From: James H. Vellenga (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Feb 21 1996 - 14:02:35 EST
To go offline a bit --
I get the feeling that at least one of us isn't communicating his
concerns/thoughts/etc. to the other. What I'm trying to do is
to extend the line of reasoning that suggests the "no-things"
of the NT represent intangibles rather than the modern concept
of the absence of anything that we can ideate about.
I have no argument with your point (c) -- that the alternation
between OUQEN and OUDEN has no significance whatsoever.
Again, I'm not trying
to distinguish between OUQEN and OUDEN, but between OUQEN/OUDEN
interpreted as "nothing" (modern English sense) on the one hand
and interpreted as "no-thing" (i.e., an intangible) on the other.
Your point (a) suggests that in verse 3 the distinction is moot
because OUDEN in this case means neither "nothing" nor "no-thing"
but rather "not at all" -- i.e., it doesn't benefit me at all,
either tangibly or intangibly.
And in verse 2, when Paul says "I am not anything" (your (b)(2)),
I gather we are interpreting OUQEN as "nothing" rather than "no-thing"
-- i.e., "I am bereft of either tangible or intangible qualities."
In (b), you say that XARISMA is absent in performance of these
acts without love. I think your statement is that it doesn't matter
whether a XARISMA is a "thing" or a "no-thing" -- it is absent
nonetheless, and its absence is implied by OUDEN or OUQEN.
Have I understood and rephrased your statements correctly?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:38 EDT