>if they do not, gentle suggestions of the non-B-Greek character are
>expected to bring them to an end.
>
>The continued discussions of "logic" in relation to 1 John, however,
>has reached the point that (1) endless repetitions of the same points
are
>being posted, and (2) the subject of what is "logical" and
"contradictory"
>is not a problem of the Greek text. There is no question of whether
"new
>commandment" is the right translation of the Greek words, and no issue
>of grammar has been debated, much less solved.
Ed, I don't understand why you have such a quick readiness to dismiss
discussions that come across as being logical. No matter what
hermeneutical school of thought we champion, do any of us dare deny the
basic law of
non-contradiction? How can we hope to make any sense of the Greek NT,
if we chuck this one?
Surely, if you are going to allow certain parties to bring up charges of
textual contradiction, then you should also allow their opponents, in
this regard, the opportunity to defend their position. You say with
reference to 1 Jn 2:7-8, "the subject of what is logical and
contradictory is not a problem of the Greek text." Well, if its not a
problem, why did others, whom I'm sure your respect on this list, bring
it up and claim it was and is a problem? I happen to agree with you on
this. It's not a problem, because there is no contradiction. That was
my point, and I attempted to demonstrate it within the normal confines of
acceptable Greek discussion: an appeal to the different meanings of
KAINHN as per BAG.
>
>I ask, therefore, that the thread be carried on ONLY off-list.
>Jonathan has already suggested this; it is now official.
>
>It is clear that on such matters, not only is there much disagreement
>which stems from theological stances of those posting, but there is also
a
>vast difference in the posters' knowledge of the fields of logic,
discourse
>analysis, epistemology, and pragmatics. As a long-time professor of
>philosophy in one of the leading universities of this country, I have
>been constantly dismayed at much of what I have read on this thread, and
>have had to bite my tongue (finger?) to avoid posting "corrections" in
that
>field.
I really wish you would stop appealing to your rather impressive
background as the reason for our accepting what you have to say. That
does get old rather quickly. Why not be more consistent with your
education and try avoiding such faulty argumentation?
>We must stick to discussing Biblical Greek -- not our college courses
>in philosophy, not our personal theology's implications for
>interpretation, and not anything else other than the Greek. This List
is for that
>subject and no other.
But, you seem to think we can discuss biblical Greek in a vacuum, as
though the authors and Author of scripture had no concern for logical and
theological consistency.
Paul Dixon
P.S. I hope this doesn't mean I'm going to be zapped.