[B-Greek] John 3:36

Iver iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Sep 20 02:38:40 EDT 2003


>
> hO PISTEUWN EIS TON UION EXEI ZWHN AIWNION; hO DE APEIQWN TW UIW OUK
> OYETAI ZWHN, ALL H ORGH TOU QEOU MENEI EP AUTON.
>
> Hi, I was wondering if I could get someone's opinion as to (1) why the
> author used APEIQWN in the second part of the verse and not simply ou with
> the word PISTEUWN-- the word they used earlier in the verse; in
> other words,
> is the author deliberately trying to do more than negate PISTEUWN
> and inject
> a different thought with the subsequent use of APEIQWN;

Yes, I would think so. John uses a negative word before PISTEUW 21 times in
the gospel (e.g. 3:18), but APEIQEW only once. This makes it marked in
John's style. PISTEUW is broader in meaning, including accepting a statement
as true and accepting that what a person says about himself is true. In the
NT understanding and use of the word, it must be followed by the more narrow
concept of obedience. To "disobey" is stronger than "not believe", and more
so in English than in the GNT.

> I've checked several translations for the verse itself  and there is some
> disagreement (hence my frustration) based on the interpretation
> of APEIQWN, which some  render as not believing; some as not obeying in
these various
> translations.

For some reason that I don't understand, the KJV rendered it "not believe"
and I suppose all translations heavily dependent on the KJV may have kept
that. However, all modern versions that I have checked say "not obey" or
something similar like "disobey" or "reject".

> (2) Is it reasonable to assume that the dative TW UIW might argue for the
believing
> rather than obeying rendition, as it seems to makes more sense in context?

No, I wouldn't think so. APEIQEW takes a personal dative object like in Rom
11:30 where people disobeyed God. And I cannot see that not believing makes
more sense than disobeying in the context.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list