IWANNHN hUPHRETHN Acts 13:5 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Mon Jul 13 15:00:00 EDT 1998
Taped NT Rom. 1:4 EN DUNAMEI adverbial or adjectival F.F. Bruce suggests rather tentatively that John (Mark) might have beenperforming a service somewhat beyond that of a water boy when he was with Pauland Barnabas in SALAMINI. The word hUPHRETHN is not going to settle thisissue. The argument that hUPHRETHS is used of those who proclaim TON LOGON inLuke 1:2 does not really prove anything, because in that context hUPHRETAI ismodified by TOU LOGOU which adds nothing to the semantic domain of hUPHRETHS.Perhaps this is not clear. What I am saying is, you cannot prove that thensemantic domain of X is extended to include X + Y, where Y is a genitivemodifier of X, simply by finding pattern XY in a relevant text. This is acommon fallacy found in argumentation about lexical semantics. Finding thepattern XY only proves that X is capable of being limited by Y, nothing more.In Acts 13:5 hUPHRETHN cannot be read as hUPHRETHN TOU LOGOU just becausethis pattern exists in Luke 1:2. — Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Taped NTRom. 1:4 EN DUNAMEI adverbial or adjectival
IWANNHN hUPHRETHN Acts 13:5 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 13 17:44:29 EDT 1998
Imperfect outside the Indicative IWANNHN hUPHRETHN Acts 13:5 At 12:00 PM -0700 7/13/98, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:>F.F. Bruce suggests rather tentatively that John (Mark) might have been>performing a service somewhat beyond that of a water boy when he was with Paul>and Barnabas in SALAMINI. The word hUPHRETHN is not going to settle this>issue. The argument that hUPHRETHS is used of those who proclaim TON LOGON in>Luke 1:2 does not really prove anything, because in that context hUPHRETAI is>modified by TOU LOGOU which adds nothing to the semantic domain of hUPHRETHS.> >Perhaps this is not clear. What I am saying is, you cannot prove that then>semantic domain of X is extended to include X + Y, where Y is a genitive>modifier of X, simply by finding pattern XY in a relevant text. This is a>common fallacy found in argumentation about lexical semantics. Finding the>pattern XY only proves that X is capable of being limited by Y, nothing more.> >In Acts 13:5 hUPHRETHN cannot be read as hUPHRETHN TOU LOGOU just because>this pattern exists in Luke 1:2.I don’t understand what the basis of your negative argument is. Hassomebody actually suggested that hUPHRETHS in Acts 13:5 means the same ashUPHERTHS TOU LOGOU in Luke 1:2? Surely that’s not what Bruce issuggesting, is it? It strikes me as a strange suggestion for anyone tomake. So: Mark NOT = Gunga Din?Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Imperfect outside the IndicativeIWANNHN hUPHRETHN Acts 13:5
IWANNHN hUPHRETHN Acts 13:5 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Mon Jul 13 18:26:00 EDT 1998
IWANNHN hUPHRETHN Acts 13:5 Rom. 1:4 EN DUNAMEI adverbial or adjectival Carl W. Conrad wrote:> > At 12:00 PM -0700 7/13/98, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:> >F.F. Bruce suggests rather tentatively that John (Mark) might have been> >performing a service somewhat beyond that of a water boy when he was with Paul> >and Barnabas in SALAMINI. The word hUPHRETHN is not going to settle this> >issue. The argument that hUPHRETHS is used of those who proclaim TON LOGON in> >Luke 1:2 does not really prove anything, because in that context hUPHRETAI is> >modified by TOU LOGOU which adds nothing to the semantic domain of hUPHRETHS.> >> >Perhaps this is not clear. What I am saying is, you cannot prove that then> >semantic domain of X is extended to include X + Y, where Y is a genitive> >modifier of X, simply by finding pattern XY in a relevant text. This is a> >common fallacy found in argumentation about lexical semantics. Finding the> >pattern XY only proves that X is capable of being limited by Y, nothing more.> >> >In Acts 13:5 hUPHRETHN cannot be read as hUPHRETHN TOU LOGOU just because> >this pattern exists in Luke 1:2.> > I don’t understand what the basis of your negative argument is. Has> somebody actually suggested that hUPHRETHS in Acts 13:5 means the same as> hUPHERTHS TOU LOGOU in Luke 1:2? Surely that’s not what Bruce is> suggesting, is it? It strikes me as a strange suggestion for anyone to> make. So: Mark NOT = Gunga Din?> Carl,Burce (in a foot note on page 263 of Acts NICNT 1954) comes at this in a veryindirect manner. No, he does not make the direct equation that I have madeabove, but I think he is implying the equation. He is citing Luke 1:2 assupport for the notion that John Mark was acting in similar capacity to Pauland Barnabas in the Acts 13:5 context, i.e., John Mark was a hUPHERTHS TOULOGOU. Bruce is very tentative about this, he is discussing the views ofother scholars. What I am contesting is the use of Luke 1:2 as evidence in achain of reasoning which implies the equation I have stated above, even if itdoes not make the equation outright. I think that the argument in thisfootnote, when is reduced to it’s elements both stated and unstated, includesthe idea that hUPHRETHN in Acts 13:5 can be read as hUPHRETHN TOU LOGOU inLuke 1:2. By making this implicit step in the argument explicit, I am exposinga common error in argumentation about lexical semantics. Bruce is probably notguilty of this error, but the error is there buried in the logic of thesources he is quoting. Of course I would never get a guilty verdict in court using this kind ofevidence, unless the defendant was a white Anglo-Saxon heterosexual maleorthodox Protestant. That sort of defendant is guilty by definition, but alasthis is off topic, is it not? Clay
IWANNHN hUPHRETHN Acts 13:5Rom. 1:4 EN DUNAMEI adverbial or adjectival
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 22 12:20:24 EDT 1998
Online critical text of the Greek NT? Sentence Adverbs Greetings!Acts 1:3 reads (in part):hOIS KAI PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA META TO PAQEIN AUTON EN POLLOISTEKMHRIOISIs the following paraphrase too strong?”To his apostles he presented himself alive after suffering, bydemonstrating many irrefutable proofs.” The primary part of the paraphrase I am concerned about is therendering of TEKMHRIOIS. Does the word indicate that prima facieevidence is under discussion?Any thoughts would be appreciated,Edgar FosterClassics Major_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Online critical text of the Greek NT?Sentence Adverbs
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 22 12:20:24 EDT 1998
Online critical text of the Greek NT? Sentence Adverbs Greetings!Acts 1:3 reads (in part):hOIS KAI PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA META TO PAQEIN AUTON EN POLLOISTEKMHRIOISIs the following paraphrase too strong?”To his apostles he presented himself alive after suffering, bydemonstrating many irrefutable proofs.” The primary part of the paraphrase I am concerned about is therendering of TEKMHRIOIS. Does the word indicate that prima facieevidence is under discussion?Any thoughts would be appreciated,Edgar FosterClassics Major_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Online critical text of the Greek NT?Sentence Adverbs
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Aug 22 14:30:42 EDT 1998
Sentence Adverbs Language about Language At 11:20 AM -0500 8/22/98, Edgar Foster wrote:>Greetings!> >Acts 1:3 reads (in part):> >hOIS KAI PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA META TO PAQEIN AUTON EN POLLOIS>TEKMHRIOIS> >Is the following paraphrase too strong?> >“To his apostles he presented himself alive after suffering, by>demonstrating many irrefutable proofs.”> >The primary part of the paraphrase I am concerned about is the>rendering of TEKMHRIOIS. Does the word indicate that prima facie>evidence is under discussion?Well, I don’t quite see the point of “demonstrating” or “irrefutable.” Iwould think “convincing items of evidence” is strong enough. Are yougetting “demonstrating” out of TEKMHRIA also, or is that a supplementaryreading from PARESTHSEN hEAUTON? I think it’s the primary point ofPARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA with the dative. I’d see the key elements here as(1) META TO PAQEIN AUTON = after he had undisputably died; (2) PARESTHSENhEAUTON ZWNTA hOIS = he demonstrated to them that he was alive; (3) ENPOLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS = by means of numerous indications.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.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Sentence AdverbsLanguage about Language
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Aug 22 14:30:42 EDT 1998
Sentence Adverbs Language about Language At 11:20 AM -0500 8/22/98, Edgar Foster wrote:>Greetings!> >Acts 1:3 reads (in part):> >hOIS KAI PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA META TO PAQEIN AUTON EN POLLOIS>TEKMHRIOIS> >Is the following paraphrase too strong?> >“To his apostles he presented himself alive after suffering, by>demonstrating many irrefutable proofs.”> >The primary part of the paraphrase I am concerned about is the>rendering of TEKMHRIOIS. Does the word indicate that prima facie>evidence is under discussion?Well, I don’t quite see the point of “demonstrating” or “irrefutable.” Iwould think “convincing items of evidence” is strong enough. Are yougetting “demonstrating” out of TEKMHRIA also, or is that a supplementaryreading from PARESTHSEN hEAUTON? I think it’s the primary point ofPARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA with the dative. I’d see the key elements here as(1) META TO PAQEIN AUTON = after he had undisputably died; (2) PARESTHSENhEAUTON ZWNTA hOIS = he demonstrated to them that he was alive; (3) ENPOLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS = by means of numerous indications.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.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Sentence AdverbsLanguage about Language
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 22 15:26:44 EDT 1998
Language about Language Online critical text of the Greek NT? —“Carl W. Conrad” wrote:> At 11:20 AM -0500 8/22/98, Edgar Foster wrote:> >Greetings!> >Acts 1:3 reads (in part):> >hOIS KAI PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA META TO PAQEIN AUTON EN POLLOISTEKMHRIOIS> >Is the following paraphrase too strong?> >”To his apostles he presented himself alive after suffering, bydemonstrating many irrefutable proofs.”> >The primary part of the paraphrase I am concerned about is therendering of TEKMHRIOIS. Does the word indicate that prima facieevidence is under discussion?> Well, I don’t quite see the point of “demonstrating” or“irrefutable.” I would think “convincing items of evidence” is strongenough. Are you getting “demonstrating” out of TEKMHRIA also, or isthat a supplementary reading from PARESTHSEN hEAUTON?<Yes, “demonstrating” comes from “a supplementary reading fromPARESTHSEN hEAUTON.” This wording is only for paraphrastic purposes. Iam simply trying to capture HOW Jesus provided the apostles withPOLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS.As for my paraphrase of TEKMHRIOIS, I base this rendering upon thesemantics of TEKMHRION and what Louw-Nida note in their work. Based onmy research, I really wonder if “convincing proofs” is an adequatetreatment of Luke’s words. Of course, I could be wrong. At any rate,here is what L-N says:” ‘by many convincing proofs he showed himself alive after his death’Ac. 1:3. In a number of languages ‘convincing proof’ is rendered as’that which causes one to know for sure’ or ‘with certainty’ ” (28.45).The last statement makes me wonder if something isn’t lost in theEnglish translation “convincing proofs.” These words seem to implythat the proof given is compelling, but not indisputable. Conversely,TEKMHRIA seems to denote indubitable evidence. Maybe you could help meout here. >I think it’s the primary point of PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA with thedative. I’d see the key elements here as(1) META TO PAQEIN AUTON = after he had undisputably died; (2)PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA hOIS = he demonstrated to them that he wasalive; (3) EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS = by means of numerous indications.<The only part of this outline I would question would be (3). Is”numerous indications” strong enough?Thanks for your input,Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne College_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Language about LanguageOnline critical text of the Greek NT?
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 22 15:26:44 EDT 1998
Language about Language Online critical text of the Greek NT? —“Carl W. Conrad” wrote:> At 11:20 AM -0500 8/22/98, Edgar Foster wrote:> >Greetings!> >Acts 1:3 reads (in part):> >hOIS KAI PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA META TO PAQEIN AUTON EN POLLOISTEKMHRIOIS> >Is the following paraphrase too strong?> >”To his apostles he presented himself alive after suffering, bydemonstrating many irrefutable proofs.”> >The primary part of the paraphrase I am concerned about is therendering of TEKMHRIOIS. Does the word indicate that prima facieevidence is under discussion?> Well, I don’t quite see the point of “demonstrating” or“irrefutable.” I would think “convincing items of evidence” is strongenough. Are you getting “demonstrating” out of TEKMHRIA also, or isthat a supplementary reading from PARESTHSEN hEAUTON?<Yes, “demonstrating” comes from “a supplementary reading fromPARESTHSEN hEAUTON.” This wording is only for paraphrastic purposes. Iam simply trying to capture HOW Jesus provided the apostles withPOLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS.As for my paraphrase of TEKMHRIOIS, I base this rendering upon thesemantics of TEKMHRION and what Louw-Nida note in their work. Based onmy research, I really wonder if “convincing proofs” is an adequatetreatment of Luke’s words. Of course, I could be wrong. At any rate,here is what L-N says:” ‘by many convincing proofs he showed himself alive after his death’Ac. 1:3. In a number of languages ‘convincing proof’ is rendered as’that which causes one to know for sure’ or ‘with certainty’ ” (28.45).The last statement makes me wonder if something isn’t lost in theEnglish translation “convincing proofs.” These words seem to implythat the proof given is compelling, but not indisputable. Conversely,TEKMHRIA seems to denote indubitable evidence. Maybe you could help meout here. >I think it’s the primary point of PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA with thedative. I’d see the key elements here as(1) META TO PAQEIN AUTON = after he had undisputably died; (2)PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA hOIS = he demonstrated to them that he wasalive; (3) EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS = by means of numerous indications.<The only part of this outline I would question would be (3). Is”numerous indications” strong enough?Thanks for your input,Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne College_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Language about LanguageOnline critical text of the Greek NT?
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Aug 22 16:16:11 EDT 1998
Online critical text of the Greek NT? Online critical text of the Greek NT? At 2:26 PM -0500 8/22/98, Edgar Foster wrote:>—“Carl W. Conrad” wrote:> >> At 11:20 AM -0500 8/22/98, Edgar Foster wrote:>> >Greetings!> >> >Acts 1:3 reads (in part):> >> >hOIS KAI PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA META TO PAQEIN AUTON EN POLLOIS>TEKMHRIOIS> >> >Is the following paraphrase too strong?> >> >”To his apostles he presented himself alive after suffering, by>demonstrating many irrefutable proofs.”> >> >The primary part of the paraphrase I am concerned about is the>rendering of TEKMHRIOIS. Does the word indicate that prima facie>evidence is under discussion?> >> Well, I don’t quite see the point of “demonstrating” or>“irrefutable.” I would think “convincing items of evidence” is strong>enough. Are you getting “demonstrating” out of TEKMHRIA also, or is>that a supplementary reading from PARESTHSEN hEAUTON?<> >Yes, “demonstrating” comes from “a supplementary reading from>PARESTHSEN hEAUTON.” This wording is only for paraphrastic purposes. I>am simply trying to capture HOW Jesus provided the apostles with>POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS.> >As for my paraphrase of TEKMHRIOIS, I base this rendering upon the>semantics of TEKMHRION and what Louw-Nida note in their work. Based on>my research, I really wonder if “convincing proofs” is an adequate>treatment of Luke’s words. Of course, I could be wrong. At any rate,>here is what L-N says:> >” ‘by many convincing proofs he showed himself alive after his death’>Ac. 1:3. In a number of languages ‘convincing proof’ is rendered as>‘that which causes one to know for sure’ or ‘with certainty’ ” (28.45).> >The last statement makes me wonder if something isn’t lost in the>English translation “convincing proofs.” These words seem to imply>that the proof given is compelling, but not indisputable. Conversely,>TEKMHRIA seems to denote indubitable evidence. Maybe you could help me>out here.> >>I think it’s the primary point of PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA with the>dative. I’d see the key elements here as>(1) META TO PAQEIN AUTON = after he had undisputably died; (2)>PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA hOIS = he demonstrated to them that he was>alive; (3) EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS = by means of numerous indications.<> >The only part of this outline I would question would be (3). Is>“numerous indications” strong enough?I’m thinking of the way TEKMHRION and TEKMAIROMAI are used in forensicGreek, which seems to me most likely the background of Luke’s use here.TEKMHRION is something that permits you to draw a conclusion, andTEKMAIROMAI normally means judge something to be so on the basis of theTEKMHRIA, or indications. My own impression of what Luke means by TEKMHRIA,to judge by the way he speaks of Jesus’ resurrection epiphanies (and Iwouldn’t try to judge Luke’s usage from any other gospel), is tangible andsensible evidence that shows he is not a PNEUMA: Lk 24:37-43. The disciplesare incredulous and Jesus asks why they are so. He shows them his hands andfeet and insists on his identity. He urges them to touch him and be surethat he’s not a ghost, that he has flesh and bones, and finally, he eatssome cooked fish to prove that he’s alive. I’d say this constitutes POLLATEKMHRIA. I still don’t know that I’d want to say ‘irrefutable’ becausethat seems to me to suggest persuasive arguments, whereas it seems to methat Luke’s notion is rather that these are sufficient proofs to satisfyany reasonable man that Jesus actually was alive after his death. I thinkLuke depends upon the forensic notion of EIKOS, probability. So I guess mypoint is simply that “irrefutable” seems more appropriate to rhetoricalpersuasion whereas the TEKMHRIA here have more the character of indicatorsthat will convince any reasonable person: tangible evidence.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.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Online critical text of the Greek NT?Online critical text of the Greek NT?
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Aug 22 16:16:11 EDT 1998
Online critical text of the Greek NT? Online critical text of the Greek NT? At 2:26 PM -0500 8/22/98, Edgar Foster wrote:>—“Carl W. Conrad” wrote:> >> At 11:20 AM -0500 8/22/98, Edgar Foster wrote:>> >Greetings!> >> >Acts 1:3 reads (in part):> >> >hOIS KAI PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA META TO PAQEIN AUTON EN POLLOIS>TEKMHRIOIS> >> >Is the following paraphrase too strong?> >> >”To his apostles he presented himself alive after suffering, by>demonstrating many irrefutable proofs.”> >> >The primary part of the paraphrase I am concerned about is the>rendering of TEKMHRIOIS. Does the word indicate that prima facie>evidence is under discussion?> >> Well, I don’t quite see the point of “demonstrating” or>“irrefutable.” I would think “convincing items of evidence” is strong>enough. Are you getting “demonstrating” out of TEKMHRIA also, or is>that a supplementary reading from PARESTHSEN hEAUTON?<> >Yes, “demonstrating” comes from “a supplementary reading from>PARESTHSEN hEAUTON.” This wording is only for paraphrastic purposes. I>am simply trying to capture HOW Jesus provided the apostles with>POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS.> >As for my paraphrase of TEKMHRIOIS, I base this rendering upon the>semantics of TEKMHRION and what Louw-Nida note in their work. Based on>my research, I really wonder if “convincing proofs” is an adequate>treatment of Luke’s words. Of course, I could be wrong. At any rate,>here is what L-N says:> >” ‘by many convincing proofs he showed himself alive after his death’>Ac. 1:3. In a number of languages ‘convincing proof’ is rendered as>‘that which causes one to know for sure’ or ‘with certainty’ ” (28.45).> >The last statement makes me wonder if something isn’t lost in the>English translation “convincing proofs.” These words seem to imply>that the proof given is compelling, but not indisputable. Conversely,>TEKMHRIA seems to denote indubitable evidence. Maybe you could help me>out here.> >>I think it’s the primary point of PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA with the>dative. I’d see the key elements here as>(1) META TO PAQEIN AUTON = after he had undisputably died; (2)>PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA hOIS = he demonstrated to them that he was>alive; (3) EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS = by means of numerous indications.<> >The only part of this outline I would question would be (3). Is>“numerous indications” strong enough?I’m thinking of the way TEKMHRION and TEKMAIROMAI are used in forensicGreek, which seems to me most likely the background of Luke’s use here.TEKMHRION is something that permits you to draw a conclusion, andTEKMAIROMAI normally means judge something to be so on the basis of theTEKMHRIA, or indications. My own impression of what Luke means by TEKMHRIA,to judge by the way he speaks of Jesus’ resurrection epiphanies (and Iwouldn’t try to judge Luke’s usage from any other gospel), is tangible andsensible evidence that shows he is not a PNEUMA: Lk 24:37-43. The disciplesare incredulous and Jesus asks why they are so. He shows them his hands andfeet and insists on his identity. He urges them to touch him and be surethat he’s not a ghost, that he has flesh and bones, and finally, he eatssome cooked fish to prove that he’s alive. I’d say this constitutes POLLATEKMHRIA. I still don’t know that I’d want to say ‘irrefutable’ becausethat seems to me to suggest persuasive arguments, whereas it seems to methat Luke’s notion is rather that these are sufficient proofs to satisfyany reasonable man that Jesus actually was alive after his death. I thinkLuke depends upon the forensic notion of EIKOS, probability. So I guess mypoint is simply that “irrefutable” seems more appropriate to rhetoricalpersuasion whereas the TEKMHRIA here have more the character of indicatorsthat will convince any reasonable person: tangible evidence.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.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Online critical text of the Greek NT?Online critical text of the Greek NT?
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 22 19:44:30 EDT 1998
Online critical text of the Greek NT? Toward a House Church Theology: Who Sent It? Dear Carl,I can now understand why you question the paraphrastic “irrefutableproofs.” True, it does have a rhetorical feel to it. Maybe it would bebetter to render it “unquestionable evidence” (Amplified Bible) or”indubitable proof.” The semantic range of the word seems to allow forthis rendering. Still, as you point out, we must consider the context.In the context of Acts 1:3, “unquestionable” or “indisputable” seems agood choice. The apostles are being shown signs that will enable themto be witnesses of Christ throughout the earth. Surely they will needstrong proof to be convinced and to persuade others. Another consideration here is the Classical usage of TEKMHRION. Whenconsulting LSJ, I found that TEKMHRION was variously rendered as “sureproof” or “strong proof,” as well as “evidence.” The word seems tohave strong connotations of evidence that is undeniable. Still, Iunderstand your objections.Thanks for your help,Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne College_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Online critical text of the Greek NT?Toward a House Church Theology: Who Sent It?
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 22 19:44:30 EDT 1998
Online critical text of the Greek NT? Toward a House Church Theology: Who Sent It? Dear Carl,I can now understand why you question the paraphrastic “irrefutableproofs.” True, it does have a rhetorical feel to it. Maybe it would bebetter to render it “unquestionable evidence” (Amplified Bible) or”indubitable proof.” The semantic range of the word seems to allow forthis rendering. Still, as you point out, we must consider the context.In the context of Acts 1:3, “unquestionable” or “indisputable” seems agood choice. The apostles are being shown signs that will enable themto be witnesses of Christ throughout the earth. Surely they will needstrong proof to be convinced and to persuade others. Another consideration here is the Classical usage of TEKMHRION. Whenconsulting LSJ, I found that TEKMHRION was variously rendered as “sureproof” or “strong proof,” as well as “evidence.” The word seems tohave strong connotations of evidence that is undeniable. Still, Iunderstand your objections.Thanks for your help,Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne College_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Online critical text of the Greek NT?Toward a House Church Theology: Who Sent It?
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS mail.access1.net lancelot at access1.net
Sun Aug 23 17:08:03 EDT 1998
Toward a House Church Theology: Who Sent It? Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Greetings Again:Your little hapaxlegomena has become curiouser and curiouser (as usuallyhappens)>Acts 1:3 reads (in part):> >hOIS KAI PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA META TO PAQEIN AUTON EN POLLOIS>TEKMHRIOIS> >Is the following paraphrase too strong?I was about to argue in your favor, but actually, the terminology is notstrong enough. Moulton – Milligan Vocabularly of the GNTp.628 translatestekmerion, “infallible proof”.Luke evidently felt a by far more classical term, less common to the readersusage, if not vocabulary would be appropriate- by far more intense.Regardless, in one’s common experiences in life there is no such thing.Proof in a court of law where the rules of evidence are most rigorous isalways “beyond a REASONABLE shadow of a doubt”.Ok so what extant evidence might lead us to render this passage in such afashion? Certainly nothing in nature. (M-M)” Act 1.3 may be illustrated byan Ephesian inscr. Syll 656 , where it is mentioned as megiston tekmerion ofthe sebasmos (religious awe of worship) accorded to the goddess Artemis thata month is named after her. tek. is also found with megiston andischurotatos (greatest and most powerful)” in other papyri. So that tek. connotes a religious experience of unprecedented and perhapssupernatural proportions (depending upon whether you believe the source ornot). This is not the same as semeion which are intended to fortell thefuture. (more than often a warning of divine discipline).Interestingly enough, Gallen employs the difference between these words whenhe expressly speaks of the medical distinctions between tekmherion -demonstative evidence- and semeion, stating that rhetoricians as well asphysicians have examined the evidence” (M-M)A vision of the resurrected Christ, is more than irrefutable, it compares indegree of INTENSITY with the impressions made upon human soul by a naturaldistaster, war. Whether such events occurred or not isn’t remotely an issueto the observer.Regards,Brian L.
Toward a House Church Theology: Who Sent It?Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 23 19:15:34 EDT 1998
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Greetings Brian,—“mail.access1.net” wrote:> Greetings Again:> Your little hapaxlegomena has become curiouser and curiouser (asusually happens)<> >Acts 1:3 reads (in part):> >hOIS KAI PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA META TO PAQEIN AUTON EN POLLOISTEKMHRIOIS< <> >Is the following paraphrase too strong? I was about to argue inyour favor, but actually, the terminology is not strong enough. Moulton – Milligan Vocabularly of the GNTp.628 translates tekmerion,”infallible proof”.< <> Luke evidently felt a by far more classical term, less common to thereaders usage, if not vocabulary would be appropriate- by far moreintense. Regardless, in one’s common experiences in life there is nosuch thing. Proof in a court of law where the rules of evidence aremost rigorous is always “beyond a REASONABLE shadow of a doubt”.<Since Carl and I discussed the appropriateness or inappropriateness ofthe paraphrase “irrefutable,” I have given more thought to thismatter. IMHO, “irrefutable” does not have to negate the forensicsignificance of TEKMHRION. In fact, that is exactly how I am using theterm. In a court of law, there is a forensic concept called _primafacie_ evidence. That is, irrefutable evidence. Now, one may want toargue that such evidence is theoretical. Nevertheless, there is such alegal, judicial concept. Similarly, I think the apostles werepresented with undeniable, inarguable evidence. It was “indubitable.”Peter later recorded that the Christian KERUGMA was not based onMUQOIS (2 Pet. 1:16). Of course, his words related the impression theearthly Jesus made on his apostles. What a grander impression was madewhen the apostles saw the resurrected Christ!> Ok so what extant evidence might lead us to render this passage insuch a fashion?<Thank you for the examples you give. Here also are some Classicalexamples I found at Perseus (LSJ). They seem to indicate that either”infallible” or “irrefutable” would accurately convey the sense ofTEKMHRION.Herodotus writes:[2.13.1] This, too, that the priests told me about Egypt, is a STRONGPROOF: when Moeris was king, if the river rose as much as thirteenfeet, it watered all of Egypt below Memphis. Moeris had not been deadninehundred years when I heard this from the priests. But now, if theriver does not rise at least twenty-six or twenty-five feet, the landis not flooded.[2.13.1] elegon de kai tode moi mega tekmêrion peri tês chôrês tautêshoi hirees, hôs epi Moirios basileos, hokôs elthoi ho potamos epi oktôpêcheas to elachiston, ardeske Aigupton tên enerthe Memphios: kai Moirioukô ên etea einakosia teteleutêkoti hote tôn hireôn tauta egô êkouon.nun de ei mê ep’ hekkaideka ê pentekaideka pêcheas anabêi toelachiston ho potamos, ouk huperbainei es tên chôrên.Sophecles also records:Clytaemnestra:No, not in vain; how can you say “in vain” when you have brought meSURE PROOFS of his death? (Soph. Electra 774)Klutaimnêstraoutoi matên ge: pôs gar an matên legois,ei moi thanontos pist’ echôntekmêria.>Interestingly enough, Gallen employs the difference between thesewords when he expressly speaks of the medical distinctions betweentekmherion -demonstative evidence- and semeion, stating thatrhetoricians as well as physicians have examined the evidence” (M-M)<> A vision of the resurrected Christ, is more than irrefutable, itcompares in degree of INTENSITY with the impressions made upon humansoul by a naturaldistaster, war. Whether such events occurred or not isn’t remotely anissue to the observer.<I like your comments here and agree for the most part. I guess theonly difference is that I view Luke’s words as indicative of forensicevidence, and capable of being expressed by human witnesses. The RisenChrist is a historical reality, and I see no need to make theexperience more than irrefutable (possibly even outside oftemporality). Conversely, it is true that human words can hardlyexpress the “intense” ANASTASIS of Jesus Christ. In the end, I wouldprobably still render Acts 1:3 as “irrefutable” or “indubitable”(Thayer).In this regard, I think the following comments are worthy ofconsideration:”Infallible Proofs–This is one word in Greek, TEKMHRIOIS–a strongterm (only here in the NT). JR Lumby says, “A TEKMHRION is such anevidence as to remove all doubt” (Word Meanings of The NT, R. Earle 97).In the final analysis, Earle cites “convincing proofs” (NASB) as asuitable rendering of TEKMHRION. This too could be acceptable, Iguess, as long as the reader understands the “intensity” behind theoriginal Greek. The sense I am arguing for, is the sense staed byLumby. Let me ask you, Brian, how would you render Acts 1:3?Thanks for the stimulating thoughts,Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne College_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOISActs 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS mail.access1.net lancelot at access1.net
Sun Aug 23 17:08:03 EDT 1998
Toward a House Church Theology: Who Sent It? Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Greetings Again:Your little hapaxlegomena has become curiouser and curiouser (as usuallyhappens)>Acts 1:3 reads (in part):> >hOIS KAI PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA META TO PAQEIN AUTON EN POLLOIS>TEKMHRIOIS> >Is the following paraphrase too strong?I was about to argue in your favor, but actually, the terminology is notstrong enough. Moulton – Milligan Vocabularly of the GNTp.628 translatestekmerion, “infallible proof”.Luke evidently felt a by far more classical term, less common to the readersusage, if not vocabulary would be appropriate- by far more intense.Regardless, in one’s common experiences in life there is no such thing.Proof in a court of law where the rules of evidence are most rigorous isalways “beyond a REASONABLE shadow of a doubt”.Ok so what extant evidence might lead us to render this passage in such afashion? Certainly nothing in nature. (M-M)” Act 1.3 may be illustrated byan Ephesian inscr. Syll 656 , where it is mentioned as megiston tekmerion ofthe sebasmos (religious awe of worship) accorded to the goddess Artemis thata month is named after her. tek. is also found with megiston andischurotatos (greatest and most powerful)” in other papyri. So that tek. connotes a religious experience of unprecedented and perhapssupernatural proportions (depending upon whether you believe the source ornot). This is not the same as semeion which are intended to fortell thefuture. (more than often a warning of divine discipline).Interestingly enough, Gallen employs the difference between these words whenhe expressly speaks of the medical distinctions between tekmherion -demonstative evidence- and semeion, stating that rhetoricians as well asphysicians have examined the evidence” (M-M)A vision of the resurrected Christ, is more than irrefutable, it compares indegree of INTENSITY with the impressions made upon human soul by a naturaldistaster, war. Whether such events occurred or not isn’t remotely an issueto the observer.Regards,Brian L.
Toward a House Church Theology: Who Sent It?Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 23 19:15:34 EDT 1998
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Greetings Brian,—“mail.access1.net” wrote:> Greetings Again:> Your little hapaxlegomena has become curiouser and curiouser (asusually happens)<> >Acts 1:3 reads (in part):> >hOIS KAI PARESTHSEN hEAUTON ZWNTA META TO PAQEIN AUTON EN POLLOISTEKMHRIOIS< <> >Is the following paraphrase too strong? I was about to argue inyour favor, but actually, the terminology is not strong enough. Moulton – Milligan Vocabularly of the GNTp.628 translates tekmerion,”infallible proof”.< <> Luke evidently felt a by far more classical term, less common to thereaders usage, if not vocabulary would be appropriate- by far moreintense. Regardless, in one’s common experiences in life there is nosuch thing. Proof in a court of law where the rules of evidence aremost rigorous is always “beyond a REASONABLE shadow of a doubt”.<Since Carl and I discussed the appropriateness or inappropriateness ofthe paraphrase “irrefutable,” I have given more thought to thismatter. IMHO, “irrefutable” does not have to negate the forensicsignificance of TEKMHRION. In fact, that is exactly how I am using theterm. In a court of law, there is a forensic concept called _primafacie_ evidence. That is, irrefutable evidence. Now, one may want toargue that such evidence is theoretical. Nevertheless, there is such alegal, judicial concept. Similarly, I think the apostles werepresented with undeniable, inarguable evidence. It was “indubitable.”Peter later recorded that the Christian KERUGMA was not based onMUQOIS (2 Pet. 1:16). Of course, his words related the impression theearthly Jesus made on his apostles. What a grander impression was madewhen the apostles saw the resurrected Christ!> Ok so what extant evidence might lead us to render this passage insuch a fashion?<Thank you for the examples you give. Here also are some Classicalexamples I found at Perseus (LSJ). They seem to indicate that either”infallible” or “irrefutable” would accurately convey the sense ofTEKMHRION.Herodotus writes:[2.13.1] This, too, that the priests told me about Egypt, is a STRONGPROOF: when Moeris was king, if the river rose as much as thirteenfeet, it watered all of Egypt below Memphis. Moeris had not been deadninehundred years when I heard this from the priests. But now, if theriver does not rise at least twenty-six or twenty-five feet, the landis not flooded.[2.13.1] elegon de kai tode moi mega tekmêrion peri tês chôrês tautêshoi hirees, hôs epi Moirios basileos, hokôs elthoi ho potamos epi oktôpêcheas to elachiston, ardeske Aigupton tên enerthe Memphios: kai Moirioukô ên etea einakosia teteleutêkoti hote tôn hireôn tauta egô êkouon.nun de ei mê ep’ hekkaideka ê pentekaideka pêcheas anabêi toelachiston ho potamos, ouk huperbainei es tên chôrên.Sophecles also records:Clytaemnestra:No, not in vain; how can you say “in vain” when you have brought meSURE PROOFS of his death? (Soph. Electra 774)Klutaimnêstraoutoi matên ge: pôs gar an matên legois,ei moi thanontos pist’ echôntekmêria.>Interestingly enough, Gallen employs the difference between thesewords when he expressly speaks of the medical distinctions betweentekmherion -demonstative evidence- and semeion, stating thatrhetoricians as well as physicians have examined the evidence” (M-M)<> A vision of the resurrected Christ, is more than irrefutable, itcompares in degree of INTENSITY with the impressions made upon humansoul by a naturaldistaster, war. Whether such events occurred or not isn’t remotely anissue to the observer.<I like your comments here and agree for the most part. I guess theonly difference is that I view Luke’s words as indicative of forensicevidence, and capable of being expressed by human witnesses. The RisenChrist is a historical reality, and I see no need to make theexperience more than irrefutable (possibly even outside oftemporality). Conversely, it is true that human words can hardlyexpress the “intense” ANASTASIS of Jesus Christ. In the end, I wouldprobably still render Acts 1:3 as “irrefutable” or “indubitable”(Thayer).In this regard, I think the following comments are worthy ofconsideration:”Infallible Proofs–This is one word in Greek, TEKMHRIOIS–a strongterm (only here in the NT). JR Lumby says, “A TEKMHRION is such anevidence as to remove all doubt” (Word Meanings of The NT, R. Earle 97).In the final analysis, Earle cites “convincing proofs” (NASB) as asuitable rendering of TEKMHRION. This too could be acceptable, Iguess, as long as the reader understands the “intensity” behind theoriginal Greek. The sense I am arguing for, is the sense staed byLumby. Let me ask you, Brian, how would you render Acts 1:3?Thanks for the stimulating thoughts,Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne College_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOISActs 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Paul Zellmer zellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph
Sun Aug 23 21:00:46 EDT 1998
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Edgar Foster wrote:> Since Carl and I discussed the appropriateness or inappropriateness of> the paraphrase “irrefutable,” I have given more thought to this> matter. IMHO, “irrefutable” does not have to negate the forensic> significance of TEKMHRION. In fact, that is exactly how I am using the> term. In a court of law, there is a forensic concept called _prima> facie_ evidence. That is, irrefutable evidence. —Edgar,I know that we are not here to argue English or Latin terms. But if you really seeTEKMHRION having the force of “prima facie” evidence, then you are weakening yourstand.”Prima facie,” or “first face” evidence has a definite possibility of being refuted.It is the evidence presented to the grand juries in the States, for example, thatresults in indictment. It is also the evidence that defenses spend their timerefuting. And, if it is refuted, there is no conviction.Merriam-Webster dictionary gives this definition:1 : true, valid, or sufficient at first impression : apparent2 : self-evident3 : legally sufficient to establish a fact or a case unless disprovedSince you have not yet shown where and with what impact this word was used in thelegal sense in the ancient greek world, I trust that you are simply misstating thetype of evidence that you see being referred to here.Just a minor point,Paul–Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey BeltranIbanag Translation ProjectCabagan, Philippineszellmer at faith.edu.ph
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOISActs 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS mail.access1.net lancelot at access1.net
Sun Aug 23 20:03:18 EDT 1998
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS >I like your comments here and agree for the most part. I guess the>only difference is that I view Luke’s words as indicative of forensic>evidence, and capable of being expressed by human witnesses. The Risen>Christ is a historical reality, and I see no need to make the>experience more than irrefutable (possibly even outside of>temporality). Conversely, it is true that human words can hardly>express the “intense” ANASTASIS of Jesus Christ. In the end, I would>probably still render Acts 1:3 as “irrefutable” or “indubitable”>(Thayer).> >In this regard, I think the following comments are worthy of>consideration:> >“Infallible Proofs–This is one word in Greek, TEKMHRIOIS–a strong>term (only here in the NT). JR Lumby says, “A TEKMHRION is such an>evidence as to remove all doubt” (Word Meanings of The NT, R. Earle 97).> >In the final analysis, Earle cites “convincing proofs” (NASB) as a>suitable rendering of TEKMHRION. This too could be acceptable, I>guess, as long as the reader understands the “intensity” behind the>original Greek. The sense I am arguing for, is the sense staed by>Lumby. Let me ask you, Brian, how would you render Acts 1:3?Good question, ahem! In situations like this, I generally use an asterik toindicate “for lack of a better term”-how’s that for a dodge. I agree withM-M, and evidently Lumby as well to choose the term “infallible”. Yes suchincidents of Scripture are conveyed through historical proof and thisrequires human language. I’m certainly telling you nothing new when I saythat spiritual gifts and the Holy Spirit must always. In short the value ofa translation is its exegesis to a congregation.If you would like to examine something extremely peculiar which I find to bean historico-Biblical commentaryon the nature of translation, read Rom 3.10-18, a Pauline quote of the LXX(Ps 4?) And then compare the LXX to the Hebrew text, just for giggles.Either Paul didn’t have a Hebrew text to compare, or he didn’t do hishomework.BTW, that was one quick response. May I ask where you are on online?REgards,Brian L.
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOISActs 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS mail.access1.net lancelot at access1.net
Sun Aug 23 20:03:18 EDT 1998
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS >I like your comments here and agree for the most part. I guess the>only difference is that I view Luke’s words as indicative of forensic>evidence, and capable of being expressed by human witnesses. The Risen>Christ is a historical reality, and I see no need to make the>experience more than irrefutable (possibly even outside of>temporality). Conversely, it is true that human words can hardly>express the “intense” ANASTASIS of Jesus Christ. In the end, I would>probably still render Acts 1:3 as “irrefutable” or “indubitable”>(Thayer).> >In this regard, I think the following comments are worthy of>consideration:> >“Infallible Proofs–This is one word in Greek, TEKMHRIOIS–a strong>term (only here in the NT). JR Lumby says, “A TEKMHRION is such an>evidence as to remove all doubt” (Word Meanings of The NT, R. Earle 97).> >In the final analysis, Earle cites “convincing proofs” (NASB) as a>suitable rendering of TEKMHRION. This too could be acceptable, I>guess, as long as the reader understands the “intensity” behind the>original Greek. The sense I am arguing for, is the sense staed by>Lumby. Let me ask you, Brian, how would you render Acts 1:3?Good question, ahem! In situations like this, I generally use an asterik toindicate “for lack of a better term”-how’s that for a dodge. I agree withM-M, and evidently Lumby as well to choose the term “infallible”. Yes suchincidents of Scripture are conveyed through historical proof and thisrequires human language. I’m certainly telling you nothing new when I saythat spiritual gifts and the Holy Spirit must always. In short the value ofa translation is its exegesis to a congregation.If you would like to examine something extremely peculiar which I find to bean historico-Biblical commentaryon the nature of translation, read Rom 3.10-18, a Pauline quote of the LXX(Ps 4?) And then compare the LXX to the Hebrew text, just for giggles.Either Paul didn’t have a Hebrew text to compare, or he didn’t do hishomework.BTW, that was one quick response. May I ask where you are on online?REgards,Brian L.
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOISActs 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Paul Zellmer zellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph
Sun Aug 23 21:00:46 EDT 1998
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Edgar Foster wrote:> Since Carl and I discussed the appropriateness or inappropriateness of> the paraphrase “irrefutable,” I have given more thought to this> matter. IMHO, “irrefutable” does not have to negate the forensic> significance of TEKMHRION. In fact, that is exactly how I am using the> term. In a court of law, there is a forensic concept called _prima> facie_ evidence. That is, irrefutable evidence. —Edgar,I know that we are not here to argue English or Latin terms. But if you really seeTEKMHRION having the force of “prima facie” evidence, then you are weakening yourstand.”Prima facie,” or “first face” evidence has a definite possibility of being refuted.It is the evidence presented to the grand juries in the States, for example, thatresults in indictment. It is also the evidence that defenses spend their timerefuting. And, if it is refuted, there is no conviction.Merriam-Webster dictionary gives this definition:1 : true, valid, or sufficient at first impression : apparent2 : self-evident3 : legally sufficient to establish a fact or a case unless disprovedSince you have not yet shown where and with what impact this word was used in thelegal sense in the ancient greek world, I trust that you are simply misstating thetype of evidence that you see being referred to here.Just a minor point,Paul–Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey BeltranIbanag Translation ProjectCabagan, Philippineszellmer at faith.edu.ph
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOISActs 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 23 21:30:42 EDT 1998
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS The word alone in Romans 3:28 —Paul Zellmer wrote:> Edgar Foster wrote:> > Since Carl and I discussed the appropriateness orinappropriateness of the paraphrase “irrefutable,” I have given morethought to this matter. IMHO, “irrefutable” does not have to negatethe forensic significance of TEKMHRION. In fact, that is exactly how Iam using the term. In a court of law, there is a forensic conceptcalled _prima facie_ evidence. That is, irrefutable evidence. —< <> Edgar,> “Prima facie,” or “first face” evidence has a definite possibilityof being refuted. It is the evidence presented to the grand juries inthe States, for example, that results in indictment. It is also theevidence that defenses spend their timerefuting. And, if it is refuted, there is no conviction.<Dear Paul,You are right. Prima facie evidence can be refuted. I failed to beprecise as I should have been in my delineation of the term. I wasusing it in the sense of “irrefutable” (which sense it does have).But, to be exact, prima facie evidence can be and is refuted. Thepoint I was making, however, is that the evidence that was presentedto the apostles was “obvious.” It was stark, and could not _rightly_be disputed among the apostles. Yet, when the followers of Jesuspreached about this event to others–efforts to refute this divinemiracle did take place. I guess my point is that the evidencepresented to the apostles was “indubitable” or obvious to them(regardless of whether others viewed it that way).Keep in mind also, I am using the concept of prima facie analogically.This is my effort to help modern man understand what Acts 1:3 issaying. I would not per se translate Acts 1:3 as “prima facie.” Isimply used this legal concept to illustrate how forensic evidence canbe viewed as irrefutable. In the long run, it is probably safer torender Acts 1:3 as “convincing, infallible, or indubitable. Thanks forthe correction.Regards,Edgar FosterLenoir-Rhyne College _________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOISThe word alone in Romans 3:28
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 23 21:30:42 EDT 1998
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOIS The word alone in Romans 3:28 —Paul Zellmer wrote:> Edgar Foster wrote:> > Since Carl and I discussed the appropriateness orinappropriateness of the paraphrase “irrefutable,” I have given morethought to this matter. IMHO, “irrefutable” does not have to negatethe forensic significance of TEKMHRION. In fact, that is exactly how Iam using the term. In a court of law, there is a forensic conceptcalled _prima facie_ evidence. That is, irrefutable evidence. —< <> Edgar,> “Prima facie,” or “first face” evidence has a definite possibilityof being refuted. It is the evidence presented to the grand juries inthe States, for example, that results in indictment. It is also theevidence that defenses spend their timerefuting. And, if it is refuted, there is no conviction.<Dear Paul,You are right. Prima facie evidence can be refuted. I failed to beprecise as I should have been in my delineation of the term. I wasusing it in the sense of “irrefutable” (which sense it does have).But, to be exact, prima facie evidence can be and is refuted. Thepoint I was making, however, is that the evidence that was presentedto the apostles was “obvious.” It was stark, and could not _rightly_be disputed among the apostles. Yet, when the followers of Jesuspreached about this event to others–efforts to refute this divinemiracle did take place. I guess my point is that the evidencepresented to the apostles was “indubitable” or obvious to them(regardless of whether others viewed it that way).Keep in mind also, I am using the concept of prima facie analogically.This is my effort to help modern man understand what Acts 1:3 issaying. I would not per se translate Acts 1:3 as “prima facie.” Isimply used this legal concept to illustrate how forensic evidence canbe viewed as irrefutable. In the long run, it is probably safer torender Acts 1:3 as “convincing, infallible, or indubitable. Thanks forthe correction.Regards,Edgar FosterLenoir-Rhyne College _________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Acts 1:3-EN POLLOIS TEKMHRIOISThe word alone in Romans 3:28
It said, To whom also He showed Himself alive after His passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days , and speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. ( believe He proved to His Disciples, He was the Son Of God. By many infallible proofs , showing with a doubt. He was and Is, and is to come the real Son Of God. And to others also. So they are without excuse. He proved it. I believe , He proved Who He was , because He had a lot of things to get across to them, the forty days He was with them. Could be for them to preach and prove Who He was. His going away. But His Coming back. There 366 books in the Bible they needed to understand. Including all the New Testament. About Him build Mansions. Streets of pure Gold. He showed a lot of that to John on the Isle Of Patmos. But they was to go back to Jerusalem before Pentecost. Told them to wait until they were endued with Power From On High. That was when Pentecost was given. I feel He had many things and proofs. But they were there when they saw Him go up. The two or maybe it was three. The said why stand you here gazing in the sky. This same Jesus is coming back in like manner as you have seen Him go. I’m kinda like Job. He said my eyes shall behold Him and not another. Oh I can’t wait until He Comes in the air. To raise the dead in Christ. And change us that are alive in a moment in the Twilkling of an eye. And catch us away.
I have the picture of yhe man that made the chip with the number on it. And he’s begging people not to take it. He said I hadn’t read what Revelation said. I could get my daughter to download it to you. But I never know if it is wanted or not. Yo can let me know if you want it.