[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #89
b-greek-digest Thursday, 25 January 1996 Volume 01 : Number 089
In this issue:
Subscription
Re: Subscription
AP in LSJM
ApFathers & LSJM--copy of reply
re: A Bayesian Analysis of Jn1:1 (long)
Re: ApFathers & LSJM--copy of reply
[none]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Hughes <macmike@nitco.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 09:22:18 -0600
Subject: Subscription
For some reason I am double subscribed to this list. I get it in digest
form, which is what I want, and non digest, which is what I don't want.
Help!!
+==================================================================+
| Mike Hughes (219) 696-3637 (home) |
| 204 Prairie Street 696-2436 (office) |
| Lowell, IN 46356 696-2436 (fax) |
| Internet Address: macmike@nitco.com |
| The East Tennessee List Address after 03/15/95 |
| ETL@genesis.acu.edu
|
| |
| This note created using recycled electrons. Please Recycle! |
+==================================================================+
------------------------------
From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 10:36:01 -0600
Subject: Re: Subscription
>For some reason I am double subscribed to this list. I get it in digest
>form, which is what I want, and non digest, which is what I don't want.
>
>Help!!
>
>+==================================================================+
>| Mike Hughes (219) 696-3637 (home) |
Me, too. I read somewhere that it means more than one server are
considered home to the list; it is not that we are double subscribed.
Many mailing lists are not set up correctly - this does not necessarily
reflect on the mailing list owner or administrator, but it is up to them to
run down such problems.
Will
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 12:26:03 +0800
Subject: AP in LSJM
I have an important question (well, at least to me). It was my understanding
that LSJM explicitly does not contain the vocabulary for the Apostolic
Fathers because it is assumed that Lampe will take care of that. Can someone
confirm this for me? It's important because I was just told that the only
book we are allowed at my doctoral Greek comptency exam next week is LSJM.
This is a problem if we're given a sight passage from the AP. Of course, it's
not very kind if, as usual, the sight passage is from the NT either. Talk about
the wrong tool for the job! Anyway, can someone tell me if I'm right about
this? I thought I'd read it on this list some months ago, but I'm not sure.
Thanks.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
P.S.,
I was told I can use any system for identifying constucts I want to use, so at
least it won't be a problem when I use my current synthesis of Dana and Mantey,
Porter and Brooks and Winbery.
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 17:22:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: ApFathers & LSJM--copy of reply
From: LUCY::EHOBBS "Edward Hobbs" 24-JAN-1996 17:21:05.12
To: IN%"kenneth@sybase.com"
CC: EHOBBS
Subj: RE: AP in LSJM
Dear Ken:
"I have an important question (well, at least to me). It was my understanding
that LSJM explicitly does not contain the vocabulary for the Apostolic
Fathers because it is assumed that Lampe will take care of that. Can someone
confirm this for me?"
NOT SO. LSJM was finished many years before Lampe, perhaps even
before Lampe's fascicles began appearing.
I suspect that what you are remembering is a comment (maybe mine)
that Jones decided not to try for extensive citations in his LXX material
because it was not composed in Greek, hence not a real resource for Greek
style, syntax, and even vocabulary. I'm pretty sure it is complete even
for all LXX words, though.
"I was told I can use any system for identifying constucts I want to use, so at
least it won't be a problem when I use my current synthesis of Dana and Mantey,
Porter and Brooks and Winbery."
Good! I imagined that would be the case.
- --Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: "Wes C. Williams" <71414.3647@compuserve.com>
Date: 24 Jan 96 16:53:34 EST
Subject: re: A Bayesian Analysis of Jn1:1 (long)
>> Thanks to Wes Williams, for his answers about how often John uses
QEOS qualitatively rather than definitely. <<
I was happy to contribute the occurrences of the qualitative theos
in John. Since my name was used in connection with the "Bayesian
Analysis of Jn 1:1" as a research contributor, I would like to
clarify that I do not believe it possible that the John 1:1c
'theos' is definite. This although statistically John uses the
word as definite most of the time (actually, statistically speaking,
the bible uses theos mostly as a definite, but uses it at times
indefinitely and/or qualitatively). Here is why I do not think it
can be definite.
Eimi in John 1:1c is not equative. It is linking theos with ho logos.
The subject is clearly ho logos. We cannot reverse the word order as
would be true in an equative sentence. Because of this, we cannot
assume that the definite article is to be understood (as is true in
other Colwell texts, where we could reverse the word order if the
definite article were to be understood).
Regarding John 1:1c, Robertson says in "Grammar..." (p. 767, 768):
"...ho theos agape estin. God and love *are not convertible terms*
any more than 'God' and 'logos' or 'logos' and 'flesh' (in 1:14). ...
The absence of the article is essential to the true idea."
Also, Green's Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, p. 178
says regarding John 1:14, 1:1c, and 17:17:
"Had the article been employed with the Predicate in the above case,
the sentences would have read thus: ... Thy word is the entire Truth,
and nothing else can be so described. The Word was the entire Godhead,
and God and Love are identical, so that in fact Love is God."
Such an explanation is, in itself, an inference that 'ho logos' is not
one and the same as the 'ho theos' with whom 'ho logos' is said to be.
This points to a qualitative and/or indefinite emphasis. I can in no
way reasonably see how the definite article can be assumed since there
are two persons mentioned.
>> 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. <<
It is often thought that a predicate nominative noun has to be
1) definite, 2) indefinite, or 3) qualitative. In his book "Qualitative
Nouns in the Pauline Epistles in the Revised Version", Slatten showed that
a predicate nominative does not have to be qualitative OR definite/
indefinite. A predicate nominative could be qualitative and indefinite,
or just qualitative, or just indefinite, or definite and qualitative, or
simply definite. He uses the example "Henry is a soldier."
Henry may be:
1) one of a group of soldiers without any reference to Henry's qualities.
(indefinite)
2) one of the group and also has many of the qualities of a soldier.
(indefinite and qualitative, with indefinite emphasis)
3) has all the qualities of a soldier with little reference to the group.
(indefinite and qualitative, with qualitative emphasis).
4) has all the qualities of a soldier but is not in the military.
(qualitative)
What about "the Word was God", or "the Word was god", or "the Word was a
god", or "the Word was divine?"
Professor B. F. Westcott stated that the phrase rendered "the Word was
God" describes "the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person."
Therefore, the first could be true only in the sense: "The Word is god in
the same sense that I am man". This qualitative emphasis agrees with the
qualitative emphasis in 1:14. I have no problem with this. This even
though 'theos' as definite is statistically common in John's writings.
The same purely qualitative emphasis could be accomplished with "the Word
was a god", as in the sense of "Henry is a soldier" #3, #4.
Hence, some translations bring out the qualitative aspect in their
translations. For example, some render the expression "the Word was
divine." (An American Translation, Schonfield) Moffatt renders it "the
Logos was divine." However, indicating that "divine" would not be the
most appropriate rendering here, John Robinson and the British textual
critic Sir Frederick Kenyon both pointed out that if that was what John
wanted to emphasize, he could have used the Greek word for "divine,"
thei'os.
Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American
Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine
Being himself."
There should also be no problem with "a god" with qualitative emphasis.
Harner mentioned that the indefinite article can be inserted for English
translation even though the noun has qualitative emphasis. "This man is
a sinner." i.e. "of a sinful nature." (John 9:24)
Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, comments
on this approach: "A possible translation . . . would be, 'The Word was a
god'. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted."
Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1
should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'"
Even with indefinite and qualitative emphasis, "a god" would not
necessarily imply polytheism, since Jesus himself referred to others as
part of the theos class, in the sense of 'mighty ones' (John 10:34).
Regarding this fact, Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of
John (chapters 1-6), stated: "[the.os'] and [ho the.os'] ('god, divine'
and 'the God') were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact,
for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was 'God' ([ho the.os'];
cf. Joh 17:3); 'the Son' was subordinate to him (cf. Joh 14:28). But
that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on
the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in
Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed
alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10
proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who
later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and
John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between
two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities."John 1, translated
by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110.
>> 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. <<
Agreed outstandingly. One in particular, and one that is often
overlooked, is the fact that there are two persons mentioned in
John 1:1. How could ho logos be the same person as the ho logos
with whom he is said to be? This is quite a challenge grammatically
and contextually speaking.
>>. 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. <<
Having said all the above, I enjoyed reading your research. It is
interesting.
Very respectfully,
Wes Williams
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 18:22:54 CST
Subject: Re: ApFathers & LSJM--copy of reply
On Wed, 24 Jan 1996, Edward Hobbs wrote in response to Ken Litwak:
>"I have an important question (well, at least to me). It was my understanding
>that LSJM explicitly does not contain the vocabulary for the Apostolic
>Fathers because it is assumed that Lampe will take care of that. Can someone
>confirm this for me?"
>
> NOT SO. LSJM was finished many years before Lampe, perhaps even
>before Lampe's fascicles began appearing.
>
> I suspect that what you are remembering is a comment (maybe mine)
>that Jones decided not to try for extensive citations in his LXX material
>because it was not composed in Greek, hence not a real resource for Greek
>style, syntax, and even vocabulary. I'm pretty sure it is complete even
>for all LXX words, though.
>From Jones' 1925 preface (to the first part of the 9th edition?):
"Liddell and Scott, though they originally intended their work to be a Lexicon
of Classical Greek, admitted a number of words from Ecclesiastical and
Byzantine writers, for many of which no reference was given except the symbols
'Eccl.' and 'Byz.' After due consideration it has been decided to exclude
both Patristic and Byzantine literature from the purview of the present
edition. . . . . There is, moreover, in preparation a Lexicon of Patristic
Greek (including Christian poetry and inscriptions) under the editorship of
Dr. Darwell Stone . . . . . . . it will hardly be denied that some time-limit
was called for, and this has been fixed roughly at A.D. 600 . . ." (pp. x-xi).
>From this, I would understand that the AF would be included, but later
Christian writers excluded.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From:
Date:
Subject: [none]
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #89
****************************
** 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