[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #19
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 29 November 1995 Volume 01 : Number 019
In this issue:
Bible study software? (fwd)
re: new version
Basic Foundation
Re: Basic Foundation
Re: Basic Foundation
Re: Basic Foundation
Bible study software? (fwd)
Re: Basic Foundation
Re: Bible study software? (fwd)
Contemporary English Version
[none]
basic foundations
Re: AGAPAW
Re: Basic Foundation
Re: Basic Foundation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 22:56:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Bible study software? (fwd)
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 22:43:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
To: leadership@iclnet93.iclnet.org
Subject: Bible study software?
I am a pastor considering Bible study software. Has anybody out
there found such software particularly helpful? If so, what are you
using? Am particularly interested in software utilizing original languages.
Has anybody used Logos 2.0? What do you think of it?
Thanks for your help.
Paul Dixon
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 03:30:41 -0500
Subject: re: new version
In a message dated 95-11-28 02:14:27 EST, PW Hofreiter writes:
> I would be most interested in hearing from those on this list as to
>their views on this process of translation. We currently use the NRSV
>in our courses.
> I am interested in a related matter. As a composer, I have
>normally gone with either my own translations of scripture (with the
>less difficult texts) or translations by others whom I know to be
>sensitive to issues of nuance. What are preferences of those on this
>list?
I have for some time myself inserted the phrase "temple leaders" where I
knew the Greek read IOUDAIOI, esp. in John, during the public reading of
Scripture.
I haven't seen a copy of this version yet.
I wonder how it handles the "anti-semetic" conclusion of Luke at the end
of Acts (Acts 28:25-28). Or in the first epistle of John (1 Jn 2:22; 5:12).
Or Paul's Hagar and Sarah allegory.
While I think its a good idea to render certain words more acurately
withoutan anti-semitic bias, can the "anti-semitism" of the NT be totally
eliminated by simply re-translating a few terms? I wonder.
And I'm a little nervous about using the theology of Paul (Eph 2:14) to
correct the terminology of John. Isn't that "taking sides" in the canonical
dialog, like when Luther used Paul against James (the book of straw)? Mmm.
I've heard some thunder on the right murmering about the "new politically
correct" version, although I haven't seen that version either. Perhaps this
translation is what is being referred to.
Peace,
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Daniel Hedrick <hedrickd@pagesetters.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 13:09:59 +0000
Subject: Basic Foundation
Would you say that by your efforts in studying
ancient Greek and the bibical record that your
faith in the absolute innerancy of the Word of God
has been increased, decreased or remain the same?
Has your faith in God increased, decreased or
remained the same?
Would you say that "anyone" who takes an honest
and thorough approach to the the study the bibilical
record and ancient greek will be forced to see
the "divine" hand of God in action, regardless
of their faith in God?
Your response requested.
Daniel
1Pet3:15
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 07:57:02 -0600
Subject: Re: Basic Foundation
At 7:09 AM 11/28/95, Daniel Hedrick wrote:
>Would you say that by your efforts in studying
>ancient Greek and the bibical record that your
>faith in the absolute innerancy of the Word of God
>has been increased, decreased or remain the same?
>
>Has your faith in God increased, decreased or
>remained the same?
>
>Would you say that "anyone" who takes an honest
>and thorough approach to the the study the bibilical
>record and ancient greek will be forced to see
>the "divine" hand of God in action, regardless
>of their faith in God?
>
>Your response requested.
>
>
>Daniel
>1Pet3:15
In my judgment, this is an improper question to put to this list. While
those who wish to respond offline to it can readily do so, I would hope
that we don't let this sort of thing intrude into list discussion itself.
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: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 07:23:50 -0800
Subject: Re: Basic Foundation
You wrote:
>
>Would you say that by your efforts in studying
>ancient Greek and the bibical record that your
>faith in the absolute innerancy of the Word of God
>has been increased, decreased or remain the same?
>
>Has your faith in God increased, decreased or
>remained the same?
>
>Would you say that "anyone" who takes an honest
>and thorough approach to the the study the bibilical
>record and ancient greek will be forced to see
>the "divine" hand of God in action, regardless
>of their faith in God?
>
>Your response requested.
>
>
>Daniel
>1Pet3:15
>
The interesting thing about scripture is that you can either read into
it or read from it. Like other forms of literature, poetry, allegory,
philosphy your mindset affects interpretation. This seems more the case
in scripture than in other types of work, regardless of whether you
study in your native tongue or the original language.
Moreover, there is the element of mystery. Scripture says that God is
Spirit, and the the things of God must be spiritually discerned. As
much as the scholars on this list pride themselves on being academic
and impartial, each must admit that he/she either views scriptures by
faith, as an "insider", or critically as an "outsider".
The further an "insider" studies, the more rewarding the endeavor.
Apparant inconsistencies are either resolved, or found to be of no
great importance to the overall picture. To the "outsider" these same
inconsistencies weigh heavily, as if the very existence of God and His
order within the Universe rested solely on their own ability to resolve
a particular issue.
Similarly pride and humility are factors in the understanding of
scripture. Are we indeed judges of the Word of God, or do we allow
ouselves to be judged by the Word of God? An "insider" who becomes
prideful will soon lose his/her ability to properly interpret the
spiritual nature of scripture, whereas the "outsider" who studies the
scripture in true humility, I believe, will be endowed with the grace
to understand both its literal meaning and its intent.
My .02.
Ellen Adams
Housewife and mom.
Littleton, CO
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 10:25:12 -0600
Subject: Re: Basic Foundation
My apologies if this is coming through a second time to some list-members,
but as a copy did not return to me, and I have since received one post from
the list, I wasn't sure that it went through.
At 7:09 AM 11/28/95, Daniel Hedrick wrote:
>Would you say that by your efforts in studying
>ancient Greek and the bibical record that your
>faith in the absolute innerancy of the Word of God
>has been increased, decreased or remain the same?
>
>Has your faith in God increased, decreased or
>remained the same?
>
>Would you say that "anyone" who takes an honest
>and thorough approach to the the study the bibilical
>record and ancient greek will be forced to see
>the "divine" hand of God in action, regardless
>of their faith in God?
>
>Your response requested.
>
>
>Daniel
>1Pet3:15
In my judgment, this is an improper question to put to this list. While
those who wish to respond offline to it can readily do so, I would hope
that we don't let this sort of thing intrude into list discussion itself.
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: David Housholder <73423.2015@compuserve.com>
Date: 28 Nov 95 12:10:49 EST
Subject: Bible study software? (fwd)
Paul Dixon asked about Bible study software.
You are a good step, asking us all here about experience and preferences, but
you will certainly get a variety of answers, I am sure!
If original language support were not important I would heartily recommend
QuickVerse from Parsons. It's what I use most of the time. But when we start
looking at original language support there are several good packages to
consider, none of them (in my opinion) bad choices, all of them able to do far
more than most of us need in a typical study session.
Logos, BibleWorks, BibleWindows, and the Bible Companion Series from White
Harvest are all good choices. BibleWindows (depending on which modules you need)
is the least expensive, unless you are a Gramcord owner and can upgrade at the
very pleasant price to White Harvest's Bible Companion Series which has (or will
have -- still delayed in shipping) full use of the Gramcord database and search
facilities.
Some suggestions:
1) If you are on America Online or CompuServe, go to the Christianity Online
section of AOL or the CIN Media/Publishing Forum of CompuServe and retrieve the
review of original language Bible study packages. The review was done last year
in Christian Computing Magazine by Tim Walker. ALL the programs have changed
since then, but you will get an idea of the directions in which they were
moving.
2) Get the December issues of Christian Computing Magazine (should be online
this week on AOL and being mailed out about the same time) for the review of the
new White Harvest software.
3) One of the Christian bookstores here in the Atlanta area has several Bible
study packages on a computer in the store; you can sit and work with it for a
while to see if it does what you want. Maybe there is something like that where
you are.
4) Check for return privileges. BibleWindows allows at least 30 days; BibleWorks
allows an incredible 90 days. The others may have similar offers.
One final point: Please let us know what you decide on and whether it met your
needs.
David Housholder (Marietta, Georgia)
writing at 12:01 PM on Tuesday, November 28, 1995
------------------------------
From: fitchel bandy <who@usa.pipeline.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 12:39:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Basic Foundation
AMEN
- --
fitchel bandy
------------------------------
From: "Alan D. Bulley" <s458507@aix1.uottawa.ca>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 14:06:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Bible study software? (fwd)
For an excellent series of reviews of Bible study software, see
http://www.peinet.pe.ca:2080/Chorus/Hahne/m003.html
Alan D. Bulley
Faculty of Theology/Faculte de theologie |s458507@aix1.uottawa.ca
Saint Paul University/Universite St-Paul |abulley@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca
Ottawa, Canada
Fax: (613) 782-3005
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 15:07:09 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Contemporary English Version
While I have no brief to make for the CEV (Contemporary English
Version), having barely examined it off and on for the last three years (and
never having seen the OT portion), and while I have no tis to the American
Bible Society with insider knowledge, perhaps I could respond to a few minor
points in the posts by Bruce Terry and Tim Staker,
The TEV was NOT written at a 6th or 7th grade reading level. The
criteria for translation only required that vocabulary and forms not in current
and widespread use be avoided, and that such matters as weights, measures of
size, distance,and area, and hours of the day, as well as currency and the
like, be given in terms understood by present-day English-speakers without
recourse to a Bible dictionary. The resultant text was generally regarded as
completely understandable by anyone with a high-school education, though that
was not their target audience. My suspicion is that a couple of generations
ago, typical 6th or 7th grade students would have understood it; but today?
I'm dubious.
The CEV criteria included "children" and speakers of English as a
second language among the target audience. I don't know if this is 3rd grade
or not. It does not sound ANYTHING like the kind of English I read in books
for 3rd-graders; it reads about like the Boston Globe or Washington Post news
stories (with New York Times sounding more like the TEV).
I have never seen, or even heard of, the International Children's
Version, but I know that a 1986 publication would not have been early enough to
forestall the CEV, since I was reading drafts of early translation-segments in
1978 (sent to me by former Ph.D.-students who were working on portions of it).
So it must have been started before 1978; a 1986 version would be a minimum of
eight years too late to have pre=vented work on the CEV from starting.
Now: Was the CEV "produced just to have a translation that was
politically correct on a supposed anti-Semitism in the New Testament"? Aside
from the use of "politically correct" to label what was described in the news
release (I would have supposed "theologically correct" to be more germane, even
if still mistaken), the fact that not a word of this was uttered in the four
years since the NT-CEV came out, until now, makes the answer "No." The use of
"the Jews" in John has a clear enough meaning when read in its first-century
context: it refers to those Jews who rejected the Messianic claims made by the
Jesus-movement-Jews; it is clear that John knew that Jesus was a Jew, the
Twelve were all Jews, the Beloved Disciple was (probably) a Jew, etc. But
today, that isn't at all clear to most readers, and in fact it hasn't been
clear during most of Christianity's history of oersecution of the Jews.
I didn't mean to get involved in the merits of this translation; but it
seems to me that this issue is just like the issue of male-chauvinist
translation. I personally am opposed to translating the Biblical text to
change clearly patriarchal texts to unisex language;but much of the problem
isn't in the Greek or Hebrew. "Patres" is ancestors or parents, not a multiple
of fathers; unmarked plurals are just that, and only the fact that "siblings"
sounds so sociological has forced "brethren" as a translation of adelfoi in
Paul's letters. That is, my own belief is that we should try to accurately
represent what the text meant in its orignal setting, neither adding to nor
subtracting from its perceived flaws, whether dealing with women, Jews, or God.
Not everyone agrees with this, and I'm now far too many years beyond wanting to
waste my time debating the topic; but having posted the original news elease, I
felt I had to come clean as to my own opinion.
And I don't believe the release "used the theology of Paul (Eph. 2:14)
to correct the terminology of John." [I'd rather say, "the theology of Paul's
greatest student", myself!] Instead, it quoted Barclay Newman to the effect
that Paul's insistence that Jesus' death had broken down the wall of hatred
between Jew and Gentile "is a witness against those who would use any portion
of the New Testament as a weapon or warfare to incite anti-Jewish sentiments."
That is a far cry from "using Paul to correct John" (and it certainly doesn't
rob Peter to pay Paul!).
End of Acts: 28:19 has "Jewish leaders". Not sure what else is a
translation problem.
1 John 2:22; 5:12 -- Surely these are not anti-Jewish statements, but
intra-Christian formulas. See Ray Brown's work, or even my own Ph.D.-son, John
Bogart's work on 1 John. (John is now retired; as Helmut Koester was saying to
me on Thanksgiving, "It's very upsetting to have your own students retire ahead
of you!" Helmut is just two months younger than I am. (Parse that as "than I
am young.")
As for Hagar and Sarah in Galatians: This isn't a translation issue,
but of meaning. And of course, the meaning has nothing to do with Jews versus
Christians, but of Gentile-legalists versus Gentile Paulinists, or of Law
versus Gospel (NOT = Jew vs. Gentile).
Incidentally, the ABS has had no trouble getting the rights to ANY
English translation. They issue their own printings of NIV, for example, as
well as RSV and NRSV, New King James, New American Standard, New Jerusalem
Bible, etc. In fact, their $3 NRSV Bible was the ONLY edition in the first
year of the NRSV which did not have a number of errors and omissions, including
a serious omission in Revelation. The reason was simple: They actually
proof-read the entire text, reading aloud to each other, thus catching errors
which were on the discs sent out by the NRSV committee (discs simply printed
out by other publishers). In any case, their non-issuance of the ICV cannot
have been because they couldn't get permission.
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From:
Date:
Subject: [none]
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 13:21:55 -0600
Subject: basic foundations
>
>Daniel wrote:
>
>Would you say that by your efforts in studying
>ancient Greek and the bibical record that your
>faith in the absolute innerancy of the Word of God
>has been increased, decreased or remain the same?
>
>Has your faith in God increased, decreased or
>remained the same?
>
>Would you say that "anyone" who takes an honest
>and thorough approach to the the study the bibilical
>record and ancient greek will be forced to see
>the "divine" hand of God in action, regardless
>of their faith in God?
>
>Your response requested.
>
Ellen wrote;
>
>The interesting thing about scripture is that you can either read into
>it or read from it. Like other forms of literature, poetry, allegory,
>philosphy your mindset affects interpretation. This seems more the case
>in scripture than in other types of work, regardless of whether you
>study in your native tongue or the original language.
>
>Moreover, there is the element of mystery. Scripture says that God is
>Spirit, and the the things of God must be spiritually discerned. As
>much as the scholars on this list pride themselves on being academic
>and impartial, each must admit that he/she either views scriptures by
>faith, as an "insider", or critically as an "outsider".
>
>The further an "insider" studies, the more rewarding the endeavor.
>Apparant inconsistencies are either resolved, or found to be of no
>great importance to the overall picture. To the "outsider" these same
>inconsistencies weigh heavily, as if the very existence of God and His
>order within the Universe rested solely on their own ability to resolve
>a particular issue.
>
>Similarly pride and humility are factors in the understanding of
>scripture. Are we indeed judges of the Word of God, or do we allow
>ouselves to be judged by the Word of God? An "insider" who becomes
>prideful will soon lose his/her ability to properly interpret the
>spiritual nature of scripture, whereas the "outsider" who studies the
>scripture in true humility, I believe, will be endowed with the grace
>to understand both its literal meaning and its intent.
>
>Ellen Adams
Both of these posts disturb me greatly. First, they are outside the
purpose of this list. Second, dichotomies are set up that are false.
>Would you say that >faith in the absolute innerancy of the Word of God
>has been increased, decreased or remain the same?< My recollections of
>the earliest days my faith were the result of my mother reading to me from
>her KJV. Then I trusted in the living Lord. As far as I know my faith
>has never been in an "inerrant text" because I've never seen one. I have
>experienced the presense of the Living Lord. >each must admit that
>he/she either views scriptures by
>faith, as an "insider", or critically as an "outsider".< This is a false
>dichotomy! I think that I view the text of Scripture critically as an
>insider. The word "critical" simply means that I am willing to look at
>evidence in deciding interpretive matters. What makes me an insider is my
>relationship to the living Lord not any particular explanation I might
>give to how God inspired Scripture.
>>The further an "insider" studies, the more rewarding the endeavor.
>Apparant inconsistencies are either resolved, or found to be of no
>great importance to the overall picture. To the "outsider" these same
>inconsistencies weigh heavily, as if the very existence of God and His
>order within the Universe rested solely on their own ability to resolve
>a particular issue.<
The use of "apparent inconsistencies" is interesting. Do you hope they
will go away? They won't. They are there in the text. I didn't put them
there tho many seem to blame me when I point them out. They are not
"apparent," they are there in black and white, a part of the text that has
to be dealt with if we are honest. Stephen said that Abraham left Haran
"after his father died." Genesis 11 and 12 clearly indicate that he lived
another 65 years. Both cannot be inerrant. Either God of Satan tempted
Moses to number the people. The centurion either sent Jewish emissaries to
Jesus (Luke) or he came himself. Both can't be inerrant. We have to deal
with the text as we have it. My faith in the Living Lord has continually
grown thru/out my pilgrimage and such matters will never shake my faith in
him, but they will lead me to continue to revise the Scriptures as light
comes.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College,
Pineville,La
winberyc@linknet.net
fax (318) 442-4996
------------------------------
From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 14:16:34 -0600
Subject: Re: AGAPAW
Carlton Winbery writes:
>With respect to what is signified by KOSMOS in the Gospel of John, 1:10 is
>very interesting. He was in the TWi KOSMWi, and the hO KOSMOS was made
>through him, and hO KOSMOS knew (aor.) him not. Obviously the word
>signifies three different things in this one verse; humanity, creation, and
>humanity apart from God.
This sentence corresponds, then, to Plato's aoristos dyas (taxis of
numerical eide):
1. He was in the TWi KOSMWi
One Itself, beyond being, complete, contains all other forms,
followed by dyad of existence, father
2. and the hO KOSMOS was made
One, non-being (me on), eidos, the first form, possibility
of unification of Many,
son or demiurge
3. through him, and hO KOSMOS knew him not.
Many, being (on), aistheta, eikon, duplicate, image,
natural world
Regards,
Will
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 95 17:05:14 CST
Subject: Re: Basic Foundation
Original message sent on Tue, Nov 28 7:57 AM by cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl
W. Conrad) :
>At 7:09 AM 11/28/95, Daniel Hedrick wrote:
>>Would you say that by your efforts in studying
>>ancient Greek and the bibical record that your
>>faith in the absolute innerancy of the Word of God
>>has been increased, decreased or remain the same?
>>
>>Has your faith in God increased, decreased or
>>remained the same?
>>
>>Would you say that "anyone" who takes an honest
>>and thorough approach to the the study the bibilical
>>record and ancient greek will be forced to see
>>the "divine" hand of God in action, regardless
>>of their faith in God?
>>
>
>In my judgment, this is an improper question to put to this list. While
>those who wish to respond offline to it can readily do so, I would hope
>that we don't let this sort of thing intrude into list discussion itself.
However, it strikes me that very few of us are able to approach the
exegesis of the text without some reference to our presuppositions
concerning the reliability or veracity of the text. I know that we
would like to let ourselves think that our exegesis fully drives our
theology, but I have a strong feeling that this is not reality! (Take, for
example, the recent discussion regarding 1Co 13.)
Mark O'Brien
Grad. student, Dallas Seminary
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 18:33:05 -0600
Subject: Re: Basic Foundation
At 5:05 PM 11/28/95, Mark O'Brien wrote:
>Original message sent on Tue, Nov 28 7:57 AM by cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
>(Carl
>W. Conrad) :
>
>>At 7:09 AM 11/28/95, Daniel Hedrick wrote:
>>>Would you say that by your efforts in studying
>>>ancient Greek and the bibical record that your
>>>faith in the absolute innerancy of the Word of God
>>>has been increased, decreased or remain the same?
>>>
>>>Has your faith in God increased, decreased or
>>>remained the same?
>>>
>>>Would you say that "anyone" who takes an honest
>>>and thorough approach to the the study the bibilical
>>>record and ancient greek will be forced to see
>>>the "divine" hand of God in action, regardless
>>>of their faith in God?
>>>
>>
>>In my judgment, this is an improper question to put to this list. While
>>those who wish to respond offline to it can readily do so, I would hope
>>that we don't let this sort of thing intrude into list discussion itself.
>
>However, it strikes me that very few of us are able to approach the
>exegesis of the text without some reference to our presuppositions
>concerning the reliability or veracity of the text. I know that we
>would like to let ourselves think that our exegesis fully drives our
>theology, but I have a strong feeling that this is not reality! (Take, for
>example, the recent discussion regarding 1Co 13.)
This is unquestionably true, but it is another thing altogether to start
talking about biblical inerrancy. Some of us hold to such a doctrine while
others do not. To start a discussion on that topic is most likely to bring
us to start flaming each other rather than helping each other out in
matters where we CAN be helpful to each other. Theology cannot help but
intrude into discussions of the Greek text, but it is the Greek text that
is our primary focus, as was clearly indicated in the description of the
list sent out to all of us, and I think it is only at great risk that we
embark upon direct discussion of theological issues themselves. That sort
of discussion--which focuses precisely on those issues upon which we
disagree, and perhaps very intensely--is precisely what is most likely to
disrupt the sort of community we have carefully tried to build on this
list.
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/
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #19
****************************
** 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