[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #869
b-greek-digest Friday, 22 September 1995 Volume 01 : Number 869
In this issue:
GHOST RITERS IN DISGUISE?
Re: Calling Jesus God
Re: Sinaiticus/Vaticanus
Re: Calling Jesus God
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Penner <mark.penner@jemanet.or.jp>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 03:22:00 GMT
Subject: GHOST RITERS IN DISGUISE?
MM> analysis: Is is possible that some N.T. authors,
MM> <snip> would submit their writing to
MM> respected friends for comments and/or editing before sending them
MM> out to the general public.
A perhaps parallel, perhaps unrelated question from another amateur--
Has anyone done a study of what differences can be found in the letters
Paul wrote with others and those he wrote alone? How about those he
wrote with X as opposed to those he wrote with Y? Just off the top of my
head, I Corinthians (with Sosthenes) and II Corinthians (with Timothy)
seem very different in style. Could this account for the theories I used
to hear that "this letter is clearly not Pauline?"
Wondering out loud,
Mark
_______________________________________________________________________
Mark & Mary Esther Penner CBInternational
Tokyo, Japan
* RM 1.3 02234 * God created time soeverythingwouldn'thappenatonce...........
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 22:58:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Calling Jesus God
Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu> wrote:
>Larry Hurtado's distinction between the linguistic evidence
>and the functional evidence in the NT regarding the divinity
>of Jesus is plausible and important. The essays I noted
>by France and Baukham treat some important functional
>evidence, whereas the essays by Taylor and Wainwright focus
>on linguistic evidence. Translators should be cautious
>about using inferences from the functional evidence to
>settle delicate ambiguities in the linguistic evidence
>(e.g., in the translations of Rom 9:5, Titus 2:13, Heb
>1:8). The NRSV and various other mainline translations
>fail on this score, at least at a few important points.
>It's misleading at best to work with the assumption that
>Paul and various other NT writers held either that "Jesus is
>God" or that the orthodox doctrine of the trinity is true.
>This would be to read later developments into the minds
>of various NT writers. It is arguable that the later
>developments offer the best explanation of the relevant
>data offered by the NT writers, but it is quite another
>matter to propose that the various NT writers themselves
>had this best explanation. Even though the author of
>John and the apostle Paul (cf. Phil 2) had certain
>conceptions of the divinity of Jesus, it is not at all
>clear that they, or any other NT writer, knew how
>to elaborate those conceptions in accordance with
>later trinitarian monotheism. At least, the burden
>of proof is definitely with the person who holds
>otherwise.
Aren't you creating a straw man, Paul? The only people I know of
who are maintaining that the Trinity as a full-blown doctrine is taught in
the apostolic writings are those who still maintain that I John 5:7 is
part of the original text. A much more usual position among Evangelicals
is that the formulations by the apostles constitute the NT data that is
the basis of the doctrine of the tiunity of God.
If the NT, within the larger biblical context, teaches the deity
of the Father, the deity of the Son and the deity of the Holy Spirit while
maintaining God's essential unity, then the doctrine of the Trinity may
legitimately spring from the NT data. Most systematic theologies give
detailed explanations of this very point. It is the exegete's task to
interpret the biblical data - in essence, to provide the theologian with
the biblical information he needs to do theology (although often,
theologians are also exegetes). It is logical that biblical
interpretation should agree with theology if the latter sprang from the
former. To say that the usual interpretations of Heb. 1:8 and of Titus
2:13, for instance, are suspect since they agree with certain theological
dictums does not constitute a weighty argument.
If it could be shown by sound exegesis that the biblical data do
not support the idea of the deity of Christ, then one could legitimately
question the doctrine of the Trinity. The interpretation is not _ipso
facto_ incorrect because it supports the Trinity - only if it can be shown
to be incorrectly used in this sense.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: turquoyz <turquoyz@databank.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 22:38:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Sinaiticus/Vaticanus
Hello David,
I got my copy of Sinaiticus from inter-library loan from The University of
the South. It's Kirsopp Lake's Photographic Plates, Black & White, Actual
Folio Size. They were photographed by Lake & Silva New at St. Petersberg,
Russia in (circa) 1909.
Warm regards,
Jim Williams
===============================================================
>As a relatively new comer to the e-discussion phenomena, I have enjoyed
>listening in one some great discussions.
>
>Does anyone know where I could get hard copies of Sinaiticus or
>Vaticanus? I would like to beef up my reading skills in uncials (as well
>as put more in my library). Thanks in advance for any help.
>
>I am spending equal time these days in BH and the GNT and I would love to
>hear some discussion on how NT writers may have used Semitic conventions
>in the different genre of the NT or even classical Greek.
>
>David
>
> -------------------
> | David J. Rising |
> | rising@epix.net |
> | Factoryville, PA |
> | 717-945-3850 |
> -------------------
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: turquoyz <turquoyz@databank.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 23:46:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Calling Jesus God
Does a NT Greek Text proof of the Diety of Jesus Christ 'have' to
necessarily 'prove' the Doctrine of the Trinity? Doesn't it simply 'prove'
that Jesus was Divine; i.e., (God)? Other possibilities could include
Modalism, as well???
Warm regards,
Jim Williams
================================================================
>
>
>Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu> wrote:
>
>>Larry Hurtado's distinction between the linguistic evidence
>>and the functional evidence in the NT regarding the divinity
>>of Jesus is plausible and important. The essays I noted
>>by France and Baukham treat some important functional
>>evidence, whereas the essays by Taylor and Wainwright focus
>>on linguistic evidence. Translators should be cautious
>>about using inferences from the functional evidence to
>>settle delicate ambiguities in the linguistic evidence
>>(e.g., in the translations of Rom 9:5, Titus 2:13, Heb
>>1:8). The NRSV and various other mainline translations
>>fail on this score, at least at a few important points.
>>It's misleading at best to work with the assumption that
>>Paul and various other NT writers held either that "Jesus is
>>God" or that the orthodox doctrine of the trinity is true.
>>This would be to read later developments into the minds
>>of various NT writers. It is arguable that the later
>>developments offer the best explanation of the relevant
>>data offered by the NT writers, but it is quite another
>>matter to propose that the various NT writers themselves
>>had this best explanation. Even though the author of
>>John and the apostle Paul (cf. Phil 2) had certain
>>conceptions of the divinity of Jesus, it is not at all
>>clear that they, or any other NT writer, knew how
>>to elaborate those conceptions in accordance with
>>later trinitarian monotheism. At least, the burden
>>of proof is definitely with the person who holds
>>otherwise.
>
> Aren't you creating a straw man, Paul? The only people I know of
>who are maintaining that the Trinity as a full-blown doctrine is taught in
>the apostolic writings are those who still maintain that I John 5:7 is
>part of the original text. A much more usual position among Evangelicals
>is that the formulations by the apostles constitute the NT data that is
>the basis of the doctrine of the tiunity of God.
>
> If the NT, within the larger biblical context, teaches the deity
>of the Father, the deity of the Son and the deity of the Holy Spirit while
>maintaining God's essential unity, then the doctrine of the Trinity may
>legitimately spring from the NT data. Most systematic theologies give
>detailed explanations of this very point. It is the exegete's task to
>interpret the biblical data - in essence, to provide the theologian with
>the biblical information he needs to do theology (although often,
>theologians are also exegetes). It is logical that biblical
>interpretation should agree with theology if the latter sprang from the
>former. To say that the usual interpretations of Heb. 1:8 and of Titus
>2:13, for instance, are suspect since they agree with certain theological
>dictums does not constitute a weighty argument.
>
> If it could be shown by sound exegesis that the biblical data do
>not support the idea of the deity of Christ, then one could legitimately
>question the doctrine of the Trinity. The interpretation is not _ipso
>facto_ incorrect because it supports the Trinity - only if it can be shown
>to be incorrectly used in this sense.
>
>
>David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
>Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
>dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #869
*****************************
** 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