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

b-greek-digest V1 #670




b-greek-digest             Tuesday, 18 April 1995       Volume 01 : Number 670

In this issue:

        Re: 1st C. synagoague services?
        pleiona in Heb 11:4 
        LXX Editions 
        Paper Wars 
        Re: pleiona in Heb 11:4
        Re: Key Synoptic Problem Texts
        Re: LXX Editions
        Re: pleiona in Heb 11:4
        Re: Key Synoptic Problem Texts
        Re: Paper Wars
        Re: Acts 19:1 
        Re: LXX Editions 
        Re: Paper Wars 
        Erasmus' text 
        Re: Key Synoptic Problem Texts

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

From: Pat Tiller <ptiller@husc.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 09:38:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: 1st C. synagoague services?

On Fri, 14 Apr 1995, Kent Sutorius wrote:

> [lines deleted]
> the Gospels and I don't recall many of the sources, but I cited in my paper 
> and mapped out over twenty-four synagoues that were first century in the 
> Galilee area.  I visited sites in Tiberius, Capernaum and northwest portions 
> of the Galilee region.  Tiberias had a number of synagogues.  The 
> Palestinian Talmud was a great source.  The Encylopedia Judaica is helpful.
> Sorry I can't locate my paper for more specific information.

I don't know about the others, but most sources seem to think that the 
synagogue in Capernaum is a 2nd century building.  Is there 
archaeological evidence for another synagogue underneath it.  If so, what 
evidence is there for how it was used?

Pat Tiller
Harvard Divinity School

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

From: DDDJ@aol.com
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 11:49:29 -0400
Subject: pleiona in Heb 11:4 

pleiona ( I hope I transliterated right here) in Heb 11:4 is usually
translated to modify faith. But it seems more likely that it should modify
sacrifice. This is supported by the LXX which states that Cain improperly
divided the harvest (ie did not tithe) This is supported by some Church
Fathers like Tertullian and Ireneaus and Clement of Rome. Am I out on a limb
here?
Dennis

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

From: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 11:55:55 -0400
Subject: LXX Editions 

Fellow B-Greek Subscribers:

I am looking for a small-size edition of the LXX.  I have Rahlfs', but am look
ing for something that might be published on Bible paper (and hence much
thinner), and, of course, I wouldn't expect such an edition to have critical
notes, etc.  Basically I'm looking for one to carry for quick reference.  Is
anyone familiar with such an edition?  Any information would be most useful.
 Thank you!

James White

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

From: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 11:55:57 -0400
Subject: Paper Wars 

Fellow B-Greek subscribers:

A note of correction.  Two weeks ago when I noted the release of _The King Jam
es Only Controversy_ I mistakenly trusted the catalog and noted the price as
$9.99.  Due to some great "paper war" going on in the country right now, the
cost was raised to $10.99.  I guess this is a common problem across the
publishing industry---the reasons are unknown to me.

And, for those of you interested in what happens when you dare respond
directly to the KJV Only folks, Mrs. Gail Riplinger, author of _New Age Bible
Versions_, has written a book "responding" to me and a few others.  Just to
give you an idea of the level of the work, some of the subtitles are "White's
Whoppers," "White-Washed Tombs" and "James White Meets Vana White."  Of
course, her work was written on the basis of 30 pages of the 303 pages of
_The King James Only Controversy_, but just when did context bother such
folks anyway?  I guess I should be honored to be misrepresented and lied
about right alongside such folks as Bruce Metzger, D.A. Carson, and Kenneth
Barker.

James>>>

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

From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 11:01:21 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: pleiona in Heb 11:4

On Mon, 17 Apr 1995 DDDJ@aol.com wrote:

> pleiona ( I hope I transliterated right here) in Heb 11:4 is usually
> translated to modify faith. But it seems more likely that it should modify
> sacrifice. This is supported by the LXX which states that Cain improperly
> divided the harvest (ie did not tithe) This is supported by some Church
> Fathers like Tertullian and Ireneaus and Clement of Rome. Am I out on a limb
> here?
> Dennis

In the first place, I don't understand what is meant by saying, "is 
usually translated to modify faith." The usual translation, I believe, is 
"By faith Abel offered a greater offering ..." QUSIAN is the only 
possible noun for PLEIONA to govern in the context: acc., fem. sg. 

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: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 95 11:05:39 EDT
Subject: Re: Key Synoptic Problem Texts

Phillip Long wrote:
> I would like to compile a list of the most troublesome to harmonize 
> Synoptic parallels.  What, in your opinion, are the most difficult 
> parallels to reconcile?
> 
> To tell you the truth, I'm not so much interested in an answer to the 
> problems these texts present, just in knowing which ones are the most 
> difficult.

I've been doing some amount of reading on the synoptic problem and the
texts posing the most problem, in my opinion, to the now dominant Two
Source Hypothesis (2SH), are the areas of a Q-Mark overlap, viz., the
Preaching of John the Baptist, the Baptism of Jesus, the Parable of the
Mustard Seed followed by the Parable of the Leaven, and the Beelzebul
controversy ("a house divided").

The existence of Q-Mark overlaps has been postulated to account for
Matthew's and Luke's independent use of Mark, so it is a necessary part
of the 2SH.  Unfortunately, it has also made the nature and extent of Q
quite problematic.  Q no longer appears to be a sayings source along
the lines of GThom, for it includes some narrative sections; the
detection of some overlaps with Mark forces one to consider the
possibility and extent of less detectable overlaps (i.e., can it/should
it explain the minor anti-Markan agreements in other pericopes such as
the Healing of a Leper?).

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

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

From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 13:10:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: LXX Editions

On Mon, 17 Apr 1995 Orthopodeo@aol.com wrote:

> Fellow B-Greek Subscribers:
> 
> I am looking for a small-size edition of the LXX.  I have Rahlfs', but am look
> ing for something that might be published on Bible paper (and hence much
> thinner), and, of course, I wouldn't expect such an edition to have critical
> notes, etc.  Basically I'm looking for one to carry for quick reference.  Is
> anyone familiar with such an edition?  Any information would be most useful.
>  Thank you!
> 
> James White
> 


James, the American Bible Society Scholarly Pub. Cat. provides a smaller 
one vol. edition of Rahlfs (19x12.5cm).  Page 7, #AAF103988 at $40.  I 
know of nothing smaller.  Call 1-800-32BIBLE to order.  Request their 
Scholarly Pub. Cat., it has numerous biblical studies tools.

While we are on the subject, ABS/UBS now has a one vol. Hebrew/Greek 
testament.  They displayed it at SBL but it is not being distributed in 
America yet...soon, I'm told.  Size is decent.

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

From: Ken Penner <kpenner@unixg.ubc.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 10:31:57 -0700
Subject: Re: pleiona in Heb 11:4

>pleiona ( I hope I transliterated right here) in Heb 11:4 is usually
>translated to modify faith. But it seems more likely that it should modify
>sacrifice.

Pleiona does modify thusian (sacrifice) in the popular translations:

King James: a more excellent sacrifice
NIV: a better sacrfice
REB: a greater sacrifice

You're right: pleiona is accusative, modifying thusian.
It would need to be dative (pleiosin) to modify pistei (faith).
Ken Penner
Regent College

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

From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 14:48:10 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Key Synoptic Problem Texts

On Mon, 17 Apr 1995, Stephen Carlson wrote:

> Phillip Long wrote:
> > I would like to compile a list of the most troublesome to harmonize 
> > Synoptic parallels.  What, in your opinion, are the most difficult 
> > parallels to reconcile?
> > 
> > To tell you the truth, I'm not so much interested in an answer to the 
> > problems these texts present, just in knowing which ones are the most 
> > difficult.
> 
> I've been doing some amount of reading on the synoptic problem and the
> texts posing the most problem, in my opinion, to the now dominant Two
> Source Hypothesis (2SH), are the areas of a Q-Mark overlap, viz., the
> Preaching of John the Baptist, the Baptism of Jesus, the Parable of the
> Mustard Seed followed by the Parable of the Leaven, and the Beelzebul
> controversy ("a house divided").
> 
> The existence of Q-Mark overlaps has been postulated to account for
> Matthew's and Luke's independent use of Mark, so it is a necessary part
> of the 2SH.  Unfortunately, it has also made the nature and extent of Q
> quite problematic.  Q no longer appears to be a sayings source along
> the lines of GThom, for it includes some narrative sections; the
> detection of some overlaps with Mark forces one to consider the
> possibility and extent of less detectable overlaps (i.e., can it/should
> it explain the minor anti-Markan agreements in other pericopes such as
> the Healing of a Leper?).

Sorry to cite all this material, but perhaps it's germane.

I wonder if Mr. Long will tell us exactly WHY he is interested in hearing 
which passages are the most difficult to harmonize. Is it, as Stephen 
Carlson seems to surmise, the passages that are most difficult for the 
two-source hypothesis to work out? Sheer curiosity? 

The complex materials constituting the Synoptic Missionary Discourse have 
been the focus of close analysis in a small work group for the past three 
or four weeks, and there are certainly sizable problems in this whole 
area, both in terms of the order of "Q" texts and in terms of where 
redaction of source material must be assumed. It's evident that Luke uses 
some of the same material in his Mission of the Twelve in chapter 9 and 
in the Mission of the Seventy(-Two) in chapter 10. Lots of problems here. 
This has been a first-rate complex to explore even with a view to 
determining what the serious questions are to which answers must be 
sought if one is to have an intelligent understanding of the relationship 
between the Synoptic gospels.

What then is Phillip Long's focus of curiosity here? 

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: "Richard R. Dupont" <rdupont@ozarks.sgcl.lib.mo.us>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 14:59:59 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Paper Wars

	It is a source of continuous hilarity to me whenever I 
contemplate the "KJV only" phenomenon for the following reason:

	The Greek text upon which the original KJV was based was Erasmus' 
Greek version.  Now, considering that Erasmus was a Catholic and a 
humanist (shudders!) shouldn't we then conclude that KJV itself is an 
RCC/secular humanist plot?  The arguments in favor of KJV only make about 
as much sense as this does.


Rich Dupont
Evangel College
(rdupont@ozarks.sgcl.lib.mo.us)


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

From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 15:45:35 CST
Subject: Re: Acts 19:1 

On Wed, 12 Apr 1995, Micheal Palmer wrote:

>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:

***************most examples deleted*****************

>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.]

***************more examples deleted*****************

Micheal--

This is interesting.  Most of your examples use the copula plus an adjective. 
This is very similar to the predicate adjective construction where the PA
occurs in the same case as the subject.  Is something like this going on for
infinitive clauses as well?  Your exception is with a participle.  I wonder,
since the participle is referring to the writer, Paul, should we expect
something other than the nominative here?

- --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: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 17:44:27 -0400
Subject: Re: LXX Editions 

> I am looking for a small-size edition of the LXX.  I have Rahlfs', but am
look
> ing for something that might be published on Bible paper (and hence much
> thinner), and, of course, I wouldn't expect such an edition to have
critical
> notes, etc.  Basically I'm looking for one to carry for quick reference.
 Is
> anyone familiar with such an edition?  Any information would be most
useful.
>  Thank you!

<James, the American Bible Society Scholarly Pub. Cat. provides a smaller 
one vol. edition of Rahlfs (19x12.5cm).  Page 7, #AAF103988 at $40.  I 
know of nothing smaller.  Call 1-800-32BIBLE to order.  Request their 
Scholarly Pub. Cat., it has numerous biblical studies tools.>

Yes, I've about gone broke buying all that stuff over the years.  I should
have mentioned that the Rahlfs' edition I have is the one volume.  I'm
looking for something smaller. 

<While we are on the subject, ABS/UBS now has a one vol. Hebrew/Greek 
testament.  They displayed it at SBL but it is not being distributed in 
America yet...soon, I'm told.  Size is decent.>

About time they did that.  I had two such volumes bound over the past few
years, and find them wonderfully useful.

James>>>

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

From: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 17:44:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Paper Wars 

	<It is a source of continuous hilarity to me whenever I 
contemplate the "KJV only" phenomenon for the following reason:

	The Greek text upon which the original KJV was based was Erasmus' 
Greek version.  Now, considering that Erasmus was a Catholic and a 
humanist (shudders!) shouldn't we then conclude that KJV itself is an 
RCC/secular humanist plot?  The arguments in favor of KJV only make about 
as much sense as this does.>

Such an argument, however, requires the following things:

1)  A knowledge of who Erasmus was and how his work is related to the text of
the KJV;
2)  A desire to think and reason logically.

98.5% of all KJV Only advocates I know lack one or both of the above.  I went
into some depth on Erasmus in the book, hoping to dispel some of the ignorance
 surrounding him.  However, one must realize that this movement thrives on
illogic.  You will find many KJV Only advocates trying to turn Erasmus into a
Baptist (quite honestly!), ignoring his writings in favor of transubstantiatio
n and the Mass, etc.  Selective use of citations and facts is a hallmark of
KJV Onlyism.  And also realize that some of the leading proponents of this
movement, such as Gail Riplinger, honestly make arguments like the one
recently reported to me by another b-greek subscriber, Dr. Robinson: One
should avoid the use of Greek Lexicons because the last five letters of
"lexicon" spell "icon."  Such argumentation is common in KJV Only materials--i
f you ever get a chance look over Riplinger's _New Age Bible Versions_ and
check out her "acrostic algebra" sometime.

James White

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

From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 21:02:55 -0400
Subject: Erasmus' text 

Richard Dupont wrote,
> The Greek text upon which the original KJV was based was Erasmus' Greek
version.<

Actually the third edition of Erasmus was also revised by Stephanus (Robert
Estiene) and Beza.  These revisions brought the Erasmas' texts closer to the
Latin Vulgate, such as the famous passage introducing the Trinity in 1 John
5.

Metzger's standard work on the Text and also the Textual Commentary discuss
this passage and the revisions of Erasmus.

Carlton Winbery

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

From: Phillip Long <plong@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 18:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Key Synoptic Problem Texts

On Mon, 17 Apr 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> 
> I wonder if Mr. Long will tell us exactly WHY he is interested in hearing 
> which passages are the most difficult to harmonize. Is it, as Stephen 
> Carlson seems to surmise, the passages that are most difficult for the 
> two-source hypothesis to work out? Sheer curiosity? 

No, I'm working on a paper on the Synoptic problem, and need to narrow 
the mass of problem passages down to the most important ones, or at least 
the most contraversial ones.

The use of Q and two/four source hypothesis is a part of the problem, and 
certainly something that I need to deal with.  As Mr. Carlson has said 
above, one has to expand Q to include more than is traditionally there, 
or, allow the Authors more freedom with thier sources.  I don't know if I 
ready to do either, yet.
 
> The complex materials constituting the Synoptic Missionary Discourse

This is a good example, even the parallels are in question.  Is this one 
event, told twice, or two separate events?  If it is two events, does 
Jesus say similar things both times, or is there dependance on a source 
by Luke (as you suggest...)

> What then is Phillip Long's focus of curiosity here? 

I guess it is not really well focused at this point....I want to know 
where the problems are the most glaring.  (You have already suggested a 
very difficult one....)

Thanks for the discussion...

Phil

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

End of b-greek-digest V1 #670
*****************************

** 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