[B-Greek] First Corinthians 14:18
Jason Hare
jason at hareplay.com
Wed Sep 24 13:26:32 EDT 2003
> I don't have too much of a problem with LALEIN GLWSSHi/GLWSSAIS "referring
> to a religious phenomenon rather than to languages of human culture". We
> have references in Acts 2 where it clearly refers to human languages and
> other references which talk about GLWSSAIS TWN ANQRWPWN KAI TWN AGGELWN.
So
> I would say the term is broad enough to cover both possibilities. What I
> reacted against was only the term "ecstatic" which I cannot find any
support
> for in the Greek text of the NT anywhere. I only hear that term from
certain
> theological quarters (that I strongly disagree with).
Iver, don't you think that strong disagreement with a doctrinal aspect is
the same as asserting a doctrinal position on the list? We both know that
Carl isn't trying to win people over to a religious perspective (as Mark has
stated). Why not keep the list separate from both "I think this is the true
spiritual understanding" and "I think this spiritual/religious understanding
is wrong and bad"? ;-) (Let's not run any further with this, please.)
> I am dismayed that the
> NEB and REB put that word into their translation of 14:19 and thereby
> imposed their theology on the text. Luckily no other translation has done
> this as far as I know. And of course, the meaning of the English word
> "ecstatic" is not the same as the Greek word EKSTASIS.
Completely agreed. "Ecstatic" doesn't belong in the meaning of the term.
> My friend Mark Wilson seems to not take into account that the term is a
> religious technical term in the GNT as "speaking in tongues" is in
English.
> I can understand his "venting" because I know we disagree in theology. In
> the Greek text sometimes a plural is used as in 14:18, sometimes a
singular
> as in 14:19. The plural may well mean that the term can potentially cover
> speaking in a number of different "languages", but that is not what MALLON
> in Cor 14:18-19 refers to, and that was the original question. The Greek
> text must mean (a) "speak more in tongues than you all" rather than (b)
> "speak in more tongues than you all". This is confirmed by ALL English
> translations. None of them say (b), but all say (a) in some form or
another.
> Whether one wants to keep the word "tongues" or try to explain by saying
"a
> language/languages unknown to the speaker" is a translation question.
I think that most people who have commented on this thread seem to be in
agreement. These texts are historically hard to discuss without theological
venting. However, I think that we are all quite capable of maintaining
self-control on both sides. IMO, it should be rather clear that MALLON
modifies the *verb* and not the noun. That's just how the language
functions. Take Carl's statement into account from this thread:
> "Speak in more languages" would have to be PLEIOSI(N) GLWSSAIS LALW.
Have we not gone as far as we can on this subject? Those who disagree will
continue to disagree, but the evidence supports the position that MALLON
does not refer to "more languages" in this passage. I think the issue is
settled, personally. ;-)
Blessings,
Jason
Missouri Southern State University
student of languages
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list