On Tue, 12 Dec 1995 00:46:16 -0700 (MST) you wrote:
[...]
>Stephen:
SJ>I have no problem with God speaking through 1st century science.
>But I am not persuaded that Denis is right in his NT Gk exegesis that
>katabolan spermatos means "had a seminal emission.".
SJ>Stephen then states:
>My Interlinear says:
>My Vincent's Word Studies in the NT says of Heb 11:11:
>My Vines Expository Dictionary of NT Words, says under CONCEIVE:
>My Theological Wordbook of the NT says of katabole:
>My New International Commentary says:
DL>Very energetic! But Stephen, you will note that in all you
>citations the primary meaning of "katabolan spermatos" is to
>ejaculate.
No I don't "note" that at all. None of them said that.
DL>The standard
>Greek lexicon used by NT theologians (Bauer's) makes that very clear in
>calling it a "technical term" for "sowing seed, for begetting." So clear
>is the meaning of the term, this entery goes on to state with regard to
>the "problem" in Heb 11: 11 that "there is probably some error in the
>text, SINCE THIS EXPRESSION COULD NOT BE USED OF SARAH, BUT ONLY ABRAHAM."
Yes indeed. That is what the TWNT said also - there has probably been
"textual corruption". IMHO it is unsound to base claims that the
Scripture here in the original contained an error.
DL>But Stephen, our best manuscripts show no problem with the
>text--see the footnotes in the eclectic standard Greek NT (Aland's).
>No wonder the NIV slips "Abraham" in the main text, but there is not
>one hint of manuscript evidence to support this translation decision.
It is acknowledged that there is no mention of Abraham in the Gk.
However Guthrie states in his commentary on Hebrews that:
"An alternative text attributes to Abraham the power to conceive,
which is more natural than attributing it to Sarah" (Guthrie D.,
"Hebrews", Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, IVP, p232)
To be fair, Guthrie is disinclined to accept that alternative reading,
but the point is that there is one, which might be the original text.
Perhaps someone with the "double-seed theory" added "Sarah" in the
margin where the text was unclear and it has been taken up into the
NT? If there was an error it was an early one and has been taken up
into the major MSS.
But as the TWNT and even Bauer states, there is a deeper problem.
There is no evidence in the OT of Sarah being an example of faith.
The verse does not really make sense, so the possibility must exist
that there has been "textual corruption" here at an early stage, as
the TWNT and even Bauer suggest.
DL>But better yet, read Pieter Willem Van Der Horst's "Did Sarah Have
>A Seminal Emission?" Bible Review (Feb 1992): 35-39. He shows how
>the 1st century literature clearly supports they believed that women
>had seminal emissions--that was the science of the day. And when the
>writer of Hebrews wrote the letter, he/she employed his/her
>intellectual horizon--it was not suspended.
This is a possible interpretation, but while there are other
possibilities (eg. of textual corruption), I don't believe you can be
dogmatic that this is an error in the NT original. It could just as
easily be that copyists who held that "science of the day" that "women
>had seminal emissions" view have let an early gloss into the text.
SJ>I believe therefore, that you overstate the case, Denis, in
>claiming that the words `eis katabolen spermatos' definitely means
>that the writer of Hebrews held to a "double-seed theory" and that
>the NIV translators were "embarrased" and "inaccurately slipped
>Abraham into the verse". I am sure the translators of the NIV were
>top Greek scholars and had good reasons for their supplying of
>"Abraham" in the verse.
DL>I am not overstating the case. That is exactly what the NT says.
Disagree. There are other interpretations. None of my two interlinears
give that as a literal translation.
DL>And that is exactly what the 1st literature affirms. And I assure
>you, I am not embarrassed by it one minute. The reason it is
>problematic is that few translators have a definitive grasp of the
>relationship between science and theology.
I didn't say *you* were "embarrassed". You claimed that *the NIV
translators* were "embarrassed".
SJ>While I do believe there may be human errors in Scripture, I am
>conscious that I make human errors too and therefore I must be careful
>before I claim that something in the Bible is definitely an error.
DL>Amen! But when the Text itself is clear, then I do exegesis--it
>shapes me and my theology . . . not vice versa by the eisegetical
>approach.
It isn't as clear as you make out. There is an alternative reading
and both the TWNT and Bauer suggest that there has been textual
corruption. Your own double-seed theory could equallly explain an
early copyist error, as well as an error in the original.
SJ>I believe we should treat the Bible writers like any other
>trustworthy witness - as innocent until *proven* guilty - and exhaust
>every other reasonable possibility before we conclude they made a
>mistake. In this case there are such other reasonable possibilities.
DL>Amen! But I am employing the primary sources, and not secondary
>sources which obviously are troubled with the very clear meaning of the
>Greek. There are no manuscript problems and the term is a technical term
>that was commonly used in the 1st century for a seminal emission.
This is your *assumption* that those who disagree with you are
"troubled". You don't know that. They just might know a little more
about the "primary sources" than you give them credit for, Denis! :-)
DL>The only ERROR that exists is for those who refuse to appreciate
>the hermeneutical plasticity we must afford an ancient text when
>reading it. You have to shut down some 20th century categories
>before reading material from a foreign epistemological milieu. It
>is only an ERROR for those committed to a hyper-literalism . . . and,
>of course, that IMHO is the true ERROR . . . it is not the Word of
>God.
Equally there is the ERROR of those who assume that a difficulty
can only be the result of an error in the original! :-)
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------