Luke 2:2

Luke 2:2 John Barach jbarach at telusplanet.net
Thu Dec 23 17:02:58 EST 1999

 

John 8:58 Fwd: Re: John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?) ers:Yes, I know Luke 2:2 is a thorny verse. I am aware of fourinterpretations of PRWTH here: (1) PRWTH is superlative: this was the first of a series of censuses. (2) PRWTH is an adjective modifying APOGRAFH: this was the firstcensus, [while] Quirinius [was] governing. (3) PRWTH has the sense of “before” and the verse should read: “Thiscensus was *before the census* which Quirinius, governor of Syria, made”(Turner, _Grammatical Insights_ 23-24; cf. F. F. Bruce, _NT History_;this view seems to be held by J. van Bruggen, _Matteus_, as well). (4) PRWTH is adverbial: “This census took place *before* Quiriniuswas governor of Syria” (Higgins). The problem with (2) is, of course, historical. Was Quiriniusgovernor, not only in AD 6 (Josephus) but also earlier, just before thetime of Jesus’ birth? is probably not the place to discuss thishistorical possibility. The problem with (4) is that PRWTH agrees in gender with APOGRAFH,making it much more likely to be an adjective than an adverb (cf.Wallace). My question is whether (3) is still considered plausible. Wallacecites Winer-Moulton: this reading is “awkward, if not ungrammatical.”Regards,John%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%John Barach (403) 317-1950Pastor, Trinity Reformed Church (URCNA)113 Stafford Blvd. N.Lethbridge, ABT1H 6E3

 

John 8:58Fwd: Re: John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?)

Luke 2:2 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Dec 24 06:53:20 EST 1999

 

Philippians 2:6 John 8:58 At 3:02 PM -0700 12/23/99, John Barach wrote:>ers:> >Yes, I know Luke 2:2 is a thorny verse. I am aware of four>interpretations of PRWTH here:> > (1) PRWTH is superlative: this was the first of a series of censuses.> (2) PRWTH is an adjective modifying APOGRAFH: this was the first>census, [while] Quirinius [was] governing.> (3) PRWTH has the sense of “before” and the verse should read: “This>census was *before the census* which Quirinius, governor of Syria, made”>(Turner, _Grammatical Insights_ 23-24; cf. F. F. Bruce, _NT History_;>this view seems to be held by J. van Bruggen, _Matteus_, as well).> (4) PRWTH is adverbial: “This census took place *before* Quirinius>was governor of Syria” (Higgins).> > The problem with (2) is, of course, historical. Was Quirinius>governor, not only in AD 6 (Josephus) but also earlier, just before the>time of Jesus’ birth? is probably not the place to discuss this>historical possibility.> The problem with (4) is that PRWTH agrees in gender with APOGRAFH,>making it much more likely to be an adjective than an adverb (cf.>Wallace).> My question is whether (3) is still considered plausible. Wallace>cites Winer-Moulton: this reading is “awkward, if not ungrammatical.”The last time this was thoroughly hashed out on was in lateSeptember and early October of 1998, and the thread may be consulted, ifany one wishes to do so, at the regular web site for the mailing list. Myown view is that none of the above four versions is adequate, that weshould understand PRWTH as adverbial with EGENETO, and that hHGEMONEUONTOSKURHNIOU THS SURIAS should be understood NOT as a genitive of comparisonbut as an ordinary genitive absolute used as an indicator of time. I citemy own message of September 25, 1998:——————–Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:21:47 -0500To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>From: “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>Subject: Re: PRWTH in Lk 2:2At 11:15 PM -0500 9/25/98, dd-1 at juno.com wrote:>Denny Diehl here with a question concerning> >PRWTH as used in Lk 2:2:> >“AUTH APOGRAQH PRWTH EGENETO…”> >usually translated: “This was the first census taken…”> >In Jn 15:18, PRWTON is translated “before”. Is it possible>to translate PRWTH in Lk 2:2 with “before” making it:> >“This was before the census taken…”?> >Or is it too awkward to translate it that way? Thank you.Actually, although the adjectival forms PRWTH and PRWTON in both texts arepredicative, they are nevertheless used in somewhat different ways. Hereare the texts transcribed after the normal BG fashion:Lk 2:2 hAUTH APOGRAFH PRWTH EGENETO hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIAS KURHNIOUJn 15:18 EI hO KOSMOS hUMAS MISEI, GINWSKETE hOTI EME PRWTON hUMWN MEMISHKEN.One fact about PRWTOS/A/ON that is perhaps not adequately appreciated isthat it is a superlative (“foremost,” “frontmost”) form of an adjectivethat has a comparative (PROTEROS/A/ON) but no simple positive form, sincethe preposition PRO and the adverb PRIN normally function as a positiveform of the adjective would.In fact, in Jn 15:18 PRWTON is used predicatively and construed with theverb MEMISHKEN but with a comparative force that is complemented by theablatival genitive hUMWN: “hated me as one (hated) previous than (to) you”= “hated me earlier than you.”Lk 2:2 is a bit different; although PRWTH is predicative and must beconstrued closely with the verb EGENETO, “took place foremost” = “tookplace for the first time.” To be noted are: (1) there is no comparableablatival genitive functioning with PRWTH here as hUMWN functioned withPRWTON in Jn 15:18; (2) since there is no article with PRWTH that wouldclearly mark it as having attributive force and so belonging to APOGRAFH(it would have to be either hAUTH hH PRWTH APOGRAFH or hAUTH hH APGRAFH hHPRWTH), it cannot legitimately be understood as meaning “the first census”but rather must be understood as meaning “took place as the first one.”Perhaps these sound like the mean the same thing in English, but thedifference in the Greek is important: it means that the census had NOT evertaken place prior to the governorship of Quirinius.There is another factor here that might conceivably be (and, I’m sure, hasindeed been suggested, since this verse is crucial in its indication of theyear 6 A.D. as the time of the census in question)–perhaps this is evenwhat you’re suggesting in your query: that the genitive hHGEMONEUONTOS THSSURIAS KURHNIOU should be understood as an ablatival genitive construedwith PRWTH, so that the verse might be understood to mean: “This census washeld before Quirinius was governor of Syria.” While on the surface thismight seem plausible, it is so improbable in terms of ordinary idiom thatit doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously: (1) Luke does regularly use thegenitive absolute construction with the name of an official to indicate theyear (Lk 3:1ff.); (2) the more normal sort of adverbial construction toindicate that this census took place before the governorship of Quiriniuswould, I think be something like PRIN hHGEMONEUSAI THS SURIASKURHNION–i.e. an aorist infinitive with an accusative subject followingupon PRIN; implicit in this, I think, is what seems to me obligatory tounderstand as the implication of the present participle hHGEMONEUONTOS:that the census took place WHILE QUIRINIUS WAS GOVERNING, not before it (orafter it either, for that matter).In sum, I really don’t see any way to construe the Greek so that PRWTH withthat genitive phrase including a present participle of the verb can pointto a census held prior to the governorship of Quirinius.——————————-In the course of that thread of Sept/Oct 1998 attention was called to anarticle by Dan Wallace in his “Professor’s Soapbox” at his website dealingwith these difficulties and concluding more candidly than we have in manyof our struggles with more-or-less intractable texts, that “thereis no facile solution”:The Problem of Luke 2.2, by Daniel Wallace http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/luke2-2.htm– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Philippians 2:6John 8:58

Luke 2:2, prote as “before” instead of “first”? KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Mon Dec 27 17:18:28 EST 1999

 

septuagint on-line: where Question on John 17:3 Could Lk. 2:2 read “this was the census that took place before (prote) Quirinius was governor of Syria.” as it is in Jn. 15:18, instead of the usually rendering,”this was the first (prote) census, that took place while Quirinius was governing Syria”? (NKJV)Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

septuagint on-line: whereQuestion on John 17:3

Luke 2:2, prote as “before” instead of “first”? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 27 19:16:33 EST 1999

 

Question on John 17:3 Luke 2:2, prote as “before” instead of “first”? At 5:18 PM -0500 12/27/99, KJohn36574 at aol.com wrote:>Could Lk. 2:2 read “this was the census that took place before (prote)>Quirinius was governor of Syria.” as it is in Jn. 15:18, instead of the>usually rendering,> >“this was the first (prote) census, that took place while Quirinius was>governing Syria”? (NKJV)John Barach posted a message on this last Thursday, December 23. On Friday,December 24 I posted in response a message of my own from a year ago. Ipersonally think this is an unsatisfactory solution to the problem of thedating. I suggest you look at the web site and check that post of lastFriday and references to earlier discussions in the archives.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Question on John 17:3Luke 2:2, prote as “before” instead of “first”?

Luke 2:2, prote as “before” instead of “first”? Jay and Terry Stigdon disciples at abcs.com
Mon Dec 27 19:29:42 EST 1999

 

Luke 2:2, prote as “before” instead of “first”? Question on John 17:3 My inclination would be to call this the first, as PRWTH not only agreeswith APOYRAFH, but stands next to it. This is my interpretation of what myinstructor has tried hard to impart to me. EN XRISTWi, JayP.S. Jim, Clayton, Carl, Carlton–I am sure you will set me straight shouldI be a grammatically wandering sheep. Thank you all, and God Bless.

 

Luke 2:2, prote as “before” instead of “first”?Question on John 17:3

Luke 2:2 RHutchin at aol.com RHutchin at aol.com
Wed Dec 29 16:00:33 EST 1999

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Spiros Zodhiates In previous discussions of Luke 2:2, Carl Conrad stated (strongly, I believe) thatLuke, by using the present participle, hHGEMONEUONTOS, clearly intends to tell us that the census took place while Quirinius was governing.That seems to follow from–EGENETO EN TAIS hHMERAIS HRODON BASILEWS…. (LK 1:5)EGENETO DE EN TAIS hHMERAIS EKEINAIS EXHLQEN DOGMA PARA KAISAROS AUGOUSTOU… (LK 2:1)so that hAUTH APOGRAFH PRWTH EGENETO hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIAS KURHNIOU (Lk 2:2)would simply convey that Quirinius was also governing at the time. If this were not the case (i.e., Luke really wants to refer to the future Quirinius), Luke would need a reason to contrast this particular census (tax) with the later census under Quirinius and then he would need to have written it differently to actually make his point. Had Quirinius not been governing, would Luke have cause to mention him at all? If Luke thought that there might be some confusion with the later census in 6-7 AD, he would need only to identify the man who was governing at that time. Even if one wants to argue that Luke felt compelled to make a distinction from the later census of Quirinius, the grammatical structure still must be explained. The simplest resolution seems to be Carl’s.The real issue is not so much what PRWTH means but what made Luke use it at all. Why didn’t Luke just say, hAUTH APOGRAFH EGENETO hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIAS KURHNIOU. What does PRWTH add to the historical account that necessitates its use?Carl also said that PRWTH cannot legitimately be understood to mean “the firstcensus” but rather must be understood to mean “took place as the first one.” If I understand Carl correctly, PRWTH implies contrast and not order or number.Carl then takes this to mean that the census had NOT ever taken place prior to the governorship of Quirinius.That is the point, I want to pursue. Luke wants to tell the reader that the census was conducted when Quirinius was governing. If there were only one census under Quirinius, and Luke mistakes the census of 6-7 AD for the one in 6-7 BC, then he has no reason to add PRWTH (or does he?). However, if Luke seeks to contrast the census of 6-7 BC with the later, more infamous, census conducted by Quirinius in 6-7 AD because both were under Quirinius and thereby avoid confusion between the two, then he needs to insert language to accomplish this purpose. Would the addition of PRWTH into the account do this?Roger HutchinsonRHutchin at AOL.com

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4Spiros Zodhiates

Luke 2:2 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Wed Dec 29 22:11:53 EST 1999

 

Spiros Zodhiates Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Pardon me once again for being historical.Dr. John McRay (archaeologist at Wheaton College) is quoted in Lee Strobel’s book, “The Case for Christ” (1998) as stating the following solution for the timing of Quirinius’ first census,” An eminent archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman has done a great deal of work in this regard. He has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writing, or what we call ‘micrographic’ letters. This places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod [4 B.C.] (page 101).”…It means that there were apparently two Quiriniuses…It’s not uncommon to have lots of people with the same Roman names, so there’s no reason to doubt that there were two people by the name of Quirinius. The census would have taken place under the reign of the earlier Quirinius. Given the cycle of a census every fourteen years, that would work out quite well” (page 102).So it appears that most on this board have a translation of Lk. 2:2 [first census] that works out quite well.Well, its not Greek, but at least I discussed a Latin name. Hope you find use for this information.Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

Spiros ZodhiatesHades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?

Luke 2:2 Carlton Winbery winberyc at speedgate.net
Thu Dec 30 10:52:10 EST 1999

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Ken Johnson wrote;>Pardon me once again for being historical.> >Dr. John McRay (archaeologist at Wheaton College) is quoted in Lee Strobel’s>book, “The Case for Christ” (1998) as stating the following solution for the>timing of Quirinius’ first census,> >” An eminent archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman has done a great deal of work>in this regard. He has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very>small writing, or what we call ‘micrographic’ letters. This places him as>proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod [4>B.C.]>(page 101).> >“…It means that there were apparently two Quiriniuses…It’s not uncommon>to have lots of people with the same Roman names, so there’s no reason to>doubt that there were two people by the name of Quirinius. The census would>have taken place under the reign of the earlier Quirinius. Given the cycle of>a census every fourteen years, that would work out quite well” (page 102).> >So it appears that most on this board have a translation of Lk. 2:2 [first>census] that works out quite well.> >Well, its not Greek, but at least I discussed a Latin name. Hope you find use>for this information.> This list is not the place for a discussion of Vardaman’s “micro graphics.”The important part of this discussion is the posts of Carl Conrad on whatthe Greek text apparently says. Vardaman’s micro graphics have beencredited with solving vertually every problem of NT chronology, but most ofmy friends who are excavators in Israel and Jordan have indicated thatthere are more problems with Vardaman’s methods than he solves. A totalabsence of Vardaman’s discoveries (first revealed in the late 60’s) inlearned journals is telling. So let’s not get into a discussion that isbound to elicit some strong feelings.Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at speedgate.netwinbery at andria.lacollege.eduPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?

Luke 2:2 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Thu Dec 30 14:31:15 EST 1999

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? In light of Carlton’s note, Vardaman’s explaination may not be the long awaited response to this controversial passage. And my Strobel quote is from an interview answer without any sources quoted. So your first series of questions I am not at liberty to answer. However, since Vardaman’s scholarship is in doubt anyway, maybe we should dispense with a history discussion.However, from the standpoint of the Greek, we have, “hegemoneuontos tes Syrias Kyreniou” or “while Quirinius was leading -in charge of-Syria”. He is not actually called legatus (the official Roman title for the governor of an entire region), but the participle hegemoneuontos is used here, which would be appropriate to a “hegemon” like Pontius Pilate, who rated as a procurator but not as a “legatus”.Now if we assume one Quirinius was possibly in charge of two census’ at different times, what can we conclude from the above? Josephus’ cites Cyrenius (Quirinius) taking a census soon after Herod’s Archelaus was deposed in A.D. 6 (7 A.D), “Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people’s effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus.” (Antiquities 17.13.5).Luke was aware of the second census and quotes Gamaliel as alluding to the insurrection of Judas of Galilee “in the days of the census taking (Acts 5:37). Such census were taken every 14 years, so if we have one in 7 B.C. and the second in cc.7 B.C. then we have a 14 year spead.We do know that between 12 B.C. and 2 B.C. Quirinius was engaged in a systematic reduction of rebellious mountaineers in the highlands of Pisidia(Tenny, “Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia, 5:6) and therefore was a highly placed military figure in the Near East in the closing years of the reign of Herod the Great. He probably found favor with Caesar and was chosen to handle the first census of Lk. 2:2. But because he was not the official legatus, he was not mentioned in the Roman census lists as such conducting a census. Besides, Tertillian mentions Saturninus as legate of Syria from 9 B.C. to 6 B.C., and Quintilius Varus as legate from 7 B.C. to 4 A.D. (Contra Marcion 4.19), so it is doubtful Quirinius was legate in 6 or 7 B.C.Later because of Quirinius’ handling of matters in the B.C. years he was probably appointed legate in the A.D. years by Caesar or at least temporary emergency legate.As far as a decree from Caesar Augustus to have the whole world [oikoumene or all the world under the authority of Rome] to be involved in a census for taxation purposes, we know that a general census under such circumstances occurred in the Roman world,”Every five years the Romans enumerated citizens and their property to determine their liabilities. This practice was extended to include the entire Roman Empire in 5 B.C.”(Kingsley Davis, “Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed., 5.168).I believe I have covered almost everything I know to cover except people being required to return to their own houses during a census, but we also know this occurred under Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt in 104 A.D, so it was a legitimate practice.(McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament” (1991) page 155.)Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?

Luke 2:2. Time to quit Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 30 16:48:27 EST 1999

 

Exegesis of 1 Cor 15:2 Luke 2:2. Time to quit While I appreciate the concerns that have prolonged this thread into issuesthat go far beyond what the text itself means in the Greek, may I urge thatunless someone has something substantive to say about the Greek text itselfrather than about how it squares with what one thinks the historical factsare are ought to be, let’s bring a halt to this. Please.Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Exegesis of 1 Cor 15:2Luke 2:2. Time to quit

Luke 2:2. Time to quit Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Thu Dec 30 17:25:48 EST 1999

 

Luke 2:2. Time to quit Exegesis of 1 Cor 15:2 “Carl W. Conrad” wrote:> While I appreciate the concerns that have prolonged this thread into issues> that go far beyond what the text itself means in the Greek, may I urge that> unless someone has something substantive to say about the Greek text itself> rather than about how it squares with what one thinks the historical facts> are are ought to be, let’s bring a halt to this. Please.> In light of Carl’s (quite correct) admonition, might I suggest (shameless plugalert!) that anyone who wishes to take up the issues on how the text of Lk. 2:2squares (or does not) with what one thinks the historical facts are are ought to be,should bring the issue to XTalk, the forum devoted to discussion of criticalquestions surrounding the Historical Jesus and the rise of Christianity. Discussionis, however, limited to members of XTalk. Details on the nature, purpose, scope,protocols, and methods of subscribing to the List may be found at www.xtalk.org.Yours,Jeffrey Gibson–Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net

 

Luke 2:2. Time to quitExegesis of 1 Cor 15:2

The text of Luke 2:2 and word order Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Jun 26 04:21:42 EDT 2001

 

Bible Study 6/26/01 Psalms 3:3 in Septuagint This text has been discussed many times, but the other day I came to realizethat I have been focusing on the wrong Greek text.In the GNT and Nestle-Aland the text readshAUTH APOGRAFH PRWTH EGENETO hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIAS KURHNIOUThis text I now consider ungrammatical and unlikely to be original for thefollowing reasons:1) hAUTH APOGRAFHcannot be a noun phrase with a demonstrative modifying a headnoun. The reason is that if this was a noun phrase meaning “first census” itwould have to be hAUTH hH APOGRAFH. As far as I know it is unacceptable Greekwithout the article, since hOUTOS requires the article when it modifies a nounas part of a noun phrase. The definite article is obligatorily present in Greekbecause hOUTOS is inherently +definite.2) if hAUTH is a noun phrase by itself with the demonstrative being usedsubstantively meaning “this one” then I would consider APOGRAFH PRWTH as a nounphrase meaning “a first census”. However, the word PRWTH strongly suggests thatthe census mentioned is being compared to another census which is not the first.If this was the case, the order should have been PRWTH APOGRAFH and the absenceof the article is curious.However, when I checked the variant readings, sure enough, the majority ofmanuscripts, including the second corrected version of Sinaiticus, include thearticle and read:hAUTH hH APOGRAFH PRWTH EGENETO hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIAS KURHNIOUThere is little doubt in my mind that this is the original text, mainly becausethe other one is ungrammatical.Because of the word order it is very unlikely that hH APOGRAFH PRWTH constitutesa noun phrase, because if so, the order would have been hH PRWTH APOGRAFH.Furthermore, I would have expected hH APOGRAFH hH PRWTH if PRWTH were to followits head noun. (Similar to hH FWNH hH PRWTH – the first sound I heard – in Rev4:1). The unmarked (or most common) order for a somewhat emphatic andcontrastive word like PRWTOS is to come before the noun it modifies. (Normallyan adjective follows its head in Greek, but the lexical weight of a fewadjectives cause them to normally precede their head. This is a direct corollaryof the basic word order principle in Greek: most important things come first.)There are a few cases where the noun precedes PRWTOS to show that the ideacontained in the noun is more important than the fact that it is the first.(Apart from Rev 4:1 above, there is another example in Rev 20:5-6: hAUTH hHANASTASIS hH PRWTH. MAKARIOS KAI hAGIOS hO ECWN MEROS EN THi ANASTASEI THiPRWTHi – This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who haspart in the first resurrection. The focus in the context is whether one takespart in the resurrection or not. Whether it is the first or not the first is arelatively unimportant issue. In fact, Rev does not use the word ANASTASIS for asecond resurrection, but it talks about the dead coming before the judgment.First resurrection is not compared to a second resurrection, bit to the seconddeath.)Therefore, I take hAUTH hH APOGRAFH as a noun phrase meaning “THIS census” incontrast to some other census. If there was no contrast, but simply a backreference to a census which was known by the reader to be the first, it wouldhave been hH APOGRAFH hAUTH.This leaves PRWTH as a predicate, giving some added description of THIS censusas opposed to another census. The original hand of Sinaiticus has EGENETO PRWTHinstead of PRWTH EGENETO which supports the suggestion of PRWTH as a substantiveuse of an adjective as an NP.The word PRWTH with a following genitive can according to BAGD point 1 a underPRWTOS be used with a “genitive of comparison” as in PRWTOS MOU HN “he wasearlier than I=before me” John 1:15,30. Although BAGD does not list Luke 2:2under this possibility, it seems to me that this is certainly a viable optionfor Luke 2:2. The following rendering is a literal translation with some impliedinformation in parentheses. It also helps me to understand why the text hasEGENETO “it happened” rather than just HN “it was”.THIS census (that I just talked about and which is not well known) happenedbefore/prior to when Kurenios was governing Syria (he who is famous foroverseeing the other census in 6 AD that everybody knows about because it causeda great rebellion).This other, famous census is simply referred to in Acts 5:37 as “the census” (inthe days of the census.)Any comments?Iver LarsenIver Larsen

 

Bible Study 6/26/01Psalms 3:3 in Septuagint

The text of Luke 2:2 and word order Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jun 26 07:21:28 EDT 2001

 

Psalms 3:3 in Septuagint How does one interpret BDAG definitions? At 10:21 AM +0200 6/26/01, Iver Larsen wrote:>This text has been discussed many times, but the other day I came to realize>that I have been focusing on the wrong Greek text.> >In the GNT and Nestle-Aland the text reads> >hAUTH APOGRAFH PRWTH EGENETO hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIAS KURHNIOU> >This text I now consider ungrammatical and unlikely to be original for the>following reasons:> >1) hAUTH APOGRAFHcannot be a noun phrase with a demonstrative>modifying a head>noun. The reason is that if this was a noun phrase meaning “first census” it>would have to be hAUTH hH APOGRAFH. As far as I know it is unacceptable Greek>without the article, since hOUTOS requires the article when it modifies a noun>as part of a noun phrase. The definite article is obligatorily present in>Greek>because hOUTOS is inherently +definite.> >2) if hAUTH is a noun phrase by itself with the demonstrative being used>substantively meaning “this one” then I would consider APOGRAFH PRWTH as a>noun>phrase meaning “a first census”. However, the word PRWTH strongly suggests>that>the census mentioned is being compared to another census which is not the>first.>If this was the case, the order should have been PRWTH APOGRAFH and the>absence>of the article is curious.> >However, when I checked the variant readings, sure enough, the majority of>manuscripts, including the second corrected version of Sinaiticus, include the>article and read:> >hAUTH hH APOGRAFH PRWTH EGENETO hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIAS KURHNIOU> >There is little doubt in my mind that this is the original text, mainly>because>the other one is ungrammatical.> >Because of the word order it is very unlikely that hH APOGRAFH PRWTH>constitutes>a noun phrase, because if so, the order would have been hH PRWTH APOGRAFH.>Furthermore, I would have expected hH APOGRAFH hH PRWTH if PRWTH were to>follow>its head noun. (Similar to hH FWNH hH PRWTH – the first sound I heard – in Rev>4:1). The unmarked (or most common) order for a somewhat emphatic and>contrastive word like PRWTOS is to come before the noun it modifies. (Normally>an adjective follows its head in Greek, but the lexical weight of a few>adjectives cause them to normally precede their head. This is a direct>corollary>of the basic word order principle in Greek: most important things come first.)>There are a few cases where the noun precedes PRWTOS to show that the idea>contained in the noun is more important than the fact that it is the first.>(Apart from Rev 4:1 above, there is another example in Rev 20:5-6: hAUTH hH>ANASTASIS hH PRWTH. MAKARIOS KAI hAGIOS hO ECWN MEROS EN THi ANASTASEI THi>PRWTHi – This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has>part in the first resurrection. The focus in the context is whether one takes>part in the resurrection or not. Whether it is the first or not the first is a>relatively unimportant issue. In fact, Rev does not use the word ANASTASIS>for a>second resurrection, but it talks about the dead coming before the judgment.>First resurrection is not compared to a second resurrection, bit to the second>death.)> >Therefore, I take hAUTH hH APOGRAFH as a noun phrase meaning “THIS census” in>contrast to some other census. If there was no contrast, but simply a back>reference to a census which was known by the reader to be the first, it would>have been hH APOGRAFH hAUTH.> >This leaves PRWTH as a predicate, giving some added description of THIS census>as opposed to another census. The original hand of Sinaiticus has EGENETO>PRWTH>instead of PRWTH EGENETO which supports the suggestion of PRWTH as a>substantive>use of an adjective as an NP.> >The word PRWTH with a following genitive can according to BAGD point 1 a under>PRWTOS be used with a “genitive of comparison” as in PRWTOS MOU HN “he was>earlier than I=before me” John 1:15,30. Although BAGD does not list Luke 2:2>under this possibility, it seems to me that this is certainly a viable option>for Luke 2:2. The following rendering is a literal translation with some>implied>information in parentheses. It also helps me to understand why the text has>EGENETO “it happened” rather than just HN “it was”.> >THIS census (that I just talked about and which is not well known) happened>before/prior to when Kurenios was governing Syria (he who is famous for>overseeing the other census in 6 AD that everybody knows about because it>caused>a great rebellion).> >This other, famous census is simply referred to in Acts 5:37 as “the>census” (in>the days of the census.)> >Any comments?You might want to look at Dan Wallace’s discussion of the problems of thistext at http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/luke2-2.htm I do think that mostof the efforts to solve the problems of this text have been triggered by adesire to resolve the anachronism between this datum and that of Lk 1:5.Dan Wallace’s note is (IMHO) remarkable in its resistance to tampering withthe text from that sort of a motive.Personally, I agree that hAUTH hH APOGRAFH is most probably the originalform of the subject; I think, however, that PRWTH is adverbial with EGENETO(and that the word-order PRWTH EGENETO is more probable) and that EGENETOdoes here mean “occurred/took place” (= Latin FACTUS EST), and finally thathHGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIAS KURHNIOU is a genitive absolute explaining PRWTHEGENETO: “This census first took plac/was held when Quirinius was governorof Syria.”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityHome: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Psalms 3:3 in SeptuagintHow does one interpret BDAG definitions?

The text of Luke 2:2 and word order Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Jun 26 15:34:03 EDT 2001

 

Mk 16:2 Constituent Order Luke 2:2 Carl wrote:> > You might want to look at Dan Wallace’s discussion of the problems of this> text at http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/luke2-2.htm I do think that most> of the efforts to solve the problems of this text have been triggered by a> desire to resolve the anachronism between this datum and that of Lk 1:5.> Dan Wallace’s note is (IMHO) remarkable in its resistance to tampering with> the text from that sort of a motive.My starting point is that Luke knew the history of his time much better than Ido, and that what he wrote made sense. I am not bothered by historicalinaccuracies, but I try to look at the text from a linguistics and contextualpoint of view.> > Personally, I agree that hAUTH hH APOGRAFH is most probably the original> form of the subject; I think, however, that PRWTH is adverbial with EGENETO> (and that the word-order PRWTH EGENETO is more probable) and that EGENETO> does here mean “occurred/took place” (= Latin FACTUS EST), and finally that> hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIAS KURHNIOU is a genitive absolute explaining PRWTH> EGENETO: “This census first took plac/was held when Quirinius was governor> of Syria.”So, we agree on the text. That is reassuring to me.I am quite willing to call PRWTH adverbial with EGENETO. That fits well with myunderstanding of the text.I understand that the genitive absolute is certainly a viable option. But Istill have a problem trying to make sense of the traditional translation. If wesay “This census first took place” or “This census took place first” at aparticular time what does that mean? Was it not finished and had to be repeateda second time? Is there any contrast with another census? If there is notcontrast, the word order is wrong.Nigel Turner in his excellent book on Grammatical Insights into the NT suggeststhe before option also, and since both are grammatically possible, I am inclinedto go with the one which seems to make most sense to me.Maybe you can explain to me what the word “first” is doing in this sentence, ifit does not contrast with another census? How would the meaning change if weleft out “first”?Thanks,Iver Larsen

 

Mk 16:2 Constituent OrderLuke 2:2

Luke 2:2 Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Tue Jun 26 16:26:45 EDT 2001

 

The text of Luke 2:2 and word order Mk 16:2 Constituent Order Carl wrote:Personally, I agree that hAUTH hH APOGRAFH is most probably the original form of the subject; I think, however, that PRWTH is adverbial with EGENETO (and that the word-order PRWTH EGENETO is more probable) and that EGENETO does here mean “occurred/took place” (= Latin FACTUS EST), and finally that hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIAS KURHNIOU is a genitive absolute explaining PRWTH EGENETO: “This census first took place/was held when Quirinius was governor of Syria.”To which Iver responded:But I still have a problem trying to make sense of the traditional translation. If we say “This census first took place” or “This census took place first” at a particular time what does that mean? Was it not finished and had to be repeated a second time? Is there any contrast with another census? If there is not contrast, the word order is wrong.My naive question:Does not hAUTH itself imply a constrast? hH would have been sufficient to reference the APOGRAFH of the previous verse. In fact, I would have understood hH as demonstrative anyway. Why the hAUTH?Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

 

The text of Luke 2:2 and word orderMk 16:2 Constituent Order

Luke 2:2 Kevin W. Woodruff cierpke at prodigy.net
Tue Jun 26 16:47:28 EDT 2001

 

Mk 16:2 Constituent Order Luke 2:2 Perhaps it is being contrast with the more famous later census that happenedin 6 A.D. (or 6 C.E.) as described by Josephus in Antiquities 18.1.6Kevin At 08:26 PM 6/26/2001 -0000, you wrote:> >Carl wrote:> >Personally, I agree that hAUTH hH APOGRAFH is most probably the original >form of the subject; I think, however, that PRWTH is adverbial with EGENETO >(and that the word-order PRWTH EGENETO is more probable) and that EGENETO >does here mean “occurred/took place” (= Latin FACTUS EST), and finally that >hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIAS KURHNIOU is a genitive absolute explaining PRWTH >EGENETO: “This census first took place/was held when Quirinius was governor >of Syria.”> >To which Iver responded:> >But I still have a problem trying to make sense of the traditional >translation. If we say “This census first took place” or “This census took >place first” at a particular time what does that mean? Was it not finished >and had to be repeated a second time? Is there any contrast with another >census? If there is not contrast, the word order is wrong.> >My naive question:> >Does not hAUTH itself imply a constrast? hH would have been sufficient to >reference the APOGRAFH of the previous verse. In fact, I would have >understood hH as demonstrative anyway. Why the hAUTH?> >Mark Wilson> > >_________________________________________________________________>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com> > >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: [cierpke at prodigy.net]>To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M. Div.Library Director/Reference LibrarianProfessor of New Testament GreekCierpke Memorial LibraryTennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404United States of America423/493-4252 (office)423/698-9447 (home)423/493-4497 (FAX)Cierpke at prodigy.net (preferred)kwoodruf at utk.edu (alternate)http://pages.prodigy.net/cierpke/woodruff.htm

 

Mk 16:2 Constituent OrderLuke 2:2

Luke 2:2 Jon Weatherly jweather at yahoo.com
Tue Jun 26 16:48:58 EDT 2001

 

Luke 2:2 Hebrews 1:2 Mark Wilson <emory2oo2 at hotmail.com> wrote: My naive question:Does not hAUTH itself imply a constrast? hH would have been sufficient to reference the APOGRAFH of the previous verse. In fact, I would have understood hH as demonstrative anyway. Why the hAUTH?hAUTH can imply a contrast with another census, especially with PRWTH, and this is the very point that makes the interpretation “This census was before …” an appealing one. The contrast is then with the well-known census of A.D. 6 that sparked riots leading to the deposition of Archelaeus. Otherwise, there’s no point of contrast that I can see.hAUTH could indicate simply “this census that I just mentioned,” but then PRWTH seems to dangle with no contribution to the meaning of the sentence. In all other respects, the usual interpretation of this text seems satisfactory from a syntactical point of view, but I am forced to consider “before” to find a reasonable sense for PRWTH in light of hAUTH.Jon WeatherlyCincinnati Bible College and Seminary———————————Do You Yahoo!?Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail – only $35 a year!http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20010626/5e9d7f1a/attachment.html

 

Luke 2:2Hebrews 1:2

The text of Luke 2:2 and word order Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jun 26 17:46:44 EDT 2001

 

Hebrews 1:2 The text of Luke 2:2 and word order At 9:34 PM +0200 6/26/01, Iver Larsen wrote:>Carl wrote:>> >> You might want to look at Dan Wallace’s discussion of the problems of this>> text at http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/luke2-2.htm I do think that most>> of the efforts to solve the problems of this text have been triggered by a>> desire to resolve the anachronism between this datum and that of Lk 1:5.>> Dan Wallace’s note is (IMHO) remarkable in its resistance to tampering with>> the text from that sort of a motive.> >My starting point is that Luke knew the history of his time much better than I>do, and that what he wrote made sense. I am not bothered by historical>inaccuracies, but I try to look at the text from a linguistics and contextual>point of view.Well, I personally have my doubts about Luke as a historian but that is notrelevant nor should it enter into a discussion focusing solely upon whatthis text means.>> Personally, I agree that hAUTH hH APOGRAFH is most probably the original>> form of the subject; I think, however, that PRWTH is adverbial with EGENETO>> (and that the word-order PRWTH EGENETO is more probable) and that EGENETO>> does here mean “occurred/took place” (= Latin FACTUS EST), and finally that>> hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIAS KURHNIOU is a genitive absolute explaining PRWTH>> EGENETO: “This census first took plac/was held when Quirinius was governor>> of Syria.”> >So, we agree on the text. That is reassuring to me.>I am quite willing to call PRWTH adverbial with EGENETO. That fits well>with my>understanding of the text.>I understand that the genitive absolute is certainly a viable option. But I>still have a problem trying to make sense of the traditional translation.>If we>say “This census first took place” or “This census took place first” at a>particular time what does that mean? Was it not finished and had to be>repeated>a second time? Is there any contrast with another census? If there is not>contrast, the word order is wrong.>Nigel Turner in his excellent book on Grammatical Insights into the NT>suggests>the before option also, and since both are grammatically possible, I am>inclined>to go with the one which seems to make most sense to me.> >Maybe you can explain to me what the word “first” is doing in this>sentence, if>it does not contrast with another census? How would the meaning change if we>left out “first”?I don’t think we are going to resolve the problems of this verse toeveryone’s satisfaction or even eliminate all the problems; it may be thatwe simply don’t have it in the formulation in which it was originallycomposed. Nevertheless when I say that I understand it to mean “This censusfirst took place when Quirinius governed Syria” I mean that I think thehAUTH enters into play: Luke describes this census as a universal census ofthe Roman empire (I’m a little bit skeptical about that too, but again,it’s beside the point); I’m understanding Luke to say that a universalcensus of the Roman empire first took place during the governorship ofQuirinius in Syria–i.e. the year we refer to as 6 A.D. That’s my view ofthis troublesome verse, and beyond that I really don’t want to speculate.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityHome: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Hebrews 1:2The text of Luke 2:2 and word order

The text of Luke 2:2 and word order Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Jun 28 13:33:45 EDT 2001

 

The text of Luke 2:2 and word order Hebrews 1:2 Allow me to make a few more comments. I am looking at the text not so much froma historical or theological perspective as from a linguistic study of the Greeklanguage using some principles from modern discourse linguistics.Carl wrote:> I don’t think we are going to resolve the problems of this verse to> everyone’s satisfaction or even eliminate all the problems; it may be that> we simply don’t have it in the formulation in which it was originally> composed. Nevertheless when I say that I understand it to mean “This census> first took place when Quirinius governed Syria” I mean that I think the> hAUTH enters into play: Luke describes this census as a universal census of> the Roman empire (I’m a little bit skeptical about that too, but again,> it’s beside the point); I’m understanding Luke to say that a universal> census of the Roman empire first took place during the governorship of> Quirinius in Syria–i.e. the year we refer to as 6 A.D. That’s my view of> this troublesome verse, and beyond that I really don’t want to speculate.We may not resolve the issue, but it is still of interest to me to see whether adiscourse analysis offers any help. I looked up Wallace’s discussion but was notsatisfied, partly because he works from what I believe now is the wrong text.First, of course, we should try to establish the original text and I think it isbeyond reasonable doubt that the original text included the definite article.Carl accepted this, but to go into details about it would probably move us intothe TC-list domain.So, the text we are looking at is:hAUTH hH APOGRAFH PRWTH EGENETO hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIAS KURHNIOUThis sentence consists of an NP functioning as subject, an adjective functioningeither as a predicate to the subject or as an adverb relative to the verb. Thefinal genitive participial clause/phrase is temporal.I believe we need to distinguish carefully between the discourse function offronted phrases within the sentence structure and the discourse function offronted words within a phrase structure.The fronting of the NP subject within the whole sentence is related to theconcept of topic and comment. Luke wants to make a comment about the topic ofthis census under discussion. Even with the whole NP fronted before the verb,there are two options concerning the order of words within the NP.My thesis from a fairly thorough study of the demonstrative in NT Greek inrelation to constituent order in an NP is that hAUTH hH APOGRAFH indicates acontrast between this census and some other census mentioned or implied in thecontext. On the other hand, hH APOGRAFH hAUTH would be a back reference to analready known census without any particular contrast intended.This thesis can be tested with other similar occurrences of the demonstrativeoccurring in NPs and if the thesis is wrong I am open to be corrected.If this reasoning is correct so far, then a contrast is intended between thiscensus and some other census, not mentioned in the text. Rather it is impliedand therefore it would have to be part of the background knowledge of Theophilusand Luke’s contemporaries.The next two words are PRWTH EGENETO. If the intended meaning was that thiscensus was the first under Quirinius, I would have expected something like hHPRWTH HN. Normally, PRWTOS refers to the first or foremost in a series of two ormore comparable concepts. In the context of Luke 2:2 there is no other censusmentioned, but a temporal phrase pointing to the governorship of Quiriniusfollows. In the context of Luke-Acts as a whole and the whole NT, we only hearof one other census, the one which Luke refers to as “the census” in Acts 5:37.The wording in Acts suggests that this census was very well known at the timewhen Luke is writing even though it happened many years earlier. It furthersuggests that the other census mentioned in Luke 2:2 was not well known.Going back to sentence constituents the word PRWTH is fronted before the verbmaking it somewhat important for Luke to tell us that this census was PRWTH someother census. The confusing thing for us is that the other census is onlyreferred to indirectly by “when Quirinius was governor” instead of the moreelaborate “the census that happened when Quirinius was governor”. My guess isthat Quirinius was simply known at the time as the man who oversaw the famouscensus. He may not have been remembered for anything else so many years later.The Quirinius census had serious implications for the Jewish nation.Let me leave Luke 2:2 here and just look at two other references I noticed in afootnote to Wallace’s article, because they are of interest relative to theposition of the demonstrative and the feature definiteness.My thesis is that if an NP consists of just a head noun and a demonstrative, thedefinite article has to be present.There are a few cases of more complex NPs which involve a head noun, ademonstrative and what I call a strong quantifier (non-standard term.)Acts 24:21 PERI MIAS TAUTHS FWNHS about this ONE statementHere the word ONE is fronted within the NP indicating that although Paul isclaiming to be innocent, he is allowing the possibility of the accusers to focuson ONE sentence, which did cause quite an uproar. I suspect that the presence ofthe word ONE is the reason that the article is not needed. The word ONE isrelatively more prominent than THIS. I think there is still some prominence toTAUTHS, since it could have come last as in PERI MIAS FWNHS TAUTHS. Or indifferent words, “this” is relatively more prominent that “statement” but lessprominent than “one”. Such degrees of prominence cannot be shown in English,apart from using stress in spoken language.Acts 1:5 OU META POLLAS TAUTAS hHMERAS after these not many days.The most prominent part of the NP is POLLAS. Again, the demonstrative is not inthe most prominent position within the NP. Jesus has probably been talking aboutthese days of waiting before, since he says that he has repeatedly talked to hisdisciples about the promised Holy Spirit. The focus in this context is that itwill happen very soon. The word “these” does not seem to carry a contrastivesense, rather a reference to known information. In English it is difficult tomaintain the word. A free translation which may capture the intention of itcould be: “within these few days that you have heard me talk about earlier”.(From OT background, the Holy Spirit had to come on the festival ofWeeks/Pentecost. The giving of the Torah to Moses could only be matched by thegiving of the Holy Spirit to the believers. I am sure this is part of what Jesuswas teaching the disciples during the 40 days after the resurrection, but ifcourse I cannot prove that.)Luke 24:21 ALLA GE KAI SUN PASIN TOUTOIS TRITHN TAUTHN hHMERAN AGEI AF’ hOUTAUTA EGENETO”but even on top of all these (things/matters) this (day) (= today) is (the)third day since these (things) happened”Here it seems that we have an NP: TRITHN hHMERAN = third day and a substantiveuse of the demonstrative TAUTHN with “day” implied. (The use of AGW is a bitdifficult, possibly: “time” has brought this (day) to be the third day).None of these constitute examples that would cause me to abandon the thesis thatan NP consisting of a head noun plus the demonstrative requires the article inGreek as long as we allow the occurrence of strong quantifiers like “one” and”many” within the NP to make the presence of the article unnecessary.All for now,Iver Larsen

 

The text of Luke 2:2 and word orderHebrews 1:2

The text of Luke 2:2 and word order Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jun 28 19:54:48 EDT 2001

 

Does “If A then B mean if not B then not A” ? Does “If A then B mean if not B then not A” ? At 7:33 PM +0200 6/28/01, Iver Larsen wrote:>Allow me to make a few more comments. I am looking at the text not so much>from>a historical or theological perspective as from a linguistic study of the>Greek>language using some principles from modern discourse linguistics.Iver, I don’t really quarrel with most of the points that you are reallyconcerned with in your message, but I still find it difficult to understandhow you appear to be understanding the relationship between PRWTH EGENETOand the genitive absolute hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIAS KURHNIOU. I’m going todelete the other parts and respond only with regard to this matter.>Carl wrote:>> I don’t think we are going to resolve the problems of this verse to>> everyone’s satisfaction or even eliminate all the problems; it may be that>> we simply don’t have it in the formulation in which it was originally>> composed. Nevertheless when I say that I understand it to mean “This census>> first took place when Quirinius governed Syria” I mean that I think the>> hAUTH enters into play: Luke describes this census as a universal census of>> the Roman empire (I’m a little bit skeptical about that too, but again,>> it’s beside the point); I’m understanding Luke to say that a universal>> census of the Roman empire first took place during the governorship of>> Quirinius in Syria–i.e. the year we refer to as 6 A.D. That’s my view of>> this troublesome verse, and beyond that I really don’t want to speculate.> >We may not resolve the issue, but it is still of interest to me to see>whether a>discourse analysis offers any help. I looked up Wallace’s discussion but>was not>satisfied, partly because he works from what I believe now is the wrong text.> >First, of course, we should try to establish the original text and I think>it is>beyond reasonable doubt that the original text included the definite article.>Carl accepted this, but to go into details about it would probably move us>into>the TC-list domain.> >So, the text we are looking at is:> >hAUTH hH APOGRAFH PRWTH EGENETO hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIAS KURHNIOU> >This sentence consists of an NP functioning as subject, an adjective>functioning>either as a predicate to the subject or as an adverb relative to the verb. The>final genitive participial clause/phrase is temporal.> >I believe we need to distinguish carefully between the discourse function of>fronted phrases within the sentence structure and the discourse function of>fronted words within a phrase structure.> >The fronting of the NP subject within the whole sentence is related to the>concept of topic and comment. Luke wants to make a comment about the topic of>this census under discussion. Even with the whole NP fronted before the verb,>there are two options concerning the order of words within the NP.> >My thesis from a fairly thorough study of the demonstrative in NT Greek in>relation to constituent order in an NP is that hAUTH hH APOGRAFH indicates a>contrast between this census and some other census mentioned or implied in the>context. On the other hand, hH APOGRAFH hAUTH would be a back reference to an>already known census without any particular contrast intended.So far so good: hAUTH hH APOGRAFH “indicates a contrast between this censusand some other census mentioned or implied in the context.” Yes, “thiscensus” was held at least two times, perhaps several. I would go furtherand understand hAUTH hH APOGRAFH to mean “this UNIVERSAL census” indicatedin 2:1 EGENETO DE EN TAIS hHMERAIS EKEINAIS EXHLQEN DOGMA PARA KAISAROSAUGOUSTOU APOGRAFESQAI PASAN THN OIKOUMENHN.>If this reasoning is correct so far, then a contrast is intended between this>census and some other census, not mentioned in the text. Rather it is implied>and therefore it would have to be part of the background knowledge of>Theophilus and Luke’s contemporaries.Agreed; there must be such an assumption: another or other censusesconceivably before this one or (as seems more likely to me, at least) AFTERthis one now being referred to.>The next two words are PRWTH EGENETO. If the intended meaning was that this>census was the first under Quirinius, I would have expected something like hH>PRWTH HN. Normally, PRWTOS refers to the first or foremost in a series of>two >or>more comparable concepts. In the context of Luke 2:2 there is no other census>mentioned, but a temporal phrase pointing to the governorship of Quirinius>follows. In the context of Luke-Acts as a whole and the whole NT, we only hear>of one other census, the one which Luke refers to as “the census” in Acts>5:37.>The wording in Acts suggests that this census was very well known at the time>when Luke is writing even though it happened many years earlier. It further>suggests that the other census mentioned in Luke 2:2 was not well known.I don’t see the cogency of this argument. We do know that a census was heldin 6 A.D. at the death of Archelaus when the Romans decided to install aprocurator in Judea rather than appoint another son of Herod as tetrarch ofthat area, the function of the census presumably to be to assist theprocurator in the collection of taxes from Judea–because that’s theprocurator’s chief function: to assure that such order in the area isupheld to allow the orderly collection of taxes. In Act 5:37 Rabbi Gamalielmentions this census primarily because it sparked a rebellion by Judas theGalilean that was put down by the Romans with considerable bloodshed. But Idon’t see any reason why the census referred to in Acts 5:37 can’t be thesame one referred to in Luke 2:2; what makes it the more probable in myjudgment is precisely that genitive absolute regularly used by Luke toindicate adverbially WHEN an event took place. In this instance what tookplace is “this census” and it “took place first”–when Quirinius wasgoverning Syria.>Going back to sentence constituents the word PRWTH is fronted before the verb>making it somewhat important for Luke to tell us that this census was>PRWTH some>other census. The confusing thing for us is that the other census is only>referred to indirectly by “when Quirinius was governor” instead of the more>elaborate “the census that happened when Quirinius was governor”. My guess is>that Quirinius was simply known at the time as the man who oversaw the famous>census. He may not have been remembered for anything else so many years later.>The Quirinius census had serious implications for the Jewish nation.This argument is consistent with your original post of 6/26 where youalready indicate that you want to understand hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIASKURHNIOU as somehow a genitive of comparison construing with PRWTH ratherthan as Luke’s standard genitive absolute to indicate WHEN an eventoccurred.At 10:21 AM +0200 6/26/01, Iver Larsen wrote:>The word PRWTH with a following genitive can according to BAGD point 1 a under>PRWTOS be used with a “genitive of comparison” as in PRWTOS MOU HN “he was>earlier than I=before me” John 1:15,30. Although BAGD does not list Luke 2:2>under this possibility, it seems to me that this is certainly a viable option>for Luke 2:2. The following rendering is a literal translation with some>implied>information in parentheses. It also helps me to understand why the text has>EGENETO “it happened” rather than just HN “it was”.> >THIS census (that I just talked about and which is not well known) happened>before/prior to when Kurenios was governing Syria (he who is famous for>overseeing the other census in 6 AD that everybody knows about because it>caused a great rebellion).To my mind the attempt to make hHGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIAS KURHNIOU into acomparative phrase somehow dependent upon PRWTH, so that the meaningbecomes “took place before [the one which took place} when Quirinius wasgoverning Syria,” requires distortion of a construction which is reallyvery simple. Far simpler, it seems to me, is to understand the text (withhH sandwiched between hAUTH and APOGRAFH) as “This census was first heldwhen Quirinius was governing Syria.” I take it that “this census” means auniversal census–and that if it was first held during the governorship ofQuirinius over Syria, it was held on one or more later occasions as well.That seems to me to be a far simpler way of understanding the Greek text asit you and I both agree to reconstruct it. Of course, it doesn’t resolvethe anachronism with Luke 1:5, but that’s not our concern here; our concernhere is with this text and what it means and how it means what it means.– 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/

 

Does “If A then B mean if not B then not A” ?Does “If A then B mean if not B then not A” ?
Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Grant grant at cajun.net
Wed Dec 29 23:23:09 EST 1999

 

Luke 2:2 OFF-TOPIC: AULOS , I have noticed for many years that some bible translators render Hades,Tartarus, and Gehenna all by the one word “hell.” Despite theological meanings that we each may assign, doesn’t it seemlogical that a difference should be illustrated? Is it a scholarlyopinion(preference) or rather incorrect to assign one word to 3 Greek words?Toward Truth Always,Grant PolleUSA

 

Luke 2:2OFF-TOPIC: AULOS

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Thu Dec 30 10:36:42 EST 1999

 

Semiotics and Word Studies Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? To: Grant Polle, Dr. Theodore “Ted” H. Mann, et al.GP: << I have noticed for many years that some bible translators render Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna all by the one word “hell.” Despite theological meanings that we each may assign, doesn’t it seem logical that a difference should be illustrated? >>THM: << If distinctions of meaning exist between terms in Greek, those distinctions should be reflected in English (or any other receptor language). >>How does one determine (for example) if the author of 2 Peter was using the Greek verb TARTAROW (which is only used once at 2 Peter 2:4) with a meaning significantly different from similar terms?And why should a translation’s decision on this issue be a litmus test for determining whether or not a translation is a “loyal translation” (see subject header). Can’t people have differences of opinion without someone questioning their loyalty?My own personal preference is that hAiDHS should be translated as “Hades,” and GEENNA should be translated as “Gehenna.” Thus the English term “hell” would be dropped from my translation. I’m uncertain how TARTAROW should be translated. But I doubt there is one right way to translate these terms. This seems to me to be something of personal preference or taste.If I were creating a translation, I would probably add a footnote to “Gehenna” noting (something to the effect) that the Greek term GEENNA is a transliteration of the Aramaic ‘gehinnam’ which means ‘Valley of Hinnom,’ a shortened form of ‘gebenhinnam’ meaning ‘Valley of the Sons of Hinnom.’ It is located S-SW of Jerusalem and is today known as Wadi er-Rabebeh. It first became a place of infamy (according to Hebrew scripture) when Ahaz and Manasseh, two kings of Judah, sacrificed their children there (2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6; 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6). It was later used as a refuse dump and so fires would continually burn in the Valley of Hinnom in order to burn the trash. By at least the 1st century BCE, Gehenna became a metaphor for a place of judgement by fire for the wicked.Perhaps a similar footnote should be made for the term “Hades.”-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

Semiotics and Word StudiesHades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Juan Stam jstam at una.ac.cr
Thu Dec 30 10:47:44 EST 1999

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Luke 2:2 It seems significant to me that niether “Hell” (German Hoelle) nor ourSpanish term “infierno” (Latin infernus) are very close equivalents of anybiblical term, and both have ( I think) strong pagan overtones. To my mind,this produces considerable confusion in our thinking about this subject.Biblical terms are:Sheol: shadowy abode of the departedHades (also from extra-biblical mythology) about the same as Sheol; not aplace of judgment or separationGehena: Valley of Hinnon where child sacrifice had been practiced; Jerusalemgarbage dumpAbyss: headquarters of demonic forces; no humans go there in biblicalaccountsLake of Fire and brimstone: image of a volcanoSecond death, alienation from God, life & light – more precise theologicaldescriptionMuch of our image of “Hell” (Span infierno) is heavily tainted by paganmythology, via medieval elaborations. I try to avoid using the terms “hell”or “infierno” and surprise people by using the more flexible, imaginativebiblical terms.Anyway, I hope I never end up there! or meet any of the other B-greekers!Juan Stam, San Jose, Costa Rica—– Original Message —–From: Grant <grant at cajun.net>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 10:23 PMSubject: Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?> ,> > I have noticed for many years that some bible translators renderHades,> Tartarus, and Gehenna all by the one word “hell.”> > Despite theological meanings that we each may assign, doesn’t it seem> logical that a difference should be illustrated? Is it a scholarly> opinion(preference) or rather incorrect to assign one word to 3 Greekwords?> > Toward Truth Always,> Grant Polle> > USA> > >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: jstam at una.ac.cr> To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?Luke 2:2

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Bill Burks rwburks at flash.net
Thu Dec 30 10:59:06 EST 1999

 

Luke 2:2 Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Steven,The word TARTAROW in 2 Peter as opposed to the other two words mentioned does havesome significance. Otherwise I suspect Peter would have used a different word. Thewords translated hell in the KJV and some other versions of the New Testament dohave significantly different meanings. Therefore they should be translateddifferently to show that difference in meaning intended by the author.What you are proposing for Hadis, and Gehenna is not really translating buttransliterating these words. This has been done with several words throughout theKJV and other versions. This tends to devalue the meaning of the original words.After all is not the purpose of a translation to take words, syntax, and gramaticalforms of the words, phrases, and sentences with respect to the author’s originalusage in one language and bring the original author’s meaning into the receptorlanguage.The use of TARTAROW in 2 Peter presents a different issue to the translator, becauseof its limited use in the text, the translator can not lean on other examples of itsusage in the New Testament when trying to determine its meaning. Sometimes a personcan look at other secular texts of the same period, or other periods and glean someof a words meaning from its use in these settings. Also as with the use of words inany language the context of the passage itself may shed much light on the author’smeaning in the usage of that word. Since I don’t have a greek text in front of me,nor even an English translation, I can not comment on the specific use of the wordTARTAROW in 2 Peter except from memory, so I won’t hazard misquoting the contexthere.Regards,Bill Burks (also just a student)Steven Craig Miller wrote:> To: Grant Polle, Dr. Theodore “Ted” H. Mann, et al.> > GP: << I have noticed for many years that some bible translators render> Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna all by the one word “hell.” Despite> theological meanings that we each may assign, doesn’t it seem logical that> a difference should be illustrated? >>> > THM: << If distinctions of meaning exist between terms in Greek, those> distinctions should be reflected in English (or any other receptor> language). >>> > How does one determine (for example) if the author of 2 Peter was using the> Greek verb TARTAROW (which is only used once at 2 Peter 2:4) with a meaning> significantly different from similar terms?> > And why should a translation’s decision on this issue be a litmus test for> determining whether or not a translation is a “loyal translation” (see> subject header). Can’t people have differences of opinion without someone> questioning their loyalty?> > My own personal preference is that hAiDHS should be translated as “Hades,”> and GEENNA should be translated as “Gehenna.” Thus the English term “hell”> would be dropped from my translation. I’m uncertain how TARTAROW should be> translated. But I doubt there is one right way to translate these terms.> This seems to me to be something of personal preference or taste.> > If I were creating a translation, I would probably add a footnote to> “Gehenna” noting (something to the effect) that the Greek term GEENNA is a> transliteration of the Aramaic ‘gehinnam’ which means ‘Valley of Hinnom,’ a> shortened form of ‘gebenhinnam’ meaning ‘Valley of the Sons of Hinnom.’ It> is located S-SW of Jerusalem and is today known as Wadi er-Rabebeh. It> first became a place of infamy (according to Hebrew scripture) when Ahaz> and Manasseh, two kings of Judah, sacrificed their children there (2 Kgs> 16:3; 21:6; 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6). It was later used as a refuse dump and so> fires would continually burn in the Valley of Hinnom in order to burn the> trash. By at least the 1st century BCE, Gehenna became a metaphor for a> place of judgement by fire for the wicked.> > Perhaps a similar footnote should be made for the term “Hades.”> > -Steven Craig Miller> Alton, Illinois (USA)> scmiller at www.plantnet.com> Disclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree),> what do I know?”> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: rwburks at flash.net> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu

 

Luke 2:2Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Jonathan Robie jwrobie at mindspring.com
Thu Dec 30 11:10:33 EST 1999

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? At 09:47 AM 12/30/99 -0600, Juan Stam wrote:> >Biblical terms are:> >Sheol: shadowy abode of the departed>Hades (also from extra-biblical mythology) about the same as Sheol; not a>place of judgment or separation>Gehena: Valley of Hinnon where child sacrifice had been practiced; Jerusalem>garbage dump>Abyss: headquarters of demonic forces; no humans go there in biblical>accounts>Lake of Fire and brimstone: image of a volcano>Second death, alienation from God, life & light – more precise theological>descriptionTrue…but it seems the choices of the translator are:1. Use an English word that mirrors each of the above words in meaning. These words do not exist.2. Transliterate the words. This is not really translation.3. Use the word “Hell”, but include a footnote to indicate the original word. This does bring it into English, but the footnote is essential to grasp the original meaning.4. Include some form of footnote that contains plenty of commentary. This can be used to supplement either 2 or 3. It is not really translation, but the imagery behind each of these words is rich, and goes beyond what we can convey with a single word.Jonathan

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Thu Dec 30 11:40:22 EST 1999

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? <Johnathon>True…but it seems the choices of the translator are:1. Use an English word that mirrors each of the above words in meaning.These words do not exist.2. Transliterate the words. This is not really translation.3. Use the word “Hell”, but include a footnote to indicate the originalword. This does bring it into English, but the footnote is essential tograsp the original meaning.4. Include some form of footnote that contains plenty of commentary. Thiscan be used to supplement either 2 or 3. It is not really translation, butthe imagery behind each of these words is rich, and goes beyond what we canconvey with a single word.<Bill>Hades, Sheol, Gehenna and Tarturus are all proper names and as such can betransliterated just like all of the other proper names. The footnotes, then,are not essential for consistency with the transliteration of proper names,but would be particularly welcome in this situation.At any rate, “translating” to the word “Hell” for all of those differentwords, with no footnote, is grossly irresponsible as far as I’m concerned.Bill Ross

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Thu Dec 30 12:00:08 EST 1999

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? To: Juan Stam,<< Much of our image of “Hell” (Span infierno) is heavily tainted by pagan mythology, via medieval elaborations. I try to avoid using the terms “hell” or “infierno” and surprise people by using the more flexible, imaginative biblical terms. >>I’ve reached the same conclusion but for a perhaps slightly different reason. IMO our images of “Hell” are generally heavily tainted by Christian mythology, via medieval elaborations. Because of that I prefer using the (pre-Christian) biblical terms.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Thu Dec 30 11:57:52 EST 1999

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? To: Bill Burks,<< The word TARTAROW in 2 Peter as opposed to the other two words mentioned does have some significance. Otherwise I suspect Peter would have used a different word. >>The logic of your point escapes me. For it is not uncommon for a person to use near synonyms merely for the fun (or diversity) of it, just as it is also uncommon for a person to use the same term in different ways.<< What you are proposing for Hades, and Gehenna is not really translating but transliterating these words. This has been done with several words throughout the KJV and other versions. This tends to devalue the meaning of the original words. After all is not the purpose of a translation to take words, syntax, and grammatical forms of the words, phrases, and sentences with respect to the author’s original usage in one language and bring the original author’s meaning into the receptor language. >>On the other hand, the Greek term GEENNA is itself a transliteration. One could argue that transliterating a transliteration is more faithful to the original text than using some other dissimilar English term.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Thu Dec 30 12:49:47 EST 1999

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? To: Solomon Landers,<< Sounds logical and reasonable enough, as you suggest, to just transliterate those words and footnote them. As for TARTAROW, why not something like “thrust them down into Tartarus,” as Kenneth Wuest translates it? (Again, with a footnote, probably citing the LXX of Job 40:15, where the substantive form EN TWi TARTARWi (“in the deep,” Brenton) is found. >>I have no substantial objection to such a method. I will note that Louw & Nida, in their lexicon, make the plea:<< In many cases it is confusing to add still another term for a designation of hell by transliterating the Greek TARTAROS, and so most translators have preferred to render TARTAROW as either ‘to cast into hell’ or ‘to keep in hell,’ thus using for ‘hell’ the same term as employed for a rendering the Greek term GEENNA >> (1.25).Of course, once one uses “Gehenna” for GEENNA, it would be inappropriate to translate TARTAROW with “to cast/keep in Gehenna.” Using the term “Tartarus” (with a footnote) is one option, but also using Benton’s solution (“the deep”) is another possibility.IMO it is a matter of personal taste, it is hard to argue that on this issue one translation is necessarily better than another. My own preference is that no matter what choice one makes, it should be footnoted.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? George Goolde goolde at mtnempire.net
Thu Dec 30 13:30:53 EST 1999

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Steven wrote to Bill,>The logic of your point escapes me. For it is not uncommon for a person to>use near synonyms merely for the fun (or diversity) of it, just as it is>also uncommon for a person to use the same term in different ways.The point, of course, is to determine if the use of two words is intended to be synonymous or if it intends to showcase the difference between the words. That is a matter of hermeneutics, which is not the subject of this list. It would appear clear to me, however, that the answer(s) to the discussion will be determined by one’s hermeneutics at this point. It is probable that different members of the list would have different approaches to this point of hermeneutics. What is clear to me is that this would affect our interpretation of and subsequently our translation of the Greek text.Regards,GeorgeGeorge A. GooldeProfessor, Bible and TheologySouthern California Bible College & SeminaryEl Cajon, Californiagoolde at mtnempire.net

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Bill Burks rwburks at flash.net
Thu Dec 30 13:09:16 EST 1999

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Bill Burks wrote:Bill R. I would agree that all of these speak of a particular person place or thing,making them proper nouns. However when we use the word Hades and transliterate itfor example, as I have just done, it may require some homework to understand what theoriginal writer meant when he used the word. What did the author mean? Why did heuse that word as opposed to Gehenna in that particular place?Perhaps the author was giving a different description of the same thing by the use oftwo different words, or he was describing two different things by using two differentproper nouns. Plus if I am a person who knows nothing of Biblical Greek the wordHades may have aquired different contitations in the secular world in the twothousand years since the text was written. The reader may read the word andmisinterpret its meaning based on a current secular definition of the word. Bytransliterating the term into another language I am not neccessarily carrying themeaning of the original word over into the text of the second language.I certainly would not use the same English word “hell” for all three of the Greekwords under discussion. In this we are in agreement. While it may be allowable totransliterate a proper name into the second language it may not convey thetheological contextual meaning of that word to the reader. I think it is differentto transliterate the name Abraham for example then it would be to transliterate Hadesor Gehenna etc. It may not be necessary to understand that the name Abraham means”father of many nations,” to understand the meaning of a particular text, but itmight be important to know the meaning of Gehenna when reading it in another passage.Regards,Bill BurksBill Ross wrote:> <Johnathon>> True…but it seems the choices of the translator are:> > 1. Use an English word that mirrors each of the above words in meaning.> These words do not exist.> 2. Transliterate the words. This is not really translation.> 3. Use the word “Hell”, but include a footnote to indicate the original> word. This does bring it into English, but the footnote is essential to> grasp the original meaning.> 4. Include some form of footnote that contains plenty of commentary. This> can be used to supplement either 2 or 3. It is not really translation, but> the imagery behind each of these words is rich, and goes beyond what we can> convey with a single word.> > <Bill>> Hades, Sheol, Gehenna and Tarturus are all proper names and as such can be> transliterated just like all of the other proper names. The footnotes, then,> are not essential for consistency with the transliteration of proper names,> but would be particularly welcome in this situation.> > At any rate, “translating” to the word “Hell” for all of those different> words, with no footnote, is grossly irresponsible as far as I’m concerned.> > Bill Ross> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: rwburks at flash.net> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Thu Dec 30 13:40:23 EST 1999

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Luke 2:2 <Burks>..I think it is different to transliterate the name Abraham for example thenit would be to transliterate Hades or Gehenna etc. It may not be necessaryto understand that the name Abraham means “father of many nations,” tounderstand the meaning of a particular text, but it might be important toknow the meaning of Gehenna when reading it in another passage.<Ross>It seems to be an arbitrary evaluation to say that “Hades” and “Gehenna” areilluminated by definition/clarification but not “Abraham.” They are on equalfooting: both pronouns, both with contextual information and many Biblicalusages. The “meaning” of the name would be helpful in either case:Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy nameshall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.But if the reader has a consistent transliteration, the meaning will becommunicated by the text itself (especially if they have a concordance).Bill Ross

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?Luke 2:2

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Thu Dec 30 14:59:20 EST 1999

 

Luke 2:2 Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Sounds logical and reasonable enough, as you suggest, to just transliterate thosewords and footnote them. As for TARTAROW, why not something like “thrust them downinto Tartarus,” as Kenneth Wuest translates it? (Again, with a footnote, probablyciting the LXX of Job 40:15, where the substantive form EN TWi TARTARWi (“in thedeep,” Brenton) is found.Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.orgSteven Craig Miller wrote:> To: Grant Polle, Dr. Theodore “Ted” H. Mann, et al.> > GP: << I have noticed for many years that some bible translators render> Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna all by the one word “hell.” Despite> theological meanings that we each may assign, doesn’t it seem logical that> a difference should be illustrated? >>> > THM: << If distinctions of meaning exist between terms in Greek, those> distinctions should be reflected in English (or any other receptor> language). >>> > How does one determine (for example) if the author of 2 Peter was using the> Greek verb TARTAROW (which is only used once at 2 Peter 2:4) with a meaning> significantly different from similar terms?> <snip>

 

Luke 2:2Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Bill Burks rwburks at flash.net
Thu Dec 30 15:04:03 EST 1999

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation? Exegesis of 1 Cor 15:2 Bill Burks wrote:I knew when I wrote this the Genesis 17:5 passage would come back to haunt me. Myconcern is based in the original intent of the writers address.The understanding of the text by the reader is also a concern. I happen to know somepeople who don’t own Strong’s. I also know some that don’t know how to useStrong’s. I also know that in some cases Strong’s isn’t as percise in it’sdefinition as other works. I have even found some who base their understanding of apassage on Webster’s definition of the word in it’s translated state.Perhaps one’s method of hermeneutics does play a part in all this as Prof. Goolde aspointed out in his email. Consistency in transliteration is as you have pointed outalso important. I might also say consistency in translation is also important. Imight point out that transliteration can also be a tool of hermeneutics if someonetransliterates a word instead of translating it because the meaning of a word doesnot fit into someones hermeneutic.If the issue is translation I perfer to try to the best of my limited skills to bringthe author’s original intended meaning into the receptor language.Thanks for your reply.Regards,Bill Burks (student)<Goolde wrote:>The point, of course, is to determine if the use of two words is intendedto be synonymous or if it intends to showcase the difference between thewords. That is a matter of hermeneutics, which is not the subject of thislist. It would appear clear to me, however, that the answer(s) to thediscussion will be determined by one’s hermeneutics at this point. It isprobable that different members of the list would have different approachesto this point of hermeneutics. What is clear to me is that this wouldaffect our interpretation of and subsequently our translation of the Greektext.IBill Ross wrote:> <Burks>> ..I think it is different to transliterate the name Abraham for example then> it would be to transliterate Hades or Gehenna etc. It may not be necessary> to understand that the name Abraham means “father of many nations,” to> understand the meaning of a particular text, but it might be important to> know the meaning of Gehenna when reading it in another passage.> > <Ross>> It seems to be an arbitrary evaluation to say that “Hades” and “Gehenna” are> illuminated by definition/clarification but not “Abraham.” They are on equal> footing: both pronouns, both with contextual information and many Biblical> usages. The “meaning” of the name would be helpful in either case:> > Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name> shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.> > But if the reader has a consistent transliteration, the meaning will be> communicated by the text itself (especially if they have a concordance).> > Bill Ross> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: rwburks at flash.net> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu

 

Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna all rendered “hell”–Loyal translation?Exegesis of 1 Cor 15:2
Mike Baber » May 9th, 2013, 5:09 am

αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας ΚυρηνίουIn Luke 2:2, can the feminine πρώτη be translated as “before,” as in, “the census occurred before…,” or is it most certainly translated correctly as “first,” modifying αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ? John Gill and (IIRC) F. F. Bruce suggest that it could be translated as “before,” so here I am wondering. One would think it would need to be neuter if it were to be understood as “before.” Is this correct?

Stephen Carlson » May 9th, 2013, 7:31 am

The meaning of this word has been discussed extensively on in the past. I invite you to consult the  archives on Luke 2:2 about it (click on link).

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

6 thoughts on “Luke 2:2

  1. Troy Day says:

    Ricky Grimsley As we covered in the other topic, we cant lean toward feelings when talking theology. This is a complete discussion on Greek words for eternal punishment in the NT. And here are some more examples

    1. Undying Worm and Unquenchable Fire (OT)

    Isaiah 66:22-24

    For as the new heavens and the new earth
    that I make
    shall remain before me, says the LORD,
    so shall your offspring and your name remain.
    From new moon to new moon,
    and from Sabbath to Sabbath,
    all flesh shall come to worship before me,
    declares the LORD.

    And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.

    2. Everlasting Life/Everlasting Contempt

    Daniel 12:1-2

    At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

    3. Eternal Fire/The Fire of Hell

    Matthew 18:6-9

    Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

    4. Eternal Punishment/Eternal Life

    Matthew 25:31-46

    When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” . . . Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. . . . And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

    5. Undying Worm and Unquenchable Fire (NT)

    Mark 9:42-48

    Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.”

    6. Everlasting Destruction

    2 Thessalonians 1:5-10

    This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering—since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

    7. The Punishment of Eternal Fire

    Jude 7

    Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

    8. Blackest Darkness Reserved Forever

    Jude 13

    [These people are] wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.

    9. The Smoke of Their Torment Rises for Ever and Ever

    Revelation 14:9-11

    If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.

    10. The Lake of Fire

    Revelation 20:10, 14-15

    And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. . . . Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

  2. Troy Day says:

    Ricky Grimsley As we covered in the other topic, we cant lean toward feelings when talking theology. This is a complete discussion on Greek words for eternal punishment in the NT. And here are some more examples

    1. Undying Worm and Unquenchable Fire (OT)

    Isaiah 66:22-24

    For as the new heavens and the new earth
    that I make
    shall remain before me, says the LORD,
    so shall your offspring and your name remain.
    From new moon to new moon,
    and from Sabbath to Sabbath,
    all flesh shall come to worship before me,
    declares the LORD.

    And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.

    2. Everlasting Life/Everlasting Contempt

    Daniel 12:1-2

    At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

    3. Eternal Fire/The Fire of Hell

    Matthew 18:6-9

    Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

    4. Eternal Punishment/Eternal Life

    Matthew 25:31-46

    When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” . . . Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. . . . And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

    5. Undying Worm and Unquenchable Fire (NT)

    Mark 9:42-48

    Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.”

    6. Everlasting Destruction

    2 Thessalonians 1:5-10

    This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering—since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

    7. The Punishment of Eternal Fire

    Jude 7

    Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

    8. Blackest Darkness Reserved Forever

    Jude 13

    [These people are] wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.

    9. The Smoke of Their Torment Rises for Ever and Ever

    Revelation 14:9-11

    If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.

    10. The Lake of Fire

    Revelation 20:10, 14-15

    And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. . . . Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Leave a Reply

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

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

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