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

b-greek-digest V1 #778




b-greek-digest             Tuesday, 11 July 1995       Volume 01 : Number 778

In this issue:

        Validity of Irenaeus 
        Re: Validity of Irenaeus
        Re: Myth 
        Validity of Ireneaus
        [none]
        P75 & another ? 
        Artos/Azymos
        Re: Artos/Azymos
        Re: End of Mark Possibilities
        Re: Validity of Ireneaus
        Re: End of Mark Possibilities 
        Re: End of Mark Possibilities
        Style in Mark 
        BG: Off to the Mountains 
        Re: Style in Mark

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

From: Lorel509@aol.com
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 01:24:54 -0400
Subject: Validity of Irenaeus 

Hello,

I'm new to this group. I'm an English major in my Junior year.  I've been
studying Greek on my own but need more incentive to do it on a regular basis
and thought this group would help. I've only seen a few posts but looks very
promising so far. 

I've been trying to figure out what goes on here and was just going to lurk
for awhile but the conversations about Irenaeus and Eusebius prodded me
online.  

I have been plugged into a group called Jesus-Witnesses (mostly ex-Jw's ) and
it's sister channel, Channel-D (Doctrine) , trying to witness to them without
much success.  We are currently discussing the dating of Revelation.  I
posted several comments by early writers that indicate that John wrote
Revelations during Domitian's reign. They think Revelation was written in
Nero's reign--otherwise their Kingdom Now theory (Jesus came in 70 AD) would
fall on it's face.  (I'm trying real hard to trip them up  :)  

They told me that Eusebius, Jerome, and Victorinus all got their info from
Irenaeus and he was unreliable because he didn't even know that Jesus wasn't
50 years old when he died, so *all* my sources are unreliable. I haven't
studied ancient writings yet so I'm wading into deep water here.

My questions:

Is this true?

Where can I get quotes from Irenaeus?  I've downloaded a file from AOL
Christian Library with several ancient writers in it but Irenaeus wasn't
included.

I would appreciate any info. on this you'd care to share with me. 

Also, I sure could use a Greek-wise volunteer on Channel-D if anyone is
interested.  I've just been muddling along-showing myself as the ignorant
fool I really am.  But my heart is in the right place.  :)

Email me for the information on joining, if you're interested.

thanks,

Lori Eldridge
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



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

From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 00:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Validity of Irenaeus

Hello there.  I thought that maybe I could help.  To my knowledge there 
is not a virtual edition of any Irenaeus' work on the Net.  So you need 
to consult traditional books.  

The "Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching" is available in the Ancient 
Christian Writers series, available at most libraries.  And his major 
work left to us, usually called "Against Heresies" is available in the 
Ante-Nicene Fathers series by Schaff, again most libraries would have 
this set.  

I will have to look up the precise reference, but Irenaeus is in fact one 
of the few who preserves the tradition that Jesus was in his late forties 
when he died.  SO whoever you are corresponding with, just doesn't know 
their stuff.  If you would like to know a little more about him, read the 
references in Eusebius to Irenaeus.

As for the date, for an alternative SCHOLARLY view of a pre-70 date, see 
John A. T. Robinson _Redating the New Test._.  BUt as you have already 
discovered, the second century writers seem to all take REvelation to be 
written under Domitian.  As to whether Eusebius, Jerome, and Vic are so 
dependant on Irenaeus, well they do all quote him, but other authors 
contain the same material as well, and it must be proven that the whole 
of patristic tradition in these things comes from one source.  As to 
whether Irenaeus is unreliable let me say two things in addition to the 
above record that Irenaeus refers to Jesus being close to 50 at the time 
of the crucifixion.  First, even if he were "wrong" in reporting one 
fact, it does not logically follow that he is therefore wrong in all 
facts that he reports.  THat is sheer nonsense no matter whom we are 
speaking about.  For instance, you might suggest that your correspondants 
who have so plainly misread Irenaeus are unreliable in everything they 
say.  (is that clear to you , or only to me?)  Second, Jesus' age has 
nothing to do with the date of Revelation.  That is, even if Irenaeus had 
never mentioned Jesus age, it must still be proven on a case by case 
basis that his information regarding Revelation is unreliable, otherwise 
all you have is unprovable assumption.

Lastly, Irenaeus traces his "descent" from Polycarp, a disciple of John 
the Apostle, the author of Revelation.  In short, he is the spiritual 
grandson.  It is unlikely that with that sort of pedigree, one that he 
mentions as giving the Christian truth he presents more validity than the 
Gnostics, that he would have gotten his facts so plainly wrong, and THAT 
NOONE AT THE TIME REPORTS ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY.  In short, he has a 
pretty good handle on things.

Finally everything, as you will probably learn, witnessing to those to 
whom the SPirit has yet to open the heart usually yields nothing.

Larry Swain






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

From: Sap Transplant <zxmli05@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 10:20:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Myth 

Ken and Stephen,

This is a very interesting topic. I would point out the following
definitions from a short excursion into the excellent article (with tons of
bibliographic material) in the TDNT (s.v., MUQOS).

Ancient definitions of MUQOS in relation to LOGOS:
<quote>
1. the fairy-tale or marvel as distinct from credible history;
2. the mythical form of an idea as distinct from its dialectical
   presentation (esp. Plato), and
3. popular myth as distinct from the deeper meaning (the kernel
   of truth) which can be extracted from it.
</quote>
Source: TDNT, vol. 4, p. 770.

Sincerely,

Shaughn Daniel
Tuebingen, Germany




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

From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 03:16:56 -0700
Subject: Validity of Ireneaus

Lori, with respect for Larry Swain's answer to your posting,
I would contribute the following to your interesting question
about the reliability of Ireneaus on the two points you
mentioned.  (Caveat: as those who have been on this list
could tell you, I am not necessarily mainstream.  However, no
one else on this list seems to be either!  So welcome . . .)

I would say Ireneaus was wrong on Revelation and right on the
tradition that Jesus was in his 40's.  As Larry correctly pointed
out, the two matters are not dependent on one another but are
separate issues.  Revelation has virtually *no* argument from
internal evidence for a Domitian dating (except perhaps the
"My Lord and my God" correlation).  Whether its the climate of
holy war, apocalyptic fervor, a standing temple, or the
internal dating to the time of the sixth Roman emperor (Domitian
is a few emperors too late by any ancient count), this is an
apocalypse coming out of the time of the Jewish Revolt, with a
recent memory of a real, not fictitious, Roman persecution in 64.
So far as I am aware, all later authorities dating Revelation to
the time of Domitian are derivative from Ireneaus.  I doubt that
Ireneaus made it up (I would guess he was passing on what he
thought he knew from Papias), but there are probably at least
fifteen ways to account for Ireneaus making this mistake.  If
you want to speculate, consider that "John" simply published
the thing in the 90's in the time of Domitian, and there you've
got your Ireneaus tradition without denying the internal
evidence for Revelation's dating.

On the matter of Jesus's age, Ireneaus reported a tradition
that Jesus was over forty years old.  Everyone *assumes* or
"knows" Ireneaus was wrong on this, but on what grounds?
It is fairly certain Ireneaus's source for this is Papias,
who lived early second century and said he sought out
informants who knew disciples of Jesus.  According to this
tradition, *all who knew disciples of Jesus* said they all
were agreed upon, and John of Ephesus is cited specifically
in addition to the generic "all", that Jesus was over forty
years old when he taught.  Now *why* does everyone discount
this?  It is consistent with the sense of the Gospel of
John (compare the possible pun on Jesus's age of Jn 2:20-22,
as well as Jn 8:57).  The only argument against this
early tradition of Jesus's age is Luke 3:22, in which Luke
says Jesus was "about thirty years old".  This is a nice
round figure, something which sounds good, but not very
historically trustworthy--not compared to the incidental
evidence of Papias's informants.  Although I wouldn't read
too much into it, notice also that Rev 1:14 pictures Jesus
with white hair.  

Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon

- --




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

From: "Alexander I. Yakushkin" <alex@avers.donetsk.ua>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 13:19:28 +0300
Subject: [none]

begin 666 nt-greek.arj
M8.HL`!X&`0`0``+5U6GJ'M5IZAX``````````!$``````$Y4+4=2145++D%2
M2@``:.7FT0``8.HK`!X&`0`0`0#5=9'I'LP&``#^#0``"06_C0``(````$Y4
M+4=2145++E9!``!.T953```%PW.:UC;;DRQT..?Z(41R`)(.6].`?7`E;<<D
M<LLZ!N606X>HGR)UK3ND;NE*&_''_VZ2D[.O3N%N3V50*W@.UD:3G38]<(K4
MTNDVQ-]&;M.EYQ4_#_)%Z#J=!VXNTWUGW%SL/;`SW+ILHS>=Q;G0B\];MRFK
M[E%I+E\O^.5/2TXPVE]G]^4?B_':]2VG1F+^?WKO:9?7S:"\G-S>7'0/.:GE
ML>LVU:*,V/D]CGU0Y"N-5)E%Q8.O)3:D_[X>`NLH#'%O4^TX1*MYG%;:X8XJ
MC,F+&;L+6]T;#?"6=@`:3YK:0\DMD+>N-B9/472Z]E0UI0FJ>B:W7Q*PV7>;
MA#'H$`%@(R&HUN&\NON)VQ,@VLN`^PT%"-]0(*">WW.9A$Z;&KIHS=;1@HWQ
M/03GU@:OT.K*$LAJZVU'<)B&@%_PTBV.!K6KA!;F@UYRT-MJ`!%O<_:FFI$[
MSK&"U%\4$,2V`='FHS-<W6;%GN0#*7,8:J[SF$<@N`\.N893`'M5N6FG>LX7
MPQ@X%5ZEP)B]@D:HU`1'-*E[H">IY;TNJY(%<Q4X,GBCC3JRD>Q4*,S%QB-I
M8O6]00)(+N,XCVF]4;WC-;Q#!DD:8`)1&Z%=L6VJC,(S6\H7+>!84P'J:JI2
M=4,>QUQ3P(_KF.K72,'M:[>PZJS^T!.V(.Z^I;B\);EU&X0XQD@Y0_R8Y,E3
M9>^FPY)`Q+I40,)=M[:E8!M=-CG,@A0C&+94-9E`S3WZ>`Y:N"3?:[?W@87U
M^4#P^U34/:T[=8QF@M8$NV\++^9-;EP6(T06=YGM9@3#A!S8:B]]AA"@"O]5
M!?BU:;VN,T7_PI%)8M#W)3Q<]6$UC8)J1>H9(NVEZ[D(\0PQ&G-HS<2N#;55
M4JA'OF/V#[39CR<9K"L$`I#.4VL`QB)$4>^D"^DP,"U!,W.'QM6J4:XHLW+8
MQ5<T5]EX8.KBN.3S_FKZ2\O0I`\R4T&2,2B_^ZV2R6QBD":VZ,TEN:B]S!23
M$^[[!4VE28WI)`+\V\D>"(]$RSQ@EKHA.![\J*DMPE&E0W)ZP<8H"1>JF(S/
MI="XV#X>T]Y>\4X56R,:3Z)!O1FZ%ZP>&H4*0M41@@PB"2@BN)H=QQ8+4!.)
M^@:.-$>"ETAR<"BQ)8;.^(/9?SHZ:W.VR)+&DWBAL801CY180`,NN#N>26*+
M/\#?K@7?,^=,[SC),+F^S02]DDG2J^P5@6?`X9P='"/*7-%<V\_I!7&@;_Y+
MTI\E(-1P76TL\T--+J8=,7N"ZBD&N<:P[N'CU(X"C-LO8Q*FR5/OB*)[M\"D
MRL*0QK+RTH?84S*[PGH@.*48\-7#9L22+R:N7/)YN6_=N#75"A[$_E'$B?^M
M+_T%=2.G2*[2/^&\>HQ3'WZ!>M&%56@%^+AAYH11E(M^;?'H+HP_12!N9?@K
MN<-&>CZ_FD'ACM!?"]E:@_#Q3C0>CV!P+1H_WH`WK&/@0,D:/D`_4VL/QLDH
M7R>28E"A;<%"934GJRPR3="0$9^PQ6C]AQ1,G54M'TYR\00/O&(&Y(>D\=2-
M$O"I^E&UEV'L"OVC@!6NJO8AZ^IUPL%#!`[Q0%"$MIRLO(H]^Q.!=)DHO'5=
M](0*R/Y7`\N*7)7*)4+4ST';([TJ9IG9:RJH1ITR>;I[6*W21^D2Z,28T]BY
MSKX9BIIR`6I=*3%*V<ER<Q=@P%PJ88V#89,H3:?;>G%QMQ]7#,8(-_>*B<-"
M=?VEUJ&3/6\:0>+OD#M!N#C<'KKLCQG[H#BI6DYSY.K7BP1&;I/#3GPAA=14
MVE85@EOG47/`NL.<'%'0AH26$@8].5PR=)6U<YPEI=PN"R\_&&N06K(`">+E
ML7%Z\)RH^6YA^5)BC%8+G'!Z'`JJ,W[9W0F$UN>\72/J'*>')(=;B:$M/$+)
M5@G;TN%&VT4Q1>I0#4O[))N1]Z.'AK<ZI(5NO2/8KM$)>UTQ#@I@*#P3H=2T
MTDY1<D;H;NZ5@;$K_IR59\$X6;$X7`X6(O8)QS4UB5<;$E/,BL4-"7+GJ.UR
M,"-F@DI6:<J5N5*5(6N,.KE.<&#A@BJ6`335[A1@1&2'IE67_81DX&:HI34U
MBA6.7:EIAR2.G$E1A0T.&)U]'1V\DKO7Z\0*2C'2C*3B1HPX3DT4B4ZKZ8_[
MX>PYX477(#XAI%"HXFTT0=?"1<J%B\1]U:9?'&`PPEA_+[E2XH]6-I&]27EC
M%X'1(M4Q$NA4.(FE'2!>+\^OW:"Y^SUIJ/9S]GCHS:1`5H;])"J!/+DLE]^L
M<1<!*G#)XQC^"L.-K1+O"`8AG>&>SY)F\'#(___?DF9QZ4"-YG;H_KJKR_?V
&HS!@Z@``
`
end

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

From: Tim McLay <nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 95 10:37:25 -0400
Subject: P75 & another ? 

Thanx for the comments.  That B has an early exemplar does not 
itself justify the inference that these texts are "strict" (Alands) or 
"neutral" (West&Hort), i.e. that they are the closest to the original.  
Larry has pointed out that the inference is also based on what seems to be 
a careful scribe (P75) who had few corrections made to the ms, but we 
could list a number of reasons why this might be so.  The other 
significant factor is the percentage of agreements with the reconstructed 
critical text, but the problem here is circular reasoning. I guess I am 
convinced from my own work in the LXX that there should be room for less 
certainty.  
     Tim McLay

 --
 Tim McLay              
 Halifax, NS                        
 nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca               

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

From: David Coomler <davidco@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 08:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Artos/Azymos

On another list I am involved in a discussion concerning the nature of 
the bread that would have been used at the "Last Supper" as recorded in 
the synoptics.  The majority position on that list is that it had to be 
leavened, because the word "artos" is used rather than "azymos," and the 
words artos and azymos are mutually exclusive.

My view, however, based on the chronology of the event, on the use of 
artos with the qualifier azymos in the OT, etc., is that artos is simply 
the term for wheat bread, and that azymos is a sub-category of artos.
Further, the term azymos is only used in the NT to refer to the period 
called Unleavened Bread, with the exception of two mentions in 1 
Corinthians, in which the term is used allegorically to refer to vice 
affecting the whole, in other words, leavening as a corrupting influence 
as opposed to the "purity" of unleavened bread.

I would be very much interested in the views of others on this topic.

David

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

From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 12:20:25 -0500 (GMT-0500)
Subject: Re: Artos/Azymos

On Mon, 10 Jul 1995, David Coomler wrote:

> On another list I am involved in a discussion concerning the nature of 
> the bread that would have been used at the "Last Supper" as recorded in 
> the synoptics.  The majority position on that list is that it had to be 
> leavened, because the word "artos" is used rather than "azymos," and the 
> words artos and azymos are mutually exclusive.
> 
> My view, however, based on the chronology of the event, on the use of 
> artos with the qualifier azymos in the OT, etc., is that artos is simply 
> the term for wheat bread, and that azymos is a sub-category of artos.
> Further, the term azymos is only used in the NT to refer to the period 
> called Unleavened Bread, with the exception of two mentions in 1 
> Corinthians, in which the term is used allegorically to refer to vice 
> affecting the whole, in other words, leavening as a corrupting influence 
> as opposed to the "purity" of unleavened bread.
> 
> I would be very much interested in the views of others on this topic.

I should know better than to respond to this off the top of my head, but: 
off the top of my head I'm inclined to agree with David: that ARTOS 
really means "loaf" generically, and that AZUMOS is in fact an adjective 
that would qualify an understood word AZUMOS.

The query, however, raises another question I've long wanted to pose for 
my own clarification, and it concerns the apparent discrepancy in dating 
of the crucifixion and last supper between the Synoptics and the gospel 
of John. John appears to want to say that Jesus' death took place at the 
moment when the paschal lambs were being slaughtered at the Temple in 
Jerusalem, and if that were the case, then the last supper could not have 
been a passover--UNLESS (and here is what I would like some clarification 
about) the official calendar used was the lunar, but Jesus and disciples 
were celebrating the seder according to the solilunar calendar. For all I 
know, I may have this backwards, but I have seen somewhere that the 
discrepanced could possibly be explained in terms of sectarian 
differences in observance of the ritual calendar. Can anyone enlighten me 
on this? 

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 B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 15:25:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: End of Mark Possibilities

On Sun, 9 Jul 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:

> Based upon reports that those who were in WWII tell me about that war, I would
> say that people clearly remember events 50 years previous.  
..................................
> the latest possible date for the composition of the
> long ending of Mark is in the first quarter of the second century, and it may
> well be earlier.  This is based upon the fact that these men were not ignorant
> people, but were well-educated leaders in the second century.  Surely the fact
> that the ending of Mark was only recently composed could not have been
> completely forgotten in early scholarly circles within less than half a century.


I'm sorry, but I find the above argument (including the parts I deleted)
quite anachronistic and ethnocentric.  It is disheartening, especially
after so much quality work has been done on the social, cultural,
literary, and historical contxts of the first (and second) century, to see 
these types of arguments still put forth. 

The key phrase is:  "in the second century."  These "well-educated 
leaders" had not heard of the Enlightenment, etc., and their mode of 
composition was rhetorical.  A close reading of the Gospels, written in
much more temporal proximity to the actual events, makes this clear.  
The "appeal to authority" in the above quote belies what we find in the 
texts (Irenaeus's) themselves.

BTW, the recent flap over the Smithsonian WW II exhibit also makes clear
that even modern persons disagree over the "events" of WW II Same goes for
the bombing of Dresden (as Kurt Vonnegut would attest).  Ideology
sometimes still takes precedence. 

David

************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):
	dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu


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

From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 12:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Validity of Ireneaus

I have both a response and a question.  The citation in Eusebius 
regarding the mark of the beast from Irenaeus suggests that Irenaeus is 
not going to indulge in attempting to identify the person(s) who are the 
beast, but the vision was seen recently at the end of Domitian's reign.

Now while I agree with Greg and Robinson that Revelation is probably pre-70
I also have a problem with setting aside external evidence easily in 
favor of internal.   I think that we need a little more solid material to 
go on than just how we are reading the internal evidence.  I would expect 
other writers to have preserved another tradition if there were one, 
which is indicative though not conclusive.  Also I's ties through Papias 
and Polycarp to John are pretty strong, not to be blithely ignored.  
A sticky wicket indeed.  

Larry Swain
Parmly BIllings Library
lswain@wln.com


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

From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 20:09:59 -0400
Subject: Re: End of Mark Possibilities 

Bruce Terry wrote,
"Based upon reports that those who were in WWII tell me about that war, I
would say that people clearly remember events 50 years previous."

I fail to see any logic in this whole line of argument.  On the other hand
the statement that I made about the vocabulary and style of the long ending
of Mark being different is easily checked.  Just take a concordance or a
concording program and check the vocabulary in the ending.  You will find a
number of words like POREUOMAI that are used in Matthew and/or Luke but not
in Mark except in the ending.  Mark's only use of this word seems to be in
compounds while Matthew especially in the resurrection accounts uses it.  As
for style I am dependent upon one whom I consider to be expert in Greek
style, G.D. Kilpatrick and some of his students.

Next take the Aland Synopsis and compare the long ending with Matthew, Luke,
and John.  The dependence (found only in this ending in Mark) is clear.  The
evidence from the second century (already rehearsed) I think clearly allows
for the composition of this ending anytime from about 125 CE to 150 CE.  I've
read the arguments for the authenticity of the long ending by W.R. Farmer,
but am convinced that his logic is motivated by his desire to see the whole
book of Mark as a compilation of Matthew and Luke.

Carlton Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College Pineville, LA

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

From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 17:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: End of Mark Possibilities

On Mon, 10 Jul 1995 WINBROW@aol.com wrote:

> Bruce Terry wrote,
> "Based upon reports that those who were in WWII tell me about that war, I
> would say that people clearly remember events 50 years previous."
> 
> I fail to see any logic in this whole line of argument.  On the other hand
> the statement that I made about the vocabulary and style of the long ending
> of Mark being different is easily checked.  Just take a concordance or a

I would like to respond to both Drs who have responded to Bruce Terry 
today.  FIrst, you have seized on his suggestion of oral tradition and 
human memory as illogical and problematic, with just a flavor of 
derision.  I would hope that you have not forgotten that the folks of the 
first and second centuries are PEOPLE which means that they not only make 
mistakes, but actually may know a little something about their world as 
well.  And the debate on how viable their reportage is and oral 
traditions is still very much open if the plethora of articles and books 
of late is any indication whatever.

Second, using the old straw man strategy, you apparently have not yet 
read the paper he posted in which, by good golly, he deals with issues of 
vocabulary and style of the longer ending and the rest of Mark.  I am not 
asking that you agree with him, but at least read what he wrote before 
you reject what he says.  THat is not only just decent of you, it is also 
academically sound, one might almost suggest that it is LOGICAL.

Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com

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

From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 22:37:55 -0400
Subject: Style in Mark 

Bruce,
In my latest post I did not mean to imply that your study of the style of the
longer ending was irrelevant but to indicate that I did not follow the logic
of your assertion that just because people remember events of 50 years ago
that the ending had to be fifty years old.  

I did a rather thorough study of Markan style with Prof. Kilpatrick in
Oxford.  Unfortunately I did not submit it for publication or even write it
up in a neat form.  That study was very convincing, but was heavily dependent
also upon vocabulary. I would love to read your paper on style and am eager
to respond to it. 

Sorry if I seemed short in my answer.  

Carlton Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College Pineville, LA

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

From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 21:50:24 CST
Subject: BG: Off to the Mountains 

If I fail to respond to e-mail messages for the next week, it's because I'm 
off to the Colorado mountains for a few days to celebrate my in-laws' 60th
anniversary this summer.  I apologize for starting a hot topic on the style of
the end of Mark and then running out.  For those who want to read my 448 line 
article, its at my FTP site here at bible.acu.edu under \Greek\papers.  That
site is also accessible through James Tauber's WWW address.  When I return, I
will be glad to e-mail it to any who request it and do not have FTP and/or WWW
privileges.  Be warned; it's a 28K file.  Well, I'm off to the cool.  The
temperature is supposed to be in triple digits this week in Abilene, so my
sister-in-law picked a wonderful time to have this for her parents.

********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry                            E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station		       Phone:  915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699		       Fax:    915/674-3769
********************************************************************************

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

From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 21:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Style in Mark

Dr Terry can speak for himself on this, but I did not read his comment 
regarding living memory as indicative that the ending then was 50 years 
old, perhaps I missed something.  My apologies if I was short.

Larry Swain

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

End of b-greek-digest V1 #778
*****************************

** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **

To unsubscribe from this list write

majordomo@virginia.edu

with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content.  For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".

For further information, you can write the owner of the list at

owner-b-greek@virginia.edu

You can send mail to the entire list via the address:

b-greek@virginia.edu