From: Bill Ross (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue May 18 1999 - 12:23:23 EDT
>Any thoughts on this? Am I missing any evidence that is relevant to the
question? And if the translation should be "substance," what is that
supposed to mean?
* George, thanks for your diligence in pointing out chiasm. It is making me
more attentive to this NT feature.
* HUPOSTASIS: I used to think that "substance" was a horrible translation,
but I now consider it quite inspired. It has two parts, just like
HUPOSTASIS, and each part relates to the corresponding part in the Koine:
HUPO=sub, STASIS=stand. Also, the meaning comes across: that which stands
under something else - hence, it supports both "essence" and "foundation"
* in context, the author's approach throughout the book is contrast and
opposites - juxtaposing the "shadow" of the OT with the "substance" of the
NT. Hence, "Complex, and convoluted of old God spoke in times past, BUT in
these last days of these [the Law and the Prophets] God is speaking through
Son." Here too, the author has spoken of the certain doom of drawing back in
unbelief, NOW he contrasts the incredible negative with the positive:
receiving of promises by faith - which is the basis on which the hopes are
dispensed, the empiricision [pardon me, Webster] of things unseen
* There is a concurring passing in Colossians 2:
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an
holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
* faith, as the substance, is implied as faith in Christ, so is not some
kind of Christless power.
--- 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 - 15:40:27 EDT