[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #941
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 7 November 1995 Volume 01 : Number 941
In this issue:
Re: TO TELION / Cor. 13:10
Re: TO TELION / Cor. 13:10
Re: "Perfect"?
Re: TO TELION / Cor. 13:10
Mark 1:43, EMFRIMHSAMENOS
Textbook
BAGD: How get on CD?
Call For Papers: Translatio Grad. Symp.
Graber -- off the backboard!
Re: BAGD: How get on CD?
Re: "Perfect"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: BBezdek@aol.com
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 09:51:20 -0500
Subject: Re: TO TELION / Cor. 13:10
To those who a schooled in literature beyond the New Testament:
Is there any way to specifically determine what TO TELEION refers to in
this passage?
I come from a minority position/tradition that interpret this as the
completed scriptures. There are doctrinal/traditional reasons for being on
either side of this argument, so attempting to put that aside (I am often
wrong and may be in this case also), How far are we really able to go with
TO TELEION from the texts themselves?
Respectfully,
Byron T. Bezdek
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 10:43:25 -0600
Subject: Re: TO TELION / Cor. 13:10
At 8:51 AM 11/6/95, BBezdek@aol.com wrote:
>To those who a schooled in literature beyond the New Testament:
>
> Is there any way to specifically determine what TO TELEION refers to in
>this passage?
>
> I come from a minority position/tradition that interpret this as the
>completed scriptures. There are doctrinal/traditional reasons for being on
>either side of this argument, so attempting to put that aside (I am often
>wrong and may be in this case also), How far are we really able to go with
>TO TELEION from the texts themselves?
I am frankly puzzled by this. While I can see how TO TELEION by itself or
in a context suggesting a contrast between completed and uncompleted
scriptures could in fact refer to completed scriptures, what I cannot see
is how that sense can be derived from the use of the phrase in the context
in which it appears, wherein nothing (so far as I can see) even suggests
scriptures.
Verse 8 starts a new sequence of thought which contrasts AGAPH as something
that doesn't cease to be efficacious (I think that must be the meaning of
PIPTEI in this context) with other XARISMATA which will pass out of use
(KATARGHQHSETAI). Verse 9 clarifies that proposition by asserting that two
of these XARISMATA, namely GNWSIS and PROFHTEIA, are XARISMATA that (at
best) are "partial" (EK MEROUS)--limited in efficacy. Then in verse 10, the
"partial" (EK MEROUS) is contrasted with the "complete" (TO TELEION), and
the proposition of verse 8 is repeated, only here instead of
PIPTEI/KATARGHQHSETAI with subjects referring to enduring and
temporally-limited XARISMATA, it is TO EK MEROUS that KATARGHQHSETAI. Why
should TO EK MEROUS here refer to something other than what it referred to
in verse 8?
On the other hand, it must be granted that hH AGAPH cannot be directly
equated in verse 10 with TO TELEION. So what is it about the remainder of
these verses that suggests that TO TELEION should refer to eschatological
consummation?
Verse 11 sets forth an analogy of growth from childhood to adulthood; it
refers specifically, however, to modes of speaking and apprehending
(ELALOUN, EFRONOUN, ELOGIZOMHN); presumably these should be seen as
analogous to those XARISMATA which, it was said in verse 8, KATARGHQHSETAI.
It seems to me that the use of the same verb in verse 11, KATHRGHKA,
constates this judgment.
Verse 12a reformulates the analogy which in verse 11 was cast in terms of a
past childhood and accomplished ("full-grown"--TELEIOS) adulthood, in terms
of present and future, and speaks, rather like Plato in his figure of the
Divided Line, of recognition in terms of reflected images as opposed to a
future recognition in terms of direct interactive vision. Verse 12b returns
yet once more to the subject of GNWSIS--with a significant pun added in the
notion of EPIGNWSIS--and also brings back for a last time the EK MEROUS of
verse 8 which has been contrasted with TO TELEION. Must not this future
GNWSIS be qualitatively different from the GNWSIS previously characterized
as being EK MEROUS?
I'm sorry if all this seems redundant. Perhaps it actually is. I'm just
trying to solve the problem of TO TELEION in terms of how it's used within
the context of our passage, because I don't see how "literature beyond the
New Testament" can shed any light on this passage beyond what the context
itself sheds. And, while I'll admit that the future to which Paul points
does seem to me to be the eschatological consummation, I'll grant that one
could suppose he's referring to some other fulfilment in the future that
contrasts to the present functioning of the XARISMATA in a "partial"
fashion. I just don't see, however, how anything within the text itself
suggests "fulfilment of scripture." That's what seems to me to be imported
from doctrinal/traditional perspectives. I've not tried to apply here any
faith perspective at all but rather I've tried to work out what
possibilities of interpretation are suggested as most likely by the context
itself.
I apologize for the length of this post. I probably ought to have been able
to express this more economically, but I couldn't. And I don't know whether
this has really been very helpful toward elucidation of the problems of the
text, but it's an effort.
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: Eric Vaughan <jevaughan@sauaca.saumag.edu>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 13:28:06 CST
Subject: Re: "Perfect"?
"David Moore" <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us> wrote:
> 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?
This a very clever argument and such appeals to emotions and hypothetical
questions can be used to authorize many things that have no basis for
authority. I would just like to answer this one question. I'm sure we humans
could find countless number of "purposes" for miracles. But God has no purpose
for miracles. Miracles in the Bible were never in one instance used strictly
for someone's personal benefit. Jesus would rather have starved to death than
to turn that stone into bread (Matt 4:1-4, etc.). Fulfilling his physical
desires would've served God no function. As I said before, miracles were God's
witness that the one teaching was truly from God. Remember the story of the
man sick of the palsy who was let down through the roof? Jesus didn't heal him
at first. He just told him that his sins are forgiven, which He had all
authority to do. His opposition thought it outrageous that He felt He had the
authority to do so. Jesus rebuked them and healed the man. Why? Not because
he felt sorry for the man. But to show He had the authority from God to do
what He did and say what He said. That's the only use that God's ever had of
miracles. I agree that if my child were sick, that a miracle would be pretty
"useful" but I wouldn't expect God to perform a miracle. By the way, there is
a difference between God's miraculous healing and God's providencial hand in
matters (which I do believe), but that is perhaps a different subject.
I would like to say that I appreciate all the comments on this scripture, and
many of them I have found very informative and eye-opening.
Eric Vaughan
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 12:11:15 +0800
Subject: Re: TO TELION / Cor. 13:10
I'd like to add just one point to Carl's post, with which I agree, I
hasten to add. I would like to suggest that as a hermeneutical principle,
it would not be reasonable to interpret Paul as describing something that
neither he (probably) nor his readers (certainly) would have known about.
I think it is fairly reasonable to argue that Paul would have known
nothing about a "New Testament" of 27 books, and certainly the
Corinthians would not have either. Therefore, it seems rather
improbable, IMO, to understand Paul as referring to that. His readers
most certainly would not have understood it, and I don't think I would
understand anything Paul has written as suggesting a new set of
Scriptures was coming from his hand. It's much like asking whether the
locusts in Revelation are really Phantom jets or Huey attack copters.
Given that John had no knowledge of such a thing, I think it's reasonable
to dismiss such ideas as not really possible in John's context. He's
describing what he sees, not trying to describe something totally
meaningless or non-existent in his situation.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:39:47 -0600
Subject: Mark 1:43, EMFRIMHSAMENOS
An interesting queestion came up in an elective today: How do you translate
the EMBRIMHSAMENOS in Mark 1:43? The verb, says Swete _ad loc_, means to
speak or act sternly,but without the idea of anger being inherent in the
term. And the term EXEBALEN is also strong. BAGD suggests "warn sternly."
Matt 8:4 does not have the term.
BAGD days that there is an expression of anger in Lucian's _Necyomant. 20
and Pseudo-Libanius, Declam. 40. In La 2:6 LXX the term with the dative of
the person means to scold or censure. Outside of Mark 1:43 you find the
term in Mark 14:5, Matt 9:30 in Jesus' speech to the two blind men, and in
John 11:38: EMBRIMWMENOS EN hEAUTWi.
The question is complicated by the context, since v.41 sys that Jesus had
pity on the man (SPLAGXNISQEIS). The western text tradition, representedby
Codex D and the Latin MSS a ff2 r1 reprent both one Old Latin and two Vg
Mss reads ORGISQEIS instead of EMBRIMIHSAMENOS, apparently to remove the
conflict with v. 43.
Must one psychologize Jesus and or the leper in this narrative?
I will be interested in reading suggestions for the precise translation of
this term in each of the four passages listed above--and in seeing how a
common thread runs through these translations.
Edgar Krentz, New Testament
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 E. 55th Street
Chicago, IL 60615
Tel: 312-256-0752; FAX: 312-256.0782
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 17:03:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Textbook
I may have an opportunity to teach a course next year that combines
advanced Greek grammar with an exegesis course (probably in one of the
synoptics). It will probably be a heavy-duty Greek reading course that
will stay in one gospel and focus on improving knowledge of grammar
(assuming one year of Greek). Does anyone have any suggestions for
textbooks for advanced Greek grammar that would work well in such a
course?
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: KevinBlak2@aol.com
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 17:20:07 -0500
Subject: BAGD: How get on CD?
Having recently re-acquired my working knowledge of biblical Greek, I am
interested in learning how to obtain the CD-ROM name "CD-Word." Phone number?
E-mail? Address?
Also, I'm interested in anything else that has come out in this area in
CD-ROM titles
------------------------------
From: Michelle Perkins <mperkins@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 18:17:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Call For Papers: Translatio Grad. Symp.
--=={* T R A N S L A T I O *}==--
An Interdisciplinary Graduate Symposium
in Classical Studies
=*=
April 20 and 21, 1996
Sponsored by
_Arethusa_
Sub Board I, Inc.
the Graduate Student Association
and the University at Buffalo Department of Classics
* K e y n o t e A d d r e s s*
by Dr. John J. Peradotto
Andrew V.V. Raymond Professor of Classics
and SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* translatio, -onis, f. tral-. [TRANSFERO+-TIO] *
* 1 the action of moving (a thing) from one place to another; *
* (esp. the action of transplanting. b change of position.*
* 2 Transfer from one person, etc. to another (of posessions, *
* rights, etc.). *
* 3 The shifting of a case from one jurisdiction, formula, *
* time, etc. to another. b -criminis, the shifting of a *
* charge from the defendant to another person. *
* 4 Transferred or figurative use (of a word). b the *
* tranference of ideas, etc. from one context to another; *
* -temporum, the (imaginary) shift of a situation from one *
* time to another. c translation (from one language to *
* another). *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
We invite graduate students in all fields related to classical studies -
especially history, philosophy, comparative literature, art history and
archaeology - to present original work on the topic of *translatio*,
broadly defined. Papers should be 15-20 minutes long and projection
equipment will be available. Panel proposals will also be considered;
prespective panel oragnizers should submit copiesof all abstracts along
with a brief description of the panel's theme. Please send four copies
of a 300-word abstract of your submission to the adress below before
February 15, 1996. Notices of acceptance and information concerning
local arrangements will be mailed soon thereafter.
Presenters and attendees may anticipate the availability of extremely
affordable accomodations, as well as complimentary transportation to
and from campus.
Contact: Paul Kimball or Michelle Perkins
Department of Classics
706 Clemens Hall
State University of New York at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260
Tel: (716) 645-2153 Fax: (716) 645-2225
e-mail: mperkins@acsu.buffalo.edu
Information is also available via world wide web at the following URL:
http://wings.buffalo.edu/academic/department/AandL/classics/
grad_symposium_call.html
------------------------------
From: "A.T. Kraabel" <kraabela@martin.luther.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 95 17:48:00 CST
Subject: Graber -- off the backboard!
Karl Donfried made this recommendation last year. Those I know who
tried Voeltz since then liked it a lot.
TOM KRAABEL
On Sat, 05 Mar 1994 18:51:07 -0400 (ED, <KDONFRIED@smith.smith.EDU> wrote:
>I am using with great success James Voelz, Fundamental Greek Grammar (
>new edition 1993, Concordia, St. Louis). He begins with the assumption
>that his audience doesn't know English grammar and goes from there. My
>students love it and it is a great teaching tool which I recommend highly.
>This together with Bowne's "Greek Practice" on the Mac make for a very
>enjoyable and productive semester.
>Karl Donfried
>Smith College
- ------ Forwarded message ends here ------
- ------ Forwarded message ends here ------
A. T. Kraabel, Dean of the College, Luther College, Decorah IA 52101
INTERNET kraabela@luther.edu OFFICE 319/387-1005 FAX 387-2158
VOICEMAIL when the office is closed 387-1004
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <billm@teknia.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 18:04:54 -0700
Subject: Re: BAGD: How get on CD?
CD-Word is no longer sold and has become part of the Logos product.
Bill Mounce
- -------------------------------
Teknia Software, Inc.
1306 W. Bellwood Drive
Spokane, WA 99218-2911
Internet: billm@teknia.com (preferred)
AOL: Mounce
CIS: 71540,2140 (please, only if necessary)
"It may be Greek to you, but it is life to me."
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 22:39:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: "Perfect"?
Eric Vaughan <jevaughan@sauaca.saumag.edu> wrote:
>I would just like to answer this one question. I'm sure we humans
>could find countless number of "purposes" for miracles. But God has no purpose
>for miracles. Miracles in the Bible were never in one instance used strictly
>for someone's personal benefit. Jesus would rather have starved to death than
>to turn that stone into bread (Matt 4:1-4, etc.). Fulfilling his physical
>desires would've served God no function. As I said before, miracles were God's
>witness that the one teaching was truly from God. Remember the story of the
>man sick of the palsy who was let down through the roof? Jesus didn't heal him
>at first. He just told him that his sins are forgiven, which He had all
>authority to do. His opposition thought it outrageous that He felt He had the
>authority to do so. Jesus rebuked them and healed the man. Why? Not because
>he felt sorry for the man. But to show He had the authority from God to do
>what He did and say what He said. That's the only use that God's ever had of
>miracles. I agree that if my child were sick, that a miracle would be pretty
>"useful" but I wouldn't expect God to perform a miracle.
Aren't you making up straw men, Eric? No one has maintained that
biblical miracles were "used strictly for someone's personal benefit," nor
has anyone denied that "miracles were God's witness that the one teaching
was truly from God."
Nevertheless, it seems to me you underestimate the Lord's mercy,
compassion and love as motives for His healing. There is the leper, for
instance, who came to Jesus saying, "Sir, if you want to, you can make me
clean." The Lord answered him, "Of course I want to. Be clean" (Mat.
8:2ff., Phillips). And in the case of His healing the woman who was bent
over and could not straighten up, He likened the healing to the
consideration and compassion that one has for a domestic animal in giving
it water on the Sabbath (Lk. 13:10-17).
Then, there is the matter of blind man of Bethsaida whom Jesus
took with Him to a spot outside the city to put His hands upon him and
heal him. If Jesus had only been interested in establishing a miraculous
witness to His teaching, why did he take the man outside the town, and why
did He command the formerly blind man not to go back into the town? And
when He healed the deaf and dumb man (Mk. 7:32-36), why did He take the
man away from the crowd, alone, to heal him? And why did He charge the
man and the friends that had brought him that they say nothing to anyone
if His only purpose in doing miracles was to establish a miraculous
witness to His teaching? The very thrust of what you are maintaining runs
aground on the whole matter of the Messianic secret.
IMHO, you have bought into a theological system that would like to
limit God. It is ironic that those who resisted the Lord during His
earthly ministry questioned His authority to forgive sins but never
questioned his power to do miracles and to heal. Today, the converse is
true. His authority to forgive sins is readily recognized, but His power
to do miracles is denied. This is a matter of grave concern to anyone who
believes in God, and it is of concern to the scholarly community as well,
since how one understands this matter can influence the process of
exegesis, as we have recently seen on this list. Has God really limited
Himself as Eric maintains, or is this just someone's idea of what God
should be? Or to put it in terms of the Scripture: does the NT indicate
that God's miraculous working (apart from the miracle of salvation) is to
end with the death of the Apostles. Eric's arguments in favor of his
position, for the most part, have not really addressed this question. His
citations from Scripture do not show that the NT writers contemplated a
cessation of God's miraculous working. The contention that God had no
other purpose in miracles than to establish the authority of the one
speaking appears to be an untennable position. What justification can
there be for trying to limit God where He has not limited Himself?
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 #941
*****************************
** 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