b-greek-digest V1 #728

b-greek-digest             Wednesday, 31 May 1995       Volume 01 : Number 728

In this issue:

        Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55 
        Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55 
        Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55 
        Mark 16:8
        dynamic equivalence definition 
        am I getting out
        Mark 16:8 
        Re: Paul & the Judaizers 
        Re: Mark 16:8
        Re: Mark 16:8
        God's Word - Acts 7:55 correction
        Greek Word Order 
        Gundry Reference 
        monogenhs in John 
        Re: GW & dikaiow ek pistews
        Re: Paul & the Judaizers 


From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 03:38:58 -0400
Subject: Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55 

TO: B-Greek@virginia.edu

  dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com (David Moore) said on 5/27...
>   The translators have changed a visual image to an orginisa-
>tional statement.  IMHO, it could be misleading: implying 
>that Stephen was conceptualizing rather than seeing a vision.
>The Greek certainly portrays Stephen as relating a vision.  
>Shouldn't the translation reflect that?

   A very good point based on excellent observation of the text.

   It would appear in this instance, the goal of rendering every 
phrase by its closest dynamic equivilant has caused the
translator to overlook the setting.



From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 03:41:47 -0400
Subject: Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55 


Carl Conrad asked on 5/27...

>Could I ask for a (or "the", if there is an official one) definition 
>of  "dynamic equivalence?" I know that we had a lengthy thread 
>on this several months back and I will go back and check the 
>log, but I have a sense that there never was a carefully-
>articulated explanation even then of exactly how the term 
>is to be understood.

   Any book by Eugene Nida on translating will definitely
have the quintessential definition.

   Sorry I don't have one of his books handy.  What I remember
the gist of what Nida was saying was that he encouraged the translator to
read the sentence aloud in the origin language at 
least three times in order to fully understand and experience it.
   Then, with the image and experience of the origin language
still fresh, the translator then seeks an equivilant phrase in the
receptor language based on his or her knowledge of the usage
of the receptor language by the people for whom the translation
is being made.  The translator is to speak aloud this receptor language
phrase three times as well before writing it down.

    While this approach has been sucessful, and I laud that
success, there are weaknesses.  Mainly, one must recognize
that translators, know matter how well they know the Greek
language, are still far removed from the setting of the
original hearers/readers of the NT text.  Their "experience"
of the text is going to different, based upon their own
sitz in Leben. 
    It has the same weakness as the "What would Jesus do?"
approach to making decisions.  Our mental picture of who
Jesus is will determine what we conclude is the best course
of action.  And that may turn out to be a lot different from the
way the historical Jesus or even the Jesus of the Gospel would
    The dynamic equivilency translator must keep in mind
the world of Luke, and of Paul and of Mark, etc. and seek to
understand their experience while bringing a translation out of
their own experience of the Greek text.

    I think Fee and Stuart's statement (quoted by the good 
David Moore), while descriptive of D.E., doesn't really say 
how it works or what "precise equivilants" are, and I think 
that could be a bit misleading, especially to a non-Greek

  L E Brown was on the mark when he quoted 
  Robert L. Thomas saying...
> It is geared rather to obtaining a correspondence of ideas 
>between the two languages. The important consideration here 
>is to produce an effect on the reader in the receptor language,
>equivalent to what was produced on the original recipients 
>of the message in the source language.



From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 03:41:45 -0400
Subject: Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55 

TO: B-greek@virginia.edu

On Fri, 26 May 1995 CoParson@aol.com wrote:

> 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 agree with others on the list who recognize the dynamic
equivelance here.  DEXIWN means "a position of authority", something that
modern readers might miss if one translated
this phrase as "at the right".  
   However, I am a little uncomfortable with the genitive
TOU THEOU (of/from God) rendered with the verb "gives".  
While it may be true that God "gives" this position of authority,
that's a little too defined for me.
   The translator is still within the bounds of "translating".  To
answer your question, yes, this rendering in "God's Word" can 
be called a "translation".

   Here are the definitions I go by:
   "Translation" is something that is "carried across"
from one language to another
   "Paraphrase" is a rephrasing that is "along side", ie, the
same language of the original.

   Mr Keneth Taylor did not refer to the Greek text when making
his paraphrase which was called the Living Bible.  He used the
1901 American Standard Version and re-wrote in his own words 
what he read in the ASV.  (He did this for his junior high Sunday
School boys).  Since he did not refer to the Greek, he often
went astray and he unintentionally introduced ideas that were 
not in the Greek text. 

   JB Phillips, on the other hand, knew Greek well, and his 
was a translation.

   There are two other terms I use: exegesis and eisegesis.
Exegesis refers to an extraction of the meaning of the text.
Eisegesis means reading a meaning into the text that is not
    A translation that contains eisegesis is basically a poor
rendering (ie, a bad translation).  These renderings are mostly
unintentional, and happen because of the theological leanings,
misunderstandings, etc.
    Paraphrases often contain a LOT of eisegesis, because
the one doing the paraphrase is two steps removed from the
Greek text, relying on someone else's translation.

    But no translation is perfect, and there is a lot of elbow room
to work with, especially if one concentrates on the dynamic 
end of the specturm.  And yes, I think it helps to think of the
possibility of translating a phrase on a continuum from 
one end to the other:

Literal rendering <------------------------>Dynamic Equivilant

   And then some folks go beyond the specturm and introduce
their own ideas into the text, and this is called eisegesis.

   There was a recent thread on the List where it was debated
whether or not the NRSV's inclusive renderings were within
the bounds of translation.

   The only paraphrase I know that has acheived a wide
audience is the Living Bible.  (Even the "Cotton Patch Gospels"
were based on the Greek).  

Most everything that is published is a translation from 
the Greek, some more faithful than others, some more 
slanted by interpolations than others.

BTW, I think it is rather "confident", maybe even presumptious,
to dare to call one's translation "God's Word".  Anyone else 
feel that way?

Hope this is a help to you, CoParson.



From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 09:27:31 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Mark 16:8

After recently changing my mind and coming to think that Mark 16:8 does 
not really emphasize the women as disobeying the command of the "young 
man," I've discovered several other scholars who've noticed the absence 
of an adversative conjunction (e.g., "de") here, where we have instead 
twice repeated a "kai".  I'm wondering what others with some competence 
in Greek think, esp. in view of the Markan usage elsewhere of "de" when 
the author seems to portray disobedience or contradiction (e.g., 1:45a).

Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba 


From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 09:28:23 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: AMBC

I've discovered I have an e-mail address for the Ancient Biblical 
Manuscripts Center, for those interested.


Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba 


From: Tim McLay <nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 11:31:27 -0400
Subject: dynamic equivalence definition 

Since the subject has continued and Nida's definition of dynamic 
equivalence has not yet appeared.  In Toward a Science of Translation, 
Brill, 1964, pp. 165-166, Nida first defines formal equivalence and then 
contrasts dynamic equivalence.  He states:

... a formal equivalence (or F-E) translation is basically source 
oriented; that is, it is designed to reveal as much as possible of the 
form and content of the original message.
   In doing so, an F-E translation attempts to reproduce several formal 
elements, including: (1) grammatical units, (2) consistency in word usage, 
and (3) meanings in terms of the source context...
    In contrast with formal-equivalence translations others are oriented 
toward dynamic equivalence.  In such a translation the focus of attention 
is directed, not so much toward the source message, as toward the receptor 
response.  A dynamic-equivalence (or D-E) translation may be described as 
one concerning which a bilingual and bicultural person can justifiably 
say, "That is just the way we would say it."  It is important to realize , 
however, that a D-E translation is not merely another message which is 
more or less similar to that of the source.  It is a translation, and as 
such must clearly reflect the meaning and intent of the source.

The last line is of utmost importance.  DE is not paraphrase or 
commentary.  It is a faithful rendition of the meaning of the source 
language into the target language.  As I have previosly argued, I believe 
this is what is most desireable in a public translation.  Others prefer 
formal equivalence, because of the desire to preserve the form of the 
source language.  It does not seem to me that this is helpful in the 
conveyence of meaning, but many people believe it is so.  Anyway, to say 
anymore would merely repeat earlier statements.  I hope the definitions 
are helpful.
Tim McLay

 Tim McLay              
 Halifax, NS                        


From: craig@tmh.chattanooga.net
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 10:55:48 -0400
Subject: am I getting out

Greetings.  Last week my internet provider made some changes (which caused me
to lose mail and probably resulted in bounces back to the listserver).  I need
to know if I'm still connected and/or getting out.


* Origin: Of Him, through Him, unto Him (Rom 11:36) (8:2077/0)
- -----------------------------------------------------------
 The Missions Helpline * Give glory to God! * Cleveland,TN
- -----------------------------------------------------------


From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 11:01 CDT
Subject: Mark 16:8 

As Larry Hurtado knows, but others may not, Robert
Gundry (in his 1993 commentary) has offered powerful
reasons for thinking that Mark 16:8 starts a new
pericope, and does not end the pericope beginning
with verse 1.  Gundry offers 12 reasons, one of which
runs as follows: "For disobedience  to the young man's
command to tell the disciples and Peter and for a Marcan
attack on the women for such disobedience, we would
expect an adversative "de," "but," to introduce either
their flight or their going out and saying nothing to
anyone, as elsewhere in every Marcan instance of
disobedience, contradiction, refusal, and unresponsiveness
(see 1:45; 7:36; 10:14,22,48; 15:23,37). As it is,
the two occurrences of "kai," "and," combine with
two gar-clauses to suggest that the women are not
disobedient so much as they are struck dumb with fright
and therefore need and get reassurance and a second
command from Jesus himself, as in Matt 28:9-10..., and
proceed to fulfill their commission...." (p. 1010).  One
approach to Larry's question would ask:  Is it in fact
the case that every Marcan instance of disobedience
(aside from 16:8) relies on an adversative "de"?  Of
course, if Gundry is right, we should use Matt 28:9-10,
16-20 and Lk 24:9b-12 to reconstruct the lost ending of
Mark; in that case, Mark's emphasis is definitely on
fright, not on disobedience.  I recommend Gundry's
careful argument to all listmembers.--Paul Moser,
Loyola University of Chicago.


From: "Rex A. Koivisto" <rexk@teleport.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 09:15:29 -0700
Subject: Re: Paul & the Judaizers 

At 8:59 PM 5/30/95, WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
>Rex K. wrote,
>" After all, Paul had to defend his position before Jews and Judaizers who
>knew the Scripture as well as he
>did.   If he were too "free and easy" with the text and did not interpret it
>within acceptable boundaries of interpretation, would he have been convincing
>to them?  I think not."
>I'm not sure that this is a valid argument.  I don't think that Paul was so
>much trying to convince Judaizers as to prevent others from accepting their
>claims, i.e., their "other gospel."  He was speaking to those who had already
>at one time embraced his gospel.
>Carlton Winbery
>Fogleman Prof. NT & Greek
>LA College, Pineville, LA
>(318)487-7241 Fax (318)442-4996
>Winbrow@aol.com or Winbery@andria.lacollege.edu

Prof. Winbery:
        Certainly your point is well taken.  But is it right to assume that
Paul's argument to his "converts" to protect them from wrong doctrine would
differ substantially from that which he would use evangelistically in the
synagogue?  Or that he would use face to face with his opponents?  After
all, Paul was absent, writing a letter to a community where his opponents
were apparently present and active.  Certainly he would have written with a
view to their either hearing or reading the letter.  It would seem rather
unwise for him to use weak argumentation in that case.  How would that help
his "converts" protect themselves from this influence?  My bottom line in
the discussion with Hans-Christoph has simply been to argue that it is
unlikely Paul would have been particularly free and easy with his use of
the OT text in such a way that his hermeneutical method would be called
into question by those who opposed him.  In a highly-charged polemical
context derived so much on the meaning and implication of OT texts (such as
arises in the Galatian situation), would it not seem that methodology could
be the first thing called into question?  And, of course, it may have been.
We do not know the "judaizer" response to Paul.  But I am simply saying
that Paul strikes me as one who would have been careful to not do anything
that would appear to be misusing the Scripture to a group for whom
Scripture and its current application were of utmost importance.  Am I
wrong here?
Rex Koivisto

Rex A. Koivisto                                      Email: rexk@teleport.com
Dept. of Bible and Theology                     Voice: 503/255-0332x415
Multnomah Bible College, Portland, OR    FAX: 503/254-1268


From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 11:36:13 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8

My thanks to Larry and Paul for raising this issue. I want to check these 
passages more carefully, but I think that Mark 16:8 merits a fuller 
discussion anyway. Would someone able to do so--I'd think either Larry or 
Paul could do it--list the most significant stances held toward the issue 
of whether 16:8 is in fact the intended ending of Mark's gospel?

My own "gut" sense (meaning, I guess, that it ought not to be trusted) is 
that it really IS the intended ending. At any rate, I haven't been 
convinced as yet by arguments to the contrary.

As for the grammatical or stylistic question about the absence of DE--and 
this is again a "gut" feeling that really ought to be backed up by more 
data--it seems to me that the phrasing OUDENI OUDEN EIPAN is quite 
sufficient to emphasize not so much the _disobedience_ as such to the young 
man's words (and I think some interpreters make an all-too facile 
equation of the NEANISKOS with an angel) as the fact that they actually 
DID NOT tell anyone; the brief parenthetical EFOBOUNTO GAR is quite 
sufficient to explain their behavior.

I for one am very much inclined to think that Mark intends, more than any 
other of the evangelists, to CHALLENGE the reader to ponder the 
discrepancies that come to the surface in the narrative.

But I really would like to get a sense of the range of stances on the 
question of the ending of Mark at 16:8. Does anyone take seriously the 
notion that the shorter and longer extra endings have any authentic 
relationship with the original gospel--i.e. with 1:1-16:8?

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: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 11:48:09 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8

Thanks to Paul Moser for taking up my request for discussion of Mark 
16:8, esp. the grammar of the verse.  Yes, I think that Gundry's 
commentary discussion is the most recent case for a now-lost ending to 
Mark.  Whether 16:8 is the original ending or not, however, is another 
question, and the question of how to take 16:8 can be discussed without 
addressing it.  
	For what it's worth, however, I don't find Gundry's case persuasive.  
To cite one reason:  Gundry's most attrative argument in principle is 
that by analysis of Matt & Luke we should be able to reconstruct in 
general the ending of Mark they knew.  But Matt & Luke's agreement here 
(essential methodologically in following Gundry's proposal) extends no 
farther than saying that the women *did* inform the disciples of the 
empty tomb.  Beyond that, Matt & Luke go their separate ways with their 
post-resurrection appearance stories.  Now Gundry tries to explain away 
this problem by asserting that Matt represents better what Mark had and 
that Luke uses distinctive tradition for redactional purposes.  Possible, 
but at that point you've jumped the track of using agreements of Matt & 
Luke to reconstruct a lost portion of their common source (Mark).
	Aaanyway, could I press for further discussion of the grammar of 
16:8, esp. in the Markan context, the question being whether in fact the 
women should be seen as disobeying the command?  N. B. Catchpole & Malbon 
have both noted that "oudeni ouden eipan" compares with "medeni meden 
eipes" in 1:44, where it obviously means "don't communicate with anyone 
(except the priest to whom I send you)".

Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba 


From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 11:56:31 -0600
Subject: God's Word - Acts 7:55 correction

Yesterday I referred to Eduard Norden's comments on Eph 1:3-14. 

>I venture to add to Carl's words the comment by Eduard Norden, _Die Antike
>Kustprosa_ (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1913) 253, note 1: 
>"Eine solche [eine stilistische Ungeschicklichkeit] ist es vielmehr erst
>geworden durch die Nachahmung im 1. Kap. an die 'Epheser' (3-14): das
>monstroeseste Satzkonglomerat (denn von einer Periode kann man da gar nicht
>mehr reden), das mir in griechischer Sprache begegnet ist und dem das
>Anakoluth 3,1-14 wuerdig zur Seite steht; die Unechtheit dieses Briefes ist
>My tr.: "It becomes such a stylistic irregularity for the first time in the
>imitation in Eph 1:3-14: the most monstrous conglomerate sentence (for one
>can no longer speak here at all of a period [ic structure]) that I have
>ever met in the Greek language, next to which the  anacolouthon of 3:1-14
>stands as a worthy partner; the inauthenticity of this letter is

There is an error in my submission. The citation I gave was from _Agnostos
Theos_, not _Die Antike Kunstprosa_. The subsequent reference to _Die
Antike Kunstprosa_ was correct. I should learn to proof my own stuff
better. Sorry to confuse anyone who tried to verify the citation.


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


From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 11:56:36 -0600
Subject: Greek Word Order 

Bruce Terry yesterday sent a very useful bibliography on word order in Greek. 

I sent the following to Shaughn Daniel some time ago, but did not submit it
to the biblical Greek list. It may supplement Bruce Terry's list and
stimulate further discussion or reading. 

I also liked Carl Conrad's mode of describing Greek word order to his
students. It teaches one where to look for stress in Greek sentences--and
aids beginning students in parsing sentences more quickly, though I urge
students in the relatively easier Greek of the NT to attempt as soon as
possible to read a text aloud and try to gather the meaning in that manner.

I cited an earlier work by J. D. Denniston. Both it an his later work
contain additional bibliographic references to earlier works on word order.
I wrote Shaughn as follows:

You might want to take a look at J. D. Denniston, _Greek Prose Style_
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), especially his chapter on the order of
words (pp. 41-59) and sentence-structure and antithesis (pp. 60-77).

Citation from J. D. Denniston, pp. 42-44.:

_Order of subject, object, and predicate_
The difficulties of the investigation are very great. To begin with, it is
not easy to determine what type of sentence should be selected for
investigation. Fischer ("Zur Stellung des Verbums in Griechischen"
[_Glotta_ 13, 1-11, 189-205) chose, among other types, proverbs. These have
the great advantage of being isolated structures, in which the order of the
words is not affected by adjoining sentences and clauses. On the other
hand, as Frisk points out (Studien zur Wortstellung im Griechischen
[Goeteborg, 1932), proverbs often have 'eine praegnant zugespitzte Form,
die der gewoenlichen Alltagssprache fremd ist'. There is often a strong
contrast between subject and object, which naturally draws the two into
rhetorical juxtaposition: AETOS THRIPTAS hORAi. This consideration may have
led to the SOP order, which strongly predeominates in proverbs. Frisk
himself, while giving statistics on all types of clause, concentrates
mainly on subordinate clauses, as being for the most part less complicated
than main clauses. That may be so: but order in subordinate clauses is
particularly subject to influence from the context.

In spite, however, of the different types of clause chosen by various
scholars for analysis, there is fairly general agreement that, in classical
Greek as a whole, object normally precedes predicate. ... If we consider
solely the precedence between the S, O, and P, in all types of clause, the
researches of Fischer, Ebeling, and Frisk establish, so far as they go, the
general supremacy of SOP. This broad principle is subject to certain
reservations and amplifications. In classical Greek, PO is commoner in the
historians than in oratory, philosophy, and political essay writing (With
regard to this last, even so seeminly artless a work as the
pseudo-Xenophonic _Constitution of Athens_ shows a preponderance of OP.) In
Hellenistic Greek (the Gospels, for example, and the private letters of the
Ptolemaic era) the PO has become normal. A change, as Frisk says, has taken
place in the living speech, though archaizing writers such as Plutarch and
Philostratus remain faithful to OP.

He goes on to consider positions of emphasis at the beginning and the end
of the sentence, with copious examples.
Shaughn Daniel cited the following:

>As for German Greek Grammars, the classic Bornemann-Risch (2. edition, 1978
>Verlag Moritz Diesterweg, Frankfurt am Main) still continues to state the
>$ 144 (4) Das Praedikatsverb im Hauptsatz hat die Neigung, eine
>Mittelstellung einzunehmen. Dabei ergeben sich als die gebraechlichsten
>Reihenfolgen: entweder, wenn das Subjekt im Vordergrund der Aussage steht,
>Subjekt-Praedikat-Objekt (z.B. Tissafernhs diaballei ton kuron pros ton
>adelfon); oder, wenn das Objekt betont ist und die Verbindung zum
>Vorhergehenden herstellt, Objekt-Praedikat-Subjekt (z.B. ...hlasen...eis
>Tarsous: tauthn thn polin exelipon oi enoikountes meta Suennesios); oder
>entsprechend Adverbiale-Praedikat-Subjekt (z.B. Entauqa emeine [in dem
>vorher genannten Kelainai] Kuros hmeras triakonta). Vorangestellt wird das
>Praedikat gern dann, wenn bei ihm die Anknuepfung an das Vorgergehende
>liegt (z.B. Ekalese de kai tous Milhton poliorkountas), regelmaessig auch
>einai als Vollverb (z.B. Esti de kai megalou basilews basileia en
>Kelaivais) and ein Imperativ (z.B. bleyon pros ta orh). Geht dem Hauptsatz
>ein Nebensatz voran, der eine adverbiale Bestimmung enthaelt, so folgt auf
>diesen das Hauptsatzpraedikat gemaess der genannten Stellung
>Adverbiale-Praedikat-Subjekt (z.B. Epeidh de sunhlqon, legei o Klearcos
I responded as follows:
I note here that all of the citations seem to come from one writing,
Xenophon's _Anabasis_, written in  rather simple, uncomplicated Greek.

You might also want to read L. R. Palmer, _The Greek Language_ (Atlantic
Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, Inc, 1980), Chapter V, "The Literary
Languages: Prose", pp. 142-172, reading all the citations from the
Hippocratic Corpus, Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristotle, Isocrates, etc. You
will be surprised at the word order in these major writers. [I think the
British edition was publised by Faber & Faber, but am not sure of this.]
Palmer also has a discussion of "Christan Greek" on pp. 194-196, where he
says that "the pervading style is determined by Old Testament Greek."  One
should expect "the distortions of natural language that commonly arise in
translation, particularly of works regarded with great reverence."

Another discussion worth reading is R. Kuehner, _Ausfuehrlicher Grammatik
der griechischen Sprache_, Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. 3. Aufl. in zwei Baende
... von B. Gerth (Hannover und Leipzig: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1904), II.
Sec. 605, Gewoehnliche Stellung, pp. 595-606. The section begins: "1. Das
Subjekt nimmt die erste, das Praedikat (Verb, Adjektiv oder Substantiv mit
EINAI) die letzte Stelle ein; das Objektiv tritt vor das Praedikat, das
Attributiv aber folgt seinem STibsdtantive nach, ...."

I was not objecting to the influence of the LXX on the NT in the earlier
posting, only to the misinterpretation of earlier Greek word order.


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


From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 13:55 CDT
Subject: Gundry Reference 

In reply to Nichael Cramer's question, Robert Gundry's
commentary is:
*Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross*
(Eerdmans, 1993), lv+1069pp.  Gundry should have
replaced "A Commentary" with "An Encyclopedia", as
the book surveys virtually all the relevant literature
up to at least 1990.  The 1974 commentary by William
Lane (a former teacher of mine), *The Gospel According
to Mark* (Eerdmans), takes a line different from
Gundry's and has a useful appendix on the longer
ending of Mark.  Larry Hurtado rightly notes that
Gundry's particular reconstruction of the ending
is open to question, but Gundry's case for 16:8
beginning a new pericope can succeed independently
of that reconstruction.  I doubt that a tremendous
amount hangs on the matter, in any case, since
16:6 is clearly the theological punch line.  Still,
I can't find compelling evidence for the view that
Mark's grammar emphasizes disobedience rather than
fear.  I'm inclined to say, in light of Mark's use
of "de", that the burden of argument rests squarely
on those proposing an emphasis on disobedience.--
Paul Moser, Loyola University of Chicago.


From: "Bart D. Ehrman" <BARTUNC@uncmvs.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 15:21 EDT
Subject: monogenhs in John 

   Derrick Green asks for references to work on monogenhs
in John.  I deal with this business in trying to resolve the
question of the original text and the corruption of John 1:18
in my book _The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_ (Oxford, 1993)
pp. 78ff (where I argue that monogenhs huios is the original
text -- most of the commentaries notwithstanding -- and that
monogenhs theos is the corruption effected for anti-adoptionistic
reasons by orthodox scribes).  Anyway, I give some bibliography
there as well, including Dale Moody's oft cited article on
the proper translation of the term in JBL 72 (1953) 213-16.

- -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 17:01:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: GW & dikaiow ek pistews


I don't still have the post with me, but the person mentioned how a 
paraphrase made reading a gospel in one sitting much easier than even a 
dynamic equivalence translation.  My experience confirms this: a 
paraphrase is more fluent precisely because it chooses one out of several 
possible nuances/connotations of a word or phrase and tends to smooth 
(and simplify) the rhetorical direction of passages (I'm not sure quite 
how to put that).  For example, a dynamic equivalence translation might 
say "at God's right hand."  This leaves it to the reader to figure out 
what that phrase might mean, whereas a paraphrase might smooth it over 
with a decision about what it means where it is in a passage, all 
subtleties and alternatives aside.

In a literal translation, the text may not even make sense, certainly 
nothing like the original sense.  In a dynamic equivalence translation, 
the text makes sense, although one must be perceptive about the import of 
the specific wording (in other words, it slows one down to think about 
the different directions of meaning a text might take).  In a paraphrase, 
the text makes sense entirely in terms of the receptor language, and may 
not correspond point for point with the original and may not point to all 
the possibilities of the original.  This is how I see it.  All three are 
trying to get across the meaning of the original, but they do so in 
different ways and with a different probability of success depending on 
the ability and intentions of the target audience.

Greg Jordan


From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 17:22:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Paul & the Judaizers 

Rex Koivisto wrote,
"We do not know the "judaizer" response to Paul.  But I am simply saying that
Paul strikes me as one who would have been careful to not do anything that
would appear to be misusing the Scripture to a group for whom Scripture and
its current application were of utmost importance.  Am I wrong here?"

I misread your first post somewhat.  You did not say as I implied that Paul
was trying to convince Judaizers.  However, I wonder is Paul was as cognizant
of methodology as you assume.  Especially in Galatians, he seems to simply be
concerned to prevent his followers from leaving what was proclaimed to them
and they had already embraced.  He throws every thing he can at the enemy
including the "kitchen sink."  I doubt if many Rabbi's would have agreed with
Paul that to have broken one commandment meant that you were guilty of the
whole law.  I doubt that would have mattered to Paul as long as those about
whom he was concerned accepted it.

Carlton Winbery
Fogleman Prof. NT & Greek
LA College, Pineville, LA
(318)487-7241 Fax (318)442-4996
Winbrow@aol.com or Winbery@andria.lacollege.edu


End of b-greek-digest V1 #728


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: