[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #81
b-greek-digest Thursday, 18 January 1996 Volume 01 : Number 081
In this issue:
subscribe
Re: hINATI' in Didache 5
Re: MPol 10: Grammar questions
Bible Software
Mpol 10
Re: Mpol 10
Carl Conrad's query/comment on MPol
Re: Mpol 10
Re: Carl Conrad's query/comment on MPol
MPol -- Reading of SU/SE
Re: MPol -- Reading of SU/SE
Re: MPol -- Reading of SU/SE
[none]
Re: MPol -- Reading of SU/SE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: LISATIA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 01:40:59 -0500
Subject: subscribe
subscribe B-Greek
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 08:22:49 -0600
Subject: Re: hINATI' in Didache 5
At 2:10 PM 1/16/96, drmills@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Jan 1996, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
>>
>> I think, Ken, that what you're experiencing in reading patristic Greek is
>> not the exception but the rule: ALL of it is harder than most of the Greek
>> you read in the NT. There are several reasons for this; I'll only name a
>> couple: (1) Once the Christian faith definitively leaves the Hellenistic
>> Jewish linguistic sphere affected by LXX (Semitizing) Greek constructions
>> and enters the mainstream of Greco-Roman Koine, the more it will be
>> expressed in the literary and administrative language normal to
>> Greek-speaking Gentiles of the Roman empire; (2) by no means unrelated to
>> the foregoing, the style of the Greek is going to reflect a somewhat
>> standardized Greek educational curriculum emphasizing the literary classics
>> and rhetoric; this is all the more true in the second century of our era,
>> when the schools are increasingly subject to a movement to write Greek not
>> in the spoken vernacular Koine but in the archaizing Attic of the 5th and
>> 4th centuries B.C.E.
>>
>Do you consider the Shepherd of Hermas to be difficult to read also?
>Unlike the Didache and Polycarp, I have found it relatively easy to read.
I certainly didn't mean the "rule" above to be ABSOLUTELY INCLUSIVE, but I
think it's true by and large.
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: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 09:28:28 -0600
Subject: Re: MPol 10: Grammar questions
> In spite of the assurances I've received that the Didache and MPol are
>easy Greek (how depressing), I have a question or two about the
>text of MPol 10.
>1. 10:2. I'm unsure of what DEDIDAGMEQA is. I am guessing it is from
>DIDASKO, but I've no lexicon or pony which gives any of the perfect forms
>of DIDASKW. If, as I'm guessing, this is the Perf mid./pass ind, then
>it would be "we have been taught" I think, but I'm not sure, because I'm
>not sure it's indicative.
DEDIDAGMEQA is perf. pass. ind. and you have translated it well.
>2. 10:1, PROSPOIEI is rendered by Bauer and Lightfoot, "You pretend".
>I have a problem with that. This form could be either the 3ms Pres act ind.
>or it could be the 2ms Pres act imperative. The former makes no sense, but
>the latter would be a command, not a statement. Does non-NT Greek use the
>imperative for the indicative regularly (remember this is supposed to be
>easy Greek)?
The punctuation in the two texts that I have are punctuated with the
circumflex on the ultima, clearly pres. act. indicative. That is the only
possible form that will fit. Polycarp is presented as saying that the
Proconsul says, "He pretends to be ignorant of me, who I am." In Lightfoot
this is turned into an indirect statement in English.
>3. 10:2, SU MEN KAN LOGOU HXIWSA. Bauer renders this "I should have
>counted you
>worthy" and I add "of the word". Unless I'm mistaken, this is an indicative.
>Where does the "should" come from?
SU MEN KAN LOGOU HXIWSA should be rendered literally "I should have (KAN,
contrary to fact) considered you worthy of a word." LOGOS here probably
refers to a "discussion."
>4. 10:2, KATA TO PROSHKON. When I saw the KATA TO I expected an articular
>infinitive, not a prepostion+article+participle. Bauer says this means
>"as is fitting". Can someone explain this construction to me?
>
The infinitive APONEMEIN is used with DEDIDAGMEQA, "we have been taught to
give honor. KATA TO PROSHKON simply indicates that such action is what is
proper, "according to what is fitting." This does not expect an infinitive
to complete it since TO PROSHKON functions as a noun in the accusative
case.
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: KevLAnder@aol.com
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 12:46:31 -0500
Subject: Bible Software
Thanks to everyone who sent me such helpful messages about Bible software!
I really appreciate it.
Kevin L. Anderson
Concord, CA
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 12:37:36 +0400
Subject: Mpol 10
A further note on MPol 10:2
I wrote earlier;
>SU MEN KAN LOGOU HXIWSA should be rendered literally "I should have (KAN,
>contrary to fact) considered you worthy of a word." LOGOS here probably
>refers to a "discussion."<
I would add that KAN is crasis for KAI AN. AN with an aorist indicative
this indicates a contrary to fact statement. The fact is that he did not
formerly consider him worthy.
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 14:04:38 -0600
Subject: Re: Mpol 10
At 2:37 AM 1/17/96, Carlton Winbery wrote:
>A further note on MPol 10:2
>I wrote earlier;
>>SU MEN KAN LOGOU HXIWSA should be rendered literally "I should have (KAN,
>>contrary to fact) considered you worthy of a word." LOGOS here probably
>>refers to a "discussion."<
>
>I would add that KAN is crasis for KAI AN. AN with an aorist indicative
>this indicates a contrary to fact statement. The fact is that he did not
>formerly consider him worthy.
One other question; since Ken's queries came in the mail this morning,
there's been no comment on the SU--is that reading correct?--nominative--or
shouldn't it be SE? While the Doric dialect form TU can be accusative (in
Theocritus), I've never seen a SU understood as such. Surely this was an
error in transcription?
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: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 16:31:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Carl Conrad's query/comment on MPol
Carl is of course right. Scribal error (or was it a hitacism?) changed
SE to SU. My Greek texts read SE.
Edward
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 15:37:29 +0400
Subject: Re: Mpol 10
>>>SU MEN KAN LOGOU HXIWSA should be rendered literally "I should have (KAN,
>
>One other question; since Ken's queries came in the mail this morning,
>there's been no comment on the SU--is that reading correct?--nominative--or
>shouldn't it be SE? While the Doric dialect form TU can be accusative (in
>Theocritus), I've never seen a SU understood as such. Surely this was an
>error in transcription?
>
SU is the correct text. I take it as an independent nominative (or some
such terminology) used for emphasis. Probably "You, I should have
considered worthy of . . ."
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 16:41:42 +0400
Subject: Re: Carl Conrad's query/comment on MPol
>Carl is of course right. Scribal error (or was it a hitacism?) changed
>SE to SU. My Greek texts read SE.
>
The only text I had available this afternoon when I replied was the Loeb.
They even translate it "You I should have considered worthy . . ." and
have the reading SU.
Grace,
Carlton
END
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 17:50:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: MPol -- Reading of SU/SE
I don't understand either of Carleton's posts on this.
(1) Loeb says SE (p. 326) in both printings I have (1946 and 1950).
Does Carleton have an altered text of some sort? Or was a misprint
introduced?
(2) Kirsopp Lake translates: "You I should have held worthy of
discussion" = "I should have held you worthy of discuission." Either way,
in English the "you" is a direct object of the verb, just as the SE is in
the Greek. Are we somehow dealing with different texts?
The Greek looks very simple and straightforward to me. I'm puzzled
over the confusion.
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 18:46:21 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: MPol -- Reading of SU/SE
On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Edward Hobbs wrote:
> I don't understand either of Carleton's posts on this.
> (1) Loeb says SE (p. 326) in both printings I have (1946 and 1950).
> Does Carleton have an altered text of some sort? Or was a misprint
> introduced?
> (2) Kirsopp Lake translates: "You I should have held worthy of
> discussion" = "I should have held you worthy of discuission." Either way,
> in English the "you" is a direct object of the verb, just as the SE is in
> the Greek. Are we somehow dealing with different texts?
> The Greek looks very simple and straightforward to me. I'm puzzled
> over the confusion.
The Lightfoot-Harmer edition, published by Baker, has SE also and
no note on the word in the apparatus...
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 20:12:53 +0400
Subject: Re: MPol -- Reading of SU/SE
Ed Hobbs wrote;
>I don't understand either of Carleton's posts on this.
> (1) Loeb says SE (p. 326) in both printings I have (1946 and 1950).
>Does Carleton have an altered text of some sort? Or was a misprint
>introduced?
> (2) Kirsopp Lake translates: "You I should have held worthy of
>discussion" = "I should have held you worthy of discuission." Either way,
>in English the "you" is a direct object of the verb, just as the SE is in
>the Greek. Are we somehow dealing with different texts?
> The Greek looks very simple and straightforward to me. I'm puzzled
>over the confusion.
>
Ed Hobbs is right. I walked back to my office and checked again and find
that I was influenced by the original post and Lake's translation. And I
always said to graduate students, "Check it again!" I guess that's the
wonderful thing about this lists. If you get it wrong someone will correct
it, thankfully.
And also red faced,
Carlton
END
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: LARRY MATTERA <LMCG46A@prodigy.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 22:00:06 EST
Subject: [none]
unsubscribe.
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 21:29:32 +0800
Subject: Re: MPol -- Reading of SU/SE
My text reads SE. I did, however, misread it, rather than mistype it.
Sorry for the confusion.
Ken Litwak
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #81
****************************
** 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