[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #116
b-greek-digest Friday, 16 February 1996 Volume 01 : Number 116
In this issue:
TR Greek source available?
[none]
Irenaeus
Re: Ephesians 4:10
Re: Ephesians 4:10
Re: Ephesians 4:10
Re: TR Greek source available?
Re: Matthew 24:30
Re: Matthew 24:30
Re: Ephesians 4:10
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Sharples <andysh@hiwaay.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 07:27:45 +0000
Subject: TR Greek source available?
I have a request for information.
Situation:
I have an assignment to translate the John 1-3 from Greek (Textus Receptus)
into English. I have Online Bible for Mac, whose Greek texts do not contain
any punctuation, capitalization, breathings, accents, or subscripts.
Question:
Is there an online version of the TR out there (Web, FTP, etc), *with*
breathings and accents? It doesn't have to be OLB compatible, just Mac
compatible.
Thanks.
*----------------------------------------*
| This book of the law shall not depart | Andy Sharples
| out of thy mouth; but thou shalt medi- | Huntsville, AL
| tate therein day and night, that thou |
| mayest observe to do according to all | <IXOYE><
| that is written therein: for then thou |
| shalt make thy way prosperous, and | andysh@HiWAAY.net
| then thou shalt have good success. |
| (Joshua 1:8). |
*----------------------------------------*
------------------------------
From: Denise Stuempfle <abs1@metgate.metro.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 10:35:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [none]
Dear David Marotta;
Please subscribe to B-Greek, Mehta Parimal, American Bible Society
------------------------------
From: Michael Holmes <holmic@bethel.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 11:47:12 -0600
Subject: Irenaeus
Yesterday I was messing around with Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.8.1 [= ref in
AnteNicene Fathers; TLG ref = 1.1.15], and am curious to see what you might
make of a few phrases. To phrase things in terms of Carl Conrad's excellent
recent comments, I think (hope?)I get the gist of the Greek, but coming up
with a satisfactory ET is another matter.
"They attempt to adapt [PROSARMOZEIN] things (either parables of the Lord,
or sayings of the prophets, or words of the apostles) to their own sayings,
in order that their scheme might not seem to be lacking in support: THN MEN
TACIN KAI TON hEIRMON TWN GRAFWN hUPERBAINONTES, KAI, hOSON EF' hEAUTOIS,
LUONTES TA MELH THS ALHQEIAS. METAFEROUSI DE KAI METAPLATTOUSI, KAI ALLO EC
ALLOU POIOUNTES ECAPATWSI POLLOUS THi TWN EFARMOZOMENWN KURIAKWN LOGIWN
KAKOSUNQETWi SOFIAi. ... [several lines of text] ... EPEITA RhHMATA KAI
LECEIS KAI PARABOLAS hOQEN KAI POQEN APOSPWNTES, EFARMOZEIN BOULONTAI TOIS
MUQOIS AUTWN (v.l., hEAUTWN) TA LOGIA TOU QEOU.
Key phrases I'm interested in (which I'll number for ease of reference):
1) how much difference in meaning is there between TACIN ("order") and
hEIRMON ("sequence"? "connection"?)
2)LUONTES TA MELH THS ALHQEIAS: "destroying the integrity of the truth"?
3)METAFEROUSI DE KAI METAPLATTOUSI: roughly "they change and they
counterfeit;" would it be appropriate to take METAFEROUSI as "interpret
metaphorically" in this context?
4)THi TWN EFARMOZOMENWN KURIAKWN LOGIWN KAKOSUNQETWi SOFIAi: KAKOSUNQETWi,
acc. to LSJ (p. 863), is a rhetorical term, "ill-composed," "ill put
together," neither of which seems to fit too well as a modifier of SOFIAi,
which in this context =? For the phrase, perhaps something like "their
poorly-organized understanding of the adapted sayings of the Lord"?
5)hOQEN KAI POQEN a) what does the combo mean; I didn't notice an example
of the combo in LSJ, which makes them sound like synonyms; b) does the combo
modify what precedes or follows it? (APOSPAW here = "take out of context"?)
Thanks,
Mike Holmes
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 13:14:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Ephesians 4:10
"Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
>(1) If you have two article-nominative phrases athwart a copula, the second
>MAY but NEED NOT be the subject (because Greek word-order has a definite
>tendency to put the predicate word first in a noun sentence--BUT rhetorical
>emphasis can interfere at any point with that tendency so that the subject
>may be first after all for the sake of emphasis.
>(2) It may seem a grammatical heresy (at least not a theological one), but
>I don't really think it matters so much which one you consider the subject;
>the point of the construction is the equation of the two noun-phrases.
>(3) However, a third factor in this instance is the AUTOS, which does
>indeed belong to hO KATABAS. And the nominative AUTOS/AUTH/AUTO does more
>normally (but not always!) go with the subject.
>In the context, what is evident is that the writer here wants to identify
>the person refered to in the Psalm as having ascended to the height. I
>think either of the following versions would suffice:
> "It is the very one who descended that ascended ..."
> "The one who ascended ... is the very one who descended."
>Reflecting analytically over this, I guess that I would say the second
>phrase, hO ANABAS ... is the subject and the first, hO KATABAS AUTOS, is
>the predicate.
The statement, "Greek word-order has a definite tendency to put
the predicate word first in a noun sentence--BUT rhetorical emphasis can
interfere at any point with that tendency so that the subject may be first
after all for the sake of emphasis," is puzzling. First, because I'm
unclear on what is meant by "a noun sentence" (I'll assume it's a sentence
similar in structure to the one under discussion), and, second, because
sentences with this structure in the NT seem to usually use the first
arthrous noun as the subject and the second as the predicate nominative.
In a Gramcord search for nominative arthrous nouns or participles
joined by the third person of EIMI, all the sentences with a clearly
defined subject used the first noun as subject and the second as predicate
nominative. In this class were Mat 13:38; Luke 8:11; 1 Jn. 3:4; Rev.
17:18. Others were not as clear-cut, but none of these seemed to demand
using the second arthrous noun as the subject. Cf. Mat. 6:22; Mark 7:15;
Luke 11:34; Rev. 18:23.
I realize Carl has a wide scope of knowledge in Greek literature,
and I suppose his comments are based on that knowledge, but the NT
evidence doesn't seem to support the same conclusions - or is there
something I'm missing here?
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 13:35:35 -0600
Subject: Re: Ephesians 4:10
On 2/15/96, David Moore wrote:
> "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
>
> >(1) If you have two article-nominative phrases athwart a copula, the second
> >MAY but NEED NOT be the subject (because Greek word-order has a definite
> >tendency to put the predicate word first in a noun sentence--BUT rhetorical
> >emphasis can interfere at any point with that tendency so that the subject
> >may be first after all for the sake of emphasis.
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> The statement, "Greek word-order has a definite tendency to put
> the predicate word first in a noun sentence--BUT rhetorical emphasis can
> interfere at any point with that tendency so that the subject may be first
> after all for the sake of emphasis," is puzzling. First, because I'm
> unclear on what is meant by "a noun sentence" (I'll assume it's a sentence
> similar in structure to the one under discussion), and, second, because
> sentences with this structure in the NT seem to usually use the first
> arthrous noun as the subject and the second as the predicate nominative.
>
> In a Gramcord search for nominative arthrous nouns or participles
> joined by the third person of EIMI, all the sentences with a clearly
> defined subject used the first noun as subject and the second as predicate
> nominative. In this class were Mat 13:38; Luke 8:11; 1 Jn. 3:4; Rev.
> 17:18. Others were not as clear-cut, but none of these seemed to demand
> using the second arthrous noun as the subject. Cf. Mat. 6:22; Mark 7:15;
> Luke 11:34; Rev. 18:23.
>
> I realize Carl has a wide scope of knowledge in Greek literature,
> and I suppose his comments are based on that knowledge, but the NT
> evidence doesn't seem to support the same conclusions - or is there
> something I'm missing here?
I should have known better than to state a principle like that, and I
certainly should have known better than to use the term "noun sentence," a
term that I have seen far-too-little used to expect anyone to know what I
meant. What I did mean was a sentence linking a subject with a predicate
word, whether the predicate word be a noun, a pronoun, an adjective or a
substantive such as an articular participle or infinitive.
In the second place, I think I was putting the cart before the horse
(typing before thinking?) in asserting that the normal word order in what I
had called a "noun sentence" was PredicateWord-copula-Subject and then
qualifying it by saying that rhetorical emphasis could alter or reverse
this order. What I really ought to have said is that the initial position
in the sentence tends to be the position of greatest (rhetorical) emphasis
and that the predicate word does tend to be the more emphatic element in
this sort of sentence. Now, I'm not sure that I can prove this to be true
for classical Attic, although I could readily enough take a large enough
sampling of prose authors and do a count. I haven't counted, of course; I
can only say it's my observation that this is a tendence: one finds
AGAQOS ESTIN hO ANQRWPOS far more frequently than one finds hO ANQRWPOS
ESTIN AGAQOS.
I'd be curious to do such a check as David did on the sequence
arthrous-noun/copula/arthrous-noun on my proposition of
predicate-word/copula/subject. I don't have the right instrument to do
that, but I might just try it with forms of the verb EINAI.
I'm still inclined to think that when a copula links two nouns, it doesn't
really make much difference which noun one deems the subject.
Looking back once again at our passage in question, Eph 4:10 the only think
I feel very confident of at present is that hO KATABAS AUTOS is indeed the
emphatic element in this equation. Otherwise, I repent me in sackcloth and
ashes and shall make no more dogmatic statements, at least not until my
next post ;-)
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, 15 Feb 1996 14:25:30 -0600
Subject: Re: Ephesians 4:10
I am ready to repent in sackcloth and ashes fully now: I've done a quick
search of all instances of ESTI(N) and EISI(N) in Luke's gospel, Romans,
and Hebrews, and I can find no consistent pattern whatsoever regarding the
order of subject, copula, and predicate word.
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, 15 Feb 1996 17:13:49 -0600
Subject: Re: TR Greek source available?
Andy, if you cannot get a copy of John 1-3 in the TR any other way, get a
copy of the UBS4 from Linquist Software and H KAINY DIAQHKH from the
Biblical Company at 2A Philellenon St. Athens (or some other edition of the
TR) and make the changes necessary in the first three chapters yourself.
That might be a learning experience. I am interested why you have to use
the TR in your project.
Grace,
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: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 17:57:53 CST
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:30
On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Carl W. Conrad write:
>On 2/13/96, Russ Reeves wrote:
>
>> The first phrase of Matthew 24:30 (I'm not sure if I'm
>> transliterating in the standard way for this group - I'm using "H"
>> for eta) "KAI TOTE PHANHSETAI TO SHMEION TOU UIOU TOU ANTHROPOU EN
>> OURANW," is usually rendered "the sign of the Son of Man will appear
>> in the sky" (NIV) or along those lines. But is it the "sign" that
>> is in heaven or the "Son of Man"? Is it grammatically possible that
>> the "sign" is that the Son of Man is in heaven?
>
>Yes, I think so.
>
>This is an interesting question, and one that I don't think we ever
>addressed in our lengthy discussion of the phrasing of this passage in the
>Synoptic apocalypse last year.
>
>My initial reaction is to think the construction of TOU hUIOU TOU ANQRWPOU
>here is a defining genitive, i.e., the Son of Man is himself the sign that
>will appear in the sky.
I agree! The sign of the parousia in verse 3 is finally explained in verse 30
as being the Son of man in heaven. This doesn't give much time to prepare
when one sees this sign, but this is in line with the theme of always watch
and be ready. We must remember that, to the extent that the gospels are
accurately reflecting the history of the life of Jesus (and I take them as
quite accurate), this was new information to the disciples. To us it seems so
commonplace, since we've heard it so many times before; to them it was novel.
Jesus was finally telling them that when they see him coming in the sky, it is
time for the parousia.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 19:47:12 -0600
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:30
Bruce Terry writes,
>I agree! The sign of the parousia in verse 3 is finally explained in verse 30
>as being the Son of man in heaven. This doesn't give much time to prepare
>when one sees this sign, but this is in line with the theme of always watch
>and be ready. We must remember that, to the extent that the gospels are
>accurately reflecting the history of the life of Jesus (and I take them as
>quite accurate), this was new information to the disciples. To us it seems so
>commonplace, since we've heard it so many times before; to them it was novel.
>Jesus was finally telling them that when they see him coming in the sky, it is
>time for the parousia.
Boy, am I glad He told us this; otherwise, when I see Him flying through the
sky I might think he was just passing through. I don't know about you, but
even after 2,000 years, I'm still on pins and needles. Well, only 22,000 years
to go.
Let's see, I'm going to need my ...
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 22:30:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Ephesians 4:10
On Thu, 15 Feb 1996, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> What I really ought to have said is that the initial position
> in the sentence tends to be the position of greatest (rhetorical) emphasis
> and that the predicate word does tend to be the more emphatic element in
> this sort of sentence. Now, I'm not sure that I can prove this to be true
> for classical Attic, although I could readily enough take a large enough
> sampling of prose authors and do a count. I haven't counted, of course; I
> can only say it's my observation that this is a tendence: one finds
> AGAQOS ESTIN hO ANQRWPOS far more frequently than one finds hO ANQRWPOS
> ESTIN AGAQOS.
That sounds correct., But the example is not completely parallel
to the sentence with nominative arthrous nouns joined by a verb of "to
be" in third person. Let's say that what we wanted to say was, "That man
is the good one." The word order would more probably be hO ANQRWPOS
ESTIN hO AGAQOS rather than hO AGAQWS ESTIN hO ANQRWPOS. The latter, at
least IMO, would usually mean something like, "The good one is that man."
The first would tend to be found in a context in which there had been
discussion of the man; the second, in a context that had been discussing
what is good.
The construction anarthrous nominative - linking verb - arthrous
nominative does call for the major emphasis on the second nominative
noun, normally making it the subject, _a la_ Jn. 1:1.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #116
*****************************
** 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