[B-Greek] Jn 12:44

Yancy Smith Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
Fri Nov 18 00:51:59 EST 2005


Webb,

So, what would be the intertextual support for translating AUTOU  
"his"? Perhaps this string already covered the fact that Origen  
explores the meaning you suggest. It does not, however, obviously  
connect with any matanarrative, other than speculation concerning the  
Antichrist. I am interested in the notion of the father of the devil  
because I am researching "Hippolytus" and his/their anti-heretical  
writing at the present and would appreciate any references to a  
"father of the devil" metanarrative.

Origen, in his Commentary on John 20.171-176 (Heine's translation,  
quoted in English below), frankly admits that the meaning you propose  
as a potential meaning, due to the ambiguity of the passage, based on  
the fact that the text of John could possibly be read: "You are of  
the father of the devil"  (already in 8:43!). This takes the second  
genitive phrase to express relationship, rather than being in  
apposition with the first genitive phrase.  He makes use of the  
ambiguity in his typical style to generate from the literal reading  
both a spiritual and a moral reading. So he says:

"You are of the father of the devil/or/You are of your father the  
devil, and you want to carry out the desires of your father."

(171) The text is ambiguous [AMFIBOLOS]. One meaning suggested by it  
is that the devil has a father, and, so far as the literal meaning is  
concerned, those addressed by this word appear to be derived from  
this father. There is another [possible meaning], however, which is  
preferable, namely, "You are of this father, concerning whom the  
title 'devil' is predicated." (172) What is said, therefore, would be  
ambiguous, even if the first genitive article were removed, but the  
meaning of the phrase would appear much more clearly. He, however,  
who agrees that there is some father of the devil whose sons Jesus  
would appear to say these are to whom the saying is addressed, will  
use the following additional words, "When he speaks a lie, he speaks  
of his own, because he is a liar and his [AUTOU] father." He will say  
that the lie is the devil, but another, in addition to him, is the  
father of the lie. (173) But this conclusion will not be correct, for  
the lie, instead, will refer to the antagonist of him who said, "I am  
the truth." This is the antichrist, whose father is a liar, being the  
devil.(174) But someone may likely take offence at the antichrist  
being a lie, since he will no longer be culpable if, in substance, he  
is nothing other than a lie. If one compares with this what is said  
in Ezechiel about one who, because of evil, has changed so he has  
become destruction, "You have become destruction, and you shall not  
exist forever," he will support in the same way the possibility that  
someone may be of the lie, not by his substance from creation, but  
having become such and having been endowed with such a nature, if I  
may use a novel expression, by change and his own choice. (175)  
Someone, to avoid as nonsense the assertion that the antichrist is a  
lie, will say that the statement, "When he speaks a lie, he speaks of  
his own," refers to all who lie, for whenever the lie in each liar  
speaks, "he speaks of his own," namely the lie. But in addition, the  
statement, "His father is a liar," refers to the fact that each one  
who brings forth a lie from his own mouth is father of the lie that  
he speaks. Such an interpretation indeed will not be completely  
lacking in persuasion. Let these remarks be made as relevant to the  
ambiguity of the statement we are expounding."


I thought you might find this an interesting support for your  
proposed translation.

Yancy

Yancy Smith
Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
Brite Divinity School
Texas Christian University






More information about the B-Greek mailing list