Re: 1Co 1.18

Shaughn Daniel (
Sun, 5 May 1996 04:30:11 +0100

>> TOIS SWZOMENOIS ("to/for those being saved" OR "to/for those
>> saved") is parallel to TOIS APPOLLUMENOIS [sic] ("to/for those being
>> OR "to/for those perished" OR "to/for those destroying themselves").

> It seems to me that TOIS men APOLLUMENOIS and TOIS de SWZOMENIOS are
>*NOT* parallel
>precisely because of the "" construction. Wouldn't that make
>them more antithetical than

I wrote "parallel" to mean two items having parts that are the same. Of
course, semantically, they are meanings that are antithetical in nature,
but that is not what I was emphasizing. They are parallel in grammatical
endings, or "having parts that are parallel", which further entails that
they lie within the same plane, but never contact one another (antithetical
parallelism?). There are many ways to go about twisting these words here
and there. I don't want to emphasize the word "parallel" too much, but do
think it is important to understand the sense: both SWZOMENOIS and
APOLLUMENOIS are parallel to one another, in as much as "the road is
parallel to the river", signifying that the road is the road and the river
is the river and they relate to one another in a certain way: they are not
intersecting one another, for example. Maybe the road only allows
north-travelling while the river only flows southwards. But this is already
too much, so I end here. I hope that clears up any ambiguity in my original

Shaughn Daniel
Tuebingen, Germany