From: Ben Crick (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Mar 30 1998 - 01:00:59 EST
On Sun 29 Mar 98 (08:31:04), email@example.com wrote:
> One of my little back burner questions in 1:14 [EQEASAMEQA], and 21:24
> [OIDAMEN] as well, has to do with the identity of the 'we' ~ I'd like to
> think that it's you and me, but have so far come up without much proof...
Thanks George. IMHO the "we" is the 'editorial we'; the writer of the 4th
Gospel never mentions his own name, nor does he use the "vertical pronoun",
except in 21:25, which may not be Johannine anyway. He always uses the
periphrasis "the disciple whom Jesus loved...". Of the Twelve, John is the
only disciple not mentioned by name. Or, the 'we' is the collective 'we';
"I and my fellow-disciples". Compare Russian /Meui s bratamee/ 'we with
brothers' or "my brothers and I" plus the 1st person plural verb.
> From the root DOK[W], as in doc-ument, to think/opine, rightly or in
> error, thus to 'seem', as in make apparent.
Yes, it's the noun from DOKEW, EDOXA. Other related words are DOKIMAZW and
DOKIMOS. These are to do with quality-testing, to prove the worth of someone
> Did you intend this wonderful little play on the DOKEW root of DOXA?
> I would hope that they do... For myself, if I'm going to err, I want
> to do so in a way SO BIG that even I, with my myopic vision, can 'see'
> it. :-)
Pun not intended. But thanks for the smiley.
-- Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <firstname.lastname@example.org> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:20 EDT