[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #636
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 28 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 636
In this issue:
Re: Ministry in the New Testament
Re: OT and NT ministry
NT Ministry
Re: OT and NT ministry
Re: PISTIS IHSOU
Re: Ministry in the New Testament
Noah's Story
Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and Cynics
Re: "This generation ...": Mk 13:34 par.; Mk 9:1 par.
Re: Colossians 1:23
Re: a note on a final note...
Re: Aland's early text
Re, "This generation..." etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Georg Stubkjaer Adamsen <gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 11:24:54 -0100
Subject: Re: Ministry in the New Testament
In article <Pine.3.89.9503272143.B22792-0100000@rs6a.wln.com>,
Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com> wrote:
> Timothy,
[something deleted]
>
> There are of course Mosaic parallels here as well.
Yes, and to me it looks like a clear presentation of the New
Covenant. Among other things there seems to be a movement from
the Old Testament Covenant (which of course ultimately had
humanity as goal, cf. Genesis 12 and 15) to the New Covenant.
And so it is signifikant that Jesus in Matt. 28,18-20 commands
the disciples to go to all the nations etc. And Jesus Christ are
with them always. In the first place it is directed to the
eleven disciples, but next it must be extended to the mission of
the church as that is a _sine qua non_ to the New Covenant.
So the question about clerical or lay evangelism is perhaps not
to be settled with the help of Matt. 28, I think. However, if
that be so, then we better ask some fishermen being Jews to
fullfil this command (cf, Larry Swains comments below). Else we
should allow us to use all the NT to settle the issue.
> Anyway, I think it obvious that the "great commission" is the commission
> for apostolic ministry given to a group of men who had lived and heard
> Jesus for a minimum of 3 years, not a general instruction for everyone to
> be a missionary or a big lay evangelism program. Of course to apply this
> dictum to 20th century American Christianity is difficult because we
> don't look much like the disciples and the early church.
>
> -Larry Swain
> Parmly Billings Library
> lswain@billings.lib.mt.us
>
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Mar 1995 TimNeum@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Greetings to all.
> > I would like to seek discussion of Matt. 28:16-20 as "Words of Institution"
> > for an apostolic ministry rather than a Great Commission for lay
> > evangelization. I ask that any responses be exegetical, but not overly filled
> > with "linguobabble."
> >
> > Regards,
> > Timothy L. Neumann
> >
>
- --
Sincerely
Georg S. Adamsen, Denmark
------------------------------
From: JefferisP@aol.com
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 10:01:19 -0500
Subject: Re: OT and NT ministry
> I am seeking discussion of possible points of contact that may exist
> between the Aaronic priesthood and the apostolic ministry as described
> in the New Testament.
Dear Tim,
According to the NT as I read it, the Aaronic priesthood is fulfilled and
superceded in Christ who become a high priest forever after the order of
Melchizedek ( The theme of Hebrews). Therefore the priestly function as
regarding sacrifices etc has been made complete in the One who made a
complete sacrifice for sin, once for all.
The apostles, together with the prophets, teaching pastors, and evangelists,
function with authority that is a form of Christ's spiritual house of
government on the earth ( Eph. 3 & 4) through which God's Kingdom is
administered. The function of a priest, the forgiveness of sins,
intercession, etc. is now passed to all believers ( who have become a kingdom
of priests to God, 1 Peter 2:5 &9)
The interesting thing about the Lord's Supper is that it was not built in or
around a Temple Sacrifice that only the priests were allowed to offer, but
was the extension of the Passover celebration, which every head of the house
was required to offer. So, the early believers broke bread in one another's
homes. The Lord's Supper is a covenant meal, a sacrament in which Jesus is
present, but it is not a sacrifice.
The authority given to the apostles seems to have been a teaching authority
of binding and losing, a phrase that was often used with permitting and
forbidding practices as according to the Law. So, they loosed Paul to be an
apostle to the gentiles and insisted only that the Noahic laws be applied in
the case of non-Jews ( no meat strangled with the blood, no sexual impurity,
etc.). But they loosed his ministry from kosher requirements. (Acts 15: 20 &
29)
In the OT, the Levites brought the sacrifices of the people to the Aaronic
priesthood, which offered these sacrifices to God on behalf of the people.
The apostles do not function in this manner. But we all have gained direct
access to God through the rent veil of Christ's flesh, which makes a way into
the Holy of Holies in hope (Heb. 6:19 & 10:20). The Holy Spirit, who abided
behind the veil and separate from the people, went out from the Temple Holy
of Holies at the crucifixion, and now He, the Holy One, lives inside us who
believe. So the Holy of Holies, so to speak has entered into us. Therefore,
we are to "boldly approach the throne of grace" (Heb 4:16). That would never
have been permitted in the OT because of that veil of separation.
Since Jesus is himself our High Priest, he said we are to call no man on
earth, "Father, Teacher, or Lord" for "you are all brothers (equals before
God)" Matt 23: 8-10. We are not to consider any other flesh an intermediary
between ourselves and God; for Christ is our mediator and advocate.
While we are to confess our sins to one another, there is no indication that
apostolic authority was necessary to mediate forgiveness of sin ( Matt
18:18 shows the extension of the forgiveness of sins to the corporate body of
the Church). We are to confess to one another, pray for one another, and
release one another from the guilt and condemnation of sin by absolving one
another.
Jas 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one
another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful
and effective.
In Jesus,
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: Leo Percer <PERCERL@baylor.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 09:07:12 -0600 (CST)
Subject: NT Ministry
Larry Swain states (Hello Larry!):
>[Matt] 28.16 certainly specifies
>the 11 remaining "disciples" who had been designated as "My brethren" in
>Jesus' instructions to the women at the tomb in v.10. It is also
>interesting that the first thing g that Jesus does in His ministry after
>the Temptation is call the disciples (4.18). The last thing he does is
>tell his disciples to imitate him and make disciples.
[stuff deleted]
>Anyway, I think it obvious that the "great commission" is the commission
>for apostolic ministry given to a group of men who had lived and heard
>Jesus for a minimum of 3 years, not a general instruction for everyone to
>be a missionary or a big lay evangelism program. Of course to apply this
>dictum to 20th century American Christianity is difficult because we
>don't look much like the disciples and the early church.
My problem with this line of reasoning is that it misses the emphasis of
the text itself. Jesus does indeed command the "eleven" to go and make
disciples, but he also tells them here to DIDASKONTEJ AUTOUJ THREIN PANTA
OSA ENTEILAMHN UMIN (i.e., teaching them to observe all things that I have
commanded you). Jesus commands the "eleven" to teach people in all nations
"all" that he has commanded them, including (IMO) Matt 28! So, the passage
itself implies that this command was for all people who consider themselves
disciples of Christ simply because they (like the "eleven") should disciple
others in the commands Jesus has given them. What do you think?
Regards,
Leo Percer
PERCERL@BAYLOR.EDU
On Mon, 27 Mar 1995 TimNeum@aol.com wrote:
> Greetings to all.
> I would like to seek discussion of Matt. 28:16-20 as "Words of Institution"
> for an apostolic ministry rather than a Great Commission for lay
> evangelization. I ask that any responses be exegetical, but not overly filled
> with "linguobabble."
>
> Regards,
> Timothy L. Neumann
>
------------------------------
From: JefferisP@aol.com
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 10:22:06 -0500
Subject: Re: OT and NT ministry
> I am seeking discussion of possible points of contact that may exist
> between the Aaronic priesthood and the apostolic ministry as described
> in the New Testament.
Dear Tim,
According to the NT as I read it, the Aaronic priesthood is fulfilled and
superceded in Christ who become a high priest forever after the order of
Melchizedek ( The theme of Hebrews). Therefore the priestly function as
regarding sacrifices etc has been made complete in the One who made a
complete sacrifice for sin, once for all.
The apostles, together with the prophets, teaching pastors, and evangelists,
function with authority that is a form of Christ's spiritual house of
government on the earth ( Eph. 3 & 4) through which God's Kingdom is
administered. The function of a priest, the forgiveness of sins,
intercession, etc. is now passed to all believers ( who have become a kingdom
of priests to God, 1 Peter 2:5 &9)
The interesting thing about the Lord's Supper is that it was not built in or
around a Temple Sacrifice that only the priests were allowed to offer, but
was the extension of the Passover celebration, which every head of the house
was required to offer. So, the early believers broke bread in one another's
homes. The Lord's Supper is a covenant meal, a sacrament in which Jesus is
present, but it is not a sacrifice.
The authority given to the apostles seems to have been a teaching authority
of binding and losing, a phrase that was often used with permitting and
forbidding practices as according to the Law. So, they loosed Paul to be an
apostle to the gentiles and insisted only that the Noahic laws be applied in
the case of non-Jews ( no meat strangled with the blood, no sexual impurity,
etc.). But they loosed his ministry from kosher requirements. (Acts 15: 20 &
29)
In the OT, the Levites brought the sacrifices of the people to the Aaronic
priesthood, which offered these sacrifices to God on behalf of the people.
The apostles do not function in this manner. But we all have gained direct
access to God through the rent veil of Christ's flesh, which makes a way into
the Holy of Holies in hope (Heb. 6:19 & 10:20). The Holy Spirit, who abided
behind the veil and separate from the people, went out from the Temple Holy
of Holies at the crucifixion, and now He, the Holy One, lives inside us who
believe. So the Holy of Holies, so to speak has entered into us. Therefore,
we are to "boldly approach the throne of grace" (Heb 4:16). That would never
have been permitted in the OT because of that veil of separation.
Since Jesus is himself our High Priest, he said we are to call no man on
earth, "Father, Teacher, or Lord" for "you are all brothers (equals before
God)" Matt 23: 8-10. We are not to consider any other flesh an intermediary
between ourselves and God; for Christ is our mediator and advocate.
While we are to confess our sins to one another, there is no indication that
apostolic authority was necessary to mediate forgiveness of sin ( Matt
18:18 shows the extension of the forgiveness of sins to the corporate body of
the Church). We are to confess to one another, pray for one another, and
release one another from the guilt and condemnation of sin by absolving one
another.
Jas 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one
another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful
and effective.
In Jesus,
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: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 95 10:12:58 EST
Subject: Re: PISTIS IHSOU
Micheal Palmer wrote:
> 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.
Two issues relating to the use of the article strike me:
1. Although there are no hard-and-fast rules here, generally for
abstract nouns, the more abstract the noun the less likely it will take
the article (see BDF $258). In Rm3:22, 26, Ga2:16, 3:22, Php3:9 the
constructions are all anarthrous, which favors the conclusion that it
is about the more abstract trusting in Jesus Christ, rather than the
more definite faithfulness of Jesus Christ.
2. It also seems that the use of the article with a genitive would
more clearly indicate a subjective genitive (or genitive of origin)
than an objective genitive. Yet we don't have examples of an arthrous
PISTIS with an objective genitive. When Paul does put an article
before PISTIS, he switches to the prepositional phrase with EN. I see
this in Ga2:26, Ep1:15, and Co1:14. Colossians 1:14 [THN PISTIN U(MWN
EN XRISTWi IHSOU] is also instructive. Here, the genitive with the
article is clearly subjective, so Paul resorts to using EN for the
objective portion. I submit that if Paul ever wanted to say "through/
from the faithfulness of Jesus Christ," he would have written "DIA/EK
*THS* PISTEWS IHSOU XRISTOU" -- but we never see this.
Although this negative inference amount to an argument from silence,
it does point away from an understanding that PISTIS IHSOU is a
subjective genitive.
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: Bill McFarland <billmcfa@clark.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 12:13:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Ministry in the New Testament
I looked at this issue several years ago and came to the conclusion that
Christ was commissioning the apostles apart from the body of believers.
If you look at the commission in all the gospels/acts Christ call the
eleven out of the other witnesses/believers and commissons them
seperately. My understanding of this is that Christ commissioning the
apostles and extending past the time of the apostles the officers of the
church (pastor/elder/deacon, bishop/priest/deacon, etc).
I do not think the Great Commission is a call to lay evangelism, but to
evangelism by the church as represented by her officers. Lay evangelism
is seen in 1 Peter 3.15 and is of a different sort.
This is just a cursory overview from memory, and as I remember, I was not
out of the mainstream of earlier reformed teaching.
Godspeed,
Bill
+==========================================================================+
| Bill McFarland || A moment of thought would have shown him he was |
| || wrong -- But a moment is a long time and |
| billmcfa@clark.net || thought is a hard thing. |
+==========================================================================+
On Mon, 27 Mar 1995 TimNeum@aol.com wrote:
> Greetings to all.
> I would like to seek discussion of Matt. 28:16-20 as "Words of Institution"
> for an apostolic ministry rather than a Great Commission for lay
> evangelization. I ask that any responses be exegetical, but not overly filled
> with "linguobabble."
>
> Regards,
> Timothy L. Neumann
>
------------------------------
From: DISTELD@computek.net
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 95 12:11 CST
Subject: Noah's Story
Greetings To All:
I am interested in exploring the Noah Story. Traditional teaching
suggests that Noah preached for over 100 years. However, in Matthew's account
the text suggests that the general population did not know that the flood was
coming " Matt. 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were
eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe
entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all
away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
My question is then is there any Biblical evidence to support a Noah
preaching ministry? Is there any Biblical discussion about the site of the
Ark's construction. I would appreciate any discussion on these questions.
Thank You
Clifford L. Frazier
Send E-Mail to DistEld@Computek.net
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <DGOWLER@micah.chowan.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 14:32:42 EST
Subject: Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and Cynics
Thanks to Greg Carey for his lastest musings on this topic. My
previous response was lost in cyberspace, so let me write another
response:
Greg wrote, in part:
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?
- -------------------
A couple of initial reactions: I would argue that the words of
the characters come through the prism of the narrator's voice (and I
believe that the Lukan narrator is generally "reliable" in literary
terms, pace Dawsey's _The Lukan Voice_). So the "domestication" I
talked about is not a rejection of the "shamelessness" often
practiced by the character Jesus, but is indeed used in a new
configuration of honor/shame and purity systems. And the narrator
doesn't have to do this overtly; it can be done "covertly" (i.e.,
without a direct comment by the narrator) as in the passages you
cited.
As far as the scene in Levi's house, I believe that it fits in
perfectly with the narrator's portrayal of Jesus as "prominent" and
"limit breaker." A prominent is someeone who acts outside his
designated social role, but who is redefined in a positive way (e.g.,
the narrator directly defines Jesus as "Lord"; "deviant" would
be the other option, and Jesus is labelled a deviant by his
opponents). As a prominent, Jesus can also function as a "limit
breaker," that is, someone who can redefine what is "honorable,"
"pure," and so forth.
So I see the pattern in Luke 5:29-32 fitting in perfectly with
the narrator's rhetorical objectives. The narrator (and Jesus)
reconfigure the honor/shame configurations, especially in light of
replacing the Lukan Pharisees' purity system with a "virtue system."
In addition, I see Luke 6:1-6 as having the same pattern. Jesus is
the "Son of man" and thus has the authority to reconfigure and
redefine the systems that his opponents in Luke hold so dear.
Good question about Zacchaeus! I have been following with
interest a recent discussion (Bob Tannehill and Tom Phillips have
been the main contributers) on another list about whether
Luke 19:1-10 is a "vindication story" or a "conversion story."
I, off the top of my head, cannot think of a comparable story in
ancient literature of someone inviting himself over in this way.
Jesus' inviting of himself is much different, for example, than
Alcibiades' "party crashing." If someone else were to do this, it of
course would have been a "shameful" challenge to the
honor/hospitality of Zacchaeus. Yet Jesus is a prominent, limit
breaker, and, more importantly in this story, the "broker" of the
blessings of God (the "patron") to the people who will receive those
blessings (the "clients"). Thus this story _may_ work better as a
vindication story, but the above cultural aspects do not exclude that
it may rather be a conversion story. And, of course, the "divine
necessity" of Zacchaeus' hosting Jesus backs up the paradoxically
essential and correct nature of Jesus' apparently shameful actions
(does my memory serve me right, that Jesus _must_ [dei] stay with
Zacchaeus?). The grumbling of the people begins to echo the
grumblings of the Lukan Pharisees' and their concern with purity rules
and this also reinforces the correctness of Jesus' behavior,
according to the narrator (although I would not go so far as to
accept Moessner's "leaven" hypothesis). The Lukan Pharisees' purity
concerns have long since been discredited by the narrator.
Best wishes,
David
********************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
dgowler@micah.chowan.edu
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 95 15:09:56 PST
Subject: Re: "This generation ...": Mk 13:34 par.; Mk 9:1 par.
merovin@halcyon.com claimed:
> ... almost
> all of Eastern and Western Europe speak languages which are known to derive
> from Sanskrit.
Most languages of India and Europe descend from a language without known
written remains known as Proto-Indo-European, spoken somewhere near the Black
Sea at least 4500 years ago. Sanskrit is one of the oldest daughter languages
of PIE, but not as old as Hittite.
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: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 19:09:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Colossians 1:23
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
TO: ROD91@delphi.com
FROM: TImster132@aol.com
What I, Tim Staker, said on 3/25/95....
>>I think I hear you asking what the clause "if you remain..." is
>>conditionallybased upon. There's three options I see.
>>
>>1) v. 21 "you who were estranged and hostile..."
>> This is a strong possibility. There are 3 parts to v. 21 (being
>>estranged, mentally hostile, doing evil works) which is juxtaposed >>to the
3 elements in v.23 (being established, firm, without shifting).
>>The first element of each is a passive participle (the first one is
>>present, the latter is perfect).
>>
>>2) v. 22 "but now he has reconciled..."
>> This is accomplished by God "through the blood of his cross" >>(v.20),
"in the body of his flesh through death". It doesn't seem >>likely that the
reconciliation is what is conditioned by our >>continuing to be established,
etc. (And this would theologically be >>semi-pelegianist). APOKATHLLAZEN
("Reconciled") is aorist >>active indicative.
>>
>>3) v. 23 "to present you holy..."
>> This is a possiblility as well. PARASTHSAI (to present) as an >>infinit
ive (aorist in this case) can express either purpose or result.
>>The result of "holy and blameless" could be affected by one not >>remaining
established, firm and not shifting.
>>
>>So, I can see option 1 having a strong possibility, with the mirrored
>>structure. Option 3 is also a strong contender, being closest to "if >>you
remain...". Another option is that all three options are >>modified by "if
you remain." But I think v.21 works best.
Rod, you replied, in part, ....
>I agree with you on this but I also see a problem with option #3 in >light
of 1Cor. 1:6,8; 2Cor. 1:21,22; Eph. 1:3-5. "In Christ" we are >guaranteed
(Bebaios) Eternal Life, (2Pet. 1:10 & 1Cor. 1:8).
> Does this leave us only option #1? What do you think?
The text is somewhat vague, but as I said before, I think the
literary/grammatical structure (which I examined in the previous letter)
favors #1 as the best option of the three.
As for option #3 (which is a possible secondary reading) being ruled out
by other Pauline parallel texts, I am not sure. You might also check out 1
Cor 3:12-15, since you are concentrating on the "eternal effect" of these
verses.
[I think WINBROW@aol.com (Carlton Winbery) made a good point about Col
1:23 applying to the present state of a Christian's maturity, rather than the
eternal.]
It seems you are also attempting to establish a general NT position by
including the other non-Pauline references. You might want to be open to the
possibility of an "inter-canonical dialog" concerning perserverance of the
saints among the various NT authors. You may want to look at what each of
the writers have to say, and compare and contrast their positions before
determining if there is a definite NT teaching on this. I think Paul, Jude,
Hebrews, and Revelation may have different approaches to this topic.
God bless,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 19:09:30 -0500
Subject: Re: a note on a final note...
TO: B-GREEK@virginia.edu
TO: kenneth@sybase.com
From: TImster132@aol.com
I am not one of those who believe the gospels are pure fiction. As I said
before I believe they are based upon the historical Jesus. There is a
possibility that every pericope of the written gospels is based upon
historical events in Jesus' life. My contention is that because there is so
much midrash/interpretation going on, that it is near impossible for us to
sort out where the history ends and the interpretation begins.
It is possible the gospels are all OT midrash. I think they can be and
still tell us what we need to know about "who Jesus is" for us to come to
faith in God. If we had ancient newspaper accounts of Jesus' travels and
deeds, I doubt that they would inspire faith the way the gospels do. THAT'S
where the relevance comes in, I believe.
Ken, you said:
>It's that historical grounding, that sense of "this is what really
>happened" that gives the text its authority over me (I know one can >just
assert that it is inspired, but I don't think that the early Church
>accepted that inspiration for it under the view you are espousing --
>if you can show otherwise, I would be very, sincerely, interested).
I think universal acceptance and use in the churches seemed to be more of a
criteria for cannon than anything else. Apostolic authorship (first-hand and
second-hand as in Mark, Luke) was another criteria.
I don't think "historicity" in the modern sense was a criteria. I think
we tend to read this into the "apostolic" requirement, but perhaps the
ancients were looking for authoritative teaching instead of asking the
question "did it really happen or not?"
Your point about the concern over being paid fairly was a good one. I
would say that this is a universal concern which will transcend all time and
space. This may truly be a constant in our universe.
But I still differ on making "historicity" (that is, "Did it really
happen?") a universal concern. We have that concern in our modern day
because of the influence of the scientific method, which attempts to prove
what is true by emperical means. But it is limited because so many "truths"
about who we are, who God is, and "why are we here?" cannot be ascertained by
that method.
Regarding this, I think the ancients were wiser than we, in that they did
not have to NOT believe in something if it wasn't provable by emperical
analysis.
So in trying to witness to our modern world, I think we are tempted to
try to "prove" the faith to others, and I am not sure how effective that is,
because the very nature of faith is trusting without absolute certainty.
While we do need some good, credible reasons to take that step of faith,
faith, by its nature, isn't provable. The Scriptures give us assurance
("Blessed Assurance"), nbut not proofs of God's love.
You make a very good point here....
>Furthermore, yes, stories can be affective for communicating
>truth, but, and this is a big but, I need some way to know that what >is
being taught is true. Which communicates truth, Mark or Mein >Kampf, and how
do you know? Does Mark make his points, build >his story around something I
can say "yes it happened, so his story >has some real basis in fact and thus
some basis for making truth >claims, or is it all fantasy with as much
foundation and basis for a >truth claim as 1st Enoch?"
I'm afraid that Mein Kampf (and its impact on the world) is very
historical, and I hope we never forget that. Hitler's struggle was a very
real one, albeit with evil conclusions. So what is historical and what is
truth aren't the same.
1 Enoch is an apocalypse. If it were read literally, of course it
wouldn't be true. But read as an apocalypse, it (maybe) contains a truth or
two that I think Christians could accept. Particularly that of God as the
Judge of the world.
The Koran is highly historical. It was recited and written by the Prophet
himself (or at least, in part, collected directly by his disciples).
While historicity has importance, and can discern what is true to a
degree, don't we want other criteria?
So how do we determine truth? Isn't that THE question? And how do we see
truth in the Bible?
(I'll leave this open-ended....)
In Christ,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 19:09:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Aland's early text
TO: B-GREEK@virginia.edu
To: broman@nosc.mil
Cc: hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca
From: Timster132@aol.com
Larry, (hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca) comments on Aland:
>>...he finds in the earliest papyri--the "free"
> >text, the "normal" text, and the "st[r]ict" text--look
>>suspiciously very similar to Hort's three main text-types >>("Western",
"Syrian", and "Neutral").
Vince (broman@nosc.mil), you replied,
>It was obvious that Aland equated "strict" texts with Hort's >"Neutral", and
he viewed "free" textual transmission as the
>source of Hort's "Western" text, while denying that it was a
>text type, but I didn't see any hint that "normal" texts were >somehow connec
ted to Hort's "Syrian". Did I miss
>something? Or were you just responding to the
>tripartite division? In any case Aland measured everything
>by its distance from p75/B, around which the rest of
>the world revolves.
I see the parallel in the character and/or quality of strict/normal/free
and W-H's Neutral/Syrian/Western text-types. But I don't believe Aland
GENEALOGICALLYconnects these text-types to the earlier papyri--- _except_ p75
with B.
Aland's catagories are based on his collations of the papyri with p75/B are
as follows:
FREE: p45, p45, p66, (p9), (p13), p37, p40, p78
STRICT: p75, p1, p23, p27, p35, p39, p64/67, p65, p70
NORMAL: p4, p5, (p12), p16, p18, p20, p28, p47, p52, p87
He notes that 3 papyri have some affinities to D: p29, p48, p69.
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 19:03:55 -0600
Subject: Re, "This generation..." etc.
I haven't read all this thread (and don't intend to engage the original
issue at all--whatever it was. But I have to point out a methodological
issue that is glaringly evident by its absence in the comment that
(excerpts only):
>Panta, as you know, means five, and this is perhaps more significant than we
usually give it the credits for being...
>Behind this usage, which is Stoical, is the Vedic "Prapancha" which, as you
can see, contains the root (pant[ch]) of the Greek Panta...
>Panta is much more than 'things.' It means "the made-from-five."...
>So, a critical question here is, "What are the five that are referred to by
this word, Panta?"...
>We have the same root in the word Pentacost. What does this
mean? What are the five that are referred to?...
>David R. Graham
Methodologically that qualifies for the "etymological fallacy"
classification if I've ever read one. The ancient etymology of a word is
irrelevant to determining its meaning by a given speaker. If you doubt
that, I will simply say that your argument is "nice"--and let you decide
which of the (approx.) 15 or more historical (diachronic) meanings that
word has had over its 700+ years of usage in English. Your argument,
though, would require that you know what it meant in the 13th C. when it
was first used.
Carl has already implied this in his comments, with which I heartily agree:
>Positively astounding! Neopythagoreanism in the fashion of Philo of
Alexandria and Theon of Smyrna, but derived from ancient India!...
>as I am in fact from
Missouri, you'll have to SHOW me that the average speaker of Koine Greek
was aware of any association between his root word PANT- and his root
word PENTA-. Etymology is an interesting game indeed...
>the etymological relationship
certainly does not have anything to do with the normal usage or thinking
of the ordinary English-speaker...
And, I would add, "the ordinary Greek/Sanscrit/Latin/etc. speaker either.
You will notice, of course, that I am also from Missouri! :)
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rod Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT Kansas City, Missouri
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #636
*****************************
** 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