Date: Sun Mar 31 1996 - 03:15:48 EST
I want to respond briefly to several things (I would have covered a few
matters earlier, but I got disconnected).
On MIAS...ANDRA, some people have in fact argued for "one-woman man", but
I think this is stretching the Gr beyond the break point and proposing
something quite inconsistent with Paul's thinking. Usually it is used as
a well-meaning argument to allow divorced persons to be elders, etc.
As to apposition, this has been more or less said, but any case can be
used for apposition if it matches the case of the referent (antecedent?).
The genitive case is often used in apposition to any other case as well
(this is a special use of the genitive).
Re Rom 9:8: The semitism being referred to is the use of the Hebrew lamedh
with schewa ("le", pardon my spelling, it's really past my bed time), which
often functions as a sign of the predicate nominative. That is the easiest
explanation, but whether that is what Paul is doing is debatable, so a
search is worth doing.
SU LEGEIS in Mark 15:2 etc. is rather difficult. I am a translator for the
NASB and we have chosen to stick with the idea of affirmation, which it
certainly could be (as in "You said it!", "It is as you say," etc.) I
suspect, though, that the statement may be as enigmatic to the original
listeners as it seems to us, and that Jesus at this point may be intention-
ally unclear because He sees no reason to continue to assert His deity
before those who have rejected Him. He has proven it enough, in effect.
I better quit for now and hit the sack.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:40 EDT