[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #898
b-greek-digest Monday, 9 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 898
In this issue:
Re: 1Cor. 14:!4
Re: Beginning Grammars
Re: 1Cor. 14:14
Greek New Testament on the Web?
Re: 1Cor. 14:!4
Some off-topic academic humor for a Monday
Re: 1Cor. 14:14
Re: 1Cor. 14:14
[none]
Re: 1Cor. 14:14
Lk 11:8 Whose ANAIDEIA?
Re: Beginning Grammars
Context Rule?
Re: Beginning Grammars and "Context"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 02:26:40 -0400
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:!4
Dr. Kenneth Johnson writes on 95-10-07,
<<<<I have been studying 1 Corinthians 14:14 and was wondering when Paul says
"I shall pray with the spirit and I shall pray with the mind also; I shall
sing with the spirit and I shall sing with the mind also."
Is there any rule in Greek that would help you determine if he is saying
"pray in the spirit and in English at the same time" (thus proving that the
term praying in the spirit does not always mean praying in tongues) or does
he have to be meaning "pray in the spirit at onetime and latter with his
mind," so he can be understood?>>>>>
Nothing in the Greek would hint at this because that is not what the
Greek says. The Scripture says here that we should pray and use
understandable words(vv. 6-11). I believe Paul is chiding them here for
praying in tongues when they should be praying in their own known language so
others can use their minds. They should seek to abound for edification in
the church service.
If you look carefully at the context, the context emphasizes edifying
and edification as the key. Paul is chiding them for not praying that
results in a distinct sound that can be understood with the mind. Paul also
says there should not be any tongue-speaking unless there is an interpreter.
And then one at a time.
It is disappointing that we do not follow the biblical pattern Paul
presents here. So many today allow all kinds of tongue speaking and do not
test all things (1 Thess. 5:21). If we were to test the validity of the
tongues with a tape recorder, I believe we would see that the majority of the
so-called tongues would be found out false. Take the tape recording and get
two different interpretations to agree and analyze it for true grammatical
form.
I. TONGUES AS THE NORMAL WORD FOR LANGUAGE
The Greek does come against the idea of an "unknown" prayer language.
The word for tongue in Greek is GLWSSN (glo_se_, plural glossalalia). It is
the normative word for language. It was a known language, not gibberish or
babble or an unknown prayer language. In King James' day, "tongues" meant
what "languages" mean to us.
In fact, in Acts 2:6 where tongues are first introduced at Pentecost,
they heard them speaking "in their own language." The Greek word for
language here is DIALEKTOS from which we get our word "dialect." They heard
them speak in their own dialects. The following verses list names of the
DIALEKTOS: "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia,
Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the
districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and
proselytes, Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them in our own tongues speaking of
the mighty deeds of God" (vv. 9-11).
Furthermore, this is the same gift throughout the rest of the New
Testament. We don't have any indication that it changed. The literal
language tongues of Acts 2 is the same throughout the rest of the Bible and
should be tested. Peter had a hard time convincing the Jews about Cornelius
until he mentions in Acts 11:17, "If God therefore gave to them the same gift
as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I
that I could stand in God's way?" The tongues given here was the "same gift"
as it was in Acts 2. Tongues are always used to refer to known languages.
II. UNKNOWN PRAYER LANGUAGE PASSAGES
There are only three passages that I have seen others use to show that
there is biblical support for an "unknown prayer language": Romans 8:26, 1
Corinthians 13:1-2, and 1 Corinthians 14:14. But each of these are
inconclusive and actually include evidences against such a view.
Romans 8:26 says, "And in the same way the Spirit also helps our
weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself
intercedes for [us] with groanings too deep for words." Some say, "See
there, these groanings are referring to unknown language! They are groanings
too deep for words." But the Greek says a very interesting thing here. It
literally says, STENOGMOIS ALALNTOIS, "unutterable groanings." These are
groanings which cannot be uttered, not groanings which can be uttered.
Furthermore, it is the Spirit who prays interceding for us, not we who pray
these unutterable groanings. So this is hardly a passage to support unknown
prayer languages.
1 Corinthians 13:1-2 is just as elusive to those who would try to find
unknown prayer languages in the Bible. Verse 1 says, "If I speak with the
tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy
gong or a clanging cymbal." Again some say, "Look at that! I can pray in an
angelic tongue." But they do not understand that in 1 Corinthians 13:1-2,
Paul uses considerable hyperbole. He exaggerates to the extreme limits of
our imagination. He says, if someone were able to do all these things and
still didn't have love, he would be nothing. It doesn't say that these
things are possible. In fact, in many cases they are impossible.
Take for example the next verse (v. 2). Is it possible to "know all
mysteries?" No. Is it possible to know all "knowledge"? No. Is it
possible to have "all faith so as to remove mountains"? If so, Paul wouldn't
have gotten sick trying to cross the mountains into Galatia.
1 Corinthians 14:14 is sometimes alluded to in order to support praying
in an unknown tongue. 1 Corinthians 14:14 says, "For if I pray in a tongue,
my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." Some who peruse the context
come to the conclusion that this verse supports praying "in the spirit" which
is interpreted as praying in an unknown tongue. Only, they say, this kind
should be done at home or in private since "interpretation" is required in
the Church (v. 28).
But it is interesting to note that the context does not allow for such
an interpretation at all. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Paul was
reproving them for this kind of praying that was supposedly in the spirit and
where the mind was unfruitful. Paul's main emphasis here is against such
mindless praying. He advocates a different type of praying in the spirit
where the mind is used (v. 15). He would not have advocated praying at home
in a mindless way. Only if tongues were interpreted could edification of the
mind result.
Yet, this kind of tongue praying is used by many to "edify" themselves
at home. They quote 1 Corinthians 14:4 which says, "One who speaks in a
tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church." But in
this verse, Paul is not commending this self-edification, rather he opposes
it. This opposition to this misuse of tongues is the main point of this
chapter.
The purpose for tongues was not for some private edification, but for a
sign before unbelievers not believers. "So then tongues are for a sign, not
to those who believe, but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to
unbelievers, but to those who believe." (v. 22). Paul exhorted them not to
pray selfishly edifying themselves, but instead they ought to prophesy and
edify the church which is better unless tongues are interpreted so "the
church may receive edifying" (v. 4).
Paul is chiding them here for praying in tongues when they should be
speaking the Word of God in their own known language so others could use
their minds to understand what they are praying. In this way, they should
seek to abound for edification in the church service. The result is found in
verses 24-25, "But if all prophesy . . . the secrets of [an unbeliever's]
heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God,
declaring that God is certainly among you."
If you look carefully at the context, the context emphasizes edifying
and edification as the key. The word group for edify is found seven times in
six verses withing this chapter (vv. 3,4,5,12,17,26). Paul makes a
concluding remark in verse 26, "Let all things be done for edification."
Edification happens when the Word of God is heard and clearly understood
with the mind.
Paul chides them for not speaking in such a way that results in a
distinct sound that can be understood with the mind so others might receive
edifying. Furthermore, Paul says there should not be any tongue-speaking
unless there is an interpreter. And then only one at a time. Not the
massive tongue speaking you often see today.
So in conclusion, the Bible really gives no support for any "unknown
prayer language." In fact, every evidence points to the fact that these
tongues were a known language that could and should be interpreted (cf. 1
Cor. 14:28).
If you have any questions on any part of this, feel free to E-Mail me
Jim McGuire
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
------------------------------
From: Larry Chouinard <fa78935@kcc.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 09:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Beginning Grammars
I wonder if you could document an example of so-called "liberal
scholarship's" dismissal of Dana and Mantey because they "stick with
Scripture"? Personally, I have found some of your exegetical endeavors
nothing more than a defense of your tradition with little interaction
with competent Greek scholars who take an alternative position.
Please show an example of how the use of extra-biblical Greek has
distorted or twisted Scripture. Unless you are willing to demonstrate
your accusations or document your evidence stop impugning the motives of
others.
BTW maybe you could change BibAnsMan to BibSeachingMan!
Larry Chouinard
Kentucky Christian College
Sun, 8 Oct 1995 BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
> I currently teach Greek and I prefer Machen for first year and Dana and
> Mantey with supplementary materials for the intermediate grammar. Some
> liberal scholarship will not accept Dana and Mantey because they stick with
> Scripture instead of allowing extra-biblical Greek to twist the meaning of
> Scripture. Other Greek examples have their place, but after the Greek of the
> New Testament has had its say. The Greek of Scripture is Koine Greek, but is
> also put in the language of the Christians of that day and they often times
> use words differently than the average Greek as we Christians today use words
> differently than the secular world.
>
> Jim McGuire
> Professor of Greek at
> Logos Bible Institute
> 13248 Roscoe Blvd.
> Sun Valley, CA 91352
>
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 95 9:08:19 EDT
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:14
BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
> So in conclusion, the Bible really gives no support for any "unknown
> prayer language." In fact, every evidence points to the fact that these
> tongues were a known language that could and should be interpreted (cf. 1
> Cor. 14:28).
That the technical terms GLWSSAI, GENH GLWSSWN, and EN GLWSSHi (-AIS)
LALEIN (always anarthrous) refers to xenolalia, as suggested supra, is
a minority position.
I think it is fairly clear that those terms referred to ecstatic utterances
["GLWSSA," BADG (2d ed. 1979) "There is no doubt about the thing referred
to, namely the broken speech of persons in religious ecstasy."]. This is
not surprising, given the cultural context of the Corthinian church. [See
generally, Ralph Bruce Terry, A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF FIRST CORINTHIANS 32-
33 (1995) (explaining why the Corinthians would be so eager about tongues
and including an example of Attic GLOTTAI).]
Textually, this seems to be the case. GLWSSAI are sometimes described as
"of angels" (TWN AGGELWN 1Co12:10). A charism (hERMHNEIA GLWSSWN 13:1) is
needed to interpret them (14:13). As a "prayer language," that may be
inferred from 14:28 (hEATWi DE LALEITW KAI TWi QEWi).
For a good scholarly treatment and bibliography, I recommend C.M. Robeck,
Jr., "Tongues," A DICTIONARY OF PAUL & HIS LETTERS (1993).
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: Ivo Nentwich <ivo.nentwich@akh-wien.ac.at>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 16:18:01 CET
Subject: Greek New Testament on the Web?
Ladies and Gentlemen,
thank you for the Mailing Group about Bible Greek.
I do not feel like discussing there at the moment.
As I just have started my studies of theology I have been looking
for the Greek text of New Testament on the Internet. I have not
unfortunately find it so far although the Bible text can be found in various
languages on the Net.
Could you give me a tip where I can find it?
Thank you in advance.
Yours
Dr. Ivo Nentwich
Forschungslabor der Kinderklinik
Ebene 4
Waehringer Guertel 18-20
A-1090 Wien, Austria
Tel.: +43 1 40400 3445
Fax: +43 1 40400 3189
E-Mail: ivo.nentwich@akh-wien.ac.at
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 07:55:25 -0700
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:!4
>
>Dr. Kenneth Johnson writes on 95-10-07,
>
><<<<I have been studying 1 Corinthians 14:14 and was wondering when
Paul says
>"I shall pray with the spirit and I shall pray with the mind also; I
shall
>sing with the spirit and I shall sing with the mind also."
>
>Is there any rule in Greek that would help you determine if he is
saying
>"pray in the spirit and in English at the same time" (thus proving
that the
>term praying in the spirit does not always mean praying in tongues) or
does
>he have to be meaning "pray in the spirit at onetime and latter with
his
>mind," so he can be understood?>>>>>
>
I'm quite sure that if Paul were praying in English, it would have been
unfruitful to his mind.
Clearly at Pentecost the disciples were glorifying God in languages
whose utterance were given supernaturally that they might be understood
by the diverse peoples gathered in Jerusalem.
Now here's an interesting paradox. It seems in Corinthians Paul was
advising against blurting out tongues loudly in a public gathering,
unless, of course, there were interpretation. Clearly, at Pentecos
they were speaking the languages of the multitudes gathered there, so
there was interpretation. But how did they know that? They just blurted
out whatever if whas they blurted out. Personally, I can't think of a
more unlikely circumstance (I speak concerning the flesh) to be so
blatantly vocal, especially when you don't even know what you're
saying, than in front of a huge crowd of strangers from all corners of
the earth. Yet God chose this very spectacle as his means to kick off
his campaign to save the world. Go figure.
Anyhow. It seems from context that the Corinthians like to flaunt this
phenomenon. In a public setting, what was more appropriate was that the
church (in their understanding) be edified, and that the lost receive a
clear and comprehendable message.
Even in prayer and worship, it is important that we pray with
understanding. How can we intercede in faith if we don't know what
we're praying about?
However, if for any reason, in private or public any of us should find
ourselves speaking and praying in a language unknown to us, and if we
actually consider ourselves spiritually edified by such an occurance...
well that's between us and God, isn't it? We need not inform the others
on this list.
Ellen
(Tongue planted firmly in cheek...
in English, of course.)
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 09:05:41 +0800
Subject: Some off-topic academic humor for a Monday
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> One day during an examination at Cambridge University, a
> bright young student popped up and asked the proctor to bring him Cakes and
> Ale. The following dialog ensued:
>
> Proctor: I beg your pardon?
> Student: Sir, I request that you bring me Cakes and Ale.
> Proctor: Sorry, no.
> Student: Sir, I really must insist. I request and require that you
> bring me Cakes and Ale.
>
> At this point, the student produced a copy of the four hundred year old
> Laws of Cambridge, written in Latin and still nominally in effect, and
> pointed to the section which read (rough translation from the Latin):
>
> "Gentlemen sitting examinations may request and require Cakes and Ale".
>
> Pepsi and hamburgers were judged the modern equivalent, and the student sat
> there, writing his examination and happily slurping away.
>
> Three weeks later though, the student was fined five pounds for not
> wearing a sword to the examination.
>
>
>
>
>
>
- ----- End Included Message -----
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 09:16:06 +0800
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:14
> BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
> > So in conclusion, the Bible really gives no support for any "unknown
> > prayer language." In fact, every evidence points to the fact that these
> > tongues were a known language that could and should be interpreted (cf. 1
> > Cor. 14:28).
>
> That the technical terms GLWSSAI, GENH GLWSSWN, and EN GLWSSHi (-AIS)
> LALEIN (always anarthrous) refers to xenolalia, as suggested supra, is
> a minority position.
>
> I think it is fairly clear that those terms referred to ecstatic utterances
> ["GLWSSA," BADG (2d ed. 1979) "There is no doubt about the thing referred
> to, namely the broken speech of persons in religious ecstasy."]. This is
> not surprising, given the cultural context of the Corthinian church. [See
> generally, Ralph Bruce Terry, A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF FIRST CORINTHIANS 32-
> 33 (1995) (explaining why the Corinthians would be so eager about tongues
> and including an example of Attic GLOTTAI).]
>
> Textually, this seems to be the case. GLWSSAI are sometimes described as
> "of angels" (TWN AGGELWN 1Co12:10). A charism (hERMHNEIA GLWSSWN 13:1) is
> needed to interpret them (14:13). As a "prayer language," that may be
> inferred from 14:28 (hEATWi DE LALEITW KAI TWi QEWi).
>
> For a good scholarly treatment and bibliography, I recommend C.M. Robeck,
> Jr., "Tongues," A DICTIONARY OF PAUL & HIS LETTERS (1993).
>
> 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
>
I think I would have to take exception to the word "ecstatic". That
sounds like the "under the influence of foreign substances" Oracle at
Delphi (to use German word order), not what Paul is talking about.
Paul makes clear, IMO, that the person speaking in tongues can
turn it on and shut it off, so to speak, at will, which is not how
one would normally understand being in an "ecstatic" state.
Perhaps Stephen and others mean something else by "ecstatic", in whih
case a little more precision in definition is needed.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 12:34:02 -0500
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:14
At 8:16 PM 10/8/95, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>I think I would have to take exception to the word "ecstatic". That
>sounds like the "under the influence of foreign substances" Oracle at
>Delphi (to use German word order), not what Paul is talking about.
>Paul makes clear, IMO, that the person speaking in tongues can
>turn it on and shut it off, so to speak, at will, which is not how
>one would normally understand being in an "ecstatic" state.
>Perhaps Stephen and others mean something else by "ecstatic", in whih
>case a little more precision in definition is needed.
I'd have to go along with the interpretation of the phenomenon involved in
1 Cor 14 as glossolalia in the sense of ecstatic utterance, and yes, I
would even say that it is similar to the glossolalia of the Sibyl at
Delphi, which does not, in fact, appear to have been drug-induced at all,
but which does appear to have been ecstatic and to have involved babbling
utterances which the priests of Apollo "interpreted" in Greek verse form to
give to those consulting the oracle. When Paul first takes up this subject
in 1 Cor 12, PERI DE TWN PNEUMATIKWN ..., he says (12:2) OIDATE hOTI hOTE
EQHN HTE PROS TA EIDWLA TA AFWNA hWS AN HGESQE APAGOMENOI ... which I would
translate, "You know that when you were Gentiles how you would be drawn,
carried away toward speechless idols." It seems to me that Paul clearly
recognized that there recognized religious experiences--psychic
experiences--were indeed characteristic of pagan religion. In these
chapters 12-14 of 1 Corinthians he's trying to make clear what he
undestands to be the difference between a pagan kind of religious
experience (which he seems to think of in terms of the keyword "GNWSIS"
characterizing Corinthian attitudes elsewhere in the letter) and a
Christian kind of religious experience. He seems to me to be less than keen
on glossolalia but recognizes it as an admissible component of worship;
what bothers him about it is that it's not rational and it doesn't
communicate anything to other worshippers. So he urges that if the
Corinthians are determined to indulge in it, they ought to make sure that
someone is able to make sense of the ecstatic babbling for the sake of the
rest of the congregation. And if there are outsiders there, they would be
wiser not to indulge in it. I think Paul is also relativizing the same
phenomenon and again associating it with ecstatic, irrational utterance in
1 Cor 13:1, "If I speak in languages of human beings and of angels but have
no AGAPH, then I've become clanging bronze or jingling cymbals."
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: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 14:34:22 -0400
Subject: [none]
>I'd have to go along with the interpretation of the phenomenon >involved in
1 Cor 14 as glossolalia in the sense of ecstatic >utterance, and yes, I would
even say that it is similar to the >glossolalia of the Sibyl at Delphi, which
does not, in fact, >appear to have been drug-induced at all, but which does
>appear to have been ecstatic and to have involved babbling >utterances which
the priests of Apollo "interpreted" in Greek >verse form to give to those
consulting the oracle.<
I would agree with Carl, and he makes some telling points in the rest of his
post. He has taken the total context of this verse into consideration.
I would also add that those who compare tongues in I Cor. 14 with Acts 2 need
to take into account the context of Acts 2. It is clear in Acts 2 that Luke
is presenting what happend there as a miracle of language and thus uses the
word DIALECTOS. Those who heard, heard in their own native language without
the need of an interpreter. This a miracle of language and tho it did
involve some ecstasy (a very good word from a psychological perspective),
they were thought by some to be drunk, Luke presents it clearly as a
miraculous short cut to the Berlitz Schule.
Compare that to I Cor. 14 where Paul clearly says that no one understands the
dissociative babel of the tongues speakers without a divinely gifted
interpreter. Clearly we are dealing with two different things. C. Stendahl
wrote an article included in a collections of essays on speaking in tongues
(the title excapes me now) in which he accused Luke of transforming tongues
speaking into a miracle of language. In my mind, Luke really thought a
miracle of language had happened to overcome one of the first obstacles to
the gospel, language. He considers it a miracle as he does with the healing
account at the beginning of chapter 3 that got a hearing for the gospel in
the temple.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. NT & Greek
LA College, Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 12:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:14
The term ecstatic is perfect here, Ken. After all what is being spoken
of regardless of how one understand the GLWSS- here is control by the
Spirit of human speech/prayer. So ecstatic is reasonable.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 14:56:24 -0500
Subject: Lk 11:8 Whose ANAIDEIA?
I'd like to put to the list a question brought me this morning by a student
who said that the parable in Lk 11:5-8 was preached by a seminarian from a
local area seminary (which shall remain nameless to protect both the
innocent and the guilty) who argued that the ANAIDEIA in verse 11 refers
not to the "friend" who knocks repeatedly on a man's door in the middle of
the night when he claims that he and his children are abed to ask for a
loaf of bread, but rather to the housekeeper who doesn't want to come to
the door to share the loaf of bread. The relevant text is as follows:
LEGW hUMIN, EI KAI OU DWSEI AUTWi ANASTAS DIA TO EINAI FILON AUTOU,
DIA GE THN A N A I D E I A N A U T O U EGERQEIS DWSEI AUTWi hOSWN
XRHiZEI.
What was suggested was that the AUTOU in the marked text above refers to
the householder himself--it is the householder who is shameless rather than
his friend who's persistently knocks on his door.
To me this is a novel view and I don't really see anything in favor of it
in the context. Moreover it seems to me that "good" Greek should be using
hEAUTOU or hAUTOU in place of AUTOU to refer this pronoun to the subject of
its clause. However, I don't think Koine is always strict on this matter of
distinguishing the reflexive pronoun from the normal 3rd-person pronoun,
for which reason it seems to me that, although unlikely, the interpretation
offered above is plausible at least in terms of Greek grammar. Would anyone
like to play devil's advocate and argue that AUTOU in fact does refer to
the sleeper householder?
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: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 16:15:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Beginning Grammars
In a message dated 95-10-09 09:24:13 EDT, Larry Chouinard writes:
>I wonder if you could document an example of so-called "liberal
>scholarship's" dismissal of Dana and Mantey because they "stick with
>Scripture"? Personally, I have found some of your exegetical endeavors
>nothing more than a defense of your tradition with little interaction
>with competent Greek scholars who take an alternative position.
>
>Please show an example of how the use of extra-biblical Greek has
>distorted or twisted Scripture. Unless you are willing to demonstrate
>your accusations or document your evidence stop impugning the motives of
>others.
>
>BTW maybe you could change BibAnsMan to BibSeachingMan!
Many today want to look first at the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha and
other extant extra-biblical literature before seriously considering the
context. If you look at the papers produced by many theologians today, you
will find a lot of work in the extra-biblical field with less and less in the
context of Scripture itself.
Many of the more conservative tools that stick predominantly with
Scripture are being used less and less. I have not yet heard anyone besides
me quote A.T. Robertson for some time. And yet, he is probably the best
current authoritative source for Koine Greek. What about his Word Pictures
in the New Testament? What about his Grammar in the Light of Historical
Research? Is he too conservative? Does he limit himself too much to Koine
Greek and Scriptural usage? What about Trench's book, Synonyms of the New
Testament?
An example? I hear of them every day. When I read what many are
writing today, they spend the first half or more of their papers examining
extra-biblical occurrences and then touch on the context of Scripture to try
to prove that their interpretation is allowed. Instead, we ought to reverse
that process.
A predominant professor and a predominant seminary that even leans
somewhat toward the conservative side recently wrote a paper on STOICHEIA TOU
KOSMOU in Colossians 2:8. More than the first half of the paper dealt
exclusively with extra-biblical context, finding an occurrence in some
testament of Solomon referring to an angel of the signs of the zodiac.
Therefore, it was concluded that instead of the normal translation,
"elementary principles of the world," a better translation would be "angelic
beings of the world." Then, finally he goes to the context only to justify
his interpretation, not to let it rule.
I talked with him later, asking him to consider letting context rule in
interpretation. He couldn't believe that we both had the same teacher, Dr.
Robert Thomas and I came up with that conclusion. And yet, that is
exclusively what Dr. Thomas has taught and continues to teach. Only when he
sought to gain a doctorate degree from Aberdeen Scotland, Dr. Thomas told him
not to go, they'll mess you up. But if you have to go, don't go in the
gospels or you'll really get messed up. At least just go in the epistles.
He did just that. He was a student of I. Howard Marshall. And he came
back finding angels all over in every nuance of the epistles, including in
Colossians 2:8. This is all from an emphasis on extra-biblical research to
the sacrifice of context.
I also talked with a predominant theologian whom I challenged to let
context rule. He merely said, "If you show me where in history they did
that, I would tend to believe you." I responded, "What about the
reformation? What about Sola Scriptura?" But that wasn't good enough.
Just look at what liberal scholarship does with the gospels! Which part
do you want to throw out? Which passage receives the black marbles? This is
not a result of a reflection upon Scripture itself, because nothing in
Scripture indicates that any part of Scripture is less authoritative than any
other. Rather, this comes from their predominant emphasis on extra-biblical
documents and a desire to treat Scripture in the same manner. But Scripture
is not just another document. It is the inspired and inerrant Word of God.
I was included in a small closed conference with Dr. I. Howard Marshall.
For one and a half hours the 30-40 people there asked him any question they
wanted. And up to the very end, not one Bible verse was quoted and not one
verse reference was given. It was all philosophy, psychology, sociology,
experience, etc. I asked the first and only question that was asked which
referenced a Bible verse. Everybody else asked about where he thought the
world or church was moving today.
Later, I talked directly person to person with him, asking him why our
methodology doesn't match our theology. We say we believe in the Bible and
yet our methodology goes to all kinds of extra-biblical sources to judge,
justify, and prove the Bible for the sake of the eyes of our secular
audiences. I have heard many times, "We can't assume the Bible to be true.
We must prove it to be true, then we can use it." This philosophy doesn't
come from the Bible. Where does God say that we should prove the Bible is
true or that God exists before we use the Bible? The Bible starts out "In
the beginning God..." (Gen. 1:1) assuming God exists and says "The fool has
said in his heart there is no God..." (Psalm 14:1).
Jim McGuire
Professor at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
------------------------------
From: KBARRON@dscc.cc.tn.us
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 16:16:14 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Context Rule?
Jim (BibAnsMan) - what did Dr. Marshall say in response to your
question? I find it curious that you would be the only one to
ask a question involving what is central for all who are
Christian. I mean that as a criticism of the crowd with you,
not I. Howard Marshall!
When I was in seminary, I was taught CIE - Context Is Everything.
BUT that context extended further than the verse or passage in
question to include other usages of the word or phrase in other
parts of the Bible and outside the Bible. If I said that I had
doggedly come to the conclusion that, in the dog days of August,
it's a dog-eat-dog world, how would you figure out what I meant
by dog if the only previous definition you knew was four-legged
canine?
As far as authorities, Robertson and Trench had their day, but
they are seriously outdated (especially Trench). To beat the
drum for them is no better than a KJV-only fanatic hollering
and contending against all the modern versions, IMO.
Kevin Barron Dyersburg, TN kbarron@dscc.cc.tn.us
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <DGOWLER@micah.chowan.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 17:35:36 EST
Subject: Re: Beginning Grammars and "Context"
Jim McGuire wrote:
> A predominant professor and a predominant seminary that even leans
> somewhat toward the conservative side recently wrote a paper on STOICHEIA TOU
> KOSMOU in Colossians 2:8. More than the first half of the paper dealt
> exclusively with extra-biblical context, finding an occurrence in some
> testament of Solomon referring to an angel of the signs of the zodiac.
> Therefore, it was concluded that instead of the normal translation,
> "elementary principles of the world," a better translation would be "angelic
> beings of the world." Then, finally he goes to the context only to justify
> his interpretation, not to let it rule.
> I talked with him later, asking him to consider letting context rule in
> interpretation.
> . . . . a student of I. Howard Marshall. And he came
> back finding angels all over in every nuance of the epistles, including in
> Colossians 2:8. This is all from an emphasis on extra-biblical research to
> the sacrifice of context.
> I also talked with a predominant theologian whom I challenged to let
> context rule . . . .
First, I agree that we should examine the narrative contexts
first. Does that make you a firm believer in literary criticism?
Second, I wonder how we arrive at "meanings" of words in
the NT without a deep appreciation of the semantic domains
involved in those usages -- especially with hapax l.
Third, I wonder how I would have interpreted "predominant"
above, without the knowledge from other texts that "prominent"
probably is the word that ordinarily the context would suggest.
Fourth, I would suggest reading works like M. Bakhtin's *The
Dialogic Imagination* so that you can better understand how
language itself works and the intricacies of heteroglossia.
Fifth, I agree that "parallelomania" should be avoided
whenever possible.
Sixth, I must admit that I find I. H. Marshall to be much too
conservative -- in light of the evidence *given by the NT itself*
- -- so my frame of reference does not seem to overlap yours very
much.
David
********************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Director, Writing Across the Curriculum
Chowan College
dgowler@micah.chowan.edu
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #898
*****************************
** 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