[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #722
b-greek-digest Saturday, 27 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 722
In this issue:
Jn. 1:1
signatures & macros
Re: Paul on Messiah as Seed
Re: Jn. 1:1
Re: Jn. 1:1 & Jn 14:21 EMFANISW
Re: signatures & macros
Who is this king of righteousness?
Re: Jn. 1:1
Re: Paul on Messiah as Seed
Re: Paul on Messiah as Seed
Re: Paul on Messiah as Seed
I Pet. 3:21, object of "which"
Re: Jn. 1:1 & Jn 14:21 EMFANISW
"God's Word"
"God's Word" - Acts 7:55
Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DBWILLIS@aol.com
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 04:06:24 -0400
Subject: Jn. 1:1
David Willis here,
As one considers whether the anarthrous noun THEOS in Jn. 1:1should be
considered definite, it should be noted that the same noun is anarthrous in
many other places seemingly without anyone's questioning its being
definite...even in this same chapter. Jn. 1:6, 12, 13, 18 are all examples,
and even in the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION, this construction is translated "God"
not "a god."
David Willis
DBWILLIS@aol.com
6728 Silver Tree Dr.
Indianapolis, IN 46236
(317) 823-4858
------------------------------
From: DBWILLIS@aol.com
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 04:07:10 -0400
Subject: signatures & macros
David Willis here,
<<
>America OnLine has no format for creating a signature page.
Since Netcom has no format of creating a signature, either, I've
found a patchwork way of creating one. It works, and maybe those who
now attach no signature might want to try it.
One simply creates a file with the signature info and saves it in
a convenient directory under an easy-to-find filename (mine is saved as
00000000.txt). After composing a message, open the signature file as
an additional file (without closing the message), select the text of
the signature and copy it to the clipboard. Close the signature file;
paste the signature info to the end of your message; and send the
message on its way.>>
I've found an easier way to print a signature or any other often used
keystrokes or mouse moves. Windows has an Accessory, "RECORDER" which allows
you to "play" any recorded set of keystrokes with Ctrl + an assigned key.
I've put RECORDER in my Startup Group, so it's ready to play at all times.
(The recorded "file" must also be opened, but this can also be opened each
time the computer is started). The following signature is done by "Ctrl S."
David Willis
DBWILLIS@aol.com
6728 Silver Tree Dr.
Indianapolis, IN 46236
(317) 823-4858
------------------------------
From: Hans-Christoph Meier <hmeier@aixterm1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 12:04:24 +0200 (METDST)
Subject: Re: Paul on Messiah as Seed
On Wed 24 May, Robert Kraft wrote:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Galatians 3.16 --
One does well to read this passage (and every passage) in its wider
context, which includes 3:29 --
But if you [plural] are Messiah's, then you [plural] are Abraham's seed
[singular], heirs in accord with the promise.
The wider context also includes Paul's peculiar ideas about the
corporate nature of "Messiah/Christ" ("body of Messiah/Christ," etc.).
(...)
That is how Messiah AND his unified body
can ALL be the ONE seed of the Abrahamic promise in Paul's
transformational last days of the "present age."
_________________________________________________________________________
The question was not if Pauls conception of _sperma_ could or could not
include a collective meaning, but how he made use of the OT passage. In
Gen 13,5; 17,8 etc. _zera"_ / _sperma_ referres to the offspring of
Abraham (in a literal sense). Paul transferres the OT _ep-aggelia_ to the
pagan (!) community in Galatia by connecting the _ep-aggelia_ with Christ.
(Thus--in a way--excluding Israel). This certainly is something very
different from the original meaning of the passages in Genesis.
hans-christoph, heidelberg
------------------------------
From: amedamne@trianon.worldtel.com
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 07:41:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Jn. 1:1
On Tue, 23 May 1995, David Moore wrote:
> 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.
/snip/
Besides Dr. James Moffatt, there happens to be other translators -
English and German - who have also chosen to render in their works
the text to correspond "and the Word was divine", e.g. Smith-
Goodspeed [The Complete Bible - An American Translation], Hugh J.
Schonfield [The Authentic New Testament].
IMHO, Dr. Moffatt's translation is far from being weak for the
following reasons:
a) It eliminates the quandary of the Word being "with" God and
the Word "being" God, as well.
b) The source of Word (spoken) being God, the expression thus
qualifies as being divine.
c) The lack of article supports the text.
The question to deliberate is; Was John alluding to the Prologue of
Genesis or to Jesus in his primary discourse?
If he was to the former, than in his ensuing verses (John 1:2-3)
[`This' instead of `Him'] also probably alludes to the process of
Creation as being the divine act of God's expressed Words (Genesis
1:3ff).
Ameh Meyer
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 08:23:48 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Jn. 1:1 & Jn 14:21 EMFANISW
On Fri, 26 May 1995 amedamne@trianon.worldtel.com wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 1995, David Moore wrote:
>
> Besides Dr. James Moffatt, there happens to be other translators -
> English and German - who have also chosen to render in their works
> the text to correspond "and the Word was divine", e.g. Smith-
> Goodspeed [The Complete Bible - An American Translation], Hugh J.
> Schonfield [The Authentic New Testament].
>
> IMHO, Dr. Moffatt's translation is far from being weak for the
> following reasons:
>
> a) It eliminates the quandary of the Word being "with" God and
> the Word "being" God, as well.
> b) The source of Word (spoken) being God, the expression thus
> qualifies as being divine.
> c) The lack of article supports the text.
Personally, I prefer the version (Phillips or NEB, can't remember which),
"... and what God was, the Word was." It seems to me that this gets
around the qualitative aspect of the anarthrous predicate noun. One might
argue that it doesn't make the passage really easier to understand, but
however neat this passage might be as a piece of liturgy, there's no way
that it wasn't intended to invite reflection and meditation.
> The question to deliberate is; Was John alluding to the Prologue of
> Genesis or to Jesus in his primary discourse?
I've often wondered, and I think I may have read this somewhere (Brown's
commentary?) whether in fact these opening verses refer to Genesis 1:1's
"b'reshith ..." but ALSO to the Christ event as the "new creation" that
parallels the "original" creation, so that hereby John's gospel achieves
the same thing that Luke's gospel, by making Pentecost the real beginning
of the New Age of the Church under the heavenly reign of the enthroned
Christ, achieves in Acts 2. That is to say, the EXOUSIA given to
believers to become TEKNA QEOU marks the event of new creation, as seems
intended in 20:22, ENEFUSHSEN KAI LEGEI AUTOIS, LABETE PNEUMA hAGION ...
as an echo of Genesis 2:7. Another version of the theme: PRWTOS/ESCATOS
ANQRWPOS thereby emerges and the New Creation parallels the original.
Which brings up another issue, which I shall not pause long on, as it has
nothing to do with the Greek text: it's often seemed to me, on
reflection, as unfortunate that the Church (on whosoever's authority!)
identified the BIRTH of Jesus (even though it could not adequately date
it!) as the pivotal event of the eras. It ought rather to have been set
either at Pentecost (a la Luke) or (preferably, IMHO) at Easter, in terms
of John's interpretative identification of the return of Jesus (PAROUSIA)
and gift of the Spirit (20:22) as the real onset of the new era. i.e.,
shouldn't the resurrection of Jesus, rather than the birth, be the real
starting point for the church? But that's grist inappropriate to this list.
> If he was to the former, than in his ensuing verses (John 1:2-3)
> [`This' instead of `Him'] also probably alludes to the process of
> Creation as being the divine act of God's expressed Words (Genesis
> 1:3ff).
>
> Ameh Meyer
Precisely.
And at this point let me take up another Johannine topic, one that was
raised early last week (I think) by Paul Moser, regarding the meaning of
Jesus' statement in the Farewell Discourses, 14:21 KAI EMFANISW AUTWi
EMAUTON. I'm not sure what all Paul meant to ask with that question, but
this necessarily gets deeply involved with the whole substance of
Johannine eschatology, does it not?
I view this verse, 14:21, as simultaneously parallel to and antithetical
to the verse earlier in this same discourse, 14:3--KAI EAN POREUQW KAI
hETOIMASW TOPON hUMIN, PAIL ERXOMAI KAI PARALHMCOMAI hUMAS PROS EMAUTON,
hINA hOPOU EIMI EGW KAI hUMEIS HTE. That is, 14:3 expresses the notion of
"covenant mutual indwelling" (my code-phrase for all that is implied by
the MENEIN of Jesus and disciples "in" each other) in terms of the
apocalyptic/futuristic eschatological notion of a FUTURE "fetching" of
believers by Jesus as his return to a heavenly home where they may always
be with him; on the other hand, 14:21 (EMFANISW AUTWi EMAUTON) continuing
on through the climactice verse 23--EAN TIS AGAPAi ME TON LOGON MOU
THRHSEI, KAI hO PATHR MOU AGAPHSEI AUTON KAI PROS AUTON ELEUSOMEQA KAI
MONHN PAR' AUTWi POIHSOMEQA--rephrases the same conception in terms of a
cosmological/realized eschatological notion of a COMING (PAROUSIA) of
Father & Son to the believer to dwell in communion with him/her forever.
And I assume that the event toward which Jesus is pointing forward in
14:21-23 is precisely the Easter event as narrated in chapter 20, where
after "going away" for "a little while," Jesus RETURNS and initiates the
"covenant mutual indwelling" with the disciples. Now, to complete this
interpretation (which I really don't think is original), it seems to me
that a primary function of the Thomas narrative that concludes the
resurrection stories of Chapter 20, is precisely to highlight the point
stated in verse 29, MAKARIOI hOI MH IDONTES KAI PISTEUSANTES: Thomas'
vision is direct and immediately associated with the resurrection event,
but the "vision" of later believers is no less efficacious that that of
Thomas: they TOO will receive the Spirit and, by virtue of the "covenant
mutual indwelling" of Father/Son with believer, will have ZWH AIWNIOS.
The same point had been made earlier in 12:26, in response to the
"Greeks"' request to "see" Jesus, EAN EMOI TIS DIAKONHi, EMOI
AKOLOUQEITW, KAI hOPOU EIMI EGW EKEI KAI hO DIAKONOS hO EMOS ESTAI. In
John's gospel it seems that "to see the Lord" is a code-phrase for
experiencing the presence of the risen Christ and entering into
covenant-communion with him, not at some indefinite future eschatological
consummation, but at the moment when belief in the risen Christ sets in.
John's gospel is so wonderful and so impossible: everything is circular,
everything goes round and round so that no aspect of it can be
interpreted without reference to practically everything else in the gospel.
Personally, I prefer the version (Phillips or NEB, can't remember which),
"... and what God was, the Word was." It seems to me that this gets
around the qualitative aspect of the anarthrous predicate noun. One might
argue that it doesn't make the passage really easier to understand, but
however neat this passage might be as a piece of liturgy, there's no way
that it wasn't intended to invite reflection and meditation.
Personally, I prefer the version (Phillips or NEB, can't remember which),
"... and what God was, the Word was." It seems to me that this gets
around the qualitative aspect of the anarthrous predicate noun. One might
argue that it doesn't make the passage really easier to understand, but
however neat this passage might be as a piece of liturgy, there's no way
that it wasn't intended to invite reflection and meditation.
A long ramble; hope it made a little bit of sense.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 06:51:37 -0700
Subject: Re: signatures & macros
David Willis (DBWILLIS@aol.com) wrote:
>I've found an easier way to print a signature or any other often used
>keystrokes or mouse moves. Windows has an Accessory, "RECORDER" which
allows
>you to "play" any recorded set of keystrokes with Ctrl + an assigned
key.
> I've put RECORDER in my Startup Group, so it's ready to play at all
times.
> (The recorded "file" must also be opened, but this can also be opened
each
>time the computer is started). The following signature is done by
"Ctrl S."
>
>David Willis
>DBWILLIS@aol.com
>6728 Silver Tree Dr.
>Indianapolis, IN 46236
>(317) 823-4858
Neat!
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: Melchizedk@aol.com
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 10:05:22 -0400
Subject: Who is this king of righteousness?
Earlier I wrote, rather tongue in cheek,
"Alan G. Carmack
posting from Pflugerville, Texas
"holding no theological bias"
pure amateur on the Net
attending Austin Seminary
wanna-be Catholic
would-be Evangelical
former United Methodist
about-to-be Episcopal
alive and well in Jesus Christ
in words of C.S. Lewis, mere Christian"
=============================
A person I know from another listserv asked me what I meant by these terms,
so let me briefly expound (if uninterested, read no further):
Alan G. Carmack==> this is my name my parents chose for me--my dad insisted
on Alan, and my mother got her way with naming my middle name, Gregory, after
the film star Gregory Peck. I was surprised when I took seminary greek that
it means "watchful."
posting from Pflugerville, Texas==>one of several German-sounding towns in
central Texas; my seminary greek teacher, Hilmer Krause, a third generation
Texan and native German-speaker, gets miffed when asked if he really is a
Texan
"holding no theological bias"==>was put in quotes to mean that it is an
impossible statement
pure amateur on the Net==>means I have appreciated the hints on how to create
signatures on AOL
attending Austin Seminary==>was vague on purpose, since although I had Greek
at the Episcopal Seminary of the Southwest, I am studying theology at the
*other* seminary in Austin, which is Presbyterian
wanna-be Catholic==>have great respect in some ways for Pope JPII and have
learned much about prayer and a little about theology from Catholic writers,
especially Peter Kreeft, Raymond Brown, and John Meier; enjoy(ed) reading the
New Catholic Catechism, the Jerusalem Bible, the Catholic study Bible and the
Jerome Commentary.
would-be Evangelical==>was heavily influenced theologically as an
undergraduate by IVCF and IVP-type authors and speakers; have since learned
that not everything in evangelical subculture is Christian and not everything
Christian is evangelical; I "would be" an evangelical if the two were
synonymous
former United Methodist==>means I was baptized and grew up in United
Methodists churches but what I heard and saw there for 15 years did not
impact my life in a significant way; in other words, Methodism did not help
answer any of my big questions about life
about-to-be Episcopal==>on Sunday I will be confirmed in the Episcopal church
I have attended for 5 years
alive and well in Jesus Christ==>isn't this the state everyone should be in?
in words of C.S. Lewis, mere Christian==>means, I do not like theological
labels or those who live under the assumption that their own theological camp
is the only one which contains truth
=================
Only now, I feel, do I do justice to the curious.
Do I have to put a signature on this post?? :-}
------------------------------
From: Tim McLay <nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 26 May 95 12:45:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Jn. 1:1
My apologies to listmembers if the continuance of this thread is
cluttering up space. I couldn't post it yesterday and the discussion is
wearing thin. However, seeing as the whole discussion of John 1:1
started because of the layperson's lack of understanding of the meaning of
THEOS in 1c, it does not seem to me that "And the word was God" is
adequate for a public translation. However, I do like "what God was, the
word was." It does maintain the qualitative sense rather well. Thanx
to David Moore for bringing our attention to it.
Tim McLay
> "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
--
Tim McLay
Halifax, NS
nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca
------------------------------
From: "Rex A. Koivisto" <rexk@teleport.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 08:58:11 -0700
Subject: Re: Paul on Messiah as Seed
>The question was not if Pauls conception of _sperma_ could or could not
>include a collective meaning, but how he made use of the OT passage. In
>Gen 13,5; 17,8 etc. _zera"_ / _sperma_ referres to the offspring of
>Abraham (in a literal sense). Paul transferres the OT _ep-aggelia_ to the
>pagan (!) community in Galatia by connecting the _ep-aggelia_ with Christ.
>(Thus--in a way--excluding Israel). This certainly is something very
>different from the original meaning of the passages in Genesis.
>
>hans-christoph, heidelberg
Hans-Christoph:
But isn't Paul a little bit more refined than this? SPERMA is used
to refer to the offspring of Abraham (in a literal sense) in Genesis. But
is not Paul pointing out that the epaggelia is fulfilled in Christ, who is
also the offspring (singular) of Abraham (in a literal sense?). Gentiles
are included but only as they are united (by faith) to Christ. But, then,
so is Israel. Perhaps I missed something here.
Rex Koivisto
*********************************************
Rex A. Koivisto Email: rexk@teleport.com
Dept. of Bible and Theology Voice: 503/255-0332x415
Multnomah Bible College, Portland, OR FAX: 503/254-1268
*********************************************
------------------------------
From: Hans-Christoph Meier <hmeier@aixterm1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 18:55:55 +0200 (METDST)
Subject: Re: Paul on Messiah as Seed
On Fri, 26 May 1995, Rex A. Koivisto wrote:
> But
> is not Paul pointing out that the epaggelia is fulfilled in Christ, who is
> also the offspring (singular) of Abraham (in a literal sense?). Gentiles
> are included but only as they are united (by faith) to Christ. But, then,
> so is Israel.
>
Rex:
According to Gen 13,15 etc. the _epaggelia_ is fulfilled in the offspring
(collective) of Abraham (=Israel). Using grammatical categories, Paul
narrows the sense of the passage: _ou legei: kai tois spermasin, hoos epi
poloon all hoos eph henos: kai too spermati sou_. As theologians we may
agree on Pauls conception, though I don't think we have to. But as
historians we should point out that he takes a rather anachronistic
point of view.
hans-christoph, heidelberg
------------------------------
From: "Rex A. Koivisto" <rexk@teleport.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 11:19:49 -0700
Subject: Re: Paul on Messiah as Seed
At 6:55 PM 5/26/95, Hans-Christoph Meier wrote:
>On Fri, 26 May 1995, Rex A. Koivisto wrote:
>
>> But
>> is not Paul pointing out that the epaggelia is fulfilled in Christ, who is
>> also the offspring (singular) of Abraham (in a literal sense?). Gentiles
>> are included but only as they are united (by faith) to Christ. But, then,
>> so is Israel.
>>
> Rex:
>According to Gen 13,15 etc. the _epaggelia_ is fulfilled in the offspring
>(collective) of Abraham (=Israel). Using grammatical categories, Paul
>narrows the sense of the passage: _ou legei: kai tois spermasin, hoos epi
>poloon all hoos eph henos: kai too spermati sou_. As theologians we may
>agree on Pauls conception, though I don't think we have to. But as
>historians we should point out that he takes a rather anachronistic
>point of view.
>
>hans-christoph, heidelberg
Hans-Christoph:
I can understand what you are saying. My point was an attempt to
clarify your earlier statement in which you indicated (if I understood you
properly) that Genesis was referring to the seed as Israel (the literal
seed/offspring of Abraham), but that Paul was referring to the seed as
Gentiles and NOT Israel. That is what I do not read in Galatians. Just as
(in Romans) Paul sees that God has not rejected Israel because he, too, is
an Israelite and yet believes, so Paul sees that the promised Seed can be
fulfilled in one rather than the many. But that Seed is also a literal
descendant of Abraham and not a Gentile. That is my point. Perhaps I
misunderstood you as implying that Paul changes the meaning from
SPERMA=Israelites to SPERMA=Gentiles. BTW, I am not sure what you mean by
saying "as historians we should point out that he takes a rather
anachronistic point of view." Do you mean to say "divergent" or
"inconsistent" instead of "anachronistic"? Please clarify.
Rex Koivisto
*********************************************
Rex A. Koivisto Email: rexk@teleport.com
Dept. of Bible and Theology Voice: 503/255-0332x415
Multnomah Bible College, Portland, OR FAX: 503/254-1268
*********************************************
------------------------------
From: DBWILLIS@aol.com
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 14:44:42 -0400
Subject: I Pet. 3:21, object of "which"
David Willis here,
In exegeting I Pet. 3:20-21, attempting to answer the question, "is water
baptism an essential step to salvation?", I believe that careful attention to
the antecedant to the relative pronoun hO ("which") will be very informative.
Some would suggest that water baptism is not under consideration here, and
that water in no sense "saves" one. Some would say that Holy Spirit baptism
is referenced. And yet, the construction (...DIA hUDATOS, hO KAI HMAS
ANTITUPWN NUN SWZEI BAPTISMA, ...) suggests that water and baptism are set
in apposition, and that the antecedant of the subject "which" is _water_,
which is equated with baptism. Instead of "the like figure whereunto baptism
doth now also save you", it seems better to read, "...through water, which
also after a true likeness doth now save you, ~even~ baptism,..." This shows
water (as an antitype to the waters of the flood) to be a saving agent, which
is renamed and identified as being baptism. Only the ASV translation (of
those I've checked) brings out this distinction.
David Willis
DBWILLIS@aol.com
6728 Silver Tree Dr.
Indianapolis, IN 46236
(317) 823-4858
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 17:59:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Jn. 1:1 & Jn 14:21 EMFANISW
On Fri, 26 May 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> Personally, I prefer the version (Phillips or NEB, can't remember which),
> "... and what God was, the Word was." It seems to me that this gets
> around the qualitative aspect of the anarthrous predicate noun. One might
> argue that it doesn't make the passage really easier to understand, but
> however neat this passage might be as a piece of liturgy, there's no way
> that it wasn't intended to invite reflection and meditation.
Phillips is such a wonderful, underrated translation! But of course this
translation would preclude my pet interpretation, "the word was: 'God'."
Oh well, we know understanding the problems of this passage is one of the
good reasons for studying NT Greek...only a several-page footnote could
indicate to a layperson what no English translation could say about the
possibilities here.
> Which brings up another issue, which I shall not pause long on, as it has
> nothing to do with the Greek text: it's often seemed to me, on
> reflection, as unfortunate that the Church (on whosoever's authority!)
> identified the BIRTH of Jesus (even though it could not adequately date
> it!) as the pivotal event of the eras. It ought rather to have been set
> either at Pentecost (a la Luke) or (preferably, IMHO) at Easter, in terms
> of John's interpretative identification of the return of Jesus (PAROUSIA)
> and gift of the Spirit (20:22) as the real onset of the new era. i.e.,
> shouldn't the resurrection of Jesus, rather than the birth, be the real
> starting point for the church? But that's grist inappropriate to this list.
The Eastern Orthodox emphasize the birth as the Incarnation, the moment
when the possibility of human "deification" became demonstrably
possible. The Western Church has usually emphasized the Resurrection
more as the moment when the effects of God's forgiveness because of the
crucifixion become visibly evident. Both were eschatological emphases,
about what would happen to believers in Christ. That is, until the
advent of Commercial Christmas (an offshoot of out-of-control Epiphany
gift-giving), which emphasizes the values of reckless capitalism.
John's gospel certainly does go round and round. I would say it is the
most literary of all the NT books.
I would also like to go on tangent - about how John's prologue might
imply that John the Baptist preexisted (1.6-8). Many Pharisees believed
all people preexisted and had divine purposes before birth - that is, they
existed in the mind of God. One thing ALL 4 GOSPELS have in common is a
vastly underrated emphasis on John the Baptist as the way early
Christians viewed the beginning of Christianity. Jesus was not the
beginning, John the Baptist was. The Synoptics tend to indicate Jesus
was a follower of John the Baptist, and that he met many of his disciples
first through his associations with him. All 4 Gospels, as well as Acts
etc., imply John the Baptist founded a major Jewish pietistic movement that
layed the foundation for future Christian converts.
Oh well, never mind that tangent either...
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: CoParson@aol.com
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 22:02:47 -0400
Subject: "God's Word"
Has anyone out there done any reading of the new translation "God's Word" by
World publishing, Grand Rapids. I would be very interisted to hear comments
from anyone who has made any comparisons with the Gr. text.
Rev. John M. Moe
14385 Blaine Ave E.
Rosemount MN.
------------------------------
From: CoParson@aol.com
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 22:39:51 -0400
Subject: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55
"God's Word," (World Publishing, GrandRapids, MI) renders Acts 7:55 (eiden
doxan yeou kai ihsoun estwta ek dexiwn tou yeou) "He looked into heaven, saw
God's glory, and Jesus in the position of authority that God gives." The
visual image which is conveyed by the Gr. has been traded for an explanation
of what that image meant. Any comments on what might be lost or gained by
this? Is this a positive or negative thing? Is "in the position of
authority that God gives" a good explanation of what it means for Him to be
"estwta ek dexiwn tou yeou?" Can this type of rendering of the Gr. into
English be called translation? If so, what kind of translaton and how does
that differ from paraphrase?
I would very much like to hear from anyone who would like to take on anyone
or all of those questions.
Thanks!
Rev. John M. Moe
14385 Blaine Ave. E.
Rosemount MN 55068
------------------------------
From: GGoolde@aol.com
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 00:01:11 -0400
Subject: Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55
I do think the heart of your question is this: To whom does the primary
responsibility of interpretation fall? If the primary responsibility is on
the translater, he will attempt to (1) determine the meaning of the Hebrew
and Greek text (having determined which text to use!), (2) state this meaning
in whatever linguistic form he deems necessary based on his intended
audience. If the primary responsibility is on the reader, the translater
will attempt to render the original text as "woodenly" as possible, taking
great pains to not interpret any more than is absolutely necessary in
rendering the Hebrew and Greek in the receptor language.
Thus we have two schools of thought. The first favors "dynamic equivalence"
and the second "word-for-word" translation.
George
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #722
*****************************
** 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