[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #143
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 13 March 1996 Volume 01 : Number 143
In this issue:
John 2.4
Re: John 2.4
Junia/as
Re: Acts 19:2
Re: John 2.4
Re: John 2.4
Re: John 2.4
Re: YHWH in LXX Papyrii
Re: houtws
Re: Acts 19:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: LISATIA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 02:04:33 -0500
Subject: John 2.4
In John 2.4, Jesus has some querulous remarks to make to his mother: TI
EMOI KAI COI, GYNAI . . . . Although Walter Bauer says that the vocative
GYNAI "is by no means a disrespectful form of address, my students tend to
interpret Jesus' remarks in accord with various translations in English. In
vain do I remind them that an English translation cannot determine the
meaning of a Greek text, and in vain I seek for a courteous-sounding
translation. Is Bauer right? Of course he is, as evidenced by John 19.26,
where Jesus (respectfully) addresses Mother: GYNAI IDE hO YIOC COY.
But could someone provide me with a decent (non-confrontational)
translation of John 2.4?
Richard Arthur Merrimack NH LISATIA@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 07:33:50 -0600
Subject: Re: John 2.4
On 3/12/96, LISATIA@aol.com wrote:
> In John 2.4, Jesus has some querulous remarks to make to his mother: TI
> EMOI KAI COI, GYNAI . . . . Although Walter Bauer says that the vocative
> GYNAI "is by no means a disrespectful form of address, my students tend to
> interpret Jesus' remarks in accord with various translations in English. In
> vain do I remind them that an English translation cannot determine the
> meaning of a Greek text, and in vain I seek for a courteous-sounding
> translation. Is Bauer right? Of course he is, as evidenced by John 19.26,
> where Jesus (respectfully) addresses Mother: GYNAI IDE hO YIOC COY.
> But could someone provide me with a decent (non-confrontational)
> translation of John 2.4?
> Richard Arthur Merrimack NH LISATIA@aol.com
How about, "Madam"? (or "Ma'am")? archaic, stilted, but no more stilted
than "Ms." Perhaps for the whole, "Why ask ME, Ma'am?" Polite, but not
disrespectful.
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 L. Winbery" <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 09:12:42 -0600
Subject: Junia/as
In light of our recent string on Junia/as, there is a very good article in
the current issue of Novum Testamentum (XXXVIII.1 Jan, 1996, pp. 18-29.
His conclusion is, "Is it not time that Junia was restored to her rightful
place in the text and translations?"
Carlton Winbery
Chair Religion/Philosophy
LA College,
Pineville,La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
fax (318) 442-4996 or (318) 487-7425
------------------------------
From: Stephen C Carlson <scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:57:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Acts 19:2
Sherry Kull wrote:
>I promised my beginning Greek students that I'd ask you b-greekers for your
>input on the usage of PISTEUSANTES in Acts 19:2. The verse asks: EI PNEUMA
>hAGION ELABETE PISTEUSANTES? Our textbook suggested that it could
>legitimately mean action prior to the action of the main verb or attendant
>circumstance, with neither grammar nor immediate context strongly pointing
>one way or the other. What do you think? With the diversity of theological
>positions represented by b-greek, I can't wait for your responses!
I've looked at this issue some time ago -- and I'm sure others may
correct me -- but I am under the impression that the meaning is quite
vague here. Although the normal "rule" is that an aorist participle
means action prior to the main verb, that does not often apply when the
main verb is in the aorist as ELABETE is. So, it may be either.
It may be difficult to avoid theological issues with this verse as it
is a proof text for those (mainly Pentecostals and charismatics in my
perception) who view "receiving the Holy Spirit" to be a distinct (but
not necessarily separate) event from (water) baptism.
This verse also shows up in criticisms of the KJV's translation ("since
ye believed"). Part of the criticism is somewhat misplaced because one
of the meanings of "since" in the 17th century was indeed "when." Also,
"since" has an atemporal meaning, "in view of the fact that," so "since"
is no more precise than the Greek.
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: JohnBARACH@aol.com
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 17:28:05 -0500
Subject: Re: John 2.4
In a message dated 96-03-12 02:45:44 EST, Richard Arthur writes:
> In John 2.4, Jesus has some querulous remarks to make to his mother: TI
>EMOI KAI COI, GYNAI . . . . Although Walter Bauer says that the vocative
>GYNAI "is by no means a disrespectful form of address, my students tend to
>interpret Jesus' remarks in accord with various translations in English. In
>vain do I remind them that an English translation cannot determine the
>meaning of a Greek text, and in vain I seek for a courteous-sounding
>translation. Is Bauer right? Of course he is, as evidenced by John 19.26,
>where Jesus (respectfully) addresses Mother: GYNAI IDE hO YIOC COY.
> But could someone provide me with a decent (non-confrontational)
>translation of John 2.4?
> Richard Arthur Merrimack NH LISATIA@aol.com
>
The NIV attempts to keep Jesus' tone polite by translating in both the
passages you mention, "Dear woman." But when we are told that GYNAI is not
disrespectful, we are not told that it is an expression of endearment; it is
neither particularly respectful nor disrespectful. The NIV translation,
then, falls flat by making GYNAI into an expression of warmth.
"Woman" by itself is not necessarily disrespectful. One thing the term does
do, however: it avoids giving Mary any special place. She is not even called
"Mother." Just GYNAI. That is to say, her biological relationship to Jesus
is subordinated to Jesus' own mission: she must take her place beneath His
authority.
John Barach JohnBarach@aol.com
------------------------------
From: David Scholer <dscholer@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:27:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: John 2.4
To Richard Arthur,
Not that I would endorse it, but the Revised English Bible (1989; the
revision of the New English Bible) is certainly non-confrontational: "He
answered, 'That is no concern of mine. My hour has not yet come.' They
simply dropped "woman" out of sight!
David M. Scholer
Fuller Theological Seminary
On Tue, 12 Mar 1996 LISATIA@aol.com wrote:
> In John 2.4, Jesus has some querulous remarks to make to his mother: TI
> EMOI KAI COI, GYNAI . . . . Although Walter Bauer says that the vocative
> GYNAI "is by no means a disrespectful form of address, my students tend to
> interpret Jesus' remarks in accord with various translations in English. In
> vain do I remind them that an English translation cannot determine the
> meaning of a Greek text, and in vain I seek for a courteous-sounding
> translation. Is Bauer right? Of course he is, as evidenced by John 19.26,
> where Jesus (respectfully) addresses Mother: GYNAI IDE hO YIOC COY.
> But could someone provide me with a decent (non-confrontational)
> translation of John 2.4?
> Richard Arthur Merrimack NH LISATIA@aol.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: DrJDPrice@aol.com
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 19:55:57 -0500
Subject: Re: John 2.4
In a message dated 96-03-12 02:45:44 EST, Richard Arthur wrote:
> In John 2.4, Jesus has some querulous remarks to make to his mother: TI
>EMOI KAI COI, GYNAI . . . . Although Walter Bauer says that the vocative
>GYNAI "is by no means a disrespectful form of address,
<snip>
> But could someone provide me with a decent (non-confrontational)
>translation of John 2.4?
> Richard Arthur Merrimack NH LISATIA@aol.com
>
>
I have long suspected that this is a Hebraism. The Hebrew NT renders this as
*mah-liy walak 'ishah* which literally would be "What is there to me and you,
woman?" But this is a Hebrew idiom for "What would you have of me, woman?"
This was a polite way of saying "What would you have me do, woman?"
I suspect that there are many more Hebraisms in the NT than we realize.
James D. Price
=========================================================
James D. Price, Ph.D.
Prof. of Hebew and OT
Temple Baptist Seminary
Chattanooga, TN 37404
=========================================================
------------------------------
From: Jan S Haugland <jansh@telepost.no>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 02:54:19 +0100
Subject: Re: YHWH in LXX Papyrii
Wes C. Williams said:
>Summary: The LXX copies in pre-Christian times retained the divine
>name. The evidence is that the substitution of YHWH for Kyrios in LXX
>copies began after the first century C.E. (or perhaps late first
>century).
Please note that the objective of the comprehensive set of arguments
forwarded by Wes is to build a basis for the argument that the *New
Testament* originally contained the tetragrammon as well. This is a key
theological argument of the Jehovah's Witnesses which as far as I know
is not shared by any NT scholars. While Wes' research may certainly be
valuable and interesting as a counter-point to the majority scholarly
opinion, you should be aware that there is an agenda behind which may
(note "may") have biased the selection of evidence.
Cheers,
- - Jan
- --
http://home.sol.no/jansh/wteng/jwindex.html
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 20:53:13 -0500
Subject: Re: houtws
>Anyone care to comment on the use of HOUTWS in John 4:6? It seems to be
>descriptive of Jesus' action in sitting down almost as though the
>story-teller acted it out as it was read. Translators tend to ignore it.
>
>Rick Strelan
Rick, I was inadvertently off the list for a few days and do not know if
anyone replied to your question above. I do not have a great deal of wisdom
to offer, but such as I have, give I thee.
I recall hearing from Saul Levin in a graduate seminar on Greek drama that
hOUTOS[I] was often the equivalent of a stage direction written into the
text. Thus it equalled "this here"--sometimes in a derogative sense, "this
guy here." It might even have indicated a hand gesture.
Ernst Haenchen in his commentary on John [Hermeneia} 1, 219 comments:
"hOUTWS ("and so") means just about the same things, according to Ammonius,
as hWS ETUXE ("just, simply")." The phrase is vague in context, possibly
referring back to the reference to being tired.
Your suggestion is, IMHO, possible, especially if one thinks of John as
oral literature, meant to be heard, not read.
Maybe this will stimulate some more responses.
Edgar M. Krentz Tel: 312-256-0752
Professor of New Testament FAX: 312-256-0782
1100 East 55th Street Home:312-947-8105
Chicago, IL 60615 emkrentz@mcs.com
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 23:37:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Acts 19:2
Sherry Kull <skull@voicenet.com> wrote:
>I promised my beginning Greek students that I'd ask you b-greekers for your
>input on the usage of PISTEUSANTES in Acts 19:2. The verse asks: EI PNEUMA
>hAGION ELABETE PISTEUSANTES? Our textbook suggested that it could
>legitimately mean action prior to the action of the main verb or attendant
>circumstance, with neither grammar nor immediate context strongly pointing
>one way or the other. What do you think? With the diversity of theological
>positions represented by b-greek, I can't wait for your responses!
The aorist participle can be translated as referring to action
prior to the main verb or by action coincident with it. A close study of
instances of the aorist participle in context throughout the New Testament
shows, however, that its use to express coincident action is mainly in
several well defined constructions.
The most-often-found construction in which the action of the
aorist participle expresses coincident action is the Hebraistic APOKRIQEIS
EIPEN ("answered and said") and similar constructions, all of which
express the continuation of dialogue. These are really a case apart,
since they render the Hebrew WY`N W'MR (e.g. Gen. 18:27 MT; cf. LXX) with
wooden literalism and should not influence our exegesis of passages that
do not contain this same expression.
If we set aside the "answered and said" constructions as mentioned
above, there are few remaining instances where an aorist participle can be
construed as expressing action coincident with the main verb, but in these
latter, it is most often the case that the participle defines what is
meant by the main verb. See, for instance, Heb. 7:27, "This He did once
for all time, offering himself up;" Mat. 27:4 "I sinned in betraying
innocent blood;" Acts 10:33, "You have done well in coming here."
Nevertheless, if one were strongly committed to the idea that Paul was
talking about the selfsame experience in referring to *receiving* the Holy
Spirit and *believing* in Acts 19:2, you might say that the aorist
participle here is also defining what is meant by the main verb. So
finally we are drawn to the context to resolve the dilemma presented by
grammatical considerations in reference to this verse.
What Paul has meant by "receive the Holy Spirit" (Acts 19:2) is
apparently illustrated by the charismatic signs reported in v. 6. When
these manifestations are taken in the light of both the rest of the book
of Acts and of Luke's general attitude toward the charismatic operation of
the Holy Spirit, it seems clear that PISTEUSANTES in 19:2 expresses action
anterior to the main verb.
A book that deals at length, and quite well, with both the
theological, and the exegetical dimensions relating to this matter is
Roger Stronstad, _The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke_, (Peabody, Ma.:
Hendrickson, 1984). From the opposing perspective, and prior to
Stronstad, see James D. G. Dunn, _Baptism in the Holy Spirit_
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970).
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
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #143
*****************************
** 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