10277     TITLE  OIDAMEN Or OIDA + MEN

John 6:40

OIDAMEN or OIDA + MEN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jun 30 20:53:44 EDT 2001

 

OIDAMEN or OIDA + MEN At 12:13 AM +0000 7/1/01, Mark Wilson wrote:>Romans 7:14a> >OIDAMEN GAR hOTI hO NOMOS PNEUMATIKAS ESTIN EGO DE SARKINOS EIMI…> > >In light of all the first persons in this chapter, I wonder if this>construct could be a MEN…DE construct:> >OIDA MEN GAR…> >For I know, on the one hand, that…> >It’s really not that important, but a commentary I’m reading>made note of it, and really didn’t seem to side one way or the other.At first sight this seems plausible, but if such an antithesis is actuallyintended the MEN should follow hO, so that the text would then read:OIDAMEN GAR hOTI hO MEN NOMOS PNEUMATIKOS ESTIN, EGW DE SARKINOS EIMI …That is to say: the antithesis concerns the diametrically opposed naturesof the Law and the speaker’s self: It’s not “I know… but I am.” Rather itwould seem to be: “I know that so far as the Law is concerned, it’sspiritual, but when it comes to me, I’m flesh and blood …”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversityMost months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

OIDAMEN or OIDA + MEN

John 6: 40 Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Tue Oct 2 22:02:52 EDT 2001

 

META CARAS What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Jim:You asked:—–>Is it sufficient to translate these as, “each>seeing and believing one….” or should it be>rendered as, “each who continues seeing and>believing?”Never add the gloss “continues” if your objective isto bring out the sense of the Present tense and/orgrammatical aspect. (There could be a sense of “continues”in relation to a word’s lexical aspect, but not withthese verbs or in this context.)Also:——->Is there any implication here of seeing and>believing for awhile and then no longer seeing or>believing?——No.Regards,Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

 

META CARASWhat To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Oct 4 16:53:27 EDT 2001

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS At 10:09 PM +0200 10/4/01, Iver Larsen wrote:>Carl,> >Thank you for your excellent comments and further background.> >I only want to comment briefly on one aspect you brought up, so I have>deleted the rest:I’m going to respond very briefly here to the most important points for thereason that every one of these very interesting questions lies outside theproper scope of discussion and in the realm of personal experienceor faith or historical understanding. None of these matters belongsproperly to on-list discussion.>> I find somewhat problematic the claim here that “the Holy Spirit is a>> gentle voice–it never carries me away against my will.” It’s the “NEVER”>> that disturbs me: I think Jeremiah might have questioned this proposition>> and I rather think that Paul too might claim that his experience of the>> Holy Spirit has on occasion been coercive. Whether or not one>> might feel in>> retrospect that one has been guided toward one’s authentic selfhood by the>> experience, the experience itself may be wrenching and something>> other than gentle.> >I did not intend to say that all the activities of the Holy Spirit are>gentle. Nor did I intend to say that such activities could not overrule my>will and intentions. I was thinking of how I and others that I know receive>prophetic inspiration. That has always been a still, small voice as Elijah>experienced it. It can result in quite a bit of shaking, heart beat and>agitation, but that is a human response.I’m willing to chime in on that with respect to my own personal experience;but I suspect that the range of experience of those we might be willing toterm authentic prophets may include elements other than a still, smallvoice. I think there is more mystery to the phenomena involved here than wecan readily define. I do think that Jeremiah’s experience was authentic andthat it was an experience of violent wrenching of his natural personalinclinations, of such powerful overwhelming of his will as to crush hisspirit, at least temporarily.>Are you thinking of any particular experiences of Paul? In the initial>Damascus road experience the Spirit obviously had to overrule the will and>intentions of Paul, but it was still done in a fairly gentle way through>questions rather than condemnation.That’s one item, but that’s in Acts, and I’m not so confident that we havea very adequate account of what actually happened in that instance. But I’mthinking also of allusions to personal experience in Paul’s letters thatare open to complex levels of interpretation.>> Nor am I quite so confident that the difference between pagan spiritual>> frenzy and true prophetic inspiration is all that clear-cut. Saul was told>> by Samuel that he would meet a band of prophets and “become another man”>> and would prophesy, and afterwards there was the saying, “Is Saul also>> among the prophets?”–which may have meant that people thought he was at>> least a little bit looney. And it seems to me that Paul’s whole discussion>> of GLWSSOLALIA is at least partly a matter of whether non-believers>> observing believers engaging in the practice might wonder whether the>> believers are “a little bit looney.”> >I am hesitant to apply prophetic experiences in the OT as standards for NT>prophecy. The case of Saul is atypical and I don’t think it fits with NT>prophecy or anyone’s experience of prophecy today.Part of what I’m saying here is that I’m not so sure that the experience ofprophecy in any era can be described in “typical” terms. What is evidentfrom the layers of historical tradition incorporated in 1 Samuel is thatSaul’s leadership was linked both to a positive view of the working of thespirit in him and to a negative (probably pro-David) view of him asmentally unstable.>Yes, the misuse of glossolalia can easily make outsiders think that those>people are more or less looney. That is one major reason why it is a misuse>and Paul says that it should not take place.>There are different types of glossolalia. Some types involve prophetic>inspiration, and some do not, but discussing this would take us too far away>from .Yes it would, and it would be difficult to achieve a consensus on many ofthese issues about which so many have very strong views–which is preciselythe reason why they lie outside the boundaries of discussion in this forum.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSWhat To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

[]: Response (1) re PNEUMATIKOS David Thiele thielogian at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 4 18:08:36 EDT 2001

 

RBL resumes service Multiple Subject and Verb Agreement Dear Ward,I do not usually get invovled in these discussions, asI find it pretty easy to find myself in over my head. However, I have a couple of questions relatingparticularly to your response to Wayne Leman. You suggest that to establish the meaning ofPNEUMAKIOS we must “move outside the circle” (I Cor12-14). But wouldn’t you have to go through the sameprocess in every setting? Can you (theoretically)establish the meaning of PNEUMAKICOS as “spiritualgifts” elsewhere, if you can’t do it in I Cor? Whatsort of approach could you take it PNEUMAKICOS onlyoccured in I Cor and nowhere else in the NT. Somewords are extremely rare.My other question is this. PNEUMATICOS is anadjective functioning as a substantive in I Cor. Tomy understanding of grammar, that means there is anoun understood–a neuter plural in this case. Youhave opted for the most general term “things”. Thecontext as you have outlined contains references to”working” and “ministries”, etc. However, of thewords you highlight in I Cor 12:1-7 only one is aneuter plural. Why is it necessary to by-pass aperfectly suitable specific neuter plural noun in thecontext in favour of something more general? Thatstrikes me as the wrong approach. Seeing as this formof PNEUMATICOS can qualify any neuter plural noun(providing sense results) why go pastCARISMATA–especially seeing as using linking thesetwo words does provided for a plausable exegisis ofthe entire chapter?RegardsDavid ThielePacific Adventist UniversityPapua New Guinea— “B. Ward Powers” <bwpowers at optusnet.com.au> wrote:> Friends all:> > I plan, in this and a subsequent posting, to> interact with some of the > responses received (on list and off) to the question> I raised about what to > do with PNEUMATIKOS in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1:> > I respect the scholarship and integrity of these> people whose comments I > respond to, and in no way is this a criticism of> them. Quite the contrary: > I consider what they have said has such value that> it merits a careful > response. But I do disagree quite markedly with> their premises and their > conclusions, and I believe these issues should be> discussed further, > because this is not an unimportant issue. That is> how progress is made in > matters where scholars disagree: we discuss. And if> my understanding of the > Greek can be shown to be in error, then I am willing> and open to be persuaded.> > Firstly, at 10:20 PM 011002 -0600, Wayne Leman> wrote:> > >From: “B. Ward Powers” <bwpowers at optusnet.com.au>> >> > > Fellow ers:> > >> > > A couple of questions about what to do with> PNEUMATIKOS.> >> ><snip>> >> > >> > > The standard lexica give as one of its meanings,> “spiritual gift”. Is this> > > a case of circular reasoning?> >> >No, not necessarily.> > > Ah, but there IS circular reasoning going on in the> situation that I > outlined in my initial posting. It had the basic> structure: A, therefore B. > and B, therefore A. That is circularity. And> logically invalid as a way of > arguing a case. The conclusion is not necessarily> invalid, but it has to be > established on other grounds. That is what my> enquiry is all about: > to look at what other grounds there may be.> > Wayne continues:> > > >It may just be a case of applying the principle of> context-determined > >meaning. The core lexical gloss for PNEUMATIKOS is> simply> >’spiritual (something)’. But like any other lexical> form, the referential> >meaning (as opposed to simply lexical gloss) is> filled out in specific> >contexts, and all words of all utterances we ever> say or write are given in> >contexts of some kind.> > > Right:> For now we are moving OUTSIDE the circle to see if> we can anchor it > someplace. If so, we can draw a valid conclusion.> And the only place it can > be anchored (that is, the only basis for regarding> PNEUMATIKOS/-WN/-A as > here having the meaning “spiritual gifts”) is if> this is clearly shown to > be the case by the context. At this point Wayne and> I are in agreement.> > Now Wayne quotes, and responds to, part of my> statement of the circular > argument:> > > > (Thusly: In 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1 the> > > word PNEUMATIKOS is being used to mean> “spiritual gift”. Therefore> > > “spiritual gift” is part of its area of meaning.> >> >It depends on what we mean by meaning here. It is a> part of the extended> >referential, implicit, and associative meaning of> the lexical meaning of> >PNEUMATIKOS in the context of discussion about the> CARISMATA.> > > I comment:> In 1 Corinthians 12, does PNEUMATIKOS imply> CARISMATA? And vice versa?> Lots of people are saying so. Several responses (on> and off list) even > equate PNEUMATIKOS and CARISMA as synonyms. Indeed,> the first edition of > the NIV actually “translated” CARISMATA in 1> Corinthians 12:4 as “spiritual > gifts” – there were strong objections to this, and> it was changed (current > editions of the NIV just translate it as “gifts”;> the same initial > rendering of CARISMATA as “spiritual gifts” and> subsequent modification to > “gifts” occurred in 1 Peter 4:10 also).> > But, leaving aside 1 Corinthians 12-14 (because it> is the passage we are > examining) and with the exception of Romans 1:11> (where, as noted in my > original email, both words are used, CARISMA> PNEUMATIKON) there is no > occurrence of CARISMA in the GNT which implies> SPIRITUAL gifts. Unless you > are to “read in” this meaning from what you think of> its meaning in 1 > Corinthians 12-14 (into Romans 12:6 and 1 Peter> 4:10).> > So: is the discussion in 1 Corinthians 12 all about> CARISMATA, so that > references to the one are to be interpreted as> implying the other, and this > thus validates the treatment of PNEUMATIKOS as> meaning “spiritual gifts”? > Now, this indeed is the crux of the matter. This is> the question of > context. But is the discussion in 1 Corinthians 12> really all about CARISMATA?> > If we carefully examine this chapter we will see> that, No, it most > definitely is not. After Paul’s introduction in> which he emphasizes that no > one is able to affirm “Jesus is Lord” except through> the Holy Spirit, he > lists three ways in which the Spirit manifests> himself:> > 12:4 There are diversities of gifts (CARISMATWN),> but the same Spirit;> 12:5 there are diversities of ways of serving> (DIAKONIWN) , but the same > Lord [who is being served];> 12:6 there are diversities of energizings (> ENERGHMATWN) but it is the > same God who is working (ENERGWN) in them all in all> people –> 12:7 and to each person is given the manifestation> of the Spirit for the > common good.> > [I note that Frank Gee, in his posting, has the same> understanding of these > verses as I do.]> > Thus we see that the manifestation of the Spirit is> given to various people > in three ways which are separately identified by> Paul: CARISMATA, > DIAKONIAI, and ENERGHMATA. These are to be equated,> I consider, with those > areas of ministry which he has set out in 12:28-29,> thusly:> > (a) the special endowments for “up-front” ministry> (12:28a, the CARISMATA > of 12:4);> > (b) the “ministries of helping others” [ANTILHYEIS> of 12:28b), the > “serving” areas of ministry (the DIAKONIAI of 12:5 –> bearing in mind that > this word originally related to domestic service, as> in Acts 6:1, and the > DIAKONOI of John 2:1-11) – this would range, in> today’s church, from > referring to those who serve the tea and coffee> after the worship service > to those who go out onto the streets to help the> needy, and lots more > service of this practical “helping” kind;> > (c) the “energizers” (the ENERGHMATA of 12:6, the> KUBERNHSEIS of 12:28): > the activators, the initiators, the entrepreneurs,> the administrators, the > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.ukor your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

 

RBL resumes serviceMultiple Subject and Verb Agreement

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Paul Schmehl p.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.net
Thu Oct 4 21:42:11 EDT 2001

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Multiple Subject and Verb Agreement It seems to me that in all this discussion about the context surroundingPNEUMATIKOS that we have ignored one essential point. Paul begins hisdiscussion with PERI DE.I think it’s safe to say that we would all agree that I Corinthians is notexactly a book of praise for the Corinthian church’s good works. For thesake of brevity, and without implying anything about the accuracy of theinformation, I will provide the headings that are given in the UBS 4th forthe book, preceeding chapter 12.1:1 Greeting and Thanksgiving1:10 Divisions in the Church1:18 Christ the Power and Wisdom of God2:1 Proclaiming Christ Crucified2:6 The Revelation of God’s Spirit3:1 Fellow Workmen for God4:1 The Ministry of the Apostles5:1 Judgment against Immorality6:1 Going to Law before Unbelievers6:12 Glorify God in Your Body7:1 Problems concerning Marriage7:17 The Life Which the Lord Has Assigned7:25 The Unmarried and Widows8:1 Food Offered to Idols9:1 The Rights of an Apostle10:1 Warning against Idolatry10:23 Do All to the Glory of God11:1 Covering the Head in Worship11:17 Abuses at the Lord’s Supper11:23 The Institution of the Lord’s Supper11:27 Partaking of the Supper UnworthilyAnd then we come to PERI DE TWN PNEUMATIKWN. Paul’s entire treatise, priorto chapter 12 concerns *primarily* fleshly matters, if you will. Divisionsamongst the brethren, using the courts to settle disputes, misusingcommunion, living immorally or in an idolatrous manner, handling marriageand sex improperly, etc., etc., etc. Now we come to chapter 12, and Paulmakes an abrupt change of subject. It’s as if he says, “Whew!! Now thatwe’ve finally gotten all that sense knowledge crap out of the way, let’sdiscuss spiritual matters.”He goes on to discuss how they used to behave when they were pagans (2),assures them that no one who speaks in tongues can curse God (3), discussesgifts (4, XARISMATWN) for a few verses, points out that all these gifts haveone origin (11), begins an analogy describing the church as parts of thebody with Christ as the head (12), and argues some logical conclusions basedon that analogy (14ff), states that the church is Christ’s body (27), andargues that each has a different purpose in that body (28ff), makes alengthy argument of why love is the most important attribute of a Christian(13:1ff), then returns to PNEUMATIKWN (14:1), and so forth.It seems to me that the context argues strongly for understandingPNEUMATIKWN to refer to spiritual matters, or things of the spirit. Thecontext is certainly not gifts. It’s a wide range of things that relate tospiritual matters as opposed to fleshy matters, which is what Paul had toaddress for 11 chapters in order to get to his goal, to discuss “higher”things, if you will.I think sometimes we let our theology get in the way of our Greek, and wefail to see with clarity what is written on the page. Especially when it’s”always been done that way”. I think Lattimore translates it as he doessimply because he has no theological presuppositions. He’s simplytranslating Greek. And isn’t that the purpose of this list?Paul Schmehl pauls at utdallas.edup.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.nethttp://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/t

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSMultiple Subject and Verb Agreement

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 5 03:14:34 EDT 2001

 

Multiple Subject and Verb Agreement What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA”Be not troubling of you the heart…”>From: “Paul Schmehl”>Paul begins his discussion with PERI DE…TWN PNEUMATIKWN. Paul’s entire >treatise, prior to chapter 12 concerns *primarily* fleshly matters… Now >we come to chapter 12, and Paul makes an abrupt change of subject….let’s >discuss spiritual matters.”>It seems to me that the context argues strongly for understandingPNEUMATIKWN to refer to spiritual matters, or things of the spirit. Thecontext is certainly not gifts. It’s a wide range of things that relate to spiritual matters as opposed to fleshy matters, which is what Paul had to address for 11 chapters in order to get to his goal, to discuss “higher” things, if you will.I had been holding off on this thread for some time, and was just about to post to it, when your eminenty sensible post, snipped to essentials above, appeared. Thank you for saving me the effort!! Your understanding is right on target, and does not miss the mark, Paul. Nice work!”Now, on to spiritual matters” indeed!!geogeo_________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

 

Multiple Subject and Verb AgreementWhat To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Oct 5 03:17:13 EDT 2001

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS ONTES Eph 4:18 – which participle? > It seems to me that in all this discussion about the context surrounding> PNEUMATIKOS that we have ignored one essential point. Paul begins his> discussion with PERI DE.This is a good point. And it is not the first time in 1 Corinthians Paulstarts his discussions of a specific topic with PERI. After a more generalintroduction in the first six chapters, he starts off a new section inchapter 7 withPERI DE hWN EGRAYATAThis suggests that the Corinthian church had sent a letter with variousquestions. Unfortunately, we don’t have a copy of that letter.A similar introduction is found in8:1 PERI DE TWN EIDWLOQUTWN and in16:1 PERI DE THS LOGEIAS…It is not clear how many of these topics the Corinthians themselves hadraised in their letter and how many Paul addresses because he knows thatthey are areas that need to be addressed.> > I think it’s safe to say that we would all agree that I Corinthians is not> exactly a book of praise for the Corinthian church’s good works. For the> sake of brevity, and without implying anything about the accuracy of the> information, I will provide the headings that are given in the UBS 4th for> > the book, preceding chapter 12.> > 1:1 Greeting and Thanksgiving> 1:10 Divisions in the Church> 1:18 Christ the Power and Wisdom of God> 2:1 Proclaiming Christ Crucified> 2:6 The Revelation of God’s Spirit> 3:1 Fellow Workmen for God> 4:1 The Ministry of the Apostles> 5:1 Judgment against Immorality> 6:1 Going to Law before Unbelievers> 6:12 Glorify God in Your Body> 7:1 Problems concerning Marriage> 7:17 The Life Which the Lord Has Assigned> 7:25 The Unmarried and Widows> 8:1 Food Offered to Idols> 9:1 The Rights of an Apostle> 10:1 Warning against Idolatry> 10:23 Do All to the Glory of God> 11:1 Covering the Head in Worship> 11:17 Abuses at the Lord’s Supper> 11:23 The Institution of the Lord’s Supper> 11:27 Partaking of the Supper Unworthily> > And then we come to PERI DE TWN PNEUMATIKWN. Paul’s entire> treatise, prior> to chapter 12 concerns *primarily* fleshly matters, if you will.> Divisions> amongst the brethren, using the courts to settle disputes, misusing> communion, living immorally or in an idolatrous manner, handling marriage> and sex improperly, etc., etc., etc. Now we come to chapter 12, and Paul> makes an abrupt change of subject. It’s as if he says, “Whew!! Now that> we’ve finally gotten all that sense knowledge crap out of the way, let’s> discuss spiritual matters.”I am afraid I have to disagree here. There are several “spiritual” topicsand much spiritual vocabulary before chapter 12, for instance in 2:13-15.And Paul does not think in a linear step-by-step way so that he could say”Whew! we have finished that. Let us go on to the next step.” He will oftenhint at a problem or topic and then come back to it later in more detail. Ifwe squeeze his writings into a Western mould, we are likely to misunderstandthe original structural pattern.<snip>> It seems to me that the context argues strongly for understanding> PNEUMATIKWN to refer to spiritual matters, or things of the spirit. The> context is certainly not gifts. It’s a wide range of things that> relate to> spiritual matters as opposed to fleshy matters, which is what Paul had to> address for 11 chapters in order to get to his goal, to discuss “higher”> things, if you will.The context includes the unknown questions in the letter from theCorinthians. Did they ask specifically about CARISMATA PNEUMATIKA? Or didthey ask generally about PNEUMATIKA? Or does Paul decide to talk about thistopic because he knows it is a problem area? Maybe he received a morespecific question about speaking in tongues and wanted to set it in a widercontext of how the Spirit of God operates and is different from otherspiritual experiences they may have had.> > I think sometimes we let our theology get in the way of our Greek, and we> fail to see with clarity what is written on the page. Especially> when it’s> “always been done that way”. I think Lattimore translates it as he does> simply because he has no theological presuppositions. He’s simply> translating Greek. And isn’t that the purpose of this list?May I assume that the “we” here is the inclusive “we”? We all bring to anytext a number of presuppositions, theological as well as linguistic,cultural, personal, etc. We have not defined what we mean by “spiritualgifts” or even “spiritual matters” and I am sure we have quite differentopinions about what such words refer to. That is part of our differentpresuppositions.There are also different philosophies involved here about what translationand communication is. Those are complex issues and they are discussed morefully on other lists, such as the Bible translation list. To talk about”simply translating Greek” is too simplistic, IMO. Any translation isgoverned by its own purposes, methods and intended audience.We can say that TWN PNEUMATIKWN lexically means either spiritual things orspiritual people. And maybe we shouldn’t go further on this list.What Paul intended to communicate to his original audience and how an activeBible translator might translate this into another language for people wholive in a different cultural context is quite a different matter. What atext is interpreted to mean with a minimum of presuppositions and what itwas intended to communicate are two different things.I admit that my comments are often based on the real struggle I have totranslate the original text in a meaningful way to an audience that isdifferent from the originally intended audience, an audience who think in aWestern, linear way, rather than a Hebrew, circular way, an audience wholive in a culture very different from the Corinthians and therefore bringdifferent presuppositions to the text. That is why I personally aminterested in what a text was intended to communicate to the originalaudience, given their presuppositions.Bible translators often have a different perspective from biblical scholars,because they have a different task. But we can still learn many things fromone another.Iver Larsen

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSONTES Eph 4:18 – which participle?

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Mike Sangrey msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Fri Oct 5 10:10:01 EDT 2001

 

ONTES Eph 4:18 – which participle? OFF-TOPIC (was: What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS) On Fri, 2001-10-05 at 03:17, Iver Larsen wrote:[snip]> Paul Schmehl <p.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.net> said:> >> > And then we come to PERI DE TWN PNEUMATIKWN. Paul’s entire> > treatise, prior> > to chapter 12 concerns *primarily* fleshly matters, if you will.> > Divisions> > amongst the brethren, using the courts to settle disputes, misusing> > communion, living immorally or in an idolatrous manner, handling marriage> > and sex improperly, etc., etc., etc. Now we come to chapter 12, and Paul> > makes an abrupt change of subject. It’s as if he says, “Whew!! Now that> > we’ve finally gotten all that sense knowledge crap out of the way, let’s> > discuss spiritual matters.”> > I am afraid I have to disagree here. There are several “spiritual” topics> and much spiritual vocabulary before chapter 12, for instance in 2:13-15.> And Paul does not think in a linear step-by-step way so that he could say> “Whew! we have finished that. Let us go on to the next step.” He will often> hint at a problem or topic and then come back to it later in more detail. If> we squeeze his writings into a Western mould, we are likely to misunderstand> the original structural pattern.> Actually, Iver, doesn’t your point argue FOR Paul’s? I completely agreethat 1 Cor 2:13-15, or even 2:6-16, introduces “spiritual things” (theword PNEUMATIKOS is used here). But notice 3:1-2. It’s as if he says,”There, I’ve introduced (hinted at) spiritual things, but I have to getthese other things, these non-spiritual things, out of the way firstbecause of the nature of the people I’m writing to.”At one level much of the discussion throughout this letter is abouttopics which swirl around the basic need for unity. Before chapter 12Paul appears to me to deal with it in a very practical, down to earthway. Chapter 3, for example, in my view, is very practical adviceregarding how to work through disagreements: different people bringdifferent roles and will perform these roles to different degrees ofbenefit for Christ; you need to give the results of these efforts sometime, eventually you will see what is best and what isn’t; God owns thebuilding you’re building, so don’t be too overly concerned; don’t thinkfor one moment you have a hot-line connection to God; assess ALL thedata, don’t dismiss any of it just because you disagree with it.That appears to me to be very, very practical.And now (for time’s sake I’m skipping over the intervening chapters,though they appear to me to be much more of the same type of thing–verypractical advice, almost procedural in genre), chapter 12 evidences thatPaul has come back to the “spiritual things” topic and is going to getinto it with much more detail. This time it is far less procedural,even to the point of placing love as the keystone in the wholediscussion. He is still dealing with the overarching topic of unity,but now he gets into a lot more detail about the spiritual support forthat.This has been a very helpful discussion for me–thanks to all who haveparticipated.– Mike Sangreymsangrey at BlueFeltHat.orgLandisburg, Pa. “The first one last wins.” “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”

 

ONTES Eph 4:18 – which participle?OFF-TOPIC (was: What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS)

OFF-TOPIC (was: What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Oct 5 10:32:10 EDT 2001

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS ONTES Eph 4:18 – which participle? At 10:10 AM -0400 10/5/01, Mike Sangrey wrote:> “The first one last wins.”I just noticed your snippet beneath the signature and wondered whether itwas intentionally drawn from Aeschylus, Agamemnon 314, where Clytemnestrafinishes here description of the beacon fires that have brought immediatenews back to her at Argos of the capture of Troy:NIKAi D’ hO PRWTOS KAI TELEUTAIOS DRAMWNmore literally, “and the first and final runner wins”or is it your own version of the proverbial Jesus saying (Mt 19;30, etc.),POLLOI DE ESONTAI PRWTOI ESCATOI KAI ESCATOI PRWTOI ?– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSONTES Eph 4:18 – which participle?

OFF-TOPIC (was: What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS) Mike Sangrey msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Fri Oct 5 12:49:41 EDT 2001

 

ti in Luke 16.2 What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS On Fri, 2001-10-05 at 10:32, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> At 10:10 AM -0400 10/5/01, Mike Sangrey wrote:> > “The first one last wins.”> > I just noticed your snippet beneath the signature and wondered whether it> was intentionally drawn from Aeschylus, Agamemnon 314, where Clytemnestra> finishes here description of the beacon fires that have brought immediate> news back to her at Argos of the capture of Troy:> > NIKAi D’ hO PRWTOS KAI TELEUTAIOS DRAMWN> > more literally, “and the first and final runner wins”> > or is it your own version of the proverbial Jesus saying (Mt 19;30, etc.),> > POLLOI DE ESONTAI PRWTOI ESCATOI KAI ESCATOI PRWTOI ?> It’s meant to convey Jesus’ proverb. Or, maybe better, Jesus himself. He was the first one to serve everyone else.And thanks for noticing and asking.– Mike Sangreymsangrey at BlueFeltHat.orgLandisburg, Pa. “The first one last wins.” “A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth.”

 

ti in Luke 16.2What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 5 15:09:01 EDT 2001

 

OFF-TOPIC (was: What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS) Gal. 4:18 KALWi George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA”Be not troubling of you the heart…”>From: Mike Sangrey> > Paul Schmehl <p.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.net> said:> > > And then we come to PERI DE TWN PNEUMATIKWN. Paul’s entire> > > treatise, prior to chapter 12 concerns *primarily* fleshly > > > > matters, if you will…> > > Now we come to chapter 12, and Paul …[in effect] says, > > > > let’s discuss spiritual matters.”>I completely agree that 1 Cor 2:13-15, or even 2:6-16, introduces >“spiritual things” (the word PNEUMATIKOS is used here).I agree too. Thanks for a nice post, Mike.I keep looking at this TWN PNEUMATIKWN, and its gloss to English, as we keep going back and forth between spiritual things, spiritual matters, and in some translations even spiritual people – The Greek, of course, simply says “of the spirituals”… And I remember the Lord’s Prayer’s opening line with the plural EN TOIS OURANOIS, often translated heavenly, or in the singular “in heaven”… And to my mind, the concept of ‘spiritual things’ in English has a kind of oxymoronic feel to it – We pick things up, skip them across ponds, dissect them, shovel snow with them… “Spiritual matters…” seems much to be preferred – You cannot pick up matters and hand them to the next guy, except metaphorically, and I just wonder with this TWN PNEUMATIKWN if we should even perhaps avoid the inner mental gloss of spiritual ‘topics’, for even these are but about [PERI] spiritual matters…So I add my sou to you too Sue…geo[And I promise never to call you Sue again, Mike!] :-)_________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

 

OFF-TOPIC (was: What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS)Gal. 4:18 KALWi

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Frank Gee frankrgee at outpost.net.au
Tue Oct 9 09:10:40 EDT 2001

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Help With John 16:22 Dear List members,I hope that the topic which I now again address is not passe; I note it hasnot yet been closed.I raise it again for three reasons: some thanks; then an answer for DavidThiele, and a comment for Iver LarsenFirst, to thank those who responded so positively to my first excursion ontothe List, including Carl Conrad, who graciously refrained from identifyingthe culprit of my orthographic solecism (a term which avoids theembarrassment of having to admit I got the spelling of PNEUMATOS wrong!)Secondly, to comment on a question raised by David Thiele (5/10/01 8.21am),to which I can find no response so far on this List. In response to a posting from Ward Powers, David wrote:>The context as you have outlined contains references to “working” and“ministries”, etc.>However, of the words you highlight in I Cor 12:1-7 only one is a>neuter plural. Why is it necessary to by-pass a perfectly suitablespecific neuter plural noun>in the context in favour of something more general? That strikes me as thewrong approach.>Seeing as this form of PNEUMATICOS can qualify any neuter plural noun>(providing sense results) why go past CARISMATA–especially seeing as usinglinking>these two words does provided for a plausible exegesis of>the entire chapter?I hope that others more learned than I may give some attention to this.In the meantime, a couple of comments for David, FWTW:I think it’s true to say that identity of GRAMMATICAL gender should not bebe confused with the indication ofco-reference. (By co-reference I mean having two words or phrasesreferring to the same entity or idea.)In other words, while it’s true that adjectives should AGREE in(grammatical) number and genderwith the nouns they qualify, and relative pronouns behave similarly,grammatical gender is quite irrelevant for ANAPHORA (ie referring back to apreviously mentioned referent, or item), at least where the co-referring isby items of the same grammatical category. (In the example underdiscussion, we have a noun or nouns possibly referring back to anothernoun-equivalent, TWN PNEUMATIKWN.)Consider the following sentence as an example demonstrating this principle: KAI KRATHSAS THS CEIROS TOU PAIDIOU LEGEI AUTHi, TALIQA KOUM(Mark5:41) What is important to note is that the noun PAIDIOU and the anaphoricpronoun AUTHi both refer to the same person, namely the girl raised fromdeath by Jesus; but the grammatical gender of PAIDION (-OU)is neuter, whereas the pronoun pointing back to the same referent (the girl)is grammatically feminine. (In other words, grammatical gender isirrelevant for determining anaphora.)Incidentally, CARISMATWN is NOT the only neuter plural in I Corinthians12:4-7! Another is found in verse 6: ENERGHMATWN. If we want recognitionfor a “perfectly specific neuter plural noun”, why pass over this one?Now as I have demonstrated, the working principle you have sought to use isunsound. What is important in determining co-reference is not theaccidental features of grammatical gender; instead, we must look to thesemantic function of words we’re examining. In this example, what we mustlook for is words which fulfil the same semantic Case-function (or “slot”)as the phrase TWN PNEUMATIKWN. We could call this an [AbstractSubstantive]. Where else do we find words or phrases which fill similarfunctional slots as that phrase?There are FOUR candidates, found in verses 4, 5, 6 and 7: DIAIRESEISCARISMATWN, DIAIRESEIS DIAKONIWN and DIAIRESEIS ENERGHMATWN, withtheir summarising equivalent in verse 7, ie hH FANERWSIS.I’m intrigued with your desire to find “a perfectly SPECIFIC neuter pluralnoun”, and your dislike for “something more general”. I wonder whatpresuppositions may inform that preference?Paradoxically, perhaps, that word “specific” may point us in a usefuldirection for understanding these verses.Here’s a simple (but I believe arguable) way of outlining the flow ofthought: Verse 1: The general topic is introduced – PERI TWNPNEUMATIKWN Verses 4,5,6: Specific categories within the general topic areintroduced: DIAIRESEIS CARISMATWN; DIAIRESEISDIAKONIWN; DIAIRESEIS ENERGHMATWN Verse 7: Summary of the three categories above: hH FANERWSIST. PNEUMATOS, This verse acts as “bridge” to the followingverses which spell out more specific instantiations of those three categories mentioned earlier,and in the process develop the topic introduced inverse 1.David, I hope this may be of some help to you. If you haven’t yet had aclose look at my posting on 3/10/01 8.06pm,it examines in some detail the relationships among the various significantnoun phrases in these verses, from a Discourse Analysis point of view,seeking to give reasonably close attention to matters of structuring andcontext(s).No one has so far suggested any linguistic detail in attempted refutation ofit, so I’m keeping my fingers crossed.(As we’re all supposed to refrain from theological admonitions in thislanguage-study forum, I may be safe in making that last dexterous comment.)My third purpose in writing is to scratch a couple of itches induced byIver Larsen’s interesting response to my posting of 3.10.2001, which he madein his posting of 4/10/01 6.59am:Thank you for your intriguing comments about Hebrew circular patterning. Iwant to ask you more about that, but off-list, because it would probablytake us beyond the boundaries of this forum.One part of your otherwise very helpful message left me a little troubled,though, about how we are to make proper use of such an understanding: Ihave a concern about methodology here, lest we fall into the wrong kind of”circularity”, which in some of its forms can amount to eisegesis. (MHGENOITO, as our beloved Apostle would say!)Referring to I Corinthians 12: 1-7, you wrote:>Below I shall suggest a circular structure which relates the first item in>each circle, so that the following three words are structurally linked>together: PNEUMATIKWN, CARISMATWN, and FANERWSIS.What principle of linguistic analysis could offer us grounds for givingspecial preference to any word, just because it happens to occur FIRST insome unit we have isolated for attention? This seems to me quite arbitrary.Now if we were following what I think you have called a “Western, linear”thread of text patterning, it’s just possible that such an approach mighthave validity. We’d still be obliged to demonstrate by close analysis oftextual features within the various units that the chosen words do indeedhave thematic prominence, indicating our working principles as we did so.But this is not what you claim to be doing. If we want to analyse what Ithink you have called a Hebrew-style, circular development of the argument,then I believe what we should look for in each unit (or circle of context?),such as verses 2 to 3 and then 4 to 6, and so on, is the semantic CENTREof that unit, with proper attention to its structural exposition viaobservable syntactic patterning.In this case as it happens, when one displays the relevant substantivePHRASES IN FULL, in verses 4 to 6, (as I have done above in my answer toDavid Thiele – qv), rather than isolating a single word, the coordinatingfunction of the parallelism in those verses just about leaps off the pageto show how strongly Paul’s language is grouping these three items together,and giving them similar focal status.(I’m referring to the three noun-phrases each beginning with the wordDIAIRESEIS.)Applying your own worthwhile axiom that “the closer the context, the moresignificant for exegesis”, I hope it may be increasingly clear that only bydoing real violence to the logic of the structuring of these verses could wesingle out just one word (CARISMATA??, DIKONIAI??, ENERGHMATA??) asthe focus of reference back to verse 1.The smallest/nearest context for the word CARISMATA is the noun phrase inwhich it occurs. But the first word of that phrase (DIAIRESEIS)inextricably binds CARISMATA into the next-nearest context, namely the unitbound together by the coordinating structure of the three parallel phrasesto which I have drawn attention. So if we follow the linguistic cluesempirically, we must give full weight to the integrity (or totality) ofverses 4 to 6 as the second contextual circle. The shaping of the unittells us that its semantic centre is in fact distributed throughout aquasi-trinitarian framework. There is no principled basis for extractingjust one word as the focus of this particular whole.Instead, could I point you to the simple structural schema I proposed for12:1-7 in my comments to David, taking up the idea of movement through thoseverses, from “general” to “specific” and back again (and so on, actually).My dear new friend (as I hope I may call you), Iver,if we really apply the desirable principle of attention to context with anygenuine rigour, we may find some results which are surprising. (I’vecertainly been surprised!) What I don’t any longer think we shall find isencouragement from the text itself to hold onto some sort of equation ofTA PNEUMATIKA with CARISMATA alone. Nor, I suspect, will we find anysubstantial support for “spiritual gifts” as a translation even forCARISMATA in verse 4, let alone for PNEUMATIKA/OI(?) in 12:1.(I’m aware that I haven’t argued through the matter of the TRANSLATION ofCARISMATA as such. My concern has been with our methodology for linguisticanalysis/exegesis. For the translation issue I’m content to point to WardPowers’ comment on it in his two Responses of 4/10/01, at 9.53pm and9.57pm.)May I say that I have been very impressed to see the way that you and othersin this forum are prepared to modify your ideas as new viewpoints are putforward. I have the greatest regard for those engaged in the exacting workof Bible translation. Indeed, their efforts and those of SIL are whatinspired me to start the postgrad research project I am at present workingon (about Text Linguistics/DA, and in particular the potential ofTagmemics as a set of tools for exegesis). This emboldens me not onlyto draw upon your help via questions, but also in a friendly way to crossmental swords with you, as above. I hope this process may sharpen thesomewhat rusty linguistic skills I seem to remember I once may have had, andhelp me in that research project I am working on.Thanks for your willingness for such engagement. If ever I should causeoffence through my re-awakening enthusiasm in this field, I hope that youand others will understand I would not want it so.NUNI DE PERI TWN PNEUMATIKWN, ADELFE, – this time in 14:1! May Ishake my little sword once more in your direction?As this posting is already approaching the over-long, I only here issuenotice of combat, challenging you to defend your disinclination toreconsider the interpretation/translation of TA PNEUMATIKA in 14:1. Thebattle itself will be joined in another missive, if you are willing to dome the honour.Frank GeeOld minister at Jamberoo, NSW, AustraliaFledgling research student with the Australian College of TheologySIDHROS SIDHRON OXUNEI,ANHR DE PAROXUNEI PROSWPON hETAIROU—– Original Message —–From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: Frank Gee <frankrgee at outpost.net.au>; Biblical Greek< at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 6:49 AMSubject: RE: [] Re: What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS> Frank Gee said:> <snip>> > B. A text-linguistic approach to this question will encourage> > us to weigh> > the co-text(s) of this phrase, from close at hand to the wider-ranging> > co-texts in this epistle. For example:> > CO-TEXT 1: Verses 2 and 3.> > It seems to me that Peterson’s version (together with others suggestinga> > wider semantic field for TWN PNEUMATIKWN) provides a smoother> > transition to> > the statements in verses 2 and 3, which otherwise would seem to> > constitute a> > rather jarring interruption to the flow of thought, especially the first> > part of verse 3. A “wider” understanding of TA PNEUMATIKA> > might provide a> > referential context able to accommodate the curse-utterance therereferred> > to, which despite all the ingenuity of commentators I find hard> > to reconcile> > with or conceptualise within the practice of any Christiancongregation’s> > actual exercising of “spiritual gifts”.> > CO-TEXT 2: Verses 4 to 7.> > I haven’t had the time to look at commentaries on this, but my tentative> > observation goes like this:> > Structurally verses 4 to 6 consist of three adversative “sentences”> > coordinated by the conjunction KAI. The second clause in each of> > these both> > contrast with the preceding concept of variations and provides> > the unifying> > theme of the working of the (same) Spirit/Lord/God (a great Trinitarian> > formula??).> > What is interesting to me is that the surface-structure coordinating of> > (the first parts of) these sentences suggests that Paul presents their> > subject noun-phrases as disrete entities, rather than variant> > expressions of> > the same concept. I base this on the observation that asyndetic> > collocation> > of noun-phrases (apposition) tends to encode equivalence, whereas a> > stringing of noun-phrases with KAI normally indicates composition (ie> > different conceptual entities).> > What is of interest in this analysis is that the CARISMATA of verse 4> > apparently constitute only one of three different groupings of items> > [CARISMATWN + DIAKONIWN + ENERGHMATON ] . So whatever TWN PNEUMATIKWN> > means in verse 1, if it is (as I believe) expounded in verses 4 to 7(and> > beyond), it seems unlikely that its reference is exhaused by equationwith> > CARISMATWN alone.> >> > This surmise is strengthened by analysis of what follows these> > three verses.> > Verse 7 acts as a bridge between verses 4 to 6 and what follows.hEKASTWi> > functions anaphorically, with reference both to the theme ofdiffentiation> > [DIAIRESEIS] and probably to the persons-as-recipients implicit> > in EN PASIN.> > The singular passive verb DIDOTAI with its subject noun phrase> > hH FANERWSIS> > TOU PNEUMATOU is expounded in its repetitions (mostly elliptical) inthe> > following verses, which enumerate different spiritual activities> > manifested> > in the congregation. But this is not its only function. It also, as is> > shown by its collocation with its own indirect object hEKASTWi, servesto> > summarise the three verses which precede it.> > For our purposes what is significant about this is that hH FANERWSIS TOU> > PNEUMATOU is the summarising re-expression of (the ideas referred toin)> > all three noun phrases which are the subjects in the first> > clauses of verses> > 4, 5 and 6.> >> > Summary of tentative conclusions:> > a. Structurally, the most likely direct equivalent (if any) of TWN> > PNEUMATIKWN in verse 1, is hH FANERWSIS TOU PNEUMATOU (found in the> > developmental bridge-verse 7);> > b. This subject phrase of verse 7 has a wider reference than> > any of the> > individual subject phrases beginning verses 4, 5 and 6.> > c. (In other words) the subject phrase of verse 4 [DIAI…CARISMATWN]> > is narrower in its reference than the subject of> > verse 7.> > d. (Therefore) CARISMATWN has a narrower reference than whateveris> > meant by TWN PNEUMATIKWN in verse 1.> > e. (And so) “spiritual gifts” is not an adequate or appropriate> > translation for the phrase TWN PNEUMATIKWN in that verse (1).> > Thanks, Frank, for these insights. I like your suggestion that the> underlying concept for TWN PNEUMATIKWN may well be related to FANERWSIS.> Below I shall suggest a circular structure which relates the first item in> each circle, so that the following three words are structurally linked> together: PNEUMATIKWN, CARISMATWN, and FANERWSIS.> > My problem with “spiritual things” is that it is too broad. But I can see> that “spiritual gifts” may be too narrow, at least as the phrase isnormally> used and understood in English. I also like the suggestion by Russell that> it refers to “the Spirit’s work”. I would be happy with something like“how> the Spirit operates”. On the other hand, Paul is correcting the misuse of> spiritual gifts among the Corinthians more so than he seems to correct any> misuse of ministry or powerful deeds. So, if I had to choose only between> “spiritual gifts” and “spiritual matters” I would go for the first. But> maybe there is a middle position that is better.> > When we talk about context, we should keep in mind that the immediate> context carries more weight than the wider context. Therefore, 12:2-11carry> more weight than chapter 13 which is an important side issue about> underlying motivation for spiritual ministry and the mature use of the> spiritual gifts. You have kept this in mind, but not everyone does.> > Another thing we need to keep in mind is that Paul often uses Hebrew> rhetorical structure which is circular. Verses 1-3 is the first circle,4-6> is the second circle, (note the DE in v. 1, 4 and 7) and the third, large> circle is probably 12:7-14:40. It is normal for the first circle to> introduce one or more topics that will be dealt with in later circles in> more detail.> > V. 2 compares their former state as pagans, when they were carried away to> worship idols that could not speak. This may contrast to the fact that the> spirits of prophets are subject to prophets (14:32). It is one of themajor> differences between pagan spiritual frenzy and true prophetic inspiration,> that prophetic inspiration from the Holy Spirit is a gentle voice. Itnever> carries me away against my will. It has absolutely nothing to do with> ecstasy. I need to decide in my Spirit whether what I sense is truly the> voice of God and then I need to decide how and when to bring that> inspiration out in words. And I can stop at any time when I speak a wordof> prophecy. (I use “I” because I speak from experience here, not theory.)> There may also be a contrast between the mute idols and a God who speaksby> the Spirit. So v. 2 is a contrastive background for much of what is being> said later.> V. 3 contrasts and describes a message that is claimed to come from God as> either positive or negative, for or against. It is probably a typicalHebrew> exaggeration. “Cursing Jesus” stands for words that condemn and tear down> the body of Christ. “Acknowledging Jesus as Lord” stands for words that> build up the body of Christ, based on a servant attitude. Much of chapter14> talks about the purpose of spiritual gifts, which is to build up and not> tear down. One of the main problems Paul is addressing in chap. 14 is that> improper use of tongues does not build up the body of Christ.> > The second circle of 4-6 takes up the concept of how the spirit works in> three different, but closely related areas.> There is first the area of spiritual gifts – CARISMATA, and this is takenup> in 7-11 which starts out with FANERWSIS – together with the undercurrent> theme of unity in diversity and the purpose of building up the othermembers> of the body.> Second, there is the area of spiritual ministries – DIAKONIAI. This istaken> up in 12-31, because ministry must be for all members of the body. Eachone> has a role to play, but there are different roles.> Third, there is the area of spiritual manifestations of power – ENERGHMATA> (e.g. special powers of healing and faith).> In the summary verses of 27-31 all these three areas are dealt with> simultaneously from the perspective of unity in diversity.> > Thanks for the discussion, I’ll consider seriously the option of “how the> Spirit operates” for v. 12:1, but probably maintain “spiritual gifts” for> 14:1.> > Iver Larsen> > > In 28-31 Paul does not distinguish clearly between ministry gifts(apostle,> prophet, teacher, evangelist, shepherd, administration), speaking gifts> (tongues, prophecy) and power gifts (

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSHelp With John 16:22

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Oct 9 16:20:47 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Gal 4:18 EN KALWi

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)Gal 4:18 EN KALWi

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Paul Schmehl p.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.net
Tue Oct 9 22:16:24 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) JACT NT Gk Reader? —– Original Message —–From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: “Biblical Greek” < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 3:20 PMSubject: [] Re: What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS> > Briefly, in the beginning of a discourse section, there is often a setting> introducing time, location, participants and theme. In narratives you> normally have both time, place and people, and usually also a theme. In> expository text, you often have only a theme. The theme is often onlyhinted> at and the reader is expected to be patient and wait for the details to be> explained more fully later. This is a common Hebrew literaray strategy.> Wouldn’t this support Frank’s description? >> The way I look at it, the word in v. 1 PNEUMATIKWN hints at the theme tobe> developed in the whole chapter and even to the end of chapter 14. Verses2-3> are somewhat of an aside.> Again, this seems to support what Frank is contending, doesn’t it?> Then 4-6 introduce three related topics which might all be subsumed under> PNEUMATIKA. All of these are being developed further in v. 7 onwards. So,I> see 4-6 as theme statements about what is to be discussed in more detail> later.Ditto.> However, Paul is responding to a specific misuse of one of the> spiritual gifts, the tongues, and it is therefore understandable if themain> topic will be spiritual gifts, even if they are put into a wider settingof> diversity and unity as well as building up the body of Christ in love.That> wider setting is needed for perspective.> Isn’t this an assumption on your part? Verse 1 introduces a new subject.With this you agree. The following verses begin to develop the subsectionsof that subject that Paul want’s to discuss. In verses 4 and 5, he developsthe three subsections that he wants to discuss; DIAIRESEIS XARISMATWN….KAIDIAIRESEIS DIAKONIWN…..KAI DIAIRESEIS ENERGHMATWN… ISTM that thePNEUMATIKWN of verse one refers to all three subject areas, XARISMATWN,DIAKONIWN and ENERGHMATWN, doesn’t it? With this you also apparently agree.> The three themes are> a. CARISMATA> b. DIAKONIAI> c. ENERGHMATA> > Paul does not discuss DIAKONIAI much in chapter 12. In this context, Ithink> he is referring to the kind of ministries we find described in Eph 4:11-12> and Rom 12. Some of them are mentioned in 1 Cor 12:28-29: apostles,> prophets, teachers, leadership. The common terminology for this in> charismatic circles is “ministry gifts”. Peter Wagner subsumes everything> under “spiritual gifts” so there are different traditions for what exactly> “spiritual gifts” are.> I understand the traditions. I just don’t see how the Greek supports thosetraditions.> > What else would PNEUMATIKA refer to in 14:1 if it does not refer to> spiritual gifts?> Spiritual matters, the theme of this entire section.Paul Schmehl pauls at utdallas.edup.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.nethttp://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)JACT NT Gk Reader?

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Oct 10 04:08:24 EDT 2001

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) JACT NT Gk Reader? Thanks Paul.I won’t respond any more, just accept that we disagree. My arguments did notconvince you, nor have yours convinced me.> > What else would PNEUMATIKA refer to in 14:1 if it does not refer to> > spiritual gifts?> >> Spiritual matters, the theme of this entire section.And what are spiritual matters? Does Paul in any of his letters addressanything that could not be termed spiritual matters? Even if there wasspiritual immaturity in Corinth, that is still a spiritual matter.Iver Larsen

 

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)JACT NT Gk Reader?

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Frank Gee frankrgee at outpost.net.au
Wed Oct 10 13:50:40 EDT 2001

 

John 1:3-5 PAUW in the middle Salutations, ers TE KAI Iver Larsen,I want to thank Iver for the gracious response he promptly gave to mypostingof 10/10/01 12.09am.Iver, before I launch my next assault as promised, I want to make someanswer to your comments,as part of our discussion on I Cor 12: 1-7.In your posting of 10.10.01 6.31am (Do you ever sleep?), in comment uponthe analysisI had offered of verses 4 to 6, you said:>Briefly, in the beginning of a discourse section, there is often a setting>introducing time, location, participants and theme. In narratives you>normally have both time, place and people, and usually also a theme. In>expository text, you often have only a theme. The theme is often onlyhinted>at and the reader is expected to be patient and wait for the details to be>explained more fully later. This is a common Hebrew literaray strategy.Yes. This a verity on which we are in full agreement. It seems, though,that youhave not grasped the point I made, about your method of analysis. Youseemedto be applying a strategy more appropriate for following the thread of whatyouhave earlier called Western/”linear” thematic development, whereas you keeptelling usthat Paul is employing a Hebrew/”circular” pattern in unfolding hisargument here. I likeyour idea about the author’s (possible) developmental strategy! So I’masking us tobe serious about its implications for interpretation. Let’s use ananalytical approachwhich treats this as what you say it is, and not analyse it as if it were(just) a bit of Greek linearrhetoric. For the latter, it’s fine to look at the seams of the small textsegments,looking for anaphoric verbal linkages and so on. But for following a Hebrewthread,I have suggested a different strategy will be appropriate. “Horses forcourses” is mymethodological cry. If our contexts (your equivalent for what I haveelsewhere calledco-texts, a useful piece of DA terminology) are to be seen as a series ofcircles ofdifferent sizes or scopes, then let us carefully look for the semanticcentre of each.>I am not sure what you mean by semantic centre. One of the types of Hebrew>chiasms do have the key point in the middle, but that is only one and avery>special form.Okay, so let me explain. By semantic centre I mean the central (or main)IDEA in the particularquite small text segment we are examining. (Here I’m speakingmetaphorically,just as your words “circular” and “circles” are not geometric shapes we areto look for inthe written words upon the page, but metaphors for the shaping of ideas andtheirrelationships.) So I am not talking about a physical LOCATION inthe text-segment; semantic centre does not mean the MIDDLE of the unit.What I have pointed out is that, far from being focused in only one phraseof this unit, the main idea is distributed throughout (or, if you like,expressed by) the wholeunit (4-6). It comprises at least the ideas expressed in DIAIRESEISCARISMATWN,DIAIRESEIS DIAKONIWN and DIAIRESEIS ENERGHMATWN.You go on:<The more common form is to have the theme hinted at in the>very beginning and then developed through the body of the section with a>final climax (for narratives) or a summary (for expositions.)Of course – and people like Robert Longacre have done a lot of work on suchmatters.However, the comment does not help us here, because these are patterns whichare tobe found at DISCOURSE level in the genres you have referred to (narrative,exposition).They may or may not be relevant for analysing much smaller text units, suchas thethree verses we are talking about. In this case, I suggest my structuralanalysis of4-6 shows that they are not. A different shaping-strategy is used by thewriter here,expressed in the parallelisms and coordinating structure reflected in thesyntax.(By the way, I appreciated your comments in another posting on thefunctional differencesbetween KAI and English “and”. That may complicate life a little for us asexegetes, thoughas you’ve said, can help us to make sense of some otherwise awkward Greekexpressions.We haven’t so far done any close examination of KAI in verses 4 to 6, butI suspect furtherexamination of that would not make much difference for the structuralanalysis I’ve put forwardfor them.)>The way I look at it, the word in v. 1 PNEUMATIKWN hints at the theme to be>developed in the whole chapter and even to the end of chapter 14. Verses2-3>are somewhat of an aside.That’s the way I see it too.>Then 4-6 introduce three related topics which might all be subsumed under>PNEUMATIKA. All of these are being developed further in v. 7 onwards. So, I>see 4-6 as theme statements about what is to be discussed in more detail>later. However, Paul is responding to a specific misuse of one of the>spiritual gifts, the tongues, and it is therefore understandable if themain>topic will be spiritual gifts, even if they are put into a wider setting of>diversity and unity as well as building up the body of Christ in love. That>wider setting is needed for perspective.>The three themes are>a. CARISMATA>b. DIAKONIAI>c. ENERGHMATAYes!!! Yes!!! Yes!!! On this it seems we now agree!!Provided we again take your own language seriously and consistently! In theparagraph aboveyou say: “it is understandable if the main topic will be spiritual gifts”.Now in a LATER segmentof the argument, perhaps it “WILL” be given some particular focus. Thatwill be somethingfor us to examine as objectively as possible when we get to other topiccircles further on. (I amincreasingly doubtful if indeed it IS the case, even in chapter 14. Perhapswe’ll see.)But the point at issue between us is, whether CARISMATWN is the “main topic”here,in THIS context (ie verses 4-7). And to that question, the answer is NO.BTW, have you noticed what I am asking us to do? I am asking us to takethe principle ofcontext REALLY seriously, by looking at each co-text one by one, giving itfull and proper weightin our analysis, and not smuggling in supposed data from other places orsections,or imposing some general grid of presuppositions upon any particular segmentwhich it is our taskto examine.Later, when we have painstakingly given ourselves to real linguistic work oneach small section, weshall still have opportunity to look at the RELATIONSHIPS between all thesmaller sections we have examined, including the dynamics of interactionsthey may have upon each other, and the bearing ofnuances which we may discover in one section upon the meaning of another.This is what I believe true “contextual” exegesis is all about. It’s hardwork, requiring patienceand humility before the linguistic detail of the text. It’s one thing toproclaim the importance ofthe principle of context for exegesis and translation. It’s quite anotherto put it into practice withrigorously disciplined procedures. My observation is, that we need muchmore of the latter.Could I draw your attention to an important word in the first sentence ofyour comment above:it is the word “all”.Yes! ALL THREE topics are indeed to be subsumed under TWN PNEUMATIKWN.That is precisely why I say it is arbitrary and inappropriate to seize ononly ONE of those threethemes in verses 4 to 6 (ie CARISMATA in verse 4), and treat it as if itwere by itselfthe comprehensive equivalent of the major theme introduced in verse 1.You might just as well leave out verses 5 and 6 altogether! But I don’tbelieve the ApostlePaul would think you’ve improved the clarity of his argument by making thatexcision.Yet this is the effect of what you and others have done by simply equatingthe content ofTWN PNEUMATWN with CARISMATWN in verse 4.You go on to say:>The following section from 7-31 do not separate these three into neatboxes.Agreed!! Which goes to show something of the subtlety of theinterrelationship of thethree themes as joint components in TWN PNEUMATIKWN.>The first one CARISMATA seems to be the main focus of 7-11 which starts outwith>a concept that is common to all of these socalled CARISMATA PNEUMATIKA,>namely that they deal with FANERWSIS TOU PNEUMATOS.I hope you will now see why I cannot agree with this claim, for which youhave shown no groundswithin THIS context (verses 4-6), except to say that it “seems” to you thatway.I believe I have demonstrated the contrary, through closer analysis of theseverses, theirstructure and its implications. I really want to see some empiricalanalysis of the way thelanguage is actually working here, not just subjective guesses about whatit seems to beabout. To recap in another way, CARISMATA here SHARES the “main focus” in7-11 withDIAIRESEIS DIAKONIWN and DIAIRESEIS ENERGHMATWN.Before I leave this quote from your post, we should not perhaps pass overthe interestingand tell-tale phrase “these so-called CARISMATA PNEUMATIKA”. The words areapposite. “So called”, indeed. In other words, most dubiously so called.The question is are WE to call them so, in our translations or our exegesis?And so far, no evidence whatsoever of a truly empirical kind has been givenfor the use ofsuch a phrase as a translation for anything in this context. Particularly,12:1-7, but alsoprobably the contexts constituted by 7 to 11, and then the bigger circle of7 to 31.I believe it would be appropriate for people interested in this thread to goback and have aclose look at what Ward Powers has said in his two Responses of 4/10/01(at 9.57pm and9.53pm). So far, no one has attempted to answer point by point the detailsof the argumenthe puts forward. Certainly no one has come anywhere near refuting it.It’s asufficiently important and interesting issue to merit closer attention. Hedoes the job a goodlinguist should: challenge us to re-think some things we thought soobvious.BTW, Doctor Powers is my Supervisor for my research, but he and I have hadno collusionoff-list on the matter under discussion. In no sense do I feel any need toact as apologist forhim. I simply observe that his comments on this list have raised issuesworthy of closerconsideration.Let’s look now at the next part of your posting:>The second word>ENERGHMATA only occurs twice in the NT, and the second time is in 12:10:>ENERGHMATA DUNAMEWN “workings of miracles” in the NRSV. Because of this>it seems reasonable to understand ENERGHMATA in v. 6 in the context of the>fuller expression ENERGHMATA DUNAMEWN in v. 10. In 12:29 – which is in the>summary section – the word DUNAMEIS occurs alone, referring to the same>concept: Do all work miracles? (NRSV)>Is it a concept that needs two words to be fully expressed?:>ENEGHMATA – ENERGHMATA DUNAMEWN – DUNAMEISI do not know how we could ever go about answering such a speculativequestion,especially when we have only two occurrences of the word in the whole GNT!If we look in the close context of its occurrence in 12:10, however,somethinginteresting pops up. You have said somewhere that there is no particularsystematicorder in the items mentioned in verses 8 to 11 which would show how theymight each fit into the three different topics in verses 4 to 6. However that may be, Ithink it can be saidat least that there are some items which seem to be grouped in pairs, mostobviously in verse 8,and quite probably in verse 9 (if we give weight, as I think is notunreasonable, to theparallelism of the two accompanying phrases, EN TWi AUTWi / hENIPNEUMATI,in that verse.What would be interesting to wonder is whether we might similarly group thenext two items,the first two in verse 10. If so, that would suggest some particularcommonality betweenENERGHMATA and PROFHTEIA. An unexpected result, no doubt, and one thatI do not think that you are likely to welcome. (My guess is, that you wouldlike much moreto put prophecy in the basket of the “gifts” – ??) But still, Ifollow where the structuralclues in the text may lead. And it raises an interesting question for theopen-minded. Andshouldn’t that be all of us?Please understand that I don’t intend to put too much weight on this lastidea: it’s too speculativefor that. And I really believe that speculation should be kept firmly incheck.But your question has drawn my attention to another way of answering it,whichI had never noticed before. (And for that, I thank you!) This time, thelinguistic evidence isfar stronger than for the last possibility I just pointed to.Let me begin by recalling a bit of lore you mentioned earlier aboutdiscourse analysis. Yousaid that in the expository genre the theme will [often] be brought to aconclusion with a summary,pretty much as a narrative comes to its climax near the end.Let’s try applying this observation here, drawing a contextual circle bigenough to make it a workableand responsible exercise. I propose 12:1-11 for our circle. (I hope you’llbe happy with that.)Let’s briefly prepare by reviewing some things we’ve looked at and agreedupon so far:Verse 1 states the overall theme controlling this section, and probably tothe end of chapter 14.Verses 2 and 3 are a small sub-theme which may for our present purposes beregarded as adigresssion (as you said above).Verses 4 to 11 constitute a segment which falls into three subsections: …………….(i)….verses 4 to 6, which provide us with three “topics”or “theme statements” …………………………………..as you have called them above.May I for the moment call them……………………………………”topical baskets”, in the light ofwhat happens in verses 8 to 10?…………….(ii) verse 7, which serves as bridge between 4 to 6 and8 to 11;……………(iii) verses 8 to 11, which provide instances of the”topics” in 4 to 6 (most probably).Verse 11 may be seen as providing a summary for verses 4 to 11.Taking the idea of thematic or contextual circles which begin from verse 1,we may note inpassing that verse 11 may possibly function also as thematic recapitulationfor verse 7 and verse 1.So let us see what happens when we unpack the verse to which our structuralobservations haveled us.Let us also keep in mind the question you have raised about the scope ofreference ofENERGHMATA. From your comments round that question, you may well expectthat its scopeis very limited: I noticed you counting the number of times the word isused. In which case, I thinkyou may be in for a surprise.(By way of forewarning: Have you tried counting how many times the wordPNEUMATIKA/WNis used as an abstract substantive, throughout chapters 12 to 14, notcounting the obvious reference topersons in 14:37?) Despite its thematic importance in that largeunit, THERE ARE ONLY TWOOCCURRENCES! And the first of those is grammatically ambiguous as to itgender (and thereforeambiguous as to its reference, until we get into some serious contextualstudy).And may we also keep in mind a question I am interested to explore: Howare we to divide up thevarious spiritual “eggs”, if I may call them that for a moment, which youreckoned were scatteredrandomly through verses 8 to 10? Which topical baskets might we gatherthem into?Let’s see how this verse stacks up as a summary of what we’ve seen to thispoint, and (hopefully)follow undaunted wherever the linguistic clues may lead us.Let’s start with the least alarming features first. TO hEN KAI TO AUTOPNEUMA. This is notsurprising: it has clear lexical echoes from verses 4 to 6, then 7, 8and 9. Very strong evidenceof cohesion so far. We can be encouraged in our tentative decision totreat this verse as a summaryof what precedes it. Let us note also the word PNEUMA itself, as ananaphoric cognate of the puzzling(to some of us) noun phrase TWN PNEUMATIKWN in verse 1. I think it would bereasonable to see it as atleast in some measure epexegetic of that phrase. Though not, perhaps, inthe way so many assume.hEKASTWi, in the second colon of verse 11, recalls its own use in verse 7,and its many functionalALLWmorphs (pardon the Greek pun) in verses 8, 9 and 10.And now things start to get really interesting.DIAIROUN is the verb-cognate of the DIAIRESEIS which occurs three times inverses 4 to 6. Moreevidence of strong thematic cohesion.But there is more. (“If you have tears, prepare to shed them now!”)Have you noticed what I have, in the middle of the first colon of verse 11?There’s a verb. Once again,it’s the cognate form of something quite significant that we have seenearlier in this segment. But, oh dear!IT’S THE WRONG VERB!! Not at all what your theories would lead me toexpect.In this key verse, summarising so much of all that has gone before, wehave the key verb lobbing us rightinto the topical basket we never would have believed we could find ourselvesin. (I’m not mocking you here;I’m just as surprised by this discovery as I hope you are.)It’s looking as if (to answer your speculative question about ENERGHMATA),the Greek words themselveshave now given us their answer (or most of it). To your question “Is[ENERGHMATA] a concept thatneeds two words to be fully expressed, the answer is No. Not two. Thenumber needed, by Paul, at anyrate, is however many words there are in verses 7 to 10!If you raise your voice in protest, have a look at the phrase in verse 11 wehaven’t thought about yet.Do you see the one I mean?Oh, dear! (again) – PANTA DE TAUTA is what remains.Now PANTA is a word that old preachers like me love, as you can imagine.But I surmise that it cangive a certain professional translator no comfort whatsoever in thiscontext. And linked up like this withTAUTA, it’s disastrous.TAUTA: This word, the grammatical object of the verb ENERGEI, could beanaphoric or cataphoric according to the context in which it occurs. Herethere is no way out for you: it obviously does not pointforward across the chasm between verse 11 and the next pericope. It clearlypoints back to what is foundin the immediately preceding verses: those spiritual eggs. This is whythat word PANTA is so alarmingNow we are ready to answer the question I find interesting and asked us toconsider:How many of those spiritual eggs (verses 8 to 10) should we put in the threetopical baskets we (both) found in verses 4 to 6?And the answer of verse 11 is: ENERGEI (along with its cognate, DIAIRESEISENERGHMATOWN) islaying claim to all of them! That seems almost unfair, doesn’t it?At least we need not feel too sad for the DIAIRESEIS DIAKONIWN basket.You’ve suggested your answer already for that one. We should just wanderoff somewhere else than chapter 12 to gather our spiritual eggs: placeslike Ephesians 4:11-12 and Romans 12.Paul’s just not interested in DIAKONIA in this chapter, so it seems.So let’s act consistently with this theory of yours. On the basis that thewords express the thought, we shouldtidy things up a bit. Logically, it makes best sense to cut out verse 5altogether. It introduces us to a category with nothing in it (you reckon),it has no connection with verse 7, and doesn’t tell us anything at all aboutwhatever TWN PNEUMATIKWN in verse 1 is all about. (You said it, not me.)(Cutting out this useless verse has a further merit, other than being thelogical conclusion of your theories. It will make the job less burdensomefor translators. One less verse to have to translate into all thoseforeign languages. :-)The only trouble I see about this suggestion is: What would the Apostlethink? Would he be impressed?Or is it that your theory has led us all astray? You can see I’m not reallyconvinced, even about the picture you paint of the role of DIAKONIWN forverses 8 to 10.But it seems we’ve forgotten our favourite topical basket, DIAIRESEISCARISMATWN.Actually , I’ve not forgotten it. But it’s nowhere to be found in that keysummmary-of-all-things-so-far,verse 11. Not a CARIS in sight, let alone a CARISMA or a CARISMATA.How strange. Even more disturbingly, consider this:We’ve found a couple of cognate verbs for the other two topical basketsprowling around in verse 11.But not a cognate verb in sight to lend a hand for poor old CARISMATA.It’s not as if there’s nothing available that would do the job. There’s aperfectly respectable verbal cognatefor CARISMATA that Paul used elsewhere in this same epistle (back in 2:12).Now what I think you’ll have to do is take flight immediately back to verses4 to 6, to mount a rescue operationfor this poor topical basket that’s been suddenly robbed of all itsspiritual eggs by the dreadful verse 11.But there’s more bad news I’m afraid. I must now deliver the unkindest cutof all (at least for this time).I’m going to ask that once again we employ the principle you recommendedfrom the field of discourse genrestructure: looking for the summary at the end of an expository section.So here we go. Verses 4 to 6 are not a very big segment. But as we’veseen, they do stand as a discretecontext circle for us to examine. And though small, the segment is quitedensely packed with thematic material:all our topical baskets are there, along with quite a bit besides. Allbeautifully arranged with parallelisms,a three-fold symmetry and even a quasi-trinitarian set of complementaryelliptical clauses (as I have expoundedin an earlier posting to this List).But there is one more thing, sitting by itself like a protective outrider.(Or you may prefer to view it as a dangerous virus of some sort, it has suchmenace for your theory.)It’s another of those items that I’d never really noticed until yourspeculative question about ENERGHMATWNdrew it to my attention. (Thank you once again, Iver.)Please note its position. There it is in last place, providing amini-summary of this segment, before Paul moves on to the bridge of verse 7.Referring back to QEOS, and possibly also to its structural equivalentsKURIOS and PNEUMA, that finalsummarising phrase reads: hO ENERGWN TA PANTA EN PASIN.It’s almost unbelievable isn’t it! How unkind can the Apostle be to thispoor theory of yours? And let’s notforget, the only way we can know his intentions is through the words he haschosen.It’s almost as if the damaging verse 11 has launched a preemptive strikeagainst your place of refuge in 4 to 6,this time moving backwards!! (How Hebrew can you get?)Here’s ENERGEI all over again, brandishing TA PANTA as its all-inclusiveclaim.So what can Paul have been thinking of? Apparently not what so many ofus have expected up till now.And what can we find to put in the CARISMATA topical basket, which wasmaking such big claims just a little while ago? How can there be anythingleft to put in it? Hasn’t ENERGHMATWN swallowed up everything in sight?The first word of comfort is, I don’t really believe it has. The attibutiveparticipial clause at the end of verse 6 does have some summarisingfunction, but it need not do so comprehensively for the first two cola(verses 4 and 5). In other words, there is still some thematic space forthe first two topics.And it’s not quite the case that there are no spiritual eggs at all left forCARISMATA’s basket. I haven’t forgotten the phrase CARISMATA IAMATWN inverse 9. I’m not at all sure I want to assume that the standard translationfor it is correct. It would be interesting to consider a translation suchas “to another is graciously given experiences of beinghealed”, for instance. It may look mind-boggling at first sight, but may bepossible linguistically. (If so, all that would prevent us from consideringit would be a fixation with or assumption in favour of “spiritual gifts” – atranslation for whichit is increasingly clear that there is really no warrant in these verses. Ithink your Danish version for CARISMATA is much better: “grace-gifts”. Butthen why not try an even more neutral (and defensible) translation for it,such as”manifestations of grace”. It would then fit beautifully with verse7.And there is another possible referent for CARISMATA, which is quitedifferent from what most commentators meanby “spiritual gifts”. The clue is in verse 31. But I’m too tired toexplain that now, and maybe I’d be reinventing the wheel anyway. Maybeanother time.So what are we to conclude, so far?The main effect of my analysis has been to show that:1. Whatever DIAIRESEIS CARISMATWN may mean, it does not have the thematicscope or prominence which you and many others have claimed for it.2. It does have a place alongside the other two topics in verses 4 to 6,and it can be shown to be expounded linguistically by ONE item in the list of what I have here calledthe “spiritual eggs” in verses 8 to 10. In terms of what is provable linguistically, it thus has no more claim toprimacy as a comprehensive “basket” topic than the quite humble role you have identified for DIAKONIWN in thoseverses.3. The big surprise is how big a field thematically is controlled by thecategory of ENERGHMATWN. I was not joking in what I said about verse 11, even though you will havenoticed the enjoyment I gained from examining it. If we take the language seriously, it appears that CARISMATA has asomehow hyponymous relationship with ENERGHMATWN, in the sense that the latter is the thematic fieldwithin which CARISMATA functions, even though the two terms appear to be coordinated in verses 4 and 6.This may be worth some further study.4. (In consequence of the above): There are no linguistic grounds inchapter 12: 1-11 (our first four contextual circles) to treat CARISMATA as the full equivalent of what issignified by TWN PNEUMATIKWN. Nor is there any sound reason provided in these four contextualcircles for translating either Greek expression as “spiritual gifts”.I’m far too tired to offer any more just now.I do have a comment about the amazing thing you have done in positingCARISMATA PNEUMATIKA,but it will have to wait til tomorrow.After that, I can hopefully get round to answer your charge of heresyconcerning the meaning of 14:1And so to bed.CARIS KAI EIRHN,Frank Gee

 

John 1:3-5PAUW in the middle

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Paul Schmehl p.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.net
Wed Oct 10 21:12:00 EDT 2001

 

Jud 3:17 (LXX) Comparitive Degrees —– Original Message —–From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: “Biblical Greek” < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 3:08 AMSubject: [] Re: What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS> Thanks Paul.> I won’t respond any more, just accept that we disagree. My arguments didnot> convince you, nor have yours convinced me.> Perhaps it would help if I were to say that I wasn’t trying to convinceanyone of anything. I was simply expressing my observations with theexpectation that a healthy dialogue would follow.> > > What else would PNEUMATIKA refer to in 14:1 if it does not refer to> > > spiritual gifts?> > >> > Spiritual matters, the theme of this entire section.> > And what are spiritual matters? Does Paul in any of his letters address> anything that could not be termed spiritual matters? Even if there was> spiritual immaturity in Corinth, that is still a spiritual matter.> I think it’s clear that throughout the Pauline corpus, he deals with manytopics that are not “spiritual” in that they address behaviors, thoughtpatterns, customs and many other matters that are “sensual”. *Of course*,everything he discusses has a spiritual aspect, because he is trying to winsouls to Christ, after all. But I don’t think it’s difficult to discernwhere Paul is addresses spiritual matters as opposed to sensual matters (or”things of the spirit” as opposed to “things of the flesh”, if that seemsmore sensible.)ISTM that, when Paul begins his discussion of TWN PNEUMATIKWN in 1 Cor12:1ff, he is contrasting what will follow (things of the spiritual life ofa Christian) with what his preceding discussion has addressed (things of thefleshy life of a Christian) by the use of PERI DE, which as you point out,he uses several times before to announce new topics.1 Cor 7:1 PERI DE WN EGRAYATE1 Cor 7:25 PERI DE TWN PARQENWN1 Cor 8:1 PERI DE TWN EIDWLOQUTWN1 Cor 12:1 PERI DE TWN PNEUMATIKWN1 Cor 16:1 PERI DE THS LOGEIASIsn’t this clear pattern worth some consideration? Paul uses it repeatedlyto introduce a new topic. Should this introduction refer to only one partof the following discussion? Or to the overarching theme of the discussion?Paul Schmehl pauls at utdallas.edup.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.nethttp://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/

 

Jud 3:17 (LXX)Comparitive Degrees

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Oct 11 05:04:47 EDT 2001

 

Gal 4:18 EN KALWi IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Dear Frank,Thank you very much for a comprehensive, stimulating and detailed response.Including irony, just like Paul himself. I like that. I am afraid I don’trecognize many of the opinions you say I have, but that is one of challengesof communicating in brief e-mails, especially when we don’t know eachother’s background and presuppositions. And during the discussion andfurther study, my own understanding is changing and developing as I discovernew things. It is good to hear that you also discover new things as we goalong.I was amused that you thought an e-mail which I wrote and posted at 10 p.m.local time Tuesday evening was actually written at 6 a.m. the next morning.It does show that a lack of situational context can make us infer thingsthat are incorrect. We are in different time zones, and that is relevant for1 Corinthians because this letter was never intended for us but for theChurch in Corinth. If we knew more about the original situation we would bemore likely to understand it the way it was intended.It is difficult to respond in detail to everything you write, so I’ll try toaddress what I consider the more interesting general topics which relate tooverall structure. I’ll only keep the last part of your e-mail for referencehere in order to cut down on size.> So what are we to conclude, so far?> > The main effect of my analysis has been to show that:> 1. Whatever DIAIRESEIS CARISMATWN may mean, it does not have> the thematic scope or prominence which you and many others have claimedfor it.I don’t know what you mean here, but I’ll comment on DIAIRESEIS belowbecause it is a key concept.> 2. It does have a place alongside the other two topics in> verses 4 to 6, and it can be shown to be expounded linguistically> by ONE item in the list of what I have here called> the “spiritual eggs” in verses 8 to 10. In terms of what is> provable linguistically, it thus has no more claim to> primacy as a comprehensive “basket” topic than the quite humble> role you have identified for DIAKONIWN in those verses.> 3. The big surprise is how big a field thematically is> controlled by the category of ENERGHMATWN. I was not joking> in what I said about verse 11, even though you will have> noticed the enjoyment I gained from examining it.> If we take the language seriously, it appears that CARISMATA has a> somehow hyponymous relationship with ENERGHMATWN,> in the sense that the latter is the thematic field> within which CARISMATA functions, even> though the two terms appear to be coordinated in verses 4 and 6.> This may be worth some further study.> 4. (In consequence of the above): There are no linguistic grounds in> chapter 12: 1-11 (our first four contextual circles) to treat CARISMATA> as the full equivalent of what is signified by TWN PNEUMATIKWN.> Nor is there any sound reason provided in these four contextual> circles for translating either Greek expression as “spiritual gifts”.When I read your whole response, I could see that there are actually anumber of things we have come to or have always been in agreement about.Others we are still working on, especially your last point 4 above. Whethera particular reason is “sound” is quite subjective, I think.I have two major points I’d like to bring.One is developing the circle idea. Often these circles are concentric, onecircle inside another circle. Sometimes the overlap. I have seen this manytimes in both the OT and the NT. We need to be careful that we do not thinkof the circles as separate steps, one after another, in a linear fashion.The circle idea is related to the “sandwich effect” namely that the firstand last part (verse) in a section bear a relationship to one another thathelps to delineate the section. It is also called “inclusio”.The other point is the situation in Corinth that Paul was speaking into andwe can only establish indirectly what it was.Our discussions have helped me to have a clearer picture of what is Paul’sconcern in 12-14. I assume that most of us agree that 12-14 constitute asection, introduced by PERI DE. Chapter 15 starts a different topicaltogether.I believe the overriding concern for Paul in 12-14 is to help theCorinthians combat a competitive spirit that had crept into the church fromthe Greek culture of that time. They were used to competitive races, bothwith horses and humans, as well as fights of different kinds in the arenas.The spectators would be divided, I expect, like modern football fans.Some of the things happening in the church were probably spectacular, andspeaking in tongues, prophesying, miracles of healing etc have a tendency toattract attention. But it also created disunity in the church. Someindividuals were considered more important or more “spiritual” than othersand some spiritual activities – whatever they were – were considered moreimportant than others. The Holy Spirit does not operate in a competitivefashion, and I think that is really the main thing Paul wants to make clearin 12-14. The Holy Spirit operates in love and encourages us to worktogether in body fashion, where each one has an important role to play, nomatter how spectacular or up-front that role or activity may be.One article I read years ago has influenced my thinking about Semiticthought patterns more than anything else I have ever read. It was a briefreport on research done in the US about thought patters as they wereexpressed by university students from different cultures writingcompositions in English. The reference is:Kaplan, Robert, B. 1966. “Cultural thought Patterns in Inter-CulturalEducation” Language and learning 16(1 and 2) 1-20.My approach to Biblical texts have been greatly illuminated by thatresearch. This is where I got the “circles” from although they use a betterdrawing in the article that I cannot duplicate in a text e-mail.On this basis, I see a connection between the introductory verse of 12:1 and14:37-40. This is the inclusio of the outer circle. There is a briefintroduction in the beginning and a conclusion with some salient points inthe end.Within that outer circle there are several smaller circles. After thebackground comments in 12:2-3 the next circle begins with 4-5. It isdebatable where that second circle ends, but I am inclined to think that itends with 12:31. 31 is a true bridge verse (12:7 is not a bridge verse, butan introductory verse, the first half of an inclusio). A bridge verse looksbackwards and forwards at the same time, the first half looks backward, thesecond half looks forward. 12:31a is notoriously difficult because it is notclear whether the verb ZHLOUTE is an imperative or indicative. If my thesisis correct that Paul is going against a competitive spirit, it cannot beimperative: “You must seek TA CARISMATA TA MEIZONA”. It is more likely arebuke in the form of irony: “So you are seeking the greater CARISMATA!” -as if there were such things as the “greater ones” – “Now let me tell youwhat is the really greatest “spiritual gift” of all, namely love. You cancome with all the CARISMATA, DIAKONIAI and ENERGHMATA you like, they are allnothing if they are not expressed in love.”If 4-5 is the introduction to 4-31, then we would expect the theme to beintroduced here, and I am sure it is. The most essential theme is NOTexpressed by CARISMATA or DIAKONIAI or ENERGHMATA, but by DIAIRESEIS andAUTOS. These are the words that are repeated three times. Even though thereare DIFFERENT workings of the Spirit, it is the SAME Spirit that works inall. This is confirmed by words like hEKASTOS which you, Frank, pointed out.Because of the sandwich effect and the fact that this word is introduced inv. 7 and closed in v. 11, the verses 7-11 constitute another inner circle.That inner circle develops the sub-topic that was introduced in v. 6c,namely hO ENERGWN TA PANTA EN PASIN. These words are nicely referred toagain in v. 11. So, one could say that v. 6 has some features of a bridgeverse. The last part of it introduces a sub-topic that is being developed inthe following verses 7-11.There is another Hebrew thought pattern that I need to mention. It is theGeneric-specific restatement procedure. A topic is often referred to firstin a generic way and then developed in detail. This is related to theconcentric circles. Without understanding this concept, people misunderstandthe structure of many Biblical passages (and numerous literal translationshave misled numerous people over the years, because this is contrary toWestern thought pattern.)The reason for mentioning this now is the GENERIC statement in v. 7 which isFANERWSIS TOU PNEUMATOS. This generic statement is detailed in the followingverses 8-10 with 11 as the summary verse for 7-11.Verse 12 is explicitly marked by a GAR as is 13 and 14. This indicates thatthe section 12-30 is a supporting section for the theme. It does not reallyintroduce a new topic, but gives support for the topic introduced in v. 7.It is fairly well established by now that GAR is not a logical reasonconnector, but a connector that introduces explanatory support for what hasjust been said. The theme of 12-30 is, of course, the unique value of eachmember of the body and the contribution that each one has to the whole. Itis still related to the general combat against an overly competitive spiritas it gives further support for the thought in v. 7 that to each one isgiven … for the common good.I need to stop, although I am not sure this is sufficient for people trainedin linear Western thought patterns to follow Paul’s train of thought. Thereare definitely sound literary and linguistic reasons for translation thefamous expression in the context of 14:1 and possibly also in 12:1 as”spiritual gifts”, but the background for these reasons is probably new tomany people. I recommend the article mentioned. It is very worthwhilereading.Best wishes,Iver Larsen

 

Gal 4:18 EN KALWiIOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)

What to do with PNEUMATIKOS Frank Gee frankrgee at outpost.net.au
Wed Oct 17 21:11:09 EDT 2001

 

Fronting Classic Greek ? Dear members TE KAI Iver Larsen,In response to Iver Larsen’s last posting on this thread, of 11/10/01 7.15pm:My regrets that my “tomorrow” has encompassed some five days. My youngest daughter’s twenty-first birthdayhas inter-vened (not that that is any excuse).Before resuming our friendly hostilities (good excuse to use that wonderful Greek term, oxymoron!), I have a coupleof requests.Iver, I appreciated your reference to the article which gave you such interesting insights into Hebraic turns of thought.I’ve checked the electronic catalogues of libraries in Australia, and cannot find it anywhere, so far. You recall it was:Kaplan, Robert, B. 1966. “Cultural thought Patterns in Inter-CulturalEducation” Language and learning 16(1 and 2) 1-20.You’ve got me intrigued, and I would love to read it. But how? Presumably Language and Learning is a serialof some kind, but it doesn’t seem to be accessible locally. Do you know if the article is available in electronicformat? (From you, perhaps?)There are some other questions I’d like to put to you off-line, which have to do with my present research project.As I have previously mentioned, that research is closely associated with work in the Bible translation community.So I’d appreciate it if you would let me know your email contact address, to enable such direct communication.And yes, I shall soon enter the lists once more, with some ideas on I Corinthians 12 to 14.With all best wishes, and thanks,Frank GeeJamberoo, Australiafrankrgee at outpost.net.au————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20011018/17ab38b5/attachment.html

 

FrontingClassic Greek ?

[] PSUXIKOS and PNEUMATIKOS justin rogers justinrogers35 at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 25 23:17:08 EDT 2006

 

[] LXX Greek vs NT Greek [] Greek for kids I heard N.T. Wright give a lecture in Memphis, TN a few years back in which he argued that the adjectives PSUXIKOS and PNEUMATIKOS in 1 Cor 15:44-46 referred not to substance, but animation. In other words, a flesh-animated body versus a spirit-animated body. Is this valid?-Justin

 

[] LXX Greek vs NT Greek[] Greek for kids
John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Fri Oct 26 05:05:06 EDT 2001

 

A better translation of Rom 4:1? John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN corrected version To All, In, TOUTO GAR ESTIN TO QELHMA TOU PATPOS MOU, hINA PAS hO QEWRWN TONhUIONKAI PISTEUWN EIS AUTON ECHi ZWHN AIWNION, KAI ANASTHSW AUTON EGW [EN]THi ESCATHi. It seems to me that hO QEWRWN and PISTEUWN represents anon going precess that results in ZWHN AIWNION and ANASTHSW. I would appreciate any thoughts on this matter that any onemight have.Thanks,Harry Jones

 

A better translation of Rom 4:1?John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN corrected version

John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN corrected version Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Fri Oct 26 05:40:12 EDT 2001

 

John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN corrected version To All, Regarding , TOUTO GAR ESTIN TO QELHMA TOU PATPOS MOU, hINA PAS hO QEWRWN TON hUION KAI PISTEUWN EIS AUTON ECHi ZWHN AIWNION, KAI ANASTHSW AUTON EGW [EN] THi ESCATHi. It seems to me that hO QEWRWN and PISTEUWN represents anon going process that results in ZWHN AIWNION and ANASTHSW. I would appreciate any thoughts on this matter that any onemight have.Thanks,Harry Jones

 

John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWNJohn 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN corrected version

John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN corrected version Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 26 08:49:50 EDT 2001

 

John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN corrected version A better translation of Rom 4:1? Harry:You wrote:—–> Regarding , TOUTO GAR ESTIN TO QELHMA TOU PATPOS MOU, hINA>PAS hO QEWRWN TON hUION KAI PISTEUWN EIS AUTON ECHi ZWHN>AIWNION, KAI ANASTHSW AUTON EGW [EN] THi ESCATHi.> > It seems to me that hO QEWRWN and PISTEUWN represents an>on going process that results in ZWHN AIWNION and ANASTHSW.—–To nobody’s surprise I am sure, I would simply say: No. ThePresent tense does not denote on-going action. Any “on-going” aspectwould be inherent in a verb’s Lexical Aspect. Grammatical Aspectdoes NOT denote “on-going” action. And I just don’t see how onecan argue for a “on-going” aspect with these verbsin this context, but concerning the ptc PISTEUWN here…In fairness, I would point you to Wallace’s GGBB, pg. 621. footnote 22.When I first read it, I fell out of my chair. Then, after I got up,I realized that one’s theology deeply affects one’s grammaticalconclusions (which, if true, should also inform you as to whyI hold to my position).My (theological) thoughts, ­čś« )Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

 

John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN corrected versionA better translation of Rom 4:1?

John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN corrected version Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Oct 27 07:49:03 EDT 2001

 

Genitive a morphological case (was: RE: MIDDLE AND PASSIVE VOICE) MIDDLE AND PASSIVE VOICE At 12:49 PM +0000 10/26/01, Mark Wilson wrote:>Harry:> >You wrote:> >—–>> Regarding , TOUTO GAR ESTIN TO QELHMA TOU PATPOS MOU, hINA>>PAS hO QEWRWN TON hUION KAI PISTEUWN EIS AUTON ECHi ZWHN>>AIWNION, KAI ANASTHSW AUTON EGW [EN] THi ESCATHi.>> >> It seems to me that hO QEWRWN and PISTEUWN represents an>>on going process that results in ZWHN AIWNION and ANASTHSW.>—–> >To nobody’s surprise I am sure, I would simply say: No. The>Present tense does not denote on-going action. Any “on-going” aspect>would be inherent in a verb’s Lexical Aspect. Grammatical Aspect>does NOT denote “on-going” action. And I just don’t see how one>can argue for a “on-going” aspect with these verbs>in this context, but concerning the ptc PISTEUWN here…> >In fairness, I would point you to Wallace’s GGBB, pg. 621. footnote 22.>When I first read it, I fell out of my chair. Then, after I got up,>I realized that one’s theology deeply affects one’s grammatical>conclusions (which, if true, should also inform you as to why>I hold to my position).> >My (theological) thoughts, ­čś« )A curious comment. I DO think Wallace’s note is plausible, which doesn’tmean that I necessarily agree with it. Nevertheless, I’d agree with Mark’sstatement about the two present participles in question, that they need notnecessarily indicate continuous action. I think that substantivalparticiples especially tend to be like agent nouns and that the durativeaspect of the present isn’t necessarily involved.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Genitive a morphological case (was: RE: MIDDLE AND PASSIVE VOICE)MIDDLE AND PASSIVE VOICE

John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN corrected version Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Sat Oct 27 20:21:47 EDT 2001

 

Greek Font? Greek Font? Dear Carl,I appreciate your response to my post but why do you believe thathO QEWRWN and PISTEUWN are not durative in this context, my I ask?Best,Harry Jones> At 12:49 PM +0000 10/26/01, Mark Wilson wrote:> >Harry:> >> >You wrote:> >> >—–> >> Regarding , TOUTO GAR ESTIN TO QELHMA TOU PATPOS MOU, hINA> >>PAS hO QEWRWN TON hUION KAI PISTEUWN EIS AUTON ECHi ZWHN> >>AIWNION, KAI ANASTHSW AUTON EGW [EN] THi ESCATHi.> >>> >> It seems to me that hO QEWRWN and PISTEUWN represents an> >>on going process that results in ZWHN AIWNION and ANASTHSW.> >—–> >> >To nobody’s surprise I am sure, I would simply say: No. The> >Present tense does not denote on-going action. Any “on-going” aspect> >would be inherent in a verb’s Lexical Aspect. Grammatical Aspect> >does NOT denote “on-going” action. And I just don’t see how one> >can argue for a “on-going” aspect with these verbs> >in this context, but concerning the ptc PISTEUWN here…> >> >In fairness, I would point you to Wallace’s GGBB, pg. 621. footnote 22.> >When I first read it, I fell out of my chair. Then, after I got up,> >I realized that one’s theology deeply affects one’s grammatical> >conclusions (which, if true, should also inform you as to why> >I hold to my position).> >> >My (theological) thoughts, ­čś« )> > A curious comment. I DO think Wallace’s note is plausible, which doesn’t> mean that I necessarily agree with it. Nevertheless, I’d agree with Mark’s> statement about the two present participles in question, that they need not> necessarily indicate continuous action. I think that substantival> participles especially tend to be like agent nouns and that the durative> aspect of the present isn’t necessarily involved.>> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)> Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Greek Font?Greek Font?

John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN corrected version Dale M. Wheeler dalemw at teleport.com
Sun Oct 28 01:50:17 EDT 2001

 

Greek Font? EMPHATIC SUPERLATIVE DEGREES Carl W. Conrad wrote:>At 12:49 PM +0000 10/26/01, Mark Wilson wrote:> >Harry:> >> >You wrote:> >> >—–> >> Regarding , TOUTO GAR ESTIN TO QELHMA TOU PATPOS MOU, hINA> >>PAS hO QEWRWN TON hUION KAI PISTEUWN EIS AUTON ECHi ZWHN> >>AIWNION, KAI ANASTHSW AUTON EGW [EN] THi ESCATHi.> >>> >> It seems to me that hO QEWRWN and PISTEUWN represents an> >>on going process that results in ZWHN AIWNION and ANASTHSW.> >—–> >> >To nobody’s surprise I am sure, I would simply say: No. The> >Present tense does not denote on-going action. Any “on-going” aspect> >would be inherent in a verb’s Lexical Aspect. Grammatical Aspect> >does NOT denote “on-going” action. And I just don’t see how one> >can argue for a “on-going” aspect with these verbs> >in this context, but concerning the ptc PISTEUWN here…> >> >In fairness, I would point you to Wallace’s GGBB, pg. 621. footnote 22.> >When I first read it, I fell out of my chair. Then, after I got up,> >I realized that one’s theology deeply affects one’s grammatical> >conclusions (which, if true, should also inform you as to why> >I hold to my position).> >> >My (theological) thoughts, ­čś« )> >A curious comment. I DO think Wallace’s note is plausible, which doesn’t>mean that I necessarily agree with it. Nevertheless, I’d agree with Mark’s>statement about the two present participles in question, that they need not>necessarily indicate continuous action. I think that substantival>participles especially tend to be like agent nouns and that the durative>aspect of the present isn’t necessarily involved.>Carl:I completely agree with you that normally substantival ptcs are simply noun substitutes, and as someone in the thread pointed out, the choice of the “tense” form is based on the lexis of the verb (much the same way that “tense” is chosen for infinitives). However, for the writer who fell out of his chair, there actually is a little more to Wallace’s argument than simply his theology precedes his grammar…BTW, I’m not defending his conclusion, because I happen to disagree with his conclusion. The “contextual” factor which indicates that one must somehow deal with something effecting the Aktionsart of the Pres Subst Ptc of PISTEUW is the fact that John also uses PISTEUW in the Aor (John 7:29; 20:29) and Perf (8:31) as Subst Ptcs. Thus, there may in fact be a distinction between the Aktionsart of the three tense choices. Wallace has suggest one possibility for the differences.***********************************************************************Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.Research Prof., Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College8435 NE Glisan St. Portland, OR 97220V: 503-2516416 F: 503-251-6478 E: dalemw at teleport.com***********************************************************************

 

Greek Font?EMPHATIC SUPERLATIVE DEGREES

John 6:40 hO QEWRWN, PISTEUWN corrected version Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Sun Oct 28 06:48:16 EST 2001

 

II Corinthians 6:11 — ANEWiGEN Multiple Subject and Verb Agreement To All,Of course, I’m no Greek scholar by any means but all the basic books that I have on NT Greek indicate that present participles are durative. Of course I understandthat there is a temporal type of durative in which the action may only last for a limited time and an atemporaltype of durative whose action may last indefinitely.Of course my textbooks on present tense verbs indicatethat their aspect is either continuous or undefined.And of course, I know that Wallace classifies the present tenses more completely starting on page 514 of his book.But I’m not aware that the present tense aspects of presenttense verbs indicated in Wallaces book would apply to present participle. In other words, I understand all present participles(Mounce says in BBG that they shouldn’tbe called “present” but “continuous” participles) to becontinuous or durative.That’s why it seems to me,and I’m only a humble student ofNT Greek, that unless the context limits a present particleto a temporal force that it would be atemporal. And since Idon’t see and any such limiting factor in John 6:40, it seems tome that the present participles hO QEWRWN and PISTEUWN in John 6:40 would be atemporal.Of course, I welcome all comments about it. Best Regards to All,Harry Jones

 

II Corinthians 6:11 — ANEWiGENMultiple Subject and Verb Agreement

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS B. Ward Powers bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
Tue Oct 2 22:31:33 EDT 2001

 

John 6: 40 What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Fellow ers:A couple of questions about what to do with PNEUMATIKOS.The adjective PNEUMATIKOS is found in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1 in the plural forms PNEUMATIKWN and PNEUMATIKA respectively, where this is almost universally rendered, in the different translations, as “spiritual gifts”. Ditto lots of commentaries on this epistle. The first of these forms, PNEUMATIKWN, is thus being taken as neuter (the same form is also masculine), apparently on the basis that the second use is unambiguously neuter. The word also occurs in this epistle unambiguously in the masculine, with the meaning “spiritual person” (see 2:15, 14:37); and with the general meaning “spiritual” (see 10:3-4). See also its wider use in (e.g.) Ephesians 6:12.The standard lexica give as one of its meanings, “spiritual gift”. Is this a case of circular reasoning? (Thusly: In 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1 the word PNEUMATIKOS is being used to mean “spiritual gift”. Therefore “spiritual gift” is part of its area of meaning. That is how we know it is valid to translate it in 12:1 and 14:1 as “spiritual gift”.)Now a conclusion reached by a circular argument may possibly be correct. But it has to be established as correct by something outside of and independent of such circular reasoning: the circular reasoning does not establish it.Which leads to my first question:Is there any use of the word PNEUMATIKOS (of course, outside of 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1) where it clearly has the meaning “spiritual gift”? In this connection one will need to note that when Paul wanted to express the meaning “spiritual gift” he explicitly added in the word CARISMA (CARISMA PNEUMATIKON, Romans 1:11).As noted above, almost all translations give “spiritual gifts” as its translation in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1. Those that insert section headings then almost all go further and insert here also “Spiritual Gifts” as the heading at the top of chapter 12. I am aware of only two exceptions to this pattern.J B Phillips’s version translates in 12:1 as “in spiritual matters” (though in 14:1 he has “gifts of the Spirit”).Richmond Lattimore, the renowned Classical scholar, renders 12:1 thusly: “But concerning matters of the spirit, brothers, I would not have you ignorant”; and for 14:1: “Pursue love, aspire to things spiritual”.Here then is my second question:Are any ers able to point me to any other translations which do NOT render PNEUMATIKOS in either 12:1 or 14:1 as “spiritual gifts”?I am of course well aware of the exegetical and theological significance of this question: 12:1 and 14:1 are the only verses in the NT which give validation to the concept of “spiritual gifts”, with all the connotations which have attached to this term. Elsewhere one only has “gift”, CARISMA or DWREA-DWRHMA-DWRON, which do not carry the special meaning “spiritual” but can refer to any kind of gifting. But please note: I am not wanting to initiate a theological discussion; I only want to raise the question of the validity of “spiritual gift” as a translation for PNEUMATIKOS.Regards,Ward http://www.netspace.net.au/~bwpowersRev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-8714-7255259A Trafalgar Street Phone (Australia): (02) 8714-7255PETERSHAM NSW 2049 email: bwpowers at optusnet.com.auAUSTRALIA. Director, Tyndale College

 

John 6: 40What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Wayne Leman wayne_leman at sil.org
Wed Oct 3 00:20:22 EDT 2001

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS From: “B. Ward Powers” <bwpowers at optusnet.com.au>> Fellow ers:> > A couple of questions about what to do with PNEUMATIKOS.<snip>> > The standard lexica give as one of its meanings, “spiritual gift”. Is this> a case of circular reasoning?No, not necessarily. It may just be a case of applying the principle ofcontext-determined meaning. The core lexical gloss for PNEUMATIKOS is simply’spiritual (something)’. But like any other lexical form, the referentialmeaning (as opposed to simply lexical gloss) is filled out in specificcontexts, and all words of all utterances we ever say or write are given incontexts of some kind. (Thusly: In 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1 the> word PNEUMATIKOS is being used to mean “spiritual gift”. Therefore> “spiritual gift” is part of its area of meaning.It depends on what we mean by meaning here. It is a part of the extendedreferential, implicit, and associative meaning of the lexical meaning ofPNEUMATIKOS in the context of discussion about the CARISMATA.> That is how we know it is> valid to translate it in 12:1 and 14:1 as “spiritual gift”.)> <snip>> > Which leads to my first question:> > Is there any use of the word PNEUMATIKOS (of course, outside of 1> Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1) where it clearly has the meaning “spiritual> gift”?I’ll leave this for others who might be able to find the answer more quicklywith one of the Bible reference programs. Or I’ll get back to you later onthis. My bedtime hour is rapidly approaching.> In this connection one will need to note that when Paul wanted to> express the meaning “spiritual gift” he explicitly added in the word> CARISMA (CARISMA PNEUMATIKON, Romans 1:11).> > As noted above, almost all translations give “spiritual gifts” as its> translation in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1. Those that insert section> headings then almost all go further and insert here also “Spiritual Gifts”> as the heading at the top of chapter 12. I am aware of only two exceptions> to this pattern.> > J B Phillips’s version translates in 12:1 as “in spiritual matters”(though> in 14:1 he has “gifts of the Spirit”).> > Richmond Lattimore, the renowned Classical scholar, renders 12:1 thusly:> “But concerning matters of the spirit, brothers, I would not have you> ignorant”; and for 14:1: “Pursue love, aspire to things spiritual”.> > Here then is my second question:> > Are any ers able to point me to any other translations which do NOT> render PNEUMATIKOS in either 12:1 or 14:1 as “spiritual gifts”?J.B. Phillips: Now I want to give you some further information in somespiritual matters.Both NASB and NKJV put “gifts” in italics, indicating that that word is notthere in the original Greek.NET footnote: Grk “spiritual things.”LITV (=KJV21, I believe): But concerning the spiritual matters, brothers, Ido not wish you to be ignorant.YLT: And concerning the spiritual things, brethren, I do not wish you to beignorant;Wayne—–Wayne LemanBible Translation discussion list:http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/discuss.htm

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSWhat To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Wayne Leman wayne_leman at sil.org
Wed Oct 3 00:25:43 EDT 2001

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Ward, I can now answer that remainging question of yours, which was:> Is there any use of the word PNEUMATIKOS (of course, outside of 1> Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1) where it clearly has the meaning “spiritual> gift”?The Englishman’s Greek Concordance lists no other used of PNEUMATIKOS wherethere is a clear meaning of “spiritual gift.”Personally, I don’t think PNEUMATIKOS means “spiritual gift”, at least notas a central lexical gloss. I think the translation of “spiritual gifts” canbe justified in 1 Cor. 12:1 and 14:1 because of their contexts about theCARISMATA, but even here, I could see a legitimate rationale for translatingPNEUMATIKOS as “spiritual matters.”Wayne—–Wayne LemanBible Translation discussion list:http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/discuss.htm

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSWhat To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Paul Schmehl p.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.net
Wed Oct 3 00:26:14 EDT 2001

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Eph 4:9 TO ANEBH Dr. Powers, you asked if any versions did not translate PNEUMATIKOS andPNEUMATIKA as “spiritual gifts”.The Revised Version, Oxford University Press has “gifts” in italics, as doesthe 1599 Geneva Bible.Young’s Literal Translation renders it “spiritual things” in both 1 Cor 12:1and 14:1.The 1889 Darby Bible renders it “spiritual” and then in italics”manifestations”.The 1965 Bible in Basic English renders it “things of the spirit” in 12:1and “things which the spirit gives” in 14:1.I’ve always understood PNEUMATIKOS to mean “things of the spirit” or”spiritual matters”.Paul Schmehl pauls at utdallas.edup.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.nethttp://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/—– Original Message —–From: “B. Ward Powers” <bwpowers at optusnet.com.au>To: “Biblical Greek” < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 9:31 PMSubject: [] What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS> Fellow ers:> > A couple of questions about what to do with PNEUMATIKOS.> > The adjective PNEUMATIKOS is found in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1 in the> plural forms PNEUMATIKWN and PNEUMATIKA respectively, where this is almost> universally rendered, in the different translations, as “spiritual gifts”.> Ditto lots of commentaries on this epistle. The first of these forms,> PNEUMATIKWN, is thus being taken as neuter (the same form is also> masculine), apparently on the basis that the second use is unambiguously> neuter. The word also occurs in this epistle unambiguously in the> masculine, with the meaning “spiritual person” (see 2:15, 14:37); and with> the general meaning “spiritual” (see 10:3-4). See also its wider use in> (e.g.) Ephesians 6:12.> > The standard lexica give as one of its meanings, “spiritual gift”. Is this> a case of circular reasoning? (Thusly: In 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1 the> word PNEUMATIKOS is being used to mean “spiritual gift”. Therefore> “spiritual gift” is part of its area of meaning. That is how we know it is> valid to translate it in 12:1 and 14:1 as “spiritual gift”.)> > Now a conclusion reached by a circular argument may possibly be correct.> But it has to be established as correct by something outside of and> independent of such circular reasoning: the circular reasoning does not> establish it.> > Which leads to my first question:> > Is there any use of the word PNEUMATIKOS (of course, outside of 1> Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1) where it clearly has the meaning “spiritual> gift”? In this connection one will need to note that when Paul wanted to> express the meaning “spiritual gift” he explicitly added in the word> CARISMA (CARISMA PNEUMATIKON, Romans 1:11).> > As noted above, almost all translations give “spiritual gifts” as its> translation in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1. Those that insert section> headings then almost all go further and insert here also “Spiritual Gifts”> as the heading at the top of chapter 12. I am aware of only two exceptions> to this pattern.> > J B Phillips’s version translates in 12:1 as “in spiritual matters”(though> in 14:1 he has “gifts of the Spirit”).> > Richmond Lattimore, the renowned Classical scholar, renders 12:1 thusly:> “But concerning matters of the spirit, brothers, I would not have you> ignorant”; and for 14:1: “Pursue love, aspire to things spiritual”.> > Here then is my second question:> > Are any ers able to point me to any other translations which do NOT> render PNEUMATIKOS in either 12:1 or 14:1 as “spiritual gifts”?

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSEph 4:9 TO ANEBH

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Wed Oct 3 03:01:43 EDT 2001

 

Eph 4:9 TO ANEBH What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Dear B. Ward Powers:I take PNEUMATIKOS as “spirituality.” I do agree that the it is “circularreasoning” when there is no immediate context for translating it as”spiritual gift.” 12:1-3, begins the foundation of the argument for “gracegifts (CHARISMATA)” in 12:4ff, I think too many times there is the equationof PNEUMATIKOS = CHARISMATA. I do not think that is sustainable, since theprimary emphasis of the passage is Unity with Diversity since we are allmembers of the “body of Christ.” It seems that the I Corinthians up to thispoint is one continual harangue or severe rebuke of the constant carnality/selfishness or abuse of the grace and love of God. The constant bickeringand cliques (ch. 1-4), misguided discernment/abuse of freedom in Christ(5-10), partiality and abuse of the Lord’s Table (11) are all used bring tobear in 12-14. In fact, one could go on to say that 12-14 are the results ofthe earlier problems in chapters 1-11. Yet, I must remind myself thatheathen examples of PNEUMATIKOS were seen at the Oracle of Delphi, and otherof the Greek temples, etc.This is especially relevant with regards to the Oracle of Delphi, the Templeof Apollo in Corinth, and probably elsewhere (cults of Dionysus, Pan, theMystery religions) where ecstatic frenzy, emotional highs, etc., wereconsidered the norm for a person to behave if one was to be considered”spiritual.” It is in this backdrop that Paul is addressing the issuebrought to him, and in which he gives a lengthy reply.I also find it interesting that CHARISMATA (12:4, 9) drops out of thediscussion, so to speak, until it brought back in in 12:28, 30–31. Thisleads me to the conclusion that both PNEUMATIKOS and CHARISMATA are thesame. One can have “grace gifts” and not be spiritual, but one cannot bespiritual and have grace gifts. It is whether the use or misuse of these”gifts” and how it fits into the whole concept of love (ch. 13) that is thequestion.En Xpistw,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III—– Original Message —–From: B. Ward Powers <bwpowers at optusnet.com.au>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 7:31 PMSubject: [] What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS> Fellow ers:> > A couple of questions about what to do with PNEUMATIKOS.> > The adjective PNEUMATIKOS is found in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1 in the> plural forms PNEUMATIKWN and PNEUMATIKA respectively, where this is almost> universally rendered, in the different translations, as “spiritual gifts”.> Ditto lots of commentaries on this epistle. The first of these forms,> PNEUMATIKWN, is thus being taken as neuter (the same form is also> masculine), apparently on the basis that the second use is unambiguously> neuter. The word also occurs in this epistle unambiguously in the> masculine, with the meaning “spiritual person” (see 2:15, 14:37); and with> the general meaning “spiritual” (see 10:3-4). See also its wider use in> (e.g.) Ephesians 6:12.> > The standard lexica give as one of its meanings, “spiritual gift”. Is this> a case of circular reasoning? (Thusly: In 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1 the> word PNEUMATIKOS is being used to mean “spiritual gift”. Therefore> “spiritual gift” is part of its area of meaning. That is how we know it is> valid to translate it in 12:1 and 14:1 as “spiritual gift”.)> > Now a conclusion reached by a circular argument may possibly be correct.> But it has to be established as correct by something outside of and> independent of such circular reasoning: the circular reasoning does not> establish it.> > Which leads to my first question:> > Is there any use of the word PNEUMATIKOS (of course, outside of 1> Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1) where it clearly has the meaning “spiritual> gift”? In this connection one will need to note that when Paul wanted to> express the meaning “spiritual gift” he explicitly added in the word> CARISMA (CARISMA PNEUMATIKON, Romans 1:11).> > As noted above, almost all translations give “spiritual gifts” as its> translation in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1. Those that insert section> headings then almost all go further and insert here also “Spiritual Gifts”> as the heading at the top of chapter 12. I am aware of only two exceptions> to this pattern.> > J B Phillips’s version translates in 12:1 as “in spiritual matters”(though> in 14:1 he has “gifts of the Spirit”).> > Richmond Lattimore, the renowned Classical scholar, renders 12:1 thusly:> “But concerning matters of the spirit, brothers, I would not have you> ignorant”; and for 14:1: “Pursue love, aspire to things spiritual”.> > Here then is my second question:> > Are any ers able to point me to any other translations which do NOT> render PNEUMATIKOS in either 12:1 or 14:1 as “spiritual gifts”?> > I am of course well aware of the exegetical and theological significanceof> this question: 12:1 and 14:1 are the only verses in the NT which give> validation to the concept of “spiritual gifts”, with all the connotations> which have attached to this term. Elsewhere one only has “gift”, CARISMAor> DWREA-DWRHMA-DWRON, which do not carry the special meaning “spiritual” but> can refer to any kind of gifting. But please note: I am not wanting to> initiate a theological discussion; I only want to raise the question ofthe> validity of “spiritual gift” as a translation for PNEUMATIKOS.> > Regards,> > Ward> http://www.netspace.net.au/~bwpowers> Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-8714-7255> 259A Trafalgar Street Phone (Australia): (02) 8714-7255> PETERSHAM NSW 2049 email: bwpowers at optusnet.com.au> AUSTRALIA. Director, Tyndale College> > >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [bjwvmw at com-pair.net]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >

 

Eph 4:9 TO ANEBHWhat To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Oct 3 04:07:48 EDT 2001

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS []: Response (2) re PNEUMATIKOS > > Fellow ers:> > A couple of questions about what to do with PNEUMATIKOS.> > The adjective PNEUMATIKOS is found in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1 in the> plural forms PNEUMATIKWN and PNEUMATIKA respectively, where this> is almost> universally rendered, in the different translations, as> “spiritual gifts”.> Ditto lots of commentaries on this epistle. The first of these forms,> PNEUMATIKWN, is thus being taken as neuter (the same form is also> masculine), apparently on the basis that the second use is unambiguously> neuter. The word also occurs in this epistle unambiguously in the> masculine, with the meaning “spiritual person” (see 2:15, 14:37);> and with> the general meaning “spiritual” (see 10:3-4). See also its wider use in> (e.g.) Ephesians 6:12.> The standard lexica give as one of its meanings, “spiritual gift”.I consider this is a misleading statement. It may be a reference to BDAGwhich gives “spiritual gift” as the meaning in the context of 1 Cor 12:1 and14:1. In other contexts a different sense is indicated. One cannot separatemeaning from context.<snip>> Which leads to my first question:> > Is there any use of the word PNEUMATIKOS (of course, outside of 1> Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1) where it clearly has the meaning “spiritual> gift”? In this connection one will need to note that when Paul wanted to> express the meaning “spiritual gift” he explicitly added in the word> CARISMA (CARISMA PNEUMATIKON, Romans 1:11).IMO, this leading question is asked from the position of faultypresuppositions.> As noted above, almost all translations give “spiritual gifts” as its> translation in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1. Those that insert section> headings then almost all go further and insert here also> “Spiritual Gifts”> as the heading at the top of chapter 12. I am aware of only two> exceptions to this pattern.> > J B Phillips’s version translates in 12:1 as “in spiritual> matters” (though in 14:1 he has “gifts of the Spirit”).> > Richmond Lattimore, the renowned Classical scholar, renders 12:1 thusly:> “But concerning matters of the spirit, brothers, I would not have you> ignorant”; and for 14:1: “Pursue love, aspire to things spiritual”.Most translators, especially those who have general linguistic training,have learned the importance of context.Apart from context, PNEUMATIKWN can mean either spiritual things orspiritual people, whereas PNEUMATIKA means spiritual things, again apartfrom context. None of these mean “spiritual gifts” in and by themselves.It is a different question to ask what Paul refers to when he uses thewords, and how they are best translated into another language, say English.When looking at this question, one also needs to look at the companion wordCARISMA which may also be translated spiritual gifts. The word in itselfmeans gift whether spiritual or not. It is a gracious or generous gift, andin the NT God is the giver of these gifts. It is not a material gift. Formaterial gifts, words like DOSIS, DOMA (from DIDWMI) or DWRON (fromDWREOMAI) are used. DWRON is usually a more formal material gift, often asacrifice, given by people to other people or to God. DWRHMA and the morecommon DWREA do not refer to material gifts, and God is the giver.CARISMA is comparable to DWREA. It is only Paul who uses the word CARISMA,if we accept the usage in 1 Pet 4:10 to be influenced by Pauline usage.Since Paul uses both DWREA and CARISMA it is interesting to compare his useof these two. DWREA seems to be a more general word for what God haspresented to mankind, like Christ, the Holy Spirit or justification. CARISMAhas a focus on grace and it usually, and especially in the plural, refers tosomething given to an individual in order for that person to be a moreeffective servant of Christ. In Danish we use the word “gracegift” here, andthis word will in the context of Rom 12 and 1 Cor 12,14 refer to what you inEnglish call “spiritual gifts”.PNEUMATIKON in itself does not mean spiritual gift, nor does CARISMA. Butwhen the two words are combined, we get the meaning “spiritual gift”. Paulmakes this combination the first time he uses it in Romans: 1:11 METADWCARISMA hUMIN PNEUMATIKON.In 1 Cor 12, Paul starts in verse 1 with an introduction indicating that heis going to talk about “spiritual things”, but already in verse 4 hespecifies what kind of spiritual things he has in mind, namely CARISMATWNwhich are given by the Spirit. The context of chapter 12 as well as chapter14 makes it clear that the topic is spiritual gifts as they are discussed inthese chapters.

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS[]: Response (2) re PNEUMATIKOS

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS RUSSELL RANKIN rrankin at isd.net
Wed Oct 3 04:17:33 EDT 2001

 

[]: Response (2) re PNEUMATIKOS What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS ,Article + Adjective in the Genitive = Substantive use = used as a Noun —- Right??Shouldn’t the Article then play a role in the translation also? “the of the Spirit [noun] things” — “the things of the Spirit” OR “the Spirit’s things”Context addressing the things the Spirit does is chpts. 12-14 — “there are different administrations” which include more than CHARISMATA. One major ‘thing’ is AGAPE in chpt.13. “Now concerning the Spirit’s work” could be a translation that reflects all these things.Russell RankinMinneapolis, Minnesota, USArrankin at isd.netAt 12:31 PM 10/3/01 +1000, B. Ward Powers wrote:>Fellow ers:> >A couple of questions about what to do with PNEUMATIKOS.> >The adjective PNEUMATIKOS is found in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1 in the >plural forms PNEUMATIKWN and PNEUMATIKA respectively, where this is almost >universally rendered, in the different translations, as “spiritual gifts”.

 

[]: Response (2) re PNEUMATIKOSWhat To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Frank Gee frankrgee at outpost.net.au
Wed Oct 3 05:01:06 EDT 2001

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS On Wednesday, October 03, 2001 12:31 PM, my esteemed mentor Dr Ward Powersposted two questions about PNEUMATIKOS.As my first excursion onto the List, after a fair period of “lurking”, hereare a couple of small contributions relating to the second question, whichread:>Are any ers able to point me to any other translations which do NOT>render PNEUMATIKOS in either 12:1 or 14:1 as “spiritual gifts”?In his somewhat idiosyncratic translation of the Bible (1903/1938), FerrarFenton has this for I Cor. 14:1: “Follow after friendship; but earnestly desire mental powers, andespecially those enabling you to instruct. For the speaker in a foreign language does not speak to men, but toGod.”Perhaps this (somewhat minimally) fits the category of what is sought,albeit via an almost bizarre “secularising” of TA PNEUMATIKA.Dr Powers and other hELLHNISTAI may be intrigued, incidentally, by FerrarFenton’s rendering of verses 4 and 5: “The linguist instructs himself; butthe preacher instructs the assembly. And I wish you were all linguists; butI would rather that you might all be preachers; for the preacher is greaterthan the linguist.”So perhaps I should stick with being a preacher, after all!? :-)The Indonesian Bible Society’s KABAR BAIK UNTUK MASA KINI (theirequivalent of the TEV) renders TA PNEUMATIKA in I Cor 14:1 asKEMAMPUAN-KEMAMPUAN YANG DIBERIKAN OLEH ROH ALLAH, which is almost thedirect equivalent of the New Living Translation’s “the special abilities theHoly Spirit gives”.Now all of the above certainly are different from the phrase “spiritualgifts”, though it seems to me that they are all essentially paraphrases ofthe same idea. So I move to two items which I hope more directly fit whatDr Powers is looking for. They both suggest a wider semantic field than theEnglish phrase under scrutiny:1. The first phrase of 1 Cor 12:1 is rendered “Now about THESPIRITUAL MATTERS”,by Rev Alfred Marshall in his interlinear translation included in Bagster’sTHE RSV INTERLINEAR NEW TESTAMENT (1958)2. Eugene Peterson in THE MESSAGE (Navpress 1993, 1995) renders thesame phrase in the following interesting way: “What I want to talk about now is the various ways God’s Spirit getsworked into our lives.”Now although some of Peterson’s turns of phrase may fairly be viewed as notonly idiosyncratic but even verging on the wild side, I believe thisintriguing rendering should not be quickly dismissed. An idea or two toshow why I think so:A. For starters, this translation cannot be simply construed as aparaphrase for the idea of (Spiritual) GIFTS, as is probably the case forthe first few versions I mentioned above.B. A text-linguistic approach to this question will encourage us to weighthe co-text(s) of this phrase, from close at hand to the wider-rangingco-texts in this epistle. For example:CO-TEXT 1: Verses 2 and 3.It seems to me that Peterson’s version (together with others suggesting awider semantic field for TWN PNEUMATIKWN) provides a smoother transition tothe statements in verses 2 and 3, which otherwise would seem to constitute arather jarring interruption to the flow of thought, especially the firstpart of verse 3. A “wider” understanding of TA PNEUMATIKA might provide areferential context able to accommodate the curse-utterance there referredto, which despite all the ingenuity of commentators I find hard to reconcilewith or conceptualise within the practice of any Christian congregation’sactual exercising of “spiritual gifts”.CO-TEXT 2: Verses 4 to 7.I haven’t had the time to look at commentaries on this, but my tentativeobservation goes like this:Structurally verses 4 to 6 consist of three adversative “sentences”coordinated by the conjunction KAI. The second clause in each of these bothcontrast with the preceding concept of variations and provides the unifyingtheme of the working of the (same) Spirit/Lord/God (a great Trinitarianformula??).What is interesting to me is that the surface-structure coordinating of(the first parts of) these sentences suggests that Paul presents theirsubject noun-phrases as disrete entities, rather than variant expressions ofthe same concept. I base this on the observation that asyndetic collocationof noun-phrases (apposition) tends to encode equivalence, whereas astringing of noun-phrases with KAI normally indicates composition (iedifferent conceptual entities).What is of interest in this analysis is that the CARISMATA of verse 4apparently constitute only one of three different groupings of items[CARISMATWN + DIAKONIWN + ENERGHMATON ] . So whatever TWN PNEUMATIKWNmeans in verse 1, if it is (as I believe) expounded in verses 4 to 7 (andbeyond), it seems unlikely that its reference is exhaused by equation withCARISMATWN alone.This surmise is strengthened by analysis of what follows these three verses.Verse 7 acts as a bridge between verses 4 to 6 and what follows. hEKASTWifunctions anaphorically, with reference both to the theme of diffentiation[DIAIRESEIS] and probably to the persons-as-recipients implicit in EN PASIN.The singular passive verb DIDOTAI with its subject noun phrase hH FANERWSISTOU PNEUMATOU is expounded in its repetitions (mostly elliptical) in thefollowing verses, which enumerate different spiritual activities manifestedin the congregation. But this is not its only function. It also, as isshown by its collocation with its own indirect object hEKASTWi, serves tosummarise the three verses which precede it.For our purposes what is significant about this is that hH FANERWSIS TOUPNEUMATOU is the summarising re-expression of (the ideas referred to in)all three noun phrases which are the subjects in the first clauses of verses4, 5 and 6.Summary of tentative conclusions:a. Structurally, the most likely direct equivalent (if any) of TWNPNEUMATIKWN in verse 1, is hH FANERWSIS TOU PNEUMATOU (found in thedevelopmental bridge-verse 7);b. This subject phrase of verse 7 has a wider reference than any of theindividual subject phrases beginning verses 4, 5 and 6.c. (In other words) the subject phrase of verse 4 [DIAI… CARISMATWN]is narrower in its reference than the subject ofverse 7.d. (Therefore) CARISMATWN has a narrower reference than whatever ismeant by TWN PNEUMATIKWN in verse 1.e. (And so) “spiritual gifts” is not an adequate or appropriatetranslation for the phrase TWN PNEUMATIKWN in that verse (1).This is not to say that I am necessarily endorsing the translation offeredby Eugene Peterson. It’s just that his effort seems to be on the righttrack, in not making a simple equation between the theme introduced in verse1 and “spiritual gifts”.I really must now get back to my work, which has to do with the applicationof Tagmemics principles to NT exegesis. If anyone is aware of anyaccessible books or articles fruitfully applying the Tagmemics approach asdeveloped by the Pikes and Robert Longacre (or other SIL folk), toNON-NARRATIVE texts, I’d be grateful to hear from you.EN TWi AGAPHTWi,Frank Gee(Rev.) Frank GeeResearch studentandMinister in Charge,Anglican Parish of Jamberoo,New South Wales, Australiaemail: frankrgee at outpost.net.au—– Original Message —–From: B. Ward Powers <bwpowers at optusnet.com.au>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 12:31 PMSubject: [] What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS> Fellow ers:> > A couple of questions about what to do with PNEUMATIKOS.> > The adjective PNEUMATIKOS is found in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1 in the> plural forms PNEUMATIKWN and PNEUMATIKA respectively, where this is almost> universally rendered, in the different translations, as “spiritual gifts”.> Ditto lots of commentaries on this epistle. The first of these forms,> PNEUMATIKWN, is thus being taken as neuter (the same form is also> masculine), apparently on the basis that the second use is unambiguously> neuter. The word also occurs in this epistle unambiguously in the> masculine, with the meaning “spiritual person” (see 2:15, 14:37); and with> the general meaning “spiritual” (see 10:3-4). See also its wider use in> (e.g.) Ephesians 6:12.> > The standard lexica give as one of its meanings, “spiritual gift”. Is this> a case of circular reasoning? (Thusly: In 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1 the> word PNEUMATIKOS is being used to mean “spiritual gift”. Therefore> “spiritual gift” is part of its area of meaning. That is how we know it is> valid to translate it in 12:1 and 14:1 as “spiritual gift”.)> > Now a conclusion reached by a circular argument may possibly be correct.> But it has to be established as correct by something outside of and> independent of such circular reasoning: the circular reasoning does not> establish it.> > Which leads to my first question:> > Is there any use of the word PNEUMATIKOS (of course, outside of 1> Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1) where it clearly has the meaning “spiritual> gift”? In this connection one will need to note that when Paul wanted to> express the meaning “spiritual gift” he explicitly added in the word> CARISMA (CARISMA PNEUMATIKON, Romans 1:11).> > As noted above, almost all translations give “spiritual gifts” as its> translation in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1. Those that insert section> headings then almost all go further and insert here also “Spiritual Gifts”> as the heading at the top of chapter 12. I am aware of only two exceptions> to this pattern.> > J B Phillips’s version translates in 12:1 as “in spiritual matters”(though> in 14:1 he has “gifts of the Spirit”).> > Richmond Lattimore, the renowned Classical scholar, renders 12:1 thusly:> “But concerning matters of the spirit, brothers, I would not have you> ignorant”; and for 14:1: “Pursue love, aspire to things spiritual”.> > Here then is my second question:> > Are any ers able to point me to any other translations which do NOT> render PNEUMATIKOS in either 12:1 or 14:1 as “spiritual gifts”?> > I am of course well aware of the exegetical and theological significanceof> this question: 12:1 and 14:1 are the only verses in the NT which give> validation to the concept of “spiritual gifts”, with all the connotations> which have attached to this term. Elsewhere one only has “gift”, CARISMAor> DWREA-DWRHMA-DWRON, which do not carry the special meaning “spiritual” but> can refer to any kind of gifting. But please note: I am not wanting to> initiate a theological discussion; I only want to raise the question ofthe> validity of “spiritual gift” as a translation for PNEUMATIKOS.> > Regards,> > Ward> http://www.netspace.net.au/~bwpowers> Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-8714-7255> 259A Trafalgar Street Phone (Australia): (02) 8714-7255> PETERSHAM NSW 2049 email: bwpowers at optusnet.com.au> AUSTRALIA. Director, Tyndale College> > >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [frankrgee at outpost.net.au]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSWhat To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Jay Anthony Adkins Jadkins26438 at cs.com
Wed Oct 3 09:08:57 EDT 2001

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS META CARAS Iver Larsen wrote in part:>The context of chapter 12 as well as chapter 14 makes it clear>that the topic is spiritual gifts as they are discussed in thesechapters.>From my perspective as a professional Bible translator, a translationthat>translates PNEUMATIKWN in v. 1 as “spiritual things” or “spiritualpeople”>indicates a lack of awareness of the importance of context for meaningful>translation. Frank Gee responded at length refuting this idea. He spoke of theimmediate context not allowing the use of ┬Ĺspiritual gifts.’ To this Iwould also add Gordon Fee’s comments in his book ┬ĹGod’s EmpoweringPresence’, wherein he notes that chapter 13 is part of the context of12-14 and argues that this greater context will not allow the use of┬Ĺspiritual gifts.’In either case, both argue from context in support of PNEUMATIKWN in 12:1as meaning ┬Ĺspiritual matters’ or ┬Ĺspiritual things.’ This shows no “lackof awareness of the importance of context for meaningful translation.”Sola Grata,Jay AdkinsAlways Under Grace!

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSMETA CARAS

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Rob Matlack united_by_truth at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 3 11:10:56 EDT 2001

 

Re META CARAS Help With John 16:22 Add to Pual’s list for 12:1 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition: “spiritualthings”.Rob Matlack united_by_truth at yahoo.comMinneapolis, KS”I can only say that I am nothing but a poor sinner, trusting in Christalone for salvation”–R. E. Lee”It is not our task to secure the triumph of truth, but merely to fight onit’s behalf.”–Blaise Pascal> —–Original Message—–> From: Paul Schmehl [mailto:p.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.net]> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 11:26 PM> To: Biblical Greek> Subject: [] Re: What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS> > > Dr. Powers, you asked if any versions did not translate PNEUMATIKOS and> PNEUMATIKA as “spiritual gifts”.> > The Revised Version, Oxford University Press has “gifts” in> italics, as does> the 1599 Geneva Bible.> Young’s Literal Translation renders it “spiritual things” in both> 1 Cor 12:1> and 14:1.> The 1889 Darby Bible renders it “spiritual” and then in italics> “manifestations”.> The 1965 Bible in Basic English renders it “things of the spirit” in 12:1> and “things which the spirit gives” in 14:1.> > I’ve always understood PNEUMATIKOS to mean “things of the spirit” or> “spiritual matters”.> > Paul Schmehl pauls at utdallas.edu> p.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.net> http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/> > —– Original Message —–> From: “B. Ward Powers” <bwpowers at optusnet.com.au>> To: “Biblical Greek” < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 9:31 PM> Subject: [] What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS> > > > Fellow ers:> >> > A couple of questions about what to do with PNEUMATIKOS.> >> > The adjective PNEUMATIKOS is found in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1 in the> > plural forms PNEUMATIKWN and PNEUMATIKA respectively, where> this is almost> > universally rendered, in the different translations, as> “spiritual gifts”.> > Ditto lots of commentaries on this epistle. The first of these forms,> > PNEUMATIKWN, is thus being taken as neuter (the same form is also> > masculine), apparently on the basis that the second use is unambiguously> > neuter. The word also occurs in this epistle unambiguously in the> > masculine, with the meaning “spiritual person” (see 2:15,> 14:37); and with> > the general meaning “spiritual” (see 10:3-4). See also its wider use in> > (e.g.) Ephesians 6:12.> >> > The standard lexica give as one of its meanings, “spiritual> gift”. Is this> > a case of circular reasoning? (Thusly: In 1 Corinthians 12:1> and 14:1 the> > word PNEUMATIKOS is being used to mean “spiritual gift”. Therefore> > “spiritual gift” is part of its area of meaning. That is how we> know it is> > valid to translate it in 12:1 and 14:1 as “spiritual gift”.)> >> > Now a conclusion reached by a circular argument may possibly be correct.> > But it has to be established as correct by something outside of and> > independent of such circular reasoning: the circular reasoning does not> > establish it.> >> > Which leads to my first question:> >> > Is there any use of the word PNEUMATIKOS (of course, outside of 1> > Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1) where it clearly has the meaning “spiritual> > gift”? In this connection one will need to note that when Paul wanted to> > express the meaning “spiritual gift” he explicitly added in the word> > CARISMA (CARISMA PNEUMATIKON, Romans 1:11).> >> > As noted above, almost all translations give “spiritual gifts” as its> > translation in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1. Those that insert section> > headings then almost all go further and insert here also> “Spiritual Gifts”> > as the heading at the top of chapter 12. I am aware of only two> exceptions> > to this pattern.> >> > J B Phillips’s version translates in 12:1 as “in spiritual matters”> (though> > in 14:1 he has “gifts of the Spirit”).> >> > Richmond Lattimore, the renowned Classical scholar, renders 12:1 thusly:> > “But concerning matters of the spirit, brothers, I would not have you> > ignorant”; and for 14:1: “Pursue love, aspire to things spiritual”.> >> > Here then is my second question:> >> > Are any ers able to point me to any other translations> which do NOT> > render PNEUMATIKOS in either 12:1 or 14:1 as “spiritual gifts”?> > >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [united_by_truth at yahoo.com]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to> $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> _________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

 

Re META CARASHelp With John 16:22

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Oct 3 16:49:59 EDT 2001

 

ONTES Eph 4:18 – which participle? What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Frank Gee said:<snip>> B. A text-linguistic approach to this question will encourage> us to weigh> the co-text(s) of this phrase, from close at hand to the wider-ranging> co-texts in this epistle. For example:> CO-TEXT 1: Verses 2 and 3.> It seems to me that Peterson’s version (together with others suggesting a> wider semantic field for TWN PNEUMATIKWN) provides a smoother> transition to> the statements in verses 2 and 3, which otherwise would seem to> constitute a> rather jarring interruption to the flow of thought, especially the first> part of verse 3. A “wider” understanding of TA PNEUMATIKA> might provide a> referential context able to accommodate the curse-utterance there referred> to, which despite all the ingenuity of commentators I find hard> to reconcile> with or conceptualise within the practice of any Christian congregation’s> actual exercising of “spiritual gifts”.> CO-TEXT 2: Verses 4 to 7.> I haven’t had the time to look at commentaries on this, but my tentative> observation goes like this:> Structurally verses 4 to 6 consist of three adversative “sentences”> coordinated by the conjunction KAI. The second clause in each of> these both> contrast with the preceding concept of variations and provides> the unifying> theme of the working of the (same) Spirit/Lord/God (a great Trinitarian> formula??).> What is interesting to me is that the surface-structure coordinating of> (the first parts of) these sentences suggests that Paul presents their> subject noun-phrases as disrete entities, rather than variant> expressions of> the same concept. I base this on the observation that asyndetic> collocation> of noun-phrases (apposition) tends to encode equivalence, whereas a> stringing of noun-phrases with KAI normally indicates composition (ie> different conceptual entities).> What is of interest in this analysis is that the CARISMATA of verse 4> apparently constitute only one of three different groupings of items> [CARISMATWN + DIAKONIWN + ENERGHMATON ] . So whatever TWN PNEUMATIKWN> means in verse 1, if it is (as I believe) expounded in verses 4 to 7 (and> beyond), it seems unlikely that its reference is exhaused by equation with> CARISMATWN alone.> > This surmise is strengthened by analysis of what follows these> three verses.> Verse 7 acts as a bridge between verses 4 to 6 and what follows. hEKASTWi> functions anaphorically, with reference both to the theme of diffentiation> [DIAIRESEIS] and probably to the persons-as-recipients implicit> in EN PASIN.> The singular passive verb DIDOTAI with its subject noun phrase> hH FANERWSIS> TOU PNEUMATOU is expounded in its repetitions (mostly elliptical) in the> following verses, which enumerate different spiritual activities> manifested> in the congregation. But this is not its only function. It also, as is> shown by its collocation with its own indirect object hEKASTWi, serves to> summarise the three verses which precede it.> For our purposes what is significant about this is that hH FANERWSIS TOU> PNEUMATOU is the summarising re-expression of (the ideas referred to in)> all three noun phrases which are the subjects in the first> clauses of verses> 4, 5 and 6.> > Summary of tentative conclusions:> a. Structurally, the most likely direct equivalent (if any) of TWN> PNEUMATIKWN in verse 1, is hH FANERWSIS TOU PNEUMATOU (found in the> developmental bridge-verse 7);> b. This subject phrase of verse 7 has a wider reference than> any of the> individual subject phrases beginning verses 4, 5 and 6.> c. (In other words) the subject phrase of verse 4 [DIAI… CARISMATWN]> is narrower in its reference than the subject of> verse 7.> d. (Therefore) CARISMATWN has a narrower reference than whatever is> meant by TWN PNEUMATIKWN in verse 1.> e. (And so) “spiritual gifts” is not an adequate or appropriate> translation for the phrase TWN PNEUMATIKWN in that verse (1).Thanks, Frank, for these insights. I like your suggestion that theunderlying concept for TWN PNEUMATIKWN may well be related to FANERWSIS.Below I shall suggest a circular structure which relates the first item ineach circle, so that the following three words are structurally linkedtogether: PNEUMATIKWN, CARISMATWN, and FANERWSIS.My problem with “spiritual things” is that it is too broad. But I can seethat “spiritual gifts” may be too narrow, at least as the phrase is normallyused and understood in English. I also like the suggestion by Russell thatit refers to “the Spirit’s work”. I would be happy with something like “howthe Spirit operates”. On the other hand, Paul is correcting the misuse ofspiritual gifts among the Corinthians more so than he seems to correct anymisuse of ministry or powerful deeds. So, if I had to choose only between”spiritual gifts” and “spiritual matters” I would go for the first. Butmaybe there is a middle position that is better.When we talk about context, we should keep in mind that the immediatecontext carries more weight than the wider context. Therefore, 12:2-11 carrymore weight than chapter 13 which is an important side issue aboutunderlying motivation for spiritual ministry and the mature use of thespiritual gifts. You have kept this in mind, but not everyone does.Another thing we need to keep in mind is that Paul often uses Hebrewrhetorical structure which is circular. Verses 1-3 is the first circle, 4-6is the second circle, (note the DE in v. 1, 4 and 7) and the third, largecircle is probably 12:7-14:40. It is normal for the first circle tointroduce one or more topics that will be dealt with in later circles inmore detail.V. 2 compares their former state as pagans, when they were carried away toworship idols that could not speak. This may contrast to the fact that thespirits of prophets are subject to prophets (14:32). It is one of the majordifferences between pagan spiritual frenzy and true prophetic inspiration,that prophetic inspiration from the Holy Spirit is a gentle voice. It nevercarries me away against my will. It has absolutely nothing to do withecstasy. I need to decide in my Spirit whether what I sense is truly thevoice of God and then I need to decide how and when to bring thatinspiration out in words. And I can stop at any time when I speak a word ofprophecy. (I use “I” because I speak from experience here, not theory.)There may also be a contrast between the mute idols and a God who speaks bythe Spirit. So v. 2 is a contrastive background for much of what is beingsaid later.V. 3 contrasts and describes a message that is claimed to come from God aseither positive or negative, for or against. It is probably a typical Hebrewexaggeration. “Cursing Jesus” stands for words that condemn and tear downthe body of Christ. “Acknowledging Jesus as Lord” stands for words thatbuild up the body of Christ, based on a servant attitude. Much of chapter 14talks about the purpose of spiritual gifts, which is to build up and nottear down. One of the main problems Paul is addressing in chap. 14 is thatimproper use of tongues does not build up the body of Christ.The second circle of 4-6 takes up the concept of how the spirit works inthree different, but closely related areas.There is first the area of spiritual gifts – CARISMATA, and this is taken upin 7-11 which starts out with FANERWSIS – together with the undercurrenttheme of unity in diversity and the purpose of building up the other membersof the body.Second, there is the area of spiritual ministries – DIAKONIAI. This is takenup in 12-31, because ministry must be for all members of the body. Each onehas a role to play, but there are different roles.Third, there is the area of spiritual manifestations of power – ENERGHMATA(e.g. special powers of healing and faith).In the summary verses of 27-31 all these three areas are dealt withsimultaneously from the perspective of unity in diversity.Thanks for the discussion, I’ll consider seriously the option of “how theSpirit operates” for v. 12:1, but probably maintain “spiritual gifts” for14:1.Iver Larsen In 28-31 Paul does not distinguish clearly between ministry gifts (apostle,prophet, teacher, evangelist, shepherd, administration), speaking gifts(tongues, prophecy) and power gifts (

 

ONTES Eph 4:18 – which participle?What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

[]: Response (2) re PNEUMATIKOS B. Ward Powers bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
Thu Oct 4 07:30:05 EDT 2001

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Friends all:My second posting to interact with some of the responses received (on list and off) to the question I raised about what to do with PNEUMATIKOS in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1:In my post, I said:> > The standard lexica give as one of its meanings, “spiritual gift”.At 10:07 AM 011003 +0200, Iver Larsen wrote:>I consider this is a misleading statement. It may be a reference to BDAG>which gives “spiritual gift” as the meaning in the context of 1 Cor 12:1 and>14:1. In other contexts a different sense is indicated. One cannot separate>meaning from context.I beg to differ from Iver Larsen. What I said is a fact; it is NOT misleading. You WILL find lexica and dictionaries (I have looked at quite a few) which give one of the meanings of this word as “spiritual gift”: sometimes with a reference to 12:1 and 14:1; sometimes without (e.g., Newman’s Dictionary).Iver cites BDAG as giving the meaning “spiritual gift” in 12:1 and 14:1, and indicates his agreement that it has this meaning in this context. Indeed, he asserts this several times, in discussing the context factor. What my questions were asking about was the validity of this understanding of the meaning of the word here, in this context. One does not establish the validity of what is to be proven by asserting it as a starting point.The next point of mine which he discusses is:><snip>> > Which leads to my first question:> >> > Is there any use of the word PNEUMATIKOS (of course, outside of 1> > Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1) where it clearly has the meaning “spiritual> > gift”? In this connection one will need to note that when Paul wanted to> > express the meaning “spiritual gift” he explicitly added in the word> > CARISMA (CARISMA PNEUMATIKON, Romans 1:11).> >IMO, this leading question is asked from the position of faulty>presuppositions.I beg to differ from Iver Larsen. What I did is to ask an open question; it is NOT asked from the position of faulty presuppositions – or indeed of ANY presuppositions. In what I asked, I am not presupposing anything. I am simply asking whether there is any other place, any other context, in all of known Greek literature, in which it can be held that PNEUMATIKOS (in any of its forms) should be rendered as “spiritual gift”. Actually, I have looked at all 26 GNT occurrences of the word, and am satisfied that there is no such place in the GNT, but I wanted to leave the door open for someone to present an argument to support the renderings of 14:37 in the Living Bible (“You who claim to have the gift of prophecy or any other special ability from the Holy Spirit …”) or the GNB/TEV (“If anyone supposes he is God’s messenger or has a spiritual gift …”). Otherwise, my question really is: whether anyone knows of any such use of the word in any Greek literature outside of the GNT.So far, no respondent has mentioned any such usage of PNEUMATIKOS elsewhere, and it seems to be accepted that 1 Corinthians 12-14 is the only place in Greek literature where it has the meaning, or should be translated as, “spiritual gifts” – because of the particular context here.Then my next comment, and Iver Larsen’s response, are:> > Richmond Lattimore, the renowned Classical scholar, renders 12:1 thusly:> > “But concerning matters of the spirit, brothers, I would not have you> > ignorant”; and for 14:1: “Pursue love, aspire to things spiritual”.> >Most translators, especially those who have general linguistic training,>have learned the importance of context.> >Apart from context, PNEUMATIKWN can mean either spiritual things or>spiritual people, whereas PNEUMATIKA means spiritual things, again apart>from context. None of these mean “spiritual gifts” in and by themselves.[SNIP]>CARISMA>has a focus on grace and it usually, and especially in the plural, refers to>something given to an individual in order for that person to be a more>effective servant of Christ. In Danish we use the word “gracegift” here, and>this word will in the context of Rom 12 and 1 Cor 12,14 refer to what you in>English call “spiritual gifts”.I accept that “gracegift” is a totally valid rendering of CARISMA. I most definitely do NOT accept that this has the same meaning as “spiritual gift” in English. The whole question under consideration is whether CARISMA means “gift” (indeed, “gracegift”) is a wide sense, or “spiritual gift” – which has a much more restricted connotation. There are relevant comments on this in my Response (1) to Wayne Leman’s post.>PNEUMATIKON in itself does not mean spiritual gift, nor does CARISMA. But >when the two words are combined, we get the meaning “spiritual gift”. Paul >makes this combination the first time he uses it in Romans: 1:11 METADW >CARISMA hUMIN PNEUMATIKON.The “first time he uses it”? My understanding of biblical chronology is that Romans is to be dated a few years AFTER 1 Corinthians. Moreover, the expression “spiritual gift” as being used by Paul here in Romans does NOT have the same meaning as what is usually understood by that expression when used in relation to the teaching set out in 1 Corinthians 12. And furthermore, when Paul wants to say “spiritual gift” (a few years after he has written 1 Corinthians) he does not find it sufficient to use either CARISMA or PNEUMATIKOS on their own but uses both together to convey his meaning. I agree that when the two words are combined, they express “spiritual gift”. That does not establish that either the one or the other will do it on their own.>In 1 Cor 12, Paul starts in verse 1 with an introduction indicating that he>is going to talk about “spiritual things”, but already in verse 4 he>specifies what kind of spiritual things he has in mind, namely CARISMATWN>which are given by the Spirit. The context of chapter 12 as well as chapter>14 makes it clear that the topic is spiritual gifts as they are discussed in>these chapters.Iver and I can agree on one thing here: that the context is determinative in this matter. If the context shows that “spiritual gifts’ is the intended meaning here, then it is. Otherwise, there is no other reason (i.e., from use of PNEUMATIKOS elsewhere) for arriving at this meaning for the word.Iver simply asserts this meaning here. From the context here he regards that meaning as self-evident. I do not. Very definiteIy not. I regard it as the point to be established. I have discussed the question of the context factor in my Response (1) to Wayne Leman’s posting. In this, I explain why I do not see that the context is all concerned with CARISMATA, and that this validates “spiritual gifts” in 12:1 or 14:1.> From my perspective as a professional Bible translator, a translation that>translates PNEUMATIKWN in v. 1 as “spiritual things” or “spiritual people”>indicates a lack of awareness of the importance of context for meaningful>translation. Or we could say that their goal is not to produce a linguistic,>contextually accurate translation, but a decontextualized lexical>translation. I am hesitant to call this last type of translation an accurate>or faithful translation.> >A more accurate and faithful rendering of the intention of Paul is to>translate it already in v. 1 as “spiritual gifts”, and most English>translations rightly do so. The same applies to 14:1.I beg to differ from Iver Larsen. As has come to light in the responses which have been made by Wayne Leman, Paul Schmehl, Frank Gee, Rob Matlack, and others, there are quite a few translations which either put the word “gifts” in italics (indicating that it is an ADDITION to what is found in the Greek text that is implied (in the judgement of the translators) but is NOT a translation of anything in the Greek, or else the translators decline to use the word “gifts” in 12:1 or 14:1 at all.In the paragraphs I have quoted above from his posting, Iver uses very strong language in criticism of translators and translations that do not say “spiritual gifts”. I have referred earlier, above, to how> > Richmond Lattimore, the renowned Classical scholar, renders 12:1 thusly:> >”But concerning matters of the spirit, brothers, I would not have you> > ignorant”; and for 14:1: “Pursue love, aspire to things spiritual”.Lattimore is a recognized authority on the Greek language and one of the most distinguished translators of the Greek Classics: he translated the Iliad and the Odyssey, the Odes of Pindar, Hesiod, Greek Lyrics, five plays by Euripides, and others by Aeschylus and Aristophanes. Towqrds the end of his life he completed his fresh translation of the Greek New Testament. His work in this connection has drawn favourable comment in in times past from those familiar with it.I do not accept Iver Larsen’s judgement, as cited above, upon Richmond Lattimore and his translation of 12:1 and 14:1, and that of others who similarly do not agree to render PNEUMATIKOS as “spiritual gifts”.>I am not expecting agreement by everyone on these comments, but this is my >perspective, FWIW.And I respect Iver’s views, and his scholarship. But for reasons as stated, I indeed do not concur with his comments.Regards,Ward http://www.netspace.net.au/~bwpowersRev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-8714-7255259A Trafalgar Street Phone (Australia): (02) 8714-7255PETERSHAM NSW 2049 email: bwpowers at optusnet.com.auAUSTRALIA. Director, Tyndale College

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSWhat To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

[]: Response (1) re PNEUMATIKOS B. Ward Powers bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
Thu Oct 4 07:31:06 EDT 2001

 

Multiple Subject and Verb Agreement What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Friends all:I plan, in this and a subsequent posting, to interact with some of the responses received (on list and off) to the question I raised about what to do with PNEUMATIKOS in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1:I respect the scholarship and integrity of these people whose comments I respond to, and in no way is this a criticism of them. Quite the contrary: I consider what they have said has such value that it merits a careful response. But I do disagree quite markedly with their premises and their conclusions, and I believe these issues should be discussed further, because this is not an unimportant issue. That is how progress is made in matters where scholars disagree: we discuss. And if my understanding of the Greek can be shown to be in error, then I am willing and open to be persuaded.Firstly, at 10:20 PM 011002 -0600, Wayne Leman wrote:>From: “B. Ward Powers” <bwpowers at optusnet.com.au>> > > Fellow ers:> >> > A couple of questions about what to do with PNEUMATIKOS.> ><snip>> > >> > The standard lexica give as one of its meanings, “spiritual gift”. Is this> > a case of circular reasoning?> >No, not necessarily.Ah, but there IS circular reasoning going on in the situation that I outlined in my initial posting. It had the basic structure: A, therefore B. and B, therefore A. That is circularity. And logically invalid as a way of arguing a case. The conclusion is not necessarily invalid, but it has to be established on other grounds. That is what my enquiry is all about: to look at what other grounds there may be.Wayne continues:>It may just be a case of applying the principle of context-determined >meaning. The core lexical gloss for PNEUMATIKOS is simply>‘spiritual (something)’. But like any other lexical form, the referential>meaning (as opposed to simply lexical gloss) is filled out in specific>contexts, and all words of all utterances we ever say or write are given in>contexts of some kind.Right:For now we are moving OUTSIDE the circle to see if we can anchor it someplace. If so, we can draw a valid conclusion. And the only place it can be anchored (that is, the only basis for regarding PNEUMATIKOS/-WN/-A as here having the meaning “spiritual gifts”) is if this is clearly shown to be the case by the context. At this point Wayne and I are in agreement.Now Wayne quotes, and responds to, part of my statement of the circular argument:> (Thusly: In 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1 the> > word PNEUMATIKOS is being used to mean “spiritual gift”. Therefore> > “spiritual gift” is part of its area of meaning.> >It depends on what we mean by meaning here. It is a part of the extended>referential, implicit, and associative meaning of the lexical meaning of>PNEUMATIKOS in the context of discussion about the CARISMATA.I comment:In 1 Corinthians 12, does PNEUMATIKOS imply CARISMATA? And vice versa?Lots of people are saying so. Several responses (on and off list) even equate PNEUMATIKOS and CARISMA as synonyms. Indeed, the first edition of the NIV actually “translated” CARISMATA in 1 Corinthians 12:4 as “spiritual gifts” – there were strong objections to this, and it was changed (current editions of the NIV just translate it as “gifts”; the same initial rendering of CARISMATA as “spiritual gifts” and subsequent modification to “gifts” occurred in 1 Peter 4:10 also).But, leaving aside 1 Corinthians 12-14 (because it is the passage we are examining) and with the exception of Romans 1:11 (where, as noted in my original email, both words are used, CARISMA PNEUMATIKON) there is no occurrence of CARISMA in the GNT which implies SPIRITUAL gifts. Unless you are to “read in” this meaning from what you think of its meaning in 1 Corinthians 12-14 (into Romans 12:6 and 1 Peter 4:10).So: is the discussion in 1 Corinthians 12 all about CARISMATA, so that references to the one are to be interpreted as implying the other, and this thus validates the treatment of PNEUMATIKOS as meaning “spiritual gifts”? Now, this indeed is the crux of the matter. This is the question of context. But is the discussion in 1 Corinthians 12 really all about CARISMATA?If we carefully examine this chapter we will see that, No, it most definitely is not. After Paul’s introduction in which he emphasizes that no one is able to affirm “Jesus is Lord” except through the Holy Spirit, he lists three ways in which the Spirit manifests himself:12:4 There are diversities of gifts (CARISMATWN), but the same Spirit;12:5 there are diversities of ways of serving (DIAKONIWN) , but the same Lord [who is being served];12:6 there are diversities of energizings ( ENERGHMATWN) but it is the same God who is working (ENERGWN) in them all in all people -12:7 and to each person is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.[I note that Frank Gee, in his posting, has the same understanding of these verses as I do.]Thus we see that the manifestation of the Spirit is given to various people in three ways which are separately identified by Paul: CARISMATA, DIAKONIAI, and ENERGHMATA. These are to be equated, I consider, with those areas of ministry which he has set out in 12:28-29, thusly:(a) the special endowments for “up-front” ministry (12:28a, the CARISMATA of 12:4);(b) the “ministries of helping others” [ANTILHYEIS of 12:28b), the “serving” areas of ministry (the DIAKONIAI of 12:5 – bearing in mind that this word originally related to domestic service, as in Acts 6:1, and the DIAKONOI of John 2:1-11) – this would range, in today’s church, from referring to those who serve the tea and coffee after the worship service to those who go out onto the streets to help the needy, and lots more service of this practical “helping” kind;(c) the “energizers” (the ENERGHMATA of 12:6, the KUBERNHSEIS of 12:28): the activators, the initiators, the entrepreneurs, the administrators, the organizers, the (usually) behind-the-scenes people who both make it all come together and happen, and who keep the records of it happening.These are the eyes, the ears, the mouths, the hands and feet, of Paul’s “body” illustration which takes up most of the chapter. This is made plain in 12:27 where Paul applies the illustration by saying, “Now you are Christ’s body – each one of you is a different part of it. And in the church God has made these appointments: some to be [this kind of worker]”, and so on.After 12:4, the only subsequent appearances of CARISMATA are related to healing (12:9, 28, 30) and in Paul’s concluding words for this section about seeking for gifts (12:31). The word does not occur thereafter in this epistle.Moreover, PNEUMATIKOS occurs in 1 Corinthians 12-14 only in 14:37, where it is masculine, referring to a person, and in the verses under consideration, 12:1 and 14:1.In sum: There appears to be wide agreement that taking PNEUMATIKOS to mean “spiritual gifts” stands or falls upon whether this meaning is being indicated by the context of this passage. All that I have said above is part of assessing this question of context for understanding the meaning this word in this section of the epistle.I submit that such a case for “spiritual gifts” cannot be derived from this context. Rather, in 12:1 Paul is saying, “Now concerning what it means to be spiritual …” And the “gifts” of 1 Corinthians 12 (and Romans 12:4-8, and Ephesians 4:7-13, and 1 Peter 4:9-11) are not a special category, “spiritual gifts”, but every kind of gifting and calling with which the Lord chooses to endow the members of his body (Ephesians 4:7, 11). For (James 1:17) every good gifting, and every perfect gift, comes down to us from the Father who gives light without change or shadow.In a second email, I shall refer to other responses on this topic.Regards,Ward http://www.netspace.net.au/~bwpowersRev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-8714-7255259A Trafalgar Street Phone (Australia): (02) 8714-7255PETERSHAM NSW 2049 email: bwpowers at optusnet.com.auAUSTRALIA. Director, Tyndale College

 

Multiple Subject and Verb AgreementWhat To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Oct 4 07:45:51 EDT 2001

 

[]: Response (1) re PNEUMATIKOS What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS I find myself in agreement with very much of this but I have problems withsome of it and have a couple (probably useless) suggestions. While I amsomewhat hesitant here inasmuch as I am bringing background considerationsinto this, I don’t think any of what I do bring in is alien or irrelevantto the question of “what to do with PNEUMATIKOS.”At 10:49 PM +0200 10/3/01, Iver Larsen wrote:> >My problem with “spiritual things” is that it is too broad. But I can see>that “spiritual gifts” may be too narrow, at least as the phrase is normally>used and understood in English. I also like the suggestion by Russell that>it refers to “the Spirit’s work”. I would be happy with something like “how>the Spirit operates”. On the other hand, Paul is correcting the misuse of>spiritual gifts among the Corinthians more so than he seems to correct any>misuse of ministry or powerful deeds. So, if I had to choose only between>“spiritual gifts” and “spiritual matters” I would go for the first. But>maybe there is a middle position that is better.Neuter plural substantives like this are difficult. The difficulty here isa bit akin to that of the discussion of TA DAIMONIA in Plato’s Apology,where Socrates is musing over the paradox that his accuser issimultaneously claiming that he (Socrates) is an atheist AND that he(Socrates) is introducing into Athenian culture KAINA DAIMONIA. How,Socrates asks, can one be a total atheist if one believes in some sort ofDAIMONIA?I would almost suggest for TA PNEUMATIKA “the phenomenology of theSpirit”–if the title hadn’t already been taken; I do like “how the Spiritoperates” better than “the Spirit’s work”, but I halfway wonder (if that’spossible!) whether “spirituality” might do. The problem is: in thereligious circles I’ve moved in and attempted to communicate over the yearsthe word “spirituality” has meant many different things to many differentpeople–and of course the same is true about these chapters 12-14 of 1Corinthians.I’ve wondered also whether Paul wasn’t trying, in these chapters, to “makea statement” about appropriate and inappropriate varieties of Christianmysticism –or how “Christian” mysticism must differ from “pagan”mysticism. And that suggests that another (playful?) equivalent of TAPNEUMATIKA might be “the varieties of Christian and non-Christian religiousexperience.” It has seemed to me that, as Paul in Galatians endeavors todistinguish “Christian” faith and practice from a “legalistic pietism,” soin 1 Cor he’s endeavoring to distinguish “Christian” faith and practicefrom the faith and practice of a Greek mystery cult. One of the recurrentleitmotifs in the letter is activity or practices that OIKODOMEI, for whichI prefer the English version “build(s) community.” The beliefs andpractices that Paul objects to in this letter have to do with behavior thatfosters fundamentally private religious experience and divides believersfrom each other in their quests for a better relationship with God. So itseems to me that the question of 1 Cor 12-14 is “what is authentic and whatis inauthentic spirituality?”>When we talk about context, we should keep in mind that the immediate>context carries more weight than the wider context. Therefore, 12:2-11 carry>more weight than chapter 13 which is an important side issue about>underlying motivation for spiritual ministry and the mature use of the>spiritual gifts. You have kept this in mind, but not everyone does.> >Another thing we need to keep in mind is that Paul often uses Hebrew>rhetorical structure which is circular. Verses 1-3 is the first circle, 4-6>is the second circle, (note the DE in v. 1, 4 and 7) and the third, large>circle is probably 12:7-14:40. It is normal for the first circle to>introduce one or more topics that will be dealt with in later circles in>more detail.> >V. 2 compares their former state as pagans, when they were carried away to>worship idols that could not speak. This may contrast to the fact that the>spirits of prophets are subject to prophets (14:32). It is one of the major>differences between pagan spiritual frenzy and true prophetic inspiration,>that prophetic inspiration from the Holy Spirit is a gentle voice. It never>carries me away against my will. It has absolutely nothing to do with>ecstasy. I need to decide in my Spirit whether what I sense is truly the>voice of God and then I need to decide how and when to bring that>inspiration out in words. And I can stop at any time when I speak a word of>prophecy. (I use “I” because I speak from experience here, not theory.)>There may also be a contrast between the mute idols and a God who speaks by>the Spirit. So v. 2 is a contrastive background for much of what is being>said later.I find somewhat problematic the claim here that “the Holy Spirit is agentle voice–it never carries me away against my will.” It’s the “NEVER”that disturbs me: I think Jeremiah might have questioned this propositionand I rather think that Paul too might claim that his experience of theHoly Spirit has on occasion been coercive. Whether or not one might feel inretrospect that one has been guided toward one’s authentic selfhood by theexperience, the experience itself may be wrenching and something other thangentle.Nor am I quite so confident that the difference between pagan spiritualfrenzy and true prophetic inspiration is all that clear-cut. Saul was toldby Samuel that he would meet a band of prophets and “become another man”and would prophesy, and afterwards there was the saying, “Is Saul alsoamong the prophets?”–which may have meant that people thought he was atleast a little bit looney. And it seems to me that Paul’s whole discussionof GLWSSOLALIA is at least partly a matter of whether non-believersobserving believers engaging in the practice might wonder whether thebelievers are “a little bit looney.”So when Paul refers to “being carried away with respect to idols thatcannot speak,” he really wants to call attention BOTH to how pagan”spirituality” and Christian “spirituality” differ from each other AND howthey may share in enthusiastic/ecstatic religious experience.>V. 3 contrasts and describes a message that is claimed to come from God as>either positive or negative, for or against. It is probably a typical Hebrew>exaggeration. “Cursing Jesus” stands for words that condemn and tear down>the body of Christ. “Acknowledging Jesus as Lord” stands for words that>build up the body of Christ, based on a servant attitude. Much of chapter 14>talks about the purpose of spiritual gifts, which is to build up and not>tear down. One of the main problems Paul is addressing in chap. 14 is that>improper use of tongues does not build up the body of Christ.Here I am in full agreement. IF it may be difficult to differentiate thenature of the pagan and Christian experience of enthusiasm/ecstasy,nevertheless the differentiation is clear with respect to its CONSEQUENCES:I think that verse 3 is really pointing toward a proto-Gnostic denial ofthe “fleshliness” of the historical Jesus–toward the same question andimplications dealt with in chapter 15: did Jesus really die and was heraised? does the historical Jesus really matter? or only the heavenlyChrist? If Jesus is Lord, then it is the Jesus of history who died and wasraised and is Lord; but if Jesus is cursed, then there is no salvificimport to the career of the historical Jesus. I agree with Iver about therelationship of 12:3 to chapter 14 but I think it relates also to chapter15.I really don’t want to carry this discussion far afield into the numerousimplicit tangential questions it could lead into. It is more important howwe understand TA PNEUMATIKA than how we TRANSLATE the phrase (at least sofar as the discussion in is concerned). “Spirituality”? “How theSpirit works/operates”? “Manifestation of the Spirit”? (and my quibble:it’s FANERWSIS TOU PNEUMATOS, not TOU PNEUMATOU) “Varieties of ReligiousExperience and how to make the best use of them”? “Mysticism: Positives andNegatives”? I suspect that a consensus on how rightly to understand TAPNEUMATIKA and how to interpret chapters 12-14 of 1 Cor may not veryreadily be reached.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

[]: Response (1) re PNEUMATIKOSWhat To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Oct 4 16:09:02 EDT 2001

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Carl,Thank you for your excellent comments and further background.I only want to comment briefly on one aspect you brought up, so I havedeleted the rest:> I find somewhat problematic the claim here that “the Holy Spirit is a> gentle voice–it never carries me away against my will.” It’s the “NEVER”> that disturbs me: I think Jeremiah might have questioned this proposition> and I rather think that Paul too might claim that his experience of the> Holy Spirit has on occasion been coercive. Whether or not one> might feel in> retrospect that one has been guided toward one’s authentic selfhood by the> experience, the experience itself may be wrenching and something> other than gentle.I did not intend to say that all the activities of the Holy Spirit aregentle. Nor did I intend to say that such activities could not overrule mywill and intentions. I was thinking of how I and others that I know receiveprophetic inspiration. That has always been a still, small voice as Elijahexperienced it. It can result in quite a bit of shaking, heart beat andagitation, but that is a human response.Are you thinking of any particular experiences of Paul? In the initialDamascus road experience the Spirit obviously had to overrule the will andintentions of Paul, but it was still done in a fairly gentle way throughquestions rather than condemnation.> > Nor am I quite so confident that the difference between pagan spiritual> frenzy and true prophetic inspiration is all that clear-cut. Saul was told> by Samuel that he would meet a band of prophets and “become another man”> and would prophesy, and afterwards there was the saying, “Is Saul also> among the prophets?”–which may have meant that people thought he was at> least a little bit looney. And it seems to me that Paul’s whole discussion> of GLWSSOLALIA is at least partly a matter of whether non-believers> observing believers engaging in the practice might wonder whether the> believers are “a little bit looney.”I am hesitant to apply prophetic experiences in the OT as standards for NTprophecy. The case of Saul is atypical and I don’t think it fits with NTprophecy or anyone’s experience of prophecy today.Yes, the misuse of glossolalia can easily make outsiders think that thosepeople are more or less looney. That is one major reason why it is a misuseand Paul says that it should not take place.There are different types of glossolalia. Some types involve propheticinspiration, and some do not, but discussing this would take us too far awayfrom .Thanks,Iver Larsen

 

What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSWhat To Do With PNEUMATIKOS

Leave a Reply

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