[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #66
b-greek-digest Thursday, 4 January 1996 Volume 01 : Number 066
In this issue:
FW: Acts1:2
I.D.
Sin and Language
GREGORY OF NYSSA WEB PAGE
Re: Hamartia, cHata, and related concepts :)
Re: Sin and Language
Re: Hamartia
Re: Sin and Language
Re: Sin and Language
Re: Hamartia
unsubscription
Re: Hamartia, cHata, and related concepts :)
Re: Sin and Language
Re: Sin and Language
Re: Sin and Language
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: CNCTEMP2 <CNCTEMP2@po1.net.cho.ge.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 96 08:17:00 EST
Subject: FW: Acts1:2
----------
From: CNCTEMP2
To: BGREEK
Subject: Acts1:2
Date: Tuesday, January 02, 1996 5:03PM
Ken,
I don't think there is a purely grammatical argument but I think that an
argument could be constructed based upon syntax and proximity. Moreover,
one must ask what it means for Jesus to choose through the Holy Spirit--
does that make sense, or not. Furthermore, I think that the weight of the
evidence of ancient interpreters favors commanding through the H. Spirit.
Burleigh Custis
UVA
Charlottesville, Va
------------------------------
From: Indepen <adc8@columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 08:16:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: I.D.
To answer Edgar Krentz's question:
I am the author of the post with the subject line "The Temptation of Deity."
One doesn't always remember to sign.
Alfred D. Corn
------------------------------
From: Indepen <adc8@columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 08:51:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Sin and Language
Actually, the question in my mind that prompted the post on hAMARTIA was
this: Greek civilization did not have a strong sense of sin, and the word
for it merely means a "missing of the mark." Given that, is Greek the
wrong language for transmission of Jesus's revision of Judaic tradition?
Is there not some basic incompatibility? Jesus spoke Aramaic and read
Hebrew. Doesn't the Greek text already put us at a remove from what he
actually said, even before the NT is translated into English or any other
language?
In many ways Islam is right to say, "If it is not in Arabic it is
not the Koran."
------------------------------
From: "David A. Salomon" <DAS93006@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 96 12:12:48 EST
Subject: GREGORY OF NYSSA WEB PAGE
The Gregory of Nyssa HomePage Is Now Open.
This page contains English translations of Gregory's works by
Brother Casimir McCambley, OCSO of St. Joseph's Abbey, Spencer,
Massachusetts. McCambley has published numerous translations of
Gregory's works including his _Song of Songs Commentary_. The Web
Page contains a growing number of translations, introductions and
bibliographies. The Page is written and maintained by David A.
Salomon of the University of Connecticut.
Gregory of Nyssa Page:
http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~das93006/nyssa.html
David A. Salomon
das93006@uconnvm.uconn.edu
http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~das93006/
Department of English
University of Connecticut
------------------------------
From: BBezdek@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 12:30:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Hamartia, cHata, and related concepts :)
In a message dated 96-01-02 08:34:48 EST, cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl W.
Conrad) writes:
> 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.
>
>
I could not agree more! Perhaps this tendency could even be responsible for
the doctrinal divisions among us?
Byron
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 12:54:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Sin and Language
On Wed, 3 Jan 1996, Indepen wrote:
>
> Actually, the question in my mind that prompted the post on hAMARTIA was
> this: Greek civilization did not have a strong sense of sin, and the word
> for it merely means a "missing of the mark." Given that, is Greek the
> wrong language for transmission of Jesus's revision of Judaic tradition?
> Is there not some basic incompatibility? Jesus spoke Aramaic and read
> Hebrew. Doesn't the Greek text already put us at a remove from what he
> actually said, even before the NT is translated into English or any other
> language?
> In many ways Islam is right to say, "If it is not in Arabic it is
> not the Koran."
There are a number of writings by competent linguists who have
been trained in biblical studies which address your concerns. Those who
are interested in the missionary enterprise of the church do an especially
thorough job of dealing with the possibilities and limitations of
translation. A helpful book of this latter sort (although it is now
rather old) is Eugene A. Nida, _Message and Mission_, (New York: Harper &
Row, 1960).
Regarding of the term hAMARTIA, we should remember that the Jewish
community of the 1st Century had a well-established (200-year?) tradition
of the use of Greek to express the theological concepts of the Hebrew
Bible. The New Testament draws considerably on that tradition, and such
terms as hAMARTIA and its cognates are strongly influenced by it.
IMHO, the elitist attitude that those who read the Scriptures in
translation can't hope to really understand them is far from the truth.
Judging from differences of opinion among scholars who do understand the
original languages of the Scripture, I would observe that other factors
also exert considerable influence.
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: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 13:19:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Hamartia
In a message dated 96-01-02 David Moore
<dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us> writes:
>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.
How true David!
In all this talking about defining sin, it brought me back to memories of
my church history prof, Newel Williams, who said if you want to understand a
Christian group in history, you need to ask three questions of that group: 1)
What is sin? 2) What is salvation? and 3) How do you get from sin to
salvation?
He applied this to hymns to bring out various theological differences of
understanding: e.g. Amazing Grace, Trust and Obey, Rock of Ages, etc.
I've found this approach helpful in understanding NT authors as well. One
may ask of Paul these three q's, as well as Matthew, Luke, Hebrews, etc. It
helps to clarify each author's place in the NT and some of the intercanonical
dialog between them.
So when asking what is an author's view of sin, it would help to define
that position even further by asking what is salavtion for that author? And
by what means does one get from sin to salvation?
Just an exegetical tool I thought I'd add to the conversation.
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 13:36:08 -0600
Subject: Re: Sin and Language
At 7:51 AM 1/3/96, Indepen wrote:
>Actually, the question in my mind that prompted the post on hAMARTIA was
>this: Greek civilization did not have a strong sense of sin, and the word
>for it merely means a "missing of the mark." Given that, is Greek the
>wrong language for transmission of Jesus's revision of Judaic tradition?
>Is there not some basic incompatibility? Jesus spoke Aramaic and read
>Hebrew. Doesn't the Greek text already put us at a remove from what he
>actually said, even before the NT is translated into English or any other
>language?
> In many ways Islam is right to say, "If it is not in Arabic it is
>not the Koran."
I think this is an interesting issue, but it does seem to me that the
question, as it is posed, is somewhat begged. One cannot say so simply that
"Greek civilization did not have a strong sense of sin." Terms need to be
defined rather carefully here. If we're talking about Greek society of the
Hellenic period, prior to the conquests of Alexandria, one might possibly
argue that case with regard to hAMARTANW and hAMARTIA, but this ignores the
whole area of ritual purity as well as the older taboos associated with
AIDWS and NEMESIS. As for Hellenistic culture, when the traditions of the
rest of the Mediterranean world progressively interacted with the older
more parochial Hellenic conceptions, this is a much more complex matter.
I think probably one would need to get into the whole semantic cluster of
NT nouns, adjectives, and verbs for "sin." Certainly much more than
hAMARTANW and hAMARTIA are involved. We find PARAPTWMA and PARABASIS, the
latter perhaps more akin to the older Israelite and Jewish notion of
"walking in the paths" of the Lord. Perhaps more significant still are the
usages of "obey" and "disobey" (hUPAKOUW, PARAKOUW) and their cognates, and
THREW and FULASSW with the words for commandments.
I am myself a nut regarding etymology and its bearing upon the meanings of
words, but I've come to realize that root meanings can become wholly lost
in later functions of compounds. And I'm not so sure that ideas can't be
carried across from one linguistic milieu to another. Granted that there
are great perils and problems, as may readily be seen in usage of words
like KURIOS and MAR. And it seems to me that Paul is quite conscious of the
need to defend an understanding of the gospel that is distinct from Greek
mysticism (a chief concern, I think, in 1 Cor) and also from Judaism (a
chief concern in Gal). At the same time, he exploits the metaphors of Greek
athletic competition when he writes to a predominantly gentile community,
as in Philippians, and Greco/Roman political language too in the same
letter (I'm thinking of SWTHR and POLITEUMA).
I think this is an IMMENSE subject. It's one I find fascinating, but one
that I fear is all too open to facile overgeneralizations. Certainly the
transmission of a faith from one cultural milieu to another is fraught with
both perils and opportunities. But another thing that most are surely well
aware of is that the Palestine of Jesus was anything BUT culturally
homogeneous.
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: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 13:51:19 -0600
Subject: Re: Sin and Language
At 11:54 AM 1/3/96, David Moore wrote:
> IMHO, the elitist attitude that those who read the Scriptures in
>translation can't hope to really understand them is far from the truth.
>Judging from differences of opinion among scholars who do understand the
>original languages of the Scripture, I would observe that other factors
>also exert considerable influence.
Very true, David, and an understatement, IM own HO!
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 Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 15:52:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Hamartia
On Wed, 3 Jan 1996 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 96-01-02 David Moore
> <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us> writes:
>
> >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.
>
> How true David!
>
> In all this talking about defining sin, it brought me back to memories of
> my church history prof, Newel Williams, who said if you want to understand a
> Christian group in history, you need to ask three questions of that group: 1)
> What is sin? 2) What is salvation? and 3) How do you get from sin to
> salvation?
> He applied this to hymns to bring out various theological differences of
> understanding: e.g. Amazing Grace, Trust and Obey, Rock of Ages, etc.
>
> I've found this approach helpful in understanding NT authors as well. One
> may ask of Paul these three q's, as well as Matthew, Luke, Hebrews, etc. It
> helps to clarify each author's place in the NT and some of the intercanonical
> dialog between them.
> So when asking what is an author's view of sin, it would help to define
> that position even further by asking what is salavtion for that author? And
> by what means does one get from sin to salvation?
> Just an exegetical tool I thought I'd add to the conversation.
>
Considering Carlton and Carl's suggestion that the concept of
"sin" takes in quite a number of words beyond hAMARTIA and its cognates,
Tim's suggestion that we concentrate discussion on a single corpus within
the NT seems sensible. Maybe this way we can remain more within the
realm of New Testament studies, and keep the discussion less purely
theological.
Grace,
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: CHBrooking@aol.com
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 16:22:56 -0500
Subject: unsubscription
unsubscribe b-greek
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 20:55:17 +0400
Subject: Re: Hamartia, cHata, and related concepts :)
note: I intended to send this to the list but failed to put the address in.
David Moore wrote;
> The passage that comes to mind right away is Rom. 3:23, "For all
>have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Gross rebellion against
>God is sometimes pointed out as sin in the NT, but it appears that sin is
>not limited to that. We should take into account also Paul's statements
>about those who try to please God by the "flesh." These certainly may
>not be aware of any rebellion against God on their part, but they sin in
>falling short of the righteousness God has provided.
>
I think that in this discussion we are trying to talk of the NT concept of
sin by discussing only one word, hAMARTIA, a derivative of hAMARTANW.
Other words derived from this can also help such as hAMARTHMA, that which
someone has done that's wrong or contrary to God; hMARTWLOS, adj.
pertaining to sinful acts or as a noun a person who does sinful acts.
Other words that must be taken into consideration are; PARAPTWMA, a
transgression of the will of God; AGNOHMA, an act done in ignorance of
God's will; hUPERBAINW, going beyond the will of God; PTAIW, stumbling or
failing to live up to God's will; SKANDALON, a cause of sinning or causing
someone else to fail; PROSKOMMA, taking the opportunity to sin or cause
someone to sin; ENOICOS, guilty or liable; PONHROS, adj. guilty or evil, as
a noun one who has done an evil deed. There are dozens of other words,
especially in Paul in the lists of vices, that help depict the concept of
sin. IMHO, the best commentary on sin is in Ezekiel 18 where sin, whether
overt or apathetic, is rebellion against God.
Grace for us all,
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 21:08:11 +0400
Subject: Re: Sin and Language
David Moore wrote;
> IMHO, the elitist attitude that those who read the Scriptures in
>translation can't hope to really understand them is far from the truth.
>Judging from differences of opinion among scholars who do understand the
>original languages of the Scripture, I would observe that other factors
>also exert considerable influence.
>
I would rather say that all else being equal, the person who reads
the NT in Greek will understand it better. However, I have been amazed on
a number of occasions at the understanding that some readers of the KJV
have gained.
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 21:20:34 +0400
Subject: Re: Sin and Language
Carl Conrad wrote;
(omission)
>I think probably one would need to get into the whole semantic cluster of
>NT nouns, adjectives, and verbs for "sin." Certainly much more than
>hAMARTANW and hAMARTIA are involved. We find PARAPTWMA and PARABASIS, the
>latter perhaps more akin to the older Israelite and Jewish notion of
>"walking in the paths" of the Lord. Perhaps more significant still are the
>usages of "obey" and "disobey" (hUPAKOUW, PARAKOUW) and their cognates, and
>THREW and FULASSW with the words for commandments.
>
>I am myself a nut regarding etymology and its bearing upon the meanings of
>words, but I've come to realize that root meanings can become wholly lost
>in later functions of compounds. And I'm not so sure that ideas can't be
>carried across from one linguistic milieu to another. Granted that there
>are great perils and problems, as may readily be seen in usage of words
>like KURIOS and MAR. And it seems to me that Paul is quite conscious of the
>need to defend an understanding of the gospel that is distinct from Greek
>mysticism (a chief concern, I think, in 1 Cor) and also from Judaism (a
>chief concern in Gal). At the same time, he exploits the metaphors of Greek
>athletic competition when he writes to a predominantly gentile community,
>as in Philippians, and Greco/Roman political language too in the same
>letter (I'm thinking of SWTHR and POLITEUMA).
>
>I think this is an IMMENSE subject. It's one I find fascinating, but one
>that I fear is all too open to facile overgeneralizations. Certainly the
>transmission of a faith from one cultural milieu to another is fraught with
>both perils and opportunities. But another thing that most are surely well
>aware of is that the Palestine of Jesus was anything BUT culturally
>homogeneous.
A similar area where I would love to hear from Carl and other Greek
classical scholars is the use of DIKAIOS, DIKAIOW, DIKAIOSUNH. This word
group was taken over into the LXX in general to translate concepts of the
just demand of God and aspects of relating to a just God. I would like to
know the scope of referents it could have in Greek society leading up to
and during the Hellenistic period. I have read the etymology in Kittel,
TDNT.
Grace,
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: Joseph Fremer <jfremer@grfn.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 23:43:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Sin and Language
On Wed, 3 Jan 1996, Indepen wrote:
>
> for it merely means a "missing of the mark." Given that, is Greek the
> wrong language for transmission of Jesus's revision of Judaic tradition?
No, for two reasons.
(1) It was a good lingua franca, thanks to Alexander the Great and his
vigorous Hellenization of the Western world. Latin just wouldn't have
done as well.
(2) It was the one God did in fact choose to transmit these matters in,
so any second guessing is moot...
<grin>
Joe Fremer
Pastor, Good Shepherd Lutheran Church
Lowell, MI
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #66
****************************
** 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