Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [XTalk] Luke's Greek

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... Thanks for your comments, but please call me Mr. or just plain Stephen as it is not customary to address a person as Dr. with the doctor s degree I
    Message 1 of 27 , Sep 30 10:02 PM
      At 02:25 PM 9/30/01 -0700, Bob Dietel wrote:
      >Dr Carlson is bang on when he writes

      Thanks for your comments, but please call me "Mr." or just
      plain "Stephen" as it is not customary to address a person
      as "Dr." with the doctor's degree I hold (Juris Doctor).

      >>... ENWPION has the earlier
      >>and better attestation, and it is very rare to see the critical text depart from the joint testimony of Codex Sinaiticus (01 Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (03 B)...
      >>
      >although that very rare event does occur in the first of the two verses
      >in question, v 75, where the Sinaiticus diverges from P4 and the
      >Vaticanus B to support the Textus Receptus reading.

      Actually, what I meant by "joint testimony" was the agreement of
      01 and B with each other. When they do agree so, it is very rare
      to see NA27 depart from that agreement. Yes, you are correct that
      that 01 and B can be found to disagree at times, as in your example,
      but I did not intend to refer that situation.

      Stephen Carlson
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
    • FMMCCOY
      ... From: Bob Schacht To: Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Luke s Greek . ...
      Message 2 of 27 , Oct 2, 2001
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
        To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 5:31 PM
        Subject: Re: [XTalk] Luke's Greek


        .
        >
        > This is the kind of methodological issue I was trying to raise; Jeffrey
        > just put it much better than I did. For example, in dealing with the Greek
        > *anatole*, by what reasoning can we choose a more esoteric meaning of a
        > word (as Frank seems to favor) over a simple and straightforward
        > translation? It would seem to me that, to amplify Jeffrey slightly,
        meaning
        > is determined not by Lexicons (i.e., the broad range of possible uses),
        > but by use in context. That is, what evidence is there that *Luke*
        intended
        > *anatole* to be understood in the way Frank favors? Does he use the word
        > elsewhere in the same way? What does the context of the word in Luke tell
        > us about how the word was intended to be understood?
        >
        > That is what I was trying to get at.
        >

        Dr. Robert M. Schacht:

        Your last question, i.e., "What does the context of the word in Luke tell us
        about how the word was intended to be understood?", gets to the very heart
        of the matter.

        This word of *anatole* appears in chapter 1 of Luke.

        In this chapter, Luke pictures Gabriel as making two pronouncements to Mary
        concerning her future son Jesus.

        The first is in 1:30-33, "Fear not, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
        And (lo!). you shall conceive in (your) womb and bring forth a son, and you
        shall call his name Jesus. For he shall be great, and shall be called Son
        of (the) Highest. And (the) Lord God shall give him the thone of his father
        David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob to the ages, and of his
        kingdom there shall be no end."

        As I point out in a previous post, it appears that Jesus, here, is
        identifed as being the Essenes' Branch of David. So, for example, he will
        have a never-ending kingdom and will be Son of God. Compare 4Q174, "'I will
        establish the throne of his kingdom [for ever] (2 Sam. vii, 12). [I will
        be] his father and he shall be my son (2 Sam. vii.14).' He is the Branch of
        David..."

        The second, in 1:35, reads, "(The) Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and
        (the) power of the Highest shall overshadow you. Therefore, also, the holy
        thing born to you shall be called Son of God."

        As I pointed out in a previous post, it appears that, here, Jesus is
        identified as being Philo's Logos. So, for example, he will be conceived by
        the Holy Spirit and by "the power of God", i.e., by God Himself. Compare
        Fuga (108-109): where Philo declares that the Logos, as the true High
        Priest of Lev. 21:10, has Sophia (whom Philo equated with the Spirit) as his
        Mother and God as his Father.

        In the first chapter of his gospel, Luke also pictures Zechariah as
        making a speech to his infant son John

        The first part of this speech is found in 1:68-75 and reads, "Blessed be the
        Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people, and has
        raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as
        he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets of old, that we should be saved
        from our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us; to perform the mercy
        promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, the oath which
        he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from
        the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and
        righteousness before him all the days of our life (RSV)."

        This appears to regard the Essenes' Branch of David: the descendent of David
        who will will someday rule over Israel.

        This second part of Zechariah's speech is found in 1:76-79, and reads, "And
        you. child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go
        before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his
        people in the forgiveness of their sins, through the tender mercy of our
        God, when the day (*anatole*) shall dawn upon (or: the dayspring (*anatole*)
        will visit) (or: since the dayspring (*antole* has visited) us from on high
        to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to
        guide our feet into the way of peace (RSV."

        Here we find the relevant word of *anatole* and the question we now face is
        this crucial one raised by you above: "What does the context of the word in
        Luke tell us about how the word was intended to be understood?"

        In particular, is it (as I have suggested in several posts) to be understood
        to be the Logos and, so, to be rendered as "(the) Anatole"; or
        is it (as you have suggested) to be rendered as a straightforward
        translation--such as "(the) day" and "(the) dayspring" used by the RSV
        translators.?

        Well, in the context of the first chapter of Luke, as we have seen, there
        apparently is this pattern: (1) [30-33] the first pronouncement by Gabriel
        regards Jesus as the Essenes' Branch of David, (2) [35] the second
        pronouncement by Gabriel regards Jesus as Philo's Logs, and (3) [68-75] the
        first part of Zechariah's speech regards the Essenes' Branch of David.

        The logical close to this pattern, of course, is that: (4) [76-79] the
        second part of Zechariah's speech regards Philo's Logos. It is in this
        second part of Zechariah's speech where, it is said, John will go before the
        Lord and where the word *anatole* appears.

        The context, therefore, indicates that: (1) the Lord, for whom John
        is to go before, is the Logos (and, indeed, as I point out in a previous
        post, "Lord" is one of Philo's titles for the Logos), and (2) *anatole* is
        the Logos (and, indeed, as I have pointed out in this and some other posts,
        "(the) Anatole" is one of Philo's titles for the Logos).

        Therefore, judging by the Chapter 1 of Luke context in which one occurrence
        of the word *anatole* is found, I think that, the evidence suggests, this
        particular occurrence of *anatole* ought to be rendered as "(the) Anatole".
        Or, if one insists on an English translation, it perhaps should be rendered
        by a non-literalistic translation like "(the) Arising".

        On a more strategic or general level, it is important to note that the four
        stage pattern in Chapter 1 of Luke's gospel indicates that, Luke understood,
        Jesus had been Philo's Logos incarnate in the flesh as the Essenes' Branch
        of David. As I have pointed out in some previous posts, this also appears
        to be the basic Christology of Mark.

        Franklyn Morris McCoy
        1809 N. English Apt. 17
        Maplewood, MN USA 55109
      • ABuglass1@compuserve.com
        In a message dated 02/10/01 23:59:07 GMT Daylight Time, FMMCCOY@msn.com ... Dear Frank, I m absolutely fascinated by all the connections you find between the
        Message 3 of 27 , Oct 3, 2001
          In a message dated 02/10/01 23:59:07 GMT Daylight Time, FMMCCOY@...
          writes:


          >
          > This appears to regard the Essenes' Branch of David: the descendent of David
          > who will will someday rule over Israel.
          >
          >

          Dear Frank,
          I'm absolutely fascinated by all the connections you find between the various
          christologies in the NT. I have to confess I've never read any Philo, and
          you've wetted my appetite to explore in that direction. Just as soon as I
          get through everything which is in the queue.

          However, I have a niggling doubt over this part of your argument. I can see
          that the Essenes would be interested in the Branch of David (I'd be very
          suprised at any Messianic movement which had *no* interest in the Branch of
          David). But I would rather say that Luke (and maybe Mark) got the idea from
          Isaiah, rather than from a radical offshoot of Judaism. Isn't it more likely
          that the Gospel writers and the Essenes both got the idea independently from
          Isaiah? What evidence is there that Luke was influenced by the Essenes
          rather than Isaiah?

          Thanks,
          Tony Buglass
          Pickering Methodist Circuit



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Bob Schacht
          ... Tony, I think you are making an excellent point much too modestly ;-) That is, it is not sufficient that an argument be plausible; it must also be
          Message 4 of 27 , Oct 5, 2001
            At 04:24 PM 10/3/01 -0400, ABuglass1@... wrote:
            >In a message dated 02/10/01 23:59:07 GMT Daylight Time, FMMCCOY@...
            >writes:
            > >
            > > This appears to regard the Essenes' Branch of David: the descendent of
            > David
            > > who will will someday rule over Israel.
            > >
            > >
            >
            >Dear Frank,
            >I'm absolutely fascinated by all the connections you find between the
            >various christologies in the NT. I have to confess I've never read any
            >Philo, and you've wetted my appetite to explore in that direction. ...
            >
            >However, I have a niggling doubt over this part of your argument. I can
            >see that the Essenes would be interested in the Branch of David (I'd be
            >very suprised at any Messianic movement which had *no* interest in the
            >Branch of David). But I would rather say that Luke (and maybe Mark) got
            >the idea from Isaiah, rather than from a radical offshoot of
            >Judaism. Isn't it more likely that the Gospel writers and the Essenes
            >both got the idea independently from Isaiah? What evidence is there that
            >Luke was influenced by the Essenes rather than Isaiah?
            >
            >Thanks,
            >Tony Buglass

            Tony,
            I think you are making an excellent point much too modestly ;-)

            That is, it is not sufficient that an argument be plausible; it must also
            be stronger than rival hypotheses.
            Thus, it seems to me that for Frank's argument to prevail, he needs to show
            that there are distinctive Philonic (non-Isaianic) fingerprints in Luke. Of
            course, the picture is complicated because Philo may also have been
            influenced by Isaiah.

            I think perhaps we need to differentiate between philosophical or
            theological influence vs. literary dependence. If, for example, it can be
            shown that the Lukan verses in question have a literary dependence on
            Isaiah (LXX), e.g., by virtue of relatively long identical word sequences,
            then it seems to me that literary dependence trumps possible philosophical
            or theological influence.

            Of course there is always the possibility that Luke is dependent on Isaiah
            on the literary level, but was influenced by Philo on the
            philosophical/theological level in the way that he uses the Isaiah
            material. But for that we may need a "smoking gun," some kind of
            distinctive Philonic fingerprint that cannot be derived from Isaiah.

            Bob


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • FMMCCOY
            ... From: Bob Schacht To: Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 12:42 AM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Luke s Greek ...
            Message 5 of 27 , Oct 8, 2001
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
              To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 12:42 AM
              Subject: Re: [XTalk] Luke's Greek


              > At 04:24 PM 10/3/01 -0400, ABuglass1@... wrote:
              > >In a message dated 02/10/01 23:59:07 GMT Daylight Time, FMMCCOY@...
              > >writes:
              > > >
              > > > This appears to regard the Essenes' Branch of David: the descendent of
              > > David
              > > > who will will someday rule over Israel.
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > >Dear Frank,
              > >I'm absolutely fascinated by all the connections you find between the
              > >various christologies in the NT. I have to confess I've never read any
              > >Philo, and you've wetted my appetite to explore in that direction. ...
              > >
              > >However, I have a niggling doubt over this part of your argument. I can
              > >see that the Essenes would be interested in the Branch of David (I'd be
              > >very suprised at any Messianic movement which had *no* interest in the
              > >Branch of David). But I would rather say that Luke (and maybe Mark) got
              > >the idea from Isaiah, rather than from a radical offshoot of
              > >Judaism. Isn't it more likely that the Gospel writers and the Essenes
              > >both got the idea independently from Isaiah? What evidence is there that
              > >Luke was influenced by the Essenes rather than Isaiah?
              > >
              > >Thanks,
              > >Tony Buglass
              >
              > Tony,
              > I think you are making an excellent point much too modestly ;-)
              >
              > That is, it is not sufficient that an argument be plausible; it must also
              > be stronger than rival hypotheses.
              > Thus, it seems to me that for Frank's argument to prevail, he needs to
              show
              > that there are distinctive Philonic (non-Isaianic) fingerprints in Luke.
              Of
              > course, the picture is complicated because Philo may also have been
              > influenced by Isaiah.
              >
              > I think perhaps we need to differentiate between philosophical or
              > theological influence vs. literary dependence. If, for example, it can be
              > shown that the Lukan verses in question have a literary dependence on
              > Isaiah (LXX), e.g., by virtue of relatively long identical word sequences,
              > then it seems to me that literary dependence trumps possible philosophical
              > or theological influence.
              >
              > Of course there is always the possibility that Luke is dependent on Isaiah
              > on the literary level, but was influenced by Philo on the
              > philosophical/theological level in the way that he uses the Isaiah
              > material. But for that we may need a "smoking gun," some kind of
              > distinctive Philonic fingerprint that cannot be derived from Isaiah.
              >

              Bob:

              Contrary to what you state above, I have not (at least to the best of my
              knowledge), as respects any Lukan passages, raised the issue of whether, in
              them, Luke is being influenced by Isaiah. I
              have, of course, raised the issue of a Philonic influence in some Lukan
              passages. Don't get me wrong, I do think that many Lukan passages betray an
              influence from Isaiah--it's just that I don't recall ever raising this point
              on XTalk.

              You state, "If, for example, it can be shown that the Lukan verses in
              question have a literary dependence on Isaiah (LXX), e.g., by virtue of
              relatively long identical word sequences, then it seems to me that literary
              dependence trumps possible philosophical or theological influence."

              Since I haven't raised the specific issue of Isaiah, I would prefer to
              generalize your statement to this, "If, for example, it can be shown that
              the Lukan verses in question have a literary dependence on a LXX passage,
              e.g., by virtue of relatively long identical word sequences, then it seems
              to me that literary dependence trumps possible philosophicalor theological
              influence."

              I suggest that this ought to be decided on a case by case basis rather than
              laid down as some sort of an absolute rule..

              For example, I suggest, if a Lukan passage has a literary dependence on
              some LXX passage, this literary dependence might, given the right set of
              circumstances, actually support the hypothesis of a philosophical or
              theological influence from Philonic thought on this Lukan passage.

              Evidence that this might be so is found in the example of Luke 1:76-79,
              where Zechariah is pictured as stating, "And
              you. child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go
              before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his
              people in the forgiveness of their sins, through the tender mercy of our
              God, when the day (*anatole*) shall dawn upon (or: the dayspring (*anatole*)
              will visit) (or: since the dayspring (*antole* has visited) us from on high
              to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to
              guide our feet into the way of peace (RSV)."

              In a post of 30/9/01, I point out that there appears to be a literary
              pattern in Chapter 1 of Luke which indicates that both the Lord and the
              Anatole of this passage are Philo's Logos. In line with this, both Lord and
              Anatole are titles of Philo's Logos.

              Is there any evidence of literary dependency in Luke 1:76-79? If so, does
              it support or does it not support the hypothesis that both the Lord and the
              Anatole of this passage are Philo's Logos?

              Well, I am aware of at least one case where there appears to be a literary
              dependency in Luke 1:76-79. This is the phrase, "en skotei kai skia
              thanatou kathemenois" (in darkness and shadow of death sitting). In my
              opinion, this has a literary dependency on the opening phrase in Psalm
              106(107):10 (LXX), "Kathemenous en skotei kai skia thanatou". (I am assuming
              that the version of the Greek New Testament I have follows the generally
              received text for this particular phrase from Luke 1:76-79. As I have
              learned the hard way, it doesn't always follow the generally received
              text!).

              *Why*, in Luke 1:76-79, does Luke write a phrase (i.e., "en skotei kai skia
              thanatou kathemenois" (in darkness and shadow of death sitting)) apparently
              based on the opening phrase in Psalm 106(107):10 (LXX)?

              Well, in Luke 1:76-79, it is the Anatole who brings light or (or:shines on)
              those "sitting in darkness and shadow of death". That is to say, it is
              the Anatole who saves these people.

              Therefore, I suggest, Luke writes the phrase "en skotei kai skia
              thanatou kathemenois" (in darkness and shadow of death sitting), apparently
              based on the opening phrase in Psalm 106(107):10 (LXX), to clue in his
              intended readers that the identity of the Anatole who saves these people
              sitting in darkness and the shadow of death is explicitly identified in
              Psalm 106(107) (LXX).

              Who, then, is it, in Psalm 106(107) (LXX), who saves those sitting in
              darkness and the shadow of death?

              For answering this question it perhaps is useful to begin with verses 8-13,
              "Let them acknowledge to the Lord His mercies, and His wonderful works to
              the children of men. For he satisfies the empty soul, and fills the hungry
              soul with good things, even them that sit in darkness and the shadow of
              death (kathemenous en skotei kai skia thanatou), fettered in poverty and
              iron; because they rebelled against the words (logoi) of God, and provoked
              the counsel of the Most High. So their heart was brought low with troubles;
              they were weak and there was no helper. Then they cried to the Lord in
              their affliction, and he saved them out of their distresses. And he brought
              them out of darkness and the shadow of death (ek skotous kai skias
              thanatou), and broke their bonds asunder."

              Here, we learn, those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death are those
              who have not obeyed the words (logoi) of God and, as a result, are in
              spiritual distress without a helper. However, if they appeal to God, He
              will save them from this darkness and shadow of death, i.e., this spiritual
              distress.

              Next, let us turn to 19-20, "Then they cried to the Lord in their
              affliction, and He saved them out of their distresses. He sent His Word
              (Logon) and healed them, and delivered them out of their destructions."

              Here, we learn God saved these people from their spiritual afflictions,
              i.e., from "the darkness and the shadow of death" mentioned earlier in this
              Psalm, by sending a helper, His Logos, to them.

              So, I suggest, in Luke 1:76-79, Luke apparently makes this literary
              borrowing from the opening phrase in Psalm 106(107):10 (LXX) in order to
              "clue in" his intended readers that the Anatole who saves those "in darkness
              and the shadow of death", i.e., in spiritual affliction, is the Logos--the
              divine being through whom God saves those "in darkness and the shadow of
              death", i.e., in spiritual affliction..

              Therefore, I conclude, this particular case of of an apparent literary
              dependency of a Lukan passage on a LXX passage supports the hypothesis that,
              in this Lukan passage, the Lord and the Anatole are the Logos spoken of by
              Philo and identified, by him, as being both Lord and the Anatole. That is
              to say, this particular case of an apparent literary dependence of a Lukan
              passage on a LXX passage supports the hypothesis of a theological or
              philosophical influence of Philonic thought on this Lukan passage.

              Frank McCoy
              1809 N. English Apt. 17
              Maplewood, MN USA 55109
            • mgrondin@tir.com
              ... What am I missing here, Frank? You first point out that Ps106-107 mentions Lord, Anatole, and Logos, and you conclude from this that Luke was influenced by
              Message 6 of 27 , Oct 9, 2001
                --- Frank McCoy wrote:
                > Therefore, I conclude, this particular case of of an apparent
                > literary dependency of a Lukan passage on a LXX passage supports
                > the hypothesis that, in this Lukan passage, the Lord and the
                > Anatole are the Logos spoken of by Philo and identified, by him,
                > as being both Lord and the Anatole. That is to say, this particular
                > case of an apparent literary dependence of a Lukan passage on a LXX
                > passage supports the hypothesis of a theological or philosophical
                > influence of Philonic thought on this Lukan passage.

                What am I missing here, Frank? You first point out that Ps106-107
                mentions Lord, Anatole, and Logos, and you conclude from this that
                Luke was influenced by Philo? I don't get it. Are you claiming that
                Luke personifies or objectifies 'anatole' in a way that Philo does
                also, but Psalms does not? That hardly seems tenable, particularly
                in view of the fact that the child in Lk1:78-79 seems to be likened
                to the light that comes from the daybreak, rather than the daybreak
                itself. But if we're talking about phrases which really are titles,
                Luke's Benedictus also refers to the child as 'a horn of salvation
                in the house of ... David' and 'the prophet of the Most High'. Do
                you think these terms also derive from Philo?

                Mike
              • mgrondin@tir.com
                ... Sorry about that. I was looking at the RSV. There s no such distinction in the Greek. The remainder of my note seems OK. Mike
                Message 7 of 27 , Oct 9, 2001
                  --- In crosstalk2@y..., mgrondin@t... wrote:
                  > That hardly seems tenable, particularly in view of the fact that
                  > the child in Lk1:78-79 seems to be likened to the light that comes
                  > from the daybreak, rather than the daybreak itself.

                  Sorry about that. I was looking at the RSV. There's no such
                  distinction in the Greek. The remainder of my note seems OK.

                  Mike
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.