From: George Blaisdell (maqhth@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Feb 04 1999 - 14:17:21 EST
>From: "Ray Clendenen"
>Does anyone out there have any information about Ehrman's >contention.
His argument seems rather strong to me and >inclines me to agree
that huois is probably the original >reading against the majority
of text critics. What do
>you think?
Hall Harris likes QEOS because it is the more difficult reading!
I like QEOS because I see John 1-18 as a unit of discourse, and the end
of it should tie up with the beginning, [chiastically]. Because TON
QEON [KAI] QEOS forms the pivot of the opening chiasm, I would look
to the end to find this term [QEOS] as well. [The pivot is in the
'betweeness' of the two nouns TON QEON and QEOS, arthrous and
anarthrous.]
However, I also see the 'left over' PROS TON QEON of the opening
chiasm as being appendable to the end of 1:18 [implicitly, thereby
making EXERGHSONTAI more understandable to me], which could
argue either way. The whole of this gospel seems to predicate around
the hO QEOS-QEOS relationship introduced in the opening chiasm,
which would seem to be another argument in favor of QEOS in
1:18.
IS the QEOS the HUIOS in 1:18? I do not know how it could reasonably
be denied. So I don't think there is any real problem with using
either one.
George
George Blaisdell
Roslyn, WA
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--- 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 - 15:40:15 EDT