b-greek-digest V1 #888

b-greek-digest           Wednesday, 4 October 1995     Volume 01 : Number 888

In this issue:

        Re: Romans 3:22-23
        Re: Romans 3:22-23
        Fit for the land
        Re: Two or three questions in Matthew 24:3?
        information please
        (Fwd) Codes in the Pentateuch
        Re: Romans 3:22-23
        re: (Fwd) Codes in the Pentateuch 
        re: Re: Romans 3:22-23 
        Re: Romans 3:22-23
        Off topic:  Secondary lit. on Mark in English and Deutsch
        re: (Fwd) Codes in the Pentateuch
        re: (Fwd) Codes in the Pentateuch
        Re: Acts 2:42 
        Re: Fit for the land 
        Re: Mark 16; RHSSW/RHGNUMI 
        Re: Keeping up... 
        Re: Romans 3:22-23 


From: Timothy Bratton <bratton@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 02:09:43 -35900
Subject: Re: Romans 3:22-23

On Wed, 4 Oct 1995 JClar100@aol.com wrote:

> In Romans 3:23 what is the strength of the distinction between "sinned"
> (aorist tense) and "coming short" (present tense), if any?  Why not the
> imperfect tense rather than the aorist?  I realize the danger of reading too
> much into this and that the larger context should always be kept in mind.
>  But this verse just doesn't make sense.  If the aorist tense is understood
> as a one time completed action in the past, how could "all have sinned."  Is
> Paul perhaps taking some poetic license here?

Dr. Timothy L. Bratton			bratton@acc.jc.edu
Department of History/Pol. Science	work: 1-701-252-3467, ext. 2022 
6006 Jamestown College			home: 1-701-252-8895
Jamestown, ND 58405		        home phone/fax: 1-701-252-7507

	"All ignorance is dangerous, and most errors must be dearly 
paid.  And good luck must he have that carries unchastised an error in 
his head unto his death." -- Arthur Schopenhauer.

	Since my last thorough exposure to koine Greek was over 25 years 
ago, I'm probably going to make an idiot of myself, but "coming short of" 
and "sinning" are related concepts of the verb HAMARTANO.  The original 
meaning of the word was to "miss the mark," as in archery, but also in 
the moral sphere one "misses the mark" by settling for a lesser instead 
of a greater good.  For example, in a Christian context, heterosexual 
marriage would be the "target," but adulterers, fornicators, and 
homosexuals, while seeking some of the same comforts, pleasures, and 
relationships found in marriage, would nevertheless "fall short of," 
"miss the mark," and -- ultimately -- "sin" in comparison to the norm.  
If "for all have sinned" sounds too harsh, perhaps "for all have fallen 
short" might do -- for no human can live up to God's expectations without 
an infusion of grace.  I'll leave this for the "big guns" on this list to 
fill out, amend, or criticize.


From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 02:29:28 -0700
Subject: Re: Romans 3:22-23

hi again!

You wrote: 
>In Romans 3:23 what is the strength of the distinction between 
>(aorist tense) and "coming short" (present tense), if any?  Why not 
>imperfect tense rather than the aorist?  I realize the danger of 
reading too
>much into this and that the larger context should always be kept in 
> But this verse just doesn't make sense.  If the aorist tense is 
>as a one time completed action in the past, how could "all have 
sinned."  Is
>Paul perhaps taking some poetic license here?
>Am I trying to make too much out of the language?  Or have I taken my
>instructors too seriously? 

Well the toilet float got stuck again, so I got up at 2:00 AM to 
unstick it. Your question was rattling around in my mind, so I thought 
I'd quick write back a response to the bit about the aorist tense while 
it was fresh in my mind.

I think your understanding of the aorist is a bit limited. It can be 
described as a "one time completed action"; and in the indicative, that 
would most almost always be in the past. But broaden your definition by 
including "VIEWED AS a one time completed action." Take, for instance, 
I John 2:6 (Not the best example, but one I know off the top of my 
head.) Here, the writer states that the professor of faith ought to 
walk "kathws ekeinos peripathse(n)". With the aorist the writer bundles 
together some thirty plus years of walking about, and views it as a 
single event.

Another example: One morning it rains. One person might say, "It rained 
this morning, so now my hair is all frizzy."

Another might say, "I was raining all morning, and I had trouble 
getting to my classes." 

It is the same rainstorm, the same duration, yet one person is focusing 
on it as an event, while another is focusing on its duration. 
(Equivalent to Aorist verses Imperfect.) Also my first example includes 
a present tense effect from the past occurance: my hair is frizzy.

We could also say, "In April it rained all the time." or "it was 
raining all during my spring vacation."  That is repeated action in the 
past that can be bundled and discussed as a whole or else viewed as a 

To me it makes perfect sense that the aorist would be used in this 
verse in Romans, as the writer is concerned with the fact of occurance, 
not its duration. The present tense in second part of the sentence is 
also appropriate as it relates a present state.

Of course, it's always wise to double check the word of experts and 
even more so that of amateurs. But maybe this will help.


Now I can get back to sleep.


From: "JOHN HAYDEN, JEWELL, IA" <hayden@duke.iccc.cc.ia.us>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 07:13:14 -0500
Subject: Fit for the land

I can see the "fitness" of salt for the land to curse it, as in Judges 9:45.
Can someone suggest how salt (if it is salty) is "fit" for the dunghill?
I have an idea, but I'd like to hear from others.  See Luke 14:34-35.


From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 08:06:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Two or three questions in Matthew 24:3?

At 12:23 AM 10/3/95, Alan M Feuerbacher wrote:
>I have a question for you Greek scholars.  In Matthew 24:3 Jesus'
>disciples asked a question about the "end times":

As there was a lengthy discussion of this passage under the subject header,
"SHMEION THS SHS PAROUSIAS" less than a month ago, in the course of which
several views on this passage and its parallels were expressed, I rather
doubt that anyone wants to renew it now, but you could survey the earlier
discussion. I suggest that you consult the archive at:


As the archive missed several days, it's possible that the entire thread or
parts of it may be missing. Should that prove the case, contact me and I
can send you a text file of the thread.

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: James Dean Phelps <jphelps@emory.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 09:20:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: information please

Sorry, to clutter everyone's box with this, but how do I go about 
subscribing to this list?

Thanks for your help.

|   James Dean Phelps   |   "Life's long enough that you    |
|   jphelps@emory.edu   |    don't have to get in a hurry." |


From: Bill Chapman <billc@housing.msstate.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 09:33:59 CST
Subject: (Fwd) Codes in the Pentateuch


You wrote:

> It's interesting that the current issue of Bible Review
> (hardly a conservative magazine)--the one I got in the mail last
> week (it may not be on the newsstands yet)--has an article about
> much the same thing with respect to the Torah, and how some
> respected scientists in Israel, I believe, did a scientifically
> and statistically valid series of studies proving this phenomenon
> in 1988, but their results were ignored because no one wanted to
> admit the compelling proof they were offering that the Torah's
> source was not human.  The renegade "scholar," archeologist and
> former Baptist minister but now adherent of the 2-covenant theory
> and a strong proponent of rabbinic interpretation of the
> scriptures--Vendyl Jones from here in Arlington, Texas--publishes
> a newsletter, and his most recent issue deals with this same
> subject of the "Torah codes"--though his discussion is much more
> vehement and passionate. 

I have not seen the article you referenced, but the topic is one that
has occurred periodically on the bible-related lists to which I

The following analysis indicates that the finding of "hidden words"
is more a natural phenomenon of the properties of the alphabet and
vocabulary of the Hebrew language than a supernatural occurrence.

> The thesis is that set patterns of words, or repetitions
> of significant words, are encoded in the text of the New
> Testament.  I'd have to read the book to remember much more than
> that.   

I have not seen any similar claims for the New Testament
except what you posted, but you did not state whether the
author was making claims for the Greek or Authorized version.

- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From:          "Bill Chapman" <billc@housing.msstate.edu>
To:            Multiple recipients of list <ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu>
Subject:       Codes in the Pentateuch
Date:          Fri, 7 Jul 1995 12:57:48 EDT

There have been several questions concerning computer processing
using algorithms of letter-skipping to search for special meanings in
the Hebrew scriptures, or to find some indications that these texts
are indeed divine, because they contain so many other messages now
available via computer processing.  

This topic appeared in May 1992, on the AIBI-L discussion list, 
and I posted the following analysis which would indicate that the
attributes of the Hebrew language and properties of probability and
combinatorial analysis would lead to the results found.

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

Let me posit a method of evaluating these "skipping letter"
techniques based upon the nature of the data being studied.

Suppose, first of all, that there is a language composed of one-
character words.  Every word in the language is one character.
Chinese is an example of such a language.  In one sense, the
written Chinese language is composed of an alphabet with 30,000
different characters in it.

Suppose, again, that a biblical text in such a language were to
be examined with a computer using the letter-skipping algorithm.
The first valid question is, "Why?"  Why would someone think that
taking sentences made up of words, and eliminating every N-th word
(remember, every letter is a word) would have any meaning, at all?

If someone presupposes verbal inerrancy, it would be a ridiculous
thing to remove some of the inerrant words, unless of course,
some of those words in their complete form said messages could
be understood by removing every N-th word.

Someone presupposing human authorship full of discrepancies would
be ridiculed totally for making such a study, since the resulting
sentences, whether they made sense or nonsense, could not be
attacked as representing the original (unless the original
said to do it).

So the question remains, Why?, when a one-character per word language
is considered, and no onus has yet been posited for undertaking
such a study.

Next, consider a language whose words consist of two characters each.
Chinese can also be considered as an example, using the "dictionary
order" of strokes as a means of dividing the pictographic words
into two components each.  Again, even with this simplified
representation of the words, there are thousands of "letters"
of which words are composed, and taking random ones out would
seem an exercise in futility.

When we get to a language of three letter words, we get to an area
of optimum expectations.  I say this because an alphabet of only
20 letters can be used to generate a language of 20*20*20=8000 words.
This is an "optimum" because 8000 words constitute a pretty complete
vocabulary.  For example, Strong's Concordance indexes 8674 Hebrew
words in the bible, and Hebrew is an example of a language most of
whose words consist of three letters.  The Hebrew alphabet will
allow 22*22*22 = 10648 three letter combinations.

Continuing with the postulation, a language of 4-letter words would
only need 10 letters in its alphabet to generate a 10000 word
vocabulary, and even less letters are needed if words can be longer
than 4 letters.  On the other hand, if the alphabet size is fixed,
and word length can vary greater than four letters, there are
many possible letter combinations that are not words in the
language.  In English, for example, with a fixed alphabet of
26 letters, there are 26*26*26*26*26*26 = approx 308 million
possible six-letter words.

The probability that a random selection of six characters is a word
in the basic English language (8000 words) is 8000 / 308 million =
approx .000026, i.e., very small.  On the other hand, the probability
that a random selection of three characters in Hebrew is a word is
8000 / 10648, approx .79, or very high.  This is what I meant by
saying languages with three letter words yield optimum expectations.

If, in addition, you remove the vowel constraints of the spoken
language, and only work with the consonants, the probability
of a match is even greater.  Consider the following vowelized
combinations:  [The word "hitler" was chosen because the original 
paper used that example.] 


The 25 possible vowelized combinations become one consonant-only word
HTLR.  The search is reduced by a factor of 25 by removing vowels,
and the probability is increased even more, when there are two T
sounds in the target language.

As an alphabetic, written language, Hebrew lends itself to
combinatorial studies, especially since the domain of study is
entirely fixed.  Laying aside the textual variants for a moment,
the entire corpus of biblical languages is fixed, and will never
change.  New words like "television," "radar," and "laser" do
not occur, and will not occur in the biblical languages, even
though modern Hebrew and Greek may invent words for these inventions.

My point is that a language with three-letter roots is unique in
its ability to be studied exhaustively with computers, and to
generate valid combinations of words by "skipping letter" algorithms.

My question is, "Why spend the effort?"  The target sentences are 
invented by the investigators and found by the computer skipping-
letter algorithms.  

Instead of testing their hypothesis by doing similar studies in
English texts, they must test it in other Hebrew texts of comparable
length and language complexity.
- --                                                                              
Bill Chapman . mailto:billc@aris.com . mailto:wcc1@ra.msstate.edu
P.O. Box 1262 . Mississippi State, MS 39762 . (601) 323-3092


From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 07:27:07 -0700
Subject: Re: Romans 3:22-23

You wrote: 
>In regard to Romans 3:22 my assumption would be that DIA PISTEWS IHSOU
>CHRISTOU can be equal to "through faith in Jesus Christ."  However, I'm still
>struggling with the issue of whether PISTEWS is something which is the
>possession of Jesus Christ ("the faith OF Jesus Christ") shared(given) with
>humans by him or is it a self-generated abilitity to acknowledge Jesus Christ
>("faith IN Jesus Christ")?  Theologically, I'm not inclined toward this
>latter view but...  
It's morning. It is raining. Actually, it SNOWED in the mountains this morning 
and I-70 is closed at Vail Pass. (Time to wax my snowboard!)

Also, now that there is coffee and my head is clearer, I should have written as 
examples something like: "It rained a lot this spring so the rivers are 
unusually full." vs. "My spring vacation was ruined as it was raining most of 
the time."  As we don't really have an aorist in English, I hope that these 
examples give you a sense of the idea of how it might in describe action that 
was prolonged or repeated, and its use in comparison with the imperfect.

Regarding your question about faith in/of/from Christ, here are some scriptures 
that might shed some light.

In John 14:1 Jesus says, "You believe in God also eis eme believe."
So clearly Christ is to be the object of our faith.

Hebrews 12:2 speaks of Jesus as the author and finisher of our faith.
So it must be from Christ.

I Peter 2:23 describes Christ's example for us in committing himself to Him who 
judges rightly, and the second part of Hebrews 12:2 after aknowledging Christ 
as the author of our faith, describes his example. Thus, one might argue as 
well that our faith should be Christlike.

Sounds like I'm straddling a lot of fences. I am, and deliberately so. A 
teacher far more qualified than I to be posting such responses (but also far 
too busy) wrote me recently concerning this very thing, saying that scholars do 
not agree whether to interpret this as a "subjective" or "objective" genitive. 
So, try on all the possible definitions. Whichever one fits best, wear it. And 
keep the other alternatives in the back of your mind, recognizing them as 
reasonable and defendable interpretations.

There's gold in them thar hills! Keep digging.



From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 95 10:44:09 -24000
Subject: re: (Fwd) Codes in the Pentateuch 

To answer two of your questions:

Jerry Lucas (in THEOMATICS) is using the Greek text, not the AV or an English 

The Torah Code people in their Bible Review story discuss how they used other 
books of the Hebrew bible (the article was about their findings in Genesis) 
to test their hypothesis, and they explain what they did or did not find and 
why or why not.  It was a short article.


From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 95 10:49:54 -24000
Subject: re: Re: Romans 3:22-23 

I agree with "Ellen," as that's been my experience.  In the days of old 
before I had taken any Greek, but had read a little about the difference 
between the objective and the subjective genitive, I believed that Galatians 
2:20, for example, should be translated "by faith IN the Son of God" (KJV 
translates it "faith OF the Son of God").  Other passages in Galatians seemed 
to support this as the correct reading, and I also used Hebrews 1:1 as a 
"proof," i.e.:  If faith is something hoped for, and the evidence of things 
not seen, how can God (and hence the Son of God) have faith, since there is 
nothing He hopes for nor is there anything not seen by Him?  Hence the Son of 
God in Gal. 2:20 is the Object of faith, not the Subject or Source of faith.  
(Also note that Jesus is referred to here as the Son of God, not the Son of 
Man--I'm not saying that Jesus as the Son of Man (i.e., as a Man during his 
30+ years on the earth) did not have or exercise faith; but that's another 
issue.)  I was pretty adamant about it, mainly because a protagonist at 
church was using this to prove that the KJV translation was the "best" 
English Bible and that the other translations were WRONG in all kinds of 
ways, this verse being one of his proofs.  Anyway, while I still believe Gal. 
2:20 is best translated "faith IN the Son of God," I am no longer so adamant, 
having read a number of authorities who make a valid case for the subjective 
genitive or genitive of source in phrases like "faith of Christ," etc.  I'm 
sure Paul knew what he meant, but it's kind of hard to ask him about it 
(unless you're Emmanual Swedenborg--I read somewhere thatin his visions he 
used to argue with the Apostle).  Greek scholars, like Ellen says, seem to 
allow for various interpretations and understandings.


From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Wed,  4 Oct 95 09:48:28 CST
Subject: Re: Romans 3:22-23

Original message sent on Tue, Oct 3  10:18 PM by JClar100@aol.com :

> If the aorist tense is understood as a one time completed action in 
> the past, how could "all have sinned."  Is Paul perhaps taking some 
> poetic license here?

Ellen was right when she noted that "one time completed action" is just 
one of the nuances that the aorist can take.  A great paper comes to 
mind by John Stackhouse (I think?) entitled _The Abused Aorist_ (I do
not have any of the publication details immediately to hand), and you
would find this a very helpful read.

Mark O'Brien


From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 08:45:51 +0800
Subject: Off topic:  Secondary lit. on Mark in English and Deutsch

    Sorry to bother you all for this, but since I'm aware that there are
scholars on this list who may be able to help me, I have a question 
which should doubtless be answered privately (kenneth@sybase.com).
I'm working on my first doctoral exegesis paper.  It's on the incident 
with the Syro-Phoenecian woman in Mark.  I'm looking for two things:
1.  Suggestions for good English sources on this particular topic
(which is not to say that I'm not doing research;  I just want to avoid 
missing a significant book or article); and 
2.  while I have some general feel for scholarly literature, like 
commentaries in English, I know almos tnothing about what commentary
series there are, or whom to read in German in what journals.
If anyone could spare a few words of orientation on this topic, I'd 
appreciate it, since I'm now expected to work in German.  
If it helps for focusing, I'm going to be looking at the cultural
issues involved and in the apparent "backing down" Jesus does in this
situation, a fairly unique situation.  I'm not looking for redaction-
critical stuff (since the only Q I believe in is in the 25th cent.).
Thanks much in advance.

Ken Litwak
Bezerkley, CA


From: Nichael Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 14:50:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: re: (Fwd) Codes in the Pentateuch

On Wed, 4 Oct 1995, Eric Weiss wrote:
> To answer two of your questions:
> Jerry Lucas (in THEOMATICS) is using the Greek text, not the AV or an English 
> translation.
> The Torah Code people in their Bible Review story discuss how they used other 
> books of the Hebrew bible (the article was about their findings in Genesis) 
> to test their hypothesis, and they explain what they did or did not find and 
> why or why not.  It was a short article.

The article in BR is not by the original authors.  It was written by (if 
I remember correctly, my copy is at home) a psychologist, who was simply 
- --if enthusiastically-- reporting the conclusions of the original paper.

An important point is that the BR does _not_ say what "wasn't found" in
the other texts that were tested.  The article is rather vague on this and
several other points.  (This is not to say that the original paper does
not address these points --perhaps it does; so far I've been unable to
find a copy.  However I afraid the BR article raises more questions that
it answers). 

Specifically what the original authors claimed to have found is the close
_proximity_ of pairs of embedded in the Hebrew text.  (For example,
Various names, e.g.  "RASHI" and the death-date of the person so named).
The BR simply states that the other texts "fail the test" but it doesn't
say how.  For example:  Did the words appear, but not sufficiently close
together?  Did the words not appear at all (which would be a very
interesting fact in and of itself).  Did only some of words (or
proximity-pairs) occur?



From: Nichael Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 14:59:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: re: (Fwd) Codes in the Pentateuch

On Wed, 4 Oct 1995, Eric Weiss wrote:
> The Torah Code people in their Bible Review story discuss how they used other 
> books of the Hebrew bible (the article was about their findings in Genesis) 
> to test their hypothesis, and they explain what they did or did not find and 
> why or why not.  It was a short article.

For example, one of the texts tested in this way was the Samaritan
Pentateuch.  It "failed" the test, purportedly because of textual
differences with the Masoretic text.  The conclusion that the author --at
least of BR article-- argues strongly is that we are to take this as
concrete, scientific evidence of the divine nature of the text, even at
the level of the individual letter. 

One obvious question to ask is what are we to assume then was the 
position of those unfortunates who lived in the times before the MT took 
its final form around the year 200?



From: Larry Chouinard <fa78935@kcc.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 17:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [none]

I have been trying to reach the Gramcord Insitute in Vancouver by phone 
and keep getting a message that my call cannot go through as dialed.  Can 
anyone tell me if 360-576-3000 is the correct number.  The area code 
recently changed from 206.


Larry Chouinard


From: SHelton886@aol.com
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 17:11:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Acts 2:42 


I don't know what you interest in this subject.  But I have noticed a few
things about "breaking bread."

1.  The synoptics all speak of the feedings of the 4/5,000 in sacramental
terms, e.i., "taking, breaking, giving," even "blessing"-Luke lacks the
feeding of the 4,000; this same language is repeated in the account of the
last supper "took, blessed, broke and gave".  This leads me to think that the
evangelist saw a "connection" between the feedings and the last supper.

2.  Luke takes the "breaking bread" theme a bit beyond.  In Lk. 24.30;
"breaking bread" becomes the occasion where the disciples on the road to
Emmaus recognize Jesus; so if I may venture a theological interpretation;
"breaking bread" is where disciples meet Jesus in the midst of them.  This
seems to hold weight for what Luke is doing with the phrase.  Notice the alt.
translation in Acts 1.4: "kai; sunalizovmeno", "while staying" but can be
"while eating"  then you get 2.42; 46; 20.7, and vs. 11; and NOTE Acts 27.35;
where Jesus is present in Paul!

3.  To sort out whether this is the Lord Supper or a common meal is to
quibble.  Only westerners, as you know, who have placed the LS in a "churchy"
context do this.  It's both.  

4.  Since we are struggling with a Church of Christ issue (remember we have
others listening to our conversation) let me touch on your Greek question:

>>the articular inf. in Acts 2:42?

"klasei" is not an inf., but a noun "in the breaking of bread."  As for the
significance of the grammar I would say mostly stylistic.  In the 20.7 the
infinitive completes the participle of the gen. absol. thus explaining "why"
they had gathered-to eat together as the Christian community (so I read).
 Some of the other Greekers may want to nuance this more precisely.

5.  Alex Campbell, in his earlier days, tried to use the art. to distinguish
between eating and the LS.  He wrote against a brother attempting to restore
the "holy kiss":

>>All instituted acts of relgion are characterized by the definite article,
as the Lord's table, the Lord's day, &c.  It is one thing to command a holy
kiss, and another to command the holy kiss<< [Christian Baptist, vol. 4

Earlier Campbell had argued in ref. to Acts 20.7:

>>The definite art. is, in the Greek and in the English tongue, prefixed to
stated and fixed times, and its appearance here is not merely difinitive of
one day, but expressive of a stated or fixed day<< [Christian Baptist, vol. 3

In the latter he is speaking of the art. before <<mia>> in an attempt to show
that Christains met every Sunday.  Campbell's exegesis will not hold; but
this may be the source of much of the confusion in CofC's over the nature of
the Supper and what the Bible really says on the topic.

Hoping I helped more than I muddied,

Stan Helton



From: JHughes693@aol.com
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 17:46:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Fit for the land 

In a message dated 95-10-04 08:18:46 EDT, hayden@duke.iccc.cc.ia.us (JOHN

>I can see the "fitness" of salt for the land to curse it, as in Judges 9:45.
>Can someone suggest how salt (if it is salty) is "fit" for the dunghill?
>I have an idea, but I'd like to hear from others.  See Luke 14:34-35.

in acient times when enemies were conquered their land was sometimes covered
with salt,which kept any vegetation from growing there



From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 17:58:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Mark 16; RHSSW/RHGNUMI 

Dale Wheeler wrote,
>Given the point made by BDF (ss101) and Robt (Gr, p. 1219) that the passives
>(present only ?) come from RHGNUMI and the actives come from RHSSW, the only
>occurrence of RHGNUMI in the present is Matt 9:17, the present passive; all
>the others are evidently from RHSSW 1 (which means the same thing as
>RHGNUMI), since the other four occurrences are Aorist and Future.  BDF

There is no way to know whether the aorist or future comes from hRHSSW or
hRHGNUMI since their unique forms are found only in the present.  The stem of
both is hRHG.  For the present it adds a consonantal iota which combines with
the G to produce SS or it adds NU for the present which takes MI endings.
 hRHG when the sigma is added produces the hRHXW of the future and the ERRHXA
of the aorist.
Carlton Winbery
Fogleman Prof. NT & Greek
LA College, Pineville, LA
(318) 487-7241 Fax (318) 487-7425 off. or (318) 442-4996 home
Winbrow@aol.com or Winbery@andria.lacollege.edu


From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 17:58:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Keeping up... 

Rick Brannan wrote,
>Anyway, I find myself in constant need of review and really have little idea

>about how to effectively review/keep up the knowledge base.  If anyone has 
>any suggestions concerning books or tools that they have found helpful in 
>keeping up, I would appreciate the recommendations, as well information on 
>where I might locate them.  Specifically, help with grammatical and 
>syntactical issues (yeah, I know -- that's kind of broad) would be 

Read as much Greek as possible, taking note of the things that give you the
most trouble and then bone up on them.  Two Morphologies came out in 1994,
Brooks and Winbery, Morphology of the NT (University Press of America and
Mounce, NT Morphology (not exact tho I have it), Zondervan.  These are
primarily intended for review and reference.  These do not deal with syntax.
 There are a number of syntax books on the market.  Brooks and Winbery also
have one from Univ. Press of Am. (needs revising).
Carlton Winbery
LA College, Pineville, LA

Thanks in advance for the feedback.


From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 18:03:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Romans 3:22-23 

Timothy Bratton wrote;
>  But this verse just doesn't make sense.  If the aorist tense is understood
> as a one time completed action in the past, how could "all have sinned."
> Paul perhaps taking some poetic license here?

I would agree with others who have suggested that you are using the aorist in
too restricted a sense.  I think also that Frank Stagg published an article
in the JBL years ago entitled, "The Abused Aorist."  

In Brooks & Winbery Romans 3:23 is used as an example of the Gnomic Aorist
(I'm not sure what Prof. Whatmouth would call it).  By Gnomic we take it to
be a statement of a general maxim, i.e., something that is universally true.
 Remember the sentence begins in vs. 22, "There is no distinction (between
Jew and Gentile) because all sin and continually come short of the glory of
God."  This is the summation of the point that Paul has been making since
1:18.  Don't think of aorist as "one time" action or as all in the past.  It
can be but often is not.  

I hope Ellen gets her toilet fixed.

Carlton Winbery
Pineville, LA


End of b-greek-digest V1 #888


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: