[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #512
b-greek-digest Thursday, 15 December 1994 Volume 01 : Number 512
In this issue:
Re: protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
TLG office closure
Re: protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
Cc: swanson@inst.augie.edu
Transliteration
Re: John 8:58-59, son of man
Re: Transliteration
Cephas (Weeden)
Re: Transliteration
Re: protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
transliteration
Re. Transliteration
Re: Transliteration
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 09:24:59 -0500
Subject: Re: protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
DDDJ@aol.com (Dennis) wrote:
>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.
"Genitive of rank" sounds correct for what we have here. Really, it is
the context from vv. 16-17 that require this interpretation. There is really
no need to invoke our theology here at all. Verses 16 and 17 consist of
several very emphatic statements about the priority of Christ to all of
creation. They are phrased in such a way as to leave no doubt as to Christ's
existence before any created thing came into being.
One should not interpret PRWTOTOKOS in v. 15 by its usage in v. 18; there
is a contrast between the usages in the two verses. The latter is
accompanied by an ablative use of the genitive. So the meaning of v. 18 is
not that death gave birth to Christ, but that He was the first to issue out
of death into eternal life. Since the idea of Christ *originating* from
death would be absolutely foreign to Paul's thought, the interpretation that
He was the first to issue out of death to eternal life would hold in v. 18
even if we were to consider EK (omitted by P46 and by the original hand of
Aleph) as not part of the original text. Since the context provided by vv.
16 and 17 indicate that PRWTOTOKOS in v. 15 should be understood as a
genitive of rank, it would be a mistake to demand that PRWTOTOKOS in v. 15 be
interpreted in the same sense as in v. 18.
David Moore
------------------------------
From: "Theodore F. Brunner" <tbrunner@uci.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 09:10:45 -0800
Subject: TLG office closure
The University of California Irvine will be closed over the Christmas/New
Year holidays. Thus, the TLG's offices will also be closed from Friday,
December 23, 1994 through Monday, January 2, 1995.
If you have urgent need to contact us (e.g., for a CD ROM exchange, etc.),
please try to do so over the next few days in order to give us a chance to
serve your needs before the holidays.
The TLG's staff wishes all of you the best for the coming year.
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: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 12:56:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
On Wed, 14 Dec 1994 Dvdmoore@aol.com wrote:
> One should not interpret PRWTOTOKOS in v. 15 by its usage in v. 18; there
> is a contrast between the usages in the two verses. The latter is
> accompanied by an ablative use of the genitive. So the meaning of v. 18 is
> not that death gave birth to Christ, but that He was the first to issue out
> of death into eternal life. Since the idea of Christ *originating* from
> death would be absolutely foreign to Paul's thought, the interpretation that
> He was the first to issue out of death to eternal life would hold in v. 18
> even if we were to consider EK (omitted by P46 and by the original hand of
> Aleph) as not part of the original text. Since the context provided by vv.
> 16 and 17 indicate that PRWTOTOKOS in v. 15 should be understood as a
> genitive of rank, it would be a mistake to demand that PRWTOTOKOS in v. 15 be
> interpreted in the same sense as in v. 18.
Be careful! The Greek says _ek tOn nekrOn_: not "from death" but "from
among the dead people." That is, Jesus is not resurrected from some
abstract death, but he is selected from among the company of all who have
died as the first to be resurrected (first in order or rank or
whatever). This is in line with Jesus being called "the firstfruits" of
the general resurrection. I think it is entirely possible that vv. 15 &
18 could bear a similar interpretation of _prOtotokos_.
As an aside, I wonder at the similarities behind this "first rank" status
of the "firstborn" and the Chinese Confucian system. Does Chinese
Christianity interpret Jesus as the Confucian "Elder Brother"? - that is,
the Elder Brother who must be honored by all his younger brothers.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Big island <swanson@inst.augie.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 14:24:23 -0600
Subject: Cc: swanson@inst.augie.edu
sub b-greek richard swanson
------------------------------
From: Jim Beale <jbeale@plunger.gdeb.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 17:16:01 EST
Subject: Transliteration
This is a summary of the transliteration rules that
were posted recently. It seems that there may be some
agreement on them. Not too impose on anyone, but
does this seem reasonable?
alpha ............. a
beta .............. b
gamma ............. g
delta ............. d
epsilon ........... e
zeta .............. z
eta ............... h
theta ............. q
iota .............. i
kappa ............. k
lamda ............. l
mu ................ m
nu ................ n
xi ................ x
omicron ........... o
pi ................ p
rho ............... r
sigma ............. s
tau ............... t
upsilon ........... u
phi ............... f
chi ............... c
psi ............... y
omega ............. w
The diacritics:
/ is acute accent
\ is the grave accent,
@ is the circumflex
( is rough breathing
) is smooth breathing
^ is iota subscripta
+ is diairesis
They all come AFTER the vowel.
The breathings come first, then the accents and then iota sub and diairesis.
The punctuation marks etc.:
' is apostrophe
, is comma
. is period
: is colon
" is quotation
? is question.
------------------------------
From: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 19:09:27 -0500
Subject: Re: John 8:58-59, son of man
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu (Gregory Jordan (ENG)) posted the following:
>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....
>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.
There is certainly some truth in what Gregory Jordan is saying. Some
sectors of the first-century Jewish community did believe "in a wide range
and large number of supernatural beings" (but cf. NT references to the
Sadducees, e.g. Acts 23:6-8). And the Messiah is seen in some currents of
first-century Judaism (even other than Christianity) as pre-existent and
supra-mundane (Emil Schurer, _The History of the Jewish People in the Age of
Jesus Christ_ [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979], II, 519-22).
But that cosmology was probably almost completely within an overaching,
living tradition of monotheism. The Shema`, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God
is one... etc." was to be recited morning and evening by all the people
(Schurer, ibid. 455; Josephus, Antiquities, IV, 212, 481). See also Jesus'
answer to the scribe's question about the first (i.e. most important)
commandment of all, He begins His answer with "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our
God is one Lord," and the scribe concurs saying, "Well, Master, thou hast
said the truth: for there is one God and there is none other than he."
There are also indications that the Qumran community, although it had
differences with other branches of first-century judaism, was not at odds
with the latter over the sovereignty and eternity of the Creator God. In a
passage that highlights the predestinarian emphasis of the Qumran sect, one
of the Thanksgiving Hymns entones "Thou art an eternal God; all Thy ways are
determined for ever [and ever], and there is none other beside Thee" (1QH,
12). The Testament of Kohath begins "...and God of Gods for all Eternigty.
And He will shine as a Light upon you and He will make known to you His
great Name and you will know Him, that He is the Eternal God and Lord of all
creation, and sovereign over all things, governing them according to His
will" (4Q542).
In short, the strands of first-century judaism that we know hold to the
monotheistic position. The diversity apparent among them should most
probably be seen as a diversity that fits under the that umbrella of
monotheism.
David L. Moore
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 16:49:58 PST
Subject: Re: Transliteration
For email purposes, the system just given or variants thereupon are fine.
The TLG/CCAT/WinGreek "BETA" system differs in the following points, I think:
xi ................ c
chi ............... x
= is the circumflex
| is iota subscripta
; is question.
If you have software that transliterates differently
from the TLG, fine. But I wouldn't recommend diverging
from the TLG system for arbitrary personal preference.
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Phone: +1 619 553 1641
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Email: broman@nosc.mil
------------------------------
From: JOHNSOST@cgs.edu
Date: 14 Dec 1994 17:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Cephas (Weeden)
BTW, Larry, outside of my complaint of your use of "heresy," I'm not sure how
far apart we are regarding your postscript on the adaptation of Mark by Matthew
and Luke. I think they did find Mark "insufficient/inadequate/inappropriate,"
and didn't fit their "specific authorial aims." That I think they also had
theological and othr problems with Mark shouldn't be such a big problem with
anybody either, I would hope. As you and I have both argued, theological dis-
putation in the 1st CE was quite prevalent. Matthew and Luke has chosen to
deal with the Markan narrative by editing and expanding it. Alas, even the
neaniskos disappears. By the way, those aren't neaniskoi in Acts 1:10, are
they? Hmmmm.
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 20:24:50 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Transliteration
With all due respect to the several parties who have sought to persuade
members of this list to conform to a standard pattern of transliteration,
I would like to explain (again, and I hope more clearly than before) why
I don't find it worthwhile to take that much trouble. Call it laziness,
if you will, but in fact those of us who type a lot of Greek on our
computers for one reason or another use keyboards that differ in several
respects, even if they are in accord in most respects. I type a good deal
of Greek using GreekKeys Athenian font on the Mac: for me a Q is koppa, a
W is final-sigma, a Y is theta, an H is eta, a J is Xi, an X is Chi, a C
is Psi, a V is omega, etc., and my breathing marks and accents are in
order all across the top row numerical keys and accessed with an
option-key typed prior to a vowel. Now I know I can't use these
key-patterns for transliterations on this list, but at the same time I
find it unnatural to use a key pattern that is utterly alien to the one I
use all the time. Accordingly I mix and match, using the Roman letters
most readily discernible as representing Greek letters, as do also
several others on this list, and for the most part I don't think we
misunderstand each other when we write a W for omega or when we use
upper-case E and upper-case O for eta and omega. We do have to explain
our practice from time to time to newcomers to the list who find our
practice confusing; nevertheless, unless I'm being very naive, I think
that our hit-and-miss transliteration systems come to be understood
before very long. Am I wrong?
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: "Dan G. McCartney, Westminster Semin" <dmccartney@shrsys.hslc.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 21:35:13 EST
Subject: Re: protokos in Col. 1:15, 18
David Coomler wriote on Col 1:15 in response to Erick Allen:
>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
Of course not! Paul's point is not that Jesus is God and therefore over
creation, but that God became a
man *so that* he might become firstborn over creation. The emphasis is on
Jesus *the Man* receiving his rightful inheritance as king of creation (a
reinstitution of human [Adamic] vicegerency.
******************************************************************************
** Dan G. McCartney | I'net: DMCCARTNEY@HSLC.ORG **
** Assoc. Prof. of NT | WTS: 215 887 5511 **
** Westminster Theol Seminary | Office: 215 572 3818 **
** Box 27009, Chestnut Hill | Fax: 215 887 5404 **
** Philadelphia, PA 19090 | Home: 215 659 7854 **
******************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: k.share@genie.geis.com
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 03:09:00 UTC
Subject: transliteration
In the posting for English/Greek transliteration standards, I saw something
mentioned about transliteration software. Does anyone have details and
opinions about about such software?
Thanks,
Ken Share
------------------------------
From: "Alan D. Humm" <humm@ccat.sas.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 23:30:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re. Transliteration
The recently posted transliteration scheme is basically TLG/CCAT beta
code except for the reasonable use of lower case characters. The only
exception is in the diacritics, given as:
> / is acute accent
> \ is the grave accent,
> @ is the circumflex
> ( is rough breathing
> ) is smooth breathing
> ^ is iota subscripta
> + is diairesis
This is beta code except for the circumflex and the iota subscript.
Frankly I fail to see the reason for departing from beta code in
this way. Beta code uses "=" for the circumflex. Is it intuitive?
No, but then how is "@" better ("@" is used in beta code as an
indentation marker)? Similary, beta code's "|" for iota subscript
is replaced with "^" without apparent advantage (now if this had
been suggested for curcumflex, I would have understood). If we are
not going to settle on something better, why not stick with the
standard?
- -- Alan
==========================================================================
Alan Humm | The Bible tells us to love our neighbors,
University of Pennsylvania | and also to love our enemies;
Dept of Religious Studies | probably because they are generally the
humm@ccat.sas.upenn.edu | same people. - G.K. Chesterton
==========================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Alan D. Humm" <humm@ccat.sas.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 23:42:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Transliteration
> For email purposes, the system just given or variants thereupon are fine.
> The TLG/CCAT/WinGreek "BETA" system differs in the following points, I
think:
>
> xi ................ c
> chi ............... x
> = is the circumflex
> | is iota subscripta
> ; is question.
Oh, yeah, I didn't notice the chi/xi switch in my last post. I prefer
the beta code version, but for what it is worth, ANSI standard
transliteration for Greek is c = chi, x = xi, and this is the format
used by most Greek fonts on the market unless they are specifically
designed to work with beta coded texts (e.g. Silver Mtn. fonts and
some CCAT fonts). ANSI makes no effott to define characters for
diacritics.
- -Alan
==========================================================================
Alan Humm | The Bible tells us to love our neighbors,
University of Pennsylvania | and also to love our enemies;
Dept of Religious Studies | probably because they are generally the
humm@ccat.sas.upenn.edu | same people. - G.K. Chesterton
==========================================================================
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #512
*****************************
** 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