1 John 1:4

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 Robert R. Monti robemon at regent.edu
Fri Jul 2 00:57:33 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Right now I’m working my way through I John to keep up my Greek translationwork up on my own. I’d like some input on I John ch. 1, v. 4:KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMAIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN hH PEPLHRWMENH.Concerning hH PEPLHRWMENH, I made the following note:hH PEPLHRWMENH is the periphrastic construction (perfect participleand presentsubjunctive form of EIMI). It emphasizes a state of existence. ForJohn, the completedprocess of writing about the manifested eternal life which theapostles had seen, heardtouched is meant to achieve a durative state in both John and hisintended audience –“that our joy might be completed.”Comments would be appreciated — either on- or off-list is fine. I wouldalso appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strengthto a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOUAUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.Thanks!_________________________________________________________Robert R. MontiM. Div. candidateRegent University School of DivinityVirginia Beach, VArobemon at regent.eduhttp://home.regent.edu/robemon

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48][Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 Robert R. Monti robemon at regent.edu
Fri Jul 2 00:57:33 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Right now I’m working my way through I John to keep up my Greek translationwork up on my own. I’d like some input on I John ch. 1, v. 4:KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMAIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN hH PEPLHRWMENH.Concerning hH PEPLHRWMENH, I made the following note:hH PEPLHRWMENH is the periphrastic construction (perfect participleand presentsubjunctive form of EIMI). It emphasizes a state of existence. ForJohn, the completedprocess of writing about the manifested eternal life which theapostles had seen, heardtouched is meant to achieve a durative state in both John and hisintended audience –“that our joy might be completed.”Comments would be appreciated — either on- or off-list is fine. I wouldalso appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strengthto a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOUAUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.Thanks!_________________________________________________________Robert R. MontiM. Div. candidateRegent University School of DivinityVirginia Beach, VArobemon at regent.eduhttp://home.regent.edu/robemon

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48][Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 Carl Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 2 07:44:58 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:> Right now I’m working my way through I John to keep up my Greek translation> work up on my own. I’d like some input on I John ch. 1, v. 4:> > KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMAIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN hH PEPLHRWMENH.There’s a major transliteration error here that I’m going to correct each time I see it, beginning with transcription of the verse in question. KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMEIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN Hi PLHRWMENH.> Concerning Hi PEPLHRWMENH, I made the following note:> > Hi PEPLHRWMENH is the periphrastic construction (perfect participle> and present> subjunctive form of EIMI). It emphasizes a state of existence. For> John, the completed> process of writing about the manifested eternal life which the> apostles had seen, heard> touched is meant to achieve a durative state in both John and his> intended audience —> “that our joy might be completed.”I think that, in considering this verse, one must be aware that Hi PEPLHRWMENH need NOT be considered a periphrastic construction, although it COULD be. An alternative reading might be to read the Hi as present subjunctive and PEPLHRWMENH as a predicate adjective in the sense “complete.” And I really think that this is probably the easier way to read it.However, we might ask whether this is ultimately another way of saying the same thing, especially as there is no NON-periphrastic form of the perfect passive subjunctive. In either case, I think that the emphasis in the perfect passive partaiciple PEPLHRWMENH is on an achieved state rather than on the achievement of the state: i.e., it’s not a matter of EFFECTING the completion that is emphasized by use of this verb form (as it seems to me you are reading it when you write, “that our joy may be completed”–that idea would better be expressed, I think, with an aorist passive subjunctive, e.g. hINA hH CARA hHMWN PLHRWQHi); rather it’s a matter of the present status of the joy as fully effective–as a fait accompli, so to speak. This is why I say that PEPLHRWMENH might almost as well be viewed as a predicate adjective and the whole clause might almost as well be written hINA hH CARA hHMWN Hi PLHRHS. And I think that the common translations of the clause are right: “that our joy may be COMPLETE”–rather than “COMPLETED.”> Comments would be appreciated — either on- or off-list is fine. I would> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one; to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.”But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing, whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through.

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48][Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 Carl Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 2 07:44:58 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:> Right now I’m working my way through I John to keep up my Greek translation> work up on my own. I’d like some input on I John ch. 1, v. 4:> > KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMAIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN hH PEPLHRWMENH.There’s a major transliteration error here that I’m going to correct each time I see it, beginning with transcription of the verse in question. KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMEIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN Hi PLHRWMENH.> Concerning Hi PEPLHRWMENH, I made the following note:> > Hi PEPLHRWMENH is the periphrastic construction (perfect participle> and present> subjunctive form of EIMI). It emphasizes a state of existence. For> John, the completed> process of writing about the manifested eternal life which the> apostles had seen, heard> touched is meant to achieve a durative state in both John and his> intended audience —> “that our joy might be completed.”I think that, in considering this verse, one must be aware that Hi PEPLHRWMENH need NOT be considered a periphrastic construction, although it COULD be. An alternative reading might be to read the Hi as present subjunctive and PEPLHRWMENH as a predicate adjective in the sense “complete.” And I really think that this is probably the easier way to read it.However, we might ask whether this is ultimately another way of saying the same thing, especially as there is no NON-periphrastic form of the perfect passive subjunctive. In either case, I think that the emphasis in the perfect passive partaiciple PEPLHRWMENH is on an achieved state rather than on the achievement of the state: i.e., it’s not a matter of EFFECTING the completion that is emphasized by use of this verb form (as it seems to me you are reading it when you write, “that our joy may be completed”–that idea would better be expressed, I think, with an aorist passive subjunctive, e.g. hINA hH CARA hHMWN PLHRWQHi); rather it’s a matter of the present status of the joy as fully effective–as a fait accompli, so to speak. This is why I say that PEPLHRWMENH might almost as well be viewed as a predicate adjective and the whole clause might almost as well be written hINA hH CARA hHMWN Hi PLHRHS. And I think that the common translations of the clause are right: “that our joy may be COMPLETE”–rather than “COMPLETED.”> Comments would be appreciated — either on- or off-list is fine. I would> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one; to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.”But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing, whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through.

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48][Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

DE in I John 1:3 (was Re: Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4) Mike Sangrey mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us
Fri Jul 2 15:15:29 EDT 1999

 

1Thess 3:13 I am looking for a Russian “Greek” cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:> On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:[some text deleted]>> … I would>> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength>> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:>> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU>> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.> This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in> a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon> comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to> start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but> curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a> clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS> KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire> clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the> Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.> One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that> it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and> with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.> OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive> description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to> share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the> accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it> might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the> existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be> the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one> expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively> PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.> Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one> you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of> that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn> the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one;> to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even> the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and> with His son Jesus Christ.”> But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing,> whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole> phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an> implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I> rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with> the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).May I share a thought about the use of DE here? Read this as a question: being a sounding board to help with my understanding.Could DE be thought of as a thoughtful pause? The DE would tendto lightly push the hH KOINWNIA away from the hH hHMETERA. Or,alternatively, one could think of it as connecting the two articularwords more loosely than they would normally be connected. We don’t havea simple “our fellowship” because the DE is stuck in there. This use ofDE–if it exists at all–would be similar to a “word” some untrainedspeakers use, namely “ummmm” (which, to my ear, has a similar phonemicquality to DE.) As if John is about to convey something important which hedoes not want his hearers to miss. The result is that the DE addsemphasis to the type of fellowship John wanted for his hearers. (Iwonder, since DE frequently can’t be translated as a word, should it not,at least sometimes, be translated as a space? Keep that thought in mindas I proceed.)Now, having said that the “our” is lightly separated from the”fellowship”, I note that the case pulls them together, and we wouldnaturally expect that from a possesive pronoun. So, John *is* talkingabout “our fellowship”, but there is something more which is added by the”space” which he has introduced by his sentence construction.So, with the hH KOINWNIA, John first focuses his hearers attention onfellowship and not just any fellowship, but a particular fellowship.And then he proceeds, after the pause, with the expansive description ofthat fellowship (as Carl has said above.) Perhaps not great grammar, but,if DE could be thought of as conveying a pause, and that was normal tothe Greek ear, then it would be perfectly good grammar in Greek, thoughterrible grammar in English. [Please don’t pour the blood of startinga ‘good grammar/bad grammar’ discussion at such a little greek’s feet.That would be most unkind. 😉 ]If I could translate the pause, I would have, “…that you also may havefellowship with us; even the fellowship …ummm… [like] our fellowshipwith the Father and with the son Jesus Christ.” Better English grammarwould produce, “…that you also may have fellowship with us; even thefellowship very much like our fellowship with the Father and with theson Jesus Christ.”And, again, I’m very much interested in feedback regarding this (positiveor negative).Carl: regarding the implied ESTIN, does Smyth 1183b apply to an impliedESTIN.> This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril> of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to> the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through. Hmmmmm…is ‘peril’ an hyperbole or are you addicted? 🙂 Actually, ifyour Internet connection goes down it is I who am in peril.I apologize for the longishness; thanks a head of time.– Mike Sangreymike at sojurn.lns.pa.us

 

1Thess 3:13 I am looking for a Russian “Greek”

DE in I John 1:3 (was Re: Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4) Mike Sangrey mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us
Fri Jul 2 15:15:29 EDT 1999

 

1Thess 3:13 I am looking for a Russian “Greek” cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:> On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:[some text deleted]>> … I would>> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength>> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:>> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU>> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.> This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in> a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon> comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to> start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but> curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a> clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS> KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire> clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the> Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.> One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that> it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and> with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.> OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive> description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to> share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the> accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it> might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the> existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be> the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one> expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively> PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.> Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one> you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of> that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn> the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one;> to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even> the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and> with His son Jesus Christ.”> But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing,> whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole> phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an> implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I> rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with> the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).May I share a thought about the use of DE here? Read this as a question: being a sounding board to help with my understanding.Could DE be thought of as a thoughtful pause? The DE would tendto lightly push the hH KOINWNIA away from the hH hHMETERA. Or,alternatively, one could think of it as connecting the two articularwords more loosely than they would normally be connected. We don’t havea simple “our fellowship” because the DE is stuck in there. This use ofDE–if it exists at all–would be similar to a “word” some untrainedspeakers use, namely “ummmm” (which, to my ear, has a similar phonemicquality to DE.) As if John is about to convey something important which hedoes not want his hearers to miss. The result is that the DE addsemphasis to the type of fellowship John wanted for his hearers. (Iwonder, since DE frequently can’t be translated as a word, should it not,at least sometimes, be translated as a space? Keep that thought in mindas I proceed.)Now, having said that the “our” is lightly separated from the”fellowship”, I note that the case pulls them together, and we wouldnaturally expect that from a possesive pronoun. So, John *is* talkingabout “our fellowship”, but there is something more which is added by the”space” which he has introduced by his sentence construction.So, with the hH KOINWNIA, John first focuses his hearers attention onfellowship and not just any fellowship, but a particular fellowship.And then he proceeds, after the pause, with the expansive description ofthat fellowship (as Carl has said above.) Perhaps not great grammar, but,if DE could be thought of as conveying a pause, and that was normal tothe Greek ear, then it would be perfectly good grammar in Greek, thoughterrible grammar in English. [Please don’t pour the blood of startinga ‘good grammar/bad grammar’ discussion at such a little greek’s feet.That would be most unkind. 😉 ]If I could translate the pause, I would have, “…that you also may havefellowship with us; even the fellowship …ummm… [like] our fellowshipwith the Father and with the son Jesus Christ.” Better English grammarwould produce, “…that you also may have fellowship with us; even thefellowship very much like our fellowship with the Father and with theson Jesus Christ.”And, again, I’m very much interested in feedback regarding this (positiveor negative).Carl: regarding the implied ESTIN, does Smyth 1183b apply to an impliedESTIN.> This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril> of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to> the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through. Hmmmmm…is ‘peril’ an hyperbole or are you addicted? 🙂 Actually, ifyour Internet connection goes down it is I who am in peril.I apologize for the longishness; thanks a head of time.– Mike Sangreymike at sojurn.lns.pa.us

 

1Thess 3:13 I am looking for a Russian “Greek”

DE in I John 1:3 (was Re: Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jul 3 06:55:10 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Mark 8:24 “Longishness” seems to be the doom of this concatenation of question andresponses; if anyone is uninterested in the lowly question of the particleDE, I would suggest that now is the time to press the delete button, but ifone IS interested in that lowly question, I think the whole sequence hangstogether.At 3:15 PM -0400 7/2/99, Mike Sangrey wrote:>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:>> On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:> >[some text deleted]> >>> … I would>>> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength>>> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:> >>> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU>>> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.> >> This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in>> a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon>> comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to>> start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but>> curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a>> clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS>> KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire>> clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the>> Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.> >> One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that>> it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and>> with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.> >> OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive>> description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to>> share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the>> accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it>> might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the>> existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be>> the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one>> expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively>> PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.> >> Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one>> you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of>> that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn>> the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one;>> to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even>> the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and>> with His son Jesus Christ.”> >> But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing,>> whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole>> phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an>> implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I>> rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with>> the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).> >May I share a thought about the use of DE here? Read this as a question:> being a sounding board to help with my understanding.> >Could DE be thought of as a thoughtful pause? The DE would tend>to lightly push the hH KOINWNIA away from the hH hHMETERA. Or,>alternatively, one could think of it as connecting the two articular>words more loosely than they would normally be connected. We don’t have>a simple “our fellowship” because the DE is stuck in there. This use of>DE–if it exists at all–would be similar to a “word” some untrained>speakers use, namely “ummmm” (which, to my ear, has a similar phonemic>quality to DE.) As if John is about to convey something important which he>does not want his hearers to miss. The result is that the DE adds>emphasis to the type of fellowship John wanted for his hearers. (I>wonder, since DE frequently can’t be translated as a word, should it not,>at least sometimes, be translated as a space? Keep that thought in mind>as I proceed.)> >Now, having said that the “our” is lightly separated from the>“fellowship”, I note that the case pulls them together, and we would>naturally expect that from a possesive pronoun. So, John *is* talking>about “our fellowship”, but there is something more which is added by the>“space” which he has introduced by his sentence construction.> >So, with the hH KOINWNIA, John first focuses his hearers attention on>fellowship and not just any fellowship, but a particular fellowship.>And then he proceeds, after the pause, with the expansive description of>that fellowship (as Carl has said above.) Perhaps not great grammar, but,>if DE could be thought of as conveying a pause, and that was normal to>the Greek ear, then it would be perfectly good grammar in Greek, though>terrible grammar in English. [Please don’t pour the blood of starting>a ‘good grammar/bad grammar’ discussion at such a little greek’s feet.>That would be most unkind. 😉 ]> >If I could translate the pause, I would have, “…that you also may have>fellowship with us; even the fellowship …ummm… [like] our fellowship>with the Father and with the son Jesus Christ.” Better English grammar>would produce, “…that you also may have fellowship with us; even the>fellowship very much like our fellowship with the Father and with the>son Jesus Christ.”> >And, again, I’m very much interested in feedback regarding this (positive>or negative).I very much like this interpretation of DE as justifying a somewhat awkwardbut necessary and helpful expansion of the notion of “fellowship.” I don’tquite know about ‘ummm…’ — I guess that phonemic quality is differentfrom ‘duhhh …’ — but let me suggest another way of getting to the sameend point: I find it useful occasionally to recall to mind that MEN and DEare weakened/ablauted forms of the particles MHN and DH, which have anoriginal sense something like “to be sure” and “in fact” respectively (ifthey are differentiated at all). Suppose we substitute “in fact” for the”ummm” in your suggested version; we’ll then have: ” … that you also mayhave fellowship with us, even the fellowship, in fact, that we have (hHhHMETERA) with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.”And finally, to banish the “bad grammar” notion once for all, I think thatthis usage of DE is consistent with the “homiletic” or “sermonic” characterof 1 John — and I mean “homiletic” and “sermonic” in the Greek/Latinsenses. We have here carefully structured (rhetorically) discourse thatretains an air of conversational informality–an ease of discourse sharedby speaker/writer and listening audience (as I assume this text, like allNT documents) was written originally for the ear of an audience, not solelyfor the eye of a silent reader).>Carl: regarding the implied ESTIN, does Smyth 1183b apply to an implied>ESTIN.I think what he says in 944 is quite adequate to the point. But I haveaccess to only the online (first edition) of Smyth right now; 1183b in theonline edition really seems to be a different topic.>> This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril>> of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to>> the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through.> >Hmmmmm…is ‘peril’ an hyperbole or are you addicted? 🙂 Actually, if>your Internet connection goes down it is I who am in peril.In fact, I was bumped off three times in the middle of that message and hadto reconnect: it was a KINDUNOS, and what I really feared was that what Ihad already written would be lost before I could get it sent. Of course itonly existed on my machine, but that would have been lost if my browser hadcrashed when my connection failed. Fortunately my home domain is back up sothat I can again respond off-line before dispatching. I won’t respond tothe question of addiction as a matter of customary praetermission.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]Mark 8:24

DE in I John 1:3 (was Re: Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jul 3 06:55:10 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Mark 8:24 “Longishness” seems to be the doom of this concatenation of question andresponses; if anyone is uninterested in the lowly question of the particleDE, I would suggest that now is the time to press the delete button, but ifone IS interested in that lowly question, I think the whole sequence hangstogether.At 3:15 PM -0400 7/2/99, Mike Sangrey wrote:>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:>> On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:> >[some text deleted]> >>> … I would>>> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength>>> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:> >>> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU>>> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.> >> This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in>> a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon>> comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to>> start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but>> curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a>> clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS>> KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire>> clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the>> Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.> >> One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that>> it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and>> with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.> >> OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive>> description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to>> share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the>> accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it>> might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the>> existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be>> the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one>> expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively>> PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.> >> Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one>> you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of>> that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn>> the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one;>> to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even>> the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and>> with His son Jesus Christ.”> >> But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing,>> whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole>> phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an>> implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I>> rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with>> the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).> >May I share a thought about the use of DE here? Read this as a question:> being a sounding board to help with my understanding.> >Could DE be thought of as a thoughtful pause? The DE would tend>to lightly push the hH KOINWNIA away from the hH hHMETERA. Or,>alternatively, one could think of it as connecting the two articular>words more loosely than they would normally be connected. We don’t have>a simple “our fellowship” because the DE is stuck in there. This use of>DE–if it exists at all–would be similar to a “word” some untrained>speakers use, namely “ummmm” (which, to my ear, has a similar phonemic>quality to DE.) As if John is about to convey something important which he>does not want his hearers to miss. The result is that the DE adds>emphasis to the type of fellowship John wanted for his hearers. (I>wonder, since DE frequently can’t be translated as a word, should it not,>at least sometimes, be translated as a space? Keep that thought in mind>as I proceed.)> >Now, having said that the “our” is lightly separated from the>“fellowship”, I note that the case pulls them together, and we would>naturally expect that from a possesive pronoun. So, John *is* talking>about “our fellowship”, but there is something more which is added by the>“space” which he has introduced by his sentence construction.> >So, with the hH KOINWNIA, John first focuses his hearers attention on>fellowship and not just any fellowship, but a particular fellowship.>And then he proceeds, after the pause, with the expansive description of>that fellowship (as Carl has said above.) Perhaps not great grammar, but,>if DE could be thought of as conveying a pause, and that was normal to>the Greek ear, then it would be perfectly good grammar in Greek, though>terrible grammar in English. [Please don’t pour the blood of starting>a ‘good grammar/bad grammar’ discussion at such a little greek’s feet.>That would be most unkind. 😉 ]> >If I could translate the pause, I would have, “…that you also may have>fellowship with us; even the fellowship …ummm… [like] our fellowship>with the Father and with the son Jesus Christ.” Better English grammar>would produce, “…that you also may have fellowship with us; even the>fellowship very much like our fellowship with the Father and with the>son Jesus Christ.”> >And, again, I’m very much interested in feedback regarding this (positive>or negative).I very much like this interpretation of DE as justifying a somewhat awkwardbut necessary and helpful expansion of the notion of “fellowship.” I don’tquite know about ‘ummm…’ — I guess that phonemic quality is differentfrom ‘duhhh …’ — but let me suggest another way of getting to the sameend point: I find it useful occasionally to recall to mind that MEN and DEare weakened/ablauted forms of the particles MHN and DH, which have anoriginal sense something like “to be sure” and “in fact” respectively (ifthey are differentiated at all). Suppose we substitute “in fact” for the”ummm” in your suggested version; we’ll then have: ” … that you also mayhave fellowship with us, even the fellowship, in fact, that we have (hHhHMETERA) with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.”And finally, to banish the “bad grammar” notion once for all, I think thatthis usage of DE is consistent with the “homiletic” or “sermonic” characterof 1 John — and I mean “homiletic” and “sermonic” in the Greek/Latinsenses. We have here carefully structured (rhetorically) discourse thatretains an air of conversational informality–an ease of discourse sharedby speaker/writer and listening audience (as I assume this text, like allNT documents) was written originally for the ear of an audience, not solelyfor the eye of a silent reader).>Carl: regarding the implied ESTIN, does Smyth 1183b apply to an implied>ESTIN.I think what he says in 944 is quite adequate to the point. But I haveaccess to only the online (first edition) of Smyth right now; 1183b in theonline edition really seems to be a different topic.>> This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril>> of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to>> the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through.> >Hmmmmm…is ‘peril’ an hyperbole or are you addicted? 🙂 Actually, if>your Internet connection goes down it is I who am in peril.In fact, I was bumped off three times in the middle of that message and hadto reconnect: it was a KINDUNOS, and what I really feared was that what Ihad already written would be lost before I could get it sent. Of course itonly existed on my machine, but that would have been lost if my browser hadcrashed when my connection failed. Fortunately my home domain is back up sothat I can again respond off-line before dispatching. I won’t respond tothe question of addiction as a matter of customary praetermission.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]Mark 8:24

Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Tue Dec 21 23:01:55 EST 1999

 

1 John 3:9 Luke 23:43 Can the pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1:1-4 be translated “it” as Tyndale and Beck, respectively, have done?In William Tyndale’s translation of John 1:1 we have:”In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God: and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing, that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light shineth in the darkness, but the darkness comprehended it not.”In William Beck’s translation of I John 1:1-4 we have:”It was there from the beginning, we heard It, we saw It with our eyes, we looked at It, and our hands touched It – we’re writing about the Word of Life. That Life showed itself and we saw It, and now we testify and tell you about the everlasting Life that was with the Father and showed itself to us. We saw and heard It, and we tell you about It so that you, too, will have It in fellowship with us. Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. We’re writing this so that our joy may be complete.”Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

1 John 3:9Luke 23:43

Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-4 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Dec 22 09:03:29 EST 1999

 

Blayney Revision of KJV Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 To: Ken Johnson,<< Can the pronouns in John 1:1-5 and I John 1:1-4 be translated “it” as Tyndale and Beck, respectively, have done? >>Can they? They not only can, but they have done so as you yourself have noted. I wonder if the question you really wanted to ask was: Should they? Or perhaps better yet, why did they?It should also be noted that these two passage are quite different.<< In William Tyndale’s translation of John 1:1-5 we have: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God: and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it (a), and without it (b), was made nothing, that was made. In it (c) was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light shineth in the darkness, but the darkness comprehended it (d) not.” >>There are four “its” in this passage which I’ve marked with the letters “a” through “d.” The first three “its” are masculine pronouns referring to the masculine noun LOGOS. The fourth “it” is a neuter pronoun referring to the neuter noun FWS.<< In William Beck’s translation of I John 1:1-4 we have: “It (a) was there from the beginning, we heard It (b), we saw It (c) with our eyes, we looked at It (d), and our hands touched It (e) – we’re writing about the Word of Life. That Life showed itself (f) and we saw It (g), and now we testify and tell you about the everlasting Life that was with the Father and showed itself (h) to us. We saw and heard It (i), and we tell you about It (j) so that you, too, will have It (k) in fellowship with us. Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. We’re writing this so that our joy may be complete.” >>There are eleven “its” in this passage, which I have marked with the letters “a” through “k.” Five of these “its,” those labeled “a,” “b,” “c,” “d,” & “i,” refer to the relative neuter pronoun hO. But six of these “its,” those labeled “e,” “f,” “g,” “h,” “j,” & “k,” refer to no explicit pronoun in the Greek text. As for the five neuter relative pronouns, it is grammatically unclear as to what they refer.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

Blayney Revision of KJVPronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Dec 22 09:50:26 EST 1999

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-4 1 John 3:9 To: Solomon Landers,<< AUTOS is a pronoun that takes the gender of its antecedent. In John 1:1, AUTOU is the same form in both the genitive singular masculine and the genitive singular nueter, but since it refers to hO LOGOS (masculine), a better translation would be “he, him.” >>Why would “he, him” be a better translation? The pronouns AUTOU & AUTWi are only masculine because the Greek term LOGOS is grammatically masculine. But in English the term “word” is considered to be a “thing,” and normally in English we would refer to such a term as “it.” Grammatically, it seems to me that “it” would be the better translation.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-41 John 3:9

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Wed Dec 22 12:09:24 EST 1999

 

Blayney Revision of KJV John 1:1 pronouns Can you tell me how to get a copy of Beck’s translation? I have oftenseen it cited, but cannot find a copy.AUTOS is a pronoun that takes the gender of its antecedent. In John1:1, AUTOU is the same form in both the genitive singular masculineand the genitive singular nueter, but since it refers to hO LOGOS(masculine), a better translation would be “he, him.”However, in 1 John 1, Beck is justified in translating “it” because theantecedent is hOS, [what, that which] and is a neuter singularpronomial. He translates “life” as “it,” though it is feminine in theGreek, but makes better reading in English.Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.org<Ken Johnson writes:><Can the pronouns in John 1:1 amd I John 1:1-4 be translated “it” asTyndale and Beck, respectively, have done?>

 

Blayney Revision of KJVJohn 1:1 pronouns

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Dec 22 14:37:01 EST 1999

 

John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?) John 8:58 To: Solomon Landers,SCM: << Why would “he, him” be a better translation? The pronouns AUTOU & AUTWi are only masculine because the Greek term LOGOS is grammatically masculine. But in English the term “word” is considered to be a “thing,” and normally in English we would refer to such a term as “it.” Grammatically, it seems to me that “it” would be the better translation. >>SL: << You are of course, grammatically correct. But I think the writer’s (John’s) context and target audience enter the picture, as well as the target audience of the translator into English. >>I would concur, that is why “it” would be the better translation. In an earlier message I had written:SCM: << … the Johannine Jesus says: “I do know him [God] and I keep his word” (Jn 8:55). If for John the God’s LOGOS was Jesus, how could the Johannine Jesus keep it? Another example, the Johannine Jesus says: “Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me” (Jn 14:24). Again, the Johannine Jesus speaks as if God’s LOGOS is different from himself! Nowhere does John’s gospel simply identify Jesus as God’s LOGOS. The difference of interpretations of John 1:14 is rooted in the fact that some take God’s LOGOS as an individual, while others (such as myself) take God’s LOGOS in the Johannine prologue as an instrumental force. >>There is no evidence in all of the Johannine Gospel that this author thought of God’s LOGOS as anything other than an instrumental force. Thus given “the writer’s (John’s) context and target audience” as well as “the target audience of the translator into English,” it would more accurately reflect John’s Greek text to translate those pronouns as “it.”-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?)John 8:58

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Wed Dec 22 17:07:52 EST 1999

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and ! John 1-4 John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?) You are of course, grammatically correct. But I think the writer’s (John’s) contextand target audience enter the picture, as well as the target audience of thetranslator into English.Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrainSteven Craig Miller wrote:> > Why would “he, him” be a better translation? The pronouns AUTOU & AUTWi are> only masculine because the Greek term LOGOS is grammatically masculine. But> in English the term “word” is considered to be a “thing,” and normally in> English we would refer to such a term as “it.” Grammatically, it seems to> me that “it” would be the better translation.> > -Steven Craig Miller> Alton, Illinois (USA)> scmiller at www.plantnet.com> Disclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree),> what do I know?”>

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and ! John 1-4John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?)

Pronouns in John 1:1 and ! John 1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Wed Dec 22 17:03:43 EST 1999

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 To: Steven Craig MillerBoyce W. Blackwelder stated:”The noun logos (from the verb lego, to collect, put words side by side, relate, speak, say) means reason, speech, or word. It signifies not only a word in the grammatical sense, but a spoken word which implies an idea or concept. It denotes, therefore, both the thought inwardly conceived in the mind and outwardly expressed through the vehicle of language.”(“Light from the Greek New Testament” (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House), 40.I think “the logos” as an “instrumental force” is probably too limiting. I think “the logos” in the man Christ Jesus was more than God’s “power”, since Jesus Christ was also the “love and wisdom” of God (Paul). He was the Shekinah glory of God in the flesh. The “Expression” of God the Father. Or God the Father expressing himself in a human being. The Son “exegeted him [God the Father]” (Jn. 1:18). As Irenaeus said so well:”The Father is that which is invisible about the Son, the Son is that which is visible about the Father.””…He [John] relates, therefore, with the utmost simplicity of language, the scenes in which Jesus seemed to him most significantly to have revealed His power and His goodness, and most forcibly to have demonstrated that the Father was in Him.”Marcus Dods, “The Expositor’s Bible” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 115.See also: John 8:19; 14:6-10 as evidence that the Father was in Jesus Christ.Ken Johnson (Eph. 4:4-6)Elk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Wed Dec 22 18:06:49 EST 1999

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Jude 9 (Archangel–First in command and/or time?) Well, I don’t want to get theological about what John says at 1:14, but I would haveto say that I fall into the camp of those who think it definitely personalizes theLOGOS.Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.orgSteven Craig Miller wrote:<….The difference of interpretations of John 1:14 is rooted in the fact that sometake God’s LOGOS as an individual, while others (such as myself) take God’s LOGOS inthe Johannine prologue as an instrumental force.>

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4Jude 9 (Archangel–First in command and/or time?)

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Ilvgrammta at aol.com Ilvgrammta at aol.com
Tue Jan 4 11:41:54 EST 2000

 

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Dear ers,1 John 1:4 reads:KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMEIS hINA hH XARA hHMWN Hi PEPLHRWMENH.Does John use the epistolary plural (GRAFOMEN, hHMEIS) here?Thanks in advance,Edgar Foster

 

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesThe Purpose of Syntactical Categories

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jan 4 12:09:54 EST 2000

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Ign. Eph. 15:3 At 11:41 AM -0500 1/4/00, Ilvgrammta at aol.com wrote:>Dear ers,> >1 John 1:4 reads:> >KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMEIS hINA hH XARA hHMWN Hi PEPLHRWMENH.> >Does John use the epistolary plural (GRAFOMEN, hHMEIS) here?> >Thanks in advance,I would think so and in fact I can’t imagine an alternative to this view;certainly he does not list at the outset additional senders (as Paulfrequently does, even when Paul writes in the first person singular). Ofcourse 1 John is a treatise or sermon rather than a real letter, but ituses the literary form of the letter as was commonly done in antiquity forshort treatises, and the first-plural or “editorial” we is pretty common.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3Ign. Eph. 15:3

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Ilvgrammta at aol.com Ilvgrammta at aol.com
Tue Jan 4 17:37:51 EST 2000

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? In a message dated 00-01-04 12:10:11 EST, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:<< I would think so and in fact I can’t imagine an alternative to this view; certainly he does not list at the outset additional senders (as Paul frequently does, even when Paul writes in the first person singular). Of course 1 John is a treatise or sermon rather than a real letter, but it uses the literary form of the letter as was commonly done in antiquity for short treatises, and the first-plural or “editorial” we is pretty common.>>I asked this question because (1) I did not know if this use was prevalent in the first century (2) The usage in 1 John 1:4 has been debated.Young indicates that the plural in 1 John 1:4 is a literary plural. Smalley, in his Word Series Commentary, interprets the plural as “we (the writer, in solidarity with all the representatives of orthodoxy in the church) are writing this.” Brown feels that what John writes “bears more than personal authorization–it is Community tradition from the Community tradition-bearers” (Young 73-74). Here is what Wallace writes:”Is the Elder writing alone or in association with others? Complicating the issue is the fact that in vv 5 and 6 the plural continues, but each time with a different force: In v 5 it seems to refer to the author and other ministers; in v 6, it is an inclusive WE (the author and audience together). The author uses GRAFW another dozen times in this letter, but each time in the singular” (Wallace 396).Hope this adds to the discussion,Edgar Foster

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4?

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jan 4 17:55:04 EST 2000

 

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? temple and NWT of holy scriptures? At 5:37 PM -0500 1/4/00, Ilvgrammta at aol.com wrote:>In a message dated 00-01-04 12:10:11 EST, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:> ><< I would think so and in fact I can’t imagine an alternative to this view;> certainly he does not list at the outset additional senders (as Paul> frequently does, even when Paul writes in the first person singular). Of> course 1 John is a treatise or sermon rather than a real letter, but it> uses the literary form of the letter as was commonly done in antiquity for> short treatises, and the first-plural or “editorial” we is pretty common.>>> >I asked this question because (1) I did not know if this use was prevalent in>the first century (2) The usage in 1 John 1:4 has been debated.> >Young indicates that the plural in 1 John 1:4 is a literary plural. Smalley,>in his Word Series Commentary, interprets the plural as “we (the writer, in>solidarity with all the representatives of orthodoxy in the church) are>writing this.” Brown feels that what John writes “bears more than personal>authorization–it is Community tradition from the Community>tradition-bearers” (Young 73-74).> >Here is what Wallace writes:> >“Is the Elder writing alone or in association with others? Complicating the>issue is the fact that in vv 5 and 6 the plural continues, but each time with>a different force: In v 5 it seems to refer to the author and other>ministers; in v 6, it is an inclusive WE (the author and audience together).>The author uses GRAFW another dozen times in this letter, but each time in>the singular” (Wallace 396).> >Hope this adds to the discussion,Yes, it adds to the discussion (particularly when nobody on hassignificant input into your question) to “cite the learned authorities” andfind out that they hold to a variety of different views, some of whichoverlap. More voices in the discussion. I would still say what I saidabove. As for what the others say, I think Young is saying pretty much whatI’m saying. Smalley and Brown are interpreting on the basis of how theyfeel the treatise was meant to be interpreted (as an assuring warranty thatthe Johannine tradition is not really out of harmony with apostolicorthodoxy, even if the language of it can be interpreted in gnostic terms.It seems to me that Wallace deals more honestly with the actual evidenceand finds that it is insufficiently conclusive. Wherefore, I still must saythat the use of the plural in this situation is not at all uncommon (evenin alternation with a first-person singular), enough so that one needs toshow some convincing evidence that there’s a different reason for use ofthe first-plural here in 1 John than customary usage.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4?temple and NWT of holy scriptures?
Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Wed Dec 22 16:34:58 EST 1999

 

John 13:34 – A hINA Clause with the force of an imperative? Pronouns in John 1:1 and ! John 1-4 To Soloman Landers:I noticed you are writing from the Memra Institute.The Aramaic term “memra” is used in the Targums of John’s day in place of the unmentionable name for the Hebrew G-d, YHVH or YHWH.It is not necessarily a different person than God, and it could have been in the mind of John when he wrote John 1:1-4, since he probably spoke and read Aramaic in his day. Memra is similar to the Greek “Logos”. He probably chose Koine Greek terminology because it was used so much in written correspondence, and he might have been countering allegorical Jewish and incipient Gnosticism tendencies or teachings which were usually written in Hellenistic Greek.However, NT scholar Peter Borgen believes that John’s Prologue is an exposition of Gen. 1:1ff, and written in a manner that reflects Targunic exegesis. In his view certain key words found in Gen 1:1-5 (“in the beginning”, “God”, “life”, “light”) are interpreted in John’s Prologue by means of paraphrasing expansions. The Jerusalem Targum on Gen 3;24 is mentioned as a parallel to the Prologue of John, in an effort to show how each paraphrasing expansion is similar. When comparing John’s Prologue with Jewish thought, Borgen states:”…in Jewish sources there is quite a strong exegetal tradition that interprets Gen. 1:1-ff. as not only referring to the creation of the world, but what preceeded it. The exegetical basis for this is expressed in John 1:1-2 in the light of v. 3: en archee/bereshith in Gen. 1:1 could be developed in Judaism within the thought category of existence at creation, and before, with subsequent revelation.”Peter Borgen, “Observations On the Targumic Character of the Prologue of John,” New Testament Studies, Vol. 16, pp. 288-295.Also, getting back to the term “Memra”…W.F. Albright refers to the ms Targum Neofiti I (a complete Palestinian Targum) in which “the ‘Word’ of God appears as a surrogate for the name of God, Yahweh.”(New Horizons in Biblical Research, London, 1966, p. 45).Memra is used as a name for God himself, especially as God as “self-revealing”. M. McNamara stated, “Johannine tradition may yet well prove to be mainly influenced by liturgical Jewish tradition, particularly of the form found in the Targums.”(“Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Ex 1242)”, ExT LXXIX, 1967-68, pp.117.)If John had “the Memra” in mind when he wrote “the Logos” he was probably not thinking of a second person or being as the Jewish literature was strictly monotheistic as was the Shema of Israel in the LXX and in Mark 12:29 “one” = masculine “heis”- the cardinal number in the Greek.Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

John 13:34 – A hINA Clause with the force of an imperative?Pronouns in John 1:1 and ! John 1-4

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Wed Dec 22 17:47:12 EST 1999

 

John 8:58 Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 To: Solomon LandersWe do want to keep in mind that John’s Logos is not very Greek. His idea of the Logos is not a God who is detached, but one who is very involved with us and where we are, otherwise he would not have taken on humanity and dwelt with us.It is much more than the Greek logos, just as John’s concept of the spirit of God is much more than Stoic in nature.Barclay stated:”John spoke to a world which thought of the gods in terms of passionless apatheia and serene detachment. He pointed at Jesus Christ and said: ‘Here is the mind of God; here is the expression of the thought of God; here is the logos.’ And men were confronted with a God who cared so passionately and who loved so sacrificially that His expression was Jesus christ and His emblem a cross” (Ext, LXX, 1958-1959, p. 82)”Wisdom” “The Law” “The Word [Memra]” are all related to John’s concept of “The Logos”.You might also want to read,M. McNamara, “The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome, 1966) and G.J. Cowling, “New Light on the New Testament? The Significance of the Palestinian Targum” TSF Bulletin, No. 51 (Summer 1968), pp.6 ff.John Goldingday, Principal of St. John’s College, Nottingham, states,”The gospel…is related to scriptural narrative models and both gospels and epistles include many scriptural quotations and sections of explicit midrash (e.g. Mt. 4:1-11; 2 Cor. 3:7-18; Heb. 7:1-10) or Covert Midrash. (e.g. John, 1:1-18 in relation to Gen. 1:1-5 and Lk. 7: 51ff in relation to Dt. 1-26)…But the NT lacks consequtive commentary work, and its characteristic aim is situational rather than expository; it is concerned to interpret themes arising out of its own questions rather than by directly out of Scripture (see e.g. Rom. 9-11, or Hebrews and Revelation generally). In a sense, therefore, the NT is a midrash on Christ, rather than on the scriptures. The real interest of NT interpretation lies much less in Halakah…and much more in Haggidah.”(“Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation” Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-varsity Press, 1990, p. 152.)Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

John 8:58Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Wed Dec 22 19:53:43 EST 1999

 

John 8:58 Jude 9 (Archangel–First in command and/or time?) Thanks for the comments on the Memra. It’s a fascinating concept, the informationon which is continually evolving. I have copies of Targums Neofiti 1 and Onqelos,as well as the treatments by Fitzmyer and others. I consider it, basically, a”bridge concept” and one that, indeed, may have factored in the thinking of thewriter of John.As for the Institute, its purpose is explained on the web page.Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.orgKJohn36574 at aol.com wrote:> To Soloman Landers:> > I noticed you are writing from the Memra Institute.> > The Aramaic term “memra” is used in the Targums of John’s day in place of the> unmentionable name for the Hebrew G-d, YHVH or YHWH.> > It is not necessarily a different person than God, and it could have been in> the mind of John when he wrote John 1:1-4, since he probably spoke and read> Aramaic in his day. Memra is similar to the Greek “Logos”. He probably chose> Koine Greek terminology because it was used so much in written> correspondence, and he might have been countering allegorical Jewish and> incipient Gnosticism tendencies or teachings which were usually written in> Hellenistic Greek.> > However, NT scholar Peter Borgen believes that John’s Prologue is an> exposition of Gen. 1:1ff, and written in a manner that reflects Targunic> exegesis. In his view certain key words found in Gen 1:1-5 (“in the> beginning”, “God”, “life”, “light”) are interpreted in John’s Prologue by> means of paraphrasing expansions. The Jerusalem Targum on Gen 3;24 is> mentioned as a parallel to the Prologue of John, in an effort to show how> each paraphrasing expansion is similar. When comparing John’s Prologue with> Jewish thought, Borgen states:> > “…in Jewish sources there is quite a strong exegetal tradition that> interprets Gen. 1:1-ff. as not only referring to the creation of the world,> but what preceeded it. The exegetical basis for this is expressed in John> 1:1-2 in the light of v. 3: en archee/bereshith in Gen. 1:1 could be> developed in Judaism within the thought category of existence at creation,> and before, with subsequent revelation.”> <snip>

 

John 8:58Jude 9 (Archangel–First in command and/or time?)

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Will Wagers hyle at airmail.net
Thu Dec 23 00:04:45 EST 1999

 

Philipians 2:6 Beck’s Translation, Recovery Version Ken Johnson writes:>We do want to keep in mind that John’s Logos is not very Greek. His idea of>the Logos is not a God who is detached, but one who is very involved with us>and where we are, otherwise he would not have taken on humanity and dwelt>with us.Logos is a concept from Greek philosophy, not mythology. The Greek Logosis not “detached”: it is the very stuff of life; in fact, it *is* life, the intersectionof Form and Matter. As such, it enforms not only us but all living (readanimated) things, including “gods”. The only non-Greek thing in the Prologueis the notion that Logos takes the form of an individual man, when itis already necessarily present in all creation, being, in fact, Creation. Thisis the background of Jn 1:1.Will Wagershyle at airmail.net “Reality is the best metaphor.”

 

Philipians 2:6Beck’s Translation, Recovery Version

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 23 08:15:29 EST 1999

 

Some “No-no’s” Some “No-no’s” At 12:04 AM -0500 12/23/99, Will Wagers wrote:>Ken Johnson writes:> >>We do want to keep in mind that John’s Logos is not very Greek. His idea of>>the Logos is not a God who is detached, but one who is very involved with us>>and where we are, otherwise he would not have taken on humanity and dwelt>>with us.> >Logos is a concept from Greek philosophy, not mythology. The Greek Logos>is not “detached”: it is the very stuff of life; in fact, it *is*>life, the intersection>of Form and Matter. As such, it enforms not only us but all living (read>animated) things, including “gods”. The only non-Greek thing in the Prologue>is the notion that Logos takes the form of an individual man, when it>is already necessarily present in all creation, being, in fact, Creation. This>is the background of Jn 1:1.Ken supplied the Hegelian thesis and Will the antithesis; let me supply asynthesis 😉 that is not likely to please either the former nor thelatter but which is held by many besides myself: that the LOGOS notion inthe Johannine prologue has roots BOTH in Greek pre-Socratic Heraclitean andStoic thought AND in Hebraic-Jewish Hokhma-Sophia speculation such as seenin the OT Wisdom literature and in OT prophetic usage of the term DBR-YHWH.I for one, don’t think it’s a matter of either/or but rather of both/and.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Some “No-no’s”Some “No-no’s”

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Fri Dec 24 13:49:45 EST 1999

 

John 8:58 (I am; Does the Hebrew reveal?) John’s Logos Carl,I appreciate your “synthesis” however, I presented a synthesis too. I not only discussed Jewish origins of John’s Logos, but quoted Blackwelder’s definition which is part of the essential Grecian meaning, at least it is in my lexicons.Where my new insight rest is not just on the word Logos but on the context of the previous phrase “en archee”, which is a Hebrew “In the Beginning” , not a Greek one. While John may have written his Gospel in Greek, his concept reflects a Hebraic origin. Based upon the assumption that John’s concept of en archee is Jewish, his thoughts about the beginning and creation will be completely foreign to Greek cosmology and, as a result, strike at the very core of the Gnostic heresies that he was probably battling at Ephesus in the late first century A.D.Greek Concept Hebrew Conceptbeginning as a decline beginning as an ascentPessimistic/accidental Optimistic/purposefulMatter eternal Matter had a beginningCreation/gods side by side Creator over creationClaude Tresmontant, “A Study of Hebrew Thought” tr. by Michael Francis Gibson (New York Descies Company, 1960), pp. 4-5.Hope I wasn’t too theological, but I think my viewpoint wasn’t presented accurately or possibly not understood. I possibly did not state it clearly enough.Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

John 8:58 (I am; Does the Hebrew reveal?)John’s Logos

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Fri Dec 24 15:00:19 EST 1999

 

John’s Logos THEOS HGAPHSEN To: Ken Johnson,<< Where my new insight rest is not just on the word Logos but on the context of the previous phrase “en archee”, which is a Hebrew “In the Beginning” , not a Greek one. While John may have written his Gospel in Greek, his concept reflects a Hebraic origin. Based upon the assumption that John’s concept of en archee is Jewish, his thoughts about the beginning and creation will be completely foreign to Greek cosmology and, as a result, strike at the very core of the Gnostic heresies that he was probably battling at Ephesus in the late first century A.D. >>It is my personal opinion that the notion of a sharp distinction between a “Greek” mode of thinking versus a “Hebraic” mode of thinking is highly suspect, for the simple reason that there was no common “Greek” mode of thought, nor more than there was a common “Hebraic” mode of thought. But instead of going into what I think would probably be a fruitless debate, allow me to switch subjects here.The Jewish Publication society translates the beginning of Genesis differently than most Christian translations, they give:<< When God began to create heaven and earth — the earth being unformed and void … >>Whereas the NRSV has:<< In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void … >>It seems to me that the LXX conforms more to the Christian interpretation of Genesis 1:1. The Jewish position appears to be that there was already an earth before God began to create. In “The Torah: A Modern Commentary” by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, they note that the JPS translation follows the opinion of Rashi (an “outstanding commentator on the Bible and Talmud,” who lived in the 11th century CE). They go on to write: << Later scholars used the translation “In the beginning” as proof that God created out of nothing (ex nihilo), but it is not likely that the biblical author was concerned with this problem. >>If one were to take the JPS and the commentary by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations as presenting one Jewish POV, then the LXX translation must represent a different Jewish POV.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

John’s LogosTHEOS HGAPHSEN

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Steve Puluka spuluka at hotmail.com
Sat Dec 25 21:05:45 EST 1999

 

John 14:9 EIMI (was John 8:58) Cases >From: Steven Craig Miller <scmiller at www.plantnet.com>> >The Jewish Publication society translates the beginning of Genesis>differently than most Christian translations, they give:> ><< When God began to create (a) heaven and earth — the earth being>unformed and void … >>In the interest of full disclosure, my 1992 reprint of the 1985 edition of the JPS translation contains the following footnote to this text:a Others “In the beginning God Created”Presumably this refers to other Jewish translations of the Hebrew. I believe that most major Christian translations are also working from the Hebrew text as well.Steve PulukaAdult Education InstructorByzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburghhttp://arrive.at/byzantinecatholic______________________________________________________Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

 

John 14:9 EIMI (was John 8:58)Cases

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Sun Dec 26 19:01:36 EST 1999

 

Septuagint and Greek as a sacred language THEOS HGAPHSEN Interpretation of the Hebrew Tanakh vs the Greek LXX has little to do with the different translations of Gen. 1:1 as the Hebrew has been translated both ways as Steve has correctly pointed out, by Hebrew scholars.Steven is possibly working from the notion of the LXX influence on translating the Hebrew rendering of Gen. 1:1 into English, although I’m not convinced all translators who use, “In the beginning” are necessarily doing it only through consideration of the LXX and its influence on English bible format and translation.What I am saying has alot more going for it than the “timing” of the creation of the earth. It has to do with the facts that John quotes the OT much more than any synoptic writer, and was one of the Sons of Thunder, who suggested the Lord call down fire on the unbelieving Samaritans. He was a radical Palistinian Jew who was a strict monotheist. I just don’t believe, even as a Hellenistic Jew, he thought as much about saving Greek philosophers as Jewish unbelievers in Ephesus, who were everywhere their. But these are authorship and background issues that go even beyond the background of the use of vocabulary in a portion of Scripture.Lets remember Paul was Saul of Tarsus and steeped in Greek philosophy, but spent little time discussion doctrine along the lines of Grecian thought even when writing to Greeks in the Church. Christ came first to the lost sheep of Israel, and so did Paul and the other Apostles.The Jerusalem Church has much more to say on Christian beginnings/thought than the Church in Rome or Athens.But this is history and not grammar studies I’m talking about. But then again, who can study vocabulary usage fully without knowledge of historical/cultural backgrounds of that language’s usage and author? How and why should one feel he/she must do that?Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

Septuagint and Greek as a sacred languageTHEOS HGAPHSEN

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 27 10:39:38 EST 1999

 

Septuagint and Greek as a sacred language Question on John 17:3 At 7:01 PM -0500 12/26/99, KJohn36574 at aol.com wrote:>Interpretation of the Hebrew Tanakh vs the Greek LXX has little to do with>the different translations of Gen. 1:1 as the Hebrew has been translated both>ways as Steve has correctly pointed out, by Hebrew scholars.> >Steven is possibly working from the notion of the LXX influence on>translating the Hebrew rendering of Gen. 1:1 into English, although I’m not>convinced all translators who use, “In the beginning” are necessarily doing>it only through consideration of the LXX and its influence on English bible>format and translation.> >What I am saying has alot more going for it than the “timing” of the creation>of the earth. It has to do with the facts that John quotes the OT much more>than any synoptic writer, and was one of the Sons of Thunder, who suggested>the Lord call down fire on the unbelieving Samaritans. He was a radical>Palistinian Jew who was a strict monotheist. I just don’t believe, even as a>Hellenistic Jew, he thought as much about saving Greek philosophers as Jewish>unbelievers in Ephesus, who were everywhere their. But these are authorship>and background issues that go even beyond the background of the use of>vocabulary in a portion of Scripture.>Lets remember Paul was Saul of Tarsus and steeped in Greek philosophy, but>spent little time discussion doctrine along the lines of Grecian thought even>when writing to Greeks in the Church. Christ came first to the lost sheep of>Israel, and so did Paul and the other Apostles.>The Jerusalem Church has much more to say on Christian beginnings/thought>than the Church in Rome or Athens.> >But this is history and not grammar studies I’m talking about. But then>again, who can study vocabulary usage fully without knowledge of>historical/cultural backgrounds of that language’s usage and author? How and>why should one feel he/she must do that?I’d be careful about just what we can assume is history and just how surewe may assume these assumptions you’re taking for granted about the authorof the gospel of John. No, this isn’t the place to discuss those questions(there is a list for discussion of gospel of John, and another list fordiscussion of Paul, yet another for discussion of the Synoptic gospels).The only point I’m trying to make here is that when you write, “What I amsaying has a lot more going for it than …,” you need to be aware thatthere may well be challenges to other things that you’re confident are”going for” your perspective. You dare not assume that others will shareyour notions of what is ‘self-evident’ about the “history” underlying thecomposition of the gospels. There is very little in this area that is notsubject to considerable dispute.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Septuagint and Greek as a sacred languageQuestion on John 17:3

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Stevens, Charles C Charles.Stevens at unisys.com
Wed Dec 29 12:48:36 EST 1999

 

OIKODOMHQH in John 2:20 Luke 2:2 On 24 December 1999 at 12:00PM, .Steven Craig Miller wrote: << The Jewish Publication society translates the beginning of Genesis differently than most Christian translations, they give:<< When God began to create heaven and earth — the earth being unformed and void … >><snip> If one were to take the JPS and the commentary by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations as presenting one Jewish POV, then the LXX translationmust represent a different Jewish POV.>>”The New Jerome Biblical Commentary” article on Genesis 1:1 takes a similarposition, further commenting that the usual English translation “In thebeginning …” (from memory, now; my printed copy is at home:) was “whiletraditional since at least the 2nd century BC as evidenced in the LXX, isunlikely” based on parallel passages and similar usages elsewhere in the OT.Point being, this is not an exclusively *Jewish* perspective; the NJBC bearsboth imprimatur and nihil obstat. I for one have no doubt whatever that John 1:1ff is a conscious reflectionof LXX Gen 1:1ff, but I don’t hold that that means we should interpret Gen1:1ff in any particular way. <<The Jewish position appears to be that there was already an earth before God began to create. >>No, I don’t see that as being required by the Hebrew. “The earth [whosecreation was being begun] being without form and void [until the details anddifferentiations subsequently described herein were brought into being] “strikes me as supportable. The verb forms in the Hebrew of this portion of Genesis strike me as being aparticularly fascinating study. But that, of course, is off-topic for thislist (except perhaps insofar as the LXX reflects, or fails to reflect, thoseverb forms). -Chuck Stevens

 

OIKODOMHQH in John 2:20Luke 2:2

1 John 1:1

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Ilvgrammta at aol.com Ilvgrammta at aol.com
Mon Dec 20 14:15:08 EST 1999

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Dear ers,1 John 1:5 reads:hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO EQEASAMEQA KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS.In his _First John Reader_ S.M. Baugh writes that THS ZWHS is a “genitive of connection.” (where the word in the genitive highlights the subject matter of discourse. In this case, the “word of life.”)What is a genitive of connection? Is this another category formulated to classify and tag syntactical functions? I’ve looked in other grammars and have yet to find a “genitive of connection.” Maybe I’ve been looking in the wrong places, but I would love to know more about this subject.Edgar Foster

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Kevin W. Woodruff cierpke at prodigy.net
Mon Dec 20 14:24:36 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Actually the verse is 1 John 1:1 and I think that most would say that is adescriptive genetiveAt 02:15 PM 12/20/1999 EST, you wrote:>Dear ers,> >1 John 1:5 reads:> >hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO EQEASAMEQA >KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS.> >In his _First John Reader_ S.M. Baugh writes that THS ZWHS is a “genitive of >connection.” (where the word in the genitive highlights the subject matter of >discourse. In this case, the “word of life.”)> >What is a genitive of connection? Is this another category formulated to >classify and tag syntactical functions? I’ve looked in other grammars and >have yet to find a “genitive of connection.” Maybe I’ve been looking in the >wrong places, but I would love to know more about this subject.> >Edgar Foster> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: cierpke at prodigy.net>To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div.Library Director/Reference LibrarianProfessor of New Testament GreekCierpke Memorial LibraryTennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404United States of America423/493-4252 (office)423/698-9447 (home)423/493-4497 (FAX)Cierpke at prodigy.net (preferred)kwoodruf at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate)http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 20 14:34:07 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? At 2:15 PM -0500 12/20/99, Ilvgrammta at aol.com wrote:>Dear ers,> >1 John 1:5 reads:> >hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO EQEASAMEQA>KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS.> >In his _First John Reader_ S.M. Baugh writes that THS ZWHS is a “genitive of>connection.” (where the word in the genitive highlights the subject matter of>discourse. In this case, the “word of life.”)> >What is a genitive of connection? Is this another category formulated to>classify and tag syntactical functions? I’ve looked in other grammars and>have yet to find a “genitive of connection.” Maybe I’ve been looking in the>wrong places, but I would love to know more about this subject.I’m almost glad you’ve asked this question, Edgar. Of course I’ve neverheard of the term either, but if I were writing my own grammar (and it’s aLOT easier to criticize others who attempt it), I rather think that I mightuse that term in preference to what I’ve learned to call the”Pertinentive”–the standard usage of the genitive to relate any one nounto any other;it’s a structural designation and doesn’t have a definedsemantic function at all, which means it is commonly used adjectivally; Iwould distinguish it (as I gather some others would not) from an ablativalgenitive where separation is fundamental to a semantic function and from apartitive genitive, where there’s a semantic function also. I don’t thinkthat calling ZWHS a “genitive of connection” tells us a thing about whatthe relationship between ZWH and LOGOS actually is, only that ZWH dependsupon LOGOS and further distinguishes LOGOS as would any sort of descriptiveor delimiting adjective or adjectival phrase.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Dec 20 15:03:24 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? To: Edgar Foster,Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I present below with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is life.”(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.”(c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about life.”But Brown’s translation merely gives: “about the word of life.”-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Daniel Buck dbuck at briercrest.ca
Mon Dec 20 14:56:54 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? —– Original Message —–From: Kevin W. WoodruffSubject: Re: 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?> Actually the verse is 1 John 1:1 and I think that most would say that is a> descriptive genetiveActually may I suggest a couple other alternatives for understanding thesyntax: (1) a genitive of apposition, meaning “the word which is life,”where the “word” is understood as life itself; (2) an attributive genitive,meaning “the life-giving word,” (Gospel of John 6:35 “the bread of life” and8:12); or (3) an objective genitive, meaning “the word about life,” where”life” is the object of the message, that which is spoken about or revealed.The third option seems most appropriate, because when TOU LOGOU is followedby an impersonal genitive, the genitive usually denotes the content of themessage. Note also that in 1:2 “the eternal life” is the object of theapostolic proclamation.Daniel E. BuckBriercrest Bible CollegeAssistant Professor NT/Theologyhttp://www.briercrest.ca

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 20 15:23:43 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? At 2:03 PM -0600 12/20/99, Steven Craig Miller wrote:>To: Edgar Foster,> >Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I present below>with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.> >(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is>life.”>(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.”>(c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about>life.”> >But Brown’s translation merely gives: “about the word of life.”And rightly so! What’s useful about the term “connective” or “pertinentive”genitive and the recognition that it is only a structural, not a semanticcase is that one comes (hopefully) to realize that most of thesub-categories of the grammars such as the above are strategies forconveying the Greek construction into a target language and have nothing todo with the “meaning” conveyed by the Greek; these categories show how wein English (or others in other languages) make semantic distinctions thatthe Greek, so far as we know, wasn’t ever thinking about.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Mon Dec 20 16:17:32 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? In a message dated 12/20/99 2:16:25 PM Central Daylight Time, Ilvgrammta at aol.com writes:<< 1 John 1:5 reads: hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO EQEASAMEQA KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS. In his _First John Reader_ S.M. Baugh writes that THS ZWHS is a “genitive of connection.” (where the word in the genitive highlights the subject matter of discourse. In this case, the “word of life.”) What is a genitive of connection? Is this another category formulated to classify and tag syntactical functions? I’ve looked in other grammars and have yet to find a “genitive of connection.” Maybe I’ve been looking in the wrong places, but I would love to know more about this subject. >><A HREF=”http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/text?lookup=smyth+1380&vers=english&display=SMK&browse=1″>Genitive of Connection — Smyth</A>gfsomsel

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Dec 20 16:25:57 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? To: Daniel Buck,Steven Craig Miller wrote: << Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I present below with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is life.”(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.”(c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about life.” >>Daniel Buck wrote: << Actually may I suggest a couple other alternatives for understanding the syntax: (1) a genitive of apposition, meaning “the word which is life,” where the “word” is understood as life itself; (2) an attributive genitive, meaning “the life-giving word,” (Gospel of John 6:35 “the bread of life” and 8:12); or (3) an objective genitive, meaning “the word about life,” where “life” is the object of the message, that which is spoken about or revealed. >>It is amazing how you and Brown think so much alike! <grin>-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Mon Dec 20 16:23:39 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? On Mon 20 Dec 1999 (14:15:08), ilvgrammta at aol.com wrote:> hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO> EQEASAMEQA KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS.> > In his _First John Reader_ S.M. Baugh writes that THS ZWHS is a> “genitive of connection.” (where the word in the genitive highlights> the subject matter of discourse. In this case, the “word of life.”) Dear Edgar, For my money it’s a Hebraism; a literal rendering into Greek of the Hebrew phrase D:BaR-HaCaYYiYM, “Word-of Life”. Hebrew being short of adjectives, the “construct relationship” can be used to turn a noun into an adjective; here “Word-of Life” for “Living Word”. The writer is claiming to be an eyewitness of the One who is the Word made flesh, the enfleshed LOGOS, identified in verse 3 as Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. The “eternal life” THN ZWHN THN AIWNION (verse 2) is a reference to Christ’s Resurrection, which the writer claims to have seen and heard. ERRWSQE, Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Mon Dec 20 16:30:01 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Mk 8:35-37, YUCH In a message dated 12/20/99 2:16:25 PM Central Daylight Time, Ilvgrammta at aol.com writes:<< 1 John 1:5 reads: hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO EQEASAMEQA KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS. >> I confess to being very poor at reading Greek in transliteration, but isn’t this 1 John 1.1 rather than 1.5?gfsomsel

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?Mk 8:35-37, YUCH

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Dec 20 16:36:24 EST 1999

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? To: Carl W. Conrad,SCM: << Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I present below with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is life.”(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.”(c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about life.”But Brown’s translation merely gives: “about the word of life.” >>CWC: << And rightly so! What’s useful about the term “connective” or “pertinentive” genitive and the recognition that it is only a structural, not a semantic case is that one comes (hopefully) to realize that most of the sub-categories of the grammars such as the above are strategies for conveying the Greek construction into a target language and have nothing to do with the “meaning” conveyed by the Greek; these categories show how we in English (or others in other languages) make semantic distinctions that the Greek, so far as we know, wasn’t ever thinking about. >>Although what you say here is often true, I’m not for sure that it completely applies in this instance. As for the three interpretation given above, I’m unsure what ‘a’ is supposed to mean, unless perhaps it is saying the same thing as ‘b.’ But it seems to me that ‘b’ and ‘c’ are saying two different things. ‘B’ seems to refer to a “word” which can give life. And ‘c’ seems to refer to a “message” about life. Yes?-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 20 17:10:04 EST 1999

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Philippians 2:6 At 3:36 PM -0600 12/20/99, Steven Craig Miller wrote:>To: Carl W. Conrad,> >SCM: << Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I>present below with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.>(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is>life.”>(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.”>(c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about>life.”>But Brown’s translation merely gives: “about the word of life.” >>> >CWC: << And rightly so! What’s useful about the term “connective” or>“pertinentive” genitive and the recognition that it is only a structural,>not a semantic case is that one comes (hopefully) to realize that most of>the sub-categories of the grammars such as the above are strategies for>conveying the Greek construction into a target language and have nothing to>do with the “meaning” conveyed by the Greek; these categories show how we>in English (or others in other languages) make semantic distinctions that>the Greek, so far as we know, wasn’t ever thinking about. >>> >Although what you say here is often true, I’m not for sure that it>completely applies in this instance. As for the three interpretation given>above, I’m unsure what ‘a’ is supposed to mean, unless perhaps it is saying>the same thing as ‘b.’ But it seems to me that ‘b’ and ‘c’ are saying two>different things. ‘B’ seems to refer to a “word” which can give life. And>‘c’ seems to refer to a “message” about life. Yes?Perhaps we’re talking about different things. I’m saying that those threeinterpretations of the genitive are not items of Greek grammar butstrategies for conversion of what in Greek is unspecified into an Englishthat demands “nicer” or “more transparent” expressions of the possiblemeaning. In fact, I think when we say (you say? Brown says?) “it could be a…”–if we really MEAN that “it COULD be …” — we imply that the Greektext itself doesn’t give us any clue about WHICH of these makes the bestsense. I think that English “of” + a noun is often every bit as vague asthe Greek genitive of a noun linked to another noun. CertainlyGreek-speakers chose to use prepositions when they wanted to distinguishmore sharply how they were using genitive-case forms, but when they didn’t,they sent non-Greek-speakers on a wild-goose chase searching for categoriesinto which to put the genitive uses.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Mk 8:35-37, YUCHPhilippians 2:6

1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Blahoslav Cicel cbmost at iol.cz
Tue Dec 21 04:21:18 EST 1999

 

Philippians 2:6 Philippians 2:6 Dne Po, 20 prosinec 1999 jste napsal(a):Steven C Miller:> Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I > present below with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is life.”(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.” (c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about life.”But Brown’s translation merely gives: “about the word of life.”Carl W Conrad:And rightly so! What’s useful about the term “connective” or”pertinentive” genitive and the recognition that it is only a structural,not a semantic case is that one comes (hopefully) to realize that most ofthe sub-categories of the grammars such as the above are strategies forconveying the Greek construction into a target language and have nothing todo with the “meaning” conveyed by the Greek; these categories show how wein English (or others in other languages) make semantic distinctions thatthe Greek, so far as we know, wasn’t ever thinking about. >>SCM…Although what you say here is often true, I’m not for sure that itcompletely applies in this instance. As for the three interpretation givenabove, I’m unsure what ‘a’ is supposed to mean, unless perhaps it is sayingthe same thing as ‘b.’ But it seems to me that ‘b’ and ‘c’ are saying twodifferent things. ‘B’ seems to refer to a “word” which can give life. And’c’ seems to refer to a “message” about life. Yes?CWC… Perhaps we’re talking about different things. I’m saying that those threeinterpretations of the genitive are not items of Greek grammar butstrategies for conversion of what in Greek is unspecified into an Englishthat demands “nicer” or “more transparent” expressions of the possiblemeaning. In fact, I think when we say (you say? Brown says?) “it could be a…”–if we really MEAN that “it COULD be …” — we imply that the Greekttext itself doesn’t give us any clue about WHICH of these makes the bestsense. I think that English “of” + a noun is often every bit as vague asthe Greek genitive of a noun linked to another noun. CertainlyGreek-speakers chose to use prepositions when they wanted to distinguishmore sharply how they were using genitive-case forms, but when they didn’t,they sent non-Greek-speakers on a wild-goose chase searching for categoriesinto which to put the genitive uses.Blaho:It is interesting to see how people speaking digfferent languages have to havedifferent approach to the translation of greek (or wchichever secondlanguage…). The english speaking poeple MUST to do an exegesis whentranslating PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS. We translate it one to one and have not towork out grammatic categories. It is (in czech) o slove zivota. Let thepreacher makes the exegesis 😉 In german it is similar: vom Wort des Lebens.And Carl is right when stating that the greek says nothing more than the ZWH isconnected with the LOGOS.The exegesis has to see the context. My guess is, that John speaking PERITOU LOGOU THS ZWHS speaks about Jesus. See v.2 and cf with John 1:1-3.Blahopastor, Church of Brothers, Most, Czech rep.

 

Philippians 2:6 Philippians 2:6

John 3:16

[] John 3:16 “so” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Tue Dec 15 17:54:15 EST 2009

 

[] Capital theta in John 1:18? [] John 3:16 “so” Dear list,I have been studying a controversy in John 3:16:*John 3:16* οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.hOUTWS GAP HGAPHSEN hO QEOS TON KOSMON, hWSTE TON hUION TON MONOGENH EDWKEN, hINA PAS hO PISTEUWN EIS AUTON MH APOLHTAI ALL’ ECHi ZWHN AIWNION.The controversy concerns the force of hOUTWS and then hWSTE. The lexicons present, though not necessarily for this verse, the claim that the words together can imply an intensive idea where hOUTWS is “so” (“so much”) and hWSTE is “that.” The use of “so” and “that” is, of course, the traditional rendering of the verse. Some recent commentaries, papers, and translations are saying that hOUTWS should be translated “in this way,” with hWSTE possibly rendered as “and so.”This particular construction does not appear elsewhere in the Greek NT from what I have read, or really in the LXX either. So recourse is made to writers like Josephus, Philo, Demosthenes, and Epictetus to clarify the usage. The Loeb Classical Library often translates the construction with an intensive sense, but a paper I just read differed with LCL, claiming that in each case hOUTWS looked back to a previous context and had the meaning “in this way,” rather than being an intensive “so.”Is anyone familiar with this issue sufficiently to have an opinion about it?By the way, please tell me if the Greek text is legible as Greek. I exported John 3:16 from Bibleworks to Word and transferred it from Word to the emailer Thunderbird. It still looks Greek to me but perhaps not to others.Thank you.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Capital theta in John 1:18?[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Tue Dec 15 19:32:28 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” Harold,I would suggest breaking the problem down into smaller components. The first controversy regards which way hOUTWS refers, whether it is anaphoric or cataphoric. The answer to this question will influence the sense you assign it, typically either manner or degree. In reading the literature on this issue, cases are made for both backward- and forward-pointing reference. If it is backward, the antecedent would be the lifting up of the Son of Man as the demonstration of God’s love. The forward-pointing alternative would view the hWSTE clause as the referent. I played and replayed the scenarios. Forward-pointing hOUTWS references are typically resolved in: 1. a quotation (e.g. Mt 2:5 referring to v. 6, or Mt. 6:9); 2. a subordinate clause introduced by hOTI (e.g. Mk 4:26, Lk 19:31), hWS (e.g. 1 Cor 4:1; 9:26; Jas 2:12), hINA (e.g. Mt 18:14); 3. an infinitive (e.g. Lk 1:25). I have not found another instance where a cataphoric hOUTWS reference is resolved by hWSTE. It might could happen, but John 3:16 would be the lone token in the GNT. According to my analysis in the Discourse GNT, John 21:21 is the only forward-pointing hOUTWS reference in the gospel other than the potential one in 3:16. There it is simply a general reference to the events that follow where Jesus reveals himself to the disciples after the resurrection. On the basis of the broader usage and that within John’s gospel, I view the forward-pointing reading of hOUTWS in 3:16 as the harder and less likely one.The second part regards the sense of hOUTWS. I understand hOUTWS to be a “pro-adverb” (sorry Carl, know you hate the terms). It is an adverb in that it modifies a verb, and it is a pro-form in that it can stand in the place of a concept like a pronoun. In 3:16, you need to choose your concept that it stands in place of, which in both cases would be a manner, not a degree. Thus I do not think that there is merit to the degree reading, the only sound option is manner. There is nothing in the preceding or following context describing a degree, only two manners: lifting up the Son of Man, and giving his only son. This is my two cents, though I am sure there will be other opinions.Regards,Steven E. RungeScholar-in-ResidenceLogos Bible Software srunge at logos.com www.logos.comwww.ntdiscourse.org—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Harold HolmyardSent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:54 PMTo: Subject: [] John 3:16 “so”Dear list,I have been studying a controversy in John 3:16:*John 3:16* οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.hOUTWS GAP HGAPHSEN hO QEOS TON KOSMON, hWSTE TON hUION TON MONOGENH EDWKEN, hINA PAS hO PISTEUWN EIS AUTON MH APOLHTAI ALL’ ECHi ZWHN AIWNION.The controversy concerns the force of hOUTWS and then hWSTE. The lexicons present, though not necessarily for this verse, the claim that the words together can imply an intensive idea where hOUTWS is “so” (“somuch”) and hWSTE is “that.” The use of “so” and “that” is, of course, the traditional rendering of the verse. Some recent commentaries, papers, and translations are saying that hOUTWS should be translated “in this way,” with hWSTE possibly rendered as “and so.”This particular construction does not appear elsewhere in the Greek NT from what I have read, or really in the LXX either. So recourse is made to writers like Josephus, Philo, Demosthenes, and Epictetus to clarify the usage. The Loeb Classical Library often translates the construction with an intensive sense, but a paper I just read differed with LCL, claiming that in each case hOUTWS looked back to a previous context and had the meaning “in this way,” rather than being an intensive “so.”Is anyone familiar with this issue sufficiently to have an opinion about it?By the way, please tell me if the Greek text is legible as Greek. I exported John 3:16 from Bibleworks to Word and transferred it from Word to the emailer Thunderbird. It still looks Greek to me but perhaps not to others.Thank you.Yours,Harold Holmyard— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” David McKay davidmckay52 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 15 20:14:05 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” Lots of big words here, Steve.Could you tell us how you think it should be translated, following on fromyour analysis and conclusions, please?David McKay2009/12/16 Steve Runge <srunge at logos.com>> Harold,> > I would suggest breaking the problem down into smaller components. The> first controversy regards which way hOUTWS refers, whether it is anaphoric> or cataphoric. The answer to this question will influence the sense you> assign it, typically either manner or degree. In reading the literature on> this issue, cases are made for both backward- and forward-pointing> reference. If it is backward, the antecedent would be the lifting up of the> Son of Man as the demonstration of God’s love. The forward-pointing> alternative would view the hWSTE clause as the referent.> > I played and replayed the scenarios. Forward-pointing hOUTWS references are> typically resolved in:> 1. a quotation (e.g. Mt 2:5 referring to v. 6, or Mt. 6:9);> 2. a subordinate clause introduced by hOTI (e.g. Mk 4:26, Lk> 19:31), hWS (e.g. 1 Cor 4:1; 9:26; Jas 2:12), hINA (e.g. Mt 18:14);> 3. an infinitive (e.g. Lk 1:25).> I have not found another instance where a cataphoric hOUTWS reference is> resolved by hWSTE. It might could happen, but John 3:16 would be the lone> token in the GNT.> > According to my analysis in the Discourse GNT, John 21:21 is the only> forward-pointing hOUTWS reference in the gospel other than the potential one> in 3:16. There it is simply a general reference to the events that follow> where Jesus reveals himself to the disciples after the resurrection. On the> basis of the broader usage and that within John’s gospel, I view the> forward-pointing reading of hOUTWS in 3:16 as the harder and less likely> one.> > The second part regards the sense of hOUTWS. I understand hOUTWS to be a> “pro-adverb” (sorry Carl, know you hate the terms). It is an adverb in that> it modifies a verb, and it is a pro-form in that it can stand in the place> of a concept like a pronoun. In 3:16, you need to choose your concept that> it stands in place of, which in both cases would be a manner, not a degree.> Thus I do not think that there is merit to the degree reading, the only> sound option is manner. There is nothing in the preceding or following> context describing a degree, only two manners: lifting up the Son of Man,> and giving his only son.> > This is my two cents, though I am sure there will be other opinions.> > Regards,> > Steven E. Runge> Scholar-in-Residence> Logos Bible Software> srunge at logos.com> www.logos.com> www.ntdiscourse.org> > —–Original Message—–> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:> -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Harold Holmyard> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:54 PM> To: > Subject: [] John 3:16 “so”> > Dear list,> I have been studying a controversy in John 3:16:> > *> > John 3:16* οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν> μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν> αἰώνιον.> > hOUTWS GAP HGAPHSEN hO QEOS TON KOSMON, hWSTE TON hUION TON MONOGENH> EDWKEN, hINA PAS hO PISTEUWN EIS AUTON MH APOLHTAI ALL’ ECHi ZWHN AIWNION.> > The controversy concerns the force of hOUTWS and then hWSTE. The lexicons> present, though not necessarily for this verse, the claim that the words> together can imply an intensive idea where hOUTWS is “so” (“so> much”) and hWSTE is “that.” The use of “so” and “that” is, of course, the> traditional rendering of the verse. Some recent commentaries, papers, and> translations are saying that hOUTWS should be translated “in this way,” with> hWSTE possibly rendered as “and so.”> > This particular construction does not appear elsewhere in the Greek NT from> what I have read, or really in the LXX either. So recourse is made to> writers like Josephus, Philo, Demosthenes, and Epictetus to clarify the> usage. The Loeb Classical Library often translates the construction with an> intensive sense, but a paper I just read differed with LCL, claiming that in> each case hOUTWS looked back to a previous context and had the meaning “in> this way,” rather than being an intensive “so.”> > Is anyone familiar with this issue sufficiently to have an opinion about> it?> > By the way, please tell me if the Greek text is legible as Greek. I> exported John 3:16 from Bibleworks to Word and transferred it from Word to> the emailer Thunderbird. It still looks Greek to me but perhaps not to> others.> > Thank you.> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard> > > > > >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> <http://www.ibiblio.org/%0A> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — www.gontroppo.blogspot.com

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Tue Dec 15 20:51:07 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” Hi, David,> Lots of big words here, Steve.> Could you tell us how you think it should be translated, following on from> your analysis and conclusions, please?> David McKay> The way it is translated by several major translations trying to update the traditional rendering is as follows:CSB John 3:16 “For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.GWN John 3:16 God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.NET John 3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.NJB John 3:16 For this is how God loved the world: he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.However, see the NLT:NLT John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.HH: And the NET translation notes argue that the verse can describe both intensity and manner of love, supposedly in John’s style of using double meanings.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” David McKay davidmckay52 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 15 20:59:51 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” Thanks Harold.But what I want to know is what Steve thinks is the best rendering, becauseI can’t follow his argument, due to his use of jargon words I don’tunderstand.Can you or he tell me if he favours one of the translations you’ve givenbelow, based on his argument, please?I am a bear of very little brain, as Winnie the Pooh would say.David McKay

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Tue Dec 15 21:21:52 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” David,I think he would accept any of the translations I gave you. Let me go through his terms.> Harold,> > I would suggest breaking the problem down into smaller components. The first controversy regards which way hOUTWS refers, whether it is anaphoric or cataphoric. Cataphoric = forward-pointing (pointing to something further on in the sentence)of or relating to cataphora; /especially/ *:* being a word or phrase (as a pronoun) that takes its reference from a following word or phrase (as /her/ in /before her Jane saw nothing but desert/) — compare anaphoricAnaphoric = backward-pointing (referring to something earlier in the writing)> The answer to this question will influence the sense you assign it, typically either manner or degree. In reading the literature on this issue, cases are made for both backward- and forward-pointing reference. If it is backward, the antecedent would be the lifting up of the Son of Man as the demonstration of God’s love. The forward-pointing alternative would view the hWSTE clause as the referent. > > I played and replayed the scenarios. Forward-pointing hOUTWS references are typically resolved in: > 1. a quotation (e.g. Mt 2:5 referring to v. 6, or Mt. 6:9); > 2. a subordinate clause introduced by hOTI (e.g. Mk 4:26, Lk 19:31), hWS (e.g. 1 Cor 4:1; 9:26; Jas 2:12), hINA (e.g. Mt 18:14); > 3. an infinitive (e.g. Lk 1:25). > I have not found another instance where a cataphoric hOUTWS reference is resolved by hWSTE. It might could happen, but John 3:16 would be the lone token in the GNT. > HH: Right, it would be a lone instance in the GNT where a cataphoric hOUTWS reference is resolved by hWSTE, but arguments are given for it occurring in other literature.> According to my analysis in the Discourse GNT, John 21:21 is the only forward-pointing hOUTWS reference in the gospel other than the potential one in 3:16. There it is simply a general reference to the events that follow where Jesus reveals himself to the disciples after the resurrection. On the basis of the broader usage and that within John’s gospel, I view the forward-pointing reading of hOUTWS in 3:16 as the harder and less likely one.> HH: Since most references of hOUTWS are backward-looking in John, the forward-looking theory for John 3:16 seems less likely.> The second part regards the sense of hOUTWS. I understand hOUTWS to be a “pro-adverb” (sorry Carl, know you hate the terms). It is an adverb in that it modifies a verb, and it is a pro-form in that it can stand in the place of a concept like a pronoun. In 3:16, you need to choose your concept that it stands in place of, which in both cases would be a manner, not a degree. Thus I do not think that there is merit to the degree reading, the only sound option is manner. There is nothing in the preceding or following context describing a degree, only two manners: lifting up the Son of Man, and giving his only son. > > This is my two cents, though I am sure there will be other opinions.> HH: I have read an argument like this based on the elements of the word hOUTWS, which is supposedly based on hOUTOS (“this”) plus WS (“as, like”). So this is like something else, the other thing being what hOUTWS can substitute for or represent.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Tue Dec 15 21:45:23 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” David and Harold,If you were going to take hOUTWS as referring ahead to the hWSTE clause,the use of the colon in the CSB, GWN, NET and NJB all reflect theforward-pointing interpretation. Rendering hOUTWS as “this way”indicates they understand it as describing manner rather than degree.The “so much” of the NLT indicates understanding it as degree. If youwanted to capture the fronting of hOUTWS for emphasis in Greek, youwould end up with something like:”For it was *in this way* that God loved the word: He gave his one andonly son.” This is a bit stilted, and the asterisk indicates where the primarystress of the reading would be placed. It is not emphasized because itis important in and of itself, but because of what it points ahead to.The point of using such a forward-pointing reference is to drawattention to the hWSTE clause. It is a rhetorical device comparable tome saying “*Here’s* my translation: “For in this….” “Here” is not themost important word, my translation is. But as I said in the last post,I do not think that the forward-pointing reading is the most likely. Onto plan B.I think the most likely reading is to see hOUTWS referring back to vv.14-15.”Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, in this/the sameway must the Son of Man be lifted up. For in this way God loved theworld, so that He gave his one and only Son…”Understood in this way, the hOUTWS is reiterating the content of vv.14-15 that stresses Jesus being lifted up by comparison to the serpentin the wilderness, which is reiterated by hOUTWS. Note that thetranslation looks really similar, the primary difference has to do withthe reference of hOUTWS, whether forward or backward. I gotta run my daughter to youth group, hope this will answer thequestion.Steve Runge—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Harold HolmyardSent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 5:51 PMCc: Subject: Re: [] John 3:16 “so”Hi, David,> Lots of big words here, Steve.> Could you tell us how you think it should be translated, following on > from your analysis and conclusions, please?> David McKay> The way it is translated by several major translations trying to updatethe traditional rendering is as follows:CSB John 3:16 “For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One andOnly Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but haveeternal life.GWN John 3:16 God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son sothat everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternallife.NET John 3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his oneand only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish buthave eternal life.NJB John 3:16 For this is how God loved the world: he gave his onlySon, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may haveeternal life.However, see the NLT:NLT John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one andonly Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but haveeternal life.HH: And the NET translation notes argue that the verse can describe bothintensity and manner of love, supposedly in John’s style of using doublemeanings.Yours,Harold Holmyard— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Tue Dec 15 22:06:08 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” Steve,> > I think the most likely reading is to see hOUTWS referring back to vv.> 14-15.> > “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, in this/the same> way must the Son of Man be lifted up. For in this way God loved the> world, so that He gave his one and only Son…”> > Understood in this way, the hOUTWS is reiterating the content of vv.> 14-15 that stresses Jesus being lifted up by comparison to the serpent> in the wilderness, which is reiterated by hOUTWS. Note that the> translation looks really similar, the primary difference has to do with> the reference of hOUTWS, whether forward or backward. > > I gotta run my daughter to youth group, hope this will answer the> question.> HH: Thanks. Yes, this is the way that the article I read goes about interpreting the verse. It was written by Robert Gundry and someone else and published in /Novum Testamentum/ in the 1999 volume, I think in the first issue of the year. But, Steve, you have not yet handled the hWSTE clause in translation. How would you handle it?HH: And of course the issue still remains whether the Loeb Classical Library and other sources might be correct in handling hOUTWS . . . hWSTE in an intensive way in extra-biblical literature.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 15 22:08:29 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. hOUTWS GAR HGAPHSEN hO QEOS TON KOSMON, hWSTE TON hUION TON MONGENH EDWKEN, hINA PAS hO PISTEUWN EIS AUTON MH APOLHTAI ALL’ EXHi ZWHN AIWNION While I tend to agree with Steve regarding the meaning of the passage, let me present an opposing witness regarding this usage. 1.1 Ἄμωμον διάνοιαν καὶ ἀδιάκριτον ἐν ὑπομονῇ ἔγνων ὑμᾶς ἔχοντας, οὐ κατὰ χρῆσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ φύσιν, καθὼς ἐδήλωσέν μοι Πολύβιος ὁ ἐπίσκοπος ὑμῶν, ὃς παρεγένετο θελήματι θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν Σμύρνῃ, καὶ  ***  οὕτως  μοι συνεχάρη  *** δεδεμένῳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ***  ὥστε  *** με τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος ὑμῶν ἐν αὐτῷ θεωρῆσαι. (2) ἀποδεξάμενος οὖν τὴν κατὰ θεὸν εὔνοιαν διʼ αὐτοῦ, ἐδόξασα εὑρὼν ὑμᾶς, ὡς ἔγνων, μιμητὰς ὄντας θεοῦ. 1.1 AMWMON DIANOIAN KAI ADIAKRITON EN hUPOMONHi EGNWN hUMAS EXONTAS OU KATA KRHSIN ALLA KATA FUSIN, KAQWS EDHLWSEN MOI POLUBIOS hO EPISKOPOS hUMWN, hOS PAREGENETO QELHMATI IHSOU XRISTOU EN SMURNHi, KAI hOUTWS MOI SUNEXARH DEDEMENWi EN XRISTWi IHSOU, hWSTE ME TO PAN PLHQOS hUMWN EN AUTWi QEWRHSAI. (2) APODECAMENOS OUN THN KATA QEON EUNOIAN DI’ AUTOU, EDOCASA hEURWN hUMAS, hWS EGNWN, MIMHTAS ONTAS QEOU. Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (158). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books. I’ll take pity on some of the littler Greeks and provide Holmes’ translation as well. 1. I know that you have a disposition that is blameless and unwavering in patient endurance, not from habit but by nature, inasmuch as Polybius your bishop informed me when, by the will of God and Jesus Christ, he visited me in Smyrna; *** so heartily did he rejoice with me  ***, a prisoner in Christ Jesus, ***  that  *** in him I saw your entire congregation. (2) Having received, therefore, your godly good will through him, I praised God when I found out that you were, as I had learned, imitators of God. Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (159). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Steve Runge <srunge at logos.com>To: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tue, December 15, 2009 7:32:28 PMSubject: Re: [] John 3:16 “so”Harold,I would suggest breaking the problem down into smaller components. The first controversy regards which way hOUTWS refers, whether it is anaphoric or cataphoric. The answer to this question will influence the sense you assign it, typically either manner or degree. In reading the literature on this issue, cases are made for both backward- and forward-pointing reference. If it is backward, the antecedent would be the lifting up of the Son of Man as the demonstration of God’s love. The forward-pointing alternative would view the hWSTE clause as the referent. I played and replayed the scenarios. Forward-pointing hOUTWS references are typically resolved in:     1.  a quotation (e.g. Mt 2:5 referring to v. 6, or Mt. 6:9);     2.  a subordinate clause introduced by hOTI (e.g. Mk 4:26, Lk 19:31), hWS (e.g. 1 Cor 4:1; 9:26; Jas 2:12), hINA (e.g. Mt 18:14);     3.  an infinitive (e.g. Lk 1:25). I have not found another instance where a cataphoric hOUTWS reference is resolved by hWSTE. It might could happen, but John 3:16 would be the lone token in the GNT. According to my analysis in the Discourse GNT, John 21:21 is the only forward-pointing hOUTWS reference in the gospel other than the potential one in 3:16. There it is simply a general reference to the events that follow where Jesus reveals himself to the disciples after the resurrection. On the basis of the broader usage and that within John’s gospel, I view the forward-pointing reading of hOUTWS in 3:16 as the harder and less likely one.The second part regards the sense of hOUTWS. I understand hOUTWS to be a “pro-adverb” (sorry Carl, know you hate the terms). It is an adverb in that it modifies a verb, and it is a pro-form in that it can stand in the place of a concept like a pronoun. In 3:16, you need to choose your concept that it stands in place of, which in both cases would be a manner, not a degree. Thus I do not think that there is merit to the degree reading, the only sound option is manner. There is nothing in the preceding or following context describing a degree, only two manners: lifting up the Son of Man, and giving his only son. This is my two cents, though I am sure there will be other opinions.Regards,Steven E. RungeScholar-in-ResidenceLogos Bible Software srunge at logos.com www.logos.comwww.ntdiscourse.org—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Harold HolmyardSent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:54 PMTo: Subject: [] John 3:16 “so”Dear list,I have been studying a controversy in John 3:16:*John 3:16*  οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.hOUTWS GAP HGAPHSEN hO QEOS TON KOSMON, hWSTE TON hUION TON MONOGENH EDWKEN, hINA PAS hO PISTEUWN EIS AUTON MH APOLHTAI ALL’ ECHi ZWHN AIWNION.The controversy concerns the force of hOUTWS and then hWSTE. The lexicons present, though not necessarily for this verse, the claim that the words together can imply an intensive idea where hOUTWS is “so” (“somuch”) and hWSTE is “that.” The use of “so” and “that” is, of course, the traditional rendering of the verse. Some recent commentaries, papers, and translations are saying that hOUTWS should be translated “in this way,” with hWSTE possibly rendered as “and so.”This particular construction does not appear elsewhere in the Greek NT from what I have read, or really in the LXX either. So recourse is made to writers like Josephus, Philo, Demosthenes, and Epictetus to clarify the usage. The Loeb Classical Library often translates the construction with an intensive sense, but a paper I just read differed with LCL, claiming that in each case hOUTWS looked back to a previous context and had the meaning “in this way,” rather than being an intensive “so.”Is anyone familiar with this issue sufficiently to have an opinion about it?By the way, please tell me if the Greek text is legible as Greek. I exported John 3:16 from Bibleworks to Word and transferred it from Word to the emailer Thunderbird. It still looks Greek to me but perhaps not to others.Thank you.Yours,Harold Holmyard— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Dec 16 00:05:10 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] Wanted, Extensive Greek Word List —– Original Message —– From: “Steve Runge” <srunge at logos.com>To: “Harold Holmyard” <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>; “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 16. december 2009 03:32Subject: Re: [] John 3:16 “so”> Harold,> > I would suggest breaking the problem down into smaller components. The first > controversy regards which way hOUTWS refers, whether it is anaphoric or > cataphoric. The answer to this question will influence the sense you assign > it, typically either manner or degree. In reading the literature on this > issue, cases are made for both backward- and forward-pointing reference. If it > is backward, the antecedent would be the lifting up of the Son of Man as the > demonstration of God’s love. The forward-pointing alternative would view the > hWSTE clause as the referent.> > I played and replayed the scenarios. Forward-pointing hOUTWS references are > typically resolved in:> 1. a quotation (e.g. Mt 2:5 referring to v. 6, or Mt. 6:9);> 2. a subordinate clause introduced by hOTI (e.g. Mk 4:26, Lk 19:31), hWS > (e.g. 1 Cor 4:1; 9:26; Jas 2:12), hINA (e.g. Mt 18:14);> 3. an infinitive (e.g. Lk 1:25).> I have not found another instance where a cataphoric hOUTWS reference is > resolved by hWSTE. It might could happen, but John 3:16 would be the lone > token in the GNT.> > According to my analysis in the Discourse GNT, John 21:21 is the only > forward-pointing hOUTWS reference in the gospel other than the potential one > in 3:16. There it is simply a general reference to the events that follow > where Jesus reveals himself to the disciples after the resurrection. On the > basis of the broader usage and that within John’s gospel, I view the > forward-pointing reading of hOUTWS in 3:16 as the harder and less likely one.> > The second part regards the sense of hOUTWS. I understand hOUTWS to be a > “pro-adverb” (sorry Carl, know you hate the terms). It is an adverb in that it > modifies a verb, and it is a pro-form in that it can stand in the place of a > concept like a pronoun. In 3:16, you need to choose your concept that it > stands in place of, which in both cases would be a manner, not a degree. Thus > I do not think that there is merit to the degree reading, the only sound > option is manner. There is nothing in the preceding or following context > describing a degree, only two manners: lifting up the Son of Man, and giving > his only son.> > This is my two cents, though I am sure there will be other opinions.This has been discussed before, and you will find some interesting posts on it from June 2004 under the same heading John 3:16.What I have so far not seen entering into the discussion is John’s use of hWSTE. Whereas hWSTE was commonly used as a regular result connector in Classical Greek, this has changed in the times of the NT and especially in John. The normal result connector for John is hINA (which can also have other meanings.) John only uses hWSTE in 3:16.Donna Fedukowsky did research on the use of hWSTE which was published as:On The Use Of hwste With The InfinitiveSelected technical articles related to translation, No. 14 (December 1985): 25–32.I can send the article off-list to those who might be interested.She shows that in many cases in the NT, hWSTE indicates an unexpected, surprising result. This suggests that the degree is not derived from hOUTWS in John 3:16, but from hWSTE and the context. hOUTWS indicates the manner, I.e. he showed his love by sending his one and only son.It is these two words in combination enlightened by an understanding of John’s Greek style and language that supports the translation “so much”, which is also a result of a contextual interpretation by those who did not know the special usage of hWSTE in John. (For instance, Living Bible.)Whether hOUTWS points forwards or backwards is related to where the quote ends. I don’t know what Steve says about this, but others who have studied the discourse of John, conclude that v. 15 is the end of Jesus’ speech and v. 16 begins John’s comment, just as is the case with 3:31. I agree with that analysis. Introducing an author comment is one of the functions of GAR, (which is not clear from the English translation “for”).Iver Larsen

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] Wanted, Extensive Greek Word List

[] John 3:16 “so” Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Wed Dec 16 00:25:12 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” See below… —–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Harold HolmyardSent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 7:06 PMTo: Subject: Re: [] John 3:16 “so”Steve,> > I think the most likely reading is to see hOUTWS referring back to vv.> 14-15.> > “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, in this/the same> way must the Son of Man be lifted up. For in this way God loved the > world, so that He gave his one and only Son…”> > Understood in this way, the hOUTWS is reiterating the content of vv.> 14-15 that stresses Jesus being lifted up by comparison to the serpent> in the wilderness, which is reiterated by hOUTWS. Note that the > translation looks really similar, the primary difference has to do > with the reference of hOUTWS, whether forward or backward.> > I gotta run my daughter to youth group, hope this will answer the > question.> HH: Thanks. Yes, this is the way that the article I read goes aboutinterpreting the verse. It was written by Robert Gundry and someone elseand published in /Novum Testamentum/ in the 1999 volume, I think in thefirst issue of the year. But, Steve, you have not yet handled the hWSTEclause in translation. How would you handle it?SER: I had held to a forward-pointing view before reading that article.I found the way they went about their argument by saying what could nothappen unconvincing, but it challenged me to go back and rethink myposition. I failed to find an unambiguous example where hWSTE is thetarget of the reference. In regard to hWSTE, note that the folks that understand hOUTWS ascataphoric typically do not translate hWSTE. The drop it much like onewould normally do with hOTI following a verb of speaking. The treat isas a marker rather than a meaningful particle. If you read hOUTWS as anaphoric, then hWSTE plays a meaningful role byindicating how to relate the subordinate clause to the main clause. Ihave yet to find another case where hWSTE would naturally be dropped.The closest parallel I have found in 1 Cor 5:1, where hWSTE is referringback to TOIAUTH PORNEIA. I will leave the question of broader Koineusage to George and others. My gut feeling is that the KJV has so influenced and popularized thereading of hOUTWS as cataphoric and degree-oriented that one is fightingagainst hundreds of years of tradition. I do not think this is the mostnatural or simplest reading, but it can (and has been) argued. Theanswer to what to do with hWSTE depends on your interpretation of hOUTWSas ana- or cataphoric.SteveHH: And of course the issue still remains whether the Loeb ClassicalLibrary and other sources might be correct in handling hOUTWS . . . hWSTE in an intensive way in extra-biblical literature.Yours,Harold Holmyard— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Wed Dec 16 11:17:55 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” Hi, George,> οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ > ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν > αἰώνιον. > <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftn1> > > <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftnref1> > hOUTWS GAR HGAPHSEN hO QEOS TON KOSMON, hWSTE TON hUION TON MONGENH > EDWKEN, hINA PAS hO PISTEUWN EIS AUTON MH APOLHTAI ALL’ EXHi ZWHN AIWNION> > While I tend to agree with Steve regarding the meaning of the passage, > let me present an opposing witness regarding this usage.> > > 1.1 Ἄμωμον διάνοιαν καὶ ἀδιάκριτον ἐν ὑπομονῇ ἔγνων ὑμᾶς ἔχοντας, οὐ > κατὰ χρῆσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ φύσιν, καθὼς ἐδήλωσέν μοι Πολύβιος ὁ ἐπίσκοπος > ὑμῶν, ὃς παρεγένετο θελήματι θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν Σμύρνῃ, > καὶ *** οὕτως μοι συνεχάρη *** δεδεμένῳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, *** > ὥστε *** με τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος ὑμῶν ἐν αὐτῷ θεωρῆσαι. (2) ἀποδεξάμενος > οὖν τὴν κατὰ θεὸν εὔνοιαν διʼ αὐτοῦ, ἐδόξασα εὑρὼν ὑμᾶς, ὡς ἔγνων, > μιμητὰς ὄντας θεοῦ.> > 1.1 AMWMON DIANOIAN KAI ADIAKRITON EN hUPOMONHi EGNWN hUMAS EXONTAS OU > KATA KRHSIN ALLA KATA FUSIN, KAQWS EDHLWSEN MOI POLUBIOS hO EPISKOPOS > hUMWN, hOS PAREGENETO QELHMATI IHSOU XRISTOU EN SMURNHi, KAI hOUTWS > MOI SUNEXARH DEDEMENWi EN XRISTWi IHSOU, hWSTE ME TO PAN PLHQOS hUMWN > EN AUTWi QEWRHSAI. (2) APODECAMENOS OUN THN KATA QEON EUNOIAN DI’ > AUTOU, EDOCASA hEURWN hUMAS, hWS EGNWN, MIMHTAS ONTAS QEOU.> <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftn1> > > <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftnref1> > Holmes, M. W. (1999). /The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English > translations/ (Updated ed.) (158). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.> > > > I’ll take pity on some of the littler Greeks and provide Holmes’ > translation as well.> > > > *1. *I know that you have a disposition that is blameless and > unwavering in patient endurance, not from habit but by nature, > inasmuch as Polybius your bishop informed me when, by the will of God > and Jesus Christ, he visited me in Smyrna; *** so heartily did he > rejoice with me ***, a prisoner in Christ Jesus, *** that *** in > him I saw your entire congregation. (2) Having received, therefore, > your godly good will through him, I praised God when I found out that > you were, as I had learned, imitators of God.> <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftn1> > > <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftnref1> > Holmes, M. W. (1999). /The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English > translations/ (Updated ed.) (159). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.> HH: Thank you for supplying this passage, George, with both the Greek and the English. This is Ignatius’ /Epistle to the Trallians/, at the start of the first chapter, but it raises the issues that appear in John 3:16: is the author pointing backward or forward with hOUTWS? The first line is addressed to the Trallians as a group.HH: Really Robert Gundry’s article (/Novum Testamentum/, 1999) was trying to break down the paradigm whereby such passages have been translated as above, since he presents many similar passages to argue that a preceding context shows that hOUTWS is looking backward instead of forward. He may be mistaken. I have not studied all the passages. But in this passage, I can see what he might say.HH: First there is mention of the admirable qualities of the Trallians. Then there is mention of Polybius, who was their overseer and had noted these qualities about the Trallians to Ignatius (so Polybius was aware of their significance). Then Ignatius relates that Polybius “hOUTWS rejoiced together with me, bound in Jesus Christ, hWSTE I beheld the whole multitude of you in him.” To me it looks as though Ignatius is saying that Polybius exhibited the very qualities that he had borne witness to as characteristic of the Trallians, a blameless mind that was unwavering in patient endurance. The Trallians were blameless and unwavering in patient endurance in the persecution that they faced for their confession of faith in Christ Jesus. Polybius evidently showed these same qualities by his sympathy for Ignatius, who in the context, was bound as a Christian and was facing martyrdom.HH: Polybius’ rejoicing together with Ignatius was the outgrowth of a quality of other-worldly endurance of suffering for Christ’s sake that marked the Trallian church as a whole and that permitted a perspective of joy with respect to Ignatius’ bondage. Ignatius saw the whole Trallian church in Polybius because he exhibited the same qualities that Polybius admired in his congregation of Trallians. hOUTWS can look backward to the description of the Trallians that Ignatius gives at the start of the letter. Ignatius seems to be saying that Polybius’ rejoicing with him in his bondage was of such a manner that it reflected the character of the entire church as Ignatius had just described it.HH: The argument for HOUTWS looking backward is that Polybius’ rejoicing together with Ignatius in his bondage was due to the fact that he had a blameless mind in Christ and was unwavering in patient endurance in his own life. Thus he was ready to rejoice with Ignatius in what Ignatius had to patiently endure despite being blameless.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 16 11:32:26 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” After all of your verbiage, if I recall correctly, the original question you posed was whether the ὥστε hWSTE in Jn 3.16 indicated degree or manner.  In the Trallians passage Ignatius seems to be using it in the sense of degree though I continue to think that in Jn 3.16 it is used as “manner.” georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wed, December 16, 2009 11:17:55 AMSubject: Re: [] John 3:16 “so”Hi, George,> οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ > ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν > αἰώνιον. > <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftn1> > > <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftnref1> > hOUTWS GAR HGAPHSEN hO QEOS TON KOSMON, hWSTE TON hUION TON MONGENH > EDWKEN, hINA PAS hO PISTEUWN EIS AUTON MH APOLHTAI ALL’ EXHi ZWHN AIWNION>  > While I tend to agree with Steve regarding the meaning of the passage, > let me present an opposing witness regarding this usage.>  >  > 1.1 Ἄμωμον διάνοιαν καὶ ἀδιάκριτον ἐν ὑπομονῇ ἔγνων ὑμᾶς ἔχοντας, οὐ > κατὰ χρῆσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ φύσιν, καθὼς ἐδήλωσέν μοι Πολύβιος ὁ ἐπίσκοπος > ὑμῶν, ὃς παρεγένετο θελήματι θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν Σμύρνῃ, > καὶ  ***  οὕτως  μοι συνεχάρη  *** δεδεμένῳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ***  > ὥστε  *** με τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος ὑμῶν ἐν αὐτῷ θεωρῆσαι. (2) ἀποδεξάμενος > οὖν τὴν κατὰ θεὸν εὔνοιαν διʼ αὐτοῦ, ἐδόξασα εὑρὼν ὑμᾶς, ὡς ἔγνων, > μιμητὰς ὄντας θεοῦ.>  > 1.1 AMWMON DIANOIAN KAI ADIAKRITON EN hUPOMONHi EGNWN hUMAS EXONTAS OU > KATA KRHSIN ALLA KATA FUSIN, KAQWS EDHLWSEN MOI POLUBIOS hO EPISKOPOS > hUMWN, hOS PAREGENETO QELHMATI IHSOU XRISTOU EN SMURNHi, KAI hOUTWS > MOI SUNEXARH DEDEMENWi EN XRISTWi IHSOU, hWSTE ME TO PAN PLHQOS hUMWN > EN AUTWi QEWRHSAI. (2) APODECAMENOS OUN THN KATA QEON EUNOIAN DI’ > AUTOU, EDOCASA hEURWN hUMAS, hWS EGNWN, MIMHTAS ONTAS QEOU.> <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftn1> > > <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftnref1> > Holmes, M. W. (1999). /The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English > translations/ (Updated ed.) (158). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.> >  > > I’ll take pity on some of the littler Greeks and provide Holmes’ > translation as well.> >  > > *1. *I know that you have a disposition that is blameless and > unwavering in patient endurance, not from habit but by nature, > inasmuch as Polybius your bishop informed me when, by the will of God > and Jesus Christ, he visited me in Smyrna; *** so heartily did he > rejoice with me  ***, a prisoner in Christ Jesus, ***  that  *** in > him I saw your entire congregation. (2) Having received, therefore, > your godly good will through him, I praised God when I found out that > you were, as I had learned, imitators of God.> <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftn1> > > <http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=240.3&.intl=us&.lang=en-US#_ftnref1> > Holmes, M. W. (1999). /The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English > translations/ (Updated ed.) (159). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.> HH: Thank you for supplying this passage, George, with both the Greek and the English. This is Ignatius’ /Epistle to the Trallians/, at the start of the first chapter, but it raises the issues that appear in John 3:16:  is the author pointing backward or forward with hOUTWS? The first line is addressed to the Trallians as a group.HH: Really Robert Gundry’s article (/Novum Testamentum/, 1999) was trying to break down the paradigm whereby such passages have been translated as above, since he presents many similar passages to argue that a preceding context shows that hOUTWS is looking backward instead of forward. He may be mistaken. I have not studied all the passages. But in this passage, I can see what he might say.HH: First there is mention of the admirable qualities of the Trallians. Then there is mention of Polybius, who was their overseer and had noted these qualities about the Trallians to Ignatius (so Polybius was aware of their significance). Then Ignatius relates that Polybius “hOUTWS rejoiced together with me, bound in Jesus Christ, hWSTE I beheld the whole multitude of you in him.” To me it looks as though Ignatius is saying that Polybius exhibited the very qualities that he had borne witness to as characteristic of the Trallians, a blameless mind that was unwavering in patient endurance. The Trallians were blameless and unwavering in patient endurance in the persecution that they faced for their confession of faith in Christ Jesus. Polybius evidently showed these same qualities by his sympathy for Ignatius, who in the context, was bound as a Christian and was facing martyrdom.HH: Polybius’ rejoicing together with Ignatius was the outgrowth of a quality of other-worldly endurance of suffering for Christ’s sake that marked the Trallian church as a whole and that permitted a perspective of joy with respect to Ignatius’ bondage. Ignatius saw the whole Trallian church in Polybius because he exhibited the same qualities that Polybius admired in his congregation of Trallians.  hOUTWS can look backward to the description of the Trallians that Ignatius gives at the start of the letter. Ignatius seems to be saying that Polybius’ rejoicing with him in his bondage was of such a manner that it reflected the character of the entire church as Ignatius had just described it.HH: The argument for HOUTWS looking backward is that Polybius’ rejoicing together with Ignatius in his bondage was due to the fact that he had a blameless mind in Christ and was unwavering in patient endurance in his own life. Thus he was ready to rejoice with Ignatius in what Ignatius had to patiently endure despite being blameless.Yours,Harold Holmyard— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

[] John 3:16 “so” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Wed Dec 16 12:02:31 EST 2009

 

[] John 3:16 “so” [] John 3:16 “so” George,> After all of your verbiage, if I recall correctly, the original > question you posed was whether the ὥστε hWSTE in Jn 3.16 indicated > degree or manner. In the Trallians passage Ignatius seems to be using > it in the sense of degree though I continue to think that in Jn 3.16 > it is used as “manner.”HH: You may be right that the usage in the Trallians’ passage indicates degree, but what I was trying to say was that it might indicate manner. That is, Polybius’ rejoicing together with Ignatius occurred “in this way”: a blameless mind that was unwavering in endurance. I’ll give a translation of the text you supplied to reflect that interpretation:> > > 1.1 AMWMON DIANOIAN KAI ADIAKRITON EN hUPOMONHi EGNWN hUMAS EXONTAS OU> > KATA KRHSIN ALLA KATA FUSIN, KAQWS EDHLWSEN MOI POLUBIOS hO EPISKOPOS> > hUMWN, hOS PAREGENETO QELHMATI IHSOU XRISTOU EN SMURNHi, KAI hOUTWS> > MOI SUNEXARH DEDEMENWi EN XRISTWi IHSOU, hWSTE ME TO PAN PLHQOS hUMWN> > EN AUTWi QEWRHSAI. (2) APODECAMENOS OUN THN KATA QEON EUNOIAN DI’> > AUTOU, EDOCASA hEURWN hUMAS, hWS EGNWN, MIMHTAS ONTAS QEOU.I have come to know that you to have a blameless mind and one unwavering in endurance, not according to usage but according to nature, just as Polybius, your overseer, informed me, who came to Smyrna by the will of God and Jesus Christ and in this way rejoiced together with me, bound as I was in Jesus Christ, so that I beheld the whole multitude of you in him. Receiving therefore your godly benevolence through him, I gave glory, finding you, as I have come to know, to be imitators of God.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] John 3:16 “so”[] John 3:16 “so”

John 7:8

John 7:8 dano at ott.net dano at ott.net
Thu May 6 18:42:43 EDT 1999

 

Acts 2:6 John 7:8 Here is one that was brought up to me today that has got me stumped..Am posting while checking the archives at the same time :)(John 7:8 KJV) Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.(John 7:8 NNAS) “Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come.”john-07-08 UMEIS ANABHTE EIS THN EORTHN EGW OUK ANABAINW EIS THN EORTHN TAUTHN OTI O EMOS KAIROS OUPW PEPLHRWTAIThe na27 appears to be saying “I do NOT go”So whats the deal with this one? Any and all help is much appreciated as I have several awaiting answers that I can not find..Have searched thru several commentaries.. which all say different things.. including one that says it is a copyist error.thanks!Pastor Dan OglesbyCommunity Revival Center ChurchWhere God is Alive and Moving by His Spirithttp://www.crcc-oca.org===========================================For the opportunity of a lifetime go to:http://www.tgeinc.com

 

Acts 2:6John 7:8

John 7:8 dano at ott.net dano at ott.net
Thu May 6 18:42:43 EDT 1999

 

Acts 2:6 John 7:8 Here is one that was brought up to me today that has got me stumped..Am posting while checking the archives at the same time :)(John 7:8 KJV) Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.(John 7:8 NNAS) “Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come.”john-07-08 UMEIS ANABHTE EIS THN EORTHN EGW OUK ANABAINW EIS THN EORTHN TAUTHN OTI O EMOS KAIROS OUPW PEPLHRWTAIThe na27 appears to be saying “I do NOT go”So whats the deal with this one? Any and all help is much appreciated as I have several awaiting answers that I can not find..Have searched thru several commentaries.. which all say different things.. including one that says it is a copyist error.thanks!Pastor Dan OglesbyCommunity Revival Center ChurchWhere God is Alive and Moving by His Spirithttp://www.crcc-oca.org===========================================For the opportunity of a lifetime go to:http://www.tgeinc.com

 

Acts 2:6John 7:8

John 7:8 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Thu May 6 19:00:47 EDT 1999

 

John 7:8 Any suggestions on a good NT Lexicon? At 05:42 PM 5/6/99 -0500, you wrote:>Here is one that was brought up to me today that has got me >stumped..> >Am posting while checking the archives at the same time 🙂>john-07-08 UMEIS ANABHTE EIS THN EORTHN EGW OUK >ANABAINW EIS THN EORTHN TAUTHN OTI O EMOS KAIROS >OUPW PEPLHRWTAI> >The na27 appears to be saying “I do NOT go”“You yourselves go up to the feast. I myself am not going to this feast,because my time is not fulfilled”> >So whats the deal with this one? Any and all >help is much appreciated as I have several >awaiting answers that I can not find..> What are ya wondering about? The discrepency of what Jesus says (hisabsolute refusal to go) and the fact that he does go (sort of hinting thathe wasnt telling the truth?).Yes, quite a quandary.Perhaps the answer is fairly simple; as in the story of Lazarus death, whenJesus waits three days to go- because he waited for God’s ok to go- so hereJesus tells the disciples he isnt going. God intervenes after they departand he does indeed go- though not openly.(That seems an effort to ameliorate the difficult doesn’t it).Some mss attempt to clear up the problem by adding “yet” but this obviouseffort to clean up a problem is absent from Sinaiticus and Beza.For my money, the solution is relatively clear. I have no idea! It seemsthat Jesus was saying one thing and doing another…. but here we areplunging headlong into theology aren’t we.>Have searched thru several commentaries.. which >all say different things.. including one that >says it is a copyist error.Yup…Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDPetros Baptist Church- PastorQuartz Hill School of Theology- Adjunct Prof. of Biblefax- 978-231-5986email- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

John 7:8Any suggestions on a good NT Lexicon?

John 7:8 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Thu May 6 19:00:47 EDT 1999

 

John 7:8 Any suggestions on a good NT Lexicon? At 05:42 PM 5/6/99 -0500, you wrote:>Here is one that was brought up to me today that has got me >stumped..> >Am posting while checking the archives at the same time 🙂>john-07-08 UMEIS ANABHTE EIS THN EORTHN EGW OUK >ANABAINW EIS THN EORTHN TAUTHN OTI O EMOS KAIROS >OUPW PEPLHRWTAI> >The na27 appears to be saying “I do NOT go”“You yourselves go up to the feast. I myself am not going to this feast,because my time is not fulfilled”> >So whats the deal with this one? Any and all >help is much appreciated as I have several >awaiting answers that I can not find..> What are ya wondering about? The discrepency of what Jesus says (hisabsolute refusal to go) and the fact that he does go (sort of hinting thathe wasnt telling the truth?).Yes, quite a quandary.Perhaps the answer is fairly simple; as in the story of Lazarus death, whenJesus waits three days to go- because he waited for God’s ok to go- so hereJesus tells the disciples he isnt going. God intervenes after they departand he does indeed go- though not openly.(That seems an effort to ameliorate the difficult doesn’t it).Some mss attempt to clear up the problem by adding “yet” but this obviouseffort to clean up a problem is absent from Sinaiticus and Beza.For my money, the solution is relatively clear. I have no idea! It seemsthat Jesus was saying one thing and doing another…. but here we areplunging headlong into theology aren’t we.>Have searched thru several commentaries.. which >all say different things.. including one that >says it is a copyist error.Yup…Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDPetros Baptist Church- PastorQuartz Hill School of Theology- Adjunct Prof. of Biblefax- 978-231-5986email- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

John 7:8Any suggestions on a good NT Lexicon?

[] John 7:8 in UBS 4 apparatus Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at comcast.net
Sun Feb 1 09:19:54 EST 2004

 

[] IOUDAIOS and metonymy [] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 Does anyone here have the 4th edition of the United Bible Societies’Greek New Testament? (I only have the 3rd ed.)I am in need of seeing what is set out there in the critical apparatusfor Jn 7:8.Reply OFF LIST please.Yours,Jeffrey–Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1Chicago, IL 60626jgibson000 at comcast.net

 

[] IOUDAIOS and metonymy[] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11

[] John 7:8 in UBS 4 apparatus Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at comcast.net
Sun Feb 1 09:19:54 EST 2004

 

[] IOUDAIOS and metonymy [] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 Does anyone here have the 4th edition of the United Bible Societies’Greek New Testament? (I only have the 3rd ed.)I am in need of seeing what is set out there in the critical apparatusfor Jn 7:8.Reply OFF LIST please.Yours,Jeffrey–Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1Chicago, IL 60626jgibson000 at comcast.net

 

[] IOUDAIOS and metonymy[] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11

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?

1 John 2:6

καθὼς is correlative to the deictic adverb οὕτως which somewhat clumsily follows it, instead of preceding it. A more natural rendering would be as follows: ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν ὀφείλει οὕτως, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν, καὶ αὐτὸς [οὕτως] περιπατεῖν. He who says that he abides in him should thus, as he walked, also himself walk. Statistics: Posted by Robert Crowe — November 15th, 2016, 10:49 pm
ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν ὀφείλει, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν, καὶ αὐτὸς °οὕτως περιπατεῖν This is copied from NA28. When I read/translated this, it came out different to the Bible's I checked with. It seems to me that they are translating as if ὀφείλει belongs after the comma. WBC commentary also appears to me to treat the Greek in the same way— ὀφείλει after the comma. My Greek grammar/syntax is not yet that great, I wanted to ask: 1. Is my assessment of the situation correct? 2. Assuming this is correct, what creates room for the debate, is it around the question of if καθὼς is being placed before or after another word (postpositively? The grammatical term for this eludes my memory right now) Statistics: Posted by Jacob Rhoden — November 15th, 2016, 4:56 pm
 
moon jung wrote: In John 2:6, we have Ησαν δὲ εκιεῖ ὑδρίαι λίθιναι ἓξ κείμεναι κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ιουδαίων, χωροῦσαι ανὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἠ τρεῖς. I wonder whether participles κείμεναι and χωροῦσαι are attributive or predicative. I would take both to be predicative. Any other opinions? Moon Jung.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote: I've been reading this in greek for quite a while and the question you just asked has never occurred to me.
I guess this means that these participles are predicative without question, because they do not have the article in front of them? Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon jung — July 16th, 2014, 1:13 am
I've been reading this in greek for quite a while and the question you just asked has never occurred to me. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — July 15th, 2014, 11:17 pm
In John 2:6, we have Ησαν δὲ εκιεῖ ὑδρίαι λίθιναι ἓξ κείμεναι κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ιουδαίων, χωροῦσαι ανὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἠ τρεῖς. I wonder whether participles κείμεναι and χωροῦσαι are attributive or predicative. I would take both to be predicative. Any other opinions? Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon jung — July 15th, 2014, 8:33 pm

John 12:29

Stephen Carlson wrote: OK. Having checked now Brown commentary, such an appendix was not to be. (There was one on Johannine vocabulary, though, and his use of synonyms.).
It's been years since I looked at that. I do remember the appendix on Johannine vocabulary, but I also remember a discussion of Johannine use of the perfect; it may have been within the commentary itself with regard to some particular interesting usage of perfect tense. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — May 9th, 2014, 7:54 am
OK. Having checked now Brown commentary, such an appendix was not to be. (There was one on Johannine vocabulary, though, and his use of synonyms.) Interestingly, in this passage Brown translates the aorist ἐδόξασα with an English perfect and the Greek perfects with English preterites. Entirely defensible and a good feel for the English. This is perhaps a great example where one should not simply calque the tenses when translating from Greek to English. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — May 9th, 2014, 6:07 am
I wasn't and I'll take a look at that. Thanks. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — May 9th, 2014, 5:45 am
Stephen, I assume you're aware that Raymond Brown has an appendix -- I think it was in the second volume of his commentary on John's gospel -- on usage of the perfect tense in John's gospel. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — May 9th, 2014, 5:30 am
 
John 12:28b-30 wrote: 28b ἦλθεν οὖν φωνὴ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, Καὶ ἐδόξασα καὶ πάλιν δοξάσω. 29 ὁ οὖν ὄχλος ὁ ἑστὼς καὶ ἀκούσας ἔλεγεν βροντὴν γεγονέναι· ἄλλοι ἔλεγον, Ἄγγελος αὐτῷ λελάληκεν. 30 ἀπεκρίθη καὶ εἶπεν Ἰησοῦς, Οὐ δι’ ἐμὲ ἡ φωνὴ αὕτη γέγονεν ἀλλὰ δι’ ὑμᾶς.
I am fascinated by the use of the perfect in John generally and in this passage specifically. The perfects in the passage quoted about in various ways refer to a sound that's come and gone. If there is a continuing state, it exists only in the memory of the observers. The text tells us that some thought it was thunder, and some thought it was an angel speaking. And these inferences are articulated by the evangelist with verbs in the perfect rather than the aorist. I wonder what effect or "feel" is meant to be achieved by this choice of tense form. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — May 9th, 2014, 5:09 am

John 5:4

cwconrad wrote: I think this is equivalent to a past general condition, setting forth what ordinarily happened when such and such a condition was met; in earlier Greek the protasis would have been formulated in the optative mood, the apodosis in the imperfect indicative.
I see. Thanks for both your answers! Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 25th, 2014, 10:03 am
I think this is equivalent to a past general condition, setting forth what ordinarily happened when such and such a condition was met; in earlier Greek the protasis would have been formulated in the optative mood, the apodosis in the imperfect indicative. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — June 25th, 2014, 9:27 am
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:It is general / habitual: would become, suggesting that this single act is part of a larger pattern of similar acts.
So the imperfect is used simply because of the repetition of this disturbance of the pool's water according to the season and the resulting repetition of someone getting well?
I don't know what work the word "simply" is doing, but, yeah, that's basically how I understand the semantics. Pragmatically, the imperfect is great for backgrounding, which is also going on (cf. the γάρ).
Oh I asked because I wanted to confirm that the imperfect tense here has no connotation of the event of "becoming well" being ongoing at that point. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 25th, 2014, 8:42 am
 
David Lim wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:It is general / habitual: would become, suggesting that this single act is part of a larger pattern of similar acts.
So the imperfect is used simply because of the repetition of this disturbance of the pool's water according to the season and the resulting repetition of someone getting well?
I don't know what work the word "simply" is doing, but, yeah, that's basically how I understand the semantics. Pragmatically, the imperfect is great for backgrounding, which is also going on (cf. the γάρ). Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — June 25th, 2014, 6:42 am
 
Stephen Carlson wrote: It is general / habitual: would become, suggesting that this single act is part of a larger pattern of similar acts.
So the imperfect is used simply because of the repetition of this disturbance of the pool's water according to the season and the resulting repetition of someone getting well? Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 25th, 2014, 6:31 am
It is general / habitual: would become, suggesting that this single act is part of a larger pattern of similar acts. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — June 25th, 2014, 5:36 am
[John 5:4 Byz] αγγελος γαρ κατα καιρον κατεβαινεν εν τη κολυμβηθρα και εταρασσεν το υδωρ ο ουν πρωτος εμβας μετα την ταραχην του υδατος υγιης εγινετο ω δηποτε κατειχετο νοσηματι What exactly does the imperfect tense of "εγινετο" here mean? Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 25th, 2014, 5:27 am

John 1:9

Carl, thanks. I got it. At the time when John was giving a witness to the true light (v 7-8), which did not yet appear on stage, the true light was coming into the world. The past progressive description creates a dramatic effect. John's witness is the signal that the true light was coming into the world in order to be present in the world. Clear. I like it better than my rendering, He was the true light, which, coming to the world, shines every person. The fact that the true light comes to the world is more important than the fact that it shines every person, in John's storyline. Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon — June 30th, 2014, 12:27 pm
 
moon wrote: Carl wrote: I see a progression from v. 9 to v. 10, ==> What would it mean that the true light was coming into the world? I find the following sequence odd: The true llght was coming into the world (v. 9) He was in the world and the ... the world did not know him (v. 10) If I may use the jargon "reference time", the reference time for v. 9 and v. 10 would be the same, because the progressive sentence does not move the reference time forward. Then, how can we say that he was coming into the world and was in the world at the same reference time? This problem goes away if we take "coming" to be the coming of the logos into the world in the sense that "The logos became flesh" in v. 15. Is there any way to interpret the past progressive statement of v. 9, without this problem?
The "reference time" for v. 9 is to be found in vv. 7-8, the proclamation of John the Baptist: that is the point in terms of which ἦν ... ἑρχόμενον should be understood as a past progressive.
John 1:6 Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης· 7 οὗτος ἦλθεν εἰς μαρτυρίαν ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός, ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσιν δι᾿ αὐτοῦ. 8 οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς, ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός. 9 ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.
Thereupon ensues a formulation about the appearance in and presence of the λόγος with humanity:
10 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω. 11 εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. 12 ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, 13 οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — June 30th, 2014, 6:44 am
Carl wrote: I see a progression from v. 9 to v. 10, ==> What would it mean that the true light was coming into the world? I find the following sequence odd: The true llght was coming into the world (v. 9) He was in the world and the ... the world did not know him (v. 10) If I may use the jargon "reference time", the reference time for v. 9 and v. 10 would be the same, because the progressive sentence does not move the reference time forward. Then, how can we say that he was coming into the world and was in the world at the same reference time? This problem goes away if we take "coming" to be the coming of the logos into the world in the sense that "The logos became flesh" in v. 15. Is there any way to interpret the past progressive statement of v. 9, without this problem? Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon — June 30th, 2014, 5:02 am
 
cwconrad wrote: I am reluctant to say anything here, but I have viewed the ongoing thread and thought about the matter. David cited my post of 1998 (16 years ago!) and asked my opinion. Much of my thinking on many matters has changed over those years, but upon consideration, I do still think that the simplest and best solution is to understand ἦν ... ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον as a periphrastic verbal construction, the predicate here; τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀλήθινον is the subject, and ὂ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον is an adjectival clause qualifying the subject, τὸ φὼς τὸ ἀλήθινον. I see ὂ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον as picking up the phrasing of v. 4 (ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων). I think, moreover, that ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον is better understood as picked up immediately in v. 10, ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν -- surely referring to τὸ φῶς, not to ἄνθρωπον. So -- regarding the construction of this verse I'm still where I was 16 years ago.
Thanks Carl! I appreciate you thinking over it again. But as in my response to Iver, I still think it's difficult to decide between (1) and (3). In the end though they don't make a difference to the meaning of the writing as a whole haha.. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 29th, 2014, 9:46 am
Carl, let me ask some questions about your 16 old rendering of this verse. One of the reasons that I did not adopt this interpretation is that the statement "The true light was coming to the world" sounds odd in the flow of the narrative so far. It does not given any new information. We know that he was in the world from verse 1.5. Perhaps, I do not get the point of this "past progressive" description of his coming into the world. Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon — June 29th, 2014, 7:52 am
David wrote: As I said concerning the meaning of the circumstantial participle, this reading would express that it is in coming into the world that the true light illuminates every man. If my assumption that "το φως" is indeed meant to refer to "the true light" is correct, then this expression would not define or explain the meaning of "the true light", which would already be understood through the previous verses as "the light of men", but rather it would further describe how the true light illuminates men, not by just shining from afar but specifically by coming into the world. (1) If what is what John meant to say, the noun clause of form ην X Y [X is Y] is too indirect a way to say that. What John wanted to say would be more clearly implied by a slight modification of my rendering: He wa the true light, which, coming into the world, shines every person. In the original rendering, the relative pronoun is taken to be restrictive. Here, it is taken to be non-restrictive, so it is almost the same as: He was the true light. He, coming into the world, shined every person. Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon — June 28th, 2014, 11:08 pm
 
moon wrote: However, I concede that the writer can refer to this light already introduced as the "true light" somewhat "aggressively". He believes it and would think that the reader would not object to it. The problem is that "The true light was that which, coming into the world, illuminates every person" does not make a good sense in this context. Was the writer defining/explaining what the "true light" means? If so, it does not fit the following statements well.
As I said concerning the meaning of the circumstantial participle, this reading would express that it is in coming into the world that the true light illuminates every man. If my assumption that "το φως" is indeed meant to refer to "the true light" is correct, then this expression would not define or explain the meaning of "the true light", which would already be understood through the previous verses as "the light of men", but rather it would further describe how the true light illuminates men, not by just shining from afar but specifically by coming into the world.
moon wrote: If you really want to make the "true light" the subject, then you would want to render the verse as "The true light which shines every person was coming into the world" . It betters fits the following statements.
That would be option (1).
Iver Larsen wrote: A couple of comments. The verb "to be" is commonly connected with a participle both in John (29 times) and in the NT as a whole (199). It is not unusual to have a number of other elements intervening as in Mat 8:30 ἦν δὲ μακρὰν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀγέλη χοίρων πολλῶν βοσκομένη Mat 24:38 ὡς γὰρ ἦσαν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις [ἐκείναις] ταῖς πρὸ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ τρώγοντες καὶ πίνοντες ...
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Yes I understood this, which is why I don't have any grammatical issue with option (1).
Iver Larsen wrote: When the verb "to be" is placed initial in the sentence it is likely to be used in an existential sense rather than equative or descriptive. It is then used without a predicate.
I'm not sure that we can say much about what is likely. After all the immediately preceding statement was "ουκ ην εκεινος το φως αλλ ινα μαρτυρηση περι του φωτος" which was equative, although there it is clear because the genders do not match and the statement wouldn't make sense at all if there was no predicate. Out of curiosity I did a simple search to find all verses beginning with "ην". (I know this would miss some instances that we want, but it's the easiest.) It turns out that there are 55 in the entire LXX+NT, 19 of which are in John, with Matt, Mark and Luke only having 5/6 each. Those 19 instances divide as follows: Predicative (12): John 1:9(?),40,44, 4:6, 6:4, 7:2, 9:14, 11:2,18,55, 18:14, 19:14 Existential (5): John 3:1, 5:5, 11:1, 13:23, 19:41 Periphrastic (2): John 3:23, 18:25 Thus if anything this suggests that when John uses "ην" at the start of a sentence it is most commonly predicative, and not usually periphrastic. In any case I won't rest my case on such small samples, but I can't accept your claim either, for John at least.
Iver Larsen wrote: The previous verses talked about John the Baptizer coming to be a light, but only introducing the (true) light that was still to come. The larger context talks about the coming of the Word/Life/Light etc.
The previous verses actually say that John the immerser was not the light, so I presume you mean it in the sense of merely being a witness rather than a "source of illumination".
Iver Larsen wrote: Your sense (1) makes perfect sense and is the simplest solution, both grammatically and contextually. I had not realized until now that the KJV introduced an implied subject "that", but it seems to me that KJV went astray, apparently because it took the definite article as a demonstrative: (8 He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light. 9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.) It was corrected in the RSV.
According to my understanding KJV takes it as Moon does, not as I do, since they put "That" in italics, implying that it is the implicit subject of "was". But Darby explicitly renders John 1:9 according to my suggestion (3), which I previously didn't notice as I had not looked closely at translations. Now that I look at the translations the ASV and NASB use an option (5). In summary here are the options: (1) { the true light which illuminates every man } was coming into the world [ASV alt., ESV, RSV, NIV, NET, NLT] (2) the true light was { that which illuminates every man who comes into the world } [those who consider "every man who comes into the world" as a Jewish idiom] (3) the true light was that which, ( coming into the world ), illuminates every man [mine, Darby] (4) [he] was the true light which, ( coming into the world ), illuminates every man [KJV, NKJV] (5) [there] was the true light which, ( coming into the world ), illuminates every man [ASV, NASB] Haha.. I still think (3) is the most likely, since it actually fits the flow of the writing better in my opinion. Of course, I'd be glad to know any other more compelling reasons you may have. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 28th, 2014, 4:47 am
 
David Lim wrote:
moon wrote:David's suggested rendering: The true light was that which, coming into the world, illuminates every person. My rendering [ to borrow some part from yours^^. Thanks for pointing to my wooden rendering] : He was the true light which, coming into the world, illuminates every person. David said: Your reasoning based on the context is what I meant in my original question. But, both renderings are different.[...]
Ah okay yours would be a fourth option then. But I don't quite see what is so unusual about the subject of "ην" being "το φως το αληθινον". Prior to that the writer already refers to "το φως" as if it is a unique entity, not just any "φως", and usually it would be taken to indeed mean "the true φως". Thus it is alright for the writer to now use "το φως το αληθινον" as an explicit subject of "ην" because he hasn't referred to it that exact way before. => David: "and usually it would be taken to indeed mean "the true φως". No. "το φως" simply refers to a particular φως introduced in v. 4a. It seems too much that it would mean "the TRUE φως" in this context, although it could in some other contexts. However, I concede that the writer can refer to this light already introduced as the "true light" somewhat "aggressively". He believes it and would think that the reader would not object to it. The problem is that "The true light was that which, coming into the world, illuminates every person" does not make a good sense in this context. Was the writer defining/explaining what the "true light" means? If so, it does not fit the following statements well. According to my rendering, the writer says: He was the true light which, coming into the world, shines every person. [ It describes who he was and what he was doing, having come to the world]. He was in the world. The world was made through him, but the world did know him. If you really want to make the "true light" the subject, then you would want to render the verse as "The true light which shines every person was coming into the world" . It betters fits the following statements. Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon — June 27th, 2014, 9:49 pm
 
moon wrote: David's suggested rendering: The true light was that which, coming into the world, illuminates every person. My rendering [ to borrow some part from yours^^. Thanks for pointing to my wooden rendering] : He was the true light which, coming into the world, illuminates every person. David said: Your reasoning based on the context is what I meant in my original question. But, both renderings are different.[...]
Ah okay yours would be a fourth option then. But I don't quite see what is so unusual about the subject of "ην" being "το φως το αληθινον". Prior to that the writer already refers to "το φως" as if it is a unique entity, not just any "φως", and usually it would be taken to indeed mean "the true φως". Thus it is alright for the writer to now use "το φως το αληθινον" as an explicit subject of "ην" because he hasn't referred to it that exact way before.
moon wrote: Once I introduced the notion of "discourse referents", I would like to emphasize that "sentence processing" is an incremental process in which the hearer interprets each item in a given sentence as soon as possible by using all the available information, before reaching the end of the sentence, and backtracks if the attempt is not successful. This is what happens when we hear texts. In short, the set of discourse referents should be always involved in the interpretation of the current sentence. They affect the way we parse the current sentence. Syntax, semantics, and pragmtics are dependent on each other. We do not choose one of the possible multiple sentence structures, but we determine one along the way in a greedy manner.
I do agree with this, and in fact this happens with written text as well, not just heard utterances. I'm just not convinced that "το φως το αληθινον" is too unusual to be taken naturally as the subject. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 27th, 2014, 10:32 am
David's suggested rendering: The true light was that which, coming into the world, illuminates every person. My rendering [ to borrow some part from yours^^. Thanks for pointing to my wooden rendering] : He was the true light which, coming into the world, illuminates every person. David said: Your reasoning based on the context is what I meant in my original question. But, both renderings are different. The reason that I came up with this rendering almost without effort. may be that I am a native speaker of a language with "null pronouns" like Greek and Japanese. In such languages, people do not use explicit noun phrases or pronouns in place of null pronouns, when the referents of the null pronouns are saliently established in the prior discourse, UNLESS there is some need to give emphases to them. So, in our case, the candidates of the null subject of verb ην are the word, the light (which is identified with the word in v. 7, τοῦ φωτος = αυτοῦ = a person ), John. One of them will be bound to the null subject pronoun, unless the subject phrase is provided within the sentence itself. Now, the phrase το φως το αληθινον is unlikely to be the subject, because it is not obvious to which referent in the prior discourse the "true light" should be bound. There is the referent of the "light", but it is not smooth to refer to it by the "TRUE light". In verses 4b - 8, it/he was referred to by the "light" or "the light of people" after being introduced in v. 4a. But it is smooth for him to be further identified/described as the "true light which shines every person". Once I introduced the notion of "discourse referents", I would like to emphasize that "sentence processing" is an incremental process in which the hearer interprets each item in a given sentence as soon as possible by using all the available information, before reaching the end of the sentence, and backtracks if the attempt is not successful. This is what happens when we hear texts. In short, the set of discourse referents should be always involved in the interpretation of the current sentence. They affect the way we parse the current sentence. Syntax, semantics, and pragmtics are dependent on each other. We do not choose one of the possible multiple sentence structures, but we determine one along the way in a greedy manner. Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon — June 27th, 2014, 12:50 am
 
moon wrote: When I read the above verse in context, it seems the most natural way to take the verse is: He was the true light who shines every person coming into the world. Here "coming into the world" is a circumstantial clause construed with ὅ ( the subject of φθτιζει), rather than with παντα ανθρωπον. This seems clear because of v.10 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν. το φως is introduced early in verse 4, and in v. 6-8, John is introduced as a person who came ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ τοῦ θωτόσ. So, το φως is firmly established as the main topic in the context, and v. 9 identifies this φως in further details.
Your reasoning based on the context is what I meant in my original question, but that still depends on whether it is grammatical plausible. The context doesn't control absolutely everything otherwise communication would simply break down. (If words have no meaning except what I want them to mean, then no words of mine will mean anything to others. For to others my words have no meaning except what they what them to mean.) Hence my question is really whether it is a grammatically likely option, since John is full of metaphorical expressions and perhaps plenty of puns, and none of the three options I listed contradict the context, hence I think interpretation isn't really a good basis to assess the grammatical structure of John 1:9. For example, it would be silly to argue that since the second "κοσμος" in John 1:10 did not know him, therefore the first "κοσμος" must be the people and so "εν τω κοσμω" must mean "he was among the world's people". So John 1:10 should not be brought to bear on John 1:9 so definitively. As for your rendering, sorry it's really indecipherable to me. As I said before, you should express yourself in the clearest possible way, otherwise others may not be able to understand you. And if you're using an interlinear (and it seems you are, from the strange renderings you produce), please don't continue. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 26th, 2014, 11:36 am
[John 1:9] ην το φως το αληθινον ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον (1) "το φως το αληθινον ο ..." is the subject of the periphrastic "ην ερχομενον ..."; "the true light which illuminates every man was coming into the world" (2) "ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον" adjectivally modifies "παντα ανθρωπον", and "το φως το αληθινον" is subject of "ην" with predicate as the indefinite relative "ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον"; "the true light was that which illuminates every man who comes into the world" (3) "το φως το αληθινον" is subject of "ην" with predicate as the indefinite relative "ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον", and "ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον" is a circumstantial adverbial modifying "φωτιζει"; "the true light was that which, coming into the world, illuminates every man" == When I read the above verse in context, it seems the most natural way to take the verse is: He was the true light who shines every person coming into the world. Here "coming into the world" is a circumstantial clause construed with ὅ ( the subject of φθτιζει), rather than with παντα ανθρωπον. This seems clear because of v.10 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν. το φως is introduced early in verse 4, and in v. 6-8, John is introduced as a person who came ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ τοῦ θωτόσ. So, το φως is firmly established as the main topic in the context, and v. 9 identifies this φως in further details. Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon — June 25th, 2014, 9:09 pm
 
moon wrote: Carl, let me ask some questions about your 16 old rendering of this verse. One of the reasons that I did not adopt this interpretation is that the statement "The true light was coming to the world" sounds odd in the flow of the narrative so far. It does not given any new information. We know that he was in the world from verse 1.5. Perhaps, I do not get the point of this "past progressive" description of his coming into the world.
Perhaps you don't; at any rate, you have a different conception of the "economy" of the Johannine prologue. The word κόσμος in Johannine usage means fundamentally "humanity." I see a progression from v. 9 to v. 10, and I see the whole "paragraph" from v. 9 through v. 13 as a statement about the encounter between the λόγος and the κόσμος. But the dramatic statement concerning the "arrival" of the λόγος in the κόσμος is v. 14. That is followed in vv. 15-18 by statements about "the baptizer"'s relationship to the λόγος and about believers' relationship to the λόγος. No doubt there are several different ways of construing the Prologue as a whole apart from mine. I do believe, however, that the pieces of the prologue need to be seen in relationship to the whole, not simply by the single verse. I'm not prescribing an interpretation of the prologue; I'm just stating my own way of looking at it. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — June 29th, 2014, 11:46 am
 
Iver Larsen wrote:
David Lim wrote:[John 1:9] ην το φως το αληθινον ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον I've always thought that there were only two possibilities: (1) "το φως το αληθινον ο ..." is the subject of the periphrastic "ην ερχομενον ..."; "the true light which illuminates every man was coming into the world" (2) "ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον" adjectivally modifies "παντα ανθρωπον", and "το φως το αληθινον" is subject of "ην" with predicate as the indefinite relative "ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον"; "the true light was that which illuminates every man who comes into the world" And I previously thought that (1) was more likely given how it would flow naturally into the next sentence, although (2) could be arguable given John's liking for using similar words in different places in close proximity with different meanings. But I happened to look at that verse again today and thought of a third possibility: (3) "το φως το αληθινον" is subject of "ην" with predicate as the indefinite relative "ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον", and "ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον" is a circumstantial adverbial modifying "φωτιζει"; "the true light was that which, coming into the world, illuminates every man" On thinking of that it seemed similar to other occasions of such present tense circumstantial adverbials in John's writing such as 1:48 ("οντα υπο την συκην ειδον σε"), 4:9 ("πως συ ιουδαιος ων παρ εμου πειν αιτεις γυναικος σαμαριτιδος ουσης"). So which do you all think is the most likely, if we make the assumption that John isn't intentionally trying to make an ambiguous sentence? I'm thinking (3) now. My search turned up only two results: http://www.ibiblio.org//forum/vie ... =46&t=1461, which didn't clearly identify the grammatical structure, and where there wasn't really a clear consensus http://www.ibiblio.org//test-arch ... 23803.html, where Carl concluded on (1) but didn't mention (3). Any comments, Carl? :)
A couple of comments. The verb "to be" is commonly connected with a participle both in John (29 times) and in the NT as a whole (199). It is not unusual to have a number of other elements intervening as in Mat 8:30 ἦν δὲ μακρὰν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀγέλη χοίρων πολλῶν βοσκομένη Mat 24:38 ὡς γὰρ ἦσαν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις [ἐκείναις] ταῖς πρὸ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ τρώγοντες καὶ πίνοντες ... When the verb "to be" is placed initial in the sentence it is likely to be used in an existential sense rather than equative or descriptive. It is then used without a predicate. In John 1:9 there is only the subject intervening between ἦν and ἐρχόμενον, albeit a complex subject with a head noun (φῶς) and two modifiers (ἀληθινόν and a relative clause). The previous verses talked about John the Baptizer coming to be a light, but only introducing the (true) light that was still to come. The larger context talks about the coming of the Word/Life/Light etc. Your sense (1) makes perfect sense and is the simplest solution, both grammatically and contextually. I had not realized until now that the KJV introduced an implied subject "that", but it seems to me that KJV went astray, apparently because it took the definite article as a demonstrative: (8 He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light. 9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.) It was corrected in the RSV.
I am reluctant to say anything here, but I have viewed the ongoing thread and thought about the matter. David cited my post of 1998 (16 years ago!) and asked my opinion. Much of my thinking on many matters has changed over those years, but upon consideration, I do still think that the simplest and best solution is to understand ἦν ... ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον as a periphrastic verbal construction, the predicate here; τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀλήθινον is the subject, and ὂ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον is an adjectival clause qualifying the subject, τὸ φὼς τὸ ἀλήθινον. I see ὂ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον as picking up the phrasing of v. 4 (ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων). I think, moreover, that ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον is better understood as picked up immediately in v. 10, ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν -- surely referring to τὸ φῶς, not to ἄνθρωπον. So -- regarding the construction of this verse I'm still where I was 16 years ago. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — June 29th, 2014, 6:53 am
 
David Lim wrote: [John 1:9] ην το φως το αληθινον ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον I've always thought that there were only two possibilities: (1) "το φως το αληθινον ο ..." is the subject of the periphrastic "ην ερχομενον ..."; "the true light which illuminates every man was coming into the world" (2) "ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον" adjectivally modifies "παντα ανθρωπον", and "το φως το αληθινον" is subject of "ην" with predicate as the indefinite relative "ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον"; "the true light was that which illuminates every man who comes into the world" And I previously thought that (1) was more likely given how it would flow naturally into the next sentence, although (2) could be arguable given John's liking for using similar words in different places in close proximity with different meanings. But I happened to look at that verse again today and thought of a third possibility: (3) "το φως το αληθινον" is subject of "ην" with predicate as the indefinite relative "ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον", and "ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον" is a circumstantial adverbial modifying "φωτιζει"; "the true light was that which, coming into the world, illuminates every man" On thinking of that it seemed similar to other occasions of such present tense circumstantial adverbials in John's writing such as 1:48 ("οντα υπο την συκην ειδον σε"), 4:9 ("πως συ ιουδαιος ων παρ εμου πειν αιτεις γυναικος σαμαριτιδος ουσης"). So which do you all think is the most likely, if we make the assumption that John isn't intentionally trying to make an ambiguous sentence? I'm thinking (3) now. My search turned up only two results: http://www.ibiblio.org//forum/vie ... =46&t=1461, which didn't clearly identify the grammatical structure, and where there wasn't really a clear consensus http://www.ibiblio.org//test-arch ... 23803.html, where Carl concluded on (1) but didn't mention (3). Any comments, Carl? :)
A couple of comments. The verb "to be" is commonly connected with a participle both in John (29 times) and in the NT as a whole (199). It is not unusual to have a number of other elements intervening as in Mat 8:30 ἦν δὲ μακρὰν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀγέλη χοίρων πολλῶν βοσκομένη Mat 24:38 ὡς γὰρ ἦσαν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις [ἐκείναις] ταῖς πρὸ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ τρώγοντες καὶ πίνοντες ... When the verb "to be" is placed initial in the sentence it is likely to be used in an existential sense rather than equative or descriptive. It is then used without a predicate. In John 1:9 there is only the subject intervening between ἦν and ἐρχόμενον, albeit a complex subject with a head noun (φῶς) and two modifiers (ἀληθινόν and a relative clause). The previous verses talked about John the Baptizer coming to be a light, but only introducing the (true) light that was still to come. The larger context talks about the coming of the Word/Life/Light etc. Your sense (1) makes perfect sense and is the simplest solution, both grammatically and contextually. I had not realized until now that the KJV introduced an implied subject "that", but it seems to me that KJV went astray, apparently because it took the definite article as a demonstrative: (8 He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light. 9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.) It was corrected in the RSV. Statistics: Posted by Iver Larsen — June 28th, 2014, 2:53 am
[John 1:9] ην το φως το αληθινον ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον I've always thought that there were only two possibilities: (1) "το φως το αληθινον ο ..." is the subject of the periphrastic "ην ερχομενον ..."; "the true light which illuminates every man was coming into the world" (2) "ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον" adjectivally modifies "παντα ανθρωπον", and "το φως το αληθινον" is subject of "ην" with predicate as the indefinite relative "ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον"; "the true light was that which illuminates every man who comes into the world" And I previously thought that (1) was more likely given how it would flow naturally into the next sentence, although (2) could be arguable given John's liking for using similar words in different places in close proximity with different meanings. But I happened to look at that verse again today and thought of a third possibility: (3) "το φως το αληθινον" is subject of "ην" with predicate as the indefinite relative "ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον", and "ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον" is a circumstantial adverbial modifying "φωτιζει"; "the true light was that which, coming into the world, illuminates every man" On thinking of that it seemed similar to other occasions of such present tense circumstantial adverbials in John's writing such as 1:48 ("οντα υπο την συκην ειδον σε"), 4:9 ("πως συ ιουδαιος ων παρ εμου πειν αιτεις γυναικος σαμαριτιδος ουσης"). So which do you all think is the most likely, if we make the assumption that John isn't intentionally trying to make an ambiguous sentence? I'm thinking (3) now. My search turned up only two results: viewtopic.php?f=46&t=1461, which didn't clearly identify the grammatical structure, and where there wasn't really a clear consensus http://www.ibiblio.org//test-arch ... 23803.html, where Carl concluded on (1) but didn't mention (3). Any comments, Carl? :) Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 25th, 2014, 1:12 am

John 6:29

John 6:29 David A Bielby dbielby at juno.com Sun Oct 10 16:29:33 EDT 1999   Translation John 6:29 Jn 6:29bhINA PISTEUHTE EIS hON APESTEILEN EKEINOSI'm translating the conjunction and the Present Active Subjunctivefunctionally as 'to believe'. My questions are: Is there not a continuoussense in this phrase...and if so, how can we bring that out without beingawkward in the translation?? Doesn't it seem that the english tends tolose that continuous state connotation? How can we adjust for that?Could it be translated "to always believe" or something like this? Thanks for the input.David BielbyVineyard Christian FellowshipBloomington/Normal, Illinois USA dbielby at juno.com www.bloomington.vineyard.orgPhone: 309-827-8292   TranslationJohn 6:29 John 6:29 Jim West jwest at highland.net Sun Oct 10 16:42:53 EDT 1999   John 6:29 John 6:29 At 03:29 PM 10/10/99 -0500, you wrote:>Jn 6:29b>hINA PISTEUHTE EIS hON APESTEILEN EKEINOS> >I'm translating the conjunction and the Present Active Subjunctive>functionally as 'to believe'. I would differ and take the phrase as a purpose clause... i.e., "so that youmight believe... etc".>My questions are: Is there not a continuous>sense in this phrase...What do you mean by "continuous sense"?>and if so, how can we bring that out without being>awkward in the translation?? Doesn't it seem that the english tends to>lose that continuous state connotation? How can we adjust for that?Continuous? Please explain.> >Could it be translated "to always believe" or something like this? No, because it is a subjunctive the element of possibility has to beincluded- otherwise it looks like you are merely rendering an indicative.best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest'Mythology is what never was but always is.' Stephen of Byzantium   John 6:29John 6:29 John 6:29 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Sun Oct 10 17:12:11 EDT 1999   John 6:29 Translation At 3:29 PM -0500 10/10/99, David A Bielby wrote:>Jn 6:29b>hINA PISTEUHTE EIS hON APESTEILEN EKEINOS> >I'm translating the conjunction and the Present Active Subjunctive>functionally as 'to believe'. My questions are: Is there not a continuous>sense in this phrase...and if so, how can we bring that out without being>awkward in the translation?? Doesn't it seem that the english tends to>lose that continuous state connotation? How can we adjust for that?> >Could it be translated "to always believe" or something like this?Yes, I think you could say that the fact that PISTEUHTE is present "tense"means in effec that the believing is continuous--but it could also meanthat the believing is in its inception: i.e. "so you may begin to believein the one whom he sent" or "so you may continue to believe in the one whomhe sent."However, both of these sound rather awkward in English, and my owninclination, except when being "hyperliteral" is to stay within the boundsof ordinary English idiom, which does not normally make the sort ofdistinction you're suggesting for PISTEUHTE. I don't think it would be"always believe" anyway, but rather, "continue to believe." That is to say,as I understand the force of the aspect here, it is that action is ongoingand that nothing is implied about an end; rather it's a matter ofopen-ended futurity (which has always seemed to me to be what lies at theheart of Johannine faith in any case).Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/   John 6:29Translation John 6:29 David A Bielby dbielby at juno.com Sun Oct 10 19:11:41 EDT 1999   Translation John 6:29 Thank you for this jewel. On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 16:12:11 -0500 "Carl W. Conrad"<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:> At 3:29 PM -0500 10/10/99, David A Bielby wrote:> >Jn 6:29b> >hINA PISTEUHTE EIS hON APESTEILEN EKEINOS> >> >I'm translating the conjunction and the Present Active Subjunctive> >functionally as 'to believe'. My questions are: Is there not a > continuous> >sense in this phrase...and if so, how can we bring that out without > being> >awkward in the translation?? Doesn't it seem that the english > tends to> >lose that continuous state connotation? How can we adjust for that?> >> >Could it be translated "to always believe" or something like this?> > Yes, I think you could say that the fact that PISTEUHTE is present > "tense"> means in effec that the believing is continuous--but it could also > mean> that the believing is in its inception: i.e. "so you may begin to > believeI overlooked the inceptive concept. Thanks! So, would you agree thenthat it is incorrect to draw out the assumption that this verb means aone time experiential believing in. Or, is there really no distinctionbetween a snapshot of belief and the inceptive?> in the one whom he sent" or "so you may continue to believe in the > one whom> he sent."> > However, both of these sound rather awkward in English, and my own> inclination, except when being "hyperliteral" is to stay within the > bounds> of ordinary English idiom, which does not normally make the sort of> distinction you're suggesting for PISTEUHTE. I don't think it would > be> "always believe" anyway, but rather, "continue to believe." That is > to say,> as I understand the force of the aspect here, it is that action is > ongoing> and that nothing is implied about an end; rather it's a matter of> open-ended futurity (which has always seemed to me to be what lies > at the> heart of Johannine faith in any case).> > > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics/Washington University> One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018> Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/Thanks again!David BielbyVineyard Christian FellowshipBloomington/Normal, Illinois USA dbielby at juno.com www.bloomington.vineyard.orgPhone: 309-827-8292   TranslationJohn 6:29 John 6:29 David A Bielby dbielby at juno.com Sun Oct 10 19:15:11 EDT 1999   John 6:29 Translation Thanks for the quick reply. This verse stirred me up because sometranslate it as an infinitive 'to believe'. And because vagueness herehas some ramifications in practical theology, especially in the realm ofevangelism. On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 16:42:53 -0400 Jim West <jwest at highland.net> writes:> At 03:29 PM 10/10/99 -0500, you wrote:> >Jn 6:29b> >hINA PISTEUHTE EIS hON APESTEILEN EKEINOS> >> >I'm translating the conjunction and the Present Active Subjunctive> >functionally as 'to believe'. > > I would differ and take the phrase as a purpose clause... i.e., "so > that you> might believe... etc".> > >My questions are: Is there not a continuous> >sense in this phrase...> > What do you mean by "continuous sense"?> I mean an ongoing believing in, rather than a one time event.I remember the clearest understanding of the continual sense of a presentactive in John's writings from 1 John 3:8 hO POIWN THN hAMARTIAN....isof the devil...So, I thought that the present often refers to a continual state oractivity rather than one time occurances. With that in mind, what do you think of this approach to John 6:29: Thework of God is this: to keep on believing in the one he sent...OR tobelieve in the one he sent (with an ongoing belief in mind). Rather thanthe simple subjunctive force. How about translating this verse: that you may keep believing......??> best,> > Jim> Thanks again!David BielbyVineyard Christian FellowshipBloomington/Normal, Illinois USA dbielby at juno.com www.bloomington.vineyard.orgPhone: 309-827-8292   John 6:29Translation John 6:29 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net Sun Oct 10 20:43:25 EDT 1999   Translation John 6:29 & the Present Tense At 06:15 PM 10/10/99 -0500, you wrote:>So, I thought that the present often refers to a continual state or>activity rather than one time occurances. Ok- i see what you mean. Yes, I agree.> >With that in mind, what do you think of this approach to John 6:29: The>work of God is this: to keep on believing in the one he sent...OR to>believe in the one he sent (with an ongoing belief in mind). Rather than>the simple subjunctive force. Thats perfectly fine so far as I am concerned.> >How about translating this verse: that you may keep believing......??I have no problem with that either- so long as you understand that it is asubjunctive and not an indicative verb.jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest'Mythology is what never was but always is.' Stephen of Byzantium   TranslationJohn 6:29 & the Present Tense John 6:29 & the Present Tense Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com Sun Oct 10 21:41:13 EDT 1999   John 6:29 John 6:29 To: David A Bielby and the participants of ,<< I remember the clearest understanding of the continual sense of apresent active in John's writings from 1 John 3:8 hO POIWN THNhAMARTIAN...is of the devil... So, I thought that the present often refersto a continual state or activity rather than one time occurences. With thatin mind, what do you think of this approach to John 6:29: The work of Godis this: to keep on believing in the one he sent...OR to believe in the onehe sent (with an ongoing belief in mind). Rather than the simplesubjunctive force. >>FWIW ... the passages I've always wondered about are the divorce texts inthe Synoptic gospels. E.g. the NRSV translates Mt 19:9 as: << And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, andmarries another commits adultery. >>The English translation "commits adultery" might give some the impressionthat the sin is committed only during the marriage ceremony. I wonder ifthe present tense might be better translated as: "living in adultery"? Onemight translate Mt 19:9 as:<< And I say to you, whoever divorces his woman, except for infidelity (or:prostitution [?]), and marries another lives in adultery. >>I reckon that the idea is too unpopular to be adopted by any majortranslation. And although I would not personally approve of such an ethic,it seems to me that is what the text is saying.Re: John 6:29:<< How about translating this verse: that you may keep believing...?? >>Who would want to argue that this verse might imply: 'that you may believefor a little while'? FWIW, after A.T. Robertson notes in his grammar thatwith the present indicative can be used for either punctiliar or linearaction, he (864) writes:<< This defect is chiefly found in the indicative, since in the subj.,opt., imper., inf. and part. ... the aorist is always punctiliar and theso-called present practically always linear ... >>How about John 15:12: "This is my commandment that you keep on loving oneanother just as I have loved you"?Also, one might note that the variant reading at John 6:29 is PISTEUSHTE(aor. subj.) as opposed to PISTEUHTE (pres. subj.). If the aor. subj. istranslated as "that you believe ..." (as it is in the NKJV), shouldn't thepresent subjunctive be translated differently? Or would one want to saythat there is no real difference between the two variant readings?-Steven Craig Miller (scmiller at www.plantnet.com)   John 6:29John 6:29 John 6:29 Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com Sun Oct 10 22:05:39 EDT 1999   John 6:29 & the Present Tense John 6:29 ----- Original Message -----From: David A Bielby <dbielby at juno.com>Sent: Sunday, October 10, 1999 3:29 PM> Jn 6:29b> hINA PISTEUHTE EIS hON APESTEILEN EKEINOS> > I'm translating the conjunction and the Present Active Subjunctive> functionally as 'to believe'. My questions are: Is there not a continuous> sense in this phrase...and if so, how can we bring that out without being> awkward in the translation?? Doesn't it seem that the english tends to> lose that continuous state connotation? How can we adjust for that?I would agree that this phrase is not *purpose*, but the definition of TOERGON TOU QEOU.As to the translation:"that you believe" is the plain vanilla version; the construction('that'-phrase) carries with it a bit of the subjunctive idea, and the pres.tns. 'believe' carries some of the continuative idea. This transl. alsoallows for the inceptive notion, which is lacking in phrases like 'continueto believe. Is this phrase too light on the continuative idea?? Believeitself generally carries a continuative character; if we mean a one-timebelieve which is very short lived, we have to specify that.Nevertheless, consider this alternative:"that you have faith"This might be stronger on the continuative notion, but should probably berejected because it is less active (believe is nominalized).> > Could it be translated "to always believe" or something like this?Assumes too much--presses the continuative aspect too far. I think thecontinuation as a principle/mode of one's life is the intent, but this wouldnot be negated by momentary lapses (as might be implied by "always blieve").God Bless!Joe A. FribergArlington, TexasJoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.netMA LinguisticsMA Theology candidate   John 6:29 & the Present TenseJohn 6:29 John 6:29 David A Bielby dbielby at juno.com Sun Oct 10 22:22:53 EDT 1999   John 6:29 John 6:29 Thanks for the reply. What do you think then of translating this as aninfinitive (NIV does this)? What are the grounds for that approach?On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:52:37 -0500 "Joe A. Friberg"<JoeFriberg at email.msn.com> writes:> ----- Original Message -----> From: David A Bielby <dbielby at juno.com>> Sent: Sunday, October 10, 1999 3:29 PM> > > > Jn 6:29b> > hINA PISTEUHTE EIS hON APESTEILEN EKEINOS> >> > I'm translating the conjunction and the Present Active Subjunctive> > functionally as 'to believe'. My questions are: Is there not a > continuous> > sense in this phrase...and if so, how can we bring that out > without being> > awkward in the translation?? Doesn't it seem that the english > tends to> > lose that continuous state connotation? How can we adjust for > that?> > I would agree that this phrase is not *purpose*, but the definition > of TO> ERGON TOU QEOU.> > As to the translation:> > "that you believe" is the plain vanilla version; the construction> ('that'-phrase) carries with it a bit of the subjunctive idea, and > the pres.> tns. 'believe' carries some of the continuative idea. This transl. > also> allows for the inceptive notion, which is lacking in phrases like > 'continue> to believe. Is this phrase too light on the continuative idea?? > Believe> itself generally carries a continuative character; if we mean a > one-time> believe which is very short lived, we have to specify that.> > Nevertheless, consider this alternative:> "that you have faith"> This might be stronger on the continuative notion, but should > probably be> rejected because it is less active (believe is nominalized).> > >> > Could it be translated "to always believe" or something like this?> > Assumes too much--presses the continuative aspect too far. I think > the> continuation as a principle/mode of one's life is the intent, but > this would> not be negated by momentary lapses (as might be implied by "always > blieve").> > God Bless!> > Joe A. Friberg> Arlington, Texas> JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net> MA Linguistics> MA Theology candidate> > > > David BielbyVineyard Christian FellowshipBloomington/Normal, Illinois USA dbielby at juno.com www.bloomington.vineyard.orgPhone: 309-827-8292   John 6:29John 6:29 John 6:29 Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com Sun Oct 10 22:52:27 EDT 1999   John 6:29 KATA PANTA, DIA PANTA ----- Original Message -----From: David A Bielby <dbielby at juno.com>Sent: Sunday, October 10, 1999 9:22 PM> Thanks for the reply. What do you think then of translating this as an> infinitive (NIV does this)? What are the grounds for that approach?"the work of God is this: to believe in..."The infinitive may make the action of believing more punctiliar, lesscontinuative. Another alternative occurs to me, which clearly conveys thecontinuative:"the work of God is this: believing in the one he has sent"Joe F.> > On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:52:37 -0500 "Joe A. Friberg"> <JoeFriberg at email.msn.com> writes:> > ----- Original Message -----> > From: David A Bielby <dbielby at juno.com>> > Sent: Sunday, October 10, 1999 3:29 PM> >> >> > > Jn 6:29b> > > hINA PISTEUHTE EIS hON APESTEILEN EKEINOS> > >> > > I'm translating the conjunction and the Present Active Subjunctive> > > functionally as 'to believe'. My questions are: Is there not a> > continuous> > > sense in this phrase...and if so, how can we bring that out> > without being> > > awkward in the translation?? Doesn't it seem that the english> > tends to> > > lose that continuous state connotation? How can we adjust for> > that?> >> > I would agree that this phrase is not *purpose*, but the definition> > of TO> > ERGON TOU QEOU.> >> > As to the translation:> >> > "that you believe" is the plain vanilla version; the construction> > ('that'-phrase) carries with it a bit of the subjunctive idea, and> > the pres.> > tns. 'believe' carries some of the continuative idea. This transl.> > also> > allows for the inceptive notion, which is lacking in phrases like> > 'continue> > to believe. Is this phrase too light on the continuative idea??> > Believe> > itself generally carries a continuative character; if we mean a> > one-time> > believe which is very short lived, we have to specify that.> >> > Nevertheless, consider this alternative:> > "that you have faith"> > This might be stronger on the continuative notion, but should> > probably be> > rejected because it is less active (believe is nominalized).> >> > >> > > Could it be translated "to always believe" or something like this?> >> > Assumes too much--presses the continuative aspect too far. I think> > the> > continuation as a principle/mode of one's life is the intent, but> > this would> > not be negated by momentary lapses (as might be implied by "always> > blieve").> >> > God Bless!> >> > Joe A. Friberg> > Arlington, Texas> > JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net> > MA Linguistics> > MA Theology candidate> >> >> >> >> > David Bielby> Vineyard Christian Fellowship> Bloomington/Normal, Illinois USA> dbielby at juno.com www.bloomington.vineyard.org> Phone: 309-827-8292> > ---> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: JoeFriberg at email.msn.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst('Email.Unsub')> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >   John 6:29KATA PANTA, DIA PANTA John 6:29 & the Present Tense dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com Mon Oct 11 00:28:52 EDT 1999   KATA PANTA, DIA PANTA Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:41:13 -0500 Steven Craig Miller<scmiller at www.plantnet.com> writes:> To: David A Bielby and the participants of ,> > << I remember the clearest understanding of the continual sense of a> present active in John's writings from 1 John 3:8 hO POIWN THN> hAMARTIAN...is of the devil... So, I thought that the present often > refers to a continual state or activity rather than one timeoccurences. > With that in mind, what do you think of this approach to John 6:29: Thework > of God is this: to keep on believing in the one he sent...OR to believein > the one he sent (with an ongoing belief in mind). Rather than thesimple> subjunctive force. >>The present tense in Greek views action as continuous in contrastto the aorist tense wherein the action is undefined. Continuous actioncan be broken down generally as progressive (viewed as actuallyprogressing in present time) or as habitual or characteristic, that is,as continuous action going on in past, present, and/or future times.I would agree that John's use of the present tense is typically habitualor characteristic. His use of the present tense of PISTEUW in contrastto the aorist is striking. The purpose of John's Gospel (20:31) andof 1 John (5:13) illustrate this. His use of the aorist tense in Jn 2:23 illustrates that it is possible tobelieve not unto eternal life, since Jesus did not entrust Himself tosuch, knowing what was in their hearts (2:24).> > FWIW ... the passages I've always wondered about are the divorce > texts in the Synoptic gospels. E.g. the NRSV translates Mt 19:9 as: > > << And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for > unchastity, and marries another commits adultery. >>> > The English translation "commits adultery" might give some the > impression that the sin is committed only during the marriage ceremony.I > wonder if the present tense might be better translated as: "living in > adultery"? One might translate Mt 19:9 as:> > << And I say to you, whoever divorces his woman, except for > infidelity (or:prostitution [?]), and marries another lives inadultery. >>> > I reckon that the idea is too unpopular to be adopted by any major> translation. And although I would not personally approve of such an > ethic, it seems to me that is what the text is saying.The problem is that the present tense may denote a progressivenuance, that is, "is committing adultery (in the act of remarriage)".This, of course, addresses the issue made by some over whetherremarriage constitutes an on-going act of adultery. This cannotbe proved by the use of the present tense. The nuance may bemerely progressive.Paul Dixon.   KATA PANTA, DIA PANTAMatt 19:9 & the Present Tense John 6:29 & the Present Tense Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com Mon Oct 11 01:18:28 EDT 1999   Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense Translation ----- Original Message -----From: Steven Craig Miller <scmiller at www.plantnet.com>Sent: Sunday, October 10, 1999 8:41 PM> Also, one might note that the variant reading at John 6:29 is PISTEUSHTE> (aor. subj.) as opposed to PISTEUHTE (pres. subj.). If the aor. subj. is> translated as "that you believe ..." (as it is in the NKJV), shouldn't the> present subjunctive be translated differently? Or would one want to say> that there is no real difference between the two variant readings?1. Can you be sure that the NKJV was based on the aor. subj.? (I do notrecall the NKJV textual principles.)2. There is a difference of nuance in the Gk: I might suggest the aor. subj.be translated:"that you should believe..."The NKJV may have simply ignored the nuance in preference of the standardinterpretation.Joe Friberg   Matt 19:9 & the Present TenseTranslation John 6:29 & the Present Tense Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com Mon Oct 11 09:35:46 EDT 1999   Translation Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense To: Joe A. Friberg,SCM: << Also, one might note that the variant reading at John 6:29 isPISTEUSHTE (aor. subj.) as opposed to PISTEUHTE (pres. subj.). If the aor.subj. is translated as "that you believe ..." (as it is in the NKJV),shouldn't the present subjunctive be translated differently? Or would onewant to say that there is no real difference between the two variantreadings? >>JAF: << 1. Can you be sure that the NKJV was based on the aor. subj.? (Ido not recall the NKJV textual principles.) >>They are supposed to follow the Textus Receptus (or Greek text) used by theKJV.JAF: << 2. There is a difference of nuance in the Gk: I might suggest theaor. subj. be translated: "that you should believe..." >>As opposed to what? As opposed to "that you believe"? Somehow I have a hardtime understanding how adding the word "should" would illustrate thedifference between the aorist subjunctive and the present subjunctive.Would you like to elaborate?JAF: << The NKJV may have simply ignored the nuance in preference of thestandard interpretation. >>Perhaps.-Steven Craig Miller (scmiller at www.plantnet.com)   TranslationMatt 19:9 & the Present Tense John 6:29 & the Present Tense & 6.30 Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com Tue Oct 12 03:22:09 EDT 1999   GAR in Phil. 1:8 Ezek 37.9 ----- Original Message -----From: Steven Craig Miller <scmiller at www.plantnet.com>Sent: Monday, October 11, 1999 8:35 AM> To: Joe A. Friberg,> JAF: << 2. There is a difference of nuance in the Gk: I might suggest the> aor. subj. be translated: "that you should believe..." >>> > As opposed to what? As opposed to "that you believe"? Somehow I have ahard> time understanding how adding the word "should" would illustrate the> difference between the aorist subjunctive and the present subjunctive.> Would you like to elaborate?These are subtle differences, no doubt about it! And I cannot be *certain*Ihave nailed down the distinction precisely in either Gk or Engl. In fact, Iam grasping for language to make the distinction, and if you (and others) donot see the/any distinction, then clearly my suggestion falls on its face!But here goes for an explication of the nuance I was suggesting:If "that you believe" is present continuative, then by making the demandstronger/more pointed, it would be more limited in scope. Something likethe 'uncertainty principle'--the stronger it is, the less broad it is, andvice versa. (That may not work, tho.) But note that a closer contrastivecounterpart to "that you should believe" is "that you shall believe."Sounds rather like a legalism; but it does carry (IMHO) a strongercontinuative notion than the "should" version. Because the "shall" is notnatural in everyday language, I am suggesting that the simpler "that youbelieve" may replace it in continuative force.I have added "6.30" to the header, because the people respond back to Jesuswith an *aor.* subj. This makes for an intersting contrast and a challengeto the translation process. Why did the people use the aor. after Jesusused the pres.? Either1. they were unwilling to make that big of a commitment/were seeking anentry level belief, or2. they failed to catch the nuance/import of what Jesus said.If it was the latter, we would do wrong to translate the distinction too blatantly. If the former, should the translation grant them any grace at thispoint or let them stand clearly condemned by their words?Let me offer several alternative translations of these two verses and askfor feedback on which one people like/agree with the most:1. Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: that you believe in the one hehas sent." They asked him, "What sign will you do that we may see and mightbelieve you? What will you do?"2. Jesus answered, "The ongoing work of God is this: believing in the one hehas sent." They asked him, "What sign will you do that we may see andbelieve a little in you? What will you do?"3. Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: that you believe and continuebelieving in the one he has sent." They asked him, "What sign will you dothat we may see and believe you? What will you do?"Would you suggest something different?God Bless!Joe Friberg   GAR in Phil. 1:8Ezek 37.9 John 6:29 & the Present Tense & 6.30 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Tue Oct 12 07:20:12 EDT 1999   GAR in Phil. 1:8 Ezek 37.9 At 2:22 AM -0500 10/12/99, Joe A. Friberg wrote:>But here goes for an explication of the nuance I was suggesting:>If "that you believe" is present continuative, then by making the demand>stronger/more pointed, it would be more limited in scope. Something like>the 'uncertainty principle'--the stronger it is, the less broad it is, and>vice versa. (That may not work, tho.) But note that a closer contrastive>counterpart to "that you should believe" is "that you shall believe.">Sounds rather like a legalism; but it does carry (IMHO) a stronger>continuative notion than the "should" version. Because the "shall" is not>natural in everyday language, I am suggesting that the simpler "that you>believe" may replace it in continuative force.> >I have added "6.30" to the header, because the people respond back to Jesus>with an *aor.* subj. This makes for an intersting contrast and a challenge>to the translation process. Why did the people use the aor. after Jesus>used the pres.? Either>1. they were unwilling to make that big of a commitment/were seeking an>entry level belief, or>2. they failed to catch the nuance/import of what Jesus said.>If it was the latter, we would do wrong to translate the distinction too bla>tantly. If the former, should the translation grant them any grace at this>point or let them stand clearly condemned by their words?> >Let me offer several alternative translations of these two verses and ask>for feedback on which one people like/agree with the most:> >1. Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: that you believe in the one he>has sent." They asked him, "What sign will you do that we may see and might>believe you? What will you do?"> >2. Jesus answered, "The ongoing work of God is this: believing in the one he>has sent." They asked him, "What sign will you do that we may see and>believe a little in you? What will you do?"> >3. Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: that you believe and continue>believing in the one he has sent." They asked him, "What sign will you do>that we may see and believe you? What will you do?"> >Would you suggest something different?Interesting challenge. Let me underscore something that's implicit butperhaps should be made explicit here; in 6:29 PISTEUHTE is subjunctive forno other reason that it is in a hINA clause; moreover, this is NOT apurpose clause but a very common Hellenistic Greek substantive clauseanswering to the introductory demonstrative TOUTO, and that's why version#2 above can use the gerund "believing" for hINA PISTEUHTE ... I franklythink that's the preferable way of conveying the "present" aspect ofPISTEUHTE. As for the aorists in the clauses in 6:30, it seems to me thatthe clauses in which they appear really are purpose clauses and that theforce of the aorists is telic: they aim at end-result rather thancontinuing process. Therefore I'd offer my own version as follows (Imightjust note that I tend to be impatient with English such as "that we maysee" to translate purpose clauses, although it's perfectly intelligible,for the reason that we don't really talk that way in 1999, and we're onlylikely to WRITE that way if that's the way we've learned to translatepurpose clauses from Latin or Greek.My suggestion: "Jesus answered them, 'God's assigned task is your believingin the one He sent.' So they said to him, 'What miracle then are you goingto perform to make us see and come to faith in you? What feat will youperform?'"Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/   GAR in Phil. 1:8Ezek 37.9 John 6:29 & the Present Tense & 6.30 Nonnos Paraphrase TonyProst at aol.com TonyProst at aol.com Tue Oct 12 11:44:02 EDT 1999   Matt 19:9 & the Gnomic Present Tense Matt 19:9 & the Gnomic Present Tense For y'all's lucubration, Nonnos paraphrases the verses as follows:VI:120 et seq.120 (28b) eipe, ti ken rizwmen, hopws theotertpei thesmwi121 erga theou telesoimen; (29) anax d' e^meibeto muthwi;122 orthe^n pistin echontes hopws dexe^sthe phanenta,123 hontina keinos epempen. (30) epephthegxanto de laoi;124 poion eeldomeois se^me^ion ammi telesseis,125 ophra ke teithoimestha theossuton ergon idontes:Regards,Tony ProstAll Nonnos All Dayhttp://nonnos.iscool.net   Matt 19:9 & the Gnomic Present TenseMatt 19:9 & the Gnomic Present Tense [] hINA Clause John 6:29 Gordon Slocum edifier.of.truth at gmail.com Mon Aug 23 14:34:24 EDT 2010   [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic? [] hINA Clause John 6:29 JOHN 6:28 – 29EIPON OUN PROS AUTON TI POIWMEN hINA ERGAZWMEQA TA ERGA TOUQEOS (29) APEKRIQH IHSOUS KAI EIPEN AUTOIS TOUTO ESTIN TO ERGONTOU QEOU hINA PISTEUHET EIS hON APESTEILEN EKEINOS.Do I correctly understand the follow to be a purpose clause "hINAPISTEUHET EIS hON APESTEILEN EKEINOS" If I have this correct isthe idea of contingency present in this use of this "present activesubjunctive? Would the following translation of this clause be acceptable"that you might believe".Gordon   [] Paul writing in Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic?[] hINA Clause John 6:29 [] hINA Clause John 6:29 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com Mon Aug 23 15:46:16 EDT 2010   [] hINA Clause John 6:29 [] Referent of hOS (Ignatius to the Magnesians) ? On Aug 23, 2010, at 2:34 PM, Gordon Slocum wrote:> JOHN 6:28 – 29> EIPON OUN PROS AUTON TI POIWMEN hINA ERGAZWMEQA TA ERGA TOU> QEOS (29) APEKRIQH IHSOUS KAI EIPEN AUTOIS TOUTO ESTIN TO ERGON> TOU QEOU hINA PISTEUHETLet's make that PISTEUHi> EIS hON APESTEILEN EKEINOS.> Do I correctly understand the follow to be a purpose clause "hINA> PISTEUHi EIS hON APESTEILEN EKEINOS" If I have this correct is> the idea of contingency present in this use of this "present active> subjunctive? Would the following translation of this clause be acceptable> "that you might believe".Actually this hINA clause is more a substantive clause, practically equivalent toan infinitive or gerund: "Doing God's work is believing in the one He sent."cf. BDF§388. But useful for a fuller understanding of what's going on here isMargaret Sim's dissertation on hINA and hOTI, soon to be published, if not already published:http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//2009-January/048336.htmlCarl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)   [] hINA Clause John 6:29[] Referent of hOS (Ignatius to the Magnesians) ?
moon jung wrote: But as long as we assume that the ἱνα clause represents a desirable state of affairs in general, my rendering can be obtained.
At the expense of the context, as I've already explained. I hope you seriously reconsider why you are pushing your opinions on "ινα" so strongly, because if we disregard context, we can always argue for anything we like and find excuses for everything that doesn't quite fit. No doubt, the context has to be interpreted, so again you are free to disregard everyone's interpretation except those whom you agree with.
moon jung wrote: My understanding seems to be consistent with the observation of Sim's dissertation: [...]
You can choose whatever you like, but I feel that you are just trying to get someone to agree with you, and at the same time you seem to also let your opinions drive your linguistic claims. For example, you keep trying to use what others say in order to prove your original claims, and you press people in that direction as far as you can. Thus I urge you to instead start learning Greek simply as a language rather than as a tool to be wielded. And it would be good for you to be aware of confirmation bias. No one is immune to it, so the best we can do is to provide objective evidence. For a natural language, it seems that only statistical evidence (with a sufficiently large sample size) is objective enough, as other types of evidence all turn upon interpretation, hence the multitude of opinions based on them. You will have to decide for yourself what you consider as sufficient evidence, but don't expect me to agree with you if you do not provide corpus-based evidence but only your opinions concerning solitary instances. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 13th, 2014, 10:47 pm
David, thanks for all the detailed clarifications about the notion of "purposed result". Under your undertanding of the ἱνα + subjunctive, I think the following equation can be stated by John 17:3 as in John 15:12. ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν..... The "content clause" ἱνα γινωσκωσιν..... states the desirable state of affairs intended by the speaker, not an actual state of affairs. This desirable state of affairs ( = desirable result intended by the speaker) is equated to ἡ αιωνιος ζωη by John 17:3. The following rendering is made inevitable only when we take ἱνα γινωσκωσιν.....to be sort of an instruction: To obtain the eternal life, they should know .... But as long as we assume that the ἱνα clause represents a desirable state of affairs in general, my rendering can be obtained. The difference from John 15:12 αὑτη εστιν ἡ εντολη εμη ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους. seems to be that in this case, it is very hard to find an appropriate English translation. In English, we do not seem to have an auxiliary verb indicating the simple "desirable state of affairs" without connotation of obligation or instruction. My understanding seems to be consistent with the observation of Sim's dissertation:
I claim that ἱνα clause does ‘denote content’ but that the function of the particle is to alert the reader to expect that content and to read it as indicating speaker or subject attitude.
Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon jung — July 13th, 2014, 2:31 am
 
moon jung wrote: But what do you refer to by "cases of ellipsis"?
If the grammatical structure has missing elements, they would be supplied by the context. Because of this, there may be cases where substituting an "ινα" clause with an infinitive may result in a different implied meaning, since infinitives have other uses. But I don't have examples of this at hand and it's not really important. I only mentioned it so that you don't assume that you can simply substitute one for the other everywhere.
moon jung wrote: Let compare the following two statements of yours: (1) all I mean is the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have in such cases[/b [b](2) I of course don't agree that the connotation of purpose is missing. "we are to love one another", which in this case is what the one who gave the message purposed From what you said, we can conclude: "the connotation of purpose" = the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have.
Yes it is. We have the same situation in English, where infinitives in phrases like "try to do" or "ask him to come" denote a result that is purposed, so I don't really understand why you don't get it.
moon jung wrote: The message "we should love one another" is an obligation ( "deontic proposition" ). You said, " Funk used the modal "should" in order to express the underlying notion of an intended result". But didn't he use the modal "should" in order to express the notion of obligation or a desirable state of affairs in which "we love one another" rather than to express the underlying notion of an intended result? In the context of 1 Jn 3:11, this obligation, this state of affiars in which "we should love one another" can be said to be purposed by the speaker. But this seems to be an inference from the context, rather than the inherent connotation of the ινα construction. Are you saying that the agnate infinitive construction always has the connotation of "purposed result"?
Yes I am indeed. In this case it does indeed express what we should do, which as you say is a desirable state of affairs, but why do you think that that is not an intended result? What one desires is what one intends to have. I consider the connotation of purpose to be inherent to "ινα", and my justification is that it is the simplest explanation. All you need are unambiguous examples of "ινα" where there is simply no connotation of purpose, and I will have to retract my claim.
moon jung wrote: It seems to be a matter of terminology. Anyway, once you said "all I mean is the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have in such cases", I think I am not going to be confused by the terminology "purposed result".
That's perfectly fine, though if you render an "ινα" clause in English, remember that the English infinitive won't work for the cases where the subjects do not match. Also, there are verbs which accept an infinitive as a complement but not an "ινα" clause, such as "μελλειν", simply because it is never used to express a purposed result. This hence provides a little additional evidence for my claim. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 12th, 2014, 12:11 pm
David, now I think I have understood what you were trying to say. The following two quotes are revealing: (1)
David wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote: Presumably, the need to specify the subject for the infinitive outweighed the need to use the ἵνα (+ subj) construction with it's "purposed result" significance.
As for whether there is the notion of a "purposed result", perhaps you are reading a little bit too much into my claim, since all I mean is the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have in such cases, except in cases of ellipsis where the infinitive construction, having other grammatical functions, may no longer be interchangeable with the "ινα" clause.
But what do you refer to by "cases of ellipsis"? (2)  
David wrote:
Funk §662 wrote: Like ὅτι (§652), ἵνα may introduce clauses that stand in apposition to some other element in a sentence, usually with a demonstrative pronoun (οὗτος) preceding. (5) in §657 exhibits the same construction but with a purposive nuance. In the following example, this nuance is missing; the ἵνα-clause is merely explanatory. D 1d 2 3n+ (13) ὅτι αὕτη / ἐστιν / ἡ ἀγγελία ... // s ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους 1 Jn 3:11 For this is the message ... namely that we should love one another s modifies 3n+, i.e. stands in apposition to it (indicated by //). Bl-D §394.
I of course don't agree that the connotation of purpose is missing, for the reasons I had already given in my earlier posts. The message is not "we love one another", which would be expressed by an "οτι" clause, but "we are to love one another", which in this case is what the one who gave the message purposed. Again, you can see that Funk used the modal "should" in order to express the underlying notion of an intended result
Let compare the following two statements of yours: (1) all I mean is the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have in such cases[/b [b](2) I of course don't agree that the connotation of purpose is missing. "we are to love one another", which in this case is what the one who gave the message purposed From what you said, we can conclude: "the connotation of purpose" = the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have. The message "we should love one another" is an obligation ( "deontic proposition" ). You said, " Funk used the modal "should" in order to express the underlying notion of an intended result". But didn't he use the modal "should" in order to express the notion of obligation or a desirable state of affairs in which "we love one another" rather than to express the underlying notion of an intended result? In the context of 1 Jn 3:11, this obligation, this state of affiars in which "we should love one another" can be said to be purposed by the speaker. But this seems to be an inference from the context, rather than the inherent connotation of the ινα construction. Are you saying that the agnate infinitive construction always has the connotation of "purposed result"? It seems to be a matter of terminology. Anyway, once you said "all I mean is the connotations that the agnate infinitive construction would have in such cases", I think I am not going to be confused by the terminology "purposed result". Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon jung — July 11th, 2014, 2:48 am
 
moon jung wrote: I think I know why you paraphrased 17:3 as (1). (1) To obtain the eternal life, they are to know you, the only true God, and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus. You take ἱνα γινωσκωσιν as a sort of instruction, which cannot be equated to ἡ αιωνιος ζωη, which does not have a nuance of instruction. You do not accept the equation ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν. This is reflected in your rhetorical question " is the knowledge itself everlasting life?". This is why you render 17:3 as (1).
Correct. The context makes clear that it is not an equation of identical entities, and in my idiomatic paraphrase I have tried to express the implied meaning (based on a bit of interpretation) as precisely as possible. If you look at my literal rendering, I simply converted the text into English and so you will have to do that bit of interpreting yourself. Indeed in English we often have that kind of statements that on the surface equate two things but require interpretation to obtain the intended meaning, especially in literary writings, for example "Knowledge is power." and "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.". It is simply a literary device and nothing more.
moon jung wrote: To better understand what you are getting at, let me ask a question. Consider John 15:12 αὑτη εστιν ἡ εντολη εμη ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους. Here we have an equation αὑτη = ἡ εντολη εμη = ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους. We are sure that ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους has the nuance of instruction, because of ἡ εντολη εμη.
Firstly, "εμη" functions as an adjective or a possessive pronoun, so "η εντολη εμη" is grammatically wrong. Secondly, just because "η εντολη η εμη" means "my commandment" does not grammatically mean that "ινα αγαπατε αλληλους καθως ηγαπησα υμας" conveys an instruction, since there is always the possibility of ellipsis or some other literary device. In other words your reasoning is the wrong way round; it is due to the "ινα" clause conveying a purposed result and the semantic meaning of "η εντολη η εμη" that we know that the "ινα" clause conveys the content of "η εντολη η εμη".
moon jung wrote: Now consider John 17:3. In terms of surface structure of the sentence, we have the following equation as in John 15:12: αὑτη = ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε..... Suppose that we respect this surface structure.
That is what I did in my literal rendering. Why did you think that the surface structure must correspond to the intended meaning? The context is equally important and will fill in the gaps. So the conclusions you made about what the life or knowledge referred to means are not valid.
moon jung wrote: In order to get the paraphrase (1) above, you seem to "disregard" the surface structure of John 17:3 which implies αὑτη = ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε...... How would you justify this liberal rendering of the sentence structure?
Context. As I have said a number of times, any idiomatic rendering requires a bit of interpretation, so if you want absolutely zero interpretation then you will have to make do with a literal rendering like mine, which is not how we would normally speak, but which will still be readily understood in its context by any native speaker. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 10th, 2014, 6:37 am
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
David Lim wrote:But I still think that it is quite clear that unlike me, Margaret claims too broad a meaning for "ινα" in her thesis in order to make certain interpretations possible. Specifically, on purely theological grounds she claims that statements of the form "X ινα πληρωθη Y" in the NT cannot mean that "X" was so in order that "Y" might be fulfilled. Her rejection of this is untenable based on the explicit statements by the writings themselves, as I brought up in that earlier thread. Furthermore, I do not accept basing linguistic claims on theological assumptions. But I know that personal convictions are personal, hence, I say, to each his or her own convictions. :)
David, I find this really unhelpful. I've been around too many discussions where each person claims that their opinions are based on pure solid linguistic grounds and other people's opinions are based on theological assumptions, and Margaret's own work at least tries to let the language drive her interpretation and not the other way around. If you want to disagree with Margaret, I suggest that you quote her completely enough that it's clear what she says, then explain your own view, focusing on her arguments in detail.
I did quote her completely enough (in my opinion), in my post at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2608&start=10#p16195. If you read the paragraph that she wrote as I quoted there, and still consider it to be linguistics driving interpretation, then I cannot agree with you but let's not argue okay? In that same post I did give clear reasons why I can easily reject such reasoning that she used. Also, I do not claim that my claims about "ινα" is correct, but they are falsifiable. All you need is a statistically significant number of examples where an "ινα" clause unambiguously does not describe a purposed result. If you cannot produce these counter-examples, I will stick to my claims, because I have looked at hundreds of instances as well as all of Margaret's examples up to page 100. And if my claims hold for every instance, then it is justifiable for me to say that "ινα" has precisely the meaning I claim, which is distinct from hers. And if I have made any theological assumptions, you should point them out, and I will retract them. It was not my intention to be antagonistic towards theological opinions, but merely to point out that I do not support linguistic claims based on them. We all have our own opinions, but it won't do to make claims about a language based on our personal theology. It is better to say "I don't know" rather than "Since it makes more sense for the writer to mean this and that, and therefore this grammatical construction must have this or that function.", because what one person thinks the writer cannot possibly mean could be exactly what another person thinks the writer must mean. To avoid that, the only way is a corpus-based approach.
Jonathan Robie wrote: I don't think that's an accurate summary of what she said. Are you referring to 3.5 Introducing a quotation from the Old Testament?
Margaret Sim wrote:A slightly different type of independent clause introduced by ἵνα, is that of the quotations in the gospel of John where ἵνα introduces either a quotation from the Psalms or a statement reported to have been made earlier by Jesus. !!! SNIP !!! In the case of quotations from the Psalms, the source text was not a prophecy, but a commentary on the psalmist’s situation or a cry to God for help. I claim that current events caused the observers to remember something that had been spoken of earlier. This seems to be a more logical way of viewing such an utterance, than seeing it as a claim of fulfilment. It is difficult to view an event as taking place solely to make something predicted earlier come true, while having no relevance during the lifetime of the original hearers of the prediction, particularly when the earlier writing was not in a prophetic book. Surely what we have here may be the author attributing to Jesus the realisation that in fact the event recalls words spoken earlier. The event does ‘fulfil’ the earlier words, but did not take place in order to fulfil it. !!! SNIP !!! Consider the following example from John 13:18: Example (21)
οὐ περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν λέγω· ἐγὼ οἶδα τίνας ἐξελεξάμην· ἀλλ’ ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ· Ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον ἐπῆρεν ἐπ’ ἐμὲ τὴν πτέρναν αὐτοῦ.
The words quoted come from Psalm 41:9, in which the psalmist bewails the behaviour of a close friend in turning against him. Jesus is presented as recalling that psalm and seeing a fulfilment in his own life with the betrayal of Judas, who even as Jesus spoke was eating with him. Indeed this context is of the fellowship meal with all reclining together as they ate and drank. It is a ‘fulfilment’ or an application of Psalm 41:9, but Judas did not act the way he did in order to fulfil it. John may also be presenting Jesus as indicating the appropriateness of fulfilment. Recall that previous examples of the use of ἵνα in this section have shown a representation of what someone believed should be done. This is not the same as indicating that Judas was impelled to act as he did in order to fulfil Psalm 41:9.
I don't see this as a theological assumption. In most of these quotes, the writers of the Psalms did not think of themselves as writing prophecies to be fulfilled later, and Jesus and others were not following some script where they acted in specific ways to make sure these prophecies were fulfilled. Judas was probably not thinking of Psalm 41:9 at the time that he betrayed Jesus, that's not why he did it.
It is a theological assumption. Either the writings were intended to describe future events or they were not. And either they are accurate or they are not. Once you choose one assumption from each pair, you have made theological assumptions. Furthermore, your statement that "Jesus and others were not following some script where they acted in specific ways to make sure these prophecies were fulfilled" is at variance with the writings themselves as I stated in my earlier post. You will probably have some explanation of the meaning of Matt 26:54-56, among other statements scattered throughout the writings, that nullifies my objection, but every explanation will have to be based on some theological assumptions. Also, whether Judas was thinking of the quoted psalm is irrelevant because the "ινα" clause there simply means that the betrayal transpired in order that the quoted verse would be fulfilled, and does not specify how the betrayal was guaranteed to transpire. In particular it does not mean that Judas himself followed the quoted verse to fulfill it.
Jonathan Robie wrote: Margaret is providing an interpretation of ἵνα that makes sense, given these assumptions. The traditional explanation of ἵνα makes this verse hard to understand in the given context, and has resulted in some rather confusing translations.
I have also given a clear explanation of "ινα" that makes sense. That does not mean that my explanation is correct. Likewise just because her explanation may make sense does not make it correct either. Moreover, having confusing translations is not a reason to change an understanding of a word.
Jonathan Robie wrote: In her thesis, this is what she says about John 6:29:
Margaret Sim wrote:Several other examples of nouns which occur in a stative clause and are explicated by ἵνα and the subjunctive use figurative language: βρῶμα, ἔργον, ἡ αἰώνιοϲ ζωή. This also alerts the hearer to expect an utterance which does not reflect a state of affairs in the real world, but an interpretation of such. Consider example (9) below:
Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα πιστεύητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος.
[...] In terms of traditional grammar it is indeed an epexegetic noun clause, in that it seems to explicate the content of τοῦτο, or ἔργον. Since the context dictates that the clause introduced by ἵνα cannot indicate purpose, grammarians have struggled either to fit in a ‘purpose’ somehow, or to find a label for this use. If we leave on one side the insistence on a telic interpretation of ἵνα, we should be able to view this clause from the perspective of its communicative function. I claim that the reader is being invited to infer the speaker’s thought and attitude from such a use. In many of these examples the ἵνα clause is deontic, marking what the speaker thinks should be done.
I believe (though I may be wrong) that you did not read what I wrote carefully enough, since I've already explained this very example many times. As I have made clear before, I do not claim that the "ινα" clause describes a purpose for what is described in another clause, as it may be a content clause describing a purposed result (and whom it is purposed by depends on the context). Anyway let me answer Moon's question and it should answer to this as well. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 10th, 2014, 3:27 am
 
David Lim wrote: Specifically, on purely theological grounds she claims that statements of the form "X ινα πληρωθη Y" in the NT cannot mean that "X" was so in order that "Y" might be fulfilled. Her rejection of this is untenable based on the explicit statements by the writings themselves, as I brought up in that earlier thread. Furthermore, I do not accept basing linguistic claims on theological assumptions.
I don't think that's an accurate summary of what she said. Are you referring to 3.5 Introducing a quotation from the Old Testament?
Margaret Sim wrote: A slightly different type of independent clause introduced by ἵνα, is that of the quotations in the gospel of John where ἵνα introduces either a quotation from the Psalms or a statement reported to have been made earlier by Jesus. !!! SNIP !!! In the case of quotations from the Psalms, the source text was not a prophecy, but a commentary on the psalmist’s situation or a cry to God for help. I claim that current events caused the observers to remember something that had been spoken of earlier. This seems to be a more logical way of viewing such an utterance, than seeing it as a claim of fulfilment. It is difficult to view an event as taking place solely to make something predicted earlier come true, while having no relevance during the lifetime of the original hearers of the prediction, particularly when the earlier writing was not in a prophetic book. Surely what we have here may be the author attributing to Jesus the realisation that in fact the event recalls words spoken earlier. The event does ‘fulfil’ the earlier words, but did not take place in order to fulfil it. !!! SNIP !!! Consider the following example from John 13:18: Example (21)
οὐ περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν λέγω· ἐγὼ οἶδα τίνας ἐξελεξάμην· ἀλλ’ ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ· Ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον ἐπῆρεν ἐπ’ ἐμὲ τὴν πτέρναν αὐτοῦ.
The words quoted come from Psalm 41:9, in which the psalmist bewails the behaviour of a close friend in turning against him. Jesus is presented as recalling that psalm and seeing a fulfilment in his own life with the betrayal of Judas, who even as Jesus spoke was eating with him. Indeed this context is of the fellowship meal with all reclining together as they ate and drank. It is a ‘fulfilment’ or an application of Psalm 41:9, but Judas did not act the way he did in order to fulfil it. John may also be presenting Jesus as indicating the appropriateness of fulfilment. Recall that previous examples of the use of ἵνα in this section have shown a representation of what someone believed should be done. This is not the same as indicating that Judas was impelled to act as he did in order to fulfil Psalm 41:9.
I don't see this as a theological assumption. In most of these quotes, the writers of the Psalms did not think of themselves as writing prophecies to be fulfilled later, and Jesus and others were not following some script where they acted in specific ways to make sure these prophecies were fulfilled. Judas was probably not thinking of Psalm 41:9 at the time that he betrayed Jesus, that's not why he did it. Margaret is providing an interpretation of ἵνα that makes sense, given these assumptions. The traditional explanation of ἵνα makes this verse hard to understand in the given context, and has resulted in some rather confusing translations. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — July 9th, 2014, 4:01 pm
 
David Lim wrote: But I still think that it is quite clear that unlike me, Margaret claims too broad a meaning for "ινα" in her thesis in order to make certain interpretations possible. Specifically, on purely theological grounds she claims that statements of the form "X ινα πληρωθη Y" in the NT cannot mean that "X" was so in order that "Y" might be fulfilled. Her rejection of this is untenable based on the explicit statements by the writings themselves, as I brought up in that earlier thread. Furthermore, I do not accept basing linguistic claims on theological assumptions. But I know that personal convictions are personal, hence, I say, to each his or her own convictions. :)
David, I find this really unhelpful. I've been around too many discussions where each person claims that their opinions are based on pure solid linguistic grounds and other people's opinions are based on theological assumptions, and Margaret's own work at least tries to let the language drive her interpretation and not the other way around. If you want to disagree with Margaret, I suggest that you quote her completely enough that it's clear what she says, then explain your own view, focusing on her arguments in detail. In her thesis, this is what she says about John 6:29:
Margaret Sim wrote: Several other examples of nouns which occur in a stative clause and are explicated by ἵνα and the subjunctive use figurative language: βρῶμα, ἔργον, ἡ αἰώνιοϲ ζωή. This also alerts the hearer to expect an utterance which does not reflect a state of affairs in the real world, but an interpretation of such. Consider example (9) below:
Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα πιστεύητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος.
This is the work of God: that you should believe in the one whom he sent. In this example, a stative clause, with an initial demonstrative pronoun, is followed by a clause introduced by ἵνα, the latter explicating ‘the work of God.’ By using ἵνα with the subjunctive, however, rather than the accusative and infinitive, which as we have seen would have been usual in earlier Greek, the writer is able to mark the person being addressed: ‘you’. An infinitive construction could not do this as transparently. The ‘subject’ of the infinitive is usually in the accusative case, which would be awkward in this sentence. The infinitive alone : ‘this is the will of God, to believe….’ states a fact rather than introducing a desirable state of affairs, or what the speaker believes should happen. The use of ἵνα may also invite the reader to infer the attitude of the speaker:
You should believe on the one whom he sent
This clause, and other similar ones, has been considered to be ‘epexegetic’, a reasonable description which ‘fits’ in this context, as in other Johannine examples. In terms of traditional grammar it is indeed an epexegetic noun clause, in that it seems to explicate the content of τοῦτο, or ἔργον. Since the context dictates that the clause introduced by ἵνα cannot indicate purpose, grammarians have struggled either to fit in a ‘purpose’ somehow, or to find a label for this use. If we leave on one side the insistence on a telic interpretation of ἵνα, we should be able to view this clause from the perspective of its communicative function. I claim that the reader is being invited to infer the speaker’s thought and attitude from such a use. In many of these examples the ἵνα clause is deontic, marking what the speaker thinks should be done.
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — July 8th, 2014, 9:57 am
David, thanks for your further comments. I think I know why you paraphrased 17:3 as (1). (1) To obtain the eternal life, they are to know you, the only true God, and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus. You take ἱνα γινωσκωσιν as a sort of instruction, which cannot be equated to ἡ αιωνιος ζωη, which does not have a nuance of instruction. You do not accept the equation ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν. This is reflected in your rhetorical question " is the knowledge itself everlasting life?". This is why you render 17:3 as (1). To better understand what you are getting at, let me ask a question. Consider John 15:12 αὑτη εστιν ἡ εντολη εμη ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους. Here we have an equation αὑτη = ἡ εντολη εμη = ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους. We are sure that ἱνα αγαπᾶτε αλληλους has the nuance of instruction, because of ἡ εντολη εμη. In this case, we can render the verse as: This is my commandment: that you are to love each other. Now consider John 17:3. In terms of surface structure of the sentence, we have the following equation as in John 15:12: αὑτη = ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε..... Suppose that we respect this surface structure. Then, ἡ αιωνιος ζωη does not have a nuance of instruction. So ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε. does not have a sense of instruction, although, following M. Sim, it may be taken to represent a "desirable state of affairs of people" intended by the speaker ( (in this case, Jesus). So, we can draw the conclusion that the knowledge [ of knowing God and him He sent] IS everlasting life. I think that here "γινωσκωσιν σε" is not just intellectual but experiential knowledge. It is the desirable state of affairs of poeple intended by Jesus, not "knowledge itself". My question is: In order to get the paraphrase (1) above, you seem to "disregard" the surface structure of John 17:3 which implies αὑτη = ἡ αιωνιος ζωη = ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε...... How would you justify this liberal rendering of the sentence structure? Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon jung — July 7th, 2014, 11:19 pm
 
David Lim wrote: [John 6:29] To do the work of God, you are to trust in [him] whom God sent forth. [John 17:3] For them to have the everlasting life, they have to know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent forth.
 
cwconrad wrote:
David Lim wrote:I was trying to express the content in the simplest but clearest possible way that an English speaker could have said it, and hence my excuse for "a bit of interpretation". :) Clearly John 6:29 does not mean that God's own work is to trust the one he sent. But is it that it is God's job to make us trust the one he sent? Likewise, is the knowledge itself everlasting life? So I tried to avoid that in my above renderings. I do have my own preferred (very wooden) renderings that should preserve most of the grammatical structure and still be unambiguous: [John 6:29] This is the work of God: that you are to trust in [him] whom that [one] sent forth. [John 17:3] Moreover this is the ever-enduring life: that they are to know you, the only true God, and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus. My point was that they do have the connotation of a "purposed result" unlike what Moon supposed, and not that they are final clauses. As you say, they are substantive, which I call "content clauses".
David, I guess I was thrown (surprised) by your abandonment of the "woodenly-literal" version. I actually think that your first version does indeed express the sense of the Greek. I do have one problem with your second version of Jn 6:20: "work of God" is ambiguous; it looks like you're taking "work of God" as a "subjective" genitive -- in the sense that this is the work that God does; I'd rather understand it as "objective" genitive -- in the sense that this is the task that God assigns to his believer-workers: this is what they are supposed to do.
Haha! But I don't think my literal version is ambiguous, because I used "that you are to trust ..." instead of "that you trust ...", precisely to give the connotation that it is an instruction to be followed. Of course some people might say that my rendering could be taken as "that you are going to trust ..." but that would be clearly ruled out based on the context. In my opinion, a literal rendering is good when the context is known, but something may need to be added in order to express the same content if the audience does not know the context, which is why in my idiomatic rendering I added "to do ...". For a literal rendering on the other hand, I would in almost all cases render a genitive that functions adjectivally using "of" or the possessive for pronouns, since the English "of" has pretty much the same grammatical and semantic range, and leave it to the reader to infer its meaning in each particular context.
cwconrad wrote:
David Lim wrote: ... doesn't this support my claim that "ινα" clauses inherently denote a purposed (intended) result (state)? In fact my claim also explains why it is rarer than "oτι" content clauses, simply because most content clauses represent factual statements. I believe I mentioned this briefly before in an earlier post, that the implication of John 4:34 is that his purpose on earth is to do the will of God. In particular, he is not merely making a factual statement that he does the will of God, but affirming that he is to do the will of God. I haven't found an instance of "ινα" where that connotation is missing. If it helps to clarify, I consider "ινα" clauses to have two main grammatical purposes, one as an adverbial clause and the other as a content clause, but both denoting an intended result. The former is often used to express a reason for something else, while the latter is often used with specific verbs of speech to express an instruction or request. This general explanation also accounts partially for why some verbs cannot be used with the latter, in much the same way as English allows "tell X to do Y" for denoting the giving of an instruction but not "speak to X to do Y".
Thinking back over this, I must say that I think you're right here; I didn't grasp at the outset that you were making any distinction between adverbial and substantive clauses. I'm also doing a bit of reflection on comparative Greek and Latin grammar. We speak in Latin of subjunctive clauses introduced by ut as "volitive" clauses -- "volitive" meaning that they give expression to the content of a wish or desire. Of these the more common is the "purpose" clause that expresses the intent underlying an action (e.g., "We don't live in order to eat (ut edamus) -- we eat in order to live (ut vivamus)." That corresponds to the more common kind of ἵνα clause in Greek. The other type of "volitive" clause in Latin is traditionally termed a "substantive clause of result" (e.g., "he urged us to sit down (ut sederemus). That too has its corresponding construction in Greek, the ἵνα substantive clauses we've been discussing.
Yes; despite me not knowing any Latin, the English examples you give indeed show the distinction in grammatical functions.
cwconrad wrote: I think that your phrase, "purposed result" for describing the Greek ἵνα + subjunctive clause is actually right on target and helpful (thank you!). I also think that it goes to the core of what Margaret Sim is setting forth in her work: that this kind of clause gives expressing to the intention in mind in the agent of the verb in the clause to which the ἵνα clause is subordinate: it expresses what that agent wants to happen/wants to be accomplished -- as opposed to the ὅτι clause used with an indicative to express what the agent of the verb in the main clause deems the relevant facts underlying his/her action. I do think there's something new in the Koine Greek ἵνα + subjunctive clause used substantively, and that is its more frequent employment as the equivalent or near-equivalent of an infinitive.
Thanks for telling me what you think about my explanations! But I still think that it is quite clear that unlike me, Margaret claims too broad a meaning for "ινα" in her thesis in order to make certain interpretations possible. Specifically, on purely theological grounds she claims that statements of the form "X ινα πληρωθη Y" in the NT cannot mean that "X" was so in order that "Y" might be fulfilled. Her rejection of this is untenable based on the explicit statements by the writings themselves, as I brought up in that earlier thread. Furthermore, I do not accept basing linguistic claims on theological assumptions. But I know that personal convictions are personal, hence, I say, to each his or her own convictions. :) Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 7th, 2014, 9:34 am
 
David Lim wrote:
cwconrad wrote:
David Lim wrote:Hello again! These two are not at all good candidates. Let me paraphrase them into idiomatic English (which necessitates a bit of interpretation): [John 6:29] To do the work of God, you are to trust in [him] whom God sent forth. [John 17:3] For them to have the everlasting life, they have to know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent forth.
David, this is an ingenious trick you've performed here to transform these verses into an altogether different structure in English from the original Greek structure. The ἵνα clauses in Jn 6:29 and 17:3 are not "purpose" clauses or "final" clauses at all, but rather are substantive clauses. I'd English them thus: Jn 6:29 Trusting the one God sent: that is God's work. Jn 17:3 Knowing you, the only true God and Jesus, the one you sent: that is everlasting life.
I was trying to express the content in the simplest but clearest possible way that an English speaker could have said it, and hence my excuse for "a bit of interpretation". :) Clearly John 6:29 does not mean that God's own work is to trust the one he sent. But is it that it is God's job to make us trust the one he sent? Likewise, is the knowledge itself everlasting life? So I tried to avoid that in my above renderings. I do have my own preferred (very wooden) renderings that should preserve most of the grammatical structure and still be unambiguous: [John 6:29] This is the work of God: that you are to trust in [him] whom that [one] sent forth. [John 17:3] Moreover this is the ever-enduring life: that they are to know you, the only true God, and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus. My point was that they do have the connotation of a "purposed result" unlike what Moon supposed, and not that they are final clauses. As you say, they are substantive, which I call "content clauses".
David, I guess I was thrown (surprised) by your abandonment of the "woodenly-literal" version. I actually think that your first version does indeed express the sense of the Greek. I do have one problem with your second version of Jn 6:20: "work of God" is ambiguous; it looks like you're taking "work of God" as a "subjective" genitive -- in the sense that this is the work that God does; I'd rather understand it as "objective" genitive -- in the sense that this is the task that God assigns to his believer-workers: this is what they are supposed to do.
David Lim wrote: ... doesn't this support my claim that "ινα" clauses inherently denote a purposed (intended) result (state)? In fact my claim also explains why it is rarer than "oτι" content clauses, simply because most content clauses represent factual statements. I believe I mentioned this briefly before in an earlier post, that the implication of John 4:34 is that his purpose on earth is to do the will of God. In particular, he is not merely making a factual statement that he does the will of God, but affirming that he is to do the will of God. I haven't found an instance of "ινα" where that connotation is missing. If it helps to clarify, I consider "ινα" clauses to have two main grammatical purposes, one as an adverbial clause and the other as a content clause, but both denoting an intended result. The former is often used to express a reason for something else, while the latter is often used with specific verbs of speech to express an instruction or request. This general explanation also accounts partially for why some verbs cannot be used with the latter, in much the same way as English allows "tell X to do Y" for denoting the giving of an instruction but not "speak to X to do Y".
Thinking back over this, I must say that I think you're right here; I didn't grasp at the outset that you were making any distinction between adverbial and substantive clauses. I'm also doing a bit of reflection on comparative Greek and Latin grammar. We speak in Latin of subjunctive clauses introduced by ut as "volitive" clauses -- "volitive" meaning that they give expression to the content of a wish or desire. Of these the more common is the "purpose" clause that expresses the intent underlying an action (e.g., "We don't live in order to eat (ut edamus) -- we eat in order to live (ut vivamus)." That corresponds to the more common kind of ἵνα clause in Greek. The other type of "volitive" clause in Latin is traditionally termed a "substantive clause of result" (e.g., "he urged us to sit down (ut sederemus). That too has its corresponding construction in Greek, the ἵνα substantive clauses we've been discussing. I think that your phrase, "purposed result" for describing the Greek ἵνα + subjunctive clause is actually right on target and helpful (thank you!). I also think that it goes to the core of what Margaret Sim is setting forth in her work: that this kind of clause gives expressing to the intention in mind in the agent of the verb in the clause to which the ἵνα clause is subordinate: it expresses what that agent wants to happen/wants to be accomplished -- as opposed to the ὅτι clause used with an indicative to express what the agent of the verb in the main clause deems the relevant facts underlying his/her action. I do think there's something new in the Koine Greek ἵνα + subjunctive clause used substantively, and that is its more frequent employment as the equivalent or near-equivalent of an infinitive. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — July 7th, 2014, 4:27 am
 
moon jung wrote: I guess you would not try to avoid such implications, if the clauses were ὁτι clauses. But I would like to show that the meaning you wanted to avoid is actually what is meant by the verses.
This is a downright false claim. I do not have any emotional attachment to any theology, unlike you. It is you who need to evaluate yourself and your claims about others. You have totally misrepresented what I said in my earlier post and I am not going to bother to defend it. Read what I said again and take what you want, and go and learn Greek. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 7th, 2014, 1:11 am
 
David worte: I do have my own preferred (very wooden) renderings that should preserve most of the grammatical structure and still be unambiguous: [John 6:29] This is the work of God: that you are to trust in [him] whom that [one] sent forth. [John 17:3] Moreover this is the ever-enduring life: that they are to know you, the only true God, and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus. My point was that they do have the connotation of a "purposed result" unlike what Moon supposed, and not that they are final clauses. As you say, they are substantive, which I call "content clauses".
(1) In [John 6:29], WHO intends the content of the ἱνα clause? I guess you would say: the subject of the clause "you" In [John 17:3], WHO intends the content of the ἱνα clause? I guess you would say: the subject of the clause "they" "you" are supposed to bring the state of "trusting in [him] God sent" / "your" purpose is to bring .the state of "trusting in [him] God sent". "they" are supposed to bring the state of "knowing you and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus" / "their" purpose is to bring the state of "knowing you and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus". But, this ingenious undertaking does not seem necessary. "you are to trust in [him]" and "they are to know you" do not describe actual state of affairs, but potential states of affairs, which "you" and "they" are supposed to obtain. These potential states of affairs are simply desriable states of affairs [ which are therefore described by subjunctive clauses], but we do not need to suppose that they are intended by someone. You seem to accept the claim of Funk's book that in these cases, ἱνα clauses are equivalent to infinitive clauses. The infinitive clauses often represent purposes and results, but they can be used simply to describe potential states of affairs, without any notion of purpose or result. Are you saying that ινα clauses are equivalent to infinitive clauses, only when the latter represent purpose or result? (2)
Clearly John 6:29 does not mean that God's own work is to trust the one he sent. But is it that it is God's job to make us trust the one he sent? Likewise, is the knowledge itself everlasting life? So I tried to avoid that in my above renderings.
I guess you would not try to avoid such implications, if the clauses were ὁτι clauses. But I would like to show that the meaning you wanted to avoid is actually what is meant by the verses. [17:3] ; The context is: [17:1b-2]: Glorify you son that the son may glorify you, as you gave him authority over all flesh that all you gave him, he may give them eternal life (expression without the article). [17:3] αὑτη δε εστιν ἡ αιωωνιος ζωη ( expression with the article) ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε τον μονον αληθισνον Θεον και ὁν ατεστειλας Ιησοῦν Χριστον. 17:3 is special in two respects. The connective δε is known as the marker of discontinuity. Here, 17:3 is an off-line statement about what is the eternal life, which was mentioned in the previous sentence. It is not clear whether the writer (John) or Jesus added it. Anyway, it intends to modify the notion of eternal life which might have been entertained by the audience. THIS, not others, is the eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and him you sent, Jesus Christ. 17:3 is an example of sentences with argument focus, one of three sentence types [ the other two types are "topic-comment/focus" sentence and "sentence-focus" sentence (also called presentational / event-reporting sentence ]. This argument-focus sentence presupposes that the audience entertains "X is the eternal life" with their own ideas for X, or wonders what the X would be. In summary, by using the connective δε and the argument-focus sentence, 17:3 asserts what the eternal life is, not what the audience is to do in order to obtain the eternal life as in your rendering. [John 6:29] : The context for this verse is set up in 6:27-28. 6:27 [literal translation]: Do not work for the food that is passing away, but for the food that remains unto eternal life which the son of man will give you. 6:28: Then, they said to him: what shall we do, that we might work the work of God? 6:29: Jesus answered: This is the work of God, that you are to believe in [him] whom He sent. In this context, "working the work of God" refers to "working for the food that remains unto eternal life". Here "work of God" does not refer to "God's own work", [although you seems to think so]. 6:29 is also an example of "argument-focus" sentence, where the presuppositional open proposition is "X is the work of God"; The audience's idea for X is mistaken and Jesus correts it: Believing in him whom God sent is working for the food that remains unto eternal life. Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon jung — July 6th, 2014, 12:01 am
 
cwconrad wrote:
David Lim wrote:Hello again! These two are not at all good candidates. Let me paraphrase them into idiomatic English (which necessitates a bit of interpretation): [John 6:29] To do the work of God, you are to trust in [him] whom God sent forth. [John 17:3] For them to have the everlasting life, they have to know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent forth.
David, this is an ingenious trick you've performed here to transform these verses into an altogether different structure in English from the original Greek structure. The ἵνα clauses in Jn 6:29 and 17:3 are not "purpose" clauses or "final" clauses at all, but rather are substantive clauses. I'd English them thus: Jn 6:29 Trusting the one God sent: that is God's work. Jn 17:3 Knowing you, the only true God and Jesus, the one you sent: that is everlasting life.
I was trying to express the content in the simplest but clearest possible way that an English speaker could have said it, and hence my excuse for "a bit of interpretation". :) Clearly John 6:29 does not mean that God's own work is to trust the one he sent. But is it that it is God's job to make us trust the one he sent? Likewise, is the knowledge itself everlasting life? So I tried to avoid that in my above renderings. I do have my own preferred (very wooden) renderings that should preserve most of the grammatical structure and still be unambiguous: [John 6:29] This is the work of God: that you are to trust in [him] whom that [one] sent forth. [John 17:3] Moreover this is the ever-enduring life: that they are to know you, the only true God, and [him] whom you sent forth, Jesus. My point was that they do have the connotation of a "purposed result" unlike what Moon supposed, and not that they are final clauses. As you say, they are substantive, which I call "content clauses".
cwconrad wrote: [...] Yes, Funk discusses ἵνα-clauses in §654ff. (http://www.ibiblio.org//project/funk-grammar/pre-alpha/lesson-45.html). He writes a good deal about purpose clauses, but at §660 he writes;
660. In addition to its use in object clauses (§659), ἵνα appears in substantive clauses of other types, though less often than ὅτι (§646) . For example, a ἵνα-clause may appear as the predicate in S-II: 1n+2s (11)ἐμὸν βρῶμά /ἐστιν /ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός μεJn 4:34 My food is to do the will of the one sending me Note that an infinitive is used to translate this ἵνα-clause. One might translate: My food is that I do the will of the one sending me The translation indicates that the two constructions are agnate in English; they are also agnate in Greek, but the construction with an infinitive is less common in Greek.
Yes indeed. But doesn't this support my claim that "ινα" clauses inherently denote a purposed (intended) result (state)? In fact my claim also explains why it is rarer than "oτι" content clauses, simply because most content clauses represent factual statements. I believe I mentioned this briefly before in an earlier post, that the implication of John 4:34 is that his purpose on earth is to do the will of God. In particular, he is not merely making a factual statement that he does the will of God, but affirming that he is to do the will of God. I haven't found an instance of "ινα" where that connotation is missing. If it helps to clarify, I consider "ινα" clauses to have two main grammatical purposes, one as an adverbial clause and the other as a content clause, but both denoting an intended result. The former is often used to express a reason for something else, while the latter is often used with specific verbs of speech to express an instruction or request. This general explanation also accounts partially for why some verbs cannot be used with the latter, in much the same way as English allows "tell X to do Y" for denoting the giving of an instruction but not "speak to X to do Y". Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 5th, 2014, 4:01 am
 
David wrote: [John 6:29] To do the work of God, you are to trust in [him] whom God sent forth. [John 17:3] For them to have the everlasting life, they have to know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent forth.
David, could you explain how you derived the above paraphrases? I guess that you made them because you believe that ἱνα ALWAYS implies an underlying notion of "purposed result", But I cannot see the connection. Let me give my reasoning. In John 17:2, it says: even as Thou gavest Him authority over all mankind, that to all whom Thou hast given Him, He may give eternal life. (John 17:2, NAS). The next verse gives an off-line comment as to what the "eternal life" is. It is indicated by the use of particle δε. About the meaning of particles, I find that the book by Stephanie Black "Sentence Conjunctions in the Gospel of Matthew" is a "scientific" work based on modern corpus linguistics and discourse analysis. About δε, I find the following statement (p.159) is useful for our case: [ Commenting on the strong tendency for δε not be appear with V(S) sentences (V = Verb, S =Subject)]
Making an explicit subject thematic brings the need to modify the mental representation currently in operation more overtly to the audience's attention. δε appears as the sentence conjunction in nearly 80% of the sentences in Mathew's narrative framework with a thematized subject, serving as a procedural signal reinforcing that the grammaticalized subject which is being processed is indeed to some degree discontinuous with discourse immediately previous.
From this description of the usage of δε, I infer that verse 17:3 intends to modify the notion of eternal life that the audience might have entertained, by saying THIS is the eternal life, THAT you know the God and Jesus Christ whom He sent. Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon — July 3rd, 2014, 2:22 pm
 
David Lim wrote:
moon wrote:There has been some discussion about the "meaning" of ἱνα in another thread, which seems to have come to an end. All the examples discussed there could be taken to have some underlying notion of "purposed result" by David. But I want to verify BDAG 476-77 "very often the final meaning is greatly weakened or DISAPPEAR ALTOGETHER". Good candidates for this are John 6:29 and John 17:3. John 6:29: Τοὗτο εστιν το εργον τοῦ θεοῦ ἱνα πιστευητε εις ὁν απεστειλεν εκεινος. This is the work of God that you believe in the one he sent. John 17:3 αὑτη δε εστιν ἡ αιωνιος ζωη ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε τον μονον αληθινον θεον και ὁν ατεστειλας Ιησοῦν. This is the eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent. I cannot find any trace of "purposed result" in both verses. Am I misled somehow, perhaps by my rendering into English?
Hello again! These two are not at all good candidates. Let me paraphrase them into idiomatic English (which necessitates a bit of interpretation): [John 6:29] To do the work of God, you are to trust in [him] whom God sent forth. [John 17:3] For them to have the everlasting life, they have to know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent forth.
David, this is an ingenious trick you've performed here to transform these verses into an altogether different structure in English from the original Greek structure. The ἵνα clauses in Jn 6:29 and 17:3 are not "purpose" clauses or "final" clauses at all, but rather are substantive clauses. I'd English them thus: Jn 6:29 Trusting the one God sent: that is God's work. Jn 17:3 Knowing you, the only true God and Jesus, the one you sent: that is everlasting life. These ἵνα-clauses come close to being infinitives (later Greek νά + subj.).
David Lim wrote: Note also that you mistyped "ατεστειλας", and your English translation has an extra "Christ" which is not there in the Greek text. I suspect you're copying the English from somewhere rather than translating it yourself? I don't have BDAG, so I wouldn't be able to comment on it, but perhaps what it means by "final" is not the same as what you think. But do you really want to dive into a gigantic lexicon so quickly? Although glosses may not be accurate, they probably will serve you better at this stage. At the same time, you should start on an introductory grammar like Funk's grammar that is hosted here on at http://www.ibiblio.org//project/funk-grammar/. It deals with "ινα" at http://www.ibiblio.org//project/f ... on-45.html. It also notes that the traditional terminology for the "ινα" clause is "final clause", and I think its examples speak for themselves, which it renders essentially the same way as I would.
For what it's worth:
Wikipedia wrote: A final clause in linguistics is a dependent adverbial clause expressing purpose. For this reason it is also referred to as a purposive clause or a clause of purpose.
Yes, Funk discusses ἵνα-clauses in §654ff. (http://www.ibiblio.org//project/funk-grammar/pre-alpha/lesson-45.html). He writes a good deal about purpose clauses, but at §660 he writes;
660. In addition to its use in object clauses (§659), ἵνα appears in substantive clauses of other types, though less often than ὅτι (§646) . For example, a ἵνα-clause may appear as the predicate in S-II: 1n+2s (11)ἐμὸν βρῶμά /ἐστιν /ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός μεJn 4:34 My food is to do the will of the one sending me Note that an infinitive is used to translate this ἵνα-clause. One might translate: My food is that I do the will of the one sending me The translation indicates that the two constructions are agnate in English; they are also agnate in Greek, but the construction with an infinitive is less common in Greek.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — July 3rd, 2014, 5:59 am
 
moon wrote: There has been some discussion about the "meaning" of ἱνα in another thread, which seems to have come to an end. All the examples discussed there could be taken to have some underlying notion of "purposed result" by David. But I want to verify BDAG 476-77 "very often the final meaning is greatly weakened or DISAPPEAR ALTOGETHER". Good candidates for this are John 6:29 and John 17:3. John 6:29: Τοὗτο εστιν το εργον τοῦ θεοῦ ἱνα πιστευητε εις ὁν απεστειλεν εκεινος. This is the work of God that you believe in the one he sent. John 17:3 αὑτη δε εστιν ἡ αιωνιος ζωη ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε τον μονον αληθινον θεον και ὁν ατεστειλας Ιησοῦν. This is the eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent. I cannot find any trace of "purposed result" in both verses. Am I misled somehow, perhaps by my rendering into English?
Hello again! These two are not at all good candidates. Let me paraphrase them into idiomatic English (which necessitates a bit of interpretation): [John 6:29] To do the work of God, you are to trust in [him] whom God sent forth. [John 17:3] For them to have the everlasting life, they have to know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent forth. Note also that you mistyped "ατεστειλας", and your English translation has an extra "Christ" which is not there in the Greek text. I suspect you're copying the English from somewhere rather than translating it yourself? I don't have BDAG, so I wouldn't be able to comment on it, but perhaps what it means by "final" is not the same as what you think. But do you really want to dive into a gigantic lexicon so quickly? Although glosses may not be accurate, they probably will serve you better at this stage. At the same time, you should start on an introductory grammar like Funk's grammar that is hosted here on at http://www.ibiblio.org//project/funk-grammar/. It deals with "ινα" at http://www.ibiblio.org//project/f ... on-45.html. It also notes that the traditional terminology for the "ινα" clause is "final clause", and I think its examples speak for themselves, which it renders essentially the same way as I would. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — July 3rd, 2014, 12:16 am
There has been some discussion about the "meaning" of ἱνα in another thread, which seems to have come to an end. All the examples discussed there could be taken to have some underlying notion of "purposed result" by David. But I want to verify BDAG 476-77 "very often the final meaning is greatly weakened or DISAPPEAR ALTOGETHER". Good candidates for this are John 6:29 and John 17:3. John 6:29: Τοὗτο εστιν το εργον τοῦ θεοῦ ἱνα πιστευητε εις ὁν απεστειλεν εκεινος. This is the work of God that you believe in the one he sent. John 17:3 αὑτη δε εστιν ἡ αιωνιος ζωη ἱνα γινωσκωσιν σε τον μονον αληθινον θεον και ὁν ατεστειλας Ιησοῦν. This is the eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent. I cannot find any trace of "purposed result" in both verses. Am I misled somehow, perhaps by my rendering into English? Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon — July 2nd, 2014, 3:52 am

John 1:4

There are really two different issues being discussed in this thread -- agency and instrumentality. Agency is usually expressed with a preposition + the genitive, instrumentality is usually expressed with the dative, sometimes (and especially in Koine) with the preposition ἐν + dative. Agency is usually personal, instrumentality impersonal. I would take ἐν αὐτῷ with ζωὴ ἦν, which would meant that the λόγος is the source of life. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — September 27th, 2016, 1:53 pm
I recall thinking this a while back, but can't remember what I came to conclude. I should write things down more. I believe it was something along the lines of expecting υπο + gentive rather than εν + dative to indicate "by him". Though I think this was probably due to thinking about whether it was a dative of agency, or a dative of means. Statistics: Posted by S Walch — September 26th, 2016, 6:42 pm
I recall thinking this a while back, but can't remember what I came to conclude. I should write things down more. I believe it was something along the lines of expecting υπο + gentive rather than εν + dative to indicate "by him". Statistics: Posted by S Walch — September 26th, 2016, 12:50 pm
 
Stephen Carlson wrote: For me, instrumental readings are disfavored with agentive animates as they imply an agent using the instrument to perform a task. So who is using the Word as an instrument?
ὁ θεὸς, perhaps? Which would make it somewhat parallel to the agency of God in Hebrews 1:
Hebrews 1 wrote: Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις 2 ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας· 3 ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως, δι᾽ αὑτοῦ καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, 4 τοσούτῳ κρείττων γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον παρ’ αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα.
But in Hebrews the agency is explicit, and if agency is implied in John 1, it is not explicit. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — September 26th, 2016, 8:14 am
For me, instrumental readings are disfavored with agentive animates as they imply an agent using the instrument to perform a task. So who is using the Word as an instrument? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — September 25th, 2016, 9:08 pm
In John 1:4, could ἐν αὐτῷ be an instrumental use of ἐν, with essentially the same meaning as δι’ αὐτοῦ?
John 1:1-5 (SBLGNT) wrote: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων· καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.
"What was created by him was life" makes sense to me here, but I don't see that interpretation listed as a possibility in the first handful of commentaries I looked at. Am I missing something? Is there a reason that instrumental use would be unlikely here? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — September 25th, 2016, 8:42 pm

John 1:16

Jonathan Robie wrote: The SBLGNT punctuation uses parentheses around verse 15:
14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας· 15 (Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων· Οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον· Ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν·) 16 ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος· 17 ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο.
This implies that the ὅτι in verse 16 continues from the last clause of verse 14: πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας ... ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν Makes sense to me ...
Wow! It makes sense. The fact that the witness of the Baptist begins from John 1:19 makes it reasonable to think that the statement in John 1:15 about the Baptist is parenthetical. The only problem seems whether such a parenthetical insertion without any discourse particle (e.g. δε ) is an established method of narration. Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon jung — July 12th, 2014, 10:19 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote: The SBLGNT punctuation uses parentheses around verse 15:
14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας· 15 (Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων· Οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον· Ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν·) 16 ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος· 17 ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο.
This implies that the ὅτι in verse 16 continues from the last clause of verse 14: πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας ... ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν Makes sense to me ...
This approach is consistent with the option preferred several decades ago by Barrett in his commentary on John: " ὅτι may continue the words of the Baptist, or, more probably, resume the main thread of the argument which was interrupted by v. 15." Statistics: Posted by Bruce McKinnon — July 12th, 2014, 6:42 pm
The SBLGNT punctuation uses parentheses around verse 15:
14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας· 15 (Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων· Οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον· Ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν·) 16 ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος· 17 ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο.
This implies that the ὅτι in verse 16 continues from the last clause of verse 14: πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας ... ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν Makes sense to me ... Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — July 12th, 2014, 3:04 pm
John 1:15- 16: 1:15 Ιωαννης μαρτυρει περι αυτοῦ και κεκραγεν λεγων, Οὗτος ῆν ὁν εῖπον, Ὁ οπισω μου ερχομενος εμπροσθεν μου γεγονεν, ὁτι πρῶτοσ μου ῆν. 1:16 ὁτι εκ τοῦ πλαρωματος αυτοῦ ἡμεῖς μαντες ελαβομεν, και Χαριν αντι Χαριτος. I found that the Majority Text has και instead of ὁτι in 1:16. It seems that verse 1:16 is not part of the Baptist's speech which begins at 1:15. ἡμεῖς in 1:16 indicates that the narrator speaks here, identifying him with the audience. I find it hard to take ὁτι in the sense of "because"; It is not clear in what sense the content of 1:16 is a cause or reason for 1:15. Is there any usage for the "independent" ὁτι clause where the ὁτι clause does not depend on the main clause, but plays the role of the main clause? I would think that the Majority Text got the sense of the verse "right" and produced an easier reading. Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon jung — July 12th, 2014, 12:24 am

John 21:9

Sorry, the link for the upright skewers, leaning (not resting) over a fire is here. This is a cooking arrangement, which I don't think is meant by the Greek. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 25th, 2017, 7:51 am
 
Wes Wood wrote: Whether you are aware of it or not, I have enjoyed most of your solo posts.
Well, it's not a lonely solo. The forum is a rather tightly-knit group, with more-or-less a single motivation. Even those who are not known to me are, by virtue of that not strangers to me in their purposes or intents. The silent interlocutors in the shadows beyond the soliloquy's well-lit circle.
Wes Wood wrote: What I actually had in mind when I made that comment was that you would be more likely to reap some benefit if someone else interacted with your thoughts. However, since it was I who responded, maybe I should say, "you were infinitesimally more likely to reap some benefit."
It is generally thought that higher order thinking and advancement of knowledge comes engagement with others, employing a conceptually rich and well-patterned metalanguage. An ever more finely variegated system of description is thought to allow for seeing things more clearly, but there is another side to that. By adding further definitional clarity to an existing system of classification we actually entrench and assume that the previous categorisations by using them as the basis for subclassification. That of course is not a novel observation of mine - in your field, species and genera are reclassified or differently arranged as the need arises or as different researchers determine. Analysis of large corpora of texts to determine meaning, more-or-less assumes that one or more meanings are there to be found. The meaning of ἐπικείμενος is only listed as "lie upon" "in contact with a surface", but I would need to have the hint that the meaning was possibly "be placed over" (as opposed to "in contact with". The other glosses given for the word are sort of worked out from this pseudo-etymological basis too. If we were looking for the gap between the thing lain "upon" and the thing laid "upon", it is too difficult to find. It is not in the text - words, etc., it is in the nature of the things. Here is [url]flicker image[/url] of one possible cooking arrangement. The LSJ entry gives an example of islands being not in contact. Storms (χειμών) are up in the air, and the attempts by Paul and the others to see the heavenly bodies suggest that the storm was "looming over" them, at least it was in the region of the atmosphere were storms have their natural place, blocking their view, not immanently down with them making them uncomfortable.
Acts 27:20 wrote: Μήτε δὲ ἡλίου μήτε ἄστρων ἐπιφαινόντων ἐπὶ πλείονας ἡμέρας, χειμῶνός τε οὐκ ὀλίγου ἐπικειμένου,
The same could be said of the "missing" third category of meaning in φιλέω, ie "to be in a relationship of mutual benefit or reciprocal advantage" could only be found in a search, if one was looking for it. With the current two meanings (one being the extension of the other), "like / love", and "express ones feelings of liking / loving by affection" that we read in BDAG, we are left thinking in the realm of personal emotions and affectations. Φιλέω is manifestly a social word in it's basic meaning - part of the interrelatedness of society. The compounds like φιλότεκνος etc. also appear to be emotional, affectionate or internal in the present glossing. "Loving" or "hugging and kissing" one's husband and children, is quite different from "putting their interests before or one an equal footing with her own". To explicate the socially defined expectations of φίλος / φιλέω, the meaning of a word like φιλοφρόνως could be scaffolded as "having in mind to put our interests before his own, as social mores dictate one should do for a φίλος." The (physical) "gap" between the (bed of) coal(s) and the fish comes from a knowledge of how cooking is done, and how coals are extinguished by dropping a lump of bread drough onto them - experience with something, and the cause and effect reasoning are we might call "common sense". The "gap" of the assumed or unstated common knowledge of where a φίλος fits into one's life and what the social expectations of what the verb φιλέω involved, both form the "common sense" background to the word. We haven't undergone the socialisation processes to "instinctively" what should or shouldn't be done for a φίλος, but we could assume that what is described in the New Testament at least forms a subset of what constitutes φιλία. Some of those reciprocal things in a φίλος - φίλος relationship evidenced in the New Testament are ξενίζειν "to show hospitality / to 'mi casa es su casa' somebody" (Acts 28:7), ἐπιμελείας τυχεῖν "to care for the needs of ones φίλος" (Acts 27:3), χρῆσόν τίνι τί "to do somebody a favour (cf. δανείζειν which takes place outside a φίλος - φίλος relationship) and lend him something" (Luke 11:5), παρατίθημι τίνι τί, "to set something before somebody as a meal" (Luke 11:6). In John 21:15-19 applying the concept of φιλία as socially structured reciprociety or mutual obligation, we might get a conversation that could be recomposed spelling out the relationship of mutual umposition, in terms that avoid imposing, something like:
  • J: Hey Shimon, we're best mates, right?
  • P: Yeah, you've seen for yourself that I've got your back.
  • J: Ay. If you do one thing for me, do this, see that the lambs get enough to eat.
  • J (after a time of silence): We are mates, right, aren't we?
  • P: Yeah, just think about how many times I've stuck my neck out for you.
  • J: Well, keep an eye on the sheep, if you could do that for me.
  • J (after a while longer): You do look out for my interests, don't you?
  • P: Quit bugging me with all these questions, you don't need to butter me up to get a favour out of me. Look, you're a thinking kind of guy, and you, you've even had first-hand experience of me looking after things for you.
  • J: Right-o, then. Will you please make sure the sheep are well-fed.
Back to the point, evidently one φίλος could expect another φίλος to look after his livestock for him, when he was (going to be) absent - off on some other business or other. Those are just a few of what must have been many social obligations and reasonable (in terms of their culture) expectations. That all doesn't need to be stated because it is the backdrop for the action. I'm not quite clear how narrator roles align with verb tenses, but it seems that if the narrator of the story was aware of us - who don't have the same sort of cultural background - as being the audience, then I guess the that the discursive explanations would be in relative phrases, "hey get this, if you can believe it" / "just what is that guy doing" (MAD comic / college humour) narrator voice that expects us to be shocked would be in the -θη verbs, and the brief one-to-ne correspondence things would be expressed participally. But in the absence of us from the immediately intended audience, leaves us and our reference works to make sense of a text that is anything but culturally and technologically neutral - especially so in cases like these. Seriously though, Wes, now that John 21 can recite itself in my head, I am starting to get occasional bursts of image and concept thinking rather than words, translation and metalinguistic analytical thinking going on in my head. A bit like the charges for coffman engine starter going off inside my head but then splutter splutter and nothing coming of it. The (natural) image in this case, is the fish and bread on sticks "over", but not "on" the charcoal. I was wondering whether those, who learnt Greek through interactive methods, like RB or PN's students and others also have a gap when they process this conceptually and imaginatively. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 25th, 2017, 4:37 am
 
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Wes Wood wrote:At the very least, I imagine any interaction at all is better than a soliloquy
Turn taking is a conversational strategy that is familiar to people from English speaking countries being socialised early on, but it is a learnt rather than innate communicative strategy. In some cultures the preference is for talking all at the same time on generally the same topic, but not really listening intently to each other - from (moderator) comments on that style that come up later, it seems that that is not a familiar conversational strategy. Even in a soliloquy there are ways of engaging the reader such as rhetorical questions, statements like "imagine for a moment" or provocative / challenging statements. A monologue evokes negative feelings in an English speaking environment, because it challenges both the turn-taking conversational strategy that has been socialised into us from an early age, and it also appears dogmatic - with dogmatism or any form of restriction of the allowance of individual expression being seen as negative in dominant English speaking cultures. In soliloquy, while not as socially acceptable as turn-taking, never-the-less enables readers are able to identify with one side or other of the "characters" debating a topic in language, that would usually be done conceptually and in parallel using the i-language without the restrictions of the linearity of speech. That linearisation of thought into speech - the communicative style restricted by the organs of artuculation - using several alternating view points in effect panders (actually acquiesces) to turn-taking norms of English. Having somebody else active in a thread relieves the need to politely vacillate to avoid the appearance of dogmatism. In other words, it's great that you have given a form of cultural legitimacy to this thread by participating in it.
:lol: All true. Whether you are aware of it or not, I have enjoyed most of your solo posts. What I actually had in mind when I made that comment was that you would be more likely to reap some benefit if someone else interacted with your thoughts. However, since it was I who responded, maybe I should say, "you were infinitesimally more likely to reap some benefit." :lol: Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — January 24th, 2017, 8:44 pm
 
Wes Wood wrote: At the very least, I imagine any interaction at all is better than a soliloquy
Turn taking is a conversational strategy that is familiar to people from English speaking countries being socialised early on, but it is a learnt rather than innate communicative strategy. In some cultures the preference is for talking all at the same time on generally the same topic, but not really listening intently to each other - from (moderator) comments on that style that come up later, it seems that that is not a familiar conversational strategy. Even in a soliloquy there are ways of engaging the reader such as rhetorical questions, statements like "imagine for a moment" or provocative / challenging statements. A monologue evokes negative feelings in an English speaking environment, because it challenges both the turn-taking conversational strategy that has been socialised into us from an early age, and it also appears dogmatic - with dogmatism or any form of restriction of the allowance of individual expression being seen as negative in dominant English speaking cultures. In soliloquy, while not as socially acceptable as turn-taking, never-the-less enables readers are able to identify with one side or other of the "characters" debating a topic in language, that would usually be done conceptually and in parallel using the i-language without the restrictions of the linearity of speech. That linearisation of thought into speech - the communicative style restricted by the organs of artuculation - using several alternating view points in effect panders (actually acquiesces) to turn-taking norms of English. Having somebody else active in a thread relieves the need to politely vacillate to avoid the appearance of dogmatism. In other words, it's great that you have given a form of cultural legitimacy to this thread by participating in it. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 22nd, 2017, 10:36 pm
Good news / bad news. The bad news is that I didn't have anything useful in my notes. I thought that I might because I remember making note of different ways of saying 'daily bread'. The good news is that I took a few minutes to dig up anything that I could find that I thought you might find useful, though it is likely nothing you haven't done on your own already. At the very least, I imagine any interaction at all is better than a soliloquy Aristoph. Pl. 1135 εἴ μοι πορίσας ἄρτον τιν᾽ εὖ πεπεμμένον δοίης καταφαγεῖν καὶ κρέας νεανικὸν ὧν θύεθ᾽ ὑμεῖς ἔνδον. Xen. Cyrop. 6.2 ὡς οὖν μὴ ἐξαπίνης ἄοινοι γενόμενοι νοσήμασι περιπίπτωμεν, ὧδε χρὴ ποιεῖν: ἐπὶ μὲν τῷ σίτῳ νῦν εὐθὺς ἀρχώμεθα πίνειν ὕδωρ: τοῦτο γὰρ ἤδη ποιοῦντες οὐ πολὺ μεταβαλοῦμεν. καὶ γὰρ ὅστις ἀλφιτοσιτεῖ, ὕδατι μεμαγμένην ἀεὶ τὴν μᾶζαν ἐσθίει, καὶ ὅστις ἀρτοσιτεῖ, ὕδατι δεδευμένον τὸν ἄρτον, καὶ τὰ ἑφθὰ δὲ πάντα μεθ᾽ ὕδατος τοῦ πλείστου ἐσκεύασται. μετὰ δὲ τὸν σῖτον ἐὰν οἶνον ἐπιπίνωμεν, οὐδὲν μεῖον ἔχουσα ἡ ψυχὴ ἀναπαύσεται. Strab. 17.2 ᾿αληθὲς δὲ καὶ τὸ Ἡροδότου καὶ ἔστιν Αἰγυπτιακὸν τὸ τὸν μὲν πηλὸν ταῖς χερσὶ φυρᾶν, τὸ δὲ στέαρ τὸ εἰς τὴν ἀρτοποιίαν τοῖς ποσί. Hp. VM 3 διὰ δὴ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίην καὶ οὗτοί μοι δοκέουσι ζητῆσαι τροφὴν ἁρμόζουσαν τῇ φύσει καὶ εὑρεῖν ταύτην, ᾗ νῦν χρεώμεθα. ἐκ μὲν οὖν τῶν πυρῶν βρέξαντές σφας καὶ πτίσαντες καὶ καταλέσαντές τε καὶ διασήσαντες καὶ φορύξαντες καὶ ὀπτήσαντες ἀπετέλεσαν ἄρτον, ἐκ δὲ τῶν κριθέων μᾶζαν: Hp. VM 13 τὸ μὲν γὰρ βεβαιότατόν τε καὶ προφανέστατον φάρμακον ἀφελόντα τὰ διαιτήματα, οἷς ἐχρῆτο, ἀντὶ μὲν τῶν πυρῶν ἄρτον διδόναι, ἀντὶ δὲ τῶν ὠμῶν κρεῶν ἑφθά, πιεῖν τε ἐπὶ τούτοισιν οἴνου. Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — January 21st, 2017, 10:52 am
Thanks Wes, The phrases there, that use φυράω firstly in the sense of "mix in water" (ἢ πολλῷ ὕδατι πεφυρημένος ἢ ὀλίγῳ "either mixed with a lot of water or a little"), or secondly in the sense of "knead" (ἢ ἰσχυρῶς πεφυρημένος ἢ ἀφύρητος "kneaded vigorously or left unkneaded"), are things that happen prior to roasting / baking. The passive participle or the passive adjective suggest that it was a previous action, rather than a current one - that the φύραμα (< φυράω) had become ἄρτος after roasting / baking. Just how much roasting / baking is then spelt out - over-cooked or under-cooked bread is still called bread (ἢ ἔξοπτος ἢ ἔνωμος,), i.e. the boundaries of the philosophical opposites for bread are set within the range of "cooked". I'm more familiar with the logos and colours of packaging for bread in the supermarket, than I am with the production process, but it seems that Hippocrates definition of bread - the range within which bread differs is like this: Bread
  • can either have the bran sifted out, or have it left in.
  • is made from wheat (πυρός) (either winnowed or not).
  • is made by mixing in water (whether a little or a lot)
  • could be kneaded or not.
  • is cooked (either a lot or a little).
Yeast is not mentioned, so this is obviously not a definitive description, but it does at least inform us about bread's need to be cooked. That suggests that if bread was being roasted over the charcoal, it was already at least somewhat cooked, when the disciples arrived. Just how much? Hard to say. How long would it take to drag a net to shore and count 153 fish? That couldn't be less than 5 minutes. Or were they counted after breakfast? Moreover, the ὁμοίως in "ἔρχεται οὖν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς καὶ λαμβάνει τὸν ἄρτον καὶ δίδωσιν αὐτοῖς, καὶ τὸ ὀψάριον ὁμοίως." may be vague or specific, but being at the end of a section (sentence) it is probably specific. With the fish definitely being BBQed, their being taken was from being cooked and the ὁμοίως may suggest that the bread is also being taken from the BBQ. But it depends whether ὁμοίως is formally syntactic (required by the language to "repeat" the sense of the verbs) or actually descriptive (specifying that the way the verbs are applied to the ἄρτον "bread" is the same way as they are applied to the ὀψάριον "fish" (or "cooked morsel"). Βλέπουσιν as a verb if seeing suggests that what they saw opened their eyes - "Wow. A fire, breakfast - bread and fish. Well, that's a pleasant surprise."
Wes Wood wrote: I may have some other references like this scattered through my "Greek Readings" notebooks.
At your convenience. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 17th, 2017, 4:22 am
Having seen the word in several different contexts, I would say that it is used similarly to how we use it. Bread being generally viewed as the finished product, but it could be further warmed or toasted. Here is a reference you may find helpful. After clicking the link, read the Greek text from the beginning and you will find the portion of greatest interest quickly. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0249%3Atext%3Dvm%3Asection%3D14 I may have some other references like this scattered through my "Greek Readings" notebooks. If you are interested, let me know. I keep notes of things that I find interesting or helpful. Hope this helps. Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — January 17th, 2017, 12:09 am
βλέπουσιν ἀνθρακιὰν κειμένην καὶ ὀψάριον ἐπικείμενον, καὶ ἄρτον. Am I reasonable in imagining this as either a shallow trench scraped out on the beach with the displaced earth rising up a little with embers in the trench, or if it is on solid ground, some rocks around the ember. In any case, the fish is presumably not laid on the coal directly, but might have been skewered with a twig or skewer, and in the absence of a lakeside oven, the bread dough may also have been wrapped around a twig or skewer and set (on the embankment of displaced earth or rocks placed around the coal) roasting over the hot coal. A fish placed on the coal would be burnt and have the charcoal stuck to it and in it - not an inviting breakfast! The point of my question is whether ἄρτος, rather than φύραμα "dough" can refer to "bread" during the cooking process? The meaning of ἐπικείμενον in context here is more or less "cooking over". Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 16th, 2017, 8:41 pm

John 3:8

cwconrad wrote: Perhaps I'm simply saying what's obvious, but the fact that πνευμα in Greek, like ruach in Hebrew and spiritus in Latin, is a metaphoric extension from verbs in these same languages that can mean both "blow" and "breathe" would seem to indicate that the analogy is being drawn to comparable instances of unpredictability in the volatile "substance" for which these languages use the single word.
Yes, that makes sense. Statistics: Posted by grogers — April 1st, 2014, 12:18 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote: Really? Check out the translations of the passages listed for various senses here: http://www.ibiblio.org//resources ... mith.html#πνεῦμα
Thanks a lot for the link. This is a bigger help than biblehub. Statistics: Posted by grogers — April 1st, 2014, 12:16 pm
 
grogers wrote: ... in the 383 times that πνεῦμα appears in the NT in its various forms, it is translated as spirit in every case except in John 3:8.
Really? Check out the translations of the passages listed for various senses here: http://www.ibiblio.org//resources ... mith.html#πνεῦμα Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 1st, 2014, 11:50 am
 
grogers wrote:
It's a contextual issue. πνεὖμα here is the subject of πνεἶ, and this would trigger in the mind of most readers which part of the semantic range of πνεὖμα is in the author's mind. There is also the comparison. To understand πνεὖμα here as "Spirit" would rob the analogy of its force.
Well, possibly, but isn't the force of this analogy created solely on the translation of πνεὖμα as wind? I understand the various possible rendering of πνεὖμα but what would this change in one's understanding of this verse if it is translated "The spirit breaths where it wills"?
Perhaps I'm simply saying what's obvious, but the fact that πνευμα in Greek, like ruach in Hebrew and spiritus in Latin, is a metaphoric extension from verbs in these same languages that can mean both "blow" and "breathe" would seem to indicate that the analogy is being drawn to comparable instances of unpredictability in the volatile "substance" for which these languages use the single word. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — April 1st, 2014, 11:47 am
 
It's a contextual issue. πνεὖμα here is the subject of πνεἶ, and this would trigger in the mind of most readers which part of the semantic range of πνεὖμα is in the author's mind. There is also the comparison. To understand πνεὖμα here as "Spirit" would rob the analogy of its force.
Well, possibly, but isn't the force of this analogy created solely on the translation of πνεὖμα as wind? I understand the various possible rendering of πνεὖμα but what would this change in one's understanding of this verse if it is translated "The spirit breaths where it wills"? Statistics: Posted by grogers — April 1st, 2014, 10:49 am
 
grogers wrote: Perhaps someone can offer me an explanation for what seems to be a overwhelmingly accepted translation of the this verse by the body of scholarship. In the vast majority of the English translations τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ is translated as "The wind blows where it wishes." I find this rather interesting since in the 383 times that πνεῦμα appears in the NT in its various forms, it is translated as spirit in every case except in John 3:8. Is there something I am missing here?
It's a contextual issue. πνεὖμα here is the subject of πνεἶ, and this would trigger in the mind of most readers which part of the semantic range of πνεὖμα is in the author's mind. There is also the comparison. To understand πνεὖμα here as "Spirit" would rob the analogy of its force. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — April 1st, 2014, 10:30 am
Perhaps someone can offer me an explanation for what seems to be a overwhelmingly accepted translation of the this verse by the body of scholarship. In the vast majority of the English translations τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ is translated as "The wind blows where it wishes." I find this rather interesting since in the 383 times that πνεῦμα appears in the NT in its various forms, it is translated as spirit in every case except in John 3:8. Is there something I am missing here? Statistics: Posted by grogers — April 1st, 2014, 9:57 am

Mark 14:4

Stephen Hughes wrote:If John was in the thick of it, he was relating a part event that Peter wasn't an ear-witness to.
I fear that taking this position is wrapping an assumption in another assumption. If Matthew and Mark are taking a bird's eye view, they are providing several non-essential details. We don't have any way to know where these details came from. What can be gained from an investigation here?
Stephen Hughes wrote:Another plausible line to explore is the relationship between λέγω and what we understand as "say". Without the ubiquity of print or any broadcast media, what was said and what was heard needn't come from the same person (oral culture). Γὰρ and ὅτι both used in reporting speech or thoughts in some ways or another. It might be possible that γὰρ is relating what was said and related, but not heard directly.
I think this goes largely along the same lines as that above. It is clear that Γὰρ and ὅτι are used for reported speech, but they are also used to connect to previous statements. In order to evaluate this proposition, wouldn't we need to investigate clear instances of reported speech? Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — October 17th, 2017, 10:07 am
 
Wes Wood wrote:
October 16th, 2017, 8:04 pm
 
Stephen Hughes wrote:
October 16th, 2017, 3:30 am
Johanine account ... what Mark puts after the γὰρ ... The Matthean redaction
I'm not convinced that all of these accounts are describing the same event, though they could be. If we assume they are parallels, perhaps they provide some measure of support to the idea that Mark was recording what the crowd said, although he doesn't provide the specific person who gave the utterance. Is this what you were thinking or have I missed your intent?
Event, yes. Version of the event, no. "Provid[ing] the specific person who gave the utterance" might depend on who heard what of what was said. Harmonisation models are usually quite simplistic - centring on a bird's-eye (over)view of the event, rather than an eye-witness view, so to help talking about the Greek, it might be worth thinking about what is assumed by harmonisation. If John was in the thick of it, he was relating a part event that Peter wasn't an ear-witness to. Seeing people indignant and hearing them saying, "What a waste", might have been quite what everybody in the room could hear murmured as that opinion spread. Judas sighing about how much money had slipped through his fingers might have been what John the beloved had heard. (John leant on his breast, Judas dipped his fingers in the same bowl and was entrusted with the money. He wasn't an outsider.) Another plausible line to explore is the relationship between λέγω and what we understand as "say". Without the ubiquity of print or any broadcast media, what was said and what was heard needn't come from the same person (oral culture). Γὰρ and ὅτι both used in reporting speech or thoughts in some ways or another. It might be possible that γὰρ is relating what was said and related, but not heard directly. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 17th, 2017, 12:45 am
I'm not convinced that all of these accounts are describing the same event, though they could be. If we assume they are parallels, perhaps they provide some measure of support to the idea that Mark was recording what the crowd said, although he doesn't provide the specific person who gave the utterance. Is this what you were thinking or have I missed your intent? Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — October 16th, 2017, 8:04 pm
In the Johanine account of the incident, Judas is explicitly mentioned as being the speaker, that what what Mark puts after the γὰρ is part of what he said.
John 12:4-6 wrote:Λέγει οὖν εἷς ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ , Ἰούδας Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτης , ὁ μέλλων αὐτὸν παραδιδόναι, 5 Διὰ τί τοῦτο τὸ μύρον οὐκ ἐπράθη τριακοσίων δηναρίων, καὶ ἐδόθη πτωχοῖς; 6 Εἶπεν δὲ τοῦτο, οὐχ ὅτι περὶ τῶν πτωχῶν ἔμελεν αὐτῷ, ἀλλ’ ὅτι κλέπτης ἦν, καὶ τὸ γλωσσόκομον εἶχεν, καὶ τὰ βαλλόμενα ἐβάσταζεν.
The Matthean redaction doesn't explicate the value of the myrrh, and uses the conjunction under discussion.
Matthew 26:8,9 wrote:Ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἠγανάκτησαν, λέγοντες, Εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη; 9 Ἠδύνατο γὰρ τοῦτο τὸ μύρον πραθῆναι πολλοῦ, καὶ δοθῆναι πτωχοῖς.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 16th, 2017, 3:30 am
I don't think I misunderstood you, but my meaning wasn't clear. I had in mind the source of the content rather than a description of the utterance (crowd's quotation vs. narrator's explanation). I intended to say that the absence of γάρ would make me more likely to read the sentence as a continuation of the crowd's thoughts. However, I do not think that its presence indicates that this was the narrator's comment. Mark uses γάρ in this manner quite commonly throughout the text1 (with the speaker(s) explaining a previous statement) and is generally good at pointing out the people making specific comments2. Since the verse ends with καὶ ἐνεβριμῶντο αὐτῇ with no other clear change in speaker, I am inclined to believe that this is what the people were saying. 1 Mark 8:34 Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν ὄχλον σὺν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἀκολουθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι. Mark 8:35 ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν θέλῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ σῶσαι ἀπολέσει αὐτήν· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ἀπολέσει τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου σώσει αὐτήν. Mark 8:36 τί γὰρ ὠφελεῖ ἄνθρωπον κερδῆσαι τὸν κόσμον ὅλον καὶ ζημιωθῆναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ; Mark 8:37 τί γὰρ δοῖ ἄνθρωπος ἀντάλλαγμα τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ; Mark 8:38 ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν ἐπαισχυνθῇ με καὶ τοὺς ἐμοὺς λόγους ἐν τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ τῇ μοιχαλίδι καὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπαισχυνθήσεται αὐτόν, ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν ἁγίων. 2Mark 5:27 ἀκούσασα περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἐλθοῦσα ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ὄπισθεν ἥψατο τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ· Mark 5:28 ἔλεγεν γὰρ ὅτι ἐὰν ἅψωμαι κἂν τῶν ἱματίων αὐτοῦ σωθήσομαι. Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — October 13th, 2017, 2:15 pm
I don't think I misunderstood you, but my meaning wasn't clear. I had in mind the source of the content rather than a description of the utterance (crowd's quotation vs. narrator's explanation). I intended to say that the absence of γάρ would make me more likely to read the sentence as a continuation of the crowd's thoughts. However, I do not think that its presence indicates that this was the narrator's comment. Mark uses γάρ in this manner quite commonly throughout the text1 (with the speaker(s) explaining a previous statement) and is generally good at pointing out the people making specific comments2. Since the verse ends with καὶ ἐνεβριμῶντο αὐτῇ with no other clear change in speaker, I am inclined to believe that this is what the people were saying. 1 Mark 8:34 Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν ὄχλον σὺν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἀκολουθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι. Mark 8:35 ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν θέλῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ σῶσαι ἀπολέσει αὐτήν· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ἀπολέσει τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου σώσει αὐτήν. Mark 8:36 τί γὰρ ὠφελεῖ ἄνθρωπον κερδῆσαι τὸν κόσμον ὅλον καὶ ζημιωθῆναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ; Mark 8:37 τί γὰρ δοῖ ἄνθρωπος ἀντάλλαγμα τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ; Mark 8:38 ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν ἐπαισχυνθῇ με καὶ τοὺς ἐμοὺς λόγους ἐν τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ τῇ μοιχαλίδι καὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπαισχυνθήσεται αὐτόν, ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν ἁγίων. 2Mark 5:27 ἀκούσασα περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἐλθοῦσα ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ὄπισθεν ἥψατο τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ· Mark 5:28 ἔλεγεν γὰρ ὅτι ἐὰν ἅψωμαι κἂν τῶν ἱματίων αὐτοῦ σωθήσομαι. Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — October 13th, 2017, 2:15 pm
 
Wes Wood wrote:
October 11th, 2017, 12:17 pm
Without γάρ, I would be more likely to read this as a quote rather than an explanatory clause, ...
Even if it is the quote it is still explanatory - those of the disciples, who thought it was a waste were quoted as explaining why they thought it was a waste. The question could be rephrased as does γὰρ suggest that the people who were indignant had to explain to those around them why they had a strong negative reaction to the "waste", OR does it suggest that the narrator felt he need to explain to his intended audience why those who thought it was a waste thought it was a waste. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 13th, 2017, 10:15 am
 
Wes Wood wrote:
October 11th, 2017, 12:17 pm
Without γάρ, I would be more likely to read this as a quote rather than an explanatory clause, ...
Even if it is the quote it is still explanatory - those of the disciples, who thought it was a waste were quoted as explaining why they thought it was a waste. The question could be rephrased as does γὰρ suggest that the people who were indignant had to explain to those around them why they had a strong negative reaction to the "waste", OR does it suggest that the narrator felt he need to explain to his intended audience why those who thought it was a waste thought it was a waste. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 13th, 2017, 10:15 am
Without γάρ, I would be more likely to read this as a quote rather than an explanatory clause, though as you say there is no reason why it must read that way. However, I have been doing quite a bit of reading in John and admit that my comment has likely been affected by this on some level! If it is not obvious, this is an off the cuff response to what I feel is an interesting question. :) Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — October 11th, 2017, 12:17 pm
 
Mark 14:4,5 wrote:Ἦσαν δέ τινες ἀγανακτοῦντες πρὸς ἑαυτούς, καὶ λέγοντες, Εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη τοῦ μύρου γέγονεν; 5 Ἠδύνατο γὰρ τοῦτο πραθῆναι ἐπάνω τριακοσίων δηναρίων, καὶ δοθῆναι τοῖς πτωχοῖς. Καὶ ἐνεβριμῶντο αὐτῇ.
Without considering the role of the γάρ, this encolorated phrase seems like
  • something that would have been general knowledge to people at the time, but needed to be explained to people in a different economic context, or
  • It may also be giving an insight into their thoughts behind the indignation or a reason for them saying, "Peww!" at the women, or
  • It may have been added in what they said aloud to explain what made them angry.
Without the γάρ, any parenthetical comment or inclusion is logically possible. Does the γάρ here suggest either of those interpretation might be more or less likely? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — October 11th, 2017, 1:21 am

2 Peter 3:10

Jonathan Robie wrote:
May 23rd, 2017, 3:06 pm
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
May 23rd, 2017, 3:00 pm
Got a good laugh out of that. The suggestion assumes that I know enough coptic to correct the auto parsing mistakes.
Are you copting out?
Yeah, my objective with Sahidic is even less ambitious than a similar project with Syriac. I thought it would be useful to look at the architecture of the language and see to what extent the versions could be trusted in textual criticism. I thought it would be about as difficult as Syriac coming from Hebrew. I was wrong. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — May 23rd, 2017, 3:11 pm
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
May 23rd, 2017, 3:00 pm
Got a good laugh out of that. The suggestion assumes that I know enough coptic to correct the auto parsing mistakes.
Are you copting out? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — May 23rd, 2017, 3:06 pm
 
Stephen Hughes wrote:
May 23rd, 2017, 2:06 pm
... if you were to mentally make that correction to the parsing as you go, the syntax might make some sense.
Stephen, Got a good laugh out of that. The suggestion assumes that I know enough coptic to correct the auto parsing mistakes. It doesn't surprise me that auto parsing makes errors. Coptic is not a simple language and there are some tokens that have a very wide range of polysemy. POSTSCRIPT RE: Gsp Thomas You know there is a crying need for a grammatically tagged version of the Gospel of Thomas. It would be a short project for someone who knows the dialect. I asked S. Gathercole if such an animal already existed and he suggested Grondin`s Interlinear Coptic/English Translation of The Gospel of Thomas. So I am assuming this hasn't been done. Would be great to find out that I am wrong. I suspect there isn't a standard set of metalanguage to attach to Sahidic tokens. The grammers seem to invent metalanguage as they go along. J. Brankaer 2012 is the most meta-language intensive grammar I have ever encountered. B. Layton isn't even close to it. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — May 23rd, 2017, 3:00 pm
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
May 22nd, 2017, 5:33 pm
There appear to be several not_so_standard ways of rendering expressions like οὐχ εὑρέθησαν. I looked at all the NT samples using the scriptorium to try and work out what was going on in the syntax. An imperfect method.
The other negation ⲙⲡⲟⲩϩⲉ that you are looking at is wrongly parsed in the texts that I traced your footsteps on. This is actually negation ⲙⲡⲉ (ⲙⲡ=). Crum (on page 178) lists it as a I perfect negative. The Coptic Scriptorium wrongly parses it as ⲙ - PREP (preposition) and ⲡⲟⲩ - PPOS (pronoun, possesive). If, in another instance, ⲙⲡⲟⲩ was in front of a noun, such as as for exaple ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲏⲓ (broken up as ⲙ-ⲡⲟⲩ-ⲏⲓ), "in their house", it would be parsed in the way you find in Coptic Scriptorium. It is an error in parsing is about as serious as parsing every "to" as a preposition, even when it is an infinitive marker. In accordance with the Coptic Scriptorium scheme ⲙⲡⲟⲩ followed by a verb should be tagged as ⲙⲡ= ANEGPST and -ⲟⲩ PPER (pronoun, personal) - the person (3rd plural) could be added if there is an option to input that level of detail into the encoding. Clay, if you were to mentally make that correction to the parsing as you go, the syntax might make some sense. [Anticipating your question that you will arrive at after a couple of hours of searching and thought, "No, I don't know if the future negations always prefer that surface structure."] Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — May 23rd, 2017, 2:06 pm
 
Stephen Hughes wrote:
May 22nd, 2017, 2:04 pm
The position of the negative particle (ⲁⲛ) at the end of the phrase is standard, and the negation only extends to that particular phrase.
Yes, that is what the grammers tell me. There appear to be several not_so_standard ways of rendering expressions like οὐχ εὑρέθησαν. I looked at all the NT samples using the scriptorium to try and work out what was going on in the syntax. An imperfect method. The parsing is done by an auto_parser that you can download from the scriptorium. RE: dropped negative particles In my encroaching old age I have observed that the dyslexia that has plauged me since childhood has only increased and for some reason I am dropping negative particles. Perhaps there is some explanation for this but I couldn't find one. Since 2Peter had canonical problems the early manusript evidence is pretty thin. Could be we are looking at an early corruption related to "dropped negative particles" which I haven't found discussed in the NT TC literature. Doesn't mean it isn't there but I have looked several times without success. I have an old friend who is a publisher and editor. I caught him dropping a negative particle. Five minutes ago I sent him an email in which I dropped the negative particle. It doesn't go away just because you are aware of it. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — May 22nd, 2017, 5:33 pm
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
May 22nd, 2017, 12:42 pm
The exact form of negation found in [S]ahidic 2Peter 3:10[1] which looks like it represents οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται I did not find anyplace else where εὑρίσκω is negated with οὐχ and/or μη in NA27. This isn’t intended to imply or prove that the back translation οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται isn’t valid. It is just a word of caution about using the textual apparatus with versions in languages that have a surface structure very different from Greek or Hebrew. Also, the verb ϩⲉ negated by ⲁⲛ that translates εὑρίσκω in our passage appears to have a much wider semantic domain than εὑρίσκω which might introduce some uncertainty about retorversion. I don't pretent to read Coptic in any dialect. [1] The end of 2Peter 3:10: ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡ ⲕⲁϩ ⲙⲛ ⲛⲉ ϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲛϩⲏⲧϥ ⲥⲉ ⲛⲁ ϩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟ ϥ ⲁⲛ (tokenized with grammar tags by the Coptic Scriptorium http://data.copticscriptorium.org/texts ... 3/analytic). Note the translation provided doesn’t represent the coptic reading under discussion.
Let me read for you. I don't need to pretend. The "surface structure" (ⲥⲉ ⲛⲁ ϩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟ= ϥ ⲁⲛ - properly written as ⲥⲉⲛⲁϩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲁⲛ - /se-na-he erof an/ (sentence stress on /he/ "they will find it not". [ϥ /f/ "him", "it" is masculine agreeing with ⲡⲕⲁϩ /epkah/ "the earth" - ⲡ being the masculine singular article), is with a third person plural (ⲥⲉ) pseudo-subject and then an object of the subject (ⲉⲣⲟϥ) of the passive verb.] That structure is often used in Coptic. The position of the negative particle (ⲁⲛ) at the end of the phrase is standard, and the negation only extends to that particular phrase. The greater range of meaning in ϩⲉ that you mention could be that it includes find by chance, not only by looking, perhaps. The notably wider meaning in the Coptic compared to the Greek is ϩⲱⲃ (here used in the plural ϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ). ϩⲱⲃ covers meanings ranging from "thing", to "matter" to "work". Apart from the translation about "burning" being wrong there in Coptic Scriptorium, the parsing of ⲉⲧⲉⲛϩⲏⲧϥ /ete-enhētf/ is wrong too. It is represented as a verb (v). Actually, it is a relative phrase. To break it up, ⲉⲧⲉ is a relative marker "which", and ⲛϩⲏⲧ= is suffix pronoun form of the preposition ϩⲛ /hen/ "in" (Crum pg 683), and ϥ /f/ is the 3rd sing masc pronoun "he", "him", "it". [If you see hieroglyphs in documentaries and such like, the horizontal snake of the width one character with the horns, is the Egyptian horned viper. That character is usually the third person singular pronoun "he", "it". The hieratic form of that hieroglyph formed the basis of the Coptic letter ϥ (fai)]. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — May 22nd, 2017, 2:04 pm
A while back I was looking for a retroversion of the Gospel of Thomas. Turns out that retroverting from Sahidic to koine greek isn’t particularly straightforward and Gsp Thomas isn’t straightforward Sahidic. J.N.D. Kelly on 2nd Peter 3:10 says that the Sahidic version implies οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται. This implies that Kelly actually looked at the Sahidic not just the apparatus. Not a bad plan. The exact form of negation found in sahidic 2Peter 3:10[1] which looks like it represents οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται I did not find anyplace else where εὑρίσκω is negated with οὐχ and/or μη in NA27. This isn’t intended to imply or prove that the back translation οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται isn’t valid. It is just a word of caution about using the textual apparatus with versions in languages that have a surface structure very different from Greek or Hebrew. Also, the verb ϩⲉ negated by ⲁⲛ that translates εὑρίσκω in our passage appears to have a much wider semantic domain than εὑρίσκω which might introduce some uncertainty about retorversion. I don't pretent to read Coptic in any dialect. [1] The end of 2Peter 3:10: ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡ ⲕⲁϩ ⲙⲛ ⲛⲉ ϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲛϩⲏⲧϥ ⲥⲉ ⲛⲁ ϩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟ ϥ ⲁⲛ (tokenized with grammar tags by the Coptic Scriptorium http://data.copticscriptorium.org/texts ... 3/analytic). Note the translation provided doesn’t represent the coptic reading under discussion. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — May 22nd, 2017, 12:42 pm
I should have mentioned that I asked this question on the New Testament Textual Criticism forum on Facebook, and members there supplied the links in the previous post. You can find the discussion here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1140420 ... 302022693/ Here is one more that was mentioned there: David Palmer quotes Gerd Mink as follows, saying he was given this quote by Jan Trans:
Gerd Mink (by way of Jan Krans) in “Problems of a Highly Contaminated Tradition: the New Testament. Stemmata of Variants as a Source of a Genealogy for Witnesses,” in Studies in Stemmatology II (ed. Pieter van Reenen and August A. den Hollander; Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2004), pp. 13-85, p. 27: “… the ECM records the witnesses of erroneous readings as witnesses for the variants which they represent, albeit defectively. There is even an example where the best witnesses omit a negation (1 Peter 3:10/48-50). Although the preceding passage speaks of the passing away of the heavens, and the dissolution of the elements, and the following verses presuppose the dissolution of heaven and earth (for a new heaven and a new earth are waited for), quite superior witnesses here have the reading ‘the earth and all the works that are therein will be found (εὑρθήσονται [sic; εὑρεθήσεται])’, when logic demands ‘will not be found (οὐχ εὑρεθήσονται [sic])’. The meaning, as a result, is extremely problematic; to my mind the reading does not make sense and must therefore be erroneous. Unquestionably, the hyparchetype of all these witnesses did not have the negation. Now, there are two variants (ἀφανισθήσονται ‘they will disappear’, and κατακαήσεται ‘they will be burned up’), which presuppose and express more graphically a text containing the negation: οὐχ εὑρεθήσονται [sic] ‘they will not be found’. Although it is not preserved in any Greek manuscript, it is probable that the initial text had the negation. Even if these variants which indirectly confirm the negation did not exist, the assumption should still be that the initial text contained the negation required by the sense of the text, even though the negation is not in the graphemic representation of the archetype. To my mind, this is an almost unavoidable conjecture.”
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — May 22nd, 2017, 9:02 am
Thanks - it does look like conjectural emendation, and is listed that way on the NA28's website: http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/nt-conject ... ID=cj11713 This page gives with a diagram of the readings they were trying to account for: Index of Variants Discussed in Relation to the CBGM Image I found this helpful for understanding the basic CBGM approach: The CBGM Applied to Variants from Acts Also this presentation: The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, CBGM: Introductory Presentation Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — May 22nd, 2017, 6:31 am
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
May 18th, 2017, 6:52 am
there other links worth reading?
As far as categorising the type of emmendation it is, we could consider the introduction of
tmp_8271-Screenshot_20170522-122455-667322126.jpg
Which mentions 3 types.
tmp_8271-Screenshot_20170522-122427-2080188345.jpg
 
tmp_8271-Screenshot_20170522-122400-496593153.jpg
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — May 22nd, 2017, 12:29 am
Perhaps we've parsed Alan's words sufficiently. Does anyone know where I can find the German Bible Society's reasoning for including οὐχ in 2 Peter 3:10? Alan provided one link to a discussion of this question, are there other links worth reading? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — May 18th, 2017, 6:52 am
 
Alan Bunning wrote:
May 17th, 2017, 7:46 pm
Yes, I will have to choose my words more carefully, for I was not aware of that connotation. Perhaps a term like “illogical” or “odd” would have been more suitable.
Scholarship "unsubstantiated by evidence from the Greek" might better cover it. I think bogus is a lot milder than it has been interpreted in this thread when it is used in conversational style. Putting Alan's words together with different bedfellows changes their connotation. "Alan claimed the scholarship was bogus" is strong and formal. "Alan is going on (whinging / having his gripe) about bogus scholarship again" mean about the same as "dodgy" (it would be a good idea to avoid it) as in "The car's dodgy, take the bus". Reading Alan's words with the meaning that he only claims to have known, they don't sound bad. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — May 18th, 2017, 1:08 am
Yes, I will have to choose my words more carefully, for I was not aware of that connotation. Perhaps a term like “illogical” or “odd” would have been more suitable. Statistics: Posted by Alan Bunning — May 17th, 2017, 7:46 pm
 
Alan Bunning wrote:
May 17th, 2017, 8:18 am
I did not mean to imply that everything they do is “bogus scholarship” nor do I think I said that, but I do see the insertion of this variant as an example of “bogus scholarship” <or insert alternative appropriate respectful word of disagreement>, and that is based on the evidence which I think speaks for itself. There is no ad-hominem attack here, but a strong criticism of their work in this instance. Attacking work != attacking people.
Well, you should choose your words more carefully then. "Bogus" means more than merely being wrong, but deceptive, and that is an attack on the character of the scholars. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — May 17th, 2017, 5:36 pm
As I've said, I haven't studied it. I only know what I heard orally from Klaus. I believe there's also a skeptical discussion of it on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — May 17th, 2017, 8:47 am
As I've said, I haven't studied it. I only know what I heard orally Klaus. I believe there's also a skeptical discussion of it on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — May 17th, 2017, 8:47 am
What justification do they give for including this word? I'd like to understand their justification before rejecting it. There's plenty of time to reject it once I understand it, but I don't need adjectives to evaluate their argument. And adjectives don't tell me what their argument is. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — May 17th, 2017, 8:39 am
I did not mean to imply that everything they do is “bogus scholarship” nor do I think I said that, but I do see the insertion of this variant as an example of “bogus scholarship” <or insert alternative appropriate respectful word of disagreement>, and that is based on the evidence which I think speaks for itself. There is no ad-hominem attack here, but a strong criticism of their work in this instance. Attacking work != attacking people. Statistics: Posted by Alan Bunning — May 17th, 2017, 8:18 am
We are trying to cautiously expand the kinds of things we can talk about on . But cautiously. And one of the standards we are using is our Respectful Discourse Policy:
If discussion of this nature is to succeed, proper respect and courtesy to other list members is important. While scholarly debate, including disagreement, is encouraged as a goal of this conference, attacks upon the character, intelligence, or faith of those participating are not acceptable. Criticism must focus upon the arguments of others; it may not be directed to the individual.
I'd like to extend that not only to list members, but to text critical scholars and others. Let's focus on the facts and how they can reasonably be interpreted. The reason textual criticism has been off the table is that it is often discussed in a way not consistent with our respectful discourse policy. If we find we can't handle it, we'll take it back off the table. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — May 17th, 2017, 7:53 am
I haven't studied the variant and I do have my disagreements with them from time to time, but the reality is that the editors in Münster are serious scholars and it is inflammatory and derogatory to call their work "bogus scholarship." Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — May 17th, 2017, 7:45 am
Regardless of what word is used, I don’t think that changes the reality of the situation. Statistics: Posted by Alan Bunning — May 17th, 2017, 7:32 am
"Feel" is my word, not theirs. German scholarship is to a fault not about feelings. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — May 17th, 2017, 7:13 am
This particular variant is mentioned in my CNTR project description http://greekcntr.org/downloads/project.pdf. I thought that there was a rule against discussions on textual criticism, otherwise I would have gone on to explain how ridiculous that is on so many levels, and why people should not blindly follow that type of bogus scholarship based on what people “feel”. Statistics: Posted by Alan Bunning — May 17th, 2017, 7:03 am
No Greek manuscript supports the reading of NA28, just some Coptic and Syriac ones. It's a conjecture. The editors feel that the text does not make sense without the negation. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — May 16th, 2017, 2:03 am
This surprised me:
2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) wrote:Ἥξει δὲ ἡμέρα κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης ἐν ᾗ οἱ οὐρανοὶ ῥοιζηδὸν παρελεύσονται, στοιχεῖα δὲ καυσούμενα λυθήσεται, καὶ γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται.
In my UBS 5th, the text critical note on this says "οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται: Some Syriac and Greek manuscripts", without listing them. Most critical editions don't have οὐχ here. The texts before 400AD don't either. The online NA28 doesn't have the text-critical apparatus, which is presumably more specific. What manuscripts support οὐχ? What persuaded NA28 to include it? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — May 15th, 2017, 12:23 pm

John 7:49

Rhoover60 wrote: J. Robie, thanks. I read the passage from Jannaris and noticed this phrase, "Nevertheless, it is not rigidly adhered to even by A[ttic?] writers. etc." This points out what probably happened in my thinking. I falsely imagined that language had a mathematical precision to it!! Hopefully, I will learn from this. More Regards.
No such thing as mathematical precision in any language. In the case of the neuter plural/singular verb, the verb most often goes into the plural when people are the referent of the noun, though even that is not an absolute usage. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — January 1st, 2017, 9:16 am
 
Rhoover60 wrote: J. Robie, thanks. I read the passage from Jannaris and noticed this phrase, "Nevertheless, it is not rigidly adhered to even by A[ttic?] writers. etc." This points out what probably happened in my thinking. I falsely imagined that language had a mathematical precision to it!! Hopefully, I will learn from this. More Regards.
No such thing as mathematical precision in any language. In the case of the neuter plural/singular verb, the verb most often goes into the plural when people are the referent of the noun, though even that is not an absolute usage. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — January 1st, 2017, 9:16 am
J. Robie, thanks. I read the passage from Jannaris and noticed this phrase, "Nevertheless, it is not rigidly adhered to even by A[ttic?] writers. etc." This points out what probably happened in my thinking. I falsely imagined that language had a mathematical precision to it!! Hopefully, I will learn from this. More Regards. Statistics: Posted by Rhoover60 — December 31st, 2016, 12:57 pm
 
Rhoover60 wrote: My thanks to you, J. Robie. I remember similar guidelines regarding plural neuter subjects and singular verbs [or is it the other way around? I will have to check on that.] Regards.
You got it right - when the subject is a neuter plural, the verb is usually singular. They do that just to trick us. There's a really good description of Concord starting on page 313 of Jannaris. I wish I had Jannaris in text form. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — December 31st, 2016, 8:06 am
My thanks to you, J. Robie. I remember similar guidelines regarding plural neuter subjects and singular verbs [or is it the other way around? I will have to check on that.] Regards. Statistics: Posted by Rhoover60 — December 30th, 2016, 7:47 pm
In English we might say, "But this crowd, which knows nothing of the law - they are accursed!" And we wouldn't worry so much about the lack of agreement, the focus shifts from a crowd as a unit to the people in the crowd in the course of the sentence. In Greek, collective nouns like λαός, ὄχλος usually take a plural verb - or here, a plural adjective form - as if the subject were a bunch of individuals. See Smyth §950:
950. With singular collective substantives (996) denoting persons and with like words implying a plural, the verb may stand in the plural. Thus, ““τὸ στρατόπεδον ἐν αἰτίᾳ ἔχοντες τὸν Ἆγιν ἀνεχώρουν” the army returned holding Agis at fault” T. 5.60, ““τοιαῦτα ἀκούσα_σα ἡ πόλις Ἀ_γησίλα_ον εἵλοντο βασιλέα_” the city, after hearing such arguments, chose Agesilaus king” X. H. 3.3.4. So with βουλή senate, μέρος part, πλῆθος multitude, δῆμος people, ὄχλος throng.
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — December 30th, 2016, 6:36 pm
Why would the predicate adjective ἐπάρατοί be plural and the subject ὁ ὄχλος be singular? ἀλλὰ ὁ ὄχλος οὗτος ὁ μὴ γινώσκων τὸν νόμον ἐπάρατοί εἰσιν. Statistics: Posted by Rhoover60 — December 29th, 2016, 11:43 pm

John 8:33

Hefin J. Jones wrote: Focusing on the forest might take us out of .
That depends partly on which forest you focus on, but I do think we need to be careful. Here's a forest that interests me: my impression is that John is very careful in his use of antecedents and pronouns. Iver's interpretation seems to require a level of imprecision that I would expect in Mark but not in John, but this is purely my impression, based largely on the wonderfully precise and poetic use of reference in the first chapters of John and 1 John. I have not yet looked carefully at the passages Iver has brought up, I am going to take a look and see if I can find similar examples of imprecise use of antecedents in John. Can anyone think of such examples? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — March 14th, 2014, 9:39 am
 
Iver Larsen wrote: In v. 15 Jesus is teaching in the temple, and a mixed group is standing around him. v. 19 ends with "Why are you seeking to kill me?" V. 19 has to be directed to the hostile leaders, not the crowd. It is possible that v. 16-17 is directed to people in general, while v. 18 looks like a subtle rebuke of the Pharisees in front of the mixed crowd. Because the crowd is mixed, it is the content of the speech that shows us who the intended audience is more than explicit participant references. A speaker can address different sections of a crowd without explicating the addressees.
In 7.15 we are told that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι reacted to Jesus' teaching with amazement. Most agree that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι here (at least) means the Jewish leaders/authorities (I mean, not the people as a whole – leaving aside the question whether specifically Ἰουδαῖος = Judean). In v. 16 ἀπεκρίθη οὖν αὐτοῖς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς, which means, logically, Jesus replied τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις, to the authorities. As you rightly point out, v. 19 is directed to the authorities, and in fact John already told the reader in 7.1 that ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι. Now vv. 16-19 is all one speech, and while it is no doubt true that vv. 16-17 would be applicable to all of Jesus' audience, that is not how the text is presented by the author. I cannot see any reason why vv. 16-17 could not have been spoken to the authorities.
Iver Larsen wrote: v. 20 Someone in the crowd responds that no one is trying to kill him. Whether this is one of those leaders or not, I do not know. But it is certainly not a believer or disciple. v. 21-24 appears to be directed to the Jewish leaders more than the general crowd, even though it follows a shout by one in the crowd.
I don't see why you think only one person in the "crowd" is meant, as ὁ ὄχλος is surely a collective term. I agree that the speech in vv. 21-24 is directed to the Jewish leaders. The ἓν ἔργον (21), done on the Sabbath (23) evidently refers back to ch. 5 where Jesus got into trouble with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (5.18). So what of the interruption in v. 20? The general view seems to be that it is a genuine expression of surprise by festival goers who were unaware of the hostility of the Jewish leaders. But it could perhaps be an insincere comment by sympathizers of the leaders.
Iver Larsen wrote: In v. 28 Jesus spoke loudly, maybe to reach beyond the groups of Pharisees who surrounded him to the crowd in general, but whatever he said would be heard by both groups. In v. 30 "they" were seeking to seize him. Some translations clarify that "they" refer to the Jewish leaders. (CEV says "some of the people", but I consider that to be mistaken.)
I'm not convinced that ἔκραξεν is intended to tell the reader Jesus was trying to be heard by all, nor indeed that it is to focus primarily on how loud he spoke. John uses that verb also in 1.15, 7.37 and 12.44. At least 1.15 and 12.44 don't fit the interpretation "spoke loudly", and it's to be noted that all these are quite critical pronouncements. (Rom. 9.27 is another example: Ἠσαΐας δὲ κράζει ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.) Vv. 25-27 are not addressed to Jesus, nor is the speech of vv. 28-29 introduced as a reply. So I see no reason to suppose Jesus is here addressing the crowd in particular. I take it that he is still addressing the leaders, and so there is no difficulty in understanding ἐζήτουν οὖν αὐτὸν πιάσαι in v. 30 as expressing the desire of the leaders.
Iver Larsen wrote: v. 31 has the same contrast between the hostile leaders and many among the crowd who believed. As I said, this is a repeated theme in this gospel and the readers ought to have known this conflict by now, so the writer does not have to clarify all the time who "they" in this ongoing dispute refers to.
If I read you right, you mean to say that in v. 31 ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου δὲ πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν καὶ ἔλεγον should be read as two separate sentences, as some of the English versions do, and the subject of ἔλεγον is the hostile leaders? On second thoughts, maybe by “they” you are referring to ἐζήτουν in v. 30? That would make more sense. To return to John 8 I have to say I don’t see that anything you have said about John 7 encourages me to take ἀπεκρίθησαν in 8.33 as other than a reply from those Jesus had addressed in vv. 31-32. The difficulty you, and others before you, have found is more satisfactorily resolved by exploring what John means by πιστεύειν, as Hefin has suggested:
Hefin J. Jones wrote: I note that one of the earliest refs to faith in John is 2.23-25.
Statistics: Posted by Tony Pope — March 14th, 2014, 8:06 am
 
Iver Larsen wrote: This is what I mean by looking at the forest rather than the trees only.
Focussing on the forest might take us out of . When I think of this text from John 7-8 I note that one of the earliest refs to faith in John is 2.23-25. Statistics: Posted by Hefin J. Jones — March 14th, 2014, 12:44 am
Thanks, Tony, I appreciate your comments. But I still think that your interpretation is more unbelievable than mine. In the phrase "the Jews who believed", the word order suggests focus on belief, and in John's gospel that is the main theme. There is a repeated contrast between the unbelieving and unresponsive Jewish leaders/Pharisees and the common people. The hostile response in v. 33 is before any challenge from Jesus. What Jesus tells these believers is not a challenge but a promise, and I think John mentioned this for all later believers to hear. Jesus did challenge the Pharisees rather strongly. It is interesting to study how groups dialogue. I assume we agree that Jesus was surrounded by a group of Pharisaic leaders and a general crowd of people. A group would not respond in unison, but one would speak on behalf of the others, and it might be different people from the group responding at different times, but they would represent the sentiments of the group. The Pharisaic leaders was a fairly homogenuous group, but the crowd obviously less so. Chapter 7 is a good background to compare with. Thanks for mentioning that. One avenue of study is to look at participant reference in the Greek and in a dynamic English version like the NLT. Those who are interested can do that study. 7:11 The hostile Jewish leaders were looking for Jesus. v. 12 The crowds were divided. v. 13 but they were afraid of the hostile Jewish leaders, because if Jesus was arrested or killed, his followers would be in danger. In v. 15 Jesus is teaching in the temple, and a mixed group is standing around him. v. 19 ends with "Why are you seeking to kill me?" V. 19 has to be directed to the hostile leaders, not the crowd. It is possible that v. 16-17 is directed to people in general, while v. 18 looks like a subtle rebuke of the Pharisees in front of the mixed crowd. Because the crowd is mixed, it is the content of the speech that shows us who the intended audience is more than explicit participant references. A speaker can address different sections of a crowd without explicating the addressees. v. 20 Someone in the crowd responds that no one is trying to kill him. Whether this is one of those leaders or not, I do not know. But it is certainly not a believer or disciple. v. 21-24 appears to be directed to the Jewish leaders more than the general crowd, even though it follows a shout by one in the crowd. In v. 28 Jesus spoke loudly, maybe to reach beyond the groups of Pharisees who surrounded him to the crowd in general, but whatever he said would be heard by both groups. In v. 30 "they" were seeking to seize him. Some translations clarify that "they" refer to the Jewish leaders. (CEV says "some of the people", but I consider that to be mistaken.) v. 31 has the same contrast between the hostile leaders and many among the crowd who believed. As I said, this is a repeated theme in this gospel and the readers ought to have known this conflict by now, so the writer does not have to clarify all the time who "they" in this ongoing dispute refers to. v. 32 The Pharisees realized that many in the crowd believed in him, and this made them even more upset and eager to arrest him. The following verses continue the dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees. There is a lot of parallel structure in chapter 7 and 8. This is what I mean by looking at the forest rather than the trees only. Statistics: Posted by Iver Larsen — March 13th, 2014, 12:58 pm
 
Iver Larsen wrote: v. 30 marks a paragraph break where the author again makes a comment, this time not about the Pharisees, but some of the common people in the crowd. How Jesus knew that some had come to believe in him is not stated, but Jesus spoke to this group in v. 32-33. I take this as a parenthesis and intrusion in the ongoing dispute between Jesus and the hostile Pharisees. The response in v. 33 can hardly be from these believing Jews, unless as Meyer suggests they immediately stopped believing. I think it is more likely that the Pharisees heard what Jesus said to this other group and jumped back into their ongoing dispute with Jesus. They did not know that the words of Jesus were only directed towards the new believers as John mentions, so they jump at his words as if he had spoken to them. The rest of the chapter continues the dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees. They still have the chance to believe in him, but the hypothetical "If the Son were to set you free" requires them to believe first, and there is no indication that this happened. I cannot imagine that verses 34-38 are spoken to those who had believed.
Your reconstruction, Iver, leaves me unfortunately rather dissatisified. It strikes me as odd that John would not have signalled the changes that you propose in those who interacted with Jesus. In chapter 7 and in chapter 9 such changes seem to be clearly indicated, so if in chapter 8 there were common people from the crowd at one point and then Pharisees at another point, one would expect a clear indication of the change of participants. I go with those who understand "believed in him" (v. 30) to mean belief that Jesus is Messiah, as this had been essentially the question at issue in the previous context. But how deep that faith went, whether they were prepared to accept his idea of messiahship and his view of their spiritual condition, is then the challenge that Jesus presents them with. In my view Godet hits the nail on the head when he says that John gives the key to the passage by calling them "Jews who believed" (v. 31 τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ Ἰουδαίους). On the one hand, they were disposed to believe he was the expected Messiah, but on the other hand their Judean roots were still strong and it was the latter that won out when challenged. Statistics: Posted by Tony Pope — March 13th, 2014, 6:41 am
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote: In light of the history of the σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ which was common knowledge, the reply is nothing less than laughable.
Could you elaborate? Statistics: Posted by timothy_p_mcmahon — March 11th, 2014, 11:06 pm
the reply in verse 33 ἀπεκρίθησαν πρὸς αὐτόν· σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ ἐσμεν καὶ οὐδενὶ δεδουλεύκαμεν πώποτε· πῶς σὺ λέγεις ὅτι ἐλεύθεροι γενήσεσθε; is an example of Johannine irony. In light of the history of the σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ which was common knowledge, the reply is nothing less than laughable. John is making Jesus verbal opponents in this discourse look silly. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — March 11th, 2014, 5:00 pm
Iver Larsen wrote:
When able commentators disagree we can hardly expect to find the text conclusive.
True! :D Interestingly, my co-worker (whose office is across that hall from mine) sent me an article on discourse analysis that uses John 8:12–59 as an illustration. After comparing your reply to that article, I asked my buddy, Jason, if Iver Larsen wrote the article he sent. He said, "yes!" Anyway, I enjoyed your article and it made a lot of sense. I guess verse 36 still has me scratching my head in light of what Alford wrote. It seems odd to me that Jesus would say the same thing to the antagonistic Pharisees in verse 36 that He said to the believing Jews in verse 33. I can see that this is a conditional (or hypothetical) statement in verse 36. That might explain why He uses "you" in a generic or hypothetical sense. I guess it would almost be like saying "and you too will be free indeed, if the Son should make you free." The fact that commentators disagree regarding "they" certainly demonstrates the ambiguity in our English translations. When considering things from a discourse analysis standpoint, it is quite possible that the Greek reader would indeed have a better understanding of what John was communicating than we have when reading our English translations. Thanks for the article. It does make one think and forces me to break our of my English paradigm. Bob Statistics: Posted by Bob Nyberg — March 11th, 2014, 12:24 pm
 
Bob Nyberg wrote: John 8:31-33 says: Ἔλεγεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πρὸς τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ Ἰουδαίους, Ἐὰν ὑμεῖς μείνητε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ ἐμῷ, ἀληθῶς μαθηταί μού ἐστε, καὶ γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐλευθερώσει ὑμᾶς. ἀπεκρίθησαν πρὸς αὐτόν... Commentaries seem to be split as to who ἀπεκρίθησαν refers to in verse 33. Some say that it refers back to the believing Jews in verse 31. Others say that it refers to a different group of antagonistic Pharisees who were opposing Jesus who are not the believing Jews of verse 31. I am wondering if there is anything definitive in the text that would determine who ἀπεκρίθησαν is referring to. I think that Alford makes a good point: "The answerers are the πεπιστευκότες, not some others among the hearers, as many Commentators (Lampe, Kuinoel, De Wette, Lücke, edn. 3) have maintained;—see, as a proof of this, ver. 36, addressed to these same persons." But I don't know that it is conclusive. Any thoughts? Bob
When able commentators disagree we can hardly expect to find the text conclusive. In my view, the interpretation depends largely on whether you look at the surrounding trees or the forest. However, there is also some discourse considerations. Unlike English, Greek narrative often refers to major participants by using pronouns rather than titles. So, who are the major participants in the discourse from 8:12-59? In v. 12 Jesus was introduced as speaking to a crowd of Jews in the Temple court of the women (v. 20), but within this crowd, the Pharisees were both vocal and hostile. In v. 13 these antagonistic Pharisees were introduced. Jesus responded to them in v. 14. In v. 19 the Pharisees opposed him again and Jesus responded. v. 20 is an author comment. In v. 21 Jesus resumed his dispute with the Pharisees (referred to by pronoun). In v. 22 the hostile Pharisees are referred to as ἰουδαῖοι. In v. 23 Jesus continues speaking to them. This back and forth dialogue continues, but an author comment intervenes in v. 27. Jesus continues speaking to the Pharisees in v. 28-29. v. 30 marks a paragraph break where the author again makes a comment, this time not about the Pharisees, but some of the common people in the crowd. How Jesus knew that some had come to believe in him is not stated, but Jesus spoke to this group in v. 32-33. I take this as a parenthesis and intrusion in the ongoing dispute between Jesus and the hostile Pharisees. The response in v. 33 can hardly be from these believing Jews, unless as Meyer suggests they immediately stopped believing. I think it is more likely that the Pharisees heard what Jesus said to this other group and jumped back into their ongoing dispute with Jesus. They did not know that the words of Jesus were only directed towards the new believers as John mentions, so they jump at his words as if he had spoken to them. The rest of the chapter continues the dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees. They still have the chance to believe in him, but the hypothetical "If the Son were to set you free" requires them to believe first, and there is no indication that this happened. I cannot imagine that verses 34-38 are spoken to those who had believed. Statistics: Posted by Iver Larsen — March 11th, 2014, 7:07 am
 
Bob Nyberg wrote: John 8:31-33 says: Ἔλεγεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πρὸς τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ Ἰουδαίους, Ἐὰν ὑμεῖς μείνητε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ ἐμῷ, ἀληθῶς μαθηταί μού ἐστε, καὶ γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐλευθερώσει ὑμᾶς. ἀπεκρίθησαν πρὸς αὐτόν... Commentaries seem to be split as to who ἀπεκρίθησαν refers to in verse 33. Some say that it refers back to the believing Jews in verse 31. Others say that it refers to a different group of antagonistic Pharisees who were opposing Jesus who are not the believing Jews of verse 31. I am wondering if there is anything definitive in the text that would determine who ἀπεκρίθησαν is referring to.
Verse 31 says quite clearly and emphatically who Jesus was speaking to, they are the people in view when verse 33 refers to "them": 31 Ἔλεγεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πρὸς τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ Ἰουδαίους· Ἐὰν ὑμεῖς μείνητε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ ἐμῷ, ἀληθῶς μαθηταί μού ἐστε, 32 καὶ γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐλευθερώσει ὑμᾶς. 33 ἀπεκρίθησαν πρὸς αὐτόν· Σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ ἐσμεν καὶ οὐδενὶ δεδουλεύκαμεν πώποτε· πῶς σὺ λέγεις ὅτι Ἐλεύθεροι γενήσεσθε; 34 Ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν δοῦλός ἐστιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας· 35 ὁ δὲ δοῦλος οὐ μένει ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα· [q]ὁ υἱὸς μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 36 ἐὰν οὖν ὁ υἱὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλευθερώσῃ, ὄντως ἐλεύθεροι ἔσεσθε. 37 οἶδα ὅτι σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ ἐστε· ἀλλὰ ζητεῖτέ με ἀποκτεῖναι, ὅτι ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐμὸς οὐ χωρεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν. 38 ἃ ἐγὼ ἑώρακα παρὰ τῷ [s]πατρὶ λαλῶ· καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν [t]ἃ ἠκούσατε παρὰ [u]τοῦ πατρὸς ποιεῖτε.[/quote] Is there a good reason to look for a different antecedent here?
Bob Nyberg wrote: I think that Alford makes a good point: "The answerers are the πεπιστευκότες, not some others among the hearers, as many Commentators (Lampe, Kuinoel, De Wette, Lücke, edn. 3) have maintained;—see, as a proof of this, ver. 36, addressed to these same persons." But I don't know that it is conclusive.
See if you find Meyer conclusive on this point: http://heml.mta.ca/lace/sidebysideview2/9447062 Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — March 10th, 2014, 9:23 pm
John 8:31-33 says: Ἔλεγεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πρὸς τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ Ἰουδαίους, Ἐὰν ὑμεῖς μείνητε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ ἐμῷ, ἀληθῶς μαθηταί μού ἐστε, καὶ γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐλευθερώσει ὑμᾶς. ἀπεκρίθησαν πρὸς αὐτόν... Commentaries seem to be split as to who ἀπεκρίθησαν refers to in verse 33. Some say that it refers back to the believing Jews in verse 31. Others say that it refers to a different group of antagonistic Pharisees who were opposing Jesus who are not the believing Jews of verse 31. I am wondering if there is anything definitive in the text that would determine who ἀπεκρίθησαν is referring to. I think that Alford makes a good point: "The answerers are the πεπιστευκότες, not some others among the hearers, as many Commentators (Lampe, Kuinoel, De Wette, Lücke, edn. 3) have maintained;—see, as a proof of this, ver. 36, addressed to these same persons." But I don't know that it is conclusive. Any thoughts? Bob Statistics: Posted by Bob Nyberg — March 10th, 2014, 6:15 pm

2 John 5

RandallButh wrote: You are on the right track with 'topicalization'. The WS participial clause has fronting for contextualization, but with καινήν left behind in its default saliency position. Sort of like volunteering in an army joke where everyone steps backward, leaving the volunteer "forward". (In the language, though, moving foward was a 'demotion of saliency'/orientation/contextualization/topicatlization, and corresponds to moving backward in the joke.) The ἐντολή object was topicalized and the σοι was dragged along by the verb, as two sub-units within the clause. Maybe even the γράφων σοι can be said to be heightened pragmatically for contextualization in this case by its attraction of σοι.
Thanks for that. I like the idea that the whole part οὐχ ὡς ἐντολὴν γράφων σοι is "topicalized" or "contextualized" and your explanation thereof. I'm not so sure about the reason for the placement of σοι, though, as I don't see any pragmatical heightening of that element. If I understand Devine and Stephens' work on the phonetics of the Greek accent correctly, there should be a (pitch) peak at γράφων here -- even though it may not be pragmatically prominent. I'm currently testing a hypothesis that clausal clitics in Koine need to be hosted by the first accentual peak in their intonation unit, so maybe that is why σοι is hosted by this element since the grave accent on ἐντολὴν won't produce a peak according to D&S. (Of course, if Koine isn't tonal or if D&S's work on intonation isn't applicable to the Koine of 2 John, then this whole line of investigation could be wrong-headed.) There is some flexibility in that οὐχ ὡς ἐντολήν σοι γράφων also fits the hypothesized rule, so this choice would still need to be accounted for, but I think this would have to involve extra heightening on (οὐχ ὡς) ἐντολήν to move σοι from its default / base-generated position, a heightening that does not seem contextually appropriate here.
RandallButh wrote: I would expect all of this to have been instantly communicated in antiquity through intonation by a good reader or speaker. The frontings would not have had any focal intonation, perhaps generating a kind of residual/latent/secondary focal intonation on the default yet salient καινἠν.
Yeah, that's the kind of thing I'm exploring and whether there is independent evidence for it in the intonation system as investigated by D&S. In particular, I would be especially interested in instances of fronted lexical graves that are not topics. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 18th, 2014, 8:22 am
I should clarify that the NA28 text is indeed under discussion but also that it now agrees with the Byzantine (and Hort) against that of the NA27 and SBLGNT. The NA27 text doesn't bother me so much (strong focus on οὐχ ὡς ἐντολὴν καινήν to be corrected by the ἀλλά clause, and γράφω σοι is left in situ), but I wouldn't mind discussion of that either. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 17th, 2014, 4:39 am
The SBL and NA28 texts are nice, but the Byz family produced the one under discussion and it needs elucidation within the Greek language. It should not be overlooked simply because other texts are/were available, not that anyone was suggesting that. Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — January 17th, 2014, 3:59 am
SBLGNT: καὶ νῦν ἐρωτῶ σε, κυρία, οὐχ ὡς ἐντολὴν ⸂καινὴν γράφων σοι⸃ ἀλλὰ ἣν εἴχομεν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους. Statistics: Posted by Eeli Kaikkonen — January 17th, 2014, 3:43 am
You are on the right track with 'topicalization'. The WS participial clause has fronting for contextualization, but with καινήν left behind in its default saliency position. Sort of like volunteering in an army joke where everyone steps backward, leaving the volunteer "forward". (In the language, though, moving foward was a 'demotion of saliency'/orientation/contextualization/topicatlization, and corresponds to moving backward in the joke.) The ἐντολή object was topicalized and the σοι was dragged along by the verb, as two sub-units within the clause. Maybe even the γράφων σοι can be said to be heightened pragmatically for contextualization in this case by its attraction of σοι. I would expect all of this to have been instantly communicated in antiquity through intonation by a good reader or speaker. The frontings would not have had any focal intonation, perhaps generating a kind of residual/latent/secondary focal intonation on the default yet salient καινἠν. Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — January 17th, 2014, 2:49 am
 
2 John 5 wrote: καὶ νῦν ἐρωτῶ σε, κυρία, οὐχ ὡς ἐντολὴν γράφων σοι καινὴν ἀλλὰ ἣν εἴχομεν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους.
The word order of 2 John 5 bothers me. Normally, when one sees a constituent fronted (here οὐχ ὡς ἐντολήν) before the verb like this, one is expecting a narrow focus (or emphasis) on it, but here the set of alternatives is not commandment vs. non-commandments but a new commandment vs. one that they've had from the beginning. In other words, a batter place for focus would be on καινήν since it contrasts with the content of the ἀλλά clause. But if that is the contrast of the άλλά clause, why does the negative ούχ seem to scope over the entire participial construction instead of being placed right before καινήν? Also why is οὐχ ὡς ἐντολήν fronted? Some kind of topicalization, since it seems to be common to καινή and ἣν εἴχομεν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς? Finally, how does one account for the position of σοι? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 17th, 2014, 1:30 am
 
Dan King wrote: Is there anywhere an explanation from the NA committee as to why they have changed the word order? It seems that since both textforms were current in Byzantine-age mss, both were broadly unproblematic to readers, though at some point at least one scribe though to improve the text a bit by changing the order. He may have 'felt' that he was thereby making the text slightly clearer (or more natural), but even mother-tongue speakers do not always agree on such things, and I suspect many ancient readers would not have felt the difference
There's no specific statement per se from the NA committee on why they changed the reading. What is known is that they have a new approach to evaluating which manuscripts are important in the Catholic Epistles and this might be an example where it made a difference. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — February 14th, 2014, 11:50 am
Is there anywhere an explanation from the NA committee as to why they have changed the word order? It seems that since both textforms were current in Byzantine-age mss, both were broadly unproblematic to readers, though at some point at least one scribe though to improve the text a bit by changing the order. He may have 'felt' that he was thereby making the text slightly clearer (or more natural), but even mother-tongue speakers do not always agree on such things, and I suspect many ancient readers would not have felt the difference Statistics: Posted by Dan King — February 13th, 2014, 2:09 am

Mark 10:32

I also got the black faux leather version. I have to say that it is the nicest looking GNT I've seen. Even the black box it comes in is really well done. Two big thumbs up. The page layout is excellent and uncluttered. The paragraph break format in my view really adds to the reading experience. Makes one feel, in a small way, closer to the original text. Statistics: Posted by tdbenedict — December 2nd, 2017, 6:48 pm
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:Now days I alternate between Robinson-Pierpont and SBLGNT in hard copy. I intend to add the electronic version of THGNT to my workflow as soon as it becomes available.
Those are all useful, readable texts, nice choice.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
November 27th, 2017, 10:19 am
It was on sale at SBL for $15 (hardback) or $35 (fake leather). It is a beautiful book to hold in your hands, well bound, readable typeface, no clutter. They even put the introductory material at the end so that when you open it up, it opens up directly to the text. The punctuation is also distinctive - it is much more sparse punctuation than you find in NA28, and even a little sparser than Nestle1904 or Antoniades. I find this also makes it much more readable. This is now the GNT I take to church and carry around with me. It isn't a reader's edition, and it doesn't have a lexicon, but it's easy to install an app on my phone and look up words as I go, clicking on individual words in the text when THGNT matches the text of the app, or looking them up in a lexicon when they do not.
I got the "fox-leather edition" (νοείτω ὁ ἀναγεινώσκων). So for reading and walk-about I will either take this or a nice pocket-sized Robinson-Pierpont that a student had made for me. Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — November 28th, 2017, 2:03 pm
 
Jason Hare wrote:
November 27th, 2017, 1:53 pm
I think even using the Step Bible on my phone's browser will be nice. I've looked up several passages on their site in the LXX and in the GNT, and it's been just lovely.
I agree - when I'm online. I like having this functionality offline. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — November 27th, 2017, 5:36 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
November 27th, 2017, 10:19 am
It was on sale at SBL for $15 (hardback) or $35 (fake leather). It is a beautiful book to hold in your hands, well bound, readable typeface, no clutter. They even put the introductory material at the end so that when you open it up, it opens up directly to the text. The punctuation is also distinctive - it is much more sparse punctuation than you find in NA28, and even a little sparser than Nestle1904 or Antoniades. I find this also makes it much more readable. This is now the GNT I take to church and carry around with me. It isn't a reader's edition, and it doesn't have a lexicon, but it's easy to install an app on my phone and look up words as I go, clicking on individual words in the text when THGNT matches the text of the app, or looking them up in a lexicon when they do not.
I think even using the Step Bible on my phone's browser will be nice. I've looked up several passages on their site in the LXX and in the GNT, and it's been just lovely. Statistics: Posted by Jason Hare — November 27th, 2017, 1:53 pm
It was on sale at SBL for $15 (hardback) or $35 (fake leather). It is a beautiful book to hold in your hands, well bound, readable typeface, no clutter. They even put the introductory material at the end so that when you open it up, it opens up directly to the text. The punctuation is also distinctive - it is much more sparse punctuation than you find in NA28, and even a little sparser than Nestle1904 or Antoniades. I find this also makes it much more readable. This is now the GNT I take to church and carry around with me. It isn't a reader's edition, and it doesn't have a lexicon, but it's easy to install an app on my phone and look up words as I go, clicking on individual words in the text when THGNT matches the text of the app, or looking them up in a lexicon when they do not. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — November 27th, 2017, 10:19 am
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
November 15th, 2017, 4:53 pm
I intend to add the electronic version of THGNT to my workflow as soon as it becomes available.
It's already available at https://www.stepbible.com. For example: https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=TH ... ions=VHNUG Notice that it's not got the paragraph divisions, though. Statistics: Posted by Jason Hare — November 24th, 2017, 5:18 am
Here's what it looks like.
Screen Shot 2017-11-15 at 6.16.32 PM.png
In a printed book it looks like this: Image Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — November 15th, 2017, 7:17 pm
Peter J. Williams explains the rationale for the paragraph divisions:
Most ancient manuscripts of the New Testament contained some sort of paragraph marks. Two common methods of paragraphing were putting the first letter of a line out into the margin (called ekthesis) and putting a small horizontal line (called a paragraphos) above the first word of a new section. In addition spaces of various sizes could be left at the end of a section. In our edition we decided only to accept paragraph divisions based on early manuscripts. http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/thgnt_blog ... in-mark-43
Paragraph divisions that do not fall on a verse boundary are found in Mark 4:3, 5:40, 8:32, 10:32. Postscript: Paragraph divisions have a significant impact how a text is processed during reading. Decades ago when I started doing discourse analysis of the Gospels I became increasingly inpatient with the paragraphing in the UBSGNT which reflects a particular framework in regard to the synoptic problem. My simple workaround for this was using the Gramcord GNT which eliminated all the paragraph breaks and subject headings. Now days I alternate between Robinson-Pierpont and SBLGNT in hard copy. I intend to add the electronic version of THGNT to my workflow as soon as it becomes available. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — November 15th, 2017, 4:53 pm
November 15th 2017 is the official publication date for the Tyndale House Greek New Testament[1] (THGNT). The form of the text on the page is distinctive. Anyone who has studied the Gospels using UBSGNT will be immediately aware that something different is going on here. Quickly scanning the pages of the Gospel of Mark you will see lots of paragraphs starting with Καὶ. Mark 10:32 is distinguished by a paragraph that does not began on a verse boundary. First line of each paragraph uses roughly a one letter width hanging indent which I cannot imitate using this editor.
Ἦσαν δὲ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ  ναβαίνοντες εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, καὶ ἦν προάγων
αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ἐθαμβοῦντο· οἱ δὲ  κολουθοῦντες
ἐφοβοῦντο.
Καὶ παραλαβὼν πάλιν τοὺς δώδεκα ἤρξατο αὐτοῖς λέγειν
τὰ μέλλοντα αὐτῷ συμβαίνειν
[1] https://www.thegreeknewtestament.com/ https://static.crossway.org/excerpt/the ... t-mark.pdf Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — November 15th, 2017, 3:48 pm