Mark 8:35

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com
Mon Dec 20 20:36:43 EST 1999

Philippians 2:6 Philippians 2:6 Interpretations of 8.35:Paul Dixon (PD):> > << whoever desires to save his life (eternally) shall lose it> (temporally)> > and whoever loses his life temporally on account of me and the> > gospel, shall find it eternally. >>Steven Craig Miller (SCM):> > Furthermore, I would suggest that it is not the most natural> > interpretation. Robert H. Gundry [1993] writes: “Saving your present> > life results in losing your eternal life. Losing your present life for> > the sake of Jesus and the gospel results in saving your eternal life.”> And I> > think that Gundry hits on the most common interpretation.PD:> I did not know what Gundry had said, but it sure looks like we are saying> the same thing. I am shocked my written words could be interpreted> otherwise.The difference lies in v35a, that PD and Gundry reverse the roles (andorder) in which termporal and eternal life occur:PD: eternal-temporalGundry: present-eternalGundry is plausible, but not PD at this point: the apodosis represents aconsequence to the desire stated in the protasis, not a means to obtain thedesire. Further, Gundry’s statement makes the 2 parts of v35 complementaryparadoxes, not parallel.There is one more possibility for v35: that ‘anyone wanting to save theirtemporal life will lose (even) their temporal life, but anyone who losestheir temporal life for Jesus’ or the gospel’s sake will somehow save it’.It is only in v35b that the dichotomous implications of YUCH are necessaryto understand Jesus’ wording.Furthermore, the saving of ‘it’ (last reference) need not be relegatedwholly to the hereafter but can include ‘abundant’ present life, nor does’losing’ have to be taken literally, for literal martyrdom is not the onlyway to follow Christ. Hence I see this verse as having many existentialapplications to the everyday life of everyday believers, not limited to thehypothetical or peripheral. And I want to see these alternatives comethrough as perceptable in the translationSCM:> > What is a paradox, you asked? A paradox refers to a statement that s> > superficially contradictory and yet has a deeper (non-contradictory)> > meaning. On the surface what the Markan Jesus says is just nonsense.The use of the pronoun anaphora in each condition/consequence pairhighlights the paradox, pointing to some sort of identity between the 2lives/nuances referenced.PD:> Yes, and it probably was a ploy by Christ to get our attention so that we> might> wrestle with the true meaning.SCM:> > It is impossible to lose one’s life and yet “save it.” That is the> > paradox. One, of course, resolves the paradox by finding its deeper> meaning.> > But to resolve the paradox in one’s translation is to destroy the> paradox> > of the saying. And thus, IMO, it would be an improper translation.PD:> And that is why I initially questioned the translations where YUCH was> rendered> differently in those verses. If the Greek uses the same word, then why> shouldn’t> the English translations use the same word? Let the resolution be a> matter of interpretation.Only if English has a word that covers the various nuances. Does life coverthe possibilities in v36-37? I’m a bit skeptical, but not totally opposed.PD:> About do it?I suppose so :-)God Bless!Joe A. Friberg

Philippians 2:6Philippians 2:6

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Sat Dec 18 14:23:09 EST 1999

 

2John 7 Jeremiah 15:19 ———->From: dixonps at juno.com>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>>Subject: Mk 8:35-37, YUCH>Date: Sat, Dec 18, 1999, 12:04 PM> > Surely one would think that in the same immediate context the nuance of YUCH> would be the samePaul,Yes you might think that but I have come across numerous cases where thea word is used more than once in close proximity with a differentsemantic value. I cannot provide any examples off the top of my head,but I think that there are cases where this appears to be a rhetoricaldevice, a play on words.So it is probably unsafe and unwise to assume that multiple occurrencesof a word must have the same semantic value just because they appear inclose proximity.There is a related or we might say contrasting issue in the LXX,particularly in poetry where two *different* words are used in aparallel structure which appear to have the same or very similarsemantic values. Evaluating these (I am currently working in the Psalms)becomes very tricky, because the semantic overlap of the two words maybe high but clearly the words are never semantically identical. So oneneeds to weigh all kinds of difficult questions like the semanticpattern in the Hebrew vorlage, the quality of the translation, thehabits of the translator, as well as the obvious normal questions aboutlexical semantics. This is a difficult business.Clay–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

2John 7Jeremiah 15:19

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Sat Dec 18 15:04:41 EST 1999

 

Jeremiah 15:19 Mk 8:35-37, YUCH I find it interesting that all the translations of YUCH (not pronounced,yuck, to be sure)in Mk 8:35, 36 and 37 render it as: life, life, soul, and soulrespectively.Surely one would think that in the same immediate context the nuance ofYUCH wouldbe the same, but rendering it as life in v. 35, then as soul in verses 36and 37 seemsto suggest otherwise.The only explanation I can see for this is simply that the translatorsmight be thinkingthat rendering YUCH in verse 35 as soul might be suggesting a workssalvation.But, if this is the case, the problem does not seem much alleviated,since they wouldhave Paul still saying in verses 36 and 37 that a man will not save hissoul, if hedoes not lose his life.Would it be nonsensical to say in verse 35, whoever desires to save hissoul will lose it?Hmm.Perhaps life is the nuance of the first occurrences of YUCH because ofthe parallel withTI GAR WFELEI ANQRWPON KERDHSAI TON KOSMON hOLON of v. 36.Thoughts?Paul Dixon

 

Jeremiah 15:19Mk 8:35-37, YUCH

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Sat Dec 18 16:41:39 EST 1999

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH KJV / AV ———->From: dixonps at juno.com> I find it interesting that all the translations of YUCH (not pronounced,> yuck, to be sure) in Mk 8:35, 36 and 37 render it as: life, life, soul, and> soul respectively.> Surely one would think that in the same immediate context the nuance of YUCH> would be the same, but rendering it as life in v. 35, then as soul in verses> 36 and 37 seems to suggest otherwise.> The only explanation I can see for this is simply that the translators might> be thinking that rendering YUCH in verse 35 as soul might be suggesting a> works salvation. But, if this is the case, the problem does not seem much> alleviated, since they would have Paul still saying in verses 36 and 37 that a> man will not save his soul, if he does not lose his life.> Would it be nonsensical to say in verse 35, whoever desires to save his soul> will lose it? Hmm.> Perhaps life is the nuance of the first occurrences of YUCH because of the> parallel with TI GAR WFELEI ANQRWPON KERDHSAI TON KOSMON hOLON of v. 36.Paul,Related to your question a particularly curious set of texts are Matt.10:28 and Matt. 10:39.A similar but distinct sort of problem crops up with PNEUMA. Take a lookat John 3:6-8Clay–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCHKJV / AV

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Sat Dec 18 19:30:49 EST 1999

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Mk 8:35-37, YUCH On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 13:41:39 -0800 “clayton stirling bartholomew”<c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net> writes:> > Paul,> > Related to your question a particularly curious set of texts are > Matt. 10:28 and Matt. 10:39.> > A similar but distinct sort of problem crops up with PNEUMA. Take a > look at John 3:6-8That the same word can mean and often does mean different things in thesame immediate context is an interesting thought. The first passagecited,however, is really the same as the Mk 8 passage, isn’t it? The John 3passage,however, is a good example. As you say, the author may use such a devicemerely as a play on words. Those given to puns might find thisespeciallymeaningful.Yet, aren’t such occurrences normally fairly obvious? Is this the casein Mk 8?Paul Dixon

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCHMk 8:35-37, YUCH

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Sat Dec 18 18:59:32 EST 1999

 

KJV / AV Mk 8:35-37, YUCH To: Paul Dixon,<< I find it interesting that all the translations of YUCH (not pronounced, yuck, to be sure) in Mk 8:35, 36 and 37 render it as: life, life, soul, and soul respectively. Surely one would think that in the same immediate context the nuance of YUCH would be the same, but rendering it as life in v. 35, then as soul in verses 36 and 37 seems to suggest otherwise. >>Mainstream scholars would not necessarily assume that these sayings were originally made at one time. It is possible that Mark (or one of his sources) collected these saying together merely because they shared the same term YUCH (sort of based on word association).On the other hand, the RV, RSV & NRSV translates every YUCH at Mark 8:35-37 as “life.” The KJV & NKJV have “life” at verse 35 and “soul” as verses 36-37.There are also synoptic parallels at Mt 16:25-26 & Lk 9:24-25 (Luke appears to have omitted a parallel to Mk 8:37). See also Mt 10:39; Lk 17:33; and Jn 12:25. In none of these passages does the NRSV use the term “soul.”-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?”

 

KJV / AVMk 8:35-37, YUCH

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com
Sat Dec 18 22:31:01 EST 1999

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Clause linkage (was RE: Philippians 4:3-4 hWN TA ONOMATA …) Paul Dixon wrote:> Surely one would think that in the same immediate context the nuance of> YUCH would> be the same, but rendering it as life in v. 35, then as soul in verses 36> and 37 seems> to suggest otherwise.In v35, YUCH is something that can be both lost and saved at the same time;hence there are two levels or types of YUCH referenced in this verse:- a lower and higher life, or- temporal vs. eternal life, or- present life only vs. life continuing to afterlife.This alternation is in itself a play on words. We do not use the term’soul’ in such a bifurcated manner, but as an indivisible organic whole,possessing continuity. Hence none of the translations cited have used’soul’ in this verse.In v36-37, YUXH is limited to the second category found in v35: thehigher/eternal life. When viewed in continuity with the current life, thisis closer to our wholistic conception of ‘soul’, which is why a number oftranslations choose to switch to this term at this point.Note that the contrast is not between vv36-37 and v35, but is found withinv35 itself, while v36-37 merely settle on one of the senses found in v35.God Bless!Joe A. Friberg

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCHClause linkage (was RE: Philippians 4:3-4 hWN TA ONOMATA …)

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Dec 19 08:10:17 EST 1999

 

Clause linkage (was RE: Philippians 4:3-4 hWN TA ONOMATA …) Rev. 21:22 At 9:31 PM -0600 12/18/99, Joe A. Friberg wrote:>Paul Dixon wrote:>> Surely one would think that in the same immediate context the nuance of>> YUCH would>> be the same, but rendering it as life in v. 35, then as soul in verses 36>> and 37 seems>> to suggest otherwise.> >In v35, YUCH is something that can be both lost and saved at the same time;>hence there are two levels or types of YUCH referenced in this verse:>– a lower and higher life, or>– temporal vs. eternal life, or>– present life only vs. life continuing to afterlife.>This alternation is in itself a play on words. We do not use the term>‘soul’ in such a bifurcated manner, but as an indivisible organic whole,>possessing continuity. Hence none of the translations cited have used>‘soul’ in this verse.> >In v36-37, YUXH is limited to the second category found in v35: the>higher/eternal life. When viewed in continuity with the current life, this>is closer to our wholistic conception of ‘soul’, which is why a number of>translations choose to switch to this term at this point.> >Note that the contrast is not between vv36-37 and v35, but is found within>v35 itself, while v36-37 merely settle on one of the senses found in v35.I think Joe’s comment is right on target here. Since I started a responseto this yesterday afternoon but didn’t finish and send it, I’d like topiggy-back onto Joe’s note a comment or two complementing his.(1) Even in earlier (Homeric, pre-Socratic, Attic) and Hellenistic Greek,YUCH is a word with a meaning hard to pin down and perilous to convey intoEnglish consistently with any single word not suited to the context whereYUCH is found. The earliest literary usage is in the opening of the Iliad,where the wrath of Achilles, it is said,POLLAS D’IFQIMOUS YUCAS AIDI PROIAYENhHRWWN, AUTOUS DE hELWRIA TEUCE KUNESSIN ..(“… hurled forth to Hades many stout YUCAS of heroes,but made themselves (the heroes) booty for dogs …”Even there “soul” is very misleading for YUCAS if we are thinking of anything like “soul” in English traditional usage, which itself is anythingbut monovalent, inasmuch as it can mean “deathless spirit,” “person,””personality,” “core quality,” etc., etc. Erwin Rohde wrote anow-long-outdated but nevertheless important (and still in-print, I think)classic study of the wide-ranging different Greek conceptions of itentitled–what else?–_PSYCHE_ in the middle of the last century.(2) When we start adding Hebraic conceptions/usages of YUCH in the LXX andGNT, it gets more complicated: it is used for Heb. NEFESH in Gen. 2:7, thatcompound of molded earth-clods and God-breathed spirit that came alive asHA ADAM, but that, apparently, was not originally thought able to continueto exist when the earth-clods and God-breathed spirit were reft asunder.Paul seems to use YUCH for “natural existence” and the adjective YUCIKOSfor “natural” in the sense of what exists in the world of nature. Forexample, when talking about the nature of resurrection in 1 Cor 15 he sayswe must distinguish between a SWMA YUCIKON and a SWMA PNEUMATIKON; theformer is the physical body or better, the “natural body” that we “are” ascreatures in this world-age, while the later is the “spiritual body” thatwe “are to be” in the age-to-come. I am assuming too that he would say thatJesus “in the flesh” was/had a SWMA YUCIKON but that in the resurrection heis/has a SWMA PNEUMATIKON.(3) Quite frankly, this is an immense topic; Paul’s question about theshifting English words used for YUCH in Mk 8:35-37 was honest and naive atthe same time: all of us sooner or later, I think, find that we must cometo terms with the ambivalence, not only of the English word “soul,” buteven more of the word YUCH in the Greek Bible: if ever there was a Greekword that does not lend itself to word-for-word consistent conversion fromGreek to English, this is it. I won’t cite it–it’s too long and IS undercopyright–but I would urge anyone really interested in the range ofmeanings of YUCH in the GNT to consult Louw & Nida, ## 4.1; 9.20; 20.66;21.7, 20,24, 88; 23.100, 113, 114; 25.279, 280, 291; 26.4; 30.36; 88.200.And if you’re going to consult these sections, it ain’t cursory reading,but something one will have to pause and mull over.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/

 

Clause linkage (was RE: Philippians 4:3-4 hWN TA ONOMATA …)Rev. 21:22

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Sun Dec 19 17:18:27 EST 1999

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Lk2:15 variant On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 07:10:17 -0600 “Carl W. Conrad”<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:<snip>> I think Joe’s comment is right on target here. Since I started aresponse> to this yesterday afternoon but didn’t finish and send it, I’d like > to piggy-back onto Joe’s note a comment or two complementing his.Yes, he had responded to me in private. I commended him on it, but didnot sendit back to the list, since he has sent it privately, but was glad to seehe realizedhis oversight and sent it on to the list. I thought he explained wellthe reason forthe different translations of YUCH in verses 35-37 by the KJV, NASB andNIV,amongst others. That explanation, of course, is elaborated upon by youbelow.I was wondering when Carl would sound forth. Usually your delay is dueeitherto ponsiveness or time constraints, I have found. It is always greatlyappreciated.Since relocating in Iowa 7 weeks ago from the incredibly gorgeous Oregonterritory,my time constraints have been very real, as well. > (1) Even in earlier (Homeric, pre-Socratic, Attic) and HellenisticGreek,> YUCH is a word with a meaning hard to pin down and perilous to > convey into English consistently with any single word not suited to thecontext > where YUCH is found. The earliest literary usage is in the opening ofthe > Iliad, where the wrath of Achilles, it is said,> > POLLAS D’IFQIMOUS YUCAS AIDI PROIAYEN> hHRWWN, AUTOUS DE hELWRIA TEUCE KUNESSIN ..> (“… hurled forth to Hades many stout YUCAS of heroes,> but made themselves (the heroes) booty for dogs …”> > Even there “soul” is very misleading for YUCAS if we are thinking ofany> thing like “soul” in English traditional usage, which itself isanything> but monovalent, inasmuch as it can mean “deathless spirit,” “person,”> “personality,” “core quality,” etc., <snip>> > (2) When we start adding Hebraic conceptions/usages of YUCH in the > LXX and NT, it gets more complicated: it is used for Heb. NEFESH inGen. > 2:7, that<snip>> (3) Quite frankly, this is an immense topic; Paul’s question about the> shifting English words used for YUCH in Mk 8:35-37 was honest and > naive at the same time: all of us sooner or later, I think, find thatwe must > come to terms with the ambivalence, not only of the English word“soul,” > but even more of the word YUCH in the Greek Bible: if ever there was a > Greek word that does not lend itself to word-for-word consistent > conversion from Greek to English, this is it. <snip>Yes, very good. Thanks. I have been so alerted and advised.This helps explain the fluidity (evasiness?) of YUCH in Mk 8:35-37.But, let’s look at just verse 35, since that is the real verse inquestionhere, as Joe points out. He argues the tension is between the twokinds of YUCH, the lower and the higher, the physical and the spiritual.That would seem to be the case. The alternative, to find one’s life onemust lose it or to find one’s soul one must lose it, seems inherentlycontradictory.It would seem better to understand it to mean that the one who desiresto save his YUCH at the higher or spiritual level must lose it or bewillingto lose it (AUTHN) at the lower or physical level. This interpretation does not preclude the teaching of salvation by grace alone, since the latter may imply the former.Paul Dixon

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCHLk2:15 variant

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Dec 19 17:11:27 EST 1999

 

Who is welcome on ? Mk 8:35-37, YUCH At 2:18 PM -0800 12/19/99, dixonps at juno.com wrote (inter alia):> >This helps explain the fluidity (evasiness?) of YUCH in Mk 8:35-37.>But, let’s look at just verse 35, since that is the real verse in>question>here, as Joe points out. He argues the tension is between the two>kinds of YUCH, the lower and the higher, the physical and the spiritual.>That would seem to be the case. The alternative, to find one’s life one>must lose it or to find one’s soul one must lose it, seems inherently>contradictory.> >It would seem better to understand it to mean that the one who desires>to save his YUCH at the higher or spiritual level must lose it or be>willing>to lose it (AUTHN) at the lower or physical level.The one thing I’d be wary of here is precisely what is indicated bytranslators’ hesitation at using the same English word for YUCH in bothinstances: I don’t think that one ought to attempt on the basis of this totry to extrapolate an anthropological doctrine of two souls, higher andlower levels, consistently used in the Synoptic gospels. The fluidity ofthe usage of YUCH in the GNT, it seems to me, pretty much precludes that;I’d refer again to the lengthy and complex entries on YUCH in Louw and Nida.>This interpretation does not preclude the teaching of salvation by grace>alone, since the latter may imply the former.I think we should be clarifying the Greek here and leave it to individualreaders to draw their own theological conclusions. This forum does notpromote nor attack teachings/doctrines. Deliberate avoidance of doing so iswhat makes it possible to keep the list open to people who disagree witheach other theologically.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/

 

Who is welcome on ?Mk 8:35-37, YUCH

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Sun Dec 19 20:20:59 EST 1999

 

Lk2:15 variant Lk2:15 variant On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 16:11:27 -0600 “Carl W. Conrad”<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:> At 2:18 PM -0800 12/19/99, dixonps at juno.com wrote (inter alia):> >It would seem better to understand it to mean that the one who desires> >to save his YUCH at the higher or spiritual level must lose it or be> >willing to lose it (AUTHN) at the lower or physical level.> > The one thing I’d be wary of here is precisely what is indicated by> translators’ hesitation at using the same English word for YUCH in both> instances: I don’t think that one ought to attempt on the basis of > this to try to extrapolate an anthropological doctrine of two souls,higher > and lower levels, consistently used in the Synoptic gospels. The > fluidity of the usage of YUCH in the GNT, it seems to me, pretty muchprecludes > that; I’d refer again to the lengthy and complex entries on YUCH inLouw > and Nida.How, then, do you interpret these verses, or is this out of bounds on thelist?Paul Dixon

 

Lk2:15 variantLk2:15 variant

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com
Mon Dec 20 01:58:40 EST 1999

 

double positive? TA PANTA in Paul —– Original Message —–From: <dixonps at juno.com>> > On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 16:11:27 -0600 “Carl W. Conrad”> <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:> > At 2:18 PM -0800 12/19/99, dixonps at juno.com wrote (inter alia):> > > >It would seem better to understand it to mean that the one who desires> > >to save his YUCH at the higher or spiritual level must lose it or be> > >willing to lose it (AUTHN) at the lower or physical level.> >> > The one thing I’d be wary of here is precisely what is indicated by> > translators’ hesitation at using the same English word for YUCH in both> > instances: I don’t think that one ought to attempt on the basis of> > this to try to extrapolate an anthropological doctrine of two souls,> higher> > and lower levels, consistently used in the Synoptic gospels. The> > fluidity of the usage of YUCH in the GNT, it seems to me, pretty much> precludes> > that; I’d refer again to the lengthy and complex entries on YUCH in> Louw> > and Nida.> > How, then, do you interpret these verses, or is this out of bounds on the> list?> > Paul Dixon1. This question could easily go outside the list bounds. That is one ofthe reasons that in my initial post I gave several pairs of suggestivealternatives for the two nuances of YUCH found in 8.35 🙂 :>– a lower and higher life, or>– temporal vs. eternal life, or>– present life only vs. life continuing to afterlife.Choosing a specific alternative is likely going to depend on the theologyand anthropology of choice perceived to be relevant to this context(Biblical Greek, NT, Gospel, Synoptic, Mark, sayings of Jesus).The specific content of this verse and the immediately surrounding contextsomewhat narrow the possible meanings for YUCH in this passage from therange of meanings for YUCH that Carl has referenced, but still leaves quitea bit of latitude.2. It might be possible to narrow the possible range for YUCH in thispassage somewhat by considering its usage in Mk, but I have done no legworkhere and cannot offer anything specific in this area, so I made mysuggestions in an inclusive fashion.3. More importantly, however, I do not think the nature of this passagelends itself to a clinically precise delineation of the limits of YUCH.Jesus’ words are not so much theological explication as they are arhetorical call for sacrificial living. 8.34 issues the call for disciplesto take up their individual crosses. 8.35 continues the image of dying ontheir own cross with the result that they will actually find their livessaved. The reversal of expectations motif is applied because from God’sperspective, there are more and more important things than what merely meetsthe eye. But as to specifics, I think the metaphors leave room for manyapplications, and I think this is the point of the passage; it is not meantto teach a particular view of life and afterlife, etc. Not that suchparticular views are not to be taught; just not from this passage. Severallevels of application would include:- for a missionary and son burned in their car in India, they lost theirlives for the sake of spreading the Gospel, and have entered into eternallife.- for martyrs in Sudan, they have refused to revile Christ, lost theirlives, and entered into eternal life with Christ.- for Christians who have undergone physical persecution in beatings, etc.,in China, they have suffered physically but experienced comfort from God andjoy in their spirit.- for those who have chosen to serve the Lord in underpaid ministrycapacities, they have exchanged worldy compensation for joy and contentment.- for the single mother who labors day and night to feed and clothe herfamily, to care for and love them, to raise them in the fear and admonitionof the Lord, she has exchanged self-seeking goals for other-seeking goals,but receives back joy and satisfaction both now, in the years to come, andin eternity.- for all disciples, this is a call to love not this life and the pleasuresit offers, but to love the Lord, his service, and other people more, withthe promise that sacrifice made now will bring benefits and joy in times tocome.- this is also parallel with Jesus who gave his life, won it back in hisresurrection (8.31), and gained our lives eternal as well!A relatively broad range of meaning of YUCH can encompass these and othersituations, and circumvents the the need for overly nailing down thespecific senses of YUCH. Hope this helps!God Bless, and Merry Christmas!Joe A. Friberg

 

double positive?TA PANTA in Paul

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Dec 20 05:37:04 EST 1999

 

TA PANTA in Paul Genitives outnumber Accusatives and Nominatives To: Joe A. Friberg,<< 1. This question could easily go outside the list bounds. That is one of the reasons that in my initial post I gave several pairs of suggestive alternatives for the two nuances of YUCH found in 8.35 🙂 : >- a lower and higher life, or >- temporal vs. eternal life, or >- present life only vs. life continuing to afterlife.Choosing a specific alternative is likely going to depend on the theology and anthropology of choice perceived to be relevant to this context (Biblical Greek, NT, Gospel, Synoptic, Mark, sayings of Jesus). >>The question was originally why in the KJV is YUCH translated as “life” in verse 35 and “soul” in verses 36-37. This seems to have evolved to the question of whether or not one could even translate the same term in verse 35 differently. IMO the sayings at Mk 8:35-37 are meant to be paradoxes. By over-translating these sayings one would destroy their paradoxicalness.Also, in passing I will note that Louw & Nida’s lexicon based on semantic domains does not list “soul” as a possible meaning for YUCH. Curious, isn’t it?And as I’ve already noted, the NRSV translates YUCH as “life” each time at Mk 8:35-37. This would allow the reader to try to puzzle out the various shades of meaning of this term. Anything more, IMO, would destroy the paradoxicalness of these sayings. After all, if the Markan Jesus wanted to be more specific, he could have added clarification (e.g. adjectives) to these sayings in order to clarify what he meant. Sometimes a paradox is best left as a paradox.-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?”

 

TA PANTA in PaulGenitives outnumber Accusatives and Nominatives

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Stevens, Charles C Charles.Stevens at unisys.com
Mon Dec 20 11:53:33 EST 1999

 

KJV / AV Rev. 21:22 On 18 December 1999 at 12:05PM, Paul S. Dixon wrote: <<I find it interesting that all the translations of YUCH (not pronounced,yuck, to be sure)in Mk 8:35, 36 and 37 render it as: life, life, soul, andsoulrespectively.>>Ummm… not quite all. The *unrevised* New American Bible (1970) renders YUCH as “life” twice inv.35, as “himself” in v.36 and as “life” again in v.37, and the footnotesemphasize the physical over the spiritual life in this passage. -Chuck Stevens

 

KJV / AVRev. 21:22

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Mon Dec 20 13:02:31 EST 1999

 

MARTUROUNTES, 1 Jo. 5:7 Mk 8:35-37, YUCH On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 04:37:04 -0600 Steven Craig Miller<scmiller at www.plantnet.com> writes:> To: Joe A. Friberg,> > << 1. This question could easily go outside the list bounds. That isone of > the reasons that in my initial post I gave several pairs of suggestive > alternatives for the two nuances of YUCH found in 8.35 🙂 :> >- a lower and higher life, or> >- temporal vs. eternal life, or> >- present life only vs. life continuing to afterlife.> Choosing a specific alternative is likely going to depend on thetheology > and anthropology of choice perceived to be relevant to this context > (Biblical Greek, NT, Gospel, Synoptic, Mark, sayings of Jesus). >>If I understand Carl correctly (in a private post), interpretations ofspecific passagesis not out of bounds on this list, but it is the theologizing that is outof bounds. Thisis a delicate line, to be sure. > The question was originally why in the KJV is YUCH translated as > “life” in verse 35 and “soul” in verses 36-37. This seems to haveevolved to > the question of whether or not one could even translate the same termin > verse 35 differently. IMO the sayings at Mk 8:35-37 are meant to be > paradoxes. By over-translating these sayings one would destroy their > paradoxicalness.> Also, in passing I will note that Louw & Nida’s lexicon based on > semantic > domains does not list “soul” as a possible meaning for YUCH. > Curious, isn’t it?> And as I’ve already noted, the NRSV translates YUCH as “life” each > time at Mk 8:35-37. This would allow the reader to try to puzzle outthe > various shades of meaning of this term. Anything more, IMO, woulddestroy > the paradoxicalness of these sayings. After all, if the Markan Jesus > wanted to be more specific, he could have added clarification (e.g. > adjectives) to these sayings in order to clarify what he meant.Sometimes a paradox > is best left as a paradox.Well, my twin sister and I are a paradox (we are both docs). But, thekind ofparadox you are talking about is certainly something else and needs to bedefined, if we really want to go that route.Assuming for the sake of argument that the passage was meant to be understood and can be understood, I suggest the following interpretationof verse 35:Whoever desires to save his soul eternally (explained by the use of YUCHinv. 36 where the forfeiture of an eternal spiritual gain is set inopposition to the acquisition of much temporal physical gain) shall deny himself(particularly ofthe love and pursuit of the temporal things of this physical life, v. 34& 36) and takeup his cross and follow Christ (v. 34). This is what is meant by losinghis YUCH (understood by AUTHN) in v. 35.Then from the last half of v. 35, he who so denies himself and takes uphis cross and follows Christ, shall find eternal life. If we retain the same translation of YUCH throughout, as per RSV, Carltonand others,we might add for clarification something like:whoever desires to save his life (eternally) shall lose it (temporally)and whoeverloses his life temporally on account of me and the gospel, shall find iteternally.I like that.Paul Dixon

 

MARTUROUNTES, 1 Jo. 5:7Mk 8:35-37, YUCH

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Dec 20 12:21:49 EST 1999

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? To: Paul Dixon,<< Well, my twin sister and I are a paradox (we are both docs). >>Years ago, during one of our adult Sunday school classes my pastor talked about “paradox.” After they class ended, one dear gentleman who was hard of hearing said: “Now what does this have to do with a pair of ducks?” <g><< whoever desires to save his life (eternally) shall lose it (temporally) and whoever loses his life temporally on account of me and the gospel, shall find it eternally. >>I assume you realize that that is not a translation but an interpretation. Furthermore, I would suggest that it is not the most natural interpretation. Robert H. Gundry [1993] writes: “Saving your present life results in losing your eternal life. Losing your present life for the sake of Jesus and the gospel results in saving your eternal life.” And I think that Gundry hits on the most common interpretation.But even assuming that Gundry is correct (and I have some reservations) I would suggest that it would be improper to translate Mark 8:35 as: << For whoever desires to save one’s (present) life shall lose one’s (eternal) life and whoever loses one’s (present) life on account of me and the gospel, will save one’s (eternal) life. >> In my opinion, this would be an improper translation because it spoils the paradoxicalness of the saying.What is a paradox, you asked? A paradox refers to a statement that is superficially contradictory and yet has a deeper (non-contradictory) meaning. On the surface what the Markan Jesus says is just nonsense. It is impossible to lose one’s life and yet “save it.” That is the paradox. One, of course, resolves the paradox by finding its deeper meaning. But to resolve the paradox in one’s translation is to destroy the paradox of the saying. And thus, IMO, it would be an improper translation.-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?”

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Mon Dec 20 16:58:08 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 11:21:49 -0600 Steven Craig Miller<scmiller at www.plantnet.com> writes:> << whoever desires to save his life (eternally) shall lose it(temporally) > and whoever loses his life temporally on account of me and the > gospel, shall find it eternally. >>> > I assume you realize that that is not a translation but an > interpretation. That is what I said it was. Please re-read the post.> Furthermore, I would suggest that it is not the most natural > interpretation. Robert H. Gundry [1993] writes: “Saving your present > life results in losing your eternal life. Losing your present life for > the sake of Jesus and the gospel results in saving your eternal life.”And I > think that Gundry hits on the most common interpretation.I did not know what Gundry had said, but it sure looks like we are sayingthe same thing. I am shocked my written words could be interpretedotherwise.Should we be any less amazed at the various interpretations of scripture?<snip>> What is a paradox, you asked? A paradox refers to a statement that s > superficially contradictory and yet has a deeper (non-contradictory) > meaning. On the surface what the Markan Jesus says is just nonsense. Yes, and it probably was a ploy by Christ to get our attention so that wemightwrestle with the true meaning.> It is impossible to lose one’s life and yet “save it.” That is the > paradox. One, of course, resolves the paradox by finding its deepermeaning. > But to resolve the paradox in one’s translation is to destroy theparadox > of the saying. And thus, IMO, it would be an improper translation.And that is why I initially questioned the translations where YUCH wasrendereddifferently in those verses. If the Greek uses the same word, then whyshouldn’tthe English translations use the same word? Let the resolution be amatter of interpretation.About do it?Paul Dixon

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]