Don Johnson

On 1 or 2 things, this is a challenging thing about interpreting text written by Hebrew thinkers in Greek in the 1st century when we are English speakers in the 21st century. Any part of a chain can simply be denied by those that do not want to agree or not seen even when one might want to agree. I did not make up the example from Matthew, but it was one that convinced me of the possibility so I incorprated it into my teaching; so I passed it on to you; if it does not convince you, it does not convince you.

There are quite a few places in the NT where there are various alternatives, including taking a Greek fork in the road or a Hebrew one; my preference is to take the Hebrew one unless there is evidence that the Greek one should be taken. But before I knew about the Hebrew fork, I found I just automatically took the Greek one, even tho I know think it is wrong in some cases.

On the scope of didasko, I have read this also, that it is unlimited in scope in the Greek. Just because ENGLISH may work one way does not mean GREEK works that way.

On whether didaskein and authentein are both positive or negative in connotation, I do not think the non-egals are being corrupt in reading them as both positive, just like I do not think the egals are being corrupt in reading them as both negative (assuming that is what they do [and is what I do]). It is because there is simply too much we do not know. There are some verses we need to put on the shelf and not claim too much knowledge about what they mean and this pericope has some famous ones, IMO. It is like these verses are a mirror, the interpretation shows more about the interpreter than about the text, as gaps get filled in based on the interpreter’s working assumptions.