How to find if its true

So im reading The Foosteps of the Messiah by Dr. Arnold G Fruchtenbaum and he says something that I want to test and see if it is true but dont know enough logos or resources to check.

He says and I quote."In answer to the first point, Matthew 24:36 begins with the word But, which in Greek is peri de. The peri de construction in Greek is a contrastive introduction of a new subject and, hence, is often translated as: But concerning (1 Cor. 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1; 1 Thes. 5:1; etc.). The usage of this construction points to the introduction of a new subject. So yes, He has been discussing the Second Coming until this point. However, the peri de means that He is now introducing a new subject, and that is the Rapture.

So my question is whats the best way and how do I test to see if Peri de does mean a contrast and change in subject? Just looking up the strongs doesn't say anything about it and I looked on the internet and cant find anything.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Robert Neely

i just did a search for the phrase in all of my grammars.

the most useful result was:

Standing absolutely at the beginning of a sentence, περὶ (δέ) means “[now] concerning /with regard to” (for parallels in the papyri, see MM 504a; Mayser 448–49), and marks a new subject (e.g., 1 Co 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1), a point of importance for reconstructing the Corinthian letter to Paul that he answers in 1 Co 7–16.

Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 180.

(I highly recommend this resource, by the way. So much information from prepositions!)

Roy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1067599#Comment_1067599

This one?

https://www.logos.com/product/41547/prepositions-and-theology-in-the-greek-new-testament

Robert Neely

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1067603#Comment_1067603

yes, that is the book that is referenced in the reply to the OP.

Very good resource.

MJ. Smith

Remember that the grammar is descriptive i.e. it is a description of what grammarians see as the use in the language. That doesn't mean that an individual author always exhibits that use. The grammarians offer positive evidence not a declaration on its "truth".

Robert Neely

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1067606#Comment_1067606

What is your take on how Fruchtenbaum came about the premise he stated in his book? He seems to imply that it is the “truth “.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1067680#Comment_1067680

What is your take on how Fruchtenbaum came about the premise he stated in his book? He seems to imply that it is the “truth “.

I haven’t studied this particular issue so am not offering critique on whether the Fruchtenbaum “truth” of the application of this generally observed behaviour in the grammar is being correctly applied in this situation, just remember when an author claims something as truth in a situation what they really are saying it’s their interpretation no matter how sincerely they believe it to be truth as MJ has raised.

As a general approach I would as a first up examination of their interpretation step back from the detai and look at the context of the passage. Is that interpretation consistent with what’s going on in the text, what that writer days elsewhere Etc, you know the type of big picture questions to ask. We have a resource that points to the particular Interpretation of Grammar that Fruchtenbaum is employing so next I would suggest running an exegetical guide. Are there any other grammars that back up the application to this particular passage? Run a passage guide on your commentaries focus on original languages. Do any of them apply this same interpretation. Is this interpretation being consistently applied by others?

Of course there are instances where weight of evidence does not always point to truth and lack of evidence does not point to lack of truth. But this allow you to come to a better understanding of a wider view of the passage in question.

Also don’t forget to ask if this particular point of interpretation a hill to die for, something that would be nice to know or a distraction from the real point of the text and message of the gospel and devote your efforts accordingly.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1067680#Comment_1067680

What is your take on how Fruchtenbaum came about the premise he stated in his book? He seems to imply that it is the “truth “.

I'm not familiar enough with Fruchtenbaum to know what premise you are referring to. Can you direct me to the reference? I'm genuinely interested in exploring this.

But if you are referring to the quote given, here's what I would treat it as logically and as "truth".

"In answer to the first point, need broader context to consider
Matthew 24:36 begins with the word But, which in Greek is peri de. A true, verifiable proposition which might need qualification by manuscript/translation e.g. CSB begins with "now"
The peri de construction in Greek is a contrastive introduction of a new subject An assertion/proposition which is the result of inductive thought and therefore, at best, has an associated probably of truth not an absolute determination of "true"
and, hence, is often translated as: But concerning (1 Cor. 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1; 1 Thes. 5:1; etc.). For readers who accept the proposition immediately above, this acceptance is reflected in the common translation of . . .
The usage of this construction points to the introduction of a new subject. If the above proposition is, in fact, (a) an accurate representation of the use of inductive logic on the data, (b) represents all the data without exception, and (c) is a comprehensive representation of the use of the phrase in the language of the time then the usage implies . . .
So yes, He has been discussing the Second Coming until this point. However, the peri de means that He is now introducing a new subject, and that is the Rapture. If the inductively generated proposition is granted to have a high probability of being true and it is granted to be the ONLY use of the phrase, then I can reasonably (with a high degree of probability) assume that the author is introducing a new subject

But when I think of Bible interpretation, I remember the phrase our preacher's son had great fun pointing out to us younger kids - in a common KJ derived Bible of the 1950's (sorry I don't remember the exact version): "and when they awoke they found they were dead"

(Okay, one they refers to the Israelites, the other they refers to their enemies ... but the translators left open the marvelous phrase. Outside of its context it's a great proof text for the immediate resurrection of the dead.)

Dave Hooton

is often translated as: But concerning (1 Cor. 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1; 1 Thes. 5:1; etc.). The usage of this construction points to the introduction of a new subject.

I run a search on "Περὶ δὲ" in a Greek bible and look at the passages that are not quoted. In Mt 20.6; 22:31; 27:46, Mk 12:26 it is used of an event that is "closely related", and is translated "and about", or "and as for" in ESV. Look at the discussion in the preceding verse(s). I would argue that Mt 24:36 & Mk 13:32 introduce a new subject when you look at the preceding verses. But would you use "and"?

John 16:11 "concerns" the last point from v.8, and is translated the same as the other points in vv. 9,10. It could well have been translated "and concerning".

I don't think the phrase is always used to mark a "contrast".

Robert Neely

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1067724#Comment_1067724

If you review the verses called out by Fruchtenbaum, they meet MJ Harris’ criteria:

Standing absolutely at the beginning of a sentence, περὶ (δέ) means “[now] concerning /with regard to” and marks a new subject (e.g., 1 Co 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1)

DAL

So im reading The Foosteps of the Messiah by Dr. Arnold G Fruchtenbaum and he says something that I want to test and see if it is true but dont know enough logos or resources to check.

He says and I quote."In answer to the first point, Matthew 24:36 begins with the word But, which in Greek is peri de. The peri de construction in Greek is a contrastive introduction of a new subject and, hence, is often translated as: But concerning (1 Cor. 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1; 1 Thes. 5:1; etc.). The usage of this construction points to the introduction of a new subject. So yes, He has been discussing the Second Coming until this point. However, the peri de means that He is now introducing a new subject, and that is the Rapture.

So my question is whats the best way and how do I test to see if Peri de does mean a contrast and change in subject? Just looking up the strongs doesn't say anything about it and I looked on the internet and cant find anything.

He’s right in that a new subject is introduced (you don’t need to know Greek to realize that, just common sense), but it’s not the “rapture!” 😂😂😂 He’s been watching too many left behind movies 😜

Robert Neely

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1067832#Comment_1067832

Thanks for that “truth”, Dal.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1067805#Comment_1067805

If you review the verses called out by Fruchtenbaum, they meet MJ Harris’ criteria:

Standing absolutely at the beginning of a sentence, περὶ (δέ) means “[now] concerning /with regard to” and marks a new subject (e.g., 1 Co 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1)

If you reviewed the verses that I called out (except Jn 16:11) they "stand at the beginning of a sentence" according to Cascadia Syntax Grpahs of the New Testament; as do the verses provided by Fruchtenbaum. Mk 12:26, Mk 13:32 & Jn 16:11 are not at the beginning according to LSGNT Sentence Analysis. So what is meant by Standing absolutely at the beginning? I think we are back to the comment made by Disciple II.

David Thomas

The peri de construction in Greek is a contrastive introduction of a new subject and,

Stephanie Black has done great work in identifying the continuation/contrast of Conjunctions in Matthews Gospel. I read an article she published in a journal, but here is a resource in Logos. Where Dr. Fruchtenbaum appeals to the grammar of Koine, Black breaks down to Matthew's use of conjunctions.

Here is a link to a preview of the JETS article that I read. And here is the bibliographic citation - Baldwin, Henry S.Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Lynchburg Vol. 46, Iss. 3, (Sep 2003): 557-559.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1068046#Comment_1068046

the JETS article that I read. And here is the bibliographic citation - Baldwin, Henry S.Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Lynchburg Vol. 46, Iss. 3, (Sep 2003): 557-559.

This review of Black's book is here: https://ref.ly/logosres/gs-jets-46?ref=VolumeNumberPage.V+46%2c+N+3%2c+p+557&off=2999&ctx=.+Andrews%2c+Scotland%0a~Sentence+Conjunction

Al Het

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1067606#Comment_1067606

Remember that the grammar is descriptive i.e. it is a description of what grammarians see as the use in the language. That doesn't mean that an individual author always exhibits that use. The grammarians offer positive evidence not a declaration on its "truth".

What an absolutely great reminder.

Al Het

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1068074#Comment_1068074

Something about looking back 2000 years makes it easy to forget that then, like today, people used words in slightly different ways.