From: Edgar Foster (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Apr 07 1998 - 12:00:19 EDT
---Jim West <jwest@Highland.Net> wrote:
> At 08:37 AM 4/7/98 -0700, you wrote:
In the excellent work _Exegetical Fallacies_ DA Carson discusses GB
> >Caird's view of John 1:1c. Caird says that John 1:1c cannot be
> >considered as a statement of identity. Conversely, Carson takes
issue with this affirmation and says:
> >"Caird simply affirms that the second clause of John 1:1 disallows
the view that the third clause is an identity statement; but that
affirmation is demanded by neither lexical semantics nor syntax"
> >Is this view correct? I thought that John 1:1c unequivocally could
not be viewed as an identity statement. Is Carson mistaken here?<<
> >E. Foster
> This is no answer- but note, you have cited two of the best NT
scholars of recent days and they disagree! Thus, here as in many
places, the interpretive lens determines what we wee much more than
the grammar or syntax!
How true, how true Jim! One thing I appreciate about Earle's Word
Meanings in the NT is that right at the outset, he reminds us of the
subjective nature of "word studies." The same can apply to syntax and
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:21 EDT