Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!harpo!ulysses!mhuxl!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Christian Fundamentalism, a Definition (correction)
Message-ID: <2632@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-May-84 12:15:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.2632
Posted: Mon May 14 12:15:47 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 16-May-84 07:15:56 EDT
References: <1076@ihuxr.UUCP>, <2614@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 52


I need to apologise to  Lew Mammel for brushing off the idea that
some biblical scholars interpret "generation" in Matt. 24:34 to
mean "race" in support of the belief that that verse does not
contain a failed prophecy.  I was looking though Gleason Archer's
"Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" over the weekend and found that
he seems to favor that interpretation over the one I gave.

Not being familiar with the "generation = race" interpretation, Lew's
article gave me the impression that "race" was interpreted to mean
the human race.  (Pardon me for not thinking.)  As it is, "generation"
(gk. genea) is taken to be a synonymn of *genos* ("race", "stock", "nation",
"people").  It is taken to refer to the Jewish "race".  In retrospect,
the survival and flourishing of the Jews in the face of the many persecutions
and dispersions they have experienced is truly remarkable.  The
reestablishment of Israel as a nation is a biblical prophecy that many
scholars tried to work around before it became a reality.

Archer goes on to say, "Although this meaning for *genea* is not common
it is found as early as Homer and Herodotus and as late as Plutarch (cf.
H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, *A Greek-English Lexicon*, 9th ed. p 432)".
He also notes the interpretation I gave, saying that it has the advantage
of preserving the more common usage of *genea*, but has the disadvantage
of making the verse a prediction of what would normally be expected to
happen anyway.  In that light it could not really be considered a prophecy,
just a statement stressing that the End is imminent.  Far from being
"strained", as Lew suggested, I think either of these interpretations to
be sensible.

Archer also says the following concering the interpretation of "generation":

	Perhaps it should be added that if the Olivet Discourse
	was originally delivered in Aramaic (as it probably was),
	then we cannot be certain that the meaning of this prediction
	hinged entirely on the Greek word used to translate it.
	*Genea* and *genos* are, after all, closely related words
	from the same root.  The Aramaic term that Jesus Himself
	probably used (the Syriac Peshitta uses *sharb ta'* here,
	which can mean either "generation" or "race") is suseptible
	to either interpretation, and thus could mean the Jewish
	"race" rather than the circle of Christ's own contemporaries.

As I stated in my last article, Mark 9:1 cannot be considered a different
version of Matthew 24:34.  If you look at the context, they happened
in two different places:  Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:27) and the Mount
of Olives which was just outside Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1-3).
-- 

Paul Dubuc 		{cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd

  "The true light that enlightens every man was coming
   into the world..."		(John 1:9)