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

b-greek-digest V1 #74




b-greek-digest           Thursday, 11 January 1996     Volume 01 : Number 074

In this issue:

        Re: Messengers bearing Greeks 
        GUNH EN HSUCIA -- 1Ti 2.11 
        Message-ID: <960111141303_102733.3234_GHT58-2@CompuServe.COM> 
        Re: Messengers bearing Greeks
        Re: GUNH EN HSUCIA -- 1Ti 2.11
        Re: GUNH EN HSUCIA -- 1Ti 2.11 
        Which LSJ for the LXX
        Almost biblical Greek questions
        Re: Messengers bearing Greeks 
        Re: Which LSJ for the LXX
        Re: Almost biblical Greek questions
        Re: GUNH EN HSUCIA -- 1Ti 2.11 
        Didache 1:5
        Lexicon for LXX -- which L7S
        Corrected version of post on LXX/lexicons
        Re: Didache 1:5
        Re: Didache 1:5
        Re: Almost biblical Greek questions

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

From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 02:17:36 -0600
Subject: Re: Messengers bearing Greeks 

Thx to David Moore for his prompt attention to my questions. Although
the TDNT contains a wealth of information on angelos: it does not address
my concerns directly. For one thing, it does not deal with English usage.

My question is why should the Greek term angelos be carried into English
as angel, rather than translating it consistently with the Greek (and with
the Hebrew mal'ak) in the broad sense of messenger, divine or mundane.
Is it simply an accident of usage with the Latin-trained clergy slipping it
into common English? Surely, in early English, "messenger" must have
had the same connotation of representing a higher power (lord) as do
angelos and mal'ak.

Historically, "angel" (alt. spellings) came from the LXX translation of
mal'ak yehowah, thence into Latin. (The earliest reference in OED is c.
950 _Lindisf. Gosp._  Matt. xxii 30 Sint suelce englas godes in heofnum)
[Incidentally, where did "godes" come from in this verse?]

And, no matter how the translation occurred historically, why is it con-
tinued? Isn't "messenger" a more proper translation than "angel"? Isn't
the retention of "angel" tantamount to leaving it untranslated, in effect,
substituting a theologically-defined word for the actual word ? Is the
reason for this purely theological? This type of transliteration, rather
than translation, seems common among theologically-significant terms.
Was it simply "cool" to know and use the Greek (Latin) terms which found
their way into English? Were such terms considered technical jargon,
having been defined away from the simple text by theologians?

And, given the translation as angel, why do we translate "angel of Satan"
as "messenger of Satan" (C2 12:7) ?

In asking why, I am looking for a textual reason, underlying any
historical, sociological, psychological, etc. reasons. If the reason is not
textual, then I suggest that the translation is in error. If the reason is
linguistic, I should like to understand it.

The only reason why I am so concerned with such a common and trivial
borrowing from another language is, of course, the fact that the text
is considered sacred and not to be tampered with.

Sincerely,

Will



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

From: Shaughn Daniel <shaughn.daniel@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 12:38:34 +0100
Subject: GUNH EN HSUCIA -- 1Ti 2.11 

I need interaction on this stuff please.

1. Does it contradict Paul's teaching in 1Co where women apparently can
prophecy and pray with their heads covered?

2. Is prophecying different from DIDASKEIN? (see 1Ti 2.12).

3. What do you think of this rendering of v. 11? "But I do not allow women
to teach IN A WAY THAT (OUDE) they exercise authority over men, but to be
in submission (EN HSUCIA)"

4. Can EN HSUCIA mean something like "to have a quiet manner", etc.,
without implying that they are not allowed to teach at all?

Thanks tons!
Shaughn


[]______________________________________________________________.
|                                                               |\
| Shaughn Daniel        shaughn.daniel@student.uni-tuebingen.de | |
| Tuebingen, Germany                                            | |
|                            ~~~~~                              | |
| I put tape on the mirrors in my house so I don't accidentally | |
| walk through into another dimension. --Steven Wright          | |
|_______________________________________________________________| |
 \_______________________________________________________________\|

The sagacious reader who is capable of reading between these lines
what does not stand written in them, but is nevertheless implied,
will be able to form some conception.
          Goethe. Autobiography. Book xviii. Truth and Beauty.




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

From: "H A. Brehm" <102733.3234@compuserve.com>
Date: 11 Jan 96 09:13:04 EST
Subject: Message-ID: <960111141303_102733.3234_GHT58-2@CompuServe.COM> 

SUBSCRIBE NT-GREEK Alan Brehm Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

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

From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 09:39:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Messengers bearing Greeks

On Thu, 11 Jan 1996, Will Wagers wrote:

> Thx to David Moore for his prompt attention to my questions. Although
> the TDNT contains a wealth of information on angelos: it does not address
> my concerns directly. For one thing, it does not deal with English usage.
> 
> My question is why should the Greek term angelos be carried into English
> as angel, rather than translating it consistently with the Greek (and with
> the Hebrew mal'ak) in the broad sense of messenger, divine or mundane.
> Is it simply an accident of usage with the Latin-trained clergy slipping it
> into common English? Surely, in early English, "messenger" must have
> had the same connotation of representing a higher power (lord) as do
> angelos and mal'ak.
> 
> Historically, "angel" (alt. spellings) came from the LXX translation of
> mal'ak yehowah, thence into Latin. (The earliest reference in OED is c.
> 950 _Lindisf. Gosp._  Matt. xxii 30 Sint suelce englas godes in heofnum)
> [Incidentally, where did "godes" come from in this verse?]
> 
> And, no matter how the translation occurred historically, why is it con-
> tinued? Isn't "messenger" a more proper translation than "angel"? Isn't
> the retention of "angel" tantamount to leaving it untranslated, in effect,
> substituting a theologically-defined word for the actual word ? Is the
> reason for this purely theological? This type of transliteration, rather
> than translation, seems common among theologically-significant terms.
> Was it simply "cool" to know and use the Greek (Latin) terms which found
> their way into English? Were such terms considered technical jargon,
> having been defined away from the simple text by theologians?
> 
> And, given the translation as angel, why do we translate "angel of Satan"
> as "messenger of Satan" (C2 12:7) ?
> 
> In asking why, I am looking for a textual reason, underlying any
> historical, sociological, psychological, etc. reasons. If the reason is not
> textual, then I suggest that the translation is in error. If the reason is
> linguistic, I should like to understand it.
> 
> The only reason why I am so concerned with such a common and trivial
> borrowing from another language is, of course, the fact that the text
> is considered sacred and not to be tampered with.

	It is my observation that, when it comes to matters of how 
concepts are expressed in different languages according to accepted 
usage, it is very difficult, no matter what logic one may present, to 
argue for significant change.  In English, God's heavenly messengers are 
called angels.  That has deep roots that go back, as Will has noted, 
through Latin and Greek usage to the Hebrew.  

	Will mentions that the OED's oldest citation on the usage goes 
back to a Latin text of c. 950.  There is also a quote ascribed to 
Gregory the Great (540-604) to the effect that it would be fitting to 
send missionaries to evangelize the "Angles" of the British Isles since 
they were already practically "angels."

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: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 07:54:40 +0800
Subject: Re: GUNH EN HSUCIA -- 1Ti 2.11

> I need interaction on this stuff please.
> 
> 1. Does it contradict Paul's teaching in 1Co where women apparently can
> prophecy and pray with their heads covered?
> 
> 2. Is prophecying different from DIDASKEIN? (see 1Ti 2.12).
> 
> 3. What do you think of this rendering of v. 11? "But I do not allow women
> to teach IN A WAY THAT (OUDE) they exercise authority over men, but to be
> in submission (EN HSUCIA)"
> 
> 4. Can EN HSUCIA mean something like "to have a quiet manner", etc.,
> without implying that they are not allowed to teach at all?
> 
> Thanks tons!
> Shaughn
 
     In understanding this difficult passage, I follow David Scholer, who has
argued that this exhortation/command applies only in the specific situation
pertaining to Ephesus.  It does not contradict 1 Cor because it is only
meant for this situation.  He argues, right I think, that there is some sort of
heretical teaching going on in Ephesus and that female leaders in the church
particularly have been swayed by it.  It might be some proto-gnostic
teaching involving Eve, hence Paul's words about Eve.  This explanation makes
the most sense to me, given what Paul does say elewhere about women and the
role they seem to have played in his ministry, e.g., Priscilla, who seems to
have co-taught with her husband though seemingly comes first; the DEACON
of Rome Phoebe; Junia the apostle, etc.  It seems inconceivable to me that
Paul could have generally evinced a larger role for women overall while
apparently dissenting from that here unless this passage applies just
to the situation in Ephesus.  This not being based singificantly on the
Greek text, however, that's all I say.

Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA 

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

From: Lambrini Thoma <cptlight@hypernet.hyper.gr>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 17:39:01 +0200
Subject: Re: GUNH EN HSUCIA -- 1Ti 2.11 

At 12:38 11/01/1996 +0100, Shaughn Daniel wrote:

>4. Can EN HSUCIA mean something like "to have a quiet manner", etc.,
>without implying that they are not allowed to teach at all?

In Greek, even modern, we say " zei en hsyxia" when someone is a monk or a
nun. We also call "hsyxastes" historically a monastery spiritual movement of
the fathers of the 14th century. Sorry for my English. Ihope  this info is
of some help.

>
>Thanks tons!
>Shaughn

L.T.


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

From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 08:03:52 +0800
Subject: Which LSJ for the LXX

   I'm awaiting my copy of he latest, forthcoming Great Scott to appear
on my door step.  In the meantime, I'm trying to borrow either the
Int. Or Unabridged LSJ for use in preparing some LXX chapters for my
upcoming doctoral Greek exam (I don't want to buy one now just to pay for
the new Great Scott in  a couple of months).  Anyway, I have a source for
borrowing either the Big Liddell or the Great Scott.  Specifically for
the LXX, is the Int. LS going to be sufficient or would I be better off 
borrowing the more cumbersome Great Scott, unabridged and heavy?  Thanks in
advance for any advice.

Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA

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

From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 08:25:57 +0800
Subject: Almost biblical Greek questions

   I'd like to ask some questions about the Didache*, which frequently reminds
me of NT texts but of course the author feels the need to use 
hapax legomena words for vices every second word.  I know it's not quite
biblical Greek but parts are pretty close.  
1. In Didache III, there are several verses which include mhde .... mhde.
such as "neither jealous nor contentious nor hot-tempered".  These are
typically preceded by an exhortation beginning with ou ginou.  I'm wondierng
if the ginou should be seen as implied in the following coordinated mhd
clauses, or if isqe is implied or if these should be understood with no
verb at all.  I would previously have gone for the first or second choice
except that I've now read Porter arguing that the undestanding of 
nominal clauses as having an elided auxillary verb is incorrect (anyone want
to comment on that argument?).
2.  In I:5, it reads (ina ti elabe kai eis ti.  I don't think I've seen any
thing like that before.  I know how Lightfoot translated it but I'd appreciate
other suggestions and how one would go about figuring out exaclty what this
should mean.  It doesn't seem to follow readily from what preceded it.  It
seems odd to have interrogative pronouns/particles in the middle of a hina
clause.  
3. In II:4, pagis gar qanatou (h diglwssia, does the definite article specify
that diglwssia is the subject and pagis is the object or vice-versa or what?
I know this has been somewhat discussed in the context of John 1:1 but I've
gotten lost in that discussion by the critiques of various rules about this.
4.  Finally,  II:7 says ou mishseis panta anqrwpou.  I think this says
"You shall not hate every person", while Lightfoot translates it as
"thou shalt not hate any man".  I don't think I accept translating pas as
"any".  that's what tis is for.  Comments?  

   Thanks much.


Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA

* Di-da-che, the first Italian church father.

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

From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 11:59:49 -0600
Subject: Re: Messengers bearing Greeks 

Stephen Carlson writes:

>As for your main query, if AGGELOS in Greek is already specialized
>in some contexts to mean a messenger from God, what's wrong with
>using a specialized English term?

(I think) Greek and Hebrew words are not commonly transliterated -
left untranslated - unless we do not know specifically to what they
refer. For example, some long-forgotten technical term for a piece of
a cart or the name of a plant of which identity we are uncertain. Or,
unless the foreign term has no ready counterpart in English, because
of differences in how the conceptual pie is sliced.

So, when an exact counterpart is available, what justification can
there be for not using it?

To put the argument another way, why do we not use separate terms
for "angel of the Lord", "angel of God", "angel of Jehovah", angels of
the seven churches, Jesus' angels, etc. ? The answer is because they
are the same (species).

Why do we translate "angel of Satan" as "messenger of Satan"
(C2 12:7) ? This is one instance of where the use of context is distorting
the meaning. The fact is that both God and Satan use either "angels" or
"messengers", whichever way you would have it. To artificially
distinguish between them is to invite misunderstanding. For example,
if Satan is himself an angel, we can learn from this that angels can
use other angels to deliver messages, that there are good and bad
angels, that Satan operates using the same mechanism as God, etc.

> In other contexts, where AGGELOS
>retained its broader meaning, a broader English equivalent would be
>appropriate.

My point is that the broader English equivalent is the proper choice
for all instances, as the original terms are also broad. I won't tax the
patience of the list by belaboring the point further. Thanks for your
help.

Sincerely,

Will



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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 13:20:42 -0600
Subject: Re: Which LSJ for the LXX

At 6:03 PM 1/10/96, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>   I'm awaiting my copy of he latest, forthcoming Great Scott to appear
>on my door step.  In the meantime, I'm trying to borrow either the
>Int. Or Unabridged LSJ for use in preparing some LXX chapters for my
>upcoming doctoral Greek exam (I don't want to buy one now just to pay for
>the new Great Scott in  a couple of months).  Anyway, I have a source for
>borrowing either the Big Liddell or the Great Scott.  Specifically for
>the LXX, is the Int. LS going to be sufficient or would I be better off
>borrowing the more cumbersome Great Scott, unabridged and heavy?  Thanks in
>advance for any advice.

Ken, are you distinguishing between the BIG LIDDELL and the GREAT SCOTT?
Whatever it is that you mean, I think you probably ought to use whichever
is "more cumbersome," "unabridged and heavy." The smaller and the
intermediate L&S are reprints of a condensation of the late Victorian L&S,
and they were made to include fundamentally vocabulary of major classical
authors and NT; I don't think they were intended to cover LXX at all. In
what little work I've done with LXX, I've found the intermediate L&S
practically useless: LXX words that ARE found in it are words I already
have no problem with, and words that are unfamiliar just simply don't show
up in the intermediate L&S. So you'd better take the cumbersome heavy
unabridged LSJ--the latest version available for borrowing. I might just
add as a useless addendum comment that I've occasionally found help for an
LXX problem in the old Sophocles Lexicon of Byzantine Greek.

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: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 13:20:38 -0600
Subject: Re: Almost biblical Greek questions

Ken, I wish you'd try to follow (any) one of the conventions we've tried to
adopt for transliteration. I'm not sure that I understand some of what
you've have transcribed from your transliteration. Personally I really find
it easier to read transliterated Greek in these posts when it's done in
upper case except for breathing-marks, subscripts, etc.

At 6:25 PM 1/10/96, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>   I'd like to ask some questions about the Didache*, which frequently reminds
>me of NT texts but of course the author feels the need to use
>hapax legomena words for vices every second word.  I know it's not quite
>biblical Greek but parts are pretty close.
>1. In Didache III, there are several verses which include mhde .... mhde.
>such as "neither jealous nor contentious nor hot-tempered".  These are
>typically preceded by an exhortation beginning with ou ginou.  I'm wondierng
>if the ginou should be seen as implied in the following coordinated mhd
>clauses, or if isqe

Do you mean "ISQI" (sg.)? I don't recognize "ISQE" (and in fact I thought
you were writing a Latin "ISQUE."

I don't have the text before me, but I think that GINOU is probably right
(but why OU rather than MH? perhaps it should be implicitly the future
indicative used as an imperative: OU GENHi (?)

is implied or if these should be understood with no
>verb at all.  I would previously have gone for the first or second choice
>except that I've now read Porter arguing that the understanding of
>nominal clauses as having an elided auxillary verb is incorrect (anyone want
>to comment on that argument?).

I decline henceforth to make no comment on Porter until I have read the stuff.

>2.  In I:5, it reads (ina ti elabe kai eis ti.  I don't think I've seen any
>thing like that before.  I know how Lightfoot translated it but I'd appreciate
>other suggestions and how one would go about figuring out exaclty what this
>should mean.  It doesn't seem to follow readily from what preceded it.  It
>seems odd to have interrogative pronouns/particles in the middle of a hina
>clause.

I think something's missing here from what you've cited. Or is this one of
those weird instances where hINA is being used (a solecism?) as a
preposition equivalent to DIA? " ... why he took (it) and for what (use)"

...
>4.  Finally,  II:7 says ou mishseis panta anqrwpou.  I think this says
>"You shall not hate every person", while Lightfoot translates it as
>"thou shalt not hate any man".  I don't think I accept translating pas as
>"any".  that's what tis is for.  Comments?

Again, a question of transcription: shouldn't that be ANQRWPON rather than
ANQRWPOU? If so, I think this usage of PANTA is a Hebraism (Semitism?)
where PANTA is used like Hebrew KOL, which means indiscriminately "all,"
"every," or "any."

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: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 13:48:09 -0600
Subject: Re: GUNH EN HSUCIA -- 1Ti 2.11 

At 5:38 AM 1/11/96, Shaughn Daniel wrote:
>I need interaction on this stuff please.

You may get more than you bargained for!

>1. Does it contradict Paul's teaching in 1Co where women apparently can
>prophecy and pray with their heads covered?

Yes, I think it does. It also, in my opinion, contradicts Paul's teaching
in Galatians 3:28. I am voicing ONLY my own OPINION (although there are
others who share it) here, but I seriously doubt Paul wrote 1 Timothy (or 2
Tim or Titus); I think it's deutero-Pauline and that these pastoral
epistles definitely reflect the period when the church is becoming more
institutionalized and losing its revolutionary moral edge--is assimilating
more to the norms of society around it, including late-1st-century
hierarchical attitudes.

>2. Is prophecying different from DIDASKEIN? (see 1Ti 2.12).

Yes, I believe that it is.

>3. What do you think of this rendering of v. 11? "But I do not allow women
>to teach IN A WAY THAT (OUDE) they exercise authority over men, but to be
>in submission (EN HSUCIA)"

I don't really think this is kosher, although it is perhaps a matter of
interpretation. I'd take it as, "But I do not allow women to teach nor (for
that matter) to exercise a position of authority over males at all, but (I
require them) to keep still.

>4. Can EN HSUCIA mean something like "to have a quiet manner", etc.,
>without implying that they are not allowed to teach at all?

That's possible, although personally I rather doubt it; fundamentally it
means "at peace," "calm." In older Greek, hHSUCIA is close to being a
virtue in its own right; there is an ode of Pindar that begins: "FILOFRON
hHSUCIA." It is Pythian 8, probably the last and, for my money, the
greatest of Pindar's poems expressing the Greek tragic sense of life. In
Thucydides it seems to characterize Spartan foreign policy as "quietism"--a
slowness to respond to provocation--as opposed to Athenian foreign policy
characterized as POLUPRAGMOSUNH, or "meddling in other people's business."
It's in that exchange of speeches in Book 1 where the Spartans hear
speeches by Corinthians and Athenians and then decide to make way against
Athens. So in this exchange hHSUCIA comes to be a moral equivalent of
SWFROSUNH, in the sense of "minding one's own business" (pretty much what
DIKAIOSUNH turns out to be in Plato's Republic, when finally defined as TO
TA hEAUTOU PRATTEIN TE KAI ECEIN). Perhaps I am reading too much from Attic
usage into it, but I'm inclined to think that the sense in of EN hHSUCIAi
in 1 Tim 11 turns out to be pretty much "but to mind their own business."

I would hope that we don't get carried away into discussion of the question
of contradiction of Paul's views elsewhere here: we're not going to agree
on that matter at all; the more significant question to resolve at this
point, I think, is what can the Greek of this verse legitimately be said to
mean?

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, 11 Jan 1996 13:32:43 +0800
Subject: Didache 1:5

Carl,

  Okay, here's the whole sentence.  See if this works better.
OUAI TW LAMBONONTI.  EI MEN GAR ChREIAN EChWN LAMBANEI TIS, AQWOS ESTAI.  (O DE MH ChREIAN EChWN DWSEI DIKAN, (HINA TI' ELABE KAI ESI TI'.

Also, I'm puzzled because Lightfoot translated EKTEN IDIWN ChARISMATWN
as "from His own bounties".  I think it's pretty obvios this is a 
plural, which I wasn't quite sure how to handle because the antecedent
is singular, but this translation can't be right.  Thanks.



Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA  

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

From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 16:35:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Lexicon for LXX -- which L7S

Ken Litwak asks about which LSJ to use for preparing LXX.  My answer is
similar to Carl Conrad's, but with a twist.  First, the "Abridged" and
"Intermediate" L&S lexicons are well over a century old, as Carl says.
And they are virtually useless for LXX.
	But the pre-1940 Liddell-Scott is NOT LSJ -- Jones was first and
main editor of the revision (9th, "New Edition"), finished by McKenzie
after his death.  What you have on order IS the 1940 "9th, New Edition"
with a NEW Supplement by Glare (replacing Barber's 1968 Supplement).
	For LXX purposes, however, I can tell you from years of experience
that the previous, 8th Edition, is more helpful.  Not that you won't find
the words in the 9th; but there was deliberate abbreviation and culling done
for the 9th edition, to make room for other more important material, probably
on the ground that LXX is translated Greek.  In any case, until LXX
lexicography catches up (I made posts on this about a year ago), you
MUST use an "unabridged" L&S, with a slight edge toward the 8th edition
ratherthan the otherwise-far-superior 9th.
	If you an borrow either 8th or 9th, Ken, do it; but DON'T use
EITHER the "Little Liddell" or the "Middle Liddell"!

CORRECTION IN 2ND PARAGRAPH ABOVE:  As those who suffer through my posts 
know, I can't edit e-mail as I write it; mistakes stand.  (This is what
I get for using a uniersity-freebie.)  A line dropped out after the second
line of paragraph 2.   Read:                    finished by McKenzie
who was Jones's "assistant" editor and "saw...the work to its end", published

after his death.

In fact, McKenzie died two years before Jones did, and neither of them saw the
final publication of the last fascicles of the Lexicon.


Edward Hobbs

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

From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 17:16:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Corrected version of post on LXX/lexicons

CORRECTED COPY --SORRY FOR MESSY PREVIOUS POST!

Ken Litwak asks about which LSJ to use for preparing LXX.  My answer is
similar to Carl Conrad's, but with a twist.  First, the "Abridged" and
"Intermediate" L&S lexicons are well over a century old, as Carl says.
And they are virtually useless for LXX.
	But the pre-1940 Liddell-Scott is L&S, NOT LSJ -- Jones was first and
main editor of the revision (9th, "New Edition"), finished by McKenzie,
who was Jones's "assistant" editor and "saw...the work to its end", but
not published until after his death.  (In fact, McKenzie died two years
before Jones did, and neither of them saw the final publication of the last 
fascicles of the Lexicon.)  What you have on order IS the 1940 "9th, New
Edition" with a NEW Supplement by Glare (replacing Barber's 1968 Supplement).
	For LXX purposes, however, I can tell you from years of experience
that the previous, 8th Edition, is more helpful.  Not that you won't find
the words in the 9th; but there was deliberate abbreviation and culling done
for the 9th edition, to make room for other more important material, probably
on the ground that LXX is translated Greek.  In any case, until LXX
lexicography catches up (I made posts on this about a year ago), you
MUST use an "unabridged" L&S, with a slight edge toward the 8th edition
rather than the otherwise-far-superior 9th.
	If you an borrow either 8th or 9th, Ken, do it; but DON'T use
EITHER the "Little Liddell" or the "Middle Liddell"!


Edward Hobbs

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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 16:29:24 -0600
Subject: Re: Didache 1:5

At 11:32 PM 1/10/96, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>Carl,
>
>  Okay, here's the whole sentence.  See if this works better.
>OUAI TW LAMBONONTI.  EI MEN GAR ChREIAN EChWN LAMBANEI TIS, AQWOS ESTAI.
>(O DE MH ChREIAN EChWN DWSEI DIKAN, (HINA TI' ELABE KAI ESI TI'.

There's still something missing. It reads: "Woe to him who takes. For if
(on the one hand) someone takes because he has need, he will be scot-free.
But the one who does not have need will be punished: why did he take it and
for what?" (assuming that after the comma the reading is hINA TI ELABE KAI
EIS TI--and I assume that you've deliberately emphasized the acute accents
indicating that we're dealing with the interrogative TI here)

Yes, I'd suppose that we have a solecism here in that hINA TI'--the hINA is
being used as a preposition with the TI' as if the hINA were an equivalent
of DIA. I think I've seen this in papyri; clearly the reason it comes about
is that the hINA regularly introduces purposes clauses (and in fact
originally is a relative pronoun in the acc. meaning the same thing as
French "a` fin que"). I think what we have here is an elliptical clause
that completes the original ending in AQWOS ESTAI. Freely, I make it, "But
the one who has no need will be punished, (for) why did he take it, and for
what?"

>Also, I'm puzzled because Lightfoot translated EKTEN IDIWN ChARISMATWN
>as "from His own bounties".  I think it's pretty obvios this is a
>plural, which I wasn't quite sure how to handle because the antecedent
>is singular, but this translation can't be right.  Thanks.

Are you sure that it wasn't EK TWN IDIWN CARISMATWN? If the text reads
EKTEN, it is meaningless (although in Homer it might mean something like,
"he killed"), in which case Lightfoot viewed the text as erroneous and
surmised that what was meant was EK TWN. With that alteration of the Greek,
"from his bounties" is perfectly reasonable.

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: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 17:08:39 +0400
Subject: Re: Didache 1:5

Ken wrote;
>Carl,
>
>  Okay, here's the whole sentence.  See if this works better.
>OUAI TW LAMBONONTI.  EI MEN GAR ChREIAN EChWN LAMBANEI TIS, AQWOS ESTAI.
>(O DE MH ChREIAN EChWN DWSEI DIKAN, (HINA TI' ELABE KAI ESI TI'.

There is a typo in the next to last word - EIS.  The hINA clause is
described in L&S as hINA used with the past tense of the indicative mood to
imply a consequence that is now impossible.  The clause just before asserts
that the person who takes charity when he has no need will be condemned.
The hINA clause indicates the nature of the condemnation. He is condemned
because he took something and "for what?"  Those of us who read primarily
the NT Text are not accustomed to seeing hINA clauses with indicative
verbs, except an occasional future.

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



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

From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 17:43:34 +0400
Subject: Re: Almost biblical Greek questions

I've now had time to fetch Ken's original post from my office and read it
with the text of the Apostolic Fathers in my hand.

>   I'd like to ask some questions about the Didache*, which frequently reminds
>me of NT texts but of course the author feels the need to use
>hapax legomena words for vices every second word.  I know it's not quite
>biblical Greek but parts are pretty close.
>1. In Didache III, there are several verses which include mhde .... mhde.
>such as "neither jealous nor contentious nor hot-tempered".  These are
>typically preceded by an exhortation beginning with ou ginou.

In Dicache III the phrase is not OU GINOU but MN GINOU the second person
sing. imperative of GINOMAI.  Vs. 2 "Do not become given to anger." Vs. 3
"Do not become a lustful person." Vs 4 "Do not become given to omens which
lead to idolatry."  Vs. 5 "Do not become a liar." The phrases MHDE . . .
MHDE simply add further prohibitions in words that are often closely
related to the word in the first prohibition.  It is a poetic way (even
preachy) covering all bases. For eg. in vs 2 the prohibition "Do not become
given to anger for anger leads to murder,"  is followed by the additional
prohibitions which can lead to murder, i.e., "nor jealousy nor envy nor
passion."

>I'm wondierng
>if the ginou should be seen as implied in the following coordinated mhd
>clauses, or if isqe is implied or if these should be understood with no
>verb at all.  I would previously have gone for the first or second choice
>except that I've now read Porter arguing that the undestanding of
>nominal clauses as having an elided auxillary verb is incorrect (anyone want
>to comment on that argument?).
By isqe I suppose you mean ISQI, the present imperative 2nd sing of EIMI.
There are times in the NT where GINOMAI is a synonym for EIMI.  Here is
close and can be translated "Do not be . . ."

>2.  In I:5, it reads (ina ti elabe kai eis ti.  I don't think I've seen any
>thing like that before.  I know how Lightfoot translated it but I'd appreciate
>other suggestions and how one would go about figuring out exaclty what this
>should mean.  It doesn't seem to follow readily from what preceded it.  It
>seems odd to have interrogative pronouns/particles in the middle of a hina
>clause.
See earlier post.

>3. In II:4, pagis gar qanatou (h diglwssia, does the definite article specify
>that diglwssia is the subject and pagis is the object or vice-versa or what?
>I know this has been somewhat discussed in the context of John 1:1 but I've
>gotten lost in that discussion by the critiques of various rules about this.
DIGLWSSIA is the subject and PAGIS is the predicate nominative.  The
article does indicate that.  The previous post was concerning whether the
fact that QEOS without the article refered to God or should be translated
divine.  There was never any doubt that hO LOGOS was the subject.

>4.  Finally,  II:7 says ou mishseis panta anqrwpou.  I think this says
>"You shall not hate every person", while Lightfoot translates it as
>"thou shalt not hate any man".  I don't think I accept translating pas as
>"any".  that's what tis is for.  Comments?
PAS in the singular with a singular noun does mean any man when used the
negative.  "You shall not hate any person."


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



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

End of b-greek-digest V1 #74
****************************

** 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