[B-Greek] 1 cor 10:9 TON KURION referent?
Vasile Stancu
stancu at mail.dnttm.ro
Sun Sep 21 15:53:03 EDT 2008
Elisabeth,
It seems to me that Metzger in his Textual Commentary on the GNT is using pure logic in his decision that Χριστόν is the variant that best explains the other options. I suspect that Fee's statement that "KAQWS clause might have a different object (TON QEON)" is also based on logical implications rather than grammar/text/statistics considerations.
Logically, I believe that there could be some other explanations for this situation. For instance, there are many instances in the OT where the word χριστος XRISTOS applies to persons other than the Christ who was to come as the son of God:
- Samuel calls himself μάρτυς χριστός MARTUS XRISTOS of God;
- the same (χριστος XRISTOS) was called one who was or was to be the king of Israel (Saul, David);
- Cyrus, a pagan, was called the same.
Wouldn't it be fair to extend such a term to Moses, against whom the Israelites rebelled in the wilderness? If so, the situation involving the χριστός XRISTOS of God of that time, i.e. Moses, is compared in 1Co 10:9 with that which involves Christ Jesus, the son of God in NT times.
Vasile
-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Kline
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 1:12 PM
To: greek B-Greek
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1 cor 10:9 TON KURION referent?
Vasile,
You raise an interesting point. While thinking about the options,
different ways of reading this text, it occurred to me that it might
not be safe to just assume there is a common object for both
EKPEIRAZWMEN and ECEPEIRASAN, G.Fee, who reads TON CRISTON in 1Cor
10:9a (1Cor NICNT p457 n35) admits that the KAQWS clause might have a
different object (TON QEON).
Thank you for responding,
Elizabeth Kline
On Sep 19, 2008, at 1:41 PM, Vasile Stancu wrote:
> Considering the structure of the sentence, my impression is that
> there is a
> common object here for both EKPEIRAZWMEN and ECEPEIRASAN, in which
> case,
> being that the example of the OT incident is intended as reference
> to NT
> times, the referent of TON KURION should be consistent with the OT
> allusion.
>
> Vasile STANCU
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth
> Kline
> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 1:45 AM
> To: greek B-Greek
> Subject: [B-Greek] 1 cor 10:9 TON KURION referent?
>
>
> 1COR. 10:9 MHDE EKPEIRAZWMEN TON CRISTON [KURION Aleph, B], KAQWS
> TINES AUTWN EPEIRASAN KAI hUPO TWN OFEWN APWLLUNTO.
>
> Assuming[1] we were to accept the reading of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus,
> how would we go about determining the referent of TON KURION? Would we
> look at the OT allusions in 1Cor10 or would we use a statistical
> approach, mesuring how hO KURIOS is used in Paul and the rest of the
> NT?
>
> Elizabeth Kline
>
> [1] Please note this is NOT a question about the relative merits of
> the p46, D, etc reading. The question assumes TON KURION. As Robertson
> & Plummer ICC page 206 note, the other readings CRISTON and QEON might
> be a gloss to explain the meaning, i.e. identify the referent of
> KURION. My question is how would we go about determining the referent
> of TON KURION?
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list