From: Andrew Kulikovsky (anku@celsiustech.com.au)
Date: Tue Dec 09 1997 - 20:04:53 EST
<<I have become interested in the KJ/TR/Critical Text issue, and would
like
to locate the best current information. Can anyone suggest relatively
new books, articles, etc.?>>
Ted,
one of the best treatments of this subject is Don Carson's book: "The
KJV Debate: A plea for realism", althought this won't deal with Gail
Riplingers recent effort.
I think there is a detailed review of Riplingers book on the net
somewhere - does anyone know where?
cheers,
Andrew
-- Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS Software Engineer CelsiusTech Australia Module 6, Endeavour House,Technology Park, The Levels, S.A. 5095 Phone : +61 8 8343 3837 (Direct) Fax : +61 8 8343 3778 Email : anku@celsiustech.com.au"There's no gene for the human spirit."
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-b-greek-digest@virginia.edu > [SMTP:owner-b-greek-digest@virginia.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 1997 10:52 AM > To: b-greek-digest@virginia.edu > Subject: b-greek-digest V1 #1118 > > > b-greek-digest Tuesday, 9 December 1997 Volume 01 : > Number 1118 > > In this issue: > > [none] > Current material on KJ/TR controversy > Re: Chiasm in Matt 7:6? > Re: Romans 7:6 - Discharged APW TOU NOMOU. "This aspect of" > NOMOU? > RE: Chiasm in Matt 7:6? > Re: New critical ed. of James? > RE: Chiasm in Matt 7:6? > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:17:57 -0000 > Re: Current material on KJ/TR controversy > Re: Chiasm in Matt 7:6? > 1 Thess 5:23 > unsubscribe > Re: Current material on KJ/TR controversy > Re: 1 Tim 3:15f; 1st Church Creed? > Genitive in 1 Tim. 6:5 > unsubscribe b-greek > Re: Genitive in 1 Tim. 6:5 > subscribe b-greek > Request for current material > AV/TR debate > Re: Classical Greek Text > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: snj712 <snj712@worldnet.att.net> > Date: > Subject: [none] > > Authenticated sender is <snj712@worldnet.att.net> > Subject: Tuesday > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > EMAIL MARKETING WORKS!! > > Bull's Eye Gold is the PREMIER email address collection tool. > This program allows you to develop TARGETED lists of email > addresses. Doctors, florists, MLM, biz opp,...you can collect > anything...you are only limited by your imagination! You can > even collect email addresses for specific states, cities, and > even countries! All you need is your web browser and this program. > Our software utilizes the latest in search technology called > "spidering". By simply feeding the spider program a starting > website it will collect for hours. The spider will go from website > to targeted website providing you with thousands upon thousands of > fresh TARGETED email addresses. When you are done collecting, the > spider removes duplicates and saves the email list in a ready to > send format. No longer is it necessary to send millions of ads to > get a handful of responses...SEND LESS...EARN MORE!!! > > A terrific aspect of the Bull's Eye software is that there is > no difficult set up involved and no special technical mumbo-jumbo > to learn. All you need to know is how to search for your targeted > market in one of the many search engines and let the spider do the > rest! Not familiar with the search engines? No problem, we provide > you with a list of all the top search engines. Just surf to the > location of a search engine on your browser then search for the > market you wish to reach...it's that easy! > > For instance if you were looking for email addresses of Doctors > in New York all you would do is: > > 1) Do a search using your favorite search engine by typing in > the words doctor(s) and New York > 2) Copy the URL (one or more)...that's the stuff after the > http://... for instance it might look like > http://www.yahoo.com/?doctor(s)/?New+York > 3) Press the START button > > THAT's IT!!! The Bull's Eye spider will go to all the websites > that are linked, automatically extracting the email addresses > you want. > > The spider is passive too! That means you can let it run all > day or all night while you are working on important things or > just having fun on your computer. There is no need to keep a > constant watch on it, just feed it your target market and give > it praise when it delivers thousands of email addresses at > the end of the day! > > Features of the Bull's Eye Software: > > * Does TARGETED searches of websites collecting the email > addresses you want! > * Collects Email addresses by City, State, even specific > Countries > * Runs Automatically...simply enter the Starting information, > press The Start Button, and it does the rest > * Filters out duplicates > * Keeps track of URLs already visited > * Can run 24 hours per day, 7 days per week > * Fast and Easy List Management > * Also has built in filtering options...you can put in words > that it "Must" have while searching,...you can even put in > criteria that it "Must NOT Have"...giving you added flexibility > * Also imports email addresses from any kind of files (text > files, binary files, database files) > * List editor handles Multiple files to work on many lists > simultaneously > * Has a Black-Book feature... avoid sending emails to people > who do not want to receive it > * Built-in Mail program...send email directly on the internet > with just a click of your mouse > * Personalized Emails...if the email address has the user's > name when it is collected,..you can send Personalized emails!!! > * Sort by Location, Server, User Name, Contact Name > * Advanced Operations: > Email address lists export in many different formats > (HTML, Comma delimited, text file) > Advanced editing...Transfer, Copy, Addition, Delete, Crop, > Move to Top/Bottom > Operations between lists...Union, Subtraction, Comparison > * Program is Passive,...meaning you can run other programs at > the same time > > CALL FOR MORE INFORMATION 213-980-7850 > CALL FOR MORE INFORMATION 213-980-7850 > > ORDERING INFORMATION > > Customer Name > Company Name > Address > City > State Zip > Phone Fax > Email Address > > ______ BULL'S EYE SOFTWARE $259.00 > Includes Software, Instructions, Technical Support > > ______ Shipping & Handling (2-3 Day Fedex) $10.00 > (Fedex Overnite) $20.00 > > ______ TOTAL > (CA Residents add applicable sales tax) > > *All orders are for Win 95 and Win NT > > *****CREDIT CARDS ACCEPTED***** > MASTERCARD VISA AMEX > > PLEASE CALL 213-980-7850 to process your order > 8am-5pm Pacific Time > Checks or Money Orders send to: > WorldTouch Network Inc. > 5670 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2170 Los Angeles, CA 90036 > Please note: Allow 5 business days for all checks to > clear before order is shipped. > > > > ------------------------------ > > From: "Theodore H. Mann" <thmann@juno.com> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 07:16:41 -0500 > Subject: Current material on KJ/TR controversy > > To all listmembers: > > I have become interested in the KJ/TR/Critical Text issue, and would > like > to locate the best current information. Can anyone suggest relatively > new books, articles, etc.? > > Thanks, > > Ted Mann > Michigan > thmann@juno.com > > ------------------------------ > > From: Randy Leedy <RLEEDY@bju.edu> > Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 08:21:25 -0500 > Subject: Re: Chiasm in Matt 7:6? > > Received this message last night from someone who apparently wished > to stay off the list, so I won't include the name: > > >>>Carry a sack of pig food into the pigpen. you will learn that pigs > can trample and rend. > <<< > > Those with experience with pigs seem to agree on this point. However, > there are two ways to look at the question that's being raised. If > the question is "Did Jesus intend this statement to be read > chiastically?", it appears that the answer may well be no, depending > on how certain we can be that the pigs known in His society were > indeed as likely to rend as to trample. But if the question is "What > factor(s) suggest to some exegetes that this statement should be read > chiastically," then I think the answer that several of us have given > is valid. > > We know, partly, at least, what has prompted some to read the > statement that way. Whether they are correct in doing so appears > doubtful. > > **************************** > In Love to God and Neighbor, > Randy Leedy > Bob Jones University > Greenville, SC > RLeedy@bju.edu > **************************** > > > ------------------------------ > > From: Jeffrey Gibson <jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 07:38:09 -0600 (CST) > Subject: Re: Romans 7:6 - Discharged APW TOU NOMOU. "This aspect of" > NOMOU? > > On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Wes Williams wrote: > > > I just completed the most highly nuanced discussion over the keeping > of the > > law I think I will ever have. Our discussion finally centered on > Romans > > 7:6. Someone produced the following paragraph in defense of the > translation > > of Romans 7:6 as "We have been released from this aspect of the > Torah." I > > would appreciate your comments as to the propriety/ plausibility of > > inserting the words "this aspect of" between APW and TOU NOMOU. > > > > > > 6 Because Yeshua paid the penalty for our disobedience to the Torah, > death, > > *we have been released* (KATARGEW, as in v.2) *from this aspect of > the > > Torah,* the aspect of it which causes unbelievers to produce "fruit > for > > death" (v. 5). The phrase, "this aspect of," is not in the Greek > text; I > > have added it because believers have _not_ been released from > _every_ > > aspect of the Torah, as explained below and in v.4N. In v.3 the > phrase, > > "that part of," is likewise not in the Greek text, yet it is > obviously what > > the text means, since the death of a woman's husband does not free > her from > > obedience to other aspects of the Torah. The present verse is > analogous in > > this regard. > > > Wes, > > If for no other reason, this reading is suspect in my eyes because it > reads an Anselmian theology of atonement into Paul's declarations > about > Jesus death "for us", a theology which makes God the Father the "bad > guy" > who needs a death to satisfy his offended honour. But in Paul's > belief, > however Jesus life/death effects SWTHRIA, the atonement does not > involve > human beings propitiating an angry God. Rather it is from start to > finish > God's move to reconcile human beings to himself. But I suspect > that pursuing this aspect of the background to Paul's language in Rom. > 7 is > beyond the scope of B-Greek. Accordingly, any comments on my comments > should best be sent off-list. > > Yours, > > Jeffrey Gibson > jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu > > > ------------------------------ > > From: Peter Phillips <p.m.phillips@cliff.shef.ac.uk> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:48:18 -0000 > Subject: RE: Chiasm in Matt 7:6? > > BUT... > > Which animals are more likely to do which. Pigs are notorious for > trampling their food. Dogs are notorious for tearing things up. You > cannot say that the same goes the other way round - no dogs that I > know do > much trampling and not many pigs (though they may be able to) are > notorious > for tearing/rending. > > Just because you can theoretically make a noise like turkey doesn't > make > you a candidate for Christmas dinner! > > Pete Phillips > > - ---------- > From: Randy Leedy [SMTP:RLEEDY@bju.edu] > Sent: 09 December 1997 13:21 > To: tolliver@tstar.net > Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu > Subject: Re: Chiasm in Matt 7:6? > > Received this message last night from someone who apparently wished > to stay off the list, so I won't include the name: > > >>>Carry a sack of pig food into the pigpen. you will learn that pigs > can trample and rend. > <<< > > Those with experience with pigs seem to agree on this point. However, > there are two ways to look at the question that's being raised. If > the question is "Did Jesus intend this statement to be read > chiastically?", it appears that the answer may well be no, depending > on how certain we can be that the pigs known in His society were > indeed as likely to rend as to trample. But if the question is "What > factor(s) suggest to some exegetes that this statement should be read > chiastically," then I think the answer that several of us have given > is valid. > > We know, partly, at least, what has prompted some to read the > statement that way. Whether they are correct in doing so appears > doubtful. > > **************************** > In Love to God and Neighbor, > Randy Leedy > Bob Jones University > Greenville, SC > RLeedy@bju.edu > **************************** > > > ------------------------------ > > From: Michael Holmes <holmic@bethel.edu> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:48:14 -0600 (CST) > Subject: Re: New critical ed. of James? > > At 09:04 PM 12/8/97 -0800, you asked, with regard to: > >>Novum Testamentum Graecum, editio critica maior. Edited by the > Institute > >>for New Testament Textual Research. IV: Catholic Letters, edited by > Barbara > >>Aland, Kurt Aland, Gerd Mink, and Klaus Wachtel. Part 1: Text, > installment > >>1: James. Part 2: Supplementary Material, installment 1: James. > Deutsche > >>Bibelgesellschaft, 1997. > > > >Are there other volumes available besides James? > > No, the James fascicle is the first installment of the editio critica > maior > to appear. The rest of the Catholic epistles may be expected to appear > during the next five years, with the Acts volumes to follow sometime > thereafter. > > Mike Holmes > Bethel College > > > ------------------------------ > > From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan@texcel.no> > Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 09:58:47 -0500 > Subject: RE: Chiasm in Matt 7:6? > > At 01:48 PM 12/9/97 -0000, Peter Phillips wrote: > >BUT... > > > >Which animals are more likely to do which. Pigs are notorious for > >trampling their food. Dogs are notorious for tearing things up. You > > >cannot say that the same goes the other way round - no dogs that I > know do > >much trampling and not many pigs (though they may be able to) are > notorious > >for tearing/rending. > > But there is no law saying that one of these verbs applies to the pigs > and > the other applies to the dogs. It is perfectly natural to read this > passage > as though both verbs apply to the pigs, who trample, then turn around > and > tear you to pieces. > > If the dogs tear you, why do they turn? Why don't they just come right > at > you, clamp on your leg or your neck, drag you down, and tear you into > pieces? > > >Just because you can theoretically make a noise like turkey doesn't > make > >you a candidate for Christmas dinner! > > Applying this principle would have a devastating effect on much of the > exegesis I hear... > > Jonathan > > jonathan@texcel.no > Texcel Research > http://www.texcel.no > > ------------------------------ > > From: Peter Phillips <p.m.phillips@cliff.shef.ac.uk> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:17:57 -0000 > Subject: Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:17:57 -0000 > > Aaah but there is a grammatical device which makes it more > understandable - > chiasmus - have you heard of it. Here we are on a roundabout never > knowing > where to get off. Is hRHGNUMI ever used of pigs in Greek? > > Pete Phillips > > - ---------- > From: Jonathan Robie [SMTP:jonathan@texcel.no] > Sent: 09 December 1997 14:59 > To: Peter Phillips > Cc: tolliver@tstar.net; 'Randy Leedy'; b-greek@virginia.edu > Subject: RE: Chiasm in Matt 7:6? > > At 01:48 PM 12/9/97 -0000, Peter Phillips wrote: > >BUT... > > > >Which animals are more likely to do which. Pigs are notorious for > >trampling their food. Dogs are notorious for tearing things up. You > >cannot say that the same goes the other way round - no dogs that I > know do > >much trampling and not many pigs (though they may be able to) are > notorious > >for tearing/rending. > > But there is no law saying that one of these verbs applies to the pigs > and > the other applies to the dogs. It is perfectly natural to read this > passage > as though both verbs apply to the pigs, who trample, then turn around > and > tear you to pieces. > > If the dogs tear you, why do they turn? Why don't they just come right > at > you, clamp on your leg or your neck, drag you down, and tear you into > pieces? > > >Just because you can theoretically make a noise like turkey doesn't > make > >you a candidate for Christmas dinner! > > Applying this principle would have a devastating effect on much of the > exegesis I hear... > > Jonathan > > jonathan@texcel.no > Texcel Research > http://www.texcel.no > > > > ------------------------------ > > From: Eric Leszkowicz <ELESZKOWICZ@prodigy.net> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:23:26 -0000 > Subject: Re: Current material on KJ/TR controversy > > Probably the finest and most thorough discussion of the > TR/KJV/Critical text > issue is > > James White, The King James Only Controversy. > > This book is very academically done and should be a blessing to you in > your > study. > > Eric Leszkowicz > eleszkowicz@prodigy. net > > > ------------------------------ > > From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan@texcel.no> > Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 09:59:51 -0500 > Subject: Re: Chiasm in Matt 7:6? > > At 10:29 PM 12/8/97 -0600, Rev. John M. Sweigart wrote: > > >Although I am deeply moved by the quixotic picture of a Greek scholar > and > >computer webmaster riding a hog across a barnyard, could someone > help me > >with two other issues in this verse. > > Hmmm...to me, the most quixotic part of that image is calling me a > Greek > scholar ;-> > > Jonathan > > jonathan@texcel.no > Texcel Research > http://www.texcel.no > > ------------------------------ > > From: Rolf Furuli <furuli@online.no> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 16:26:30 +0100 (MET) > Subject: 1 Thess 5:23 > > John Reece suggested the following to be discussed on b-greek: > > Rolf > > <I expected you would come through (as you did) with a very > interesting > <response to the query about NEPE$ on the b-hebrew list. Your response > to > <that again stimulates my interest to know your thoughts about a > certain > <NT text. This time, I will ask it. > > <The text is 1 Thessalonians 5:23. The question is, "How do you > <understand the senses of PNEUMA, YUCH, and SWMA in that context, > taking > <into consideration the nearly redundant terms hOLOTELEIS and > hOLOKLHRON, > <(which are translated in English versions as though only one of those > <<two words is in the text)? Particularly, do you understand this text > to > be a valid basis for a tripartite interpretation of the nature of man? > > <Many thanks for the reference to P. Cotterell and M. Turner, 1989, > <_Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation_. I will seek a copy from > the > <library of my theological alma mater. > > <This is a response to a thread on the b-hebrew list which I am > sending > <<to you personally because my question is more appropriate to the > b-greek > list, to which you can forward this if you think it appropriate. > > > Dear John, > > I will try to avoid theology as much as possible, but regarding such > questions it will always be lurking in the background. The syntax of > this > verse is important,i.e. we must take not of the relationship between > plural > pronouns and singular nouns. The first clause is unproblematic. RSV > says:"May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly". The adjective > hOLOTELEIS is plural and corresponds to the plural hUMAS. > > In the next clause THRHQEIH is the verb and the adjective hOLOKLHRON > belongs to the predicate. Both the verb and the adjective are > singular, and > the meaning is "May be kept blameless (or "sound","complete")". What > is the > subject? It ought to be something singular, and it is "your spirit and > soul > and body", all three nouns being singular while the pronoun is plural. > What does this mean? The plural personal pronoun in the genitive > case, > hUMWN, denotes all the individual members of the congregation, but the > singular PNEUMA, YUCH, and SWMA with the singular verb and adjective > can > hardly refer to each member of the congregation, but is better taken > in a > collective sense (1 Cor 12:12,13). The congregation is viewed as one > organism and the whish is that this "organism" must be kept blameless > until > the PAROUSIA. The use of three parts may stress the wholeness of the > "organism"(cf Deut 6:4,5). If this is correct, the passage does not > teach > that Paul saw man as a threefold substance different from the OT view > of > man as a singular substance. > > I would be very interested in classical or NT examples, pros and con, > which > could illuminate the above use of singular versus plural words. > > > Regards > Rolf > > Rolf Furuli > University of Oslo=A8 > furuli@online.no > > > > ------------------------------ > > From: "Hamilton, Steven" <shamilton@dsdcng1.dsdc.dla.mil> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:52:47 -0500 > Subject: unsubscribe > > unsubscribe > > > ---------- > > > > ------------------------------ > > From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" <cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net> > Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 11:11:28 -0500 > Subject: Re: Current material on KJ/TR controversy > > Mr. Mann: > > I would recommend the following: > > White, James R. _The King James Only Controversy: Can You Ttrust the > Modern > Translations? Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1995. > > Central Baptist Seminary._The Bible Version Debate_. Minneapolis, > Minnesota: > Central Baptist Seminary, 1997. > > Carson, D. A. _The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism._ > Grand > Rapids: Baker, 1979. > > Metzger, Bruce M._ The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, > Corruption and Restoration_. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University > Press, 1992. > > Lewis, Jack P. _The English Bible From KJV to NIV: A History and > Evaluation._ 2nd ed. 1991. > > > At 07:16 AM 12/9/97 -0500, you wrote: > >To all listmembers: > > > >I have become interested in the KJ/TR/Critical Text issue, and would > like > >to locate the best current information. Can anyone suggest > relatively > >new books, articles, etc.? > > > >Thanks, > > > > Ted Mann > > Michigan > > thmann@juno.com > > > > > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. > Library Director/Reference Librarian > Cierpke Memorial Library > Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary > 1815 Union Ave. > Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 > United States of America > 423/493-4252 (office) > 423/698-9447 (home) > 423/493-4497 (FAX) > Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) > kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) > http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm > > > ------------------------------ > > From: CWestf5155 <CWestf5155@aol.com> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:26:01 EST > Subject: Re: 1 Tim 3:15f; 1st Church Creed? > > Dear Chris, > > In a message dated 97-12-09 02:43:27 EST, you write: > > > > > A question that arrises in connection with this post is whether it > is > > possible from the Greek to determine if AGGELOS is to be translated > as > > 'messenger' or 'angel'. Is there any way to tell, or is it just > guessed > > from the context? > > > > Another possible translation of AGGELOS as 'messenger' might be 1 > Peter > > 1.12: > > EIS hA EPIQUMOUSIN AGGELOI PARAKUPSAI > > .... things into which angels long to look (RSV). All the EVV have > > 'angels', but the context might suit 'messengers' better. The > messengers > > being the prophets of v 10. > > > > This observation has an interesting application to Hebrews 1:1-3:1. > Louw and > Nida indicate a rather significant overlap of semantic domain between > AGGELOS > and PROFHTHS (12:28, p. 144; however, the concern about the overlap > appears to > be an overlap in translation into other languages), and in 33.195-196 > AGGELOS > and APOSTOLOS are listed consecutively. DIAKONOS, however, is not > viewed as > close a cognate to the other three. > > Since prophets, apostles and angels are all viewed as close cognates > which can > all be translated as 'messenger', the texture of Hebrews 1:1-3:1 > emerges as > very cohesive, where Jesus is contrasted with prophets (1:1) and > angels > (1:4-15), and presented as the ultimate spokesman and apostle (1:1, > 2:1-4, > 3:1). Therefore the seemingly curious reference to Jesus as an > apostle in 3:1 > serves to summarize his office as a messenger, and in Hebrews, all > three terms > should be viewed primarily in terms of the function of a prophet, > angel, or > apostle as a messenger through whom God spoke. > > It seems to me that we often view words such as AGGELOS, APOSTOLOS and > PROFHTHS in terms of their translation. And the words in English seem > to > emphasize office and identity (angel, apostle, prophet). The focus in > English > is on their use as technical terms > > When we read these words in Greek, it would be best to view them in > terms of > their function (which overlaps), as well as their office. Check out > the > context to see what the author's point is--if the idea of witnessing, > speaking, prophecying, etc, is prominent in the near context, the > function > would be in view and emphasized. If there is not a lot of reference > to > function in the near context, I would take it primarily as an office > (or > identity). > > In regards to I Peter 1:12, two things are important. First, in the > near > context speaking and preaching are predominant, so the inclusion of > AGGELOI > indicates that the prophets, preachers (who are probably apostles) and > *angels* are all viewed primarily in terms of their function as > messengers of > the word of God. However, second, all three terms are part of a > network of > options for the concept of *messengers of the word of God*. Since all > three > terms are used in conjunction, both their similarity as well as their > distinctiveness are emphasized. Since angels are viewed consistently > as > messengers of God, I would see this as a reference to a heavenly > beings, but > with the primary focus on the heavenly beings' function. > > In the early church depicted in the Pauline epistles, the offices of > prophet, > apostle, etc, was determined by (or equated to) the function of the > the > individual in the area of his/her spiritual gift (in slight contrast > with > Luke, who seems to use the term APOSTOLOS more technically). > > Cindy Westfall > PhD Student, Roehampton > > ------------------------------ > > From: Rod Decker <rdecker@bbc.edu> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:50:06 -0500 > Subject: Genitive in 1 Tim. 6:5 > > The syntax of 1 Tim. 6:3-5 is certainly not the easiest in the NT! Vv > 3-4 > are not too bad, but the ANQRWPWN in the middle of v. 5 puzzles me. > Why the > genitive? The two gen. ptcps. (DIEFQARMENWN and APESTERHMENWN) are > obviously related to it. The only thing that might make sense here is > a > gen. absolute (the subject does change from the previous verb, > GINETAI), > but the middle of the sentence is not a typical syntactical location > for > one. Is that a feasible explanation of it here, or am I missing > something? > (Maybe something obvious since none of the exeg. commentaries I > checked > commented on it!) > > Thanks, > > Rod > (And thanks, too, for the several msgs. re. the James vol. that I > asked > about yesterday.) > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Rodney J. Decker Baptist Bible Seminary > Asst. Prof./NT P O Box 800 > rdecker@bbc.edu Clarks Summit PA 18411 > http://www.bbc.edu/courses/BBS/RDecker/Index.htm USA > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > ------------------------------ > > From: Ewan MacLeod <gbb25@dial.pipex.com> > Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 19:46:38 -0000 > Subject: unsubscribe b-greek > > unsubscribe b-greek > > ------------------------------ > > From: Carl William Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 12:48:44 -0600 (CST) > Subject: Re: Genitive in 1 Tim. 6:5 > > On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Rod Decker wrote: > > > The syntax of 1 Tim. 6:3-5 is certainly not the easiest in the NT! > Vv 3-4 > > are not too bad, but the ANQRWPWN in the middle of v. 5 puzzles me. > Why the > > genitive? The two gen. ptcps. (DIEFQARMENWN and APESTERHMENWN) are > > obviously related to it. The only thing that might make sense here > is a > > gen. absolute (the subject does change from the previous verb, > GINETAI), > > but the middle of the sentence is not a typical syntactical location > for > > one. Is that a feasible explanation of it here, or am I missing > something? > > (Maybe something obvious since none of the exeg. commentaries I > checked > > commented on it!) > > Rod, I don't think we have any genitive absolute here, but rather a > subject, DIATRIBAI, that is the final add-on subject of GINETAI, as > you > note, and then we have the genitive ANQRWPWN dependent on it: > something > like "the feverish Auseinandersetzungen of persons ..." and that in > turn > is governed by the genitive participles, each of which has its own > very > distinctive complement: "persons who are perverted in mind (TON NOUN > as > object of the ptc DIEFQARMENWN) and bereft of the truth (THS ALHQEIAS > as > ablatival genitive with APESTERHMENWN)--and then follows a third > genitive > participle that is parallel to the two previous ones: "... and who > suppose > that piety is a way of making a living." Doesn't that satisfy the > syntactical requirements of what we're offered? > > 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: "Williams, Wes" <Wes.Williams@echostar.com> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 12:25:18 -0700 > Subject: subscribe b-greek > > subscribe b-greek > > ------------------------------ > > From: "Theodore H. Mann" <thmann@juno.com> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 07:28:04 -0500 > Subject: Request for current material > > List members: > > I have become interested in the KJ/TR/Critical Text issue. Can anyone > direct me to quality current material (books, articles, etc.)? > > Thanks, > > Ted Mann/Michigan > thmann@juno.com > > ------------------------------ > > From: Peter Phillips <p.m.phillips@cliff.shef.ac.uk> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 20:06:42 -0000 > Subject: AV/TR debate > > Anything on line? This issue keeps cropping up with a few of my > students. > > Pete Phillips > > - ---------- > From: Theodore H. Mann [SMTP:thmann@juno.com] > Sent: 09 December 1997 12:28 > To: B-Greek@virginia.edu > Subject: Request for current material > > List members: > > I have become interested in the KJ/TR/Critical Text issue. Can anyone > direct me to quality current material (books, articles, etc.)? > > Thanks, > > Ted Mann/Michigan > thmann@juno.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > From: Revcraigh <Revcraigh@aol.com> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 18:48:52 EST > Subject: Re: Classical Greek Text > > I wish to thank all of you who wrote to me your varying oppinions > regarding > Crosby & Schaefer et. al. in the field of self-taught Attic Greek. > You've been > very helpful. I got too many responses to thank people individually so > I'm > thanking you all on list. > > God Bless, > Rev. Craig R. Harmon. > > ------------------------------ > > End of b-greek-digest V1 #1118 > ****************************** > > ** 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:36 EDT