b-greek-digest V1 #4
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 14 November 1995 Volume 01 : Number 004
In this issue:
FWD>RE>Grammatical Tense, L
Re: John 21:15-17
Re: FWD>RE>Grammatical Tense, L
1 Tim. 2:15--"get safely through"
Re: 1 Tim. 2:15--"get safely through"
Re: NT authorship
From: Karen Pitts <email@example.com>
Date: 13 Nov 1995 13:44:24 U
Subject: FWD>RE>Grammatical Tense, L
Mail*Link(r) SMTP FWD>RE>Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
My "Mark's Greek is so sloppy", was in response to someone's making a big deal
of Mark's use of imperfect of legw in some section (which I can't find now by
browsing) where Luke had used aorist. My reply (and I think I can prove this
empirically through data supplied by Stephen Carlson) is that Mark uses
imperfect where other people use aorist. My basic observation on Mark's Greek
is below in an exchange I had with Rod Decker over my "Mark's Greek is so
sloppy" statement from late October.
The basis for my observation is as follows. I have browsed much of the Gospel
looking for examples for my Greek classs and I am now reading it verse by
verse (I'm almost finished with Chapter 4), so my concrete examples come from
the first few chapters. I wouldn't say I'm bothered by Mark's Greek, but his
Greek is much more like John's than Luke's, and I think it is stretching his
Greek to make a big deal of his using imperfect rather than aorist. I would
classify it as a stylistic difference rather than one with tense/action/aspect
implications. But, I could be totally off base. I'd appreciate any comment
you have to make.
Date: 10/26/95 3:45 PM
From: Karen Pitts
You are correct, my statement
>Mark's Greek is so sloppy, that I don't know that I'd place any importance on
>the tenses he uses
is a bit too general. What I should have said, is that Mark uses imperfect
FAR more than any of the other Gospel writers. My snail-pace class learns
imperfect in lesson 3 and aorist in lesson 12 (which is sometimes separated by
a year or more), so I search widely for Biblical examples of imperfects. They
are almost always in Mark. Therefore, I don't know that I would place that
much interpretation on his use of imperfect vs. the aorist. I'd have to study
this in depth to support my intuition, which I'm not prepared to do right now.
I still maintain that Mark's Greek is sloppy. He uses participles in purpose
clauses where you would expect an infinitive and he uses periphrastic phrases
far more than anyone else (although John does use them quite a bit). And I
find his use of imperfect a bit jarring.
Anyway, I'll try to keep my generalizations a little less inflamatory.
Hopewell Presbyterian Church, Hopewell, NJ, teacher of NT Greek
David Sarnoff Research Center, Princeton, NJ, statistician
- ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by maca.sarnoff.com with SMTP;26 Oct 1995 15:44:23 U
Received: from Virginia.EDU by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa00558;
26 Oct 95 14:57 EDT
Received: from vaxserv.sarnoff.com by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa00503;
26 Oct 95 14:56 EDT
Received: from maca.sarnoff.com (maca.sarnoff.com [18.104.22.168]) by vaxserv
(8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA04320 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Thu, 26 Oct
1995 14:51:01 -0400
Date: 26 Oct 1995 14:48:12 U
From: Karen Pitts <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
To: Rod Decker <firstname.lastname@example.org_>
Cc: Biblical Greek <email@example.com>
X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2
From: Eric Vaughan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 14:12:08 CST
Subject: Re: John 21:15-17
The way I've always understood the difference between AGAPAW and FILEW is that AGAPEW indicates an
active love which is expressed by the deeds done toward the subject of this love and not necessarily
a strong emotion (God so loved (AGAPE) the world... Jno 3:16). FILEW is a more emotional affection
felt toward someone. I may have been misinformed about this, but Aristotle does make a distinction
between the two in Rhetoric. He says, "TO DE FILEISQAI AGAPASQAI ESTIN AUTON DI' HAUTON." To be
loved (FILEW) is to be loved (AGAPAW) for one's own sake. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
From: Stephen Carlson <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 14:54:24 EST
Subject: Re: FWD>RE>Grammatical Tense, L
Karen Pitts wrote:
> My "Mark's Greek is so sloppy", was in response to someone's making a big deal
> of Mark's use of imperfect of legw in some section (which I can't find now by
> browsing) where Luke had used aorist. My reply (and I think I can prove this
> empirically through data supplied by Stephen Carlson) is that Mark uses
> imperfect where other people use aorist. My basic observation on Mark's Greek
> is below in an exchange I had with Rod Decker over my "Mark's Greek is so
> sloppy" statement from late October.
I believe I asked the initial question, and it was specifically about a
situation, the Lord of the Sabbath, where both Luke and Mark agree in
using the imperfect. While, I remarked that Luke has an aorist instead
of Mark's historical present, I was asking about the force of this
imperfect, which interrupts Jesus's pronouncement at the punchline.
Here's a chart, of the verbs of saying in this pericope:
Matthew Mark Luke
EIPAN 12:2 ELEGON 2:24 EIPAN 6:2
EIPEN 12:3 LEGEI 2:25 EIPEN 6:3
omit 12:8 ELEGEN 2:27 ELEGEN 6:5
My intent was not so much to contrast Matthew & Luke's use of the aorist
with Mark's historical present, but to ask why both Mark and Luke (who
is a more careful writer) both used the imperfect in Mk2:27=Lk6:5.
I think the best reply (sorry about forgetting the list contributor's
name!) was that the use of the imperfect does not in itself signal a
punchline, but the insertion of the clause, KAI ELEGEN AUTOIS, does so
on its own, with the imperfect being appropriate for this purpose.
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
firstname.lastname@example.org : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
From: Bruce Terry <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 16:38:29 CST
Subject: 1 Tim. 2:15--"get safely through"
A belated comment on 1 Tim. 2:15:
I have for a number of years been intrigued by James Moffatt's translation of
"However, women will get safely through childbirth, if they continue to be
faithful and loving and holy as well as unassuming."
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: firstname.lastname@example.org
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 16:21:51 -0600
Subject: Re: 1 Tim. 2:15--"get safely through"
At 4:38 PM 11/13/95, Bruce Terry wrote:
>A belated comment on 1 Tim. 2:15:
>I have for a number of years been intrigued by James Moffatt's translation of
>"However, women will get safely through childbirth, if they continue to be
>faithful and loving and holy as well as unassuming."
Wow! This is fascinating. For clarity's sake in comment, let me cite (noch
wieder einmal!) the Greek:
SWQHSETAI DE DIA THS TEKNOGONIAS, EAN MEINWSIN EN PISTEI KAI AGAPHi KAI
hAGIASMWi META SWFROSUNHS.
Outside of its context (which, quite frankly, is itself not exceptionally
helpful toward the interpretation of the verse), this translation cannot be
faulted, I think, as a reading of the possible meaning of the Greek text.
In fact, although we do find DIA + genitive to express instrumentality, an
instrumental dative would (from my admittedly Attic perspective) be
preferable by far; and, in view of the fact that ancient childbirth is by
no means without risk of life (Euripides' Medea, remember, says she'd
rather face the foe with a spear on the battlefield three times to giving
birth once!), and given the fact that, outside of the theological sphere,
SWZEIN most normally DOES mean "bring safely," "preserve through peril,"
"keep intact" (as in the parable of the wine and wineskins; I tend to think
of getting safely through a semester!), the first clause of Moffat's
translation seems very natural.
Much as I like the whole version, however, I must admit that I have not
seen SWFROSUNH applied to women anywhere in Greek texts I've studied in a
sense other than sexual purity. When referring to a male, of course, it's
always the rational control of one's appetites generally rather than
This raises another question to my mind. There may be a stock answer to it,
but in view of the fact that the cardinal virtues in the "secular" Greek
tradition are SOFIA, DIKAIOSUNH, ANDREIA, and SWFROSUNH, do we have a
corresponding set of cardinal "Christian" virtues in the NT? I think of
Paul's PISTIS, ELPIS, AGAPH in 1 Cor 13, of course, but it seems to me
(judging off the top of my head, as usual, when this is probably a
well-researched topic) that different virtues get mentioned in different
lists and there's not even the degree of agreement that the lists of
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
firstname.lastname@example.org OR email@example.com
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 17:33:45 -0500
Subject: NT authorship
In a message dated 95-11-13 01:27:31 EST, you write:
>No general rule will do here. You have to consider each individual NT
>writer on his of her own.
Ed, are you just being inclusive, or do you have an interesting theory
of a woman NT writer?
I'm aware of the theory that one of the Penteteuch writers was possibly
a woman, but I hadn't heard of one on NT female authorship.
I'm not being picky, I'm...
From: David Moore <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 20:43:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: NT authorship
On Mon, 13 Nov 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 95-11-13 01:27:31 EST, you write:
> >No general rule will do here. You have to consider each individual NT
> >writer on his of her own.
> Ed, are you just being inclusive, or do you have an interesting theory
> of a woman NT writer?
> I'm aware of the theory that one of the Penteteuch writers was possibly
> a woman, but I hadn't heard of one on NT female authorship.
> I'm not being picky, I'm...
> just curious,
> Tim Staker
Some have conjectured that Priscilla wrote Hebrews. They say
that the book went out anonymously because a woman's being a teacher in
Christian circles of that day wasn't readily accepted by most. IMO,
Apollos is a more probable guess, though.
From: Doug Coyle <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 20:49:00 -0500
I subscribed to this list because I need some information for a paper
I'm writing. I need to know how the word "keleuma" which is translated
"shout" in 1 Thessalonians 4, 16 is used in extra-Biblical literature.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. I also could used some
documentation for footnoting.
. SLMR 2.1a #2361 . finger firstname.lastname@example.org
End of b-greek-digest V1 #4
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
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: