From: Jim Beale (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 23 1997 - 14:57:37 EDT
On Sep 23, 1:15pm, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 11:43:21 -0400 Jim Beale <email@example.com> writes:
> >A friend and I were discussing this sentence:
> > KAI OUK EGINWSKEN AUTHN hEWS hOU ETEKEN hUION
> > (Mt 1:25)
> >the other day and we couldn't decide on the force of hEWS. Does
> >"not X hEWS Y" imply "META Y, X" or not?
> Jim, so good to hear from you again. Was on the way out, then saw
> your post. Couldn't resist. It takes only one example to the contrary
> to refute implication, as you know. One quick one comes to mind,
> 1 Cor 1:8, hOS KAI BEBAIWSEI hUMAS hEWS KOINWNIAN TOU
> hUIOU AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU TOU KURIOU hHMWN.
> He will confirm you blameless until (hEWS) the end. Does this imply
> that afterwards He will not confirm us blameless? I don't think so.
The logic is not the problem. Logic deals with propositions in
formal language. The problem is that the Bible is not written in
formal language. It must be exegeted from a natural language into
formal language. And there is the rub. The local context must be
determinative of the meaning.
What about Matthew 2:9?
KAI IDOU hO ASTHR ... PROHGEN AUTOUS hEWS
ELQWN ESTAQH EPANW hOU HN TO PAIDION
The structure of this sentence is slightly closer to Matt 1:25 than
1 Cor 1:8 where we find a future indicative. Here, as in Matt 1:25,
we find the imperfect indicative. At any rate, it is clear that in
this instance the star no longer went before them after it came and
stood over where the child was. I'm wondering if the context of
Matt 1:25 is thought to be as clear?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:29 EDT