[B-Greek] John 3:3-4

George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 5 21:49:37 EST 2010


I wouldn't quite go that far -- I don't intend to let them tie me to a stake.
 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 7:36:37 PM
Subject: Re: John 3:3-4

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