[B-Greek] Single author as "we"

Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 5 13:17:51 EST 2007


Prof. Woodruff:

> Eddie:
> 
> I would disagree with you on this
> 
> It is apparent from the the immediate context that
> 2 Cor 10:11, 13, Gal 1:8-9 and Romans 1:5 are
> epistolary "we's."

I checked the citation that Dr. Conrad mentions, GGBB
p. 394. I see now how the terminology works and why
you used "epistolary we's." I think this 'epistolary'
plural is what Mitch's question concerns.

To use the correct words, I would say that I am not
convinced that ANY epistolary/editorial plural can be
attested in the NT (despite Dr. Wallace's "relatively"
clear examples), and I'm not sure about the Literary
Plural (author and audience). The Literary plural
appears to be a rhetorical device, and therefore I'm
not sure it is even open to confirmation/refutation.
In any event, if a 'strong' example did exist for what
'appears' to be an Epistolary plural, I would now
probably see it as a Literary Plural, certainly in the
NT. 

To address one of your citations, Prof. Woodruff, in
the ending of Romans, Tertius identifies himself as
author and lists others as members of this Pauline
team. The singular references in Romans, as an
example, would I think default to Paul himself only,
and any "we's" in the other Pauline epistles would
default to Paul AND his often-accompanying entourage.
I don't think Paul needed to gain authority for his
writings by including others; it just strikes me as
appropriate to include others as a default (courtesy,
social custom, humility, etc.). His "I" and "we" seem
strategic.

In Galatians, the "we" seems very pertinent to Paul's
argument, in the sense that an "I" would tend to
weaken that emphasis. I agree with that. But, I still
think Paul used the "we" to include his WHOLE team.
Note he writes in Gal 1:8 hO EUHGGELISAMEQA hUMIN.
Would this not include Paul and Barnabas (at least)
per Acts 13? The sense I get in reading the NT is Paul
was not a lone ranger, although at times his team was
elsewhere or on rare occasion had 'abandoned' him. In
fact, his LOUKAS ESTIN MONOS MEQ' EMOU was worthy of
note...only one was with him.

Concerning Dr. Conrad's BDF quote "is a widespread
tendency among Greek authors as well as in vulgar
texts and other languages...." I think this is what
Mitch addressed. Statements like this may very well be
true (and I would be happy to change my position
should I get a chance to review all these common
usages), but where are all these common usage
examples. I'd be happy with 5!

Somewhat of a side, but OT scholar Dr. W. Kaiser has
contended that the "plurality of majesty" (let's us
make man in our image...) has no ancient attestation.
To him, the "us" is plural because its referent is
more than one. I certainly don't want to debate that,
but I have always assumed this 'plurality of majesty'
to be a 'common usage' in ancient texts. Now, I have
to re-evaluate it.

Eddie Mishoe
Pastor


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never Miss an Email
Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile.  Get started!
http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail



More information about the B-Greek mailing list