From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sun Nov 05 1995 - 18:25:24 EST
Uh--please be so kind as to reverse the positions of "former" and "latter"
in the third paragraph of my recent posting on the above topic. Most
readers will have noticed and (I hope) made allowances for my not uncommon
gaffe. That paragraph SHOULD read (the AUTHORIZED version, that is ;-) ):
"It appears to me that there are indicators pointing both to the traditional
interpretation (that Zacchaeus promises he will undertake these actions)
and to the Fitzmyer interpretation. In favor of the latter is the fact that
there is nothing in the narrative that says Zacchaeus is repenting of
former sins (unless one wants to read "EI TINOS TI ESUKOFANTHSA" that way)
and that Jesus makes the dinner appointment at the house of Zacchaeus with
the assertion (v. 9), "KAQOTI KAI AUTOS hUIOS ABRAAM ESTIN." In favor of
the alternative view is what would appear to be an indicator of a
conversion on Zacchaeus' part, Jesus's declarations, (v. 9) "SHMERON
SWTERIA TWi OIKWi TOUTWi EGENETO" and (v. 10) "HLQEN hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU
ZHTHSAI KAI SWSAI TO APOLWLOS."
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:32 EDT