[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #106
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 7 February 1996 Volume 01 : Number 106
In this issue:
Re: Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrews
re-sendings?
Ephesian 4:1-2
Authorship of Hebrews
Re: Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrews
Re: Wis of Solomon 7
Re: Programmers, please read!
Re: re-sendings?
Re: Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrews
RE: re-sendings?
b-greek-digest V1 #98
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: LISATIA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 01:45:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrews
dear Ken,
I have found Hebrews to be the most difficult book in the NT. For
example, the passage 8.1-6 posits a present tense "liturgy" for the risen
Jesus - NUNI DE DIAPHORWTERAS TETUCHEN LEITOURGIAS hOSWi KAI
KREITTONOS ESTIN DIATHHKHS MESITHS hHTIS EPI KREITTOSIN EPAGGELIAIS
NENOMOTHETHTAI. "and now he has achieved a more excellent 'liturgy' in
so far as he is mediator of a better covenant, one founded on better
promises."
To understand Hebrews one needs help to see how it is that a heavenly
liturgy can be a model for the realm below.
The elaborate metaphors of Philo and WS are a window to that world of
metaphors that the author of Hebrews lives in. One can then read Hebrews in
the "realist" mode, e.g., the heavenly liturgy is the new covenant, and
because it is heavenly and divinely "real", it is better than any old
covenant.
My advice: put off reading through your own eyes; try reading it
rhrough the eyes of WS (or Philo) to see if it works. I would say that the
book of Hebrews cannot be understood in terms of modern theology but can be
understood through its own predecessors. It is not enough to say that the
Son is better than Sophia; it is more important to see that both were
understood within the same metaphors.
best wishes, richard arthur, Merrimack NH, LISATIA@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 08:09:20 -0600
Subject: re-sendings?
Is anyone else getting a string of messages that was originally distributed
on Sunday, Feb 4? I'm wondering what underlies this re-gurgitation. But
maybe it's only my local mail server, which did get out of whack sometime
Sunday night.
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: Northland Bible College <northlan@soonet.ca>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:31:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Ephesian 4:1-2
Greetings all:
First of all, THANKS for your encouraging replies to my query for help on
this list. Here goes:
This morning in class we were analyzing our way through Ephesians 4:1-2
with these resulting puzzlers:
[BTW, as I mentioned, we're using Dana and Mantey's A Manual Grammar of
the Gk NT as a text, and we've been classifying stuff on that basis,
recognizing that there is some diversity in the way others categorize
case forms etc. In the process, we have been noticing in particular,
that when nouns/adjectives/pronouns occur within prepositional phrases it
frequently becomes very difficult to find any category listed in D+M that
is appropriate. Further, it almost seems that the categories they list
are inadequate at times for the text under discussion. AND, of course, I
am fully aware that maybe the problem is just ME!
4:1) re `O DESMIOS: Since the principal verb is PARAKALO, 1st singular,
I took `O DESMIOS to be an independent nominative. But one of the
students took it as a predicate nom. My understanding of pred nom is
that some form of the stative verb must be either in the text or implied
(EIMI, GINOMAI ETC). Is this correct? Does not `O DESMIOS stand
essentially independent from the complete thought found in the verb, and
is supplied for additional detail?
4:1) re `HS: Clearly refers back to its antecedent THS KLHSEOS but how to
classify? Since the pronoun often is attracted to the case of its
antecedent (even though functioning in a different sense) should this be
taken as a genitive of reference (as KLHSEOS), or should `HS be
classified according to its sense, as a dative of reference, in relation
to EKLHThHTE?
4:2) re the three genitives following META: "with all humility and
meekness" clearly functions adverbially, describing HOW to "walk
worthily" in the first verse. Question: The only classification that
would make any sense would be to take all these genitives as adverbial
genitives - but D+M subclassify adverbial genitives only as (a) time (b)
place and (c) reference, NONE of which makes much sense. This is a fair
example of the difficulty encountered when trying to classify any nouns
in prepositional phrases.
4:2) re ALLHLON: This is a fixed form adjective isn't it? Fixed
apparently in the genitive plural. Would this be taken then as an
adverbial genitive of reference, explaining the sphere of reference of
the action of "enduring"?
Any comers?
God bless.
Steve Clock
Northland Bible College
Goulais River, Ont
Northlan@soonet.ca
------------------------------
From: "Alan D. Bulley" <s458507@aix1.uottawa.ca>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 09:47:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Authorship of Hebrews
On Wed, 7 Feb 1996, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> Incidentally, I want to ask Ken Litwak another question. The first time
> that you referred to Priscilla as author(ess) of Hebrews, I assumed you
> were joking. But you've repeated it more than once, and I would really like
> to know where this notion comes from if it is not the purest idle
> speculation. It's not that I have any objection to her having written it--I
> just would like to know what on earth suggests the notion that she did?
Well, I'm not Ken but I thought I'd jump in anyway.
I believe it was Adolf von Harnack ["Probabilia uber die Adresse und den
Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes," _ZNW_ 1 (1900) 16-41.] who first put
forward Priscilla's name (in desperation?) as possible author of Hebrews.
The suggestion has also been argued for by Ruth Hoppin, _Priscilla:
Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and Other Essays_ (New York:
Exposition, 1969). I imagine the argument is built heavily upon the
anonymity of the author of Hebrews, which some might read as a cover for a
female author. Priscilla has a NT reputation as a missionary in her
favour, but there would appear to be few other reasons to put her
candidacy ahead of anyone else in the running and the masculine participle
at 11:32 argues against it. An even stranger suggestion, though, has been
put forth: Hebrews was written by Mary, the mother of Jesus [J.
Massyngbaerde Ford, "The Mother of Jesus and the Authorship of the Epistle
to the Hebrews," _Bible Today_ 82 (1975) 683-694]. I can't imagine what
there is to recommend Mary as author, except perhaps access to those
little insights that only a mother can have... (just kidding!).
I want to pick up the thread on WS, Platonism, and Hebrews in another
post, now that we've gotten the fringe out of the way. :-)
Alan D. Bulley
Faculty of Theology/Faculte de theologie |s458507@aix1.uottawa.ca
Saint Paul University/Universite St-Paul |abulley@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca
Ottawa, Canada
Fax: (613) 782-3005
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 08:04:36 -0600
Subject: Re: Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrews
On 2/7/96, LISATIA@aol.com wrote:
> dear Ken,
> I have found Hebrews to be the most difficult book in the NT. For
> example, the passage 8.1-6 posits a present tense "liturgy" for the risen
> Jesus - NUNI DE DIAPHORWTERAS TETUCHEN LEITOURGIAS hOSWi KAI
> KREITTONOS ESTIN DIATHHKHS MESITHS hHTIS EPI KREITTOSIN EPAGGELIAIS
> NENOMOTHETHTAI. "and now he has achieved a more excellent 'liturgy' in
> so far as he is mediator of a better covenant, one founded on better
> promises."
> To understand Hebrews one needs help to see how it is that a heavenly
> liturgy can be a model for the realm below.
> The elaborate metaphors of Philo and WS are a window to that world of
> metaphors that the author of Hebrews lives in. One can then read Hebrews in
> the "realist" mode, e.g., the heavenly liturgy is the new covenant, and
> because it is heavenly and divinely "real", it is better than any old
> covenant.
> My advice: put off reading through your own eyes; try reading it
> rhrough the eyes of WS (or Philo) to see if it works. I would say that the
> book of Hebrews cannot be understood in terms of modern theology but can be
> understood through its own predecessors. It is not enough to say that the
> Son is better than Sophia; it is more important to see that both were
> understood within the same metaphors.
I suppose Richard is using "realist" in the Medieval philosophical sense
rather than in the modern colloquial sense: the transcendental realm is
real. I have always felt that the contrast between earthly and heavenly,
temporal and eternal, sensible and intelligible, is fundamentally Platonic.
In that regard it clearly belongs in the sphere of Hellenistic Jewish
tradition--and yes, Philo is very close and WS is also. In many respects
Hebrews seems to me very much like an Alexandrian work. On the other hand,
its conception of Jesus as a High Priest performing a once-for-all-time
sacrifice seems to rest closely upon an argument to people who have known
and cared about a sacrificial cultus of the Jerusalem Temple, a cultus that
is no more after 70. I know this is not an original view, and I scarcely
know what to conclude about provenance and dating of Hebrews, other than to
say its affinities are with a very Hellenized Judaism.
Incidentally, I want to ask Ken Litwak another question. The first time
that you referred to Priscilla as author(ess) of Hebrews, I assumed you
were joking. But you've repeated it more than once, and I would really like
to know where this notion comes from if it is not the purest idle
speculation. It's not that I have any objection to her having written it--I
just would like to know what on earth suggests the notion that she did?
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: Jim Beale <jbeale@gdeb.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 96 11:27:00 EST
Subject: Re: Wis of Solomon 7
On Wed, 31 Jan 1996 Edgar M. Krentz wrote:
> I am responding in this fashion because I really want you to love this
> deuterocanonical book. Its first section (1:1-6:11) is one of the great
> passages on the suffering righteous one in Israel, the one who looks to God
> for vindication. And it has much to teach careful readers of the NT Cf. 1
> Cor 8:6 on creation and the references to Sapientia in the margins
> alongside Rom 1:18-32.
>
> What a wonderful blessing to have such a book at hand to illuminate Jesus
> of Nazareth as God's wisdom for us.
I'm curious about the why the Wisdom of Solomon is not in the
canon. Augustin considered that the book should be canonical,
And since these things are so, the judgment of the book of
Wisdom ought not to be repudiated, since for so long a course
of years that book has deserved to be read in the Church of
Christ from the station of the readers of the Church of Christ,
and to be heard by all Christians, from bishops downwards,
even to the lowest lay believers, penitents, and catechumens,
with the veneration paid to divine authority.
(A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Chap. 27)
As I have great respect for the opition of Augustin, and do not
have any information available on the subject I wonder if someone
might give the reason why the Wisdom of Solomon is not in the
canon?
- --
In Christ,
Jim Beale
___________________________________________________________________
God does not give heed to the ambitiousness of our prayers,
because he is always ready to give to us his light, not a
visible light but an intellectual and spiritual one: but we
are not always ready to receive it when we turn aside and
down to other things out of a desire for temporal things.
(Augustine, On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, 2.3.14)
___________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:16:23 +0800
Subject: Re: Programmers, please read!
Well Shaughn, I won't speak to the programming issue, even though I
am a programmer, as such, though I would note that being able to recognzie
a Greek word and being able to equate it to a "definition" is not something
a computer can easily do. How is it to know when "anti" means for as opposed
to instead of or on behalf of? When does PARA mean from as opposed to by?
Or EK? When does BLEPW mean see and when does it mean beware? I don't know
of any software capable of making that decision. On the other hand, I don't
think this is necessary. What I think is necessary is for a human to sample
enough texts from a given period to be able to set a basic semantic domain,
as Louw & Nida have. Now, if you say, show me all the texts which use
words for walking, running, crawling, sitting, and so forth, I can do that,
but you have to tell me what Greek words to look for, and once my program
has found them, you still have to analyze the contexts to determine how
TREXW differs from PERIPATEW. A computer can't tell. Look at all the
glosses in BAGD and LSJ, where they got to a passage where none of the
standard definitions quite fit, so they, in my opinion, punt, and come up with
what seems like a sensible meaning. We'll never be able to know if a Greek
writer would have ever had that meaning in mind. A computer is not a practical
tool for determining odd meanings, because this requires a lot of reasoning,
and computers reason poorly. If you tried this same approach with English
a computer would run into serious trouble with the flip-flop in meaning
of the words "nice" and "bad". The former has totally changed its meaning,
and the latter is used colloquially, particularly by one sub-group of the
population, in a way opposite its normal meaning. I think writing software to
try to figure that out is basically hopeless. Sorry to sound so negative,
but I see no alternative, once a computer has done the grunt work of
finding specific items you have asked for, determining the meaning yourself.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
and
Sybase, Inc., The Client Server company
------------------------------
From: "James H. Vellenga" <jhv0@viewlogic.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 96 11:29:17 EST
Subject: Re: re-sendings?
>
> Is anyone else getting a string of messages that was originally distributed
> on Sunday, Feb 4? I'm wondering what underlies this re-gurgitation. But
> maybe it's only my local mail server, which did get out of whack sometime
> Sunday night.
>
> Carl W. Conrad
I have been getting some regurgitations, but also some that I don't
remember seeing before, but arriving a couple of days late.
Regards,
j.v.
James H. Vellenga | jvellenga@viewlogic.com
Viewlogic Systems, Inc. __|__ 508-480-0881
293 Boston Post Road West | FAX: 508-480-0882
Marlboro, MA 01752-4615 |
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:38:46 +0800
Subject: Re: Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrews
Carl,
With regard to Priscilla, let me say two things. First, I'm still mostly
joking, but using a name, even if incorrect, is shorter than typing
"the author of Hebrews" over and over. Second, there's a book back in my
college library that does nothing but argue for this. Third, the statement
about the marriage bed being undefiled has been thought by some to suggest
a female author. So one asks, who is female, and has drunk deeply from
the well of Pauline thought and can write before 70 AD (I can't imagine
the author of Hebrews not mentioning the destruction of the temple in 70 AD
if it had happened -- unless he was taking the minimalist archaeological
position of saying it didn't happen if I can't find artifcats). However,
since it bothers you, I shall cease this custom, and perhaps use AOH instead.
Ken Ltiwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: "A. Brent Hudson" <abhudson@wchat.on.ca>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 11:37:45 -0500
Subject: RE: re-sendings?
I also received a string of old messages. The problem must have been with the b-greek list processor.
A. Brent Hudson
Graduate Student
Religious Studies, McMaster University
Hamilton, ON, Canada
abhudson@wchat.on.ca OR g9117472@mcmaster.ca
- ----------
From: Carl W. Conrad[SMTP:cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 1996 9:09 AM
To: b-greek@virginia.edu
Subject: re-sendings?
Is anyone else getting a string of messages that was originally distributed
on Sunday, Feb 4? I'm wondering what underlies this re-gurgitation. But
maybe it's only my local mail server, which did get out of whack sometime
Sunday night.
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: owner-b-greek-digest@virginia.edu
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 01:23:21 -0500 (EST)
Subject: b-greek-digest V1 #98
b-greek-digest Friday, 2 February 1996 Volume 01 : Number 098
In this issue:
Re: Apostolic Fathers Questions
Greek Fonts
Re: using lexicons and learning Greek
Re: tenses
Re: Wis of Solomon 7
KATAQEMA and ANAQEMA
Re: Apostolic Fathers Questions
Re: Wis of Solomon 7
Re: Wis of Solomon 7
1 Pet. 2:5
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 05:18:10 -0600
Subject: Re: Apostolic Fathers Questions
On 1/31/96, KevLAnder@aol.com wrote:
> I have a few minor questions about some reading I have done in the Apostolic
> Fathers.
>
> (1) Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 7:1
>
> EUCHARISTIAS KAI PROSEUCHHS APECHONTAI, DIA TO MH hOMOLOGEIN THN
> EUCHARISTIAN SARKA EINAI TOU SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CHRISTOU THN hPER TWN
> hAMARTIWN hHMWN PATHOUSAN, hHN THi CHRHSTOTHTI hO PATHR HGEIREN.
>
> Here both THN . . . PATHOUSAN and hHN . . . hO PATHR ktl. make the best sense
> with IHSOU CHRISTOU as their antecedent, but they agree in gender with
> EUCHARISTIAN. Is this simply a syntactically creative way for Ignatius to
> point out the, as it were, "corporeal" connection between the Eucharist and
> Christ's Passion/Resurrection? Contextually, of course, Ignatius is dealing
> with a docetic heresy.
This won't do; the gender in THN ... PAQOUSAN and in hHN ... HGEIREN is too
clearly marked as feminine, and the only feminine noun to which they can
refer as an antecedent is SARKA. The persons herein described deny that
SUBSTANCE offered in the Eucharist is in very fact the FLESH of our Savior
Jesus Christ, the very same FLESH that actually suffered for our sins, the
very same FLESH that that Father resurrected to life ...
> (2) Didache 7:3
>
> EAN DE AMPHOTERA MH ECHHiS, EKCHEON EIS THN KEPHALHN TRIS hUDWR EIS ONOMA
> PATROS KAI hUIOU KAI hGIOU PNEUMATOS.
>
> Here I have a simple parsing question. My guess is that EKCHEON is a Pres.
> Act. Ptc. neut. sg. nom. of EKCHEW. I would also surmise that if my parsing
> is correct, the ptc. is being used imperativally. Can anyone confirm or
> disconfirm this?
It is not a participle but a real 2nd sg. aor. active imperative of EKXEW.
This verb is one of two Greek verbs (I think they're the only ones, but I
could be mistaken) that are anomalous as far back as Homer in that they
have first aorist forms without a sigma: HNEGKA (from FERW) and EKXEA from
EKXEW). So this is a straightforward aorist sg. imperative active in the
passage cited.
> (3) Didache 16:5
>
> TOTE hHXEI hH KTISIS TWN ANTHRWPWN EIS THN PURWSIN THS DOKIMASIAS, AND
> SKANDALISTHHSONTAI POLLOI AN APOLOUNTAI, hOI DE hUPOMEINANTES EN THi PISTEI
> AUTWN SWTHHSONTAI hUP' AUTOU TOU KATATHEMATOS.
>
> My question concerns the very last phrase, hUP' AUTOU TOU KATATHEMATOS. The
> Loeb translation (Kirsopp Lake) has, " . . . but 'they who endure' in their
> faith 'shall be saved' BY THE CURSE ITSELF." Lake also provides a note
> indicating that the meaning here is obscure. But I was wondering if, by any
> stretch of the imagination, one could take TOU KATATHEMATOS as an ablative of
> separation, thereby providing a more sensible translation such as, "they . .
> . shall be saved by him from the curse." The trouble here, however, may be in
> tracking down an antecedent for AUTOU.
>
> Of course, part of the whole problem lay in the precise meaning of KATATHEMA,
> which I have not adequately researched.
(a) Have you perhaps transcribed the "AND" at the end of the first line
above erroneously for "KAI"? And what about the "AN" between POLLOI and
APOLOUNTAI? Of course this doesn't bear on your question, but I can't
understand an AN with a future tense such as APOLOUNTAI.
(b) While I don't claim to understand what the last clause actually means,
I do find the phrasing very problematic. Kirsopp Lake's reading is
appropriate to the text as it stands: hUPO + genitive should indicate the
agent of the action of the passive verb SWQHSONTAI, but it is somewhat odd
(albeit not unheard of) that the "agent" is not a person, unless, of
course, the KATAQEMA is thought of as personified, as Paul sometimes
represents Sin and Death as personified powers. That may be the answer
here, but it is definitely a personal agent construction. I do not see how
hUPO could properly introduce an (ablatival) genitive of separation here
("from under the curse") in view of the standard construction for agent.
But might the text itself be corrupt?
It strikes me that this verse is a little bit like the vieldiskutiertes 1
Tim 2:15, apparently on the salvation of woman/women: SWQHSETAI DE DIA THS
TEKNOGONIAS, EAN MEINWSIN EN PISTEI KAI AGAPHi KAI hAGIASMi META
SWFROSUNHS. Here however the preposition is DIA, and of course there's no
question of an ablatival function for the genitive.
Sorry that this is only a negative comment on your last question, but I'm
sure that illumination is on the way from our colleagues.
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: Stilman Davis <101342.1161@compuserve.com>
Date: 01 Feb 96 08:03:50 EST
Subject: Greek Fonts
A message from a lurker. This has been an entertaining exchange. Copyright is a
fraught area.
The simplest view to take is to say : everything is copyrighted. That must be
the safest way to think about copyright.
Rule of thumb -- ask permision from the copyright holder for whatever you wish
to quote/use.
To try to give a simple example about the nature of copyright:
No doubt you all speak to your students about "plagiarism" - and you demand that
any ideas which are not their own be sourced and cited.
Copyright, I feel, comes from the notion of anti-plagiarism, i.e. "Don't use my
ideas as your own," or "Don't use my own words unless you say that I said it and
you are quoting me." The academic community loves to quote, so the notion of
attribution comes in. But in the world of commerce, where you must make your
fortune by the sweat of your brow, owners of copyright are jealous, and demand
due compensation for their effort.
Thus when Mr Smith creates a font, he wants to be paid for it.
(N.B. Shareware authors also want to be recompensed for their work, though at a
more reasonable rate than the large private companies. The shareware system
allows you to try before you buy, and so is really a very fair system compared
to the large corporations who advertise and demand you buy without trying.)
So the answer to this question of copyright and fonts would seem to be, "Yes,
they are all copyright, unless there is a disclaimer to say otherwise."
In a study by Charles Oppenheim, The Legal and Regulatory Environment in the
Electronic Information Industry, (Infonortics, Calne UK; 1995) there is a
discussion about copyright and the problems it raises.He says in the
introduction, "Statements such as'this information has been published, is in the
public domain, and therefore I can do what I like with it'... 'I can copy and
forward e-mail messages because they are in the public domain'(all of which have
been stated by publishers or eminent individuals over the past few years)
demonstrate the need for more clarity of thought in the area [of copyright]. All
of the above statements are, to a greater or lesser extent, either invalid,
untrue, or at best controversial." "If you use the Internet, you are probably
infringing copyright all the time. The real question to ask yourself is: am I
damaging someone's financial interests or Moral Rights? If you think it most
unlikely, carry on regardless."
If you think about it, using these so-called 'free' Greek fonts does damage
someone's financial interests and certainly such a use is counter to the moral
rights they would claim about the work they did in order to produce those fine
fonts you now wish to use.
But as someone somewhere said, "Sin bravely!" The shareware people have it
right, price reasonably and let the user's conscience decide.
Regards,
Stilman Davis
- ------------------------------
From: BBezdek@aol.com
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 12:37:45 -0500
Subject: Re: using lexicons and learning Greek
Professor Conrad
I would have liked very much to have been under your instruction for Greek
New Testament. I hope there will be many more instructors trained with this
philosophy of langauge. I believe that the broadest possible language base
can only benefit New Testament studies. Unfortunately, my exposure is only
slightly beyond the New Testament documents.
Thanks,
Byron T. Bezdek
- ------------------------------
From: nmartola@aqiba.abo.fi
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 96 21:02:04 +0200
Subject: Re: tenses
I am new to this list, so I don't know to which extent you have discussed=
=0D
=FFthis question before. But since the following book hasn't been mentio=
ned I =0D
=FFthought it would be worthwhile to remind of it. It's a very stimulati=
ng =0D
=FFbook, and deals also with Greek:=0D
=0D
Harald Weinrich, Tempus : besprochene und erz=E4hlte Welt. 4. Aufl. Stutt=
gart =0D
=FF: Kohlhammer, 1985=0D
=0D
//Nils Martola=0D
//Abo Akademi University=0D
//nmartola@aqiba.abo.fi=0D
//--- forwarded letter =0D
=FF-------------------------------------------------------=0D
> > Would anyone care to answer a basic question: why do verb tenses chan=
ge =0D
=FFso=0D
> > easily in a narrative? For example (among many) in the parable of Mat=
t=0D
> > 13:24-30, the servants and the master have a conversation which is=0D=
> > introduced by verbs in the aorist (eipon and ephe, vv27-28) but then =
the=0D
> > conversation continues introduced by verbns of speaking in the presen=
t=0D
> > tense (legousin and phesi), Is the present tense here meant to imply =
an=0D
> > on-going or repeated conversation,a stance being taken?=0D
> =0D
> We've had this question before (I know, because I have asked a similar=0D=
> question), and the basic answer seems to be that shifting to the presen=
t=0D
> tense for verbs of speaking serves to highlight what is being said. In=
=0D
> other words, it is used to emphasize or focus the attention on a =0D
=FFparticular=0D
> statement. There are those on this list who know the topic better than=
I,=0D
> so I may missing some important nuances.=0D
> =0D
> Stephen Carlson=0D
> -- =0D
> Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.=0D
> scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce =
=0D
=FFPark Dr.=0D
> (703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 220=
91 =0D
=FFUSA=0D
- ------------------------------
From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 13:33:49 -0600
Subject: Re: Wis of Solomon 7
Edgar M. Krentz writes:
>(4) Was this writer "under the influence of some foreign substance"? You
>bet! The substance was the heady stuff of Greek, especially Stoic,
>philosophy. In 7:23 and 24, DIA PANTWN XWROUN PNEUMATWN, and DIHKEI DE KAI
>XWREI DIA PANTWN DIA THN KAQAROTHTA, he is borrowing the language the Stoa
>uses of the LOGOS that moves through everything in the universe. Wisdom
>holds that it is not the Stoic LOGOS that is the revealer of God (the
>language of 7:25), but the SOFIA TOY QEOU.
How is that extra-biblical references to the Logos are readily
acknowledged as coming from this or that Greek philosophical
school, but the antecedent of Logos of John 1:1 is usually ignored
or specifically disavowed?
Sincerely,
Will
- ------------------------------
From: Shaughn Daniel <shaughn.daniel@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 18:59:30 +0100
Subject: KATAQEMA and ANAQEMA
Kevin,
A big part of the problem lies in this: if ANAQEMA is equivalent to
KATAQEMA (as TDNT suggests: "Equivalent to ANAQEMA is the KATAQEMA of Rev.
22.3" I.355), then we have got some problems to solve. Jesus cannot be
called ANAQEMA (1Co 12.3) according to the majority of NT interpreters
(unless you want to render the verse: "Therefore I tell you that no one can
say in the spirit ANAQEMA IHSOUS, just as no one can say KURIOS IHSOUS,
except by the Holy Spirit"), so why would a title of KATAQEMATOS (Did
16.5) not also be taboo, if it was 'equivalent' with ANAQEMA? This makes
Ps.-Just. look like an "artificial distinction" (TDNT, ha!) between ANAQEMA
and KATAQEMA, something, of course, very foolish, indeed <grin>. And why do
Lightfoot & Co. not give any references to Rev. in their fine volume at
this place in the Did.? I thought John was included as one of the DWDEKA
APOSTOLWN, no? Do they think that KATAQEMATOS can only refer to Gal. 3.13?
That's somewhat jumping the gun, IMO, since the vocabulary for Jesus being
the curse for us is wrapped up in LXX's KEKATHRAMENOS and Paul's
EPIKATARATOS: "Christ redeemed us from the KATARAS TOU NOMOU by becoming
KATARA for us, for it is written: 'EPIKATARATOS is everyone who is hung on
a tree'", and LXX Dt. 21.23 "KEKATHRAMENOS by God is everyone who is hung
on a tree". IMO, KATAQEMA and ANAQEMA are NOT 'equivalent' (KATAQEMA is
more general, IMO, and ANAQEMA is most specific; but I'm still deciding, so
no stones, please!) AND KATAQEMATOS as an intensified ANAQEMATOS, deriving
from KATANAQEMATOS, does NOT make sense as a title for Jesus in early
christianities anyway! KATAQEMATOS is a title for Satan, AUTOU refers to
the KOSMOPLANHS, the ANTIXRISTOS in the context of both Rev. and Did. The
problem shifts to the preposition (or is that what created this whole
problem in the first place?): whether AP' or UP' belongs. Are we saved BY
the curse or FROM the curse. And I don't even know where to start to prove
which is better (should we go with Hellenistic Greek of the fathers, or
Septuagintal Greek, a Semitis-izing of Classical Greek, or what?). =( But
I do think that Rev. 22.3 is much bigger than appreciated in this area of
"curses". Rev. 22.3 makes such a large statement: "KAI PAN KATAQEMA OUK
ESTAI ETI" = NIV "No longer will there be any KATAQEMA". If that is true,
and if Rev. is before Did. and a source for the thoughts of the Did., then
Jesus cannot be KATAQEMATOS, for KATAQEMA OUK ESTAI implies that
KATAQEMATOSes won't be hanging around in the new heavens and earth.
>(3) Didache 16:5
>
>TOTE hHXEI hH KTISIS TWN ANTHRWPWN EIS THN PURWSIN THS DOKIMASIAS, AND
>SKANDALISTHHSONTAI POLLOI AN APOLOUNTAI, hOI DE hUPOMEINANTES EN THi PISTEI
>AUTWN SWTHHSONTAI hUP' AUTOU TOU KATATHEMATOS.
>
>My question concerns the very last phrase, hUP' AUTOU TOU KATATHEMATOS. The
>Loeb translation (Kirsopp Lake) has, " . . . but 'they who endure' in their
>faith 'shall be saved' BY THE CURSE ITSELF." Lake also provides a note
>indicating that the meaning here is obscure. But I was wondering if, by any
>stretch of the imagination, one could take TOU KATATHEMATOS as an ablative of
>separation, thereby providing a more sensible translation such as, "they . .
>. shall be saved by him from the curse." The trouble here, however, may be in
>tracking down an antecedent for AUTOU.
Georg. solves it with AP' instead of UP'. I like Riddle in ANF 7.382 n 14:
"UP' AUTOU TOU KATAQEMATOS, "from under the curse itself;" namely, that
which has just been described [i.e., lawlessness and the world-deceiver].
Bryennios and others render "by the curse Himself;" that is, Christ, whom
they were tempted to revile. All other interpretations either rest on
textual emendations or are open to grammatical objections. Of the two given
above, that of Hall and Napier seems preferable."
>Of course, part of the whole problem lay in the precise meaning of KATATHEMA,
>which I have not adequately researched.
Even if you were to have adequately researched it, there would still be
confusion, I assume. I've spent some 3 years on "curses" in Paul and his
backgrounds and still am confused like the dickens. =(
[]______________________________________________________________.
| |\
| Shaughn Daniel shaughn.daniel@student.uni-tuebingen.de | |
| Tuebingen, Germany | |
| ~~~~~ | |
| I put tape on the mirrors in my house so I don't accidentally | |
| walk through into another dimension. --Steven Wright | |
|_______________________________________________________________| |
\_______________________________________________________________\|
The sagacious reader who is capable of reading between these lines
what does not stand written in them, but is nevertheless implied,
will be able to form some conception.
Goethe. Autobiography. Book xviii. Truth and Beauty.
- - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQBvAzDc/HIAAAEDAOzYZqopFN4y2pp8h4ZkpLXqjsvvqCTHC9wdLqCun7NnkQX7
cUELX+uCVNY/d/+hBnjeZKVe5JGOeNIt31+tHq24rcRw6p1prrFEbHlQnpxwJVbm
QDpdj3PV5vcwaT61tQARAQABtCxTaWJPcmFjbGUgPHp4bWxpMDVAc3R1ZGVudC51
bmktdHVlYmluZ2VuLmRlPg==
=s6sO
- - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
- ------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 13:36:44 -0600
Subject: Re: Apostolic Fathers Questions
I'm sending this through a second time because I don't know whether it got
through the first time; our server has been extremely erratic the last
couple days (I was bumped twice from both b-greek and another list while
our system wasn't receiving mail).
On 1/31/96, KevLAnder@aol.com wrote:
> I have a few minor questions about some reading I have done in the Apostolic
> Fathers.
>
> (1) Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 7:1
>
> EUCHARISTIAS KAI PROSEUCHHS APECHONTAI, DIA TO MH hOMOLOGEIN THN
> EUCHARISTIAN SARKA EINAI TOU SWTHROS hHMWN IHSOU CHRISTOU THN hPER TWN
> hAMARTIWN hHMWN PATHOUSAN, hHN THi CHRHSTOTHTI hO PATHR HGEIREN.
>
> Here both THN . . . PATHOUSAN and hHN . . . hO PATHR ktl. make the best sense
> with IHSOU CHRISTOU as their antecedent, but they agree in gender with
> EUCHARISTIAN. Is this simply a syntactically creative way for Ignatius to
> point out the, as it were, "corporeal" connection between the Eucharist and
> Christ's Passion/Resurrection? Contextually, of course, Ignatius is dealing
> with a docetic heresy.
This won't do; the gender in THN ... PAQOUSAN and in hHN ... HGEIREN is too
clearly marked as feminine, and the only feminine noun to which they can
refer as an antecedent is SARKA. The persons herein described deny that
SUBSTANCE offered in the Eucharist is in very fact the FLESH of our Savior
Jesus Christ, the very same FLESH that actually suffered for our sins, the
very same FLESH that that Father resurrected to life ...
> (2) Didache 7:3
>
> EAN DE AMPHOTERA MH ECHHiS, EKCHEON EIS THN KEPHALHN TRIS hUDWR EIS ONOMA
> PATROS KAI hUIOU KAI hGIOU PNEUMATOS.
>
> Here I have a simple parsing question. My guess is that EKCHEON is a Pres.
> Act. Ptc. neut. sg. nom. of EKCHEW. I would also surmise that if my parsing
> is correct, the ptc. is being used imperativally. Can anyone confirm or
> disconfirm this?
It is not a participle but a real 2nd sg. aor. active imperative of EKXEW.
This verb is one of two Greek verbs (I think they're the only ones, but I
could be mistaken) that are anomalous as far back as Homer in that they
have first aorist forms without a sigma: HNEGKA (from FERW) and EKXEA from
EKXEW). So this is a straightforward aorist sg. imperative active in the
passage cited.
> (3) Didache 16:5
>
> TOTE hHXEI hH KTISIS TWN ANTHRWPWN EIS THN PURWSIN THS DOKIMASIAS, AND
> SKANDALISTHHSONTAI POLLOI AN APOLOUNTAI, hOI DE hUPOMEINANTES EN THi PISTEI
> AUTWN SWTHHSONTAI hUP' AUTOU TOU KATATHEMATOS.
>
> My question concerns the very last phrase, hUP' AUTOU TOU KATATHEMATOS. The
> Loeb translation (Kirsopp Lake) has, " . . . but 'they who endure' in their
> faith 'shall be saved' BY THE CURSE ITSELF." Lake also provides a note
> indicating that the meaning here is obscure. But I was wondering if, by any
> stretch of the imagination, one could take TOU KATATHEMATOS as an ablative of
> separation, thereby providing a more sensible translation such as, "they . .
> . shall be saved by him from the curse." The trouble here, however, may be in
> tracking down an antecedent for AUTOU.
>
> Of course, part of the whole problem lay in the precise meaning of KATATHEMA,
> which I have not adequately researched.
(a) Have you perhaps transcribed the "AND" at the end of the first line
above erroneously for "KAI"? And what about the "AN" between POLLOI and
APOLOUNTAI? Of course this doesn't bear on your question, but I can't
understand an AN with a future tense such as APOLOUNTAI.
(b) While I don't claim to understand what the last clause actually means,
I do find the phrasing very problematic. Kirsopp Lake's reading is
appropriate to the text as it stands: hUPO + genitive should indicate the
agent of the action of the passive verb SWQHSONTAI, but it is somewhat odd
(albeit not unheard of) that the "agent" is not a person, unless, of
course, the KATAQEMA is thought of as personified, as Paul sometimes
represents Sin and Death as personified powers. That may be the answer
here, but it is definitely a personal agent construction. I do not see how
hUPO could properly introduce an (ablatival) genitive of separation here
("from under the curse") in view of the standard construction for agent.
But might the text itself be corrupt?
It strikes me that this verse is a little bit like the vieldiskutiertes 1
Tim 2:15, apparently on the salvation of woman/women: SWQHSETAI DE DIA THS
TEKNOGONIAS, EAN MEINWSIN EN PISTEI KAI AGAPHi KAI hAGIASMi META
SWFROSUNHS. Here however the preposition is DIA, and of course there's no
question of an ablatival function for the genitive.
Sorry that this is only a negative comment on your last question, but I'm
sure that illumination is on the way from our colleagues.
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, 1 Feb 1996 14:21:16 -0600
Subject: Re: Wis of Solomon 7
On 2/1/96, Will Wagers wrote:
> Edgar M. Krentz writes:
>
> >(4) Was this writer "under the influence of some foreign substance"? You
> >bet! The substance was the heady stuff of Greek, especially Stoic,
> >philosophy. In 7:23 and 24, DIA PANTWN XWROUN PNEUMATWN, and DIHKEI DE KAI
> >XWREI DIA PANTWN DIA THN KAQAROTHTA, he is borrowing the language the Stoa
> >uses of the LOGOS that moves through everything in the universe. Wisdom
> >holds that it is not the Stoic LOGOS that is the revealer of God (the
> >language of 7:25), but the SOFIA TOY QEOU.
>
> How is that extra-biblical references to the Logos are readily
> acknowledged as coming from this or that Greek philosophical
> school, but the antecedent of Logos of John 1:1 is usually ignored
> or specifically disavowed?
I for one certainly wouldn't want to deny influences from Heraclitus and
the Stoa in John 1:1. The LOGOS doctrine as developed in John's proem would
seem to derive from a mixture of so many sources that no one can be
pinpointed as sole or primary. I think that the Hokhma/Sophia development
in Hellenistic Judaism--to which the Wisdom of Solomon clearly belongs--is
part of that general cross-fertilization of Greek, Hebraic and other
Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures that thrives particularly at the
eastern end of the Mediterranean and nowhere more than in Alexandria. I
don't see how anyone can say definitively that the influence of Greek
thought has no part in the Logos doctrine; surely it does have a part; the
question is how much.
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: Jim Beale <jbeale@gdeb.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 96 16:24:35 EST
Subject: Re: Wis of Solomon 7
On Thu, 1 Feb 1996 Will Wagers wrote:
> How is that extra-biblical references to the Logos are readily
> acknowledged as coming from this or that Greek philosophical
> school, but the antecedent of Logos of John 1:1 is usually ignored
> or specifically disavowed?
What makes you think that it is ignored or disavowed? If one were to
read through Kittel's TDNT or Colin Brown's DNTT, it seems to me that
it would be found that the full classical background is recognized.
Surely John and the author of Hebrews were not writing in a vacuum,
and must have certainly been aware of the development from Heraclitus,
to Plato, and Proverbs 8, and Wisdom 18, Philo, etc. It even seems to
me that the Logos has the same attributes as Heraclitus named, specif-
ically, the rational ordering principle, the mind which orders and
ordains all things. The main difference it seems that John wanted to
claim for the true Logos is in vs. 14 where it is said that the Logos
becomes flesh, which is something that would probably not have been
acceptable to Heraclitus or Plato either for that matter.
I think that John was writing with the classical background in mind;
in opposition to the classical background to a point, but surely with
the explicit intent of showing that Christ is the true Logos, and that
He became incarnate as a man.
- - --
In Christ,
Jim Beale
_______________________________________________________________________
The Logos is the true Light, which lights
every man that comes into the world.
(John 1:9)
And this is the true end set before the Soul, to take that light,
to see the Supreme by the Supreme and not by the light of any
other principle -- to see the Supreme which is also the means to
the vision; for that which illumines the Soul is that which it is
to see -- just as it is by the sun's own light that we see the sun.
(Plotinus, Fifth Ennead, Third Tractate)
_______________________________________________________________________
- ------------------------------
From: Tim McLay <tmclay@atcon.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 00:11:30 -0400
Subject: 1 Pet. 2:5
Perhaps I am missing something, and I would appreciate Carl or someone else
pointing out the obvious, but if not, I intend on writing a note on this.
1 Pet. 2:5 has KAI\ AU0TOI\ W(S LI/QOI ZW=NTES OI0KODOMEI=SQE OI)=KOS
PNEUMATIKO\S This is translated in the NIV as "you also, like living
stones, are being built into a spiritual house", NRSV has "like living
stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house". Similar
translations are found in the RSV, KJV, and JB. Any discussion of this
construction in several commentaries centers on the verb, passive vs.
imperative sense.
My problem, however, is "spiritual house" is in the NOMINATIVE! Each of the
versions translates as though it were an accusative. So far, in an initial
search of five commentaries and several grammars there has been NO
discussion or explanation of the grammar. LSJ does not record any instances
of OI0KODOMEI=SQE being used like a copulative.
Would the grammar not result in a translation like, "you yourselves like
living stones, a spiritual house, are being built into a holy priesthood" ???
Am I blinded to something? Comments appreciated.
- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim McLay tmclay@atcon.com
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada
- ------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #98
****************************
** 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
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #106
*****************************
** 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