[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #624
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 21 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 624
In this issue:
Re: Text Types; Erasmus
Re: Historical Jesus
Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and...
Re: lexical evidence of James...
Re: Text Types; Erasmus
Re: Text Types; Erasmus
Jesus and Pharisees
TAXA plus indicative or subjunctive?
Re: Duplicates of duplicates!
Re: Duplicates of duplicates!
Re: Paul and the "Egyptian" (Acts 21:38)
Duplicates of duplicates!
Re: Duplicates of duplicates!
Grammar Question
Re: potential optative equivalents?
Faith of Christ.
Re: lexical evidence of James...
James 1:12-15
Re: Faith of Christ.
Re: Faith of Christ.
Re: Jesus and Pharisees
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 02:53:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Text Types; Erasmus
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
TO:DDDJ@aol.com
FROM:Timster132@aol.com
Glad to hear from you, Dennis.
Last time (03/12/95) you said:
> However do we really know how representative Siniaticus and >Alexandrinus
are? Are they inferior texts or superior texts? I think >there is no
objective way to know. We need to look at each >individual verse in each
individual text and decide.
Your choice of an eclectic text is understandable. If one decides that the
text-types are of relatively equal value/authority, and that the texts are
hopelessly mixed, then an ecclectic text which judges the text one variant at
a time is a sound approach.
But I think Barbara and Kurt Aland in their latest book on Text criticism
present a plausible history of the text and its development into text-types
which demonstrates the primacy of the Alexandrian text family. Aland
distinguishes three strands of early papyri evidence (strict, regular, free)
and how the Alexandrian text family developed from the strict papryi. He
names specific papyri and variants that can be checked. Whether there is
enough evidence in existance to postulate on is one thing, but from what
evidence there is, I think the Alands present a good theory which is consistan
t with the mss.
One difficulty I have with the eclectic approach is that can overlook the
tangible reality that the manuscripts were in actuality copied from one
another, and a real progression exists and thus families of manuscripts are a
reality; whether we can discern family ties is another matter.
Another trouble I have with the eclectic method of variant selection is how
it works out in explaining a passage with a complicated textual history. I
have seen a few cases where the chronological age and subsequent order of
manuscripts have been ignored and that bothers me. A second century ms.
variant doesn't descended from a fifth century ms. And since we are working
with actual mss (external evidence), I think it is important that our
internal evidence theories be consistant with the mss. when determining the
best reading of a text with variants.
I hope I have addressed your inquiries adequately. Let me know what you
think.
God bless,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 02:53:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Historical Jesus
TO: kenneth@sybase.com (Kenneth Litwak)
FROM: Timster132@aol.com
Hi. Just got back from Philly last night. Good to be home, but was
overwhelmed by the volume of email waiting for me here.
Ken, last week you replied...
>In the mean time, if I may do so without causing offense, because >I'm
really just trying to respond to the position, I have a question. >You say
that it tells us some about Jesus. You say there may be >historical
information. It sounds, though, since it is a midrash on >the OT, that
there's really no way to tell what is really a statement >about Jesus and
what is not. You end up picking and choosing for >no particular logic that I
can think of. Furthermore, since it is not >history, how can I have any
confidence that the representation of
>Jesus is even marginally valid? See, I mean hear from you when >you getback
I hope.
I did just kind of rattled off a list of things of things I considered to
have more historicity in the gospels without giving a wherefore or a why.
Sorry. Let me catch up with myself here.
On the extreme side, Bishop Spong states in his book <Resurrection> that
Mark knew nothing about the actual events in the life of the historical
Jesus, but he took the things he knew about Jesus (that he was a healer,
excorsist, itinerant preacher, that he was crucified, etc) and using midrash,
created a story answering the question why Jesus the Messiah died on a cross
in disgrace.
I don't hold to such a pessimistic view of Mark's knowledge about events
in Jesus' life. It's hard for me to imagine that Mark didn't know anything
at all. To what he did know, he added so much interpretive material that its
hard to tell where the historical ends and the interpretative begins.
While I think it is near to impossible to sort out historical events from
midrash in the gospels, there are some criteria that may be used to determine
what elements have a better chance of being historical and those elements
that are interpretative.
First, one can attempt to discern those elements that are clearly OT
allusions which are midrashim. For example, Mark's presentation of John the
Baptist is heavy with midrash elements to show that John is the second coming
of Elijah. Saying that John lived in the wilderness, ate locusts and honey
cakes, and wore camel hair is Mark's way of saying that John was Elijah,
since Malachi speaks of Elijah coming first to turn the hearts of children to
their fathers. And so Mark has John baptizing Jesus to show that Jesus is
God's Son. Now how much history is there and how much interpretation? Is
most of it historical? Is it all midrash? I think it is just impossible to
say. But if you are looking for historical elements, you need to recognize
the OT midrash, and look past it.
OT midrashim can take the form of character description (as in John
Baptist), place names (as in "Galilee", the sea, the land), or things (such
as "boats", "a colt", "fig tree"). Even some events appear to be midrash
rather than historical, like the testing in the desert for 40 days, the
transfiguration and maybe the triumphal entry (based on 2 Maccabees).
Look for OT echos that act like metaphors, and you will find the midrashim.
Secondly, I look for redactive material. I think some of the events in the
life of the Markan Jesus which are not midrash may be understood to have
originated out of redactive purposes. In other words, Mark was trying to
answer questions that his church was asking about their own situation.
Questions about forgivness and authority underlie the Paralytic story.
Mark's community also had questions on fasting, and Sabbath keeping (Mk 2),
other exorcists (Mk 9:38-41), divorce, children, and riches (Mk 10). While
Jesus may have addressed these issues, I think it is probable that Mark
shaped these materials to address specific needs in his church. Therefore,
they are less likely to have high historicity.
That's usually where I stop, because I don't think you can go much farther
with any appreciable certainty.
Others go on to compare the synoptics and John, and non-canonical writings.
It is said that the wider the attestation, the more historical an event may
be. All the sources say that Jesus died. Most say that he had an
altercation at the Temple. Some of the logia of Jesus are present in the
canonical gospels and Thomas.
But I don't know if wide attestation shows historicity or just popularity.
The Jesus Seminar buys it though.
Well, before email letter this becomes a tome, I will stop here. What do
you think? Does my list fit my own requirements? Hope this helps. Thanks
for bringing this up.
God bless,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 02:53:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and...
From: Timster132@aol.com (Tim Staker)
To: CAREY@library.vanderbilt.edu (Greg Carey)
cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
Greg, I enjoyed your observation on the value of shamelessness. A valuable
insight. you said on 3/10:
>In that sense, Cynics were shameless--they would not allow >convention to
restrict their behavior. And to some degree the Jesus >traditions portray
Jesus in this way.
>Here's the trick--there's a lot of social power in being shameless.
I recently preached on the lectionary's gospel text which included the
"turning of the other cheek", and presented the idea that the cheek was
turned to an abuser to "shame them" into stopping their abuse.
E.g. A rabbi tells the story about a woman who was struck by her husband.
She "turns her other cheek" with a look of disgust that shames him so he does
not hit her a second time.
This wouldn't work all the time, though-- there are some people without a
conscious who would go ahead and hit you again! I didn't use the rabbi's
story tho, I refered to a church bus driver I heard of who used the same
approach to shaming a man (whose car had gotten into an accident with the
bus) who was going to strike him again in front of the kids on his bus. The
man "turn his cheek" daring him to hit the driver again. Ashamed, the man
got back in his car and left.
The idea is to "love your enemy" by bringing them to moral consciousness
rather than continue the cycle of violence. The catalyst is shaming.
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 02:53:31 -0500
Subject: Re: lexical evidence of James...
From: BBezdek
To: Timster132
CC: B-GREEK@virginia.edu
Hi Bruce.
I said previously....
The greek text in this passages reveals the Biblical pre-scientific world
view, that sin and evil forces are responsible for illness.
on 3/13/95 you asked...
>Which statement is "pre-scientific"? How does the Greek text reveal >that
sin and evil forces are responsible for illness?
James 5:16 shows the connection James has in mind between sin and sickness:
"confess your sins... so that you may be healed". And the Greek verb SWDZW
(used in v 15) is inclusive of all kinds of "salvation", including physical
wholeness/healing.
For James, "resisting the devil" is an important part of reconciling with
God and being cleansed and purified by sin (James 4:8) which James connects
with healing in 5:16.
God bless,
Tim Staker ---Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 02:53:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Text Types; Erasmus
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
TO: hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca
FROM: Timster132@aol.com
> I recommend the following very important works as vital starting >points
and major contributions.
>B. M. Metzger, _The Text of the New Testament_ (3rd ed.; Oxford >Univ.
Press, 1992).
>E. J. Epp, G. D. Fee, _Studies in the Theory and Method of New >Testament
Textual Criticism_ (SD 45; Eerdmans, 1993).
I would also highly recommend:
Barabara and Kurt Aland, (English transl. by E.F. Rhodes) _The Text of the
New Testament_(Eerdmans, 1987).
B.M. Metzger, _A Textual Commentary on the New Testament_ (United Bible
Societies, 1975)
The latter book is an indispensible aid to anyone using the UBS3 in their
textual studies. It explains the reasons the editorial committee chose certai
n variants and how they rated them. It also notes when the committee was
divided on variant readings.
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: DDDJ@aol.com
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 09:30:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Text Types; Erasmus
I see a number of places where I feel that the Byzantine is superior. I even
like the western in Acts. Since this is so I am forced to an eclectic view of
test types. I might be convinced in general superiority, but total no. Is
alands Book Text of the New Testament?
Dennis
------------------------------
From: David Moore <Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 06:55:15 -0800
Subject: Jesus and Pharisees
eoakley@iadfw.net (Everett R. Oakley) wrote:
> In John 1:26 John the Baptist is quoted as saying "but
>among you stands one you do not know." Does the Greek
>here imply that Jesus was one of the Pharisees gathered
>around John or that He may have just been standing in the
>vacinity during this dialogue?
An interesting observation, and an interesting question! I've
noticed this, too. If one takes the passage at face value, it seems to
indicate that John expected the Messiah from among those with whom he
was talking. But did he have in mind the Pharisees or the people of
Israel in general?
IMO, this passage does not give us a clear enough testimony to
decide whether or not Jesus was at one time a member of the Pharisees.
But the manner in which He transcended the religious position of the
Pharisees and other contemporary groups and amply criticized their
practices once He had entered into ministry makes it seem unlikely that
He had ever called Himself one of them.
David Moore
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: cba@onramp.net
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 16:16:03 cst
Subject: TAXA plus indicative or subjunctive?
Thanks to Bruce Terry for an illuminating note. I am finding out
more about this little passage than I ever thought possible!
One subsequent query: it would seem that the passage in question is
hypothetical ("if a good person were perhaps to die") rather than
potential (which I'm not even sure how to phrase in English). Am I
correct?
Furthermore: how does one ascertain WHETHER one is dealing with a
hypothetical or a potential, if the morphology itself does not make
that clear?
Greetings!
L. GREGORY BLOOMQUIST
Faculty of Theology | Faculte de Theologie
Saint Paul University | Universite Saint-Paul
(University of Ottawa | Universite d'Ottawa)
223 Main, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 1C4 CANADA
Email: GBLOOMQUIST@SPU.STPAUL.UOTTAWA.CA
Voice: 613-236-1393 (messages) / 613-782-3027 (direct)
Fax: 613-236-4108
------------------------------
From: cba@onramp.net
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 15:03:01 cst
Subject: Re: Duplicates of duplicates!
I've tried sending a note to cba.onramp.net and my mail was returned. No
such host.
Chuck Arnold
Upper Marlboro, Md
On Mon, 20 Mar 1995, James D. Ernest wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 1995 W.Burton@agora.stm.it wrote:
>
> > Now I'm getting duplicates of Carl Conrad's complaint about duplicates!
> >
> > And this on top of triplicates and QUINTiplicates of Bloomquiest's et al.!
>
> Has anyone sent a note to postmaster@cba.onramp.net? That might fix
> the problem. --I'm assuming that this is some kind of automatic
> malfunction and that nobody is sitting around deliberately bouncing
> these postings back out.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
> Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
> Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
>
>
------------------------------
From: cba@onramp.net
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 14:51:09 cst
Subject: Re: Duplicates of duplicates!
On Mon, 20 Mar 1995 W.Burton@agora.stm.it wrote:
> Now I'm getting duplicates of Carl Conrad's complaint about duplicates!
>
> And this on top of triplicates and QUINTiplicates of Bloomquiest's et al.!
Has anyone sent a note to postmaster@cba.onramp.net? That might fix
the problem. --I'm assuming that this is some kind of automatic
malfunction and that nobody is sitting around deliberately bouncing
these postings back out.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: cba@onramp.net
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 10:55:19 cst
Subject: Re: Paul and the "Egyptian" (Acts 21:38)
Greg Doudna wrote (and it was echoed several times by cba@cba.onramp.net):
>In Acts 21:37-39 Paul surprises a Roman chiliarch by speaking
>to him in Greek. The chiliarch, surprised, says, "Then are
>you not the Egyptian . . .?" (ouk ara su ei ho Aiguptios...)
>Paul confirms he is not the Egyptian.
>
>The chiliarch is clearly surprised at hearing Greek. In English
>a question beginning "Then are you not...[x]" means one IS
>suspected of being [x]. Am I correct to assume that this is
>not the case in expressions in Greek of this type?
Greg--
A question in Greek beginning with ou assumes the answer is yes. It appears
the chiliarch asked, "Then are not you the Egyptian . . .?" (Note the English
word order difference). The chiliarch concluded from the fact that Paul spoke
Greek that he was the Egyptian, why I do not know. Paul then denied that he
was the Egyptian.
This understanding is not what one gets from reading either the RSV or the NIV
but I think it is what the Greek says. I would be interesting in hearing from
others on this. Carl, you wanted more Greek questions. Have our standard
translations misled the reader as I suppose?
- --Bruce
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: cba@onramp.net
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 17:38:59 cst
Subject: Duplicates of duplicates!
Now I'm getting duplicates of Carl Conrad's complaint about duplicates!
And this on top of triplicates and QUINTiplicates of Bloomquiest's et al.!
Bill Burton
Gregorian University
Rome
------------------------------
From: cba@onramp.net
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 11:15:41 cst
Subject: Re: Duplicates of duplicates!
I'll throw what's happening to me to help someone diagnose the
problem. This weekend, the *only* postings I got from B-Greek were from
that onramp address. After the first complaint about it, all other
postings were normal. There haven't been too many postings since
then, but they all look fine.
---------------------------------------------------------------
/ Travis Bauer / Have you ever imagined a world with /
/ Jamestown College / no hypothetical situations? /
- -------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: cba@onramp.net
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 19:01:00 cst
Subject: Grammar Question
In looking over Lk 11:48; I note that NA27 shows an interesting variant.
Where NA27 has _kai suneudokeite_ ;Codex Bezae, Marcionshow _mh
suneudokein_ and the
Old Latin witnesses the same idea in Latin.
I've checked Blass Debrunner and Smyth for an explanation of _mh_ with the
infinitive and
niether give a satisfactory explanation of the variant.
Is the variant simply saying the opposite of the text of NA27? If Smyth's
paragraph number
2720 applies, are "Verbs of commanding and exhorting" to be understood thus
Jesus is switching
from addressing the lawyers and is addressing his followers saying "don't
be in accord with them
(the lawyers)"?
Can anyone shed some light on this interesting variant?
Thanks,
Bill Burton
Gregorian University
Rome, Italy
------------------------------
From: cba@onramp.net
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 12:20:41 cst
Subject: Re: potential optative equivalents?
On Mon, 13 Mar 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote in response to Gregory Bloomquist:
>this is an interesting challenger!
>
>> A simple question then: is TAXA + indicative a well-known substitute
>> for the potential optative? If not, could it not simply be a
>> subjunctive, expressing the same thing as the potential optative?
>
>First off, let me shirk real responsibility and call in the assistance of
>Micheal Palmer, Bruce Terry, et al. Then I will venture an OPINION that I
>would assume it is subjunctive rather than indicative.
Sorry, Carl, my speciality is Greek discourse, not Greek morphology. However,
if I understand the Prague school's distinction of marked/unmarked correctly,
there is no good reason why a potential expression could not be in the
indicative. The imperative, subjunctive, and optative are marked for
commands, hypothetical and potential statements, respectively. The indicative
is unmarked, which means that it can be used to express any of these plus
other relationships. Well, I've probably stated more than what I know, so I
will retire to await correcting responses.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: JefferisP@aol.com
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 12:10:13 -0500
Subject: Faith of Christ.
Dear All,
RE:
pistis jesou christou
of Galatians 3:22 (cf. 2:16, 3:1-4:11)
Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ. An investigation of the Narrative
Structure of Galatians 3:1- 4:11, Scholars Press 1983.
Hays argues that this phrase is a subjective genitive, meaning that it
describes the faith(fulness) of Jesus Christ - not our faith in Jesus Christ-
which justifies us and makes us whole. His argument is essentially that
Jesus Christ is a Champion, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves,
which is believe and trust in his Father perfectly. His perfect faith and
trust in the Father was something we could not achieve in our strength or
natural ability. But as our representative, he did for us what we could not
do for ourselves.
Then, by acknowledging his righteousness and faithfulness, HIS faith is
imparted to us as a gift. He also refers to Hab. 2:4 as a messianic text from
the mindset of the day, the ho diakaios (the Righteous ONE) will live by his
faithfulness. Therefore by his Faith, Jesus becomes the messiah.
The advantage of this reading is that it makes Christ's work and faith the
center of our Faith, and reduces the human tendency to try and justify
ourselves through OUR faith, having enough faith, or more faith, etc. In
other words, faith becomes Christocentric and not a humanistic focus.
How likely is this reading? Comments.
Thanks,
Jeff
Jefferis Kent Peterson
Center For Biblical Literacy
P.O.Box 1736
Lawrenceville, GA 30246-1736
"Love the Lord with all your....mind."
AOL: JefferisP
Internet: JefferisP@aol.com
CompuServe: 73061,1777
------------------------------
From: BBezdek@aol.com
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 12:35:07 -0500
Subject: Re: lexical evidence of James...
Tim:
>You said previously....
>The greek text in this passages reveals the Biblical pre-scientific >world
view, that sin and evil forces are responsible for illness.
>on 3/13/95 you asked...
>>Which statement is "pre-scientific"? How does the Greek text
>>reveal that sin and evil forces are responsible for illness?
> James 5:16 shows the connection James has in mind between sin
>and sickness: "confess your sins... so that you may be healed".
>And the Greek verb SWDZW (used in v 15) is inclusive of all kinds
>of "salvation", including physical wholeness/healing.
> For James, "resisting the devil" is an important part of reconciling
> with God and being cleansed and purified by sin (James 4:8) which
> James connects with healing in 5:16.
I agree with all of these statements about this passsage.
This is what was behind my question. James makes a true statement about
prayer, healing, and illness. This is true whether he is specificly speaking
about physical sickness, or spiritual weakness. I think it can be applied to
both quite well.
The "pre-scientific" label can mean it is known to be medically or
scientificly inaccurate.
I am particularly sensitive about a Biblical statement being
"unscientific" or "pre-scientific" by the modern definition, because it
implies that it is unsound and inaccurate, which would mean that
it could not be God's word.
I do not believe that this was your intent, and I apologize for reading
this into your statement.
Byron T. Bezdek (Tab)
------------------------------
From: "Marmorstein, Art" <marmorsa@wolf.northern.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 95 12:11:00 CST
Subject: James 1:12-15
I'd like some help understanding the meaning of "perazomenoi" in James 1:13.
What does James mean when he says God is not tempted? tested? tried? with
evil and that he doesn't tempt? test? try? any man?
James, like most of the Biblical writers, seems to view our life on this
earth precisely as a test ("Blessed is the man that endureth tempatation, for
when he is tried he shall receive a crown of life"). Is he saying that,
although God rewards us for passing the test, he is not the one responsible
for setting up the test in the first place?
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 12:21:14 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Faith of Christ.
On Tue, 21 Mar 1995 JefferisP@aol.com wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> RE:
> pistis jesou christou
>
> of Galatians 3:22 (cf. 2:16, 3:1-4:11)
>
> Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ. An investigation of the Narrative
> Structure of Galatians 3:1- 4:11, Scholars Press 1983.
>
> Hays argues that this phrase is a subjective genitive, meaning that it
> describes the faith(fulness) of Jesus Christ - not our faith in Jesus Christ-
> which justifies us and makes us whole. His argument is essentially that
> Jesus Christ is a Champion, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves,
> which is believe and trust in his Father perfectly. His perfect faith and
> trust in the Father was something we could not achieve in our strength or
> natural ability. But as our representative, he did for us what we could not
> do for ourselves.
> . . . . (omissions)
> How likely is this reading? Comments.
No doubt you will herewith initiate another lively discussion; the fact
is, however, that we discussed this matter a month or two ago and
probably hashed out the major lines of judgment on the question. I think
that what was said could be (all-too-smoothly-and-sweetly) summarized by
saying that this reading has a lot to recommend it, but there are some
serious questions about it also, and some texts where it won't really
work very well. This is one of those times that one wishes there were an
archive for B-Greek. I will search my archives and see if this is one I
haven't deleted by mistake. I seem to recollect that we had an Australian
contributor who is doing a doctoral dissertation on just this 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: Tue, 21 Mar 95 10:29:34 PST
Subject: Re: Faith of Christ.
Jeffrey Peterson wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> RE:
> pistis jesou christou
>
> of Galatians 3:22 (cf. 2:16, 3:1-4:11)
>
> Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ. An investigation of the Narrative
> Structure of Galatians 3:1- 4:11, Scholars Press 1983.
>
> Hays argues that this phrase is a subjective genitive, meaning that it
> describes the faith(fulness) of Jesus Christ - not our faith in Jesus Christ-
> which justifies us and makes us whole. His argument is essentially that
> Jesus Christ is a Champion, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves,
> which is believe and trust in his Father perfectly. His perfect faith and
> trust in the Father was something we could not achieve in our strength or
> natural ability. But as our representative, he did for us what we could not
> do for ourselves.
Snipping
> Jeff
>
> Jefferis Kent Peterson
> Center For Biblical Literacy
> P.O.Box 1736
> Lawrenceville, GA 30246-1736
>
> "Love the Lord with all your....mind."
I would like once again to point to an excellent article in a
recent _Novum Testamentum_ that discusses the use this and similar
constructions in the early Church Fathers. In examining uses of
these constructions, in every case where pistis Iesous or something
similar is used, the Fathers uniformly, where it is clear how they
interpret it, take it as an objective genitive. Furthermore, the
emphasis in many places in the NT as well as the OT upon which the
NT is built (Marcion wasn't a very good exegete :-) ) makes clear,
at least to me, that understanding this as a subjective genitive is
neither necessary nor even desirable. I might just point to one
extended example of this: Hebrews 11.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 12:35:52 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Jesus and Pharisees
On Tue, 21 Mar 1995, David Moore wrote:
> eoakley@iadfw.net (Everett R. Oakley) wrote:
> > In John 1:26 John the Baptist is quoted as saying "but
> >among you stands one you do not know." Does the Greek
> >here imply that Jesus was one of the Pharisees gathered
> >around John or that He may have just been standing in the
> >vacinity during this dialogue?
> An interesting observation, and an interesting question! I've
> noticed this, too. If one takes the passage at face value, it seems to
> indicate that John expected the Messiah from among those with whom he
> was talking. But did he have in mind the Pharisees or the people of
> Israel in general?
> IMO, this passage does not give us a clear enough testimony to
> decide whether or not Jesus was at one time a member of the Pharisees.
> But the manner in which He transcended the religious position of the
> Pharisees and other contemporary groups and amply criticized their
> practices once He had entered into ministry makes it seem unlikely that
> He had ever called Himself one of them.
While I would agree that the implication that Jesus was "one of the
Pharisees gathered around John" (and, I might add, grilling him with
forensic cross-examination) is technically possible to read out of the
text of John 1:26, but it seems to me perverse to assume that this is
what John means, particularly since he refers to Jesus as "HON HUMEIS OUK
OIDATE." I would understand the scene as one in which a larger crowd, not
just the Pharisaic delegation, surrounds John. I think it would also be
reasonable to understand MESOS HUMWN not so literally but more broadly
(one tends to get into trouble when taking John's text overliterally,
don't you think?): "here, in Judea, in Palestine, among the pilgrims who
have come to John for baptism."
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 #624
*****************************
** 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