[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #125
b-greek-digest Thursday, 22 February 1996 Volume 01 : Number 125
In this issue:
b-hebrew & b-greek archives
Re: Physical Models in the NT (Something from Nothing)
Re: hOMOIWSW
Re: Gen. 1:1-2, and the Hebrew of it
Re: hOMOIWSW
Archive of B-Hebrew Posts on Gn. 1:1
Eph.4:19
Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish) (fwd)
subscribing
[none]
Rahlfs LXX app. question
Jn 4:54
Re: Jn 4:54
RE: Jn 4:54
Re: Ephesians 4:16,18
Re: Jn 4:54
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Paul A. Miller" <pmiller@gramcord.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 23:26:46 -0800
Subject: b-hebrew & b-greek archives
Because of changes in GRAMCORD Institute staffing, we had to suspend work on
our GRAMCORD Institute WWW site for a period of time. (The recent string of
natural disasters here in the Portland area hasn't helped much either!)
Thus, as some of you have observed, we have not expanded the b-greek &
b-hebrew forum archives for some time now. Fortunately, we have a new WWW
technician joining us next week and hope to have the archives fully
functioning as time permits. In addition to various technical issues we must
address, our Internet provider requires that we observe various
firewall/security procedures that complicate the creation of search
utilities, etc. so we are finding the process somewhat tedious. (Moreover, I
want to write a filter to remove all of the bogus magazine solicitations and
subscribe/unsubscribe messages!) Also, the fact that The GRAMCORD Institute
is within the United States exposes us to various kinds of "litigation risk"
in maintaining a forum archive that a party outside the U.S. probably
doesn't have to worry about. (Until there is some kind of tort reform in
this country, it seems that almost everything we do places us at potential
risk.) Accordingly, we have had to "slow down" and take prudent preventative
measures even in something as "simple" as offering a public forum archive.
At any rate, we apologize for the delays. We had truly hoped to have the
site fully-functional by Christmas but as with most non-profit organizations
we often find ourselves with more projects than people. Now that we are
supporting all three platforms (DOS, Windows, & Macintosh), we have been
extremely busy. Something had to "give" in the process, and as a result our
www.gramcord.org site has had to remain "under construction." Hopefully, our
new website technician will get things back on track soon.
I will post an announcement when the archives are updated and functioning.
Again, our apologies for the delay.
*************************************************************************
Prof. Paul A. Miller (Email: pmiller@GRAMCORD.org)
The GRAMCORD Institute
2218 NE Brookview Dr., Vancouver, WA 98686, U.S.A.
Voice (360)576-3000; FAX (503)761-0626; Homepage: http://www.GRAMCORD.org
Computer-Assisted Biblical Language Research (IBM & MAC)
*************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 01:42:13 -0600
Subject: Re: Physical Models in the NT (Something from Nothing)
David L. Moore writes:
> He says, in part, "[The interpretation of the creation narrative]
>is the point at issue in the debate between a philosopher and R. Gamaliel.
>The philosopher grants that the Jewish God is a great artist ([Heb.]
>tsayar) but claims that He had good materials to help Him .... Gamaliel
>proves from Gn. 1:1 that their creation (BRY'H) is narrated in Scripture"
>(_Ibid._).
With regard to the Standard Model, the Hebrew God of the Pentateuch
is more akin to Jesus than to the NT God, because both play the role of
Demiurge, e.g. a carpenter, an artist: they do all the creatin' 'round here.
Regarding my attempts to apply the Standard Model to the OT, my argument
really doesn't depend upon Rabbinic opinion, although it certainly might be
edifying on the development of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. The reason
is the presumed time gap between the authoring of the Pentateuch and the
rise of the rabbis. By the time, they dig into it, the Jews have already bee=
n
exposed to Greek (and Indian?) philosophy. They may have, according to vario=
us
considerations, have mapped Greek science onto Genesis or not: either being
long after the fact.
I don't have the period at hand, but Rabbinical opinion is all over the map
on this one: several map Plato straight onto Gn 1:1 (with variations in the
assignments of the elements). I think it's fair to say that Gamaliel's opini=
on
won out (?).
> This latter seemed
>especially interesting in the light of what Paul says about the role of
>the Son in the creation of all things "whether thrones or dominions or
>rulers [ARXAI] or powers - all things have been created through him and
>for him" (Col. 1:16).
These terms all refer to immaterial realms, rather than physical domains.
Thus, they fit quite neatly into Greek ideas. Bultmann relates =8Cdominions=
,
principalities, and powers=B9 (Rm 8.38; Cl 1.16, ...) to Gnostic terms for t=
he
elements which lord over the cosmos (Bultmann, Prim. Christ.,p. 190),
elements being the immaterial powers in Greek philosophy, e.g.
Empedocles' Love and Strife. Acc. to Vincent, Word Stud. on NT, Cl 1:16,
"the primary reference is, no doubt, to the celestial orders". So, Paul is
placing all subsidiary organizing principles under Jesus, the demiurge.
This is perfectly consistent with _Timaeus_. (It is also a standard
political tactic when trying to replace an old order with a new one.) I
haven't researched all these terms, but in Greek science, "rulers" (archai)
is a term for sources or first principles, "powers" (dunameis) is a word for
forces or potentials, elements (stoicheiai) can refer to either organizing
principles or unformed matter. (Can't wait for my new big, LSJ.) In other
words, it's got Greek science written all over it.
>For all the aculturation Paul had relative to the
>Greek world, it would seem to me that his convictions about the created
>order would have more in common with these aspects of Rabbinic Judaism
>than with Pagan philosophy.
What I would expect is to see Saul of Tarsus subordinate Rabbinic ideas
to Greek ideas (and mystery religion) as part of the syncretistic new wave.
Were he to have identified with Rabinnic ideas, why not join James' church?
Why not convert Jews, rather than Gentiles? (rhetorical questions - forget
I said them).
Regards,
Will
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 09:14:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: hOMOIWSW
On Wed, 21 Feb 1996, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> 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?
He may not have, but he certainly knew what it meant. For a
native speaker, meaning precedes grammar. Something often happens with
missionaries who have very small children when they go to a new foreign
field. The grownups have invariably studied the language and know the
grammar. The young children, on the other hand learn the new language as
would a native speaker. Although the kids aren't able to classify the
different parts of speech and analyze the grammar, they usually have a
better understanding of it than their elders ever achieve.
Is there something in this that could help us better learn
Greek? I know we need the terminology of Grammar to be able to talk
accurately about the process of exegesis, but sometimes just classifying
and analysing doesn't get at the real meaning. Maybe it's that there is
no substitute for the knowledge of nuance that comes mainly from loving
the language and getting to know it in many different contexts.
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: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 10:12:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Gen. 1:1-2, and the Hebrew of it
On Wed, 21 Feb 1996, Edward Hobbs wrote:
>
> 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!
Undoubtedly Edward Hobbs's credentials are impeccable, and it is
not only for that reason that I speak respectfully to him even when he
disagrees with my position. And I am aware that much of the scholarly
community of today takes Gen. 1:1 as an introductory prepositional phrase.
These reasons notwithstanding, it is the text and the context
that should dictate our interpretation of any passage of Scripture. I
wish Dr. Hobbs had addressed the matter of the waw at the beginning of
Gen. 1:2. It seems to me that, in v. 2 and in other places throughout the
first chapter of Genesis, we may have dialogue from the Hebrew point of
view with certain aspects of Babylonian and Caananite cosmology. That
these are present in the creation narrative does not mean that the Hebrew
narrative should be interpreted wholesale according to that cosmology.
I would suggest that creatio ex nihilo is not so much explicit as
it is implicit within the Old Testament (although Gen. 1:1 is pretty
definite). A possible reason that the explicit doctrine does not appear
until II Mac. may be that it was only when the Hebrew culture came in
contact with Helenism as a philosophical system with its cosmology that
postulated a pre-existing mass of matter that it was necessary to make
explicit what is implicit throughout all of the OT.
Something analogous to a certain extent happened in Christianity
with the emergence of the doctrine of the Trinity which was not explicitly,
but rather implicitly present in the New Testament doctrines about God.
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: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 12:57:26 +0400
Subject: Re: hOMOIWSW
I intended to send this to the whole list but forgot to put the address in.
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....
In Brooks and Winbery we describe the Deliberative Future, "The
deliberative future is used in questions, real or rhetorical. It is used
to consult the judgment of another person. It asks about the possibility,
desirability, or necessity of a proposed action. It asks what ought to be
done or what can be done. Contrast a question which asks for mere facts."
(see Rom. 3:5-6; Mt.18:21; Lk 22:49)
The Deliberative subjunctive is described, "The deliberative subjunctive is
used in interrogative sentences which deal with what is necessary,
desirable, or possible. It is not factual information which is desired.
(For this purpose the indicative would be used.) The need is for a
decision about the proper course of action, concerning which the speaker or
writer is uncertain. Sometimes the question is merely rhetorical;
sometimes an answer is expected." (see Mk. 12:14; Lk.3:10; Mt.6:31)
I tend to treat those in the 1st sing. as future, but they could be either
fut. or aorist.
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 14:15:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Archive of B-Hebrew Posts on Gn. 1:1
For anyone interested in an archive of a b-hebrew thread on Gen. 1:1 from late 1994:
I have placed at my web site an archive of a b-hebrew thread on
Gen. 1:1 which is composed of posts from November and December of 1994.
The URL is:
http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore/html/bible.htm
Look under "Commentaries," "Genesis" for the listing which
includes the name "B-Hebrew."
If the text file is difficult to accommodate on your web browser,
it can be accessed by FTP. FTP to "members.aol.com" and at the prompt
after sign-on enter "dvdmoore," then go to the "archive" directory where
you will find the file.
It is a thread that includes some very interesting and informative
posts.
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: Northland Bible College <northlan@soonet.ca>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 14:27:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Eph.4:19
Hi all:
In accord with the dictum that it's better to ask a (dumb) question to
overcome one's ignorance than to remain silent and thus stay ignorant -
here I am again, asking questions!
We were in Ephesians 4:19 this morning.
Question 1. Re PAREDWKAN, I've assumed forever (in oft-encountered
instances of similar verbal forms) that this is a kappa-aorist of
PARADIDWMI. But because 4:18 has two perfect participles and 4:19 opens
with a perfect participle, adverbially modifying PAREDWKAN, the thot just
popped into my head: Why couldn't this actually be a perfect instead of
an aorist? (I realize that the syntax doesn't require such a conclusion,
rather, it was merely the juxtaposition of these other perfect forms to
this form that prompted my thinking.) My limited resources only provide
accidental forms for DIDWMI without prepositions in composition with the
root. So the question is, then - would the perfect spelling of PARADIDWMI
be PAREDWKAN OR PARADEDWKAN? (Based on my understanding that perfective
reduplication in a verb in composition with a preposition takes the form
of an augment - it seems PAREDWKAN could be either aorist or perfect.)
Question 2. Re PASHS (in the phrase "unto every filthy deed"). I at
first thought this to be either a mere descriptive Genitive modifying
AKAThARSIAS. One student suggested that PASHS stood in apposition to
AKAThARSIAS in the sense that PASHS is a more particular reference to
what AKAThARSIAS is generally. Although I follow this reasoning, my
understanding is that in a true appositional genitive, both the genitive
and the word it modifies should be in the same class, as in the instance
"the word of truth". Am I right here, or does the general nature of the
term PASHS actually allow it to be either descriptive and/or appositional?
Question 3. Our discussion re PASHS led to a further puzzler (which made
me wonder, because I thought I had all this straightened out long ago)
whether I was losing my mind!?). Another student then thought that PASHS
was actually an objective genitive with a noun of action, modifying
ERGASIAN exactly as AKAThARSIAS (which we took to be an objective
genitive with a noun of action in relation to ERGASIAN). His reasoning
was that however we classified AKAThARSIAS we must necessarily do the
same with PASHS as both are genitives and since both are actually
modifying ERGASIAN.
My first response was that his reasoning would be justified IF the
adjectives were both in an attributive relation to the noun. Right? (And
doesn't a true attributive adjective have to share the same case, gender
and number as the noun it modifies?) I concluded then that since
AKAThARSIAS and PASHS were both genitives (albeit feminine singulars)
they were not strictly attributively modifying ERGASIAN, thus, the case
classification of the one adjective should not be assumed for the second.
Right or wrong?
Blushing,
Steve Clock
------------------------------
From: Stephen C Carlson <scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 15:25:47 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish) (fwd)
Stephen C Carlson wrote:
>From scarlso1 Thu Feb 22 13:39:28 1996
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
To: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl W. Conrad)
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 13:39:28 -0500 (EST)
From: "Stephen C Carlson" <scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <v02140b00ad52337c54d7@[128.252.101.241]> from "Carl W. Conrad" at Feb 22, 96 08:59:27 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2209
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>On 2/21/96, Stephen C Carlson wrote:
>> 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, this would be very helpful, as I'm getting increasingly fascinated
>by this question. I'm finding some interesting stuff in Louw-Nida on POIEW
>and KTIZW as well, but it seems to me that what it says about KTIZW is
>questionable. I'd like to check your Galen reference if you can find it and
>see (a) if he refers to a Jewish/Christian source in particular, and (b)
>what language he uses to refer to the doctrine.
I went back to my reference, Robert L. Wilken, THE CHRISTIANS AS THE
ROMANS SAW THEM (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984) pp 83-93, and
it appears that I missed a crucial nuance in his chapter on Galen.
Galen did not explicitly criticize the creation EX NIHILO, but rather
criticized the Christian and Jewish belief that God created the world
out of an (arbritrary) act of volition. De usu partium 11.14. This
belief was the immediate precursor to creation EX NIHILO, and around
the time of Galen, according to Wilken, there was no fixed
interpretation of Genesis 1:1. On one hand there was Justin Martyr
(1 Apol. 10, 20) holding to the Platonic views, but on the other hand
there was Theophilus' first mainstream formulation of creation EX NIHILO
(EC OUK ONTWN, ad Autol. 2.4) written about the same time as Galen's De
usu. Shortly before Theophilus, the Gnostic Basilides also formulated
a creation EX NIHILO doctrine (second quarter of the second century), but
his influence on mainstream Christianity is uncertain.
Stephen
P.S. I think this correction of mine should go to B-GREEK, but I'd
like your permission first because I'm quoting some of your words.
- --
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
- --
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: Bill McFarland <billmcfa@clark.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 16:01:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: subscribing
How may I subscrive here? I tried an address I had from last fall and it
did not work.
TIA
Godspeed,
Bill
+==========================================================================+
| Bill McFarland || A moment of thought would have shown him he was |
| || wrong -- But a moment is a long time and |
| billmcfa@clark.net || thought is a hard thing. |
+==========================================================================+
------------------------------
From: Monica <M.Sewter@massey.ac.nz>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 1995 10:49:21 -0600
Subject: [none]
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK
Mrs Monica Sewter
Massey University
NEW ZEALAND
\ \ | / /
(.) (.)
oOo -----------oOo
------------------------------
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 15:52:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Rahlfs LXX app. question
Can anyone tell me what the abbreviation "La" means in the Rahlfs
apparatus at Ps 4:8; 30:16? Please send (or copy) your reply to my
own e-mail address.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 96 13:49:09 CST
Subject: Jn 4:54
A brief question about this verse: Should TOUTO be considered as the subject
("This was the second sign...", ala NIV, RSV, etc.), or is it in fact the object
in an object complement construction, with hO IHSOUS as the subject ("Jesus did
THIS as a second sign...")?
The lack of a relative pronoun would seem to argue against the former option,
since it seems unlikely that this would be ellided, and then one is stuck with
trying to work out what to do with hO IHSOUS.
I would appreciate any comments you all might have. Thanks!
Mark O'Brien
Grad. student, Dallas Theological Seminary
- ----
"Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, constant in prayer..."
-- Ro 12:12
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 20:27:01 -0600
Subject: Re: Jn 4:54
On 2/22/96, Mark O'Brien wrote:
> A brief question about this verse: Should TOUTO be considered as the subject
> ("This was the second sign...", ala NIV, RSV, etc.), or is it in fact the
>object
> in an object complement construction, with hO IHSOUS as the subject
>("Jesus did
> THIS as a second sign...")?
>
> The lack of a relative pronoun would seem to argue against the former option,
> since it seems unlikely that this would be ellided, and then one is stuck with
> trying to work out what to do with hO IHSOUS.
>
> I would appreciate any comments you all might have. Thanks!
TOUTO DEUTERON SHMEION is the object of EPOIHSEN. Nevertheless, I would
approve of translating "This was the second miracle that Jesus performed,"
for the reason that it is the sense emphasized by the word order. The
rhetoric of the verse, I think, often dictates what the most appropriate
English should be--rather than the grammatical structure of the Greek
sentence.
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: "Albert Collver, III" <Collver@msn.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 96 02:43:20 UT
Subject: RE: Jn 4:54
Hi Mark,
Touto is not the subject. Rather it modifies shmeion. If touto were the
subject, here is a way the sentence might read, "this second sign did." The
main verb is epoihsen. The subject of the verb is Ihsous.
Touto is neuter so technically speaking it could be either nomative or
accusative. Notice that deuteron and shmeion are also in the accusative case.
A very wooden (and literal) translation of the verse "But again Jesus did
this second sign when he came out of Judea into Galilee."
Al Collver
- ----------
From: Mark O'Brien
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 1996 1:49 PM
To: B-GREEK@virginia.edu
Subject: Jn 4:54
A brief question about this verse: Should TOUTO be considered as the subject
("This was the second sign...", ala NIV, RSV, etc.), or is it in fact the
object
in an object complement construction, with hO IHSOUS as the subject ("Jesus
did
THIS as a second sign...")?
The lack of a relative pronoun would seem to argue against the former option,
since it seems unlikely that this would be ellided, and then one is stuck with
trying to work out what to do with hO IHSOUS.
I would appreciate any comments you all might have. Thanks!
Mark O'Brien
Grad. student, Dallas Theological Seminary
- ----
"Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, constant in prayer..."
-- Ro 12:12
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 20:55:46 +0400
Subject: Re: Ephesians 4:16,18
Steve Clock wrote;
>
>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.
EX hOU indicates the agent of the passive verb POIEITAI. PAN TO SWMA is
the subject of POIEITAI. The two participles SUNARMOLOGOUMENON and
SUNBIBAZOMENON are circumstantial. Hence, "By whom the whole body, being
framed together and joined together, . . . is being made into a building."
>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?
>
In the phrase DIA THN AGNOIAN THN OUSAN EN AUTOIS, THN OUSAN EN AUTOIS is
attributive to THN AGNOIAN. It is "the ignorance which is in them." The
prep. DIA is causal with the accusative, hence "because of the ignorance
which is in them." The participle OUSAN is adjectival.
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 21:08:54 +0400
Subject: Re: Jn 4:54
Mark O'Brien wrote;
>A brief question about this verse: Should TOUTO be considered as the subject
>("This was the second sign...", ala NIV, RSV, etc.), or is it in fact the
>object
>in an object complement construction, with hO IHSOUS as the subject ("Jesus did
>THIS as a second sign...")?
>
>The lack of a relative pronoun would seem to argue against the former option,
>since it seems unlikely that this would be ellided, and then one is stuck with
>trying to work out what to do with hO IHSOUS.
>
I would say that TOUTO is used as an adjective to modify DEUTERON SHMEION
so that it is "Again this second sign Jesus did having come from Judea into
Galilee." This is similar to John 21:14, "Now Jesus had appeared this
third time to his disciples after having been raised from the dead."
Sometimes hOUTOS modifies a noun without the article, especially when the
noun is also modified by an adjective. TOUTO DEUTERON SHMEION is the object
of the main verb.
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #125
*****************************
** 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