John 6:58 - οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον·

The forum for those who still struggle with morphology, syntax, and idiom, or who wish to discuss basic questions about the meaning of Greek texts, syntax, or words.
Forum rules
This is not a place for students to ask for the answers to their homework assignments. Users who do that may be banned.
Post Reply
Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 772
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

John 6:58 - οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον·

Post by Matthew Longhorn »

Ok, time for a stunning display of my ignorance.
I am puzzling over John 6:58 and the explanations of the Greek that I have seen in the resources I own
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ⸀ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ⸁καταβάς, οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες ⸆ καὶ ἀπέθανον· ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον ⸀1ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
The wider context is
οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός ⸀με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ⸆ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν oἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ. 45 ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τοῖς προφήταις· καὶ ἔσονται πάντες διδακτοὶ θεοῦ· πᾶς ⸆ ὁ ⸀ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μαθὼν ἔρχεται πρὸς ⸁ἐμέ. 46 οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα ἑώρακέν τις εἰ μὴ ὁ ὢν παρὰ ⸂τοῦ θεοῦ⸃, οὗτος ἑώρακεν τὸν ⸀πατέρα. 47 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ πιστεύων ⸆ ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 48 Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς. 49 οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν ἔφαγον ⸂ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τὸ μάννα⸃ καὶ ἀπέθανον· 50 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνων, ἵνα τις ἐξ αὐτοῦ φάγῃ καὶ μὴ ⸀ἀποθάνῃ. 51 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς· ἐάν τις φάγῃ ἐκ ⸂τούτου τοῦ ἄρτου⸃ ⸀ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, καὶ ὁ ἄρτος oδὲ ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω ⸉ἡ σάρξ μού ἐστιν ⸆ ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς⸊.
52 Ἐμάχοντο οὖν ⸉πρὸς ἀλλήλους οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι⸊ λέγοντες· πῶς δύναται ⸉1οὗτος ἡμῖν δοῦναι τὴν σάρκα⸊ o[αὐτοῦ] φαγεῖν; 53 εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς oὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ ⸀φάγητε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ ⸉πίητε αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα⸊, οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. 54 ὁ τρώγων ⸀μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ⸆ τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ. 55 ἡ γὰρ σάρξ μου ⸀ἀληθής ἐστιν βρῶσις, ⸋καὶ τὸ αἷμά μου ⸁ἀληθής ἐστιν πόσις⸌. 56 ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ⸆. 57 καθὼς ⸀ἀπέστειλέν με ὁ ζῶν πατὴρ κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα⸆, καὶ ὁ ⸁τρώγων με κἀκεῖνος ⸀1ζήσει διʼ ἐμέ. 58 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ⸀ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ⸁καταβάς, οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες ⸆ καὶ ἀπέθανον· ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον ⸀1ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

Here pretty much all the resources I have such as the UBS handbook, the Baylor handbook etc say that we ought to read the second clause a οὐ καθὼς [ὁ ἄρτος ὃν] ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον

Baylor
οὐ. The negative particle modifies the elliptical construction after καθὼς, which requires the repetition of ὁ ἄρτος and the addition of the relative pronoun ὄν serving as the accusative direct object of ἔφαγον: οὐ καθὼς [ὁ ἄρτος ὃν] ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον (“not like [the bread which] the fathers ate and died”).
UBS handbook
This, then, is the bread that came down from heaven is verbally almost identical with the first part of verse 50 (but the bread that comes down from heaven is such that) except that in this verse the past tense came down is used. Note also the link with verse 31 and the dialogue that followed.
It is not like the bread that your ancestors ate, but then later died is literally “not as the fathers ate and died.” In NEB this passage is rendered “and it is not like the bread which our fathers ate: they are dead.…”…
TEV translates “but then died” of the Greek text by but then later died, in order not to suggest that the persons who ate died immediately, perhaps as a result of eating the bread.
While both TEV and NEB translate so that the comparison is between the bread that the ancestors ate and the bread that Jesus offers, NAB makes a comparison between the ancestors who ate and died (“unlike your ancestors who ate and died …”) and those who eat the bread which Jesus will give. The Greek text itself can be understood to support either interpretation. However, the renderings of most translations are basically the same as that of TEV and NEB (see, for example, JB, Mft).
Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament
This verse summarizes vv. 32–35 and 53–57. The general antecedent of οὗτος is “the Son who gives life” (Schnackenburg 2.64). Καταβάς 3:13. Ἔφαγον v. 23. Οὐ καθώς, lit. “not in the way (your ancestors ate)” = “not like (the bread your ancestors ate)” (cf. BDAG 493d). Οἱ πατέρες refers to the generation of the Exodus (v. 49). Ἀπέθανον v. 49. Τρώγων v. 54. Ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα v. 51. Regarding the manna eaten in the desert (v. 49) and Jesus as the “bread of life” (vv. 35, 48), both are “bread from heaven.” But whereas manna nourished bodies temporarily, the nourishment that Christ provides benefits the believer eternally.
The BDAG reference here is to
Somet. an expression may be condensed to such an extent that opposites are compared ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους οὐ κ. Κάϊν 1J 3:11f. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος … οὐ κ. ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες quite different from that which the fathers ate J 6:58. In compressed speech, to introduce a quotation, e.g. εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν … , κ. εἴρηκεν (after Ps 94:11) in the rest … of which God has said Hb 4:3; 8:5 (s. HLjungvik, Eranos 62, ’64, 36f)
So, having laid out what the sources that disagree with me are saying, time for my ignorance
In John 6:57-58 we have two instances of a clause introduced by καθως. The first introduces a clause that is compared to what comes next - just as the living father sent me and I live through/by the father, the one eating me, that one / he will also live through/by me. This makes me want to take the next καθως clause similarly leading to “not as the fathers ate and died, the one eating this bread will live forever” where there is a comparison laid introduced by καθως between the two instances of eating, and not two types of bread

57 καθὼς ⸀ἀπέστειλέν με ὁ ζῶν πατὴρ κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα⸆, καὶ ὁ ⸁τρώγων με κἀκεῖνος ζήσει διʼ ἐμέ. 58 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ⸀ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ⸁καταβάς, οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες ⸆ καὶ ἀπέθανον· ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον ⸀1ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

The difficulty with this view seems to be what to do with οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ⸀ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ⸁καταβάς. I think that that is a surmountable objection though if the wider context of 44-58 is taken into consideration. Particularly verse 48 has Jesus call himself the bread of life, then verse 50 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνων… followed by verse 51 where Jesus again says that this bread that descends from heaven is him.
If we take it John 6:58 as an reference back to this, reminding people that he is the bread of life that he is about to talk about, and blithely ignore the punctuation of people who know more than me and the manuscripts that have that punctuation then my reading could work. This would lead to a sense of “just as the living father sent me and I live through the father, the one eating me will also live through me. This is the bread of life (reintroducing elliptically Jesus as the bread of life) who descended from heaven. Not like the fathers died and ate, the one eating this bread will live forever (or to restructure - the one eating this bread will live forever, unlike how the fathers ate and died”

Am I onto a complete loser here? I am pretty sure I must be just given that I seem to be away on my own on this one. Thoughts?
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: John 6:58 - οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον·

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

Maybe the grammatical/syntactic helps try to be so analytical that they make this, and whole language, too wooden? I think I have sometimes said that in my opinion we don't need to find the exact words left out in an ellipsis. The original speakers didn't first form a grammatically, syntactically and literally complete sentence from which they left something out after some thinking. To me it feels completely natural to paraphrase this for example like

(verse 31: Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” [ESV])
This is the bread which comes down from heaven, with which it's not like when the fathers ate and still died.
On the other hand it's clear from the context that the speaker and the listeners had the manna bread in mind. But does it mean we have to supply either of those words in v. 58? Rather, we have the whole situation in mind: fathers, wilderness, God giving them manna as bread from heaven, and Jesus adds they also died even though they had eaten that bread from heaven.

People seem to have a fixation of explaining ellipsis and some other grammatical/syntactic phenomenon using ideal "complete" syntax. Why? Choosing to use an ellipsis is itself a linguistic choice which has its own flavor when compared with other choices and therefore -- in my opinion -- it's not always necessary to find the exact words or parallel grammar.
Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 772
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: John 6:58 - οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον·

Post by Matthew Longhorn »

Thanks Eeli. I agree with a lot of what you say there about it being a linguistic choice to leave the relationship underspecified. The same sort of thing is found with participles where the relationship between the participle and its context needs to be worked out.

For me the difference between the two ways of interpreting the text actually comes down to whether there is an ellipsis there at all in the καθως clause, which I don’t think that there is. This wouldn’t as you point out, change the meaning of the text - the whole situation is in mind including the bread, but it would be a different way of construing the situation

The other thing that made me curious about this is the use of the proposed use of καθως as basically a comparative adjective if we take the ellipsis as relating to the type of bread. It seems an odd way to use that, but again, I am likely speaking from ignorance
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: John 6:58 - οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον·

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

whether there is an ellipsis there at all in the καθως clause, which I don’t think that there is.
You may be right. My main point is that people see something which deviates from (in their opinion) good, complete, neat, clean grammar/syntax. Then they try to explain this by resorting to some missing pieces, grammatically, syntactically or lexically. This is often driven by the needs of exegesis or translation which would be foreign to the original speakers.
Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 772
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: John 6:58 - οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον·

Post by Matthew Longhorn »

Agreed to an extent. The one caveat I would have there is that I may have is that what is an obvious inference to the original speaker and audience may not be to the modern audience and therefore that relationship may need to be brought out in a translation where possible. That definitely doesn’t mean all occasions, and can very likely lead to misinterpretations. One of my pet peeves is hearing people refer to participles as “this is a concessive participle” and not note that that is an interpretation of it in context, and not a separate kind of word from other participles
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: January 18th, 2024, 12:16 pm You may be right.
I am glad you don’t think I am completely off with the fairies in my view then!
Mitch Tulloch
Posts: 59
Joined: November 4th, 2017, 2:52 pm
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Contact:

Re: John 6:58 - οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον·

Post by Mitch Tulloch »

Matthew Longhorn said:
One of my pet peeves is hearing people refer to participles as “this is a concessive participle” and not note that that is an interpretation of it in context, and not a separate kind of word from other participles
You might like then how the Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek deals with this. In the section titled "Interpretation of Circumstantial Participles" in chapter 52 it describes different ways circumstantial participles can be interpreted e.g. time, circumstance, cause, motivation etc and the last way described is "Concession" where it says "To express concession, a participle is usually combined with καιπερ, και or και ταυτα preceeding the participle" and then goes on to provide a couple of examples. So instead of defining a new category (concessive participles) it simply says that "expressing consession" is one of the use cases of circumstantial participles.

I like this approach :-)

But I had to look up the word "conessive" in a dictionary as CGCG didn't define what it meant in that section :-(
Cheers,
Mitch Tulloch
Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 772
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: John 6:58 - οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον·

Post by Matthew Longhorn »

Mitch Tulloch wrote: January 18th, 2024, 3:15 pm You might like then how the Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek deals with this. In the section titled "Interpretation of Circumstantial Participles" in chapter 52 it describes different ways circumstantial participles can be interpreted e.g. time, circumstance, cause, motivation etc and the last way described is "Concession" where it says "To express concession, a participle is usually combined with καιπερ, και or και ταυτα preceeding the participle" and then goes on to provide a couple of examples. So instead of defining a new category (concessive participles) it simply says that "expressing consession" is one of the use cases of circumstantial participles.

I like this approach :-)
Agreed, nice to have a clue from helping words where there are some, and that wording at the end of that quote is a useful way of approaching it.
My gripe is wider than just concessive participles stretching to most labels where a choice has to be made as to assert one meaning versus another and then told to people who will not know that there is a choice involved. I tend to use concessive participles as an example of that. A label, if not qualified, can make people think that this definitely is the only way that a text could have been read. I guess even with the wording “expressing concession” could lead to the same conclusion if not careful. That said, labels in the right context can be nice shorthand ways of referring to things, if everyone is on the same page about what it means
Mitch Tulloch wrote: January 18th, 2024, 3:15 pm But I had to look up the word "conessive" in a dictionary as CGCG didn't define what it meant in that section :-(
I think I know more grammatical terminology and obscure words than I ever did before just because of Greek. What makes me feel truly stupid is where I have to look up a word that the english dictionary gives. I can’t recall what the word was, but once I came across something that used the term “bathetic” - turns out it is quite a useful word to describe much of what I do in life
Post Reply

Return to “Beginners Forum”