b-greek-digest V1 #126
b-greek-digest Friday, 23 February 1996 Volume 01 : Number 126
In this issue:
Re: Rahlfs LXX app. question
Re: Jn 4:54
Re: Gen. 1:1-2, and the Greek of it
From: "Philip L. Graber" <email@example.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 22:16:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Rahlfs LXX app. question
On Thu, 22 Feb 1996, James D. Ernest wrote:
> Can anyone tell me what the abbreviation "La" means in the Rahlfs
> apparatus at Ps 4:8; 30:16?
On the Explanatio signorum card inserted in Rahlfs (but apparently not in
the introductory Explanation of Symbols in the book itself) under
Versiones is listed La=Latina.
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
firstname.lastname@example.org Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
From: David Moore <email@example.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 22:14:47 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Jn 4:54
On Thu, 22 Feb 1996, Mark O'Brien wrote:
> A brief question about this verse: Should TOUTO be considered as the subject
> ("This was the second sign...", ala NIV, RSV, etc.), or is it in fact the object
> in an object complement construction, with hO IHSOUS as the subject ("Jesus did
> THIS as a second sign...")?
> The lack of a relative pronoun would seem to argue against the former option,
> since it seems unlikely that this would be ellided, and then one is stuck with
> trying to work out what to do with hO IHSOUS.
> I would appreciate any comments you all might have. Thanks!
The nominative article with the proper noun IHSOUS indicates here
that it is the subject. IHSOUS is apparently the subject of the verb
EPOIHSEN, since hO IHSOUS is more closely associated with it than with the
following participle ELQWN. The NIV, RSV, etc. have probably worded their
translation as they did for stylistic reasons, since any difference in
meaning between the two ways of translating it is slight.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
firstname.lastname@example.org Department of Education
From: Will Wagers <email@example.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 22:55:52 -0600
Subject: Re: Gen. 1:1-2, and the Greek of it
David L. Moore writes:
> I would suggest that creatio ex nihilo is not so much explicit as
>it is implicit within the Old Testament (although Gen. 1:1 is pretty
Gn 1:1 is definitely definite, but diametrically opposed to your position.
I don't know Hebrew, so I cannot comment on the discussion of how to
segment Gn 1:1. But, it is a red herring as far as the discussion of creatio
ex nihilo goes, because it doesn't matter which way you interpret it. The
argument is not about "the beginning of what": It's not that it doesn't say
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." It's in what
the words *mean*.
It is understandable that the scientific meanings of words are omitted
from theological dictionaries. But, when they are pointed out, I see no
reason to ignore them. However, we should be doing this on B-HEBREW?
>A possible reason that the explicit doctrine does not appear
>until II Mac. may be that it was only when the Hebrew culture came in
>contact with Helenism as a philosophical system with its cosmology that
>postulated a pre-existing mass of matter that it was necessary to make
>explicit what is implicit throughout all of the OT.
What explicit doctrine? Certainly not Second Maccabees in Alexandrian
Greek. Edward Hobbs notes that "the *implication* (my ital.) of creatio
ex nihilo, according to Encyclopaedia Judaica (5:1059), 'first appears in
II Maccabees 7:28.'"
2 Mc 7:28: "I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth,
and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that
were not; and so was mankind made likewise."
This passage could be the poster child for my thesis. The cosmos is made
in the same manner as a *child*, not from nothing, but from no-thing.
Further, if this is the first implication, how can the OT be said to hold it
> Something analogous to a certain extent happened in Christianity
>with the emergence of the doctrine of the Trinity which was not explicitly,
>but rather implicitly present in the New Testament doctrines about God.
Something analogous did, indeed, happen with the doctrine of the Trinity:
Father (God), Son (Demiurge), Holy Spirit (Cosmos), all characters straight
out of the original cast of _Timaeus_.
I don't know that this discussion is of general interest to the list. Perhaps,
if you wish to continue, we should go off list.
End of b-greek-digest V1 #126
** 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: