[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #144
b-greek-digest Thursday, 14 March 1996 Volume 01 : Number 144
In this issue:
Re: YHWH in LXX Papyrii
Acts 19:2
Re: YHWH in LXX Papyrii
John 2.4,Acts 19.2
Re: Acts 19:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Gary S. Shogren" <gshogren@voicenet.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 08:40:20 -0500
Subject: Re: YHWH in LXX Papyrii
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 08:31:46
To: Jan S Haugland <jansh@telepost.no>
From: "Gary S. Shogren" <gshogren@voicenet.com>
Subject: Re: YHWH in LXX Papyrii
>
At 02:54 AM 3/13/96 +0100, you wrote:
>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
>
Hi Jan -
It's interesting that you mention the Jehovah's Witnesses, as my class on NT
Backgrounds just went over this "Tetragrammaton in the LXX" issue. This was
a direct fruit of B-Greek, by the way, so thanks everyone and feel free to
borrow what follows! I had them think through the implications of this
thought problem:
Assume that Paul is familiar both with the Hebrew and the LXX of Joel 2:32.
Work through the possible implications...
(1) if YHWH appeared in Paul's version of Joel 2:32LXX, but he
dictates "KYRIOS" when he quotes the verse in Rom. 10:13, a passage where
KYRIOS has Jesus as a referent due to 10:9-10, 14.
(2) if YHWH appeared in Paul's version of the LXX, and he also wrote
YHWH in Rom. 10:13 in reference to Jesus. Later copyists change YHWH to
KYRIOS throughout the NT.
In the course of discussion, I threw in: Does each scenario help or hinder
those like the Jehovah's Witnesses who say that Jesus is not Jehovah? The
consensus seemed to be that either development should be a frustration to
them. In scenario (1), Paul and the Roman Christians are familiar with what
underlies the LXX in Joel 2:32, a fairly standard Christian text, and both
parties are thus completely aware that he is calling Jesus YHWH even though
he uses KYRIOS; in (2) not only are they aware of this because of their
knowledge of the LXX - it is also put right in front of them in the
autograph of the epistle to the Romans.
There are several other NT passages in which an OT verse that has KYRIOS in
the LXX is applied to Jesus. That has always been a good argument against
the JW's, and I sense this new view of the Tetragrammaton can only
strengthen it.
I'd be curious to hear how Jehovah's Witnesses put a different spin on the
data. I would guess they'd have to say that originally YHWH appeared in the
Jehovah verses in the NT, and KYRIOS in the Jesus verses (?).
In Christ,
__________
Gary S. Shogren
Biblical Theological Seminary
Hatfield, PA
email gshogren@voicenet.com
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 08:46:33 -0500
Subject: Acts 19:2
>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!
>
>Sherry Kull
>Adjunct Faculty
>Biblical Theological Seminary
Good question. The terms occur in an indirect question in which the
adverbial participle relates to the main verb, but in a manner which leaves
it to the reader/hearer to infer. I understand it as follows:
1. It is probably to be understood in the first place as inceptive, i.e.
"dome to believe."
2. The participle might be temporal: "when you came to believe" or "after
you came to believe" or "as you came to believe." There may be a reference
to baptism implicit in the phrase.
3. I would not think that attendant circumstance is a correct analysis. It
is an outside possibility to take the participle as instrumental ("by
coming to faith") or causal ("because you came to faith")--though the
temporal makes more sense in the context of Acts.
I too will be interested in other reactions to your question.
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
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: Jan S Haugland <jansh@telepost.no>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 22:53:39 +0100
Subject: Re: YHWH in LXX Papyrii
Hello Gary
> Work through the possible implications...
> (1) if YHWH appeared in Paul's version of Joel 2:32LXX, but
> he dictates "KYRIOS" when he quotes the verse in Rom.
> 10:13, a passage where KYRIOS has Jesus as a referent due
> to 10:9-10, 14.
> (2) if YHWH appeared in Paul's version of the LXX, and he
> also wrote YHWH in Rom. 10:13 in reference to Jesus.
> Later copyists change YHWH to KYRIOS throughout the NT.
This is a very clear example, and the dilemma to Jehovah's Witnesses is
obvious. Nevertheless
In the JW New World Translation, you fill find the passages translated
thus:
Ro 10:13 "For "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be
saved.""
As you can see, JWs feel free to ignore the immediate context, like vs
9, here again from the NWT:
Ro 10:9 "For if you publicly declare that 'word in your own mouth,'
that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised
him up from the dead, you will be saved."
As non-Trinitarians, I think they would have a better case if they
indeed translated KYRIOS in Rom 10:13 as "Lord". They will anyway have
to face the problem that NT writers frequently applied titles and
prophecies directed at YHWH on Christ. The position is certainly not as
indifensible as some trinitarians think, considering that Christ is a
"reflection" of God and, the one in which all God's promises received
their "yes." The endless christological discussions are muddled waters
indeed, IMHO.
Cheers,
- - Jan
- --
http://home.sol.no/jansh/wteng/jwindex.html
------------------------------
From: DWILKINS@ucrac1.ucr.edu
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 16:18:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: John 2.4,Acts 19.2
Hi everyone. I'm new to the list and am already enjoying what I see in the
digest. I teach Greek and classics courses at UC Riverside and work with The
Lockman Foundation in Bible translation, etc. In the latter capacity I've
been busy over the past two years or so working on the updated text of the
New American Standard (published recently in the New Ryrie Study Bible), and
John 2:4 was one of the passages we struggled over. Bauer is surely right in
the sense that Jesus is not disrespectful to Mary, but Jesus is addressing
her on a lower level than that of his mother, and I have no doubt that he
is being confrontational in an appropriate manner ("appropriate" may not be
the most accurate term, but it is hard to find the right adjective). It was
pointed out that this is a Hebrew idiom, and one can find the idiom being
used in 2 Sam 16:10 and 19:22, 1 Ki 17:18, 2 Chr 35:21, and of course in
the NT at Matt 8:29 etc. (forgive me if I am duplicating earlier conver-
sation). I would have liked to have brought the NASB more in line with these
passages at John 2:4, but the problem is how to do it without giving too
harsh an impression to the reader who is not familiar with the issue, and to
do so in a way that allows for softer interpretations. This just seems to
be one of those passages where the translator has to bite the bullet.
As to Acts 19:2 and the use of the aorist participle, I was able to do a
fairly extensive computer study (limited to the Bible, however) and came to
the conclusion that the aorist participle can precede or overlap the main
action, but not extend beyond it. I tell my students that the aor. part.
may be simultaneous, but that it is logically prior to the governing action;
e.g. "take and eat" may be virtually simultaneous actions, but you have to
take and eat--eat and take is not possible. In my research I was trying to
deal with the mistaken notion that the aor. part. can be subsequent action
if it is subsequent in word order to the governing verb. Word order affects
emphasis and deemphasis, not the order of actions.
Don Wilkins
UC Riverside
------------------------------
From: "James H. Vellenga" <jhv0@viewlogic.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 16:32:46 EST
Subject: Re: Acts 19:2
>>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!
>>
>>Sherry Kull
>>Adjunct Faculty
>>Biblical Theological Seminary
>
>Good question. The terms occur in an indirect question in which the
>adverbial participle relates to the main verb, but in a manner which leaves
>it to the reader/hearer to infer. I understand it as follows:
>
>1. It is probably to be understood in the first place as inceptive, i.e.
>"dome to believe."
>
>...
>
>Edgar M. Krentz Tel: 312-256-0752
For intransitive PISTEUW, I like "to commit oneself" -- i.e., a positive
action; but if "believe", then I agree with Edgar: "come to believe"
But as to the main question, I don't think it matters too much whether
the receiving is (immediately) after or simultaneous with the making of
the commitment or coming to believe. I.e.,
Did you receive the Holy Spirit [after] committing yourselves/coming
to believe?
or
Did you receive the Holy Spirit [while] committing yourselves/coming
to believe?
And the reason it doesn't matter is that when the Ephesians said they
had not received the H.S., Paul immediately questioned what rite they
were baptized into. I.e., he seems to assume that if you were baptized
into Christ, you would have received the Holy Spirit -- essentially at
or about the same time.
Personally, although I consider myself a charismatic, I don't think that
receiving the Holy Spirit necessarily entails phenomena that are
obviously supra-natural, although that can occur. I think what is more
likely is that many of us don't fully realize how to keep "going around"
(PERPATEW) in accordance with the Spirit (Gal. 5.25), so that we aren't
acutely aware of Him/Her/It.
Regards,
j.v.
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
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #144
*****************************
** 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