[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #133
b-greek-digest Friday, 1 March 1996 Volume 01 : Number 133
In this issue:
Re: help on graphe artios
Aquinas on Hebrews 1:10
Utriusque Testamenti
Re: Biblia Sacra: Utriusque Testimenti
APOKTEINW
Re: APOKTEINW
Re: help on graphe artios
Re: APOKTEINW
Re: APOKTEINW
BLACK GREEKS IN VIRGINIA
BLACK GREEKS
Porter and Olbricht on Rhetorical Analysis
Re: APOKTEINW
Re: Biblia Sacra: Utriusque Testimenti
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen C Carlson <scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 00:57:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: help on graphe artios
David Moore wrote:
>"Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
>>Well, there are plenty of polemics apart from the Reformation ones. Some
>>may even now surface if I express my opinion that the "scripture" here
>>spoken of, in its own context, very likely (I really can't conceive an
>>alternative) refers to the Old Testament, and perhaps not even to all of
>>the OT, but certainly to the Torah, or five books of Moses, perhaps the
>>Prophets as well, but rather questionably the "Writings." Although Paul's
>>letters may have some authority by the time 2 Tim is composed, it still is
>>not, nor would I think any of the NT literature is as yet canonized
>>"scripture."
>
> Although, IMO, PASA GRAFH refers to all of OT Scripture because
>that is what is implied by PASA without other modifiers (Cf. also v. 15,
>hIERA GRAMMATA.),
I think that GRAFH in the Pastorals might be broader than the OT. 1Tm5:18
apparently quotes Lk10:7 as GRAFH, and PASA GRAFH may be in contrast to
the preceding hIERA GRAMMATA (2Tm3:15). This does not necessarily imply
that Luke in its entirely was viewed as Scripture, because there is E.
Massaux's observation that the early second century fathers used GRAFH
to refer also to the words of the Lord that were recorded.
> the real _crux interpretum_ (I hope I got the Latin
>right.) for this passage is *where* the verb ESTIN is to be supplied for
>v. 16: with QEOPNEUSTOS (wich is how the writer takes it) or with
>WFELIMOS.
PASA GRAFH QEOPNEUSTOS KAI WFELIMOS PROS ....
The problem that I have with the latter view is that KAI would have
to taken as adverbial ('also') when it really looks like it wants to
be a conjunction.
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: MR A R CRAIG <CSRT29A@prodigy.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 01:12:20 EST
Subject: Aquinas on Hebrews 1:10
I'm trying to locate where St. Thomas Aquinas might have given some
comment(s) on Hebrews 1:10. Can anyone help? Thanks, A. Craig.
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 96 10:44:22 EST
Subject: Utriusque Testamenti
I have seen the Utriusque Testamenti (Greek NA-27 and Hebrew BHS-4 Bible) at
the Dallas Theological Seminary Bookstore. This is my recollection:
It has kind of a taupe (?)/IBM PC-gray cover. The New Testament looks to be
the size (length and width, but thinner, since it's Greek only) of the new
Greek-English edition of NA-27 (i.e., margins are narrower than in the Greek-
only NA-27, but the typeface size is the same, all the footnotes, v.l.
references, appendices, etc., are there), and the Hebrew Text looks to be the
size and font size of the portable edition of BHS 4th edition--again, with
all footnotes, textual comments, etc. If you took off the covers of BHS 4
and NA-27, then slapped them together under one cover, with BHS opening from
the right and NA-27 opening from the left, you'd have the Utriusque
Testamenti. It also includes the loose inserts for the NA-27 and BHS textual
notes abbreviations. If you know enough Greek and Hebrew vocabulary not to
need a lexicon, this looks like a wonderful Bible! The DTS list price is
$65.00, but I'm sure you can get it direct from American Bible Society for
probably about 20% less (though you'll pay shipping).
Hope this helps.
------------------------------
From: David Rising <rising@epix.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 12:51:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Biblia Sacra: Utriusque Testimenti
On Wed, 28 Feb 1996 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> Dear B-Greek friends:
>
> Has anyone seen a review on the Biblia Sacra: Utriusque Testimenti? It is
> the Hebrew BHS and Greek NA27 combined into one volume from ABS.
> I would like to know its portability (ie, size & weight) and the
> legiblility of the fonts, plus any other comments you might have about it if
> you have seen it or have purchased it.
>
> Thanks
>
> Tim Staker, pastor
> Poseyville Christian Church
> Poseyville, Indiana USA
> Timster132@aol.com
> http://home.aol.com/Timster132
I have a copy in front of me--it is 5 1/2 x 7 1/2 x 2 1/4 (thick). It is
the BHS text and NA27. I love it. It gives me one semi-awkward book to
lug around, instead of two. The Hebrew text is the same size as the
smaller BHS and the NA27 seems slightly larger than my Blue NA26. I
haven't read any reviews, so other than this info, I can't inform, but I
would recommend it. The color of the cover (tan) is a little drab, but of
course, we aren't persuaded by fancy covers in this business :-).
David Rising
------------------------------
From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <dalemw@teleport.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 10:13:08 -0800
Subject: APOKTEINW
Here's another parsing problem where the tools disagree. I've already
decided for myself, but I'd sure like some second opinions in case I missed
something obvious (honestly its so I can blame you'all if someone says I've
made a mistake :-) ):
Is APOKTEINWSIN Pres or Aor Subj (Matt 26:4; Mark 14:1; John 11:53; 12:10;
Acts 23:12; 27:42; Rev 9:5, 15); or is it possible that some of these are
Aorist and some are Present ??
Is APOKTEINWMEN Pres or Aor Subj (Matt 21:38; Mark 12:7; Luke 20:14; Acts
23:14) or some one and some the other ??
One additional note; the NT writers do seem otherwise to have an aversion to
the use of APOKTEINW in the Present (3x, all ptcs: Matt 23:37; Luke 12:4;
13:34; the other presents are based on the lemma APOKTENNW [Matt 10:28; Mark
12:5; 2Cor 3:6; Rev 6:11...there are some textual problems involved]).
Many thanks........
***********************************************************************
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: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 13:55:52 -0600
Subject: Re: APOKTEINW
On 2/29/96, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:
> Here's another parsing problem where the tools disagree. I've already
> decided for myself, but I'd sure like some second opinions in case I missed
> something obvious (honestly its so I can blame you'all if someone says I've
> made a mistake :-) ):
>
> Is APOKTEINWSIN Pres or Aor Subj (Matt 26:4; Mark 14:1; John 11:53; 12:10;
> Acts 23:12; 27:42; Rev 9:5, 15); or is it possible that some of these are
> Aorist and some are Present ??
>
> Is APOKTEINWMEN Pres or Aor Subj (Matt 21:38; Mark 12:7; Luke 20:14; Acts
> 23:14) or some one and some the other ??
>
> One additional note; the NT writers do seem otherwise to have an aversion to
> the use of APOKTEINW in the Present (3x, all ptcs: Matt 23:37; Luke 12:4;
> 13:34; the other presents are based on the lemma APOKTENNW [Matt 10:28; Mark
> 12:5; 2Cor 3:6; Rev 6:11...there are some textual problems involved]).
In my rapid survey of the two lists (I didn't even look at your third
paragraph until I'd checked the rfcs), I would deem every single instance
an aorist, some of them in terms of the parallel verb in the aorist, others
because they are quite clearly in secondary sequence, but all of them, and
especially the three most questionable ones--those from the Parable of the
Wicked Husbandmen--because the aorist clearly yields the more appropriate
aspect in the context.
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, 29 Feb 1996 14:09:36 +0400
Subject: Re: help on graphe artios
Stephen C Carlson wrote;
>I think that GRAFH in the Pastorals might be broader than the OT. 1Tm5:18
>apparently quotes Lk10:7 as GRAFH, and PASA GRAFH may be in contrast to
>the preceding hIERA GRAMMATA (2Tm3:15). This does not necessarily imply
>that Luke in its entirely was viewed as Scripture, because there is E.
>Massaux's observation that the early second century fathers used GRAFH
>to refer also to the words of the Lord that were recorded.
>
Surely BOUN ALOWNTA OU FIMWSEIS in I Tim. 5:18 is a quote from Deut. 25:4.
That is enough to account for the writers use of LEGEI hH GRAFH without
assuming that the next quote is also scripture. If he did think that AXIOS
hO ERGATHS TOU MISQOU AUTOU was scripture, he could have been influenced in
that by Num. 18:31 and/or 2 Chron. 15:7. I see not strong evidence here to
say that the writer saw any Christian writing as Scripture.
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <dalemw@teleport.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 12:05:28 -0800
Subject: Re: APOKTEINW
>In my rapid survey of the two lists (I didn't even look at your third
>paragraph until I'd checked the rfcs), I would deem every single instance
>an aorist, some of them in terms of the parallel verb in the aorist, others
>because they are quite clearly in secondary sequence, but all of them, and
>especially the three most questionable ones--those from the Parable of the
>Wicked Husbandmen--because the aorist clearly yields the more appropriate
>aspect in the context.
I agree...but you don't see any formal reason that they couldn't be parsed,
in the abstract, as Present Subj, do you ??
***********************************************************************
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: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 15:22:14 -0600
Subject: Re: APOKTEINW
On 2/29/96, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:
> >In my rapid survey of the two lists (I didn't even look at your third
> >paragraph until I'd checked the rfcs), I would deem every single instance
> >an aorist, some of them in terms of the parallel verb in the aorist, others
> >because they are quite clearly in secondary sequence, but all of them, and
> >especially the three most questionable ones--those from the Parable of the
> >Wicked Husbandmen--because the aorist clearly yields the more appropriate
> >aspect in the context.
>
> I agree...but you don't see any formal reason that they couldn't be parsed,
> in the abstract, as Present Subj, do you ??
No, certainly not. And I guess it ought to be admitted (I'm the one who
harps on Mark's sloppy Greek) that NT writers are not "above" violating
grammatical "rules."
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: "GARDNER, KEISHA N" <GARDNEKN@stjohns.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 20:27:27 EST
Subject: BLACK GREEKS IN VIRGINIA
HI! MY NAME KEISHA AND I AM A MEMBER OF SIGMA GAMMA RHO SORORITY
INCORPORATED. I AM TRYING TO FIND OUT IF MY SORORS OR ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF BLACK GREEK LETTER ORGANIZATIONS ARE ON THE INTERNET.
I AM FROM ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY IN NEW YORK AND WOULD LIKE TO LINK
UP WITH FOLKS OUT OF STATE OR AT ANOTHER COLLEGE SOMEWHERE.
------------------------------
From: "GARDNER, KEISHA N" <GARDNEKN@stjohns.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 20:43:09 EST
Subject: BLACK GREEKS
HELLO FELLOW GREEKS! I AM KEISHA, A MEMBER OF SIGMA GAMMA RHO SORORITY
INCORPORATED. I ATTEND ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY AND WOULD LIKE TO CONTACT
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BLACK GREEK WORLD; ESPECIALLY SORORS!
I AM A NEOPHYTE, HAVING BEEN MADE IN FALL 95; I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GET
RESPONSES BACK FROM MY SANDS IN ALL ORGANIZATIONS. WRITE ME LET ME KNOW
WHAT'S GOING ON, ON YOUR CAMPUSES. I HAVE A FEW ISSUES THAT I WOULD
ALSO LIKE TO ADDRESS CONCERNING THE GREAT EIGHT ON A WHOLE.
THIS IS MY FIRST TIME ON THE INTERNET SO I HOPE THIS MESSAGE LANDS IN
THE RIGHT PLACE.
YOU CAN E-MAIL ME AT GARDNEKN@SJUMUSIC.STJOHNS.EDU
------------------------------
From: "H. Alan Brehm" <102733.3234@compuserve.com>
Date: 29 Feb 96 21:32:21 EST
Subject: Porter and Olbricht on Rhetorical Analysis
In reply to Bruce Terry's message dated 2/28, I am including a copy of a review
of a fairly comprehensive work in a related field, rhetorical analysis.
H. Alan Brehm
Ass't Prof. of NT
Southwestern Bapt. Theol. Sem.
817-923-1921, ext. 6800
FAX 817-922-9005
102733.3234@compuserve.com
*****************************
Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference.
Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1993. 544 pages. Hardcover.
This collection of essays from a conference on the application of rhetorical
analysis to New Testament studies held at Heidelberg in 1992 contains
contributions by several leading scholars who have pioneered in this pursuit and
is dedicated to W. Wuellner, emeritus Professor of New Testament at Pacific
School of Religion. It is comprised of general essays regarding methodological
questions and particular essays examining specific rhetorical features of New
Testament texts. A number of the contributors debate the applicability of
rhetorical theories and categories to the New Testament. Those who approach the
question from a text-oriented perspective insist that classical rhetoric was
applied to speeches, not documents, and at best they allow only a similarity in
function between the two. Those who approach the question from a broader
linguistic perspective insist that documents were written to be read aloud to an
audience and therefore rhetorical categories, both ancient and modern, provide
insight into the function and overall social context of the New Testament, or
the "rhetorical situation."
The diversity among the perspectives demonstrates a persistent confusion about
what to call this approach. On the other hand, the emphasis on the nature of
writing documents, strategies of persuasion, and their purposes in the
first-century context aid in understanding the New Testament. These essays also
reflect the interdisciplinary nature of rhetorical criticism in its attempt to
overcome the fragmentation that has come about in biblical studies due to
specialized fields of research. Among the open questions that the contributors
raise, perhaps the central one is how to integrate the insights of rhetorical
analysis, including both a sociological and a linguistic perspective, into a
methodology for New Testament exegesis. This book is an excellent resource for
advanced student, teacher, or scholar who wants to gain an impression of what is
going on in an exciting, but often confusing, area of scholarship.
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 21:37:27 +0400
Subject: Re: APOKTEINW
Dale M. Wheeler wrote;
>Here's another parsing problem where the tools disagree. I've already
>decided for myself, but I'd sure like some second opinions in case I missed
>something obvious (honestly its so I can blame you'all if someone says I've
>made a mistake :-) ):
>
>Is APOKTEINWSIN Pres or Aor Subj (Matt 26:4; Mark 14:1; John 11:53; 12:10;
>Acts 23:12; 27:42; Rev 9:5, 15); or is it possible that some of these are
>Aorist and some are Present ??
>
>Is APOKTEINWMEN Pres or Aor Subj (Matt 21:38; Mark 12:7; Luke 20:14; Acts
>23:14) or some one and some the other ??
Of the 12 forms of the subjunctive of APOKTEINWSIN or APOKTEINWMEN,
Guillemette locates all as present; Mounce locates 1 present and 11 aorist;
Zerwick-Grosvenor 8 aorist and 2 present and 2 as subjunctive w/out
indicating the tense;
I think:
Matt. 26:4 Aorist, It is coupled with what is clearly aorist.
Mark 14:1 This would seem more naturally to be aorist
John 11:53 This would seem more naturally to be aorist
12:10 This would seem more naturally to be aorist
Acts 23:12 This would seem more naturally to be aorist
27:42 This would seem more naturally to be aorist
Rev 9:5, This would seem more naturally to be aorist
15 This one could be present or aorist. (Perhaps iterative present).
Matt 21:38 Aorist, It is coupled with what is clearly aorist.
Mark 12:7 Parallel to the above eg. but not coupled to an aorist. aorist fits.
Luke 20:14 Parallel aorist fits
Acts 23:14 Aorist
I could see all of these as aorist. One or two could with a little twisting
be seen as present.
>One additional note; the NT writers do seem otherwise to have an aversion to
>the use of APOKTEINW in the Present (3x, all ptcs: Matt 23:37; Luke 12:4;
>13:34; the other presents are based on the lemma APOKTENNW [Matt 10:28; Mark
>12:5; 2Cor 3:6; Rev 6:11...there are some textual problems involved]).
>
But only one of the forms of APOKTENNW is indicative, 2 ptcs. 1 inf. That
is not significant.
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 21:59:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Biblia Sacra: Utriusque Testimenti
>Dear B-Greek friends:
>
> Has anyone seen a review on the Biblia Sacra: Utriusque Testimenti? It is
>the Hebrew BHS and Greek NA27 combined into one volume from ABS.
> I would like to know its portability (ie, size & weight) and the
>legiblility of the fonts, plus any other comments you might have about it if
>you have seen it or have purchased it.
>
>Thanks
>
>Tim Staker, pastor
Tim, I have not seen a review, but have had the book in my hands. Its size
is that of the small format BHS, with the GNT printed so that its title
page opens from the left, the Hebrew from the right. You can guess the
thickness by putting the two separate volumes next to each other.
In some respects I wish they had put the GNT together with the small print
Rahlfs LXX.
There is not advantage to this printing other than (1) having the two in
one volume, and (2) that volume is significantly less expensive than buying
the two separately. Paper is quite thin, print is clear. I mention it to
our students as a way of saving money on required texts.
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
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #133
*****************************
** 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