[B-Greek] John 3:36
Clwinbery at aol.com
Clwinbery at aol.com
Sat Sep 20 13:07:32 EDT 2003
In a message dated 9/19/03 6:12:33 PM, dewus at bluemarble.net writes:
>BlankhO PISTEUWN EIS TON UION EXEI ZWHN AIWNION; hO DE APEIQWN TW UIW OUK
>OYETAI ZWHN, ALL H ORGH TOU QEOU MENEI EP AUTON.
>
>Hi, I was wondering if I could get someone's opinion as to (1) why the
>author used APEIQWN in the second part of the verse and not simply ou with
>the word PISTEUWN-- the word they used earlier in the verse; in other words,
>is the author deliberately trying to do more than negate PISTEUWN and inject
>a different thought with the subsequent use of APEIQWN; I realize the words
>are closely related to one another (i.e., PISTEUW is derived from PISTIS
>which is derived from PEIQW [I hope that derivation chain is correct]).
>I've checked several translations for the verse itself and there is some
>disagreement (hence my frustration) based on the interpretation of APEIQWN,
>which some render as not believing; some as not obeying in these various
>translations. The range of definitions I've found as possibilities for
>the
>word are: not-persuading, complying, believing, obeying). (2) Is it
>reasonable to assume that the dative TW UIW might argue for the believing
>rather than obeying rendition, as it seems to makes more sense in context?
>Thanks in advance.
>kind regards, Mike Dewus
>dewus at bluemarble.net
>
The dative may be used with either PISTEUW or APEIQEW so I think that the
variety of wording here is for literary effect with no real difference in meaning.
Carlton Winbery
Louisiana College
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list