b-greek-digest V1 #809

b-greek-digest            Wednesday, 2 August 1995      Volume 01 : Number 809

In this issue:

        Re: Deissmann and J. B. Lightfoot
        Re: Current evaluations of Deissmann's works
        Verb Parsing
        Re: Verb Parsing 
        Literary Impression & Historical Reconstruction 
        Greek names
        More on Hellenistic/Cynic comparative work 
        Phil 4:6 
        Re: More on Hellenistic/Cynic comparative work 
        Re: Greek names
        Re: Phil 4:6
        Long Post: Chart on Mark by Sections 
        Greek verb tenses
        Slightly off topic:  Questions about two books 


From: Shaughn Daniel <zxmli05@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 11:09:35 +0000
Subject: Re: Deissmann and J. B. Lightfoot

>So maybe being old isn't any guarantee.  Horrors!  After waiting
>all these years to be respected and wise [at least respected]!

"Mama used to always tell me that life is like a box of chocolates: you
never know what you're gonna get until you bite into one. I like mama
'cause she  explained things so that I could understand them." -- Forrest



Shaughn Daniel
Tuebingen, Germany

| Shaughn Daniel               zxmli05@student.uni-tuebingen.de |\
| Tuebingen, Germany                                            | |
|                            ~~~~~                              | |
| I put tape on the mirrors in my house so I don't accidentally | |
| walk through into another dimension.---Steven Wright          | |
*---------------------------------------------------------------* |


From: Shaughn Daniel <zxmli05@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 11:04:08 +0000
Subject: Re: Current evaluations of Deissmann's works

Deissmann and Lightfoot are well respected and still consulted by all major
German scholars. Another person that has received a lot of ruckus is Herr
Dr. Billerbeck, a la Strack-Billerbeck Kommentare zum Neuen Testament (5 or
so volumes). In Hengel's _The Pre-Christian Paul_ (a typical Hengel-style
book, one half is his text, footnotes and bib are the other half), there
are some nice comments for this great scholar--a German pastor(!) who was
thoroughly acquainted with Rabbinical sources, the Hebrew Bible, and the
GNT. Unfortunately, the fine-tuning of academia in the Western world has
suffered the loss of the ability to produce scholars like these older
men--where in the modern world are Greek classists with Ph.D.s produced at
the age of 17?! Of course, maybe they were just cramming everything into
those teenagers back then because they knew they wouldn't live very much
past 40 to 50 years.


Shaughn Daniel
Tuebingen, Germany

| Shaughn Daniel               zxmli05@student.uni-tuebingen.de |\
| Tuebingen, Germany                                            | |
|                            ~~~~~                              | |
| I put tape on the mirrors in my house so I don't accidentally | |
| walk through into another dimension.---Steven Wright          | |
*---------------------------------------------------------------* |


From: deMena P <deMena_P.PRINBMS1@msmail.bms.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 09:31:34 +0800 (U)
Subject: Verb Parsing


To describe a verb, is there an accepted conventional sequence to list the
parameters (e.g., person, number, tense, voice, mood) ?

- -Paul


From: MikeWicker@aol.com
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 11:22:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Verb Parsing 

I've always used the tense, mood, voice, person, number sequence.

MikeWicker, Pastor
Grace Bible Church
Elmer, NJ


From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 11:14:09 CST
Subject: Literary Impression & Historical Reconstruction 

On Mon, 31 Jul 1995, Jan S Haugland wrote:

>Your nice summary of events demonstrates that it is not feasilble to treat
>these Gospel accounts as *accurate* historical records.
>> 1. An angel comes & rolls back the stone from the tomb (Mt. 28:2).
>> 2. Mary Magdalene comes before dawn while it is still dark (Jn. 20:1)
>>    and finds the stone rolled away.
>> 3. Other women come at or after sunrise (Mk. 16:2; Lk. 24:1).
>> 4. Mary Magdalene leaves to tell the apostles (Jn. 20:2).
>>    She apparently does not know about the angels.
>Problem is, Mt 28:5-7 says that the Angel *spoke* to the women before they
>came to the tomb and told them to 1) go to the tomp and find it empty, and
>2) go and tell the other disciples. It's just not possible to reconcile this
>with Jn20:1-10 where the women's speculate about the wherabouts of the body
>*after* they had seen the empty tomb. They simply assumed the dead body was
>moved, and didn't even consider the possibility of resurrection (quite


Thanks for your input, although this was not exactly what I was looking for.
It looks like you have confused the accuracy of literary impression with the
accuracy of historic detail.  It is the latter which is necessary for
historical reconstruction.  I don't know of anyone who thinks that
harmonization is possible who insists that the impressions produced in reading
an account must be reconcilable; the question is whether the details can be

>From reading Matthew, one gets the impression that a) there was only one
angel; b) the women arrived at the tomb before the angel came; c) the angel
spoke from on top of the stone that had covered the tomb; d) the women never
actually entered the tomb; and e) Jesus appeared to *all* the women who came
out that morning before they ever came to the apostles; however, none of these
things are explicitly stated in the text. Similarly, in reading Mark, one gets
the impression that a) it was a human being rather than an angelic one who
spoke to the women and b) that *none* of the women told the disciples (except
for Mary Magdalene in the long ending, which is in question).  In the same
way, in reading Luke, on gets the impression that the ascension happened on
the same day as the resurrection. The same writer, however, in Acts
demonstrates that he knows this period covered 40 days, not one.

These literary impressions are generated by the omission of details.  Every
literary piece, even a detailed one like a doctoral dissertation, omits
details which the writer thinks a) are not germane to what he or she is trying
to say, b) would make the text too long and/or boring, or c) that the reader
already knows. Some people are more inclined to include or to omit details
than others.  My father, like myself, was a person who liked to have all the
details; I can remember my mother saying, "Ralph, they don't want to hear all
the details."  My mother, as you can tell, felt that it was proper to omit

The task of historical reconstruction is to take the details presented by
several sources and see if the details themselves (not the impressions
generated in their initial presentation) can be reconciled.  This task assumes
that different individuals omit different details.

Over the past number of years, biblical studies have concentrated on what a
given writer has to say about an event without trying to reconcile that
account with other accounts: "Let each writer speak for himself."  This may be
a valid literary approach, but it is *not* the only valid approach.  Its own
validity, in fact, is called into question by recent advances in psychology,
discourse analysis, and cognitive science (especially by models working on
artifical intelligence).  De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981, 194-201) have
demonstrated, to my satisfaction, that *no* text presents all information
needed to correctly understand it, that *every* text is supplemented by
information already stored in the brain.  In other words, every understanding
(or *mis*understanding) of a text is a product of the information found in the
text plus information already in the brain.  This information already in the
brain is organized in what is variously called frames, schemas, schemata,
scripts, and plans.  Works on this subject include the following:

De Beaugrande, Robert-Alain, and Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler. 1981. _Introduction
   to text linguistics_. London and New York: Longman.

Heberlandt, Karl, and Geoffrey Bingham. 1982. The role of scripts in the
   comprehension and retention of texts. In _New developments in cognitive
   models of discourse processing_, eds. Tuen A. van Dijk and James S. Petofi.
   Amsterdam: Moulton. Special issue of _Text_ 2:29-46.

Miller, James R., and Walter Kintsch. 1981. Knowledge-based aspects of prose
   comprehension and readability. _Text_ 1:215-232.

Minsky, M. 1980. A framework for representing knowledge. In _Frame conceptions
   and text understanding_, ed. Dieter Metzing, 1-25. Berlin: de Gruyter.

van Dijk, Teun A. 1981. Semantic macro-structures and knowledge frames in
   discourse comprehension. _Text_ 1:3-32. Also 1977. A framework for
   understanding discourse. In _Cognitive processes in comprehension_, eds.
   Marcel Adam Just and Patricia A. Carpenter, 3-32. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

The thought today is that writers omit details that they think readers already
understand.  (In fact, Aristotle gives this exact advice in his _Rhetoric_.)
If this is the situation, it is not valid to understand the lack of a detail
to mean that the writer thinks that the detail in question did not happen; it
merely means that he either thought the detail unimportant for his purposes,
or that people would automatically understand this fact from other sources.

What I am doing here is making a case for the validity of historical
reconstruction.  Such a case is not necessary in everyday life, for everyone
of any intelligence understands intuitively that this is what goes on and
applies this automatically to texts that they hear and read.  It is only in
biblical studies, where close readings are the rule and no principle of
understanding is admissible unless it is explicitly stated, that such a method
of understanding is not readily acceptable.

IMHO, the greatest revolution yet to come in biblical studies will be the
application of how understanding takes place that is currently the object of
research in cognitive psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence,
and discourse analysis (in the fields of linguistics and literary criticism).

- --Bruce

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


From: "DR. KEN PULLIAM" <thedoc@aztec.asu.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 10:42:51 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Greek names

I know this is an unusual request but I have a friend who wants to
find a Greek name for his daughter who will be born in a few months. He
has one daughter named charis and a son named christian he wants a Greek
name for his new daughter that also begins with a chi. I suggested kara
but he did not like it. Any ideas?

- --
Ken R. Pulliam, Ph.D.
Chandler, Arizona


From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 14:32:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: More on Hellenistic/Cynic comparative work 

Since three people have asked me for more details off list, I will 
respond on list to their inquiries.

Most scholars realize that Frazer's *Golden Bough* has been broken.  Some 
still repeat the errors of the history-of-religions school, but others 
have moved much beyond that methodology.

Many critics of those who do comparative work in Hellenistic-Roman texts 
and the Synoptics fundamentally misunderstand the paradigm used.  They 
critique these works based upon a historical-critical assumption of 
direct influence of some sort, whether literary or some other means.  
This view of intertextuality is simply too limited to explain the data.

I would recommend, as the most cogent and succinct summary of these
issues, Vernon Robbins's forthcoming book from Routledge.  He clearly
elucidates the various "textures" of the NT texts, and intertexture is one
of them. 

As he and others (including me) have noted, this intertexture can also be
social and cultural, both directly and indirectly.  At a very abstract
level, for example, are the concerns for honor or for purity (etc.) in
first-century literature.  Of course, the purity concerns of Sophocles are
NOT the purity concerns of Luke's Gospel, but cross-cultural studies have
proven most beneficial in pointing out similarities and differences --
Luke didn't have to read Sophocles to have similar concerns (see my book,
*Host, Guest, Enemy, and Friend*).  The concern for purity, though, and
some modes of responding to those concerns are held in common.  Honor,
purity, and other "cultural scripts" vary from place to place and time to
time, but comparisons can be illuminating about other cultural and social
interactions.  The Gospels and their portrayal of Jesus reflect similar
(and different) aspects to some Cynics. 

A more interesting mode of analysis is that of "culture rhetoric," as 
suggested by Keith Roberts.  The rhetoric of those persons who perceive 
themselves as a "subculture" or "counterculture" can be strikingly 
similar.  Subcultural rhetoric, for example, imitates the attitudes, 
values, and norms of the dominant culture, and it claims to "enact them 
better" than the members of the dominant culture.  (e.g., many of the 
"Judaisms" of the first century were "ethnic subcultures").  The parables 
of Mark 4 also function in the mode of subcultural rhetoric.  These modes 
of rhetoric also give us valuable comparisons between the Synoptic Jesus 
and the Cynics -- especially with regard to social location.  Some 
interanimations with the Synoptics may also have occurred.

I will not reiterate all the other direct and indirect "influences" that I
suggested in my previous postings -- though I stand behind all I said
about social and cultural discourse, interanimation, etc. -- but let me
add again that those items do not make any claim as far as origin or
genealogical derivation.  There remain strong similarities between the
Synoptic Jesus and some Cynics -- even though Jesus is most certainly
"very Jewish" -- and the explanations for those similarities and
differences are accordingly complex. 

Perhaps this can be best illustrated by a close examination of the sayings
of the Synoptic Jesus themselves, such as the ones done by Vaage and
Downing (although I am not commending their results necessarily).  Those
studies need to be critiqued on their own terms, not those of the
history-of-religions methodology that they reject both implicitly and

BTW, Vaage even claims that the "Judaisms" in their multiple forms of the
first century belonged as much to the hellenistic world as did "Cynicism"
in its various guises. 

How far removed are these studies from the assumptions of H. D. Betz in 
his book on the Sermon on the Mount (SM)?:  "The SM is an expressly 
polemical text and reflects conflicts in a number of directions"  He 
includes:  Pharisaism, conventional (sic) Judaism, Gentile Christianity, 
and a "deep-seated debate with the Greco-Roman world."  This debate is 
"presented in veiled form."  It has "subtle debates with the concepts of 
Greek philosophy in a wider sense . . . ."

Betz still may be operating out of a (purely?) historical-critical mode,
but he, to coin a phrase, is "not far from the kingdom."  Social,
cultural, rhetorical, and discourse analyses would bring us closer, IMO. 

best wishes,


David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug 11):


From: Yirah@aol.com
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 15:23:31 -0400
Subject: Phil 4:6 

The part of the verse in Phil 4:6 I'm curious about reads:

en panti tE proseuxE kai tE deEsei (in everything by prayer and petition)

Is this a hendiadys and would thus mean something like "in everything by
petitional prayer"? 

Thanks in advance.

William Brooks
Port Angeles, WA  


From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 15:33:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: More on Hellenistic/Cynic comparative work 

Another way the gospels show broad cultural similarities, probably 
without textual borrowings, is its orientation toward the supernatural, 
healings, demonology, etc.  It seems to speak from a different 
"subculture" than that of most other Jewish or Hellenistic texts of the 
period, and yet a subculture with broad similarities to that in 
ancient Mesopotamia and all over the world.  Perhaps some sort of 
lower-class or folk religion positioning.

Greg Jordan


From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 95 15:02:13 EDT
Subject: Re: Greek names

> I know this is an unusual request but I have a friend who wants to
> find a Greek name for his daughter who will be born in a few months. He
> has one daughter named charis and a son named christian he wants a Greek
> name for his new daughter that also begins with a chi. I suggested kara
> but he did not like it. Any ideas?

Chara, "joy," is a good choice.  Chloe is the name of a Christian woman
in the New Testament (1Co1:11).

More subtly but not starting with a Chi, Irene would also be a good name
alluding to the greeting found in seventeen epistles: Grace (Charis) and
peace (Irene).

A less appropriate name would be Chryseis (ie., Goldie), if I recall my
Iliad correctly.

Stephen Carlson
- -- 
Stephen Carlson     :  Poetry speaks of aspirations,  : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com  :  and songs chant the words.     : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330      :                 Shujing 2:35    : Reston, VA  22091   USA


From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 15:44:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Phil 4:6

At 3:23 PM 8/2/95, Yirah@aol.com wrote:
>The part of the verse in Phil 4:6 I'm curious about reads:
>en panti tE proseuxE kai tE deEsei (in everything by prayer and petition)
>Is this a hendiadys and would thus mean something like "in everything by
>petitional prayer"?

First of all: PANTI construes with THi PROSEUXHi ktl.-- and PANTI quite
normally takes the predicative position: so it's "in every prayer and
petition." Of course, your question really concerns the two nouns; you
COULD call that hendiadys, but Paul often seems to distinguish types of
prayer: thanksgiving, petition. I guess, to be sure, that PROSEUXH is more
generalized. I just looked at a couple of Paul's opening sections, and it
seems to me that he does like to double up on these expressions. On the
other hand, I hardly think that this could be called "hendiadys" in the
real literary sense, the traditional example of which in my sphere is
Vergil's ARMA VIRUMQUE CANO = I sing the man of war (Aen.1.1).

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: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 17:04:45 CST
Subject: Long Post: Chart on Mark by Sections 

A few days ago I posted a chart of words that are used only one time in Mark.
Carl Conrad suggested that I compile the chart using pericopes rather than
chapters.  I have done so, using the UBS GNT sections (I hesitate to call
these sections pericopes, especially in chapter 13).

The long ending of Mark contains 4 UBS sections, ranging from 2 to 5 verses in
length.  What follows is a summary table of the results of the analysis,
grouped by section size, comparing the long ending to the rest of Mark.

Number of         Number of            Number of     Total       Ratio
 Sections    Words Used Only Once       Verses       Hapax    WUOO/Verses
                 per Section          per Section   Legomena
Long Ending
    4        Range: 1-6; Ave. 3.25        2-5          1       .33-2.00
                                                               Ave. 1.08

Rest of Mark
   37        Range: 0-12; Ave. 3.35       2-5         16       .00-2.40
             (chapters 1-16)                                   Ave.  .88
             (chapters 12-16)                                  Ave. 1.12
   29        Range: 1-16; Ave. 6.45       6-9         16       .13-2.29
                                                               Ave.  .91
   17        Range: 1-15; Ave. 8.24      10-13        15       .09-1.30
                                                               Ave.  .74
    7        Range: 8-30; Ave. 15.29     15-23        16       .53-1.30
                                                               Ave.  .84

When the four sections of the long ending are compared with other sections in
Mark that are two to five verses long, it is seen that they fall within the
ranges of the undisputed sections of Mark.  The average WUOO per section of
3.25 compares favorably with Mark's average of 3.35.  The average ratio of
1.08 WUOO/verses of the long ending is greater than the average of .88 but
comparable to the average of 1.12 for the last five chapters.

The complete chart by both chapters and sections from which the summary table
was compiled follows for those interested.  A brief analysis is at the end.

Chapter/          Number of            Number of     Hapax        Ratio
   Section   Words Used Only Once       Verses      Legomena   WUOO/Verses

   1                 39                   45           6           .86

      1-8            15                    8           1          1.88
      9-11            1                    3           0           .33
     12-13            2                    2           0          1.00
     14-15            0                    2           0           .00
     16-20            4                    5           1           .80
     21-28            1                    8           0           .13
     29-34            6                    6           0          1.00
     35-39            4                    5           4           .80
     40-45            6                    6           0          1.00

   2                 16                   28           3           .57

      1-12            5                   12           1           .42
     13-17            1                    5           0           .20
     18-22            7                    5           2          1.40
     23-28            3                    6           0           .50

   3                 13                   35           1           .37

      1-6             6                    6           1          1.00
      7-12            5                    6           0           .83
     13-19            1                    7           0           .14
     20-30            1                   11           0           .09
     31-35            0                    5           0           .00

   4                 42 *                 41           2          1.02

      1-9             6                    9           0           .67
     10-20            8                   11           0           .73
     21-25            7                    5           0          1.40
     26-29            6                    4           1          1.50
     30-32            6                    3           0          2.00
     33-34            2                    2           0          1.00
     35-41            7                    7           1          1.00

   5                 25                   43           4           .58

      1-20           12                   20           3           .60
     21-43           13                   23           1           .57

   6                 46                   56           3           .82

      1-6             3                    6           0           .50
      7-13            8                    7           0          1.14
     14-29           15                   16           1           .94
     30-44            8                   15           0           .53
     45-52            7                    8           0           .88
     53-56            5                    4           2          1.25

   7                 41 *                 37           6          1.11

      1-23           30                   23           5          1.30
     24-30            4                    7           0           .57
     31-37            7                    7           1          1.00

   8                 23                   38           2           .61

      1-10            7                   10           0           .70
     11-13            1                    3           1           .33
     14-21            2                    8           0           .25
     22-26            6                    5           1          1.20
     27-30            0                    4           0           .00
     31-9:1           8 (1 in 9:1)         9           0           .89

   9                 43                   48 **       10           .90

      2-13           13                   12           4          1.08
     14-29           10                   16           4           .63
     30-32            2                    3           0           .67
     33-37            1                    5           0           .20
     38-41            2                    4           0           .50
     42-50           14                    7           2          2.00

  10                 40                   52           5           .77

      1-12            8                   12           0           .67
     13-16            1                    4           1           .25
     17-31           19                   15           2          1.27
     32-34            2                    3           0           .67
     35-45            6                   11           1           .55
     46-52            4                    7           1           .57

  11                 14                   32 **        2           .44

      1-11            3                   11           2           .27
     12-14            2                    3           0           .67
     15-19            5                    5           0          1.00
     20-25            3                    6           0           .50
     27-33            1                    7           0           .14

  12                 46 *                 44           5          1.05

      1-12           15                   12           2          1.25
     13-17            7                    5           2          1.40
     18-27            4                   10           0           .40
     28-34            7                    7           1          1.00
     35-37            1                    3           0           .33
     38-40            7                    3           0          2.33
     41-44            5                    4           0          1.25

  13                 41 *                 37           3          1.11

      1-2             0                    2           0           .00
      3-13           11                   11           1          1.00
     14-23           13                   10           0          1.30
     24-27            6                    4           0          1.50
     28-31            5                    4           0          1.25
     32-37            6                    6           2          1.00

  14                 70                   72           5           .97

      1-2             0                    2           0           .00
      3-9            16                    7           1          2.29
     10-11            3                    2           0          1.50
     12-21           10                   10           0          1.00
     22-26            5                    5           0          1.00
     27-31            5                    5           1          1.00
     32-42            8                   11           1           .73
     43-50           10                    8           1          1.25
     51-52            0                    2           0           .00
     53-65           10                   13           0           .77
     66-72            3                    7           1           .43

  15                 53 *                 46 **        5          1.15

      1-5             1                    5           0           .20
      6-15            8                   10           1           .80
     16-20           12                    5           0          2.40
     21-32           10                   11           2           .91
     33-41            8                    9           0           .89
     42-47           14                    6           2          2.33

  16:1-8              6                    8           1           .75

      1-8             6                    8           1           .75

  16:9-20            13 *                 12           1          1.08

      9-11            1                    3           0           .33
     12-13            2                    2           0          1.00
     14-18            6                    5           1          1.20
     19-20            4                    2           0          2.00

 Totals             571                  674          64           .85

The above chart was compiled from the statistics for infrequently used words
found in Kubo's _Reader's Lexicon_.  No guarentee of the absolute accuracy
can be given, due both to possible miscounts and omissions by Kubo, but the
figures are accurate enough for general purposes.  Words that were used more
than once within a span of twelve verses were not counted.  Chapters that have
more words used once in Mark than verses are marked with an asterisk.  A
double asterisk indicates missing verses within a chapter due to a textual

For chapters, the ratio of words used only once to verses varies between a low
of .37 in chapter 3 and a high of 1.15 in chapter 15.  The ratio of 1.08 for
the long ending of Mark is well within this range, being exceeded by chapters
7, 13, and 15. For sections, the ratio of words used only once to verses
varies between a low of .00 for six sections and a high of 2.40 in chapter 15.
The highest ratio of 2.00 for a section in the long ending of Mark is well
within this range, being exceeded by sections in chapters 12, 14, and 15.

The distribution of words used only once is not uniform in Mark.  For example,
the first twelve verses of chapter 1 contain 16 words used only once in Mark,
and the first twelve verses of chapter 14 contain 20, even though both of
these chapters have ratios that are less than 1.

Sections range between containing zero and thirty words that are used only
once in Mark, the longer sections on the average containing more words.

The shorter ending of Mark, although only about 2 verses long, contains 9 words
not used in Mark, giving a ratio of 4.5, over 4 times that of the long ending
and almost twice that of 15:16-20, which has the highest ratio of any section
in Mark!

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


From: Rick Strelan <R.Strelan@mailbox.uq.oz.au>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 08:54:01 +1000 (GMT+1000)
Subject: Greek verb tenses

A general question: how accurate is the standard distinction between 
aorist and perfect tenses found in NT Greek grammars? Does the standrad 
understanding of the relation between the two reflect a non-Greek understanding of time and action and 
their relationship? Who named the tense "aorist", which I think means 
something like "indefinite" (aoristos)? Similar question re the relation 
between present and future tenses. Is there any literature on the 
philosophy of Greek verb tenses!?

Rick Strelan
University of Queensland


From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 95 16:16:16 PDT
Subject: Slightly off topic:  Questions about two books 

  I have questions about a couple of books, one directly on Greek, the
other not.  First, if I have Metzger's Textual Commentary for UBS3, 
is it worthwhile to get the one for UBS4?  Second, I have seen a
biblography entry for a book called Redrawing the Boundaries, by
Greenblatt and Gunn, as a work that is relevant to understanding the NT.
Can someone who has read this work, that does not specifically
purport to be about NT topics, tell me what it's really about and how
it would apply?  You can go ahead and reply off-line if you wish since I
doubt anyone else cares about this.  Thanks in advance.

Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA


End of b-greek-digest V1 #809


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: