[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #716
b-greek-digest Monday, 22 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 716
In this issue:
Jn 1:1-3 and `Vancouver Sun'
Jn 1:1-3 and `Vancouver Sun'
"No published thoughts"
Re: Colwell rule
Jn 1:1-3 and `Vancouver Sun'
Fix on prev. post (Luke)
help
Re: Manuscript photographs
Re: Colwell rule
Re: Colwell rule
Let's make a critical apparatus
Re: Let's make a critical apparatus
Re: Colwell Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: amedamne@trianon.worldtel.com
Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 07:25:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Jn 1:1-3 and `Vancouver Sun'
Greetings and Peace:
After reading the recent response to the posting on the subject:
`Re: Colwell rule', I thought many of the listers would be
interested in knowing the following text that appeared on page A-2
of `VANCOUVER SUN' (a local daily), on March 10, 1994 on the
subject matter. Below is a copy of the published text:
- ----------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Christ a God incarnate!
Know Your Bible
(Series No.1)
In the beginning was the Command(1), and the Command was with(2)
the God(3), and the Command was Divine(4). This [the Command](5)
was in the beginning with the God. All things were made by this
(the Command); and without this was not any thing made that was
made. John 1:1-3.
(1) The Greek term used by John is `Logos', derived from
`Lego' - meaning `to speak'. The English term `Decalogue' meaning
`Ten Commandments' is a combination of the Greek words `deka' (Ten)
and `logous' (Commands). The term `Logos' means, `God's Spoken
Command'.
(2) The word `with' creates an enigmatic dilemma for those who
prefer to render `Logos' as `Jesus' instead of `The Command'. How
can Jesus be `with the God' and `was the God', as well? The concept
of God's Spoken Command being `with the God' from `the beginning',
coincides with the biblical concept for the Creation. "And the God
said, Let there be light; and there was light." Genesis 1:3. John's
opening is very similar to that of the Genesis.
(3) Here in the Greek text, John has used the definitive
article `the' (ho) before `God' (Theo), because it is a Subject.
(4) Here, John has not used the definitive article `the'
before `God', because it is a Predicate. In other words the term
used here denotes the nature, quality, attribute or property of the
Subject. In this instance the nature of the God's Command is
Divine.
(5) In some biblical versions, the word `This' is replaced
with `This (one)' or `He (Jesus)'. However, the word `This' refers
to `The Spoken Command'.
To comprehend John 1:14 please write to:
A.M.TRUST, POST BOX 81075, BURNABY, B.C. V5H 4K2
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
The end of the published text.
God Bless You
Ameh <amedamne@trianon.worltel.com>
------------------------------
From: amedamne@trianon.worldtel.com
Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 07:58:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Jn 1:1-3 and `Vancouver Sun'
Oops!
In my very recent posting on the above subject, due to a typographical error
my e-mail address was wrong. The correct address is:
Ameh <amedamne@trianon.worldtel.com>
Sorry for the error.
Ameh
------------------------------
From: Shaughn Daniel <zxmli05@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 12:17:57 +0000
Subject: "No published thoughts"
Herewith do I confess that I have no published thoughts in theology to
date. This makes me sad. But then again, I haven't tried that hard either.
Shaughn Daniel
Tuebingen, Germany
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 10:57:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Colwell rule
On Sat, 20 May 1995, Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:
> My conclusions regarding Jn 1:1 and Colwell's rule do not support the JW
> interpretation of 'a god.' The anarthrous noun in the Greek has always
> denoted qualitativeness, not indefiniteness versus definiteness. The
Grammatically, "a god" is indefinite, not definite. Also, how does one
distinguish between the substantive use of an anarthrous noun & the
"qualitative" use of one? Some non-controversial examples would be
helpful - I used to have a list of them but I can't find it. As I
remember, many "qualitative" nouns could just as easily be read as
figurative uses of nouns in their substantive sense.
> applied to determine definiteness. Besides, if theos in 1:1c is
> definite, then we end up with Sabellianism, because a definite theos in
> 1:1c then refers back to the articular ton theon of 1:1b who is God the
> Father.
One can't assume the writer of John would have avoided a "heresy" that
hadn't even been condemned yet. Besides, I think the JWs' point is that
1.1c is indefinite, "a [some other] god" so that it wouldn't refer back
to the other theos.
It is also possible that if predicate _theos_ were definite in sense,
that it wouldn't *directly* refer back to God the father. (1) _theos_
might be being used of a state, title, condition, etc.; or (2) _theos_
might be being used susbtantively as the _logos_ or word spoken by God, that
is, the "word" is "God" as a word, not God. This 2nd possibility would
eliminate the awkward opening paradox.
> Taking theos qualitatively best supports the doctrine of the
> trinity, for then the Father and the Logos are deity.
In your usage, "deity" does not, any more than in orthodoxy, refer to
Person. But in today's everyday English, "deity," "divine," and
even "God" often are construed as referring only to Person. That is,
there is only one God, a person. I have often thought that the problems
with translation here have more to do with English than Greek: lay
English-speaking usage is distinctly unorthodox, as is the
conceptualization. Ask any ordinary church member about the Trinity, and
you'll hear Sabellianism, modalism, etc. Then try describing the orthodox
Trinity to them and they'll probably say, "that's sounds like Jehovah's
Witnesses!" :)
After being off the list for a while, it's nice to come back and find
people still ruminating over John 1.1.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: amedamne@trianon.worldtel.com
Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 12:02:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Jn 1:1-3 and `Vancouver Sun'
Greetings and Peace:
After reading the recent response to the posting on the subject:
`Re: Colwell rule', I thought many of the listers would be
interested in knowing the following text that appeared on page A-2
of `VANCOUVER SUN' (a local daily), on March 10, 1994 on the
subject matter. Below is a copy of the published text:
- ----------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Christ a God incarnate!
Know Your Bible
(Series No.1)
In the beginning was the Command(1), and the Command was with(2)
the God(3), and the Command was Divine(4). This [the Command](5)
was in the beginning with the God. All things were made by this
(the Command); and without this was not any thing made that was
made. John 1:1-3.
(1) The Greek term used by John is `Logos', derived from
`Lego' - meaning `to speak'. The English term `Decalogue' meaning
`Ten Commandments' is a combination of the Greek words `deka' (Ten)
and `logous' (Commands). The term `Logos' means, `God's Spoken
Command'.
(2) The word `with' creates an enigmatic dilemma for those who
prefer to render `Logos' as `Jesus' instead of `The Command'. How
can Jesus be `with the God' and `was the God', as well? The concept
of God's Spoken Command being `with the God' from `the beginning',
coincides with the biblical concept for the Creation. "And the God
said, Let there be light; and there was light." Genesis 1:3. John's
opening is very similar to that of the Genesis.
(3) Here in the Greek text, John has used the definitive
article `the' (ho) before `God' (Theo), because it is a Subject.
(4) Here, John has not used the definitive article `the'
before `God', because it is a Predicate. In other words the term
used here denotes the nature, quality, attribute or property of the
Subject. In this instance the nature of the God's Command is
Divine.
(5) In some biblical versions, the word `This' is replaced
with `This (one)' or `He (Jesus)'. However, the word `This' refers
to `The Spoken Command'.
To comprehend John 1:14 please write to:
A.M.TRUST, POST BOX 81075, BURNABY, B.C. V5H 4K2
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
The end of the published text.
God Bless You
Ameh <amedamne@trianon.worldtel.com>
------------------------------
From: TonyPr684@aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 14:08:06 -0400
Subject: Fix on prev. post (Luke)
**A mistake in my previous post (3:36 should be 6:36) is here fixed**
This is my first effort to enter substantively into the B-Greek forum. It
stems from a paper I'm preparing, and comes only after considerable research
on my part. It has to do with the word "compassionate" in Luke.
Luke uses a form of splagxni/zomai for "compassionate" in 1:78 (re God); 7:13
(re Jesus in Nain); 10:33 (re father of prodigal son) and 15:20 (re good
Samaritan). Yet, in 6:36 (re God) he uses oi)kti/rmonej / oi)kti/rmwn, and
this is the only instance where he uses this word form, both in the gospel
and in Acts.
My question is: Why the change? I'm aware that 6:36 is considered a part of Q
according to the International Q Project (reported in JBL, 113/3 [1994]
495-499). (The folks at Clarement, Stan Anderson specifically, graciously
e-mailed me the databases and responses on this text but they're in a format
that my PC apparently can't translate.)
For those who agree with the Q hypothesis, would it be valid to say that Luke
here was preserving a distinct form so he kept the different word? Are there
any other less speculative explanations?
For those who don't agree with the Q hypothesis, what other plausible
explanations might there be?
Is there any connection with the fact that--according to Kittel--in the LXX,
oi)ti/w is common whereas splagxni/zomai is rare?
Anyone care to respond?
Tony Prete
Haddonfield, NJ
------------------------------
From: Watkins Randy CDT <x74806h4@westpoint-emh2.usma.army.mil>
Date: Sun, 21 May 95 14:22:38 EDT
Subject: help
somebody told me that 1 John 5:7 was spurious and not supported in the better
mss. can somebody enlighten me? please send private email, as i am not
subscribed.
in Christ,
paul
>.
CDT CPL Watkins, R. Paul *CENTURIAN* <USCC, USMA-West Point>
x74806h4@westpoint-emh2.usma.army.mil / Room 5021 Scott Short
The branch is tender and bears its leaves- the summer is nigh!
The Day of Wrath is yet near. ***Even so, come, Lord Jesus.***
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 22:27:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Manuscript photographs
On Fri, 19 May 1995, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
> If anyone wishes to examine photographs of biblical mss., the best
> N.American location from which to procure them is:
> The Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center, P. O. Box 670, Claremont, Calif.,
> 91711. The have microfilms of 100s of mss., and aim to have films of all
> available, many of which they have rights to copy & can sell these
> copies.
Thank you Larry. This is exactly the kind of information I needed.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 22:54:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Colwell rule
On Fri, 19 May 1995, David Moore wrote in response to Paul Dixon's
comments about his thesis:
> I, for one, would be interested to see a summation of your
> processes and conclusions. Maybe others on the list would also be
> interested.
I am one other who would be interested.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: RoyRM@aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 23:19:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Colwell rule
Paul Ladd wrote:
>What my thesis did was to consider the converse of what Colwell
>did. I examined anarthrous predicate nouns, then determined >definiteness.
>Colwell's rule is valid only for textual criticism purposes.
>If further interested, see me.
Sorry for the delay, but I was out of town this weekend. I am very much
interested in the results of your thesis, as well as some of your
bibliography. Could you give me some more info?
Thanks,
Roy R. Millhouse
RoyRM@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Timothy John Finney <finney@csuvax1.murdoch.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 10:59:47 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Let's make a critical apparatus
Jeff Kloha pointed out that we won't have a comprehensive critical
apparatus until someone transcribes all of the manuscripts and releases
them to the world. I completely agree.
There are about 5000 Greek NT manuscripts. But not all of these are as
important as others. Certainly, the papyri and uncials are a good place to
start, being, as they demonstrably are, the Greek text of the first
millenium. There are also very important minuscules, e.g. 33, 1739, which
exhibit an 'old' text. The various textual families are already in
existence among the uncials, so we will have a virtually complete history
of the text encased in a transcription of the papyri, uncials and selected
important minuscules. That reduces the task. To what extent I will now
attempt to estimate.
Allow me to pull some numbers out of the air. I have been transcribing the
pre-1000 AD MSS of the Letter to the Hebrews. The letter has about 5000
words, and it takes me a full-time week (40 hours) to transcribe one
manuscript copy of Hebrews (this is intense work - like sitting in an
exam). There are about 30 pre-1000 mss of Hebrews. (With very, very few
exceptions, early MSS cover only part of the NT.) Using this as a (very
rough) guide, the task is reduced to something of the order of
transcribing 30 out of 5000 manuscripts. There are far more copies of the
Gospels, for example, than of the Letter to the Hebrews, so lets bump this
number up to 100 as an average for the whole NT. The New Testament has
about 100 thousand words. So the time required to transcribe the pre-1000
AD New Testament MSS and have the basis for a critical apparatus that
gives us virtually all of the significant known data for reconstructing
the history of the NT text is,
Time (person-hours) = 100 (MSS) * 40 (hr/5000 words) * 100000 (words)
which is 80 thousand person hours(!).
Another way to look at this is to give 100 Ph.D. students the task of
transcribing a manuscript as part of their dissertation. The time
required is now reduced to three years (assuming full-time students).
Of course, a great deal of the work has already been done - Tischendorf
transcribed Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus and many others. The papyri
known up to 1935 have been transcribed by someone whose name escapes me
now. Kenyon transcribed P46. My experience has shown that there are many
errors in these transcription, but they form a good basis for a new
transcription. Once these are double-checked, or even better, cross
checked, we have a RELIABLE basis for our critical apparatus.
All that is then required is to run the (standardised) transcriptions
through Peter Robinson's Collate program, and voila!
Some of the corollaries of all this are:
1) We need high quality ACCESSIBLE images of the MSS. (In my experience,
working from microfilm does not result in the best transcription -
especially where correctors have been at work.) Hence my efforts to get
people interested in the idea of publishing digital images of the NT MSS
on CD-ROM (or whatever digital medium is practicable).
2) We need a coordinated effort. If there are people out there who would
like to do this, let's work out the size of the task and parcel it out. Say
what you are doing so that others won't double up, and do it.
3) We need to agree at the outset to make our transcriptions public
property. This is my intention for my transcriptions of PROS EBRAIOUS.
Sorry for the long post.
Tim Finney
Murdoch University
Perth, Western Australia.
------------------------------
From: Shaughn Daniel <zxmli05@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 04:16:42 +0000
Subject: Re: Let's make a critical apparatus
i put my name in the barrel for the book of jude! if not that, then
galatians, since i've been working on it for about 3 years now (but not so
intensively from a text critical point of view).
shaughn daniel
tuebingen, germany
------------------------------
From: RoyRM@aol.com
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 00:36:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Colwell Rule
Paul Ladd wrote:
>Colwell's rule says that definite predicate nominatives
>preceding the verb usually are anarthrous. The rule asserts nothing
>about definiteness. It does not say that anarthrous predicate
>nominatives preceding the verb usually are definite.
Actually, I was after a little more (or perhaps something more general) than
a focus on Jn 1:1. I was wondering about the Colwell rule in general: Is it
a good starting point for this kind of construction? Is it meaningless
because of the way Colwell researched it (i.e. starting from what he
determined was definite), or because it defines an obscure construction? Is
it something that shouldn't be taught because more recent scholarship has
shown it to be wrong? I wasn't sure I could get any of these conclusions
from the statistics you presented on John.
Also, after seeing your stats on John, I wondered if anyone had any idea how
all of this works outside of John? How common of a construction is this? I
would do it myself, but I don't have easy access to a program that does the
leg work.
Roy R. Millhouse
RoyRM@aol.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #716
*****************************
** 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