b-greek-digest V1 #909

b-greek-digest           Saturday, 14 October 1995     Volume 01 : Number 909

In this issue:

        Re: What's Wrong with Q? 
        Re: What's Wrong with Q?
        Re: 1Cor. 14:14 
        Q and "Transitional Forms"
        Matthew had a copy of Luke? 
        Re: What's Wrong with Q?
        Re: What's Wrong with Q?
        Eph. 4:9 and Genitive of Apposition
        The "Q" discussion
        Re: What's Wrong with Q?
        Re: Eph 4:9 "Lower parts of the earth"
        Re: What's Wrong with Q? 
        Re: What's Wrong with Q?
        Scrivener's NT. A Correction & an Apology (& more facts)


From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 16:47:00 -0400
Subject: Re: What's Wrong with Q? 

In a message dated 95-10-13 15:26:11 EDT, cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl W.
Conrad) writes:

>You [sic] statement,  "The best scholars who have studied this and produced
>publications regarding it (Dr. Robert Thomas, Eta Linneman, etc.) quote the
>above statements which are uncontested among scholars today," is a value
>judgment regarding who are the best scholars with which I obviously cannot
>agree, and that such statements are "uncontested among scholars today" is
>simply not true.

I would like for you to give me some evidence against this.  That is, I admit
our position is contested.  But I had mentioned before this paragraph above
(referred to by "the above statements"), the lack of historical evidence and
archaeological evidence is uncontested.  

Could you show me some evidence from history or archaeology from the first
1800 years that scholars believe supports the 'Q' hypothesis?  I believe the
'Q' hypothesis is a relatively recent creation.

Jim McGuire


From: Nichael Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:15:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: What's Wrong with Q?

On Fri, 13 Oct 1995 BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
>      I do not believe that the previous quote about "right-wing
> fundamentalist hogwash" is very scholarly (an understatement).  But laying
> that aside, Carl,  for over 1800 years the church has held a the Matthaean
> priority and there isn't a shred of archaeological evidence for a 'Q'
> document?  Are you saying that now over 1800 years later we have all of a
> sudden discovered something that hasn't any historical or archaeological
> support?
>      The best scholars who have studied this and produced publications
> regarding it (Dr. Robert Thomas, Eta Linneman, etc.) quote the above
> statements which are uncontested among scholars today.  

I think that the problem --and the source of much of the antagonism-- is
not that the model of the Synoptics Saying Source is found wanting, but
rather that it tends to be dismissed out of hand. 

One is of course perfectly free to choose not to believe in this model.  
However it would seem to me that what one is not free to do is to pretend 
that the model is anything other than what it is: namely, as was said 
earlier, a model of extraordinary explanatory power.

The text of the Synoptic Gospels exhibit certain characteristics The
presence of these --the raw data-- need to be explained.  *At the very
least* the model of the 2SH provides a highly reasonable solution to that
riddle.  Moreover, any attempt to discredit that model needs to address
the issues of 1] why this model does such a good job (but can still be
incorrect) and 2] why the author's pet model can do a better job. 

Certainly such critiques have been put forward --many on this very list. 
But the suggestion that a model of the power of the 2DH can be dismissed
in a couple of paragraphs in a usenet posting or by such table-pounding
tirades as Linneman's recent BR article, can't really be taken seriously.



From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:17:16 -0400
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:14 

 Tim Staker wrote,
>(It [tongues] may have been a sign to unbelievers in Paul's day, but not
Christer Stendahl writing in a collection of essays, The Charismatic
Movement, "The NT Evidence" (I cannot remember the editor and I evidently
loaned my copy) dealt with this passage in I Cor. 14:21-25.  He noted the
quotation from Is. 28:11-12 and went back to the context of that quote.  He
claimed that in Is. 28:10 Isaiah was imitating a foreign tongue by producing
SHAM (I don't have my Hebrew Bible so the transliterations may be off.).
 Perhaps the first instance of "ecstatic speech?"  He then said that Isaiah
was making the point that God speaking this was a sign to Israel not to
convince them but to prevent them from hearing.  Paul is using sign in the
same way.  Tongues are a sign to the unbeliever in the same way that the
gibberish in Is. 28:10 was to unfaithful Israel.  This aleviates the problem
of conflict between I Cor. 14:22 and verse 23 which seems to say the

Sorry I broke my promise, but what do you think?

Carlton Winbery


From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:24:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: E

"Epexegetic" this or that
Zerwick indeed uses the term "Exegetic genitive" (SECTIONS [not pages]
45-46 of his grammar).  He calls it "<<Epexegetic>> genitive or genitive
of apposition".  The term no where appears in Smyth-Messing, but Goodwin-
Gulick (1930) [my first reference grammar, before Smyth-Messing] write of
the "epexegetic infinitive" (limiting meaning to a particular action).
Debrunner refers to the "Epexegetic use of the infinitive and of hina,
ean, hotan; of the infinitive with tou, and of kai" (I have only the
original German at hand, but I'm sure Funk's translation wouldn't have
changed this), in sections 394, 400,8, and 442,9.  Robertson (1914, using 3rd edition, 1923) under Apposition, speaks of "epexegetical apposition" (p. 399),
and writes at some length (pp. 1086f.) about the "Epexegetical Infinitive."
This is a somewhat confusing section to me, and he clearly says that Blass
considered "epexegetical" and "appositional" infinitives to be the same.

I'm suspicious of the term, as is Carl.  It seems to have no agreed-on meaning,
and is not in Smyth-Messing.  Blass seems to have influenced Robertson (thuis
the Southern Baptist tradition of grammarians), and Zerwick (at the Biblicum!).
I've never used the term myself, in teaching or in writing, mainly because 
I haven't been certain of its meaning.  But doesn't it sound just GREAT?!

Edward Hobbs


From: Nichael Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:32:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Q and "Transitional Forms"

On Fri, 13 Oct 1995 BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
>      ...  It has been a problem
> in the presentation of the 'Q' hypothesis, just as the missing transitional
> forms are a problem for evolution.

This has little to do with NTG, of course, but it is worth pointing out
that --the repeated assertions of the creationists not withstanding--
examples of the remains of "transistional forms" (i.e. the so-called
"intermeditate" species) do exist.

While it is certainly true that they are somewhat rare --exactly as one 
would expect in modern evolutionary theory-- their existence has been
known since nearly Darwin's time.  

This topic is addressed in any introductory text on Evolution.  For a
particuarly pleasurable read (including specific examples) please see the 
discussion of this topic in Stephen J. Gould's _Wonderful Life_. 

Perhaps the comparison to the 2DH is more apt than we had guessed?   ;-)



From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:31:09 -0400
Subject: Matthew had a copy of Luke? 

Perry Stepp suggested that a better alternative to Q is that Luke had a copy
of Matthew.

I would quote a statement George Caird made in Oxford in 1983, "The best
evidence for Q is the total implausability of either of the alternatives."

If Luke had Matthew what he did to the birth naratives is appalling.  What he
did to the sermon on the mount and the model prayer is strange.  What he did
to the passion and the resurrection appearances leaves a lot of questions.  

Simply look at the story of Centurion's servant in Mt.8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10.
 Where Matthew said that the Centurion came to Jesus, Luke says that he was
wrong, he sent the Jews because he was too modest to come himself (vs.7)!  

As much as Luke loved parables, he had no interest in those beautiful
parables of the Kingdom!

Compare Luke 14:25-33 with Matthew 10:37-38.  Luke found the saying of Jesus,
"He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who
loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not
take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."  
He said to himself, "I think that I'll toughen it up a bit."  
So he wrote, "If any one come to me and does not hate his own father and
mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his won
life, he cannot be my disciple.  Whoever does not bear his own cross and come
after me, cannot be my disciple."

Luke read Matthew 12:28 "But if it is by the Spirit of god that I cast out
demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."  He then, with his noted
interest in the Holy Spirit, wrote, "But if it is by the finger of God that I
cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (11:20).

According to the count in Matthew, there are about 200 verses common to
Matthew and Luke not in Mark.  Of those 72 verses are near verbatim so that
there must be some literary relationship.  Others are loose.  It seems to me
that we must say that there is/are document(s) behind these two gospels.  It
seems to me impossible to explain the relationship any other way.  If I
rejected that Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke, I would still have to
think that some source(s) were common to them.  Else Luke has some very
strange editorial habits.

Carlton Winbery
LA College
Pineville, LA


From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 17:38:56 EDT
Subject: Re: What's Wrong with Q?

Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> At 9:46 AM 10/13/95, Paul Moser wrote:
> >but still the assumptions of Markan priority
> >and Q sources have unsurpassed explanatory power.
> Thanks, Paul. This point of view, which may not be the majority opinion on
> our list but is certainly the majority opinion among NT scholars, needs to
> be re-asserted from time to time,

In light of Dr. Conrad's clarification, I'll just restrict my points as to
why Markan priority and Q are not being held in so high esteem today, even
though a great majority of the NT scholars support it.

1.  Academic

The original pillar behind the Two-Source Hypothesis, Lachmann's argument
from order, has been essentially rendered inconclusive by Butler in 1951.
This allowed the neo-Griesbachians (starting with Farmer) to come in with
their own argument from order, but that argument too was shown by Tuckett
to be inconclusive.  There is still a cadre of Griesbachians around which
might not exist if the original bases for the 2SH held up to criticism.

Since 1951, much work has shifted to the argument from redaction (e.g.,
Styler).  So far, things are looking very promising for the 2SH, but much
more work needs to be done.  So I would venture that the reason why many
on this list are not so wild about the 2SH is that this argument has not
been fully explored yet.  When the issue is which assumption is more
plausible in explaining certain features, it does not suffice for proponents
of one side to claim that they have come up with stronger reasons than
what can imagine for the other side.  *Both* sides have to put forth their
strongest case, but unfortunately it has been rather one-sided for the
moment.  The Matthean prioritists must put forth a thorough case and this
hasn't been done yet.

2.  Public Relations

Even with the appropriate disclaimers, a lot of the terminology coming
from the Jesus Seminar (e.g., "authenticity") and popularizers of Q
(cf. Mack's use of the words "myth" and "cult") carried along a lot of
unnecessary, negative connotations.  This motivated a lot of non-specialists
to be critical of Q, when in fact the Jesus Seminar et al. had almost
nothing substantive to do with establishing that hypothesis.  They just
used it for their own ends.  On the other hand, I've found that other authors,
such as John Meier and Richard Stein, can use the 2SH in a manner that is
quite respectful of Christians' sensibilities and still be intellectually
honest.  Unfortunately, the public sees only the most outspoken -- not
the most reasonable.

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: Nichael Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:48:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: What's Wrong with Q?

On Fri, 13 Oct 1995 BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
>   ...  But I had mentioned before this paragraph above
> (referred to by "the above statements"), the lack of historical evidence and
> archaeological evidence is uncontested.  

But it is also of little or no relevance.

The important question here is this:  "Does or does not the model of a
Synoptics Saying Source explain the current state of the text of the
Synoptics Gospels better than the assumption that it did not exist?" 

As this is an attempt at an empirical --a "scientific" if you will-- 
examination of these issues, and in the absence of conclusive proof as 
to the physical existence or non-existence of the Q document, that is the 
_only_ question that matters.

> Could you show me some evidence from history or archaeology from the first
> 1800 years that scholars believe supports the 'Q' hypothesis?  I believe the
> 'Q' hypothesis is a relatively recent creation.

Belief in Quantum Mechanics and the model of an expanding universe have 
even shorter histories.  Are we to dismiss those because the vast 
majority of humanity didn't believe in them?



From: "Calvin D. Redmond" <102630.1150@compuserve.com>
Date: 13 Oct 95 18:13:31 EDT
Subject: Eph. 4:9 and Genitive of Apposition

In the discussion of Eph. 4:9,   Carl Conrad  wrote the following:

<We don't use the term "genitive of definition" in Greek, but we do
<use it in Latin, and it seems to me that's what we have here. I've never
<heard the term "epexegetic genitive," but it would appear to be the same
<thing as "genitive of definition"; I've also heard the term "genitive of
<apposition" used. What do the real grammarians say about this?

I am not a true "real grammarian," but at the risk of repeating what I suspect
is already well known to you,  allow me to refer to the discussion of the
genitive of apposition drawn from James Brooks and our colleague Carlton Winbery
in their "Syntax of New Testament Greek (pp. 15-16).

<If the word in the genitive is identical with the word it modifies, it is a
genitive of apposition. < Indeed, this use is sometimes called the genitive of
identity.  It is also sometimes called the <genitive of content and the genitive
of definition or explanation.  What some grammarians  <call the genitive of
material is included in this category.  One should carefully note that the <word
with which the genitive is in apposition differs from ordinary apposition where
the words <involved must be in the same case.  A test for this use of the
genitive is the ability to use <some expression as "consisting of," "namely,"
"filled with," or "made of" in the translation.  <This category employs the
substantive without a preposition."

<S^emeion elaben PERITM^ES (Rom. 4:11)
<He received a sign of circumcision.

<Ean h^e epigeios H^emwn oikia tou sk^eneous kataluth^e (2 Cor. 5:1)
<If our earthly house consisting of this tent should be destroyed 

<ho dous h^emin ton arrabwna tou pneumatos (2 Cor. 5:5)
<who has given to us the guarantee of (or my translation, which consists of) the


It should be clear that the translation "the lower parts, which consist of the
earth" or something similar is at least possible.  The grammatical category is
recognized by the major grammarians, although it appears that all my other
grammars are in my library office which lacks a phone line.The question as to
whether this translation is correct will depend more on one's understanding of
the context and one's theology.

I hope I haven't repeated too much which is already obvious to you.

Cal Redmond
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary


From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 18:37:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: The "Q" discussion

Dear friends,
		May I plead what many have pleaded before? --That we
keep this List to issues of Biblical Greek, and not veer off to other
subjects of which it reminds us?
	And since I was cited in one posting, may I clarify a few facts?

	(1) The hypothesis that Luke saw Matthew, having already seen Mark,
is surely properly called "the Ropes Hypothesis".  James Hardy Ropes at
Harvard taught this for decades, and publicly expressed it in his final
book, published soon after his death.  Farrer did not think it up, Goulder
did not think it up, and even Hobbs did not thing it up.
	(2) H.H.Holtzmann, in fact DID come up with this hypothesis, long
after he had decided on Mark and Lambda (later called Q) as the sources
of Matthew and Luke.  Though is is usually called "the Father of Q"
(that title should go to his predecessor, C.H.Weisse, 1838), by 1878
was publishing the conclusion that Luke saw Matthew (two places that year,
JfPT 4 and TLZ 3); and he guided the doctoral dissertation of Eduard
Simons (pub. 1880) which demonstrated Luke's use of Matthew.  This
"Father of Q" then re-affirmed his belief that Luke worked from Matthew in 1881
(TLZ 6), and his Historical-Critical Introduction to the NT of 1885,
repeated as late as the 3rd ed. of 1892, took the same position, supporting
the Simons argument.
	(3) The position that Matthew and Luke used two primary sources, 
Mark and Q (the "two-source hypothesis") and the position that Mark is
a conflation of Matthew and Mark (the wrongly-named "Griesbach hypothesis"
[Griesbach lifted/borrowed/swiped/plagiarized the position from Henry Owen
while he was in England] which should be called the Owen hypothesis) are
not the only alternatives.  If Luke saw Matthew, then it is quite possible
(probable, say supporters) that Q is an unnecessary postulation.
	(4) Though I personally hold to the priority of Mark AND to
Luke's use of Matthew (thus finding no need for Q), and have addressed
the SBL national meetings twice on this subject, and have published two
articles defending it, and have argued with Neirynck at SNTS meetings
about it, and have guided doctoral dissertations on the subject,
I AM SICK OF IT!  As I have repeatedly said, I don't even cae about the
issue, and have always felt that I was dragged into it unwillingly.

	This does not mean that the List should not discuss the pro's and
con's of the topic because I am tired of it; I only suggest that there must
be other forums where we can argue about source criticism, about our own
religion and theologies, about whether we think we should speak in tongues
today, and about many other things.  Dr. Marotta has most wonderfully and
generously made THIS forum available, to discuss BIBLICAL GREEK.  Let's
do that.

Edward Hobbs


From: Travis Bauer <bauer@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:42:59 -35900
Subject: Re: What's Wrong with Q?

On Fri, 13 Oct 1995, Nichael Cramer wrote:

> > Could you show me some evidence from history or archaeology from the first
> > 1800 years that scholars believe supports the 'Q' hypothesis?  I believe the
> > 'Q' hypothesis is a relatively recent creation.
> Belief in Quantum Mechanics and the model of an expanding universe have 
> even shorter histories.  Are we to dismiss those because the vast 
> majority of humanity didn't believe in them?

	There is a fallacy in this comparison.  These principles of 
physics are something that we have.  Thus it is irrevelant what anyone 
ever thought about the matter.  We don't have to rely on what other 
people have thought.  
	We don't have Q.  Thus all we can count on is the historical 
wittness.  This would be traces of it in the other texts, such as the 
Gospels, or what other people had written about it.
	Thus the comparison is invalid.

	It seems to me that part of the renewing interest in Q is that in 
the past it was held as an interesting theory, but a theory held 
tentatively while we are searching for the actual text.  But people like 
the Jesus Seminar are taking this interesting idea and proclaiming it 
like fact.  In the book "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" (don't 
bother reading it, it is a waste of time), John Spong comes very close to 
stating that we have found Q and unless a person already knew the story 
behind it, he could easily think that Spong is saying that Q has been found!

	What does anyone think about the idea that Q could be a set of 
stories that hadn't been written down but stories passed by word of 
mouth, which must have existed?  Surely the similarities demand some 
explanation, and in the face of the almost abscence of any evidence of a text,  
why not say oral tradition. 

  /   Travis Bauer    /         Earth is a beta site.		    /
/ Jamestown College / 						  /
- -----------------------------------------------------------------


From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Subject: Re: Eph 4:9 "Lower parts of the earth"

>I'll try look at Lincoln's commentary on Ephesians (which is what Young is
>referring to) if I can find it in the seminary library or bookstore, but in
>case Lincoln doesn't provide a satisfactory answer, here are my questions, if
>someone can help:

Lincoln will provide you with an extensive discussion. You might also look
for an article by Hall Harris in BibliothecaSacra (sometime in the past few
years, don't have the ref. at home; holler if you can't find it). Harris'
dissertation was on the subject (one of the British univs., but I don't
remember which one; Aberdeen maybe?), and is to be published within the
next year (I think by Brill?). Maybe someone online here from DTS could
provide more details for us.


|=[]========================== About... ===========================|
| Rodney J. Decker                    Calvary Theological Seminary |
| Asst. Prof./NT                                 15800 Calvary Rd. |
| rdecker@accunet.com                  Kansas City, Missouri 64147 |


From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 19:53:51 -0400
Subject: Re: What's Wrong with Q? 

At 5:42 PM 13/10/95, Travis Bauer wrote:
>        We don't have Q.  Thus all we can count on is the historical

Exactly so.

The point here, however, is that the historical witnesses are _precisely_
neutral on the question of the existence of Q.  Or to state this another
way, the physical/archaeological/etc evidence in support --or against-- the
existence of Q is exactly the same as it is for any and all other
comtemporary sources that any of the Evangelists might have used.

Are we then to argue that there are _no_ sources lying behind the Gospels?
Or that we can make no attempt understand the structure of the Gospels and
where they came from?

No, to repeat the earlier point, given this state of affairs, given the
complete absence of data in this regard, this argument has no more
relevance to the subject at hand than do the discussion of any other
unanswerable questions such as the colour of John the Baptist's eyes.  The
only question at hand is: Does or does not this model explain the data that
we _do_ have?

>  ...  This would be traces of it in the other texts, such as the
>Gospels, or what other people had written about it.

To point out the obvious, there are those who argue that in fact it does
leave --hightly discernable--traces in these documents.

Nichael                -  deep autumn     my neighbor what does she do


From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: What's Wrong with Q?

As a frequent opponent of the 2SH on this list and elsewhere, I say a 
hearty AMEN to Nichael's comments.

Larry J Swain
Parmly Billings Library


From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 22:41:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Scrivener's NT. A Correction & an Apology (& more facts)

                  Correction, and Apology for Mistake

     Stephen Carlson's question about examples of the
divergences between Beza 1598 and the (presumed) Greek text underlying
the AV listed in the Appendix led me to examine my original 1881
Scrivener with care.  Checking a few examples against the AV caused me
to re-study Scrivener's 7-page Preface.  Now I must apologize for
having mis-read his slightly roundabout prose, and thus misleading you
who read my earlier posting.
     (Since all later "editions" of Scrivener's text are actually
reprintings of the original 1881, those of you who have the OnLine
Bible version said to be the 1894 printing almost certainly have his
1881 text.)
     His text was produced at the instance of the Sydics of the
Cambridge University Press, to fulfil in a rather extensive manner a
"Rule" laid down when the Revised Version (of 1881) was first
authorized, a Rule which originally had to do with the margin of the
English translation.  The decision was made to produce a Greek text
which exhibited "a full and carefully corrected list of the readings
adopted which are at variance with the readings `presumed to underlie
the Authorized Version...'."  Scrivener explains that publishing the
actual text underlying the AV would be impossible, but that something
approximating it might be done.  Since "Beza's fifth and last text of
1598 was more likely than any other to be in the hands of King James's
revisers, and to be accepted by them as the best standard within their
reach", no important edition having appeared between its publication
and 1611, he decided to print that text as "the text followed in the
Authorised Version," subject to certain alterations.  Since the 1611
translation was not a fresh one, but a revision of the Bishops' Bible,
which revised the Great Bible, which in fact incorporated much of
Tyndale, oftentimes the revisers simply passed on translation(s) based
on Greek texts other than Beza 1598, including Erasmus's 2nd and 3rd
(1519, 1522), earlier editions by Beza, and even Beza's 1556 Latin
     Scrivener's decision was to "displace from the text" any reading
in Beza 1598 where the AV translation seemed clearly to correspond
with a reading in one of the earlier editions "which might naturally
be known ... to the revisers of 1611 or their predecessors."  This
certainly is not the same as producing the text which the AV revisers
followed; it rather is producing the text best known to them but with
those places altered where manifestly they or their predecessors
translated a different Greek reading.
     The Appendix lists Beza's readings in those 190 places where
Scrivener judged that the AV revisers (or their predecessors) had
followed a different (earlier) printed Greek edition, such passages
being marked in the text with an asterisk.
     (This last point is what I had backwards in my previous post.
     I humbly apologize to one and all for this hasty misreading.)

     I believe everything else is as I posted it previously.

     Thanks to Stephen Carlson for catching me up on this.

     Scrivener concludes his Preface with a single line of Greek, in
uncial style, capitals without spaces between words, all in the
lovely-quaint font used by Cambridge for OT quotations in the original
Westcott and Hort text (with C used for sigma):


- --Edward C. Hobbs


End of b-greek-digest V1 #909


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: