From: Steven R. Lo Vullo (doulos@appleisp.net)
Date: Mon Sep 10 2001 - 18:03:42 EDT
on 9/10/01 1:21 PM, George Blaisdell at maqhth@hotmail.com wrote:
> I think you are right!
>
> And, perhaps less democratically, we could give it a wooden rendering thus:
> "The Pharisee, having been stood to himself, prayed to himself these
> things:" Or more elegantly, "The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed
> within himself these things:"
>
> The western schools seem very wary of inclusionary grammatic approaches to
> eastern texts. The idea that one word has only one attribution seems very
> strong, and the result, as here, when the evidence is strong in both
> directions, is to assign probability... As it is more likely to be one, or
> the other. The both-and approach really greases the sticky ways with hot
> lard, getting the ship moving, but I sometimes think they would prefer a
> crane! :-)
As I've always said, when in doubt, blame "Western" (or better yet,
"American") something or other. I just want someone who holds to the
"plenary" method to tell me what objective standards we can use to determine
the limits, if any, that can be placed on this approach? But, of course,
"objective standards" are just an invention of the "Western mind."
--
Steve Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
---
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:06 EDT