John 2:23

John 2:23 backusfam1 at bluefrognet.net backusfam1 at bluefrognet.net
Wed Apr 3 13:28:32 EST 2002

Greetings from Japan Textbooks for Principles of Exegesis Class My question is in regard to John 2:23 as to the use of the dative plural of the word Jerusalem in the Greek text. Why is this in the plural form? In numerous other passages the singular form is used, but for some reason he used the plural here. Can you shed some light on this? I understand that the word Jerusalem undergoes a certain Hellenisation, but why use a plural form as a referent? I checked the critical apparatus in some of the Greek texts, as well as the various Greek texts, and they all use the same plural form, so I know that it is not a textual variant. I would appreciate any help you could provide. Thank you, Vance Backus

Greetings from JapanTextbooks for Principles of Exegesis Class

John 2:23 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Wed Apr 3 20:57:24 EST 2002

Textbooks for Principles of Exegesis Class John 2:23 In a message dated 4/3/2002 1:39:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, backusfam1 at bluefrognet.net writes:hWS DE HN EN TOIS hIEROSOLUMOIS EN TWi PASXA . . . My question is in regard to John 2:23 as to the use of the dative plural of the word Jerusalem in the Greek text. Why is this in the plural form? In numerous other passages the singular form is used, but for some reason he used the plural here. Can you shed some light on this? I understand that the word Jerusalem undergoes a certain Hellenisation, but why use a plural form as a referent? I checked the critical apparatus in some of the Greek texts, as well as the various Greek texts, and they all use the same plural form, so I know that it is not a textual variant. I would appreciate any help you could provide.________________________It’s always good to check the entry in a good lexicon. BGAD has this information under hIEROSOLUMA (summarized)”1. The name refers—a. to the city itself . . . . b. to its inhabitants”gfsomsel

Textbooks for Principles of Exegesis ClassJohn 2:23

John 2:23 Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Wed Apr 3 21:30:11 EST 2002

John 2:23 Mk 2:15-16 Poly:—->hWS DE HN EN TOIS hIEROSOLUMOIS EN TWi PASXA . . .> > My question is in regard to John 2:23 as to the use of the dative >plural>of the>word Jerusalem in the Greek text. Why is this in the plural form?—-You may want to put this into your geewhiz file, but the citySardis is often pluralized SARDEIS because it was originallybuilt on a high plateau, as the city grew, additional constructionbegan on the lower regions. Over time, the acropolis was usedless and less. In effect, you then had two cities, and hence, Sardiswas pluralized to SARDEIS. A similar history surrounds AQENAI,which even looks plural to us… AthenS.Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

John 2:23Mk 2:15-16

John 2:23 Ben and Jo Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Thu Apr 4 16:04:30 EST 2002

Government and Binding Theory why miniscule? On Wed 3 Apr 2002 (13:28:32), backusfam1 at bluefrognet.net wrote:> My question is in regard to John 2:23 as to the use of the dative> plural of the word Jerusalem in the Greek text. Why is this in the> plural form? In numerous other passages the singular form is used,> but for some reason he used the plural here. Can you shed some light> on this? I understand that the word Jerusalem undergoes a certain> Hellenisation, but why use a plural form as a referent? I checked the> critical apparatus in some of the Greek texts, as well as the various> Greek texts, and they all use the same plural form, so I know that it> is not a textual variant. I would appreciate any help you could > provide. Dear Vance, IMHO the simplest explanation is that the Hebrew YeRuW$aLaYiM is not the Hebrew Singular form, but the grammatical *Dual* form. As Greek does not distinguish between the Dual and the Plural Number, the Greek transcriber of “Jerusalem” makes it plural. ERRWSQE Ben– Revd Ben Crick BA CF, and Mrs Joanna (Goodwin) Crick <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

Government and Binding Theorywhy miniscule?

John 2:23 backusfam1 at bluefrognet.net backusfam1 at bluefrognet.net
Sat Apr 6 23:10:44 EST 2002

Romans 1:16 Luke 24:49 I would like to thank all of those who responded to my question, especially Reverend Ben Crick, whose contribution seemed the most plausible. He attributed the plural form of hIEROUSALHM to the fact that the Hebrew used the plural form of which the Greek, no longer using the dual in the New Testament, reflected the Hebrew by using the plural. However, I felt that some did not understand the question. My question in regard to Jerusalem in John 2:23 has to do with the fact that it occurs there in the dative plural with the definite article, however, previously in v.13, he used the form hIEROSOLUMA. Since the LXX used hIEROUSALHM 90% of its occurrences, which is the indeclinable form, therefore static, then why employ the dative and genitive plural forms when hIEROUSALHM does not require a grammatical conformity? Luke’s gospel, for example, is highly consistent in using one particular form to represent the spelling of Jerusalem. In John 2:13 & 2:23 Jerusalem is in different forms, however, there is no significance in the spellings, both contexts are similar in construction as well as to the event taking place (the Passover). I’m not losing sleep over this, it’s really a matter of curiosity. I was just wondering why the author used a different form when hIEROUSALHM, occurring some 78 times in the NT, was not his choice in the verses cited above, as well as in John 5:1 and 5:2 where this same instance is presented again. Actually, John’s gospel shows the highest percentage of mixed forms(some 66% of Jerusalem’s occurrence is in the dative and genitive). I guess I’m trying to understand the apostle John’s mind, or reasoning, for what seems to be a curious difference in form. Thanks again, Vance Backus

Romans 1:16Luke 24:49

John 2:23 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Apr 7 07:55:16 EDT 2002

change recipient options Luke 24:49 At 11:10 PM -0500 4/6/02, backusfam1 at bluefrognet.net wrote:>I would like to thank all of those who responded to my question, especially>Reverend Ben Crick, whose contribution seemed the most plausible. He>attributed the plural form of hIEROUSALHM to the fact that the Hebrew used the>plural form of which the Greek, no longer using the dual in the New Testament,>reflected the Hebrew by using the plural. However, I felt that some did not>understand the question. My question in regard to Jerusalem in John 2:23 has>to do with the fact that it occurs there in the dative plural with the>definite>article, however, previously in v.13, he used the form hIEROSOLUMA. Since the>LXX used hIEROUSALHM 90% of its occurrences, which is the indeclinable form,>therefore static, then why employ the dative and genitive plural forms when>hIEROUSALHM does not require a grammatical conformity? Luke’s gospel, for>example, is highly consistent in using one particular form to represent the>spelling of Jerusalem.> In John 2:13 & 2:23 Jerusalem is in different forms, however, there is no>significance in the spellings, both contexts are similar in construction as>well as to the event taking place (the Passover). I’m not losing sleep over>this, it’s really a matter of curiosity. I was just wondering why the author>used a different form when hIEROUSALHM, occurring some 78 times in the NT, was>not his choice in the verses cited above, as well as in John 5:1 and 5:2 where>this same instance is presented again. Actually, John’s gospel shows the>highest percentage of mixed forms(some 66% of Jerusalem’s occurrence is in the>dative and genitive). I guess I’m trying to understand the apostle John’s>mind, or reasoning, for what seems to be a curious difference in form.Two thoughts regarding this question:(1) This is not the place to discuss so-called “higher” criticism, but Ithink it is worth noting that some scholars believe that GJn is not thework of a single author but that it conflates two or more traditions withina “school.” The renowned late Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown, whocompiled the 2-volume Anchor Bible commentary on the gospel and who alsowrote a neat little hypothetical reconstruction on its composition entitled_The Community of the Beloved Disciples_, argued that the completed gospelis the composite work of three generations within a school; while the styleof writing is pretty consistent, occasional differences in spelling,morphology, and perspective may derive from distinct authors within thattradition. I am not arguing for this perspective and I am certainly NOTinviting discussion of this hypothesis in this forum, but it is one of thefactors that might be involved in the variation here under discussion.(2) Another factor that might have a bearing is the observation thatJohannine style seems to involve deliberate alternation of synonymousexpressions without any clear intention to imply a difference of meaning.One such passage involving such alternation has been the subject of priordiscussions on : the alternation in chapter 21 (the dialogue betweenthe risen Christ and Simon Peter at the lakeshore): BOSKE alternates withPOIMAINE, ARNIA with PROBATA, and (notoriously!) FILEW with AGAPAW. I thinkit’s conceivable (although beyond demonstrating with any assurance) thatthe variant forms of the name of the Holy City in GJn are also instances ofdeliberate alternation.– 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/

change recipient optionsLuke 24:49