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

b-greek-digest V1 #99




b-greek-digest            Friday, 2 February 1996      Volume 01 : Number 099

In this issue:

        Re: Upsilon 
        Re: Wis of Solomon 7 
        RE: Greek Fonts 
        Re: 1 Pet. 2:5 
        Re: Upsilon
        Re: 1 Pet. 2:5
        New member
        Re: Upsilon
        Logos, Sophia, Greek thought, & John 1
        Re: 1 Pet. 2:5
        Re: 1 Pet. 2:5
        Re: Upsilon
        Re: Upsilon
        Re: Upsilon
        Re: Upsilon
        Re: 1 Pet. 2:5
        Re: Upsilon
        Re: Upsilon
        Re: Upsilon 

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

From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 00:39:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Upsilon 

On 1/31/96, Eric Vaughan wrote:
>> Upsilon is transliterated as both "y" and "u".  What is the correct (or
>> accepted) pronunciation of it?  I've always (probably incorrectly)
>> pronounced it with a sound in between the long and short "u".  I
>> appreciate any answers.

"Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> on Wed, 31 Jan 1996 replies...
>The "Y" was taken into the Roman alphabet to represent upsilon precisely
>because it had a sound that was no longer represented by the Latin "U" (as
>presumably it would have been if upsilon's sound had not undergone a
>change). Probably by the Christian era it was already being pronounced as
>it is in modern Greek: like an English long E (exactly as iota, EI, OI were
>also pronounced).
>
>The "proper" pronunciation? The Erasmian standard has always been, I
>believe, that it should be like a French U or like a German umlauted U.
>
>There may be some alternative answers to this question; don't be surprised
>if there are!

  I would only add that some suggest that Upsilon has an occassional V sound
(as in Victory) or W sound (as in Wax).  Examples include the name DAUID
(David) and EUAGGELION (gospel).

Tim Staker, pastor
Poseyville Christian Church 
Poseyville, Indiana USA
Timster132@aol.com
http://home.aol.com/Timster132

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

From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 00:17:22 -0600
Subject: Re: Wis of Solomon 7 

Jim Beale writes:

>What makes you think that it is ignored or disavowed?

=B3It is very improbable that those fragments of the philosopher Heraclitus
=8A that contain the word lovgo" [logos] have anything to do with John=B9s
Logos-doctrine, or indeed any New Testament doctrine.=B2
- - Barrett, NT Background,p. 59.

=B3In the Hermetica pneu~ma [pneuma] has not the same meaning as in the Bibl=
e=B2.
- -Barrett, NT Background,p. 96.

I just noticed they're both from Barrett. I suppose it could be my ecelectic
reading selections, but I hardly ever read of the connection, and I am
*looking* for it. In my readings, I seem to find the worlds of Greek thought
and Christian thought separated out and regarded separately in separate
volumes or, at least, chapers with seldom a look back. As for this scholarly
list itself, perhaps everyone is aware of and assumes the connection, which
I didn't realize.

>The main difference it seems that John wanted to
>claim for the true Logos is in vs. 14 where it is said that the Logos
>becomes flesh, which is something that would probably not have been
>acceptable to Heraclitus or Plato either for that matter.

Incarnations in the mythological flesh are common (e.g. all the Greek gods),
but incarnations in the flesh flesh are rare to non-existent (?). As for the
logos, all gods representing bottle necks through which the mundane and
divine worlds must interact would incorporate at least some of the
attributes, e.g. Hermes.

Do you know, I've been messing around on the Internet so long, I've
forgotten where things are in my notes?

Thx to both Carl and Jim for their responses.

Will

(P.S. When the heck does Ken graduate? ;-)



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

From: "Albert Collver, III" <Collver@msn.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 96 14:12:18 UT
Subject: RE: Greek Fonts 

Hello,
	I thought I would put a name with "someone." Martin Luther said "Sin Boldly." 
If anyone is interested I can post the context in which he said it.
Al Collver
Vicar, Luther Memorial Chapel
Milwaukee, WI

- ----------
From:  Stilman Davis
Sent:  Thursday, February 01, 1996 7:04 AM
To:  B-Greek
Subject:  Greek Fonts

But as someone somewhere said, "Sin bravely!" The shareware people have it
right, price reasonably and let the user's conscience decide.


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

From: "James H. Vellenga" <jhv0@viewlogic.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 96 08:22:35 EST
Subject: Re: 1 Pet. 2:5 

> 1 Pet. 2:5 has KAI\ AU0TOI\ W(S LI/QOI ZW=NTES OI0KODOMEI=SQE OI)=KOS
> PNEUMATIKO\S  This is translated in the NIV as "you also, like living
> stones, are being built into a spiritual house",  NRSV has "like living
> stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house".  Similar
> translations are found in the RSV, KJV, and JB.  Any discussion of this
> construction in several commentaries centers on the verb, passive vs.
> imperative sense.
> 
> My problem, however, is "spiritual house" is in the NOMINATIVE!  Each of the
> versions translates as though it were an accusative.  So far, in an initial
> search of five commentaries and several grammars there has been NO
> discussion or explanation of the grammar.  LSJ does not record any instances
> of OI0KODOMEI=SQE being used like a copulative.
> 
> Would the grammar not result in a translation like, "you yourselves like
> living stones, a spiritual house, are being built into a holy priesthood" ???
> Am I blinded to something?  Comments appreciated.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm interested in this too -- as very much an amateur translator, I tried
"keep having yourselves also be built like living stones, [as] a spiritual
house, into a sacred priesthood for ..."

Regards,

James H. Vellenga                 |           jvellenga@viewlogic.com
Viewlogic Systems, Inc.         __|__         508-480-0881
293 Boston Post Road West         |           FAX: 508-480-0882
Marlboro, MA 01752-4615           |

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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 07:33:04 -0600
Subject: Re: Upsilon

On 2/1/96, Timster132@aol.com wrote:

> On 1/31/96, Eric Vaughan wrote:
> >> Upsilon is transliterated as both "y" and "u".  What is the correct (or
> >> accepted) pronunciation of it?  I've always (probably incorrectly)
> >> pronounced it with a sound in between the long and short "u".  I
> >> appreciate any answers.
>
> "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> on Wed, 31 Jan 1996 replies...
> >The "Y" was taken into the Roman alphabet to represent upsilon precisely
> >because it had a sound that was no longer represented by the Latin "U" (as
> >presumably it would have been if upsilon's sound had not undergone a
> >change). Probably by the Christian era it was already being pronounced as
> >it is in modern Greek: like an English long E (exactly as iota, EI, OI were
> >also pronounced).
> >
> >The "proper" pronunciation? The Erasmian standard has always been, I
> >believe, that it should be like a French U or like a German umlauted U.
> >
> >There may be some alternative answers to this question; don't be surprised
> >if there are!
>
>   I would only add that some suggest that Upsilon has an occassional V sound
> (as in Victory) or W sound (as in Wax).  Examples include the name DAUID
> (David) and EUAGGELION (gospel).

Interesting point, Tim. I wonder when this took place. We find historians
writing Greek in the first and later centuries of our era transliterating
Roman names like Varus and Vergilius as OUAROS and OUERGILIOS, which should
mean that the OU + vowel was our W sound. But when was the Latin
EVANGELIUM, representing the Greek EUAGGELION first being pronounced with
our V sound? Does anyone 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: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 07:32:53 -0600
Subject: Re: 1 Pet. 2:5

On 2/1/96, Tim McLay wrote:

> Perhaps I am missing something, and I would appreciate Carl or someone else
> pointing out the obvious, but if not, I intend on writing a note on this.
>
> 1 Pet. 2:5 has KAI\ AU0TOI\ W(S LI/QOI ZW=NTES OI0KODOMEI=SQE OI)=KOS
> PNEUMATIKO\S  This is translated in the NIV as "you also, like living
> stones, are being built into a spiritual house",  NRSV has "like living
> stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house".  Similar
> translations are found in the RSV, KJV, and JB.  Any discussion of this
> construction in several commentaries centers on the verb, passive vs.
> imperative sense.
>
> My problem, however, is "spiritual house" is in the NOMINATIVE!  Each of the
> versions translates as though it were an accusative.  So far, in an initial
> search of five commentaries and several grammars there has been NO
> discussion or explanation of the grammar.  LSJ does not record any instances
> of OI0KODOMEI=SQE being used like a copulative.
>
> Would the grammar not result in a translation like, "you yourselves like
> living stones, a spiritual house, are being built into a holy priesthood" ???
> Am I blinded to something?  Comments appreciated.

Actually I think these versions are all reasonable; I would understand
OIKOS PNEUMATIKOS as a predicate nominative rather than as a nominative in
apposition to the subject, i.e., ADVERBIALLY to the verb OIKODOMEISQE. I'm
more used to explaining this type of construction in Latin, but it strikes
me that in classical Attic KAQISTASQAI is used much the same way as FIERI
in Latin:

        Cicero Antoniusque fiunt consules.
        hO TE PERIKLHS KAI hO LAXHS KAQISTANTAI STRATHGOI.

This is not really quite the same thing, I think, as a predicate nominative
with a simple copulative verb like EINAI or GINESQAI, for it is a matter of
being constituted as consuls or commanders that is indicated by the verbs
in the above sentences. And yet it seems to me there's a rather thin line
between the copulative and the predicative constructions. Would the
linguists kindly comment on this matter?

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: GSHOGREN@shrsys.hslc.org
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 18:41:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: New member

Hi!  I've just gotten into B-GREEK, and have enjoyed the
conversation very much - esp. Carl Conrad's thoughts on learning
Greek.

Introduction: I teach Greek and exegesis, both here and in
Romania part-time.  My wife and I run a small publishing company,
called Stylus Publishing, that handles printed language tools. 
Among other things we handle my revision of Ben Chapman's Greek
NT Insert, also available on Logos CD.

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

From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 07:05:15 -0800
Subject: Re: Upsilon

Tim wrote:
>>   I would only add that some suggest that Upsilon has an occassional 
V sound
>> (as in Victory) or W sound (as in Wax).  Examples include the name 
DAUID
>> (David) and EUAGGELION (gospel).
>
You wrote:
>Interesting point, Tim. I wonder when this took place. We find 
historians
>writing Greek in the first and later centuries of our era transliterating
>Roman names like Varus and Vergilius as OUAROS and OUERGILIOS, which 
should
>mean that the OU + vowel was our W sound. But when was the Latin
>EVANGELIUM, representing the Greek EUAGGELION first being pronounced with
>our V sound? Does anyone know?
>
>Carl W. Conrad

I most certainly don't know, but I would add that my Greek friend Eleni, 
as well as a few local Greek restaurant workers use this pronounciation in 
certain dipthongs: TAU, AUTOS, and as you mentioned, EUANGGELION. So 
distraught was my friend with "schoolbook" pronouciation, that I  
incorporated a touch of the "V" sound in discussions with her, and 
generally retain that pronounciation in my oral reading out of respect.

I imagine the U, much like the LL in Spanish, has held many dialectical 
variations over so great a span of distance and years.

Ellen


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

From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 10:46:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Logos, Sophia, Greek thought, & John 1

	In the midst of these exchanges about John 1, I am hesitant to 
append anything after reading the excellent comments by Edgar Krentz; but 
perhaps a direct response to the question Will Wagers asked is in order.  
He wondered why an extra-biblical background for John 1 was ignored, or 
denied, in the literature.  The answer is, nothing could be further from 
the facts.  The literature is FULL of discussions of the issue, for about a 
century now.  And even C. H. Dodd, a relative conservative on John (see, 
for example, Bultmann's deservedly famous review of his IFG in the early 
1950's--made available in English by _Harvard Theological Review_, 
contrasting his own work on John with Dodd's), went into great detail about 
Stoic, Wisdom, and Hermetic backgrounds to John 1.
	Kingsley Barrett, though no conservative by American "conservative" 
standards. was to some extent fighting a rearguard action in his comments 
and in his commentary (which, however, I do love).

	But of course we should re-read Ed Krentz's fine post, after 
this rambling response.

Edward (never "Ed"!) Hobbs


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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 11:44:58 -0600
Subject: Re: 1 Pet. 2:5

I don't know whether Tim meant for this to go to the list, but I'll assume
so and forward it with my own response, now that I see Carlton has had some
input into it as well.

Let me add another question to Carlton: would you explain the sentence from
Acts that I've cited below any differently from the way you'd explain the 1
Pet 2:5 construction? It seems to me that the construction is the same
whether we take OIKODOMEISQE to be indicative or imperative.

>Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 10:48:22 -0600
>To: tmclay@atcon.com (Tim McLay)
>From: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl W. Conrad)
>Subject: Re: 1 Pet. 2:5
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>On 2/2/96, Tim McLay wrote:
>
>> Carl,
>>
>> >Actually I think these versions are all reasonable; I would understand
>> >OIKOS PNEUMATIKOS as a predicate nominative rather than as a nominative in
>> >apposition to the subject, i.e., ADVERBIALLY to the verb OIKODOMEISQE. I'm
>> >more used to explaining this type of construction in Latin, but it strikes
>> >me that in classical Attic KAQISTASQAI is used much the same way as FIERI
>> >in Latin:
>>
>> Thank you for an explanation.  However, 2 points: without checking each
>> occurrence, LSJ indicates OIKODOMEISQE is followed by an accusative(tho I
>> only have an old 6th ed. at home); it is strange that such a construction
>> has not even garnered a single comment in any of the secondary sources that
>> I have checked.  Off hand, I can't think of anything similar in the NT.
>
>I've just looked at LSJ; I think I can safely say that the accusative is
>quite proper with an ACTIVE form of the verb, whereas here we clearly have
>a PASSIVE (I don't see any indication of a usage in the middle voice,
>although that might reasonably be used with an accusative in the sense,
>"build oneself (a house)."
>
>I frankly think it hasn't been commented on because it's not really
>exceptional (I say this while very well aware that the commentaries always
>answer the questions that it occurs to the commentators to ask and all too
>rarely answer the question that I ask!); I was looking for an example of a
>comparable construction in the NT. Here's one:
>
>        Acts 1:23 KAI ESTHSAN DUO, IWSHF TON KALOUMENON BARSABBAN, hOS
>        EPEKLHQH IOUSTOS ...
>
>I think that the last clause is a reasonable parallel to your passage; and
>I think that there are actually several other verbs like KALEW that could
>be used in a passive with a predicate nominative readily.
>

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: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 12:14:40 -0600 
Subject: Re: 1 Pet. 2:5

>Perhaps I am missing something, and I would appreciate Carl or someone else
>pointing out the obvious, but if not, I intend on writing a note on this.
>
>1 Pet. 2:5 has KAI\ AU0TOI\ W(S LI/QOI ZW=NTES OI0KODOMEI=SQE OI)=KOS
>PNEUMATIKO\S  This is translated in the NIV as "you also, like living
>stones, are being built into a spiritual house",  NRSV has "like living
>stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house".  Similar
>translations are found in the RSV, KJV, and JB.  Any discussion of this
>construction in several commentaries centers on the verb, passive vs.
>imperative sense.
>
>My problem, however, is "spiritual house" is in the NOMINATIVE!  Each of the
>versions translates as though it were an accusative.  So far, in an initial
>search of five commentaries and several grammars there has been NO
>discussion or explanation of the grammar.  LSJ does not record any instances
>of OI0KODOMEI=SQE being used like a copulative.
>
>Would the grammar not result in a translation like, "you yourselves like
>living stones, a spiritual house, are being built into a holy priesthood" ???
>Am I blinded to something?  Comments appreciated.

Tim, I would tend to see this as you do in the last paragraph, except I
would see the verb as imperative.  "You, as living stones, a spiritual
house be built up (which means "let God build you") into . . . Carl Conrad
wrote;
>>>>This is not really quite the same thing, I think, as a predicate nominative
with a simple copulative verb like EINAI or GINESQAI, for it is a matter of
being constituted as consuls or commanders that is indicated by the verbs
in the above sentences. And yet it seems to me there's a rather thin line
between the copulative and the predicative constructions.<<<<
Because I agree that this is not quite the same as a predicate nominative
unless you understand a verb to be somewhere there I would go with
apposition.

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: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 11:38:32 -0600
Subject: Re: Upsilon

On 2/2/96, Carlton Winbery wrote:

> Carl Conrad responded to Tim;
> >>   I would only add that some suggest that Upsilon has an occassional V
>sound
> >> (as in Victory) or W sound (as in Wax).  Examples include the name DAUID
> >> (David) and EUAGGELION (gospel).
> >
> >Interesting point, Tim. I wonder when this took place. We find historians
> >writing Greek in the first and later centuries of our era transliterating
> >Roman names like Varus and Vergilius as OUAROS and OUERGILIOS, which should
> >mean that the OU + vowel was our W sound. But when was the Latin
> >EVANGELIUM, representing the Greek EUAGGELION first being pronounced with
> >our V sound? Does anyone know?
> >
> Interestingly enough modern Greek pronounces the name of EUSEBIUS as
> efsevius. The pronoun AUTOS is aftos.

Yes, I knew this was standard modern Greek; the question is at what time it
came to be the common Greek pronunciation. We do know that the Cyrillic
alphabet used Greek letters to write Russian (and later other Slavic
languages), and we know that it used B for the sound V. Was BASILEUS
already pronounced "vasilefs" at that time? A Greek-derived name such as
Eng. "Eugene" from EUGENHS has its Russian form as "Yevgeni." Is it a
Russian name from early times?

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: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 12:25:19 -0600 
Subject: Re: Upsilon

Carl Conrad responded to Tim;
>>   I would only add that some suggest that Upsilon has an occassional V sound
>> (as in Victory) or W sound (as in Wax).  Examples include the name DAUID
>> (David) and EUAGGELION (gospel).
>
>Interesting point, Tim. I wonder when this took place. We find historians
>writing Greek in the first and later centuries of our era transliterating
>Roman names like Varus and Vergilius as OUAROS and OUERGILIOS, which should
>mean that the OU + vowel was our W sound. But when was the Latin
>EVANGELIUM, representing the Greek EUAGGELION first being pronounced with
>our V sound? Does anyone know?
>
Interestingly enough modern Greek pronounces the name of EUSEBIUS as
efsevius. The pronoun AUTOS is aftos.

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: Stephen C Carlson <scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 12:53:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Upsilon

Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>On 2/1/96, Timster132@aol.com wrote:
>>   I would only add that some suggest that Upsilon has an occassional V sound
>> (as in Victory) or W sound (as in Wax).  Examples include the name DAUID
>> (David) and EUAGGELION (gospel).
>
>Interesting point, Tim. I wonder when this took place. We find historians
>writing Greek in the first and later centuries of our era transliterating
>Roman names like Varus and Vergilius as OUAROS and OUERGILIOS, which should
>mean that the OU + vowel was our W sound. But when was the Latin
>EVANGELIUM, representing the Greek EUAGGELION first being pronounced with
>our V sound? Does anyone know?

My source is W. Sidney Allen, VOX LATINA and VOX GRAECA, highly
recommended for those seriously interested in ancient pronunciation
of Latin and Greek.

According to the evidence, the fricative pronunciation of Latin V first
appeared sporadically in the first century A.D., became wide-spread in
the second century, but with a few pockets of the former pronunciation
("w") surviving until the fifth century.  The fricative pronunciation
of Greek AU and EU is difficult to date, but it probably happened some
time after the third century according to Jewish inscriptions in Roman
catacombs.

As for DAUID, Greek at the time did not have a 'v' sound, so upsilon
(or beta) would be the closest sound to represent it.  This does not
necessarily imply that upsilon had that sound, just that it was the
closest.

Stephen Carlson
- -- 
Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE
scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu              : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs
http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/     : chant the words.  -- Shujing 2.35

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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 11:44:21 -0600
Subject: Re: Upsilon

On 2/2/96, Carlton Winbery wrote:

> Carl Conrad responded to Tim;
> >>   I would only add that some suggest that Upsilon has an occassional V
>sound
> >> (as in Victory) or W sound (as in Wax).  Examples include the name DAUID
> >> (David) and EUAGGELION (gospel).
> >
> >Interesting point, Tim. I wonder when this took place. We find historians
> >writing Greek in the first and later centuries of our era transliterating
> >Roman names like Varus and Vergilius as OUAROS and OUERGILIOS, which should
> >mean that the OU + vowel was our W sound. But when was the Latin
> >EVANGELIUM, representing the Greek EUAGGELION first being pronounced with
> >our V sound? Does anyone know?
> >
> Interestingly enough modern Greek pronounces the name of EUSEBIUS as
> efsevius. The pronoun AUTOS is aftos.

Yes, I knew this was standard modern Greek; the question is at what time it
came to be the common Greek pronunciation. We do know that the Cyrillic
alphabet used Greek letters to write Russian (and later other Slavic
languages), and we know that it used B for the sound V. Was BASILEUS
already pronounced "vasilefs" at that time? A Greek-derived name such as
Eng. "Eugene" from EUGENHS has its Russian form as "Yevgeni." Is it a
Russian name from early times?

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: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 13:55:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: 1 Pet. 2:5

On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Tim McLay wrote:

> Perhaps I am missing something, and I would appreciate Carl or someone else
> pointing out the obvious, but if not, I intend on writing a note on this.
> 
> 1 Pet. 2:5 has KAI\ AU0TOI\ W(S LI/QOI ZW=NTES OI0KODOMEI=SQE OI)=KOS
> PNEUMATIKO\S  This is translated in the NIV as "you also, like living
> stones, are being built into a spiritual house",  NRSV has "like living
> stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house".  Similar
> translations are found in the RSV, KJV, and JB.  Any discussion of this
> construction in several commentaries centers on the verb, passive vs.
> imperative sense.
> 
> My problem, however, is "spiritual house" is in the NOMINATIVE!  Each of the
> versions translates as though it were an accusative.  So far, in an initial
> search of five commentaries and several grammars there has been NO
> discussion or explanation of the grammar.  LSJ does not record any instances
> of OI0KODOMEI=SQE being used like a copulative.
> 
> Would the grammar not result in a translation like, "you yourselves like
> living stones, a spiritual house, are being built into a holy priesthood" ???
> Am I blinded to something?  Comments appreciated.

	There may be an understood EINAI here between OIKODOMEISQE and 
OIKOS so that OIKOS PNEUMATIKOS is taken as a predicate nominative.  EIS 
hIERATEUMA...  then, would need to be understood as a supplementary 
thought, further explaining what it means to be "spiritual house" in the 
Lord and also expanding that thought to the activities of those who serve 
in such a house.

	If one were to take the passage as Tim does, OIKOS PNEUMATIKOS 
would more probably be vocative than nominative, because of where it is 
situated within the sentence.


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: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:18:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Upsilon

On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote:

> Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> >On 2/1/96, Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> >>   I would only add that some suggest that Upsilon has an occassional V sound
> >> (as in Victory) or W sound (as in Wax).  Examples include the name DAUID
> >> (David) and EUAGGELION (gospel).
> >
> >Interesting point, Tim. I wonder when this took place. We find historians
> >writing Greek in the first and later centuries of our era transliterating
> >Roman names like Varus and Vergilius as OUAROS and OUERGILIOS, which should
> >mean that the OU + vowel was our W sound. But when was the Latin
> >EVANGELIUM, representing the Greek EUAGGELION first being pronounced with
> >our V sound? Does anyone know?
> 
> My source is W. Sidney Allen, VOX LATINA and VOX GRAECA, highly
> recommended for those seriously interested in ancient pronunciation
> of Latin and Greek.
> 
> According to the evidence, the fricative pronunciation of Latin V first
> appeared sporadically in the first century A.D., became wide-spread in
> the second century, but with a few pockets of the former pronunciation
> ("w") surviving until the fifth century.  The fricative pronunciation
> of Greek AU and EU is difficult to date, but it probably happened some
> time after the third century according to Jewish inscriptions in Roman
> catacombs.
> 
> As for DAUID, Greek at the time did not have a 'v' sound, so upsilon
> (or beta) would be the closest sound to represent it.  This does not
> necessarily imply that upsilon had that sound, just that it was the
> closest.

	It is probably good to note that the Hebrew waw, which figures in the 
Hebrew of "David," may not have originally represented the "v" sound.  
Gesenius, in his grammar, classifies the waw as "sonant" rather than 
labial or labio-dental (p. 35).


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: Stephen C Carlson <scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 15:25:09 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Upsilon

David Moore wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote:
>> As for DAUID, Greek at the time did not have a 'v' sound, so upsilon
>> (or beta) would be the closest sound to represent it.  This does not
>> necessarily imply that upsilon had that sound, just that it was the
>> closest.
>
>	It is probably good to note that the Hebrew waw, which figures in the 
>Hebrew of "David," may not have originally represented the "v" sound.  
>Gesenius, in his grammar, classifies the waw as "sonant" rather than 
>labial or labio-dental (p. 35).

Waw was probably a sonant, or else the plene spelling in Hebrew will make
little sense, as well as the sound of the digamma.  The only issue, of
course, is when waw came to be a vav, so to speak, and I have no additional
information about that.  In either case, it is important to note that DAUID
does not necessarily represent the exact pronunciation of the Hebrew, just
a close one within the constraints of Greek phonology.

Stephen Carlson
- -- 
Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE
scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu              : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs
http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/     : chant the words.  -- Shujing 2.35

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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:26:17 -0600
Subject: Re: Upsilon 

I think Stephen's response to my earlier response to him might be of some
interest to the list. I will append one comment just ahead of his reply.

>Subject: Re: Upsilon
>To: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl W. Conrad)
>Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 15:13:47 -0500 (EST)
>From: "Stephen C Carlson" <scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Status:
>
>Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>>Thanks, Stephen, for this last clarification. Of course, I have Allen's
>>book over on my shelf and could have picked it off and looked at it before
>>spewing forth, but at least what I spewed forth was based on my reading of
>>some papyri from the last century BCE or first century CE. I suppose that
>>Allen's indication of the U sound as so late means the time by which the
>>change was complete.
>>
>>I do think Allen's a good book, but I'm not inclined to take everything he
>>says as "gospel." For instance, I think there's not enough extant evidence
>>for some of the sounds. He says that -TT- and -SS- (as in Attic and Ionic
>>spellings of the verb PRATTW/PRASSW) were pronounced as doubled-T and
>>doubled-S respectively; I am really inclined to think that they were
>>pronouns like -tch- in MATCH and like -sh- in MASH respectively. But I
>>can't prove it either.

Additional note added by CWC: My reasoning for this view of -TT- and -SS-
is the comparable case in Latin of -tia/-tio words which are spelled in
Latin vulgar Latin as -cia/-cio (e.g. the verb NUNTIO = NUNCIO, the noun
PATIENTIA = PACIENCIA --> Italian "pazienzia" pronounced
"pot-see-ent-see-a" and French "patience" pronounced "pa-see-once"). My
difficulty has always been figuring out how PRATTW or KHRUTTW with a
double-T sound could derive from an original PRAX-YW OR KHRUK-YW; but it
could well happen in the same way that these -tia/-tio forms alter, or so I
surmise. I add yet once again, however, that I certainly can't prove this.


>Allen argues that if it were the case one would see -TS- in the
>inscriptional evidence.  It is an argument from silence, true enough,
>but it does have some cogency, given the prevalence of other
>non-standard spellings.  Allen's case, however, would only apply in
>Attic-speaking areas.  There is no way that those dialects with -SS-
>would ever write -TS- for the sound even by mistake.
>
>Diachronically, the affricate pronunciation of -TT- and -SS- makes a
>great deal of sense.  Further, I have often pondered the connection
>between ASSURIA and Ashur, with the double sigma for shin.  Finally, at
>one point I was entertaining the idea that doubled consonants tended to
>show some palatalization (esp. -LL-, cf. Spanish -ll-, Ital. -gli-).
>It explained some verb forms, but I'm no longer sure it is tenable.
>
>I know that not everything that Allen says is to be taken as "gospel"
>because I found out from the Indoeuropean list that Allen's dismissal
>of Buck's suggestion for the source of the rough breathing over an
>initial upsilon is not persuasive (see VG, 3d ed. p.68 n.15).
>
>Stephen
>
>P.S. You may forward to B-Greek, if you wish.
>--
>Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE
>scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu              : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs
>http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/     : chant the words.  -- Shujing 2.35
>

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/



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

End of b-greek-digest V1 #99
****************************

** 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