[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #630
b-greek-digest Friday, 24 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 630
In this issue:
Re: Litwak's request re: grammar
Textual "Corruptions"
Re: Canon
Transparent Language
Re: Litwak's request
learing Greek
Textual Transmission and Original Exemplars
Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and Cynics
Transparent Language
Re: Litwak's request
Re: PISTIS IHSOU
Re: Textual Transmission and Original Exemplars
Re: Litwak's request
Advice on preparing for Patristics
Objective Genitive of PISTIS
faith in/of Christ
Colossians
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 95 22:36:45 PST
Subject: Re: Litwak's request re: grammar
I just want to note in passing that Michael Palmer has made the
correct assumptions about me! I do read English translations
critically, whether it's a matter of differing over whether something
is a true middle or pssive or wincing every time I see the barbaric
treatment that 1 COr 11:10 receives at the hands of translators.
That verse is the worst recepient of overly interpretive translation
that I know. Giving exousia a passive sense indeed.
Thanks again for all the suggestions. I didn't intend to start a
philosophical discussion. Honest.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: "The Rev. David R. Graham" <merovin@halcyon.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 00:08:01 -0800
Subject: Textual "Corruptions"
This discussion is fascinating to me. It's as if the first part of this
century in Germany (in the theological schools) and elsewhere never occurred.
Anyone who doubts textual corruption in any significant body of text for any
number of reasons, theological and otherwise, might remember the Warren
Commission .....
Or the Donation of Constatine .....
Or that Jeremiah 7:22 says the sacrificial ordinaries of the Pentateuch
never occurred at Sinai .....
Or that Jerome claims to have read Aramaic Matthew ..... which said, 'Give
us today tomorrow's bread" (if memory serves) .....
Or that the entire point of canon formulation is selection and redaction of
text precisely on theological grounds, good or otherwise .....
There isn't such a thing as a corruption of text. There are versions of
text reflecting various theological points of view. None is more corrupt or
pure than another. Who's to say? Majority rule? That never has settled
anything, much less been a guide to truth. The majority of people think
they are their bodies, a "taking" which a supreme minority of saints and
sages of all cultures have consistently denied -- without convincing more
than a handful.
There is no corruption of text. Only selection of text. And that on
theological grounds, in the case of the Bible and other sacred literature.
So the question is always, what is the intent of redaction? That becomes a
"Who" question, and cannot long remain a "What" question.
"Who did it?" is the important question? Corruption is not in the picture.
Intent is.
All the best,
The Rev. David R. Graham
Resident, Adwaitha Hermitage
Professor of Philosophy, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
merovin@halcyon.com
EADEM MUTATA RESURGO
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 05:15:10 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Canon
On Thu, 23 Mar 1995, Melanchthon wrote:
> I'm doing an honors project next year tentatively (and somewhat blandly)
> titled *The Formation of the New Testament Canon* and I was wondering if
> the more erudite of you out there would be willing to suggest some good
> source material, preferably works in English, but also German...thanks.
I have no immediate suggestions, beyond that you consult the standard NT
Introductions for bibliography, but in response to your note, I would
advise you to do it neither tentatively nor BLANDly NOR BLINDly, which
last adverb is, I suspect, the one you meant to use. Go at it
wholeheartedly. Particularly interesting, I think, is the long-fought and
last-resolved conflict over the last book of the canon.
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: Maurice O'Sullivan <mauros@iol.ie>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 15:15:03 GMT
Subject: Transparent Language
On the subject of Windows v. DOS, I refuse to be drawn ---
except to recommend reading Umberto Ecco on the subject <g>
But I would point out that Transparent Language now offers
several items on CD-ROM, availing of Windows, of course.
In addition, If you have a sound card, this means no more
juggling with audio cassettes and keyboarding at the same time.
Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]
mauros@iol.ie
------------------------------
From: David Moore <Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 08:13:06 -0800
Subject: Re: Litwak's request
Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu> wrote:
>(2) I disagree thoroughly with the advice of some . . . , who say
>that the best way to prepare for this reading course is to read
>lots of N.T. (or other) Greek texts, with a pony at hand. First,
>because you are heading for a reading course -- there you will
>actually do the reading of Greek texts. Second, because my
>experience (teaching Greek since the fall of 1947, almost 48
>years -- at Chicago, Berkeley, finally Harvard and Wellesley) is
>that the best way NOT to learn Greek is to use a pony. People
>who use ponies learn to "translate" Greek in the same way that
>the translators did; they never learn to READ Greek, to
>UNDERSTAND the text in any different way than the translators
>did. I am even opposed to having students learn Greek by giving
>(a single) translation of the text; the main reason for studying
>Greek is to see how DIFFERENTLY the Greek writer understood
>things than an English-speaking writer would. Have them give at
>least TWO alternative translations into English, or EXPLAIN what
>the text means. READING A PONY DECEIVES ONE INTO THINKING ONE
>UNDERSTANDS THE TEXT; ONE ONLY LEARNS WHAT A TRANSLATOR THOUGHT.
Simply reading Greek is probably one of the best ways to learn
the language for someone who already knows its basics. But I must also
agree with Edward Hobbs, that using an interlinear or any other such
device is counterproductive since one inevitably depends on it rather
than really learning to understand the text.
An approach that I found effective when I began to read Greek is
to take at least some of my time in the Greek NT just reading through
the text without consulting either lexicons or grammars. This way, one
is able to cover a considerably greater amount of the text. Obviously,
at first, one doesn't digest more than enough to get the gist of what
the text is saying. But upon continuing to read, the vocabulary begins
to become familiar; grammatical and syntactic structures begin to be
recognizable as one sees them over and over, and the meaning begins to
become clear on the basis of Greek modes of expression.
Such a method might be of limited usefulness to someone who
already sight reads Greek with some proficiency, and it probably should
not be employed exculsively (i.e. without taking time for studying the
grammars and doing careful exegesis of specific texts). But I have
found it helpful and mention it hoping that others might also try it and
consider it effective.
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: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 08:36:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: learing Greek
I have found memorizing from the Greek NT has been a tremendous
aid to learning
n
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 95 11:00 CST
Subject: Textual Transmission and Original Exemplars
Just as there is an "original exemplar" of, say, Metzger's
*Textual Commentary* (i.e., the document Metzger submitted
to UBS in '70 or '71), so also there are "original exemplars"
of Paul's major epistles and Luke's 2 volume work, Luke-Acts.
These original exemplars may have been redacted in subsequent
transmission, but this would not preclude the existence of
the original exemplars. German textual criticism has done
nothing to challenge this banal point, which really amounts
to the truism that texts require authors. (Here I'll just
ignore deconstructionists as being in the grips of a trendy
but confused philosophy of literary origins.) Kurt Aland
(neither a conservative nor someone ignorant of German
textual criticism) has offered a sensible account of
textual transmission that allows for different kinds of
transmission at the earliest stage. Some critics want
a monolithic account (either it was all free-wheeling
and creative or it was all strict and disciplined), but
the fact of the matter is more complex, as Aland documents.
In *The Text of the NT, 2nd ed.* (1989) Aland notes that
"... the text of the early period was many-faceted, and
each manuscript had its own peculiar character. This can
be observed in such papyri as p45, p46, p66, and so forth.
The fact that this [(scribal freedom)] was not the normative
practice has been proved by p75, which represents a strict
text just as p52 of the period around AD 125 represents
a normal text. It preserves the text of the original exemplar
in a relatively faithful form (and is not alone in doing
so...)." (p. 69) Aland adds: "Until their discovery (i.e.,
the Bodmer papyri) it was thought on the basis of p45 and
p46 that the second/third century text was generally
characterized by considerable irregularity.... But p75
proved this to be wrong, because its text was so closely
similar to that of Codex Vaticanus that it could even be
suspected of its being its exemplar. With the discovery
of p75 we have at last found the key to understanding the
early history of the text" (p. 57). Finally Aland sides
with Metzger in doubting the originality of the so-called
Western noninterpolations (e.g., at Lk. 22:19b-20;
see pp. 311, 236), on the ground that 2nd century papyri
do not support the views of Westcott & Hort. -- Paul Moser,
Loyola University of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: Greg Carey <CAREY@library.vanderbilt.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 11:42:54 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and Cynics
David Gowler said in part:
>>I think the best place to find the "shamelessness" that Greg is talking
about is in the parable tradition. What I find interesting, however, is
that the narrator always seems to co-opt this "shamefulness" (and its
critique of power structures) to reinforce a Jesus-based virtue code (thus,
in effect, creating a new structure). In literary terms, the diegetic
level "domesticates" items in the hypodiegetic level.<<
and then:
>>I would be interested in seeing if Greg or anyone else has found a passage
in Luke in which this "shamelessness" is not co-opted by the
narrator.<<
I found one passage which I thought fit David's pattern perfectly,
and in an interesting way. It's Jesus childhood trip to Jerusalem,
in which he skeaks off from his parents. Just after Jesus tells his
parents off (2.49), Luke reminds us that "he was obedient to them" in
Nazareth (2.51), and that everybody liked him when he was growing up
(2.52). Hmm.
I may have found another passage that doesn't quite fit, Jesus'
dinner at Levi's house. Here Jesus defends his low company and their
behavior. If there is any attempt to coopt Jesus' "shameless"
behavior here, it happens through Jesus' own pronouncement rather
than the narrator's immediate activity (so also for his disciples' plucking
grain on the sabbath in ch 6).
Luke's narrator is certainly active in providing interpretations of
potentially troublesome parables.
Here's a question for David, who knows about host/guest relations.
What's up with the Zacchaeus story, in which Jesus invites himself?
Luke's narrator doesn't seem to coopt it. Is this shameless behavior
on Jesus' part?
*******************************
Greg Carey
Graduate Department of Religion
Vanderbilt University
carey@library.vanderbilt.edu
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 13:42:21 -0500
Subject: Transparent Language
Kenneth, Carl
I have Trans. Lang. in version 3.0 for the Mac. On a powerMac 6100 is very
fast and also the CD materials on a 3X CD require only 5 or 10 secs. The
audio is also integrated and very helpful with native speakers but I still
can't say ue or ach.
Carlton
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 13:57:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Litwak's request
On Fri, 24 Mar 1995, David Moore wrote:
> Simply reading Greek is probably one of the best ways to learn
> the language for someone who already knows its basics. But I must also
> agree with Edward Hobbs, that using an interlinear or any other such
> device is counterproductive since one inevitably depends on it rather
> than really learning to understand the text.
I agree. That's why I didn't (nor would I ever) recommend using an
interlinear.
> An approach that I found effective when I began to read Greek is
> to take at least some of my time in the Greek NT just reading through
> the text without consulting either lexicons or grammars. This way, one
> is able to cover a considerably greater amount of the text. Obviously,
> at first, one doesn't digest more than enough to get the gist of what
> the text is saying. But upon continuing to read, the vocabulary begins
> to become familiar; grammatical and syntactic structures begin to be
> recognizable as one sees them over and over, and the meaning begins to
> become clear on the basis of Greek modes of expression.
David's suggestion, according to my experience, works well. It certainly
benefited me, and my students who have adopted this practice have
performed well.
It is important to recognize, however, that research has been done on
this method and that while it works wonders for someone who already
understands the basics and has a basic working vocabulary, it can be
quite counterproductive for someone who does not (UNLESS THAT PERSON IS
EXTREMELY HIGHLY MOTIVATED). Stephen Krashen's "comprehensible input"
hypothesis bears on this issue. He argued (and numerous others have
tested the argument) that providing language input which the learner
cannot decipher at all triggers an "affective filter"--a surge of
anxiety which inhibits the brain's ability to assimilate new
information. Comprehensible input, on the other hand, (for example, texts
which require significant effort, but which with that effort can be
understood) provides intrinsic rewards which complement the learning
process and stimulate retention. For a student who is extremely highly
motivated, input which would be incomprehensible for a classmate, may
prove comprehensible and, therefore, beneficial.
While I have read studies testing Krashen's hypothesis, I have never
conducted any. Still, my experience as a teacher seems to correlate with
what he suggests: significant challenge is necessary for maximum
learning, but overkill can do serious damage. I suspect that David and I
probably both fit into the extremely-highly-motivated category, so his
suggested method could work for us even in the early stages of learning
Greek.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 14:08:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: PISTIS IHSOU
On Thu, 23 Mar 1995, Stephen Carlson wrote:
> Does it make a difference whether PISTIS is arthrous or anarthrous?
>
> Consider, for example, Gal 2:16 [DIA PISTEWS IHSOU XRISTOU] with Gal
> 3:26 [DIA THS PISTEWS EN XRISTWi IHSOU]. It seems that whenever there
> is an arthrous use of PISTIS which could disambiguate a subjective (or
> even possessive) genitive from an objective genitive, Paul switches to
> using EN. I also put Col 1:4 [THN PISTIN U(MWN EN XRISTWi IHSOU] and
> even Eph 1:15 [THN ... PISTIN EN KURIWi IHSOU] in this category.
>
> I do note that Jas 2:1 and Rev 14:2 show an arthrous PISTIS with a
> genitive, but the meaning of PISTIN is distinct from Paul's.
Stephen:
Would you mind elaborating a little. I think I'm following your reasoning
here, but I'm not quite sure. In any event, you've provided some
interesting examples.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: "The Rev. David R. Graham" <merovin@halcyon.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 13:46:56 -0800
Subject: Re: Textual Transmission and Original Exemplars
Paul,
Ignoring something is risky business, and un-Jesuit. Scholarship requires
also accounting for how someone got to where they are and showing how they
can do better. In other words, we can't say someone is wrong. We must
explain their aetiology accurately -- meaning, to their satisfaction -- and
then suggest a way forward for them from where they are that we understand.
This is a methodology which, admittedly, is not much in vogue in our
fractionated world, but it is Christian and it is the way the Church got
going to begin with -- by being willing to talk and examine in all contexts
and move each forward in its own terms. Subsequent attitudes -- "Kill them
all, God will know his own." -- are something less than acceptable.
Ignoring -- or what is called stone-walling in the real world -- is both
ineffective strategically and weak tactically. I don't need to mention
that, I'm sure.
No one can say for certain that any body of received text is an Original
Exemplar. There's no way of knowing. Almost all the tracks were erased
..... by the middle of the 2nd Century. But not all, as you know.
All the best,
The Rev. David R. Graham
Resident, Adwaitha Hermitage
Professor of Philosophy, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
merovin@halcyon.com
EADEM MUTATA RESURGO
------------------------------
From: David Moore <Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 14:11:05 -0800
Subject: Re: Litwak's request
Micheal Palmer (mpalmes@email.unc.edu) quoted and wrote:
>> Simply reading Greek is probably one of the best ways to learn
>> the language for someone who already knows its basics. But I must
also
>> agree with Edward Hobbs, that using an interlinear or any other such
>> device is counterproductive since one inevitably depends on it rather
>> than really learning to understand the text.
>
>I agree. That's why I didn't (nor would I ever) recommend using an
>interlinear.
>
>> An approach that I found effective when I began to read Greek is
>> to take at least some of my time in the Greek NT just reading through
>> the text without consulting either lexicons or grammars. This way,
one
>> is able to cover a considerably greater amount of the text.
Obviously,
>> at first, one doesn't digest more than enough to get the gist of what
>> the text is saying. But upon continuing to read, the vocabulary
begins
>> to become familiar; grammatical and syntactic structures begin to be
>> recognizable as one sees them over and over, and the meaning begins
to
>> become clear on the basis of Greek modes of expression.
>
>David's suggestion, according to my experience, works well. It
certainly
>benefited me, and my students who have adopted this practice have
>performed well.
>
>It is important to recognize, however, that research has been done on
>this method and that while it works wonders for someone who already
>understands the basics and has a basic working vocabulary, it can be
>quite counterproductive for someone who does not (UNLESS THAT PERSON IS
>EXTREMELY HIGHLY MOTIVATED). Stephen Krashen's "comprehensible input"
>hypothesis bears on this issue. He argued (and numerous others have
>tested the argument) that providing language input which the learner
>cannot decipher at all triggers an "affective filter"--a surge of
>anxiety which inhibits the brain's ability to assimilate new
>information. Comprehensible input, on the other hand, (for example,
texts
>which require significant effort, but which with that effort can be
>understood) provides intrinsic rewards which complement the learning
>process and stimulate retention. For a student who is extremely highly
>motivated, input which would be incomprehensible for a classmate, may
>prove comprehensible and, therefore, beneficial.
>
>While I have read studies testing Krashen's hypothesis, I have never
>conducted any. Still, my experience as a teacher seems to correlate
with
>what he suggests: significant challenge is necessary for maximum
>learning, but overkill can do serious damage. I suspect that David and
I
>probably both fit into the extremely-highly-motivated category, so his
>suggested method could work for us even in the early stages of learning
>Greek.
It is good to know of the research Micheal mentions. It makes
clear that there are dangers as well as advantages to the "reading"
method.
One of the reasons I have employed the mentioned method in my
own study is that it corresponds considerably to how native speakers
learn a language. Of course a baby is spoken to in very simple words
with lots of repetition. But some parts of the NT are in simpler
language than others, and one can begin with them. The caveat that one
should have a basic understanding of Greek before trying to learn simply
through reading is also good to remember.
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: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 17:21:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Advice on preparing for Patristics
I was amazed -- and pleased -- to see the many reponses to my recommenations
to Ken Litwak about how best to prepare for a reading course next fall
in patristic Greek texts. As always tends to happen in writing brief
responses on any serious subject, my remarks were taken as more
universal in scope than I intended.
First, I didn't mean to say that no one, at any stage of studying
a language should ever look at a translation. I was speaking about
the "learning phase," not the "advanced exegesis of texts" phase. I
resonated with about all of the comments made by Palmer, Moore, and
Ernest. But I think they all basically supported my reaons for
avoiding using the crutch at the basic learning stage, or at the review
stage. (When I said "pony", I meant to include translations, not
just the word-for-word crib sheets or interlinears, since having
a translation side by side with the text in Greek amounts to a kind
of pony. But I didn't really think Palmer was recommending actual
ponies such as those widely sold for seminary students and pastors.)
Of course I myself look at translations. But then, I am not preparing
to take a reading course in Greek next fall. Since I used to teach that
very course, I knew that the professor wouldn't want to have students who
had spent their summer reading the Fathers in Greek in preparation for a
course in reading the Fathers in Greek. And Ken didn't ask that.
My own main suggestion was that he strengthen what he already had, review
and refresh what he has done for some years past; THEN he will be in
a good position to proceed to new and somewhat different texts in
Patristics.
David Moore's "approach that he found effective" rang lovely
bells for me. Palmer's warnings, based to some extent on Krashen's
hypothesis, are well-taken. But After students have enough Greek
under their belts to read the NT without too much pain, I advise them
to spend five minutes a day (since they can't very well claim they don't
have even five minutes!) reading the Greek New Testament aloud --
preferably portions they have already worked through, but moving on
to material of somewhat less familiarity, in time. No lexicons, no
grammars, just reading the text aloud. Not even trying to translate,
but picking up as much sense as one might--but CONTINUING TO READ!
My experience coincides with David's (not as a way to learn Greek at the start,
but as a means of reinforcing and retaining what one learned "somewhat"
or rapidly or a long time ago.
Someone menioned the Zerwick mini-grammar. That is a good piece
of work: crisp, to the point, though frequently overly exegetical in
its approach. And it used to be REALLY cheap. Not the last time I checked,
though.
Thanks to those of you who showed the too-sweeping character
of my comments!
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 16:39:00 CST
Subject: Objective Genitive of PISTIS
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Micheal Palmer wrote in part:
>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.
>PISTEUW does not allow an accusative case direct object.
Micheal--
When I first saw this, I thought, at last, a good linguistic argument! I
could not see any reason why a language would have to exclude an object in the
dative from an objective genitive form, but langugaes are often quite
arbitrary in their rules, and what you mention is the kind of thing a language
might do. But when I began to test this rule, I discovered that Greek is not
a language that works in the way you describe.
To be sure, your example of ODEUW is correct. But this is an intransitive
verb which cannot take an object. What would it even mean to say that its
related noun could take an objective genitive? The underlying kernal sentence
has no object.
>From my study on this, I have learned three things:
1) PISTEUW can take an accusative.
2) The nouns related to verbs that take their objects in the dative can have
objective genitives modifying them.
3) There are some clear examples of objective genitives with PISTIS.
Let me give the evidence for these three points:
1) PISTEUW can take an accusative.
John 11:26 PISTEUEIS TOUTO
I Cor. 13:7 PANTA PISTEUEI
I John 4:16 PEPISTEUKAMEN THN AGAPHN
Looking at BAG, the rule seems to be something like this:
PISTEUW[Sem.: believe/trust] (person/message--dat.) (thing--acc.)
PISTEUW[Sem.: entrust] (person--acc.) (thing--dat.)
This appears to be some sort of ditransitive verb with the character of the
object marked in its case.
2) The nouns related to verbs that take their objects in the dative can have
objective genitives modifying them. For example:
DOULEUW "be a slave to, serve as slave" (object in dative)
DOULEIA "slavery" Rom. 8:21 THS DOULEIAS THS FQORAS
DOULOS "slave" Rom. 1:1 PAULOS DOULOS CRISTOU IHSOU
DIAKONEW "serve" (object in dative)
DIAKONIA "service" II Cor. 11:8 THN (UMWN DIAKONIAN kernal: "I served you"
DIAKONOS "servant" II Cor. 11:23 DIAKONOI CRISTOU
3) There are some clear examples of objective genitives with PISTIS.
Mark 11:22 ECETE PISTIN QEOU kernal: believe God
Acts 3:16 TH PISTEI TOU ONOMATOS AUTOU believe his name
These things being the case, your linguistic argument advanced on Monday is
not correct. Of course, if you take the meaning "faithfulness" rather than
"faith" for PISTIS, any genitive would be subjective: "X is faithful." But
what is the underlying verb for this? Perhaps it is PISTOW rather than
PISTEUW. Maybe someone on this listserver can make a better suggestion.
Since PISTIS can take either an objective or a subjective genitive, one must
determine from the context which is intended (that's the way most discourse is
anyway). Granted that God's faithfulness is mentioned in Romans (3:3), but I
have to agree with Carlton Winbery's post that in the context of that last
part of Romans 3 (on into Romans 4), it is the believer's faith (I hope that
isn't redundant) that is under discussion. The verbs used are PISTEUW (Romans
4:3, 5). In these passages it is the believer's faith that is reckoned as
righteousness. The exposition in Romans 4 clarifies Romans 3:22.
- --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: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 17:48:35 -0500
Subject: faith in/of Christ
Concerning PISTIN/EWS IHSOU.
Michael Palmer wrote, "Taking up the question of PISTIS IHSOU once again, I
would like to point out that the construction is ambiguous in an important
respect. IHSOU can be interpreted as either genitive or dative." There are
four possible instances in Paul Rom. (3:22, 26; Gal. 2:16; 3:22) where IHSOU
might be either dative or genitive. Over fifty times in the NT IHSOU is used
in the dative case, always with a clear indication in the context that it is
dative, e.g., Rom. 3:24; 6:11, etc. with CHRISTWI or with KURIWI as in Rom
14:14 or with the preposition SUN as in 2 Cor. 4:14. IHSOU is used many
times with the article TWI. In the overwhelming majority of times when IHSOU
is used without the article, it is clearly genitive. My tendency in the four
cases in Paul mentioned above, I would take it as genitive and also
objective.
I wonder if the order in the use of the name Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus has
any significance. Fifty seven times or more the order is (EN) CHRISTWI IHSOU
or KURIWI IHSOU. When both names are in the genitive the order in the vast
majority of cases is IHSOU CHRISTOU. The exceptions in the main Pauline
letters are in Rom. 15:16, 2 Cor. 1:1, Phil. 1:1, 6, 8; Philm 1:1, 9; (note
that most of these are in the salutation) and the Deutero-Paulines (many
times in the Pastorals). Textually corrupt passages that have CHRISTOU
[IHSOU] are Gal. 5:24, Phil. 3:12, Eph. 3:1, and Col. 4:12. In this regard 1
Cor. 1:2 is interesting for it has both EN CHRISTWI IHSOU and IHSOU CHRISTOU.
The order is changed from Christ Jesus to Jesus Christ with the switch in
the case. I get the feeling that Paul was comfortable with Christ Jesus in
the dative case and his famous formula of being "in Christ" and with Jesus
Christ when the formula was faith in Jesus or Jesus was the objective
genitive.
Note that I use the word comfortable not bound by.
Grace,
Carlton
------------------------------
From: ROD91@delphi.com
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 18:16:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Colossians
I was wondering if any one could comment on Colossians 1:23 specifically,
but include as much context as needed. I am more interested in the gramatical
and syntactical significance than the theological, but I realize that it's
hard to divorce the two. My hope is that the grammar and syntax will uphold
my Theology, (Doctrine of The Perseverance of the Saints).
I am actually going on the presupposition that if Eph. 2:8,9 says we are
saved "by grace" and "through faith", then Col. 1:23 is not a passage
dealing with "Eternal Security" or our "position in Christ", for faith is
only the vehicle which God used to impliment salvation and grace is the
force behind the application of salvation.
One other thought, the NA26 shows a comma between vrs. 22 and 23 and the
TR. has a semicolon. Is this significant the flow of thought in these
verses?
It doesn't seem that commentaries deal with these sort of problems so
any light shed on this would be appreciated. If there are any studies or
papers written on this passage available I would appreciate knowing about
them.
Thanks in advance for the help,
ROD91@DELPHI.COM
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #630
*****************************
** 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