From: Biblical Greek digest (b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu)
Date: Mon Apr 10 2000 - 00:00:02 EDT
Biblical Greek Digest for Sunday, April 09, 2000.
1. "Magdalene Papyrus"?
2. Re: (Roe)Book Evaluation Requested
3. Swanson's Galatians and NA
4. Re: Rom 1:1 KLHTOS APOSTOLOS
5. Re: "Magdalene Papyrus"?
6. Re: "Magdalene Papyrus"?
7. linguistic absolutes
8. doulos
9. Re: Swanson's Galatians and NA
10. Re: Rom 1:1 KLHTOS APOSTOLOS
11. Re: Fronting & Point of Departure
12. logos - presocratic - off topic
13. re: Fronting & Point of Departure
14. Re: Fronting & Point of Departure
15. Re: Fronting & Point of Departure
16. RE: Recommended readings for a beginner
17. Re: logos - presocratic - off topic
18. Re: doulos
19. Re: Rom 1:1 KLHTOS APOSTOLOS
20. Re: logos - presocratic - off topic
21. Re: doulos
22. Re: (Roe)Book Evaluation Requested
23. Re: linguistic absolutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: "Magdalene Papyrus"?
From: Chris A Vlachos <chreemann@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 01:55:14 EDT
X-Message-Number: 1
Have any of the UBS editors commented on the "Magdalene papyrus"?
Do they accept it as a pre-AD70 document?
Chris Alex Vlachos
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: (Roe)Book Evaluation Requested
From: yochanan bitan <ButhFam@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 05:39:31 -0400
X-Message-Number: 2
roe wrote:
>
>Waltz, at =
>
>http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/CriticalEds.html#Swanson
>
>says that the text used is not "B", but United Bible Societies'. The
>Codex Vaticanus might consistently be shown in the first line of the
>apparatus, but other than that possible "prominence", it is given no
>special attention. That is, all differing readings found in the MSS
>Swanson examines are spelled out in parallel, with -- I think -- no
>intention of "promoting" one over the other.
That information about UBS is misleading. Vaticanus is the base-text, but=
others are spelled out so that everyone gets their day in court.
And Swanson is truly excellent. No better, more user-friendly reference f=
or
a practical look at a text.
errwso
Randall Buth
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Swanson's Galatians and NA
From: "Wieland Willker" <willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de>
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 13:05:40 +0200
X-Message-Number: 3
At the very last I finally got my copy yesterday! Hurray!
Before I point out one criticism I want to say, that I really admire this
work and I think this is THE TOOL for all who do not have the time to
consult the originals. Excellent!
My (minor) criticism has to do with what Swanson calls "errors" in
Nestle-Aland. He finds a lot of things missing in NA, but he seems to forget
that NA is only a "hand-edition"! Swanson has 88 pages for Galatians but NA
has only 11.
In an appendix Swanson compares on 33 pages his edition with NA. Of course
he finds many differences, mainly omissions in NA.
He has 5 categories:
a) "consistenly cited witnesses" not cited for this particular reading
b) MSS never cited in NA not belonging to Maj.
c) MSS never cited in NA belonging to Maj.
d) MSS cited in error by NA
e) other variants not cited by NA
Of these only things listed under d) are really errors (c. 40 entries).
Nevertheless 4 errors per NA page (if Swanson is always correct).
b) and c) entries are no errors. The editors of NA decided not to include
these MSS in the edition. Of course one can discuss if this was a wise
decision but these are not errors.
The listings under a) are omissions. I am not sure if this is intended or by
accident. I was under the impression that "consistenly cited witnesses" are
ALWAYS cited?
All these listings are very helpful for a future edition of NA, but they are
for the most part not really errors.
I strongly recommend this volume and point you (once again) to BIBAL press,
where all volumes can be obtained at a very low price! "Galatians" is not
yet listed but available for $ 15.95.
http://www.dfscott.com/bibal%20books/Greek%20Manuscripts.asp
Best wishes
Wieland
<><
------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Rom 1:1 KLHTOS APOSTOLOS
From: Steven Craig Miller <scmiller@www.plantnet.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 08:32:05 -0500
X-Message-Number: 4
To: Charles Skallerud and the participants of the Biblical-Greek list,
<< After many unsuccessful attempts I do not look down on any effort. Still
I have to say that 'guest delegate' sounds like a UNESCO position or
something. I know what you mean and others in this discussion know what you
mean, but I am afraid it doesn't fly. >>
IMO, sounding like a "UNESCO position or something" is a step forward. And
so IMO "delegate" is an improvement over "apostle."
But as for the translation "guest," I'm not as certain. The traditional
interpretation of KLHTOS has been that Paul was called by God to be an
apostle/delegate, whereas translating KLHTOS as "guest" offers different
possibilities, perhaps KLHTOS means that Paul was a "delegate" to and not
from the Gentiles.
The point of using the same term (KLHTOS) in verses 6 & 7 might be that
just as Paul is a "guest" among the Gentiles, so too the believers in Rome
are "guests" of Jesus Christ, his "sacred guests."
Criticisms and/or suggestions are welcome.
-Steven Craig Miller
Alton, Illinois (USA)
scmiller@www.plantnet.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: "Magdalene Papyrus"?
From: Nichael Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 10:43:05 -0400
X-Message-Number: 5
Chris A Vlachos wrote:
>Have any of the UBS editors commented on the "Magdalene papyrus"?
>Do they accept it as a pre-AD70 document?
Chris
To state the situation simply, this dating is accepted by no scholars other
than the publishers of the original paper.
For a good, easily accessible, summary of the arguments as to why this
dating almost certainly cannot be correct, see the relevant chapters in
Graham Stanton's book _Gospel Truths_.
Hope this helps
Nichael
-- Nichael Cramer----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: "Magdalene Papyrus"? From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@historian.net> Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 10:42:10 -0700 X-Message-Number: 6
Chris A Vlachos wrote: > > Have any of the UBS editors commented on the "Magdalene papyrus"? > Do they accept it as a pre-AD70 document?
Thiede is all alone on this one. Every papyrologist and palaeographer of note places these fragments in the 2nd to 3rd century...still a significant discovery.
Jack -- ______________________________________________
taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon
Jack Kilmon jkilmon@historian.net
sharing a meal for free. http://www.thehungersite.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: linguistic absolutes From: clayton stirling bartholomew <c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net> Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 10:52:49 -0700 X-Message-Number: 7
Why all the fuss about pre-positive constituents and point of departure? Levinsohn* seems to be establishing something very close to a linguistic absolute in his treatment of this subject. There is an issue at stake here which is somewhat broader than the question about the clause position of a point of departure.
Lets say that language is chess board and that we have two grand masters sitting down for a match and as they make their first few moves the Russian player discovers that the bishop on his right has been glued to the board. This changes the whole nature of the game. The bishop does not move. The Russian player begins to suspect that their are other pieces which are glued down and it makes his strategy fall to pieces.
If we think of language as a chess board, and the meaning of each piece is defined by the state of the board at any given time in the history of the language, then the discovery that certain pieces are glued to the board is going to completely change our understanding of language. We are going to end up wondering like the Russian grand master what other pieces are glued to the board and our strategy may fall to pieces.
>From my limited perspective, stating that any constituent that functions as a point of departure MUST be prepositive is gluing a piece to the board.
Furthermore, I can think of analogies at higher narrative discourse levels where the point of departure function is postponed. Take for example the narrative device called "flash back". This device serves some of the same functions as point of departure but it in terms of high level narrative structure it is postpostive. It is introduced after the main storyline is already under way. I have a sneaking suspicion that there is something like "flash back" at the clause level in NT Greek narrative. I will keep my eyes pealed for examples.
Clay
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
*Stephen Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek, SIL 1992 222 pp. (paper).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: doulos From: "Charles Skallerud" <karolus@wf.net> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 13:05:44 -0500 X-Message-Number: 8
I was reading the NET Bible version of Colossians this morning. I was generally impressed with the careful notes beloved of all bookworms. Still this confounded doulos got in the way. Why translate sundoulos as fellow-servant in chapter 1 and doulos as slave in chapters 3 and 4? This will not do. Most translations go this route, but I consider it a major, intolerable linguistic error. We miss the whole drift of Paul's thought if we pretty it up this way. To my mind it must be slave throughout. I know this is an old debate but it is still timely. It astounds me that new translations persist in this genteel double-talk. Paul was not afraid of his words. Why should we be afraid of translating them?
Charles Skallerud
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Swanson's Galatians and NA From: Theodore H Mann <thmann@juno.com> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 14:46:36 -0400 X-Message-Number: 9
I understand that Dr. Swanson plans to complete another volume by November, 2000 (Romans, I think). He has already produced the gospels, Acts and Galatians. I hope he will be able to finish the entire NT, but he is in his eighties now..... For a great price on these volumes, check http://www.dfscott.com/bibal%20books/Greek%20Manuscripts.asp
Best.
Ted
Dr. Theodore "Ted" H. Mann / thmann@juno.com Fax and Voice Mail: 1-562-750-5242 http://www.homestead.com/ChristianResourcesLinks/index.html http://www.homestead.com/eLOGOS/index.html http://www.homestead.com/eIXQUS/index.html
On Sun, 9 Apr 2000 13:05:40 +0200 "Wieland Willker" <willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de> writes: > At the very last I finally got my copy yesterday! Hurray! > > Before I point out one criticism I want to say, that I really admire > this > work and I think this is THE TOOL for all who do not have the time > to > consult the originals. Excellent! > > My (minor) criticism has to do with what Swanson calls "errors" in > Nestle-Aland. He finds a lot of things missing in NA, but he seems > to forget > that NA is only a "hand-edition"! Swanson has 88 pages for Galatians > but NA > has only 11. > In an appendix Swanson compares on 33 pages his edition with NA. Of > course > he finds many differences, mainly omissions in NA. > He has 5 categories: > a) "consistenly cited witnesses" not cited for this particular > reading > b) MSS never cited in NA not belonging to Maj. > c) MSS never cited in NA belonging to Maj. > d) MSS cited in error by NA > e) other variants not cited by NA > > Of these only things listed under d) are really errors (c. 40 > entries). > Nevertheless 4 errors per NA page (if Swanson is always correct). > b) and c) entries are no errors. The editors of NA decided not to > include > these MSS in the edition. Of course one can discuss if this was a > wise > decision but these are not errors. > The listings under a) are omissions. I am not sure if this is > intended or by > accident. I was under the impression that "consistenly cited > witnesses" are > ALWAYS cited? > > All these listings are very helpful for a future edition of NA, but > they are > for the most part not really errors. > > I strongly recommend this volume and point you (once again) to BIBAL > press, > where all volumes can be obtained at a very low price! "Galatians" > is not > yet listed but available for $ 15.95. > > http://www.dfscott.com/bibal%20books/Greek%20Manuscripts.asp > > Best wishes > Wieland > <>< > ------------------------ > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany > mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ > > > --- > B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek > You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: thmann@juno.com > 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 > >
________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Rom 1:1 KLHTOS APOSTOLOS From: Polycarp66@aol.com Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 15:03:40 EDT X-Message-Number: 10
In a message dated 4/9/2000 7:28:27 AM Central Standard Time, scmiller@www.plantnet.com writes:
<< << After many unsuccessful attempts I do not look down on any effort. Still I have to say that 'guest delegate' sounds like a UNESCO position or something. I know what you mean and others in this discussion know what you mean, but I am afraid it doesn't fly. >> IMO, sounding like a "UNESCO position or something" is a step forward. And so IMO "delegate" is an improvement over "apostle." But as for the translation "guest," I'm not as certain. The traditional interpretation of KLHTOS has been that Paul was called by God to be an apostle/delegate, whereas translating KLHTOS as "guest" offers different possibilities, perhaps KLHTOS means that Paul was a "delegate" to and not from the Gentiles. The point of using the same term (KLHTOS) in verses 6 & 7 might be that just as Paul is a "guest" among the Gentiles, so too the believers in Rome are "guests" of Jesus Christ, his "sacred guests." Criticisms and/or suggestions are welcome. >>
Personally, I agree that it won't fly. I don't even think that it's an improvement. Stick to apostle and baptism. Everyone understands that. Oh, so you want to define the term a bit to give some understanding of the concept lying behind it? A laudable goal. I suggest a note.
gfsomsel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Fronting & Point of Departure From: Polycarp66@aol.com Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 15:10:50 EDT X-Message-Number: 11
In a message dated 4/8/2000 2:05:04 PM Central Standard Time, c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net writes:
<< On page 21 of this book Randall Buth is cited* as suggesting that establishing the point of departure is the UNMARKED purpose for fronting and that we should not consider that a constituent has been fronted for highlighting unless it cannot be interpreted as a point of departure. >>
If only this were Greek to me. Then I might have a chance of understanding what you're talking about. What is "fronting?"
gfsomsel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: logos - presocratic - off topic From: "VINCE ENDRIS" <vendris@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 15:13:54 EDT X-Message-Number: 12
Dear b-greekers, sorry for the off-topic request. please respond off list. last semester i was doing a little research in the development of "logos." i remember reading a fragment from some greek philosopher that had to do with reality being cast in the light of two opposing reasons (logoi). i believe it was, for everything there is a negative and a positive logos. i ended up not using this in my paper and so had no reason to cite it. i now need that information again and have no idea where i read it (i think it was a presocratic, i even further think it was heraclitus). i have tried to retrace my steps, and seem to have found every book i read last semester except that one! does anyone know what i might have read (misread)? can anyone help? thank you, vince
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: re: Fronting & Point of Departure From: yochanan bitan <ButhFam@compuserve.com> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 15:19:27 -0400 X-Message-Number: 13
shalom Clayton, EGRAYAS: >On page 21 of this book Randall Buth is cited* as suggesting that >establishing the point of departure is the UNMARKED purpose for fronting=
and >that we should not consider that a constituent has been fronted for >highlighting unless it cannot be interpreted as a point of departure. > >OK, here is my question. Can we ever find a case in NT Greek where the point >of departure is NOT fronted. =
No. [Because a 'point of departure' is a pragmatic function, thus requiri= ng pragmatic positioning and not normal word order. See below.]
>If not, is there a slim possibility that there >is some infinitesimal hint of circular reasoning in this whole discussio= n. >If we define fronting as the standard means of indicating point of departure >(this is not exactly what Randall Buth said) have we not essential defin= ed >our model such that a point of departure which was not fronted will neve= r be >discovered? =
Yes, we have defined the model in a way that a non-fronted 'point of departure' would not exist. And No, this is not circular. See distinction=
below between pragmatic and semantic functions in interpreting clauses.
>What sort of independent criteria can we use to discover the >point of departure, that is criteria independent of clause order?
'Point of departure' is a pragmatic function signalled by word order and does not have an independent semantic or morphological criterion. So the question is a non-sequitur. See below.
>Some of you may remember my previous questions about post-positive >participles. This question is a continuation on the same theme but it ha= s >been expanded to include all post-positive constituents which would be >understood as as indicating point of departure if they were pre-positive= . In >other words I am questioning what seems to be an established universal rule >that point of departure is marked by position within the clause. > . . . >* Levinsohn indicates that his citation form Buth is taken from "persona= l >communication" not from a published source. I picture them arguing about=
>this over a late dinner taken in the Menachem Begin wing of the King Dav= id >Hotel. =
Well, it might help to rephase and put the above in a context. Historically, those discussions with Stephen either occurred in Cameroon 1989 or in Dallas 1991. Maybe both, in one way or another. (Nothing as historic or expensive as a dinner in the King David. I even avoid KD for coffee.) The wording is Stephen's, not my own.
The universality of 'point of departure' is already incorporated within linguistic theory in Functional Grammar, where Topic (a.k.a. 'point of departure') and Focus (a.k.a. 'highlighting') are proposed as two univers= al pragmatic functions that may relate to any language that has a pre-field (i.e., [post-conjunction] clause initial), pragmatically-marked position.= =
The item is not circular, in that it is an interpretation/function of an observed word order. That is, it is a subset of functions causing/explaining fronted constituents and not a category of its own. So= , yes, there would be no such thing as an 'unfronted' point-of-departure, though perhaps embedded, parenthetical, afterthoughts could be added and included. =
"Point of departure" (a.k.a. "Topic" in functional grammar, "pivot" in Foley/VanValin, "Contextualizing Constituent" in my own nomenclature) is not a semantic relationship but a pragmatic one within linguistics. Thus, =
"I got up in the morning." =
is a default, English sentence where 'in the morning' is part of the salient communication. "...in the morning" is interpreted according to th= e semantics of its 'predicate frame' and lexical context.
"In the morning I got up." =
is marked in the sense of fronting 'in the morning'. "In the morning..." = is interpreted both according to its semantic relationship to the predicate frame and as signalled as the point with which to relate the clause to th= e larger context. Hence, the names: 'Pivot' Foley/VanValin, 'Topic' Dik, 'point of departure' Levinsohn, 'Contextualizing Constituent' Buth.
Whenever a pragmatically marked constituent appears, it needs interpretation, processing, by the audience. The English example above would almost always be a 'contextualizing constituent', that is, serving = as a point of relationship to the greater context. A Focus construction of this same semantic content in English would normally be =
'I got up in the MORNING' (using intonation for pragmatic Focal marking),= =
or simply a non-focal clause with only the salient information: =
'In the morning.'. This deletes the rest of the sentence as non-salient, presupposed information, like when aswering a question orally. =
Focal constructions typically present information that the speaker assume= s to need rhetorical emphasis as probably "surprising", "contrasting", or otherwise too easily forgotten or missed.
Now Greek has a tendency to multiply pragmatically-marked pre-field constituents. The common pattern is to put CC's (a.k.a. 'point of departure's) before Focus constituents when more than one constitutent is=
marked by fronting, =
and, relating to the point quoted by Stephen, that if only one constituent is marked by fronting, the default and most=
common function is CC ('point of departure'). This becomes a helpful 'rul= e of thumb' or processing strategy for a Greek listener or Greek audience. =
A qualifier to this is that within subordinate clauses, Focus constituent= s may become more commonplace because the subordinated status has already provided a syntactical relationship to the context and there is less need=
for pragmatically marking a 'point of departue'. This principle is most easily seen in a more fixed word-order language like Hebrew where the similar pragmatic tendencies occur with CC/Topic in main narrative clause= s and where Focus is the 'rule of thumb' for fronted constituents within subordinating 'ki' clauses and 'asher' clauses. =
Returning to Clayton's question: a 'point of departure' that is not front= ed would not be a pragmatic 'point of departure', it would be part of the semantic base template that is generating the clause and would only carry=
its semantic relationship, not an additional pragmatic function. Thus, if a constituent is not signalled as having a pragmatic function to=
interpret (that is, if it was not fronted), it would not be a candidate t= o be a pragmatic 'point of departure'. It will be handled within normal semantic relations. But if a constituent is fronted, then it is more probably a 'point of departure' and less commonly a 'Focus'. A reader wou= ld be better off not assuming Focus.
Hope the above helps. Fuller explanations lead into Prague school Theme-rheme distinctions and the distinctions of pragmatic, semantic and syntactic functions within a linguistic theory of grammar. For further reading you might try Simon Dik, Functional Grammar, 1980, and the one chapter summary in Dik, Studies in Functional Grammar, 1981. Also, Foley and VanValin, [Grammar?], 1985?.
errwso Randall Buth Jerusalem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Fronting & Point of Departure From: clayton stirling bartholomew <c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net> Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 12:51:25 -0700 X-Message-Number: 14
on 04/09/00 12:10 PM, Polycarp66@aol.com wrote:
> What is "fronting?"
Polycarp,
"Fronting" is placing a clause constituent such as a noun or participle or pronoun in front of the main verb. The whole notion of "fronting" is founded on the assumption that the unmarked word order in NT Greek is verb initial, that is the main verb will "normally" appear in front of its arguments. This assumption can be and has been challenged.
Clay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Fronting & Point of Departure From: clayton stirling bartholomew <c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net> Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 13:05:32 -0700 X-Message-Number: 15
Randall,
Your answer was breath taking. Thank you.
It seems that we can sum up my problem as a confusion between semantic function and pragmatic function. I will be the first to admit my near total ignorance of "pragmatics." Every time someone brings up this subject my mind tends to fog over. I will need to do some home work on this.
Thank you very much for a most helpful and thorough response to my question.
Clay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Recommended readings for a beginner From: Greg Kilbrai <kilbrai@mail.com> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 14:02:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Message-Number: 16
I've been using Perschbacher's "Refresh Your Greek" to work my way through the GNT. I started after finishing my second semester which is like where you are now. P. suggests the following reading order:
1 John, John, Revelation, Matt, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1 Cor, 2 john, Romans, 2 cor, 1 th, 2 th, eph, phil, gal, 3 john, Colossians, Hebrews, Phill, 1 pe, 2 pe, 1 Tim, James, 2 Tim, Jude, Titus
I've been reading as I have time for the last year or so, and am satisfied. Right now I am in Acts which I am finding quite slow to get through. I felt I was making reasonable progress through the previous readings - Mark was particularly satisfying as his vocabulary is easier.
Greg Kilbrai
------Original Message------ From: "Rick L. Hammer" <rhammer@fastlane.net>
I'm about to finish my second semester of biblical greek and we are finishing the semester by reading 1 John. I plan to continue my studies this coming fall with the second year course but I would like to continue reading this summer. So, my question is: what would be a good followup to 1 John? Maybe the gospel of John? I have also considered reading in Bill Mounce's Graded Reader. Any comments would be kindly appreciated.
Thanks,
Rick
-- Rick Hammer Ft. Worth, TX rhammer@fastlane.net
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: kilbrai@mail.com 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
______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: logos - presocratic - off topic From: "l. j. swain" <x99swain@wmich.edu> Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 17:54:44 -0400 X-Message-Number: 17
VINCE ENDRIS wrote: > > Dear b-greekers, > sorry for the off-topic request. please respond off list. > last semester i was doing a little research in the development of "logos." > i remember reading a fragment from some greek philosopher that had to do > with reality being cast in the light of two opposing reasons (logoi). i > believe it was, for everything there is a negative and a positive logos. i > ended up not using this in my paper and so had no reason to cite it. i now > need that information again and have no idea where i read it (i think it was > a presocratic, i even further think it was heraclitus). i have tried to > retrace my steps, and seem to have found every book i read last semester > except that one! does anyone know what i might have read (misread)? can > anyone help? > thank you, > vince > It would indeed be Heraclitus. The fragments which are said to deal with LOGOS are according the the Diels and Kranz numbering: 1, 32,41,50,89, or 1-5 in the M. R. Wright edition of the Presocratics, I don't have my edition of Kirk and Raven (The Presocratics) handy so can't give you the references there.
I don't recall that kind of wording to be honest, as I seem to remember Heraclitus' LOGOS is more like both good and evil from our viewpoint rather than a yin/yang idea or almost the dualism which you seem to describe. In statements such as frag. 57 which criticizes Hesiod for not knowing that day and night are one lead one to believe that Heraclitus' logos was both positive and negative. But that's only after a very hasty read through, but I hope it helps some.
Regards,
Larry Swain
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: doulos From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 16:56:01 -0500 X-Message-Number: 18
At 1:05 PM -0500 4/9/00, Charles Skallerud wrote: >I was reading the NET Bible version of Colossians this morning. I was >generally impressed with the careful notes beloved of all bookworms. Still >this confounded doulos got in the way. Why translate sundoulos as >fellow-servant in chapter 1 and doulos as slave in chapters 3 and 4? This >will not do. Most translations go this route, but I consider it a major, >intolerable linguistic error. We miss the whole drift of Paul's thought if >we pretty it up this way. To my mind it must be slave throughout. I know >this is an old debate but it is still timely. It astounds me that new >translations persist in this genteel double-talk. Paul was not afraid of >his words. Why should we be afraid of translating them?
I'd have to disagree with this, at least to the extent that I think an OT theme has come into play in NT usage: the exodus/covenant-making sequence is understood as the passage of Israel from involuntary servitude (ABODAH) to a human master--Pharaoh--to voluntary service to YHWH, and I think the same play upon the double sense of EBHEDH is present in NT usage of DOULOS. In liturgical language, the paradox is expressed in the clause descriptive of the nature of one who is a DOULOS IHSOU CRISTOU: "whose service is perfect freedom."
If we are going to be consistent and translate DOULOS always as "slave" in the NT, then I suppose we ought to be consistent in translation of the OT word as well and change our parlance about the figure described in those traditionally-termed "Servant" poems of Deutero-Isaiah; we should speak rather of the "Suffering Slave."
--
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: Rom 1:1 KLHTOS APOSTOLOS From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 17:04:47 -0500 X-Message-Number: 19
I've never understood what's wrong with "missionary" for APOSTOLOS--it seems to me that the word carries pretty much the same function.
As for KLHTOS, I suspect it really needs to be glossed in a translation anyway, but I've sometimes thought "recipient of the call" expresses the sense--or perhaps better, "respondent to the call." I don't think "guest" is wrong as such, but it really needs to be distinguished somehow from other uses of "guest." What I like about it, however, is its ready linkability to the Synoptic theme of the "call" or "invitation" to the table set and served by Jesus. To the extent that sharing the supper of the Lord is a term for a believer, there's a certain propriety to the usage.
--
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: logos - presocratic - off topic From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 17:09:00 -0500 X-Message-Number: 20
At 3:13 PM -0400 4/9/00, VINCE ENDRIS wrote: >Dear b-greekers, >sorry for the off-topic request. please respond off list. >last semester i was doing a little research in the development of "logos." >i remember reading a fragment from some greek philosopher that had to do >with reality being cast in the light of two opposing reasons (logoi). i >believe it was, for everything there is a negative and a positive logos. i >ended up not using this in my paper and so had no reason to cite it. i now >need that information again and have no idea where i read it (i think it was >a presocratic, i even further think it was heraclitus). i have tried to >retrace my steps, and seem to have found every book i read last semester >except that one! does anyone know what i might have read (misread)? can >anyone help? >thank you, >vince
It's a saying of the Sophist Protagoras; I don't remember exactly how it goes in the Greek (it starts out PERI PANTOS DUO LOGOI EISIN ...) but it is key to his definition of the function of Rhetoric: something like "On every subject there are two LOGOI, a weaker/losing argument (hHTTWN LOGOS) and a strong/winning argument (KREITTWN LOGOS). The function of the orator (hRHTWR) is to turn the weaker/losing argument into the stronger/winning one."
--
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: doulos From: "Charles Skallerud" <karolus@wf.net> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 19:41:07 -0500 X-Message-Number: 21
I am not surprised that Carl comes up with the best counter-argument. This OT angle is a problem, but I still think the context of Paul's writing is best reflected by 'slave.' To my mind 'servant' has an air of Victorian domesticity which is a million miles from Paul. On the other hand, since guys like Carl Conrad and Bruce Metzger think otherwise I better check my ammo.
cs ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> To: "Charles Skallerud" <karolus@wf.net> Cc: "Biblical Greek" <b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2000 4:56 PM Subject: Re: doulos
> At 1:05 PM -0500 4/9/00, Charles Skallerud wrote: > >I was reading the NET Bible version of Colossians this morning. I was > >generally impressed with the careful notes beloved of all bookworms. Still > >this confounded doulos got in the way. Why translate sundoulos as > >fellow-servant in chapter 1 and doulos as slave in chapters 3 and 4? This > >will not do. Most translations go this route, but I consider it a major, > >intolerable linguistic error. We miss the whole drift of Paul's thought if > >we pretty it up this way. To my mind it must be slave throughout. I know > >this is an old debate but it is still timely. It astounds me that new > >translations persist in this genteel double-talk. Paul was not afraid of > >his words. Why should we be afraid of translating them? > > I'd have to disagree with this, at least to the extent that I think an OT > theme has come into play in NT usage: the exodus/covenant-making sequence > is understood as the passage of Israel from involuntary servitude (ABODAH) > to a human master--Pharaoh--to voluntary service to YHWH, and I think the > same play upon the double sense of EBHEDH is present in NT usage of DOULOS. > In liturgical language, the paradox is expressed in the clause descriptive > of the nature of one who is a DOULOS IHSOU CRISTOU: "whose service is > perfect freedom." > > If we are going to be consistent and translate DOULOS always as "slave" in > the NT, then I suppose we ought to be consistent in translation of the OT > word as well and change our parlance about the figure described in those > traditionally-termed "Servant" poems of Deutero-Isaiah; we should speak > rather of the "Suffering Slave." > > -- > > 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: (Roe)Book Evaluation Requested From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 20:51:56 -0400 X-Message-Number: 22
At 05:39 AM 4/9/00 -0400, yochanan bitan wrote: >>Waltz, at >>http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/CriticalEds.html#Swanson >> >>says that the text used is not "B", but United Bible Societies'. The >>Codex Vaticanus might consistently be shown in the first line of the >>apparatus, but other than that possible "prominence", it is given no >>special attention. > >That information about UBS is misleading. Vaticanus is the base-text, but >others are spelled out so that everyone gets their day in court.
The confusion here is that, although the discussion here on B-Greek is over the Swanson's New Testament Greek Manuscripts series, the review by Bob Waltz, however, is directed to Swanson's earlier work: The Horizontal Line Synopsis of the Gospels, Greek Edition.
>And Swanson is truly excellent. No better, more user-friendly reference for >a practical look at a text.
I agree.
Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring.com Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: linguistic absolutes From: "Wayne Leman" <wleman@mcn.net> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 19:18:09 -0600 X-Message-Number: 23
Clay, thanks for posting these messages. Discourse study is absolutely critical to understanding the full meaning of the Greek text. We lose much if we don't see the language forest, as well as the trees.
For those who are interested, here is more info on Levinsohn's book you are reviewing:
Discourse Features of New Testament Greek. by Stephen H. Levinsohn. 1992. 222 pp. $12.00 Each of the thirteen chapters discusses one or more discourse features of Koine Greek from the perspective of descriptive linguistics. Each feature is illustrated from passages of the New Testament. Most sections end with review questions and suggested answers.
The book can be ordered starting from this SIL webpage:
http://www.sil.org/translation/Biblio.htm#Ordering
Wayne --- Wayne Leman Bible translation site: http://bibletranslation.lookscool.com/
---
END OF DIGEST
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@ioa.com] 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 - 15:41:05 EDT