Dear b-greekers, On Sat, 05 May 2001 22:41:20 -0000 "Mark Wilson" writes: > > Alan: > > You wrote: > ----- > >But as I review the various NT grammars on the > >Editorial "we," I remain unconvinced that this was > >ever the thought behind a NT writer. (We = me) > ------ > > I looked at Wallace's treatment of this and I guess I would be > inclined to > agree with your comments. [snip] > In every instance Wallace gives, I can see the NT writer referring > to > himself and his apostolic team. [snip] > My thoughts, > > Mark Wilson > [Richard] I think I disagree with both Mark and Alan, at least in the case of QESSALONIKEIS A and perhaps B as well. On the assumption that all the "we's" of QESS. A refer to PAULOS and his SUNERGOI, i.e., at least SILOUANOS and TIMOQEOS and perhaps others, a most perplexing circumstance arises at 3:1f,3,5. 1) DIO MHKETI STEGONTES EUDOKHSAMEN KATALEIFQHNAI EN AQHNAIS MONOI 2) KAI EPEMYAMEN TIMOQEON... 3) ...AUTOI GAR OIDATE hOTI EIS TOUTO (QLIYEIS) KEIMEQA 5) DIA TOUTO KAGW MHKETI STEGWN EPEMYA EIS TO GNWNAI THN PISTIN hUMWN... In vs 1 PAULOS says that he and his SUNERGOI were MONOI merely because one of their party, TIMOQEOS, had gone off to QESSALONIKH. Was it not rather TIMOQEOS who was MONOS, being separated from the rest? How can a GROUP of people be described as MONOI merely because one of their group leaves? Were the 11 apostles MONOI when one of their number, IOUDAS, left (by death)? Was the family of IHSOUS MONOI when he was left behind at the temple? Were the Democrats MONOI when Ronald Reagan left the party to become a Republican? Either PAULOS was with friends in AQHNAI or he was not. If he was with friends, he could not describe THEIR situation as being MONOI simply because TIMOQEOS had departed. However, if he was truly without apostolic companions in AQHNAI, as I assume, then he could he could truly say that he was MONOI. The first person plural would then have to be construed as the editorial "we", nez pas? Vs 3 corroborates this understanding because it apparently echos PRAXEIS 9:16; 20:23 -- 9:16 -- EGW hUPODEIXW AUTWi hOSA DEI AUTON hUPER TOU ONOMATOS MOU PAQEIN. 20:23 -- TO PNEUMA TO hAGION KATA POLIN DIAMARTURETAI MOI LEGON hOTI DESMA KAI QLIYEIS ME MENOUSIN. As PAULOS MONOS is the recipient of these divine revelations so he is the sole object of the divine appointment of QESS. A 3:3. Finally in vs. 5 he emphatically switches to the singular to demonstrate to the QESSALONIKEIS that his interest in them is not only ministerial but intensely personal. He wants TO GNWNAI THN PISTIN AUTWN deeply, intimately, personally. But this is hardly surprising in a letter with vss like 2:7,8: hWS EAN TROFOS QALPHi TA hEAUTHS TEKNA, hOUTWS hOMEIROMENOI hUMWN EUDOKOUMEN METADOUNAI hUMIN OU MONON TO EUAGGELION TOU QEOU ALLA KAI TAS hEAUTWN YUCAS, DIOTI AGAPHTOI hHMIN EGENHQHTE. If I have established that PAULOS was using the editorial "we" in QESS. A 3:1,3, it is then highly probable that he used it throughout the letter and very likely in QESS. B as well. If I have made a mistake somewhere in my thinking, I would very much appreciate knowing where it is. Frankly, I'm not entirely comfortable with this argument, but I don't know why. Yours in His grace, Richard Ghilardi -- qodeshlayhvh@juno.com New Haven, CT USA Nibai kaurno hwaiteis gadriusando in airtha gaswiltith, silbo ainata aflifnith: ith jabai gaswiltith, manag akran bairith. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. --- 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