From: Hultberg, Alan (alan_hultberg@peter.biola.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 11 1998 - 14:59:41 EST
After this post, I am going to bow out of this discussion, since my basic
points on GINOMAI and PAS as subject of a negated verb has not changed. As a
final response:
_______________________________________________________________________________
>
>{Bill}
>John 7:52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee?
>Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.
>
>7:52 apekriyhsan kai eipon autw mh kai su ek thv galilaiav ei ereunhson kai
>ide oti profhthv ek thv galilaiav ouk eghgertai
>
>The alternate text for eghgertai is egeiretia (present tense - is arising).
>
I can't find any alternate reading for EGEIRETAI in John 7:52 (I've only
checked NA27 and UBS3).
>King James seems to have misplaced the negation. It is not "No prophet", but
>"a prophet" "has not arisen" (or, "is not arising")....
>
>...They knew that Elijah, Elisha, Johah, Nahum and Hoseah all sprang from
>Galilee.
I don't think the AV translators did misplace the negation. My original point
is valid here -- "No prophet is to arise from Galilee."
The point the Pharisees are making is not that Galilee has never given rise to
a prophet but that the scriptures do not prophecy the coming of a(n
eschatological) prophet from Galilee. They are not shaming Nicodemus for
sheer credulity but for not knowing the Scriptures.
>
>{Alan}
>2) The Greek present *tense* need not refer to present *time*, depending on
>the context. If Peter is refering to the production of the OT prophetic
>scriptures, then it is valid to translate the gnomic GINETAI into English as
>"[No prophecy] *came* about ..." That is, the present tense of GINETAI
>certainly does _not_ preclude such a reference in itself. If Peter is
>refering to present interpretation of the prophetic scriptures, then GINETAI
>could be translated as a present tense in English. The point being,
>context, not the tense of GINOMAI, will resolve the dilemma.
>
>{Bill}
>Peter's discourse in vs 21 uses the aorist HVEXQH (vs 21) and is translated
>"was" "was brought". Context strongly indicates to me that he is referring
>to the current "releasing" or "interpreting" of what was written in the
>past, not to the production of the writing (until 21, when he uses the
>aorist).
Fair enough, and thus my point.
Alan
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:10 EDT