[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

b-greek-digest V1 #674




b-greek-digest            Thursday, 20 April 1995      Volume 01 : Number 674

In this issue:

        GNT Editions 
        Re: 1 Cor 15:29
        Re: GNT Editions
        Re: salt and gather
        Re: GNT Editions
        Re: Key Synoptic Problem Texts
        "narrow" or "difficult"? 
        Re: 1 Cor 15:29
        Re: "narrow" or "difficult"?
        Re: GNT Editions
        Eph. 5:16
        Synoptic Problem 
        Re: GNT Editions
        Re: Key Synoptic Problem Texts
        Re: 1 Cor 15:29
        GNT3, Corrected
        GNT3 and 3c punctuation 
        "Biblical" Greek? 
        Computer Gk texts
        Re: "Biblical" Greek?
        Re: Synoptic Problem
        Re: "Biblical" Greek?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ATaranto@aol.com
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 02:41:06 -0400
Subject: GNT Editions 

Greetings.  As a recent subscriber, I have been watching the discussions over
the last few weeks.  One question, pertaining to topics of several weeks ago,
is nagging at me.  What are the [specific] differences between the UBS3 and
the NA27 that make one preferable to the other?  Is there any book(s) on the
subject that anyone would recommend?  If this is an FAQ, where may I find the
answer?

Andrew Taranto

------------------------------

From: Mark W Lucas <markl@stpetes.win-uk.net> 
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 11:03:06
Subject: Re: 1 Cor 15:29

 
>Mark Lucas states in response to Paul's comments on baptism on behalf of 
>the dead "It is important to realise that Paul does not condone this
>practice and certainly does not teach it as an orthodox part of
>Christianity."
>
>I would like to add that it is not at all clear from the text that he
>doesn't condone it and that it isn't part of his views of Christianity.  In
>fact his argument seems to imply that he supports whatever it is they are
>doing and uses it as an arguement against their rejection of the raising
>of the dead.
>
>Dr. Mark Staker
>
I am not convinved that Paul supports the practice of baptism for
the dead. I can see that on the strength of this verse alone that
implication may be drawn since he does not clearly condemn the
practice. However, Paul clearly has bigger issues to deal with
here (ie. the resurrection from the dead) and prefers to dealt with
them first. In any case Paul is not teaching specifically about
baptism in this pericope. Paul is clearly not *commanding* this
practise as orthodox he is merely using an *ad hominem* argument.
Rather than my quoting him here check out Fee's commentary on 1
Corinthians:

Fee G '1 Corinthians' (NICNT: Grand Rapids, 1991)

Comments?


Mark Lucas (London, UK)

Feel free to mail me direct on 
markl@stpetes.win-uk.net
or compuserve 100025,1511


------------------------------

From: Mark W Lucas <markl@stpetes.win-uk.net> 
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 10:48:59
Subject: Re: GNT Editions

 
>Greetings.  As a recent subscriber, I have been watching the discussions over
>the last few weeks.  One question, pertaining to topics of several weeks ago,
>is nagging at me.  What are the [specific] differences between the UBS3 and
>the NA27 that make one preferable to the other?  Is there any book(s) on the
>subject that anyone would recommend?  If this is an FAQ, where may I find the
>answer?
>
>Andrew Taranto
>
NA27 is the same text as UBS4 (UBS3 is the same as NA26). The
difference is in the footnote apparatus identifying textual
variants. NA27 contains far more variants than UBS4 (and for this
reason is considered by many more *scholarly*!), although UBS4
footnotes are easier to read and understand.

You may find it helful to read the Introduction in both UBS4 and
NA27 which spells this out. Other books that may be of interest
are:

Metzger BM. 'The Text of the New Testament' (Oxford, 1992)
Aland K and Aland B 'The Text of the New Testament' (Grand Rapids,
1989)

I hope this helps. 


Mark Lucas (London, UK)

Feel free to mail me direct on 
markl@stpetes.win-uk.net
or compuserve 100025,1511


------------------------------

From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 05:27:30 -0500 (GMT-0500)
Subject: Re: salt and gather

On Wed, 19 Apr 1995, Bro. Alexis Doval wrote:
> Does anyone know if there is a connection between the two meanings for 
> the verb A(LI/ZW, to salt (e.g., Mt. 5.13) and the older classsical 
> meaning to gather (see Liddell & Scott)? 
> Thanks

Although I've not immediate access to an etymological dictionary, I am 
reasonably certain that the verb meaning "to salt" is 
denominative--derived from a noun, and specifically, the noun HALS (g. 
HALOS) meaning salt or sea water, while the verb meaning "to gather" is 
derived from the verbal root HEL/HOL/HAL meaning "seize," "catch." This 
latter root is seen in the usual aorist (HEILON, stem HELo/e) of the verb 
HAIREW, "seize," "catch," and in the passive of HAIREW, pres. HALISKOMAI, 
fut. HALWSOMAI, aor. HEALWN. This verb also is used in the judicial 
sense, "convict," since the metaphor governing a judicial trial (AGWN, 
"contest") is a race in which the prosecutor "pursues" (DIWKEI) a 
defendant who runs away (FEUGEI).

I am reasonably sure there's no relationship between the two roots. I 
would guess that the certain etymological identity of Greek HALS with the 
Latin word SAL makes its the more likely that that is a noun root 
independent of the verbal root. 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu  OR cwc@oui.com


------------------------------

From: Nichael Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 08:14:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: GNT Editions

On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Mark W Lucas wrote:
> > [..]  What are the [specific] differences between the UBS3 and
> >the NA27 that make one preferable to the other?  Is there any book(s) on the
> >subject that anyone would recommend?  If this is an FAQ, where may I find the
> >answer?
> NA27 is the same text as UBS4 (UBS3 is the same as NA26). The
> difference is in the footnote apparatus identifying textual
> variants. NA27 contains far more variants than UBS4 (and for this
> reason is considered by many more *scholarly*!), although UBS4
> footnotes are easier to read and understand.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe the _texts_ of all of the UBS3/4 
and NA26/27 are all four the same, however the critcal apparatus of each 
edition was significantly reworked as UBS3 moved to UBS4 (ditto NA26 --> 
NA27).

In case, I've taken the liberty of attaching below an article that 
appeared on this list sometime back.  It points to several particularly 
useful articles on this topic.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Subject: Re: NA27

Nestle-Aland 27th ed., and the 4th ed. of the GNT are out.  For detailed
discussion of these two editions, see J. K. Elliott, "The New Testament in
Greek:  Two New Editions," Theologische Literaturzeitung 119 (1994),
494-96; idem, "The Fourth Edition of the United Bible Societies' Greek New
Testament," Theologische Revue 90(1994), 10-20; idem, "The Twentyseventh
Edition of Nestle-Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece," Theologische Revue
90(1994), 20-24.

Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

------------------------------

From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 09:00:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Key Synoptic Problem Texts

On Wed, 19 Apr 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:

> Thanks for evening out the input into this matter. The citation of the 
> Linnemann books had the appearance of weighting this discussion (more a 
> posting of bulletins) on one side of the major divide between two-source 
> hypothesis and Farmer-Griesbach hypothesis. I've read one of the 
> Linnemann books and it does appear to me to shed more heat than light on 
> the question.
> 
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University
> One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
> (314) 935-4018
> cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu  OR cwc@oui.com
> 
> 

I agree.  Eta Linnemann toured the states a few years ago and spent a 
week on my former campus (the "former" Grace Theo. Sem.).  She grew up in 
Germany and jumped through all of the liberal critical hoops and later 
was "converted".  Objectivity seemed, on this occasion, was affected by 
her personal journey.  

Wenham's vol. has not been well received either...according to those who 
know him, it also reflects some personal journal agendas.

Both, of course, are still helpful prods to evaluate data in reference to 
methods.

------------------------------

From: BBezdek@aol.com
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 09:14:43 -0400
Subject: "narrow" or "difficult"? 

I would very much appreciate comments on Matthew 7:13-14.

I discovered in my study of thlipsis and thlibo that the participle in 7.14
has been
translated "narrow", and that this is the only such usage in the New Testament
.
There is a specific word (stena) that appears in verse 13 and 14. So it
appears to me that verse 14 (in light of the 50 other passages where these
words refer to "difficulty") might better read "How narrow is the gate and
DIFFICULT (Having been made difficult) is the way that leads to life and few
there are who are finding it!"

Please address responses to my mailbox as I am not presently subscribed to
the list
as I cannot devote the time that reading the posts diserve due to the demands
of my
seasonal business.

Thank You,
Byron T. Bezdek (Tab)
bbezdek@aol.com

------------------------------

From: "Jeffrey L. Shelton" <jeffreys@durian.usc.edu.ph>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 21:41:04 +0800
Subject: Re: 1 Cor 15:29

> >Mark Lucas states in response to Paul's comments on baptism on behalf of 
> >the dead "It is important to realise that Paul does not condone this
> >practice and certainly does not teach it as an orthodox part of
> >Christianity."
> >
> >I would like to add that it is not at all clear from the text that he
> >doesn't condone it and that it isn't part of his views of Christianity. 
>  In
> >fact his argument seems to imply that he supports whatever it is they > 
> >are
> >doing and uses it as an arguement against their rejection of the raising
> >of the dead.
> >
> >Dr. Mark Staker

Perhaps the fact that he says "they" in vs 29 and "we" in verse 30 shows 
that he is drawing a contrast (and thereby excluding himself from the 
practice). He could have just as easily said "we" in both places. The 
"they" is probably the same as the "some" used elsewhere in the argument. 
It seems reasonably clear to me that he is showing the illogicalness of 
those in Corinth who thought they were intellectuals and were in fact 
trusting in that intellectualness (their inconsistency concerning 
resurrections as an example of such). Since that was the force of the flow, 
it was not the place to explain his condoning or disapproving of such--just 
the inconsistency of baptising on behalf of the dead while not believing in 
the fact of resurrections.


Regards,

Jeffrey L. Shelton
President: Cebu Bible College

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
*  Jeffrey Shelton  -   Ph:(63)(32) 465-374; Cell:(63)(915) 207-0251 *
*  P.O. Box 435     -   Fido: Jeffrey.Shelton@f1.n754.z6.fidonet.org *
*  Cebu City 6000 Philippines - Internet: jeffreys@durian.usc.edu.ph *
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *



------------------------------

From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 09:06:55 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: "narrow" or "difficult"?

On Thu, 20 Apr 1995 BBezdek@aol.com wrote:
> I would very much appreciate comments on Matthew 7:13-14.
> 
> I discovered in my study of thlipsis and thlibo that the participle in 7.14
> has been
> translated "narrow", and that this is the only such usage in the New Testament
> .
> There is a specific word (stena) that appears in verse 13 and 14. So it
> appears to me that verse 14 (in light of the 50 other passages where these
> words refer to "difficulty") might better read "How narrow is the gate and
> DIFFICULT (Having been made difficult) is the way that leads to life and few
> there are who are finding it!"

The pf. pass. ptc. TEQLIMMENH in this instance has the sense of our 
phrase "a tight squeeze." QLIBW means fundamentally "squeeze," "press 
tightly together," almost "crush." This make the idea in the verse employ 
a metaphor of a passageway in order to get through which one must subject 
oneself to physical hurt or suffering. Does that help? 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu  OR cwc@oui.com


------------------------------

From: GLENN WOODEN <glenn.wooden@acadiau.ca>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 11:49:02 ADT
Subject: Re: GNT Editions

Others have pointed out some of the differences between the recent GNT 
and NA versions.  One point that has not been made, however, is that 
there are TWO editions of GNT3.  GNT3 had punctuation that was 
different from NA26.  In a move to rectify that and attain a 
"standard" text, "GNT3 corrected" was produced!  I discovered this 
when I was "correcting" a student who had "obviously" missed a comma 
in the text, but, although it was in mine (GNT3), it was not in his 
(GNT3 corrected).

Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.
Canada

wooden@acadiau.ca

------------------------------

From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 07:56:46 -0700
Subject: Eph. 5:16

Painter2B@aol.com (Paul B.) wrote:

>I am doing a historial context study on Eph. 5:16 and have hit 
(almost) a
>dead end.  Can anyone point me toward some source material (i.e.
>Talmud/Mishnah, pseudapigraphic writings & etc.) or any search tools 
which
>might point me in the direction toward shedding some light on the 
first
>century understanding of "evil days" as referenced by Paul in this 
passage?
>
>I have looked at Strack-Billerbeck.  There is no entry for this verse. 
 Any
>help is appreciated.

Paul,

	You might check Markus Barth's _Ephesians_ from the Anchor Bible 
series (vol. 2, p. 579).  He discusses the phrase you mention and gives 
some references in a note at the bottom of the page.

Regards,

    David L. Moore                    Director of Education
    Miami, FL, USA                Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com               of the Assemblies of God

------------------------------

From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 95 10:04 CDT
Subject: Synoptic Problem 

A prediction:  Any impartial inquirer who considers
the careful discussions in the following two books will
incline toward Markan priority:  W.D. Davies & D.C. Allison,
*A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according
to St. Matthew* (T&T Clark, 1988), Vol. I, pp. 97-127,
and Robert Stein, *The Synoptic Problem* (Baker, 1987).
The arguments of Farmer and J. Wenham against Markan
priority are much too sketchy to prevail.  For some evidence
that Luke used Matthew, see Robert Gundry, "Matthean
Foreign Bodies in Agreements of Luke with Matthew
against Mark," in F. van Segbroeck et al., eds.,
*The Four Gospels 1992* (Leuven, 1992), Vol. II, pp. 1467-
1495.--Paul Moser, Loyola University of Chicago.

------------------------------

From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 11:59:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: GNT Editions

UBS3 had one of the nicest, most legible Greek fonts I have ever seen.
For some reason, this was replaced with a much inferior font in UBS4.
A Bible Societies rep. at SBL back in Nov. told me he hopes they well
go back to the old font, but I don't know when this will happen.

Meanwhile, NA27 has kept the same font as NA26 but enlarged everything
so that it's more legible.  The NA font never was as nice as the UBS3,
however.

These are rather low-brow considerations for exegetes and text-critics.
For their purposes, having the most up-to-date apparatus is important.
If you just want to read, though, I say hang on to your UBS3 for
the above reasons the text, as has been pointed out, is the same.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest                            Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA      Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com           Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts


------------------------------

From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 95 11:25:25 EDT
Subject: Re: Key Synoptic Problem Texts

Gary Meadors wrote:
> Wenham's vol. has not been well received either...according to those who 
> know him, it also reflects some personal journal agendas.

Can you elaborate some about why Wenham has not been well received.  Is
it his cutting of the Gordion knot by positing an Augustinian (Mt-Mk-Lk)
literary dependence as to genre and order, but a mostly oral dependence
as to the wording of the contents?  Or, is it his very early dating of
the gospels (Matthew, c. 40; Mark, 42; Luke, 57)?

Stephen Carlson
- -- 
Stephen Carlson     :  Poetry speaks of aspirations,  : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com  :  and songs chant the words.     : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330      :                 Shujing 2:35    : Reston, VA  22091   USA

------------------------------

From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 95 09:34:09 PDT
Subject: Re: 1 Cor 15:29

> >Mark Lucas states in response to Paul's comments on baptism on behalf of 
> >the dead "It is important to realise that Paul does not condone this
> >practice and certainly does not teach it as an orthodox part of
> >Christianity."
> >
> >I would like to add that it is not at all clear from the text that he
> >doesn't condone it and that it isn't part of his views of Christianity.  In
> >fact his argument seems to imply that he supports whatever it is they are
> >doing and uses it as an arguement against their rejection of the raising
> >of the dead.
> >
> >Dr. Mark Staker
> >
> I am not convinved that Paul supports the practice of baptism for
> the dead. I can see that on the strength of this verse alone that
> implication may be drawn since he does not clearly condemn the
> practice. However, Paul clearly has bigger issues to deal with
> here (ie. the resurrection from the dead) and prefers to dealt with
> them first. In any case Paul is not teaching specifically about
> baptism in this pericope. Paul is clearly not *commanding* this
> practise as orthodox he is merely using an *ad hominem* argument.
> Rather than my quoting him here check out Fee's commentary on 1
> Corinthians:
> 
> Fee G '1 Corinthians' (NICNT: Grand Rapids, 1991)
> 
> Comments?
> 
> 
> Mark Lucas (London, UK)
   I would like to observe that there are many things Paul and other
NT authors mention without condoning them and without it being 
appropriate for the Church to emulate.  Unlike 1 Cor 15:29, where Paul
basically says nothing about this practice but note its existence and
use it to argue against the Corinthians' over-realized eschatology,
in Romans Paul affirms circumcision as having value, yet never 
encourages his readers to get circumcised (assuming that at least some
in Rome were uncircumcised Gentiles -- which I think is pretty plain
from the text).  The mere fact of mentioning it doesn't mean that it
is condoned or should be done.  Paul mentions different practices
about keeping the Lord's day in Romans 14, but never says what should
be done.  He goes to great lengths to talk about the best choices
regarding conduct in and out of marriage in 1 Cor 7 but even after 
spending a whole chapter on the subject, explicitly says he is mainly
giving advice rather than stipulating requirements.  Finally, if we
were going to do something based on one passing reference to it in
the NT, we are all (well there may be a few exceptions) at fault 
because FIVE times the NT writers COMMAND us to greet one another with
a holy kiss and I, for one, am not aware of any churches which practice
this COMMAND.

Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
 

------------------------------

From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 12:04:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: GNT3, Corrected

Glenn Wooden's posting about the "Corrected" 3rd edition arrived as I was
posting my own on the GNT/NA editions.  He is quite right--the Third Edition
of 1975 was folowed seven years later (1982) by the Corrected Third Edition.
It probably should have been called the Fourth Edition, for it wasn't
simply the punctuation which was altered (to conform to NA26).  Very
substantial changes were made in the apparatus, correcting many mistaken
readings which had already been corrected in NA26 (compared to NA25);
in addition,
a new Index of Allusions was added.

As a purely personal comment, I HATE the new typeface in UBS4!  My
eyes are not what they once were, but they still manage to read almost
anything; but I find this typeface maddening, verging on unreadable.
The font used in GNT/UBS 1, 2, and 3 is beautiful, very like the
Oxford university press face used in thie Greek texts (and much nicer
than the one Cambridge University Press favors).
	The Nestle typeface has always been small, and not very
pretty, but the new NA27 is slightly larger, and definitely more
readable than either NA26 or UBS/GNT4.  My students possess, among
them, all of these editions, and only the UBS3 users are really happy
with the appearance.

Edward Hobbs

------------------------------

From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 11:51:40 CST
Subject: GNT3 and 3c punctuation 

On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, GLENN WOODEN wrote:

>Others have pointed out some of the differences between the recent GNT 
>and NA versions.  One point that has not been made, however, is that 
>there are TWO editions of GNT3.  GNT3 had punctuation that was 
>different from NA26.  In a move to rectify that and attain a 
>"standard" text, "GNT3 corrected" was produced!  I discovered this 
>when I was "correcting" a student who had "obviously" missed a comma 
>in the text, but, although it was in mine (GNT3), it was not in his 
>(GNT3 corrected).

According to the preface of the corrected 3rd edition, the punctuation was
altered to conform to NA26 because it "more closely reflects the tradition of
punctuation of the Greek New Testament text" (p. x).  As someone explained to
me, this means the GNT1, 2, and 3 followed the British punctuation tradition
(probably set out by WH) and the NA editions followed the German tradition,
which in Aland's view is *the* tradition of the Greek New Testament.

IMHO, this revision has done a disservice to students of NT Greek, since the
punctuation of GNT1, 2, and 3 was a lot more reflective of the linguistic
units that underlie the punctuation.  I used the punctuation of GNT3 in my
discourse studies of James and 1 Corinthians for this very reason.  In only a
few places has the GNT3c, 4 punctuation made an improvement from a linguistic
standpoint.

By the way, Friberg and Friberg's _Analytical Greek New Testament_ uses the
punctuation of GNT3.  Since many of the computer programs discussed on this
list are based on their analysis, does that also mean that they have the older
English style punctuation?

********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry                            E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station		       Phone:  915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699		       Fax:    915/674-3769
********************************************************************************

------------------------------

From: Jeff Kloha <kloha@sauron.multiverse.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 95 14:18:19 EDT
Subject: "Biblical" Greek? 

What kind of assumptions are we making when we use the term "Biblical
Greek?" I've only been reading this list for about 3 weeks, but
several times I've seen statements and and questions that seem to
assume a separate and distinct "Biblical Greek," esp. contrasted to
"classical" Greek. Most often these are in cases where a different
"meaning"  of a particular word is assumed in "biblical" Greek, but
sometimes it comes up in questions of syntax.

Are we all operating with the same understanding of the nature of the
Greek of the New Testament? Deissman wrote, almost 100 years ago,
"[there is] an opinion, still widely prevalent at the present day,
which, whether openly avowed or not, is far-reaching in its effects,
particularly on exegesis. The Greek Bible, or at least the New
Testament, is thus separated off from the bulk of the monuments of the
Greek language that have come down to us from antiquity, in just the
same way as, for example, the inscriptions in the Doric dialect might
be collected into a special volume or section by someone who was
editing all the Greek inscriptions extent. The Bible is thus isolated
because it is supposed to be written in "Biblical" Greek, and the New
Testament because it is in "New Testament" Greek, in a "language," an
"idiom," a "Greek," that must be sharply distinguished from the rest
of what people have been so fond of calling "profane Greek." (Bible
Studies, 43-4)

Stanley Porter has taken up this same cause in his recent writings.
I'm not sure whether this view is theological (verbal inspiration?),
methodological (semitisms?), or simply that people are being trained
in Greek using only the NT.

Sorry if this has already been discussed here. Still seems to pop up
frequently, though.
///////+\\\\\\\
Jeff Kloha [] Lakewood, OH
kloha@po.multiverse.com [] KCICXC

------------------------------

From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 14:21:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Computer Gk texts

On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
> 
> By the way, Friberg and Friberg's _Analytical Greek New Testament_ uses the
> punctuation of GNT3.  Since many of the computer programs discussed on this
> list are based on their analysis, does that also mean that they have the older
> English style punctuation?
> 

A most interesting analysis of computerized Greek texts was made by Harry 
Hahne of Ontario Theo. Sem, "Interpretive Implications of Using 
Bible-Search Software for New Testament Grammatical Analysis," at the Nov 
94 ETS in Chicago.  He demonstrated that there are 
a number of problems in these data bases which those who use them for 
text analysis should be aware.

Hahne invited inquiries and offered to email his analysis.  I have the 
following email address in my files:  HAHNE@EPAS,UTORONTO.CA


------------------------------

From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 13:32:26 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: "Biblical" Greek?

I'm a great fan of Deissmann too, and his strictures against earlier 
ideas about "holy Ghost Greek" in the Bible are to be well taken.  But, 
it seems to me, D.'s own tendencies can only be taken so far.  In terms 
of vocabulary and semantics, there *are* distinctions to be found that 
make it relevant to refer to "biblical Greek" as having certain 
characteristics.  It's not a distinct dialect, but rather an identifiable 
and somewhat distinctive "specialty use-circle" that we have in biblical 
greek.

Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba

------------------------------

From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 12:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Synoptic Problem

On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Paul Moser wrote:

> A prediction:  Any impartial inquirer who considers
> the careful discussions in the following two books will
> incline toward Markan priority:  W.D. Davies & D.C. Allison,
> *A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according
> to St. Matthew* (T&T Clark, 1988), Vol. I, pp. 97-127,
> and Robert Stein, *The Synoptic Problem* (Baker, 1987).

My remarks here are intended not as reopening the debate on the synoptic 
problem but rather to address method.  This "prediction" iw weighed very 
heavily in favor of one view and indicates that rejection of this view 
means that the "observer" is not truly impartial.  To this I have several 
replies:
1)Such an implication is highly inflammatory and unprofessional.
2) An impartial observer is impossible in any case, we bring ourselves to 
our observations, though we may work at impartiality, and there is such 
as thing as external evidence, nevertheless it is not possible.
3) An "impartial" observer is aware of the problems, all of the 
problems.  
4) And the 2 source hypo has a lot of problems, even if in the end you 
think it the most likely explanation of the phenomena.  
5) Rejection of the 2 source does not automatically mean the acceptance 
of some rival theory, which also have their problems-this debate is not 
about whether you think 2 Source or Griesbach-Farmer is better-it is about
trying to describe the relationship, if any, among the gospels which 
takes into account the evidence and the world of the time.

> The arguments of Farmer and J. Wenham against Markan
> priority are much too sketchy to prevail.  For some evidence
> that Luke used Matthew, see Robert Gundry, "Matthean
> Foreign Bodies in Agreements of Luke with Matthew
> against Mark," in F. van Segbroeck et al., eds.,
> *The Four Gospels 1992* (Leuven, 1992), Vol. II, pp. 1467-
> 1495.--Paul Moser, Loyola University of Chicago.

An old adage-he who asserts must prove.  I think that Farmer and Wenham 
make some very good points-in what way are they to be dismissed lightly 
as "sketchy"?  
You might also want to look into Bo Reicke's "Roots of the Synoptic 
Gospels", Robinson's "Redating the New Testament", Bruce Chilton's 
"Profiles of a Rabbi", and the name of a book I have forgotten done by 
Mercer in 1982 which is a collection of essays dealing with these 
problems-very informative.  I will post title etc when I have a chance to 
look it up again.  If you are impartial try these on for size as well.

Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com 

------------------------------

From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 95 13:24:33 PDT
Subject: Re: "Biblical" Greek?

 
> What kind of assumptions are we making when we use the term "Biblical
> Greek?" I've only been reading this list for about 3 weeks, but
> several times I've seen statements and and questions that seem to
> assume a separate and distinct "Biblical Greek," esp. contrasted to
> "classical" Greek. Most often these are in cases where a different
> "meaning"  of a particular word is assumed in "biblical" Greek, but
> sometimes it comes up in questions of syntax.
> 
> Are we all operating with the same understanding of the nature of the
> Greek of the New Testament? Deissman wrote, almost 100 years ago,
> "[there is] an opinion, still widely prevalent at the present day,
> which, whether openly avowed or not, is far-reaching in its effects,
> particularly on exegesis. The Greek Bible, or at least the New
> Testament, is thus separated off from the bulk of the monuments of the
> Greek language that have come down to us from antiquity, in just the
> same way as, for example, the inscriptions in the Doric dialect might
> be collected into a special volume or section by someone who was
> editing all the Greek inscriptions extent. The Bible is thus isolated
> because it is supposed to be written in "Biblical" Greek, and the New
> Testament because it is in "New Testament" Greek, in a "language," an
> "idiom," a "Greek," that must be sharply distinguished from the rest
> of what people have been so fond of calling "profane Greek." (Bible
> Studies, 43-4)
Redaction...

   I'm sure Carl Conrad may have more knowledge about this than I, but
I think it is clear that NT/Biblical Greek is not classical Greek.
My understanding is that there has been a definite shift in grammar, e.g.,
the optative and future participle have almost entirely disappeared in
KoinE Greek.  I wouldn't call this NT Greek.  I would call this KoinE
Greek, easily attested outside the NT.  The KoinE Greek evicenced in
the NT may indeed have more of a Semitic flavor, as its writers probably
read the Hebrew Bible in Greek that reflected Hebrew syntax or idioms
in many cases.  I personally did learn my Greek only through the NT,
but when _I_ say NT Greek, I understand that to mean a particular
set of variations on KoinE.  Just where one draws the line exactly is
the same issue as when old English moved to Middle English and Middle
English to modern English.  The same sorts of grammatical degeneration
have taken place (not to epitomized Old English as somehow the best form
of the language per se).  All languages I believe, from what I've read,
tend to decay (its the Second Law of Thermodynamics for the Humanities),
and NT Greek testifies to the KoinE stage of Greek, a degeneration
from classical Greek, just as modern Greek, I'm given tu understand, has
lost forms that are present in KoinE.


Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA  

------------------------------

End of b-greek-digest V1 #674
*****************************

** 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