[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #719
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 24 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 719
In this issue:
bloopers
Re: Jn. 1:1
Re: Colwell rule
Re: Revelation and worship
Re: Colwell rule
Re: Let's make a critical apparatus.
Re: Let's make a critical apparatus.
Re Gal 3.16--seed or seeds?
Re: New Metzger Festschrift
Re: Gal 3.16--seed or seeds?
Re: Jn. 1:1
Fulbright Deadline Reminder
Re: Let's make a critical apparatus
Re: Let's make a critical apparatus.
Re: Let's make a critical apparatus
Luke's Use of KARDIA
Signatures, anonymity, and subject matter
Re: Colwell's rule
Information?
Re: anarthrous pred. nouns
Re: anarthrous pred. nouns
Signatures, anonymity, and subject matter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fuzzy <fuzzy@prairie.lakes.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 21:34:35 -0500
Subject: bloopers
>For cat-lovers: Archipuss, as mentioned in the letter to Philemon
>Roman Emperor Dominion (Domitian)
>and one of the Fathers: Turtleon (Tertullian)
What?????
>More seriously, is anyone out there particularly interested in the Book of
>Revelation, with special attention to its worship materials?
What do you mean by "worship materials"?
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 21:16:06 -0700
Subject: Re: Jn. 1:1
Tim Staker (Timster132@aol.com) wrote:
>Mr. Moffatt translated John 1:1 here with the qualitative
>sense: "and the Word was divine."
"Divine" has a pretty wide semantic range, and Moffatt's
translation is weak here. The quality expressed by QEOS in Jn. 1:1c
has the word QEON in 1b as its referent, the former (QEOS in 1c) being
a *qualitative* expression of the latter (QEON in 1b).
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 23:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Colwell rule
In my thesis I demonstrated that theos in Jn 1:1c is qualitative
(versus definite or indefinite) for the following reasons:
1) a comparison of all similar constructions in the Gospel
reflected a 94% probability of qualitativeness,
2) a comparison with the first two clauses in 1:1 showed that
two qualities of the logos (preexistence and distinct personality) had
already been described, therefore we might expect in parallel a third
quality,
3) the contrasting parallel with 1:14, "and the Word became
flesh," not "the flesh" or "a flesh",
4) if theos in 1:1c were definite, then it would naturally refer
back to the ton theon of 1:1b identifying the logos as God the Father.
In Jn 4:24 "God is spirit" certainly is preferrable over "God is
the Spirit" or "God is a spirit." Here the construction is parallel with
1:1c except the verb is not stated.
Paul Dixon
On Tue, 23 May 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
> cc: jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
>
> Greg Jordon [jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu]
> on 5/21/95 noted...
>
> >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.
>
> Mr. Moffatt translated John 1:1 here with the qualitative
> sense: "and the Word was divine."
>
> Tim Staker
> Timster132@aol.com
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 21:33:30 -0700
Subject: Re: Revelation and worship
Marilyn Parry (marilyn@noc4.u-net.com) wrote:
>More seriously, is anyone out there particularly interested in the
Book of
>Revelation, with special attention to its worship materials?
Much of Revelation does have definite implications for a biblical
picture of worship. Are there any passages in particular you had in
mind?
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 18:23:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Colwell rule
What I meant was what criteria does one use to determine whether a noun
is qualitative or not - "divine" _theos_ as opposed to "a/the god"
_theos_? Someone once referred me to 1 John 4:8 as an example of a
qualitative use of a noun:
...ho theos agapE estin.
That is, they would have rendered it "God is loving" rather than "God is
love." But it seems to me the word "agapE" (even indefinite) is used as
a fully substantive noun, since it is used interchangeably with the noun
(?) _theos_ (God), e.g.
1 John 4:16 ...ho theos agapE estin, kai ho menOn en tEi agapEi en tOi
theOi menei kai ho theos en autOi menei.
"En tEi agapEi" can't be meaning _agapE_ qualitatively, as far as I can
see. It seems to me much easier to see this as just a figurative use of
a substantive.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: J.D.F.=van=Halsema%BW_KG%TheoFilos@esau.th.vu.nl
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 09:57:24 EET
Subject: Re: Let's make a critical apparatus.
[I did not receive yesterday's digest; it is possible that someone else has
already made the suggestion I will make at the end of this message]
Two days ago Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil> wrote:
Subject: Re: Let's make a critical apparatus
>> Kurt and Barbara Aland think it
>> impossible to PRINT all available information.
>
>Irrelevant. Full texts of all MSS of all NT books could be put
>on one CD-ROM by my rough estimate. What they cannot do with
>all that material is analyze and comprehend it.
>
>I think the INTTF people have made their intentions known:
>that they want to publish an editio critica maior which presents
>a new critical text, supported by a large apparatus of material selected
>for its 'relevance', with no machine-readable publication of the base data,
>perhaps ever. LIKE THE CUSTODIANS OF THE QUMRAN MATERIALS,
>THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THEY MAKE THE EFFORT OF TRANSCRIBING IT,
>THEY WANT FIRST [AND SECOND] CHANCE AT PUBLISHING THE GOOD STUFF.
>
>EITHER THEY DON'T YET REALIZE THAT ONCE THEIR LIVE ELECTRONIC TEXTS
>ARE FIXED IN INK ON PAPER THEY ARE DEAD, OR ELSE THEY REALIZE IT ALL
>TOO WELL BUT WANT TO SIT ON THE GOODS FOR PROPERTARIAN REASONS.
>
>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
(Capital letters mine)
I think it only fair to give Barbara Aland the opportunity to react to this
accusations. I would like to hear her point of view.
If the group agrees I will send the complete discussion so far to Barbara
Aland by mail.
(this is posted separately to Vincent Broman).
Greetings,
Erik van Halsema
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik van Halsema |Research Assistant Free University Amsterdam
j.d.f.van_halsema@esau.th.vu.nl |Faculty of Theology
jdfvh@dds.nl |De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, NL
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Hans-Christoph Meier <hmeier@aixterm1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 14:39:32 +0200 (METDST)
Subject: Re: Let's make a critical apparatus.
On Wed, 24 May 1995 J.D.F.=van=Halsema%BW_KG%TheoFilos@esau.th.vu.nl wrote:
> >> Kurt and Barbara Aland think it
> >> impossible to PRINT all available information.
> >
> >I think the INTTF people have made their intentions known:
> >that they want to publish an editio critica maior which presents
> >a new critical text, supported by a large apparatus of material selected
> >for its 'relevance', with no machine-readable publication of the base data,
> >perhaps ever. LIKE THE CUSTODIANS OF THE QUMRAN MATERIALS,
> >THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THEY MAKE THE EFFORT OF TRANSCRIBING IT,
> >THEY WANT FIRST [AND SECOND] CHANCE AT PUBLISHING THE GOOD STUFF.
> >
> >EITHER THEY DON'T YET REALIZE THAT ONCE THEIR LIVE ELECTRONIC TEXTS
> >ARE FIXED IN INK ON PAPER THEY ARE DEAD, OR ELSE THEY REALIZE IT ALL
> >TOO WELL BUT WANT TO SIT ON THE GOODS FOR PROPERTARIAN REASONS.
> >
>
> I think it only fair to give Barbara Aland the opportunity to react to this
> accusations. I would like to hear her point of view.
> If the group agrees I will send the complete discussion so far to Barbara
> Aland by mail.
>
Excellent idea,
Hans-Christoph
------------------------------
From: Melchizedk@aol.com
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 09:31:03 -0400
Subject: Re Gal 3.16--seed or seeds?
GALATIANS 3:16
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say,
"And to offsprings," as of many; but it says, "And to your offspring," that
is, to one person, who is Christ." (NRSV)
- -----------------------------------
Perry Stepp writes:
"In Gal 3.16, Paul makes a great deal of the fact that the OT (Gen 13.15,
17.8,
24.7) specifies that Abraham's promises are to one *seed* (singular), not
many
*seeds* (plural). I've read *somewhere* that there are questions regarding
this point, that grammatically Paul is making some kind of error or fudging
the
facts, etc. But I can't remember where I've read this, and with the end of
the
semester, I have no access to a research library to check it out."
Here is some information which others may wish to supplement:
1) Paul is probably quoting the Septuagint (LXX), the greek translation of
the Old Testament. The LXX has the greek word for seed ("sperm"), which is
singular in number but collective in meaning. Thus, the greek word itself
could refer to either a descendant or to many descendants. Two examples of
the former are Gen 4:25, "God has appointed for me another child [gk:
"another seed"] instead of Abel" and Gen 21:13, where the same phrase refers
to the one person Ishmael.
2) In Jewish exegesis, to my understanding, it was a common and recognized
practice to base arguments on the smallest grammatical point of the text,
without necessarily either a) exhausting the meaning of that text or b)
comparing it with other texts. In other words, Paul can a) argue that
Genesis 12:7 et al. refers to one offspring, which it indeed *can*, without
worrying about the fact that it can also refer to many, and b) Paul can argue
from Gen 12:7 alone without considering what other texts say on the matter
(in other words he is guilty of "proof texting").
Thus, Paul is engaging in biblical exegesis in a manner typical to his times
and culture. He is neither "making an error" or "fudging the facts,"
according to the recognized procedures of his times. Note that does *not*
mean that all his Jewish readers would agree with Paul's argument: they might
have used the same verse(s) in Genesis to argue against a single descendant.
It is, after all, only an argument that Paul is making here, and it is not
the only possible one to make concerning the Genesis verse(s). Elsewhere,
both Paul and James argue from the same verse (Gen 15:6) with opposite
conclusions!
------------------------------
From: Melchizedk@aol.com
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 09:31:02 -0400
Subject: Re: New Metzger Festschrift
Paul Moser,
Thanks for the tips about the two books. Does the Metzger festschrift
contain anything which his 3rd edition "Texts of the NT" doesn't?
As far as the other book, it would not take much careful or sober historical
reconstruction to challenge Crossnan's Jesus!
------------------------------
From: Hans-Christoph Meier <hmeier@aixterm1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 15:26:41 +0200 (METDST)
Subject: Re: Gal 3.16--seed or seeds?
On Tue, 23 May 1995 perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:
> In Gal 3.16, Paul makes a great deal of the fact that the OT (Gen 13.15, 17.8,
> 24.7) specifies that Abraham's promises are to one *seed* (singular), not many
> *seeds* (plural). I've read *somewhere* that there are questions regarding
In Gen 13,15 etc. the hebrew text reads _zera"_ which is grammatically
singular. But the meaning may be singular as well as collective. That's
why the Hebrew Bible provides only one passage, where _zera"_ is used in
a plural (1 Sam. 8,15). Gen certainly intends the collective meaning
("descendents"). It would be absurde if God promised the possession of
'the whole country/the whole world' to Isaac only--in which case you
could hardly explain the later development of Israel.
The Septuagint translates _zera"_ by _sperma_, which may include
the collective meaning as well (cf. Luc 1,55; Acts 7,5-6; Rom 4,13 etc. For
Septuagint see Quell/Schulz _sperma ktl._ ThWNT 7.538-41).
So, in understanding _sperma_ as a singular Paul uses--as many theologians
did ever since--grammatical evidence to change the sense of a given
passage. Clever?
hans-christoph, heidelberg
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 07:01:27 -0700
Subject: Re: Jn. 1:1
Tim McLay (nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca) quoted and wrote:
>David Moore wrote:
>
>>>Mr. Moffatt translated John 1:1 here with the qualitative
>>>sense: "and the Word was divine."
>>
>> "Divine" has a pretty wide semantic range, and Moffatt's
>>translation is weak here. The quality expressed by QEOS in Jn. 1:1c
>>has the word QEON in 1b as its referent, the former (QEOS in 1c)
being
>>a *qualitative* expression of the latter (QEON in 1b).
>
>I remember writing a paper on this years ago and struggling to come up
with
>an appropriate word. In the end, I chose divine. What would you
suggest
>as an alternative?
"And the word was God" is pretty much the standard translation,
and, IMHO, not too bad. It takes some understanding on the part of the
reader, however, not to take the expression as referring to a simply
*personal* correspondence between God and the Logos. There is also the
dynamic equivalence translation "what God was, the Word was" (NEB).
This does get the meaning across fairly well. But finally, one needs
to keep in mind that any translation is just that, a translation; and
it is not always possible to exactly render the meaning of the original
into another language. The kilobytes of text that have zoomed from
computer to computer over the past several months dealing with the very
question we are discussing here are testimony to the difficulty of
rendering the Greek here into English.
Regards,
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: David John Marotta <djm5g@virginia.edu>
Date: 24 May 95 10:08:04 EDT
Subject: Fulbright Deadline Reminder
Forwarding notice to list...
David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: djm5g@virginia.edu
Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg PRODIGY: KCMR45A
C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax IBM US: usuvarg8
*** Forwarding note from SMTP --DMT03 05/23/95 16:26 ***
=========================================================================
Received: from virginia.edu by DMT03.mcc.Virginia.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with TCP; Tue, 23 May 95 16:26:45 EDT
Received: from noc.sura.net by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id ab05029;
23 May 95 16:26 EDT
Received: from GALAXY by noc with SMTP (8.6.8.1/($Id: sendmail.cf,v 1.17
1991/02/11 14:07:23 jmalcolm Exp $))
id QAA21231; Tue, 23 May 1995 16:26:19 -0400
From: cies1@ciesnet.cies.org
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 16:20:27 -0400
Message-Id: <95052316202270@ciesnet.cies.org>
To: jccannek@ukcc.uky.edu, jacock01@ulkyvm.louisville, edu@galaxy.cies.org,
djm5g@virginia.edu, ssrel-l@utkvm1.utk.edu, u16481@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU,
remann@augustana.edu, postmaster@ciesnet.cies.org, cies1@ciesnet.cies.org
Subject: Fulbright Deadline Reminder
X-VMS-To: @RELIGION.DIS
Please Post/Disseminate To Lists
Topic: Deadline Reminder
FULBRIGHT SCHOLAR PROGRAM OPPORTUNITIES FOR FACULTY AND PROFESSIONALS IN
RELIGIOUS STUDIES
August 1 Deadline Approaching for the 1996-97 Competition
What follows is a description of Fulbright grants for lecturing and advanced
research worldwide. These grants are excellent professional development
opportunities and provide funding to pursue professional interests abroad.
Fulbright Grants for Faculty and Professionals
Description: 1,000 awards for college and university faculty and nonacademic
professionals to lecture or pursue advanced research and/or related
professional activity abroad. For U.S. candidates, grants are available to
nearly 148 countries.
Application: U.S. candidates have an August 1 deadline for lecturing or
research awards. Non-U.S. candidates apply in their home country for awards
to come to the United States.
Areas of Interest: Opportunities exist in every area of the social sciences,
arts and humanities, sciences, and many professional fields. Nearly all
specializations within religious studies are included in program offerings.
Range of Consideration: Undergraduate and graduate teaching; individual
research; professional collaboration; joint research collaboration; and much
more.
Eligibility: Ph.D. in hand is the standard requirement, along with U.S.
citizenship.
Grant Duration: Awards range in duration from two months to a full academic
year.
Language: The majority of teaching assignments are in English. Required in
certain countries for certain areas of activity.
Action: U.S. candidates may receive detailed descriptions of award
opportunities and application materials via cies1@ciesnet.cies.org
(REQUESTS FOR MAILING OF MATERIALS ONLY!).
Non-U.S. candidates must contact the Fulbright Commission or U.S. embassy in
their home country.
------------------------------
From: John Calvin Hall <johnhall@gulf.net>
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 09:42:07 -0300
Subject: Re: Let's make a critical apparatus
At 10:59 AM 5/22/95 +0800, you wrote:
>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.
Developing a more comprehensive Critical Apparatus is a good idea, but the
BIG problem lies in your last statement that I quoted. A _GOOD_ Critical
Apparatus is one that is totally OBJECTIVE; to make a statement as the
above, is (whether intentionally or not) subjective. Just because I
personally believe that Aleph and B are products of heresy should not sway
me from tossing them _IF_ I were to make an objective Critical Apparatus.
Thanks,
John Calvin Hall - doulos tou Kuriou 'Ihsou Xristou
Pensacola, Florida
johnhall@gulf.net
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible does NOT contain the Word of God,
It IS the Word of God
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Isaiah 66:5 ***
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 08:31:41 PDT
Subject: Re: Let's make a critical apparatus.
J.D.F.=van=Halsema%BW_KG%TheoFilos@esau.th.vu.nl suggested:
> I think it only fair to give Barbara Aland the opportunity to react...
Fine, if you clarify my phrase "...they are dead" to say less ambiguously
"...the texts are dead", then you might ask her to comment on it.
But what could she possibly say in response?
We already know that enough materials exist in machine-readable form
that people like Mink are doing statistical analysis on it.
The INTTF people have already rebuffed my inquiries (and others' I think)
about M.R. texts and apparatuses. The material is not on the internet now.
Even the NA26 apparatus is not available after these many years.
Possible responses?
1) Gee, we never thought anyone would be interested in M.R.T.s! We'll
make them available next month for the time/materials cost of copying.
2) We decided to keep them private because other people might misuse
the materials, not properly understanding text criticism.
3) I love freedom of information, but the sharks in the University
administration want to profiteer on the material.
4) The M.R. transcriptions are valuable and we want first rights to use them.
5) A polite non-answer.
Forget 1. No one would believe 2. 3 and 4 are nearly equivalent.
What you'll get is 4 or 5. I got 5.
Oh, I forgot the other possibility:
"Well, everything is stored in EBCDIC on a room-full of 8-inch floppies,
the software is in IBM 360 assembler, and the guy who really understood
the code just graduated." :-) :-) :-)
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: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 12:44:13 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Let's make a critical apparatus
John Calvin Hall <johnhall@gulf.net>, Wed, 24 May 1995 09:42:07, writes:
" Just because I personally believe that Aleph and B are products of
heresy should not sway me from tossing them _IF_ I were to make an
objective Critical Apparatus."
Is this what you REALLY meant to say? that you WOULD dismiss Aleph and
B because you believe that they are products of heresy IF you were to
make an objective Critical Apparatus? Or did you really mean that you
WOULD NOT dismiss them? I think there's a flaw in the logic here,
unless the statement was mis-formulated. Am I missing something here?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: HSTMLS%HST045%UTLVAX@yvax.byu.edu
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 11:45:25 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Luke's Use of KARDIA
A friend asked me what Luke meant by his reference to KARDIA in Luke 16:15.
I remember once being told the KARDIA was seen as the seat of intellectual
capacity, something akin to how we see the brain. Was this a commonly
understood meaning and is there another meaning that would explain
Luke's use of the word in 24:32?
Mark Staker
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 12:58:43 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Signatures, anonymity, and subject matter
Lynn Cooley has stated that she doesn't think signatures really tell us
anything and that the blurb sent out to new list-members doesn't say
anything about signatures. While that is true, it's generally viewed as a
matter of "netiquette." When I can identify the author of a note solely
as "Melchizedek," all I can do is chime in, "Who IS this King of
Righteousness?" And as for "Fuzzy," this just happens to be the pet name
by which my wife was called as a child and is still called by her
brothers and sisters. It's certainly true that we know more about people
who post frequently from the manner of what they have to say as well as
from the matter, but--to repeat what I said about a month ago--even
though we don't need an academic site-identification or some indication
of credentials, it would be nice to have a little more idea of where
someone is posting FROM than the equivalent of <anon@aol.com>.
And with regard to subject matter, of course we'll be dealing with more
than what relates DIRECTLY to the Greek text of the NT, and we'll
undoubtedly be "exposing" our theological biases whether or not we intend
to. My fundamental intention in my long-ago posting was to try to keep
this forum free both of evangelizing and of sectarian infighting. And
PLEASE, the LAST thing I want to do with this message is to start a
time-wasting thread on protocol.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 14:45:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Colwell's rule
On Tue, 23 May 1995, Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:
> 1) a comparison of all similar constructions in the Gospel
> reflected a 94% probability of qualitativeness,
Are there really enough definite & close examples to create a valid
percentage of probability?
> 2) a comparison with the first two clauses in 1:1 showed that
> two qualities of the logos (preexistence and distinct personality) had
> already been described, therefore we might expect in parallel a third
> quality,
A good conjecture. But not the kind of thing that would constitute
definitive proof.
> 3) the contrasting parallel with 1:14, "and the Word became
> flesh," not "the flesh" or "a flesh",
I'm not sure how this is "contrasting." Is this an example of
qualitativeness? Do you mean it should be understood as "fleshly"?
> 4) if theos in 1:1c were definite, then it would naturally refer
> back to the ton theon of 1:1b identifying the logos as God the Father.
No, there are many alternative possibilities even if it is definite.
> In Jn 4:24 "God is spirit" certainly is preferrable over "God is
> the Spirit" or "God is a spirit." Here the construction is parallel with
> 1:1c except the verb is not stated.
"Certainly is preferable" - thereby begging the question. Is this another
example of a qualitative use of a noun? _Pneuma_ is a major Johannine
metaphor which depends on its literal base: "wind" (as in John 3:8 etc.).
Cf. "God is wind, God is a wind, God is the wind, God is windy." All are
closely related, but distinct usages. What kind of contextual clues can
help us decide which is which in Greek? I'm not satisfied by appeals to
orthodoxy or previous translations. I don't really have any investment
against qualitative usages, even in John 1:1, I'm just in search of
clarification on the whole issue.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: KBARRON@dscc.cc.tn.us
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 14:40:37 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Information?
A day or two ago, someone posted to this list (I believe) that was
affiliated with Wesleyan Scholars in Religion or some such group. If
you're out there, could you contact me at kbarron@dscc.cc.tn.us? Thanks!
Kevin Barron Dyersburg, TN
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 13:05:33 -0700
Subject: Re: anarthrous pred. nouns
Greg Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu) wrote:
>Someone once referred me to 1 John 4:8 as an example of a
>qualitative use of a noun:
>...ho theos agapE estin.
>That is, they would have rendered it "God is loving" rather than "God
is
>love." But it seems to me the word "agapE" (even indefinite) is used
as
>a fully substantive noun, since it is used interchangeably with the
noun
>(?) _theos_ (God), e.g.
The qualitative use of AGAPH should probably not be translated
"loving" here. It remains a noun, not a gerund; but its qualitative
sense is emphasized. So, one could not translate it to mean "God is
love" including the idea that "love is God" which is the meaning we
would have if the clause were hO QEOS hO AGAPH ESTIN. The expression
hO QEOS AGAPH ESTIN may be something more on the order of "What God is,
is an expression of love," which conveys something more than that God
is "loving."
It is precisely the anarthrous AGAPH that indicates that the
terms QEOS and AGAPH are not interchangeable.
>1 John 4:16 ...ho theos agapE estin, kai ho menOn en tEi agapEi en tOi
>theOi menei kai ho theos en autOi menei.
>"En tEi agapEi" can't be meaning _agapE_ qualitatively, as far as I
can
>see. It seems to me much easier to see this as just a figurative use
of
>a substantive.
The article you quote with AGAPH in 4:16 is an article of
reference pointing to the mention of AGAPH in the previous phrase,
which quotes 4:8, and should be understood as taking into account the
discussion of love in vv. 7-12. A possible translation of this part of
4:16 would be, "God is love, and whoever abides in this love abides in
God and God abides in him." Although I wasn't able to find any of the
major translations that so render it, R. C. H. Lenski does translate it
this way and cites the same reasons mentioned above (Lenski, _The
Interpretation of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude_ [Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1966] p. 509).
Welcome back to the discussion, Greg. I was beginning to wonder
if you'd signed off the list.
Regards,
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 16:39:28 -0700
Subject: Re: anarthrous pred. nouns
Carlton Winbery has pointed out:
>
>David,
>If the clause were "if the clause were hO QEOS hO AGAPH ESTIN," it
would
>have to be hO QEOS hH AGAPH" since AGAPH is feminine.
>
You are right, of course, Carlton. I wrote hastily and didn't
catch that one. Thanks for pointing it out.
David Moore
------------------------------
From: fuzzy <fuzzy@prairie.lakes.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 21:49:51 -0500
Subject: Signatures, anonymity, and subject matter
>Lynn Cooley has stated that she doesn't think signatures really tell us
>anything
Depends on who's signature it is, and what it says. Does this mailing list
have formal posting requirements?
>And as for "Fuzzy," this just happens to be the pet name
>by which my wife was called as a child and is still called by her
>brothers and sisters.
It's short for "Fuzzy Logic", as opposed to "Boolean Logic", which I've been
interested in for various reasons.
>And with regard to subject matter, of course we'll be dealing with more
>than what relates DIRECTLY to the Greek text of the NT, and we'll
>undoubtedly be "exposing" our theological biases whether or not we intend
>to.
I've noticed, as a "new guy", that much of the post material is not directly
related to the language itself. I wish that were less true (in a fuzzy sense!)
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #719
*****************************
** 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