[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #684
b-greek-digest Thursday, 27 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 684
In this issue:
Re: 1 Cor. 15:29
Re: Gal. 3:8--An Optative?
Re: Internet virus warning
Re: NA27 and UBS proposed changes
Re: 1 Cor. 15:29
Re: 1 Cor. 15:29
Baptism for the dead
Re: 1 Cor. 15:29
Re: Gal. 3:8--An Optative?
Re: 1 Cor. 15:29
Re: Gal. 3:8--An Optative?
Re. Memorisation of Principal Parts
Re: 1 Cor 15.29
Re: UBS4 & NA27
Baptism for the dead, because of the angels, et alia
Comfort's "The quest for the original text"
Re: Baptism for the dead
Re: Comfort's "The quest for the original text"
Mat 5:22
Re: Comfort's "The quest for the original text"
Re: EXAD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 03:00:53 -0400
Subject: Re: 1 Cor. 15:29
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
CC: terry@bible.acu.edu
From: Timster132@aol.com
Terry you said on 4/25/95...
> That is the one that takes (UPER in the sense of
>"on behalf of" (a quite common meaning) and sees
>some sort of vicarious baptism, either practiced
>by the Corinthians or by a group they were familar
>with.
>
>There is another, not uncommon, meaning of (UPER
>which gives rise to an understanding that fits the
>context and has none of the difficulties involved
>that the vicarious baptism interpretation does.
>Besides "on behalf of," (UPER also is used "to
>denote the moving cause or the reason" (BAG 1d).
>As such, it can be translated "because of, on account
>of, for the sake of" where "for the sake of" does not
>mean "for the benefit of."
Terry, it sounds like both are "proxy" baptisms, whether
done to benefit the dead or done for the sake of the dead.
Either way, I think the whole idea of proxy baptism is
strange, and still remains a solitary reference in the NT to
such a practice.
Still, I liked your making the distinction between the motivations
for proxy baptism.
Peace,
Tim
------------------------------
From: Pat Tiller <ptiller@husc.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 08:44:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Gal. 3:8--An Optative?
On Tue, 25 Apr 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
> I am just mulling over whether the
> indicative has a continuously present time significance here, as this
> translation would suggest, or is this a potential use of the indicative, "God
> would justify."
>
I can't see how this could possibly be a "potential use of the
indicative." I thought Carl had already shown that there is no present
tense potential indicative.
Pat Tiller
Harvard Divinity School
------------------------------
From: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 10:18:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Internet virus warning
The posting about "Good Times" is a hoax. Sending it on, without any
confirmation or substantiation, is an irresponsible and destructive
act.
Some people have sufficient technical acumen that they can immediately
tell if such a thing has an possibliity of being true. If you are not
one of those people, then you are causing serious harm by forwarding
messages without knowing their truth.
Be more careful. When you forward them, you are not helping people,
you are hurting them. Don't do it again.
Michael
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 07:27:24 -0700
Subject: Re: NA27 and UBS proposed changes
Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil> quoted and wrote:
>dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com suggested:
>> ...going over some of the specific texts that
>> might be improved by employing a reading other than that of the N27.
>> ... those variants in which NA27 differ from the previous NA
editions
>
>If I remember the emailed comments correctly, the texts of NA27 and
NA26
>are identical, only the apparatus is updated.
Vincent is quite correct. The differences are between NA25 and
NA26-27. Please pardon my inexactness in defining the question (a
second time).
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 10:32:25 CST
Subject: Re: 1 Cor. 15:29
On Wed, 26 Apr 1995, Timster132@aol.com wrote:
>Terry, it sounds like both are "proxy" baptisms, whether
>done to benefit the dead or done for the sake of the dead.
>Either way, I think the whole idea of proxy baptism is
>strange, and still remains a solitary reference in the NT to
>such a practice.
>
>Still, I liked your making the distinction between the motivations
>for proxy baptism.
Tim--
A point of clarification. I think 1 Cor. 15:29 is *not* best understood as
proxy baptism. Rather, there is a good possibility that the passage refers to
those who receive *their own* initial baptism because a Christian that they
were close to has died. Some may question their motives, but this kind of
thing happens even today.
- --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: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 95 09:05:18 PDT
Subject: Re: 1 Cor. 15:29
terry@bible.acu.edu wrote:
> ...If this other meaning of UPER is applied to 1 Cor. 15:29, we get something
> like "baptized on account of the dead." The situation would probably refer to
> those who had been baptized after Christian loved ones had died in hopes that
> they would be raised with them.
The whole point of Paul's argument here is that there were people who both
rejected the idea of any resurrection, EI OLWS NEKROI OUK EGEIRONTAI,
and simultaneously wanted to be BAPTIZOMENOI UPER TWN NEKRWN.
If the dead never rise and there is no expectation of being raised with them,
and the baptism is not expected to even benefit the dead, then in what way
can the dead be "the moving cause or the reason" for the baptism?
I cannot visualize the motivation involved.
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: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 13:20:22 -0400
Subject: Baptism for the dead
Bruce Terry wrote,
"the passage refers to those who receive *their own* initial baptism because
a Christian that they were close to has died."
And Ed Hobbs said that some Baptists grammarians dealt with EIS plus the
accusative to satisfy Baptist theology!
Carlton Winbery
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 12:44:31 -0500 (GMT-0500)
Subject: Re: 1 Cor. 15:29
As my system has been "down" all morning, I am only now able to post a
response on this question, that I have stayed out of, and I see the
opportunity to hitch a reply onto Tim's posting that was directly in
response to Bruce's. I'll simply attach what I've uploaded:
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 1995
To: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>, B-Greek@virginia.edu
Subject: Re: 1 Cor. 15:29
On Tues, 25 Apr 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
> IMHO, there are only a couple of the 40+ interpretations worth
> considering; however, only one of the two has had any exposure to date
> on this list in answering Guy's question. That is the one that takes
> (UPER in the sense of on behalf of (a quite common meaning) and sees
> some sort of vicarious baptism, either practiced by the Corinthians or
> by a group they were familar with.
> There is another, not uncommon, meaning of (UPER which gives
> rise to an understanding that fits the context and has none of the
> difficulties involved that the vicarious baptism interpretation does.
> Beside s"on behalf of," (UPER also is used "to denote the moving cause
> or the reason" (BAG 1d). As such, it can be translated because of,
> on account of, for the sake of where "for the sake of" does not mean
> "for the benefit of." When Paul says in 2 Cor. 12:10 that he went
> through sufferings (UPER CRISTOU, he is not saying that he was doing
> this to benefit Christ, although some might argue that "this is the
> plain sense of the words." (IMHO, it is always wrong to argue that a
> preposition has to have a standard meaning/translation that can be
> applied to all passages.) Eph. 5:20 does not mean "giving thanks in
> order to benefit everything"; rather, the thanksgiving is a response
> to all things. 1 Cor. 10:30 would seem best to be translated why am
> I slandered on account of that for which I give thanks. It certainly
> does not mean "for the benefit of, on behalf of."
> If this other meaning of (UPER is applied to 1 Cor. 15:29, we
> get something like "baptized on account of the dead." The situation
> would probably refer to those who had been baptized after Christian
> loved ones had died in hopes that they would be raised with them. If
> there is no resurrection, such action would be foolish. This
> understanding has the advantage of 1) keeping NEKROI as referring to
> dead people, which it does elsewhere in the passage, 2) taking (UPER
> in a sense that Paul uses elsewhere, 3) referring to an action that is
> understandable and occurs even in our times, 4) contributing to Paul's
> over-all argument, and 5) not manufacturing a cultural situation for
> which there is no background evidence from antiquity.
> As you may can tell, I prefer this explanation to baptized on
> behalf of the dead. That translation involves several difficulties,
> and I happen to believe that the most difficult reading is to be
> preferred is a canon of textual criticism, not of hermeneutics.
While there is a degree of plausibility in Bruce's suggestion here, it
seems to me that it is a very small degree. We are talking about HUPER
in the sense of "over" as in "The civil war was fought over slavery,"
or "for" as in "I want to thank you for your assistance." I'm not sure
that either of these senses is quite equivalent to the sense of DIA +
accusative, although perhaps it does overlap, and God knows that PROS
+ accusative can mean not quite but almost anything in the sense of
"for," "before," "facing," "regarding," etc., etc.
Perhaps it is ultimately subjective, my sense that Bruce's reading of
HUPER TWN NEKRWN as "because of dead (loved) ones" is far-fetched. I
guess what bothers me most is that it seems to me a strange and
unnatural way to say this.
And finally, it seems to me that this is a false conception of the
principle of LECTIO DIFFICILIOR: when applied to variant readings in
MSS. this has reference to concrete alternative readings; here,
however, we are only talking about a hypothesis, and one of
questionable plausibility at that.
Finally, as a post post-script, I'll add another two cents' worth: I
think that there are lots of questions about matters in our NT text that
we are not likely to get to the heart of (this side of the grave); the
relevant sources of information are lost and we have only tantalizing
fragments left. I really suspect that this matter of those who "are
baptized/get baptized 'for the dead'" is one of these questions.
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, 26 Apr 1995 12:52:49 -0500 (GMT-0500)
Subject: Re: Gal. 3:8--An Optative?
On Wed, 26 Apr 1995, Pat Tiller wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Apr 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
>
> > I am just mulling over whether the
> > indicative has a continuously present time significance here, as this
> > translation would suggest, or is this a potential use of the indicative, "God
> > would justify."
> >
> I can't see how this could possibly be a "potential use of the
> indicative." I thought Carl had already shown that there is no present
> tense potential indicative.
I TRIED to show that, but i just MAY be wrong. There just MAY BE a
present tense potential indicative--in ENGLISH!
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: "Kevin D. Johnson" <logos@primenet.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 11:01:56 -0700
Subject: Re: 1 Cor. 15:29
At 09:05 AM 4/26/95 PDT, broman@nosc.mil wrote:
>terry@bible.acu.edu wrote:
>> ...If this other meaning of UPER is applied to 1 Cor. 15:29, we get something
>> like "baptized on account of the dead." The situation would probably refer to
>> those who had been baptized after Christian loved ones had died in hopes that
>> they would be raised with them.
>
>The whole point of Paul's argument here is that there were people who both
>rejected the idea of any resurrection, EI OLWS NEKROI OUK EGEIRONTAI,
>and simultaneously wanted to be BAPTIZOMENOI UPER TWN NEKRWN.
>If the dead never rise and there is no expectation of being raised with them,
>and the baptism is not expected to even benefit the dead, then in what way
>can the dead be "the moving cause or the reason" for the baptism?
>I cannot visualize the motivation involved.
Perhaps the meaning of "Baptism for the dead" is figurative, and emphasizes
the death (baptism) of Christian martyrs. That is at least the subject of
the immediate context in the verses following v29.
------------------------------
From: Jakob Heckert <heckej@abraham.ccaa.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 14:11:11 +0000 ( )
Subject: Re: Gal. 3:8--An Optative?
The 'dikaioi' in Gal. 3:8 is an omicron contract. It is an
present indicative active third singular. "Since scripture knew
beforehand that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, it proclaimed
the gospel to Abraham beforehand, 'In you all the nations of the earth
will be blessed'(Gen. 12:3).
On Wed, 26 Apr 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 1995, Pat Tiller wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Apr 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
> >
> > > I am just mulling over whether the
> > > indicative has a continuously present time significance here, as this
> > > translation would suggest, or is this a potential use of the indicative, "God
> > > would justify."
> > >
> > I can't see how this could possibly be a "potential use of the
> > indicative." I thought Carl had already shown that there is no present
> > tense potential indicative.
>
> I TRIED to show that, but i just MAY be wrong. There just MAY BE a
> present tense potential indicative--in ENGLISH!
>
> 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: Rod Decker <rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 13:24:21 -0500
Subject: Re. Memorisation of Principal Parts
>unpredictables only that need to be learned. You can teach the rules, but
>even so, a student will form the future of AKOUW as AKOUSW if he/she
>doesn't know that the future of this verb is middle voice; similarly I
Perhaps that depends on what level of Greek proficiency is intended. That
would be very true if we are trying to teach Greek composition. Some might
not care to admit it, but my goal is only to teach students to read Greek,
at which point recognition is more important (and rules more useful). If
they want to learn Gk. comp., they will have to go to St. Louis and study
with Carl :)
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 13:24:42 -0500
Subject: Re: 1 Cor 15.29
Timster wrote:
>
> It is known that there were Jewish missionaries that were active in the
>diaspora, who it seems may have practiced baptism (as John Baptist did). If
>they practiced "baptism for the dead", it would seem natural for Paul to
>refer to the group as "they" instead of "we".
>
> I have wondered if Paul speaking of "The Baptized for the dead" may have
>been a technical term which meant the sinful self which dies in baptism, (cf,
IF, IF, ...
Too many "ifs" with no evidence. Speculation w/o evidence is futile. This
is the problem with just about any theoretical explantion ever offered for
this verse. Better to admit that we simply don't know than speculate.
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 13:25:03 -0500
Subject: Re: UBS4 & NA27
>Yes! I am going to use Mounce next year...text, workbook and morphology;
>then two lexicons (BAGD and LN); then a GNT et.al. I feel for my
>students as well as for my annual trek to SBL displays!
Not seeing any smiley, Gary, you'll have to fill me in. Do you anticipate
all this for one class, i.e., "Greek 101"? Or is this your textbook list
for several classes? I'd be interested in how you structure your courses
and integrate this array of textbooks as well as how much you expect
students to buy and how much you recommend or assume access to (i.e., in
the library).
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 16:27:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Baptism for the dead, because of the angels, et alia
May I heartily second Carl Conrad's Post-Post-script? Even our daily
newspapers contain references which no one will understand a century from
now, and the ancient world was no different. When Paul casually says
that a woman ought to have authority over her own head "because of the
angels," he assumes his (ancient) readers would know what he meant.
We happen not to have any idea. (So we write articles about it!
PLEASE don't tell me about Hooker's or Fitzmyer's, or anyone else's,
article "explaining" it. We still don't know; clever guesses with
minuscule evidence are entertaining, interesting, fun. But without
some real evidence, we still don't know.) And when Paul casually
introduces as a clincher, the fact that some are baptized for the dead,
we don't know what he meant. It may be entertaining, interesting,
even fun, to speculate; but we still won't know. Maybe it's just
that I've listened to several "generations" (at least over four
decades!) of guessing, always going over the same ground, and always
ending without any more knowledge than we began with. You see,
I think there is a place for such speculations; I just don't really
believe that a good knowledge of Greek will change speculation into
evidence and solution.
I concede at once that I prefer to read speculations about such
matters than to read flame-wars! But perhaps we could focus on SOLUBLE
problems, or at least SOLVABLE ones.
Maybe "we'll understand it better bye and bye!" I hope so,
though I don't believe so. Meanwhile there are lots of matters which
would benefit from an exchange of informed scholarship. (Like, how
many angels can dance on the point of a needle? Or . . . )
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Ken Penner <kpenner@unixg.ubc.ca>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 15:55:09 -0700
Subject: Comfort's "The quest for the original text"
At 09:04 AM 4/25/95 PDT, broman@nosc.mil wrote:
>Phillip Comfort in his book "The quest for the original text of the Greek NT"
>(approximate title) had a chapter listing the changes he would like made
>in the NA26 text. Generally, he rang the changes on the theme:
>"They should have trusted Vaticanus more." but there were some thoughtful
>comments, too.
What do you all think of Comfort's book?
I did a review of it for a library, and wouldn't recommend it.
I didn't think it should be banned, but I found that the scholarship was
sloppy and the issues got confused.
Any other opinions?
Ken Penner
Regent College
------------------------------
From: Shaughn Daniel <zxmli05@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 02:18:16 +0000
Subject: Re: Baptism for the dead
Dear b-greek members,
I haven't caught the whole thread on this subject, but came across an
interesting quote while reading the church fathers.
Tertullian Against Marcion, X, vol. 3, pp. 449f Hendrickson's edition:
BEGIN QUOTE
Let us now return to the resurrection, to the defence of which against
heretics of all sorts we have given indeed sufficient attention in another
work of ours. But we will not be wanting (in some defence of the doctrine)
even here, in consideration of such persons ignorant of that little
treatise. "What," asks he, "shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if
the dead rise not?" Now, never mind that practice, (whatever it may have
been.) The Februarian lustrations will perhaps answer him (quite as well),
by praying for the dead. Do not then suppose that the apostle here
indicates some new god as the author and advocate of this (baptism for the
dead. His only aim in alluding to it was) that he might all the more firmly
insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were
vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of
such a resurrection. We have the apostle in another passage defining "but
one baptism." To be "baptized for the dead" therefore means, in fact, to be
baptized for the body; for, as we have shown, it is the body which becomes
dead. What, then, shall they do who are baptized for the body, if the body
rises not again? We stand, then, on firm ground (when we say) that the next
question which the apostle has discussed equally relates to the body.
END QUOTE
I think it is interesting how Tertullian seems to refer to the practice as
existing, yet he doesn't know what it was, and despite this, judges it a
vain practice. He opts for a practice that he does know about--"praying for
the dead"--and that practice is well attested (Kalendae Februariae, Ovid's
Fasti, Macrobius's Saturn, Cicero's De Legibus, Plutarch's Numa).
I just ran a search on my TLG with the two word fragments: BAPTIZ near NEKR
within 4 lines. There seems to be a lot of passages concerning these two
phrases, but I don't have the time to crawl through the Greek passages now.
It's enough data to make another thesis.
Shaughn Daniel
Tuebingen, Germany
------------------------------
From: Jeff Kloha <kloha@sauron.multiverse.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 95 22:42:02 EDT
Subject: Re: Comfort's "The quest for the original text"
On Wed, 26 Apr 1995 15:55:09 -0700 you wrote:
>At 09:04 AM 4/25/95 PDT, broman@nosc.mil wrote:
>
>>Phillip Comfort in his book "The quest for the original text of the Greek NT"
>>(approximate title) had a chapter listing the changes he would like made
>>in the NA26 text. Generally, he rang the changes on the theme:
>>"They should have trusted Vaticanus more." but there were some thoughtful
>>comments, too.
>
>What do you all think of Comfort's book?
>
>I did a review of it for a library, and wouldn't recommend it.
>I didn't think it should be banned, but I found that the scholarship was
>sloppy and the issues got confused.
>
>Any other opinions?
>Ken Penner
>Regent College
>
>
>
Eldon Epp had a rather stinging review in this past year's JBL, noting
many problems. I wrote up a review a couple of years ago now (and
actually found the floppy); here are some of the major problems I saw,
if anyone has the interest:
1) Strictly a documentary method; no use of any form of eclecticism or
judgement of individual readings
2) No mention of early versions or church fathers
3) Believes that all variants arose after the second century,
therefore, the earliest mss. are the best. Sees the Alexandrian school
of text crit as (literally) early Masoretes.
4) Because earlier must be better, he redates as many mss. as possible
to the pre-200 period. He unquestioningly accepts Y. K. Kim's argument
that p46 should be dated to A.D. 80; in fact, 13 papyri are given
significantly earlier dates (pp. 31-2) than those given by Metzger and
the Alands; he also simply reassigns all 11 mss. that the Aland's
assign to third-fourth cens. or c300 (p16, p18, p35, p37, p38, p72,
p78, p92, 0162, 0171, 0220; pp. 32-3) to the third century.
5) His view of that the earlier manuscripts are more careful and the
later less careful is precisely the opposite of that generally
accepted (e.g. Aland and Aland, p. 69).
6) the unquestioned authority of p75, and even 01 and B. Ultimately
all we are left with is another argument for Westcott and Hort's
"Neutral Text" without a corrective from the "Western Text" or
anywhere else: "The testimony of 01 and B is to be preferred over all
other combinations of later manuscripts. The testimony would be even
more reliable if there were three early witnesses such as p75, 01, and
B" (p. 133).
Ken, if you'd like the whole review (about a page and a half,
single-spaced), I can send it to you, let me know. I'd look at Epp
first, though.
///////+\\\\\\\
Jeff Kloha [] Lakewood, OH
kloha@po.multiverse.com [] KCICXC
------------------------------
From: Dennis Ford <drford@scott.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 22:22:10 -0500
Subject: Mat 5:22
I am asking for help in understanding the meaning of anger in Mat 5:22.
I have a philosophy professer who criticizes Christ's teaching because he
takes this verse to be a universal prohibition against anger. I know very
little Greek, but the resources I have say the verb form is the present
participle, which would mean continuous or repeated anger. I would
appreciate someone either confirming or correcting this rendering.
Thanks,
Dennis Ford
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 23:30:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Comfort's "The quest for the original text"
At 3:55 PM 26/04/95 -0700, Ken Penner wrote:
>What do you all think of Comfort's book?
>
>I did a review of it for a library, and wouldn't recommend it.
>I didn't think it should be banned, but I found that the scholarship was
>sloppy and the issues got confused.
>
>Any other opinions?
Speaking as an admitted non-expert, to take one specific point Comfort
basically endorses Kim's dating of p46 (i.e. to approx AD80). On that
basis alone I'd suggest that you assessment was probably pretty sound.
Nichael __
nichael@sover.net Be as passers-by -- IC
Paradise Farm
Brattleboro VT
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 21:09:17 -0700
Subject: Re: EXAD
Alexander Pruss <pruss@math.ubc.ca> wrote:
>(I should note here that I don't think the LXX's "The LORD our God is
>one LORD" contradicts the understanding of the text as concerning
>philosophical unity as opposed to just numerical unity.
I agree that the LXX's rendering supports the idea that the
_Shema_ is not a statement that would exclude philosophical unity as
opposed to absolute numeric unity. In fact, the LXX wording of the
_Shema_, as a Greek expression, decidedly favors *not* taking Y*WH EXAD
as a seperate assertion. I had hoped that Moshe Shulman might address
this aspect of the LXX's rendering of the _Shema_ since there is good
evidence that the Palestinian rabbis specifically allowed the
recitation of the _Shema_ in Greek.
>If we do not understand "Y*WH exad" as a separate assertion, but take
"exad"
>here to be adjectival, then I think we cannot derive the negation of
>compound unity as easily.
>I wonder if we should not consider the wider context in order to
decide whether
>"Y*WH exad" is a separate assertion or not. I think that the switch
between
>"Eloheinu" in this verse and "Eloheikha" in the next is significant in
>this respect. But I still don't know what exactly it portends.
>Shalom,
>Alex
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #684
*****************************
** 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