[B-Greek] John 14:30b what sense?
bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 15 17:44:23 EDT 2010
I really like Eric’s take on this verse. I have never thought of it in that
manner and I am going to reexamine this verse in that light. In the mean time, I
wonder if this might be an additional reason. As a sacrifice had to be without
blemish, perhaps, Jesus is emphaszing this point since not even Satan could not
produce any reason or accusation to disqualify him from being a perfect
sacrifice for sin.
DEUTERONOMY 17:1 OU QUSEIS KURIWi TWi QEWi SOU MOSCON H PROBATON EN hWi ESTIN EN
AUTWi MWMOS PAN hRHMA PONHRON hOTI BDELUGMA KURIWi TWi QEWi SOU ESTIN
HEBREWS 9:14 POSWi MALLON TO hAIMA TOU CRISTOU, hOS DIA PNEUMATOS AIWNIOU
hEAUTON PROSHNEGKEN AMWMON TWi QEWi, KAQARIEI THN SUNEIDHSIN hHMWN APO NEKRWN
ERGWN EIS TO LATREUEIN QEWi ZWNTI.
Perhaps, John is emphasizing this aspect, especially since John creates a
framework in the beginning of his Gospel with Jesus being a Lamb of God that
takes away the sin of the world Jn. 1:29). Jesus had to be sinless, without
blemish to be a sacrifice.
However, going back to Eric’s observation, I wonder if this verse becomes
significant in light of Eric's take.
JOHN 13:27 KAI META TO YWMION TOTE EISHLQEN EIS EKEINON hO SATANAS. LEGEI OUN
AUTWi hO IHSOUS• hO POIEIS POIHSON TACION.
Satan found something, some thought, or attitude in Judas to attach himself to,
or to associate himself with, but in Jesus he could find nothing.
From: Eric Inman <eric-inman at comcast.net>
To: Oun Kwon <kwonbbl at gmail.com>; b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Sun, August 15, 2010 2:46:09 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 14:30b what sense?
The way I take it is that in John two parties are fully identified with each
other when they are one ("hEN"), when they are in (EN) each other (John
17:21-23). I take EN EMOI OUK ECEI OUDEN as the opposite of that. The ARCWN
has nothing in Jesus, i.e. no part of him is in Jesus, i.e. he has no
association with Jesus whatsoever and nothing of his nature.
I get the feeling that the author of John tends to formulate his own idioms
rather than just using preexisting ones due to the highly repetitive nature
of his phrasing and rephrasing of things. Therefore I tend to like a rather
literal translation into English, thus allowing corresponding English idioms
to form as well. The English translations might not occur in normal English,
but I'm not sure that John's phrasings were normal Greek. Thus in Johanine
idiomatic English I would just say "he has nothing in me". In proper English
I would say "he is completely separate from me".
Interestingly John's terminology is very similar to that used in set theory.
Two sets are equal if each is in (is a subset of) the other. Two sets are
disjoint (no overlap) if no portion of either is in the other, if either has
nothing in the other.
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Oun Kwon
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 11:11 PM
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [B-Greek] John 14:30b what sense?
OUKETI POLLA LALHSW MEQ' hUMWN, ERCETAI GAR hO TOU KOSMOU ARCWON.
KAI EN EMOI OUK ECEI OUDEN
The last sentence KAI EN EMOI OUK ECEI OUDEN is difficult to get a clear
sense. My attempt is (in English):
Yeah, in me he has nothing to find [to make me do otherwise].
I would appreciate if I have a translation of Latin on this (? by
Augustine)(found in Alford).
Nullum scilicet omnino peccatum.
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the B-Greek