Most of us are familiar with Don Carson’s excellent book, Exegetical Fallacies, and most of us are aware of the common error called the “etymological fallacy.” But the question I am asking is can a word’s etymology ever be trusted to define a word?
Philippians 2:2 is a confusing sentence grammatically, although its meaning is clear. Fee comments that in “the apodosis there is an equally striking compounding of synonymous phrases of such nature that the ‘wayfaring person though a fool’ could not possibly miss the point.” Sentences like this make me miss Gordon, who just recently went home to be with his Lord.
People often say the Greek manuscripts behind the New Testament are so corrupt that we can’t trust them. Ehrman is famous for his line that here are more errors than words. The problem is that these numbers are irrelevant if you do not, at the same time, discuss significance.
Paul can sometimes make broad statements that are open to misunderstanding, especially when read out of context. In some of these cases, we see later scribes trying to qualify what he said so as to clarify -- in their minds -- what Paul means. Enter the wonderful world of textual criticism.
Paul ends his list of the fruits of the Spirit with the general, “against such things there is no law” (Gal 5:23). Most likely, it is meant to parallel the conclusion to the list of “the works of the flesh in v 21. “Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!” But what exactly does v 23b mean?
