[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #845
b-greek-digest Friday, 1 September 1995 Volume 01 : Number 845
In this issue:
TOTE in Matt. 24:23
Re: Galatians 1:10
Re: Galatians 1:10
Re: TOTE in Matt. 24:23
Re: eight case or five?
Re: eight case or five?
Re: Galatians 1:10
Re: eight case or five?
Re: TOTE in Matt. 24:23
NT on Papyrus: Report
Re: TOTE in Matt. 24:23
Re: TOTE in Matt. 24:23
Re: BG: Synoptic Apocalypse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 1995 09:40:50 CST
Subject: TOTE in Matt. 24:23
I've been working on a reply to Jan Haugland's Tueday's reply to a post of
mine, but have run on a snag that I would appreciate some feedback on.
Jan complained that I cannot treat Matt. 24:23-28 as referring to the second
coming because it begins with TOTE "then"; I take it that he means "then" in
the sense of "at that time" and not "next in order/time" and I am inclinded to
agree with him on this meaning at this place.
The problem is that checking on the meaning of TOTE in the lexicons I discover
that Thayers and Louw & Nida treat Matt. 24:23 as an example of the meaning
"next in order/time" rather than "at that time." BAG does not list this
passage, but treats the parallel in Mark 13:21 in the same way--as subsequent
rather than simultaneuos.
It looks to me like Jesus is saying that if at the time of the tribulation in
vv. 15-22 false Christs and false prophets should arrive, they should not be
believed. I doubt that he is saying that they should not believe false
Christs and false prophets once the tribulation is finished, although that is
how I understand the lexicons to be taking it. Historically (i.e. relying on
Josephus), the former case was the situation, unless this is a veiled
reference to Bar Kokhba.
What do you think? Does TOTE mean "at that time" or "next in order/time" in
Matt. 24:23? Can all three major English lexicons be wrong?
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Travis Bauer <bauer@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 10:16:28 -35900
Subject: Re: Galatians 1:10
Thanks to all for the comments on the Galatians passage. I took a
closer look at Luther's commentary, and it does seem that there is some
leaning towards Calvin's interpretation. Luther writes (I only have the
English translation of the commentary) that a possible translation of the
beginning of verse 10 is "Do I preach a man's doctrine, or God's?" However,
he explains the verse partly by saying that "we seek not the favour of men by
our doctrine," favoring the more obvious translation.
Given that Luther's interpretation in some respects resembles
Calvin's, could there be another explanation for assuming an implicit
kata besides Calvin's familiarity with Stoicism?
Travis Bauer
Jamestown College
bauer@acc.jc.edu
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 12:09:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Galatians 1:10
On Fri, 1 Sep 1995, Travis Bauer wrote:
>
> Thanks to all for the comments on the Galatians passage. I took a
> closer look at Luther's commentary, and it does seem that there is some
> leaning towards Calvin's interpretation. Luther writes (I only have the
> English translation of the commentary) that a possible translation of the
> beginning of verse 10 is "Do I preach a man's doctrine, or God's?"
You might want to look at it in Latin before you put anything on
paper about Luther's interpretation. My copy is also a translation, but
from a note including Luther's latin on the translation of the intitial
phrase, I wonder. It reads "For now preach I man's Doctrine or God's?"
but the Latin is, _Nunc enim homines suadeo an Deum?_, which, in my
rudimentary Latin, I understand as "Now do I, indeed, persuade men or
God." The translated text that follows, however, seems to give the same
sense as Travis has cited for Calvin. Maybe there is someone out there
with a copy of this commentary in Latin and the expertise in the language
to give us a more exact idea of Luther's comments on this passage.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 11:57:16 -0500
Subject: Re: TOTE in Matt. 24:23
At 10:40 AM 9/1/95, Bruce Terry wrote:
>I've been working on a reply to Jan Haugland's Tueday's reply to a post of
>mine, but have run on a snag that I would appreciate some feedback on.
>
>Jan complained that I cannot treat Matt. 24:23-28 as referring to the second
>coming because it begins with TOTE "then"; I take it that he means "then" in
>the sense of "at that time" and not "next in order/time" and I am inclinded to
>agree with him on this meaning at this place.
>
>The problem is that checking on the meaning of TOTE in the lexicons I discover
>that Thayers and Louw & Nida treat Matt. 24:23 as an example of the meaning
>"next in order/time" rather than "at that time." BAG does not list this
>passage, but treats the parallel in Mark 13:21 in the same way--as subsequent
>rather than simultaneuos.
>
>It looks to me like Jesus is saying that if at the time of the tribulation in
>vv. 15-22 false Christs and false prophets should arrive, they should not be
>believed. I doubt that he is saying that they should not believe false
>Christs and false prophets once the tribulation is finished, although that is
>how I understand the lexicons to be taking it. Historically (i.e. relying on
>Josephus), the former case was the situation, unless this is a veiled
>reference to Bar Kokhba.
>
>What do you think? Does TOTE mean "at that time" or "next in order/time" in
>Matt. 24:23? Can all three major English lexicons be wrong?
Bruce, I am one who thinks that thirty thousand Frenchmen CAN be wrong,
although I would also agree with Aristotle that one ought not to reject the
majority opinion lightly. I think that TOTE does indeed mean "at that time"
in Mt 24:23, and that the paragraph (the unit, at any rate, of vss. 23-28)
is Jesus' comment on the crisis of the agony of Judea and Jerusalem that
came in 70.
Let me add, by way of explanation, that I believe (and I realize others
don't share this view) that Matthew is here redacting Mark's earlier
version--but that although Mark's text envisions the crisis of 69-70 as the
pre-parousial (can I use that adjective?) TRIBULATION of apocalyptic
thinking (and remember, it is not just the agony of Jerusalem in those
years but also the assassination of Nero and the chaos in Rome ensuing with
three emperors in rapid succession before Vespasian succeeded in seizing
power), Matthew seems to be thinking more specifically of the crisis in
Judea in 70. And I would suppose that Matthew has lived through that and
knows it now as a past event. So I think his TOTE in 24:23 does in fact
refer to the Jerusalem crisis.
More problematic, however, is the phrasing of 24:29, EUQEWS META THN QLICIN
TWN hMERWN EKEINWN for the interpretation of the sequence. Mt seems to have
taken over the "immediately after that tribulation" from Mark (or a common
source?), and it is evident that Matthew, although he does seem to envision
an indefinite delay of the Parousia, nevertheless is not looking for a very
long wait. I think there are several pointers to a delay of the Parousia in
Matthew, but here in the Synoptic Apocalypse, he is following the text of
Mark pretty closely, although, as I've tried to argue previously, I think
that his rewriting of the disciples' question draws a distinction between
the destruction of the temple and the Parousia that is by no means evident
in Mark's version.
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: Bill Chapman <billc@housing.msstate.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 12:09:41 CST
Subject: Re: eight case or five?
> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:54:35 -0600
> From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
> Historical grammar lets us know that there were eight cases. There are
> vestiges of some of these cases in unusual words. Greek XAMAI ("on the
> ground") is often identified as a survival of the locative case.
>
> So where do linguists stand on this? Historical linguists (using a
> diachronic method) understand how the usages of the five case system
> reflect the earlier eight case system in the usage of Greek or Latin.
> Descriptive structural linguists (using a synchronic analysis of language
> in a given period or collection of texts, such as the Septuagint or the New
> Testament, e.g. Nida) seek to describe the use of the language as it occurs
> in these texts.
> Cordially, Ed Krentz
In the sections I quoted above, it seems that you describe an "older"
language with more "form-ality" that devolves into a "younger"
language with less complexity. If I pursue that line of reasoning
(mine, not necessarily implied by your post), and look at a "modern"
language like English with only a subjective and objective case,
the pattern appears to hold true.
This is very curious. From whence does the advanced, yet ancient,
form-full, language come? Now, I am thinking of cave-people grunting
and pointing (like we see in the movies), and wonder how a formal,
eight-case language could have come about, particularly if languages
tend to simplify over time.
Can some Historical Linguist help me?
Thanks, Bill
- --
Bill Chapman . mailto:billc@aris.com . mailto:wcc1@ra.msstate.edu
http://www2.msstate.edu/~wcc1/index.html
P.O. Box 1262 . Mississippi State, MS 39762 . (601) 323-3092
------------------------------
From: "Lindsay J. Whaley" <Lindsay.J.Whaley@dartmouth.edu>
Date: 01 Sep 95 13:50:30 EDT
Subject: Re: eight case or five?
- --- You wrote:
If I pursue that line of reasoning
(mine, not necessarily implied by your post), and look at a "modern"
language like English with only a subjective and objective case,
the pattern appears to hold true.
This is very curious. From whence does the advanced, yet ancient,
form-full, language come? Now, I am thinking of cave-people grunting
and pointing (like we see in the movies), and wonder how a formal,
eight-case language could have come about, particularly if languages
tend to simplify over time.
Can some Historical Linguist help me?
Thanks, Bill
- --- end of quoted material ---
I'm certainly not ready to speculate about the complex tongue of the
cave-grunters nor even about the form of the languange from which
Proto-Indo-European sprung!
However, I wanted to throw in a couple of comments. In a very general sense,
languages do simplify over time. In the case of case, the simplification over
time is usually tied in with phonological reduction. That is, since case
suffixes are rarely stressed, there is a natural tendency for them to become
further and further reduced until they disappear.
However, case suffixes can also be "born" when there are
simplifications in other aspects of language. For example, verbs, nouns, and
adverbial particles are all known to have become case affixes in some languages
as they go through a process of grammaticalization. Typically,
grammaticalization is also accompanied by phonological reduction, but more
importantly, it consists of a semantic and syntactic simplification. For
example, the Modern Persian object marker -ra was originally the noun radiy
'goal, purpose'. Over time, it became reduced to -rad, and was used as a
postposition for datives and benefactives. Notice that as a benefactive marker
it still had shades of the meaning 'purpose' and as dative still had shades of
the meaning 'goal', but these meanings had lost their full sense. Still later
in the history of Persian, -ra became even more semantically general and could
mark any definite object.
All this is to say that the maxim "language simplifies over time" is a
little misleading because it suggests a complex original language that slowly
whittles down to become maximally simple. If we see language not as a
monolithic block, but a group of interacting subsystems, there is no reason to
believe in such a teleology.
Also keep in mind that the lexical subsystem is remarkably productive,
thereby insuring that new material is constantly being added.
Lindsay Whaley
Dartmouth College
------------------------------
From: David Anvar <anvar@garnet.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 12:23:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Galatians 1:10
Travis Bauer wrote:
> Given that Luther's interpretation in some respects resembles
>Calvin's, could there be another explanation for assuming an implicit
>kata besides Calvin's familiarity with Stoicism?
Calvin himself ascribes the reason for the ellipses to what he understood to
be a common usage in greek literature. Our greek experts should be able to
tell us if this usage is limited to writers of Stoicism or something more
general. The work by Bos may have the answer if anyone out there has it.
References:
13. Bos, Lambert, 1670-1717.
Ellipses graecae, sive, De vocibus quae in sermone graeco per ellipsin
supprimuntur. Editio tertia, quam additionibus et observationibus suis,
ut& necessariis indicibus locupletavit Christianus Schoettgenius. Lipsiae,
apud Jo. Christ. Martini, 1713.
UCB Bancroft t PA379.E5 B6 1713
14. Bos, Lambert, 1670-1717.
Lamberti Bos ... Exercitationes philologicae, in quibus Novi Foederis
loca nonnulla ex auctoribus graecis illustrantur & exponuntur, aliorumque
versiones & interpretationes examinantur. Editio secunda multis partibus
aucta. Accedit Dissertatio de etymologia graeca. Franequerae, apud Wibium
Bleck, 1713.
NRLF $B 168 344 Type EXP NRLF for loan details.
I could help more if I knew latin. Both of these are in a library near me.
Sincerely, David Anvar
U.C. Berkeley
"Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD."
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 95 14:58:41 EDT
Subject: Re: eight case or five?
Bill Chapman wrote:
> In the sections I quoted above, it seems that you describe an "older"
> language with more "form-ality" that devolves into a "younger"
> language with less complexity. If I pursue that line of reasoning
> (mine, not necessarily implied by your post), and look at a "modern"
> language like English with only a subjective and objective case,
> the pattern appears to hold true.
"Complexity" is a word that is best avoided in linguistics, because
languages don't become less complex -- they just trade complexity in
one area (such as case) for complexity in another (i.e., syntax).
Even so, it is by no means a given that languages will tend to
reduce their case systems, because the Finno-Ugric languages (Finnish
and Estonian) are expanding their case systems. For example, Estonian
has added four cases (the essive, terminative, abessive, and comitative)
to its inherited, ten-case system. Finnish has the instructive instead
of the terminative.
> This is very curious. From whence does the advanced, yet ancient,
> form-full, language come? Now, I am thinking of cave-people grunting
> and pointing (like we see in the movies), and wonder how a formal,
> eight-case language could have come about, particularly if languages
> tend to simplify over time.
This area is necessarily speculative, but since we see the process
happening in the Finno-Ugric languages, it seems that postpositions or
other enclitics affix themselves to the end of their objects and
eventually form the case endings. There is a theory that language
development is not linear (from more complex to less) but circular
(from isolating, [e.g., Chinese] to agglutinating [e.g., Turkish]
to inflected [e.g., Latin] and back to isolating). But again, that's
speculative.
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 13:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: TOTE in Matt. 24:23
I would argue for the meaning of "then" in v 23, but that is part of a
sequential event. Let me illustrate.
I. v. 15 When you see
a. v. 21 Then-sequential, first the desolation, then the tribulation
1. At the time of this tribulation there will be false Christs.
What do you think?
Larry Swain
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 15:58:45 -0600
Subject: NT on Papyrus: Report
Status:
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 08:46:56 -0400
From: "Paul Swarney" <pswarney@YorkU.CA>
X-Mailer: Z-Mail Lite (3.2.0 26may94)
To: emkrentz@mcs.com (Edgar M. Krentz)
Subject: Re: Forwarding Kongress report
I neglected to say that you may certainly forwrd my remarks! What is
B-greek's chief concern?
Paul Swarney
As you can see from the above, I am forwarding this report with Paul
Swarney's permission. It should be of interest to all who read the thread
sometime ago about Carsten Thiede's reading of some papyri.
>Status:
>Reply-To: ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu
>Originator: ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu
>Sender: ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu
>Precedence: bulk
>From: "Paul Swarney" <pswarney@YorkU.CA>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu>
>Subject: Kongress
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
>X-Comment: First Century Judaism Discussion Forum
>Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 08:45:25 EDT
>
>I have just returned to the desk after a week in Berlin at the 21.
>Internationaler Papyrologenkongress, and a few more days at the side of an
>excellent lake. I shall try to offer a commentary on some of the papers that
>might be of interest to the group later in the week. For now two
>observations relevant to some of the conversations on IOUDAIOS during the
>past two weeks are in order.
>
>1. Another query appeared last week about Carsten Thiede's dating of a
>Matthean codex which received a lot of publicity from its appearance in the
>Times on 24 December last. Thiede and a colleague, Georg Masuch, presented a
>workshop at the Congress on reading fragments of papyrus with laser enhanced
>microscopy, a kind of papyrological CAT scan, that produced three dimensional
>images. We donned the 3-d red and green glasses in front of us and saw what
>Thiede understood were the depressions caused by the scribal pen in the
>papyrus, depressions which remained even though the ink was long gone! It is
>a truly wonderful tool - you can now see most anything that you want to in a
>text.
>
>I had a discussion with Thiede about his article in ZPE which had been
>summarized in the Times. I expressed my admiration for the attention that
>the Times' story drew to papyrology and to Matthew (and Thiede too.) He
>stands very firmly behind his suggestion that the codex is first century.
>
>I also had a conversation with the Regius Professor of Greek in Oxford,
> whose enhanced position now requires that he do some Greek along with
>Papyrology. Parsons stands even more firmly behind his comment quoted in
>the Times last December.
>
>2. The discussion of Roman law in Judea also seems to have continued in the
> background of Ioudaios conversations. Hanna Cotton delivered an excellent,
>exuberant and thoroughly convincing paper on law and some transactions in the
>Babatha archive. She is convinced that they show many variations in
>strategies for succession for wives and daughters. These do not conform to
>halakhic norms presumed to have been wide spread among Ioudaioi in the second
>century. The warning here is against assuming such universals as "Roman" or
>"Jewish" or "Greek" law but rather to examine carefully what is going on
>situation by situation.
>
>Paul Swarney, Classical Studies, York University
>
>
Status:
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 08:43:38 -0400
From: "Paul Swarney" <pswarney@YorkU.CA>
X-Mailer: Z-Mail Lite (3.2.0 26may94)
To: emkrentz@mcs.com (Edgar M. Krentz)
Subject: Re: Forwarding Kongress report
My remarks about Thiede's dating were rather superficial since all he did was
reiterate, very briefly, his argumanets in the ZPE article. And Peter
Parsons simply repeated his objection that Thiede's conjectures were
papyrological nonsense. Parsons affirmed Roberts' guesses about date and did
not think the matter was worth much more discussion. In sum from the view
point of an emminent papyrologist the debate is a dud. Sirgid Peterson on
IOUDAIOS has summarized the main points in a very satisfactory way.
By the way I think that the work being done by Ludwig Koenen's team on the
Petra Papyri, the archive found in a burned church at Petra, and Crawley's
note on yet another neighbourhood of Ioudaioi in Ptolemaic Egypt are more
interesting. I shall send you my observations once I catch my breath.
Paul Swarney
Edgar Krentz <emkrentz@mcs.com>
New Testament, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Voice: 312-753-0752; FAX: 312-753-0782
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 95 16:57:37 EDT
Subject: Re: TOTE in Matt. 24:23
Bruce Terry wrote:
> I've been working on a reply to Jan Haugland's Tueday's reply to a post of
> mine, but have run on a snag that I would appreciate some feedback on.
...
> It looks to me like Jesus is saying that if at the time of the tribulation in
> vv. 15-22 false Christs and false prophets should arrive, they should not be
> believed. I doubt that he is saying that they should not believe false
> Christs and false prophets once the tribulation is finished, although that is
> how I understand the lexicons to be taking it. Historically (i.e. relying on
> Josephus), the former case was the situation, unless this is a veiled
> reference to Bar Kokhba.
>
> What do you think? Does TOTE mean "at that time" or "next in order/time" in
> Matt. 24:23? Can all three major English lexicons be wrong?
In Mt24:23, I see TOTE meaning "next in order/time" in that
people will announce false Messiahs (vv23-24) after people flee
to the hills (v16 TOTE), after they see the desolating sacrifice
(v15 hOTAN) which starts the tribulation (v21). Even though
TOTE should mean "thereupon" in v23, v29 puts all the events of
vv15-28 during the tribulation. So, I think Jesus is saying
that they should not believe false prophets once the tribulation
has *begun* not finished as suggested.
This meaning is typical for Matthew. TOTE is used about 90
times in Matthew compared to six in Mark and fifteen in Luke.
As BAGD and BDF both note, the use of TOTE to mean 'thereupon'
is unclassical but "particularly characteristic of Mt" [BDF
#479(2)]. This usage has been identified as an Aramaism (see
LXX for ':EDAYIN, Dn2:19 25 etc. Ezr4:23 5:4 9 etc.; or for
B."'DAYIN, Dn2:14 35 46 3:13 19 21 26 Ezr4:24 5:2 6:1). So,
this meaning is not surprising. I also checked the Vulgate,
but Jerome has TUNC, which means either "at that time" or
"thereupon."
By the way, Mt24:23 is one of the five places that Matthew has
a parallel to Mark's TOTE.
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: Jan.Haugland@uib.no
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 23:35:34 +0200
Subject: Re: TOTE in Matt. 24:23
Larry Swain said:
> I. v. 15 When you see
>
> a. v. 21 Then-sequential, first the desolation, then the tribulation
With "desolation" I take you mean the "abomination" or "desolationg sacrilege",
spoken of in Daniel (v15). Is that correct?
> 1. At the time of this tribulation there will be false Christs.
I will agree. At the time of the siege of Jerusalem there will be false
Christs.
Another detail: v21 describes the great tribulation as "such as has not been
from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be." If we take
these words to mean what they say, it will exclude any and all interpretations
with more than one such "tribulation". If we agree it refers to the siege of
Jerusalem, and in Matthew I can't imagine you can get by that, then this is the
only tribulation Jesus foretold according to Matthew.
Cheers,
- - Jan
- --
"With every passing hour our solar system comes forty-three thousand
miles closer to globular cluster M13 in the constellation Hercules, and
still there are some misfits who continue to insist that there is no
such thing as progress." -- Ransom K. Ferm
------------------------------
From: Jan.Haugland@uib.no
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 01:08:15 +0200
Subject: Re: BG: Synoptic Apocalypse
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> I am less confident that in these passages the gospel do in fact reflect
> "true, authentic oral statements made by Jesus to the disciples, but I
> grant that the statements are there in each of the three synoptics.
All right. Then I assume we also agree that this "synoptic apocalypse" has one
common origin. Somebody made these statements in one original form, and all the
three synoptics derives from an original source, oral or written (unless one of
them *is* the original of course). Whether this source is Jesus himself or
simply an imaginative writer does not change the fact that the source had a
specific story to tell, and a reason for choosing the words he used.
> There
> are some significant differences in the wording of the versions in the
> three gospels, but whatever it is that they are to see, in each there is
> asserted that "there are some standing here who will not taste death before
> they see ..."
Exactly. And here we have an example where Luke is *most* explicit when he says
that what will happen is that Jesus will come in the clouds *with power*. These
words pretty much exclude the possibility to interprete this "coming in clouds"
to be the transfiguration, the resurrection or another recorded event in the
gospels.
> Nevertheless, these statements, crucial as they may be, do
> not by any means constitute the whole teaching of any one of the synoptic
> gospels. I think it comes closest to the teaching of Mark's gospel, but I
> think there are clear indications of a "delayed Parousia" in Matthew and
> Luke.
I cannot fully agree with this. First, see above. Since all 3 synoptic
revelations has a common source, and they are very much alike, we should try to
interprete them to mean the same thing. There may be a theoretical possibility
to squeeze in some delay between the siege of Jerusalem (tribulation; Luke
21:24) and the coming in verse 25-27, but it isn't *the* natural understanding
even of this gospel.
I think we have to note that words about celestial phenomenons ("signs in sun
and moon and stars" etc) in the OT, where these word-pictures originated, does
not stand alone. Some people have had their nose against the skies for a long
time with no good reason, for those words do not refer to anything that shakes
the physical universe. We find these words all over the OT, like in Hag 2:21,22
where God is "about to shake the heavens and the earth, and to overthrow the
throne of kingdoms." Note the parallelism; the last part -- literal -- explains
the first -- which is figurative. We see pretty clearly that celestial
phenomenon and natural disasters are used to refer to great *moral* and
*political* changes and upheavals (like in Ha 2:6,7; Ze 4:7; Ez 26:15; 38:19;
Jo 3:16; see also Heb 12:26,27).
This is the a key to understand the celestial phenomenon referred to in Mt
24:29 etc.
Now, after a lengthy introduction where I state pretty self-evident things,
here comes my point:
If you put in a delay or interval between the tribulation and the parousia in
Luke, you have this celestial sign removed from all context. No reference can
then be found to *which* major upheaval of power is symbolised with celestial
signs. If, on the other hand, you interpret it as a conclusion of the
tribulation these signs make perfect sense: after a long, horrible tribulation
during the siege, the Mosaic era came to a definite end when Jerusalem fell and
the temple was destroyed. *That* was certainly a "fall from heaven," greater
than any disaster described with similar signs in the OT.
> My own reading of the gospel of John is that the Parousia of Jesus is
> presented as occurring fundamentally on the day of Easter,and that this is
> the dominant eschatology of John's gospel,but there are some passages in
> John that seem to point to a more distant futuristic consummation also.
As I pointed out, there is nearness in the Gospel of John as well. Now *if*
John had already written the Apocalypse, it becomes pretty evident what *his*
parousia was about. The Apocalypse is practically the "synoptic apocalypse" and
other synoptic eschatological statements repeated in Jewish apocalyptic
language, point for point.
> I'd say that in this passage in Acts (2) we have reference to early church
> teaching that in the death and resurrection of Jesus the Age-to-come has
> begun but that it runs and will continue to run simultaneously with the
> present World-Age until a future Parousia at some indefinite point.
"Indefinite"? The apostles had the parousia on their mind all the time. They
firmly believed that these "last days" had to end within one generation. Ac
2:40 makes Peter conclude the same talk with the words "save yourselves from
this crooked generation." *That* generation would witness the judgement.
> There
> can be no doubt that in the early church this was thought to be in the
> reasonably near future.
Yes. "Marana ta" is described as the watchword of the early church.
> I won't try to argue the case about Paul. It is quite evident that he looks
> forward to an early return of Jesus. I would say, however, that if (as I
> think) Romans is his most mature letter, his statement at the end of
> chapter 8 is less bound to an eschatological timetable such as that offered
> in 1 Cor 15 and is couched more in simple confidence in God's power to
> consummate his promises to believers.
If I dare to make a general comment about this line of arguments, I will have
to say that I feel they are sometimes overly reductionistic. You seem to be
talking about the "eschatology of Lu 9:27" and say it's different from "the
eschatology of Lu 21:24." I would believe that if we can see agreement between
statements by the same author in the same book we should do that. Also, if Paul
is very explicit about the timetable of the parousia in many places, I find it
hard to believe that he changed his opinion on such a central doctrine unless
he made such a change explicit. Ro8 is not that. Ro8:18 talks about "the glory
that is to be revealed to us." "That is to be" is again the word "melloysan"
which reflects urgency. Perhaps "which is about to be revealed" better conveys
the original idea. In Ro13:12 Paul again affirms that "the day is at hand."
This mature letter is far from being less urgent as I see it. On the contrary,
in 2Thes we find that Paul still waited for "the lawless one" to come before
the parousia could take place. I see no such call to caution in Romans.
> >I should hardly need to point out the obvious fact that in no language
> spoken
> >by men, can an expression like this -- "at hand" -- indicate a period of
> 1900
> >years or more.
>
> I don't dispute this.
This expression is all over the NT, like "soon" and "shortly," and affirms a
quite uniform teaching on the time of the parousia.
> 21:24 speaks of the prisoners of war taken from Jerusalem and
> then says that Jerusalem ESTAI PATOUMENH hUPO EQNWN, AXRI hOU PLHWQWSIN
> KAIROI EQNWN. It is this last phrase in particular that makes me think that
> Luke implies an extensive period of Gentile domination of Jerusalem before
> the Parousia, which Luke's Jesus goes on to describe in the next verses.
I see your point. Do you think that this is enough to show that Luke was
disagreeing with his own words in 9:27, as well as the other two synoptics that
are very clear on having these events together?
> Well, some will agree on the dating of the Apocalypse. I'm not so sure. But
> with regard to the other letters, I thought it was commonly held that 2
> Peter makes its primary message that although the Parousia has not yet
> occurred, it surely will at a time of the Lord's choosing.
I agree. My line of interpretation of course implies that all NT books were
written prior to 70AD. This idea is certainly not flavour of the month, but
there is *internal* evidence for it. I think a conclusion hinges on frame of
interpretation; whether we accept divine revelation or not. And then we are
probably outside the scope of this mailing list. :-)
> We apparently read some of these texts in the same way, but differ quite
> radically in the interpretation of several others. I think probably we
> ought to stick to the elucidation of particular texts rather than attempt
> to characterize the eschatology of the NT as a whole.
I agree that we must be open to differences between the texts, but if it is
possible to find agreement on this topic and show a pretty uniform
understanding of eschatology, I think we should choose that interpretation. At
least I will choose that interpretation.
I *really* appreciate all your comments and input on these questions, Carl, and
those of many others as well. It's certainly not my objective to preach
anything to any of you. Apologies if it comes across that way. I just had to
use this chance to test this interesting line of NT interpretation in this very
well-informed forum.
Cheers,
- - Jan
- --
"Whatever became of eternal truth?"
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #845
*****************************
** 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