple old MSS, but I don't know
that this really makes much difference (if it does, someone please explain
it to me! Please!)
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 #46
****************************
** 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