Hebrew 2:3

Paul’s Gender Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jul 31 12:55:52 EDT 2002

 

Dissertation Dissertation At 12:22 PM -0400 7/31/02, Donovan W. Hannis wrote:>Howdy.> > >This discussion on gender in language has again raised>a question in my mind that seems to surface frequently>while I am reading this list. Do we know how well Paul>spoke and wrote Greek? I presume Greek was not Paul’s>first language, and even if it were, we know it was not>his only language.I rather believe that Paul spoke Greek as a native of Tarsus; certainly theGreek he writes in all of the undisputed letters (and I wouldn’t want toargue that the loose syntax of some of Ephesians is any indication that itsauthor, whether or not Paul, was writing standard Hellenistic Greek) isstandard Hellenistic Greek of his days; I’m not saying that Paul didn’tknow Hebrew and/or Aramaic, but that I think he was indeed fully competentin Greek.>In this discussion, Daniel Christiansen made the following>point:> >> Grammatical gender is certainly part of the word–sex, on the other>>hand, is not.>> In this passage, would you argue that only men and boys are being>>referenced? The>> choice of PANTAS is due to an implied ANQRWPOI (human beings) or even>>LAOI, not to>> the biological characteristics of the referent.> > >I won’t disagree with anything Mr. Christiansen has to>say. It certainly is my understanding of Greek (and>every other language I have studied) that a masculine>plural noun, such as ANQRWPOI, can refer to a group of>people of both sexes. It seems natural and logical to>me… but did it seem so to Paul? Are we certain, based>on the way Paul uses Greek throughout the New Testament>(as opposed to our understanding of proper Greek) that>this particular construction was natural and logical to>him, too? Do we have reason to suspect that Paul may>have been referencing only males in this passage?This has been discussed in this forum and others. I don’t think I’m goingout on a limb to assert that the burden of proof is upon those who do NOTthink that Paul’s use of ANQRWPOI was generic but specifically male.>I raise this issue not because of any disagreement I have>with the general consensus on gender, but in an effort to>explain what I so often see as missing in some of these>arguments: Our appreciation of Paul’s understanding of>Greek.Again, and speaking only for myself, it’s difficult to speak of “proper”Greek. Paul wasn’t writing classical Attic but Koine, but very few ofPaul’s contemporaries (if any) were writing classical Attic, and it’slate-first-century and second-century that the Atticist impetus ofgrammatical teachers pushed formal writers to a more rigorous observance ofolder Attic standards. One can see a considerable difference between theGreek of Paul and that of his contemporary Philo of Alexandria: Philo mayhave spent longer in the gymnasium learning rhetorical Greek, but Paulshows in 1 Cor 1-4 and elsewhere that he can write rhetorical Greek quiteeloquently. Wherefore I repeat: I think the burden of proof rests uponthose who would argue that Paul WASN’T writing standard Hellenistic Greekprose.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

DissertationDissertation

Paul’s Gender (correction) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jul 31 13:09:31 EDT 2002

 

Dissertation Paul’s Gender Lest any misunderstand what I really meant in the parenthesis below, let mereformulate it clearly:… and I wouldn’t want to argue that the loose syntax of some of Ephesiansis any indication that its author, whether or not Paul, was NOT writingstandard Hellenistic Greek …>I rather believe that Paul spoke Greek as a native of Tarsus; certainly the>Greek he writes in all of the undisputed letters (and I wouldn’t want to>argue that the loose syntax of some of Ephesians is any indication that its>author, whether or not Paul, was writing standard Hellenistic Greek) is>standard Hellenistic Greek of his days; …— Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

DissertationPaul’s Gender

Paul’s Greek Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 31 14:06:29 EDT 2002

 

an UNCIAL question Paul’s Greek I am not aware of any NT document written by Paulpersonally. I suppose one could speculate that hewrote one or more, but it would be just that, speculation.Note the open of Romans:PAULOS DOULOS CRISTOU IHSOU….EUCARISTW…Here is an epistle that directly states it is fromPaul, and yet we are explicitly told that Paul didNOT write it… EGW TERTIOS hO GRAYAS THN EPISTOLHNWe might ask how well did Tertius know/write Greek, or howwell he reduced the thoughts of Paul to writing in Romans. I believethere are a few lines here and there that Paul said hepersonally wrote, but they are too few to assess his Greek. Inshort, I think the Pauline epistles reflect the thoughts ofPaul, but not his Greek.My thoughts,Mark WilsonWhat is remarkable is the level of consistency that we dosee among the Pauline epistles, written by who knows howmany different writers._________________________________________________________________MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

 

an UNCIAL questionPaul’s Greek

Paul’s Greek Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jul 31 14:29:45 EDT 2002

 

Paul’s Greek Paul’s Greek At 6:06 PM +0000 7/31/02, Mark Wilson wrote:>I am not aware of any NT document written by Paul>personally. I suppose one could speculate that he>wrote one or more, but it would be just that, speculation.> >Note the open of Romans:> >PAULOS DOULOS CRISTOU IHSOU….EUCARISTW…> >Here is an epistle that directly states it is from>Paul, and yet we are explicitly told that Paul did>NOT write it… EGW TERTIOS hO GRAYAS THN EPISTOLHN> >We might ask how well did Tertius know/write Greek, or how>well he reduced the thoughts of Paul to writing in Romans. I believe>there are a few lines here and there that Paul said he>personally wrote, but they are too few to assess his Greek. In>short, I think the Pauline epistles reflect the thoughts of>Paul, but not his Greek.> >My thoughts,> >Mark Wilson> > >What is remarkable is the level of consistency that we do>see among the Pauline epistles, written by who knows how>many different writers.Regardless of who the amanuensis or the amanuenses was/were, I don’t doubtthat Paul dictated those letters–and I do think that the use of the wordGRAFW here refers to the putting down of the characters upon the writingmaterial, not the composition.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Paul’s GreekPaul’s Greek

Paul’s Greek Michael Holmes holmic at bethel.edu
Wed Jul 31 17:09:27 EDT 2002

 

Paul’s Gender an UNCIAL question 1) Re the role of an amanuensis in the writing of Paul’s letters:the foundational book is E. Randolph Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (1991). He investigates the practice thoroughly in light of whatever is known about ancient custom and practice of the use of secretaries–amanuenses–in the ancient world.2) The role of a secretary in writing a document could vary widely, from taking down dictation verbatim (for which some utilized a form of shorthand) to composing a letter on behalf of someone.3) With regard to Gal 6:11, this almost certainly reflects the custom of the sender of a letter adding a signature (and sometimes a few lines) at the end of a letter dictated to an amanuensis. Thus Paul’s comments about “large letters” likely reflect the contrast between the clear, controlled script of the scribe and the less-practiced “scrawl” of Paul. For an example, see the picture (in Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity [Eerdmans, 1987; revised since then], p. 95 in the first edition) of a papyrus letter: the top 3/4 of it is in a very clear majuscule script, while the bottom 1/4 looks like the proverbial prescription written by a doctor–a nearly unreadable cursive scrawl.4) What role did an amanuensis–such as Tertius, in the case of Romans–play in the composition of the Pauline letters? On the basis of evidence in the letters themselves, such as the occasional grammatical slip, sentences (typically longer ones) that start out with one way grammatically but end up some other way (i.e., the syntax of the end of the sentence doesn’t follow the syntax of the beginning), etc., most scholars who have studied the matter have concluded that Paul most likely dictated his letters, with the amanuensis having little role beyond that of a recorder.5) Stylistic differences between some of the letters attributed to Paul–such as the differences between the Pastorals and the “undisputed” letters–are sometimes attributed to the influence of an amanuensis. For example, C. F. D. Moule suggested that in the case of the Pastorals, Luke (cf. 2 Tim 4:11) served as the scribe, with Paul, due to difficult circumstances, giving him more freedom than usual to work up his ideas into a letter.6) In summary, the considered consensus–is that the majority of the Pauline letters–and certainly the “undisputed” ones– present the voice and style of Paul, rather than the amanuensis who did the writing.Mike HolmesBethel College————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20020731/ae9cfafe/attachment.html

 

Paul’s Genderan UNCIAL question

Paul’s Greek Noel Fitzpatrick njfitzpatrick at eircom.net
Thu Aug 1 14:57:40 EDT 2002

 

text GR.2 in Carson’s Greek Accents Mark Wilson writes:”I am not aware of any NT document written by Paulpersonally. I suppose one could speculate that hewrote one or more, but it would be just that, speculation”.The Letter to Philemon may have been personally written by Paul. EGW PAULOS EGRAYA TH EMH XEIRI (19). Fitzmyer in “The Letter to Philemon” (p 118) notes that “the whole of this short letter may be an autograph” as claimed by Jerome, Lightfoot, Benoit and Stuhlmacher. It is difficult to envisage that their studies were merely speculation.BTY Michael Holmes writes:” Re the role of an amanuensis in the writing of Paul’s letters:the foundational book is E. Randolph Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (1991)”. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor in his “Paul the Letter-Writer” (The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1995) in a very readable way outlines the role of secretaries in early Christian times. Regards,Noel Fitzpatrick**********************************Noel Fitzpatrick16 Granville ParkBlackrockCo DublinIrelandPhone: 353 1 2893851**********************************

 

textGR.2 in Carson’s Greek Accents

Paul’s Greek Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Thu Aug 1 16:11:58 EDT 2002

 

GR.2 in Carson’s Greek Accents Neofiti 1, OFFLIST response requested Noel:I wrote:—–>“I am not aware of any NT document written by Paul>personally. I suppose one could speculate that he>wrote one or more, but it would be just that, speculation”.You wrote:——->The Letter to Philemon may have been personally written by>Paul. EGW PAULOS EGRAYA TH EMH XEIRI (19). Fitzmyer in>“The Letter to Philemon” (p 118) notes that “the whole of this>short letter may be an autograph” as claimed by Jerome,>Lightfoot, Benoit and Stuhlmacher. It is difficult to envisage that>their studies were merely speculation.——In both of your statements above, you say “MAY have beenpersonally written” and “MAY be an autograph.” That much wecan all agree upon. What my point was is that no one knowswhat went on in the privacy of Paul’s scripture writing. Hevery well may have written ALL of Philemon; we can’t be sure,and to insist IT WAS personally handwritten by Paul is speculationand poor scholarship.I simply demonstrated that Romans, which is directly said tobe from Paul, was not WRITTEN BY HIM PERSONALLY. But I reallydo not think I have said anything of interest. Paul surely wasoverseeing the content of what was written, whether bydictation as Carl suggests (which is very possible but equallyas speculative as an opposite view), or by granting literaryand personal freedom to his secretary (which for what it isworth would be the position I think most likely, but equallyas speculative as any other view).I applaud your pointing our this passage in Philemon 19. Butthe fact that Paul feels compelled to indicate when he ispersonally pushing the ink pen (or whatever they used) isI think noteworthy. Since Phi 19 is obligating Paul toa financial agreement, it would make sense for him to grabthe pen and so indicate that he is now personally guaranteeingthis commitment. I suppose one could even argue that christiansof the first century knew that Paul used a secretary, andsince that was common knowledge, Paul found it necessary topersonally write a word or two when dealing with topics hewanted to personalize. Again, this is all speculation.I really don’t think HOW the words got on the paper is critical.But this is also important in dealing with Textual Criticism andthe supposed non-Pauline writings. Any statement that some ofthe Pauline writings do not appear Pauline are sheer speculation,and even working under a very difficult persuppositon to support,namely that Paul is directly writing or dictating his letters.This actually adds speculation on top of speculation.Thanks for the interaction.Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

 

GR.2 in Carson’s Greek AccentsNeofiti 1, OFFLIST response requested

[] Sources for patristic greek writings? Paul E. Baronowsky abaronow at insightbb.com
Thu Feb 21 11:49:24 EST 2008

 

[] Sources for patristic greek writings? [] Question re. codex Claromontanus On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:53:06 -0500, Matthew Blair wrote: >Along those lines, is there other interesting source material in Koine Greek >in addition to the NT and the LXX?FWIW, I’m copying this response to the list, in case anyone here might be interested.A new group has been formed on the email list: greekstudy at nxport.com, which will start reading, discussing, and translating the Enchiridion of Epictetus on March 24. Although this is (obviously) not a patristic text, it might be considered as “other interesting source material in Koine Greek”, depending on what type of source material one wants. It’s an exercise in reading and understanding NON-Biblical Hellenistic Greek, in addition to learning something about Stoic philosophy.For more information, see http://www.letsreadgreek.com/epictetus.Best Wishes,Paul E. Baronowsky, Retired biochemistLafayette, IN

 

[] Sources for patristic greek writings?[] Question re. codex Claromontanus

[] Paul as Stylist Barry nebarry at verizon.net
Sat Jul 3 14:25:55 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul as Stylist [] Paul as Stylist —– Original Message —– From: “Bart Ehrman” <behrman at email.unc.edu>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 12:27 PMSubject: [] Paul as Stylist>Apologies if this issue has been broached on the list before. Marius>Reiser, in his article “Paulus als Stilist” (SEÅ 66 [2001] 157) tries to>explain Paul’s unusual Greek, characterized by hyperbata (which he defines>specifically as forms of parentheses), anacoloutha , and incomplete>sentences, by claiming that it is representative of spoken rather than>written Greek. Moreover, he insists that Paul is the first author of>record to have written texts as if he were speaking them (different from>anything in the papyri he insists; different from dictated letters;>different from speeches of rhetoricians; and so on).[Funny foreign words omitted…]>I’d be very interested in any reactions/responses to this claim. (For what>it’s worth Armin Baum uses it to explain why the Greek of the Pastorals –>which he takes to be authentic — differs from that of the “undisputed”>Paulines: the Pastorals were planned as written texts and are not>“Paul-as-if-speaking.” But that view, I think, is less relevant to the NT>Greek list. I’m interested in the stylistic claim of Reiser in se). Many>thanks,Although I can’t give you a biblio off the top of my head, the idea thatPaul modeled his letters after his “preaching” is not a new idea. But withregard to style, I’m not so sure here. The phenomena mentioned abovecertainly occur in Paul, but they do so in the context of other literarydevices which seem to indicate that Paul was not simply writing as though hewere speaking. The analysis would have to include the probable effect ofthe literary devices mentioned in their context. Plenty of ancient authorsuse “hyperbata, anacoloutha, and incomplete sentences,” but no one accusesthem of writing as they would speak.N.E. Barry HofstetterClassics and Bible Instructor, TAAhttp://www.theamericanacademy.net(2010 Savatori Excellence in Education Winner)Mentor, TNARShttp://www.tnars.nethttp://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/bloghttp://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry

 

[] Paul as Stylist[] Paul as Stylist

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? David McKay davidmckay52 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 22 23:29:34 EDT 2010

 

[] Luke 1:28b EULOGHMENH [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? I’ve just read this assertion on another list and am interested in yourcomments, please:”And no, Greek was not the language of the Romans. They spoke Latin. Paulwould have written to Rome either in one of his better languages(Hebrew/Aramaic) or theirs (Latin), but there’s little logic behind the ideahe would have written to them in Greek.”David McKay

 

[] Luke 1:28b EULOGHMENH[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? jgibson000 at comcast.net jgibson000 at comcast.net
Sun Aug 22 23:36:47 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? On 8/22/2010 10:29 PM, David McKay wrote:> I’ve just read this assertion on another list and am interested in your> comments, please:> > “And no, Greek was not the language of the Romans. They spoke Latin. Paul> would have written to Rome either in one of his better languages> (Hebrew/Aramaic) or theirs (Latin), but there’s little logic behind the idea> he would have written to them in Greek.”> If memory serves, there is a very good discussion of this claim in the old Sandy & Headlam ICC Commentary on Romans.Besides that, the larger question, even assuming the truth of the posters assertion, is whether those to whom Paul wrote were mostly originally from the Eastern portion of the Empire.Didn’t Plutarch complain that when he went to Rome to learn Latin, that he could hardly find anyone who spoke it?Jeffrey– Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)1500 W. Pratt Blvd.Chicago, Illinoise-mail jgibson000 at comcast.net

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? jgibson000 at comcast.net jgibson000 at comcast.net
Sun Aug 22 23:52:35 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? On 8/22/2010 10:36 PM, jgibson000 at comcast.net wrote:> On 8/22/2010 10:29 PM, David McKay wrote:>> I’ve just read this assertion on another list and am interested in your>> comments, please:>> >> “And no, Greek was not the language of the Romans. They spoke >> Latin. Paul>> would have written to Rome either in one of his better languages>> (Hebrew/Aramaic) or theirs (Latin), but there’s little logic behind >> the idea>> he would have written to them in Greek.”> If memory serves, there is a very good discussion of this claim in the > old Sandy & Headlam ICC Commentary on Romans.Looked it up. Here’s a relevant passage:> It will seem at first sight to the uninitiated reader a rather strange > paradox that a letter addressed to the capital of the Western or Latin > world should be written in Greek. Yet there is no paradox, either to > the classical scholar who is acquainted with the history of the Early > Empire, or to the ecclesiastical historian who follows the fortunes of > the Early Church. Both are aware that for fully two centuries and a > half Greek was the predominant language if not of the city of Rome as > a whole yet of large sections of its inhabitants, and in particular of > those sections among which was to be sought the main body of the > readers of the Epistle.> Sanday, W. ; Headlam, Arthur C.: /A Critical and Exegetical Commentary > on the Epistle of the Romans/. 3d ed. New York : C. Scribner’s sons, > 1897, liiThey also note, among much else on the topic, that:> The question of the use of Greek at Rome has been often discussed and > the evidence for it set forth, but the classical treatment of the > subject is by the late Dr. C. P. Caspari, Professor at Christiania, in > an Excursus of 200 pages to vol. iii. of his work /Quellen zur > Geschichte des Taufsymbols/(Christiania, 1875).> Obviously much more contemporary sources which deal with the question could be found with a little searching.Jeffrey– Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)1500 W. Pratt Blvd.Chicago, Illinoise-mail jgibson000 at comcast.net

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 23 00:24:11 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Dave wrote:<I’ve just read this assertion on another list and am interested in yourcomments, please:”And no, Greek was not the language of the Romans. They spoke Latin. Paulwould have written to Rome either in one of his better languages(Hebrew/Aramaic) or theirs (Latin), but there’s little logic behind the ideahe would have written to them in Greek.”>Hi, Dave,I have no problem believing that there may have been a Latin or a Hebrew/Aramaic vorlage underlying the Greek text of Romans, as long as one does not make any further claims based on this assertion. Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Jeffrey T. Requadt jeffreyrequadt_list at hotmail.com
Mon Aug 23 00:39:07 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Does anyone know of any more recent (as in, since 1970) research thataddresses this issue? Any Greek inscriptions in Rome? Have they uncoveredany manuscripts from Pompeii in Greek? Any official Roman documents in LatinAND Greek? Any syntheses of early church documents in Greek that would haveotherwise been in Latin? What about early Roman church leaders? I’m terribleat history from that period, but I have this fleeting idea that Clement wasfrom Rome, and didn’t he write in Greek? My understanding is that Alexanderdid a lot more to spread language/culture and the Romans did more withadministration. But this is based on what I read in high school, over 10years ago (crazily).By the way, if anyone knows of Greek plays that have been adapted formodern-day children (in English), please let me know. I would like to tryone with my third graders.Jeff Requadt—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Mark LightmanSent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 9:24 PMTo: David McKay; BGSubject: Re: [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?Dave wrote:<I’ve just read this assertion on another list and am interested in yourcomments, please:”And no, Greek was not the language of the Romans. They spoke Latin. Paulwould have written to Rome either in one of his better languages(Hebrew/Aramaic) or theirs (Latin), but there’s little logic behind the ideahe would have written to them in Greek.”>Hi, Dave,I have no problem believing that there may have been a Latin or aHebrew/Aramaic vorlage underlying the Greek text of Romans, as long as one does not makeany further claims based on this assertion. Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Randall Buth randallbuth at gmail.com
Mon Aug 23 03:03:39 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] hINA Clause John 6:29 Jeff egrapse>Does anyone know of any more recent (as in, since 1970) research thataddresses this issue? Any Greek inscriptions in Rome?You might check outHarry Leon, The Ancient Jews of Rome. Jewish Publication Society. 1960He discusses the Greek graffiti in the Jewish catacombs.kai Markos egrapse>I have no problem believing that there may have been a Latin or a> Hebrew/Aramaic vorlage underlying the Greek text of RomansI have a problem with Hebrew and Aramaic. First, there’s no traditionor record of this. Secondly, the Greek doesn’t read likea translation. But neither does Josephus.My problem with Latin is the question, where/when did Paul learn itto a high level? Gamaliel’s school only specialized in Tora andGreek wisdom for “the sake of the government”.So Greek. The 2nd language of the upper class, cf. Clement of Rome, too, and shared language of Jewish immigrants.– Randall Buth, PhDwww.biblicalulpan.orgrandallbuth at gmail.comBiblical Language CenterLearn Easily – Progress Further – Remember for Life

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] hINA Clause John 6:29

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Barry H. nebarry at verizon.net
Mon Aug 23 07:56:00 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? —– Original Message —– From: “Jeffrey T. Requadt” <jeffreyrequadt_list at hotmail.com>To: “‘Mark Lightman'” <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>; “‘David McKay'” <davidmckay52 at gmail.com>; “‘BG'” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:39 AMSubject: Re: [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?> Does anyone know of any more recent (as in, since 1970) research that> addresses this issue? Any Greek inscriptions in Rome? Have they uncovered> any manuscripts from Pompeii in Greek? Any official Roman documents in > Latin> AND Greek? Any syntheses of early church documents in Greek that would > have> otherwise been in Latin? What about early Roman church leaders? I’m > terrible> at history from that period, but I have this fleeting idea that Clement > was> from Rome, and didn’t he write in Greek? My understanding is that > Alexander> did a lot more to spread language/culture and the Romans did more with> administration. But this is based on what I read in high school, over 10> years ago (crazily).http://my.opera.com/BarryHofstetter/blog/2009/01/11/graeca-lingua-francaWhen people learn for the first time that the NT was originally written in Greek, if they know anything about the ancient world, they ask “Even the Epistle to the Romans?” We then teach them something about Greek as a lingua franca and the cosmopolitan nature of 1st century A.D. Rome, where more of the underclasses spoke Greek than Latin, since there had been a great influx of Greek speaking folks from the East. What’s interesting is to hear the ancients themselves comment on this, such as Cicero, Pro Archia 23:Nam si quis minorem gloriae fructum putat ex Graecis versibus percipi quam ex Latinis, vehementer errat: propterea quod Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, Latina suis finibus, exiguis sane, continentur.If anyone thinks that less fruit of glory may be gotten from the study of Greek literature(1) than from Latin, he errs egregiously, since Greek is read in nearly all nations, but Latin is restricted to its own quite narrow borders.(1) Versibus, lit. “verses, poetry,” but it’s clear that Cicero does not intend to restrict the idea simply to poetry: he emphasizes it because he is defending the “poet” Archias. Note also that Graeca is neuter plural, so that he is extending his thought to refer to “Greek things” in general.**********Romans does not read to me like tanslation literature, at least not like the LXX or Jerome. It reads like a typical, Koine document written by someone educated, and with a fair amount of facility with the language, but not concerned with Atticizing literary conventions…N.E. Barry HofstetterClassics and Bible Instructor, TAAhttp://www.theamericanacademy.net(2010 Savatori Excellence in Education Winner)V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARShttp://www.tnars.nethttp://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/bloghttp://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? jgibson000 at comcast.net jgibson000 at comcast.net
Mon Aug 23 09:03:45 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? On 8/23/2010 7:56 PM, Justin Chamberlain wrote:> The Romans did in fact speak Latin but Greek was the language of commerce> and a universally known language of the day. The Romans could read and write> Greek. Paul wrote to the Roman church in Greek for this reasonActually I think he wrote in Greek not because of anything characteristic of those /native/ to Italy and to The City, but because of the demographic of the Christian communities. These would most likely be people or the children of people who came from the Eastern portion of the Roam Empire.And is it not actually inaccurate to speak of the Roman church. In Romans Paul never speaks of the Church in Rome, but cells of believers.For a thorough and insightful discussion of the demographics of the Christ believers in Rome in the 60s of the first century CE, see Robert Jewett’s Hermeneia commentary on Romans.Jeffrey– Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)1500 W. Pratt Blvd.Chicago, Illinoise-mail jgibson000 at comcast.net

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Jeffrey Cockrell jeffcockrell at gmail.com
Mon Aug 23 10:21:32 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Jewett’s commentary is certainly good in understanding the historical andcultural context of Paul’s letter to Rome. One might also consult Capes,”Rediscovering Paul,” and Schnelle, “Apostle Paul.” For detailed informationon languages of Palestine see Fitzmyer article in CBQ (32, Oct 1970).Greek was the dominate language in the first century and was spoken in themost atrocious areas. Greek became the preferred language of the Roman upperclass and was used among the native Jewish population of Israel.Jeff Cockrell, PhD (Wales)On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:03 AM, <jgibson000 at comcast.net> wrote:> On 8/23/2010 7:56 PM, Justin Chamberlain wrote:> >> The Romans did in fact speak Latin but Greek was the language of commerce>> and a universally known language of the day. The Romans could read and>> write>> Greek. Paul wrote to the Roman church in Greek for this reason>> > Actually I think he wrote in Greek not because of anything characteristic> of those /native/ to Italy and to The City, but because of the demographic> of the Christian communities. These would most likely be people or the> children of people who came from the Eastern portion of the Roam Empire.> > And is it not actually inaccurate to speak of the Roman church. In Romans> Paul never speaks of the Church in Rome, but cells of believers.> > For a thorough and insightful discussion of the demographics of the Christ> believers in Rome in the 60s of the first century CE, see Robert Jewett’s> Hermeneia commentary on Romans.> > > Jeffrey> >> Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)> 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.> Chicago, Illinois> e-mail jgibson000 at comcast.net> >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Barry H. nebarry at verizon.net
Mon Aug 23 11:19:41 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? —– Original Message —– From: “Jeffrey Cockrell” <jeffcockrell at gmail.com>To: <jgibson000 at comcast.net>Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:21 AMSubject: Re: [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?> Greek was the dominate language in the first century and was spoken in the> most atrocious areas. Greek became the preferred language of the Roman > upper> class and was used among the native Jewish population of Israel.Yes, both a common lingua franca and the language of culture and erudition. Writing the NT in Greek ensured that it was available in a living language to practically everyone in the Empire.N.E. Barry HofstetterClassics and Bible Instructor, TAAhttp://www.theamericanacademy.net(2010 Savatori Excellence in Education Winner)V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARShttp://www.tnars.nethttp://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/bloghttp://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Ken Penner kpenner at stfx.ca
Mon Aug 23 12:37:41 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Consider some other first-century documents from/to Rome:Josephus wrote for the Flavian Romans in Greek.Clement of Rome wrote in Greek, as was already mentioned in this thread.The Shepherd of Hermas wrote in Greek at Rome (though a Latin translation was made soon afterward, and has survived more completely than the Greek).Other Romans wrote in Greek. Hippolytus springs immediately to mind.KenKen M. Penner, Ph.D.Assistant Professor, Religious StudiesSt. Francis Xavier UniversityAntigonish, NS(902)867-2265kpenner at stfx.caOn 10-08-22 11:29 PM, “David McKay” <davidmckay52 at gmail.com> wrote:I’ve just read this assertion on another list and am interested in yourcomments, please:”And no, Greek was not the language of the Romans. They spoke Latin. Paulwould have written to Rome either in one of his better languages(Hebrew/Aramaic) or theirs (Latin), but there’s little logic behind the ideahe would have written to them in Greek.”David McKay— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?
[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Aug 23 12:59:05 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? On Aug 23, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Ken Penner wrote:> Consider some other first-century documents from/to Rome:> > Josephus wrote for the Flavian Romans in Greek.> Clement of Rome wrote in Greek, as was already mentioned in this thread.> The Shepherd of Hermas wrote in Greek at Rome (though a Latin translation was made soon afterward, and has survived more completely than the Greek).> > Other Romans wrote in Greek. Hippolytus springs immediately to mind.I would have to say that the most eminent of Romans who wrote in Greekwas the emperor Aurelius Antoninus, better known as Marcus Aurelius. Theso-called “Meditations” have, I think, been entitled by some, PROS hEAUTON.At any rate, he does address himself in them, which would suggest that he thought of Greek as his “native” language. And while the first scroll of thiswork recounts his spiritual heritage from his parents and forebears, the secondbegins with the wonderful admonition, “Tell yourself first thing every morningthat you are going to meet all sorts of obnoxious people this day, and that theyare every one of them made of the very same stuff as am I myself.”Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > On 10-08-22 11:29 PM, “David McKay” <davidmckay52 at gmail.com> wrote:> > I’ve just read this assertion on another list and am interested in your> comments, please:> > “And no, Greek was not the language of the Romans. They spoke Latin. Paul> would have written to Rome either in one of his better languages> (Hebrew/Aramaic) or theirs (Latin), but there’s little logic behind the idea> he would have written to them in Greek.”> > David McKay

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Kevin P. Edgecomb kevin at bombaxo.com
Mon Aug 23 14:18:17 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Quoting “Barry H.” <nebarry at verizon.net>:[snip]…since there had been a great influx of Greek speaking folks from the East.[snip]Not only from the East, however. Southern Italy itself was predominantly Greek-speaking, as was Sicily. Thus a large percentage of what might be considered core Roman citizens (those of the Italian peninsula and its immediate environs) themselves had Greek as their first language.Regards,Kevin P. EdgecombBerkeley, California

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Barry H. nebarry at verizon.net
Mon Aug 23 14:36:38 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? —– Original Message —– From: “Kevin P. Edgecomb” <kevin at bombaxo.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 2:18 PMSubject: Re: [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?> Quoting “Barry H.” <nebarry at verizon.net>:> [snip]…since there had been a great influx of Greek speaking folks > from the East.[snip]> > Not only from the East, however. Southern Italy itself was > predominantly Greek-speaking, as was Sicily. Thus a large percentage > of what might be considered core Roman citizens (those of the Italian > peninsula and its immediate environs) themselves had Greek as their > first language.Very good observation, I hadn’t been thinking of that.N.E. Barry HofstetterClassics and Bible Instructor, TAAhttp://www.theamericanacademy.net(2010 Savatori Excellence in Education Winner)V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARS bhofstetter at tnars.nethttp://www.tnars.nethttp://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/bloghttp://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Justin Chamberlain justin4jesus at verizon.net
Mon Aug 23 20:56:22 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? The Romans did in fact speak Latin but Greek was the language of commerceand a universally known language of the day. The Romans could read and writeGreek. Paul wrote to the Roman church in Greek for this reason and the factthat they were most likely using the Septuagint and would be reading thescriptures in Greek as well. Logically Paul would use the universal Greek ofthe day and not the geographically limited Latin.Justin ChamberlainSanta Maria, CA—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of David McKaySent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 11:30 PMTo: BGSubject: [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?I’ve just read this assertion on another list and am interested in yourcomments, please:”And no, Greek was not the language of the Romans. They spoke Latin. Paulwould have written to Rome either in one of his better languages(Hebrew/Aramaic) or theirs (Latin), but there’s little logic behind the ideahe would have written to them in Greek.”David McKay— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? James Ernest j.d.ernest at bc.edu
Mon Aug 23 20:56:41 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Greek (not Latin) was the language of Christianity at Rome into the thirdcentury . . .James Ernest

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Stephen Baldwin stbaldwi at hotmail.com
Mon Aug 23 22:04:31 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? …the legacy survives to this day.I was at a wedding [USA] recently where the bridegroom’s surname [second name] was Anastasi.Armed with my encyclopedic knowledge of Greek [;-)] I confidently asked about his Greek origins only to be rebuffed: “Err no — actually we are originally from Sicily…”.And was it not this part of the world that contained pockets of Greek scholarship that was pretty much absent from the rest of Europe until the Revival of Learning…?RgdsSteve Baldwinstbaldwi at hotmail.com—————————————-> From: nebarry at verizon.net> To: kevin at bombaxo.com; at lists.ibiblio.org> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:36:38 -0400> Subject: Re: [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?> > > —– Original Message —–> From: “Kevin P. Edgecomb” > To: > Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 2:18 PM> Subject: Re: [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?> > > > Quoting “Barry H.” :> > [snip]…since there had been a great influx of Greek speaking folks> > from the East.[snip]> >> > Not only from the East, however. Southern Italy itself was> > predominantly Greek-speaking, as was Sicily. Thus a large percentage> > of what might be considered core Roman citizens (those of the Italian> > peninsula and its immediate environs) themselves had Greek as their> > first language.> > Very good observation, I hadn’t been thinking of that.> > N.E. Barry Hofstetter> Classics and Bible Instructor, TAA> http://www.theamericanacademy.net> (2010 Savatori Excellence in Education Winner)> V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARS> bhofstetter at tnars.net> http://www.tnars.net> > http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog> http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry> >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Sarah Madden sarah.r.madden at gmail.com
Mon Aug 23 23:30:24 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Weren’t there a ton of Greek Jews who populated large portions of the Romanempire (perhaps as slaves)? At least this was what a Jewish coworker toldme. That could explain the name.SarahOn Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Stephen Baldwin <stbaldwi at hotmail.com>wrote:> > …the legacy survives to this day.> I was at a wedding [USA] recently where the bridegroom’s surname [second> name] was Anastasi.> Armed with my encyclopedic knowledge of Greek [;-)] I confidently asked> about his Greek origins only to be rebuffed: “Err no — actually we are> originally from Sicily…”.> And was it not this part of the world that contained pockets of Greek> scholarship that was pretty much absent from the rest of Europe until the> Revival of Learning…?> > Rgds> Steve Baldwin> stbaldwi at hotmail.com> > > —————————————-> > From: nebarry at verizon.net> > To: kevin at bombaxo.com; at lists.ibiblio.org> > Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:36:38 -0400> > Subject: Re: [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?> >> >> > —– Original Message —–> > From: “Kevin P. Edgecomb”> > To:> > Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 2:18 PM> > Subject: Re: [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?> >> >> > > Quoting “Barry H.” :> > > [snip]…since there had been a great influx of Greek speaking folks> > > from the East.[snip]> > >> > > Not only from the East, however. Southern Italy itself was> > > predominantly Greek-speaking, as was Sicily. Thus a large percentage> > > of what might be considered core Roman citizens (those of the Italian> > > peninsula and its immediate environs) themselves had Greek as their> > > first language.> >> > Very good observation, I hadn’t been thinking of that.> >> > N.E. Barry Hofstetter> > Classics and Bible Instructor, TAA> > http://www.theamericanacademy.net> > (2010 Savatori Excellence in Education Winner)> > V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARS> > bhofstetter at tnars.net> > http://www.tnars.net> >> > http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog> > http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry> >> > —> > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — Sarah ><>sarah.r.madden at gmail.comwork: 301.429.8189

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Dewayne Dulaney dewayne.dulaney at gmail.com
Fri Aug 27 19:30:02 EDT 2010

 

[] Errata corregenda [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Χαίρετε πᾶσιν· (CAIRETE PASIN)-Hello, everybody!Another probable reason Paul chose to write Romans in Greek is thatany readers from upper-class Roman families would have known Greek aswell as Latin—and possibly Latin-speaking readers from less-affluentbackgrounds also. The Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed., 1996), inthe article “education, Roman” tells us “Aristocratic Roman familiesoften employed Greek-speaking tutors for their children…and thesetutors—often slaves or freedmen—commonly taught both Greek and Latin;competence in both languages remained a feature of an upper-classeducation until the western and eastern empires parted company. Thistradition of tutors…continued alongside the growth of schools.”Later in the same article we learn the Roman elementary schools usedbilingual Greek-Latin textbooks called “Hermeneumata”(“Translations”). In the same work, the article on Hermeneumata tellsus that these textbooks were used to teach children vocabulary andidiom in both languages. (That article cites the “Corpus glossariorumlatinorum” vol. 3 as a source of these bilingual texts. The CGL isavailable for free download from archive.org.)But such education was not only made available to the wealthy. Thearticle on Roman education also tells us that the elementary schools,though they charged fees, were affordable to all in the empire exceptthe poor.Thus, the knowledge of Greek among even native Romans may well havebeen widespread in the first century. As Colossians 4:16 indicates thepractice was to read Paul’s letters aloud to the Christian assemblies,likely the readers of Romans could understand spoken Greek as well asread it.Δεβένιος Δυλένιος (DEBENIOS DULENIOS)– “From the world you will have trouble. But, be brave! I have defeatedthe world!”—John 16:33, DDV (Dewayne Dulaney Version)My Bible blogs: http://my.opera.com/Loquor/blog/ andhttp://hasopher.preachersfiles.com/

 

[] Errata corregenda[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? Barry H. nebarry at verizon.net
Sat Aug 28 07:17:46 EDT 2010

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] Errata corregenda (My own) —– Original Message —– From: “Dewayne Dulaney” <dewayne.dulaney at gmail.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>; <kevin at bombaxo.com>; <nebarry at verizon.net>; <j.d.ernest at bc.edu>; <stbaldwi at hotmail.com>; <sarah.r.madden at gmail.com>Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 7:30 PMSubject: Re: [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?> Thus, the knowledge of Greek among even native Romans may well have> been widespread in the first century. As Colossians 4:16 indicates the> practice was to read Paul’s letters aloud to the Christian assemblies,> likely the readers of Romans could understand spoken Greek as well as> read it.> > Δεβένιος Δυλένιος (DEBENIOS DULENIOS)Good observations. Let me supplement that even “the poor” who couldn’t afford to send their potential novus homo (“new man,” i.e., not a member of the partician class) to one of the ludi (“school”) still might pick up quite a bit of Greek in the age old fashion of learning it on the street.Interesting that in just a generation or two, Greek will fade from the West as a lingua franca and become essentially possession of the educated classes as a literary study, though in the eastern Empire it will remain the common language.N.E. Barry HofstetterClassics and Bible Instructor, TAAhttp://www.theamericanacademy.net(2010 Savatori Excellence in Education Winner)V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARSbhofstetter at tnars.nethttp://www.tnars.nethttp://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/bloghttp://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry

 

[] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] Errata corregenda (My own)

Paul’s greetings and closings Randy LEEDY Rleedy at bju.edu
Wed Sep 23 14:56:27 EDT 1998

 

reading for vocabulary HELP: Paul and the greek word musterion A student asked me to evaluate a comment of John Piper’s (in FUTUREGRACE) regarding Paul’s epistolary greetings and closings. Noting thatthe invariable formula is CARIS hUMIN at the beginning and CARIS MEQ’hUMWN at the end, Piper explains, “The meaning I would suggest isthis: at the beginning of his letters Paul has in mind that the letteritself is a channel of God’s grace to the readers. Grace is about toflow from God through Paul’s writing to the Christians…. But as theend of the letter approaches, Paul realizes that the reading is almostfinished and the question rises, ‘What becomes of the grace that hasbeen flowing to the readers through the reading of the inspiredletter?’ he answers with a blessing at the end of every letter: ‘Grace(be) with you.” My reaction is that his is an over-reading. However true it is thatPaul’s letters are a means of grace and that Paul was well aware ofthat fact, it seems to me that the difference is simply one ofconvention and, further, that Paul has in mind a great variety ofpossible manifestations of God’s grace in addition to his letter. Itseems natural that at the beginning of the letter (or any sort ofcommunication, for that matter) he should say something like “I trustthat my letter finds you experiencing God’s grace” and that at the endhe should express his hope that this experience will continue. Itseems like a Christian form of the greeting “I hope all is well” andclosing “I hope things will go well,” which do not necessarily implythat the writer is speaking of the effects of his letter at all.Do secular ancient letters bear me out? I’ve seen plenty of papyrithat simply say CAIRE or CAIREIN, followed by a prayer wish forprosperity and health. But these are not exactly parallel to CARIShUMIN. Do any secular letters express a wish in the exact form of theNT grammar, only using terms that cannot signify that writer’s hoperegarding the effects of his letter?Thanks for any help. It’s class time; can’t proofread; hope I gotthings right or reasonably close!****************************In love to God and neighbor,Randy LeedyBob Jones UniversityGreenville, SCRLeedy at bju.edu****************************

 

reading for vocabularyHELP: Paul and the greek word musterion

Pauline Authorship of Hebrews Edgar Krentz ekrentz at lstc.edu
Fri Oct 2 11:17:30 EDT 1998

 

Phillipians 2:1 PNEUMATOS – Big S or little S? 2 used grammars for sale >I would like to ask a naive question and I hope it has not already been>covered. Is it really proper to say that Paul did NOT author Hebrews? The>author was evidently in Italy at the time of writing (13:24). Paul was>imprisoned twice. The author was also an associate of Timothy. In 13:23, the>author writes “Take note that our brother Timothy has been released, with>whom, if he comes quite soon, I shall see you.” This seems to indicate that>the writer was expecting an early release from prison and hoped to accompany>Timothy, who had also been imprisoned but who had already been released.>This would suggest the first imprisonment, the final year of which is>suggested to be 61 C.E.I think that this discussion long ago departed from the scope of biblicalGreek. The discussion has shifted into a discussion of historicalargumentation. A discussioni might be justified on the basis ofstylistics, rhetoric, etc. Did Luke translate a Hebrew Pauline letter? Alinguistic discussioni would compare the language and rhetoric of Luke-Actsand Hebrews [to conclude that Luke did not write Hebrews or teranslate it,IMHO].I think this thread has long run its course–or belongs on a differentdiscussion table.Peace,++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Edgar KrentzActing Dean, Fall Quarter 1998Professor of New Testament EmeritusLutheran School of Theology at Chicago1100 E. 55th StreetChicago, IL 60615 USA773-256-0752e-mail: ekrentz at lstc.edu (Office) emkrentz at mcs.net (Home)+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Phillipians 2:1 PNEUMATOS – Big S or little S?2 used grammars for sale

Pauline Authorship of Hebrews Edgar Krentz ekrentz at lstc.edu
Fri Oct 2 11:17:30 EDT 1998

 

Phillipians 2:1 PNEUMATOS – Big S or little S? 2 used grammars for sale >I would like to ask a naive question and I hope it has not already been>covered. Is it really proper to say that Paul did NOT author Hebrews? The>author was evidently in Italy at the time of writing (13:24). Paul was>imprisoned twice. The author was also an associate of Timothy. In 13:23, the>author writes “Take note that our brother Timothy has been released, with>whom, if he comes quite soon, I shall see you.” This seems to indicate that>the writer was expecting an early release from prison and hoped to accompany>Timothy, who had also been imprisoned but who had already been released.>This would suggest the first imprisonment, the final year of which is>suggested to be 61 C.E.I think that this discussion long ago departed from the scope of biblicalGreek. The discussion has shifted into a discussion of historicalargumentation. A discussioni might be justified on the basis ofstylistics, rhetoric, etc. Did Luke translate a Hebrew Pauline letter? Alinguistic discussioni would compare the language and rhetoric of Luke-Actsand Hebrews [to conclude that Luke did not write Hebrews or teranslate it,IMHO].I think this thread has long run its course–or belongs on a differentdiscussion table.Peace,++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Edgar KrentzActing Dean, Fall Quarter 1998Professor of New Testament EmeritusLutheran School of Theology at Chicago1100 E. 55th StreetChicago, IL 60615 USA773-256-0752e-mail: ekrentz at lstc.edu (Office) emkrentz at mcs.net (Home)+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Phillipians 2:1 PNEUMATOS – Big S or little S?2 used grammars for sale

Pauline Authorship of Hebrews Williams, Wes Wes.Williams at echostar.com
Fri Oct 2 16:28:47 EDT 1998

 

Authorship of Hebrews Divine name in NT I would like to ask a naive question and I hope it has not already beencovered. Is it really proper to say that Paul did NOT author Hebrews? Theauthor was evidently in Italy at the time of writing (13:24). Paul wasimprisoned twice. The author was also an associate of Timothy. In 13:23, theauthor writes “Take note that our brother Timothy has been released, withwhom, if he comes quite soon, I shall see you.” This seems to indicate thatthe writer was expecting an early release from prison and hoped to accompanyTimothy, who had also been imprisoned but who had already been released.This would suggest the first imprisonment, the final year of which issuggested to be 61 C.E.While the MS evidence is not conclusive, at the same time it does not appearto be easily dismissed. Sir Frederic Kenyon wrote on P46: “It is noticeablethat Hebrews is placed immediately after Romans (an almost unprecedentedposition), which shows that at the early date when this manuscript waswritten no doubt was felt as to its Pauline authorship.” “The Story of theBible,” 1964, page 91. McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia states pointedly:”There is no substantial evidence, external or internal, in favor of anyclaimant to the authorship of this epistle except Paul.” 1981 reprint, Vol.IV, page 147.Granted that the author did not identify their self, it was commonpresupposition to the congregations who the author was (13:23,24). If it wasPaul, he may have omitted his name simply because his name was such anobject of hatred in Judea. Granted that the style is different, Paul was onewho could “become all things to all people (1 Cor. 9:22). I am not taking any particular position here. I simply wish to make thepoint that while I appreciate that the author did not identify their selfexplicitly, is it really proper to go the other way and say it was NOT Paul?Sincerely,Wes Williams

 

Authorship of HebrewsDivine name in NT

Pauline Authorship of Hebrews Williams, Wes Wes.Williams at echostar.com
Fri Oct 2 16:28:47 EDT 1998

 

Authorship of Hebrews Divine name in NT I would like to ask a naive question and I hope it has not already beencovered. Is it really proper to say that Paul did NOT author Hebrews? Theauthor was evidently in Italy at the time of writing (13:24). Paul wasimprisoned twice. The author was also an associate of Timothy. In 13:23, theauthor writes “Take note that our brother Timothy has been released, withwhom, if he comes quite soon, I shall see you.” This seems to indicate thatthe writer was expecting an early release from prison and hoped to accompanyTimothy, who had also been imprisoned but who had already been released.This would suggest the first imprisonment, the final year of which issuggested to be 61 C.E.While the MS evidence is not conclusive, at the same time it does not appearto be easily dismissed. Sir Frederic Kenyon wrote on P46: “It is noticeablethat Hebrews is placed immediately after Romans (an almost unprecedentedposition), which shows that at the early date when this manuscript waswritten no doubt was felt as to its Pauline authorship.” “The Story of theBible,” 1964, page 91. McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia states pointedly:”There is no substantial evidence, external or internal, in favor of anyclaimant to the authorship of this epistle except Paul.” 1981 reprint, Vol.IV, page 147.Granted that the author did not identify their self, it was commonpresupposition to the congregations who the author was (13:23,24). If it wasPaul, he may have omitted his name simply because his name was such anobject of hatred in Judea. Granted that the style is different, Paul was onewho could “become all things to all people (1 Cor. 9:22). I am not taking any particular position here. I simply wish to make thepoint that while I appreciate that the author did not identify their selfexplicitly, is it really proper to go the other way and say it was NOT Paul?Sincerely,Wes Williams

 

Authorship of HebrewsDivine name in NT

Did Paul Speak Greek with a Turkish Accent? Dean Kyburz DHKyburz at juno.com
Wed Mar 17 21:13:19 EST 1999

 

Starting out in LXX PISTIS in Josephus This is my first time on the line. I have seen the archives, but I am sure not to be up to date on all the responses. Referrals to earlier discussions will be appreciated. I hope to gather very obscure bits of not very scholarly information. My interest is more in “how” and “why.”I have read previous discussions about “The Sound of Koine” and “Erasmian” pronunciation of spoken . My goal is to present some of the writings of Paul — and to do so in a way that some people will feel is authentic.Are recordings available of the NT in Koine? Would Paul have also spoken the native language of Tarsus? Would he therefore have spoken Greek with that type of accent? Should his geographical native tongue be called “Turkish?”How would a native Greek & Turkish speaker sound speaking English? Any ideas where a recording might be found that could give a reasonable idea of that kind of accent?My very sincere thanks.Dean Kyburz

 

Starting out in LXXPISTIS in Josephus

Did Paul Speak Greek with a Turkish Accent? Dean Kyburz DHKyburz at juno.com
Wed Mar 17 21:13:19 EST 1999

 

Starting out in LXX PISTIS in Josephus This is my first time on the line. I have seen the archives, but I am sure not to be up to date on all the responses. Referrals to earlier discussions will be appreciated. I hope to gather very obscure bits of not very scholarly information. My interest is more in “how” and “why.”I have read previous discussions about “The Sound of Koine” and “Erasmian” pronunciation of spoken . My goal is to present some of the writings of Paul — and to do so in a way that some people will feel is authentic.Are recordings available of the NT in Koine? Would Paul have also spoken the native language of Tarsus? Would he therefore have spoken Greek with that type of accent? Should his geographical native tongue be called “Turkish?”How would a native Greek & Turkish speaker sound speaking English? Any ideas where a recording might be found that could give a reasonable idea of that kind of accent?My very sincere thanks.Dean Kyburz

 

Starting out in LXXPISTIS in Josephus
Here’s another message that fell through the cracks; it was sent to the wrong address.
Please note that messages intended for distribution to the list should be sent to:
href=”mailto:@lists.ibiblio.org”>@lists.ibiblio.org

Carl W. Conrad
Co-Chair, List
————————————
From: “Shumaker, Dave”
Date: January 26, 2011 10:36:25 AM EST
To: “-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org”
Subject: Hebrews 2:3

Can any one help me with the syntax of labousa laleisqai (Hebrews 2:3). I understand how it is translated, I just can’t seem to find a satisfying syntactical explanation.

Any help is appreciated.

Dave Shumaker, M.Div.
Assistant Professor
School of Bible and Theology
Baptist Bible College

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]