[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #117
b-greek-digest Saturday, 17 February 1996 Volume 01 : Number 117
In this issue:
Re: Matthew 24:30
Re: Matthew 24:30
Re: Ephesians 4:10
PERPOIHSIS
Re: Ephesians 4:10
Re: Matthew 24:30
Meaning of POIETE
Re: Matthew 24:30
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russ Reeves <russr@pe.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 04:50:56 +0000
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:30
Bruce Terry wrote in response to my question on Matthew 24:30:
> I agree! The sign of the parousia in verse 3 is finally explained in verse 30
> as being the Son of man in heaven. (snip) To us it seems so
> commonplace, since we've heard it so many times before; to them it was novel.
> Jesus was finally telling them that when they see him coming in the sky, it is
> time for the parousia.
In light of some of the answers I have received (and thank you for
the feedback), maybe I should clarify the way I am interpreting this
passage to make sure it is grammatically feasible. (I'm aware that
this isn't a theology forum and am not trying to launch a theology
debate). First, I think this passage refers to the 70 AD destruction
of the Temple. Second, I think that the sign is that the Son of Man
is enthroned in heaven (as in Acts 2:33-36). I think this is a fair
way to approach the text, but since my greek ability is limited I
wanted some feedback.
My apologies if I have ventured from the purpose of this list.
Russ Reeves
russr@pe.net
http://www.pe.net/~russr
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 08:26:23 -0600
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:30
On 2/15/96, Russ Reeves wrote:
> Bruce Terry wrote in response to my question on Matthew 24:30:
>
> > I agree! The sign of the parousia in verse 3 is finally explained in
>verse 30
> > as being the Son of man in heaven. (snip) To us it seems so
> > commonplace, since we've heard it so many times before; to them it was
>novel.
> > Jesus was finally telling them that when they see him coming in the
>sky, it is
> > time for the parousia.
>
> In light of some of the answers I have received (and thank you for
> the feedback), maybe I should clarify the way I am interpreting this
> passage to make sure it is grammatically feasible. (I'm aware that
> this isn't a theology forum and am not trying to launch a theology
> debate). First, I think this passage refers to the 70 AD destruction
> of the Temple. Second, I think that the sign is that the Son of Man
> is enthroned in heaven (as in Acts 2:33-36). I think this is a fair
> way to approach the text, but since my greek ability is limited I
> wanted some feedback.
We had quite a discussion of this back in the spring or early summer (if
you want to check the archives at
http://www.entmp.org/cgi-bin/lwgate/B-GREEK/archives/
you'll find the thread labeled something like SHMEION TOU hUIOU TOU ANQRWPOU.
At any rate, the position you advocate here was being argued at that time,
with the additional assertion that ALL the gospel references to an event to
occur within the lifetime of listeners were referring to events of the year
70. The reason why I don't think this is an adequate interpretation of the
INTENT of the original passage is found at the end of the verse in question
Mt 24:30 and in the verse that follows it. When the sign appears (beginning
of vs. 30) ALL THE NATIONS ON EARTH will beat their breasts--and they will
see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven WITH POWER AND MUCH
GLORY. Then in vs. 31 there is the gathering of the "elect" from all the
earth. Surely this sequence has to refer as a whole to the eschatological
consummation, not merely to what happened in the year 70.
There is ongoing debate as to whether these eschatological prophecies of an
imminent end of history were really part of the message of Jesus, but there
seems little doubt that they were part of the first-generation church's
proclamation. I don't want to get into a debate on authenticity of
dominical sayings here or theology either, but I don't really see how Mt
24:30 in its whole context can refer solely to the events of the year 70.
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: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 08:26:20 -0600
Subject: Re: Ephesians 4:10
On 2/15/96, David Moore wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 1996, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
> > What I really ought to have said is that the initial position
> > in the sentence tends to be the position of greatest (rhetorical) emphasis
> > and that the predicate word does tend to be the more emphatic element in
> > this sort of sentence. Now, I'm not sure that I can prove this to be true
> > for classical Attic, although I could readily enough take a large enough
> > sampling of prose authors and do a count. I haven't counted, of course; I
> > can only say it's my observation that this is a tendence: one finds
> > AGAQOS ESTIN hO ANQRWPOS far more frequently than one finds hO ANQRWPOS
> > ESTIN AGAQOS.
>
> That sounds correct., But the example is not completely parallel
> to the sentence with nominative arthrous nouns joined by a verb of "to
> be" in third person. Let's say that what we wanted to say was, "That man
> is the good one." The word order would more probably be hO ANQRWPOS
> ESTIN hO AGAQOS rather than hO AGAQWS ESTIN hO ANQRWPOS. The latter, at
> least IMO, would usually mean something like, "The good one is that man."
> The first would tend to be found in a context in which there had been
> discussion of the man; the second, in a context that had been discussing
> what is good.
>
> The construction anarthrous nominative - linking verb - arthrous
> nominative does call for the major emphasis on the second nominative
> noun, normally making it the subject, _a la_ Jn. 1:1.
David, my apologies for an immense display of immense ignorance on my part.
I'm beginning to feel like the Bavarian peasant in the opera at Munich (old
joke) who turned to the guy in the next seat, scratched his head and said,
"y'know, half of it I don't understand, and the half I understand--I don't
understand that either!"
There's something very strange going on with the distribution at
majordomo@virginia.edu--you are responding to my earlier response to your
earlier note here--but my later response returned to me long before my
earlier one did--and in my later response, I said that I had done a quick
check in Romans, Luke, and Hebrew of all instances of ESTI(N) and
EISI(N)--which should yield up all linkages of subject + predicate
word--and could find no really discernible pattern of word-order. I want to
re-examine that data this morning, but it is pretty evident that any
observations I may have had (on this matter, at least) from classical Attic
are altogether irrelevant to the Greek of the NT.
With regard to your most recent comments above, I would note that you're
not likely to see either of the alternatives you propose: hO ANQRWPOS ESTIN
hO AGAQOS or hO AGAQOS ESTIN hO ANQRWPOS. What you'd have as a subject
would be (just possibly) EKEINOS hO ANQRWPOS or (much more likely) simply
EKEINOS--and it wouldn't make a bit of difference which of the two items
preceded ESTI(N), because EKEINOS is a demonstrative and must be the
subject.
As for John 1:1, I assume you refer to the third clause (1:1c): QEOS HN hO
LOGOS (I suppose we shall never go a month without having a discussion of
this verse!). This is precisely the word-order that I was trying, in my
ignorance, to assert as "normal, barring rhetorical rearrangement" for
Greek: predicate-word /copula/ subject. And while I would agree that hO
LOGOS is the subject in John 1:1c, I'm afraid I'd have to argue that QEOS
is the emphatic element there.
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: "James H. Vellenga" <jhv0@viewlogic.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 96 08:22:05 EST
Subject: PERPOIHSIS
I have for several years now been learning NT Greek "one word at a time," as I
look at a word in all of its contexts in the NT (or at least in a large number
of them) and try to get a sense of a single English word/phrase (or set of
closely related words) that more or less fits all contexts.
This week I've been looking at PERIPOIHSIS and verb PERIPOIEW. Strong's (my
resources are limited) translates the noun as "acquisition" or "preservation"
and the verb (used only in the middle form) as "to make around oneself" or "to
acquire or buy."
However, as I look at the contexts (5 for the noun, 3 for the verb), it seems to
me that a better sense for the verb might be "to nail down or guarantee for
oneself" and for the noun simply "a guarantee" -- i.e., something we are sure of
obtaining eventually but don't yet have.
Thus, for example, Eph. 1.14:
"... who is a down payment on our inheritance until the redemption of the
guarantee ..."
Luke 17.37:
"Whoever tries to guarantee his psyche for himself will lose it, and whoever
will lose it will rescue (or rebirth) it."
1 Pet. 2.9:
"... but you [are] a selected race, a royal priesthood, a people for [serving
as] a guarantee, so that you can proclaim ..."
The other contexts are more ambiguous, but IMO "guarantee" fits the contexts at
least as well as "acquisition" or "possession", etc. E.g.,
Acts 20.28:
"... to shepherd God's assembly, which he guaranteed for himself through his
own blood."
Comments?
Regards,
Jim V. 8-)
James H. Vellenga | jvellenga@viewlogic.com
Viewlogic Systems, Inc. __|__ 508-480-0881
293 Boston Post Road West | FAX: 508-480-0882
Marlboro, MA 01752-4615 |
http://www.viewlogic.com
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 10:23:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Ephesians 4:10
On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> On 2/15/96, David Moore wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 1996, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> >
> > > What I really ought to have said is that the initial position
> > > in the sentence tends to be the position of greatest (rhetorical) emphasis
> > > and that the predicate word does tend to be the more emphatic element in
> > > this sort of sentence. Now, I'm not sure that I can prove this to be true
> > > for classical Attic, although I could readily enough take a large enough
> > > sampling of prose authors and do a count. I haven't counted, of course; I
> > > can only say it's my observation that this is a tendence: one finds
> > > AGAQOS ESTIN hO ANQRWPOS far more frequently than one finds hO ANQRWPOS
> > > ESTIN AGAQOS.
> >
> > That sounds correct., But the example is not completely parallel
> > to the sentence with nominative arthrous nouns joined by a verb of "to
> > be" in third person. Let's say that what we wanted to say was, "That man
> > is the good one." The word order would more probably be hO ANQRWPOS
> > ESTIN hO AGAQOS rather than hO AGAQWS ESTIN hO ANQRWPOS. The latter, at
> > least IMO, would usually mean something like, "The good one is that man."
> > The first would tend to be found in a context in which there had been
> > discussion of the man; the second, in a context that had been discussing
> > what is good.
> >
> > The construction anarthrous nominative - linking verb - arthrous
> > nominative does call for the major emphasis on the second nominative
> > noun, normally making it the subject, _a la_ Jn. 1:1.
>
[Some material deleted]
> With regard to your most recent comments above, I would note that you're
> not likely to see either of the alternatives you propose: hO ANQRWPOS ESTIN
> hO AGAQOS or hO AGAQOS ESTIN hO ANQRWPOS. What you'd have as a subject
> would be (just possibly) EKEINOS hO ANQRWPOS or (much more likely) simply
> EKEINOS--and it wouldn't make a bit of difference which of the two items
> preceded ESTI(N), because EKEINOS is a demonstrative and must be the
> subject.
Yes, I agree. I used AGAQOS because you had made it part of your
example, but some noun, rather than an adjective would have been better to
illustrate what I was saying.
> As for John 1:1, I assume you refer to the third clause (1:1c): QEOS HN hO
> LOGOS (I suppose we shall never go a month without having a discussion of
> this verse!). This is precisely the word-order that I was trying, in my
> ignorance, to assert as "normal, barring rhetorical rearrangement" for
> Greek: predicate-word /copula/ subject. And while I would agree that hO
> LOGOS is the subject in John 1:1c, I'm afraid I'd have to argue that QEOS
> is the emphatic element there.
Yes, again, QEOS does seem to have the emphasis although hO LOGOS
is the subject. But the absence of the article with QEOS puts this
construction in another category from Eph. 4:10, in which both
nominatives are arthrous.
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: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 09:37:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:30
On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, Russ Reeves wrote:
>
> My apologies if I have ventured from the purpose of this list.
>
One of the things that makes this list so difficult and so nice is just
this issue. You cannot speak of grammar/semantic/morphological/text
critical issues of a text, ANY text regardless of its spiritual intent,
without in some way touching on what the text says and means. That's
true whether we are dealing with Plato, NT, Kavavy, or anything else.
The purpose of this list is to focus on the
grammar/semantic/morphological aspects and not the theology, but we can't
completely divorce those issues from the theology of the text either. It
is a matter of focus.
All of that to say that no apology was really necessary in my view.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: CFRAG@wvnvm.wvnet.edu
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 14:00:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Meaning of POIETE
Dear Sir or Madam,
At the suggestion of Robert Kraft (University of Pennsylvania), I am writing
with regard to a research project I am currently working on. I am focusing on
the Greek text of the Last Supper accounts; specifically that which is recorded
in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:25. What I am inquiring about is the use of
the word "poiete," translated "do" (do this in remembrance). However, poiein
in the Septuagint is often used in a cult or sacrificial sense. Gore says
there are from 60 to 80 instances. For example, Exodus 29:38, which reads,
"This is what you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar..." Similar uses can
be found in Leviticus 9:7 and Psalm 66:15.
Now, "poiete" is used whenever a command is given to repeat something, so I'm
assuming that this is the reason why it was translated as "do" instead of
"offer" in the two New Testament passages mentioned above. Can the other key
word in the command for repetition of the last supper rite, remembrance, offer
any clues? The Greek word used is "anamnesis," and the only other instance
that it is used in the New Testament besides Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor. 11:25 is
Hebrews 10:3, which reads:"Those sacrifices are an annual reminder (anamnesis)
of sins."
I understand that there are many scholars who make contributions to the b-greek
discussion group, and I would be most appreciative of any comments or
suggestions regarding this matter.
Your time and consideration are very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Carmen Fragapane
West Virginia University
cfrag@wvnvm.wvnet.edu
------------------------------
From: Jan S Haugland <jansh@telepost.no>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 05:41:49 +0100
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:30
Carl Conrad said:
>When the sign appears (beginning of vs. 30) ALL THE NATIONS ON EARTH
Or, "All the tribes of the land"
>will beat their breasts--and they will see the Son of Man coming on
>the clouds of heaven WITH POWER AND MUCH GLORY. Then in vs. 31 there
>is the gathering of the "elect" from all the earth.
Earth in the meaning "known earth". The idea of a planet was not known
among those who wrote the NT.
I had decided not to post about this topic again here. I just blew my
last new years resolution :-)
Peace,
- - Jan
- --
http://home.sol.no/jansh/wteng/jwindex.html
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #117
*****************************
** 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