From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Sat Apr 19 1997 - 07:48:30 EDT

At 9:20 PM -0500 4/18/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>Zerwick's Grammatical Analysis has a very strange note about ESOMEQA here;
>it says "future connoting 'now that we are baptized, we...', logical rather
>than temporal". It refers to section 284a of the Latin edition of Zerwick's
>(Q1) Does anybody know what he is talking about? (Q2)Does anybody have the
> Latin edition of Zerwick's grammar? (Q3) Does anybody know why anybody would
> write a Greek grammar in Latin in the first place?

(A1) (a) Presumably Zerwick does; (b) he is talking about Rom 6:5; (c) I
suppose that the question is whether the resurrection Paul speaks of in
this instance is supposed to be spoken of in a manner consistent with
everything he says elsewhere about the resurrection of the believer--i.e.,
sometimes he speaks of it as an event that has already happened (realized
eschatological perspective), while at other times he uses the language of
futuristic eschatology to refer to resurrection at the Parousia. Now the
question--which I shan't attempt to answer--is: is that future resurrection
logically future or temporally future? Which is to say: is it slated to
take place in time or in logic? (it was Bultmann, was it not, who
postulated that Jesus was raised into the Kerygma? That strikes me as
somewhat more logical--at least in terms of Bultmann's logic, which I shall
not try to defend here--than temporal, although one must still ask: WHEN
was he raised into the Kerygma? This is what comes of reading the first
post of the morning on this list, the latest contribution by one JR to the
thread labeled "Humor." My critical faculties have been temporarily--but
illogically--discombobulated by that shatering experience.)

(A2) Presumably Zerwick has a copy of the Latin edition of his grammar. And
if it was indeed printed and published, as would appear likely, my guess is
that there are copies of it sitting on shelves somewhere, more likely in
Europe than in North America, and it's not very likely a participant on
this list has one close at hand.

(3) Finally an EASY question to answer. (a) For more than a millennium and
a half Latin was the language of western European NT scholarship; up into
our own century most people who learned ancient Greek had already learned
Latin and read commentaries composed in Latin. A good university library is
likely to have quite a few such commentaries in Latin--on the NT, on Greek
and Latin authors. (b) While I note that Nestle-Aland in the 27th edition
no longer has a Latin introduction and has also abandoned the Swedish and
French versions of that introduction, content to give only a German and
English one, it STILL uses Latin for the critical apparatus and the lengthy
Appendices, although it is not that difficult for the Latin-less users of
NA27 to learn what they need to find out from those sections. Perhaps in
edition 30 or so these sections too will be in either German or English,
since those have become the chief languages of NT scholarship. But there
WAS a time, and not that far back in the Christian era, when the ONLY
language one could expect readers of the GNT everywhere to know, apart from
NT Greek, was Latin.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018 OR

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:13 EDT