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

Re: [John_Lit] architriklinos once more

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    Dear Jeffrey: You have created a false equality between OIKODESPOTHS and OIKNOMOS (OKIKONOMEW & OKONOMIA & OIKONOMOS see Spicq 2.568) and then impose this on
    Message 1 of 39 , Jul 4, 2002
      Dear Jeffrey:

      You have created a false equality between OIKODESPOTHS
      and OIKNOMOS (OKIKONOMEW & OKONOMIA & OIKONOMOS see
      Spicq 2.568) and then impose this on NT vocubaluary
      and philology. These are clearly two different terms
      with very different meanings, the first being the
      *owner* of the house or head of the paterfamilias and
      the latter always used as a term for someone *not* a
      family member but a manager for the household. In the
      NT OIKODESPOTHS is used 12 times:

      Mt 10:25; 13:27,52; 20:1,11; 21:33; 24:43; Mk 14:14;
      Lk 12:39; 13:25; 14:21; 22:11.

      In *every* case it means the *owner*! Not as you claim
      citing LSJ, which in this case has a muddled entry
      that does not separate the meanings diachronically but
      mixes them up beyond the metaphorical sense giving a
      4th century BC (Alex.225) and a 6th century AD
      (P.Meyer24.2) sense (Attic Greek and Late
      Antique-Medieval Egyptian) to a first century AD
      (Palestine?) use. The two citations by the LSJ editor
      for this entry *does not* establish that OIKODESPOTHS
      always means "steward" since it was a twisted meaning
      in Alexander Comicus 225, that makes a humorous play
      on an inept "master of the house" as if he were a
      Nigel Fawlty type (John Cleese of Fawlty Towers) .


      =====
      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
        --- 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.