From: Joe A. Friberg (JoeFriberg@email.msn.com)
Date: Mon Dec 20 1999 - 20:36:43 EST
Interpretations of 8.35:
Paul Dixon (PD):
> > << whoever desires to save his life (eternally) shall lose it
> (temporally)
> > and whoever loses his life temporally on account of me and the
> > gospel, shall find it eternally. >>
Steven Craig Miller (SCM):
> > Furthermore, I would suggest that it is not the most natural
> > interpretation. Robert H. Gundry [1993] writes: "Saving your present
> > life results in losing your eternal life. Losing your present life for
> > the sake of Jesus and the gospel results in saving your eternal life."
> And I
> > think that Gundry hits on the most common interpretation.
PD:
> I did not know what Gundry had said, but it sure looks like we are saying
> the same thing. I am shocked my written words could be interpreted
> otherwise.
The difference lies in v35a, that PD and Gundry reverse the roles (and
order) in which termporal and eternal life occur:
PD: eternal-temporal
Gundry: present-eternal
Gundry is plausible, but not PD at this point: the apodosis represents a
consequence to the desire stated in the protasis, not a means to obtain the
desire. Further, Gundry's statement makes the 2 parts of v35 complementary
paradoxes, not parallel.
There is one more possibility for v35: that 'anyone wanting to save their
temporal life will lose (even) their temporal life, but anyone who loses
their temporal life for Jesus' or the gospel's sake will somehow save it'.
It is only in v35b that the dichotomous implications of YUCH are necessary
to understand Jesus' wording.
Furthermore, the saving of 'it' (last reference) need not be relegated
wholly to the hereafter but can include 'abundant' present life, nor does
'losing' have to be taken literally, for literal martyrdom is not the only
way to follow Christ. Hence I see this verse as having many existential
applications to the everyday life of everyday believers, not limited to the
hypothetical or peripheral. And I want to see these alternatives come
through as perceptable in the translation
SCM:
> > What is a paradox, you asked? A paradox refers to a statement that s
> > superficially contradictory and yet has a deeper (non-contradictory)
> > meaning. On the surface what the Markan Jesus says is just nonsense.
The use of the pronoun anaphora in each condition/consequence pair
highlights the paradox, pointing to some sort of identity between the 2
lives/nuances referenced.
PD:
> Yes, and it probably was a ploy by Christ to get our attention so that we
> might
> wrestle with the true meaning.
SCM:
> > It is impossible to lose one's life and yet "save it." That is the
> > paradox. One, of course, resolves the paradox by finding its deeper
> meaning.
> > But to resolve the paradox in one's translation is to destroy the
> paradox
> > of the saying. And thus, IMO, it would be an improper translation.
PD:
> And that is why I initially questioned the translations where YUCH was
> rendered
> differently in those verses. If the Greek uses the same word, then why
> shouldn't
> the English translations use the same word? Let the resolution be a
> matter of interpretation.
Only if English has a word that covers the various nuances. Does life cover
the possibilities in v36-37? I'm a bit skeptical, but not totally opposed.
PD:
> About do it?
I suppose so :-)
God Bless!
Joe A. Friberg
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:50 EDT