[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #935
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 1 November 1995 Volume 01 : Number 935
In this issue:
Request
Error
LXX foundation and Anti-Missionaries
Re: question
Re: Periphrastic Aorist
Re: LXX foundation and Anti-Missionaries
Re: "Perfect"?
Re: "Perfect"?
Re: "Perfect"?
Re: "Perfect"?
Re: "Perfect"?
Perfect
Re: Rom. 7:14-25
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sross@ncinet.com
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 23:30:04 EST
Subject: Request
Please add me to your e-mailing list. I am a Greek student at
Multnomah Bible College, and would love the opportunity to interact as
much as possible with others studying this facinating language.
Thanks,
Steve Ross
------------------------------
From: DARINA PICHOVA <Darina.Pichova@vscht.cz>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 10:19:09 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Error
I am unsubscribed but the e-mails from the b-greek group are stil sent me.
Please, would you help me?
All my mails to Moajoromo-Owner are not accepted.
Thanks
- -----------------------------------------
| ing. Darina Pichova |
| VSCHT Praha, UPRT (445) |
| Technicka 5 |
| 166 28 Praha 6 Dejvice |
| tel. 2435 4170 |
| e-mail: Darina.Pichova@vscht.cz |
- -----------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date:
Subject: LXX foundation and Anti-Missionaries
Forwarded to: Internet[b-greek@virginia.edu]
cc:
Comments by: Eric Weiss@OSP@ACF.DAL
-------------------------- [Original Message] -------------------------
I read your question on B-GREEK re: Anti-Missionaries and the LXX and saw
that the only response you got was a remark about the Anti-Missionaries not
just having a negative focus and suggesting that Jews would not use the term
"Old Testament" but would rather call it "the Bible" (which is probably true
since it's not "old" to them). It did not answer your question.
The "Anti-Missionaries" are probably affiliated with Jews for Judaism--if you
want to read what they're all about, their web page is at
http://www.clark.net/pub/mpowers/j4j/web/
They have a valid point about the LXX, but not one that can't be overcome by
the Christian wishing to share the Messiah Jesus with Jews. The NT uses the
LXX often in its quotes of the "Old" Testament, and without being a scholar
in this area, I can't specifically say how accurately the LXX (and hence the
NT) conveys the meaning of the Hebrew OT in every case. I understand that
parts of the LXX are translated very well and other parts are not. I've read
that the Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries have shown that there were probably at
least 3 Hebrew text traditions current in the first century, or at least
manuscripts found at Qumran exhibited evidences of having come from these
three families: a) the one that eventually led to the Masoretic text which
is the basis for our Hebrew Old Testament text today; b) one that appears to
be the Hebrew basis for the LXX translation; and c) one with close affinities
to the Samaritan Pentateuch. The LXX rendering thus can't be automatically
ruled out as being an "incorrect" translation of the Hebrew text--it depends
on which Hebrew text you are talking about.
There are A LOT of books out there on the NT use of the Old Testament which
discuss this very question you are asking, since this is something Christian
scholars have had to deal with and explain--I just wish I could remember the
titles! A remark one author made which I think is probably true is that the
NT interpretation of Old Testament passages is often much more conservative
than how some rabbis treated OT passages, so if the Anti-Missionary wants to
start debating the issue of misinterpreting or mishandling the Biblical text,
he better be ready to defend the rabbis' handling of the text. Since the
rabbinical tradition is the basis for much of modern religious Judaism, which
is what Anti-Missionaries want to call Jews back to, he will find that the
arguments he uses to try to discredit how Peter and Paul and John misused the
Old Testament may end up discrediting his own religious tradition.
For more information, you might also want to contact Jews for Jesus. Their
web page is
http://www.jews-for-jesus.org/index.html or
http://www.jews-for-jesus.org/Introduction.html
You can E-mail them at
jfj@jews-for-jesus.org or
jfjnet@aol.com
Since the work of Jews for Jesus is one of the main targets of the "Anti-
Missionaries" efforts, they probably have more experience in handling this
and every other objection a Jew might raise about the Christian use of the
"Old" Testament than anyone else you could ask. If you want to discuss this
more, since it could go beyond the purpose of this discussion group, feel
free to E-mail me directly.
eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov
Eric Weiss
Notascholarjustasecondyeargreekstudent
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 07:43:15 -0800
Subject: Re: question
You wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>Just a question (and forgive me if I disturb, but I'm in the list from
>yesterday); I look now at a few messages. Why don't you write in
greek? It
>should be easier to read... :)
>
>
>
>
>
If we could, we would. Greek fonts just don't travel well in e-mail.
There have been oft recurring messages concerning transliteration
conventions. Take a look at the B-Greek archives, set up and faithfully
maintained by James K. Tauber <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
at http://www.entmp.org/archive/b-greek/ to read previous posts on
transliteration schemes as well as a number of interesting subjects.
Ellen Adams
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 11:19:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Periphrastic Aorist
Jim McGuire Wrote
>Just to add my 2 cents worth, Biblical Greek also uses EXW in periphrastic
>constructions. Luke 14:18 includes an example of EXW in a periphrastic
>construction.
I think Luke 14:18 is *not* an example of EXW plus a participle as a
periphrastic. The Greek is EXW ANAGKHN EXELQWN IDEIN AUTON. In this
construction the object of the RXW is the infintive IDEIN; the participle
EXELQWN can be construed either as modifying the subject in EXW or as an
adverbial participle expressing attendant circumstance with the verb. The
presence of the infinitive makes it impossible as a periphrastic.
But then again, maybe someone will refute me on the basis of a different
parsing. :-)
Edgar Krentz, New Testament
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Tel.: 312-256-0752; (H) 312-947-8105
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 11:52:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: LXX foundation and Anti-Missionaries
On Tue, 31 Oct 1995, Eric Weiss wrote:
> I read your question on B-GREEK re: Anti-Missionaries and the LXX and saw
> that the only response you got was a remark about the Anti-Missionaries not
> just having a negative focus and suggesting that Jews would not use the term
> "Old Testament" but would rather call it "the Bible" (which is probably true
> since it's not "old" to them). It did not answer your question.
>
> The "Anti-Missionaries" are probably affiliated with Jews for Judaism--if you
> want to read what they're all about, their web page is at
>
> http://www.clark.net/pub/mpowers/j4j/web/
>
> They have a valid point about the LXX, but not one that can't be overcome by
> the Christian wishing to share the Messiah Jesus with Jews. The NT uses the
> LXX often in its quotes of the "Old" Testament, and without being a scholar
> in this area, I can't specifically say how accurately the LXX (and hence the
> NT) conveys the meaning of the Hebrew OT in every case. I understand that
> parts of the LXX are translated very well and other parts are not. I've read
> that the Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries have shown that there were probably at
> least 3 Hebrew text traditions current in the first century, or at least
> manuscripts found at Qumran exhibited evidences of having come from these
> three families: a) the one that eventually led to the Masoretic text which
> is the basis for our Hebrew Old Testament text today; b) one that appears to
> be the Hebrew basis for the LXX translation; and c) one with close affinities
> to the Samaritan Pentateuch. The LXX rendering thus can't be automatically
> ruled out as being an "incorrect" translation of the Hebrew text--it depends
> on which Hebrew text you are talking about.
>
> There are A LOT of books out there on the NT use of the Old Testament which
> discuss this very question you are asking, since this is something Christian
> scholars have had to deal with and explain--I just wish I could remember the
> titles!
(snip)
A couple of titles that might be helpful are the following: _New
Testament Development of Old Testament Themes_, by F. F. Bruce (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968); and _The Uses of the Old Testament In the New_,
by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.(Chicago: Moody, 1985).
Regards,
David Moore
> For more information, you might also want to contact Jews for Jesus. Their
> web page is
>
> http://www.jews-for-jesus.org/index.html or
> http://www.jews-for-jesus.org/Introduction.html
>
> You can E-mail them at
>
> jfj@jews-for-jesus.org or
> jfjnet@aol.com
>
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: Eric Vaughan <jevaughan@sauaca.saumag.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 13:22:00 CST
Subject: Re: "Perfect"?
The obvious object to what "perfect" is referring
to is clearly given in the previous two verses, esp.
in the previous verse. Paul is telling us that the
miraculous gifts which the Holy Spirit distributed
to early Christians are to be done away with. When
will prophecies fail, tongues cease, and knowledge
vanish? When they are needed no more...When that
which is "perfect" or "complete" is come. The purpose
of these gifts were to bring the Lord's message into
the world and confirm it. When the message was completed,
that which was done in part (vs 9) ceased because we
no longer need miraculous revelation.
Eric Vaughan
------------------------------
From: Leo Percer <PERCERL@baylor.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 13:49:22 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: "Perfect"?
IN%"jevaughan@sauaca.saumag.edu" "Eric Vaughan" says:
>The obvious object to what "perfect" is referring
>to is clearly given in the previous two verses, esp.
>in the previous verse. Paul is telling us that the
>miraculous gifts which the Holy Spirit distributed
>to early Christians are to be done away with. . . .
>[stuff deleted] The purpose
>of these gifts were to bring the Lord's message into
>the world and confirm it. When the message was completed,
>that which was done in part (vs 9) ceased because we
>no longer need miraculous revelation.
Now, I really wanted to avoid this can of worms since it was first opened a
few days ago. After the recent conversation on tongues on this list, I
know we are going to have a hard time agreeing! Oh well . . .
Eric, just what exactly do you mean that "when the message was *completed*,
that which was done in part (vs.9) ceased because we no longer need
miraculous revelation"? Are you insinuating/claiming that when Scripture
became canon that no miracles were needed any longer? Or, are you claiming
that once the message of the gospel was brought to its completion (whatever
*that* may mean), miracles ceased? Now, I realize that this may not sound
like a good question for a Greek list, but is the reference to TO TELEION
in v. 10 really the message/prophecy (the earliest antecedent of "mature"
or "complete")? Are there other references that could work? Could Paul
have in mind AGAPE as that which must become perfect/complete? Or that
Christians should be complete in practicing AGAPE? The danger of a
cessationist argument based on this verse is that it requires some fancy
footwork regarding what Paul had in mind. What is the referent to TO
TELEION in 1 Corinthians? Ideas?
Leo Percer
PERCERL@BAYLOR.EDU
Waco, TX
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 14:46:41 -0600
Subject: Re: "Perfect"?
At 1:49 PM 10/31/95, Leo Percer wrote:
>Eric, just what exactly do you mean that "when the message was *completed*,
>that which was done in part (vs.9) ceased because we no longer need
>miraculous revelation"? Are you insinuating/claiming that when Scripture
>became canon that no miracles were needed any longer? Or, are you claiming
>that once the message of the gospel was brought to its completion (whatever
>*that* may mean), miracles ceased? Now, I realize that this may not sound
>like a good question for a Greek list, but is the reference to TO TELEION
>in v. 10 really the message/prophecy (the earliest antecedent of "mature"
>or "complete")? Are there other references that could work? Could Paul
>have in mind AGAPE as that which must become perfect/complete? Or that
>Christians should be complete in practicing AGAPE? The danger of a
>cessationist argument based on this verse is that it requires some fancy
>footwork regarding what Paul had in mind. What is the referent to TO
>TELEION in 1 Corinthians? Ideas?
I, at least, believe that TO TELEION to which Paul refers is TO ESXATON. At
the end of the poem, when he says that three things MENEI, I am assuming
that he means EIS TON AIWNA, that these are three things that will endure
into the Age-to-Come, while the other things will atrophy as there will be
no function for them to perform. However, inasmuch as there are no
indications that we have yet entered into the Age-to-come, I don't see why
we should suppose that those other XARISMATA should cease. As I noted the
other day, I've never seen why we should suppose that miracles were solely
a matter of the apostolic age.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 12:48:37 +0800
Subject: Re: "Perfect"?
So, Eric, now we see clearly and know as we are known? I don't want
to get into a theological argument, which is why I didn't reply to
the original question and Carl Conrad judiciously avoided,
but if we're looking at the context
that notion is included in the "perfect", and I would have trouble
seeing anything which has happened heretofore qualifying. I, at least,
do not see things clearly.
> The obvious object to what "perfect" is referring
> to is clearly given in the previous two verses, esp.
> in the previous verse. Paul is telling us that the
> miraculous gifts which the Holy Spirit distributed
> to early Christians are to be done away with. When
> will prophecies fail, tongues cease, and knowledge
> vanish? When they are needed no more...When that
> which is "perfect" or "complete" is come. The purpose
> of these gifts were to bring the Lord's message into
> the world and confirm it. When the message was completed,
> that which was done in part (vs 9) ceased because we
> no longer need miraculous revelation.
>
> Eric Vaughan
>
------------------------------
From: Eric Vaughan <jevaughan@sauaca.saumag.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 18:13:13 CST
Subject: Re: "Perfect"?
First, I'd like to apologize for beginning a "theological argument"
or opening a "can of worms." That was not my intent at all. I realize
you have your own beliefs about certain scriptures, and I probably
couldn't change them if I tried. What I'd like to do is answer a few
questions that were asked and try to clear up what I tried to state
earlier.
What I meant by "the message was completed" is that all the revelation
that God desired us to have was given. The Christians at that time
only knew "in part"...not in full. It would take time for all of God's
word to be revealed (which, incidentally is not necessarily the
canonization of the scriptures...probably before). I'd like to ask a
question. What was the purpose of miracles, anyway? John tells us
(John 20:30-31) that Jesus' miracles were done and written down so that
we might believe that He is the Son of God. How could He claim to be
from God and command others what to do without miracles to show He
the authority to do so? Why were the apostles given miracles and
the Christians given gifts? Heb. 2:3-4 says it was to confirm that
which was spoken by the Lord, and that it was God's witness to those
things. The word that was spoken has ALREADY been confirmed. What
purpose would miracles have today? Jesus told his apostles in Jno.
16:13 that the Spirit will guide them into ALL (PASAN (to make it look
like a Greek discussion)) truth. Not some or part, but all truth. So
the completion of God's revelation must have come before the death of
the last apostle (John). If the word has already been given and confirmed,
what need do we have for miracles?
Now, back to 1 Cor. I don't see how the perfecting can be referring
to AGAPH. Why would the perfecting of love cause knowledge and
prophecy to be abolished (KATARGHQHSETAI)? After mentioning things that
are in part (knowledge (which, by the way is mentioned as a gift 12:8) and
prophecy), he immediately speaks of something completed. That thing which
is completed is to replace that which is done in part (knowledge, prophecy,
etc.).
I hope I've cleared up what I see in the scripture and tried to express.
I'm always game for opposition, but I think such arguments are not
appropriate on a greek discussion group. If anyone would like to carry
this further, please do it personally. I'm sure the others would
appreciate it. Thanx.
Eric Vaughan
------------------------------
From: dtw86847@acuvax.acu.edu
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 18:22:37 CST
Subject: Perfect
In reference to what TO TELEION refers to I've always thought the
verbal similarities between 13:10 and 14:20 were interesting. In particular
13:10, 11 contain forms of TELION(perfect), NHPIOS (CHILD), PHRHN (thinking).
Chapter 14:20 also has forms of these words. Could it be that Paul's point
is the explicit statement at what he hinted at in 13:10. Namely that he wants
them to grow up in their thinking. When they do so they will not place the
extreme emphasis on the "visible" gifts and they (the gifts) will in a sense
pass away. So then the gifts do not literally go away but fade into the
background as love is exalted as the most excellent way. JUst a thought.
Darren Williamson
------------------------------
From: LISATIA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 00:42:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Rom. 7:14-25
dear David,
Thanks for your explanation. The connection with 8.1 is important, as
you noted. I had forgotten that you meant CC to stand for "Church of
Christ"; somehow I was reading this as "continual cleansing". In a longer
exposition on the subject, I argued that Paul saw law as generating a
counter-law, hETERON NOMON "a different law" (7.23), and noted that both
7.5 and 7.7 imply that law in general, and in specifics, generates sin. For
Paul, this was a useful way to defend his abandonment of most, if not all,
of the Jewish law.
richard arthur, Merrimack NH LISATIA@aol.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #935
*****************************
** 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