Non-scholar wrote:
: The reference work that I referred to is the Exegetical Dictionary Of The New Testament edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider.
Now that wasn?t so hard, was it? Note that a proper scholar doesn?t need to be asked to provide such information on a discussion board intended for non-specialists.
Unfortunately the reference (?EDOTNT,1991, Vol.2, p.403?) provides no support whatsoever for your claims. All it does is give the standard definitions for mello found in all decent lexicons, and notes that the word is often used in eschatalogical contexts. This proves nothing about the word ought to be used in Mark 13:4 or Luke 21:7.
By the way, it turns out that your reference to ?NIDNTT, Vol1, p.326? was partly correct; The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology does give Mark 13:4, among many other scriptures, as an instance of the meaning ?must, to have to, be certain to?. But in view of the consensus of other scholars, such as I discuss below, this is wrong. It isn?t even consistent with its example of the meaning ?to be about to?, ?to be on the point of?, for which it gives an example Luke 21:7. Since both the words and the context of Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 are identical, they must mean the same thing. So the author of NIDNTT seems to have made a simple mistake by giving Mark 13:4 as an example. But see below for more on this.
: At last you admit that according to Bauer that destined to occur is one of several meanings for mello
What do you mean ?at last?? I?ve already explained that my discussion allowed for this. Your reading comprehension remains close to nil.
: and Bauer under the nest subheading gives his personal view as to how this verb followed by the infinitive is translated.
?Bauer gives his personal view?? LOL! On the contrary, Bauer?s Lexicon, with its full weight of scholarly authority, provides the studied, scholarly view of all of its contributors.
: However, you have not been prepared to offer a grammatical parsing of these terms because you know that such an attempt would show the superiority of the rendition in the NWT.
I haven?t yet felt the need to provide such a parsing, since the evidence I?ve provided, such as the comments in Bauer?s Lexicon, is sufficient for most people to accept. Nevertheless, I will now do so. Since I?m not a Greek scholar I?ve used as a source for the grammatical analysis terminology the Analytical Greek New Testament by Barbara and Timothy Friberg (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1981, 1982).
On parsing Mark 13:4:
hotan melle tauta sunteleisthai panta.
whenever may-be-about these to-be-concluded all.
hotan: conjunction, subordinating
melle: verb, subjunctive, present, active, third person
tauta: adjective, pronominal, demonstrative, nominative, neuter, plural
sunteleisthai: verb, infinitive, present, passive
panta: adjective, nominative, neuter, plural
In section 1.c Bauer?s introduces meanings of the root mello ?with the present infinitive?. According to the above parsing, we have the verb melle followed by the verb sunteleisthai in the present infinitive tense. In section 1.c.a Bauer?s gives the definitions that fit this parsing as ?be about to, be on the point of?. As I wrote in a post above, Bauer?s has the following:
c. with the present infinitive. . .
a. be about to, be on the point of hemellen teleutan he was at the point of death (Aristot. in Apollon. Paradox. 27...) . . . hemellen eauton anairein he was about to kill himself Ac 16:27. . . Occasionally almost=begin hemellon graphein Rv 10:4 hotan melle tauta sunteleisthai panta when all these things are (or begin) to be accomplished Mk 13:4; cf. Lk 21:7; Rv 10:7.
So Bauer?s explains what melle means, why it means it, and gives as typical examples the very scriptural passages that are our point of discussion.
In Luke 21:7 the grammatical pattern is the same, with the verb melle followed by the verb ginesthai in the present infinitive tense. So it, too, perfectly fits the pattern Bauer?s gives.
On the other hand, in section 1.a Bauer?s gives examples of mello used with an infinitive following, ?a. only rarely with the future infinitive?. Bauer?s states: ?With the future infinitive mello denotes certainty that an event will occur in the future ... will certainly take place or be.? Obviously Bauer?s is stating that this usage doesn?t fit Mark 13:4 or Luke 21:7, so this disproves yet another of your claims.
In section 1.b Bauer?s gives examples of uses of mello ?b. with the aorist infinitive?. In section 1.b.ß Bauer?s states: ?ß. be destined, inevitable (acc. to God?s will) apokaluphthenai that is destined to be revealed Gal 3:23.? Obviously Bauer?s is stating that this usage doesn?t fit Mark 13:4 or Luke 21:7.
In view of the above, it?s evident that Bauer?s Lexicon not only provides no support for the NWT?s rendering of Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7, but specifically shows why that rendering is wrong.
Perfectly consistent with the above, concerning the meaning of mello, NIDNTT (the reference you yourself claimed in support of your contention) states (p. 326):
It occurs frequently with the present infinitive (84 times) and occasionally with the aorist infinitive with the sense of ?to be about to?, ?to be on the point of? (... Lk. ... 21:7 ... Rev. ... 10:4 ... ).
So this again proves my point. Also note that, in a previous post, I pointed out that your reference to this work likely contained false claims. I stated:
Since every time you've made some false claim about some scholarly reference, I've shown that you've misrepresented what it says, just as you did in your post here, I'll now give you the opportunity to retract what you've claimed and tell the truth. If you don't, then of course, as soon as I receive my copy of NIDNTT I'll post the full truth about what it says. Do you have the intellectual honesty (or even the intelligence?) to back down now, before you're once again shown to be a sham scholar at best, and a liar in the main?
So once again you?ve proved yourself to be a sham of a scholar, bordering on a pathological liar.
Now I?m going to provide detailed analyses of Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 from The Translator?s Handbook series from United Bible Societies. The scholarly comments completely prove my point, and prove that the NWT rendering is simply wrong. Note that the text at the top of each analysis is from the Revised Standard Version. Note also that the analyses specifically refer to Bauer?s Lexicon as an authority, but in the forms ?Arndt & Gingrich? and ?A-G? (the full reference is A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, A translation and adaptation of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer?s Griechisch-Deutches Worterbuch... by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, Second Edition).
On the translation of Mark 13:4, from A Handbook on The Gospel of Mark, Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene A Nida, UBS Handbook Series, United Bible Societies, New York, 1961, 1993, pp. 397-8:
4 "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?"
Exegesis: pote (cf. 9:19) 'when?'
. . .
semeion (cf. 8:11) 'sign': here in the sense of a 'token' or 'indication' pointing to the events referred to. In this context the 'sign' asked for would be an indication that the events were about to take place.
hotan melle tauta sunteleisthai panta 'when all these things are about to be accomplished'.
hotan (cf. 11:19) 'when': indicates one single event.
mello (cf. 10:32) ?about to be?, ?on the point of? (cf. Arndt & Gingrich I.c.a).
Obviously these scholars agree that the RSV?s rendering ?when these things are all to be? retains the immediacy of the more explicit ?when all these things are about to be?. This disproves one of your main claims.
On the translation of Luke 21:7, from A Translator?s Handbook on The Gospel of Luke, J. Reiling and J. L. Swellengrebel, published for the United Bible Societies by E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1971, p. 662.
7 And they asked him, ?Teacher, when will this be, and what will be the sign when this is about to take place??
Exegesis: eperotesan de auton ?they asked him?. In view of vv. 12ff the subject is presumably the disciples.
didaskale ?teacher?, cp. on 3:12.
pote oun tauta estai ?then when will these things be, or happen?? oun points back to v. 6 to which also tauta refers.
ti to semeion hotan melle tauta genesthai ?what will be the sign when these things are about to happen??, with estai understood. The underlying idea is that events due to divine intervention are announced by a sign. To know the sign means to know that the events are about to happen. For semeion cp. on 2:12; for mellei cp. A-G s.v mello I c a.
Translation: They, or, ?his disciples/followers?.
The sign when (or, that) this is about to take place, or more explicitly, ?the sign which will show that this is about (or, that the time has come for this) to happen? (cp. TEV).
: I dare you to show that the NWT is inaacurate in the transaltion of this Markan and Lukan passage.
The Translator?s Handbook scholars have done this for me.
: The rendering in the AV transalation does NOT show immediacy as you claim but is more sympathetic to the rendering in the NWT.
Wrong. The above analyses prove it.
: So far you have not posted your translation of the 24 NT instances of parousia
Do tell. That?s a rather large project and will consume dozens of hours of research to accomplish thoroughly. Nevertheless, below I?ll post some comments from the UBS?s A Handbook on The Gospel of Matthew that completely disprove the Watchtower Society?s claims about the meaning of parousia in Matthew 24:3.
: and untilyou do so your credibility is nil
Not at all. It simply means that you still have a straw to grab on to.
: and please have the courage and intellectual integrity to parse the infinitive and the preceding verb. I dare you to do this.
Done. Now I dare you to do the same parsing and try to prove the above-quoted scholars wrong. Of course, you can?t do it, and so readers will find that you?ll be engaging in your usual spewing of excuses.
I must say that I feel a little sorry for you here, since the Society provides no justification for its mistranslation of Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 in any of its literature. So you?re on your own, and that?s a scary thing for a Jehovah?s Witness.
Here?s what the UBS?s A Handbook on The Gospel of Matthew (by Barclay M. Newman and Philip C. Stine, UBS Handbook Series, 1988, pp. 731-2) has to say about Matthew 24:3:
First the Handbook quotes Matthew 24:3 from the RSV (Revised Standard Version):
As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, ?Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age??
Then it quotes from the TEV (Today?s English Version), which is even more specific about the meaning of parousia:
As Jesus sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him in private. ?Tell us when all this will be,? they asked, ?and what will happen to show that it is the time for your coming and the end of the age.?
Then it gives some analysis:
. . .
Matthew, even more emphatically than Mark (13:4), divides the response of the disciples into two distinct questions: (1) when will this be, and (2) what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age? The first of the two questions relates to the destruction of Jerusalem, which is a historical event that may be predicted with relative certainty by the observation of other events. It receives an answer in verses 15-28 and 32-35. But the second question concerns a happening that is not one in a series of cause-and-effect events. It speaks of an act of God, a divine intervention into history that comes suddenly and without warning. Therefore it cannot be predicted or determined by anything that takes place in the course of human events. Consequently the time of its occurrence is within the knowledge of God alone (verses 29-31, 36). Therefore the only answer to this question can be: cease all speculation, faithfully perform your tasks as disciples, and be ready at any moment (verses 37-44). Although the disciples may be interested in predicting the events that accompany the end of history, Jesus? sole concern is that his followers correctly fulfill their role as disciples. That is why he gives them a stern warning accompanied by an exhortation (verses 4-14) before proceeding to answer the two questions.
Since most translators will have put a section heading at the beginning of this verse, it may not be clear that when will this be refers to Jesus? statement about the destruction of the Temple. Brc has ?these events,? but some translators will have to be even more specific, with a question like ?When will the Temple be destroyed??
TEV has expressed sign with ?What will happen to show.?
Among the Gospel writers only Matthew uses the noun coming of Jesus? coming into power and glory, and in his Gospel it is confined to this chapter (verses 3,27,37,39). In the world of the New Testament, the Greek noun for coming was a technical term used of official visits by royalty, and it literally meant ?presence? or ?appearance.? For Paul and writers of other New Testament letters, the noun is used specifically of Jesus? coming in glory (1 Cor 15.23; 1 Thes 2.19; 3.13; 4.15; 5.23; 2 Thes 2.1,8,9; James 5.7,8; 2 Peter 1.16; 3.4,12; 1 John 2.28). To translate your coming as ?your return? (LB) is to transgress the boundaries of valid translation; whereas the Greek word connotes a glorious or victorious manifestation (not necessarily on earth!), the English word ?return? conveys a totally different picture.
To retain coming does pose a problem for translators in languages where an event is not normally expressed as a noun. They can use a sentence such as ?What things will happen to show that it is time for you to come? or ?...that now you will come.? In some languages ?appear? is used.
Jesus coming or appearance will mark the close of the age, or the end of history as we know it. It means much more, therefore, than the destruction of the world. If it means nothing to say ?the end of this age? (the most common translation ) or ?the end of history,? translators may say ?the end of time? or ?the end of the world? (but not ?the destruction of the world?).
The scholarly literature is chock full of commentary such as this about Matthew 24. The Watchtower Society can drum up no support for its claims except perhaps from a tiny number of other goofy sects who also are fanatically concerned about the imminent parousia of Jesus. But no good scholars support them.
AlanF
