b-greek-digest V1 #726

b-greek-digest              Tuesday, 30 May 1995        Volume 01 : Number 726

In this issue:

        Re: GW & dikaiow ek pistews
        Re: John the Baptist in Synoptics and John
        Temp. Unsubcribe
        WWW mss & Critical Apparati 
        kurios in 1 Cor 8:5-6
        Re: WWW mss & Critical Apparati
        Re: kurios in 1 Cor 8:5-6
        Gal 3.16--seed or seeds?
        Re: kurios in 1 Cor 8:5-6
        flowers or ANAQEMA?
        Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55


From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 09:05:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: GW & dikaiow ek pistews

On Sat, 27 May 1995, MARK NISPEL wrote:

> "God's Word" is now causing a controversy among those long familiar 
> with the entire development of the translation especially because of its 
> rendering of texts where different forms of dikaiow ek pistews occur. 
> GW prefers "to have God's approval" for the verb and "because of 
> faith" for ek pistews, both unique translations I've been told.
> For example: Romans 5:1 (dikaiwQentes oun ek pistews) is given as "Now
> that we have God's approval because of faith ..."  

"Have God's approval" is just a bit broader than the Greek meaning, 
since the Greek relates to legal terminology of acquitting of crimes.  
That invokes the whole notion of religious crime ("sin"), punishment, 
atonement, etc.  The KJV, and unfortunately the NIV in its 
conservativeness in the Pauline letters, use "justified" which makes 
sense to those familiar with soteriological jargon, but for those 
uninitiated it would be a poor choice.  In contemporary American English, 
to be "justified" means to have a good excuse for one's actions, and to 
"justify" means to make excuses for one's actions.  The second phrase ek 
pisteOs is not a bad rendering: KJV has "by faith," NIV "through faith."

As someone said, the purpose of paraphrases is to give a smooth 
uninterrupted reading, even if it does not do full justice to the text.  
In this case, I assume the paraphrasers thought invoking the concepts of 
rectitude and guilt would distract from the main purpose of the passage, 
which is to show the new, positive relationship of the believer towards 
God (eirEnEn ekhomen).

Greg Jordan


From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 10:18:02 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: John the Baptist in Synoptics and John

On Sun, 28 May 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
> On Sat, 27 May 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> > But would it not be true that everything entering existence AFTER the 
> > original creation could also be designated as something that EGENETO?
> > And the normal sense of EGENETO is "was born."
> Yes, and before they come into the world, that means pre-existence, 
> although not the same pre-existence as the Logos (1:15) which pre-exists 
> all others, or is uncreated.  The verb egeneto from ginomai has many 
> meanings in the NT, but it *doesn't* usually mean "was born."  For that 
> the verb used was usually gennaO or tikto in the passive.

I will concede that EGENETO is not the normal NT word for "was born," 
although "was born" is the literal sense of EGENETO. I know that doesn't 
really make any difference with respect to its common usage, any more 
than SPLAGXNIZOMAI will necessarily call up a vision of intestines.
> > Moreover, it is commonly held (and I would certainly agree) that the 
> > abrupt mention of John the Baptist in vv. 6-8 constitutes a prose 
> > interpolation into what is a liturgical composition with a single
> > original focus on the LOGOS and its incarnation. There's no proving 
> > that, but it's as plausible (if not more so) than any notion of the
> > Baptist's pre-existence. 
> I see abruptness only in the usual expectations of John the B's distance 
> from Christ, which doesn't really hold in the Prologue.  That is, it's 
> abrupt to us if we don't expect John the B to be a cosmic figure.

I understand what you're saying here but I can't agree. I think that the 
style of writing changes abruptly here from a liturgical pattern to 
narrative prose style. You may deem that a subjective judgment, but I can 
remember (vaguely) when I read these verses as a child and assumed that 
the "John" here referred to was the evangelist himself; I didn't think of 
the Baptist at all. But I doubt if any of us remembers reading the 
Prologue for the first time, and I'll grant that recollection from other 
gospels may color one's reading of this. Whatever one may think of 
Bultmann's commentary on John on other grounds, I think his notion that 
it has been worked over by an "ecclesiastical redactor" to bring it into 
some degree of harmony with the Synoptic is very plausible.
                                                                   I see 
> 1:6-8 and 1:15 as an integral part of the Prologue as it stands.  The  
> Logos reveals God (1:18) by coming into the world (erkhomenos 1:9 same 
> verb as John the B's Elthen 1:7).  The Messiah as God's son is 
> apestalmenos from theos (3:17 etc.) unlike any other in John's gospel 
> except John the B, who is sent to verify recognition of Jesus as Logos so 
> that others can believe (1:12).

I agree that 1:6-8 and 1:15 are integral to the text as it was intended 
by the primary author/redactor. But I still think it very likely that 
these verses have been interpolated into a composition that originally 
did not contain them.

> > What about one Saul of Tarsus, surnamed Paul (as in Rom 1.1 KLHTOS 
> > eloquently that Paul does not refer to his "conversion"but rather to his "call."
> I meant about John the Baptist's career only.  Although it is interesting 
> that Paul usually describes himself as sent by the Messiah (1 Cor. 1:1 
> etc.) not by God.

I thought you might mean that, but you actually spoke of figures called 
later in life in the NT as a whole.
> > Come now, do you rally mean to deny that you were teasing us with
> > the suggestion of the pre-existence of John the Baptist? Forsooth, a
> > lapsed Pharisee, was he? And in what sense did the Pharisees hold such
> > a doctrine? Surely not the Pythagorean/Platonic sense? Are you relying 
> > on Josephus?
> It was a loosely defined doctrine, and still is, among Orthodox Jews. No 
> one relies only on Josephus.

I confess to being facetious in that comment about the Pharisaic doctrine.
With regard to the "mission" of John the Baptist, however, I really 
wonder whether a notion of "foreordination," which really does seem to be 
involved in what Bultmann called "Johannine determinism," does not in 
some sense also apply to those who have gained eternal life and have been 
"sent" by Jesus, in terms of Jn 20:21-- KAQWS APESTALKEN ME hO PATHR, 
K'AGW PEMPW hUMAS. While one may say that APOSTELLW is a different verb 
from PEMPW, the KAQWS ... KAGW seems meant to equate them here (just as 
the distinction once made between AGAPW and FILW in John 21:20-23 is no 
longer generally accepted).

> > Personally, I will stick here with the assumption of Marcan priority. I
> > really think that the conception of the Baptist presented in both Matthew
> > and Luke is fundamentally a redaction of Mark's conception of the Baptist.
> If you decide, based on Mark's content, that Mark has "priority," you 
> *can't* then turn around and use "Marcan priority" to interpret Mark's 
> content.  Redaction criticism and other forms of interpretive criticism, 
> like historical-Jesus criticism, have to be seen as interdependent, not 
> with one as the foundation of others.  Both are equally 
> hypothetical/speculative.  

While there is a certain degree of validity to this, the case is 
overstated. You're saying, in effect, that we can't do redaction 
criticism of Mark if we hold to a theory of Marcan priority, on grounds 
that we don't have evidence for what in Mark is tradition and what is his 
redaction. This is indeed a serious accusation, and at the least it means 
that one must proceed very cautiously with the endeavor to ascertain the 
seams between Marcan tradition and redaction. Nevertheless, despite the 
excesses of some Marcan redaction critics, I think much has been achieved 
in the work of Marxsen and his successors. The recognition of the 
"Messianic secret" theme in Mark as a redactional element grounded in the 
evangelist's theological perspective rather than in the tradition was but 
the beginning of the recognition of a number of redactional motifs in 
Mark, one of which is pretty clearly the "delivery into the hands of 
authorities" theme. Perrin's recognition of the three cycles of 
passion-prediction and teaching on discipleship in chapters 8-10 is 
another fruitful and solid achievement of redaction criticism of Mark.
So, while I agree that one does not have as simple a task in 
distinguishing tradition from redaction in Mark as one has in Matthew and 
Luke (IF one assumes Marcan priority), I think you've overstated the 
objection against this way of reading Mark.

On the other hand, it certainly is not impossible for a redactional 
element to express historical truth, and I don't deny that it's still 
possible to assume a period of Jesus' activity as a member of the 
entourage of the Baptist, I just don't see any evidence in Mark for 
affirming it positively.
> > A historical Jesus fan like you might well be wary of reading too much
> > biographical implication into Mk 1:14. This is precisely the META TO
> > PARADOQHNAI TON IWANNHN I spoke of before (more below). 
> I'll always be wary.  But I think you are overstressing the _paradidOmi_ 
> passages.  The word can be used a simple technical (legal) term.  It has 
> many different uses in the NT (cf Matt. 11:27, 25:14, Mark 7:13, 4:29; 
> Acts 14:26, 7:42 etc.).

I didn't mean that PARADIDWMI is used only in the one sense. 
Unquestionably it carries the sense of "hand down" a tradition in Mk 7:13 
or "render up fruit" in Mk 4:29. And I'm not arguingg the use of 
PARADIDWMI elsewhere in the NT, simply asserting that in MARK's gospel 
the theme of "delivering up to authorities as prisoner" is a fundamental 
redactional theological theme, the first instance of which is in 1:14.
> The persecution of John the Baptist, Jesus, and Jesus's followers - their 
> arrests/executions - are considered by most historians to be historical 
> facts and real events, not mere literary themes.  It's not the _event_ 
> of "handing over" I see as relevant to this thread, but rather the 
> _timing_ of it.  John the B is handed over, arrested, just before Jesus 
> begins teaching.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I will agree that Mark 
probably intends the reader to see the preaching activity of Jesus as 
beginning with the arrest of John in the same sense that Chapter 6 shows 
the preaching activity of the disciples/apostles beginning in close 
association with the execution of John. But I think that the association 
in both cases is redactional and tendentious rather than (necessarily) 
historical: it is intended to point to the doom that must be anticipated 
by those who preach the gospel of the Kingdom.
> I don't believe any of the Synoptics are unified literary works. Instead 
> they are poorly patched-together from previous works, whose prehistory is 
> difficult to reconstruct.  As they stand, their inconsistencies, 
> incompleteness, and disconnected narrative and thematic patterns are 
> obvious.  Only in John's Gospel can we speak of continuous themes and 
> narrative developments/expositions.

I would have to disagree strongly with this, not with regard to what you 
say of John (although there's plenty of evidence there of snipping and 
pasting and of ill-fitting patches, as Bultmann's (fruitless) endeavor to 
reconstruct the original sequence of the gospel of John has 
demonstrated). I rather think, however, that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are 
all three very carefully constructed wholes, although each is undoubtedly
dependent upon a vast amount of traditional material. I have to confess 
that I am pretty firmly convinced that redaction criticism is an 
essential tool and that it's too late to turn the clock back on it.

> > I wasn't referring to the Mission of the Twelve in chapter 6, but rather to
> > the Marcan apocalypse, 13:9-13 ... BLEPETE DE hUMEIS hEAUTOUS:
> > DARHSESQE ...   
> But in other Synoptics even the Sending of the 12 is more dangerous than 
> in Mark (cf. Matthew 10), which is why I was surprised you considered 
> this distinctive of Mark. 

What you say of the sending of the 12 in the other Synoptics is quite 
true. What is remarkable, in fact, is that some of the material from Mark 
13 including the PARADIDWMI theme is included in Matthew's missionary 
discourse. While this is highly speculative, I rather suspect that the 
missionary instructions in Matthew and Luke have reference in the context 
of their own communities to missionary activity that is, in fact, being 
conducted under peril of persecution. Mark delays that element from the 
sending out of the 12 in chapter 6 to his prophecy and instructions about 
future evangelistic mission of the disciples in chapter 13. Matthew 
evidently realized the connection of the two and conflated these elements.

This has certainly been an interesting discussion; amazing, isn't it, how 
wide is the range of implications of a "little" point or two may be?

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu  OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/


From: David R Smith <9405765s@udcf.gla.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 16:58:19 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Temp. Unsubcribe

Unsubscribe B-Greek


From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 15:43:21 -0400
Subject: WWW mss & Critical Apparati 

TO: b-greek@virginia.edu

Vincent Broman said...
>After my current pet project gets wrapped up, I'm thinking 
>of transcribing some of the Freer Gospels.  My probable 
>approach would be to start with NA26, edit in variants from 
>the appendix to get a M.R. approximation to Westcott-Hort, 
>then edit in the variants from Sander's collation of W against 
>W-H.  This I would print out and red pencil by double 
>checking every jot and tittle against the microfilm.  From 
>this I expect good accuracy and, as by-products, a check 
>on Sanders and an approximation to W-H on disk
>All would be FTPable, seeing that the copyright on W-H 
>is long expired. Don't expect speed.

Wheh, I got tired just reading about what you are planning
to do, Vincent!   It makes me want to develop scanning and OCR software for
Greek manuscripts. :)

I'm interested in what software you are using that allows you
to access and edit the NA27 and save to a new file. I imagine
you are looking at the critical apparatus of the NA visually to
make your corrections-- right?  Is there a reason why you are 
not going to simply  make corrections to the NA based upon
Sander's collation of W then check against the microfilm of 
the ms.?

Another thought: Instead of microfilm, you could make use 
of a color printed facsimile of the Freer Gospels. (There 
is one at my seminary--it is beautiful.)  If you could find 
one, it might prove easier on the eyes.

BTW, have you identified any other variants in W that share
any similarities to the famous "Freer Logion" of Mk 16?  I have
wondered if the editor/copiest or the community of W may 
have had apocalyptic influence and would want to include
this logion, (in much the same way that the Bezae (D) editor
made theological refinements on his text).

Do you have any thoughts on the development of
the additions to the ending of Mark that might shed 
light on this?

Tim Staker


From: Derrick Green <dgreen@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 13:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: kurios in 1 Cor 8:5-6

Hello everybody!

I'd be interested in how you take kurios in 1 Cor 8:6.  From the structure
of the passage there is obvious parallelism between 'lords' in verse 5 and
'Lord' in verse 6: 

The structure of the passage looks like this (from 
Gordon Fee's commentary):                         
Even if there are so-called gods,                                         
                                 or earthly                              
  (just as there are indeed gods many              
                     and lords many)               (B)                  
  But for us ["Christians" is implied]                                   
There is on [in contrast to the many gods]         
    namely the 
               from whom are all things,                             
          and                we for him;                                  
  and   one Lord [in contrast to many lords]       (B')                   
               through whom are all things;                              
           and               we through him.                             

Gordon Fee takes the 'lords' in verse 5 to be referring to the oriental
mystery cult dieties.  Therefore the 'Lord' in verse 6 clearly shows the
diety of Christ.  What do you think?  What is the distinction between One 
God and One Lord in verse 6? 

In Christ,
- ---
Derrick Green
Springfield, VA


From: amedamne@trianon.worldtel.com
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 17:13:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: WWW mss & Critical Apparati

On Mon, 29 May 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:

> TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
> Do you have any thoughts on the development of
> the additions to the ending of Mark that might shed 
> light on this?
> Peace,
> Tim Staker
I for one would also be interested in knowing of any thoughts from anyone 
on the development of the additions to the ending of Mark.

Ameh Meyer 


From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 17:37:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: kurios in 1 Cor 8:5-6

On Mon, 29 May 1995, Derrick Green wrote:

> Gordon Fee takes the 'lords' in verse 5 to be referring to the oriental
> mystery cult dieties.  Therefore the 'Lord' in verse 6 clearly shows the
> diety of Christ.  What do you think?  What is the distinction between One 
> God and One Lord in verse 6? 

I don't know why anyone would connect kurioi with "oriental mystery cult 
dieties" who would certain be covered by the "theoi polloi."  I would 
take "kurioi" in its ordinary meaning, "[human] masters [of slaves]" 
here, unless someone has a better suggestion.

Paul thought of himself as the doulos, slave, of his master, the Messiah 
Jesus.  Paul here clearly distinguishes God, whom he calls father, from 
"[our] master, Jesus the Messiah (8:6 kurios iEsous khristos, usually 
utterly obscured by translations like "Lord Jesus Christ").  He sees 
father God as the source and purpose of existence, but the one master 
Jesus as the demiurge and salvific mediator.  One can compare the similar 
phrasing in "the God and father of our master Jesus the Messiah" in 
Romans 15:6, 2 Cor. 1:3, 11:31, Eph. 1:3, 1:17, Col. 1:3, etc.

Greg Jordan


From: VCBROWN@delphi.com
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 19:23:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Gal 3.16--seed or seeds?

Dear Perry,

   > In Gal 3.16, Paul makes a great deal of the fact that the OT (Gen 
   > 13.15, 17.8, 24.7) specifies that Abraham's promises are to one *seed* 
   > (singular), not many *seeds* (plural).  I've read *somewhere* that 
   > there are questions regarding this point, that grammatically Paul is 
   > making some kind of error or fudging the facts, etc...  
   > Therefore I throw the question to y'all, friends.  Can someone 
   > explain what Paul is doing and why it raises questions?  

	I have only an English text in front of me but I believe that
you will find Zera translated as a singular in Genesis Apocryphon II.
There Lamech questions his wife's fidelity and she replies that the
"seed" within her belongs to Lamech and not to another.
	And Paul could have been borrowing one of Hillel's rules of
interpretation wherein an inference is drawn from something similar 
in a passage of scripture. 
	So what Paul wrote in Gal 3:16 may well have been legitimate.

   > Thanks in advance.
   > Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
   > (Not born a Texan, but I got here as quick as I could!)

	So I gathered from your imitation Texan accent. <G>

 Virgil Brown <-- who lives someplace north of Hwy 31 and has been 
	          "visiting" Texas for a long time and is visiting
		  this listserv


From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 18:34:30 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: kurios in 1 Cor 8:5-6

Very briefly: I frankly do not see why the reference in 8:5 to KURIOI 
must be to gods of the mystery cults--although I would think that's one 
possibility; I think it could just as well be to any of the persons or 
personages existing on earth or deemed to exist in the heavens (lords of 
the planetary spheres) that hold AUTHORITY--that's the essential sense 
of the word KURIOS, one holding authority over servants, DOULOI. It may 
be the master of a household, it may be the Roman emperor or another 
political authority (against whom in a comparable passage, Phil 2:20,
Paul opposes Jesus as awaited KURIOS to come). In view of which, I don't 
see that 8:6 necessarily implies the divinity of Jesus so much as the 
authority granted him by God (as in Phil 2:11, where God has exalted 
Jesus and given him the name, Kurios).

I'm not arguing here against the plausibility of reading 1 Cor 8:5-6 as 
Fee reads it, but rather that I don't see that reading as necessarily 
required by the text.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu  OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/


From: Shaughn Daniel <zxmli05@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 02:36:09 +0000
Subject: flowers or ANAQEMA?

[note: if you have a mac with ssupergreek font, then the texts could be
transferred to your word processor for easier viewing.]

1. rummaging through many greek passages on anaqema, i came across the
following encryptic statement by Hesychius Lexicogr., Lexicon ($*A-*O),
Alphabetic letter alpha, entry 5111, line 1: a[nqema: ajnavqema.
and i, like almost with everything outside the greek new testament that i
read, have no idea what this is talking about. does anyone know anything
about this work?

2. the whopper version of liddell-scott tells me that a[nqema can be a
poetic form from ajnavqema (or the name of a dance or the plural form
anqemon, which is equal to anqos). but of all the a[nqema passages that are
found on the tlg, i think they are all flowers, but i want to run them by
anyone here who knows greek better than me just to make sure.

"+" starts the text
"-" is where i put my question(s) to the text

+ Anthologia Graeca, Anthologia Graeca, Book 2, epigram 1, line 13:
Kekropivdh" d=E6 h[strapte, nohvmono" a[nqema Peiqou'",
Aijscivnh", lasivh" de; suneivrue kuvkla pareih'",
15 oi|a polutrocavloisin ajeqleuvwn ajgorh'/sin:
- - this one throws me for a loop--intelligent flowers of the greek goddess

+ Anthologia Graeca, Anthologia Graeca, Book 6, epigram 47, line 2
Kerkivda th;n filaoido;n =90Aqhnaivh/ qevto Bittw;
   a[nqema, limhrh'" a[rmenon ejrgasivh",
ei\pe dev: =C6Cai're, qeav, kai; thvnd=E6 e[ce: chvrh ejgw; ga;r
   tevssara" eij" ejtevwn ejrcomevnh dekavda"
ajrneu'mai ta; sa; dw'ra, ta; d=E6 e[mpali Kuvprido" e[rgwn
   a{ptomai: w{rh" ga;r krei'sson oJrw' to; qevlein.=C6
- - what/who is Kerkida? what is bittw?


shaughn daniel
tuebingen, germany


From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 21:39:02 -0600
Subject: Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55

>"God's Word," (World Publishing, GrandRapids, MI) renders Acts 7:55 (eiden
>doxan yeou kai ihsoun estwta ek dexiwn tou yeou) "He looked into heaven, saw
>God's glory, and Jesus in the position of authority that God gives."  The
>visual image which is conveyed by the Gr. has been traded for an explanation
>of what that image meant.  Any comments on what might be lost or gained by
>this?  Is this a positive or negative thing?  Is "in the position of
>authority that God gives" a good explanation of what it means for Him to be
>"estwta ek dexiwn tou yeou?"    Can this type of rendering of the Gr. into
>English be called translation?  If so, what kind of translaton and how does
>that differ from paraphrase? 
>I would very much like to hear from anyone who would like to take on anyone
>or all of those questions.
>Rev. John M. Moe
>14385 Blaine Ave. E. 
>Rosemount MN  55068

In this case it is not translation, but interpretation. "Sitting at the
right hand" is the position of authority, as Ps. 110:1, Dan 7 suggest--and
as the sarcophagus of Ahiram of Tyre in the Beirut Museum, the position of
Augustus in the Gemma Augustea in Vienna, etc. suggest that "standing" a la
Acts 7:56 may have a different sense.

I read Acts 7:55-56 in the light of Mark 8:38 and have concluded that there
is a "heavenly trial going on while the mob is stoning Stephen. He sees the
Son of Man functioning as his "defense attorney" in the heavenly court,
confessing him as his faithful follower. Cf. also Matt 7:21-23, especially
v. 23: "And then I will make a confession [hOMOLOGESO] against them
[dativus incommodi], :IOO never recognized you. Go away from me, your you
produce what breaks the Torah [ANOMIA]. That is the same as what Mark 8:38
says, the antithesis to Acts 7:56.

You might want to consult Rudolf Pesch, _Die Apostelgeschichte_. EKK V,1.
(Zurich, Einsiedeln, Koeln: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1986) 263-264.

Translating such culturally conditioned symbolic acts is extremely
difficult, as anyone who has travelled in the Middle East knows.

I thus agree with the generic description of what Carl Conrad says, but do
not agree that the translation accurately conveys the sense of the text. It
probably rests on an overly quick decision about the significance of the
title Son of Man in this passage.

Cordially, Ed Krentz

Edgar Krentz <emkrentz@mcs.com>
New Testament, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 East 55th St., Chicago, IL 60615
(Voice) Home: 312/947-8105; Off.: 312-753-0752


End of b-greek-digest V1 #726


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: