The Edwin Hatch Collection wil be closing this Friday. It is at $10 now and with more bids it could go down to $8.
http://www.logos.com/product/8554/edwin-hatch-collection
I'm in at $10. That dude has an amazing hairdo. [8-|]
That dude has an amazing hairdo.
That's his hair? I thought he was posing in front of a tree.
That dude has an amazing hairdo. That's his hair? I thought he was posing in front of a tree.
ROTFLOL. Thanks to you two for brightening my day/evening. [:D]
Someone should warn Thomas Black to put down his coffee prior to reading this thread, or he will lose yet another keyboard. Tom, if you read this, I can direct you to a place where you can purchase a waterproof rubber keyboard (waterproof, does that include coffee-proof?).
(waterproof, does that include coffee-proof?).
Yes.... [C]
It is at $10 now and with more bids it could go down to $8.
This is not one that I thought might ever make it down to $8 by Friday.......
but looks like I am going to be proven wrong (again....) [:^)]
I give... I'm in.
[H]
In @ 10
I've been in at $8 for a few days. BTW: If you didn't realize it, he's the Hatch that was part of the Hatch & Redpath Concordance to the LXX. Some of his positions are very wrong, but who isn't wrong in some respects?
You convinced me!
In @ 10 I've been in at $8 for a few days. BTW: If you didn't realize it, he's the Hatch that was part of the Hatch & Redpath Concordance to the LXX. Some of his positions are very wrong, but who isn't wrong in some respects?
Dear George, I have placed my bit , but according to your comment I don't have to gather what is wrong,before I cancel my bit I am waiting you to tell me specifically ,his wrong position.
In @ 10 I've been in at $8 for a few days. BTW: If you didn't realize it, he's the Hatch that was part of the Hatch & Redpath Concordance to the LXX. Some of his positions are very wrong, but who isn't wrong in some respects? Dear George, I have placed my bit , but according to your comment I don't have to gather what is wrong,before I cancel my bit I am waiting you to tell me specifically ,his wrong position.
You must remember that we are all subject to the limitations of time and place. In the case of Edwin Hatch, he died in 1889, but the Oxyrhynchus Papyri were not yet found since Grenfall and Hunt began to excavate the site. It was from the finds at that location and from some other materials that we have come to know better the language of the New Testament. At one time the Greek of the New Testament was considered to be "Holy Ghost Greek", i.e., it was obviously something different from the Greek of Aristotle and Plato and no one really knew that it was actually the language of the common man. I wouldn't get to become to concerned about the matter though I would not recommend the use of Thayer's lexicon which is also prior to the Oxyrhynchus finds.
You must remember that we are all subject to the limitations of time and place
Your comments are enough for me to canel my bit,so I have canceled it.
In @ 10 I've been in at $8 for a few days. BTW: If you didn't realize it, he's the Hatch that was part of the Hatch & Redpath Concordance to the LXX. Some of his positions are very wrong, but who isn't wrong in some respects? Dear George, I have placed my bit , but according to your comment I don't have to gather what is wrong,before I cancel my bit I am waiting you to tell me specifically ,his wrong position. You must remember that we are all subject to the limitations of time and place. In the case of Edwin Hatch, he died in 1889, but the Oxyrhynchus Papyri were not yet found since Grenfall and Hunt began to excavate the site. It was from the finds at that location and from some other materials that we have come to know better the language of the New Testament. At one time the Greek of the New Testament was considered to be "Holy Ghost Greek", i.e., it was obviously something different from the Greek of Aristotle and Plato and no one really knew that it was actually the language of the common man. I wouldn't get to become to concerned about the matter though I would not recommend the use of Thayer's lexicon which is also prior to the Oxyrhynchus finds.
Good point. That's the main reason I didn't pre-order Thayer's G/E Lexicon. I still use it from time to time because of his great definition of the word Aselgeia/Lasciviousness and other easy words, but I don't think I would spend extra money to buy it in Logos. I'd rather keep it in my other software, which was free and has the same content. Edwin might be good, but I don't know him enough to justify me spending money on his work (even if it's just $10 bucks). I would say this, though, that I'd be interested in knowing what he's got to say on "church organization" and "Growth of church institution." So I guess I still have today and tomorrow to think about it and I might just end up placing my bid.
You must remember that we are all subject to the limitations of time and place Your comments are enough for me to canel my bit,so I have canceled it.
I wouldn't. While Hatch may have his limitations due to when he lived, this is not a lexicon. I would not recommend Thayer because it is a lexicon and is therefore heavily impacted by this limitation. With Hatch this limitation is more incidental. Besides, at that price can you really go wrong?
at that price can you really go wrong?
It is not about the price , but if he has wrong position ,what ever the case may be, I would prefer to get rid of it.
I found this information in one of D. A. Carson's booksabout Edwin Hatch's method:
14. Problems relating to the Semitic background of the GreekNew Testament
There is a large nest of difficult questions that can begrouped together under this heading, and a corresponding array of fallacies.The kinds of problems I have in mind may be brought out by asking a fewrhetorical questions: To what extent is the vocabulary of the Greek NewTestament shaped by the Semitic languages which, presumably, underlie largeparts of it (especially the Gospels and parts of Acts)? To what extent are thenormal semantic ranges of New Testament Greek words altered by the impact ofthe writer? Or by his reading of the Hebrew Old Testament, where applicable? Orby the indirect influence of the Hebrew Old Testament on the Septuagint, whichhas in turn influenced the New Testament?
Many similar questions could be raised; but this chapter,already too long, must be drawn to a close. The need for substantial discussionhas been diminished by the recent work of Silva, who ably points out theweaknesses in Edwin Hatch's method, which sought to establish the meanings ofGreek words by simple recourse to their Hebrew equivalents-a method sadly givena new lease on life by Nigel Turner. This is not to say that the Septuagint hadno influence on New Testament writers. Far from it: the influence was profound.But it is to say that it is methodologically irresponsible to read the meaningof a Hebrew word into its Greek equivalent without further ado.
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Carlisle, U.K.;Grand Rapids, Mich.: Paternoster; Baker Books, 1996), 61-62.
at that price can you really go wrong? It is not about the price , but if he has wrong position ,what ever the case may be, I would prefer to get rid of it.
I assume then that you don't have Thayer's lexicon or Winer's grammar which, as having been written prior to Oxyrhynchus and being intimately bound up with language itself, are much more likely to be adversely affected -- or, if you have them, I assume you will hide them.
Many similar questions could be raised; but this chapter, already too long, must be drawn to a close. The need for substantial discussion has been diminished by the recent work of Silva, who ably points out the weaknesses in Edwin Hatch's method, which sought to establish the meanings of Greek words by simple recourse to their Hebrew equivalents-a method sadly given a new lease on life by Nigel Turner. This is not to say that the Septuagint had no influence on New Testament writers. Far from it: the influence was profound. But it is to say that it is methodologically irresponsible to read the meaning of a Hebrew word into its Greek equivalent without further ado. D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Paternoster; Baker Books, 1996), 61-62.
Many similar questions could be raised; but this chapter, already too long, must be drawn to a close. The need for substantial discussion has been diminished by the recent work of Silva, who ably points out the weaknesses in Edwin Hatch's method, which sought to establish the meanings of Greek words by simple recourse to their Hebrew equivalents-a method sadly given a new lease on life by Nigel Turner. This is not to say that the Septuagint had no influence on New Testament writers. Far from it: the influence was profound. But it is to say that it is methodologically irresponsible to read the meaning of a Hebrew word into its Greek equivalent without further ado.
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Paternoster; Baker Books, 1996), 61-62.
Good find. It is likely that the resort to Hebrew as an explanation for unusual meanings and constructions in the NT is partly due to a failure to understand the true nature of the Koine as being the language of the common man which was brought to light by Oxyrhynchus. Turner is something of a problem in that regard (And there are others today who resort to back-translating into either Hebrew or Aramaic -- wrongly, I think. The NT was written in Greek and, though there may be some traditional phrases used which are explicable by such methods, it was written to be understood by Greek speakers).
at that price can you really go wrong? It is not about the price , but if he has wrong position ,what ever the case may be, I would prefer to get rid of it. I assume then that you don't have Thayer's lexicon or Winer's grammar which, as having been written prior to Oxyrhynchus and being intimately bound up with language itself, are much more likely to be adversely affected -- or, if you have them, I assume you will hide them.
I have none of them.Thank you for let me know, I wish ,if I could know before hand ,about any resource before purchase or community pricing is going to be made.
I could probably find something negative to say about any resource that is ever offered. You could save me the time and effort of offering criticism if you were to simply refrain from ordering any resources whatsoever. NATURALLY, I'M JESTING. I'm also trying to make a point which is that you can't simply decide to not order any work because there is some problem with it. The question really should be whether you can otherwise find it useful.
Yes, you are right as they come some times with packages.and perhaps I may buy them delibaragtely to know what is being said in it.
The NT was written in Greek and, though there may be some traditional phrases used which are explicable by such methods, it was written to be understood by Greek speakers
Endless possibilities for debate, but there seems to be an underlying assumption of convenience that the Greek of the common man was uniform across the Greek speaking world of that time. Is there not at least some reasonable parallel with current day English which might indicate that the English spoken by people in Birmingham AL is perhaps not identical to the English spoken in Birmingham, England; and just the outside possibility that for those whose first language was not Greek, the odd occasion when they substituted a generally well understood term or word from another language.
There is many a current day users' manual, originating off-shore, but written to be understood by English Speakers, that contains terms that are more than a little different when written by someone whose native tongue is English. Back - translating through the native tongue of the author has been known to work in some cases to resolve such difficulties. Should we be insistent in applying different concepts to NT Greek ?We do not need to claim that Edwin Hatch was wrong: that is self evident. All of us are wrong in something, quite a few of us in a lot, as none of us regular "common" humans has a perfect lens through which to view the scripture. If we only read what others have told us is right, how will we ever learn to discern right from wrong in what we read? Is that not like trying to discern different flavours by only eating chocolate ?
George can probably find a good quote from NT Wright to round this out.....? [*-)]
David!
*smile*
A really good point! Thank you!
Have not really been thinking along those lines for a long, long time.
You are correct of course!
Peace! And! Joy in the Lord Always!
There is many a current day users' manual, originating off-shore, but written to be understood by English Speakers, that contains terms that are more than a little different when written by someone whose native tongue is English. Back - translating through the native tongue of the author has been known to work in some cases to resolve such difficulties. Should we be insistent in applying different concepts to NT Greek ?
Of course there were differences in Greek from one area to another in the early ADs. I still don't think that back-translating is the answer. Usually the differences are confined to a single word or a phrase since, after all, it was Koine, i.e., COMMON Greek. Regardless of the fact that the Brits still haven't learned to speak English, I can still understand them. I can even USUALLY understand the Aussies. Amazing enough, I can even understand Canuks, eh! [:D] Heh, he. I raised some hackles there. We don't require back-translations to understand one another.
George can probably find a good quote from NT Wright to round this out.....?
Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have a single work by Wright. Remember, while I'm a Christian and therefore can't be ignorant of the NT (not Wright in this case), I'm primarily an OT guy.
