[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #34
b-greek-digest Thursday, 7 December 1995 Volume 01 : Number 034
In this issue:
Help with Col. 1:24
fonts - final sigma
Re: b-greek-digest V1 #32
Re: James 4,1-10
[none]
Re: Women, etc. (long)
Re: Help with Col. 1:24
Re: Help with Col. 1:24
Re: Help with Col. 1:24
FREE 1 JR MAGAZINE ETC ET
Re: "biblical" vs. "modern" textual criticism
Re: FREE 1 jr Magazine etc etc
Re: "biblical" vs. "modern" textual criticism
Re: Col 1:24
Re: The Preservation of the Word
Re: b-greek-digest V1 #32
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Beale <jbeale@gdeb.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 13:43:19 EST
Subject: Help with Col. 1:24
Hello,
I'm stuck. Col 1:24 reads in part:
NU=N XAI/RW E)N TOI=S PAQH/MASIN U(PE\R U(MW=N
As I understand it:
PAQH/MASIN is dative plural.
U(MW=N is 2nd person genitive plural.
Why does the NAS translate this:
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake
If someone asked me right now how I would translate this, I would
say:
Now I rejoice in your abundant sufferings
That doesn't seem right! I'm sure I've missed something...
Jim
------------------------------
From: drmills@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 13:24:06 -0600 (CST)
Subject: fonts - final sigma
Thanks for the help. Turning off the smart quotes solved the problem.
===========================
David R. Mills
drmills@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Applied English Center
University of Kansas
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 14:59:10 -0500
Subject: Re: b-greek-digest V1 #32
> So what if he sits on the Council of Five, and has written X number of
books
>on Textual Criticism; if that man rejects the inerrency of Scripture, he's
nothing
>more than a foolish man.
Here you are totally wrong and in danger of hell-fire. If someone is a
scholar, but rejects CHRIST, that person is nothing more than a fool.
Rejecting Christ and rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy are not the same
thing at all.
Your equating inerrancy with the Son of God is disturbing.
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: David Scholer <dscholer@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 16:10:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: James 4,1-10
For Frank Simon's inquiry: I strongly recommend Luke Timothy Johnson's
new Anchor Bible Commentary on James (Doubleday, 1995). He discusses the
texts you mentioned.
David M. Scholer
Fuller Theological Seminary
Pasadena, CA 91182
------------------------------
From: Phil <plong@e2.empirenet.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 17:08:41 -0800
Subject: [none]
Bruce,
> This would mean that people who did not belong to the list could not post
to > it to ask questions. Do we really want this?
Since the 1 Year Subscription people seem to leave that message every couple
of weeks, I would not be against limiting posting to subscribers only.
How many people ask questions that are not on the list?
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 15:18:54 -0800
Subject: Re: Women, etc. (long)
Bill Mounce wrote:
>
>
>I would submit that no one, neither Conrad or me or anyone, is able to
>"assess work based entirely on content." No one is free from
>presuppositional and theological conclusions and biases. No one.
>
You are quite right! But there is a difference between presupposition and
prejudice; I still attest that I've seen no prejudice in him.
>>appointed 12 MEN (and no women) as apostles. But when he further
commissioned
>>the 70, there is no clear indication whether women were numbered among
them.
>>They could well have been. After all, a considerable number of women were
>>included in his entourage, and in Acts 2, women were among those filled
with
>>the spirit and who the first proclaimed the gospel on the Day of
Pentecost.
>
>In fact, your assumption "they could well have been" is a good example of
>biases in action.
I really pained over that one. What did the women do at this time? What are
the alternatives? Jesus sent the women packing until that time was over? He
sent the men away, while all the women stayed alone with him? My conclusion
was just as reasonable.
>Whether they are true or not is not my issue, but rather
>that biases are at work.
That is what makes b-greek such an interesting forum. One would assume that
overall the participants are knowledgeable, and while acquiring all that
knowledge, we have also established our presuppositions. These often
differ. In such a forum, we are able to teach, learn, and test our
understanding. As long as we maintain a unity of the spirit, we can work to
build one another up until (hopefully) we attain a unity of the faith and
knowledge of our Lord.
>You can compare Krogers work (I Suffer not a Woman) with Knights initial
>essay. The new book from Baker on 1 Tim 2 has a hugh discussion of it.
>
And oh, don't I wish I had freer access to such materials! With kids in
college, I can't afford many books. And I only occasionally steal a few
moments in the Seminary library to study there.
>I really don't think that using emotionally charged and incorrect language
>like "chauvanist" is helpful or correct.
Good point. I must learn to word things more discretely.
Thanks for your input.
Xaris,
Ellen
By the way, you teach Greek, presumably to students of both genders. Just
out of curiousity, how do you counsel women involved in Biblical studies
concerning their options in ministry?
------------------------------
From: Jim Beale <jbeale@gdeb.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 18:13:32 EST
Subject: Re: Help with Col. 1:24
Wow! Thank you everyone. What a great group!
nu=n now
xai/rw I rejoice
e)n in
toi=s the (my)
paqh/masin sufferings
u(pe\r on behalf of
u(mw=n y'all (1)
kai\ and
a)ntanaplhrw= I fill up
ta\ the
u(sterh/mata deficiencies
tw=n
qli/yewn of the afflictions
tou=
*xristou= of Christ
e)n in
th=| the
sarki/ flesh
mou of me
u(pe\r on behalf of
tou=
sw/matos of the body
au)tou= of him
o(/ which
e)stin is
h( the
e)kklhsi/a Church
1. south'n is a more advanced form of the english
language because they differentiate between
singular and plural in the 2nd person.
The word QLI/YEWN doesn't refer to Christ's vicarious satisfaction
in any way does it? hUPER is used of Christ's sufferings on behalf
of His people, but does this imply that there is some defiency? I
admit to a theological roadblock on this one... :-)
Jim
________________________________________________
Thou awakest us to delight in Thy praise;
for Thou madest us for Thyself, and our
heart is restless, until it repose in Thee.
(Augustine, Confessions, I,1)
________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: Travis Bauer <bauer@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 16:24:04 -36000
Subject: Re: Help with Col. 1:24
Jim,
The trouble is with the preposition. U(MW=N is not used as a
possessive here, as your translation would put it, but rather is the
object of the preposition. So Paul is not writing about "your
sufferings", but rather sufferings "U(PE\R U(MW=N," i.e. sufferings on
behalf of you, i.e. sufferings for your sake. "My" is implied.
- -------------------------------------
Travis Bauer
bauer@acc.jc.edu
homepage: http://acc.jc.edu/~bauer/
- -------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 18:14:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Help with Col. 1:24
Jim,
I think what you've missed is that YPER is a preposition, and
the genitive YMWN is its object.
Hang in there! It's a great language.
James
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: Mark Penner <mark.penner@jemanet.or.jp>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 09:58:00 GMT
Subject: FREE 1 JR MAGAZINE ETC ET
JJ> Re: repeated offers at B-Greek of cheap US magazines (VERY long
JJ> messages)
JJ> Is it perhaps a good idea to refuse from now on publication of this
JJ> kind of advertisement at B-Greek? Imho, it doesn't belong at a
JJ> scholarly discussion group like B_Greek.
I don't know if messages can be refused or not, but it is possible that
we all write the offending person a little note expressing our views on
their behavior. "Busy student" and "just a happy customer"
notwithstanding, I think she needs to hear from us--all of us.
Mark
_______________________________________________________________________
Mark & Mary Esther Penner CBInternational
Tokyo, Japan
* RM 1.3 02234 * Coincide (v): what you do when it starts to rain.
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:12:52 +0400
Subject: Re: "biblical" vs. "modern" textual criticism
John Calvin Hall wrote;
>Never claimed that Biblical Textual Criticism [BTC] avoids the use of reason
>- instead human intellect is subserviant to the Word of God. I had the
>opportunity to dialogue with an aquaintance here on B-Greek quite a few
>months ago on the issue of the superiority of the Received Text over the
>Critical Text. He could not understand how I could hold to such a text,
>because he had the misconceptions that my foundation was the same as his.
>
>It wasn't.
>
>The Modern Textual Critic's [MTC] desire, whether sincere or not, is to
>recover the closest reading to the original text. BTC claims that since God
>has promised to preserve His Word, we must therefore have it. With this
>axiom as a base, it is then the Bible-scholar's responsability to identify
>which is the correct text. To be quite honest, it's not as hard as the task
>of the MTC's.
>
>>in its effort to "identify" the original text is unsupportable, to put it
>mildly.
>
>Unsupportable?? By who's standard of authority?? Yours or mine?? My
>authority is the Bible. Pray tell - what is yours?? Please, don't get me
>wrong. I'm just clarifying my point as to the nature of Authorities.
>
>My foundation is Scripture. I can go to the Word of God and prove what I
>believe from the Bible. The MTC cannot, because their authority is not
>Scripture, but human intellect. During the early years of our great nation,
>many of our intellects and scholars got wrapped up in the Enlightenment.
>The misconception that man can exist and flourish without the aid of God
>carried over into German Higher Criticism and Liberalism. Today, its
>results is that anyone that can show to have some factor of intellect is
>considered to be a "scholar." This is nothing more than (if I may borrow a
>coloquial term) "hog-wash." It is _vital_ to have excellent reasoning
>skills, but biblical-scholasticism ought not be based on the level of a
>person's intellect alone, but must rest mainly on the subserviance of their
>intellect to the Word of God. There are many people today who are
>considered to be Bible-scholars, but are not. So what if he sits on the
>Council of Five, and has written X number of books on Textual Criticism; if
>that man rejects the inerrency of Scripture, he's nothing more than a
>foolish man.
It is extremely unfortunate that you equate the "Word of the Lord"
mentioned so many times in Scripture with the text of Scripture. That
borders on bibliotry at the worst and at best leads you to make statements
that can neither be supported by Scripture or reason.
Calton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: Nichael Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 17:42:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: FREE 1 jr Magazine etc etc
On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Mark O'Brien wrote:
> My own personal response is to send several replies to the sender of
> these messages saying, "Do NOT send this junk out to the whole
> world!" (I also include all the trash they sent to me.)
>
> I figure that if every annoyed recipient was to send these multiple
> replies and flood the sender's mailbox with garbage, they might
> get the idea that I don't want it!
This makes a number of assumptions about the senders' intent --such as
they are *really* trying to sell magazine-- that I suspect aren't valid.
No, more likely these are just geeks who are doing this spam precisely
*because* it is annoying. It is unlikely that they even seen such
responses as that suggested above.
As pointed out previously the only real protection against this sort of
thing is a moderator. And as also pointed out, the bandwidth of a list
like this would make that a very big job.
Nichael
P.S. As an aside to the powers that be: The maintainer of one list that
I'm on does the following. He arranges for the domain of the address in
the "from" field to be verified and any message that fails is flagged for
attention by the list-owner.
Needless to say, this scheme is not perfect, but it does a pretty good job
of filtering out clearly bogus postings, such as this magazine-
subscription lossage. --N
------------------------------
From: Nichael Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 18:05:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: "biblical" vs. "modern" textual criticism
On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Timothy Bratton wrote:
> ... And if God were so determined to
> preserve a particular Biblical text as canonical -- for example, the
> *Textus Receptus* of 1611 -- why did He permit the discovery of
> *Sinaiticus*, *Vaticanus*, the Chester Beatty papyri, and other
> previously unknown sources within the last century? Or are you going to
> claim that Satan is stirring up strife in Christian circles by deluding
> Prof. Metzger and his associates? For all the abuse you insist on
> heaping on members of this list, they are studying the Bible intently,
> trying to extract every nuance of expression, in order to understand the
> Word of God more clearly. Finally, your onw line of reasoning can be
> turned against your argument. Might it not be that God has chosen to
> reveal additional manuscripts because the "standard" text was being
> misinterpreted or misapplied, so that He, in His infinite wisdom, led
> Biblical scholars to find these?
More to the point, my concern is with those poor souls unfortunate enough
to have lived in the seven or eight centuries _before_ this sanctioned
text became the majority text. What is their fate? Were they sacrificed
to perdition in order that we who are lucky enough to have lived since
Erasmus might be saved?
N
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 18:08:21 -0800
Subject: Re: Col 1:24
(Sorry if this is a duplicate post. My line crashed mid-transmit, and I
don't know whether it made it across.)
Jim Beale wrote:
>
>Hello,
>
>I'm stuck. Col 1:24 reads in part:
>
> NU=N XAI/RW E)N TOI=S PAQH/MASIN U(PE\R U(MW=N
>
>As I understand it:
>
> PAQH/MASIN is dative plural.
> U(MW=N is 2nd person genitive plural.
>
>Why does the NAS translate this:
>
> Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake
>
>If someone asked me right now how I would translate this, I would
>say:
>
> Now I rejoice in your abundant sufferings
>
>That doesn't seem right! I'm sure I've missed something...
>
>
>Jim
>
huper as a prefix can mean "abundant" and the genitive case
can mean "belonging to". Huper here is a preposition, which used with
the genitive (ablative to 8-casers) can signify "in behalf of".
The NAS translation reflects this meaning.
Ellen Adams
------------------------------
From: BibAnsMan@aol.com
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 00:10:59 -0500
Subject: Re: The Preservation of the Word
In a message dated 95-12-06 13:07:49 EST, Eric Weiss writes:
>Criticism (MTC), I'd like to ask: Where in the Scriptures does God
>explicitly promise to preserve His Word (as the proponent of BTC seems to
>say) where "Word" means the written Scriptures or especially the canon of
>Scripture, including its each and every letter? Does the Scripture use the
>phrase "the Word of God" to mean the written Scriptures? If so, where?
>
I am not aware of any Scripture which explicitly states that God will
preserve every letter. However, there are certain passages which make it
clear that every word and letter is more than just important, but determined
by God to succeed. In Matthew 5:18 Jesus states "For truly I say to you,
until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall
pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." The smallest letter is
the Hebrew Yod (similar in size and form to an apostrophe in English). The
stroke is the Serif which distinguishes two nearly identical letters, the
Daleth and the Resh. It is a projection of a letter. Jesus was undoubtedly
using some euphemism here. But we must realize the intent of this euphemism
not dismiss it as such! He was stressing the determination of God to fulfill
every word of Scripture down to the letter. I believe God considers every
word important.
You are probably quite aware of 2 Timothy 3:16 which states that "All
Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for training in righteousness." PASA GRAFH QEOPNEUSTOS. All
Scripture is God-breathed. In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter includes Paul's writings
in Scripture.
>It's always seemed odd to me when discussing the
>question of the preservation of the original inerrant text that the one New
>Testament book (the Apocalypse) which contains a warning about adding to or
>subtracting from its words is as I understand it one of the worst attested
to
>as to its original text in the manuscript tradition. If I'm wrong about
that
>statement, please let me know. But if it's true, it does raise the question
>that if God promised to preserve His canonical written word, why did He do
>such a poor job with the Apocalypse?)
This is a negative view of the textual preservation. You do not cite any
evidence for your supposition. Neither do you refer to any statistics. It
is not good to quote things in this manner unless you have some evidence.
You might want to ask a question how it is attested, but don't come against
Scripture without some specific research.
I look at Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament and
there are other books that have more variant readings by far than the book of
Revelation. p47 is one of the earliest and best preserved portions of the
New Testament dating from the middle to late third century! It is composed
of ten well preserved leaves of a codex measuring about 9 1/2 by 5 1/2 inches
of the book of Revelation, chs. 9-17. A fourth century codex called the
Sinaiticus contains the entire New Testament, including Revelation. Codex
Alexandrinus from the fifth century contains Revelation also.
I would not say that it is the "worst attested." Rather, when speaking of
anything such as this, I would say something like, "It is not attested to as
well as the others." I say this because there are over 5400 Greek
manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament. Compare it to
Caesar's Gallic Wars which only contain 10. Does anybody else have something
from that age that has more than 10? I seem to remember that this is the
next best comparison. I would say the New Testament is well-attested.
Jim McGuire
Professor of Greek at
Logos Bible Institute
13248 Roscoe Blvd.
Sun Valley, CA 91352
------------------------------
From: John Calvin Hall <johnhall@gulf.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 00:09:05 -0400
Subject: Re: b-greek-digest V1 #32
At 02:59 PM 12/6/95 -0500, you wrote:
>> So what if he sits on the Council of Five, and has written X number of
books
>>on Textual Criticism; if that man rejects the inerrency of Scripture, he's
nothing more than a foolish man.
>
> Here you are totally wrong and in danger of hell-fire. If someone is a
>scholar, but rejects CHRIST, that person is nothing more than a fool.
> Rejecting Christ and rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy are not the same
>thing at all.
> Your equating inerrancy with the Son of God is disturbing.
Whoa! Where is it that I am referring to his personal relationship with
Christ?? It is you who is making the correlation, not I! God commands us
not to judge whether a person is saved or not, but we are commanded to be
"Fruit Inspectors."
Let's ask a question from you??
What do YOU think of Metzger's insinuations that the original MSS had
errors?? (Read his commentary! It's there).
Do YOU believe that God allowed errors to be in the original writings?
John Calvin Hall
Pensacola, Florida
johnhall@gulf.net
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #34
****************************
** 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