[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #121
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 20 February 1996 Volume 01 : Number 121
In this issue:
Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
Re: Pronunciation of koine
BCE/CE vs. BC/AD
Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
Unsubscribe
UNSUBSCRIBE
New Address
Re: Matthew 24:30
Re: Matthew 24:30
LEXIS Program Request
Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
Re: Matthew 24:30
Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 23:58:20 -0600
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
I apologize for the length of this posting, but when I tried to summarize
briefly, I received a great deal of criticism to which I would like to
respond. First, let me say that I am not interested in creation from
nothing as a doctrine: I have no theological axe to grind. I am concerned
with what I believe are misinterpretations of the text which stem from
the fact that the underlying physical models of the world are not taken
sufficiently into account. This systematic misreading of the text does have
repercussions in the creation doctrine, as well as in the understanding
we have of Jesus the Christ.
The relevance to the list is that a proper understanding of the physical
models of that time can, in some cases, affect word choice in translation.
In other cases, an explanatory footnote is the only solution. I see this as
a translation issue, although not a grammatical one. "Thing", for example,
seems to me a particularly poor word choice for the passages in question,
as it includes objects of contemplation, which need not be created "things".
In this case, I would favor the use of either a precise technical term or
transliteration. To my mind, "thing" is unquestionably wrong and misleading.
There are a series of such questionable translations which can be
enlightened by reference to the underlying physical models. Further, some
translations can only be made by reference to usage and meaning in other
contexts from other passages (as we have been doing). Where these
reference passages are, themselves, misunderstood, the error is replicated
throughout the text. I think that the systematic application of the
appropriate physical paradigm has the potential to transform the text in
favor of greater clarity and understanding.
Everyone disagrees with my conclusion that "creation ex nihilo seems
to have no support in the NT without unnecessarily extending the range
of the references." One of my main interests in this is to find a way to
describe what the ancients thought in unambiguous terms. I believe
there was some ambiguity in the original Greek, and, once translated
into English there is a great deal of ambiguity.
For example, to the ancients, "nothing" means "no-thing" literally; that
is, no formed, temporal, tangible object, e.g. the earth, a baby, a pot. In
modern language, "nothing" means "not any (material or immaterial)"
(OED), that is, no matter of any kind whether formed or unformed,
perceptible or imperceptible, with or without qualities, no quark, atom,
or toy truck *and* no forms. I write "nothing" to mean nothing and
"no-thing" to mean the ancient nothing.
(I would like to be able to identify when "no-thing" became
interchangeable with "nothing". Did the Church fathers understand
no-thing as nothing, or did Aquinas or Augustine confuse the two (I
wouldn't think so), or did the term just grow to encompass both no-thing
and nothing? Perhaps the change into Latin or English is responsible. I
haven't looked into it yet.)
So, when the ancients write "no-thing", they do not preclude forms
and unformed matter. Forms and unformed matter do not "exist" in the
sense that they are not parts of a thing when considered apart. They
*do* exist in the sense that they "are" and are available to be used in
creating things. So, when God or the Logos creates, it takes some
unformed matter, combines it with a form, and Bob's your uncle. Both
the form and the unformed matter "pre-exist" and "post-exist" the
formed object, except that the forms and unformed matter, being
uncreated at the moment in question, are outside time.
So, what I meant is that the ancient authors assume form and unformed
matter as raw materials for the creation process. This is not nothing:
it is no-thing. The forms are divine, the unformed material substrate is
mundane, and both are available to the creator for creating -
*continuously*, not just in the beginning -the phenomenal world. The
Logos is the agent, the mediator, which combines the forms and matter
to create things.
Everyone who understands "nothing" as "no-thing" is correct in their
objection to my conclusion. But, "nothing" does not actually mean
"no-thing". Most people wouldn't consider atoms to be nothing (or
no-thing for that matter). All creation and dissolution of things is
understood by the ancients in terms of eternal forms and a material
substrate without qualities - this is not nothing. This is not a quibble,
but a material issue.
Some may be satisfied by that explanation. If not, I will try to answer
the points made by others.
David L. Moore writes:
> 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.
While I would agree with the comment in general, it does not apply here.
The context I am using is the scientific context of those times. As such, it
is more than applicable, it is essential to understanding many of the key
tales in the Bible. (Some have argued that I have a late 19th-century
mindset :).
> I would suggest that what Paul was saying in Rom. 4:17 is a
>statement that is true in more than one sense.
This is as may be: I am not concerned here with either of these senses. My
only concern is whether it is grounded in then-current, scientific notions of
creation. It is the meaning in the "scientific" context of the time which
interests me, for this context will determine the nature of harmonic meanings
which are echoes of the fundamental analogy.
I must have expressed myself very badly in the summary, so I'll try once
more. In ancient thought, it takes 3 to make a baby: God, dad, and mom.
We see this pattern over and over, beginning in Gn 1:1. God provides the
life force (spirit), dad -the seed (waters), mom - the fertile earth. Or in
Greek
philosophical terms, the logos, the form, and the unformed material substrate.
The Hebrew tale of the Golem shows what happens when man creates on
his own, without the divine life force. This is also why you do not want to
spread your "seed" on the ground: it will grow without the divine spark,
creating a soul-less monster. So, this biological model, which often served as
cosmological models in Greek and Hebrew cosmology, was current from the
earliest times in Greek and Hebrew literature. Although there are many
variations, this is the Standard Model.
>From this point of view, one dies because the divine spark has left the body,
the creation of the man and the woman. And, according to later views, the
body can, theoretically, be resurrected by God merely restoring the life force.
Or, that life force, being intangible, may ascend to heaven or whatever. But,
this is a kind of theological corollary to the model, and doesn't concern the
underlying scientific theory of creation directly.
> 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.
So, you see this "miracle" of Isaac's birth is of the ordinary, garden variety
of miracles of life, as he had God, dad, and mom, all involved. Jesus' birth,
by contrast, is miraculous with a capital M in the scientific context, because
he has no natural father: one element of the scientific trinity is missing.
Thus, God is always expected to know of an upcoming conception, because
its participation is an essential element in human procreation. (The
announcement itself might be considered miraculous in that it was unusual.)
The sense in which the heir did not exist is in the ordinary sense that he
was not yet conceived or born. This sense has nothing to do with creation
ex nihilo since both a father (seed) and mother (earth) are present to supply
the material elements. David writes: "Our understanding of the Creation
should not be dictated here by the details of the conception of Isaac." On
the contrary, it is essential to know and apply the biological model of
conception. Ignoring the foundational context can lead to missing the point
entirely, or, perhaps, worse, the substitution of a different context. In short,
if one doesn't know the model, one doesn't know what they were saying: one
is interpreting out of context. This has lead some to the conclusion that God
creates from nothing (it's what I was taught).
>> 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.
>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).
I'm not sure what David objects to here, but I suspect it is the choice of the
word "ingredient". What I was referring to is that the Logos is the agent of
creation, the mediator between the divine and the mundane, and, as such,
necessarily partaking of both. He provides the forms of all creatures (Col.
1:15-19). Therefore, it is not only "by" Him, but "of" Him that creatures exist.
My point being that it is the formation of matter, rather than the creation of
matter from nothing which is conceived by the author(s). This is, perhaps,
more true here (Jn 1:1) than anywhere (Hebrews?) in the Bible, as the term
logos is used explicitly.
Jim Beale writes:
>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.
It is only ambiguous to us moderns. "Things" refers to created things, i.e.
to material, formed, temporal objects. Here it would refer to things past,
present, and future, e.g. our ancestors, the sandwich you ate, the baby you
are going to have, the child you have, the baby that died, the honorary
diploma you will receive one day, etc. In the same way, the potter (demiurge)
uses his hands (Jesus) to create (form) a pot (thing) from clay (unformed
matter).
You are quite right that God is uncreated, as are the forms and unformed
matter. Jesus, being the Son of God, is created by God, but he is not a "thing".
On the other hand, as the forms, Jesus is uncreated. The Greek model always
breaks down at this point in confusion (e.g. Timaeus). He is rather a mixture
of the divine and the mundane. This is required by Greek philosophy: in order
for the material and the immaterial to interact, a third term, a middle term
is required which partakes of the natures of both. Please try to bear in mind
that I am not speaking theologically, but of the underlying physical analogy.
As for the Holy Spirit, it is the corporate life - the I - of the entire
creation -
the cosmos. (Does this make me an Arian?)
>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?
It's not that there is something else besides the sky, and earth, and the
sea (Ac 14:15); it's that these things are formed. They aren't created from
"nothing", but from "no-thing".
No one knows or attempts to address the problem of pre-existent matter,
as far as I know. Because, what concerns the ancients, and modern scientists
as well, is the cause of changes of physical form. These changes range from
changes of attributes like color, to changes of position (movement), to
biological
growth, development, nourishment, etc. An especial concern is, of course, how
living creatures are conceived, grow, and develop. Remember that, to the
Greeks, all things were alive, to some degree or other, since they all change.
>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.
You are exactly right, if by nothing you mean "no-thing".
Carl Conrad writes (I hate being on the other side of the aisle from him):
>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.
And, he goes on to give examples where the biological model shows through:
e.g. Hb 11:3; Gn 1, 2. I am not sure what proofs I would need to construct to
convince Carl and those who share his opinion. I feel it is clearly the
biological
model which is implicit, the same model implicit in the Greek and Hellenistic
philosophers, and in _Metamorphoses_, to name a few. The model is in use,
with variations, for thousands of years in many cultures. I have never heard
it claimed that with Christianity came a new science, i.e. a new scientific
model for embryogenesis and cosmogenesis. There are many examples
supporting my interpretation in the OT, but I gather that would be straying
too far afield for the list's purpose.
Carl points out that there is a body of literature dealing with these issues.
I suspect there is, but it seems to occur at the theological level without
affecting translation.
I would like to determine definitely whether our difference lies in the
definition of "nothing" or whether it is substantive (or perhaps even
theological). The ambiguity of language is preventing me from settling
this point in my own mind.
So, for the moment, at least, I stand by my earlier conclusion.
Regard,
Will
------------------------------
From: Davis Phillips <dphil@mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 09:37:49 -0600
Subject: Re: Pronunciation of koine
Kevin W. Woodruff wrote:
> 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 Cierpke@aol.com
======================================================================
- -- A couple of more comments:
(1) Re/the TAPES
In ordering, you should specify that you want NT in koine greek with modern
pronunciation (rather than NT in Modern Greek with modern pronunciation,
which Dr. Z has also recorded).
Re/ Dr. Zodhiates' tapes, I purchased the NT set about 10-15 years ago; the
recording was 'fairly good quality" -- I had to turn the volume up fairly
high on my tape player to hear distinctly. A few parts, perhaps the gospel
of John and/or 1 John are recorded more SLOWLY than many other parts, which
is a help for novices. I think at the time I purchased the set, one could
elect to purchase only vol 1 (John thru Acts) or vol 2 (Epistles and Rev.).
(Acts may
be in vol. 2, I forget.)
p.s, a Berlitz or other modern greek conversation tape can also give you a
feel for modern
Greek pronunciation.
(2) Re/Erasmian v. Modern Pronunciation
- ---> for Erasmian:
(1) The different vowels and diphthongs are pronounced differently (so
that remembering
the sound of a word will help you remember the spelling)
(2) Mostly used in U.S. academia
- ---> for modern:
(1) One can read out loud faster.
(2) It sounds like modern Greek, which is a living language, and
becoming familiar with
the modern sounds will help you if you visit Greece, or study
modern Greek.
(3) It's probably more like the 1st century koine pronunciation. (When I
began looking at
photographs of Greek biblical manuscripts from 200 AD to 1400 AD;
the multitude of
'strange' spellings did not seem at all strange, when I used the
modern pronunciation.)
- ----> againts modern: (1) Pronunciation often (usually) does not help to
remember how to spell words.
(I, OI, H, EI, HI are all pronounced 'ee'; AI and E are both short 'e')
I have been reading greek as a hobby for about 25 years. Sometimes I use
the Erasmian, sometimes the modern. To sum up, I think both are very
useful, and one
should eventually try using both.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Davis Phillips, Senior Systems Analyst, College of Liberal Arts
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712 USA
Internet: dphil@mail.utexas.edu
Phone: (512) 471-4141 FAX: (512) 471-4518
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
------------------------------
From: Stephen C Carlson <scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 10:56:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: BCE/CE vs. BC/AD
Will Wagers wrote:
>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.?
>
>Some other reason - the BC/AD system leaves out the year 0 making
>calculations difficult, especially for astronomers.
>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.
I frankly doubt this explanation. I've gone through the sci.astro FAQ and
I've found no reference to BC/BCE differing by a year. Astronomers instead
use a "Julian date," that is, the number of days since January 1, 4713 BC.
In the non-astronomical publications (i.e., history) I've read, the BC and
BCE dates are always identical. It would be far too confusing otherwise.
>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.
I've always understood BCE and CE as a way to de-Christianize the dating
system. (The starting point will always be Christian, though, referring
to the birth of Christ as miscalculated by Dionysius Exiguus in 525 AD/CE.)
It is best to think of it as a matter of etiquette to your non-Christian
audience especially when discussing Jewish history.
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE
scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs
http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 10:03:36 -0600
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
Okay, I now realize that I profoundly misunderstood the question Will has
asked. I still don't know the answer, but at least I can see why what those
of us who have tried to address the issue has missed the point of the
question. I would like to see if it's possible to draw the distinction
between what is affirmed or thought to be affirmed in the theological
doctrine, on the one hand, and the "scientific" model or hypothesis in
terms of which a doctrine of creation or generation is formulated.
I'm going to proceed very tentatively here, because I may still be
misunderstanding what Will is getting at. And I would preface this with a
sort of apologia for continuing this discussion in this forum--b-greek. I
think we shall have gained a good deal if we can come to greater clarity
about what is meant by the texts that we have been referring to as
expression what we thought implied a CREATIO EX NIHILO doctrine. If they do
not in fact imply such a doctrine, what DO they imply? That's something I'd
like to get a sense of.
So, in the first place, what does the doctrine of CREATIO EX NIHILO really
mean in theological terms? It seems to me that it means fundamentally that
there is no creation or generation of entities that is independent of God's
intention and will. Perhaps "entity" is no better than "thing"--it's the
medieval result of Cicero's attempt to formulate a Latin participial
equivalent "entia" for the Greek ONTA. Perhaps it does not imply that there
is no substrate from which entitities are created or generated. At any
rate, let me throw that out as a stab and proceed to the next matter of
possible clarification.
So far as I know, the term "CREATIO EX NIHILO" is itself first used in
Lucretius' Epicurean didactic poem, _De Rerum Natura_. I frankly haven't
read enough of what survives of Epicurus to know to what extent the
arguments set forth in Book 1 of Lucretius are simply re-stated by
Lucretius or whether he is the first to set them forth (which I doubt). At
any rate, he assumes a material basis of all things (entities?), namely
irreducible minimal units of matter, atoms. At the same time, however, he
postulates a "void" that makes possible, allows for the conjunction,
disjunction, and arrangement of the atoms into compounds. I would guess
that the real problem for Lucretius is what "void" really is--for it
appears to derive ultimately from Parmenides' assertion that the phenomenal
world can be explained only in terms of asserting the contradictory
statements, (1) ESTI, and (2) OUK ESTI. In Plato this becomes the
antithesis of ON ("being"), MH ON ("not being") and that which happens in
the "realm" between ON and MH ON, GENESIS KAI FQORA, "coming-into-being and
passing-away." I would assume that this is also what Hegel points to as the
primary thesis/antithesis/synthesis: "Sein," "Nichts," and "Dasein"-where
"Nichts" is not Will's forbidden "no-thing" but really the opposite of
"Being."
I would guess that in antiquity it is Aristotle that formulated the most
useful model of generation on the basis of Parmenidean and Platonic
suggestions: that every entity existing has a material and a formal aspect,
and that the lowest level of entities having discernible forms are the
"elements"--earth, water, air, and fire. But below that level as a
"substrate" or hUPOSTASIS there must be something he called PRWTH hULH or
"prime matter" or "unformed matter"--which is, I assume, the same thing
that Plato means by MH ON and Hegel by "Nichts." And IF I understand
Aristotle rightly, one may use the term DUNAMIS, "potentiality," or
"possibility" also for this substrate. At any rate, however, some
metaphysical status must be attributed to "nothing" or MH ON or "Nichts" or
PRWTH hULH--and if God as creator, to return to the Jewish and Christian
conceptual sphere, is radically different from that which he creates--the
creature is not, in any sense whatsoever, identical with God--the the
creature must be generated out of a substrate that has some metaphysical
status--while nevertheless neither identical with God nor opposed to God as
a dualistic counter-force.
Now I think that Will may very well be quite right in asserting that
ancient "scientific" cosmogonic conceptualization never gets away from
biological metaphor. I haven't seen any reason to dispute R.G.Collingwood's
(_The Idea of Nature_) assertion that the mind of antiquity--or at least
the Greek and Hellenistic mind never shook loose from some form of an
understanding of the universe as an animal, a conception surviving in fact
even in Lucretius's so-called materialism which postulates a qualitative
distinction between atoms of "soul" and ordinary atoms, and which
(presumably as a dead metaphor) terms the atoms themselves as SPERMATA,
"seeds."
If this is NOT what you're talking about, Will, please proceed to clarify
the matter still further.
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: GSHOGREN@shrsys.hslc.org
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 11:38:09 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Unsubscribe
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK
------------------------------
From: GSHOGREN@shrsys.hslc.org
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 11:38:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK DIGEST
------------------------------
From: GSHOGREN@shrsys.hslc.org
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 11:41:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: New Address
Hi members - I'm still online, but with a new address
Gary Shogren
gshogren@voicenet.com
------------------------------
From: Timothy Bratton <bratton@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 10:41:58 -36000
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:30
On Mon, 19 Feb 1996, Jim Beale wrote:
> 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
Dear Jim and Alan:
Bill Wagers and I discussed this very issue some months ago. I
hope that Bill will not mind if I enclose his reply, which I believe was
sent to all members of B-Greek at that time.
> Astronomers prefer BCE because the system has a year 0. This makes
> calculations simpler. This system is preferred by some historians and
> mathematicians for its orthogonality.
> The historical convention omits the year 0, so the transition from BC
> to AD skips from December 31, -1 to January 1, 1.
> So, there is a difference of 1 year between BC and BCE dates.
> CE and AD dates are the same.
Dr. Timothy L. Bratton bratton@acc.jc.edu
Department of History/Pol. Science work: 1-701-252-3467, ext. 2022
6006 Jamestown College home: 1-701-252-8895
Jamestown, ND 58405 home phone/fax: 1-701-252-7507
"All ignorance is dangerous, and most errors must be dearly
paid. And good luck must he have that carries unchastised an error in
his head unto his death." -- Arthur Schopenhauer.
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 13:07:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:30
On Mon, 19 Feb 1996, Will Wagers wrote:
> 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.
>
I was amazed the first time someone (was it you, Will Wagers)
posted this explanation to the list some time back. I've never come
across this system of figuring dates labeled "BCE" anywhere else. I'm
doubly surprised since the astronomy programs for computer that I have
make no mention of it, and regular B.C. dates work just fine for figuring
solar eclipses and such that took place in antiquity.
Do you have a reference you could cite (preferably in a general
encyclopedia rather than a specialized astronomy book)?
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: Shaughn Daniel <shaughn.daniel@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 19:40:34 +0100
Subject: LEXIS Program Request
Sorry to interupt the exegesis. I am wandering if anyone here uses the
Lexis lemmatizing program out of France on the texts of the TLG. If you do,
then please contact me and help me figure out how to get that program and
usefulness of it as the software stands.
Thanks,
Shaughn
PS Please reply to my address as I might miss the reply in the Digest form.
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 14:09:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
Because of the length of Will Wagers's post, I'll not quote it
all but summarize that he postulates a mind set in the biblical writers in
harmony with "scientific" ideas of the epoch.
First, it seems precarious to ascribe Platonistic thought to Paul
whereas his writings show very little influence of the sort. One might
make a better case for the writer of Hebrews along this line, but, even
in his case, one would be hard put to show that Platonism provides more
than cultural window dressing for the message of the Gospel. That is to
say, the Gospel message, with its Hebrew roots, is presented in a way
that is culturally acceptable to the writer's Helenized audience.
Second, can we really assume that 1st-Century believers (and
specifically the apostles) took their cosmology from the science and
Pagan philosophy current in their day? An assumption like that about
Christians of today would miss the mark, at least in terms of those who
accept the miraculous and supernatural aspects of the Christian
tradition. Thoroughgoing evolutionism is practically dogma in
contemporary science, but many Christians (including yours truly) see it
as a deeply flawed system that provides neither valid origin models nor
satisfactory explanations of the present state of ecology. Are we to
assume that the Apostles were lined up behind the then-current
philosophical-scientific view?
What we would really need to get at the biblical view on this
matter is a good exegesis of Gen. 1:1. Maybe someone can get that going
on b-hebrew.
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: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 13:17:40 -0600
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:30
David L. Moore writes:
> I was amazed the first time someone (was it you, Will Wagers)
>posted this explanation to the list some time back. I've never come
>across this system of figuring dates labeled "BCE" anywhere else. I'm
>doubly surprised since the astronomy programs for computer that I have
>make no mention of it, and regular B.C. dates work just fine for figuring
>solar eclipses and such that took place in antiquity.
Scholars commonly ignore this distinction, indeed are unware of it. They may
use BCE without compensating. They also commonly do not notify you of which
system they are using when they do make the distinction, e.g. specifying an
interval.
It's not necessary in astronomy programs, because they usually use the Julian
Day internally. The Julian Day is the number of days from the _fundamental
epoch_ of noon GMT January 1, 4713 B.C (November 24, 4714 B.C. in the
Gregorian calendar). (This is why the Julian day is n+0.5 instead of n.) The
program is using BC/AD for your convenience. The Julian Day is distinct from
the Julian Calendar system.
It's also common for scientists - e.g. archaeologists, mayanists, etc. - to be
unaware of the distinction.
> Do you have a reference you could cite (preferably in a general
>encyclopedia rather than a specialized astronomy book)?
Uh, no. But, a question to news:sci.astro would generate a few polite answers
to your request. They are very helpful because amateurs have such a strong
role and reputation in astronomy.
I would be interested, privately, if you discover when and why the original
BCE/CE convention was adopted and what it entailed.
Regards,
Will
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 14:09:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
Because of the length of Will Wagers's post, I'll not quote it
all but summarize that he postulates a mind set in the biblical writers in
harmony with "scientific" ideas of the epoch.
First, it seems precarious to ascribe Platonistic thought to Paul
whereas his writings show very little influence of the sort. One might
make a better case for the writer of Hebrews along this line, but, even
in his case, one would be hard put to show that Platonism provides more
than cultural window dressing for the message of the Gospel. That is to
say, the Gospel message, with its Hebrew roots, is presented in a way
that is culturally acceptable to the writer's Helenized audience.
Second, can we really assume that 1st-Century believers (and
specifically the apostles) took their cosmology from the science and
Pagan philosophy current in their day? An assumption like that about
Christians of today would miss the mark, at least in terms of those who
accept the miraculous and supernatural aspects of the Christian
tradition. Thoroughgoing evolutionism is practically dogma in
contemporary science, but many Christians (including yours truly) see it
as a deeply flawed system that provides neither valid origin models nor
satisfactory explanations of the present state of ecology. Are we to
assume that the Apostles were lined up behind the then-current
philosophical-scientific view?
What we would really need to get at the biblical view on this
matter is a good exegesis of Gen. 1:1. Maybe someone can get that going
on b-hebrew.
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
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #121
*****************************
** 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