From: mtx014@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Robert Low)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proof for Jesus? (was: Evidence That Demands A Verdict?)
Summary: In which grammatical nonsenses are strenuously denounced.
Date: 6 Apr 92 09:49:18 GMT
Organization: Plato's rest home for the incurably geometric

In article <53590@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <da8gbgzf@cck.coventry.ac.uk> mtx014@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Robert Low) writes:
>>In article <53188@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>>NO.  The KJV presents an apparent contradiction, but the NASB and NIV do not.
>>>The NASB and NIV are based on older manuscripts.
>
>[I meant that the NASB and NIV are based on older better manuscripts.  
> I don't know if this particular passage was affected by these or not, sorry
> for my implication via my sentence placement, however, the statement is true.]

Why bring it up if that wasn't the reason for the removal of
the contradiction? Did you not think that that was the
reason? And, just to repeat: those particular passages are not affected.

>>The only snag with this explanation is that it seems
>>completely bogus. 
>
>What is completely bogus about understanding that the SAME guy (LUKE) 
>wrote these two accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:7 and 22:9) 
>and that he (LUKE) knew what happened and was recording the SAME story?

What is so unacceptable about Luke recording two variants
of an event that he only knew about second or third hand?

>For my benefit, I looked up some definitions.

Definitions of elementary grammatical terms deleted.

For your befenit, spend three or four years learning Greek.
(It's not long, but it's enough to get you started.)
I'd recommend starting with Classical Greek. Don't start off
with NT Greek---your ability to read the Greek is
strongly influenced by you prior knowledge of the
content, which can be misleading. Xenophon is
probably the easiest classical author; then some Plato,
and Herodotus; Thucydides too, but avoid the speeches.
If you can find the time, read some drama; Aeschylus is tough,
but Euripides is fun. After that, go on to later writers; maybe
the "Attic Nights", or "True Stories". 

Next, read some of the Septuagint. Then get a decent grammar of
NT Greek, say Blass and DeBrunner, and maybe a copy of CD Moule's
Idiom book of NT Greek. A decent Lexicon would be useful
too--say the medium size Liddell and Scott (for trivia buffs,
that is the same family of Liddells as the Alice 
for whom "Alice in Wonderland" was written); if you prefer
something more specific, Thayer is easily available, though
old, and Arndt-Gingrich is probably currently the best
available. Once you have spent some time on that, you will be in 
a better position to understand why the article you have quoted from 
Vine (not exactly an unbiased source) is of no help.

The syntax simply doesn't work that way. It is an explanation
that will not convince anybody who knows much about the
Greek language, unless they already have overriding reasons
for requiring a text free of all contradiction. 

In fact, Vine's own explanation is contradictory; if he wants
to take phOnEs in A9:7 as a partitive genitive, the only interpretation
that makes sense would be that they heard something of
the voice, i.e. were aware that there was a voice---but lacked
some part of hearing, presumably understanding. 
In 22:9 it is accusative---they just didn't hear the voice at all.
This does nothing to remove the contradiction. In Chapt 9 they
heard it (though presumably without understanding), in Chapter 22 
they didn't hear it at all. Incidentally, this seems to go directly
against the supposedly superior translation given in the NIV and
NASB. Care to explain that? Vine also seems to
be ignorant (or at least to be keeping quiet about the
fact) that the genitive is often used for verbs of perception
in classical and NT Greek, and that there may be no meaningful
distinction to be drawn at all. And that if there is, it may
well be that rather than taking "phOnEs" as a partitive gentive,
the connotation should be that the hearer *did* understand what
was said. (Of ourse, this would be inconvenient, since then in
Chapt 9 the others understand what is said, and in 22 they don't
hear anything at all---I guess I can understand him not
mentioning that.)

>    hear, hearing = akouo, the usual word denoting "to hear" is used (a)

More bogus explanation (Vine's) deleted.

>>Of course, if you can come up with the manuscript
>>variant which backs up your claim and was omitted
>>from Nestle-Aland, I will retract and apologise;
>>but I won't be holding my breath while I wait.
>
>Does the above suffice?

Most certainly not. It only shows that if a body
wants to interpret a text in a contradiction-free
way, any port will do in a storm, including
misrepresenting the structure of the language
concerned.

>Context is a stronger indication of a word's meaning than a strict definition
>of a particular word or phrase, as we saw above.

Obviously. But the context in this case is an idiom of NT Greek,
and usage as determined by a large body of literature,
not your religious requirement that the text never contradict
itself.


-- 
Robert Low  email(JANET): RobLow@uk.ac.coventry.cck
	    smail : Mathematics Department, Coventry Polytechnic,
		    Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, England.
Keep an open mind---but not so open your brain falls out.