[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #940
b-greek-digest Monday, 6 November 1995 Volume 01 : Number 940
In this issue:
Re: "Perfect"?
Romans 4:17
Lk 19:1-10: ambiguous present tense
Lk 19:1-10: ambiguous present tense
The Ecole Initiative: Call for Articles
Re: Lk 19:1-10: ambiguous present tense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 16:07:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: "Perfect"?
"Carlton L. Winbery" <winberyc@linknet.net> wrote:
>Eric Vaughan wrote;
>>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.
>>
>Perhaps a better understanding of TO TELEION, especially when mentioned as
>"coming" is eschatalogical. All those things that are EK MEROUS "in part"
>are judged beside the ultimate, the parousia. That which remains into the
>age is what really matters, faith, hope, and love.
Paul is emphasizing the dichotomy between what is eternal and what
is for a certain time (1Cor. 13:8). His EK MEROUS and TO TELEION further
develop the dichotomy to include the ideas of imperfection
(incompleteness) and perfection (completeness). The question, in terms of
how we interpret TO TELEION, then, is, what epoch-making event does the
apostle Paul see as marking between temporal and eternal? And
secondarily, how do the concepts of EK MEROUS and TO TELEION fit into
Paul's understanding and presentation of this temporal-eternal dichotomy.
Eric Vaughan's contention that TO TELEION refers to the completion
of the apostolic witness amounts to an extreme dispensational position.
That charismatic and miraculous phenomena had the purpose of confirming
the apostolic witness does not logically or necessarily mean that the
charismatic and miraculous can have no other purpose in God's economy.
"What purpose would miracles have today?" Eric asks. Well, for example,
if your kid were in the hospital, sick, and the doctors say there's
nothing more they can do for him, a miracle would be pretty useful,
wouldn't it. Is it legitimate to limit God saying He may work
miraculously in the apostolic age but not afterward? To say that TO
TELEION refers to the completion of the apostolic witness is an
interpretation that agrees with the dispensational position that fixes the
end of miracles and charismata at the end of the apostolic age, but it
does not agree with a balanced exegesis of the context.
Carlton's comments above, as well as earlier posts by Carl and
Kenneth have correctly pointed out that the context favors understanding
TO TELEION as referring to the eschaton. Another commentator expresses it
as follows: "'That which is perfect' cannot be a reference to the
completion of the canon of Scripture; otherwise we now, living in the age
of the completed canon, would see more clearly than Paul did (v. 9). Even
the most self-satisfied and opinionated of theologians would hardly admit
that. The coming of that which is perfect can only be a reference to the
Lord's second coming..." (S. Lewis Johnson, "The First Epistle to the
Corinthians," in _Wycliffe Bible Commentary_ [Chicago: Moody, 1990], p.
1252). This comment is of special interest since its author also
expresses the opinion that today there is no scriptural exercise of the
gifts Paul mentions in this passage. That is to say, from a practical
standpoint he appears to be a cessationist, but the correct practice of
exegesis applied to this passage does not allow understanding TO TELEION
as in reference to the completion of the canon of Scripture.
It is, of course, difficult to deal with this subject without
including consideration of the whole matter of the exercise of the
spiritual gifts and Paul's attitude regarding them, but since we recently
concluded a thread on that very matter, I'll not go back into that here.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: "Carlton L. Winbery" <winberyc@linknet.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 11:57:44 +0400
Subject: Romans 4:17
Carl Conrad wrote in response to James Clardy:
>>H EPAGGELIA. I have read that this word carries with
>>it the idea of unconditional promise, i.e., the one making the promise
>>does not demand that some requirement be fulfilled by the one to whom
>>the promise is announced. Do you have any insight into such an
>>understanding of this term? And, if this should be a somewhat characteristic
>>use
>>of the term in the contemporary historical period, does it appear to have
>>this representative use in the chapter under discussion?
>I respond, perhaps too quickly, to say that I don't have the resources
>ready to hand to answer that particular question. Offhand it strikes me as
>loading the word EPAGGELIA with a burden of technical legal meaning which
>it cannot bear unless the evidence of secular legal texts shows such a
>meaning unambiguously. I don't have the lexical resources with me at home,
>but I'll try to check as soon as I can.
I submit that there is a secular use of this word in Acts 23:21. NUN EISIN
ETOIMOI PROSDECOMENOI THN APO SOU EPAGGELIAN. "They are now ready awaiting
your _consent_." It would be difficult to read into this use any idea of
conditions for fullfilment. The Tribune did not do what they anticipated
that he would do nor did he give them his "promise" (consent). EPAGGELIA
has the range of meaning in the NT from "promise" to "agreement" or
"consent." The degree to which one expects the fullfilment of the promise
depends upon confidence in the one making the promise. It seems to me that
the point James makes (the idea of unconditional promise) cannot be
answered by the meaning of this word but is a matter of Soteriology.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College,
Pineville, La
winberyc@linknet.net
fax 318 442 4996
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 15:36:16 -0600
Subject: Lk 19:1-10: ambiguous present tense
The lectionary gospel text in my church today was the Zacchaeus narrative
in Luke. Although I was certainly aware of the special status of TELWNAI in
Luke as paradigms of the righteous in antithesis to the Pharisees (Lk
3:12-13; 7:29; 18:9-14); yet I was not aware of the Joseph Fitzmyer (Anchor
Bible) interpretation of the Zacchaeus pericope: that here is a man who,
although a despised publican, indeed an ARXITELWNHS, has evidently been
regularly donating 50% of his income to the poor and reimbursing 4-fold any
persons whom he is found to have defrauded. The key verse 8 uses the
present tense for Zacchaeus' declaration, in response to scoffers' outrage
that Jesus should have chosen to dine with a "sinner," that his customary
practice more than satisfies the requirements of the Law.
I had always sort of "taken for granted" that vs. 8 was an assertion of
what Zacchaeus intended to do hereafter in response to the confrontation
with Jesus, and that the translation of NRSV of the verbs of this verse in
the FUTURE tense was appropriate to the right interpretation of the
passage. In viewing the text this morning, we noted that RSV retains the
present tense in English to translate the Greek present tense.
It appears to me that there are indicators pointing both to the traditional
interpretation (that Zacchaeus promises he will undertake these actions)
and to the Fitzmyer interpretation. In favor of the former is the fact that
there is nothing in the narrative that says Zacchaeus is repenting of
former sins (unless one wants to read "EI TINOS TI ESUKOFANTHSA" that way)
and that Jesus makes the dinner appointment at the house of Zacchaeus with
the assertion (v. 9), "KAQOTI KAI AUTOS hUIOS ABRAAM ESTIN." In favor of
the alternative view is what would appear to be an indicator of a
conversion on Zacchaeus' part, Jesus's declarations, (v. 9) "SHMERON
SWTERIA TWi OIKWi TOUTWi EGENETO" and (v. 10) "HLQEN hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU
ZHTHSAI KAI SWSAI TO APOLWLOS."
As intriguing to me as the fact that an noteworthy interpreter has argued
for such an interpretation and the evident ambiguity of the story itself is
the use of the present tense in v. 8. We have just had an intriguing
discussion of the possibilities of varied interpretation of the Greek
present tense, and it occurs to me that this particular instance is
sufficiently ambiguous to invite discussion amongst our learned colleagues.
What do you think this present tense means about Zacchaeus' habitual
behavior or future demonstration of present repentance?
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: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 17:25:24 -0600
Subject: Lk 19:1-10: ambiguous present tense
Uh--please be so kind as to reverse the positions of "former" and "latter"
in the third paragraph of my recent posting on the above topic. Most
readers will have noticed and (I hope) made allowances for my not uncommon
gaffe. That paragraph SHOULD read (the AUTHORIZED version, that is ;-) ):
"It appears to me that there are indicators pointing both to the traditional
interpretation (that Zacchaeus promises he will undertake these actions)
and to the Fitzmyer interpretation. In favor of the latter is the fact that
there is nothing in the narrative that says Zacchaeus is repenting of
former sins (unless one wants to read "EI TINOS TI ESUKOFANTHSA" that way)
and that Jesus makes the dinner appointment at the house of Zacchaeus with
the assertion (v. 9), "KAQOTI KAI AUTOS hUIOS ABRAAM ESTIN." In favor of
the alternative view is what would appear to be an indicator of a
conversion on Zacchaeus' part, Jesus's declarations, (v. 9) "SHMERON
SWTERIA TWi OIKWi TOUTWi EGENETO" and (v. 10) "HLQEN hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU
ZHTHSAI KAI SWSAI TO APOLWLOS."
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: "Anthony F. Beavers" <ecoleweb@evansville.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 19:17:06 -0600 (CST)
Subject: The Ecole Initiative: Call for Articles
The Ecole Initiative: Call for Articles
Please cross-post to other relevant lists
The Ecole (Early Church On-Line Encyclopedia) Initiative is seeking
contributions from qualified authors on all aspects of Church history up
to 1500 CE. Articles on topics that pre-exist the early Church, but which
are still relevant to it in some way, are also needed. These may include
topics on ancient Judaism, ancient Greece and Rome, other early religious
traditions, etc.
The Ecole Initiative is an effort on the part of scholars across the
internet to build a hypertext encyclopedia of early Church history on the
World-Wide Web. Though the Initiative is still in its initial stages,
already it is visited 100 times daily from beyond the University of
Evansville, where it is based. Along with the main title index, Ecole
includes a growing glossary intimately related to a two-dimensional
(temporal and geographical) chronology and a documents page that points to
over 100 primary source documents related to early Church history stored
on the World-Wide Web.
To find out more, please visit the site at:
http://www.evansville.edu/~ecoleweb
Or you may email me at ecole@evansville.edu. In addition, I will be
available for consultation at the November meeting of the American
Academy of Religion.
Sincerely,
Tony Beavers
__________________________________________________________________________
Anthony F. Beavers, Ph.D. / Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Religion
The University of Evansville / Evansville, Indiana 47722 / (812)479-2682
Gen.Ed., The Ecole Initiative, http://www.evansville.edu/~ecoleweb
__________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 00:58:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Lk 19:1-10: ambiguous present tense
"Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
>The lectionary gospel text in my church today was the Zacchaeus narrative
>in Luke. Although I was certainly aware of the special status of TELWNAI in
>Luke as paradigms of the righteous in antithesis to the Pharisees (Lk
>3:12-13; 7:29; 18:9-14); yet I was not aware of the Joseph Fitzmyer (Anchor
>Bible) interpretation of the Zacchaeus pericope: that here is a man who,
>although a despised publican, indeed an ARXITELWNHS, has evidently been
>regularly donating 50% of his income to the poor and reimbursing 4-fold any
>persons whom he is found to have defrauded. The key verse 8 uses the
>present tense for Zacchaeus' declaration, in response to scoffers' outrage
>that Jesus should have chosen to dine with a "sinner," that his customary
>practice more than satisfies the requirements of the Law.
>
>I had always sort of "taken for granted" that vs. 8 was an assertion of
>what Zacchaeus intended to do hereafter in response to the confrontation
>with Jesus, and that the translation of NRSV of the verbs of this verse in
>the FUTURE tense was appropriate to the right interpretation of the
>passage. In viewing the text this morning, we noted that RSV retains the
>present tense in English to translate the Greek present tense.
>
>It appears to me that there are indicators pointing both to the traditional
>interpretation (that Zacchaeus promises he will undertake these actions)
>and to the Fitzmyer interpretation. In favor of the latter is the fact that
>there is nothing in the narrative that says Zacchaeus is repenting of
>former sins (unless one wants to read "EI TINOS TI ESUKOFANTHSA" that way)
>and that Jesus makes the dinner appointment at the house of Zacchaeus with
>the assertion (v. 9), "KAQOTI KAI AUTOS hUIOS ABRAAM ESTIN." In favor of
>the alternative view is what would appear to be an indicator of a
>conversion on Zacchaeus' part, Jesus's declarations, (v. 9) "SHMERON
>SWTERIA TWi OIKWi TOUTWi EGENETO" and (v. 10) "HLQEN hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU
>ZHTHSAI KAI SWSAI TO APOLWLOS."
>
>As intriguing to me as the fact that an noteworthy interpreter has argued
>for such an interpretation and the evident ambiguity of the story itself is
>the use of the present tense in v. 8. We have just had an intriguing
>discussion of the possibilities of varied interpretation of the Greek
>present tense, and it occurs to me that this particular instance is
>sufficiently ambiguous to invite discussion amongst our learned colleagues.
>What do you think this present tense means about Zacchaeus' habitual
>behavior or future demonstration of present repentance?
There are several problems with Fitzmyer's interpretation which,
IMO, tip the balance in favor of the traditional interpretation of this
passage. Carl has hinted at some of these points but allow me to develop
them a little.
First is his taking hUPARXONTWN (v. 8) to mean "income." (Cf.
Louw & Nida 57.189-57.208 for a number of words that *could* be used in
this sense.) He cites Luke 8:3 and Acts 4:32 as possibly supporting this
interpretation (Fitzmyer, 1225), but there is no compelling reason to
translate either of these instances as he has understood the word. So it
seems better to take hUPARCIS (Is that the right lexical form of this
part.?) in its usual lexical meaning - which fits quite well in both Lk.
8:3 and Acts 4:32. Zacchaeus' dedication of half his ownings as donations
to the poor would be very much in keeping with Jesus' teaching regarding
riches as recorded in Luke (Lk. 18:22; 12:32-34; cf. also Acts 4:32-35)
and could be seen as the fruit of sincere repentance and faith (Lk. 3:8,
9; 6:43f.).
Second, Fitzmyer does not deal adequately with SHMERON in v. 9.
He says, "Jesus pronounces not forgiveness but the vindication of
Zacchaeus: Jesus announces salvation 'to this house' because he sees that
Zacchaeus is innocent..." (Fitzmyer 1220-21). In saying this, Fitzmyer
leaves out the implication that Zacchaeus' change of heart has come
"today." Otherwise, that salvation has come "today" in that Jesus, who
embodies salvation, has come to Zacchaeus' house (Fitzmyer 1225) is a
concept that may be present in the Lord's saying; but such an emphasis,
without at least equal emphasis on the other characters' (in this case
Zacchaeus') response to Jesus would be uncharacteristic of Luke.
Third, there is good reason to take the two verbs in the present
form here as futuristic presents. APODIDWMI must be futuristic since it
depends on the conditional clause, "*If* I have extorted anything from
anyone...." The aorist, of course, would not have to be preterite, but it
would be highly illogical to think that it was customary for Zacchaeus to
extort from people and then pay them back fourfold. His statement, with
its conditional "if" clause, can only be taken as a good-faith promise to
pay back anyone he may have cheated. If we take APODIDWMI as a futuristic
present, the chances are much better that DIDWMI should be understood
similarly. Also, notice the use of KURIE in the middle of Zacchaeus'
speech. This may indicate that he is recognizing Jesus' right to call him
to such a radical change of direction in his life.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #940
*****************************
** 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