[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #128
b-greek-digest Sunday, 25 February 1996 Volume 01 : Number 128
In this issue:
Re: Research Methods in the Fathers
Summary: Summary: Something from Nothing (shortish)
Re: Rahlfs LXX app. question
Re: Eph.4:19
Re: Eph.4:19
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 23:15:08 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Research Methods in the Fathers
On Fri, 23 Feb 1996, Gary S. Shogren wrote:
> I'm thinking through a research paper, and could use some expertise. This
> is close enough to a Greek question, I hope.
>
> I want to research the ways in which 1 Cor. 13:8-10 was interpreted in the
> first five centuries of the church. I've found a couple of places where
> expositions of that passage took place w/o a direct quotation, but only an
> allusion - turning an easy search into a tricky one. Beyond checking the
> secondary lit, I thought of a dual approach:
>
> 1. TLG searches, using 3-4 constellations of key words
> 2. E-texts of the Early Christian Fathers on the 'net, same procedure, to
> catch the Latin fathers; then go back to original language texts
>
> Am I missing some obvious search method? Any thoughts on what is relevant
> secondary lit? You can email me personally.
>
> Gary Shogren
>
Many of the sets on the Fathers have Scripture indexes. You may
have checked these already, although you don't specifically mention it.
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: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 02:53:04 -0600
Subject: Summary: Summary: Something from Nothing (shortish)
Dear B-Greeks,
According to the TDNT, the important consideration throughout the Bible and
Rabbinnic thought is God's hegemony over its creation. Thus, KTIZW became
the "founding" will and authority making God Lord of Creation despite the
encroachment of Hellenic, scientific "gods".
Thanks to everyone for their contributions - on and off list - to this thread.
I am impressed that such a potentially explosive topic could be handled
with such grace. It's been extremely valuable to me and, I hope, has given
others some food for thought. A special thanks to Carl Conrad for his
interpretations, references, clear thinking, and diplomacy. I would have
little to add to Carl's summary.
Appreciatively,
Will
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 12:06:09 -0500
Subject: Re: 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
James,
La means Latin version, i.e. the Vulgate of Jerome (Rahlfs does not seem to
cite the Old Latin text). This information is given on the separate card,
titled _Explanatio Signorum_, that comes with the book, but is not, so far
as I can see, explained in the "Explanation of Symbols" on pp. LXXVI-LXXVII
of the
English preface. Rahlfs also does not indicate which edition of the Vulgate
he is citing.
Cordially,
Edgar Krentz, New Testament
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 East 55th Street
Chicago, IL 60615
Tel.: 312-256-0752; (H) 312-947-8105
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 15:36:51 +0400
Subject: Re: Eph.4:19
Gary Shogren wrote;
>You're right in putting the PASHS with the AKATHARIAS, but a simple
>anarthrous attributive position would explain it as "all uncleanness."
PASHS modifies AKAQARIAS and agrees with it in case, gender, and number. So
the statement which follows must be a slip.
>Yeah, I think you gave a good answer, although PASHS is best viewed as
>attributive to ERGASIAN.
PASHS can't be attributive to ERGASIAN since it is acc. fem. sing. and
PASHS is gen. fem. sing.
>ERGASIAN I can see as a nice solid example of an
>action noun, making AKATHARSIAS an objective (or perchance subjective)
>genitive.
It is clear that AKAQARSIAS cannot be subjective genitive since those who
are practicing (ERGASIAN) uncleanness are the ones who have given
themselves over to wantonness. It is not the uncleanness that is doing it
but the people about whom Paul is speaking. The objective genitive would
be the object of the action implied by the noun (or noun substitute) which
the word in the genitive modifies. The subjective genitive on the other
hand would have to denote the agent of the action implied by the noun that
it modifies. Take ERGASIAN and make it into a verb. AKAQARSIAS could be
the object of such a verb but not the subject of it.
Grace,
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: "Gary S. Shogren" <gshogren@voicenet.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 96 19:39:26 EST
Subject: Re: Eph.4:19
>Return-Path: <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 15:36:51 +0400
>To: "Gary S. Shogren" <gshogren@voicenet.com>
>From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery)
>Subject: Re: Eph.4:19
>Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
>
>Gary Shogren wrote;
>
>>ERGASIAN I can see as a nice solid example of an
>>action noun, making AKATHARSIAS an objective (or perchance subjective)
>>genitive.
>
Carlton Winbery replied:
>It is clear that AKAQARSIAS cannot be subjective genitive since those who
>are practicing (ERGASIAN) uncleanness are the ones who have given
>themselves over to wantonness. It is not the uncleanness that is doing it
>but the people about whom Paul is speaking. The objective genitive would
>be the object of the action implied by the noun (or noun substitute) which
>the word in the genitive modifies. The subjective genitive on the other
>hand would have to denote the agent of the action implied by the noun that
>it modifies. Take ERGASIAN and make it into a verb. AKAQARSIAS could be
>the object of such a verb but not the subject of it.
Thanks for the response, and for catching my "slip" with PASHS.
I too think that an objective genitive is the more natural reading, and the
few translations I looked at would agree. I suggested the subjective
genitive as a possibility, because I do wonder whether it's not possible to
make AKAQARSIAS the performer of ERGASIAN, yielding something like: "they
surrendered themselves...unto the working that all uncleanness does..."
This would involve the personification of uncleanness, much as Paul does
with HAMARTIA in Rom. 6:12. But as I say, I like objective better, and I
think a average Greek Christian reading through Eph. 4 would take it that way.
__________
Gary S. Shogren
Biblical Theological Seminary
Hatfield, PA
email gshogren@voicenet.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #128
*****************************
** 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