From: Edgar Foster (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Apr 18 1998 - 19:29:18 EDT
Earle's treatment is along a different vein than Abbot's. His
discussion is not as extensive, but serves as a good springboard to
other literature on the subject. Earle cites about 12 scholars
including Westcott-Hort (who held divergent views on Rom. 9:5), James
Denney, and Meyer. He also quotes Sanday and Headlam who devote five
pages to the punctuation of Rom. 9:5.
---Wes Williams wrote:
> >For your consideration, there is a good discussion about Rom. 9:5 in
> >Earle's Word Meanings in the NT. While I do not agree with Earle's
> >conclusion on Rom. 9:5, I feel that he fairly cites both sides. The
> >argument is primarily one of punctuation, not grammar. Earle also
> >that this argument is not a liberal-conservative argument--even some
> >conservatives favor THEOS applying to the Father in Rom. 9:5.
> >E. Foster
> Dear Edgar,
> Did you find Earle's Word Meanings more comprehensive than Abbot's two
> articles on Romans 9:5 in the first issue of JBL? While Abbot had a
> view, I thought he treated both sides masterfully.
> Wes Williams
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 - 15:39:24 EDT