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

b-greek-digest V1 #52




b-greek-digest          Wednesday, 20 December 1995    Volume 01 : Number 052

In this issue:

        Re: "ANDRES" IN ACTS SPEECHES
        Re: EGKRAZW?
        Re: EGKRAZW?
        Re: Chronology in John
        Re: Chronology in John
        Re: EGKRAZW?
        Re: Chronology in John 
        1 Peter 1:2 
        Re: Chronology in John
        Are you being habitually unsubscribed from this LIST? Read this! 
        ANASTAS, EUQUS IN MARK

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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 06:00:26 -0600
Subject: Re: "ANDRES" IN ACTS SPEECHES

At 12:57 AM 12/18/95, Mark Penner wrote:
>What is the translational significance of ANDRES in Luke 1:16 and 2:14

You did say ACTS speeches in the subject header, and it became clear once I
looked up the GOSPEL of Luke 1:16 and 2:14 that you couldn't be referring
to those verses, but this is confusing! (unintentionally, of course)

>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?

While there's room for argument over this, I'd say at the outset that there
are numerous expressions in Greek going back to much earlier usage in which
an adjective, an agent noun, or particularly an ethnic or citizenship name
is combined with ANHR much as English once more commonly combined it in
such whole words as "countryman," "husbandman," "fisherman," or phrases
like "handy man."

Athenian speeches in the courtroom as well as in the assembly are
repeatedly broken by vocative phrases, W ANDRES AQNHAIOI, and I would think
that what we have in both these instances is precisely that traditional
usage in the vocative. So far as ANDRES ADELFOI is concerned, I don't think
it is necessarily true that the "brothers" are all men; rather, I think
ADELFOS has become a community term for members of the community. This is,
I believe, one of those terms which is translated "brothers and sisters" in
the NRSV precisely because it is thought to be a generic term traditionally
used in the masculine form but actually referring to a mixed-gender group.

I would cautiously say, then, but certainly not dogmatically, that
masculine gender is NOT to be assumed from the use of ANHR rather than
ANQRWPOS in these passages. Our late-20th-century usage of "guys" as a
colloquial word used particularly in address for a mixed-gender group.

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: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 06:09:35 -0600
Subject: Re: EGKRAZW?

At 8:11 AM 12/18/95, Carlton Winbery wrote:
>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.?

I don't have a NT lexicon handy away from my office, but it looks to me
like this may be a reduplicated aorist stem KEKRAXA. When I first looked at
it, I was thinking that it must be pluperfect of KRAZW, but it can't be
with that ending, nor can it be a perfect 1 sg. either. The normal form of
an augmented aorist from EKKRAZW would be EXEKRAX-; the normal form of an
augmented aorist from EGKRAZW (EN-KRAZW) would be ENEKRAX-. It is a
peculiar form indeed, reminiscent of Aristophanes' Frogs: BREKEKEKEX KOAX
KOAX.

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: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 08:05:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: EGKRAZW?

On Mon, 18 Dec 1995, Carlton Winbery wrote:

> 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.?
> 
LSJ has both EGKRAZW and EKKRAZW; I don't see how the form you
cite could be from the former, since the G wd by N before a vowel,
or the former, since there G wd be xi.  Right?
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest                            Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA      Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com           Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts



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

From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 09:07:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Chronology in John

On Mon, 18 Dec 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:

> 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. 

	Well said, Carl.  To observe that John seems to be building his 
chronology deliberately certainly adds a dimension to simply saying - as 
yours truly did - that his chronology is plausible.

>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?

	The standard answer to that apparent discrepancy is that Jesus 
did this sort of cleansing of the temple on more than one occasion, and 
that the Synoptics and John report different occasions.  In the early 
part of Jesus' ministry, the High Priesthood was unable to sanction him 
for any of His challenges to their authority because of His popularity.


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: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 08:27:59 -0600
Subject: Re: Chronology in John

I may be wrong, but I think Rod's post was meant for the list, and this
will get it there and give me a chance to respond without taking up extra
bandwidth.

At 9:53 PM 12/18/95, Rod Decker wrote:
>Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
>>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?
>>
>>
>I'm curious why there is a problem with TWO similar events? What makes an
>earlier event implausible? The hostility from the authorities throughout
>Jesus' ministry would certainly be intelligible in light of such an event.
>His popularity with the crowds, particularly in the early period could
>account for the fact that they were not able to take public action. Even
>after the second event they were very cautious--for fear of the Jews.

You catch me here, Rod, in my predilection for Ockham's Razor--entia non
multiplicanda, etc.. Do you, Stephen Moore, assume two "cleansings" of the
Temple?


There's a second question here,and, I guess, a second confession I'll have
to make. I try to keep an open mind on the historical reliability of the
accounts of opposition to and support for Jesus, but I really think that a
lot of it is tendentious in the narrative sequence. We are getting off the
issue of the Greek text as such here, but the proposal Stephen set forth
was a historical rather than a textual question. "Fear of the Jews" is
indeed the term used in these synoptic and Johannine accounts, but "Jews"
in John's gospel is a problematic term, and there's a question, for that
matter, of who is referred to by "Jews," "Herodians," and "Pharisees" in
any particular synoptic pericope. We like to make a point around Easter
time of the fickleness of "the crowd" that welcomed Jesus on Palm Sunday
and cried out "Crucify him!" on Friday. This raises what I think is a
question worth investigation--and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's
already been investigated: the OXLOS/OXLOI in the synoptics constitute(s)
an extraordinary narrative motif: they gather around him and Jesus does
confront them, but at times seems to want to distance himself from them
because they threaten to "crush" him. Is this a narrative motif in itself?
I suspect it is, but I'd like to know more about it.

At any rate, I am, in fact, skeptical about two "cleansings," and also
wonder whether it's plausible that such a violent (cf. ongoing discussion
on ELENCHUS) attack upon the authorities at the Temple would have gone
unanswered for two years and have to be repeated before action being taken
against Jesus.

A similar question about doubling concerns the whole group of events in
Mark 6-8 that appear to be cyclical repetitions: two feedings, two
lake-crossing, etc., etc. There are various ways of understanding this
phenomenon, but I tend to side with those who think that the doubling here
is a Marcan narrative procedure rather than a reflection of historical
sequence.

More than enough said, I fear. But I'm curious whether others really
envision two "cleansings" of the Temple two years apart?


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: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 12:08:02 -0600 
Subject: Re: EGKRAZW?

>On Mon, 18 Dec 1995, Carlton Winbery wrote:
>
>> 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.?
>>
>LSJ has both EGKRAZW and EKKRAZW; I don't see how the form you
>cite could be from the former, since the G wd by N before a vowel,
>or the former, since there G wd be xi.  Right?

Right.  I suppose the best explanation is that this is a situation where
the whole first sylable reduplicates in the aorist as is indicated in the
Aland concordance and BAGD.

Carlton Winbery
Chair Religion/Philosophy
LA College,
Pineville,La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
fax (318) 442-4996 or (318) 487-7425



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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 11:39:27 -0600
Subject: Re: Chronology in John 

My apologies to David Moore and the list for referring to him as Stephen
Moore; it's not much of an explanation that I had a Stephen Moore for a
student once, but it's true. And David has already answered my question in
crossed mails: he DOES assume two "cleansings" of the temple. As I said, I
don't think this is impossible, but I don't think it's the most plausible
solution to the problem. I don't know whether it was Raymond Brown's
commenary or somewhere else that I read the hypothesis that Chapter 2 of
John deliberately juxtaposed the wedding at Cana and the cleansing of the
temple not because they were chronologically in sequence immediately but as
first and last SHMEIA of Jesus. There are other interesting questions in
the chronology of John as well; it has always seemed to me that Chapter 12
sort of over-arches (symbolically) the whole of chapters 13-20, 13 setting
forth the objective (outside the community) significance of the hUPSWSIS
and DOXASQHNAI of the Son of Man as 14-17 set forth their signficance for
the community itself. But this gets into a much larger question of the way
time is represented in John's gospel, and all that probably doesn't belong
on b-greek, if even the historical question can be said to.

I'm sitting here "chatting" because I can't even get to my office; we've
got about 8 inches of snow on the ground "and rising"--Rod's probably
snowed in over in Kansas City too. It's pretty early for a big one
(relatively speaking) in St. Louis, which rarely sees over 3 inches. Last
night we were told that this would all go through our area as rain! How
little we know!

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: Donald Reiher <dreiher@netaxs.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 13:02:33 -0500
Subject: 1 Peter 1:2 

>A friend and I are starting a study on 1 Peter.  I ran into the following in 
>verse 2:
>
>kata prognwsin theou patros, which, I promptly (which is amazing in itself) 
>translated to, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father"
>
>When I looked up prognwsis in BAGD, the same phrase was translated as, 
>"according to the predestination of God the Father" and I was confused.
>
>After all, doesn't prognwsis come from the prefix pro and the root gnwsis 
>and mean "to know before"?  I see a definate difference between the english 
>word "foreknowledge" and the english word "predestination."  Without getting 
>into a major eschatological debate, could anyone tell me if there is 
>anything in the context that leads one to translate this phrase as 
>"according to the predestination of God the Father"?
>
>Thanks in advance for the replies.

I think you are forgetting about verse 1 and the word EKLEKTOIS!
By the way, Election has a range of meanings also.  I would say that
this is a very strong passage for the Father fore-ordaining something, 
alhough it does not necessarily mean fore-ordaining that a person would 
believe (obviously, because this election. . whatever it is. . is based 
upon God's PROGNOSIS).  The whole context here does not seem to be dealing
with the moment of a believer's faith delivering them from hell, but 
with the bigger scheme of the Father sovereignly working behind the scenes 
to bless believers (plural) in churches scattered abroad in Peter's day 
(verse 1).  They needed to recieve the "salvation of their souls" as a 
result of this kind of faith (a temporal salvation, rather than salvation
from hell).  Even if you translate PROGNOSIS "predestination" it still
could be a predestination other than the Dortian kind. . . inclusive of
God's sovereign working, but allowing for man's responsibility to respond
properly in the heat of persecution.  The predestination could be that
no matter what happened to them (ie. if they responded properly in the 
midst of persecution, or improperly), that God would be glorified either
way.

I think you also need to look at this in the light of Peter's ministry in 
Acts, traveling around laying on of hands. . recieving the Holy Spirit . . 
thus unifying the Church.
This was obviously in the midst of great persecution (verse 6).  Looks as
if Peter is giving his readers a shot of God's sovereignty to give them 
some backbone!  I think PROGNOSIS should be interpreted in this light.
This is a rich & beautiful (and difficult) passage . . . one of my favorites.

(By the way I do NOT wish to debate the Sovereignty/Free Will issue here)

Don Reiher, MDiv, ThM.


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

From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 12:40:58 +0400
Subject: Re: Chronology in John

Carl Conrad wrote;
>I'm sitting here "chatting" because I can't even get to my office; we've
>got about 8 inches of snow on the ground "and rising"--Rod's probably
>snowed in over in Kansas City too. It's pretty early for a big one
>(relatively speaking) in St. Louis, which rarely sees over 3 inches. Last
>night we were told that this would all go through our area as rain! How
>little we know!
>
I usually say the good thing about Louisiana is that it usually runs off
(rain that is).
Carlton
end

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



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

From: David John Marotta <djm5g@virginia.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 95 08:53:46 EST
Subject: Are you being habitually unsubscribed from this LIST? Read this! 

Hi, this is a note from the list owner.

Subscribers on this list are automatically unsubscribed if messages
begin bouncing.  This is the only way I could possible run lists which
have over 1500 people on them.  It has taken some time to build up
a parsing file capable of recognizing most of the bounced messages,
determining which subscribers is responsible, unsubscribing them,
and sending out three messages (12 hours apart) letting them know
that they have been unsubscribed.

HOWEVER, sometimes the system unsubscribes someone because their
system is momentarily down and this is annoying to subscribers.
I have now put in a file which contains phrases which indicate that
the problem is temporary and I should not unsubscribe the person
from the list.

IF YOU RECEIVE AN UNSUBSCRIBE MESSAGE and believe that I could have
known that the problem was temporary, forward the message to me
and I will look at the original bounced message to see if I can
find a phrase to indicate that the problem was temporary.
DON'T everyone who receives such a message forward it to me.
THAT WOULD BE A DISASTER.  Only forward it to me if you are being
habitually unsubscribed (i.e. the second or third set of three messages
you receive from me telling you that you have been unsubscribed)
Remeber, for each ONE unsubscribe I try to sen THREE messages to you.

If you are in doubt, just resubscribe and don't forward it to me.

Thanks,  I hope this will help the five people who have been
regularly unsubscribed and dropped me notes about it.

David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: djm5g@virginia.edu
Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg  PRODIGY: KCMR45A
C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax   IBM US: usuvarg8

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

From: Mark Penner <mark.penner@jemanet.or.jp>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 05:38:00 GMT
Subject: ANASTAS, EUQUS IN MARK

A quick translation question--

Mark 7:24 we read ANASTAS APHLQEN. NAS and others have "arose and went
away." How important is the "arose" here?  In Hebrew (QUM), I often
don't translate it at all, or sometimes its more like "decided to." Is
it the same in Greek? (Wish I knew Aramaic!) In Japanese Signs, it seems
superfluous here. Am I missing something? I'm all for dynamic
equivalence, but I want to make sure it really is equivalent.

And while I'm on the topic, what about EUQUS in Mark? If it really is
superfluous, why do so many English versions have "immediately" so
often?

Thanks.

Mark
    _______________________________________________________________________
Mark & Mary Esther Penner                        CBInternational
                                                 Tokyo, Japan

 * RM 1.3 02234 * If you want truly to understand something, try to change it.

    _______________________________________________________________________
Mark & Mary Esther Penner                        CBInternational
                                                 Tokyo, Japan

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

End of b-greek-digest V1 #52
****************************

** 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