John 20:22

Breathing in Gen 2:7, John 20:22 David Miller dmiller at worldy.com
Sun Feb 14 16:01:07 EST 1999

reason for Another Apology Of less exegetical significance, I am simply wondering why the rootEMFUSAW has changed to ENEFUS- in the aorist indicative. Why does themu change to a nu, and where can I go to find answers to this type ofquestion?Thank you.David MillerScarborough, ON

reason for Another Apology

Breathing in Gen 2:7, John 20:22 David Miller dmiller at worldy.com
Sun Feb 14 16:01:07 EST 1999

reason for Another Apology

Breathing in Gen 2:7, John 20:22 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Feb 14 16:23:19 EST 1999

Another Apology GINOMAI in John 15:8 and James 1:22 At 4:01 PM -0500 2/14/99, David Miller wrote:>Of less exegetical significance, I am simply wondering why the root>EMFUSAW has changed to ENEFUS- in the aorist indicative. Why does the>mu change to a nu, and where can I go to find answers to this type of>question?This is a MUCH easier question: The two root elements in the verb are ENand FUSA; in the present tense form the N assimilates to the F (PH) just asLatin IN- assimilates to the root PORTA in the Latin source of our Englishverb “import”–IMPORTARE: the N becomes an M; however, in those forms ofthe verb where an Augment (E before a consonant) must enter in between theprefix and the verbal stem, the original N of EN will appear becausethere’s no assimilation any more, hence: EN-E-FUS. Okay?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 OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Another ApologyGINOMAI in John 15:8 and James 1:22

Breathing in Gen 2:7, John 20:22 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Feb 14 16:23:19 EST 1999

Another ApologyGINOMAI in John 15:8 and James 1:22

Fwd: RE: Breathing in Gen 2:7, John 20:22 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Feb 15 11:40:16 EST 1999

GINOMAI in John 15:8 and James 1:22 GINOMAI in John 15:8 and James 1:22 >Date: 15 Feb 1999 06:47:07 -0800>From: “Hultberg, Alan” <alan_hultberg at peter.biola.edu>>Subject: RE: Breathing in Gen 2:7, John 20:22>To: “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>>Status:> > >At 4:01 PM -0500 2/14/99, David Miller wrote:>>Of less exegetical significance, I am simply wondering why the root>>EMFUSAW has changed to ENEFUS- in the aorist indicative. Why does the>>mu change to a nu, and where can I go to find answers to this type of>>question?> >Carl answers the first question for you. For the second, take a look at Bill>Mounce’s _The Morphology of Biblical Greek_ (Zondervan, 1994).> >Alan>

GINOMAI in John 15:8 and James 1:22GINOMAI in John 15:8 and James 1:22

Fwd: RE: Breathing in Gen 2:7, John 20:22 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Feb 15 11:40:16 EST 1999

GINOMAI in John 15:8 and James 1:22GINOMAI in John 15:8 and James 1:22

Jn 20.22 N & RJ Hanscamp nar.hanscamp at clear.net.nz
Wed Oct 13 04:06:26 EDT 1999

Spiritual death or Physical death? Jn 20.22 Without picking a theological fight here, can someone tell me what the imperative force of the aorist active LABETE is in Jn 20.22.NigelNigel and Rebecca HanscampTrinity Methodist Theological CollegeAuckland Consortium of Theological Education, New ZealandEmail: nar.hanscamp at clear.net.nz————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991013/b60922d3/attachment.html

Spiritual death or Physical death?Jn 20.22

Jn 20.22 N & RJ Hanscamp nar.hanscamp at clear.net.nz
Wed Oct 13 04:07:40 EDT 1999

Jn 20.22 Jn 20.22 Without picking a theological fight here, can someone tell me:what is the imperative force of the aorist active LABETE in Jn 20.22. NigelNigel and Rebecca HanscampTrinity Methodist Theological CollegeAuckland Consortium of Theological Education, New ZealandEmail: nar.hanscamp at clear.net.nz————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991013/1a355219/attachment.html

Jn 20.22Jn 20.22

Jn 20.22 N & RJ Hanscamp nar.hanscamp at clear.net.nz
Wed Oct 13 04:26:43 EDT 1999

Jn 20.22 Smooth breathings OOpps sorry about the two versions. Its lateNigelNigel HanscampTrinity Methodist Theological CollegeAuckland Consortium of Theological Education, New ZealandEmail: nar.hanscamp at clear.net.nz————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991013/e93fd1eb/attachment.html

Jn 20.22Smooth breathings

Jn 20.22 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Oct 13 06:27:00 EDT 1999

Smooth breathings Singular or Plural? At 9:07 PM +1300 10/13/99, N & RJ Hanscamp wrote:>Without picking a theological fight here, can someone tell me:>what is the imperative force of the aorist active LABETE in Jn 20.22.And if you WERE picking a theological fight? ;-)LABETE is pretty simply, “Receive”; I would think the aorist used herewould indicate effectual reception, so that, to put it colloquially, onemight use “Take” or “Get” in this instance, or even “take possession of,”except that this last suggests that the Spirit is something one can haveall by oneself, and I hardly think that is meant.LAMBANW is fundamentally applicable to physical seizure–grabbing;,although it’s used metaphorically in many ways, they all seem to involvethe notion somehow of taking “in hand” or “taking hold” even when it’smetaphorically “taking hold.” KATALAMBANW can be used (and was by theStoics) for intellectual comprehension, but it can also be used forsnuffing a candle or lampwick, as in the Johannine prologue. Perhaps theusage of PARADIDONAI and PARALAMBANEIN for “hand over (a tradition,something valuable)” and “receive/accept (a tradition, something valuable)”might help to clarify the basic sense of the root LAB as “latch onto” or”take hold of.”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/————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 1517 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991013/3163ee3a/attachment.bin

Smooth breathingsSingular or Plural?

Jn 20.22 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Oct 13 10:00:51 EDT 1999

Spiritual death or Physical death? Spiritual death or Physical death? To: Nigel Hanscamp and Carl W. Conrad,NH: << … can someone tell me: what is the imperative force of the aoristactive LABETE in Jn 20.22. >>I’m unsure that I understand your (Nigel Hanscamp’s) question. What do youmean by “imperative force”? Do you merely mean to ask what type ofimperative it is? Such as, whether it is a command, prohibition, request,etc.?CWC: << LABETE is pretty simply, “Receive”; I would think the aorist usedhere would indicate effectual reception, so that, to put it colloquially,one might use “Take” or “Get” in this instance, or even “take possessionof,” except that this last suggests that the Spirit is something one canhave all by oneself, and I hardly think that is meant. >>Effectual reception? The context might imply effectual reception, but theaorist imperative at Jn 20:22 is simply an exhortation. If I have a bowl ofgrapes on a table and I say to my guest: “Take some grapes” there is noeffectual reception of the grapes, just a request, yes?-Steven Craig Miller (scmiller at www.plantnet.com)

Spiritual death or Physical death?Spiritual death or Physical death?

Jn 20.22 Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com
Wed Oct 13 11:17:27 EDT 1999

To save bandwidth? (was: Re: Exegetical Considerations) TExtbook website —– Original Message —–From: Steven Craig Miller <scmiller at www.plantnet.com>Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 9:00 AM> To: Nigel Hanscamp and Carl W. Conrad,> > NH: << … can someone tell me: what is the imperative force of the aorist> active LABETE in Jn 20.22. >>> > I’m unsure that I understand your (Nigel Hanscamp’s) question. What do you> mean by “imperative force”? Do you merely mean to ask what type of> imperative it is? Such as, whether it is a command, prohibition, request,> etc.?> > CWC: << LABETE is pretty simply, “Receive”; I would think the aorist used> here would indicate effectual reception, so that, to put it colloquially,> one might use “Take” or “Get” in this instance, or even “take possession> of,” except that this last suggests that the Spirit is something one can> have all by oneself, and I hardly think that is meant. >>> > Effectual reception? The context might imply effectual reception, but the> aorist imperative at Jn 20:22 is simply an exhortation. If I have a bowlof> grapes on a table and I say to my guest: “Take some grapes” there is no> effectual reception of the grapes, just a request, yes?Per Steven Miller’s hypothetical situation, that is not the language I woulduse to guests. To guests, I might suggest “Have some grapes,” while to mychildren, if I want to require them to sample some grapes, I might demand”Take some grapes.” This latter phrase would be *intended to be* moreeffectual! It occurs to me that English may *lexicalize* the aspectualdistinction which is exhibited more often in Greek by the aor./pres.morphology.In other words, I think that Carl Conrad is exactly right when he stated<<I would think the *aorist* used here would indicate effectual reception,so that, to put it colloquially, one might use “Take” or “Get” in thisinstance>> [emphasis mine].That is, the aorist puts the focus on the initial reception at a point intime, whereas, had the pres. been used, it would emphasize the ongoingpossession of the Spirit. An action which is (viewed as) punctiliar is(viewed as) more precise and certain (*effectual*) than an action viewed asextended.Another quick example that comes to mind of lexicalized aspect in English is’enter’ vs. ‘go in’. ‘Enter’ focuses on crossing the threshold.Question: Has any work been done to consider this notion of lexicalizedaspect in English (or other languages)? (It relates to with respectto the question of adequately translating or even expressing the nuances ofthe Gk aspectual system in other languages!)God bless ya’ll!Joe FribergArlington, TX

To save bandwidth? (was: Re: Exegetical Considerations)TExtbook website

Jn 20.22 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Oct 13 12:59:51 EDT 1999

The Pindaric construction Jn 20.22 To: Joe A. Friberg,JAF: << Per Steven Miller’s hypothetical situation, that is not thelanguage I would use to guests. To guests, I might suggest “Have somegrapes,” while to my children, if I want to require them to sample somegrapes, I might demand “Take some grapes.” This latter phrase would be*intended to be* more effectual! It occurs to me that English may*lexicalize* the aspectual distinction which is exhibited more often inGreek by the aor./pres. morphology. >>If you prefer to call it a command rather than a request, I have noproblems with that. But, as Daniel B. Wallace (1996:485) writes:<< The imperative mood is the mood of ‘intention.’ It is the mood furthestremoved from certainty. (Those who have strong-willed children understandthis!) >>It would seem that you haven’t had any experience with strong-willedchildren. <g> For a command is a far cry from “effectual reception” in myexperience.JAF: << That is, the aorist puts the focus on the initial reception at apoint in time, whereas, had the pres. been used, it would emphasize theongoing possession of the Spirit. >>Wallace goes on to write:<< The basic force of the imperative of command involves somewhat differentnuances with each tense. With the ‘aorist,’ the force generally is to’command the action as a whole,’ without focusing on duration, repetition,etc. In keeping with its aspectual force, the aorist puts forth a ‘summarycommand.’ With the ‘present,’ the force generally is to ‘command the actionas an ongoing process.’ This is in keeping with the present’s aspect, whichprotrays an ‘internal’ perspective. >>There is absolutely nothing about the imperative mood which implies”reception.” Back to the example of John 20:22, the statement by the Johannine Jesus,”Receive the Holy Spirit” (NRSV), can be viewed as a command, or perhaps anexhortation. One can assume that because these were Jesus’ disciples, thatthey did indeed receive the Holy Spirit (according to John’s story), butthe command (in and of itself) does not imply reception.-Steven Craig Miller (scmiller at www.plantnet.com)

The Pindaric constructionJn 20.22

Jn 20.22 Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com
Wed Oct 13 14:01:29 EDT 1999

Jn 20.22 kai Dear Steven Miller:I’m not sure that we are in disagreement about the interpretation of thepassage or the illocuationary force of the utterance or the meaning of theverb. With your response, it seems apparent to me that we are simplytalking about different interpretive questions that can be asked. Let mepinpoint which questions I am addressing and which questions I understandyou to be addressing:—– Original Message —–From: Steven Craig Miller <scmiller at www.plantnet.com>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 11:59 AMSubject: Re: Jn 20.22> To: Joe A. Friberg,> > JAF: << Per Steven Miller’s hypothetical situation, that is not the> language I would use to guests. To guests, I might suggest “Have some> grapes,” while to my children, if I want to require them to sample some> grapes, I might demand “Take some grapes.” This latter phrase would be> *intended to be* more effectual! It occurs to me that English may> *lexicalize* the aspectual distinction which is exhibited more often in> Greek by the aor./pres. morphology. >>My focus is on the type/nature of the action of the verb. Not only is theillocuationary force different (suggestion vs. command), but also, theaction suggested by “Have…” is one that can be accomplished by taking afew now, a few off and on during a 30-minute conversation, or none at all,while the action in the command “Take…” can only be properly/completelyaccomplished by taking a few grapes right now. In the first utterance, theauthorial intent is quite vague, in the second, quite specific. These aredifferent types of actions encapsulated by ‘have’ vs. ‘take’, and I amsuggesting the same for the Gk pres. vs. aor. imperative distinction.> > If you prefer to call it a command rather than a request, I have no> problems with that. But, as Daniel B. Wallace (1996:485) writes:Your focus is on the illocutionary difference of my examples. Thedifference between *types* of action can occur in the same type ofillocutionary utterance. Compare the exhortations: “Have courage” vs. “Takecourage”; the first suggests an extended encouragement, the second theinception of encouragement at a particular point (now).> > << The imperative mood is the mood of ‘intention.’ It is the mood furthest> removed from certainty. (Those who have strong-willed children understand> this!) >>I have one (the older), and his strong-willedness seems to be contagious tothe second 🙂 –or should that be 🙁 ?> > It would seem that you haven’t had any experience with strong-willed> children. <g> For a command is a far cry from “effectual reception” in my> experience.My reference (and I think Carl Conrad’s as well) is to the *type* of action*intended*, whether or not it is carried out. Your focus is on thesituational outcome.> > JAF: << That is, the aorist puts the focus on the initial reception at a> point in time, whereas, had the pres. been used, it would emphasize the> ongoing possession of the Spirit. >>> > Wallace goes on to write:> > << The basic force of the imperative of command involves somewhatdifferent> nuances with each tense. With the ‘aorist,’ the force generally is to> ‘command the action as a whole,’ without focusing on duration, repetition,> etc. In keeping with its aspectual force, the aorist puts forth a ‘summary> command.’ With the ‘present,’ the force generally is to ‘command theaction> as an ongoing process.’ This is in keeping with the present’s aspect,which> protrays an ‘internal’ perspective. >>I think what I have said is in total agreement w/ Wallace regarding thedifferent types/natures of actions indicated by the different “tenses.”> > There is absolutely nothing about the imperative mood which implies> “reception.”“Reception” merely happens to be the verb/action in the utterance underdiscussion; it comes from the lexical root irrespective of the mood in whichthe verb occurs.> > Back to the example of John 20:22, the statement by the Johannine Jesus,> “Receive the Holy Spirit” (NRSV), can be viewed as a command, or perhapsan> exhortation. One can assume that because these were Jesus’ disciples, that> they did indeed receive the Holy Spirit (according to John’s story), but> the command (in and of itself) does not imply reception.I’m in complete agreement. My resonance with Carl Conrad’s term “effectual”regards that term as describing the type of action, not the situationaloutcome (though I cannot speak authoritatively on his scope of reference!).For example, I would regard ‘grab’ as more effectual than than ‘hold’. Youare correct, that no matter what lagnuage is used, the outcome is notguaranteed.God Bless!Joe A. FribergArlington, TexasJoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net

Jn 20.22kai

Jn 20.22 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Oct 13 15:29:37 EDT 1999

kai kai To: Joe A. Friberg,Thank you for your nice post. Perhaps my problem is with the term”effectual.” My Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition,1997) defines “effectual” as meaning: “producing or able to produce adesired effect.”Now the statement was made:CWC: << LABETE is pretty simply, “Receive”; I would think the aorist usedhere would indicate effectual reception … >>IMO the aorist imperative LABETE does NOT “indicate effectual reception.”The statement, quoted above, seems to imply that the mere command was ableto produce the desired effect. Perhaps such could be considered true onaccount of some theological reason, but such cannot be true, IMO, of theaorist imperative generally. IMO it is simply impossible for the aoristhere to “indicate effectual reception.”-Steven Craig Miller

kaikai

Jn 20.22 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Oct 13 15:49:21 EDT 1999

Spiritual Death… kai At 2:29 PM -0500 10/13/99, Steven Craig Miller wrote:>To: Joe A. Friberg,> >Thank you for your nice post. Perhaps my problem is with the term>“effectual.” My Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition,>1997) defines “effectual” as meaning: “producing or able to produce a>desired effect.”> >Now the statement was made:> >CWC: << LABETE is pretty simply, “Receive”; I would think the aorist used>here would indicate effectual reception … >>> >IMO the aorist imperative LABETE does NOT “indicate effectual reception.”>The statement, quoted above, seems to imply that the mere command was able>to produce the desired effect. Perhaps such could be considered true on>account of some theological reason, but such cannot be true, IMO, of the>aorist imperative generally. IMO it is simply impossible for the aorist>here to “indicate effectual reception.”I guess all this tempest was my fault. By saying I thought the aoristimperative would indicate effectual reception, what I meant was that theaction called for by the imperative would (if obeyed, received, taken toheart–all depending on whether you see this as an “exhortation” or a”command”) result in the actual taking/receiving of the Spirit; I meant todistinguish the force of a present imperative LAMBANETE, which might mean”start taking” or “take from time to time” or “keep right on taking” fromthe force of an aorist imperative LABETE, which I take to mean “Go aheadand take it, right now, whole hog and all the way.” I certainly didn’t meanthat the imperative itself was effectual, but rather that action called forby the imperative was effectual action. I really didn’t understand all thecitation of authorities about imperatives on this point.>Wallace goes on to write:> ><< The basic force of the imperative of command involves somewhat different>nuances with each tense. With the ‘aorist,’ the force generally is to>‘command the action as a whole,’ without focusing on duration, repetition,>etc. In keeping with its aspectual force, the aorist puts forth a ‘summary>command.’ With the ‘present,’ the force generally is to ‘command the action>as an ongoing process.’ This is in keeping with the present’s aspect, which>protrays an ‘internal’ perspective. >>> >There is absolutely nothing about the imperative mood which implies>“reception.”I didn’t think I had ever said anything about “reception” being implied bythe imperative; I meant simply to say that the aorist used in thisimperative indicated the intent that the reception urged by the imperativeLABETE should actually work, whereas LAMBANETE might only lead to a littlebit of cautious sniffing at the air as Jesus ENEFUSHSEN. There was a niftyverbal exchange in an old Danny Kaye film (Court Jester?) whereinstructions have been given and then this little dialogue: A: “Get it?” B:”Got it!” A: “Good!” I think that Jesus is saying, with LABETE, “Get it!”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

Spiritual Death…kai

Fw: Jn 20.22 N & RJ Hanscamp nar.hanscamp at clear.net.nz
Wed Oct 13 19:25:47 EDT 1999

kai Fw: Jn 20.22 Thank you for all your replies so far. I have added some “bits” into theconversation below.>> I’m unsure that I understand your (Nigel Hanscamp’s) question. What doyou>> mean by “imperative force”? Do you merely mean to ask what type of>> imperative it is? Such as, whether it is a command, prohibition, request,>> etc.?Yes – sorry I worded it poorly<Snip>>> Effectual reception? The context might imply effectual reception, but the>> aorist imperative at Jn 20:22 is simply an exhortation. If I have a bowl>of>> grapes on a table and I say to my guest: “Take some grapes” there is no>> effectual reception of the grapes, just a request, yes?> >Per Steven Miller’s hypothetical situation, that is not the language Iwould>use to guests. To guests, I might suggest “Have some grapes,” while to my>children, if I want to require them to sample some grapes, I might demand>“Take some grapes.” This latter phrase would be *intended to be* more>effectual! It occurs to me that English may *lexicalize* the aspectual>distinction which is exhibited more often in Greek by the aor./pres.>morphology.Lexically this may be the case, but in the context Jesus had effectivelythrown the grapes to them and then said “Catch”. They seemed to have nochoice in the matter. Is this the force of the imperative?<Snip>>Another quick example that comes to mind of lexicalized aspect in Englishis>‘enter’ vs. ‘go in’. ‘Enter’ focuses on crossing the threshold.So ‘receive’ in this case focuses on … the moment of reception?NigelNigel and Rebecca HanscampTrinity Methodist Theological CollegeAuckland Consortium of Theological Education, New ZealandEmail: nar.hanscamp at clear.net.nz

kaiFw: Jn 20.22

Fw: Jn 20.22 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Oct 13 20:22:56 EDT 1999

Fw: Jn 20.22 GAR and Paratactic Connectors To: Nigel Hanscamp,<< … in the context Jesus had effectively thrown the grapes to them andthen said “Catch”. They seemed to have no choice in the matter. Is this theforce of the imperative? >>John writes: KAI TOUTO EIPWN ENEFUSHSEN KAI LEGEI AUTOIS: LABETE PNEUMAhAGION — “and saying this he blows [on them] and says to them: Receive theholy breath” (John 20:22). It is almost analogous to a child, perhapssucking on an interesting flavor of candy, blowing his or her breath atone’s noise and saying: “Smell my breath!” One smells it, not because onewas instructed to do so, but because the breath was blown towards one’snoise. Similarly, if one wants to argue that the Johannine Jesus’ discipleshad little choice in the matter, the justification of such an argumentshould probably be based on ENEFUSHSEN and not LABETE.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com

Fw: Jn 20.22GAR and Paratactic Connectors

Jn 20.22 Carlton Winbery winberyc at speedgate.net
Wed Oct 13 23:08:09 EDT 1999

KAI GAR and Paratactic Connectors Carl Conrad wrote;> >I didn’t think I had ever said anything about “reception” being implied by>the imperative; I meant simply to say that the aorist used in this>imperative indicated the intent that the reception urged by the imperative>LABETE should actually work, whereas LAMBANETE might only lead to a little>bit of cautious sniffing at the air as Jesus ENEFUSHSEN. There was a nifty>verbal exchange in an old Danny Kaye film (Court Jester?) where>instructions have been given and then this little dialogue: A: “Get it?” B:>“Got it!” A: “Good!” I think that Jesus is saying, with LABETE, “Get it!”> I got it the first time. What’s so difficult about understanding that therisen Christ, in the experience of the disciples, communicated to thedisciples his desire that they receive the Spirit. No, nothing in theimperative tells us that they did, but everything about the story in Johnleads us to believe they did.Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at andria.lacollege.eduwinbery at speedgate.netPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

KAIGAR and Paratactic Connectors

Jn. 20:22 joe buckley buckleyjoe at hotmail.com
Thu Oct 14 13:29:59 EDT 1999

Illocutionary Illocutionary Concerning LABETE: Much difficulty has been occasioned concerning the Greek imperative because of the connotation carried by the imperative in English. The varied uses of the Gr. imper. have been classified in ATR as: (1) command or exhortation, (2) prohibition, (3) entreaty,(4) permission, (5) concern or condition, (6) in asyndeton, (7) in subordinate clauses, (8) in indirect discourses (pp. 246-50). In the imperative mood there is no distinction of time. (Though, of course, all imperatives have, of necessity, a future idea in them.)The aorist imper. refers to the action while saying nothing about its duration or repetition. The aor. imper. is quite common in the NT. While the aor. imper. usually (probably) refers to an action which is to be commenced this cannot always be pressed (cf. the “Lord’s Prayer” — contains aor. imper. but it would be strange to translate them by “start to give us our daily bread,” etc.) And, as Stagg pointed out a number of years ago, the aor. imper. does not imply necessarily a single action (cf. Mt. 5:42; Lk. 10:35; 11:41; 19:13; 1 Jn. 5:21). LAMBANW implies that the recipient may welcome or request the gift, he is not merely a passive vessel (cf. in Jn. 1:12; 3:11; 5:43; 6:21; 7:23; 10:18; 12:48; 13:20,30). The aor. imper, LABETE, is used in Mt. 26:26; Mk. 14:22; Lk. 22:17 in the account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Obviously the aor. imper. could not indicate an action not to be repeated. So — a conclusion cannot be drawn by looking at LABETE alone (and when this “receiving” took place is not indicated by this word alone). The grammar of the verse as a whole needs to be considered; individual words need to be considered (esp. the anarthrous accusative PNEUMA hAGION)> A contextual analysis of the verse would prove very helpful. Joe B. THD 2b______________________________________________________Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

IllocutionaryIllocutionary

Jn 20.22 and illocutionary force Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com
Thu Oct 14 13:43:34 EDT 1999

Illocutionary PEMPTAIOI in Acts 20:7 D Sometimes these threads just don’t go the way the originator intended! Myapologies in return for the digression!—– Original Message —–From: N & RJ Hanscamp <nar.hanscamp at clear.net.nz>Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 4:22 PM> Lexically this may be the case [discussing the meaning of aor. imp.LABETE], but in the context Jesus had effectively> thrown the grapes to them and then said “Catch”. They seemed to have no> choice in the matter. Is this the force of the imperative?A good way to approach your question would be through the lens of Speech Acttheory. (See my very recent post under the thread “Illocutionary.”)Note that the relationship between the participants in the communicationsituation is of importance: Jesus was an aknowledged authority/leader towhom the disciples had submitted, as demonstrated by their having followedhim for x years, and by their present huddling together now even after hisdeath. They are still following him.So, they have placed themselves under his authority, and he utters”take/receive.” It seems to me that from his position of authority, heactually *confers* the Spirit on them by his words. At the same time, hiswords *explain* what he is doing (apart from his verbalization, they wouldnot know positively what he was doing!). Further, he *promises* to givethem the Holy Spirit.Thus, the single utterance seems to carry three of Austin’s five broadillocutionary functions:exercitive: confer Holy Spiritexpositive: explain what he is doingcommissive: promise/commit to giving HSHope that helps!> >Another quick example that comes to mind of lexicalized aspect in English> is> >’enter’ vs. ‘go in’. ‘Enter’ focuses on crossing the threshold.> > > So ‘receive’ in this case focuses on … the moment of reception?Yes, because of the *aorist* tense/mood.God Bless!Joe A. FribergArlington, TexasJoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.netMA LinguisticsMA Theology candidate

IllocutionaryPEMPTAIOI in Acts 20:7 D

Jn 20:22 Dave Scarpino angs at sssnet.com
Mon Dec 6 14:57:10 EST 1999

Is GAR a coordinating or subordinating conjunction? Jn 20:22 Would someone please help me in translating the words “Labete & eipwv”, found in John 20:22, in context with its sourounding text?If I typed this correctly the text is: Kai touto eipwn evephusasev kai legei autois labete pneuma agiovI translated as follows: And after [He] says this He breathed in and says to them, (_____ labete) Spirit Holy…Dave ScarpinoBarberton, Ohio

Is GAR a coordinating or subordinating conjunction?Jn 20:22

Jn 20:22 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 6 15:15:04 EST 1999

Jn 20:22 John 12:7 At 2:57 PM -0600 12/6/99, Dave Scarpino wrote:>Would someone please help me in translating the words “Labete & eipwv”,>found in John 20:22, in context with its sourounding text?> >If I typed this correctly the text is: Kai touto eipwn evephusasev kai>legei autois labete pneuma agiov> >I translated as follows: And after [He] says this He breathed in and says>to them, (_____ labete) Spirit Holy…We talked about this a few weeks ago and also earlier this year; you mightwant to check the archives for February 13-15, 1999 and again more recentlyfor October 13, 1999.EIPWN is aorist ptc. nom. sg. masc. and agrees with the subject ofENEFUSHSEN (i.e. Jesus). This is a common use of an aorist participle incoordination with a narrative verb in a past tense to indicate a successionof actions. So you could make this: “And after/upon saying this, hebreathed on them … ” or “And he said this and then breathed on them …”LABETE is aorist 2nd pl. active imperative, here part of Jesus’ directwords to the disciples: “Receive/take/accept holy spirit.” I’ve indicatedmy own view that the evangelist here deliberately imitates the language ofGenesis 2:7 in ENEFUSHSEN in a way indicating the notion that Jesus”infuses” the spirit into the disciples and then says, “Receive/accept”that holy spirit that he has made available to them now in his risenidentity.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

Jn 20:22John 12:7

Jn 20:22 N & RJ Hanscamp hanscamps at paradise.net.nz
Mon Dec 6 16:41:16 EST 1999

John 12:7 Jn 20:22 The words you are looking for are “Receive Holy Spirit”. The term PNEUMAhAGION is not used that often in the FG. You will find them in 1.33 andhere in 20.20, as well as in a variant for 7.39. The other term TO PNEUMATO hAGION is found once in 14.26.the term ENEFUSHSEN is normally translated “breathed on them”, though it isprobably more correctly “breathed out”. Most commentators connect it withGenesis 2.7, Ezekiel 37.9 and Wisdom 15.11 where God is said to ‘breathlife’ into inanimate objects as a part of creation or re-creation.there are very good treatments of this background and text in Raymond Brown*John* vol 2 and G. Beasley-Murray *John* (Word Commentary Series).Nigel.Nigel and Rebecca HanscampTrinity Methodist Theological CollegeAuckland Consortium of Theological Education, New ZealandEmail: hanscamps at paradise.net.nz

John 12:7Jn 20:22

Jn 20:22 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 6 19:35:11 EST 1999

Jn 20:22 John 12:7 At 10:41 AM +1300 12/7/99, N & RJ Hanscamp wrote:>the term ENEFUSHSEN is normally translated “breathed on them”, though it is>probably more correctly “breathed out”. Most commentators connect it with>Genesis 2.7, Ezekiel 37.9 and Wisdom 15.11 where God is said to ‘breath>life’ into inanimate objects as a part of creation or re-creation.I’m curious what the justification is supposed to be for understanding*EN*-EFUSHSEN as “breathed OUT.” Does Raymond Brown argue this in fact (mycopy of his commentary is not presently at hand as I write)? or is it anassumption from the context and an assumption that if he says, “Receive theSpirit,” it can’t already be in or on (or–dare I say it?) NEAR them? Itjust seems like a perverse way of understanding the force of this prefix.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/

Jn 20:22John 12:7

Jn 20:22 N & RJ Hanscamp hanscamps at paradise.net.nz
Tue Dec 7 01:25:36 EST 1999

John 12:7 John 12:7 >At 10:41 AM +1300 12/7/99, N & RJ Hanscamp wrote:>>the term ENEFUSHSEN is normally translated “breathed on them”, though itis>>probably more correctly “breathed out”. Most commentators connect it with>>Genesis 2.7, Ezekiel 37.9 and Wisdom 15.11 where God is said to ‘breath>>life’ into inanimate objects as a part of creation or re-creation.>Carl Conrad wrote:>I’m curious what the justification is supposed to be for understanding>*EN*-EFUSHSEN as “breathed OUT.” Does Raymond Brown argue this in fact (my>copy of his commentary is not presently at hand as I write)? or is it an>assumption from the context and an assumption that if he says, “Receive the>Spirit,” it can’t already be in or on (or–dare I say it?) NEAR them? It>just seems like a perverse way of understanding the force of this prefix.> OOpppss. I was wrong (there I said it). What I should have said was”breathed on”. The translation is “he breathed on and said to them.”I think I remember a commentary saying that the force was more on Jesus’breathing, than on the object (which didn’t seem to matter). So thetranslation (if I can remember it ) was something like “and he breathed andsaid to them…”. But I can’t lay my hands on the commentary right now, andI’m not sure that such a ‘distancing’ of the object and subject is necessaryin this case.Sorry about the misleading info.(Ten days and my thesis will be in at the binders. YES!)NigelNigel HanscampTrinity Methodist Theological CollegeAuckland Consortium of Theological Education, New ZealandEmail: hanscamps at paradise.net.nzAuckland. STILL home of the America’s cup!

John 12:7John 12:7

Past imperative LABETE in John 20:22 as Simple Pronouncement

John 20:22 reads: KAI TOUTO EIPWN ENEFUSHSEN KAI LEGEI AUTOIS, LABETE PNEUMA hAION.

I am trying to understand the force of the imperative LABETE.
Jesus breathing on them I would think is a sign of them receiving the Holy
Spirit yet he commands them to receive the Holy Spirit.
Is the imperative â€œLABETEâ€ much more than a pronouncement?
Wallace in GGBB on page 492 has a section on pronouncement imperatives.
He says:
â€œOccasionally an imperative in the passive voice is the equivalent of a
statement that is fulfilled at the moment of speaking. Such usage is
reserved for passives that cannot be fulfilled by the recipient of the
imperative. On the surface, it looks like a command, but its nature is such
that it cannot be obeyed by the recipient and yet it comes true at the
moment it is uttered.â€
An example he gives is KAQARISQHTI in Mark 1:41. â€œBe cleansed.â€

The way I understand verse 22, all this seems to fit except the passive
voice of the verb.
LAMBANW in the passive voice does not make sense here but â€œreceiveâ€ can
have a bit of a passive sense compared to the active â€œtake.â€
Is it safe to say that this is a pronouncement?
Thank you.
Bert de Haan.

NO: LABETE is 2 pl. aorist ACTIVE imperative (the passive, if there
were one, would be LH(M)FQHTI — but in fact, there is not a single
passive form of the uncompounded LAMBANW in the GNT.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com

David E. Kiefer, Registrar dkiefer at fuller.edu
Tue Jan 23 23:47:06 EST 2007

I think it is a pronouncement. Of course the FORM is active, but the
there is a middle or passive meaning possible within the semantic range
of the word. Wallace simply didn’t go far enough in explaining this use
of the imperative as a pronouncement. The passive sense can (and usually
is) communicated by the form of the word, but a few words have the
passive sense as a component of their meaning instead.

People who read this article also liked:

Leave a Reply