John 17:23

John 17:23 Matthew T. Williams kopio at attbi.com
Sun Aug 18 17:11:17 EDT 2002

“Continuous, on-going, never ceasing” construct John 17:23 Hello All,My pastor preached in John 17 this morning and as I was following along inmy text I saw something that caught my eye. In 17:23 John writes; hINA WSIN TETELEIWMENOI EIS hENWhat caught my eye is the Subjunctive Finite with the Perfect Participle. Idon’t remember seeing this before. I dug through the usual suspects(Wallace, BDF, and Robertson) and I didn’t come up with a whole lot.Wallace and Robertson agree that this is a Perfect Periphrastic Participle.This particular construct (Conj+Subj+Perf Part.) only occurs 4 other timesin the NT (Mt 6:31, Lk. 21:20 and Jas. 5:15).I guess what I’m struggling with is that this particular construct seems tocontradict itself (at least in my head). I was wondering if anyone couldhelp explain the relationship between these two verbs. I was also wonderingif this sort of construct is very common in Koine or Classical Greek.Any input would be greatly appreciated.In Christ,——————————–Matthew T. Williamskopio at attbi.com360-883-8946Vancouver, Wa——————————–

“Continuous, on-going, never ceasing” constructJohn 17:23

John 17:23 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Sun Aug 18 17:49:54 EDT 2002

John 17:23 John 17:23 on 8/18/02 2:11 PM, Matthew T. Williams wrote:> Hello All,> > My pastor preached in John 17 this morning and as I was following along in> my text I saw something that caught my eye. In 17:23 John writes;> > hINA WSIN TETELEIWMENOI EIS hEN> > What caught my eye is the Subjunctive Finite with the Perfect Participle. I> don’t remember seeing this before. I dug through the usual suspects> (Wallace, BDF, and Robertson) and I didn’t come up with a whole lot.> Wallace and Robertson agree that this is a Perfect Periphrastic Participle.> This particular construct (Conj+Subj+Perf Part.) only occurs 4 other times> in the NT (Mt 6:31, Lk. 21:20 and Jas. 5:15).> > I guess what I’m struggling with is that this particular construct seems to> contradict itself (at least in my head). I was wondering if anyone could> help explain the relationship between these two verbs. I was also wondering> if this sort of construct is very common in Koine or Classical Greek.> Matthew,Looks like a paraphrastic construction, not too uncommon.The Pattern: EIMI (Subjunctive) –> perfect participleIs found in the following NT/LXX examples:ClayNT*****LUKE 14:8 hOTAN KLHQHiS hUPO TINOS EIS GAMOUS, MH KATAKLIQHiS EIS THNPRWTOKLISIAN, MHPOTE ENTIMOTEROS SOU Hi KEKLHMENOS hUP’ AUTOU,JOHN 3:27 APEKRIQH IWANNHS KAI EIPEN: OU DUNATAI ANQRWPOS LAMBANEIN OUDE hENEAN MH Hi DEDOMENON AUTWi EK TOU OURANOU.JOHN 6:65 KAI ELEGEN: DIA TOUTO EIRHKA hUMIN hOTI OUDEIS DUNATAI ELQEIN PROSME EAN MH Hi DEDOMENON AUTWi EK TOU PATROS.JOHN 16:24 hEWS ARTI OUK HiTHSATE OUDEN EN TWi ONOMATI MOU: AITEITE KAILHMYESQE, hINA hH CARA hUMWN Hi PEPLHRWMENH.JOHN 17:23 EGW EN AUTOIS KAI SU EN EMOI, hINA WSIN TETELEIWMENOI EIS hEN,hINA GINWSKHi hO KOSMOS hOTI SU ME APESTEILAS KAI HGAPHSAS AUTOUS KAQWS EMEHGAPHSAS. JAMES 5:15 KAI hH EUCH THS PISTEWS SWSEI TON KAMNONTA KAI EGEREI AUTON hOKURIOS: KAN hAMARTIAS Hi PEPOIHKWS, AFEQHSETAI AUTWi.1JOHN 1:4 KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMEIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN Hi PEPLHRWMENH.LXX****EX. 33:13 EI OUN hEURHKA CARIN ENANTION SOU EMFANISON MOI SEAUTON GNWSTWSIDW SE hOPWS AN W hEURHKWS CARIN ENANTION SOU KAI hINA GNW hOTI LAOS SOU TOEQNOS TO MEGA TOUTONUM. 5:13 KAI KOIMHQHi TIS MET’ AUTHS KOITHN SPERMATOS KAI LAQHi EX OFQALMWNTOU ANDROS AUTHS KAI KRUYHi AUTH DE Hi MEMIAMMENH KAI MARTUS MH HN MET’AUTHS KAI AUTH MH Hi SUNEILHMMENHNUM. 5:14 KAI EPELQHi AUTWi PNEUMA ZHLWSEWS KAI ZHLWSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOUAUTH DE MEMIANTAI H EPELQHi AUTWi PNEUMA ZHLWSEWS KAI ZHLWSHi THN GUNAIKAAUTOU AUTH DE MH Hi MEMIAMMENHNUM. 5:27 KAI ESTAI EAN Hi MEMIAMMENH KAI LHQHi LAQHi TON ANDRA AUTHS KAIEISELEUSETAI EIS AUTHN TO hUDWR TOU ELEGMOU TO EPIKATARWMENON KAIPRHSQHSETAI THN KOILIAN KAI DIAPESEITAI hO MHROS AUTHS KAI ESTAI hH GUNH EISARAN EN TWi LAWi AUTHSJOB 39:30 NEOSSOI DE AUTOU FURONTAI EN hAIMATI hOU D’ AN WSI TEQNEWTESPARACRHMA hEURISKONTAI– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

John 17:23John 17:23

John 17:23 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Sun Aug 18 22:16:27 EDT 2002

John 17:23 “Continuous, on-going, never ceasing” construct on 8/18/02 2:49 PM, c stirling bartholomew wrote:> Looks like a periphrastic construction, not too uncommon.Matthew if you look in your grammars under periphrasis you should find adiscussion of verbal constituents made up more than one verb. Typically anexistential verb combined with a participle. There are a number of differentpatterns, and lots of examples in the NT and LXX.greetings,Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

John 17:23″Continuous, on-going, never ceasing” construct

John 17:23 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Aug 19 01:30:08 EDT 2002

Greek Grammar Sheet perfect tense and John 1:3-4 > —–Original Message—–> From: Matthew T. Williams [mailto:kopio at attbi.com]> hINA WSIN TETELEIWMENOI EIS hEN> > What caught my eye is the Subjunctive Finite with the Perfect> Participle. I> don’t remember seeing this before. I dug through the usual suspects> (Wallace, BDF, and Robertson) and I didn’t come up with a whole lot.> Wallace and Robertson agree that this is a Perfect Periphrastic> Participle.> This particular construct (Conj+Subj+Perf Part.) only occurs 4 other times> in the NT (Mt 6:31, Lk. 21:20 and Jas. 5:15).> > I guess what I’m struggling with is that this particular> construct seems to contradict itself (at least in my head).Is the conflict between the present subjunctive, indicating a wish andtherefore aspectually incomplete (imperfective) and the perfect whichindicates perfective aspect?Another example, slightly different from the ones Clay gave, is John 17:13:hINA ECWSIN THN CARAN THN EMHN PEPLHRWMENHN EN AUTOIS – that they may havemy complete/full joy in themHere the perfect participle is part of a complex noun phrase and modifiesthe head noun “joy”. It functions like an adjective.Maybe one could alternatively analyze your example with an implied noun like”people” – that they may be (people) (who have become) perfected into one.At least that seems easier for the English mind.Iver Larsen

Greek Grammar Sheetperfect tense and John 1:3-4

John 17:23 Matthew T. Williams kopio at attbi.com
Mon Aug 19 01:39:25 EDT 2002

perfect tense and John 1:3-4 John 17:23 Hello Iver,You wrote:——————————————–Is the conflict between the present subjunctive, indicating a wish andtherefore aspectually incomplete (imperfective) and the perfect whichindicates perfective aspect?——————————————–That’s exactly the conflict! I guess the problem is more in my Englishmind than it is in Greek text. It’s probably perfectly good Greek, just(aspectually) confusing English.Now I can go to sleep! Thanks for hitting the nail on the head.——————————–Matthew T. Williamskopio at attbi.com360-883-8946——————————–

perfect tense and John 1:3-4John 17:23

John 17:23 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Mon Aug 19 02:27:36 EDT 2002

John 17:23 John 17:23, support Clay on 8/18/02 10:30 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:> Is the conflict between the present subjunctive, indicating a wish and> therefore aspectually incomplete (imperfective) and the perfect which> indicates perfective aspect?I see that I didn’t really understand the problem Matthew was having. Thisproblem does not arise for me since I think of the two verbs as workingtogether as a single functional unit.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

John 17:23John 17:23, support Clay

John 17:23, support Clay Randall Buth ButhFam at compuserve.com
Mon Aug 19 03:04:38 EDT 2002

John 17:23 New: NIGTC Mark shalomThought i’d give Clay some more support(TIS EGRAYEN)>>Is the conflict between the present subjunctive, indicating a wish and>> therefore aspectually incomplete (imperfective) and the perfect which>> indicates perfective aspect?> (CLAY EGRAYEN)>I see that I didn’t really understand the problem Matthew was having. This>problem does not arise for me since I think of the two verbs as working>together as a single functional unit.<(MPOUQ GRAFEI)I was uneasy when I saw the line above about ‘present subjunctiveindicatinga wish … THEREFORE incomplete”There is a basic principle of language involved. The word in question wasWSIN ‘they would be’. It is a “be” verb which should raise red flags for most linguists, but more importantly in this case, there is only one subjunctive form available. There is no possibility of an ‘aorist’/(a.k.a.’perfective’ in general linguistics) subjunctive for this verb EINAI. Thereforeit would be wrong to make a point of this. A person should not give something a special (a.k.a. ‘marked’ in general linguistics) classification for which another option does not exist. That doesn’t mean that WSIN is not a continuative, by nature it is. But here it is functionally just subjunctive.Clay saw no problem with the vrebs working together. KALWS.ERRWSQERandall MPOUQPALIN CWRWN ODON EIS KW (ac 21.1)EIS EPTA HMERAS

John 17:23New: NIGTC Mark

John 17:23, support Clay c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Mon Aug 19 16:32:59 EDT 2002

Teaching with Mounce John 17:23, support Clay on 8/19/02 12:04 AM, Randall Buth wrote:> (MPOUQ GRAFEI)> I was uneasy when I saw the line above about ‘present subjunctive indicating a> wish … THEREFORE incomplete”> > There is a basic principle of language involved. The word in question was WSIN> ‘they would be’. It is a “be” verb which should raise red flags for most> linguists, but more importantly in this case, there is only one subjunctive> form available. There is no possibility of an ‘aorist’/(a.k.a. ‘perfective’ in> general linguistics) subjunctive for this verb EINAI.>Therefore it would be> wrong to make a point of this. A person should not give something a special> (a.k.a. ‘marked’ in general linguistics) classification for which another> option does not exist. That doesn’t mean that WSIN is not a continuative, by> nature it is. But here it is functionally just subjunctive.Randall has pointed out an aspect of this question that I had notconsidered. A important point however and one which has a lot of generalusefulness beyond this particular application.Thanks Randall. Meanwhile, the reason I didn’t have a problem with WSIN TETELEIWMENOI has more to dowith methodology and reading habits. I generally don’t bother to do internalanalysis on a functional unit once the functional unit has been identifiedas such. Let me illustrate with a different example. A week or so ago a question wasasked about EIS TI, “What is the function of EIS in EIS TI?” I answered thequestion by explaining the semantic function of EIS and its relationship toTI. My answer was misleading in a way because it suggested that there wasmore to learn from EIS TI (a functional unit) by looking into the internalarchitecture of the unit. It just so happens that in the case of EIS TI, theinternal architecture is somewhat transparently related to the function ofthe larger unit and so it isn’t a totally futile exercise. However, once afunctional unit has been identified it is really kind of pointless to lookinside. It can lead to dead ends and misunderstandings since not allfunctional units are transparent.So when I encountered, WSIN TETELEIWMENOI (jn 17:23) I read it as afunctional unit. Didn’t even bother to raise the question that was botheringMatthew. Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

Teaching with MounceJohn 17:23, support Clay

John 17:23, support Clay Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Aug 19 16:56:25 EDT 2002

John 17:23, support Clay Rom 8:26 — article At 1:32 PM -0700 8/19/02, c stirling bartholomew wrote:>on 8/19/02 12:04 AM, Randall Buth wrote:> >> (MPOUQ GRAFEI)>> I was uneasy when I saw the line above about ‘present subjunctive>>indicating a>> wish … THEREFORE incomplete”>> >> There is a basic principle of language involved. The word in question>>was WSIN>> ‘they would be’. It is a “be” verb which should raise red flags for most>> linguists, but more importantly in this case, there is only one subjunctive>> form available. There is no possibility of an ‘aorist’/(a.k.a.>>‘perfective’ in>> general linguistics) subjunctive for this verb EINAI.> >>Therefore it would be>> wrong to make a point of this. A person should not give something a special>> (a.k.a. ‘marked’ in general linguistics) classification for which another>> option does not exist. That doesn’t mean that WSIN is not a continuative, by>> nature it is. But here it is functionally just subjunctive.> >Randall has pointed out an aspect of this question that I had not>considered. A important point however and one which has a lot of general>usefulness beyond this particular application.> >Thanks Randall.> >Meanwhile,>the reason I didn’t have a problem with WSIN TETELEIWMENOI has more to do>with methodology and reading habits. I generally don’t bother to do internal>analysis on a functional unit once the functional unit has been identified>as such.> >Let me illustrate with a different example. A week or so ago a question was>asked about EIS TI, “What is the function of EIS in EIS TI?” I answered the>question by explaining the semantic function of EIS and its relationship to>TI. My answer was misleading in a way because it suggested that there was>more to learn from EIS TI (a functional unit) by looking into the internal>architecture of the unit. It just so happens that in the case of EIS TI, the>internal architecture is somewhat transparently related to the function of>the larger unit and so it isn’t a totally futile exercise. However, once a>functional unit has been identified it is really kind of pointless to look>inside. It can lead to dead ends and misunderstandings since not all>functional units are transparent.> >So when I encountered, WSIN TETELEIWMENOI (jn 17:23) I read it as a>functional unit. Didn’t even bother to raise the question that was bothering>Matthew.But what Clay did is the right way to proceed normally, I think. And theonly note I would have injected into this discussion I’ll add now: anotherreason not to think of WSIN TELEIWMENOI as two distinct elements is thatthe perfect middle/passive 3d plural (indicative or subjunctive) is, so faras I know, ALWAYS periphrastic in Hellenistic Greek and almost always inClassical Attic as well; if ever the form TETELEIWNTAI appeared in ancientGreek, it was more likely in the Homeric era.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

John 17:23, support ClayRom 8:26 — article

John 17 Lew Osborne osbo at hn.ozemail.com.au
Sat Sep 21 17:55:23 EDT 2002

De-Inflection Software? ENESTERNISMENOI (Was: De-Inflection Software?) I have recently been discussing with a person the way in which John 17:3has been translated. The response from him was rather surprising and Iwould welcome any comments.The Verse in question is . John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that theymight know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.His handling of it was to remove the sections between the commas and readthe verse then to replace the section removed and remove the next section.We would then have . “And this is life eternal whom thou hast sent.”Then “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true Godwhom thou hast sent”And finally “And this Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”With my limited understanding of Greek I cannot see that this is a ‘legal’way of looking at the verses.The point is I guess, who is sending who and is eternal life apersonification?If this is considered doctrinal perhaps some one would respond privately.Lew Osborneosbo at hn.ozemail.com.au

De-Inflection Software?ENESTERNISMENOI (Was: De-Inflection Software?)

John 17 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Sep 22 02:40:43 EDT 2002

On 1 Corinthians 14:2 Question RE: “NT Exegesis” by Fee > > I have recently been discussing with a person the way in which John 17:3> has been translated. The response from him was rather surprising and I> would welcome any comments.> The Verse in question is . John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they> might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.> His handling of it was to remove the sections between the commas and read> the verse then to replace the section removed and remove the next section.> We would then have . “And this is life eternal whom thou hast sent.”> Then “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the> only true God whom thou hast sent”> And finally “And this Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”> With my limited understanding of Greek I cannot see that this is a ‘legal’> way of looking at the verses.No, it is not. But you point to an interesting formula that is only found inJohn’s writings in the GNT as far as I can tell. It is one of thecharacteristics and John’s style of Greek. The formula ishOUTOS(t) ESTIN t hINA (definition)The fronted (here used kataphorically) demonstrative hOUTOS(t) is linked tot and has the same gender and number. The fronting serves to highlight theimportant topic of t. The hINA introduces a definition or short descriptionof what t is or means.An idiomatic translation into English could be:What does t mean? It means that (definition)or: t is this: (definition)Let me list the 6 occurrences of the formula in the GNT:JHN 6:29 TOUTO ESTIN TO ERGON TOU QEOU hINAPISTEUHTE EIS hON APESTEILEN EKEINOS.What does it mean to do the work(s) of God? It means to believe in the onehe has sent! or:Doing the work of God means to do this: Believe in the one he has sent!JHN 15:12 hAUTH ESTIN hH ENTOLH hH EMH hINAAGAPATE ALLHLOUS KAQWS HGAPHSA hUMAS.What is my commandment? It is that you love one another as I have loved you!JHN 17:3 hAUTH DE ESTIN hH AIWNIOS ZWH hINAGINWSKWSIN SE, TON MONON ALHQINON QEON,KAI hON APESTELAS, IHSOUN CRISTON.And what is the eternal life? It is that they know you, the only true God,and (know) the one you have sent, the Savior Messiah!1 JHN 3:23 hAUTH ESTIN hH ENTOLH AUTOU hINAPISTEUSWMEN TWI ONOMATI TOU hUIOU AUTOU, IHSOU CRISTOU,KAI AGAPWMEN ALLHLOUSWhat is his commandment? It is that we believe in the name of his son, JesusMessiah, and that we love one another!1 JHN 5:3 hAUTH GAR ESTIN hH AGAPH TOU QEOU hINATAS ENTOLAS AUTOU THRWMENFor what is it to love God? It is to keep his commandments!2 JHN 1:6 KAI hAUTH ESTIN hH AGAPH hINAPERIPATWMEN KATA TAS ENTOLAS AUTOUAnd what does it mean to love? It means to live according to hiscommandments!Iver LarsenSIL Translation Consultant

On 1 Corinthians 14:2Question RE: “NT Exegesis” by Fee