[B-Greek] Once For All Time - Luke 18:9-14
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Jul 13 08:24:24 EDT 2009
I 'll offer a brief concluding summary reply to Richard Ghilardi's
latest post on the matter under discussion:
(1) I acknowledge RG 's remarkable perspicacity and generous spirit
which he has demonstrated and called attention to in this exchange of
views.
(2) RG may very well believe that his arguments and objections are
"unanswered and unrefuted." I claim no more than to have shown that
the text in question can be interpreted in a way different from the
one he has espoused.
(3) I am, in fact, not unaware of the tradition regarding Luke's
association with Paul; while some want to take this tradition at face
value, I prefer to take it with a grain of salt and to make no
assumptions regarding the interdependence of Pauline and Lucan thought
and Greek usage. We don't discuss hermeneutic or theological
assumptions on this list (unless we "delete" them). Perhaps it would
have been wiser, as Richard seems to think, not to allude to Pauline
doctrine in my earlier responses; I did so because I thought it not
unlikely that interpretation of the Lucan parable of the Pharisee and
the Publican was governed by the Pauline conception of justification
and wanted to show that the Lucan parable can be read in a different
way;
(3) With regard to the expressions, DIKAIWSAS hEAUTON and
DEDIKAIWMENOS (which I've said I think equivalent to DIKAIWQEIS), I
really do not think that they are semantically equivalent. The active
participle with the reflexive pronominal object clearly indicates
deliberate intent on the part of the subject to demonstrate his own
right/righteous status vis-à-vis another or others, i.e. to vindicate
himself, while the middle-passive participle, in my judgment, does not
involve intent on the part of the subject but achievement of
vindication. So far as I can tell, the reflexive with the active verb
DIKAIOW is found only in Luke in the GNT (10:29, 16:1); middle-passive
verbs do not commonly express a direct reflexive notion.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
On Jul 12, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Richard Ghilardi wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> Thanks for the apology. I gladly accept it recognizing the humble
> spirit
> in which you offered it. I also thank you for the clarifications.
> Clarification is always good. I trust it will be of some benefit to
> the
> other list members. For my part, I clearly understood your arguments
> the
> first time you presented them. The fact that in your clarifications
> you
> have not budged one millimeter from the stance you took in your
> previous
> post confirms to me that I have not misunderstood you. Unlike you, I
> will
> not rehash my arguments and objections here again. They were clear and
> telling when I made them. And they stand not only unrefuted but even
> unanswered.
>
> However, I must take issue with you on another point which I have not
> addressed hitherto. But you have raised it repeatedly in your posts
> and
> yet again in your most recent one. I was silent on this point
> because I
> was unsure what to think. I shall be silent no longer. I'm speaking of
> the connection with Paul, of course.
>
> What I am about to write will come as no news to anyone on this
> list. I
> write it for the record. (And there is a record, isn't there?)
>
> Luke was a travelling companion of Paul. He walked with him. He ate
> with
> him. He rested with him. He knew good times of fellowship with Paul
> and
> he suffered hardship and persecution with him. Perhaps he even
> ministered
> to Paul physically with his medical skills. Luke was Paul's co-
> laborer in
> the work of proclaiming the gospel in all the cities and towns where
> they
> travelled. Luke was an intimate disciple and friend of the Apostle
> Paul.
> Undoubtedly he had heard Paul preach and teach many, many times both
> publicly and privately, perhaps even on the road. If Luke did not
> learn
> the gospel from Paul, certainly he received a deeper knowledge of it
> from
> Paul. So Luke surely learned the "Pauline doctrine of justification"
> right from the "horse's mouth" so to speak. And as surely Luke learned
> the profound signifcance that Paul attached to all the words in the
> *DIK-
> family. It's not possible that when Luke came to write his gospel
> years
> later that he simply forgot all that his beloved teacher had taught
> him,
> nor that he considered it irrelevant to his task. In his gospel Luke
> uses
> DIKAIW in its various forms more than all the other gospels combined,
> most often in the mouth of Jesus. And he uses the other *DIK- words at
> least as often.
>
> None of this constitutes proof that Luke used DIKAIW with the same
> cluster of meanings and the same significance as Paul. But it does
> create
> a very strong presumption in favor of this position. Therefore, the
> burden of proof falls upon you, Carl, and those like you, to show that
> Luke used the word in a sense significantly different from that of
> Paul.
>
> Before I close, I have one more question for you, Carl.
>
> In this context, Lk 18:9-14, is DEDIKAIWMENOS (or DIKAIWQEIS, if you
> will) the semantic equivalent of DIKAIWSAS hEAYTON - "having proven
> himself righteous" / "having justified himself"? If not, what's the
> difference between the two?
>
> Yours in His grace,
>
> Richard Ghilardi - qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
> West Haven, Connecticut USA
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list