[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #831
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 22 August 1995 Volume 01 : Number 831
In this issue:
John 20:30-31
Re: J 1:1
BG: Egyptian vs. Alexandrian text types
BG: Barbara Aland's view on Majority Text
Re: BG: Egyptian vs. Alexandrian text types
Re: John 20:30-31
Re: John 20:30-31
Re: John 20:30-31
John 1:1c
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ron Skrabanek <70413.3002@compuserve.com>
Date: 21 Aug 95 01:42:59 EDT
Subject: John 20:30-31
I am studying the stated purpose for the writing of the Gospel of John and have
a question about the verb tenses involved.
In verse 31, I see two purpose clauses . . .
1. that you may believe (Aorist Subjunctive) and
2. that you may have (Present Subjunctive)
Am I correct that this is a dual purpose statement? I've checked a few
commentaries, but see no reference to such an understanding of the text. This
makes me suspicious of my conclusion.
Secondly, what is the exegetical significance of the switch in tense from aorist
to present? I read in Robertson's grammar that the Present Subjunctive is not
common, but am not sure what to make of it's usage here.
ron
------------------------------
From: MIRKOVA1@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 01:36:32 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: J 1:1
In the case of John 1:1, grammar has to give way. Historical and theological
issues are too complicated to be resolved by grammatical analysis only.
Grammar is after all just a tool.
Greetings!
Alexander Mirkovic
Vanderbilt University
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 12:20:31 CST
Subject: BG: Egyptian vs. Alexandrian text types
In reading Aland and Aland's _The Text of the New Testament_, I note on page
155 that they distinguish between the Alexandrian text type (which fits their
category I) and the Egyptian text type (which fits their category II). To my
shame I must admit that I had thought that those terms were synonymous. Does
anyone know what distinction Aland and Aland are making between these terms?
Surely this is not a revival of W&H's Neutral vs. Alexandrian distinction, is
it? Thanks for any help on this.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 12:29:00 CST
Subject: BG: Barbara Aland's view on Majority Text
On page 155 of Aland and Aland's _The Text of the New Testament, we read:
"In fact, the 'Majority Text" (using the term in a purely pragmatic sense)
with its symbol <Old English M> (which is used solely as a space-saving device
in Nestle-Aland26) may yet prove to hold a multiple significance for the
history of the text (cf. the high number of type 1/2 readings in a good many
manuscripts). But Barbara Aland's views on this cannot be tested
systematically until the critical apparatus of Nestle-Aland26 has been put on
tape (which is now being done) and been examined by computer from all the
necessary perspectives."
Does anyone on this listserver know what Barbara Aland's views that are
referred to here but not explained are exactly?
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 95 13:36:24 PDT
Subject: Re: BG: Egyptian vs. Alexandrian text types
terry@bible.acu.edu asked:
> Surely this is not a revival of W&H's Neutral vs. Alexandrian distinction?
Aland: Alexandrian Egyptian
Metzger: early or proto-Alexandrian Alexandrian
Hort: Neutral Alexandrian
Plus or minus a few shades of connotation, these are all the same distinction.
Hort seemed to portray the difference between them as being fairly
large, with the Neutral almost midway between Alexandrian and "Western",
but this was partly due to his Neutral text not being a tangible set
of witnesses, (sci. Origen+01+B), but rather a hypothetical text lying behind
these tangible witnesses.
In any case the distinction just reflects the textual fact that
Origen+01+B (+-D) fairly often agree against C+L+33 et al.
Vincent Broman, code 544 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: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 18:26:32 -0500 (GMT-0500)
Subject: Re: John 20:30-31
On 21 Aug 1995, Ron Skrabanek wrote:
> I am studying the stated purpose for the writing of the Gospel of John and have
> a question about the verb tenses involved.
>
> In verse 31, I see two purpose clauses . . .
>
> 1. that you may believe (Aorist Subjunctive) and
>
> 2. that you may have (Present Subjunctive)
>
> Am I correct that this is a dual purpose statement? I've checked a few
> commentaries, but see no reference to such an understanding of the text. This
> makes me suspicious of my conclusion.
>
> Secondly, what is the exegetical significance of the switch in tense from aorist
> to present? I read in Robertson's grammar that the Present Subjunctive is not
> common, but am not sure what to make of it's usage here.
It appears that nobody has yet tackled this one, so I'll have a crack at it.
Yes, it is indeed a double purpose clause. I think it should be noted
that the text of John 20:30 actually shows the sigma of PISTEU[S]HTE in
brackets, meaning, unless I have misunderstood the editorial procedures,
that the editorial committee deemed the aorist-tense form less likely and
indicated this by bracketing the sigma, but left the bracketed sigma in
the text because it has almost as good MS support as the present-tense
form. Therefore, it may very well be that the original text DID have both
subjunctive verbs in the present tense.
Nevertheless, if the aorist form of PISTEUSHTE is indeed correct and is
then followed by PISTEUONTES ZWHN EXHTE, I would understand the
relationship of the tenses as follows: the aorist PISTEUSHTE would be
used to indicated the one-time action of arriving at belief, while the
present ZWHN EXHTE would indicate the ongoing possession of Life. The
distinctive notion of ZWH AIWNIOS in John's gospel is precisely that
everlasting life, once gained, continues onward. That is precisely the
sense of the present tense in its aspect. The linguists on the list may
be able to phrase this with considerably more precision, but that seems
to me the implication of these tense differences. Note that the
participles accompanying ZWHN EXHTE, PISTEUONTES, is also in the present
tense. Therefore, in what is perhaps an overdramatized translation of the
phrasing of John 20:31, I would offer:
"But this has been written so that you may come to believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and so that, as you continue
to believe, you may continue to possess life everlasting in his
name."
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: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 20:27:35 -0400
Subject: Re: John 20:30-31
Carl Conrad translated John 20:31,
"But this has been written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God, and so that, as you continue to believe, you may
continue to possess life everlasting in his name."
I agree with his understanding of the meaning of the brackets and with his
understanding of the tense of the purpose clauses. I think that he is right
that they are related in the sentence as he has translated. I would modify
the translation only by leaving out the implied condition. "But this has
been written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God, and so that you may possess life everlasting in his name."
John's use of ZWHN or ZWHN AIWNIOS assumes a continuity beginning in this
life and extending beyond it. That is further emphasized by the use of the
present tense. I do think that John sees possessing life as resulting from
coming to faith, but I would not necessarily see a conditional relationship
there, maybe sequential. Maybe I'm getting too much theology in my exegesis.
Carlton Winbery
Fogleman Prof. NT & Greek
LA College, Pineville, LA
(318) 487-7241 Fax (318) 487-7425 off. or (318) 442-4996 home
Winbrow@aol.com or Winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 19:38:01 -0500 (GMT-0500)
Subject: Re: John 20:30-31
On Mon, 21 Aug 1995 WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
> Carl Conrad translated John 20:31,
> "But this has been written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the
> Christ, the Son of God, and so that, as you continue to believe, you may
> continue to possess life everlasting in his name."
>
> I agree with his understanding of the meaning of the brackets and with his
> understanding of the tense of the purpose clauses. I think that he is right
> that they are related in the sentence as he has translated. I would modify
> the translation only by leaving out the implied condition. "But this has
> been written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the
> Son of God, and so that you may possess life everlasting in his name."
>
> John's use of ZWHN or ZWHN AIWNIOS assumes a continuity beginning in this
> life and extending beyond it. That is further emphasized by the use of the
> present tense. I do think that John sees possessing life as resulting from
> coming to faith, but I would not necessarily see a conditional relationship
> there, maybe sequential. Maybe I'm getting too much theology in my exegesis.
Carlton et al.: I should make clear that I didn't see the participle
(PISTEUONTES) as conditional in force. If anything, I would view it as
causal. But I really think it more likely that both subjunctives were in
the present tense.
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: Alan M Feuerbacher <alanf@mdhost.cse.tek.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 18:05:28 PDT
Subject: John 1:1c
Ken Pulliam wrote:
> >>1) The Word was the God (THEOS is inherently definite).
>Alan, I don't think it is possible contextually but I believe it
>is possible grammatically. The noun THEOS is sometimes definite
>even without the article since it is a title.
I see what you're saying. However, according to the references
I've read, the grammatical construct -- "theos" appearing ahead
of "ho logos" in the sentence -- means that "theos" cannot be a
noun but must be an adjective. It would be like saying in English,
"human am i." (Note that I've used all lower case to parallel the
Greek.) Now, "human" can be a noun or adjective, depending on
context, so a parallel might be to list some possibilities of
exactly what this could mean:
1) I am the human. (noun.; poses a question as to which "human"
I'm talking about.
1) I am the Human. (noun.; as if there were one special Human
out of many humans, designated by use of "the"
and by capitalizing "Human")
2) I am a human. (noun.; one of many humans)
2) I am a Human. (noun.; one of many Humans(?); meaning is not
clear)
3) I am human. (adj.; one of many humans)
4) I am Human. (the fuzziest case; this is where capitalization
in English can cause confusion)
English itself is fuzzy in cases like this, so that based on
grammatical considerations alone we cannot say for certain what
"human am i" means. How, then, can we be certain what similar Greek
constructions mean when we no longer even have the full cultural
context of a native Greek speaker? Also note that Greek has no
equivalent of clarifying (or obscuring) meaning by use of
capitalization.
> >>2) The Word was a god (THEOS is indefinite).
> >As for 2), we also have variation "deity," "divine," "nature
> >of ..." and so on. Correct?
>
>I think what you are suggesting with the variations "deity,"
>"divine," etc. fits better under number #3.
I'm not sure I agree. This assumes that "divine," etc., can only refer
to God himself, i.e., the Old Testament YHWH.
This brings up an interesting point. The English words "god," "divine"
and "deity" are all defined somewhat in terms of each other. From
Merriam-Webster's _New Collegiate Dictionary_:
god: 1 cap: the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being
perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness whom men worship as creator
and ruler of the universe ... 2: a being or object believed to
have more than natural attributes and powers and to require man's
worship; specif: one controlling a particular aspect or part of
reality 3: a person or thing of supreme value 4: a powerful
ruler
divine: 1 a: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or
a god <the ~ right of kings> b: being a deity <the ~ Savior>
deity: 1 a: the rank or essential nature of a god: DIVINITY
b cap: SUPREME BEING, GOD 2: a god or goddess <the deities
of ancient Greece> 3: one exalted or revered as supremely good
or powerful
These definitions are not very "absolute," in that they rely on what
native speakers think of when hearing the words. Different cultures,
even within the English speaking community, will have somewhat different
ideas on what each word means, although most speakers would agree on
how the words are related.
In terms of absoluteness, the definition of "theos" does not seem
any better. From Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich (paraphrased):
theos: 1. of divine beings generally 2. with reference to Christ
3. quite predominantly of the true God, somtimes with, sometimes
without the article
Similarly, _The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised_ by Harold Moulton
gives these definitions for "theos" and related words: a deity; an
idol; God, the true God; God, possessed of true godhead; a goddess;
divine, pertaining to God; the divine nature, divinity; divinity,
deity, godhead, divine majesty.
The essential point is that native speakers develop a certain "feel"
for what these words mean in the context of their literature and their
culture. This is as true of 1st-century Greek as it is of modern
English.
However, we today have only a partial handle on all of the unspoken
connotations of various Greek words. In the case of "theos" and
related words, we know that "theos" means "divine being" or something
like that, but what is a divine being? What did it mean to a Greek
speaker? Unless one clearly establishes what it means, one can't
really say much about a precise meaning of "theos." The best one
can sometimes do is establish some possible meanings.
In the case of "theos en ho logos," as has been discussed and as some
of the quotations in my previous post said, "theos" seems to say
something about the nature of "logos," i.e., the "logos" had the
nature of "theos." But what is the nature of "theos"? Well, it
describes gods, divine beings, the true God or a variety of other
things. From my studies I conclude that "theos" has even a richer
connotation than does "god" in English. As _TDNT_ says, under
"theos" (p. 67): "Its use is as broad and varied as the religious
interpretation of the world and of life by the Gks."
My point is that we're dealing with an inherently fuzzy problem
that is complicated by our cultural and religious biases.
> >In certain cases, though, as I described in my previous
> >post, worship was rendered to a "god" that is a real, live
> >entity --Satan. By all Greek cultural practices that I'm
> >aware of, Satan was a god -- not THE GOD, of course, but a
> >god that really exists. Jesus believed that Satan existed,
> >and would have called him a god. Yet Jesus certainly cannot
> >be described as polytheistic, nor did he ever think that
> >this god was God.
>
>This is also true, but I fail to see your point. The fact is that
>both ELOHIM and THEOS could be used of men, angels, idols, and
>the true God. Obviously, then the term has two different senses.
>In one sense, it refers to anything that is worshipped as if it
>were God and the other sense is the Almighty One who is truly
>deserving of worship.
I agree with your statements. My point was that many people use an
argument about John 1:1c that fails to take this into account. In
English, because of our use of capitalization, we can say that "God
is by definition the only true god." However, if we say "God is the
only true God," we are being redundant, and sort of trying to settle
the argument "by definition" rather than by logic.
I hope this provokes more discussion, since I've seen a wide variety
of usually poorly informed opinion on this topic, and would like to
see some scholarly opinions.
Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@mdhost.cse.tek.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #831
*****************************
** 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