[b-greek] Re: JOH 16,23

From: David Thiele (thielogian@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed May 02 2001 - 15:48:46 EDT


I would like to pick up a passing comment made by Carl
and get some further clarification, although it is
only tangentally related to the discussion of John
16:23.

Most translations seem to relate SHMERON in Lk 23:43
to META EMOU ESHi EN TWi PARADEISWi. Carl suggests it
should be related to AMHN SOI LEGW. I'm wondering
why. Is the reasoning syntactic, contectual or
theological?

Regards

David Thiele
Pacific Adventist University
--- "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
wrote: > I'd like to get one word in on this before I
drop
> off the scene for a
> while. I agree with what Al writes below on the
> probability that EN TWi
> ONOMATI MOU should be understood with AITHSHTE TON
> PATERA rather than with
> DWSEI hUMIN. At least the context provides some help
> with this one, but I
> think it is worth pointing out that there are
> several prepositional phrases
> falling strategically between two clauses or
> participial phrases concerning
> which prepositional phrases it seems nigh unto
> arbitrary to decide how best
> to construe it. Sometimes it doesn't really
> matter--and I'd say that's the
> case here, where the phrase EN TWi ONOMATI MOU must
> be understood, I
> believe, implicitly with the other of the two
> clauses as well as with the
> first one no matter which one thinks is more
> probable.
>
> But we've had other cases like this: the reference
> of SHMERON in Lk 23:43
> (I used to think SHMERON ought to construe with META
> EMOU ESHi EN TWi
> PARADEISWi although now I'm pretty confident it
> belongs rather with AMHN
> SOI LEGW); then there are the phrases that fall
> ambiguously between clauses
> in Eph 1:3-12: does EN AGAPHi at the end of verse 4
> belong with the clause
> preceding it (KAQWS EXELEXATO hHMAS KTL.) or with
> the clause following it
> (PROORISAS hHMAS EIS hUIOQESIAN KTL.); the same
> question can be raised at
> the end of verse 8, whether EN PASHi SOFIAi KAI
> FRONHSEI should better be
> construed with the preceding clause (hHS
> EPERISSEUSEN EIS hHMAS) or with
> the following clause (GNWRISAS hHMIN TO MUSTHRION
> TOU QELHMATOS AUTOU).
>
> These are all instances, I think, wherein more
> careful writing could have
> eliminated ambiguity; I don't think there's any
> intentional ambiguity in
> any of these verses I've cited (nor in John 16:23),
> but I rather doubt that
> there'll ever be universal consensus on resolving
> these ambiguities clearly
> in favor of one alternative or the other.
>
I have eliminated all the messages you send along from the digest. Send only the quotes necessary to reference the subject.

Carlton Winbery
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:36:56 EDT