Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Haran · 01-23-2005, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

While there is a good precedent for klhtos apostolos being the intended phrase in the text, apostleship can be seen as a calling, while being a slave I don't think can. At the same time for one to hazard the syntactic link between klhtos and doulos, "slave", one would need at least a precedent in Pauline writings.

You do realize you're arguing with Eusebius who actually spoke Greek, right?

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-23-2005, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I'm not sure about how "called" (klhtos) can really be ambiguous in its syntactic use here. klhtos carries the idea of "invite" or "call on to be/do". It is not "called" in the sense of "Simon called Peter". klhsis is often translated as "vocation", though "calling" will suffice.

1 Cor 1:1 closely ties the notion of calling to "apostle".

Paulos klhtos apostolos ihsou xristou...

"Paul, called (as) an apostle of Jesus Christ..."

While there is a good precedent for klhtos apostolos being the intended phrase in the text, apostleship can be seen as a calling, while being a slave I don't think can. At the same time for one to hazard the syntactic link between klhtos and doulos, "slave", one would need at least a precedent in Pauline writings.

spin

I think that Eusebius' implication in his note was that to be called as an apostle was ipso facto to be called as a slave.

spin · 01-24-2005, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

You do realize you're arguing with Eusebius who actually spoke Greek, right?

Being a native speaker of a language doesn't make one a linguist.

Of course there are people who in their enthusiasm for an idea will over-interpret. You often see it with modern literary analyses. I was trying to analyse the question from syntax, not from what one wants it to say. The syntax seems plain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes

I think that Eusebius' implication in his note was that to be called as an apostle was ipso facto to be called as a slave.

You may be right. I didn't see it that way... I didn't think he explained his thoughts as to how he arrives at his conclusion particularly coherently.

spin

Mathetes · 01-24-2005, 11:09 AM

Hi, Spin,

does your comment relate to how the text is translated, or to what the translated text says?

Because if it's the latter, as Haran says, you'd have to argue with Eusebius, or rather, with "those people that are confused in vain", that he is talking about. He actually seems to be censoring them, so he may have agreed with you.

spin · 01-24-2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathetes

does your comment relate to how the text is translated, or to what the translated text says?

What the original text (ie Rom 1:1) could say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathetes

Because if it's the latter, as Haran says, you'd have to argue with Eusebius, or rather, with "those people that are confused in vain", that he is talking about. He actually seems to be censoring them, so he may have agreed with you.

That he may have been attempting to stop dissent is a valid point.

(I have a side interest in how ancient people looked at language in various respects.)

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-24-2005, 11:09 AM	#24
Mathetes Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Spaniard living in Silicon Valley Posts: 539	Hi, Spin, does your comment relate to how the text is translated, or to what the translated text says? Because if it's the latter, as Haran says, you'd have to argue with Eusebius, or rather, with "those people that are confused in vain", that he is talking about. He actually seems to be censoring them, so he may have agreed with you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.