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

b-greek-digest V1 #842




b-greek-digest           Wednesday, 30 August 1995     Volume 01 : Number 842

In this issue:

        Re: Pocket Greek NT 
        Re: BG: Synoptic Apocalypse
        Re: translation of "melle"
        Re: Galatians 1:10
        Posting which are not appropriate for the list 
        Re: translation of "melle"
        J Harold Greenlee 
        Re: translation of "melle" 
        Parousia
        Re: Parousia
        Re: translation of "melle" 
        Re: BG: Synoptic Apocalypse 
        Re: translation of "melle"
        Re: LXX text variation in difficulty
        Re: Word Processing Fonts & WinGreek 
        re: Synoptic Apocalypse 
        eight case or five? 
        Re: BG: Synoptic Apocalypse

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

From: BBezdek@aol.com
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 09:28:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Pocket Greek NT 

Just a suggestion:

Has anyone contacted Logos Research Systems?  This is a non-profit
organization (The Electronic Bible Society)  They already have the following
Greek texts:

Byzantine/Majority Textform
Nestle-Aland 26th/UBS 3rd
Textus Receptus Stephen's 1550
Textus Receptus Scribner's  1891

Logos Research Systems are actively involved in getting as many classical
Greek, Hebrew, and other  tools in electronic format for as possible 

Logos Research Systems, Inc.
2117 200th Ave. West
Oak Harbor WA  98277-4049
(360) 679-6575
Fax (360) 675-8169
WWW:  http://islander.widbey.net/~logos
E-mail:  info@logos.com
Technical Support:  tech@logos.com

I am using their material, but I have not yet gone to the CD-Word upgrade. 

Byron

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

From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 09:23:03 -0600
Subject: Re: BG: Synoptic Apocalypse

I have been following this topic with interest and communicate now only to
make one small point about B-GREEK.

The description of B-Greek that norms our discussion is given as follows:

"B-Greek is an electronic conference designed to foster communication
concerning the scholarly study of the Greek Bible. Anyone interested in New
Testament Studies is invited to subscribe, but the list will assume at
least a working knowledge of Biblical Greek. Those interested in learning
to study the Bible more personally and less exclusively academic should
join the BIBLE list." 

I recently received personal reactions based on my "academically oriented"
postings to B-Greek asking me the following questions:

>I was reading some of your recent posts. I am curious about your beliefs
>>regarding the Deity of Christ? Do you believe that Jesus is Christ? Also, do
>>you believe that Christ is God? Your post are telling and I wonder if they
>>reveal your theology.

A later communication from the same person said:

>You seem to put Jesus on an exam table, as one to be studied as a science
>>project but certainly not to be obeyed. He is Lord of your life and not to be
>>disected with your theology. I did not keep your posts to reference. But, at
>>one point, I felt as if you treat Jesus as some man to be examined and not to
>>be followed after. This disturbed me. I wondered whether you are a Christian
>or >Or a professor who has detached himself from his Lord. Honoring him with
>your >lips but your heart is far from him. You tell me.

Then I read David Anvar's question to Jan Haugland:

>        Finally....do you deny the physical resurrection of the dead?

If we take the description of B-Greek given above seriously, such questions
should not be stimulated from what is intended to be academic discussions.
And they certainly should not be put out for all to read. Questions of
faith do not belong on an academic discussion list and, ideally, should
also not arise from it. Postings to this lest should be evaluated on the
basis of their philological, literary, and historical data and the cogency
of the argumentation involved. And all should be done in good faith, with
respect for others. That is just plain good manners.

If anyone does wonder about faith commitments, they should recognize that
they fall outside the scope of this list. And one should not make
inferences about the faith of someone else from an academic discussion.

I hope that all who read this will understand that after 42 years of
seminary teaching I was somewhat dumbfounded at the questions put to
me--and would not be amazed to discover that Jan Haugland felt the same
way. I have appreciated the academic, scholarly nature of this list and
hope that others do too! :-)!! Let's keep it that way.

Cordially, Ed Kkrentz

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, 30 Aug 1995 09:23:09 -0600
Subject: Re: translation of "melle"

>Alan Feuerbacher wrote, 

>"Here is a related question about Matthew 24:3, concerning the proper
>translation of "parousia".  Most translations render "parousia" as "coming"
>but a small number as "presence".  What's the story?"
>
To which Carleton Winbery responded:

>The word actually comes from the compound word PAREIMI.  The word PAROUSIA is
>the feminine participle of that verb.  It could be argued that the word
>simply means "to be present."  But most lexicons (including Moulton & Gedden)
>give evidence that it came to mean "arrival."  Of course in Christian
>theology, it became a technical term for the "second coming," though it is
>never modified to my knowledge in the NT with the word "second."

I want to add some references and a comment to Carlton Winbery's response.
There is an extended discussion of the term PAROUSIA on pp  195-280 in B.
Rigaux, O.F.M, _Saint Paul. Les Epitres aux Thessaloniciens._ Etudes
Biblique. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1956. He discusses the philological data on
the use of the term on pp. 196-201 (and adds discussions of EPIFANEIA and
APOKALYPSIS). He is very worth careful reading. There is a  useful shorter
discussion in Englis in George Milligan, _St. Paul's Epistles to the
Thessalonians._ London and New York: Macmillan, 1908: 145-148.

The comment. Paul, at least, seems to use a complex of terms, including
PAROUSIA and APANTHSIS, that present Jesus as the true KYRIOS, the true
ruler of the universe, opposed to the Roman Emperor, who claims the titles
AUTOKRATOR, KYRIOS, and even QEOY hUIOS.

PAROUSIA came to denote the ceremonial arrival of a ruler or his delegated
emissary to a city, which had to prepare for him, welcome him, host him and
his entourage, etc. It could also denote the arrival of a god or demi-god
in Greek religion. Readers [auditors] of Paul and Matthew in the
Hellenistic world would hear parousia in such a framework and recognize the
claim implied in their words to the superiority of Jesus.

Both "presence" and "arrival" are possible translations. though I support
Prof. Winbury's preference for "arrival"--though I would not call the word
the feminine participle of PAREIMI, since that would be PAROUSIA. It is
rather a noun that is a "back-formation" from that participle. It is
possible that it comes from the verb EIMI that means "to go" or "to come,"
a word that in the 1st person singular is identical in spelling and
pronunciation with the verb meaning "I am." Its participle would also be
the same! The derivation from the verb meaning "to go" sould suport the
sense of coming or arrival (to come along side).

Terminology is really interesting; its precise meaning in a given context
important. Both its denotation and its connotation must be considered. I
stressed one possible connotation above.Peace, 

Ed Krewntz







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, 30 Aug 1995 09:22:54 -0600
Subject: Re: Galatians 1:10

Travis Bauer recently wrote:
>
>        I'm reading Calvin's commentary on Galatians.  On verse 1:10, he 
>asserts that there is an assumed kata in the verse so that it should be 
>translated, "Do I seek to persuade according to men or God," rather 
>than "Do I seek to please men or God?"  He states that there is often an 
>implied kata in situations like verse 10. It this generally accepted.  If 
>so, how can one identify such situations?
>
That is an interesting question, esoecially since John Calvin's earliest
publication was on Stoic philosophy, where KATA with an accusative
regularly introduces the criterion of action.

I did two things to answer your question. I first checked a series of
commentaries on my shelves: Burton (ICC), Betz (Hermeneia), Dunn (BNTC),
Lietzmann (HNT), Guthrie (NCB), Oepke (ThHKNT), Rohde (ThHKNT, newest
ed)Bruce (NIGTC),J.B. Lightfoot, Schlier (KEK, 13th ed.), Luehrmann
(Continental commentary),Lagrange, Bring, and Ebeling. These commentators
run the gamut from conservative evangelical to liberal, from nineteenth to
twentieth century, from Roman Catholic through Lutheran and Anglican to
Scotch Presbyterian and more conservative. Not a one of these commentators
even mention Calvin's interpretation.

I found one who did: Friedrich Sieffert (KEK, 9th ed.). He writes on p. 49
(I translate from his German): ANQRWPOUS PEIQW can not be interpreted:
*suadeone secundum homines* (Caalvin), a completely arbitrary
interpretation.  (He also rejects interpretations suggested by Eraasmus and
Luther, Beza, etc.

Thus the consensus of commentators appears to be against Calvin's
interpretation. And so it is *not* generally accepted. 

I also read through the entry on PEIQW in Liddell-Scott-Jones and could not
discover any citations there that would support Calvin. Nor did a quick
check of grammars on the use of the accusative case.

I suspect, but cannot prove, that Calvin's prior study of ancient Stoicism
influenced his interpretation. 

I will be interested to see if others can make a good case for Calvin's
interpretation on the basis of linguistic usage in extra-biblical or NT
Greek.

Hope this is of assistance.

Cordially, Ed Krentz

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



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

From: David John Marotta <djm5g@virginia.edu>
Date: 30 Aug 95 10:41:02 EDT
Subject: Posting which are not appropriate for the list 

If anyone believes that a posting is not appropriate to this list
please follow these steps:

1. Send a gentle note to the offender reminding them of the charter of the
   list.  Each of the three lists (BIBLE, B-GREEK, and B-HEBREW) are
   different.

2. If the problem persists, forward an example copy of the offending
   note to me.  I don't have the time to police the content of the
   list.  My hands are full handling bounced messages ect. and handling
   the newcomers on the Internet via 1. above is part of you paying
   your dues.  For each one of you who learned from someone, you have
to help 10 newcomers. (It used to be that sites connecting to the
   Internet had to agree to connect up a certain number of additional
   sites.  This is the original spirit of the Internet.)

3. For postings which are not civil, i.e. they make personal attacks
   on peoples character, forward the note to me directly.  I have,
   and will continue to, ask certain people to not post to these lists,
   and notify their access providers if they do.  There are a growing
   number of people with net access who aim to shock and annoy.
   The worst of them are neo-nazis based on some strange doctrines
   which they support (supposedly) from the Bible.  I believe
   that custom allows me to ask them not to join or post to these lists.
   So far that has been sufficient.

   I have a report I run periodically which lets me know if they have
   resubscribed.

For those of you who subscribe to a list for the friends and contacts
you make, and just like to talk about everything with a group of "friends"
on the list, remember that the lists contain 200-500 people, most of whom
subscribed just to listen to information regarding the topic of that list.

BIBLE is clearly the "worst" list in terms of offenders posting
irrelevant material.  It also has the lowest number of people on it.
I am convineced that if we eliminated 15 more people then the number
of people subscribed would begin to climb again.  I need a few sensitive
but firm "police" for that list.  Please help me out in the following
ways:

1. Personal restraint in public messages.
2. Gentle reminders privately for first time irrelevant postings.
3. Forwarding messages to me of those who violate civility.

Each of these is designed to keep the lists themselves free of the
content about the content which is irrelevant to the content.
This message itself violates that spirit, but I am the only one
with the liscence to post such meta-content messages.

Thanks for your help!

David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: djm5g@virginia.edu
Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg  PRODIGY: KCMR45A
C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax   IBM US: usuvarg8

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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 09:43:33 -0500
Subject: Re: translation of "melle"

At 10:23 AM 8/30/95, Edgar M. Krentz wrote:
>Both "presence" and "arrival" are possible translations. though I support
>Prof. Winbury's preference for "arrival"--though I would not call the word
>the feminine participle of PAREIMI, since that would be PAROUSIA.

Actually it would be PAROUSA (but I think this was in fact a mis-typed word
rather than a misunderstanding).

I heartily second Edgar's comments on keeping sectarian religious questions
out of the discussion. This is evidently something we have to keep
repeating from time to time.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu  OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



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

From: Edpurkey@aol.com
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 13:12:05 -0400
Subject: J Harold Greenlee 

J. Harold Greenlee, PhD, for a part of his professional life was a Professor
of NT at Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore KY 40390 (USA); Telehone: (606)
858-3581.

It is entirely probable that the Seminary will have a record of his current
address.

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

From: Alan M Feuerbacher <alanf@mdhost.cse.tek.com> 
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 10:53:56 PDT
Subject: Re: translation of "melle" 

Carl Conrad and Edgar Krentz wrote:

>>Both "presence" and "arrival" are possible translations. though I support
>>Prof. Winbury's preference for "arrival" ...
>
>I heartily second Edgar's comments on keeping sectarian religious questions
>out of the discussion. This is evidently something we have to keep
>repeating from time to time.

I thoroughly agree.  The reason I brought this up is that certain
sectarian religions hinge their entire eschatologies on the meaning
of "parousia."  Your comments indicate that the textual and contextual
considerations do not allow us to derive solid answers to eschatological
questions from such an unclear source.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@mdhost.cse.tek.com



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

From: John Albu <tunon@phantom.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 14:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Parousia

Concerning the meaning of parousia, Israel P. Warren, D.D., wrote in his 
work The Parousia, Portland, Maine (1879), pp. 12-15:

	"We often speak of the 'second advent,' the 'second coming,'
etc., but the Scriptures never speak of a 'second Parousia.' Whatever was 
to be its nature, it was something peculiar, having never occurred 
before, and being never to occur again. It was to be a presence differing 
from and superior to all other manifestations of himself to men, so that 
its designation should properly stand by itself, without any qualifying 
epithet other than the article,--THE PRESENCE.

	"From this view of the word it is evident, I think, that neither
the English word 'coming' nor the Latin 'advent' is the best 
representative of the original. They do not conform to its etymology; 
they do not correspond to the idea of the verb from which it is derived; 
nor could they appropriately be substituted for the more exact word, 
'presence,' in the cases where the translators used the latter. Nor is 
the radical [root] idea of them the same. 'Coming' and 'advent' give most 
prominently the conception of an approach to us, motion toward us; 
'parousia' that of being with us, without reference to how it began. The 
force of the former ends with the arrival; that of the latter begins with 
it. Those are words of motion; this of rest. The space of time covered by 
the action of the former is limited, it may be momentary; that of the 
latter unlimited . . . .

	"Had our translators done with this technical word 'parousia' as
they did with 'baptisma,'--transferring it unchanged,--or if translated 
using its exact etymological equivalent, presence, and had it been well 
understood, as it then would have been, that there is no such thing as a 
'second Presence,' I believe that the entire doctrine would have been 
different from what it now is. The phrases, 'second advent,' and 'second 
coming,' would never have been heard of. The church would have been 
taught to speak of THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD, as that from which its hopes 
were to be realized, whether in the near future or at the remotest 
period,--that under which the world was to be made new, a resurrection 
both spiritual and corporeal should be attained, and justice and 
everlasting awards administered."


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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 14:31:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Parousia

At 1:40 PM 8/30/95, John Albu wrote:
>Concerning the meaning of parousia, Israel P. Warren, D.D., wrote in his
>work The Parousia, Portland, Maine (1879), pp. 12-15:
>
>        "We often speak of the 'second advent,' the 'second coming,'
>etc., but the Scriptures never speak of a 'second Parousia.' Whatever was
>to be its nature, it was something peculiar, having never occurred
>before, and being never to occur again. It was to be a presence differing
>from and superior to all other manifestations of himself to men, so that
>its designation should properly stand by itself, without any qualifying
>epithet other than the article,--THE PRESENCE.
>
>        "From this view of the word it is evident, I think, that neither
>the English word 'coming' nor the Latin 'advent' is the best
>representative of the original. They do not conform to its etymology;
>they do not correspond to the idea of the verb from which it is derived;
...

I won't cite more than that, but I do have to protest here that, in point
of fact, the Latin ADVENTUS really does express the meaning of the Greek
PAROUSIA. It DOES conform BOTH to the _etymology_ AND the _idea_ of the
Greek verb PAREINAI in its most common (albeit not sole) Hellenistic sense:
"arrive," "arrival." And this is quite consistent, I believe, with the
material that Edgar Krentz has cited.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu  OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



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

From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 16:07:39 -0400
Subject: Re: translation of "melle" 

Ed Krentz wrote,
>It is possible that it comes from the verb EIMI that means "to >go" or "to
come," a word that in the 1st person singular is >identical in spelling and
pronunciation with the verb meaning >"I am." Its participle would also be the
same! The derivation >from the verb meaning "to go" sould suport the sense of
>coming or arrival (to come along side).<

This is true.  And I wrote the section in the Morphology on EIMI with the
accent on EI, which means "to come/go" (ca. 10 years ago).
Thanks,
Carlton Winbery
Prof. NT & Greek
LA College, Pineville, LA

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

From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 16:12:19 -0400
Subject: Re: BG: Synoptic Apocalypse 

Ed Krentz wrote,
> I have appreciated the academic, scholarly nature of this list >and hope
that others do too! :-)!! Let's keep it that way.<

Thanks for this good word.

Carlton Winbery

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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 15:37:19 -0500
Subject: Re: translation of "melle"

At 10:23 AM 8/30/95, Edgar M. Krentz wrote:

>                                                             ... It is
>possible that it comes from the verb EIMI that means "to go" or "to come,"
>a word that in the 1st person singular is identical in spelling and
>pronunciation with the verb meaning "I am." Its participle would also be
>the same! The derivation from the verb meaning "to go" sould suport the
>sense of coming or arrival (to come along side).

I'm not sure that this is really quite correct. The verb EINAI, "to be,"
has as its root *ES- while the verb IENAI, "to go," has as its root(s)
*EI/I-. The participles of IENAI are IWN, IOUSA, ION, and the form from
this verb that corresponds to PAROUSIA , PAREINAI would, I believe,
actually (if it existed), be PARIOUSIA with and additional iota which is
the essential remainder of the verb's root.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu  OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



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

From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 16:00:48 -0600
Subject: Re: LXX text variation in difficulty

>  I wonder if someone could make a suggestion regarding some passages
>from the LXX.  I'm looking for a good cross-section of chapters, which
>range from easy to tortuous (though I think I'll Job 28, where the
>translators probably had to punt far too much) Greek.  I've done some
>work in the LXX, particularly the 4th servant song, but I've no idea
>how that compares to other portions.  I'd like to include both prose
>and poetry, but I also don't know if what was Hebrew poetry ended up
>as poetry in the LXX.  If so, I'm interested in some of that as well.
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Ken Litwak
>GTU
>Bezerkley, CA

Ken, when advanced degree students prepare for an examination in LXX with
me, I ask them to translate, inter alia, the following:

1. Three chapters from Deuteronomy, three from Isaiah (42, 51, 53?), and
three Psalms, especially 22 and 110. (i.e., from the three OT books most
frequently cited OT in the NT). I also urge them to read Daniel 7 & 12,
Exekiel 37, and 2 Samuel 7 (key chapters for NT Christology).

2. If they have a dissertationo topic in mind, three chapters related in
some way to that topic. Thus a student working on Hebrews would necessarily
translate, Ps 95, Ps 110 and Genesis 14.

3. Wisdom of Solomon 6:12-9:18, concentrating on 6:12-7:30;Sirach 44,
47-48, 51:13-30. Psalms of Solomon 2, 8, and 17.

I make these suggestions to (a) cover differing levels of difficulty in
Greek (Wis 7 is a dog for many) and (b) to have students translate material
whose content and language seem more immediately relevant to NT texts. One
could clearly make up another mandatory list that would be relevant, e.g.
material from Jeremiah, the minor prophets, Proverbs, Ezra-Nehemiah.

Cordially, Ed Krentz

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



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

From: KevLAnder@aol.com
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 18:54:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Word Processing Fonts & WinGreek 

I thought I might as well put my two cents worth into this whole subject of
multi-lingual word processing. I am presently using WinGreek with WordPerfect
6.0a for Windows. I have been able to create a template that incorporates a
toolbar, allowing one to switch between Greek, Hebrew, and English with the
click of a mouse.

WinGreek (with its GRKCONV utility) is great for importing CCAT texts of the
GNT or the LXX. Typing in Greek with all the various diacritical marks is
also quite easy. Hebrew, however, is a bit more difficult; and one cannot
reproduce all of points and cantillating marks in the text (e.g., one cannot
place both a qamets and a munah beneath a letter since one can only
overstrike one character at a time beneath or above another character). This
problem could perhaps be solved by a more extensive TTF for use with
WinGreek. I have also had difficulty in getting CCAT Hebrew texts to convert
into fully pointed form with GRKCONV (again, probably because the font is not
good enough--I could use some help here).

Overall, I am pleased with WinGreek, since I work more with Greek than with
Hebrew, although that will change soon.

Kevin L. Anderson
Ph.D. student at the GTU

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

From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 19:46:40 -0400
Subject: re: Synoptic Apocalypse 

TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU

In a message dated 95-08-30 Carl Conrad writes:

>My own reading of the gospel of John is that the Parousia of Jesus is
>presented as occurring fundamentally on the day of Easter,and that this is
>the dominant eschatology of John's gospel,but there are some passages in
>John that seem to point to a more distant futuristic consummation also.
...............<stuff deleted>..............
>The most meaningful summation on that matter that I've ever heard is that
the NT as a >whole is permeated with a conviction that in some way the New
Age has indeed >already begun, but that in many important ways it awaits a
future consummation yet.

  I think that the early NT writers believed that the Escaton (Last Days) had
arrived with the coming of Jesus and his Resurrection.  All they were waiting
now for was "the Day of the Lord", ie the Day of Judgment (2 Thes 2:2,3; 1
Cor 3:13).  Jesus was the One who who be doing the judging (2 Thes 2:8.)

  The epistle to the Hebrews differed somewhat from Paul, explaining that
judgment comes after we die, but still Christ will come "a second time"
(DEUTEROU) not to deal with sin, but to save those who are waiting for him
(Heb 9:27,28).

  Here's how I think it developed at this point.
  When Jerusalem fell there was fear of persecution, and probably some
sporadic persecution (Rev 1:9; 3:10; 21:2).  There was a sense for Christians
that God's justice was sorely needed.  The desire for the Day of Judgment to
come grew stronger and this is reflected in the mini-apocalypses of
synoptics.  And Terry Bruce is right that the disciples (read: Gospel
writers' audience) anticipated that the Temple being destroyed would signal
the end.  But I don't think they were confused about it; it confirmed their
belief that Jesus and his resurrection began the ESCATON.

  I have to disagree with Jan Haugland that the little apocalypse contains
the historically accurate logia of Jesus.  This particular passage borrows
heavily on language and vocab from Dan 7:13; 9:27; 11:31; 12:1-2; 12:12;   Ex
9:18;    Is 8:21; 13:13; 19:2;   2 Chron 15:6; Ez 7:12-16;  4 Esdras
13:30-32; 6:25;  etc.

  In John, there isn't any future eschatology as in the synoptics.  In a way,
one could say that John has spiritualized (or maybe demythologized?) the
escatology tradition.
  For instance, I think John doesn't separate Jesus'  initial coming from a
latter one, since the Day of judgment arrives as he arrives (Jn 3:19).  This
is also evident in John 5:21-29, where Jesus has authority to execute
judgment and  Jesus says he will soon raise the dead for judgment too.  Even
when John speaks about the Last Day (the day of Judgment), it is Jesus' words
in the present that will do the judging later (Jn 12:48)!
  Also, John doesn't have "signs of the endtimes" like the synoptics, simply
because John has "signs" pointing  to who Jesus is, the ultimate spiritual
being.  Jesus is the Eschaton, the Telios, the ultimate.  Even the gift of
the Holy Spirit to the disciples comes directly from the breath of Jesus in
John (Jn 20:22).

  Luke, is probably the last of the gospels to be written.  I agree with Carl
Conrad that Luke's "Time of the Gentiles" (Luk 21:24; cf Acts 28:28) is an
indication of Luke's tendency toward a "Lucan dispensationalism".  It has
been argued that Luke begins his dispensations with a descent of the Spirit
(see Act 2:17,17; cf Luk 3:22 "bodily"; Act 2:2-3).

  By the end of the first century, there is still a sense of "living in the
last days" in the later NT books.   1 John 2:18 admonishes "Children
(PAIDIA), this is the last hour!".  Jude warns of the "great Day" of judgment
(v 6) and of Enoch's vision of the Lord coming to execute judgment (v14-15).
  The "scoffers" or "mockers" or "tricksters" (EMPAIKTAI) in Jude appear in
the endtimes scoffing at self-discipline.

   Later on (150 CE?), 2 Peter has the scoffers ridiculing the doctrine of
the second coming (2 Pt 3:3), an echo of Jeremiah 17:15 "POY ESTIN O LOGOS
KYRIOY? ELQETW."  I think it is only at this point that the idea of an
immediate second coming shows strain in the NT.

>I think probably we ought to stick to the elucidation of particular texts
rather than >attempt to characterize the eschatology of the NT as a whole

  I thought the discussion could be benefitted with a developmental
hypothesis on how the understanding of the second coming grew.  But you may
be wise in suggesting that we return to discussing particular passages.  Like
you, I couldn't help myself :)

   Throwing in my hat,

   Peace

   Tim Staker, Pastor at Poseyville, IN
   Timster132@aol.com

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

From: RoyRM@aol.com
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 19:48:01 -0400
Subject: eight case or five? 

This question might be better suited for the grammar list, but I thought I'd
throw it out here anyway, since I know several on the list can give a good
opinion on it.  

I was wondering about the reasons between some choosing an eight case system
and others a five case.  I know of the top that the eight case is more
focused on usage and the five case on structure, but what makes one decide to
go with one or the other?  

Along the same lines, do those using an eight case system start beginning
students on it right away?  It seems like it might be confusing to do so,
since right away they would need to determine whether the form they are
looking at is, say, a genitive or an ablative.  But then, maybe students
would learn better if they were concentrating on more than just memorizing
forms?  

It also seems that the eight case system is not a popular today (though I
don't think Dr. Winbery has revised his _Syntax of NTG_, and its probably on
everyone's shelf!).  Is it dying out as, perhaps, the popularity of A. T.
Robertson wanes? 

Where do the linguists stand on this?  Is function more important in
classification than form?  Or, does form get preminence in a language that
has such an easy breakdown?

Anyway, just some idle thoughts from somebody who obviously spends to much
time thinking on trivial things!

Thanks,

Roy Millhouse
Grandview, MO

RoyRM@aol.com

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

From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 19:51:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: BG: Synoptic Apocalypse

Edgar M. Krentz <emkrentz@mcs.com> wrote:

>Questions of
>faith do not belong on an academic discussion list and, ideally, should
>also not arise from it. Postings to this lest should be evaluated on the
>basis of their philological, literary, and historical data and the cogency
>of the argumentation involved. And all should be done in good faith, with
>respect for others. That is just plain good manners.

>If anyone does wonder about faith commitments, they should recognize that
>they fall outside the scope of this list. And one should not make
>inferences about the faith of someone else from an academic discussion.


	The pendulum has swung back a considerable way from when
Tertullian promulgated the "prescription" that the heterodox, in their
teachings and argumentation, have no right to employ the Scriptures which
belong rightfully to the Church.  In our generation, in contrast to
Tertullian's, some see the scientific method and a secular, scientific
mindset as _the_ prerequisites to correct interpretation of the Bible. 
Some have even taken this to the extreme of refusing to consider seriously
the work of any exegete who doesn't exhibit a thoroughgoing
antisupernaturalism. 

	Certain evangelical exegetes and theologians have been pointing
out for some time now that antisupernaturalistic bias ill equips the
interpreter of the Scriptures to come to terms with the message of the
Bible on its most basic level.  How, for instance, can someone with
antisupernaturalistic bias understand the relation of a miracle.  It must
be a non-event for him, because he doesn't have any categories of real
events into which it fits.  If he considers _writing_ that deals with a
miracle, it can be c onsidered as a literary phenomenon, but never as
reality-portraying narrative.  So, as the message of Scripture is made
acceptable to antisupernaturalistic sensibilities, the real message of
what the particular pericope is saying gets lost in the shuffle. 


	This problem comes about, IMO, when the tools of exegesis assume
precedence over the message of the text.  We are right to employ the best
tools our epoch affords in applying ourselves to the task of exegesis. 
The historical-critical method is just such a powerful tool.  Like any
powerful tool, however, it must be used with care.  If the message of the
material under consideration is being dictated by the method employed in
contradiction to the plain meaning of the text, something is wrong.  If we
demand that the meaning of Scripture conform to antisupernaturalistic
categories because we have inherited our tools of exegesis from a system
of science with antisupernaturalistic presuppositions, we will be severely
handicapped in getting at the true meaning of the Bible.  I'm not
suggesting that we get rid of these tools, but that we recognize what
inherent biases their use may bring to the task of exegesis and that we
take sufficient care not to mangle the message of the text as we use them. 

	To more directly address what Edgar has said: everyone's
presuppositions matter.  Whoever thinks that what he believes doesn't
affect how he interprets Scripture, is, IMO, fooling himself. 
Acknowledging our positions openly can keep us from thinking that only
those who disagree with us are the ones with presuppositions.  We are here
to dialogue - to convince and to be convinced of the truth and correctness
of different interpretations.  Being willing to let our own fundamental
convictions be known, IMO, facilitates that dialogue and frees us from
false posturing. 


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 #842
*****************************

** 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