JOH 16,23
Alan B. Thomas
a_b_thomas at yahoo.com
Wed May 2 13:40:42 EDT 2001
Concerning EN TWi ONOMATI MOU and like "ambiguous"
prep. phrases,
I note this comment by Carl:
begin quote:
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)...<snip> end quote.
Why?
Is it possible that several of the ambiguous
constructs we find sprinkled throughout the NT were
indeed intentional?
Carl mentioned the famous Eph. 1:4 or 5 construct EN
AGAPHi. It makes sense if you take it with either
verse. Why could not the author have intended to use
it in such a way as to allow it to have a "dual
function?"
Or, are we certain that all "ambiguous" constructs
were done with lack of care. And by ambiguous
constructs, I am only commenting on phrases where it
SEEMS that even the original readers would have
observed this ambiguity.
It just seems to me that ambiguity can be a
syntactical time-saver and an effective tool. Even as
in Romams 9.22, is KATHRTISMENA a Middle or Passive?
Well, I can make sense of it either way. And I am
quite content with that "ambiguity." (God's preparing
them for destruction [passive] need not be done apart
from human decisions [middle].)
Of course, if we are willing to concede intentional
uses of ambiguity, I guess the next question to
explore is whether or not we can distinguish an
intended ambiguity from an unintentional one.
Is anyone aware of any material published on this
issue?
=====
Sincerely,
Alan B. Thomas
"If a text in the Bible is contrary to your theology, simply consider that text a redaction. Problem solved."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list