From: Lemuel G. Abarte (lemuel@bcd.weblinq.com)
Date: Tue Dec 15 1998 - 19:16:34 EST
Dear Carl,
I seemed to have posted this on the List but there are no takers. Could I ask your observation on this? I think it is quite difficult but my observation is that the infinitive of DIKAIOW + prepositional phrase should be taken no more than what Peter's example has shown.
Sorry for any inconvenience on the holidays but I guess a pastor-teacher is busy at this time of the year.
Regards,
Lemuel
-----Original Message-----
From: Lemuel G. Abarte [SMTP:lemuel@bcd.weblinq.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 1998 8:34 PM
To: 'clayton stirling bartholomew'
Subject: RE: Galatians 2:17
Dear Clayton,
I don't know if it is really that difficult according to Moule when DIKAOW is taken in a sort of nonjudicial issue. But it seems that BAGD does take the meaning like this as in Romans 3-5.
Well, I think we post the first one as is and wait until some suggestions come up.
Thanks. I think we are both on the same perspective looking at this one.
Perhaps "we" is intended to be a broad term to include Jews in general as contrasted with Gentiles?
Regards,
Lemuel
-----Original Message-----
From: clayton stirling bartholomew [SMTP:c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 1998 3:04 PM
To: Lemuel G. Abarte
Subject: Re: Galatians 2:17
Lemuel,
I see that you have a much more complex question in mind than simply the
lexical semantics of DIKAIOW. If you want to raise this broader
exegetical question I would suggest posting it on list for the Pauline
experts to have a look at it. This text is a problem passage and
someone on the list has probably explored these questions in detail.
I did some more looking into the lexical issue. Celas Spicq vol. 1 page
336 and EDNT vol. 1 page 331.3.b, both of these theological/exgetical
dictionaries indicated that Paul's use of DIKAIOW in Gal. 2:17 is the
same as it is in Gal. 2:16 which is similar to his use in Romans 3-5. I
also checked Lightfoot, Meyer, and Ridderbos on this passage and they
seemed to agree with Spicq and EDNT. This does not foreclose the
question however which is why I think you would be well served to post
an expanded question to b-greek.
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
"Lemuel G. Abarte" wrote:
>
> Thanks for the clarification. I have in mind the incident in this passage since it seems that after Paul declared the almost similar soteriological statement in vs. 16, which does sound like Romans 3:21-26, and I think it is, he may had in mind to show Peter's public action in a form of a conditional statement in vs. 17. Hence, DIKAIOW may simply mean Peter's example to get himself off an intimidating circumstance in vs. 12.
>
> I do consider the participle DZTOUNTES as referring to the subject in the nominative in vs. 15.
>
> A review of Luther's commentary on this verse seems to gloss over this difficulty, or he may had just simplified the explanation. Moule's Idiom is quite helpful since he suggests that it was Paul's intention to show Peter's action here as a logical statement. Moule's impression is that this verse is difficult. Much of the discussion on infinitives in BDF may not be applicable, either.
>
> The word "technical term" may had in mind the judicial connotation of the word similar to those in Romans 3.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:11 EDT