[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #871
b-greek-digest Saturday, 23 September 1995 Volume 01 : Number 871
In this issue:
Re: Calling Jesus God
Re:
Re: Calling Jesus God
Keeping up...
Re: GHOST RITERS IN DISGUISE?
Re: Calling Jesus God
Re: Calling Jesus God
Some question on Mark 6:35-39
Re: Some question on Mark 6:35-39
RE: Ghost Riters in Disguise?
Mark 16; RHSSW/RHGNUMI
Re: Some question on Mark 6:35-39
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 12:19:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Calling Jesus God
Jim Williams (turquoyz@databank.com) wrote:
>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???
Of course, a handful of texts which show one thing from Scripture
do not a theology make. But when several texts clearly teach some truth
of Scripture, they do serve to indicate the limits of scriptural theology.
The passages that show Modalism to be unscriptural are not those which
teach the deity of Christ, but those which show the Father, Son and the
Holy Spirit acting simultaneously - Mat. 3:16-17 for instance.
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, 22 Sep 1995 11:41:28 -0500
Subject: Re:
At 10:34 AM 9/22/95, Joe Hendrix wrote:
>unsub
>
>Joe Hendrix
You're going about it the wrong way, although unintentionally. Addressing
an "unsubscribe" request to the address that is meant for discussion simply
sends that message to every subscriber, not to the list-owner or
listserver. The following message was sent everyone at the outset:
>>To unsubscribe from this list write
>>majordomo@virginia.edu
>>with "unsubscribe b-greek" 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
I hope this will help you get unsubscribed.
cwc
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: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 13:17:10 CST
Subject: Re: Calling Jesus God
Original message sent on Fri, Sep 22 9:25 AM by cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl
W. Conrad) :
> I don't think I would read Mk 2:6-7 to mean that Jesus claimed to BE
> God but that he claimed authority which, in their view, only God
> could legitimately claim. But the authority to forgive sins is
> associated, in the early Xn view, with the Son of Man as agent of
> God in judgment. Perhaps this may seem to be quibbling, but it
> doesn't seem to me to be quite the same thing as equating Jesus with
> God.
I see your point and the distinction you are making. You may well be right in
drawing a distinction between claiming to be God and claiming to have the
authority of God... I need to ponder that one for a while.
Another passage come to mind... how would you interpret Peter's confession in Mt
16:16?
Mark O'Brien
------------------------------
From: rick@logos.com
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 13:17:08 +0100
Subject: Keeping up...
First of all, I'd like to say I've been thoroughly enjoying the discussion
here. While in college, I was able to take a year of Classical Greek
(Attic, mostly, with some instruction in the Ionic dialect towards the end
of the year) which has been immensely helpful in studying Koine.
Anyway, I find myself in constant need of review and really have little idea
about how to effectively review/keep up the knowledge base. If anyone has
any suggestions concerning books or tools that they have found helpful in
keeping up, I would appreciate the recommendations, as well information on
where I might locate them. Specifically, help with grammatical and
syntactical issues (yeah, I know -- that's kind of broad) would be
appreciated.
Thanks in advance for the feedback.
Rick Brannan
rick@logos.com
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <ropes!scc@uu3.psi.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 16:05:47 EDT
Subject: Re: GHOST RITERS IN DISGUISE?
Mark Penner wrote:
> 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?"
Even though the openings to both those epistles suggest joint authorship
there is little to suggest that they were not primarily of Paul. In fact,
the writer's numerous references to himself in the first person singular
argue against joint authorship. Whatever differences in style there are
between 1 Cor. and 2 Cor., they have never to my knowledge caused anyone
to posit that those letters are of different authors. Even the radical
Tuebingen School under F. C. Baur (early 19th cen.) held to the idea that
Romans, 1 Cor., 2 Cor., and Galatians were genuine.
By the way, a recent scholar (whose name I'm forgetting) has argued,
quite persuasively, that these four were published in Paul's lifetime
as a literary collection. He treats the *collection* of Paul's letters
as belonging to a well-attested, classical genre, e.g., Cicero's letters,
and Pliny's letters.
There are observable differences in style between the Pastorals and the
first four epistles. Common explanations, besides pseudepigraphy, have
included: (1) they were written at a different point Paul's life
(height of his career vs. late in life); cf. the changes in Picasso's
style over time; (2) they were written to different audiences (personal
v. congregational); (3) varying reliance on his secretary (amanuensis);
and (4) more developed conception of the Church. Attempts to connect
1 Peter, with Silvanus/Silas being the amanuensis, to 1,2 Thessalonians
have remained to my mind unpersuasive.
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: Charles David Miller <malik@unm.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 14:51:39 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: Calling Jesus God
On Fri, 22 Sep 1995, Mark O'Brien wrote:
>
> Original message sent on Fri, Sep 22 9:25 AM by cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl
> W. Conrad) :
>
> > I don't think I would read Mk 2:6-7 to mean that Jesus claimed to BE
> > God but that he claimed authority which, in their view, only God
> > could legitimately claim
> I see your point and the distinction you are making. You may well be right in
> drawing a distinction between claiming to be God and claiming to have the
> authority of God... I need to ponder that one for a while.
>
> Another passage come to mind... how would you interpret Peter's confession in Mt
> 16:16?
But Jesus using the term Abba for God, which indeed may be authentic,
denotes a different relationship to God than prophets or priests used.
Also, Jesus did not *speak* as a representative of God (like the prophets
said they did) but *worked* deeds and did things that no prophet had ever
done.
Chuck Miller
___________________________________________________________________________
Charles David Miller, University of New Mexico (graduate student in
philosophy, with an emphasis in philosophy of psychology) Department of
Philosophy Home: (505) 867-1892 Work: (505) 883-5959
"God grant the philosopher insight into what lies in front of everyone's
eyes.
[Moge Gott dem Philosophen Einsicht geben in das, was vor allen Augen
liegt.]
--Ludwig Wittgenstein
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 16:57:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Calling Jesus God
At 2:17 PM 9/22/95, Mark O'Brien wrote:
>I see your point and the distinction you are making. You may well be right in
>drawing a distinction between claiming to be God and claiming to have the
>authority of God... I need to ponder that one for a while.
>
>Another passage come to mind... how would you interpret Peter's confession
>in Mt
>16:16?
"You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God." The Messiah is, of
course, God's anointed, and one of the major titles of the Davidic Messiah
from the time of the prophecy of Nathan in 2 Samuel 7 was "Son of God."
This by no means implied the Messiah's divinity, nor do I think that there
is any reason to assume that it does in Matthew's gospel. Here again I
think this is a matter of our wanting to read the Christological
assumptions of a later century into a text, which does not in and of itself
imply them.
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: Fri, 22 Sep 95 15:39:02 PDT
Subject: Some question on Mark 6:35-39
I have a few questions about the syntax in Mark 6:35ff.
1. At the end of v. 35, HdH horas pollH seems like it is missing
something. Literally I think it says "already/by that time many hours".
Does the verb genomenHs also govern this phrase, or is it more like
an idiom in Greek for saying "it's late".
2. v. 36. Should apelQontes be understood as a telic participle
"in order that they may go" or an attendant circumstance "in orer that,
after having departed". I think it's the former, but I'm not certain.
I'm also wondering stylistically about the use at the end of the verse
of phagosin. After ti I expected an infinitive: something to eat,
instead of something they may eat. Is this standard Greek or
unusual?
3. V.39 sumposia sumposia, according to BDF, is an accusative of result.
Unfortunately, in its usual, helpful manner, BDF at this point neither
tells me where to find out what an accusative of result is, nor how
to best translate the phrase. It would be helpful if, when citing
a verse as an example of something, you translated it so others would
know how that kind of construction ought to be rendered or at least
point to where the construction is defined. Anyway, I take this to
be a distributive type of construction: by groups/in groups/group by
group. I don't know how that would show result. I'd appreciate some
insight here. Thanks.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkeley, CA
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 19:17:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Some question on Mark 6:35-39
At 5:39 PM 9/22/95, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> I have a few questions about the syntax in Mark 6:35ff.
Assuming first of all, Ken, that you offered "Bezerkeley"
(GTU, Bezerkeley, CA) as the provenance of your post intentionally, I think
we need to move you to a more comfortable location. ;-)
>1. At the end of v. 35, HdH horas pollH seems like it is missing
>something. Literally I think it says "already/by that time many hours".
>Does the verb genomenHs also govern this phrase, or is it more like
>an idiom in Greek for saying "it's late".
Your citation is misleading, as you confound the initial part of the verse
with its genitive absolute construction, HDH hORAS POLLHS GENOMENHS with
the simple assertion of the disciples at the end, "HDH hORA POLLH." You
are quite right about the phrase meaning, "It's late" in English, although
the Greek would more literally "It's already a big-number hour"--anything
after noon would be above the sixth hour. But the only thing missing at the
end is an implicit "ESTI(N).
>2. v. 36. Should apelQontes be understood as a telic participle
>"in order that they may go" or an attendant circumstance "in orer that,
>after having departed". I think it's the former, but I'm not certain.
>I'm also wondering stylistically about the use at the end of the verse
>of phagosin. After ti I expected an infinitive: something to eat,
>instead of something they may eat. Is this standard Greek or
>unusual?
I'm not familiar with the term "telic participle" but it should mean a
participle to express purpose; in classical Attic that would be a future
participle with hWS--but I don't recall seeing that construction in the NT.
At any rate, the participle APELQONTES is indeed one of attendant
circumstances, and your version, "in order that, after having departed
...," is accurate enough, provided that you realize the hINA doesn't
construe with the participle but rather with the subjunctive AGORASWSIN,
"in order that they may buy." The second subjunctive is in a clause of
indirect question subordinate to the subjunctive AGORASWSIN and functioning
grammatically as the object of that verb, meaning, literally, "what they
may eat." You cannot attach an infinitive to a pronoun like that: it's not
"something to eat" (note that the TI has an acute accent) but "what they
may eat." Yes, it's pretty standard Greek, inasmuch as even formal Attic
would tend to telescope a pronoun object of AGORASWSIN with a relative
pronoun, in the form hO TI FAGWSIN (where the TI is an unaccented
enclitic): "... in order that they may buy that which they may eat."
>3. V.39 sumposia sumposia, according to BDF, is an accusative of result.
>Unfortunately, in its usual, helpful manner, BDF at this point neither
>tells me where to find out what an accusative of result is, nor how
>to best translate the phrase. It would be helpful if, when citing
>a verse as an example of something, you translated it so others would
>know how that kind of construction ought to be rendered or at least
>point to where the construction is defined. Anyway, I take this to
>be a distributive type of construction: by groups/in groups/group by
>group. I don't know how that would show result. I'd appreciate some
>insight here. Thanks.
Where do these terms such as "telic participle" and "accusative of result"
come from? I do believe that some grammarians have a tendency to re-name
and subdivide grammatical categories endlessly in order to make the domain
of grammar a new Tower of Babel where people can't understand one another.
I hope I may be forgiven by the linguists who at times seem to me to have
gone the way of psychologists and sociologists to speak a language all
their own; I'm trying to understand them, but somehow Greek seems far
easier to me than the language they speak and write.
At any rate, I'd translate, "He instructed them all to lie down
dinner-party-style." That is, I would understand SUMPOSIA SUMPOSIA as an
adverbial accusative qualifying the infinitive ANAKLINAI. I would assume
that the neuter plural SUMPOSIA here means what Latin TRICLINIA would
mean--and arrangement of nine or twelve guests lying down on figurative
couches arranged in a "C" pattern on the ground so that each group of 3 or
4 guests (in each of the 3 sides of the "C") face a common center and can
see each other. Of course, for some reason we always imagine the 5,000 as
seated neatly in rows facing the front and waiting for the disciples to
come to them to serve communion. I have never understood why it is
necessary to translate ANAKLINAI as "be seated," but it's standard in "New
Testament English."
At any rate, that's how I see these particulars in the passage. Now, will
someone explain to me what is supposed to be meant by a "telic participle?"
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: Phil <plong@e2.empirenet.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 19:30:54 -0700
Subject: RE: Ghost Riters in Disguise?
>Actually this is my very uneducated hypothesis regarding style
>analysis: Is is possible that some N.T. authors, i.e.
>uneducated fishermen, or even a highly educated man concerned that
>every word written would be taken literally, would submit their
>writing to respected friends for comments and/or
>editing before sending them out to the general public.
>It is very common today. Why wouldn't it have been then?
As for the educational level of the writers of the NT, Luke and Paul are
responsible for the majority of the material, both would have been highly
educated. Assuming Traditional Authorship, Matthew as a Tax Collector would
have had a decent education, and Mark wrote for Peter (the fisherman) in the
Gospel of Mark, so using a sectretary for the epistles is probable. The
Author of Hebrews demonstrates a great education (including Philo?) John
would be the only true "fisherman" of the bunch, and by the time he writes
it has been a good 30-50 years since his fishing days. Plenty of time to
learn to communicate well in Greek.
Having said that, I think that it was the common practice to use an
'anamesis' (spelling doubtful....), or sectretary, to write. Paul
frequently did. I read an article a few years back in JBL that stated that
nearly all literature in the ancient world (NT era at least), was Oral
first, the 'writer' would speak his letter to a scribe, who then may have
had some freedom to clean up grammer, etc.
I have always thought that the use of a different scribe might account for
differences in style between the two Peterine epistles, for example.
Phil
------------------------------
From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <dalemw@teleport.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 21:25:44 -0700
Subject: Mark 16; RHSSW/RHGNUMI
In doing an updating of the GRAMCORD database, I ran into this same
RHSSW/RHGNUMI problem. The conclusion I came to was that we are dealing
with two different words, for the following reasons.=20
BAGD lists RHSSW in the following categories: "1. by-form of RHGNUMI, q.v.--
2. epic RHSSW...=3DATT. RATTW...", but lists no entries under category 1.=
This
seems to indicate that BAGD doesn't agree with the possibility presented by
BDF(=A7101 RHGNUNAI) that "perhaps the two verbs converged in Koine." BDF=
is,
however, equally clear in agreeing with BAGD that we are dealing with two
different words in the NT, with RHGNUMI and its alternate RHSSW meaning "to
break, tear (in pieces)" and the separate lemma RHSSW, which is an old Epic
verb, otherwise spelled RASSW that corresponds to the Attic RATTW, and means
"to strike, stamp." L&S also distinguishes the two roots pointing out that
the original form for the epic (viz., Ionic) form RHSSW was RASSW, and that
"the Ion. form is found also in the koine..."; then they list Mark 9:18 and
Luke 9:42 as from this root (cf., also Wisdom 4:19).=20
The Concordances, however, do not seem to have taken the Lexicon and
Grammars' information into consideration in constructing their works.
Aland's Computer Concordance and Moulton-Geden list all 7 together under
RHGNNUMI. The new electronic version of the Fribergs' database contained in
BibleWorks and BibleWindows has all 7 occurrences listed as from RJGNNUMI as
well, reversing their earlier decision to follow BAGD on this word and list
them separately. This may indicate on the Fribergs' part to accept the idea
that the two lemmas have merged in Koine, as suggested by BDF or to simply
lump all the composite verbs together (this, btw, is a major difference
between the Friberg and GRAMCORD database; GRAMCORD breaks all the composite
verbs into their specific lemmas, rather than lumping them together; e.g.,
DEIKNUW vs DEIKNUMI, etc). Strong's and NASBc have only 1 number for all
the entries; NIVc has a separate number for RHSSW, but then says that its an
alternate which is unused (?).=20
Given the point made by BDF (=A7101) and Robt (Gr, p. 1219) that the=
passives
(present only ?) come from RHGNUMI and the actives come from RHSSW, the only
occurrence of RHGNUMI in the present is Matt 9:17, the present passive; all
the others are evidently from RHSSW 1 (which means the same thing as
RHGNUMI), since the other four occurrences are Aorist and Future. BDF (=A79=
2)
includes this verb among a group of which they say, "Some verbs in -NUNAI
are replaced by other thematic formations or by synonyms built on other
stems..." This seems to agree with the statement of Robertson (Gr, p. 1219),
who says that "The active forms belong to RHSSW and the passive to RHGNUMI."
This is an exceptional statement by Robertson and seems thus to point to an
exceptional situation, i.e., the Aor/Fut/Pf which normally come from the
athematic -numi lemmas, in this case come from RHSSW.
Thus, following BAGD, Mark 9:18; Luke 9:42 are from RHSSW 2 "throw down,
dash to the ground," while the rest of the occurrences are from
RHGNUMI/RHSSW 1 "tear, burst, break." These are two separate words, with
different etymological histories, which just happen to become homographs in
Koine.
BTW, it may be that Luke 8:29 is another example of RHSSW 2 (DIARHSSW).
***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com=20
***********************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 21:40:22 PDT
Subject: Re: Some question on Mark 6:35-39
Carl,
Thanks for your comments. First, I wold stress that Bezerkley, my
preferred orthography (or is it morphology that treats spelling -- I can never
keep them straight), fully lives up to or down to (depending upon your
perspective) its reputation. Besides seeing a rather wide variety of
"cultural" expressions, I have never lived anywhere in California where
it is assumed by virtually everyone that traffic laws have no meaning.
I always feel like a fighter pilot when dirving to or from GTU, assuming the
worst, and am rarely if ever disappointed.
As to telic participles, this comes from Dana and Mantey, around page
220 or so, I think. They describe it as expressing purpose, and note that
the end result is usually seen as future. They do not cite this verse, but
it looked like this fit that category, particularly because it looks like
the participle is governed by hina. You note that it is not, so perhaps this
is not the correct classification. Taking hina as referring to a verb
farther along makes this look more like German sentences I've been seeing
lately, where der finds its noun about thirty words away after three forms of
werden and five complex adjective constructions, and I promise if I pass my
German test next week to not say anything else bad about German, for a while
anyway. Just as you haven't seen telic participle before, I haven't heard
of an accusative of result. I really wonder if a Greek speaker or reader would
have recognized these words as having a specific grammatical function
like that. Anyway, thanks for the help.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
P.S.,
And yes, I've lived in enough places and visited enough places in California,
especially being a native of So. Calfornia, to be able to authoritatively
state taht Berkeley is a weird place, even if it is literally a city set on
a hill.
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #871
*****************************
** 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