b-greek-digest V1 #709
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 16 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 709
In this issue:
Re: Greek transliteration conventions
Re: Lengthy account of Secret...
Re: seminary questions
Secret Mark Undone
eidon in John 3:3
Smith's visit to Berkeley: correction
Re: Critical Apparatus
Re: eidon in John 3:3
Re: Secret Mark Undone
humor (was bloopers)
Re: Ephesians 3:8-11
From: Stephen Carlson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sun, 14 May 95 22:41:24 EDT
Subject: Re: Greek transliteration conventions
George Baloglou wrote:
> Is the Greek name "Helias" *simply* the Greek version of "Eliahu" or
> it derives from "helios" = "sun"? It is interesting, by the way, that
> all "St. Elias" chapels in Greece are built on top of a hill--perhaps
> "illuminating" the nearby plains, as someone pointed out on scg?
> On my part, I notice (LS) that "Heliades" = "Son of Sun" used to be
> a family name in Rhodes (nowadays it simply means "Son of Helias" as
> a Greek surname), while (BAG) "eli" means "my God" in Hebrew (and
> "Eliahu" = "Son of God", perhaps?); could the sun be to the Greeks
> what God was to the Hebrews, at least linguistically so? Or is this
> similarity a coincidence?
Sometimes a Greek transliteration of Hebrew/Aramaic is influenced by
a similar sounding Greek word. A classic example is hIEROSO/LUMA
(BDF #39(1), p. 21). Blass-DeBrunner-Funk (#39(3), p. 22) on this
Occasionally breathing appears to be controlled in relation
to similar sounding Greek words (Zorell xii), e.g. *ALFAIOS
following ALFA, *hHLIAS following hHLIOS.
So perhaps you found such a case. This phenomemon has also occured
in English where French borrowings have sporadically been conformed
to more common English words.
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
email@example.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 03:43:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Lengthy account of Secret...
Dear Professor Hobbs and friends,
Thanks to the professor for recalling Morton's visit to Berkeley in
1975. The topic seems now to be more important and exciting than it was at
the time, which is a surprise to me. I just want to add a few things in
order to balance out the report of E. Hobbs.
No one that I knew took Professor Smith seriously at that time. I never
cease to be amazed when I hear people twenty years later talking about his
invention. Prof. Hobbs is right when he consigns this gospel to the genre of
historical novel. We all knew our visitor was mad, but now people don't know
I didn't know that :Prof. Hobbs openly contradicted our visitor. I don't
remember anyone wanting to offend the mad one. We thought it our duty to
humor him and give him an open forum at the Hermeneutic Center. At the time
he was travelling all over California attracting big crowds and newspaper
coverage. I was sent to the airport to pick him up and found a place for him
to stay in Benton Hall. I think I heard him speak but was more interested in
Professor Hobb's selections of California reds at the time.
Professor Smith's apologia in the Harvard Theological Review came as a
real shock to me, him marshalling and counting all these famous names who
believed in his historical romance. I really do not understand how anyone,
student or professor, can take seriously his fantasy. On the other hand, I
am concerned that apparently people are doing just that. That's the reason I
am saying that at that time no one who knew him took this seriously but
people tried to be courteous and not offend someone who was obviously
Richard Arthur, Merrimack NH
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 04:05:36 -0400
Subject: Re: seminary questions
I have here before me a copy of the 1993-94 "Fact Book on Theological
Education" put out yearly by the Association of Theological Schools in the
U.S.A and Canada. It give things like enrollment, salaries, tuition, and
denominational affiliations. My copy is from Harvard Divinity School. You
could write ATS at 10 Summit Park Drive, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15275-1103. Need
Richard Arthur, Merrimack NH
From: "Jean-Louis Oneto (+33) 126.96.36.199" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 14:16:10 MET_DST
Subject: re: y'all
Date sent: 15-MAY-1995 14:07:16 MET_DST
Just a [late] remark from a non-native American speaking guy :
Even if I can understand why you need it, it's rather funny to consider that
you have to build a pronom that is the plural of a _plural_... something like
a super-plural ! The archaic singular "thou" would be more sensible for me,
even if it's have connotations linked with KJV and poetry, since it would lead
to use a _singular_ verb (e.g. thou hast) with it, rather than using a plural
pronom with a plural verb to express a singular (e.g. you have)...
OCA-CERGA, Avenue Copernic, 06130 Grasse - FRANCE
NSI/Decnet (formely SPAN) : ocar01::oneto (17494::oneto)
Internet : email@example.com | Voice : (+33) 188.8.131.52
| Fax : (+33) 184.108.40.206
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 May 95 08:50 CDT
Subject: Secret Mark Undone
Richard Arthur reports that Morton Smith, at least at
the time of the 1975 colloquy, was "obviously deranged"
and "mad," and that his alleged secret Mark was
"fantasy" and "historical romance." This, of course,
does not speak well for the historical judgments of
those following Smith's fantasies about secret Mark,
such as Helmut Koester and J.D. Crossan. Do the latter
have any relevant evidence that the rest of us lack?
Or were they, like Smith, too quick to embrace any
rather esoteric unorthodox hypothesis that came their way?
Neusner, who knew Smith as well as anyone did, has
commented on Smith's virulent anti-Christian motivations.
It strikes me that participants in the 1975 colloquy
may have been bullied into silence by Smith's reputation
for explosively violent behavior. (Arthur notes his
not recalling anyone opposing Smith.) In any case,
Quesnell deserves much credit for his courage and
honesty. The secret Mark fantasy may, however, be
no worse, historically, than the view of Smith and
Crossan that Jesus was a magician. There's a sober
treatment of the latter topic in J.P. Meier, *A
Marginal Jew*, Vol. 2, pp. 537-52.--Paul Moser,
Loyola University of Chicago.
From: Jim Beale <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 15 May 95 11:12:36 EDT
Subject: eidon in John 3:3
I have a question concerning John 3:3 where Jesus says,
ean me tis gennethe anothen, ou dunatai
idein ten basileian tou Theou.
My question concerns the verb 'idein.'
What does this verb connote? I have always understood
it in the general tenor of John's intellectual gospel
as being the ability to "see" or understand the kingdom,
or to receive the word of truth.
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 12:50:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Unsubscribe
Unsubscribe B-Greek NAVIMO@aol.com
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 13:08:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Smith's visit to Berkeley: correction
Richard Arthur's supplement to my account was a pleasant reminder that other
people still live who were there. But I'm afraid he is remembering the
wrong Colloquy. Smith visited Berkeley only once, to my knowledge;
it was for Colloquy 6, held on 12 April 1973. The subject of his position
paper was "The Aretalogy Used by Mark". It was on that occasion that
Richard Arthur picked up Smith and took him to his room at PSR.
Colloquy 18 is the one we have been discussing. Smith was not present;
neither was Richard Arthur (who may have graduated by then?). The
date for this Colloquy was close to three years later, on 7 December 1975.
The Position Paper was by Reginald Fuller. Secret Mark had not even been
published when Smith was present in early 1973, so of course I did not
challenge him on it (never having heard of it).
I stand by my statement sent yesterday. How I wish everyone had thought
Smith deranged! But I did take him on, not only then (in his absence),
but on several later occasions, two of which I reported to all of you
yesterday. There was never an agreement to be nice to him, at least not
one I signed. I wasn't even nice to Ernest Badian (Harvard) when he
was with us in 1976 (what an arrogant fellow he was).
Incidentally, I received a message asking if I knew Morton Smith was dead.
Yes, I knew, almost immediately. So does Neusner know.
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 13:09:34 -0400
From: Vincent Broman <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 95 10:03:33 PDT
Subject: Re: Critical Apparatus
The 8th edition of Tischendorf was reprinted in 1965 in Graz by
the Akademische Druck- und Verlags-anstalt. Does anyone know
whether this might still be obtainable?
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
From: Carl W Conrad <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 12:20:47 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: eidon in John 3:3
On Mon, 15 May 1995, Jim Beale wrote:
> I have a question concerning John 3:3 where Jesus says,
> ean me tis gennethe anothen, ou dunatai
> idein ten basileian tou Theou.
> (John 3:3)
> My question concerns the verb 'idein.'
> What does this verb connote? I have always understood
> it in the general tenor of John's intellectual gospel
> as being the ability to "see" or understand the kingdom,
> or to receive the word of truth.
I think this is fundamentally right. A good reference on this matter is
Volume 1 of Raymond Brown's Anchor commentary on the gospel, Appendix 1,
pp. 501ff., on BLEPEIN, QEASQAI, QEWREIN, IDEIN, hORAN.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
firstname.lastname@example.org OR email@example.com
From: Mark W Lucas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 18:31:38
Subject: Divine Passive?
I have just been doing some work on 1 Peter 1:3-12 and wonder
whether anagennhsas in v3 could be considered a 'divine passive',
that is the use of the passive voice to connote an action of God
(as in etethhsan in 2:8).
Mark Lucas (London, UK)
Feel free to mail me direct on
or compuserve 100025,1511
From: Larry Swain <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 11:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Secret Mark Undone
When Paul asks if Koester and other supporters of Smith have some
evidence which the rest of us lack, and expresses surprise that such
worthies should be so mislead, I must confess that at least as far as
Koester is concerned, I am not nonplussed. I do not know Koester
personally. However, I lost a lot of respect for his work when he
endorsed the idea that the resurrection narratives came about like this:
THe Jerusalem community worshipped at Jesus' tomb, which was very
definitly full of human remains of Jesus. However, when that community
moved to Petra they needed to explain why they no longer were worshipping
at the tomb. So the resurrection was invented to explain this fact, and
Mark was written purposefully to disseminate the notion, and it caught on
almost immediately throughout Christianity.
At that point I triple check just about everything that comes from his
pen and from any of his students, so I am not surprised that Koester
should want to support Morton Smith.
Parmly BIllings Library
From: Robert Kraft <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 16:51:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: humor (was bloopers)
How many of you remember the old radio (and TV?) show "Can You Top
This"? In any event, the following post reminds me of the letter our
chair received many years ago addressed to
"Department of Relative Thoughts"! Not bad, some of you are thinking;
hits the nail on the head!
Bob Kraft, Religious Studies (formerly Religious Thought = Rel.Thought),
> I was once listed in the bulletin of N.O. Baptist Seminary as
> Professor of New Testament and Greef.
> Carlton Winbery
From: Greg Hahn <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 17:55:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Johannine Comma
I'm involved in a discussion with an individual on another net concerning
the Johannine Comma. This person obviously does not know Greek but
apparently wishes to make it appear that he does.
He has been writing lengthy pieces that are way over his head. My guess
is that he is plagiarizing some material from Peter Ruckman, or perhaps
Edward F. Hills.
The focus of their argument is that a serious grammatical problem
develops when the Johannine Comma is deleted from 1Jo 5:7-8, thus
providing some reason for including it in the text.
Here are the two versions:
7 oti treiv eisin oi marturountev en tw ouranw o pathr o logov kai to
agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin 8 kai treiv eisin oi
marturountev en th gh to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiv eiv
to en eisin (1 John 5 TR)
7 oti treiv eisin oi marturountev 8 to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima
kai oi treiv eiv to en eisin (1 John 5 N26)
The brunt of their argument is that the three neuter nouns, pneuma, udwr,
and aima, are referred to by the masculine subject, oi marturountes.
This, they say, is a "grammatical impossibility". (Their term)
Supposedly the insertion of the JC somehow fixes this, though for the
life of me I can't see why, as the same sentence exists either way, but
they say that the PRECEDING sentence is essential to the construction of
the latter one.
Isn't the phrase "to pneuma, to udwr, kai to aima" an "apposition"? And
isn't it common that there be a lack of concord in words used in
I would appreciate any scholarly input, and please indicate whether I may
or may not quote you.
Greg Hahn E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Louisville, Kentucky V-mail: (502) 329-1841
From: Jim Beale <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 95 17:53:07 EDT
Subject: Ephesians 3:8-11
I am curious about the passage in Ephesians
where Paul again constructs an enormous, complex
sentence with several clauses, and it seems to me
an ambiguous antecedent:
8 To me, who am less than the least of the saints,
this grace was given, that I should preach among
the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the
mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has
been hidden in God who created all things through
10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God
might be made known by the church to the principalities
and powers in the heavenly places,
11 according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished
in Christ Jesus our Lord, ...
The antecedent of "to the intent that" is not clear to me.
It seems there are three choices:
1. Paul's preaching
2. The former hiddenness
3. The creation
These would read:
1. that I should preach among the Gentiles ...
to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God
might be made known by the church ...
2. which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God ...
to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God ...
3. God who created all things through Jesus Christ to the intent
that now the manifold wisdom of God ...
Is there any way to determine which antecedent(s) Paul might have meant
to invoke here? I've examined the grammar and the best I can say is that
the nearest antecedent *might* be the most probable, but I'm far from
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 00:17:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Ephesians 3:8-11
With regard to Eph. 3.8-11, it sounds like the actor is God (not Paul)
who has given grace to Paul to preach the gospel in order that . . . .
8 ". . . to me it is given of God to preach the trackless riches of Christ 9
and to display what is the plan of that (divine) mystery, hidden from all
ages (aeons) within God the creator of the whole universe 10 in order that
now, through the church, the magnificent Wisdom of God should be made known
to the heavenly archons and authorities, 11 according to his eternal (aeonic)
purpose which he had in Christ Jesus our lord."
Arthur, Merrimack NH, firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 00:34:20 -0400
End of b-greek-digest V1 #709
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
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: