Re: [John_Lit] architriklinos once more
- Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Larry Swain wrote:What you don't seem to realize is that the Perseus data bas contains a very
> > Yuri writes:
> > >So is there any indication at all that this word was common before Jn was
> > >written? What am I missing?
> > You are missing the more common word made up of the same roots:
> > TRIKLINARXOS--hmmm, head of the feast,
> Well, I would like to see some evidence that TRIKLINARXOS was a "more
> common word". In fact, I couldn't find it in Perseus database (and I did
> try different spellings).
limited number of texts to search, especially compared to the full corpus of
extant Greek literature. Nor does it contain the epigraphical data. So the fact
that you don't find it there, even presuming that you set up your search
correctly, should not be taken as evidence to the contrary of what Larry claims.
> According to C. K. Barrett, _The Gospel According to St. John_, 1955, p.So what? As you are fond of saying on NGs when people point out to you that
> 161, "[W]e lack Jewish evidence for any office corresponding to the title
> architriklinos". And he further suggests that this may indicate a
> Hellenistic origin for this story.
there is a lack of evidence for many of the claims you make there, "absence of
evidence should not necessarily be taken as evidence of absence".
In any event, as I know from personal contact with Barret himself (who is, by
the way, a card carrying member of the Guild you find so corrupt and lazy and
bigoted and biased, whose members you claim rarely these days ever engage in
"rigorous and stringent critical analysis"), his statement that the story may
have an Hellenistic origin is not to be taken as if he was saying it was
composed, let alone edited, by a Gentile -- as you seem to want to do.
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois 60626
- --- In johannine_literature@y..., michael Hardin <michael1517@y...>
>Michael, I am more of a student than a scholar of the fourth
> For some time now I have been studying the usage of
> words with 'double meanings' in 4G. I am curious to
> know if others have also found the 'author's' use of
> words that have a double meaning to be of value . . . .
gospel. Nevertheless, even (maybe, especially) students have
opinions, too. It would indeed be an interesting and controversial
study to tabulate and classify the most obvious ones. The most
frequent reason I can see for the double (and sometimes more)
meanings is in support of the Johannine technique I call "dialogues
with dummies." The poor sap who is shown as questioning Jesus almost
always misunderstands what Jesus is telling him and, regarding words
with more than one possible meaning, only gets the infelicitous one
and is blind to what Jesus is actually saying. Jesus is then given
the opportunity to explain further for the benefit of the intended
audience. (The dummy is almost never shown as ever getting the
point.) I think this goes so far as to include instances in which
both meanings have to be in the listener/reader's mind in order to
have any hope of following Jesus. Perhaps the most obvious example
is John 3:3. Nicodemus interprets *gennhth anwthen* as meaning
only "born again." The usually excellent NAB makes the opposite
error, interpreting the words as meaning only "born from above." A
proper understanding, in my opinion, requires that Jesus be
understood as meaning both things. One must be reborn in the Spirit
in order to see the kingdom of God.
To say the same thing with different words, I think that the author
wants his or her audience to think and not to merely swallow dogma.
He is as much as saying that just as Jesus is more than appears on
the surface, Jesus' message is more profound than surface appearances
might lead one to believe.
Yours in Christ,