b-greek-digest V1 #643

b-greek-digest             Friday, 31 March 1995       Volume 01 : Number 643

In this issue:

        Re: lay ministry/Nicolaitan Spirit of Control/long post
        "This generation ..." nochmals
        Inquiry re:  B-GREEK list
        Re: genre of Revelation
        which Greek lexicon?
        Re: No Subject/Apocalypse
        Re: which Greek lexicon?
        Re: which Greek lexicon?
        Re: Baptism
        Re: which Greek lexicon?
        Re: No Subject/Apocalypse
        Re: Baptism practiced  by non authority
        Re:  which Greek lexicon?


From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 07:58:07 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: lay ministry/Nicolaitan Spirit of Control/long post

It appears to me that this discussion is veering (has veered?) rather far 
away from questions of what the GNT says and how it says it into a 
theological discussion of ecclesiology that doesn't belong here. While I 
have my own strong convictions and commitments on the question of 
legitimate ecclesiastical authority, I've tried to argue, in my own 
postings on the subject of "baptism," that the support in the NT (GNT) 
for any one particular conception of ecclesiastical authority seems to 
depend upon eisegesis rather than exegesis of the NT text.

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 08:06:14 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: "This generation ..." nochmals

I want to post publicly my gratitude to Paul Moser for pointing me to 
F.F. Bruce's _Hard Sayings of Jesus_ (1983) with rfc. to Mk 13:30 and 
9:1. While I have always respected Bruce's scholarship, I had sometimes 
thought he was unduly conservative on some matters of interpretation. But 
his discussions of these two passages are models of clarity in their 
review of stances generally taken, rejection of wrong and wrong-headed 
views, and careful consideration of the nuanced differences in the three 
Synoptic gospels in these passages. I don't know where I had gotten the 
mistaken impression that he rejected Source Criticism. This is a fine 
reference work. Thank you, Paul Moser.	

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: David John Marotta <djm5g@virginia.edu>
Date: 31 Mar 95 09:15:13 EST
Subject: Inquiry re:  B-GREEK list

I am not certain if this qualifies to be of interest to list participants or
not.  Don't tell me if you think it qualifies, tell me if you have a good
objective criteria by which it should be rejected (I don't need more
mail right now!)  At any rate, I post this for your consideration...

David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: djm5g@virginia.edu
Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg  PRODIGY: KCMR45A
C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax   IBM US: usuvarg8
*** Forwarding note from SMTP    --DMT03    03/25/95 17:42 ***
Received: from virginia.edu by DMT03.mcc.Virginia.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with TCP; Sat, 25 Mar 95 17:42:47 EST
Received: from batch1.csd.uwm.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa18005;
          25 Mar 95 17:42 EST
Received: from alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (anu@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu []) by
batch1.csd.uwm.edu (8.6.10/8.6.8) with ESMTP id QAA23189 for
<djm5g@virginia.edu>; Sat, 25 Mar 1995 16:42:29 -0600
Received: (anu@localhost) by alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (8.6.10/8.6.8) id QAA10831 for
djm5g@virginia.edu; Sat, 25 Mar 1995 16:42:29 -0600
From: Anuradha Sharad Chitgopekar <anu@csd.uwm.edu>
Message-Id: <199503252242.QAA10831@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>
Subject: Inquiry re:  B-GREEK list
To: djm5g@virginia.edu
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 16:42:28 -0600 (CST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24alpha3]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 8931

 Dear List Owner/Moderator,

I am currently a graduate student working on my master's thesis at the
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.  My research project requires that I
survey individuals involved with discussion lists/groups of various types on
the Internet.

If you feel it appropriate, would you please send the following survey to your
list members?  Many of your members may find my survey interesting to fill out.
This is a legitimate research endeavor and it is important that I receive
several hundred responses in order to be successful.

Your willingness to post/send my survey to your list members will be greatly

Thank you very much.

Anu Chitgopekar
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

If you are unable to post my survey, please return it to me.

                            WHO HELPS YOU?


Hello, my name is Anu Chitgopekar.  I am a graduate student in the Department
of Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.  I am conducting
a study of the existence and development of mentoring and peer helping
relationships in computer-mediated communication environments.  I would
appreciate your participation in this investigation.

The following electronic survey which will take about 10 minutes to complete,
is vitally important to the project.  You must be at least 18 years old to
participate and I hope to elicit several hundred responses.  Even if you are
able to fill out only part of the survey, I will still benefit from your
participation.  Your name and responses will be kept confidential.  If your
return this to me electronically, I will immediately delete the message
header to ensure confidentiality.  No individual responses will be made
public.  Your participation is voluntary.

	1.	You can use your editor to fill out the survey and then
		forward to my e-mail address (given at end of questionnaire)
	2.	You can download survey to your PC, fill it out, upload to
		your server, and return to my e-mail address.
	3.	You can print a hard copy and read off of it to send only
		the responses to my e-mail address.
	4.	You can print a hard copy, fill it out and then send it
		to my postal address (given at end of questionnaire).

I appreciate your time and effort spent to participate in my study.

***Filling out the following survey indicates that you have read this
statement and voluntarily agree to participate***
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                              SECTION ONE

This section of the questionnaire inquires about a mentoring or peer
helping relationship you may currently be involved in over e-mail.  Please
answer each question by either placing an "x" in the appropriate response
or filling in your own answer where required.

1.	Do you have a relationship(s) with someone over e-mail that
	you would call one of mentoring or peer helping?
	[  ] mentoring 	[  ] peer helping	[  ] neither

	*If you answered "neither" please skip ahead to Section Three and
	complete the remaining survey.

2.	Think about one of these relationships in particular--how would
	you classify yourself?
	[  ] Mentor	[  ] Mentee 	[  ] Peer

3.	Length of relationship with this individual: ________ months

4.	Would you consider this individual: [  ] Female	[  ] Male

5.	How would you classify the status of this individual:
	[  ] Superior 	[  ] Subordinate	[  ] Peer

6.	What was the purpose of initial contact?
	(Please check all that may apply)
	[  ] personal communication 		[  ] academic research
	[  ] work related			[  ] information sharing
	[  ] part of a class			[  ] professional
	[  ] other (please specify) ________________________________

7a)  	Have you ever had a face-to-face meeting with this person?
	[  ] Yes		[  ] No

  b) 	If yes, was this contact before or after you began communicating
	over electronic mail? 	[  ] Before	[  ] After

8.	How likely is it you will have a face-to-face meeting with this
	person in the near future?

	[  ] Very Likely 	[  ] Most likely	[  ] Possible
	[  ] Very Unlikely	[  ] Unsure

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                              SECTION TWO
In this next section I would like to ask you about some of the communicative
behaviors you may engage in over electronic mail in your mentoring or
peer helping relationship.

9.	How frequently do you communicate with the individual with which
	you have a mentoring or peer helping relationship? ______ x/month

10.	Is your contact restricted to e-mail?  [  ] yes  	[  ] no

	b) If no, what other modes of communication do you use?

	[  ] Telephone   [  ] Mail   [  ] Fax	[  ] Videoconferencing

	[  ] Other______________(please specify)
11.	To what extent do you perform the following behaviors in your
	mentoring or peer helping relationship over e-mail?
				Always   Often   Sometimes  Seldom   Never

Sponsorship			[  ]	  [  ]	    [  ]      [  ]    [  ]
(aid in advancing other's

Coaching			[  ]      [  ]      [  ]      [  ]     [  ]
(giving strategies for
achieving work objectives)

Exposure			[  ]	   [  ]	     [  ]      [  ]    [  ]
(provide opportunities for
other to demonstrate competence
and special talent)

Protection			[  ]       [  ]       [  ]      [  ]    [  ]
(minimize likelihood other
will be involved in
controversial situation)

Confirmation			[  ]	    [  ]       [  ]      [  ]    [  ]
(provide positive performance
feedback and reinforcement)

Counseling/Emotional Support	[  ]        [  ]       [  ]      [  ]    [  ]
(discuss confidential concerns)

Friendship			[  ]	    [  ]       [  ]      [  ]    [  ]

Role modeling			[  ]	    [  ]       [  ]      [  ]    [  ]

Information sharing		[  ]	    [  ]       [  ]      [  ]    [  ]

Career strategizing		[  ]	    [  ]       [  ]      [  ]    [  ]
(discuss career options and
career dilemmas)

Job-related feedback		[  ]	     [  ]      [  ]      [  ]    [  ]

Personal feedback		[  ]	     [  ]      [  ]      [  ]    [  ]

                             SECTION THREE
This section of the survey asks a few questions about you and your
experience as an e-mail user.  It is the final section of the survey.

12.	Approximate length of time using e-mail?__________ month/year(s)

13.	How often do you log-on to your e-mail account?______x/week

14.	How many lists do you subscribe to?_______________ subscriptions

15.	What list did your receive this survey on?

16.	What is your gender?	[  ] Female	[  ] Male

17.	Which best describes your occupation?
	[  ] Academic	[  ] Professional	
	[  ] Student	[  ] Other

18.	What is your field/area? (ex: engineering, accounting, biology)

19. 	How would you classify your ethnic background?
	[  ] Spanish, Hispanic, or Mexican American
	[  ] Indian or Native American
	[  ] Black or African American
	[  ] Asian American or Pacific Islander
	[  ] White or European American
	[  ] Other (please specify)_____________________

20.	What is your country of residence?_______________________

21.	What is the highest education level you have attained?
	[  ] less than high school	[  ] high school
	[  ] Associate's degree		[  ] Bachelor's degree
	[  ] Master's degree		[  ] Doctorate degree
	[  ] Other (please specify)_____________________________

Once the study is completed, I will be happy to give the results to you.
Please send me a message or add on to the end of the survey that you would
like a copy of the results.  If you have any questions, please contact me
or my supervising professor:

Edward Mabry, Ph.D
Department of Communication
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, WI 53201  (414) 229-4261
E-mail:  eamabry@csd.uwm.edu

If you have any complaints about your treatment as a participant in this
study, please call or write:
Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects
Environmental Health and Safety
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
P.O. Box 413
Milwaukee, WI 53201  (414) 229-6016

All complaints are kept in confidence, although you will be asked your name.

PLEASE RETURN SURVEY TO: anu@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu
                            Anu Chitgopekar
                      Department of Communication
                             P.O. Box 413
                  University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
                          Milwaukee, WI 53201

      **Thank you very much for your participation in my study.


From: Greg Carey <CAREY@library.vanderbilt.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 08:46:00 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: genre of Revelation

Art's suggestion that Revelation is an "anti-apocalypse" which more 
resembles other NT documents than ancient apocalyptic literature 
sounds like an attempt to distance the NT from its socioliterary 
context.  The tendency is to argue that the NT is somehow "unique," 
and, by implication, not dependent upon Jewish and Hellenistic 

But the suggestion has huge problems.  In what way is Revelation more 
like the rest of the NT than, say, like 2 Baruch?  Like what?  
Hebrews?  James?  Luke?  I can't think of any warrant for this point 
other than that Revelation is Christian.  That is essentially Art's 
point, but here is the problem:  genre is a literary, not a 
theological, term.  That Revelation may be a Christian apocalypse 
makes it no less an apocalypse.  (And to say that the NT presents a 
unified witness on christology, anthropology, and soteriology is 
problematic enough!)

Second, how is Revelation "anti-apocalyptic"?  Like 2 and 3 Baruch 
and 4 Ezra, Revelation sees the present as a time of tribulation 
(1.9) and envisions a divinely actualized remedy.  In Revelation, 
the remedy has both temporal and heavenly dimensions, both of which 
are attested in ancient apocalyptic literature.

It is certainly true that Revelation's genre is problematic.  The 
book begins by calling itself an apocalypse and is full of 
apocalyptic motifs.  But also within the first chapter it claims to 
be prophecy and imitates Pauline letters.  My own spin on this mixed 
bag is that the author (actually, the narrator) _uses_ all of the 
above forms (plus a few) in an attempt to legitimate his message.  
Ancient rhetoricians called this dynamic _hthos_, the demonstration 
of a speaker's knowledge, good faith, and virtue.  Apocalyptic and 
prophecy validate the author's access to hidden knowledge about and 
from the divine; the Pauline formula expresses John's good faith 
by placing the audience in a familiar literary and religious context.

Greg Carey
Graduate Department of Religion
Vanderbilt University


From: Greg Williams <williams@kwi.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 09:49:41 EST
Subject: which Greek lexicon?

I hope this is not too stupid of a question for this mailing list.

I'm just a beginner at NT Greek and I want to buy a good Greek-English lexicon.
I've heard of the following ones:
        1) Bauer, Arndt, and Danker
        2) Liddell and Scott
        3) Louw and Nida

I'm sure there are others that I've missed.  What are the differences between
these?  Which one would you recommend?

Thanks in advance for your help.

- --Greg W


From: GLENN WOODEN <glenn.wooden@acadiau.ca>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 11:30:03 ADT
Subject: Re: No Subject/Apocalypse

Tim says and asks:

>   Thank you for the admonition on using "apocalyptic", even if it is a
> pendantic note.  I only pray my usage didn't trigger the seventh sign and
> unleash the Tribulation on us all. (Tongue is planted in cheek here).
>    Could you give a synopsis of the Collins' definition for the literary
> genre?  I think that is what Kenneth was looking for.
>    Peace, Peace (but there is no peace!)
>    Tim

Because sholarship has been less than "pedantic" on the issue of 
terminology here, there has been a great deal of confusion.  Diverse 
genres have been mixed and matched because they have the "feel" of 
some of the apocalypses. As a result of using "apocalyptic" 
to refer both to apocalypses and to passages that "feel" like them in 
some aspect or other and to ideas that are similar to those in some 
apocalypses, the investigation of apocalypses has been slowed 
significantly.  That unclarity has been decreased by the development 
of the definition coming out of the Apocalypse Group of the Socity of 
Biblical Literature's Genre Project, which looked at several hundered 
apocalyptic works (I used that term purposely) and came up with the 
literary characteristics that were common to the majority.

Definition (using boty Semeia 14 and 36)
    "Apocalypse" is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative 
    framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly
    being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality 
    which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological 
    salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another,
    supernatural world (J.J.Collins 1979:9) intended to interpret 
    present, earthly circumstances in light of the supernatural world 
    and of the future, and to influence both the understanding and 
    the behavior of the audience by means of divine authority 
    (A.Y.Collins 1986:7).
As you can see from this definition, the characteristics (e.g., 
pseudonymity) used in the "feels-like" approach to defining 
apocalypse/apocalyptic are not necessarily relevant.

One further note.  There are two major sub-genres of apocalypses.  
One is the Otherworldly Journey apocalypse and the other is the 
Historical Apocalypse.  The first includes a tour of another 
dimension, e.g., heaven, hell, paradise.  The second includes a 
"prophetic" [vaticinia ex eventu] survey of history of some sort.  
J.J.Collins explained in Semeia 14 that this division was merely 
pragmatic, the apocalypses almost all fell into one or other of these 
two camps.  Note also that a work like 1 Enoch is composed of several 
apocalypses.  It has both of the sub-types within it.

I trust that this helps.

Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.



From: GLENN WOODEN <glenn.wooden@acadiau.ca>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 11:51:55 ADT
Subject: Re: which Greek lexicon?

>         1) Bauer, Arndt, and Danker

Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker [BAG] is the standard GNT 
dictionary. It has its problems from a linguistics point of view, but 
at this point it is the best.  There is a "Shorter" version of this 
by Gingrich and Danker.

>         2) Liddell and Scott

Classical Greek dictionary.  Nice to have, but it is not adequate for 
the GNT.

>         3) Louw and Nida

A dictionary that concentrates on semantic domains (e.g., all words 
related to time (day, hour, early in the morning, etc.) are discussed 
together, compared and contrasted.  A valuable companion to BAG.

> I'm sure there are others that I've missed.  What are the differences between
> these?  Which one would you recommend?

Hope this is of some help.

Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.



From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 10:06:27 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: which Greek lexicon?

On Fri, 31 Mar 1995, Greg Williams wrote:

> I hope this is not too stupid of a question for this mailing list.
> I'm just a beginner at NT Greek and I want to buy a good Greek-English lexicon.
> I've heard of the following ones:
>         1) Bauer, Arndt, and Danker
>         2) Liddell and Scott
>         3) Louw and Nida
> I'm sure there are others that I've missed.  What are the differences between
> these?  Which one would you recommend?

Here we go again. The question that needs to be resolved before a 
recommendation can be made is what your primary use for Greek will be and 
how deep or long you want to go.

Since you've posted to this list (and I haven't seen a request from you 
on the Classics list) I'd assume you are learning Greek primarily in 
order to read the New Testament. That might normally exclude Liddell and 
Scott, which is really more properly a lexicon of classical Attic Greek, 
although it includes NT Greek vocabulary. But it also depends on how far 
you intend to go in NT Greek; if you want to master the NT and become a 
scholar (which is to say, not an academic necessarily, but a serious 
lifetime devotee of the Greek NT text, then you probably should go for 
BGD, although you might very well find that you'd like to get the Louw 
and Nida also. If, however, you intend to learn Greek for varied purposes 
(i.e. a bit of Homer, a bit of Plato, some Herodotus, some New 
Testament), then Liddell & Scott is your dictionary. There are, of 
course, other smaller, NT Greek dictionaries--and for that matter smaller 
classical Greek dictionaries (I'd recommend highly the compact little 
Langenscheidt's: it too includes basic NT Greek vocabulary). 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?

Fortunately for you, there will be other responses to your query from 
list-members. Best of luck to you with a many-splendored language!

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: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 12:49:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Baptism

I've been far too sloppy with words like "always" and "authority".
Here I'll try to clear up where I've been sloppy, in the hope that my
meaning will be more clear.

   Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 21:47:18 -0600 (GMT-0600)
   From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>

   I think you're jumping to a conclusion here. It may very well be that 
   "each faction saw the person who baptized them as an authority" (that 
   seems, at any rate, to be what Paul surmises), but the question remains 
   concerning the legitimacy of that authority in institutional terms. The 
   fact is that we just don't know who "authorized" these baptizers. I had 
   sort of thought, from your argument yesterday, that you wanted to appeal 
   to an unbroken apostolic succession of authority to baptize. I don't 
   really see any CLEAR evidence of that in the NT.

There are several very different principles here:

Principle A: Only those with authority in the congregation should

Principle B: Authority is gained and/or recognized by specific
procedure X.

Principle C: Only those with authority in the congregation are able to

I am arguing solely and only for A.  The specific case, remember, was
a person who posted here about having baptized a Jewish friend in a
nearby pool.  Principle A is one which was adhered to, as far as I can
tell, without any significant exceptions, by the protestant reformers,
who contested the various B's proposed vehemently.

Principle B, while important, is not related to Principle A.  While I
would be happy with language like "apostolic commission" with respect
to Principle B, it is not relevant to Principle A, which I hold
regardless of the source or nature of the authority.

Principle C has never been accepted, except for a brief period by some
of the Protestant Reformers, who later changed their minds.  If you
think Principle A and C are the same, look at them as the distinction
between liceity or good order on the one hand, and validity on the

   I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here: (a) the initiative 
   in the action of baptism is God's (and therefore it is not really 
   important who the human agent performing the baptism is), or (b) there 
   really were authorities and authority depended on apostolic commission, 
   but having such authority is not related to being a baptizer. Is the 
   opposite also true: that being a baptizer doesn't depend on having 
   apostolic commission?

This is a false dichotomy.

Baptism is *valid* independent of who does it.  The resulting baptism
has effect which is unrelated to the particular baptizer.

At the same time, I believe that authority has always been required,
for the sake of good order.  The relation between authority and being
a baptizer was, I would contend, recognized early on, and I'd say that
the discussion with the Corinthians is evidence of such a relation.

Whether the authorities I refer to in the last paragraph have
apostolic commission is an interesting and important question, but not
the one I'm here addressing.

   I remain puzzled here. Again you insist upon a particular institutional 
   authority as having "always existed," although the evidence for its 
   establishment is by no means clearly to be found in the NT. 

Here I was far too sloppy.  When I said that deacons always had an
office of preaching and baptizing, as well as servanthood, I meant "as
long as there has been the catholic office of deacon, it has included
servanthood, preaching, and baptizing among its functions."  

Does Acts 6 refer to the institution of the catholic office of deacon?
Traditionally yes, but the text is more vague than the tradition
admits.  But you repeated the oft-repeated statement to the effect
that "Acts 6 cannot refer to the institution of the catholic office of
deacon, because the only things Luke tells us they did was preach and

   I really wonder whether these seven Greeks weren't 
   really from the very beginning missionaries to Greek-speaking Jews at the 
   same time that the twelve continued to carry on a mission to 
   Aramaic-speaking Jews. Admittedly this is speculative, but it would imply 
   a genuine basis for their holding apostolic authority that the 
   food-distribution function would hardly seem to justify.

I read Acts 6 in a totally different light.  The questions you put to
the text are not very interesting to me.  But if I look at your guess,
and read it in conjunction with the traditional interpretation of Acts
6 as the institution of the diaconate, I see a very different
conclusion.  I would read Acts 6 as a careful statement about
ministry.  First, the diaconate has a ministry of servanthood.
Second, deacons may be called to do more, such as preach, baptize, or
lead in other fashions.  Third, these are a unitive characteristic,
not separate parts, but one united office.  What is the ministry of
the seven?  Luke tells us: distributing food, preaching, and

I must say that your denigration of the food-distribution function is
kind of sad.  I read the whole text as, in part, implying that the
food-distribution function is so important to the esse of the Church,
that it carries authority in and of itself--an authority which is then
connected to other tasks like preaching and baptizing.  I would
further argue that the tradition has seen it in this light as well.

   Well, it appears that I have misunderstood you again. But here in this 
   last paragraph it appears to me once again that you are assuming the 
   answer in the form in which you put the question. "Are there any cases 
   where someone not acknowledged to be a leader baptized another?" How can 
   we say that the answer "would seem to be 'no'" when we don't know who 
   authorized or acknowledged the baptizer (in the case of the Corinthians 
   not baptized by Paul); and it won't do to say simply that those baptized 
   acknowledged their baptizer as an authority. No doubt the friend whom 
   Daniel Hedrick will be baptizing will consider Daniel an authority. But I 
   don't think we have any evidence of apostolic authority clearly 
   associated with these baptisms in the Corinthian congregation--those not 
   performed by Paul. Those baptizers may have had such authority, but what 
   we're told in 1 Corinthians doesn't constitute evidence for it. 

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.


From: Steve Thompson <STEPTHOM@brownvm.brown.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 12:40:44 EST
Subject: Re: which Greek lexicon?

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?"

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," and I can't lug around BAGD or L-N.  But I've never
done a systematic comparison of it with the other lexica.  And when I say
"a little greek," I mean it.  I'm a novice at NT Greek, so I would appreciate
additional comments from Carl and others on this little lexicon.

Yours truly,
Stephen Thompson


From: William Brooks <wjbrooks@olympus.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 09:54:36 -0800
Subject: Re: No Subject/Apocalypse

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?



From: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 12:54:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Baptism practiced  by non authority

   Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 07:41:52 -0500
   From: JefferisP@aol.com

   Now there was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said
   to him in a vision, "Ananias." He answered, "Here I am, Lord." The
   Lord said to him, "Get up and go to the street called Straight, and
   at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul. At this
   moment he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named
   Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain
   his sight." But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many
   about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints in
   ALL WHO INVOKE YOUR NAME." But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is
   an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles
   and kings and before the people of Israel; I myself will show him
   how much he must suffer for the sake of my name." So Ananias went
   and entered the house. He laid his hands on Saul and said, "Brother
   Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, has
   sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the
   Holy Spirit." And immediately something like scales fell from his
   eyes, and his sight was restored. THEN HE GOT UP AND WAS BAPTIZED,
   and after taking some food, he regained his strength. For several
   days he was with the disciples in Damascus, (Acts 9:10-19, NRSV).

   Note the ONLY person who had authority in the is passage is Saul.

Paul has no authority in the Church here either, so in fact, nobody in
the passage has authority.

But that doesn't answer my question, because the text doesn't tell us
who it is that baptizes Paul.  So this is an ambiguous case.  Perhaps
Ananias said "he has been healed" and called in the local leader, who
baptized Paul.  We just don't know.



From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 10:06:13 PST
Subject: Re:  which Greek lexicon?

   Just my opinion:
Liddell and Scott is not for NT Greek specifically, is very expensive
and is not that useful for NT Greek compared to the alternatives.
I prefer Louw and Nida because:
1.It is built around modern linguistic theory about word meanings.
2. It lacks the theologically motivated glosses of BAGD which go well
beyond the meaning of a word and give a theological interpretation of the
word not needed to accurately translate.
However, BAGD has bibliography and other usage info not contained in 
Louw and Nida and Louw and Nida is not the most convenient thing to
look up words in.  You have to look up the location of a word in vol 1
by looking in vol. 2.

Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA


End of b-greek-digest V1 #643


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: