b-greek-digest V1 #907

b-greek-digest            Friday, 13 October 1995      Volume 01 : Number 907

In this issue:

        Re: 1Cor. 14:14
        Re: Corrected posting: Scrivener's text
        Scrivener's Greek Text 
        Re: 1Cor. 14:14 
        Re: 1Cor. 14:14
        Re: Romans 3:19-20 
        Greek-Hebrew Bible Resources
        Romans 4:7-8 


From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 95 15:38:01 -0600

Re. 1 Ti 3.2:

J. N. D. Kelly notes that the text emphasizes the "one" (MIAS GUNAIKOC ANDRA),
which in his opinion lessens the likelihood of a reference to polygamy,
adultery.  Thus Paul (?) seems to be talking about remarriage.

Kelly says: "there is abundant evidence, from both literature and funerary
inscriptions, pagan and Jewish, that to remain unmarried after the death of
one's spouse or after divorce was considered meritorious, while to marry again
was taken as a sign of self-indulgence" (p. 75 of *A Commentary on the Pastoral
Epistles*).  Of course, he doesn't provide the cross-references for this
material, so I'm not sure where to find it.

Grace and peace, 

Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University


From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 16:16:57 -0500

At 4:38 PM 10/12/95, perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:
>Re. 1 Ti 3.2:
>J. N. D. Kelly notes that the text emphasizes the "one" (MIAS GUNAIKOC ANDRA),
>which in his opinion lessens the likelihood of a reference to polygamy,
>adultery.  Thus Paul (?) seems to be talking about remarriage.
>Kelly says: "there is abundant evidence, from both literature and funerary
>inscriptions, pagan and Jewish, that to remain unmarried after the death of
>one's spouse or after divorce was considered meritorious, while to marry again
>was taken as a sign of self-indulgence" (p. 75 of *A Commentary on the Pastoral
>Epistles*).  Of course, he doesn't provide the cross-references for this
>material, so I'm not sure where to find it.

I can't carry the matter further so far as males are concerned, but in
Roman culture women who do not remarry after the death of a spouse are
(were) esteemed morally superior to those who did remarry and carried the
epithet "univira," which is about as close as you can get, if your reverse
the genders, to MIAS GUNAIKOS ANHR. Of course men were expected to remarry
(!), although the noblewoman Cornelia who addresses her husband Paullus
from the grave in the last poem of Propertius (4.12) contemplates the
possibility that he may "deem her ashes so worthy" that he will remain

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: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 14:17:58 +0800
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:14

Carlton Winbery wrote:
> The difference it makes is that it helps distinguish the miracle of human
> speech in Acts2 from the ecstatic experience described in I Cor. 14.  Also, I
> would disagree with your assessment of the Cybil in the Delphic oracles.  I
> am convinced that the experience of tongues among the early Christians was
> not radically different in kind from the experience in most religions of that
> time.

   I'm afraid I don't see a distinction between these two
events, and I must say this is a modern distinction that I
doubt Paul or Luke would have recognized (Excursus:  this is
my problem with form criticism.  It imposes on the text
a phenomenon or form that the original author(s) would likely
not have recognzied or acknowledged.).  What Luke describes
in Acts 2 sounds very much to me as though, for example, the
Holy Spirit spoke Parthian through someone who did not
know Parthian.  Nothing in the text implies that the speakers
understood what they were saying, onlyh that the listeners 
did.  Whehter I am speaking a language of angels or 
conversational Parthian, it is still ecstatic since the Spirit
is speaking through me without my involvement other than
as the speaker attached the a spiritual CD player (is it 
better to be a woofer or a tweeter in that context?).  
So I see no distinction.  Nothing says the speakers in Acts
knew what they were saying, and as far as it goes, Paul
does not say in 1 Cor 14 that tongues involves no human
languages.  It just involves languages the speaker does not
know.  So while in either the Acts 2 or 1 Cor 14 context,
I might not be able to say it's all Greek to me,  I could
certainly say it's all Lithuanian to me (which in spite of my
last name I do not speak or read).  In addition, Luke does
not distingush between the phenomenon in Acts 2 and that in
Acts 8, 10, or the disciples at Ephesus.  What are we to make
of that?  Are those also a "miracle of language" and not
glossalalia as Paul would understand it?

Ken Litwak
Bezerkley, CA


   Thanks to all the people who gave me sources for Hatch-
Redpath, in spite of the typo "shutter".  Hardly anyone
in California even uses shutters.  They might be useful in
Hurrican country, but what good is a shutter 1/2 mile from a
major fault line?  


From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 95 17:29:15 EDT
Subject: Re: Corrected posting: Scrivener's text

Edward Hobbs wrote:
> ADDITION:  Scrivener did NOT reconstruct the Greek text used by the AV 
> translators (though for all practical purposes he had to).  He published the 
> 1598 edition of Beza.  He then exhibited its differences from TWO different 
> translations' Vorlagen: (1) the differences from (his calculation of) the
> Greek text actually followed by the 1611 translators, in an Appendix
> (pp. 648-656), and

Can you be so kind as to post a couple of examples from the
Scrivener's Text where the Greek text followed by the AV
translators differs from Beza's 1598 edition?  I'd like to find
out just what kind of a "Scrivener's Text" I own.

The "Scrivener's Text" that is distributed with the Online Bible
is clearly labeled to be an 1894 edition, not 1881 as your copy
indicates.  I did an author search in my university's library
system and found out that F.H.A.Scrivener died in 1891, just three
years prior to this "Scrivener's Text."  Is it possible that most of
the computerized bible's "Scrivener's Text" versions come from a
later edition, where perhaps this appendix of differences had been
integrated into the main text?

Given that the quote that started this thread explicitly connected
Scrivener's Text and the KJV, I wonder which Scrivener's Text the
original writer was referring to.

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: Cierpke@aol.com
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 18:52:57 -0400
Subject: Scrivener's Greek Text 

For the New Testament it is know that the KJV translators used four different
printed Greek New Testaments, differing from one another in 131 places:

(1) The text of Robert Stevens (Stephanus) (1550, 1551)

(2) The text of Theodore Beza (1598)

(3) The text of Complutensian Polyglott (1514-22)

(4) The text of Desiderius Erasmus (1516, 1519, 1522, 1527,1535
The KJV translator's followed Beza (1598) against Stevens (1550) 81 times;
they followed Stevens (1550) against Beza (1598) 21 times; they followed the
Complutensian Polyglott (1514-22) against Beza and Stevens 19 times; they
followed Erasmus against Beza and Stevens 7 times; and they followed the
Latin Vulgate against all Greek witnesses 3 times. Scrivener posthumously
published a composite Greek text in 1894 that contains the Greek words
actually used by the KJV translators. Until the 19th century, no such Greek
text existed for the KJV New Testament.

{Information quoted from Scrivener, F. H. A., ed. The Cambridge Paragraph
Bible of the Authorized English Version (London: Cambridge University Press,
1873), p. c-ciii}

Hope this gives some contribution to the discussion

Kevin W. Woodruff
Reference Librarian
Cierpke Memorial Library
Temple Baptist Seminary
Tennessee Temple University
1815 Union Ave.
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404
1815 Union Av


From: Nicea@aol.com
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 20:10:17 -0400
Subject: [none]

n someone tell me if hierograph is the correct word and is that correct
Greek to describe early Christian writings?



From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 20:19:03 -0400
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:14 

One last (from me) word on tongues in Acts 2 and I Cor. 14.  I am still
convinced (mostly by Stendahl) that Luke thinks what he is describing in Acts
2 is a miracle of language.  Its the only place he uses the word DIALECTOS.
 The other instances of tongues in Acts are probably there because they were
in Luke's sources and I would assume are ecstatic experiences as is I Cor 14.
 Luke's main purpose is to give evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit
in people who might not otherwise be accepted by the Jewish Christians
(Samaritans in 8 and Romans in 10 and 11).  While Paul did not say it was not
language (Ken), he did say that his mind was "unfruitful" which I see as a
dissociative experience.  

I would add a paraphrase from John Kildahl concerning modern tongues
speaking.   We cannot find certain evidence documented by anyone qualified to
judge that any person has spoken in a language not previously learned while
in a state of tongues speaking.  He evidently tried over a long period to
find such evidence.

Carlton Winbery
Pineville, LA


From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 17:49:06 +0800
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:14

- -Lines: 19


   Would you  please provide the referene for Stendahl, so I
can read it?  Thanks.

> One last (from me) word on tongues in Acts 2 and I Cor. 14.  I am still
> convinced (mostly by Stendahl) that Luke thinks what he is describing in Acts
> 2 is a miracle of language.  Its the only place he uses the word DIALECTOS.


From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 20:51:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Romans 3:19-20 

On the subject of anarthrous names...

In the discussion of John 1:1c, the point was made that the first mention of
a noun may at times have the article while successive uses can occur without
the article, but the same person is meant.

Just a note: QEOS occurs frequently in the Epistles without the article.  The
same is true for PNEUMA and XRISTOS while referring to the Spirit and Jesus

In Robertson's big grammar, he also states that if the article had been on
both sides of the copulative clause, it would have Sabellianism (p. 768).  

Thanks to Bruce Terry for his comments.  I found them enriching in my Greek

Jim McGuire


From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 17:43:27 +0800
Subject: Greek-Hebrew Bible Resources

    I'm sure this won't answer all your questions, but it
has a lot of info (I've just looked at the web page myself).
I'd suggest reading the overviews of the packages Hahne has
done.  You have to decide what you need.  BibleWindows
appeals to me because I can force it to look for a genitive
absolute, while other packages can't do that.  You may
not care about that feature.  I don't care about things
like Strong's Concordance or TSK, but those might be first
on your list.  So there is no generic, "buy package X"
recommendation that anyone can give you really.  Like
bicycles, you need to pick the one that fits just your set
of requirements (that's why I have an ATB for commuting,
a carbon-fiber road bike for racing, and my old Schwinn for
pedaling in the garage while I read Schweitzer and Tov) ).
ANyway, I hope this helps.

Ken Litwak
Bezerkley, CA

        Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 12:36:18 -0400 (EDT)
        From: Harry Hahne <hahne@epas.utoronto.ca>
        Subject: Bible Software Web Page

Subject:           Bible software World Wide Web page


A World Wide Web page focuses on Bible-search software and 
computer-assisted biblical research.  This page is a subsection of 
Chorus, an online journal of humanities computing.  The URL is:


This Web page contains the following information of interest to Bible 
scholars and students:

  1. Reviews of several Bible-search programs, with a particular 
     emphasis on the suitability of the programs for scholarly 
  2. Papers related to computer-assisted biblical research.
  3. Web links to other sites of interest for biblical scholarship.

One paper of particular interest to many in this group is my paper 
called "Interpretive Implications of Using Bible-Search Software for
New Testament Grammatical Analysis".  I presented this paper at the 
ETS annual meeting and I have received many requests for copies of it.  
This paper is an updated and revised version of a paper I presented at 
AIBI 4, called "Avoiding the Pitfalls of Computer-Assisted New Testament 
Grammatical Analysis".  

The paper expores some hidden pitfalls in using Bible-search programs 
which can lead to inacurrate search results.  In my tests of several 
Bible-search programs, I have found considerable variation in search 
results.  This paper looks at several factors which can affect search 

  1. Differences in the underlying texts, including grammatical 
     tagging schemes.
  2. Differences in the capabilities and assumptions of the search 
  3. Common user errors.  

Although the emphasis of the paper is on Greek New Testament searches, 
the principles apply to searches of the Hebrew Bible and Bible 
translations in any language. 

If you have suggestions for other materials to put on this Web page or
if you know of other Web pages that I should should set links to, send 
me an email message.  I look forward to any feedback or suggestions on 
how to make this a more useful resource for Bible researchers.

Harry Hahne
Ontario Theological Seminary


From: JClar100@aol.com
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 23:55:13 -0400
Subject: Romans 4:7-8 

Ellen and Bruce,

Would a better translation of Roman 4:7a be: "The sins were forgiven of the
ones who are happy"? This would seem to give the nominative of hAI ANOMIAI
its full weight. But MAKARIOI is also nominative plural. However, I take
MAKARIOI as an adjective but not as a substantive, which, I would guess
though, is a possibility.

Would this verse also translate correctly as "The sins (were) forgiven of
those who (were) happy"? 


Dana and Mantey, page 125 -- "The relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent
in gender and number, but not in case."  Would  this rule be appropriate with
regard to hWN and MAKARIOI  (which agree in gender and number but not in
case) except in a kind of strange reversal of "roles", or should I say
"functions"? Or, is this simply making too much of the grammar?

As I work on this Book of Romans I feel, contrary to some of what I am
reading, that preciseness in understanding the language is as important as
the context.  But perhaps this is another misunderstanding on my part. I am
not sure enough of any of this that I would categorize it as criticism,

Anyway, I am happy because I believe my sins have been, are, and will be




End of b-greek-digest V1 #907


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: