From: Biblical Greek digest (b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu)
Date: Thu May 06 1999 - 00:00:05 EDT
Biblical Greek Digest for Wednesday, May 05, 1999.
1. Symmachus and Aquila Greek texts
2. Re: Hebrews 11:1
3. MENOUN in Luke 11.28
4. Re: Hebrews 11:1
5. Re: Hebrews 11:1
6. Re: Hebrews 11:1
7. P. Comfort's new book
8. Re: Hebrews 11:1
9. Re: MENOUN in Luke 11.28
10. Re: P. Comfort's new book
11. Re: P. Comfort's new book
12. Re: FWIW: Relatively easy classical Greek texts
13. Re: MENOUN in Luke 11.28
14. Machen Greek NT Exercises
15. Re: Machen Greek NT Exercises
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Symmachus and Aquila Greek texts
From: "John Oaklands" <j_m_oaklands@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 6:8:12
X-Message-Number: 1
Hi
Does anyone know where I might find on the internet or in print even the
Greek text of Symmachus and Aquila? I would be grateful for any help on
this. Thank you. John
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Hebrews 11:1
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 08:08:08 -0500
X-Message-Number: 2
I've read previous answers, and while I'm not sure I can add anything
"substantive" to what a couple others have said, I do have some thoughts
about hUPOSTASIS in particular.
At 11:29 AM -0500 5/4/99, Kevin L. Barney wrote:
>I have several questions regarding Hebrews 11:1, which reads as follows:
>ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN HUPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN ELEGXOS OU BLEPOMENWN.
>
>1. One generally sees HUPOSTASIS and ELEGXOS translated with a definite
>article in English, but they lack such in Greek. I realize that Greek and
>English sometimes use the article in different ways. But wouldn't it be
>possible to render these words without the article, as in "Now faith is of
>things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of things not seen"?
I don't think the absence of an article makes a "substantive" difference
here, but it does leave open the possibility that the participles
ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN should be understood as predicative rather
than attributive. I don't really think this has a signficant bearing on the
fundamental sense of the proposition, but observe how seeing the
participles as predicative slightly alters how the whole is perceived (or
how I, at any rate, perceive it)--my paraphrase: "Faith is the basis of
happenings while we are anticipating them, the touchstone of happenings
when we do not see them." I'll try to elucidate as I go along.
>2. Does PRAGMATWN belong with ELPIZOMENWN, BLEPOMENWN, or both? Could it
>possibly have a stronger force than "things" here; maybe something like
>"realities"?
I believe that both participles must depend upon PRAGMATWN. The word, which
most essentially means "things done" or "things to do," has an interesting
range in historical Greek, including: "affairs," "troubles/worries,"
"events," "facts" (as opposed to "hearsay"). I think it's pretty close (in
its want of concrete specificity and range of meanings to the Latin plural
noun, RES. which gets translated as "things" most frequently, if it doesn't
have some adjective or participle indicating an idiomatic use. In our
context, I think "happenings" or "events" is most appropriate, inasmuch as
the theme in the context is eschatological fulfillment. Yet the sense of
"reality" as what has permanence as opposed to what only appears real in
this perishing world-age must also be implicit, I think, in this
eschatological perspective.
>3. My main question is whether HUPOSTASIS should be taken as "substance"
>or "assurance" here. (I looked in the archives and couldn't find a
>discussion of this.)
I'm not going to cite your entire "crowd of witnesses," although I would
want to say that the very range of senses that you cite from LXX and NT
usages of hUPOSTASIS, interpretations of a broad range of 'authoritative'
Biblical versions and opinions of commentators and scholarly reference
works obviously demonstrates that there isn't any absolute consensus on the
meaning of the word in this particular passage. It does look, does it not,
as if the ways of understanding it are fundamentally two: (1) being,
essence: what a thing really is (this is what would be termed the
"philosophical" usage; and (2) confidence, assurance.
(1) I rather think that a little etymology and word-history, though not
absolutely conclusive, may well be illuminating here. For the philosophic
sense of "substance," I think the single most important factor is that the
Greek hUPO-STASIS was carried over into a precise etymological equivalent
in Latin as SUB-STANTIA, which Latin word has "substance" as an English
derivative (although English "substance" certainly doesn't always mean the
same thing in every context that Latin SUBSTANTIA means). A factor of great
import for the usage of SUBSTANTIA is that the Latin word was also used to
translate Aristotle's OUSIA, which has two distinct meanings and was
accordingly conveyed into Latin with SUBSTANTIA for the sense of "being" as
"a real thing" and with ESSENTIA (a newly-coined word) for the sense of
"essential character" or the conceptual totality that constitutes the
distinctive being of any "real thing." It's worth noting also, of course,
that hUPOSTASIS is a word playing an important role in the process of
definition of trinitarian doctrine, something into which I certainly don't
want to go here, as my concern is diction rather than theology.
For my part, I do NOT think that hUPOSTASIS in Heb 11:1 should be
understood in the philosophic sense.
(2) Returning to etymology (it was more word-history at play in the other
sense attributed to hUPOSTASIS), it should be noted that, in a literal
etymological sense, a hUPO-STASIS is "that which stands under (something
else)" or "the process of standing under something else." I think one can
readily discern the linkage of this etymology to the philosophic sense if
one assume that what stands under anything is more "basic" or
"fundamental"--an early Greek philosopher might have said it is the ARCH
upon which transient phenomenal things "depend" or from which they
"derive." But the sense of "underpinning" or "basis" or "ground to stand
on" leads also to the notion of "assurance"--and that is the sense that
seems to me most appropriate in Heb 11:1. That is, Faith is what we stand
on, what we take our stance upon when we anticipate a future that we cannot
see. It is this sense of hUPOSTASIS, I think, which more aptly illuminates
the string of patriarchal exempla who acted PISTEI. I think this is what is
made clear later in 11:14-16: hOI GAR TOIAUTA LEGONTES EMFANIZOUSIN hOTI
PATRIDA EPIZHTOUSIN. KAI EI MEN EKEINHS EMNHMONEUON AF' hHS EXEBHSAN, EICON
AN KARION ANAKAMYAI; NUN DE KREITTONOS OREGONTAI, TOUT' ESTIN EPOURANIOU.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: MENOUN in Luke 11.28
From: "Mark Goodacre" <M.S.GOODACRE@bham.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 16:44:17 GMT
X-Message-Number: 3
I would be grateful for any help on the translation of the following:
Luke 11.28: MENOUN MAKARIOI hOI AKOUONTES TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI FULASSONTES.
The standard translation is "Blessed *rather* are those who hear the word of
God and keep it". But I am wondering whether it might be legitimate to
translate more along the lines of "Indeed -- and blessed moreover are those . .
." or some such thing. There seems to be some ground for doing this, e.g. Rom.
10.18 where MENOUNGE might reasonably be translated "Indeed . . ." or Phil.
3.8, also MENOUNGE, "Indeed I count everything as loss . . ."
Any thoughts?
Thanks
Mark
--------------------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk
Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom
http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
Aseneth Home Page
Recommended New Testament Web Resources
Mark Without Q
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Hebrews 11:1
From: "Moon-Ryul Jung" <moon@saint.soongsil.ac.kr>
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 12:7:12
X-Message-Number: 4
On 05/05/99, ""Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>" wrote:
> I don't think the absence of an article makes a "substantive" difference
> here, but it does leave open the possibility that the participles
> ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN should be understood as predicative rather
> than attributive. I don't really think this has a signficant bearing on the
> fundamental sense of the proposition, but observe how seeing the
> participles as predicative slightly alters how the whole is perceived (or
> how I, at any rate, perceive it)--my paraphrase: "Faith is the basis of
> happenings while we are anticipating them, the touchstone of happenings
> when we do not see them." I'll try to elucidate as I go along.
>
>
Dear Carl, why are the participles in the genitive case? Your translations
seem to imply that they are genitive absolutes. But they lack subjects, so
they do not look like genitive absolutes.
Respectfully
Moon-ryul Jung
Assistant Professor
Dept of Computer Science
Soongsil University
Seoul, Korea
as predicates
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Hebrews 11:1
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 11:14:42 -0500
X-Message-Number: 5
At 11:08 AM -0500 5/5/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
>On 05/05/99, ""Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>" wrote:
>
>> I don't think the absence of an article makes a "substantive" difference
>> here, but it does leave open the possibility that the participles
>> ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN should be understood as predicative rather
>> than attributive. I don't really think this has a signficant bearing on the
>> fundamental sense of the proposition, but observe how seeing the
>> participles as predicative slightly alters how the whole is perceived (or
>> how I, at any rate, perceive it)--my paraphrase: "Faith is the basis of
>> happenings while we are anticipating them, the touchstone of happenings
>> when we do not see them." I'll try to elucidate as I go along.
>>
>>
>Dear Carl, why are the participles in the genitive case? Your translations
>seem to imply that they are genitive absolutes. But they lack subjects, so
>they do not look like genitive absolutes.
Both participles clearly, I think, qualify PRAGMATWN, which is genitive
plural, I've conveyed PRAGMATWN (not altogether happily) in the above
version as "happenings" with backwards reference in "them" as objects of
"are anticipating" and "do not see." You are right of course: there's not
really a danger of understanding PRAGMATWN ELPIZOMENWN or PRAGMATWN OU
BLEPOMENWN as genitive absolutes because we have the noun-sentence
construction upon which this genitive plural and its attached participles
must hang: PISTIS (ESTI) hUPOSTASIS, ELEGCOS.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Hebrews 11:1
From: "Moon-Ryul Jung" <moon@saint.soongsil.ac.kr>
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 12:29:52
X-Message-Number: 6
On 05/05/99, ""Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>" wrote:
>
> I don't think the absence of an article makes a "substantive" difference
> here, but it does leave open the possibility that the participles
> ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN should be understood as predicative rather
> than attributive. I don't really think this has a signficant bearing on the
> fundamental sense of the proposition, but observe how seeing the
> participles as predicative slightly alters how the whole is perceived (or
> how I, at any rate, perceive it)--my paraphrase: "Faith is the basis of
> happenings while we are anticipating them, the touchstone of happenings
> when we do not see them."
It seems that three grammatical approaches are suggested for interpreting
the participles in Heb 11.1.
1) predicates (Carl)
2) attributive (Jim): "Faith is substantive hopefulness and conviction
without aid of sight".
3) the genitives of substantives (Kevin):
"Now faith is of
>things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of things not seen".
To some people including me, the options 1) and 2) might be quite
surprising.
If 2) is right, why are the participles in the genitive case? I would
expect
them in the nominative case.
If they were used as predicates, I would guess,
they are supposed to describe something
about PRAGMATWN (genitive), because the participles are also
in the genitive case, not about "us".
But I know that my questions might have been raised because of my
ignorance
about the usage of the genitive case of participles.
Respectfully
Moon-ryul Jung
Assistant Professor
Dept of Computer Science
Soongsil University
Seoul, Korea
are
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: P. Comfort's new book
From: Jim West <jwest@highland.net>
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 13:08:08 -0400
X-Message-Number: 7
P. Comfort's new book, "The Complete Text of the Earliest NT Manuscripts"
has arrived and it is really a tremendous thing!
mss include p1 - 104 (with some lacunae), and some other early uncials. The
book offers the mss in P order. Some photos are included as well as a fine
introduction. 649 pp. of great resources for the textual critic and NT scholar.
The transcriptions are really excellent and are exact!, including
abbreviations within the papyri themselves.
Thought some of you would like to know that this book is now available.
Best,
Jim
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Petros Baptist Church- Pastor
Quartz Hill School of Theology- Adjunct Prof. of Bible
fax- 978-231-5986
email- jwest@highland.net
web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Hebrews 11:1
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 12:34:46 -0500
X-Message-Number: 8
I regret that I've evidently not made myself clear, but I'll try again.
At 12:29 PM -0500 5/5/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
>On 05/05/99, ""Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>" wrote:
>>
>
>> I don't think the absence of an article makes a "substantive" difference
>> here, but it does leave open the possibility that the participles
>> ELPIZOMENWN and OU BLEPOMENWN should be understood as predicative rather
>> than attributive. I don't really think this has a signficant bearing on the
>> fundamental sense of the proposition, but observe how seeing the
>> participles as predicative slightly alters how the whole is perceived (or
>> how I, at any rate, perceive it)--my paraphrase: "Faith is the basis of
>> happenings while we are anticipating them, the touchstone of happenings
>> when we do not see them."
>
>It seems that three grammatical approaches are suggested for interpreting
>the participles in Heb 11.1.
>1) predicates (Carl)
I would prefer the term "predicative." And I did not say above that I
definitely considered these participles to be "predicative," but only that,
in the absence of articles (TWN ELPIZOMENWN, TWN OU BLEPOMENWN) the
possibility to read them as predicative lies open.
>2) attributive (Jim): "Faith is substantive hopefulness and conviction
>without aid of sight".
I take it this is a paraphrase of the intent rather than an attempt at
literal translation; I must say that to me personally, it comes close to
explaining OBSCURUM PER OBSCURIUS. I have no idea what "substantive
hopefulness" might be. And yet, I WOULD agree with Jim that the most
natural way to understand the participles is in an attributive function.
I'd convey that as "assurance of things hoped for and canon of things not
seen." "Hoped for" and "not seen" could, under the normal understanding of
attributive participles, be conveyed as relative clauses: "assurance of
things that are hoped for, canon of things that aren't seen."
>3) the genitives of substantives (Kevin):
> "Now faith is of
>>things hoped for a confident assurance, a conviction of things not seen".
I honestly thought (and still do) that Kevin meant this version to convey
the function of the participles as attributive with the genitive plural
noun PRAGMATWN.
>To some people including me, the options 1) and 2) might be quite
>surprising.
>
>If 2) is right, why are the participles in the genitive case? I would
>expect
>them in the nominative case.
>If they were used as predicates, I would guess,
>they are supposed to describe something
>about PRAGMATWN (genitive), because the participles are also
>in the genitive case, not about "us".
The participles are in the genitive case for the same reason whether they
are understood as "attributive" OR "predicative"--because they
qualify/modify PRAGMATWN, which is genitive plural; PRAGMATWN in turn
depends upon hUPOSTASIS and (I believe) equally upon ELEGCOS.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: MENOUN in Luke 11.28
From: "atombomb@sirius.com" <atombomb@sirius.com>
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 11:19:19 -0700
X-Message-Number: 9
CHRIST IS RISEN!
Mark Goodacre wrote:
>
> I would be grateful for any help on the translation of the following:
>
> Luke 11.28: MENOUN MAKARIOI hOI AKOUONTES TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI FULASSONTES.
>
> The standard translation is "Blessed *rather* are those who hear the word of
> God and keep it". But I am wondering whether it might be legitimate to
> translate more along the lines of "Indeed -- and blessed moreover are those . .
> ." or some such thing. There seems to be some ground for doing this, e.g. Rom.
> 10.18 where MENOUNGE might reasonably be translated "Indeed . . ." or Phil.
> 3.8, also MENOUNGE, "Indeed I count everything as loss . . ."
Liddell & Scott: *men oun* is freq. used with a corresponding *de*,
so that each Particle retains its force, Od. 4.780, Pi. O. 1.111, S.
OT 244, 843, Ph. 359, D. 2.5, etc: but frequently also in an absolute
sense, "so then", S. Ant. 65; ... especially in replies, sometimes in
strong afffirmation, *pantapasi men oun* Plato, Thaeatetus 158d...
[but] also to substitute a new statement so as to correct a preceding
statement, "nay rather" [my favorite example is "'Wipe your nose on my
head?'... 'Nay rather, on mine!'" Ar. Eq. 9.11]; L&S also quotes the
subject passage (Lk 11.28), translating as "yea rather, pointing to Rm
9.20 as an example of the same.
Indeed, that's the way the fathers read it-- positive, rather than
disjunctive. Someone recently pointed out to me that in the British
language, "rather", pronounced "rah-THER!" can indeed mean, "indeed!"
or "rather so!".
I think a translation as positive or affirmative "indeed" would be far
more in keeping with the general thought of St Luke than a disjunctive
"rather" (as we tend to read it, really out of an anti-Catholic polemic):
"Indeed, happy are those who hear the word of God, and keep it"' (Lk
11.28), for "the [seed] in the good ground, is those who hear the word
with a good and noble heart, preserve it and bear fruit in patience"
(Lk 8.15). And who is the example of this? Only six verses later Jesus
says, "My mother and my brothers are these (outoi) who are hearing the
word of God and doing it" (Lk8.21). The theme of
hearing-keeping-doing-bringing forth fruit and blessedness seems to be
more than a little emphasized-- Mary is twice portrayed as the one who
"kept all these words, turning them over in her heart" (Lk 2.19), or
who "preserved all these words in her heart" (Lk 2.51); she is called
blessed (*makarios*) three times-- "blessed is she who believed that
there will be a completion to the things said to her by the Lord!" (Lk
1.45), "Blessed among women... the mother of my Lord"'! (Lk 1.42-43),
and she herself says, "All generations will call me blessed" (Lk
1.48). Of course, if "those who hear the word with a good and noble
heart, preserve it and bear fruit" (8.15)-- her fruit is most blessed:
"Blessed [indeed!] is the fruit of [her] womb" (Lk 1.42)!
So the scenario in Lk 11.28 is not that, as we usually read this,
Jesus is being cruel to his mother and brothers, who are outside
trying to see him (I would have trouble with this anyway), but that he
is pointing them out as examples of what he's talking about (faith)
and welcoming them in as indeed close to him on that basis. And of
course we know that the "brothers of the Lord" played a big role in
the early Christian community, so in the gospel of Luke this phrase
would possibly have been read as some kind of an affirmation of them.
The problem is, this gets you into the whole discussion of the place
of the Virgin Mary, which has been such a shibboleth in
Protestant-Catholic relations, and is fraught with emotional significance!
Indeed he is risen!
John Burnett, MA (OT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: P. Comfort's new book
From: "George Blaisdell" <maqhth@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 11:55:56 PDT
X-Message-Number: 10
>From: Jim West
>P. Comfort's new book, "The Complete Text of the Earliest NT Manuscripts"
>has arrived and it is really a tremendous thing!
>
>mss include p1 - 104 (with some lacunae), and some other early uncials.
>The
>book offers the mss in P order. Some photos are included as well as a fine
>introduction. 649 pp. of great resources for the textual critic and NT
>scholar.
>
>The transcriptions are really excellent and are exact!, including
>abbreviations within the papyri themselves.
>
>Thought some of you would like to know that this book is now available.
Jim ~ Are the texts themselves in the uncial? Are they reprods in a modern
font? Or are they photocopies of the originals?
More info! Please!! :-)
George Blaisdell
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: P. Comfort's new book
From: Nichael Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 15:03:26 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 11
George Blaisdell wrote:
> >From: Jim West
>
> >P. Comfort's new book, "The Complete Text of the Earliest NT Manuscripts"
> >has arrived and it is really a tremendous thing!
> >
> >mss include p1 - 104 (with some lacunae), and some other early uncials.
> >The
> >book offers the mss in P order. Some photos are included as well as a fine
> >introduction. 649 pp. of great resources for the textual critic and NT
> >scholar.
> >
> >The transcriptions are really excellent and are exact!, including
> >abbreviations within the papyri themselves.
> >
> >Thought some of you would like to know that this book is now available.
>
> Jim ~ Are the texts themselves in the uncial? Are they reprods in a modern
> font? Or are they photocopies of the originals?
>
> More info! Please!! :-)
Likewise, are these Comfort's transcriptions? If not whose?
Similarly, how does the book signify uncertain letters; conjectural
emendations; disagreements among editors; etc?
(I haven't seen Comfort's book --although I look forward to it-- but this
is often a problem with books of "transcription". They often present
the included readings as finished and exact with no indication of
underlying problems.)
Thanks
Nichael
-- Nichael Cramer work: ncramer@bbn.com home: nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: FWIW: Relatively easy classical Greek texts From: Edgar Krentz <ekrentz@lstc.edu> Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 15:15:31 -0500 X-Message-Number: 12
>I don't know whether this has any interest for Koine people, but I've >recently put up, for the sake of my students who've just finished a >first-year course in Attic, a short list of suggested summer reading to >keep one's Greek from going rusty before their next formal course. These >are mainly classical Attic texts from fifth and fourth century, but they >are relatively (whatever that means) easy, and if anyone is interested in >exploring some relatively easy Attic prose, here are some suggestions: > > http://artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/moregrk.html > >Carl W. Conrad
Carl, this is a very useful list. I think many would also be helped by the Bryn Mawr commentaries.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Edgar Krentz Professor of New Testament Emeritus Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago 1100 E. 55th Street Chicago, IL 60615 USA 773-256-0752 e-mail: ekrentz@lstc.edu (Office) emkrentz@mcs.com (Home) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: MENOUN in Luke 11.28 From: Edgar Krentz <ekrentz@lstc.edu> Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 15:29:46 -0500 X-Message-Number: 13
>I would be grateful for any help on the translation of the following: > >Luke 11.28: MENOUN MAKARIOI hOI AKOUONTES TON LOGON TOU QEOU KAI FULASSONTES. > >The standard translation is "Blessed *rather* are those who hear the word of >God and keep it". But I am wondering whether it might be legitimate to >translate more along the lines of "Indeed -- and blessed moreover are >those . . >." or some such thing. There seems to be some ground for doing this, e.g. >Rom. >10.18 where MENOUNGE might reasonably be translated "Indeed . . ." or Phil. >3.8, also MENOUNGE, "Indeed I count everything as loss . . ." > >Any thoughts? > >Thanks > >Mark
Check LSJ, sv B.II.2: frequently used as an ablsolute: "so then." They claim that in the NT it means "nay, rather." I think your translation is possible
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Edgar Krentz Professor of New Testament Emeritus Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago 1100 E. 55th Street Chicago, IL 60615 USA 773-256-0752 e-mail: ekrentz@lstc.edu (Office) emkrentz@mcs.com (Home) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Machen Greek NT Exercises From: "Michael A. Ferrando" <mfer@loc.gov> Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 16:18:30 X-Message-Number: 14
Sirs, I am a Student of NT Greek. I am now finishing my second semester at Chesapeake Theological Seminary. Would anyone know where I could find the answers to the exercises of Machen's text? If so please let me know at mfer@loc.gov
Sincerely, Mike Ferrando Library Technician Library of Congress Washington, DC
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Machen Greek NT Exercises From: "David M. Scholer" <dscholer@fuller.edu> Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 15:13:13 -0700 X-Message-Number: 15
Zodhiates, Spiros. *Learn or Review New Testament Greek: Answers to the Exercises in New Testament Greek for Beginners by J. Gresham Machen, D.D.* (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 1976. It is $3,95 (plus postage); their number is 615-894-6060.
David M. Scholer
At 04:18 PM 5/5/99, you wrote: >Sirs, >I am a Student of NT Greek. I am now finishing my second semester at >Chesapeake Theological Seminary. Would anyone know where I could find the >answers to the exercises of Machen's text? If so please let me know at >mfer@loc.gov > >Sincerely, >Mike Ferrando >Library Technician >Library of Congress >Washington, DC > >--- >B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek >You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: dscholer@fuller.edu >To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-76108H@franklin.oit.unc.edu >To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David M. Scholer Professor of New Testament and Associate Dean for the Center for Advanced Theological Studies Fuller Theological Seminary Pasadena, CA 91182 626-584-5288; Fax: 626-584-5251; E-mail: dscholer@fuller.edu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
---
END OF DIGEST
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-76108H@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:25 EDT