From: Carl W. Conrad (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Mar 07 1996 - 06:15:59 EST
On 3/6/96, Gary S. Shogren wrote:
> If I understand your criteria rightly, KATALAMBANW is a prime example - does
> it mean "comprehendeth it not (KJV)" in John 1:5 or "did not overcome it"?
> What I find interesting is that both make very good sense in the immediate
> context, and fairly decent sense in the context of Johannine theological
> vocab. I seem to recall that Carson lists the verse in Exegetical
> Fallacies, reminding us not to try to work BOTH meanings into a single
> context unless there's evidence of a play on words. By the way - Exegetical
> Fallacies is shortly to be re-released in an updated form.
I was going to mention KATALAMBANW also, but I believe that in the KJV
"comprehendeth" doesn't mean "understands" but "overcomes"--Elizabethan
sense of the word.Nevertheless, "understands" is possible because
KATALAMBANW is the Stoic word for "grasp, understand."
I believe that "comprehend" in our sense is a relatively recent usage of
Incidentally,Carlton, isn't the noun from hAIREW that you're referring to
hAIRESIS with an Epsilon rather than hAIRHSIS with an Eta?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
firstname.lastname@example.org OR email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:39 EDT