b-greek-digest V1 #611
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 14 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 611
In this issue:
Re: lexical evidence of James...
Re: For information
Re: UBS Text
Re: For information
From: MR ALAN R CRAIG <CSRT29A@prodigy.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 19:38:57 EST
Subject: For information
- -- [ From: Alan R. Craig * EMC.Ver #2.10P ] --
Some years back, in some book on Bible translations, I came across a
comment that I have yet to find again nor identify who made it.
Perhaps some of you might know who and where this was said:
"Translation is interpretation."
Also, I've been told something about the nature of the German language
that I would like some help on. I would like to know if there are any
here who might know where I can find stated a certain rule of German
writing or grammar which explains why and/or if the first letter of all
nouns in the German language are to be in caps; e.g., when translating
nouns from Greek/Hebrew to German.
Upper Marlboro, Maryland, USA.
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 21:23:46 -0500
Subject: Re: lexical evidence of James...
>The greek text in this passages reveals the Biblical pre-scientific > world
view, that sin and evil forces are responsible for illness.
Which statement is "pre-scientific"? How does the Greek text reveal that sin a
nd evil forces are responsible for illness?
Byron T. Bezdek (Tab)
From: "James D. Ernest" <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 22:25:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: For information
On Mon, 13 Mar 1995, MR ALAN R CRAIG wrote:
> that I would like some help on. I would like to know if there are any
> here who might know where I can find stated a certain rule of German
> writing or grammar which explains why and/or if the first letter of all
> nouns in the German language are to be in caps; e.g., when translating
> nouns from Greek/Hebrew to German.
Yes, German nouns are always capitalized. Why? I don't know; but I think
it used to be done in English as well. Is there a linguist in the house?
James D. Ernest Department of Theology
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Boston College
Internet: firstname.lastname@example.org Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 22:40:29 -0400
Subject: Re: UBS Text
>As to the Traditional Text, as you know, the phrase is ambiguous. Do you
>refer to the TR with this phrase, or to the broader Majority Text? Surely
>you know that the Majority Text differs from the TR in many places. And if
>you speak of the TR, which one? Which of Erasmus' five editions? =
> Beza? Or the eclectic text created by the KJV translators as they chose
>between variations in the above texts? =20
You ask questions that are excellent, but at the present time I don't think
I can completely answer tham with the clarity that you are looking for. The
issue of preservation has been an axiom to me up to this point, and am in
the midst of compiling exactly what I _do_ believe. At the moment I will
say this - I believe that God has promised to preserve His word [Psalm
12:6-7, Psalm 119:89-90, Matthew 5:17-19, I Peter 1:23-24]. This doctrine
along with the doctrines of Inspiration and Inerrency, I completely base how
I view Scriptures, but how I view my very existence.=20
I believe that God providentially preserved His Word through His Church. God
did not give the Church the Bible and completely take His hands off of it,
like some would believe, but has providentially moved men of God to preserve
His Word - completely and purly. In the Old Testament we have the BHM -
Massoretic Text, and in the New Testament we have the Traditional Text.
You're right, the Traditional Text does not mean the TR. I believe that God
used the Byzantine Empire to preserve His Word up to the point where Erasmus
could be used to get it into print [I find it amazing how the Byzantine
Empire had a great awe for the purity of God's Word, and was in existence up
to the time when Erasmus was used by God. After the Traditional Text was in
print, the Byzantine Empire was no longer needed, and thus fell to the
muslims]. Yes, I admit Erasmus had made several flaws in his first edition,
but due to the providence of God, it was corrected before it was properly
used. Yes, later on we do have others that brought further editions out, but
before you ask that ominous question about how I'd handle the variences
between the texts, I am going to head you off at the pass <grin>, by saying
I do not know. What were the exact changes made? I do not know. What I do
know is that God has promised to preserve His Word, and that goes without
>I pray for the same thing. My next debate will be a four-hour affair at
>Boston College on April 22nd. Subject: the Papacy. Well, that is if you
>don't count the time I'll be spending on KTKK radio in Salt Lake City after
>the LDS General Conference in a few weeks. My 22nd consecutive trip to the
>Conference to pass out tracts and witness to people. As you can see, I=
>live a boring life. :)
And ever since the Lord has given me a chance to teach Greek and Bible, I
have to admit the same! I have never been so busy as I am right now, yet I
wouldn't trade it for anything in the world! The opportunities I have to
influence these young folk for Christ is eternally priceless! And I thank
God for such an opportunity.
>< I am sorry to say that many brothers and sisters in Christ (on=
>sides of the camp) have a tendency to be "crude.">
>While there may be those who have responded in kind to the writings of
>Ruckman, Riplinger, etc., I must say that I believe such behavior is so
>common amongst KJV Only advocates as to be descriptive of a majority of the
Please, James, let me recommend that this is NOT the norm! Yes, when it
comes to defending the Word of God, I myself will become polemic, but I will
do my absolute utmost to NOT be crude! I know many, many preachers and
professors who will give their last ounce of blood to defend God's Word, but
they are not vulgar like some. Let me tell you about the Tompkins in our
church. What a godly couple! Even though they are in their 80's, they come
out regularly to church to hear the preaching of the Word of God. They are
the sweetest people you'll ever meet. Or what about Tom Nipper? He works in
our Engineering dept at school here, yet is able to run circles around me
when it comes to Scripture. Mind you though, you come across with error, and
he'll politely "put thee in thy place!" Yet, there isn't a vulgar bone in
his body. And then there's Dr. Mullenix. What an absolutly godly man! I
consider this man to be one of my mentors. Not because of his high
intellect, or because of his elloquence, but because of his love for the
eternal Word of God. I have seen this man bring an entire class to tears
over the Word of God! His love for the Bible is so encouraging, and his
character is the epitome of a Christian gentleman. Yet, his love for the
truth will not tolerate error. I myself have been corrected in class,
gently, yet firmly! With much proof of text!!!
You're basing all your evidence on a few people - it's not a fair
evaluation! There is a difference between firmness and vulgarity. I am firm,
but God forbid, if I find myself vulgar!=20
It's a shame you can't be here this week. We are having Bro. James Crumpton,
Johnny Pope coming down for our Bible Conference. Bro. Crumpton has been a
pastor inhis church for over 50 years, and the man loves the Word of God! He
is firm, yet polite. Attempt to corrupt the Word of God, and he will
politely dismiss you. But he will not be vulgar.
>Why just those two? Would you also include P46, P66, and P75 as well?
Because the matter we are dealing with here is the corrupted Codices Aleph
and B, which the Critical Texts leans strongly on. We can deal with the
Chester-Beatty papyri and the others later, but now, we need to concentrate
on Aleph and B.
>Heresy was part and parcel of even the apostolic church, John. The polemic
>nature of Galatians, Colossians, and 1 John is sufficient evidence of this.
> Heresies were not geographically limited, either. Egypt had no more, or
>less, of its share of heresies than any place else, including Antioch or
I'm not denying that, but you'll notice that there are certain areas that
heresies flourished. Alexandria was one such area. Ever since Clement of
Alexandria, and then Origen <thank you for the corrected spelling - it was
late, and I am a self admitted terriblke speler! =3D) I am a product of the
public education system!> controlled the Catechetical School things had not
been good down there. If you think about it, it does make sense. Both men
mixed Platonic and Aristotilian philosophy with their doctrines. It's
clearly seen in Clement's works <refering to his writings Protreptikos,
Paedagogos, Stromata, and Hupotupses>.=20
>As to Marcion, you seem to have him a bit backwards. Marcion had
>little *but* Paul in his canon;=20
Could be. I havn't studied the Marcionic Heresies for a couple of years now,
and I guess I'll have to chalk it up to a slip of a few brain cells!
>Actually, John, Arianism "flourished" primarily in the East, especially
>around (gulp) Antioch and its environs. =20
Only after Eusebius started promoting it in the Post-Nicene period. Sure,
during the bishopric of Peter of Alexandria (AD 300-311) he was temporarily
made a DEACON in Antioch, but that was only to "curb" him. Arius was born in
the area of Libya, and was strongly influenced by Origen.
>Athanasius, the great defender of the deity of Christ, normally used a
biblical text >that was, by and large, Alexandrian, not Byzantine, in form.
There is absolutely no proof of this. Look at the text of Aleph, and look at
the dogmas of that great Antipas! Sorry, you're wrong.
>And wouldn't it be even more relevant, if we are to find such things
relevant, that >these manuscripts, if they did come from Egypt, ....
It appears that this logic is running in circles. First, it's suggested that
since it is Alexandrian, we can possibly tie it to Athanasius, then we
question whether the Alexandrian Texts were _really_ from Alexandria??
James, I'll admit, the texts might _not_ have originated in the Egyptian
city, but they do ring of heresies! The greatest heresy of all is that they
question the Preservation of Scripture.=20
Time and time again, the Critical Text makes an unspoken statement- "Man has
the ability and the responsability to determine what God really said." If
nothing else, this is the one main argument I have against the Critical Text
- - the whole concept of man's intellect being over the authority of the Word
of God is wrong! and it originates all the way back to the Garden when Satan
said to Eve, "Hath God said...."
>As to the specific passages, what is your point regarding Matthew 5:22,
eike or racha?=20
EIKH is translated "without a cause." If removed, it then would read, "But I
say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of
the judgment." If this reading is true, then Christ sinned when He threw out
the money changers. Instead, the true reading adds EIKH, and Christ had a
cause .... they had turned His father's house into a house of thieves.
>I cover Luke 2:22 in my book, but I have to say that I find this a
tremendously weak >argument. Autou has miserable support;=20
Actually, the word is AUTHS (Genitive, Feminine, Singular). And it has the
support of the whole Word of God. The whole matter is found in Leviticus
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived
seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according
to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and
thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary,
until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in
her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying
threescore and six days.
6 =B6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, ....
You see, the Critical Text bears 2 problems
1. The reading using AUTWN (Genitive Plural) does not fit with Scripture.
2. Jesus NEVER needed to be purified because HE NEVER SINNED. Christ is=
Some might use the Critical Apparatus, but for me, I'll stick to the Holy
>would you not admit that there is a perfectly orthodox understanding of
this passage >that in no way indicates sinfulness on the part of Christ? =20
Orthodox? maybe. Expedient? No.
>Luke 2:33 is even worse, in my opinion,
>than 2:22, since the TR itself uses pater of Joseph at 2:48. If pater at
>2:33 somehow impacts the deity of Christ, why doesn't the same term do so=
James, this example doesn't hold water. Luke 2:33 is Narrative, while 2:48
is Discourse. God's Word is PERFECT James. If PATHR is in 2:48, then there
has to be a reason. Ah, and it's seen in the following verses.....
45 And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem,
46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the
temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking
47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and
48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him,
Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy _father_ and I have=
49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I
must be about my _Father's_ business?
I have found time and again that the Holy Word is the BEST commentary for
Itself, don't you? Mary used the term "father" in reference to her husband
Joseph. Jesus _corrected_ her in verse 49 when He said that He was about His
_Father's_ business! Also, with 2:33, Luke is stating the truth, while in
2:48, he is quoting what Mary really said. Mary really said, "...behold, thy
_father_ and I have sought thee sorrowing," and Jesus responded to her
statement by clarifying that He is about His "Father's" business. This not
only rejects your argument, but strengthens mine. The use of PATHR in 2:48
is another clarification of Jesus' relationship to Joseph. Joseph is NOT the
father of Jesus, which Aleph wants to say in 2:33.
>And John 1:18 is a plain reference to the deity of Christ, and, in
>fact, I would say is a strong evidence of the Trinity, too. The wild
I'd be very careful when handling MONOGENHS QEOS instead of MONOGENHS UIOS.
This is the one rotten apple that stinks of Arianism the most. Arius denied
that Christ was eternal - that He was "created of the Father." For holding
to this heresy, he was chucked out on his tail, and labled for what he
really was: a heretic. Christ is God of very God! I do not hold to the
Hetero-ousianism, but to the Homo-ousianism, because Christ is the very same
essense as the Father! (And that is what I'll get polemic about!)
>What if you were to be shown that history does not really fit with your
>theory, let alone demand allegiance to it? Might you consider the
>possibility that your idea of the MEANS of preservation is not necessitated
>by the word of Scripture itself?
Sorry James, but I'm not into Situational Ethics. =3D)
>John, if you wish to hold to the "Traditional Text" because your belief in
>preservation demands it, that's OK with me. But I see no reason at all why
>holding to a particular text type is going to provide you with a=
>basis for preservation. =20
Well, out of fear of repeating myself, I'll tell you again. ::smile::
The Critical Text questions the Preservation of the Scriptures by its very
essense. It calls to the Greek student to use his own intellect and talents
to "really" determine the original text. This train of thought has permiated
Christian scholasticism so much, that we now have seminaries and churches
that will not hold to the Verbal-Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures we
It breaks my heart to see brothers and sisters in Christ caught up with the
fascination of man's intellect rather than the blessed truths found in the
>I'm sorry, John, but your argument is based upon an ignorance of the origin
>of the TR, and hence does not hold up to examination.
And I am sorry to say that your argument is based on the ignorance of God's
James, if you are looking for empirical data, you are going to have a rather
difficult time at a particular level. I am a Christian. I live by faith and
not by sight (I Corinthians 5:7). I do not believe in the modern movement
today of the syncritism of human intellect with dogmas. I believe that the
wisdom of God ALWAYS supercedes the wisdom of man (I Corinthians 2:6-7) and
that while there is nothing wrong with using the intellect of man, it MUST
ALWAYS BE SUBSERVIANT TO THE WORD OF GOD. If I do not understand something,
I commit it to the Lord, and keep doing and believing what God's Word says.
In your last letter, you raised questions and doubted the facts that I
presented. That does not, nor will not change my relationship with God and
with His precious Word. I was able to show you where you are wrong, but what
if you asked another question that I could not answer - does that mean that
I am wrong, and you are right? NO! It just means that I do not have the
complete information for your questions. My foundation is not based on the
level of my intellect, nor on my ability to understand and reason out the
Word of God (Isaiah 55:8-9). My foundation is based on FAITH!
>Well, I really hope the text of the NT is on topic for this mailing list.
With me as well!
>How ironic. :) Being a good Calvinist, I find the latent anti-Reformed
>attitude of KJV Only folks, and your place of residence, to be rather
>humorous. < grin >
To be honest, I was christened as a baby in the Methodist Church ..... the
minister gagged on my name!! <laugh>
Mind if I ask where you obtained your degree(s)?
I am not an anti-Reformer, yet I am not a five point calvinist. The Bible
clearly teaches the free will of man to either accept of reject Christ's
offer of salvation, but this would NOT be the mailing list for this=
John Calvin Hall
`O doulos tou Kuriou 'Ihsou Xristou
From: Kenneth Litwak <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 95 22:03:25 PST
Subject: Re: For information
Well, I can't help you much on the first one except to say that to some
extent, most people who translate recognize this to be true. When you
decide what target language words and constructions to use, you are, to some
extent, interpreting the text. I don't think personally that this is 100%
true. If you translate a strainght infinitive for see, blepein, with "to
see", that does not seem like interpretation to me, but there is a measure of
interpretation often involved in translation.
As to your second question, yes, all German nouns begin with a capital let
letter. That is often the only way to tell them from verbs as German
often turns verbs into nouns by capitalizing the first letter of the
infinitive form (what a way to run a language :-) ). You should
be able to find this stated in most any decent German grammar book.
End of b-greek-digest V1 #611
** 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: