Eric Weiss wrote: > > John M. Sweigart wrote: > > > Eric Weiss wrote: > > > > > > The last time I suggested that John MacArthur was something less than a > > > skilled Greek exegete, I received a pointed public response from one > > > listmember rebuking me for daring to criticize such an esteemed > > > teacher/preacher/author. Being more foolish than wise, perhaps, I do > > > feel compelled to raise this question on the B-Greek list, however: > > > > > > In the new MacArthur Study Bible, Mr. MacArthur states in his notes to I > > > Corinthians 14 that the key to interpreting this passage is in the Greek > > > but it is one that is oft-neglected by translators/commentators, to wit: > > > that when Paul uses the singular "tongue" - i.e., "speaking in a tongue" > > > (with the exception of 14:27-28) - he means pagan gibberish (because > > > gibberish is all one thing, i.e., there is/are no such thing(s) as > > > "gibberishes"), but when Paul uses the plural "tongues" - i.e., > > > "speaking with tongues" - he means true Holy-Spirit-inspired speech in > > > real languages (note the plural "languages"), a gift which, according to > > > MacArthur's cessationist viewpoint, died out after the apostles. IS > > > MACARTHUR's DISTINCTION (i.e., singular "tongue" versus plural > > > "tongues") legitimate from a lexical or contextual basis? (It doesn't > > > appear to be so to me, and I've never read or heard this argument > > > before.) Is there any way to read this passage to suggest that Paul is > > > switching back and forth (as MacArthur suggests) between pagan gibberish > > > and "true tongues" while using the same term GLWSSA for both? > > > > > > -- > > > "Eric S. Weiss" > > > eweiss@gte.net > > > http://home1.gte.net/eweiss/index.htm > > Eric: > > I think he may have gotten this idea from Spiros Zodhiates (sic) > > -- > > Okay, I'm just a Jewish "kid" (well, 45 years old!) from Iowa transplanted to > Texas, and I've only had 2 years of Greek, and not at the most rigorous > seminary either - and Mr. Zodhiates is a native Greek and has written the Key > Study Bible and all sorts of commentaries on the Greek text, etc. - but what > little I've read of his writings has not impressed me as to his Greek > scholarship, even if it is his native tongue. Of course, it's been a few years > since I read his stuff, but some of his stuff seemed strained to push an > anti-Charismatic perspective and his approach to Greek seemed too lexical and > not very linguistic or semantical (sic) - but it's been a few years, like I > said. What do you think of his Greek expertise and commentaries? > > > __________________________________ > > > > Rev. John M. Sweigart > > Box 895 > > Dover, Arkansas 72837 > > Cumberland Presbyterian Church > > __________________________________ > > -- > "Eric S. and Karol-Ann Weiss" > http://home1.gte.net/eweiss/index.htm > eweiss@gte.net
Hello Eric;
Do you have the whole winter to spend on this thread? I think it would
be interesting to pursue. tongue/vs./tongues. Of course other
grammatical/lexical issues quickly come up. Of course the issue must be
dealt with starting at 1 Cor. 12:1-3 where Paul introduces a new section
with the marker PERI DE. Do we translate PNEUMATIKWN as
masculine=spiritually gifted men or as neuter=spiritual utterances?
What is the connection with 1 Cor. 2? After doing the outline on 2 Cor.
on the web page especially chapters 11-13, may I suggest that ECSTASIA
might not be a totally a reference to pagans(Greeks) but might include
Jewish teachers who made a big deal about their out of body experiences
hence Paul's description of a man in Christ caught up to the third
heaven who couldn't be sure whether he was in the body or out of the
body and who heard marvelous revelations but was not permitted to speak
about them. But I think the basic issue of tongue/versus/tongues on a
grammatical/lexical grounds is still a worthy pursuit.
--
__________________________________
Rev. John M. Sweigart
Box 895
Dover, Arkansas 72837
Cumberland Presbyterian Church
__________________________________