[B-Greek] Biblical Greek question
Robert J. Fuller, Jr.
rjfuller at newulmtel.net
Wed Oct 20 13:42:58 EDT 2004
I am struggling to determine if we are to take this post seriously, or as a
very clever hoax. I guess it is possible for a written communication to
mean one thing to the writer and another to the reader, but I think we would
then conclude that the writer either could not communicate, or chose not to
communicate clearly. Either of these would seem to indicate that we have no
way of knowing what the writer was writing about.
That leaves my head swimming.
Either the original readers understood the message of the written word, in
which case we can as well, or they did not, in which case -- we are at sea
in a storm of unsubstantiated guesses and personal ignorance.
That leaves me hoping for something more.
We cannot find meaning where there is no fixed reference.
Bob Fuller
Always Forward >> Philippians 3:13,14
----- Original Message -----
From: "wry" <wry1111 at earthlink.net>
To: <adrian at spudazo.org>; <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Biblical Greek question
> Hi. This is my first message to this list. I am still writing a response
> to
> a different message, which I intended to be first, so in that one I will
> introduce myself.. Though I did take a beginning course in college many
> years ago,
> I do not know much of anything about the ancient Greek language, and I may
> very
> well be wrong in anything I say, so would appreciate any kind of feedback
> and
> correction. My personal interest is to study the various devices by which
> meaning is covertly communicated in spiritual writings and works of art,
> etc. As many of you probably are aware, one of the main ways such
> meaning is communicated is by use of similar consonant bases, and another
> is by the device of the numbering of passages. Cross-referencing is
> done in this way from the New Testament to the Old and there is no reason
> to
> assume that writers of the New Testament did not cross-reference in such a
> way to the works of each other, assuming some of this material was wrtten
> previously and the writers of subsequent material had access to it and
> believed that (some of) their readership would have access to both texts
> and
> a knowledge of the different devices they were using to make such
> indications..
>
> One thing worth noting is that any ordinary reader would not necessarily
> know
> how to access material in this way, as, to a degree, one would need to be
> in
> some way clued-in as to how to do this, and then, as he practiced
> interpretating
> material in this manner, he would gain expertise, so do not necessarily
> make
> the assumption that everything written is intended for everyone to
> understand
> in the same way, as this assumption can throw you off in making a more
> sophisticated interpretation, as people receive from certain material
> according to their understanding and like tends to acrue to like, so if
> you
> assume
> that because the common man would not grasp certain subtle nuances that
> are
> conveyed by making a deliberate similarity of consonant bases in an
> efffort
> to
> indicate across referencing or to convey a certain subtle meaning, you
> will
> limit
> yourself in taking the kind of creative leap that is necessary to bridge a
> certain
> gap in formatory communication. .
>
> It seems to me that there are at least two reasons to assume that one of
> these writers was familiar with the writing of the other and deliberately
> correlated his material to that which was previous and intended the reader
> (a certain small portion of the reading audience) to do the same; the
> first
> indication is the similarity in the numbering of the two passages. Mark
> 11-4,
> which suggests both the number 14 and also the number 2 (11) can be
> somewhat
> easily correlated with Ephesians 2-14. (I am not that familiar with what
> is
> called
> Gematria, but I know a kind of numerical addition was often used in
> ancient
> Greece as a way of covert communication), and secondly, both of these
> passages are obviously in reference to the same subject . To get a better
> understanding of this, it would be interesting to try to interpret the
> meaning of
> the colt. (young horse). I do not know if any here are familar with the
> use
> of animals as symbols for abstract qualities, but for ancient people of
> Egypt
> and Greece, as well as those of other cultures, it was very common to use
> animals as symbols. In any case, in both instances, the writers are
> speaking
> of some kind of convergence at a juncture, and the similarity in meaning
> is not a matter of the imagination, but striking, so one could almost
> assume
> that the choice of a similar consonant base was intentional. Of course not
> all readers would be aware of this, but if someone was specifically on the
> lookout for this type of communication, this would be another indication
> that one of these writers was deliberately cross-referencing to the other.
> Finding the use of a similar word root in this instance is sort of like
> running a math problem backwards to cross-check a previous solution,
> but in this case, the common root becomes an indication of a correct
> solution when looked at in combination with other indications. Alone, it
> would not be meaningful,. but when correlated with the similarity in
> numbering and in the similarity of content of the two passages, it takes
> on a new significance. The first time one sees this kind of set-up and
> begins to suspect it is a case of covert communication, perhaps the
> evidence does not seem to make a complete case for the conclusion
> that there actually is intended such a communication, but when one
> begin to regognize the use of this kind of devices and certain
> combinations
> of such devices time and time again, one begins to get a surer taste for
> it.
> See below for a further comments..
> .
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adrian Standeven" <ac.standeven at ntlworld.com>
> To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 4:36 PM
> Subject: [B-Greek] Biblical Greek question
>
>
>> I'm hoping that someone might be able to help me?
>>
>> In Mark 11:4 we read the phrase *"a place where two ways met"* -
>> Strongs concordance suggests this word to be /"amphodon" /and informs me
>> that it is from the base /"amphoteros" /and /"hodos" /and is used
>> nowhere else in the NT.
> -------
> The fact that this is not a commonly used word is further evidence
> of deliberate cross-referencing in the passage in Ephesians.
> ----------
>>
>> Now in Ephesians 2:14 we read the word *"both"* - Strongs concordance
>> says the word to be /"amphoteros".
>>
>> /The question I have is this - would there be a connection in the mind
>> of a Greek reader when comparing the phrase in Mark 11:4 and Ephesians
>> 2:14. Could there be a sense in which the *"both" *of Ephesians, whilst
>> referring to maybe Jew & Gentile, Mark could be making a similar
>> allusion in the scene being presented? (The scene is full of "pairs".)
>>
>> Hope all this makes sense!
> -------
> It makes a lot of sense, to me, at least. The image of releasing from a
> juncture point a colt that has never been mounted and of Jesus riding upon
> it is surely very similar to what is being conveyed in the latter passage
> in
> Ephesians 2-14.. I would also take a look at the other words which have
> the
> same consonant base, word, 293 and 294 in your concordance, the former
> meaning a fishing net--(to encircle a net around fish) and the latter
> meaning to enrobe, (circle clothes around a body), so there is a sense of
> encircling of something by something else, or an incorportation of one
> into
> the other or parts into a whole, and so the place where there is a
> convergence,
> when applied to a human being, is suggesting of a spiral rather than a
> crossroad,
> but I guess it can be viewed as a crossing. In the other two dictionaries
> I
> have
> looked in besides Strongs, the word does seem to suggest an encircling and
> all
> of the words that begin with ampth seem to suggest this also, so since
> amph
> seems to be associated with encircling, the meaning that someone has given
> which suggests an inner portion of a city that roads surround is probably
> more
> correct, though maybe it was used colloquially to mean crossroad. Hope
> this
> is
> of some value. Never stop pondering, which is a way of mentally digesting
> material in a way we are not usually accustomed to. The more we do it,
> the more dimensional and less one -sided our thinking will become, for the
> benefit of not only ourselves, but everyone. Sincerely, Wry
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Adrian Standeven (Bible Student)
>> /
>>
>> /
>> ---
>> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>> B-Greek mailing list
>> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list