[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #90
b-greek-digest Friday, 26 January 1996 Volume 01 : Number 090
In this issue:
Re: Aorists etc
Re: phil questions
phil questions
Re: Using English ponies
Luke 1:78--"tender mercy/lovingkindness"
Re: Using English ponies
Phil questions
"Sin boldly!"
Deut 6
Re: phil questions
Re: Deut 6
Re: Deut 6
Re: grammar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 08:34:23 -0600
Subject: Re: Aorists etc
I take the liberty of forwarding Maurice O'Sullivan's response to my note
on aorist passive subjunctives and imperatives from a couple days ago. He
is much too kind to call attention to my errors on the list itself, and he
raises an interesting issue about SPLAGXNIZOMAI that others might want to
comment on.
>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 08:14:49 -0600
>To:"Maurice A. O'Sullivan" <mauros@iol.ie>
>From:cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl W. Conrad)
>Subject:Re: Aorists etc
>
>Maurice, thanks for your note--i.e.--your "epistle"! (For you I punctuate
>the British way!). I received it yesterday afternoon and apologize for the
>delay in responding. I wanted to check and see if I could find
>SPLAGXNISQHTI, and of course, i couldn't. I must have dreamed it
>somewhere. It was from memory, which is by no means the surest guide.
>
>On 1/24/96, Maurice A. O'Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Carl:
>>
>> You wrote in B-GREEK:
>>
>> >> 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. 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. <<
>>
>> On:
>> > that weird verb used of feeling compassion, SPLAGXNIZOMAI;
>>
>> What's so weird about experiencing feelings in the bowels, guts, etc?
>> I know I do. I may ( or may not ) think about them afterwards in my head,
>> but that's not where I experience my feelings!!
>
>I sometimes wonder to what extent this is a physiological (psychosomatic)
>thing and to what extent it is a cultural matter. My eyes water, I think,
>when I feel pity, but I'm not really conscious of something below the
>throat. On the other hand, we say, in American English, "I have a gut
>feeling that ..." -- and this is not a matter of affective reaction at all
>but of inward intellectual suspicion. And then I think of the Homeric word
>for "wits," which is generally the plural form FRENES, referring to the
>diaphragm, and that gives rise to the various forms of -FRWN and -FROSUNH
>(as in SWFROSUNH)--which I believe we "moderns" tend to think of in terms
>of "mind over matter."
>
>I suppose that what seems "weird" to anyone depends very much upon what
>he/she deems natural within his/her own experience.
>
>> BTW, the SPLAGXNA of Lk 1:78 is rendered as "tender mercy" in both the KJV
>> and the RSV but world-wide is known to Roman Catholics as " loving kindness
>> " -- that is because when the Divine Office was produced in English after
>> Vatican II, it used the Grail translation. True to their English backgrounds
>> they used a phrase first used in an English bible ( so I am told by a friend
>> who is a rabbi with an Oxford doctorate in Classical Greek ! ) by Tyndale.
>> Maybe there were trying to making belated amends for that death at the
>>stake.
>> Anyway, world-wide, the Benedictus in Morning Prayer every day commemorates
>> Tyndale, whether those participating know it or not.
>>
>> > SPLAGXNIZOMAI; its aorist is ESPLAGXQHN, which is obviously not passive
>>
>> Maybe I've got myself confused between pass. dep and mid. dep but the big
>> LS&J gives, under SPLAGXNEUW:
>> II. Med. ( with aor. pass -ISTHN ) feel pity, compassion ....
>
>I'd call that Passive Deponent, and I understand this category to refer to
>verbs that are in the middle voice in the present tenses but have a
>passive form in the aorist. BAGD terms SPLAGNIZOMAI a passive deponent.
>
>> >As I recall, we even have an imperative of this verb addressed to Jesus by
>> someone wanting healing, SPLAGXNISQHTI--
>>
>> If you are thinking of:
>> Mark 9:22 And it has often cast him into the fire and into the water, to
>> destroy
>> him; but if you can do anything, have pity on us and help us."
>>
>> 'have pity' is SPLAGXNISQEIS, with the imperative being reserved for BOHW.
>> My Zerwick and Grosvenor "Grammatical Analysis" , notes that the form of
>> SPLAGXNIZOMAI as: " the aorist ptc. commonly den. action prior to that of
>> the main vb. " with a reference to par. 261 of Zerwick's grammar.
>
>You are, of course, absolutely right. This is the passage I was thinking
>about, and I was thinking of the English imperative and Greeking it!
>
>Best regards, c
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, 25 Jan 1996 09:58:31 -0600
Subject: Re: phil questions
On 1/25/96, perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:
> Hello, all. We raised a couple of questions in a Ph.D. seminar on Philippians
> yesterday, and have not yet been able to answer them. So I thought I'd toss
> them out to the group.
>
> 1.) In 1.22, the apodisis reads: KAI TI hAIRJSOMAI OU GNWRIZW. BDF sect 368
> suggests that this is *not* an example of the future indicative used in a
> deliberative sense, because a question mark should be inserted after
> hAIRJSOMAI. I find this puzzling.
>
> First, doesn't putting a question mark after hAIRJSOMAI make this a
> deliberative future (i.e., "What shall I do? I don't know--I'm torn between
> the two, . . . .")
(a) It's "What shall I _choose_?" Won't this be a simple question in the
future tense, like the sentence I'm writing? (Of course, the TI' here
really means "which of the two," I think. But a deliberative formulation
would rather be "Shall I choose something?"
(b) On the other hand, without the question-mark, it really ought to be
understood as an indirect question with the TI ... hAIRHSOMAI clause
functioning as the object of GNWRIZW.
> Second, if one reads this as a statement instead of a question (i.e., "I don't
> know what I shall do. I'm torn . . .")--which is how it's punctuated in the
> NA26/UBS text--then wouldn't one expect an infinitive instead of a finite
> future verb?
No, for the reason stated above in (b): it's an indirect question. English
may say, "I don't know what to do"--but Greek doesn't (not even MODERN
Greek, which uses a conjugated subjunctive for an infinitive!).
> 2.) What is the function of hINA in 2.2? BAGD notes that hINA is sometimes
> used in constructions to carry out the force of an imperative, and cites Eph
> 5.33. Is the same thing going on here (Ph 2.2)?
Yes, I think that's right. This is one of the expanding functions of the
hINA + subjunctive construction in Hellenistic Greek; it is on the way to
the modern Greek all-purpose subordinate consecutive construction.
> 3.) What are the ins and outs of punctuating hEKASTOI in Ph 2.4? With the
> singular hEKASTOS earlier in the verse connected to a plural participle, the
> plural hEKASTOI at the end of the verse seems problematic. Does this
>influence
> the decision one makes re. punctuation, and whether hEKASTOI belongs with 2.4
> or 2.5?
>
> Then again, doesn't hEKASTOI seem kind of solecistic in and of itself?
You must think of hEKASTOS as a distributive predicative adjective here
with a sense equivalent to "individual(ly)." It makes sense to me to have
the singular with TA hEAUTOU because the selfish individual is concerned
with his own personal interests--and then to have the plural with KAI TA
hETERWN because all those addressed are--severally--to consider the
concerns of the others. As for the punctuation, I would think that hEKASTOI
is far less likely to begin a major new clause; I would think it more
likely placed, if at all in vs. 5, after EN hUMIN.
> "Puzzled in Peoria"
>
> Grace amd peace,
~~~
I see what you mean. But somehow I think St. Louis is closer to Peoria that
Baylor.
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: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 96 08:59:14 -0600
Subject: phil questions
Hello, all. We raised a couple of questions in a Ph.D. seminar on Philippians
yesterday, and have not yet been able to answer them. So I thought I'd toss
them out to the group.
1.) In 1.22, the apodisis reads: KAI TI hAIRJSOMAI OU GNWRIZW. BDF sect 368
suggests that this is *not* an example of the future indicative used in a
deliberative sense, because a question mark should be inserted after
hAIRJSOMAI. I find this puzzling.
First, doesn't putting a question mark after hAIRJSOMAI make this a
deliberative future (i.e., "What shall I do? I don't know--I'm torn between
the two, . . . .")
Second, if one reads this as a statement instead of a question (i.e., "I don't
know what I shall do. I'm torn . . .")--which is how it's punctuated in the
NA26/UBS text--then wouldn't one expect an infinitive instead of a finite
future verb?
2.) What is the function of hINA in 2.2? BAGD notes that hINA is sometimes
used in constructions to carry out the force of an imperative, and cites Eph
5.33. Is the same thing going on here (Ph 2.2)?
3.) What are the ins and outs of punctuating hEKASTOI in Ph 2.4? With the
singular hEKASTOS earlier in the verse connected to a plural participle, the
plural hEKASTOI at the end of the verse seems problematic. Does this influence
the decision one makes re. punctuation, and whether hEKASTOI belongs with 2.4
or 2.5?
Then again, doesn't hEKASTOI seem kind of solecistic in and of itself?
"Puzzled in Peoria"
Grace amd peace,
Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 10:14:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Using English ponies
Ken Litwak wrote as follows:
> 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?" ... 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?".
>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?
How do you know the *pons asinorum,* the pony, is correct? The answer to
the two questions at the end of your first paragraph are (1) You always go
with what the words and grammar say, checking out all the possibilities
that semantics and syntax offer. You may, of course, suspect the text has
been corrupted in the process of transmission through the ages. Then
classical scholars resort to conjectural emendation. In the NT that is
almost never necessary, given the number of MSS we have.
In a first year seminary class today I used the term EPERWTHMA in 1 Pet
3:21 to show how translators and lexicographers differ widely on what a
single term can, may, should, or must mean in a pasage.
And as for the Plato comment, "how do I know I'm right, unless I use an
English pony to check my work?" If that is how you use tran,slations, then
you do not need to go to the trouble of studying Greek or translating. One
uses Greek to discover what the translations ought to mean, whether in
Plato or the NT. You use them to see how others have tried to solve
difficulties, then go back to the philological tools (lexicon, grammar,
concordance, parallel passages) to evaluate their solutions and in the
process deepen your own understanding of the text.
Translations can be an aid, especially if you use many of them. But the
moment you use one to decide if your own work is correct, you have reversed
the procedure you should follow. Luther's father confessor told him _pecca
fortiter_ when he confessed minor sins. That is how a graduate student or a
scholar goes at translation and intepretation. Let the text lead you, _ora
et labora_ (pray and work), and then sin boldly.
Pardon the homiletical tone of this response. And the length that went
beyond what I usually aim at.
Peace and -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: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 13:27:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Luke 1:78--"tender mercy/lovingkindness"
Carl Conrad's post of his correspondence with Maurice Sullivan includes the
comment (by one of them -- the > and >> and >>> made it hard for me to
follow who said what) that though KJV and RSV translate "tender mercy,"
Roman Catholics throughout the world use "lovingkindness" derived from
Tyndale's translation here. If they use the "lovingkindness" here, they didn't
get it from Tyndale, who (for the first time in English) translated Luke 1:78
with "tender mercy," a translation carried into the Great Bible of 1539,
thence into the Book of Common Prayer of 1549 (surviving there 430 years,
until the 1979 Prayer Book ventured "tender compassion", a translation which
is the 1,001st example of the unhappy fact that the 1979 PB revisers couldn't
recognize a line of poetry if it hit them in their faces), thence into the
1611 ("KJV") version, into the RV, the ASV, the RSV, and the NRSV.
Perhaps this has been confused by someone with the fact that Tyndale created
the wonderful translation (in the OT) of the Hebrew HESED (CHESED) by
"lovingkindness." That was a masterstroke indeed!
- --Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 10:31:14 +0800
Subject: Re: Using English ponies
Degard Krentz wrote in part:
> How do you know the *pons asinorum,* the pony, is correct? The answer to
> the two questions at the end of your first paragraph are (1) You always go
> with what the words and grammar say, checking out all the possibilities
> that semantics and syntax offer. You may, of course, suspect the text has
> been corrupted in the process of transmission through the ages. Then
> classical scholars resort to conjectural emendation. In the NT that is
> almost never necessary, given the number of MSS we have.
snip
> And as for the Plato comment, "how do I know I'm right, unless I use an
> English pony to check my work?" If that is how you use tran,slations, then
> you do not need to go to the trouble of studying Greek or translating. One
> uses Greek to discover what the translations ought to mean, whether in
> Plato or the NT. You use them to see how others have tried to solve
> difficulties, then go back to the philological tools (lexicon, grammar,
> concordance, parallel passages) to evaluate their solutions and in the
> process deepen your own understanding of the text.
>
> Translations can be an aid, especially if you use many of them. But the
> moment you use one to decide if your own work is correct, you have reversed
> the procedure you should follow. Luther's father confessor told him _pecca
> fortiter_ when he confessed minor sins. That is how a graduate student or a
> scholar goes at translation and intepretation. Let the text lead you, _ora
> et labora_ (pray and work), and then sin boldly.
Just two points that I want to make on this and then I'll move on to toher
topics in another post, but first, let me be clear that I consult English
translations when I suspect that what I've come up with after loooking in
lexicons and grammars is not correct or I feel at a loss to understand the
text because I find the construction in inscrutable and the grammars, if I have
one on that work, don't mention it. This is not unique to Greek but
unfortunately when I was studying German last year, I didn't have English
translations to check to see what I missed in my attempt at making sense of
some long sentence with six clauses and no explicit subject except es.
Second, by way of analogy, this Spring I'm taking a course in Qumran Lit.,
and we are going to read the DSS in their original, unpointed Hebrew.
Since my Hebrew knowledge is still developing (then again, who can claim to know
biblical or Qumran Hebrew perfectly?), there will likely be times when I'm
unsure how to point something. I'd be a fool to decide, after consulting BDB,
that when I'm unsure I still must be right even if Lohse's pointing is
different. One can read the philological material as much as one wants. It is
nevertheless the case that someone accustmoed to a regular diet of Qumran
Hebrew is going to be be more likely to correctly point the text than
a comparative amateur, and no amount of biblical Hebrew I've done prepares me
fully for reading the DSS, where the rules of the game change considerably,
JUST EXACTLY like moving from NT Greek to any other flavor of Greek.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: Scott Duvall <DUVALL@alpha.obu.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 13:01:49 CST
Subject: Phil questions
Perry,
On your second question--the function of hina in Phil. 2.2--the
alternatives might help. There may be more than three, but this
will give a start.
First, the hina clause (with the present subjunctive) could
function as the direct object of an implied imperative form of
parakalo (see Vincent, ICC, 54; Silva, 103). The clause then provides
the content of the implied exhortation.
Second, you might be looking at an imperatival hina (cf. Eph. 5.33; 2
Cor. 8.7) with the clause functioning as a command (see Porter,
Verbal Aspect, 331, who lists this as a possibility).
Third, the hina clause may modify the main verb plerosate and provide
the means by which Paul's joy might be made complete (see Moule,
Idiom Book, 145-146). I would tend to favor the last alternative as
do the NIV and NASB.
Hopes this helps,
Scott
------------------------------
From: "Paul J. Bodin" <pjbodin@sirius.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 12:01:07 -0800
Subject: "Sin boldly!"
At 10:14 AM 1/25/96 -0500, Edgar M. Krentz wrote:
>the procedure you should follow. Luther's father confessor told him _pecca
>fortiter_ when he confessed minor sins.
Thanks for the good answer. Pardon a quibble, please: wasn't that Luther to
Melanchthon?
Grace and Peace,
Paul
___________________________________________________________________________
Paul J. Bodin Internet: pjbodin@sirius.com
Seminary Pastor smail: 1333 66th Street
Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary Berkeley, CA 94702-2617
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 11:56:26 +0800
Subject: Deut 6
I have a question or two from Dt. in the LXX. 6:11 says that the Israelites
will get things they did not work for. The verbs for them not working forthem
are generally Aorist, but the passage has a forward perspective "You didn't
dig the cistern, but you get to have it". This is followed by
KAI FAGWN KAI EMPLHSQEIS. These are Aorist participles, but they refer, I think,
to a future event, i.e., when you get the houses and vineyards and cisterns
and so forth, you will eat and be filled full. Howevver, that's not how I
learned to trasnlate participles. It would be more like "after having both eaten
and having been filled full". Is it common to understand Aorist participles as
future in reference?
I also have a question about 6:15: MH ORGISQEIS QUMWQHi.
It seems necessary to take MH as hINA MH "in order that not", but I've never
run across MH with an implicit hINA in it. Also what about the translation?
"having become angry He may become angry at you?"?
I noticed, BTW, that some words seemed to be "defined" by LSJM with the
KJV equivalent, like "round about"? Are they glossing a lot for the LXX or
really tgrying to give a "definition"?
Thanks in advance.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 15:13:19 -0600
Subject: Re: phil questions
>Hello, all. We raised a couple of questions in a Ph.D. seminar on Philippians
>yesterday, and have not yet been able to answer them. So I thought I'd toss
>them out to the group.
>
>1.) In 1.22, the apodisis reads: KAI TI hAIRJSOMAI OU GNWRIZW. BDF sect 368
>suggests that this is *not* an example of the future indicative used in a
>deliberative sense, because a question mark should be inserted after
>hAIRJSOMAI. I find this puzzling.
>
>First, doesn't putting a question mark after hAIRJSOMAI make this a
>deliberative future (i.e., "What shall I do? I don't know--I'm torn between
>the two, . . . .")
>
>Second, if one reads this as a statement instead of a question (i.e., "I don't
>know what I shall do. I'm torn . . .")--which is how it's punctuated in the
>NA26/UBS text--then wouldn't one expect an infinitive instead of a finite
>future verb?
The accented TIS/TI can function as a relative clause. Punctuated as it is
in the UBS text the relative clause serves as the object of the verb. "I
cannot tell what I shall (should) choose." It is a form of indirect
question.
>2.) What is the function of hINA in 2.2? BAGD notes that hINA is sometimes
>used in constructions to carry out the force of an imperative, and cites Eph
>5.33. Is the same thing going on here (Ph 2.2)?
The hINA clause is probably used here as a form of indirect command
following verbs of command. eg. Mt.16:20 "He rebuked the disciples that
they should tell no one."
>3.) What are the ins and outs of punctuating hEKASTOI in Ph 2.4? With the
>singular hEKASTOS earlier in the verse connected to a plural participle, the
>plural hEKASTOI at the end of the verse seems problematic. Does this influence
>the decision one makes re. punctuation, and whether hEKASTOI belongs with 2.4
>or 2.5?
>
>Then again, doesn't hEKASTOI seem kind of solecistic in and of itself?
In the first instance of hEKASTOS there is a textual problem. There are
weighty witnesses on the side of the singular, but internal evidence for me
would indicate that Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and some others may be right.
A scribe would much more likely change the singular to the plural. Then we
have a solecism with the singular used with the plural verb. There is some
evidence that the second instance is also singular, but the Vaticanus and
Alexandrinus are on the other side there. This greatly weakens the
evidence. Likely then the two instances of the pronoun in the nominative
give emphasis to the command to the negative command.
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, 25 Jan 1996 14:20:42 -0600
Subject: Re: Deut 6
On 1/24/96, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> I have a question or two from Dt. in the LXX. 6:11 says that the
>Israelites
> will get things they did not work for. The verbs for them not working
>forthem
> are generally Aorist, but the passage has a forward perspective "You didn't
> dig the cistern, but you get to have it". This is followed by
> KAI FAGWN KAI EMPLHSQEIS. These are Aorist participles, but they refer,
>I think,
> to a future event, i.e., when you get the houses and vineyards and cisterns
> and so forth, you will eat and be filled full. Howevver, that's not how I
> learned to trasnlate participles. It would be more like "after having
>both eaten
> and having been filled full". Is it common to understand Aorist
>participles as
> future in reference?
The reference of these aorist participles is actually to what follows in
vs. 12, "Be careful not to forget ..." The reference of the main clause is
indeed to the future (in the context of the Mosaic sermon, that is), but
these aorist are, I would say past-tense in relationship to the PROSEXE
SEAUTWi, MH EPILAQHi ..., so that their force is, "and when you have eaten
and been satisfied, then give heed lest you forget ..." So it's past, but
in relationship to a future time-frame. Latin is much more precise about
this and would call for a future perfect in this context, but Greek
participles, present, aorist, and future, when used in coordination with
other tenses and when their sense is temporal rather than aspectual, are
RELATIVE to the time of the verb in relationship to which they are
construed.
> I also have a question about 6:15: MH ORGISQEIS QUMWQHi.
> It seems necessary to take MH as hINA MH "in order that not", but I've never
> run across MH with an implicit hINA in it. Also what about the translation?
> "having become angry He may become angry at you?"?
This is a Semitism, representing what I think is called the
"construct-infinitive" in Hebrew, where the infinitive in construct form is
used along with a finite verb to intensify it. Conybeare & Stock (the only
LXX resource I have ready to hand) simply call it an INTENSIVE PARTICIPLE
(#81). Translate it something like, "You must surely not become angry."
> I noticed, BTW, that some words seemed to be "defined" by LSJM with the
> KJV equivalent, like "round about"? Are they glossing a lot for the LXX or
> really trying to give a "definition"?
I'd have to have an example to comment on that. Perhaps someone else will.
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: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 16:20:46 -0600
Subject: Re: Deut 6
> I have a question or two from Dt. in the LXX. 6:11 says that the
>Israelites
>will get things they did not work for. The verbs for them not working forthem
>are generally Aorist, but the passage has a forward perspective "You didn't
>dig the cistern, but you get to have it". This is followed by
>KAI FAGWN KAI EMPLHSQEIS. These are Aorist participles, but they refer, I
>think,
>to a future event, i.e., when you get the houses and vineyards and cisterns
>and so forth, you will eat and be filled full. Howevver, that's not how I
>learned to trasnlate participles. It would be more like "after having
>both eaten
>and having been filled full". Is it common to understand Aorist participles as
>future in reference?
Ken, two things. Time in participles is relative to the main verb and even
then there are many exceptions. The two participles FAGWN KAI EMPLHSQEIS
go with the command that follows, "When you have eaten and are filled, take
heed for yourself that you do not forget the Lord your God."
> I also have a question about 6:15: MH ORGISQEIS QUMWQHi.
>It seems necessary to take MH as hINA MH "in order that not", but I've never
>run across MH with an implicit hINA in it. Also what about the translation?
>"having become angry He may become angry at you?"?
Look back up to vs. 12 "lest you forget . . ." The subjunctive mood
carries a sense of oughtness even without the hINA.
>
> I noticed, BTW, that some words seemed to be "defined" by LSJM with the
>KJV equivalent, like "round about"? Are they glossing a lot for the LXX or
>really tgrying to give a "definition"?
>
I'm not sure what you are asking here.
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: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 16:29:41 -0600
Subject: Re: grammar
Jim Love wrote;
>Speaking of word origins (I like logical lapses) I have a question
>about "orthotomeo" does it have any origin in wood working? I
>remember hearing that the older craftsmen thought that saws were for
>poor cutters and if you knew what you were doing you could cut right
>with an axe. (18th and 19th century) It got me wondering.
>
The vulgate reading seems to indicate that they understood this verb
without the idea of cutting, RECTE TRACTANTEM "rightly handling . . ." I
read somewhere that some of the church fathers associated the verb
ORTHOTOMEO with the craft of stonemasons, smoothing the stones so they fit.
Probably here the fathers are right that the idea of cutting has faded
into history.
charis,
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
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #90
****************************
** 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