[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #535
b-greek-digest Thursday, 5 January 1995 Volume 01 : Number 535
In this issue:
Re: Virgin or Young Woman
Re: Virgin or Young Woman
Re: "trumped up"?
Re: Virgin or Young Woman
Danker's _Multipurpose Tools_
Re: Is it Old? My feedback.
Re: "trumped up"?
Re: Virgin or Young Woman
Re: Virgin or Young Woman
Re: Danker's _Multipurpose Tools_
Re: Danker's _Multipurpose Tools_ (fwd)
Re: Virgin or Young Woman
Off topic: US grad school language exams
CFD: B-FLAMES
Re: CFD: B-FLAMES
Re: A sign...and a seed
Re: b-greek-digest V1 #534
Which law(s)?
testing
Re: Which law(s)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leroy Huizenga 1996 <huizenga@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 03:29:02 -36000
Subject: Re: Virgin or Young Woman
On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Michael I Bushnell wrote:
> From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>
> Date: 02 Jan 95 23:13:00 +0000
>
> What I meant by it was holding to the ecumenical creeds. I prefer
> this term to the perjorative 'fundamentalist' which is inaccurate
> and confusing anyway since there are the separatists, the
> evangelicals, the Reformed and Lutherans, and charismatic groups
> who hold in essence to these creeds. These are thereby
> distinguished from the Deist and Arian groups commonly known as the
> 'main- line' denominations. See Machen's _Christianity and
> Liberalism_. The orthodox Protestants thus have considerably more
> in common with the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox than
> they do the 'main-line' variants of their own traditions.
>
> I'd appreciate it if you didn't "explain" your terms by accusing vast
> number of people of rank dishonesty. The Presbyterian Church (USA),
> the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church in
> the USA, the United Methodist Church--these *all* subscribe to the
> ecumenical creeds. And you are accusing them of lying when they make
> that subscription.
>
> -mib
>
First off, let me state that I don't think this is the place to discuss
these matters, and that I wish not to start a holy war of sorts. However,
as a concerned layman of the ELCA, I must respond to this. Mr. Schaper's
*arian* and *deist* description is perhaps polemical. And it is true that the
aforementioned churches do *subscribe* to the ecumenical creeds in letter.
However, Mr Bushnell, I think it is clear that the churches mentioned
here (and a host of others) are suffering a crisis unparalled since the
Reformation. The creeds - as historically understood without revisionist
interpretations - are, and have been for some time, under severe
criticism. "On the third day He rose again" is especially challenged in
the mainline seminaries. God the Father? Challenged as well - I worked at
an ELCA summer camp where calling God the Father was grounds for a stern
lecture on inclusiveness. "Who was conceived by the power of the Holy
Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary" - anyone with one eye on theology knows
that many pastors in our mainline churches do not believe this tenet. And
the atonement? "I don't think we need folks hanging on crosses and blood
and all that weird stuff." - from an address at the Re-imagining
conference in Minneapolis about a year back. The PCUSA, if I recall
correctly, put up roughly $60,000+ for this event. The ELCA and the other
churches who supposedly *subscribe* to the creeds put up additional
funding. I think it makes no difference if somewhere in a church's
confessional statements it claims to adhere to the creeds. We have a case
where the spirit, if even the token claim to the letter, of the creeds is
not being followed, and I think that is what Mr. Schaper is trying to say.
Leroy Huizenga '96
Jamestown College
North Dakota
huizenga@acc.jc.edu
------------------------------
From: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 10:44:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Virgin or Young Woman
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 03:29:02 -36000
From: Leroy Huizenga 1996 <huizenga@acc.jc.edu>
Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
First off, let me state that I don't think this is the place to
discuss these matters, and that I wish not to start a holy war of
sorts. However, as a concerned layman of the ELCA, I must respond
to this. Mr. Schaper's *arian* and *deist* description is perhaps
polemical. And it is true that the aforementioned churches do
*subscribe* to the ecumenical creeds in letter. However, Mr
Bushnell, I think it is clear that the churches mentioned here (and
a host of others) are suffering a crisis unparalled since the
Reformation.
The crisis is, I think, over. The crisis happened a hundred years
ago. Those who were liberals then have nearly all left the church.
I was tempted to write more than this, in defense, but I'll try to
stay on topic for the list rather than continue the ecclesiastical
discussion Mr Schaper began. Suffice it to say that I believe Mr
Huizenga's characterizations to be equally false (though not of the
same order as Mr Schaper's accusations).
My protest is germane to this list: it is that accusing people of
dishonesty should not be part of scholarly discussion, except as a
last resort against intransigence. And even then, such an
accusation's effect is to end dialogue.
So Mr Schaper should, please, refrain from using loaded words against
huge numbers of people. Otherwise this list will quickly degenerate.
Need I point out, for example, that the "orthodox" churches Mr Schaper
so lauds are all full of racist bigoted homophobes? Whoops. See?
It's so easy to do, we can all play at this silly game. Let's not
play at all.
-mib
------------------------------
From: Big island <swanson@inst.augie.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 09:48:57 -0600
Subject: Re: "trumped up"?
In response to Steve Schaper's response to George Aichele: Might we possibly
do this without meat axes? We disagree, deeply, even. That is what makes
this listserv interesting. We disagree vigorously: so much the better.
Flames, however, are wearisome.
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 09:21:57 PST
Subject: Re: Virgin or Young Woman
Warning: this post is NOT about Greek, ut is a reply to a tangential post.
Don't read it if that's a problem for you!
> From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>
> Date: 02 Jan 95 23:13:00 +0000
>
> What I meant by it was holding to the ecumenical creeds. I prefer
> this term to the perjorative 'fundamentalist' which is inaccurate
> and confusing anyway since there are the separatists, the
> evangelicals, the Reformed and Lutherans, and charismatic groups
> who hold in essence to these creeds. These are thereby
> distinguished from the Deist and Arian groups commonly known as the
> 'main- line' denominations. See Machen's _Christianity and
> Liberalism_. The orthodox Protestants thus have considerably more
> in common with the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox than
> they do the 'main-line' variants of their own traditions.
>
> I'd appreciate it if you didn't "explain" your terms by accusing vast
> number of people of rank dishonesty. The Presbyterian Church (USA),
> the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church in
> the USA, the United Methodist Church--these *all* subscribe to the
> ecumenical creeds. And you are accusing them of lying when they make
> that subscription.
>
> -mib
Please explain to me how a UM or PCUSA representative can preach
process theology and still honestly claim to believe the ecumenical creeds.
Anyone who does this is self-deluded and I've heard enough both in
seminary and in a few churches I've visited. I went to a Sunday morning
service at a UMC church where there was a baptism taking place. The
"minister" baptised the individual in the name of cosmic love or some
such tripe. That is NOT holding to the creed. I don't think I'd define
the minister's position as Deist, any more than I'd call John Hick a Deist.
It's more of a cosmic jello deity belief. Whatever it is, we can't know
it and we can't affirm much of anything about it. That's completely
irreconcilable with the creeds, unless you do a Humpty-Dumpty number on
the language of the creeds, but what's the point of that? I spent
some time attending a Methodist seminary, so don't tell me I don't
know what I'm talking about (Drew, to be precise).
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 13:23:16 -0500
Subject: Danker's _Multipurpose Tools_
I notice from a recent book catalog that Frederick Danker's
_Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study_ has been republished in a revised,
expanded edition. The catalog gives no publication date for the book, and
I'm wondering if the revision and expansion is recent.
David Moore
------------------------------
From: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 13:22:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Is it Old? My feedback.
D. L. Moore asked:
>> So what do you think Messiah should accomplish when He comes,
according
>>to Scripture, of course (just to keep it on topic)?
mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman) answered:
>Isaiah 11
Isaiah 11 does give a fair sketch of Messiah. What about other passages
that fill in the picture? Take for instance the first of the Servant Songs
in Isaiah where we find, "Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in
whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth
justice to the nations." (42:1) and "I have taken you by the hand and kept
you I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, to
open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
from the prison those who sit in darkness" (42:6b,7). I would include such
passages as these as well. Do others agree?
David L. Moore
------------------------------
From: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 13:20:30 -0500
Subject: Re: "trumped up"?
In a recent post to George Aichele by Steve Schaper the latter quoted and
said,
>g> "a historical-critical method that could successfully address the
>g> biblical text" -- what counts as "successful address"?
>Deal meaningfully with the content of the text, though I'd rather let David
>Moore the author of the post you attributed to me, answer this.
I didn't answer George Aichele's post by writing to the list because I
believed its real purpose was to derail meaningful discussion on the matter
at hand in the "Trumped up" thread. I don't believe that he misunderstood my
language at all. It certainly got quite a reaction from him. Others, from
both ends of the spectrum that my arguments entailed, have seemed to
understand my words and expressions quite clearly.
I appreciate all who bring different points of view to the list and would
not wish to exclude anyone who has something to contribute that may help to
better understand the message of the New Testament and related Scripture.
David Moore
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 12:36:02 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Virgin or Young Woman
Might we please drop this whole discussion of Arians, Deists,
true-believers, false-believers, etc. altogether? Granted, there are
points where it is important to clarify the presuppositions of a stance
taken toward a particular text under examination, but heresy accusations
and trials belong elsewhere, surely (if anywhere). Can we please restrict
ourselves hereafter to discussions of text and matters that bear directly
on discussion of texts?
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: "R. Glenn Wooden" <glenn.wooden@acadiau.ca>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 14:45:08 ADT
Subject: Re: Virgin or Young Woman
I will second Carl's suggestion. I understand the importance of such
discussion, but it should take place elsewhere.
Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville, NS
> Date sent: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 12:36:02 -0600 (CST)
> From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
> To: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
> Copies to: mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu, b-greek@virginia.edu
> Subject: Re: Virgin or Young Woman
> Might we please drop this whole discussion of Arians, Deists,
> true-believers, false-believers, etc. altogether? Granted, there are
> points where it is important to clarify the presuppositions of a stance
> taken toward a particular text under examination, but heresy accusations
> and trials belong elsewhere, surely (if anywhere). Can we please restrict
> ourselves hereafter to discussions of text and matters that bear directly
> on discussion of texts?
>
> 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
>
Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.
Canada
wooden@acadiau.ca
------------------------------
From: Larry Chouinard <fa78935@admin.kcc.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 14:04:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Danker's _Multipurpose Tools_
David,
Yes Fred Danker's work has been revised and expanded. It is
available through Fortress Press (1993).
Larry Chouinard
Kentucky Christian College
On Thu, 5 Jan 1995 Dvdmoore@aol.com wrote:
> I notice from a recent book catalog that Frederick Danker's
> _Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study_ has been republished in a revised,
> expanded edition. The catalog gives no publication date for the book, and
> I'm wondering if the revision and expansion is recent.
>
> David Moore
>
------------------------------
From: Larry Chouinard <fa78935@admin.kcc.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 14:10:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Danker's _Multipurpose Tools_ (fwd)
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 14:04:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Larry Chouinard <fa78935@admin.kcc.edu>
To: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
Subject: Re: Danker's _Multipurpose Tools_
David,
Yes Fred Danker's work has been revised and expanded. It is
available through Fortress Press (1993).
Larry Chouinard
Kentucky Christian College
On Thu, 5 Jan 1995 Dvdmoore@aol.com wrote:
> I notice from a recent book catalog that Frederick Danker's
> _Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study_ has been republished in a revised,
> expanded edition. The catalog gives no publication date for the book, and
> I'm wondering if the revision and expansion is recent.
>
> David Moore
>
------------------------------
From: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 14:21:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Virgin or Young Woman
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 09:21:57 PST
From: kenneth@sybase.com (Kenneth Litwak)
Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
Content-Length: 2301
Please explain to me how a UM or PCUSA representative can preach
process theology and still honestly claim to believe the ecumenical creeds.
They can't. I fully agree with that.
Which means that there are heretics in the PCUSA. So? There are
heritics in the Roman Catholic Church too, and in the "orthodox"
protestant churches too. The point? You can't label the church
"heretical" on the basis of a criticism of members who violate the
church's own standards.
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 11:25:19 PST
Subject: Off topic: US grad school language exams
THis is a little off topic, but I wonder ifanyoen could help me out
here (you can send response to kenneth@sybase.com -- I'm sure most
readers don't care about my question). I'm applying for a PhD program
in biblical studies and am concerned about the language exams, both
biblical and modern. I thought surely three years of NT Greek would be
adequate for the Greek exam, but I was told I needed practice with
patristic Greek as well. So what I'm looking for is some idea of
what I might expect on the various tests. Do I have to sight-read
the Didache or just John's Gospel? What about the other languages?
One chapter of Job in 30 minutes? Barth without a dictionary? I guess
I'm trying to ascertain for myself how to know if I'm ready for the
exams. Thanks for any info you can give me.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Tom Blake <tblake@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 15:32:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CFD: B-FLAMES
While I have personally taken offense at some of the invective hurled at
my denomination (and others), I realize that there must be a place to vent
such feelings. May I suggest the creation of a new list.
B-FLAMES
On B-FLAMES, heretics, hypocrites and infidels of all stripes can call
each other names, and generally do their best to further tear asunder the
body of Christ.
Our motto will be:
"And they'll know we are Christians by our petty bickering."
Tom Blake
------------------------------
From: Dennis Burke <dennisb@test490.pac.sc.ti.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 15:29:12 CST
Subject: Re: CFD: B-FLAMES
Having been a lurker on several "Christian" newsgroups for some time,
and having examined their content, I would have to say that this new
B-FLAME newsgroup would be a terrible idea. All of the other "Christian"
newsgroups would dry-up and this new one would be so deluged with postings
that it would be unreadable. ;) or should that be :(
On a serious note... This newsgroup and the soc.religion.christian.bible-study
newsgroup are by far, IMHO, the most pleasurable newsgroups to read.
It is fairly rare to see much bickering on either of these two newsgroups
and I thoroughly enjoy the discussions in both. As for the others...
Well... let's just say they are not quite as civil and interesting.
Dennis Burke
> Tom Blake <tblake@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu> writes:
>
> While I have personally taken offense at some of the invective hurled at
> my denomination (and others), I realize that there must be a place to vent
> such feelings. May I suggest the creation of a new list.
>
> B-FLAMES
>
> On B-FLAMES, heretics, hypocrites and infidels of all stripes can call
> each other names, and generally do their best to further tear asunder the
> body of Christ.
>
>
> Our motto will be:
> "And they'll know we are Christians by our petty bickering."
>
> Tom Blake
>
------------------------------
From: William Brooks <wjbrooks@olympus.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 13:57:18 -0800
Subject: Re: A sign...and a seed
Daniel,
I wrote my ThM thesis on Isa. 6:1-9:7 and its presentation of Christ. If I
can quote myself, I'll pass along what I discovered about 7:14.
Nearly every point of the passage is debated. The interpretation of the
text revolves around the answers given to several significant questions: Who
is the almah? Who is Immanuel? Is the fulfillment contemporaneous only,
dual or only in Christ?
In light of Ahaz's refusal in 7:12, the introductory lkn ("therefore" in
7:14) suggests a meaning of "since this is so" or "for this reason." It
introduces a sign (ot) of a different kind than what was offered to Ahaz.
In order to understand the intent of ot, v. 11 must be revisited.
God placed no restrictions on what Ahaz could or could not ask. While ot
does not necessarily demand the miraculous, it is obvious that the
miraculous was not ruled out and was, probably, encouraged. The same
expectation should be carried over to v. 14: while God's sign does not
strictly need to be miraculous, neither does it need to be simply ordinary;
the possibility of the miraculous should not be disregarded.
Much of the controversy surrounding Isaiah 7:14 revolves around the meaning
of almah: specifically as to her virginity and marital status. The
derivation of the noun is not known. It is suggested that it originates
from either a Hebrew verb meaning "to conceal or hide" or from an Aramaic
verb meaning "to be strong". In sexual connotations, the former verb
suggests "virgin" because literally and physically the woman would not have
been uncovered-- she had not known a man in a sexual sense. The latter verb
leads to the meaning of sexual maturity and youthful vigor.
In addition to Isaiah 7:14, almah is used eight other times in the Hebrew
Bible. In 1 Chronicles 15:20 and Psalm 46:1 (BHS), the plural is used as a
technical musical term; Psalm 68:26 gives no indication of the moral
character or marital status of the almah. The plural is again used in
Canticles 1:3 and 6:8. In both, almah refers to women who are unmarried.
Proverbs 30:19 seems to refer to the pre-marriage courting of a young man
toward his prospective bride.
The remaining two passages shed considerable light on the meaning of almah.
In Exodus 2:8, Moses' sister, Miriam, is called an almah. Not only is it
assumed she is sexually chaste, it is also very difficult to think that at
this time she was a married woman. Rebekah is called an almah in Genesis
24:43. Scripture takes great effort to give a full picture of her
character: not only is she unmarried, she is also, in Genesis 24:16, given
the threefold description of "girl", "virgin" (betula), "and not knowing a
man". In recounting to Laban the details of this well-known story, the
servant, in 24:43, sums up Rebekah's moral and marital status with one word:
almah. Simply put: there is no etymological evidence to support the
frequently aired claim that almah can refer to either a young married woman
or to an unmarried woman who has had intercourse.
The cognate language Ugaritic also aids in shedding light on the meaning of
almah as its etymological equivalent, lmt, is used in several significant
texts. Text 77, a poem recounting the marriage between the lunar goddess
and god Nikkal and Yarah. This Ugaric poem calls Yarah a btlt ("virgin;"
equivalent to the Hebrew betula). Btlt and glmt are parallel to one another
and are virtual synonyms. At this point in the story the young god and
goddess are not yet married.
The Ugaritic text relating the marriage of King Keret to Hry also sheds
light on the meaning of glmt (and hence almah). Before the marriage ceremony
it is announced to Keret that "The woman you take, O Keret, the woman/You
take to your house, the glmt you cause to enter/Your court shall bear seven
sons to you." Significantly, after the marriage ceremony Hry is no longer
designated as a glmt but as mtt hry ("lady Hry") and attk ("your wife"). The
evidence from Ras Shamra, then, lends no support to those who claim that
glmt may be used of a married woman.
While the terms glmt and almah consistently refer to unmarried women and
sometimes-- as in the case of Rebekah, Nikkal and Hry-- to women who are on
the verge of marriage, the moral character of the biblical almah needs to be
addressed. Does parthenos in Matthew 1:23 adequately translate almah or is
it merely an interpretational preference rather than a linguistic necessity?
The LXX ignores almah in Psalm 46:1; transliterates it as alaimoth in 1
Chronicles 15:20; uses neates ("young woman") in Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:26;
Canticles 1:3; 6:8; and neotes ("youthful girl") in Proverbs 30:19. Other
than Isaiah 7:14, the only other instance of parthenos translating almah is
in Genesis 24:43 of Rebekah. The translation of almah in Isaiah 7:14 by
parthenos, was surely not by accident but was a conscious choice of the
translator [who, I might add, was a Jewish rabbi before Christianity was
even thought of in the mind of man]. In the biblical world, chaste behavior
was expected, indeed demanded, of an unmarried woman. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
details two scenarios for a newly married couple. If the husband falsely
charged his new wife with premarital sexual activity, he was to pay a fine
to his father-in-law for the trouble he caused (22:13-19). If, however, the
charge proved to be true, the woman was to be stoned to death in order to
"purge the evil from Israel" (22:20-21, NASB). Although almah is not a
technical term for virginity, the presumption in common law was and is, that
every almah is virgin and virtuous, until she is proven not to be. We have a
right to assume that Rebecca and the almah of Isaiah 7:14 and all other
almah's were virgin, until and unless it be proven that they were not.
Matthew Gray [see "Genesis" in the ICC series], who demurs that almah
naturally incorporates the notion of virginity, expresses an often stated
criticism: "Where stress needed to be laid on a woman's virginity even more
unambiguous phraseology was employed." Other words and expressions were
available for Isaiah's use but none would have succinctly conveyed the same
meaning as almah. Yldh is used to refer to a very young girl of
unmarriageable age. Nrh is the generic word for girl and woman and can refer
to young girls, unmarried women, concubines and evil women-- its range of
meaning is too broad and indefinite. Betulah is the usual and technical term
for virgin. The words nrh and betulah are used to qualify one another four
times in the Hebrew Bible (Deut. 22:23; Judg 21:12; 1 Kings 1:2; Esth.
2:23). The former word refers to a young woman whose chastity is unknown,
the latter to a virgin whose age is unknown. Niessen observes: "When the
two terms are used together, the meaning is the girl is a "young virgin."
However, though these two words are used as qualifiers for each other,
neither word is ever used to qualify almah. Rather, the word almah
incorporates the common element of the other two terms, which are youth and
virginity."
This survey, which establishes the intended meaning of almah as a young,
unmarried virgin of marriageable age, avers with E.J. Young: "one is tempted
to wish that those who repeat the old assertion that [almah] may be used of
a woman, whether married or not [and whether virgin or not], would produce
some evidence for their statement."
Syntactically, the clause that announces Immanuel's birth is verbless with
hrh ("pregnant") as a predicate adjective. As such, a suitable form of the
copula verb "to be" should be supplied. In addition, hnh with the qal
participle, yld, forms a future instans and conveys the nuance that the
action is about to occur or is presently in progress. This brings about a
startling conclusion: the almah-- a young, unmarried virgin-- is a virgin at
the time of her conception and her delivery. Since there is nothing in
either the context or the syntax suggesting a change in marital and/or
physical status of the almah, an interpreter has no liberty to make her a
married woman simply because she is found to be pregnant. This conclusion,
then, rules out any variation of the dual fulfillment view and finds its
realization in the only biblical character who was the offspring of an
unmarried virgin-- Jesus Christ.
Well, that's what I discovered, I hope it helps. May you experience true
shalom from Sar Shalom.
Jim
PS-If your interested I can pass along how all this relates to Matt. 1:23,
just ask.
------------------------------
From: DDDJ@aol.com
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 17:22:42 -0500
Subject: Re: b-greek-digest V1 #534
<< g> "taking the text seriously in its own right" -- texts have rights? how
g> does one take a text seriously? do you mean as opposed to the way
g> non-evangelicals read? >>
This is why so many odd interpretations end up being advocated. We can not
even always understand what we are saying in our own language, yet we expect
to interprete another language with only a small sample of that Language's
concepts idioms and vocabulary.
I looked up right in my big English dictionary and this is the use of
definition 5. Properly. However I see a hidden meaning in the text,
Definition 5 (of the second use of the word) is an antler on a stag.
Obviously the ancients texts have antlers. This is Strong's number 3231. ; -
)
I think that this is a much bigger problem that most of us are willing to
admit. When the semmantic domains provide two (or more) different viable uses
of the word which do we use? Naturally the one that fits our theology of
course!
Dennis
------------------------------
From: Daniel Chase <aw035@yfn.ysu.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 20:02:26 -0500
Subject: Which law(s)?
I have no idea if this is the best forum to ask the following questions
or not, but here it goes...
Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Mat 5:17-18).
Here are my questions:
(1) Did Jesus fulfill only the laws pertaining to sacrifice,
or did he also fulfill all levitical laws too?
(2) What bearing does Jesus' sacrifice have on various directives
such as stoning adulterors, etc? That is, are we still bound to
their directives?
(3) Are we still bound by moral law such as the 10 commandments, etc.
If so, why didn't Jesus' atonement eliminate these also?
Thanks!
Daniel Chase
(Kindly CC responses to me)
PS: I have sent this to one other list, and you may have seen
it there. I am trying to get different perspectives, and
hoping B-Greek members will answer from an exegitical perspective.
BTW, this is not for profit, papers, or any such thing. It
is for private study.)
------------------------------
From: williamson@bible.acu.edu
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 1995 21:11:10 CST
Subject: testing
Just testing to see if this works
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 21:48:04 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Which law(s)?
On Thu, 5 Jan 1995, Daniel Chase wrote:
> I have no idea if this is the best forum to ask the following questions
> or not, but here it goes...
>
> Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
> prophets, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till
> heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
> from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Mat 5:17-18).
>
> Here are my questions:
>
> (1) Did Jesus fulfill only the laws pertaining to sacrifice,
> or did he also fulfill all levitical laws too?
>
> (2) What bearing does Jesus' sacrifice have on various directives
> such as stoning adulterors, etc? That is, are we still bound to
> their directives?
>
> (3) Are we still bound by moral law such as the 10 commandments, etc.
> If so, why didn't Jesus' atonement eliminate these also?
Nice, simple questions, these! NOT! This is not even a question about the
Greek text in any way, but about the interpretation of the passage, the
text of which does not in itself seem to present any problems.
If you want a variety of perspectives, I think you've come to the right
place. I think there will be different approaches, and it is an approach
to this question that I want to discuss rather than the answer (or answers).
I think that the passage must be understood in the first place in its
context within the Sermon on the Mount and the gospel of Matthew, which
is to say, in the context of what may rather inadequately be termed, for
want of something better, Jewish Christianity or Christian Pharisaism. As
I read the context of this passage, it seems to me that as a whole it
urges the proposition that fulfilling the law is a matter of carrying out
God's will fully, and the antitheses pretty clearly indicate that the
legal prescriptions of the Torah are an inadequate expression of the
whole of God's will. I don't think that this context involves abrogation
of the Torah at all, but rather it urges an endeavor to go beyond its
letter to understanding its spirit and intention: to "hunger and thirst
after righteousness" and to "be perfect as your heavenly Father is
perfect." There remain questions, however, about the ritual laws and the
rigorous Levitical purity requirements; I'm not clear on how one should
interpret Matthew's understanding of Jesus' teaching on this matter, but
I rather suspect that the focus is on fulfilling the intent of a loving
God toward others in a thoroughgoing way that cannot be described in any
puritanical code of conduct. That's just a sketch of the way I'd read
Matthew's presentation of Jesus' teaching about the law; I look forward
to the views of others.
Beyond Matthew's distinct perspective and focus, there remains a much
larger question of how this passage about the Law relates to the moral
teaching of the remainder of the NT, and especially to the teaching of
the apostle Paul. I won't go into depth here, but I do think the
questions need to be posed sharply regarding a possible conflict between
this passage and Paul's teaching, while at the same time I think the
Matthaean teaching and Paul's teaching both involve real paradoxes in the
way they present the conception of fulfilling the Law and a sense that
the Law is somehow transcended in the person and action of Christ. Paul
would seem to emphasize the transcending of the Law more, but he also
formulates a demand for total commitment in the opening verses of Rom 12
that echoes the heart of a Deuteronomic sense of worship of heart, mind,
and soul. My own feeling is that ultimately Paul and Matthew don't really
conflict so much as they differ in emphasis and focus--but that
difference should be fully appreciated.
Beyond the relation of Matthew's and Paul's Torah, there's the bigger
question of what, if any parts, of the Old Covenant Torah believers in
Christ are obligated to observe. The NT evidence makes it abundantly
clear that the fiercest controversies in the early church--the
first-century church, at any rate--centered around this issue. And it
won't go away. One reads Galatians and feels a marvelous freedom over
against the Old Covenant Torah, but then one reads I Cor and one senses
that maintaining a "pure" heart in a multifarious community of believers
is by no means a simple matter.
Nice questions, but I suspect that they are too far-reaching to be dealt
with adequately and comprehensively in this forum.Still, I'd like to hear
(read) others' views.
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
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #535
*****************************
** 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