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

b-greek-digest V1 #663




b-greek-digest            Wednesday, 12 April 1995      Volume 01 : Number 663

In this issue:

        Re: Acts 19:1
        Re: Truth in John 
        Re: Acts 19:3; GAR 
        Re: Lost Sheep of the House o... 
        Re: Unsubscribe
        Re: Lost Sheep of the House o...
        Re: Acts 19:3; GAR
        Apostolic authority and baptism threads. 
        Purity/Impurity
        matt's donkeys
        Re: matt's donkeys
        Acts 19:1
        Re: Truth in John/Objectivity
        Matthew 21:7 
        Re: Matthew 21:7 
        Acts 19:1
        Re: purists 
        Re: Truth in John/Objectivity

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

From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 01:25:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Acts 19:1

On Tue, 11 Apr 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Apr 1995, David Moore wrote:
> 
> If the subject of an infinitive does not "spread" from the main clause, it is
> given in the accusative case.

While this is generally the case, there is one set of circumstances where 
it is not. If the infinitive functions as a complement of the main verb 
of the matrix clause, and its subject is identical with the subject of 
that main verb it is usually not expressed, but if any modifiers of it 
are expressed, they are given NOMINATIVE case. A few examples follow:

1. 		Nom.     Inf.
ei qeleis 	tevleios einai (Matthew 19:21)
If you wish	perfect  to be
If you wish to be perfect

2.  Nom.	Nom.     Inf.
ei tis qelei 	prwtos einai (Mark 9:35)
If anyone wants	first	to be
If anyone wants	to be first

3.  Nom.		Inf.     Nom.
to tis autwn dokei	einai meizwn (Luke 22:24)
who of them seems 	to be greater

4.	  Inf.	Nom.
faskontes einai sofoi	ejmwravnqhsan (Romans 1:22)
Claiming to be wise	they became fools

5.  Nom.		Nom.   Inf.
ei tis dokei 		sofos einai (1 Corinthians 3:18)
If anyone thinks	wise  to be
If anyone considers himself wise

6.    Nom.		Nom.	    Inf.
Ei de tis dokei 	filovneikos einai (1 Corinthians 11:16)
And if anyone thinks	contentious to be
And if anyone decides to be contentious

7. 		Nom.		Inf.
deomai de to mh	parwn 		qarrhsai (2 Corinthians 10:2)
and I beg   not being present	to show boldness
and I beg that being present [I might] not [have] to show boldness. . .
[While the subject is not given explicitly, the participle (parw;n) which 
modifies it is given in the nominative case. Notice that the entire 
infinitival clause functions as an internal argument for deomai (as is 
indicated by the article before MH.]

8. 			Inf.  Nom.
emarturhqh 		einai dikaios (Hebrews 11:4)
he obtained witness	to be righteous
he was shown to be righteous

9. Nom.			Nom.	Inf.
Ei tis dokei 		qrhskos einai (James 1:26)
If anyone thinks	religious to be
If anyone thinks 	he is religious

Of course this only happens when the infinitive functions as a complement 
of the main (finite) verb and shares the same subject as that verb. 
Otherwise, the subject of the infinitive along with its modifiers is 
given in the accusative case.

You won't find any help on sorting this one out in the traditional 
grammars. Blass, Debrunner, Robertson, Moulton, Howard, Turner, et al 
never discovered the connection between the infinitive serving as 
complement and these occurances of the nominative case. The best they do 
is to observe that when the subject of the infinitive and the subject of 
the governing finite verb refer to the same entity, the subject of the 
infinitive (or more accurately its modifiers) MAY be stated in the 
nominative, but also MAY be stated in the accusative. We now know why it 
is done in the nominative sometimes and in the accusative others.

Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


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

From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 02:56:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Truth in John 

TO:	B-GREEK@virginia.edu
CC:	RlMackie
From:	Timster132

   Roger, a part of your reply concerning finding "truth" said...

>Before I do, however, please indulge me as I engage in a lengthy
>epistemological reflection....
>
>Although growing, our knowledge of the origin and context of the >texts is
limited and will remain so.  We don't know enough to >choose between
competing claims to ALHQEIA.  What appear to >be obvious textual errors to us
might not be if we had a more >complete picture of the apostolic and
prophetic eras.


  What I mean by the "epistimological question" isn't so much how do we
determine what is true in a text, but rather the much deeper question of how
do we know what to believe about life, reality and our own perceptions (and
how this effects how we interpret the texts).

   The Heizenburg principle (from post-modern physics) states that we cannot
know for sure where, say, a particle is, because our observing a particle
changes the actual location of a particle, because the light we use to view
it is having an effect on the particle we are viewing.
   So it is when we are viewing any event, we effect the event by our
observing it... the event in itself is changed because it becomes an observed
event and so we actually become part of the event-- the event is enlarged to
encorporate the viewer, as thus the event changes fundamentally.  In other
words, the idea that we can observe an event totally objectively, totally
separate from the event is as misperception and really, a deception.
    What does this indicate for Biblical studies?  It means that we must
acknowledge our limitations in reading the Bible, for it will always include
ourselves, our predispositions, our attitudes, our prejeduices, etc.  The
more we are aware of these, the better. Still this means it is not possible
to interpret the Bible with "total" objectivity.  To say it more positively,
this also means that we can be confident that we will discover ourselves in
the sacred texts.
    What does this mean for historicity?  It means that as we view history,
we become part of it, and so we understand that our viewing of history is
imperfect, tainted by our viewing it, changed by our interpreting it.  That
is why all who have searched for the historical Jesus end up finding
themselves (at least to some degree, in many cases to a very large degree) in
the image they have made.
    All of this also means that the writers themselves of the NT were
interpreting the Jesus experience and not just simply relating historical,
objective facts about Jesus.  Theirs was an interpretation based upon who
they were and their own experience changed the Jesus event in that they
became a part of it.
    This is good news in that it creates an Event that is continually
expanded and that the Jesus Event includes us as well.
    But it severly limits our ability to use the Gospels as "historical"
facts that are "objectively" gathered.
    What it all comes down to is that we cannot prove with _absolute
certainty_ anything empirically.  It means that life itself is an act of
trust and faith-- we must choose what we are to believe is true, since
nothing is provable in an absolute sense.
    So we come to a point where we ask what is the absolute about reality,
existance?  in other words, What is, or who is God?  
    The Christian faith is a decision to trust the gospel message that God is
a loving and forgiving God, full of compassion, as was witnessed by those who
saw God in Jesus.
    So, faith is an intuitive leap, not a reasoned, fact-based conclusion.
 That is why I say my faith is not based on the "historical facts" found in
the Bible.  It is a trust in the gospel message about who God is.

Peace,
Tim

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

From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 02:56:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Acts 19:3; GAR 

TO: B-Greek@virginia.edu (Biblical Greek)
CC: terry@bible.acu.edu (Terry Bruce)
From: Timster132@aol.com (Tim Staker)

>>On Tue, 11 Apr 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:

>>Postpositives MUST come second in a sentence (which is why I >>once said
"bah, humbug" to an argument that Mark's gospel >>couldn't end at 16:8
because a Greek sentence can't end with a >>GAR; when both subject and
predicate are present in >>EFOBOUNTO, there's no place else for the GAR to
come but after >>that.

    Bruce Terry amened....
>Exactly!  The people who say this have never read John 13:13 in >Greek.

  But isn't EIMI GAR in Jn 13:13  in the middle of a rational argument, and
Mk 16:8 is at the end of a book?  Doesn't that make a difference?

Curious,
Tim

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

From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 02:56:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Lost Sheep of the House o... 

TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU (Biblical Greek)
CC: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl Conrad)
From: Timster132@aol.com (Tim Staker)

    Carl you were still wondering as of 4/11 about the possible connection
with Gal 2...

>And I am wondering whether still one element in the background of >Mt's
Mission Discourse might not be the mission charge to Peter >(and the Twelve?)
as described by Paul in Gal 2. It strikes me that >our two verses in question
(10:6/23) would indeed fit that context >and might conceivably be derivative
from sayings material >associated with that division of the mission work at
the Apostolic >Council of the year 50.

    It has been suggested that one reason Paul was so successful in his
missionary endeavor among the Gentiles was that there were many Gentiles that
were attracted to Judaism, but were repulsed by the idea of circumcision.
 (For the Greeks, many who held the body in very high regard, this mutilation
would seem contary to nature).  And Paul told them the good news that
salvation in Jesus Christ was as a gift of God's grace, not of works, did not
require circumcision.
     Paul became the "apostle to the uncircumsised", as Peter was the
"apostle of the circumcised" (acc. to Gal 2).  The conflict was with those
who were wanted to keep the circumcision requirement for all, which Peter
accepted for a brief time until confronted by Paul at Antioch (again acc. to
Gal 2).
     Was this still an issue in the time of Matthew?  Probably not.  (At
least Matt doesn't mention it).  There were a lot more (uncircumsized) Gentile
s in Matt's church by this time who had been accepted.  
    But I would venture to say that the idea of two apostles with two
missions from Galatians may have influenced how Matt presented his material
in Ch 10.  I think Matt may have been emphasizing that the Matthean
community's mission to the "house of Israel" was not over, and that it needed
continued, even in the face of persecution, since not all of the "cities of
Israel" in the Diaspora (and maybe even in Palestine?) had been reached yet.
     This is of course is based on the reading that the "Lost Sheep of the
House of Israel" are all of Jews who had not yet confessed Jesus as Messiah,
or at least heard the good news that the Messiah had come.


Peace,
Tim

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

From: Religious Center <religion@capaccess.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 05:06:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Unsubscribe

>
Unsubscribe b-greek religion@cap.gwu.edu
Unsubscribe b-greek religion@capaccess.org

- --
Religious Forum Moderator           Home Phone: 301-856-3520
Religion@cap.gwu.edu

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

From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 06:05:28 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Lost Sheep of the House o...

One thing that strikes me is that we really do not have, do we, any very 
clear picture of "the Twelve" after the early chapters of Acts. Acts 8:1 
makes the rather astounding statement that all--members? who 
exactly?--were dispersed EXCEPT the apostles. I suspect that the 
persecution was principally directed at Hellenistic evangelists 
proclaiming, as Stephen had, an implicitly more radical gospel more 
offensive to Jewish authorities than was that preached by Peter and 
others of the Twelve. But we never hear of the Twelve afterwards in 
canonical texts, and it seems to me that we don't really have an awful 
lot to go on in what the canonical texts tell us about the Twelve; indeed 
the lists of names don't quite coincide. Could it be that the tradition 
underlying Matthew 10--not the extant composite chapter but the 
underlying tradition--actually reflect the post-resurrection 
understanding of the Mission of the Twelve. Have I answered my own 
question in asking it? This would actually have to be true about the 
mission discourse in all the gospels. Perhaps it is the idea of a "crash 
mission" that is the more questionable element in the accounts. Pardon 
me, folks, I have a tendency to think at the keyboard.

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: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 06:10:02 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Acts 19:3; GAR

On Wed, 12 Apr 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> >>On Tue, 11 Apr 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> 
> >>Postpositives MUST come second in a sentence (which is why I >>once said
> "bah, humbug" to an argument that Mark's gospel >>couldn't end at 16:8
> because a Greek sentence can't end with a >>GAR; when both subject and
> predicate are present in >>EFOBOUNTO, there's no place else for the GAR to
> come but after >>that.
> 
>     Bruce Terry amened....
> >Exactly!  The people who say this have never read John 13:13 in >Greek.
> 
>   But isn't EIMI GAR in Jn 13:13  in the middle of a rational argument, and
> Mk 16:8 is at the end of a book?  Doesn't that make a difference?

If I were punctuating Jn 13:13, I would enclose the EIMI GAR either in 
parentheses or in dashes, and translate: "You call me 'teacher' and 
'lord'--rightly so (I am, after all!)." 

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: TimNeum@aol.com
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 08:19:19 -0400
Subject: Apostolic authority and baptism threads. 

Greetings!

The tenor of the recent discussion on these topics leads me to apologize for
even bringing up the question I did on Matt. 28:16-20 and lay evangelism. I
have been away because of a family emergency. Had I been able to keep better
track of the postings which dealt with my question I may have been able to
ask that the thread be cut.

I feel that the strident tone which developed resulted from doctrinal
differences and differences in ecclesiastical polity. For example, members of
denominations which value the office of the ministry as a _medium secundum_
(i.e. their sole function is proclaiming the gospel and administering the
sacraments (or ordinances, if you prefer), which are the means God has given
to dispense His grace, to convey the forgiveness of sins) are summarily
dismissed as "Jezebel" or "Nicolaitans."

I only sought some feedback on a question which I had asked. Instead, we
aimed flaming darts at each other. This was never the intent of this list. We
all should be able to attest to this. 

However, I felt an element of dishonesty on the part of some. There was more
more smoke and heat and less light. Dear members of this "virtual" community,
if this is a network of scholars committed to the study of the Greek
Scriptures, then we should all subject ourselves to the authority of the text
(at least those of us who hold them to be inerrant and divinely inspired). If
there are issues of casuistry, polity, ecclesiology, or "official doctrinal
positions," they should be raised outside of the confines of this mailing
list.

It comes down to this. Is this mailing list about (omologia or dialogia? We
should be sharing different interpretations without being offended when
others are unable to conform to our "orthodoxy."

Hopefully, now that I am reasonably caught up with things, I might be able to
respond to various issues raised _privately_ if the Greek text is not
involved. I only hope that I may be phrase my discussion in humble questions
and comments rather than in strident denominational exclamations and
excoriations.

"And the peace that passes all human understanding will keep our hearts and
minds in Christ Jesus."

Pax tecum
Timothy L. Neumann
Minister in training, Holy Cross Lutheran Church
Vandalia, Illinois
TimNeum@aol.com

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

From: "John B. Jones, Promus Companies" <jbjones@promus.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 08:46:41 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Purity/Impurity

Greek gurus,
I have a question for which I would like plenty of input.  When the
NT talks about purity, what did the first Christians think of?
In Gal 5:19 it says "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious:
impurity...(other stuff)"  So what would that refer to?
I've heard it defined as theft, or gossip, or voyeurism, or various
other sexual perversions, or embezzlement, slander, masturbation, actually
I've seen this word used to refer to a huge crowd of things.  What did
it mean in the first century?  What does it mean in the greek?

What did purity mean back then?  I've heard people say that for them
it refered to the Jewish code, but it had to refer to more than that
for disciples, I feel certain. Comments?

jbjones@promus.com

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

From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 95 09:08:39 
Subject: matt's donkeys

Just a thought--

It is possible, is it not, that two animals together in a train could be
referred to in the singular?  And that this kind of--what's the term I'm
looking for?  I know there's a technical term for this linguistic phenomena,
but I can't remember it right now--grouping would lead to a bit of confusion
(or at least what *we* would call confusion) between the singular and the
plural when a collective is in view.

I think that, in Matthew's mind, the two donkeys formed a collective, and when
Jesus rode one of them he rode the whole train.  

Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University

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

From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 10:06:52 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: matt's donkeys

On Wed, 12 Apr 1995 perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:
> 
> Just a thought--
> 
> It is possible, is it not, that two animals together in a train could be
> referred to in the singular?  And that this kind of--what's the term I'm
> looking for?  I know there's a technical term for this linguistic phenomena,
> but I can't remember it right now--grouping would lead to a bit of confusion
> (or at least what *we* would call confusion) between the singular and the
> plural when a collective is in view.
> 
> I think that, in Matthew's mind, the two donkeys formed a collective, and when
> Jesus rode one of them he rode the whole train.  

The figure you're thinking about, I believe, is HENDIADYS (<HEN DIA 
DUOIN, where DUOIN is the archaic genitive dual of DUO, "one thing by 
means of two"). The example by which many people learn this is the 
opening line of the Aeneid of Vergil:

	arma virumque cano, Troiae qui primus ab oris ...

Here ARMA VIRUMQUE, "arms and the man," are said to express the single 
idea "heroic warrior." On the other hand, it is also true that Vergil 
meant to indicate that he was emulating the proems of both the Iliad 
(about warfare) and the Odyssey (about ANDRA, "the man").

In the case of Matthew 21:7 this does not seem to be a literary device at 
all, as two animals are explicitly named.

On the other hand, the idea of the two animals in tandem is far more 
appealing than believing that Matthew actually CONCEIVED of Jesus riding 
both beasts simultaneously. 

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 Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 08:30:45 -0700
Subject: Acts 19:1

Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu> quoted and wrote:

>>	I am especially intrigued by Carl's reference to PAULON here as
>>a *subject* in the accusative case.  I would understand PAULON as the
>>*object* of EGENETO with, as Ken said, the the subject understood in 
the
>>verb.
>>
>> The DE should not be overlooked.  It is an indicator of change
>>of focus, since the verses previous to the chapter division have been
>>discussing Apollos.
>
>David--
>
>If the subject of an infinitive does not "spread" from the main 
clause, it is
>given in the accusative case.  Carl is saying, not just that PAULON is 
the
>subject, but that the whole compound infinitive clause is the subject 
of
>EGENETO.  In English we would have to use gerunds:
>
>Paul's going to Ephesus and finding some disciples happened.
>^----------------Subject-------------------------^ ^-Verb-^
>
>Where EGENETO takes two arguments, one is subject and the other is 
object
>(Predicate Nominative):
>
>X becomes/is Y.
>
>But where it only takes one argument, that argument is the subject, 
thus:
>
>X happens.
>
>This is a little overstated because at least in English one can say:
>
>X happened to Z
>
>where Z is an infinitive.  I am sure that someone will post an example 
proving
>or disproving this usage for Greek.
>
>However, this infinitive phrase is not the compliment of the verb. 
"It" did
>not happen to come and to find; Paul is the one who came and found.

	Your explanation is very clear, and I'm beginning to think you 
and Carl are right in understanding the infinitive phrase PAULON 
KATELQEIN EIS EFESON KAI EU(REIN TINAS MAQHTAS as the subject of the 
sentence.  The accusati
ve PAULON not functioning as an object, however, throws me for a loop.  
Turner writes of the accusative with inf. with verbs like EGENETO in 
Moulton, III:148f.  But he doesn't make clear whether the acc. is used 
as a dire
ct object or only as the subject of the infinitive.  I recognize that 
an accusative can be subject of an infinitive, but usually such an 
accusative also functions as an object: PROSETACEN ... AUTOUS ... 
BAPTISQHNAI (Acts 
10:48) for instance.

	Can anyone point out other passages where an accusative, whithout 
functioning itself as an object, functions as subject of an infinitive. 
 Bruce says, "If the subject of an infinitive does not 'spread' from 
the main clau
se, it is given in the accusative case."  Can you give me a reference 
in a grammar for that rule?  As I said, I'm intrigued.

>As for the DE, your point is well taken; however, it has more than 
just a
>change of focus here.  Levinsohn has shown that DE marks the beginning 
of what
>he calls Development Units (loosely, major paragraphs).  That is why 
at the
>beginning of paragraphs it is often translated "now" instead of "but" 
as it is
>in the middle of a sentence.  This is the difference between its 
sentential
>use and its discourse use.

	An interesting note; thanks.

Regards to all,


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

From: Leo Percer <PERCERL@baylor.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 10:57:27 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Truth in John/Objectivity

Timster132 said (in part):

>   The Heizenburg principle (from post-modern physics) states that we cannot
>know for sure where, say, a particle is, because our observing a particle
>changes the actual location of a particle, because the light we use to view
>it is having an effect on the particle we are viewing.
>   So it is when we are viewing any event, we effect the event by our
>observing it... the event in itself is changed because it becomes an observed
>event and so we actually become part of the event-- the event is enlarged to
>encorporate the viewer, as thus the event changes fundamentally.  In other
>words, the idea that we can observe an event totally objectively, totally
>separate from the event is as misperception and really, a deception.

Tim, I don't mean to be rude or to sound ignorant, but isn't this line of 
reasoning akin to the statement "There are no absolutes"?  That is, your 
assumption is based on a (somewhat) objectively observed event in which the 
observer becomes in some way part of the observed.  But then, of course, 
the person observing this observed event becomes a part of the observation, 
ad infinitum. 

I guess my point is that somewhere in there for this idea to make any sense we
must postulate at least some level of objectivity.  For example, the Heizenburg
principle assumes that there is light influencing the particle because it
assumes some kind of objective ability to see or measure the light.  Maybe it
isn't light that effects the particle at all, but rather the ether or demons?
How can we tell if things cannot be "observed" without the absorption of the
"observer" into the observation?  Isn't Heizenburg's belief in his ability to
measure light in some sense a "deception" according to his own principle?  If
so, how can we use this approach to fashion statements about "truth" or
"belief systems" at all?  According to this principle, all we say is just
informed opinion, therefore there is no real truth.  And yet, that 
statement is assumed to be true, so there must be some truth.  Does anyone 
else see the problem here or am I the only one so deceived?

You go on to observe (while being absorbed into the observation and thus 
tainting your observation and making it purely subjective, and hence maybe 
even incorrect!):

>    What it all comes down to is that we cannot prove with _absolute
>certainty_ anything empirically.  It means that life itself is an act of
>trust and faith-- we must choose what we are to believe is true, since
>nothing is provable in an absolute sense.

One question--Are you absolutely certain about this issue as your language 
in this post indicates?  If so, then you are wrong.  If, on the other hand, 
you are _not_ absolutely certain about your views, why hold them?  What is 
the criteria for claiming them to be true or even good as a means to live a 
fruitful or good life?  Your statements above are (according to your view) 
unprovable, yet you remain convinced that "we must" do this or that.  Why 
must we?  Couldn't we as easily choose not to believe _anything_ or to 
believe that things can be objectively observed and absolutely proven?  How 
are these views any less "true" than yours?

You continue (absorbed in your totally unprovable and unobjective 
observation):

>    So we come to a point where we ask what is the absolute about reality,
>existance?  in other words, What is, or who is God?  
>    The Christian faith is a decision to trust the gospel message that God is
>a loving and forgiving God, full of compassion, as was witnessed by those who
>saw God in Jesus.
>    So, faith is an intuitive leap, not a reasoned, fact-based conclusion.
> That is why I say my faith is not based on the "historical facts" found in
>the Bible.  It is a trust in the gospel message about who God is.

I think that perhaps you have been reading too much Kierkegaard or Kant, 
but I can't prove it (especially since _nothing_ is provable empirically 
- --then again, I guess you can't prove you are really reading this post, 
rather you simply choose to believe that computers can communicate in this 
way and that your eyes can read electronic generated images and that you 
can make any sense out of these squigglies on the screen, right?).  "Faith 
is an intuitive leap", but what informs our intuition?  How do we even know 
that we have intuition that helps us make an intuitive leap?  Remember, any 
certainty about this whole event is a misperception and perhaps even a 
deception!  So, you cannot be sure that we even have communicated, much 
less that you have really made an intuitive leap of faith!  Indeed, by 
simply reading this post you have completely changed its meaning! Or maybe what 
really happened is that your synapses operated in a way that is different 
from mine and caused an experience that makes you believe that you read 
about the Heizenburg principle when in reality it doesn't exist?  How can 
we prove it?  We can't, for nothing can be proven empirically with absolute 
certainty (but maybe with varying shades of certainty, but how would we 
tell the difference?).  In other words, we cannot "know" anything, and that 
can be quite confusing.  Or, am I the only confused?  Who "knows"?

With apologies for the long post,

Leo Percer
PERCERL@BAYLOR.EDU

 

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

From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 95 10:57 CDT
Subject: Matthew 21:7 

Regarding a special use of the plural in Mt 21:7, D.A. Carson's
commentary mentions a "plural of category," citing Turner's
*Insights*, p. 41.  Sometimes this is called a generalizing
or categorical plural.  Carson also cites Plummer's
interesting remark:  "The Evangelist credits his readers
with common sense."  I shall not touch the latter remark.
- --Paul Moser, Loyola University of Chicago.

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

From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 10:25:57 CST
Subject: Re: Matthew 21:7 

On Wed, 12 Apr 95, Paul Moser wrote:

>Regarding a special use of the plural in Mt 21:7, D.A. Carson's
>commentary mentions a "plural of category," citing Turner's
>*Insights*, p. 41.  Sometimes this is called a generalizing
>or categorical plural.

Thanks for the reference, Paul. The correct page in _Insights_ is 69, not 41.

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

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

From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 09:42:50 -0700
Subject: Acts 19:1

Carl Conrad quoted and wrote:

>> 	In reference to the infinitives about which Ken has asked: their
>> subject, IMO, would most naturally be the same as that of EGENETO.  If
>> the infinitives (KATELQEIN and E(UREIN) are taken as complements of
>> EGENETO, it would be natural to take them as referring to the "it" which
>> is the subject of that verb (See Bl-DeB #392, 1.).  So the passage is
>> saying, "It happened to Paul, however, to come to Ephesus and to find
>> some disciples,"  which, of course is very bad English style but gives
>> the idea of what is being expressed by the Greek here.  Injecting the
>> time-referent phrases in their places would complete the sense of the
>> verse.
>
>If BDF say that "it" is the subject of EGENETO, I think it is one reason
>why BDF needs to be replaced. I'll look at that reference tomorrow
>morning, but this way of talking about Greek grammar makes it look 
like
>Greek is a bad way of expressing an idea that can only naturally be
>expressed in English. In the English sentence, "It happened that Paul
>came to Ephesos," IT is an "expletive," a place-filler that satisfies 
the
>English-speaker's psychological need for something to fill the place 
of a
>subject which in English normally precedes the verb. But the real 
subject
>of "happened" is "that Paul came to Ephesos." The way your translating 
it
>does make it clear what you mean by saying that Paul is an object of
>"happened," although this is exceedingly strange; your use of the
>preposition "to" (TO Paul) indicates that you realize that EGENETO is
>intransitive; in this instance we would be reading in the Greek not
>PAULON but rather PAULWI.

	Please, don't blame BDF.  The passage I cited doesn't reference 
Acts 19:1; it just says that the subject of the infinitive is often 
identical with that of the governing verb.  

	The only constructions that are similar to the way I was 
understanding this passage have the noun in the nominative and probably 
functioning as the subject.  John 1:6, for instance, says EGENETO 
ANQRWPOS, APESTALMENOS PARA QEOU, ONOMA AUTW IWANNHS; or take Mark 1:4 
EGENETO IWANNHS O( BAPTIZWN EN TH ERHMW KAI KHRUSSON ...  I also 
notice, upon looking s.v. GINOMAI in Moulton & Geden, that the 
construction with EGENETO + accusative + infinitive is fairly common.  
See, for instance, Lu. 16:22.

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

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

From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 10:41:00 CST
Subject: Re: purists 

On Tue, 11 Apr 1995, Carlton Winbery wrote:

>Bruce Terry wrote,
>>If the subject of an infinitive<
>Most grammarians call that an accusative of reference.

That what I get for studying my Greek in the light of linguistics.

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

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

From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 11:50:51 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Truth in John/Objectivity

Anybody ever heard of the Greek philosopher Pyrrhon (and the Sceptical 
philosophical tradition)?  When I see the breathlessly announced 
"new" insights of inter alia "postmodernism" etc., I am inclined to 
remember "Plus ca change . . ."

 Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba

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

End of b-greek-digest V1 #663
*****************************

** 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