[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #120
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 20 February 1996 Volume 01 : Number 120
In this issue:
RE: Summary: Something from Nothing
Re: Matthew 24:30
Pronunciation of koine
Re: Pronunciation of koine
Re: Pronunciation of koine
Re: Summary: Something from Nothing
Re: Summary: Something from Nothing
Failed Mail
Re: Summary: Something from Nothing
Re: Summary: Something from Nothing
Re: Matthew 24:30
Unsubscribe
Re: Matthew 24:30
Re: Matthew 24:30
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Albert Collver, III" <Collver@msn.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 96 13:14:59 UT
Subject: RE: Summary: Something from Nothing
In John 1:1 the Logos is Jesus. Thinking of the Creation account from Genesis
1. The Logos is involved where God spoke. "God said, 'Let there be...'" The
Logos is the Word of God which is Christ.
The Logos is not a substance but Christ himself - God. The work of creation
was truly Trinitarian with the Father, Son, and Spirit involved.
- ----------
From: Will Wagers
Sent: Monday, February 12, 1996 12:54 PM
To: b-greek@virginia.edu
Subject: Summary: Something from Nothing
>Is it Christian thought that Jesus created the world from nothing ? (Jn 1:1)
>>No one commented on the creation in Jn 1:1 which refers to the logos as an
essential ingredient, but not as the only one.
Therefore, creation ex nihilo seems to have no support in the NT without
unnecessarily extending the range of the references.
Thanks for your help,
Will<<
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 08:15:11 -0600
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:30
On 2/17/96, Russ Reeves wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I hate to re-hash what has probably been thoroughly hashed <g>, but
> I think the Dictionary of NT Theology (under the first entry for
> "earth" - 1:518), addresses this very well. "It is frequently
> difficult to decide whether a particular passage is speaking of a
> particular county, especially the land of Israel, or of the populated
I suppose that "county" is a typo for "country" and that the Dictionary is
not really limiting the "earth" to a single "county."
> earth as a whole. With our modern outlook on the world we are
> inclined to think globally and universally. However, the NT can use
> "the earth" in a very particularistic way, PASAI hAI PHYLAI TES GES
> (Matt. 24:30; Rev. 1:7) means in the setting of Zech. 12:10-14 "'all
> the tribes of the land.'" Since Matthew 24 is filled with OT
> allusions, and considering the similarity of the passages, I think
> Matt.24:30 should be interpreted in a manner consistent with Zech.
> 12:10-14. I wish I had a copy of the Septuagint to check how similar
> the two are. Also, Matt. 24:16 is a command to flee the land of
> Judea.
You are right--that Zech 12:10-14 in the LXII does clearly refer to the
tribes of Israel. But the text, which does indeed specify tribes of Israel
by name, reads very differently from the phrasing of Mt. 24:30, and in the
light of Mt 24:31, KAI APOSTELEI TOUS AGGELOUS AUTOU META SALPIGGOS
MEGALHS, KAI EPISUNACOUSIN TOUS EKLEKTOUS AUTOU EK TWN TESSARWN ANEMWN AP'
AKRWN OURANWN hEWS AKRWN AUTWN, although I suppose one could argue that
"the elect" are Jews alone in this passage, it certainly likes like a
cosmic phenomenon. (I'm curious, since I have not yet read Saldarini, how
he views the Matthaean version of the synoptic apocalypse in terms of a
Jewish Christianity that has not yet broken with Judaism).
The very fact that these texts are in Greek is perhaps not decisive, since
there are those who do believe that Matthew once existed in an Aramaic or
Hebrew form, and also it could be argued that only diaspora Jews are
referred to in these passages about gathering of the elect from the whole
earth. Moreover, in view of the by-no-means-uncommon NT reading of OT
prophecies in a manner bearing no relationship whatsoever to their original
context and probable purpose, I think one should be cautious about assuming
the verses are used in their original OT sense.
> I think Revelation 1:7 should be considered a parallel passage
> due to the similarity of language, though I have no idea if one
> borrowed from the other. But Rev. 1:7 states that "every eye will
> see Him, even they who pierced him," indicating that those who did
> the piercing will see him, expecting fulfillment in the near future.
Well, there has been discussion on this list about an earlier dating of
Revelation than the erstwhile assumption that it dates from the time of
Domitian, so perhaps it does look forward to the events of the sack of
Jerusalem; certainly it looks forward to a consummation "soon"--although
what that means has been subject to debate for centuries. But would you
hold that the events of the year 70 constitute a fulfilment of all that is
prophesied in the book of Revelation?
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: Alan Repurk <lars@repurk.mw.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 09:39:43 -0800
Subject: Pronunciation of koine
Gentlemen,
Hope you all don't mind a newbie question !
Is koine pronounced `keen - ee`, or `coin - ay` ?
Are there any tapes which follow the NT Greek to aid in
proper pronunciation ?
tia
- -lars
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 11:51:11 -0600
Subject: Re: Pronunciation of koine
On 2/19/96, Alan Repurk wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> Hope you all don't mind a newbie question !
>
> Is koine pronounced `keen - ee`, or `coin - ay` ?
>
> Are there any tapes which follow the NT Greek to aid in
> proper pronunciation ?
>
> tia
> -lars
This is a better question than you may have thought! but there is no ready
answer. There are at least TWO answers:
(1) Most (perhaps I should limit myself to English-speakers) teachers and
students of the Koine in the English-speaking world use the Erasmian
pronunciation, which may not be correct in terms of ancient pronunciation,
but which is a convenient convention. According to that, the word is
pronounced, to use you system, `coin-ay'.
(2) The probability is that in the era of the formation of the NT, it was
already being pronounced as it is in modern Greek, i.e., `keen-ee.'
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: Cierpke@aol.com
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 13:01:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Pronunciation of koine
It depends on whether you are using Modern Greek pronunciation or "Erasmian"
pronunciation. Dr. Spiros Zodhiates advocates the Modern Greek pronunciation
and has a tape set in which he reads the whole Greek Testament through with
that pronunciation
it is available from AMG International, 6815 Shallowford Rd. Chattanooga, TN
(423/894-6060)
Kevin W. Woodruff
Reference Librarian
Cierpke Memorial Library
Temple Baptist Seminary
Tennessee Temple University
1815 Union Ave.
Chattanooga, TN 37404
423/493-4252
Cierpke@aol.com
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 11:43:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing
On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Will Wagers wrote:
> >Is it Christian thought that Jesus created the world from nothing ? (Jn 1:1)
>
> The references kindly provided me by the list were 2 Mc 7:28, Rm 4:17, Hb 11:3.
> As I understand them, these passages refer more to things which occur during
> ordinary, natural changes, e.g. embryonic development, or to things which are
> predicted by faith, but still occur through apparently natural mechanisms, e.g.
> floods.
Will's statement, "As I understand them...," may betray a flaw in
his methodology in considering what Scripture says on this point. If we
are to understand the meaning of passages like Rom. 4:17 and Heb. 11:3, it
is important that we not force their meaning into a late 20th-Century
mindset, but that we seek to understand how a 1st-Century believer - and
in Paul's case a witness to the resurrected Christ - would understand
these statements.
>Making the dead live in Rm 4:17 refers to God's ability to animate with
> the spark of life, rather than to creating from non-existent material. In other
> words, "things not seen" seems to refer to things not *fore*seen, to things not
> observed during development, and/or to things being formed of other materials,
> e.g. man from dust. So, "things" seem to refer to formed, temporal objects and
> not to the materials (matter) from which they are made, e.g. no one suggests
> that floods are not made from water nor babies from food. It is God's presumed
> role in commonplace, but little-understood, natural events which is alluded to.
> It is the spiritual process, rather than the material element, which is of
> concern.
I would suggest that what Paul was saying in Rom. 4:17 is a
statement that is true in more than one sense. God gives life to the dead
both in the sense that He animates with spiritual life those who are
spiritually dead and also as He gave Abraham a legitimate heir when he was
as good as dead in that respect (cf. v. 19). Also, the resurrection of
Christ from the dead cannot be absent from Paul's thoughts in saying that
God gives life to the dead.
In the statment about God's calling into existence things that did
not exist, a similar dynamic is at work. God promised Abraham an heir
when he had none and had no natural hope of having one. Although the heir
did not exist, God, miraculously brought Isaac into existence by making
his conception possible. But Paul sees this as characteristic of a God
who, at the beginning called into being things that did not exist. Our
understanding of the Creation should not be dictated here by the details
of the conception of Isaac. Paul is simply saying that God is not limited
to natural means in accomplishing His will.
> No one commented on the creation in Jn 1:1 which refers to the logos as an
> essential ingredient, but not as the only one.
It appears that Carl is right that some discussion of Jn. 1:1
seems to be a monthly requirement on b-greek. I would point out that
most exegetes would disagree with Will in his maintaining that Jn.1:1 is
referring to the Logos as an ingredient of the creation (Cf. Col. 1:15-19).
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: Jim Beale <jbeale@gdeb.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 96 14:31:12 EST
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing
On Will Wagers wrote:
> No one commented on the creation in Jn 1:1 which refers to the logos as an
> essential ingredient, but not as the only one.
>
> Therefore, creation ex nihilo seems to have no support in the NT without
> unnecessarily extending the range of the references.
I haven't really been following this thread very carefully, but it
seems to have reached a conclusion that seems to me to be false.
All things were made by him; and without him was not
any thing made that was made.
(John 1:3)
It seems to me that this is quite strongly worded: If PANTA DI' AUTOU
EGENETO is ambiguous, it seems that John eliminates any confusion by
explicitly including the contrary phrase as well: XWRIS AUTOU EGENETO
OUDE EN hO GEGONEN. It seems that the only "things" excluded from being
made are the Persons of the Trinity.
And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men
of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should
turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made
heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
(Acts 14:15)
What else is there besides TON OURANON and THN GHN and THN QALASSAN
and PANTA TA EN AUTOIS? If God did not create these things from nothing
then, who created the preexistent matter from which they are created?
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven,
and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether
they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or
powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
(Colossians 1:16)
EN AUTW (in him) EKTISQH TA PANTA ... is this not explicit?
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and
power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure
they are and were created.
(Revelation 4:11)
hOTI SU EKTISAS TA PANTA ...
In all of these verses, the word PANTA or the words TA PANTA are used. It
is my understanding that this phrase is not meant to exclude anything, so
that one can immediately infer that there is nothing that was not made by
God, and so that (crassly speaking) there was a time when nothing but God
existed. Now other things exist, so, whatever is made is made from nothing.
Can PANTA in John 1:3, or TA PANTA in the other verses be taken in any other
way?
Jim Beale
------------------------------
From: MMDF Mail System <Postmaster@virginia.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 96 14:35:03 EST
Subject: Failed Mail
This is an automatically-generated form letter.
The mailbox specification "bgreek" is unknown to the
University of Virginia mail server. We suggest that you resend
your message to a mailbox name consisting of your prospective
correspondent's name or local work phone number. For example,
suppose your original message, destined for a John Doe Smith, were
addressed to
jds2x@Virginia.EDU
Unfortunately, jds2x turns out to be incorrect for some reason.
Try
John.D.Smith@Virginia.EDU
or
J.Doe.Smith@Virginia.EDU
instead. Alternatively, if you do not know Smith's first and/or
middles names, you might send to
9241234@Virginia.EDU
where 924-1234 is Smith's local work phone number.
If ITC can do anything further to assist you, feel
free to contact the Electronic Mail Postmaster. Inquiries should
be directed to one of the following addresses:
Postmaster@Virginia.EDU [ Internet (or local to UVA) ]
...!uunet!virginia!postmaster [ UUCP ]
Postmast@VIRGINIA [ BITNET ]
Your message follows:
Received: from q.continuum.net by mail.virginia.edu id aa10117;
19 Feb 96 14:35 EST
Received: (from beale@localhost) by q.continuum.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) id OAA29735; Mon, 19 Feb 1996 14:36:56 -0500
From: Jim Beale <beale@q.continuum.net>
Message-Id: <199602191936.OAA29735@q.continuum.net>
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing
To: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>, bgreek@virginia.edu
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 14:36:55 -0500 (EST)
Cc: jbeale@gdeb.com
In-Reply-To: <v01530501ad4532266eba@[204.181.109.201]> from "Will Wagers" at Feb 12, 96 12:53:56 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2320
On Will Wagers wrote:
> No one commented on the creation in Jn 1:1 which refers to the logos as an
> essential ingredient, but not as the only one.
>
> Therefore, creation ex nihilo seems to have no support in the NT without
> unnecessarily extending the range of the references.
I haven't really been following this thread very carefully, but it
seems to have reached a conclusion that seems to me to be false.
All things were made by him; and without him was not
any thing made that was made.
(John 1:3)
It seems to me that this is quite strongly worded: If PANTA DI' AUTOU
EGENETO is ambiguous, it seems that John eliminates any confusion by
explicitly including the contrary phrase as well: XWRIS AUTOU EGENETO
OUDE EN hO GEGONEN. It seems that the only "things" excluded from being
made are the Persons of the Trinity.
And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men
of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should
turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made
heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
(Acts 14:15)
What else is there besides TON OURANON and THN GHN and THN QALASSAN
and PANTA TA EN AUTOIS? If God did not create these things from nothing
then, who created the preexistent matter from which they are created?
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven,
and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether
they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or
powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
(Colossians 1:16)
EN AUTW (in him) EKTISQH TA PANTA ... is this not explicit?
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and
power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure
they are and were created.
(Revelation 4:11)
hOTI SU EKTISAS TA PANTA ...
In all of these verses, the word PANTA or the words TA PANTA are used. It
is my understanding that this phrase is not meant to exclude anything, so
that one can immediately infer that there is nothing that was not made by
God, and so that (crassly speaking) there was a time when nothing but God
existed. Now other things exist, so, whatever is made is made from nothing.
Can PANTA in John 1:3, or TA PANTA in the other verses be taken in any other
way?
Jim Beale
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 14:42:45 -0600
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing
On 2/19/96, Jim Beale wrote:
> On Will Wagers wrote:
>
> > No one commented on the creation in Jn 1:1 which refers to the logos as an
> > essential ingredient, but not as the only one.
> >
> > Therefore, creation ex nihilo seems to have no support in the NT without
> > unnecessarily extending the range of the references.
>
> I haven't really been following this thread very carefully, but it
> seems to have reached a conclusion that seems to me to be false.
>
> All things were made by him; and without him was not
> any thing made that was made.
> (John 1:3)
>
> It seems to me that this is quite strongly worded: If PANTA DI' AUTOU
> EGENETO is ambiguous, it seems that John eliminates any confusion by
> explicitly including the contrary phrase as well: XWRIS AUTOU EGENETO
> OUDE EN hO GEGONEN. It seems that the only "things" excluded from being
> made are the Persons of the Trinity.
The punctuation of the text in UBS3-4/NA26-27 puts "hO GEGONEN with the
following verse, to yield: "hO GEGONEN EN AUTWi ZWH HN, ..." Metzger has a
very interesting note on this verse, of which I cite only the opening: "A
majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus of ante-Nicene
writers (orthodox and heretical alike) who took hO GEGONEN with what
follows." The shift to the common punctuation of the AV, he says, was a
tactic against the Arian attempt to; use the passage to argue that the Holy
Spirit is to be regarded as one of the created things. So there is not an
unambiguous support in this verse for a doctrine of "creatio ex aliqua re."
Personally, I think the Romans 4:17 passage is one of the strongest
supports for the "creatio ex nihilo" doctrine. I do think it is implicit in
the NT writers, for reasons David Moore set forth this morning.
It now occurs to me that another significant passage implying "Creatio ex
nihilo" is Heb 11:3: PISTEI NOOUMEN KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS hRHMATI QEOU,
EIS TO MH EK FAINOMENWN TO BLEPOMENON GEGONENAI. One could, of course,
suppose that this creation is out of an "invisible" substance, but not out
of anything that would then have been deemed "material."
I can't speak with any authority on this matter and don't know what the
rabbinical sources may say, but I do have the impression that the doctrine
is relatively late in emergence. Is it in the Wisdom tradition, in any
unmistakable form. I think it's implicit in Philo's De Opificio Mundi,
which seems to understand the two creation narratives of Genesis 1 and 2 as
involving (1) a conceptual creation, and (2) a generation of the physical
creation.
As for the Genesis 1 creation narrative itself, it's easy enough to read it
as implying creation out of a primeval chaos, and the narrative in Genesis
2 seems to involve planting an oasis in a pre-existent desert.
This is an interesting question, but I would guess that it has probably
been thoroughly discussed already in a sizable body of literature.
Bibliography, anyone?
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: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 14:41:52 -0600
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing
On 2/19/96, Jim Beale wrote:
> On Will Wagers wrote:
>
> > No one commented on the creation in Jn 1:1 which refers to the logos as an
> > essential ingredient, but not as the only one.
> >
> > Therefore, creation ex nihilo seems to have no support in the NT without
> > unnecessarily extending the range of the references.
>
> I haven't really been following this thread very carefully, but it
> seems to have reached a conclusion that seems to me to be false.
>
> All things were made by him; and without him was not
> any thing made that was made.
> (John 1:3)
>
> It seems to me that this is quite strongly worded: If PANTA DI' AUTOU
> EGENETO is ambiguous, it seems that John eliminates any confusion by
> explicitly including the contrary phrase as well: XWRIS AUTOU EGENETO
> OUDE EN hO GEGONEN. It seems that the only "things" excluded from being
> made are the Persons of the Trinity.
The punctuation of the text in UBS3-4/NA26-27 puts "hO GEGONEN with the
following verse, to yield: "hO GEGONEN EN AUTWi ZWH HN, ..." Metzger has a
very interesting note on this verse, of which I cite only the opening: "A
majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus of ante-Nicene
writers (orthodox and heretical alike) who took hO GEGONEN with what
follows." The shift to the common punctuation of the AV, he says, was a
tactic against the Arian attempt to; use the passage to argue that the Holy
Spirit is to be regarded as one of the created things. So there is not an
unambiguous support in this verse for a doctrine of "creatio ex aliqua re."
Personally, I think the Romans 4:17 passage is one of the strongest
supports for the "creatio ex nihilo" doctrine. I do think it is implicit in
the NT writers, for reasons David Moore set forth this morning.
It now occurs to me that another significant passage implying "Creatio ex
nihilo" is Heb 11:3: PISTEI NOOUMEN KATHRTISQAI TOUS AIWNAS hRHMATI QEOU,
EIS TO MH EK FAINOMENWN TO BLEPOMENON GEGONENAI. One could, of course,
suppose that this creation is out of an "invisible" substance, but not out
of anything that would then have been deemed "material."
I can't speak with any authority on this matter and don't know what the
rabbinical sources may say, but I do have the impression that the doctrine
is relatively late in emergence. Is it in the Wisdom tradition, in any
unmistakable form. I think it's implicit in Philo's De Opificio Mundi,
which seems to understand the two creation narratives of Genesis 1 and 2 as
involving (1) a conceptual creation, and (2) a generation of the physical
creation.
As for the Genesis 1 creation narrative itself, it's easy enough to read it
as implying creation out of a primeval chaos, and the narrative in Genesis
2 seems to involve planting an oasis in a pre-existent desert.
This is an interesting question, but I would guess that it has probably
been thoroughly discussed already in a sizable body of literature.
Bibliography, anyone?
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: Alan Repurk <lars@repurk.mw.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 16:24:15 -0800
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:30
Jan S Haugland wrote:
>
> 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
I was not able to find the previous discussion on this topic refered
to in this thread from last summer or spring, so I hope this is not
redundant. It appears to me that Mt 24:30 can be interpreted
with Mt 24:21 in mind. Does not kosmos refer to the entire universe,
and sometimes the circle of the earth ? Those readers would have been
familiar with the following:
Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and
the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth
out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent
to dwell in: (AV)
Certainly the tribulation that occured in 70 CE would not have fit
fit the description in Mt 24:21. Therefore it would seem that even if
those readers did not understand the full significance of what they
were hearing, this prophecy would be understood by those for whom it
was written in due time.
Mt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since
the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. (AV)
Mt 24:21 estai gar tote yliqiv megalh oia ou gegonen ap
archv kosmou ewv tou nun oud ou mh genhtai
Mt 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in
heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and
they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven
with power and great glory. (AV)
Mt 24:30 kai tote fanhsetai to shmeion tou uiou tou
anyrwpou en tw ouranw kai tote koqontai pasai ai fulai thv
ghv kai oqontai ton uion tou anyrwpou ercomenon epi twn
nefelwn tou ouranou meta dunamewv kai doxhv pollhv
lars
------------------------------
From: MHaiden@aol.com
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 20:55:39 -0500
Subject: Unsubscribe
Unsubscribe b-greek
------------------------------
From: Jim Beale <beale@q.continuum.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 22:26:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:30
At 4:24 PM 2/19/96, Alan Repurk wrote:
> [...] 70 CE [...]
This is just a trivial question, and completely unrelated to B-GREEK,
and so I beg your indulgence in this. What is the driving force
behind the transition from A.D. to C.E.? Is it because we have become
so ignorant of Latin that we don't even remember that A.D. means Anno
Domini, year of our Lord? Or is it part of the secularization process
that is continuing to remove all reference to Christ from the public
arena? Or is there some other reason? And why Common Era (I think
that's what it means)? What's so common about it?
Again, I apologize for this completely impertinent intrusion. (At least
it's better than those pesky magazine ads. ;-)
Jim
------------------------------
From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 22:44:33 -0600
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:30
Jim Beale writes:
>This is just a trivial question, and completely unrelated to B-GREEK,
>and so I beg your indulgence in this. What is the driving force
>behind the transition from A.D. to C.E.? Is it because we have become
>so ignorant of Latin that we don't even remember that A.D. means Anno
>Domini, year of our Lord? Or is it part of the secularization process
>that is continuing to remove all reference to Christ from the public
>arena? Or is there some other reason? And why Common Era (I think
>that's what it means)? What's so common about it?
I forgive you - just this once :).
Some other reason - the BC/AD system leaves out the year 0 making
calculations difficult, especially for astronomers. "Common" means
something like "Standard". Astronomers refer to standard astronomical
eras as reference points.
The old BC/AD convention has no year zero. Dates skip from 12/31/-1
to 1/1/+1.
Under the astronomical convention, there is a year zero. Dates run from
12/31/-1 thru 1/1/0 thru 12/31/0 to 1/1/+1. CE dates correspond to AD
dates, but BC and BCE dates differ by one year.
Originally, neither ignorance nor secularism had anything to do with it,
but since the new system exists, it has become a minor way to secularize.
Benevolently,
Will
PS This subject rarely fails to generate a flood of e-mail on any list.
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #120
*****************************
** 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