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

Re: [John_Lit] architriklinos once more

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    Dear Colleagues: I have not been following the discussion on architriklinos but from this one post it seems there is a question about the date of the word s
    Message 1 of 39 , Jul 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Colleagues:

      I have not been following the discussion on
      architriklinos but from this one post it seems there
      is a question about the date of the word's origins.
      The word is first attested to in the first century in
      two documents: (1) Petronius, Satyrikon; (2) John
      2;8,9.

      Petronius (d. AD 66) died under Nero. Satyrikon was
      written c. AD 64 and was probably a term in use within
      the late Republic or early Empire when dinner parties
      among the socialites became a craze resulting in
      Petronius' writing a comedic account of the Symposium
      or Dinner Party of Trimalchius.

      The term is a "vox hybrida" used by wealthy nobles in
      both Greek and Latin.

      =====
      John N. Lupia
      501 North Avenue B-1
      Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
      http://sbc.yahoo.com
    • 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.