Date: Mon Nov 09 1998 - 09:52:48 EST
In a message dated 11/8/98 9:10:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<< >I can see you are directing your question to Carl, but I hope neither one
>you mind if I make a brief comment on this issue. I think it is safe to take
>EK as creating some sort of separation from the group (the "dead") from
>Christ came, to which he once belonged. EK is not used in Col. 1:15 for
>is no separation from the group to which belongs; he did not come "from" the
>KTISIS; he is still a part of it, though the "firstborn."
Compare Col 1:18 to Rev 1:
Col 1:18 PRWTOTOKOS EK TWN NEKRWN
Rev 1:5 hO PRWTOTOKOS TWN NEKRWN
If the distinction is really as you say, then the writer of the Revelation
believes Jesus to still belong to the group of dead people, whereas the
writer of Colossians believes he is no longer dead. I think that both
writers believe Jesus to be risen from the dead.
Not at all. Though the tradition of mss. which follow the text of Andreas of
Caesarea do use EK, John can use the genitive of origin without the
prepositions EK or APO.
The fact that the preposition is used in Col. 1:18 simply makes the
interpretation more evident, though both are rather obvious in view of what is
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:07 EDT