ICHQUS Theodore H Mann thmann at juno.com
Tue May 25 21:50:57 EDT 1999
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 ICHQUS I guess this is an OK question for the list, if anyone cares to respond. What is the story behind the supposed use of the acronym, ICHQUS, as anearly symbol for Christianity? Many thanks.Dr. Theodore “Ted” MannOrchard Lake, Michiganthmann at juno.comhttp://members.delphi.com/tedmann1
hOTI clause Acts 17:18ICHQUS
ICHQUS Theodore H Mann thmann at juno.com
Tue May 25 21:50:57 EDT 1999
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 ICHQUS I guess this is an OK question for the list, if anyone cares to respond. What is the story behind the supposed use of the acronym, ICHQUS, as anearly symbol for Christianity? Many thanks.Dr. Theodore “Ted” MannOrchard Lake, Michiganthmann at juno.comhttp://members.delphi.com/tedmann1
hOTI clause Acts 17:18ICHQUS
ICHQUS Cindy Smith cms at dragon.com
Tue May 25 23:35:29 EDT 1999
ICHQUS ICHQUS ICQUS is an acronym for IESUS KRISTOS THEOU hUIOS SWTER, or,Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour. The acronym also spells the Greek word for “fish.” The fish, obviously, was an early symbol of the secretive Christian communities who hid in fear of Jews and Romans. If secret Christians saw the fish symbol on a doorway, they knew Christians lived there, and it was what spooks today would call a “safe house.”Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish CarpenterGO AGAINST THE FLOW! __ _///_ // >IXOYE=(‘> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgiacms at dragon.com // /// cms at star-nets.comcms at romancatholic.org Delay not your conversion to the LORD,Put it not off from day to day Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8Read the mailing list Bible at dragon.comRead the mailing list Literature at dragon.comRead the mailing list nt-trans at dragon.com (Greek New Testament)Read the mailing list ot-trans at dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament)
ICHQUSICHQUS
ICHQUS Daniel L Christiansen dlc at multnomah.edu
Tue May 25 23:49:17 EDT 1999
ICHQUS Pros Cindy Smith’s brief reply to Ted’s question is probably what most of usthink of when we consider the ICQUS. However, I think what Ted wasasking for, was historical support for the idea of the fish being anearly Christian symbol. I must admit, I don’t have the references–Ihave always accepted it a face value, since it “sounds right.” Howun-scholarly of me:)–Daniel L. ChristiansenDepartment of BibleMultnomah Bible College8435 NE Glisan StreetPortland, OR 97236(Also Portland Bible College, Prof of Biblical Languages)e-mail: dlc at multnomah.edu
ICHQUSPros
ICHQUS Cindy Smith cms at dragon.com
Tue May 25 23:35:29 EDT 1999
ICHQUS ICHQUS ICQUS is an acronym for IESUS KRISTOS THEOU hUIOS SWTER, or,Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour. The acronym also spells the Greek word for “fish.” The fish, obviously, was an early symbol of the secretive Christian communities who hid in fear of Jews and Romans. If secret Christians saw the fish symbol on a doorway, they knew Christians lived there, and it was what spooks today would call a “safe house.”Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish CarpenterGO AGAINST THE FLOW! __ _///_ // >IXOYE=(‘> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgiacms at dragon.com // /// cms at star-nets.comcms at romancatholic.org Delay not your conversion to the LORD,Put it not off from day to day Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8Read the mailing list Bible at dragon.comRead the mailing list Literature at dragon.comRead the mailing list nt-trans at dragon.com (Greek New Testament)Read the mailing list ot-trans at dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament)
ICHQUSICHQUS
ICHQUS Daniel L Christiansen dlc at multnomah.edu
Tue May 25 23:49:17 EDT 1999
ICHQUS Pros Cindy Smith’s brief reply to Ted’s question is probably what most of usthink of when we consider the ICQUS. However, I think what Ted wasasking for, was historical support for the idea of the fish being anearly Christian symbol. I must admit, I don’t have the references–Ihave always accepted it a face value, since it “sounds right.” Howun-scholarly of me:)–Daniel L. ChristiansenDepartment of BibleMultnomah Bible College8435 NE Glisan StreetPortland, OR 97236(Also Portland Bible College, Prof of Biblical Languages)e-mail: dlc at multnomah.edu
ICHQUSPros
ICHQUS Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 26 07:00:01 EDT 1999
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent? At 10:35 PM -0500 5/25/99, Cindy Smith wrote:>ICQUS is an acronym for IESUS KRISTOS THEOU hUIOS SWTER, or,>Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour. The acronym also spells the Greek>word for “fish.” The fish, obviously, was an early symbol of the>secretive Christian communities who hid in fear of Jews and Romans.>If secret Christians saw the fish symbol on a doorway, they knew>Christians lived there, and it was what spooks today would call a>“safe house.”At 8:49 PM -0700 5/25/99, Daniel L Christiansen wrote:>Cindy Smith’s brief reply to Ted’s question is probably what most of us>think of when we consider the ICQUS. However, I think what Ted was>asking for, was historical support for the idea of the fish being an>early Christian symbol. I must admit, I don’t have the references–I>have always accepted it a face value, since it “sounds right.” How>un-scholarly of me:)I can’t add anything but more speculation to what Daniel is saying with “itsounds right.” But I’ve always been a little bit suspicious about thesynoptic story in Mk 1:16-20 and Mt 4:18-22 about the fishermen asevangelists–the story that seems to be expanded in Luke’s account (Lk5:1-11) of the marvelous catch of fish (or, I suppose, some may reallybelieve Mk’s account and Mt’s are condensations of Lk’s, a rather ‘fishy’notion, if you ask me). I’ve wondered too whether the multiplication ofloaves and fishes isn’t related, in the Marcan double narratives ofwilderness feedings, to the motif of evangelization. Then I’ve wonderedwhether this is grounded in the ICQUS anagram as a credal formula of theGREEK-speaking missionary church–all of this casting into question whetherthose stories in Mk and Mt didn’t arise in a missionary community that wasalready a fundamentally Greek-speaking one. This is pure speculation, Iadmit (although it wouldn’t surprise me if it hasn’t occurred to someoneelse ere this), but fuel is added to this incipient combustion by thethought that John’s gospel may very well be more historical in placing therecruitment of Jesus’ first followers among the disciples of John theBaptist, in which case the story of their recruitment by the lakeshore inGalilee would be a secondary development arising out of stories thatoriginally focused not on the fact of the recruitment of the “First Four”but rather upon the thematic identification of disciple/apostle as a”fisher of men.”Let me just note here, since I have linked Ted Mann’s original question andCindy Smith’s and Daniel Christiansen’s responses to my own speculations ofa form-critical and redaction-critical and history-of-tradition nature,that I am forwarding this message to the Synoptic list just in case membersof that group have any inclination to discuss this question. Thesespeculations I have raised really DO NOT BELONG on but are the veryessence of “grist for the mill” of Synoptic-L. ers who areinterested should look for any repercussions of this speculation overthere, as it would be inappropriate to continue such a thread on .Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
hOTI clause Acts 17:182 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent?
ICHQUS Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 26 07:00:01 EDT 1999
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 2 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent? At 10:35 PM -0500 5/25/99, Cindy Smith wrote:>ICQUS is an acronym for IESUS KRISTOS THEOU hUIOS SWTER, or,>Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour. The acronym also spells the Greek>word for “fish.” The fish, obviously, was an early symbol of the>secretive Christian communities who hid in fear of Jews and Romans.>If secret Christians saw the fish symbol on a doorway, they knew>Christians lived there, and it was what spooks today would call a>“safe house.”At 8:49 PM -0700 5/25/99, Daniel L Christiansen wrote:>Cindy Smith’s brief reply to Ted’s question is probably what most of us>think of when we consider the ICQUS. However, I think what Ted was>asking for, was historical support for the idea of the fish being an>early Christian symbol. I must admit, I don’t have the references–I>have always accepted it a face value, since it “sounds right.” How>un-scholarly of me:)I can’t add anything but more speculation to what Daniel is saying with “itsounds right.” But I’ve always been a little bit suspicious about thesynoptic story in Mk 1:16-20 and Mt 4:18-22 about the fishermen asevangelists–the story that seems to be expanded in Luke’s account (Lk5:1-11) of the marvelous catch of fish (or, I suppose, some may reallybelieve Mk’s account and Mt’s are condensations of Lk’s, a rather ‘fishy’notion, if you ask me). I’ve wondered too whether the multiplication ofloaves and fishes isn’t related, in the Marcan double narratives ofwilderness feedings, to the motif of evangelization. Then I’ve wonderedwhether this is grounded in the ICQUS anagram as a credal formula of theGREEK-speaking missionary church–all of this casting into question whetherthose stories in Mk and Mt didn’t arise in a missionary community that wasalready a fundamentally Greek-speaking one. This is pure speculation, Iadmit (although it wouldn’t surprise me if it hasn’t occurred to someoneelse ere this), but fuel is added to this incipient combustion by thethought that John’s gospel may very well be more historical in placing therecruitment of Jesus’ first followers among the disciples of John theBaptist, in which case the story of their recruitment by the lakeshore inGalilee would be a secondary development arising out of stories thatoriginally focused not on the fact of the recruitment of the “First Four”but rather upon the thematic identification of disciple/apostle as a”fisher of men.”Let me just note here, since I have linked Ted Mann’s original question andCindy Smith’s and Daniel Christiansen’s responses to my own speculations ofa form-critical and redaction-critical and history-of-tradition nature,that I am forwarding this message to the Synoptic list just in case membersof that group have any inclination to discuss this question. Thesespeculations I have raised really DO NOT BELONG on but are the veryessence of “grist for the mill” of Synoptic-L. ers who areinterested should look for any repercussions of this speculation overthere, as it would be inappropriate to continue such a thread on .Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
hOTI clause Acts 17:182 Peter 2:2 relative pronoun – which antecedent?
ICHQUS Edgar Krentz ekrentz at lstc.edu
Wed May 26 09:57:28 EDT 1999
Christian Gospel of Peter 10 >Cindy Smith’s brief reply to Ted’s question is probably what most of us>think of when we consider the ICQUS. However, I think what Ted was>asking for, was historical support for the idea of the fish being an>early Christian symbol. I must admit, I don’t have the references–I>have always accepted it a face value, since it “sounds right.” How>un-scholarly of me:)> F. Doelger published a five volume work under the title ICQUS back in the1930s–in German. I own only the volume of plates. It would give you thelargest discussion.There are also works on early Christian iconography. Try Graydon Snyder’sANTE PACEM..++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Edgar KrentzProfessor of New Testament EmeritusLutheran School of Theology at Chicago1100 E. 55th StreetChicago, IL 60615 USA773-256-0752e-mail: ekrentz at lstc.edu (Office) GHRASKW AEI POLLA DIDASKOMENOS.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ChristianGospel of Peter 10
ICHQUS Edgar Krentz ekrentz at lstc.edu
Wed May 26 09:57:28 EDT 1999
Christian Gospel of Peter 10 >Cindy Smith’s brief reply to Ted’s question is probably what most of us>think of when we consider the ICQUS. However, I think what Ted was>asking for, was historical support for the idea of the fish being an>early Christian symbol. I must admit, I don’t have the references–I>have always accepted it a face value, since it “sounds right.” How>un-scholarly of me:)> F. Doelger published a five volume work under the title ICQUS back in the1930s–in German. I own only the volume of plates. It would give you thelargest discussion.There are also works on early Christian iconography. Try Graydon Snyder’sANTE PACEM..++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Edgar KrentzProfessor of New Testament EmeritusLutheran School of Theology at Chicago1100 E. 55th StreetChicago, IL 60615 USA773-256-0752e-mail: ekrentz at lstc.edu (Office) GHRASKW AEI POLLA DIDASKOMENOS.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ChristianGospel of Peter 10
ICHQUS kosala@md2 kosala at md2.vsnl.net.in
Thu May 27 07:02:44 EDT 1999
Apology for Petition Canon The question seems to be so simple, yet has a deep involvement in thehistory of christianity.The sign of “Fish” was chosen by someone who was feeling the need tocommunicate with other believers in the time of persecution. C.W.conrad’sremarks are helpful. Fishing would have played a role. But may be also thedesire to formulare a confession. Jesus Christ the son of God t he Saviourseems to be the beginning of such an attempt. And the word ICQUS might havebeen born through playing around with this.These will be certainly speculations, yet it would help us to find “ananswer” that speaks to our faith.K.KosalaIndia—–Original Message—–From: Theodore H Mann <thmann at juno.com>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Date: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 7:33 AMSubject: ICHQUS>I guess this is an OK question for the list, if anyone cares to respond.>What is the story behind the supposed use of the acronym, ICHQUS, as an>early symbol for Christianity? Many thanks.> >Dr. Theodore “Ted” Mann>Orchard Lake, Michigan>thmann at juno.com>http://members.delphi.com/tedmann1> >—> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: kosala at md2.vsnl.net.in>To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >
Apology for PetitionCanon
ICHQUS kosala@md2 kosala at md2.vsnl.net.in
Thu May 27 07:02:44 EDT 1999
Apology for Petition Canon The question seems to be so simple, yet has a deep involvement in thehistory of christianity.The sign of “Fish” was chosen by someone who was feeling the need tocommunicate with other believers in the time of persecution. C.W.conrad’sremarks are helpful. Fishing would have played a role. But may be also thedesire to formulare a confession. Jesus Christ the son of God t he Saviourseems to be the beginning of such an attempt. And the word ICQUS might havebeen born through playing around with this.These will be certainly speculations, yet it would help us to find “ananswer” that speaks to our faith.K.KosalaIndia—–Original Message—–From: Theodore H Mann <thmann at juno.com>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Date: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 7:33 AMSubject: ICHQUS>I guess this is an OK question for the list, if anyone cares to respond.>What is the story behind the supposed use of the acronym, ICHQUS, as an>early symbol for Christianity? Many thanks.> >Dr. Theodore “Ted” Mann>Orchard Lake, Michigan>thmann at juno.com>http://members.delphi.com/tedmann1> >—> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: kosala at md2.vsnl.net.in>To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >
Apology for PetitionCanon
ICHQUS Thomas and Patti Bond lpbond at coiinc.com
Thu May 27 09:17:45 EDT 1999
Greek courses Canon It is my opinion that the fish symbol in early Christianity relates to thecentrality of the community meal for Christian worship. Simply, whenChristians met together, they shared a meal. Often the fish symbol is seenalong with bread in early Christian art. The fish symbol itself probablyrelates to the tradition of post-resurrection meals, as seen in the gospels,where Jesus ate fish with his followers. In that regard, it seems to methat the loaves and fishes stories in the gospel are part of the developmentof Christian tradition, moving from meal to eucharist. Eucharistic languagecan be found in these texts. Fish, then, as an acronymn is a laterdevelopment.This, I know, is probably a bit off-topic, but since there was somediscussion in this regard, and since this point of view had not beenexpressed, I decided to reply.Thomas Bondlpbond at coiinc.com
Greek coursesCanon
ICHQUS Thomas and Patti Bond lpbond at coiinc.com
Thu May 27 09:17:45 EDT 1999
Greek courses Canon It is my opinion that the fish symbol in early Christianity relates to thecentrality of the community meal for Christian worship. Simply, whenChristians met together, they shared a meal. Often the fish symbol is seenalong with bread in early Christian art. The fish symbol itself probablyrelates to the tradition of post-resurrection meals, as seen in the gospels,where Jesus ate fish with his followers. In that regard, it seems to methat the loaves and fishes stories in the gospel are part of the developmentof Christian tradition, moving from meal to eucharist. Eucharistic languagecan be found in these texts. Fish, then, as an acronymn is a laterdevelopment.This, I know, is probably a bit off-topic, but since there was somediscussion in this regard, and since this point of view had not beenexpressed, I decided to reply.Thomas Bondlpbond at coiinc.com
Greek coursesCanon
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Tue May 25 14:01:18 EDT 1999
Christian hOTI clause Acts 17:18 Who is speaking at the end of Acts 17:18hOTI TON IHSOUN KAI THN ANASTASIN EUHGGELIZETO.I have always assumed that this was a explanatory comment by thenarrator, not an extension of the complaint leveled by the Athenians:hOI DE, ZENWNDAIMONIWN DOKEI KATAGGELEUS EINAIAfter reading of Fitzmyer (AB) and Barrett (ICC) it seems like the hOTIclause is being treated as words of the Athenians. This is not statedoutright, but seems to be implied. I could be misreading Fitzmyer andBarrett.The hOTI clause still looks to me like an interjected comment by thenarrator.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
ChristianhOTI clause Acts 17:18
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Tue May 25 14:01:18 EDT 1999
Christian hOTI clause Acts 17:18 Who is speaking at the end of Acts 17:18hOTI TON IHSOUN KAI THN ANASTASIN EUHGGELIZETO.I have always assumed that this was a explanatory comment by thenarrator, not an extension of the complaint leveled by the Athenians:hOI DE, ZENWNDAIMONIWN DOKEI KATAGGELEUS EINAIAfter reading of Fitzmyer (AB) and Barrett (ICC) it seems like the hOTIclause is being treated as words of the Athenians. This is not statedoutright, but seems to be implied. I could be misreading Fitzmyer andBarrett.The hOTI clause still looks to me like an interjected comment by thenarrator.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
ChristianhOTI clause Acts 17:18
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 Mary Pendergraft pender at wfu.edu
Tue May 25 15:40:57 EDT 1999
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 Pauline E list clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:> > Who is speaking at the end of Acts 17:18> > hOTI TON IHSOUN KAI THN ANASTASIN EUHGGELIZETO.> > I have always assumed that this was a explanatory comment by the> narrator, not an extension of the complaint leveled by the Athenians:> > hOI DE, ZENWNDAIMONIWN DOKEI KATAGGELEUS EINAI> > After reading of Fitzmyer (AB) and Barrett (ICC) it seems like the hOTI> clause is being treated as words of the Athenians. This is not stated> outright, but seems to be implied. I could be misreading Fitzmyer and> Barrett.> > The hOTI clause still looks to me like an interjected comment by the> narrator.> > I’m away from my books so I can’t look at the commentaries, but I thinkyou’re right. One reason for taking the hOTI clause as belonging to thenarrator and not to hOI DE is the tense: The imperfect EUHGGELIZETO,ispossible after the present DOKEI, but seems to me less likely than if itexplains why the Athenians made their comments.MaryMary PendergraftAssociate Professor of Classical LanguagesWake Forest UniversityWinston-Salem NC 27109-7343
hOTI clause Acts 17:18Pauline E list
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 25 15:30:10 EDT 1999
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 hOTI clause Acts 17:18 At 11:01 AM -0700 5/25/99, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:>Who is speaking at the end of Acts 17:18> >hOTI TON IHSOUN KAI THN ANASTASIN EUHGGELIZETO.> >I have always assumed that this was a explanatory comment by the>narrator, not an extension of the complaint leveled by the Athenians:> >hOI DE, ZENWNDAIMONIWN DOKEI KATAGGELEUS EINAI> >After reading of Fitzmyer (AB) and Barrett (ICC) it seems like the hOTI>clause is being treated as words of the Athenians. This is not stated>outright, but seems to be implied. I could be misreading Fitzmyer and>Barrett.> >The hOTI clause still looks to me like an interjected comment by the>narrator.That’s the way it looks to me too, Clay, for the primary reason that theverb is in the imperfect, while the verb DOKEI is present; I think the hOTImust here have the sense, “because” (i.e. “This they said because he wasproclaiming Jesus and the resurrection.” I don’t see how that difference oftenses can be explained otherwise.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
hOTI clause Acts 17:18hOTI clause Acts 17:18
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 Mary Pendergraft pender at wfu.edu
Tue May 25 15:40:57 EDT 1999
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 Pauline E list clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:> > Who is speaking at the end of Acts 17:18> > hOTI TON IHSOUN KAI THN ANASTASIN EUHGGELIZETO.> > I have always assumed that this was a explanatory comment by the> narrator, not an extension of the complaint leveled by the Athenians:> > hOI DE, ZENWNDAIMONIWN DOKEI KATAGGELEUS EINAI> > After reading of Fitzmyer (AB) and Barrett (ICC) it seems like the hOTI> clause is being treated as words of the Athenians. This is not stated> outright, but seems to be implied. I could be misreading Fitzmyer and> Barrett.> > The hOTI clause still looks to me like an interjected comment by the> narrator.> > I’m away from my books so I can’t look at the commentaries, but I thinkyou’re right. One reason for taking the hOTI clause as belonging to thenarrator and not to hOI DE is the tense: The imperfect EUHGGELIZETO,ispossible after the present DOKEI, but seems to me less likely than if itexplains why the Athenians made their comments.MaryMary PendergraftAssociate Professor of Classical LanguagesWake Forest UniversityWinston-Salem NC 27109-7343
hOTI clause Acts 17:18Pauline E list
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 25 15:30:10 EDT 1999
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 hOTI clause Acts 17:18 At 11:01 AM -0700 5/25/99, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:>Who is speaking at the end of Acts 17:18> >hOTI TON IHSOUN KAI THN ANASTASIN EUHGGELIZETO.> >I have always assumed that this was a explanatory comment by the>narrator, not an extension of the complaint leveled by the Athenians:> >hOI DE, ZENWNDAIMONIWN DOKEI KATAGGELEUS EINAI> >After reading of Fitzmyer (AB) and Barrett (ICC) it seems like the hOTI>clause is being treated as words of the Athenians. This is not stated>outright, but seems to be implied. I could be misreading Fitzmyer and>Barrett.> >The hOTI clause still looks to me like an interjected comment by the>narrator.That’s the way it looks to me too, Clay, for the primary reason that theverb is in the imperfect, while the verb DOKEI is present; I think the hOTImust here have the sense, “because” (i.e. “This they said because he wasproclaiming Jesus and the resurrection.” I don’t see how that difference oftenses can be explained otherwise.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
hOTI clause Acts 17:18hOTI clause Acts 17:18
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Tue May 25 19:51:00 EDT 1999
Pauline E list hOTI clause Acts 17:18 At 11:01 25/05/99 -0700, you wrote:> >Who is speaking at the end of Acts 17:18> >hOTI TON IHSOUN KAI THN ANASTASIN EUHGGELIZETO.> >I have always assumed that this was a explanatory comment by the>narrator, not an extension of the complaint leveled by the Athenians:> >hOI DE, ZENWNDAIMONIWN DOKEI KATAGGELEUS EINAI> >After reading of Fitzmyer (AB) and Barrett (ICC) it seems like the hOTI>clause is being treated as words of the Athenians. This is not stated>outright, but seems to be implied. I could be misreading Fitzmyer and>Barrett.Clayton;I cannot comment on Barrett, since i don’t have his translation to hand,but I think you may have misread Fitzmyer; it seems to me that his use ofquotation marks is to make clear that it is the narrator who is adding hisown comment.:>>Others commented, “He seems to be lobbying for foreign deities,” becausehe was preaching about “Jesus” and the “Resurrection”<<And his note to this verse makes it even clearer, I feel:>> _because he was preaching about “Jesus” and the “Resurrection”_ It isnot easy to determine the nuance that Luke associates with these words. Anobvious sense is he one that any Christian reader of Acts would understand(about the resurrection of Christ), but that would scarcely have been themeaning a pagan Athenian vou]d have comprehended. Perhaps such a personwould have understood the fem. Creek noun ‘anastasis’ as the name of aconsort for the foreign deity, Jesus, ‘Jesus and Anastasis.” So JohnChrysostom understood it (Horn. in Acta 38.1; PC 0.267), and many afterhim. <<Haenchen’s [ in his ET (Blackwell 1971) ] use of a long dash immediatelybetween ‘deities’ and ‘because’ serves to set it off as a comment comingfrom the narrator.Incidentally, he points out in a note that ” D gig. have omitted theseseemingly incomprhensible words”There is an amusing little pendant to this in Krodel’s commentary in theAugsburg series.”>>……..one called Jesus and the other, his female consort, calledAnastasis. If this were the case, Paul was not even understood. He said onething and his audience in the Agora heard something quite different, asituation not unfamiliar to the modern preacher. >>Regards,MauriceMaurice A. O’Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie
Pauline E listhOTI clause Acts 17:18
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Tue May 25 19:51:00 EDT 1999
Pauline E list hOTI clause Acts 17:18 At 11:01 25/05/99 -0700, you wrote:> >Who is speaking at the end of Acts 17:18> >hOTI TON IHSOUN KAI THN ANASTASIN EUHGGELIZETO.> >I have always assumed that this was a explanatory comment by the>narrator, not an extension of the complaint leveled by the Athenians:> >hOI DE, ZENWNDAIMONIWN DOKEI KATAGGELEUS EINAI> >After reading of Fitzmyer (AB) and Barrett (ICC) it seems like the hOTI>clause is being treated as words of the Athenians. This is not stated>outright, but seems to be implied. I could be misreading Fitzmyer and>Barrett.Clayton;I cannot comment on Barrett, since i don’t have his translation to hand,but I think you may have misread Fitzmyer; it seems to me that his use ofquotation marks is to make clear that it is the narrator who is adding hisown comment.:>>Others commented, “He seems to be lobbying for foreign deities,” becausehe was preaching about “Jesus” and the “Resurrection”<<And his note to this verse makes it even clearer, I feel:>> _because he was preaching about “Jesus” and the “Resurrection”_ It isnot easy to determine the nuance that Luke associates with these words. Anobvious sense is he one that any Christian reader of Acts would understand(about the resurrection of Christ), but that would scarcely have been themeaning a pagan Athenian vou]d have comprehended. Perhaps such a personwould have understood the fem. Creek noun ‘anastasis’ as the name of aconsort for the foreign deity, Jesus, ‘Jesus and Anastasis.” So JohnChrysostom understood it (Horn. in Acta 38.1; PC 0.267), and many afterhim. <<Haenchen’s [ in his ET (Blackwell 1971) ] use of a long dash immediatelybetween ‘deities’ and ‘because’ serves to set it off as a comment comingfrom the narrator.Incidentally, he points out in a note that ” D gig. have omitted theseseemingly incomprhensible words”There is an amusing little pendant to this in Krodel’s commentary in theAugsburg series.”>>……..one called Jesus and the other, his female consort, calledAnastasis. If this were the case, Paul was not even understood. He said onething and his audience in the Agora heard something quite different, asituation not unfamiliar to the modern preacher. >>Regards,MauriceMaurice A. O’Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie
Pauline E listhOTI clause Acts 17:18
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Tue May 25 21:13:17 EDT 1999
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 ICHQUS Thanks to Mary, Maurice, and Carl for thier comments. Mary wrote: > > I’m away from my books so I can’t look at the commentaries, but I think> you’re right. One reason for taking the hOTI clause as belonging to the> narrator and not to hOI DE is the tense: The imperfect EUHGGELIZETO,is> possible after the present DOKEI, but seems to me less likely than if it> explains why the Athenians made their comments.Mary,Permit me to be a little dense. I am not sure why the imperfect aspectwould impact this question. I am not arguing with you and Carl agreeswith you but I simply “don’t get it.” Could you explain in some moredetail?Now for Maurice:> At 11:01 25/05/99 -0700, Maurice wrote:> Clayton;> I cannot comment on Barrett, since i don’t have his translation to hand,> but I think you may have misread Fitzmyer; it seems to me that his use of> quotation marks is to make clear that it is the narrator who is adding his> own comment.:> >>>Others commented, “He seems to be lobbying for foreign deities,” because> he was preaching about “Jesus” and the “Resurrection”<<> > And his note to this verse makes it even clearer, I feel:> >>> _because he was preaching about “Jesus” and the “Resurrection”_ It is> not easy to determine the nuance that Luke associates with these words. An> obvious sense is he one that any Christian reader of Acts would understand> (about the resurrection of Christ), but that would scarcely have been the> meaning a pagan Athenian vou]d have comprehended. Perhaps such a person> would have understood the fem. Creek noun ‘anastasis’ as the name of a> consort for the foreign deity, Jesus, ‘Jesus and Anastasis.” So John> Chrysostom understood it (Horn. in Acta 38.1; PC 0.267), and many after> him. <<> > Haenchen’s [ in his ET (Blackwell 1971) ] use of a long dash immediately> between ‘deities’ and ‘because’ serves to set it off as a comment coming> from the narrator.> Incidentally, he points out in a note that ” D gig. have omitted these> seemingly incomprhensible words”> > There is an amusing little pendant to this in Krodel’s commentary in the> Augsburg series.”>>>……..one called Jesus and the other, his female consort, called> Anastasis. If this were the case, Paul was not even understood. He said one> thing and his audience in the Agora heard something quite different, a> situation not unfamiliar to the modern preacher. >>> Maurice,I must have misread both Fitzmyer and Barrett, however I didn’t evenlook at Fitzmyer’s translation but only read his comments. Barrettdoesn’t generally make a translation.You have however, honed in on the problem. It was Fitzmyer’s andBarrett’s comments about ANASTASIS which confused me. They seemed to beweighing the possibility (and rejecting it) that the Athenians werepersonifying ANASTASIS as you mention above. So I assumed that TONIHSOUN KAI THN ANASTASIN had to be words take from what the Athenianswere saying. One of them also stressed that Paul would never have usedANASTASIS like this. This also seemed to point to the Athenians as thespeaker of these confused words.Like I said in my original post, neither Fitzmyer and Barrett explicitlystated that these words came from the Athenians. But some of thierargumentation concerning ANASTASIS seemed to indirectly imply this.Mary and Carl agree that the syntax is aginst this reading and I amperfectly willing to accept this although it isn’t quite clear to me whythis is the case.Thanks to all of you,Clay–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
hOTI clause Acts 17:18ICHQUS
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Tue May 25 21:13:17 EDT 1999
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 ICHQUS Thanks to Mary, Maurice, and Carl for thier comments. Mary wrote: > > I’m away from my books so I can’t look at the commentaries, but I think> you’re right. One reason for taking the hOTI clause as belonging to the> narrator and not to hOI DE is the tense: The imperfect EUHGGELIZETO,is> possible after the present DOKEI, but seems to me less likely than if it> explains why the Athenians made their comments.Mary,Permit me to be a little dense. I am not sure why the imperfect aspectwould impact this question. I am not arguing with you and Carl agreeswith you but I simply “don’t get it.” Could you explain in some moredetail?Now for Maurice:> At 11:01 25/05/99 -0700, Maurice wrote:> Clayton;> I cannot comment on Barrett, since i don’t have his translation to hand,> but I think you may have misread Fitzmyer; it seems to me that his use of> quotation marks is to make clear that it is the narrator who is adding his> own comment.:> >>>Others commented, “He seems to be lobbying for foreign deities,” because> he was preaching about “Jesus” and the “Resurrection”<<> > And his note to this verse makes it even clearer, I feel:> >>> _because he was preaching about “Jesus” and the “Resurrection”_ It is> not easy to determine the nuance that Luke associates with these words. An> obvious sense is he one that any Christian reader of Acts would understand> (about the resurrection of Christ), but that would scarcely have been the> meaning a pagan Athenian vou]d have comprehended. Perhaps such a person> would have understood the fem. Creek noun ‘anastasis’ as the name of a> consort for the foreign deity, Jesus, ‘Jesus and Anastasis.” So John> Chrysostom understood it (Horn. in Acta 38.1; PC 0.267), and many after> him. <<> > Haenchen’s [ in his ET (Blackwell 1971) ] use of a long dash immediately> between ‘deities’ and ‘because’ serves to set it off as a comment coming> from the narrator.> Incidentally, he points out in a note that ” D gig. have omitted these> seemingly incomprhensible words”> > There is an amusing little pendant to this in Krodel’s commentary in the> Augsburg series.”>>>……..one called Jesus and the other, his female consort, called> Anastasis. If this were the case, Paul was not even understood. He said one> thing and his audience in the Agora heard something quite different, a> situation not unfamiliar to the modern preacher. >>> Maurice,I must have misread both Fitzmyer and Barrett, however I didn’t evenlook at Fitzmyer’s translation but only read his comments. Barrettdoesn’t generally make a translation.You have however, honed in on the problem. It was Fitzmyer’s andBarrett’s comments about ANASTASIS which confused me. They seemed to beweighing the possibility (and rejecting it) that the Athenians werepersonifying ANASTASIS as you mention above. So I assumed that TONIHSOUN KAI THN ANASTASIN had to be words take from what the Athenianswere saying. One of them also stressed that Paul would never have usedANASTASIS like this. This also seemed to point to the Athenians as thespeaker of these confused words.Like I said in my original post, neither Fitzmyer and Barrett explicitlystated that these words came from the Athenians. But some of thierargumentation concerning ANASTASIS seemed to indirectly imply this.Mary and Carl agree that the syntax is aginst this reading and I amperfectly willing to accept this although it isn’t quite clear to me whythis is the case.Thanks to all of you,Clay–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
hOTI clause Acts 17:18ICHQUS
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 26 06:39:57 EDT 1999
Greek courses ICHQUS At 6:13 PM -0700 5/25/99, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:>Thanks to Mary, Maurice, and Carl for their comments.> >Mary wrote:> >> >> I’m away from my books so I can’t look at the commentaries, but I think>> you’re right. One reason for taking the hOTI clause as belonging to the>> narrator and not to hOI DE is the tense: The imperfect EUHGGELIZETO,is>> possible after the present DOKEI, but seems to me less likely than if it>> explains why the Athenians made their comments.> >Mary,> >Permit me to be a little dense. I am not sure why the imperfect aspect>would impact this question. I am not arguing with you and Carl agrees>with you but I simply “don’t get it.” Could you explain in some more>detail?I can’t speak for Mary but I think I see quite why she thinks EUHGGELIZETOas imperfect is possible as part of the direct quotation, but we agreethat it’s unlikely. My reasoning is this: The text reads: TINES DE …SUNEBALLON AUTWi, KAI TINES ELEGON, TI AN QELOI hO SPERMOLOGOS hOUTOSLEGEIN? hOI DE, XENWN DAIMONIWN DOKEI KATAGGGELEUS EINAI, hOTI TON IHSOUNKAI THN ANASTASIN EUHGGELIZETO.As I read this, we have three parallel clauses in the narrative, (a) TINESDE .. SUNEBALLON AUTWi, (b) KAI TINES ELEGON, followed by a direct quote(with one of the rare GNT instances of a pure Attic potential optativeconstruction), then (c) hOI DE, presumably with the verb in ellipsiscarried forward from ELEGON in (b), which gives another direct quote (XENWN… DOKEI EINAI); Then follows the hOTI that is our concern with its verbin the imperfect (EUHGGELIZETO); here, I think, is what Mary is talkingabout: the quotation COULD be read as: “He appears to be a proclaimer offoreign divinities, since he was preaching Jesus and Resurrection.” So,yes,I guess that shift in tense is possible. But it reads more smoothly to meif understood as: “‘He appears to be a proclaimer of foreign divinities;”that was because he had been proclaiming Jesus and the resurrection’ (hereI’m translating hOTI as “that was because” and EUHGGELIZETO as a pluperfectprogressive, which is an infrequent but, I think, legitimate way ofunderstanding the imperfect).Of course, it makes a big difference in how one understands ‘TON IHSOUN KAITHN ANASTASIN’: IF this clause is part of the last direct citation, thenTON IHSOUN and THN ANASTASIN probably SHOULD be understood as names ofmasculine and feminine deities; but IF, on the other hand, it is Luke’sparenthetical comment, it is rather an explanation of how the audiencemight possibly have gotten the idea that Paul was proclaiming novel aliendeities.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Greek coursesICHQUS
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 26 06:39:57 EDT 1999
Greek courses ICHQUS At 6:13 PM -0700 5/25/99, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:>Thanks to Mary, Maurice, and Carl for their comments.> >Mary wrote:> >> >> I’m away from my books so I can’t look at the commentaries, but I think>> you’re right. One reason for taking the hOTI clause as belonging to the>> narrator and not to hOI DE is the tense: The imperfect EUHGGELIZETO,is>> possible after the present DOKEI, but seems to me less likely than if it>> explains why the Athenians made their comments.> >Mary,> >Permit me to be a little dense. I am not sure why the imperfect aspect>would impact this question. I am not arguing with you and Carl agrees>with you but I simply “don’t get it.” Could you explain in some more>detail?I can’t speak for Mary but I think I see quite why she thinks EUHGGELIZETOas imperfect is possible as part of the direct quotation, but we agreethat it’s unlikely. My reasoning is this: The text reads: TINES DE …SUNEBALLON AUTWi, KAI TINES ELEGON, TI AN QELOI hO SPERMOLOGOS hOUTOSLEGEIN? hOI DE, XENWN DAIMONIWN DOKEI KATAGGGELEUS EINAI, hOTI TON IHSOUNKAI THN ANASTASIN EUHGGELIZETO.As I read this, we have three parallel clauses in the narrative, (a) TINESDE .. SUNEBALLON AUTWi, (b) KAI TINES ELEGON, followed by a direct quote(with one of the rare GNT instances of a pure Attic potential optativeconstruction), then (c) hOI DE, presumably with the verb in ellipsiscarried forward from ELEGON in (b), which gives another direct quote (XENWN… DOKEI EINAI); Then follows the hOTI that is our concern with its verbin the imperfect (EUHGGELIZETO); here, I think, is what Mary is talkingabout: the quotation COULD be read as: “He appears to be a proclaimer offoreign divinities, since he was preaching Jesus and Resurrection.” So,yes,I guess that shift in tense is possible. But it reads more smoothly to meif understood as: “‘He appears to be a proclaimer of foreign divinities;”that was because he had been proclaiming Jesus and the resurrection’ (hereI’m translating hOTI as “that was because” and EUHGGELIZETO as a pluperfectprogressive, which is an infrequent but, I think, legitimate way ofunderstanding the imperfect).Of course, it makes a big difference in how one understands ‘TON IHSOUN KAITHN ANASTASIN’: IF this clause is part of the last direct citation, thenTON IHSOUN and THN ANASTASIN probably SHOULD be understood as names ofmasculine and feminine deities; but IF, on the other hand, it is Luke’sparenthetical comment, it is rather an explanation of how the audiencemight possibly have gotten the idea that Paul was proclaiming novel aliendeities.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Greek coursesICHQUS
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Thu May 27 10:54:12 EDT 1999
Gospel of Peter 10 Hebrews 1:8 At 00:51 26/05/99 +0100, I quoted from Fitzmyer:>Perhaps such a person>would have understood the fem. Creek noun ‘anastasis’ as the name of a>consort for the foreign deity, Jesus, ‘Jesus and Anastasis.” So John>Chrysostom understood it (Horn. in Acta 38.1; PC 0.267), and many after>him. <<I have dug out the passage from Chrysostom, along with the note by G.B.S [ George B. Stevens, Ph.D., D.D.,professor in Yale University., accordingto the title page ]>>Of strange gods, because he preached:unto them Jesus and theResurrection : for in fact they supposed Anastasis (the Resurrection) tobe some deity, being accustomed to worship female divinities also. <<“The view of Chrys. that the Greeks supposed Paul to designate by theAnastasis some goddess, has been shared by many more recent interpreters,but seems very improbable. The apostle could hardly have spoken soabstractly of the resurrection as to give rise to such a misapprehension.Paul doubtless spoke of Jesus own resurrection and of its relation to thatof believers (vid. 1 Cor. xv.), although in the text the absence of _autou_permits us to find only the idea of the general resurrectionexpressed.(G.B.S) “RegardsMauriceMaurice A. O’Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie
Gospel of Peter 10Hebrews 1:8
hOTI clause Acts 17:18 Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Thu May 27 10:54:12 EDT 1999
Gospel of Peter 10 Hebrews 1:8 At 00:51 26/05/99 +0100, I quoted from Fitzmyer:>Perhaps such a person>would have understood the fem. Creek noun ‘anastasis’ as the name of a>consort for the foreign deity, Jesus, ‘Jesus and Anastasis.” So John>Chrysostom understood it (Horn. in Acta 38.1; PC 0.267), and many after>him. <<I have dug out the passage from Chrysostom, along with the note by G.B.S [ George B. Stevens, Ph.D., D.D.,professor in Yale University., accordingto the title page ]>>Of strange gods, because he preached:unto them Jesus and theResurrection : for in fact they supposed Anastasis (the Resurrection) tobe some deity, being accustomed to worship female divinities also. <<“The view of Chrys. that the Greeks supposed Paul to designate by theAnastasis some goddess, has been shared by many more recent interpreters,but seems very improbable. The apostle could hardly have spoken soabstractly of the resurrection as to give rise to such a misapprehension.Paul doubtless spoke of Jesus own resurrection and of its relation to thatof believers (vid. 1 Cor. xv.), although in the text the absence of _autou_permits us to find only the idea of the general resurrectionexpressed.(G.B.S) “RegardsMauriceMaurice A. O’Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie
Gospel of Peter 10Hebrews 1:8
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 17 15:18:58 EDT 2006
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 [] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 I would agree that the use of the optative here is not particularly indicative of irony. SPERMATOLOGOS is definitely a loaded word. Philo used it in “Legatio ad Gaium” where he characterized two individualshELIKWNI TWi EUPATRIDHi DOULWi SPERMATOLOGWi, PERITRIMMATI, KAI APELLHi TINI TRAGWiDWiIn this Acts passage it would seem that it has the implication of one who acquires bits and pieces of information then propounds some grand theory (much like some amateur theologians on many internet lists). If the optative were to be considered as ironic, what then of Lk 1.62?ENENEUON DE TWi PATRI AUTOU TO TI AN QELOI KAEISQIA AUTO georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>To: greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:01:28 PMSubject: [] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18Potential Opt. Acts 17:18ACTS 17:18 TINES DE KAI TWN EPIKOUREIWN KAI STOIKWN FILOSOFWN SUNEBALLON AUTWi, KAI TINES ELEGON: TI AN QELOI hO SPERMOLOGOS hOUTOS LEGEIN; hOI DE: XENWN DAIMONIWN DOKEI KATAGGELEUS EINAI, hOTI TON IHSOUN KAI THN ANASTASIN EUHGGELIZETO.Parsons/Culy suggest that the potential optative TI AN QELOI (BDF 385.1) indicates that the speakers do not expect Paul to say anything worth hearing. While the potential optative can be used ironically it does not always indicate irony (Smyth 1826). The main indicator of irony in this question is hO SPERMOLOGOS hOUTOS. Both the meaning of SPERMOLOGOS and the use of the demonstrative hOUTOS would serve to trigger an ironic reading of the question. In light of these factors the optative TI AN QELOI would also be read as ironic. But IMO stressing the ironic tone of TI AN QELOI as if it were independent of hO SPERMOLOGOS hOUTOS is somewhat misleading since the semantic contribution of the optative in this passage is low by comparison to hO SPERMOLOGOS hOUTOS.Elizabeth Kline— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Oct 17 15:01:28 EDT 2006
[] Memorizing Declensions – [] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 Potential Opt. Acts 17:18ACTS 17:18 TINES DE KAI TWN EPIKOUREIWN KAI STOIKWN FILOSOFWN SUNEBALLON AUTWi, KAI TINES ELEGON: TI AN QELOI hO SPERMOLOGOS hOUTOS LEGEIN; hOI DE: XENWN DAIMONIWN DOKEI KATAGGELEUS EINAI, hOTI TON IHSOUN KAI THN ANASTASIN EUHGGELIZETO.Parsons/Culy suggest that the potential optative TI AN QELOI (BDF 385.1) indicates that the speakers do not expect Paul to say anything worth hearing. While the potential optative can be used ironically it does not always indicate irony (Smyth 1826). The main indicator of irony in this question is hO SPERMOLOGOS hOUTOS. Both the meaning of SPERMOLOGOS and the use of the demonstrative hOUTOS would serve to trigger an ironic reading of the question. In light of these factors the optative TI AN QELOI would also be read as ironic. But IMO stressing the ironic tone of TI AN QELOI as if it were independent of hO SPERMOLOGOS hOUTOS is somewhat misleading since the semantic contribution of the optative in this passage is low by comparison to hO SPERMOLOGOS hOUTOS.Elizabeth Kline
[] Memorizing Declensions -[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Oct 17 23:26:39 EDT 2006
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 [] Classical Greek mailing list? On Oct 17, 2006, at 12:18 PM, George F Somsel wrote:> In this Acts passage it would seem that it has the implication of > one who acquires bits and pieces of information then propounds some > grand theory (much like some amateur theologians on many internet > lists). If the optative were to be considered as ironic, what then > of Lk 1.62?> > ENENEUON DE TWi PATRI AUTOU TO TI AN QELOI KAEISQIA AUTOAn interesting parallel construction, it even has the demonstrative pronoun. Obviously not ironic.Acts 17:18 TI AN QELOI hO SPERMOLOGOS hOUTOS LEGEIN;To an english ear the demonstrative hOUTOS with SPERMOLOGOS sound like they were really “laying it on thick” but I wonder if the demonstrative really had that effect in first century Athens.Elizabeth Kline
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18[] Classical Greek mailing list?
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Oct 18 02:04:21 EDT 2006
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 [] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 On Oct 17, 2006, at 11:53 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:> Do Parsons/Culy suggest that this usage is ironic?Irony was my shorthand for a long statement. The speakers were feigning an interest in what Paul had to say but making it clear that they didn’t expect him to say anything worth listening to.Parsons/Culy {quote}Potential optative; see 5:24. (Wallace: 1996,701) suggests that the implicit protasis in this incomplete fourth class conditional is something like: “If he could say anything that made sense!” The optative makes it very clear that the philosophers did not think it was likely that paul could say anything of value (Wallace: 1996,701).When the demonstrative is used to refer to someone who is present, it often carries a disparaging or contemptuous connotation. (see 19:26; BDF 290.6.1; cf. also 6:13,14) Here however, the disparagement comes more from the adjective than the demonstrative.{end quote}Elizabeth Kline
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Oct 18 02:53:18 EDT 2006
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 [] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 > Potential Opt. Acts 17:18> > ACTS 17:18 TINES DE KAI TWN EPIKOUREIWN KAI STOIKWN FILOSOFWN> SUNEBALLON AUTWi, KAI TINES ELEGON: TI AN QELOI hO SPERMOLOGOS hOUTOS> LEGEIN; hOI DE: XENWN DAIMONIWN DOKEI KATAGGELEUS EINAI, hOTI TON> IHSOUN KAI THN ANASTASIN EUHGGELIZETO.> > Parsons/Culy suggest that the potential optative TI AN QELOI (BDF> 385.1) indicates that the speakers do not expect Paul to say> anything worth hearing. While the potential optative can be used> ironically it does not always indicate irony (Smyth 1826). The main> indicator of irony in this question is hO SPERMOLOGOS hOUTOS. Both> the meaning of SPERMOLOGOS and the use of the demonstrative hOUTOS> would serve to trigger an ironic reading of the question. In light of> these factors the optative TI AN QELOI would also be read as ironic.> But IMO stressing the ironic tone of TI AN QELOI as if it were> independent of hO SPERMOLOGOS hOUTOS is somewhat misleading since the> semantic contribution of the optative in this passage is low by> comparison to hO SPERMOLOGOS hOUTOS.> > > Elizabeth KlineDo Parsons/Culy suggest that this usage is ironic?I would think the potential optative simply emphasises the “wonderful” (I mean: full of wondering) hypothetical nature of the statement. “What might he want to say?” or “What in the world is he trying to say?”The use of SPERMOLOGOS gives the question a derogatory rather than ironic sense, and it could be interpreted as a rhetorical question. However, the demonstrative hOUTOS does not indicate irony or any derogatory sense when it comes after the head noun. It only functions as a back reference to the previously introduced person, Paul. Had hOUTOS occurred to the left of the head noun, it would have contributed to the derogatory nature of the statement.Iver Larsen
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 18 09:26:57 EDT 2006
[] Is 50:1 in Septuagint [] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 BDF cites Lk 15.30 with regard to usage of hOUTOS in a disparaging sense. hOTE DE hO hUIOS SOU hOUTOS hO KATAFAGWN SOU TON BION META PORNWN HLQEN, EQUSAS AUTWi TON SPEUTON MOSXON.I’m not sure that as our illustrious grammarians assert it is due to its being used of a person present which makes it contemptuous. Surely the speaking regarding the younger brother in an impersonal manner is what makes it contemptuous rather than the use of hOUTOS to refer to one who is (relatively) present. The impersonal usage makes it almost seem that the elder brother doesn’t even deign to mention the younger brother’s name [which, of course, we aren’t given since this is a parable even though Lazaras is mentioned in one parable] or that he was his brother. georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>To: BG < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 2:04:21 AMSubject: Re: [] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18On Oct 17, 2006, at 11:53 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:> Do Parsons/Culy suggest that this usage is ironic?Irony was my shorthand for a long statement. The speakers were feigning an interest in what Paul had to say but making it clear that they didn’t expect him to say anything worth listening to.Parsons/Culy {quote}Potential optative; see 5:24. (Wallace: 1996,701) suggests that the implicit protasis in this incomplete fourth class conditional is something like: “If he could say anything that made sense!” The optative makes it very clear that the philosophers did not think it was likely that paul could say anything of value (Wallace: 1996,701).When the demonstrative is used to refer to someone who is present, it often carries a disparaging or contemptuous connotation. (see 19:26; BDF 290.6.1; cf. also 6:13,14) Here however, the disparagement comes more from the adjective than the demonstrative.{end quote}Elizabeth Kline— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Is 50:1 in Septuagint[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Oct 18 12:21:02 EDT 2006
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 [] Is 50:1 in Septuagint On Oct 18, 2006, at 6:26 AM, George F Somsel wrote:> BDF cites Lk 15.30 with regard to usage of hOUTOS in a disparaging > sense.> > hOTE DE hO hUIOS SOU hOUTOS hO KATAFAGWN SOU TON BION META PORNWN > HLQEN, EQUSAS AUTWi TON SPEUTON MOSXON.> > I’m not sure that as our illustrious grammarians assert it is due > to its being used of a person present which makes it contemptuous. > Surely the speaking regarding the younger brother in an impersonal > manner is what makes it contemptuous rather than the use of hOUTOS > to refer to one who is (relatively) present. The impersonal usage > makes it almost seem that the elder brother doesn’t even deign to > mention the younger brother’s name [which, of course, we aren’t > given since this is a parable even though Lazaras is mentioned in > one parable] or that he was his brother.Furthermore,The father uses the demonstrative in reference to the prodigal while speaking to the older brother in Lk 15:32 hOTI hO ADELFOS SOU hOUTOS NEKROS HN. A counter example in the immediate context.LUKE 15:30 hOTE DE hO hUIOS SOU hOUTOS hO KATAFAGWN SOU TON BION META PORNWN HLQEN, EQUSAS AUTWi TON SITEUTON MOSCON. 31 hO DE EIPEN AUTWi: TEKNON, SU PANTOTE MET’ EMOU EI, KAI PANTA TA EMA SA ESTIN: 32 EUFRANQHNAI DE KAI CARHNAI EDEI, hOTI hO ADELFOS SOU hOUTOS NEKROS HN KAI EZHSEN, KAI APOLWLWS KAI hEUREQH.Elizabeth Kline
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18[] Is 50:1 in Septuagint
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Oct 18 15:18:13 EDT 2006
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 [] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 —– Original Message —– From: “Elizabeth Kline” <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>To: “BG” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 7:04 AMSubject: Re: [] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18> Parsons/Culy {quote}> > Potential optative; see 5:24. (Wallace: 1996,701) suggests that the> implicit protasis in this incomplete fourth class conditional is> something like: “If he could say anything that made sense!” The> optative makes it very clear that the philosophers did not think it> was likely that paul could say anything of value (Wallace: 1996,701).> > When the demonstrative is used to refer to someone who is present, it> often carries a disparaging or contemptuous connotation. (see 19:26;> BDF 290.6.1; cf. also 6:13,14) Here however, the disparagement comes> more from the adjective than the demonstrative.> > {end quote}Thanks for the quote. I don’t have a copy of either Parsons/Culy or Wallace, but I do have BDF.Based on this brief quote, it looks like Wallace is overstating the case in the first paragraph above. The second paragraph (except the last sentence) is incorrect according to my research.BDF does say in 290.6 quote:”hOUTOS appears to be used in a contemptuous sense of a person present: Lk 15:30.”Note the word “appears”. I don’t think BDF has adequately researched the function of word order in terms of the meaning of hOUTOS.I agree with George that the contempt in Lk 15:30 is not shown by the use of hOUTOS, but by the older brother referring to his younger brother as “this son of yours”. (And the younger brother is not present).BDF gives two more references:Lk 18:11 hOUTOS hO TELWNHSHere hOUTOS is fronted and thereby marks a contrast between “this tax collector” and the speaker. As I said when hOUTOS is fronted it may well carry a derogatory sense.The other reference in BDF is Acts 17:18 which we have already dealt with.BDF gives a reference to Rob. 697-706, but I don’t have a copy of Robertson.Concerning Acts 6:13,14 and 19:26 the situation is different.19:26 hO PAULOS hOUTOS6:13 hO ANQRWPOS hOUTOS – no contempt signified by hOUTOS6:14 IHSOUS hO NAZARAIOS hOUTOSI am happy to accept that when hOUTOS is used with a proper name, contempt is indicated, because the demonstrative function of hOUTOS is superfluous with proper name.Iver Larsen
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 18 14:09:04 EDT 2006
[] hO as demonstrative pronoun in 1 Timothy 3:1 [] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 Glad to oblige regarding Robertson. I quote only the section dealing with hOUTOS as derogatory 2. The Contemptuous Use of hOUTOS. It is merely one variation of the purely deictic idiom due to the relation of the persons in question. It is rather common in the N. T. So in Mt. 26:61 hOUTOS EFH we find a “fling” of reproach as the witnesses testify against Jesus. Cf. Mt. 26:71 (parallel Lu. 22:56 KAI hOUTOS), the maid about Peter; Mk. 2:7, the Pharisees about Jesus; Lu. 15:2; Jo. 6:42; 9:24; 12:34; Ac. 7:40, Jews about Moses; 19:26; 28:4, about Paul; Lu. 15:30, the elder son at the younger; 18:11, the Pharisee at the publican, etc. A striking example occurs in Ac. 5:28.Robertson, A. (1919; 2006). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (697). Logos. georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: BG < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 3:18:13 PMSubject: Re: [] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18Thanks for the quote. I don’t have a copy of either Parsons/Culy or Wallace, but I do have BDF.Based on this brief quote, it looks like Wallace is overstating the case in the first paragraph above. The second paragraph (except the last sentence) is incorrect according to my research.BDF does say in 290.6 quote:”hOUTOS appears to be used in a contemptuous sense of a person present: Lk 15:30.”Note the word “appears”. I don’t think BDF has adequately researched the function of word order in terms of the meaning of hOUTOS.I agree with George that the contempt in Lk 15:30 is not shown by the use of hOUTOS, but by the older brother referring to his younger brother as “this son of yours”. (And the younger brother is not present).BDF gives two more references:Lk 18:11 hOUTOS hO TELWNHSHere hOUTOS is fronted and thereby marks a contrast between “this tax collector” and the speaker. As I said when hOUTOS is fronted it may well carry a derogatory sense.The other reference in BDF is Acts 17:18 which we have already dealt with.BDF gives a reference to Rob. 697-706, but I don’t have a copy of Robertson.Concerning Acts 6:13,14 and 19:26 the situation is different.19:26 hO PAULOS hOUTOS6:13 hO ANQRWPOS hOUTOS – no contempt signified by hOUTOS6:14 IHSOUS hO NAZARAIOS hOUTOSI am happy to accept that when hOUTOS is used with a proper name, contempt is indicated, because the demonstrative function of hOUTOS is superfluous with proper name.Iver Larsen — home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] hO as demonstrative pronoun in 1 Timothy 3:1[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Oct 19 02:53:54 EDT 2006
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18 [] Memorizing Declensions Thanks George,I have looked at all the references cited in the quote from Robertson. It is often somewhat of an interpretation to decide whether a certain reference implies a contemptuous sense. This is primarily a pragmatic issues, so it depends on the kind of lexical items use, the word order, the possible other ways the person could be referred to and the whole context.Many of the passages cited have hOUTOS used as a substantive. Therefore it does not apply to ask whether the demonstrative occurs before the head noun or after it. In some of these cases hOUTOS may be used in a derogatory sense, but this is not a property of the word hOUTOS, It is derived from the context.I have already mentioned that when hOUTOS is used with a proper name, it is likely that a derogatory sense is implied. This leaves me with a few examples:John 9:24 hOUTOS hO ANQRWPOS hAMARTWLOS ESTINHere a derogatory sense is likely because hOUTOS occurs before the head noun. The function of a preposed hOUTOS is to put relatively more emphasis on the demonstrative than the noun. A similar effect is obtained in English by stressing “this/that” rather than the noun.John 12:34 TIS ESTIN hOUTOS (,) hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOUHere we have two possible syntactical analyses, either “Who is this (person), the Son of Man?” or “Who is THIS Son of Man?”In the first case, I think a derogatory sense is unlikely, but it is likely with the second option.Acts 5:28 MH DIDASKEIN EPI TWi hONOMATI TOUTWi …TO hAIMA TOU ANQRWPOU TOUTOUI don’t see a derogatory sense indicated here. It is a strong warning, but that is not marked by hOUTOS. One could argue, that since the speaker probably knew Jesus by name, then the choice of NOT referring to him by name suggests contempt.Acts 28:4 FONEUS ESTIN hO ANQRWPOS hOUTOSI don’t see a derogatory sense here, either. The focus is on this unknown person being a murderer.Iver Larsen—– Original Message —– From: “George F Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>; “BG” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 7:09 PMSubject: Re: [] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18Glad to oblige regarding Robertson. I quote only the section dealing with hOUTOS as derogatory2. The Contemptuous Use of hOUTOS. It is merely one variation of the purely deictic idiom due to the relation of the persons in question. It is rather common in the N. T. So in Mt. 26:61 hOUTOS EFH we find a “fling” of reproach as the witnesses testify against Jesus. Cf. Mt. 26:71 (parallel Lu. 22:56 KAI hOUTOS), the maid about Peter; Mk. 2:7, the Pharisees about Jesus; Lu. 15:2; Jo. 6:42; 9:24; 12:34; Ac. 7:40, Jews about Moses; 19:26; 28:4, about Paul; Lu. 15:30, the elder son at the younger; 18:11, the Pharisee at the publican, etc. A striking example occurs in Ac. 5:28.Robertson, A. (1919; 2006). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (697). Logos.georgegfsomsel_________
[] Potential Opt. Acts 17:18[] Memorizing Declensions