[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #520
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 21 December 1994 Volume 01 : Number 520
In this issue:
Virgin or Young Woman
pocket nt
Re: Col. 1:15, PRWTOTOKOS
LXX & MT
Typology
Re: Typology
Thief
Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
Happy Holiday Season from the List Owner!
For Greg Doudna: Didn't have your email address
Re: Thief
Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
Re: Thief
Re: Typology
godliness?
Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 09:22:01 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Virgin or Young Woman
Daniel Hedrick wrote:
> "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign, behold the
> young woman is with child and she will bear a son and shall
> call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7.14)
> Is this passage correctly translated in the Hebrew bible.
Since the Hebrew text (so far as we know) is the original, it is
not "translated" there at all.
> ... does this scripture prophetically predict the virgin birth
> or just the naming of the son.
I'm just catching up on the recent posts on the one day I'm where
I can access the list for the next week or so, and won't be around
to follow-up these comments, but couldn't resist...
This question was discussed here last year (might have been a
seasonable query then also!). There are at least 3 options
commonly treated on this question:
1. Not prophetic, local ref. only, no "virgin" (in tech. sense)
2. Direct prophecy of Jesus' birth (supported by Matt. ref.)
3. Sensus plenior (there's more in the text than the human author
understood, thus a local meaning was Isaiah's intent, but God's
intent was to prophesy the birth of Jesus)
There is another alternative that is not skeptical of the reality
of predictive prophecy, but neither does it insist on seeing one
everyplace there is a similarity in the NT. That alternative is:
4. Typological use by Matthew of Isaiah's text.
This would argue that almah is not neccessarily a tech. term for a
"virgin" in the OT. (Previous posts have illus. the problems with
that definition. Carl's observation that the RSV was severaly
criticized for transl. "young woman" are correct [though I can't
claim the antiquity of cognisance of those in 1948! :) ]) The only
way to make any sense of the text as it stands in its context of
Isa. 7 & 8 is a local reference of some sort. (How a birth 700+
years later would be any reassurance to Israel and Ahaz--the point
of the context--is beyond me, esp. in light of 7:15-25, which IS
also part of the sign, I think.) There are several alternatives
for explaining the local reference, none of which can be [or:
"should be"!] asserted dogmatically. My preference is to see the
child of 7:14 identified with Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:1, the
same as Immanuel in 7:14, whom you will notice is still in view in
the context of ch. 8 (vv. 8, 10). The young woman of 7:14 may well
have been the prophetess, whom Isaiah may have married (second
wife) in 8:2-3 (please note the two "may"s--I think they make
sense of the context, but they require some assumptions not
explicitly stated [as does every other view to the contrary!]).
As to Matthew's use of the text, it need not imply either direct,
predictive prophecy, sensus plenior, nor an ignoring or abuse of
Isaiah's context. A typological use would argue that NT authors
did, at times, identify correspondances between OT persons/events/
institutions, etc. and Jesus, his work, etc., and therefore
identify him as the fulfillment (plErow) of those events. (I will
post a separate, long msg. re. what I see as the 4 essential
characteristics of a type; those not interested may skip it.
Gracious, huh?!) This, to me, answers the needs of honoring the
orignal context as well as avoids the ambiguity of sensus plenior.
Rod Decker
Calvary Theological Seminary
Kansas City, MO
------------------------------
From: Bengt Odman <nbengtg@aristotle.algonet.se>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 16:19:51 +0100 (MET)
Subject: pocket nt
Does anyone know whether there is available a pocket-size greek nt? Or
the whole bible for that part. I am truly grateful for any suggestions.
____________________________________________________________________________
Bengt Oedman E-mail: NBengtG@algonet.se
Vasav. 106, 2tr Tel: int +46858032577
S-175 32 Jaerfaella nat 08-58032577
SWEDEN http://www.algonet.se/~nbengtg/home
------------------------------
From: "Dan G. McCartney, Westminster Semin" <dmccartney@shrsys.hslc.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 10:21:33 EST
Subject: Re: Col. 1:15, PRWTOTOKOS
David Moore responds to my earlier posting on Col 1:15-16:
> So, what about the O(TI of v. 16? Our exegesis should inform our
>theology: our theological ideas should not demand preconceived answers from
>the text.
Two comments:
First, causal _hoti_ is not always indicative of strictly cause-effect
relation. E.g. 1 Cor 10:17, where the one loaf does not *cause* the
fellowship, but rather *indicates* it, and shows it to be true.
Second, even if we take Col 1:16 _hoti_ to be strictly causal, what v. 16 says
is that Jesus is firstborn of creation because he *mediated* creation (as I
said in my earlier posting).
I would agree with Lightfoot that the two halves of v.15 indicate different
things, even though they are in some ways parallel. As Lightfoot says, they
are differently related. We could say the same of Adam. Adam, in relation to
deity, was created in God's image; in relation to creation he was appointed
vicegerent over it. Like Adam, Jesus was the visible Man who reveals the
invisible God, and as pre-eminent mediator becomes the firstborn or patriarch
of creation, just as Adam was in a limited sense prior to the fall.
I think, David, that we are on the same side on this. I agree that this
passage is, to quote you, "a very emphatic statement about the pre-existence of
Christ and his activity in the creation." I *agree* that this passage both
assumes and teaches Christ's deity, and that his deity is a necessary
qualification for his mediatorial role in creation, which means it is his
unique qualification as firstborn of all creation. My point is simply that
there is *another* qualification necessary -- namely that he be *from* creation
(cf. Heb 5:1-5, where his qualification for priesthood necessitates his
humanity). This was the point of my original posting, which was in response to
somebody's query about "firstborns" being included in the set of beings over
which they are pre-eminent.
Finally, two small matters:
>
> "All the _plErOma_ was pleased to dwell in him." A better way to
>translate, O(TI EN AUTW EUDOKHSEN PAN TO PLHRWMA KATOIKHSAI would be, "for it
>pleased God that all the fullness dwell in Him," taking EUDOKHSEN as a
>Hebraistic circumlocution to used to avoid naming God.
I agree fully. _to plHroma_ should be understood as the accus. "subject" of
the infinitive. I have not yet found an acceptable English rendering for
_plHrOma_ yet, however. To some degree "glory" fits, but doesn't capture the
totality. "Fulness" begs the question; how can "fulness" be something that
dwells in someone.
>
> "As God he was the one needing to be reconciled...." Is that Nicene?
> It sounds anthropocentric to me.
The word "reconcile" is slippery. What I meant was, God had a grievance
against us that needed to be dealt with. We certainly could not remove it --
Jesus as both the one who had the grievance and the one who could represent
the ones who had aggrieved, could.
Have a blessed Christmas as we remember that God the Son did, after all, become
a human being for a very good reason.
******************************************************************************
** 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: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 12:30:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: LXX & MT
Since Qumran studies have come a VERY long way since 1961, and my sometime
colleague Frank Cross as well (he and I have both now departed Harvard),
it might be better to read more recent studies. The best SHORT study by
Frank covering both the Masoretic text and the Old Greek (he rightly objects
to speaking of the LXX, as though it were a single translation rather than
a cluster) is:
Frank Moore Cross, "Problems of Method in the Textual Criticism of
the Hebrew Bible," in _The Critical Study of Sacred Texts_ edited by
Wendy Doniger (O'Flaherty), 1979.
The fact that the opening essay in this volume (the 30 pages preceding Frank's)
was written be me in NO way biasses my choice!
Frank Cross's position on several matters of the history of the text of
the OT are rather different from those expressed in various postings. Rather
than engage in debate, let me recommend that those interested read this
24-page essay by Cross.
A second bibliographic note might be of some interest to those working on
imperial titles and Christology, though its subject is not directly that.
Daniel Schowalter, _The Emperor and the Gods_, 1993 (Harvard
Dissertations in Religion #28), Fortress. Based on the time of Trajan.
Dan was one of our students at Harvard about a decade ago, working above
all with Helmust Koester; I had him serve as part-time leave-replacement
for me in 1987-88. He is now at Carthage College in Wisconsin.
- --Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 13:02:14 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Typology
Typology
As will prob. be obvious, these notes were not written=20
specifically for this list, but come from my notes for an=20
introductory hermeneutics course. I've not adapted them for=20
purposes of the list (other than typographic changes to make them=20
legible in ASCII). Although they don't relate specifically to=20
Greek, they are quite relevant to NT exegesis, esp. the question=20
recently raised here re. Isa. 7:14/Matt. 1:23.
Rod Decker
Calvary Theological Seminary
Kansas City, MO
Basic bilbiography (considerable diversity here!):
Baker, D. L. _Two Testaments: One Bible_, 239-70 (1976 ed.; =3D pgs.=20
179-202 in the rev. ed., 1991)*
Davidson, Richard M. _Typology in Scripture: A Study of=20
Hermeneutical 'tupos' Structures_*
Eichrodt, Walther. "Is Typological Exegesis an Appropriate=20
Method?" in _Essays on OT Hermeneutics_, ed. C. Westermann, 17-39*
Fairbairn, Patrick. _The Typology of Scripture_, 2 vols. (over 900=20
pgs.)
Foulkes, Francis. _The Acts of God: A Study of the Basics of=20
Typology in the Old Testament_
France, R. T. _Jesus and the Old Testament_, 38-82.
Goppelt, Leonhard _Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the=20
Old Testament in the New_*
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. _Uses of the Old Testament in the New_,=20
103-110
Lampe, G. W. H. and K. J. Woolcombe. _Essays on Typology_
McCartney, _Let the Reader Understand_,153-60
Mickelson, A. Berkeley. _Interpreting the Bible_, 236-64
Osborne, Grant. "Type, Typology," ISBE (rev. ed.), 4:930-32
Terry, Milton. _Biblical Hermeneutics_, 334-46
Von Rad, Gerhard. "Typological Interpretation of the Old=20
Testament," in _Essays on OT Hermeneutics_, ed. C. Westermann,=20
17-39*
[* above indicates more technical discussions]
<> notes at end
Four essential characteristics of a type:
a. Significant comparison
There must be a significant=CApoint of comparison between the OT=20
type and its NT antitype. Incidental similarities are not types.=20
"A pattern or correspondence must exist between the Old Testament=20
type and the New Testament antitype."<1> [ex. of "incidental=20
similarity" that is NOT legit. or adequate to call a type: 4 posts=20
in doorway to Tabernacle, thus 3 openings > 3 members of Trinity]
b. Historical basis
"The Old Testament type must be based on 'historical facts--
persons, actions, events and institutions,' not hidden meanings=20
found in the text."<2> "Both the type and the antitype are=20
historical. Unlike allegory that bypasses the original historical=20
event, typology first considers the historical purpose of the type=20
in the drama of salvation history within its own historical=20
horizon."<3>
c. Divine intention
"The link between the type and the antitype must be identifiable=20
in Scripture."<4> There must be biblical evidence that God=20
intended the typical representation. It may not be an explicit=20
statement (as "Marsh's dictum" would require), but the correlation=20
must be evident.
ex., positive: veil =3D Jesus' flesh (Heb. 10:20)
negative: lampstand in the Tabernacle decorated with almond=20
buds/blossoms of gold (There is absolutely no NT reference to such=20
a design, yet many find typical significance in it.)
A related question that should be raised at this point is the=20
consciousness of the human writer. Did the author know and intend=20
that certain portions of his text be understood as a type=20
prefiguring specific, known (to some degree) truth? Here is=20
another area of considerable debate. W. Kaiser affirms that the=20
author did have such knowledge. This is consistent with his=20
general approach to authorial intent, but is not required by it.=20
It seems to read too much knowledge into the OT context in most=20
cases with no contextual warrant to be either a necessary or=20
desirable conclusion.
"The human author did not usually so intend or understand the=20
forward-looking features of his writing."<5> (This is true only of=20
passages which the NT points to as typological.) This is the key=20
difference between prophecy and type: prophecy is known and=20
intended as prophetic by the human writer; typology is a NT=20
perspective that is not known by the OT writer. The NT does not=20
change the meaning of the OT text (since typology is not intended=20
as an exegetical treatment of the OT text<6>) or deny its=20
historicity (see above). The parallel of the type/antitype is=20
always in harmony with the meaning of the OT text and never denies=20
the historical nature of it.
"Typological interpretation will thus in a fundamental way leave=20
the historical self-understanding of the Old Testament texts in=20
question behind, and go beyond it. It sees in the Old Testament=20
facts something in preparation, something sketching itself out, of=20
which the Old Testament witness is not itself aware, because it=20
lies quite beyond its purview.... Typological interpretation=20
transcends the self-understanding of the Old Testament text."<7>=20
The Author, of course, knew and intended that the OT text would=20
one day be used typologically, but neither the author or its=20
subsequent readers would have any way of knowing that this was the=20
case until the NT text makes the identification explicit. This is=20
the only point at which the aAuthors' knowledge of the written=20
text's meaning diverge (other than the aspects previously noted=20
under "Qualifications re. authorial intent," B.5.).<8>
d. Escalation
"There must be an escalation or heightening from the Old Testament=20
type to the greater New Testament antitype."<9> "These things are=20
to be interpreted typologically only if they are considered to be=20
divinely ordained representations or types of future realities=20
that will be even greater and more complete."<10>
In typology, the antitype is greater than and superior to the=20
type. There is an increase, a heightening, an escalation. Christ=20
is superior to Melchizedek. Christ's redemptive work is greater=20
than that of the Passover, of which He is the antitype answering=20
to the Passover, the type. Many aspect of the Old Testament=20
illustrate truths in the New Testament, but without heightening=20
(as well as prefiguring) they are not types. The antitypes were on=20
a higher plane than the types.
Notes:
<1> W. Edward Glenny, "The Israelite Imagery of 1 Peter 2," in=20
_Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church_, ed. C. A. Blaising and=20
D. A. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 158.
<2> Glenny, "Israelite Imagery," 157.
<3> Bruce K. Waltke, "Kingdom Promises as Spiritual," in=20
_Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship=20
Between the Old and New Testaments: Essays in Honor of S. Lewis=20
Johnson, Jr._, ed. John S. Feinberg, 263-87 (Westchester, IL:=20
Crossway, 1988), 276.
<4> Glenny, "Israelite Imagery," 158.
<5> S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. _The Old Testament in the New_ (Grand=20
Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 56.
<6> Kaiser recoils from such a suggestion, assuming that the=20
alternative is eisegesis (_Uses of the OT in the New_, 103-05).=20
The response is that the exegesis comes at the NT level, not at=20
the level of OT text. Apart from the NT, the OT type could not be=20
identified on the basis of OT exegesis. The quotation from R. T.=20
France that Kaiser quotes (to show the dreaded "eisegesis")=20
expresses this same point: "If every type were originally intended=20
[by the human author] explicitly to point forward to an antitype,=20
it might be correct to class typology as a style of exegesis. But=20
this is not the case. There is no indication in a type, as such,=20
of any forward reference" (Ibid., 104).
<7> Gerhard von Rad, "Typological Interpretation of the Old=20
Testament," in _Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics_, ed. C.=20
Westermann, transl. J. L. Mays, 17-39 (Richmond: John Knox,=20
1963), 36-37.
<8> S. L. Johnson adds, "In the sense that Scripture ultimately=20
comes from God, His intention that the Old Testament revelation=20
should look forward to the New must be acknowledged. In this sense=20
then, we assert that predictiveness is an essential feature of a=20
type. Further, the very use of the term 'fulfilled,' so common in=20
the introduction of the antitypical in the New Testament,=20
justifies our concusion about the predictiveness of types." (_The=20
Old Testament in the New_, 56.) Bock also refers to typology as=20
"retrospective, that is often the pattern cannot be recognized=20
until it is repeated" (_Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern_,=20
291 n.124).
<9> Glenny, "Israelite Imagery," 158.
<10> Leonhard Goppelt, _Typos: The Typological Interpretation of=20
the Old Testament in the New_, transl. D.=CAMadvig (Grand Rapids:=20
Eerdmans, 1982), 18.
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 13:16:57 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Typology
Many heartfelt thanks for Rod's response to Daniel Hedrick's post and
clarification of some of the responses that others of us offered. And
behold, here comes the Magus in the present message and presents us with
more of his wealth.
DIO XARIN SOI ISMEN HAPANTES (I think I can say that legitimately, but I
can speak at least for myself!)
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: Daniel Hedrick <hedrickd@ochampus.mil>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 13:19:27 -0700
Subject: Thief
What exactly is paradise according to:
This word is only found three times in the scriptures;
Luke 23:43, 2 Cor 12:4, and Rev 2:7.
My goal is to understand where Jesus was going with the
thief...
Daniel
------------------------------
From: Dennis <dennis@lewis.mt.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 13:30:35 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
I'd differ with some of your thoughts on the difference between the
Masoretic and LXX texts here for a few reasons.
First, the Qumran manuscripts show that the Masoretic text did not decay
to anything like this degree from 100 BC to 900 AD. Yes, there are some
textual variants, but they are far more trivial than the inclusion or
exclusion of as much material as must be accounted for here.
Second, in my judgment the idea that the text decayed from what we have
in the LXX to the high literary form found in the Masoretic text is a bit
thin. A decay from the high poetry of the Hebrew to the attempted
translation into the LXX seems a more likely process, in my opinion.
Third, given that this is poetry, the translator is probably trying to
paraphrase what he sees as the meaning of the text.
Dennis
------------------------------
From: David John Marotta <djm5g@virginia.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 94 15:47:52 EST
Subject: Happy Holiday Season from the List Owner!
As list owner I wanted to wish all those subscribing a Happy Holidays
with your family and friends, and thank you for your participation
and the ability to sharpen our minds without giving or taking offense.
The Internet in general, and lists like these in particular offer a forum
where everyone is allowed as much time as they would like to offer a
point of view, and yet also the freedom to only sample these ideas
as desired. This exchange of ideas can only lead to more profitable
thinking and understanding by everyone concerned.
I know I have appreciated the wisdom, learning and insights offered
especially by those I have challenged and debated (which is after all
the best method of having your mind changed!) and it is still benefitial
to me even having to do the work to keep those losing network access
cleared up.
Thanks again,
David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: djm5g@virginia.edu
Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg PRODIGY: KCMR45A
C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax IBM US: usuvarg8
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 11:51:43 PST
Subject: For Greg Doudna: Didn't have your email address
> To Ken,
> As one who also likes limbs because they're less crowded and
> the view is often better, I second Carl Conrad's sentiments
> about appreciating your comments and views. In light of
> your obvious zeal for the subject, whatever are you doing
> working for something called Syborg, instead of in graduate
> school? On Isa 9:6, you might find a book by Saul Levin on
> Seasons greetings--
> Greg Doudna
> Dept of Religious Studies and Phil
> Marylhurst College
> West Linn, Oregon
>
Greg,
Well, since you didn't put your email address in, I'll address you
here. I'm trying to get into graduate school while working at SYBASE.
I had planned to be there long ago, but I didn't know that there was
much more to getting into a PhD program then just sending applications.
I didn't realize at the time that the only reason schools like Harvard,
to which I applied, take PhD apps is to fund scholarships, I wouldn't
have wasted time or money. Now that I know that getting in to the schools
I originally applied to in the US is really about making appropriate
interpersonal interactions and not merely being qualified, I have
focused much more on the former in an attempt one last time to get into
a PhD program next Fall. Long ago, I was accepted at the Univ. of Aberdeen
but how anyone from the US pays for such things I'll never know. Sorry
if I sound cynical, but I'm willing to bet I had a comparable GPA to
the poeple who were actually accepted at US schools I applied to, like
Yale and Duke, and the choice of who got in was little related to
qualifications beyond a minimal level. That is probably not true
everywhere but I bet it's very true at all the big power schools in the
US. That's why I think I'll actually get in this time, because I got
good coaching from a faculty member on what to say and not say on my
application.
Ken
kenneth@sybase.com
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 15:16:48 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Thief
On Wed, 21 Dec 1994, Daniel Hedrick wrote:
> What exactly is paradise according to:
>
> This word is only found three times in the scriptures;
> Luke 23:43, 2 Cor 12:4, and Rev 2:7.
>
> My goal is to understand where Jesus was going with the
> thief..
I second that question! An adequate answer to it might resolve a lot of
unanswered questions in NT Eschatology. We know what Gehenna was in
fact--the garbage dump where trash was burned south of Jerusalem, but we
don't know all that precisely how it was understood as a metaphor. As I
understand it--and again, I am caught without resources at hand,
PARADEISOS is a Persian word for "garden" and it too is used
metaphorically of the good place of postmortal dwelling. But what has
always puzzled me is the passage in Luke raised here by Daniel: is it
really consistent with the doctrine of a PAROUSIA of Jesus? What does
Luke mean to imply about the status of the dead immediately after death?
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: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 15:20:01 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
On Wed, 21 Dec 1994, Dennis wrote:
> I'd differ with some of your thoughts on the difference between the
> Masoretic and LXX texts here for a few reasons.
>
> First, the Qumran manuscripts show that the Masoretic text did not decay
> to anything like this degree from 100 BC to 900 AD. Yes, there are some
> textual variants, but they are far more trivial than the inclusion or
> exclusion of as much material as must be accounted for here.
>
> Second, in my judgment the idea that the text decayed from what we have
> in the LXX to the high literary form found in the Masoretic text is a bit
> thin. A decay from the high poetry of the Hebrew to the attempted
> translation into the LXX seems a more likely process, in my opinion.
>
> Third, given that this is poetry, the translator is probably trying to
> paraphrase what he sees as the meaning of the text.
I think you must have misunderstood my post; I didn't really make any
suggestion about the superiority of LXX to MT (I certainly didn't mean
to), but rather reported what I have read and asked for some comment from
others in a better position to know. And there have been several helpful
responses to that question.
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: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 13:26:58 PST
Subject: Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
Dennis,
In general I'd agree with your assessment of the MT vis-a-vis the LXX.
Indeed, from what I've read, it seem sthe DSS do more to confirm the shape
of the MT than detract from it, though they do offer corrections to
otherwise problematic texts. At the same time, I think something more than
decay is responsible for some differences, such as the virtual abscence
of Jer. 41-52 from the LXX. I have no explnation for that, butit clearly
doesn't seem like decay. This difference, among othes, leads me to
wonder, as I have posted before, what 1st century CD Jews made of the LXX.
Itmight seem that the NT's use of it relates more to the fact that it's in
Greek, much as we might quote a passage from an English translation, or
the rendering particularly fits the writer's purpose, rather than there
being any issue of the quality of the text. Of course, that's just my
opinion. I have also noticed that Matthew, for one, departs frequently
from the LXX and sometimes uses what seems like a non-extant textual
tradition. He, at leas, seems able to read Hebrew.
Ken Litwak
Sybase, Inc.
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Greg Carey <CAREY@library.vanderbilt.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 15:36:26 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Thief
I ancient apocalyptic thought, paradise was often conceived as a
particular level of heaven. One might want to note 2 Cor 12, 3
Baruch, Apoc Paul, among others, as well as the works on heavenly
ascent and descent by Martha Himmelfarb (an appropriate enough
name!), and the works on Paul's mysticism, such as Alan Segal, _Paul
the Convert_, Carey Newman, _Paul's Glory Christology_, and Albert
Schweitzer's _The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle_.
An article on paradise by James Charlesworth in the _Anchor Bible
Dictionary_ is particularly helpful.
*******************************
Greg Carey
Graduate Department of Religion
Vanderbilt University
carey@library.vanderbilt.edu
------------------------------
From: ALLENKC@conrad.appstate.edu
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 17:03:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Typology
In addition to Rod Decker's excellent bibliography on typology, I would
add one more item. For those interested in using typology in homiletics,
see Edmund Clowney's work on that topic. I cannot remember the title
(the book is at work .. I'm at home), but if you look it up by author I
believe it will be self-evident.
Erick Allen
------------------------------
From: Pete Cepuch <pcepuch@diag1.iac.honeywell.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 15:29:44 MST
Subject: godliness?
I wish to thank all that responded to my question on eusebeia. All the
responses helped my understanding of the term immensely.
I would also like to wish all on the list a very happy holiday!
Sincerely,
Peter Cepuch
------------------------------
From: Dennis <dennis@lewis.mt.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 17:48:53 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
On Wed, 21 Dec 1994, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> In general I'd agree with your assessment of the MT vis-a-vis the LXX.
> Indeed, from what I've read, it seem sthe DSS do more to confirm the shape
> of the MT than detract from it, though they do offer corrections to
> otherwise problematic texts. At the same time, I think something more than
> decay is responsible for some differences, such as the virtual abscence
> of Jer. 41-52 from the LXX. I have no explnation for that, butit clearly
> doesn't seem like decay. This difference, among othes, leads me to
> wonder, as I have posted before, what 1st century CD Jews made of the LXX.
> Itmight seem that the NT's use of it relates more to the fact that it's in
> Greek, much as we might quote a passage from an English translation, or
> the rendering particularly fits the writer's purpose, rather than there
> being any issue of the quality of the text. Of course, that's just my
> opinion. I have also noticed that Matthew, for one, departs frequently
> from the LXX and sometimes uses what seems like a non-extant textual
> tradition. He, at leas, seems able to read Hebrew.
>
>
> Ken Litwak
> Sybase, Inc.
> Emeryville, CA
>
Don't forget there are Aramaic targums of the Hebrew OT running around at
Jesus' time, which varied even more widely than the LXX materials in
quality. I think that the attitude of the NT authors in using the LXX
would be instructive for our day ... they did not worry so much about
whether it was perfect, as long as it brought the main idea of the
original text with it. Sometimes I think we get far too caught up
spinning rather fanciful theories about "how" at the expense of the
"what."
Just a random ramble on a few posts I read:
1) Is anyone aware of any use of almah in the OT which demonstrably
refers to someone who is NOT a virgin? I am not.
2) Regarding the "fluid text" theory: is there any reason the evidence
cannot be pointing to a "popular" text which was not subject to very
careful scrutiny and decayed to a greater extent than an "official" text,
and that it is this "official text" which was preserved by the Masoretes
while the demonstrably inferior "unauthorized editions" were purged? I
ask the question because so often the treatment of the actual textual
evidence seems (please note the word choice) to be skewed by the more
liberal presuppositions of others, in the eyes of those of us who come
from a very conservative perspective. We ALL have presuppositions about
these matters, of course. Nor do I presume to see any sort of conspiracy
or anything so silly.
Just so my presuppositions are clear, I believe that the autographs were
divinely inspired and inerrant, that the original writers and their
disciples knew it. (There was always, of course, the majority that were
indifferent and/or hostile -- the prophets were mostly martyred, after
all.) Obviously, that makes me very interested in the evidence for a
"fluid text," as opposed to a text that could of course have been treated
poorly by some inept or inattentive scribes, but would also have been
preserved as carefully as possible by the professionals.
I guess I've found out my return E-Mail address is mysterious ... I'm
Dennis Rardin; I'm the pastor of Valley VIew Evangelical Lutheran Church
in Helena, MT. I'm part of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod;
we're the most conservative Lutheran group (other than some very small
splinter type organizations) in the US.
Dennis
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #520
*****************************
** 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