[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #102
b-greek-digest Sunday, 4 February 1996 Volume 01 : Number 102
In this issue:
Oops: Nothing to do with B-Greek
Re: upsilon (and Hebrew vav/waw)
Re: Rom 1:17
Re: Oops: Nothing to do with B-Greek
Re: Rom 1:17
Re: Rom 1:17
New member with new software
Re: upsilon (and Hebrew vav/waw)
Re: upsilon (and Hebrew vav/waw)
Re: Rom 1:17 (weather)
Re-posting on Romans 1:17
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 00:29:56 -0600
Subject: Oops: Nothing to do with B-Greek
I apologize for being off topic AND ambiguous.
I'm looking for a word specifically for "male-hating", an analogue of misogyny.
>>>
>>misanthropy ???
>>
>>Ellen
>
------------------------------
From: Noam & Joan Hendren <noamh@netmedia.co.il>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 11:13:03 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Re: upsilon (and Hebrew vav/waw)
> David Moore wrote:
> >On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote:
> >> As for DAUID, Greek at the time did not have a 'v' sound, so upsilon
> >> (or beta) would be the closest sound to represent it. This does not
> >> necessarily imply that upsilon had that sound, just that it was the
> >> closest.
> >
> > It is probably good to note that the Hebrew waw, which figures in
the
> >Hebrew of "David," may not have originally represented the "v" sound.
> >Gesenius, in his grammar, classifies the waw as "sonant" rather than
> >labial or labio-dental (p. 35).
>
> Waw was probably a sonant, or else the plene spelling in Hebrew will make
> little sense, as well as the sound of the digamma. The only issue, of
> course, is when waw came to be a vav, so to speak, and I have no > > >
additional information about that...
>
> Stephen Carlson
> - --
Yemenite Jews of today continue to pronounce the vav as waw. Whether this
is a holdover from ancient pronunciation due to the community's relative
isolation or simply an influence from Arabic pronunciation (waw not vav), I
am not aware. I understand that classical Arabic has remained relatively
stable over the centuries; perhaps the Yemenite Hebrew has followed suit.
Noam Hendren <noamh@netmedia.net.il>
"Read not to contradict and confute,
nor to believe and take for granted,
nor to find talk and discourse,
but to weigh and consider."
Sir Francis Bacon
"Of Studies"
*I subscribe to b-greek-digest only!
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 07:56:31 -0600
Subject: Re: Rom 1:17
> >On 2/3/96, John Moe wrote:
> >
> >> I have been wrestling with DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI. I have always
> >> taken EK PISTEWS wtih ZHSETAI, but I am wondering why it should not be
> >> taken with DIKAIOS. At Gal 3:11 Paul has building his argument on
> >> Abraham and quotes Gen 15:6. DIKAIOS EK PISTEWOS is the point he is
> >> making there. Is there some gramatical reason that Paul's use of this
> >> phrase from Hab. 2:4 should not be taken this way. Since this seems to
> >> not be a strick quotation of the Heb or the LXX as we have them, I do
> >> not think that either of those should controle the understanding of
> >> Paul's N.T. Use.
> >> Thanks for any light you can cast.
> To which Carl Conrad replied:
>
> >By terms of "normal" Greek grammar, EK PISTEWS in Rom 1:17 SHOULD be
> >construed with ZHSETAI because it is in predicative position. For it to
> >mean "the one who is righteous by faith, it should be written hO EK PISTEWS
> >DIKAIOS. It has,in fact, always bothered me that Paul's central doctrine
> >appears to be based upon a grammatical misconstruction of his LXX proof
> >text as cited. As it stands, it would certainly appear to mean that the one
> >who is righteous will live (i.e. eschatological life, although I don't
> >think that was intended in the original formulation in Hab.) through faith;
> >it does NOT appear to mean that faith makes the person righteous and
> >THEREFORE that person will live.
> To which Carlton Winbery answered:
>
> I think that the reason that some commentators have wanted to see the
> possibility that the "quote" from Hab. was understood by Paul to be the
> "one who is righteous by faith" is that it fits very neatly with the way
> some outline Rom. 1-8. Chapters 1-4 indicate that a person is made right
> with God by faith apart from law, and chps 5-8 deal with the life of a
> person who is right with God.
>
> However, I would agree with Carl that he would surely have written hO EK
> PISTEWS DIKAIOS ZHSETAI or hO DIKAIOS hO EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI if that is what
> he meant. There are many examples where the genitive (ablative) with the
> prepositions EK, APO, PARA, or hUPO precedes the verb form with which it is
> used. (James 1:13; I John 5:1, Matt. 21:42)
> David Moore responded:
>
> It may be helpful to take a little more of the context of Habakuk
> 2:4b. If one takes this context from the Hebrew, rather than the LXX,
> the message is that the person whose soul is not upright manifests pride,
> but the righteous shall live by his faith. This is in keeping with
> Paul's emphasis regarding justification which also contrasts boastful
> pride with faithful confidence in God.
>
> It would seem that "by faith" should be construed with "shall
> live" rather than "righteous" (See Keil & Delitzsch, _ad loc._). But I
> don't see that this goes against Paul's message, if one allows that the
> Apostle had the context of the contrast between the prideful attitude and
> faith in mind.
> Edgar M. Krentz responded:
> Carl's explanation is on target. The predicative position of EK PISTEWS
> argues against it modifying hOI DIKAIOI.
>
> But I wonder how Carl [or others] might react to the suggestion that we
> have here an example of SUNTAXIS APO KOINOU, i.e. that EK PISTEWS here has
> a double significance; that rhetorical device would allow you to apply it
> to both phrases. -- Just raising the possibility!
>
> One might ask how each interpretation agrees with Paul in Romans 4, that is
> ask what the phrase might "sum up" in advance.
This is certainly a problematic Greek sentence, at least in terms of
ascertaining with confidence exactly how Paul meant or understood the
citation from Habakkuk to mean.
Let me comment--"hysteron proteron--first to Edgar's points:
1. I think the suggestion of SUNTAXIS APO KOINOU is definitely
worth considering, particularly in view of the rhetorical skills Paul
demonstrates repeatedly, especially in Romans and in 1 Cor (I might mention
that a former student of mine has done some studies--quite independently of
any suggestion of mine--of diatribe style in Paul's letters).
2. I personally think chapter 4 is the pie`ce de re'sistance of
Paul's discussion of "faith-righteousness"--particularly in the suggestions
that Abraham's faith in God as creator/redeemer is a proleptic faith in God
who raises Jesus from the dead. Quite apart from the question that has been
discussed three or four times previously in this forum, whether Paul is
talking about faith IN CHRIST (objective genitive) or about faith OF CHRIST
(subjective genitive), I think chapter 4 makes clear that Paul sees
Abraham's faith as the paradigm of the faith that wins salvation in that
its holder is deemed righteous by God, and that Abraham's faith is
fundamentally a trust in God as creator/redeemer who will keep his
promises. Therefore, I think that chapter 4 exemplifies what Paul means at
1:17 with his citation from Habakkuk--EVEN if this means that Paul
MISCONSTRUED the Greek of that citation grammatically.
Secondly, in response to David Moore, I think it is certainly POSSIBLE that
Paul is thinking of the larger context of the Habakkuk passage,and I doubt
not that he knows the passage well. The question is whether he thinks
primarily in terms of the Hebrew text (and isn't there one reading of the
sentence cited, "the righteous man will live by MY faithfulness"?) or in
terms of the LXX text which he actually cites. I personally don't think
that Paul (perhaps with the great EXCEPTION of Romans 4) interprets OT
scripture generally in terms of its own context and likely
historical-contextual intent; in fact, I find rather disturbing his
applicationn of Genesis proof texts in Galatians especially (I'm thinking
of the tricks played with SPERMA and the allegorical treatment of Sarah and
Hagaar), although I think these are very likely standard contemporary ways
of interpreting scripture. So I'm personally rather dubious about Paul's
understanding the verse of Habakkuk cited in terms of its fuller
context--but I wouldn't reject that view dogmatically.
And finally, in response to Carlton Winbery, I would just note, in terms of
the "normative" grammar (if there is any such thing--and at least there's
observed common practice), it is not just a matter of an ablatival genitive
(whereby I declare my allegiance to the 8-case faction!) PRECEDING the
verb, but rather of the preposition phrase EK PISTEWS being ENCLOSED in the
article that would be required for the passage to mean "He who by faith is
righteous shall live." I.e., it should be either hO EK PISTEWS DIKAIOS or
hO DIKAIOS hO EK PISTEWS.
I trust that this discussion will not stop at this point; I really am
delighted to see this question being discussed because it turns upon a
number of significant issues in Paul's thinking, his use of scripture, his
rhetorical methods, etc.
To recapitulate my own view: Paul took this verse from Habakkuk from the
LXX because it did neatly summarize his understanding of the faith-stance
of believer (in Christ) to God as Creator/Redeemer; I think he interpreted
it in terms of "the one who by faith is righteous"--and that he did so
without regard to the "niceties" of "normal" Greek grammar.
My regards to all. I sit here at my computer on a bone-chilling Sunday
morning with the thermometer outside at -8 degrees (I know that most of the
U.S., more or less, is caught up in this deep freeze, although I would hope
that Carlton, down in the Cajun country, and David, down in tropical
Florida, might be somewhat more fortunate, while I know that Edgar in
Chicago has it very much worse than I do) and wait for a plumber to come
for some urgent repairs (Ellen Adams will sympathize, I'm sure, if my
memory fails me not!). And if there's someone in Australia reading this,
I'd like to trade places with you right now!
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: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 08:21:06 -0600
Subject: Re: Oops: Nothing to do with B-Greek
On 2/4/96, Will Wagers wrote:
> I apologize for being off topic AND ambiguous.
>
> I'm looking for a word specifically for "male-hating", an analogue of
>misogyny.
>
> >>>
> >>misanthropy ???
> >>
> >>Ellen
> >
No, not misanthropy: that would be hatred of human beings generally (shades
of Moliere!);misandry (although I've never seen it) is certainly the right
formation, and SHOULD be understood by literate readers.
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: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 08:40:59 -0600
Subject: Re: Rom 1:17
> >On 2/3/96, John Moe wrote:
> >
> >> I have been wrestling with DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI. I have always
> >> taken EK PISTEWS wtih ZHSETAI, but I am wondering why it should not be
> >> taken with DIKAIOS. At Gal 3:11 Paul has building his argument on
> >> Abraham and quotes Gen 15:6. DIKAIOS EK PISTEWOS is the point he is
> >> making there. Is there some gramatical reason that Paul's use of this
> >> phrase from Hab. 2:4 should not be taken this way. Since this seems to
> >> not be a strick quotation of the Heb or the LXX as we have them, I do
> >> not think that either of those should controle the understanding of
> >> Paul's N.T. Use.
> >> Thanks for any light you can cast.
> To which Carl Conrad replied:
>
> >By terms of "normal" Greek grammar, EK PISTEWS in Rom 1:17 SHOULD be
> >construed with ZHSETAI because it is in predicative position. For it to
> >mean "the one who is righteous by faith, it should be written hO EK PISTEWS
> >DIKAIOS. It has,in fact, always bothered me that Paul's central doctrine
> >appears to be based upon a grammatical misconstruction of his LXX proof
> >text as cited. As it stands, it would certainly appear to mean that the one
> >who is righteous will live (i.e. eschatological life, although I don't
> >think that was intended in the original formulation in Hab.) through faith;
> >it does NOT appear to mean that faith makes the person righteous and
> >THEREFORE that person will live.
> To which Carlton Winbery answered:
>
> I think that the reason that some commentators have wanted to see the
> possibility that the "quote" from Hab. was understood by Paul to be the
> "one who is righteous by faith" is that it fits very neatly with the way
> some outline Rom. 1-8. Chapters 1-4 indicate that a person is made right
> with God by faith apart from law, and chps 5-8 deal with the life of a
> person who is right with God.
>
> However, I would agree with Carl that he would surely have written hO EK
> PISTEWS DIKAIOS ZHSETAI or hO DIKAIOS hO EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI if that is what
> he meant. There are many examples where the genitive (ablative) with the
> prepositions EK, APO, PARA, or hUPO precedes the verb form with which it is
> used. (James 1:13; I John 5:1, Matt. 21:42)
> David Moore responded:
>
> It may be helpful to take a little more of the context of Habakuk
> 2:4b. If one takes this context from the Hebrew, rather than the LXX,
> the message is that the person whose soul is not upright manifests pride,
> but the righteous shall live by his faith. This is in keeping with
> Paul's emphasis regarding justification which also contrasts boastful
> pride with faithful confidence in God.
>
> It would seem that "by faith" should be construed with "shall
> live" rather than "righteous" (See Keil & Delitzsch, _ad loc._). But I
> don't see that this goes against Paul's message, if one allows that the
> Apostle had the context of the contrast between the prideful attitude and
> faith in mind.
> Edgar M. Krentz responded:
> Carl's explanation is on target. The predicative position of EK PISTEWS
> argues against it modifying hOI DIKAIOI.
>
> But I wonder how Carl [or others] might react to the suggestion that we
> have here an example of SUNTAXIS APO KOINOU, i.e. that EK PISTEWS here has
> a double significance; that rhetorical device would allow you to apply it
> to both phrases. -- Just raising the possibility!
>
> One might ask how each interpretation agrees with Paul in Romans 4, that is
> ask what the phrase might "sum up" in advance.
This is certainly a problematic Greek sentence, at least in terms of
ascertaining with confidence exactly how Paul meant or understood the
citation from Habakkuk to mean.
Let me comment--"hysteron proteron--first to Edgar's points:
1. I think the suggestion of SUNTAXIS APO KOINOU is definitely
worth considering, particularly in view of the rhetorical skills Paul
demonstrates repeatedly, especially in Romans and in 1 Cor (I might mention
that a former student of mine has done some studies--quite independently of
any suggestion of mine--of diatribe style in Paul's letters).
2. I personally think chapter 4 is the pie`ce de re'sistance of
Paul's discussion of "faith-righteousness"--particularly in the suggestions
that Abraham's faith in God as creator/redeemer is a proleptic faith in God
who raises Jesus from the dead. Quite apart from the question that has been
discussed three or four times previously in this forum, whether Paul is
talking about faith IN CHRIST (objective genitive) or about faith OF CHRIST
(subjective genitive), I think chapter 4 makes clear that Paul sees
Abraham's faith as the paradigm of the faith that wins salvation in that
its holder is deemed righteous by God, and that Abraham's faith is
fundamentally a trust in God as creator/redeemer who will keep his
promises. Therefore, I think that chapter 4 exemplifies what Paul means at
1:17 with his citation from Habakkuk--EVEN if this means that Paul
MISCONSTRUED the Greek of that citation grammatically.
Secondly, in response to David Moore, I think it is certainly POSSIBLE that
Paul is thinking of the larger context of the Habakkuk passage,and I doubt
not that he knows the passage well. The question is whether he thinks
primarily in terms of the Hebrew text (and isn't there one reading of the
sentence cited, "the righteous man will live by MY faithfulness"?) or in
terms of the LXX text which he actually cites. I personally don't think
that Paul (perhaps with the great EXCEPTION of Romans 4) interprets OT
scripture generally in terms of its own context and likely
historical-contextual intent; in fact, I find rather disturbing his
applicationn of Genesis proof texts in Galatians especially (I'm thinking
of the tricks played with SPERMA and the allegorical treatment of Sarah and
Hagaar), although I think these are very likely standard contemporary ways
of interpreting scripture. So I'm personally rather dubious about Paul's
understanding the verse of Habakkuk cited in terms of its fuller
context--but I wouldn't reject that view dogmatically.
And finally, in response to Carlton Winbery, I would just note, in terms of
the "normative" grammar (if there is any such thing--and at least there's
observed common practice), it is not just a matter of an ablatival genitive
(whereby I declare my allegiance to the 8-case faction!) PRECEDING the
verb, but rather of the preposition phrase EK PISTEWS being ENCLOSED in the
article that would be required for the passage to mean "He who by faith is
righteous shall live." I.e., it should be either hO EK PISTEWS DIKAIOS or
hO DIKAIOS hO EK PISTEWS.
I trust that this discussion will not stop at this point; I really am
delighted to see this question being discussed because it turns upon a
number of significant issues in Paul's thinking, his use of scripture, his
rhetorical methods, etc.
To recapitulate my own view: Paul took this verse from Habakkuk from the
LXX because it did neatly summarize his understanding of the faith-stance
of believer (in Christ) to God as Creator/Redeemer; I think he interpreted
it in terms of "the one who by faith is righteous"--and that he did so
without regard to the "niceties" of "normal" Greek grammar.
My regards to all. I sit here at my computer on a bone-chilling Sunday
morning with the thermometer outside at -8 degrees (I know that most of the
U.S., more or less, is caught up in this deep freeze, although I would hope
that Carlton, down in the Cajun country, and David, down in tropical
Florida, might be somewhat more fortunate, while I know that Edgar in
Chicago has it very much worse than I do) and wait for a plumber to come
for some urgent repairs (Ellen Adams will sympathize, I'm sure, if my
memory fails me not!). And if there's someone in Australia reading this,
I'd like to trade places with you right now!
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: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 10:34:32 +0400
Subject: Re: Rom 1:17
Carl Conrad wrote;
>And finally, in response to Carlton Winbery, I would just note, in terms of
>the "normative" grammar (if there is any such thing--and at least there's
>observed common practice), it is not just a matter of an ablatival genitive
>(whereby I declare my allegiance to the 8-case faction!) PRECEDING the
>verb, but rather of the preposition phrase EK PISTEWS being ENCLOSED in the
>article that would be required for the passage to mean "He who by faith is
>righteous shall live." I.e., it should be either hO EK PISTEWS DIKAIOS or
>hO DIKAIOS hO EK PISTEWS.
This is the point that I was making, not that word was significant. There
seems to be no normal position with regard to the use of the ablative with
prepositions modifying the verbal idea. The normative position is whether
the article is used to relate the prepositional phrase to a substantive.
>My regards to all. I sit here at my computer on a bone-chilling Sunday
>morning with the thermometer outside at -8 degrees (I know that most of the
>U.S., more or less, is caught up in this deep freeze, although I would hope
>that Carlton, down in the Cajun country, and David, down in tropical
>Florida, might be somewhat more fortunate, while I know that Edgar in
>Chicago has it very much worse than I do) and wait for a plumber to come
>for some urgent repairs (Ellen Adams will sympathize, I'm sure, if my
>memory fails me not!). And if there's someone in Australia reading this,
>I'd like to trade places with you right now!
>
It was 10 degrees here in Pineville, La. this AM. We missed two days of
school this week because we have no idea how to cope with below freezing
weather that lasts longer than 24 hours. 10,000 homes are still without
electricity in our area and plumbers are at a premium. Those who need one
call three or four and quickly cancel the other calls when one shows up.
Grace,
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: GSHOGREN@shrsys.hslc.org
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 14:37:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: New member with new software
Hi - In introducing myself the other day to b-greek, my name and
address got cut off.
I'm Gary Shogren, I teach NT at Biblical Theological Seminary.
This is an evangelical school of about 140 FTE's in Hatfield PA,
about an hour north of Philly. I also teach at Timotheus
Bible University (about 120 students, mainly Brethren) in
Buchurest twice a year. My wife will be putting a notice on-line
regarding our publishing company Stylus - we have a liberal examination
policy, by the way. Besides publishing Chapman's revised insert,
I have had it translated into Romanian, on the off-chance that
any of you can use it - I have lecture notes, handouts, tests, etc.
Gary Shogren
Biblical Theological Seminary
200 N. Main St.
Hatfield, PA 19440
215-368-5000x132
Fax 215-368-7002
gshogren@hslc.org
"We are always getting ready to live, but never living." Emerson
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 15:21:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: upsilon (and Hebrew vav/waw)
On Sun, 4 Feb 1996, Noam & Joan Hendren wrote:
>
> > David Moore wrote:
> > >On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote:
> > >> As for DAUID, Greek at the time did not have a 'v' sound, so upsilon
> > >> (or beta) would be the closest sound to represent it. This does not
> > >> necessarily imply that upsilon had that sound, just that it was the
> > >> closest.
> > >
> > > It is probably good to note that the Hebrew waw, which figures in
> the
> > >Hebrew of "David," may not have originally represented the "v" sound.
> > >Gesenius, in his grammar, classifies the waw as "sonant" rather than
> > >labial or labio-dental (p. 35).
> >
> > Waw was probably a sonant, or else the plene spelling in Hebrew will make
> > little sense, as well as the sound of the digamma. The only issue, of
> > course, is when waw came to be a vav, so to speak, and I have no > > >
> additional information about that...
> >
> > Stephen Carlson
> > - --
>
> Yemenite Jews of today continue to pronounce the vav as waw. Whether this
> is a holdover from ancient pronunciation due to the community's relative
> isolation or simply an influence from Arabic pronunciation (waw not vav), I
> am not aware. I understand that classical Arabic has remained relatively
> stable over the centuries; perhaps the Yemenite Hebrew has followed suit.
>
>
> Noam Hendren <noamh@netmedia.net.il>
That is interesting information. It would be especially
interesting to look at some of the transliterations of Hebrew into Greek
letters that were made in the first centuries A.D.
Also, that the holem and shurek have the purely vowel sounds "o"
and "u" respectively, may be an indication that, at least at the time
these developed, the waw had no (contact) labial or labio-dental value.
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: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 17:10:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: upsilon (and Hebrew vav/waw)
>> Waw was probably a sonant, or else the plene spelling in Hebrew will make
>> little sense, as well as the sound of the digamma. The only issue, of
>> course, is when waw came to be a vav, so to speak, and I have no > > >
>additional information about that...
>>
>> Stephen Carlson
>> - --
>Yemenite Jews of today continue to pronounce the vav as waw. Whether this
>is a holdover from ancient pronunciation due to the community's relative
>isolation or simply an influence from Arabic pronunciation (waw not vav), I
>am not aware. I understand that classical Arabic has remained relatively
>stable over the centuries; perhaps the Yemenite Hebrew has followed suit.
>
>
>Noam Hendren <noamh@netmedia.net.il>
I just noticed that, in my previous post in this thread, I
essentially repeated the observation that Stephen Carlson makes above
about the plene spelling. Please pardon the oversight on my part.
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: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 17:18:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Rom 1:17 (weather)
Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net> quoted Carl Conrad and wrote:
>>My regards to all. I sit here at my computer on a bone-chilling Sunday
>>morning with the thermometer outside at -8 degrees (I know that most of the
>>U.S., more or less, is caught up in this deep freeze, although I would hope
>>that Carlton, down in the Cajun country, and David, down in tropical
>>Florida, might be somewhat more fortunate, while I know that Edgar in
>>Chicago has it very much worse than I do) and wait for a plumber to come
>>for some urgent repairs (Ellen Adams will sympathize, I'm sure, if my
>>memory fails me not!). And if there's someone in Australia reading this,
>>I'd like to trade places with you right now!
>>
>It was 10 degrees here in Pineville, La. this AM. We missed two days of
>school this week because we have no idea how to cope with below freezing
>weather that lasts longer than 24 hours. 10,000 homes are still without
>electricity in our area and plumbers are at a premium. Those who need one
>call three or four and quickly cancel the other calls when one shows up.
It has cooled down some here from yesterday's temperatures in the
80's. It's about 55 degrees out presently, and the weather people are
saying it may get into the 30's or 40's tonight. I'm keeping an eye on
the temp, since, if it gets really cold, we have to cover the fruit trees.
I haven't lived in Miami all my life, though; I was born in
Wisconsin and still have a brother and a sister that live there. Once I
chided a Canadian friend for sending us all that cold weather that comes
down over the border. "Don't blame us!" he said. "We warm it up quite a
bit before we send it on to you."
It's amazing the different kinds of things that can be sent over
the internet. First text, then graphics, then sound files, and recently
full-motion clips. If I were writing this a few years from now I could
probably send everyone some sunshine. I'd gladly share it.
Cheers,
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: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 17:11:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re-posting on Romans 1:17
Dear Colleagues,
Checking in from my frozen basement this late Sunday afternoon,
I find a late-Saturday post on Romans 1:17 from Edgar Krentz, and then a second
post each from Carl Conrad and Carlton Winbery. But a posting by me earlier on
Saturday afternoon does not seem to have gone out (not even to me); so I will
re-send it (attached below, to this), for your edification. Let me add a
response each to Edgar and to Carl;
Edgar's suggestion that EK PISTEWS might be an example of SYNTAXIS
APO KOINOU, relating to both the NP preceding and the VP following, was an
absolute delight to me -- for the simple reason that I had always thought that
this was my personal discovery decades ago, but since I had never published on
it, I lacked the right to claim it in public. Now I see that Edgar was right
in there, too (and perhaps thousands of others). And since I too thought it
made good sense (and so taught my students the possibility), I leap to Edgar's
support. (As though Edgar Krentz ever needed my support!)
And Carl's further post shows that I had not altogether understood his
earlier posting. He seems to be right where I have found myself for lo! these
40+ years of giving seminars on Romans. So I can cease shuddering because of
my disagreement with him!
Carl, your former student who worked on Paul's use of the diatribe
must certainly have made use of Rudolf Bultmann's 1910 dissertation on this
exact topic. That is a work that deserves more use than it has received. And
for Paul's use of rhetoric, Hans Dieter Betz's commentary on Galatians in the
Hermeneia series gives overwhelming evidence. (When we had a celebration in
NYC at the time of Dieter's commentary being published, someone remarked that
he always KNEW that when Hermeneia finally got around to publishing a
commentary WRITTEN in English, and not translated from German, it would be
written by a German!)
- --Edward Hobbs
---COPY OF YESTERDAY'S FAILED POSTING---
From: LUCY::EHOBBS "Edward Hobbs" 3-FEB-1996 16:41:51.53
To: IN%"b-greek@virginia.edu"
Subj: A further (dissenting) reply on Romans 1:17
John Moe's extremely insightful (and apparently now inciteful!) inquiry brought
replies from two excellent scholars on our List. I am impelled to reply as
well, since this is an extremely important text (and issue).
Habakkuk 2:4---
Hebrew: WTSDDYQ B'MUNTHO YHYH:
But-the-righteous by-his-faith(fulness) shall-live.
LXX: hO DE DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS MOU ZHSETAI.
But the righteous by my faith(fulness) shall-live.
Rom. 1:17--- hO DE DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI.
(Omitting Hebrew "HIS" and LXX "MY")
Paul drops the HIS (Hebrew) or MY (LXX) to universalize the statement
in Hab. 2:4. [The fact that W, the Freer MS. of the Minor Prophets, omits
MOU does not indicate that Paul's LXX lacked the word; it is almost
certainly a Christian scribe's correction, done VERY early--third century.]
Both Carl and Carlton have suggested ways Paul SHOULD have rewritten
this text if he thought it meant "The righteous through faith shall live."
But I would argue that he did not feel free to rewrite the text. Paul
does not rewrite his citations from the LXX to conform to his grammar.
E.g., he uses the future ZHSW, not the classical ZHSOMAI, except when
citing LXX, where he retains the future middle form (classical). See
Zerwick, Section 226. He almost certainly could read Hebrew, and I would
be incredulous if I were told that he didn't even bother to look in his
Bible(s) for one of the two most central texts in his thinking. Hence he
saw both "HIS" and "MY" as modifiers of "FAITH(FULNESS)", thus a legitimate
variable he could omit to universalize the text.
(And Carl, I would incline to think of this is the MOTTO for
Romans, not a "proof text.")
Now, how did Paul understand this text? (I won't refer you to my
piece on this published just forty years ago, since I can't find it here
myself.) Carlton put it correctly when he said that some commentators base
their interpretation (The one who is righteous through faith shall live) on
the structure of Romans. The modern commentator who fought hardest for
this was Anders Nygren; his _Romerbrevet_ argued the case at great length
and with substantial evidence. What question is Paul offering to answer in
Romans? Is it, "How shall the righteous live? -- Answer: They shall live
by faith." Or is it, "How can anyone find life, the goal of all human
striving? I.e., Who shall live? Answer: The righteous through faith shall
live."
Ch. 1-4 -- The righteous through faith
Ch. 5-8 (or 5-15) -- Shall live
And in each case, he argues first negatively (what righteous through faith
is not: it is not UNrighteousness, nor is it righteousness through
law/works) (what life is not: not being under the power of wrath, sin, law,
or death) then what it IS.
No point in repeating Nygren (my copies of the original Swedish and
the ET are in my office, not here in my cold basement, so I couldn't
anyway, could I?); you can all read him.
But he convinced me, long ago; and he convinced the RSV translators in
1946. Alas, the NRSV went back to Luther's interpretation, and consigned
Lutheran Bishop Nygren to the margin. But then they usually got Paul
wrong, I suspect.
A final point on word order: Carl said,
'By terms of "normal" Greek grammar, EK PISTEWS in Rom. 1:17 SHOULD be
construed with ZHSETAI . . . .'
But as Carl well knows, lots of things in Hellenistic writers,
including Paul, do not follow classical canons; and this example is
probably one of them. Whether Paul would have moved EK PISTEWS before
DIKAIOS if he felt free to re-write his Biblical text, I don't know; but
I'm somewhat doubtful. The issue isn't whether this text COULD mean "The
righteous shall live by faith," but whether it HAS to mean that. In my
opinion, it doesn't--it can quite plausibly be read "The righteous through
faith shall live," probably with the same ambiguity as that English
sentence.
Just in case you don't know, I shudder to disagree with Carl on
grammar. But then, I am -- or used to be -- a grammarian myself; so I
decided to "Sin boldly!" (If sin it be.)
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #102
*****************************
** 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