[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #35
b-greek-digest Thursday, 7 December 1995 Volume 01 : Number 035
In this issue:
Re: The use of hOTAN (intolerably long)
concessive clauses
Re: concessive clauses
Re: Collation against MT vs. TR
Re: Help with Col. 1:24
Re: concessive clauses
RE: THE PRESERVATION OF THE
Re: b-greek-digest V1 #32
Acts 15:18
Magazine Spam
Inerrancy discussion
GOOD Greek Correspondence Courses?
RE: THE PRESERVATION OF THE ...
Re: The use of hOTAN (intolerably long)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 07:07:26 -0600
Subject: Re: The use of hOTAN (intolerably long)
Thank God and all the parties named in the cited posts below for bringing
discussion to focus on an issue that is at least more immediately
grammatical, even if it does have theological repercussions, namely, how we
are to understand hOTAN IN 1 Cor 13:10. I don't see any way to omit
previous correspondence if the context is to be understood.
At 11:57 AM 12/6/95, Bruce Terry wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Nov 1995, David Moore responded to my post:
>
>>Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>For me, a more crucial question than the meaning of TO TELEION is the
>>>significance of hOTAN in verse 10. Edward Irving argued that this implied
>>>that TO EK MEROUS "the thing in part" would not cease (except for times of
>>>corruption in the church) *until* TO TELEION should come. I no longer
>>>believe
>>>this follows. In verse 11, Paul says, hOTE GEGONA ANHR, KATHRGHKA TA TOU
>>>NHPIOU "When I became a man [NRSV adult], I put away the things of the
>>>child."
>>>Paul did not retain all his childish speech, thinking, and reasoning
>>>until the
>>>age of manhood. Those things gradually passed away as they were no longer
>>>needed or appropriate. I see no real difference between hOTE in verse 11 and
>>>hOTAN in verse 10 as regards this; he uses hOTAN in verse 10 because the time
>>>of the coming of TO TELEION was indefinite and hOTE in verse 11 because he
>>>knew when he had become a man. But neither means "At the time of and not a
>>>whit before" as oft imagined both by Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals alike.
>>
>> Caution is certainly advisable when we are dealing with a
>>passage the carries as much theological weight, practically speaking, as
>>this one. Bruce has mentioned hOTAN and hOTE. The first, used with the
>>aorist subjunctive, indicates that the action of the subordinate clause
>>precedes that of the main clause (BAGD s.v. hOTAN). I.e., TO TELEION will
>>come before "that which is in part" will be done away. hOTE, used in v.
>>11 with the imperfect, refers to some extended time that, with his use of
>>the perfect of 11b, Paul simply indicates came to an end with the
>>establishment of a new situation. It is important to understand that these
>>matters from Paul's personal life simply serve as an illustration of what
>>he is trying to convey. We must not put more weight on such an
>>illustration than it is able to carry.
>
>Thanks, David, for bringing the entry in BAGD to my attention. It basically
>says that hOTAN is used with the present subjunctive "when the action of the
>subordinate clause is contemporaneous w. that of the main clause" and with the
>aorist subjunctive "when the action of the subordinate clause precedes that of
>the main clause." I have looked at a number of passages using hOTAN in a
>Greek concordance and am prepared to say that as a rule of thumb this seems to
>be the case. The problem is that there are exceptions to it as well.
I have read and re-read this list of passages and the discussion, and after
pondering it, it has finally occurred to me that something very basic seems
left out of the accounting here. When I originally studied Greek there was
a straightforward instruction about basic conditional patterns that did
admit of some extraordinary modifications, but that nevertheless conformed
pretty regularly to a norm of behavior, especially when the condition is
temporal. And this governs the usage of hOTAN in two types of temporal
conditions:
(1) FUTURE "MORE VIVID" CONDITIONS: Protasis takes present or aorist
subjunctive + AN (either EAN, hOTAN, or a variant of hOSTIS AN); apodosis
is future indicative or imperative prescribing what one is to do in that
future situation. A simple example in classical Attic:
hOTAN (EAN, hOSTIS AN) ERXHTAI, OCOMEQA AUTON ("Whenever he comes,
we shall see him." But the protasis may have an aorist, in which case
normally the condition must be fully satisfied before the result may occur:
hOTAN ELQHi, OCOMEQA AUTON (This I would give a more precise
translation: "Once he has come, we shall see him.") I would add that the
latter form is really more precise. The Latin constructions are comparable,
and those who know their Latin will recognize that Latin much prefers the
future perfect indicative in the Protasis, corresponding precisely to the
Greek aorist subjunctive (and, as a matter of historical fact, it WAS
originally an aorist subjunctive in Latin: VEN-I-SI-T -> VENERIT):
ILLUM CUM VENIT/VENERIT VIDEBIMUS.
(2) PRESENT GENERAL CONDITION: Protasis takes present, less commonly aorist
subjunctive + AN (EAN, hOSTIS AN), apodosis takes the present indicative. A
simple example in classical Attic:
hOTAN ERXHTAI/ELQHi EKEINOS, hORWMEN AUTON.("Whenever he comes/as
soon as he has arrived, we see him.").
Are these conditional constructions (there are several others, of course,
including a past general and present and past counter-factual) ever taught
in courses in Koine? Or is this one of those matters on which Edward Hobbs
said the compilers of BDF and BAGD made the false assumption that their
readers would know classical Attic grammar?
Now I want to take up the examples that Bruce says are exceptions to the
rule about hOTAN cited by David Moore in BAGD:
>With the AORIST:
>
>Compare Matthew 9:15 (paralleled by Mark 2:20):
>
>ELEUSONTAI DE hHMERAI hOTAN APARQHi AP' AUTWN hO NUMFIOS
>"but days will come whenever the bridegroom is taken from them"
>
>The days do not come after the bridegroom is taken from them, but when.
>Granted that this one is stative in nature, and thus the days continue.
Personally I believe that Mark's text is the earliest form, but I don't
want to get into that argument now. At any rate, Mk and Mt read
identically, but the two clauses cited by Bruce are followed by a third.
The whole sequence:
ELEUSONTAI DE hHMERAI hOTAN APARQHi AP' AUTWN hO NUMFIOS, KAI TOTE
NHSTEUSOUSIN ... (Mk has also EN EKEINHi THi hHMERAi, Mt does not).
Now I would say that this is actually a FUTURE MORE VIVID CONSTRUCTION, but
the clauses are poorly constructed; the real apodosis to the hOTAN clause
is KAI TOTE NHSTEUSOUSIN. It is instructive to look at Luke's revision of
this text (5:35):
ELEUSONTAI DE hHMERAI, KAI hOTAN APARQHi AP' AUTWN hO NUMFIOS, TOTE
NHSTEUSOUSIN EN EKEINAIS TAIS hHMERAIS.
(Logically the phrasing of Mk and Mt doesn't make any sense: we usually
translate it, "But the days will come when [not 'whenever'] the bridgroom
gets taken away from them." It ought to be: "Once the bridegroom gets taken
away from him, the days will come." I think that we probably translate it
the way Mark intended it, but I would put this writing down as another
instance rather careless writing of Greek.
>Compare I Cor. 15:27:
>
>hOTAN DE EIPHi hOTI PANTA hUPOTETAKTAI, DHLON hOTI . . .
>"but whenever it says that all things have been subjected, it is clear that"
>
>It is clear at the time that it says this.
I'd say this is another instance of a FUTURE MORE VIVID construction, and I
would translate it, " ... as soon as he/it has said, 'everything has been
subordinated,' it's obvious that ..." I can appreciate that Bruce may want
to argue that this is in no way a future construction; on the other hand,
it is certainly not a present general construction. I conceive the logic of
it as pointing to the moment in the reading of the text at which the
implication becomes crystal clear.
>Compare II Cor. 12:10:
>
>hOTAN GAR ASQENW, TOTE DUNATOS EIMI.
>"for whenever I am weak, then I am strong."
>
>This is at the time, not just afterwards.
I respectfully submit that ASQENW is present tense, not aorist. The
construction here, however, is a PRESENT GENERAL condition: "Every single
time that I am weak is a time when I am strong."
>With the PRESENT:
>
>Compare Matthew 10:23:
>
>hOTAN DE DIWKWSIN hUMAS EN THi POLEI TAUTHi, FEUGETE EIS THN hETERAN
>"but whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to a different one"
>
>Here the fleeing does take place after the persecution. The present tense is
>probably used in this case because the action may be repeated.
This is clearly a FUTURE MORE VIVID condition, wherein the present tense is
not unusual. I think Bruce is right about the use of the present
subjunctive: this is instruction for the long run of the future, one should
expect the persecutors to come after believers again and again. The
imperative in the apodosis, as noted above, is a regular alternative to a
future tense.
>Compare I Thess. 5:3:
>
>hOTAN LEGWSIN, EIRHNH KAI ASFALEIA, TOTE AIFNIDIOS AUTOUS EFISTATAI OLEQROS
>"whenever they say, "Peace and safety," then sudden destruction comes on them"
>
>Here the destruction comes after they say "Peace and safety."
This in itself is more ambiguous. In form it would appear to resemble more
closely a PRESENT GENERAL condition: "Just at the moment (whenever it may
be) that they say, 'Peace,' doom is upon them." In that case I don't think
it's necessary to pinpoint the time sequence of saying and sudden
destruction. On the other hand, one could understand EFISTATAI as present
tense for future, and see this as a FUTURE MORE VIVID construction: "As
soon as they say, 'Peace,' doom will crash down on them." It strikes me
that this is precisely one of those sayings of which the Q-Critics like to
speak of a "wisdom" saying that is readily transformed into an apocalyptic
warning. And of course this appears in an undisputably apocalyptic sequence
in 1 Thess.
>These are enough examples to show that the "rule" in BAGD does not always
>hold. Actually the sense of subsequent or contemporaneous action comes not
>from the grammar but from the conceptual picture drawn. It is not so much the
>aspect as the Aktionsart that is important. Even more than that, the context
>clarifies the action.
Personally I'm inclined to think that the rule in BAGD holds well enough,
but that one would do better to take note of the normal patterns of
conditional clauses, particularly those that use hOTAN, the present general
and the future more vivid.
>Ken Litwak has been asking about Porter's view on grammar. If I am not
>mistaken, this is a good illustration of Porter's point. The grammar does not
>make the meaning here. (This is probably a better way of saying it than to
>say that it does not mean anything). Rather, the grammar is often used to
>accompany a certain meaning. But there is a world of difference in saying
>that the grammar makes a passage mean something and in saying that it is often
>used with a certain meaning. To pick up on Ken's example, the negative
>present imperative is often used when the writer wants to command someone to
>stop doing an action that is on-going, but it does not "mean" to stop an
>action; the contruction can be used with other meanings as well.
I won't comment on the matter about Porter as I must yet read and reckon
with what he has to say, but in my view the grammar of conditionals and the
more-or-less standard pattern of tenses and moods used with them is quite
sufficient to deal with those examples.
>To return to I Cor. 13:10, I seriously doubt that "the thing in part" is done
>away with *after* "the perfect" comes. Rather, the process of doing away will
>be finally completed when the perfect arrives. The word hOTAN is not a
>mathematical term that means "when and only when." Edward Irving used it like
>that in the 1830's; I learned it that way as a child; but now I have learned
>enough about the nature of language to understand what one of my mathematics
>teachers meant when he once said, "The Bible is not logical." It is written
>in human language, and although there is a logic to language, it is not logic
>in the mathematical sense. Everything must be understood in context.
To return to 1 Cor 13:10, hOTAN DE ELQHi TO TELEION, TO EK MEROUS
KATARGHQHSETAI, this is another clear example of a FUTURE MORE VIVID, and I
think the aorist is equivalent to a Latin future perfect. I would
translate, "As soon as the complete has come, the partial will become null
and void."
I quite agree that context is fundamental to understanding, and I will
agree that there's a "je ne sais quoi" of truth in the dictum, "The Bible
is not logical." On the other hand, the Bible is a long way from being
illogical--it's far more logical than I am. So I am inclined to say of this
little dictum, "The Bible is not logical," what was said in a blooper I
will never forget from a student's essay on a philosophy exam many years
ago: "This statement is good as far as it goes, but it goes too far."
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: Travis Bauer <bauer@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 07:46:27 -36000
Subject: concessive clauses
I am reading a book, "A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament", by Dana and Mantey. I'm wondering if anyone can explain to
me what a concessive clause is. It occurs with an indicative verb.
- -----------------------------------------------
Travis Bauer
bauer@acc.jc.edu
homepage: http://acc.jc.edu/~bauer/
We don't understand the software; and
sometimes we don't understand the
hardware; but we can see the blinking lights!
-fortune
- -----------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 08:31:51 -0600
Subject: Re: concessive clauses
At 1:46 AM 12/22/95, Travis Bauer wrote:
> I am reading a book, "A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
>Testament", by Dana and Mantey. I'm wondering if anyone can explain to
>me what a concessive clause is. It occurs with an indicative verb.
It's a subordinate clause beginning with "although" or the equivalent; the
equivalent of it may be found in participial phrases introduced with
KAIPER, EI GE, or the like.
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: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 09:53:33 -0600
Subject: Re: Collation against MT vs. TR
Tim,
The volume that I've depended on more than anything for the cursives as
well as the uncials is the old one by E.M. Thompson, Handbook of Greek and
Latin Paleography, Oxford, 1912 (It has been reprinted and possibly
revised). A shorter work and perhaps more available is B. A. van
Groningen, A Manual of Greek Palaeography, Leiden, 1940.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College,
Pineville,La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
fax (318) 442-4996
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 10:40:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Help with Col. 1:24
From: Jim Beale <jbeale@gdeb.com>
Subject: Re: Help with Col. 1:24
To: b-greek@virginia.edu
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 18:13:32 EST
Jim Beale <jbeale@gdeb.com> wrote:
>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... :-)
>
The most likely meaning of this passage, IMO, is that certain
afflictions pertain to the church because of her union with Christ. This
idea agrees with what Paul expresses in other places on related matters
(Rom. 8:17; 8:36; 2 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 3:10, 11; 2 Tim. 2:12).
C. F. D. Moule's comments in his _The Epistles of Paul the Apostle
to the Colossians and Philemon_ are helpful on this passage. He takes the
afflictions mentioned as referring to those the church is destined to
experience, but it may be that Paul is referring to afflictions to which
he, personally, is destined by his union with Christ (Moule also notes
this possibility.) in his service on behalf of the church (cf. Rev. 13:10,
N-A text).
So the reference would not be to redemptive sufferings as those of
Christ, but to those things the believer may suffer in living for Christ
and in serving others according to His will. Paul would be referring to
the sorts of things that cannot separate us from the love of Christ and in
the midst of which believers "triumph absolutely through Him who loved
us."
All the best,
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 11:06:01 -0600
Subject: Re: concessive clauses
> I am reading a book, "A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
>Testament", by Dana and Mantey. I'm wondering if anyone can explain to
>me what a concessive clause is. It occurs with an indicative verb.
A concessive clause is an adverbial subordinated clause that indicates an
unfavorable circumstance despite which the action of the main verb takes
place. It can be translated with "Although" or some such expression in
English. They can be introduced in Greek by KAIPER, KAITOI, KAITOIGE.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College,
Pineville,La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
fax (318) 442-4996
------------------------------
From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 95 10:45:43 -0600
Subject: RE: THE PRESERVATION OF THE
Re. the preservation of inspired scripture:
The current insistence on "jot and tittle perfect" preservation of scripture
falls apart on two grounds. First, it is clear that the OT text has not
received this kind of provident preservation. Second, and related, it is clear
that the NT writers who quote the OT don't hold to this view of preservation.
Their flexibility in quoting and their use of disparate versions of the LXX
clearly contradicts the current fundamentalist view. (And I make this
statement as one who is sometimes thought of as a fundamentalist.)
Grace and peace,
Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
------------------------------
From: Eric Vaughan <jevaughan@sauaca.saumag.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 11:08:58 CST
Subject: Re: b-greek-digest V1 #32
> 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.
Anyone who doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures DOESN'T believe
in Christ, or God for that matter. Part of believing in Christ, is believing
his divinity, which includes the characteristic of omnipotence. How could an
omnipotent being fail at anything, including giving us a nonerrant scripture?
I think you may be confused on what it may mean to believe in Christ.
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 09:17:54 -0800
Subject: Acts 15:18
Curiousity has gotten the better of me. Since no one has brought up this
topic recently, I'll ask:
For years I have wondered about the numerous variations for Acts 15:18,
but really didn't know where to turn to for information. I did purchase
Metzger's "Text of the N.T", (only such book in stock at the time),
which I've found awfully interesting, but which sheds very little light
on this particular passage.
I kind of like "tauta gnwsta ap'aiwnos"...sweet and simple, but there are
so many other options, all the way to "tauta panta. gnwsta ap'aiwnos
estin tw Qew panta ta erga autou." What a mouthful! And it makes quite
a shift in the conclusion of this entire discourse. Surely, this is not
just another example of sleepy-scribe syndrome. There seems to have been
a little tampering somewhere by someone. Has anyone a clue who did what?
Any insight as to why?
If you have any references for me, I'll trot on down to the library and
look them up. If you've any comments or insights, I would certainly
appreciate them as well.
Thanks in advance,
Ellen Adams
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 12:47:18 -0400
Subject: Magazine Spam
[Needless to say, this is incredibly off-topic, but there's been so much
discussion on this topic that I thought some folks might be interested.
In any case, below is a message sent out to another list to which I belong
which contains a lot of information about the source and nature of the
"Magazine Spam". --N]
>Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 02:44:49 -0500
>From: Alan Bawden <Cube-Lovers-Request@ai.mit.edu>
>Sender: Cube-Lovers-Request@ai.mit.edu
>Subject: Magazine Spam
>To: Cube-Lovers@ai.mit.edu
>Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Dec 95 2:54:24 EST
>Resent-From: ncramer@BBN.COM
>Resent-To: nichael@sover.net
>Status:
>
>So I thought it was time to send you all an update on unwanted magazine
>advertisements that have been broadcast over Cube-Lovers about once a week
>for the last few months. Here's the final story.
>
>First off, there is absolutely -nothing- that I can do IN THE SHORT TERM to
>stop these advertisements. Internet electronic mail was not designed to
>prevent unwanted advertising. As things are set up now, Cube-Lovers is a
>simple mailing list, so anybody, anywhere, can send mail to Cube-Lovers and
>you all get it.
>
>It turns out that the source of the advertising we've been getting is a
>fellow named Kevin Jay Lipsitz <krazykev@kjl.com>. I've written directly
>to Mr. Lipsitz politely asking him to remove Cube-Lovers from his list of
>advertising targets (it was hard to be polite, but I was) -- but Mr.
>Lipsitz apparently doesn't answer his electronic mail. Actually, I doubt
>he even -reads- his electronic mail, because he is a well-known Spammer,
>and probably gets hundreds of complaints a day delivered to his address.
>(For those of you new to the Internet, "Spamming" is the technical term for
>the kind of advertising Mr. Lipsitz engages in.)
>
>I really doubt that Mr. Lipsitz's technique has sold any magazines to any
>of -you-, but I suppose he gets enough suckers to make it pay, and he's got
>no motivation to bother removing Cube-Lovers, since MIT is paying for the
>resources that he's using to reach you all. So we're stuck with him. At
>least we're stuck with him until I can get the filtering technology in
>place to cut him off. Which I wanted to avoid, because I have better
>things to do with my time, but now I have no choice. So relief from Mr.
>Lipsitz's magazines is on its way eventually, but probably not until
>you've seen several more copies of his advertisement -- sorry.
>
>By the way, here's more information on Mr. Lipsitz. You'll notice that he
>has his own domain name: KJL.COM. They don't give you a domain name unless
>you provide a mailing address and a phone number, so the following
>information is publicly available from the NIC:
>
> Kevin Jay Lipsitz (KJL-DOM)
> PO Box 120990
> Staten Island NY 10312-0990
>
> Domain Name: KJL.COM
>
> Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
> Lipsitz, Kevin Jay (KJL2) krazykev@KJL.COM
> 718-967-1234
>
> Record last updated on 25-Aug-95.
> Record created on 20-Apr-95.
>
> Domain servers in listed order:
>
> NS1.ABS.NET 206.42.80.130
> NS2.ABS.NET 206.42.80.131
> NS1.NET99.NET 204.157.3.2
>
>If you want proof that this is the guy, you need only note that the address
>given here is the -same- as the address for ordering magazines given in all
>those advertisements. The phone number is in the same area code and
>exchange as the Fax number he sometimes gives. (Although the fact that the
>phone number ends in "1234" makes me suspect it is bogus -- I don't think
>think the NIC tries to -verify- any of this information.) Notice that
>ABS.NET provides the domain service for KJL.COM. You will find that
>ABS.NET is no more interested in answering your mail than Mr. Lipsitz is.
>
>Finally, I urge you all -not- to respond to this message in public. If you
>have further thoughts on Internet advertising, electronic mailing list
>administration, or clever acts of revenge, you can send them to -me-, but
>don't CC your message to Cube-Lovers as a whole. The whole point here is
>to keep Cube-Lovers relatively free of off-topic mail. As the list
>administrator I get to send out occasional administrivia such as this
>message because I do actual -work- to keep the list running.
>
> - Alan (Cube-Lovers-Request@AI.MIT.EDU)
Nichael "... and they opened their thesaurus
nichael@sover.net and brought forth gold,
http://www.sover.net/~nichael and frankincense and myrrh."
------------------------------
From: Leo Percer <PERCERL@baylor.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 11:41:54 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Inerrancy discussion
I had promised myself that I was going to stay out of this fight until I
read the following from Eric Vaughan <jevaughan@sauaca.saumag.edu>:
>Anyone who doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures DOESN'T believe
>in Christ, or God for that matter. Part of believing in Christ, is believing
>his divinity, which includes the characteristic of omnipotence. How could an
>omnipotent being fail at anything, including giving us a nonerrant scripture?
>I think you may be confused on what it may mean to believe in Christ.
Eric, do I really hear you saying that one cannot be a disciple of Christ
without first believing in the inerrancy of Scripture? That is a little
hard to swallow, especially since the NT is full of examples of people
(like the Pharisees and Saduccees) who believed strongly in the written
word (or, if you prefer, "law") of God, and yet who did not trust in Jesus
nor receive him as their Messiah! But according to your statement above,
they were better "Christians" than some of the disciples! So, all those
Jews and Christians who for centuries had no concept of inerrancy really
did not believe in God? Boy, that must come as a surprise to them and to
God! Speaking as a conservative (and a staunch inerrantist, I might add!),
this linking of relationship with God to doctrine sounds too much like
legalism to me. Not only that, but I find no where in Scripture where
Jesus says that relationship with God begins with a believe in inerrancy.
In fact, Jesus seems to claim that relationship with God begins with Jesus,
not doctrines (kindly see John 14 and the book of Acts for references!).
The kind of reasoning presented in the post above makes me ashamed to call
myself a Christian sometimes! Where does it say that just because God is
omnipotent that He would "never fail at anything"? Does that include that
He won't fail at saving everyone? After all, 2 Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord
is not slow about His promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient
with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance." Since
then God is omnipotent (meaning God never fails), then no one will fail to
come to repentance according to this verse. Are you an universalist, Eric?
I apologize to the list for this rant, but stuff like this makes me see
red! As a conservative, I think I have some good reasons to believe what I
believe, but that doesn't then give me the right to judge those who
disagree with me. The Christian life is more than a set of doctrines or
statements about God, and many godly people have lived that life without
much concern about inerrancy. Can we please get off this topic and on to
more fruitful things?
Thanks,
Leo Percer
PERCERL@BAYLOR.EDU
Waco, TX
------------------------------
From: Wes Williams <0007231780@mcimail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 95 12:52 EST
Subject: GOOD Greek Correspondence Courses?
Can someone please recommend some good correspondence or distance learning
courses to learn biblical greek. I've read a number of beginning greek books,
like "Basic Greek in 30 Minutes a Day" and another by Davis (yech!, too dry), as
well as "Manual Grammar" by Dana and Mante. I'd like to kick my greek to the
advanced stage but I'm sure like nobody else in this forum, I do not have the
schedule to attend formal classrooms.
Please remember, GOOD courses.
Thanks in advance,
Mark Gillett
------------------------------
From: Jim Beale <jbeale@gdeb.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 95 12:51:31 EST
Subject: RE: THE PRESERVATION OF THE ...
On Thu, 07 Dec 95 Perry L. Stepp wrote:
> The current insistence on "jot and tittle perfect" preservation of scripture
> falls apart on two grounds. First, it is clear that the OT text has not
> received this kind of provident preservation. Second, and related, it is clear
> that the NT writers who quote the OT don't hold to this view of preservation.
> Their flexibility in quoting and their use of disparate versions of the LXX
> clearly contradicts the current fundamentalist view. (And I make this
> statement as one who is sometimes thought of as a fundamentalist.)
May I make a hopefully anti-inflammatory comment?
I'm not aware of anyone who holds to "jot and tittle preservation" of
Scripture. For example, in the Chicago statement of Biblical Inerrancy,
We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its
parts, down to the very words of the original,
were given by divine inspiration.
(Article VI)
We further affirm that copies and translations of
Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that
they faithfully represent the original.
(Article X)
In attempting to reconstruct, as closely as possible, the original
autographs, textual critics are attempting to reconstruct the Divine
revelation. But since manuscripts differ, the task is by no means a
simple one. But to maintain that the original autographs were the
Word of God, and therefore inerrant, is not to posit an arbitrary
presupposition, IMHO.
I'll just say that for me, the presupposition of inerrancy of the
autographs forms the basis for my worldview. It is not appropriate, IMHO,
to approach Scripture with the philosophical presupposition of errancy.
That sets the human mind over the Biblical revelation, in deciding which
sentence, or clause, or jot or tittle is inspired, and which is not. I
would be willing to defend the claim that this leads to pure subjectivism.
Here we can delve into numerous philosophical issues which I am much more
comfortable with than Greek itself. But, I am not subscribed to the list
to defend these things, although I am always willing, because I think
they are important. There are hundreds of lists for such things. Not many
offer discussions of greek grammar and vocabulary, however.
Jim
______________________________________________________________
But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide
you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself;
but whatever He hears, that He will speak: and He will
show you things to come. (John 16:13)
______________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 12:59:50 CST
Subject: Re: The use of hOTAN (intolerably long)
On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>At 11:57 AM 12/6/95, Bruce Terry wrote:
>>Compare II Cor. 12:10:
>>
>>hOTAN GAR ASQENW, TOTE DUNATOS EIMI.
>>"for whenever I am weak, then I am strong."
>>
>>This is at the time, not just afterwards.
>
>I respectfully submit that ASQENW is present tense, not aorist. The
>construction here, however, is a PRESENT GENERAL condition: "Every single
>time that I am weak is a time when I am strong."
Here's egg on my face; of course it is a present. What was I thinking?
>I quite agree that context is fundamental to understanding, and I will
>agree that there's a "je ne sais quoi" of truth in the dictum, "The Bible
>is not logical." On the other hand, the Bible is a long way from being
>illogical--it's far more logical than I am. So I am inclined to say of this
>little dictum, "The Bible is not logical," what was said in a blooper I
>will never forget from a student's essay on a philosophy exam many years
>ago: "This statement is good as far as it goes, but it goes too far."
This sounds something like the reply that math teacher gave me when I reminded
him of his statement years later. May I amend the statement to say: the Bible
is linguistically logical, not mathematically logical. As such, the fine
points of semantics are extremely complex.
I found your discussion of more vivid future and general present interesting.
May I humbly suggest that one may get even more precision by adding even more
categories. But may the good Lord save me from having to write *that*
grammar, and especially from having to try to teach it to second-year Greek
students.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #35
****************************
** 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