b-greek digest: August 16, 2001

Elmer Smalling smalling at connect.net
Fri Aug 17 10:11:00 EDT 2001


Mr. Potter,

For information about the Aramaic Bible (The Peshitta), I would contact the
Aramaic Bible Society or look up George Lamsa on the web.

Ref: Peshitta The Aramaic Bible Society
         Robert Allen Hr., President

Regards,

Elmer Smalling III
smalling at connect.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Biblical Greek digest [mailto:b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 11:00 PM
To: b-greek digest recipients
Subject: b-greek digest: August 16, 2001


B-GREEK Digest for Thursday, August 16, 2001.

1. Re: comfort and barrett
2. Passive Agent
3. Passive Instrument: A Clarification
4. Re: Passive Agent
5. Aramaic Version Of the NT?!?!?
6. I Am
7. Re: I Am
8. Re: Aramaic Version Of the NT?!?!?
9. Help on the Apostolic Fathers
10. Re: Aramaic Version Of the NT?!?!?
11. Ego Hn?
12. Hebrew New Testament
13. James 1:14 - what happens by his own desire?
14. Re: Hebrew New Testament
15. Re: Ego Hn?
16. Re: Hebrew New Testament
17. Re: Passive Instrument: A Clarification
18. Re: Hebrew New Testament
19. Re: Aramaic Version Of the NT?!?!?
20. Re: Passive Instrument: A Clarification

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: comfort and barrett
From: "Eric S. Weiss" <eweiss at gte.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:07:49 -0400
X-Message-Number: 1

I also noticed that these letters with a dieresis do not only follow
vowels. One off-list respondent suggested that the dieresis was to
indicate to the reader that the vowel was NOT part of a diphthong, but the
beginning of a new word (this would be necessary if, in a manuscript with
no spaces between the letters, the reader might mistakenly join these
letters to the previous word as part of a iota or upsilon diphthong). So
these double-dots above some of the letters in Comfort's transcription
(and, apparently, in the mss. themselves) still remain a mystery to me.
Any help?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Passive Agent
From: "Matthew R. Miller" <biblicalscribe at hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:57:50 -0400
X-Message-Number: 2

Hello all,
In Colossians 1:16, "en autw ektisthh ta panta" is usually translated "by
him all things were created." This "en autw" is not the normal dative of
instrument or dative of means or dative of passive agent. Is this to be
taken as a passive agent? If not, what does the locative dative "in him"
mean? Thanks, Matthew R. Miller

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Passive Instrument: A Clarification
From: "Matthew R. Miller" <biblicalscribe at hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:45:23 -0400
X-Message-Number: 3

Let me clarify my last post. In Colossians 1:16, how is the phrase "en
autw" being grammatically used? En + Dative is not the normal Greek
passive agency, which is usually accomplished by dative of instrument or
agency. But "en autw" would then have no recourse but to be locative.
However, the locative in this passage makes no sense. What would that be
saying? That all of creation geographically exists inside Christ's
physical body? Thus, am I justified in understanding this, by process of
elimination, as simply a peculiar, but not unwarranted, perphrastic dative
of passive agency? Thanks, Matthew R. Miller

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Passive Agent
From: c stirling bartholomew <cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:58:00 -0700
X-Message-Number: 4

on 8/16/01 11:57 AM, Matthew R. Miller wrote:

> In Colossians 1:16, "en autw ektisthh ta panta" is usually translated "by
> him all things were created." This "en autw" is not the normal dative of
> instrument or dative of means or dative of passive agent. Is this to be
> taken as a passive agent? If not, what does the locative dative "in him"
> mean?

Matthew,

I am afraid you will never find what you are looking for in the lexical
and/or syntactical analysis of this text. The question of what this text
"means" is a metaphysical one which must be handled at very high levels of
semantic analysis far far removed from the kind of things we talk about on
b-greek. It is a good question for a different forum.

Asking someone to address this question from the standpoint of EN + Dative
is like listening to a physicist lecture on creation. Both in my mind are a
waste of time. Low level Greek syntax does not encoded metaphysical notions
any more than the rebar in the footings of a house would be considered a
significant aspect of the architecture. Listening to a physicist talk about
creation is like listening to a quarterback from the Seahawks promoting
transcendental meditation.


Clay


--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Aramaic Version Of the NT?!?!?
From: "Dylan Potter" <dylan_potter at hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:15:18 -0400
X-Message-Number: 5

I have taken an introductory course in NT greek, and read my interlinear
like any good Bible student.  But, while I know the majority of the NT was
written in greek, yet there are portions of the OT/NT in Aramaic.  I am
curious about this supposedly "lost autograph" written in Aramaic that
certain people talk about.  Could anyone tell me if it would be worthwhile
to study the NT Aramaic translations?  I know there are some weird things
that do not jive with the greek, viz. 'pveuma' is neuter in koine, yet the
Aramaic text renders the word for spirit in the feminine......should I
disregard the hype surrounding the Aramaic?  And, do you think Jesus spoke
Aramaic more than Greek or Hebrew?  Was it his common dialect?  Thanks for
your help!
Grace and peace,
Dylan Potter

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: I Am
From: "Matthew R. Miller" <biblicalscribe at hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:20:55 -0400
X-Message-Number: 6

Hello all,
Is "ego eimi" a standard, koine Greek way of saying "I am he" or "I am the
one" or "It is I?"  I am asking for purely grammatical, and not
theological, answers. Thanks, Matthew R. Miller

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: I Am
From: "Mark Wilson" <emory2oo2 at hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:24:28 +0000
X-Message-Number: 7


Matthew:

----
>Is "ego eimi" a standard, koine Greek way of saying "I am he" or "I am the
>one" or "It is I?"  I am asking for purely grammatical, and not
>theological, answers.
-----

Yes.

Mark Wilson

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Aramaic Version Of the NT?!?!?
From: "Mark Wilson" <emory2oo2 at hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:29:15 +0000
X-Message-Number: 8


Dylan:

You asked:

----
Could anyone tell me if it would be worthwhile
>to study the NT Aramaic translations?
----

No. Don't give it a second thought.

Mark Wilson



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Help on the Apostolic Fathers
From: Bart Ehrman <behrman at email.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:32:01 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 9

   My translation of the Apostolic Fathers for the Loeb Classical Library
(to replace Kirsopp Lake's volumes) is now in pretty good draft form.  I
have had one scholar kindly (without being asked or prompted!) offer to
look over my translation of the Shepherd of Hermas (far and away the
longest of the texts it takes up almost all of vol. 2) to check it for
accuracy.

   I wonder if there is anyone on this list who may be interested in doing
the same thing with any of the other texts (1 Clement, 2 Clement,
Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Didache, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Letter to
Diognetus. Fragments of Papias and Quadratus).  I'm sorry to say that
Harvard Press is not willing to pay an honorarium; I would though
acknowledge any serious help in my preface.

   Let me stress that I'm not looking for a beginning or intermediate
level Greek student who would like some practice, but someone who is both
expert in Greek and familiar with these texts and willing to put in the
time and effort.  I'd be much indebted.

   If anyone is interested, please reply off list (I will also be cross
listing this to Elenchus; if there are other lists that may be
appropriate, please let me know.)

-- Bart D. Ehrman
   University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Aramaic Version Of the NT?!?!?
From: "Ken Smith" <kens at 180solutions.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:59:09 -0700
X-Message-Number: 10

I fully agree with Mark's assessment, but you might be interested in a
bit more detail.

> ----
> Could anyone tell me if it would be worthwhile
> >to study the NT Aramaic translations?
> ----
>=20
> No. Don't give it a second thought.
>=20
> Mark Wilson

There are a few folks out there who think that parts of (or in some of
the weirder versions, nearly all of) the NT were written in Aramaic.
It's certainly clear that many of the characters in the NT spoke Aramaic
as a first language, probably including Jesus.  The Gospels and even
epistles record various Aramaic words ("talitha koum", "maranatha",
"abba").  Depending on who you ask, some of Jesus' sayings, if you
back-translate them, may reveal Aramaic word-plays.  And several books
of the NT seem to have sentence structures that are more like those
found in semitic writings than in literary Greek texts (Mark and
Revelation, for instance).  Oddly enough, Matthew, which is usually the
Gospel most referenced in this respect (due to a quote from Papias about
Matthew having written in "the Hebrew dialect"), doesn't seem to be
nearly as strongly influenced in this way: he's not as polished as, say,
Luke, but his Greek is far more idiomatic than, say, Revelation is.

But that's about as far as the evidence goes.  There are no Aramaic
versions of any NT books which are known to be from before the middle
ages.  (There are a couple different Aramaic versions of Matthew
floating around, but they each differ from each other, and were probably
back-translated to Aramaic from Greek centuries if not millennia later.)
What evidence there is can be best explained by acknowledging that (a)
Greek was not the first language of many of the writers, and (b) that
some of the materials they used -- written and oral -- were perhaps
originally spoken or composed in a semitic language.  But there's no
convincing evidence that ANY of the NT books were originally written
down by their authors in Aramaic.

Ken Smith

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Ego Hn?
From: "Matthew R. Miller" <biblicalscribe at hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:54:07 -0400
X-Message-Number: 11

Hello all B-Greekers, Matthew R. Miller here:

I understand, after looking at some examples, that the phrase "egw eimi"
is often used in the NT to simply mean something like, "I am he," "I am
the one," It is I," or "Hey! It's me!"  My question is this: if a koine
speaker wanted to say "It was I," essentially the same phrase in the
imperfect or in the aorist states, how would he have said it? Is there any
NT example of this, or any example at all in the literature? Again, I am
asking grammatically, not theologically. Thanks! Matthew R. Miller

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Hebrew New Testament
From: "Lamont Norman" <lamont.norman at idea.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:37:49 -0400
X-Message-Number: 12

I fear that I am in way over my head on this but I want to know anyway.
Someone has approached me recently with the idea that the New Testament
was orignally written in Hebrew.  They also argued that Constantine had
destroyed the original Hebrew manuscripts and killed off all supporters of
the Hebrew texts.  Can someone please help me with this?  I would like to
know what the arguments for and against are - if there are any.  I would
like to know references so that I can evaluate the arguments as best I
can.


Thank you!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: James 1:14 - what happens by his own desire?
From: "Jeff Smelser" <jeffsmelser at ntgreek.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:08:48 -0400
X-Message-Number: 13

Jeff Smelser here -

James 1:14 - hEKASTOS DE PEIRAZETAI hUPO THS IDIAS EPIQUMIAS EXELKOMENOS KAI
DELEAZOMENOS

Usually, it is understood that one is "drawn out and enticed by his own
desire." But does anyone have any thoughts on taking the prepositional
phrase as modifying PEIRAZETAI instead?  Then it would be something like,
"But each one is tested by his own desires, being drawn out and enticed," or
"Each one, being drawn out and enticed, is tested by his own desires." Seems
the symmetry with verse 13 would be a bit stronger this way. Possible? Yes?
No?

Jeff Smelser
jeffsmelser at ntgreek.net
www.ntgreek.net
www.centrevillechurchofchrist.org



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Hebrew New Testament
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:28:19 -0400
X-Message-Number: 14

At 5:37 PM -0400 8/16/01, Lamont Norman wrote:
>I fear that I am in way over my head on this but I want to know anyway.
>Someone has approached me recently with the idea that the New Testament
>was orignally written in Hebrew.  They also argued that Constantine had
>destroyed the original Hebrew manuscripts and killed off all supporters of
>the Hebrew texts.  Can someone please help me with this?  I would like to
>know what the arguments for and against are - if there are any.  I would
>like to know references so that I can evaluate the arguments as best I
>can.

While there is a tradition that the gospel of Matthew may have originally
been written in Hebrew (or Aramaic, depending on how one understands the
phrase being interpreted), there is NO tradition about the whole NT
originally being Hebrew. The person initiating the query with you was
evidently poorly informed.
--

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ego Hn?
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:32:17 -0400
X-Message-Number: 15

At 6:54 PM -0400 8/16/01, Matthew R. Miller wrote:
>Hello all B-Greekers, Matthew R. Miller here:
>
>I understand, after looking at some examples, that the phrase "egw eimi"
>is often used in the NT to simply mean something like, "I am he," "I am
>the one," It is I," or "Hey! It's me!"  My question is this: if a koine
>speaker wanted to say "It was I," essentially the same phrase in the
>imperfect or in the aorist states, how would he have said it? Is there any
>NT example of this, or any example at all in the literature? Again, I am
>asking grammatically, not theologically. Thanks! Matthew R. Miller

It is reasonable enough to suppose that such a phrase as EGW HN might mean
"It was I" (or in more colloquial--standard English: "It was me"), but it
is certainly not attested in the Greek NT. I don't know whether it's found
in extra-biblical literature or not; a search could be run on the TLG to
find out, if someone wanted to go to the trouble.
--

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Hebrew New Testament
From: "Paul Schmehl" <p.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:42:21 -0500
X-Message-Number: 16

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lamont Norman" <lamont.norman at idea.com>
To: "Biblical Greek" <b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 4:37 PM
Subject: [b-greek] Hebrew New Testament


> I fear that I am in way over my head on this but I want to know anyway.
> Someone has approached me recently with the idea that the New Testament
> was orignally written in Hebrew.  They also argued that Constantine had
> destroyed the original Hebrew manuscripts and killed off all supporters of
> the Hebrew texts.  Can someone please help me with this?  I would like to
> know what the arguments for and against are - if there are any.  I would
> like to know references so that I can evaluate the arguments as best I
> can.

Actually, the entire Bible was originally written in the King's English and
subsequently translated into the Greek we have now.  No one knows this
because after the translation was done, all the scribes and supporters were
murdered to hide the evidence.

Sound ridiculous?  It's the same argument.



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Passive Instrument: A Clarification
From: "Harry W. Jones" <hjbluebird at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:32:57 -0400
X-Message-Number: 17

> Let me clarify my last post. In Colossians 1:16, how is the phrase "en
> autw" being grammatically used? En + Dative is not the normal Greek
> passive agency, which is usually accomplished by dative of instrument or
> agency. But "en autw" would then have no recourse but to be locative.
> However, the locative in this passage makes no sense. What would that be
> saying? That all of creation geographically exists inside Christ's
> physical body? Thus, am I justified in understanding this, by process of
> elimination, as simply a peculiar, but not unwarranted, perphrastic dative
> of passive agency? Thanks, Matthew R. Miller

Dear Matthew,

If you believe in the eight case system,as I do,then EN AUTW would
translate as, "by means of Him".Your question on passive agency would
have to deal with a particular verb. All the verbs in Col. 1:16 are
passive. IMHO EKTISQH is in the passive tense because it refers to
the things that "were created" and EKTISTAI is in the passive tense
because it still refers to the things that "have been created" and
not in the sense of an active agency.

I hope I have help a little.

Harry Jones

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Hebrew New Testament
From: "Trevor & Julie Peterson" <06peterson at cua.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:46:51 -0400
X-Message-Number: 18

Actually, it depends on what you mean by "tradition."  I have seen a fairly
elaborate argument articulated for something very close to this notion.  I'm
not saying I buy it, but it does show that at least someone holds such a
tradition.  There is an e-list that has no relationship to B-Greek or
B-Hebrew, called B-Aramaic.  It is hosted by SANJ, the Society for the
Advancement of Nazarene Judaism.  They have put out a "Hebraic Roots" NT--an
English translation taken (supposedly) from Aramaic and Hebrew versions
instead of Greek.  What that basically means is that they used an old Hebrew
manuscript of Matthew and a couple of Aramaic manuscripts of the same, but
resorted to the Syriac Peshitta for the rest of the NT.  An abbreviated form
of the same argument that was posted in a multi-part series on their list is
articulated on their Web site:  http://www.nazarene.net/hrv/index.htm

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 8:28 PM
> To: Biblical Greek
> Cc: Biblical Greek
> Subject: [b-greek] Re: Hebrew New Testament
>
[snipped]

> there is NO tradition about the whole NT
> originally being Hebrew. The person initiating the query with you was
> evidently poorly informed.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Aramaic Version Of the NT?!?!?
From: "Trevor & Julie Peterson" <06peterson at cua.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:04:53 -0400
X-Message-Number: 19

While I agree in general with the information Ken gave, I think a little bit
more could be said for the antiquity of the Aramaic NT.  There is testimony
to the Diatessaron from Ephrem (4th c.), and manuscripts of the Old Syriac
version have been dated to the 5th c. or earlier.  Generally, the antiquity
of the Peshitta is supported by appeal to the fact that it is used by both
major divisions of the Syriac church, which split over Nestorianism in the
5th c.  That's not to say that we can by any means prove that the Aramaic
version is primary, but it does seem to leave at least a crack in the door
for the suggestion that it is old enough to provide some competition with
the Greek.

As for the value of studying Aramaic versions (I'm thinking here primarily
of Syriac), while I wouldn't necessarily go too far in the hunt for "lost
originals," I wouldn't say it's a waste of time either.  It's all well and
good to speak of a Semitic thought process behind the Greek writings of the
NT, but if you don't have any idea how that process works, you're not going
to find it very easily.  Even if the Syriac versions are nothing more than
translations from Greek originals, they still attest a fairly early
tradition that sought to render the NT material for a Semitic-speaking
community.  Supplemented, perhaps, by oral traditions, they could very well
stand to teach us quite a bit about how the Semitic-speaking communities
that generated the ideas in the NT to begin with were operating.  It also
has value in the same way that studying Latin would with regard to the
Western Church.  We (Westerners) have a tendency to think of the early and
medieval Church as divided only between Greek and Latin.  From the
perspective of Oriental Christianity, however, Greek-speakers are still
Western.  Just as the Greek Bible was central in the life of the Greek
Orthodox and the Latin in the life of Western Catholics, Syriac was integral
to the Oriental (Near Eastern) churches.

Finally, a brief word on rucho vs. pneuma.  I think this is one of those
areas where comparing versions of the NT can be instructive.  In English, we
tend to assume that the appropriate pronoun to use for the Holy Spirit is
"he."  (At least, that was the way we tended to do things until recently.)
Then we find that in Greek the neuter pronoun is often used.  Yes, in
Syriac, rucho is feminine.  Interestingly, in Christian writings, the
pronouns seem to have shifted over time.  As the concept of the Spirit's
personality solidified, there seems to ahve been a trend in the direction of
using masculine pronouns.  This isn't a Syriac discussion list, so I'll
leave it at that.  My point is simply that, if we're going to take seriously
the notion of Semitic influence on the thinking behind the Greek NT, we have
to remember things like this.  Studying Syriac is one way to keep them in
mind.

I'll crawl back in my hole now.  See my other post on "Hebrew New Testament"
for info. on a group that argues for the priority of the Aramaic.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Smith [mailto:kens at 180solutions.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 4:59 PM
> To: Biblical Greek
> Subject: [b-greek] Re: Aramaic Version Of the NT?!?!?
>
>
> I fully agree with Mark's assessment, but you might be interested in a
> bit more detail.
>
> > ----
> > Could anyone tell me if it would be worthwhile
> > >to study the NT Aramaic translations?
> > ----
> >
> > No. Don't give it a second thought.
> >
> > Mark Wilson
>
> There are a few folks out there who think that parts of (or in some of
> the weirder versions, nearly all of) the NT were written in Aramaic.
> It's certainly clear that many of the characters in the NT spoke Aramaic
> as a first language, probably including Jesus.  The Gospels and even
> epistles record various Aramaic words ("talitha koum", "maranatha",
> "abba").  Depending on who you ask, some of Jesus' sayings, if you
> back-translate them, may reveal Aramaic word-plays.  And several books
> of the NT seem to have sentence structures that are more like those
> found in semitic writings than in literary Greek texts (Mark and
> Revelation, for instance).  Oddly enough, Matthew, which is usually the
> Gospel most referenced in this respect (due to a quote from Papias about
> Matthew having written in "the Hebrew dialect"), doesn't seem to be
> nearly as strongly influenced in this way: he's not as polished as, say,
> Luke, but his Greek is far more idiomatic than, say, Revelation is.
>
> But that's about as far as the evidence goes.  There are no Aramaic
> versions of any NT books which are known to be from before the middle
> ages.  (There are a couple different Aramaic versions of Matthew
> floating around, but they each differ from each other, and were probably
> back-translated to Aramaic from Greek centuries if not millennia later.)
> What evidence there is can be best explained by acknowledging that (a)
> Greek was not the first language of many of the writers, and (b) that
> some of the materials they used -- written and oral -- were perhaps
> originally spoken or composed in a semitic language.  But there's no
> convincing evidence that ANY of the NT books were originally written
> down by their authors in Aramaic.
>
> Ken Smith
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [06peterson at cua.edu]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Passive Instrument: A Clarification
From: "Mark Wilson" <emory2oo2 at hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 03:49:19 +0000
X-Message-Number: 20


Harry:

You wrote:


----
>If you believe in the eight case system,as I do,then EN AUTW would
>translate as, "by means of Him".
-----

This may seem too obvious to mention, but such an understanding
of EN AUTWi is not related to an 8 or 5 case system.
"By means of Him" has to do with FUNCTION, not FORM.

Mark Wilson


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp




---

END OF DIGEST

---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [smalling at connect.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu





More information about the B-Greek mailing list