From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sat Nov 14 1998 - 11:26:35 EST
<x-rich>I have been asked, as a Co-Chair of B-Greek, to permit discussion of a
message sent to B-Greek by Edgar Krentz under the subject header Re:
KTISIS Thu, 12 Nov 1998 10:11:40 +0100, on grounds that this message
was in fact a continuation of the previously closed PRWTOTOKOS thread.
I felt personally that this was an improbable view, inasmuch as Edgar
had posted nothing on the PRWTOTOKOS thread other than a protest that
what seemed to him clearly a theological discussion was continuing to
run on the list. Moreover, I also felt uncomfortable about opening up
what appeared to me to be, in effect, a continuation of the thread
which I now feel probably should have been halted much earlier than it
was (and which I certainly do not want to re-open). Nevertheless, in
the interests of fairness, I agreed to ask Edgar for a clarification of
the Thursday post, and he has offered the following message which I am
posting now, with very minor editorial changes to delete items chat
items not bearing directly on the substantive clarification that Edgar
offers. For ease of reference, I cite first the text of Thursday's
short message, the one upon which Edgar expands to explain his
intentions and meaning:
(1) Re: KTISIS Thu, 12 Nov 1998 10:11:40 +0100:
<excerpt>Col 1 itself defines KTISIS in v. 16. It is TA PANTA EN TOIS
OURANOIS KAI EPI THS GHS. This includes both the visible and the
invisible tehings [reflectding the neuters]. TA AORATOA are then
defined as QRONOI, KURIOTHTES, ARCAI, EXOUSIAI. And it is the AORATA
that are the writer's primary concern. The subject of the hymn [hOS in
v. 15] is superior to all such powers in the heavens because he created
them and, as the second strophe of the hymnic passage makes clear, he
reconciled them to God. In 214-15 the write changes the picture to
that of a trimphal procession and the Roman <italic>tropaion,</italic>
the victory trophy set up to mark the enemy's defeat.
That is, the writer has a focus in his use of KTISIS that he himself
makes clear.
My two cents worth.
</excerpt>
What follows next is Edgar's explanation and clarification of that
brief message which he had posted on Thursday:
>Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:01:37 +0100
>To: "Carl W. Conrad" <<cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
>From: Edgar Krentz <<ekrentz@lstc.edu>
>Subject: RE: KTISIS
>
>I entered the discussion on KTISIS on the assumptions that (1) it was
not a
>continuation of any discussion about pre-existence, but about what the
text
>means by the term KTISIS; (2) that part of the philological method of
>determining meaning--in addition to semantic and sytactical
input--lies in
>seeing what an author says in the context of a term. That is [and I
think
>that in this process I was doing something that I recall Rolf
stressing in
>other strings in the past] meaning does not lie in individual words,
but in
>terms used in a particular context.
>
>What I meant by the phrase "My two cents worth," a common English
idiom for
>implying that something is only a minor addition to a discussion, was
that
>I felt that what I wrote neither affirmed nor denied either Carl or
Rolf,
>but reminded the list that Colossians itself, while it identifies
KTISIS as
>TA PANTA, a going phrase in Hellenistic-Roman era philosophy for the
>universe, goes on to say that this includes TA hORATA KAI TA AORATA.
That
>is Colossians says that TA PANTA is more than the visible world. It
then
>goes on to define TA AORATA as comprising QRONOI, KURIOTHTES, ARCAI,
>EXOUSIAI. The writer's interest is focused on these invisible beings
who
>have rebelled against God. That is clear from vv. 18b-20 and from the
>return to the topic in chapter 2.
>
> ... The data I cite are rhetorical
and
>syntactic (words in apposition to other words, for example). They do
not
>claim to represent the totality of the semantic possibilities of the
term
>KTISIS; but I would hold that they do indicate what the writer's
interest
>is in using the term.
>
> ... there are other places in the New Testament [where Jesus
>is portrayed as the direct agent of creation]. 1 Cor 8:6, Heb 1:1-4,
John 1, >etc. And in my opinion, they are an application, in part, of
the sort of
>SOPHIA language that > one finds in Sap.Sol. 7-10....
>
>And finally, I did not at all think that I was being a critic of
[anyone's]
>input. That did not even occur to me. Nor do I claim that anything I
write
>is "the last word" on anything; if someone takes my words as
authoritative,
>they confer the authority on my words; I do not put it there.
>
>Finally, I for my part did not think that what I wrote had any
theological
>bias, hidden agenda, or theological position. It was intended to be a
>rhetorical, syntactical, and literary argument alone.
>
>I hope this helps to clarify what I meant and what I intended.
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Edgar Krentz
>Acting Dean, Fall Quarter 1998
>Professor of New Testament Emeritus
>Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
>1100 E. 55th Street
>Chicago, IL 60615 USA
>773-256-0752
>e-mail: ekrentz@lstc.edu (Office)
> emkrentz@mcs.com (Home)
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carl W. Conrad
Co-Chair, B-Greek List
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
</x-rich>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:07 EDT