[B-Greek] Jn 12:44

George F Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Fri Nov 18 04:15:31 EST 2005


On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:51:59 -0600 Yancy Smith <Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu>
writes:
> 
> 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
____________

Jn 8.44
hUMEIS EK TOU PATROS TOU DIABOLOU ESTE KAI TAS EPIQUMIAS TOU PATROS hUMWN
QELETE POIEIN.

I haven't been following this discussion so perhaps this has already been
stated.

It might be possible to take TOU DIABOLOU as relating the devil in a
relationship of sonship if this is taken in isolation from the rest of
the sentence.  E.g. in Mk 15.21 we see

KAI AGGAREOUSIN PARAGONTA TINA SIMWNA KURHAION ERXOMENON AP' AGROU, ***
TON PATERA ALECANDROU KAI ROUFOU ***

Here Alexander and Rufus are clearly placed in a relationship of sonship
to Simon.  In the case of  our passage, however, there is "the rest of
the story."  It continues to speak of TOU PATROS hUMWN which must
logically be referred back to EK TOU PATROS which precedes.  It seems
much more likely to me that TOU DIABOLOU is simply an appositive to TOU
PATROS. 

george
gfsomsel
___________


More information about the B-Greek mailing list