[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #794
b-greek-digest Saturday, 22 July 1995 Volume 01 : Number 794
In this issue:
sarx in Paul
Re: sarx in Paul
Junia, not Junias!
Re: sarx in Paul
Greg Jordan's inquiry about Paul's use of "sarx"
Re: sarx in Paul
Re: BG: MS Evidence for Ending of Mark
Re: PARADOUNAI TW SATANA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 14:36:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: sarx in Paul
So many interesting threads going on at once...but I need to start one
more related to something I'm working on right now.
Does anyone know the background behind Paul's odd use of "sarks" (flesh)
to represent an evil attitude? Is it a Semiticism? Or is there some
philosophical tradition that used the word this way?
Thanks for any input...
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Shprd4Him@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 17:17:57 -0400
Subject: Re: sarx in Paul
Greg,
Having not studied the concept fully myself, I'll hazard a guess and, like
you, wait for the real experts to volley away. I can't help but wonder if
Paul deliberately chose to use a word that was freighted with philosophical
baggage. The Stoics of Paul's day had much to say about sarx (and Paul was
almost certainly fluent in philosophy). Paul may have chosen a word that
would have been familiar to many both connotatively and denotatively and used
it.
For what its worth...
Pastor Kevin
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 17:24:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Junia, not Junias!
This issue comes up every couple of years, but participants
change, so new discussion is needed. Several have responded
already, and rightly (Larry, Ken, and Carl), with Carl doing his
usual careful job on the language. I'm repeating a posting I did
a couple of years ago, herewith.
Romans 16:7 Paul calls the woman JUNIA (not Junias, a man)
an "apostle," as well as his relative. Literally, the verse
says: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and my fellow
prisoners; they are notable among the apostles, and they were
Christians before me." "They are prominent among the apostles"
means that among the group of people titled "apostles," they were
prominent; it can hardly mean "In discussions held by the
apostles, these two figured prominently," an improbable
interpretation. In other words, they were themselves apostles.
The main problem is in the Greek name. "Junia" is a common name
in Latin, the feminine form of "Junius" (a Roman *gens*, whose
most famous member was Brutus). In 16:7 the name is in the
accusative case, "Junian". If there were a masculine name
"Junias" (note spelling--NOT "Junius"), it would have this same
form in the accusative. But NO SUCH NAME HAS EVER BEEN FOUND in
ancient Greek, to the best of my knowledge. Nevertheless,
"Junias" is listed in Bauer's Greek Lexicon as the name found
here. Bauer says that "the context" rules out the possibility
that the name is Junia, a woman's name! (The "context" shows
that Junia is an apostle!) The RSV translators accepted this
absurd attitude, as did the NIV. Interestingly enough, the 1611
"King James" Version had it right, and the NRSV has corrected the
absurdly male-chauvinist reading of Bauer, RSV, and NIV.
(Obviously, Pope John Paul II was having influence decades before
his pontificate!)
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 16:25:45 -0500
Subject: Re: sarx in Paul
At 2:36 PM 7/21/95, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
>So many interesting threads going on at once...but I need to start one
>more related to something I'm working on right now.
>
>Does anyone know the background behind Paul's odd use of "sarks" (flesh)
>to represent an evil attitude? Is it a Semiticism? Or is there some
>philosophical tradition that used the word this way?
>
>Thanks for any input...
There must be much more recent stuff, but the best thing I've ever read on
this is Bultmann's chapter on "Pauline Anthropology" in his New Testament
Theology.
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: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 18:46:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Greg Jordan's inquiry about Paul's use of "sarx"
While I have no helpful researches to hand on about this question, it might
be worth mentioning the one exceptionally useful study of the term which
is less than monograph length: Rudolf Bultmann's *Theology of the New
Testament* Vol. I, Part II.B, sections 22 [Der Begriff *sarx*] and 23
[Fleisch und Suende], pp. 232-246 [incredibly, exactly the same pages in
the original German and in the English translation by Grobel!]. One of
the most surprising things in this now-elderly discussion is the fact that
most of the highly negative use of the term is in the phrase *kata sarka*.
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 18:21:39 -0500
Subject: Re: sarx in Paul
At 5:17 PM 7/21/95, Shprd4Him@aol.com wrote:
>Greg,
>
>Having not studied the concept fully myself, I'll hazard a guess and, like
>you, wait for the real experts to volley away. I can't help but wonder if
>Paul deliberately chose to use a word that was freighted with philosophical
>baggage. The Stoics of Paul's day had much to say about sarx (and Paul was
>almost certainly fluent in philosophy). Paul may have chosen a word that
>would have been familiar to many both connotatively and denotatively and used
>it.
>
>For what its worth...
>
>Pastor Kevin
Stoics? Whom have you in mind? I seriously doubt that Paul's view of SARX
derives at all from anything in the mainline Greek tradition, although I
doubt not that it has links to that mix of eastern and western notions
entering into the syncretism of Hellenistic religions. I'd be much more
inclined to look toward influences from the eastern part of the ancient
world.
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: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 20:04:50 -0400
Subject: Re: BG: MS Evidence for Ending of Mark
dennisb@test490.pac.sc.ti.com (Dennis Burke) wrote,
"I agree with you that the internal evidence is
important in deciding for the abbreviated ending
of Mark, but I think you do not place enough
emphasis on the external evidence for the
abbreviated ending. I think that the external
evidence is much stronger than you acknowledge."
I think that you have given a good accounting of the evidence.
Take into consideration that there are no Ammonian numbers that Eusebius
could use in his canons also. The evidence seems strong indeed and merits
the high ratings of the UBS.
"I admit that I am a layman and that I have only
been reading about textual criticism for a little
over a year . . ."
I wish my first year students in TC could do so well.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: Ken Penner <kpenner@mail.unixg.ubc.ca>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 18:43:15 -0800
Subject: Re: PARADOUNAI TW SATANA
On 18 Jul 95 at 10:30, Mark O'Brien wrote:
> As I was following this thread over 1Co 5, I had Ro 1:24 ff.
> come to mind, and I was wondering whether any of you see a
> connection here with the imagery?
The parallels I see include:
the word PAREDWKEN 3x (though the subject is God, not a human)
The context of sexual sin.
The others seemed to think this was just fine.
I didn't really think of Romans 1 when I was looking into the
idea of "handing over to Satan". I didn't even look at the 1Cor
5 passage adequately, but concentrated on the one in 1Tim 1
instead, probably because that was the first verse I saw in
the concordance that matched what I was looking for. (I actually
only found the 1Cor 5:5 parallel by looking at the margin in
NA26.)
Because the parallels to 1Tim 1:20 are much slimmer, and the
subject is "God" in Rom 1, I doubt that Paul is talking about
a "handing over to Satan" in his letter to the Romans.
The context of my original question had to do with church
excommunication, an issue I don't see addressed in Romans
1:24ff. But then, the Hermas parable might not be about
excommunication either. What do you think?
Ken Penner
Regent College, Vancouver
kpenner@unixg.ubc.ca
http://www.netshop.bc.ca/~kpenner/
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #794
*****************************
** 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