1 Cor 15:24-28 weismann weismann at fibertel.com.ar
Tue Apr 9 08:16:00 EDT 2002
Lk 24:17-28 NT and LXX use of Kurios (“Lord”) Hello,I ‘ve read time ago an article of G. Pelland, “La théologie et l’exégèsede Marcel d’Ancyre sur I Cor 15:24-28”: Gregorianum 71/4, 1990, 679-695 (with English Abstract).It’s about how different philological interpretations ( in some patristicwriters, Hilarius, Tertullian and, of course, Marcel d’Ancyre)could offer adifferent insight of a doctrinal problem that is, therefore, essentiallylinked to the linguistical and philological understanding.I write to the List because perhaps some member are or were interested inthat text and perhaps we’ld speak about.This is my first mail to the List in plain text ASCII and I am very thankfulto Carl Conrad because he explained to me how to choose this format.Many thanks and a very scholarly week,FrancisF. J. Weismann weismann at fibertel.com.ar.
Lk 24:17-28NT and LXX use of Kurios (“Lord”)
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 moon at sogang.ac.kr moon at sogang.ac.kr
Sat Oct 21 07:24:37 EDT 2006
[] Raoul Miguel Hirschfeld has invited you to use Google Talk [] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 Let me ask a question about the relationsip betwee the two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15:24:(1) EITA TO TELOS, (2) hOTAN PARADIDWi THN BASILEIAN TWi QEWi KAI PATRI,(3) hOTAN KATARGHSHi PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMIN.The question is: (a) are the two hOTAN clauses parallel, both connected directly to TO TELOS? (b) or, is the second hOTAN clause (3) connected to the clause of the first hOTAN clause (2)? If (a) is right, we may translate the verse as: Then the end (will come), when he delivers the kingdom to the God and Father, that is, when he has nullified all dominion, all authority and power. If (b) is right, we have the following structure: (1) EITA [ TO TELOS, (2) hOTAN [ PARADIDWi THN BASILEIAN TWi QEWi KAI PATRI, (3) hOTAN KATARGHSHi PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMIN ] ]This option is taken by NIV, and its translation is as follows: Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.The problem with the decision of NIV is that this reading is somewhat akward.If Paul had intended this reading, wouldn’t he have written: EITA TO TELOS, hOTAN PARADIDWi THN BASILEIAN TWi QEWi KAI PATRI, KATARGHSAS PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMINThe participle clause KATARGHSAS carries less weight than does the full-blown hOTAN clause,and thus can be subordinated to the hOTAN clause. But in the present case, the twohOTAN clauses look quite parallel, so it tends to prevent the reader from regarding the second hOTANclause to be subordinate to the first hOTAN clause. (By the way, I failed to find similar examplesin the NT and the LXX.)Moon JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
[] Raoul Miguel Hirschfeld has invited you to use Google Talk[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Oct 21 07:43:07 EDT 2006
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 [] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 On Oct 21, 2006, at 7:24 AM, moon at sogang.ac.kr wrote:> Let me ask a question about the relationsip betwee the two hOTAN > clauses in> 1 Cor 15:24:> > (1) EITA TO TELOS,> (2) hOTAN PARADIDWi THN BASILEIAN TWi QEWi KAI PATRI,> (3) hOTAN KATARGHSHi PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMIN.> > The question is:> > (a) are the two hOTAN clauses parallel, both connected directly > to TO TELOS?> (b) or, is the second hOTAN clause (3) connected to the clause > of the first> hOTAN clause (2)?> > If (a) is right, we may translate the verse as:> > Then the end (will come), when he delivers the kingdom to the > God and Father,> that is, when he has nullified all dominion, all authority and > power.> > If (b) is right, we have the following structure:> > (1) EITA [ TO TELOS,> (2) hOTAN [ PARADIDWi THN BASILEIAN TWi QEWi KAI PATRI,> (3) hOTAN KATARGHSHi PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN > EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMIN ] ]> > This option is taken by NIV, and its translation is as follows:> > Then the end will come,> when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father> after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.> > The problem with the decision of NIV is that this reading is > somewhat awkward.> If Paul had intended this reading, wouldn’t he have written:> > > EITA TO TELOS,> hOTAN PARADIDWi THN BASILEIAN TWi QEWi KAI PATRI,> KATARGHSAS PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMIN> > The participle clause KATARGHSAS carries less weight than does the > full-blown hOTAN clause,> and thus can be subordinated to the hOTAN clause. But in the > present case, the two> hOTAN clauses look quite parallel, so it tends to prevent the > reader from regarding the second hOTAN> clause to be subordinate to the first hOTAN clause. (By the way, I > failed to find similar examples> in the NT and the LXX.)Moon, I think you are asking more questions about this passage than the Greek text can answer. I DON’T think that you can succeed at an effort to subordinate the notions in the two hOTANclauses one to another — BOTH would appear to be relative adverbial clauses with TO TELOS as antecedent; I can see why some might suppose that (3) in your structural outline really needs to occur logically and chronologically before (2), I think it is pretty difficult here to force a syntactical relationship between (2) and (3). I think those two hOTAN clauses are parallel and that they relate temporally to TO TELOS rather than one of them temporally to the other of them.And although in the past I have myself attempted to rephrase what Paul “would have written if … ” in experimental Koine Greek, I don’t think I’d recommend attempting it — it diverts one’s attention from what IS written to what one thinks OUGHT to have been written.While some may want to read 1 Cor 15:20-28 as a timetable with the sequence of events spelled out precisely, others may be more inclined to see this as a sketch of events that should be expected at some point in the end-time. But is not a forum for hermeneutics, and differences of perspective such as that regarding this textual sequence are not to be resolved in this forum.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 21 07:47:49 EDT 2006
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 [] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 Whether one takes the structure of this verse as being1. EITA . . . a. hOTAN PARATIDWi . . . b. hOTAN KATARGHSHi . . .or1. EITA . . . a. hOTAN PARADIDWi 1) hOTAN KATARGHSHi . . .would seem to be somewhat dependent upon one’s view of the relationship of the aorist to the present in the subjunctive. hOTAN does not clue us in to what the relationship might be since one hOTAN is very much like any other hOTAN. If one takes the view that the aorist does not include a temporal element outside the indicative, then one would probably choose the first option. If one takes the view that the aorist is still indicative of some temporal sequence then the second alternative might be adopted. It would thus seem to be a judgment call based upon one’s view of the relationship of the tenses since the particle is not going to establish the relationship by itself. georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: “moon at sogang.ac.kr” <moon at sogang.ac.kr>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 7:24:37 AMSubject: [] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24Let me ask a question about the relationsip betwee the two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15:24:(1) EITA TO TELOS, (2) hOTAN PARADIDWi THN BASILEIAN TWi QEWi KAI PATRI,(3) hOTAN KATARGHSHi PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMIN.The question is: (a) are the two hOTAN clauses parallel, both connected directly to TO TELOS? (b) or, is the second hOTAN clause (3) connected to the clause of the first hOTAN clause (2)?If (a) is right, we may translate the verse as: Then the end (will come), when he delivers the kingdom to the God and Father, that is, when he has nullified all dominion, all authority and power.If (b) is right, we have the following structure: (1) EITA [ TO TELOS, (2) hOTAN [ PARADIDWi THN BASILEIAN TWi QEWi KAI PATRI, (3) hOTAN KATARGHSHi PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMIN ] ]This option is taken by NIV, and its translation is as follows: Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.The problem with the decision of NIV is that this reading is somewhat akward.If Paul had intended this reading, wouldn’t he have written: EITA TO TELOS, hOTAN PARADIDWi THN BASILEIAN TWi QEWi KAI PATRI, KATARGHSAS PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMINThe participle clause KATARGHSAS carries less weight than does the full-blown hOTAN clause,and thus can be subordinated to the hOTAN clause. But in the present case, the twohOTAN clauses look quite parallel, so it tends to prevent the reader from regarding the second hOTANclause to be subordinate to the first hOTAN clause. (By the way, I failed to find similar examplesin the NT and the LXX.)Moon JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 21 09:21:10 EDT 2006
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 [] “Repent” George:You wrote: If one takes the view> that the aorist does not include a temporal element> outside the indicative, then one would probably> choose the first option. If one takes the view that> the aorist is still indicative of some temporal> sequence then the second alternative might be> adopted. Just curious. Do you know of any works that attempt tosupport the notion that tense is grammaticalizedoutside the Indicative? That sounds like a good read.Eddie MishoePastor__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24[] “Repent”
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 moon at sogang.ac.kr moon at sogang.ac.kr
Sat Oct 21 10:39:19 EDT 2006
[] “Repent” [] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 On Oct 21, 2006, at 7:24 AM, moon at sogang.ac.kr wrote: [Moon]> Let me ask a question about the relationsip betwee the two hOTAN > clauses in > 1 Cor 15:24: > > (1) EITA TO TELOS, > (2) hOTAN PARADIDWi THN BASILEIAN TWi QEWi KAI PATRI, > (3) hOTAN KATARGHSHi PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMIN. > > The question is: > > (a) are the two hOTAN clauses parallel, both connected directly > to TO TELOS? > (b) or, is the second hOTAN clause (3) connected to the clause > of the first > hOTAN clause (2)? > > If (a) is right, we may translate the verse as: > > Then the end (will come), when he delivers the kingdom to the > God and Father, > that is, when he has nullified all dominion, all authority and > power. > > If (b) is right, we have the following structure: > > (1) EITA [ TO TELOS, > (2) hOTAN [ PARADIDWi THN BASILEIAN TWi QEWi KAI PATRI, > (3) hOTAN KATARGHSHi PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN > EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMIN ] ] > > This option is taken by NIV, and its translation is as follows: > > Then the end will come, > when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father > after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. > [CARL]: > I DON’T think that you can succeed at an effort to subordinate the notions in the two hOTAN clauses one to another — BOTH would appear to be relative adverbial clauses with TO TELOS as antecedent; I can see why some might suppose that (3) in your structural outline really needs to occur logically and chronologically before (2), I think it is pretty difficult here to force a syntactical relationship between (2) and (3). I think those two hOTAN clauses are parallel and that they relate temporally to TO TELOS rather than one of them temporally to the other of them. [Moon] =>Carl, thanks for your comments. My interpretation was the same as yourinterpretation mentioned above. But NIV and major commentaries I consultedthought the otherwise. So, I thought it would be a good idea to discussit in list. I respect your intuition. But would you guess why NIVtakes this verse as it does? Moon JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
[] “Repent”[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Oct 21 11:07:00 EDT 2006
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 [] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 On Oct 21, 2006, at 10:39 AM, moon at sogang.ac.kr wrote:> On Oct 21, 2006, at 7:24 AM, moon at sogang.ac.kr wrote:> > [Moon]>> Let me ask a question about the relationsip betwee the two hOTAN>> clauses in>> 1 Cor 15:24:>> >> (1) EITA TO TELOS,>> (2) hOTAN PARADIDWi THN BASILEIAN TWi QEWi KAI PATRI,>> (3) hOTAN KATARGHSHi PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMIN.>> >> The question is:>> >> (a) are the two hOTAN clauses parallel, both connected directly>> to TO TELOS?>> (b) or, is the second hOTAN clause (3) connected to the clause>> of the first>> hOTAN clause (2)?>> >> If (a) is right, we may translate the verse as:>> >> Then the end (will come), when he delivers the kingdom to the>> God and Father,>> that is, when he has nullified all dominion, all authority and>> power.>> >> If (b) is right, we have the following structure:>> >> (1) EITA [ TO TELOS,>> (2) hOTAN [ PARADIDWi THN BASILEIAN TWi QEWi KAI PATRI,>> (3) hOTAN KATARGHSHi PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN>> EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMIN ] ]>> >> This option is taken by NIV, and its translation is as follows:>> >> Then the end will come,>> when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father>> after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.>> > > [CARL]:>> I DON’T think that you can succeed at an> effort to subordinate the notions in the two hOTAN> clauses one to another — BOTH would appear to be relative adverbial> clauses with TO TELOS as antecedent; I can see why some might suppose> that (3) in your structural outline really needs to occur logically> and chronologically before (2), I think it is pretty difficult here> to force a syntactical relationship between (2) and (3). I think> those two hOTAN clauses are parallel and that they relate temporally> to TO TELOS rather than one of them temporally to the other of them.> > > [Moon] =>> Carl, thanks for your comments. My interpretation was the same as your> interpretation mentioned above. But NIV and major commentaries I > consulted> thought the otherwise. So, I thought it would be a good idea to > discuss> it in list. I respect your intuition. But would you guess > why NIV> takes this verse as it does?Although I hesitate to read the minds of interpreters when they haven’t made any effort to clarify an interpretive departure from what the Greek text actually says, my guess is that they are conveying in translation what they think is IMPLIED in the Greek text. They may also be making some hermeneutical assumptions that some others might question. Then there’s the matter of translator philosophy: if you think an interpretation is “probable” even if you can’t quite demonstrate its necessary validity, do you go ahead and convert it into what you think is probable, or do you leave what is an ambiguity in the original an ambiguity in the translation. Personally I would prefer to do the latter. I think, however, that this question of yours reaches too far over into translation theory and that it would be better for you to take it to B-Translation, where questions of textual ambiguity and how to deal with it have been open to discussion. I really don’t feel comfortable discussing such questions as WHY translators have handled a passage as they have. NET, which normally explains such deviations from the literal text, goes along with what NIV does but without offering a reason based on the Greek grammar. Now it may be, as George Somsel and Eddie Mishoe have suggested, that some suppose the different tense-aspect forms of the subjunctive in the two clauses (PARADIDWi and KATARGHSHi) do imply a temporal relationship between the events, but if that’s the case, they haven’t offered any such explanation for their translations. And so I fall back on the guess that I offered in my opening sentence above.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 moon at sogang.ac.kr moon at sogang.ac.kr
Sat Oct 21 11:15:10 EDT 2006
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 [] “Repent” [George]: Whether one takes the structure of this verse as being 1. EITA . . . a. hOTAN PARATIDWi . . . b. hOTAN KATARGHSHi . . . or 1. EITA . . . a. hOTAN PARADIDWi 1) hOTAN KATARGHSHi . . . would seem to be somewhat dependent upon one’s view of the relationship of the aorist to the present in the subjunctive. hOTAN does not clue us in to what the relationship might be since one hOTAN is very much like any other hOTAN. If one takes the view that the aorist does not include a temporal element outside the indicative, then one would probably choose the first option. If one takes the view that the aorist is still indicative of some temporal sequence then the second alternative might be adopted. It would thus seem to be a judgment call based upon one’s view of the relationship of the tenses since the particle is not going to establish the relationship by itself.[Moon]: George, thanks for your comments. But I do not think thatthe fact that the two hotan clauses are subjunctive, not indicative,is relevant to the issue here. The finite (indicative) and non-finite(subjunctive, participle, infinitive) distinction has to do with whether the situation described is actual or potential (from the speaker’s viewpoint).We can talk about temporal relation between potential events as well as actual events.The temporal relation between the two subjunctive clauses can be inferred fromthe verbal aspects (the present vs. the aorist) used and other contextual factors.In this particular case, if we want to infer the temporal relation between the twosubjunctive clauses (even if it was not intended by the author), we could say: the event that he destroyed all dominion, etc, precedes the event that he delivers the kingdom to God. But even if this temporal relation holds, it does not mean that the author ofthis verse wanted the reader to parse the verse as: 1. EITA TO TELOS,. . . a. hOTAN PARADIDWi 1) hOTAN KATARGHSHi . . . It seems that we need to find other factors to solve the problem here.Moon JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24[] “Repent”
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 21 11:36:21 EDT 2006
[] “Repent” [] “Repent” I don’t know what you refer to as “other factors” to solve the problem. There are no other factors — that is all we have. georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: “moon at sogang.ac.kr” <moon at sogang.ac.kr>To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; moon at sogang.ac.kr; at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 11:15:10 AMSubject: Re: Re: [] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24[George]: Whether one takes the structure of this verse as being 1. EITA . . . a. hOTAN PARATIDWi . . . b. hOTAN KATARGHSHi . . . or 1. EITA . . . a. hOTAN PARADIDWi 1) hOTAN KATARGHSHi . . . would seem to be somewhat dependent upon one’s view of the relationship of the aorist to the present in the subjunctive. hOTAN does not clue us in to what the relationship might be since one hOTAN is very much like any other hOTAN. If one takes the view that the aorist does not include a temporal element outside the indicative, then one would probably choose the first option. If one takes the view that the aorist is still indicative of some temporal sequence then the second alternative might be adopted. It would thus seem to be a judgment call based upon one’s view of the relationship of the tenses since the particle is not going to establish the relationship by itself. [Moon]: George, thanks for your comments. But I do not think that the fact that the two hotan clauses are subjunctive, not indicative, is relevant to the issue here. The finite (indicative) and non-finite (subjunctive, participle, infinitive) distinction has to do with whether the situation described is actual or potential (from the speaker’s viewpoint). We can talk about temporal relation between potential events as well as actual events. The temporal relation between the two subjunctive clauses can be inferred from the verbal aspects (the present vs. the aorist) used and other contextual factors. In this particular case, if we want to infer the temporal relation between the two subjunctive clauses (even if it was not intended by the author), we could say: the event that he destroyed all dominion, etc, precedes the event that he delivers the kingdom to God. But even if this temporal relation holds, it does not mean that the author of this verse wanted the reader to parse the verse as: 1. EITA TO TELOS,. . . a. hOTAN PARADIDWi 1) hOTAN KATARGHSHi . . . It seems that we need to find other factors to solve the problem here. Moon Jung Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
[] “Repent”[] “Repent”
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 moon at sogang.ac.kr moon at sogang.ac.kr
Sun Oct 22 13:29:16 EDT 2006
[] Jn 20:27 FERE TON DAKTULON SOU hWDE [] hISTHMI I-A-I [George]:I don’t know what you refer to as “other factors” to solve the problem. There are no other factors — that is all we have.[Moon] => I am sorry. I was not clear. The problem is to choose which structure for 1 Cor 15:24. The two potential structures are:(A)1. EITA TO TELOS . . . a. hOTAN PARADIDWi . . . b. hOTAN KATARGHSHi . . . and (B)1. EITA TO TELOS. . . a. hOTAN PARADIDWi 1) hOTAN KATARGHSHi . . . My point was: (1) The subjunctive moods of the hotan clauses mean that the events described are potential (2) The potential event of KATARGHSHi precedes the potential event of PARADIDWi (3) The fact (2) does NOT mean that we can choose structure (B). We need to consider other factors to reach the decision. The fact is that the temporal clause hOTAN PARADIDWi … hOTAN KATARGHSHisounds akward. If I use an English example, the temporal clause “when he arrives home when he has finished school” sounds strange.But “when he arrives home after he has finished school” or”when he arrives after finishing school” sounds OKNote that NIV, which takes the second hotan clause to be subordinateto the first hotan clause, translates the second hOTAN as “after”.The reason why “when he arrives home after he has finished school”sounds OK is not hard to see. The time defined by “afterhe has finished school” is unspecific enough so that it can befurther refined by “when he arrives home”. But the time defined by”when he has finished school” is specific enough so that it is not easy to refine it further by “when he arrives home”. I believe that a similar logic can be applied to Greek hOTAN clauses.Moon JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
[] Jn 20:27 FERE TON DAKTULON SOU hWDE[] hISTHMI I-A-I
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 22 23:49:48 EDT 2006
[] “Repent” [] When Dead Tongues Speak Moon,I was never advocating structure (B) — or structure (A) for that matter. I was simply presenting the possibilities. Whether (B) sounds strange in English is really not to the point since it isn’t English with which we are dealing. If structure (B) were to be accepted as correct (probably doubtful) then perhaps it is our English translation which is at fault. At the moment though those are the possibilities and we must decide which we find more convincing. georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: “moon at sogang.ac.kr” <moon at sogang.ac.kr>To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; moon at sogang.ac.kr; at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 1:29:16 PMSubject: Re: Re: Re: [] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24[George]: I don’t know what you refer to as “other factors” to solve the problem. There are no other factors — that is all we have. [Moon] => I am sorry. I was not clear. The problem is to choose which structure for 1 Cor 15:24. The two potential structures are: (A) 1. EITA TO TELOS . . . a. hOTAN PARADIDWi . . . b. hOTAN KATARGHSHi . . . and (B) 1. EITA TO TELOS. . . a. hOTAN PARADIDWi 1) hOTAN KATARGHSHi . . . My point was: (1) The subjunctive moods of the hotan clauses mean that the events described are potential (2) The potential event of KATARGHSHi precedes the potential event of PARADIDWi (3) The fact (2) does NOT mean that we can choose structure (B). We need to consider other factors to reach the decision. The fact is that the temporal clause hOTAN PARADIDWi … hOTAN KATARGHSHi sounds akward. If I use an English example, the temporal clause “when he arrives home when he has finished school” sounds strange. But “when he arrives home after he has finished school” or “when he arrives after finishing school” sounds OK Note that NIV, which takes the second hotan clause to be subordinate to the first hotan clause, translates the second hOTAN as “after”. The reason why “when he arrives home after he has finished school” sounds OK is not hard to see. The time defined by “after he has finished school” is unspecific enough so that it can be further refined by “when he arrives home”. But the time defined by “when he has finished school” is specific enough so that it is not easy to refine it further by “when he arrives home”. I believe that a similar logic can be applied to Greek hOTAN clauses. Moon Jung Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
[] “Repent”[] When Dead Tongues Speak
[] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24 moon at sogang.ac.kr moon at sogang.ac.kr
Mon Oct 23 10:52:46 EDT 2006
[] When Dead Tongues Speak [] “Grammatical Concepts 101 for Biblical Greek” [George]: Moon, I was never advocating structure (B) — or structure (A) for that matter. I was simply presenting the possibilities. Whether (B) sounds strange in English is really not to the point since it isn’t English with which we are dealing. If structure (B) were to be accepted as correct (probably doubtful) then perhaps it is our English translation which is at fault. At the moment though those are the possibilities and we must decide which we find more convincing.[Moon]=> Understood. Is there a native Greek (Modern) speaker out there who can help us here? I hope (?) that he or she says: (1) Sentence PARADIDWi … hOTAN KATARGHSHi is OK (2) But the temporal clause made out of it, that is, hOTAN PARADIDWi … hOTAN KATARGHSHi sounds strange. My hypothesis is: the temporal conjunction hOTAN (and its equivalents in other languages) have the property that the hOTAN clause cannot have another hOTAN clause nested in it. In English, this is so. In Korean (my native tongue) this is so, too.Moon JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea—————————— [George]: I don’t know what you refer to as “other factors” to solve the problem. There are no other factors — that is all we have. [Moon] => I am sorry. I was not clear. The problem is to choose which structure for 1 Cor 15:24. The two potential structures are: (A) 1. EITA TO TELOS . . . a. hOTAN PARADIDWi . . . b. hOTAN KATARGHSHi . . . and (B) 1. EITA TO TELOS. . . a. hOTAN PARADIDWi 1) hOTAN KATARGHSHi . . . My point was: (1) The subjunctive moods of the hotan clauses mean that the events described are potential (2) The potential event of KATARGHSHi precedes the potential event of PARADIDWi (3) The fact (2) does NOT mean that we can choose structure (B). We need to consider other factors to reach the decision. The fact is that the temporal clause hOTAN PARADIDWi … hOTAN KATARGHSHi sounds akward. If I use an English example, the temporal clause “when he arrives home when he has finished school” sounds strange. But “when he arrives home after he has finished school” or “when he arrives after finishing school” sounds OK Note that NIV, which takes the second hotan clause to be subordinate to the first hotan clause, translates the second hOTAN as “after”. The reason why “when he arrives home after he has finished school” sounds OK is not hard to see. The time defined by “after he has finished school” is unspecific enough so that it can be further refined by “when he arrives home”. But the time defined by “when he has finished school” is specific enough so that it is not easy to refine it further by “when he arrives home”. I believe that a similar logic can be applied to Greek hOTAN clauses. Moon Jung Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
[] When Dead Tongues Speak[] “Grammatical Concepts 101 for Biblical Greek”
hey Link Hudson after dismantling your 2Thes anti-pre-trib argument (and quite successfully if I may add) to the point where even Ricky Grimsley could not help you with his favorite 2Thes 2:2 since yall could not agree on who the Restrainer is, I took the time to dissect another passage you like to throw around namely 1 Cor 15 Now, I’ve done some extensive work on 1 Cor in the past and 1 Cor 15 was actually among my favorite passages to preach from so I must warn you there is much more coming here on this one, but just for starters HOW do you feel this particular verse helps your anti-pre-trib quest because frankly I just dont see what you are saying in the actual Biblical text as written by the apostle Paul
Troy Day you did not dismantle my post trib arguments (ie stick with the plaon sense of the text). What you did was not answer questions, make wise cracks, clown around, and link to long discussions about minutia of the Greek text without pointing out which aspect of the discussion you thought was relevant.
1 Corinthians 15:23-28 God’s specific plan includes each one in his own order. The word order, a military term, suggests the idea of rank. Christ the firstfruits was raised first. Second, those who are Christ’s at His coming will follow. The word coming (parousia) refers to His coming for those believers who are still alive (John 14:2-3). At the same coming, the Christians who have already died will be raised and actually will precede those who are still alive (1 Thess 4:13-18). Third, the coming of Christ will be followed by another period of time designated as the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. Once He overcomes every enemy of God the Father and mankind, He will hand this sovereign responsibility to the Father. This does not imply His inferiority, but it does mean a different responsibility. Until this time, the Father places everything under His Son who reigns as Lord over the universe (Ps 110:1; Dan 7:14; Col 1:15-17).
A period of time will occur between Christ’s coming for the Church and the time when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father. Christ will reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. Death will be last enemy (15:55). God the Father “has put all things under His feet (Ps 8:6).” The Father put all things under Christ as the last Adam, the perfect Man, with the only exception that God the Father Himself is not in subjection to Christ. Jesus’ work will ultimately glorify God the Father (John 17:4-5). The new creation will begin when God the Father may be all in all.
To risk one’s life for Jesus Christ is foolishness if the dead are not raised. Paul emphasizes this by turning to the reality of daily experiences to help the Corinthians understand the significance of the Resurrection. He points to their practice and his own daily lifestyle.
Luke 24:17-28. The Lord asks a question that may represent a divine use of the Socratic method for the sake of both the disciples in the narrative and for an educated reader like Theophilus. Their sadness, though commendable because it testifies to their sensitivity to Jesus and His Passion, nevertheless witnesses to their blindness and unbelief regarding the Resurrection. The mention of their sadness sets up the scene for the joy of discovering the living Savior.
24:18. Luke then identifies one of the two disciples whose name was Cleopas, an otherwise unknown disciple in Jerusalem. His words to Jesus overflow with irony. Cleopas possibly conceived of Jesus as one of thousands of pilgrims “in Jerusalem” for the Passover Feast. Jesus Himself represented the Passover and His death fulfilled the meaning of the Feast itself.
24:19. The Lord Jesus then asks, “What things?” Cleopas then gives Jesus a synopsis of the Gospel events that both bring to light the prophetic underpinnings of His death and underscores their blindness to those very things. The mention of Jesus as “a Prophet” picks up a significant Lucan thematic emphasis.
24:20. Cleopas’ explanation of the events essentially lays the blame for Jesus’ death on “the chief priests and our rulers.” Their opposition to the Lord will continue in the Book of Acts in their antagonism to His Church.
24:21. Cleopas speaks as if Jesus’ death put an end to their hopes of the redemption of Israel—the very expectation introduced at the beginning of the Gospel narrative (cf. 1:68-79). The word redeem means to liberate from an oppressive situation or to set free. Ironically Jesus’ death provided the only once-and-for-all payment for the sins of the nation and so their redemption. Cleopas’s next words contain a key phrase—“today is the third day”—which should have alerted them to Jesus’ words and their fulfillment.
24:22. Each additional facet of Cleopas’ recounting adds to the dramatic irony of his words. The details that astonished the disciples should have also convinced them. Their early arrival furnishes an apologetic purpose as it provides little space for some kind of conspiracy to unfold. This timeline may indicate that death could and did not hold Jesus for any longer than necessary. In addition, it shows a precise fulfillment of prophecy; He rose, as He predicted, in three days.
24:23. Cleopas offers even more evidence for the Resurrection. He identifies the two men who appeared to the women as angels. Luke’s narrative early on establishes the reliability of God’s angelic messengers and the foolishness of not believing them (see 1:5-80).
24:24. The irony reaches a climax as Cleopas tells the very risen Jesus that “the women” had not seen Him! The use of the plural “certain of those” indicates that others beside Peter “went to the tomb” to verify their report (cf. 24:12; John 20:1-10).
24:25. The Lord Jesus then gives them a deserved and yet loving rebuke. His compassionate reprimand focuses on the prophetic word which they should have believed. In validating “all that the prophets have spoken,” Jesus showed that He believed in the trustworthiness of the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the OT prophets wrote prophetically and accurately about the future Messiah. So that with one sentence the Lord Jesus contradicted many wrong teachings about the Scriptures, their composition, and their reliability.
24:26. The Lord Jesus asks a question that points to the principal obstacle to belief in Him as “the Christ.” His question demands an affirmative answer and once again underscores the divine plan that must see fulfillment. The Messiah’s death fulfilled God’s plan and conformed to the biblical pattern of suffering before glory. Joseph, Moses, and David all suffered before their exaltation in God’s purposes. Thus, the suffering of Messiah fits a familiar OT pattern.
24:27. The Lord then gave them the perfect Bible lesson—one that every believer would have loved to have heard. Despite the fact that Luke does not record Jesus’ actual words, one can still learn much from his report: Moses wrote the Law, an essential and foundational portion of the OT which pre-announced the advent of the Messiah and teaches concerning Him; The prophetic literature of the OT—“all the Prophets”—taught about Jesus; The writings of Moses and all the Prophets constitute “the Scriptures,” a division that covers the complete OT.
24:28. When the Lord Jesus, Cleopas, and the unnamed disciple neared Emmaus, Jesus indicated that He would have gone farther. The Lord Jesus had not revealed His destination, and neither had they recognized Him. His indication of traveling farther in no way implies deceit. Rather, it serves as a teaching tool of sorts in the same way His questions to the two disciples function at the beginning of this narrative (cf. v 17). In His omniscience Jesus knew every detail of their conversation, but He used the question to take them through a teaching process. He draws out a response from them.
RichardAnna Boyce this OP is a question about the relationship between the two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15:24 IF they relate to a post-trib-rapture as Link Hudson has tried to propose in his theoretix Not just a general talk on 1 Cor 15 as done before