[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #851
b-greek-digest Thursday, 7 September 1995 Volume 01 : Number 851
In this issue:
Re: Syn. Apoc. (Parable of the Fig Tree)
Re: Syn. Apoc. (Parable of the Fig Tree)
Re: b-greek-digest V1 #849
LaSor
Re: Syn. Apoc. (Parable of the Fig Tree)
PRWTH in Lk2:2
Re: PRWTH in Lk2:2
Re: PRWTH in Lk2:2
"Future of preference for many"
Re: "Future of preference for many"
Re: Syn. Apoc. (Parable of the Fig Tree)
Re: LaSor
Another nuisance call.
Curriculum for children
BAGD (was Re: PRWTH in Lk2:2)
Re: BAGD (was Re: PRWTH in Lk2:2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 22:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Syn. Apoc. (Parable of the Fig Tree)
On Tue, 5 Sep 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> It's worth noting that Matthew has redacted Mark's narrative by reuniting
> the two halves (Mt 21:18-22) and making it independent of the Cleansing of
> the Temple. Matthew tells the story as a real historical incident. Of
> course it is possible that the story was at one time a unit and that
> Matthew renders it in accordance with the oral tradition, while Mark has
> deliberately split it and given it a symbolic dimension. Luke, who is
> generally much more careful to report only what he apparently feels has
> verisimilitude (he makes the real Sanhedrin trial of Jesus take place at
> dawn rather than in the middle of the night, for instance), has omitted the
> story of the cursing and withering of the fig tree altogether.
Carl,
I appreciated the way in which you interpreted and laid out the fig tree
in Mark. I however must disagree with you that Matthew's version of the
story is reported as "historical" in contrast to Mark's "symbolism". I
am not saying that Matthew does not view this as historical, nor am I
addressing the issue of redaction. I want to make those clear before I
go on.
Matthew begins with the triumphal entry and all that it portends.
He enters the city, and we have the city being stirred at his arrival
perhaps paralleling chap 2.3-where news of the birth of the anointed
causes the city to be stirred. The multitudes reply, OUTOS ESTIN HO
PROPHETES IESOUS.... This whole passage in Matthew is the question of
who Jesus is, and the first identification of him iss as King, as He who
comes in the Name of the Lord, as Prophet. Matthew picks up the story,
Jesus enters the city and comes to the Temple and EKSEBALEN-I think it
interesting that the word here is the same verb repeatedly used to
describe the EKBALEIN of demons, although it is of course used in other
contexts as well. Note the next thing: TUPHLOI KAI XWLOI come to him
and are healed. A) God in strength comes to His temple, perhaps another
reference to Malachi 3.1-2-comes as refiner. THen again Is. 61.1ff-the
making whole of the outcast so that they are not outside the Temple any
longer-note that this does not happen outside the Temple, but within it.
Mark doesn't have this. Next we have the proclamation of the children
echoing v. 9: again children citing the Psalm within the Temple, where
they did not belong either. Again the outcast is welcomed into the
Temple where God is. All are included until the next verse when the
high priests and scribes come: IDOUNTES TA THAUMASIA HA EPOIHSEN KAI
TOUS PAIDAS TOUS KRAZONTAS, they do not object to the
casting out" of the moneychangers, nor do they object to the miracles,
but rather the children's proclamation of Jesus as Son of David, another
title of who Jesus is is added. But with their objection here they
remove themselves from the blessings Jesus brings. Now we come to the crux.
Jesus sees SUKHN MIAN-Why mention that it is a lone fig tree? Mark
doesn't, leaving it anarthrous and without the MIAN. This is another
instance of a difference that is interesting though I don't know quite
what to make of it, but it is striking particularly if we assume the 2
Source Hypothesis: if Matthew is copying Mark, why does he add the
MIAN? It seems to me to draw attention to a contrast. The focus of
this section is all about the Kingdom, which the Passion and
Resurrection are the denouement of, the end of the fig tree episode is a
discussion of having faith, and of forgiving so that God may forgive, in
other words the same message of the healing in the Temple-that the
Kingdom brings wholeness-forgiveness of sins, faith to move mountains,
etc. If the fig tree has a referent, I would think that the contrast
here established is not between Temple and Church, but rather the
ARXIEREIS KAI HOI GRAMMATEIS in contrast to the Church.
The reason I think that is we have these characters questioning Jesus'
authority and who he is understood to be within the Temple preceeding the
episode, and then again immediately after, when Jesus is teaching in the
Temple, these same people again question his authority. Given that, the
contrast seems to me to be between groups of people within Judaism (from
their perspective, not ours), rather than the Temple itself.
All of that to say that Matthew's recounting of the tale is as rife with
symbolism as Mark's in my opinion.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 06:23:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Syn. Apoc. (Parable of the Fig Tree)
Well put, Larry. Of course it is true that Matthew has a powerful symbolic
dimension too and you have nicely explicated it in this sequence. I would
only add that Matthew sometimes seems to overliteralize the symbolism
(sound like gobbledygook?) as in the notorious case of Jesus riding both on
the colt and the foal of an ass.
I do wonder in part about the MIAN. At times I wonder whether it doesn't
almost function as an indefinite article, but I wouldn't try to argue that
here--it does follow the noun (but wait: when TIS has the force of an
indefinite article as in, say, EIDON ANQRWPON TINA, "I saw a man," it takes
the second position. Interesting. But in Matthew it would seem to indicated
an isolated fig tree as opposed to one in a grove or group.
On looking more carefully at Mt's fig-tree pericope, I am all the more
inclined to think that it is redacted from Mark's version: it is far better
told and the lesson about faith is far-better integrated with the story
itself, whereas in Mk's version the faith-lesson seems almost loosely
attached to the story of the fig-tree. Matthew also tells the story in a
way that makes Jesus look a lot less foolish than in Mark, as there is no
indication that "it was not the season for fruit." I think I'd still want
to say that Matthew has "historicised" (in the sense of underscoring its
factuality) what in Mark is a much more purely symbolic narrative.
It does make for an interesting comparison. And Luke's deliberate omission
of it (not demonstrable perhaps, but it seems pretty likely to me) is also
interesting.
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: DDDJ@aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 11:01:26 -0400
Subject: Re: b-greek-digest V1 #849
<<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.>>
Just thought I would add my two cents worth.
What is the symbol on the top of many official American flags? Look and you
will see an eagle.
Positive Dennis
------------------------------
From: Mari Olsen <molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 10:13:34 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: LaSor
I can't speak from a teaching standpoint about grammars, but *I*
learned using LaSor and liked it, primarily because it allowed one to
review or continue on in the text where necessary (by referring to the
relevant volume 2 section or not). Add to that the satisfaction of
'reading' in the very first lesson and the completion of a 'long' book
(Acts). Furthermore, vocabulary memorization was facilitated by
linking the Greek to the English words dervied therefrom. The latter
could certainly be considered a disadvantage in later study, in that
students may erroneously assume that the collocations and meaning of
the English and the Greek are the same. They may consequently
underestimate the need for further investigation or instruction for
true scholarly interpretation. That is, they get what I call NASB
Greek. However, for the majority sitting through an obligatory year
of Greek, I think it is adequate.
Mari Broman Olsen
Northwestern University
Department of Linguistics
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208
molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
molsen@babel.ling.nwu.edu
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 08:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Syn. Apoc. (Parable of the Fig Tree)
Carl,
I guess I could have put my point a little more simply than that long
discourse. Historicization does not preclude or prohibit symbolism, and
sometimes even enhances it. I understood your comparison to indicate
such in Matthew's case. Thanks,
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 14:36:38 EDT
Subject: PRWTH in Lk2:2
Lk2:2 hAUTH APOGRAFH PRWTH EGENETO hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SYRIAS KURHNIOU.
In another forum, I came across the claim by someone citing
Nigel Turner, "Grammatical Insights into the New Testament" that
Lk2:2 should be translated as "and this taxing was PRIOR to the
one made when Cyrenius was governor" (emphasis in original).
To me, this passages says something like "This registration was
first [and] happened while Quirinius was governing Syria." So,
is it really possible that we have PRWTH with a genitive of
comparison (hHGEMONEUONTOS) here? I think this unlikely for the
following reasons:
1. Although this construction occurs in other languages (e.g.,
the Italian PRIMA DI), it seems rare in the Koine. BAGD cites
Jn1:15 30 hOTI PRWTOS MOU HN (because he was before me) as an
example of PRWTOS meaning "before" (or "prior to"), but the
Middle Liddell says that this PRWTOS MOU is "first" of Order
with a note that this use of genitive is late. L&S, on the
other hand, does recognize the adverbial use of PRWTOS =
PROTEROS in Attic Greek (Xenophon). However, I would expect
Luke to use PRO (see Lk2:21) or PRIN (see v26) to express
priority of time.
2. The placement of hHGEMONEUONTES after EGENETO instead of
PRWTH suggests to me that it is not modifying PRWTH. Instead,
it would be a commonplace genitive of time within which.
I have two questions: (1) Is Turner's translation grammatically
feasible? and (2) Is this the most natural rendering of the Greek?
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: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 14:34:36 -0500
Subject: Re: PRWTH in Lk2:2
At 1:36 PM 9/6/95, Stephen Carlson wrote:
>Lk2:2 hAUTH APOGRAFH PRWTH EGENETO hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SYRIAS KURHNIOU.
>
>In another forum, I came across the claim by someone citing
>Nigel Turner, "Grammatical Insights into the New Testament" that
>Lk2:2 should be translated as "and this taxing was PRIOR to the
>one made when Cyrenius was governor" (emphasis in original).
>
>To me, this passages says something like "This registration was
>first [and] happened while Quirinius was governing Syria." So,
>is it really possible that we have PRWTH with a genitive of
>comparison (hHGEMONEUONTOS) here? I think this unlikely for the
>following reasons:
>
>1. Although this construction occurs in other languages (e.g.,
>the Italian PRIMA DI), it seems rare in the Koine. BAGD cites
>Jn1:15 30 hOTI PRWTOS MOU HN (because he was before me) as an
>example of PRWTOS meaning "before" (or "prior to"), but the
>Middle Liddell says that this PRWTOS MOU is "first" of Order
>with a note that this use of genitive is late. L&S, on the
>other hand, does recognize the adverbial use of PRWTOS =
>PROTEROS in Attic Greek (Xenophon). However, I would expect
>Luke to use PRO (see Lk2:21) or PRIN (see v26) to express
>priority of time.
>
>2. The placement of hHGEMONEUONTES after EGENETO instead of
>PRWTH suggests to me that it is not modifying PRWTH. Instead,
>it would be a commonplace genitive of time within which.
>
>I have two questions: (1) Is Turner's translation grammatically
>feasible? and (2) Is this the most natural rendering of the Greek?
This question was raised earlier in the summer (I think by Bruce Terry);
I've checked my August archive and it's not there, so it must have been
earlier. If I can find it I'll send it on or summarize it. I recall
responding myself to the original query that I don't see this way of
reading Lk 2:2 as ordinary Greek, certainly not the kind of good Greek that
Luke normally wrote. The phrase hHGEMONEUONTOS ... KURHNIOU is the sort of
genitive absolute that Luke uses elsewhere when he's trying to pinpoint the
exact date of something (cf baptism of Jesus, Lk 3:1). In ordinary Greek we
often find the superlative with an ablatival (perhaps partitive? I really
think ablatival) genitive in the sense "far removed in x quality from y." I
think L&S are absolutely right on this matter and that, had Lk wanted to
say before the governorship of Quirinius, he would have written either PRIN
hHGEMONEUSAI TON KURHNION THS SURIAS or PRO TOU hHGEMONEUSAI TON KURHNION
THS SURIAS. The reading in John's gospel may be a Semitism--I really don't
know, but following ordinary Greek interpretation, I'd say PRWTOS MOU HN
means "he was way ahead of me." I think PRWTH here in Lk 2:2 can only be
construed predicatively with EGENETO. The suggested reading looks like an
attempt to evade the embarassing time discrepancy between a conception of
John the Baptist during the reign of Herod the Great, no later than 4 B.C.,
and a birth of Jesus during Quirinius' governorship of Syria, 6 A.D.
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: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 13:09:48 PDT
Subject: Re: PRWTH in Lk2:2
I don't have an answer for Stephen Carlson's question, but it hits on
one of my hot spots, so I offer this in reply. BAGD, LSJ, and any other
lexicon, it seems to me, do two things. They list the contents of the
semantic domain of a word (I'm sure there's a better way to say that,
and maybe Mari or one of the other linguists on the list could help me
out). They also interpret each passage the word is used in by assigning
it to one category or the other. While I wouldn't want to just
ignore that decision as though it was frivolously made, it is still the
case that it is a matter interpretation. Thus, if the lexicon says
that the meaning of "before" is a valid part of PRWTH's semantic domain,
if that seems like a reasonable rendering (and I'm not taking a
position on that, though I like the idea), then I see no reason to avoid
it simply because BAGD does not list Lk 2:2 under that meaning.
That, it seems to me, is analogous to slavishly following the punctuation
given by NA27. The punctuation is useful, and probably on the whole
correct (what the authors would have used if punctuation had been
available to them), but it is, nevertheless, an exegetical decision
that represents only part of the possibilities.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 18:17:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: "Future of preference for many"
May I add a footnote to Edgar Krentz's comments on the changes in the
future tense of American English?
He points out that "go" plus the infinitive is the future of
preference for many Americans these days, as in "I'm going to east
[corr: "eat"] pizza tonight."
In fact, linguists working on American English these days
have a different auxiliary for the future to study: "gonna". I myself
must have read a hundred articles on the various ways "gonna" operates.
What began as "I am {=currently} going to {moving in the direction of}
do thus-and-so" as a replacement of "I shall do thus-and-so" becomes
"I am gonna do thus-and-so." In effect, "gonna" replaces "shall."
"Wanna" is another such auxiliary, a modal = "wish", "desire".
We even have the new (nasty) noun, a "wannabe".
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 19:53:08 -0400
Subject: Re: "Future of preference for many"
Edward Hobbs wrote:
>May I add a footnote to Edgar Krentz's comments on the changes in the
>future tense of American English?
> He points out that "go" plus the infinitive is the future of
>preference for many Americans these days, as in "I'm going to east
>[corr: "eat"] pizza tonight."
Forgive me if I'm wrong but, the preference may be incresing, this usage
itself is quite old is it not? I had always assumed that it had its roots
in French, which has the precisely parallel construct: i.e. "Je vais
manger..."
Nichael - "...did I forget, forget to mention Memphis?
nichael@sover.net Home of Elvis, and the ancient Greeks."
http://www.sover.net/~nichael
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 19:48:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Syn. Apoc. (Parable of the Fig Tree)
Carl Conrad wrote,
. . . >Mark, by dividing the fig-tree episode into two >halves,--11:12-14
(Jesus' quest for fruit from the tree and >his curse upon it when he
discovers there is no fruit) and >11:20-21 (the observation that the tree has
>withered)--dividing it into two halves and putting the >narrative of the
"cleansing of the Temple" between the two >halves, has chosen to employ this
narrative for symbolic >rather than historically factual narrative. It may be
that the >story was originally told of a different tree; it is a singularly
>unedifying story about Jesus, if I may dare to say so: hungry >and cursing a
tree because it doesn't bear fruit before the >harvest season is ready--this
seems more a child's behavior >than a story about the actual historical
behavior of Jesus. >Personally I can make no sense of it EXCEPT in its
symbolic >dimension as FRAMING the narrative of the cleansing of the >Temple.
A number of people have pointed out the fact that while Luke does not have
the cursing of the fig tree, he does hav the parable of the fig tree in
13:6-9 that makes the same point as the cursing of the fig tree in Mark. Did
Luke incounter the parable in the tradition and the cursing in Mark and
decide he needed only one as he does the feeding of the multitude or did Mark
(or someone before him) find the parable and transform it into a dramatic or
acted parable?
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Rel.
LA College, Pineville, La.
------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 19:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: LaSor
I have tutored a number of students using Machen's text and have
found it very adequate.
P. Dixon
------------------------------
From: Steve Durfee <sdurf@lynx.csn.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 20:16:59 -0600
Subject: Another nuisance call.
Dear Mom & Chuck,
I'm testing the hypothesis that it's Casey's not-yet-opened account at
Whittier that's ruining it for decent folks like us. This is message 7.
------/
/
/
/
/
/
Steve Durfee (Signature still under construction)
sdurfee@aol.com (work)
sdurf@csn.net (home)
------------------------------
From: "Timothy B. Smith" <xapa@usaor.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 22:45:31 -0400
Subject: Curriculum for children
Does anyone know of a curriculum that I could use to begin teaching my seven
year old daughter Koine or Attic Greek? I know that there are some
materials available for teaching elementary age children modern languages,
such as Spanish. Does anyone know of material that would work for ancient
Greek?
Timothy Smith
xapa@usaor.net
- --
Registered ICC User
check out http://www.usefulware.com/~jfoltz
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 23:20:29 EDT
Subject: BAGD (was Re: PRWTH in Lk2:2)
I agree with what Kenneth Litwak wrote, and although he does not accuse
me of those abuses he identified, I feel I must clarify the situation
lest others draw such an inference.
First off, Ken's point about the necessity to take such reference works
as BAGD critically is very important and I agree with it. The best
explanation I've read on how to treat BAGD is in the following passage:
The major lexicon, Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker (BAGD,
1979), is a valuable tool because it traces the origins
and distribution of the term as well as its basic semantic
range. However, it is important to remember that BAGD is
descriptive and interpretive. When it places a passage
behind a certain meaning it is an opinion and not an
established fact. Fee notes the handling of ARXONTES in
1 Corinthians 2:6-8 (1983:87-89). BAGD places it under
the rubric of the evil spirits. However, a closer look
at the evidence yields several interesting facts: only
the singular is used for Satan; the plural always refers
to human rulers; the first use of the plural for demonic
forces appears in Greek literature in the second century.
While the demonic remains a possible interpretation, I
personally follow those who favor human rulers as the
meaning of ARXONTES here. My point is that we should not
assume BAGD's decisions to be irrefutable.
Grant R. Osborne, THE HERMENEUTICAL SPIRAL: A Comprehensive Introduction
to Biblical Interpretation 82-83 (InterVarsity Press: 1991).
To be perfectly clear, BAGD's interpretation of PRWTH in Lk2:2 did not
control my analysis. Instead, these were the two issues: (1) is it
possible? and (2) is it probable? Under (1), I noted BAGD and the
Intermediate L&S disagree about the meaning of PRWTOS in the specific
context of Jn1:15 which is said to support such a meaning. Under (2)
we have to look to other factors, such as word order and Luke's own
usage. I think that, on balance, the proposed translation is not the
most natural way to understand the verse. In fact, its very
grammatical basis seems dubious (contrary to BAGD).
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: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 21:28:05 PDT
Subject: Re: BAGD (was Re: PRWTH in Lk2:2)
Lest there be any question, I thought Stephen Carlson's post raised a very
interesting question, and I only used it as a jumping off point, and don't
mean to imply anything about his understanding of the passage or use of BAGD.
Ken Litwak
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #851
*****************************
** 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