[B-Greek] Biblical Greek question

Robert J. Fuller, Jr. rjfuller at newulmtel.net
Wed Oct 20 18:20:23 EDT 2004


Wry,

I will study your post again.  And your further elaboration.

One thing that caught me was your reference to the locations in Mark and 
Ephesians.  Unless I miss your point, there could have been no hidden 
cross-referencing from writer to reader.  There was no versification in the 
original.  Now, I suppose you could argue the point for the editor who put 
them in, 1500 years later, but that removes the hidden/deeper message from 
the intended message of the writer and his readers.

As for the variations within lexical meaning for given words, that hardly 
constitutes cross-referencing, as I understand you to be using the term. 
There are instances where terms are used to indicate another, such as 
Peter's use of Babylon for Jerusalem.  But that is made clear in the 
context.

I can accept the usage of figures of speech of all types in Scripture.  But 
I do not believe that the text of the NT was a kabalistic text, full of 
mystical allusions known only to the few who knew the vocabulary.  But, 
maybe I have once again written harshly.

I look forward to reading your next post on this subject.

Bob Fuller
New Ulm, MN

Always Forward >> Philippians 3:13,14
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "wry" <wry1111 at earthlink.net>
To: "Robert J. Fuller, Jr." <rjfuller at newulmtel.net>; "B-Greek List" 
<B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Biblical Greek question


> Hi. This is Wry. I was perfectly serious when I wrote the below message
> (Sorry about the formatting,  which probably made it harder to understand,
> but it was formatted properly when I sent it, and somehow the formatting 
> get
> screwed up. Hope it does not happen this time.See my responses below.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert J. Fuller, Jr." <rjfuller at newulmtel.net>
> To: "B-Greek List" <B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 10:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Biblical Greek question
>
>
>> I am struggling to determine if we are to take this post seriously, or as
> a
>> very clever hoax.
> ----
> Well, it is not a hoax, and was written with much sincerity, but at least
> you think
> it is "very clever" and not just ordinary clever.
> --------
> I guess it is possible for a written communication to
>> mean one thing to the writer and another to the reader, but I think we
> would
>> then conclude that the writer either could not communicate, or chose not
> to
>> communicate clearly.
> -------
> Or perhaps you do not understand something or other--yet. You really do
> have an option of going into my communication and asking me to clarify
> any part you do not understand, and I would have been and still  would be
> glad to do so.
> ------
> Either of these would seem to indicate that we have no
>> way of knowing what the writer was writing about.
>>
>> That leaves my head swimming.
> -------
> Did you ever try to ponder something you do not understand? Maybe
> if you read it two more times you will understand it better later. My
> message was not so much about the meaning of either of the two passages,
> but about why the use of a similar word root  may have been intended to
> convey a
> cross-referencing from one passage of the New Testament to another, and 
> was
> not
> merely coincidental. After reading (some) of the messages on here, it
> occured to me
> that (some) of the writers on here may have little idea of some of the
> devices which
> biblical writers used to convey hidden meaning and cross-reference from 
> one
> passage
> to another. At the same time I tried to put in some useful ideas that may
> help others
> to discover a deeper meaning in reading biblical writings. The use of word
> roots plays
> into all of this, and when working with an ancient language which we may 
> not
> have certain details about, it is good to take a broader view, as this 
> helps
> to put the choice of words in context. Without a knowledge of the
> possibility of cross-referencing and how it is sometimes done, the
> similarity bertween the two words, that of two roads converging or of an
> inner courtyard surrounded by roads  and that of the word "both" will be
> taken  as being of no significance, but that may not necessarily be true.
> -------------
>>
>> Either the original readers understood the message of the written word, 
>> in
>> which case we can as well, or they did not, in which case -- we are at 
>> sea
>> in a storm of unsubstantiated guesses and personal ignorance.
> ---------
> I hear you you, but such is actually not necessarily the case. My
> introductory
> message. which I have yet to finish and send. goes into great detail on 
> the
> subject
> of interpretation, itself, so when I am able to finish that message and 
> send
> it
> tonight or tomorrow, maybe you will find an explanation to some of your
> puzzlement.. I  was ill when I wrote the message to which you have
> responded,
> but still able to sit up, and I wrote on that subject first, as it caught 
> my
> interest
> and engaged me, and I was quite not up to finishing and proof-reading a
> message I had
> previously begun.I have to go to work now, even though I am still not
> feeling well,
> but will mail the other message on interpretation tonight or tomorrow. In 
> my
> opinion, different people intererpret the same material from different
> perspectives
> and different levels of understanding, all of which is subjective. You are
> making a
> simplisitic assumption that the writers of the New Testament did not know
> this and
> did not deliberately design their material in such a way that took this 
> into
> account.
> Anyway, I am surprised at your response, but just because you did not
> receive
> anything from my message does not mean that no one else received anything,
> either..
> --------.
> .
>>
>> That leaves me hoping for something more.
> --------
> Well, I believe it is immoral to interpret meaning for others, beyond a
> certain degree.
> as this leads not only (to false) authority, but perpetrates human 
> ignorance
> at the same
> time, as it it robs another of a possibility to develop his own abilility 
> to
> process symbolic material actively and reatively, as well ascoherently).
> Please wait until you read my introductory on the passgage in 1Corinthians
> and the use of the word EITE before you
> judge me any further.
> --------
>>
>> We cannot find meaning where there is no fixed reference.
> --------
> There is plently of fixed reference in my message, but it is contextual 
> and
> circumstancial.
> This does not mean that it carries no weight and is of no value. I do not
> know too much
> about how the average ancient Greek used language,  but for many different
> reasons, one can come to the conclusion, that he approached a subject from
> many different angles
> and did not look for a quick fix or an easy answer in the way people do
> today. Some things
> you cannot say, only show or demonstrate, much as the word "amphoden"
> suggests a courtyard created by many roads, but could also, in another 
> way,
> perhaps be viewed as a kind of intersection. The fact is that sometimes
> there is no real intersection or definitive
> answer in the realm of making an interpretation, but a combination and
> arrangement of many passages lead one into the center quarter of a city. 
> One
> could, I guess make a weak case, that all of this is not pertinent to
> understanding the contextuals meanings conveyed by the use of certain
> wording of ancient Greek language in the New Testament, but I believe I 
> can
> make a very strong case to the contrary.
>
> Regarding the meaning of the word, colt, and of animals symbolizing 
> abstract
> qualities to
> the ancient Greeks, of the employment of gematria (what little I know of 
> it)
> and cross-referencing to other passages by the use of the numbering of
> verses and even numbers referred to within verses and the uses of punning
> with word roots to convey meaning, perhaps I will write more on all of 
> this
> sometime in the future in such a way as to point to a possible
> interpretation of the symbol of the colt, among other things. In the
> meantime, what you have done in this message you have written is exactly
> what you are accusing me of doing, except you have actually done what you
> are accusing me of,  and I have not, but this is the way of the world. You
> have been totally unspecific and given no reference points at all, nor 
> have
> you asked me any questions. If you want to write another message with
> specifics questions interesected into the text of this or my previous
> message, I would be glad to anwer. In the meantime, you are pouring from 
> the
> empty into the void. I will not say if I consider this to be ignorant or
> not, but let each (both) decide for himself at his own inner-crossroad and
> see if his decision is limiting or binding..  Sincerely, Wry
>
>>
>>
>> Bob Fuller
>>
>> Always Forward >> Philippians 3:13,14
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "wry" <wry1111 at earthlink.net>
>> To: <adrian at spudazo.org>; <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 11:30 AM
>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Biblical Greek question
>>
>>
>> > Hi. This is my first message to this list. I am still writing a 
>> > response
>> > to
>> > a different message, which I intended to be first, so in that one I 
>> > will
>> > introduce myself.. Though I did take a beginning course in college many
>> > years ago,
>> > I do not know much of anything about the ancient Greek language, and I
> may
>> > very
>> > well be wrong in anything I say, so would appreciate any kind of
> feedback
>> > and
>> > correction. My personal interest  is to study the various devices by
> which
>> > meaning is covertly communicated in spiritual writings and works of 
>> > art,
>> > etc. As many of you probably are aware, one of the main ways such
>> > meaning is communicated is by use of similar consonant bases, and
> another
>> > is by the device of the numbering of passages. Cross-referencing is
>> > done in this way from the New Testament to the Old and there is no
> reason
>> > to
>> > assume that writers of the New Testament did not cross-reference in 
>> > such
> a
>> > way to the works of each other, assuming some of this material was
> wrtten
>> > previously and the writers of subsequent material had access to it and
>> > believed that (some of) their readership would have access to both 
>> > texts
>> > and
>> > a knowledge of the different devices they were using to make such
>> > indications..
>> >
>> > One thing worth noting is that any ordinary reader would not 
>> > necessarily
>> > know
>> > how to access material in this way, as, to a degree, one would need to
> be
>> > in
>> > some way clued-in as to how to do this, and then, as he practiced
>> > interpretating
>> > material in this manner, he would gain expertise, so do not necessarily
>> > make
>> > the assumption that everything written is intended for everyone to
>> > understand
>> > in the same way,  as this assumption can throw you off in making a more
>> > sophisticated interpretation, as people receive from certain material
>> > according to their understanding and like tends to acrue to like, so if
>> > you
>> > assume
>> > that because the common man would not grasp certain subtle nuances that
>> > are
>> > conveyed by making a deliberate similarity of consonant bases in an
>> > efffort
>> > to
>> > indicate across referencing or to convey a certain subtle meaning, you
>> > will
>> > limit
>> > yourself in taking the kind of creative leap that is necessary to 
>> > bridge
> a
>> > certain
>> > gap in formatory communication. .
>> >
>> > It seems to me that there are at least two reasons to assume that one 
>> > of
>> > these writers was familiar with the writing of the other and
> deliberately
>> > correlated his material to that which was previous and intended the
> reader
>> > (a certain small portion of the reading audience)  to do the same; the
>> > first
>> > indication is the similarity in the numbering of the two passages. Mark
>> > 11-4,
>> > which suggests both the number 14 and also the number 2 (11) can be
>> > somewhat
>> > easily correlated with Ephesians 2-14.  (I am not that familiar with
> what
>> > is
>> > called
>> > Gematria, but I know a kind of numerical addition was often used in
>> > ancient
>> > Greece as a way of covert communication), and secondly, both of these
>> > passages are obviously in reference to the same subject . To get a
> better
>> > understanding of this, it would be interesting to try to interpret the
>> > meaning of
>> > the colt. (young horse).  I do not know if any here are familar with 
>> > the
>> > use
>> > of animals as symbols for abstract qualities, but for ancient people of
>> > Egypt
>> > and Greece, as well as those of other cultures, it was very common to
> use
>> > animals as symbols. In any case, in both instances, the writers are
>> > speaking
>> > of some kind of convergence at a juncture, and the similarity in
> meaning
>> > is not a matter of the imagination, but striking,  so one could almost
>> > assume
>> > that the choice of a similar consonant base was intentional. Of course
> not
>> > all readers would be aware of this, but if someone was specifically on
> the
>> > lookout for this type of communication, this would be another 
>> > indication
>> > that one of these writers was deliberately cross-referencing to the
> other.
>> > Finding the  use of a similar word root in this instance is sort of 
>> > like
>> > running a math problem backwards to cross-check a previous solution,
>> > but in this case, the common root becomes an indication of a correct
>> > solution when looked at in combination with other indications. Alone, 
>> > it
>> > would not be meaningful,. but when correlated with the similarity in
>> > numbering and in the similarity of content of the two passages, it 
>> > takes
>> > on a new significance. The first time one sees this kind of set-up and
>> > begins to suspect it is a case of covert communication, perhaps the
>> > evidence does not seem to make a complete case for the conclusion
>> > that there actually is intended such a communication, but when one
>> > begin to regognize the use of this kind of devices and certain
>> > combinations
>> > of such devices time and time again, one begins to get a surer taste 
>> > for
>> > it.
>> > See below for a further comments..
>> > .
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Adrian Standeven" <ac.standeven at ntlworld.com>
>> > To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 4:36 PM
>> > Subject: [B-Greek] Biblical Greek question
>> >
>> >
>> >> I'm hoping that someone might be able to help me?
>> >>
>> >> In Mark 11:4 we read the phrase  *"a place where two ways met"* -
>> >> Strongs concordance suggests this word to be /"amphodon" /and informs
> me
>> >> that it is from the base /"amphoteros" /and /"hodos" /and is used
>> >> nowhere else in the NT.
>> > -------
>> > The fact that this is not a commonly used word is further evidence
>> > of  deliberate cross-referencing in the passage in Ephesians.
>> > ----------
>> >>
>> >> Now in Ephesians 2:14 we read the word *"both"* - Strongs concordance
>> >> says the word to be /"amphoteros".
>> >>
>> >> /The question I have is this - would there be a connection in the mind
>> >> of a Greek reader when comparing the phrase in Mark 11:4 and Ephesians
>> >> 2:14. Could there be a sense in which the *"both" *of Ephesians, 
>> >> whilst
>> >> referring to maybe Jew & Gentile, Mark could be making a similar
>> >> allusion in the scene being presented? (The scene is full of "pairs".)
>> >>
>> >> Hope all this makes sense!
>> > -------
>> > It makes a lot of sense, to me, at least. The image of releasing from a
>> > juncture point a colt that has never been mounted and of Jesus riding
> upon
>> > it is surely very similar to what is being conveyed in the latter
> passage
>> > in
>> > Ephesians 2-14.. I would also take a look at the other words which have
>> > the
>> > same consonant base, word, 293  and 294 in your concordance, the former
>> > meaning a fishing net--(to encircle a net around fish) and the latter
>> > meaning to enrobe, (circle clothes around a body), so there is a sense
> of
>> > encircling of something by something else, or an incorportation of one
>> > into
>> > the other or parts into a whole, and so the place where there is a
>> > convergence,
>> > when applied to a human being, is suggesting of a spiral rather than a
>> > crossroad,
>> > but I guess it can be viewed as a crossing. In the other two
> dictionaries
>> > I
>> > have
>> > looked in besides Strongs, the word does seem to suggest an encircling
> and
>> > all
>> > of the words that begin with ampth seem to suggest this also, so since
>> > amph
>> > seems to be associated with encircling, the meaning that someone has
> given
>> > which suggests an inner portion of a city that roads surround is
> probably
>> > more
>> > correct, though maybe it was used colloquially to mean crossroad. Hope
>> > this
>> > is
>> > of some value. Never stop pondering, which is a way of mentally
> digesting
>> > material in a way we are not usually accustomed to. The more we do it,
>> > the more dimensional and less one -sided our thinking will become, for
> the
>> > benefit of not only ourselves, but everyone. Sincerely, Wry
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Adrian Standeven (Bible Student)
>> >> /
>> >>
>> >> /
>> >> ---
>> >> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>> >> B-Greek mailing list
>> >> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>> >
>> > ---
>> > B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>> > B-Greek mailing list
>> > B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---
>> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>> B-Greek mailing list
>> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
> 





More information about the B-Greek mailing list