[] Mark 16:14, ω Kimmo Huovila kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi
Sat Jul 10 04:28:20 εδτ 2004
[] Roush, α Greek Boy at Home [] Mark 16:14, ω Mark 16:14, Codex WashingtonianushO μη εων τα hUPO των πνευματων ακαθαρτα θν αληθειαν του θεου καταλαβεσθαι δυναμιν– In what sense do you take the hUPO+gen here? Under the power? Caused by?- How are αληθεια and δυναμισ related? θν αληθινην δυναμιν? θν αληθειαν και δυναμιν? Or does the text make some sense without emendation?- How to take καταλαβεσθαι? To gain control? To comprehend?- Any comments on the distinciton between καταλαμβανω/καταλαμβανομαι? To what degree would either form favor a particular sense for the lexeme?Kimmo Huovila
[] Roush, α Greek Boy at Home[] Mark 16:14, ω
[] Mark 16:14, ω Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jul 10 07:25:51 εδτ 2004
[] Mark 16:14, ω [] Mark 16:14, ω At 11:28 αμ +0300 7/10/04, Kimmo Huovila wrote:>Mark 16:14, Codex Washingtonianus> >hO μη εων τα hUPO των πνευματων ακαθαρτα θν αληθειαν του θεου καταλαβεσθαι>δυναμιν> >– In what sense do you take the hUPO+gen here? Under the power? Caused by?>– How are αληθεια and δυναμισ related? θν αληθινην δυναμιν? θν αληθειαν και>δυναμιν? Or does the text make some sense without emendation?>– How to take καταλαβεσθαι? To gain control? To comprehend?>– Any comments on the distinction between καταλαμβανω/καταλαμβανομαι? To what>degree would either form favor a particular sense for the lexeme?There are lots of questions and little to go on here; it’s loaded withproblems that are sufficient, it seems to me, to raise the question whetherthe intended sense is really decipherable. ι don’t think one can do muchwith this beyond rather wild conjecture.(a) τα hUPO των πνευματων ακαθαρτα: doesn’t make a lot of sense as itstands: “the unclean things …” but hUPO with genitive doesn’t work withit syntactically, but suggests a passive construction to follow; on theother hand, if ακαθαρτα is emended to ακαθαρτων, then the τα becomesproblematic: we’d have a substantival phrase headed by the neuter pluralarticle: “the things which by the unclean spirits … ” If this phrase isto be construed with what follows at all, it seems to me that the τα mustgo and ακαθαρτα must be altered to genitive, so that the phrase becomeshUPO των πνευματων ακαθαρτων(b) ι really think that καταλαβεσθαι must be seen in this fragment as anaorist μπ infinitive understood in a passive sense. That is, of course, oddin a Koine text–a solecism?, but the hUPO + genitive construction suggeststhat καταλαβεσθαι might be intended that way. ι‘d guess that “understand”or as passive “be understood” is the sense rather than “repress” or aspassive “be repressed”–but if the antecedent of hO μη εων is either hOAIWN hOUTOS or (more likely) σαταναν, then “not allowing God’s truth (andpower?)by unclean spirits to be understood” is conceivable.It’s an awkward construction just about any way you look at it, yet ι thinkthat one intelligible meaning might be gotten at with the emendation ofAKAQARTA to ακαθαρτων. With that alteration ι‘d suggest “who does not allowthe possibility for the truth of God to be understood by the uncleanspirits” In this ι‘m taking δυναμισ in an almost Aristotelian sense ofpotentiality, possibility.If δυναμιν might be preceded by a και, we would have “the one who does notlet the truth and power of God to be understood by the unclean spirits”Have you looked at Wieland Willker’s textual commentary on the GreekGospels? There’s a special section on the endings of Mark that may be foundwith the other πδφ files of this very helpful work:http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/τξγ/index.htmlThe discussion of this variant is on page 14 of that supplemental documment.– Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Mark 16:14, ω[] Mark 16:14, ω
[] Mark 16:14, ω George φ. Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Sat Jul 10 07:43:01 εδτ 2004
[] Mark 16:14, ω [] Mark 16:14, ω On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:28:20 +0300 Kimmo Huovila<kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi> writes:> Mark 16:14, Codex Washingtonianus> > hO μη εων τα hUPO των πνευματων ακαθαρτα θν αληθειαν του θεου > καταλαβεσθαι > δυναμιν> > – In what sense do you take the hUPO+gen here? Under the power? > Caused by?> – How are αληθεια and δυναμισ related? θν αληθινην δυναμιν? θν > αληθειαν και > δυναμιν? Or does the text make some sense without emendation?> – How to take καταλαβεσθαι? To gain control? To comprehend?> – Any comments on the distinciton between > καταλαμβανω/καταλαμβανομαι? To what > degree would either form favor a particular sense for the lexeme?> > Kimmo Huovila> —ι‘m not sure where you’re getting this. According to what ι see ω readsthe same as is found in NA27 (longer ending) which is quite differentfrom what you present. Thinking that you might have entered an incorrectreference, ι did a search but was unable to find your text. Perhaps youshould check your text and your reference. ι really would need to seethis in Greek, not transliteration. The combination of καταλαβεσθαι withALHQEIAN του θεου and ακαθαρτα seems strange since it could only be nom /acc but, as you note των πνευματων is gen, and reminds me of Simon Magusin Acts though the word καταλαμβανω is not used there (the aorist mid.inf appears only in Eph 3.18 of the critical text — and the Byz aswell).georgegfsomsel
[] Mark 16:14, ω Harold ρ. Holmyard ιιι hholmyard at ont.com
Sat Jul 10 09:29:33 εδτ 2004
[] Mark 16:14, ω [] Mark 16:14, ω Dear George,>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:28:20 +0300 Kimmo Huovila><kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi> writes:>> Mark 16:14, Codex Washingtonianus>> >> hO μη εων τα hUPO των πνευματων ακαθαρτα θν αληθειαν του θεου>> καταλαβεσθαι>> δυναμιν>> >> – In what sense do you take the hUPO+gen here? Under the power?>> Caused by?>> – How are αληθεια and δυναμισ related? θν αληθινην δυναμιν? θν>> αληθειαν και>> δυναμιν? Or does the text make some sense without emendation?>> – How to take καταλαβεσθαι? To gain control? To comprehend?>> – Any comments on the distinciton between>> καταλαμβανω/καταλαμβανομαι? To what>> degree would either form favor a particular sense for the lexeme?>> >> Kimmo Huovila>> —> >ι‘m not sure where you’re getting this. According to what ι see ω reads>the same as is found in NA27 (longer ending) which is quite different>from what you present. Thinking that you might have entered an incorrect>reference, ι did a search but was unable to find your text. Perhaps you>should check your text and your reference. ι really would need to see>this in Greek, not transliteration. The combination of καταλαβεσθαι with>αληθειαν του θεου and ακαθαρτα seems strange since it could only be nom />acc but, as you note των πνευματων is gen, and reminds me of Simon Magus>in Acts though the word καταλαμβανω is not used there (the aorist mid.>inf appears only in Eph 3.18 of the critical text — and the Byz as>well).ηη: What Kimmo has here matches the textual note in υβσ 4.Yours,Harold Holmyard
[] Mark 16:14, ω Stephen ξ. Carlson scarlson at mindspring.com
Sat Jul 10 09:54:32 εδτ 2004
[] Mark 16:14, ω [] Mark 16:14, ω At 07:43 αμ 7/10/2004 -0400, George φ. Somsel wrote:>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:28:20 +0300 Kimmo Huovila><kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi> writes:>> Mark 16:14, Codex Washingtonianus>> >> hO μη εων τα hUPO των πνευματων ακαθαρτα θν αληθειαν του θεου >> καταλαβεσθαι >> δυναμιν>> >> – In what sense do you take the hUPO+gen here? Under the power? >> Caused by?>> – How are αληθεια and δυναμισ related? θν αληθινην δυναμιν? θν >> αληθειαν και >> δυναμιν? Or does the text make some sense without emendation?>> – How to take καταλαβεσθαι? To gain control? To comprehend?>> – Any comments on the distinciton between >> καταλαμβανω/καταλαμβανομαι? To what >> degree would either form favor a particular sense for the lexeme?>> >> Kimmo Huovila>> —> >ι‘m not sure where you’re getting this. According to what ι see ω reads>the same as is found in NA27 (longer ending) which is quite different>from what you present. Thinking that you might have entered an incorrect>reference, ι did a search but was unable to find your text. Perhaps you>should check your text and your reference. ι really would need to see>this in Greek, not transliteration.George,The reading of ω at 16:14 is found in the apparatus of NA27 as a longinsertion. The text presented by Huovila agrees with that of theeditio princeps (Sanders 1912: 246) as well as that presented in theNA27 apparatus. Nevertheless, the NA27 apparatus proposes a couple ofemendations to make sense of the passage:hO μη εων τα (τον μη εωντα?) hUPO των πνευματων ακαθαρτα (-των?)θν αληθειαν του θεου καταλαβεσθαυ (+ και? v.l. αληθινην proALHQEIAN) δυναμιν.Stephen Carlson– Stephen ξ. Carlson mailto:scarlson at mindspring.comWeblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html”Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words.” Shujing 2.35
Sat Jul 10 10:09:52 εδτ 2004
[] Mark 16:14, ω [] Hebrews 1:2 On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 09:54:32 -0400 “Stephen ξ. Carlson”<scarlson at mindspring.com> writes:> At 07:43 αμ 7/10/2004 -0400, George φ. Somsel wrote:> >On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:28:20 +0300 Kimmo Huovila> ><kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi> writes:> >> Mark 16:14, Codex Washingtonianus> >> > >> hO μη εων τα hUPO των πνευματων ακαθαρτα θν αληθειαν του θεου > >> καταλαβεσθαι > >> δυναμιν> >> > >> – In what sense do you take the hUPO+gen here? Under the power? > >> Caused by?> >> – How are αληθεια and δυναμισ related? θν αληθινην δυναμιν? θν > > >> αληθειαν και > >> δυναμιν? Or does the text make some sense without emendation?> >> – How to take καταλαβεσθαι? To gain control? To comprehend?> >> – Any comments on the distinciton between > >> καταλαμβανω/καταλαμβανομαι? To what > >> degree would either form favor a particular sense for the > lexeme?> >> > >> Kimmo Huovila> >> —> >> >ι‘m not sure where you’re getting this. According to what ι see ω > reads> >the same as is found in NA27 (longer ending) which is quite > different> >from what you present. Thinking that you might have entered an > incorrect> >reference, ι did a search but was unable to find your text. > Perhaps you> >should check your text and your reference. ι really would need to > see> >this in Greek, not transliteration.> > > George,> > The reading of ω at 16:14 is found in the apparatus of NA27 as a > long> insertion. The text presented by Huovila agrees with that of the> editio princeps (Sanders 1912: 246) as well as that presented in > the> NA27 apparatus. Nevertheless, the NA27 apparatus proposes a couple > of> emendations to make sense of the passage:> > hO μη εων τα (τον μη εωντα?) hUPO των πνευματων ακαθαρτα (-των?)> θν αληθειαν του θεου καταλαβεσθαυ (+ και? v.l. αληθινην pro> αληθειαν) δυναμιν.> > Stephen Carlson> > — Yes, thanks. ι totally overlooked it. ι need to put my contacts in;without them ι‘m blind.georgegfsomsel
[] Mark 16:14, ω[] Hebrews 1:2
Tue Jul 13 13:28:33 εδτ 2004
[] ρε: Roush [Rouse] α Greek Boy at Home [] ρε: Roush [Rouse] α Greek Boy at Home On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:09:52 -0400 “George φ. Somsel” <gfsomsel at juno.com>writes:> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 09:54:32 -0400 “Stephen ξ. Carlson”> <scarlson at mindspring.com> writes:> > At 07:43 αμ 7/10/2004 -0400, George φ. Somsel wrote:> > >On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:28:20 +0300 Kimmo Huovila> > ><kimmo.huovila at helsinki.fi> writes:> > >> Mark 16:14, Codex Washingtonianus> > >> > > >> hO μη εων τα hUPO των πνευματων ακαθαρτα θν αληθειαν του θεου > > > >> καταλαβεσθαι > > >> δυναμιν> > >> > > >> – In what sense do you take the hUPO+gen here? Under the power? > > > >> Caused by?> > >> – How are αληθεια and δυναμισ related? θν αληθινην δυναμιν? > θν > > > > >> αληθειαν και > > >> δυναμιν? Or does the text make some sense without emendation?> > >> – How to take καταλαβεσθαι? To gain control? To comprehend?> > >> – Any comments on the distinciton between > > >> καταλαμβανω/καταλαμβανομαι? To what > > >> degree would either form favor a particular sense for the > > lexeme?> > >> > > >> Kimmo Huovila> > >> —> > >> > >ι‘m not sure where you’re getting this. According to what ι see > ω > > reads> > >the same as is found in NA27 (longer ending) which is quite > > different> > >from what you present. Thinking that you might have entered an > > incorrect> > >reference, ι did a search but was unable to find your text. > > Perhaps you> > >should check your text and your reference. ι really would need > to > > see> > >this in Greek, not transliteration.> > > > > > George,> > > > The reading of ω at 16:14 is found in the apparatus of NA27 as a > > long> > insertion. The text presented by Huovila agrees with that of the> > editio princeps (Sanders 1912: 246) as well as that presented in > > the> > NA27 apparatus. Nevertheless, the NA27 apparatus proposes a > couple > > of> > emendations to make sense of the passage:> > > > hO μη εων τα (τον μη εωντα?) hUPO των πνευματων ακαθαρτα (-των?)> > θν αληθειαν του θεου καταλαβεσθαυ (+ και? v.l. αληθινην pro> > αληθειαν) δυναμιν.> > > > Stephen Carlson> > > > — > > Yes, thanks. ι totally overlooked it. ι need to put my contacts > in;> without them ι‘m blind.> > george> gfsomsel> —Now that my eye problems are improved and ι have my lenses in once againI took a look at this variant. This is what ι propose. ι‘ve concludedthat των πνευματων ακαθαρτα can stand as written.but they defended themselves saying that this age of lawlessness and ofunbelief is under the control of Satan. The one not permitting uncleanthings under control of the spirits is capable of detecting the truth ofGod. Therefore, reveal your righteousness now. They said these thingsto Christ, and Christ replied to them that the time of Satan’s authorityhas come to an end [the limit of [[its]] years], but a certain other oneapproaches and ι am given up to death on behalf of those who are sinnersthat they might turn to the truth and no longer sin that they mightinherit a spiritual and imperishable glory in heaven.- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -???e???? crasis of ?a? + ??e????. nom. m. pl.?p??????µa? impf. mid. 3 pl.??? (???)?p? c. gen.b. of power, rule, sovereignty, command, etc. under (Dit., Or.56, 13 [237 bc] ?p? t?? ßas??e?a? tass?µe???; PHib. 44, 2 [253 bc] al. inpap.) ?????p?? ?p? ????s?a? tass?µe??? (????s?a 4a) Lk 7:8a; cf. Mt 8:9a;Hs 1:3 (Vett. Val. 209, 35 ?p? ?t???? ????s?a? ??ta?). ???? ?p’ ?µa?t??st?at??ta? (Polyb. 4, 87, 9 ?e?a??a? ?f’ a?t?? e??e?) Mt 8:9b; Lk 7:8b(Dit., Or. 86, 11 [ιιι bc] ?? ?p’ a?t?? teta?µ???? st?at??ta?). ?p? t??ae??a? be under someones power (Thu. 6, 86, 4; ψι 417, 36 [ιιι bc] ?p?t?? ????? e??a?) Gal 3:25; 4:2; ?f’ ?µa?t?a? Ro 3:9; ?p? ??µ?? 6:14, 15(both opp. ?p? ?????); 1 Cor 9:20a, b, c, d; Gal 4:21; 5:18; ?p? ?at??a?3:10. ?p? ??µ?? ?f??????µe?a vs. 23. ?e??µe??? ?p? ??µ?? Gal 4:4 (????µa?ιι 4a and Thu. 1, 110, 2 ????pt?? ?p? ßas???a ????et?). ?p? t? st???e?at?? ??sµ?? ?µe?a ded????µ???? vs. 3. s?????e?se? ? ??af? t? p??ta ?p??µa?t?a? 3:22 (s. s????e??). pep?aµ???? ?p? t?? ?µa?t?a? Ro 7:14.tape?????te ?p? t?? ?e??a t?? ?e?? 1 Pt 5:6 (s. tape???? 2b). ?? ?p???µ?? those who are under (the power of) the law Gal 4:5 (cf. χ., Cyr. 3,3, 6 t???? t?? ?f’ ?a?t???). t? . . . ????a?ta (????a?t??) neut. nom. / acc. pl.?ata?aß?s?a? (?ata?aµß???) aor. mid. inf. Eph. 3.18. d?? β. w. acc.ι. of place through (class. only in poetry; Hellenisticprose since Dionys. Hal. [ψκäser, δ. Präpositionen b. Dionys. Hal., Diss.Erlangen 15, 54]; Wadd. no. 1866b t?? p?t???a d?? p??ta of the governorof a whole province) d????et? d?? µ?s?? Saµa?e?a? ?a? Ga???a?a? Lk 17:1(1cf. Sib. Or. 3, 316 ??µfa?a d?e?e?seta? d?? µ?s?? se??). ιι. to indicate the reason1. the reason why someth. happens, results,exists: because of, for the sake of (do something for the sake of adivinity: υπζ 62, 2 [161 bc] d?? t?? σ??ap??) hated because of the nameMt 10:22; persecution arises because of the teaching 13:21; because ofunbelief vs. 58; because of a tradition 15:3; d?? t?? ?????p?? for thesake of man Mk 2:27; because of Herodias Mk 6:17; because of the crowd Lk5:19; 8:19 and oft.; because of the Jews Ac 16:3. d?? t?? ????ß?? 21:34;because of the rain 28:2. Juristically to indicate guilt: imprisoned forinsurrection and murder Lk 23:25. d?’ ?µ?? on your account=through yourfault Ro 2:24 (Is 52:5). d?? t?? p??es?? because of the passing over 3:25(but s. ωγκümmel, ZThK 49, 52, 164). d?? t? pa?apt?µata 4:25 (cf. Is53:5). d?? t?? ????? on the basis of the grace 15:15. d?’ ?s???e?a? t??sa???? because of a physical ailment (cf. POxy. 726 [ιι ad] ?? d???µe???d?’ ?s???e?a? p?e?sa?. Cf. ?s???e?a 1a) Gal 4:13. d?? t? ????µa s?? bythy will Rv 4:11. d?? t?? ?????? according to the time=by this time Hb5:12 (Aelian, β.η. 3, 37 d. t?? ??.=because of the particulartime-situation).ω. words denoting emotions out of (Diod. σ. 5, 59, 8 d??t?? ??p??; 18, 25, 1 d?? t?? p??p?te?a?=out of rashness; Appian, Celt. 1§9 d?’ ??p?da; 2 Macc 5:21; 7:20; 9:8; 3 Macc 5:32, 41; Tob 8:7): d??f????? out of envy Mt 27:18; Phil 1:15. d?? sp?????a ?????? out of tendermercy Lk 1:78. d?? t. f?ß?? t???? out of fear of someone ψ 7:13. d?? t??p????? ???p?? out of the great love Eph 2:4. d?? t. p?e??e??a? in theirgreediness β 10:4.Of God as the ultimate goal or purpose of life,whereas d?? w. gen. (s. α ιιι 2bß above) represents him as Creator, Hb2:10a (cf. Norden, op. cit.; πγμ 13, 76 d?? s? s???st??e?. . . ? ??); PK2. αποκαλυυον (αποκαλυπτω) aor. imper.ηδη adv. already, now, at last.προσελεγεν (προσλεγω) impf. ind. act. 3 sg. πεπληρβται (πληροω) pf. pass. 3 sg.hOROS (Hom.+; inscr., pap., λχχ; Ep. Arist. 211; Philo; Jos., Ant. 1,62al.; Test. 12 Patr.) boundary, limit of space τ. θαλασσαν ιδιοισενεκλεισεν Dg 7:2 (Arrian, Anab. 5, 26, 2 θσ γησ hOROUS hO θεοσεποιησε). Of time hO οροσ των ετων ending of Mk in the Freer ms. 7.* αλλα/ adversative part.α/λλα pron. neut.nom. plDEINA (Thu., Aristoph.+; pap., Aq., Sym.) so-and-so, of a pers. or thingone cannot or does not wish to name, in our lit. only masc. a certain,man, somebody Mt 26:18. μ–μ.* hUPER 1. w. gen.a. for, in behalf of, for the sake of someone orsometh.a. after words that express a request, prayer, etc. After theverbs δεομαι (q.v. 3), ευχομαι (q.v. 1), προσευχομαι (q.v.), εντυγχανω(q.v. 1a; cf. b), hUPERENTUGXANW (q.v.), λιτανευω (q.v.) etc. After thenouns δεησισ (q.v., end), προσευχη (q.v. 1). Cf. also 1 Ti 2:1f. hAMARTHSANTWN (hAMARTANW) aor. act. part. gen. pl.παρεδοθην (παραδιδωμι) aor. pass. ind. 1 sg. Acts 28.17.hUPOSTREYWSIN (hUPOSTREFW) aor. act. subj. 3 pl. Tobit 6.13 (1 pl.).hAMARTHSWSIN (hAMARTANW) aor. act. subj. 3 pl.κληρονομησωσιν (κληρονομεω) aor. act. subj. 3 pl. Josh. 1.15.- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -The georgegfsomsel
[] ρε: Roush [Rouse] α Greek Boy at Home[] ρε: Roush [Rouse] α Greek Boy at Home
Tue Jul 13 16:09:10 εδτ 2004
[] ρε: Roush [Rouse] α Greek Boy at Home [] Mark 16:14, ω Oops! ι started transliterating in the middle of the notes. Here is thecorrected versionbut they defended themselves saying that this age of lawlessness and ofunbelief is under the control of Satan. The one not permitting uncleanthings under control of the spirits is capable of detecting the truth ofGod. Therefore, reveal your righteousness now. They said these thingsto Christ, and Christ replied to them that the time of Satan’s authorityhas come to an end [the limit of [[its]] years], but a certain other oneapproaches and ι am given up to death on behalf of those who are sinnersthat they might turn to the truth and no longer sin that they mightinherit a spiritual and imperishable glory in heaven.κα‘κεινοι crasis of και + εκει‘νοσ. nom. m. pl.απολογεομαι impf. mid. 3 pl.εων (εαω)hUPO c. gen.b. of power, rule, sovereignty, command, etc. under (Dit.,Or. 56, 13 [237 bc] hUPO θν βασιλειαν τασσομενοι PHib. 44, 2 [253 bc]al. in pap.) ανθρωποσ hUPO εξουσιαν τασσομενοσ (εξουσια 4a) Lk 7:8a; cf.Mt 8:9a; Hs 1:3 (Vett. Val. 209, 35 hUPO hETERWN εξουσιαν οντασ). EXWNhUP’ εμαυτον στρατιωτασ (Polyb. 4, 87, 9 μεγαλεαν hUF’ αυτον ειχεν) Mt8:9b; Lk 7:8b (Dit., Or. 86, 11 [ιιι bc] hOI hUP’ αυτον τεταγμενοιστρατιωται). hUPO τινα ειναι be under someones power (Thu. 6, 86, 4; PSI417, 36 [ιιι bc] hUPO τον ορκον ειναι) Gal 3:25; 4:2; hUF’ hMARTIAN Ro3:9; hUPO νομον 6:14, 15 (both opp. hUPO χαριν); 1 Cor 9:20a, b, c, d;Gal 4:21; 5:18; hUPO καταραν 3:10. hUPO νομον εφρουρουμεθα vs. 23.γενομενοω hUPO νομον Gal 4:4 (γινομαι ιι 4a and Thu. 1, 110, 2 AIGUPTOShUPO βασιλεα εγενετο). hUPO τα στοιχεια του κοσμου ημεθα δεδουλωμενοι vs.3. συνεκλεισεν hH γραφη τα παντα hUPO hAMARTIAN 3:22 (s. συγκειω).πεπραμενοω hUPO θν hAMARTIAN Ro 7:14. ταπεινωθητε hUPO θν χειρα τουθεου 1 Pt 5:6 (s. ταπεινοω 2b). hOI hUPO νομον those who are under (thepower of) the law Gal 4:5 (cf. χ., Cyr. 3, 3, 6 τινασ των hUF’ hEAUTOUS).τα . . . ακαθαρτα (ακαθαρτοσ) neut. nom. / acc. pl.καταλαβεσθαι (καταλαμβανω) aor. mid. inf. Eph. 3.18. δια β. w. acc.ι. of place through (class. only in poetry; Hellenisticprose since Dionys. Hal. [ψκäser, δ. Präpositionen b. Dionys. Hal., Diss.Erlangen 15, 54]; Wadd. no. 1866b τον πατρωνα δια παντα of the governorof a whole province) διηρχετο δια μεσον σαμαρειασ και γαλιλαιασ Lk 17:1(1cf. Sib. Or. 3, 316 `ρομφαια διελευσεται δια μεσον σειο). ιι. to indicate the reason1. the reason why someth. happens, results,exists: because of, for the sake of (do something for the sake of adivinity: υπζ 62, 2 [161 bc] δια τον σαραπιν) hated because of the nameMt 10:22; persecution arises because of the teaching 13:21; because ofunbelief vs. 58; because of a tradition 15:3; δια τον ανθρωπον for thesake of man Mk 2:27; because of Herodias Mk 6:17; because of the crowd Lk5:19; 8:19 and oft.; because of the Jews Ac 16:3. δια τον θορυβον 21:34;because of the rain 28:2. Juristically to indicate guilt: imprisoned forinsurrection and murder Lk 23:25. δι‘ hUMAS on your account=through yourfault Ro 2:24 (Is 52:5). δια θν παρεσιν because of the passing over 3:25(but s. ωγκümmel, ZThK 49, 52, 164). δια τα παραπτωματα 4:25 (cf. Is53:5). δια θν χαριν on the basis of the grace 15:15. δι‘ ασθενειαν θσσαρκοσ because of a physical ailment (cf. POxy. 726 [ιι ad] ου δυναμενοσδι‘ ασθενειαν πλευσαι. Cf. ασθενεια 1a) Gal 4:13. δια το θελημα σου bythy will Rv 4:11. δια τον χρονον according to the time=by this time Hb5:12 (Aelian, β.η. 3, 37 δ. τον χρ.=because of the particulartime-situation).ω. words denoting emotions out of (Diod. σ. 5, 59, 8 διαθν λυφν; 18, 25, 1 δια θν προπετειαν=out of rashness; Appian, Celt. 1§9 δι‘ ελπιδα; 2 Macc 5:21; 7:20; 9:8; 3 Macc 5:32, 41; Tob 8:7): διαφθονον out of envy Mt 27:18; Phil 1:15. δια σπλαγχνα ελεουσ out of tendermercy Lk 1:78. δια τ. φοβον τινοσ out of fear of someone ψ 7:13. δια θνπολλην αγαφν out of the great love Eph 2:4. δια τ. πλεονεξιαν in theirgreediness β 10:4.Of God as the ultimate goal or purpose of life,whereas δια w. gen. (s. α ιιι 2bB above) represents him as Creator, Hb2:10a (cf. Norden, op. cit.; πγμ 13, 76 δια σε συνεσθκεν. . . hH γη); PK2. αποκαλυπυον (αποκαλυπτω) aor. imper.ηδη adv. already, now, at last.προσελεγεν (προσλεγω) impf. ind. act. 3 sg. πεπληρωται (πληροω) pf. pass. 3 sg.hOROS (Hom.+; inscr., pap., λχχ; Ep. Arist. 211; Philo; Jos., Ant. 1,62al.; Test. 12 Patr.) boundary, limit of space τ. θαλασσαν ιδιοισ hOROISENEKLEISEN Dg 7:2 (Arrian, Anab. 5, 26, 2 θσ γησ hOROUS hO θεοσεποιησε). Of time hO hOROS των ετων ending of Mk in the Freer ms. 7.* αλλα/ adversative part.α/λλα pron. neut.nom. plDEINA (Thu., Aristoph.+; pap., Aq., Sym.) so-and-so, of a pers. or thingone cannot or does not wish to name, in our lit. only masc. a certain,man, somebody Mt 26:18. μ–μ.* hUPER 1. w. gen.a. for, in behalf of, for the sake of someone orsometh.a. after words that express a request, prayer, etc. After theverbs δεομαι (q.v. 3), ευχομαι (q.v. 1), προσευχομαι (q.v.), εντυγχανω(q.v. 1a; cf. b), hUPERENTUGXANW (q.v.), λιτανευω (q.v.) etc. After thenouns δεησισ (q.v., end), προσευχη (q.v. 1). Cf. also 1 Ti 2:1f. hAMARTHSANTWN (hAMARTANW) aor. act. part. gen. pl.παρεδοθην (παραδιδωμι) aor. pass. ind. 1 sg. Acts 28.17.hUPOSTREYWSIN (hUPOSTREFW) aor. act. subj. 3 pl. Tobit 6.13 (1 pl.).hAMARTHSWSIN (hAMARTANW) aor. act. subj. 3 pl.κληρονομησωσιν (κληρονομεω) aor. act. subj. 3 pl. Josh. 1.15.georgegfsomsel
[] ρε: Roush [Rouse] α Greek Boy at Home[] Mark 16:14, ω
Tue Jul 13 17:31:02 εδτ 2004
[] Mark 16:14, ω [] ντ Resources site down At 4:09 πμ -0400 7/13/04, George φ. Somsel wrote:>Oops! ι started transliterating in the middle of the notes. Here is the>corrected version> >but they defended themselves saying that this age of lawlessness and of>unbelief is under the control of Satan. The one not permitting unclean>things under control of the spirits is capable of detecting the truth of>God. Therefore, reveal your righteousness now. They said these things>to Christ, and Christ replied to them that the time of Satan’s authority>has come to an end [the limit of [[its]] years], but a certain other one>approaches and ι am given up to death on behalf of those who are sinners>that they might turn to the truth and no longer sin that they might>inherit a spiritual and imperishable glory in heaven.>κα‘κεινοι crasis of και + εκει‘νοσ. nom. m. pl.>απολογεομαι impf. mid. 3 pl.>εων (εαω)>hUPO c. gen.b. of power, rule, sovereignty, command, etc. under (Dit.,>Or. 56, 13 [237 bc] hUPO θν βασιλειαν τασσομενοι PHib. 44, 2 [253 bc]>al. in pap.) ανθρωποσ hUPO εξουσιαν τασσομενοσ (εξουσια 4a) Lk 7:8a; cf.>Mt 8:9a; Hs 1:3 (Vett. Val. 209, 35 hUPO hETERWN εξουσιαν οντασ). εχων>hUP’ εμαυτον στρατιωτασ (Polyb. 4, 87, 9 μεγαλεαν hUF’ αυτον ειχεν) Mt>8:9b; Lk 7:8b (Dit., Or. 86, 11 [ιιι bc] hOI hUP’ αυτον τεταγμενοι>στρατιωται). hUPO τινα ειναι be under someoneís power (Thu. 6, 86, 4; ψι>417, 36 [ιιι bc] hUPO τον ορκον ειναι) Gal 3:25; 4:2; hUF’ hMARTIAN Ro>3:9; hUPO νομον 6:14, 15 (both opp. hUPO χαριν); 1 Cor 9:20a, b, c, d;>Gal 4:21; 5:18; hUPO καταραν 3:10. hUPO νομον εφρουρουμεθα vs. 23.>γενομενοω hUPO νομον Gal 4:4 (γινομαι ιι 4a and Thu. 1, 110, 2 αιγυπτοσ>hUPO βασιλεα εγενετο). hUPO τα στοιχεια του κοσμου ημεθα δεδουλωμενοι vs.>3. συνεκλεισεν hH γραφη τα παντα hUPO hAMARTIAN 3:22 (s. συγκειω).>πεπραμενοω hUPO θν hAMARTIAN Ro 7:14. ταπεινωθητε hUPO θν χειρα του>θεου 1 Pt 5:6 (s. ταπεινοω 2b). hOI hUPO νομον those who are under (the>power of) the law Gal 4:5 (cf. χ., Cyr. 3, 3, 6 τινασ των hUF’ hEAUTOUS).Looks like there’s been an omission of several lines from the BDAGdefinition of hUPO. Although hUPO in the lines above are headed by “c.gen.”, the items following all belonging in βδαγ under heading β “w.acc.”–and in fact under β.2.: “marker of that which is in a controllingposition, under, under the control of, under obligation in ref. to power,rule, sovereignty, command, etc. w. acc.” –and all the examples listed arein fact of hUPO with the accusative. You can’t get the sense “uncleanthings under control of the spirits” from τα hUPO των πνευματων ακαθαρτα.hUPO + genitive, acc. to βδαγ, is always “a marker of agency orcause”–with a passive verb, with verbs and verbal expressions having apassive sense, with verbal nouns (e.g. hUPO παντων τιμη: “honor rendered byall”, etc. The only possible sense that might be derived from τα hUPO τωνπνευματων ακαθαρτα–assuming the text isn’t corrupt–is “things rendereduncleanable by the spirits.” ι continue to think the text as it stands iscorrupt.>τα . . . ακαθαρτα (ακαθαρτοσ) neut. nom. / acc. pl.>καταλαβεσθαι (καταλαμβανω) aor. mid. inf. Eph. 3.18.> >δια β. w. acc.óι. of place through (class. only in poetry; Hellenistic>prose since Dionys. Hal. [ψκser, δ. Prpositionen b. Dionys. Hal., Diss.>Erlangen í15, 54]; Wadd. no. 1866b τον πατρωνα δια παντα of the governor>of a whole province) διηρχετο δια μεσον σαμαρειασ και γαλιλαιασ Lk 17:11>(cf. Sib. Or. 3, 316 `ρομφαια διελευσεται δια μεσον σειο).>ιι. to indicate the reasonó1. the reason why someth. happens, results,>exists: because of, for the sake of (do something for the sake of a>divinity: υπζ 62, 2 [161 bc] δια τον σαραπιν) hated because of the name>Mt 10:22; persecution arises because of the teaching 13:21; because of>unbelief vs. 58; because of a tradition 15:3; δια τον ανθρωπον for the>sake of man Mk 2:27; because of Herodias Mk 6:17; because of the crowd Lk>5:19; 8:19 and oft.; because of the Jews Ac 16:3. δια τον θορυβον 21:34;>because of the rain 28:2. Juristically to indicate guilt: imprisoned for>insurrection and murder Lk 23:25. δι‘ hUMAS on your account=through your>fault Ro 2:24 (Is 52:5). δια θν παρεσιν because of the passing over 3:25>(but s. ωγκ¸mmel, ZThK 49, í52, 164). δια τα παραπτωματα 4:25 (cf. Is>53:5). δια θν χαριν on the basis of the grace 15:15. δι‘ ασθενειαν θσ>σαρκοσ because of a physical ailment (cf. POxy. 726 [ιι ad] ου δυναμενοσ>δι‘ ασθενειαν πλευσαι. Cf. ασθενεια 1a) Gal 4:13. δια το θελημα σου by>thy will Rv 4:11. δια τον χρονον according to the time=by this time Hb>5:12 (Aelian, β.η. 3, 37 δ. τον χρ.=because of the particular>time-situation).óω. words denoting emotions out of (Diod. σ. 5, 59, 8 δια>θν λυφν; 18, 25, 1 δια θν προπετειαν=out of rashness; Appian, Celt. 1>ß9 δι‘ ελπιδα; 2 Macc 5:21; 7:20; 9:8; 3 Macc 5:32, 41; Tob 8:7): δια>φθονον out of envy Mt 27:18; Phil 1:15. δια σπλαγχνα ελεουσ out of tender>mercy Lk 1:78. δια τ. φοβον τινοσ out of fear of someone ψ 7:13. δια θν>πολλην αγαφν out of the great love Eph 2:4. δια τ. πλεονεξιαν in their>greediness β 10:4.óOf God as the ultimate goal or purpose of life,>whereas δια w. gen. (s. α ιιι 2bB above) represents him as Creator, Hb>2:10a (cf. Norden, op. cit.; πγμ 13, 76 δια σε συνεσθκεν. . . hH γη); πκ>2.>αποκαλυπυον (αποκαλυπτω) aor. imper.>ηδη adv.ó already, now, at last.>προσελεγεν (προσλεγω) impf. ind. act. 3 sg.>πεπληρωται (πληροω) pf. pass. 3 sg.>hOROS (Hom.+; inscr., pap., λχχ; Ep. Arist. 211; Philo; Jos., Ant. 1,>62al.; Test. 12 Patr.) boundary, limit of space τ. θαλασσαν ιδιοισ hOROIS>ενεκλεισεν Dg 7:2 (Arrian, Anab. 5, 26, 2 θσ γησ hOROUS hO θεοσ>εποιησε). Of time hO hOROS των ετων ending of Mk in the Freer ms. 7.*>αλλα/ adversative part.>α/λλα pron. neut.nom. pl>δεινα (Thu., Aristoph.+; pap., Aq., Sym.) so-and-so, of a pers. or thing>one cannot or does not wish to name, in our lit. only masc. a certain,>man, somebody Mt 26:18. μ–μ.*>hUPER 1. w. gen.óa. for, in behalf of, for the sake of someone or>someth.óa. after words that express a request, prayer, etc. After the>verbs δεομαι (q.v. 3), ευχομαι (q.v. 1), προσευχομαι (q.v.), εντυγχανω>(q.v. 1a; cf. b), hUPERENTUGXANW (q.v.), λιτανευω (q.v.) etc. After the>nouns δεησισ (q.v., end), προσευχη (q.v. 1). Cf. also 1 Ti 2:1f.>hAMARTHSANTWN (hAMARTANW) aor. act. part. gen. pl.>παρεδοθην (παραδιδωμι) aor. pass. ind. 1 sg. Acts 28.17.>hUPOSTREYWSIN (hUPOSTREFW) aor. act. subj. 3 pl. Tobit 6.13 (1 pl.).>hAMARTHSWSIN (hAMARTANW) aor. act. subj. 3 pl.>κληρονομησωσιν (κληρονομεω) aor. act. subj. 3 pl. Josh. 1.15.> >george>gfsomsel>—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/— Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Mark 16:14, ω[] ντ Resources site down
What in the Mark 16 sounds like Matthean Greek to you?
Howard Gardner Who was your Greek professor @ ORU or Trinity? I literally dont know any scholar today that still defends even in abstract theory that Mark’s Gospel is an abstract of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The ones I knew passed way long long ago. Consider this by Carl S. Patton in Sources of the Synoptic:
It is impossible, upon this theory, to account for the omission by Mark f so much of the material that stood before him in Matthew and Luke. He has omitted most of the parables and sayings. He has added no narrative. He has therefore made an abstract in which much is omitted, nothing is added, and no improvement is introduced. No reason can be assigned for the making of such a Gospel by abstracting from the fuller and better Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The abstract not only adds nothing of its own, but fails to preserve the distinctive character of either of its exemplars.
I am not aware of a faculty member at either ORU or Trinity that does not take Papias at his word. Dr. Horner at ORU theorized that Luke was actually the earliest of the Greek manuscripts that we have but that it had been taken in part from the Aramaic Matthew in addition to the sources that Luke himself alludes to. It has also been theorized that the only reason mark was included in the canon was that the few distinct passages he makes originated from John the Baptist; this because of similarities between it and texts found at Dead Sea.
Yes I am aware of the Lukian priority BUT it has been many and I mean many years since I’ve heard anyone argue FOR Markian reduction or as some call it Markian abstruct. It is simply impossible for Mark to do what you suggest BTW Papias account does NOT in any way disprove the priority of Mark still being the earliest dated Gospel
You talk silly. As if the statements you have made in any way prove what you are saying. Again they do not. I suspect the school(s) you went to must have been from a very liberal bent. But that is just an assumption. I spent a year at United in Dayton and found that sort of “liberals know it all, conservatives are loons” attitude. But almost their entire faculty consisted of individuals who had failed as pastors and had no other option but to teach in a seminary.. There wasn’t one there that I think could carry his own against Archer, Ervin or others at the more conservative schools.
FURTHERMORE
Mark contains a large number of otherwise unknown or unliterary words and phrases. For example, σχιζομενουσ, i, 10; εν πνευματι ακαθαρτω, i, 23; κραβαττος, ii, 4, and in five other places; επιραπτει, ii, 21; θυγατριον, v, 23; vii, 25; εσχατως εχει, v, 23; σπεκουγατωρ, vi, 27; συμποσια συμποσια, vi, 39; εισιν τινες ωδε των εστηκοτων, ix, 1; εισ κατα εισ, xiv, 19; εκπερισσως, xiv, 31. Such expressions might easily have been replaced by Matthew and Luke with the better expressions which they use instead of these; they could hardly have been substituted by Mark for those better expressions.
Howard Gardner I do appreciate you liberally quoting Papias but you want never seen or read Papias I havent either 🙂 No one actually has. The actual works of Papias are lost (all five books that he
Some of the things Papias wrote have survived in fragments from quotations from other early church fathers (Irenaeus and Eusebius if I’m not mistaken). He was acquainted with the disciple John (not necessarily the one of the twelve) as well as Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. Papias is the very first writer to tell us about the authorship of some of the Gospels, indeed, this is what he writes; and THIS IS what he actually says
“Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements … ”
As you can read yourself according to Papias MARK did not omit anything or did any redaction; therefore the theory that Mark redacted from Matthew fails again with the testimony of Pappy himself #enjoy
If Matthew copied from Mark then where did the Sermon on the Mount come from? Again both authors obviously used not each other but a common source which we call Q. And it still seems likely to myself and all of these other looney conservatives out there that the most likely identity of Q was Aramaic Mathew.
I say conservatives but John A. T. Robinson (not sure why I called him Robertson, I must have been thinking of Pat) hardly fits the pattern of a conservative unless you are on the looney fringe left of people like Ehrmann and Vaughn.
But Robinson was a serious and respected scholar and his views are to be taken seriously and not dismissed because your own conclusions espouse popery. “Oh it’s so obvious” Well it isn’t so obvious to renowned scholars who do far more than just cut and paste quotes from Internet loons.
“Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” Oh yea that makes it more than obvious that Mark came first. That is to sarcastic know it all loons like yourself.
Liberals have tried to tell us that there were six authors of Isaiah, most of whom wrote after the Dead Sea authors. There was no such individual as Quirenius who was ever Governor of Syria, etc. etc. Yea all of that was so obvious as well.
You are correct. Pappias says Mark was written first and Matthew put together – same word as Luke uses for his Luke/Acts compilation
Troy Day I was being sarcastic myself. If you are trying to imply that Mark preceded Q you will find that even your liberal friends will abandon you.
I am saying Mark preceded both Lk+Mt,
my conclusion is drawn directly from Papias
Q is yet uncharted territory for any such claims