M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
Thanks again, guys, for all the great responses.
Some more thoughts on this issue, though, to which I would be interested in hearing your responses.
For the term “morologia” (often translated as “foolish” or “silly talking”), it is interesting that one of you cited Plutarch who uses it to describe people who are drunk spouting off things pretty much impulsively or befroe they think. Would you mind being more specific about the passage you cite? Maybe even give reference to a particular quote from it? Would be much appreciated.
Also, are there any other sources that make reference ot “morologia” or its related roots? If so, how is this term used, and, again, if I could have specific references to the particular passages, that would be great. Indeed, I am wondering if “morologia” always refers to off-the-cuff spouting off, for instance, at someone in anger, or if there are other subtleties of meaning from other sources or even from sources that do not now exist.
Someone said earlier that “morologia” is a hapax, so I am wondering whether thsi source meant “insofar as the NT” or overall. Indeed, I think it is a hapax in tersm of the NT, but I believe there are at least some others sources (Plutarch, for instance!) who use related words.
Howevr, as I understand it, sometimes even words linguistically related by root may have slightly different connotations from even each other. Is this true? So, indeed, maybe, we really don’t have any other sources that could reliably give us the meaning for this particular word, even though related words can be found in other sources. This would indeed be problematic.
Also, on a sort of related note: I was today discussing “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum” and the subject of Plautus (on whom the play is based) came to mind. So, would Plautus’ brand of humor be permissible for the Christian to laugh at/enjoy? Bear in mind that I am not talking about any humor he might employ purposefully to be obscene; I am merely talking about some of the funny situations people get themselves into in hsi plays, for instance. Actually, I think it was Milton(?) who said that it was the devil who gave Jerome his famous Dream because God would rather chastised him for reading Plautus than for reading Cicero. So, again, is Plautian humor and its like permissible to the Christian?
Again, as a classical scholar (though certainly not a linguistic one), I am curious as to what I should and should not laugh at/assent to in my personal enjoyment ofthe field.
Iterum gratias vobis omnibus!
Also, concerning the word “eutrapelia”, I think someone here noted earlier that it has the sense of “wit” or “cheerful wordplay”, I think, they said, in Aristotle.
I am wondering here also whether the term has meanings other than that, say, connotates of “coarse jesting” as it is often translated. Indeed, if there is no other instance of this word having this kind of connotation, I do not see any good reason for a translation such as this. Indeed, some translations simply say “jesting”, athough this is also rather far from “clever wit” or “wordplay”, I should think. Moreover, ther term, as I understand it, literally means “a well-turning [of phrases]”. This could, as I suggest earlier, theoretically connote double-entendre for vulgar purposes, though, again, I don’t know off-hand whether this means this in any other extant sources. If it does not, this could surely weaken the argument that it means “coarse jesting” and could simply mean “clever wit”. The only reason I could see translators rendering the term so negatively is that they see no theologically justifiable reason for simply “clever wit” or “wordplay” being sinful. However, if Paul had had this negative meaning in mind, would he not have specified that this was his intent and not just “clever wit” or “wordplay” since that is likely the definition others would ahve been familiar with? Or, would the context of the other terms such as “baseness” have provided suffciient context for the hearers/readers? Or, rather, could we fault Paul for just not being as precisely expressive (though, with an inspired text, this could get problematic.)?
So, what do folks think theologically? Could simply “clever wit” or “wordplay” be sinful, either inherently or otherwise, even if it is “clean”? Why or why not?
Would also appreciate any (name removed by moderator)ut in my previous questions both here and above as well.
Some more thoughts on this issue, though, to which I would be interested in hearing your responses.
For the term “morologia” (often translated as “foolish” or “silly talking”), it is interesting that one of you cited Plutarch who uses it to describe people who are drunk spouting off things pretty much impulsively or befroe they think. Would you mind being more specific about the passage you cite? Maybe even give reference to a particular quote from it? Would be much appreciated.
Also, are there any other sources that make reference ot “morologia” or its related roots? If so, how is this term used, and, again, if I could have specific references to the particular passages, that would be great. Indeed, I am wondering if “morologia” always refers to off-the-cuff spouting off, for instance, at someone in anger, or if there are other subtleties of meaning from other sources or even from sources that do not now exist.
Someone said earlier that “morologia” is a hapax, so I am wondering whether thsi source meant “insofar as the NT” or overall. Indeed, I think it is a hapax in tersm of the NT, but I believe there are at least some others sources (Plutarch, for instance!) who use related words.
Howevr, as I understand it, sometimes even words linguistically related by root may have slightly different connotations from even each other. Is this true? So, indeed, maybe, we really don’t have any other sources that could reliably give us the meaning for this particular word, even though related words can be found in other sources. This would indeed be problematic.
Also, on a sort of related note: I was today discussing “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum” and the subject of Plautus (on whom the play is based) came to mind. So, would Plautus’ brand of humor be permissible for the Christian to laugh at/enjoy? Bear in mind that I am not talking about any humor he might employ purposefully to be obscene; I am merely talking about some of the funny situations people get themselves into in hsi plays, for instance. Actually, I think it was Milton(?) who said that it was the devil who gave Jerome his famous Dream because God would rather chastised him for reading Plautus than for reading Cicero. So, again, is Plautian humor and its like permissible to the Christian?
Again, as a classical scholar (though certainly not a linguistic one), I am curious as to what I should and should not laugh at/assent to in my personal enjoyment ofthe field.
Iterum gratias vobis omnibus!
Also, concerning the word “eutrapelia”, I think someone here noted earlier that it has the sense of “wit” or “cheerful wordplay”, I think, they said, in Aristotle.
I am wondering here also whether the term has meanings other than that, say, connotates of “coarse jesting” as it is often translated. Indeed, if there is no other instance of this word having this kind of connotation, I do not see any good reason for a translation such as this. Indeed, some translations simply say “jesting”, athough this is also rather far from “clever wit” or “wordplay”, I should think. Moreover, ther term, as I understand it, literally means “a well-turning [of phrases]”. This could, as I suggest earlier, theoretically connote double-entendre for vulgar purposes, though, again, I don’t know off-hand whether this means this in any other extant sources. If it does not, this could surely weaken the argument that it means “coarse jesting” and could simply mean “clever wit”. The only reason I could see translators rendering the term so negatively is that they see no theologically justifiable reason for simply “clever wit” or “wordplay” being sinful. However, if Paul had had this negative meaning in mind, would he not have specified that this was his intent and not just “clever wit” or “wordplay” since that is likely the definition others would ahve been familiar with? Or, would the context of the other terms such as “baseness” have provided suffciient context for the hearers/readers? Or, rather, could we fault Paul for just not being as precisely expressive (though, with an inspired text, this could get problematic.)?
So, what do folks think theologically? Could simply “clever wit” or “wordplay” be sinful, either inherently or otherwise, even if it is “clean”? Why or why not?
Would also appreciate any (name removed by moderator)ut in my previous questions both here and above as well.