[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #916
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 18 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 916
In this issue:
A.T. Robertson
Re: Response to BibAnsMan
Re: Granville-Sharp Rule
Re: 1 Cor. 1:5-7
Porter on the present
AT Robertson & "Liberal" Grammars
A.T.Robertson, additional
Re: Porter on the present
Re: A.T. Robertson
Re: Pt 2: why Q fails the test
email Greek credit course ???
ioudias-l info?
re: contacting GRAMCORD & question about WWW site
Secret Mark
Re: Eph. 4:9 , A.T. Robertson & Blass-Debrunner-Funk
Re: Porter on the present
GRAMCORD/acCordance update
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 20:15:05 -0400
Subject: A.T. Robertson
I want to say unaquivocally that I stand in awe of what A.T. Robertson
accomplished without a computer and without many of the tools that we have
today. He was a tenatious researcher who explored the Greek world far beyond
the NT. His work is dated today, but I still use the massive indexes to
explore his work cumbersome tho it is. H.E. Dana was way ahead of his time
in NT research. He did a sophisticated form critical study of John in the
little book, The Ephesian Tradition, in which he came to the same conclusions
found in C.H. Dodd's Historical Tradition in John's Gospel, and this was in
1940. Dodd's book came out I think in 1960. I have in my possession 1400
pages of notes Dana wrote (typed) on Apostolic history intending to publish
them. The latest notes were typed in 1946 and anticipate many of the
questions discussed a generation later concerning using Acts as a secondary
source and Paul as primary. He questioned whether Galatians should be dated
before the conference in Acts 15 or later with Romans. There is some great
tradition in these two giants, but modern linquistics has moved on.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. NT & Greek
LA College, Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 21:32:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Response to BibAnsMan
In a message dated 95-10-09 20:26:17 EDT, Cal Redmond writes:
<<<<<<<<Jim McGuire's message of October 8, "Beginning Grammars," written as
a
response to Larry Chouinard, seemed to confuse a number of issues. Perhaps
it
will be possible to make the issues more explicit and then if we must,
acknowledge our points of disagreement.
Concerning the use of extra-biblical material, Prof. McGuire seems to
assume that A. T. Robertson did not utilize extra-biblical material in
understanding the syntax of Koine Greek.>>>>>>>>>
It seems that I spend more time defending my previous responses than I do in
responding with first responses. I in no way implied that A.T. Robertson did
not use extra-biblical evidence! Of course he used them! But his first line
of defense was not to go to these documents, but rather the Bible for
context.
Furthermore, if you are a doctorate candidate you should well be aware of the
tendency today to denigrate A.T. Robertson's works because they are "too
conservative" in this regard. Many liberal theologians will find some other
speculative works more exciting.
Jim McGuire
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
------------------------------
From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 08:55:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Granville-Sharp Rule
I have a question.
Are there many exceptions to the Granville-Sharp rule in the New Testament
Greek? Dana and Mantey include this rule on p. 147 under The Special Uses of
the Article as follows:
(1) With Nouns Connected by KAI. The following rule by Granville Sharp of a
century back still proves to be true: "When the copulative KAI connects two
nouns of the same case, if the article HO or any of its cases precedes the
first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second
noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is
expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e., it denotes a
farther description of the first-named person."
Examples I have used in my classes are Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 2:20. This
is often used to show Jesus to be God. It seems very clear in these passages
that this is the case. There are those who oppose it, however, because they
do not want to see Jesus as God. Someone once said that there are many
exceptions to the Granville Sharp rule in the N.T. I asked for an example
and he was not able to give one. He said he would E-Mail me a list but that
was months ago, and .... no list.
Jim McGuire
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:51:47 CST
Subject: Re: 1 Cor. 1:5-7
On Wed, 11 Oct 1995, David Moore wrote:
> Unmentioned, but, IMHO, present in most open discussions of the
>topic of the gifts of the Spirit is the fairly-widely-held cessationist
>position which posits that legitimate charismatic gifts ceased to function
>at the end of the apostolic period. I've traced the idea back as far as
>Calvin (although Eusebius and some others might have expressed at least a
>similar attitude) who had been negatively impressed by some of the
>doctrines and practices of the Montanists, although they predate him by
>several centuries.
Carroll Osburn, in a lecture entitled "That which is perfect" given at Abilene
Christian College (now University) in 1976, noted cessationist quotations from
Hegemonius in the fourth century (quoted from C.H. Beeson, _Hegemonius: Acta
Archelai_ in GCS (1906), XVI, p. 60) and John Chrysostom in the early fifth
(in _Homiliae in I Epistles ad Corinthios_ 13:8). For quotations and
references see:
Osburn, Carroll D. 1976. That which is perfect, 138-171. In "Freedom in
Christ": the Abilene Christian College Annual Bible Lectures. Abilene, TX:
Abilene Christian College Book Store.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Mari Olsen <molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 10:30:46 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Porter on the present
Ken Litwak questioned the value of Porter's seminal investigations
into Greek aspect, especially of the "historical present" form, when
the resulting translations appeared not to differ. In my opinion as a
theoretical linguist, Porter's contribution is to recognize that the
present form does not, in fact, encode present "tense". According to
this view, the "historical present" is expected: if a form is not
marked for tense, it may be used equally felicitously to refer to a
past situation. Under a tense analysis of this form, a careful
account would need to explain why the apparent meaning of the account
fails to apply in certain contexts. This has certainly been done
anecdotally, in labelling the term the "historical present", but a
label does not an account make.
As for the equivalent translations, they may be explained by the fact
that the English present is not a tense either, and so may also be
used in a past narrative setting. The equivalences hold (in many
contexts, not all), irrespective of the label given the Greek forms.
Mari Broman Olsen
Northwestern University
Department of Linguistics
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208
molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
molsen@babel.ling.nwu.edu
------------------------------
From: "Calvin D. Redmond" <102630.1150@compuserve.com>
Date: 18 Oct 95 11:46:17 EDT
Subject: AT Robertson & "Liberal" Grammars
Jim McGuire wrote in reference to remarks of last week,,
<Furthermore, if you are a doctorate (sic) candidate you should well be <aware
of the tendency today to denigrate A.T. Robertson's works because <they are "too
conservative" in this regard. Many liberal theologians <will find some other
speculative works more exciting.
I have studied Greek at three different seminaries (Western Conservative
Baptist, which is very conservative; Princeton, which represents "mainstream"
scholarship; and at Southern, which is moderately conservative). I have NEVER
heard Robertson denigrated for any reason, let alone because it is "too
conservative." At all three institutions, Robertson's accomplishments were
recognized. The reasons his work is not as widely used as in the early and
mid-century relate to its organization, its 8-case system, new manuscript
discoveries, and changes in the paradigm of linguistics. At Princeton, his
categories of conditional sentences were still used and explicitly referenced by
"mainstream" scholars to teach students.
I am puzzled by the charge that "Many liberal theologians will find some other
speculative works more exciting." In my experience, the differences between
conservatives, moderates, and liberals stem not from grammar but from underlying
assumptions concerning the authority of the text. I do not perceive Greek
grammars as being "liberal" or "conservative," but instead as being either
accurate or inaccurate in their presentation of the language, and either
effective or ineffective in teaching Greek. I have also found that some
"liberals" are very sound in their knowledge of Greek! For example, as much as
I disagree with many of the conclusions of Bultmann, I have seen from reading
his commentaries on John and 2 Corinthians that his knowledge of the Greek
language was excellent. I also found the Greek language instruction more
rigorous at Princeton than the other two, more conservative seminaries I have
attended.
It might be surprising to some that in Robertson's later writings, he espoused a
view of authority that some have argued comes much closer to "authoritative in
matters of faith and practice" than to the contemporary definition of
"inerrancy." (See essays on this topic in Robeson B. James, ed., The Unfettered
Word (Waco, TX: Word, 1987). I have not studied this with sufficient attention
to form an opinion.
I have not encountered a "speculative" grammar. The speculation and (sometimes)
undue influence from extra-biblical sources usually comes after the process of
translation in the exegetical and hermeneutical process. It seems to me that if
one finds words like gnosis and plhroma common to both the New Testament and
Gnosticism, it is not wrong ask whether there is a relationship between the two.
(If there is a relationship, I believe that Gnosticism "borrowed from" the NT.)
Similarly, if one finds that Paul uses Stoic expressions, the study of Stoicism
might be helpful to understanding Paul.
Finally, I have become much more careful about using terms like "liberal,"
"moderate," "conservative," and "fundamentalist" than I was 15 years ago. These
are all relative terms; Western Conservative Baptist Seminary would look at
Southern and perhaps say it is "liberal" in comparison to its own views;
similarly, Princeton Seminary considered itself conservative in comparison to
Yale and Chicago.
Cal Redmond
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
102630.1150@compuserve.com
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 12:07:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: A.T.Robertson, additional
May I add a warm second to Carlton Winbery's excellent posting on
A. T. Robertson? Like him, I hold Robertson's work in the highest esteem,
As a graduate student, I scrimped and saved to buy his great Grammar,
together with the two volumes of Moulton then out (I had to wait till
Germany recovered enough from the War to reprint Debrunner, whereupon my
wife-to-be gave it to me as my engagement gift!). The main problem with
Robertson, as Carlton wrote, in not its defects, but its age. We have
continued to learn about ancient Greek, and about language in general as
well. I still consult Robertson, as Carlton says he does. It rests just
two feet from the end of my hand as I sit here in my study and write this--
a closeness reserved for very few books.
It is very distressing to read the frequent flames against "liberals"
and their views on Greek grammar, which are always misrepresented. I am
sure that I would be categorized as a "liberal" in my scholarship, meaning
that I do not hold any part of the Bible as beyond the critical use of
reason and of the best tools available for studying other history and
literature.
(I happen also to regard myself as quite "evangelical" in my high
regard for the Bible, and rather "Catholic" in my Nicene-
Chalcedonian theology, and Protestant in my rejection of the
claims of one bishop to head the world-wide Church. In other
words, I am revealing myself to be an Anglican!--And that really
isn't a synonym for wishy-washy.)
But I hold many devout conservatives' work in very high regard -- Robertson
(Baptist), Moulton (Anglican), and Zerwick (Roman Catholic), for example.
It even happens that I share Carlton Winbery's appreciation of H. E. Dana
(though I haven't seen the wonderful MSS. he has), but I am not an admirer
of the work of Dana's 1927 co-author, Julius Mantey. In every case, the
theological position of the grammarian is not an issue for me, unless the
grammarian himself intrudes it into his work.
We happen to have a number of really good grammarians on this List,
such as Edgar Krentz, Carl Conrad, Carlton Winbery, Bill Mounce, Micheal
Palmer, James Tauber, and Philip Graber (the last two--unbelievably--still
students!). I am aware of the denominational connection of only two of
them, and the only one whose theology is known to me is Edgar Krentz,
simply because he has published enough in New Testament (i.e., I have read
enough of his work) for me to have this (probable) knowledge of his views.
The religious and theological positions of the rest are irrelevant to my
appreciation of their contributions.
Please, no more flames.
Edward C. Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 10:59:40 +0800
Subject: Re: Porter on the present
> Ken Litwak questioned the value of Porter's seminal investigations
> into Greek aspect, especially of the "historical present" form, when
> the resulting translations appeared not to differ. In my opinion as a
Actually, maybe I did not express myself clearly enough. I'm not
challenging Porter. I'm having trouble understanding his point when he comes
out with the same translation that a "historical present" would, i.e.,
given the translation both use the English past, how would I explain to
someone else the difference in _meaning_, as opposed to wording, in such a
case? Thanks.
Ken Litwak
> theoretical linguist, Porter's contribution is to recognize that the
> present form does not, in fact, encode present "tense". According to
> this view, the "historical present" is expected: if a form is not
> marked for tense, it may be used equally felicitously to refer to a
> past situation. Under a tense analysis of this form, a careful
> account would need to explain why the apparent meaning of the account
> fails to apply in certain contexts. This has certainly been done
> anecdotally, in labelling the term the "historical present", but a
> label does not an account make.
>
> As for the equivalent translations, they may be explained by the fact
> that the English present is not a tense either, and so may also be
> used in a past narrative setting. The equivalences hold (in many
> contexts, not all), irrespective of the label given the Greek forms.
>
> Mari Broman Olsen
> Northwestern University
> Department of Linguistics
> 2016 Sheridan Road
> Evanston, IL 60208
>
> molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
> molsen@babel.ling.nwu.edu
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:37:01 -0400
Subject: Re: A.T. Robertson
I posted this post more than ten days ago. I do not know where it has been
all this time. Sorry for any confusion.
Carlton Winbery
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:37:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Pt 2: why Q fails the test
Perry Stepp wrote,
>We *could* hypothesize that Q was actually a much larger >document than just
the non-Markan shared material. Perhaps >it was a large as (or larger than)
canonical Mk, with a passion >and resurrection narrative--that would at least
explain the >minor agreements. We could even hypothesize that Q is the
>source of the extra-gospel *logia*. All would be just as >logical and
plausible as the current Q consensus, if we may >even speak of such an
animal.<
If you are talking like the wind, it may be a logical, but if you are looking
to the text for evidence Q makes good sense. The basic reason (and I repeat)
that I think the Q hypothesis makes sense is that when I translate Matthew
and Luke side by side pericope by pericope, it makes sense. No one can say
how long, how many documents, or even whether oral or written (I suspect both
with at least 72 verses in Mt being in written form) because the evidence in
the text is insufficient. But one thing is clear to me. The evidence is
sufficient to merit serious consideration of some comon source(s) behind Mt &
Lk beside Mark. The only thing left to do by Perry is to examine the text of
both point by point. If he has done that then the only thing left to do is
agree that we disagree and drop it.
Carlton Winbery
------------------------------
From: Karl_Schulte-CKS005@email.mot.com
Date: 18 Oct 95 14:47:01 -0500
Subject: email Greek credit course ???
Dear Fellow (Sister) Listers,
I wonder if there is a way to obtain Col. credit for net learning of Greek,
history, etc. at reasonable (i.e. cheap) cost. I've sent an inquiry to
Trinity Col, but have heard some disputes in BAR about their recognition
status. I want to learn for its own sake, but also want to add enough "PC"
credits to my regular transcript to eliminate resident requirements as far
as possible. Have full time job and a house, family, and tw kids in col. to
support; at 51, alternative learning is a must.
Any advice will be welcome.
Karl
Schulte-CKS005 Karl@email.mot.com
------------------------------
From: Lozada <alozada@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:43:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: ioudias-l info?
I am a new-comer.
What is IOUDAIOS-L? (referred to in Perry Stepp's posts )
A mailing list dealing w/ criticism issues?
Please e-mail info, or post info to this mailing list.
Thank you.
Alex Lozada
alozada@suffolk.lib.ny.us
------------------------------
From: "Paul A. Miller" <pmiller@gramcord.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 13:22:31 -0700
Subject: re: contacting GRAMCORD & question about WWW site
In response to a number of recent questions on B-Greek concerning The
GRAMCORD Institute:
1) The Institute's phone number area code has changed: (360) 576-3000. If
your local telephone PBX or long-distance provider does not yet support the
new "360" area code, please contact the appropriate party. Our fax number is
unchanged at (503) 761-0626. Mailing address: The GRAMCORD Institute, 2218
NE Brookview Dr., Vancouver, WA 98686.
2) Dr. Decker observed that we now have our own registered Internet domain
name and that our address seemed to suggest a WWW site. At present we have
only announced our address for e-mail purposes (pmiller@GRAMCORD.org) but we
soon hope to announce our new GRAMCORD Institute WWW homepage. It will
provide a number of free resources of interest to Biblical scholars. I will
post an announcement to B-Greek when the Institute site is ready.
[Incidentally, some people have looked for us on the Internet under the
domain name "GRAMCORD.com" and were unable to find us because as an academic
non-profit organization we were assigned the ".org" designation rather than
the ".com" designation reserved for commercial enterprises. Thus, we are
GRAMCORD.org]
3) As Mr. Rising observed, we have FAQ's available to Internet inquirers. To
help us efficiently process requests for information, please specify IBM or
Macintosh when contacting us.
4) To those who have asked for more information concerning the GRAMCORD
search engine, we would be happy to mail you additional literature. We
actually have three different GRAMCORD's for the Greek New Testament:
Macintosh, IBM DOS, and IBM Windows (shipping shortly). B-Greek participants
may request a free demo disk of our acCordance/GRAMCORD for the Mac system
but we have not yet released a demo version of the new GRAMCORD FOR WINDOWS
system.
5) In view of some of the recent discussions concerning Bible search
programs, all original language Bible software users would do well to read
the excellent paper which Harry Hahne presented at last year's Evangelical
Theological Conference entitled "Interpretive Implications of Using
Bible-Search Software for New Testament Grammatical Analysis." It is
available on the Internet at:
http://www.peinet.pe.ca:2080/Chorus/Hahne/ntgram.html
*************************************************************
Prof. Paul A. Miller (Email: pmiller@GRAMCORD.org)
The GRAMCORD Institute
2218 NE Brookview Dr., Vancouver, WA 98686, U.S.A.
Voice (360)576-3000; FAX (503)761-0626
Computer-Assisted Biblical Language Research (IBM & MAC)
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
Prof. Paul A. Miller (Email: pmiller@GRAMCORD.org)
The GRAMCORD Institute
2218 NE Brookview Dr., Vancouver, WA 98686, U.S.A.
Voice (360)576-3000; FAX (503)761-0626
Computer-Assisted Biblical Language Research (IBM & MAC)
*************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 16:29:49 EDT
Subject: Secret Mark
Thanks to a suggestion from a lurker on this list, I've been reading
through Helmut Koester's work ANCIENT CHRISTIAN GOSPELS. On his
discussion of Mark, he takes Morton Smith's Secret Mark quite seriously,
but I dimly recall a discussion on this list that Secret Mark may well
be a forgery, but we just don't know in which century.
Can someone please recapitulate why Secret Mark may be spurious?
Speaking of Secret Mark, how credible is the suggestion of one of
my study bibles, The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV), that the
NEANISKOS of Mk14:51 could be Mark himself? Was it a practice for
anonymous authors to insert obscure self-references?
Furthermore, if that suggestion is true and if one takes the additional
step of identifying the NEANISKOS in 14:51 with the one in 16:5 (which
Koester rejects), could that explain the irony of 16:8 (KAI OUDENI OUDEN
EIPAN EFOBOUNTO GAR)?
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: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 17:11:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Eph. 4:9 , A.T. Robertson & Blass-Debrunner-Funk
"Calvin D. Redmond" <102630.1150@compuserve.com> wrote:
(snip)
> Nonetheless, I agree with my former comments that one's understanding of
>the context and prior theological convictions (as well as the tradition out of
>which one comes) will ultimately determine the interpretation of this passage.
> Also, to add to the discussion, one might consult two opposing articles
>from recent years of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS):
> -Wayne Grudem, "He Did Not Descend into Hell: A Plea for Following
>Scripture Instead of the Apostles' Creed," JETS 34 (March 1991," 103-113.
> -David Scaer, "He Did Descend to Hell: In Defense of the Apostles'
>Creed," JES 35 (March 1992), 91-99.
Thanks for the bibliographic entries on this matter. I'll have to
file them for future reference, since I don't have a complete theological
research library readily at hand.
Your comment about "prior theological convictions" prompted me to
remember having recited many times, as a youngster, a version of the
Apostolic creed that omitted the phrase "He descended into hell." This
strikes me as somewhat ironic in view of the interpretation I've suggested
on this verse (Eph. 4:9).
But relative to the context, there are some comments I would like
to make. Edgar Krentz pointed out that Phil. 2:10 and Rev. 20:3 support
the idea of an area under the earth. I don't think that the matter is so
much whether we can establish that there is such a place, physically
speaking, as Hades (although we could affirm that Christ was physically
beneath the earth at His burial). Rather, it is important to recognize
that the Apostle saw reality as hierarchically ordered with God at the top
and the unrighteous dead at the bottom.
Christ's dying the death of the unrighteous by crucifixion (Cf.
Deut. 21:23) situated him among the unrighteous dead (although not
unrighteous Himself). His situation with them in His death is an
important element of the apostolic kerygma from the the very first. If we
can take Luke's report of Peter's message at Pentecost as reflecting the
substance of his preaching on that occasion, we find that both the Lord's
descent into "Hades" and His exaltation to the right hand of God are key
matters in Peter's proclamation (Acts 2:31-36). Peter also seems to find
it significant that these two extremes are united in the person of Christ
(v. 36).
This same theme of the low and the high united in Christ is also
prominent in Paul's other epistles. Paul often explained his theology of
man's salvation in terms of union with Christ in His death, as we find in
Rom. 6:3 and 4 where Paul refers to baptism as a being buried together
with Christ in order to share, through Him, in God's glory. Eph. 2:4-6
develops this union with Him through His death to include a place with
Christ in the EPOURANIOIS in Him.
Some of the other passages in Paul that touch on the theme of
Christ's humiliation into the unrighteous death on the cross and His
exaltation above all the heavens are the following:
(1) Phil. 2:5-11 where not only the incarnation is contemplated as
constituting Christ's descent, but His death - even death on the cross -
is the climactic final step downward before His exaltation which amounts
to EXARISATO AUTWi TO ONOMA TO hUPER PAN ONOMA; and the extent of His
dominion is then expressed so as to indicate from the highest heavens to
the lowest hell, He is acknowledged as Lord to the glory of God the Father.
(2) Verses 19 and 20 of Colossians 1:15-20 indicate that Christ's ability
to reconcile all things in heaven and earth have to do with His
humiliation and death on the cross and His exalted position above all
the created order (vv. 15-17) and that both of these are united in Him in
one person.
(3) In Rom. 8:33-39, the reason for the believer in Christ's security is
that Christ has victory in everything from the depths of death to the
highest heaven (v. 34). It is because of this that Paul can say "Neither
death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to
come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all
creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus
our Lord."
The Epistle to the Ephesians itself shows a theology of salvation
grounded in the humiliation of Christ into death by the cross and His
exaltation above the heavens. Ephesians 2:4-6, as mentioned above, draws
on this concept indicating that we, being dead in sins, find our union
with Him through His death. And in 1:18-23 it is Christ's span of
experience and victory from death to the highest glory that provides the
basis for the church's victory over all.
Since the unity that Paul is discussing in Eph. 4:1-16 is
essentially the unity of those things brought together in Christ, isn't it
logical to suppose that v. 9 includes a reference to the death by which
this is accomplished. When, in v. 10, Paul says that Christ descended and
ascended "so that he might fill all things," don't these other passages,
discussed above, touching on the same theme, indicate Paul would have in
mind all things from the realm of the dead to the very realm of God.
Doesn't the superlative "far above all the heavens" imply that the
reference to Christ's descent should also include the superlative idea of
"beneath the earth" whether we understand that in the physical sense of
"burial" or in the hierarchical sense of beneath all the living.
Carl Conrad and Edgar Krentz's emphasize an interpretation of this
passage according to Pagan world view. But we also find the concept of
various levels of the heavens current in later Jewish writings both before
and after the time of Christ (Tasker, _2 Cor._, p. 171; Barrett, _2 Cor._,
pp. 309-10), so this might appear in Paul's work as an influence from
Jewish rather than Pagan sources. It is a form of expression not at all
foreign to Paul (Cf. 2Cor. 12:2). It is obvious that Paul sometimes
couches his teachings in language that is familiar to his hearers -
sometimes even language used by his opponents. But I find no direct
indication of that here. IMO, Eph. 4:9 is cut from the same cloth as
references to the humiliation and exaltation of Christ that we find in
Paul's other writings, so I think it should be interpreted in light of the
latter.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: Mari Olsen <molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:30:51 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Porter on the present
>
> > Ken Litwak questioned the value of Porter's seminal investigations
> > into Greek aspect, especially of the "historical present" form, when
> > the resulting translations appeared not to differ. In my opinion as a
>
> Actually, maybe I did not express myself clearly enough. I'm not
> challenging Porter. I'm having trouble understanding his point when he comes
> out with the same translation that a "historical present" would, i.e.,
> given the translation both use the English past, how would I explain to
> someone else the difference in _meaning_, as opposed to wording, in such a
> case? Thanks.
I guess that's my point--also, apparently, not too clear--there IS no
difference in meaning that may be reflected in an English translation,
since the two forms (in the case you mentioned) are equivalent. THe
theory is just cleaned up, so that what we THOUGHT was English and
Greek 'tense' is not. The longer answer is that the Greek present is
marked for imperfective aspect (not tense), and the English present is
unmarked for both tense and aspect. The English form may therefore,
by pragmatic implicature (e.g. in the context you mentioned) take on
the imperfective meaning, namely focus on a situation as it is
unfolding in time (rather than the perfective focus on a complete(d)
situation). In other words, to understand what the Greek present means, you
need to look at what imperfective aspect is, rather than what the
English translation is in a particular case.
Mari Broman Olsen
Northwestern University
Department of Linguistics
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208
molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
molsen@babel.ling.nwu.edu
------------------------------
From: "Rex A. Koivisto" <rexk@teleport.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:55:23 -0700
Subject: GRAMCORD/acCordance update
Since some have expressed some questions in the past few weeks about the
GRAMCORD Institute, Paul Miller of the Institute asked me to pass on to
b-Greek some further information that they may wish to peruse. This is in
connection with the GRAMCORD database as it is used with the acCordance
search engine for the Macintosh. Listmembers may find this of interest.
- --------------------------------attachment----------------------------------
>re: GRAMCORD search engine
>
>Regarding the questions concerning the GRAMCORD search engine, Macintosh
>users would be especially interested in Dr. Alexander DiLella's article
>concerning acCordance/GRAMCORD FOR THE MAC which recently appeared in Old
>Testament Abstracts (180. Volume 18, 1995). Also, a review is about to
>appear in Currents in Theology and Mission. The article was written by
>B-Greek participant Dr. Edgar Krentz, Professor at Lutheran School of
>Theology at Chicago.
>*************************************************************
>Prof. Paul A. Miller (Email: pmiller@GRAMCORD.org)
>The GRAMCORD Institute
>2218 NE Brookview Dr., Vancouver, WA 98686, U.S.A.
> Voice (360)576-3000; FAX (503)761-0626
>Computer-Assisted Biblical Language Research (IBM & MAC)
>*************************************************************
>
*********************************************
Rex A. Koivisto Email: rexk@teleport.com
Dept. of Bible and Theology Voice: 503/255-0332x415
Multnomah Bible College, Portland, OR FAX: 503/254-1268
*********************************************
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #916
*****************************
** 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