[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #652
b-greek-digest Thursday, 6 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 652
In this issue:
Re: Hb 13.20 EN AIMATI DIAQHKHS
Re: genre of Revelation
King James Only Controversy
Christian listservers
Verb in Prov 25:5
Re: Christian listservers
Re: Subject: NT Documents
Re: Verb in Prov 25:5
Hb 13.20 EN AIMATI DIAQHKHS
Best's question about verb in Prov. 25:5
Please forgive Subj. heading to my comment on Rov. 25:5
Re: Hb 13.20 EN AIMATI DIAQHKHS
Re: genre of Revelation
Re: Hb 13.20 EN AIMATI DIAQHKHS
Re: Best's question about verb in Prov. 25:5
Re: Please forgive Subj. heading to my comment on Rov. 25:5
Re: Unsubscribe
Re: Subject: NT Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 05:18:22 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Hb 13.20 EN AIMATI DIAQHKHS
On Tue, 4 Apr 1995 RlMackie@aol.com wrote:
>
> The NIV translation of Hebrews 13:20 reads "May the God of peace, who
> _through the blood of the eternal covenant_ brought back from the dead our
> Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep...". A collegue of mine got the
> impression from that language that the God of peace used the blood of the
> eternal covenant to raise Jesus from the dead.
>
> The Greek (O DE QEOS THS EIRHNHS O ANAGAGWN EK NEKRWN TON POIMENA TWN
> PROBATWN TON MEGAN EN AIMATI DIAQHKHS AIWNIOU TON KURION HMWN IHSOUN) leaves
> me with the impression that EN AIMATI DIAQHKHS AIWNIOU does not modify O
> ANAGAGWN but MEGAN or POIMENA. Then the sense might be something like, "The
> God of peace, who brought again from the dead the shepherd of the sheep whose
> greatness is shown in/by the blood of the eternal covenant--that is our Lord
> Jesus..." Have I missed some clues in the grammar that led the NIV
> translators to render it the way they did?
The fact that EN AIMATI DIAQHKHS AIWNIOU falls OUTSIDE of TON POIMENA ...
TON MEGAN means that by normal distinction between attributive and
predicative position (relative to the article-noun phrase), EN AIMATI
DIAQHKHS AIWNIOU must be predicative and refer indeed to ANAGAGWN. And
the position of TON KURION HMWN IHSOUN does not alter this, as it is
appositional to TON POIMENA ... MEGAN, as is indicated by the repetition
of the article TON. The NIV translation is therefore in fact accurate.
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, 05 Apr 1995 08:51:46 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: genre of Revelation
In reply to Ken's comment (see below):
To a significant degree, Revelation also argues that God's control
may not be evident in the present. Thus the martyrs cry out for
vengeance, and are told to wait awhile, and _thlipsis_ is the order
of the day. 1 Enoch, which is composed of many distinct parts, has
some sections in which history is absolutely determined by God, and
others where that pattern is less evident.
At the same time, the issue of God's control has little to do with
Revelation's estimation of the world. All apocalypses envision God's
alternative order (in either time or space), but Revelation shares
with them the assumption that the present world order is hopeless.
The only solution is God's overthrow of that order. That's what most
scholars mean when they mention a pessimistic world-view.
>> Greg Carey pointed to a pesimistic view of the world as one
connection that Rev has with other apocaluptic works. I wouldn't insist
on this because I've only read some of the primary sources once, but
I didn't get the sense from reading, say ENoch, that I do from reading
Revelation that God is really in control. I think that's part of
what Rev 11 is about, to say that in spite of the situation,
GOd is in control and really still at work in the world, whereas these
Jewish apocalypses seem to me to present a situation in which God is
abset basically from the world but will in the near future
decisively enter human history and establish righteousness. Is that a
fair reading?<<
*******************************
Greg Carey
Graduate Department of Religion
Vanderbilt University
carey@library.vanderbilt.edu
------------------------------
From: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 12:44:48 -0400
Subject: King James Only Controversy
Fellow B-Greek Subscribers:
A quick note to let those who are interested know: _The King James Only Contro
versy_ is now available. I received the first two copies this morning,
4/5/95. Bethany House will be shipping to bookstores tomorrow, 4/6/95.
Hence, you should be able to pick up a copy early next week. If you are an i
nstructor and would like a review copy, feel free to contact Kevin Johnson of
Bethany House Publishers at BHPKevin@aol.com.
I am tremendously thankful that this book is finally out. Only last week I
received a call from a missionary who is laboring in East Africa. The
*single thing* he needed most from me was my rebuttal of Gail Riplinger's
_New Age Bible Versions_. According to him, her book has been causing great
confusion and alarm amongst the churches in East Africa! I was utterly
amazed. I hope this work will serve to counter-act such harmful influences.
James White
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 1995 11:33:16 CST
Subject: Christian listservers
Apparently the address of Greg Slade (camsock@xc.org) that I posted yesterday
for a list of Christian listservers is incorrect. I have written our system
manager here who provided me with the address for a clarification/correction.
I will post the correct address when I get it. In the meantime, save yourself
a message from a mail-daemon and don't write Greg for a copy of his list.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 16:32:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Verb in Prov 25:5
Can anyone explain katorqwsei in Prov 25:5 LXX? I would have
expected katorqwsetai... I know my brain is fried today, so
I hope this isn't a dumb question.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: GLENN WOODEN <glenn.wooden@acadiau.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 17:40:35 ADT
Subject: Re: Christian listservers
Try gslade@cyberstore.ca
> Apparently the address of Greg Slade (camsock@xc.org) that I posted yesterday
> for a list of Christian listservers is incorrect. I have written our system
> manager here who provided me with the address for a clarification/correction.
> I will post the correct address when I get it. In the meantime, save yourself
> a message from a mail-daemon and don't write Greg for a copy of his list.
Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.
Canada
wooden@acadiau.ca
------------------------------
From: David R Graham <merovin@halcyon.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 14:26:08 -0700
Subject: Re: Subject: NT Documents
David Gowler's dealing with Ken Litwik's point about NT texts being taken no
differently as secular texts of the same period is nice, in my view. I
feel, too, that there is more to Ken's point than is so far covered by
David. Ken's point has been resonating in my mind for the last 3 days.
Ken is saying, and he is right, that if one, such as myself, takes NT texts
as not by whom they say they are by, then the burden is on such a one, such
as myself, to demonstrate or at least to explain why NT texts which purport
to be by a person cannot be taken as by that person whereas secular texts
which purport to be by a person can be taken as by that person. This is a
profound point, as Gowler, also, appears to realize. I'd like to expand on
what Gowler said.
The first answer to Ken's point, as Gowler already says, is that NT texts
are known to be cooked and this is why they are automatically taken as less
than autographical. Not not autographical, just not entirely so. More
people have had a stake in what Paul said, for example, than in what Pliny
said. So the texts of Paul are more likely not autographical than are the
texts of Pliny. Likely is an important word there. So far, nothing is
implied beyond the question of autography.
Deeper down, however, Ken is implying that there is a bias in some, even
many circles, to automatically regard NT texts as not autographical and
secular texts as so. This bias, which is present in very strong terms, is
uncritical, unjustified and unsupportable. But it is there. What has the
Christian label is automatically denigrated by huge sectors of the scholarly
community for no other reason than that it is Chrisitian. Ken is aware of
this bias and to the extent that he regards it as wrong-headed and
unscholarly, I am in strong agreement.
But even deeper down, there is a deeper problem, which I feel Ken is
eloquently pointing to, which is, if the NT texts cannot be relied upon as
entirely autographical, how do we account (1) for their obvious spiritual
puissance over 2000 years of tempestuous human history and (2) for their
continued compelling authority in intellectual as well as pietistical terms?
This is the most fundamental point Ken is making, I feel. It is an
existential point. First, the thing (NT) is obviously compelling over 2000
years, instrumental in genuinely saving untold millions of souls. Second,
how do we account for that power then and into the future if the things are
not autographical?
Another participant recently put up a note (I'm sorry I forget his name)
saying that canonicity was not based on autography but on the regulae fidei.
This gets at the deepest level of Ken's point. It is true. The regulae
fidei were far more the standard than authorship was. This is important.
It guards against bibliolatry, for one thing. It was the only way to snuff
the gnostics (a most imprecise term), for another.
But this too needs expanding. The regulae fidei could be taken merely as
the opinion of bishops, which in context of the 2nd century it largely was.
But mere opinion of bishops -- since the installation of the pritestant
principle -- is not sufficient to quell the question of authority, which is
Ken's point. Only experience is and that means a point of view, a
philosophical principle, and that has to come, if we are Christians, from
the Savior, from Jesus Himself. That principle is Jesus' final
identification of His Nature. It is the principle of canonicity that is
inside any legitimate (accurate) regulae fidei. I submit it is an
abstraction which is the verbal formulation of the profoundest existential
condition. *That* is the response to Ken's point, I submit.
We all remember the set of 9 dots arranged in three rows of three dots each
and having to connect all dots with three straight lines, not lifting pen
from paper. The key to that puzzle is, as we know, to not accept the puzzle
as apparently given to us, to place the puzzle in a larger context which is
there for us to use. Then we treat the original puzzle as a sub-system of a
larger picture and we can solve the thing.
It is the same with our NT texts. They loose none of their soteriological
puissance by not be autographical, not even by not being regulae fidei, so
long as they conform to Jesus' statement regarding His Nature (I and My
Father are One.) That statement -- that existential condition of grandeur
- -- is the engine of the religion, pure and simple. It is also the de facto
and effective standard of canonicity.
So, what is the larger system in which our NT texts reside? Frankly, it is
a Buddhist system. The people who came to protect Jesus from Herod -- a
genuine dynastic concern -- were Tibetan Lamas. They did their job. Jesus
spent most of His Career in India and Tibet, both before and after the
crucifixion. A short-hand way of saying this might be: We are accustomed
to looking west from Sion; now we need to look west from Jaganatha.
Does this belong on a Greek NT board. You bet it does. The Indian matrix
is the womb for our Greek language and culture. The Greek texts are not
understandable, apart from their Vedic cultural background. Until we put
the thing in that context, we will be locked in recurring cycles, going
nowhere. The system kernel of our NT texts is Indian and specifically
Buddhist spirituality. That's why this belongs here.
All the best,
David
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: Gregory Bloomquist <GBLOOMQUIST@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 17:50:33 EDT
Subject: Re: Verb in Prov 25:5
> Can anyone explain katorqwsei in Prov 25:5 LXX? I would have
> expected katorqwsetai...
Though I don't have a full explanation, I do note, Jim, that neither
the middle or the passive is ever (apparently) used for this verb on
the fairly numerous occasions it occurs in Prov. LXX. Accordingly,
it might be surprising if KATORQWSETAI did in fact occur!
Greetings!
L. GREGORY BLOOMQUIST
Saint Paul University | Universite Saint-Paul
(University of Ottawa | Universite d'Ottawa)
223 Main, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 1C4 CANADA
EMAIL: gbloomquist@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca
gbloomq@acadvm1.uottawa.ca
VOICE: 613-236-1393 (messages) / 613-782-3027 (direct)
FAX: 613-236-4108
------------------------------
From: "Marmorstein, Art" <marmorsa@wolf.northern.edu>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 95 16:53:00 CDT
Subject: Hb 13.20 EN AIMATI DIAQHKHS
Granting that EN HAIMATI goes with ANAGAGWN, how does one justifying
translating EN as "through" rather than "in"?
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 1995 17:57:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Best's question about verb in Prov. 25:5
From: LUCY::EHOBBS "Edward Hobbs" 5-APR-1995 17:55:28.76
To: IN%"ernest@mv.mv.com"
CC: EHOBBS
Subj: RE: Verb in Prov 25:5
This form of the verb (KATOTHWSEI, or KATORQWSEI) is quite standard, meaning
"His throne will succeed/go on prosperously in righteousness". See LSJM
p. 930, "II. intr. as in Pass.".
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 1995 18:05:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Please forgive Subj. heading to my comment on Rov. 25:5
The inquirer is James Ernest. My torpid brain, while typing the line,
said "Ernest-----Best", thus changing Ernest's last name into Ernest
Best's first name, and ---- well, you know about the slips of old scholars!
Sorry, James Ernest!
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Pat Tiller <ptiller@husc.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 19:26:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Hb 13.20 EN AIMATI DIAQHKHS
On Wed, 5 Apr 1995, Marmorstein, Art wrote:
> Granting that EN HAIMATI goes with ANAGAGWN, how does one justifying
> translating EN as "through" rather than "in"?
>
Greek EN is used in many distinguishable ways, not all of which
correspond to our English word 'in'. According to LSJ, it may be used
(1) of place, translatable by English words like 'in', 'among', 'on',
etc.; or
(2) of state, also translatable by English 'in', or by various
circumlocutions; or
(3) of instrument, translatable by English 'by', 'in', 'with', 'through',
etc.; or
(4) of time, translatable by 'in', 'during', 'in/during the time of',
etc; or
(5) of numbers, translatable by 'within', 'for', 'amounting to', etc.
This is only a summary.
One of the things that makes translation difficult is that the ancient
Greeks failed to take modern English into account when they used words.
The result is that there are very few Greek words that correspond exactly
to any one English word. Consequently translators must try to determine
the sense of an expression and then try to put that sense into English
without distorting that sense unduly.
Pat Tiller
Harvard Divinity School
------------------------------
From: Pat Tiller <ptiller@husc.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 19:38:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: genre of Revelation
On Wed, 5 Apr 1995, Greg Carey wrote:
> To a significant degree, Revelation also argues that God's control > may
not be evident in the present. Thus the martyrs cry out for > vengeance,
and are told to wait awhile, and _thlipsis_ is the order > of the day. 1
Enoch, which is composed of many distinct parts, has > some sections in
which history is absolutely determined by God, and > others where that
pattern is less evident. > I assume that you are referring to the Animal
Apocalypse of book 4 of Enoch and the Apoc. of Weeks of book 5. It is not
so clear to me that the An. Apoc. teaches that history is _absolutely_
determined by God. The shepherds (angelic guardians who have gone astray)
were given certain instructions for the care of Israel which they
transgressed. This explains the intensity of evil experienced
(subjectively) by the Enochic writer (and his group?). Did God determine
every aspect of this angelic failure? The point is partly to separate God
from blame for the mess we are in. His control of history is not at all
evident for the moment. That is why the dream-vision had to be written.
Of course there is some determination, but I'm not so sure that it is more
absolute than what we find in Revelation.
Or maybe you weren't referring to the An. Apoc. at all?
Pat Tiller
Harvard Divinity School
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 19:56:47 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Hb 13.20 EN AIMATI DIAQHKHS
On Wed, 5 Apr 1995, Marmorstein, Art wrote:
> Granting that EN HAIMATI goes with ANAGAGWN, how does one justifying
> translating EN as "through" rather than "in"?
While classical Greek does normally restrict (at least in prose) the use
of EN to locative functions, it does quite often in verse what Koine does
quite regularly: use EN with an instrumental dative. You may recognize
this in the declaration of John the Baptist: EGW EBAPTISA HUMAS HUDATI,
AUTOS DE BAPTISEI HUMAS EN PNEUMATI HAGIWI (Mk 1:8).
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: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 20:03:15 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Best's question about verb in Prov. 25:5
Not to respond directly to the question about KATORTHOW, but to make a
linguistic observation. It is really interesting to ponder the number of
Greek verbs that are active in the present but middle in the future:
bainw, bhsomai
lambanw, lhpsomai
manqanw, maqhsomai
akouw, akousomai
piptw, pesoumai
horaw, opsomai (but of course the root is different)
and there are lots of others.
Any linguists out there these days? Micheal Palmer? Mari Olsen? Any
speculative thoughts on why this should be?
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: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 20:05:27 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Please forgive Subj. heading to my comment on Rov. 25:5
On Wed, 5 Apr 1995, Edward Hobbs wrote:
> The inquirer is James Ernest. My torpid brain, while typing the line,
> said "Ernest-----Best", thus changing Ernest's last name into Ernest
> Best's first name, and ---- well, you know about the slips of old scholars!
> Sorry, James Ernest!
Too much reading or watching of Oscard Wilde's (mutatis mutandis) THE
IMPORTANCE OF BEING ERNEST.
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: JohnFrith@aol.com
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 21:10:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Unsubscribe
UNSUBSCRIBE BIBLICAL GREEK
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 95 18:47:38 PDT
Subject: Re: Subject: NT Documents
David Graham made several points, and I'd like to briefly
respond. First, it's bad enough I get junk mail with
bad spellings of my last name. It is LitwAk, a perfectly
proper Lithuanian name, thank you very much.
As to the crux of the matter, David Graham has correctly
identified one of my concerns. If Pliny said something recorded
nowhere else, say, Domitian liked to wear funny hats, he would
probably be given more credit fro being right than Luke was for
the existence of Asiarchs. It's fine to say taht we should
look for corroborating evidence outside the NT, but if Pliny or
Seutonius or Thucydides can be taken as accurate sources for
events that are only recorded by one of them, why can't the NT be treated the same way?
same way? Why wasn't Luke accepted as a source of info when he mentioned
Asiarchs instead of it being rejected because it occured nowhere else?
Second, I reject the assertion that accuracy in small details tells
nothing about the overall accuracy of a work. I do note, however,
that what's involved here is really complete subjective feeling.
Some historians doubt some things said by Roman historians, because they
view them as unlikely. Why? After all is said and done (and I'm not
accusing anyone of being a bad scholar) I think it is persoanl taste.
There's certainly no outside source to go to to say is Pliny right
that x happened. One has to decide if it seems likely in light of what
else one knows. In the case of he NT, this becomes more difficult for some
because they are not ready for the supernatural elements involved.
Of course Acts is not historically useful -- it's full of supernatrual
occurences. THAT, and THAT ALONE is the only real basis for saying
Luke's record is not historical, unless of course you decided that Acts
belongs to a genre that specifically doesn't care about the facts,
an act of classification that I challenge because form doesn't dictate
the significance of content (contra Bultmann and his descendants, who
are still with us :-). How do we know if Mark is trying to record
facts rather than midrtash or liteary fiction to accomplish his task
or even BUddhism as David Graham has suggested? Well, if we throw
away the notion that Mark is trying to tell us what happened, however
structured it is, then anyh option will do because I don't really then
have any anchor at all for doing exegesis. All options are possible
and equally valid (pure polysemy). jThis doesn't prevent Mark from not
being about what happened. If it isn't however, then I don't have any
controls anymore on what to make of it.
The other point I was trying to make is not about canonical
authority. It is about how to decide what a work is and how it would have
been received and whether or not it is proper to assign special categories
to religous texts. I don't have anything that tells me explicitly
how Theophilus undestood Luke-Acts outsdie of what the prologue of those
two works says. How do I know that he thought Luke was trying to write
history? I don't know it. I believe it because I think that
matters of fact are essential when you ask someone to change their
religion. People don't just do that (except maybe in Hollywood,
where you weekly invent a new deity to follow, which stronly resembles
your own image!). People don't live lives built around facts, how
much do I get for my money, how many miles away is it, has she been
married before (not a sexist example, just an issue in the Pentatuch).
I was just reading Acts 10. Peter's sppech is all about what happened and
what he witnessed. He is trying to convince his audience to believe
in Jesus, and he stresses what happened. I don't believe for one second
that people care about facs all day long every day in every culture and then
when they hear religoius informaiton, throw out that model. I'm not saying
that a 1st century Jew or Gentile reading John necessarily cared about
how many fish were caught exactly. I am saying the basic facticity of the
Gospel narrative was of crucial importance when being asked to make
a decision to change religion. I could, however, be wrong. What I want
is somethng I can read to show me how a 1st centruy Jew would have
uinderstood Mark uncoached. If that is not as facts to provide for faith,
then I'll accept that, but I haven't seen anything like that yet.
My model explains the contents of the Gospels and has no significant
outside challenges to it if one grants that supernatural events happen.
It accords with what I think human nature is like in every area of life.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
P.S.,
THis is my last post on this subject.
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #652
*****************************
** 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