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

b-greek-digest V1 #122




b-greek-digest          Wednesday, 21 February 1996    Volume 01 : Number 122

In this issue:

        Re: Physical Models in the NT (Something from Nothing) 
        Re: Physical Models in the NT (Something from Nothing) 
        Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)
        Re: Matthew 24:30
        Re: Matthew 24:30
        Re: Physical Models in the NT (Something from Nothing) 
        Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)

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

From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 14:51:43 -0600
Subject: Re: Physical Models in the NT (Something from Nothing) 

Yes, Carl, this is exactly what I am talking about.

Carl W. Conrad writes:

>I would like to see if it's possible to draw the distinction
>between what is affirmed or thought to be affirmed in the theological
>doctrine, on the one hand, and the "scientific" model or hypothesis in
>terms of which a doctrine of creation or generation is formulated.

Yes. This is absolutely essential to get to the bottom of this, although
obviously there may well be theological implications.

>So, in the first place, what does the doctrine of CREATIO EX NIHILO really
>mean in theological terms? It seems to me that it means fundamentally that
>there is no creation or generation of entities that is independent of God's
>intention and will.

I think it is also important to distinguish between God and Jesus in this
regard, and whether one means only in the beginning or on a continuous
basis. I would read your statement as meaning God's continual participation
is required for generation, leaving Logos as the instrument of its
participation - the proper Greek roles.

>And IF I understand Aristotle rightly, one may use the term DUNAMIS,
"potentiality," or "possibility" also for this substrate.

This is also my understanding.

>--and if God as creator, to return to the Jewish and Christian
>conceptual sphere, is radically different from that which he creates--the
>creature is not, in any sense whatsoever, identical with God--the the
>creature must be generated out of a substrate that has some metaphysical
>status--while nevertheless neither identical with God nor opposed to God as
>a dualistic counter-force.

Yes, I hadn't thought of it this way. And so, the Logos is required to mediate
the interaction of the divine (God) and the mundane (prime matter), which
are radically different. It does so by partaking of the nature of both, just as
a soap molecule contains both a hydrophilic and a hydrophophic section to
mediate the rinsing away of oil by water.  By the same coin, one cannot be
all of two substances. Thus, Arianism postulates a semi-divine Jesus, because
if one is all of a single substance one cannot interact directly with a foreign
substance, and certainly cannot mediate between two substances. (Inter-
estingly, modern physics still postulates intermediary carriers of forces, e.g.
photons and gravitons, which can be described as either particles or waves
- - two substances. so, the ancient mystery persists.)

>the universe as an animal, a conception surviving in fact
>even in Lucretius's so-called materialism which postulates a qualitative
>distinction between atoms of "soul" and ordinary atoms, and which
>(presumably as a dead metaphor) terms the atoms themselves as SPERMATA,
>"seeds."

I'm not sure how you mean dead metaphor and I don't know Lucretius, but
atomistic theories still had to account for form, which they did by postulating
that the seeds of things were somehow present in the atoms. So, the least
susbtantial atoms were chosen as the carriers of form; because, they could
permeate the creature, animating it. Their inability to conceive of form other-
wise is one reason that weren't able to go on to a modern theory of
generation. Although it was postulated early on (Epicurus?) that atoms had
hooks (bonds), no one hazards the leap away from form as some sort of
independent entity. This remains with us today - our immortal souls. And, all
change was conceived as successive forms, as in Aristotle.

Regards,

Will



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

From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 15:10:14 -0600
Subject: Re: Physical Models in the NT (Something from Nothing) 

David L. Moore (I am forever confusing you with David Meadows) writes:

>        First, it seems precarious to ascribe Platonistic thought to Paul
>whereas his writings show very little influence of the sort.  One might
>make a better case for the writer of Hebrews along this line, but, even
>in his case, one would be hard put to show that Platonism provides more
>than cultural window dressing for the message of the Gospel. That is to
>say, the Gospel message, with its Hebrew roots, is presented in a way
>that is culturally acceptable to the writer's Helenized audience.

1. It is not necessary to characterize Paul as a Platonist. The Standard
Model is ubiquitous in the ancient world. It was common knowledge.
We are not looking for direct influence, as in Paul reading Plato. We
are looking for the influence of the paradigm which Plato and Paul
shared. The mere fact that Paul used the Septuagint as a resource might
account for some of the carryover. Paul was obviously aware of the
general philosophical currents of the time, because he had to do battle
with them to win over churches. Did Paul have access to Jn 1? And, there
is considerable philosophical baggage built into the use of the Greek
language: this might create some correspondence to the model in a
passive manner.

2. The nature of a paradigm is not "cultural window dressing". To the
contrary, it is the most fundamental building block of understanding and
analysis of a culture. It incorporates the scientific, mythological, and
philosophical assumptions of the times as understood by the culture as
a whole. It is rather like the "mind" of the culture. It is the structure
which makes communication possible through shared imagery and common
analogies. It is the most fundamental unit of meaning, conditioning all
expressions of that culture. It is the very thing which is missing when
we go to make translations - the context. Modern writings cannot be
fully understood without reference to the modern paradigm of evolution,
for example. The Standard Model begins in pre-history and persists
today in Christianism, Judaism, and Islamism.

3. The audience for the Gospel message was not Hebrew, but Hellasian.
Greek was the philosophical, scientific, and theological lingua franca.
One learned Greek my copying or transcribing Greek texts, often
philosophical. Paul may or may not have written in Greek, but his target
audience certainly did.

4. I would argue that the Gospel message has Greek roots, rather than
Hebrew, which I view is grafted on.

5. To the degree that Paul "packaged" his message for Hellasian audiences,
this might account for some of the correspondences with the model. And,
Paul himself is Hellenized. Nevertheless, we are not talking about some
missionary in Upper Volta localizing his message, we are talking about the NT.

>        Second, can we really assume that 1st-Century believers (and
>specifically the apostles) took their cosmology from the science and
>Pagan philosophy current in their day?

We need not assume that "1st-Century believers (and specifically the
apostles) took their cosmology from the science and Pagan philosophy
current in their day", although, if one is to going to assume, that is the
obvious choice. I think the burden of proof would fall naturally on the
shoulders of anyone who opposes the assumption. You can assume that
people don't grow up in a vacuum, especially in times which were even
more tradition-bound than our own. Even those who escape tradition
are deeply marked: their very rebellion is defined in terms of the pole
from which they differentiate themselves. But, I suggest that we examine
the evidence instead.

>        What we would really need to get at the biblical view on this
>matter is a good exegesis of Gen. 1:1.  Maybe someone can get that going
>on b-hebrew.

I, also, would like to see a discussion on B-HEBREW. The model is present in
Gn 1:1, where it is certainly not due to the influence of Plato.

Regards,

Will



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

From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 15:42:25 -0600
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)

On 2/20/96, David Moore wrote:

>         What we would really need to get at the biblical view on this
> matter is a good exegesis of Gen. 1:1.  Maybe someone can get that going
> on b-hebrew.

I'm not sure this would really settle matters, as there are sufficient
grounds for understanding the text of Genesis 1:1 in terms of a
pre-existent chaos or "matter" (TOHU W'BOHU) shaped by the creator into a
cosmos. The question Will raises is really (I think?) WHEN the doctrine of
CREATIO EX NIHILO really emerges and whether it is in fact implicit in NT
texts.

Another reason is that it may not be a matter of how the Hebrew text was
understood but rather of how the LXX of Genesis 1 was understood. For that
we have ready to hand Philo's treatise De Opificio Mundi, to which I've
made reference before. Even any antecedents of the Logos doctrine are
likely to be found in those very Wisdom texts most (even if not all) of
which come from Alexandria and Hellenistic Judaism.

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: Russ Reeves <russr@pe.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 13:59:18 +0000
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:30

Alan Repurk <lars@repurk.mw.com> wrote:

>  Certainly the tribulation that occured in 70 CE would not have fit
> fit the description in Mt 24:21. Therefore it would seem that even if
> those readers did not understand the full significance of what they
> were hearing, this prophecy would be understood by those for whom it
> was written in due time.
> 
> Mt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since
> the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. (AV)

This makes sense, unless we understand the phrase "such as was not 
since the beginning... nor ever shall be..." as a Hebraism.  At the 
Passover, there was a cry in Egypt "such as was not like it before, 
not shall be like it again." (Exodus 11:6).  In Ezekiel 5:9, God says 
he will do to Jerusalem "what I have never done, and the like of 
which I will never do again."  In Daniel 9 (which Matthew 24 seems to 
allude to), verse 12,  it says "under the whole heaven such has never 
been done as what has been done to Jerusalem."  It's also interesting 
that Hezekiah was considered such a good king that "after him there 
was none like him among all the kings of Judah, not among those who 
were before him" (2 Kings 18:5).  But after him, Josiah was such a 
good king that "before him there was no king like him who turned to 
the Lord... not did any like arise after him" (2 Kings 23:25).  And 
before both of them was Solomon, of whom God said "there has been no 
one like you before you, not shall one like you arise after you" (1 
Kings 3:12).  Also see Joel 2:2, and 1 Maccabees 9:27.

Russ Reeves
russr@pe.net

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

From: Russ Reeves <russr@pe.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 21:21:51 +0000
Subject: Re: Matthew 24:30

On 19 Feb 96, Carl W. Conrad wrote:

> I suppose that "county" is a typo for "country" and that the Dictionary is
> not really limiting the "earth" to a single "county."

Yes, it was my typo.

> You are right--that Zech 12:10-14 in the LXII does clearly refer to the
> tribes of Israel. But the text, which does indeed specify tribes of Israel
> by name, reads very differently from the phrasing of Mt. 24:30, and in the
> light of Mt 24:31, KAI APOSTELEI TOUS AGGELOUS AUTOU META SALPIGGOS
> MEGALHS, KAI EPISUNACOUSIN TOUS EKLEKTOUS AUTOU EK TWN TESSARWN ANEMWN AP'
> AKRWN OURANWN hEWS AKRWN AUTWN, although I suppose one could argue that
> "the elect" are Jews alone in this passage, it certainly likes like a
> cosmic phenomenon.

Verse 31 is at the close of the section, so I don't think it
necessarily has to be fulfilled by 70 AD (within my interpretation).
 Couldn't TOUS ANGELOUS could refer to human messengers spreading
the gospel thoughout the earth after 70 AD (or the continued process
since Pentecost)?

(snipping some comments...)
> earth. Moreover, in view of the by-no-means-uncommon NT reading of OT
> prophecies in a manner bearing no relationship whatsoever to their original
> context and probable purpose, I think one should be cautious about assuming
> the verses are used in their original OT sense.

But the disciples certainly would recognize these as allusions to the
OT.  I think that since 24:30 could be understood as either "tribes
of the land" or as "nations of the earth," with no clear grammatical
reason (that I know of) to prefer one over the other, the OT allusion
can provide an indication of how the original hearers and readers
would have understood it.  On its own, it seems that much of the
language in Matthew 24 indicates cosmic fulfillment (stars falling,
Son of Man appearing, a tribulation as has never been seen before
and never again, etc.)  But so many of these are allusions to the OT 
and use of OT phrases that would work well within the 70 AD 
timeframe, I think it is safe to understand Matthew 24:31 in the same 
way.

> Well, there has been discussion on this list about an earlier dating of
> Revelation than the erstwhile assumption that it dates from the time of
> Domitian, so perhaps it does look forward to the events of the sack of
> Jerusalem; certainly it looks forward to a consummation "soon"--although
> what that means has been subject to debate for centuries. But would you
> hold that the events of the year 70 constitute a fulfilment of all that is
> prophesied in the book of Revelation?

I'm still working though Matthew 24; Revelation is next.  I don't 
think that all of Revelation could handle a 70 AD fulfillment, though 
some of it could.

Thank you for the comments,

Russ Reeves
russr@pe.net

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

From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 22:44:36 -0600
Subject: Re: Physical Models in the NT (Something from Nothing) 

For those who are following the Creatio ex nihilo thread and are
interested in the same subject in the OT. It has begun synchronistically
(Tue, 20 Feb 96 10:04:02 EST) on B-HEBREW with the following cry for help:

>What can you tell me about genesis 1:1. I'm especialy interested
in deeper meaning of the words in it. Please help me.

Bartosz Maslanka



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

From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 23:59:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Summary: Something from Nothing (longish)

On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, Carl W. Conrad wrote:

> On 2/20/96, David Moore wrote:
> 
> >         What we would really need to get at the biblical view on this
> > matter is a good exegesis of Gen. 1:1.  Maybe someone can get that going
> > on b-hebrew.
> 
> I'm not sure this would really settle matters, as there are sufficient
> grounds for understanding the text of Genesis 1:1 in terms of a
> pre-existent chaos or "matter" (TOHU W'BOHU) shaped by the creator into a
> cosmos. The question Will raises is really (I think?) WHEN the doctrine of
> CREATIO EX NIHILO really emerges and whether it is in fact implicit in NT
> texts.

	It looks as though one would practically have to torture the
Hebrew to get it to say anything very far from, "In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth."  I suspect that the interpretation,
"In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth..." would
depend more on the interpreter's presuppositions than on the Hebrew.  The
waw at the beginning of v. 2 pretty much rules out v. 1's being a general
title of the section, and it (the waw) falls very unnaturally between the
temporal prepositional phrase and the rest of the sentence if we are to
understand, "In the beginning of God's creating...." 
 
> Another reason is that it may not be a matter of how the Hebrew text was
> understood but rather of how the LXX of Genesis 1 was understood. For that
> we have ready to hand Philo's treatise De Opificio Mundi, to which I've
> made reference before. Even any antecedents of the Logos doctrine are
> likely to be found in those very Wisdom texts most (even if not all) of
> which come from Alexandria and Hellenistic Judaism.

	The LXX supports taking the first verse of Genesis as a sentence
unto itself.  And most of the other textual and exegetical evidence seems
to point in that direction, so why look for any other *emergence* of the
idea of CREATIO EX NIHILO?  If Gen. 1:1 is taken in the most
straightforward manner, what we should be asking is why other ways of
interpreting this passage emerged that drew on the Greek philosophical
idea of preexisting material.  See, for instance, Josephus's explanation
of the creation at the beginning of Antiquities (Ant. I:27) in which he
(like Aquila in the 2nd Century) supplies EKTISEN in place of the LXX's
EPOIHSEN. 


David L. Moore                             Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida                               of the  Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us           Department of Education
http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore



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

End of b-greek-digest V1 #122
*****************************

** 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