From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sun Dec 20 1998 - 10:18:38 EST
OFF-LIST:
Dear Randy:
What you're saying makes eminent sense on the surface, but I fear that even
a concise explanation of why one is asking the question, unless it is
phrased rather carefully, may, in some circumstances, have unpleasant
repercussions. Yesterday I asked a new subscriber (the first two posts from
new subscribers are monitored to guard against spam and sectarian
invective) to rephrase a question--innocent enough in itself--that he
wanted to ask. He said that he had been involved in a discussion between a
Protestant and a Roman Catholic over the "imputation" or "infusion" of
righteousness into a believer and wanted to know which of the two was the
valid understanding of LOGIZOMAI or ELLOGEW in the context. I asked him if
he would mind resubmitting the question to ask list-members regarding the
range of possible legitimate meanings of these verbs in these passages
RATHER than asking for evidence to settle a dispute between alleged
proponents of a Roman Catholic and a Protestant view. I don't know whether
you'll agree with me on this one or not, but it seems to me that we ought
to be asking the question what the NT Greek text legitimately means rather
than which side in an argument the NT Greek text supports--the more so in
that it may well be that the GNT doesn't support either of the two views in
question or that it may support both as well as some others. It seems to me
that this is a more appropriate approach to the Greek text of the Bible.
I'm quite aware that many a B-Greeker would prefer to use this list as an
"authoritative" source for deriving proof-texts for whatever doctrine they
wish to assert or to be used to debunk whatever proposition they want to
debunk, but I personally think it is more honest to ask what the NT really
says than to ask which side in a dispute it supports. So, while I would
agree with you that some questions might be easier to answer if we know why
a poster is asking some specific question, I'd really rather see the verse
or passage cited fully in the Greek and have the poster raise the question
about the diction or syntax or morphology within that citation that s/he
finds unclear or ambiguous. I think that the two suggested translations of
the verbs LOGIZOMAI and ELLOGEW as "impute" and "infuse" might even have
been used, so long as there's no identification of the one translation or
the other as deriving from a particular faith-stance.
I'd be curious to know whether you feel this restriction runs counter to
the proposal you were making. I certainly agree that it's a lot easier to
answer a question if we know what question the post really wants an answer
to, but it bothers me that a poster should put a question intended
fundamentally to make him or her more comfortable about his or her own
understanding of the Bible. I just think we need first and foremost to be
as clear as possible about what the Bible is really saying, and then worry
secondarily about whether or not what the Bible is really saying makes us
comfortable or not. (And I will add that, in my own reading of the Bible, I
have found myself at times feeling more comfortable, at other times quite
uncomfortable upon reaching a conclusion about what a particular passage
most likely really means.
Thanks again for your recent review. Peace, as ever
Carl
At 10:27 AM -0500 12/19/98, Randy LEEDY wrote:
>In the past couple of days we've had at least two short threads where
>the initial query seemed to entertain a notion appearing ludicrous on
>the surface. (I'm referring to the middle/passive question about
>MIMNHSKW and the question about the double accusative with ARNEOMAI.)
>In both cases we later learned that the ludicrous notion did not
>originate in the B-Greeker's brain but rather in that of some other
>misguided soul, and the B-Greeker was simply seeking confirmation for
>rejecting the notion.
>
>While I'm sure no one would contest the notion that brevity is
>virtuous, that virtue, in excess, undermines itself by requiring extra
>exchanges for the sake of clarification. So I enter a mild plea for
>letting us all know, at the very beginning, "where you're coming
>from," as consisely as possible, of course. By the way, checking the
>dictionary on "concise" I find the sense "free from SUPERFLUOUS
>detail" (emphasis mine). Perhaps CONCISENESS rather than mere brevity
>is the virtue we want to practice to the utmost degree. (I write this
>fully aware of my own strong tendency toward superfluity.)
>
>I hope I haven't seemed to arrogate authority to myself. This is
>simply a plea, not a mandate from on high. It seems to me to serve the
>interests of both the writer, who does not want to be perceived as an
>idiot (though being an IDIWTHS certainly isn't so bad: Ac 4:13, 2Cor
>11:6), and the rest of the list, who can get to the heart of a matter
>more quickly if the writer will let us know not only WHAT he is asking
>but also WHY, since the many possiblities of WHY a question is asked
>can have a big effect on WHAT answer one gives. (If I may be forgiven
>a little superfluity, I can't resist noting that this very fact is a
>major reason that Jesus' debates with his enemies are so marvelous:
>His anwers to their questions reflect His perfect knowledge of why
>those questions were asked. But since not so many of us on this list
>can claim omniscience, I hope we can do one another the favor of being
>careful to inform each other of relevant information that we can't
>otherwise know.)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:11 EDT