[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #608
b-greek-digest Sunday, 12 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 608
In this issue:
Mounce's FlashWorks for Mac available from HGrk pages
RE: Bibliography request (Lutzelberger)
Re: orality and the NT
Re: Text Types; Erasmus
KJV Only Controversy
James 5:14-16
Re: UBS3 is Poison
Re: lexical evidence of James...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "James K. Tauber" <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 15:30:40 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Mounce's FlashWorks for Mac available from HGrk pages
The Macintosh version of FlashWorks is available on the Web at
http://www.uwa.edu.au/HGrk/Software/
DOS and Windows versions should be coming soon.
The Web page also has a pointer to Bruce Terry's ANACLAUS program.
James K. Tauber <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
4th year Honours Student, Centre for Linguistics
University of Western Australia, WA 6009, AUSTRALIA
Hellenistic Greek Linguistics Pages: http://www.uwa.edu.au/HGrk
------------------------------
From: Georg Stubkjaer Adamsen <gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 12:58:03 -0600 (CST)
Subject: RE: Bibliography request (Lutzelberger)
In message Wed, 8 Mar 1995 23:01:45 -0800,
Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov> writes:
>
>
> I would be very grateful if someone could assist in identifying
> and/or locating a copy of the following incomplete reference:
>
> Lutzelberger [first name unknown], _Die Kirchl.
> Tradition uber den Apos. Joh._
>
> No city of publication was given nor date, but the date was
> probably shortly before 1906. Thanks in advance,
>
> Greg Doudna
> gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov
>
> --
>
According to the bibliography in Gerhard Maier: _Die
Johannesoffenbarung und die Kirche_ (WUNT 25). Tuebingen (ui German u
with Umlaut), 1981, p. 639 the reference is:
E.C.J. Luetzelberger (the "ue" is the German u with Umlaut): _Die
Kirchliche Tradition ueber (ue as above) den Apostel Johannes und
seine Schriften in ihrer Grundlosigkeit nachgewiesen_. Leipzig, 1940.
Georg Adamsen, Denmark
Cand.theol.
Georg S. Adamsen
Bodoevej 62, DK-8200 Aarhus N. Danmark
Tlf +45 86 10 25 94
Email (Internet): gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 07:20:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: orality and the NT
Apologies for the imprecise nature of this, but I thought I would mention
a couple of items to at least get you started. I have a list of
bibliography on the subject, but as I'm moving, it is in a box
somewhere. Anyway, I find Birger Gerhardsson's _Memory and Manuscript_
to be a good beginning place, try the MMikra_ volume of Fortress' Rerum
Iudicarum series done in 1988 or 1989. Also, in the first issue of JBL
for 1990 Paul Achtemeier's presidential address on orality was published,
with a very good reply approximatly a year later in the same journal by
someone whose name I have forgotten. Also, check out George Kennedy's
discussion of Papias-I don't recall where the article was published, but
try CARL. Finally, in Davies and Allison, there is some discussion of
the issue in the introductory materials to v. 1 of their commentary on
Matthew. These sources should also just about give you all the biblio
you could need. Hope this helps some, sorry for going off the top of my
head.
- -Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@billings.lib.mt.us
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 17:33:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Text Types; Erasmus
Dennis,
Thanks for straightening out my story about Erasmus. I appreciate it. I
was a little foggy on the details.
I am honestly interested in hearing your reasons for why you consider the
Byzantine text-type as superior.
I have always repsected the Byz family, but have felt that the conflations,
scribal explanatory notes, and lateness of many of the Byz mss point to a
text less representative of the original text.
Mr Zane and Mr Hodges like to point out that the number of Byzantine mss is
greater and thus has more attestation, and that is one reason why they prefer
it.
Thanks.
Tim Staker --- Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 17:50:26 -0500
Subject: KJV Only Controversy
Greetings!
I wish to thank Doug Palmer of San Antonio for informing me of the existe=
nce
of this list.
I was informed recently that the subject of the KJV Only controversy and
attendant issues had arisen on this list, and that my "review" of Gail
Riplinger's book, _New Age Bible Versions_, and my upcoming book from Bet=
hany
House Publishers, _The King James Only Controversy_, were mentioned in th=
is
forum. As I have received a number of requests for further information, =
I
thought I would save you all some time and provide a general post providi=
ng
the often requested information.
Regarding _The King James Only Controversy_, it may ship to bookstores as=
earl
y as March 17th, but more probably it will go out around the 20th. We ha=
ve
been delayed, quite honestly, by threats of lawsuits by KJV Only advocate=
s.
For some strange reason they don't want a 300+ page book responding to t=
heir
allegations hitting the national market.
The book itself is divided into eleven chapters in the main text, along w=
ith
a second section to the book of about 20 pages that provides more "schola=
rly"
discussion of particular variant readings. The first chapter outlines th=
e
various KJV Only positions. The second chapter gives some historical
background to the issue of a "traditional" text; i.e., it demonstrates th=
at
people become attached to particular readings and resist change. I used =
the
reaction to Jerome's translation as well as the resistance to Erasmus as
examples of this. The third chapter provides a basic, layperson's
introduction to textual criticism. I did my best to balance accuracy and=
scholarship with my desire to keep the book in the realm of the layperson=
,
since that is my intended audience. The fourth chapter goes into Erasmus=
,
Stephanus, Beza, etc., the TR, and the translation of the KJV itself. Th=
ere
is a great deal of information in this (and other) chapters that is found=
only in the endnotes, not in the text. Some of the information presented=
here I have seen only in very in-depth and obscure historical sources. T=
he
fifth chapter introduces the reader to KJV Onlyism itself, and uses Edwar=
d F.
Hills, Gail Riplinger, and Peter Ruckman as examples of the various attit=
udes
displayed by KJV Only advocates. The sixth chapter deals with translatio=
nal
differences between the KJV and modern translations; the seventh deals wi=
th
textual differences. The eighth chapter focuses upon the deity of Christ=
and
the virgin birth, as these are two issues that normally figure prominentl=
y in
the accusations made by advocates of the KJV. The ninth chapter deals wi=
th
problems in the text of the KJV itself. The 10th is a short Q&A chapter,=
the
eleventh a short conclusion. Part II, as I mentioned, goes into more dep=
th
on some of the textual issues. =
The book has four indices: Greek Word, Biblical Reference, Person, and
Subject, as well as a brief bibliography. It is 303 pages and will retai=
l
for $9.99.
The manuscript has been read by a number of scholars, and has received ve=
ry
positive responses. A few of those who have been willing to publicly end=
orse
the book include the following:
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, Professor Emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminar=
y,
says:
"_The King James Only Controversy_ is scholarly and accurate, and its
evaluation of opposing viewpoints fair. Anyone troubled by criticisms of=
English translations will find White trustworthy. I hope his book will b=
e
widely circulated. It will do much good."
Dr. Gleason Archer of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School says:
"James White has thoroughly researched the background and sources of the
Bible as we have it today, and he points out the serious weaknesses of th=
e
KJV Only position, a view seemingly based more on faulty, unprovable
assumptions than on solid evidence. I have deep appreciation for White's=
scholarship and wholehearted concurrence with his handling of the data. =
His
treatment is to be commended and granted close attention by evangelicals.=
"
Dr. John MacArthur says: =
"James White has given us a valuable resource that is understandable,
thorough, and dependable. Best of all, the book is spiritually edifying.=
That is especially refreshing in the midst of this controversy, because =
so
much that has been written on the subject is anything but edifying."
Dr. D.A. Carson, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, says:
"I heartily applaud the work of James White. It is refreshing to read a =
work
that simultaneously reflects unswerving commitment to devout orthodoxy an=
d a
sane exposition of the facts. This book should be read by all who are
embroiled in the controversy."
Dr. Norman Geisler, Southern Evangelical Seminary, says:
This book is the best work in print on the King James Only controversy. =
It
is both biblical and balanced. White brings scholarship and common sense=
to
bear on a topic too often riddled with emotion and ignorance. He lays to=
rest factually and firmly many of the myths about modern versions denying=
essential doctrines of the Christian Faith. It is a must for anyone who
really wants to have a clear understanding of the current controversy ove=
r
the general doctrinal trustworthiness of modern Bible translations.
Dr. Craig Blomberg, Denver Seminary, says:
"One of the saddestsigns of legalistic Christianity is the tenacious defe=
nse
of the KJV as the only legitimate English-language translation. Almost a=
s
sad is that countless hours of scholars=92 and pastors=92 time must be di=
verted
from the larger priorities of God=92s kingdom to point out the numerous
historical, logical, and factual errors of KJV Onlyism--even though these=
errors have been repeatedly exposed in the past. Nevertheless, the job m=
ust
be done, and James White does it masterfully in this book."
Dr. Kenneth Barker, Executive Director of the NIV Translation Center, say=
s:
"This is by far the best and most balanced treatment of all the more
important issues involved in the controversy over KJV Onlyism. Kudos to
James White and Bethany House!"
Dr. J.I. Packer, Regent College, says:
"Sober, scholarly, courteous and convincing."
I am very thankful to these men for the time they took to review the
manuscript and make helpful suggestions.
Regarding the 54-page rebuttal of Gail Riplinger's 1993 book, _New Age Bi=
ble
Versions_, this can be obtained for a whopping $2 from:
Alpha and Omega Ministries
P.O. Box 37106
Phoenix, AZ 85069
A tape of my radio "debate" with Mrs. Riplinger is also available for $4 =
from
the same address. We should have a straight text file of my review avail=
able
in a few weeks.
I look forward to the discussions in this area. I am currently teaching =
out
of Colossians and am doing a good deal of study of the textual variations=
and
their impact upon various aspects of the epistle. If anyone else is also=
working out of Colossians I would very much like to discuss some variant
readings with you. As an example off the top of my head my attention was=
drawn to the inclusion of "kai" at 1:7 and the possible impact this might=
have on the interpretation of Epaphras' role in the church at Colosse.
Comments would be most welcome.
James White, B.A., M.A.
Director, Alpha and Omega Ministries
------------------------------
From: Kent Sutorius <kassutor@clark.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 18:33:11 +0500
Subject: James 5:14-16
I think Gary Meadors' comments were good. The context of the
passage does reflect that "astheneo" refers to physical sickness or
weakness. Although the word does have a variety of meanings, usually the
writer will use the dative case following "astheneo" to express what sphere
the weakness is in if it isn't sickness (Ro.4:19; Ro.8:3).
Another clue to it being sickness is the word "aleiphoo" translated
anointing. This word refers to oiling and is never used for sacramental
purposes. It is used for medicinal purposes. The word "chrioo" would have
been used for sacramental reasons.
A third clue is the word call. Obviously the man was too weak to go
to the elders and they had to be called to him.
The "prayer of faith" is answered in 5:16. The prayer of a
righteous man avails much. The one who is walking in the spirit is a
righteous man. Our church practices this portion of scripture. I think God
delights in us approaching Him first when we are sick.
Would like to say more - but gotta go!
Kent Sutorius
Maryland Bible College and Seminary
kassutor@clark.net
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 21:56:23 -0500
Subject: Re: UBS3 is Poison
TO: KENNETH@SYBASE.COM
FROM:TIMSTER132@AOL.COM
Ken, on Mar 10, you said
> I wanted to stay out of this discussion... but I can't stand it
>anymore.
I know what you mean. My initial instincts told me not to jump in, but I
just couldn't hold back.
But it's getting old now, tho, for me. I just don't like downloading my
waiting mail and reading "UBS3 is Poison" on a zillion headers anymore.
Tim Staker ----Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 22:16:03 -0500
Subject: Re: lexical evidence of James...
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
CC: DJM5G@VIRGINIA.EDU (DAVID JOH
FROM: TIMSTER132@AOL.COM
David, you gave this request 3/10/95...
> I am trying to work on understanding James 5:14-16, and I would >like to
know how people take this passage. Which commentaries >take the passage as
"weak in faith" instead of "physically sick"? >What do those on the list
think of that idea? What lexical evidence >is significant?
I think this is a hard text for us moderns since we are aware that
bacteria, viruses, genetics, etc. are involved in disease.
The greek text in this passages reveals the Biblical pre-scientific world
view, that sin and evil forces are responsible for illness.
There were doctors in the Greek tradition that applied practices and
treatments based on reason and what they understood from philosophy (ie, the
four elements), but it looks like James is not encouraging these doctors to
be sought out.
A person who was sick (asthenei) was encouraged go to an elder, who would
put on oil (medicine?) with a prayer.
"The weak" would be healed/saved (=swsei) and forgiven. Would a person of
the first century make a distinction between weakness in belief and weakness
in body as we do today?
James understands faith more along the lines of nominitive "belief" rather
than Paul's verbal "trusting". So for James a deficeincy in faith is
possible, and a prayer may restore the weak/sick.
Just some reflections here. Maybe it can get some sparks going, maybe not.
Tim Staker --- Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #608
*****************************
** 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