[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #149
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 19 March 1996 Volume 01 : Number 149
In this issue:
"Don't curse": but Paul does! :(
Re: "Don't curse": but Paul does! :(
re: selling greek
Re: "Don't curse": but Paul does! :(
Euaggelizomai
Re: selling greek
Re: b-greek-digest V1 #146
Ephesians 4:29
unsuscribe
Re: Euaggelizomai
Re: Ephesians 4:29
Jn 2.4
Re: unsubscribe
Romans 8:18 (James Clardy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shaughn Daniel <shaughn.daniel@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 13:00:27 +0100
Subject: "Don't curse": but Paul does! :(
If you have Louw-Nida, then please, for the NT rundown: 1:442 (33.470-33.475)
EULOGEW EULOGIA KATEULOGEW = "to ask God to bestow divine favor on, with
the implication that the verbal act itself constitutes a significant
benefit";
renderings of "to bless, blessing"
KATARAOMAI, KATARA = "to cause injury of harm by means of a statement
regarded as having some supernatural power, often because a diety or
supernatural force has been evoked"; renderings of "to curse, curse"
ANAQEMATIZW, KATAQEMATIZW, ARA, ANAQEMA, EPARATOS, EPIKATARATOS
"to invoke divine harm if what is said is not true or if one does not carry
out what has been promised -- to curse; the content of what is expressed in
a curse; that which has been cursed, cursed, accursed, pertaining to being
cursed."
* James 3:9f "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we
curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come
praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be."
* Romans 12:14 "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse."
* Mt 5:44 "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who
persecute you."
THE LEXICAL STUDIES: No matter which way you slice up and put into buckets
the variety of Greek and Hebrew vocabulary--from the curses starting in Ge
3, the classical and hellenistic materials (close to 40 Greek words that
can be rendered as "curse"), the renderings and translational
guesses/techniques(?) in the LXX, the NT's usage of the LXX and/or HB, and
even Paul, diced up into the proper synchronic and diachronic studies--you
come to the point that ANATHEMA = KATARATOS = EPIKATATOS = EPARA =
PARADOROUMENOI TW SATANA = whatever other word or phrase in context = CURSE
by the time of Paul.
THE POINT: THEREFORE, WHEN Paul curses in Galatians 1:8f, 3:10ff, 1Co 5:5,
1Co 16:22 and Ro 9:3--and it really doesn't matter what curse word(s) he
chooses because his usages all do, indeed, in his letters, mean, imply,
and/or engender "excommunication", "something to avoid", "something that is
taboo", which is "cursing", which is "invoking divine displeasure on
someone's behavior or message" in order to "remove an enemy/antagonist's
influence" and/or "harm them spiritually and/or physically and/or
economically" in all types of contexts from religious to political to
whatever--THEN he is breaking his own law, contradicting himself, and has
undermined his apostleship and calling. Even if one states that the gospel
includes blessing/cursing in itself as a given, and that Paul doesn't have
anything to do with the "cursing" because it is already built-in, so to
speak, before it is revealed to him, then when he preaches that gospel,
then he is breaking his own command "not to curse". In other words, one
can't exhort "don't curse" while "cursing" the living daylights out of your
enemies regardless of the vocabulary one picks!
LAST THOUGHT: I'm not fooled into thinking that terms "hold" meaning, but
rather, they "mean/work" in contexts. Most, if not all, of the patterns and
differences in the terms have collapsed under the multiplex of function by
the time of Paul and he gives little clues that he is distinguishing them,
or had even thought about it. He has the "if anyone preaches another
gospel" phrase in Galatians and then the ANATHEMA ESTW and then in
Corinthians he, for some unknown reason, doesn't put the ANATHEMA ESTW in,
but "and you put up with it well enough", on through Romans where he would
be ANATHEMA for the sake of his people. So, Paul curses with ANATHEMA
(Galatians), then he reconsiders and lightens the statement by dropping
ANATHEMA altogether for rhetorical show (Corinthians), and then just curses
himself as ANATHEMA out of self-persecuting love (Romans)! Maybe that is
the development of ANATHEMA in the letters of Paul, but doesn't that sound
just a little far-fetched? The only other thing in writing that I've seen
is by Igor Kiss, a small article, where he sees the tension and solves it
by taking the designation of "curse" out of ANATHEMA, but that is simply
not being honest with the vocabulary and function, IMO and also goes
against my grain because Galatians "isn't supposed to contradict" Romans or
anything else in Paul's thoughts in the Hauptbriefe. Only the four and you
would expect for them to be compatible, but they aren't!
I get the feeling that if one disagreed with Paul more than once, then one
was thrown out of his "circle", or rather "cursed out." Maybe the tone of
Galatians is as sharp as it is because he is just responding in rage with
moments of ingenious interpretation thrown in here and there while the
opponents really have won in discrediting Paul and circumcising Gentiles.
Sorry for the length. Hoping for some thoughts. Please post to me privately
as well because I'm in digest mode here and would like to get any responses
outside the digest.
Sincerely,
Shaughn Daniel
Tuebingen, Germany
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@micah.chowan.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:27:10 -1100
Subject: Re: "Don't curse": but Paul does! :(
> I get the feeling that if one disagreed with Paul more than once, then one
> was thrown out of his "circle", or rather "cursed out." Maybe the tone of
> Galatians is as sharp as it is because he is just responding in rage with
> moments of ingenious interpretation thrown in here and there while the
> opponents really have won in discrediting Paul and circumcising Gentiles.
> Sorry for the length. Hoping for some thoughts. Please post to me privately
> as well because I'm in digest mode here and would like to get any responses
> outside the digest.
Plase forgive the advertisement, but as associate editor of EMORY
STUDIES IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY, I should point out that our newest
volume is on this very topic.
THE RHETORIC OF CURSE IN GALATIANS by Kjell Arne Morland was just
published by Scholars Press. He investigates "curse" in Hebrew Bible
texts, Philo, and other places in order to compare Paul's use of the
curse.
David
********************************
David B. Gowler
Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
dgowler@micah.chowan.edu
------------------------------
From: "James H. Vellenga" <jhv0@viewlogic.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 08:22:38 EST
Subject: re: selling greek
>
> One of the rabbis said:
>
> "Reading scripture in translation is like kissing your bride through a veil."
>
> I have filed the serial numbers off that and made it slightly less sexist,
> but I think it expresses the concept quite pithily.
>
And one might rejoin,
"Knowing Christ only through the scriptures is like kissing your
bride through a veil."
It happens that the only significant corpus of material evidence we
have concerning Christ is the Scriptures, and I find myself holding
them in high honor, and as a standard against which all other witnesses
must be compared. And I really do delight in getting to know the
nuances by understanding the Greek better and better. But I also
hold in high honor those who know Christ with a deep personal relationship
and often profound spiritual wisdom, but who, while they know and
love the Scriptures well, know little more Greek
than LOGOS and AGAPH. And if I had to choose, I'd rather be
among those who know Christ well and the Scriptures through a veil
than among those who know the Scriptures intimately but Christ
only through a veil.
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
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 08:17:28 -0600
Subject: Re: "Don't curse": but Paul does! :(
On 3/18/96, Shaughn Daniel wrote:
> I get the feeling that if one disagreed with Paul more than once, then one
> was thrown out of his "circle", or rather "cursed out." Maybe the tone of
> Galatians is as sharp as it is because he is just responding in rage with
> moments of ingenious interpretation thrown in here and there while the
> opponents really have won in discrediting Paul and circumcising Gentiles.
> Sorry for the length. Hoping for some thoughts. Please post to me privately
> as well because I'm in digest mode here and would like to get any responses
> outside the digest.
Good work, Shaughn. I wish you continued success as you pursue relentlessly
your fascinating subject matter. By the way, you've surely perused all the
black magic stuff from the Hellenistic era (I'm thinking of something as
obvious as Georg Luck's _Arcana_--and there's a nice new web page on Magic
in Antiquity, the URL for which I can get hold of readily, if anyone's
interested.
Has anyone ever accused Paul the apostle of consistency? Seems to me it
would be a very hard charge to prove. ;-) It's always seemed to me that
Paul (in the unquestionably authentic letters, at any rate) is endeavoring
to think theologically through the problems presented in this particular
instance by this particular communication from this particular church. I
think Galatians and 1 Corinthians offer advice that is very different from
one letter to the other, partly because he sees a threat in Galatians from
those who would impose what Tillich would call a radical "heteronomy",
while in Corinth he sees a threat from those who are pushing to extremes
what Tillich would call a radical "autonomy". I think Paul is always trying
to promote Tillich's "theonomy," but in argumentation he seems normally
caught up with defending his own practice against attack from others and
attacking those whom he perceives to be his opponents in any specific case.
I know that we have had a brief but interesting discussion of whether Paul
is sarcastic or ironic in the opening verses of 1 Corinthians (I argued he
was; David Moore argued strongly on the other side). I've always thought
that Paul would, if he could interpret the words as he chose, readily
assent to that celebrated 1964 aphorism of Barry Goldwater, "Extremism in
the defense of liberty is is no vice" (I may be misquoting, but I doubt not
I'll be corrected).
Who was it? Helmut Koester? --who argued that Paul did not undergo a
CONVERSION experience but rather a CALL. Whatever it be called, I've always
sort of felt that Paul was always a FANATIC (not that he could not reason
clearly but rather that his passions could readily carry him into
intemperate language about his opponents)--and that what changed in his
Damascus Road experience must have been the cause which he was fanatically
defending and promoting.
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: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 14:57:32 EST
Subject: Euaggelizomai
Because of conflicting lexical information on EUAGGELIZOMENOS (Luke 8:1), I
wonder if someone can tell me: Is the participle from EUAGGELIZW (and hence
regular middle in voice) or is it from EUAGGELIZOMAI (and hence deponent)?
BAGD and Abbott-Smith both list EUAGGELIZW as a word but have no listing for
the word EUAGGELIZOMAI. Zerwick's Grammatical Handbook says the participle
in Luke 8:1 comes from EUAGGELIZOMAI (so does Perschbacher's REFRESH YOUR
GREEK, if I remember correctly). Thanks!
------------------------------
From: Stephen C Carlson <scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 14:53:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: selling greek
Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote:
>At 4:32 PM 16/03/96, D. Peterson wrote:
>>One of the rabbis said:
>>"Reading scripture in translation is like kissing your bride through a veil."
>>
>>I have filed the serial numbers off that and made it slightly less sexist,
>>but I think it expresses the concept quite pithily.
>
>I can't find the source, but a (perhaps) more gender-neutral ;-) statement
>of which I'm quite fond compares the reading of translations to "looking at
>the back of a tapestry".
The analogy that I'm familiar with is that reading a translation is
like watching a black & white television with good reception; reading
it in the original Greek after but a year or two of study is like
watching a color TV with static.
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: Peter Pizor <PIZORP@mail.nwc.whecn.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 16:16:15 -0700
Subject: Re: b-greek-digest V1 #146
>
>From: "Timothy B. Smith" <xapa@usaor.net>
>Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 13:43:34 -0500
>Subject: Selling Greek
>
> Can anyone suggest any others?
>Timothy B. Smith
>
Yes, from a Grove City College graduate...Class of '68.
1. Learning Greek improves English vocabulary.
2. Learning Greek greatly strengthens English grammar.
3. Learning Greek opens the doors not only to the New Testament but to
much of value in Hellenistic culture.
4. Learning Greek requires discipline and strengthens character.
5. Learning Greek is absolutely fun.
6. Learning Greek places us in contact with thoughtful people of 2,000
years ago and enables us to see them with greater clarity.
7. Learning Greek opens the doors to the sciences, especially to
biology, agronomy, soils, geography, chemistry, astronomy, and
physics.
8. Learning Greek has been one of the characteristics (a Greek root,
naturally) of an educated person for two millenia.
9. Learning Greek opens the door to classical allusions in world
literature.
10. Learning Greek is an investment in a discipline that time has not
forgotten and the decades can not improve. (with apologies to
Garison Keillor).
Peter Pizor, Ph.D.
Northwest College
Powell, Wyoming 82435
------------------------------
From: Stephen Clock <sclock@soonet.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 19:53:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Ephesians 4:29
Greetings all.
Anybody wish to comment on this question?
In Ephesians 4:29, the second major clause begins with ALLA EI TIS AGAThOS etc.
a) EI here, introduces a third class conditional clause, does it not?
b)Does not EI indicate that this portion of the sentence (from EI through
CHREIAS) is a protasis?
c) If EI...CHREIAS is the protasis, where is the apodasis? Is the
translator justified in supplying it based on the logical inferences between
this protasis and the first clause to which it is contrasted?
d) Or are my questions in c) off-base because ALLA EI has some idiomatic
meaning that is missing in my lexical sources? (This, I suspect, is
actually the probable answer, but someone here may have more expertise in this.)
Sincerely,
Steve Clock
Northland Bible College
Goulais River, Ontario
Northland Bible College
Goulais River, Ontario
P0S 1E0
------------------------------
From: Born2BJef@aol.com
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 20:32:10 -0500
Subject: unsuscribe
unsubscribe b-greek Born2BJef@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "Carlton L. Winbery" <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 20:08:32 +0400
Subject: Re: Euaggelizomai
Erick Weiss wrote;
>Because of conflicting lexical information on EUAGGELIZOMENOS (Luke 8:1), I
>wonder if someone can tell me: Is the participle from EUAGGELIZW (and hence
>regular middle in voice) or is it from EUAGGELIZOMAI (and hence deponent)?
>BAGD and Abbott-Smith both list EUAGGELIZW as a word but have no listing for
>the word EUAGGELIZOMAI. Zerwick's Grammatical Handbook says the participle
>in Luke 8:1 comes from EUAGGELIZOMAI (so does Perschbacher's REFRESH YOUR
>GREEK, if I remember correctly). Thanks!
L&S list EUAGGELIZOMAI as deponent. But there is one active form in the NT
in the Aorist at Rom. 10:7. It is possible for a verb to be deponent in
one principle part and not in another.
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
------------------------------
From: "Carlton L. Winbery" <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 20:28:08 +0400
Subject: Re: Ephesians 4:29
Stephen Clock wrote;
>In Ephesians 4:29, the second major clause begins with ALLA EI TIS AGAThOS etc.
>
>a) EI here, introduces a third class conditional clause, does it not?
No, a third class condition is usually introduced by some form of AN such
as EAN.
I would say that ALLA EI TIS AGAQOS PROS OIKODOMHN THS CREIAS is an
adversative clause indicating the converse of the SAPROS LOGOS. I would
translate it "but if any (word) (is) good for meeting the need."
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
------------------------------
From: LISATIA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 22:54:43 -0500
Subject: Jn 2.4
dear friends,
thanks for the contributions on Jesus' difficult greeting to Mary in Jn.
2.4: TI EMOI KAI SOI GYNAI. In the South Pacific, "meri" is a title and a
word for "woman", and "misi" is also a respectable address to a woman of
missionary vintage. So, it is English's lack which we celebrate, when we
translate 2.4 as,
"Missus, what is it for me to do for you?" or, perhaps, "Missus, what is
there for me to help you with?"
richard arthur Merrimack NH LISATIA@aol.com
------------------------------
From: OLIVEBR670@aol.com
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 23:09:26 -0500
Subject: Re: unsubscribe
Please unsubscribe me.
Thanks,
OLIVEBR670
------------------------------
From: JClar100@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 00:14:11 -0500
Subject: Romans 8:18 (James Clardy)
Regarding Romans 8:18 I have two questions:
1) Is there any linguistic basis for assuming that
"mellousan doxan apokaluphthHnai" portrays the imminent
coming of Christ?
or, is this simply a statement of hope as opposed to despair?
or, neither?
2) Should "eis Hmas" here be translated "in us," i.e., some kind of inner
experience, OR "for us," i.e, "for our benefit?"
Thanks,
James Clardy
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #149
*****************************
** 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