b-greek-digest V1 #945
b-greek-digest Friday, 10 November 1995 Volume 01 : Number 945
In this issue:
RE: Jno. 21:15-17
Re: Mark 1:43, EMBRIMHSAMENOS
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 07:33:23 -0500
Subject: Acts 2:1
Is HASAN PANTES of Acts 2:1 refering to the Apostles only or can it be
reasonably expanded to the 120? The nearest antecedent is ENDEKA APOSTOLOWN,
so this is what I have have always taken it to mean.
I am not asking for doctinal positions, but only what the text says.
From: Eric Weiss <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 8:09:01 -30000
I appreciated reading your [Byron T. Bezdek] note admitting your willingness
to abandon the cessationist position and rethink your view of spiritual gifts
based on the statements you read on B-GREEK in response to your question.
I am certainly no theologian, and have only had 1-1/2 years of Greek, so I
can't recommend any really "heavy-duty" treatments of spiritual gifts, etc.
But here are a few unsolicited suggestions:
J. Rodman Williams has written a 3-Volume series called RENEWAL THEOLOGY: A
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY FROM A CHARISMATIC PERSPECTIVE. Williams, now head of
Theology, I believe, at Regent University (formerly CBN University) in
Virginia, was formerly Reformed Presbyterian, so these books are informed
with a good knowledge of church history, doctrine and theology, and being
written at a layman's level are easy to read, with many footnotes and
references to other sources.
John Rea has written a one-volume book on the Holy Spirit which covers both
Old and New Testament. His former LAYMAN'S COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY SPIRIT (of
which this is an update and expansion) is out of print, but was quite good,
again at the layman's level.
Morton Kelsey's TONGUE SPEAKING is I think still one of the best treatments
of the subject, even though it's nearly 30 years old.
Gordon Fee (he's co-author of HOW TO READ THE BIBLE FOR ALL IT'S WORTH), is a
rarity (in his own words): a justifiably respected Greek scholar who is also
Pentecostal. He recently wrote an 800-page book on the place of the Holy
Spirit in Paul's theology and it's been highly praised by even non-
- - Grace and Peace!
From: Jeff Walker <JTWALKER@ualr.edu>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 1995 08:38:16 -0600 (CST)
Subject: RE: Jno. 21:15-17
I am new to this list (first post) so this reply may be too symplistic and
not what you are looking for, but here it is.
On 8 Nov., Eric Vaughan wrote:
>Jesus asks Simon, "AGAPAS ME" But Simon answers, "FILW SE" This happens
>twice and then Jesus finally asks the question Simon had been answering,
>"FILEIS ME;" Is this a deliberate refusal to answer Jesus' question on
>Simon's part (and why) or do you think that John's recount of the story is
>not very careful and this difference has little significance? I understand
>the symbolism of Simon's three confessions of love after denying Christ three
>times, but why would he only half answer Jesus' question? Is the difference
>John's fault or Simon's?
My interpretation/understanding of this passage is that John / Peter chose the
words very carefully. Apart from the symbolism of three confessions of love
after three denials, Peter is here acknowledging that it is not possible for
him to attain the kind of love for Jesus that he had once boldly expressed.
It appears that this is Jesus' way of finally getting through to Peter, and
Peter finally realizing, that he is not supernatural in his faith.
I think it is also important to note here that Jesus is actually asking three
separate questions. First he asks Peter "agapas me" "more than these" (my
interpretation being "more than you love the rest of these"), to which Peter
replies that he loves Jesus more than the others but that he cannot rise to
the higher level of love. Next, Jesus appears to focus on the kind of love
that Peter has for him. He asks again "agapas me" to which Peter responds
honestly "filsw se", that he no longer feels that his love rises to the
higher level. Finally Jesus ask "fileis me" which I take as "do you
really love me even at this level or are you overstating your love again", to
which Peter replies emphatically that he is at least sure of this level of
Hope this helps. Please direct all flames and/or comments to JTWALKER@UALR.EDU.
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <email@example.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 15:31:36 -0600
Subject: Re: Mark 1:43, EMBRIMHSAMENOS
I've finally had time to look at this (from the inactivity on the list, I
would guess it must have been a pretty busy week for everybody!) and will
offer a couple suggestions on this interesting question.
At 2:39 PM 11/7/95, Edgar M. Krentz wrote:
>An interesting queestion came up in an elective today: How do you translate
>the EMBRIMHSAMENOS in Mark 1:43? The verb, says Swete _ad loc_, means to
>speak or act sternly,but without the idea of anger being inherent in the
>term. And the term EXEBALEN is also strong. BAGD suggests "warn sternly."
>Matt 8:4 does not have the term.
For what it's worth, the active root-element in this word is *BRI with a
fundamental sense of "weight, so that the fundamental sense of EMBRIMAOMAI
is "to act with intensity." This would not necessarily imply anger, but it
>BAGD says that there is an expression of anger in Lucian's _Necyomant. 20
>and Pseudo-Libanius, Declam. 40. In La 2:6 LXX the term with the dative of
>the person means to scold or censure. Outside of Mark 1:43 you find the
>term in Mark 14:5, Matt 9:30 in Jesus' speech to the two blind men, and in
>John 11:38: EMBRIMWMENOS EN hEAUTWi.
>The question is complicated by the context, since v.41 sys that Jesus had
>pity on the man (SPLAGXNISQEIS). The western text tradition, representedby
>Codex D and the Latin MSS a ff2 r1 reprent both one Old Latin and two Vg
>Mss reads ORGISQEIS instead of EMBRIMIHSAMENOS, apparently to remove the
>conflict with v. 43.
>Must one psychologize Jesus and or the leper in this narrative?
>I will be interested in reading suggestions for the precise translation of
>this term in each of the four passages listed above--and in seeing how a
>common thread runs through these translations.
I don't know about psychologizing Jesus, but I rather suspect that we have
to see psychologizing in the narrator's intent. In Mk 1:45 and in Mt 9:30
we have parallel or analogous "Messianic Secret" motifs: in each instance
the leper/blind man is given a strict charge not to say anything to anyone
about the healing, and in each instance the leper/blind man goes out and
blurts out publicly the news of his cure. It seems to me, therefore, that
the point in the verb here is indeed "stern warning" or "strict
charge"--not anger, and the compassion is real--but Jesus in both instances
wants to retain control and prevent publication of the event, and therefore
he puts emphasis in his vocal expression to make clear that the persons to
whom he speaks keep the matter hushed.
So I think I'd say for Mk 1:42 (KAI EMBRIMHSAMENOS AUTWi EUQUS EKSEBALEN
AUTON): "And speaking emphatically to him, he sent him away, (44) and said
to him, 'Don't say anything to anyone,' but ..."
Mt 9:30 (KAI EMBRIMHQH AUTOIS hO IHSOUS LEGWN: hORATE MHDEIS GINWSKETW):
"And Jesus told them expressly, 'Make sure that nobody knows ...'"
Mk 14:5 is different in that the disciples are incensed at the woman who
has poured the oil on Jesus (KAI ENEBRIMWNTO AUTHi): "And they expressed to
her their outrage."
Jn 11:38 is again different; it may be that Jesus is angry at those who say
that he could have prevented the death of Lazarus, given that context for
what has immediately preceded the verse, but my own guess is more that
Jesus here is expressing silently to himself his deep emotions over the
death of Lazarus. I'd translate (IHSOUS OUN PALIN EMBRIMWMENOS EN hEAUTWi
ERXETAI EIS TO MNHMEION ...) "So Jesus once again, displaying his deep
inner distress, went to the tomb ..."
Or, if one prefers to interpret the emotion as anger at the mutterers, we
could make it, "So Jesus once again, containing his indignation, went to
the tomb ..."
I think that it's the Johannine passage that's the most difficult of these.
Anyone else care to take a stab?
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: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 00:38:43 -0500
Subject: Romans 5:1-6
NOTE Romans 5:1. Is DIA TOU KURIOU...a (genitive of source)
making here in context 'IHSOU CHRISTOU the source of the EIRHNHN?
NOTE Romans 5:5 . Is, then, DIA PNEUMATOS HAGIOU also
the source of H AGAPH TOU THEOU?
NOTE Romans 5:6. Does ASTHENWN inherently only have the idea
of moral failure? The UBS dictionary defines it simply as "weakness."
There is also a sense in which Jesus' dying is thought of as weakness
and his death is stated in this verse.
End of b-greek-digest V1 #945
** 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: