[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #627
b-greek-digest Thursday, 23 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 627
In this issue:
Re: textual corruptions
Re: Lk. 22.17ff
2 thess discussion
Re: Publications...
PISTIS IHSOU XRISTOU
re: Luke 22:17ff
Adivice sought on refreshing inter. - adv. grammar
Re: Text Types; Erasmus
Re: Lk. 22.17ff
Re: orthodox corruptions of s...
Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 10:19:06 PST
Subject: Re: textual corruptions
Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> I have heard a few calming the crowds of non-Greek readers, telling
> them that no theological variants exist.
In ftp://etext.archive.umich.edu/pub/Religious.Texts/Ruckman/bbbbs.zip
there is, amidst a bunch of junk, an interesting tract by David Cloud
called "Myths about the King James Bible", an anti-UBS pro-KJV broadside.
The two interesting parts were (1) an extensive listing and discussion of NT
variant readings which (whether or not they were caused by theological
concerns) DID have theological impact, and (2) a fairly clear confession
as to why people like him _need_ a verbally inspired, inerrant Bible,
on which their salvific faith can rest without caveats about human frailty
in the writers, copyists, or translators.
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 10:34:09 PST
Subject: Re: Lk. 22.17ff
perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:
> Are there other text-critical issues in Luke that hinge on familiarity/
> nonfamiliarity with Jewish rituals?
In the story of the healing of the beggar in Acts 3, there is an
interesting variant which involves familiarity with the structure/location
of the Jerusalem temple. It's discussed in Metzger's commentary,
but for more details I'd have to check my books at home.
Also, the variation in names for the home of the Gadarene swine
seems to involve greater or lesser knowledge of Palestinian geography.
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 12:57:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 2 thess discussion
I wrote an article entitled, "The Evil Restraint in 2 Thess 2:6"
that was published in JETS (Dec 1990). Am looking for feedback since I
have received little, even though it was read at a regional meeting of
the ETS.
I will summarize as briefly as possible.
1. The usual assumption made is that the moral nature of the
restrainer -whoever he is - is good. This assumption is based apparently
on the premise that what is being restrained is evil. The word
translated "him" in bold-faced print (NAS) is an ellipsis, and should at
least be in italics, according to NAS translation guidelines. Putting
the word in the text may encourage misinterpretation, especially if the
interpreter refers it forward to the "he" of 6b.
2. Even if "he" is allowed, it should be interpreted in parallel
with verse 4 where what is being opposed is not the Man of Lawlessness
(who is the one opposing), but that which the Man of Lawlessness is
opposing - all that is called God. The perspective begun in verse 4,
where the Man of Lawlessness is opposing all that is called God, is not
changed but continued in verse 6 and indicated by the continuative
connective kai.
3. The typical interpretation of the relationship between 6a and
6b, i.e., that the man of lawlessness is being restrained from being
revealed before his time by the restrainer until his time comes, suffers
because it refers the eis to clause back to the more remote to katechon
rather than the nearer oidate (you know). If it refers back to the
immediately preceding oidate, then the sense becomes something like this:
'and now what restrains you know, so that he may be revealed in his
time.' The idea being a fortiori. You present knowledge of the lesser
evil, what now restrains - namely the mystery of lawlessness already at
work (v 7) - is the guarantee and assurance that when the epitome of
lawlessness is revealed - the Man of lawlessness - then you will know and
recognize him.
Paul Dixon - pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 14:56:11 CST
Subject: Re: Publications...
On Mon, 20 Mar 95, Mary Ann Davidson wrote:
>There have been many discussions on which Greek grammar(s) and lexicons to
>use, but few on which journals and publications are of value to those of us
>who want to learn more about NT Greek, textual criticism, and so forth.
>Specifically, I am looking for something readable for the average linguistic
>hack (i.e. something not overly laden with academic-speak).
Try JOTT, the _Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics_, published by Summer
Institute of Linguistics, 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Road, Dallas, TX 75236.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: David Moore <Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 13:49:56 -0800
Subject: PISTIS IHSOU XRISTOU
Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com> quoted and 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.
I was surprised to find that, in his commentary on Romans, Karl
Barth reads IHSOU XRISTOU, in PISTEWS IHSOU XRISTOU, as a subjective
genitive. Sorry I don't recall the page number (I referenced it in a
public library and didn't take note of the exact citation).
For what it may be worth, any studies I've done on particular
instances of this construction with IHSOU XRISTOU--including in the book
of Romans--have consistently come to the conclusion that it's a case of
the objective genitive. But cf. Rom. 3:3ff. with PISTIN TOU QEOU.
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: "Bart D. Ehrman" <BARTUNC@uncmvs.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 16:29 EST
Subject: re: Luke 22:17ff
In keeping with my self-referential mode, begun about
twelve hours ago, may I suggest you read my lengthy discussion
of this variant, either in _The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_,
pp. 197-209 or in the SBL Seminar Papers of 1991, pp. 576-91.
The internal problems with the better attested text are indeed
_very_ interesting; I argue in both publications that the
longer text is an orthodox corruption made for anti-docetic
reasons. (Of course, I establish *which* form of the text is
older on *other* grounds, and then work to understand why it
was modified only after having made the case...)
- -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 17:38:19 PST
Subject: Adivice sought on refreshing inter. - adv. grammar
I'd like to ask for some advice of list members. I'm starting
doctoral studies next Fall. One of the first classes I'm taking is
Adv. Greek. I'm skipping the Int. class because its first semester
is Luke-Acts and second semester is Paul/Hebrews, adn I've already
translated a large chunk of Acts, half of Romans, most of 1 Cor.,
all of Col, Phil. Thess., all of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 1-3 John,
etc. (or as they say in modern parlance, been there, done that). The
adv. class focuses on patristic Greek, which I havcen't done really.
What I want advice on is this. I had three years of NT Greek in college,
but that was "a long time ago, in a college far, far away", and while the
basic stuff is no problem, I'm sure my intermediate to adv. grammar
knowledge could use some brushing up. I already own Data and Mantey,
the _Idiom_ books by Moule and Porter, BDF and A.T. Robertson. I'm
looking for a suggestion as to which of these, or something else, would
make a goo dbook for refreshing and filling in any missing pieces of
int.or adv. grammar knowledge. If you want a distinction, if it's in
Machen, I don't need to review that (except perhaps some mi verb
paradigms). One other point is that I don't want something
that's going to take too long, as I need to focus on prepping
for the German exam over the Summer. I'm ready now but they
won't let me take it until I register. Sigh. Thanks in advance.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 23:00:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Text Types; Erasmus
TO: mrobinsn@mercury.interpath.net (Maurice Robinson)
FROM: Timster132@aol.com
Maurice, good to hear from you. I haven't seen your edition of the Byz
GNT, and but I will see if I can obtain it. I would like to read your
intorduction.
On 3/21/95, you commented
>and it was Clark who initially suggested to me in 1972 that the
>pro-Alexandrian position may have been following the wrong path all >along.
In the mean time, could you elaborate a little?
I think the term "pro-Alexandrian" is a bit strong. The Alexandrian text
family is but one piece of the puzzle. I don't think it was ever favored
over another family because of personal preference. Its strength lies in its
numerous examples of unsmoothed readings and lack of conflations, which
indicate its obvious value. It is not a replica of the orignal text, and it
has limitations. It did not arise until the third/fouth century (as the Byz
arose in the fourth/fifth c.).
The interesting studies now, I believe, are the categorizations of the
early papyri, which predate the advent of the major text families. The
relationship between the pre-3rd century papyri and the later text families
needs to be better defined. But the Byz text type doesn't seem to have much
connection with these early developments.
Take care and God bless.
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 01:10:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Lk. 22.17ff
TO: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
FROM: Timster132@aol.com
>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've done some pretty extensive study on this passage, including examining
photocopies of the papyri and manuscripts involved here.
I opt for the longer reading because of the early attestation for it and
because there is a high probability of later editing influence from the
Diatesseran and in the Western tradition, once mistakenly identified as
Western non-interpolations.
I do not place a high value "western non-interpolations" believing that
they are scribal emmendations. Since the discovery of many early papyri in
this century, the W-H hypothesis that the western non-interpolations
represented the early text does not carry the weight it once did (although
many text critics were reticent to truncate it). Anyway, with this in
perspective, the weight of internal evidence against external diminishes to
some degree.
Luke seems to have many conflations of material in his gospel, and I think
this is one example of that.
Hope this is helpful.
Peace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 01:10:26 -0500
Subject: Re: orthodox corruptions of s...
TO: BARTUNC@uncmvs.oit.unc.edu
FROM: Timster132@aol.com
Bart, on 3/21/95 you replied...
> 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...)
I was simply refering to what was said in email here, not your book, which
I have not had a chance to see. ( I have limited library access at this
time). Evidently, I misunderstood your position. I'm sorry about that.
I'll try to read things more carefully.
As far as "intellectual honesty", I was referring to the reticence in the
text criticism community to admit that there are many variants in the mss.
that have theologically import.
I am interested in what criteria you have in establishing motive behind
scribal emmendations. Please ellaborate for me. Thanks.
And again, mea culpa concerning my misquoting you.
Grace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 01:13:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and...
TO: CAREY@library.vanderbilt.edu (Greg Carey)
FROM: Timster132@aol.com (Tim Staker)
Dear Greg:
CONGRATULATIONS!!!!! I am most happy for you on the birth of your first
born, Erin.
God is good!
Rejoicing with you,
Tim
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #627
*****************************
** 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