[B-Greek] Jo 13:10 LOUW
George F Somsel
gfsomsel at juno.com
Thu Apr 7 07:28:54 EDT 2005
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:40:27 +0200 "Wieland Willker"
<willker at chemie.uni-bremen.de> writes:
> Regarding the notorious problems of Jo 13:10 (omission of EI MH TOUS
> PODAS etc.) I am wondering if LELOUMENOS here must mean "the one who
> has bathed/purified the whole body" or if it can also mean "the one
> who has been bathed/purified his feet"?
> Giving the meaning:
> "The one who has been purified (by footwashing), does not need it
> (washing hands and head), but is totally clean."
> Can LELOUMENOS refer to footwashing? Robertson (Wordpictures) seems
> to imply that it can only mean "bathe the whole body".
>
> Interestingly LOUW appears only here in John (and the Gospels).
>
>
> Best wishes
> Wieland
> <><
> ------------------------------------------------
> Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
> mailto:willker at chemie.uni-bremen.de
> http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
> Textcritical commentary:
> http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
________________
Some observations.
1. LOUW apparently appears only here in the gospels.
2. When used in conjunction with XEIR, NIPTW or APONIPTW is used
Mt 15.2, Mt 27.24 (APONIPTW), Mk 7.3
3. In this passage (Jn 13.10) the verb NIPTW is used with regard to the
feet.
LSJ refers NIPTW to NIZW where it states
NIZW, Epich.?[273]; imper.? NIZE Il.?11.830; inf.? NIZEIN Od.?19.374;
part.? NIZWN Il.?7.425, E.?IT?1338: Ep.? impf.? NIZON Od.?1.112,
Il.?11.846:the pres.? NIPTW, analogically formed from NIYW ENIYA, first
in Men.?Mon.?543, cf.? Luc.?Epigr.19, Arr.?Epict.?1.19.5, Ev.Jo.?13.5,
Plu.?Thes.?10, though Hp.? uses Med.? NIPTOMAI Mul.?1.57 (but DIA-NIZESQV
ib.?84, PERI-NIZESQW ib.?2.158): fut.? NIYW Od.?19.376, E.?IT?255: aor.?
ENIYA Id.?Sthen.?Prol.25; Ep.? NIYA Od.?19.505:Med.?, NIZOMAI Hp.? (v.?
supr.): impf.? NIZETO Od.?6.224: fut.? NIYOMAI (v.? APO-, EK-NIZW), late
NIFHSOMAI Lxx?Le.?15.12: aor.? ENIYAMHN; Ep.?3 sg.? NIYATO Il.?16.230:
pf.? NEIMMAI (v.? infr.): aor.? Pass.? ENIFQHN (KAT-)
Hp.?Prorrh.?2.23:wash the hands or feet (v.? sub fin.?), NIZE D' AR'
ASSON IOUSA ANAXQ' EON Od.?19.392; AUTAR EPEI NIYEN ib.?505, cf.? 358;
TWi SE PODAS NIYW ib.?376, cf.? Orac.?ap.?Hdt.?6.19; hADE XEIR TAN XEIRA
NIZEI Epich.? l.c.?:Med.?, NIYATO D' AUTOS XEIRAS Il.?16.230, cf.?
Hes.?Op.?739; NIYASQAI, abs.?, to wash ones hands, Od.?1.138, etc.?;
XEIRAS NIYASQAI hALOS [with water] from the sea, 2.261 (v.? infr. ii);
NIYASQAI LIMHS PODA Hes.?Fr.?122; OURWi NIYAMENOS TOUS OFQALMOUS
Hdt.?2.111.
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A
Greek-English lexicon. "With a revised supplement, 1996." (Rev. and augm.
throughout /) (Page 1175). Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford
University Press.
TDNT has
To wash, first for ordinary washing, then for cultic washing to
establish or restore cultic cleanness. Preference was given to running
water, esp. that from springs thought to be efficacious, or from salt
sea-water.?? For the Gk. p???e?? applies to the washing of inanimate
objects,?? ??pte?? to the partial washing of living persons,?? and ???e??
or ???es?a? to full washing or bathing.?? The requirement of ritual
washings is connected with the ancient religious idea that ritual
defilement (? µ?a???, µ?????,) is material and can and must be removed by
washing.?? When the stage is reached at which the deity is thought to be
holy, it becomes a principle that there can be approach only in a clean
condition. Hence the requirement arises that one should draw near for
prayer or sacrifice only when one has bathed or at least washed the
hands.?? Not until later does the thought that moral purity is decisive
in relation to deity become predominant.??
In the OT, too, washings are important, esp. to establish cultic purity.
The LXX follows the Gk. use of NIPTEIN for the partial washing of persons
(Gn. 18:4; 19:2 RXC), then for cultic washings (Ex. 30:18 f.; Dt. 21:6;
Ps 25:6;?? 2 Ch. 4:6 etc.).??
Later Judaism, with its strong ritualistic character, extends the OT
requirements.?? Acc. to tradition (jShab., 3d) the custom, e.g., of
washing the hands before meals (? III, 421 f.) goes back to regulations
imposed by Hillel and Shammai. The rule is an extension of the priestly
ordinance to the more general sphere (Chag., 2, 5; b.Chull., 106a;
Str.-B., I, 696d). This washing took place both before and after meals
and was the subject of detailed casuistical legislation. Further washings
when new dishes were brought in during the meal were a matter of
individual choice (b.Chull., 105a; Str.-B., I, 697). In accordance with
his general mode of thought, Philo in particular sees in priestly washing
a symbol of ethically pure conduct.??
Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited
by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G.
W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (Vol. 4, Page 946-947).
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
with the following comment "The NT, too, uses NIPTEIN in the Greek sense
of partial washing."
LSJ s.v. LOUW states in part
wash, prop.? wash the body (NIZW being used of the hands and feet,
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A
Greek-English lexicon. "With a revised supplement, 1996." (Rev. and augm.
throughout /) (Page 1062). Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford
University Press.
It would therefore appear that LOUW is used for an entire body wash
whereas NIPTW is used for a washing of a part of the body.
george
gfsomsel
___________
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list