b-greek-digest V1 #80
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 17 January 1996 Volume 01 : Number 080
In this issue:
Greek Concordance update
MPol 10: Grammar questions
Re: hINATI' in Didache 5
Re: Greek Concordance update
Re: KAQIHMI in Rom. 1:28
Re: Bible Software
From: Eric Weiss <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 11:37:14 EST
Subject: Greek Concordance update
Does the lack of response to my question as to whether Kohlenberger's
Complete Greek Concordance replaces (at a much lower cost) Aland's Computer
Concordance mean that no one has compared the two or has an answer?
Just asking ...
From: Kenneth Litwak <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 10:54:39 +0800
Subject: MPol 10: Grammar questions
In spite of the assurances I've received that the Didache and MPol are
easy Greek (how depressing), I have a question or two about the
text of MPol 10.
1. 10:2. I'm unsure of what DEDIDAGMEQA is. I am guessing it is from
DIDASKO, but I've no lexicon or pony which gives any of the perfect forms
of DIDASKW. If, as I'm guessing, this is the Perf mid./pass ind, then
it would be "we have been taught" I think, but I'm not sure, because I'm
not sure it's indicative.
2. 10:1, PROSPOIEI is rendered by Bauer and Lightfoot, "You pretend".
I have a problem with that. This form could be either the 3ms Pres act ind.
or it could be the 2ms Pres act imperative. The former makes no sense, but
the latter would be a command, not a statement. Does non-NT Greek use the
imperative for the indicative regularly (remember this is supposed to be
3. 10:2, SU MEN KAN LOGOU HXIWSA. Bauer renders this "I should have counted you
worthy" and I add "of the word". Unless I'm mistaken, this is an indicative.
Where does the "should" come from?
4. 10:2, KATA TO PROSHKON. When I saw the KATA TO I expected an articular
infinitive, not a prepostion+article+participle. Bauer says this means
"as is fitting". Can someone explain this construction to me?
Sorry about the easy Greek questions.
"To the Didache and Beyond"
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 14:10:44 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: hINATI' in Didache 5
On Mon, 15 Jan 1996, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> I think, Ken, that what you're experiencing in reading patristic Greek is
> not the exception but the rule: ALL of it is harder than most of the Greek
> you read in the NT. There are several reasons for this; I'll only name a
> couple: (1) Once the Christian faith definitively leaves the Hellenistic
> Jewish linguistic sphere affected by LXX (Semitizing) Greek constructions
> and enters the mainstream of Greco-Roman Koine, the more it will be
> expressed in the literary and administrative language normal to
> Greek-speaking Gentiles of the Roman empire; (2) by no means unrelated to
> the foregoing, the style of the Greek is going to reflect a somewhat
> standardized Greek educational curriculum emphasizing the literary classics
> and rhetoric; this is all the more true in the second century of our era,
> when the schools are increasingly subject to a movement to write Greek not
> in the spoken vernacular Koine but in the archaizing Attic of the 5th and
> 4th centuries B.C.E.
Do you consider the Shepherd of Hermas to be difficult to read also?
Unlike the Didache and Polycarp, I have found it relatively easy to read.
David R. Mills
Applied English Center
University of Kansas
From: Carlton Winbery <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 18:08:51 -0600
Subject: Re: Greek Concordance update
>Does the lack of response to my question as to whether Kohlenberger's
>Complete Greek Concordance replaces (at a much lower cost) Aland's Computer
>Concordance mean that no one has compared the two or has an answer?
I have looked at Kohlenberger's, but I do not recall the details of any
differences from Aland. My concordance root was Schmoller's Handkonkordanz
and then Moulton and Geden, then Aland Computer Concordance. I also use in
our library Band I of Aland, Vollst=E4ndige Konkordanz zum griechischen neue=
Testament. The latter, I much prefer over the Computer Cordance, but the
price is prohibitive even for many libraries. You can get band II of the
Vollst=E4ntige Konkordanz for about $90.00, but that is not really a
concordance. My answer is that is Kolenberger gives you the same features
as Aland, then go with the cheaper price provided it is readable, something
I have to consider in recent days.
P.S. one reason I prefer the VKGNT to the Computer Concordance is that it
gives you readings in variants.
fax (318) 442-4996 or (318) 487-7425
From: Bernard Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 16:40:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: KAQIHMI in Rom. 1:28
On Mon, 15 Jan 1996, Jim Beale wrote:
> In Romans 1:28, the word KAQHKONTA appears, and is usually translated
> "not seemly," or "not proper," or some equivalent. Yet, it seems, for
> the most part, in the NT and classical greek, KAQIHMI means more like
> "to let down."
The problem is that you have the wrong root. Try KAQHKW.
ps. I answer email in sequence at the time I read it. Sorry if this has
already been addressed.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 19:36:10 -0500
Subject: Bible Software
I am about to come to a final decision about which Bible software package to
sink my money into, but I am having a very difficult time! I am struggling
between BibleWorks for Windows and Bible Windows. I have tried to gather as
much information as I can, but I would really like to hear from someone who
has tried one or the other package (or ideally both). Yes, I have already
visited Harry Hahne's web site, and unfortunately he only reviews BibleWorks
2.2.2 and Bible Windows 3.0. There is already a BibleWorks 3.x and Bible
Windows 4.0 (yes, I have also visited John Baima's web pages).
I am a New Testament doctoral student at the Graduate Theological Union
(Berkeley), and therefore I am seeking the software with the very best
original languages capabilities. Thank you for any help you can give me.
Sorry this is somewhat off topic. I figured there would be no better place to
elicit a response about Bible software designed for biblical scholars.
Kevin L. Anderson
From: David Housholder <email@example.com>
Date: 16 Jan 96 22:50:27 EST
Subject: Re: Bible Software
>> I am struggling between BibleWorks for Windows and Bible Windows
One person who may be able to give some good evaluation of the various packages
now available is Tim Walker <firstname.lastname@example.org>. Tim has done extensive
and intensive examination and evaluation of various original language Bible
programs. You may have seen his article in the November (I believe), 1994 issue
of Christian Computing Magazine. He has continued to work with and examine the
programs as they have developed since then.
I don't want to complicate life for you (I sympathize with you regarding the
difficulty of making a decision on this issue), but have you noted that the
Gramcord component of White Harvest's Bible Companion Series is now shipping?
This is the first full Windows presentation of the Gramcord database and search
Another point: If you are interested in Greek (and don't need Hebrew at this
point), both Bible Windows and Bible Companion offer you packages that cost
considerably less than what you would pay for BibleWorks.
A final comment: For studying the Greek text with parsings and morphological
analysis and access to lexicons, *all* of these programs will do a good job for
you and the one you choose is the one that you will be praising as the best in
existence after you have gotten used to it. You are not making a fatal error
whichever package you choose.
writing at 10:33 PM on Tuesday, January 16, 1996
End of b-greek-digest V1 #80
** 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: