b-greek-digest V1 #607

b-greek-digest            Saturday, 11 March 1995      Volume 01 : Number 607

In this issue:

        Re: lexical evidence of James 5:14-16's meaning
        Re: UBS3 is Poison
        Re: Current threads: sorting ... 
        Re: lexical evidence of James... 
        Re: lexical evidence of James... 
        3d person imperatives 
        Re: UBS3 is Poison
        orality and the NT
        Re: lexical evidence of James 5:14-16's meaning 
        lexical evidence of James 5:14-16's mean
        Re: Mounce's Flashcard Program at condor.cs.andrews.edu 
        Re: orality and the NT
        Re: Kenneth Litwak's Response to the Quest for the Historical Jesus.
        re: UBS3 is Poison


From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 95 12:31:25 PST
Subject: Re: lexical evidence of James 5:14-16's meaning

djm5g@virginia.edu asked about:
> James 5:14-16...  as "weak in faith" instead of "physically sick"?

The use of oil suggests physical sickness, because oil was seen as
curative, e.g. the wine and oil applied by the helpful Samaritan to
the robbed man's wounds.

Perhaps the distinction you are trying to make is inappropriate.
The healing in Mark 2:1-12 and the experiences of many doctors suggest
that maladies of the mind and body are very closely intertwined.

gmeadors@epix.net commented:
>                        I do not see Js 5 being exercised in today's 
> church as it seems to be presented in Js.  As a cessationist in certain 
> areas, I wonder if 1 Cor 12 might help to understand why...

My own faith community does practice this anointing as part of a
healing by faith.  We regard it as an application of 1Cor 12:9 and
Mark 16:18 (longer ending of course :-).   BTW, you generally have to be
careful suggesting an anointing to someone with a Catholic background,
because they might protest that they are NOT at death's door!

Vincent Broman,  code 572 Bayside                        Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA  92152-6147,  USA                          Phone: +1 619 553 1641


From: Doug Palmer <palmer@pcatsc.jud.fed.us>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 14:19:24 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: UBS3 is Poison

> John Baima wrote:
> > the NABV (by Riplinger) is available in hypertext format.
> > If I receive any requests, I will either find an ftp site with it, or 
> > forward copies to whomever would like one.
> I have heard of this book and the "level of scholarship" involved in its
> creation.  I would _love_ to get ahold of an on-line copy or even
> an ASCII version from an ftp site.  Please post where it can be
> obtained.

I found a copy a few hours ago at:


If you (or anyone else) would like a copy and cannot get it via ftp,
send me a request at palmer@texas.net.



From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 16:18:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Current threads: sorting ... 

TO: Carl_W._Conrad@oui.com  (Carl W. Conrad)
FROM: Timster132@aol.com     (Tim Staker)
CC: b-greek@virginia.edu

Thanks, Conrad, for your sorting out the issues.  I found it helpful.

>I can see that there are epistemological or theological grounds for >taking
this stance which don't fall within what I originally, foolishly,
>asserted to be "unworthy." I don't know whether this will satisfy Tim

  Thanks.  I guess my casual, off-hand remark on "letting the quest die" left
me (and my intentions) open to being misunderstood.  I don't want to be
partof those who display "passionate rejection" against the quest for
thehistorical Jesus, as some are that you are familiar with.  I just doubt
its revelancy based on what I said previously. 
  I definitely DO NOT want to be an "enabler" to the pathological negativity
out there!!! I also find such things disturbing. Yikes!!!

>More comparable, I think, would be the endeavor to ascertain
>solid biographical data concerning Jesus on the one hand and, say,
>Socrates, Pythagoras, or that most celebrated of all Cynics, >Diogenes......
 I really appreciated reading about historicity and Pythagorus, Hannibal,
etc.  That adds a lot to the discussion here and to my understanding.

About historicity of the gospels, you brought up...

> Another example: the "call" of the first disciples.
>Mark 1:16-18 tells us that Jesus called Simon "Peter" and
>Andrew from their boats on the lakeshore in Galilee... the core of 
>the story is clearly the Jesus-saying, "Follow me and I will make 
>you fishers of men."....
> I even suspect (pure hypothetical suspicion, utterly beyond 
>verification) that the story originated in Greek-speaking Christianity 
>when IXQUS perhaps already had become a confessional acronym. 

  Another possible source for the "fishers of men" story could be Mark doing
an interpretive midrash on Jer 16:16, where God promises to restore Israel by
"sending for many fishermen, says the Lord, and they will catch them..."   
  But this and your idea about the Christian acronym are by no means
exclusive.  I know that many early NT manuscripts already have examples of
the "nomina sacra" in them ( ie, abbreviations of holy names, such as IC for

Blessing and peace,

Tim Staker--- Timster132@aol.com


From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 16:18:19 -0500
Subject: Re: lexical evidence of James... 

To: djm5g@virginia.edu (David John Marotta)
From: Timster132@aol.com  (Tim Staker)
cc: B-Greek@virginia.edu (Biblical Greek Mailing List)

David, you gave this request 3/10/95...

> I am trying to work on understanding James 5:14-16, and I would >like to
know how people take this passage. Which commentaries >take the passage as
"weak in faith" instead of "physically sick"?  >What do those on the list
think of that idea? What lexical evidence >is significant?

  I think this is a hard text for us moderns since we are aware that
bacteria, viruses, genetics, etc. are involved in disease.
  The greek text in this passages reveals the Biblical pre-scientific world
view, that sin and evil forces are responsible for illness. 
  There were doctors in the Greek tradition that applied practices and
treatments based on reason and what they understood from philosophy (ie, the
four elements), but it looks like James is not encouraging these doctors to
be sought out.
  A person who was sick (asthenei) was encouraged go to an elder, who would
put on oil (medicine?) with a prayer.
  "The weak" would be healed/saved (=swsei) and forgiven.  Would a person of
the first century make a distinction between weakness in belief and weakness
in body as we do today?

  James understands faith more along the lines of nominitive "belief" rather
than Paul's verbal "trusting".  So for James a deficeincy in faith is
possible, and a prayer may restore the weak/sick.

  Just some reflections here.  Maybe it can get some sparks going, maybe not.

Tim Staker  --- Timster132@aol.com


From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 16:18:22 -0500
Subject: Re: lexical evidence of James... 

To: gmeadors@epix.net (Gary T. Meadors)
From: timster132@aol.com (Tim Staker)
cc: b-greek@virginia.edu

Gary,  I like your chiasmus.  You know, you study a text over and over, and
never see something, and then someone brings out something obvious like a
chiamus, and you wonder how you never had seen it!
  I don't know about linking Paul and James here, tho.  Paul and James seem
to have different views on what the nature of "trusting/faith" actually is.
   And i don't know if the Corinthian charismatic practices were the same
thing James is referring to in James 5.  The Corinthian version seems to be
spontatneus where James seems planned.
  Paul does give an example of the use of the gift of faith the next chapter
about having "faith" to move mountains. 
  Maybe the time factor between 1 Cor and James has something to do with the
differences.  Could be a progression from one practice to the other. Or a
little intertestamental dialogue?

Tim Staker --- Timster132@aol.com


From: Rod Decker <rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 15:27:33 -0600
Subject: 3d person imperatives 

Question posted for [net-less!] Ed Glenny, Prof./NT, Central Bapt Sem, Mnpls.

Can anyone suggest any recent bibliography (or other comments) on 3d person
imperatives? I am particularly interested in the force of 3d person versus
2d person in the imperative.

Rod Decker                             Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT                                Kansas City, Missouri


Date: Fri, 10 Mar 95 14:16:14 PST
Subject: Re: UBS3 is Poison

On March 10, John Calvin Hall wrote: 
>The UBS3 has too many DOCTRINAL errors -  
>Joseph was NOT Jesus' father, 
>Christ was NOT the only begotten God, 
>Jesus did NOT have to have his sins paid for at the temple after his birth, 
>Christ did NOT sin when he got angry at the money changers in the temple..... 
Consecration of the first-born (which survives in Jewish tradition today as 
pidyon haben (sp?)) was a requirement of the Law; failure to observe it would 
have been a violation of the Law.  I am curious as to why you interpret it as 
'having his sins paid for.'    
Mary Ann Davidson 


From: Charles Mercier <chmercier@vaxsar.vassar.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 17:38:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: orality and the NT

Would any list members care to point a classicist in the direction of work
on oral theory as it relates to the New Testament.  I would like to read
how work on the oral poetics of Homer, say, has been applied to the Gospels
insofar as they reflects their origin in oral proclamation and
storytelling.  To pose a specific example, the repetitions in the parable
of the prodigal son (Lk. 15. 19 = 21, 23 = 32) are recognizably comparable
to the repetition of the list of gifts offered to Achilles in Iliad 9
(122-157 = 264-298).  

Thank you very much.
Charles Mercier

Charles E. Mercier            (914) 437 5602 (o)     
Department of Classics        (914) 437 7038 (h)
Box 219  Vassar College
Poughkeepsie, NY  12601       chmercier@vassar.edu


From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 17:16:10 CST
Subject: Re: lexical evidence of James 5:14-16's meaning 

On Fri, 10 Mar 1995, Gary Meadors wrote:

> Seriously, I am soliciting critique, especially expertise in 
>regard to the possible chiastic aid I am floating.
>1 Cor 12:7-11 gives what I view as a well crafted list.  I see a possible 
>chiasmus with doublets (problem:  Lund views this section as part of a 
>larger chiasmus which, in his chart, does not view this section the same 
>as I do (i.e. want to!).
>	wisdom
>	knowledge
>		faith
>		healing
>			miraculous powers (hinge)
>		prophecy
>		discerning of spirits (cf. 1 Jn 4:1-6)
>	Tongues
>	Interp of Tongues
>It is not difficult to see 1, 3, and 4 as doublets.


Lund's analysis is not entirely satisfactory in this place; he finds chiasmus
under every rock.  There is a lot of chiasmus there, but there are other
rhetorical schemes as well.  I sincerely doubt that what you have listed above
is chiasmus; you have laid it out like chiasmus is laid out, but A does not
correspond to A' and B does not correspond to B'.  To have chiasmus, there
must be correspondence either phonologically, syntatically, conceptually, or
lexically.  Some really good ones show correspondence in several of these
areas at once.  Chiasmus can be found in this passage, but not as you have it
laid out.  For example, there is a lexical chiasm in 12:8 (pneumatos--logos--
logos--pneuma).  Cutting across this one, there is a lexical-syntactical
chiasm in 8b-10:

A  allw de ___
   B  (eterw ___
      C    allw de ___ 
      C'   allw de ___ 
      C''  allw de ___ 
      C''' allw de ___ 
   B' (eterw ___
A' allw de ___

I do not find either of those especially interesting.  But in noting the
doublets, you have put your finger on another rhetorical structure that Paul
uses: parallelism.  The structure is as follows:

X  A  word of wisdom
   A' word of knowledge

   Y  B  faith
         C gifts of healings
      B' workings of miracles

   Y' D  prophecy
      D' discerning of spirits

X' E  kinds of tongues
   E' interpretaion of tongues

I have put faith with workings of miracles because of 13:2 (all faith so as to
move mountains).  In this analysis, you will note that the second group forms
a small chiasm, and the whole structure has a chiastic pattern of the first
elements: genitive--no genitive--no genitive--genitive.  I personally find the
conceptual parallelisms more interesting that the syntactic chiasm.

These patterns are perhaps not how you want the text to be structured, but I
submit to you that these patterns actually exist in the text.  I do not know
to what extent they were deliberately placed there.

For more on chiasmus and other patterns in 1 Corinthians, see chapter 4 of my
dissertation _An Analysis of Certain Features of Discourse in the New
Testament Book of I Corinthians_ or my book (due out from SIL by month's end)
_A Discourse Analysis of 1 Corinthians_.  I think you will find it a balanced
corrective to Lund's seventh chapter.

- --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, 10 Mar 95 18:16:00 CST
Subject: lexical evidence of James 5:14-16's mean

"Asthenei" seems to have as many possible meanings as does our "weak."  
Liddell and Scott list as possibilities weakness of body, mind, power, and 
property.  "Kamnonta" in the next verse doesn't help.  L&S include being 
weary, being worsted in battle, and meeting with disaster as well as being 

I have preached on this passage in churches that believe in anointing with 
oil and praying for the sick, practices I believe in myself.  However, I 
point out the possibility that the weakness in mind here is spiritual 
weakness.  It certainly goes better with most of what follows.


From: "Kevin D. Johnson" <logos@primenet.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 17:35:44 -0700
Subject: Re: Mounce's Flashcard Program at condor.cs.andrews.edu 

At 08:36 AM 3/3/95 -0500, Michael Moss, Director of Graduate Bible Studies
>Mounce's Flashworks exists in a DOS format, WINDOWS format, and MAC format.
>I posted a note to him yesterday resquesting the correct FTP location for 
>the DOS & WINDOWS versions.  

I would be very interested to find out where I can get a copy of this
program on the net...


From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 19:35:58 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: orality and the NT

On Fri, 10 Mar 1995, Charles Mercier wrote:
> Would any list members care to point a classicist in the direction of work
> on oral theory as it relates to the New Testament.  I would like to read
> how work on the oral poetics of Homer, say, has been applied to the Gospels
> insofar as they reflects their origin in oral proclamation and
> storytelling.  To pose a specific example, the repetitions in the parable
> of the prodigal son (Lk. 15. 19 = 21, 23 = 32) are recognizably comparable
> to the repetition of the list of gifts offered to Achilles in Iliad 9
> (122-157 = 264-298).  
This won't take you far but it's a start: there's a discussion of oral 
transmission of gospel traditions in (I think it was) Chapter 2 of 
Jacobson's _The First Gospel_, with some good notes and bibliographical 
pointers. One shocker there to me was Albert Lord's notion that each of 
the gospels (canonical!) was originally oral--which would mean each was 
performed repeatedly in endlessly variant formulations--something I can't 
quite imagine. If you uncover anything comparable in gospel studies to 
the work that Greg Nagy has done in early Greek lyric, please share it 
with us! 

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: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 95 09:49:29 PST
Subject: Re: Kenneth Litwak's Response to the Quest for the Historical Jesus.

> What he said.
Actually, while I like what follows, I'm afraid that I am not the source
of this eloquence.


> It is clear to me that the quest for the historical Jesus is emblematic 
> of a philosophy perfectly suited to the disproving of everything.  It 
> takes the worst aspects of David Hume's denial of causality and marries 
> it to relativism and comes up with absolutely nothing.
> This vacuum is then filled by the "scholars" of the Jesus Seminar and 
> others.  They create a Jesus that has no substance that cannot be the 
> foundation of my salvation.
> "Jesus Christ, true God and true Man, born of the Virgin Mary is my Lord."
> (Luther, Small Catechism, Explanation of the second article of the 
> Apostle's Creed)  Whether you are Lutheran or not, this a primary 
> fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith that quests for the 
> historical Jesus almost fundamentally reject.
> I would go into a scholarly argument against the Historical Jesus, but 
> thanks to Mr. Litwak, I don't need to.  He covered the bases well.
> The Christ of my faith looks at the quest for the Historical Jesus from 
> the perspective of Psalm 2.
> He that is in the heavens laughs,
> He has them in derision.
> Charlie Lehmann
> Undergraduate
> Concordia College, Seward, Nebraska.


From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 95 10:39:18 PST
Subject: re: UBS3 is Poison

> >>When looking at the two side-by-side, it is very clear which is superior:
> >>The Traditional Text, foundin the TR.
> >
> >I usually don't get involved in these religious debates, but I can't help
> >myself. I was just wondering if you knew, Mr Hall, that the TR is closer to
> >UBS3 than the Byzantine text type in the book of Revelation. Does that
> >matter to you?
> I'm sorry, but I would have to admit that I am not completely "learned up"
> on this specific area of the Greek Text. =)
> The problem is really not Erasmus. A lot of historians throw around the fact
> that he was influenced by the Roman Catholic Church, thus disqualifying him
> as a Textual Critic, but they somehow neglect to tell about his "in your
> face" attitude toward the pope [the only thing keeping him from the stake
> was his popularity]. But like I said, the problem is NOT with Erasmus.
> The problem is with our doctrine of PRESERVATION.
> Us Fundamentalists love to throw around the doctrine of INSPIRATION - - that
> we believe in the Verbal-Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. But
> more and more I notice, in Doctrinal Creeds of churches and seminaries, an
> addition to this statement. Lately I read Baptist Bible Seminary's [Clark
> Summit, PA] doctrinal statement, and it goes something like this..... They
> believe in the Verbal-Plenary Inspiration of the Word of God
> _in_the_original_autographs_. To me, that sounds like they are saying, "Yes,
> the original autographs were verbally and plenarally <sp?> inspired, but
> what we have today is not that way...." I DISAGREE!!!!!!!!!
> God didn't give the Church His awesome and mighty word, and let it digress
> in accuracy through time! God never said that He was turning the matter of
> PRESERVATION over to inferior men! NO WAY!!! Sure, Erasmus could have messed
> up in his edition of the Greek Text, but God promised to preserve His Word!
> God forbid, Hort's worthless story about a Lucianic Recension might have
> happened, BUT GOD PROMISED TO PRESERVE HIS WORD. I am no way big enough to
> call God a liar... =)
> The Church has had the Word of God ever since He gave it to her. If you
> believe what Hort, or Tischendorff would want you to believe, then you'd
> think that we have not had an accurate copy of the Holy Bible for 1500
> years. This is heresy, and to me, borders on blasphemy, because it calls God
> a liar.
> >I'd also be interested in your opinion on the major gaff at the end of the
> >book of Rev?
> Like I said, I have not completely studied this area of Revelation.....
> >Just my 2 cents . . .
> No problem! Maybe when I get done all my other projects, I can look into
> this area in Revelation ::grin::. Keep in mind though - don't be so hard
> against Erasmus for being Cathoic: both Westcott and Hort have been
> documented to be Mary-olaters, and with what I've heard about the dogmas of
> Metzger, Aaland, Black, etc..... I'd wonder whether or not they even have a
> relationship with Christ .... I guess that's just between them and the Lord.....

   I wanted to stay out of this discussion (how many topics can you
follow at once -- I subscribe to about eight forums, half of them
software-related, plus read newsgroups), but I can't stand it anymore.

   Are you aware that there are no two MSS that are indetnical for the 
NT?  Are you aware that none of the textual differences make or break
any fundamental doctrine you likely hold to?  Have you read anything
on the subject of textual criticism that discusses particular variants,
their history in the MSS tradition, and  how these variations might have
occured?  Are you aware that the notion of text-type, Byzantine included,
is only a rough notion, and does not mean a set of MSS which are in any
sense identical?  Are you aware that 1 John 5:7 as it appears in the
KJV and the TR, first appears in a Greek NT MS around the 11th cent. CE>?
It appears to me you are not aware of this information.  You can
assert that the TR is superior to the UBS3 text.  It's a free Internet.
You ought, however, before you start making accusations (Mary-olators?
Please) be prepared to state why this is so.  Most textual differences
are of no material significance, and yes, I can believe in verbal,
plenary inspiration without having to believe that a scribe's arm was
physically forced to pen the correct letters.  The main message is in 
tact in all the MSS.  Because I once held a somewhat similar perspective,
KJV all the way, I can understand your concerns, but you do a serious
discredit to many on this list who would claim to be equally committed
in faith but having a different perspective on this topic by using the 
brains God gave them to look at the cold hard, non-liberal, non-Catholic,
non=anything facts of how the MSS themselves read.

Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA 


From: VIRGINIA RINKEVICH <vrinkevi@herbie.unl.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 23:48:53 -0600 (CST)
Subject: unsubscribe

 unsubscribe b-greek


End of b-greek-digest V1 #607


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: