1 Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 23 13:56:05 EDT 2003

 

[] Re: Preposition example needed [] First Corinthians 14:18 EUCARISTWi TWi QEWi, PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALWWhat are the possible meanings of MALLON here? Can itmean that he speaks more frequently than you all?Also, can it mean he speaks more languages than youall?=====Mitch LarramoreSpring Branch, TexasStudent/Memorial High School__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! SiteBuilder – Free, easy-to-use web site design softwarehttp://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

 

[] Re: Preposition example needed[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 23 13:56:05 EDT 2003

 

[] Re: Preposition example needed [] First Corinthians 14:18 EUCARISTWi TWi QEWi, PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALWWhat are the possible meanings of MALLON here? Can itmean that he speaks more frequently than you all?Also, can it mean he speaks more languages than youall?=====Mitch LarramoreSpring Branch, TexasStudent/Memorial High School__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! SiteBuilder – Free, easy-to-use web site design softwarehttp://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

 

[] Re: Preposition example needed[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Sep 23 14:18:31 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 At 10:56 AM -0700 9/23/03, Mitch Larramore wrote:>EUCARISTWi TWi QEWi, PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALW> >What are the possible meanings of MALLON here? Can it>mean that he speaks more frequently than you all?>Also, can it mean he speaks more languages than you>all?All it says is “more than you all.” It probably does NOT mean that he speakmore languages inasmuch as the “tongue-speaking” under discussion herewould seem, from the immediate context of 1 Cor 12-14 to refer to ecstaticspeech as a religious phenomenon rather than to the languages of humanculture. One possible interpretation is that this is a rhetorical ploywhereby Paul accepts and authorizes the practice as one in which he ishimself fully competent, so that he can then go on and relativize theimportance of the practice in relationship to other CARISMATA which heargues are of greater service to the congregational community.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Sep 23 14:18:31 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 At 10:56 AM -0700 9/23/03, Mitch Larramore wrote:>EUCARISTWi TWi QEWi, PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALW> >What are the possible meanings of MALLON here? Can it>mean that he speaks more frequently than you all?>Also, can it mean he speaks more languages than you>all?All it says is “more than you all.” It probably does NOT mean that he speakmore languages inasmuch as the “tongue-speaking” under discussion herewould seem, from the immediate context of 1 Cor 12-14 to refer to ecstaticspeech as a religious phenomenon rather than to the languages of humanculture. One possible interpretation is that this is a rhetorical ploywhereby Paul accepts and authorizes the practice as one in which he ishimself fully competent, so that he can then go on and relativize theimportance of the practice in relationship to other CARISMATA which heargues are of greater service to the congregational community.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 waldo slusher waldoslusher at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 23 16:59:28 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 Mitch Larramore wrote:> > EUCARISTWi TWi QEWi, PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS> LALW> > What are the possible meanings of MALLON here? Can> it> mean that he speaks more frequently than you all?> Also, can it mean he speaks more languages than you> all?I think the latter, speaking more languages, would bethe normal way to take this. Paul does not seem to putany value on how frequently one exercises this gift.Not to be disrepectful, but I take the oppositeposition here from Carl (ecstatic speech). In justfour more verses Paul relates THIS tongues speakinggift to that which Isaias prophesied about. Thelanguages Isaias references would include the Assyrianlanguage (for the northern tribes) and Babylonian forthe southern tribes. How Paul relates the Assyrian orBabylonian languages to what was happening in Corinthis not a grammatical question, however.=====Waldo SlusherCalgary, AB__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! SiteBuilder – Free, easy-to-use web site design softwarehttp://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 waldo slusher waldoslusher at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 23 16:59:28 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 Mitch Larramore wrote:> > EUCARISTWi TWi QEWi, PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS> LALW> > What are the possible meanings of MALLON here? Can> it> mean that he speaks more frequently than you all?> Also, can it mean he speaks more languages than you> all?I think the latter, speaking more languages, would bethe normal way to take this. Paul does not seem to putany value on how frequently one exercises this gift.Not to be disrepectful, but I take the oppositeposition here from Carl (ecstatic speech). In justfour more verses Paul relates THIS tongues speakinggift to that which Isaias prophesied about. Thelanguages Isaias references would include the Assyrianlanguage (for the northern tribes) and Babylonian forthe southern tribes. How Paul relates the Assyrian orBabylonian languages to what was happening in Corinthis not a grammatical question, however.=====Waldo SlusherCalgary, AB__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! SiteBuilder – Free, easy-to-use web site design softwarehttp://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Iver iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Sep 24 02:42:29 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 > Subject: [] First Corinthians 14:18> > EUCARISTWi TWi QEWi, PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALW> > What are the possible meanings of MALLON here? Can it> mean that he speaks more frequently than you all?Yes, it can. The next verse compares a 1000 words spoken in a language thatis not known, to speaking five words in a language that the hearersunderstand. MALLON means “to a higher degree than” and modifies the verb(event), here the speaking (in tongues). Sometimes the verb needs to besupplied from the context as in1 Cor 14:1 Seek the spiritual (things/gifts), but MALLON [seek] that you mayprophesy1 Cor 14:5 I want/wish all of you to speak in tongues, but MALLON [Iwant/wish] that you prophecy> Also, can it mean he speaks more languages than you all?No, it cannot. The adverb modifies the verb, not the noun.I am tempted to comment on Carl’s comment, but that is difficult since hemoved into theology by introducing “ecstatic speech” which is foreign to thetext and context. The question in this passage of 1 Cor 14 is not whether tospeak in tongues or not, but whether to do so publicly in the assembly orprivately. In v. 10-11 Paul says that there are many kinds of languages(FWNWN) in the world, but if I do not understand the language that the otherperson is speaking, there will be no communication.Iver Larsen

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Iver iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Sep 24 02:42:29 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 > Subject: [] First Corinthians 14:18> > EUCARISTWi TWi QEWi, PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALW> > What are the possible meanings of MALLON here? Can it> mean that he speaks more frequently than you all?Yes, it can. The next verse compares a 1000 words spoken in a language thatis not known, to speaking five words in a language that the hearersunderstand. MALLON means “to a higher degree than” and modifies the verb(event), here the speaking (in tongues). Sometimes the verb needs to besupplied from the context as in1 Cor 14:1 Seek the spiritual (things/gifts), but MALLON [seek] that you mayprophesy1 Cor 14:5 I want/wish all of you to speak in tongues, but MALLON [Iwant/wish] that you prophecy> Also, can it mean he speaks more languages than you all?No, it cannot. The adverb modifies the verb, not the noun.I am tempted to comment on Carl’s comment, but that is difficult since hemoved into theology by introducing “ecstatic speech” which is foreign to thetext and context. The question in this passage of 1 Cor 14 is not whether tospeak in tongues or not, but whether to do so publicly in the assembly orprivately. In v. 10-11 Paul says that there are many kinds of languages(FWNWN) in the world, but if I do not understand the language that the otherperson is speaking, there will be no communication.Iver Larsen

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Sep 24 05:46:32 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 At 9:42 AM +0300 9/24/03, Iver wrote:>I am tempted to comment on Carl’s comment, but that is difficult since he>moved into theology by introducing “ecstatic speech” which is foreign to the>text and context.My apologies to the list if it is true, as I suspect it is, that others toohave felt that I “moved into theology” with this comment:>All it says is “more than you all.” It probably does NOT mean that he speak>more languages inasmuch as the “tongue-speaking” under discussion here>would seem, from the immediate context of 1 Cor 12-14 to refer to ecstatic>speech as a religious phenomenon rather than to the languages of human>culture.What I ought to have written is that “there is disagreement amonginterpreters regarding what LALEIN GLWSSAIS in the context of 1 Cor 12-14means. I had not thought that stating my view of the probable sense of thisverbal phrase was “moving into theology,” nor, in indicating this view, hadI intended to imply that it is the only view of what the phrase means. I amwell aware that there are alternative views.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Sep 24 05:46:32 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 At 9:42 AM +0300 9/24/03, Iver wrote:>I am tempted to comment on Carl’s comment, but that is difficult since he>moved into theology by introducing “ecstatic speech” which is foreign to the>text and context.My apologies to the list if it is true, as I suspect it is, that others toohave felt that I “moved into theology” with this comment:>All it says is “more than you all.” It probably does NOT mean that he speak>more languages inasmuch as the “tongue-speaking” under discussion here>would seem, from the immediate context of 1 Cor 12-14 to refer to ecstatic>speech as a religious phenomenon rather than to the languages of human>culture.What I ought to have written is that “there is disagreement amonginterpreters regarding what LALEIN GLWSSAIS in the context of 1 Cor 12-14means. I had not thought that stating my view of the probable sense of thisverbal phrase was “moving into theology,” nor, in indicating this view, hadI intended to imply that it is the only view of what the phrase means. I amwell aware that there are alternative views.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Wed Sep 24 08:42:07 EDT 2003

 

[] John 3:36 [] First Corinthians 14:18 Carl wrote:> >All it says is “more than you all.” It probably does NOT mean that he >speak> >more languages inasmuch as the “tongue-speaking” under discussion here> >would seem, from the immediate context of 1 Cor 12-14 to refer to >ecstatic> >speech as a religious phenomenon rather than to the languages of human> >culture.I find it hard to believe that THIS is moving into theological discussions. Clearly one must translate/interpret what is going here. Carl, in my opinion, has chosen a way of understandingthe Greek text. He indicates that this tongues speaking “would seem” to be ecstatic speech,not that IT IS. One must come to an understanding of what this speaking in languages is whenwrestling with the Greek text only. Or, are we to leave it in its Greek form and pretend wecannot translate it?Iver has indicated that the adverb modifies the verb and therefore it cannot mean thatone speaks “more languages.” This is NOT at all true. It does modify speaking, of course,but that says nothing as to whether or not the speaking is look upon with frequencyor number of languages. Since GLWSSA is plural, we already know that there are MORE THANONE LANGUAGE being referenced. Paul tells us that there are many kinds of languages,hETERWi GENH GLWSSWN. So, yes, the understanding that Paul speaks more species (GENH)of languages than others makes perfect sense grammatically.Carl said it “probably” doesn’t refer to number of languages because of his understandingof GLWSSA. Iver says it does not refer to number of languages because the adverb modifiesthe verb, “not the noun.” But Mitch’s question was “can” it mean both, and the answer is Yes.I may be out of line here, but I think we all need to grow up a little. One can not respondto any post without some predisposition toward the Greek text. Mentioning, in passing, an understanding one has of the Greek text, such as “ecstatic speech,” is not entering into theologicaldiscussions. We all knew what Carl meant. He was not peddling some theology. If you ask me, wecan’t keep pretending that we can be totally objective in this forum. Having said that, I AM all forkeeping theological discussion out of this forum!And finally, we all know when someone crosses the line into peddling some theological position.Oh well, just venting.Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Instant message with integrated webcam using MSN Messenger 6.0. Try it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com

 

[] John 3:36[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Wed Sep 24 08:42:07 EDT 2003

 

[] John 3:36 [] First Corinthians 14:18 Carl wrote:> >All it says is “more than you all.” It probably does NOT mean that he >speak> >more languages inasmuch as the “tongue-speaking” under discussion here> >would seem, from the immediate context of 1 Cor 12-14 to refer to >ecstatic> >speech as a religious phenomenon rather than to the languages of human> >culture.I find it hard to believe that THIS is moving into theological discussions. Clearly one must translate/interpret what is going here. Carl, in my opinion, has chosen a way of understandingthe Greek text. He indicates that this tongues speaking “would seem” to be ecstatic speech,not that IT IS. One must come to an understanding of what this speaking in languages is whenwrestling with the Greek text only. Or, are we to leave it in its Greek form and pretend wecannot translate it?Iver has indicated that the adverb modifies the verb and therefore it cannot mean thatone speaks “more languages.” This is NOT at all true. It does modify speaking, of course,but that says nothing as to whether or not the speaking is look upon with frequencyor number of languages. Since GLWSSA is plural, we already know that there are MORE THANONE LANGUAGE being referenced. Paul tells us that there are many kinds of languages,hETERWi GENH GLWSSWN. So, yes, the understanding that Paul speaks more species (GENH)of languages than others makes perfect sense grammatically.Carl said it “probably” doesn’t refer to number of languages because of his understandingof GLWSSA. Iver says it does not refer to number of languages because the adverb modifiesthe verb, “not the noun.” But Mitch’s question was “can” it mean both, and the answer is Yes.I may be out of line here, but I think we all need to grow up a little. One can not respondto any post without some predisposition toward the Greek text. Mentioning, in passing, an understanding one has of the Greek text, such as “ecstatic speech,” is not entering into theologicaldiscussions. We all knew what Carl meant. He was not peddling some theology. If you ask me, wecan’t keep pretending that we can be totally objective in this forum. Having said that, I AM all forkeeping theological discussion out of this forum!And finally, we all know when someone crosses the line into peddling some theological position.Oh well, just venting.Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Instant message with integrated webcam using MSN Messenger 6.0. Try it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com

 

[] John 3:36[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Sep 24 09:22:23 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 At 12:42 PM +0000 9/24/03, Mark Wilson wrote:> >Carl said it “probably” doesn’t refer to number of languages because of his>understanding>of GLWSSA. Iver says it does not refer to number of languages because the>adverb modifies>the verb, “not the noun.” But Mitch’s question was “can” it mean both, and>the answer is Yes.While I appreciate Mark’s confidence, I would have to disagree with the hisabove-stated judgment. The text, if you’ll recall, is:EUCARISTWi TWi QEWi, PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALWI do not think that THIS CLAUSE can mean BOTH that Paul speaks “inlanguages” (to use a neutral term) more ‘than all of you’ AND that Paulspeaks “in more languages” ‘than all of you.’ Iver is absolutely right thatMALLON can qualify only LALW. “Speak in more languages” would have to bePLEIOSI(N) GLWSSAIS LALW. This is not a matter of speaking in more than oneGENOS GLWSSWN. Paul might have been able to do that too, but it is not whathe affirms here.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Sep 24 09:22:23 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 At 12:42 PM +0000 9/24/03, Mark Wilson wrote:> >Carl said it “probably” doesn’t refer to number of languages because of his>understanding>of GLWSSA. Iver says it does not refer to number of languages because the>adverb modifies>the verb, “not the noun.” But Mitch’s question was “can” it mean both, and>the answer is Yes.While I appreciate Mark’s confidence, I would have to disagree with the hisabove-stated judgment. The text, if you’ll recall, is:EUCARISTWi TWi QEWi, PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALWI do not think that THIS CLAUSE can mean BOTH that Paul speaks “inlanguages” (to use a neutral term) more ‘than all of you’ AND that Paulspeaks “in more languages” ‘than all of you.’ Iver is absolutely right thatMALLON can qualify only LALW. “Speak in more languages” would have to bePLEIOSI(N) GLWSSAIS LALW. This is not a matter of speaking in more than oneGENOS GLWSSWN. Paul might have been able to do that too, but it is not whathe affirms here.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 waldo slusher waldoslusher at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 24 10:59:20 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 Mark Wilson wrote:> Iver has indicated that the adverb modifies the verb> and therefore it cannot > mean that> one speaks “more languages.” This is NOT at all> true. It does modify > speaking, of course,> but that says nothing as to whether or not the> speaking is look upon with > frequency> or number of languages. Since GLWSSA is plural, we> already know that there > are MORE THAN> ONE LANGUAGE being referenced. I fail to see where there is disagreement herealthough I would have stated it differently than MarkW. did. Iver’s observation that MALLON modifies LALWis true enough, but that really says nothing about thesense of LALW to GLWSSAIS. I may be wrong on what theoriginal questions were after, but the question seemedto me to be asking whether PANTWN hUMWN MALLONGLWSSAIS LALW can be inferring that Paul spoke moreGLWSSA than the Corintians. I think that is what isexactly stated with GLWSSAIS: Paul speaks manylanguages, and more than the Corinthians do (not moreoften). Iver, are you saying that the sense here isPaul is affirming that he speaks in “languages” moreFREQUENTLY than do the Corinthians? That to me seemsforeign to this text. In fact, he tries to putrestraint on the proliferation of its use in this chapter.=====Waldo SlusherCalgary, AB__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! SiteBuilder – Free, easy-to-use web site design softwarehttp://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 waldo slusher waldoslusher at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 24 10:59:20 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 Mark Wilson wrote:> Iver has indicated that the adverb modifies the verb> and therefore it cannot > mean that> one speaks “more languages.” This is NOT at all> true. It does modify > speaking, of course,> but that says nothing as to whether or not the> speaking is look upon with > frequency> or number of languages. Since GLWSSA is plural, we> already know that there > are MORE THAN> ONE LANGUAGE being referenced. I fail to see where there is disagreement herealthough I would have stated it differently than MarkW. did. Iver’s observation that MALLON modifies LALWis true enough, but that really says nothing about thesense of LALW to GLWSSAIS. I may be wrong on what theoriginal questions were after, but the question seemedto me to be asking whether PANTWN hUMWN MALLONGLWSSAIS LALW can be inferring that Paul spoke moreGLWSSA than the Corintians. I think that is what isexactly stated with GLWSSAIS: Paul speaks manylanguages, and more than the Corinthians do (not moreoften). Iver, are you saying that the sense here isPaul is affirming that he speaks in “languages” moreFREQUENTLY than do the Corinthians? That to me seemsforeign to this text. In fact, he tries to putrestraint on the proliferation of its use in this chapter.=====Waldo SlusherCalgary, AB__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! SiteBuilder – Free, easy-to-use web site design softwarehttp://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Iver iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Sep 24 11:20:58 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 > At 9:42 AM +0300 9/24/03, Iver wrote:> >I am tempted to comment on Carl’s comment, but that is difficult since he> >moved into theology by introducing “ecstatic speech” which is> foreign to the> >text and context.> > My apologies to the list if it is true, as I suspect it is, that> others too have felt that I “moved into theology” with this comment:> > >All it says is “more than you all.” It probably does NOT mean> that he speak> >more languages inasmuch as the “tongue-speaking” under discussion here> >would seem, from the immediate context of 1 Cor 12-14 to refer> to ecstatic> >speech as a religious phenomenon rather than to the languages of human> >culture.Thanks, Carl.I don’t have too much of a problem with LALEIN GLWSSHi/GLWSSAIS “referringto a religious phenomenon rather than to languages of human culture”. Wehave references in Acts 2 where it clearly refers to human languages andother references which talk about GLWSSAIS TWN ANQRWPWN KAI TWN AGGELWN. SoI would say the term is broad enough to cover both possibilities. What Ireacted against was only the term “ecstatic” which I cannot find any supportfor in the Greek text of the NT anywhere. I only hear that term from certaintheological quarters (that I strongly disagree with). I am dismayed that theNEB and REB put that word into their translation of 14:19 and therebyimposed their theology on the text. Luckily no other translation has donethis as far as I know. And of course, the meaning of the English word”ecstatic” is not the same as the Greek word EKSTASIS.My friend Mark Wilson seems to not take into account that the term is areligious technical term in the GNT as “speaking in tongues” is in English.I can understand his “venting” because I know we disagree in theology. Inthe Greek text sometimes a plural is used as in 14:18, sometimes a singularas in 14:19. The plural may well mean that the term can potentially coverspeaking in a number of different “languages”, but that is not what MALLONin Cor 14:18-19 refers to, and that was the original question. The Greektext 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 Englishtranslations. 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 “alanguage/languages unknown to the speaker” is a translation question.Iver Larsen

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Iver iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Sep 24 11:20:58 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 > At 9:42 AM +0300 9/24/03, Iver wrote:> >I am tempted to comment on Carl’s comment, but that is difficult since he> >moved into theology by introducing “ecstatic speech” which is> foreign to the> >text and context.> > My apologies to the list if it is true, as I suspect it is, that> others too have felt that I “moved into theology” with this comment:> > >All it says is “more than you all.” It probably does NOT mean> that he speak> >more languages inasmuch as the “tongue-speaking” under discussion here> >would seem, from the immediate context of 1 Cor 12-14 to refer> to ecstatic> >speech as a religious phenomenon rather than to the languages of human> >culture.Thanks, Carl.I don’t have too much of a problem with LALEIN GLWSSHi/GLWSSAIS “referringto a religious phenomenon rather than to languages of human culture”. Wehave references in Acts 2 where it clearly refers to human languages andother references which talk about GLWSSAIS TWN ANQRWPWN KAI TWN AGGELWN. SoI would say the term is broad enough to cover both possibilities. What Ireacted against was only the term “ecstatic” which I cannot find any supportfor in the Greek text of the NT anywhere. I only hear that term from certaintheological quarters (that I strongly disagree with). I am dismayed that theNEB and REB put that word into their translation of 14:19 and therebyimposed their theology on the text. Luckily no other translation has donethis as far as I know. And of course, the meaning of the English word”ecstatic” is not the same as the Greek word EKSTASIS.My friend Mark Wilson seems to not take into account that the term is areligious technical term in the GNT as “speaking in tongues” is in English.I can understand his “venting” because I know we disagree in theology. Inthe Greek text sometimes a plural is used as in 14:18, sometimes a singularas in 14:19. The plural may well mean that the term can potentially coverspeaking in a number of different “languages”, but that is not what MALLONin Cor 14:18-19 refers to, and that was the original question. The Greektext 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 Englishtranslations. 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 “alanguage/languages unknown to the speaker” is a translation question.Iver Larsen

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Glendon Gross gross at xinetd.com
Wed Sep 24 11:43:26 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] Greek language changes during Flavian period One thing that helped me here is that my French textbook, when studying inGeneva at L’Ecole Moser, was called”Cours de langue et de civilization Francais”. (please forgive the lack ofcorrect accents due to my keyboard configuration.)Well, as a 13 year old I had to ask, “What does ‘langue’ mean? Well, theobvious answer is “tongue”…. yet not “tongue” in the senseof “a part of the body”. So that insight I gained as a 13 year old has greatlyhelped me avoid theological confuson regarding Paul’s use ofthe Greek word. If my French textbook had been a study in anatomy, that wouldhave allowed for a different interpretation.Regards,Glendon GrossAmateur Greek StudentMark Wilson wrote:> Carl wrote:> > > >All it says is “more than you all.” It probably does NOT mean that he> >speak> > >more languages inasmuch as the “tongue-speaking” under discussion here> > >would seem, from the immediate context of 1 Cor 12-14 to refer to> >ecstatic> > >speech as a religious phenomenon rather than to the languages of human> > >culture.> > I find it hard to believe that THIS is moving into theological discussions.> Clearly one must translate/interpret what is going here. Carl, in my> opinion, has chosen a way of understanding> the Greek text. He indicates that this tongues speaking “would seem” to be> ecstatic speech,> not that IT IS. One must come to an understanding of what this speaking in> languages is when> wrestling with the Greek text only. Or, are we to leave it in its Greek form> and pretend we> cannot translate it?> > Iver has indicated that the adverb modifies the verb and therefore it cannot> mean that> one speaks “more languages.” This is NOT at all true. It does modify> speaking, of course,> but that says nothing as to whether or not the speaking is look upon with> frequency> or number of languages. Since GLWSSA is plural, we already know that there> are MORE THAN> ONE LANGUAGE being referenced. Paul tells us that there are many kinds of> languages,> hETERWi GENH GLWSSWN. So, yes, the understanding that Paul speaks more> species (GENH)> of languages than others makes perfect sense grammatically.> > Carl said it “probably” doesn’t refer to number of languages because of his> understanding> of GLWSSA. Iver says it does not refer to number of languages because the> adverb modifies> the verb, “not the noun.” But Mitch’s question was “can” it mean both, and> the answer is Yes.> > I may be out of line here, but I think we all need to grow up a little. One> can not respond> to any post without some predisposition toward the Greek text. Mentioning,> in passing, an understanding one has of the Greek text, such as “ecstatic> speech,” is not entering into theological> discussions. We all knew what Carl meant. He was not peddling some theology.> If you ask me, we> can’t keep pretending that we can be totally objective in this forum. Having> said that, I AM all for> keeping theological discussion out of this forum!> > And finally, we all know when someone crosses the line into peddling some> theological position.> > Oh well, just venting.> > Mark Wilson> > _________________________________________________________________> Instant message with integrated webcam using MSN Messenger 6.0. Try it now> FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com> >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] Greek language changes during Flavian period

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Glendon Gross gross at xinetd.com
Wed Sep 24 11:43:26 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] Greek language changes during Flavian period One thing that helped me here is that my French textbook, when studying inGeneva at L’Ecole Moser, was called”Cours de langue et de civilization Francais”. (please forgive the lack ofcorrect accents due to my keyboard configuration.)Well, as a 13 year old I had to ask, “What does ‘langue’ mean? Well, theobvious answer is “tongue”…. yet not “tongue” in the senseof “a part of the body”. So that insight I gained as a 13 year old has greatlyhelped me avoid theological confuson regarding Paul’s use ofthe Greek word. If my French textbook had been a study in anatomy, that wouldhave allowed for a different interpretation.Regards,Glendon GrossAmateur Greek StudentMark Wilson wrote:> Carl wrote:> > > >All it says is “more than you all.” It probably does NOT mean that he> >speak> > >more languages inasmuch as the “tongue-speaking” under discussion here> > >would seem, from the immediate context of 1 Cor 12-14 to refer to> >ecstatic> > >speech as a religious phenomenon rather than to the languages of human> > >culture.> > I find it hard to believe that THIS is moving into theological discussions.> Clearly one must translate/interpret what is going here. Carl, in my> opinion, has chosen a way of understanding> the Greek text. He indicates that this tongues speaking “would seem” to be> ecstatic speech,> not that IT IS. One must come to an understanding of what this speaking in> languages is when> wrestling with the Greek text only. Or, are we to leave it in its Greek form> and pretend we> cannot translate it?> > Iver has indicated that the adverb modifies the verb and therefore it cannot> mean that> one speaks “more languages.” This is NOT at all true. It does modify> speaking, of course,> but that says nothing as to whether or not the speaking is look upon with> frequency> or number of languages. Since GLWSSA is plural, we already know that there> are MORE THAN> ONE LANGUAGE being referenced. Paul tells us that there are many kinds of> languages,> hETERWi GENH GLWSSWN. So, yes, the understanding that Paul speaks more> species (GENH)> of languages than others makes perfect sense grammatically.> > Carl said it “probably” doesn’t refer to number of languages because of his> understanding> of GLWSSA. Iver says it does not refer to number of languages because the> adverb modifies> the verb, “not the noun.” But Mitch’s question was “can” it mean both, and> the answer is Yes.> > I may be out of line here, but I think we all need to grow up a little. One> can not respond> to any post without some predisposition toward the Greek text. Mentioning,> in passing, an understanding one has of the Greek text, such as “ecstatic> speech,” is not entering into theological> discussions. We all knew what Carl meant. He was not peddling some theology.> If you ask me, we> can’t keep pretending that we can be totally objective in this forum. Having> said that, I AM all for> keeping theological discussion out of this forum!> > And finally, we all know when someone crosses the line into peddling some> theological position.> > Oh well, just venting.> > Mark Wilson> > _________________________________________________________________> Instant message with integrated webcam using MSN Messenger 6.0. Try it now> FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com> >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] Greek language changes during Flavian period
[] First Corinthians 14:18 Jason Hare jason at hareplay.com
Wed Sep 24 13:26:32 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] Two datives in Heb. 4:2 > 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 anysupport> for in the Greek text of the NT anywhere. I only hear that term fromcertain> theological quarters (that I strongly disagree with).Iver, don’t you think that strong disagreement with a doctrinal aspect isthe same as asserting a doctrinal position on the list? We both know thatCarl isn’t trying to win people over to a religious perspective (as Mark hasstated). Why not keep the list separate from both “I think this is the truespiritual understanding” and “I think this spiritual/religious understandingis 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 inEnglish.> 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 asingular> 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 oranother.> 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 inagreement. These texts are historically hard to discuss without theologicalventing. However, I think that we are all quite capable of maintainingself-control on both sides. IMO, it should be rather clear that MALLONmodifies the *verb* and not the noun. That’s just how the languagefunctions. 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 willcontinue to disagree, but the evidence supports the position that MALLONdoes not refer to “more languages” in this passage. I think the issue issettled, personally. ;-)Blessings,JasonMissouri Southern State Universitystudent of languages

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] Two datives in Heb. 4:2

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Jason Hare jason at hareplay.com
Wed Sep 24 13:26:32 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] Two datives in Heb. 4:2 > 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 anysupport> for in the Greek text of the NT anywhere. I only hear that term fromcertain> theological quarters (that I strongly disagree with).Iver, don’t you think that strong disagreement with a doctrinal aspect isthe same as asserting a doctrinal position on the list? We both know thatCarl isn’t trying to win people over to a religious perspective (as Mark hasstated). Why not keep the list separate from both “I think this is the truespiritual understanding” and “I think this spiritual/religious understandingis 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 inEnglish.> 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 asingular> 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 oranother.> 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 inagreement. These texts are historically hard to discuss without theologicalventing. However, I think that we are all quite capable of maintainingself-control on both sides. IMO, it should be rather clear that MALLONmodifies the *verb* and not the noun. That’s just how the languagefunctions. 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 willcontinue to disagree, but the evidence supports the position that MALLONdoes not refer to “more languages” in this passage. I think the issue issettled, personally. ;-)Blessings,JasonMissouri Southern State Universitystudent of languages

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] Two datives in Heb. 4:2

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Iver iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Sep 24 13:30:26 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 > Iver, are you saying that the sense here is> Paul is affirming that he speaks in “languages” more> FREQUENTLY than do the Corinthians? That to me seems> foreign to this text. In fact, he tries to put> restraint on the proliferation of its use in this chapter.> > =====> Waldo SlusherI thought I wouldn’t say more on this because of our theologicaldifferences, but since you ask me directly… And I did not see Carl’slatest response before I sent mine, but I am happy that we agree on the useof MALLON.If you read the context, especially the next verse, you will see thecontrast between speaking EN EKKLHSIAI 1000 words in an unintelligible”language” using the spirit and 5 words in an intelligible language usingthe mind. Whether Paul speaks more frequently than the Corinthians, I don’tthink we can tell from the text. Maybe both speak every day, but Paul forone hour and the others for 10 minutes? But he does say that he “speaks intongues” to a higher degree than them. Whether Paul speaks in the same”language” every time he speaks in tongues, again I don’t think we can tellfrom the text.Your last comment is missing the crucial contrast between *private*”speaking in tongues” for one’s own edification (v. 4) which Paul wants allof them to do (v. 5), and *public* speaking without an interpretation. It isthis last action that Paul discourages because the EKKLHSIA is not edifiedby it.Iver Larsen

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Eric Weiss eweiss at gte.net
Wed Sep 24 13:35:01 EDT 2003

 

[] Greek language changes during Flavian period [] First Corinthians 14:18 > 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. > > Iver LarsenI read somewhere that someone proposed translating like:”I thank God more than all of you [do] that I speak in tongues.”But no one translates it that way, as far as I know. Is it possible, though, to translate it that way?(Also … as one whose church experience has largely been in Charismatic churches, I agree that the term “ecstatic speech” conveys to the modern ear something that is a mischaracterization of what modern-day “speaking in tongues” tends to consist of, as very few of the practitioners are in a state of “ecstasy” or of less than full control of their senses and organs of speech, nor or they spiritually transported “out of” that in which they “stand.” Whether or not what the Corinthians and the people in Acts were doing was “ecstatic speech” or was the same thing modern-day tongues-speakers do is beyond our ability to know. But even if what is done today is NOT the same as what was done 2,000 years ago, I still think it is misleading, based on what we do know, to translate GLWSSAIS or GLWSSHi LALWN in I Cor., et al, as “speaking in ecstatic speech.”)Eric S. Weisseweiss at gte.nethttp://home1.gte.net/vzn05pnm/index.htm

 

[] Greek language changes during Flavian period[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Iver iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Sep 24 13:30:26 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 > Iver, are you saying that the sense here is> Paul is affirming that he speaks in “languages” more> FREQUENTLY than do the Corinthians? That to me seems> foreign to this text. In fact, he tries to put> restraint on the proliferation of its use in this chapter.> > =====> Waldo SlusherI thought I wouldn’t say more on this because of our theologicaldifferences, but since you ask me directly… And I did not see Carl’slatest response before I sent mine, but I am happy that we agree on the useof MALLON.If you read the context, especially the next verse, you will see thecontrast between speaking EN EKKLHSIAI 1000 words in an unintelligible”language” using the spirit and 5 words in an intelligible language usingthe mind. Whether Paul speaks more frequently than the Corinthians, I don’tthink we can tell from the text. Maybe both speak every day, but Paul forone hour and the others for 10 minutes? But he does say that he “speaks intongues” to a higher degree than them. Whether Paul speaks in the same”language” every time he speaks in tongues, again I don’t think we can tellfrom the text.Your last comment is missing the crucial contrast between *private*”speaking in tongues” for one’s own edification (v. 4) which Paul wants allof them to do (v. 5), and *public* speaking without an interpretation. It isthis last action that Paul discourages because the EKKLHSIA is not edifiedby it.Iver Larsen

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Eric Weiss eweiss at gte.net
Wed Sep 24 13:35:01 EDT 2003

 

[] Greek language changes during Flavian period [] First Corinthians 14:18 > 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. > > Iver LarsenI read somewhere that someone proposed translating like:”I thank God more than all of you [do] that I speak in tongues.”But no one translates it that way, as far as I know. Is it possible, though, to translate it that way?(Also … as one whose church experience has largely been in Charismatic churches, I agree that the term “ecstatic speech” conveys to the modern ear something that is a mischaracterization of what modern-day “speaking in tongues” tends to consist of, as very few of the practitioners are in a state of “ecstasy” or of less than full control of their senses and organs of speech, nor or they spiritually transported “out of” that in which they “stand.” Whether or not what the Corinthians and the people in Acts were doing was “ecstatic speech” or was the same thing modern-day tongues-speakers do is beyond our ability to know. But even if what is done today is NOT the same as what was done 2,000 years ago, I still think it is misleading, based on what we do know, to translate GLWSSAIS or GLWSSHi LALWN in I Cor., et al, as “speaking in ecstatic speech.”)Eric S. Weisseweiss at gte.nethttp://home1.gte.net/vzn05pnm/index.htm

 

[] Greek language changes during Flavian period[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Doug Hoxworth dhoxworth at charter.net
Wed Sep 24 14:55:19 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 ><Iver>>Your last comment is missing the crucial contrast between *private* “speaking in tongues” for one’s own edification (v. 4) which Paul wants all of them to do (v. 5), and *public* speaking without an interpretation. It is this last action that Paul discourages because the EKKLHSIA is not edified by it<doug>actually more properly the contrast is between speaking in languages and prophecy. it is debatable what the distinction is that paul is making by switching between singular and plural of GLWSSA if this is what you’re referring to. anyway, this seems to be a little “slipping of theology in” and not something that can necessarily be gathered unequivocally from the semantics, syntax, or even the pragmatics.

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Wed Sep 24 13:48:29 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] BDAG errata Iver:You wrote:——>The Greek>text must mean (a) “speak more in tongues than you all” rather than (b)>“speak in more tongues than you all”.——-Despite our theological differences, I am quite in agreement with you here! The passage should read “speak more in tongues than you all.” Or, as I have suggested, “speak more in languages than you all.” And all I intended to argue, unsuccessfully, was that this is NOT a reference to Paul speaking more FREQUENTLY in tongues. That is how I understood Mitch’s question. What I am saying is that the clause “speak more in tongues than you all” MEANS that Paul speaks in far more languages (your tongues) than do the Corinthians. I respect your attempts to see some private tongue or whatever, but I just don’t see Paul discussing such a phenomena in this Corinthian correspondence (at least not in any positive way). What Waldo suggested, that Isaiah must be taken into consideration, if nothing else, should help us define the nature of GLWSSA here in this passage. Paul explicity appeals to Isaiah for the points he is trying to make.I thought I said this with my last post. When you indicated what MALLON modified LALW, I said: “It does modify speaking, of course, but that says nothing as to whether or not the speaking is look upon with frequency or number of languages.” And then I pointed out the plural. I made no attempt to argue any “technical” language here.Okay, end of rambling. And as always, Iver, it’s nice to interact with you! (And I would never suggest that my knowledge of Greek comes close to yours.)Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer– sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] BDAG errata

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Wed Sep 24 13:48:29 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] BDAG errata Iver:You wrote:——>The Greek>text must mean (a) “speak more in tongues than you all” rather than (b)>“speak in more tongues than you all”.——-Despite our theological differences, I am quite in agreement with you here! The passage should read “speak more in tongues than you all.” Or, as I have suggested, “speak more in languages than you all.” And all I intended to argue, unsuccessfully, was that this is NOT a reference to Paul speaking more FREQUENTLY in tongues. That is how I understood Mitch’s question. What I am saying is that the clause “speak more in tongues than you all” MEANS that Paul speaks in far more languages (your tongues) than do the Corinthians. I respect your attempts to see some private tongue or whatever, but I just don’t see Paul discussing such a phenomena in this Corinthian correspondence (at least not in any positive way). What Waldo suggested, that Isaiah must be taken into consideration, if nothing else, should help us define the nature of GLWSSA here in this passage. Paul explicity appeals to Isaiah for the points he is trying to make.I thought I said this with my last post. When you indicated what MALLON modified LALW, I said: “It does modify speaking, of course, but that says nothing as to whether or not the speaking is look upon with frequency or number of languages.” And then I pointed out the plural. I made no attempt to argue any “technical” language here.Okay, end of rambling. And as always, Iver, it’s nice to interact with you! (And I would never suggest that my knowledge of Greek comes close to yours.)Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer– sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] BDAG errata

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Doug Hoxworth dhoxworth at charter.net
Wed Sep 24 14:55:19 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 ><Iver>>Your last comment is missing the crucial contrast between *private* “speaking in tongues” for one’s own edification (v. 4) which Paul wants all of them to do (v. 5), and *public* speaking without an interpretation. It is this last action that Paul discourages because the EKKLHSIA is not edified by it<doug>actually more properly the contrast is between speaking in languages and prophecy. it is debatable what the distinction is that paul is making by switching between singular and plural of GLWSSA if this is what you’re referring to. anyway, this seems to be a little “slipping of theology in” and not something that can necessarily be gathered unequivocally from the semantics, syntax, or even the pragmatics.

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Doug Hoxworth dhoxworth at charter.net
Wed Sep 24 14:55:20 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 ><Iver>>Your last comment is missing the crucial contrast between *private* “speaking in tongues” for one’s own edification (v. 4) which Paul wants all of them to do (v. 5), and *public* speaking without an interpretation. It is this last action that Paul discourages because the EKKLHSIA is not edified by it<doug>actually more properly the contrast is between speaking in languages and prophecy. it is debatable what the distinction is that paul is making by switching between singular and plural of GLWSSA if this is what you’re referring to. anyway, this seems to be a little “slipping of theology in” and not something that can necessarily be gathered unequivocally from the semantics, syntax, or even the pragmatics.

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] First Corinthians 14:18 Doug Hoxworth dhoxworth at charter.net
Wed Sep 24 14:55:20 EDT 2003

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18 [] First Corinthians 14:18 ><Iver>>Your last comment is missing the crucial contrast between *private* “speaking in tongues” for one’s own edification (v. 4) which Paul wants all of them to do (v. 5), and *public* speaking without an interpretation. It is this last action that Paul discourages because the EKKLHSIA is not edified by it<doug>actually more properly the contrast is between speaking in languages and prophecy. it is debatable what the distinction is that paul is making by switching between singular and plural of GLWSSA if this is what you’re referring to. anyway, this seems to be a little “slipping of theology in” and not something that can necessarily be gathered unequivocally from the semantics, syntax, or even the pragmatics.

 

[] First Corinthians 14:18[] First Corinthians 14:18

[] 1 Cor 14:18: Observations on the discussion Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 25 08:39:00 EDT 2003

 

[] APAITEW in Luke 12:20 [] Mt 23:8, gram subj? After the dust has settled, the feathers smoothed, the fur swept up–or soI hope–, I must say that I thought yesterday’s discussion was useful andinformative. While others might not share my assessment, I personallylearned some things about the passage and the different ways in which it isunderstood and consequently I have a better grasp of how people go aboutsorting out the range of meanings that may be implicit in the Greek text.It is now clear to me that there are at least three different views aboutwhat Paul means by the phrase GLWSSHi/GLWSSAIS LALEIN–even a view thatLALEIN with the dative singular of GLWSSA means something different fromLALEIN with the dative plural of the same noun. While my own understandingof 1 Cor 12-14 hasn’t been significantly altered, I do have a betterappreciation of what the alternative understandings of these chapters areabout and how those who understand them that way think.I want to be brief in stating these observations, but I’d like to prefacethem by citing the single oldest item from our FAQ regarding “listnetiquette,” one that was most carefully hammered out in BG-staff committeediscussions more than six years ago:”Those who participate in the conference represent a wide range oftheological and denominational perspectives, perhaps even including somewhose interests are purely academic. Deep religious convictions surelycharacterize many, perhaps most, of the list-participants, and some ofthese convictions bear directly upon how the Biblical text is to beunderstood. At the core of our discussion, however, is not what ourconvictions are but what the Greek text may legitimately be understood tomean. If discussion of this nature is to succeed, proper respect andcourtesy to other list members is important. While scholarly debate,including disagreement, is encouraged as a goal of this conference, attacksupon the character, intelligence, or faith of those participating are notacceptable. Criticism must focus upon the arguments of others; it may notbe directed to the individual.”I don’t mean to accuse ANY participant in this thread of any violation oflist-protocol, but I was somewhat disturbed by some assertions, howevercasual or qualified, that were made in the course of the discussion to theeffect that positions stated regarding 1 Cor 14:18 had passed or werepassing beyond analysis of the Greek text to staking out theologicalpositions regarding LALEIN GLWSSHi/GLWSSAIS. Surely it’s not necessary toconclude that such statements are must be based upon theological stances ofposters rather than upon their honest analysis of what the Greek text issaying. I wish that list-members would leave it to the moderators todiscern where protocol is being violated or in danger of being violated:it’s hard enough for us to do it even-handedly, and we’d really rather notinterfere in a thread unless or until we feel we must do so.I am aware that there is a hermeneutical assumption held by manylist-members that there is only one legitimate interpretation of any givenBiblical text; while I myself would be very hesitant to suggest intentionalambivalence of meaning in any particular Biblical text, I do think thatdiscussion in this forum is predicated on the assumption that whatever ourconvictions and/or considered judgments regarding particular biblical textsmay be, we are open to alternative views–not LOOKING for alternatives oranticipating that one’s judgment regarding a particular text WILL bechanged by the discussion, but open to the possibility that an alternativeunderstanding of a text may be preferable to the one which we currentlyhold. That’s what I call “being open-minded without being empty-headed.” Ithink too that we need to bring to our analysis and discussion a readinessto discern that others view the immediate and broader context of the textin question differently from the way in which we views it ourselves. Thatis to say: alternative analyses may arise from different ways ofunderstanding the context, and although theological stances may be involvedin those understandings of the context, they are not necessarily thedecisive factor. I learned yesterday that there are radically differentperceptions of Paul’s context and of the central thrust of his argument in1 Cor 12-14 (or at least of 1 Cor 14). If the question had been poseddirectly, “What does Paul mean by GLWSSHi/GLWSSAIS LALEIN in 1 Cor 14:18?”it’s possible that discussion might have disclosed sooner and moreexplicitly that there are fundamental disagreements over the right answerto that question–and those disagreements need not be simply “theological”and it may not be a matter of different hermeneutical methodologies,although those may be involved; it may be just a cumulative judgmentarising from all one’s experience and previous encounters with the writtenword in all its variety.All of which amounts, ultimately, to an exhortation to re-consider and payheed (AKOUW?) to that old paragraph from the FAQ on “list netiquette” citedabove.– Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] APAITEW in Luke 12:20[] Mt 23:8, gram subj?

[] 1 Cor 14:18: Observations on the discussion Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 25 08:39:00 EDT 2003

 

[] APAITEW in Luke 12:20 [] Mt 23:8, gram subj? After the dust has settled, the feathers smoothed, the fur swept up–or soI hope–, I must say that I thought yesterday’s discussion was useful andinformative. While others might not share my assessment, I personallylearned some things about the passage and the different ways in which it isunderstood and consequently I have a better grasp of how people go aboutsorting out the range of meanings that may be implicit in the Greek text.It is now clear to me that there are at least three different views aboutwhat Paul means by the phrase GLWSSHi/GLWSSAIS LALEIN–even a view thatLALEIN with the dative singular of GLWSSA means something different fromLALEIN with the dative plural of the same noun. While my own understandingof 1 Cor 12-14 hasn’t been significantly altered, I do have a betterappreciation of what the alternative understandings of these chapters areabout and how those who understand them that way think.I want to be brief in stating these observations, but I’d like to prefacethem by citing the single oldest item from our FAQ regarding “listnetiquette,” one that was most carefully hammered out in BG-staff committeediscussions more than six years ago:”Those who participate in the conference represent a wide range oftheological and denominational perspectives, perhaps even including somewhose interests are purely academic. Deep religious convictions surelycharacterize many, perhaps most, of the list-participants, and some ofthese convictions bear directly upon how the Biblical text is to beunderstood. At the core of our discussion, however, is not what ourconvictions are but what the Greek text may legitimately be understood tomean. If discussion of this nature is to succeed, proper respect andcourtesy to other list members is important. While scholarly debate,including disagreement, is encouraged as a goal of this conference, attacksupon the character, intelligence, or faith of those participating are notacceptable. Criticism must focus upon the arguments of others; it may notbe directed to the individual.”I don’t mean to accuse ANY participant in this thread of any violation oflist-protocol, but I was somewhat disturbed by some assertions, howevercasual or qualified, that were made in the course of the discussion to theeffect that positions stated regarding 1 Cor 14:18 had passed or werepassing beyond analysis of the Greek text to staking out theologicalpositions regarding LALEIN GLWSSHi/GLWSSAIS. Surely it’s not necessary toconclude that such statements are must be based upon theological stances ofposters rather than upon their honest analysis of what the Greek text issaying. I wish that list-members would leave it to the moderators todiscern where protocol is being violated or in danger of being violated:it’s hard enough for us to do it even-handedly, and we’d really rather notinterfere in a thread unless or until we feel we must do so.I am aware that there is a hermeneutical assumption held by manylist-members that there is only one legitimate interpretation of any givenBiblical text; while I myself would be very hesitant to suggest intentionalambivalence of meaning in any particular Biblical text, I do think thatdiscussion in this forum is predicated on the assumption that whatever ourconvictions and/or considered judgments regarding particular biblical textsmay be, we are open to alternative views–not LOOKING for alternatives oranticipating that one’s judgment regarding a particular text WILL bechanged by the discussion, but open to the possibility that an alternativeunderstanding of a text may be preferable to the one which we currentlyhold. That’s what I call “being open-minded without being empty-headed.” Ithink too that we need to bring to our analysis and discussion a readinessto discern that others view the immediate and broader context of the textin question differently from the way in which we views it ourselves. Thatis to say: alternative analyses may arise from different ways ofunderstanding the context, and although theological stances may be involvedin those understandings of the context, they are not necessarily thedecisive factor. I learned yesterday that there are radically differentperceptions of Paul’s context and of the central thrust of his argument in1 Cor 12-14 (or at least of 1 Cor 14). If the question had been poseddirectly, “What does Paul mean by GLWSSHi/GLWSSAIS LALEIN in 1 Cor 14:18?”it’s possible that discussion might have disclosed sooner and moreexplicitly that there are fundamental disagreements over the right answerto that question–and those disagreements need not be simply “theological”and it may not be a matter of different hermeneutical methodologies,although those may be involved; it may be just a cumulative judgmentarising from all one’s experience and previous encounters with the writtenword in all its variety.All of which amounts, ultimately, to an exhortation to re-consider and payheed (AKOUW?) to that old paragraph from the FAQ on “list netiquette” citedabove.– Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] APAITEW in Luke 12:20[] Mt 23:8, gram subj?

[] RE:1 Cor 14:18: Observations on the discussion Perry & Debbie McChesney perry at globalriver.com
Thu Sep 25 21:09:26 EDT 2003

 

[] Gospel of John 6:24 [] Gospel of John 6:24 <Carl>After the dust has settled, the feathers smoothed, the fur swept up–or soI hope–, I must say that I thought yesterday’s discussion was useful andinformative. While others might not share my assessment, I personallylearned some things about the passage and the different ways in which it isunderstood and consequently I have a better grasp of how people go aboutsorting out the range of meanings that may be implicit in the Greek text.I couldn’t agree more! To be honest with ourselves. I think anyone reading over the posts could do a pretty good sketch of everyone’s denominational or theological standing. I have noticed the same thing with lexicons. Look up OINOS in Strong’s or KATAKALUPTW in BDAG’S and you can definitely see a theological opinion coming to the surface. I don’t think it is completely avoidable, but learning to recognize and cope with it in a courteous manner is a good exercise. I think another thing that can be learned here is that our theology should be firmly based in what has been attained from studying the word in the language we are most fluent in. After all, I think, we could all agree that the work of the Holy Spirit is not limited by language.Grace & Peace,Debbie McChesney

 

[] Gospel of John 6:24[] Gospel of John 6:24

[] RE:1 Cor 14:18: Observations on the discussion Perry & Debbie McChesney perry at globalriver.com
Thu Sep 25 21:09:26 EDT 2003

 

[] Gospel of John 6:24 [] Gospel of John 6:24 <Carl>After the dust has settled, the feathers smoothed, the fur swept up–or soI hope–, I must say that I thought yesterday’s discussion was useful andinformative. While others might not share my assessment, I personallylearned some things about the passage and the different ways in which it isunderstood and consequently I have a better grasp of how people go aboutsorting out the range of meanings that may be implicit in the Greek text.I couldn’t agree more! To be honest with ourselves. I think anyone reading over the posts could do a pretty good sketch of everyone’s denominational or theological standing. I have noticed the same thing with lexicons. Look up OINOS in Strong’s or KATAKALUPTW in BDAG’S and you can definitely see a theological opinion coming to the surface. I don’t think it is completely avoidable, but learning to recognize and cope with it in a courteous manner is a good exercise. I think another thing that can be learned here is that our theology should be firmly based in what has been attained from studying the word in the language we are most fluent in. After all, I think, we could all agree that the work of the Holy Spirit is not limited by language.Grace & Peace,Debbie McChesney

 

[] Gospel of John 6:24[] Gospel of John 6:24

[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18 at global4.freeserve.co.uk at global4.freeserve.co.uk
Tue Dec 15 07:01:29 EST 2009

 

[] Reverse Assimilation to the Relative (wasAssimilation of the Relative.) [] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18 a couple of basic questions about this verse…EUCARISTW TW QEW PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALWis generally translated along the lines:I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (NIV)Is it acceptable to translate this”I thank God more than all of you, that I speak in tongues”, or does the word order or other consideration not allow this?Also, in the Elzevir 1624 edn, the Greek is different from the Nestle:EUCARISTW TW QEW MOU PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALWNCan this be translated:”I thank my God (by means of) speaking in tongues more than any of you”In some ways this seems to fit the context better as in vs16-17, Paul is talking about an individual speaking in tongues as giving thanks to God, to then say “I use tongues to give thanks to God more than any of you” fits logically – but I am not sure whether Greek permits this.Many thanksAdrian Clark

 

[] Reverse Assimilation to the Relative (wasAssimilation of the Relative.)[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18

[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Dec 15 10:32:49 EST 2009

 

[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18 [] “Erasmian?” really? WAS: Another Audio Greek NewTestament, free on the Internet On Dec 15, 2009, at 7:01 AM, at global4.freeserve.co.uk wrote:> a couple of basic questions about this verse…> > EUCARISTW TW QEW PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALW> > is generally translated along the lines:> > I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (NIV)> > Is it acceptable to translate this> > “I thank God more than all of you, that I speak in tongues”, or does the word order or other consideration not allow this?> > Also, in the Elzevir 1624 edn, the Greek is different from the Nestle:> > EUCARISTW TW QEW MOU PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALWN> > Can this be translated:> “I thank my God (by means of) speaking in tongues more than any of you”> > In some ways this seems to fit the context better as in vs16-17, Paul is talking about an individual speaking in tongues as giving thanks to God, to then say “I use tongues to give thanks to God more than any of you” fits logically – but I am not sure whether Greek permits this.Do you mean, “I thank my God more than any of you (does) when I speak in tongues?” I think that PANTWN hUMWN can only be construed with MALLON.NA27/USB4 place a comma after QEWi, rightly, I think. And I think that verse 19 makes much more sense if verse 17 is understood as an affirmation on Paul’s part that he does speak in tongues more than any of the Corinthian congregation.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18[] “Erasmian?” really? WAS: Another Audio Greek NewTestament, free on the Internet

[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18 at global4.freeserve.co.uk at global4.freeserve.co.uk
Tue Dec 15 11:35:31 EST 2009

 

[] Pronouns [] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18 On Tue Dec 15 09:32:49 CST 2009, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:> > On Dec 15, 2009, at 7:01 AM, at global4.freeserve.co.uk wrote:>> a couple of basic questions about this verse…>> >> EUCARISTW TW QEW PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALW>> >> is generally translated along the lines:>> >> I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (NIV)>> >> Is it acceptable to translate this>> >> “I thank God more than all of you, that I speak in tongues”, or does the word order or other consideration not allow this?>> >> Also, in the Elzevir 1624 edn, the Greek is different from the Nestle:>> >> EUCARISTW TW QEW MOU PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALWN>> >> Can this be translated:>> “I thank my God (by means of) speaking in tongues more than any of you”>> >> In some ways this seems to fit the context better as in vs16-17, Paul is talking about an individual speaking in tongues as giving thanks to God, to then say “I use tongues to give thanks to God more than any of you” fits logically – but I am not sure whether Greek permits this.> > Do you mean, “I thank my God more than any of you (does) when I speak in tongues?” I think that PANTWN hUMWN can only be construed with MALLON.> NA27/USB4 place a comma after QEWi, rightly, I think. And I think that verse 19 makes much more sense if verse 17 is understood as an affirmation on Paul’s part that he does speak in tongues more than any of the Corinthian congregation.> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> The first question is whether PANTWN hUMWN MALLON can be referring to EUCARISTW TW QEWi, or whether it must be referring to GLWSSAIS LALW – i.e. whether the emphasis can be “I thank God more than any of you does…” or whether it must be “…that I speak in tongues more than any of you does”If the emphasis can be on “I thank God more than any of you does”, then a supplementary question is whether:(esp from the Elzevir 1624 version with the use of the participle LALWN)”I thank my God more than any of you (does) when I speak in tongues”is as acceptable as:”I thank my God more than any of you (does) that I speak in tongues”Adrian Clark

 

[] Pronouns[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18
[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 15 11:54:14 EST 2009

 

[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18 [] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18 Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ, πάντων ὑμῶν μᾶλλον γλώσσαις λαλῶ·EUXARISTW TWi QEWi PANTWN hUMOWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALW.Just a matter of curiosity dealing with what understanding one would gain from such a proposal as yours that Paul might be saying “I thank my God more than any of you …”  What would be his purpose in stating that his is more thankful than they?  People always write things with a purpose, and I simply can’t see such a statement as something that he would be interested in setting forth.  On the other hand, to say that he speaks more tongues than they would definitely add to his statement that it is more worthwhile to speak 5 words with understanding.  Texts must be read not only with attention to the grammatical relationships but also with attention to what the author is attempting to state.  As I began, why would he say that he is more thankful than the Corinthians? georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: ” at global4.freeserve.co.uk” < at global4.freeserve.co.uk>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Tue, December 15, 2009 9:35:31 AMSubject: [] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18On Tue Dec 15 09:32:49 CST 2009, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:> > On Dec 15, 2009, at 7:01 AM, at global4.freeserve.co.uk wrote:>> a couple of basic questions about this verse…>> >> EUCARISTW TW QEW PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALW>> >> is generally translated along the lines:>> >> I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (NIV)>> >> Is it acceptable to translate this>> >> “I thank God more than all of you, that I speak in tongues”, or does the word order or other consideration not allow this?>> >> Also, in the Elzevir 1624 edn, the Greek is different from the Nestle:>> >> EUCARISTW TW QEW MOU PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALWN>> >> Can this be translated:>> “I thank my God (by means of) speaking in tongues more than any of you”>> >> In some ways this seems to fit the context better as in vs16-17, Paul is talking about an individual speaking in tongues as giving thanks to God, to then say “I use tongues to give thanks to God more than any of you” fits logically – but I am not sure whether Greek permits this.> > Do you mean, “I thank my God more than any of you (does) when I speak in tongues?” I think that PANTWN hUMWN can only be construed with MALLON.> NA27/USB4 place a comma after QEWi, rightly, I think. And I think that verse 19 makes much more sense if verse 17 is understood as an affirmation on Paul’s part that he does speak in tongues more than any of the Corinthian congregation.> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> The first question is whether PANTWN hUMWN MALLON can be referring to EUCARISTW TW QEWi, or whether it must be referring to GLWSSAIS LALW – i.e. whether the emphasis can be “I thank God more than any of you does…” or whether it must be “…that I speak in tongues more than any of you does”If the emphasis can be on “I thank God more than any of you does”, then a supplementary question is whether:(esp from the Elzevir 1624 version with the use of the participle LALWN)”I thank my God more than any of you (does) when I speak in tongues”is as acceptable as:”I thank my God more than any of you (does) that I speak in tongues”Adrian Clark— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18

[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18 at global4.freeserve.co.uk at global4.freeserve.co.uk
Tue Dec 15 12:58:16 EST 2009

 

[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18 [] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18 Thanks for your response George, a good question. I agree with you that given Paul’s reference to ‘ten thousand words in a tongue’, this seems to point to the fact that he is saying that he is thankful that he speaks in tongues more (rather than being more thankful that he speaks in tongues).However, the context is also one of tongues being a means of giving thanks. Paul writes that when someone prays in a tongue how can one who does not understand say “Amen” to the THANKSGIVING (16), and the speaker may be giving THANKS well enough (vs17). Therefore, for him to then say “I give thanks more than any of you by this means” does not seem beyond the realms of possibility to me, as it could be extending the fact that tongues is a means of giving thanks.Kind regardsAdrianOn Tue Dec 15 10:54:14 CST 2009, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:> ????????? ?? ???, ?????? ???? ?????? ???????? ????·> EUXARISTW TWi QEWi PANTWN hUMOWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALW.> > Just a matter of curiosity dealing with what understanding one would gain from such a proposal as yours that Paul might be saying “I thank my God more than any of you …” What would be his purpose in stating that his is more thankful than they? People always write things with a purpose, and I simply can’t see such a statement as something that he would be interested in setting forth. On the other hand, to say that he speaks more tongues than they would definitely add to his statement that it is more worthwhile to speak 5 words with understanding. Texts must be read not only with attention to the grammatical relationships but also with attention to what the author is attempting to state. As I began, why would he say that he is more thankful than the Corinthians?> george> gfsomsel > > > ? search for truth, hear truth, > learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, > defend the truth till death.> > > – Jan Hus> _________ > > > > > ________________________________> From: ” at global4.freeserve.co.uk” < at global4.freeserve.co.uk>> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Tue, December 15, 2009 9:35:31 AM> Subject: [] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18> > On Tue Dec 15 09:32:49 CST 2009, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:> >> >> On Dec 15, 2009, at 7:01 AM, at global4.freeserve.co.uk wrote:>>> a couple of basic questions about this verse…>>> >>> EUCARISTW TW QEW PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALW>>> >>> is generally translated along the lines:>>> >>> I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (NIV)>>> >>> Is it acceptable to translate this>>> >>> “I thank God more than all of you, that I speak in tongues”, or does the word order or other consideration not allow this?>>> >>> Also, in the Elzevir 1624 edn, the Greek is different from the Nestle:>>> >>> EUCARISTW TW QEW MOU PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALWN>>> >>> Can this be translated:>>> “I thank my God (by means of) speaking in tongues more than any of you”>>> >>> In some ways this seems to fit the context better as in vs16-17, Paul is talking about an individual speaking in tongues as giving thanks to God, to then say “I use tongues to give thanks to God more than any of you” fits logically – but I am not sure whether Greek permits this.>> >> Do you mean, “I thank my God more than any of you (does) when I speak in tongues?” I think that PANTWN hUMWN can only be construed with MALLON.>> NA27/USB4 place a comma after QEWi, rightly, I think. And I think that verse 19 makes much more sense if verse 17 is understood as an affirmation on Paul’s part that he does speak in tongues more than any of the Corinthian congregation.>> >> Carl W. Conrad>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)>> > > The first question is whether PANTWN hUMWN MALLON can be referring to EUCARISTW TW QEWi, or whether it must be referring to GLWSSAIS LALW – i.e. whether the emphasis can be “I thank God more than any of you does…” or whether it must be “…that I speak in tongues more than any of you does”> > If the emphasis can be on “I thank God more than any of you does”, then a supplementary question is whether:> (esp from the Elzevir 1624 version with the use of the participle LALWN)> “I thank my God more than any of you (does) when I speak in tongues”> is as acceptable as:> “I thank my God more than any of you (does) that I speak in tongues”> > Adrian Clark>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > >

 

[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18

[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18 Steve Petty selecsteve at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 15 13:06:25 EST 2009

 

[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18 [] GNT Daily Reading RSS The text is not about giving thanks – giving thanks, like giving praise or making requests, is simply Paul’s illustration, not the point.  Steve Petty— On Tue, 12/15/09, at global4.freeserve.co.uk < at global4.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:From: at global4.freeserve.co.uk < at global4.freeserve.co.uk>Subject: [] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18To: at lists.ibiblio.orgDate: Tuesday, December 15, 2009, 12:58 PMThanks for your response George, a good question.  I agree with you that given Paul’s reference to ‘ten thousand words in a tongue’, this seems to point to the fact that he is saying that he is thankful that he speaks in tongues more (rather than being more thankful that he speaks in tongues).However, the context is also one of tongues being a means of giving thanks.  Paul writes that when someone prays in a tongue how can one who does not understand say “Amen” to the THANKSGIVING (16), and the speaker may be giving THANKS well enough (vs17).  Therefore, for him to then say “I give thanks more than any of you by this means” does not seem beyond the realms of possibility to me, as it could be extending the fact that tongues is a means of giving thanks.Kind regardsAdrianOn Tue Dec 15 10:54:14 CST 2009, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:> ????????? ?? ???, ?????? ???? ?????? ???????? ????·> EUXARISTW TWi QEWi PANTWN hUMOWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALW.> > Just a matter of curiosity dealing with what understanding one would gain from such a proposal as yours that Paul might be saying “I thank my God more than any of you …”  What would be his purpose in stating that his is more thankful than they?  People always write things with a purpose, and I simply can’t see such a statement as something that he would be interested in setting forth.  On the other hand, to say that he speaks more tongues than they would definitely add to his statement that it is more worthwhile to speak 5 words with understanding.  Texts must be read not only with attention to the grammatical relationships but also with attention to what the author is attempting to state.  As I began, why would he say that he is more thankful than the Corinthians?>  george> gfsomsel > > > ? search for truth, hear truth, > learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, > defend the truth till death.> > > – Jan Hus> _________ > > > > > ________________________________> From: ” at global4.freeserve.co.uk” < at global4.freeserve.co.uk>> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Tue, December 15, 2009 9:35:31 AM> Subject: [] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18> > On Tue Dec 15 09:32:49 CST 2009, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:> >> >> On Dec 15, 2009, at 7:01 AM, at global4.freeserve.co.uk wrote:>>> a couple of basic questions about this verse…>>> >>> EUCARISTW TW QEW PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALW>>> >>> is generally translated along the lines:>>> >>> I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you (NIV)>>> >>> Is it acceptable to translate this>>> >>> “I thank God more than all of you, that I speak in tongues”, or does the word order or other consideration not allow this?>>> >>> Also, in the Elzevir 1624 edn, the Greek is different from the Nestle:>>> >>> EUCARISTW TW QEW MOU PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS LALWN>>> >>> Can this be translated:>>> “I thank my God (by means of) speaking in tongues more than any of you”>>> >>> In some ways this seems to fit the context better as in vs16-17, Paul is talking about an individual speaking in tongues as giving thanks to God, to then say “I use tongues to give thanks to God more than any of you” fits logically – but I am not sure whether Greek permits this.>> >> Do you mean, “I thank my God more than any of you (does) when I speak in tongues?” I think that PANTWN hUMWN can only be construed with MALLON.>> NA27/USB4 place a comma after QEWi, rightly, I think. And I think that verse 19 makes much more sense if verse 17 is understood as an affirmation on Paul’s part that he does speak in tongues more than any of the Corinthian congregation.>> >> Carl W. Conrad>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)>> > > The first question is whether PANTWN hUMWN MALLON can be referring to EUCARISTW TW QEWi, or whether it must be referring to GLWSSAIS LALW – i.e. whether the emphasis can be “I thank God more than any of you does…” or whether it must be “…that I speak in tongues more than any of you does”> > If the emphasis can be on “I thank God more than any of you does”, then a supplementary question is whether:> (esp from the Elzevir 1624 version with the use of the participle LALWN)> “I thank my God more than any of you (does) when I speak in tongues”> is as acceptable as:> “I thank my God more than any of you (does) that I speak in tongues”> > Adrian Clark>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > —–Inline Attachment Follows——– home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18[] GNT Daily Reading RSS

[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18 Yancy Smith yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Tue Dec 15 14:03:22 EST 2009

 

[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18 [] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18 George is right in saying “Texts must be read not only with attention to the grammatical relationships but also with attention to what the author is attempting to state.” Another way of saying this is that the grammar/syntax, everything written in the code (the Greek text), is not quite sufficient to give the meaning intended by the speaker. From both inside the text (co-text) and outside the text the reader must add an inferential process of interpretation and choose relevant contextual information (which includes a lot of stuff, not the least ancient rhetorical culture).Adrian said:The first question is whether PANTWN hUMWN MALLON can be referring to EUCARISTW TW QEWi, or whether it must be referring to GLWSSAIS LALW – i.e. whether the emphasis can be “I thank God more than any of you does…” or whether it must be “…that I speak in tongues more than any of you does” While the grammar might possibly be stretched to allow this reading, the argument will not. I don’t know enough about Greek grammar to say whether the placement of MALLON here makes it potentially ambiguous.In this case the argument in 1 Cor 14 Paul states his proposition in the form of a command (14:1), then he gives a reason for this: that in all cases the up-building of the church is preferred (to any other purpose) when anyone speaks to the assembly (14:1-6). He then proves this reason by making a general argument that meaningful sound (music) is superior or more useful to meaningless sound (14:7-13). He then embellishes this proof of the reason by means of examples (14:14-25). In this context he provides a personal, ethical, example that demonstrates the reason in support of the proposition. In this context “thanking God” is one particular thing that a person can do in the assembly but even thanking God can fail to build up the church if it is done with no regard to the audience (i.e. “in a tongue”). So then Paul gives an sophistic example that is technically self evident as a proof, he “thanks God” (in Greek, and thus building up the church) that he speaks in tongues more than all of them. At the same time he thanks God he is doing it to instruct others, which drives home that point that 10,000 words in a tongue would not be as helpful as the sentence he just uttered.The reading “thank God more than all of you” would make nonsense out of the argument.About the Elzevir 1624 edn, it reflects the Majority Text (eg. KL). Here LALWN smoothes the grammatical relationship of the first part of the sentence and the second by resurrecting an Attic supplementary participle used with verbs of emotion (cf. BDF 415), a use of the participle that has almost completely disappeared in the GNT, like Acts 16:34, hGaLLIATO PEPISTEUKWS, “they rejoiced that he had believed.” The placing of a comma by the editors of both the The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005 and the NA27 text is a tacit affirmation of the parataxis. So, a good translation of the Elzevir text would not be any different from a translation of the NA27 text, “I thank my God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.” There is, of course, also the reading of P46, GLOSSAIS LALEIN.Yancy

 

[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18[] More thanks or more tongues? 1Cor14:18

I Cor. 14:18 Eric Weiss eweiss at gte.net
Mon Jun 22 22:38:36 EDT 1998

 

KLAW ARTON – Having a meal? I Cor. 14:18 N-A 27 gives the following variants:EUCARISTW TWi QEWi [MOU], PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS [GLWSSHi – Iassume there is a I subscript in the variant – dative/instrumental] LALW[LALWN (TR/Majority Text) / LALEIN].The MOU and GLWSSAIS/GLWSSHi variant don’t concern me. The othervariants would be these renderings, I guess:a) I give thanks to God, more than all of you in/with tongues I speak =I give thanks to God that I speak in tongues more thanall of you. This is the N-A choice.b) I give thanks to God, more than all of you speaking in tongues = Igive thanks to God by speaking in tongues more than allof you, i.e.:b.1.) I thank God in tongues more than all of you. This might besupported by the preceding verses (14:16-17) which have to do withgiving thanks in tonguesorb.2.) I give thanks to God, speaking in tongues more than all of you(similar to a) above).c) I give thanks to God, more than all of you to speak in tongues = Igive thanks to God [that I = reason] speak in tonguesmore than all of you (I guess that would be it – I’m not sure how totranslate the infinitive variant LALEIN]I’m divided between a) and b.1.). The context, including 14:19, seems toallow for either of these options – so I guess it comes down to thetextual variant, i.e., LALW or LALWN. Would he be saying that he isthankful that he speaks in tongues more than all the Corinthians, orthat he thanks God in tongues more than all the Corinthians? Orsomething else?What reasons might be given for favoring these options – or any otheroptions you know about?Thanks!–“Eric S. Weiss”http://home1.gte.net/eweiss/index.htmeweiss at gte.netS.D.G.

 

KLAW ARTON – Having a meal?I Cor. 14:18

I Cor. 14:18 David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Tue Jun 23 00:18:59 EDT 1998

 

I Cor. 14:18 1 Tim 4:10 (was I Cor. 14:18) At 09:38 PM 6/22/98 -0500, you wrote:>N-A 27 gives the following variants:> >EUCARISTW TWi QEWi [MOU], PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS [GLWSSHi – I>assume there is a I subscript in the variant – dative/instrumental] LALW>[LALWN (TR/Majority Text) / LALEIN].> >The MOU and GLWSSAIS/GLWSSHi variant don’t concern me. The other>variants would be these renderings, I guess:> >a) I give thanks to God, more than all of you in/with tongues I speak =>I give thanks to God that I speak in tongues more than>all of you. This is the N-A choice.> >b) I give thanks to God, more than all of you speaking in tongues = I>give thanks to God by speaking in tongues more than all>of you, i.e.:>b.1.) I thank God in tongues more than all of you. This might be>supported by the preceding verses (14:16-17) which have to do with>giving thanks in tongues>or>b.2.) I give thanks to God, speaking in tongues more than all of you>(similar to a) above).> >c) I give thanks to God, more than all of you to speak in tongues = I>give thanks to God [that I = reason] speak in tongues>more than all of you (I guess that would be it – I’m not sure how to>translate the infinitive variant LALEIN]> >I’m divided between a) and b.1.). The context, including 14:19, seems to>allow for either of these options – so I guess it comes down to the>textual variant, i.e., LALW or LALWN. Would he be saying that he is>thankful that he speaks in tongues more than all the Corinthians, or>that he thanks God in tongues more than all the Corinthians? Or>something else?> >What reasons might be given for favoring these options – or any other>options you know about?> Eric:The textual evidence for LALW rather than LALWN or LALEIN is fairlystrong. Although LALWN is supported by the majority, and LALEIN by theonly papyrus witness, LALW has strong support from several of the bestwitnesses. Both Aleph and B from the uncials along with 33 and 1739 fromamong the miniscules as well as Old Latin witnesses support the N-A textreading. P46’s LALEIN could represent an effort toward more elegantlanguage (maybe we could get a comment from someone who is an accomplishedGreek stylist on that), but it is difficult to see how the Majority’s LALWNcould have arisen from an original LALW unless it came from a mis-hearingin oral dictation. Both words do have a circuflex on the ultima.Manuscript A’s omission of LALW is intriguing. If this represented theoriginal, the variants might be accounted for by different efforts tocomplete the thought. And with the omitted word it would mean, “I thankGod in toungues more than any of you which, as Eric has pointed out, wouldfit with the preceding context. But it is difficult to believe thatscribes would have felt a need to supply some form of LALW to what standsby itself as a meaningful sentence. This consideration and the strong MSevidence mentioned above point to the N-A text’s choice here and so wouldsupport the translation Eric has put in the second part of a).In another vein, and to suggest a new thread, if it interests anyone else,the similarity of the expression with MALLON here and with MALISTA in 1Tim.4:10 makes me wonder if the genitives before MALISTA should not be taken asdependent on MALISTA rather than on SWTHR. The genitives before MALLON in1Cor. 14:18 are taken with the comparative and so express the lesser groupof a comparison. Understanding 1Tim. 4:10 this way, one would translate,”This is why we labor and wrestle, because we have set our hope upon theliving God who, in preference to all humanity, is the Savior of those whobelieve.”Regards,David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

I Cor. 14:181 Tim 4:10 (was I Cor. 14:18)

I Cor. 14:18 Eric Weiss eweiss at gte.net
Mon Jun 22 22:38:36 EDT 1998

 

KLAW ARTON – Having a meal? I Cor. 14:18 N-A 27 gives the following variants:EUCARISTW TWi QEWi [MOU], PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS [GLWSSHi – Iassume there is a I subscript in the variant – dative/instrumental] LALW[LALWN (TR/Majority Text) / LALEIN].The MOU and GLWSSAIS/GLWSSHi variant don’t concern me. The othervariants would be these renderings, I guess:a) I give thanks to God, more than all of you in/with tongues I speak =I give thanks to God that I speak in tongues more thanall of you. This is the N-A choice.b) I give thanks to God, more than all of you speaking in tongues = Igive thanks to God by speaking in tongues more than allof you, i.e.:b.1.) I thank God in tongues more than all of you. This might besupported by the preceding verses (14:16-17) which have to do withgiving thanks in tonguesorb.2.) I give thanks to God, speaking in tongues more than all of you(similar to a) above).c) I give thanks to God, more than all of you to speak in tongues = Igive thanks to God [that I = reason] speak in tonguesmore than all of you (I guess that would be it – I’m not sure how totranslate the infinitive variant LALEIN]I’m divided between a) and b.1.). The context, including 14:19, seems toallow for either of these options – so I guess it comes down to thetextual variant, i.e., LALW or LALWN. Would he be saying that he isthankful that he speaks in tongues more than all the Corinthians, orthat he thanks God in tongues more than all the Corinthians? Orsomething else?What reasons might be given for favoring these options – or any otheroptions you know about?Thanks!–“Eric S. Weiss”http://home1.gte.net/eweiss/index.htmeweiss at gte.netS.D.G.

 

KLAW ARTON – Having a meal?I Cor. 14:18

I Cor. 14:18 David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Tue Jun 23 00:18:59 EDT 1998

 

I Cor. 14:18 1 Tim 4:10 (was I Cor. 14:18) At 09:38 PM 6/22/98 -0500, you wrote:>N-A 27 gives the following variants:> >EUCARISTW TWi QEWi [MOU], PANTWN hUMWN MALLON GLWSSAIS [GLWSSHi – I>assume there is a I subscript in the variant – dative/instrumental] LALW>[LALWN (TR/Majority Text) / LALEIN].> >The MOU and GLWSSAIS/GLWSSHi variant don’t concern me. The other>variants would be these renderings, I guess:> >a) I give thanks to God, more than all of you in/with tongues I speak =>I give thanks to God that I speak in tongues more than>all of you. This is the N-A choice.> >b) I give thanks to God, more than all of you speaking in tongues = I>give thanks to God by speaking in tongues more than all>of you, i.e.:>b.1.) I thank God in tongues more than all of you. This might be>supported by the preceding verses (14:16-17) which have to do with>giving thanks in tongues>or>b.2.) I give thanks to God, speaking in tongues more than all of you>(similar to a) above).> >c) I give thanks to God, more than all of you to speak in tongues = I>give thanks to God [that I = reason] speak in tongues>more than all of you (I guess that would be it – I’m not sure how to>translate the infinitive variant LALEIN]> >I’m divided between a) and b.1.). The context, including 14:19, seems to>allow for either of these options – so I guess it comes down to the>textual variant, i.e., LALW or LALWN. Would he be saying that he is>thankful that he speaks in tongues more than all the Corinthians, or>that he thanks God in tongues more than all the Corinthians? Or>something else?> >What reasons might be given for favoring these options – or any other>options you know about?> Eric:The textual evidence for LALW rather than LALWN or LALEIN is fairlystrong. Although LALWN is supported by the majority, and LALEIN by theonly papyrus witness, LALW has strong support from several of the bestwitnesses. Both Aleph and B from the uncials along with 33 and 1739 fromamong the miniscules as well as Old Latin witnesses support the N-A textreading. P46’s LALEIN could represent an effort toward more elegantlanguage (maybe we could get a comment from someone who is an accomplishedGreek stylist on that), but it is difficult to see how the Majority’s LALWNcould have arisen from an original LALW unless it came from a mis-hearingin oral dictation. Both words do have a circuflex on the ultima.Manuscript A’s omission of LALW is intriguing. If this represented theoriginal, the variants might be accounted for by different efforts tocomplete the thought. And with the omitted word it would mean, “I thankGod in toungues more than any of you which, as Eric has pointed out, wouldfit with the preceding context. But it is difficult to believe thatscribes would have felt a need to supply some form of LALW to what standsby itself as a meaningful sentence. This consideration and the strong MSevidence mentioned above point to the N-A text’s choice here and so wouldsupport the translation Eric has put in the second part of a).In another vein, and to suggest a new thread, if it interests anyone else,the similarity of the expression with MALLON here and with MALISTA in 1Tim.4:10 makes me wonder if the genitives before MALISTA should not be taken asdependent on MALISTA rather than on SWTHR. The genitives before MALLON in1Cor. 14:18 are taken with the comparative and so express the lesser groupof a comparison. Understanding 1Tim. 4:10 this way, one would translate,”This is why we labor and wrestle, because we have set our hope upon theliving God who, in preference to all humanity, is the Savior of those whobelieve.”Regards,David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

I Cor. 14:181 Tim 4:10 (was I Cor. 14:18)

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

2 thoughts on “1 Corinthians 14:18

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.