[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

b-greek-digest V1 #51




b-greek-digest           Tuesday, 19 December 1995     Volume 01 : Number 051

In this issue:

        Ignatius of Antioch and "episcopos"
        Syntax of the Beattitudes
        squirrels in the attic (fwd)
        Re: Syntax of the Beattitudes
        "Lapsus digiti"
        Re: "Lapsus digiti"
        EGKRAZW?
        "ANDRES" IN ACTS SPEECHES
        Chronology in John
        Re: Chronology in John
        Re: squirrels in the attic (fwd)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "B-GREEK Conference @ omaccess.com" <XINCLXB-GREEK@omaccess.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 95 11:50:17 EDT
Subject: Ignatius of Antioch and "episcopos"

Hello all,

I am currently writing my masters' thesis on "A Study on the rise of the
Monepiscopacy in the Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch."  My thesis will
focus on three subjects:

1) That the three-fold ministerial structure of one bishop, presbyters, and
deacons was an established fact in Asia Minor by the time Ignatius writes his
letters (and not a novel institution created by Ignatius)

2) Trace the possible factors that led to the transition from the NT model of
a two-fold structure of presbyter-bishops and deacons to a three-fold
structure of bishop, presbyters, and deacons by the second century

3) outline the functions of the bishop as disclosed in Ignatius' writings.

Clearly, a minor word-study on the term "episcopos" is a necessary component
of my thesis.  I am particularly interested in sources which speak about its
use in the Pastorals and the LXX.  Are there any good sources besides Kittel
which will be useful in this search?

I would greatly appreciate any help in bibliographic material or in ideas
relating to these subjects with possible references.  Although I have
accumulated nearly 90 sources, I want to make sure that I am not missing
anything!

Also, how can I find out if a dissertation has been written on a related
subject?  Is there any way to look up the Michigan archives via the 'net?

Thanks so much in advance!

You may feel free to send any info to me via private e-mail at:

THEO@OMACCESS.COM
or at
THEO@APPLELINK.APPLE.COM

Thanks and have a blessed Christmas!

Sincerely,
Theo Nicolakis


- --

.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=.=-=-=.=-=-=.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=.
                        Sent via Orthodox Ministry Access
            "A Dynamic Ministry Resource Tool for Orthodox Christians"
              WWW Home Page: http://www.omaccess.com/usr/om/home_page
                    Difficulty reports: root@gw.maceast.com
                            Phone/fax (617) 975-0119
.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=.=-=-=.=-=-=.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=.

------------------------------

From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 09:39:42 +0800
Subject: Syntax of the Beattitudes

   I spent time this weekend translating Matt 5 and came across a couple
of issues in the Beattitudes I'd like to ask about, partly because
school's out and I don't have a detailed commentary on the Greek of
Matthew avaiable.  In several beattidues, autoi appears.  Normally, 
I would translate autoi with a verb as emphatic, "they themselves",
but I'm not aware of any translation which does so.  Why not?  Also,
several verses use autwn with a form of eimi.  I'm a little puzzled
about precisely how to understand this construction.  Eimi
requires a nominative subject and object.  If I take the verb as 
including the subject, I have something like  "The kingdom of God
it is of them/for them/something".  Autwn can't be the subject or object
because it's genitive.  Clearly, however, it seems to me that
translations such as "theirs is the kingdom of God" are imprecise at
the very least.  How should this be rendered if we are going for
literal accuracy?  Thanks.

Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA

------------------------------

From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 11:59:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: squirrels in the attic (fwd)

Dr. Paul S. Dixon
Pastor, Ladd Hill Bible Church
Wilsonville, Oregon

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 11:52:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
To: leadership@iclnet93.iclnet.org
Cc: reformed group <reformed@listserv.syr.edu>
Subject: squirrels in the attic

	We have squirrels in the attic (please take this literally) and 
have heard they pose a potential hazzard to the building.  Anybody out 
there know of any sure-fire methods of getting them out alive, so they 
don't die inside and stink up the house?  Just thought I'd ask before 
calling an expensive exterminator. Thanks.

Dr. Paul S. Dixon
Pastor, Ladd Hill Bible Church
Wilsonville, Oregon



------------------------------

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 13:36:11 -0600
Subject: Re: Syntax of the Beattitudes

At 7:39 PM 12/17/95, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>   I spent time this weekend translating Matt 5 and came across a couple
>of issues in the Beattitudes I'd like to ask about, partly because
>school's out and I don't have a detailed commentary on the Greek of
>Matthew avaiable.  In several beattidues, autoi appears.  Normally,
>I would translate autoi with a verb as emphatic, "they themselves",
>but I'm not aware of any translation which does so.  Why not?  Also,
>several verses use autwn with a form of eimi.  I'm a little puzzled
>about precisely how to understand this construction.  Eimi
>requires a nominative subject and object.  If I take the verb as
>including the subject, I have something like  "The kingdom of God
>it is of them/for them/something".  Autwn can't be the subject or object
>because it's genitive.  Clearly, however, it seems to me that
>translations such as "theirs is the kingdom of God" are imprecise at
>the very least.  How should this be rendered if we are going for
>literal accuracy?  Thanks.

Two points here, Ken:

(1) AUTOS,-H,-O has three distinct uses: (1) in attributive position = "the
same xxx"; (2) in predicative position = "himself, herself, itself"; (3)
simple 3rd person pronoun, originally used thus only in the oblique cases,
but not uncommonly even in the nominative in Koine. In the beatititudes, it
is indeed just a simple 3rd person pronoun in the genitive, and "theirs" or
"of them" is appropriate.

(2) The usage of the genitive in these sentences is what I learned and
teach as "the predicate genitive." I just checked BDF which doesn't discuss
it as such but simply includes it under the heading of "adnominal
genitive." With EINAI or GINESQAI this genitive indicates the person or
group that the subject is characteristic of (wherefore I've also heard this
genitive usage called "genitive of characteristic"). The subject in all of
these beatitudes is, of course, hH BASILEIA TOU QEOU/TWN OURANWN.

It may be the word-order that bothers you, but the most "normal" (dangerous
adjective, that) word-order in Greek for a so-called "noun sentence" is
Predicate Word - Verb - Subject, and if the predicate word is a
genitive-case form, it too will go in that initial position. So there
really isn't anything very extraordinary about the construction of "AUTWN
ESTIN hH BASILEIA ..."

Hope this helps, c

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: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 16:31:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: "Lapsus digiti"

This term suggested by Edgar Krentz is technically acceptable (for the
phenomenon of striking the wrong key on a computer keyboard or failing to
strike the key).  But it has arrived about two weeks or so late.
My well-known problems in typing e-mail (no editor, all errors on a line
after moving to the next being frozen forever) are compounded by having
a basement study at home, and in our bleak mid-winter (more snow already
before winter arrives, than we had all last year!) it is cold.  My apologies
were expressed in a post to Mike Holmes (who hoped that my computer didn't
freeze in analogy to the Irish monks' ink freezing), whereupon Mike replied
that we needed a term, similar to the use of "itacism" as a term for a
not-very-parallel phenomenon.
	With my usual instantaneous brilliance, I came up with "Hitacism."
The word "hit" is used by programmers, and even by DOS designers, to refer
to the act of touching or pressing a key.  "Hit <Enter> now to exit" etc.
So hitting the wrong key should be "hitacism" if it is done mistakenly
and without stemming from an ignorance of correct spelling.
	"Lapsus digiti" is good, and has a scholarly ring to it.  But the
field was pre-empted two weeks ago, even though I didn't send the term to
the Register of Copyrights and Trademarks.
	However, if "lapsus digiti" should nonetheless prevail, I will
withdraw gracefully, and even use the term myself (to explain my
apparent inability to spell -- I who was Indiana state spelling champion
when I was in the tenth grade!  but I can't type).

	By the way, I absolutely LOVED the discovery of the Roman
egg-grading device!

Edward Hobbs

------------------------------

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 17:01:07 -0600
Subject: Re: "Lapsus digiti"

At 3:31 PM 12/18/95, Edward Hobbs wrote:
>        By the way, I absolutely LOVED the discovery of the Roman
>egg-grading device!

Yes, and the aediles thought they had been awfully clever that day!

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: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 18:11:49 +0400
Subject: EGKRAZW?

In Acts 24:21 Paul said PERI MIAS TAUTHS FWNHS hHS _EKEKRAXA_ EN AUTOIS
"concerning this cry which _I cried out_ among them . . ."  My question is
this.  Could EKEKRAXA be from a verb spelled EGKRAZW instead of being an
irregular form of the verb KRAZW as it is given in BAGD, Thayer, Louw &
Nida, etc.?  In the morphology (Brooks and Winbery, p. 425) we followed
BAGD and listed two forms of the 3rd principal part of KRAZW.  Could this
not be a compound with the prep. EK added to the front of the verb without
changing its essential meaning, only intensifying it?  I do not have L&S
here at home to check it, but does anyone know of any non-NT use of such a
word outside the 3rd pp.?

Calton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net



------------------------------

From: Mark Penner <mark.penner@jemanet.or.jp>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 06:57:00 GMT
Subject: "ANDRES" IN ACTS SPEECHES

What is the translational significance of ANDRES in Luke 1:16 and 2:14
when Peter begins an address? I always thought that since greek has
ANQROPOS, ANDROS and GUNH were strictly gender related. 1:16 wasn't a
problem, since ANRES ADELFOI can just be translated "brothers," since
the brothers are all men. I'm provisionally translating 2:14 "men of
Judea and Jerusalem," but wonder if perhaps this is some kind of formula
for beginning a speech that has nothing to do particularly with gender.
Can anyone help me out with this one?

Mark
    _______________________________________________________________________
Mark & Mary Esther Penner                        CBInternational
                                                 Tokyo, Japan

 * RM 1.3 02234 * Without my ignorance, your knowledge would be meaningless

------------------------------

From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 21:00:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Chronology in John

	In making what I hope is a timely reference to Jesus's attendance
in Jerusalem at the feast of Hanukkah (John 10:22), and also, possibly, at
John 5:1, If we read according to the Nestle 27th text (i.e. "*a* feast of
the Jews" in stead of "*the* feast of the Jews").  Let me suggest that the
narrative of the Fourth Gospel may contain a plausible chronological
record of Jesus' ministry.  There are a number of references to different
holidays and times of the year in John as follows:  three Passovers
(including that of His crucifixion) referred to in 2:13; 6:4; and 11:55. 
What appears to be another identifiable time reference is found in John
4:35, "Say not ye, there are yet four months and then cometh the
harvest..."  Four months before the barley and flax harvest would
correspond to the time of sowing (cf. 4:36, 37) about the month of Chislev
(=Nov.-Dec.). 

	If we take John 5:1 according to the Nestle 27th text (i.e. "*a*
feast of the Jews" in stead of "*the* feast of the Jews"), the feast
referred to could be that of the dedication (Hanukkah), which, coming at
the end of Chislev would allow time for Jesus to have returned to
Jerusalem from Galilee if the events of Jn. 4:4-42 took place toward the
first part of that month.  The Passover mentioned in 6:4 would then be the
second one of His ministry.  And the feeding of the five thousand would
have taken place in the first two weeks of the following Nisan, or just
before that in late Adar,.  This time of year would agree with what
Matthew and Mark say about the (green [Mk.]) grass on which the crowds
reclined.  This would have been present in the spring about the time of
the latter rains which would correspond to the time mentioned (Mat. 14:19;
Mk. 6:39). 

	John 7:2 would refer to the feast of Tabernacles of the same year,
and vv. 37, 38 are probably a reference to the pouring out of water which
was prominent at that feast.  The festival in winter in Jn. 10:22, as
mentioned above, would be the feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) on 25 Chislev
(Nov.-Dec.), in the latter part of that same Julian year.  And the
Passover of Jn. 11:5, on the eve of which Jesus died, most probably
corresponds to that of the following spring. 

	Eusebius's cites Papius to the effect that Mark's Gospel renders
the Gospel information faithfully but does not preserve a careful ordering
of the events of the Lord's life (Eusebius III:39).  If this testimony be
credible, and if Luke and Matthew (at least in the form we have the
latter) were influenced by Mark's ordering of the material, John may
represent the best testimony we have regarding the chronology of the life
of Christ. 

	Raymond Brown, in his commentary on John, notes the possibility of
the historicity of the chronology of the Fourth Gospel but mainly discounts
it on theoretical redactional grounds (R. Brown, _The Gospel According to
John_ [Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966], pp. xlvi-li). 

	Nevertheless, I find these references in John intriguing -
especially from the standpoint that they can be fit into a plausible
chronology.  Also, the reference to 46 years for the building of the
temple provides a plausible figure for the number of years the temple
would have been under construction from Herod's initiating its building in
19 BC (Josephus, Antiq. XV 380), if the words recorded in Jn. 2:20 had
been spoken in 28 AD.  This, of course, would be taking the aorist
OIKODOMHQH as referring to the building as an event accomplished in so
many years.  The imperfect would probably not be required here, although
the temple was not yet complete, for Jesus had referred to TO NAON TOUTON
(v. 19) indicating what was then standing. 

Regards,

David L. Moore                             Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida                               of the  Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us           Department of Education
http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore


------------------------------

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 20:55:07 -0600
Subject: Re: Chronology in John

At 8:00 PM 12/18/95, David Moore wrote:
>        Eusebius's cites Papius to the effect that Mark's Gospel renders
>the Gospel information faithfully but does not preserve a careful ordering
>of the events of the Lord's life (Eusebius III:39).  If this testimony be
>credible, and if Luke and Matthew (at least in the form we have the
>latter) were influenced by Mark's ordering of the material, John may
>represent the best testimony we have regarding the chronology of the life
>of Christ.
>
>        Raymond Brown, in his commentary on John, notes the possibility of
>the historicity of the chronology of the Fourth Gospel but mainly discounts
>it on theoretical redactional grounds (R. Brown, _The Gospel According to
>John_ [Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966], pp. xlvi-li).
>
>        Nevertheless, I find these references in John intriguing -
>especially from the standpoint that they can be fit into a plausible
>chronology.  Also, the reference to 46 years for the building of the
>temple provides a plausible figure for the number of years the temple
>would have been under construction from Herod's initiating its building in
>19 BC (Josephus, Antiq. XV 380), if the words recorded in Jn. 2:20 had
>been spoken in 28 AD.  This, of course, would be taking the aorist
>OIKODOMHQH as referring to the building as an event accomplished in so
>many years.  The imperfect would probably not be required here, although
>the temple was not yet complete, for Jesus had referred to TO NAON TOUTON
>(v. 19) indicating what was then standing.

This is all fascinating. At the very least it would have to be said that
John is building his chronology deliberately, and perhaps, even, with
historical probability. The one question that comes to my mind in
particular, however, is, I believe, an old one. The Synoptic gospels all
place the "Cleansing of the Temple" at the beginning of Passion Week,
whereas John puts it in Chapter 2. I think the usual harmonization is to
say that John has deliberately placed the events in chapter 2 of the
beginning (wedding at Cana) and of the end (Cleansing of Temple) of Jesus'
ministry. Your reading would appear to take the positioning of the
Cleansing of the Temple as indeed taking place historically three (or at
least two) years PRIOR to that last week in Jerusalem. I won't say this is
impossible--I obviously can't prove it is--but is it plausible that this
sort of challenge to the authority of the High Priesthood would have been
allowed to go unsanctioned for two successive years?

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: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 23:22:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: squirrels in the attic (fwd)

I'm sure someone out there is gearing up at the very moment to
admonish the good Rev. Dr. Dixon about the atopicality of this
notice of his intent to try to off those helpless squirrels, so
I thought I had better pre-emptively jump to his defense by
noting that his problem reminds me of an "amusing anecdote" I once
heard about the omnibeloved Dr. Metzger, and of course anything
pertaining to Professor Metzger should be fair game for this list.
Seems someone was once walking down a sidewalk in Princeton with
Prof. M., perhaps chatting about some text-critical issue, when
suddenly and quite unexpectedly a squirrel dropped from a tree
and landed evidently dead on the sidewalk right in front of them.
The twosome halted, momentarily nonplussed by the fate of their
furry visitant.  The junior member of this twosome, observing a
very thoughtful expression on Prof. M.'s face, waited for him to 
break the silence and provide a way forward after this world-
shattering experience; which he did with the words:  "I believe
I know the Greek word for squirrel."  

- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest                            Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA      Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com           Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts



------------------------------

End of b-greek-digest V1 #51
****************************

** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **

To unsubscribe from this list write

majordomo@virginia.edu

with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content.  For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".

For further information, you can write the owner of the list at

owner-b-greek@virginia.edu

You can send mail to the entire list via the address:

b-greek@virginia.edu