Re: [John_Lit] architriklinos once more
- John Lupia wrote:
> Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:And like Yuri, you seem not to be doing your home work..
> > As is shown in
> > PCair.Zen.48.2, IG5(1).40, 1235, IGRom.4.1699,
> > TAM2.518 and texts in Plato
> > and Xenophon (to name only a few instances of the
> > term in question), a
> > "master of the house" was indeed a "servant of the
> > house", since often -- if
> > not, indeed, ordinarily -- the person who held the
> > position of "master of the
> > house" was a **slave**.
> Jeffrey, you made a lapsus calami. Yuri called the
> architriklinos the "master of the house", which is
> incorrect. I think you accidentally used his
> incorrect phrase "master of the house" when you meant
> to say architriklinos. The "master of the house" is
> OIKODESPOTHS (cf. Lk 13:25), who is always the owner.
In the first place, "Master of the **House**" is not always OIKODESPOTHS. It
is also OIKNOMOS.
In the second place, if you had bothered to look at the texts I cited above,
which you evidently did not, or taken the time to look at LSJ, you would see
that a OIKNOMOS is indeed often, if not primarily, a slave.
In the third place, as, e.g., Alex.225, shows, and as LSJ note,
OIKODESPOTHS is NOT, as you claim, "always the owner" of a house. The term is
used for the **steward** of a house or estate.
And in the fourth place, the synonyms of OIKODESPOTNS, e.g., STEGARXOS, do
not mean "owner", but "steward" (cf. Hdt.1.133, Antiph.171.).
So I'll thank you not to lecture me on lapsus calami.
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,