[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #710
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 17 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 710
In this issue:
A Personal Thank You.
Re: Johannine Comma
Re: Johannine Comma
Re: Johannine Comma
Re: Johannine Comma
Looking for a word (fwd)
CCAT Texts
Re: Divine Passive?
Baptism in Acts 2:38
Secret Mark, Smith, etc.
Re: Baptism in Acts 2:38
Re: Secret Mark, Smith, etc.
Re: Looking for a word (fwd)
Re: Johannine Comma
Re: Johannine Comma
John 14:21, emphaniso
Re: Looking for a word (fwd)
Re: Looking for a word (fwd)
Secret Mark remarks
Re: Smith's visit to Berkeley...
Re: Secret Mark remarks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: WHEIDLER@trevecca.edu
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 08:31:52 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: A Personal Thank You.
This is a bit off the subject, but I felt I needed to say
a word of thank you to each one of you-all. ;)
I recently completed a course in Apocalyptic Lit. and received the
highest grade in an upper division Bible course that I have ever
taken. I believe that the discussion which took place here on
Apoc. Genre and all of its subsequent threads were a big help. You
pointed me in many different directions. You re-inforced some of
what my Prof. was saying but you also showed me that other areas
were not a concrete as he was saying.
Thank you for teaching me.
God Bless each of you,
Wayne
Trevecca Nazarene College
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 10:13:33 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Johannine Comma
On Mon, 15 May 1995, Greg Hahn wrote:
> I'm involved in a discussion with an individual on another net concerning
> the Johannine Comma. This person obviously does not know Greek but
> apparently wishes to make it appear that he does.
>
> He has been writing lengthy pieces that are way over his head. My guess
> is that he is plagiarizing some material from Peter Ruckman, or perhaps
> Edward F. Hills.
>
> The focus of their argument is that a serious grammatical problem
> develops when the Johannine Comma is deleted from 1Jo 5:7-8, thus
> providing some reason for including it in the text.
>
> Here are the two versions:
>
>
> 7 oti treiv eisin oi marturountev en tw ouranw o pathr o logov kai to
> agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin 8 kai treiv eisin oi
> marturountev en th gh to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiv eiv
> to en eisin (1 John 5 TR)
>
>
> 7 oti treiv eisin oi marturountev 8 to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima
> kai oi treiv eiv to en eisin (1 John 5 N26)
>
> The brunt of their argument is that the three neuter nouns, pneuma, udwr,
> and aima, are referred to by the masculine subject, oi marturountes.
> This, they say, is a "grammatical impossibility". (Their term)
> Supposedly the insertion of the JC somehow fixes this, though for the
> life of me I can't see why, as the same sentence exists either way, but
> they say that the PRECEDING sentence is essential to the construction of
> the latter one.
>
> Isn't the phrase "to pneuma, to udwr, kai to aima" an "apposition"? And
> isn't it common that there be a lack of concord in words used in
> apposition?
>
> I would appreciate any scholarly input, and please indicate whether I may
> or may not quote you.
As no angel has dared thus far to tackle this one, the "fool" will
rush in.
First of all, I would quite agree with you on the matter of TO PNEUMA, TO
hUDWR, KAI TO hAIMA standing in simple apposition to hOI MARTUROUNTES (I
don't much like that 'v' for final sigma and don't really see why we need
to distinguish initial/medial from final sigma in transliteration, but
that's another story). Perhaps the objection is that hOI MARTUROUNTES is
masculine, while the three appositives are all neuter, so that it is
supposed that the participial phrase ought to take the form TA
MARTUROUNTA. This would certainly be grammatically acceptable, but I
can't see any reason why hOI MARTUROUNTES shouldn't be understood as
personalized: "There are three who bear witness."
I have looked at the lengthy note by Metzger in his textual commentary on
UBS3 (another digression: my attempts to order the revised commentary by
phone from ABS fell to ground in confrontation with the most obtuse
salesperson I've ever run into; I told the salesperson please to send me
a copy of the most recent Scholarly Resources catalog instead) and then
recalled that this was the passage supposedly translated back into Greek
by Erasmus for the first printed version of the TR. Bultmann (whom you
had better not cite to your discussant!) has a nice little note on it in
the HERMENEIA commentary also.
You may cite may if you must, but only as one who has studied Greek for
over 40 years and with no more authority than any other careful student
of Greek.
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: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 11:11:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Johannine Comma
<I'm involved in a discussion with an individual on another net concerning
the Johannine Comma. This person obviously does not know Greek but
apparently wishes to make it appear that he does.
He has been writing lengthy pieces that are way over his head. My guess
is that he is plagiarizing some material from Peter Ruckman, or perhaps
Edward F. Hills.>
Most probably the person is citing from Kevin James, _The Corruption of the
Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship_ (1990), pp. 230-238.
Hills, as I noted in my endnote on pages 85-86 of _The King James Only
Controversy_, is rather reserved in his defense of the Comma, though he does
conclude with these words:
"In other words, it is not impossible that the Johannine comma was one of
those few readings of the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the Traditional
Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the guiding
providence of God. In these rare instances God called upon the usage of the
Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the Greek-speaking Church." (p.
213).
I addressed James' grammatical argument briefly on pages 85-86, as well as
his textual arguments written, obviously, in response to Metzger (though he
doesn't bother to note that). The issues regarding the inclusion of the
Comma are addressed in the text on pages 60-62.
One other point: it was definitely not Ruckman they were citing. Agreement
of genders isn't his style. He recently wrote to me and indicated that not
only am I a professional liar, but the man I dedicated the book to (the
long-time president of my ministry) is a liar, too, even though he's never
met the man, never heard of the man, never heard the man speak, or read a
word from his pen. Ah yes, good ol' Pete Ruckman. What a charmer.
<I would appreciate any scholarly input, and please indicate whether I may
or may not quote you. >
Well, the KJV Only folks question the "scholarly" aspect, but obviously you
are free to quote me and my book all you want.
James White
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 12:56:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Johannine Comma
Orthopodeo@aol.com wrote:
> ...[quoting Kevin James, _The Corruption of the Word] ...
>"In other words, it is not impossible that the Johannine comma was one of
>those few readings of the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the Traditional
>Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the guiding
>providence of God.
I must admit to being somewhat perplexed by the use of the word
"Traditional" in the passage quoted above. In three of the four Greek
manuscripts in which the Comma appears, none were written before the 16th
century. The fourth --while written in the 12th cent-- contains the Comma
only as marginal correction that shows every sign of not being written
earlier than the 17th cent.
So far as I'm aware, the Greek NT nowhere mentions the name "Edward Hobbs"
directly. Should I begin modifying this claim to: "it appears no where in
the traditional text"?
Nichael __
nichael@sover.net Be as passers-by -- IC
Paradise Farm
Brattleboro VT
------------------------------
From: Cierpke@aol.com
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 13:49:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Johannine Comma
Bro. White:
I recently bought a copy of your book "The King James Only Controversy" and I
am thankful that you had the guts to say what needed said. Dr. James D. Price
whom you quoted was my professor while in seminary and I now serve as
Reference Librarian at Tennessee Temple University and Temple Baptist
Seminary where he teaches. We are constantly fighting that battle here at
Temple and I've passed your book along to the faculty as something that
should be read by them and their students. I think the best discussion of the
Johannine comma is in the Anchor Bible Commentary on the Epistles of John by
Raymond Brown. Although I do not agree with Brown's Catholicism and with the
liberal leanings of the Anchor Bible series in general, his treatment of that
particular problem is very detailed and cogent.
------------------------------
From: George Baloglou <baloglou@oswego.oswego.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 13:51:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Looking for a word (fwd)
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 06:34:08 -0600
From: ------------------------------
To: baloglou@oswego.Oswego.EDU
Subject: Looking for a word
Is there a word that describes the process of
translating and having results that reflect an
already ascribed World view that cause the
translation to be far from transliteration?
As an example Jehova Witnesses have the New World
Translation which reveals their doctrinal beliefs as
opposed to clean translation.
What is that word?
- -------------- end of forwarded message --------------
Folks, I hope you forgive me for the (requested) anonymity
in the forwarded message; to compensate a bit, and since
(broadly defined) affiliation might be an issue to some:
I am an assistant professor of Mathematics at SUNY Oswego,
Greek Orthodox by birth yet not by conviction, participating
to b-greek mainly because of my interest in the Greek language.
To get to the substance of the forwarded message, I suggested
creating a new word for the occasion: "paratranslate"! To the
best of my knowledge, there is no perfect term (neither in
English nor in Greek), but I am ready for a pleasant surprise.
George Baloglou
"Memory of my people, your name is Pindos, your name is Athos" ("AXION ESTI")
"MNHMH TOU LAOU MOU, SE LENE PINDO, SE LENE ATHW" [Odysseas Elytis]
------------------------------
From: Mark W Lucas <markl@stpetes.win-uk.net>
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 22:13:20
Subject: CCAT Texts
Does anyone know where I can get hold of the CCAT texts of the NT?
Also I would like to get hold of the text of the NIV Bible as MRT.
Any ideas please? (reply direct unless it is of general interest).
Thanks in anticipation.
Mark Lucas (London, UK)
Mark Lucas (London, UK)
Feel free to mail me direct on
markl@stpetes.win-uk.net
or compuserve 100025,1511
------------------------------
From: Mark W Lucas <markl@stpetes.win-uk.net>
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 19:12:00
Subject: Re: Divine Passive?
>>I have just been doing some work on 1 Peter 1:3-12 and wonder
>>whether anagennhsas in v3 could be considered a 'divine passive',
>>that is the use of the passive voice to connote an action of God
>>(as in etethhsan in 2:8).
>>
>>Any offers?
>>
>>Mark Lucas (London, UK)
>>
>>Feel free to mail me direct on
>>markl@stpetes.win-uk.net
>>or compuserve 100025,1511
>
>I would be very surprised if it were, since the form is an aorist *active*
>participle in agreement with and modifying QEOS.
>
>Edgar Krentz <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Thanks Edgar for spotting my *deliberate* (_NOT_ :-*) faux pas!
Having done some work on the use of Divine Passives in the NT I
can't help but see them wherever I look (even when they are in the
active voice it seems :-) )!
Mark Lucas (London, UK)
Feel free to mail me direct on
markl@stpetes.win-uk.net
or compuserve 100025,1511
------------------------------
From: Jim Hill <jim@pasteur.hsf.uab.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 May 95 13:26:29 -0500
Subject: Baptism in Acts 2:38
Please comment on the statement below.
> ... I see it like this
>
> (the parenthesis are mine):
>
> Peter replied, "Repent (and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of
> Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the
> gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)
>
> The reasons I see it this way are as follows:
>
> 1) The verb makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and
> nouns. The verb 'repent' is plural and so is the pronoun 'your.'
> Therfore the verb 'repent' must go with the purpose of forgiveness of
> sins. On the other hand the imperative 'be baptized' is singular,
> setting it off from the rest of the sentence.
Jim Hill
B'ham, AL
------------------------------
From: "Todd J. B. Blayone" <CXFW@musica.mcgill.ca>
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 14:34:20 EDT
Subject: Secret Mark, Smith, etc.
I've foolishly decided to enter this conversation to raise a few
questions. First, let me say that it has been most interesting
to hear about some of your personal encounters with Morton Smith.
Young scholars (like myself), who never had a chance to witness
Smith's behaviour, are apt to judge his views on the basis of
his written legacy. Indeed, there seem to be some mature scholars,
like E.P. Sanders who are also willing to to this. If I remember
correctly, in _Jesus and Judaism_, Sanders carefully
critiques Smith's _Jesus the Magician._ Moreover, one of Sanders'
students, Dr. Ian Henderson at McGill, keeps _Jesus the Magician_
on his list of "important reads" for his Jesus course. (Of course, it
it safe to say that he shares none of Smith's views!)
All of this prompts me to question the role of ad hominem
argumentation in academic dialogue. What is its place? Should we
establish a "hierarchy of relative madness" to which to assign
past scholars. Where would J. Allegro and his Jesus/mushroom go?
Perhaps we could even learn a few lessons from Irenaeus
in his treatment of the Gnostics. (Of course, that darn printing
press has made it more difficult to burn all extant copies of
works produced by lunatics.)
Oh, it's been my experience that the pro-Christian apologist
is just as likely to be deranged as the anti-Christian polemicist.
Of course, I have also found that the great religious imaginations
tend to transcend such antitheses.
Just my humble opinion,
Todd
______________________________________________________________
Todd J. B. Blayone McGill University
Project Coordinator, Chorus Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Chorus related e-mail: chorus@.peinet.pe.ca
General e-mail: cxfw@musica.mcgill.ca
My home page URL: http://www.peinet.pe.ca:2080/Chorus
/People/Todd_B/toddhome.html
Chorus URL: http://www.peinet.pe.ca:2080/Chorus/home.html
______________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 13:44:31 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Baptism in Acts 2:38
On Tue, 16 May 1995, Jim Hill wrote:
> Please comment on the statement below.
>
> > ... I see it like this
> > (the parenthesis are mine):
>
> > Peter replied, "Repent (and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of
> > Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the
> > gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)
>
> > The reasons I see it this way are as follows:
> >
> > 1) The verb makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and
>
> > nouns. The verb 'repent' is plural and so is the pronoun 'your.'
>
> > Therfore the verb 'repent' must go with the purpose of forgiveness of
>
> > sins. On the other hand the imperative 'be baptized' is singular,
>
> > setting it off from the rest of the sentence.
You have evidently misunderstood that imperative: it's a 3rd-person
singular imperative used with a distributive singular pronoun
(hEKASTOS) coupled with a partititive genitive plural pronoun (hUMWN);
this leads not altogether unnaturally into the plural verbs that follow:
"Let EACH-ONE OF-YOU be baptized ... " BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWN ... The
receipt of the Spirit is indeed depicted in what follows as something
that happens to the group, but baptism is hardly a matter of the crowd
being swept by a tidal wave; rather, each in his/her own turn.
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: Tue, 16 May 1995 13:56:18 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Secret Mark, Smith, etc.
On Tue, 16 May 1995, Todd J. B. Blayone wrote:
>
> All of this prompts me to question the role of ad hominem
> argumentation in academic dialogue. What is its place? Should we
> establish a "hierarchy of relative madness" to which to assign
> past scholars. Where would J. Allegro and his Jesus/mushroom go?
> Perhaps we could even learn a few lessons from Irenaeus
> in his treatment of the Gnostics. (Of course, that darn printing
> press has made it more difficult to burn all extant copies of
> works produced by lunatics.)
>
> Oh, it's been my experience that the pro-Christian apologist
> is just as likely to be deranged as the anti-Christian polemicist.
> Of course, I have also found that the great religious imaginations
> tend to transcend such antitheses.
When you ask, "What is the place of "ad hominem" argumentation in
academic discourse, my first inclination, given the context in which the
question appears, is to ask, Are you referring to the way Morton Smith
dialogued with OTHERS, or to the way OTHERS dialogued with HIM? My
impression is that he was treated pretty generously by others.
And it is certainly true what you say about the pro-Christian apologist
being as likely to be deranged. I believe that Paul must have been a
particularly difficult person to get along with--at least for some
people--as must also have been Martin Luther. I do think its good that we
have some survivals of the texts deemed heretical. I even wish we had
more of Origen in good translations. But I suspect that the dust will
have to settle for a couple generations at least, perhaps more, before
the true significance of a life of scholarship of a particularly
outrageous personality can be properly assessed.
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: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 12:06:32 -0700
Subject: Re: Looking for a word (fwd)
George Baloglou (baloglou@oswego.Oswego.EDU) wrote:
>
>Is there a word that describes the process of
>translating and having results that reflect an
>already ascribed World view that cause the
>translation to be far from transliteration?
>
>As an example Jehova Witnesses have the New World
>Translation which reveals their doctrinal beliefs as
>opposed to clean translation.
>
>What is that word?
>
There is a word for what you are talking about. I don't know
whether it's a coined word or one that sprang naturally into use to
describe the kind of activity you mention above. It's called
*eisegesis*.
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 17:04:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Johannine Comma
<I recently bought a copy of your book "The King James Only Controversy" and
I am thankful that you had the guts to say what needed said. Dr. James D.
Price whom you quoted was my professor while in seminary and I now serve as
Reference Librarian at Tennessee Temple University and Temple Baptist
Seminary where he teaches. We are constantly fighting that battle here at
Temple and I've passed your book along to the faculty as something that
should be read by them and their students. >
I am aware of the battle at Temple---my uncle on my mother's side taught
there. You might know him: Oswald Summers. Dr. Price was most encouraging
and helpful, and was most kind to me in our conversations. You are
definitely in the middle of the "war zone," no doubt about it. Keep up the
good fight.
James White
------------------------------
From: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 17:02:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Johannine Comma
> ...[quoting Kevin James, _The Corruption of the Word] ...
>"In other words, it is not impossible that the Johannine comma was one of
>those few readings of the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the Traditional
>Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the guiding
>providence of God.
<I must admit to being somewhat perplexed by the use of the word
"Traditional" in the passage quoted above. In three of the four Greek
manuscripts in which the Comma appears, none were written before the 16th
century. The fourth --while written in the 12th cent-- contains the Comma
only as marginal correction that shows every sign of not being written
earlier than the 17th cent.
So far as I'm aware, the Greek NT nowhere mentions the name "Edward Hobbs"
directly. Should I begin modifying this claim to: "it appears no where in
the traditional text"?>
< chuckle > Well, redefinition of terms is a favorite ploy of our KJV Only
friends, even of those who place some kind of scholarly glow on their works.
One has to work hard at figuring out if phrases like "traditional text" is
meant to be understood of the "Majority Text" (whatever THAT might be), the
"Byzantine Text" (ditto), or, more often than not, the TR itself (normally
Scrivener's 1894, but that's another issue). Sometimes it's all of those,
and more---as long as it isn't the dreaded W&H 1881, or any of the heretical
offspring of THAT text (Nestle's, UBS), it's "traditional."
As I will be doing another radio program on this very topic in just a few
minutes, I thought you and the list readers might find a "report from the
battle lines" interesting. A while ago I was doing a live program up in
Detroit (it might have been Denver---after a while they start melding
together), and a fellow calls in to the program and spends two or three
minutes telling us all about all the old translations of the Bible he has. Ev
entually the host asks him to get to his question. He goes to Revelation
14:6, which I dutifully looked up in my NA 27. "You see that angel who has
the eternal gospel there?" he asked. "Yes," I replied. "Well," he said,
"tell me this: what translation will the angel be using?"
I've got to admit, I hadn't ever thought of that one.
James White
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 May 95 17:54 CDT
Subject: John 14:21, emphaniso
The remarkable promise at John 14:21 may hark back to
the use of "emphanison" in LXX Ex. 33:13, 18, in which
case it suggests something dramatic (to put it mildly).
Some commentators regard it as offering a counterpart
to Acts 10:40 and related talk of manifestation
through Jesus's resurrection (e.g., Beasley-Murray).
Any thoughts on how to understand "emphaniso" in
John 14:21? Thanks. --Paul Moser, Loyola University
of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: George Baloglou <baloglou@oswego.oswego.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 21:33:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Looking for a word (fwd)
On Tue, 16 May 1995, David Moore wrote:
> George Baloglou (baloglou@oswego.Oswego.EDU) wrote:
> >
> >Is there a word that describes the process of
> >translating and having results that reflect an
> >already ascribed World view that cause the
> >translation to be far from transliteration?
> >
> >As an example Jehova Witnesses have the New World
> >Translation which reveals their doctrinal beliefs as
> >opposed to clean translation.
> >
> >What is that word?
> >
> There is a word for what you are talking about. I don't know
> whether it's a coined word or one that sprang naturally into use to
> describe the kind of activity you mention above. It's called
> *eisegesis*.
>
Well, "eisegesis" has been left out of Webster's, but the Oxford
English Dictionary defines it as
"the interpretation of a word or passage (from the Scriptures)
by reading into it one's own ideas"
and cites a few examples of its usage, the earliest one going back
to 1878 and P. Scaff's "Through Bible Lands", I, v. 53:
"the eisegetical manner of those allegorical and typological
exegetes who make the Scriptures responsible for their own
pious thoughts and fancies".
In Greek, both modern and ancient, "eisegesis" stands somewhere
between "proposal", "report" and "recommendation"; in ancient Greek
only, we also have the additional meaning of "introducing new dogmas,
morals or rituals" ("EISAGWGH KAINWN DAIMONIWN"!), and this probably
explains the introduction of the term into the English language.
I notice the lack of a verb corresponding to "exegete" ("EXHGW") and
the existence, in modern Greek, of the medio-passive "EISHGOUMAI" =
= "propose", "suggest"; also medio-passive is the verb "EXHGOUMAI" =
= "explain my own intentions and views". To end on a funny note, let
me also record "PAREXHGOUMAI" = "get misunderstood" and a certain bus
driver who stated once that he "EXHGEITAI XWRIS NA PAREXHGEITAI"--no,
I can never forget that one :-))
> David L. Moore Director of Education
> Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
> Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
>
George Baloglou
"Memory of my people, your name is Pindos, your name is Athos" ("AXION ESTI")
"MNHMH TOU LAOU MOU, SE LENE PINDO, SE LENE ATHW" [Odysseas Elytis]
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 19:56:12 -0700
Subject: Re: Looking for a word (fwd)
George Baloglou (baloglou@oswego.Oswego.EDU) wrote:
>
>Well, "eisegesis" has been left out of Webster's, but the Oxford
>English Dictionary defines it as
>
>"the interpretation of a word or passage (from the Scriptures)
>by reading into it one's own ideas"
>
>and cites a few examples of its usage, the earliest one going back
>to 1878 and P. Scaff's "Through Bible Lands", I, v. 53:
>
>"the eisegetical manner of those allegorical and typological
>exegetes who make the Scriptures responsible for their own
>pious thoughts and fancies".
>
>In Greek, both modern and ancient, "eisegesis" stands somewhere
>between "proposal", "report" and "recommendation"; in ancient Greek
>only, we also have the additional meaning of "introducing new dogmas,
>morals or rituals" ("EISAGWGH KAINWN DAIMONIWN"!), and this probably
>explains the introduction of the term into the English language.
>
The notes on Greek usages are interesting, but, IMHO, "eisegesis"
most likely came into scholarly English as a way of expressing the
antithesis of "exegesis."
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 20:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Secret Mark remarks
I believe it was Todd who mentioned that perhaps we should beware ad
hominem arguements in regard to Smith and his work, and anyone for that
matter. However, one cannot entirely escape ad hominem attacks. Smith
is a prime example. Here is a man, quite apart from his "madness" ( a
term not employed by Hobbs in this discussion, I might point out) and his
ill treatment of others, FABRICATED a manuscript to supporthis theories.
WIthout doubt all of his work is suspect and should be weighed with the
utmost care. In contrast, Crossan, whose work I don't happen to agree
with, does not quite generate the same reservations which Smith's does:
Crossan has not been known to fake evidence. I think you have done Dr.
Hobbs and others who have called Smith to task over the years a grave
injustice.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: LISATIA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 00:42:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Smith's visit to Berkeley...
Dear Professor,
You are right that I am referring to an earlier epoch of the saga, a
1973 visit by Smith to Berkeley. My wife, Rose, had already corrected me on
this. She went to the airport with me, and sends her regards to the beloved
professor.
best wishes,
Richard Arthur
lisatia@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "Todd J. B. Blayone" <CXFW@musica.mcgill.ca>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 00:50:31 EDT
Subject: Re: Secret Mark remarks
>I believe it was Todd who mentioned that perhaps we should beware ad
>hominem arguements in regard to Smith and his work, and anyone for that
>matter. However, one cannot entirely escape ad hominem attacks. Smith
>is a prime example. Here is a man, quite apart from his "madness" ( a
>term not employed by Hobbs in this discussion, I might point out) and his
>ill treatment of others, FABRICATED a manuscript to supporthis theories.
>WIthout doubt all of his work is suspect and should be weighed with the
>utmost care. In contrast, Crossan, whose work I don't happen to agree
>with, does not quite generate the same reservations which Smith's does:
>Crossan has not been known to fake evidence. I think you have done Dr.
>Hobbs and others who have called Smith to task over the years a grave
>injustice.
It was certainly NOT my intention to point the finger at Dr. Hobbs
or to excuse anyone for fabricating evidence. I merely wished to
suggest that, as a general rule, ad hominem arguments present one
with a slippery road on which to travel. After all, there are many
histories of Christianity (even "orthodox" ones) based on REAL
manuscripts that could all too easily be dubed "insane."
Moreover, as one who (it seems) had the pleasure of never
having met Smith, I can say that at least some of his work has
allowed me to see aspects of Christian history against different
backdrops and in new lights. (I'm even willing to admit O.J.
was a darn good athlete.)
As always, this is just an opinion.
Todd
______________________________________________________________
Todd J. B. Blayone McGill University
Project Coordinator, Chorus Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Chorus related e-mail: chorus@.peinet.pe.ca
General e-mail: cxfw@musica.mcgill.ca
My home page URL: http://www.peinet.pe.ca:2080/Chorus
/People/Todd_B/toddhome.html
Chorus URL: http://www.peinet.pe.ca:2080/Chorus/home.html
______________________________________________________________
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #710
*****************************
** 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