b-greek-digest V1 #900

b-greek-digest            Tuesday, 10 October 1995      Volume 01 : Number 900

In this issue:

        Re: Lk 11:8 Whose ANAIDEIA?
        Re: 1Cor. 14:14
        dokimazw in Romans 12:2?
        NA27 apparatus perplexity 
        Re: Beginning Grammars 
        Re: 1Cor. 14:14
        Re: 1Cor. 14:14


From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 20:23:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Lk 11:8 Whose ANAIDEIA?

At 5:32 PM 10/9/95, SHelton886@aol.com wrote:
>The young seminarian has followed Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, on this
>Jeremias points out that <<tis ex Jumwn>> begins questions that expect a NO!
> Can you imagine such a thing!!!  He concludes, "The parable is not concerned
>with the importunity of the petitioner, but with the certainty that the
>petition will be granted.
>Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear Then the Parable:  A Commentary on the Parables
>of Jesus [Fortress, 1989], 88-89, concurs, writing, "Anaideia means
>'shamelessness,' and this is it meaning in Greek from the classical period
>through the patristic x There is no evidence of anaideia meaning anything
>other than 'shamelessness.'
>I think this work.

I'll look at Jeremias tomorrow morning in my office on the passage. I never
doubted that ANAIDEIA means "shamelessness," but why will his own
shamelessness make the householder get out of bed and go take the guy
knocking at the door a loaf of bread? I don't doubt either that, at least
in its context in Luke, the parable must point to the certainty that prayer
will be answered. But I am still puzzled over how the sleepy householder's
ANAIDEIA is supposed to make him get up and take three loaves of bread down
to the front door. Is it that he is so shameless that he will go to the
front door in his nightclothes? The logic of it escapes my thick head.

A secondary question I'd raise is whether Luke has applied this parable to
the same context in which Jesus may have originally delivered it. We know,
for instance, that the parable of the Lost Sheep is used by Luke to justify
evangelism but by Matthew to urge retention of church members. So the
question is, was this parable actually originally told with regard to the
certainty that God answers prayer? I admit that I don't have an
alternative--I'm just throwing out the question because the parable bothers
me now as it never has before!

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: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 20:26:33 -0500
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:14

At 5:48 PM 10/9/95, David Moore wrote:

>        But, then, how could Paul, in the context of Pagan practices - if
>they were essentially pagan - say "Thank God I pray in tongues more than
>you all"?

If you really want my opinion, I think Paul was being facetious here. Nor
do I think this is the only place in 1 Corinthians that Paul waxes ironic
or even sarcastic, and in several passages in 2 Corinthians he is all the
more ironic and sarcastic. It may in fact be the case that Paul does pray
in tongues, but I think this may also be one of those instances wherein he
is "all things to all men in order that ..."

While I am deadly serious in the paragraph above, I would also offer the
following in response to David's question:

Yes, Paul does say in 14:18 exactly what you have cited him as saying. But
then he goes on immediately in 14:19 to say, "But in congregational gather
I would rather (QELW ... H) say five words intelligibly (TWi NOI) in order
to instruct others than ten thousand words babbling (EN GLWSSHi). That is,
I think he makes the assertion of his own capacity for ecstatic speech as a
rhetorical ploy that enables him to state as strongly as he possibly can
that he doesn't really value that activity very highly.

To return to the passage about which I wrote this afternoon, the beginning
of this whole sequence in 1 Cor 12-14, at the very outset of chapter 12
Paul makes clear in 12:2 that there is nothing distinctly Christian about
ecstatic religious experience, and he appeals to his audience to remember
that they had such experiences as pagans. He then proceeds in 12:3 to
clarify the distinction between inspiration that is Christian and
inspiration that is not.

(And here let me add once more that Paul is here continuing in the vein of
pleading dialogue that he began with in the very first chapter of the
letter, urging the Corinthians to think in terms of shared community life
and mutual assistance rather than of private mystical quests that shut
members off from each other and renounce any mutual ethical

So in 12:3 he alludes (I believe) to the question which he will address
head-on in Chapter 15: does one take seriously the proposition of Jesus'
resurrection and the coming resurrection of believers? or does one suppose
that one has GNWSIS, that having come to faith one is now in spiritual
communion with the spiritual Christ and enjoys a blissful ecstasy in that
communion--in which case it is senseless to speak of any futuristic
eschatology, and also senseless to speak of a crucified Jesus or of a Jesus
of history at all; the only object of one's devotion is the heavenly
Christ, so: "Jesus be damned!"

To which anticipated stance of his opponents Paul says, "No one who speaks
by divine inspiration says, 'Jesus be damned!' and no one is able to say
'Jesus is Lord' EXCEPT through the holy spirit." The criterion of pneumatic
endowment is NOT the quality of ecstatic experience one can boast but
rather the confessional stance one takes regarding the historical Jesus.
And I think Paul expects that confessional stance, if it is honest, to find
expression in one's attitude and behavior toward fellow-members of one's
community, rather than--or more than--in private religious ecstasy.

Finally let me reiterate. It may in fact be the case that Paul values
ecstatic experience and glossolalia, although in my opinion the mysticism
he espouses comes to fuller expression in Phil 3:10-11, where he speaks of
experiencing conformation with the dying of Jesus. So I may be wrong when I
say that I really think Paul's statement in 1 Cor 14:18 is ironic rather
than straightforward. BUT--even if it is not ironic and he really means
that he engages in glossolalia MORE THAN ALL THE CORINTHIANS (how can that
NOT be ironic??)--still, in 14:19 he says he considers rational discourse
more valuable in the worshiping community.

And I go back to 1 Cor 13:1 once more: powerful rhetoric that for all
practical purposes relativizes both rhetoric and glossolalia if it does not
even hold them in contempt! The ultimate criterion of the validity of a
pneumatic endowment is whether or not it expresses AGAPH. And I'm convinced
that this is the reason why Paul has inserted the sublime Chapter 13 in the
middle of the whole discussion of pneumatic endowment: in order to
highlight the one that really counts, the one that, with faith and hope,
will still be around in the age-to-come.

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: "L. E. Brown" <budman@sedona.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 01:21:53 GMT
Subject: dokimazw in Romans 12:2?

I'm wrestling with the verb dokimazw in Romans 12:2. Most of the
standard lexicons (BAGD, LS) indicate that this word means "to approve
by testing" or "to examine and approve." For some reason I find it
hard to fit this meaning into this verse. I observe that Louw-Nida
[sec. 30.98] offers an alternative field of meaning s.v. "Think." To
wit: "to regard something as being worthwhile or appropriate - 'to
regard as worthwhile, to think of as appropriate.' " In light of this
verb's use in Romans 1:28 this seems, IMHO, to be a preferable

I'd like your comment on this.

Also, I'm wondering how the august members of this list read the
concatenated adjectives in Romans 12:2. Is the entire phrase in
apposition to TO QELHMA, or is the second adjective in apposition to
the first, the third in apposition to the second?
L. E. Brown, Jr.       West Sedona Baptist Church
                                      Sedona, Az.
"Fresh Sermon Illustrations:"


From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Subject: NA27 apparatus perplexity 

My students have found two perplexities in the NA27 apparatus of Mark that
have stumped me. Hopefully some of you can point me in the right direction.

1. Mark 8:13, apparatus contains a string of minuscule numbers separated by
periods (as usual), then the note 'pc' [a few others], and then the numbers
1241, 1424 --separated by commas. The questions are, why are these two
minuscules (at least I'm assuming that's what they are), 1) cited out of
sequence, 2) following the 'pc', and 3) separated by commas instead of

2. Mark 8:35 (this one is a bit more complex; I'll try to summarize)
The two variants are marked with:                         Represented below
        a. the right angle substitution bracket, and        [apolesei
        b. the dotted oblique angle substitution brackets:  <tHn psuchHn autou>

The two variants are not divided with the usual vertical line in the
apparatus, but instead are joined with 'et' [and]. The question is
basically, why the 'et' here? In more detail, if you have time, how is the
evidence to be sorted out?

More detail on #2 for those who have the time (I've used {MSS} to represent
the evidence cited without trying to represent it all here; \ for the
vertical broken line; and | for the solid vertical line):

The apparatus reads somewhat as follows:
[-sH {MSS} 'et' <tHn eautou psuchHn {MSS} \ autHn {MSS} \ - {MSS} \ txt {MSS} |

The first is obviously the substitution of apolesH for apolesei. The next
three sections are the various substitutions for tHn psuchHn autou. The
last I assume is the evidence for 'txt'--presumably just for the <tHn
psuchHn autou> portion?

That would mean that the evidence for apolesei is only to be inferred from
the constant witness list by subtracting those witnesses cited for another
variant (A L W) and those that are not extant at 8:35 (25 uncials). That
leaves the evidence for apolesei as follows: aleph, B C D K gamma delta
theta 0214 f1 f13 28 565 579 700 892 1241 1424 2542 lect844 lect2211.

My perplexity is what is the relationship between this variant and the
three following that seems to be implied by the 'et' rather than the usual
|. I would assume that there is some reason for the unusual format. Any
help will be appreciated.


Rodney J. Decker                       Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT                                    15800 Calvary Rd.
                                        Kansas City, Missouri 64147


From: Bill Mounce <billm@teknia.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 95 20:25 PDT
Subject: Re: Beginning Grammars 

A few comments from a grateful student of I. Howard Marshall.

>Only when he
>sought to gain a doctorate degree from Aberdeen Scotland, Dr. Thomas told him
>not to go, they'll mess you up.  But if you have to go, don't go in the
>gospels or you'll really get messed up.  At least just go in the epistles.
>     He did just that.  He was a student of I. Howard Marshall.  And he came
>back finding angels all over in every nuance of the epistles, including in
>Colossians 2:8.  This is all from an emphasis on extra-biblical research to
>the sacrifice of context.

Howard never told one student what to believe in the 3 1/2 years that I was
there. A student believes what he wants to believe. Howard may give some
guidance, some direction, but it is assumed that you are mature enough to
come to your own conclusions.

>     I was included in a small closed conference with Dr. I. Howard Marshall.
> For one and a half hours the 30-40 people there asked him any question they
>wanted.  And up to the very end, not one Bible verse was quoted and not one
>verse reference was given.  It was all philosophy, psychology, sociology,
>experience, etc.  I asked the first and only question that was asked which
>referenced a Bible verse.  Everybody else asked about where he thought the
>world or church was moving today.

In the 3 1/2 years I studied with Howard, he quoted lots of Scripture. Much
of an answer depends on the question, but I don't know what the questions
were so I can't comment. I would hasten to point out that Howard is
Scottish, pure Scottish, and there is a world of culture that separates us.
You would be completely wrong if you think you value Scripture more highly
than he, but how you express yourself and how Howard expresses himself are
going to be significantly different because of the culture.

For example, Howard would never make such a gross over-generalization as you
just did, finding angels "all over in every nuance of the epistles."
Obviously your statement is wrong, no one would do this, and perhaps it
would be more helpful to control your maligning of one of the most
significant conservative world scholars today. If you knew who his students
were, the tremendous impact they are having for Christ and his Word
throughout the world, and if you knew how incredibly gracious Howard is and
that he would never consider entering into this discussion as I have, I
think you would wish that you had expressed yourself somewhat differently.

Bill Mounce

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

Bill Mounce
Teknia Software
1306 W. Bellwood Drive
Spokane, Wa  99218

AOL: Mounce
CIS: 71540,2140

"It may be Greek to you, but it is life to me."

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


From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 00:13:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:14

"Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:

>He seems to me to be less than keen
>on glossolalia but recognizes it as an admissible component of worship;
>what bothers him about it is that it's not rational and it doesn't
>communicate anything to other worshippers. So he urges that if the
>Corinthians are determined to indulge in it, they ought to make sure that
>someone is able to make sense of the ecstatic babbling for the sake of the
>rest of the congregation. And if there are outsiders there, they would be
>wiser not to indulge in it. I think Paul is also relativizing the same
>phenomenon and again associating it with ecstatic, irrational utterance in
>1 Cor 13:1, "If I speak in languages of human beings and of angels but have
>no AGAPH, then I've become clanging bronze or jingling cymbals."

	To elaborate on a previous, quickly-done, one-sentence response to
Carl's post:  it is easy to fall into criticism of the spiritual gifts as
such because of abuses of them within the Corinthian congregation.  But
relative to this, it is good to keep in mind that, in many cases,
especially in the epistles, we know about certain doctrines and practices
precisely because there were problems relating to them.  The Judaizing
controversy, for example, brought out detailed explanation of the
doctrines relating to salvation by grace through faith.  Abuses of the
concept of grace gave rise to substantial parts of the epistles of James,
Jude and 1 and 2 Peter, among others.  Misunderstandings and false
teaching about the parousia of Christ were the counterpoint for the
teaching we have on this theme in the Thessalonian, and other

	If we were mistrustful of putting these doctrines into practice
and of integrating them into our theology because they were the focus of
problems in the New Testament church, we would be the poorer for it.  So,
in a similar vein, that we learn of the function of the charismatic gifts
of the Holy Spirit in the context of a discussion of their abuses should
not scare us away from welcoming their orderly operation in our

	It is probable - and is suggested by some of the other epistles -
that charismatic gifts also functioned in the other congregations of the
NT era.  We read about them in considerable detail in the first Corinthian
letter because of the problems there: not problems inherent in the gifts
themselves, but problems relating to the carnal attitude of those who were
employing the gifts. 

	A look at Paul's attitude toward the gifts as such bears this out. 
One can see this attitude in his congratulation of the Corinthians, "For
in every way you have been enriched in him, in speech and knowledge of
every kind - just as the testimony of Christ has been strengthened among
you - so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you wait for
the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1C. 1:5-7).  His teaching on the
body of Christ in the context of chapters 12-14 is a strong argument for
the operation of the spiritual gifts in concert and implies that Paul
envisions a church in which the multiple gifts may all function in harmony
for the good of the body as a whole (12:12-31).  This interpretation is
also borne out in 14:26 in non-metaphorical language. 

	Notwithstanding Paul's open attitude toward the functioning of the
gifts, his admonitions in this passage call his readers to a balanced
attitude.  Tongues are not to be employed in a disorderly or scandalous
manner, but neither are they to be forbidden.  All the gifts are to
function for the edification of the body and not the agrandizement of the
one who exercises the gift.  And above all the love of Christ is to reign
in every action and in every heart. 

	This seems to me a vision worth pursuing.

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


From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 21:51:23 +0800
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:14


   I'm afarid that I don't agree with your understanding of the passage
here at all.  By ecstatic, I see someone who is not in control of
what is happening.  This would apply to someone in the Gospels who
speaks while demon-possessed, or rather the demon speaks through
them, in spite of the wishes of the individual who is possessed.
In 1 Cor 12, Paul lists several spiritual gifts, including speaking in
tongues, and lists them as though theywere all equal.  THen he says that
"I"ll show you the best way to use them (following van UNNIK in understanding
this as NOT meaning "and yet I show you a more excellent way", as though 
Paul was contrasting acting in lvoe with exercising spiritual
gifts).  Then in 1 Cor 14, Paul deals with two subjects: glossalalia and
prophecy.  He argues that for public worship, prophecy is better, if there
is no interpreter present.  He states that the spirits of the prophets are
subject to the prophets, which I understand, from Paul's argument, to apply
equally to those who speak in tongues.  He tells those who do the later that
they can do so in a worship service if there are interpreters present, and
then only two or three at one meeting (at least that's what I take his 
words to mean).  Paul gives the clear impression, I think, that tongues
are not just permissible, but good.  At the same time, those who use them
are perfectly in control of the use of this gift.  They apppear able to 
turn it on or shut it off at will.  That's not ecstasy.  If you
are speaking in toungues and decide that you should finish, that's not ecstatsy.
Ecstasy would leave you incapable of controlling what you were doing.  That's
not the situation that Paul desciribes at all.  He simply describes a situation 
where one person speaks in tongues,
just as someone else prophesys, or someone uses the gift of wisdom or 
healing.  The Spirit works through the individual, but that never seems
to indicate that the person is not in control or doesn't knwo
exactly what's happening.  That is rad into the text IMO, not out of it.
Finally, I might note, contrary to what some have expressed, Paul does NOT
treat tongues as somehow lesser.  He boasts that "I speak in  tongues more
than y'all (a Southern Greek dialiect doubtless)".  

Ken Litwak
Bezerkley, CA


End of b-greek-digest V1 #900


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: