[B-Greek] John 14:30b what sense?

Eric Inman eric-inman at comcast.net
Sun Aug 15 18:55:13 EDT 2010


Blue,
 
Yes, I think the verse you mention (Jn 13:27) does tie into this discussion.
In fact, it has helped me clarify some thoughts about this.
 
I think an additional factor that should be mentioned is the idea of
influence. If someone is in (EN) another, then he has influence over them.
Other list members discussed the idea of power, and I think that would be
correct in the sense of influence from within, but I don't think this is
power in the sense of being able to find an accusation against someone. The
ruler of this world had no influence on Jesus because the ruler had nothing
in (EN) Jesus. The Father was in (EN) Jesus and Jesus in (EN) Him, and thus
Jesus acted fully in accordance with the Father. A major theme in John seems
to be about connections or the lack thereof between Jesus, the Father,
Jesus' followers, the KOSMOS and its ARXWN, etc. and how that impacts words,
actions, and legitamacy. That's the light in which I see Jn 14:30b.
 
In Jn 13:27, Satan entered Judas and thus Judas acted according to that
influence, and thus also Jesus immediately sent him away, since who was in
Jesus and who was in Judas could not be together.
 
I think we probably could talk about some kind of context frame here along
the lines of Carl's message about Frames-Scenarios.
 
Eric Inman

  _____  

From: Blue Meeksbay [mailto:bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 4:44 PM
To: Eric Inman
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 14:30b what sense?



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.

 

Cordially,

Blue Harris




  _____  

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.

Eric Inman

-----Original Message-----
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?

Jn 14:30
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.

Oun Kwon.


Oun Kwon.
---
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
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek





More information about the B-Greek mailing list