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

b-greek-digest V1 #138




b-greek-digest             Thursday, 7 March 1996       Volume 01 : Number 138

In this issue:

        onomata
        Re: Eph.4:19
        Re: onomata
        MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA
        dynamic words
        Re: MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA
        Re: dynamic words
        houtws 
        Re: dynamic words
        RE: MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA
        Re: dynamic words
        Re: MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA
        Re: houtws
        [none]
        Re: dynamic words

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

From: Frank Vander Plaetse <vdplaetf@vito.be>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 07:32:00 +0100
Subject: onomata

Onomata anqrwpwn (Apoc.11:13) is frequently reduced to'anqrwpoi' in 
translations except e.g. 'nomina hominun'(Vulgata)and 'nom d'hommes'
(Chouraqui).A same situation can be found in Apoc.3:4 with exceptions:
'pauca nomina'(Vulgata),'quelques noms'(Chouraqui) and 'a few names'(KJV).
What 's the correct translation and sense of onomata(rev.11:13 & rev.3:4)
if  I  distrust those reductions ?

               Sincerely Yours,
               Fr.Vander Plaetse
    
   Elzenstraat 17 
   3271 Averbode                         
   BELGIUM                                 
   TEL:   +32 13 77 31 16            
   E-Mail : vdplaetf@vito.be               
   Internet : http://www.vito.be/                                            


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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 06:42:19 -0600
Subject: Re: Eph.4:19

On 3/5/96, James H. Vellenga wrote:

> Re: ERGASIAN AKAQARSIAS PASHS
> -------
> >From Gary Shogren:
> ERGASIAN I can see as a nice solid example of an
> action noun, making AKATHARSIAS an objective (or perchance subjective)
> genitive.
> -------
> >From Carlton Winbery:
> It is clear that AKAQARSIAS cannot be subjective genitive since those who
> are practicing (ERGASIAN) uncleanness are the ones who have given
> themselves over to wantonness.  It is not the uncleanness that is doing it
> but the people about whom Paul is speaking.  The objective genitive would
> be the object of the action implied by the noun (or noun substitute) which
> the word in the genitive modifies.  The subjective genitive on the other
> hand would have to denote the agent of the action implied by the noun that
> it modifies.  Take ERGASIAN and make it into a verb.  AKAQARSIAS could be
> the object of such a verb but not the subject of it.
> -------
> My own thoughts:
>
> It seems to me that ERGASIA (in general) is not necessarily a noun of action.
> Consider Acts 19.24 ("Demetrius ... was providing no little ERGASIAN to the
> artisans") or Acts 16.19 ("her masters, seeing that the hope of their ERGASIAS
> had gone ...").  In these contexts, ERGASIA seems to mean "business,"
> "occupation," or "way of making a living."
>
> This interpretation seems strengthened by the phrase "EN PLEONEXIAi" ("by
>means
> of acquisitiveness") at the end of the sentence here in Eph 4.19.
>
> So it seems more natural to me to interpret AKARQIAS as a descriptive
>genitive,
> and to read the phrase as something like "handed themselves over by means of
> acquisitiveness to the unbridled lust for a business [characterized by]
>impurity
> of every [kind]."

I'll have to agree with Carlton on this one. While you are right, surely,
to insist that ERGASIA in several instances does have that sense of
"business," "occupation," "way of making a living," yet it can also be, as
I believe it is in Eph 4:19, a noun equivalent of the verb ERGAZESQAI,
wherefore I would take AKAQARSIAS PASHS exactly as did Carlton--as an
objective genitive--and I'd even translate the sentence using a verb for
ERGASIA, thus: "surrendered themselves licentiously (EN ASELGEIAi) to doing
greedily (EN PLENEXIAi) every (kind of) unclean act."

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: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 10:06:36 -0600
Subject: Re: onomata

On 3/6/96, Frank Vander Plaetse wrote:

> Onomata anqrwpwn (Apoc.11:13) is frequently reduced to'anqrwpoi' in
> translations except e.g. 'nomina hominum'(Vulgata)and 'nom d'hommes'
> (Chouraqui).A same situation can be found in Apoc.3:4 with exceptions:
> 'pauca nomina'(Vulgata),'quelques noms'(Chouraqui) and 'a few names'(KJV).
> What 's the correct translation and sense of onomata(rev.11:13 & rev.3:4)
> if  I  distrust those reductions ?

This is a Hebraism or Semitism, a usage not native to classical Attic
Greek, where Heb. L'SHEM corresponds roughly to English "under the heading
of," "in the category of." So what's the correct translation? It depends on
whether you want a woodenly literal translation of the Greek, in which case
it is "names of people"--or whether you prefer the normal equivalent in the
modern vernacular, in which case "people" or "hommes" is quite appropriate:
Rev. 3:4: "You have a few people in Sardis, who have not ..."; Rev. 11:13:
"... and there were killed in the earthquake 17,000 persons."

I note that Louw-Nida (Lex/semantic categories) suggests the sense "unit"
for this usage of ONOMA. That explains the usage, but of course doesn't
provide the appropriate equivalent in the modern vernacular.

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: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 11:51:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA

	In considering the expression MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA (Tim. 3:2) and
trying to figure just what it means, I did a search for hEIS with a
genitive noun and an additional noun.  The only other examples that were
similar in construction to the expression above were in the Pastorals
(i.e. I Tim. 3:2, 12; 5:9 and Titus 1:6).  All are in reference to
candidates for posts of special responsibility or special consideration in
the church, and all apparently have reference to the person's matrimonial
relationships. 

	These passages have been severally interpreted to mean (1)
"married only once," (2) "not polygamous," (3) "not a womanizer," or (4)
simply expressing that the person should be (or have been) married.  The
emphatic position in which we find hEIS appears to rule out number 4. 
IMO, I Tim. 5:14 rules out number 1, since it seems doubtful that Paul (I
realize not everyone agrees Paul is author of the Pastorals) would
recommend (BOULOMAI) to anyone a course of action that would not be in
keeping with character desirable in leaders of the church.  Also, if it
were an expression forbidding remarriage in church officials, why do these
contexts not mention unmarried celibates as may have been the case with
Timothy himself? 

	For these reasons, mainly, I understand the expression as covering
cases number 2 (Polygamy is fairly well documented among Jewish upper
classes of that time [J. Jeremias, _Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus_, p.
93].) and number 3.  A sensible translation might be something like "not a
polygamous, or promiscuous person."  Even the quite literal "one-woman
man" might get at the meaning of the Greek. 

	It would be interesting to know if any of the list members is
aware of constructions similar to this phrase with the number hEIS in
writings outside of the NT, as their context might shed additional light
on the meaning here in the Pastorals. 


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: brent justin anduaga-arias <barias@unm.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 10:29:15 -0700 (MST)
Subject: dynamic words

 			
  I was wondering if I could solicit submittals of everyone's favorite 
Greek words which meet the criteria of having a notoriously context 
sensitive definition.   As an example I will present my own weak example.
  The RSV translates the Greek word HNTHY(KS)HIS (I used 'KS' in place of 
xsi, not knowing which latin to use...) in 1st Timothy 2:1 as 
"intercessions" but it translates the same word in 1st Timothy 4:4 as 
"thanksgiving."  Clearly "intercessions" is not equal to "thanksgiving."
  Now I know that you folks out there can think of better examples than 
the one I have just presented, so if you offer them I will be much 
appreciative.  (yes, there is a point to this excersize - I'm not doing 
this to waste everyone's time).

Brent Arias
University of New Mexico


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

From: Nikolaos <adamon@sage.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:38:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 11:51:57 -0500 (EST)
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
To: B-Greek <b-greek@virginia.edu>
Subject: MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA

>        These passages have been severally interpreted to mean (1)
>"married only once," (2) "not polygamous," (3) "not a womanizer," or (4)
>simply expressing that the person should be (or have been) married.  The
>emphatic position in which we find hEIS appears to rule out number 4.
>IMO, I Tim. 5:14 rules out number 1, since it seems doubtful that Paul (I
>realize not everyone agrees Paul is author of the Pastorals) would
>recommend (BOULOMAI) to anyone a course of action that would not be in
>keeping with character desirable in leaders of the church.  Also, if it
>were an expression forbidding remarriage in church officials, why do these
>contexts not mention unmarried celibates as may have been the case with
>Timothy himself?

Simply means (1) and (2) and (3) together,
and there is a tradition in the orthodox church in the canons that a 
clergy cannot be anyone with a second marriage, or with a wife who has  
him a second husband, orcan be married again after 
a first marriage or the first ordination or the acceptance of monks rank.

Nikolaos Adamou, PH.D.
Prof. of Finance and Management
Dage Graduate School
MBA Program

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

From: "Carlton L. Winbery" <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:09:28 +0400
Subject: Re: dynamic words

>
>  I was wondering if I could solicit submittals of everyone's favorite
>Greek words which meet the criteria of having a notoriously context
>sensitive definition.   As an example I will present my own weak example.
>  The RSV translates the Greek word HNTHY(KS)HIS (I used 'KS' in place of
>xsi, not knowing which latin to use...) in 1st Timothy 2:1 as
>"intercessions" but it translates the same word in 1st Timothy 4:4 as
>"thanksgiving."  Clearly "intercessions" is not equal to "thanksgiving."

A word that comes quickly to mind is hAIRHSIS vb. hAIREW. The noun can
refer to the taking captive of a city, the act of choosing, that which is
chosen, dissension caused by various choices, or to a group of people who
have made the same choice, i.e., a sect.

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



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

From: Rick Strelan <R.Strelan@mailbox.uq.oz.au>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:46:06 +1000
Subject: houtws 

Anyone care to comment on the use of HOUTWS in John 4:6? It seems to be
descriptive of Jesus' action in sitting down almost as though the
story-teller acted it out as it was read. Translators tend to ignore it.

Rick Strelan
University of Queensland



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

From: "Carlton L. Winbery" <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:21:35 +0400
Subject: Re: dynamic words

>
>  I was wondering if I could solicit submittals of everyone's favorite
>Greek words which meet the criteria of having a notoriously context
>sensitive definition.   As an example I will present my own weak example.
>  The RSV translates the Greek word HNTHY(KS)HIS (I used 'KS' in place of
>xsi, not knowing which latin to use...) in 1st Timothy 2:1 as
>"intercessions" but it translates the same word in 1st Timothy 4:4 as
>"thanksgiving."  Clearly "intercessions" is not equal to "thanksgiving."

You could hardly overlook the word KOSMOS.  Order, the ordered universe,
adornment/decoration, the earth, the people in the world, the ungodly, the
seductive world/enticement to evil, the sum total of any thing eg. James
3:6, "the world of sin."

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



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

From: "A. Brent Hudson" <abhudson@wchat.on.ca>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 19:04:51 -0500
Subject: RE: MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA

There is hENOS ARTOU GUNH in Prov. 6:26.  

A. Brent Hudson
_________________


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

From: "Gary S. Shogren" <gshogren@voicenet.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 96 17:54:44 EST
Subject: Re: dynamic words

If I understand your criteria rightly, KATALAMBANW is a prime example - does
it mean "comprehendeth it not (KJV)" in John 1:5 or "did not overcome it"?
What I find interesting is that both make very good sense in the immediate
context, and fairly decent sense in the context of Johannine theological
vocab.  I seem to recall that Carson lists the verse in Exegetical
Fallacies, reminding us not to try to work BOTH meanings into a single
context unless there's evidence of a play on words.  By the way - Exegetical
Fallacies is shortly to be re-released in an updated form.

At 10:29 AM 3/6/96 -0700, you wrote:
> 			
>  I was wondering if I could solicit submittals of everyone's favorite 
>Greek words which meet the criteria of having a notoriously context 
>sensitive definition.   As an example I will present my own weak example.
>  The RSV translates the Greek word HNTHY(KS)HIS (I used 'KS' in place of 
>xsi, not knowing which latin to use...) in 1st Timothy 2:1 as 
>"intercessions" but it translates the same word in 1st Timothy 4:4 as 
>"thanksgiving."  Clearly "intercessions" is not equal to "thanksgiving."
>  Now I know that you folks out there can think of better examples than 
>the one I have just presented, so if you offer them I will be much 
>appreciative.  (yes, there is a point to this excersize - I'm not doing 
>this to waste everyone's time).
>
>Brent Arias
>University of New Mexico
>
>
>
__________

Gary S. Shogren
Biblical Theological Seminary
Hatfield, PA
email gshogren@voicenet.com


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

From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 20:49:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA

On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Nikolaos wrote:

> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 11:51:57 -0500 (EST)
> From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
> To: B-Greek <b-greek@virginia.edu>
> Subject: MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA
> 
> >        These passages have been severally interpreted to mean (1)
> >"married only once," (2) "not polygamous," (3) "not a womanizer," or (4)
> >simply expressing that the person should be (or have been) married.  The
> >emphatic position in which we find hEIS appears to rule out number 4.
> >IMO, I Tim. 5:14 rules out number 1, since it seems doubtful that Paul (I
> >realize not everyone agrees Paul is author of the Pastorals) would
> >recommend (BOULOMAI) to anyone a course of action that would not be in
> >keeping with character desirable in leaders of the church.  Also, if it
> >were an expression forbidding remarriage in church officials, why do these
> >contexts not mention unmarried celibates as may have been the case with
> >Timothy himself?
> 
> Simply means (1) and (2) and (3) together,
> and there is a tradition in the orthodox church in the canons that a 
> clergy cannot be anyone with a second marriage, or with a wife who has  
> him a second husband, orcan be married again after 
> a first marriage or the first ordination or the acceptance of monks rank.

	That is interesting data, but, if that is really the meaning of 
this passage, shouldn't we be able to find those things in the text 
through a process of exegesis?

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: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 21:04:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: houtws

On Thu, 7 Mar 1996, Rick Strelan wrote:

> Anyone care to comment on the use of HOUTWS in John 4:6? It seems to be
> descriptive of Jesus' action in sitting down almost as though the
> story-teller acted it out as it was read. Translators tend to ignore it.

	It seems to me to be in reference to KEKOPIAKWS.  Perhaps we 
could say, "...sat down upon the well to rest."

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: "G. Mark Woodhouse" <gmw@mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 22:04:22 -0500
Subject: [none]

unsubscribe b-greek gmw@mitre.org
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
G. Mark Woodhouse  gmw@mitre.org   
Principal Engineer, Intelligence Systems
Supporting United States Strategic Command Intelligence Operations
The MITRE Corporation
(402) 292-5889  ext. 261
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

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

From: "A. Brent Hudson" <abhudson@wchat.on.ca>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 22:23:53 -0500
Subject: Re: dynamic words

on Wednesday, 06-Mar-96
Gary S. Shogren   wrote=20

> If I understand your criteria rightly, KATALAMBANW is a prime example =
- -
> does it mean "comprehendeth it not (KJV)" in John 1:5 or "did not =
overcome it"?
> What I find interesting is that both make very good sense in the =
immediate
> context, and fairly decent sense in the context of Johannine =
theological vocab.  I
> seem to recall that Carson lists the verse in Exegetical Fallacies, =
reminding
> us not to try to work BOTH meanings into a single context unless =
there's evidence
> of a play on words.  By the way - Exegetical Fallacies is shortly to =
be re-
> released in an updated form.

Mois=E9s Silva in his _Biblical Words And Their Meanings_ (p. 149) =
states that there is considerable evidence in John's Gospel for =
"deliberate ambiguity." That being the case, I think that 1:5 must be =
understood with both meanings.  Other instances of deliberate ambiguity =
in the Fourth Gospel are found in 3:3 (ANWQEN) and 4:10 (hUDWR ZWN).  =
Entire clauses can have double meaning, such as 17:17b where the phrase =
hO LOGOS hO SOS ALHQEIA ESTIN has a literal referent but also refers to =
Jesus who is explicitly called both LOGOS and ALHQEIA in the Gospel.  =
Double entendre abounds in the Fourth Gospel. =20

There are literally hundreds of examples in the NT that Carsen could =
have used to demonstrate "illegitimate totality transfer;" it is too bad =
he felt compelled to use a passage from one who so loves to turn a pun.  =


A. Brent Hudson
___________________



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

End of b-greek-digest V1 #138
*****************************

** 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