chbrooking
Puritan Board Junior
Given the context of this passage, wherein a clear sequence of events regarding the cleansing of the temple and the restoration of worship is involved, a recapitulation view of v. 30 is incredible because there is no mention of the sacrifice in the recap.
I would still like to see significant prose passages where the syntax is recapitulative.
You have mustered two commentators who do not see the syntax my way. That's fine. I believe they are wrong, and am willing to engage in a linguistic and exegetical argument to prove it. But I now see that that is not going to happen. If the debate is structured as a massing of authorities (rather than an engagement of the material) such that he who has the largest library wins, I'm not interested. I was eagerly looking forward to this thread because in the other one, you were permitted to merely assume the EP position, and others bore an unrealistic burden. I thought that here, EP would have to make a positive case. Instead, I see that EP is still permitted as an assumption that governs the interpretation of any and all verses. I'm not interested in continuing such a debate, as a) it does not submit to the request of the OP, and b) it sheds no light on the strength of the EP position. I entered these debates because I was new to the very concept of EP, and wanted to see the argument worked out to assist me in my own thinking. I suppose that in a sense I got what I came for.
So, thanks.
I would still like to see significant prose passages where the syntax is recapitulative.
You have mustered two commentators who do not see the syntax my way. That's fine. I believe they are wrong, and am willing to engage in a linguistic and exegetical argument to prove it. But I now see that that is not going to happen. If the debate is structured as a massing of authorities (rather than an engagement of the material) such that he who has the largest library wins, I'm not interested. I was eagerly looking forward to this thread because in the other one, you were permitted to merely assume the EP position, and others bore an unrealistic burden. I thought that here, EP would have to make a positive case. Instead, I see that EP is still permitted as an assumption that governs the interpretation of any and all verses. I'm not interested in continuing such a debate, as a) it does not submit to the request of the OP, and b) it sheds no light on the strength of the EP position. I entered these debates because I was new to the very concept of EP, and wanted to see the argument worked out to assist me in my own thinking. I suppose that in a sense I got what I came for.
So, thanks.