[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #65
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 3 January 1996 Volume 01 : Number 065
In this issue:
Re: Hamartia, cHata, and related concepts :)
Re: books on textual criticism
Acts 1:2
Re: Acts 1:2
Re: Acts 1:2
1 Tim. 2: 12 ANER & GUNE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 06:58:34 -0600
Subject: Re: Hamartia, cHata, and related concepts :)
At 10:15 PM 1/1/96, David Moore wrote:
>
> Paul's statement that the love of money is a root of all kinds of
>evil (I Tim. 6:10 NIV) would seem to support Carl's hypothesis, but if we
>take a more global view of what the NT says about sin, we should be able
>to come to a more broadly based understanding of the meaning of hAMARTIA.
>I would suggest that any incorrect relationship with God constitutes a
>root of sin which then is manifested in the actions the person in question
>as *sins* (viz. Paul's concepts of "in the flesh" and "in the Spirit").
>One of those *sins* might be idolatry which, in turn would have its
>effects in predisposing to other sins. If, of course, we take "idolatry"
>in the very wide sense that we find it expressed in 1 Jn. 5:20, 21, it
>could probably include any incorrect concept of, or relationship with God.
>
> Regarding Rod's suggestion that "sin," in the NT, "points to a
>deliberate rebellion against [God's] standard," Walter Grundmann implies
>as much in an article s.v. hAMARTANW in the TDNT (I:303). He takes the
>prodigal son as an illustration and says that sin "is going out from the
>father's [_sic_] house, i.e., godlessness and remoteness from God working
>itself out in a life in the world with all its desires and its filth." It
>seems precarious, however, to take a story meant to dramatize lostness,
>repentance, forgiveness and redemption and draw from it a rather technical
>concept of what sin is.
>
> IMO, there is a danger in our taking too limited a view of what is
>defined by "sin," since (human as we are) we have a tendency to define it
>in a way that allows us a clear conscience. The Lord's saying about His
>not having come to call righteous but rather sinners illustrates this
>point well. I find deep irony in this saying. Jesus wasn't really
>excluding the Pharisees from those who needed to repent. But what He said
>went over their heads since they counted themselves righteous. The Lord's
>repeated confrontations with them and His proclamation of woes for their
>teachings and practices shows clearly that He did not approve of the
>"righteousness" they claimed for themselves.
I don't really disagree with any of David's comments. I would even
underscore the implications of the opening sentence of the last paragraph
("IMO, ..."): I think the very attempt to define sin "in a way that allows
us a clear conscience" is one of those behavioral traits Paul identifies at
several points as indications of immaturity, and then there's 1 John, "If
we say we have no sin, ..." If, as the Jesus of Mt puts it, we must "be
perfect, as our Father in Heaven is perfect," there's no doubt that we're
all going to be underachievers.
I'm reminded of Martin Luther's admonition to concentrate on the First
Commandment: "Love God and do as you please." (That's pretty much what
Luther says, isn't it?). The problem that the Church (in the broadest
sense) has had in relationship to OT standards is its ever-renewed attempts
to define righteousness in concrete behavioral terms which will constitute
a standard whereby we can include and exclude whom we may choose to have as
legitimate and valued members of our community of believers--which in turn
reinforces our deeply-ingrained tendencies toward self-righteousness and
condemnation of those who don't conform to our standard.
While this discussion has not (so far) engendered flames, I rather think
that its broad theological and moral focus is EXTRA CANONEM as a
list-topic.
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: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 10:59:40 PST
Subject: Re: books on textual criticism
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
GLLang@aol.com asked on b-greek:
> what books would be helpful in the area of N.T. textual
> criticism? Books other than Aland's "The Text of the N.T." and Metzger's
> "The Text of the N.T."
The Aland and Metzger books are useful surveys. It sounds like
you want to delve into more detail/depth. Could you give more
of an idea of what topics you want to read about?
Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil = o
2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _
San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_)
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMOmAe2CU4mTNq7IdAQEMlAQAhTPPgUOck2G9pleJMIpKDWELuouSTun5
1wn4eut5Z2s8P96ZKrJnU3mLSwuLXxsr48AfQ10ZpIEzZBOazaNDs8OZB6c25e3A
fWgTs9h5QUrvrWjJaRuI7BYuCllWvZesgwASnqQUfaAPV0rgmU9C00dscLgZrwTt
wPWQ48UTESw=
=relz
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 12:49:38 +0800
Subject: Acts 1:2
Is there any grammatical way to inow whether dia pneumatos (agiou
refers back to entellw (Jesus, after having commanded the apostles
through the Holy Spirit) or to eklegomai (Jesus chose the apostles
through the Holy Spirit)? Thanks.
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 17:29:37 -0600
Subject: Re: Acts 1:2
Ken Litwak wrote;
> Is there any grammatical way to inow whether dia pneumatos (agiou
>refers back to entellw (Jesus, after having commanded the apostles
>through the Holy Spirit) or to eklegomai (Jesus chose the apostles
>through the Holy Spirit)? Thanks.
Ken, all of vs. 2 is a relative clause with ACRI hHS . . . ANELHMFQH,
telling time. Inside this relative clause is another relative clause, hOUS
EXELEXATO which modifies the apostles. If the prep. phrase modified
EXELEXATO, it would more likely follow it or be within the relative clause
of which this is the verb. This is the reason that the translations I have
consulted translate in a way that makes clear the fact that DIA PNEUMATOS
hAGIOU modifies ENTEILAMENOS.
Grace,
Carlton Winbery
Chair Religion/Philosophy
LA College,
Pineville,La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
fax (318) 442-4996 or (318) 487-7425
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:15:10 -0600
Subject: Re: Acts 1:2
At 10:49 PM 1/1/96, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> Is there any grammatical way to inow whether dia pneumatos (agiou
>refers back to entellw (Jesus, after having commanded the apostles
>through the Holy Spirit) or to eklegomai (Jesus chose the apostles
>through the Holy Spirit)? Thanks.
While this may sound flippant, it isn't. The author is NOT trying to
confuse anyone and will normally put an adverbial expression in pretty
clear proximity and juxtaposition to the predicate with which it is to be
understood. In this particular instance
AXRI THS hHMERAS ENTEILAMENOS TOIS APOSTOLOIS DIA PNEUMATOS hAGIOU
hOUS ECELECATO ANELHMFQH.
Here DIA PNEUMATOS hAGIOU must be understood with ENTEILAMENOS; if it were
to be construed with ECELECATO, it would have been placed INSIDE the clause
beginning with hOUS. And this is GENERALLY true. But there are exceptions,
the weirdest of which whereof I know is in John 1:14, where PLHRHS XARITOS
KAI ALHQEIAS is inexplicably far removed from the only nominative it can
possibly construe with, hO LOGOS at the very beginning of this sentence and
separated from PLHRHS by an entire independent clause (KAI EQEASAMEQA ...)
as well as by the appositional phrase, DOCAN hWS MONOGENOUS PARA PATROS.
Grammatically this word order is a nightmare to a translator, albeit
considerably less grievous than the dreadful Ungeheuer of the opening
verses of Ephesians.
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: Lori Eldridge <lorel@on-ramp.ior.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 19:43 PST
Subject: 1 Tim. 2: 12 ANER & GUNE
Hi,
In an article I read recently, on a web site for apologists, where it talks
about women teaching in church, the author stated that the words aner/man
and gune/woman should have been translated as husband and wife. The results
of his study:
>>>>>When I did my own word study on the words man and woman, I found out
>>>>>that the word man is aner and the word woman is gune. In the case of
>>>>>the word
aner, which occurs something like 150 times in the New Testament, fully 40
times that it occurs, it is translated "husband." In other words, "husband"
is a legitimate translation of the word depending on the context. When you
look at the context, virtually every single time that it wasn't absolutely
clear that the woman with the man in the context was his wife, it is almost
always translated "husband" and "wife." So this really is an unusual
translation, given the pattern in the rest of the New Testament.>>>>>
(Gregory Koukl, _Women Teach in Church?_ July 95)
If this is a correct translation it sure would clear up a lot of confusion
considering all the other instances in scripture where women were in
teaching or authoritative postions over men (Deborah comes to mind).
I find it very curious that neither _Vines_ nor _Thayers Greek-English
Lexicon_ mention 1 Timothy 2:12 as one of the verses where these words are
used. Probably for the same reason that the NIV translated Junia as Junias.
I have all the posts from B-Greek on the discussion of "Junia" last July
and also "Let the Women be Silent" in September but the possibility that
ANER & GUNE could be translated husband and wife was never brought up that
I'm aware of.
I'm very interested in this topic because I am involved in another mailing
list where we discuss doctrinal issues and occassionally this verse is
presented as 'evidence' that I should 'shut up' and I would appreciate your
comments on the interpretation of these two words.
If this has already been covered recently could somebody please just send
me copies via email.
Thanks,
Lori Eldridge
Senior at EWU
Cheney, Wa.
Lorel@on-ramp.ior.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #65
****************************
** 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