b-greek-digest V1 #901

b-greek-digest            Tuesday, 10 October 1995      Volume 01 : Number 901

In this issue:

        Re Greek NT on the WEB
        Re: 1Cor. 14:14
        Re: dokimazw in Romans 12:2?
        Scribes and Dictionaries
        Re: 1Cor. 14:14 
        Re: ROMANS 3:29-31 
        A.T.Robertson & Extra-NT Greek
        Greek transliteration (was Re: 1Cor. 14:14)
        RE: NA27 apparatus perplexity  
        Re: A.T.Robertson & Extra-NT Greek
        Bart Ehrman's question re: Dictionaries
        Re: Romans 3:19-20 
        Re: RE: NA27 apparatus perplexity 
        Re: 1Cor. 14:14  Tongues 
        Re: NA27 apparatus perplexity
        liberal - conservative 
        "NOMOS" IN PAUL
        NA27 apparatus perplexity
        Re: 1Cor. 14:14  Tongues


From: Francesco Giannangeli <giannang@ciril.fr>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 10:45:11 +0100
Subject: Re Greek NT on the WEB

#Subject: Greek New Testament on the Web?

You will find this on:


This is for the Macintosh. It does exist also for the PC; a quick Archie
research should give you the right site.

ONLINE.BIBLE rivals with commercial products. It offers many texts (four
greek texts of the NT; the BHS for the OT; various english versions: KJV,
ASV, Darby, RSV, Weymouth, Young Literal vers., Apocrypha), Lexicons, Bible
dictionaries, Thompson ref., Nave's Topical Bible, Treasury of Scripture
Knowledge) and many other versions in French (my own language...), Spanish,
Italian, German.
What more could one ask for free.
All this will take a good part of your hard disk, and probably all your RAM.
The program itself offers full capabilities of concordance research, and
multi-windows/multi-versions screening.

38 rue Lionnois
54000 - Nancy, France
tel: 83 36 41 45
fax: 83 37 62 44
e-mail: giannang@u308.nancy.inserm.fr


From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 07:52:47 -0500
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:14

At 11:13 PM 10/9/95, David Moore wrote:
        . . .
>        A look at Paul's attitude toward the gifts as such bears this out.
>One can see this attitude in his congratulation of the Corinthians, "For
>in every way you have been enriched in him, in speech and knowledge of
>every kind - just as the testimony of Christ has been strengthened among
>you - so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you wait for
>the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1C. 1:5-7).  His teaching on the
>body of Christ in the context of chapters 12-14 is a strong argument for
>the operation of the spiritual gifts in concert and implies that Paul
>envisions a church in which the multiple gifts may all function in harmony
>for the good of the body as a whole (12:12-31).  This interpretation is
>also borne out in 14:26 in non-metaphorical language.

I appreciate this response, David, and I grant that there must be different
ways of interpreting these texts. I think that styles of worship must have
been a significant point of difference even in the first century and before
the destruction of Jerusalem, and I think the broad spectrum of worship
practices in Christendom today can find a basis in the variety reflected in
the NT texts. I think we shall have to agree to disagree on the
interpretation of 1 Cor 12-14, however, and I don't see much point in
carrying further that discussion.

The only point I would like to make here, however, and I may be sticking my
neck way out, is that I believe the passage you've cited in the paragraph
above, 1 Cor 1:5-7, is one of the most ironic in the entire letter, and
particularly the statement in 1:7, hWSTE MH hUSTEREISQAI EN MHDENI
KAI PASHi GNWSEI. It seems to me that he displays what he really thinks
about the spiritual accomplishments of the Corinthian congregation in
OUDE ETI NUN DUNASQE, ETI GAR SARKINOI ESTE ... Chapter 2 bashes their high
regard for rhetoric and wisdom, and he continues throughout the letter to
push AGAPH wherever the Corinthians seem to be promoting GNWSIS.

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 Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 09:29:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: dokimazw in Romans 12:2?

"L. E. Brown" <budman@sedona.net> wrote:

>Also, I'm wondering how the august members of this list read the
>concatenated adjectives in Romans 12:2. Is the entire phrase in
>apposition to TO QELHMA, or is the second adjective in apposition to
>the first, the third in apposition to the second?

	I'll let the "august" refer to my fellow list members, but allow
me just a short comment on this matter.  The single article at the head of
the list of adjectives strongly implies that they are to be taken
together.  And since QELHMA is the closest neuter noun (corresponding to
the neuter article with the adjectives), it appears that you are correct
in suggesting that the entire phrase is in apposition to TO QELHMA. 

David L. Moore                             Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida                               of the  Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us           Department of Education


From: Bart Ehrman <behrman@email.unc.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 09:40:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Scribes and Dictionaries

   I sometimes claim (in lectures etc.) that scribes in late antiquity 
through the Middle Ages didn't have dictionaries against which to check 
their spelling.  I've suddenly realized -- to no one's surprise, really 
- -- that I don't know what I'm talking about.  Does anyone know whether 
Greek lexica existed or were available for Christian scribes from the 
second century on up to the time of the invention of printing?
- -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


From: "John F. Godfrey" <john@spirit.spirit.org> 
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 09:48:43 -0400
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:14 


In interpreting and trying to understand 1 Corinthians 12-14, have you read

14:18 where Paul says, `<italic>`Eucharistw tw thew, pantwn umwn mallon 
glwssais lalw; 

alla en ekklesia...</italic>''  I believe the main idea Paul is endeavoring to 
get across is the proper use of pneumatikwn ``in the church''.  He is not 
disparaging glossalalia in the least.  He even orders, ``<italic>kai to lalein 
me kwluete glwssais</italic>'' (14:39).  The Corinthian church needed to be 
better regulated, ``<italic>panta de euschemonws kai kata taxin 
ginesthw</italic>'' (14:40), not have the pneumatikwn quenched or disparaged.

N.B.  Please excuse my transliteration of the Greek.  I haven't taken time to 
learn the standard that most of you folks use.

Pastor John F. Godfrey, Grandville Assembly of God, Grandville, MI

``Jesus said to him, `I am the way and the truth and the life.  No man

comes to the Father except through Me' ''(John 14:6).

PHONE: +1.616.667.2428 (home) +1.616.531.0010 (office)

NET ADDRESS: john@spirit.spirit.org 


From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 10:15:17 -0400
Subject: Re: ROMANS 3:29-31 

JClar100@aol.com wrote;

>4)  v. 31 -- Is there any way from the Greek construction to >determine
whether Paul means by NOMON the "law of Moses" >or "moral law?"  These are
two distinct possibilities.  Which >one is the more likely?  Is it the the
ten commandments >which are rendered ineffective or is it the "moral law"
which >is nullified?  Does moral law transcned the law of Moses and >thus
carry a higher quality?  Or neither?

JClar100@aol.com also asked in another post if the use of the article with
NOMOS made any difference.

I find it difficult to think that the article makes any difference in Paul.
 Rom 2:27 is an interesting verse.  "Those who are uncircumcised physically
but keep the law (with the article, obviously the law of Moses) will judge
you who have the GRAMMA (written code?) and circumcision but sin against law
(no article).  The last use of NOMOS must surely include the law of Moses if
not identify it exactly.  In fact, I cannot find a single use of NOMOS in
Paul that I could prove does not include the Law of Moses.

Paul's use of GRAMMA for the law is also interesting.  He never uses it in a
positive sense in the main lettes.  The primary passage for this is 2 Cor.
3:1-11.  The contrast there is between the Spirit and the GRAMMA which in
identified as "on tablets of stone" and "dispensation of death carved in
stone."  It includes the statement, "the GRAMMA kills but the Spirit makes

This is what makes it's use in 2 Tim. 3:15 so difficult, "from childhood you
have been acquainted with the hIERA GRAMMATA which are able to make you wise
unto salvation."

Carlton Winbery


From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:09:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: A.T.Robertson & Extra-NT Greek

May I thank Cal Redmond for your posting on A.T.Robertson and his
contribution to our understanding of the New Testament and its language?

The claim that Robertson, in contrast to "liberal" scholars, did not use
Greek outside the New Testament to interpret that Greek is so preposterous
as not to deserve answering.  Redmond has shown his gratitude for Robertson's
work by answering nonetheless.  May I add the obvious?

	Robertson's giant Grammar actually uses (and cites by exact reference)
many hundreds of non-N.T. materials, including the (maligned) Apocrypha,
the Testament of the 12 Patriarchs, Greek (secular) inscriptions, (non-
Christian) papyri and ostraca by the hundreds, classical and Hellenistic
Greek authors, the Apostolic Fathers, N.T.Apocrypha, etc., etc. Pages
1361 to 1376 in the Index tabulate these hundreds, maybe into the thousands,
of such passages actually cited by Robertson in his Grammar.

	Any "grammar" based solely on NT usage would be nothing but a
joke.  Happily, I am unaware of any such Grammar.

Edward Hobbs
- --On my 69th birthday


From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 95 10:22:40 EDT
Subject: Greek transliteration (was Re: 1Cor. 14:14)

John F. Godfrey wrote:
> N.B.  Please excuse my transliteration of the Greek.  I haven't taken time to 
> learn the standard that most of you folks use.

The following transliteration system is quite popular on B-GREEK, but
individual styles vary:

Alphabet: A B G D E Z H Q I K L M N C O P R S T U F X Y W
Rough breathing: h  Iota subscript: i  Digamma: w  Koppa: q
Accents (optional): acute /, grave \, circumflex =

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: "Dale M. Wheeler" <dalemw@teleport.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 08:29:27 -0700
Subject: RE: NA27 apparatus perplexity  

First of all, these two apparatus listings are the same in the NA26, which
is the only text I have at home.  A check of NA25 might be instructive.

On Mark 8:13: 1241 & 1424 are indeed minuscules, which are acc. to the
Alands, important "M" mss, which are explicitly cited when they disagree
with "M", since they have been fully collated (see Intro).  

About the entry, here's my guess: Option #1: Someone goofed up...

Option#2: The layout, as you point out, is indeed not documented anywhere
that I can find.  These two mss, as well as the three versions which follow,
are within parentheses, separated by commas, and parentheses are used to
indicate minor variations in the reading of the mss enclosed.  In this case
it is a reversal of EMBAS and PALIN (though I note, the app. is not very
clear on this point), within the total reading EMBAS PALIN EIS (TO) PLOION.
This means that the enclosed mss read PALIN EMBAS EIS (TO) PLOION. But there
is a variation within the variant, namely the inclusion/exclusion of the
article TO.  Well, since NA has already used the parentheses to indicate
minor variation, they can't use it again (i.e., no parentheses within
parentheses).  So they tagged the variant mss on at the end, separated by
commas to indicate that they read differently than the rest of the group.
That would then mean that 1241, etc., read the same as the preceding mss,
but without the TO; i.e., PALIN EMBAS EIS PLOION.  If you look at Mark 7:8/9
app for the last variant in v 8, the dotted addition, you'll see a similar
situation: at the end of the first reading is a group of mss in parentheses
which starts with D followed by a comma and then other mss followed by a
colon and an explanation of the difference in the mss.  The difference, if
this scenario is correct, only applies to the mss after the comma (though I
can't see what the difference would be !? [unless it is another typo]).

Which brings us back to Option #1, for which compare Mark 6:51 app., where
the second variant has the following D (W, f1, 28)......  What are those
commas doing in there ??  The format within parentheses is supposed to be
the same as it is outside parentheses.

Well, I hope that's been as totally confusing to you as it has been to me....

I'll see if I can do the same for the second problem later....

Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept                  Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street                               Portland, OR  97220
Voice: 503-251-6416    FAX:503-254-1268     E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com 


From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 10:36:48 -0500
Subject: Re: A.T.Robertson & Extra-NT Greek

At 11:09 AM 10/10/95, Edward Hobbs wrote:

>Edward Hobbs
>--On my 69th birthday

May I thank you for all your contributions and wish you a happy 69th!
You apparently have no plans for full retirement. I just turned 61 a couple
months ago and I plan to retire in 99 and try to learn some things I
haven't had time for. Maybe.

Best wishes, cwc

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: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:40:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Bart Ehrman's question re: Dictionaries

Yes, they did have such helps.  Actually surviving is Hesychius' Lexicon
of about the 5th century, and the (encyclopedic) SUDA of maybe the 11th
or 12th century includes such work in it.

This is written hastily without looking up anything in books.  THE best
resource to check this in great detail and with accuracy is Rudolf
Pfeiffer, _History of Classical Scholarship_, Vol. 1 (Oxford Univ.Press).
This volume deals with the early period; Vol. 2 (which should be volume 3)
deals with the later medieval period, and the middle period was never finished
becuse of his age.  He was a refugee from Germany at Oxford, and wrote the
History in English!--only later issuing it in German (so don't regard the
English as a translation of a German original!).

On the other hand, it is well to remember that the notion of a single
correct spelling for words is a somewhat modern idea.  Printers even long
after the Incunabula period were their own authorities for spelling.
Even tracking the several ways William Shakespeare spelled his own name
(at least in print! -- the Folios of course came out after his death, but
the non-pirated Quartos may be some evidence) suggests that "correct"
spelling was a bit illusory.  No doubt the better scriptoria and such had
their own "house rules," just as the New York Times does today.

Edward Hobbs


From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 02:22:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Romans 3:19-20 

James Clardy,

Regarding the HO NOMOS and following NOMOU:  There is no rule here, just that
a commond Greek practice was to leave articles off following nouns after
declaring it with the article the first time in a given context.  This should
help us to see namely one thing here.  That is, the succeeding uses of the
noun may indeed be referring to the same reality that the previous use with
the article did.  In other words, in John 1:1, we have several perfectly good
explanations for why THEOS was without the article.  One is this practice
here.  NOMOU does not necessarily refer to anything different that the
previous HO NOMOS.

One thing that does distress me is that often when we get so analytical, we
read things into the grammar when it was a common practice that didn't mean
anything at all.  We are looking so hard for hidden meanings that we can't
just take the contextual influence to interpret what the word means.  I
believe the context is the strongest determiner of what NOMOU means here.
 Grammatical rules should not always be determiners of interpretation because
they often are broken.  Rather, they should be a check for a correct
contextual interpretation.  If we pour over the context we will do better.

Also, on the Aorist tense stuff, you can find some truth to some of what they
are saying, but don't swallow it hook, line, and sinker.  This discussion is
not new.  People like to dramatize things and make it sound like we are
discovering "new things" when it has been around for years.  I am not
discouraging new research, but we must be careful not to so quickly follow
new lines of thinking without much testing.  For the most part, the new
thinking can tend to be erroneous and liberal today.

For years now the Aorist has been understood to represent a wide variety of
contextual interpretations.  A quick look at Dana and Mantey's intermediate
grammar will show many different uses of the Aorist.  But the Aorist still
means what we thought it meant in most circumstances.  Obviously in the
indicative it can often mean completed action in past time.  But it is a
mistaken view to view it always as a point in time.  It can often represent a
range of time in the past, or reoccurring action for a short time in the
past.  If you have Dana and Mantey, you will see all these uses and more.

In Christ,

Jim McGuire


From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:23:18 CST
Subject: Re: RE: NA27 apparatus perplexity 

On Tue, 10 Oct 1995, Dale M. Wheeler wrote re Mark 8:13 NA26/27 apparatus:

>Option#2: The layout, as you point out, is indeed not documented anywhere
>that I can find.  These two mss, as well as the three versions which follow,
>are within parentheses, separated by commas, and parentheses are used to
>indicate minor variations in the reading of the mss enclosed.  In this case
>it is a reversal of EMBAS and PALIN (though I note, the app. is not very
>clear on this point), within the total reading EMBAS PALIN EIS (TO) PLOION.
>This means that the enclosed mss read PALIN EMBAS EIS (TO) PLOION. But there
>is a variation within the variant, namely the inclusion/exclusion of the
>article TO.  Well, since NA has already used the parentheses to indicate
>minor variation, they can't use it again (i.e., no parentheses within
>parentheses).  So they tagged the variant mss on at the end, separated by
>commas to indicate that they read differently than the rest of the group.

I think you have hit on the meaning of this undocumented convention.  May I
suggest that the *four* commas inside this set of parentheses that begins with
a squiggle indicates that there are *five* variant word orders of the five
word alternative reading EMBAS PALIN EIS (TO) PLOION, giving *six* word orders
in all.  If this is correct, the one comma inside parentheses at Mark 7:8/9
apparatus indicates *two* different minor variations from the alternative

Now will someone explain what the _et_ at Mark 8:35 is doing?

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


From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 16:15:38 -0400
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:14  Tongues 

In a message dated 95-10-09 09:31:26 EDT, Stephen Carlson writes:

>That the technical terms GLWSSAI, GENH GLWSSWN, and EN GLWSSHi (-AIS)
>LALEIN (always anarthrous) refers to xenolalia, as suggested supra, is
>a minority position.
>I think it is fairly clear that those terms referred to ecstatic utterances
>["GLWSSA," BADG (2d ed. 1979) "There is no doubt about the thing referred
>to, namely the broken speech of persons in religious ecstasy."].  This is
>not surprising, given the cultural context of the Corthinian church.

     The term "GLWSSAIS LALEIN" was a term used by the Greco-Roman culture to
refer to the pagan language of the gods produced through people in an
ecstatic trance.  This was always gibberish.  It was not a known language.
 The word used for this ecstatic religious experience is "eros."  It was an
ecstatic, erotic, sensual religion designed to affect the senses.  The error
of the Corinthians was to pervert the gift of God with these practices.
     These practices were rampant in the secular society of Corinth and had
infiltrated the church at Corinth as well.  Satan always tries to counterfeit
God.  Whenever anyone rises up to speak for God, we should "test the spirits
to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1).  Remember that Satan is "the
god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4) and "the prince of the power of the air, ...
the spirit that now working in the sons of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2b).  Satan
transforms himself into "an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14).
     I am convinced that what we see today is a repeat of what happened in
Corinth in Paul's day.  We are allowing all kinds of perversion to affect the
church.  But we must understand that the church is called out of the world,
to be separate.  We are not to be like them (Matt. 6:8).

     God never intended for believers to pray in an unknown language
unintelligible to the speaker or listener.  Examine every prayer in the Bible
and you'll never find an example that even suggests that prayer should be
incomprehensible.  In fact, in Matthew 6:7 Jesus said, "And when you are
praying, do not use meaningless repetition, as the Gentiles do, for they
suppose that they will be heard for their many words."  The word for
"meaningless repetitions" is the Greek word BATTALOGEW.  LOGEW is our word
"to speak."  BATTA is not even a word.  It is what we call onomatopoeia.
 That is, a word that sounds similar to what it represents like "buzz" is
used for a bee, or "swish" is used for something passing by very fast.  Jesus
was saying we should be speaking gibberish, "Batta, batta, batta...."
     The Bible defines it own usage of terms.  We must look carefully at the
context of the Bible and let it speak in its own sphere to define what its
words mean.  Be careful not to bring in other pagan practices that may use
similar terms and foist them on the Bible.  Today when Christians speak of
love, they mean something entirely different than what the world means.  We
have our own vocabulary.  Similarly, the Bible should be allowed to have its
own context.

     The bottom line is this.  1 Corinthians 14 represents a perversion of
the use of tongues.  It is not an example for the church to follow.  It was a
wedding of the Greco-Roman culture with the church.  It was not Paul's
intention to commend such things, but to oppose it.  You can understand this
by studying the chapter carefully.

    Some of the above thoughts are from my Pastor, John MacArthur in his
study guide "The Truth about Tongues."  These are out of print, but you can
check to see if any copies remain or get the cassette tapes for the teachings
by calling Word of Grace, 800/55-GRACE.  The study guide goes into much more
detail than I can give here.

If you have any questions on any part of this, feel free to E-Mail me

Jim McGuire
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA  91352


From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:26:16 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: NA27 apparatus perplexity

The apparatus in NA27 at Mk 8:13 is punctuated with periods after some 
minuscule mss and then a comma separating some from others because some 
of the mss are in the "lst order" classification of the Alands and some 
of in the "2nd order" (see NA27 Intro, pp. 58f.). N.B. also Appendix 2, 
where readings of mss. cited in the round brackets at 8:13 appear.
	At Mk 8:35, the "et" means that C,K, W, etc. have both "apolese" 
*and* "ten heautou psychein", whereas A, L, 33 etc. have "apolese" but 
*not* the other variant.

Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba 


From: BBezdek@aol.com
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 08:24:54 -0400
Subject: liberal - conservative 

   In light of the recent posts between Jim McGuire (BibAnsMan) and other
members of this group. I offer the following comments, although I am sure I
am not presenting any new information.

   The liberalism issue is one about assumptions and not about what the text
says.  Those assumptions then set the boundaries of what we will allow the
text to tell us.  I see no danger in obtaining the widest  possible view of
scriptural languages.  This provides a richness that is unavailable
otherwise.  It makes the text more real.  We are dealing with real people in
real situations.  To understand God's word in man's language, we have to
understand man's language well. 
   At one time, I had a very naive attitude about the biblical languages.  I
had no training in them.  I was and am very interested in the creation -
evolution debate and others, so  I decided that I would, learn to read the
languages, and then solve all the problems that were causing the
misunderstanding.  Well, It is just not that simple! I learned the languages
- --  to some degree at least,  but I didn't solve the problems, actually, some
got bigger.  I want to know more than it says!  I think most of us do.
Because of this, It is very easy to get into the error of trying to squeeze
out, or  put in more than the text actually says. The less knowledge one has,
the easier this is to do this.

   I am on this list to grow in my understanding of Biblical Greek.  I do not
have the time of other resources to collect and study all of the materials I
would like. I am very appreciative of those scholars who are sharing there
knowledge with us.  It is because of their broader knowledge that they are
able to keep us on track, on those occasions when our assumptions may lead us
off on some doctrinal tangent.  Those who have experience with the
literarature beyond the bible texts have been most helpful, and they have
certainly given me insight into understand biblical passages that I did not

   It is our assumptions that are the problem and not exposure to extra
Biblical literature, and recent scholarship.  It is usually not to difficult
to see what an author's assumptions are by the way they have written. 

   I apologize if I have gotten to far off track with this post.

Byron T. Bezdek


From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 95 08:26:51 -0600
Subject: "NOMOS" IN PAUL

re. NOMOS in Paul--

Robert Sloan has an excellent article in Novum Testamentum (early 1990's) on
this topic.  I suggest that anyone interested in NOMOS and ERGWN NOMOU see this

(Of course, I *am* biased: Sloan was instrumental in my going to Baylor.  Then
he turned around and quit teaching!  Something about becoming president of the
university, I understand.)

Grace and peace, 

Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University


From: J.D.F.=van=Halsema%BW_KG%TheoFilos@esau.th.vu.nl
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 95 18:48:53 MET
Subject: NA27 apparatus perplexity

Re: NA27 apparatus perplexity

Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com> wrote:

>1. Mark 8:13, apparatus contains a string of minuscule numbers separated by
>periods (as usual), then the note 'pc' [a few others], and then the numbers
>1241, 1424 --separated by commas. The questions are, why are these two
>minuscules (at least I'm assuming that's what they are), 1) cited out of
>sequence, 2) following the 'pc', and 3) separated by commas instead of

>2. Mark 8:35 (this one is a bit more complex; I'll try to summarize)
>The two variants are marked with:                         Represented below
>        a. the right angle substitution bracket, and        [apolesei
>        b. the dotted oblique angle substitution brackets:  <tHn psuchHn 
>The two variants are not divided with the usual vertical line in the
>apparatus, but instead are joined with 'et' [and]. The question is
>basically, why the 'et' here? In more detail, if you have time, how is the
>evidence to be sorted out?

Re: Mk 8,13:
IMHO, this is a mistake of the editors.
NA26 read: 28.33.565.700.892 pc, 1241,1424,it.
This mistake was continued in the apparatus of NA27:
28.33.565.579.700.892.2427.2542 pc, 1241,1424, it

Re: Mk 8,35:
You are right that you have to reconstruct the witnesses
for apolesei here yourself. The same applies to many other
instances in the apparatus of NA26 and NA27.
I have no idea why they put in the ET. 

Erik van Halsema [jdfvh@dds.nl]


From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 12:54:21 -0500
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:14  Tongues

At 3:15 PM 10/9/95, BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
> The word used for this ecstatic religious experience is "eros."  It was an
>ecstatic, erotic, sensual religion designed to affect the senses.  The error
>of the Corinthians was to pervert the gift of God with these practices.

I'll comment only on this point. While ERWS is in fact the word for sexual
passion, it is not normally used for "ecstatic, erotic, sensual religion."
It is used by Plato for mystical ascent of the mind to the realm of ideas
in a grand metaphor involving fertilization of the mind by vision of truth,
beauty, and goodness." The classic work of Anders Nygren, _Eros and Agape_,
distorts to a considerable extent the real nature of ancient Greek
mysticism and ends up distorting some things about AGAPH as well but
setting the two into too sharp an antithesis.

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/


End of b-greek-digest V1 #901


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: