John 19 25

Jo 19:25 Wieland Willker willker at chemie.uni-bremen.de
Mon Oct 18 09:02:07 EDT 1999

 

A good Greek Bible 1 Timothy 2:12 Whenever I come across this sentence:Jo 19:25EISTHKEISAN DE PARA TW STAURW TOU IHSOU H MHTHR AUTOU KAI H ADELFH THSMHTROS AUTOU MARIA H TOU KLWPA KAI MARIA H MAGDALHNHI am reminded of a discussion on Crosstalk:1. How many women?2. How are they related?Besides other considerations: What can be said about the Greek grammaticalstructure of this sentence? What is probable from a grammatical point ofview? Do we have examples from non christian sources that could help ushere?Best wishes Wieland <><——————–mailto:willker at chemie.uni-bremen.dehttp://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/

 

A good Greek Bible1 Timothy 2:12

Jo 19:25 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Oct 18 09:35:12 EDT 1999

 

DIKAIOS 1 Timothy 2:12 At 3:02 PM +0200 10/18/99, Wieland Willker wrote:>Whenever I come across this sentence:>Jo 19:25>EISTHKEISAN DE PARA TW STAURW TOU IHSOU H MHTHR AUTOU KAI H ADELFH THS>MHTROS AUTOU MARIA H TOU KLWPA KAI MARIA H MAGDALHNH> >I am reminded of a discussion on Crosstalk:>1. How many women?>2. How are they related?> >Besides other considerations: What can be said about the Greek grammatical>structure of this sentence? What is probable from a grammatical point of>view? Do we have examples from non christian sources that could help us>here?And of course you don’t punctuate to give any clues as to how YOU read it,but I think that’s fair enough, considering the nature of your question.And I see the problemIt does appear that we have three names connected by intervening KAI’s; italso appears that the second one ought to be “the sister of his mother,Mary daughter of Klopas”; but if that is so, then the sister is related toJesus’ mother as the daughter of an earlier or later husband (Clopas) ofMary’s mother, for surely MARIA hH TOU KLWPA must stand in apposition to hHADELFH THS MHTROS AUTOU.With that understanding of the construction, I’d say there are three womenand that the first two or related as half-sisters with a common mother.It’s interesting that there’s no problem here of agreement, as thepluperfect third plural comes right at the head: “And there were standingbeside the cross of Jesus, (1) his mother, and (2) his mother’s sister,Mary daughter of Clopas, and (3) Maria of Magdala.”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

 

DIKAIOS1 Timothy 2:12

Jo 19:25 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Mon Oct 18 10:13:22 EDT 1999

 

1 Timothy 2:12 Jo 19:25 At 03:02 PM 10/18/99 +0200, you wrote:>Whenever I come across this sentence:>Jo 19:25>EISTHKEISAN DE PARA TW STAURW TOU IHSOU H MHTHR AUTOU (thats woman number 1)KAI H ADELFH THS>MHTROS AUTOU MARIA H TOU KLWPA (thats woman number 2. She is the sister of his mother Mary (!) the wife ofCleopas) By the way, this puts the lie to the notion that Mary is nevernamed in John!!!KAI MARIA H MAGDALHNH(thats woman number 3) I dont know who she is related to, but shes from Magdala.> >I am reminded of a discussion on Crosstalk:>1. How many women?>2. How are they related?> >Besides other considerations: What can be said about the Greek grammatical>structure of this sentence?Its typical and septuagintal.> What is probable from a grammatical point of>view? Do we have examples from non christian sources that could help us>here?It is hardly conceivable that a non christian source would be interested inthese women.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

 

1 Timothy 2:12Jo 19:25

Jo 19:25 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Oct 18 11:18:08 EDT 1999

 

Jo 19:25 1 Timothy 2:12 To: Wieland Willker,<< Jo 19:25 EISTHKEISAN DE PARA TWi STAURWi TOU IHSOU H MHTHR AUTOU KAI H ADELFH THS MHTROS AUTOU MARIA H TOU KLWPA KAI MARIA H MAGDALHNH >>Since there is no KAI before the first MARIA, it is possible to translates this passage three different ways:(a) “And standing near Jesus’ cross were his mother, and his mother’s sister, that is: Clopas’ Mary and Mary Magdalene” (thus there were only two women);(b) “And standing near Jesus’ cross were his mother, and his mother’s sister, that is Clopas’ Mary, and Mary Magdalene” (thus there were only three women);and (c) “And standing near Jesus’ cross were his mother, his mother’s sister, Clopas’ Mary and Mary Magdalene” (thus there were four women).The grammatical question is why was the KAI omitted before the first MARIA? One obvious place to look for NT examples is the list of the 12 in the Synoptics. At Mark 3:13-19 and Luke 6:12-16 one finds a KAI before every name (except the first). Thus with a series of 12 names, one finds KAI eleven times. But at Mt 10:1-4, things are different. The first four names has KAI three times, but after that the names are listed in pairs, with a KAI joining the paired names, but no KAI joining the pairs, so that we have: “Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot …” Similarly, at Acts 1:13b, the first three names are joined together with two KAIs, but the following names are paired off. What does this prove? It shows that it is very possible to read John 19:25 as two sets of pairs, listing four women: the two sister and the two Marys.I will also note that here DE might mean “on the other hand,” (note the MEN with hOI MEN OUN STRATIWTAI TAUTA EPOIHSAN).-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com From Luther’s Large Catechism: “Why, do you think, is the world now so full of unfaithfulness, shame, misery, and murder? It is because everyone wishes to be his or her own master, be free from all authority, care nothing for anyone, and do whatever he or she pleases. So God punishes one knave by means of another” (BoC 386.154).

 

Jo 19:251 Timothy 2:12

Jo 19:25 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Oct 18 17:16:43 EDT 1999

 

Shall/Will (*Off Topic*: English Language History) (Was RE: “May” and “Might” in purpose clauses … EULOHMENOS hO ERCOMENOS EN ONOMATI KURIOU To: Wieland Willker,<< Jo 19:25 EISTHKEISAN DE PARA TWi STAURWi TOU IHSOU H MHTHR AUTOU KAI H ADELFH THS MHTROS AUTOU MARIA H TOU KLWPA KAI MARIA H MAGDALHNH >>In my last message I noted that it is possible to construe this passage as two sets of name pairs: the two sister and the two Marys. I would add another suggestion. If John means to say that Clopas’ Mary was the sister of the mother of Jesus, it would be more natural for him to have written:KAI MARIA H TOU KLWPA H ADELFH THS MHTROS TOU IHSOU(instead of: KAI H ADELFH THS MHTROS AUTOU MARIA H TOU KLWPA)What I mean to suggest is that it would be more natural to say: “Clopas’ Mary, the sister of Jesus’ mother” than it would be to say: “the sister of his mother, Clopas’ Mary.” Or, to use another example, it would be more natural to say: “Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother” than to say: “Simon Peter’s brother, Andrew” (cf. Jn 1:40).I’ve located one counter example, John 1:41 reads:hEURISKEI hOUTOS PRWTON TON ADELFON TON IDION SIMWNA …It is perhaps possible that the normal order is altered here for rhetorical emphasis: “He first found his very own brother Simon …”I’m naturally apprehensive to state my case too strongly, since two scholars have posted their opinions that Jn 19:25 only refers to three women. And who am I to disagree? I’m just a simple house-husband whose vocation in life is taking care of house, wife and children. But I would suggest that there are perhaps three reasons why one might want to seriously consider understanding Jn 19:25 as referring to four women:(a) the reason the KAI is omitted before the first MARIA is because John lists two sets of pairs: the two sisters and the two Marys;(b) the normal order is proper name first followed by an articular substantive of relationship in apposition; and(c) it would be very unusual to have two sister with the same first name.On the other hand, I most certainly do not mean to suggest that these three reasons (nor even the culmination of the three) are decisive.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com From Luther’s Large Catechism: “Why, do you think, is the world now so full of unfaithfulness, shame, misery, and murder? It is because everyone wishes to be his or her own master, be free from all authority, care nothing for anyone, and do whatever he or she pleases. So God punishes one knave by means of another” (BoC 386.154).

 

Shall/Will (*Off Topic*: English Language History) (Was RE: “May” and “Might” in purpose clauses … EULOHMENOS hO ERCOMENOS EN ONOMATI KURIOU

Jo 19:25 Stephen C. Carlson scarlson at mindspring.com
Mon Oct 18 22:28:36 EDT 1999

 

A good Greek Bible Jo 19:25 At 10:13 AM 10/18/99 -0400, Jim West wrote:>KAI H ADELFH THS>>MHTROS AUTOU MARIA H TOU KLWPA > >(thats woman number 2. She is the sister of his mother Mary (!) the wife of>Cleopas) By the way, this puts the lie to the notion that Mary is never>named in John!!!If your interpretation is correct, shouldn’t the Greek be KAI hH ADELFHTHS MHTROS AUTOU MARIAS THS TOU KLWPA? However, the text as it now standshas MARIA in the nominative, in apposition (on the Three Women Hypothesis)to the nominative hH ADELFH but not to the genitive THS MHTROS AUTOU.Stephen Carlson–Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson at mindspring.comSynoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/”Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words.” Shujing 2.35

 

A good Greek BibleJo 19:25

Jo 19:25 Stephen C. Carlson scarlson at mindspring.com
Mon Oct 18 22:47:54 EDT 1999

 

Jo 19:25 1 Timothy 2:12 At 04:16 PM 10/18/99 -0500, Steven Craig Miller wrote:>But I would >suggest that there are perhaps three reasons why one might want to >seriously consider understanding Jn 19:25 as referring to four women:> >(a) the reason the KAI is omitted before the first MARIA is because John >lists two sets of pairs: the two sisters and the two Marys;> >(b) the normal order is proper name first followed by an articular >substantive of relationship in apposition; and> >(c) it would be very unusual to have two sister with the same first name.The last reason was decisive for BAGD’s endorsing of the Four WomenHypothesis, s.v. KLWPAS “This woman can scarsely be identical w. thesister of Jesus’ mother who has just been mentioned (without beingnamed), since then we should have to postulate two sisters w. thesame name, Mary.”I suppose one rejoinder is to follow Hegesippus (mentioning a Clopasas a brother of Joseph) and postulate that they are sisters-in-lawwith the same name. By the way, does anyone know the Greek word for”sister-in-law”? I got lots of hits on Perseus for “mother-in-law,””father-in-law,” “brother-in-law,” and “son-in-law,” but no hits for”sister-in-law” (or, for that matter, “daughter-in-law”).Stephen Carlson–Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson at mindspring.comSynoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/”Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words.” Shujing 2.35

 

Jo 19:251 Timothy 2:12

Jo 19:25 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Tue Oct 19 07:56:08 EDT 1999

 

FW: GAR and Paratactic Connectors FW: GAR and Paratactic Connectors To: Stephen C. Carlson,SCC: << By the way, does anyone know the Greek word for “sister-in-law”? I got lots of hits on Perseus for “mother-in-law,” “father-in-law,” “brother-in-law,” and “son-in-law,” but no hits for “sister-in-law” (or, for that matter, “daughter-in-law”). >>Hmm … I’m not as high-tech as yourself, but looking in my “English-Greek Dictionary: A Vocabulary of the Attic Language” compiled by S.C. Woodhouse (Routedge & Kegan Paul, 1910) I found entries for “mother-in-law,” “father-in-law,” “brother-in-law,” and “son-in-law,” but no entries for either “daughter-in-law” or “sister-in-law.” (Some of us still use books! <g>)SCM: << … there are perhaps three reasons why one might want to seriously consider understanding Jn 19:25 as referring to four women: (a) the reason the KAI is omitted before the first MARIA is because John lists two sets of pairs: the two sisters and the two Marys; (b) the normal order is proper name first followed by an articular substantive of relationship in apposition; and (c) it would be very unusual to have two sister with the same first name. >>SCC: << The last reason was decisive for BAGD’s endorsing of the Four Women Hypothesis … >>Some people are easy to convince, while others are simply incredulous. All the scholarly commentaries, which I’ve consulted, have been just as gullible! <g>SCC: << I suppose one rejoinder is to follow Hegesippus (mentioning a Clopas as a brother of Joseph) and postulate that they are sisters-in-law with the same name. >>Or perhaps a family with one Mary decided to adopt another Mary, after her (the adopted Mary’s) parents died a horrible and tragic death, and raise the two Marys as sisters. Unfortunately, John gave us very little of these women’s life history.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com From Luther’s Large Catechism: “Why, do you think, is the world now so full of unfaithfulness, shame, misery, and murder? It is because everyone wishes to be his or her own master, be free from all authority, care nothing for anyone, and do whatever he or she pleases. So God punishes one knave by means of another” (BoC 386.154).

 

FW: GAR and Paratactic ConnectorsFW: GAR and Paratactic Connectors