John 11:35

John 11:35 Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Wed Jun 17 12:11:15 EDT 1998

 

Hebrews 6:6-PARASEPONTAS Marcan Leitmotifs (was: Mark 2:23b) A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 2260 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19980617/603debc8/attachment.bin

 

Hebrews 6:6-PARASEPONTASMarcan Leitmotifs (was: Mark 2:23b)

John 11:35 Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Wed Jun 17 12:11:15 EDT 1998

 

Hebrews 6:6-PARASEPONTAS Marcan Leitmotifs (was: Mark 2:23b) A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 2260 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19980617/603debc8/attachment.bin

 

Hebrews 6:6-PARASEPONTASMarcan Leitmotifs (was: Mark 2:23b)

John 11:35 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Wed Jun 17 17:27:30 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 Marcan Leitmotifs At 02:05 PM 6/17/98 -0700, you wrote:>According to the Johannine Gospel account, EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS when he>arrived at the tomb of Lazarus. The question I have is, WHY?? Why did>Jesus weep before resurrecting Lazarus? The TEV indicates that he was>“touched” by the weeping of Martha, Mary, and the Jews present>consoling them. Others (Murray, Borchert) say that Jesus wept out of>anger. The interpretation of this verse seems to hinge on John 11:33,>38:> >ENEBRIMHSATO TW PNEUMATI KAI ETARAZEN hEAUTON> >PALIN EMBRIMWMENOS.> >Thanks,> >Edgar Foster> I tend to agree with Beasley-Murray here. The context of the pericope issuch that Jesus is rightly angered because of the denseness and unbelief ofhis followers. (Almost a Marcn theme, by the way). Thus, he cries out offrustration because of sorrow (at their hardness and stupidity).Best,Jim++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDPastor, Petros Baptist ChurchAdjunct Professor of Bible,Quartz Hill School of Theologyjwest at highland.net

 

John 11:35Marcan Leitmotifs

John 11:35 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 17 17:05:00 EDT 1998

 

Marcan Leitmotifs John 11:35 According to the Johannine Gospel account, EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS when hearrived at the tomb of Lazarus. The question I have is, WHY?? Why didJesus weep before resurrecting Lazarus? The TEV indicates that he was”touched” by the weeping of Martha, Mary, and the Jews presentconsoling them. Others (Murray, Borchert) say that Jesus wept out ofanger. The interpretation of this verse seems to hinge on John 11:33,38:ENEBRIMHSATO TW PNEUMATI KAI ETARAZEN hEAUTONPALIN EMBRIMWMENOS.Thanks,Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne College_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

 

Marcan LeitmotifsJohn 11:35

John 11:35 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Wed Jun 17 17:27:30 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 Marcan Leitmotifs At 02:05 PM 6/17/98 -0700, you wrote:>According to the Johannine Gospel account, EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS when he>arrived at the tomb of Lazarus. The question I have is, WHY?? Why did>Jesus weep before resurrecting Lazarus? The TEV indicates that he was>“touched” by the weeping of Martha, Mary, and the Jews present>consoling them. Others (Murray, Borchert) say that Jesus wept out of>anger. The interpretation of this verse seems to hinge on John 11:33,>38:> >ENEBRIMHSATO TW PNEUMATI KAI ETARAZEN hEAUTON> >PALIN EMBRIMWMENOS.> >Thanks,> >Edgar Foster> I tend to agree with Beasley-Murray here. The context of the pericope issuch that Jesus is rightly angered because of the denseness and unbelief ofhis followers. (Almost a Marcn theme, by the way). Thus, he cries out offrustration because of sorrow (at their hardness and stupidity).Best,Jim++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDPastor, Petros Baptist ChurchAdjunct Professor of Bible,Quartz Hill School of Theologyjwest at highland.net

 

John 11:35Marcan Leitmotifs

John 11:35 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 17 17:05:00 EDT 1998

 

Marcan Leitmotifs John 11:35 According to the Johannine Gospel account, EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS when hearrived at the tomb of Lazarus. The question I have is, WHY?? Why didJesus weep before resurrecting Lazarus? The TEV indicates that he was”touched” by the weeping of Martha, Mary, and the Jews presentconsoling them. Others (Murray, Borchert) say that Jesus wept out ofanger. The interpretation of this verse seems to hinge on John 11:33,38:ENEBRIMHSATO TW PNEUMATI KAI ETARAZEN hEAUTONPALIN EMBRIMWMENOS.Thanks,Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne College_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

 

Marcan LeitmotifsJohn 11:35

John 11:35 George Athas gathas at mail.usyd.edu.au
Wed Jun 17 18:59:39 EDT 1998

 

Marcan Leitmotifs John 11:35 Hi Edgar!I would tend to say that Jesus probably wept out of sorrow more thananger, for note the next verse (36):ELEGON OUN hOI IOUDAIOI, IDE PWS EFILEI AUTON.Some of the people obviously saw this as an act of sorrow – a manweeping for a dead friend. The fact that others taunted Jesus at thismoment probably angered him, but I don’t think that it was the reasonwhy he wept in the first place.Cheers!George Athas PhD (Cand.), University of Sydney Tutor of Hebrew, Moore Theological CollegePhone: 0414 839 964 ICQ#: 5866591Email: gathas at mail.usyd.edu.au____________________________________________________Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website athttp://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm

 

Marcan LeitmotifsJohn 11:35

John 11:35 George Athas gathas at mail.usyd.edu.au
Wed Jun 17 18:59:39 EDT 1998

 

Marcan Leitmotifs John 11:35 Hi Edgar!I would tend to say that Jesus probably wept out of sorrow more thananger, for note the next verse (36):ELEGON OUN hOI IOUDAIOI, IDE PWS EFILEI AUTON.Some of the people obviously saw this as an act of sorrow – a manweeping for a dead friend. The fact that others taunted Jesus at thismoment probably angered him, but I don’t think that it was the reasonwhy he wept in the first place.Cheers!George Athas PhD (Cand.), University of Sydney Tutor of Hebrew, Moore Theological CollegePhone: 0414 839 964 ICQ#: 5866591Email: gathas at mail.usyd.edu.au____________________________________________________Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website athttp://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm

 

Marcan LeitmotifsJohn 11:35

John 11:35 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 17 19:26:53 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 —George Athas wrote:> Hi Edgar! > I would tend to say that Jesus probably wept out of sorrow more than> anger, for note the next verse (36): > ELEGON OUN hOI IOUDAIOI, IDE PWS EFILEI AUTON. > Some of the people obviously saw this as an act of sorrow – a man> weeping for a dead friend. The fact that others taunted Jesus at this> moment probably angered him, but I don’t think that it was the reason> why he wept in the first place.Hi George,You may well be right. To play the devil’s advocate, however, somemight say that those persons mentioned in 11:36 mis-interpreted Jesus’tears. THEY said that Jesus wept out of his love (FILOS) for Lazarus.But could they not have misunderstood the weeping of Jesus?Regards,Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne College_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 17 19:21:18 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 —Jim West wrote:> At 02:05 PM 6/17/98 -0700, you wrote:> >According to the Johannine Gospel account, EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS whenhe arrived at the tomb of Lazarus. The question I have is, WHY?? Whydid Jesus weep before resurrecting Lazarus? The TEV indicates that hewas “touched” by the weeping of Martha, Mary, and the Jews presentconsoling them. Others (Murray, Borchert) say that Jesus wept out ofanger. The interpretation of this verse seems to hinge on John 11:33,38:> >ENEBRIMHSATO TW PNEUMATI KAI ETARAZEN hEAUTON> >PALIN EMBRIMWMENOS.> >Thanks,> >Edgar Foster>>I tend to agree with Beasley-Murray here. The context of thepericope is such that Jesus is rightly angered because of thedenseness and unbelief of his followers. (Almost a Marcn theme, bythe way). Thus, he cries out of frustration because of sorrow (attheir hardness and stupidity).> Best,> JimDear Jim and Steve,Thanks for your input. Previously, I have always interpreted Jesus’weeping as a sign of his compassion and FILEI for Lazarus. I have notabandoned this position, but I find the alternative views suggested bymost German scholars fascinating. Both Murray’s and Borchert’sarguments could be summed up as follows:(1.) As pointed out by Schnackenburg, “The word EMBRIMASQAI . . .indicates an outburst of anger, and any attempt to reinterpret it interms of an internal emotional upset caused by grief, pain, orsympathy is illegitimate” (See Murray 193).(2.) Earlier, I said that Murray views Jesus’ weeping as evidence ofhis anger. Let me slightly correct this statement. Murray does in factsay that Jesus is angry on this occassion, but he says that Jesuspossibly wept for a different reason:”It is possible that the tears were motivated by the unbelief thatcaused him anger (as Hoskyns strongly contended, 405). It is, however,more likely that they were brought about by the sight of the havocwrought among people through sin and death in this world. It would beharmonious with what we know of Jesus in this Gospel if anger byreason of unbelief was balanced with grief over the tragedy of thehuman situation” (Murray 193-194).(3.) Borchert perspicuously observes: “John carefully used a differentword (DAKRUEIN) for Jesus’ tears, a word that is not used elsewhere inthe New Testament. It was almost as though the evangelist wanted tosend a signal to his readers not to misinterpret Jesus’ weeping . . .Accordingly, I would maintain that Jesus’ weeping here is directlyrelated to the failure of his followers to recognize his mission asthe agent of God” (Borchert 360).Borchert’s argument stirs my interest in the word DAKRUEIN. I wouldlike to do both a diachronic and synchronic study of this word. Anyinput would be greatly appreciated.Regards,Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne College_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 17 19:26:53 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 —George Athas wrote:> Hi Edgar! > I would tend to say that Jesus probably wept out of sorrow more than> anger, for note the next verse (36): > ELEGON OUN hOI IOUDAIOI, IDE PWS EFILEI AUTON. > Some of the people obviously saw this as an act of sorrow – a man> weeping for a dead friend. The fact that others taunted Jesus at this> moment probably angered him, but I don’t think that it was the reason> why he wept in the first place.Hi George,You may well be right. To play the devil’s advocate, however, somemight say that those persons mentioned in 11:36 mis-interpreted Jesus’tears. THEY said that Jesus wept out of his love (FILOS) for Lazarus.But could they not have misunderstood the weeping of Jesus?Regards,Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne College_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 17 19:21:18 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 —Jim West wrote:> At 02:05 PM 6/17/98 -0700, you wrote:> >According to the Johannine Gospel account, EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS whenhe arrived at the tomb of Lazarus. The question I have is, WHY?? Whydid Jesus weep before resurrecting Lazarus? The TEV indicates that hewas “touched” by the weeping of Martha, Mary, and the Jews presentconsoling them. Others (Murray, Borchert) say that Jesus wept out ofanger. The interpretation of this verse seems to hinge on John 11:33,38:> >ENEBRIMHSATO TW PNEUMATI KAI ETARAZEN hEAUTON> >PALIN EMBRIMWMENOS.> >Thanks,> >Edgar Foster>>I tend to agree with Beasley-Murray here. The context of thepericope is such that Jesus is rightly angered because of thedenseness and unbelief of his followers. (Almost a Marcn theme, bythe way). Thus, he cries out of frustration because of sorrow (attheir hardness and stupidity).> Best,> JimDear Jim and Steve,Thanks for your input. Previously, I have always interpreted Jesus’weeping as a sign of his compassion and FILEI for Lazarus. I have notabandoned this position, but I find the alternative views suggested bymost German scholars fascinating. Both Murray’s and Borchert’sarguments could be summed up as follows:(1.) As pointed out by Schnackenburg, “The word EMBRIMASQAI . . .indicates an outburst of anger, and any attempt to reinterpret it interms of an internal emotional upset caused by grief, pain, orsympathy is illegitimate” (See Murray 193).(2.) Earlier, I said that Murray views Jesus’ weeping as evidence ofhis anger. Let me slightly correct this statement. Murray does in factsay that Jesus is angry on this occassion, but he says that Jesuspossibly wept for a different reason:”It is possible that the tears were motivated by the unbelief thatcaused him anger (as Hoskyns strongly contended, 405). It is, however,more likely that they were brought about by the sight of the havocwrought among people through sin and death in this world. It would beharmonious with what we know of Jesus in this Gospel if anger byreason of unbelief was balanced with grief over the tragedy of thehuman situation” (Murray 193-194).(3.) Borchert perspicuously observes: “John carefully used a differentword (DAKRUEIN) for Jesus’ tears, a word that is not used elsewhere inthe New Testament. It was almost as though the evangelist wanted tosend a signal to his readers not to misinterpret Jesus’ weeping . . .Accordingly, I would maintain that Jesus’ weeping here is directlyrelated to the failure of his followers to recognize his mission asthe agent of God” (Borchert 360).Borchert’s argument stirs my interest in the word DAKRUEIN. I wouldlike to do both a diachronic and synchronic study of this word. Anyinput would be greatly appreciated.Regards,Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne College_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 Ward Powers bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
Wed Jun 17 21:45:45 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 KAQWS GEGRAPTAI EP’ AUTON Dear ers,There has been some interesting and worthwhile discussion about John 11:35.Before this thread winds up, just a little point of Greek trivia.Have you ever heard someone mention that this verse is the shortest versein the Bible? And so it is, so it is. In English. “Jesus wept.” Two words. But in Greek it is three words: EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS.In the Greek NT, the shortest verse is 1 Thessalonians 5:16, PANTOTECAIRETE. “Rejoice always.” Two words.As a matter of fact, 1 Thessalonians 5:17 is also just two words,ADIALEIPTWS PROSEUCESQE. But they are longer words.I SAID it was just a little point of Greek trivia.Regards,WardRev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-9799-750110 Grosvenor Crescent Phone (Australia): (02) 9799-7501SUMMER HILL NSW 2130 email: bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.auAUSTRALIA.

 

John 11:35KAQWS GEGRAPTAI EP’ AUTON

John 11:35 Ward Powers bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
Wed Jun 17 21:45:45 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 KAQWS GEGRAPTAI EP’ AUTON Dear ers,There has been some interesting and worthwhile discussion about John 11:35.Before this thread winds up, just a little point of Greek trivia.Have you ever heard someone mention that this verse is the shortest versein the Bible? And so it is, so it is. In English. “Jesus wept.” Two words. But in Greek it is three words: EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS.In the Greek NT, the shortest verse is 1 Thessalonians 5:16, PANTOTECAIRETE. “Rejoice always.” Two words.As a matter of fact, 1 Thessalonians 5:17 is also just two words,ADIALEIPTWS PROSEUCESQE. But they are longer words.I SAID it was just a little point of Greek trivia.Regards,WardRev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-9799-750110 Grosvenor Crescent Phone (Australia): (02) 9799-7501SUMMER HILL NSW 2130 email: bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.auAUSTRALIA.

 

John 11:35KAQWS GEGRAPTAI EP’ AUTON

John 11:35 George Athas gathas at mail.usyd.edu.au
Wed Jun 17 19:43:15 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 Edgar Foster wrote:> You may well be right. To play the devil’s advocate, however, some> might say that those persons mentioned in 11:36 mis-interpreted Jesus’> tears. THEY said that Jesus wept out of his love (FILOS) for Lazarus.> But could they not have misunderstood the weeping of Jesus?Of course there is always that possibility. But considering the circumstances, it makes sense thatJesus is upset that Lazarus died at all. His weeping is an obvious sign of that, and probably givesrise to the interpretation of the ‘others’ who probably saw Jesus weeping for a friend that theythink he could have saved. In other words, they are saying that Jesus’ grief is deserved because hedidn’t come to Lazarus’ aid when he could have. It’s a “serves him right” type of attitude, whichinevitably moves Jesus to anger.Best regards!George Athas PhD (Cand.), University of Sydney Tutor of Hebrew, Moore Theological CollegePhone: 0414 839 964 ICQ#: 5866591Email: gathas at mail.usyd.edu.au____________________________________________________Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website athttp://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 George Athas gathas at mail.usyd.edu.au
Wed Jun 17 19:43:15 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 Edgar Foster wrote:> You may well be right. To play the devil’s advocate, however, some> might say that those persons mentioned in 11:36 mis-interpreted Jesus’> tears. THEY said that Jesus wept out of his love (FILOS) for Lazarus.> But could they not have misunderstood the weeping of Jesus?Of course there is always that possibility. But considering the circumstances, it makes sense thatJesus is upset that Lazarus died at all. His weeping is an obvious sign of that, and probably givesrise to the interpretation of the ‘others’ who probably saw Jesus weeping for a friend that theythink he could have saved. In other words, they are saying that Jesus’ grief is deserved because hedidn’t come to Lazarus’ aid when he could have. It’s a “serves him right” type of attitude, whichinevitably moves Jesus to anger.Best regards!George Athas PhD (Cand.), University of Sydney Tutor of Hebrew, Moore Theological CollegePhone: 0414 839 964 ICQ#: 5866591Email: gathas at mail.usyd.edu.au____________________________________________________Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website athttp://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Thu Jun 18 07:53:24 EDT 1998

 

Tradent Hebrews 6:6-PARASEPONTAS > >Having Jesus weep for Lazarus makes no sense to me whatsoever… I>really see him weeping for the fact that those who are most intimately>involved with him are not ‘getting it’. The implications for Israel>are clear, but I do not believe Jesus weeps for Israel either, because>He knows what will happen on that issue… He weeps for Mary and>Martha… And perhaps for their ‘ministry’ at Bethany…> >This passage also seems to render well with reading it as>‘compassionate weeping’, or empathic weeping, which is easily>misunderstood as well by others as to its object, as did the Jews in>the following verse, who understood it as the weeping of a guilty>person at the consequence of His laxity… Which is utterly not the>case…> >George Blaisdell> Emotions are funny things, did anybody cry at Titanic? (I cried at theoriginal movie with Clifton Webb, when they sang ‘Nearer my God to thee’).You can tell yourself it’s just a movie, you know how it ends, they’re justactors, and your eyes still end up leaking. Jesus was a man with the sameemotional triggers as the rest of us. I love this passage because it soclearly shows his human nature, whether he was weeping for them or withthem, his emotions were deep and human.Steve______________________________________________________________________________Steve LongpresidentAllegro Graphics, Inc., Allegro Digital Media, Inc.4132 Industrial Drive, Saint Peters, Missouri 633761-888-819-8166 toll-freesteve at websrv.com, steve at allegrographics.comhttp://www.websrv.com/——————————————————————————

 

TradentHebrews 6:6-PARASEPONTAS

John 11:35 Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Thu Jun 18 07:53:24 EDT 1998

 

Tradent Hebrews 6:6-PARASEPONTAS > >Having Jesus weep for Lazarus makes no sense to me whatsoever… I>really see him weeping for the fact that those who are most intimately>involved with him are not ‘getting it’. The implications for Israel>are clear, but I do not believe Jesus weeps for Israel either, because>He knows what will happen on that issue… He weeps for Mary and>Martha… And perhaps for their ‘ministry’ at Bethany…> >This passage also seems to render well with reading it as>‘compassionate weeping’, or empathic weeping, which is easily>misunderstood as well by others as to its object, as did the Jews in>the following verse, who understood it as the weeping of a guilty>person at the consequence of His laxity… Which is utterly not the>case…> >George Blaisdell> Emotions are funny things, did anybody cry at Titanic? (I cried at theoriginal movie with Clifton Webb, when they sang ‘Nearer my God to thee’).You can tell yourself it’s just a movie, you know how it ends, they’re justactors, and your eyes still end up leaking. Jesus was a man with the sameemotional triggers as the rest of us. I love this passage because it soclearly shows his human nature, whether he was weeping for them or withthem, his emotions were deep and human.Steve______________________________________________________________________________Steve LongpresidentAllegro Graphics, Inc., Allegro Digital Media, Inc.4132 Industrial Drive, Saint Peters, Missouri 633761-888-819-8166 toll-freesteve at websrv.com, steve at allegrographics.comhttp://www.websrv.com/——————————————————————————

 

TradentHebrews 6:6-PARASEPONTAS

John 11:35 dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Thu Jun 18 10:48:14 EDT 1998

 

Hebrews 6:6-PARASEPONTAS KAQWS GEGRAPTAI EP’ AUTON George Athas wrote:> > Edgar Foster wrote:> > > You may well be right. To play the devil’s advocate, however, some> > might say that those persons mentioned in 11:36 mis-interpreted Jesus’> > tears. THEY said that Jesus wept out of his love (FILOS) for Lazarus.> > But could they not have misunderstood the weeping of Jesus?> > Of course there is always that possibility. But considering the circumstances, it makes sense that> Jesus is upset that Lazarus died at all. His weeping is an obvious sign of that, and probably gives> rise to the interpretation of the ‘others’ who probably saw Jesus weeping for a friend that they> think he could have saved. In other words, they are saying that Jesus’ grief is deserved because he> didn’t come to Lazarus’ aid when he could have. It’s a “serves him right” type of attitude, which> inevitably moves Jesus to anger.George and Edgar ~I weep too… Don’t you as well? There is some merit in an emotionalapproach to understanding this passage, for if we can weep with Jesusand thereby enter the drama of the narration, perhaps even bringingthe translation a step forward toward the vivid historical present[but not quite] and read it “Jesus weeps”, then maybe this littlesentence can come clear.I would tend to look to the antecedents of 11:35 to understand theweeping of Jesus, and to me the great mystery of this passage is thatit immediately follows “KYRIE ERQOU KAI IDE”, in response to Jesusquestion “Where have you laid him?”, which in turn is preceeded byJesus groaning in Spirit and being troubled, following rebuke by Mary.The very idea that anyone should tell Jesus ‘IDE’, and especially Maryand Martha, who have already misunderstood Jesus’ relationship toLazarus [philos vs agape] and that after reproaching Jesus for notcoming earlier. gave me reason to weep, for Mary and Martha are thevery best that Israel has produced, and even they do not understandwhat Jesus is doing.I weep too…Jesus sees and knows and beholds [IDE], and is not understood, andsees the result of this failure, and it troubles him, and he weeps. Mary is the annointer of his feet [11:2 etc], and carries thatauthority, and Lazarus is the final sign in the John gospel. And Maryand Martha still do not understand… Having Jesus weep for Lazarus makes no sense to me whatsoever… Ireally see him weeping for the fact that those who are most intimatelyinvolved with him are not ‘getting it’. The implications for Israelare clear, but I do not believe Jesus weeps for Israel either, becauseHe knows what will happen on that issue… He weeps for Mary andMartha… And perhaps for their ‘ministry’ at Bethany…This passage also seems to render well with reading it as’compassionate weeping’, or empathic weeping, which is easilymisunderstood as well by others as to its object, as did the Jews inthe following verse, who understood it as the weeping of a guiltyperson at the consequence of His laxity… Which is utterly not thecase…George Blaisdell

 

Hebrews 6:6-PARASEPONTASKAQWS GEGRAPTAI EP’ AUTON

John 11:35 dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Thu Jun 18 10:48:14 EDT 1998

 

Hebrews 6:6-PARASEPONTAS KAQWS GEGRAPTAI EP’ AUTON George Athas wrote:> > Edgar Foster wrote:> > > You may well be right. To play the devil’s advocate, however, some> > might say that those persons mentioned in 11:36 mis-interpreted Jesus’> > tears. THEY said that Jesus wept out of his love (FILOS) for Lazarus.> > But could they not have misunderstood the weeping of Jesus?> > Of course there is always that possibility. But considering the circumstances, it makes sense that> Jesus is upset that Lazarus died at all. His weeping is an obvious sign of that, and probably gives> rise to the interpretation of the ‘others’ who probably saw Jesus weeping for a friend that they> think he could have saved. In other words, they are saying that Jesus’ grief is deserved because he> didn’t come to Lazarus’ aid when he could have. It’s a “serves him right” type of attitude, which> inevitably moves Jesus to anger.George and Edgar ~I weep too… Don’t you as well? There is some merit in an emotionalapproach to understanding this passage, for if we can weep with Jesusand thereby enter the drama of the narration, perhaps even bringingthe translation a step forward toward the vivid historical present[but not quite] and read it “Jesus weeps”, then maybe this littlesentence can come clear.I would tend to look to the antecedents of 11:35 to understand theweeping of Jesus, and to me the great mystery of this passage is thatit immediately follows “KYRIE ERQOU KAI IDE”, in response to Jesusquestion “Where have you laid him?”, which in turn is preceeded byJesus groaning in Spirit and being troubled, following rebuke by Mary.The very idea that anyone should tell Jesus ‘IDE’, and especially Maryand Martha, who have already misunderstood Jesus’ relationship toLazarus [philos vs agape] and that after reproaching Jesus for notcoming earlier. gave me reason to weep, for Mary and Martha are thevery best that Israel has produced, and even they do not understandwhat Jesus is doing.I weep too…Jesus sees and knows and beholds [IDE], and is not understood, andsees the result of this failure, and it troubles him, and he weeps. Mary is the annointer of his feet [11:2 etc], and carries thatauthority, and Lazarus is the final sign in the John gospel. And Maryand Martha still do not understand… Having Jesus weep for Lazarus makes no sense to me whatsoever… Ireally see him weeping for the fact that those who are most intimatelyinvolved with him are not ‘getting it’. The implications for Israelare clear, but I do not believe Jesus weeps for Israel either, becauseHe knows what will happen on that issue… He weeps for Mary andMartha… And perhaps for their ‘ministry’ at Bethany…This passage also seems to render well with reading it as’compassionate weeping’, or empathic weeping, which is easilymisunderstood as well by others as to its object, as did the Jews inthe following verse, who understood it as the weeping of a guiltyperson at the consequence of His laxity… Which is utterly not thecase…George Blaisdell

 

Hebrews 6:6-PARASEPONTASKAQWS GEGRAPTAI EP’ AUTON
John 11:35 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Fri Jun 19 20:52:17 EDT 1998

 

DANKER 3rd Ed / Alsop John 11:35 A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 3094 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19980619/87c3507f/attachment.bin

 

DANKER 3rd Ed / AlsopJohn 11:35

John 11:35 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Fri Jun 19 20:52:17 EDT 1998

 

DANKER 3rd Ed / Alsop John 11:35 A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 3094 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19980619/87c3507f/attachment.bin

 

DANKER 3rd Ed / AlsopJohn 11:35

John 11:35 Eric Weiss eweiss at gte.net
Fri Jun 19 21:07:47 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 I don’t know if it’s been raised yet, but A.T. Robertson in THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT states (p. 92) “A striking example of the ingressive aorist [entrance into a condition] appears in John 11:35, the shortest verse in the Bible [I know, it’s NOT the shortest verse in the Greek Bible!], “Jesus wept.” More exactly it is this, “Jesus burst into tears,” silent tears of sympathy in sorrow.”Regardless of whether they were tears of anger or sorrow, I never did like “burst into tears” – but maybe it conveys something different to me than it did when Robertson wrote these words decades ago. Is “Jesus wept” the only alternative?Jonathan Robie wrote:> At 04:11 PM 6/17/98 +0000, Steve Long wrote:> >>>>> > >At 02:05 PM 6/17/98 -0700, you wrote:> >>According to the Johannine Gospel account, EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS when he> >>arrived at the tomb of Lazarus. The question I have is, WHY?? Why did> >>Jesus weep before resurrecting Lazarus? The TEV indicates that he was> >>”touched” by the weeping of Martha, Mary, and the Jews present> >>consoling them. Others (Murray, Borchert) say that Jesus wept out of> >>anger.> > <<<<> > Is DAKRUW ever used in the sense of “weeping in anger”? I haven’t checked the source documents, but this doesn’t seem to be the sense of the word in Louw & Nida nor in the LSJ entry:> > http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/lexindex?lookup=dakru/w> > >>>>> > The interpretation of this verse seems to hinge on John 11:33,> >>38:> >>> >>ENEBRIMHSATO TW PNEUMATI KAI ETARAZEN hEAUTON> >>> >>PALIN EMBRIMWMENOS.> > <<<<> > Louw and Nida have the following definition for EMBRIMAOMAI:> > “to have an intense, strong feeling of concern, often with the implication of indignation – `to feel strongly, to be indignant.'”> > LSJ gives this gloss with respect to these verses:> > 2. of persons, to be deeply moved, tôi pneumati, en heautôi, Ev.Jo.11.33,au=Ev.Jo. 11.38=lr.> > I’m inclined to agree with the above gloss. I notice that Aeschylus uses the verb to describe the sound that horses make (hippous d’ en ampuktêrsin embrimômenas – Perseus translates this: “He whirls his horses as they snort through their bridles, eager to fall against the gate.”)> > I can imagine the way someone crying sucks in air through the nose while they sob when I read that passage, and think of how similar that is to a horse snorting in air through the nose as they run. I’m not sure of an English word that encompasses both, but think of this as a verb that expresses the NOISE of crying. An English word that does that is “bawl”. To bawl AT someone is different from bawling – the first indicates anger, the second does not. It is plausible to me that this would be true of the Greek verb as well.> > To be clear, here’s the guess that I’m making: (1) EMBRIMAOMAI TWi PNEUMATI or EMBRIMAOMAI EN hEAUTWi are similar to the English ‘bawling’, without any implication of anger or indignation, just an indication of the strength of the sobbing involved. (2) the same verb directed AT someone else does have the feeling of anger or indignation. Note that this lines up reasonably well with the three senses of the verb given by Louw & Nida:> > a insist sternly 33.320 [L&N…3169]> b scold 33.421 [L&N…3270]> c feel strongly 25.56 [L&N…2136]> > This would tend to argue for a conventional understanding of the verse.> > Jonathan> ___________________________________________________________________________> > Jonathan Robie jwrobie at mindspring.com> > Little Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine> Little Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons> Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives> — home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ To post a message to the list, mailto: at franklin.oit.unc.edu To subbscribe, mailto:subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu To unsubscribe, mailto:unsubscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu?subject=eweiss at gte.net–“Eric S. and Karol-Ann Weiss”http://home1.gte.net/eweiss/index.htmeweiss at gte.netS.D.G.

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Fri Jun 19 23:16:14 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 Español At 08:07 PM 6/19/98 -0500, Eric Weiss wrote: >Regardless of whether they were tears of anger or sorrow, I >never did like “burst into tears” – but maybe it conveys >something different to me than it did when Robertson wrote >these words decades ago. Is “Jesus wept” the only alternative? Started crying?Broke into tears?Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives

 

John 11:35Español

John 11:35 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Fri Jun 19 23:16:14 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 Español At 08:07 PM 6/19/98 -0500, Eric Weiss wrote: >Regardless of whether they were tears of anger or sorrow, I >never did like “burst into tears” – but maybe it conveys >something different to me than it did when Robertson wrote >these words decades ago. Is “Jesus wept” the only alternative? Started crying?Broke into tears?Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives

 

John 11:35Español

John 11:35 Eric Weiss eweiss at gte.net
Fri Jun 19 21:07:47 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 I don’t know if it’s been raised yet, but A.T. Robertson in THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT states (p. 92) “A striking example of the ingressive aorist [entrance into a condition] appears in John 11:35, the shortest verse in the Bible [I know, it’s NOT the shortest verse in the Greek Bible!], “Jesus wept.” More exactly it is this, “Jesus burst into tears,” silent tears of sympathy in sorrow.”Regardless of whether they were tears of anger or sorrow, I never did like “burst into tears” – but maybe it conveys something different to me than it did when Robertson wrote these words decades ago. Is “Jesus wept” the only alternative?Jonathan Robie wrote:> At 04:11 PM 6/17/98 +0000, Steve Long wrote:> >>>>> > >At 02:05 PM 6/17/98 -0700, you wrote:> >>According to the Johannine Gospel account, EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS when he> >>arrived at the tomb of Lazarus. The question I have is, WHY?? Why did> >>Jesus weep before resurrecting Lazarus? The TEV indicates that he was> >>”touched” by the weeping of Martha, Mary, and the Jews present> >>consoling them. Others (Murray, Borchert) say that Jesus wept out of> >>anger.> > <<<<> > Is DAKRUW ever used in the sense of “weeping in anger”? I haven’t checked the source documents, but this doesn’t seem to be the sense of the word in Louw & Nida nor in the LSJ entry:> > http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/lexindex?lookup=dakru/w> > >>>>> > The interpretation of this verse seems to hinge on John 11:33,> >>38:> >>> >>ENEBRIMHSATO TW PNEUMATI KAI ETARAZEN hEAUTON> >>> >>PALIN EMBRIMWMENOS.> > <<<<> > Louw and Nida have the following definition for EMBRIMAOMAI:> > “to have an intense, strong feeling of concern, often with the implication of indignation – `to feel strongly, to be indignant.'”> > LSJ gives this gloss with respect to these verses:> > 2. of persons, to be deeply moved, tôi pneumati, en heautôi, Ev.Jo.11.33,au=Ev.Jo. 11.38=lr.> > I’m inclined to agree with the above gloss. I notice that Aeschylus uses the verb to describe the sound that horses make (hippous d’ en ampuktêrsin embrimômenas – Perseus translates this: “He whirls his horses as they snort through their bridles, eager to fall against the gate.”)> > I can imagine the way someone crying sucks in air through the nose while they sob when I read that passage, and think of how similar that is to a horse snorting in air through the nose as they run. I’m not sure of an English word that encompasses both, but think of this as a verb that expresses the NOISE of crying. An English word that does that is “bawl”. To bawl AT someone is different from bawling – the first indicates anger, the second does not. It is plausible to me that this would be true of the Greek verb as well.> > To be clear, here’s the guess that I’m making: (1) EMBRIMAOMAI TWi PNEUMATI or EMBRIMAOMAI EN hEAUTWi are similar to the English ‘bawling’, without any implication of anger or indignation, just an indication of the strength of the sobbing involved. (2) the same verb directed AT someone else does have the feeling of anger or indignation. Note that this lines up reasonably well with the three senses of the verb given by Louw & Nida:> > a insist sternly 33.320 [L&N…3169]> b scold 33.421 [L&N…3270]> c feel strongly 25.56 [L&N…2136]> > This would tend to argue for a conventional understanding of the verse.> > Jonathan> ___________________________________________________________________________> > Jonathan Robie jwrobie at mindspring.com> > Little Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine> Little Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons> Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives> — home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ To post a message to the list, mailto: at franklin.oit.unc.edu To subbscribe, mailto:subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu To unsubscribe, mailto:unsubscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu?subject=eweiss at gte.net–“Eric S. and Karol-Ann Weiss”http://home1.gte.net/eweiss/index.htmeweiss at gte.netS.D.G.

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Sat Jun 20 01:08:26 EDT 1998

 

Español John 1:1 We may have at hand a solution to the meaning of EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS inJn 11:35 if we take Mk 8:12 to be a formal and material parallel to Jn11:35. In Mk 8:12 Jesus also gives vent to strong emotion when put tothe test by those who seek from him an SHMEION APO TOU OURANOU. Hegroans deeply in his spirit (ANASTENACAS TWi PNEUMATI AUTOU). As Iargued in an article in JTS, where I examined all of the pre- 100 CEinstances of the use of ANASTENAZW and cognates both with a verb ofspeaking as well as absolutely, the significance of this action is toexpress not idignation, but distress and dismay, particularly at beingplaced in a forced situation where the choice is often between followingGod and losing one’s life or saving one’s life but denying God (cf.Susannah 22).Yours,Jeffrey Gibson– Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net jgibson at acfsysv.roosevelt.edu

 

EspañolJohn 1:1

John 11:35 Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Sat Jun 20 01:08:26 EDT 1998

 

Español John 1:1 We may have at hand a solution to the meaning of EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS inJn 11:35 if we take Mk 8:12 to be a formal and material parallel to Jn11:35. In Mk 8:12 Jesus also gives vent to strong emotion when put tothe test by those who seek from him an SHMEION APO TOU OURANOU. Hegroans deeply in his spirit (ANASTENACAS TWi PNEUMATI AUTOU). As Iargued in an article in JTS, where I examined all of the pre- 100 CEinstances of the use of ANASTENAZW and cognates both with a verb ofspeaking as well as absolutely, the significance of this action is toexpress not idignation, but distress and dismay, particularly at beingplaced in a forced situation where the choice is often between followingGod and losing one’s life or saving one’s life but denying God (cf.Susannah 22).Yours,Jeffrey Gibson– Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net jgibson at acfsysv.roosevelt.edu

 

EspañolJohn 1:1

John 11:35 dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Sun Jun 21 13:08:32 EDT 1998

 

LXX John 11:35 Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:> > We may have at hand a solution to the meaning of EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS in> Jn 11:35 if we take Mk 8:12 to be a formal and material parallel to Jn> 11:35. In Mk 8:12 Jesus also gives vent to strong emotion when put to> the test by those who seek from him an SHMEION APO TOU OURANOU. He> groans deeply in his spirit (ANASTENACAS TWi PNEUMATI AUTOU). As I> argued in an article in JTS, where I examined all of the pre- 100 CE> instances of the use of ANASTENAZW and cognates both with a verb of> speaking as well as absolutely, the significance of this action is to> express not idignation, but distress and dismay, …Nice work, Jeff ~John has this habit of leaving things locked in enigma ~ Almost as ifenigma itself is a part of his teaching, and perhaps is even an ‘entrypoint’ into Christ. Distress and dismay can indeed ‘fit’ thispassage, and the other thing that occurs to me, that has not beenmentioned, is that perhaps Jesus weeps for the loss of the ‘old’Lazarus, and is in effect joining the other mourners, but with aprofoundly different perspective, in that he sees and knows the ‘new’Lazarus that will emerge… Who imo is the author of this work…Just another possible take on this one…George Blaisdell

 

LXXJohn 11:35

John 11:35 dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Sun Jun 21 13:08:32 EDT 1998

 

LXX John 11:35 Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:> > We may have at hand a solution to the meaning of EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS in> Jn 11:35 if we take Mk 8:12 to be a formal and material parallel to Jn> 11:35. In Mk 8:12 Jesus also gives vent to strong emotion when put to> the test by those who seek from him an SHMEION APO TOU OURANOU. He> groans deeply in his spirit (ANASTENACAS TWi PNEUMATI AUTOU). As I> argued in an article in JTS, where I examined all of the pre- 100 CE> instances of the use of ANASTENAZW and cognates both with a verb of> speaking as well as absolutely, the significance of this action is to> express not idignation, but distress and dismay, …Nice work, Jeff ~John has this habit of leaving things locked in enigma ~ Almost as ifenigma itself is a part of his teaching, and perhaps is even an ‘entrypoint’ into Christ. Distress and dismay can indeed ‘fit’ thispassage, and the other thing that occurs to me, that has not beenmentioned, is that perhaps Jesus weeps for the loss of the ‘old’Lazarus, and is in effect joining the other mourners, but with aprofoundly different perspective, in that he sees and knows the ‘new’Lazarus that will emerge… Who imo is the author of this work…Just another possible take on this one…George Blaisdell

 

LXXJohn 11:35

John 11:35 dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Sun Jun 21 15:21:21 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 KLAW ARTON – Having a meal? Jonathan Robie wrote:> > At 08:07 PM 6/19/98 -0500, Eric Weiss wrote:> > >Regardless of whether they were tears of anger or sorrow, I> >never did like “burst into tears” – but maybe it conveys> >something different to me than it did when Robertson wrote> >these words decades ago. Is “Jesus wept” the only alternative?> > Started crying?> Broke into tears?I’m with you on this one, Jonathan ~ “Burst into tears” makes me laughout loud, sounding, as it toes, to our current ears cheaplymelodramatic. I like “Jesus wept.” And even more, I like theindefinite English historical present: “Jesus weeps.” He does weep,you know… And I believe this is the first time in John that thisfact is noted, though I could be mistaken. As a response, it followseveryone saying “Come and see,” which interestingly is the same thingJesus said to his first disciples in John in response to their enquiryof where Jesus was remaining, which is the same remaining that causedthe death of Lazarus in the first place…So it all fits together somehow, in John’s childlike and simplisticand enigmatic way of narration, and I have to believe that, whenfinally understood, it will prove profoundly simple, and equally deepbeneath the chatter of our very inadequate intellectual efforts tosound it out.George Blaisdell

 

John 11:35KLAW ARTON – Having a meal?

John 11:35 dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Sun Jun 21 15:21:21 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 KLAW ARTON – Having a meal? Jonathan Robie wrote:> > At 08:07 PM 6/19/98 -0500, Eric Weiss wrote:> > >Regardless of whether they were tears of anger or sorrow, I> >never did like “burst into tears” – but maybe it conveys> >something different to me than it did when Robertson wrote> >these words decades ago. Is “Jesus wept” the only alternative?> > Started crying?> Broke into tears?I’m with you on this one, Jonathan ~ “Burst into tears” makes me laughout loud, sounding, as it toes, to our current ears cheaplymelodramatic. I like “Jesus wept.” And even more, I like theindefinite English historical present: “Jesus weeps.” He does weep,you know… And I believe this is the first time in John that thisfact is noted, though I could be mistaken. As a response, it followseveryone saying “Come and see,” which interestingly is the same thingJesus said to his first disciples in John in response to their enquiryof where Jesus was remaining, which is the same remaining that causedthe death of Lazarus in the first place…So it all fits together somehow, in John’s childlike and simplisticand enigmatic way of narration, and I have to believe that, whenfinally understood, it will prove profoundly simple, and equally deepbeneath the chatter of our very inadequate intellectual efforts tosound it out.George Blaisdell

 

John 11:35KLAW ARTON – Having a meal?

John 11:35 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Mon Jun 22 10:45:36 EDT 1998

 

Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions… John 11:35 At 12:21 PM 6/21/98 -0700, dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:>Jonathan Robie wrote:>> >> At 08:07 PM 6/19/98 -0500, Eric Weiss wrote:>> >> >Regardless of whether they were tears of anger or sorrow, I>> >never did like “burst into tears” – but maybe it conveys>> >something different to me than it did when Robertson wrote>> >these words decades ago. Is “Jesus wept” the only alternative?>> >> Started crying?>> Broke into tears?> >I’m with you on this one, Jonathan ~ “Burst into tears” makes me laugh>out loud, sounding, as it toes, to our current ears cheaply>melodramatic. I like “Jesus wept.” And even more, I like the>indefinite English historical present: “Jesus weeps.” He does weep,>you know… And I believe this is the first time in John that this>fact is noted, though I could be mistaken. As a response, it follows>everyone saying “Come and see,” which interestingly is the same thing>Jesus said to his first disciples in John in response to their enquiry>of where Jesus was remaining, which is the same remaining that caused>the death of Lazarus in the first place…> >So it all fits together somehow, in John’s childlike and simplistic>and enigmatic way of narration, and I have to believe that, when>finally understood, it will prove profoundly simple, and equally deep>beneath the chatter of our very inadequate intellectual efforts to>sound it out.> >George Blaisdell> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>To post a message to the list, mailto: at franklin.oit.unc.edu>To subscribe, mailto:subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>To unsubscribe,mailto:unsubscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu?subject=[jwrobie at mindspring.com]> > jonathan at texcel.noTexcel Researchhttp://www.texcel.no

 

Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions…John 11:35

John 11:35 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Mon Jun 22 10:45:36 EDT 1998

 

Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions… John 11:35 At 12:21 PM 6/21/98 -0700, dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:>Jonathan Robie wrote:>> >> At 08:07 PM 6/19/98 -0500, Eric Weiss wrote:>> >> >Regardless of whether they were tears of anger or sorrow, I>> >never did like “burst into tears” – but maybe it conveys>> >something different to me than it did when Robertson wrote>> >these words decades ago. Is “Jesus wept” the only alternative?>> >> Started crying?>> Broke into tears?> >I’m with you on this one, Jonathan ~ “Burst into tears” makes me laugh>out loud, sounding, as it toes, to our current ears cheaply>melodramatic. I like “Jesus wept.” And even more, I like the>indefinite English historical present: “Jesus weeps.” He does weep,>you know… And I believe this is the first time in John that this>fact is noted, though I could be mistaken. As a response, it follows>everyone saying “Come and see,” which interestingly is the same thing>Jesus said to his first disciples in John in response to their enquiry>of where Jesus was remaining, which is the same remaining that caused>the death of Lazarus in the first place…> >So it all fits together somehow, in John’s childlike and simplistic>and enigmatic way of narration, and I have to believe that, when>finally understood, it will prove profoundly simple, and equally deep>beneath the chatter of our very inadequate intellectual efforts to>sound it out.> >George Blaisdell> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>To post a message to the list, mailto: at franklin.oit.unc.edu>To subscribe, mailto:subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>To unsubscribe,mailto:unsubscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu?subject=[jwrobie at mindspring.com]> > jonathan at texcel.noTexcel Researchhttp://www.texcel.no

 

Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions…John 11:35

John 11:35 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Mon Jun 22 10:56:15 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 At 12:21 PM 6/21/98 -0700, dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:>Jonathan Robie wrote:>> >> At 08:07 PM 6/19/98 -0500, Eric Weiss wrote:>> >> >Regardless of whether they were tears of anger or sorrow, I>> >never did like “burst into tears” – but maybe it conveys>> >something different to me than it did when Robertson wrote>> >these words decades ago. Is “Jesus wept” the only alternative?>> >> Started crying?>> Broke into tears?> >I’m with you on this one, Jonathan ~ “Burst into tears” makes me laugh>out loud, sounding, as it toes, to our current ears cheaply>melodramatic. I like “Jesus wept.” The point Eric was making was that this could be seen as an inceptiveaorist, that Jesus started crying. “Jesus wept” does not convey that to me.”Started crying” conveys the inceptive aorist without the melodrama of”burst into tears”.>And even more, I like the>indefinite English historical present: “Jesus weeps.” He does weep,>you know… And I believe this is the first time in John that this>fact is noted, though I could be mistaken. Frankly, I find this really odd. The only way I could see “Jesus weeps”would be if this were a gnomic aorist, but it isn’t – it refers to aspecific occasion, to the response of Jesus upon hearing that Lazarus diedand seeing Mary and the Jews weeping.I like “started crying”, with the inceptive sense, but “Jesus wept” alsomakes sense, if this is merely reporting a past event.Jonathan ___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Mon Jun 22 11:56:55 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 LXX Jonathan Robie wrote:> The point Eric was making was that this could be seen as an inceptive> aorist, that Jesus started crying. “Jesus wept” does not convey that to me.> “Started crying” conveys the inceptive aorist without the melodrama of> “burst into tears”.> > >And even more, I like the> >indefinite English historical present: “Jesus weeps.” He does weep,> >you know… And I believe this is the first time in John that this> >fact is noted, though I could be mistaken.> > Frankly, I find this really odd. The only way I could see “Jesus weeps”> would be if this were a gnomic aorist, but it isn’t – it refers to a> specific occasion, to the response of Jesus upon hearing that Lazarus died> and seeing Mary and the Jews weeping.> > I like “started crying”, with the inceptive sense, but “Jesus wept” also> makes sense, if this is merely reporting a past event.If you were to translate this sentence as, say, “Jesus started tocry”, or “Jesus started crying”, then its sense would lock up into theinception only of the event. The aorist, inceptive or not, denotesthe whole of the event, and thus makes the inceptive translationtricky. This is why I like the indefinite “weeps”, which brings thehistorical fact that he wept into a mentally present event, by meansof bridging the gap between “Jesus wept” and “Jesus is weeping.” Thelatter, of course, would be the dramatic historical present, whereasthe former would be, as you noted, a simple past tense of historicalinterest only ~ Incidental in its import, which is not the case.Now while the inception of an action is built in to the aorist’tense’, I am not so sure that ATR is correct in his view that theinception of weeping is the focus here. I much prefer the enigmaticquality of “Jesus weeps,” [as a translator], and would rather leave tothe reader the prayerful joy of discovering the meaning.One additional note, that makes this so very enigmatic: Contrary toyour comment above, Jusus already knows Lazarus is dead, and hasalready seen everyone weeping. He weeps only when they say to him”Come and see.”Go figure!!George******************************************Lisa Messmer………………ICQ# 5666415George Blaisdell dalmatia at eburg.comHave you seen Dulcie? Look for her Heart!http://www.eburg.com/~dalmatia/dulcie.htmlLast Chance for Animals…Fight Pet Theft!http://www.lcanimal.org

 

John 11:35LXX

John 11:35 dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Mon Jun 22 11:56:55 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 LXX Jonathan Robie wrote:> The point Eric was making was that this could be seen as an inceptive> aorist, that Jesus started crying. “Jesus wept” does not convey that to me.> “Started crying” conveys the inceptive aorist without the melodrama of> “burst into tears”.> > >And even more, I like the> >indefinite English historical present: “Jesus weeps.” He does weep,> >you know… And I believe this is the first time in John that this> >fact is noted, though I could be mistaken.> > Frankly, I find this really odd. The only way I could see “Jesus weeps”> would be if this were a gnomic aorist, but it isn’t – it refers to a> specific occasion, to the response of Jesus upon hearing that Lazarus died> and seeing Mary and the Jews weeping.> > I like “started crying”, with the inceptive sense, but “Jesus wept” also> makes sense, if this is merely reporting a past event.If you were to translate this sentence as, say, “Jesus started tocry”, or “Jesus started crying”, then its sense would lock up into theinception only of the event. The aorist, inceptive or not, denotesthe whole of the event, and thus makes the inceptive translationtricky. This is why I like the indefinite “weeps”, which brings thehistorical fact that he wept into a mentally present event, by meansof bridging the gap between “Jesus wept” and “Jesus is weeping.” Thelatter, of course, would be the dramatic historical present, whereasthe former would be, as you noted, a simple past tense of historicalinterest only ~ Incidental in its import, which is not the case.Now while the inception of an action is built in to the aorist’tense’, I am not so sure that ATR is correct in his view that theinception of weeping is the focus here. I much prefer the enigmaticquality of “Jesus weeps,” [as a translator], and would rather leave tothe reader the prayerful joy of discovering the meaning.One additional note, that makes this so very enigmatic: Contrary toyour comment above, Jusus already knows Lazarus is dead, and hasalready seen everyone weeping. He weeps only when they say to him”Come and see.”Go figure!!George******************************************Lisa Messmer………………ICQ# 5666415George Blaisdell dalmatia at eburg.comHave you seen Dulcie? Look for her Heart!http://www.eburg.com/~dalmatia/dulcie.htmlLast Chance for Animals…Fight Pet Theft!http://www.lcanimal.org

 

John 11:35LXX

John 11:35 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Mon Jun 22 10:56:15 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 At 12:21 PM 6/21/98 -0700, dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:>Jonathan Robie wrote:>> >> At 08:07 PM 6/19/98 -0500, Eric Weiss wrote:>> >> >Regardless of whether they were tears of anger or sorrow, I>> >never did like “burst into tears” – but maybe it conveys>> >something different to me than it did when Robertson wrote>> >these words decades ago. Is “Jesus wept” the only alternative?>> >> Started crying?>> Broke into tears?> >I’m with you on this one, Jonathan ~ “Burst into tears” makes me laugh>out loud, sounding, as it toes, to our current ears cheaply>melodramatic. I like “Jesus wept.” The point Eric was making was that this could be seen as an inceptiveaorist, that Jesus started crying. “Jesus wept” does not convey that to me.”Started crying” conveys the inceptive aorist without the melodrama of”burst into tears”.>And even more, I like the>indefinite English historical present: “Jesus weeps.” He does weep,>you know… And I believe this is the first time in John that this>fact is noted, though I could be mistaken. Frankly, I find this really odd. The only way I could see “Jesus weeps”would be if this were a gnomic aorist, but it isn’t – it refers to aspecific occasion, to the response of Jesus upon hearing that Lazarus diedand seeing Mary and the Jews weeping.I like “started crying”, with the inceptive sense, but “Jesus wept” alsomakes sense, if this is merely reporting a past event.Jonathan ___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Mon Jun 22 12:26:22 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 2573 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19980622/7113ad88/attachment.bin

 

John 11:35John 11:35
John 11:35 David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Mon Jun 22 12:02:10 EDT 1998

 

LXX John 11:35 At 10:08 AM 6/21/98 -0700, George Blaisdell wrote:>Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:>> >> We may have at hand a solution to the meaning of EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS in>> Jn 11:35 if we take Mk 8:12 to be a formal and material parallel to Jn>> 11:35. In Mk 8:12 Jesus also gives vent to strong emotion when put to>> the test by those who seek from him an SHMEION APO TOU OURANOU. He>> groans deeply in his spirit (ANASTENACAS TWi PNEUMATI AUTOU). As I>> argued in an article in JTS, where I examined all of the pre- 100 CE>> instances of the use of ANASTENAZW and cognates both with a verb of>> speaking as well as absolutely, the significance of this action is to>> express not idignation, but distress and dismay, …> >Nice work, Jeff ~> >John has this habit of leaving things locked in enigma ~ Almost as if>enigma itself is a part of his teaching, and perhaps is even an ‘entry>point’ into Christ. Distress and dismay can indeed ‘fit’ this>passage, and the other thing that occurs to me, that has not been>mentioned, is that perhaps Jesus weeps for the loss of the ‘old’>Lazarus, and is in effect joining the other mourners, but with a>profoundly different perspective, in that he sees and knows the ‘new’>Lazarus that will emerge… Who imo is the author of this work…> >Just another possible take on this one…For those of us who take this incident as historically real, John may havebeen simply reporting a detail of what took place that day. That itremains something of an enigma should not surprise us. Jesus was oftenenigmatic even to his closest disciples. Having said that, let me venture a guess as to its meaning along withothers who have done so. Since Jesus’ weeping follows the exchange, “Wherehave you laid him?” and the mourners answered “come and see,” I tend tothink His weeping had to do with an emotionally flooding experience of thehuman condition in the face of death of a loved one — a sudden experienceof how impotent mortals are against this powerful enemy whom Jesus had cometo conquer and finally to destroy.David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

LXXJohn 11:35

John 11:35 David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Mon Jun 22 12:02:10 EDT 1998

 

LXX John 11:35 At 10:08 AM 6/21/98 -0700, George Blaisdell wrote:>Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:>> >> We may have at hand a solution to the meaning of EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS in>> Jn 11:35 if we take Mk 8:12 to be a formal and material parallel to Jn>> 11:35. In Mk 8:12 Jesus also gives vent to strong emotion when put to>> the test by those who seek from him an SHMEION APO TOU OURANOU. He>> groans deeply in his spirit (ANASTENACAS TWi PNEUMATI AUTOU). As I>> argued in an article in JTS, where I examined all of the pre- 100 CE>> instances of the use of ANASTENAZW and cognates both with a verb of>> speaking as well as absolutely, the significance of this action is to>> express not idignation, but distress and dismay, …> >Nice work, Jeff ~> >John has this habit of leaving things locked in enigma ~ Almost as if>enigma itself is a part of his teaching, and perhaps is even an ‘entry>point’ into Christ. Distress and dismay can indeed ‘fit’ this>passage, and the other thing that occurs to me, that has not been>mentioned, is that perhaps Jesus weeps for the loss of the ‘old’>Lazarus, and is in effect joining the other mourners, but with a>profoundly different perspective, in that he sees and knows the ‘new’>Lazarus that will emerge… Who imo is the author of this work…> >Just another possible take on this one…For those of us who take this incident as historically real, John may havebeen simply reporting a detail of what took place that day. That itremains something of an enigma should not surprise us. Jesus was oftenenigmatic even to his closest disciples. Having said that, let me venture a guess as to its meaning along withothers who have done so. Since Jesus’ weeping follows the exchange, “Wherehave you laid him?” and the mourners answered “come and see,” I tend tothink His weeping had to do with an emotionally flooding experience of thehuman condition in the face of death of a loved one — a sudden experienceof how impotent mortals are against this powerful enemy whom Jesus had cometo conquer and finally to destroy.David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

LXXJohn 11:35

John 11:35 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Mon Jun 22 12:26:22 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 2573 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19980622/7113ad88/attachment.bin

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Mon Jun 22 12:26:24 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 David L. Moore wrote:>… let me venture a guess as to its meaning along with> others who have done so. Since Jesus’ weeping follows the exchange, “Where> have you laid him?” and the mourners answered “come and see,” I tend to> think His weeping had to do with an emotionally flooding experience of the> human condition in the face of death of a loved one — a sudden experience> of how impotent mortals are against this powerful enemy whom Jesus had come> to conquer and finally to destroy.AMHN to that, David ~And I sometimes really wonder, given all the ‘possibles’ that flowforth as each of us grapples with these three little words, if wemight be better served, in our understanding of Jesus’ weeping here,by not setting up in our understanding the idea that it must be onlyone or another motive that is operating. Surely, if you are correct,[And I think you are], that Jesus is weeping for the human condition,then all of us are correct in understanding him, each from theperspective of the particular window of the human condition that weare…George– ******************************************Lisa Messmer………………ICQ# 5666415George Blaisdell dalmatia at eburg.comHave you seen Dulcie? Look for her Heart!http://www.eburg.com/~dalmatia/dulcie.htmlLast Chance for Animals…Fight Pet Theft!http://www.lcanimal.org

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Mon Jun 22 12:26:24 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 David L. Moore wrote:>… let me venture a guess as to its meaning along with> others who have done so. Since Jesus’ weeping follows the exchange, “Where> have you laid him?” and the mourners answered “come and see,” I tend to> think His weeping had to do with an emotionally flooding experience of the> human condition in the face of death of a loved one — a sudden experience> of how impotent mortals are against this powerful enemy whom Jesus had come> to conquer and finally to destroy.AMHN to that, David ~And I sometimes really wonder, given all the ‘possibles’ that flowforth as each of us grapples with these three little words, if wemight be better served, in our understanding of Jesus’ weeping here,by not setting up in our understanding the idea that it must be onlyone or another motive that is operating. Surely, if you are correct,[And I think you are], that Jesus is weeping for the human condition,then all of us are correct in understanding him, each from theperspective of the particular window of the human condition that weare…George– ******************************************Lisa Messmer………………ICQ# 5666415George Blaisdell dalmatia at eburg.comHave you seen Dulcie? Look for her Heart!http://www.eburg.com/~dalmatia/dulcie.htmlLast Chance for Animals…Fight Pet Theft!http://www.lcanimal.org

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 22 12:44:10 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35, You’ll see —dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:> And I sometimes really wonder, given all the ‘possibles’ that flow> forth as each of us grapples with these three little words, if we> might be better served, in our understanding of Jesus’ weeping here,> by not setting up in our understanding the idea that it must be only> one or another motive that is operating. Surely, if you are correct,> [And I think you are], that Jesus is weeping for the human condition,> then all of us are correct in understanding him, each from the> perspective of the particular window of the human condition that we> are…Exegete Gerald Borchert has warned about the reader of John’s Gospeltrying to psychoanalyze Jesus. That being said, I think we can onlyknow possibilities about why Jesus wept. The compassionate, empatheticcry seems plausible; but the context and the words used by John MAYmilitate against such an understanding. Luther understood the Greek ofJohn 11:33ff to delineate the anger of Jesus. English commentatorshave generally taken a different view. Be that as it may, the NWThandles the aorist in John 11:35 as “Jesus gave way to tears.” I thinkthis is a good solution to the problem of translating the aorist inthis verse.Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne College_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

 

John 11:35John 11:35, You’ll see

John 11:35, You’ll see John M. Moe John.M.Moe-1 at tc.umn.edu
Mon Jun 22 13:29:20 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:> SNIP> As a response, it follows> everyone saying “Come and see,” which interestingly is the same thing> Jesus said to his first disciples in John in response to their enquiry> of where Jesus was remaining, which is the same remaining that caused> the death of Lazarus in the first place…> SNIPJust couldn’t let this one pass. In the incident to which your refer, John 1:39, Jesus says ERXESQEKAI OYESQE. Note, OYESQE is future indicative, not imperative. Now, I know that the futureindicative sometimes is used with volitive force, but here I think we have and invitation in theimperative, ERXESQE, followed by a promise in the indicative OYESQE. “Come and you’ll see”contrasted to the challenge issued to the skeptical Nathaniel a few verses latter, ERXOU KAI IDE.I think there is a contrast, not a parallel, between the ERXOU KAI IDE of John 11:34 and the ERXESQEKAI OYESQE to the two disciples of John at John 1:39. –Rev. John M. MoeSt. John’s Lutheran Church, Rich Valleyhttp://www.state.net/sjrv/

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35, You’ll see John M. Moe John.M.Moe-1 at tc.umn.edu
Mon Jun 22 13:29:20 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:> SNIP> As a response, it follows> everyone saying “Come and see,” which interestingly is the same thing> Jesus said to his first disciples in John in response to their enquiry> of where Jesus was remaining, which is the same remaining that caused> the death of Lazarus in the first place…> SNIPJust couldn’t let this one pass. In the incident to which your refer, John 1:39, Jesus says ERXESQEKAI OYESQE. Note, OYESQE is future indicative, not imperative. Now, I know that the futureindicative sometimes is used with volitive force, but here I think we have and invitation in theimperative, ERXESQE, followed by a promise in the indicative OYESQE. “Come and you’ll see”contrasted to the challenge issued to the skeptical Nathaniel a few verses latter, ERXOU KAI IDE.I think there is a contrast, not a parallel, between the ERXOU KAI IDE of John 11:34 and the ERXESQEKAI OYESQE to the two disciples of John at John 1:39. –Rev. John M. MoeSt. John’s Lutheran Church, Rich Valleyhttp://www.state.net/sjrv/

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 22 12:44:10 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35, You’ll see —dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:> And I sometimes really wonder, given all the ‘possibles’ that flow> forth as each of us grapples with these three little words, if we> might be better served, in our understanding of Jesus’ weeping here,> by not setting up in our understanding the idea that it must be only> one or another motive that is operating. Surely, if you are correct,> [And I think you are], that Jesus is weeping for the human condition,> then all of us are correct in understanding him, each from the> perspective of the particular window of the human condition that we> are…Exegete Gerald Borchert has warned about the reader of John’s Gospeltrying to psychoanalyze Jesus. That being said, I think we can onlyknow possibilities about why Jesus wept. The compassionate, empatheticcry seems plausible; but the context and the words used by John MAYmilitate against such an understanding. Luther understood the Greek ofJohn 11:33ff to delineate the anger of Jesus. English commentatorshave generally taken a different view. Be that as it may, the NWThandles the aorist in John 11:35 as “Jesus gave way to tears.” I thinkthis is a good solution to the problem of translating the aorist inthis verse.Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne College_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

 

John 11:35John 11:35, You’ll see

John 11:35 Donald W Price gman39 at juno.com
Mon Jun 22 14:01:24 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 _____________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Mon Jun 22 13:30:16 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35, You’ll see John 11:35 Jonathan Robie wrote:> > At 08:56 AM 6/22/98 -0700, dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:> > >If you were to translate this sentence as, say, “Jesus started to> >cry”, or “Jesus started crying”, then its sense would lock up into the> >inception only of the event. The aorist, inceptive or not, denotes> >the whole of the event, and thus makes the inceptive translation> >tricky.> > This is the way inceptive aorists are generally translated. Dear Jonathan ~I really think our difficulty is with the English.Wateh:> Consider the following examples, > > Matt 9:27 *HKOLOUQHSAN* AUTWi DUW TUFLOI> two blind men *began to follow* himWhen I read “Two blind men follow Him,” I do not ‘see’ two blind menfollowing Him. Instead I ‘see’ the fact of their following Him as aconceptual whole that is now in existence. [non-progressive]> Matt 22:7 hO BASILEUS *WRGISQH*> now the king *became angry*When I read “The king angers,” I ‘see’ the fact of the anger of theking, now established as an event, in virtue of the aorist. It doescarry inceptive power in the course of this narrative. [Carl tells methat I am re-inventing English!! I would rejoin that I amre-discovering it…]> As I understand it, the inceptive aorist treats the entry *into* the state as the event, which is seen “from the outside”, “as a whole”, or whatever your favorite description of aorist is. In particular, the endpoint is not in view – it does not portray the time that the blind men stopped following him, that the king stopped being angry, that the man was no longer better, that Jesus stopped being poor or we stopped being rich, or that the saints were no longer alive. In fact, many of these events will never stop.> > >This is why I like the indefinite “weeps”, which brings the> >historical fact that he wept into a mentally present event, by means> >of bridging the gap between “Jesus wept” and “Jesus is weeping.”> > But this is precisely the point – the aorist does not have imperfective aspect, Nor am I giving it imperfective aspect ~ Indefinite perhaps, but notimperfective.> it does not portray it as a mentally present event.By bridging the gap between an historical fact and the reader’spresent, the aorist does indeed give a mentally present sense to thenarrative that is not the same as the vivid and dramatic historicalpresent with which we are all very familiar. By simply stating thefact of an action as existent, it places the reader-listener into theaction in an indefinite present that can have occurred at any time,but in historical narrative has occurred in the past. I would arguethat it does indeed give ‘mental presence’ to ‘historical fact’.> That’s what the imperfect or the present do. Both the traditional grammars and the modern grammars generally > agree on this.I do too…We should probably take this off list to our ongoing privatediscussion with Carl and Rob ~ Anyone interested can post me privatelyand I will include you on the mailing list for these aoristexplorations and discussions.That way, we can save a lot of wear and tear on most member’s Deletekey!! :-)George Blaisdell

 

John 11:35, You’ll seeJohn 11:35

John 11:35 Donald W Price gman39 at juno.com
Mon Jun 22 14:01:24 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 _____________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Mon Jun 22 13:30:16 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35, You’ll see John 11:35 Jonathan Robie wrote:> > At 08:56 AM 6/22/98 -0700, dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:> > >If you were to translate this sentence as, say, “Jesus started to> >cry”, or “Jesus started crying”, then its sense would lock up into the> >inception only of the event. The aorist, inceptive or not, denotes> >the whole of the event, and thus makes the inceptive translation> >tricky.> > This is the way inceptive aorists are generally translated. Dear Jonathan ~I really think our difficulty is with the English.Wateh:> Consider the following examples, > > Matt 9:27 *HKOLOUQHSAN* AUTWi DUW TUFLOI> two blind men *began to follow* himWhen I read “Two blind men follow Him,” I do not ‘see’ two blind menfollowing Him. Instead I ‘see’ the fact of their following Him as aconceptual whole that is now in existence. [non-progressive]> Matt 22:7 hO BASILEUS *WRGISQH*> now the king *became angry*When I read “The king angers,” I ‘see’ the fact of the anger of theking, now established as an event, in virtue of the aorist. It doescarry inceptive power in the course of this narrative. [Carl tells methat I am re-inventing English!! I would rejoin that I amre-discovering it…]> As I understand it, the inceptive aorist treats the entry *into* the state as the event, which is seen “from the outside”, “as a whole”, or whatever your favorite description of aorist is. In particular, the endpoint is not in view – it does not portray the time that the blind men stopped following him, that the king stopped being angry, that the man was no longer better, that Jesus stopped being poor or we stopped being rich, or that the saints were no longer alive. In fact, many of these events will never stop.> > >This is why I like the indefinite “weeps”, which brings the> >historical fact that he wept into a mentally present event, by means> >of bridging the gap between “Jesus wept” and “Jesus is weeping.”> > But this is precisely the point – the aorist does not have imperfective aspect, Nor am I giving it imperfective aspect ~ Indefinite perhaps, but notimperfective.> it does not portray it as a mentally present event.By bridging the gap between an historical fact and the reader’spresent, the aorist does indeed give a mentally present sense to thenarrative that is not the same as the vivid and dramatic historicalpresent with which we are all very familiar. By simply stating thefact of an action as existent, it places the reader-listener into theaction in an indefinite present that can have occurred at any time,but in historical narrative has occurred in the past. I would arguethat it does indeed give ‘mental presence’ to ‘historical fact’.> That’s what the imperfect or the present do. Both the traditional grammars and the modern grammars generally > agree on this.I do too…We should probably take this off list to our ongoing privatediscussion with Carl and Rob ~ Anyone interested can post me privatelyand I will include you on the mailing list for these aoristexplorations and discussions.That way, we can save a lot of wear and tear on most member’s Deletekey!! :-)George Blaisdell

 

John 11:35, You’ll seeJohn 11:35

John 11:35 David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Mon Jun 22 14:06:26 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 At 09:26 AM 6/22/98 -0700, you wrote:>David L. Moore wrote:>>… let me venture a guess as to its meaning along with>> others who have done so. Since Jesus’ weeping follows the exchange, “Where>> have you laid him?” and the mourners answered “come and see,” I tend to>> think His weeping had to do with an emotionally flooding experience of the>> human condition in the face of death of a loved one — a sudden experience>> of how impotent mortals are against this powerful enemy whom Jesus had come>> to conquer and finally to destroy.> >AMHN to that, David ~> >And I sometimes really wonder, given all the ‘possibles’ that flow>forth as each of us grapples with these three little words, if we>might be better served, in our understanding of Jesus’ weeping here,>by not setting up in our understanding the idea that it must be only>one or another motive that is operating. Surely, if you are correct,>[And I think you are], that Jesus is weeping for the human condition,>then all of us are correct in understanding him, each from the>perspective of the particular window of the human condition that we>are…Yes, I believe He experienced our pain, but I would balk at saying that itis legitimate to indiscriminately project on Him our own concerns. Thecomment by some who were present, “See how he loved him,” obviously missesthe mark, since Jesus had come to raise Lazarus up to life.David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 Eric Weiss eweiss at gte.net
Mon Jun 22 14:05:14 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 Jonathan Robie wrote:> The point Eric was making was that this could be seen as an inceptive> aorist, that Jesus started crying. “Jesus wept” does not convey that to me.> “Started crying” conveys the inceptive aorist without the melodrama of> “burst into tears”.A.T. Robertson views this as an “inceptive” or “ingressive” aorist. I’m not so sure if it’sthat inceptive or just the plain historical aorist.> >And even more, I like the> >indefinite English historical present: “Jesus weeps.” He does weep,> >you know… And I believe this is the first time in John that this> >fact is noted, though I could be mistaken.> > Frankly, I find this really odd. The only way I could see “Jesus weeps”> would be if this were a gnomic aorist, but it isn’t – it refers to a> specific occasion, to the response of Jesus upon hearing that Lazarus died> and seeing Mary and the Jews weeping.FWIW, I agree with Jonathan.> I like “started crying”, with the inceptive sense, but “Jesus wept” also> makes sense, if this is merely reporting a past event.“Started crying” sounds to me like a translation of an inceptive imperfect.Since the act of crying/shedding tears is not a one-tear deal, but a process, I guess theaorist tense can be used without implying that it was a sudden or an over-in-an-instant act.I suppose “Jesus wept” may be the best translation. “Burst into tears” sounds toomelodramatic to me, too, which is why I didn’t like it to begin with.–“Eric S. Weiss”eweiss at gte.nethttp://home1.gte.net/eweiss/index.htmS.D.G.

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Mon Jun 22 14:06:26 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 At 09:26 AM 6/22/98 -0700, you wrote:>David L. Moore wrote:>>… let me venture a guess as to its meaning along with>> others who have done so. Since Jesus’ weeping follows the exchange, “Where>> have you laid him?” and the mourners answered “come and see,” I tend to>> think His weeping had to do with an emotionally flooding experience of the>> human condition in the face of death of a loved one — a sudden experience>> of how impotent mortals are against this powerful enemy whom Jesus had come>> to conquer and finally to destroy.> >AMHN to that, David ~> >And I sometimes really wonder, given all the ‘possibles’ that flow>forth as each of us grapples with these three little words, if we>might be better served, in our understanding of Jesus’ weeping here,>by not setting up in our understanding the idea that it must be only>one or another motive that is operating. Surely, if you are correct,>[And I think you are], that Jesus is weeping for the human condition,>then all of us are correct in understanding him, each from the>perspective of the particular window of the human condition that we>are…Yes, I believe He experienced our pain, but I would balk at saying that itis legitimate to indiscriminately project on Him our own concerns. Thecomment by some who were present, “See how he loved him,” obviously missesthe mark, since Jesus had come to raise Lazarus up to life.David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 Eric Weiss eweiss at gte.net
Mon Jun 22 14:05:14 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 John 11:35 Jonathan Robie wrote:> The point Eric was making was that this could be seen as an inceptive> aorist, that Jesus started crying. “Jesus wept” does not convey that to me.> “Started crying” conveys the inceptive aorist without the melodrama of> “burst into tears”.A.T. Robertson views this as an “inceptive” or “ingressive” aorist. I’m not so sure if it’sthat inceptive or just the plain historical aorist.> >And even more, I like the> >indefinite English historical present: “Jesus weeps.” He does weep,> >you know… And I believe this is the first time in John that this> >fact is noted, though I could be mistaken.> > Frankly, I find this really odd. The only way I could see “Jesus weeps”> would be if this were a gnomic aorist, but it isn’t – it refers to a> specific occasion, to the response of Jesus upon hearing that Lazarus died> and seeing Mary and the Jews weeping.FWIW, I agree with Jonathan.> I like “started crying”, with the inceptive sense, but “Jesus wept” also> makes sense, if this is merely reporting a past event.“Started crying” sounds to me like a translation of an inceptive imperfect.Since the act of crying/shedding tears is not a one-tear deal, but a process, I guess theaorist tense can be used without implying that it was a sudden or an over-in-an-instant act.I suppose “Jesus wept” may be the best translation. “Burst into tears” sounds toomelodramatic to me, too, which is why I didn’t like it to begin with.–“Eric S. Weiss”eweiss at gte.nethttp://home1.gte.net/eweiss/index.htmS.D.G.

 

John 11:35John 11:35

John 11:35 Eric Weiss eweiss at gte.net
Mon Jun 22 14:08:51 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped? David L. Moore wrote:> At 10:08 AM 6/21/98 -0700, George Blaisdell wrote:> >Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:> >>> >> We may have at hand a solution to the meaning of EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS in> >> Jn 11:35 —I think I now know why Jesus wept. He was thinking about all the messages that wouldgo back and forth trying to explain this simple act!”Eric S. Weiss”eweiss at gte.nethttp://home1.gte.net/eweiss/index.htmS.D.G.

 

John 11:35Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped?

John 11:35 Eric Weiss eweiss at gte.net
Mon Jun 22 14:08:51 EDT 1998

 

John 11:35 Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped? David L. Moore wrote:> At 10:08 AM 6/21/98 -0700, George Blaisdell wrote:> >Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:> >>> >> We may have at hand a solution to the meaning of EDAKRUSEN hO IHSOUS in> >> Jn 11:35 —I think I now know why Jesus wept. He was thinking about all the messages that wouldgo back and forth trying to explain this simple act!”Eric S. Weiss”eweiss at gte.nethttp://home1.gte.net/eweiss/index.htmS.D.G.

 

John 11:35Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped?
John 11:35 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jun 22 16:10:24 EDT 1998

 

Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped? KLAW ARTON – Having a meal? This thread has become terribly bogged down in subjectivity, and I thinkthe reason for it has something to do with the way the question was firstput: not as a question about what the Greek text means but rather as aninterpretative questions about what everyone agrees the Greek text means.While I really don’t want to call a premature halt to the thread, unlesssomeone has something NEW to say that is actually based upon the Greek textof the verse or its context, I don’t see why the thread is worthcontinuing. I would urge that we stick to issues in which the Greek text isdeterminative of what we have to say to each other.Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped?KLAW ARTON – Having a meal?

John 11:35 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jun 22 16:10:24 EDT 1998

 

Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped? KLAW ARTON – Having a meal? This thread has become terribly bogged down in subjectivity, and I thinkthe reason for it has something to do with the way the question was firstput: not as a question about what the Greek text means but rather as aninterpretative questions about what everyone agrees the Greek text means.While I really don’t want to call a premature halt to the thread, unlesssomeone has something NEW to say that is actually based upon the Greek textof the verse or its context, I don’t see why the thread is worthcontinuing. I would urge that we stick to issues in which the Greek text isdeterminative of what we have to say to each other.Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Does the NT contain evident that Jesus was worshipped?KLAW ARTON – Having a meal?

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>