Fw: Development of Greek Terms in the NT

kentdclarke at hotmail.com kentdclarke at hotmail.com
Mon Sep 23 13:40:31 EDT 2002


I'm not sure my response got through as I may have posted these personally
rather than to the list as a whole. My apologies for any inconvenience Mark.

Kent
----- Original Message -----
Wrom: EGAUTFJMVRESKPNKMBIPBARHDMNNSKVFVWRKJVZCMHVIBGDA
To: "Mark Wilson" <emory2oo2 at hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [b-greek] Development of Greek Terms in the NT


> Dear Mark:
>
>  Thank you for your response. You wrote:
>
> > On just about every page of the GNT words are propelled to
> > far greater heights than they ever attained in secular Greek.
>
> I guess I'm not as inclined as you are to make this broad of an assertion
> (and I make that statement in complete respect for you and your opinion).
> While it is certainly true that Christianity preached a new EUAGGELION,
> which pertained to both hO KURIOS as well as the UIOS QEOU (among other
> titles), I find it interesting that there are earlier precedents for such
> phrases in, for example, ancient literature discussing the Roman Emperor
> Augustus (27 BC-14 AD; where EUAGGELION is used to refer to the day
Augustus
> was born and UIOS QEOU is also ascribed to the Emperor). Further examples
> can be found in the Greek Mystery Religions, as well as in Julius Caesar
> (where hO KURIOS may well be used in the sense of "savior of the world").
> While certainly in a spiritual sense I would hesitate far less with your
> statement (especially as one who would claim to be of evangelical
> persuation), I'm not sure such assertions are helpful when discussing the
> development of the Greek language from an academic point of view.
>
> > Can you think of any instance where LOGOS was used of a guy
> > (from Galilee)
>
> Actually, without taking anything away from the use of LOGOS in the New
> Testament, Plato's much earlier development and use of it is, in my
opinion,
> very profound. In fact, there is some merrit in the idea that, and again
in
> my opinion, the New Testament's development of its "logos theology"
> (particularly in the Gospel of John, but in other writers as well) owes
> something to Plato (as also seems evident from discussions among a number
of
> the early church fathers).
>
> > I think you might want to reformulate your question so as
> > to zero in on what you are after.
>
> I think that both Al Lukaszewski and Danny Andre'Dixon (thank you to both
> for their helpful responces) caught the "spirit" of my question.
>
> >The words used where in currency
> > but surely not with the same depth of meaning.
>
> Again, while this is perhaps true in more of a spiritual sense, I find
> myself hesitant to join in and make such a sweeping statement. While I
> certainly believe that the gospel of Christ is the most profound message
> ever given to humanity, such a statement does little to help one
critically
> (critical in a positive sense) assess the origins and development, not
only
> of the Greek language and syntax, but even more broadly of other profound
> (note that I did not say "equally profound"--although others may well
assert
> such) philosophical positions both prior to and following the birth of
> Christianity. In fact, because such broad statements tend to marginalise
> these other philosophies with the label "worldly" or some other such
> connotation, they also seem seem to encourage the abandonment of the
pursuit
> of any other knowledge or wisdom (simply because they appear to assert
that
> "nothing can be as profound as Christianity"). While nothing may be as
> profound as Christianity, I for one want to be open to other positions,
> opinions, and points of view--to "understand" these views that are perhpas
> discordant from my own, does not necessite "belief" in them.
>
> > After all, the Apostle Paul and others had a NEW message.
>
> They certainly did have a NEW message, but perhaps it made such a poignant
> impact upon the Greco-Roman World because of the very fact that there was
an
> earlier pre-Christian understanding to the numerous terms and titles
> ascribed initially to other historical figures but then later ascribed to
> Christ himself. When the author of Mark has the Roman centurion refering
to
> Jesus as "the Son of God" (cf. Mark 15:39); what makes this even more
> impressive, to me anyway, is the very possibility that the centurion had
in
> his mind some pre-Christian concept of who or what the "Son of God" was.
> However, upon seeing the manner in which Christ died and those things that
> accompanied this death, the centurion then asserts that, regardless of any
> past conceptions he may have had, "Here, trully, is the REAL Son of
God...."
> Could this assertion have been as poignantly made had the centurion had no
> earlier conception of what the "Son of God" was? And if, by chance (and I
> realise I may be stretching it a little here) the centurion understood
this
> phrase in the context of Roman Emperor worship; what a remarkably profound
> statement he is actually making! "This Jesus Christ, as oppossed to the
> Emperors, is trully the Son of God."
>
> Kind Regards;
>
> Kent D. Clarke (Ph.D. Bristol)
> Assistant Professor of Religious Studies
> Trinity Western University
> 7600 Glover Road
> Langley, British Columbia
> Canada
> V2Y 1Y1
>



More information about the B-Greek mailing list