b-greek-digest V1 #690

b-greek-digest             Wednesday, 3 May 1995       Volume 01 : Number 690

In this issue:

        Re: The Lame Man in John 
        Re: James 1:20, Contra NIV 
        Translation and Style 
        Re: Jn 19:39 -- Altered Reality
        Re: imperative clause 
        Re: LXX, NT and Apostolic Fa. Word lists
        Luke 16:26 EN PASI TOUTOIS
        Re: NA26 and NA27 changes?
        Re: eis with accusative 
        Re: Jn 19:39 -- Altered Reality
        Re: Translations 
        Re: Jn 19:39 -- Altered Reality 
        Re: Jn 19:39 -- Altered Reality 
        RE: Jesus' death 


From: GGoolde@aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 01:58:18 -0400
Subject: Re: The Lame Man in John 

William Brooks,

Thanks for your good observations, brother.  I have only a few small ideas to

1.  V14 doesn't say that his condition was becasuse of his specific, personal
sin.  It merely warns him to stop sinning or a worse thing may come upon him.
 Since all have sinned we don't really know if he was a worse sinner - i.e.
scoundrel - than most.

2.  The passage doesn't treat the question of why he was in this condition,
in constrast to the blind man Jesus healed in John 9.  In that case the
question is asked and answered by the Lord (vv2-3), but we cannot assume that
to always be the case.

3.  Since the Scripture doesn't say why the lame man was in that condition, I
believe that is not the point God is making.  To truly exegete the text is to
lead the truth out of the text, that is, to discover the truth God put there.

4.  It also doesn't say WHY Jesus healed him!  But we do learn that the
unbelieving Jews reacted to His healing on the Sabbath v14.  Perhaps the most
important truth in the passage is that Jesus made Himself equal with the
Father (v18).  

5.  In summary:  Might we be in danger when we preach or teach on what the
Scripture does not clearly say?  Would we do better to focus on what is
declared in the text by God Himself?  Could it be that the most accurate
answer to your good question is:  "The Bible doesn't say."?

George Goolde
Dean, Graduate Studies, San Diego Bible Seminary


From: GGoolde@aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 02:18:44 -0400
Subject: Re: James 1:20, Contra NIV 


I agree completely.  The approach of those who would produce a translation of
"dynamic equivalence" must always be to interpret the text and render the
meaning in the receptor language.  I believe interpretation is the
responsibility of every believer, hence I do not favor a translational
approach which shifts this function to the translators.  Of course, in every
translation there is some interpretation.  But the less the better, I think.
 And nowhere is this more true than in attempts to translate the Genitive.

Keep on translating!

George Goolde


From: ATaranto@aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 03:42:53 -0400
Subject: Translation and Style 

Good Morning.  Many thanks for the responses concerning the NA 27/28 and the
UBS 3/4.  As it turns out, one of the [largely unused] GNTs sitting on my
shelf is a UBS 4, which I received as a graduation present.  I thought at
first that the font looked nice, but I admit that I've never attempted any
sort of extended reading from it.

Anyway, before I get to my question, I'll introduce myself a bit more
extensively than I did before.  I graduated from Westmont College a year ago
with a BA in English literature: I do not plan to do a thing with it.  I took
up foreign languages as a hobby just about two years ago and have developed a
particular interest in Greek and Latin.  But alas, Ben Jonson must have had a
vision about me: meum Latinum parvum, Graecum parvius.  I'm more devoted to
Latin at the moment because (1) it seems easier to me & (2) I've had some
Latin in high school.  I confess that much of what's discussed on the list
(in which I've been lurking for about two months now) goes over my head, but
I get some of it and I enjoy more.

On to my question: What are stylistic considerations when translating the NT?
 For example, Will Durant says Paul's writings are marked by "bad grammar,"
and a "robust style."   With more attention to the former point, how does
this work itself into a translation?  Does the translator have to assume the
role of editor at times?  Is this a problem with other NT authors?  Am I
giving Durant more credit than he ought to have in this matter?

Andrew Taranto


From: Timothy Bratton <bratton@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 08:24:02 -35900
Subject: Re: Jn 19:39 -- Altered Reality

On Tue, 2 May 1995 JacksonMH@aol.com wrote: 

> Are there any Egyptologists out there who can say with any degree of
> certainty how much "preservative" was used in the mummification of a
> corpse?  My understanding has always been that the whole point of
> embalming was to make a full-body poultice - to keep decay down as much
> as possible.  It is also my understanding that myrrh is somewhat
> poisonous (thus its value as a  preservative - kills decay bacteria).  If
> this is true, would this not militate against its revivifying
> properties? 
> Martin Jackson >
> Candidate of Theology 
> Bethany Lutheran Seminary, Mankato, MN 
> jacksonmh@aol.com

Dr. Timothy L. Bratton			bratton@acc.jc.edu
Department of History/Pol. Science	work: 1-701-252-3467, ext. 2022 
6006 Jamestown College			home: 1-701-252-8895
Jamestown, ND 58405		        home phone/fax: 1-701-252-7507

Dear Martin:
	As I'm in the middle of final exams, I can't give this 
interesting question the time it deserves.  However, here's some initial 
grist for the mill.  Myrrh was derived probably from two types of low, 
scrubby, bushy trees, _Commiphora myrrha_ or _C. kataf_.  The gum of 
these trees is soft, transparent, and yellow, but hardens into an oily 
yellow-brown resin which then drops on the ground.  It dissolves in 
alcohol (including wine), and was thus offered to Jesus on the cross as 
either a stimulant or pain-killer.  My old copy of Andrew Duncan's _The 
Edinburgh New Dispensatory_ (Worcester, MA.: Isaiah Thomas, 1805), page 
264, remarks that myrrh will "resist putrefaction."  However, most tree 
resins are acidic, and in the long run will damage corpses; for example, 
King Tut's mummy was damaged by the very resins that had been poured on 
it to preserve it, whereas the naturally mummified bodies of peasants 
buried in hot sand in the Egyptian desert are in much better shape.  The 
_Society for Ancient Medicine Newsletter_ has extensive articles about 
ancient pharmacy, but it lacks a cumulative index.  If I have time, I'll 
check my back issues for articles about myrrh.
	Against Rev. Graham, the "blood and water" flowing from Christ's 
side after the Roman soldier pierced him indicates separation of blood 
plasma (the "water") from the red corpuscles.  This would NOT have 
happened had He still been alive!


From: Tim McLay <nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 2 May 95 10:31:00 -0400
Subject: Re: imperative clause 

Shaughn Daniel wrote:

>I've been in and around Gal 1.8f for about 3 years now. I'm beginning
>another chapter in my endless thesis on "Curses in Paul". I am wondering if
>anyone has some insight into the construction of Paul's so-called curse in
>Gal. 1.8f.
I'm not sure what all you are doing, but when I was in Durham a guy 
started in NT with Jimmy Dunn and was doing work on Gal.  He
was making connections between Gal and Jeremiah and covenant theology.  
It's a little hazy in my mind, but I thought he was on to something.  His 
name was Jeff Wisdom.  He went back to the states and was going to 
continue part-time, but I don't know if he has kept at it.
Tim McLay,
Seems to be a trend, for what its worth: BA; MDiv; Ph.D. in OT (LXX) at U. 
of Durham, England; currently pastoring & part-time teaching.

 Tim McLay              
 Halifax, NS                        


From: Tim McLay <nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca>
Date: Tue, 2 May 95 10:32:35 -0400
Subject: Translations 

G Goolde wrote:

>I agree completely.  The approach of those who would produce a translation of
>"dynamic equivalence" must always be to interpret the text and render the
>meaning in the receptor language.  I believe interpretation is the
>responsibility of every believer, hence I do not favor a translational
>approach which shifts this function to the translators.  Of course, in every
>translation there is some interpretation.  But the less the better, I think.
> And nowhere is this more true than in attempts to translate the Genitive.

Not to start a whole new thread or war, but I respectfully disagree with 
the intent of your comments.  First, translations are made for different 
reasons and for different audiences.  Therefore, translations are more or 
less on a scale from "most dynamic" to "strictly formal" depending on who 
they are for.  For ex. there should be nothing ambiguous in a translation 
for children.  As a corollary to the above, *all* translations, and not 
just dynamic ones, "render the meaning in the receptor language." You 
would prefer that the meaning be more ambiguous.  But, should that be the 
purpose of the majority of translations?  Second, your comment "I believe 
that interpr. is the responsibility of every believer" assumes that every 
believer is capable of understanding that there is more than one way to 
understand a genitive or that they can make a decision about some obscure 
phrase.  I don't believe this is so.  There is a need in most linguistic 
communities (all but the scholars') for translations which attempt to 
communicate the meaning of the text as it was understood by the original 
readers in their receptor language.  The more ambiguity in the 
translation the harder it is for the person to understand the meaning of 
the text and to allow the text to interpret his/her life. Just some random 
Tim McLay

 Tim McLay              
 Halifax, NS                        


From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 09:54:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: LXX, NT and Apostolic Fa. Word lists

On Mon, 1 May 1995, Edgar M. Krentz wrote:

> There is no special list for the Apostolic Fathers. The closest one can
> come is the _Index Patristicus_, edited by Edgar John Goodspeed years ago.
> Alec Allenson reprinted it in the 1950s, I think, but it is long out of
> print.

Reprinted in 1993 by Hendrickson (with the very brief Latin preface 
helpfully translated into English by a member of this list, here unnamed, 
which is how I know it was reprinted).  Available inexpensively from 
Hendrickson or from CBD (with no royalties to the above-referenced person).
ISBN 1-56563-033-5.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest                            Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA      Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com           Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts


From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Tue, 2 May 95 08:16:02 PDT
Subject: Luke 16:26 EN PASI TOUTOIS

In the Luke 16 story of Lazarus and Dives, where Abraham is explaining to
the rich man why he cannot have a refreshment break, he says in verse 26:
What I cannot understand is the phrase EN PASI TOUTOIS.
What is the referent of PASI TOUTOIS and what does EN mean here?

The KJV reads "And beside all this" from the Byzantine variant reading of
"EPI PASI", which makes sense, because Abraham has already listed some
reasons why relief was impossible.  The NRSV and REB translations convey
about the same meaning as the KJV, but presumably translating EN PASI.
Bauer gives "in addition to" as a meaning of EPI+dat, but nothing in the entry
for EN seems to apply in this context - except perhaps "among" as a long shot.
(The Nova Vulgata reads ET IN HIS OMNIBUS, which is also opaque to me.)

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: TICHY@cmtfnw.upol.cz
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 21:00:32 MET+2
Subject: Re: NA26 and NA27 changes?

Rex Koivisto wrote:

> I am looking for any examples of intentional or accidental changes
> between NA 26 and NA 27.  Although NA 27 indicates in the preface that it
> is exactly the _same_ text as that of NA27, and "with rare exceptions" the
> paragraphing and punctuation remains the same.  It also indicates that it
> is _identical_ in text to the UBS 4th edition.  However, this is not
> precisely the case.  For example, in 1 Cor 6:3, NA26 and 27 both read "mhti
> ge" (two words), while UBS 4 reads "mhtige" (one word).  Apparently this is
> a typesetting error, but I am not sure.  I was just wondering whether
> anyone noted any similar actual _text_ changes (error or not) between NA26
> and NA27, since it is apparent there are some _text_ differences between
> UBS4 and NA26-27, despite the assertions to the contrary.  

 Thanks to Rex Koivisto for his observation. I would add:
 UBS 3rd ed., corr.  has MHTIGE (one word) too. There will be no 
 typesetting error here, rather a different orthography. A real 
 difference between NA26 and 27 can be found in 2 Tim 2:25: NA26 has 
 DW(i)H, i.e. aor. opt. (or subj.?) 3rd sg., but NA27 has DWH(i), 
 i.e. aor. subj. 3rd sg., like both UBS3 and UBS4. Another difference 
 (in the numbering of verses): Lk 1:47 begins with MEGALYNEI in UBS3 
 and UBS4, but in NA26 and 27 Lk 1:47 begins with KAI HGALLIASEN (so 
 other editions and translations). UBS editions may have an error 
 Ladislav Tichy
 Faculty of Theology
 Palacky University, Olomouc
 Czech Republic


From: Diakonian@aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 16:07:55 -0400
Subject: Unsubscribe 

Unsubscribe b-greek diakonian


From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Tue, 02 May 95 14:06:36 

Re the lame man (Jn. 5)--

See a great article by R. A. Culpepper in Mark W. G. Stibbe's *The Gospel of
John as Literature*.  Dr. Culpepper dissects the story from a form-critical
perspective (John's miracle stories share a common form, which this story
transgresses in interesting and instructive ways) and a narratological
perspective.  The form-critical insights are especially important for preaching
or exegesis of this troubling pericope.

Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University (yes, a student of Culpepper's)

        "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car   
               keys to teenage boys."
                        --P. J. O'Rourke


From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 02 May 1995 18:08:17 CST
Subject: Re: eis with accusative 

On Thu, 27 Apr 1995, Carlton Winbery wrote:

>That is true and a good point, but how do you translate the EIS TO KHRUGMA of
>Matt. 12:41?


If I were translating, I would probably stick with the RSV's "at the
preaching."  IMHO, the meaning here is probably something like "with a view
to," but I also really like Carl's suggestion "in response to."

I think it is helpful here to make Ken Pike's distinction between semantics
and the conceptual (which he usually calls "referencial") realm.  Semantically
I doubt that EIS is causal in this passage, although that is a remote
possibility.  Rather, if the repentance is in response to the preaching, then
conceptually the preaching was in some sense a factor (i.e. a cause) in
producing the repentance.  In other words, the word EIS is not causal
(semantically), but the scene it is used in describing does have causation in
it (conceptually).  Sometimes people try to transfer the causation from the
over-all picture to the semantic content of a single word.  I doubt that is
either necessary or desirable.

That there actually is a distinction between semantics and conception, let me
give the following example.  In the clause, "the key opened the lock,"
semantically the key is presented as the actor; conceptually, however, the key
is merely an instrument used by an unknown (or at least in this clause,
unpresented) person who turned the key.  This use of the word semantics
defines it as a role of grammar.  The conceptual realm is much bigger and is
influenced by more things than grammar.

- --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: RAMOSPM@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Date: Tue, 02 May 1995 19:31:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Unsubscribe

Unsubscribe b-greek RAMOSPM


From: Kent Sutorius <kassutor@clark.net>
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 23:47:54 +0500
Subject: Re: Jn 19:39 -- Altered Reality

Dear Martin,

>The Reverend Graham raises some interesting questions.  Are there any
>Egyptologists out there who can say with any degree of certainty how much
>"preservative" was used in the mummification of a corpse?

        The Baltimore Sun recently had an article on a mummification that 
took place here in Baltimore.  The Doctor that performed it used a 
prescription or method that was used in Egypt during the time of the 
Pharaohs.  The process takes more than thirty days and over one hundred 
pounds of salt, spices, etc. are used to dry out the body before it can be 

        Rev. Graham seems to be a student of Origen and prefers analogy over 
a literal straight forward approach to interpreting scripture.  The Mishna, 
Talmud, Josephus, etc. all say that even a criminal could be entitled to an 
honorable burial.  Acts 13:29 says that THEY (his accusers) took him down 
from the cross and saw that he was buried.  Joseph, being a part of the 
Sanhedrin, was given permission to have Jesus buried in his tomb. He was a 
prominent and wealthy man and along with Nicodemus provided an honorable 
burial. The reason the burial was so close to the crucifixion site was 
because the Sabbeth was upon them, and you cannot carry anything on the 
Sabbeth.  They had to find a place nearby.  According to custom, the body 
was washed, and then anointed with spices, and wrapped. The miracle of his 
resurrection is seen in Jn.20:7, in that the wrappings were in place but the 
body was absent.  The events following his resurrection, plus OT prophecy, 
Acts 2:23, 1 Cor. 15 all express that Jesus was not healed but was raised 
from the dead.  
        The original post was truly "altered reality". 

Kent A. Sutorius
Maryland Bible College and Seminary


From: GGoolde@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 00:27:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Translations 

Tim, I appreciate your good thoughts.  You are certainly right that the
reason for having different translations - and different kinds of
translations - is to meet different needs in different people.  My daughter
reads English as a second language, and often uses the Living Bible because
it is the only one she can understand.  I am glad she reads it, and I
encourage her.  But as one is able, I would encourage each believer to
interpret for him or her self.  I studied Greek for that very reason, not
because of a love for languages, but because I desired to learn what the
Bible said more accurately. 
I encourage each believer to read the most accurate translation he or she can

You did mention, Tim, that there is a need in most linguistic communities for
the Bible to be translated in un-ambiguous terms as it was  understood by the
original readers in their receptor language.  I believe this to lie in the
area of commentary, sermonizing, and explanation - all of which are good -
but which are human and are not to be confused or co-mingled with what God
actually said, which is divine and perfect.  You see, none of us can say that
we perfectly know how a certain genitive (for example) should be rendered.

In other words, I often preach on a passage and make comments on what I
believe it meant to the original recipients.  But those comments (Yes, mine!)
should be "in the margain" not "in the text."

Of course the difficulty is that a child cannot test the comments to see if
they really agree with Scriptures.  One who does not know the Scriptures
well, or the language well, has a similar difficulty.  This is not to fault
them in any way, but to admit that there is a difficult problem.  

And I guess that's why we have different translations!  I was stimulated by
your good  comments.  Thanks!

Yours because His,



From: "The Rev. David R. Graham" <merovin@mail1.halcyon.com>
Date: Tue,  2 May 95 21:25:20 PDT
Subject: Re: Jn 19:39 -- Altered Reality 


Tim Bratton is right that myrrh is a pain-killer.  Actually, it's a narcotic 
ipso facto pain killer.

The blood and water issuing from the side is another matter.  Medically, 
this means that the heart is still pumping.  When the heart stops, neither 
blood nor water flows.

On the wound from the spear, see that Jerome (Vulgate) uses a form of 
aperire which means to open up, not to ram through.  The purpose was to 
check for death.  Again, what John says (he died) is at variance with the 
physical phenomena.  We have to take this variance as deliberate.  Jerome 
appears in this case to have picked it up.  He had access to MS we do not 
have -- cf., for example, his reference to Aramaic Mt. which he appears to 
have and which gives a most "unusual" rendering of the Pater Noster.

Many thanks for your comments and help.

All the best,

- -------------------------------------
The Rev. David R. Graham
Adwaitha Hermitage
Professor of Philosophy
Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning

E-mail: merovin@halcyon.com
Date: 04/06/95
Time: 13:41:10
- -------------------------------------


From: "The Rev. David R. Graham" <merovin@mail1.halcyon.com>
Date: Tue,  2 May 95 21:42:03 PDT
Subject: Re: Jn 19:39 -- Altered Reality 


Thanks for your note and the questions.  Of course, John would not be saying 
opposite things.  He would be saying facets of the same thing.  We have to 
learn to think non-dualistically.  When one thing is right, it doesn't mean 
that everything else is wrong.

Example, a famous one:  God says, in effect, "I pull the strings of this 
puppet show called life." and also "You are the architect of your own fate."

Taken polar-ly, these concepts are an absurdity (Divine Omnipotence and 
Human Responsibility).  We all know the business.  But taken as facts of one 
and the same reality, maybe there is a fit.  For example, if the "I" of the 
first statement = the "you" of the second .....

Would Roman soldiers be so uncareful as to fail in a crucifixion?  You know 
the answer is, "Certainly not!"  So if He did not die bodily -- and there 
are accounts of people who survived crucifixion, but only by being taken 
down -- and the Roman soldiers were not executed for malfeasance, what 
happened?  Proper question.  Here's an educated guess:  it was discovered -- 
by Arimathea to Pilate ? -- that Jesus had been framed -- care to guess by 
whom?, and no fair the obvious one, the Sanhedrin -- and suddenly Pilate's 
back side is in a legal nightmare, as his lady friend had warned him it 
would be, and he has the Centurion say that Jesus is dead -- after only 
three hours and no broken legs, a virtual impossibility !!! -- so that the 
Sanhedrin can be mollified and he urges Arimathea -- who had drugged Jesus 
to minify pain and also blood loss -- to quick get the body down and revive 
it and get the ______ out of here so his superiors don't find out about it.

Just a thought.  Again, thinking in terms of polarities is going to miss the 
nouance of reality.  The writer of John is composing very carefully so that 
pause can be taken to ruminate first the obvious and then the unobvious 
intonations.  This is shown, surely, just in the discourse material, which 
is very subtle, on several levels simultaneously.  Some of Longfellow's 
poetry comes to mind has having a similar quality of multi-faceted-ness.

Again, thanks for the questions and thoughts.  I hope I've done well by 

All the best,

- -------------------------------------
The Rev. David R. Graham
Adwaitha Hermitage
Professor of Philosophy
Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning

E-mail: merovin@halcyon.com
Date: 04/06/95
Time: 13:41:10
- -------------------------------------


From: "The Rev. David R. Graham" <merovin@mail1.halcyon.com>
Date: Tue,  2 May 95 22:00:24 PDT
Subject: RE: Jesus' death 


The sources for Jesus life in India have been in public print in Europe and 
the Americas for over a century.  Clare Prophet has capitalized on some of 
them.  Her use of what she used is not Christian, in my opinion.  I wouldn't 
even call it religious.  But she has gotten some word out.  Very much more 
than I am aware of has been known in certain Calabrian monasteries since 
well over a millenium.  Bernard of Clairvaux and certain families of the 
Languedoc and North and Central Italy built from that Calabrian storehouse.

All the best,

- -------------------------------------
The Rev. David R. Graham
Adwaitha Hermitage
Professor of Philosophy
Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning

E-mail: merovin@halcyon.com
Date: 04/06/95
Time: 13:41:10
- -------------------------------------


End of b-greek-digest V1 #690


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: