[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #906
b-greek-digest Thursday, 12 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 906
In this issue:
Re: A.T.Robertson & Extra-NT Greek
Re: Logos Tech Support Rates "F"
Re: 1Cor. 14:14
Re: Used books - the list, finally
Scrivener's Greek Text
Re: dokimazw in Romans 12:2?
Re: Q. on Metzger and Wikgren
Re: Husband of One Wife
Fw: Re: Scrivener's Greek Text
Scrivener's Greek Text
Re: Romans 4:7-8
Re: Scrivener's Greek Text
Re: 1 Cor. 1:5-7
Re: Romans 3:19-20
Corrected posting: Scrivener's text
Re: 1 Cor. 1:5-7
John 18:4
SUMMARY RE: BOOKS ON THE S
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" <mauros@iol.ie>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:10:44 +0100
Subject: Re: A.T.Robertson & Extra-NT Greek
On Wed, 11 Oct 1995 21:59:13 -0400
BibAnsMan@aol.com
on the subject: Re: A.T.Robertson & Extra-NT Greek
wrote:
>In a message dated 95-10-11 07:32:47 EDT, Maurice A. O'Sullivan writes:
>>On Tue, 10 Oct 1995 14:47:28 -0400
>on the subject: Re: A.T.Robertson & Extra-NT Greek
>>
>>BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
>
>> I merely said that it was not the FIRST line of defense. <
>>
>>Defense?
>>
>>Defense against what, or whom?
>ANSWER: Have you heard of Jude 3 or 1 Peter 3:15 ??
>Jim McGuire
You ask: >> Have you heard <<
Not much sign there of the "gentleness" recommended in 1 P. 3:15.
Would it really be too much to ask that a minimum level of courtesy prevail
on this list, which might well include the charitable assumption that a
contributor to a list titled B-GREEK might actually have a Bible, let alone
read it?
Is it possible that what I understood to be a difference about the use of
extra-biblical Greek sources has now been transformed into a " a defense to
any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you"?
If so, perhaps some hesitation in equating the text with yourself might be
in order here?
Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]
mauros@iol.ie
[using Eudora Pro v 2.1.2 ]
------------------------------
From: Prchr@aol.com
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 08:47:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Logos Tech Support Rates "F"
In a message dated 95-10-09 12:43:46 EDT, you write:
>Subj: Re: Logos Tech Support Rates "F"
>Date: 95-10-09 12:43:46 EDT
>From: rheskett@epas.utoronto.ca (Randy Heskett)
>To: Prchr@aol.com
>
>First, it would help if you identified yourself. Second, what import has
>the Scrivener's text to biblical criticism. Thirdly, several months is
>not a reasonable amount of time to wait for a reply when their product is
>flawed.
>
>
>_____________________________________________________________________________
_
>Randall Heskett
>E-Mail: rheskett@epas.utoronto.ca
>Emmanuel College, Toronto School of Theology, University of Toronto
>
>How didt my plea for keeping things in persepective offend you so gravely.
I am glad you are not my teacher. Is it required to be pompous to be on
these academic mail lists? The charge of being "unchristian" in tone had
been levied against someone because of the complaint against Logos. To
complain about bad support is one thing. To start an war over attitudes
because of complaints is another. I have watched such comments cause
discussion to degenerate to a cat fight.
Though it is not germane to the discussion, my name is Kirk DiVietro. I did
not realize that AOL did not carry my ID to the discussion list. I am sorry
that that offended you.
Finally, Scrivener's text is the greek text of the King James Bible. The
value to textual criticism is irrelevent to this discussion. I realize that
it is probably worth nought to most contributors to the list. When I
produced it, I felt that those who regularly use the KJV ought to have access
to the text of their Bible. I have no desire to set off a thread on the
superiority/inferiority of the various texts.
Someone had maligned Logos. I cited my contribution to Logos and my
relationship to the company only to verify my ability to speak with
reasonable credibility to the subject being discussed. I am sorry I
offended you.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Pastor Kirk D. DiVietro
Grace Baptist Church
Franklin, MA
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:09:32 -0400
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:14
Ken Litwak wrote;
>I was responding to what I perceived
>as an emphasis on its "ecstatic" quality, which however it's
>defined, makes little difference for Paul's meaning.
>Either way, the speech is from God, whether prophecy or
>tongues. Either way, it is God's Spirit speaking though the
>individual, without the individual coming up with the words
>themselves. So that is not the contrast that Paul is
>making, is it?<
The difference it makes is that it helps distinguish the miracle of human
speech in Acts2 from the ecstatic experience described in I Cor. 14. Also, I
would disagree with your assessment of the Cybil in the Delphic oracles. I
am convinced that the experience of tongues among the early Christians was
not radically different in kind from the experience in most religions of that
time.
Carlton Winbery
La. College
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:31:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Used books - the list, finally
At 10:05 PM 11/10/95, BibAnsMan@aol.com wrote:
>Here's some resources for out of print books and used books that I have....
>
>Archives Bookstore, CA 818/797-4756
>Baker's Book House 616/957-3110, 1-800-877-2665
>Browsers Bookstore, CA 714/949-0101
>Kregal Used Books 616/459-9444
>Erdman's 1-800-253-7521
>McCoy's Christian Supply
>Steels, Davenport
>Tyndale 312/668-8300
>Zondervan Corp. 1-800-727-1309
Two other sources
Dove Booksellers
30633 Schoolcraft Rd
Suite C
Livonia MI 48150
Ph: 313-522-7440
In addition to a used book/search service Dove has a large academic
catlogue (although their discounts are typically not as large as, say,
CBD). My experience with them has been uniformly good. (Well at least up
to this last order that I received last Friday; I ordered Vol 1 Ed 2 of
Koester's "History of the NT" and they sent me Vol2 Ed 1. Grrrrr.... But
other than that...)
Sigler Press
9 Sycamore Drive
Mifflintown PA 17059
Ph: 1-500-488-3903
Sigler doesn't handle used books, per se, but instead specialize in out of
print books (at used-book prices) and reprints. I've just placed my first
order with these folks (Kasemann's _Essays on NT Themes_, Dieter Betz
_Essays on Sermon on the Mount_, Vermes _Jesus the Jew_) so I can't say a
lot about them, but they seem to have an interesting catlogue.
Nichael - deep autumn my neighbor what does she do
nichael@sover.net
http://www.sover.net/~nichael
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:12:35 CST
Subject: Scrivener's Greek Text
On Thu, 12 Oct 1995, Kirk DiVietro wrote:
>Finally, Scrivener's text is the greek text of the King James Bible.
Obviously the KJV was not translated from Scrivener's text. But the KJV that
we use today is the result of a revision by Scrivener. Did Scrivener change
the textual base of the KJV to match his Greek text? Or was his production of
a Greek text an effort to produce the Greek text underlying the translation
after the fact, much like what was done with the NEB?
Surely Scrivener did not consider 1 John 5:7-8 as original? He was too good a
textual critic for that, even if he disagreed with Westcott & Hort.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 07:29:47 -0700
Subject: Re: dokimazw in Romans 12:2?
You wrote:
>
>I'm wrestling with the verb dokimazw in Romans 12:2. Most of the
>standard lexicons (BAGD, LS) indicate that this word means "to approve
>by testing" or "to examine and approve." For some reason I find it
>hard to fit this meaning into this verse. I observe that Louw-Nida
>[sec. 30.98] offers an alternative field of meaning s.v. "Think." To
>wit: "to regard something as being worthwhile or appropriate - 'to
>regard as worthwhile, to think of as appropriate.' " In light of this
>verb's use in Romans 1:28 this seems, IMHO, to be a preferable
>alternative.
>
>I'd like your comment on this.
>
>Also, I'm wondering how the august members of this list read the
>concatenated adjectives in Romans 12:2. Is the entire phrase in
>apposition to TO QELHMA, or is the second adjective in apposition to
>the first, the third in apposition to the second?
>
If David Moore, with all his wisdom and knowledge does not consider
himself "august", how would you categorize an uneducated housewife
such as I. Nonetheless, as this is one of my favorite passages, I
will venture to respond. (After all, how can one properly savor one's
own foot unless one opens his/her mouth?)
Dokimazw: to prove. Some friends of mine have applied for jobs
test driving 1996 automobiles. To qualify, they must have spotless
driving records. Then, they are to take these machines out into
the plains and/or up into the Rocky Mountains for 8 to 10 hours
a day totally putting them through their paces. A car may look
great on paper, or in computer simulations. It may perform well
in lab testing. But what counts is how it works with real people
in real situations. Likewise, I imagine God wants some "good drivers"
to get the gospel of Christ on the road and prove to all how well
it really works. (One of the contributors on this list includes
in his signature "Earth is a beta site." I like that.)
Concerning the other question, as David mentioned the single article
is a pretty clear indicator that the three words equally describe
will. I will further comment by saying that I have heard this passage
taught with the adjectives separated contrasted and compared, that
is, "good" vs. "acceptable/pleasing" vs. "perfect", with a whole
ensuing doctrine defining various levels of commitment with our
resulting behavior, as it were, graded on a curve. This doctrine
would have more likely arisen from the interpretation of English
connotations, rather than study of the Greek. After all, good is
okay, perfect is the best, and well pleasing must be somewhere in
the middle. Personally, I think this teaching belongs on the dunghill
with the savorless salt.
In Luke 18:19 Jesus says, "ti me legeis agaQon? oudeis agaQos ei
mh eis ho Qeos." Here, good is not descriptive of a relative value
but of the absolute virtue of God himself. Perfect, as we know,
describes that which is mature or complete. If indeed our behavior
is both virtuous and mature, then well-pleasing is descriptive of
its outward attribute, all these adjectives being equally descriptive
of the life that is fully committed to the will of God.
Just my thoughts.
Have a good one.
Ellen
------------------------------
From: Akulas@aol.com
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 10:58:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Q. on Metzger and Wikgren
Mr. Hobbs,
Thank you for the information. I make regular trips to the CTS library as it
is. I'll pick up that volume the next time I'm there.
My friends who push the "majority text" (whio are non-specialists like
myself) sometimes argue as if it's either that or Westcott-Hort; and so to
push their view they do a lot of WH bashing (which they inherited from
Burgon, I think). I've been in the habit of explaining that it is not
"majority text" vs "WH text", but "majority text" vs "eclectic text"--that
is, the exaltation one text type vs. the exaltation (in theory) of no text
type.
What do you think...is that too simplistic?
Tim Mize
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 10:25:39 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Husband of One Wife
For recent discussion of 1 Tim 3:2 and "husband of one wife", see Sydney
Page, "Marital Expectations of Church Leaders in the Pastoral Epistles,"
JSNT 50(1993), 105-20.
Larry Hurtado, religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 11:49:42 CST
Subject: Fw: Re: Scrivener's Greek Text
It looks like Stephen's answer to my question was addressed to the list, but
from the heading, it appears to have come only to me, so I am forwarding it to
the whole list. Thanks, Stephen.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
- -------------------------------Forwarded Message------------------------------
From: MX%"scc@reston.icl.com"
To: MX%"terry@bible.acu.edu"
CC:
Subj: Re: Scrivener's Greek Text
Return-Path: <iclink!reston.icl.com!scc@uu3.psi.com>
From: scc@reston.icl.com (Stephen Carlson)
Subject: Re: Scrivener's Greek Text
To: terry@bible.acu.edu (Bruce Terry)
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 95 11:38:34 EDT
Bruce Terry wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 1995, Kirk DiVietro wrote:
>
> >Finally, Scrivener's text is the greek text of the King James Bible.
>
> Obviously the KJV was not translated from Scrivener's text. But the KJV that
> we use today is the result of a revision by Scrivener. Did Scrivener change
> the textual base of the KJV to match his Greek text? Or was his production of
> a Greek text an effort to produce the Greek text underlying the translation
> after the fact, much like what was done with the NEB?
>
> Surely Scrivener did not consider 1 John 5:7-8 as original? He was too good a
> textual critic for that, even if he disagreed with Westcott & Hort.
My information on Scrivener's text comes from a 1992 essay written by
Dr. Maurice A. Robinson that was distributed with the Online Bible.
Scrivener's 1894 text is an after-the-fact reconstruction of the Greek
text behind the AV, chosing from among the variant readings of that day
the reading that most fits the AV's translation. He did not back-
translate from the Vulgate when the AV followed it (e.g., Jn10:16 MIA
POIMH vs. UNUM OVILE). The purpose of his text text is to better
illustrate the textual difference between the AV and the RSV (1881).
I looked at the Johannine Comma in the Online Bible's Scrivener's
Text, and it's in there.
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: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 13:12:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Scrivener's Greek Text
There seems to be some confusion about what Scrivener published. I own
a copy of the original printing of his text, 1881 (simultaneously with
Westcott and Hort's text). It is:
_The NEW TESTAMENT in the Original Greek, according to the Text
followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted
in the Rvised Version_.
In fact, it is Beza's edition of the textus receptus, printed
oddly: The readings adopted by the (English company) revisers are at the
bottom of each page, while the readings IN THE TEXT which were displaced
by the readings adopted by the Revisers are printed in boldface type.
He then gives an Appendix which lists the passages where the 1611 translators
did NOT follow Beza's text but instead translated readings from previous
editions of the TR (total number: 190 readings)--pp. 648-656.
Scrivener himself shifted from a pro-TR position, gradually, to
the point where he basically affirmed the text adopted by the Revisers
of 1881 (i.e, basicallyin the text of Westcott and Hort).
of 1881 (i.e, basicallyin the text of Westcott and Hort).
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:44:01 CST
Subject: Re: Romans 4:7-8
On Thu, 12 Oct 1995, James Clardy wrote:
>Suggested translation:
>
>7) Blessed (happy) are those whose lawless deeds were forgiven and whose
>sins were covered over.
>
>8) Blessed is the man whose sin the lord himself might not place to one's
>account.
>
>
>NOTE: I have AFEThHSAN as aorist passive indicative.
>
>COMMENT: Ernest Campbell, Romans, vol 1, p.132, indicates that the passive
>voice here makes it clear that a group of people "did nothing" to obtain the
>state of blessedness.
This is an overstatement of the grammatical function of the passive voice.
The passive merely indicates that the subject receives the action, i.e., is
semantically a patient, an undergoer, etc. It says nothing about whether the
subject deserves to receive the action.
Further, in the passage in question, "the lawless actions" (hAI ANOMIAI)
serves as subject, not the people, although conceptually I would have no
problem in shifting the semantic domain of AFEQHSAN to say that the people
were forgiven of their sins.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:54:14 CST
Subject: Re: Scrivener's Greek Text
Thanks, Edward, for the information on Scrivener's Greek Text. Once again, we
see the importance of using primary sources for our information.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 13:05:55 CST
Subject: Re: 1 Cor. 1:5-7
On Wed, 11 Oct 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>Bruce, we had a little thread back during the summer, I think, on the
>difference between KAINOS and NEOS. KAINOS means newly-created,
>newly-invented, unprecedented. I don't think that tongues new only to the
>speaker would count as KAINAI.
Carl, your post sent me to Trench (p. 206), where I find something similar:
"In like manner the phrase KAINAI GLWSSAI (Mark xvi.17) does not suggest the
recent commencement of this miraculous speaking with tongues, but *the
unlikeness of these tongues to any that went before* [emphasis mine--bt];
therefore called hETERAI GLWSSAI elsewhere (Acts ii.4), tongues unwonted and
different from any hitherto known.
Trench seems to agree with you as to the significance of KAINOS, but then to
say that these tongues were the same as on the day of Pentecost.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 14:16:33 CST
Subject: Re: Romans 3:19-20
On Thu, 5 Oct 1995, Jim McGuire wrote:
>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.
Actually this is an oversimplification of the use of the article, and to a
certain extent, not correct. For an excellent discussion of the article in
Greek discourse, see chapter 7 of
Levinsohn, Stephen H. 1992. Discourse features of New Testament Greek. Dallas:
SIL. (The cost is less than $10; a good buy)
Levinsohn points out that the Greek article marks the noun as "known" or
"particular." I would have used the term "specified" myself. Nouns without
the article are unmarked, i.e., they may be either definite or not; the
absence of the article does not say.
With people, articles are regularly used with non-nominative indeclinable
names. Otherwise, the article is often omitted on first mention (main
characters often have the article omitted the first two or three times they
are mentioned). Then the article is regularly used. This is like improper
nouns in English. An example is:
I went into *a* store the other day. *The* store was dirty. I went to *the*
manager of *the* store to complain.
Note that the first mention of *the* store does not use the definite article.
Once introduced, the definite article is used. Even the manager, a part of
the store, becomes definite and takes the article. Frame theory would say
that the whole frame of the store, including the manager, is brought into the
mind and thus becomes definite.
Levinsohn notes that with participants in a narrative, the article is again
omitted when the character is reintroduced, becomes more salient, or makes an
important speech. He does not discuss props in the narrative, but they follow
the same rule. Compare the narrative of Jesus at the wedding in John 2. Both
GAMOS (wedding) and hUDRIAI (waterpots) are first used without the article and
then with the article. Later, when the ARCITRIKLINOS (wedding coordinator :)
is introduced, the article is used, because (like in the English example with
store and manager above) he has been made definite by the introduction of the
GAMOS frame.
Levinsohn notes that QEOS usually takes the article. He says this is because
God is not particularly salient to the discussion. I disagree; I rather
imagine this is because, as Robertson notes in his big grammar (p. 768), the
article is often used with a noun that is the only one of it kind. The
example in John 1:1 that is often referred to lacks the article because of a
grammtical rule that says that articles are omitted on predicate nominatives
that begin clauses unless the subject is obvious (as with proper names and
demonstrative pronouns as subjects). All of the discourse about Colwell's
rule and the relation of the object to the copula is beside the point; the
grammatical rule at work in John 1:1 has to do with the order of the subject
and the predicate nominative.
Levinsohn also notes that abstract nouns lack the article. However, he does
note that when a topic is first introduced, it may have the article. Perhaps
this is what Jim was referring to above.
Note that there are different rules for participants and props in a narrative,
nouns that refer to something unique, and nouns that refer to topics. Neither
Levinsohn's chapter nor my summary of it above should be thought to be
exhaustive. There are many sub-rules that come into play in explaining the
presence or absence of an article in any given case.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 13:56:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Corrected posting: Scrivener's text
My previous posting of this message was somehow messed up in the process, so
I'm re-posting it, together with an additional comment (written after I saw the
re-posting by Bruce Terry of Stephen Carlson's post!).
There seems to be some confusion about what Scrivener published. I own
a copy of the original printing of his text, 1881 (simultaneously with
Westcott and Hort's text). It is:
_The NEW TESTAMENT in the Original Greek, according to the Text
followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted
in the Revised Version_.
In fact, it is Beza's 1598 edition of the Textus Receptus, printed
oddly: The readings adopted by the (English company) Revisers are at the
bottom of each page, while the readings IN THE TEXT which were displaced
by the readings adopted by the Revisers are printed in boldface type.
He then gives an Appendix which lists the passages where the 1611 translators
did NOT follow Beza's text but instead translated readings from previous
editions of the TR (total number: 190 readings)--pp. 648-656.
Scrivener himself shifted from a pro-TR position, gradually, to
the point where he basically affirmed the text adopted by the Revisers
of 1881 (i.e, in the main, the text of Westcott and Hort).
ADDITION: Scrivener did NOT reconstruct the Greek text used by the AV
translators (though for all practical purposes he had to). He published the
1598 edition of Beza. He then exhibited its differences from TWO different
translations' Vorlagen: (1) the differences from (his calculation of) the
Greek text actually followed by the 1611 translators, in an Appendix
(pp. 648-656), and (2) the differences from the Greek text followed by the 1881
Revisers, in footnotes on each page, signaled by bold type in the text where
such differences occur.
This is a bit complicated, which is no doubt where the minor
confusions arise.
Edward C. Hobbs
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 15:07:40 -0500
Subject: Re: 1 Cor. 1:5-7
At 2:05 PM 10/12/95, Bruce Terry wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Oct 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
>>Bruce, we had a little thread back during the summer, I think, on the
>>difference between KAINOS and NEOS. KAINOS means newly-created,
>>newly-invented, unprecedented. I don't think that tongues new only to the
>>speaker would count as KAINAI.
>
>Carl, your post sent me to Trench (p. 206), where I find something similar:
>
>"In like manner the phrase KAINAI GLWSSAI (Mark xvi.17) does not suggest the
>recent commencement of this miraculous speaking with tongues, but *the
>unlikeness of these tongues to any that went before* [emphasis mine--bt];
>therefore called hETERAI GLWSSAI elsewhere (Acts ii.4), tongues unwonted and
>different from any hitherto known.
>
>Trench seems to agree with you as to the significance of KAINOS, but then to
>say that these tongues were the same as on the day of Pentecost.
But why would he say that? In an effort to harmonize the passages about
"tongues" in different places in the NT? But the inconsistency is plain to
see.
Let me briefly restate a view that is not, I think, original with me, that
will seem to some to be over-rationalizing, but that is the only way I can
make sense of the narrative of Acts 2. I believe that Luke offers us in
Acts 2 a symbolic account of a historic--not historical but
historic--event. The event is the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the church
and Luke depicts it in grand colors on a broad canvas the way we like to
think of this event as happening on a specific day, the day of Pentecost.
John's gospel has the gift of the Spirit coming on the disciples in the
upper room on Easter evening. Matthew's gospel tells of a risen and
ascended Jesus' commission to the church on a mountaintop in Galilee and
declares his presence WITH those whom he addresses "to the end of the
Aion." In my view all three of these accounts are referring to the
self-same phenomenon, the coming of the Spirit on the church. Personally, I
don't see any need to choose between the three accounts as to which one is
more TRUE historically, because I believe the EVENT of the coming of the
Spirit is historical-but not actually one that can be pinpointed as taking
place at one and only one time and place--and that we have three different
stories told in the church about HOW the event took place.
Now, in Luke's Pentecost account we have tongues of fire swooping down and
resting on the assembled believers. This is a visual representation of what
I take to be a non-visible (but nonetheless real) happening. Fire is one of
the manifestations of the nearness of God in Jewish tradition (I don't
think I have to name instances, but I could). Luke's account of the baptism
of Jesus turned the "like a dove" of Mark into SWMATIKWi EIDEI hWS
PERISTERAN. I think he's doing the same sort of thing in Acts 2. As for the
tongues, the occasion of this discussion, it is said that there are
gathered in Jerusalem persons (he says JEWS, but does he really think that
there are Jews of every nationality?) of EVERY NATIONALITY IN THE WORLD.
Does anyone believe this to be LITERALLY true? We are told that, when the
voices speak, each one attests that he hears the mighty acts of God--the
gospel--being proclaimed in his own native tongue. I can't see this is
anything else but Luke's representation of the SIGNIFICANCE of the coming
of the Spirit: it reunifies the humanity that has been dispersed since the
time of the Tower of Babel, but it does this proleptically: it is not
something that happens in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost; rather it is a
drama that is to be actualized in the days and years ahead, but this is the
true meaning of the coming of the Spirit on believers, and the languages
that Luke has in mind are the real spoken languages of the nationalities of
the world. Now it may be that Luke has drawn upon the phenomenon of
glossolalia as a model for his dramatic narrative, but that's not to say
that the tongue-speaking in Acts 2 is really the same thing as the
tongue-speaking in 1 Cor 12-14 or in the longer ending of Mark.
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: "Calvin G. Lane " <LANE@oaks1.oakwood.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 15:40:37 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: John 18:4
Hello. In John 18:4 Jesus asks the mob that has come to arrest Him, "whom
SEEK ye?". The greek word for SEEK or TO SEEK is ZETEO (Strongs 2212). I
think that the actual word that was used is in the 2nd Person Plural, which
makes sense since He was addressing a large crowd. My only question is what
tense is the verb TO SEEK, in John 18:4? Is is present tense or some tense
that implies a continuous action? Please respond to my e-mail address since
I am not a member of b-greek at this time. Thank You.
Calvin G. Lane
Oakwood College
LANE@OAKWOOD.EDU
------------------------------
From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 95 15:37:46 -0600
Subject: SUMMARY RE: BOOKS ON THE S
As a "Q-agnostic", let me note the following:
1.) Synopses (even those as excellent as Aland's) are not without their biases.
For instance, if the person organizing the synopsis is convinced of Markan
priority, they will organize their synopsis according to that conviction. This
automatically lessens some of the phenomena that weigh for Matthean priority
(e.g. Luke's "scattering" of Matthean material.)
Thus the two-gospels group of the SBL encourages those who are interested in
weighing the two-gospel hypothesis to provisionally make their own synopses.
I have found the Eusebian canons (written assuming Matthean priority, so
there's your bias (*my* bias)) to be extremely helpful in this area. You have
to use them critically, but they have the advantage of covering more material
(and more finely sifted) than published synopses, even Aland's.
2.) William Farmer has just published an *excellent* summary of the two-gospel
hypothesis. This book (*The Gospel of Jesus*) is aimed at the popular market
(a broadside at the Jesus Seminar, to be sure.) But it is filled with reams of
valuable research, both historical and textual. There are things published
here that are simply not widely available anywhere else (e.g., an overview of
Augustine's views on the composition of the gospels, an overview of the
politics of German scholarship at the time of Bismark, etc.)
3.) This is especially important, so pardon me if I shout:
EVEN IF ONE ACCEPTS MARKAN PRIORITY, ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT THE
EXISTENCE OF Q.
Holtzmann (see Dr. Hobb's article in Perkins Journal), Austin Farrer, and
others down to Michael Goulder and E. P. Sanders today believe that Luke used
Mark and Matthew as his primary sources rather than Mark and Q. This has two
advantages over the two-source hypothesis. First, we don't have to make large
scale appeals to non-existent hypothetical documents. Second, it sufficiently
explains the minor agreements between Mt. and Lk. against Mark.
Anyway, I didn't mean to go off like that. Grace and peace,
Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #906
*****************************
** 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