Luke 11:2

[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2 Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at comcast.net
Fri Jan 4 20:01:09 EST 2008

[] Double Negation with Subjunctive [] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2 I’ve just finished reading Joseph Heinemann’s “The Background of Jesus’Prayer in the Jewish Liturgical Tradition” (pp. 81-89 in _The Lord’sPrayer and Jewish Liturgy_, J. Petuchowski and M. Brocke, eds.) and Icame across this statement on p. 86: Similarly, K. G. Kuhn (_Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und dem Reim_ [Tubingen, 1950, pp. 21-22] emphasizes the contrast between the NT passages quoted [i.e., Matt. 26:39, 42; Mark 14:36 and Matt. 6:9 ff] and the Jewish conception, in which men “perform Thy will”. This conception is found, for example, in the Palestinian version of the Eighteen Benedictions. In Rabbinic Judaism, the role of mankind in general, and of the Jewish people in particular, is to perform the will of God, whereas in the passive form used by Jesus (“May Thy will be done”), no room is left for man as an active agent performing God’s will (p. 87).Now strikes me that H’s statement that “in the passive form used byJesus (“May Thy will be done”), no room is left for man as an activeagent performing God’s will” is very strange, especially in the light ofthe fact that that Matthew adds the phrase “on earth as it is in heaven”which seems to have in view someone other than God doing God’s will asfaithfully as it is done “in heaven”.But is it true the passive form of the expression “May it be your will”obliterates any idea of human beings having a part in fulfilling thepetition at Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2? If it is,**why** is it true? Arethere counter examples in Greco Roman prayers?Jeffrey–Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)1500 W. Pratt Blvd.Chicago, Illinoise-mail jgibson000 at comcast.net

[] Double Negation with Subjunctive[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2

[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2 Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Fri Jan 4 21:40:56 EST 2008

[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2 [] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2 Dear Jeffrey,I refer you to read BDF, para. 337, pp. 173-174. The aorist imperative(subjunctive) can (4) The regular use of the aorist imperative in prayers andgreetings is also complexive. All petitions in the Lord’s Prayer are in theaorist except Lk 11:3 TON ARTON…DIDOU (SD DOS, as in Mt, is spurious) hHMINTOKAQ’hHNERAN (i.e. iterative; D SHMERON as in Mt).Notes (page 174)(4) The aor. imperat. is used almost exclusively in early liturgies (Mlt.173[273]), and preponderates in class. (SchwayzerII 341). The Ptol. pap. on thewhoLe as in the NT;the aor. is regularly used in prayers (specifics petitions).The aor. is more definite, therefore used especiallyt in official edicts andamong equals: Mayer II 1, 145f., 148. W. Beschewliew, Der Gebrauch des Imp. aor.and praes, im altgr. Gebet (Annuaire de l’Univ. de Sofia, Fac. hist.-philol,XXIII 4, Sofia, 1927 shows that the pres. impera. in prayers (petitions forextended favor or repeated response) is more frequent than was supposed.>From what I gather from the above is that the it is expected that the aorist(whether passive or not) is generally used for the expected petition to begranted. I take the passive use here to indicate that the petition “Thy kingdomcome; Thy will be done,” ELQETW hH BASILEIA SOU; GENHQETW TO QELHMA SOU, is agiven fact. This is indicated by the hWS EN OURANWi KAI EPI GHS; “as it is inheaven so (KAI-now?) upon earth.” With regards to the passive use, I take it tomean that the petitioner is not involved in the actual act since it is God,who’s kingdom and will will come and be done, is the one who performs theactions necessary. That is how I take the quote of Heinemann.En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III—– Original Message —– From: “Jeffrey B. Gibson” <jgibson000 at comcast.net>To: “Biblical Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 5:01 PMSubject: [] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2> I’ve just finished reading Joseph Heinemann’s “The Background of Jesus’> Prayer in the Jewish Liturgical Tradition” (pp. 81-89 in _The Lord’s> Prayer and Jewish Liturgy_, J. Petuchowski and M. Brocke, eds.) and I> came across this statement on p. 86:> > > Similarly, K. G. Kuhn (_Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und dem> Reim_ [Tubingen, 1950, pp. 21-22] emphasizes the contrast> between the NT passages quoted [i.e., Matt. 26:39, 42; Mark> 14:36 and Matt. 6:9 ff] and the Jewish conception, in which> men “perform Thy will”. This conception is found, for example,> in the Palestinian version of the Eighteen Benedictions. In> Rabbinic Judaism, the role of mankind in general, and of the> Jewish people in particular, is to perform the will of God,> whereas in the passive form used by Jesus (“May Thy will be> done”), no room is left for man as an active agent performing> God’s will (p. 87).> > Now strikes me that H’s statement that “in the passive form used by> Jesus (“May Thy will be done”), no room is left for man as an active> agent performing God’s will” is very strange, especially in the light of> the fact that that Matthew adds the phrase “on earth as it is in heaven”> which seems to have in view someone other than God doing God’s will as> faithfully as it is done “in heaven”.> > But is it true the passive form of the expression “May it be your will”> obliterates any idea of human beings having a part in fulfilling the> petition at Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2? If it is,**why** is it true? Are> there counter examples in Greco Roman prayers?> > 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/> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy ofCom-Pair Services!> > > > — > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG Free Edition.> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1209 – Release Date: 01/04/0812:05 PM> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!

[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2

[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2 lws39 at juno.com lws39 at juno.com
Fri Jan 4 22:10:20 EST 2008

[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2 [] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2 Since ERXOMAI and GINOMAI are being discussed, I am wondering if I missed the response by Carl. Perhaps I have misunderstood his comments regarding the passive/middle/deponent issue. If someone might cause me to be enlightened…?Walt Seevers >From what I gather from the above is that the it is expected that the aorist(whether passive or not) is generally used for the expected petition to begranted. I take the passive use here to indicate that the petition “Thy kingdomcome; Thy will be done,” ELQETW hH BASILEIA SOU; GENHQETW TO QELHMA SOU, is agiven fact. This is indicated by the hWS EN OURANWi KAI EPI GHS; “as it is inheaven so (KAI-now?) upon earth.” With regards to the passive use, I take it tomean that the petitioner is not involved in the actual act since it is God,who’s kingdom and will will come and be done, is the one who performs theactions necessary. That is how I take the quote of Heinemann. _____________________________________________________________Registering your trademark has never been easier or more affordable. Click now!http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iie4sKwff2dUk1M6eQaru2hWzKBaJNebbSeDlUHET4qC0x1QE/

[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2

[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sat Jan 5 06:21:14 EST 2008

[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2 [] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2 On Jan 4, 2008, at 10:10 PM, Walt Seevers <lws39 at juno.com> wrote:> Since ERXOMAI and GINOMAI are being discussed, I am wondering if I > missed the response by Carl. Perhaps I have misunderstood his > comments regarding the passive/middle/deponent issue.> > If someone might cause me to be enlightened…?I don’t know about enlightenment (it’s still dark in the Blue Ridge, where I’m writing at 6 a.m.), but I’ll repeat what I already mentioned to Jeffrey in my previous off-list response to him: there’s not really any difference between GENESQW and GENHQHTW — i.e. we can’t affirm that GENESQW is middle but GENHQHTW passive, since the QH “passive” forms are in process of supplanting the older aorist middle (and future middle) forms, bearing both middle and passive semantic value just as the MAI/SAI/TAI,MHN/SO/TO forms bear both middle and passive semantic value, depending on the verb and its distinctive Aktionsart. I’d say that both forms — GENESQW and GENHQHTW — mean “come to pass” or “come to fulfillment.” I don’t think any grammatical perspective precludes the possibility or probability that this is to come about through human agents who will do the will of God.> > >> From what I gather from the above is that the it is expected that >> the aorist> (whether passive or not) is generally used for the expected petition > to be> granted. I take the passive use here to indicate that the petition > “Thy kingdom> come; Thy will be done,” ELQETW hH BASILEIA SOU; GENHQHTW TO QELHMA > SOU, is a> given fact. This is indicated by the hWS EN OURANWi KAI EPI GHS; “as > it is in> heaven so (KAI-now?) upon earth.” With regards to the passive use, I > take it to> mean that the petitioner is not involved in the actual act since it > is God,> who’s kingdom and will will come and be done, is the one who > performs the> actions necessary. That is how I take the quote of Heinemann.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2

[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2 lws39 at juno.com lws39 at juno.com
Sat Jan 5 12:39:37 EST 2008

[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2 [] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2 I’ve gone back and reread your articles on the subject. Are there any other articles/books on the subject? Thanks for any help.Walt SeeversI don’t know about enlightenment (it’s still dark in the Blue Ridge, where I’m writing at 6 a.m.), but I’ll repeat what I already mentioned to Jeffrey in my previous off-list response to him: there’s not really any difference between GENESQW and GENHQHTW — i.e. we can’t affirm that GENESQW is middle but GENHQHTW passive, since the QH “passive” forms are in process of supplanting the older aorist middle (and future middle) forms, bearing both middle and passive semantic value just as the MAI/SAI/TAI,MHN/SO/TO forms bear both middle and passive semantic value, depending on the verb and its distinctive Aktionsart. I’d say that both forms — GENESQW and GENHQHTW — mean “come to pass” or “come to fulfillment.” I don’t think any grammatical perspective precludes the possibility or probability that this is to come about through human agents who will do the will of God._____________________________________________________________Looking for insurance? Click to compare and save big.http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iifSf08GsSfvXeLbdQ1fKIyVtLFBDXiDWsmCupRuUBreyaVQD/

[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2

[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sat Jan 5 14:48:13 EST 2008

[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2 [] Does Anyone Own This Set? On Jan 5, 2008, at 12:39 PM, lws39 at juno.com wrote:> I’ve gone back and reread your articles on the subject. Are there > any other articles/books on the subject? Thanks for any help.> Walt SeeversEarlier this year I became aware of a major dissertation by Rutger J. Allen, _The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study in Polysemy_. More in my August 24, 2007 post in our archives athttp://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//2007-August/044115.htmlor http://tinyurl.com/2wwnseCarl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> I don’t know about enlightenment (it’s still dark in the Blue Ridge,> where I’m writing at 6 a.m.), but I’ll repeat what I already mentioned> to Jeffrey in my previous off-list response to him: there’s not really> any difference between GENESQW and GENHQHTW — i.e. we can’t affirm> that GENESQW is middle but GENHQHTW passive, since the QH “passive”> forms are in process of supplanting the older aorist middle (and> future middle) forms, bearing both middle and passive semantic value> just as the MAI/SAI/TAI,MHN/SO/TO forms bear both middle and passive> semantic value, depending on the verb and its distinctive Aktionsart.> I’d say that both forms — GENESQW and GENHQHTW — mean “come to> pass” or “come to fulfillment.” I don’t think any grammatical> perspective precludes the possibility or probability that this is to> come about through human agents who will do the will of God.

[] Heinemann on Matt. 6:10//Lk. 11:2[] Does Anyone Own This Set?