[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #88
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 24 January 1996 Volume 01 : Number 088
In this issue:
Re: Lexicons for the LXX
Re: Homeric Greek Question
Re: tenses
Re: Homeric Greek Question
Re: tenses
Re: Grammatical Meaning
Re: Grammatical Meaning
Aorist subjunctive passive in commands
Re: tenses
Re: Aorist subjunctive passive in commands
Re: Aorist subjunctive passive in commands
Litwak's question on Hebrew/Greek of Ps. 16:1
Using English ponies
FWD>RE > PSALMS IN SEPTUAGI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 22:32:55 +0800
Subject: Re: Lexicons for the LXX
Bernard,
Thanks for the suggestions on lexicons. Actually, your analytical
lexicon was number one on my CHristmas list and I use it
regularly! I could use Muraoaka as I'm doing Amos 9 for my exam
at least and later will need to do more in the Minor Prophets for my
dissertation. Thanks.
Ken Litwak
------------------------------
From: Nichael Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 07:38:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Homeric Greek Question
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> Timothy Tow wrote:
> > 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?
> I have never seen or heard anything like this. It is ironic for one not
> overly inclined to be especially literal in interpreting the gospel to have
> to insist the strong likelihood that ten years in Homer means nothing else
> but ten years: [...]
> Sorry, I didn't mean to rant and rave, but the 20 years is underscored
> repeatedly in the Odyssey.
More to the point, isn't it also the case (sorry, my Homer is my other
office so I'm doing this from memory) isn't it also the case that the
Iliad opens after _nine_ years of fighting. The war and subsequent
mopping up goes on for a year or so after Akhellius' death (i.e. after the
end of the Iliad) making a total of ten years. So unless "nine years" is
also taken to be a colloquialism for a long time it would seem that Homer
meant 10 years.
But the original point --that of the "problems" of chronology-- is still
an interesting one. When I took Homer in Gregory Nagy's course you can
bet we asked about these things (my personal favorite was Akhellius
leaving an infant son when he set off for Troy and by the end of the siege
the son is leading troups into battle; for that matter if you work out the
various personal ancestries and who-knew-whose-father at various times,
the fact that Akhellius himself is present means that some of the other
main charcters must be leading charges into the heat of battle well into
their seventies and eighties).
Nagy's response was that basically we are in Mythic time, something akin
to the "dream time" of the Australian aborigenes. Literalness is
something that can only be pushed so far in these cases. So perhaps
there is something to learn here w.r.t. NT studies.
Nichael
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 10:04:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: tenses
On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Rick Strelan wrote:
> Would anyone care to answer a basic question: why do verb tenses change so
> easily in a narrative? For example (among many) in the parable of Matt
> 13:24-30, the servants and the master have a conversation which is
> introduced by verbs in the aorist (eipon and ephe, vv27-28) but then the
> conversation continues introduced by verbns of speaking in the present
> tense (legousin and phesi), Is the present tense here meant to imply an
> on-going or repeated conversation,a stance being taken?
I believe this general topic has received quite a bit of discussion on
this list in the past. You can find some discussion in scholarly
literature under the topics of aspect of the Greek verb and
historic/historical present tense. In part, any particular answer to your
question will depend on whether the forms that are traditionally called
tense forms are understood to be true tenses, only aspect, or some
combination of the two. For example, one explanation for the use of the
so-called "historic present" verbs in narrative is that the events are
made more vivid by being brought into the reader's "present." This clearly
understands the present form to be a tense. Others would say that it
contains only aspect. There is substantial agreement, I think, on the
aspectual difference between aorist and present, regardless of one's view
of tense. I think there is also substantial agreement that present and
imperfect are alike/related in aspect. These three forms are the most
common in narratives such as Matthew (forms such as perfect are far less
common, I think). My impression is that aorist (perfective aspect)
represents a standard moving forward of a story line in narrative,
imperfect (imperfective aspect) typically presents background or setting
necessary to make the narrative work without moving it forward, and
present (also imperfective aspect) moves the story forward like the
aorist, but in a marked way (I know that is a vague way to state it, but
I'm not clear on it myself, nor have I seen an explanation of it in the
literature that seems adequate to me). What part, if any, true tense
plays in this I am not at all sure.
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 09:25:58 -0600
Subject: Re: Homeric Greek Question
At 6:38 AM 1/23/96, Nichael Cramer wrote:
>Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>> Timothy Tow wrote:
>> > 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?
>> I have never seen or heard anything like this. It is ironic for one not
>> overly inclined to be especially literal in interpreting the gospel to have
>> to insist the strong likelihood that ten years in Homer means nothing else
>> but ten years: [...]
>> Sorry, I didn't mean to rant and rave, but the 20 years is underscored
>> repeatedly in the Odyssey.
>
>More to the point, isn't it also the case (sorry, my Homer is my other
>office so I'm doing this from memory) isn't it also the case that the
>Iliad opens after _nine_ years of fighting. The war and subsequent
>mopping up goes on for a year or so after Akhellius' death (i.e. after the
>end of the Iliad) making a total of ten years. So unless "nine years" is
>also taken to be a colloquialism for a long time it would seem that Homer
>meant 10 years.
>
>But the original point --that of the "problems" of chronology-- is still
>an interesting one. When I took Homer in Gregory Nagy's course you can
>bet we asked about these things (my personal favorite was Akhellius
>leaving an infant son when he set off for Troy and by the end of the siege
>the son is leading troups into battle; for that matter if you work out the
>various personal ancestries and who-knew-whose-father at various times,
>the fact that Akhellius himself is present means that some of the other
>main charcters must be leading charges into the heat of battle well into
>their seventies and eighties).
>
>Nagy's response was that basically we are in Mythic time, something akin
>to the "dream time" of the Australian aborigenes. Literalness is
>something that can only be pushed so far in these cases. So perhaps
>there is something to learn here w.r.t. NT studies.
Yes, and there other weird anachronisms in mythic time also, like Herakles
being one of the Argonauts. There are times too when I wonder whether
Nestor didn't live through the whole span of mythic time (which, of course,
had no beginning and no end). And Helen, it would seem, has not aged one
bit when Telemachus goes visiting to Sparta in the Odyssey, after all she's
been through!
What a lucky fellow to have done Homer with Greg Nagy! Probably luckier
than I to have done Homer with John Finley.
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: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 10:35:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: tenses
Rick Strelan wrote:
> Would anyone care to answer a basic question: why do verb tenses change so
> easily in a narrative? For example (among many) in the parable of Matt
> 13:24-30, the servants and the master have a conversation which is
> introduced by verbs in the aorist (eipon and ephe, vv27-28) but then the
> conversation continues introduced by verbns of speaking in the present
> tense (legousin and phesi), Is the present tense here meant to imply an
> on-going or repeated conversation,a stance being taken?
We've had this question before (I know, because I have asked a similar
question), and the basic answer seems to be that shifting to the present
tense for verbs of speaking serves to highlight what is being said. In
other words, it is used to emphasize or focus the attention on a particular
statement. There are those on this list who know the topic better than I,
so I may missing some important nuances.
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: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 09:52:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Grammatical Meaning
I agree with Carlton below, with one possible historical footnote.
Historical grammar is not always without relevance. Prepositions, according
to one theory, originated as particles to clarify the meaning already
inherent in the cases used. That might be what leads to some difficulty in
understanding them in Hellenistic-Roman period Greek.
Carl might have a comment or two to add to my oversimplified statement above.
>
>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.
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: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 11:54:09 -0600
Subject: Re: Grammatical Meaning
On 1/23/96, Edgar M. Krentz wrote:
> I agree with Carlton below, with one possible historical footnote.
> Historical grammar is not always without relevance. Prepositions, according
> to one theory, originated as particles to clarify the meaning already
> inherent in the cases used. That might be what leads to some difficulty in
> understanding them in Hellenistic-Roman period Greek.
>
> Carl might have a comment or two to add to my oversimplified statement above.
>
> >
> >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.
I would agree pretty much with both these comments. I just met with a
tutorial group reading Mark 1 and noted within a single verse the
alternation between expression of instrument by dative w/o preposition and
immediately thereafter by dative w/ EN:
Mk 1:EGW EBAPTISA hUMAS hUDATI, AUTOS DE BAPTISEI hUMAS EN PNEUMATI hAGIWi.
Of course the apparatus does indicate a variant EN hUDATI, but this is
pretty evidently a scribal "correction" of the text.
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: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 09:57:38 +0800
Subject: Aorist subjunctive passive in commands
I've noticed, especially in the Apostolic Fathers, more so than I have in the
NT, though it's present there certainly, the use of the Aorist subjunctive
passive in both comands and assertions, both things that don't seem
appropriate to what I know about the subjunctive and especially inappropriate
for a "passive" voice. Can someone explain to me how this form came to be
used this way, if that's understood by scholars at all?
BTW, since it's raised so many questions, I meant to type Ps 16:1, not 161.
Unfortunately, the keyboard on my NT machine at home practically requires
plastique to make a keystroke, hence I have more typos at home where I can't
easily fix them than at work. ANd after all that, I realzied I should have
been translating Ps 15, not 16. Why couldn't the LXX Psalm translator at least
count correctly to 16?
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 13:55:21 CST
Subject: Re: tenses
On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Rick Strelan wrote:
>Would anyone care to answer a basic question: why do verb tenses change so
>easily in a narrative? For example (among many) in the parable of Matt
>13:24-30, the servants and the master have a conversation which is
>introduced by verbs in the aorist (eipon and ephe, vv27-28) but then the
>conversation continues introduced by verbns of speaking in the present
>tense (legousin and phesi), Is the present tense here meant to imply an
>on-going or repeated conversation,a stance being taken?
It is possible that the switch to present tense in such a case is a kind of
refresh operation--to remind the reader/listener that the narrative is still
in a quotation by one of the characters. This would be in distinction to a
verb used to introduce the beginning of a quotation. If my memory serves me
right, the imperfect is also used in this way in certain places in Mark.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 13:36:29 -0600
Subject: Re: Aorist subjunctive passive in commands
On 1/22/96, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> I've noticed, especially in the Apostolic Fathers, more so than I have
>in the
> NT, though it's present there certainly, the use of the Aorist subjunctive
> passive in both comands and assertions, both things that don't seem
> appropriate to what I know about the subjunctive and especially inappropriate
> for a "passive" voice. Can someone explain to me how this form came to be
> used this way, if that's understood by scholars at all?
This is more than one question and not a simple one at all; "how come"
questions involving language invoke a sort of mystical "psychoanalysis of
linguistic history."
For one thing, the "passive" in Greek, morphologically speaking, is not
really a passive at all but a non-thematic aorist ACTIVE in form but more
often than not intransitive or middle in sense. I like to start an
explanation with a form like 3d sg. EFANH (in the sense "he/she/it
appeared") from FAINOMAI. But if you add to this an agent construction,
e.g.
TAUTA PANTA EFANH hUPO TOU QEOU
the construction takes on a passive sense: "All these things were revealed
by God." This type of construction became regularized ultimately with a
QH/E formative element as a "regular" passive in the aorist. But "passive"
has to to be qualified as a term here because it's only a transitive verb
that is going to take a passive meaning in that form, and also because
there are numerous verbs that are middle (rarely if ever active) voice in
the present tense but "divide themselves" (reflexive verbs are much more
native to Indo-European than passives, I think) between middle and
"passive" forms in the aorist, and there are numerous "deponent" verbs
which some of us call "passive deponents" because they have an aorist that
is passive in form rather than middle.
One verb of this sort that Luke likes is EUAGGELIZOMAI. According to BAGD
this appears in the aorist middle as HUAGGELISAMHN in the LXX but in the NT
it is much more commonly in the passive, HUAGGELQHN. Another example is
that weird verb used of feeling compassion, SPLAGXNIZOMAI; its aorist is
ESPLAGXQHN, which is obviously not passive. As I recall, we even have an
imperative of this verb addressed to Jesus by someone wanting healing,
SPLAGXNISQHTI--and of course this isn't passive in meaning either. And it
is my impression that these aorist "passive" forms are multiplying in
Hellenistic Greek where the same verbs may have used aorist middles earlier
to express the same senses.
The future passive is, of course, a hybrid development out of the aorist
passive, simply formed by adding the formative element -S- to the aorist
passive stem + thematic vowel + middle endings.
All of this implies, I think, that the so-called passive voice is an
extremely artificial development in Greek, one wherein a passive function
is grafted onto a morphological system that is originally
middle/intransitive in function. As I said, the REFLEXIVE is really much
more natural to Indo-European. Consider (cf. "Stellen Sie Sich vor") what
is meant by "to find oneself" or "to be found" and look at the usage of
hEUREQHN in the NT, as, e.g., in Phil 2:7
KAI SXHMATI hEUREQEIS hWS ANQRWPOS ...
So it isn't just the imperative or subjunctive forms in which these awkward
aorist "passives" are found/find themselves/appear, they are really quite
common.
> BTW, since it's raised so many questions, I meant to type Ps 16:1, not 161.
> Unfortunately, the keyboard on my NT machine at home practically requires
> plastique to make a keystroke, hence I have more typos at home where I can't
> easily fix them than at work. ANd after all that, I realzied I should have
> been translating Ps 15, not 16. Why couldn't the LXX Psalm translator at
>least count correctly to 16?
Considering the Greek of the Psalms in the LXX, it was all the translator
could do to get the Hebrew into intelligible Greek! ;-)
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: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 11:59:14 +0800
Subject: Re: Aorist subjunctive passive in commands
Carl Conrad wrote;
>Considering the Greek of the Psalms in the LXX, it was all the translator
>could do to get the Hebrew into intelligible Greek! ;-)
First, thanks for that informative post. Now, since you said this, I have
to ask another question. When I was translating both Ps 109 and Ps 15, it seemed
to me, based on looking at an English translation (not the Hebrew I admit),
namely the NASB, where I go when I want as close to literal in English as
possible, that either the translator(s) didn't know Hebrew very well or must
have had a very different text in front of him/her. For example, in Ps 15,
the psalmist, according to the NASB, said that "you Lord are my only good"
or words to that effect. The LXX, unless my Greek is very bad, said
"You have no need of my good things". My Hebrew is good enough to know the
difference. Has this been analyzed to the point where it can be said
whether the translator wasn't up to snuff or he/she used a different vorlage?
Thanks.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 17:01:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Litwak's question on Hebrew/Greek of Ps. 16:1
Ken Litwak asked:
" When I was translating both Ps 109 and Ps 15, it seemed
to me, based on looking at an English translation (not the Hebrew I admit),
namely the NASB, where I go when I want as close to literal in English as
possible, that either the translator(s) didn't know Hebrew very well or must
have had a very different text in front of him/her. For example, in Ps 15,
the psalmist, according to the NASB, said that "you Lord are my only good"
or words to that effect. The LXX, unless my Greek is very bad, said
"You have no need of my good things". My Hebrew is good enough to know the
difference. Has this been analyzed to the point where it can be said
whether the translator wasn't up to snuff or he/she used a different vorlage?
- ---"
Ken, you have a knack for picking them! This example illustates once again
my point, often made, that English translations will cause you more trouble
in reading Greek than they are usually worth.
The HEBREW of Ps. 16:1 is not what NASB was translating. Like the
ASV and the RSV and the NRSV (et alia), they simply adopted the translation
of Jerome -- because the Hebrew doesn't seem to make any sense.
So don't imagine that LXX had a different Vorlage (always a capital
V), or that the translator couldn't read Hebrew. Both are frequently the
case -- but neither is the problem here. The problem is that you looked
at an English translation you supposed was based on the Hebrew--and wasn't.
It is really unwise to have any English translation of the Hebrew,
or of Jerome, in front of you when you are reading LXX.
Incidentally, one advantage of using LSJ for your LXX reading is
that you have to use it a LOT (which you complain of); the result of this
is that you gradually will learn how to use it, a skill you are going to
need desperately later on. So why not practice now?
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 16:03:16 +0800
Subject: Using English ponies
WHile Edward Hobbs has made a valid point about using English ponies, the
question does arise when translating, "if what I'm coming up with makes little
sense, who's at fault, the LXX/Jerome/whomever, or me?" I know that in certain
biblical Hebrew texts, no one is really sure what the text says, like in the
end of Micah 1, or the middle of Micah 2. So there I don't rely on English
translations to check my work. I don't know ahead of time that there's a
problem with the text of Ps 109/110 that makes it appear that my
translating skills are faulty. So how do I know when to go with what
the grammar and words seem to say and when to say "this is obviously
not right. Where's my NASB?".
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
P.S.,
This isn't a problem unique to the LXX certainly. I'll admit it, I've never
read Plato. So if I'm translating Plato, how do I know if I'm right, unless
I use an English pony to check my work?
------------------------------
From: Karen Pitts <karen_pitts@maca.sarnoff.com>
Date: 23 Jan 1996 21:32:04 U
Subject: FWD>RE > PSALMS IN SEPTUAGI
Mail*Link(r) SMTP FWD>RE > PSALMS IN SEPTUAGINT
Ken: I passed your question on to Scott and here is his reply. Karen
- --------------------------------------
Date: 1/23/96 9:24 PM
From: SCOTT_STARBUCK.parti@ecunet.or
Yes indeed, well said Karen.[I said that there were lots of places that the
Septuagint and the Masoretic texts didn't match and I'd given up on using
English texts for translating the Septuagint (or the NT for that
matterr--Karen]
Ken is looking at Ps 16:2 in Hebrew. It is most likely a corrupt text.
Presently the Hebrew can read either "my good most certainly (rests) upon
you" or "my good most certainly does not (rest) upon you." But the Urtext
probably said else.
It looks to me that the LXX is simply guessing at what the Hebrew text
meant.
If Ken wants to look further, the journal Vetus Testamentum has three
articles on this verse: VT 21 (1971) 52-53; VT 22 (1972) 359-61; VT 24
(1974) 190-192 by Leveen, Mannati, and Lindblom respectively.
Selah,
Scott R.A. Starbuck
Senior Pastor
Hopewell Presbyterian Church
80 West Broad St, Hopewell, NJ 08525
(609) 466-0758 FAX (609) 466-4604
- ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by maca.sarnoff.com with SMTP;23 Jan 1996 21:23:26 U
From: SCOTT_STARBUCK.parti@ecunet.org
To: KAREN_PITTS@maca.sarnoff.com
Subject: RE > PSALMS IN SEPTUAGINT
Reply-to: SCOTT_STARBUCK.parti@ecunet.org
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 96 20:00:34 EST
Message-ID: <9601232000.aa16893@pcusa01.ecunet.org>
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #88
****************************
** 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