[B-Greek] KATALUSAI and PLHRWSAI

Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212) rel21x at charter.net
Fri May 19 22:23:19 EDT 2006


Though we are not dealing with what some pre-20th century writers called
Holy [Ghost] Greek, or some such term, we do deal with Semitic idioms,
Semitic inference, loan words, loan translations, and Semitic influence.
Some of these, like the loan translation PERI hAMARTIAS => sin offering,
occur in the LXX, some do not. Circumlocutions for God, common in Jewish
circles and appearing in the NT, Kingdom of Heaven/God, do not appear
otherwise, but are common in Jewish Aramaic literature. There is some very
un-Greek Greek in Mark's gospel, most of which has been explained in
reference to Semitic influence or idioms (An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels
and Acts, Black, OUP). Nigel Turner, in Christian Words, also touches upon
this matter from a lexical viewpoint. The NT uses technical terminology,
which cannot be explained with recourse to non-religious koine sources.
There are also content areas that are only explained from non-Greek,
religious sources, such as II Timothy 3:8 that refers to a gloss from the
Targums of the Pentateuch, not the Hebrew Text or LXX.

Some of the common words in Jewish exegesis are Peshat and Midrash/derash. I
think NT writers use both, at times. Now Matthew, along with St. John's
gospel, are most directly connected with Judaism and Jewish ideology. Though
to be honest, there was a great deal of Jewish, and thus Semitic, influence
on the whole first generation of Christians, Jew and Gentile. So, I would
not ignore Jewish/Semitic insight. On the other hand, in the NT, PLHROW is
very frequently used  with the simple idea of fulfilling/accomplishing
[prophecy] or observing a mitzvah (commandment), along with THREW and
FULASSW. I would think, if there is a Semitic inference here, it is a little
backwards. KATALUW may possibly be used for correct interpretation of a
difficult matter, as in untying a knot, but I don't think it is used for
misinterpreting. In Mat. 5:17 it sure looks like the antithesis of fulfill,
which would be tear down or destroy/break a commandment. It almost looks
like the idiom of either destroying a vessel or filling it with some
substance. In this, I think George is correct. With divergent schools of
thought in Israel in the first century, such as Shammai and Hillel, and
latter with the Talmud, it is hard to see how there could be such a thing a
misinterpretation in Jewish circles, unless it would be grammatical. There
were later arguments between Jews and Christians, where Jews accused
Christians of misinterpretation, especially in reference to the LXX. But
even the LXX was translated by Jews, many years before the advent of Jesus.

David Smith
Hudson, NC

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <gfsomsel at juno.com>
To: <gfsomsel at juno.com>
Cc: <SavemeOYah at aol.com>; <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 15:52
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] KATALUSAI and PLHRWSAI


> I realize that my answer was rather curt and not explanatory.  Let me
expand.
> Most Greek words found in the NT (or the LXX) are reasonably well attested
by a plentitude of use in other literature.  Since we are not dealing with
"Holy Ghost Greek", I would expect the usage in the scriptures to be
consonate with the word's usage elsewhere.  There are some words which are
not well attested.  One which immediately comes to mind is the word
ARSENOKOITHS which is found in Romans 1.27 and 1 Tim 1.10.  This appears to
be a word which was coined by Paul and is therefore not attested prior to
his writing.  This might be of somewhat questionable meaning since it has no
"track record."  In words which are known, however, I would demand some text
(such as from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri) which indicates that it is used in a
different sense.  There might also be a felt dissonance in the text when we
attempt to understand the word in it's known significance.  In this case, I
know of no instance of a text which indicates the meaning you suggest nor do
I see any dissonance
>   in the text by understanding it in the traditional sense.  On the
contrary, I would wonder why the writer of the gospel would introduce Jesus
as saying that he did not come to "misinterpret" the law and prophets when
such has not been alleged.
>
>
> george
> gfsomsel
> _________
>
> -- "gfsomsel at juno.com" <gfsomsel at juno.com> wrote:
> No.
>
>
> george
> gfsomsel
> _________
>
> -- SavemeOYah at aol.com wrote:
> I continue to hear within some Messianic circles that these two terms as
> found in Matthew 5:17 are Jewish idioms, the one meaning to "misinterpret"
and
> the latter meaning to "interpret correctly". Can this be substantiated?
>
> Eric Bess,
> Atl, GA
> ---
> 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