b-greek-digest V1 #910
b-greek-digest Saturday, 14 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 910
In this issue:
Re: NEW: CSN - Christian Software News mailing list
here's what's wrong with Q
Greek Lang. vs Theology
Re: here's what's wrong with Q
Re: here's what's wrong with Q
Re: Greek Lang. vs Theology
Re: 1Cor. 14:14
Re: here's what's wrong with Q
Eph. 4:9 and Genitive of Apposition
From: Bunch Rebecca CDT <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sat Oct 14 02:29:29 1995
Subject: need help
PLEASE RESOND TO THE COMPUSERVE ADDRESS BELOW, DO NOT REPLY AS I AM USING
SOMEBODY'Sriginal-Date: 14 Oct 95 02:25:00 EDT
Original-From: Paul Watkins <email@example.com>
I have three questions which I would greatly appreciate some input on:
1. What does "eikh episteusate" mean in 1 Cor. 15:2?
2. What is the difference between the filling, "pimplemi" of the Spirit
and the fulness "plerow" of the Spirit? Is there a difference?
3. What is the difference between "gnwsis" and "epignwsis"? Are they different
types of knowledge or is the latter simply a richer form of the former?
I would really appreciate the help, thank you.
Grace College and Seminary
From: Randy Heskett <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 09:00:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: NEW: CSN - Christian Software News mailing list
I oppose the following advertisement for two reasons: 1) this is not an
advertisement network but a discussion group for biblical Hebrew and
interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. 2) This discussion group does not
merely comprise a "Christian" audience who has to put up with this
nonsense that is propogated under the guise of Christianity, but people
of all persuasions, who aim to study biblical Hebrew.
Emmanuel College, Toronto School of Theology, University of Toronto
On 13 Oct 1995, David John Marotta wrote:
> For your information...
> David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
> Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: email@example.com
> Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg PRODIGY: KCMR45A
> C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax IBM US: usuvarg8
> *** Forwarding note from SMTP --DMT03 10/12/95 17:26 ***
> Received: from virginia.edu by DMT03.mcc.Virginia.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
> with TCP; Thu, 12 Oct 95 17:26:33 EDT
> Received: from dylan.mindspring.com by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa19210;
> 12 Oct 95 17:25 EDT
> Received: from jlovettpc.tallassee.wm.slb.com [188.8.131.52] by
> with SMTP id RAA01761 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 17:13:45
> Message-Id: <199510122113.RAA01761@dylan.mindspring.com>
> X-Sender: email@example.com
> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 16:17:17 -0500
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> From: Serious Developments <email@example.com>
> Subject: NEW: CSN - Christian Software News mailing list
> David John Marotta,
> I would greatly appreciate it if you would pass the following announcement
> on to the members of your B-GREEK and B-HEBREW mailing lists. Thanks for
> your help.
> --Jerry Lovett
> CSN - Christian Software News mailing list
> Purpose: To keep the Christian community informed of new software
> products as they become available. Product categories covered by
> the list will include most Christian and Church related software
> products including: Bible Study, Clipart, Desktop Publishing,
> Church Management Systems, Edutainment, Games, and miscellaneous
> items such as Christian Screen Savers. Recipients can expect to
> receive one or two emails per week. Product announcements will
> be high on content and low on Marketing hype. This is a one-way
> mailing list in order to control the volume and quality of the
> postings. Anyone wishing to announce new products via this list
> should contact firstname.lastname@example.org and request the CSN Submission
> Guidelines. Operating systems for the items announced typically
> run about 90-95% Windows/DOS, 5-10% Macintosh, and <1% for others.
> This is not by design, but is the nature of the Christian Software
> Industry. We just print the news, we don't make it.
> To subscribe, send email to
> and in the body of the message put
> SUBSCRIBE CSN FirstName LastName
> To subscribe via the World Wide Web or to obtain back issues:
> Owner: Jerry Lovett <email@example.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 95 09:57:51 -0600
Subject: here's what's wrong with Q
Paul Moser said:
PM>Perhaps Perry Stepp would kindly explain what exactly
PM>is wrong with the plausible hypothesis that Matthew and
PM>Luke independently used Q sources not found in Mark?
(I'm not sure how kind this will be, but here goes.)
Not to speak of "plausible," but what's so judicious about building
one's picture of Jesus--a vitally important undertaking, in my
book--on a hypothetical document for which no shred of independent
evidence or testimony exists? Should not this be the serious
scholar's last resort?
Foundationally: should we resort to hypothetical documents without
first exhausting the possibility that provably extant documents
provide what is needed to explain the phenomena before us? We should
The *relative* popularity
(no, even serious scholars and non- fundamentalist
non-hogwarshers are not united on the existence of Q,
nor are those who are united on its existence united on
of the hypothesis is immaterial.
PM>Why assume that there's something inherently wrong with
PM>such an hypothesis, especially when it has tremendous
PM>explanatory value? In his prologue, Luke pretty much
PM>admits that he had a range of sources available to him.
The fact that Lk had sources in front of him proves nothing in
regards to Q. Clearly each of the evangelists had a different
passion/resurrection narratives at his disposal. Clearly Mt and Lk
had different birth narratives. This proves nothing regarding whether
Lk depended on Q or Mt for the bulk of his non-Markan material.
Besides, what the heck do you mean by "tremendous explanatory value"?
Do you mean "usefulness"? How is *that* a criteria for which
hypothesis is to be accepted?
PM>very difficult to explain Matthew-Luke agreements
PM>(against Mark) by assuming that Luke had Matthew.
PM>Consider, just for a few samples, Luke's striking
PM>divergences from Matthew in the birth narratives,
PM>the sermon on the mount/plain, and the passion/
Does Lk's possible use of Mt necessarily equal Lk having no non-
Markan material other than Mt?
But let's give Lk full credit as an author and theologian. He takes
the material from his sources and thoroughly reworks it according to
the emphases he wants to make: for example, the John the Baptist birth
narrative sets the stage for him to make later statements about Jesus
Lk obviously didn't think much of the way Mt structured his gospel
around a series of topical discourses. Perhaps Lk wanted to give
more emphasis to chronology. He certainly has a different theological
view of Israel: Jesus is much less the personification of Israel in Lk
than in Mt. This last fact itself could account for Lk's treatment of
the Sermon on the Mount, which paints Jesus as the new Moses giving
the new holiness code.
As for a
PM>denial of Markan priority, one must explain, among
PM>many other things, what plausible reason there would
PM>be to produce a gospel like Mark's in the presence
PM>of Matthew's more well-rounded treatment.
If one wishes to deny Markan priority--and I don't remember directly
denying it, I haven't really made up my mind between Goulder and
Griesbach--the case can be made. Note again that Mt so centrally
depends on long topical discourses. Note also the Markan emphasis on
action and impetus--the repeated "PALIN"s and "EUTHEWS"s.
Note also--and studies have been done on this in comparative
literature--that while Mk's gospel is shorter, it tends to have
comparatively longer descriptions of the same incidents. Mk describes
a smaller number of incidents, but he does so with greater verbosity
and detail. Which is exactly what we would expect from an action-
minded author working with two longer documents in front of him.
As I said, I'm not certain of Matthean priority. But I am
certain that Q need not ever have existed for Mt and Lk to sit before
us today in their present form.
PM>debate here must be settled by inference to the
PM>best explanation, rather than by strict proof,
PM>but still the assumptions of Markan priority
PM>and Q sources have unsurpassed explanatory power.
I'm still not exactly certain what you mean by "unsurpassed
explanatory power." Do you mean that it "ties things up into a neater
package"? Is that really a reason to resort to dependency on a
hypothetical document, one claiming no independent evidence of
That's a judgement call, of course, but in my judgement Q fails the
test. I'd rather work with documents I *know* existed than build sand
castles on hypothetical foundations.
(Hey, waitaminnit, I didn't say anything about Mt and Lk's
agreements against Mk! Ah, well, another day, another post.)
Grace and peace,
Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
From: Bill Renner <WILLARD@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 95 12:40:16 EDT
Subject: Greek Lang. vs Theology
This was a very good list and very useful in understanding the Greek of
the NT. We seem to have gotten more on the theology question than the
language question.To me there is two way to look at the Bible. 1. The
Bible is the word of God and is: the truth. 2. The Bible contains the
word of God and is: true. How we accept one or the other is a matter of
faith and you can not argue faith. I accept the number 2. concept and
respect all that accept the number 1: concept. Do not try to continuly
try to change my understanding of the Bible and its origins. I do not
want to step on any ones toes, but *PLEASE* let us see if we can get
back to the original purpose of the list, that is the translation of the
Greek in the NT.
1427 Cardinal Dr.
West Columbia, SC 29169
From: Nichael Cramer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 13:15:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: here's what's wrong with Q
On Sat, 14 Oct 1995 email@example.com wrote:
> Besides, what the heck do you mean by "tremendous explanatory value"?
> Do you mean "usefulness"? How is *that* a criteria for which
> hypothesis is to be accepted?
I, for one, must admit to being bewildered by this question. The
explanatory power of a hypothesis is the _only_ criterion by which a
hypothesis can be accepted.
In short we are faced with certain data; in the present case under
discussion it is the form and nature of text of the Synoptic Gospels.
The immediate question is how did that text get to be in that form?
The only criterion by which a hypothesis is judged --indeed the only
criterion by which a hypothesis *can* be judged-- is how well it explains
the available data. What other, meaningful criterion can there possibly
Once again, the question is: Does or does not the hypothesis (the 2DH)
explain the data (the details of the text of the Synoptic Gospels) better
than its competitors?
That is the only question of importance --or indeed of relevance-- to be
> That's a judgement call, of course, but in my judgement Q fails the
1] It's not true that it's simply a "judgement call". This is what
science is all about, attempting to establish objective criteria by which
to make such judgements.
2] Again, perhaps it would be useful to explain why it "fails the test".
So far, the only of argument presented has been amounts "we don't have a
copy of Q", which as we've seen is of --at most-- margin relevance. The
important question is how well does the 2DH explain the text? On that
topic there has been precious little discussion.
> [...] I'd rather work with documents I *know* existed than build sand
> castles on hypothetical foundations.
3] Are you sure you mean this? By this criterion we can accept *no*
arguments for *any* sources behind the Gospels. And I don't think anyone
is going to seriously argue that.
From: Larry Swain <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 11:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: here's what's wrong with Q
On Sat, 14 Oct 1995, Nichael Cramer wrote:
> The only criterion by which a hypothesis is judged --indeed the only
> criterion by which a hypothesis *can* be judged-- is how well it explains
> the available data. What other, meaningful criterion can there possibly
> Once again, the question is: Does or does not the hypothesis (the 2DH)
> explain the data (the details of the text of the Synoptic Gospels) better
> than its competitors?
Actually this is 2 criteria. A) Does the hypothesis (any hypothesis)
explain the available data B) Does that explanation accurately take into
account "external factors", which in this case would be such things as
common composition techniques in the ancient world, citation and
reference tools, and so on C) Does another theory explain the phenomena
as well as this one does.
It seems to me that too much of the discussion of the 2SH resides in the
last point: it must be true because Farmer-Griesbach has holes. SO
because F-G is inadequate, 2SH must be the case. Nor have a lot of the
problems with the 2SH been brought to the fore in this discussion, other
than the fact that we don't have any certain knowledge of an actual Q
document in physical form, not as trivial as some would have it, and not
nearly so important as others would like.
As Ed Hobbs pointed out, there are compelling reasons to reevaluate the
2SH, that is the nature of every theory, they should be reevaluated. We
would be doing the guild and students a grave disservice if we didn't.
Think people, don't galvanize yourselves into camps that can't see
another point of view. There are problems with any hypothesis,and even
though the 2SH has great explanatory power it does not follow that it is
therefore historically accurate.
> 2] Again, perhaps it would be useful to explain why it "fails the test".
> So far, the only of argument presented has been amounts "we don't have a
> copy of Q", which as we've seen is of --at most-- margin relevance. The
> important question is how well does the 2DH explain the text? On that
> topic there has been precious little discussion.
True enough. This isn't the place to do it, but the 2SH failure to my
mind rests in 4 areas: Marcan priority, dependance on Mark, lack of hard
proof that the external evidence is utterly and completely wrong, and
finally that we have a Q, but different editions explaining the
differences between Matthew and Luke's use of it. But these areas have
been covered in print elsewhere.
Parmly Billings Library
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 15:56:44 -0400
Subject: RE: Scrivener
The following is a reply from Dr. Robinson, prof. of Greek and New Testament
at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, to the current thread redarding
the Scrivener text that I have been forwarding to him.
You might want to send these corrections to the b-greek group to resolve
the problems. Mention my name if you desire and that I am responsible
for the OLB Scrivener text etc.
On Fri, 13 Oct 1995 DearPastor@aol.com wrote:
> Edward Hobbs wrote:
> > ADDITION: Scrivener did NOT reconstruct the Greek text used by the AV
> > translators (though for all practical purposes he had to). He published
> > the 1598 edition of Beza. He then exhibited itAs differences from TWO
> > different translations' Vorlagen: (1) the differences from (his
> > calculation of) the Greek text actually followed by the 1611
> > translators, in an Appendix (pp. 648-656), and
This is a wholly erroneous statement, since those Appendix pages listed
make it clear that Mr. Hobbs is referring to the 1881 Scrivener text (of
which I have a copy). Mr. Hobbs simply did not read the Introduction or
the heading of the Appendix carefully.
Scrivener did publish a number of different editions of the Greek NT.
Nowhere do I know did he publish a complete unaltered copy of Beza 1598.
He did publish in 1881 the Greek text underlying the KJV, which he
admitted was the text of Beza 1598 EXCEPT for 191 readings which were
specifically listed in the Appendix, which Appendix shows their actual
source. His main text WAS constructed to be as close as possible to the
Greek text underlying the KJV, so long as such could be constructed from
printed Greek editions before 1611. This rule also precluded Scrivener
from translating Latin Vulgate readings back into Greek when no printed
Greek text before 1611 supported the KJV rendering (Scrivener did not want
to become Erasmus redivivus).
> Can you be so kind as to post a couple of examples from the
> Scrivener's Text where the Greek text followed by the AV
> translators differs from Beza's 1598 edition? I'd like to find
> out just what kind of a "Scrivener's Text" I own.
I have the appendix in my reprint copy of the 1881 edition, but it is too
extensive to list in toto. Sample readings by reference only include for
all of Matthew 1:8-9, 23; 2:11,17; 3:3; 9:18; 10:10,25; 11:21; 13:24;
20:15; for all of Mark 1:21; 4:18; 5:38; 6:45,53; 8:22; 9:38,42; 10:46;
13:9; 14:21; 15:3; 16:14,20. If you own a Scrivener text (whether 1881 or
1894), the text is identical and it is NOT a mere reprint of Beza 1598.
Scrivener himself states in the preface to the 1881 edition:
Wherever therefore the Authorised renderings agree with other Greek
readings which might naturally be known through printed editions to
the revisers of 1611 or their predecessors, Beza's  reading has
been DISPLACED from the text in favor of the more truly representative
reading, the variation from Beza being indicated by * [an asterisk].
. . . All variations from Beza's text of 1598, in number about 190,
are set down in an Appendix at the end of the volume, together with
the authorities on which they respectively rest. (pp. viii-ix; emphasis
> The "Scrivener's Text" that is distributed with the Online Bible
> is clearly labeled to be an 1894 edition, not 1881 as your copy
> indicates. I did an author search in my university's library
> system and found out that F.H.A.Scrivener died in 1891, just three
> years prior to this "Scrivener's Text." Is it possible that most of
> the computerized bible's "Scrivener's Text" versions come from a
> later edition, where perhaps this appendix of differences had been
> integrated into the main text?
And the answer is an unequivocal "no". The 1894 text and the 1881 text
are identical. I suspect that Scrivener's 1894 edition simply contained
the Greek text of the 1881 edition without the boldfaced main text
variants from the Greek underlying the ERV or the footnotes showing such
variant readings. I.e., I suspect the 1894 to be the bare text only in a
"Reader's edition" type of text (with or without the Appendix as well).
The primary aim of the 1881 edition was to show (in heavy bold type) the
differences made in the Reviser's Greek text underlying the 1881 English
Revised Version from the text which presumably underlay the KJV. These
differences were all noted at the foot of the page and the main text
boldfaced to alert the reader of the change.
My own copy of the 1881 edition (D.A. Waite's xerox) is from the 1949
Cambridge University Press reprint of the 1881 volume (yes, it stayed in
print that long!). Its reprint history goes 1881 (3 printings), 1883,
1884, 1886, 1890, 1908, and 1949. No changes were made in any reprint
Note that the 1894 edition is not listed in this lineage, but (as the
Trinitarian Bible Society reprint of Scrivener 1894 states in its
The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the English
Authorised Version of 1611 follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as
the primary authority, and corresponds with "The New Testament in the
Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorised
Version" edited by F. H. A. Scrivener ... and published by Cambridge
University Press in 1894 and 1902.
Neither the 1894 or 1902 dates are in the 1881 reprint lineage. My guess
is that the 1894 edition was merely a separate printing which did NOT
emphasize in bold type the differences between the KJV and ERV as did the
1881 edition, but merely presented the reconstructed text of the
underlying KJV Greek from the 1881 edition. I also am not certain whether
the 1894 edition included the Appendix, and would have to check the
library on that.
> Given that the quote that started this thread explicitly connected
> Scrivener's Text and the KJV, I wonder which Scrivener's Text the
> original writer was referring to.
One and the same, regardless of edition, it appears.
> In fact, it is Beza's 1598 edition of the Textus Receptus, printed
> oddly: The readings adopted by the (English company) Revisers are at the
> bottom of each page, while the readings IN THE TEXT which were displaced
> by the readings adopted by the Revisers are printed in boldface type.
> He then gives an Appendix which lists the passages where the 1611
> did NOT follow Beza's text but instead translated readings from previous
> editions of the TR (total number: 190 readings)--pp. 648-656.
Again, Scrivener admits that the text is basically Beza 1598. Scrivener
also clearly states that he DEPARTED from Beza 1598 exactly 191 times to
insert readings followed by the KJV translators which did NOT come from Beza
1598, and the
original Beza 1598 readings are contained in the Appendix, together with
the source editions of the readings followed by the KJV translators,
which readings Scrivener placed INTO his 1881/1894 edition main text.
> Scrivener himself shifted from a pro-TR position, gradually, to
> the point where he basically affirmed the text adopted by the Revisers
> of 1881 (i.e, in the main, the text of Westcott and Hort).
Been reading Daniel Wallace I see. The truth is
that, while Scrivener DID adopt some non-Byzantine readings (specifically
due to his methodology which did not include manuscript testimony beyond
that of the 10th century, thus eliminating most of the minuscules), he
still continued to favor in the main the earlier form of the Byzantine
Texttype. The total number of reading where Scrivener departed from the
Byzantine Texform are probably less than 200, whereas Westcott and Hort,
following a purely Alexandrian text, departed probsably 3000 times from
the Byzantine Text. (And note especially, Scrivener NEVER was a "TR"
defender, but a pro-Byzantine supporter. The TR is NOT equal to the
Byzantine text, and it is unfair to charge Scrivener with
defending the TR per se).
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <email@example.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 15:10:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Greek Lang. vs Theology
At 11:40 AM 10/14/95, Bill Renner wrote:
>This was a very good list and very useful in understanding the Greek of
>the NT. We seem to have gotten more on the theology question than the
>language question. To me there is two way to look at the Bible. 1. The
>Bible is the word of God and is: the truth. 2. The Bible contains the
>word of God and is: true. How we accept one or the other is a matter of
>faith and you can not argue faith. I accept the number 2. concept and
>respect all that accept the number 1: concept. Do not try to continuly
>try to change my understanding of the Bible and its origins. I do not
>want to step on any ones toes, but *PLEASE* let us see if we can get
>back to the original purpose of the list, that is the translation of the
>Greek in the NT.
Actually I think there are still more ways to look at the Bible than that.
There are those who would NOT hold that the Bible is the word of God and
those who hold that it is NOT truth, and there are several varieties of
stances in between these and those named by Bill above. I don't think that
anyone at any point on the spectrum should feel excluded from the
discussion by virtue of his/her stance toward the Bible.
What we come to this list for is, fundamentally, to discuss the Greek text
of the New Testament (and, occasionally, of the LXX and of ancillary
Hellenistic Greek texts). It's pretty hard for most of us (and by no means
do I exclude myself from this category) to discuss any really significant
NT text without bringing to bear a theological perspective of some sort
(even if altogether negative) that is a factor in how we approach it and
the possible meanings we are willing to see expressed or implied in it .
If that is less than fully obvious, let me just note the obvious fact that
some will not entertain the possibility of a conflict of historical fact
between two NT texts and others will; i.e., one's stance on "verbal
inspiration" or "inerrancy" is likely to have a bearing on how one looks at
a text. Moreover, there are sectarian differences that cannot help but be a
factor when we are looking at texts like 1 Cor 12-14, which some view as
validating a whole category of religious expressions in worship, while
others view it as warning against one or more of these types of expression,
such as, for instance, glossolalia.
We're not going to agree on these issues, and we surely aren't going to
come to an agreement over issues of the so-called "higher criticism." And
we may very well think that the views held by some others on the list are
"hogwash," but we have no business to use that sort of language (as I did
word yesterday in a note that I meant to be off-list and that I deeply rue
having sent inadvertently to the list) in communications on the list. I'm
quite sure that there are those who think my own views are "hogwash" or
worse (I won't speculate as to what!) but I hope that others will be more
careful than I was yesterday and that I myself can be more careful
All in all, I think we can share a lot of valuable information with each
other about the tools of NT Greek scholarship and learning--grammars,
lexica, critical editions, textbooks, bibliography, etc.--but I suspect
we'd do best to avoid theological issues that hinge on a great number of
passages rather than on the right understanding of a single verse or
passage of the Greek text. I would hope that even in such discussion,
however, argumentation can be based upon the textual evidence itself rather
than on the theological perspective with which one approaches that text.
We've had some interesting discussions on source criticism, and I have
appreciated in particular learning, in response to Ken Litwak's question,
what are the really useful books and articles asserting and defending the
different views on the matter. But the discussions of source criticism seem
to become repetitive very quickly, whether it is a matter of being clear on
what is the difference between a hypothesis and a demonstrable fact, or
ganging up as a group against "excesses of the Jesus Seminar" (it does seem
to me that some of the current discussion on the Q hypothesis has dealt
more with the way it has been used and/or abused in the "quest of the
historical Jesus" than with what interests me far more: how it helps or
hinders our understanding of textual relationships between the synoptic
Having said my say, in a cooler and more reasonable fashion, I hope, than I
did yesterday, I'm all for getting the focus of discussion back to the
Greek text of the NT.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
firstname.lastname@example.org OR email@example.com
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 16:44:38 -0400
Subject: Re: 1Cor. 14:14
In a message dated 95-10-12 20:23:48 EDT, WINBROW write:
>I would add a paraphrase from John Kildahl concerning modern tongues
>speaking. We cannot find certain evidence documented by anyone qualified
>judge that any person has spoken in a language not previously learned while
>in a state of tongues speaking. He evidently tried over a long period to
>find such evidence.
It is for this very reason that I have found the modern day Pentecostal
experience to be personally (and let me emphasize PERSONALLY, so as not to
offend anyone) unsatisfactory. I could not, at least to my own personal
satisfaction, verify that (to borrow the Lukan phrase) "this was that which
was spoken by the prophet Joel." If there were some strong form of
verification available--such as a documented case of tongues-speaking in
which the speaker does indeed speak a real language unbeknownst to
him/her--it would certainly be readily available and tauted by proponents.
However, during the years I was a tongues-speaker, I was never exposed to any
But everything I have written thus far is irrelevant to our understanding of
the phenomenon in the NT, and I have not written it to stir up controversy
over what is potentially a very volatile issue. My point is that today's
experience should not be used as a measuring-rod with which we can judge the
experience described in the NT. Indeed, it ought to be the other way around.
According to my reading of the NT, tongues-speaking was the Spirit-endowed
utterance of real language(s) unknown to the speaker. This is clearly the
case in Ac 2 (N.B.: Dr. Winbery's reference to DIALEKTOI), but I believe that
Paul also believed that the speaker spoke a real language which could, with
supernatural assistance, be "interpreted" (1 Cor 14:5). Note also Paul's
comment in 14:10-11 which very directly refers to real human languages, not
ecstatic utterances or gobbledygook; hence, the tongue-speaker's mind is
unfruitful, not because his/her utterances are meaningless in themselves
(Paul's analogies in vv. 7-9 surely argue against this), but because the
utterances are not in the mother-tongue of the speaker. Luke and Paul are
also in agreement on the point that tongues are directed toward God, not
human beings (1 Cor 14:2). Ac 2 was a singular occurrence at least insofar as
there were persons present who could understand what these voices were
articulating; but each utterance was a magnifying of God and His marvelous
deeds (v. 11), and do not appear to have been a form of preaching (as later
interpreters such as Chrysostom would have it).
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 17:29:06 -0400
Subject: Re: here's what's wrong with Q
At 11:37 AM 14/10/95, Larry Swain wrote:
Two (final) points:
>Actually this is 2 criteria. A) Does the hypothesis (any hypothesis)
>explain the available data B) Does that explanation accurately take into
>account "external factors", which in this case would be such things as
>common composition techniques in the ancient world, citation and
>reference tools, and so on C) Does another theory explain the phenomena
>as well as this one does.
Larry, I'm afraid I don't see why these are seperate criteria. "External
factors" are simply other "available data" that need to be addressed by any
Any model of the formation of the Synoptic Gospels that contradicted
established evidence concerning, say, compositional techniques --i.e. that
failed to adequate "explain" that data-- would be doing a poor job of
addressing the available data, pure and simple. And would be less credible
than another hypothesis that encompassed that information.
> ... There are problems with any hypothesis,and even
>though the 2SH has great explanatory power it does not follow that it is
>therefore historically accurate.
But this is precisely the question. In what way do we do we establish what
is "historically accurate" other than by examining (and explaining) all
available data? What other tools do we have? What other mechanism do we
have for describing what we believe to have happened?
To ask the question another way: In an _historical_ context, what does the
statement "Julius Caesar really lived" mean --what can it mean-- other than
saying that we believe that this model better explains the sum total of the
literary/archaeological/etc data better than the model that he was a wholly
fictional character? Why is an appeal to any other criterion anything
other than mysticism?
From: David Moore <email@example.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 17:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Eph. 4:9 and Genitive of Apposition
"Calvin D. Redmond" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>It should be clear that the translation "the lower parts, which consist of the
>earth" or something similar is at least possible. The grammatical category is
>recognized by the major grammarians, although it appears that all my other
>grammars are in my library office which lacks a phone line.The question as to
>whether this translation is correct will depend more on one's understanding of
>the context and one's theology.
Robertson has an interesting comment on this verse. He says we
probably do not have a genitive of apposition or definition here, but the
ablative (read ablative use of the genitive) after the comparative
(Robertson, _Grammar of the Greek New Testament_, p. 499).
Blass-DeBrunner comes to about the same conclusion without
expressing it in quite the same words: "TA KATWTERA (MERH) THS GHS is not
partitive ... or appositive ('the lower regions', i.e. the earth ...), but
'the regions under the earth' (Buchsel, TW III 641f.)" (Bl-DeB, _A Greek
Grammar of the New Testament_, #167).
IMO, the mention of Christ's ascention hUPERANW PANTWN TWN OURANWN
(v. 10) is meant to contrast with the passage we are considering in verse
9 - i.e. beneath the earth (in physical terms, a reference to His burial
after death) serves as couterpoint to his ascention above all the heavens.
So v. 9 needs to be taken in its most emphatic sense.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
email@example.com Department of Education
End of b-greek-digest V1 #910
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
You can send mail to the entire list via the address: