[] Jude 3 Dony K. Donev
Sat Feb 21 15:52:18 EST 2004 [] Jude 3 Jude 3: What translation of EPAGONIZESTHAI would be better than contend?Dony K. Donev
Sat Feb 21 15:52:18 EST 2004
[] Bonner 319 [] Jude 3 Jude 3: What translation of EPAGONIZESTHAI would be better than contend?Dony K. Donevhttp://www.cupandcross.com/
[] Bonner 319[] Jude 3
[] Jude 3 Ann Nyland accuratebibles at ozemail.com.au
Sat Feb 21 18:48:17 EST 2004
[] Jude 3 John 20:31 was Re: [] Phil 2:11 I think “contend” is pretty good, that was its meaning in classical times aswell as 1st c. (in games contexts as well as attacking contexts) – “fight”or “battle” are O.K., but not quite there – MM have 2 occurrences from theinscriptions, one they don’t trans., the other they translate as “vie”.Ann Nyland—– Original Message —–From: “Dony K. Donev” To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 7:52 AMSubject: [] Jude 3Jude 3: What translation of EPAGONIZESTHAI would be better than contend?Dony K. Donevhttp://www.cupandcross.com/— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Jude 3John 20:31 was Re: [] Phil 2:11
[] Jude 3 Ann Nyland accuratebibles at ozemail.com.au
Sat Feb 21 18:48:17 EST 2004
[] Jude 3 John 20:31 was Re: [] Phil 2:11 I think “contend” is pretty good, that was its meaning in classical times aswell as 1st c. (in games contexts as well as attacking contexts) – “fight”or “battle” are O.K., but not quite there – MM have 2 occurrences from theinscriptions, one they don’t trans., the other they translate as “vie”.Ann Nyland—– Original Message —–From: “Dony K. Donev”To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 7:52 AMSubject: [] Jude 3Jude 3: What translation of EPAGONIZESTHAI would be better than contend?Dony K. Donevhttp://www.cupandcross.com/— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Jude 3John 20:31 was Re: [] Phil 2:11
[] Re: Jude 3 Charles Isaac chasisaac at aslannet.org
Sun Feb 22 18:37:57 EST 2004
[] Questions [] written sigma On Feb 22, 2004, at 11:00 AM, “Dony K. Donev” wrote:> Jude 3: What translation of EPAGONIZESTHAI would be better than > contend?How about GRAPPLE? I do not think this would be a great translation… however… it may work.I would agree with Ann CONTEND works well.Blessings and Peace,Charles IsaacTeacher, New Testament / Old TestamentMountain Lake ChristianMountain Lake MNwww.aslannet.orgwww.mtlakechristian.net——————————————————Developing Leaders of Noble Character
[] Questions[] written sigma
[] Re: Jude 3 Charles Isaac chasisaac at aslannet.org
Sun Feb 22 18:37:57 EST 2004
[] Questions [] written sigma On Feb 22, 2004, at 11:00 AM, “Dony K. Donev” wrote:> Jude 3: What translation of EPAGONIZESTHAI would be better than > contend?How about GRAPPLE? I do not think this would be a great translation… however… it may work.I would agree with Ann CONTEND works well.Blessings and Peace,Charles IsaacTeacher, New Testament / Old TestamentMountain Lake ChristianMountain Lake MNwww.aslannet.orgwww.mtlakechristian.net——————————————————Developing Leaders of Noble Character
[] Questions[] written sigma
Jude 3: PISTEI Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jul 11 08:18:32 EDT 1998
Previous message: Synonyms meaning deceive Next message: Participle as Finite Verb Fearing that I may have poured too much cold water on an inquiry thatJonathan suggested is worth pursuing for its own sake, let me plunge backinto the deep waters now. What follows is a paragraph from an off-listexchange between Jonathan and myself.At 4:16 PM -0400 7/10/98, Jonathan Robie wrote:>At 03:54 PM 7/10/98 -0400, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>>I agree that it is a legitimate question–and that it could open up some>>interesting (whether or not useful) lines of inquiry. BUT it wasn’t the>>question that Eric raised, and what I really expect to see (if there IS a>>discussion of PISTIS in Jude 3) is arguments for and against whether faith>>is assent to an intellectual proposition regarding salvation (as I suspect>>it IS in Jude 3) or trust.Now, continuing. I have never really paid a lot of attention to Jude, otherthan to the splendid benediction with which it closes. Nevertheless, withrespect to the sense of PISTIS in verse 3, it does seem to me that thisbrief letter focuses sharply upon upholding orthodox teaching in the faceof threats of heretical teaching (which is a reason why some would classifythis is a late first-century “document of emerging Catholicism”). I thoughtI would check the interesting NET version on the web, and here’s what Ifound (the text of verse 3 is followed by notes: “tn” = translator’s note;”sn” = commentator’s note:——————Netscape: The NET Bible 1996 Biblical Studies Presshttp://www.bible.org/netbible/jud_note.htm#fn10Saturday, July 11, 1998JudeCondemnation of the False Teachers3 Dear friends, although I have been eager to write to you7 about ourcommon salvation, I now feel compelled8 instead to write to encourage9 youto contend earnestly10 for the faith11 that was once for all12 entrusted tothe saints.1311tn THi PISTEI here is taken as a dative of advantage (“on behalf of thefaith”). Though rare (see BAGD 664 s.v. 3.), it is not unexampled, and musthave this meaning here.sn The term “faith” has a variety of meanings in the NT. Here, the faithrefers to the doctrinal content embraced by believers rather than the actof believing. Rather than discuss the points of agreement that Jude wouldhave with these believers, because of the urgency of the present situationhe must assume that these believers were well-grounded and press on toencourage them to fight for this common belief.12sn The adverb once for all (Grk hAPAX) seems to indicate that thedoctrinal convictions of the early church had been substantially codified.That is to say, Jude could appeal to written documents of the Christianfaith in his arguments with the false teachers. Most likely, thesedocuments were the letters of Paul and perhaps one or more gospel. Firstand Second Peter may also have been among the documents Jude has in mind(see also the note on the phrase entrusted to the saints in this verse).———————end of extractCarl 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/
Previous message: Synonyms meaning deceiveNext message: Participle as Finite Verb More information about the mailing list
Jude 3: PISTEI Steven Cox scox at chinaonline.com.cn.net
Sat Jul 11 11:27:30 EDT 1998
Previous message: Synonyms meaning deceive Next message: Jude 3: PISTEI That footnote on the Net Bible could be extended to the other use of PISTIS in Jude 20 – EPOIKODOMOUNTES EAUTOUS THi AGIWTATHi UMWN PISTEI – which reads very muc as if the PISTIS meant is that of Jude17~18 which (as far as I know) is also the only example of one NT epistle quoting another as its authority. Given which it may be relevant that PISTIS is almost 2 Peter’s first word. Rgds StevenAt 08:18 98/07/11 -0400, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>http://www.bible.org/netbible/jud_note.htm#fn10>11tn THi PISTEI here is taken as a dative of advantage (“on behalf of the>faith”). Though rare (see BAGD 664 s.v. 3.), it is not unexampled, and must>have this meaning here.>sn The term “faith” has a variety of meanings in the NT. Here, the faith>refers to the doctrinal content embraced by believers rather than the act>of believing. Rather than discuss the points of agreement that Jude would>have with these believers, because of the urgency of the present situation>he must assume that these believers were well-grounded and press on to>encourage them to fight for this common belief.
Previous message: Synonyms meaning deceiveNext message: Jude 3: PISTEI More information about the mailing list
Jude 3: PISTEI Larry Swain swainl at calcite.rocky.edu
Sat Jul 11 13:44:09 EDT 1998
Previous message: Jude 3: PISTEI Next message: Participle as Finite Verb I have done some work in Irenaeus, particularly his use of tradition. Heis the first Christian writer we know of to articulate in clear terms whatthe “orthodox tradition” is and how that is passed down to the church ofhis day, app. a century after Jude. I bring this up because I haveoftenedwondered if 2 Peter and Jude are not the beginnings in church history ofattempting to articulate what for Irenaeus becomes fully stated. PISITIS then would be more than DOXA, more than mores, more than trust, itwould be an atempt to use this common word to encompass the whole of theChristian experience-I think that Jude is on the way to that idea here,although the language doesn’t quite support that-at least as we have it.If we knew more about Jude’s background, Sitz im Leben, and more examplesof his use of PISTIS we would be on firmer ground (or I would). But as itis……………..a mere educated guess is the best one can offer.Larry Swain
Previous message: Jude 3: PISTEINext message: Participle as Finite Verb More information about the mailing list
PISTIS, Jude 3 Alexander Kyrychenko Kyrychenko at compuserve.com
Sun Jul 12 04:57:44 EDT 1998
Previous message: Synonyms meaning deceive Next message: Participle as Finite Verb dbielby at juno.com wrote:>Pistis-in Jude 3 seems to be a reference to the commonly accepted>Christian Confession of Faith in the first Century. In my mind the>question is, which letter or document summarizes this faith. Because of>this question, the Didache has been of high interest to me as an ancient>bit of history that helps us see a summary from the early church fathers.Jonathan Robie wrote:>What evidence is there that there was a document that comprised a“commonly>accepted Christian Confession of Faith” in the first Century?IMO an example of such “commonly accepted Christian Confession of Faith”may be in 1Cor.15:1ff. Notice that what Paul himself PARELABON hedelivered (PAREDWKA) them – the gospel. Though PISTIS in Jude not necessaryrefers to confessional formulae, his meaning of PISTIS, which wasdelivered (PARADOQEISHi) to the saints, IMO seems to be the gospel aswell.Alexander Kyrychenko.
Previous message: Synonyms meaning deceiveNext message: Participle as Finite Verb More information about the mailing list
Jude 1:3; KOINHS Martin Gallagher martingallagher at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 28 14:22:24 EDT 1998
1 John 5:20 – who is hOUTOS? Boustrophedon writing Hello all,Is there any grammatical reason why KOINHS in Jude 1:3 may not betranslated as ‘profane’, rather than ‘shared’?The only other place that I have found this word used in the samemanner is in Titus 1:4 (KOINHS PISTIN). the only difference being thatin Jude, HMWN is used between the adjective and its subject, and thereis a definite article here (THS KOINHS HMWN SWTHRIAS).I have seen no evidence of dispute about this word in any translationsor commentary, with the exception of the exclusion of HMWN some texts.Theological argument allows this verse and the one in Titus to use’profane’, but is it valid grammatically?Martin Gallagher_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
1 John 5:20 – who is hOUTOS?Boustrophedon writing
Jude 1:3; KOINHS Martin Gallagher martingallagher at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 28 14:22:24 EDT 1998
1 John 5:20 – who is hOUTOS? Boustrophedon writing Hello all,Is there any grammatical reason why KOINHS in Jude 1:3 may not betranslated as ‘profane’, rather than ‘shared’?The only other place that I have found this word used in the samemanner is in Titus 1:4 (KOINHS PISTIN). the only difference being thatin Jude, HMWN is used between the adjective and its subject, and thereis a definite article here (THS KOINHS HMWN SWTHRIAS).I have seen no evidence of dispute about this word in any translationsor commentary, with the exception of the exclusion of HMWN some texts.Theological argument allows this verse and the one in Titus to use’profane’, but is it valid grammatically?Martin Gallagher_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
1 John 5:20 – who is hOUTOS?Boustrophedon writing
Jude 1:3; KOINHS Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Aug 28 16:26:14 EDT 1998
Boustrophedon writing Fw: Jude 1:3; KOINHS At 1:22 PM -0500 8/28/98, Martin Gallagher wrote:>Hello all,> >Is there any grammatical reason why KOINHS in Jude 1:3 may not be>translated as ‘profane’, rather than ‘shared’?I don’t think so. If KOINHS SWTHRIAS were to be understood as “profanesalvation,” then there would have to be some understood hIERA SWTHRIA, a”sacred salvation.” But what would this mean?>The only other place that I have found this word used in the same>manner is in Titus 1:4 (KOINHS PISTIN). the only difference being that>in Jude, HMWN is used between the adjective and its subject, and there>is a definite article here (THS KOINHS HMWN SWTHRIAS).> >I have seen no evidence of dispute about this word in any translations>or commentary, with the exception of the exclusion of HMWN some texts.> >Theological argument allows this verse and the one in Titus to use>‘profane’, but is it valid grammatically?It’s valid grammatically, yes, but it’s hard to see what sense “profane”would have in either place: the antithesis of ‘profane’ is ‘sacred’–butare we talking about a kind of salvation or about a kind of faith that isprofane rather than sacred?The fundamental sense of KOINOS/H/ON is “common,” “shared.” When KOINOS hasa pejorative sense, it really means “vulgar,” beneath standards of goodtaste, worthless.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/
Boustrophedon writingFw: Jude 1:3; KOINHS
Fw: Jude 1:3; KOINHS Tolliver Family tolliver at tstar.net
Fri Aug 28 17:22:37 EDT 1998
Jude 1:3; KOINHS Jude 1:3; KOINHS Remember that profane is not just the opposite of sacred–it is open toview–“common” in that sense.The two kinds of faith are the inward and the outward.ken> >Is there any grammatical reason why KOINHS in Jude 1:3 may not be> >translated as ‘profane’, rather than ‘shared’?> It’s valid grammatically, yes, but it’s hard to see what sense “profane”> would have in either place: the antithesis of ‘profane’ is ‘sacred’–but> are we talking about a kind of salvation or about a kind of faith that is> profane rather than sacred?> > The fundamental sense of KOINOS/H/ON is “common,” “shared.” When KOINOShas> a pejorative sense, it really means “vulgar,” beneath standards of good> taste, worthless.> >
Jude 1:3; KOINHSJude 1:3; KOINHS
Jude 1:3; KOINHS Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Aug 28 16:26:14 EDT 1998
Boustrophedon writing Fw: Jude 1:3; KOINHS At 1:22 PM -0500 8/28/98, Martin Gallagher wrote:>Hello all,> >Is there any grammatical reason why KOINHS in Jude 1:3 may not be>translated as ‘profane’, rather than ‘shared’?I don’t think so. If KOINHS SWTHRIAS were to be understood as “profanesalvation,” then there would have to be some understood hIERA SWTHRIA, a”sacred salvation.” But what would this mean?>The only other place that I have found this word used in the same>manner is in Titus 1:4 (KOINHS PISTIN). the only difference being that>in Jude, HMWN is used between the adjective and its subject, and there>is a definite article here (THS KOINHS HMWN SWTHRIAS).> >I have seen no evidence of dispute about this word in any translations>or commentary, with the exception of the exclusion of HMWN some texts.> >Theological argument allows this verse and the one in Titus to use>‘profane’, but is it valid grammatically?It’s valid grammatically, yes, but it’s hard to see what sense “profane”would have in either place: the antithesis of ‘profane’ is ‘sacred’–butare we talking about a kind of salvation or about a kind of faith that isprofane rather than sacred?The fundamental sense of KOINOS/H/ON is “common,” “shared.” When KOINOS hasa pejorative sense, it really means “vulgar,” beneath standards of goodtaste, worthless.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/
Boustrophedon writingFw: Jude 1:3; KOINHS
Fw: Jude 1:3; KOINHS Tolliver Family tolliver at tstar.net
Fri Aug 28 17:22:37 EDT 1998
Jude 1:3; KOINHS Jude 1:3; KOINHS Remember that profane is not just the opposite of sacred–it is open toview–“common” in that sense.The two kinds of faith are the inward and the outward.ken> >Is there any grammatical reason why KOINHS in Jude 1:3 may not be> >translated as ‘profane’, rather than ‘shared’?> It’s valid grammatically, yes, but it’s hard to see what sense “profane”> would have in either place: the antithesis of ‘profane’ is ‘sacred’–but> are we talking about a kind of salvation or about a kind of faith that is> profane rather than sacred?> > The fundamental sense of KOINOS/H/ON is “common,” “shared.” When KOINOShas> a pejorative sense, it really means “vulgar,” beneath standards of good> taste, worthless.> >
Jude 1:3; KOINHSJude 1:3; KOINHS
Jude 1:3; KOINHS Martin Gallagher martingallagher at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 28 21:50:11 EDT 1998
Fw: Jude 1:3; KOINHS The termination of Paul’s marriage? (Was: 1 Corinthians 7:27-28) (WARNING. This message contains mostly theology.)Carl,You wrote:——————–If KOINHS SWTHRIAS were to be understood as “profane salvation,” then there would have to be some understood hIERA SWTHRIA,a “sacred salvation.” But what would this mean?…it’s hard to seewhat sense “profane” would have in either place: the antithesis of’profane’ is ‘sacred’–but are we talking about a kind ofsalvation…or…faith that is profane rather than sacred?——————– The ‘profane’ salvation or ‘profane’ faith is not something that isespoused by any teaching in scriptures, but it is clear by readingthroughout the new testament that salvation and the ‘true’ faith wasconsidered to be held solely by Israel, and thus a ‘holy’ or ‘sacred’salvation and faith as seen from the perspective of the Israelites.The Gentiles had always been seen as unclean by Israel. Contact withGentiles or association with them in certain circumstances made themceremonially unclean, and in need of ritual ‘washing’ to be againacceptable.When the concept of Gentiles being given salvation was presented tothe Jews, they had a hard time accepting it. The council at Jerusalemwas convened to discuss the ‘new’ happenings and how they fit intotheir present understandings.Paul speaks about this is Romans, especially in chapters 9 through 12.Also, the first part of his letter to the Galations addresses thisissue. Titus, being a Gentile, was pressured to be circumcised by the Jews,but did not feel compelled to do so. He was Paul’s true son in the’profane faith’, as he mentions in Titus 1:4. It was important forPaul to speak of this when addressing Titus, for this had been a keyissue in their ministry.Peter also spends considerable time convincing the Jews that theGentiles were a part of God’s salvation. This was a major disagreementbetween Peter and Paul. Peter had at one time been influenced by theJews who did not want him to associate with the Gentiles, even afterhis revelation from God.It is conceivable that the phrase ‘profane salvation’ is one that thereaders of Jude’s letter are familiar. He addresses the fact that hewas going to write to them about this salvation, and was diligent inhis planning to do this. There was much discussion and debate amongboth the Gentiles and the Jews about what these new events meant, asevidenced in Paul’s writings to the Romans.He decided to write to them about something different, however. Hewrites to them, and reminds them of what they have already known.God’s plan of salvation was the same in their time as it had alwaysbeen. The mystery of this salvation was not revealed until that time,but the truth of the faith had not changed. This is the same faiththat had been given to Abel. By having this faith he was able to offera sacrifice that was acceptable to God and which looked forward to thesacrifice of Jesus.In other words, he asks them to not to fight against those that areteaching strange doctrine, but to fight for and align themselves tothe faith that does not change. He urges them to remember that all oftheir knowledge of what God had revealed to Israel was still valid,and that any new revelations need to be interpreted on that basis.Translating KOINHS as ‘shared’ here does not make sense unless thefirst part of Jude 1:3 is considered to be a ‘throw-away’. It is alsodifficult to understand why Paul would feel compelled to stress thathis and Titus’ faith is ‘shared’ between them. When KOINHS is translated as ‘profane’, these verses are shown to beintegral to the meaning of the larger text.Martin GallagherAnnapolis, MD_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Fw: Jude 1:3; KOINHSThe termination of Paul’s marriage? (Was: 1 Corinthians 7:27-28)
Jude 1:3; KOINHS Martin Gallagher martingallagher at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 28 21:50:11 EDT 1998
Fw: Jude 1:3; KOINHS The termination of Paul’s marriage? (Was: 1 Corinthians 7:27-28) (WARNING. This message contains mostly theology.)Carl,You wrote:——————–If KOINHS SWTHRIAS were to be understood as “profane salvation,” then there would have to be some understood hIERA SWTHRIA,a “sacred salvation.” But what would this mean?…it’s hard to seewhat sense “profane” would have in either place: the antithesis of’profane’ is ‘sacred’–but are we talking about a kind ofsalvation…or…faith that is profane rather than sacred?——————– The ‘profane’ salvation or ‘profane’ faith is not something that isespoused by any teaching in scriptures, but it is clear by readingthroughout the new testament that salvation and the ‘true’ faith wasconsidered to be held solely by Israel, and thus a ‘holy’ or ‘sacred’salvation and faith as seen from the perspective of the Israelites.The Gentiles had always been seen as unclean by Israel. Contact withGentiles or association with them in certain circumstances made themceremonially unclean, and in need of ritual ‘washing’ to be againacceptable.When the concept of Gentiles being given salvation was presented tothe Jews, they had a hard time accepting it. The council at Jerusalemwas convened to discuss the ‘new’ happenings and how they fit intotheir present understandings.Paul speaks about this is Romans, especially in chapters 9 through 12.Also, the first part of his letter to the Galations addresses thisissue. Titus, being a Gentile, was pressured to be circumcised by the Jews,but did not feel compelled to do so. He was Paul’s true son in the’profane faith’, as he mentions in Titus 1:4. It was important forPaul to speak of this when addressing Titus, for this had been a keyissue in their ministry.Peter also spends considerable time convincing the Jews that theGentiles were a part of God’s salvation. This was a major disagreementbetween Peter and Paul. Peter had at one time been influenced by theJews who did not want him to associate with the Gentiles, even afterhis revelation from God.It is conceivable that the phrase ‘profane salvation’ is one that thereaders of Jude’s letter are familiar. He addresses the fact that hewas going to write to them about this salvation, and was diligent inhis planning to do this. There was much discussion and debate amongboth the Gentiles and the Jews about what these new events meant, asevidenced in Paul’s writings to the Romans.He decided to write to them about something different, however. Hewrites to them, and reminds them of what they have already known.God’s plan of salvation was the same in their time as it had alwaysbeen. The mystery of this salvation was not revealed until that time,but the truth of the faith had not changed. This is the same faiththat had been given to Abel. By having this faith he was able to offera sacrifice that was acceptable to God and which looked forward to thesacrifice of Jesus.In other words, he asks them to not to fight against those that areteaching strange doctrine, but to fight for and align themselves tothe faith that does not change. He urges them to remember that all oftheir knowledge of what God had revealed to Israel was still valid,and that any new revelations need to be interpreted on that basis.Translating KOINHS as ‘shared’ here does not make sense unless thefirst part of Jude 1:3 is considered to be a ‘throw-away’. It is alsodifficult to understand why Paul would feel compelled to stress thathis and Titus’ faith is ‘shared’ between them. When KOINHS is translated as ‘profane’, these verses are shown to beintegral to the meaning of the larger text.Martin GallagherAnnapolis, MD_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Fw: Jude 1:3; KOINHSThe termination of Paul’s marriage? (Was: 1 Corinthians 7:27-28)
Jude 1:3; KOINHS (intolerably LONG!) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Aug 29 08:11:36 EDT 1998
1 John 5:20 – who is hOUTOS? 1 John 5:20 – who is hOUTOS? Unless ers are particularly interested in this question, they mightdo well to delete it right now; I’ve considered what I might delete fromthe previous correspondence and I don’t see how to do it.At 8:50 PM -0500 8/28/98, Martin Gallagher wrote:>(WARNING. This message contains mostly theology.)Yes, and we’re making an effort to keep discussion in this forum focused onwhat we can reach some agreement upon regarding the sense and intent of theGreek text; inevitably theological slants affect the way we read the Greek,particularly where we can agree that there is some ambiguity in the Greek.In the present instance, I really don’t think there’s much ambiguity in theGreek, nor, apparently, do you, but yet we are at odds over the use ofKOINHS in Jude 1:3.>Carl,> >You wrote:>——————–>If KOINHS SWTHRIAS were to be understood as “profane>salvation,” then there would have to be some understood hIERA SWTHRIA,>a “sacred salvation.” But what would this mean?…it’s hard to see>what sense “profane” would have in either place: the antithesis of>‘profane’ is ‘sacred’–but are we talking about a kind of>salvation…or…faith that is profane rather than sacred?>——————–>The ‘profane’ salvation or ‘profane’ faith is not something that is>espoused by any teaching in scriptures, but it is clear by reading>throughout the new testament that salvation and the ‘true’ faith was>considered to be held solely by Israel, and thus a ‘holy’ or ‘sacred’>salvation and faith as seen from the perspective of the Israelites.> >The Gentiles had always been seen as unclean by Israel. Contact with>Gentiles or association with them in certain circumstances made them>ceremonially unclean, and in need of ritual ‘washing’ to be again>acceptable.> >When the concept of Gentiles being given salvation was presented to>the Jews, they had a hard time accepting it. The council at Jerusalem>was convened to discuss the ‘new’ happenings and how they fit into>their present understandings.> >Paul speaks about this is Romans, especially in chapters 9 through 12.>Also, the first part of his letter to the Galations addresses this>issue.> >Titus, being a Gentile, was pressured to be circumcised by the Jews,>but did not feel compelled to do so. He was Paul’s true son in the>‘profane faith’, as he mentions in Titus 1:4. It was important for>Paul to speak of this when addressing Titus, for this had been a key>issue in their ministry.Quite honestly, I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Are youasserting that “Jewish Christianity” is “sacred faith” and “GentileChristianity”–that to which Titus adheres–is “profane faith”? It seems tome that Paul has invested a fantastic amount of thought and effort todemonstrating that any such notion is a false dichotomy–and in fact, Idon’t see him ever, in any other NT passage that is deemed Pauline (whetherauthentically or secondarily) where Paul talks about a “faith” being”profane.” At issue in much of the Pauline correspondence is whether realFAITH is more or less authentic because the believer also observes theordinances of the Torah, and I don’t see Paul ever budging to make anyconcession on that point.>Peter also spends considerable time convincing the Jews that the>Gentiles were a part of God’s salvation. This was a major disagreement>between Peter and Paul. Peter had at one time been influenced by the>Jews who did not want him to associate with the Gentiles, even after>his revelation from God.> >It is conceivable that the phrase ‘profane salvation’ is one that the>readers of Jude’s letter are familiar. He addresses the fact that he>was going to write to them about this salvation, and was diligent in>his planning to do this. There was much discussion and debate among>both the Gentiles and the Jews about what these new events meant, as>evidenced in Paul’s writings to the Romans.It may be remotely conceivable, but I don’t see any evidence for it. Wheredoes Jude indicate that he was planning to write about “profane salvation”?>He decided to write to them about something different, however. He>writes to them, and reminds them of what they have already known.>God’s plan of salvation was the same in their time as it had always>been. The mystery of this salvation was not revealed until that time,>but the truth of the faith had not changed. This is the same faith>that had been given to Abel. By having this faith he was able to offer>a sacrifice that was acceptable to God and which looked forward to the>sacrifice of Jesus.I don’t see the relevance of this to the question of KOINH PISTIS.>In other words, he asks them to not to fight against those that are>teaching strange doctrine, but to fight for and align themselves to>the faith that does not change. He urges them to remember that all of>their knowledge of what God had revealed to Israel was still valid,>and that any new revelations need to be interpreted on that basis.Are you saying herewith that “Jude” is asking his readers/audience to fightfor and align themselves with a hIERA PISTIS that is essentially “JewishChristianity”?–i.e. a sort of Christ-centered faith that neverthelessrequires observance of the ordinances of the Torah?>Translating KOINHS as ‘shared’ here does not make sense unless the>first part of Jude 1:3 is considered to be a ‘throw-away’. It is also>difficult to understand why Paul would feel compelled to stress that>his and Titus’ faith is ‘shared’ between them.> >When KOINHS is translated as ‘profane’, these verses are shown to be>integral to the meaning of the larger text.I have to disagree respectfully. The text reads:AGAPHTOI, PASAN SPOUDHN POIOUMENOS GRAFEIN hUMIN PERI THS KOINHS hHMWNSWTHRIAS ANAGKHN ESCON GRAYAI hUMIN PARAKALWN EPAGWNIZESQAI THi hAPAXPARADOQEISHi TOIS hAGIOIS PISTEI.Rather freely, I make this: “Dear friends, in my intense zeal to write youabout the salvation that you share with us, I felt I must write and urgeyou to contend on the side of the faith that was handed down once and forall to the saints.”It seems to me that the two halves of verse 3 thus read are neatlycoordinated; I can’t see any switch in the author’s intent, as if he hadfirst considered writing about “OUR profane salvation” (what would that be?a salvation that somehow is appropriate only to Gentiles?) but then decidedit was more important to exhort his audience to defend orthodoxy. Let metry to rephrase the translation by substituting “profane” for “that youshare with us”:”Dear friends, in my intense zeal to write you about profane salvation, Ifelt I must write and urge you to contend on the side of the faith that washanded down once and for all to the saints.”To me this second reading seems as much an anacoluthon, a logical nonsequitur, as my first reading seems coherent and reasonable.I have done an Accordance search and reviewed all the instances ofKOINOS/H/ON in the GNT. Here’s what I’ve found:The great majority of the instances in the GNT show KOINOS/H/ON used in apejorative sense, often with an associated verbal adjective AKAQARTOS/ON.In Mark 7 Jesus denies that dietary behavior Jews deem a violation ofkashrut can defile a person (Mk 7:2, 5 show the word). In Acts 10:14 and11:8 Peter insists that he has never eaten anything KOINON KAI/H AKAQARTON,but in 10:28 he declares that God has made it clear to him that he must notcall any human being KOINON H AKAQARTON. In Rom 14:14 Paul prefaces hisdiscussion of conscientious differences between vegetarian and carnivorousbelievers by saying, “I am assured in Lord Jesus that nothing is defiled byitself, unless it is defiled in the eyes of that person who deems it to bedefiled.” In Heb 10:29 the author speaks of the unspeakable behavior of one”who has deemed defiled the blood of the covenant whereby he has beensanctified.” And finally, in Rev 21:27, we are told of the heavenly citythat “nothing defiled shall ever enter into it”In Acts 2:44 and 4:32 hAPANTA KOINA ECEIN is the phrase indicating thepractice of communal property-holding in the Jerusalem church community.Finally there are the two instances about which we are arguing. I franklydo not understand how Paul can be using KOINHN in Tit 1:4 of a “profanefaith” in terms of which Titus is his “true child” (GNHSIWi TEKNWi KATAKOINHN PISTIN). The antithesis of GNHSIOS is NOQOS, “bastard” or”illegitimate.” It doesn’t make much sense to me that Paul should assertthat the KOINH PISTIS is the criterion by which he deems Titus his GNHSIONTEKNON, if KOINH here is supposed to mean “profane.” The other passage isJude 3, about which I’ve already written that it seems to me that KOINHhHMWN SWTHRIA makes sense only as “the salvation that we have in common(share).”I’ve also checked the entries for KOINOS/H/ON in Louw & Nida; theirreading of the passages I’ve discussed above is consistent with what I’veargued above. The relevant ## are “53.39 KOINOS/H/ON; AKAQARTOS/ON::pertaining to being ritually unacceptable, either as the result ofdefilement or because of the very nature of the object itself (for example,ritually unacceptable animals) – ‘defiled, ritually unclean.'”; “57.9KOINOS/H/ON: pertaining to sharing with someone else in a possession or arelationship implying mutual interest – ‘shared, mutual, common.”; “57.99ECW KOINOS: (an idiom, literally ‘to have in common’) to share with oneanother equitably – ‘to share, to share with one another.'”; “65.15KOINOS/H/ON: pertaining to being of little value, in view of being ordinaryand common – ‘of little value, relatively worthless.'” and “89.118KOINOS/H/ON: pertaining to being in common between two or more persons -‘in common.’ PERI THS KOINHS hHMWN SWTHRIAS ‘about our common salvation’or ‘about the salvation which we have in common’ Jd 3. It is also possibleto understand KOINOS in Jd 3 as KOINOS ‘shared, mutual’ (see 57.9).”To any who have had the patience to read this out, I apologize for thelength, but it did seem to me that Martin was holding out for a verystrange understanding of KOINOS/H/ON in Jude 3, and the usage of thisparticular word in the NT is indeed interesting to those with my kind ofphilological warp.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/
1 John 5:20 – who is hOUTOS?1 John 5:20 – who is hOUTOS?
Jude 1:3; KOINHS (intolerably LONG!) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Aug 29 08:11:36 EDT 1998
1 John 5:20 – who is hOUTOS? 1 John 5:20 – who is hOUTOS? Unless ers are particularly interested in this question, they mightdo well to delete it right now; I’ve considered what I might delete fromthe previous correspondence and I don’t see how to do it.At 8:50 PM -0500 8/28/98, Martin Gallagher wrote:>(WARNING. This message contains mostly theology.)Yes, and we’re making an effort to keep discussion in this forum focused onwhat we can reach some agreement upon regarding the sense and intent of theGreek text; inevitably theological slants affect the way we read the Greek,particularly where we can agree that there is some ambiguity in the Greek.In the present instance, I really don’t think there’s much ambiguity in theGreek, nor, apparently, do you, but yet we are at odds over the use ofKOINHS in Jude 1:3.>Carl,> >You wrote:>——————–>If KOINHS SWTHRIAS were to be understood as “profane>salvation,” then there would have to be some understood hIERA SWTHRIA,>a “sacred salvation.” But what would this mean?…it’s hard to see>what sense “profane” would have in either place: the antithesis of>‘profane’ is ‘sacred’–but are we talking about a kind of>salvation…or…faith that is profane rather than sacred?>——————–>The ‘profane’ salvation or ‘profane’ faith is not something that is>espoused by any teaching in scriptures, but it is clear by reading>throughout the new testament that salvation and the ‘true’ faith was>considered to be held solely by Israel, and thus a ‘holy’ or ‘sacred’>salvation and faith as seen from the perspective of the Israelites.> >The Gentiles had always been seen as unclean by Israel. Contact with>Gentiles or association with them in certain circumstances made them>ceremonially unclean, and in need of ritual ‘washing’ to be again>acceptable.> >When the concept of Gentiles being given salvation was presented to>the Jews, they had a hard time accepting it. The council at Jerusalem>was convened to discuss the ‘new’ happenings and how they fit into>their present understandings.> >Paul speaks about this is Romans, especially in chapters 9 through 12.>Also, the first part of his letter to the Galations addresses this>issue.> >Titus, being a Gentile, was pressured to be circumcised by the Jews,>but did not feel compelled to do so. He was Paul’s true son in the>‘profane faith’, as he mentions in Titus 1:4. It was important for>Paul to speak of this when addressing Titus, for this had been a key>issue in their ministry.Quite honestly, I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Are youasserting that “Jewish Christianity” is “sacred faith” and “GentileChristianity”–that to which Titus adheres–is “profane faith”? It seems tome that Paul has invested a fantastic amount of thought and effort todemonstrating that any such notion is a false dichotomy–and in fact, Idon’t see him ever, in any other NT passage that is deemed Pauline (whetherauthentically or secondarily) where Paul talks about a “faith” being”profane.” At issue in much of the Pauline correspondence is whether realFAITH is more or less authentic because the believer also observes theordinances of the Torah, and I don’t see Paul ever budging to make anyconcession on that point.>Peter also spends considerable time convincing the Jews that the>Gentiles were a part of God’s salvation. This was a major disagreement>between Peter and Paul. Peter had at one time been influenced by the>Jews who did not want him to associate with the Gentiles, even after>his revelation from God.> >It is conceivable that the phrase ‘profane salvation’ is one that the>readers of Jude’s letter are familiar. He addresses the fact that he>was going to write to them about this salvation, and was diligent in>his planning to do this. There was much discussion and debate among>both the Gentiles and the Jews about what these new events meant, as>evidenced in Paul’s writings to the Romans.It may be remotely conceivable, but I don’t see any evidence for it. Wheredoes Jude indicate that he was planning to write about “profane salvation”?>He decided to write to them about something different, however. He>writes to them, and reminds them of what they have already known.>God’s plan of salvation was the same in their time as it had always>been. The mystery of this salvation was not revealed until that time,>but the truth of the faith had not changed. This is the same faith>that had been given to Abel. By having this faith he was able to offer>a sacrifice that was acceptable to God and which looked forward to the>sacrifice of Jesus.I don’t see the relevance of this to the question of KOINH PISTIS.>In other words, he asks them to not to fight against those that are>teaching strange doctrine, but to fight for and align themselves to>the faith that does not change. He urges them to remember that all of>their knowledge of what God had revealed to Israel was still valid,>and that any new revelations need to be interpreted on that basis.Are you saying herewith that “Jude” is asking his readers/audience to fightfor and align themselves with a hIERA PISTIS that is essentially “JewishChristianity”?–i.e. a sort of Christ-centered faith that neverthelessrequires observance of the ordinances of the Torah?>Translating KOINHS as ‘shared’ here does not make sense unless the>first part of Jude 1:3 is considered to be a ‘throw-away’. It is also>difficult to understand why Paul would feel compelled to stress that>his and Titus’ faith is ‘shared’ between them.> >When KOINHS is translated as ‘profane’, these verses are shown to be>integral to the meaning of the larger text.I have to disagree respectfully. The text reads:AGAPHTOI, PASAN SPOUDHN POIOUMENOS GRAFEIN hUMIN PERI THS KOINHS hHMWNSWTHRIAS ANAGKHN ESCON GRAYAI hUMIN PARAKALWN EPAGWNIZESQAI THi hAPAXPARADOQEISHi TOIS hAGIOIS PISTEI.Rather freely, I make this: “Dear friends, in my intense zeal to write youabout the salvation that you share with us, I felt I must write and urgeyou to contend on the side of the faith that was handed down once and forall to the saints.”It seems to me that the two halves of verse 3 thus read are neatlycoordinated; I can’t see any switch in the author’s intent, as if he hadfirst considered writing about “OUR profane salvation” (what would that be?a salvation that somehow is appropriate only to Gentiles?) but then decidedit was more important to exhort his audience to defend orthodoxy. Let metry to rephrase the translation by substituting “profane” for “that youshare with us”:”Dear friends, in my intense zeal to write you about profane salvation, Ifelt I must write and urge you to contend on the side of the faith that washanded down once and for all to the saints.”To me this second reading seems as much an anacoluthon, a logical nonsequitur, as my first reading seems coherent and reasonable.I have done an Accordance search and reviewed all the instances ofKOINOS/H/ON in the GNT. Here’s what I’ve found:The great majority of the instances in the GNT show KOINOS/H/ON used in apejorative sense, often with an associated verbal adjective AKAQARTOS/ON.In Mark 7 Jesus denies that dietary behavior Jews deem a violation ofkashrut can defile a person (Mk 7:2, 5 show the word). In Acts 10:14 and11:8 Peter insists that he has never eaten anything KOINON KAI/H AKAQARTON,but in 10:28 he declares that God has made it clear to him that he must notcall any human being KOINON H AKAQARTON. In Rom 14:14 Paul prefaces hisdiscussion of conscientious differences between vegetarian and carnivorousbelievers by saying, “I am assured in Lord Jesus that nothing is defiled byitself, unless it is defiled in the eyes of that person who deems it to bedefiled.” In Heb 10:29 the author speaks of the unspeakable behavior of one”who has deemed defiled the blood of the covenant whereby he has beensanctified.” And finally, in Rev 21:27, we are told of the heavenly citythat “nothing defiled shall ever enter into it”In Acts 2:44 and 4:32 hAPANTA KOINA ECEIN is the phrase indicating thepractice of communal property-holding in the Jerusalem church community.Finally there are the two instances about which we are arguing. I franklydo not understand how Paul can be using KOINHN in Tit 1:4 of a “profanefaith” in terms of which Titus is his “true child” (GNHSIWi TEKNWi KATAKOINHN PISTIN). The antithesis of GNHSIOS is NOQOS, “bastard” or”illegitimate.” It doesn’t make much sense to me that Paul should assertthat the KOINH PISTIS is the criterion by which he deems Titus his GNHSIONTEKNON, if KOINH here is supposed to mean “profane.” The other passage isJude 3, about which I’ve already written that it seems to me that KOINHhHMWN SWTHRIA makes sense only as “the salvation that we have in common(share).”I’ve also checked the entries for KOINOS/H/ON in Louw & Nida; theirreading of the passages I’ve discussed above is consistent with what I’veargued above. The relevant ## are “53.39 KOINOS/H/ON; AKAQARTOS/ON::pertaining to being ritually unacceptable, either as the result ofdefilement or because of the very nature of the object itself (for example,ritually unacceptable animals) – ‘defiled, ritually unclean.'”; “57.9KOINOS/H/ON: pertaining to sharing with someone else in a possession or arelationship implying mutual interest – ‘shared, mutual, common.”; “57.99ECW KOINOS: (an idiom, literally ‘to have in common’) to share with oneanother equitably – ‘to share, to share with one another.'”; “65.15KOINOS/H/ON: pertaining to being of little value, in view of being ordinaryand common – ‘of little value, relatively worthless.'” and “89.118KOINOS/H/ON: pertaining to being in common between two or more persons -‘in common.’ PERI THS KOINHS hHMWN SWTHRIAS ‘about our common salvation’or ‘about the salvation which we have in common’ Jd 3. It is also possibleto understand KOINOS in Jd 3 as KOINOS ‘shared, mutual’ (see 57.9).”To any who have had the patience to read this out, I apologize for thelength, but it did seem to me that Martin was holding out for a verystrange understanding of KOINOS/H/ON in Jude 3, and the usage of thisparticular word in the NT is indeed interesting to those with my kind ofphilological warp.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/
1 John 5:20 – who is hOUTOS?1 John 5:20 – who is hOUTOS?
Jude 1:3; KOINHS (intolerably LONG!) Larry Swain theswain at rocketmail.com
Sun Aug 30 14:57:57 EDT 1998
The termination of Paul’s marriage? (Was: 1 Corinthians 7:27-28) Arguments of EPHGAGON Acts 14:2a D I’vew lost the original to this post, so I’m cuttingfrom Carl, but on this post:> >——————–> >The ‘profane’ salvation or ‘profane’ faith is notsomething that is> >espoused by any teaching in scriptures, but it isclear by reading> >throughout the new testament that salvation andthe ‘true’ faith was> >considered to be held solely by Israel, and thus a‘holy’ or ‘sacred’> >salvation and faith as seen from the perspectiveof the Israelites.> ><major snip> Let me just say that this post is in my opinion avery serious misreading of Judaism in the SecondTemple Period and Hebrew Bible texts, and it is infact this gross misreading that influences theconclusion that KOINHS in this passage is to be readas “profane”.If the original poster or anyone else is willing todiscuss it offlist, feel free to contact me.Larry Swain_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
The termination of Paul’s marriage? (Was: 1 Corinthians 7:27-28)Arguments of EPHGAGON Acts 14:2a D
Jude 1:3; KOINHS (intolerably LONG!) Larry Swain theswain at rocketmail.com
Sun Aug 30 14:57:57 EDT 1998
The termination of Paul’s marriage? (Was: 1 Corinthians 7:27-28) Arguments of EPHGAGON Acts 14:2a D I’vew lost the original to this post, so I’m cuttingfrom Carl, but on this post:> >——————–> >The ‘profane’ salvation or ‘profane’ faith is notsomething that is> >espoused by any teaching in scriptures, but it isclear by reading> >throughout the new testament that salvation andthe ‘true’ faith was> >considered to be held solely by Israel, and thus a‘holy’ or ‘sacred’> >salvation and faith as seen from the perspectiveof the Israelites.> ><major snip> Let me just say that this post is in my opinion avery serious misreading of Judaism in the SecondTemple Period and Hebrew Bible texts, and it is infact this gross misreading that influences theconclusion that KOINHS in this passage is to be readas “profane”.If the original poster or anyone else is willing todiscuss it offlist, feel free to contact me.Larry Swain_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
The termination of Paul’s marriage? (Was: 1 Corinthians 7:27-28)Arguments of EPHGAGON Acts 14:2a D