Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [John_Lit] architriklinos once more

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... What you don t seem to realize is that the Perseus data bas contains a very limited number of texts to search, especially compared to the full corpus of
    Message 1 of 39 , Jul 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

      > On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Larry Swain wrote:
      > > 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).
      >

      What you don't seem to realize is that the Perseus data bas contains a very
      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.
      > 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.

      So what? As you are fond of saying on NGs when people point out to you that
      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.

      JG
      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
      1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
      Floor 1
      Chicago, Illinois 60626
      e-mail jgibson000@...
      jgibson000@...
    • heronblu
      ... Michael, I am more of a student than a scholar of the fourth gospel. Nevertheless, even (maybe, especially) students have opinions, too. It would indeed
      Message 39 of 39 , Jul 9, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In johannine_literature@y..., michael Hardin <michael1517@y...>
        wrote:
        >
        > 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 . . . .

        Michael, I am more of a student than a scholar of the fourth
        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,
        Lou
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.