[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

b-greek-digest V1 #833




b-greek-digest            Thursday, 24 August 1995      Volume 01 : Number 833

In this issue:

        BG: Formal logic in Mark 16:16 
        Re: BG: Formal logic in Mark 16:16
        Re: Brackets in Greek Text
        re: Great Greek Books!
        Finding syntax info for the LXX and AP 
        Re: Brackets in Greek Text
        Re: Brackets in Greek Text
        Re: Finding syntax info for the LXX and AP 
        Re: Jn. 20:30
        Fwd: Finding syntax info for the LXX and AP 
        Re: Jn. 20:31

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 00:18:41 CST
Subject: BG: Formal logic in Mark 16:16 

On Fri, 18 Aug 1995, Paul Dixon wrote:

>I personally have seen the conditional abused repeatedly.  Mark
>16:16 (accept the reading for the sake of argument) says, "He who
>believes and is baptized shall be saved."  Some, of course, have deduced
>from this that if a man believes but is not baptized, then he is not
>saved.  Scripture, however, never says if a man is not baptized, then he
>is not saved.  It does say, though, if he does not believe, then he is
>condemned already (Mk 16:16b).

I personally doubt that there were many cases in New Testament times of
unbaptized believers, nor were there intended to be.  Baptism and faith are
also associated in Col. 2:12.  1 Peter 3:21 has the audacity to read "baptism
. . . now saves you," but I doubt if the writer is imagining baptism apart
from faith.

Of course, what Paul says above about formal logic is true.  Strictly speaking,
this text (assuming its canonicity; notice I did not say its Markan authorship)
does not talk about the salvation status of one who believes but is not
baptized.  But formal logic is a two-edged sword. "If not A, then B" does not
imply "if A, then not B."  For example, "if one does not have gas in the car,
it will fail to start," does not imply, "if one has gas in the car, it will not
fail to start."  Consequently, "the one who does not believe will be condemned"
does not under formal logic imply "the one who believes will not be condemned."

Personally, I doubt if we should be using formal logic to try to understand a
text.  Texts are understood using a linguistic logic that is based on unstated
schemas among other things.  One cannot assume that a speaker or writer is
saying everything that he or she believes on a subject in a given statement.

I rather imagine that this passage is assuming that the person who believes
will be baptized.  It is only our modern deprecation of baptism that gives us
problems here, for we have often substituted the active "good works" appeal of
prayer for the passive (like salvation, you can't do it yourself) appeal of
baptism as the faith response to God's free offer of salvation in Jesus.

********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry                            E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station		       Phone:  915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699		       Fax:    915/674-3769
********************************************************************************


------------------------------

From: "John L. Moody" <moodyjl@bernstein.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 08:15:12 -0400
Subject: Re: BG: Formal logic in Mark 16:16

>On Fri, 18 Aug 1995, Paul Dixon wrote:
>
>>I personally have seen the conditional abused repeatedly.  Mark
>>16:16 (accept the reading for the sake of argument) says, "He who
>>believes and is baptized shall be saved."  Some, of course, have deduced
>>from this that if a man believes but is not baptized, then he is not
>>saved.  Scripture, however, never says if a man is not baptized, then he
>>is not saved.  It does say, though, if he does not believe, then he is
>>condemned already (Mk 16:16b).
>
>I personally doubt that there were many cases in New Testament times of
>unbaptized believers, nor were there intended to be.  Baptism and faith are
>also associated in Col. 2:12.  1 Peter 3:21 has the audacity to read "baptism
>. . . now saves you," but I doubt if the writer is imagining baptism apart
>from faith.
>
>Of course, what Paul says above about formal logic is true.  Strictly speaking,
>this text (assuming its canonicity; notice I did not say its Markan authorship)
>does not talk about the salvation status of one who believes but is not
>baptized.  But formal logic is a two-edged sword. "If not A, then B" does not
>imply "if A, then not B."  For example, "if one does not have gas in the car,
>it will fail to start," does not imply, "if one has gas in the car, it will not
>fail to start."  Consequently, "the one who does not believe will be condemned"
>does not under formal logic imply "the one who believes will not be condemned."
>
>Personally, I doubt if we should be using formal logic to try to understand a
>text.  Texts are understood using a linguistic logic that is based on unstated
>schemas among other things.  One cannot assume that a speaker or writer is
>saying everything that he or she believes on a subject in a given statement.

Actually, I have found formal logic a useful tool in my studies of the 
Biblical texts.  In this instance, Mark 16:16 makes the propositional statement:

 1.   (x) [(F(x) & B(x)) -> S(x)]
(to be read:  for all x, if x believes (F) and x is baptized (B), then x 
will be saved (S).)

>From 1. this statement can be derived:

2.   (x) [~S(x) -> (~F(x) v ~B(x))]
(to be read:  for all x, if x will not be saved, then x does not believe or 
x has not been baptized.)

Bruce's assertion that Mark assumes that the believer will be baptized can 
be stated thus:

3.   (x) (F(x) -> B(x))
(to be read:  for all x, if x believes, then x will be baptized.)

The combination of 1 and 3 give us:

4.   (x) (F(x) -> S(x))
(to be read:  for all x, if x believes, then x will be saved.)

I personally agree with Bruce that Mark is assuming the truth of 3.  Perhaps 
baptism should be regarded in this text as the evidence for the truth of 
F(x) -- that is, that baptism is the evidence of saving faith.

********************************************************
John L. Moody                **  "Grace to you and peace
                             **   from God our Father
                             **   and the Lord Jesus
moodyjl@bernstein.com        **   Christ."  -- Eph. 1.2
********************************************************


------------------------------

From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 09:50:05 -0600
Subject: Re: Brackets in Greek Text

>Carlton Winbery recently reacted to Dale Wheeler
>
>I must admit that I did (do) not have a copy of the UBS4 at home where I can
>get to it.  I was going on memory of the UBS3 which stated simply that the
>bracketed part of the text is regarded as disputed.  Certainly anyone who has
>used UBS texts  from the beginning is aware of the problem of the use of
>brackets and double brackets.  If the above statement of the meaning of
>single brackets is correct, they have not clarified the use much.  I still
>think that the present subjunctive in John 20:20 is more likely the original.
> If the aorist is original, the combination of the aorist and the present
>would surely indicate "coming to faith" (ingressive) and possessing life.  If
>the present indicates "state" then combined with the aorist (or present)
>would almost function as perfected action.  I would think that either way the
>result is the same.  Coming to faith issues into possessing life.
>

It may be that I can clear up the brackets issue.

I think that the 27th ed of the Aland NTG is more clear on the brackets
than appears from this string. p. 7* has the explanation: "Eckige Klammern
im Text ([ ]) zeigen an, dass die eingeklammerte Abschnitt textkritisch
nach dem heutigen Erkenntnissstand nicht gesichert werden kann." The
English translation on p.49* says "Square brackets in the text ([
])indicate that textual critics today are not completely convinced of the
authenticity of the enclosed words."

In short, brackets indicate that the editors could not decide between the
aorist and the present in John 20:31 on the basis of the textual witnesses
available to them.

The only source of confusion I can possibly see is that someone might read
the definition of brackets on p. 54*, which defines the significance of
brackets in the critical apparatus.

Which brings me to Johin 20:31. I think Carl Conrad was correct in
interpreting the aorist subjenctive, _pisteusete_, if it is an aorist, as
an inceptive aorist, i.e. " come to faith" (cf the aorist in 1 Cor 15:11).
The present participle _pisteuontes_ that follows is as vague in its
relation to the verb _echete_ as a participle is in English. It could be
instrumental, causal, or even [possibly] temporal. The decision as to which
adopts is determined by one's understanding of the sense, not by
grammatical analysis. It's no acccident that students soon learn that the
most difficult words in Greek to translate are (1) such adverbial
participles and (2) Greek particles and conjunctions. The last are the
terms that beginning students usually forget to translate at all.

Sorry this got as long as it did. Peace,

Edgar Krentz <emkrentz@mcs.com>
New Testament, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Voice: 312-753-0752; FAX: 312-753-0782



------------------------------

From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 09:50:11 -0600
Subject: re: Great Greek Books!

>2 questions:
>
>What is the status of the English edition of the revision to BAGD, i.e., when 
>will it be available, what is the retail and discount mail-order price?
>
>Any opinions about Loew and Nida's Lexicon according to Semantic Domains?
>
>Thanks!

Fred Danker delivered the completed manuscript of the third edition to the
University of Chicago Press in early April. (Can one call something on a
hard disk a manuscript?)

I called Fred Danker about it; he tells me the target date for its
appearance in print is the Society of Biblical Literature meeting in 1996,
i.e. approximatly Thanksgiving of that year.

I no longer have students purchase the 2nd edition because that date is close.

If you want more acurate information, you might drop a note to Prof.
Frederick W. Danker, 3438 Russell Ave., St. Louis, MO 63104. Tel.:
314-772-5757.

As far as the Loew-Nida work is concerned, it is difficult for a beginning
student to use. The more acquaintance one has with ancient Greek literature
beyond the Greek Bible, the more intelligently one can use it. It is *no
substitute* for a traditional, alphabetically arranged lexicon. I would
probably elect to have student use the old Abbott-Smith lexicon (T & T
Ckark) as a first lexicon, and send them to the library to use BAGD, 2nd
ed.

Hope this information helps. Peace,

Edgar Krentz <emkrentz@mcs.com>
New Testament, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Voice: 312-753-0752; FAX: 312-753-0782



------------------------------

From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 11:03:05 PDT
Subject: Finding syntax info for the LXX and AP 

   I have a question about reference works.  I know where to look if I am
unsure about the grammar in a NT passage, but where do I look for help
with the Greek grammar for the LXX or the Apostolic Fathers?  Thanks in
advance.

Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA

------------------------------

From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <dalemw@teleport.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 11:10:42 -0700
Subject: Re: Brackets in Greek Text

Edgar Krentz wrote:
>
>It may be that I can clear up the brackets issue.
>
>I think that the 27th ed of the Aland NTG is more clear on the brackets
>than appears from this string. p. 7* has the explanation: "Eckige Klammern
>im Text ([ ]) zeigen an, dass die eingeklammerte Abschnitt textkritisch
>nach dem heutigen Erkenntnissstand nicht gesichert werden kann." The
>English translation on p.49* says "Square brackets in the text ([
>])indicate that textual critics today are not completely convinced of the
>authenticity of the enclosed words."
>
>In short, brackets indicate that the editors could not decide between the
>aorist and the present in John 20:31 on the basis of the textual witnesses
>available to them.

That's the way I understand them as well, with the following proviso, that
while they could not decide which was correct, the committee decided that
the reading in the text was to be preferred.  One would suspect that the
preference would be slight; but that then raises the interesting question of
why they then assigned it a rating of "C" in UBS (see previous quote) ????
I would have thought a "D" or possibly "E" would have been more appropriate ????
**************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept.      Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street                Portland, OR  97220
Voice:503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail:dalemw@teleport.com 
**************************************************************


------------------------------

From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <dalemw@teleport.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 11:43:12 -0700
Subject: Re: Brackets in Greek Text

Carlton Winbery wrote:

>I still
>think that the present subjunctive in John 20:20 is more likely the original.
> If the aorist is original, the combination of the aorist and the present
>would surely indicate "coming to faith" (ingressive) and possessing life.  If
>the present indicates "state" then combined with the aorist (or present)
>would almost function as perfected action.  I would think that either way the
>result is the same.  Coming to faith issues into possessing life.

I agree that if the aorist is original (which is what I'm inclined to read;
but I think my "rating" would be "D" not "C") then ingressive makes the most
sense here, mainly because of the contigent relationship established by the
ina clause, i.e., one must read the Gospel before one can believe it; thus
"belief" starts after "reading."  This is consistent also with what Fanning
says about states (and he lists pisteuw as a state "verbs of passive
cognition, mental attitude, or emotional state: no focus on exertion to
maintain knowledge/attitude or to act in keeping with it") when they are in
the aorist, viz., they normally are ingressive.  If the present is original,
then it seems to me to be more problematic; but perhaps it should be
understood simply as parallel to exw, i.e., John's sees his message as so
compelling that he doesn't entertain the idea of rejection and thus doesn't
address the idea of entrance into the state of believing/having life, he
just simply explains the state(s) one will be in without reference to their
obvious acceptance of his message ???

**************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept.      Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street                Portland, OR  97220
Voice:503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail:dalemw@teleport.com 
**************************************************************


------------------------------

From: Tim McLay <nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 16:18:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Finding syntax info for the LXX and AP 

Ken,

>   I have a question about reference works.  I know where to look if I am
>unsure about the grammar in a NT passage, but where do I look for help
>with the Greek grammar for the LXX or the Apostolic Fathers?  Thanks in
>advance.

As far as the LXX goes there is some help, but not a great deal.  There is 
the grammar by Coneybeare, published by Hendrickson, (available from CBD), 
but it is of limited value.  I. Soisalon-Soininen has published most 
extensively in this area, but the articles focus on very specific areas of
syntax.  The problem is that in the LXX you are dealing with translation
greek.  I would suggest that you get hold of any or all of the three 
following volumes which have numerous articles in the area and the 
footnotes will lead you from there:

Brooke, G and B. Lindars. Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.

Cox, C. VII Congress of the IOSCS. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.

Cox, C. VI Congress of the IOSCS. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.

Tim

 --
 Tim McLay              
 Halifax, NS                        
 nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca               

------------------------------

From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 16:53:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Jn. 20:30

Carlton Winbery wrote:

>I still 
>think that the present subjunctive in John 20:20 [l. Jn. 20:30?] is more
>likely the original. 

	The MS evidence certainly supports the pres. subj. reading.  Three
of the MSS that include it are called first-category MSS, according to the
Alands' classification scheme (_The Text of the New Testament_, pp.
106-135, 155-159).  Of those that contain the aorist reading, none is
first-category in the Gospels - unless you count the second reviser of
Aleph as first-category along with the rest of that MS. 


David L. Moore                             Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida                               of the  Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us           Department of Education



------------------------------

From: Cierpke@aol.com
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 22:57:58 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Finding syntax info for the LXX and AP 

In a message dated 95-08-23 22:56:20 EDT, Cierpke writes:

<< Subj:	Re: Finding syntax info for the LXX and AP
Date:	95-08-23 22:56:20 EDT
From:	Cierpke
To:	kenneth@sybase.com

Blass Funk and Debrunner cover the AP fairly well in their "A Greek Grammar
of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature"

Kevin W. Woodruff

Reference Librarian
Cierpke Memorial Library
Temple Baptist Seminary
Tennessee Temple University
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404
Cierpke@aol.com
615/493-4252 >>


- ---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj:    Re: Finding syntax info for the LXX and AP
Date:    95-08-23 22:56:20 EDT
From:    Cierpke
To:      kenneth@sybase.com

Blass Funk and Debrunner cover the AP fairly well in their "A Greek Grammar
of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature"

Kevin W. Woodruff

Reference Librarian
Cierpke Memorial Library
Temple Baptist Seminary
Tennessee Temple University
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404
Cierpke@aol.com
615/493-4252

------------------------------

From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 22:58:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Jn. 20:31

	I've realized that I cited Jn. 20:30, in a recent post, when I 
meant Jn. 20:31.  I hope everyone was able to follow the thread in spite 
of the incorrect reference.

David L. Moore                             Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida                               of the  Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us           Department of Education



------------------------------

End of b-greek-digest V1 #833
*****************************

** 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