From: c stirling bartholomew (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Aug 30 2001 - 14:15:55 EDT
on 8/30/01 10:31 AM, c stirling bartholomew wrote:
> This reading of the text has been adopted by many. However the qualifying
> phrase EN TAIS KARDIAIS hUMWN looks like this is describing some sort of
> subjective experience and for that reason I have some lingering doubts about
> the Parousia as the referent of hHMERA DIAUGASHi KAI FWSFOROS ANATEILHi.
R. Bauckham (Jude/2Pet WBC) attempts to remove this objection by stateing
that only one aspect of the Parousia is being pointed out which is a
subjective aspect, i.e., believers will no longer need the prophetic word.
This does not make the Parousia itself a subjective event. I find Bauckham's
argument almost convincing, but not quite. The noble list of giant greeks
who disagree with him tends to make me wonder why this idea didn't occur to
One of our own big greeks chose to explain to me off list that it is a
mistake and a common one to understand hEWS hOU as indicating the cesation
of the activity described in the constituent prior to hEWS hOU. The problem
here is painting the sense of an English idiom "do until" over the Greek
text and expecting hEWS hOU to function logically like the English idiom.
This is a good example of why translation isn't the key to understanding NT
Greek. The Greek constituent hEWS hOU does not have the same logical
function as the English gloss "do . . . until."
Thanks to everone for the help with this, got an appointment so I must now
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:05 EDT