b-greek-digest V1 #895

b-greek-digest             Sunday, 8 October 1995       Volume 01 : Number 895

In this issue:

        Re: Romans 3:19-20 
        Re: 1Cor. 14:!4 
        Re: un-saltiness
        RE > Romans 4-1-6
        Re: RE > Romans 4-1-6 


From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 16:37:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Romans 3:19-20 

James Clardy wrote,
> Are you and some of the others saying that there is really, in >the final
analysis, no such thing as an aorist if understood as >"completed action in
past time?"

Certainly not, but that this has to be determined by context.  the aorist is
often used almost as the perfect that emphasizes the completed action.  But
the aorist as unmarked (undefined) presents the action as "happened" or in
some instances "happening at any time."

Carlton Winbery


From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 16:51:20 -0400
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:!4 

Kenneth Johnson wrote,
>Is there any rule in Greek that would help you determine if he >is saying
"pray in the spirit and in English at the same time" >(thus proving that the
term praying in the spirit does not >always mean praying in tongues) or does
he have to be >meaning "pray in the spirit at onetime and latter with his
>mind," so he can be understood?

I don't think that there can be much doubt in I Cor 14 that Paul is
contrasting speaking, singing, praying in tongues (apparently ecstatic) and
doing the same thing in human language.  If you are doing tongues and an
unbeliever comes in, he will conclude your are mad and go away.  This is not
based on the meaning of any one Greek word but the context of I Cor. 12-14.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. NT & Greek
LA College, Pineville, LA


From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 95 16:33:38 -0600

Hey, guys, could you take this crap back where it belongs?  Like make this a
private conversation and get it out of my mailbox?

Sheesh, a tactful message (I'm not even asking for a bit of Christlike
restraint) to the net saying "Gee, I've had problems with Logos's tech support"
would have sufficed nicely.  I personally think the two of you have beaten this
one to death.  (And in the process landed a few blows about the ears of
innocent bystanders, as it were.)
Back to Greek, please.  Lead on, McDuff.

Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University 


From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 95 16:33:46 -0600
Subject: un-saltiness

A bit of interesting marginalia regarding salt that has lost its savor--

Lk 14.34: "Salt is good, but if even it loses its saltiness . . ."  (KALON OUN
TO hALAC EAN DE KAI TO hALAC MWRANQH).  Marshall (NIGNTC) explains the use of
MWRANQH (from MWROC, "foolish") by noting that the Hebrew *tafal* means both "a
lack of saltiness" and "foolishness" (see Job 1.6, 22; Job 24.12; Jer 23.13).  

>From this I surmise that there was some kind of proverbial association between
salty salt and wisdom.

Grace and peace, 

Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University


From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 19:25:11 -0500
Subject: Re: un-saltiness

At 5:33 PM 10/7/95, perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:
>A bit of interesting marginalia regarding salt that has lost its savor--
>Lk 14.34: "Salt is good, but if even it loses its saltiness . . ."  (KALON OUN
>TO hALAC EAN DE KAI TO hALAC MWRANQH).  Marshall (NIGNTC) explains the use of
>MWRANQH (from MWROC, "foolish") by noting that the Hebrew *tafal* means both "a
>lack of saltiness" and "foolishness" (see Job 1.6, 22; Job 24.12; Jer 23.13).
>>From this I surmise that there was some kind of proverbial association between
>salty salt and wisdom.

I don't know how far this will go, but Latin SAL, and still more regularly,
the plural SALES, has the idiomatic sense of "wit" or sometimes even
"tastefulness," "sophistication." Although I wouldn't want to urge that
this MUST be the meaning in the Jesus-saying, it would not surprise me if
that should be the case, particularly in view of this very verb being used
here, MWRAINW, to make silly or foolish.

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: Karen Pitts <karen_pitts@maca.sarnoff.com>
Date: 7 Oct 1995 21:35:40 U
Subject: RE > Romans 4-1-6


I'm not a scholar of the caliber of Carlton Winberry or Carl Conrad, but
here's my read on your questions.

1.  epi with the accusative.  My inclination is to avoid translating epi as
in, especially since the case is accusative.  One of my tutors claims that the
case is more important than the specific preposition in koine Greek.  I agree
that "in" makes more sense in how we think of belief, so I feel like that's
all the more reason to resist it.

I checked Bauer on epi with acc.  (III, b, e, p. 289).  He suggests in, on,
for, toward of feelings, actions, and so on directed toward a person or thing,
after words that express belief, trust, which seem to describe this situation,
so he finds little difference between in and on.  I would go with on, however.

Belief "on" is difficult for me to understand, but what I know of the ancient
mind, one believed not only in a power or God, but on, indicating the name or
being has some substance and you have some commitment in your belief, as in
standing on the rock of Jesus Christ.  Theology is not my strong point, so
feel free to shoot me down.

2.  EPISTEUSEN DE ABRAAM TW THEW  This can mean Abraham believed God or
Abraham believed in God.  That's the fun of learning Greek, realizing that it
can mean either or even both.  You can also check this out in Bauer, pisteuw,
1 (believe)  b, with dative, with the person to whom one give credence or whom
one believes, and 2 (believe in) with dative.  When I see dative by itself, I
always try out to/for, with, in - at - by, to see which makes the most sense.

3.  LOGIZOMAI is absolutely deponent.  Again, Bauer lists the all the
principle parts, which are ALL deponent.  I've always been taught to translate
deponents as active.

If you don't already have Bauer, you really should get it.  CBD lists it for
$46 and it is really worth it to have a reference where you can look this
stuff up for yourself and not wait for someone like me to look it up for you. 
I saw your message at 1:00 this afternoon, but had to wait until I got all my
monsters in bed to respond.

xaris kai eipnvn

Karen Pitts
Hopewell Presbyterian Church, Hopewell, N.J., teacher of NT Greek
David Sarnoff Research Center, Princeton, N.J., statistician


From: JClar100@aol.com
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 22:51:00 -0400
Subject: Re: RE > Romans 4-1-6 

Dear Karen,

I continue to be thankful for the assistance of persons like you. I have
found that the interaction is very helpful and the phrasing of the questions
is in itself a "clarifying" exercise.  I feel like this is what my 5-year-old
son does to me every day.  I guess it's part of the growth process.
 Incidentially, we just got him in bed as well.

Hope you have a good day tomorrow.  I'm taking my experiences with the first
three chapters of Romans during the last two weeks and applying them and what
I've learned to a "hot" issue which seems to be on everyone's minds these
days.  I think my first point will be, "THERE ARE NO PERFECT LEGAL SYSTEMS!"
 At least, this is one conclusion I have drawn from all these late-night
Greek sessions for the past several days in the Book of Romans.


James Clardy



End of b-greek-digest V1 #895


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: