[Prev][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #150
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 20 March 1996 Volume 01 : Number 150
In this issue:
Re: Euaggelizomai
Re: Romans 8:18 (James Clardy)
Eph.4:31/5:1
Teaching Methods & Intensive Greek
RE: Ephesians 4:29
Re: Euaggelizomai
Re: Eph.4:31/5:1
Romans 8:19 (James Clardy)
ROMANS 8:20 (JAMES CLARDY)
Re: Romans 8:19 (James Clardy)
Re: Romans 8:19
Unutterable Sighs -- Romans 8:26 (James Clardy)
unsubscribe
Re: Subst Adj as Adv
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" <mauros@iol.ie>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 11:30:51 +0000
Subject: Re: Euaggelizomai
Eric Weiss wrote on Mon, 18 Mar 96 14:57:32 EST
re Euaggelizomai.
Balz and Schneider's " Exegetical Dictionary of the N.T " is worth
consulting on this.
They point out that EUAGGELIZW " appears 54 times in the N.T ....... the
act. appears only in Rv 10:7; 14:6; Acts 16:7 D*; it belongs to later Greek
(BAGD) and has the same meaning as the frequently attested mid. form:
_proclaim_/bring a good report"
Later they say: " however a corresponding EUAGGELIZOMENOS for Jesus appears
in the N.T only in two redactional ( i.e late ) passages of Luke ( 8:1; 20:1)"
Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]
mauros@iol.ie
[using Eudora Pro v 2.2 ]
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 05:46:23 -0600
Subject: Re: Romans 8:18 (James Clardy)
On 3/18/96, JClar100@aol.com wrote:
> Regarding Romans 8:18 I have two questions:
>
> 1) Is there any linguistic basis for assuming that
> "mellousan doxan apokaluphthHnai" portrays the imminent
> coming of Christ?
>
> or, is this simply a statement of hope as opposed to despair?
>
> or, neither?
Good to hear from you, Jim, after too long an absence. By itself I think
the language MELLOUSAN APOKALUFQHNAI simply indicates futurity. If one
believes that Paul's eschatology shifted toward a less imminent expectation
(overall Rom 8 seems to me sharply different in tone from 1 Thess and even
1 Cor 15), then the future need not be that immediate; nevertheless, I
think there are sufficient indications in Paul's authentic letters that he
expected the end in his own lifetime.
> 2) Should "eis Hmas" here be translated "in us," i.e., some kind of inner
> experience, OR "for us," i.e, "for our benefit?"
EIS hHMAS is less common than PROS hHMAS, but I don't think it differs
significantly in actual meaning from PROS hHMAS or a simple dative hHMIN.
There are, in fact, numerous equivalent expressions in NT Greek, and the
use of the accusative with a preposition where classical Greek would have
used a dative consistently is surely one of these equivalencies.
Cheers to you, Jim!
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 Clock <sclock@soonet.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 11:45:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Eph.4:31/5:1
Hi all.
I've two more questions for you.
a) My understanding of the rule of Concord is that the only exception to
the necessary agreement in number between an external subject and its
related finite verb is that a neuter plural subject can take a singular
verb. Correct?
But in Eph.4:31 the main verb 'ARThHTW (passive singular) seems to
have 5 subject nominatives. One of my students this morning tried to
suggest that since each of these nominatives is singular they individually
agree with the verb. But I just can't get past the four kai's which (I
think) produces a compound of subjects (which has to be plural). Right?
Looking at this another way, is it possible to take the first
nominative as the subject of the verb, place them together in translation,
and then to translate the rest of the nominatives in a sort of appended
manner (for each of which the same verb would then be implied)? The
prepositional phrase SUN PASH KAKIA would suggest the same appended
relationship to the main subject and verb anyway. Thus we would have a
translation along this line: "Let all bitterness be put away from you (and
the same with) all wrath and anger and clamor and blasphemy, with all evil."
Would this make more sense of the singular verb, or have I twisted
another rule
of syntax to solve the first problem?
b) In Eph.5:1 the first and primary clause is a predicate-nominative
construction, and the second clause (`WS TEKNA 'AGAPHTA) is a comparative
clause. None of my lexical sources or grammars gave me helpful information
about `WS. Are the words "beloved children" nominatives or accusatives?
Does `WS require them to be accusative or not? The relationship of this
second clause, dependent as it is on the first clause suggests that "beloved
children" could legitimately be predicate nominatives along with MIMHTAI.
Anybody know?
Sincerely,
Steve Clock
Northland Bible College
Goulais River, Ontario
Northland Bible College
Goulais River, Ontario
P0S 1E0
------------------------------
From: "Gary S. Shogren" <gshogren@voicenet.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:10:59 -0500
Subject: Teaching Methods & Intensive Greek
I could use some pedagogical advice. Please email me privately.
Our institution may begin to offer an intensive Greek program in the
summers. I am in favor of this in theory, but also concerned about
outcomes. We now have a substantial Greek program for a seminary, with very
good outcomes to date. We have excellent regular teachers for first-year=
Greek.
Here is our "normal" program for Mdiv and MA New Testament:
Semester 1 and 2 =3D 2 hours/2 times a week, for a total of 104 class=
hours.
Mounce's grammar, Chapman insert for some syntax, with a read-through of
Brooks and Winbery. Biblical has institutional standard that has students
memorizing a number of standard paradigms. Eventually, they memorize vocab
down to 20+ times.
Semester 1, Second year =3D 3 semester hours of exegesis skills,=
introduction
to textual criticism, an exegesis paper.
Second and third years =3D three more exegetical courses of 3 semester=
hours
each (Synoptics, Acts and Pauline, Johannine Lit. & General Epistles. Canon
and background issues are blended in. Each course has an exegetical
element: usually translation and an exegesis paper.
Homework: we have taken two surveys of students, but results varied from 1=
=BD
to 4 hours of outside homework for every hour spent in the classroom.
Summer/Intensive Program =3D a pair of 2 1/2 week courses has been=
suggested
for the first year Greek, leading directly into the Second year Greek in the
Fall. Two courses of 5-6 weeks each is another proposal.
If you have taught or taken or witnessed an intensive Greek program, here
are some questions you may help me with:
1. What text(s) do you use?
2. What level of proficiency are you looking for? (Be able to use tools,
independent exegesis, etc)
3. How many classroom hours does your first year Greek entail? Does your
intensive program equal that for hours? What classroom schedule does your
intensive program follow?
4. Are outcomes for intensive students better, worse, comparable?
5. Do you have a proficiency exam, or just normal testing methods?
6. Do you have any advice on the advisibility of intensive language training
for Greek, esp. With regard to retention - what are the pros and cons for
speeding things up?
Thanks very much...Let me know if you want a copy of our results.
__________
Gary S. Shogren
Biblical Theological Seminary
Hatfield, PA
email gshogren@voicenet.com
------------------------------
From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <dalemw@teleport.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 09:18:52 -0800
Subject: RE: Ephesians 4:29
Stephen Clock wrote:
b)Does not EI indicate that this portion of the sentence (from EI through
CHREIAS) is a protasis?
c) If EI...CHREIAS is the protasis, where is the apodasis? Is the
translator justified in supplying it based on the logical inferences between
this protasis and the first clause to which it is contrasted?
You are correct that the apodosis of this 1st class (not 3rd, as pointed out
by Carlton in another post) is missing; it should be something like "but if
there is any good (word) for the edification of the need, [let that rather
come forth]." Elipses of this sort, i.e., where the elided portion is so
obvious (esp., in such a highly structured passage as Eph 4:25-32), are
quite common.
As to whether a translator is justified in supplying the elipsis depends on
what you believe to be appropriate translation theory/philosophy/method.
Clearly the International Children's Bible felt it necessary, the others do
not (evidently because they think either "translation" should be "literal"
or that the elipsis is obvious enough even in English).
If this question is leading into philosophy of translation, I think we've
had that discussion on list several times already; you might want to review
the archives.
***********************************************************************
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: Nikolaos <adamon@sage.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 12:23:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Euaggelizomai
On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, Eric Weiss wrote:
> Because of conflicting lexical information on EUAGGELIZOMENOS (Luke 8:1), I
> wonder if someone can tell me: Is the participle from EUAGGELIZW (and hence
> regular middle in voice) or is it from EUAGGELIZOMAI (and hence deponent)?
> BAGD and Abbott-Smith both list EUAGGELIZW as a word but have no listing for
> the word EUAGGELIZOMAI. Zerwick's Grammatical Handbook says the participle
> in Luke 8:1 comes from EUAGGELIZOMAI (so does Perschbacher's REFRESH YOUR
> GREEK, if I remember correctly). Thanks!
>
EVAGGELIZOMENOS - EVAGGELIZOMENH - EVAGGELIZOMONON
are the participles of EVAGGELIZOMAI
------------------------------
From: GLENN WOODEN <glenn.wooden@acadiau.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 13:35:48 AST4ADT
Subject: Re: Eph.4:31/5:1
Steve,
> a) My understanding of the rule of Concord is that the only exception to
. . . . . . .
> But in Eph.4:31 the main verb 'ARThHTW (passive singular) seems to
> have 5 subject nominatives.
. . . . . . .
Even in Classical Greek a verb with a compound subject can take its
number from the nearest or most important element in the series. A
series of singulars can therefore have a verb in the singular or
plural depending on the author's predilection. This is common in
the NT and LXX.
> b) In Eph.5:1 the first and primary clause is a predicate-nominative
> construction, and the second clause (`WS TEKNA 'AGAPHTA) is a comparative
> clause. None of my lexical sources or grammars gave me helpful information
> about `WS. Are the words "beloved children" nominatives or accusatives?
In a comparisonlike this the element compared (`WS clause)
will be the same case as the element with which it is compared.
In this particular instance, it is compared with a nominative
(either the implicit subject or the predicate nominative). So,
TEKNA 'AGAPHTA is a phrase in the nominative.
I hope this helps.
Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.
Canada
wooden@acadiau.ca
------------------------------
From: JClar100@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 11:43:58 -0500
Subject: Romans 8:19 (James Clardy)
1) In Romans 8:19 is THS KTISEWS a reference to "human family," "non-human
creation," "lower creation," or the "entire created world?" I'm trying to
determine whom or what THN APOKALUPSIN TWN hUIWN TOU THEOU APEKDECHETAI ("is
eagerly awaiting the unveiling of the children of God".)
2) Also, does anyone have an idea as to the meaning of THN APOKALUPSIN,
which I have translated "unveiling?" Dunn suggests that this "unveiling" is
the revelation of the "status" of the children of God. He does not, however,
really indicate what he understands that "status" to be. He does personify
this so that creation, as it were, becomes the audience watching the human
actors as they play their parts upon the stage. There are others who see
this revelation as some kind of resurrection experience or eschatalogical
unveiling.
Thanks.
James Clardy
------------------------------
From: JClar100@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 13:10:22 -0500
Subject: ROMANS 8:20 (JAMES CLARDY)
Well, I bring another question from Romans 8:20.
Is KTISIS here to be translated "creature" (the human being) or "creation"
(the created world not including humans)?
If, in verse 20, KTISIS is "the created world" or "nature", if you please,
what does it say about God, if, in fact, God subjected creation to a curse
because of Adam's sin? Does this make God some kind of irrational, unethical
being who zaps the earth for something nature is not responsible for? Why
would nature be cursed?
If this KTSIS, on the other hand, is "creature," I can see it as a possible
reference to Adam as the one who was placed in subjection. I would then take
TON hUPOTAXANTA to be "God."
But when I look at verse 21 I see that KTISIS is enslaved to corruption which
seems to imply that it's the created world which Paul has in mind.
Thanks.
James Clardy
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 12:27:36 -0600
Subject: Re: Romans 8:19 (James Clardy)
On 3/19/96, JClar100@aol.com wrote:
> 1) In Romans 8:19 is THS KTISEWS a reference to "human family," "non-human
> creation," "lower creation," or the "entire created world?" I'm trying to
> determine whom or what THN APOKALUPSIN TWN hUIWN TOU THEOU APEKDECHETAI ("is
> eagerly awaiting the unveiling of the children of God".)
>
> 2) Also, does anyone have an idea as to the meaning of THN APOKALUPSIN,
> which I have translated "unveiling?" Dunn suggests that this "unveiling" is
> the revelation of the "status" of the children of God. He does not, however,
> really indicate what he understands that "status" to be. He does personify
> this so that creation, as it were, becomes the audience watching the human
> actors as they play their parts upon the stage. There are others who see
> this revelation as some kind of resurrection experience or eschatalogical
> unveiling.
This sequence is utterly fascinating as Paul uses partly traditional
language and then extends it with some fresh imagery. I think he does
indeed refer to all of creation (cf. vs. 22), and that he uses the
traditional and recurrent apocalyptic eschatological language of "pangs of
childbirth" for the time of tribulation immediately preceding the
establishment of God's rule and the consummation of all of God's purposes.
The universe is in childbirth and is about to be delivered of its child,
the age-to-come, wherein, among other things, "the children of God" are to
be revealed. This passage has always made me think with a smile that Paul
foresees the forthcoming repeal of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I
think you could compare Phil 3:20-21, where Paul uses a different image:
the coming of Christ is like a visit of the emperor who will come to bring
the POLITEUMA of heaven to earth and transform us believers into a form
like his own.
As for "unveiling" or "revelation," I've always connected this to Paul's
peculiar eschatological dualism--his portrayal of the condition of
believers as a simultaneous existence in both flesh and spirit, hence with
a partially frustrated existence which will be wholly transformed and
integrated when Christ comes, when what we in a sense already ARE will
become fully evident to ourselves and to each other, no longer disguised by
the trappings and vestments of this perishable world-order in which we
necessarily participate as long as we continue to await the coming of
Christ.
At any rate, it seems to me that Paul's talking about all of nature, all of
creation, as participating in these labor pains and as eager to experience
the transformation of all things into the age to come.
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: Teresa and Michael Spezio <mspezio@igc.apc.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 16:07:59 +0000
Subject: Re: Romans 8:19
I hope the following reflection on the meaning of THS KTISEWS in Rom
8:19ff is helpful.
The four possible meanings usually put forward either emphasize or
identify THS KTISEWS as 1) all humankind, including believers, 2) human nonbelievers,
3) human nonbelievers and nonhuman creation, and 4) nonhuman (Cranfield and Moo use
the outdated, humanistically arrogant term sub-human) creation (J. D.
G. Dunn holds this view).
The first position is untenable, since there are clear distinctions
in Paul's discussion between creation and the sons of God (v. 19),
creation and the children of God (v. 21), and creation
and we ourselves (v. 23), indicating that all creation in v. 22
does not include believers. The second and third positions are also problematic in
that Paul affirms that THS KTISEWS will receive liberty (v. 21), while elsewhere in
Romans he is clear that those who live according to the flesh in sin are headed
for death. Therefore, the correct reading of THS KTISEWS identifies it with nonhuman
creation, which is position four above.
The construction which is literally translated "the eager expectation
of creation eagerly awaits" bears attention because it
has two possible meanings: 1) creation itself is eagerly awaiting (so the NRSV and
others) and 2) creation's expectation itself is eagerly awaiting (i.e.- creation
does not at present experience this expectation, but will experience it at the
future revelation). Dunn, Cranfield, Moo, and Stuhlmacher affirm the first possibility.
It is likely from the context that this is Paul's meaning, for the claim that even
creation eagerly expects the future glory is a much stronger support of Paul's claim
of the greatness of future glory (v. 18) than is a claim that creation's expectation
needs the future glory in order to be actualized. Paul is therefore claiming in v. 19
that nonhuman creation is actively expecting the revelation of the children of God.
The adnominal genitive "of the sons" is significant because its
meaning illuminates Paul's understanding of the centrality of human redemption with
regard to the redemption of nonhuman creation. It is possible to view this genitive
as either one of relationship (i.e.- possession) or as an objective genitive. If
the latter, the construction can be translated "the revelation about the children
of God," wherein Paul would mean that nonhuman creation eagerly waits for the
children of God to be revealed. However, if we are dealing with a simple possessive
genitive, then Paul says that nonhuman creation waits for the same revelation which
belongs to the children of God, the content of which is probably the future glory
Paul acclaims. Notably, the only other Pauline use of "revelation"
followed by a noun other than Jesus Christ in the genitive shows and obvious
objective genitive relationship (Rom 16:5, "revelation of (about) the
mystery").
Therefore, Paul probably intends the objective sense of "of the
sons," which means that nonhuman creation is eagerly awaiting the revealing of the
children of God, though Paul does not as yet tell the reader what this revealing is,
except that it takes place in the coming glory.
The identity of the sons of God is made clear by
vv. 15-16. Those who receive the spirit are children of God, and God's spirit
confirms this. These children and the content of the revelation about them are further
defined by Paul in v. 29 (see below).
Best Regards,
Michael
**********************************************************
Michael L. Spezio, Ph.D. "There are some who boldly
Teresa Sabol Spezio and frankly advocate the
706 N. Sheridan Ave. #2 eradication of nature to
Pittsburgh, PA 15206 the requirements of - not
(412)363-3232 man - but industry. This is
mspezio@igc.apc.org a courageous view, admirable
in its simplicity and power,
and with the weight of all
human history behind it.
It is also quite insane."
- Ed Abbey
------------------------------
From: JClar100@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 16:48:38 -0500
Subject: Unutterable Sighs -- Romans 8:26 (James Clardy)
This is my final question for the day.
Are the STENAGMOIS ALALHTOIS in Romans 8:26 something which is brought on by
the the spirit within an individual in a prayer mode or are they "spirit"
issues which take place totally outside the individual as an operation of the
Spirit. In other words, to put it simply, does the spirit do the sighing or
does the believer?
This question arises out of my interest in what is called Spiritual Formation
in the tradition from which I come. But I somehow feel that this is very
important to understanding Paul as he works the issue of cosmic corruption.
He has already mentioned the sighing or groaning of creation.
We've had snow in Tennessee today so it's been a day for studying Romans 8.
Thanks.
Jim Clardy
------------------------------
From: Pepe1997@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:38:01 -0500
Subject: unsubscribe
Hello I would like to be unsubscribed Pepe1997@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 18:17:01 CST
Subject: Re: Subst Adj as Adv
On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:
>We are all used to the neut sing of an adj being used as an adverb, indeed
>some of them have become so frozen and fixed in usage that it seems clear
>that Koine speakers thought of them as separate adverbial lemmas/words. The
>disagreement in the tools has to do with such adjectives turned adverb, when
>the are articular. Some tools (eg., BAGD) have no problem designating as
>adverbs certain occurrences of articular neut sing forms of adjectives (eg.,
>TO DEUTERON in 2Cor 13:2; TO LOIPON in Phil 3:1 cmp., 2Cor 13:11; TO PRWTON
>John 10:40; 19:39; etc., etc.). Other tools studiously avoid designating as
>adverbial even the most obvious examples, simply because they are articular;
>they refer to them simply as adjectives.
Dale, I am inclined to think that it is the neuter NP (consisting of Det+Adj)
which should be labeled as adverbial. One of the shortcomings of the current
tools, both computer and print, is that the analysis is most often limited to
the word level, while phrase, clause, colon (sentence?), and paragraph levels
are ignored.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #150
*****************************
** 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