b-greek-digest V1 #566
b-greek-digest Saturday, 4 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 566
In this issue:
RE: Seminary Greek Requirements
Luke 8:31,32 vs 3:23
God's Wrath and Mercy
Re: EKSTASIS and altered states
Re: BAGD and `kosmos'
Re: BAGD and `kosmos'
Re: Luke 8:31,32 vs 3:23
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 95 09:10:00 PST
Subject: RE: Seminary Greek Requirements
To: virginia.edu!B-GREEK (BGREEk)
Subject: Seminary Greek Requirements
Date: Sunday, January 22, 1995 1:27PM
At Luther Northwestern (Soon to be just Luther Seminary) at St Paul they
require 6 credits of Greek (and 6 of philosophy) for admission. However,
one can do an intensive summer course prior to entry if one has been
unable to fulfill the requirements at the undergrad level.
Luther Seminary has dropped the philosophy requirement and requires 10 units
of Greek prior to admission. We do have an intensive Summer Greek course
for those M.Div. students who did not take the language in their
undergraduate work. The Seminary also requires 2 quarters of Hebrew - these
classes can be taken within the first year of study.
James C. Lindberg
Student, Luther Seminary
St. Paul, M.N.
From: "Philip L. Graber" <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 12:29:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: epexegetical KAI
I have a translator friend who asked me what I could find about the
epexegetical use of KAI. Does anyone have any bibliographic suggestions?
He is specifically interested in Acts 13:50:
OI DE IOUDAIOI PARWTRUNAN TAS SEBOMENAS GUNAIKAS TAS EUSCHMONAS KAI TOUS
PRWTOUS THS POLEWJ KAI EPHGEIRAN DIWGMON EPI TON PAULON KAI BARNABAN, KAI
EXEBALON AUTOUS APO TWN ORIWN AUTWN.
First of all, can "the devout women of high standing and the leading men
of the city" (RSV) be considered the subject of EPHGEIRAN, or must it be
"the Jews" as the RSV has it? If it can be the former, then can they also
be the subject of EXEBALON, and the accompanying KAI understood
epexegetically so that their casting out of Paul and Barnabas is an
elucidation of their stirring up persecution?
Perhaps you want to sort these issues out differently. What my friend
really wants is bibliography on epexegetical use of KAI, and help on
whether the KAI preceding EXEBALON can be legitimately read that way.
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
firstname.lastname@example.org Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
From: Daniel Hedrick <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 11:44:38 -0700
Subject: Luke 8:31,32 vs 3:23
I am curious about these two passages...
Are these the same Herod?
Herod spoken by Matthew calls Herod a King and Luke
calls him a Tetrarch of Galilee.
Could Herod be a King when in dominion by Rome?
I know it seems like another Did Judas buy a field
or did the high priests or did his
bowles gush out kinda question ?
Maybe someone can answer these too.
I do not have a very strong greek library and or ancient
greek manuscripts and I hope that these apparent contradictions can be resolved.
From: Bengt Odman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 22:00:34 +0100 (MET)
Subject: God's Wrath and Mercy
In Romans 9:19-26, Paul first (19-21) makes it clear that God has every=20
right to show mercy on whom he wants without obligation. The potter may=20
make some specially fine things, designed to give him honour. But I=20
wonder, is Paul then possibly turning the whole thing around (22), saying=
in fact that he has also saved the SKEUH ORGHS, originally made for=20
destruction, calling us gentiles also (24)? The 1917 Swedish translation=20
seems to interpret it this way, but I have not seen any other translation=
that does explicitly. Is there any who do? As I understand RSV, KJV, NIV=20
and others, the chosen ones, gentiles or Jews alike, all belong to=20
the SKEUH DOXHS.=20
Thus, grammatically, what I wonder is:
1. Can or should EI DE THELWN be interpreted in an adversative sense?
("but what if...?")
2. Does HNEGKEN mean "kept so far" or "saved for ever"?
What do you say?
Bengt =D6dman=09 http://www.algonet.se/~nbengtg=09 NBengtG@Algonet.SE
Vasav. 106, 2tr =09=09=09=09 Tel: int +46858032577=20
S-175 32 J=E4rf=E4lla, SWEDEN =09=09=09=09 nat 08-58032577
From: "Alan D. Humm" <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 16:01:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: EKSTASIS and altered states
> The element of
> self-control implied by these verses appears to go against the common
> understanding of glossolalia as an "ecstatic" phenomenon.
> My concern, as I said in my original posting, is that there is certainly a
> lot of ecstatic phenomena around in charismatic circles, at least in the UK,
> at the moment. The supposedly ecstatic experiences of Peter, Paul, etc. are
> being used as legitimations for the current phenomena
You are right to distinguish between ecstasy (dissociation) and the
psychological states implied in 1 Cor. There is in fact a whole
continuum of psychological states associated with revelation in and out
of the Bible. I tend to reserve "ecstasy", as a technical term, for
true out of body experiences (like Revelation chs 5-21), and would not
have used it of Peter's experience in Acts (which I would call a
"vision"). I do not expect the ancient writers to conform to my
terminology :-). The category experiences to which Paul appears to be
referring are, I believe, what I usually call (until I find a better
term) "enthusiasm" from the Greek ENQOUSIASMOS used (as I recall) by
Philo. It is an "altered state alright, but one in which the "prophet"
does not loose consciousness, and, more importantly does not loose
control. It does not involve the hearing of voices or the seening of
things that others in the room would not. Those who experience it will
generally say that it "feels" different than "normal" states of
consciousness and may claim that they are receiving messages from g/God,
or feel a particular communion with the diety.
After all that, however, I get a little confused when I read about
predominance of ecstacy in charismatic circles. Most charismatic (and
even pentecostal) groups I know of are brimming with what I have called
enthusiasm, but ecstasy, posession, visions, etc. are rare at best.
They like them, but they are VERY unusual. (On this note, I have heard
charismatics speak of "visions" where, when you press them on the
details of the experience, what they mean is still a variety of
But if simply finding a biblical example of ones experiences is
sufficient "legitimation" then they don't need Peter's visions or Paul's
3rd heaven excursion, since the experience of the early Church evidenced
in 1Cor, and probably Acts is enough.
Of course, for those who find these experiences disturbing, or for whom
they are theologically problematic, the question is not whether they
are similar to the experiences of 1st century Christians, but whether
they are in fact the same (e.g. are the charismatics really experiencing
the HOLY Spirit). Unfortunately, the answer to that question lies
outside of either historical or scientific investigation.
- -- Alan
Alan Humm | The Bible tells us to love our neighbors,
University of Pennsylvania | and also to love our enemies;
Dept of Religious Studies | probably because they are generally the
firstname.lastname@example.org | same people. - G.K. Chesterton
From: William Brooks <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 13:37:56 -0800
Subject: Re: BAGD and `kosmos'
Ken Litwak recently wrote--
> The second issue, as I have suggested above, is purely theological
>and not related, or at least should not be related, to translation.
>Does John mean to limit or in some other way suggest that God's love
>for all people is different in measure or kind from those John would
>call "believers"? My own opinion is that this is not the case. Rather,
>but not reading John in the light of Paul, I think John and Paul share
>a similar perspective on God's love. It is equal for all individuals,
>but is only known and experienced by those who "walk in the light".
Excuse me for butting into the conversation, but here it goes...
Perhaps the best way (?) to think about God's love for individuals is to put
it into familial terms. After all, we are "adopted" into his family as "sons
and daughters." When it comes to love--in all its varied perspectives-to
whom is my special love directed? To the members of my family of course--my
wife and my children. Although I do care and, at times, help those outside
my family, my affections and attentions are reserved for my wife and children.
Of course, all analogies will ultimately fall apart, but it seems that God's
love operates in much the same manner. There are a host of Scriptures that
tell us God gives a measure of grace to all creation (restraint of sin [Gen.
20:6]; natural blessings [Acts 14:17]; a general call to salvation [John
16:8-11], etc.). Balanced with this, however, is the unmistakable teaching
that God's people are the "apple of His eye" and that His special blessings
are reserved for His sons and daughters.
I would say that His love (ie His specific love to believers) is potentially
available for all, yet not all will experience it. In a word, God's love is
*not* equal for all--some will experience His tremendous love; others only
the shadows of His love.
From: Kenneth Litwak <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 95 14:48:32 PST
Subject: Re: BAGD and `kosmos'
I appreciated your note expressing your understanding of God's love.
While I think this is an important topic, I don't really wish to
discuss it at length, because that's not the point of what I've been
trying to say. What I'm trying to say is, given a GNT word, what English
word or words would you render it with and what do you think should
appear in a lexicon. As evident from your note, we may not precisely
agree on what the NT teaches about God's love. That's prcisely the
problem with BAGD. I don't think a lexicon should be tellimg me that
kosmos means world and something else, if that something else is a
theological statement. Of course, while I'm at it I might as well
critique BDB for connecting Hebrew words to their alleged J or E source.
I find that as ludicrous as creating a concordance to Q! Hard to create
a concordance of a document you've never seen and may have been the
equivalent of 1000 pages long for all we know, if it existed at all.
In any event, I expect BAGD to say kosmos means world or perhaps humanity
or the created order, depending upon the context. I don't expect a
lexicon to give me the author's theology. Same with basileia tou theou,
where this thread started. I expect any lexicon to list words that are
part of the semantic domain of basileia, not proceed from there to
lecture me on what the author thinks basileia signifies. Larry Hurtado
says "realm" is in the semantic domain of basileia. Fine. So, however,
is kingdom, and is a perfectly acceptable translation in my judgment for
this phrase in the NT. In context the phrase may point to some larger
concept that the words alone do not capture for a 20th century North
American, but that does not mean, IMHO, that a lexicon should inform
me how to _understand_ rather than how to _translate_ the phrase.
Enough said. There have been other interesting topics on the list today
and perhaps we should move on to them. This is _not_ to belittle your
comment, William. It merely is to suggest that my point was not to
start a thread on God's love and that it seems I am pretty alone in my
view of what lexicons ought to do, so I see nothing to be gained by
further discussion. If you'd like to discuss God's love further off
the list, I'd be happy to do so. Much better than the rancorous
discussion of Exodus recently on B-Hebrew.
From: William Brooks <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 15:38:35 -0800
Subject: Re: Luke 8:31,32 vs 3:23
>Herod spoken by Matthew calls Herod a King and Luke
>calls him a Tetrarch of Galilee.
>Could Herod be a King when in dominion by Rome?
Part of the difficulty is sorting through the Herodian family and figuring
out which "Herod" Scripture is mentiong. I'm interested in the Herodian
dynasty and here's a short primer on the family.
First, "Herod" is not a personal name but is a family designation, a
surname, a title and each of the rulers had the name (this accounts for some
of the confusion).
Herod Antipater was the one that ingratiated himself to Rome and gained
Roman citizenship for the family. They were Idumeans (from the old Edomite
people). He had several children, the most important one for our discussion
is Herod (the Great).
Herod the Great was named "king" of the Palestianian area by Caesar
Augustus. He was a great builder of structures and a rather twisted
individual (see the appropriate sections in Josephus for the gory details).
He ruled Palestine from 37-4 BCE. He's the Herod mentioned in Matt 2:13, 16.
Upon his death--which was rather gruesome--his kingdom was split up into 3
sections, each section going to one of his sons which were clever enough to
(1) Herod Archaelaus was named an ethnarch and ruled 1/2 of his father's
kingdom from 4 BCE-6 CE. His territory included Sameria, Judea and Idumea
(old Edom). He is mentioned in Mt 2:22.
(2) Herod Antipas was named a tetrarch and ruled 1/4 of his father's kingdom
from 4 BCE-39 CE. His territory included Galilee and Perea. He married
Herodias, the wife of his half-brother Herod Philip I. This caused him to
receive a lashing from John the Baptist (Mt 14; Mk 6; Lk 9). He and Pilate
became friends when Jesus was on trial (Lk 23:5-12). Eventually he was
disposed by Caligula and his territory was given to a grandson of Herod the
Great--King Agrippa I.
(3) Herod Philip II was named tetrarch and ruled 1/4 of his father's kingdom
from 4 BCE-34 CE. His territory was found in the Northeastern part of
Palestine. He is mentioned in Lk 3:1 and had a city named after
One difficulty arises in that Herod Antipas is called "king" when he is only
a tetrarch--thus the cry of "error" rises up across the land. The only
error, however, lies in the use of eisogesis. *We* use the term "king" to
refer to a sovereign ruler--the term "king" then was applied to not only
royalty but also to princes, judges, chiefs, captains, etc. (see Lindell and
Scott; Robinson's Greek Lexicon). Even Josephus calls Antipas "king"--and
_surely_ **he** would not be in error ;-)
That's how Herod the Great's kingdom was divided, but the intersection of
Herodian history and Scripture does not end.
Herod Agrippa I was a grandson of Herod the Great. As mentioned above, when
Antipas was disposed, Agrippa I took over his post (from 37-44 CE). He
enlarged the territory he ruled over and it eventually covered almost all
that Herod the Great had ruled. He is mentioned in Acts 12:1-3, 19-23.
Herod Agrippa II was the son of Agrippa I. It seems that his father gave him
the the northern 1/3 of his territory to rule. He is mentioned in Acts
25:22, 23; 25:26; 26:27, 28, 32.
Hope it helps,
End of b-greek-digest V1 #566
** 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: