[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #86
b-greek-digest Monday, 22 January 1996 Volume 01 : Number 086
In this issue:
Lexicons for the LXX
Grammatical Meaning
Reply to Ken Litwak's "Case" inquiry
Identifying grammatical meaning of cases
Addendum to my Litwak-reply
Re: Identifying grammatical meaning of cases
Re: Qualitative QEOS in John
Re: Lexicons for the LXX
2nd century Christian Greek
Re: IEph inscr help please
Re: Identifying grammatical meaning of cases
A Bayesian Analysis of Jn1:1 (long)
Re: Homeric Greek Question
Re: Grammatical Meaning
Re: Lexicons for the LXX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 23:52:43 +0800
Subject: Lexicons for the LXX
After suffering through a chapter of the LXX weith the big LSJ,
I'm looking for a better alternative for my purposes. First, it's very bulky
and the words I want are often buried in another entry. Second, it
seems to generally contain little LXX-specific transaltions (and I doubt the
accuracy of "pour on" for the the meaning of PROSXES in Ps 16:1).
So I have two specific questions. First, given the lack of LX-specific
material in the half-ton version, and how long it takes to
find stuff, and the fact that I have ten days to translate nine more chapters from the
LXX and then need a lexcion to use during an exam which may include LXX
sight-reading, can I a) get about the same level of LXX help from the
Int. LSJ; and b) I'm thinking of using the Grrek Lexicon fo the
LXX by Lust, et al. Before I buy the lattter, which I may do regardless
of the exam issue since I expect to spend by far the lion's share of my time
in the LXX, rather than extra-bibical Greek, does anyone have any comments on
it?
If it was a matter of a word here or there, I wouuldn't care, but
I had to look up five words in Ps 161 alone! That's too much back pain from
the big LSJ. It weighs more than my 2 yr old.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: "H A. Brehm" <102733.3234@compuserve.com>
Date: 22 Jan 96 08:01:01 EST
Subject: Grammatical Meaning
In reply to Kenneth Litwak's query about syntax categories and grammatical
meaning, it seems to me that the basic difference between Blass-Debrunner or
Porter on the one hand, and A. T. Robertson or Brooks and Winbery on the other
hand, is that BDF and Porter separate the functions of nouns with the
preposition from those functions that relate primarily to the case of the noun,
while ATR and B-W incorporate the two into one system (although ATR also treats
the prepositions separately).
Of course, Porter's criticism of the 8-case system applies here--if one defines
case based on function, then one will ostensibly have dozens of syntax
categories. So [in reply to Kenneth's question] you might find yourself in a
situation in your doctoral exam where the members of your panel assume that a
"dative of advantage" does not exist, but rather it is an instance of the dative
case occurring with a preposition that expresses advantage.
On the other hand, the benefit of ATR and B-W is that it is a much more workable
system for teaching [NT] Greek in the classroom. I find that the more concrete
I can make the teaching of syntax and grammatical functions, the better my
students can get a handle on what sometime we Ph. D. types must admit are fine
distinctions.
On the other hand, as a former student of Jim Brooks, IMHO I think that the
strength of their approach is its weakness--the very systematic nature of their
book leads students to think that there is a category for every construction and
every construction fits neatly into some discreet category. For this reason, I
have experimented with combining the best of both worlds--at first I tried using
Porter to expose the students to the ambiguities of dealing with syntax but also
using a system like B-W to give them some structure. That did not work well
because Porter is written at a level that only those with substantial knowledge
of Greek can follow it.
At present I am using B-W as a foundation, but have augmented their set of
categories by referring to other functions in BAGD, ATR, and BDF. I make one
important [IMHO] distinction, however--I indicate which of these functions occur
only with prepositions, and which occur with the noun alone. In this way I try
to do justice to the fact that many of the categories in B-W relate more closely
to the prepositions than to the case of the nouns per se [of course, I would
expect that Carleton Winbery might have something to say about that, and would
welcome his comments]. Nevertheless, I try to preserve the benefit of B-W,
which is to give students a concrete framework to begin their struggle to
wrestle with the text.
H. Alan Brehm
Assistant Prof. of NT
Southwestern Bapt. Theol. Sem.
P. O. Box 22458
Fort Worth, TX 76122
817-923-1921 ext. 6800
FAX 817-922-9005
102733,3234@compuserve.com
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 10:15:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Reply to Ken Litwak's "Case" inquiry
From: LUCY::EHOBBS "Edward Hobbs" 22-JAN-1996 10:13:49.95
To: IN%"kenneth@sybase.com"
CC: EHOBBS
Subj: RE: Identifying grammatical meaning of cases
Ken Litwak's inquiry: Identifying grammatical meaning of cases
" I've been prepping for my doctoral Greek exam, which includes
questions like "What kind of genitive appears in the construction?",
or so I'm told. In reading through grammars I have, I'm confronted with
multiple, disparrate systems of identification, and I'm unsure as to which
one to use, i.e., which one is more likely to be recognized as
"standard" or at least known to most NT scholars. On the one hand,,
there's a pretty minimalist set of choices discussed in Porter's Idiom
book. In the middle I think is Dana and Mantey, which I first leraned
this stuff from, and then on the other end it seems, though I've only
owned it about a day, is Brooks and Winbery which seems to mzke many fine
distinctions about what a given case grammaticalizes. I'm certainly not
trying to critique the latter. I did after all buy it on purpose.
Still, I don't know which of these systems or perhaps that of BDF or whoemever
to use. I'd hate to miss a question by referring to a dative of advantage if the
examiner has never heard of that. "
My advice on this is the same as it has always been on these
questions: ASK YOUR EXAMINERS! Candidates who do not talk -- frequently -
with their teachers and advisors and examiners deserve any problems they
run into as a result. You are paying tuition to get tuition; so ask for it
or you won't get what you are paying for.
Additionally, since for 19 years I was chief Greek examiner at the
GTU (albeit that ended when I came to Harvard and Wellesley 15 years ago),
I can say that we never asked that type of question, which is more of a
quiz on what textbook you used than anything else. If they DO ask
questions like that now, either (a) they have some system in mind, which
they will be happy to tell you, or (b) they don't, in which case they will
surely understand whatever system you are using. (If they don't, they
shouldn't be examining in Greek.)
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: David Housholder <73423.2015@compuserve.com>
Date: 22 Jan 96 09:35:48 EST
Subject: Identifying grammatical meaning of cases
>> Just to keep email to a minimum, can someone tell me when
>>it is generally thought that EPISKOPOS and PRESBUTEROS take on
>>technical meanings?
Primarily when you join certain denominations.
Naturally a "<g>" is implied in the previous line.
Seriously, regarding the exam: Since your institution doesn't seem to have
guided you in this matter (and therefore has failed to provide the education it
is pompously pretending to examine) could you do the following --
"The noun here is dative used as a dative of foobar (using Brooks & Winbery's
term for a subclass of what Dana & Mantey called the Dative of foo)."
Or, if you can't remember who said what, "dative of foobar, sometimes refered to
simply as dative of foo."
David Housholder
writing at 9:15 AM on Monday, January 22, 1996
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 10:25:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Addendum to my Litwak-reply
I meant to add a comment to my previous "What to do" reply to Ken
Litwak's inquiry. Here it is:
Alan Brehm's post on the subject of case-functions in the various
grammars is a jewel! I hope that not only Ken, but everyone reading it
will take it to heart. The grammars are not sent to us by God -- they are
written by scholars who share their careful analyses of what they actually
find in the literature, in order to be helpful in an organized way. There
are obviously different ways of being helpful, and thus there are different
organizations of the data. We should be thankful for that. What is
helpful for me may not be the most helpful for you. Alan Brehm has very
neatly shown some of the benefits of various such efforts.
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 10:07:18 CST
Subject: Re: Identifying grammatical meaning of cases
On Sun, 21 Jan 1996, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> I've been prepping for my doctoral Greek exam, which includes
>questions like "What kind of genitive appears in the construction?",
>or so I'm told. In reading through grammars I have, I'm confronted with
>multiple, disparrate systems of identification, and I'm unsure as to which
>one to use, i.e., which one is more likely to be recognized as
>"standard" or at least known to most NT scholars.
Actually, for an exam, it doesn't matter what most NT scholars think, only
what your examiners think. Ask this question of him/her/them. Should they
refuse to answer, for some reason that escapes me, pick a system and go with
it. They should be familiar with BDF, D&M, B&W, and even Porter. Just say
which system you are using.
> Just to keep email to a minimum, can someone tell me when it is generally
>thought that EPISKOPOS and PRESBUTEROS take on technical meanings?
>I don't think they have it in the NT, but they seem clearly to have it in
>Ignatius to the Ephesians, for example.
A point of clarification, please. By technical meanings, are you referring to
usage that refers to an appointed position vs. a general meaning or to the
period in church history when these two terms take on distinctive meanings?
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 11:56:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Qualitative QEOS in John
Wes C. Williams wrote:
> However, there are two examples in John's writings where he uses theos that
> parallels the construction in John 1:1 (as you request, I'll avoid that for
> now). [Jn8:54 10:34 examples and analysis deleted]
Thank you very much for your response. I asked the question because
I'm preparing an article for B-GREEK on a Bayesian analysis of John 1:1,
which will examine just how strongly one may infer from the fact that
QEOS is an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb. For my
analysis, I needed to a get a feel for the "prior probability" that
QEOS is qualitative in John. The answer, it appears, is hardly ever.
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: Bernanrd Taylor <btaylor@helix.lasierra.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 10:32:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Lexicons for the LXX
On Sun, 21 Jan 1996, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> After suffering through a chapter of the LXX weith the big LSJ,
> I'm looking for a better alternative for my purposes.
You ask about Lust et al. Since weight is an issue, you will be well
ahead if you purchase this volume. However, there are two counts against
it: first, it is based on LSJ, and shares this volumes preference for
glosses rather than definitions; second, at present it is not complete,
though the second (and final) volume is due out this year.
On the positive side, even if you were to do no better than you are doing
with LSJ, and you *will* do better, it is *much* quicker to use Lust.
They have made a significant contribution despite the limitations. After
all, they were the first in about 170 years to attempt the undertaking.
Muraoka has his volume (of the same name as that of Lust) on the Minor
Prophets, and that strives for definitions rather than glosses. Too bad
you are not working in this corpus!
> If it was a matter of a word here or there, I wouuldn't care, but
> I had to look up five words in Ps 161 alone! That's too much back pain from
> the big LSJ. It weighs more than my 2 yr old.
161? ... or 151? Have I missed something here?
BTW, are you aware of my _Analytical Lexicon_ (Zondervan, 1994) that parses
all of the words in the Rahlfs text (but no definitions)? ... or is that
stooping too low?! :-)
> Ken Litwak
> GTU
> Bezerkley, CA
Bernard Taylor,
Loma Linda, CA
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 11:27:24 -0500
Subject: 2nd century Christian Greek
Thanks to Ed Hobbs for his recent comments on the Apostolic Fathers and
their Greek language.
I want to add to what I wrote earlier about the Greek of the fathers in the
second century and beyond.
The early apologists were scholars who were more highly educated than the
Christians of the first generation(s?). Tertullian (who wrote in Latin) was
educated in Roman law. One result was that he writes some of the most
difficult prose in the Latin language for readers who come from poetry and
the like.
Justin Martyr was educated as a philosopher-which meant that he had
rhetorical training at some point in his education. Origen, in his famous
school in Alexandria, insisted that students have an in-depth education in
rhetoric and philosophy before they turned to the study of Scripture. It
should not suprise one then if these Christian scholars wrote an educated
person's Greek.
A direct contemporary of these writers is Publius Aelius Aristides, the
second century rhetorician. In his lengthy Panathenaic Oration (LCL, vol.
1) he discusses among other topics the contribution that Athens made in its
Greek speech. He calls it a "bloodless trophy" (ANAIMAKTON TEROPAION, par.
322). "For all the cities and all the races of mankind turned to you and
your form of life, and dialect." Aristides points to its universal adoption
(par. 325) He points out that it possesses two essentials of good language,
dignity and charm (SEMNOTHS KAI XARIS). In short everyone want to speak
(and write) like the Athenians.
No wonder that II century (and later) Christian authors adopted the
literary standards of their day, and even found it necesary to defend the
linguistic dress of the NT. And recall that St. Augustine, prior to his
famous conversion, did not want to read the Old Latin translation
(pre-Jerome) because it would ruin his style as a Latin rhetorician.
Pardon the length of this; but some of you might want to read Aristides,
Panathenaic Oration 322-330. And then go on to some of the rhetoricians to
see what they actually taught as good style.
-30-
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: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" <mauros@iol.ie>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 20:51:22 +0000
Subject: Re: IEph inscr help please
When Kenneth Litwak enquired on this topic, one reply stated:
>hENOW can be found on p. 268, col. 1 in BAGD. It means to unite
>and is only found in the passive in our literature. Ignatius is
>keen on words meaning unity; you will find hENWSIS "unity" and
>hENOTHS "unison" too.
There are many, many citations -- three and a half columns -- on hENOW in
Lampe's Patristic Lexicon, in both act. and pass., and as early as Irenaeus.
There are sections on general, theological, Christological, and union of God
with creation. The largest is the Christological section.
Well worth a browse!
Maurice
Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]
mauros@iol.ie
[using Eudora Pro v 2.1.2 ]
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 11:53:23 +0800
Subject: Re: Identifying grammatical meaning of cases
Bruce Terry asks:
> A point of clarification, please. By technical meanings, are you referring to
> usage that refers to an appointed position vs. a general meaning or to the
> period in church history when these two terms take on distinctive meanings?
>
What I'm getting at is that by the 3rd century certainly an EPSIKOPOS
was an appointed, official office. I don't get the feeling from any NT
documents, the Pastoral epistles included, that that stage has been reached.
So I'm unsure, when translating the Apostolic Fathers, when EPISKOPOS and
PRESBUTEROS refer to the appointed, official offices of bishop and elder
and when they only seem to have their more, shall we say, low-key NT
flavor (they don't seem to be in the NT time an "office" worth fighting over,
and you had, at least according tot he Pastoral epistles, to have moral
and spiritual qualities appropriate to these positions, rather than just
the political connections to get them. While I tend to the view that
Euodia and Synteche were in this category addressed in Phil 1:1-2, I don't
think they were bishops in the 3rd cent. sense, let alone in an office developed
to where you have to wear a funny hat "-).
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 15:49:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: A Bayesian Analysis of Jn1:1 (long)
Thanks to Wes Williams, for his answers about how often John uses
QEOS qualitatively rather than definitely. The reason I was asking
was that ever since a bunch of statistics were posted last fall on
the use of Colwell's rule in analyzing Jn1:1. Colwell's rule is
framed in terms of conditional probability (that is, when we are given
additional information about an event) and many of the statistics
that were posted were also conditional probabilities. I figured that
one of the most important theorems about conditional probability,
Bayes Theorem, ought to be relevant.
The following is my analysis of John 1:1c with a Bayesian approach.
My basic conclusion, if you don't want to read through it, is that
although the placement of QEOS before the verb, without the article,
is evidence for a qualitative meaning, it is very weak evidence for
it, due to the fact the QEOS is overwhelmingly definite in John.
This is not the kind of question that can be decided by the use of
statistics. Rather, good old-fashioned exegesis is called for.
A BAYESIAN APPROACH TO JOHN 1:1c
Consider a fair coin flipped twice. Now the probability that it came
up heads twice (HH) is 25%. If you were told that (at least) one of
the flips came up heads, what is the probability that both are heads?
In the mid-18th century, the Rev. Thomas Bayes was investigating this
kind of problem, and he figured out, in a theorem that now bears his
name, that we must look at the relative probabilities of the events
involved when new information is received. In this case, there is only
one chance that the coins are HH, but two chances, HT & TH, that there
are not two heads, given that one of them is heads. Therefore, the
odds are 1:2, or a probability of 33%. (If the information is that
the *first* coin was heads, the odds change to 1 {HH} : 1 {HT}, or 50%.)
Here we see how new information affects our understanding of the
probabilities. Before we're told anything about the flipped coins,
the prior probability for two heads was 25%. When we're told that
one of them is heads, that information changes the prior probability
to a posterior probability of 33%. Since the information that one of
the coins is heads increases the probability that both are head, it
constitutes evidence for that proposition. The strength of the evidence
is determined by looking at much the probability changes. In this case,
that information is good, but not strong, evidence.
Bayesian analysis is most practically used today in the context of
medical screening for diseases. Consider a disease, D, that affects
one person in a thousand [i.e, P(D) = 0.001], and there is a screening
test, which 90% of the time will give a positive result, P, when the
person has the disease [P(P|D) = .9], but will also give a positive
result in 2% of the cases when the person does not have the disease
[P(P|D') = .02]. What is the probability that a person who tests
positive for the disease will actually have it?
According to Bayesian analysis, we have to look at the relative
probabilities. Testing positive will happen for two reasons: (1)
one had the disease and the test workes, with probability: P(D)P(P|D) =
.001 * .9 = 0.0009; and (2) not having the disease and getting a
false positive, with probability P(D')P(P|D') = .999 * .02 = 0.01998.
Therefore the odds are 0.0009 to 0.01998, or only 4.3%, of actually
having the disease with a positive result. The answer may appear
counter-intuitive, but the reason the number worked out the way it did
is that the disease is so rare that most of the positive results are
false positives, even at the 2% rate. Because it produces answers
that are counter-intuitive, Bayes theorem can be a powerful tool in
analyzing probabilities.
Now, consider Jn1:1c: KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS. What is the probability
that QEOS is definite (D), given that is is anarthrous and precedes
the verb (AP)? This is ripe for an application of Bayes Theorem.
We would need to calculate the odds P(D)P(AP|D) : P(D')P(AP|D'),
where P(D) is the (prior) probability that QEOS is definite in John,
P(AP|D) is the probability that a definite predicate nominative is
anarthrous and precedes the verb, and P(AP|D') is the probability
that a qualitative predicate nominative precedes the verb.
I must thank Dr. Paul Dixon for sharing with list back in May, some of
the results of his thesis on the abuse of Colwell's rule. He said,
"Our conclusions show that when John wished to express a
definite predicate nominative, he usually wrote it after
the verb with the article, 66 of 77 occurrences or 86%
probability. When he wished to express a qualitative
predicate nominative, he usually wrote it before the verb
without the article, 50 of 63 occurrences or 80% probability."
Therefore, P(AP|D') is 80%. Applying Colwell's rule, we'll assume
that all of the remaining 14% of the cases in which John does not
write a definite predicate nominative after the verb with the article,
he writes it before the verb without it. (My numbers do not have to
be exact to support my general conclusions, there is quite a bit of
tolerance in the exact values.) So, the odds that QEOS is definite
in Jn1:1 is P(D) * 14% : P(D') * 80%, where P(D) is the prior probability
that QEOS is definite.
What is that prior probability? John uses QEOS, in its various forms,
about 80 times, none of which (excluding Jn1:1c) is clearly qualitative.
Therefore, I may be justified in assuming a 1/80 or 98.75% prior
probability that QEOS is definite. The odds then become: 98.75 * 14 :
1.25 * 80, or about 93% probability. Therefore, although the fact that
QEOS is anarthrous and precedes the verb is evidence against it being
definite, it is not very strong evidence, because it is still 93%
probable (down from 98.75%) that it is definite. The fact that QEOS is
so overwhelmingly definite in John means that the normal indicator of a
qualitative meaning is not very probative. In fact, if the prior prob-
ability of it being qualitative improved to 1/8 (ten times more likely),
QEOS would still more likely than not statistically be definite in this
position.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The syntax of Jn1:1c is evidence in favor of QEOS being qualitative,
but its strength is very weak because the noun is overwhelmingly
definite.
2. What is more important, however, is evaluating the prior probability
of QEOS being qualitative before looking at the syntax. This article
assumed that it can be determined simply by counting the occurrences.
This may not be the best approach. The context itself may suggest
different populations (rather than the singular QEOS in John) for the
prior probability.
3. Due to the importance of the prior probability in how it affects the
Bayesian analysis and due to the strength of this kind of evidence,
statistics alone don't help much. We still have to examine the context
very carefully to determine its meaning. There is contextual evidence
for either position. Jn1:1c may be in contrast with v14 which calls for
the qualitative meaning, but the climactic structure of v1 and its
juxtaposition of QEON with KAI QEOS argues the other way.
4. Colwell's rule is not directly applicable to this situation, but it
helped to determine one of the relevant probabilities in the Bayesian
analysis.
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: Timothy Tow <ttow@tow.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 13:23:28 -0800
Subject: Re: Homeric Greek Question
I'm posting this question to this list on the advice of a friend.
I'm not on this mail list so please reply to me directly.
I was re-reading the Odyseey and the Iliad, and I recall reading
from some literary source that the expression of '10 years' in Homeric
Greek was a colloquialism for "a long period of time."
I asking this because if Homer's use of the expression '10 years'
for the duration of siege of Troy is taken figuratively then his stories
makes more sense chronologically then if it were taken literally.
Then the Trojan War and all of its assorted aftermath events may
not have taken over 20 years after all. Should I take the '10 years'
expression literally or figuratively.
Was '10 years' a common colloquialism for a "a long time" even in
other Greek dialects?
Tim
____________________________________________________________________________
Timothy Tow ttow@tow.com Phone 415 813-6813
3460 West Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA. 94303 Fax 415-493-0281
____________________________________________________________________________
Tim
____________________________________________________________________________
Timothy Tow ttow@tow.com Phone 415 813-6813
3460 West Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA. 94303 Fax 415-493-0281
____________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 17:39:09 -0600
Subject: Re: Grammatical Meaning
Alan Brehm wrote;
>In reply to Kenneth Litwak's query about syntax categories and grammatical
>meaning, it seems to me that the basic difference between Blass-Debrunner or
>Porter on the one hand, and A. T. Robertson or Brooks and Winbery on the other
>hand, is that BDF and Porter separate the functions of nouns with the
>preposition from those functions that relate primarily to the case of the noun,
>while ATR and B-W incorporate the two into one system (although ATR also treats
>the prepositions separately).
This is certainly an accurate observation. I would add to it that Danta &
Mantey deals only with the syntax of case in the section on nouns. Their
syntax of prepositions is really what you would get in a good lexicon. I
do not think that you can really separate the function of prepositions from
that of case.
>Of course, Porter's criticism of the 8-case system applies here--if one defines
>case based on function, then one will ostensibly have dozens of syntax
>categories. So [in reply to Kenneth's question] you might find yourself in a
>situation in your doctoral exam where the members of your panel assume that a
>"dative of advantage" does not exist, but rather it is an instance of the
>dative
>case occurring with a preposition that expresses advantage.
I have also criticized the 8 case system. Why not nine (instrumental of
association and instrumental of means seem fairly distinct to me)? We did
the syntax book back in the seventies when most of our students at New
Orleans and Fort Worth came from Baptist colleges where AT Robertson was
considered next to God. We did take care to cross reference the Ablative,
locative, and instrumental to the five case system which we both preferred.
We also clearly distinguish the categories used with and without
prepositions.
The statement that some might say that the "dative of advantage does not
exist, but rather it is an instance of the dative case occurring with a
preposition that expresses advantage" is interesting in light of the fact
that this category can be illustrated both with and without the
preposition. Compare Rev. 21:2 and Mark 14:6.
>On the other hand, the benefit of ATR and B-W is that it is a much more
>workable
>system for teaching [NT] Greek in the classroom. I find that the more concrete
>I can make the teaching of syntax and grammatical functions, the better my
>students can get a handle on what sometime we Ph. D. types must admit are fine
>distinctions.
>
>On the other hand, as a former student of Jim Brooks, IMHO I think that the
>strength of their approach is its weakness--the very systematic nature of their
>book leads students to think that there is a category for every
>construction and
>every construction fits neatly into some discreet category.
I emphasize in my use of our Syntax that every instance does not fit neatly
into a given category. We intentionally looked for illustrations that did
not fit neatly so as to raise questions. I often say, "Jim must have
picked that one."
>For this reason, I
>have experimented with combining the best of both worlds--at first I tried
>using
>Porter to expose the students to the ambiguities of dealing with syntax
>but also
>using a system like B-W to give them some structure. That did not work well
>because Porter is written at a level that only those with substantial knowledge
>of Greek can follow it.
>
>At present I am using B-W as a foundation, but have augmented their set of
>categories by referring to other functions in BAGD, ATR, and BDF. I make one
>important [IMHO] distinction, however--I indicate which of these functions
>occur
>only with prepositions, and which occur with the noun alone. In this way I try
>to do justice to the fact that many of the categories in B-W relate more
>closely
>to the prepositions than to the case of the nouns per se [of course, I would
>expect that Carleton Winbery might have something to say about that, and would
>welcome his comments]. Nevertheless, I try to preserve the benefit of B-W,
>which is to give students a concrete framework to begin their struggle to
>wrestle with the text.
I must agree with most of what Alan has said. Prepositions are difficult
to deal with in almost any language and Greek is not exception. I would
express my feeling that in the Hellenistic period the use of prepositions
was in a state of transition. I tend to think that prepositions do not
have dictionary meanings but must be dealt with as functions and indicators
in the language.
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: Dusty Garison <preacher@sooner.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 17:07:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Lexicons for the LXX
Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> After suffering through a chapter of the LXX weith the big LSJ,
>I'm looking for a better alternative for my purposes.
Kenneth, I have had good luck reading the LXX and using the abridged
Liddell/Scott, printed in 1976. I don't know if you'll be able to find it
or not, or even if it's still in print. You might try some of the used
religious book dealers. It weighs decidedly less than a two-year-old.
Someone else may have a better suggestion.
Best Regards,
Dusty Garison
preacher@sooner.net
P.S. Please don't anyone flame me. This is my first post to this group,
and I'm not sure of the exact procedures.
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #86
****************************
** 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