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

b-greek-digest V1 #917




b-greek-digest           Thursday, 19 October 1995     Volume 01 : Number 917

In this issue:

        Q????? 
        Re: Response to BibAnsMan
        I Timothy 2:15 
        Re: I Timothy 2:15
        Re: Q?????
        "PAS" W/O THE ARTICLE
        Re: Granville-Sharp Rule
        Re: I Timothy 2:15

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

From: Matthew Ashley Morgan <mmorgan@masters.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:58:01 -0700
Subject: Q????? 

        Has anyone else bothered to mention Eta Linneman's article in last
month's Bible Review?  Here we have one of the foremost former Bultmann
scholars who is basically saying that it is all garbage.  The case is closed
as far as I'm concerned.  Even the rejoinder in this month's Bible Review
said absolutely nothing that we don't already know.  Linneman's point is
exactly right!  We're talking about two completely different world views
here as to how we even approach the issue.  It all begins with
presuppostions, and I most happily will affirm that I have a Christian
Evangelical presupposition holding to firm view of Scripture.  I'm just
waiting for ALL critics to announce that they too have
presuppostions...We're waiting!!!

Matthew  Morgan
The Master's College


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

From: Donald Meadows <s315199@student.uq.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 08:51:32 +1000 (GMT+1000)
Subject: Re: Response to BibAnsMan

Please Help, I'm no longer able to accept these messages. I've tried 
cancelling, but it doens't seem to have worked, someone please help

s315199

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

From: Matthew Ashley Morgan <mmorgan@masters.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:31:39 -0700
Subject: I Timothy 2:15 

        As any serious Bible student or scholar is aware, I Tim. 2:15 stands
as one of the hardest passages to interpret, even among conservative
Bible-believing evangelicals.  From what I've been able to dig up in my own
exegetical work, I have so many more questions now than before I even started:

(1)     Is the verb 'sozo' to be taken in a redemptive or spiritual sense?
Why?  If 'redemptive', how can we prevent an intrusion on the doctrine of
justification by faith alone?

(2)     What's the best way to understand the preposition, 'dia,' and the
force implied behind it?

(3)     Does the article, 'tes,'  refer only to one specific 'childbearing'
(i.e. the incarnation) or to 'childbearing in general (i.e. to all women)?

(4)     How are we to understand the relationship between the apodasis and
the protasis (singular vs. plural)?

etc......etc......etc.......etc.............................................
..Any other suggestion will be most helpful!


Matthew Morgan
The Master's College
21726 W. Placerita Cyn
Newhall, Ca  91322      


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

From: David Rising <rising@epix.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 20:35:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: I Timothy 2:15

On Wed, 18 Oct 1995, Matthew Ashley Morgan wrote:

>         As any serious Bible student or scholar is aware, I Tim. 2:15 stands
> as one of the hardest passages to interpret, even among conservative
> Bible-believing evangelicals.  From what I've been able to dig up in my own
> exegetical work, I have so many more questions now than before I even started:
> 
> (1)     Is the verb 'sozo' to be taken in a redemptive or spiritual sense?
> Why?  If 'redemptive', how can we prevent an intrusion on the doctrine of
> justification by faith alone?

That's a difficult passage, and I'm not prepared to answer it thoroughly. 
Although not conclusive, check out Stanley Porter's "What Does it Mean to
be `Saved by Childbirth' (I Timothy 2:15) _JSNT_ 49 (1993): 87-102.  There
was also an article in _BibSac_ by Bowman (?) which summarized the various
positions held (6 I believe).  Perhaps a larger question (which Porter
raises) needs to be first answered, "Who is the subject of SWQHSETAI?"  Is
it Eve (since ADAM was introduced in 2:14)? Mary? A woman in general? An
Ephesian woman? 
 
> (2)     What's the best way to understand the preposition, 'dia,' and the
> force implied behind it?

DIA with the genative probably has the normal (BAGD) agency/instrument 
meaning.  Check out the other 7 occurrances of DIA w/ SWZW and you may 
find something.

. . . quick thoughts as I choke down my dinner.

David Rising

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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 20:17:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Q?????

At 4:58 PM 10/18/95, Matthew Ashley Morgan wrote:
>        Has anyone else bothered to mention Eta Linneman's article in last
>month's Bible Review?  Here we have one of the foremost former Bultmann
>scholars who is basically saying that it is all garbage.  The case is closed
>as far as I'm concerned.  Even the rejoinder in this month's Bible Review
>said absolutely nothing that we don't already know.  Linneman's point is
>exactly right!  We're talking about two completely different world views
>here as to how we even approach the issue.  It all begins with
>presuppostions, and I most happily will affirm that I have a Christian
>Evangelical presupposition holding to firm view of Scripture.  I'm just
>waiting for ALL critics to announce that they too have
>presuppostions...We're waiting!!!

Are you perhaps new to the b-greek list or a lurker who rarely posts a
message? You seem to suppose that you're alone in admitting that you have a
distinct perspective.

If you've been lurking for even a week and have been reading the posts to
the list, you ought to have noted Edgar Krentz's fine lengthy note on how
presuppositions will probably determine one's choice of two alernative
views of the phrase in Eph 4:9, TA KATWTERA THS GHS, both of which have
very plausible support.

Just four days ago I myself posted the following to the list, most of it
regarding the WIDELY DIVERSE presuppositions that list-members bring to
bear on texts under discussion here. If you did miss it, I cite it below:

- ---------
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 15:10:22 -0500
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Subject: Re: Greek Lang. vs Theology

 (omissions)
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
hereafter.

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.
- -------------------

Now, with regard to Eta Linnemann, I have not read the recent article to
which you have referred, but from your description of it it sounds very
much like the argument set forth at length in her book, _Is There a
Synoptic Problem_, which I have in fact read but which I must say did not
impress me very much. It's not a reasoned argument at all but a lengthy
attack on the motives of all who have ever been involved in the endeavor to
sort out the probabilities of the relationships of the synoptic gospels to
each other. As I read her argument (and I get the impression that what you
have read in the article is very similar), there are only two ways of
looking at the synoptic gospels: the first way is her way and that is THE
Christian way, while the other way is the way of unbelievers whose
fundamental purpose is to undermine the gospel--and if there are would-be
believing supporters of that other way--all that's associated with the
2-document-hypothesis--they are unwitting dupes of the unbelievers. That is
the kind of argument that poisons the waters and makes meaningful
discussion impossible.

As I tried to assert in my above-cited posting of four days ago, the
viewpoints of members participating in this list range all across the
spectrum from non-believers through several shades of liberals and
middle-of-the-road people to various shades of conservatives. Everybody
brings a viewpoint and a set of presuppositions to bear upon Greek texts up
for discussion, but as this is a forum for the discussion of Greek texts of
the Bible--NT and LXX and related extra-biblical texts--and NOT a forum for
the discussion of theology AS SUCH, we try to avoid justifying our
interpretations of a Biblical text solely or primarily on THEOLOGICAL
grounds and attempt to appeal rather to principles of Greek grammar and
what can be known about the historical, cultural, etc., circumstances
bearing upon the text in question.

I think Edward Hobbs said much the same thing in different words in a post
to the list earlier today (subject heading: A.T. Robertson additional).
Wherefore I, for one, although one doesn't need to be exceptionally sharp
to figure out my own place on the theological spectrum, do not see any need
to declare that position whenever I state an opinion on this list.

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: Mark Penner <mark.penner@jemanet.or.jp>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 00:48:00 GMT
Subject: "PAS" W/O THE ARTICLE

11> please reply to this address, as I am not currently subscribed.

I wonder about this. I see his question on the list, and am curious
about what the answer might be, or what discussion or different opinions
it might generate. For those like me who mainly just snoop and learn,
this seems a bit off the mark.  Or maybe its me that's off.

Any thoughts?

Mark

    _______________________________________________________________________
Mark & Mary Esther Penner                        CBInternational
                                                 Tokyo, Japan

 * RM 1.3 02234 * Help stamp out and abolish redundancy!

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

From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date: 
Subject: Re: Granville-Sharp Rule

>Are there many exceptions to the Granville-Sharp rule in the New Testament
>Greek?  Dana and Mantey include this rule on p. 147 under The Special Uses of

You need to look at Dan Wallace's dissertation (Dallas, '95) which is an
exhaustive treatment of G-S (the person and the rule). As stated in D&M it
is not adequately qualified, though G-S himself did provide qualifications.
Wallace's research confirms the rule and refines the statement of it. If
you need the exact diss. title, let me know and I'll get it from my study.
It's also worth reading G-S himself, though his book is not easy to find in
American libraries.

Wallace's intermediate grammar (due, hopefully!, next month from Zondervan)
will have a good discussion at a less technical level (judging based on the
pre-pub draft MS I've used).

Rod

 __________________________________________________________________
|=[]========================== About... ===========================|
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Rodney J. Decker                    Calvary Theological Seminary |
| Asst. Prof./NT                                 15800 Calvary Rd. |
| rdecker@accunet.com                  Kansas City, Missouri 64147 |
|__________________________________________________________________|




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

From: Donald Meadows <s315199@student.uq.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 13:04:21 +1000 (GMT+1000)
Subject: Re: I Timothy 2:15

Some joker at College put me on this list. I didn't. TAKE ME OFF IT. It's 
clogging up my mail. Thanks

S315199@student.uq.edu.au

Thanks.
Donald Meadows

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

End of b-greek-digest V1 #917
*****************************

** 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