[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #626
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 22 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 626
In this issue:
Re: pistis jesou
Grammar Question
re: John 1:26
Re: textual corruptions
Re: Faith of Christ.
orthodox corruptions of scripture
re: John 1:26
Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and...
Re: pistis jesou
Request from T. Brunner at TLG
Jesus & Pharisees
Lk. 22.17ff
Re: pistis jesou
Re: Lk. 22.17ff
textual corruptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 01:50:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: pistis jesou
Carlton Winbery wrote defending the traditional reading of PISITS IHSOU
taking JHSOU as objective. I will not address each of his claims here
(since I plan to write an extended account of my own view of these texts
in a few days) but I would like to say that I disagree with ALL of his
proposed readings. I think that the main reason that the objective rather
than subjective rendering of IHSOU seems more natural to most of those
who defend this reading is because it fits with the theology which Luther
bestowed upon us. A subjective reading (Jesus' faith[fulness]--i.e. the
faith[fulness] that Jesus exhibited) fits quite well in all of the
contexts (including Romans 3) which Carlton discussed.
Having said this, let me add that I think it is quite clear that Paul did
teach that salvation comes through faith IN Jesus. For example, he says
in Galatians 2:16
KAI HMEIS EIS CRISTON IHSOUN EPISTEUSAMEN
and we have believed in Christ Jesus
in order that we might be justified EK PISTEWS XRISTOU [by Christ's
faithfullness] and not EX ERGWN NOMOU [by works of Law].
That is: we believed/trusted in Christ Jesus, and the result is that HIS
FAITHFULNESS, NOT OUR WORKS OF LAW will justify us.
Whether or not you accept my (and Hays') reading of EK PISTEWS CRISTOU,
it is clear that Paul sees our believing IN Christ as an essential part
of the equation.
OK, now that I have spelled out the fact that I accept the notion that
Paul taught that salvation comes by faith IN Christ, I would like to add
that I do not see this as incompatible with the notion that salvation
comes through Christ's faithfulness. Perhaps at some later date I can
debate this theological point. For now, however, I would like to turn to
syntax (where the real fun lies! :-).
Attacks on Hays' reading often come in one of two forms (or a combination
of them):
1) It is claimed that PISTIS can take an objective genitive.
2) It is claimed that early interpreters (the church fathers)
understood PISTIS CRISTOU as representing a case of an objective genitive
with PISTIS.
I would like to propose that both are incorrect. First, while it is clear
that the early fathers argued for a theology which based salvation on
faith IN Jesus Christ, and that they did so on the basis of Paul's
wording in the texts we are discussing, it does not follow that they
understood his syntax as allowing an objective genitive with PISTIS. Paul
DOES argue for a theology which calls for faith IN Christ, but he makes
this clear through statements like HMEIS EIS CRISTON IHSOUN EPISTEUSAMEN
(we have believed in Christ Jesus, Galatians 2:16) and DIKAIOSUNH...
QEOU... EIS PANTAS TOUS PISTEUONTAS (righteousness of God... to all
who believe, Romans 3:22), not through the accompanying noun phrases with
PISTIS and the genitive form CHRISTOU.
Now to the real syntactic issue: could PISTIS have an accompanying
objective genitive? To address this issue we must first recognize that
not all nouns which allow a subjective gentive allow an objective one.
Nouns which are accompanied by a subjective or objective genitive are
almost always deverbal nouns (that is, nouns which have a closely related
verb which shares significant morphological characteristics). This is the
case with PISTIS which is related to PISTEUW. In all such cases that I
have found, the noun shares the same argument structure as the related
verb. If the verb allows an accusative case direct object, the related
noun will allow a genitive case object (an objective genitive). If,
however, the verb does NOT allow an accusative case direct object,
neither will the related noun allow an objective genitive.
Take ODEUW, for example. This verb (usually translated "I travel") cannot
have a direct object. It can have a subject, and an adjunct in the dative
case as in ODEUOMEN RWMHI (we travel to Rome [not attested in the New
Testament]). Consequently, while the related noun (ODOS, in the sense of
'journey') could have a subjective genitive, it never occurs with an
objective genitive.
DIKAIOW, on the other hand, occurs with both a subject and an object (in
the accusative case) as in Romans 3:30: O QEOS, OS DIKAIWSEI PERITOMHN...
KAI AKROBUSTIAN... (God, who justifies the circumcised... and the
uncircumcised). Consequently, there is a legitimate debate over whether a
genitive case noun accompanying DIKAIWSUNH is subjective or objective
since DIKAIWSUNH can take a subjective genitive or an objective genitive
or both.
PISTEUW does not allow an accusative case direct object. The recipient or
goal of an act of faith/trust must be expressed in some other way when
that faith/trust is expressed using PISTEUW. In Galatians 2:16 it is
expressed with a prepositional phrase: HMEIS [EIS CRISTON IHSOUN]
EPISTEUSAMEN. Logically, we should expect that the related noun PISTIS
would not allow an objective genitive, but would need some other means
such as a prepositional phrase to express its recipient or goal. This is
in fact what we find in Colossians 2:5: THS EIS CRISTON PISTEWS UMWN
(your faith in Christ). This is a particularly instructive instance since it
includes a SUBJECTIVE genitive (UMWN) but where an objective genitive
might occur with a different governing noun, PISTIS must rely on a
prepositional phrase (EIS CRISTON).
ALL of the supposed cases of PISTIS with an objective genitive allow a
different reading in which the accompanying genitive case noun is not
taken as objective.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: W.Burton@agora.stm.it
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 7:52:4 GMT
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: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 02:10:08 -0500
Subject: re: John 1:26
TO: eoakley@iadfw.net (Everett R. Oakley)
CC: b-greek@virginia.edu (Biblical Greek)
FROM: timster132@aol.com (Tim Staker)
On 3/20/95, Everett, you asked (under the header "No Subject"):
> 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?
About this verse, I noticed that Bruce Metzger says, "The perfect tense, so
frequently employed by the 4th evangelist, conveys a special force here
(something like, 'there is One who has taken his stand in your midst' )..."
[Metzger, Bruce , _A Textual Commentary on the GNT_, p 199.]
peace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 02:10:20 -0500
Subject: Re: textual corruptions
TO: PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu
Back on 3/17/95, Paul, you suggested....
>I suspect that the only way to substantiate
>conservatism in the earliest textual transmission is to
>argue that the earliest scribes were themselves theologically
>conservative relative to the apostolic tradition as they
>understood it. It is, in any case, regrettable that we
>have only sparse evidence regarding the earliest scribal
>transmission of the NT MSS.--Paul Moser, Loyola University
>of Chicago
It is a widespread profession by almost all of the text critics that most
of the variants were scribal errors, few intentional and barely any were
theological (e.g. Fee, Ehrman, and even recently Metzger in Christianity
Today). I have heard a few calming the crowds of non-Greek readers, telling
them that no theological variants exist.
To be very brunt, I don't think this is intellectually honest. A number of
varaints have theological impact, reguardless of the scribes' motivations.
Scribes would anticipate reading/hearing certain words that they copied,
and may have been inadvertant about copying an error based on their
theological understanding. E.g. Mat 1:18, where scribes wrote _gennhsis_
("engendering"- found in the early Church Father's theology about the
Nativity) for _genesis_ ("birth"). Both sound the same and are very similar
to the eye.
There are many variants that carry theological import. Mt 1.16 concerns the
true "father" of Jesus, and the variants reflect the theological desire to
make this clear.
In Mk 1:1, the ascription of _Yiou Theou_ is loaded with theological
import.
And the oft cited Jn 1:18 _monogenhs theos/uios_ has often been identified
with the Arian controversy, while a scribe could have easily have just been a
copying error of the nomina sacra (ie, THC for YC).
My point is that while we do not know the minds of the scribes nor their
motives, we can easily see that there are textual varaiants that are of a
theological nature. It is an honest observation, although I am sure it is
not a popular one even today.
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 04:38:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Faith of Christ.
Jeff,
I think it would help to sort out what you and Mr. hay's theological
interpretations are from that which Paul might have meant. Paul was unaware
of the later Reformation debates that are the context of your comments.
"pistews" here in Gal 3:22 may either mean "faith" or "faithfulness".
One obvious example of this ambiguity is in Hebrews 11, where pistis has
both meaning of "faith" and "faithfulness", and may be better translated
throughout that chapoter as "faithfulness".
To be honest, I am more comfortable with your theological position, ie,
that of salvation thru faith in Christ, rather than salvation thru the
"work/deed" (ergon) of Christ's faithfulness. And that would seem more
Pauline as well. But the ambiguity in this verse is present regardless.
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: "Bart D. Ehrman" <BARTUNC@uncmvs.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 06:25 EST
Subject: orthodox corruptions of scripture
I have stayed out of this discussion of theological
corruptions in the NT mss, largely because I've recently published
the fullest (some might say most "fulsome," in its negative
sense) analysis of the phenomenon in which I adduce extensive
evidence of its occurrence throughout the MS tradition and provide
detailed and sustained argumentation for a large number of instances of
it (at least with regard to christological variation). I have to say,
though, that to hear my position described as conservative (by Tim
Staker, who questions my intellectual honesty), is really too much. It
would appear to me that Mr. Staker simply hasn't taken the pains to read
the book (and I assure, you, it's a pain...)
Most other people (including Fee, who I *would* say is conservative
on this issue) who have objected to the study think in fact that I have
erred in going too *far* in assigning theological motives to the
corruptors of the text. I have other things to say to objections
of this sort, of course. Principally, I don't think such people have
seen how carefully I have couched the claims of my study (i.e, they have
overlooked its nuances). But anyone who thinks that I haven't
recognized the full extent of this kind of variation totally baffles me.
The examples Staker cites in his note are ones that I devote sustained
attention to in the book; there are scores of others. If he, or anyone
else, can find instances that I have *not* discussed in the book,
I would be very glad to hear it (there are some that might be
thought of as christologically motivated, such as the famous Mark 6:3,
that I didn't include because I think the corruption went the other
way -- in this instance, it was motivated by apologetic concerns
over Jesus' blue-collar beginnings; see Origen's contra Celsum, e.g. on
Jesus the carpenter...).
- -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 05:36:52 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: re: John 1:26
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> On 3/20/95, Everett, you asked (under the header "No Subject"):
> > 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?
>
> About this verse, I noticed that Bruce Metzger says, "The perfect tense, so
> frequently employed by the 4th evangelist, conveys a special force here
> (something like, 'there is One who has taken his stand in your midst' )..."
> [Metzger, Bruce , _A Textual Commentary on the GNT_, p 199.]
There is no doubt that the perfect tense is often used with great power
in the gospel of John: one thinks readily of Pilate's HO GEGRAFA GEGRAFA.
On the other hand, this assertion about HESTHKEN in John 1:26 does fly in
the face of the fact that the perfect tense is the ONLY tense in which
this verb (HISTHMI/HISTAMAI) CAN express the STATE of standing.
HISTAMAI: I am rising (from a seated or lying position)
HISTAMHN: I was rising
ESTHN: I rose (to a standing position)
HESTHKA: I am standing
Of course, no one would think of arguing for a special perfective sense
(would anyone?) of OIDATE in the same verse: originally the perfect tense
of HORAW (or more properly, of the archaic verb EIDOMAI which only
appears in Homer), but has for centuries been used with present-tense
force. So I can't see any legitimate linguistic basis for Metzger's
assertion in this instance.
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: Greg Carey <CAREY@library.vanderbilt.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 08:22:26 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and...
Thanks, Tim, for your note. I'm going to be pretty inactive for a
few days--my wife just gave birth to our first child, Erin Summers
Carey, on March 18.
See ya'll soon.
*******************************
Greg Carey
Graduate Department of Religion
Vanderbilt University
carey@library.vanderbilt.edu
------------------------------
From: JefferisP@aol.com
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 10:27:55 -0500
Subject: Re: pistis jesou
Dear Carlton,
I think Michael Palmer's discussion of pistis not taking an objective
genitive seems to more to the point than the fact that Christou can take the
objective genitive.
And I think his allowance for both the faith of Christ and faith in Christ as
a dynamic relationship of infusion fits with the concept of infused
righteousness. Jesus was righteous but we are not, we receive his
righteousness as a gift when we believe in/trust that he is our
righteousness. Christ then becomes our champion in every respect, and the
glory goes to him alone, for even (our) faith then becomes an extension of
God's unmerited favor and grace to us.
Jeff
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 09:58:22 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Request from T. Brunner at TLG
Professor Brunner has asked me to post the following request for information :
The following persons hold TLG licenses, but have moved without any
forwarding address. We list the name and the last known address. If anyone
has a more recent address, the project would much appreciate the
intelligence.
1. Pantelis Basakos
Panteion University
15 Kefallinias St
11361 Athens GREECE
Letters to the University proper are returned
as undeliverable at this address (!)
2. Ross GR Caldwell
#3-198A Main Street So.
Newmarket Ontario L3Y 3Z2 Canada
Also received no reply from letter sent to
Classics & Religious Studies, York University,
Toronto-Downsville, Ontario
3. Ulrike Hirsch
Thieshof 14
Hannover 51
D-3000 Germany
No known institutional affiliation
4. Alfredo Morselli
Pontifico Collegio Russicum
via C. Cattaneo 21A
Rome I-00185 Italy
Letter to the Pont. Coll. Russ.
secretariat received no reply
5. Sheryl L. Ross
1221 Westwood St.
Redwood City Ca 94061
No known institutional affiliation
6. Monika Schnoerrer
Fritz Schwerdtfeger-Weg 6
D-3000 Hannover 51 Germany
No known institutional affiliation
If you have any information about any of these individuals, please pass it
on to tbrunner@uci.edu.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Theodore F. Brunner, Director Phone: (714) 824-7031
Thesaurus Linguae Graecae FAX: (714) 824-8434
University of California Irvine
Irvine, CA 92717-5550 USA E-Mail: TBRUNNER@UCI.EDU
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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: David Moore <Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 08:09:13 -0800
Subject: Jesus & Pharisees
Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> quoted and wrote
>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."
This seems to be one of those cases in which the most normal way
of understanding the Greek of the immediate passage may not convey the
meaning of the writer. The usual antecedent for a pronoun is the
nearest preceding applicable noun or noun phrase or -clause. The
closest antecedent in this case is the group referred to in vv. 19 and
24, which v. 24 identifies as Pharisees. I notice that P. Schmiedel has
conjectured that v. 24 is an interpolation. That would be neat,
wouldn't it, and it would solve the problem here completely. But it
would be unwise to accept this verse as an interpolation without *any*
MS evidence to support such a conjecture.
IMO, we reject an understanding of Jesus as a previous member of
the Pharisees not on the basis of the language of this
pericope--although as Carl indicated HON HUMEIS OUK OIDATE could be
taken as indicating Jesus was a stranger to them rather than simply that
they had not recognized who He was--but on the basis of the larger
context of the New Testament. So it seems correct to take MESOS U(MWN
"not so literally but more broadly;" as referring to all who heard
John's message.
I hope I won't be seen as perverse for recognizing this anomaly.
I didn't take Everett Oakley's original question in that sense, and I
thought it was clear in my first post on this subject that any settled
assumption that John was referring to Jesus as among the Pharisees would
be unwarranted.
Regards,
David Moore
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 10:10:13
Subject: Lk. 22.17ff
Hello, all.
I'm doing some work on the textual problem at Lk 22.17ff, and I'd like to throw
the topic into the ring for discussion.
I agree with the UBS committee that only two readings are worth serious
consideration. In the longer reading, Jesus initiates the Lord's Supper with
an unfamiliar order, cup-bread-cup. In the shorter reading, he initiates the
Lord's Supper in another unfamiliar order, cup-bread.
The shorter text is represented by D (5th century, North Africa, known to
represent Old Latin influences), and various Old Latin readings from the 4th
through the 7th centuries.
The longer text is represented by p75 (300, strict text, category 1), Aleph
(4th century), and B (4th century), which together constitute the Alexandrian
text (rated very highly by the Alands et. al.) It is also represented by
Alexandrinus (A), Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), etc. It is overwhelmingly favored
in the other uncials, miniscules, etc.
The external evidence clearly favors the longer text. But internal evidence is
problematic. For the modern reader, who knows the other gospel accounts (but
not the ritual cups of the meal), the longer text is more difficult. For the
ancient reader, who may or may *not* have known that the proper dinner included
several ritual cups and probably knew the order of bread-cup in the other
gospels, the shorter reading may have been more problematic.
1.) Have I presented the case fairly?
2.) How does the similarity with Pauline materials affect the question?
3.) Are there other text-critical issues in Luke that hinge on familiarity/
nonfamiliarity with Jewish rituals? In fact, are there other text-critical
issues anywhere in the NT with similar manuscript distribution that hinge on
familiarity/nonfamiliarity with Jewish rituals?
I figured if anybody out there could answer my questions, they'd be on this
list. Thanks in advance.
PLStepp
perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
perry_stepp@baylor.edu
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 08:50:27 PST
Subject: Re: pistis jesou
Michael Palmer wrote:
Snipping
> Having said this, let me add that I think it is quite clear that Paul did
> teach that salvation comes through faith IN Jesus. For example, he says
> in Galatians 2:16
>
> KAI HMEIS EIS CRISTON IHSOUN EPISTEUSAMEN
> and we have believed in Christ Jesus
>
> in order that we might be justified EK PISTEWS XRISTOU [by Christ's
> faithfullness] and not EX ERGWN NOMOU [by works of Law].
So, by the same logic, and to maintain symmetry in the passage, we
should argue that nomou is a subjective genitive. We are not saved by
the works the Law performs. The comment about Luther is incorrect,
as the early Fathers to a man (woman?) when discussing this
particular phrase took it as objective. So you are saying that their
knowledge of Greek and what one can and should do with a genitive noun
is less than ours? Furthermore, what makes the subjective genitive
any LESS theologically or ideologically motivated than the objective?
Either is possible grammatically. Period.
> That is: we believed/trusted in Christ Jesus, and the result is that HIS
> FAITHFULNESS, NOT OUR WORKS OF LAW will justify us.
>
> Whether or not you accept my (and Hays') reading of EK PISTEWS CRISTOU,
> it is clear that Paul sees our believing IN Christ as an essential part
> of the equation.
NO, your reading says that's not the case. We don't need faith because
Jesus' faithfulness does it all.
> OK, now that I have spelled out the fact that I accept the notion that
> Paul taught that salvation comes by faith IN Christ, I would like to add
> that I do not see this as incompatible with the notion that salvation
> comes through Christ's faithfulness. Perhaps at some later date I can
> debate this theological point. For now, however, I would like to turn to
> syntax (where the real fun lies! :-).
>
> Attacks on Hays' reading often come in one of two forms (or a combination
> of them):
>
> 1) It is claimed that PISTIS can take an objective genitive.
>
> 2) It is claimed that early interpreters (the church fathers)
> understood PISTIS CRISTOU as representing a case of an objective genitive
> with PISTIS.
>
> I would like to propose that both are incorrect. First, while it is clear
> that the early fathers argued for a theology which based salvation on
> faith IN Jesus Christ, and that they did so on the basis of Paul's
> wording in the texts we are discussing, it does not follow that they
> understood his syntax as allowing an objective genitive with PISTIS. Paul
> DOES argue for a theology which calls for faith IN Christ, but he makes
> this clear through statements like HMEIS EIS CRISTON IHSOUN EPISTEUSAMEN
> (we have believed in Christ Jesus, Galatians 2:16) and DIKAIOSUNH...
> QEOU... EIS PANTAS TOUS PISTEUONTAS (righteousness of God... to all
> who believe, Romans 3:22), not through the accompanying noun phrases with
> PISTIS and the genitive form CHRISTOU.
Huh? The early Fathers undestood the disputed passages as objective
genitives and built their theology upon that. You seem to be saying
that their theology forced a grammatically incorrect structure on these
passages. If they never suggested a subjective genitive sense,
how can it not follow that they thought an objective genitive with
pistis was grammatically proper? That sounds completely circular and
ad hominem to me.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
> Now to the real syntactic issue: could PISTIS have an accompanying
> objective genitive? To address this issue we must first recognize that
> not all nouns which allow a subjective gentive allow an objective one.
> Nouns which are accompanied by a subjective or objective genitive are
> almost always deverbal nouns (that is, nouns which have a closely related
> verb which shares significant morphological characteristics). This is the
> case with PISTIS which is related to PISTEUW. In all such cases that I
> have found, the noun shares the same argument structure as the related
> verb. If the verb allows an accusative case direct object, the related
> noun will allow a genitive case object (an objective genitive). If,
> however, the verb does NOT allow an accusative case direct object,
> neither will the related noun allow an objective genitive.
>
> Take ODEUW, for example. This verb (usually translated "I travel") cannot
> have a direct object. It can have a subject, and an adjunct in the dative
> case as in ODEUOMEN RWMHI (we travel to Rome [not attested in the New
> Testament]). Consequently, while the related noun (ODOS, in the sense of
> 'journey') could have a subjective genitive, it never occurs with an
> objective genitive.
>
> DIKAIOW, on the other hand, occurs with both a subject and an object (in
> the accusative case) as in Romans 3:30: O QEOS, OS DIKAIWSEI PERITOMHN...
> KAI AKROBUSTIAN... (God, who justifies the circumcised... and the
> uncircumcised). Consequently, there is a legitimate debate over whether a
> genitive case noun accompanying DIKAIWSUNH is subjective or objective
> since DIKAIWSUNH can take a subjective genitive or an objective genitive
> or both.
>
> PISTEUW does not allow an accusative case direct object. The recipient or
> goal of an act of faith/trust must be expressed in some other way when
> that faith/trust is expressed using PISTEUW. In Galatians 2:16 it is
> expressed with a prepositional phrase: HMEIS [EIS CRISTON IHSOUN]
> EPISTEUSAMEN. Logically, we should expect that the related noun PISTIS
> would not allow an objective genitive, but would need some other means
> such as a prepositional phrase to express its recipient or goal. This is
> in fact what we find in Colossians 2:5: THS EIS CRISTON PISTEWS UMWN
> (your faith in Christ). This is a particularly instructive instance since it
> includes a SUBJECTIVE genitive (UMWN) but where an objective genitive
> might occur with a different governing noun, PISTIS must rely on a
> prepositional phrase (EIS CRISTON).
>
> ALL of the supposed cases of PISTIS with an objective genitive allow a
> different reading in which the accompanying genitive case noun is not
> taken as objective.
>
> Micheal W. Palmer
> Mellon Research Fellow
> Department of Linguistics
> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 11:21:06 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Lk. 22.17ff
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995 perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:
> I'm doing some work on the textual problem at Lk 22.17ff, and I'd like to throw
> the topic into the ring for discussion.
> . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 3.) Are there other text-critical issues in Luke that hinge on familiarity/
> nonfamiliarity with Jewish rituals? In fact, are there other text-critical
> issues anywhere in the NT with similar manuscript distribution that hinge on
> familiarity/nonfamiliarity with Jewish rituals?
>
Further data of possible relevance. Acts 15:29 gives another
instance of textual variation that may well be related to Jewish ritual
laws, where "and things strangled" (kai pnikton) is absent in D and
additional witnesses, several of which at least are "Western". The
absence of "things strangled" probably yields a list of three "moral"
issues: idolatry, murder (taking "haimatos"/blood as metonymy), and
"porneia"/fornication. The presence of "things strangled" suggests
strongly ritual/cultic concerns over idolatry/idol food, eating of blood,
eating of things strangled/improperly slaughtered, and "porneia" (sexual
improprieties forbidden under Torah, perhaps including marriage within
forbidden degrees of family relation).
It is interesting that as with the "shorter" reading of Luk 22,
so here also the "shorter" reading is supported by D and some allied
Western witnesses.
Further observtion of possible relevance. E. J. Epp has shown
what looks like an "anti-Judaic" bias in several variants in the D text
of Acts. Is there some kind of non/anti-Judaic tendency to all these
readings?
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Tim McLay <nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 13:31:57 -0400
Subject: textual corruptions
It seems obvious to me that textual corruptons did occur because of
theological motivations.
This is slightly off the track of this list, but I know of a good example
of a theological addition in the Old Greek of Daniel. In 3:17 of 88-Syh,
whose reading is accepted by Ziegler in his critical edition, there is an
emphasis on monotheism with the reading )/ESTI GA\R QEO\J E)N OU)RANOI=J
EI(=J KU/RIOJ H(MW=N "for there is a God in heaven, our ONE Lord."
Ziegler did not have the reading of papyrus 967 which is )/ESTIN GAR O(
QEO\J O( E)N OU)RANOI=J KU/RIOJ H(MW=N. These are our three major
witnesses to the OG and only 967 is pre-hexaplaric, so it is our best
witness to the OG. Note also that whatever the OG reading is, it is an
addition to MT in order to clarify the ambiguity of the Aramaic which
leaves the existence of God open to question. So the OG translator made
an addition to the text which was THEOLOGICALLY motivated, but did he use
"ONE Lord?" 88-Syh would agree with the ONE Lord in 4:34c, but there is
no reasonable explanation why EI(J would have been omitted in 967. In my
judgment, EI(J should be omitted because it was a theologically motivated
addition.
Tim McLay
--
Tim McLay
Halifax, NS
nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #626
*****************************
** 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