[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #692
b-greek-digest Thursday, 4 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 692
In this issue:
Re: PROTON, PROTOS or PROI
Re: eis with accusative
Fwd: Re: The Lame Man in John
Re: Translations
areth
Apostolic Fathers Concordance
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 16:44:38 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: PROTON, PROTOS or PROI
I'm not a textual critic, but given your choices I'd go with PROTON,
preferably as an adverb, primarily on the basis of its position. PROTOS
does not seem to me to be a very logical proposition (isn't it already
implied without PROTOS that Andrew takes the initiative in this
finding?); despite what you say about PRWI and time relationships in John
1-2, it seems to me that where the time of an event is emphasized,the
time is placed first or last in the sentence/clause. On the other hand,
PROTON meaning, "the very first thing he does is find ..." would seem to
underscore the importance that Andrew places upon his own discovery of
the Messiah.
A secondary question that has always puzzled me is: how do those who hold
to an inerrancy position reconcile this account of Jesus' first encounter
with Peter and Andrew with the account in the Synoptics? If I had to put
down money on which has a better claim to historicity, I'd put it on
John's account (the Synoptic account appears to me on the very surface to
be a story constructed to provide a setting for the saying, "I will make
you fishers of men.").
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: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 03 May 1995 17:02:12 CST
Subject: Re: eis with accusative
On Wed, 3 May 1995, Carlton Winbery wrote:
>I would agree with what you have said, "I think it is helpful here to make
>Ken Pike's distinction between semantics
>and the conceptual (which he usually calls "referencial") realm." I would
>also tend to deal with Acts 2:38 EIS AFESIN in much the same way. I would
>not see this necessarily as an accusative of purpose or result, but as part
>of the conceptual world of repentance, forgiveness, baptism.
Carlton--
It looks to me like EIS EFESIN TWN (AMARTION (UMWN in Acts 2:38 is a purpose
or result construction. Compare Matt. 26:28; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3, where the
same expression minus the TWN and (UMWN occurs.
Conceptually, this does not give me a problem because baptism in scripture is
not a work of merit that would negate God's grace.
- --Bruce Terry
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: GGoolde@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 21:40:50 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Re: The Lame Man in John
- ---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj: Re: The Lame Man in John
Date: 95-05-02 01:45:37 EDT
From: G Goolde
To: Yirah,b-greek@virginia.edu
William Brooks,
Thanks for your good observations, brother. I have only a few small ideas to
add.
1. V14 doesn't say that his condition was becasuse of his specific, personal
sin. It merely warns him to stop sinning or a worse thing may come upon him.
Since all have sinned we don't really know if he was a worse sinner - i.e.
scoundrel - than most.
2. The passage doesn't treat the question of why he was in this condition,
in constrast to the blind man Jesus healed in John 9. In that case the
question is asked and answered by the Lord (vv2-3), but we cannot assume that
to always be the case.
3. Since the Scripture doesn't say why the lame man was in that condition, I
believe that is not the point God is making. To truly exegete the text is to
lead the truth out of the text, that is, to discover the truth God put there.
4. It also doesn't say WHY Jesus healed him! But we do learn that the
unbelieving Jews reacted to His healing on the Sabbath v14. Perhaps the most
important truth in the passage is that Jesus made Himself equal with the
Father (v18).
5. In summary: Might we be in danger when we preach or teach on what the
Scripture does not clearly say? Would we do better to focus on what is
declared in the text by God Himself? Could it be that the most accurate
answer to your good question is: "The Bible doesn't say."?
George Goolde
Dean, Graduate Studies, San Diego Bible Seminary
------------------------------
From: Mari Olsen <molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 22:00:36 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Translations
> This is indeed distressing. Even the RSV obliterates the distinction
> between "historical" present, imperfect, and aorist tenses in narrative
> (one of my pet peeves), but the NRSV even takes out things like IDOU and
> other structurally significant markers. I have decided to use Aland's
> Synopsis in English (RSV) next year instead of the NRSV Throckmorton.
>
> Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
> Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
> pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
>
>
Do ANY translations carry over the 'historical' present into the
perfectly suitable English form of the same name? I think it would
restore the 'flavors' of the various writers, which often tend to be
levelled out by the style of the translators.
Mari Broman Olsen
Northwestern University
Department of Linguistics
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208
molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
molsen@babel.ling.nwu.edu
------------------------------
From: Kent Sutorius <kassutor@clark.net>
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 00:17:42 +0500
Subject: areth
Tim wrote in response to my post concerning spiritual vs. moral integrity:
> Is there a difference? The gospel of God's love for all leads us
>into moral/ethical living. How could someone have "spiritual integrity"
>(what you mean by this exactly?) without moral goodness?
This is a difficult question to answer in brevity, but I'll try.
First of all I agree that someone with spiritual integrity would have moral
integrity. But not all people that have moral integrity have spiritual
integrity. There are plenty of people on this earth who express moral
goodness yet do not have the Spirit of God dwelling in them. Sadly to say,
sometimes their lives appear indistinguishable from a believer's lifestyle.
Therefore, my question was, "Did Jesus give us a new nature just to keep
us in the realm of moral goodness?" I think Tim's last paragraph is correct:
>The problem today is that "virtue" is often understood in a moralistic or
>even legalistic sense as a code to live up to, rather than an expression
>of one's...transcendent experience with Christ.
I think 2Pe. 1 does give us a clue. In verse nine, it says that if
these qualities are not being added to our lives, we are blind
(tuphlos estin muopazon) or dim sighted. We cannot see reality or divine
viewpoint. Therefore our thinking and actions are from human viewpoint.
My spiritual sight is based on light. That light comes by faith in the Word
and by abiding. Peter says if we have the knowledge of Christ, we realize
the resources of grace made available to us and the precious promises given
to us that enable us to be partakers of a divine nature. That nature will
express itself in divine ways. Therefore, I can have knowledge that is from
above that illuminates my spirit, renews my mind and causes me to reflect
the glory of God. Or I can have a knowledge that is from beneath, of this
earth (from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) that is intellectual and
stimulating, but can only reform not transform. I can have the appearance
of godliness but no power, or I can express a spirituality that expresses
authority and power (e.g.Jesus taught with authority; Paul in all his
trouble, lived as an overcomer). I can have a human forgiveness that
doesn't forget or a divine forgiveness that does forget and casts the
offense into the deepest sea.
I'm almost finished!
Jesus redefined the Pharisees' moral code and their form of relevant
righteousness in the beatitudes. He gave divine viewpoint on marriage,
anger, judging, adultery, etc. In John 8, moral light says to stone the
woman caught in adultery. Spiritual light says, "He who has no sin cast the
first stone." "Woman, go and sin no more."
These spiritual characteristics operate out of the premise of grace,
love, and mercy. They are based on the Word that is authoritative and
absolute. Moral characteristics can be expressed in natural living and are
forever shifting in time. Our Supreme Court provides a good example of that.
So, Christians do reflect moral goodness, but by their nature they
reflect a goodness that is supernatural.
Sorry that this probably went beyond the bounds of b-greek
Kent A. Sutorius
Maryland Bible College and Seminary
kassutor@clark.net
------------------------------
From: Robert Kraft <kraft@ccat.sas.upenn.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 01:01:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Apostolic Fathers Concordance
Apropos the appended exchange, CBD lists Goodspeed's Index at $8.95, but
the catalog I have in hand does not identify the (presumably most
ernest) recent editor/contributor. Shame on them.
Goodspeed's Index, if I recall correctly, does not give contexts for the
alphabetized entries. The Concordance to the Apostolic Fathers by H.
Kraft (no relation, to my knowledge) that came out maybe 30 years ago
from the Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft von Darmstadt is much more
helpful in that regard. Wonder where my copy is?
Incidentally, prior to CBD one of the best inexpensive sources of texts
and tools was the Spanish series, Biblioteca Autores Cristianos, which I
hope is still active. Their edition of Padres Apologistas Griegos by
Daniel Ruiz Bueno (Madrid 1954) provides a Spanish translation at the
top of the page, with the Greek text (various editions are used) at the
bottom, introductory materials in Spanish, and a somewhat abridged form
of Goodspeed's Index Apologeticus (1912, repr 1969) in the back (pp.
893-1006). Very handy. And cheap. In 1963 I got my copy from Blackwell's
for 11/6 (eleven old shillings and sixpence), which even then was not
much more than $1.50! Since TLG came along, I haven't looked at it
much, but it was, and is very handy. I also have the BAC edition of the
apocryphal gospels, but for some reason I don't seem to have acquired
their Apostolic Fathers, which might also have included a version of
Goodspeed's Index Patristicus in the back.
Bob Kraft, UPenn
- -----
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 09:54:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: LXX, NT and Apostolic Fa. Word lists
On Mon, 1 May 1995, Edgar M. Krentz wrote:
> There is no special list for the Apostolic Fathers. The closest one
can
> come is the _Index Patristicus_, edited by Edgar John Goodspeed years
ago.
> Alec Allenson reprinted it in the 1950s, I think, but it is long out
of
> print.
Reprinted in 1993 by Hendrickson (with the very brief Latin preface
helpfully translated into English by a member of this list, here
unnamed,
which is how I know it was reprinted). Available inexpensively from
Hendrickson or from CBD (with no royalties to the above-referenced
person).
ISBN 1-56563-033-5.
- - -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #692
*****************************
** 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