[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #134
b-greek-digest Saturday, 2 March 1996 Volume 01 : Number 134
In this issue:
greek
RE: Biblia Sacra: Utriusque Testimenti
Re: Utriusque Testamenti
Re: BLACK GREEKS IN VIRGINIA
Re: help on graphe artios
Re: APOKTEINW
Help on graphe artios
Re: APOKTEINW
Re: strict grammar
strict grammar
unsubscribe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: HDiehl312@aol.com
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 01:46:17 -0500
Subject: greek
unsubscribe b-greek
------------------------------
From: "Michael R. Beetley" <mbeetley@fuller.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 00:46:29 -0800
Subject: RE: Biblia Sacra: Utriusque Testimenti
> 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.
Well, I haven't seen any reviews, but a classmate recently purchased it, =
and I'm about to do so myself. It's assembled as if they took a copy of =
the NA27 and of the small version of the BHS, took off the covers, and =
glued them together, back to back. (Someone asked him which bible was =
in the front--he said "both".) If you haven't seen the small BHS, it is =
fairly legible IMO, though not quite as nice as the big one. Weight =
wise, I'm not sure how it compares with the large BHS, but I'd guess =
that it's a bit lighter. Still fairly heavy, though. If you've got the =
NA27 and the small BHS, just pick them up together--you'll pretty much =
have it.
It's got all of the critical elements in it, including the text tables, =
variant readings, etc. in the NA27. For having the whole thing in one =
volume, it looks like a pretty good buy to me.
Michael Beetley
MA Student
Fuller Theological Seminary
mbeetley@fuller.edu
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 08:22:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Utriusque Testamenti
At 10:44 AM 29/02/96, Eric Weiss wrote:
>I have seen the Utriusque Testamenti (Greek NA-27 and Hebrew BHS-4 Bible) at
>the Dallas Theological Seminary Bookstore. This is my recollection:
>
> [...] 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.
Another source: CBD offers it for $59.95 (item#5597).
Nichael | "Just because it didn't happen |
nichael@sover.net | don't mean it ain't true." |
http://www.sover.net/~nichael | -Yogi Berra [paraphrasing Mircea Eliade] |
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 07:22:22 -0600
Subject: Re: BLACK GREEKS IN VIRGINIA
On 2/29/96, GARDNER, KEISHA N wrote:
> 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.
Keisha, I honestly hope that you find some of your sisters on the net,
whether in Virginia or elsewhere, but your post to b-greek is unfortunately
a mis-informed one: b-greek is a discussion list concerned with the Greek
text of the New Testament. I'd suggest you might go to the Yahoo World Wide
Web directory at
http://www.yahoo.com/
and type in "sororities" in the search box, then maybe narrow that down to
"sororities, black," if the first listings you get from submitting that are
not sufficiently informative. Good luck in your search.
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: Stephen C Carlson <scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 09:14:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: help on graphe artios
Carlton Winbery wrote:
>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.
The closest analog to 1Tm5:18 I can find is 2 Clement 2:4 where a
quotation from Mt9:13 (= Mk2:17 ~ Lk5:32) is introduced by KAI hETERA
DE GRAFH LEGEI hOTI. But since 2 Clement is so careful otherwise not
to introduce Jesus' words as GRAFH, I'm now inclined to disagree with
Massaux and conclude 2 Clement was simply mistaken that Jesus was also
quoting the OT (Hosea) there.
Whatever is going on in 1Tm5:18 (literally parallel with Lk10:7 against
Mt10:10 and Did. 13:2 [both TROFHS vice MISQOU]; 2Ch15:7 is more removed
hOTI ESTI MISQOS THi ERGASIAi HUMWN; and Nm18:31 is not even close), I
suppose it must remain a curiosity.
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: "Dale M. Wheeler" <dalemw@teleport.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 09:05:00 -0800
Subject: Re: APOKTEINW
>Carlton L. Winbery wrote:
>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 could see all of these as aorist. One or two could with a little twisting
>be seen as present.
Your list of disagreements is why I raised the question; the most troubling
one to me was Zerwick, whom I personally hold in high regard because his
grammatical analysis tends to reflect someone who read the text rather than
other grammars and was thus more sensitive to the nuances of Koine (which of
course makes him a bit quirky at times). I have no idea what Guillemette
was thinking, unless he was under the impression that since APOKTEINW is a
liquid stem that the aorist should have an accent shift to over the omega to
compensate for the loss of the sigma of the aorist ??
My feeling on all of these is that they are all clearly aorist. My
approach, as I've mentioned before, is to follow the Fanning idea that you
first identify the verbal meaning (in this case killing someone is normally
conceived of as a punctual, unless there are clear contextual clues to the
contrary...slow torture, slow poison, figuratively by damning with faint
praise, etc.), then one is in a position to ask why a certain aspect is
applied to a given usage. Thus the aorist is the most appropriate aspect
choice for the punctual verb "to kill." Moreover, in all of these cases its
seems clear that there is no concern on the part of the killers to torture
or prolong the death experience of their victims; they just wanted them
dead, period.
Thanks Carlton and Carl. I hope you are having as much fun with these as I
am (no smiley face...I'm serious...which of course to a large number of
people means I'm very ill and in serious need of help, so you guys may not
want to admit that this is interesting and fun !!).
***********************************************************************
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: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:54:48 -0500
Subject: Help on graphe artios
Stephen Carlson wrote about 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.
My respnse to this: I do not understand how Stephen knows what KAI "wants
to be." Philologically it can mean "and," or "also," or "even," or "and
so." An adverbial KAI is certainly possible, given its location just before
the adjective WFELIMOS, just as a conjunctive use is possible between two
adjectives: QEOPNEUSTOS KAI WFELIMOS. A decision about its use depends upon
what one concludes that the author was trying to say.
========================================================================
Carlton Winbery wrote in response to Stephen C Carlson:
>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.
I agree with Carlton that there is no reference to any NT writing here. I
want to stretch the discussion a bit by suggesting a somewhat different
reading of PASA GRAFH QEOPNEUSTOS KAI WFELIOMOS .... I start from the
observation that TA hIERA GRAMMATA in v. 15 refers to the accepted Old
Testament canonical books, while GRAFE refers to a single writeing or
passage.
To allow readers to know my position and therefore biases--I regard the
pastoral letters as deutero-pauline and date them somewhere between 90 and
135 CE, i.e. between the two Jewish Wars in Palestine [probably closer to
135 than to 90, but that hypothesis is unprovable]. At this time early
Judaism was still considering, discussing, debating which books were Holy
Scripture, to be included in the writings, the third part of the TANACH.
Was Esther canonical? Jesus ben Sirach? Wisdom? Enoch? Jude alone is
evidence that people were reading 1 Enoch. The discovery of Hebrew Sirach
at Masada suggests some there may have considered it Holy Scripture.
In this context I infer that some Christians were uneasy with this
uncertainty about the extent of the Hebrew Scriptures. The author of 2
Timothy writes to quell this unease. That is why I translate this passage
"Every God-breathed [i.e. canonical] writing will also be useful for ...."
The writer thus affirms his faith in God's control of the process under
way, assures his readers that the scriptures decided on will indeed be
useful "to make people wise unto salvation" as one uses them for teaching,
for refutation of error, for correction, for education in true piety and
correct life.
I one holds to the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles, one can
still appropriate my suggestion (I forget where I first read of the
possibility!), since the third part of the canon was equally fluid in
Paul's lifetime, as Luke 24:44 (law,,prophets, Psalms) suggests. Josephus
is the first to list the 24 (= 39) book canon in his treatise _In Apionem_;
but he cannot be pressed to argue that his view in the first decade of the
second century was universally held by Jews.
Sorry I wrote at this length; I'll be interested in the responses, which
will be many and varied, I suspect.
Peace, Ed Krentz
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: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 13:04:49 +0400
Subject: Re: APOKTEINW
Dale Wheeler wrote;
>Your list of disagreements is why I raised the question; the most troubling
>one to me was Zerwick, whom I personally hold in high regard because his
>grammatical analysis tends to reflect someone who read the text rather than
>other grammars and was thus more sensitive to the nuances of Koine (which of
>course makes him a bit quirky at times). I have no idea what Guillemette
>was thinking, unless he was under the impression that since APOKTEINW is a
>liquid stem that the aorist should have an accent shift to over the omega to
>compensate for the loss of the sigma of the aorist ??
>
I have a lot of respect for Zerwick and his student Grosvenor. I suppose
all of us get in a hurry now an again. Also, I have found Guillemette very
helpful in a lot of ways. I think he just did not check the contexts of
these occurrances.
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 14:42:52 -0600
Subject: Re: strict grammar
On 3/1/96, brent justin anduaga-arias wrote:
> First, I would like to thank everybody for their answers on "graphe
> artios" - I have been swamped with terrific information.
>
> I have another question this time pertaining to Matthew 19:6. Most all
> my English translations have "...let not man put asunder. (RSV)" I would
> like to know if the Greek under this has the sense of "it is IMPOSSIBLE
> for man to put asunder" or "man SHOULD NOT put asunder." The "let" in
> English translations suggest the latter choice. However I am curious if
> this rendering was influenced by the presence of what appears to be an/the
> exception clause of Matthew 19:9. In other words, if this exception
> clause (or any other) were not in the text, would there be any purely
> grammatical reason why Matthew 19:6 should not be rendered rouphly as "it
> is IMPOSSIBLE for man to put asunder?"
The verb in question, XWRIZETW, is a 3rd-person imperative; it does not
mean it is IMPOSSIBLE to do, and in fact, there could and would be no
imperative urging a particular behavior as right if there were no moral
freedom of choice to do otherwise. It occurs to me, however, upon
reflection, that the "exception clause" of 19:9 to which you refer is not
allowed for by the fact that this imperative is in the PRESENT tense, which
suggests that its sense is "try/endeavor to put asunder"--as opposed to the
aorist imperative's functionally different sense of unqualified demand that
one not do it. Perhaps one could even read it with the negation of the MH,
"one ought to try not to put asunder." This is an interesting question:
what do you grammarians say about the negated imperative? I'm thinking, for
instance, of Jesus' words to Mary Magdalene in John 20:17: MH MOU hAPTOU,
OUPW GAR ANABEBHKA PROS TON PATERA. Here too we have the PRESENT-tense
imperative hAPTOU with the negative MH. The sense: "Don't try to touch me"
or "Don't keep trying to touch me" or "Don't keep holding on to me"--for
the command must be coordinated with the stated reason for its being issued
in the OUPW ... PATERA clause.
At any rate, it seems to me that there might well be an opening for that
"exception clause" in the very fact that the imperative is in the present
tense. It does seem to me that the way the clause is spoken liturgically,
"let no man put asunder" has more the ring one would expect of an aorist
imperative.
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: brent justin anduaga-arias <barias@unm.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 12:25:04 -0700 (MST)
Subject: strict grammar
First, I would like to thank everybody for their answers on "graphe
artios" - I have been swamped with terrific information.
I have another question this time pertaining to Matthew 19:6. Most all
my English translations have "...let not man put asunder. (RSV)" I would
like to know if the Greek under this has the sense of "it is IMPOSSIBLE
for man to put asunder" or "man SHOULD NOT put asunder." The "let" in
English translations suggest the latter choice. However I am curious if
this rendering was influenced by the presence of what appears to be an/the
exception clause of Matthew 19:9. In other words, if this exception
clause (or any other) were not in the text, would there be any purely
grammatical reason why Matthew 19:6 should not be rendered rouphly as "it
is IMPOSSIBLE for man to put asunder?"
Thanks,
Brent Arias
University of New Mexico
------------------------------
From: adag <adag@leon.nrcps.ariadne-t.gr>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 96 23:54:10 +0200
Subject: unsubscribe
unsubscribe b-greek adag@leon.nrcps.ariadne-t.gr
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #134
*****************************
** 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