[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #849
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 5 September 1995 Volume 01 : Number 849
In this issue:
[none]
Re: Syn. Apoc. (Assumptions)
Re: Syn. Apoc. (Irrealis, Truth, and Eagles)
Re: Syn. Apoc. (Political Upheaval)
Re: Syn. Apoc. (Parable of Fig Tree)
Re: Syn. Apoc. (Political Upheaval)
Re: TO SHMEION THS SHS PAROUSIAS
Re: TO SHMEION THS SHS PAROUSIAS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: George Chryssogelos <geo@prometheus.hol.gr>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 09:31:15 +0200
Subject: [none]
SET GREEK-L MAIL ACK
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 1995 10:15:54 CST
Subject: Re: Syn. Apoc. (Assumptions)
I apologize for the delay in answering Jan's post. The first week of fall
classes did not leave as much time for working on this as I would have wished.
I have taken the liberty of breaking up my response into four messages, of
which this is the first. Messages are getting much too long on this topic, as
well as much too personal. Hopefully I have avoided the latter pitfall.
On Tue, 29 Aug 1995, Jan Haugland wrote:
>Bruce Terry (now I hoep I got it right!) said:
>> >There is no alternating. The destruction of the temple and the second
>> >coming would occur at the same time.
>>
To be absolutely clear: I was quoting you at that time. This is your
position, not mine. Mine is with the ">>" below.
>> The alternating blocks are as follows in Matt. 24:
>> where A: destruction of temple/Jerusalem
>> B: second coming of Christ
>
>Based on the *assumption* that these are not one and the same thing. You will
>have to point out arguments for putting 1900+ years between these blocks of
>texts. There is nothing that I see that indicates such "alternating".
Actually, this seems like a real good assumption to me, based on my conviction
that Jesus actually did give this discourse much as it is written (probably in
Aramaic) and that He had prophetic (i.e. here using the term to mean the
ability to foretell the future) abilities. The events in the A-blocks
happened within 40 years. So did the events that pretended to be second
coming events or signs thereof mentioned in the B-blocks. But the PAROUSIA
(taking that as a technical term for the second coming), as defined by other
passages as well as this one, has not yet occurred: no resurrection of
Christians, no Christ decending from heaven, no archangel's call, no trumpet
call of God, no catching up of the Christians to meet the Lord in the air, no
destruction of the heavens and earth by fire (1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 4:15;
2 Pet. 3:4, 12).
********************************************************************************
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, 04 Sep 1995 10:20:59 CST
Subject: Re: Syn. Apoc. (Irrealis, Truth, and Eagles)
On Tue, 29 Aug 1995, Jan Haugland wrote (responding to my post):
>> B: vv. 4-14 Warnings about troubles that are NOT signs of Christ's advent
>
>Since we agree that these are NOT signs of anything, but in fact non-signs that
>Jesus warns against being mislead by, they can't possibly apply to this coming.
>You should remove the "B" above.
Negation is one of those difficult things in language, referring as it does to
both irrealis and lack of truth value. This is not irrealis: the signs were
real and so will be the end time. However, the supposed relationship between
those two suffers from a lack of truth value. Thus to say that troubles are
not signs of Christ's advent does not imply that they are not signs of
anything nor indeed that they are non-signs. To discuss a topic in terms of
what it is not is still a discussion of that topic. I retain "B" above.
>> A: vv. 15-22 Troubles at the desolation of Jerusalem
>> B: vv. 23-28 Advent of Christ NOT at that time; rather, it will be as
>> obvious as lightning and vultures
>
>You have a problem here. v23 starts with "then", gr "tote" which means, well,
>"then". Jesus is warning against false prophets and such during the Jewish War.
>Read Josephus for a confirmation that these really came!
I fail to see the problem here. TOTE, like "then," can mean either "at that
time" or "next in order." Here it means "at that time," IMHO. (Compare our
discussion on this question last week.) That is, at that time false Christs
and false prophets would proclaim that these were the days of the PAROUSIA,
but there is a truth value problem again. The PAROUSIA will not be a hidden
event, easy to be missed, but will be very obvious, like lightning brightening
the whole sky or vultures circling a dead body.
>As for vultures, these can also mean "eagles". The "carcass", the Jews, were to
>be found and overpowered by the Roman army wherever they found them. The Roman
>army used an eagle as it's symbol, so this would be a very obvious picture to
>people in the 1st century.
The above understanding, found also in a number of commentaries, treats a
meaning of the word AETOI but misses the context of the whole paragraph in
which it is found. The reasoning is something like the famous "Why fire
engines are always rushing":
The word AETOI can mean "eagles." Eagles were found on the standards of the
Roman army. The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem. Therefore, Jesus is here
talking about the destruction of Jerusalem.
This kind of reasoning happens when one focuses on word studies instead of on
discourse.
********************************************************************************
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, 04 Sep 1995 10:33:00 CST
Subject: Re: Syn. Apoc. (Political Upheaval)
On Tue, 29 Aug 1995, Jan Haugland wrote (combining two messages):
>> A: v. 29 Transition from the desolation of Jerusalem ("after those
>> days")
>
>"*Immediately* after the tribulation of those days", again referring to the
>siege on Jerusalem.
>
>> B: vv. 30-33 Coming of the Son of Man
>
>This shift is not possible either. Verse 30 begins with "then" [=tote], so it
>refers directly to the preceding words. These dramatic celestial events (I hope
>this is an audience where I don't have to point out that these are well-used
>symbols in the OT) would be *the* sign of the coming of Christ. THEN he would
>come.
And replying to Philip Graber, Jan wrote:
>If Matthew was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, we have him making
>Jesus look very silly in stating that "Immediately after the tribulation of
>those days" (24:29) -- the siege on Jerusalem (v15,16) -- the Son of Man will
>come on the clouds with power and glory (v30), if indeed, He did not come.
I freely grant the presence of the word EUQEWS "immeditately" in this text, a
word which has proven a stumbling block to many interpreters. It is the
presence of this word that causes people to say that this discourse is either
all talking about the second coming (a common understanding in dispensational
circles) or all about the destruction of Jerusalem (a less frequent but
definitely there understanding among those who are strongly anti-
dispensational; Tasker also takes this position in his Tyndale commentary; it
is difficult for me to say whether there are anti-dispensational motivations
behind his position).
The unifying of this passage into one theme is commonly based on a cursory
reading of verses 29 and 30. The text does NOT say, "Immediately after the
tribulation of those days, the Son of man will come," as people commonly read
it. It says that immediately after those days there will be signs in sun,
moon, and stars--language which Jan in other posts has correctly understood as
OT idiom for political upheaval. The coming of the Son of man would be TOTE
"then," either during this time of political upheaval, or next in time
following the political upheaval. The meaning of TOTE is really unimportant
here since the length of time of the political upheaval is not specified. It
could be one year or 3000 in duration as far as the text is concerned. I
suppose it is a matter of faith, rather than scholarship, on my part that I
think we are still in that period.
********************************************************************************
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, 04 Sep 1995 11:02:24 CST
Subject: Re: Syn. Apoc. (Parable of Fig Tree)
On Tue, 29 Aug 1995, Jan Haugland wrote:
>> A: vv. 34-35 Events of this generation
>
>"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things
>be fulfilled." The world "ALL" is pretty inclusive. If ALL would happen to
>*that* generation who witnessed Jesus saying these words, there's not much
>left, is it?
There is a real problem in treating the Bible as if it were a mathematics
text. In a math book, presence of "all" means "everyone without exception";
this is not necessarily the case with ordinary human language. In Ex. 9:6 all
the Egyptians' cattle were killed, but in verse 19 they still had cattle to
save from the next plague. In 1 Cor. 15:27 Paul argues that it is obvious
that God is not included in all things in the scripture, "God has put all
things under his feet." Our children may say, "But everyone's doing it," and
we reply, with our parents, "well, you're not!"
So Matthew 24:34 must be understood to be analogous to the parable of the fig
tree told in verses 32-33. Just as the branch putting forth leaves implies
that summer is near, so the occurrence of all these things implies that he is
near (so RSV; cf. Luke's parallel: the kingdom of God is near). It seems
obvious that if he is only near, not here, after the occurrence of all these
things that his coming is not included in "all" these things. Besides, "these
things" TAUTA harkens back to the disciples' original question, although that
is more apparent as a literary device in Mark than in Matthew.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 09:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Syn. Apoc. (Political Upheaval)
Bruce et al,
Mt 24:29-30 is a reference to Joel 2:31. You say the tote of Mt
24:30 may or may not indicate chronological sequence. Yet, the Joel
passage seems to stress just such a sequence, "the sun will be darkened
... before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes." It seems that
the identification of chronological sequence is exactly the point.
In other words, "immediately after the tribulation of those
days," an obvious reference to the completion of the great tribulation
spoken of in verse 21, then the Joel prophesy is fulfilled when the sun
is darkened, the moon turned into blood, etc. All this must be easily
and certainly identifiable, otherwise it loses its force altogether.
Following this (tote) is the coming of the Son of Man when He sends His
angels with a great trumpet and gather the elect together from the four
winds. Most correctly envision here, not the coming of the Lord with
wrath and judgement in AD 70, but as the visible and personal return of
the Lord and the rapture of the church.
Paul Dixon
On Mon, 4 Sep 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 1995, Jan Haugland wrote (combining two messages):
>
> >> A: v. 29 Transition from the desolation of Jerusalem ("after those
> >> days")
> >
> >"*Immediately* after the tribulation of those days", again referring to the
> >siege on Jerusalem.
> >
> >> B: vv. 30-33 Coming of the Son of Man
> >
> >This shift is not possible either. Verse 30 begins with "then" [=tote], so it
> >refers directly to the preceding words. These dramatic celestial events (I hope
> >this is an audience where I don't have to point out that these are well-used
> >symbols in the OT) would be *the* sign of the coming of Christ. THEN he would
> >come.
>
> And replying to Philip Graber, Jan wrote:
> >If Matthew was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, we have him making
> >Jesus look very silly in stating that "Immediately after the tribulation of
> >those days" (24:29) -- the siege on Jerusalem (v15,16) -- the Son of Man will
> >come on the clouds with power and glory (v30), if indeed, He did not come.
>
> I freely grant the presence of the word EUQEWS "immeditately" in this text, a
> word which has proven a stumbling block to many interpreters. It is the
> presence of this word that causes people to say that this discourse is either
> all talking about the second coming (a common understanding in dispensational
> circles) or all about the destruction of Jerusalem (a less frequent but
> definitely there understanding among those who are strongly anti-
> dispensational; Tasker also takes this position in his Tyndale commentary; it
> is difficult for me to say whether there are anti-dispensational motivations
> behind his position).
>
> The unifying of this passage into one theme is commonly based on a cursory
> reading of verses 29 and 30. The text does NOT say, "Immediately after the
> tribulation of those days, the Son of man will come," as people commonly read
> it. It says that immediately after those days there will be signs in sun,
> moon, and stars--language which Jan in other posts has correctly understood as
> OT idiom for political upheaval. The coming of the Son of man would be TOTE
> "then," either during this time of political upheaval, or next in time
> following the political upheaval. The meaning of TOTE is really unimportant
> here since the length of time of the political upheaval is not specified. It
> could be one year or 3000 in duration as far as the text is concerned. I
> suppose it is a matter of faith, rather than scholarship, on my part that I
> think we are still in that period.
>
> ********************************************************************************
> Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
> Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
> Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
> ********************************************************************************
>
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 18:59:10 -0600
Subject: Re: TO SHMEION THS SHS PAROUSIAS
I have been reading what has been said about the synoptic apocalypse with
some interest--though not with the attention to detail that would have been
necessary to take a position in the discussion that has been going on.
Carl Conrad recently wrote:
>I would like to propose a discussion on the function of SHMEIA in the
>Synoptic Jesus-sayings--or, if there is a standard treatise on the subject
>(or 2 or 3 or more!), I'd be grateful to have it pointed out. I would be
>inclined to omit the Johannine SHMEIA, partly because it is generally
>thought (isn't it) that a distinct SHMEIA-source underlies the first half
>of John's gospel, but also because this is a matter of narrative rather
>than dominical sayings on the subject of SHMEIA. In part this is a
>follow-up to an off-list query from Larry Swain regarding the following
>part of an exchange between Jan Haugland and myself:
I think that the suggestion to study the term SHMEION in the Jesus logia in
the synoptic gospels that Carl Conrad makes is a good one, for a number of
reasons.
1. The precise meaning of the term in Matt 24:30 (KAI TOTE FANHSETAI TO
SHMEION TOU jUIOU TOU ANQRWPOU EN OURANOU) is extremely interesting.
2. Carl proposes the study of a series of key passages in the synoptic
gospels. He suggests at least the following
>Mk 8:12: TI hH GENEA hAUTH ZHTEI SHMEION? AMHN LEGW hUMIN, EI DOQHSETAI THi
>ENEAi TAUTHi SHMEION, and what may be an alternative form of the same saying
>in >the Q tradition (or, if you prefer, in the shared tradition of Mt & Lk),
>as >found, e.g., in Mt 12:39-42, of which I cite only the beginning: GENEA
>PONHRA >KAI MOIXALIS SHMEION EPIZHTEI, KAI SHMEION OU DOQHSETAI
> AUTHi EI MH TO SHMEION IWNA TOU PROFHTOU. hWSPER GAR HN IWNAS EN THi
> KOILIAi TOU KHTOUS TREIS hHMERAS KAI TREIS NUKTAS. hOUTWS ESTAI hO
>hUIOS
> TOU ANQRWPOOU EN THi KARDIAi THS GHS TREIS hHMERAS KAI TREIS NUKTAS.
3. I suggest that one should also pay attention to the last line of the
citation in Matt 24:29: KAIT hAI DUNAMEIS TWN OURANWN SALEUQHSONTAI. Just
what are these powers and how are they shaken? How does this relate to Lk
10:18? And how do these relate to the world view of Colossians 2?
>
>So my questions are: (1) Is there a bibliography on this subject already
>that one turn to for useful discussion of the matter? and/or (2) what do
>list-members think about these dominical sayings and the question of Jesus'
>own attitude toward SHMEIA (a) as valid indicators of the COMING, and (b)
>as validations of his mission?
I note that the Markan Jesus categorically refuses to give a sign. Jesus in
Lk 11:29-32 seems to say that the only sign that will be given is the
proclation that he gives, "something greater"! In Matt 12:39-42 Matt
expands this with the equivalent of a footnote, the reference to the
eschatological correlative between Jonah in the belly of the sea creature
and Jesus in the heart of the earth.
>
>I realize that my formulation of the second question betrays some
>skepticism about whether Jesus actually offered these SHMEIA as indicators
>of the end-time, but I don't really want to prejudice that question. It
>does seem to me than Jan is right in asserting that some of this is
>literary in inspiration and derives from older Biblical traditions. My
>question, then, is is it really MORE than literary in terms of Jesus'
>actual predictions of signs indicating the PAROUSIA?
>
>Now of course it may be felt that this inquiry is more historical than
>textual and therefore has no place in discussions on b-greek. I'd be
>grateful, however, even for discussion of the way in which SHMEION is being
>used in these sayings.
>
I think the question of the denotation and the connotation(s) of the term
SHMEION in the dominical saysings is well worth some attention.
I could provide some of my own answers to the above and some bibliography,
I think. But for the moment I prefer to see whether others share an
interest in the complex of questions that Carl raises.
Edgar Krentz <emkrentz@mcs.com>
New Testament, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Voice: 312-753-0752; FAX: 312-753-0782
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 22:00:09 -0400
Subject: Re: TO SHMEION THS SHS PAROUSIAS
Ed Krentz said,
>I have been reading what has been said about the synoptic >apocalypse with
some interest--though not with the >attention to detail that would have been
necessary to take a >position in the discussion that has been going on.
I have also followed this discussion with interest and am want to post
something, especially concerning Mark's version of the apocalypse. I will be
very busy for the next several days, but I hope eventually to jump in. One
book that has influenced me much in Mark is Morna Hooker, The Son of Man in
Mark, ca. 1967, I think. She is convinced that Mark is more influenced by
the S of M in Daniel than the Servant Psalms in Isaiah. She thinks that in
Mark the S of M terminology is used to emphasize what Mark see Jesus
emphazing, i.e., that God would vindicate him beyond his suffering as he did
the Saints of the Most High in Daniel 7. The use of S of M by Jesus when he
was on trial at the mercy of his enemies and his closest disciple on the
outside denying him was a statement of confidence. I take this to be the
theme of the S of M saying in the Apocalypse as well. This will also
influence how I interpret SHMEION. In Mark the result of the SHMEION is that
they will know that "he," or "it," or "she" is at the door. The chronology
is a knotty problem but the use of apocalyptic language usually is more
meaningful if it is not forced into chronological frameworks, such as the use
of Joel in Peter's speach in Acts 2.
I will develop this further later and look forward to this discussion.
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
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #849
*****************************
** 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