From: Harry W. Jones (hjbluebird@aol.com)
Date: Wed Nov 28 2001 - 23:31:27 EST
Dear Steven,
> On Wednesday, November 28, 2001, at 04:41 AM, Harry W. Jones wrote:
>
> > Wallace of course said that sinner in Lk 18:13 would be in
> > a class by himself but I don't think that using the definite
> > article here would give the right sense of this verse. Better
> > would be "a sinner of the worst kind". It seems to me that
> > "the sinner" should be reserved for the Monadic case that
I don't know why I said the Monadic case. I should have said the
Par Excellence case. When I see a definite noun I usually think
of a unique object in that class. But since a definite noun can belong to
different classifications, I believe additional information is needed to
clarify
things for the general reader. I don't really see anything wrong with
"a sinner of the worst kind" but of course that's me. In any case it
looks like almost all translations have gone with the simple
identification
that Wallace also mentioned. I have an eight translation NT and they all
translate the literal "the sinner" as "a sinner".
> > Wallace spoke about in the next section. Of course, I could be
> > wrong. But I don't think so.
>
> I hate to press the issue, but I would like to make two points about the=20=
>
> above:
>
> (1) A phrase like "a sinner of the worst kind" would not properly convey=20=
>
> the idea of par excellence, since many people could be described as *a*=20=
>
> sinner of the worst *kind*. "A sinner of the worst kind" is merely a=20
> category in which many people could be included. It doesn't rule out=20
> anyone else from being in a class by him/herself. In order to convey the=20=
>
> idea of par excellence, one would have to use a phrase such as "the=20
> worst of all sinners." Only this type of phrase conveys the idea of=20
> someone who is the *extreme* of a category, and therefore in a class by=20=
>
> him/herself, since only one person can be "the worst of all." There are=20=
>
> other sinners, but "the worst" sinner stands apart by him/herself.
>
> (2) I think you have also misunderstood what Wallace means by "monadic."=20=
>
> It is one of a kind, period. Since there are many sinners, a sinner=20
> cannot be one of a kind. A sinner is not unique. Note the distinction=20
> Wallace makes between par excellence and monadic:
>
> "1] The difference between the monadic article and the article *par=20
> excellence* is that the monadic article points out a *unique* object,=20
> while the article *par excellence* points out the *extreme* of a certain=20=
>
> category, thus, the one deserving the name more than any other. The=20
> article *par excellence*, therefore, has a superlative idea. For=20
> example, 'the sun' is monadic because there is only one sun. It is not=20=
>
> the best of many suns, but is the only one. In *reality*, it is in a=20
> class by itself. But 'the Lord' is par excellence because there are many=20=
>
> lords. However, the article is used with the word to convey the idea=20
> that, according to the speaker=92s presented viewpoint, there is only =
> one=20
> Lord."
>
> Clearly the tax collector does not think he is the only sinner in=20
> existence!
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Steven Lo Vullo
> Madison, WI
Harry Jones
---
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 - 15:37:13 EDT