b-greek-digest V1 #515
b-greek-digest Saturday, 17 December 1994 Volume 01 : Number 515
In this issue:
Re: Learning Greek via computer
Re: agapaw and philew
Re: Col. 1:15, PRWTOTOKOS
prwtotokos in Col 1
Re: son of man
From: mounce <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 01:16:12 -0800
Subject: Re: Learning Greek via computer
My FlashWorks software program for Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, German, French (and
now Russin and Italian I hear) have been posted to Internet, AOL, and CIS,
although I am told that the second of the three files for the Windows version
are not available. I am getting access to an FTP site and will put the files
there as well.
The current name of the Macintosh version is "FlashWorks107.sea" on AOL or
fwmac107.sea on CIS and Internet. The Windows version is called fwwin10b.zip.
I have a parsing program as well named ParseWorks. I don't know if I have
uploaded it or not.
If anybody has adopted my Greek text, then Zondervan should have sent them the
programs. If not they can be downloaded.
The databases are really text files so you can modify them any way you want
From: Daniel Hedrick <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 06:44:25 -0700
Can any one help me understand the LXX?
E-text on origin and purpose...
Reliability and veracity...
I am currently in several discussions with
Messianic and Rabbinic Jews and as far as
apologetics goes I don't think I have ever
been more challenged.
1. Does the LXX maintain or alter original Hebrew of the
Torah, and/or Tenach?
2. The Rabbinic Jews or Orthodox Jews deny the NT.
On what grounds? The only obvious reason is they
simply deny Messiah Yshua as the fulfillment of OT.
3. An example of their frustration with the NT vs OT.
Eze 43 vs Heb 10 (Is Jesus the eternal sacrifice or not?)
I can only come up with that the Temple as spoken of in
Eze which will be offering up sin offerings
in the future well after the Lord's finished work
on the Cross must be done IN Rememberance of the Lords
Can anyone provide me and others with e-text on the historical
reliability and/or veracity of the LXX and the NT.
From: "Dan G. McCartney, Westminster Semin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 08:56:45 EST
Subject: Re: agapaw and philew
>The particular issue at hand is whether agape and phileo are words with
>entirely differnet meanings. I say no. He says yes. So scholars out there
>what is your view? are these words symnanyms (sic) or are they completely
>different. and what is the scholarly consensous today. I would apprecate that
>if you respond that you add your credentials.
Louw & Nida support your view. See under domain 25.43 (p. 294). I think it is
virtually impossible on linguistic grounds to sustain the kind of distinctions
which the older commentators and philologists sometimes made. Remember that
prior to the NT agape was not a particularly altruistic love, and note that 1
John 2:15 say "do not love (mE agapate) the world". Obviously this cannot mean
"don't love the world with a divine altruistic love."
** Dan G. McCartney | I'net: DMCCARTNEY@HSLC.ORG **
** Assoc. Prof. of NT | WTS: 215 887 5511 **
** Westminster Theol Seminary | Office: 215 572 3818 **
** Box 27009, Chestnut Hill | Fax: 215 887 5404 **
** Philadelphia, PA 19090 | Home: 215 659 7854 **
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 09:22:02 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: LXX
For a "quick 'n dirty" intro to the LXX and to related matters, see the
student guide by Ralph W. Klein, _Textual Criticism of the Old
Testament: From the Septuagint to Qumran_ (Philadelphia: Fortress
The problems alluded to in the request for info on the LXX are
legion: there were several Greek translations of the OT and each has a
textual history (i.e., with variants requiring establishing an original
text of that translation), and the Hebrew text itself has some fluidity,
esp. in the ancient period (as shown esp. by the Qumran mss., where we
have approx. 3 textual "types" of the Hebrew OT). So establishing the
"original" reading of the Hebrew is also a sometimes daunting task.
Consequently, the religious debate and apologetics twixt Orthodox
Jews and very conservative Christians will forever be bedeviled, if the
aim is to PROVE the validity or invalidity of Jesus by some kind of
proof-texting. There's simply too much involved that is uncertain
textually. And, after all, acceptance or rejection of the Christian
Gospel is a heck of a lot more than simply adding up proof-texts like
math sums, and reaching the "right" conclusion.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 13:24:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Col. 1:15, PRWTOTOKOS
firstname.lastname@example.org (Dan G. McCartney) quoted David Coolmer and wrote
>>I can think of no other biblical instantance in which "firstborn" is used
>>to indicate preeminence over a class of which the firsborn is not
>>part--can anyone else?
>Of course not! Paul's point is not that Jesus is God and therefore over
>creation, but that God became a
>man *so that* he might become firstborn over creation. The emphasis is on
>Jesus *the Man* receiving his rightful inheritance as king of creation (a
>reinstitution of human [Adamic] vicegerency.
Would not the O(TI of Col. 1:16 indicate that the reason He is the
Firstborn has to do with His activity in the creation of all things (vv.
16ff.)? The only way to *possibly* get around the relation between Christ's
capacity as Creator and His designation as the "Firstborn of all creation"
would be to understand the O(TI of v. 16 as introducing a quote. Even if the
latter were so (IMO it is not), the relation between the statement of v. 15
and the assertions of v. 16ff. still would remain strong. Why else insert her
e a recounting of Christ's activity in the creation of all things if it does
not explain in what way He is "the Firstborn of all creation"?
Eadie, who gives an informative historical review of interpretation of
the term PRWTOTOKOS as it appears in this passage, in his commentary on
Colossians (pp. 47-52), suggests that the term may have been one especially
used by the proponents of the Colossian heresy. He points out that, in the
Jewish Kabbala, "Jehovah himself is called the 'first-born of the world....'"
Although the way in which any errorist might have used the "firstborn" idea
is not really the issue, the meaning that Paul gives to the word by his explan
ation in Col. 1:16ff. is of prime importance.
Paul's explanation of Christ's role in the creation of all things gives
us the correct background for understanding PRWTOTOKOS in v. 15. Any
interpretation that aims at understanding this term should take that
background into account.
David L. Moore
From: Leo Percer <PERCERL@baylor.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 13:14:12 -0600 (CST)
Subject: prwtotokos in Col 1
Something David Moore said in his last post about the opponents of the
Colossian correspondence got me to thinking. Is there any consensus on who
the opponents are? And, assuming they may have been Essenic, does anyone
have any references as to how PRWTOTOKOS or "firstborn" was used in the
Qumran literature? And, by the way, thanks to all of you who have
responded! This discussion has proven quite enlightening!
From: Kenneth Litwak <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 12:07:01 PST
Subject: Re: son of man
I want to make two comments on Greg Jordan's statements about
the phrase "son of man" and about his interpretation of 1st Century CE
Judaism. Beginning withthe latter, it shold be recognized that there is,
at least in the Hebrew Bible, a significant difference between a being
being heavenly and a being being divine. I am not aware of any text
that would ascribe divinity to any being other than God. THe same holds for
Intertestamental literature. Being heavenly and beling deity are not
coterminous. So it is not accurate to say, IMHO, that 1st century Jews
believed in multiple divine beings, so that Jesus could be seen as one of
many divine beings without being seen as God. The next observation
I want to make is that I think Mr. Jorand would be hard-pressed to show
me an instance of theos in the NT that required the abnormal translation
of "divine" rather than "God/god". Suggesitng alternative translations
is fine and proper (I do it myself), but I'd want a good reason to depart
from what seems uniform, ubiquitous practice in the NT first.
Now, as to the NT writers just coming out and saying "Jesus is God",
I would have just two comments. They might not have felt a need to just
come out baldly and say that. It might not have been an issue for them
to nail down that exact statement,. At the same time, I think a very
good case can be made that the NT writers have done exactly that, but
not in those exact words. Leaving aside John 1, since we know that seems
to be under debate, I might mention the implicit assertin in Revelation
of the Jesus as the Alpha and Omega, along with God. I might mention
Hebrews 1-2 that basically says Jesus is greater than all celestial beings.
I might also mention that the prologue of one of the epistles, I think
2 Peter (which I accept as authentic) basicaaly says "Jesus,
that is, God". I also think that when Jesus ansswers the rich young
ruler's question, and asks, "why do you call me good", he is not just
being obdurate. He is trying to point the person to who Jesus really is --
not just a good guy, but divine (an appellation I would argue can only be
applied to the God of Israel by an orthodox Jew, thjat is, orthodox by
1st Century CE standards).
From: Kenneth Litwak <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 12:20:06 PST
Subject: Re: LXX
I'll just address point 1. Helping you understand the LXX cannot
readily be done in a note here. Instead, I'd suggest a book or two, like
the one (forgotten the title) by Jellicoe, I think, on the LXX. The
practices of the translators vary from section to section with some
interesting anomalies, like the kaige sections. It's much more complex
than a few sentences. Briefly, however, the Torah seems to be translated
more literally than other passages. As I learned while writng an article
on Isa 52:13-53:12 and its use in the NT, the treatment of the Hebrew in
Isa. 53"7-8 is not what I'd call a translation. It's either a paraphrase
or a guess at some difficult Hebrew. I won't touch your apologetic aims.
> From email@example.com Fri Dec 16 06:12 PST 1994
> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 06:44:25 -0700
> Posted-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 06:44:25 -0700
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: LXX
> X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
> Content-Type> : > text>
> X-Lines: 30
> Can any one help me understand the LXX?
> E-text on origin and purpose...
> Reliability and veracity...
> I am currently in several discussions with
> Messianic and Rabbinic Jews and as far as
> apologetics goes I don't think I have ever
> been more challenged.
> 1. Does the LXX maintain or alter original Hebrew of the
> Torah, and/or Tenach?
> 2. The Rabbinic Jews or Orthodox Jews deny the NT.
> On what grounds? The only obvious reason is they
> simply deny Messiah Yshua as the fulfillment of OT.
> 3. An example of their frustration with the NT vs OT.
> Eze 43 vs Heb 10 (Is Jesus the eternal sacrifice or not?)
> I can only come up with that the Temple as spoken of in
> Eze which will be offering up sin offerings
> in the future well after the Lord's finished work
> on the Cross must be done IN Rememberance of the Lords
> Can anyone provide me and others with e-text on the historical
> reliability and/or veracity of the LXX and the NT.
End of b-greek-digest V1 #515
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
You can send mail to the entire list via the address: