From: Mark Wilson (emory2oo2@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 04 2001 - 17:02:19 EDT
<x-flowed>
Since the responses will probably relate to hermeneutics,
it may be best to respond OFFLIST to me.
Concerning the positioning of SUSCHMATIZESQE and METAMORFOUSQE
in Romans 12:2, a commentary I am reading concludes that it was the tendency
of older works to "force" a distinction between these two words. According
to this commentator, modern scholars are more comfortable seeing these
two words as synonyms in this text. No reason is given for this last
statement, other than the implication that modern scholars are
seeing the wisdom in such an approach. However....
...within almost the same breath, as he comments on hO DIDASKWN and
hO PARAKALWN (vss 7,8), he states that despite these two concepts able to be
used interchangeably (cf. 1 Thess. 2:3), it is best to distinguish these
words in this context.
I think my question is somewhat apparent now.
What criteria would you recommend one use to determine when an author
is using two different words for stylistic or semantic reasons.
This is close to questions about AGAPAW and FILEW of John 21, but I am
seeking a more general guideline that some find helpful. Also, are there
any books that you would recommend that address this very issue.
Thanks
Mark Wilson
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
</x-flowed>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:00 EDT