From: Alan B. Thomas (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed May 02 2001 - 13:40:42 EDT
Concerning EN TWi ONOMATI MOU and like "ambiguous"
I note this comment by Carl:
These are all instances, I think, wherein more careful
writing could have
eliminated ambiguity; I don't think there's any
intentional ambiguity in
any of these verses I've cited (nor in John
16:23)...<snip> end quote.
Is it possible that several of the ambiguous
constructs we find sprinkled throughout the NT were
Carl mentioned the famous Eph. 1:4 or 5 construct EN
AGAPHi. It makes sense if you take it with either
verse. Why could not the author have intended to use
it in such a way as to allow it to have a "dual
Or, are we certain that all "ambiguous" constructs
were done with lack of care. And by ambiguous
constructs, I am only commenting on phrases where it
SEEMS that even the original readers would have
observed this ambiguity.
It just seems to me that ambiguity can be a
syntactical time-saver and an effective tool. Even as
in Romams 9.22, is KATHRTISMENA a Middle or Passive?
Well, I can make sense of it either way. And I am
quite content with that "ambiguity." (God's preparing
them for destruction [passive] need not be done apart
from human decisions [middle].)
Of course, if we are willing to concede intentional
uses of ambiguity, I guess the next question to
explore is whether or not we can distinguish an
intended ambiguity from an unintentional one.
Is anyone aware of any material published on this
Alan B. Thomas
"If a text in the Bible is contrary to your theology, simply consider that text a redaction. Problem solved."
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:36:56 EDT