Page 1 of 1
Joh 13:35 literal rendering...
Posted: June 15th, 2014, 10:14 pm
by Peter Streitenberger
Dear friends,
the Syntax in John 13.35 reads as following:
Ἐν τούτῳ γνώσονται πάντες ὅτι ἐμοὶ μαθηταί ἐστε, ἐὰν ἀγάπην ἔχητε ἐν ἀλλήλοις.
What puzzles me is the ἐμοὶ μαθηταί ἐστε, which I normally would understand as "That I have you as disciples" not as usually "that you are my disciples", which would require a Genitive for the Posessiv Pronoun (e.g. as in ἀληθῶς μαθηταί μού ἐστε - John 8,31). Dativ + EIMI is normally an expression of Possession, e.g. I have a dog (in Greek "A dog is me").
So is this a statment about the disciples: you're my disciples OR a Statement of what Jesus owns: "I have you as disciples".
A similar construction is found at Sirach 33,31 εἰ ἔστιν σοι οἰκέτης (If you have a slave). Or does the different word order mark the difference?
Thank you for any help !
Yours
Peter
Re: Joh 13,35 literal rendering...
Posted: June 15th, 2014, 10:46 pm
by timothy_p_mcmahon
Might we understand εμοι as the nominative plural of εμος rather than the dative pronoun?
Re: Joh 13,35 literal rendering...
Posted: June 16th, 2014, 5:46 am
by Barry Hofstetter
timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:Might we understand εμοι as the nominative plural of εμος rather than the dative pronoun?
Very little doubt that it is, and so it is accented ἐμοί rather than έμοῖ.
Re: Joh 13,35 literal rendering...
Posted: June 16th, 2014, 6:27 am
by Peter Streitenberger
Thanks, you both, that would be the smartest solution - but then I'm puzzled by the different Greek version of my Computerprogram, all having Dativ. Masc.Singular.
Only the Friberg edition has then the more plausible Mask. 1. Person Plural Nominative - translating this form the common way were no problem, right?
Thanks for a short reply then the issue is solved !
Yours
Peter
Re: Joh 13,35 literal rendering...
Posted: June 16th, 2014, 10:06 am
by cwconrad
Peter Streitenberger wrote:Thanks, you both, that would be the smartest solution - but then I'm puzzled by the different Greek version of my Computerprogram, all having Dativ. Masc.Singular.
Only the Friberg edition has then the more plausible Mask. 1. Person Plural Nominative - translating this form the common way were no problem, right?
Thanks for a short reply then the issue is solved !
Yours
Peter
Peter, you have discovered a significant fact (which I suspect you already knew): computer parsers are never a substitute for discerning the alternative possibilities and recognizing the right one from context.
ἐμοί / ἐμέ - idiolectic usage
Posted: June 16th, 2014, 1:26 pm
by Stephen Hughes
cwconrad wrote:discerning the alternative possibilities and recognizing the right one from context.
Does anyone have that data collated?
From looking through, there seem to be no examples of ἐμέ as vocative and these three seem to be the only examples where a nominative plural masculine is possible
John 13:35 wrote:Ἐν τούτῳ γνώσονται πάντες ὅτι ἐμοὶ μαθηταί ἐστε, ἐὰν ἀγάπην ἔχητε ἐν ἀλλήλοις.
John 15:8 wrote:Ἐν τούτῳ ἐδοξάσθη ὁ πατήρ μου, ἵνα καρπὸν πολὺν φέρητε· καὶ γενήσεσθε ἐμοὶ μαθηταί.
John 18:36 wrote:Ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς, Ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου· εἰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἦν ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμή, οἱ ὑπηρέται ἂν οἱ ἐμοὶ ἠγωνίζοντο, ἵνα μὴ παραδοθῶ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις· νῦν δὲ ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐντεῦθεν.
However, this verse (from Romans - the context of a different user of the language) perhaps brings into question all but John 18:36
Romans 7:13 wrote:Τὸ οὖν ἀγαθὸν ἐμοὶ γέγονεν θάνατος; Μὴ γένοιτο. Ἀλλὰ ἡ ἁμαρτία, ἵνα φανῇ ἁμαρτία, διὰ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ μοι κατεργαζομένη θάνατον — ἵνα γένηται καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν ἁμαρτωλὸς ἡ ἁμαρτία διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς.
But I think that we are dealing with individual speakers idiom at this level.
Just for completeness sake, it could be noted that the following verse, although similar, is of a different syntactic pattern with the an infinitive.
Galatians 6:14 wrote:Ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο καυχᾶσθαι εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ· δι’ οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται, κἀγὼ τῷ κόσμῳ.
Re: Joh 13,35 literal rendering...
Posted: June 16th, 2014, 2:47 pm
by Jonathan Robie
cwconrad wrote:Peter, you have discovered a significant fact (which I suspect you already knew): computer parsers are never a substitute for discerning the alternative possibilities and recognizing the right one from context.
Absolutely.
But any good morphology involves the interpretation of human beings, correcting any interpretation the computer did. Friberg gets this right, so do MorphGNT and biblicalhumanities.org. I assume Logos and Accordance do too?
Of course, there's another problem: most morphologies and syntax trees only provide one interpretation, the one that the interpreter found most likely.
Re: Joh 13,35 literal rendering...
Posted: June 17th, 2014, 3:32 pm
by Barry Hofstetter
Wow, talk about a newb mistake. ἐμοί is the correct accentuation for the emphatic form of the dative pronoun and the nominative plural of ἐμός. The circumflex is used with the genitive of the emphatic, ἐμοῦ... So much for my reputation for absolute infallibility.... hahahaha, I crack myself up!
Re: Joh 13:35 literal rendering...
Posted: June 19th, 2014, 9:36 am
by Peter Streitenberger
Thanks to you all, friends - I think, I've learned my lesson: πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε!
Yours
Peter, Germany