[B-Greek] John 3:3-4
Dr. Don Wilkins
drdwilkins at verizon.net
Fri Feb 5 21:36:37 EST 2010
Well, again, your insistence upon the wordplay is, I think, causing
you to misunderstand my argument. "It is obvious" often is the plea
of one who does not want to consider viable options. But to repeat
once more, I think Nick is using a reductio ad absurdum, ignoring the
implication of "from above" and suggesting a second physical birth as
a prerequisite for what Jesus is describing. In other words, Nick is
selling red herring but Jesus doesn't buy it. I would agree to
disagree with you, and trust that we are both trying to follow Jan Hus.
Don Wilkins
On Feb 5, 2010, at 6:09 PM, George F Somsel wrote:
> While you are correct that the passage never specifically states
> that Nick used ἄνωθεν ANWQEN, but rather that in the two
> instances cited in the pericope Jesus is the one to use the word,
> it is obvious from what Nick says that he understands it as "again"
> rather than "from above." I don't think that helps your case any.
> george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> … search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
> _________
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Dr. Don Wilkins <drdwilkins at verizon.net>
> To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
> Cc: B-Greek Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Fri, February 5, 2010 6:01:50 PM
> Subject: Re: John 3:3-4
>
> George, you are begging the question. I am quite willing to
> acknowledge that (as far as we know) the wordplay you are speaking
> of could only occur in Greek. As a matter of fact, Nicodemus never
> uses ANWQEN in the dialog. If that is really what it is about, one
> might expect him to say instead, "MH DUNATAI EIS THN KOILIAN THS
> MHTROS AUTOU ANWTHEN EISELQEIN KAI GENNHQHNAI?" ANWQEN does not
> even show up here as a variant reading. You seem to be assuming
> that DEUTERON necessarily represents a wordplay on ANWQEN; I grant
> you that you could cite BDAG for that position, but BDAG simply
> makes the same interpretive assumption. And dare I suggest that
> your own presuppositions have led you to your conclusions? It seems
> to me a leap of faith to assume, first, a wordplay according to
> one's interpretation of Nick's point rather than the word itself;
> then, that ANWQEN cannot be a translation of an original Hebrew or
> Aramaic word (מעל), despite evidence to the
> contrary; and finally to deduce from the preceding assumptions
> that the discourse evidently is a late invention since (as we
> agree) the speakers probably were not using Greek.
>
> None of this is to argue that "born again" is an illegitimate
> concept, since we clearly have it from ANAGENNAW (1 Pet. 1:3, 23).
> There is no contradiction with Jesus' declaration that one must be
> born "from above," since this is after all a second birth. But
> Jesus focuses rather on the source of the birth. And in view of the
> abuse of the term "born again" by hoi polloi today, we might do
> well to use "born from above" instead, or at least "born again,
> i.e. from above."
>
> Don Wilkins
>
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:34 PM, George F Somsel wrote:
>
>> The point is that both use the same word in different ways.
>> Hebrew or Aramaic does not seem to possess a word allowing such
>> ambiguity. My guess is that you are positing the disingenuousness
>> of Nick in order to preserve your concept of the origin of the
>> scriptures. While it seems likely that Jesus spoke Aramaic or
>> Hebrew, you don't desire to acknowledge that the wordplay could
>> only occur in Greek. If that is your desire, you are free to
>> maintain that position. B-greek is not the forum for such
>> discussion though I do think we should acknowledge the
>> presuppositions of our arguments.
>>
>> george
>> gfsomsel
>>
>>
>> … search for truth, hear truth,
>> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
>> defend the truth till death.
>>
>>
>> - Jan Hus
>> _________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Dr. Don Wilkins <drdwilkins at verizon.net>
>> To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
>> Sent: Fri, February 5, 2010 4:22:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Ambiguity
>>
>> The combination מעל does not *always* mean "above" or "on top
>> of" as opposed to "from above". KB gives "downwards from" as a
>> translation under 'AL (על, section 8) which is equivalent to
>> "from above," and in regard to Ex. 25:22 and parallel passages the
>> rabbis emphasized the preposition "from" in their declaration that
>> the voice did not come "from" just anywhere in the sanctuary, but
>> *from* above the ark (Midrash on Numbers). My point of
>> disagreement with you was not whether the one term could be either
>> "from above" or "again," but with your conclusion that the
>> discourse evidently was a composition of the early church, by
>> which I assume you mean not the work of the apostle (correct me if
>> I mistook your meaning). And for my own part, I did mean that Nick
>> ignored the term "from above." Indeed, I think Nick was being
>> disingenuous, and that Jesus as much as said that Nick, "the
>> teacher of Israel," knew better. But yes, I agree with you that
>> the term
>> never seems to mean "again."
>>
>> Don Wilkins
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 2:02 PM, George F Somsel wrote:
>>
>>> Hebrew and Aramaic does have a combination of prepositions which
>>> indicate a position above, but it always means "above" or "on top
>>> of." To my knowledge there is no ONE term which would be
>>> understood as either "above" OR "again." Unless you read it to
>>> indicate that Nick simply ignored the clear meaning, you must
>>> concede that Nick simply didn't understand. I know of no
>>> instance where מעל could be understood as "again." I read it
>>> under the presumption that he was not being disingenuous. While
>>> מעל may mean "above", it is clear that it cannot be confused in
>>> regard to its meaning. The entire discourse, besides making a
>>> very important point, is one which has me laughing behind my
>>> hand. I think it was supposed to be read thus.
>>>
>>> george
>>> gfsomsel
>>>
>>>
>>> … search for truth, hear truth,
>>> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
>>> defend the truth till death.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Jan Hus
>>> _________
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Dr. Don Wilkins <drdwilkins at verizon.net>
>>> To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
>>> Cc: "Daniel, Robert S" <rob.daniel at hp.com>; Carl Conrad
>>> <cwconrad2 at mac.com>; B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>>> Sent: Fri, February 5, 2010 2:26:14 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Ambiguity
>>>
>>> Not so, George! Hebew and Aramaic both have me'al (מעל), a
>>> combination of the two prepositions min ("from") and al ("on,
>>> over, above"). This is seen for example in Ex. 25:22 and Ps.
>>> 50:4, where it refers to God's domain. As far as I can tell the
>>> combo never means "again," so Nicodemus was just trying to ignore
>>> it by pointing to the absurdity (from his viewpoint) of anyone
>>> going through the birth process again, as if to say that one
>>> cannot be born again regardless of the source of birth. Reductio
>>> ad absurdum was a common element of rabbinic rhetoric. Jesus
>>> responds very properly by pointing out that Nick should know
>>> better, if that is what he is really thinking. This is because
>>> the rabbis taught that a proselyte is a brand new creature, as if
>>> he had been reborn and all of his previous relationships never
>>> happened. Of course this does not mean that Jesus and Nick could
>>> not have been speaking Greek on this occasion, but it seems
>>> unlikely, and more
>> plausible that John was simply translating what was said.
>>>
>>> Don Wilkins
>>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:36 AM, George F Somsel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not that I can think of offhand. It would thus appear that this
>>>> discourse was a composition of the early church.
>>>>
>>>> george
>>>> gfsomsel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> … search for truth, hear truth,
>>>> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
>>>> defend the truth till death.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Jan Hus
>>>> _________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: "Daniel, Robert S" <rob.daniel at hp.com>
>>>> To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; Dr. Don Wilkins
>>>> <drdwilkins at verizon.net>; Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
>>>> Cc: B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>>>> Sent: Fri, February 5, 2010 12:24:12 PM
>>>> Subject: RE: [B-Greek] Ambiguity
>>>>
>>>> Something I've wondered about this conversation for a long time
>>>> is whether we can conclude that this conversation must have
>>>> taken place in Greek -- is there an equivalent word, with the
>>>> same double meaning, as ANWQEN in either Aramaic or Hebrew?
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-
>>>> bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of George F Somsel
>>>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 12:19 PM
>>>> To: Dr. Don Wilkins; Carl Conrad
>>>> Cc: B-Greek
>>>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Ambiguity
>>>>
>>>> One of my favorite ambiguities is the discourse between Jesus
>>>> and Nicodemus in Jn 3
>>>>
>>>> 3ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν
>>>> αὐτῷ· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν
>>>> μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται
>>>> ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ
>>>> 3 APEKRIQH IHSOUS KAI EIPEN AUTWi, "AMHN, AMHN, LEGW SOI, EAN MH
>>>> TIS GENNHQHi ANWQEN, OU DUNATAI IDEIN THN BASILEIAN TOU QEOU."
>>>>
>>>> followed by Nick's response
>>>> 4λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν [ὁ]Νικόδημος·
>>>> πῶς δύναται ἄνθρωπος γεννηθῆναι
>>>> γέρων ὤν; μὴ δύναται εἰς τὴν
>>>> κοιλίαν τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ
>>>> δεύτερον εἰσελθεῖν καὶ
>>>> γεννηθῆναι;
>>>>
>>>> 4 LEGEI PROS AUTON [hO] NIKODHMOS, "PWS DUNATAI ANQRWPOS
>>>> GENNHQHNAI GERW WN? MH DUNATAI EIS THN KOILIAN THS MHTROS AUTOU
>>>> DEUTERON EISELQEIN KAI GENNHQHNAI?"
>>>>
>>>> Obviously Nick means "born again", but this has been put into
>>>> the mouth of Jesus in translations. What Jesus seems to have
>>>> intended was "born from above." This is indicated by Jesus'
>>>> response to Nick
>>>> 10ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν
>>>> αὐτῷ· σὺ εἶ ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ
>>>> Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ταῦτα οὐ γινώσκεις;
>>>> 10 APEKRIQH IHSOUS KAI EIPEN AUTWi, "SU EI hO DIDASKALOS TOU
>>>> ISRAEL KAI TAUTA OU GINWSKEIS?"
>>>>
>>>> The two are obviously talking past one another, but "born again"
>>>> has become engrained in the language of the Church.
>>>>
>>>> george
>>>> gfsomsel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> … search for truth, hear truth,
>>>> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
>>>> defend the truth till death.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Jan Hus
>>>> _________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Dr. Don Wilkins <drdwilkins at verizon.net>
>>>> To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
>>>> Cc: B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>>>> Sent: Fri, February 5, 2010 11:55:14 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Ambiguity
>>>>
>>>> No complaints from me, Carl, for what that's worth. I'm touching on
>>>> the subject of ambiguity right now with a basic Greek class at
>>>> church. We've all heard how much more precise ancient Greek is
>>>> compared to English, and while that's true on many fronts, it's
>>>> just
>>>> as important to know where the Greek is ambiguous. My favorite
>>>> nomination is the circumstantial participle. The Greeks seem to
>>>> have
>>>> been entirely comfortable with the multiple ways these participles
>>>> can be interpreted in various contexts, while in English it is
>>>> almost
>>>> automatic to avoid them and use a subordinate clause with an adverb
>>>> instead to clarify the relationship to governing verbs. Another one
>>>> that came up in my class last night was the middle/passive voice. I
>>>> was explaining the voices and how one can determine the voice from
>>>> endings, when a bright young man asked how you tell the difference
>>>> between the middle and passive in the present tense. I confessed
>>>> that
>>>> one cannot, and that one has to rely on context (marginal "Or"
>>>> notes
>>>> in many translations testify to the fact). I illustrated with the
>>>> middle/passive imperatives in James 2:16 (which can also be
>>>> parsed as
>>>> indicatives, about which I said nothing), pointing out that there,
>>>> even the context does not nail down the voices used. I also pointed
>>>> out that while the reflexive concept might be the simplest (or
>>>> simplistic) way to understand the middle voice, it is also unlikely
>>>> in most instances and one has to resort to a lexicon for a probable
>>>> meaning (I know that analysis of the middle voice is dear to your
>>>> heart, Carl). So I think it's a good idea to discuss ambiguity in
>>>> ancient Greek at the beginning of a Greek curriculum. After all,
>>>> the
>>>> reality of the situation is that all real languages were put
>>>> together
>>>> by committees consisting of entire peoples and nations, and it's no
>>>> wonder that they all have shortcomings.
>>>>
>>>> Don Wilkins
>>>> S.I.R. The Lockman Foundation
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 5:37 AM, Carl Conrad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Mark Lightman wrote:
>>>>>> For what it is worth, Todays Greek Version renders the first
>>>>>> hHNIKA with οποτε hOPOTE and the second hHNIKA with
>>>>>> οταν hOTAN. The ABE Modern Greek gives οσακις hOSAKIS
>>>>>> for the first, and for the second it gives
>>>>>> μολις (which in Modern Greek means something like
>>>>>> "as soon as") All temporal expressions, though
>>>>>> maybe as Carl said, "temporal/generalizing."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Modern Greek has no more authority than any other
>>>>>> translation, but I mention it only to remind everyone that
>>>>>> Ancient Greek is a more ambiguous language than even
>>>>>> Modern Greek.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Donald is correct that while one CAN go
>>>>>> see the conditional and or causal force of the
>>>>>> hHNIKA's here, one should not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Mark's statement about the ambiguity of ancient Greek is
>>>>> right on target. I do believe that there are quite a few texts,
>>>>> the
>>>>> meaning of the Greek text which is essentially unmistakable. I
>>>>> think, however, that there are several that are open to
>>>>> alternative
>>>>> interpretations whereof one or more is/are more probable than
>>>>> othres -- and I rather think that there are more passages than we
>>>>> readily
>>>>> admit that do not provide clear grounds for determining which
>>>>> sense is preferable (my apologies to any who find my opinion
>>>>> offensive). I think too that we often ask questions about
>>>>> what's in an author's mind that go beyond anything that s/he has
>>>>> clearly stated. This is not, of course, just a matter of ancient
>>>>> Greek;
>>>>> it's true, I believe, of all communication: making oneself
>>>>> clear is
>>>>> an enterprise that we sometimes succeed at and sometimes don't.
>>>>> It does demand an effort -- if we really care to be understood.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carl W. Conrad
>>>>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>>>>> B-Greek mailing list
>>>>> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>>>> B-Greek mailing list
>>>> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>>>> B-Greek mailing list
>>>> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list