John 7:39 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Sun Apr 16 18:57:05 EDT 2000
Previous message: Polytonic Typing Next message: John 7:39 ??? “…for not yet was spirit…” “…for not yet was a spirit…””…for not yet was a Holy Spirit…””…for spirit was not yet…””…for a spirit was not yet…””…for a Holy Spirit was not yet…” Bill Ross ————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20000416/c3cbab36/attachment.html
Previous message: Polytonic TypingNext message: John 7:39
John 7:39 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Sun Apr 16 21:06:45 EDT 2000
Previous message: John 7:39 Next message: structural parataxis/logical hypotaxis in the NT Dear Bill, You ask about PNEUMA in John 7:39:> ??? “…for not yet was spirit…” “…for not yet was a>spirit…” “…for not yet was a Holy Spirit…” “…for spirit was not>yet…” “…for a spirit was not yet…” “…for a Holy Spirit was not>yet…”Bill, the NT often uses anarthrous PNEUMA with a modifier like “holy” torefer to the Holy Spirit. Writers often use anarthrous PNEUMA of the HolySpirit in situations where the Spirit is speaking through a person. Perhapsthis is an area where writers felt freer to drop the article, for whatoccurred involved a man’s spirit, but also might involve an evil spirit orthe Holy Spirit (the NT often uses PNEUMA to refer to unclean spirits, andsometimes uses PNEUMA of spiritual messages and things [1 John 4:1; 1 Cor14:12]). Another possibility would be a dropping of a modifier such as”holy,” leaving anarthrous PNEUMA. Here are some passages to look at, where anarthrous PNEUMA without amodifier is arguably the Holy Spirit. A number of passages with questionmarks may contrast the realm of flesh with that of spirit, thus weakening adirect reference to the Holy Spirit. Others offer a choice between man’sspirit and God’s. Especially suggestive that anarthrous PNEUMA can beequivalent to the Holy Spirit are 2 Cor 3:18 and Jude 1:19: Matt 22:43; John 3:5; Acts 1:5; 6:3; Rom 8:4-5 (?), 9 (?), 13; 15:19(there is a text. var.); 1 Cor 2:4, 13; 2 Cor 3:6 (?), 18; Gal 3:3 (?);4:29 (?); 5:5, 16, 18, 25; Eph 2:22; 3:5; 5:18; 6:18; Phil 2:1 (?); Col1:8; Jude 1:19.As you may guess, my inclination is to interpret PNEUMA in John 7:39 of theHoly Spirit, whom the verse mentions earlier. There would be a dropping ofthe modifier “Holy” as unnecessary to repeat. It seems difficult to takePNEUMA of any more limited idea such as Spirit-inspired utterance, becausethe context does not limit PNEUMA that way. All the textual variants showthat the early Church took PNEUMA here to indicate the Holy Spirit. So Iwould translate the phrase in question: “For not yet was the Spirit.”Yours,Harold Holmyard
Previous message: John 7:39Next message: structural parataxis/logical hypotaxis in the NT
John 7:39 Daniel L Christiansen dlc at multnomah.edu
Sun Apr 16 21:55:32 EDT 2000
Previous message: structural parataxis/logical hypotaxis in the NT Next message: John 7:39 Bill,You may care to take a look at Gordon Fee’s work for discussion of theoptions in evaluating the force of PNEUMA in the Pauline corpus. (God’sEmpowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paulm,Hendrickson, 1994. ISBN: 0-943575-94-X)Dan– Daniel L. ChristiansenDepartment of BibleMultnomah Bible College8435 NE Glisan StreetPortland, OR 97220(Also Portland Bible College, Prof of Biblical Languages)e-mail: dlc at multnomah.edu
Previous message: structural parataxis/logical hypotaxis in the NTNext message: John 7:39
John 7:39 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Sun Apr 16 22:09:30 EDT 2000
Previous message: John 7:39 Next message: John 7:39 on 04/16/00 3:57 PM, Bill Ross wrote:> ???> > “…for not yet was spirit…”> “…for not yet was a spirit…”> “…for not yet was a Holy Spirit…”> “…for spirit was not yet…”> “…for a spirit was not yet…”> “…for a Holy Spirit was not yet…”> > Bill Ross Bill,You seem to have omitted the reading found in Codex Beza (first hand) which is:. . . OUPW GAR HN TO PNEUMA hAGION EP’ AUTOISThe intriguing aspect of this reading is hAGION in the predicate position.A later hand in Codex Beza resolves this by inserting TO before hAGION.. . . OUPW GAR HN TO PNEUMA TO hAGION EP’ AUTOIS– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Previous message: John 7:39Next message: John 7:39
John 7:39 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Sun Apr 16 23:36:13 EDT 2000
Previous message: John 7:39 Next message: Rom 8:15 hUIOQESIAS As always, I appreciate the helpful replies.Part of my question related to the anarthrous PNEUMA, and was welladdressed.The other part of my ?? was the term “not yet”. These translations all add”been given”:39NIVBy this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later toreceive. Up to that time the Spirit had not **been given**, since Jesus hadnot yet been glorified.RSVNow this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were toreceive; for as yet the Spirit had not **been given**, because Jesus was notyet glorified.KJV(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him shouldreceive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet **given**; because that Jesus wasnot yet glorified.)Whereas these don’t:DBYBut this he said concerning the Spirit, which they that believed on him wereabout to receive; for [the] Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yetbeen glorified.YLTand this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about toreceive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yetglorified.My question is, is there any linguistic reason, or is it entirelyextrapolation based on presumption?Bill Ross
Previous message: John 7:39Next message: Rom 8:15 hUIOQESIAS
John 7:39 Wayne Leman wleman at mcn.net
Mon Apr 17 00:39:07 EDT 2000
Previous message: Rom 8:15 hUIOQESIAS Next message: New BADG for real? >As always, I appreciate the helpful replies.> >Part of my question related to the anarthrous PNEUMA, and was well>addressed.> >The other part of my ?? was the term “not yet”. These translations all add>“been given”:> >My question is, is there any linguistic reason, or is it entirely>extrapolation based on presumption?Bill, I think there is good linguistic evidence for making explicit what issemantically implicit in the Greek syntax. Shall we say, it’s a given (so tospeak, of course)? The preceding clause says the Spirit was to be receivedby those who believed. The following clause does what many languages,including English, conveniently do, namely drop out what is linguisticallyunnecessary but which can be semantically retrieved from the precedingcontext. Linguists often call this “gapping”. The complement of “receive” is”give”, so it is not simply presumption to supply “given” in the clause inquestion, but perfectly good language analysis, making explicit in thetranslation what is already there in the meaning of the original text. Thereare various technical terms in Greek studies which refer to syntacticphenomena such as these. I’m not as familiar with all the Greek studiesterminology as I am with the linguistic studies terminological counterpart,but ellipsis might be one of these for Greek studies.Happy Easter!I need to say that this early because I am about to fly several states tothe east to become a grandfather for the first time on Maudy Thursday.Hurray for new life, especially at Easter time!Wayne—Wayne LemanBible translation site: http://bibletranslation.lookscool.com/
Previous message: Rom 8:15 hUIOQESIASNext message: New BADG for real?
John 7:39 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Mon Apr 17 09:27:08 EDT 2000
Previous message: New BADG for real? Next message: Greek text linguistics books Further question:Am I correct that gramatically, PNEUMA could be either the subject or theobject? ie:”…spirit was not yet…”or”…[He] was not yet spirit”(I am not seeking either interpretation, only what is compelling in thegrammar).Bill Ross
Previous message: New BADG for real?Next message: Greek text linguistics books
John 7:39 Paul Schmehl baldeagl at airmail.net
Mon Apr 17 21:48:06 EDT 2000
Previous message: Fronting & Point of Departure Next message: John 7:39 OUPW GAR hHN PNEUMAPNEUMA here is in the nominative case, so it would be the subject, notthe object.pauls at utdallas.edu (Paul Schmehl)Technical Support Services Managerhttp://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/—– Original Message —–From: “Bill Ross” <wross at farmerstel.com>To: “Biblical Greek” < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Cc: “‘Bible Translation'” <BibleTranslation at listbot.com>Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 8:27 AMSubject: RE: John 7:39> Further question:> > Am I correct that gramatically, PNEUMA could be either the subjector the> object? ie:> > “…spirit was not yet…”> > or> > “…[He] was not yet spirit”> > (I am not seeking either interpretation, only what is compelling inthe> grammar).> > Bill Ross> > > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: baldeagl at airmail.net> To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message tosubscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >
Previous message: Fronting & Point of DepartureNext message: John 7:39 More information about the mailing list
John 7:39 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Apr 18 07:05:05 EDT 2000
Previous message: John 7:39 Next message: KATAQEMATIZEIN (Matthew 26:74) Morphologically there is no hindrance to PNEUMA being an accusative form,since it is neuter; the more important point is rather syntax: the verbEIMI is intransitive and doesn’t take an object. Bill will speak forhimself, of course, but the idea dies hard that Greek doesn’t determinesyntactical function by word-order–i.e., whether a noun precedes orfollows a verb, even if the verb is intransitive. And Bill’s example,”…[He] was not yet spirit,” seems to indicate that he means “predicatenominative” rather than “object.” This seems fundamentally improbable–thatthe subject in such a construction should be implicit and the predicateword be explicit; the reverse is more common, as in EGW EIMI with thesense, “I am [he].” And yet, improbable though I think it is, I don’t knowthat we can rule out Bill’s suggestion altogether by any syntactic rule orlogic, although we say that an existential EIMI normally precedes itssubject (and in this instance we would expect the governing adverb OUPW toprecede HN–so that OUPW HN PNEUMA is pretty much standard Greek word orderfor “There was not yet Spirit.”But, playing the DA role, I might mention John 1:9 HN TO FWS TO ALHQINON,hO FWTIZEI PANTA ANQRWPON, ERCOMENON EIS TON KOSMON. I believe that mosteditors and readers now understand TO FWS TO ALHQINON as the subject of HNERCOMENON, a periphrastic imperfect, but we should remember that this versewas understood and translated in the KJV with “He” = John the Baptist, asimplicit subject of HN and TO FWS TO ALHQINON as the predicate nominative(and ERCOMENON EIS TON KOSMON as an anarthrous attributive participle to beconstrued with ANQRWPON (“which lightens every man that cometh into theworld.” Moreover Johannine theology would seem to understand the Spirit asgiven by Jesus to be Jesus himself in a new form–ALLOS PARAKLHTOS, withthe implicit assumption that Jesus himself was a PARAKLHTOS. That would beconsistent with Bill’s suggested interpretation of 7:39 as “… for [He}was not yet Spirit.” Mind you, I don’t myself find this a cogent or likelyunderstanding of OUPW GAR HN PNEUMA–I do think PNEUMA here is the subjectof HN–but I’m not absolutely sure either that it COULDN’T be a predicatenominative.At 8:48 PM -0500 4/17/00, Paul Schmehl wrote:>OUPW GAR hHN PNEUMA> >PNEUMA here is in the nominative case, so it would be the subject, not>the object.> >pauls at utdallas.edu (Paul Schmehl)>Technical Support Services Manager>http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/> >—– Original Message —–>From: “Bill Ross” <wross at farmerstel.com>>To: “Biblical Greek” < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>>Cc: “‘Bible Translation'” <BibleTranslation at listbot.com>>Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 8:27 AM>Subject: RE: John 7:39> > >> Further question:>> >> Am I correct that gramatically, PNEUMA could be either the subject>or the>> object? ie:>> >> “…spirit was not yet…”>> >> or>> >> “…[He] was not yet spirit”>> >> (I am not seeking either interpretation, only what is compelling in>the>> grammar).>> >> Bill Ross>> >> >> —>> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>> You are currently subscribed to as: baldeagl at airmail.net>> To unsubscribe, forward this message to>$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>> To subscribe, send a message to>subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>> >> > > >—> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>To unsubscribe, forward this message to>$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu— 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/
Previous message: John 7:39Next message: KATAQEMATIZEIN (Matthew 26:74) More information about the mailing list
John 7:39 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Tue Apr 18 07:55:05 EDT 2000
Previous message: KATAQEMATIZEIN (Matthew 26:74) Next message: John 7:39 Dear Carl, I agree with what you wrote about John 7:39 and John 1:9 KJV, exceptfor one small point. You write:I believe that most editors and readers now understand TO FWS TO ALHQINONas the subject of HNERCOMENON, a periphrastic imperfect, but we should remember that this versewas understood and translated in the KJV with “He” = John the Baptist, asimplicit subject of HN and TO FWS TO ALHQINON as the predicate nominative(and ERCOMENON EIS TON KOSMON as an anarthrous attributive participle to beconstrued with ANQRWPON (“which lightens every man that cometh into theworld.”Carl, I think you should say that in the KJV of John 1:9 “He” = JesusChrist. Jesus Christ was the true light. Verse 8 in the KJV says aboutJohn, “He was not that Light.”Yours, Harold Holmyard
Previous message: KATAQEMATIZEIN (Matthew 26:74)Next message: John 7:39 More information about the mailing list
John 7:39 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Apr 18 08:37:20 EDT 2000
Previous message: John 7:39 Next message: Fronting & Point of Departure At 6:55 AM -0500 4/18/00, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:>Dear Carl,> I agree with what you wrote about John 7:39 and John 1:9 KJV, except>for one small point. You write:> >I believe that most editors and readers now understand TO FWS TO ALHQINON>as the subject of HN>ERCOMENON, a periphrastic imperfect, but we should remember that this verse>was understood and translated in the KJV with “He” = John the Baptist, as>implicit subject of HN and TO FWS TO ALHQINON as the predicate nominative>(and ERCOMENON EIS TON KOSMON as an anarthrous attributive participle to be>construed with ANQRWPON (“which lightens every man that cometh into theworld.”> >Carl, I think you should say that in the KJV of John 1:9 “He” = Jesus>Christ. Jesus Christ was the true light. Verse 8 in the KJV says about>John, “He was not that Light.”> Thanks for the correction, Harold. Yes, of course, I was thinking of John1:8 where the subject is implicitly John the Baptist.– 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
Previous message: John 7:39Next message: Fronting & Point of Departure More information about the mailing list