Answer Key to Unit 3 of Hansen and Quinn’s, Greek: An Intensive Course

Answers to the ‘Drill’ and ‘Exercise’ questions of Unit 3 of Greek: An Intensive Course by Hansen and Quinn. If you spot an error then please leave a comment below.

Note that the correct use of “may” and “might” is important in these answers. If the verb is a subjunctive the author wants you to translate it as “may”, but if it is an optative then you are to translate it as “might”.

Also, remember that the tense of a subjunctive or an optative (as well as an infinitive) does not indicate the actual time (e.g. the past) but only the aspect. The present tense shows progressive or repeated aspect (e.g. “that you may be educating”), while the aorist tense shows simple aspect (e.g. “that you may educate”), and the perfect tense shows completed aspect (e.g. “to have educated”).

Answers to ‘Drill’ Questions

Section I

  1. We have sent. Perfect indicative. Singular form is πέπομφα.
  2. They had sent. Pluperfect indicative. Singular form is ἐπεπόμφει(ν).
  3. You were sending. Imperfect indicative. Plural form is ἐπέμπετε.
  4. He has sent. Perfect indicative. Plural form is πεπόμφασι(ν).
  5. I sent. Aorist indicative. Plural form is ἐπέμψαμεν.
  6. He had sent. Pluperfect indicative. Plural form is ἐπεπέμφεσαν.
  7. To have sent. Perfect infinitive.
  8. He will send. Future indicative. Plural form is πέμψουσι(ν).
  9. He may be sending. Present subjunctive. Plural form is πέμπωσι(ν).
  10. You may send. Aorist subjunctive. Plural form is πέμψητε.
  11. You will send. Future indicative. Plural form is πέμψετε.
  12. We may be sending. Present subjunctive. Singular form is πέμπω.
  13. They will send. Future indicative. Singular form is πέμψει.
  14. They may be sending. Present subjunctive. Singular form is πεμπῃ.
  15. (a) I shall send. Future indicative. Plural form is πέμψομεν; and (b) I may send. Aorist subjunctive. Plural form is πέμψωμεν.
  16. I might be sending. Present optative. Plural form is πέμποιμεν.
  17. He might send. Aorist optative. Plural form is πέμψειαν.
  18. (a) To send. Aorist infinitive; and (b) He might send. Aorist optative. Plural form is πέμψαιεν.
  19. They might be sending. Present optative. Singular form is πέμποι.
  20. To be sending. Present infinitive.
  21. I had sent. Pluperfect indicative. Plural form is ἐπεπόμφεμεν.

Section II

  1. You send gold in order that we may be sending books. [present subjunctive active]
  2. You send gold in order that we may send books. [aorist subjunctive active]
  3. You will send gold in order that we may send books. [aorist subjunctive active]
  4. You sent gold in order that we might send books. [aorist optative active]
  5. You have released the brothers in order that he may send gifts. [aorist subjunctive active]
  6. You had released the brothers in order that he might send gifts. [aorist optative active]
  7. You were releasing the brothers in order that he might send gifts. [aorist optative active]
  8. He was educating the brothers in order that you might send gold. [aorist optative active]
  9. He educated the brothers in order that you might send gold. [aorist optative active]
  10. In order that you may be sending gold, he educates the brothers. [present subjunctive active]
  11. We will not send gold in order that he may not send animals. [aorist subjunctive active]
  12. We were not sending gold in order that they might not be sending animals. [present optative active]

Answers to ‘Exercise’ Questions

Section I

  1. The people on the roads will sacrifice to the gods in order that they may stop the war.
  2. The people are sacrificing to the goddesses in order that they may stop the war.
  3. The strangers from the marketplace sent messengers in order that they might destroy the peace.
  4. I was sending messengers around the island in order that you [plural] might not be destroying the peace.
  5. They have sent gifts in order that we may free Homer.
  6. In fact [or "of course"], you [plural] are commanding Homer to write a book about the war in order that you may teach the brothers well. For they will guard the country.
  7. He sent gold to the assembly and the council in order that they might not dissolve the friendship.
  8. On the one hand, the gods did not guard Homer’s eyes; on the other hand, they have guarded well the books concerning the virtue of the men.
  9. On the one hand, by a word they had destroyed the peace; on the other hand, by a deed, they had not.
  10. Will you write five books concerning the sacrifices to the gods in order that we may send gifts to the gods?
  11. Through the will of the gods we had stopped the war, but we did not send crowns to the marketplace.
  12. Since we guarded the messengers, who were from the strangers, they did not destroy the democracy.
  13. Has Homer educated the brothers with the skill concerning words in order that they may guard well virtue in battles?
  14. Through virtue we had sent crowns, prizes of victory, to the friends.
  15. Since we did not sacrifice to the god before the war, now, even in the island and in the marketplace, we have sacrificed in order that we may send virtue into souls.
  16. The people sent even the stranger out of the country into the island in order that he might not destroy the peace. For he had written six books concerning war.
  17. O Homer, on the one hand, you send a book instead of gold to the brother; on the other hand, to the god, a crown instead of an animal.
  18. You were sacrificing to the gods in order that they might teach the strangers, in the island, concerning virtue.
  19. He commanded the brothers to stop the war before their victory.
  20. The strangers will send gifts either to the council or to the assembly in order that they may not destroy the friendship.
  21. The books of Homer have taught the strangers.
  22. From the marketplace.
    At the side of the brother of Homer.
    Through the house.
    Beside Homer.
    Through the island.
    To have sacrificed.
    To have stopped.

Section II

  1. λελύκαμεν τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ἵνα μη λύσῃς τὴν εἰρηνην.
    [Note that the present subjunctive λύῃς could be used instead of the aorist subjunctive, but I think the simple aspect of the aorist makes more sense here than the repeated/progressive aspect of the present. Also note that I translated "you" as 2nd-person singular instead of 2nd-person plural (λύητε/λύσητε), though this fine too considering the question is ambiguous in this regard]
  2. ἀλλὰ ἐπεπόμφης ἆθλα τῷ Ὁμέρῳ ἵνα παιδεύοι τὸν ἀδελφόν.
    [Note that the aorist optative παιδεύσαι could be used instead of the present optative, but I prefer the progressive/repeated aspect of the latter]
  3. ἐγεγράφειν βιβλίον περὶ εἰρήνης ἳνα  παύσαιμεν πολέμους.
    [Note that the present optative παύσοιμεν could be used instead of the aorist optative, but I prefer the simple aspect of the latter]

Also, for each of these three answers ὡς or ὅπως can be used instead of ἵνα.

Answer Key to Unit 2 of Hansen and Quinn’s, Greek: An Intensive Course

Answers to the ‘Drill’ and ‘Exercise’ questions of Unit 2 of Greek: An Intensive Course by Hansen and Quinn. If you spot an error then please leave a comment below.

Answers to ‘Drill’ Questions

Section I

  1. Past Time + Progressive/Repeated Aspect = Imperfect Tense
  2. Future Time + Simple Aspect = Future Tense
  3. Past Time + Simple Aspect = Aorist Tense
  4. Present Time + Completed Aspect = Perfect Tense
  5. Past Time + Progressive/Repeated Aspect = Imperfect Tense
  6. Present Time + Progressive/Repeated Aspect = Present Tense
  7. Future Time + Progressive/Repeated Aspect = Future Tense
  8. Past Time + Completed Aspect = Pluperfect Tense
  9. Future Time + Simple Aspect = Future Tense
  10. Present Time + Progressive/Repeated Aspect = Present Tense

Section II

  1. παιδεύσεις (second person singular, “you will educate”; tense stem is παιδευσ- which denotes future tense; plural form is παιδεύσετε).
  2. ἐπαίδευσας (second person singular, “you educated”; tense stem is ἐπαιδευσ- which denotes aorist tense; plural form is ἐπαιδεύσατε).
  3. παιδεύεις (second person singular, “you are educating” or “you educate”; tense stem is παιδευ- which denotes present tense; plural form is παιδεύετε).
  4. ἔλυον (can be either first person singular or third person plural, “I was releasing” and “they were releasing”; tense stem in both cases is ἐλυ- which denotes imperfect tense; plural form of first person singular is ἐλυομεν, and singular form the third person plural is ἐλυεν with the ν being removable).
  5. πέμψομεν (first person plural, “we shall send”; tense stem is πέμψ- which denotes future tense; singular form is πεμψω).
  6. ἔπεμψαν (third person plural, “they educated”; tense stem is ἐπεμψ- which denotes aorist tense; singular for is ἔπεμψα).
  7. λύει (third person singular, “it is releasing”; tense stem is λυ- which denotes present tense; plural form is λύουσιν).
  8. πέμψουσιν (third person plural, “they will send” or “they will be sending”; tense stem is πεμψ- which denotes future tense; singular form is πέμψει).
  9. πέμπουσιν (third person plural, “they are sending” or “they send”; tense stem is πεμπ- which denotes present tense; singular form is πέμπει).
  10. ἔλυεν (third person singular, “it was releasing”; tense stem is ελυ- which denotes imperfect tense; plural form is ἔλυον).
  11. ἐπαίδευον (can be either first person singular or third person plural, “I was educating” and “they were educating”; tense stem in both cases is ἐπαιδευ- which denotes imperfect tense; plural form of first person singular is ἐπαιδεύομεν, and singular form of third person plural is ἐπαιδευεν with the ν being removable).
  12. πέμπομεν (first person plural, “we are sending” or “we send”; stem tense is πεμπ- which denotes present tense; plural form is πέμπω).
  13. ἔπεμψεν (third person singular, “it sent”; tense stem is ἐπεμψ- which denotes aorist tense; plural form is ἔπεμψαν).
  14. ἔπεμπεν (third person singular, “it was sending”; tense stem is ἐπεμπ- which denotes imperfect tense; plural form is ἐπέμπεον).
  15. ἔπεμπον (can be either first person singular or third person plural, “I was sending” and “they were sending”; tense stem is ἐπεμπ- which denotes imperfect tense; plural form of first person singular is ἐπέμπομεν, and singular form of third person plural is ἔπεμπεν with the ν being removable).
  16. παιδεύσω (first person singular, “I shall educate”; tense stem is παιδευσ- which denotes future tense; plural form is παιδέσομεν).
  17. ἐπαιδεύσαμεν (first person plural, “we educated”; tense stem is ἐπαιδευσ- which denotes aorist tense; singular form is ἐπαίδεσα).
  18. παιδεύετε (second person plural, “you are educating” or “you educate”; tense stem is παιδευ- which denotes present tense; singular form is παιδεύεις).
  19. ἐπαιδεύετε (second person plural, “you were educating”; tense stem is ἐπαιδευ- which denotes imperfect tense; singular form is ἐπαίδευς).
  20. παιδεύσετε (second person plural, “you will educate” or “you will be educating”; tense stem is παιδευσ- which denotes future tense; singular form is παιδεύσεις).
  21. ἐπαιδεύσατε (second person plural, “you educated”; tense stem is ἐπαιδευσ- which denotes aorist tense; singular form is ἐπαίδευσας).
  22. λύσομεν (first person plural, “we shall release”; tense stem is λυσ- which denotes future tense; singular form is λύσω).
  23. ἐλύσαμεν (first person plural, “we released”; tense stem is ἐλυσ- which denotes aorist tense; singular form is ἔλυσα).
  24. λύομεν (first person plural, “we are releasing” or “we release”; tense stem is λυ- which denotes present tense; singular form is λύω).
  25. ἐλύομεν (first person plural, “we were releasing”; tense stem is ἐλυ- which denotes imperfect tense; singular form is ἔλυον).
  26. οὐ πέμψεις (second person singular, “you will not send”; tense stem is πεμψ- which denotes future tense; singular form is οὐ πέμψετε).
  27. οὐκ ἔπεμψας (second person singular, “you have not educated”; tense stem is ἐπεμψ- which denotes aorist tense; singular form is οὐκ ἐπέμψατε).
  28. οὐκ ἔπεμπες (second person singular, “you were not sending”; tense stem is ἐπεμπ- which denotes imperfect tense; plural form is οὐκ ἐπέμπετε).
  29. παιδεύουσι (third person plural, “they are educating”; tense stem is παιδευ- which denotes present tense; singular form is παιδεύει).
  30. παιδεύσουσιν (third person plural, “they are educating”; tense stem is παιδευσ- which denotes present tense; singular form is παιδεύσει).
  31. λύσει (third person singular, “it will release” or “it will be releasing”; tense stem is λυσ- which denotes future tense; plural form is λυσουσιν).
  32. ἔπεμπες (second person singular, “you were sending”; tense stem is ἐπεμπ- which denotes imperfect tense; plural form is ἐπέμπετε).
  33. λύουσιν (third person plural, “they were releasing”; tense stem is λυ- which denotes present tense; singular form is λύει).
  34. ἐλύσατε (second person plural, “you released”; tense stem is ἐλυσ- which denotes aorist tense; singular form is ἔλυσας).
  35. λύεις (second person singular, “you are releasing” or “you release”; tense stem is λυ- which denotes present tense; plural form is λύετε).
  36. ἔλυες (second person singular, “you were releasing”; tense stem is ἐλυ- which denotes imperfect tense; plural form is ἐλύετε).

Section III

  1. Verb = ἐπαίδευες (imperfect tense; indicative mood; active voice; 2nd person singular).
    Translation = “O Homer, you were educating the men” (or “you used to educate”).
  2. Verb = πέμψω (future tense; indicative mood; active voice; 1st person singular).
    Translation = “I shall send Homer into the marketplace” (or “shall be sending”).
  3. Verb = ἐπέμψατε (aorist tense; indicative mood; active voice; 2nd person plural).
    Translation = “You sent the brother onto the island”.
  4. Verb = ἐπαίδευσαν (aorist tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person plural).
    Translation = “The gods educated Homer by their words”.
  5. Verb = λύσομεν (future tense; indicative mood; active voice; 1st person plural).
    Translation = “We shall release the brother”.
  6. Verb = ἐλύομεν (imperfect tense; indicative mood; active voice; 1st person plural).
    Translation = “We were releasing the men in the house”.
  7. Verb = παιδεύει (present tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person singular).
    Translation = “He educates the brother of Homer” (or “is educating”).
  8. Verb = ἐπαίδευεν (imperfect tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person singular).
    Translation = “Homer was educating the brother” (or “used to educate”).
  9. Verb = παιδεύει (present tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person singular).
    Translation = “The deeds of the gods educate the men”.
  10. Verb = ἔπεμπεν (imperfect tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person singular).
    Translation = “The goddess was sending her words into the soul of Homer” (or “used to send”).
  11. Verb = λύσουσιν (future tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person plural).
    Translation = “The gods will release the men on the island”.
  12. Verb = ἐπαίδευον (imperfect tense; indicative mood; active voice; 1st person singular or 3rd person plural).
    Translation = “I was educating the brother by means of skill” (or “used to educate”)
    Translation = “They were educating the brother by means of skill” (or “used to educate”).
  13. Verbs = λύειν (present infinitive active), and ε̉κέλευσεν (aorist tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person singular).
    Translation = “The god commanded Homer to release the men” (note that the present tense in the infinitive does not indicate time, but a progressive/repeated aspect).
  14. Verbs = λῦσαι (aorist infinitive active) and ε̉κέλευσεν (aorist tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person singular).
    Translation = “The god commanded Homer to release the men” (the aorist infinitive active indicates simple aspect).
  15. Verb = έπεμπες (imperfect tense; indicative mood; active voice; 2nd person singular).
    Translation = “You were sending the brother into the marketplace” (or “you used to send”).
  16. Verb = ἐπαίδευε (imperfect tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person singular).
    Translation = “The books of Homer were educating the men” (“used to educate”).
  17. Verb = λύομεν (present tense; indicative mood; active voice; 1st person plural).
    Translation = “We are releasing the brothers” (or “we release”).
  18. Verb = ἐπαίδευσας (aorist tense; indicative mood; active voice; 2nd person singular).
    Translation = “You educated the brother by word and deed”.
  19. Verb = πέμπψουσιν (future tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person plural).
    Translation = “They will send the brother out of the land” (“will be sending”).
  20. Verbs = ἐκελεύομεν (imperfect tense; indicative mood; active voice; 1st person plural), and πέμψαι (aorist active infinitive).
    Translation = “We were commanding Homer to send the book onto the island” (or “used to command”).

Answers to ‘Exercise’ Questions

Section I

  1. The gods were sending gifts into the land.
  2. Homer sent five books to the foreigners/strangers.
  3. Before the wars, the men on the island shall send six messengers to the friends.
  4. Will you destroy even the friendship of the goddess? [notice I translated the και as "even"].
  5. We were dissolving the wars by either words or deeds.
  6. You taught the friends at Homer’s place the skill of words.
  7. On the one hand, we will send crowns to the strangers; to the friends, on the other hand, books.
  8. Did the strangers not release the friend in the house?
  9. By deed, not word, I was freeing the friends [the verb can also legitimately be translated as "they were freeing"].
  10. Before the battle, you commanded the friends to send gifts/bribes to the god out of the house onto the island.
  11. Stranger, will you not release the friend in the house?
  12. The books from the strangers taught the men in the marketplace – the friends of Homer.
  13. The six brothers were sending a crown of gold out of the land to Homer and the brother of Homer.
  14. On the one hand, Homer will teach the friends in the house well by words; the brothers, on the other hand, by deeds.
  15. We sent the messenger from the strangers away from the marketplace onto the island. For we were ordering the men on the island to dissolve the war.
  16. Brother, are you sending the animals to the marketplace or not?
  17. Even now Homer teaches the souls of strangers. For the gods were teaching Homer the skill.
  18. On the one hand, the gods will order Homer to send gold to the friends; on the other, crowns to the strangers in the country.
  19. The deeds of the gods in the country teach the men well.
  20. Will you send the brothers into battle?
  21. You were ordering Homer to send books to the islands. For you were teaching the men on the islands.
  22. On the one hand, the gods are dissolving wars; on the other hand, the men are sending brothers into battle.
  23. The goddess will order the men in the country to send gold or a crown to the friends.

Section II

  1. ἔπεμπες δῶρα ἐκ τη̃ς ἀγορα̃ς τοι̃ς θεοι̃ς νήσου.
    [also fine is παρὰ τοὺς θεοὺς]
  2. ἆρα ἐκελεύσατε τὸν Ὅμηρον λυ̃σαι τοὺς πέντε ἀνθρώπους ἐν τῇ οι̉κίᾳ  ἢ οὔ;
  3. παιδεύσουσιν τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς λόγοις καὶ ἔργοις.
  4. ἡ θεὸς νῦν κελεύει τοὺς ἓξ ἀδελφοὺς πέμπειν χρυσὸν τοι̃ς φίλοις ἐν τῇ νήσῳ.
    [one could substitute πέμψαι for πέμπειν]
    [also fine is παρὰ τοὺς φίλους]
  5. τὰ δῶρα τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἔλυσεν τοὺς ἓξ ἀνθρώπους.

Answer Key to Unit 1 of Hansen and Quinn’s, Greek: An Intensive Course

Answers to the ‘Drill’ and ‘Exercise’ questions of Unit 1 of Greek: An Intensive Course by Hansen and Quinn. If you spot an error then please leave a comment below.

Answers to ‘Drill’ Questions

Section I

  1. τέχναι – feminine; nominative plural or vocative plural, “arts” or “skills” (as subject or predicative nominative). Singulars for both are τέχνη.
  2. ψυχήν – feminine, accusative, singular, “soul” (as a direct object). Plural is ψυχάς.
  3. τεχνῶν – feminine, genitive, plural, “(of/from) arts”. Singular is τέχνης.
  4. ἀγοράς – feminine?, accusative, plural, “marketplace” (as a direct object). Singular is ἀγοράν.
  5. ἀγορᾶς – feminine, genitive, singular, “(of/from a) marketplace”. Plural is ἀγορῷν.
  6. ψυχαῖς – feminine, dative, plural, “[by/with/to/for] souls”. Singular is ψυχῇ.
  7. τέχνῃ – feminine, dative, singular, “[by/with/to/for] arts”. Plural is τέχναις.
  8. χώρα – feminine, nominative singular or vocative singular, “land” or “country” (as subject or predicate nominative). Plurals for both are χῶραι.
  9. ἀγορᾷ – feminine, dative, singular, “[by/with/to/for] (the) marketplace”. Plural is ἀγοραῖς.
  10. τέχνας – feminine, accusative, plural, “crafts” (as a direct object). Singular is τέχνην.
  11. λόγων – masculine, genitive, plural, “(of/from) words”. Singular is λόγου.
  12. ἀνθρώποις – masculine, dative, plural, “”[by/with/to/for] men”. Singular is ἀνθρώπῳ.
  13. ἄνθρωπον – masculine, accusative, singular, “man” (as a direct object). Plural is ἀνθρώπους.
  14. λόγῳ – masculine, dative, singular, “[by/with/to/for] (the) word”. Plural is λόγοις.
  15. ἔργα – neuter, nominative plural and vocative plural (“works” as subject or predicative nominative), or accusative plural (“works” as a direct object). Singular forms are all ἔργον.
  16. ἀδελφοῦ – masculine, genitive, singular, “(of/from a) brother”. Plural is ἀδελφῶν.
  17. λόγον – masculine, accusative, singular, “word” (as a direct object). Plural is λόγοις.
  18. δῶρον – neuter, nominative singular or vocative singular (“work” as subject or predicative nominative), or accusative singular (“work” as a direct object). Plurals are all δῶρα.
  19. ἀδελφοί – masculine, nominative, plural, “brothers” (as subject or predicate nominative). Singular is ἀδελφός.
  20. ἔργων – neuter, genitive, plural, “(of/from) works”. Singular is ἔργου.
  21. χώρας – feminine, genitive singular (“of/from a country”), or accusative plural (“countries” as a direct object). Plural genitive is χωρῶν and singular accusative is χώραν.
  22. δώροις – neuter, dative, plural, “[by/with/to/for] gifts”. Singular is δώρῳ.
  23. ἄνθρωπε – masculine, vocative, singular, “O man”. Plural is ἄνθρωποι.
  24. ἀδελφοῖς – masculine, dative, plural, “[by/with/to/for] brothers”. Singular is ἀδελφῷ.
  25. δῶρα – neuter, nominative or vocative plural (“gifts” as a subject or predicative nominative), or accusative plural (“gifts” as a direct object). All singulars are δῶρον.

Section II

  1. Ὁμήρῳ, Ὅμηρον.
  2. θεῷ, θεοί.
  3. νήσῳ, νῆσοι.
  4. βιβλίων, βιβλία.
  5. τεχνῶν, τέχναις.
  6. χῶραι, χωρῶν.
  7. ἀγοραῖς, ἀγοράς, ἀγορᾶς.
  8. ἀδελφῶν, ἀδελφούς.
  9. δώρου, δῶρα.
  10. ψυχαί, ψυχαῖς.

Section III

  1. a) ἀδελφός, ἀδελφοῦ, ἀδελφῷ, ἀδελφόν, ἄδελφε; ἀδελφοί, ἀδελφῶν, ἀδελφοῖς, ἀδελφούς, ἀδελφοί.
    b) ἀδελφός, ἀδελφοί, nominative; ἀδελφοῦ, ἀδελφῶν, genitive; ἀδελφῷ, ἀδελφοῖς, dative; ἀδελφόν, ἀδελφούς, accusative; ἄδελφε, ἀδελφοί, vocative.
  2. a) ψυχή, ψυχῆς, ψυχῇ, ψυχήν, ψυχή; ψυχαί, ψυχῶν, ψυχαῖς, ψυχάς, ψυχαί.
    b) ψυχή, ψυχαί, nominative; ψυχῆς, ψυχῶν, genitive; ψυχῇ, ψυχαῖς , dative; ψυχήν, ψυχάς, accusative; ψυχή, ψυχαί, vocative.
  3. a) ἡ χώρα, τῆς χώρας, τῇ χώρᾳ, τὴν χώραν, ἡ χώρα; αἱ χῶραι, τῶν χωρῶν, ταῖς χώραις, τὰς χώρας, αἱ χώρα.
    b) χώρα, χῶραι, nominative; χώρας, χωρῶν, genitive; χώρᾳ, χώραις, dative; χώραν, χώρας, accusative; χώρα, χῶραι, vocative.
  4. a) τὸ δῶρον, τοῦ δώρου, τῷ δώρῳ, τὸ δῶρον, τὸ δῶρον; τὰ δῶρα, τῶν δώρων, τοῖς δώροις, τὰ δῶρα, τὰ δῶρα.
    b) δῶρον, δῶρα, nominative; δώρου, δώρων, genitive; δώρῳ, δώροις, dative; δῶρον, δῶρα, accusative; δῶρον, δῶρα, vocative.
  5. a) ἡ ὁδός, τῆς ὁδοῦ, τῇ ὁδῷ, τὴν ὁδόν, ἡ ὁδός; αἱ ὁδοί, τῶν ὁδῶν, ταῖς ὁδοῖς, τὰς ὁδούς, αἱ ὁδοί.
    b) ὁδός, ὁδοί, nominative; ὁδοῦ, ὁδῶν, genitive; ὁδῷ, ὁδοῖς, dative; ὁδόν, ὁδούς, accusative; ὁδέ, ὁδοί, vocative.

Section IV

  1. The brothers.
  2. On the island.
  3. On [the] islands.
  4. Arts.
  5. To the marketplace.
  6. Of the brothers.
  7. The soul of the brother.
  8. The soul of Homer.
  9. By/with work.
  10. The gifts of the brothers.
  11. The gifts, the ones of the brothers.
  12. The gifts to the brothers.
  13. Gifts, to the brothers.
  14. The gifts of the brothers, the ones for the men.
  15. The gifts to the gods, the ones of the men.
  16. The gifts for the brothers, the ones in the marketplace.
  17. Homer teaches the brother.
    [the definite article could also be functioning as a possessive, i.e. "his brother"]
  18. The brother sends the gifts to the islands.

Answers to ‘Exercise’ Questions

Section I

  1. Homer teaches the man.
  2. The brother of Homer teaches the man.
  3. The man teaches Homer.
  4. Homer teaches the men.
  5. Homer teaches the men in the marketplace.
  6. The brother of Homer teaches the men in the marketplace.
  7. In the marketplaces, Homer teaches the souls of men by means of books.
  8. The god sends a gift to the brother of Homer in the country.
  9. O Homer, the goddess sends gifts to the men in the country.
  10. The brother of the man sends the gifts of the gods out of the house onto the islands.
  11. The man on the island sends the brothers into battle.
  12. The brother of Homer sends a book from the marketplace onto the island.
  13. The brother sends gifts, the books of Homer, into the houses of men.
  14. The man teaches the brother by word and deed in the house.
  15. The man teaches the brothers by both word and deed.
  16. Brother, even in battle, god teaches the men – the brothers of Homer.
  17. Gods, Homer teaches the men on the roads with his words.
  18. Homer sends the gifts for the men to the road from the marketplace into the country.
  19. Homer teaches even the brother by [means of] skill.
  20. Homer teaches the brother in his skill by [means of] a book.
  21. Homer teaches the brother the skill by [means of] books.
  22. The god sends words into the souls of men.

Section II

  1. ὁ θεὸς παιδεύει τοὺς ἀνθρώπους.
  2. ὁ ἄνθρωπος πέμπει τὸν τοῦ Όμήρου ἀδελφὸν εἰς τὴν ἀγοράν.
  3. Ἄνθρωπε, ὁ τοῦ Ὁμήρου ἀδελφὸς πέμπει τοῖς θεοῖς δῶρον ἐκ τῆς νήσου.
  4. τοῖς λόγοις  ὁ Ὅμηρος παιδεύει τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ἐν ταῖς νήσοις.

Summer Reading

Well, Minnesota has finally decided to deliver up some nice warm weather, so it is now time to sit out on the balcony and read to my heart’s content. I have a habit of reading many books at once, but the following ones are those I fully intend (hopefully) of completing during the following several months of nice weather.

A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. This volume contains a multitude of essays, many of which seem to necessitate a decent grasp of not only Greek (obviously) but also linguistics. It looks like an intimidating book but hopefully I’ll manage it (and learn a lot in the process).

The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford Handbooks). I was very glad to see that there was a relatively inexpensive Kindle edition of this book available. Hopefully I’ll have time to make my way through it.

The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology by Moltmann. I’ve blogged my way through Moltmann’s first two books. Now it is time to finish the trilogy.

The City of God by Augustine. From what I’ve read of Augustine so far, I am not his biggest fan (and by that I mean not a fan at all). But it is a classic that I need to read.

The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. I love science books, especially ones on quantum physics.

For fiction I shall be doing my annual read of Tolkien – The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings.

Answer Key for Greek: An Intensive Course (Hansen and Quinn)

A while ago I started working on an answer key for all the ‘Exercise’ questions in Greek: An Intensive Course (2nd rev. ed.) by Hardy Hansen and Gerald Quinn. So far this year I have not had much time to work on it but over the next few months I am going to be spending a lot of time going over my Greek and Hebrew (and hopefully trying to find time for Latin and German too). So I figured now is as good a time as ever to get back to writing out an answer key for Hansen and Quinn. I decided to also make an answer key for all the ‘Drill’ questions as well. Making this answer key will naturally eat up a bit of my time, so if anyone finds it helpful I encourage you to support my efforts by gifting me a book from this Amazon Kindle wishlist. The answer key can be accessed on this page.

An Addendum to my Review of Proving History by Richard Carrier

Earlier today Prof. James McGrath linked to my recent review of Richard Carrier’s Proving History. A comment discussion ensued between myself and blogger Tom Verenna, in which he says that I’ve missed the point entirely with the book and that I engaged in polemical attacks. I was going to post this response in the comment discussion on McGrath’s blog post, but decided to post it on my own blog in case anyone reading my review likewise thinks that Carrier’s book went over my head.

I will first provide the comment discussion between Tom Verenna and myself:

Tom Verenna’s first comment to me (in which he quotes Carrier):

He is quite qualified. He writes, “Twice Ehrman says I have a Ph.D. in “classics” (p. 19, 167). In fact, my degrees are in ancient history, with an undergraduate minor in Classics (major in history), and *three  graduate degrees* (M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D.) with *four graduate majors*  (Greco-Roman historiography, philosophy, religion, and a special major  on the fall of Rome). One of those, you’ll notice, is in the *religions  of the Roman empire–which included Christianity* (and my study of  Christianity featured significantly in my dissertation work). I  shouldn’t have to explain that the classics and ancient history  departments aren’t even in the same building, much less the same major.  Although I did take courses from each and studied under both classicists and historians, and have a considerable classics background, it’s a  rather telling mistake of his to think (and then report) that I am just a classicist and not a historian, much less a certified historian of Christianity (and, incidentally, its surrounding religions, ignorance of which we have seen is Ehrman’s failing).”

My response:

Seems irrelevant to the point at hand. Learning about religions of Rome does not mean you specialize in Christian origins. If he did specialize in Christian origins, then he should have in-depth knowledge concerning more pertinent areas of knowledge e.g. Second Temple Judaism, Hebrew, Aramaic, biblical studies. However, he has revealed his staggering ignorance of such areas.

Verenna’s rejoinder:

We’ll have to disagree. You can take classes in those subjects and be formally trained without majoring in ‘Christian origins’–I’m double-majoring in Classics and Classical Languages and I’ve taken courses in religious Studies and Biblical Studies which count towards my majors. Your argument is a little presumptuous of what these majors entail and suggest you may not have first-hand knowledge of what these majors entail. If so, maybe you’re not qualified to speak on Carrier’s qualifications? =)

To which I responded:

I am not speaking about Carrier’s formal qualifications.

I am talking about the familiarity he has shown with areas of study most relevant to Christian origins.

Sure, knowledge of the religions of Rome is important. But it pales in comparison to other, more pertinent, areas of study (such as the few I mentioned in my last comment).

Perhaps Carrier did study such things as part of his majors. I don’t know. But I do know that on his blog and in his book “Proving History”, he reveals his staggering ignorance on such matters (no exaggeration). I mean, sheesh, he didn’t have the slightest clue as to what pesher was until Thom Stark schooled him on it. He couldn’t translate Daniel 9:26 to save his life. And there is a whole litany of other offenses he has committed against biblical studies.

I’m sure he is a very smart guy (his academic credentials testify to that). But when it comes to such things as early Christianity and its corollaries, he is simply out his league.

Leading to this comment from Tom Verenna:

I think you’ve missed the point entirely with his book. I appreciate your replies here, but I think the book went over your head a little. The point is to address the staggering problems in the field of historical research–including the basic concepts you lay out in your responses above. Carrier is aware of them, but he lays out the fact that for far too long arbitrary factors have played in theses about Christian origins, Second Temple Period, etc… because no one has taken into account factors which *should have been* considered before the studies in those areas were done. You may disagree with his conclusions, but his point is a valid one. Assuming this is Kevin from Diglotting, I do not approve of your polemical attacks in your review of his book either. Your other reviews have a professional feel–this one felt as though you were on the attack throughout. Maybe sensational amateurs deserve such treatment, but scholars like Carrier with strong qualifications in the field deserve more respect than that. And to be clear, I’ve defended Ehrman and James McGrath against their attackers on the same issue. Carrier and Ehrman and James deserve a level of courtesy for their work in the field, whether we agree or disagree with their arguments. It comes with earning their laurels. Those of us who haven’t should show respect.

I do not think I “missed the point entirely with his book”, but I can only leave that up to the reader to decide. Neither do I think the book went “over [my] head”. I understood the author’s thesis clearly. I am familiar with matters pertaining to early Christianity and so that is where the focus of my review was. I decided to not say terribly much about Carrier’s discussion of the math component of the book due to the fact that I am not familiar enough with this subject.

Regarding my polemics against the book. Yes, my review was definitely not in my usual style. But that is because the books I review are written by people who (even if I don’t agree with them) know the areas they are writing about. I occasionally read a book that I think is pitiful and when I do I will write a more acerbic review (e.g. see my review of Keller’s The Reason for God, I and II). If I find the book lacking, I see nothing wrong with my review being less than flattering (provided I actually say why I found the book displeasing). This is the category that Proving History falls into. I thought that a lot of what the author said concerning biblical studies was patently wrong and revealed a lack of knowledge in the area. Poor argumentation deserves no respect.

As I said in the final part of my review, even if Carrier’s Bayesian method is a brilliant new way to investigate the historical Jesus, we need someone to apply it who can deftly handle all the data. Carrier is simply not that person. Why do I say that? I don’t know but maybe it has something to do with the fact that in an attempt to conjure up a plausible reason as to why Mark didn’t really say Jesus came from Nazareth, Carrier says that maybe “Nazareth” in Mark 1.9 may just be an interpolation (which I would assume he would also apply to the usage of the word in Mark 1.24, 10.47, and 16.6). His support for this line of reasoning? None at all! It’s just a naked assertion. Additionally, in an attempt to make the Nazarite argument plausible, he makes a feeble argument pointing towards Mark 14.25 and Matt. 26.29, while conveniently forgetting to mention the more relevant pericope of Luke/Q 7.33-34 which directly undercuts it. These were just two of my gripes with Carrier’s discussion of Nazareth and I do not think they are trivial.

One thing that Carrier mentions (more than once) in the book is that, prior to when the Christian sect started, there was already existent in Judaism a stream of thought which awaited an eschatological messianic figure who would suffer and die as an atonement for sins. He even singles out the Qumran community as a specific example of this. This would be an important factor for historical Jesus studies to interact with…. if it were true. It is not. He points to a blog post of his as support for such a notion but this blog post (and Carrier’s thesis) has been thoroughly refuted. The blog post Carrier point’s to (and the subsequent war of words with Thom Stark) also reveals that he is uninformed on lots of stuff pertaining to Christian origins. Good grief, if the guy can not even translate and understand Daniel 9.26, how are we meant to seriously expect him to handle the vast amount of complicated data one must grapple with when discussing Christian origins and the historical Jesus?

Richard Carrier has great credentials. I am sure I could learn a lot from him concerning Greco-Roman historiography, the fall of Rome, and ancient science and philosophy. But when it comes to the historical Jesus, Second Temple Judaism, biblical studies, and so forth…. well, then it’s different. All I have seen from Mr. Carrier is an unwillingness and/or inability to seriously engage with scholarship in these areas. I agree with him (to a degree) as to the utility (or lack thereof) of the criteria of authenticity. However, I thought a lot of the argumentation Carrier used to rail against these criteria was very poor and was littered with gross inaccuracies. That is why I focused my review on that component of the book and why my review was quite barbed.

A Review of Proving History by Richard Carrier (Part V)

This is the final part of my review of Richard Carrier’s book, Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus.

All in all, I found this book to be pretty mediocre. Richard Carrier states in his bio on his blog that he is a specialist in Christian origins and with this book he has tried to make a name for himself in the field. But he has failed. Abysmally. This book only goes to demonstrate Carrier’s lack of familiarity with the field he is trying to navigate.

I wasn’t convinced that Bayes’s Theorem is relevant and effectual when dealing with the complexities of historical data, and I really don’t think it is going be useful to historical Jesus research. But even if Bayes’s Theorem truly is a useful heuristic tool and a constructive approach for the study of the historical Jesus and Christian origins, we would need someone who possesses an actual understanding of the field to be able to fruitfully utilize it. This rules Richard Carrier out. He does not possess an expertise in the relevant areas of knowledge (e.g. Second Temple Judaism, New Testament, History of Religion). Thus, he lacks the knowledge required to be able to wield Bayes’s Theorem profitably and any numbers he comes up with to plug into the equation will not hold water.

The author is following this volume with a sequel which shall deal more fully with the historical Jesus (yes this book was just a prelude to whet our appetites). In an earlier part of this review I expressed my concern for how the author will be able to competently handle the composite Jesus traditions and texts. For instance, when it comes to the crucifixion of Jesus, I bet we will not see anything mentioned about how Q portrays Jesus’ death in light of Deuteronomistic theology, whereas the later Matthew instead emphasizes an expiatory nature of Jesus’ death. In fact, I could almost guarantee we wouldn’t see such a thing considering that Carrier says in this volume (pg. 139) that such a view of Jesus’ death (i.e. as an expiatory sacrifice) was not a post-hoc rationalization but something already expected by Jews (yet another example of Carrier’s fundamentalist reading of the Bible).

Furthermore, a little while later he mentions in a footnote that he is “increasingly convinced there was no Q in the traditional sense, but the designation still conceptually defines some source, even it if turns out to be Matthew or some lost Gospel”. Apart from the fact that this doesn’t make much sense (Q is the corollary to the Two-Document Hypothesis and is the material common to Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark, so if Q “turns out to be Matthew” then you are actually talking about the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis, not the 2DH and Q), there is also the disconcerting possibility that Carrier will just wind up dismissing Q, or at least rating the 2DH and Q as being improbable, which will then make such issues (e.g. the portrayal of Jesus’ death in Q) irrelevant. This is important because if Carrier considers the initial tradition of Jesus’ death to have already been expiatory in nature, then I’m sure this will be used to increase the probability that Jesus’ death could have been created out of thin air (because Carrier wrongly believes there was already an expectation for the eschatological messiah to be executed as an atonement for sin due to his fundamentalist reading of the Old Testament). He does says that he will revisit the question of Q in the next volume, but I am not holding my breath for an in-depth and well-informed analysis.

I am hoping that the second volume will provide us with filet mignon, but Mr. Carrier is ill-equipped for such a task and will only be able to give us rump roast.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 53 other followers