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

b-greek-digest V1 #858




b-greek-digest          Wednesday, 13 September 1995    Volume 01 : Number 858

In this issue:

        Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU
        Re: B-GRK Q? Black 1988 
        Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU 
        Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU 
        Re: re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU 
        Re: XRISTOS and other questions
        Re: B-GRK Q? Black 1988
        Re: B-GRK Q? Black 1988 
        I John Commentaries 
        Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU 
        Re: B-GRK Q? Black 1988
        Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU 
        Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU 

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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 05:36:53 -0500
Subject: Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU

At 9:37 PM 9/11/95, WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
>This has turned out to be a lengthy post.  I promise not to do it again.  I
>have enjoyed this discussion.
...
>
>All this leads me to think that in Mark 13, Mark is presenting Jesus seeking
>to separate for the disciples the events of the destruction and the turmoil
>in which the church was being birthed (birthpangs) and had to preach the
>gospel and the parousia.  If this is true, the vision of the Son of Man may
>not have anything to do with parousia (Mark avoids the word).  He even said
>early on that the wars and rumors of wars were inevitable but the end is not
>yet.  Werner Kelber in his book The Kingdom in Mark:  A New Place and A New
>Time claims that Mark is trying to separate these two things.  I would think
>that his date after the destruction is too late.  Reading Josephus'
>description of the events leading up to 70 BCE furnishes us with the setting
>of messianic deceivers and the rush headlong to free Jerusalem from the
>Romans.  The vision of the Son of Man in 13:26-27 may be the vindication of
>the Son of Man and his sending his "messengers" forth to gather the elect,
>clearly the churches job in most of the NT.  This would be parallel to the
>picture of the Son of Man in Rev. 1 walking among the lampstands, symbols for
>the churches of the vision of the Son of Man Luke reported as seen by Stephen
>as he died standing vindicated at the Father's right hand.  In fact all the
>future Son of Man sayings in Mark may refer only to his vindication beyond
>death/resurrection so as to give faith to the disciples as Mark calls them to
>launch into the world mission of the church.  The parable of the fig tree
>refers to judgment on Israel and the closing phrase translated "know that it
>is at the gate."  The statement in vs. 24, "In those days after that
>tribulation" seems to me to be a kind of apocalyptic way of further
>separating 70 BCE from the parousia.  The use of apocalyptic language from
>Joel in 24-25 should be compared with the use of the same language from Joel
>in Peter's speech in Acts 2 to refer to what happened on the day of Pentecost
>(Acts 2:17-21).  The only direct reference in Mark 13 to parousia may be in
>vs. 32ff.  That which happened in that generation was that the Son of Man was
>vindicated and sent his disciples to proclaim the gospel to all the nations.
> I don't think that there can be much doubt that Mark wanted his readers to
>be ready to do just that.
>
>Also, I think that Matthew has brought in the idea of parousia where Mark did
>not see it.
>
>What do you think?

Carlton, your whole discussion deserves a careful reading and fuller
response; I have read it over twice and want to think about it some more,
but how can I be deterred from foolhardy quick reactions? It seems to me
that you are very right about the difference between Matthew and Mark. You
may very well be right about Mark, but in one way it seems to me that you
underscore similarities between Mark and Luke, perhaps without intending
to: what I'm thinking of is the perspective of Jesus' time with the
disciples as a preparation of them for their evangelistic mission. I think
the emphasis on their evangelistic mission is quite right and I think it is
very urgent in Mark. What I wonder about at this point is your repeated
emphasis on and use of the word "church." While I think it is clear beyond
all doubt that Mark has a profound concept of discipleship, I really wonder
whether he has a concept of the ekklesia (and of course he doesn't use the
word) or any kind of institution. He has a notion of a "household" or
"kindred" to which disciples belong, but it seems to me that he doesn't
really develop a notion of an ecclesiastical community that supports a
shared mission so much as he has a GOSPEL and an urgent mission to
promulgate it. The dating BEFORE 70 is certainly plausible, but the end of
Jerusalem would seem to be within view at the time of writing, and, as I've
said before, I really wonder whether the assassination of Nero isn't
envisioned in the remarks about political turmoil in chapter 13. (Was it or
wasn't it written in Rome? Intriguing and perhaps unanswerable question!)

Let me underscore again that this is a first reaction, and I will want to
ruminate a good deal more on this.

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: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 09:06:42 -0400
Subject: Re: B-GRK Q? Black 1988 

Tim,
I would add to the list of introductions to linquistics the work of G.B.
Caird, The Language and Imager of the Bible.  He tries to do too much in the
book, but it is a good intro. with lots of examples.
Carlton Winbery
LA College

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

From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 09:16:01 -0400
Subject: Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU 

Carl Conrad wrote,
> What I wonder about at this point is your repeated
>emphasis on and use of the word "church." While I think it is >clear beyond
all doubt that Mark has a profound concept of >discipleship, I really wonder
whether he has a concept of the >ekklesia (and of course he doesn't use the
word) or any kind of >institution. He has a notion of a "household" or
"kindred" to >which disciples belong, but it seems to me that he doesn't
>really develop a notion of an ecclesiastical community that >supports a
shared mission so much as he has a GOSPEL and an >urgent mission to
promulgate it.
The use of the word "church" in my post is my own terminology.  Mark would
have called them "Disciples" because of his emphasis on suffering Messiah
parallel to suffering disciples.
Thanks,
Carlton Winbery
LA College Pineville, LA

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

From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 09:22:48 -0400
Subject: Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU 

Carl Conrad wrote,
>The dating BEFORE 70 is certainly plausible, but the end of
>Jerusalem would seem to be within view at the time of >writing, and, as I've
said before, I really wonder whether the >assassination of Nero isn't
envisioned in the remarks about >political turmoil in chapter 13. (Was it or
wasn't it written in >Rome? Intriguing and perhaps unanswerable question!)
Willi Marxsen was the one who introduced me to the date right before the
outbreak of the war.  Chapter 13 especially fits well there.  B.W. Bacon's
location of the writing in Rome is still advocated by many, but I think that
Marxsen may be right when he places it in Galilee (though I think for
different reasons).  I do not think that Mark would have been affected by the
events in Palestine so much were not his readers subject to be drawn into the
defense of Jerusalem by the likes of John of Gischala.  There would have been
a need also to explain terms even in Galilee of the Gentiles.  Of course, the
influence of Nero's death would have influenced Mark I think only if he were
in Rome (I Peter 5, John Mark is with me in Babylon).
Carlton Winbery
LA College Pineville, LA

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

From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 09:29:12 -0400
Subject: Re: re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU 

Yes, you are right, 70 CE.  New terminology takes getting used to. 
Thanks,
Carlton Winbery

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

From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 09:00:30 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: XRISTOS and other questions

On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Russell Williamson wrote:

> The recent discussion on the translation of XRISTOS and other Greek words
> which are of non-Hellenic origin sparks a very important question:
> 
>   How can a minister teach his congregation the richness of these ideas
>   without casting doubts in the congregation's faithfulness concerning
>   the Scriptures or without making his congregation feel ignorant or
>   unable to know this richness of the Scriptures?

I'm not quite sure I catch the meaning of the lst part of the sentence.  
How would helping people to see the historical richness behind the 
biblical text "cast doubts in the congregation's faithfulness concerning 
Scriptures"?  As to the latter part of the question, I should think it's 
all in the way it's done.  I've seen half-educated ministers with a 
smattering of Greek drop bits of (often misapprehended) grammatical or 
semantic info in sermons where it was clear the main (though perhaps 
unacknowledged) aim/result was the enhance the status ofthe speaker.  BUt 
I've also seen (and frequently done it!) historical and grammatical info 
presented, both in sermons and in church classes, with grace and 
simplicity (but accuracy), with the result that people got really turned 
on the Bible in degrees not there before.  Jesus, Paul, Jeremiah, etc. 
"come alive" as real people, in real situations.  And the historical 
facticity of biblical revelation as come to us in real historical form 
means that people *must* be reminded that the Bible was *not* written in 
English, or in the 20th cent. or by westerners.  The only scriptural 
witness to revelation Christians have is a collection of documents 
originally written in Hebrew (and a bit in Aramaic) and Koine Greek, 
across several centuries, by near eastern folk, using their languages 
just the way we use ours--shaped by contemporary usage.  Anything that 
can demystify the Bible, make it less "magic" and more the sacred 
historical witness and revelation it really is, this can only benefit and 
enrich Christian faith, and help it to become more authentic and less 
superstition.

P.S. I realize this is primarily a list to be devoted to the Greek Bible, 
but the question seemed to deserve a reply.

Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of 
Manitoba

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

From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 11:19:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: B-GRK Q? Black 1988

On Tue, 12 Sep 1995, Tim McLay wrote:

> There are two works which are somewhat comparable in Hebrew.  I forget the 
> name of one.  The other emerged from an SBL seminar: W. Bodine, ed. 
> Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew.  Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992.  This 
> one at least is not really at the same level of Black's, and I would say 
> that there is a market for something comparable. In fact I would say that 
> both the introductory and advanced level of such a work is BEGGING to be 
> written. 

I don't know where he is now, but Bob Bergen has written some things on 
"Linguistic Criticism" of the OT. He did his Ph.D. at Southwestern 
Baptist in Fort Worth, and was influenced by Bob Longacre in his use of 
linguistics.

Philip Graber				Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament	211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu			Atlanta, GA  30322  USA


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

From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 13:06:03 CST
Subject: Re: B-GRK Q? Black 1988 

On Tue, 12 Sep 1995, Philip L. Graber wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Sep 1995, Tim McLay wrote:
>
>> There are two works which are somewhat comparable in Hebrew.  I forget the 
>> name of one.  The other emerged from an SBL seminar: W. Bodine, ed. 
>> Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew.  Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992.  This 
>> one at least is not really at the same level of Black's, and I would say 
>> that there is a market for something comparable. In fact I would say that 
>> both the introductory and advanced level of such a work is BEGGING to be 
>> written. 
>
>I don't know where he is now, but Bob Bergen has written some things on 
>"Linguistic Criticism" of the OT. He did his Ph.D. at Southwestern 
>Baptist in Fort Worth, and was influenced by Bob Longacre in his use of 
>linguistics.

I call your attention to Bob Longacre's work in Hebrew discourse linguistics:

Longacre, Robert E.  1989.  Joseph: A story of divine providence: A text
   theoretical and textlinguistic analysis of Genesis 37 and 39-48.  Winona 
   Lake: Eisenbrauns.

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

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

From: Westwinds1@aol.com
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 14:34:49 -0400
Subject: I John Commentaries 

Sorry this is not actually a b-greek question but I am sure you'll forgive my
taking some latitude.  My wife's bible study group wants to study I John.  I
am quite out of touch with current english commentaries that would be
suitable for this kind of context.  Any great ideas???

Ron


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

From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 14:06:42 CST
Subject: Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU 

On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Carlton Winbery wrote in part:

>The parable of the fig tree
>refers to judgment on Israel and the closing phrase translated "know that it
>is at the gate."  The statement in vs. 24, "In those days after that
>tribulation" seems to me to be a kind of apocalyptic way of further
>separating 70 BCE from the parousia.  The use of apocalyptic language from
>Joel in 24-25 should be compared with the use of the same language from Joel
>in Peter's speech in Acts 2 to refer to what happened on the day of Pentecost
>(Acts 2:17-21).  The only direct reference in Mark 13 to parousia may be in
>vs. 32ff.  That which happened in that generation was that the Son of Man was
>vindicated and sent his disciples to proclaim the gospel to all the nations.
> I don't think that there can be much doubt that Mark wanted his readers to
>be ready to do just that.
>
>Also, I think that Matthew has brought in the idea of parousia where Mark did
>not see it.
>
>What do you think? 

I freely admit that it is more difficult for a reader to see the second coming
in Mark than in Matthew.  I am not so sure that means that Mark himself did
not see it.  Indeed, I am not sure if readers in the first century could read
Mark 13:26-27 without thinking of the second coming:

TON UION TOU ANQRWPOU ERCOMENON EN NEFELAIS META DUNAMEUS POLLHS KAI DOXHS
"the son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory"

APOSTELEI TOUS AGGELOUS KAI EPISUNAXEI TOUS EKLEKTOUS AUTOU
"he will send the angels and gather his chosen"

The parallels are too close to other second coming passages in the NT.

Re the parable of the fig tree: granted that EGGUS ESTIN can be translated "it
is near" as well as "he is near."  But one would know that "he/it is near"
when one saw TAUTA "these things" happening.  I follow Earle MacMillan in his
idea that TAUTA refers to the disciples' question about the destruction of the
temple.  It was not that God's *judgment* on Israel was near when the temple
was destroyed; by that time, that judgment had already happened.  I understand
this parable to relate the judgment on Israel in AD 70 to the judgment on the
world at the second coming.

I agree that 13:24 in some sense separates the events of AD 70 (or more
strictly AD 66-74) from the parousia.

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

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

From: KBARRON@dscc.cc.tn.us
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 15:56:53 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: B-GRK Q? Black 1988

Also add to the list _Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation_,
Max (?) Cottrell and Peter (?) Turner, IVP, about 1988-90.  A
bit more theoretical than Black, but still excellent.
Kevin Barron     Dyersburg, Tennessee, USA     kbarron@dscc.cc.tn.us

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

From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 20:40:55 -0400
Subject: Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU 

In my post on Mon. Sept. 11, I had the statement,
>the title Son of Man carried with it from Daniel a note of both suffering
and vindication.<

I am aware that the term was used in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to man
(Psalms & the prophet in Ezekiel).  It was used in the Parables of Enoch in
the sense of a coming, conquering god.  In fact Ethelbert Stauffer, Theology
of the NT: A Christo-centric View of History, stated that the title was just
about the most presumptuous title that a person could claim in the first
century BCE.  I tend to agree with Hooker in her assessment of Mark's
understanding of it.
Carlton Winbery
Fogleman Prof. NT & Greek
LA College, Pineville, LA
(318) 487-7241 Fax (318) 487-7425 off. or (318) 442-4996 home
Winbrow@aol.com or Winbery@andria.lacollege.edu

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

From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 20:56:01 -0400
Subject: Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU 

Carl Conrad wrote,
>You may very well be right about Mark, but in one way it >seems to me that
you underscore similarities between Mark >and Luke, perhaps without intending
to: what I'm thinking of >is the perspective of Jesus' time with the
disciples as a >preparation of them for their evangelistic mission. I think
>the emphasis on their evangelistic mission is quite right and >I think it is
very urgent in Mark.<

There are similarities with Luke in that he has an emphasis on missions and
especially (in Acts) on the gospel moving out in the power of the Spirit.  I
think that a major difference with Luke is that he is writing in a situation
in which the church has become mostly Gentile.  He is demonstrating through
the Jesus story and the story of the early church that this move was the
result of the work of the Holy Spirit breaking down the barriers (somewhat
apologetic in the good sense).  Like Mark, he has an abrupt, unsatisfying
ending to the story in which we are left in the dark about something that we
would like to know, what happened to Paul.  But for him, his purpose is
accomplished with Paul preaching the gospel in the center of the world
"openly and unhinderedly" (pardon the literal translation).
Thanks,
Carlton Winbery
LA College Pineville, LA

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

End of b-greek-digest V1 #858
*****************************

** 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