Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 03-20-2002, 06:14 PM

DMB:
-------------
Spin: You have been posting quite a lot on here and it is high time you improved the look and legibility of your posts by using UBB for quotes. If you don't know how to do it, have a look at FAQ or ask for help in Bugs, Problems and Complaints.
-------------

Actually, while I'm not a big fan of 'the look', it's hard to fault the legibility.

spin · 03-21-2002, 03:07 AM

CX,

You got 'em only three. But you might try Greek lit. You'll find lots more.

You can see that NT doesn't supply a great range of exemplars of anything but the more basic language.

However, it's better to translate mallon, which is a comparative of a word that's not in the NT, as "more" or "all the more". It gets to "rather" from the latter idea in conjunction with the context (words like alla or de) and is elsewhere used as for a periphrastic comparative. It is not redundant in 2 Cor 2:7. It is tounantion which provides the context for it to be "rather".

1 Peter 3:9 seems to be a good example of the use of tounantion, not rendering evil for evil, but on the contrary, (give) blessing. You definitely get an other hand here, don't you? Just as you do in 2 Cor: instead of punishing you forgive.

CX:
------------------
So we see that in all 3 cases the word TOUNANTION is used consistently
------------------

Well, yes, in 2 Cor and 1 Peter, it's nice and clear. It surely isn't in Gal 2.

CX:
------------------
(with some type of conjunction and in two independent instances that conjunction being a variant of the word "but") and that semantically Paul's two usages are similar while it is only in 1 Peter that we see a starkly contrasting comparsion preceding the dependent clause "but on the contrary...". I fail to see your point here in that comparison of the 3 usages seems to support my position.
------------------

You need better tools to analyse the problem.

CX:
------------------
I don't read it that way, neither does another board regular familiar (moreso than I) with Koine nor do the majority of mainstream scholars. I think I have shown conclusively above why your conclusion is in error.
------------------

You have dealt with the meanings of the words, but you have used your lexicon a little too laxly. There is no problem with the significance of tounantion. It's just its use in Gal. 2.

================================================== ========

CX:
------------------
I guess it depends on what you mean by "serious (software development)" and "codefront".

I program recreationally -- it's good for concentration. Things like a more functional RegEdit with accompanying tools. At the moment I'm fiddling with a pair of applets, one takes an interface description (such as provided by a Delphi dfm file and I could do it for VB forms if I could bother -- don't know about VC) and spews out a hardcore Windows API version of the interface (in Pascal); the other rips the face of an app, coughing it out as an interface description that the first applet can use. What the first means is that an app developed in Delphi requiring say 300KB will require more likely 50KB compiled with the same compiler. The first works fine in its limited field. The second has some problems for it can't simply interrogate newer controls like listviews for things like column headers or widths of columns in running apps (info only available within the process). Do you know anyone with knowledge in the field?

spin · 03-21-2002, 03:13 AM

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-21-2002, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Dear boys, as it is unlikely you'll be able to contribute anything at all constructive in the debate here, I suggest you look elsewhere to nitpick.

Dear girl,

I'll take your quaint suggestion under advisement.

Jeff

bonduca · 03-21-2002, 06:15 AM

spin's inner child speaks?

CX · 03-21-2002, 07:14 AM

At this point I'll have to respectfully withdraw from this discussion. I see little more to be said. Thanks for playing. On the Windows UI front. Most of my work has been on front end development. I'm not really sure what your question is, but I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you might have, though I can't guarantee I will. One thing I've learned in 7 years of windows development is that there are as many corner cases as there are computers.

Haran · 03-22-2002, 09:54 PM

Spin,

I'm not sure I want to move this discussion much further myself, but I wanted to challenge your notion that somehow "tounantion" has nothing to which it refers.

In verse 5, did Paul and those traveling with him give in (eixamen)? No! Not for a moment (oude pros hwran)! But on the contrary (alla tounantion)...!

You see, if anything is an interpolation, it seems to me that it would be verse 6. However, verse 6 is probably just an aside (similar to what we do when we write parenthetically).

Even if you disagree with the above analysis, I would like to hear, if "on the contrary" is so out of place, why someone who knew the language would have inserted it this way? Considering the fact that most other interpolations improve upon the readability of the text, it seems implausible that someone would insert a meaningless phrase only to have it propagate untouched by others. "On the contrary" meant something to someone or it wouldn't be in there. I think the best explanation is what I present above.

Haran

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

doodad · 03-23-2002, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
<strong>And that's not the end of it. Why did the Sanhedrin press the Roman authorities to do their dirty work when (1) the Sanhedrin could have done it all on their own initiative or (2) the Sanhedrin could easily have pressed Pontius Pilate into letting them go ahead with executing JC, given what a wimp he was depicted as being.
... </strong>

The Sanhedrins didn't want to be viewed as the bad guys. They didn't want to accept Jesus as the Messiah because that would have threatened their position. Guess what, they're still waiting for their Messiah, and I think they always will.

spin · 03-23-2002, 12:26 PM

The Sanhedrin is just one of the Christian fall guys for God-killing. Pharisees are now famous, through anti-Jewish rhetoric for being against Christ and for being sterile followers of legalism. It's all polemic and certainly without foundation.

spin · 03-23-2002, 05:22 PM

Haran,

While you may find a better connection of the discourse markers as you suggest, I don't see a better coherence to the discourse itself. You separate tounantion from its anaphoric reference by a verse and a half, making v.6 of secondary importance to the flow of discourse and yet it has a parenthesis in it -- not to menition that there is another parenthesis which starts in the following verse. The discourse starts with dokousin in v.2, but according to your analysis dokountes gets relegated to secondary importance in v.6, only to be taken up again in v.9. Do you see the problem? As I said, it is a better link, but is the cost worth it?

Someone interpolating is less connected to the text than the author. They also have more interest in what they want to say than to worry so much about textual cohesion. Just look at what happens in Philippians from 3:1b "to write..." to 4:3. The text suddenly drops from "Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord", 3:1a, and comes back at 4:4 with "Rejoice in the Lord always and again I say rejoice!" just as though the text takes up in 4:4 where it left off in 3:1a. This is probably a case of text splicing though. It wasn't particularly well inserted though, was it? Interpolations and signs of editing are well-known in religious texts, though given the general lack of cohesion of gospel texts its less easy to spot joins, because everything looks like a join. Paul's letters are a bit easier.

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

03-20-2002, 06:14 PM	#131
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	DMB: ------------- Spin: You have been posting quite a lot on here and it is high time you improved the look and legibility of your posts by using UBB for quotes. If you don't know how to do it, have a look at FAQ or ask for help in Bugs, Problems and Complaints. ------------- Actually, while I'm not a big fan of 'the look', it's hard to fault the legibility.

03-21-2002, 03:07 AM	#132
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	CX, You got 'em only three. But you might try Greek lit. You'll find lots more. You can see that NT doesn't supply a great range of exemplars of anything but the more basic language. However, it's better to translate mallon, which is a comparative of a word that's not in the NT, as "more" or "all the more". It gets to "rather" from the latter idea in conjunction with the context (words like alla or de) and is elsewhere used as for a periphrastic comparative. It is not redundant in 2 Cor 2:7. It is tounantion which provides the context for it to be "rather". 1 Peter 3:9 seems to be a good example of the use of tounantion, not rendering evil for evil, but on the contrary, (give) blessing. You definitely get an other hand here, don't you? Just as you do in 2 Cor: instead of punishing you forgive. CX: ------------------ So we see that in all 3 cases the word TOUNANTION is used consistently ------------------ Well, yes, in 2 Cor and 1 Peter, it's nice and clear. It surely isn't in Gal 2. CX: ------------------ (with some type of conjunction and in two independent instances that conjunction being a variant of the word "but") and that semantically Paul's two usages are similar while it is only in 1 Peter that we see a starkly contrasting comparsion preceding the dependent clause "but on the contrary...". I fail to see your point here in that comparison of the 3 usages seems to support my position. ------------------ You need better tools to analyse the problem. CX: ------------------ I don't read it that way, neither does another board regular familiar (moreso than I) with Koine nor do the majority of mainstream scholars. I think I have shown conclusively above why your conclusion is in error. ------------------ You have dealt with the meanings of the words, but you have used your lexicon a little too laxly. There is no problem with the significance of tounantion. It's just its use in Gal. 2. ================================================== ======== CX: ------------------ I guess it depends on what you mean by "serious (software development)" and "codefront". I program recreationally -- it's good for concentration. Things like a more functional RegEdit with accompanying tools. At the moment I'm fiddling with a pair of applets, one takes an interface description (such as provided by a Delphi dfm file and I could do it for VB forms if I could bother -- don't know about VC) and spews out a hardcore Windows API version of the interface (in Pascal); the other rips the face of an app, coughing it out as an interface description that the first applet can use. What the first means is that an app developed in Delphi requiring say 300KB will require more likely 50KB compiled with the same compiler. The first works fine in its limited field. The second has some problems for it can't simply interrogate newer controls like listviews for things like column headers or widths of columns in running apps (info only available within the process). Do you know anyone with knowledge in the field?

03-21-2002, 03:13 AM	#133
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

03-21-2002, 06:15 AM	#135
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	spin's inner child speaks?

03-21-2002, 07:14 AM	#136
CX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portlandish Posts: 2,829	At this point I'll have to respectfully withdraw from this discussion. I see little more to be said. Thanks for playing. On the Windows UI front. Most of my work has been on front end development. I'm not really sure what your question is, but I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you might have, though I can't guarantee I will. One thing I've learned in 7 years of windows development is that there are as many corner cases as there are computers.

03-22-2002, 09:54 PM	#137
Haran Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 1,490	Spin, I'm not sure I want to move this discussion much further myself, but I wanted to challenge your notion that somehow "tounantion" has nothing to which it refers. In verse 5, did Paul and those traveling with him give in (eixamen)? No! Not for a moment (oude pros hwran)! But on the contrary (alla tounantion)...! You see, if anything is an interpolation, it seems to me that it would be verse 6. However, verse 6 is probably just an aside (similar to what we do when we write parenthetically). Even if you disagree with the above analysis, I would like to hear, if "on the contrary" is so out of place, why someone who knew the language would have inserted it this way? Considering the fact that most other interpolations improve upon the readability of the text, it seems implausible that someone would insert a meaningless phrase only to have it propagate untouched by others. "On the contrary" meant something to someone or it wouldn't be in there. I think the best explanation is what I present above. Haran [ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

03-23-2002, 12:26 PM	#139
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	The Sanhedrin is just one of the Christian fall guys for God-killing. Pharisees are now famous, through anti-Jewish rhetoric for being against Christ and for being sterile followers of legalism. It's all polemic and certainly without foundation.

03-23-2002, 05:22 PM	#140
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Haran, While you may find a better connection of the discourse markers as you suggest, I don't see a better coherence to the discourse itself. You separate tounantion from its anaphoric reference by a verse and a half, making v.6 of secondary importance to the flow of discourse and yet it has a parenthesis in it -- not to menition that there is another parenthesis which starts in the following verse. The discourse starts with dokousin in v.2, but according to your analysis dokountes gets relegated to secondary importance in v.6, only to be taken up again in v.9. Do you see the problem? As I said, it is a better link, but is the cost worth it? Someone interpolating is less connected to the text than the author. They also have more interest in what they want to say than to worry so much about textual cohesion. Just look at what happens in Philippians from 3:1b "to write..." to 4:3. The text suddenly drops from "Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord", 3:1a, and comes back at 4:4 with "Rejoice in the Lord always and again I say rejoice!" just as though the text takes up in 4:4 where it left off in 3:1a. This is probably a case of text splicing though. It wasn't particularly well inserted though, was it? Interpolations and signs of editing are well-known in religious texts, though given the general lack of cohesion of gospel texts its less easy to spot joins, because everything looks like a join. Paul's letters are a bit easier.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.