From: Jeffrey B. Gibson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat May 30 1998 - 02:22:17 EDT
Kevin Mullins wrote:
> With Jeffery Gibson's permission I am posting this question to the list.
> In his recently posted article on Matt. 4:1-11, Jeffrey Gibson bases
> an argument that the first two of the Devil's petitions to Jesus cannot
> be, as some suggest, about getting Jesus to doubt that he is God's son
> on a particular grammatical consideration. Gibson notes that the words
> used by the Devil here (EI hUIOS EI ...) are a concession of a fact for
> the sake of argument, since EI here means "since" not "if". And
> therefore there is nothing in these petitions that suggests that any
> kind of doubt surrounds Jesus identity.
> What I'd like to ask the list is; if "Ei=since" is an undisputed
> rendering or is it biased in some way? Let me say at the outset, it
> would be great IF it's assumed true. Then we would have the devil
> himself testifying that Jesus is the Son of God. However I have been
> challenged on this in the past and am now more careful of how I
> translate EI in present particular conditions.
It seems to me that an appropriate translation of EI in the passage
> quoted by Mr. Gibson would be -*suppose* you are the Son of God...-
> rather than -*since* you are...-
> I'm not set in stone on this and would be glad for one of you to
> instruct me further.
I'd like to note that Kevin did not need my permission to post his
question to the list! It is a good one, and deserves answering. I have
already done so in private. But I'm interested to see how others
-- Jeffrey B. Gibson 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A Chicago, Illinois 60626 e-mail email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:44 EDT