[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #511
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 13 December 1994 Volume 01 : Number 511
In this issue:
Court Ordered Liquidation - Computer Memory - CPU's & Hdsk Drives
protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
Re: protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
Re: Luke 13:16b
Re: protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
Prototokos in LXX
Re: Luke 13:16b
Transliterated Greek
Thanks for references
Re: Prototokos in LXX
prOtotokos in LXX
[none]
Re: Transliterated Greek (fwd)
Colossians 1
Re: protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
Books for Sale
Re: protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
Re: John 8:58-59, son of man
son of man
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: LIONEL GOLDBERG <actuary@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 05:07:52 -0800
Subject: Court Ordered Liquidation - Computer Memory - CPU's & Hdsk Drives
Choice Trading Company, Court Appointed Liquidators, have
been assigned to liquidate the following Multi-Million Dollar
inventory of computer Memory Chips, CPU's and Hard Disk Drives.
All items are new and come with applicable manufactures warranty.
Prices quoted include all state and local taxes plus shipping and
handling.
Order Cost
Number Mfg. Description (EACH)
Memory
1524 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 1x3 70ns 1 meg $ 25.00
1525 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 1x9 70ns 1 meg 25.00
1526 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 4x9 70ns 4 meg 100.00
1527 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 1x3 60ns 1 meg 26.00
1528 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 1x9 60ns 1 meg 26.00
1529 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 4x9 60ns 4 meg 106.00
1624 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 512x36 70ns 2 meg 50.00
1625 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 1x36 70ns 4 meg 100.00
1626 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 2x36 70ns 8 meg 200.00
1627 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 4x36 70ns 16 meg 400.00
1628 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 8x36 70ns 32 meg 800.00
1624 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 512x36 60ns 2 meg 52.00
1625 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 1x36 60ns 4 meg 104.00
1626 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 2x36 60ns 8 meg 208.00
1627 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 4x36 60ns 16 meg 416.00
1628 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 8x36 60ns 32 meg 832.00
Memory for the Macintosh
1122 Toshiba 1 meg x 8 Simm Module 70ns 1 meg 31.00
1123 Toshiba 2 meg x 8 Simm Module 70ns 2 meg 62.00
1124 Toshiba 4 meg x 8 Simm Module 70ns 4 meg 109.00
CPU's
1276 Intel 80486 DX/33 115.00
1277 Intel 80486 DX/50 188.00
1278 Intel 80486 DX-2/66 156.00
1279 Intel 80486 DX-4/75 358.00
1280 Intel 80486 DX-4/100 498.00
1281 Intel Pentium 80501-60 366.00
1282 Intel Pentium 80501-66 453.00
1283 Intel Pentium 80502-90 558.00
Hard Disk Drives
Seagate Barracuda Drives
1351 Seagate ST11950N 8ms 3.5" 1.69 GB SCSI 658.00
1352 Seagate ST12550N 8ms 3.5" 2.1 GB SCSI 899.00
1353 Seagate ST15150N 8ms 3.5" 4.2 GB SCSI 1,526.00
1354 Seagate ST31200N 11ms 3.5" 1.05 GB SCSI 538.00
1355 Seagate ST11900N 9ms 3.5" 1.7 GB SCSI 628.00
1366 Seagate ST2400A 9ms 3.5" 2.1 GB SCSI 856.00
1367 Seagate ST15230N 9ms 3.5" 4.29 GB SCSI 1,454.00
1368 Seagate ST41080N 11ms 5.5" 9.08 GB SCSI 2,848.00
Western Digital
1366 Western AC2340 12ms 3.5" 340 MB IDE 122.00
1367 Western AC2420 12ms 3.5" 420 MB IDE 136.00
1368 Western AC2540 12ms 3.5" 540 MB IDE 160.00
1369 Western AC2700 12ms 3.5" 731 MB IDE 230.00
Conner
1372 Connor CFS420A 14ms 3.5" 420 MB IDE 138.00
1373 Connor CFA540A 10ms 3.5" 540 MB IDE 168.00
1374 Connor CFA1080A 10ms 3.5" 1080 MB IDE 408.00
ORDERING INFORMATION
To order please use a company order form/letterhead or if for
personal use, use a plain white sheet of paper with your return
address. List the items desired by order number, the quantity
and total cost. Send your order with check or money order
payable to Choice Trading Company to:
Choice Trading Company
Order Processing Lot #1776
86228 Terminal Annex
Los Angeles, Ca. 90086-0228
Orders are processed on a first come basis. Adjustments and
refunds will be made immediately for items that have sold out.
Please allow 2 to 3 Weeks for shipping. Due to court ordered
restrictions we are unable to accept COD, phone or credit card
orders.
This public offering is valid through December 30, 1994. Any
unsold inventories will be auctioned. For auction information
please send a self addressed stamped enveloped to:
Choice Trading Company
Lot #1776
202 So. Broadway
Los Angeles, Ca. 90012
(213) 856 6172
If you are unable to use this information, please pass it on to
someone who may.
Lionel M. Goldberg
Actuary
------------------------------
From: Leo Percer <PERCERL@baylor.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 08:38:51 -0600 (CST)
Subject: protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
Just a quick question regarding Colossians. In verse 15 of chapter 1 we
find what most commentators claim to be the beginning of a Christian hymn
in praise of the supremacy of Christ. The author of this hymn describes
Jesus as "prototokos pases ktiseos" in v. 15 and as "prototokos ek ton
nekron" in v. 18. My first question is regarding the translation of
prototokos: What does this word mean here? It is usually translated
"first-born" or something similar, but that doesn't make much sense to me
(especially in v. 15). In what way is Jesus "first-born" of creation? Is
the genetive in v. 15 like that in v. 18 (i.e., "of creation" similar to
"out of the dead")? My second question: How far does this hymn run from
v. 15? Commentators differ on this issue with some ending it at v.18 and
some at v. 20 (I think Nestle 26th ed. ends at v. 18). Could it be that
the repetition of "prototokos" represents the ending of the hymn? Just
curious as to what you all think! Thanks!
Regards,
Leo Percer
PERCERL@BAYLOR.EDU
P.S.--One more observation/question: Is "prototokos" a word that points to
supremacy or pre-eminence? In other words, is Col 1 saying something like
"Jesus is supreme/pre-eminent in creation, . . . he is also
supreme/pre-eminent over the dead"?
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 09:24:58 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
Re: Col. 1:15ff., "prototokos" carries the ancient cultural connotation
of "firstborn" which = pre-eminent over others in the class specified
(i.e., "creation" and "the dead" here).
L. W. Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 10:16:24 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Luke 13:16b
On Mon, 12 Dec 1994 DDoyle1049@aol.com wrote:
> I have a question that I would appreciate some help on.
> Luke 13:16b has the following text: "ouk edei luthynai apo tou desmou toutou
> ty hymera tou sabbatou"
>
> I am wondering what the "edei" usually translated "ought" or "should" goes
> with.
>
> Does it modify "freed" so the correct translation would be that the woman
> ought to be freed, and that the matter of the sabbath is irrelevant?
>
> Does it modify both "freed" and "sabbath" so that the correct translation
> would read something like "the woman ought to be freed especially on the
> sabbath?"
>
> Or does it go with something I haven't thought of yet?
>
> I am dealing with the sabbath and am trying to understand if Jesus is saying
> that this freeing is proper sabbath behavior, or if Jesus is saying that the
> freeing is proper behavior and that it happens on the sabbath is incidental.
Having read Dan McCartney's response to this question, I'd like to add
just a note or two:
Technically EDEI does have as a subject the accusative/infinitive
construction TAYTHN LUQHNAI.
As Dan said, the question is rhetorical, the implied answer being, "Of
course she ought to have been freed from this bondage ... on the Sabbath!"
A woodenly-literal version would be "Was it not obligatory (that) this
woman ... be set free ..."
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: DDDJ@aol.com
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 12:12:52 -0500
Subject: Re: protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
<<It is usually translated
"first-born" or something similar, but that doesn't make much sense to me
(especially in v. 15). In what way is Jesus "first-born" of creation? >>
If I remember my seminary greek properly this is called a genitive of rank.
First born over all creation. I remember that there are some example of this
in reference to Yahweh in the OT LXX but I do not remember the references.
I remember this verse changing my whole out look on Greek. If this was
translated as it normally would be, then you would have to conclude that
Jesus was a part of the creation (partive genitive) but since this
contradicts our theology it can not be true. We use our theology to determine
our understanding of the Greek and then say the Greek supports us. It is
cirular reasoning to me. First born over all creation is a viable choice in
translating (IMHO), but it normally would not be our first choice.
Dennis
------------------------------
From: Leo Percer <PERCERL@baylor.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 11:24:08 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Prototokos in LXX
Dennis mentioned some references to _prototokos_ in the LXX. Does anyone
know of those references offhand? (Unfortunately I am now at work and do
not have access to a Lexicon or Concordance). Any references would be
appreciated!
Leo Percer
PERCERL@BAYLOR.EDU
------------------------------
From: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 12:40:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Luke 13:16b
DDoyle1049@aol.com (Dave Doyle) wrote:
>I have a question that I would appreciate some help on.
>Luke 13:16b has the following text: "ouk edei luthynai apo tou desmou toutou
>ty hymera tou sabbatou"
>I am wondering what the "edei" usually translated "ought" or "should" goes
>with.
>Does it modify "freed" so the correct translation would be that the woman
>ought to be freed, and that the matter of the sabbath is irrelevant?
>Does it modify both "freed" and "sabbath" so that the correct translation
>would read something like "the woman ought to be freed especially on the
>sabbath?"
>Or does it go with something I haven't thought of yet?
>I am dealing with the sabbath and am trying to understand if Jesus is saying
>that this freeing is proper sabbath behavior, or if Jesus is saying that the
>freeing is proper behavior and that it happens on the sabbath is incidental.
In Lu. 13:16, Jesus is *answering* (See v. 15.) a challenge by the
leader of the synagogue. Since the latter did not question the legitimacy of
healing but criticized its being done on the Sabbath, it is probably best to
understand that Jesus is saying the woman should be freed immediately, even
on the Sabbath. This interpretation would agree with the illustration that
the Lord gives, to the effect that any of them who has an animal that is tied
will loose it to allow it to drink [even] on the Sabbath (v. 15).
The point is not that the Sabbath is the only day such mercy should be
shown, it is rather that even the stricture against working on the Sabbath
should not impede actions of compassion and necessary mercy.
David L. Moore
------------------------------
From: "David A. Salomon" <DAS93006@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 12:53:52 EST
Subject: Transliterated Greek
I'm rather new to the list and rather new to Greek (which I am
learning on my own). Would someone kindly refer me to or send me
a guide for transliterating Greek into English (as we do here on
the list)? It's often hard to follow.
Thanks,
David A. Salomon
das93006@uconnvm.uconn.edu
Department of English
University of Connecticut
------------------------------
From: Leo Percer <PERCERL@baylor.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 12:03:19 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Thanks for references
Thanks to Gary Collier for sending me the 133 times that _prototokos_
occurs in LXX. I guess I know how I'll spend my lunch break! ;-)
If anyone else wants the references, let me know and I'll e-mail them to
you personally so as not to take space on B-Greek!
Regards,
Leo Percer
PERCERL@BAYLOR.EDU
------------------------------
From: "Theodore F. Brunner" <tbrunner@uci.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 10:43:35 -0800
Subject: Re: Prototokos in LXX
>Dennis mentioned some references to _prototokos_ in the LXX. Does anyone
>know of those references offhand? (Unfortunately I am now at work and do
>not have access to a Lexicon or Concordance). Any references would be
>appreciated!
>
>Leo Percer
>PERCERL@BAYLOR.EDU
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
That's a large order. The string prototok- occurs 144 times in the LXX,
and only a couple or so of these hits derive from words such as prototokia
and prototokeuein. If you want a one-line printaut of the passages, send
me an address.
Ted Brunner
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Theodore F. Brunner, Director Phone: (714) 824-7031
Thesaurus Linguae Graecae FAX: (714) 824-8434
University of California Irvine
Irvine, CA 92717-5550 USA E-Mail: TBRUNNER@UCI.EDU
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
------------------------------
From: dturner@cornerstone.edu
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 13:34:24 EST
Subject: prOtotokos in LXX
Leo Percer asked for some references so here goes (from Hatch/Redpath):
prOtotokein- 1 Kgs 6:7, 10; Jer 4:31
prOtotokei/ion- Gen 25:31-34; 27:36; Deut 21:17; 1 Chron 5:1
prOtotokeuein- Deut 21:16
prOtotokia- Aq. Gen 25:34; Deut 21:17; Sm.,Th. Deut 21:17;
Al. Gen 43:33
prOtotokos- About 115x all told, including 16 in Gen, 22 in Num, 9 in
Deut, 8 in Kings, 29 in Chron, and 5 in Psa
Among the prOtotokos texts I suspect we're interested in non-temporal
situations, e.g. Gen 27:32 ff.; Exod 4:22-23; Psa 88[Eng 89]:27; Jer
38[Eng 31]:9 in the LXX and
in the Christian Scriptures Rom 8:29; Col 1:15, 18;
Rev 1:5. Cf. Christos egEgertai ek nekrOn aparchE tOn kekoimEmenOn in
1 Cor 15:20.
David L. Turner, New Testament, Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary, MI
dturner@cornerstone.edu
------------------------------
From: "Micheal C. Flessas" <mflessas@omnifest.uwm.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 13:34:46 -0600
Subject: [none]
unsubscribe
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 14:39:18 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Transliterated Greek (fwd)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 14:31:02 -0600 (CST)
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
To: "David A. Salomon" <DAS93006@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
Subject: Re: Transliterated Greek
On Tue, 13 Dec 1994, David A. Salomon wrote:
> I'm rather new to the list and rather new to Greek (which I am
> learning on my own). Would someone kindly refer me to or send me
> a guide for transliterating Greek into English (as we do here on
> the list)? It's often hard to follow.
Inasmuch as this is getting to be a FAQ (frequently asked question) on
this list and there was a thread on it scarcely more than a week ago, I
thought I'd just send you a copy of that thread, hoping it may be
helpful. Please note that although a standard has been suggested (two of
them in fact: the TLG and what can only be called the "TLG modified"),
nobody has yet adhered strictly to even one standard. I do think the
thread and its comments on conventions people are using should at least
help you to understand the schemes you'll see in messages here.
<forwarded thread>
I expect that this request will come again, so I'm keeping this handy in
case anyone wants the information again sometime soon.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Dennis <dennis@lewis.mt.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 14:23:58 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Colossians 1
The prototokos in Col. 1:15, especially in apposition to eikwn tou theou
tou aoratou, is more of a royal title than a comment on origin or birth
order. Throughout the eastern world, the firstborn son of the king ruled
at his side and with his authority. The Old Testament is full of examples
of these coregencies; the one in Daniel 5, where "King" Belshazzar is
actually the son and viceroy of King Nabonidus (and therefore can offer
only the thrid highest, not the second highest, position in the kingdom
to the interpreter of the message) is perhaps the most famous. So the
genitive, firstborn pashs ktisews, is objective, "firstborn over/of all
creation," i.e. the one who rules it with the rights of the firstborn,
with the rights of the king.
The prototokos in v. 18 appears with a different construction (prwtotokos
EK twn nekrwn), and would most naturally be understood as a more literal
"firstborn" with the idea of source, "firstborn from among the dead
ones," i.e. that he was the first to rise from death to the glorious
resurrection state which his people will also rise to enjoy at the last
day. But also in v. 18, the connection between "firstborn" and ruling
authority is by no means absent, as the firstborn from the dead he
therefore has prwteuwn, "firstness," in all things.
I think the key, Leo, is to realize that "firstborn" plus the genitive in
v. 15 is not genitive of source with birth, but is more a royal title
with the objective genitive indicating that which he rules as royal
firstborn.
Dennis
------------------------------
From: ALLENKC@conrad.appstate.edu
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 16:45:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
On Tue, 13 Dec 1994, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
> Re: Col. 1:15ff., "prototokos" carries the ancient cultural connotation
> of "firstborn" which = pre-eminent over others in the class specified
> (i.e., "creation" and "the dead" here).
>
> L. W. Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
>
The context of Col 1:15-20 bears this out. That is, the author explains what
he means by Jesus as "prototokos" by saying that "en
autw ektisQh ta panta" (v 16) and "autos estin pro pantwn kai ta panta
en autw sunesthken" (v 17).
Erick Allen
------------------------------
From: "Craig W. Beard" <CBEARD@beowulf.mhsl.uab.edu>
Date: 13 Dec 94 16:58:32 CST
Subject: Books for Sale
Dear List Members:
Once again I have a list of books I have for sale. They are
biblical and theological titles and all are in very good condition.
If you wish to receive a copy of the list, please send an email
message to me at the Internet address below (NOT to the list).
Craig
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Craig W. Beard |
| Mervyn H. Sterne Library |
| The University of Alabama at Birmingham (205) 934-6364 |
| 917 South 13th Street slb2009@uabdpo.bitnet |
| Birmingham, AL 35294-0014 cbeard@beowulf.mhsl.uab.edu |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: David Coomler <davidco@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 15:29:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
On Tue, 13 Dec 1994 ALLENKC@conrad.appstate.edu wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Dec 1994, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
>
> > Re: Col. 1:15ff., "prototokos" carries the ancient cultural connotation
> > of "firstborn" which = pre-eminent over others in the class specified
> > (i.e., "creation" and "the dead" here).
> >
> > L. W. Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
> >
>
> The context of Col 1:15-20 bears this out. That is, the author explains what
> he means by Jesus as "prototokos" by saying that "en
> autw ektisQh ta panta" (v 16) and "autos estin pro pantwn kai ta panta
> en autw sunesthken" (v 17).
Nonetheless, I have a vague recollection that Arius used this as part of
his argument that Christ was a subordinate "created" being. In such an
alternate view, Christ, as pre-existent "eikon" of the invisible father,
was a material manifestation, and thus the "first-born" of all created
things--though over them because of his status as firstborn. This
interpretation, whatever one may think of it, restores the logical
parallel with "firstborn from the dead, that in all he might be preeminent."
I can think of no other biblical instantance in which "firstborn" is used
to indicate preeminence over a class of which the firsborn is not
part--can anyone else?
David
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 19:34:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: John 8:58-59, son of man
On Mon, 12 Dec 1994, Pete Cepuch wrote:
> I've been reading the John 8 thread and I think a few things need to be said.
> We all tend to read the "gospels" through "hellenized-eyes". It's only when
> we view Jesus in these accounts in His Hebraic context that we begin to
> understand exactly who He was claiming to be. To the Jewish mind, who can
And exactly what shall we assume as His Hebraic context & the Jewish mind
of the time? If all of what you know about 2nd Temple Judaism is what
you extrapolate from the Tanakh, then you only know half the story, or
less. I guess I am becoming impatient with this assumption of an austere
monotheism, a belief in a isolated unique God to whom no other being
could remotely compare, which is more reminiscent of post-NT Christian
theology than 2nd Temple Judaism. From the NT, the OT pseudoepigrapha,
Qumran texts, rabbinic writings, etc. we know Jews at the time believed
in a wide range and large number of supernatural beings: multiple
messiahs, super-angels, superhumans, anti-messiahs, etc., all caught up
in a complex "mythology" only vaguely based on the earlier Tanakh. The
Jewish heavens were as peopled with super-personages as an X-Men comic book.
We have Adam Kadmon (cf. Ezek. 1:26), an exalted Adam-figure already
in the 2nd century BC. Then we have Khokhma as personal creator of the
world, according to the Samaritan tradition (cf. Gnostic Sophia, or the
Rabbinic Daughters of God, who played before him before the Creation of
the Universe). The rabbinic writings claim some "minim" taught that
there were two gods: one a demiurge Jaoel "The Angel of the Lord" who sat
on a throne next to God. We also have the superhuman transformation of
Enoch called Metatron, familiar in pseudoepigrapha & rabbinic writings.
Then we have Philo of Alexandria calling God's Logos the "second god" and
"archangel," "the Lord" and "The Name." In the Qumran texts we have a
Davidic Messiah and an Aaronic Messiah (cf. Testament of Levi, Zech.
3-4), multiple messiahs also believed in by the later Karaites. In 1
Enoch we have a son of man who is pre-existent, hidden in heaven, etc.:
"And there I saw him who is the Head of Days, and his head was white
like wool, and with him was another one whose countenance had the
appearance of a man, and his face was full of graciousness, like one of
the holy angels. ... This is the Son of Man who has righteousness, with
whom dwells righteousness, and who reveals all the treasures of the
crowns, for the Lord of Spirits chose him..." (1 Enoch 46:1-3) "It is
for this that he [the Son of Man] has been chosen and hidden before Him,
even before the creation of the world and forever more." (1 Enoch
48:4-6). "From the beginning the Son of Man was hidden, and the Most
High has preseved him in the presence of His might, and revealed him to
the elect." (1 Enoch 62:7 ff.) "In that hour in which the Son of Man was
named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits - and his name is Head of
Days - ere the sun and the signs were created, ere the stars of heaven
were made, his name was named before the Lord of Spirits." (1 Enoch 48:2-3)
Then we have rabbinic testimony which shows how little this idea of
a cosmic messiah encroaches on "pure" monotheism:
"It was taught: Seven things were created before the world was
created, and these are they: the Tora, the Repentance, the Garden of
Eden, Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, and the Name of the
Messiah ... The name of the Messiah, as it is said, May his name endure
forever, may his name blossom before the sun (Ps. 72:17)." (B. Pes. 54a;
B. Ned 39a)
"Six things preceded the creation of the world. Some of them were
[actually] created, and some of them [merely] arose in the thought of God
to be created. The Tora and the Throne of Glory were created... The
Fathers, Israel, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah arose in the
thought to be created..." (Gen. Rab. 1:4)
"R. Shim'on ben Laqish explained: 'and the spirit of God hovered
over the face of the water' (Gen. 1:2) - this is the spirit of King
Messiah, as it is written, And the Spirit of the Lord will rest upon him
(Isa. 11:2)." (Gen Rab. 2:4)
"You find that at the beginning of the creation of the world King
Messiah was born [and] that he emerged in the thought [of God] even
before the world was created..." (Pes. Rab. ed. Friedmann, p. 152b)
"What is the name of King Messiah? R. Abba bar Kahana said: 'LORD
[Adonai] is his name, for it is written, ... And this is the name he
shall be called: The Lord is our righteousness (Jer. 23:5-6).' For R.
Levi said: 'Happy is the country whose name is like the name of its king
and the name of whose king is like name of its God..." (Lam. Rab. 1:51 p.
36, ad Lam. 1:16)
[all these rabbinic & Enoch citations in full in Rafael Patai, _The
Messiah Texts_ from which I have borrowed them]
Then we have the full-blown 2nd Temple angelology: Michael guardian
of Israel and solider at the last battle, Raphael & Asmodeus (& the devil
& his crew as fallen angels, we can't forget - the lord of this world,
prince of the power of air, etc.), Gabriel, Uriel, angels, archangels in
4 to 7 orders (all mentioned in the NT), the four guardian angels of the
compass points, etc. (cf. Tobit, Dan. 8:16, 2 Esdras, etc.)
All in all, we have many superhuman figures, all of them approaching
God in power and purpose above that of ordinary humans. At least one 2nd
Temple messiah is a being who existed before the universe (along with his
throne), born or created by God, through whom the world was created (that
is, God directs and Messiah does the work). In the NT we see this
extended only slightly: God has given his all power and authority on
earth and in heaven (under God), including Judgment, forgiveness, etc.
He says and does exactly what God tells him, and God allows all glory to
be given to him to redound to himself.
> Anyway, The reason I got to writing this is the statement by G. Jordan:
> ...and huios tou anthrOpou surely emphasizes his humanity..." This is an
> example of not understanding Jesus' intent in using this term. TYhis seems
> to have baffled many. I think those listening to Jesus,in that time knew
> exactly to what He was refering. Firstly, He called Himself ho huios tou
I fail to see how _anthrOpos_ or _enosh_ emphasize his divinity. I would
agree Jesus is here exalting himself as Messiah, but this Messiah is
clearly distinct from God in Daniel as in 1 Enoch and as in Jesus's
testimonies at his trial. I would not agree with (Vermes? I forget) the
idea that son-of-man merely means "anybody," or even "mere human being," at
least in the gospel context.
> confusion. You either believe Him or you don't. It's our problem or challenge to dig through 2000 years of silly-theological-mishmash to get it.
This sounds like the liar/lunatic/lord point of Lewis's I presume.
Needless to say, I am only proposing the last, which is still, though,
not quite so clearly understood.
I think the Jewish people were ready to stone anyone they disliked:
even the Pharisees were afraid the people would stone *them* for opposing
John the Baptist. In John 8:58-59 it is not at all obvious that they
thought Jesus was claiming to be God, or even blaspheming in the strict
sense. I think it's not WHAT he was claiming to be that angered them,
let alone surprised them. The Messiah was supposed to be pre-existent
etc. What angered them was that HE was claiming to be this person. That
is, it was personal not theological disagreement. Jesus did not have the
permission of the authorities to be the Messiah :). After all Jesus had
come out against them, and they had their own candidate in mind (John 5:43).
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Pete Cepuch <pcepuch@diag1.iac.honeywell.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 19:42:41 MST
Subject: son of man
Thanks to Greg Jordan for your thoughtful reply. I must state in the beginning
that when I cited your thought's on the son of man I didn't intend anything
personal but just as an example of a common mis-conception regarding this
enigmatic term and what "scholarship" has generally made of it.
The whole point was that unless we see Jesus through Hebraic eyes we're
going to make similar errors such as those who would contend that Jesus
didn't really know He was the messiah or other many varied theories that
have made the rounds through the years.
The next idea that I was proposing is that Hebrew and Hebraic context of
our gospel material is very important. I understand that this is pooh-poohed
by the Aramaic fans out there but you know, Greg, the many writings which
you cited were mostly all Jewish/Hebraic sources. This whole thread got started by
the statement where you said"huios tou antthrOpou surely emphasizes his
humanity". Where in all the wonderful sources you cited does the idea of
humanity appear?.
As you cited, among the sources, the Qumran texts, which by the way are mostly
Hebrew(another reason for a re-evaluation of Aramaic primacy), there was a
huge diversity of opinion concerning messiah. In fact, I think this was one
of the most unexpected items that became evident. For many years, John's
gospel was considered hellenistic by scholars due to the Son of God concept and
seemingly other hellenistic concepts. The Qumran texts indicated that this was
not the case as there were many of these ideas circulating among the diverse
opinions of the second temple period.
Finally, I need to emphasize that Jesus refered to Himself as ho huios tou
anthrOpou i.e. THE son of man. The actual one ,the real article and by
using this term from Daniel(and as you pointed out so well from other sources)
we see that by calling Himself HaBaR eNaSH that those who heard Him knew
exactly who He was claiming to be despite the diversity of opinion about
the messiah and who he would be and what he might do etc.. As far as Jesus
claiming to be God he asked those who wanted to stone Him(John 10:33)for
which good works are you stoning me...and they answered concerning good work
we are not stoning you contrarywise concerning blasphemy because you being man you are making yourself God(10:34). Why did they pick up stones? Well, He
said in verse 30 something like...aNI VaaV eCHaD aNaCHNU.
Thanks again to all who have responded....
Peter Cepuch
vecize
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #511
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu