Page 1 of 1
John 7:52 ἐγείρεται
Posted: June 26th, 2012, 9:58 pm
by Stephen Carlson
John 7:52 wrote:ἀπεκρίθησαν καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ · μὴ καὶ σὺ ἐκ τῆς Γαλαλαίας εἶ;
ἐραύνησον καὶ ἴδε ὅτι ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας προφήτης οὐκ ἐγείρεται.
Most translations take ἐγείρεται in the last clause as gnomic: "no prophet arises from Galilee."
The NRSV, however, takes it as futuristic: "no prophet is to arise from Galilee."
Which should be preferred and why?
Re: John 7:52 ἐγείρεται
Posted: June 27th, 2012, 2:14 am
by George F Somsel
For whatever value you wish to assign to it, Westcott wrote:
ariseth (ἐγίρεται, not ἐγήγερται)] The reference appears to be not so much to the past as to the future. Galilee is not the true country of the prophets; we cannot look then for Messiah to come thence. The words have that semblance of general truth which makes them quite natural in this connexion, though Jonah, Hoshea, Nahum, and perhaps Elijah, Elisha and Amos were of Galilee. Thus it was said by R. Jehuda in the name of Rab that “the law was maintained by the dwellers in Judæa” (‘Eruv.’ 53, as quoted by Wünsche). Comp. Neubauer, ‘La Geogr. du Talmud,’ pp. 183 f.
The Gospel According to St. John Introduction and Notes on the Authorized Version. Edited by Westcott, Brooke Foss and Arthur Westcott. Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament. London: J. Murray, 1908.
Re: John 7:52 ἐγείρεται
Posted: June 27th, 2012, 9:27 am
by Barry Hofstetter
Actually, I don't think the NRSV is intended to be particularly futuristic. I think it's trying to capture the force of ἐγείρεται, to the effect that Galilee is just not a place from which prophets come.
Re: John 7:52 ἐγείρεται
Posted: June 28th, 2012, 4:13 pm
by Stephen Carlson
Barry Hofstetter wrote:Actually, I don't think the NRSV is intended to be particularly futuristic. I think it's trying to capture the force of ἐγείρεται, to the effect that Galilee is just not a place from which prophets come.
I've always thought the BE TO infinivitve construction denotes futurity, and that's what the grammars seem to confirm too. For example:
Quirk et al. p. 143 wrote:BE to is an idiom expressing futurity, with varied connotations of 'complusion', 'plan', 'destiny', etc., according to context.
I can see how the NRSV's rendering may be evoking a notion of "destiny." Still, I think they are taking a different interpretation of ἐγείρεται than the other translations.