ALLHLWN

Peter Kirk prkirk at pmbx.net
Thu Dec 26 05:40:53 EST 2002


I would presuppose that the first readers would understand ALLHLWN
according to its usual meaning, unless there is clear evidence to the
contrary in the context. I don't count interpretations made hundreds of
years later as part of the context. I could go into the development of
church practice, but not on this list.

PS I will be away for nearly two weeks from tomorrow so I won't be able
to continue this discussion.

Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk at ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gie Vleugels [mailto:gvleugels at etf.edu]
> Sent: 26 December 2002 19:37
> To: Peter Kirk
> Cc: b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
> Subject: RE: [b-greek] RE: ALLHLWN
> 
> Dear Peter and others,
> 
> Our discussion about the meaning of ALLHLWN in James 5 and elsewhere
> provides us with an excellent illustration of a fundamental principle
in
> Bible translation and exegesis:  Always try to find out how the first
> readers have understood a text.   Peter, what makes you so sure that
the
> early Church was wrong in its application of James 5?  You're stating
that
> by the time of Origen Church practice was already firmly settled and
> influenced the interpretation of James 5.  When was it settled?  Where
did
> it come from, if not from Scripture and/o apostolic teaching?  What
makes
> you think that early Christians have ever read James 5 in a different
way?
> Those that refer to it (Hippolytus etc.), read it as it is reflected
in
> Church practice.  Before concluding that the first four centuries of
> Christian readership missed the point, one should rethink ones own
> interpretation.
> 
> CAIREIN,
> Gie
> 
> Gie Vleugels
> www.etf.edu




More information about the B-Greek mailing list