b-greek-digest V1 #644

b-greek-digest             Saturday, 1 April 1995       Volume 01 : Number 644

In this issue:

        Re: Baptism 
        Re: which Greek lexicon
        Greek Lexicons 
        Lexicons--More than you wanted to know
        Re: No Subject/Apocalypse
        Re: No Subject/Apocalypse 
        Re: "Soundness" in the Pastorals 
        Price correction on LSJMB
        Re: Baptism 
        Re: which Greek lexicon?
        Re: which Greek lexicon?
        Re: Price correction on LSJMB
        Re: Lexicons--More than you wanted to know


From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 13:30:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Baptism 

From: Timster132@aol.com

  What a thread!
   Since this topic has meandered so much, I'd thought I'd just throw my two
cents in.
    One issue I see here is: What is apostolic authority and what has it to
do with us today?
     Although my church arose outside of the apostolic originated churches (I
am in the Christian Church [Disciples of Christ]), I was lucky enough to have
a United Methodist minister as one who laid hands on me at my ordination.
 The UMC traces its apostolic link to the Church of England, which is still
in communion with the Roman Catholic church which has a link to Paul who was
martyred there and Peter who met his death there traditionally as well.
     In other words, there is a fair degree of probability that those whom
the apostles laid hands upon, laid hands upon those who laid hands upon...
[scribal omission]... who laid hands upon me.  Its kinda cool to think about.
 BUT, does it give me any special authority?  Does it single me out as one
who is entrusted with word and sacrament and order?
     To answer "yes", in my opinion, is taking a BIG leap.

    Back to Scripture.  Paul tells the Corinthians that we are baptized into
the body of Christ.  This is the main focus.  Not who is administrating the
baptism.  Into whom is the question.  We are baptized into the Body.
   Baptism, is its essense, is a corporate event.  Its not just "me and
Jesus", but its something which belongs to a church community.  So, I think
the issue was not who baptized whom in the pool, but who all was there?  The
church-- the body of Christ-- its _presence_ is an essential element.
     So whoever is the recognized head of the local body of Christ is the one
who would naturally be baptizing-- not in apostolic authority of succession---
 but in the name of the church community.
     We in our individualistic society, quickly forget all these things.  God
help us reclaim the Body of Christ.

    There's my diatribe for the day.
    Yours in Christ,



From: Doug Weatherston <DWEAT@milan.mi.springarbor.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 1995 13:48:52 EDTEST
Subject: Re: which Greek lexicon

> On Mar 31 Carl Conrad noted the following:

>"What I would decidedly NOT recommend is the little dictionary that
> was meant to accompany the UBS3 Greek New Testament, in my judgment
> the most useless hodge-podge of inadequate lexicography that I've
> ever seen. That's a harsh judgment, but will anyone on the list
> dispute it?"

> Steve Thompson replied:
> I would be interested in hearing additional opinions about the little
> lexicon in the UBS3 GNT.  I find it useful when I want to read a little
> greek "on the road," 

I agree wholeheartedly that the UBS lexicon is woefully inadequate 
for anything resembling a serious word study, but I do find it 
valuable as a simple little vocabulary aid to consult while reading.  
I'd_never_use it to prove anything, but I also wouldn't want to be 
without it when I pick up my GNT on my lunch break for some 
devotional reading.

Doug Weatherston
Book Buyer (professionally, I mean)


From: DDDJ@aol.com
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 14:28:33 -0500
Subject: John 

<<The earlier testimony that contradicts the notion is that of
Papias, who said (according to two later quotations from Papias,
whose original writings unfortunately are lost) that John of
Zebedee was martyred by the Jews, which probably refers to Judea.
Mark 10:35-39 is normally understood as referring to martyrdoms
of John and James of Zebedee having occurred prior to the writing
of Mark.>>
THis depends on your dating of Revelation since I date it as 60 or so, I have
no problem with John as writer and John as martyr. Now John as the author of
John and epistles of John is another Keetle of fish


From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 14:34:38 -0500
Subject: Greek Lexicons 

I would agree with Carl that the Langenscheidt's Greek is a good compact
lexicon (I prefer to take with me when I need a small dictionary), but I
think that he is a bit harsh concerning Barclay Newman's beginner lexicon
intended to go with the UBS3.  It is mainly a defense of the Good News
translation, but it gives the beginning student something that is useful till
he/she knows how far they will go in Greek.  It is farely comprehensive and
has some analytical help (as does BAGD) though they are not entirely
consistent with what they promise in giving the irregular forms in
alphabetical order.  There are also some good linquistic insights also in
dealing with some idioms.

I would suppose that Stephen is a more serious student of Greek and should
definitely have the BAGD.  Louw and Nida is also helpful, but eventually the
old Moulton and Miligan is still useful for a look at the broader usage of
the Greek vocabulary.

Carlton Winbery


From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 15:29:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Lexicons--More than you wanted to know

     With some sense of deja-vu, let me try some trivial clean-up on the
Lexical questions.

     For the New Testament and (very) early Christian literature, there is
little option.

     Walter Bauer, _A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
     and Other Early Christian Literature_; translated into
     English by Arndt and Gingrich from 4th edition; "Second
     Edition [1979], revised and augmented by Gingrich and
     Danker" from Bauer's 5th edition, 1958.  University of
     Chicago Press; also available from Zondervan. About $50.

     The more recent (6th) edition of Bauer (edited by the Alands,
1988) is  better; but it is in German, with no E.T. available for
non-readers of German.

     The (financially) bad news is that really there is no choice for 
Classical Greek except for the only really current "New (9th) Edition" of
Liddell-Scott-Jones-McKenzie-Barber.  Since both L and S died over a
century ago, the "Intermediate" and the "Abridged" L-S, which fit in a
book-bag and cost accordingly, are in fact not based on the L-S-J-M-B, but
are over a century old (1888 or 1889), based on the 7th ed. published in
1883 (usually and incorrectly cited as 1882, based on the Preface date). 
Since there is no choice, one takes what one can get.  So you either shell
out $89 and be happy, or you pay $32 (Intermediate, 900 pp.) or $25
(Abridged, 800 pp.) and curse yourself every time you encounter the
inadequacies AND the antiquities of the latter.  (Incidentally, "Liddell"
is pronounced "LID-'l", as though spelled "Liddle", never Lid-DELL.  He was
quite insistent on it!  And his daughter Alice was the Alice of "Alice in
     However even when you have paid $89 or so for the LSJMB, you will not
have a lexicon for the Church Fathers (Patristics), since this was
deliberately excluded from it.  And for NT, one really needs Bauer -- Jones
(of LSJMB) recognized that NT students had alternative lexica for their
purpose, good and serious works in that field which he could not hope to
match, so he deliberately omitted the effort to be serious in NT texts. 
And the LXX is given fairly short shrift, with the result that many
students find the older 8th edition (1897) better for LXX.  But, in fact,
there is NO good lexicon for the LXX.  The reason is pretty obvious: It is
a translated collection, and one is often left wondering whether to give
the meaning of the Hebrew (or Aramaic) original behind a word, or to give
the (supposed) meaning in the head(s) of the translator(s) based on other
Hellenistic usage.
     My advice (cheap at the price): Spend $89 and be happy; but if the NT
is your real love, first buy BAGD (the English translation of Bauer's 5th
[1958] edition).  If you read German, buy Bauer's 6th [Bauer-Aland] (and
you won't have to read all the silliness written by Danker attacking Bauer
instead of translating him!).  {Footnote below}  If you are really poor,
buy USED copies of Bauer and LSJMB.  Better safe than sorry!

     [Footnote on Bauer-in-translation:]  Unhappily, all three translators
(Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker -- the latter two being friends of mine) chose
to "revise" and to "augment" in addition to translating; they are none of
them any match for Bauer in lexicography, with the consequences quite
evident.  Often they simply attack Bauer's entries, instead of translating
them!  (See, as a really hilarious example, "skenepoios".)  The absurd
"causal eis" invented by J. R. Mantey to support his fundamentalist-Baptist
doctrine of John's baptism (a matter of "translation driven by theology"!)
was given a full five-line special entry in the 1st ed. by Arndt &
Gingrich; it is at least reduced in the 2nd ed. to three lines, and
credited solely to Mantey (who obviously couldn't read non-biblical Greek
very well, as Ralph Marcus carefully pointed out, in two separate articles,
despite Mantey's co-writing a textbook).  The result is that, although it
is the best available in English, it still suffers from the additions of
its three translators.

     [Footnote on Bauer-in-German:]  Even Bauer was guilty of "translation
driven by male-chauvinism" at times, the most incredible example being the
entry for "Junias".  This completely non-existent name is listed by Bauer
(with the fanciful guess that it must have been a nickname for 'Junianus'),
with the statement that the purely theoretical possibility that the name is
'Junia' (a very common woman's name) is rendered impossible by the context! 
The "impossible" is that Paul's remarkable lady-relative Junia was an
apostle!  Horrors!  Surely Phoebe was no deacon (a term Paul applies to
himself), and Junia was no apostle (a term Paul applies to himself)!  How
can a WOMAN have been chosen by God for REAL ministry?  Thank God, the NRSV
has now restored Junia to her place in the apostolate, where even the King
James Version had her.  Even the great Bauer had his blindnesses!

     And to supplement Conrad's brief warning on the Newman:  The American
Bible Society decided to have a small English lexicon bound with some of
its printings, and Barclay Newman got the job (with the advice of, among
others, my old roommate Erroll Rhodes).  This lexicon is deceptive, and
thus misleads the very persons who use it -- beginners.  It gives, in the
main, the RSV translations of each Greek word.  If one wants that, one can
read an English New Testament, to wit, the RSV!.  It isn't frightful, but
since it is a poor lexicon on the whole, it is largely useless.

     As for Louw & Nida: I have both editions on my shelf nearest my desk,
and have given copies to advanced students on occasion.  But it has a
rather specialized use.  Not only is it organized "semantically," which
requires the index volume constantly to find where the desired word is to
be found, but it is primarily written for the use of translators of the New
Testament into languages not yet having Bibles in the vernacular.  It is
very "translation-oriented," which isn't usually what a researcher wants or
needs (unless one is a translator).

- --Edward Hobbs


From: GLENN WOODEN <glenn.wooden@acadiau.ca>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 16:30:26 ADT
Subject: Re: No Subject/Apocalypse


You asked:

> As I've lurked on the sidelines of this discussion, I'm wondering if someone
> can clearly explain the difference between "Apocalypic Genre" and "Prophetic
> Genre"? Is there, or could there be, some overlap between the two?
> William

The overlap between the two is in the broader category into which 
they both fall: revelatory literature.  From the ANE point of view, the 
prophets received direct revelation, were admited to the divine 
council: the apocalyptists were guided by angels and given second-hand divine 
revelations.  Also, the prophets spoke about the world as we experience it 
but the apocalyptists spoke about the world in mythological language.

These are just a few of the differences.

Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.



From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 15:33:55 -0500
Subject: Re: No Subject/Apocalypse 

TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
cc: glenn.wooden@acadiau.ca
From: Timster132@aol.com


   Thanks for your quick and informative reply.  It is saved on my hard disk.
    While we are on the topic, it seems the rise of the apocalypse as a genre
and its decline are somewhat mysterious as well.
    I have heard theories from the influence of Plato's cave parable to
Zoastrianism sacred texts.   Are there any cogent exaplanations out there?

    In Christ,


From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 15:33:52 -0500
Subject: Re: "Soundness" in the Pastorals 

cc: al69@cityscape.co.uk
From: Timster132@aol.com

  Thanks for responding.  Lloyd, your question remains....

>What I remain intrigued by is: why is it only the
>author of the PE who uses these words metaphorically with >reference to
teaching, speech, and faith in the NT? 

   I think the least you could say is that because the author of the
Pastorals uses YGIHC, he was concerned with the teaching of others that was
not authoritative not was it reasoned well (as in Plato, Aristotle, etc.).
    The 1 Tim 1:10 reference seems to indicate that the unsound teaching led
(or would lead to) lawlessness and would result in all kinds of terrible sins
which he lists.
     While the tradition of Paul the Miracle-worker was no doubt popular
among the pauline communities, I find it difficult to imagine that this would
be the irrational or "lawless" teaching that the author opposes.  (Also see 2
Tim 3:3-5 for a probable description of these teachers).

     In pagan Greek lit, there is a play by Sophocles (et al) about the
Bachante, who give in to the throes of emotionalism with tragic consequences.
(In Sophocles' version, the baccanal band are so caught up in illusion that
they kill a man they think is a lion and decapitate him, parading around his

     However, I doubt that Paul the miracle-worker tradition was that kind of
threat to the pauline communities.  On the contrary, I doubt if there would
be much tension between this tradition and that of Paul the Teacher.   And
just because we may find the Acts of Paul (and Thekla) stories apocryphal and
unusual, doesn't mean the early pauline communites would.  (To be honest, I
really enjoy the stories myself).

     The question is still left how these miracle stories of Paul effected the
 pauline communities, and if this is addressed in the Pastoral letters, and I
honestly don't know.  There are references to "laying on of hands" in the
ordination of Timothy and references to the Holy Spirit, but I saw few if any
direct references to the miracles of Paul.  Perhaps the pastorals were
written before the rise in popularity of the Pauline miracle stories which
led to books like The Acts of Paul and Thekla.
       You know, you might look in Ephesians for connections as well. I have
a theory that Ephesians is the "Letter to the Congregation", just as the
pastorals were the "Letters to the Pastor", circulated by the
[Deutero-]Pauline Leadership.  (There is mss. and historical evidence that
Ephesians was circulated as a letter to other churches).

     In Christ,


From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 16:37:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Price correction on LSJMB

Please adjust upward the $89 price I mentioned in my post on Lexica,
as the cost for L-S-J-M-B.  That was a discounted price; but my memory
was slightly out of date. I just checked, and the current retail is
$135, with the discount being $120 total (at CBD, plus postage!).

I didn't mention the Langenscheidt "pocket" edition; it's certainly
much better than the so-called L-S "Abridged" and "Intermediate".  It
was commended by Conrad, and I think by someone else as well.
With the full lexicon being now $135, the Langenscheidt looks even

Edward Hobbs


From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 15:54:51 CST
Subject: Re: Baptism 

On Fri, 31 Mar 1995, Michael I Bushnell wrote:

>There are definitely ambiguous cases, where we don't know for sure
>whether the baptizer had any recognized authority or not.  My question
>was whether there are any cases where we know the baptizer didn't.
>Such is not proof that no such baptisms occurred, to be sure, but it
>is a small indication.


Your argument from silence is circular here.  If special authority were
required in order to baptize, any instances in which the baptizer did not have
such authority would be mentioned to condemn or rebuke such a practice.  Thus,
if such authority were required, the silence of the text as regards a violation
would indicate that no instance occurred.

However, if no special authority was required to baptize, there would be no
reason to mention that so-and-so was baptized by someone who did not have
authority to baptize.  In such a case, the silence of the text is *not* an
argument that no such instance occurred.

Thus your argument holds true only if your premise holds true.

The question on silence of the scriptures points to a larger one:  Were there
commands given by God in the first century which were intended to be normative
for the church for all time, but which failed to find their way into
scripture?  If what you are arguing for is true, the answer to this question
is yes.

- --Bruce

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


From: "Marmorstein, Art" <marmorsa@wolf.northern.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 18:03:00 CST
Subject: Re: which Greek lexicon?

A footnote to Carl's comments on Liddell and Scott:

There are three editions of L&S.  Beginning Greek students are often jokingly 
told of the "Little Liddell," a relatively inexpensive lexicon, the "Middle 
Liddell," which is somewhat more comprehensive, and the "Great Scott,"  a 
huge volume which traces the evolution of the meanings of each entry word (a 
sort of OED for students of Greek).

I don't find the "little Liddell" useful at all, but the "middle Liddell" is 
my lexicon of choice when translating even NT Greek, and the "Great Scott" is 
a great source of help when you get really stuck trying to figure out what a 
word might mean.  There's always a chance that some obscure classical use of 
a word may influence a NT writers vocabulary. 


From: David_P._Nesbitt.ESCP10@xerox.com
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 17:24:30 PST
Subject: Re: which Greek lexicon?

I have not seen anyone mention a lexicon I believe is called "Abbott-Smith's
Manual Lexicon of New Testament Greek."  I saw this once, but do not have a 
copy.  Does anyone have any comments on the usefulness of this volume as an
"on-the-road" alternative to using the Newman lexicon in the back of the UBS?



From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 21:08:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Price correction on LSJMB

On Fri, 31 Mar 1995, Edward Hobbs wrote:

> Please adjust upward the $89 price I mentioned in my post on Lexica,
> as the cost for L-S-J-M-B.  That was a discounted price; but my memory
> was slightly out of date. I just checked, and the current retail is
> $135, with the discount being $120 total (at CBD, plus postage!).

And if you think that's a high price, try buying a copy of the Lampe
Patristic Greek Lexicon, which supplements LSJ.  --Though if you really
need it, there's no substitute.  And with the right cajoling or a code
number from the right catalog, Oxford will give you 20 percent off, which
bring the price down to just one arm.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest                            Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA      Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com           Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts


From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 21:08:25 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Lexicons--More than you wanted to know

On Fri, 31 Mar 1995, Edward Hobbs wrote:
>      And to supplement Conrad's brief warning on the Newman:  The American
> Bible Society decided to have a small English lexicon bound with some of
> its printings, and Barclay Newman got the job (with the advice of, among
> others, my old roommate Erroll Rhodes).  This lexicon is deceptive, and
> thus misleads the very persons who use it -- beginners.  It gives, in the
> main, the RSV translations of each Greek word.  If one wants that, one can
> read an English New Testament, to wit, the RSV!.  It isn't frightful, but
> since it is a poor lexicon on the whole, it is largely useless.

And to supplement Hobbs on everyone and everything else: but that's 
impossible! Nevertheless I was asked to clarify my objections to the 
Newman Greek Dictionary accompanying USB3 and I will add a brief note to 
the above: The minimum I'd like for in even a small dictionary is: (1) 
standard lexical identifiers of parts of speech (nom & gen sg of nouns, 
pr pts of verbs, mfn of adjs); (2) a few cognates and breakdown of the 
root elements of a word to give the user a notion of the constituents 
from which the compounded sense derives; (3) listing of at least the most 
common meanings, and, if the word is metaphorical (as it almost always 
is), some information to allow the user to see how the metaphorical sense 
may be derived from a concrete sense; (4) at least one example of each 
usage cited, but preferably more examples. That may seem like a lot to 
ask, but it really isn't, if the selection of words is carefully made and 
inclusive for the literary range claimed to be covered. These desiderata 
are met pretty well by the Intermediate Liddell & Scott which, despite 
its age, and despite the fact that it is NOT based on LSJ, the most 
recent revision of L&S, is not terribly expensive and is much more 
adequate for readers of the NT than the Newman dictionary. I certainly 
wouldn't urge one whose interests are solely in NT to invest in the 
unabridged LSJ; I think BGD is a better choice. But as Professor Hobbs' 
remarks well indicate, dictionaries are painstaking compilation-efforts 
of long-suffering, very patient collectors of data. We were fortunate 
within our lifetime to get a wonderful new Latin dictionary (the OLD) to 
replace the time-worn Lewis & Short translation of the mid-19th-century 
German classic work. Some day the fruit of the explorations of the mass 
of papyri dug out of the sands of Egypt will enrich our NT lexicography, 
but probably not for at least another 25 years. Finally, however, a 
telephone book gives you about as much sense of the personality of a city 
resident as does the little Newman dictionary a sense of the meaning of a 
NT Greek word.

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: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 21:20:15 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: baptism


Believe it or not, I am in accordance with the principle that I think 
you're trying to uphold on the basis of the NT: that baptizing ought not 
to be performed by a member not authorized by the congregation. I think 
we differ on our understanding of whether the NT supports this principle. 
IF I understand you rightly, you think the fact that we're not told 
otherwise about the baptisms for which we have no information about 
authorization means that they were not without authorization, wheras I'd 
say we just don't know. So far as 1 Cor is concerned, however, I'll grant 
you that Paul certainly raises no concerns about the inefficacy of 
baptisms performed by parties unnamed and presumably not personally 
authorized by himself.

Just one more item and I'd like to halt the matter here. You say it is 
sad that the food-distribution service should be denigrated. Believe me, 
I would not disagree with you on that, either. I thought I was 
paraphrasing the Twelve in Acts 6:2: "It isn't agreeable for us to 
abandon the word of God to wait on tables." And that's why it seems to me 
that the election that ensues does not seem to be understood by Luke as 
establishing an office that includes evangelistic work--despite the fact 
that later in the same chapter he shows Stephen engaged in precisely that 
evangelistic work. Which is why I say that the account is confused or 
incomplete; I don't think it is hiding facts, but there's more beneat the 
surface than is being said explicitly.

Peace, cwc

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


End of b-greek-digest V1 #644


To unsubscribe from this list write


with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content.  For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content

For further information, you can write the owner of the list at


You can send mail to the entire list via the address: