[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #874
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 26 September 1995 Volume 01 : Number 874
In this issue:
Re: Colorful Pneumonics
Re: Calling Jesus God in...
Re: Calling Jesus God in...
Hebrews 1:8
Re: Calling Jesus God in...
Re: Archive is set up!
Pacific Northwest Sunstone Symposium
More questions on Mark
Re: More questions on Mark
EIMI EGW in LXX
Re: More questions on Mark
BibAnsMan
Re: Archive is set up!
help on inscription (fwd)
Re: Calling Jesus God in the NT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 23:47:32 -0700
Subject: Re: Colorful Pneumonics
Alan D. Bulley wrote:
>
>Mnemonics?
>
>
You haven't been following the threads too carefully, have you?
I picked up on a popular typo.
Besides, being female, blonde, and over forty, it may better describe
my overall mode of memorization.
Ellen
------------------------------
From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 03:38:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Calling Jesus God in...
I would beg to differ with you on the statement,
<<No NT writer clearly equates Jesus with God, and this on account of a
monotheistic belief...>>
There are many New Testament passages where the Greek clearly points out
Jesus as God. When many are taken individually, and especially as they are
taken together, they make a profound statement. The writers of Scripture
knew what they were doing. They did not make a mistake in writing so many
passages which makes it appear that Jesus is God.
------------------------------
From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 04:18:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Calling Jesus God in...
Sorry, the previous E-mail got away before I finished it. This is the
finished version.
I would beg to differ with you on the statement,
<<No NT writer clearly equates Jesus with God, and this on account of a
monotheistic belief...>>
There are many New Testament passages where the Greek clearly points out
Jesus as God. When many are taken individually, and especially as they are
taken together, they make a profound statement. The writers of Scripture
knew what they were doing. They did not make a mistake in writing so many
passages which makes it appear that Jesus is God.
What about passages like Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 where the Granville-Sharp
rule says the single article with two nouns names the two as the same person.
Also, what about the popular "ego eimi" in John 8:24, 58 and other
passages. Nowhere else does anyone use ego eimi without a predicate on the
other side except Jesus Christ. This is equivalent to Exodus 3:14, "I am who
I am."
There is no confusion in the minds of these writers. They weren't being
ambiguious. They weren't heretical for not clearing up their language and
coming so close to calling Jesus God. No, rather they knew exactly what they
were doing. They knew who Jesus was. Regarding John 1:1, there is a 3 point
outline below.
I. THE TERM LOGOS
John MacArthur has a very good tape on this topic. You can call 800/55-GRACE
and ask for tape #1295. If you wish a more in-depth look, ask for tapes 1502
and 1503.
The term for the "word" is Logos. It is used by John in a very dramatic way
to begin His gospel.
It was also a point of identification with his readers, both Jews and
Gentiles. To the Jew, the Word of God was a very important concept. The Jew
constantly heard in the Old Testament, "The Lord says...," "And God
spoke...," "The Word of the Lord came...," etc.
The Jew in John's day would be very familiar with the Word of God. He was
familiar with how God was speaking. God revealed Himself through speaking.
The power of God, the will of God, the mind of God, the purpose of God, the
design of God, the plan of God were all revealed in the Old Testament through
the Word of God.
What John was saying to the Jew was, "That will, mind, purpose, design, plan,
power or God has come to you. If you want to know the plan of God, the will
of God, etc. look, He's here." John goes on to reveal that He was the one
who brought the universe in existence (John 1:3) and revealed God to men
(John 1:18 where he uses eksegeomai from which we get exegesis--Jesus is the
exegesis of the Father, He is the very explanation or expression of God).
"Logos" was also uniquely common to the Greeks. To them, the Logos was a
non-personalized force proceeding from a god, whatever god that may be. They
say that the Word of God is that impersonal force that brings all things into
existence. Heraclytis wrote about the impersonal Logos. The Stoics write
about this as some kind of power or force, a totally impersonal force without
a person. Paul Tillich calls it that "basic cause." That force brought
things into existence. It created whatever exists. It sustains whatever is.
Filo calls it "the power of creation, the tiller by which God stirs all
things, the intermediary between the world and God, the priest between man
and God." So the Greek knew about the Logos.
And John is saying, "You Greeks have thought, talked, philosophized about
this Logos. I submit to you, He is here." And to the Jew, he is saying,
"This one is God, the eternal One. The One who created all things. He is the
power, will, mind, purpose, design, and plan of God."
II. JOHN 1:1 INTERPRETATION OF THEOS (GOD) WITHOUT THE ARTICLE
There are those who do not see the Word being declared to be God, but rather
they say He is "a god." They say this because there is no article before the
final "theos" (God) in John 1:1. But as you will see, this is all quite
normal in Greek.
I go through John 1:1 in Greek class every year. There, I present seven
exegetical observations from the Greek text that show the Word to be God, not
merely "a god." This is bolstered by the context which declares the Word to
be the creator of all things, etc.
1. The proximity of the previous "theos" (God). The word order in the Greek
is reversed from the normal word order in the final clause, bringing God in
close proximity to the previous God with the article. The latter "theos" is
explained in context to be the same as the previous "theos" (God). If John
had intended to write that the Word was "a god," he would not have put them
right next to each other. In the original manuscripts, there wasn't any
punctuation or spaces between the words (lit., "THEONTHEOS...").
2. The impossibility of putting an article before nouns on both sides of a
copulative phrase. When you put an article before nouns on both sides of a
linking verb in Greek, you are saying that the totality of the one is the
other, and vise-versa. This would make God out to be nothing else besides
the Second Person of the Trinity. But God is more than this, He is also the
Father and the Holy Spirit. For an in-depth discussion of this, see
Robertson's Grammar, pages 767ff. See John 4:24 and 1 John 4:8 where the
article on one side is missing also (cf. Robertson's Word Pictures, Volume
IV, p. 223 on 2 Corinthians 3:17; cf. also his Grammar, p. 767f.)
3. The Word was "pros ton theon" (face to face with God). This is a very
strong phrase showing how the Word was on a level with God, face to face.
4. The "kai" (and) in John 1:1 is an epexegetical kai. Kai can be translated
a number of different ways ("and, also, indeed, even" just to name a few).
John especially uses kai to continue and further explain the previous
clauses or sentences. This is an epexegetical use. In John 1:1, John is
building on each of the previous thoughts to a climax. "In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." A.T. Robertson
has an excellent section on kai in his Grammar, p. 1179-1183.
5. It is common for Koine Greek writers to reference the first use of a given
person with the article, then often without the article on subsequent uses in
the same passage. So where God has the article in the second clause of John
1:1, it doesn't in the third, but refers to the same God, not "a god" that is
different.
6. John 1:12 references God without the article in Greek. "To as many as
believed in Him, He gave the right to become children of God..." It is
interesting to note how many cults and the like try to interpret the latter
reference in John 1:1 of God to be "a god" because it doesn't have the
article, but then proceed to interpret John 1:12 as "God" unquestionably!
The point is that both in the passage refer to God the Father Himself.
Finally, in conclusion here, John meant to write that Jesus, the Word (cf.
John 1:14) was God. He wouldn't have written John 1:1ff. so confusing if he
didn't mean this. There are so many things that make it clear that John was
saying Jesus was God here. If he didn't mean this, then he really made a lot
of mistakes to confuse his readers.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Was Jesus God? To answer the question, we need to look carefully at the
evidence of Scripture.
III. The Deity of Jesus Christ
There is one God according to Scripture (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10-11;
44:8; 45:5-6, 14, 21-22; 46:9). Isaiah quotes God as saying that He knows of
no other God, so there must not be any. God also says, "He. Before Me there
was no God formed, And there will be none after Me" (Isaiah 43:10).
Jesus is indeed God (John 1:1,14; Colossians 1:15-19; 2:9; Titus 2:13;
Hebrews 2:8; Isaiah 9:6; etc.). Not only are there many more verse to show
this, but the incommunicable attributes of God can be clearly seen in Jesus
Christ. Incommunicable attributes are those qualities of God that no other
creature can possess. If any one can be shown to have these qualities, the
would be God.
Jesus possesses the incommunicable attributes of God. Dr. Marc Mueller has
established five categories that show Jesus as God. Much of the following is
his material from the Master's Seminary Syllabus, Theology 605.
1) Explicit claims (John 1:1; 8:58; John 20:28; Philippians 2:6; Revelation
23:13; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; 1 John 5:20; Hebrews 1:8-9; 1 Timothy 3:16;
John 1:18; Acts 20:28); Colossians 2:9).
2) Divine Names (Isaiah 42:8; Psalm 83:18; Joel 2:32; Romans 10:11-14; Romans
9:33; 1 Peter 2:6-8; Philippians 2:9; see Isaiah 6:1ff. compared to John
12:41).
3) Incommunicable Attributes
a) eternality (Revelation 22:13; 1:8; Isaiah 48:12; Hebrews 7:3,23-24;
Isaiah 9;6)
b) omnipresent (Matthew 18:20; 28:20)
c) omniscience (John 21:17; 16:30; Revelation 2:23, 24; Matthew 11:23,27;
17:27; 26:33-34; Luke 19:30-34)
d) omnipotence (Revelation 1:8; Philippians 3:21; Matthew 28:18)
e) Immutability (Hebrews 1:10-12; 13:8)
f) Aseity--necessary self existence (John 5:26; 10:17-18)
4) Incommunicable works
a) creation (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2)
b) providence (Luke 10:22; Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3)
c) life (John 5:19-29; Philippians 3:21)
d) reception of worship (John 5:23; Hebrews 1:6; Revelation 5:8-14;
Philippians 2:9-11)
Conclusions
1. Jesus Christ Himself taught His own deity
2. The Jews clearly perceived that He taught His deity.
3. The N.T. Apostles all believed in and affirmed the deity of Jesus.
4. All of the evidence of N.T. theology confirms the deity of Jesus Christ
according to the categories listed above.
5. Without understanding the deity of Christ, it is impossible to have true
salvation (John 8:24).
Again, this represents my understanding of Scripture as it presents John 1:1
and the deity of Christ. There are other teachers answering pagers that will
disagree with these conclusions. You must examine carefully the Scriptural
evidence to decide what you believe the Bible says about these things.
If I can assist you further, please feel free to ask.
Grace to you,
Jim
------------------------------
From: John Albu <tunon@phantom.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 08:12:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Hebrews 1:8
DAVID MOORE
Dear David:
On September 20 you wrote in answer to a posting by Paul Moser:
> There is no reason, grammatically speaking, not to take hO QEOS as
> vocative in both the Hebrews passage and in the LXX. The use of the
> nominative forms for the vocative is easily established for NT Greek. In
> reference to this usage in the LXX, Conybeare and Stock, in their _Grammar
> of Septuagint Greek_ say, "QEOS has a vocative QEE.... Usually, however,
> the nominative is employed for the vocative...." ([Peabody: Hendrickson]
> p. 26). The vocative fits the Hebrew of Ps. 45:6 equally well.
> It is the context, however, to which Paul Moser is appealing; but
> his exegesis, IMO, misses the mark. "God is your throne," is without
> parallel, as a concept, in all of the OT. But reference to rulers as
> 'ELOHIYM (Are they cases of hyperbole?) are not difficult to find (eg. Ps.
> 82:1,6). There is nothing in the surrounding context of Ps. 45:6 (or of
> Heb. 1:8 for that mattter) that stands against taking QEOS ('ELOHIYM) as
> vocative. In fact, that most translations render these passages, "Your
> throne, Oh God," or something similar, suggests that this is the most
> natural way to take the Greek (and the Hebrew) here.
> The son's identification with God as stated by Heb. 1:8 (if we
> take it that way) is also echoed in the immediate context both in v. 6 and
> v. 10. It seems to me that the context doesn't support anything but a
> vocative understanding of hO QEOS either in Ps. 45:6 or in Heb. 1:8.
Hebrews 1:8, 9 is a quotation taken from Psalm 45:6, 7.
When this entire Psalm is considered, it is evident that the king
mentioned in verse 1 who has God's blessing is a different one
than God himself who does the anointing, as shown in verse seven.
However, it is mentioned in this same verse that God has anointed
this one with the oil of exultation more than his partners. If
the Son is the one addressed here as God, then who are the
partners that "God, _your_ God," anointed his King-son to excel in
his gladness? At Hebrews 1:9, when many translations read "God,
your God, anointed you," clearly the one addressed in verse eight
is not God, but the one who worships God and the one who is anointed
by him.
Also the context shows that the contrast between Hebrews verses
7 and 8 is not to _essential being_ but to _function_. This fact is
brought out in that Christ, and not the angels, was bestowed divine
kingship, as stated in verses 8 and 9. Thus James Moffatt's translation
reads at Hebrews 1:8, 9: "God is thy throne for ever and ever, and thy
royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity; thou hast loved justice and hated
lawlessness, therefore God, thy God, has consecrated thee with the oil
of rejoicing beyond thy comrades."
Commenting on Hebrews 1:8, 9, B. F. Westcott wrote in his work
"The Epistle to the Hebrews," London, 1892, pp. 25, 26:
"ho thronos sou ho theos...dia touto...ho theos, ho theos sou...
It is not necessary to discuss here in detail the construction of the
original words of the Psalm. The LXX admits of two renderings: ho theos
can be taken as a vocative in both cases (_Thy throne, O God,...
therefore, O God, Thy God..._) or it can be taken as the subject
(or the predicate) in the first case (_God is Thy throne,_ or _Thy
throne is God..._), or in apposition to ho theos sou in the second
case (_Therefore God, even Thy God..._). The only important
variation noted in the other Greek versions is that of Aquila, who
gave the vocative thee in the first clause (Hieron. _Ep._ lxv. _ad
Princ._ 13) and, as it appears, also in the second (Field,
_Hexapla ad loc._). It is scarcely possible that 'elohim in the
original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore
is against the belief that ho theos is a vocative in the LXX. Thus
on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the
rendering: _God is Thy throne_ (or, _Thy throne is God_), that is,
'Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock'; and to take
ho theos as in apposition in the second clause.
"The phrase 'God is Thy throne' is not indeed found elsewhere,
but it is in no way more strange than Psalm lxxi. 3 _[Lord] be Thou to
me a rock of habitation...Thou art my rock and my fortress._ Is xxvi. 4
(R.V.) _In the LORD JEHOVAH is an everlasting rock._ Ps xc. 1 _Lord,
Thou hast been our dwellin-place._ Ps xci. 1 _He that dwelleth in the
secret place of the Most High..._ v. 2 _I will say of the Lord, He is my
refuge and my fortress,_ v. 9; Deut. xxxiii. 27 _The eternal God is thy
dwelling-place._ Comp. Is. xxii. 23.
"For the general thought compare Zech. xii. 8. This interpretation
is required if we adopt the reading autou for sou.
"It is commonly supposed that the force of the quotation lies in
the divine title (ho theos) which, as it is held, is applied to the Son.
It seems however from the whole form of the argument to lie rather in the
description which is given of the Son's office and endowment. The angels
are subject to constant change, He has a dominion for ever and ever; they
work through material powers, He--the Incarnate Son--fulfils a moral
sovereignty and is crown with unique joy. Nor could the reader forget the
later teaching of the Psalm on the Royal Bride and the Royal Race. In
whatever way then ho theos be taken, the quotation establishes the
conclusion which the writer whishes to draw as to the essential
difference of the Son and the angels. Indeed it might appear to many that
the direct application of the divine Name [actually divine title] to the
Son would obscure the thought."
Sincerely yours,
John Albu <tunon@phantom.com>
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 07:54:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Calling Jesus God in...
At 3:18 AM 9/25/95, BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
>Sorry, the previous E-mail got away before I finished it. This is the
>finished version.
>
>I would beg to differ with you on the statement,
>
><<No NT writer clearly equates Jesus with God, and this on account of a
>monotheistic belief...>>
>
>There are many New Testament passages where the Greek clearly points out
>Jesus as God. When many are taken individually, and especially as they are
>taken together, they make a profound statement. The writers of Scripture
>knew what they were doing. They did not make a mistake in writing so many
>passages which makes it appear that Jesus is God.
>
>What about passages like Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 where the Granville-Sharp
>rule says the single article with two nouns names the two as the same person.
> Also, what about the popular "ego eimi" in John 8:24, 58 and other
>passages. Nowhere else does anyone use ego eimi without a predicate on the
>other side except Jesus Christ. This is equivalent to Exodus 3:14, "I am who
>I am."
>...
>Jim
(a) Personally I would not argue about these particular passages in Titus,
2 Peter and John's gospel; I think that they do indeed imply the divinity
of Jesus, although I would like to hear more about the Granville-Sharp rule
and the basis upon which its validity has been asserted and argued.
(b) Would you please identify yourself a bit more fully than "BibAnsMan"
and "Jim"?
(c) The bulk of this very long message verges on theological apologetics
which, in my view, really doesn't belong in our list discussions. It is one
thing to argue the theological implications of one or two passages in terms
of the phrasing of the Greek and the proper way to understand those
passages, but it seems to me quite another to attempt to demonstrate the
doctrine of the whole NT by citing a lengthy list of "proof-texts." I don't
think this is the right place for that.
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: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 11:57:30 CST
Subject: Re: Archive is set up!
On Thu, 17 Aug 1995, James K. Tauber wrote:
>There is now a hypermail archive of b-greek at
>
> http://www.uwa.edu.au/cyllene/jtauber/b-greek/
>
>It doesn't contain much at the moment, but should archive everything sent to
>b-greek from now on.
James--
I checked out the archive on Friday and it looks real good; however, I am
wondering why it stopped archiving on Sept. 4th.
- --Bruce
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Thomas Murphy <twmurphy@u.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 11:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Pacific Northwest Sunstone Symposium
Celebrating Mormon Thought
PACIFIC NORTHWEST SUNSTONE SYMPOSIUM
Mountaineers Building
300 Third Avenue West
Seattle, WA
Friday-Saturday, Oct. 13-14, 1995
Friday, 7:30 pm Opening Address
Neal Chandler, "Beyond a Shadow of Certitude: Filed Notes on a Stupor of
Thought"
Saturday, 7:30 pm Dinner Speaker
Susan Howe
Saturday Workshop Sessions
Panel: Molly McLellan Bennion, Armand Mauss, Christ Montgomery, Elbert
Eugene Peck, "Who is Joining the Church and What Can We Do to See Our
Skeptical Friends Among Them?"
Tracy Lamb-Kwon, "Musings on Mormon Motherhood"
Peggy Fletcher Stack, "Forgiveness"
Rebecca Chandler, "The Winnowing"
Panel: Kathleen Bennion Barret, ?, ?, "O Say What is Truth and Justice,
Three Lawyers Contrast Mortal and Eternal Law"
Peggy Fletcher Stack, "The Influence of My Work as a Journalist On My
Views of History and Religion"
Karl Sandberg, "Literature and the Religious Quest"
Neal Chandler, "Lucubrations on Un-American Religion: An Unauthorized
History of Religious Persecution in the Mayfield Ward"
Don Slinn, "Chiasmus in Doctrine and Covenants Section 52"
Rebecca Chandler, "Family Sutures"
Stephen T. Whitlock, Trish Dahl, Patrick L. McKenzie, "Pillars of My
Faith"
Registration Information:
The advance registration fee is $30 and $15 for students and includes all
sessions except dinner. Registration for Friday night only is $15 or $10
for students. Registration checks should be payable to Sunstone and can
be mailed to Molly Bennion 1150 2nd Ave E. Seattle, WA 98112.
Registration will begin Friday at 6:30 pm and the opening session begins
at 7:30 pm. Registration begins at 8:30 am Saturday and will be open
until 6:00 pm. The Saturday session begins at 9:00 am. The closing
session is a dinner session for $19.50, tax and gratuity included. The
lunch is $8.60 and includes a sandwich, fruit, chips, pastry, and fruit
juice. Registration for the dinner and luch sesssions requires at least
7 days notice.
The Sunstone Foundation is a non-profit corporation established in 1975
to encourage scholarly, artistic, and cultural expression in Mormonism.
Each year Sunstone sponsors an annual conference in Salt Lake City for
over 1,000 persons and a number of smaller regional symposia around the
country. This marks the seventh annual Sunstone Symposium in the Pacific
Northwest.
The symposium is dedicated to the belief that the truths of the gospel of
Jesus Christ are better understood and, as a consequence, better lived
when they are freely and frankly discussed within the society of the
saints. In sponsoring this symposium, Sunstone seeks to achieve a
balanced representation of viewpoints, maintain high standards of
scholarship, and promote understanding and good will. Those who speak at
the symposium do so as individual Latter-day Saints or as outside
observers. The Sunstone Foundation does not advocate changes in LDS
doctrine or policy.
For more information contact Molly Bennion at (206) 325-6868 or via
e-mail Tom Murphy at twmurphy@u.washington.edu.
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 12:33:55 +0800
Subject: More questions on Mark
Can someone tell me the difference in meaning or significance of the
use of the periphrastic participle, such as the periphrastic pluperfect
in Mark 6:52, compares to a simpler form, like just a pluperfect passive
verb? Also, in this episode of walking on the water, Jesus announces
to the disciples "egw eimi". I don't really expect at this point Jesus
meant to be telling his discplies he was Yahweh, and even if he had,
from their reaction, they clearly would not have accepteD THAT.
I'm wondering therefore if there are other examples outside the NT of
the use of ego eimi without any modifiers, and what it probably means
in those passages. Thanks.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 15:42:22 -0500
Subject: Re: More questions on Mark
At 11:33 PM 9/24/95, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> Can someone tell me the difference in meaning or significance of the
>use of the periphrastic participle, such as the periphrastic pluperfect
>in Mark 6:52, compares to a simpler form, like just a pluperfect passive
>verb? Also, in this episode of walking on the water, Jesus announces
>to the disciples "egw eimi". I don't really expect at this point Jesus
>meant to be telling his discplies he was Yahweh, and even if he had,
>from their reaction, they clearly would not have accepteD THAT.
>I'm wondering therefore if there are other examples outside the NT of
>the use of ego eimi without any modifiers, and what it probably means
>in those passages. Thanks.
There really is no difference in meaning between the form you cite, HN
PEPWRWMENH and a "regular" pluperfect equivalent, EPEPWRHTO. Beginning very
early, probably because of the awkwardness of linking the endings -NTAI,
- -NTO to consonant stem verbs in the middle/passive (although the N is
vocalized in Homeric 3 pl. endings -ATAI, -ATO), the 3rd plural began to be
written in the periphrastic form. It may have spread from there, especially
in view of the fact that both perfect and pluperfect tenses are relatively
little used in comparison with the "big 4"--pres., impf., fut., aor., to
the other persons & nos. It may also be that the form with participle and
verb "to be" more readily expressed the perfective notion of a "state of
completion" than the older real perfect or pluperfect forms might have
("their heart was hardened" as opposed to "their heart HAD BEEN hardened").
I don't have the tools for searching texts of EGW EIMI outside of John
ready to hand, but I think it appears once (and perhaps in more than one
gospel) in Jesus' response to Caiaphas at the Sanhedrin trial. Its sense
would be "I am (x)," e.g., "I am (the Messiah)," whereby the predicate
noun/adjective need not be expressed if it is implicit from what has gone
before. I don't think it would be the equivalent of English (archaic
English?) "It is I" in response to "Who's there" (and "Knock, knock"). In
that case I think one would simply use the pronoun, EGW, perhaps assisted
with one's name.
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: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 15:11:26 CST
Subject: EIMI EGW in LXX
On Mon, 25 Sep 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>I'm wondering therefore if there are other examples outside the NT of
>the use of ego eimi without any modifiers, and what it probably means
>in those passages. Thanks.
Check out IDOU EIMI EGW in Isaiah 6:8 LXX, where it means something like
"Behold, here I am."
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 16:49:06 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: More questions on Mark
On Mon, 25 Sep 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> Can someone tell me the difference in meaning or significance of the
> use of the periphrastic participle, such as the periphrastic pluperfect
> in Mark 6:52, compares to a simpler form, like just a pluperfect passive
> verb? Also, in this episode of walking on the water, Jesus announces
> to the disciples "egw eimi". I don't really expect at this point Jesus
> meant to be telling his discplies he was Yahweh, and even if he had,
> from their reaction, they clearly would not have accepteD THAT.
> I'm wondering therefore if there are other examples outside the NT of
> the use of ego eimi without any modifiers, and what it probably means
> in those passages. Thanks.
Ken, In approaching Mark 6:52, we have to recognize that what we have is
a _Markan episode_, not a photographic account of something Jesus did or
said. In understanding the sense of the account, therefore, the first
question is "What is it likely that *Mark* is doing with the account?"
and not "What is it likely that *Jesus* means here?" Thus, the lst
question with regard to the "ego eimi" here is "What is it likely that
*Mark* intends in putting this statement on Jesus' lips?" To offer an
answer, in light of the rather numinous qualities Mark gives to Jesus
here and elsewhere, I suggest that the "ego eimi" is intended on two
levels--both as a straightforward self-identification ("It's me!"), but
also as an echo/hint of OT divine self-identification language which =
Jesus here is speaking like Yhwh, reflecting Jesus' divine-like status
and powers. This, I suggest, is Mark's probable intentions in the
passage. It's altogether another question as to what things Jesus may or
may not have actually said and intended.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Bill Renner <WILLARD@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 95 16:10:39 EDT
Subject: BibAnsMan
Carl, I have to agree with you. It appears that whomever BibAnsMan maybe
that he has an inside tract on Greek tranlation that none of the rest of
us have access to at the TOTE. It really looked like a sermon to me not
anything to do with the translation of the Greek.
Bill Renner
1427 Cardinal Dr.
West Columbia, SC 29169
email: BILLYRAY@sc.edu
------------------------------
From: "James K. Tauber" <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 10:13:43 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Re: Archive is set up!
On Mon, 25 Sep 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
> James--
>
> I checked out the archive on Friday and it looks real good; however, I am
> wondering why it stopped archiving on Sept. 4th.
Bruce (and everyone else),
It appears that yet again the majordomo software has cancelled my
subscription from jtauber@cyllene.
That was only a temporary place anyway. I'm in the process of moving
everything over to my own machine and I've resubscribed to b-greek from
there. Hopefully everything will be sorted out soon.
Things will be transferred by the end of the week and I'll post again to
b-greek when that is done.
James K. Tauber <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> currently at ALS 95
University Computing Services and Centre for Linguistics
University of Western Australia, Perth, AUSTRALIA
http://www.uwa.edu.au/student/jtauber finger for PGP key
------------------------------
From: Joni L Crawford <jonic@u.arizona.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 20:20:44 -0700 (MST)
Subject: help on inscription (fwd)
The following message appeared on Ioudaios and received limited response.
With the permission of the original sender I am forwarding it to B-Greek
for your consideration. Please send responses either to Randall Chesnutt
privately or to both him and the list.
Thank you
David Crawford
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 18:28:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Chesnutt, Randall D. <chesnutt@pepperdine.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu>
Subject: help on inscription
Can someone help me? I am reading a Jewish funerary
inscription in Greek, the last line of which reads, I think,
"may her sleep be in peace." The Greek is
en irene e koimesis aues
(Each "e" here, except the first, is eta, not episilon; I don't
know how to do diacritical marks in e-mail.)
My question is this: Is the last word (aues) a shortened
form of autes (again, both have eta, not epsilon)? If so, is
this common? Autes is used earlier in the same inscription,
with the tau in place. Is aues a mistake? Or is there some
other simple explanation that I am overlooking?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Randy Chesnutt
Pepperdine University
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 00:15:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Calling Jesus God in the NT
Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu> wrote:
>Regarding the common use of the vocative of "theos" in
>translating Heb 1:8a, it's noteworthy that the
>Jewish Publication Society translation of the
>Masoretic text of Psalm 45:7a is: "Thy throne
>given of God is forever and ever" (1955 ed.).
>The corresponding translation of v.6a in the
>margin of the RSV and the NRSV is: "Your throne
>is a throne of God." I wonder if Christian
>translators too readily translate Psalm 45 with
>an eye to a standard Christian translation of
>Heb 1:8a. Does anyone have a standard Jewish
>translation of Psalm 45:7a in the LXX? It
>would be helpful to know if it, like the JPS
>trans. of the MT, departs from the vocative
>of "theos."
Strictly grammatically speaking, in terms of the Hebrew text of
Ps. 45:6 (MT v. 7), the construct state (indicating that a genitive
follows) of "throne" could either correspond solely to the enclitic
genitive pronoun "your" that is attached to "throne", or it could
correspond to both that pronoun and to the following 'ELOHIYM (God). This
would seem to indicate that the JPS translation, "Thy throne [given] of
God...," is possible But that this translation does not cease to be
strained is illustrated by Gesenius's treating "Thy divine throne"
(apparently also taking 'ELOHIYM as grammatically genitive) as a
problematic way of interpreting the Hebrew here (Gesenius, _Hebrew
Grammar_, #128, d).
Moreover, the LXX reading difinitely does not support the JPS
translation. For the Greek to say "Thy throne [given] of God...," it
would have to substitute, for the LXX text's nominative form, the genitive
of QEOS (i.e. hO QRONOS SOU TOU QEOU).
"Thy throne is God," which some suggest here, is grammatically
possible from the Greek by taking hO QEOS as a true nominative; but it
seems especially unlikely, since there is no parallel construction in all
the OT literature for a reference to God in this sense.
Another Old Testament Passage to consider in reference to this
verse is 1 Chron. 29:23 where the Davidic throne is called "the throne of
the Lord."
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 #874
*****************************
** 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