[B-Greek] John 8:31ff
Harold R. Holmyard III
hholmyard at ont.com
Mon Feb 9 15:36:31 EST 2004
Dear Iver:
>NET: 15 Then the Jewish authorities were astonished and said, "How does this
>man know so much when he has never had formal instruction?"
>TEV: The Jewish authorities were greatly surprised and said,...
>NLT: The Jewish leaders were surprised when they heard him. "How does he
>know so much when he hasn't studied...
HH: The NIV has:
John 7:15 The Jews were amazed and asked, "How did this man get such
learning without having studied?"
>So, a number of interpreters understand the IOUDAIOI to be used as a metonym
>for Jewish authorities. In that case the rhetorical question about him being
>unlearned is somewhat derogatory. Jesus obviously knows the Scriptures, but
>he does not belong to the Pharisaic group who together with the scribes had
>"taken the seat of Moses" and therefore, they claim, Jesus has no right to
>make himself a teacher. (Matt 23:1-12 is a rather strong attack on the
>Pharisees and scribes as those who claim to be the only authorized teachers
>of the Law.)
HH: You make a plausible argument, and v. 15 can be read that way. But I am
somewhat doubtful. John writes from the distance of many decades to an
audience consisting of Gentiles to a considerable degree. So he identified
his people as the Jews. The leaders represented the nation, so they could
also be called the Jews. They embodied the official Jewish view. As I
mentioned with John 7:1-2, the meaning of "Jews" depends on the context,
and there can be some overlap based on the source of the metonymy. (Again,
"Jews" in 7:1 might refer to Judean religious authorities.) Anyway, it may
not be necessary to limit it so much in 7:15.
>They [the Jewish authorities] question Jesus' authority to teach, and that
>is why Jesus responds as
>he does in v. 16-18.
HH: There is no direct question to Jesus in v. 15; it seems a rhetorical
question out of amazement, not necessarily a challenge. Jesus seems to
continue His teaching, while responding to the shock over it. He invites
everyone to seek God's will, which will lead to His teaching.
John 7:16 ¶ Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him
who sent me.
John 7:17 If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my
teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
John 7:18 He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but
he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there
is nothing false about him.
>> Moses gave 'you," that is, Israel as a whole, the Law (7:19).
>That depends on the sense of "give". The law was for all, but some had the
>authority to teach it, and these teachers did not keep it. I don't think
>Jesus is saying that no Jew was keeping the law as best they could with a
>sincere heart, but the Pharisees did not. (See again Matt 23 and parallels.)
HH: The statement in Matt 23:2 concedes that Pharisees and scribes were
functioning as Israel's teachers and lawgivers, sitting in the seat of
Moses, but I am not sure Jesus would say that Moses gave them the law. And
Jesus could say that no Jew kept the law. Peter said it later (Acts 15:10),
and Paul said it in several places (Rom 3:10-12, 19; 7:8). I'm trying to
show there is room to doubt this limitation of Jesus' addressees to the
religious leaders.
>> The people do not understand what He is saying and think he is
>> demon-possessed for making such a claim (7:20). They don't think they're
>> trying to kill him and so think he's demon-possessed.
>Here the Greek text says hO OCLOS, which indicates that it is not the
>Pharisees. For the "crowd" and the "Jews" see also 7:12-13. The crowd in
>general do not know that the Pharisees want to get rid of him, so they
>cannot see why anyone would want to kill him. I suspect the "having a demon"
>is pretty much like saying in English "You must be crazy"
HH: That's true; 7:12-13 does make this distinction, but Jews in v. 13 can
indicate the leaders as representative of the nation as a whole, the
official Jewish position. Again, the idea that they were the Judean
religious leaders is not impossible either, since the crowds at a Jewish
festival would come partially from outside Judea. That is specifically the
issue in John 7:1-9.
>Jesus decides not to respond to that misunderstanding and intrusion from the
>bystanders in his dialogue with the Jewish leaders, so he continues to speak
>to those leaders. The use of the pronoun AUTOIS (referring to main
>participants) rather than "the crowd" indicates that he is addressing the
>Pharisees, not the crowd.
HH: This is where your reading seems particularly dubious to me (7:20-21).
The crowd asks Him a question, and you say Jesus answers the Pharisees. But
the text is specific that Jesus "answered" them, that is, the people in the
previous verse that asked the question. A crowd consists of individuals, so
the switch from singular OCLOS to plural AUTOIS seems perfectly natural.
>The response of Jesus in v. 21-23 refers back to John 5:10 "So the Jewish
>authorities said to the man who had been healed, "It is the Sabbath, and you
>are not permitted to carry your mat."(NET)
HH: Yes, it refers to that miracle, but not necessarily to the Pharisees.
It can refer to the marveling of the entire people at the miracle that
Jesus did.
>I would take it the opposite way. Jesus is using a general term IOUDAIOI to
>refer by metonymy to the leaders of the nation. It is the leaders he accuse
>and confront, not the whole nation.
HH: Well, that's a possible interpretation, I must admit. But the whole
generation was one of vipers, according to John the Baptist.
Luke 3:7 ¶ John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You
brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
HH: The parallel in Matthew 3:7 shows that John particularly had the
Phaisees and scribes in mind, but Luke shows that the statement could apply
to the entire audience.
HH: And even if Jesus began a discourse by responding to Jewish
authorities, He could quickly broaden it to include everyone in attendance.
For example, in John 5:18 the "Jews" ask Jesus a question, and His answer
is in vv. 19-47. In the middle Jesus says,
John 5:35 John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a
time to enjoy his light.
If Jesus is speaking only to the Pharisees and scribes, then it must have
been a very short time that they choose to enjoy John's light, because they
did not believe John:
Luke 20:3 ¶ He replied, "I will also ask you a question. Tell me,
Luke 20:4 John's baptism - was it from heaven, or from men?"
Luke 20:5 ¶ They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say,
'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Why didn't you believe him?'
John singled them out for harsh rhetoric, so they probably did not rejoice
in that:
Matt. 3:7 ¶ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to
where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned
you to flee from the coming wrath?
They also questioned his credentials:
John 1:23 ¶ John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the
voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.'"
John 1:24 ¶ Now some Pharisees who had been sent
John 1:25 questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the
Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"
HH: So it seems that Jesus in responding to religious leaders could expand
His address to include everyone. The people as a whole rejoiced in John's
light for a time (until he was killed). And it seems unnecessarily
restrictive to have most of Jesus' stern rhetoric aimed solely at religious
leaders. Remember that the people as a whole called for His crucifixion.
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list