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

b-greek-digest V1 #108




b-greek-digest            Friday, 9 February 1996      Volume 01 : Number 108

In this issue:

        re: Romans 1:17
        Re: 1 John 5:7 and the NKJV 
        Re: Priscilla/Hebrews++
        Ephesians 4:4
        RE: Wis of Solomon 7
        Re: Priscilla/Hebrews++
        Re: Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrews 
        re: Romans 1:17
        Re: Authorship of Hebrews 
        Re: Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrews
        Barr's _NT Story: An Introduction_ 
        Re: Ephesians 4:4
        Greek fonts & Win95 & GRAMCORD Institute announcements 
        Re: Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrews
        [none]
        Re: Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrews
        Re: 1 John 5:7 In or out???? 
        IOUDAIS-L
        Apollos/Hebrews

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

From: J.D.F.=van=Halsema%BW_KG%TheoFilos@esau.th.vu.nl
Date: Thu,  8 Feb 96 09:37:51 MET
Subject: re: Romans 1:17

Re: Romans 1: 17

as regards the "difficult phrase EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN" I think one has to 
compare 2 Cor. 2:16: HOIS DE OSMH EK ZWHS EIS ZWHN
I have not been able to check whether this use of EK - EIS can be found in 
the LXX too.
I think one has to take into account the stylistic character of this phrase 
EK - EIS, i.e. perhaps we should be careful in inferring theological 
conclusions from this phrase.

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik van Halsema                 |Research Assistant Vrije Universiteit
j.d.f.van_halsema@esau.th.vu.nl  |Faculty of Theology
jdfvh@dds.nl                     |De Boelelaan 1105,  1081 HV  Amsterdam,  NL
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

From: Cierpke@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 09:43:12 -0500
Subject: Re: 1 John 5:7 and the NKJV 

Bro. Redmond:

A good book to explain the whole NKJV is "The New King James Version in the
Great Tradition" by Arthur L. Farstad. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989. 171
pp. It is sort of a apologia for the NKJV and explains some of the philosophy
and justification of the version

Kevin W. Woodruff
Reference Librarian
Cierpke Memorial Library
Temple Baptist Seminary
Tennessee Temple University
1815 Union Ave.
Chattanooga, TN 37404
423/493-4252
Cierpke@aol.com



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

From: "Barbara OCleirigh u 2>/dev/null" <oxcl1058@mach1.wlu.ca>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 08:58:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Priscilla/Hebrews++

A friend who has studied this question believes that Apollos is the 
author, based on echoes of Philo, who of course was teaching in 
Apollos' home town of Alexandria.  Does this seem credible?

Barbara O'Cleirigh
MA student, Religion & Culture Dept.
Wilfrid Laurier University
Waterloo, Ont. Canada
oxcl1058@mach1.wlu.ca

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

From: Northland Bible College <northlan@soonet.ca>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 10:35:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Ephesians 4:4

Another Teaser Folks!

We studied this verse this morning, which raised another question.

The coordinate clause "[THERE IS] ONE BODY AND ONE SPIRIT" is immediately 
appended with a subordinate clause "JUST AS YOU WERE ALSO CALLED IN ONE 
HOPE OF YOUR CALLING".

The first observation we made was that KAThWS suggests a similar 
relationship between the two nouns in the first as between the two nouns 
in the second.  Ie:  SWMA relates to PNEUMA as ELPIDI relates to KLHSEWS.

[Theologically, the case can be made, based on 1 Cor.12:13 for example, 
that PNEUMA is causative for, and chronologically antecedent to SWMA.] 
Ie. the one Spirit brought the one Body into existence.

This then would lead to the conclusion that Paul's point here is that 
KLHSEWS is likewise causative for, and chronologically antecedent to 
ELPIDI.  Ie. the one Calling resulted in the one Hope.

Syntactically then, this raises a difficulty.  We took KLHSEWS as a 
subjective genitive (based on the KAThWS line of reasoning) with a noun 
of action - but is ELPIDI really a noun of action?

Or is there a better way to classify KLHSEWS?

Or is this an instance where I misused a hermeneutic at the beginning and 
thus got what I syntactically deserved in the end?

Sincerely,


Steve.
Northlan@soonet.ca

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

From: Jim Stamper <jstamper@shentel.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 12:01:11 -0500
Subject: RE: Wis of Solomon 7

At 02:35 PM 2/7/96 -0500, you wrote:
>As to the reason why the Protestant church rejected WS, I cannot say.
However, it 
>would be helpful to know if the apocryphal books were rejected as a group or 
>individually.  I suspect the former, thus WS's rejection may have been a
decision based 
>more on 2Macc and Tobit than on anything in WS itself.  

My recollection is that there hasn't been a formal, systematic "rejection"
in Protestant denominations.  The Anglican Articles of Religion of 1553
which were generally consistent with the Reformation theology of the
Continent said:

        "And the other Books (as Hierome [Jerome] saith) the Church doth
read for 
        example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not
apply them
        to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

and it goes on to list what we call the Apocrypha, including WS.

As I remember, in the missionary explosion of the 19th Century, the British
and Foreign Bible Society started printing the AV [KJV] without the
Aprocrypha to save money and printers in USA followed suit.  An economic
rather than a theological decision.  As a consequence over time a lot of
people acquired Bibles without the Apocrypha.

In my travels, whenever I can, I try to look in churches at their old
lectern Bibles.  My impression has been that most of the real antiques
include these books regardless of the denomination where they were located.
Don't know if the Apocrypha was read on Sundays or not and admit this is
very unscientific survey.

Authorized Roman Catholic translations, of course, included the Apocrypha.
As a child in **very** Protestant surroundings I was taught our Bible didn't
include them because they were "Catholic."  The Anglicans/Episcopalians have
always included them, but not very much, in their lectionaries.


Jim-

James H. Stamper
PO Box 666
Woodstock, VA 22664
(540)459-2720


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

From: "Alan D. Bulley" <s458507@aix1.uottawa.ca>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 10:54:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Priscilla/Hebrews++

On Thu, 8 Feb 1996, Barbara OCleirigh u 2>/dev/null wrote:

> A friend who has studied this question believes that Apollos is the 
> author, based on echoes of Philo, who of course was teaching in 
> Apollos' home town of Alexandria.  Does this seem credible?

It's more credible than many options, but is no more subject to proof 
than any other.
                                                                                
Alan D. Bulley                                                                  
Faculty of Theology/Faculte de theologie |s458507@aix1.uottawa.ca             
Saint Paul University/Universite St-Paul |abulley@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca         
Ottawa, Canada                                                                  
                                                                                
Fax: (613) 782-3005                                                             


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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 12:17:05 -0600
Subject: Re: Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrews 

Charles Puskas sent the following to me; it quite clearly needs to be
posted to the list as well, and he has authorized me to forward it.

>Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 12:16:23 -0500
>From: CPuskas@aol.com
>To: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
>Subject: Re: Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrews
>Status:
>
>Concerning the authorship of Hebrews, Adolf Harnack in ZNTW 1 (1900) 16-41
>proposed that Priscilla, with the assistance of her husband, might have
>written Hebrews, and he supported his contention by appealing to the enigma
>of anonymity.  The name of a woman as author would have been so  prejudicial
>to its acceptance that it would be omitted for reason of prudence.  This pair
>were illustrious teachers as indicated by their ability to instruct the
>eloquent Alexandrian, Apollos (Acts 18:24-28). Priscilla must have been of
>high intelligence (academically and spiritually) to instruct the
>educated/LOGIOS Apollos.  All had close associations with Timothy (Heb 13:23)
>and had come under the influence of Paul.   Harnack also notes that Paul
>seems now to be dead and had in has last letter (2 Tim) mentioned Timothy,
>Aquila, and Priscilla, and this seems to fit the circumstances of Hebrews (as
>Harnack sees it).  Moreover, since the author is so closely identified with
>his readers and hopes to return to them, this would be intelligible if the
>group were the churh in Aquila and Priscilla's house.  In the list of heroes
>in Heb 11, certain women are mentioned and this is supposed to indicate a
>woman's interest.  The use of the singular  (13:19,22,23) along with the
>plural (13:18), lends some support for joint authorship.  In further support
>or Harnack's view, the pilgrim approach (11:13-16), the reference to nautical
>terms (3:6,14; 6:19; 13:9), the interest in SKnNn since Aquila and Priscilla
>were tentmakers; and the interest in childhood (5:12; 11:23; 12:7) and
>parenthood (7:3; 11:23).
>
>The above view presupposes the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, the
>reliability of the evidence in Acts 18 and seeks to make a specific case from
>general themes and motifs.   In my book, THE LETTERS OF PAUL (Liturgical
>Press, 1993), where I discuss Hebrews, I discuss these various authorship
>theories.  I conclude that the author is anonymous, at least a second
>generation Christian (Heb 2:3), a Greek-speaking believer probably
>unacquainted with the languages of Hebrew & Aramaic and the land of
>Israel/Palestine, only casually familiar with Pauline Christianity (despite
>13:23).   His (or her) viewpoint regarding the obsoleteness of Jewish
>tradition is similar to that of the second and fourth Gospel, Barnabas, and
>Diognetus (the last two expanding more on this theme).
>
>
>Charles B. Puskas, Jr., Ph.D.
>Religious Studies Unit
>College of Liberal Arts
>Metropolitan State University
>Phone 612-486-8659
>FAX  same
>CPuskas@aol.com
>

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, 8 Feb 1996 09:23:49 +0800
Subject: re: Romans 1:17

Erik van Halsema wrote: 
> Re: Romans 1: 17
> 
> as regards the "difficult phrase EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN" I think one has to 
> compare 2 Cor. 2:16: HOIS DE OSMH EK ZWHS EIS ZWHN
> I have not been able to check whether this use of EK - EIS can be found in 
> the LXX too.
> I think one has to take into account the stylistic character of this phrase 
> EK - EIS, i.e. perhaps we should be careful in inferring theological 
> conclusions from this phrase.
I think this raises a very important point, not just about this text but
many NT texts.  It seems as though we must do exegesis BEFORE we can translate
when it comes to many prepositions, which I am very uncomfortable with, since
I assume that Paul's original hearers/readers just "heard" EK and EIS and knew
what they most probably meant.  How can we go about deriving a translation
without having to do exegesis firsxt?  To use a very different passage, 
1 Cor 11:10, the understanding of EPI THS KEFALHS depends exegesis.  You have to
decide what Paul is saying before you can translate (or in case of virtually all
modern translation, maul) this phrase.  If anyone has suggestions for how to 
get around this type of problem, I'd like to hear them.

Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA

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

From: CPuskas@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 12:38:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Authorship of Hebrews 

Further discussion on Priscilla as author of Hebrews as argued by A. Harnack
(1900) and R. Hoppin (1969) is found in Mary Rose D'Angelo, "Hebrews,"
WOMEN'S BIBLE COMMENTARY (Westminster/John Knox, 1992) 364-67.

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

From: "Alan D. Bulley" <s458507@aix1.uottawa.ca>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 15:01:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrews

On Thu, 8 Feb 1996, Carl W. Conrad wrote:

> Charles Puskas sent the following to me; it quite clearly needs to be
> posted to the list as well, and he has authorized me to forward it.
>
> >The above view presupposes the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, the
> >reliability of the evidence in Acts 18 and seeks to make a specific case from
> >general themes and motifs.   In my book, THE LETTERS OF PAUL (Liturgical
> >Press, 1993), where I discuss Hebrews, I discuss these various authorship
> >theories.  I conclude that the author is anonymous, at least a second
> >generation Christian (Heb 2:3), a Greek-speaking believer probably
> >unacquainted with the languages of Hebrew & Aramaic and the land of
> >Israel/Palestine, only casually familiar with Pauline Christianity (despite
> >13:23).   His (or her) viewpoint regarding the obsoleteness of Jewish
> >tradition is similar to that of the second and fourth Gospel, Barnabas, and
> >Diognetus (the last two expanding more on this theme).

Many thanks to Prof. Puskas for his judicious summary of the issues 
surrounding the authorship of Hebrews. It seems to me that we really 
can't go much beyond this, given the real scarcity of significant 
evidence. If we were to add anything to the list, it might only be that 
the author may have had some degree of rhetorical training and some 
familiarity with sermonic techniques of the Hellenistic synagogue.

Gee, are we ready for a Hebrews-L?
                                                                                
Alan D. Bulley                                                                  
Faculty of Theology/Faculte de theologie |s458507@aix1.uottawa.ca             
Saint Paul University/Universite St-Paul |abulley@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca         
Ottawa, Canada                                                                  
                                                                                
Fax: (613) 782-3005                                                             


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

From: "Alan D. Bulley" <s458507@aix1.uottawa.ca>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 15:06:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Barr's _NT Story: An Introduction_ 

This message is being cross-posted, so you may see it more than once.

I would be interested in knowing if anyone on the list has used David 
Barr's _New Testament Story: An Introduction_ (Wadsworth Pub. Co., c1995) 
as a text for an undergraduate course in NT. 

Did you find that the text presents the subject in a helpful way? How did 
students respond to the book and its approach?

Please feel free to reply to me off the list.

Thanks in advance,
                                                                                
Alan D. Bulley                                                                  
Faculty of Theology/Faculte de theologie |s458507@aix1.uottawa.ca             
Saint Paul University/Universite St-Paul |abulley@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca         
Ottawa, Canada                                                                  
                                                                                
Fax: (613) 782-3005                                                             




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

From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 15:20:52 -0600 
Subject: Re: Ephesians 4:4

Steve Glock wrote re Eph. 4:4;
>The coordinate clause "[THERE IS] ONE BODY AND ONE SPIRIT" is immediately
>appended with a subordinate clause "JUST AS YOU WERE ALSO CALLED IN ONE
>HOPE OF YOUR CALLING".
>
>The first observation we made was that KAThWS suggests a similar
>relationship between the two nouns in the first as between the two nouns
>in the second.  Ie:  SWMA relates to PNEUMA as ELPIDI relates to KLHSEWS.

I don't see this.  SWMA and PNEUMA are coordinated by KAI whereas ELPIDI
and KLHSEWS are in a different relationship.

>[Theologically, the case can be made, based on 1 Cor.12:13 for example,
>that PNEUMA is causative for, and chronologically antecedent to SWMA.]
>Ie. the one Spirit brought the one Body into existence.
>
>This then would lead to the conclusion that Paul's point here is that
>KLHSEWS is likewise causative for, and chronologically antecedent to
>ELPIDI.  Ie. the one Calling resulted in the one Hope.
>
>Syntactically then, this raises a difficulty.  We took KLHSEWS as a
>subjective genitive (based on the KAThWS line of reasoning) with a noun
>of action - but is ELPIDI really a noun of action?
>
ELPIDI is a noun of action but the subject of the implied action cannot
very well be KLHSEWS.  I would call it a genitive (ablative) of source like
THS PARAKLHSEWS TWN GRAFWN in Rom. 15:4.
Grace,

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: "Paul A. Miller" <pmiller@gramcord.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 15:26:42 -0800
Subject: Greek fonts & Win95 & GRAMCORD Institute announcements 

Some general information for friends of The GRAMCORD Institute:

1) In supporting our GRAMCORD for Windows users who are working under Win95,
we have discovered a number of Win95 bugs and/or eccentricities which can
get in the way of the installation of Greek fonts. Win95 users in general
may want to be alert to these issue whenever they install software
containing new fonts. Moreover, some computer manufacturers are producing
their OWN special versions of Win95 that can be very problematic. (In
particular, we are finding that ACER COMPUTER users are having to go outside
of Win95 to change the system attribute bit before they can use new fonts.
It is amazing that Microsoft has tolerated these deviations and users are
being unnecessarily inconvenienced.) Any of our GRAMCORD users who have
questions about their Greek fonts should contact us for assistance. We have
found fairly simple solutions for all of the situations encountered so far.

2) We are once again experiencing emergency weather conditions here in the
Portland metropolitan area. As a result of heavy snow melt and rains,
overflowing rivers and mud-slides are blocking major roads and massive
flooding threatens the warehouses of the United Parcel Service and the U.S.
Postal service. As a result, we must apologize to those of you awaiting our
software deliveries. We are being very careful about releasing our shipments
until this emergency subsides.

3) We are now shipping our Vulgate module for use with acCordance for the
Macintosh. Please email us for details.



*************************************************************************
Prof. Paul A. Miller   (Email: pmiller@GRAMCORD.org)
The GRAMCORD Institute
2218 NE Brookview Dr., Vancouver, WA 98686, U.S.A.
Voice (360)576-3000; FAX (503)761-0626; Homepage: http://www.GRAMCORD.org
Computer-Assisted Biblical Language Research (IBM & MAC)
*************************************************************************


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

From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:02:52 +0800
Subject: Re: Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrews

  Okay, okay, Oiy.  I hereby repent me of mentioning Priscilla as the author
of Hebrews if it permits going back to the issue that I'm much more interested
in, namely the possible relationship between Hebrews 1:104 and the Wisdom of
Solomon.  To reiterate my questions about Edgar Krentz's fine post on this,
let me note
1.  I don't see a very close connection in vocabulary.  The author of WS 7
talks about Wisdom being fine, distinct, clear, unharming, etc.  I don't seeany of that sort of language in Heb 1 at all.  Instead, I see references to God's
substantial nature.  Wisdom brings insight into the way the everyday world
works, with little of theological significance, except for the passing
reference that wisdom makes one want to be friends with God.  Heb 1
states that the Son is the final/last days revelation of God'snature, after 
God had spoken through the prophets.  Nothing about normal, earthly affairs is
mentioned.  
2. As the discussion currently raging on Ioudaios indicates, it's difficult to
say whether WS would have been among the scrolls that the author of Hebrews
would have felt it appropriate to use to use in framing this text, not
to mention to use as the basis for the theology of Hebrews.  More 
specifically, I can't determine, where, if anywhere, WS was known or held
as authoritative or useful in the 1st cent. CE Christian church, not to mention
whatever group the author of Hebrews belongs to (since we don't know the 
author, we surely can't argue meaningfully about the author's congregation --
that is the congregation the author of Hebrews is a member of, as opposed to
the real readers of the document).  
3.  Since I don't know about 2, I want to consider whether the author of 
Hebrews may have been influenced by WS, or by Prov 8 as understood by 1st
cent. Jews (some Jews, anyway), or by general synchretistic ideas floating
around in 1st cent. Judaism (some flavor of it, anyway) or what.
I don't pe se have a religious stake in the possible influence.  One of my
favorite theologians, Gregory of Naziansus was heavily influenced by Platonism,
but I like his writings in spite of that.  After all, who can help but to write
from their culture? 

    Sorry for all the qualificiations, but I gather they are necessary.  The only
place I know of to get firm consensus in biblical studies is at the Jesus
Seminar or a Hal Lindsey seminar (actually I suppose I shouldn't call the 
latter biblical studies proper). 

     This is not meant as an attack on Edgar Krentz in any way, shape or form,
whose postings I appreciate very much.  However, having suffered through 
translating WS 7, and not feeling anhybetter for having done so, I really
want to know if it had any value at all. I can't say that I learned more Greek
from it.  Not trained in Classical Greek, I would have to rate the author's
writing low, using an accusiative noun where there should have been a whole
clause, and the like.  

Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA



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

From: 
Date: 
Subject: [none]


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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 18:51:38 -0600
Subject: Re: Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrews

On 2/8/96, Kenneth Litwak wrote:

> 2. As the discussion currently raging on Ioudaios indicates, it's difficult to
> say whether WS would have been among the scrolls that the author of Hebrews
> would have felt it appropriate to use to use in framing this text, not
> to mention to use as the basis for the theology of Hebrews.  More
> specifically, I can't determine, where, if anywhere, WS was known or held
> as authoritative or useful in the 1st cent. CE Christian church, not to
>mention
> whatever group the author of Hebrews belongs to (since we don't know the
> author, we surely can't argue meaningfully about the author's congregation --
> that is the congregation the author of Hebrews is a member of, as opposed to
> the real readers of the document).

I'm not so much concerned with influence of WS on Hebrews here but on a
tangential issue Ken seems to raise:"where, if anywhere, WS was known or
held as authoritative or useful in the 1st century CE Christian church ..."

I know that I have read in one of the commentaries on Romans (of course,
being at home, I have no resources ready to hand as I write) that the
argument of Romans chapter 2 is based upon Wisdom of Solomon. It may have
been Nygren, but I'm not sure of that. If that can be argued plausibly for
Paul, then I would think the author of Hebrews might also have known the
work as well. Does this link between WS and Rom 2 ring a bell with anyone?

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: DrJDPrice@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 20:03:11 -0500
Subject: Re: 1 John 5:7 In or out???? 

Cal Redmond inquired:

>It is instructive for us that even Zane Hodges' _The Majority Text_ does
>not include the heavenly witnesses.  When I checked his work this morning
>before answering this posting, my respect for him increased.  The next
>question is why the New King James, which I believe rests upon Hodges' text,
>includes these disputed witnesses.

Regarding the NKJV and Hodges' Majority Text:
The New King James Version is not based on Hodges' MT, but upon
the traditional Textus Receptus. The NKJV is not a new translation but
a revision of the KJV. As such it was appropriate to follow the same
text as the original translators followed. This decision was supplemented
by the incorporation of footnotes at those places in the text where
significant
variants occur. At 1John 5:7 the NKJV footnote reads: "NU, M omit the rest 
of v. 7 and through *on earth* of v. 8, a passage found in only four or five
very 
late Greek mss."
James D. Price

=========================================================
James D. Price, Ph.D.
Prof. of Hebrew and OT
Temple Baptist Seminary
Chattanooga, TN
Executive Editor of NKJV Old Testament.
========================================================


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

From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Thu,  8 Feb 96 20:02:39 CST
Subject: IOUDAIS-L

I wonder if some kind soul can help me out...  I have been trying unsuccessfully
to sign up to this list (which I believe some of you are members of), but I seem
to be having a problem.  Could somebody send me the correct address for the
listserver?  Thanks very much for your help.

Regards,

Mark O'Brien
Dallas Seminary
- ----
"Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, constant in prayer..."
                        -- Ro 12:12

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

From: GSHOGREN@shrsys.hslc.org
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 22:04:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Apollos/Hebrews

Yes, it was Martin Luther who, apparently, first suggested that
Apollos was the author of Hebrews.  He seems to have come up with
that based solely on internal evidence (companion of Paul,
eloquent diction, Alexandrian theological ideas), and no external
evidence: no church father ever attributed the letter to Apollos. 
The reaction to this view seems to be "Good guess, who knows?"

Sometime in the future, during that ideal summer when I have
nothing to do, I plan to write an article "proving" that John
Mark wrote the book.  I think he's the only companion of Paul
never picked.  The reason it's so different from GMark is that
the gospel is written under Petrine influence.  This will seal my
immortality as a footnote in NT Introductions until the End.  Any
thoughts?

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

Gary S. Shogren
Associate Professor of New Testament
Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield PA

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

End of b-greek-digest V1 #108
*****************************

** 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