[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #810
b-greek-digest Friday, 4 August 1995 Volume 01 : Number 810
In this issue:
Luke 23:56
sarx in 2 Cor. 10:2
Re: Current evaluations of Deissmann's works
Differences between neos and kainos
Re: Phil 4:6
Re: More on Hellenistic/Cynic comparative work
Rom. 8:28
Re: Differences between neos and kainos
Re: Phil 4:6
Re: Rom. 8:28
Re: Rom. 8:28
Re: Rom. 8:28
Re: Rom. 8:28
Re: Rom. 8:28
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: MURRAY HOGG <muzhogg@ozemail.com.au>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 95 17:10:50 +1000
Subject: Luke 23:56
I would like to obtain comment from members of the list as to the
intent of the Greek in Luke 23:56. Specifically I am curious as to
whether there is any justification for the view that this verse
implicitly reverses the order of events found in Mark 16:1.
The first part of the verse refers to the women going home to
prepare spices and oils, while the second part of this verse refers
to a Sabbath rest. They are joined with the conjuncion kai which
seems to have a bunch of possible meanings (way beyond my
limited Greek - and way beyound my available references).
I can think of three ways it might be meant;
1. The author intended to say that the women went home,
prepared spices and oils and THEN rested on the
Sabbath (ie intended the ordering to having chronological
significance)
OR
2. The author was not concerned with the chronological
sequence, but rather added the second part to reasure the
reader that, yes, the women did go home to prepare the spices
and oils, but, no, they didn't do this on the Sabbath so the Law
was not broken. The reader would be free to assume whether the
preperation was before or after the Sabbath rest, as I don't think the
author would see chronology as a significant point.
OR
3. The women done both things at once - prepared the spices
_and_ rested. Ostensibly, this sounds a little silly, but it has been
suggested to me that burial preperations were permited on the
Sabbath, so the meaning is a little like saying *I took the day
off and worked on the car* ie one still _worked_ but it wasn't
the right _type_ of work to qualify as impinging on ones' rest
Personally I favour 2. and quite a few translations seem to
support this, however I hope that some of the more learned
list members might be able to advise what subtletys underlie the
meanings of the original language and let me know if I am taking
any liberties
Thanks in advance
Murray (Muz) Hogg
muzhogg@ozemail.com.au
------------------------------
From: J.D.F.=van=Halsema%BW_KG%TheoFilos@esau.th.vu.nl
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 95 12:02:29 EET
Subject: sarx in 2 Cor. 10:2
A couple of weeks ago there was a thread on sarx in the corpus paulinum.
In 2 Cor. 10,2 an accusation against Paul is quoted according to which he
'lives in a fleshly manner' (RSV: 'acting in worldly fashion'). Greek: oos
kata sarka peripatountas (BTW: it is not totally clear whether this really is
a quotation or Paul's own words)
I wonder: does anyone have an interesting idea on this? Does it refer to 2
Cor. 1:17, as the margine in NA 26 (at 1:17) suggests?
(supporters of the Hausrath-Kennedy-Bornkamm hypothesis will say it's the
other way around: 1:17 refers back to 10:2).
Any suggestion appreciated!
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik van Halsema |Research Assistant Vrije Universiteit
j.d.f.van_halsema@esau.th.vu.nl |Faculty of Theology
jdfvh@dds.nl |De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, NL
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
negat quis: nego; ait: aio.
(Terentius, Eunuchus II.2.21; Cicero, De Amicitia XXV.93)
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" <mauros@iol.ie>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 12:35:37 +0100
Subject: Re: Current evaluations of Deissmann's works
Shaughn Daniel <zxmli05@student.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>>>>Another person that has received a lot of ruckus is HerrDr. Billerbeck,
a la Strack-Billerbeck Kommentare zum Neuen Testament (5 or
so volumes). In Hengel's _The Pre-Christian Paul_ (a typical Hengel-style
book, one half is his text, footnotes and bib are the other half), there
are some nice comments for this great scholar--a German pastor(!) who was
thoroughly acquainted with Rabbinical sources, the Hebrew Bible, and the
GNT. <<<<
A more recent -- and even more handsome -- tribute to Dr. Bllebeck appeared
in the JTS of April 95.
In the course of a review article of " Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah"
and
"Judaism, Practice and Belief" by E.P.Sanders, the co-authors Martin Hengel
and Roland Deines write (p.69):
"Nevertheless, the accomplishment of scholars like Billerbeck or Jeremias --
and also Schlatter -- is that they showed that a thorough knowledge of
Judaism, not least rabbinic Judaism, is one of the non-negotiable
requirements in the field of New Testament study. Over against the history
of religions tradition which began with W.Bousset and was continued by
Rudolf Bultmann and his pupils, whose historical picture of Judaism was
based almost entirely on the sources written in Greek, scholars like Strack
and Billerbeck and 'Jeremias & co.' were among the first who responded to
the appeal of the ' Wissenschaft des Judentums' which was then beginning to
blossom , and they thereby helped New Testament scholarship discover the
deficits in its knowledge"
Regards,
Maurice
Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]
mauros@iol.ie
[using Eudora 2.0.3]
------------------------------
From: GAlanC@aol.com
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 10:35:53 -0400
Subject: Differences between neos and kainos
I was recently reviewing some notes on Rev. 21 for a Bible study I
participate in. I ran across a reference to the new heaven and new earth in
which my professor stated that the word (kainos) meant new in quality or
nature and not new in the sense that it never existed before. The notes were
after looking up the passage in his commentary on Rev.
My question is does such a distinction occur between the words. It also
occurs in:
(2 Cor 5:17 NRSV) "So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation:
everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!"
Here I have heard others say that this new creation is something that has
never existed before.
Any help would be appreciated.
Grace and Peace,
Alan Cassady
AOL - GAlanC@aol.com
Montgomery, AL
August 3, 1995
9:29 am
------------------------------
From: Yirah@aol.com
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 13:15:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Phil 4:6
In a message dated 95-08-02 16:42:24 EDT, Carl Conrad wrote in reply to my
question:
>First of all: PANTI construes with THi PROSEUXHi ktl.-- and PANTI quite
>normally takes the predicative position: so it's "in every prayer and
>petition."
Oops! You're right, thanks for the clarification.
> Of course, your question really concerns the two nouns; you
>COULD call that hendiadys, but Paul often seems to distinguish types of
>prayer: thanksgiving, petition. I guess, to be sure, that PROSEUXH is more
>generalized. I just looked at a couple of Paul's opening sections, and it
>seems to me that he does like to double up on these expressions.
I did a quick search on my Logos Bible program and found four places where
Paul used PROSEUXH and DEHSIS together (Eph 6:18; Phil 4:6; 1 Tim 2:1;
5:5--although 1 Tim 2:1 does not have a KAI in it).
>On the other hand, I hardly think that this could be called "hendiadys" in
the
>real literary sense
Which prompts another question which may be somewhat elementary. Are there
any grammatical and/or literary rules/markers that will give us a hint
whether something found in Phil 4:6 (eg) is a hendiadys or not? Or does the
translator/exegete just go by "feel and intuition" on these sort of things?
I've never really heard an explaination on this.
Thanks in advance,
William Brooks
Port Angeles, WA
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 14:07:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: More on Hellenistic/Cynic comparative work
On Wed, 2 Aug 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
> Another way the gospels show broad cultural similarities, probably
> without textual borrowings, is its orientation toward the supernatural,
> healings, demonology, etc. It seems to speak from a different
> "subculture" than that of most other Jewish or Hellenistic texts of the
> period, and yet a subculture with broad similarities to that in
> ancient Mesopotamia and all over the world. Perhaps some sort of
> lower-class or folk religion positioning.
I would agree, and that was part of what my earlier postings about
indirect and direct interanimation and heteroglossia meant to imply (this
would be one important element of many social and cultural dialogues that
were taking place).
Investigations of various implications of "folk culture(s)" and other
sorts of social and cultural "intertextuality" seem to me to be one of
the most facinating areas of current research. If you are working in
this area, Greg, I would like to hear more of your thoughts, either on or
off-list.
BTW, I think part of the similarities to Cynic materials in the Synoptics
can be explained in this way -- but I'll leave that to another time!
One other example: Raymond Brown's recent work *Death of the Messiah*
has an excellent treatment of the mocking of Jesus. He mentions such
items as ritual mocking, saturnalia, carnival (in its ancient sense).
In his excellent treatment, though, what Brown doesn't seem to realize is
that these elements can all be tied to "folk culture," specifically
elements of the "carnival" (where carnival is a "condoned" profanation of
the sacred for various cultural, religious, and social reasons -- see
Mikhail Bakhtin's outstanding discussion of folk culture and carnival in
the opening chapter of his book on Rabelais).
So aspects of all the items that Brown talks about concerning the mocking
of Jesus as "King," whether saturnalia, mockery of an "appointed" king
(such as in the Sacean festival, as Vernon Robbins has pointed out),
Menippean satire, and so forth can be tied to "carnivalistic" elements of
folk culture -- especially folk culture that exists in the face of raw
totalitarian power like Rome (those contacts can be both direct or
indirect). It seems paradoxical that a totalitarian regime would tolerate
it, but actually a controlled carnival in set times and places in fact
reinforced their power.
It's also difficult for 20th century North Americans to understand these
"carnivalistic" elements of folk culture, but the texts clearly reflect
them.
David
************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
Summer address (until Aug ??):
dgowler@minerva.cis.yale.edu
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 14:09:44 -0400
Subject: Rom. 8:28
Does anyone know why the NRSV at Rom. 8:28 differs from the RSV, NEB, the new
Contemporary Eng. Ver., and vertually every other modern translation to go
back to the KJV translation of ". . . all things work together for good .
. ." They also have a misleading footnote concerning this reading when
they say, "Other ancient authorities read, 'God makes all things work
together for good.'" That reading is possible even if one does not follow
P46 A B 81 Sahidic Coptic and Ethiopic. I agree with the UBS 4 reading
leaving out the word God, but I also agree with understanding God as the
subject of the singular verb SUNERGEI. Of course, PANTA (or PAN in P46)
could be the subject but in this case seems to me to make an untrue
statement. Has anyone talked with anyone on the committee about this verse?
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Rel.
La College, Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 13:20:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Differences between neos and kainos
At 10:35 AM 8/3/95, GAlanC@aol.com wrote:
>I was recently reviewing some notes on Rev. 21 for a Bible study I
>participate in. I ran across a reference to the new heaven and new earth in
>which my professor stated that the word (kainos) meant new in quality or
>nature and not new in the sense that it never existed before. The notes were
>after looking up the passage in his commentary on Rev.
>
>My question is does such a distinction occur between the words. It also
>occurs in:
>
>(2 Cor 5:17 NRSV) "So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation:
>everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!"
>
>Here I have heard others say that this new creation is something that has
>never existed before.
There is a very definite distinction. To put it succintly, KAINOS is to
PALAIOS as NEOS is to GERAIOS/GERWN. NEOS and GERAIOS/GERWN are used
fundamentally of biological age: "young" and "old," although NEWS can in
fact mean "recently." KAINOS and PALAIOS, hwoever, are used more of
artifacts or created things. So KAINOS means fundamentally, "of
recent/brand-new minting," while PALAIOS means "having existed for quite
some time or from of old." Still another word, ARXAIOS means "original" or
"existing since the beginning."
The contrast in 2 Cor 5:17 is between ARXAIA AND KAINH (KTISIS). Here
ARXAIOS is used of the original creation of the world or of humanity, while
the KAINH KTISIS is the brand-new creative work of God in Christ, belonging
to the age-to-come. Comparable is the usage of Lk 22:20: TOUTO TO POTHRION
hH KAINH DIAQHKH, where the contrast would be with hH PALAIA DIAQHKH
(although that phrase is not used in this passage).
Hope this helps.
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: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 13:23:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Phil 4:6
At 1:15 PM 8/3/95, Yirah@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 95-08-02 16:42:24 EDT, Carl Conrad wrote in reply to my
>question:
>>On the other hand, I hardly think that this could be called "hendiadys" in
>the
>>real literary sense
>
>Which prompts another question which may be somewhat elementary. Are there
>any grammatical and/or literary rules/markers that will give us a hint
>whether something found in Phil 4:6 (eg) is a hendiadys or not? Or does the
>translator/exegete just go by "feel and intuition" on these sort of things?
>I've never really heard an explaination on this.
This is hard to answer, quite frankly. I hope someone else who has an
opinion on the matter will venture it readily. My own sense is that this is
a judgment call. I suspect that there are certain proverbial expressions
where two nouns or adjectives (or other pairs) are used together to denote
a single notion, such as "a gentleman and a scholar," "bib and tucker" (I'm
not altogether sure even what that means!), "rough and ready," etc., etc.
The classical Greek KALOS K'AGAQOS is similar for "perfect gentleman." My
sense, however, is that one would not use the term "hendiadys" for a
traditional expression but rather for a clever literary linkage of a pair
of words that expresses a more complex notion.
Having just written that, it occurred to me to consult my old unabridged
Funk & Wagnall's (not, in my opinion, the best of dictionaries, but perhaps
adequate). Under "hendiadys" it offers: "In rhetoric, the use of two words
connected by a conjunction to express the same idea as a single word with a
qualifier, as 'with might and main' instead of 'by main strength.' That
definition would seem to accept the traditional paired phrases as genuine
instances of hendiadys. Personally I'd still prefer to use the term more
strictly for a neat, genuinely creative bit of rhetorical phrasing.
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: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 95 14:33:39 CST
Subject: Re: Rom. 8:28
Original message sent on Thu, Aug 3 12:09 PM by WINBROW@aol.com :
> Does anyone know why the NRSV at Rom. 8:28 differs from the RSV,
> NEB, the new Contemporary Eng. Ver., and vertually every other
> modern translation to go back to the KJV translation of ". . . all
> things work together for good . . ." They also have a misleading
> footnote concerning this reading when they say, "Other ancient
> authorities read, 'God makes all things work together for good.'"
> That reading is possible even if one does not follow P46 A B 81
> Sahidic Coptic and Ethiopic. I agree with the UBS 4 reading leaving
> out the word God, but I also agree with understanding God as the
> subject of the singular verb SUNERGEI. Of course, PANTA (or PAN
> in P46) could be the subject but in this case seems to me to make an
> untrue statement. Has anyone talked with anyone on the committee
> about this verse?
I have noticed other places, particularly in the NT, where the NRSV folks have
chosen somewhat unconventional readings against other translations, and I was
wondering what the feeling was generally about the NRSV. Any comments?
Mark O'Brien
Dallas Theological Seminary
- ----
"If you are slaves to sin, why boast of free-will?" - Calvin
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 17:45:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Rom. 8:28
At 2:33 PM 03/08/95, Mark O'Brien wrote:
>Original message sent on Thu, Aug 3 12:09 PM by WINBROW@aol.com :
>
>> Does anyone know why the NRSV at Rom. 8:28 differs from the RSV,
>> NEB, the new Contemporary Eng. Ver., and vertually every other
>> modern translation to go back to the KJV translation of ". . . all
>> things work together for good . . ." They also have a misleading
>> footnote concerning this reading when they say, "Other ancient
>> authorities read, 'God makes all things work together for good.'"
In what way is this footnote "misleading"?
>> That reading is possible even if one does not follow P46 A B 81
>> Sahidic Coptic and Ethiopic. I agree with the UBS 4 reading leaving
>> out the word God, but I also agree with understanding God as the
>> subject of the singular verb SUNERGEI. Of course, PANTA (or PAN
>> in P46) could be the subject but in this case seems to me to make an
>> untrue statement. Has anyone talked with anyone on the committee
>> about this verse?
It is perhaps useful to look in his "Textual Commentary" where Metzger
(who, of course also served on the NRSV committee) writes:
Although the reading <SUNERGEI O ThEOS> [*] is both ancient an
noteworthy, a
majorty of the Committe deemed it too narrowly supported to be admitted
into
the texts, particularly in view ofhte diversified support for the shorter
reading [*]. Since <SUNERGEI> may be taken to imply a personal subject, [O
ThEOS] seems to have been a natural explanatory addition made by an
Alexandrian editor.
[*: Evidence omitted.]
Another recent, scholarly translation that follows a similar path is that
by Joseph Fitzmyer for the Anchor Bible series, who translates the verse as
"We realize that all things work together for the good of those who love
God...". For his (somewhat lengthy) discussion of the verse --in
particular of the many meanings which have been assigned to the verse--
please see that volume.
>I have noticed other places, particularly in the NT, where the NRSV folks have
>chosen somewhat unconventional readings against other translations, and I was
>wondering what the feeling was generally about the NRSV. Any comments?
Could you possibly be more specific? One reader's "unconventional
readings" is another's more accurate rendition. ;-)
N
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 95 17:20:27 CST
Subject: Re: Rom. 8:28
Original message sent on Thu, Aug 3 3:45 PM by nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn
Cramer) :
>>I have noticed other places, particularly in the NT, where the NRSV folks have
>>chosen somewhat unconventional readings against other translations, and I was
>>wondering what the feeling was generally about the NRSV. Any comments?
> Could you possibly be more specific? One reader's "unconventional
> readings" is another's more accurate rendition. ;-)
Sure... sorry to be so general in my criticism. Here are two examples I can
remember off the top of my head:
Php 1:7
NRSV = "...because you hold me in your heart..."
RSV = "...because I hold you in my heart..."
NASB = "...because I have you in my heart..."
NIV = "...since I have you in my heart..."
Eph 2:14-15
NRSV = "For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and
has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. He has
abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances..."
RSV = "For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the
dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments
and ordinances..."
NASB = "For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke
down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity,
which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances..."
NIV = "For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed
the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law
with its commandments and regulations..."
There are a number of other places where I have noticed the NRSV going its own
way, and these are just two examples that I have worked on recently.
Mark O'Brien
Dallas Theological Seminary
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 20:33:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Rom. 8:28
nichael@sover.net
(quote from Winbrow)
"They also have a misleading footnote concerning this reading when they say,
"Other ancient authorities read, 'God makes all things work together for
good.'"
Nichael wrote
"In what way is this footnote "misleading"?"
The note makes it appear that God could be the subject of the verb SUNERGEI
only if the translator accepted the reading of P46. That is not the case.
The reading is possible with the reading accepted by the UBS committee as
Metzger suggests in the Textual commentary. I would not call this reading
"unconventional" as it is found in a the KJV and other translations.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Rel.
La College, Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 21:58:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Rom. 8:28
At 8:33 PM 03/08/95, WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
>nichael@sover.net
>(quote from Winbrow)
>"They also have a misleading footnote concerning this reading when they say,
>"Other ancient authorities read, 'God makes all things work together for
>good.'"
>Nichael wrote
>"In what way is this footnote "misleading"?"
>
>The note makes it appear that God could be the subject of the verb SUNERGEI
>only if the translator accepted the reading of P46. That is not the case.
> The reading is possible with the reading accepted by the UBS committee as
>Metzger suggests in the Textual commentary. I would not call this reading
>"unconventional" as it is found in a the KJV and other translations.
But as is made clear in the intro to the NRSV "Other ancient authorities"
is merely a code phrase for the fact that some alternate reading also
exists in a noteworthy portion of the textual history. That is clearly the
case here. This doens't suggest anything about the nature of the
translation "unconventional" or otherwise.
As Fitzmyer points out (in the commentary I alluded to earlier) at least
four significantly different readings/meanings are possible here. This
footnote was, I believe, merely trying to make a concise (perhaps overly
so) comment dealing with textual criticism.
N
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #810
*****************************
** 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