[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #123
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 21 February 1996 Volume 01 : Number 123
In this issue:
Re: B-Hebrew: is there an archive?
Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
Ephesians 4:16,18
Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
public domain fonts from Scholars Press
Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
Re: B-Hebrew: is there an archive?
Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
Re: B-Hebrew: is there an archive?
hOMOIWSW
Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
Re: hOMOIWSW
Gen. 1:1-2, and the Hebrew of it
Unsubscribe
Re: B-Hebrew: is there an archive?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 07:48:51 -0600
Subject: Re: B-Hebrew: is there an archive?
On 2/20/96, Will Wagers wrote:
> For those who are following the Creatio ex nihilo thread and are
> interested in the same subject in the OT. It has begun synchronistically
> (Tue, 20 Feb 96 10:04:02 EST) on B-HEBREW with the following cry for help:
>
> >What can you tell me about genesis 1:1. I'm especialy interested
> in deeper meaning of the words in it. Please help me.
Is there an archive for B-Hebrew? and if so, could someone kindly supply
the URL for it? If not, would it be possible to cross-post this thread on
interpretation of Genesis 1:1 to B-Greek?
Thanks in advance, cwc
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: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 07:48:55 -0600
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
On 2/20/96, David Moore wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
> > On 2/20/96, David Moore wrote:
> >
> > > What we would really need to get at the biblical view on this
> > > matter is a good exegesis of Gen. 1:1. Maybe someone can get that going
> > > on b-hebrew.
> >
> > I'm not sure this would really settle matters, as there are sufficient
> > grounds for understanding the text of Genesis 1:1 in terms of a
> > pre-existent chaos or "matter" (TOHU W'BOHU) shaped by the creator into a
> > cosmos. The question Will raises is really (I think?) WHEN the doctrine of
> > CREATIO EX NIHILO really emerges and whether it is in fact implicit in NT
> > texts.
>
> It looks as though one would practically have to torture the
> Hebrew to get it to say anything very far from, "In the beginning God
> created the heavens and the earth." I suspect that the interpretation,
> "In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth..." would
> depend more on the interpreter's presuppositions than on the Hebrew. The
> waw at the beginning of v. 2 pretty much rules out v. 1's being a general
> title of the section, and it (the waw) falls very unnaturally between the
> temporal prepositional phrase and the rest of the sentence if we are to
> understand, "In the beginning of God's creating...."
NRSV: "In the beginning when God created [alt.: 'when God began to create'
or 'In the beginning God created'] the heavens and the earth, (2) the earth
was a formless void ..."
The note in the Oxford Study Bible accompanying this NRSV version (slightly
abridged) reads: "Out of original chaos God created an orderly world,
assigning a preeminent place to human beings. 1: The traditional
translation as an independent sentence, following the Greek Bible
(Septuagint) of the 3rd cent. B.C., is defensible, in which case 1.1 is a
thematic sentence, corresponding to the climactic summary of 2.1. Many,
however, favor 'When God began to create ...,' taking the verse to be
introductory to v. 2 or possibly to the first act of creation in v. 3. ..."
Even the older RSV had a footnote to its primary version of Genesis 1:1:
"In the Beginning God created (a) the heavens and the earth."--(a) or "When
God began to create ..."
> > Another reason is that it may not be a matter of how the Hebrew text was
> > understood but rather of how the LXX of Genesis 1 was understood. For that
> > we have ready to hand Philo's treatise De Opificio Mundi, to which I've
> > made reference before. Even any antecedents of the Logos doctrine are
> > likely to be found in those very Wisdom texts most (even if not all) of
> > which come from Alexandria and Hellenistic Judaism.
>
> The LXX supports taking the first verse of Genesis as a sentence
> unto itself. And most of the other textual and exegetical evidence seems
> to point in that direction, so why look for any other *emergence* of the
> idea of CREATIO EX NIHILO? If Gen. 1:1 is taken in the most
> straightforward manner, what we should be asking is why other ways of
> interpreting this passage emerged that drew on the Greek philosophical
> idea of preexisting material. See, for instance, Josephus's explanation
> of the creation at the beginning of Antiquities (Ant. I:27) in which he
> (like Aquila in the 2nd Century) supplies EKTISEN in place of the LXX's
> EPOIHSEN.
It is true that "the LXX supports taking the first verse of Genesis as a
sentence unto itself." In fact, the Oxford note (by Bernhard Anderson)
indicates that the traditional punctuation derives from the LXX rather than
from the Masoretic text. I have just checked the text of Philo's De
Opificio Mundi, and he too reads (citing, of course, the LXX!) the first
verse as a sentence. This does not deter him, however, from proceeding to
interpret Genesis 1 in terms of the Timaeus of Plato: God creates first an
ASWMATON KOSMON--i.e., an Idea of the Cosmos, and then, as DHMIOURGOS he
reproduces the idea in somatic form. Philo says nothing about the source of
the "matter" out of which the material or somatic cosmos is shaped; he
seems to take it for granted that there is a substrate that is shaped into
a Cosmos and to understand that until there is a FORMED Cosmos, we cannot
talk about existence.
Finally, I had a brief discussion on this question yesterday with my
colleague Patout Burns, a patristic and Augustine scholar; he said that the
doctrine of CREATIO EX NIHILO did not emerge before the patristic period
and that it originated not out of the theological question of monotheism
but out of the need to solve the problem of evil without postulating a
cause external to God. I'm not familiar with that literature, but perhaps
this question can be put to other lists as well: Elenchus and Ioudaios-L,
for instance.
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: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 08:01:22 -0600
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
On 2/21/96, James H. Vellenga wrote:
> I find this discussion of thinginess and unthinginess relative to
> creation fascinating. But if the concept of "no-thing-ness" was
> the order of the day, can it be generalized in translation?
> For example, in 1 Cor. 13.2-3, when Paul says "I am nothing" and
> "I gain nothing," is he really saying "I am unsubstantial" and
> "I gain no tangible benefits"? Or is OUDEN/OUQEN a different kind
> of fish?
There's "nothing" (nor "any thing," for that matter, either) in this
suggestion. OUQEN is simply a common Boeotian dialect equivalent of OUDEN
that became more common in the Hellenistic era.
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: "James H. Vellenga" <jhv0@viewlogic.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 96 08:10:37 EST
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
I find this discussion of thinginess and unthinginess relative to
creation fascinating. But if the concept of "no-thing-ness" was
the order of the day, can it be generalized in translation?
For example, in 1 Cor. 13.2-3, when Paul says "I am nothing" and
"I gain nothing," is he really saying "I am unsubstantial" and
"I gain no tangible benefits"? Or is OUDEN/OUQEN a different kind
of fish?
Regards,
Jim 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 |
http://www.viewlogic.com
------------------------------
From: Northland Bible College <northlan@soonet.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 09:52:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Ephesians 4:16,18
Hi all:
Here are a few more questions that have arisen in our exegesis of
Ephesians that I hope some of you will comment on.
In 4:16 PAN TO SWMA appears to be the main subject in the sentence. The
question is, the subject of which verb? If we supply no finite (ie.
supply 'WN instead of 'ESTIN) between
this subject and the following participles (SUNARMOLOGOUMENON KAI
SUNBIBAZOMENON), then it appears the main verb in the sentence would be
POIETAI further on in 4:16. Is one translation better than the other?
Does either translation violate any rules of syntax?
It seems that POIETAI in 4:16b would then be the primary clause if we
supplied 'WN before the participles in 4:16a, but POIETAI would be the
secondary clause if we go with'ESTIN. Any comments?
We further noted that two agencies are expressed in 4:16 for the joining
and fitting together of the Body, namely 'EX hOU (referring to Christ in
4:15), and also DIA PASHS hAFHS (referring to individual believers). That
much is fact. The question is prompted by the KAI between the
participles, and the positioning of these two agencies - one before the
first participle, and the second agency following the second participle.
Question: Does the positioning of these agencies and participle
separated by KAI suggest that Christ is the agent of SUNARMOLOGOUMENON
and believers are the agents of SUNBIBAZOMENON? I realize the gender of
both participles relates them both to SWMA and doesn't directly relate
them to these distinct agents.
In 4:18, in the phrase DIA THN 'AGNOIAN THN 'OUSAN 'EN 'AUTOIS, how far
does the influence of the preposition extend? To the entire phrase, or
primarily over THN 'AGNOIAN? We were thinking that if DIA influenced the
whole phrase, then THN 'OUSAN could be classified in an adverbial sense
the same as THN 'AGNOIAN. But if the attributive participle is not
governed by DIA, then even though it is still adverbial in nature, it
would not be modifying what 'AGNOIAN is modifying, but would be modifying
'AGNOIAN directly. Clarification?
Steve Clock
Northland Bible College
------------------------------
From: "James H. Vellenga" <jhv0@viewlogic.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 96 10:14:08 EST
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
> From cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu Wed Feb 21 09:01:24 1996
>
> On 2/21/96, James H. Vellenga wrote:
>
> > I find this discussion of thinginess and unthinginess relative to
> > creation fascinating. But if the concept of "no-thing-ness" was
> > the order of the day, can it be generalized in translation?
> > For example, in 1 Cor. 13.2-3, when Paul says "I am nothing" and
> > "I gain nothing," is he really saying "I am unsubstantial" and
> > "I gain no tangible benefits"? Or is OUDEN/OUQEN a different kind
> > of fish?
>
> There's "nothing" (nor "any thing," for that matter, either) in this
> suggestion. OUQEN is simply a common Boeotian dialect equivalent of OUDEN
> that became more common in the Hellenistic era.
>
> Carl W. Conrad
Sorry. I evidently wasn't clear. I wasn't asking for a distinction
between OUDEN and OUQEN, but since both occur in this passage, whether
OUDEN (or its equivalent) was a different "nothing" or "no-thing"
from the kinds of "no-thing-ness" being discussed in connection
with creation.
Regards,
Jim V.
------------------------------
From: "James R. Adair" <jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 11:41:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: public domain fonts from Scholars Press
Scholars Press has updated its public domain TrueType fonts available on
its FTP site. We have Hebrew (SPTiberian), Greek (SPIonic), Syriac
(SPEdessa), and Transliteration (SPAtlantis) fonts currently available.
Changes from earlier versions include additional characters in the
transliteration font, vowels and other characters added to the Syriac
font, and cosmetic changes to all the fonts. Feel free to download and
use the fonts. Comments are welcome.
URLs: ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/pub/fonts/mac
ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/pub/fonts/windows
Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
- ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
------------------------------
From: "James H. Vellenga" <jhv0@viewlogic.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 96 11:51:16 EST
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
> From cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu Wed Feb 21 11:29:55 1996
> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 10:29:53 -0600
> To: jhv0@viewlogic.com (James H. Vellenga)
> From: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl W. Conrad)
> Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
>
> On 2/21/96, James H. Vellenga wrote:
>
> > > From cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu Wed Feb 21 09:01:24 1996
> > >
> > > On 2/21/96, James H. Vellenga wrote:
> > >
> > > > I find this discussion of thinginess and unthinginess relative to
> > > > creation fascinating. But if the concept of "no-thing-ness" was
> > > > the order of the day, can it be generalized in translation?
> > > > For example, in 1 Cor. 13.2-3, when Paul says "I am nothing" and
> > > > "I gain nothing," is he really saying "I am unsubstantial" and
> > > > "I gain no tangible benefits"? Or is OUDEN/OUQEN a different kind
> > > > of fish?
...
>
> I guess I was less than clear as well: there is no discernible distinction
> in meaning between the two.
>
So if
a) we assume that OUDEN means "no-thing" rather than nothing, then
b) Paul really is saying "I gain no tangible benefits."
But if he's saying he gains no tangible benefits by giving up both property
and body without doing it with love, this seems a little strange --
since he seems to be covering the whole gamut of tangible benefits.
That is, even if he did do it with love, he would wind up only with
intangible benefits -- i.e., "no-thing" in any case.
In other words, under assumption a), this statement doesn't seem to
make sense to me.
Does this reflect back on whether Paul actually uses OUDEN to mean
"no-thing" as opposed to "nothing"?
Regards,
Jim 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 |
http://www.viewlogic.com
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 12:06:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: B-Hebrew: is there an archive?
On Wed, 21 Feb 1996, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> On 2/20/96, Will Wagers wrote:
>
> > For those who are following the Creatio ex nihilo thread and are
> > interested in the same subject in the OT. It has begun synchronistically
> > (Tue, 20 Feb 96 10:04:02 EST) on B-HEBREW with the following cry for help:
> >
> > >What can you tell me about genesis 1:1. I'm especialy interested
> > in deeper meaning of the words in it. Please help me.
>
> Is there an archive for B-Hebrew? and if so, could someone kindly supply
> the URL for it? If not, would it be possible to cross-post this thread on
> interpretation of Genesis 1:1 to B-Greek?
>
I don't have the URL in hand right now, but there is a link to it
from my web site for which the home page is listed below. Look under
"Linguistic resources" or something of the sort.
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: Stephen C Carlson <scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 13:05:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>Finally, I had a brief discussion on this question yesterday with my
>colleague Patout Burns, a patristic and Augustine scholar; he said that the
>doctrine of CREATIO EX NIHILO did not emerge before the patristic period
>and that it originated not out of the theological question of monotheism
>but out of the need to solve the problem of evil without postulating a
>cause external to God. I'm not familiar with that literature, but perhaps
>this question can be put to other lists as well: Elenchus and Ioudaios-L,
>for instance.
I can dig up the references if anyone would like, but the Greek physician
Galen (late second century) criticized the creation EX NIHILO doctine of
the "followers of Moses" (i.e., both Jews and Christians). So maybe that
helps to narrow down when the doctrine emerged (i.e., it is not a modern
view).
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE
scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs
http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 12:25:04 -0600
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
On 2/21/96, James H. Vellenga wrote:
> > From cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu Wed Feb 21 11:29:55 1996
> > Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 10:29:53 -0600
> > To: jhv0@viewlogic.com (James H. Vellenga)
> > From: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl W. Conrad)
> > Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
> >
> > On 2/21/96, James H. Vellenga wrote:
> >
> > > > From cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu Wed Feb 21 09:01:24 1996
> > > >
> > > > On 2/21/96, James H. Vellenga wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I find this discussion of thinginess and unthinginess relative to
> > > > > creation fascinating. But if the concept of "no-thing-ness" was
> > > > > the order of the day, can it be generalized in translation?
> > > > > For example, in 1 Cor. 13.2-3, when Paul says "I am nothing" and
> > > > > "I gain nothing," is he really saying "I am unsubstantial" and
> > > > > "I gain no tangible benefits"? Or is OUDEN/OUQEN a different kind
> > > > > of fish?
> ...
> >
> > I guess I was less than clear as well: there is no discernible distinction
> > in meaning between the two.
> >
> So if
>
> a) we assume that OUDEN means "no-thing" rather than nothing, then
>
> b) Paul really is saying "I gain no tangible benefits."
>
> But if he's saying he gains no tangible benefits by giving up both property
> and body without doing it with love, this seems a little strange --
> since he seems to be covering the whole gamut of tangible benefits.
> That is, even if he did do it with love, he would wind up only with
> intangible benefits -- i.e., "no-thing" in any case.
> In other words, under assumption a), this statement doesn't seem to
> make sense to me.
>
> Does this reflect back on whether Paul actually uses OUDEN to mean
> "no-thing" as opposed to "nothing"?
(a) In this instance OUDEN is actually an adverb: OUDEN WFELOUMAI = I shall
help myself NOT AT ALL/NOT ONE BIT/NOT ANYTHING.
(b) In the context of these verses, the theme is that of chapters 12 and
14, the XARISMATA or "spiritual achievements." I think he is saying in
verses 2 and 3 of chapter 13, (2) I am not anything at all; (3) I shall
benefit myself not any at all. In both verses the assertion means that
there is no XARISMA represented in performance of these actions which
might, in the view of some, be considered pious acts.
(c) I re-iterate: I don't think the alternation between OUQEN and OUDEN has
any significance whatsoever. If others think it does, please argue the
case.
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: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 12:41:35 -0600
Subject: Re: B-Hebrew: is there an archive?
I thank David Moore for the indirect link to the B-Hebrew archive at the
Gramcord Institute. The URL is:
http://www.gramcord.org/bhebrew/index.htm
Unfortunately, however, it has no entires after the end of October 1995.
I've noted that the archive for B-Greek at that site also has not been kep
up, whereas James Tauber's site is not only up-to-date, but very versatile
and has some materials from years before the archive was begun, supplied, I
believe, by our friend from San Diego. That URL is:
http://www.entmp.org/cgi-bin/lwgate/B-GREEK/archives/
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: "Dale M. Wheeler" <dalemw@teleport.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 10:51:14 -0800
Subject: hOMOIWSW
Here's a little problem I ran into as I was updating the GRAMCORD database;
I'd like to see what you "morpheme-ologists" think about this one.
The form hOMOIWSW occurs 4x in the NT (Matt 11:16; Luke 7:31; 13:18, 20) in
roughly similar phrases about drawing a comparison to/about the Kingdom.
There is a disagreement between the tools as to whether this should be
parsed as a 1st Sing FUTURE INDICATIVE or as an AORIST SUBJUNCTIVE (in
either case a "deliberative" use, I take it). I was inclined to read it as
a Future Indicative, but then I noticed the similar passage in Mark 4:30,
which uses the 1st Plural in a similar statement...and unless I'm missing
something here (to close to the problem and can't see the forest for the
trees...you know the feeling...), Mark 4:30 is clearly Aorist Subjunctive.
Sooooooooooooooooo....I'm now wondering if the 1st singulars ought to be
parsed as Aorist Subjunctive as well??
What do you'all think....
***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com
***********************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 12:52:26 -0600
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
This came to me alone but was meant, I think, for the whole list.
>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 13:03:39 -0500
>From: SOMCMAN@aol.com
>To: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
>Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
>Status:
>
>In a message dated 96-02-20 16:59:03 EST, you write:
>
>>> What we would really need to get at the biblical view on this
>>> matter is a good exegesis of Gen. 1:1. Maybe someone can get that going
>>> on b-hebrew.
>>
>>I'm not sure this would really settle matters, as there are sufficient
>>grounds for understanding the text of Genesis 1:1 in terms of a
>>pre-existent chaos or "matter" (TOHU W'BOHU) shaped by the creator into a
>>cosmos. The question Will raises is really (I think?) WHEN the doctrine of
>>CREATIO EX NIHILO really emerges and whether it is in fact implicit in NT
>>texts.
>
>Actually, the subject of the phraseology of Gn 1.1 has mystified me until I
>discovered
>parallel phraseology of the Hebrew text in Gn 2.1 to also indicated a gap of
>time where a condition occurred and then ceased to exist until divine
>intervention once again
>rectified the situation. Also not the intentional commentary to clarify the
>situation from any suppositions that might arise from previous statements
>made in Gn1.1a and 2.1a by use of retroactive exposition in the following
>verse of both chapters. This phraseology is not merely scribal intervention.
> No scribe ever possessed those literary powers.
>
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: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 14:38:28 -0600
Subject: Re: hOMOIWSW
On 2/21/96, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:
> Here's a little problem I ran into as I was updating the GRAMCORD database;
> I'd like to see what you "morpheme-ologists" think about this one.
>
> The form hOMOIWSW occurs 4x in the NT (Matt 11:16; Luke 7:31; 13:18, 20) in
> roughly similar phrases about drawing a comparison to/about the Kingdom.
> There is a disagreement between the tools as to whether this should be
> parsed as a 1st Sing FUTURE INDICATIVE or as an AORIST SUBJUNCTIVE (in
> either case a "deliberative" use, I take it). I was inclined to read it as
> a Future Indicative, but then I noticed the similar passage in Mark 4:30,
> which uses the 1st Plural in a similar statement...and unless I'm missing
> something here (to close to the problem and can't see the forest for the
> trees...you know the feeling...), Mark 4:30 is clearly Aorist Subjunctive.
> Sooooooooooooooooo....I'm now wondering if the 1st singulars ought to be
> parsed as Aorist Subjunctive as well??
>
> What do you'all think....
Probably they should be parsed as Aorist Subjunctive, but I think this is a
matter on which any student of Hellenistic Greek needs to be warned in some
footnote. The future indicative derives historically from the Aorist
Subjunctive in an era before the adoption of the Ionic alphabet with its
distinction of omicron from omega. I really wonder if you had put this
question to an ordinary first-century speaker/writer of Greek s/he would
have known or cared about the difference. When Paul writes MH GENOITO!,
does he have any notion that he's using an Optative?
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: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 16:48:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Gen. 1:1-2, and the Hebrew of it
Friends:
Since this discussion of Gen. 1:1-2 and Creatio ex nihilo was, for me,
"deja vu all over again," I decided to stay out of it. Almost everything so
far posted (with the exception of Carl Conrad's masterful one of today--Feb. 21
- --beginning "Okay") reads like many sets of seminary-papers (no offense
intended; it's just that there's little new under the sun) I have had to read
and comment on. But David Moore's statement about Hebrew, in response to Will
Wagers, cannot be left unchallenged.
> (Will:) . . . . there are sufficient
> grounds for understanding the text of Genesis 1:1 in terms of a
> pre-existent chaos or "matter" (TOHU W'BOHU) shaped by the creator into a
> cosmos. The question Will raises is really (I think?) WHEN the doctrine of
> CREATIO EX NIHILO really emerges and whether it is in fact implicit in NT
> texts.
(David:) It looks as though one would practically have to torture the
Hebrew to get it to say anything very far from, "In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth." I suspect that the interpretation,
"In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth..." would
depend more on the interpreter's presuppositions than on the Hebrew. The
waw at the beginning of v. 2 pretty much rules out v. 1's being a general
title of the section, and it (the waw) falls very unnaturally between the
temporal prepositional phrase and the rest of the sentence if we are to
understand, "In the beginning of God's creating...."
> Another reason is that it may not be a matter of how the Hebrew text was
> understood but rather of how the LXX of Genesis 1 was understood. For that
> we have ready to hand Philo's treatise De Opificio Mundi, to which I've
> made reference before. Even any antecedents of the Logos doctrine are
> likely to be found in those very Wisdom texts most (even if not all) of
> which come from Alexandria and Hellenistic Judaism.
The LXX supports taking the first verse of Genesis as a sentence
unto itself. And most of the other textual and exegetical evidence seems
to point in that direction, so why look for any other *emergence* of the
idea of CREATIO EX NIHILO? If Gen. 1:1 is taken in the most
straightforward manner, what we should be asking is why other ways of
interpreting this passage emerged that drew on the Greek philosophical
idea of preexisting material.
--------------------------------------------------------------
(This is Edward now:)
"Torturing the Hebrew," then, is what much of the Jewish
tradition has done, and what most Hebrew scholars of this century have
done! While I am not among the great Hebrew scholars of our time, the
University of Chicago Press thought well enough of my competence in 1950 to
publish my translation of part of the Ben Asher text (at the University's
request, it having never been done before). And I can assure you that a clear
majority of the first-rank Hebraists consider the opening sentence of the
narrative to begin with a temporal clause, "When God began to create the
heavens and the earth, ...." The vowel points are of course not ancient at
all, so no argument based on them holds much water. The implication of
creatio ex nihilo, according to Encyclopaedia Judaica (5:1059), "first
appears in II Maccabees 7:28."
While it is possible to paint-and-read the text as did the Alexandrian
Jews who produced the Old Greek, there is no necessity to do so, from any
standpoint of Hebrew grammar. Barney Anderson, cited by Carl Conrad, is no
slouch, either. And especially NOTE: The main translations of the past
half-century--RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NAB, Tanakh, covering Protestant, Catholic,
Jewish scholars and sponsors, none of them self-appointed translators--have
every one included "When God began to create..." either in the text or in the
margin. To say that ALL these scholars conspired to "torture the Hebrew" seems
a bit much.
A Greek trifle: KTIZW (Josephus, Aquila) can even less than POIEW be
forced to mean "create from nothing"; its main meaning is to build something,
like a house or a city, or to found something, like a city, or to populate (a
country, for example).
But even this is deja-vu all over again!
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Monica <M.Sewter@massey.ac.nz>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 11:00:03 -0600
Subject: Unsubscribe
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK
Mrs Monica Sewter
Massey University
NEW ZEALAND
\ \ | / /
(.) (.)
oOo -----------oOo
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 16:25:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: B-Hebrew: is there an archive?
On Wed, 21 Feb 1996, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> I thank David Moore for the indirect link to the B-Hebrew archive at the
> Gramcord Institute. The URL is:
>
> http://www.gramcord.org/bhebrew/index.htm
>
> Unfortunately, however, it has no entires after the end of October 1995.
> I've noted that the archive for B-Greek at that site also has not been kep
> up, whereas James Tauber's site is not only up-to-date, but very versatile
> and has some materials from years before the archive was begun, supplied, I
> believe, by our friend from San Diego. That URL is:
>
> http://www.entmp.org/cgi-bin/lwgate/B-GREEK/archives/
>
I agree; it would be nice if there were as well-kept-up an
archive of b-hebrew as J. Tauber has done with b-greek. An alternate
solution for keeping up with discussion on b-hebrew is to subscribe to
b-hebrew digest. To do so, for those who may not know, send the following
message to majordomo@virginia.edu:
subscribe b-hebrew-digest
That gets one a daily mailing, in a single piece of e-mail, of
whatever has been posted to the list.
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 #123
*****************************
** 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