From: Jim West (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Aug 06 1997 - 12:03:44 EDT
At 11:29 AM 8/6/97 -0500, you wrote:
>You (Jim West) wrote in response to my questions:
>My counter-response to you is that apparently qualified translators disagree
>with you, since some translate SUSCHMATIZESQE as middle (or even active
>"deponent") - see NIV (and New American Bible, I believe).
Thats ok. They can be wrong if they wish. ;>)
I would say that the context leans in favor of a passive rendering. Paul's
theology, likewies, supports a passive reading since it was his belief that
God was in control.
>>> 2. Should TWi AIWNI TOUTWi be translated "BY this age"
>>> (i.e., the age ...
>> no - "to this age" - taking it as a dative.
>Yes, I KNOW it's a "dative" - but I'm asking WHAT KIND of dative -
>instrumental dative ("by"), dative of indirect object ("to"), dative of
>reference ("with reference to"), etc.?
Dative of reference, of course.
>>> 3. What is "the renewal of the mind"?
>> see Albert Schweitzer's "The Mysticism of the Apostle Paul.
>Okay - I think I read this book several years ago. But I wonder if he'll be
>able to authoritatively answer my questions from a
>lexical/grammatical/syntactical point of view, and not just from a contextual
>or personal theological point of view.
can the two really be separated? methinks not.
>> God does the transforming (taking it as a divine passive)
>> you do the renewing by keeping your thoughts fixed on God's
>> transformation of you.
>Jim, I'll admit that this is ONE POSSIBLE translation/interpretation. But as
>my questions try to point out, there appear to be several equally valid
>translations/interpretations from a lexical/grammatical/syntactical
>perspective. On what basis do you conclude that what you have written as the
>meaning/translation of this phrase is THE CORRECT ONE?
again, context and familiarity with Paul's theological perspectives.
>I appreciate your prompt(!!) response, but I don't think you have adequately
>addressed my questions - or if you have, I'd like a little more explanation
>of the reasons behind your conclusions.
Sorry, laconic writing has always been my habit. Direct questions deserve
direct answers and not the usual flip flopping and the typical "death of a
thousand qualifications" answers that folks usually give.
If you want a thorough response it would be best to read someone like Georg
Strecker's "Theologie des NT". Here he examines Paul's theology and
language in depth.
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:24 EDT