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

Re: Matt. 6:10, Rev. 22:20 and other matters

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    (Assuming that the previous discussion is vaguely recalled,) In a message dated 2/5/1999 1:48:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 7, 1999
      (Assuming that the previous discussion is vaguely recalled,)

      In a message dated 2/5/1999 1:48:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      jgibson000@... writes:

      << Leonard,
      I accept your criticism. You are quite right that here I have assumed,
      but not demonstrated, that the "your will be done" petition is
      explication of "let your kingdom come". I think it *can* be
      demonstrated, but given what I was trying to solicit comments on, it
      seemed to me that to do so would have been a digression.

      But while we're on the topic, do you see any reason why it *shouldn't*
      be seen as explication?>>

      Not really, but one would then certainly have to throw the previous line into
      the mix as well: "hallowed be thy name". Formally, the three lines in 6:9c and
      6:10a and b are very close and seem also to be interrelated in sense. That
      "explication" is the correct designation of the relationship between 6:10b and
      6:10a is perhaps still open to question or refinement, especially in light of
      the third element here introduced. Perhaps all three lines "explicate" the
      meaning of the vocative "our Father", and if so, your interpretation of "thy
      kingdom come" would seem as good as, if not better than, the traditional one.
      I don't know if these remarks bring the discussion forward in any way.


      << I wonder, too, with respect to Rev. 22:20c as a parallel to Matt. 6:10,
      whether (a) anyone disputes that it *is* a parallel and (b) whether
      anyone knows of *any other* instances in both biblical and secular Greek
      of the use of an imperative form of ERCHOMAI + subject?
      >>

      To (a), it is difficult to deny that there is SOME level of parallel between
      the two texts, but the differences between the two, it seems to me, should
      also be carefully noted before any conclusions are drawn. I am saying this
      with only a vague recollection of how you exploited the parallel in your
      original post. To (b), it should be noted that kyrie Ieesou is actually a
      vocative, and therefore not strictly the grammatical subject of the verb, as
      with he basileia sou of Matt 6:10.

      Leonard Maluf
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.