From: Bob Wilkin (ges@faithalone.org)
Date: Mon Feb 28 2000 - 16:31:47 EST
<x-charset iso-8859-1>Ward asked about John 8:30-32ff.
Yes, your view is indeed defensible from the Greek text. I would say it is
the only feasible view if one compares 8:30, 31 with 8:45. Unless John is an
inept writer the group referred to in verses 30-32 is clearly different that
the one in verses 33ff.
According to John 3:16 ALL who believe in Him (PAS HO PISTEUWN EIS AUTON)
have everlasting life.
It is interesting that you mention this question, since it was one of my
questions on my doctoral exams at Dallas Theological Seminary.
Bob Wilkin
ges@faithalone.org
> I have been having second thoughts about John 8:30-59E. In verses 30-33,
> John tells us that "while he was saying these things, many believed in
him"
> (EPISTEUSAN EIS AUTON). So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him
> (PROS TOUS PEPISTEUKOTAS AUTWi IOUDAIOUS), 'If you continue in my word,
> truly you are my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth
will
> make you free.' They answered him (APEKRIQHSAN PROS AUTON), 'Seed of
> Abraham we are ...'" Etc.
>
> Now, it is commonly held by commentators that the Jews of verse 31, who
are
> said in this verse to have believed in him, had only a superficial belief,
> and so in verse 32 Jesus is telling them that to be true, genuine
disciples
> (MAQHTAI) they need to keep going (EAN hUMEIS MEINHTE ...) - they aren't
> there yet. But (from verse 33 onwards) they start dissenting from his
> comments and then strongly disagreeing with him, wanting to kill him,
> accusing him of demon possession, and finally taking up stones to stone
him.
>
> And all through this passage John is referring to the same group of
people.
> That is, he describes these same people as "the Jews who had believed in
> him" (verse 31), as being those who are seeking to kill him (verse 40), as
> children of the devil (verse 44), and as not belonging to God (verse 47;
> these latter three in the accusations of Jesus), while they for their part
> accuse Jesus of being a Samaritan and demon-possessed (verses 48, 52), and
> they pick up stones to stone him (verse 59).
>
> Then the point is often drawn from this passage that intellectual belief
is
> not enough, heart commitment to Jesus is required of a disciple, and so
> forth. A parallel may be drawn with Judas - one of the inner group, and
yet
> he betrayed Jesus.
>
> Now, is this really a valid understanding of this passage? My examination
of
> the Greek makes me wonder whether a different meaning is intended.
>
> First, the word PISTEUW in John. Are we to understand that those in vese
30
> who EPISTEUSAN EIS AUTON are identical with those in the very next verse
> whom Jesus addresses, PROS TOUS PEPISTEUKOTAS AUTWi IOUDAIOUS? That is,
can
> we accept that PISTEUW followed by EIS plus the accusative is the same in
> meaning as PISTEUW followed by the dative? I would accept this, and also
in
> context I take it that in verse 31 Jesus is addressing the same people who
> in verse 30 are said to have come to believe in him. Are you with me in
this?
>
> Next, can we accept that John is here using PISTEUW of a mere intellectual
> assent, so that these very same people who are said to have EPISTEUSAN in
> him go on to call him demon-possessed and take up stones against him, and
> it is of them that Jesus says they are of their father the devil (verse
44)
> and do not belong to God (verse 47)?
>
> I have a real problem with this. John has said that to believe in Jesus is
> to have life eternal and to be not condemned, whereas those who are
> condemned are condemned already precisely because they have NOT believed
> (John 3:15-18). My problem is that I cannot see the John who said this
> (chapter 3) going on a little later (chapter 8) to use PISTEUW of those
who
> are described as children of the devil and who do not belong to God but
> seek to stone Jesus.
>
> So I see John 8 in these terms:
>
> 1. Jesus is speaking in the temple area (verse 20) to a crowd of people
> some of whom quite clearly do not accept him (cf. verses 13, 22) - who, he
> says, will die in their sins (vese 24).
>
> 2. But many (POLLOI) amongst this group of hearers DO believe in him, in
> the usual sense of PISTEUW in John (verse 30).
>
> 3. Jesus addresses this group of people, TOUS PEPISTEUKOTAS AUTWi
IOUDAIOUS
> - that is, the ones who have just been said to have believed in him - but
> in the comnpany of the larger group which still surrounds him. So the
> members of that crowd who have NOT "believed in him" are present still to
> hear what he says.
>
> 4. Thus it is these other people (and not those described as having become
> believers) who answer Jesus (verse 33) with their indignant dissent, and
> with whom the escalating argument continues.
>
> 5. Thus I would take it that the subject of APEKRIQHSAN (verse 33) is NOT
> the previously-referred-to "believing Jews", but a generalized "they",
> i.e., "people in general"; in context here, others in the crowd which the
> context indicates was still present.
>
> Is my understanding of John 8 permitted by the Greek text? Is it indicated
> by the Greek text? Can we adduce other examples of where John uses a
plural
> verb without a specific external subject, and its subject is "some
people",
> "people in general"?
>
> Or is this just the best example you have met this week of prime
eisegesis?
>
> Comments invited.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ward
>
>
> http://www.eagles.bbs.net.au/~bwpowers
> Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-9799-7501
> 10 Grosvenor Crescent Phone (Australia): (02) 9799-7501
> SUMMER HILL NSW 2130 email: bwpowers@eagles.bbs.net.au
> AUSTRALIA. Director, Tyndale College
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Titus 1:6 PISTA
> From: "Kevin Smith" <kgs@iafrica.com>
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 14:46:24 +0200
> X-Message-Number: 2
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01BF8131.6B2F3620
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Mark
>
> I am a complete novice in the context of this forum. However, I am =
> currently working on a doctoral thesis entitled Bible Translation and =
> Relevance Theory: The Translation of Titus. Here are my thoughts about =
> TEKNA ECWN PISTA as they currently stand.=20
> =20
> The commentator you cite is correct that the NT never uses PISTOS =
> (faithful) to describe anyone whom the context clearly designates as an =
> unbeliever. But I'm not sure this is the real issue in Titus 1:6. The =
> author might well be working on the assumption that the children of =
> potential elders will be believers. Thus PISTOS would mean 'faithful' =
> since 'believing' is taken for granted. I have yet to verify this =
> completely (perhaps someone on the list can confirm or refute it), but =
> it seems that (a) most of the early church's elders were household =
> patrons [see Anchor Bible Dictionary, "Family: New Testament"], and (b) =
> the head of a household determined the household's religion [see Derek =
> Tidball, The Social Context of the New Testament, 81].=20
>
> Grammatically, either 'believing children' or 'faithful children' are =
> possible. PISTOS is used in the Pastoral Epistles (PE) in both active =
> and passive senses. Knight (1992:289-90) says this:
> The context here and the parallel passage in 1 Tim 3:4-5, however, =
> provide some important indicators: The qualifying statement here, "not =
> accused of dissipation or rebellion," emphasizes behavior and seems to =
> explain what it means for TEKNA to be PISTA. Likewise, 1 Tim 3:4 speaks =
> of an overseer "keeping his children under control with all dignity." In =
> both cases the overseer is evaluated on the basis of his control of his =
> children and their conduct. It is likely, therefore, that TEKNA ECWN =
> PISTA here is virtually equivalent to TEKNA ECONTA EN hUPOTAGHi in 1 Tim =
> 3:4. If that is so, then PISTA here means "faithful" in the sense of =
> "submissive" or "obedient."
> Since elders' children would have been believers anyway (at least =
> nominally so), there would be little point in specifying that they must =
> be believers. Conversely, there is merit in requiring that they be =
> faithful as believers.
>
> In Christ
> Kevin Smith
> South Africa
> kgs@iafrica.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: Mark Markham <markhamm@topsurf.com>
> To: Biblical Greek <b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Cc: b-greek <b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 10:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Titus 1:6 PISTA
>
>
> > Clay:
> >=20
> > I agree with your observations:
> >=20
> > > There is a kind of circularity of argument that crops up all the =
> time in
> > > discussions of lexical semantics. The argument runs, signifier X =
> never
> > > points to signified Y in corpus Z, therefor this instance of =
> signifier X
> > > which is in corpus Z cannot point to signified Y.
> >=20
> > I guess my question is one of preponderance of evidence. Do the NT =
> writers
> > (esp. Paul) seem to limit the use of this word to believers only? =
> Would this
> > be the linguistic exception?
> >=20
> > Secondly, the use of PISTA in a verbal fashion seems to mean believing =
> as
> > the more modern translations bear out. Are there any clues in the =
> context
> > that I have missed? Also what would the object of the belief be? Or =
> are no
> > answers to be found?
> >=20
> > Grace,
> >=20
> > Mark Markham
> > Heidelberg, Germany
> >=20
> >=20
> > ---
> > B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
> > You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: kgs@iafrica.com
> > To unsubscribe, forward this message to =
> leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
> > To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
> >=20
> >=20
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01BF8131.6B2F3620
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
> http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Mark</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>I am a complete novice in the context of this forum. =
> However,=20
> I am currently working on a doctoral thesis entitled <EM>Bible =
> Translation and=20
> Relevance Theory: The Translation of Titus</EM>. Here are my thoughts =
> about=20
> TEKNA ECWN PISTA as they currently stand. </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>The commentator you cite is correct that the NT =
> never uses=20
> PISTOS (faithful) to describe anyone whom the context clearly designates =
> as an=20
> unbeliever. But I'm not sure this is the real issue in Titus 1:6. The =
> author=20
> might well be working on the assumption that the children of potential =
> elders=20
> will be believers. Thus PISTOS would mean 'faithful' since 'believing' =
> is taken=20
> for granted. I have yet to verify this completely (perhaps someone on =
> the list=20
> can confirm or refute it), but it seems that (a) most of the early =
> church's=20
> elders were household patrons [see <EM>Anchor Bible Dictionary</EM>, =
> "Family:=20
> New Testament"], and (b) the head of a household determined the =
> household's=20
> religion [see Derek Tidball, <EM>The Social Context of the New =
> Testament</EM>,=20
> 81]. </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Grammatically, either 'believing children' or =
> 'faithful=20
> children' are possible. PISTOS is used in the Pastoral Epistles (PE) in =
> both=20
> active and passive senses. Knight (1992:289-90) says this:</FONT></DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>The context here and the parallel passage in 1 Tim =
> 3:4-5,=20
> however, provide some important indicators: The qualifying statement =
> here,=20
> "not accused of dissipation or rebellion," emphasizes behavior and =
> seems to=20
> explain what it means for TEKNA to be PISTA. Likewise, 1 Tim 3:4 =
> speaks of an=20
> overseer "keeping his children under control with all dignity." In =
> both cases=20
> the overseer is evaluated on the basis of his control of his children =
> and=20
> their conduct. It is likely, therefore, that TEKNA ECWN PISTA here is=20
> virtually equivalent to TEKNA ECONTA EN hUPOTAGHi in 1 Tim 3:4. If =
> that is so,=20
> then PISTA here means "faithful" in the sense of "submissive" or=20
> "obedient."</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Since elders' children would have been believers =
> anyway (at=20
> least nominally so), there would be little point in specifying that they =
>
> <EM>must be believers</EM>. Conversely, there is merit in requiring that =
> they be=20
> faithful as believers.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>In Christ</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Kevin Smith</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>South Africa</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2><A=20
> href=3D"mailto:kgs@iafrica.com">kgs@iafrica.com</A></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>From: Mark Markham <<A=20
> href=3D"mailto:markhamm@topsurf.com">markhamm@topsurf.com</A>></FONT><=
> /DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>To: Biblical Greek <<A=20
> href=3D"mailto:b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu">b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu=
> </A>></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Cc: b-greek <<A=20
> href=3D"mailto:b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu">b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu=
> </A>></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 10:56 =
> PM</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Subject: Re: Titus 1:6 PISTA</FONT></DIV></DIV>
> <DIV><BR></DIV><FONT size=3D2>> Clay:<BR>> <BR>> I agree with =
> your=20
> observations:<BR>> <BR>> > There is a kind of circularity of =
> argument=20
> that crops up all the time in<BR>> > discussions of lexical =
> semantics. The=20
> argument runs, signifier X never<BR>> > points to signified Y in =
> corpus Z,=20
> therefor this instance of signifier X<BR>> > which is in corpus Z =
> cannot=20
> point to signified Y.<BR>> <BR>> I guess my question is one of=20
> preponderance of evidence. Do the NT writers<BR>> (esp. Paul) seem to =
> limit=20
> the use of this word to believers only? Would this<BR>> be the =
> linguistic=20
> exception?<BR>> <BR>> Secondly, the use of PISTA in a verbal =
> fashion seems=20
> to mean believing as<BR>> the more modern translations bear out. Are =
> there=20
> any clues in the context<BR>> that I have missed? Also what would the =
> object=20
> of the belief be? Or are no<BR>> answers to be found?<BR>> =
> <BR>>=20
> Grace,<BR>> <BR>> Mark Markham<BR>> Heidelberg, Germany<BR>> =
>
> <BR>> <BR>> ---<BR>> B-Greek home page: <A=20
> href=3D"http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek">http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek><=
> BR>>=20
> You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [<A=20
> href=3D"mailto:kgs@iafrica.com">kgs@iafrica.com</A>]<BR>> To =
> unsubscribe,=20
> forward this message to <A=20
> href=3D"mailto:leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu">leave-b-greek-9=
> 3483T@franklin.oit.unc.edu</A><BR>>=20
> To subscribe, send a message to <A=20
> href=3D"mailto:subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu">subscribe-b-greek@=
> franklin.oit.unc.edu</A><BR>>=20
> <BR>> </FONT></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01BF8131.6B2F3620--
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: John 8: Who are they?
> From: "Jason Hare" <parousia_occ@yahoo.com>
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 11:36:53
> X-Message-Number: 3
>
> Most grammarians will tell you that when a pronoun is used you should look
> for the closest antecedent. In this case it would require that the
> PEPISTEUKOTAS Jews is that antecedent and therefore the subject of
> APEKRIQHSAN. As to the idea of "general reply." I don't know, but don't
> think so. Probably the best way to take it is as the commentators have.
> ;-)
>
> «Or is this just the best example you have met this week of prime
> eisegesis?»
>
> Don't worry, you haven't yet stolen my job!!
>
> See ya',
>
> Jason Hare
> Ozark Christian College
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: John 8: Who are they?
> From: Mike Sangrey <mike@sojurn.lns.pa.us>
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 16:07:39 -0500
> X-Message-Number: 4
>
>
> Ward Powers <bwpowers@eagles.com.au> said:
> > Then the point is often drawn from this passage that intellectual
> > belief is not enough, heart commitment to Jesus is required of a
> > disciple, and so forth. A parallel may be drawn with Judas - one of
> > the inner group, and yet he betrayed Jesus.
>
> > Now, is this really a valid understanding of this passage? My
> > examination of the Greek makes me wonder whether a different meaning
> > is intended.
>
> Ward Powers is questioning how John can say on the one hand the Jews
> believe in Jesus and then show what is apparently such clear evidence
> of not believing.
>
> I think John is using this stark contrast to thrust before us a much
> more important point. One that Ward, IMO, has almost accurately
> grasped, but not quite.
>
> I believe John 8:30-59 is part of a larger discourse, namely John
> 6:1-8:59 (Joe "Mr. Discourse" Friberg: please jump in here at any
> point :-). Note that after Jesus performs the miracle of feeding the
> five thousand, people follow Him. He tells them to believe on Him
> and their response is to ask for another sign. Why? The argument
> which Jesus lays before them is very instructive. He essentially
> says that believing is a spiritual thing and you are trying to do it
> by the flesh. In 6:63 we have
>
> TO PNEUMA ESTIN TO ZWOPOIOUN, hH SARX OUK WFELEI OUDEN
>
> "the spirit is that which makes alive, the flesh doesn't
> accomplish anything"
>
> So, the problem is not between intellectual versus heart belief.
> It is, if you'll allow the word picture, between spirit-generated
> and flesh-generated belief.
>
> Now, just to expose my assumption, my understanding of SARX is that it
> is the embodiment of those physical impulses which motivate our natural
> desires (illustrated in the text by the people wanting fed). These
> natural desires are a God given thing, not evil in and of themselves.
> However, the flesh is to be subjugated to the regenerated spirit.
>
> Note verse 6:65
>
> KAI ELEGEN, DIA TOUTO EIRHKA hUMIN hOTI OUDEIS DUNATAI ELQEIN
> PROS ME EAN MH H DEDOMENON AUTW EK TOU PATROS
>
> "He went on to say, 'this is the reason I said to you that
> no one can come to me unless the giving to me would be from
> the Father.'"
>
> Therefore, Jesus is stressing a person's complete reliance on God.
> There are strong hints of this throughout 6:25-40. I should hardly
> call them 'hints'.
>
> In John 8:31-58, I think John is again stressing the spiritual over
> the fleshly. Notice the different ways the two "actors" (Jesus and
> the group of Jews) are using the word 'Abraham'. So, I think here
> in John 8, John is saying essentially the same thing he did in John 6.
> Belief is a spiritual thing, not something one achieves by human
> effort. Notice also, John 8:47:
>
> hO WN EK TOU QEOU TA hRHMATA TOU QEOU AKOUEI; DIA TOUTO hUMEIS
> OUK AKOUETE, hOTI EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTE
>
> "those who are from God [ie. those given to me] hear the word
> of God; this is the reason you do not hear, you aren't [given]
> from God."
>
> Isn't this a parallel to 6:65?
>
> I haven't said as much as I would like to and perhaps parts of
> what I've said are still unclear. I'll gladly clarify, but I do
> encourage you to read (and reread) the entire discourse--6:1-8:59.
> The theological implications of what I've said are close at hand,
> but I'll leave them to private email, if anyone wishes to pick them
> up and handle them. (I'm not baiting anyone, just redirecting.)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: John 8: Who are they?
> From: CEP7@aol.com
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 16:32:53 EST
> X-Message-Number: 5
>
> I think your on the right track, although this particular problem is not
> resolved by the Greek in and of itself, while generally it is true that
the
> nearest grammatical antecedent is usually the antecedent ofd the pronoun,
> discourse analysis may provide a better solution. One of the features of
> John's discourses is that Jesus' enemies are always the ones who respond
to
> Him. This particular feature may take precedence over the grammatical
> solution.
>
> Charles Powell
> DTS
>
> In a message dated 2/27/2000 4:56:29 AM, bwpowers@eagles.com.au writes:
>
> << I have been having second thoughts about John 8:30-59E. In verses
30-33,
> John tells us that "while he was saying these things, many believed in
him"
> (EPISTEUSAN EIS AUTON). So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him
> (PROS TOUS PEPISTEUKOTAS AUTWi IOUDAIOUS), 'If you continue in my word,
> truly you are my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth
will
> make you free.' They answered him (APEKRIQHSAN PROS AUTON), 'Seed of
> Abraham we are ...'" Etc.
>
> Now, it is commonly held by commentators that the Jews of verse 31, who
are
> said in this verse to have believed in him, had only a superficial belief,
> and so in verse 32 Jesus is telling them that to be true, genuine
disciples
> (MAQHTAI) they need to keep going (EAN hUMEIS MEINHTE ...) - they aren't
> there yet. But (from verse 33 onwards) they start dissenting from his
> comments and then strongly disagreeing with him, wanting to kill him,
> accusing him of demon possession, and finally taking up stones to stone
him.
>
> And all through this passage John is referring to the same group of
people.
> That is, he describes these same people as "the Jews who had believed in
> him" (verse 31), as being those who are seeking to kill him (verse 40), as
> children of the devil (verse 44), and as not belonging to God (verse 47;
> these latter three in the accusations of Jesus), while they for their part
> accuse Jesus of being a Samaritan and demon-possessed (verses 48, 52), and
> they pick up stones to stone him (verse 59).
>
> Then the point is often drawn from this passage that intellectual belief
is
> not enough, heart commitment to Jesus is required of a disciple, and so
> forth. A parallel may be drawn with Judas - one of the inner group, and
yet
> he betrayed Jesus.
>
> Now, is this really a valid understanding of this passage? My examination
of
> the Greek makes me wonder whether a different meaning is intended.
>
> First, the word PISTEUW in John. Are we to understand that those in vese
30
> who EPISTEUSAN EIS AUTON are identical with those in the very next verse
> whom Jesus addresses, PROS TOUS PEPISTEUKOTAS AUTWi IOUDAIOUS? That is,
can
> we accept that PISTEUW followed by EIS plus the accusative is the same in
> meaning as PISTEUW followed by the dative? I would accept this, and also
in
> context I take it that in verse 31 Jesus is addressing the same people who
> in verse 30 are said to have come to believe in him. Are you with me in
this?
>
> Next, can we accept that John is here using PISTEUW of a mere intellectual
> assent, so that these very same people who are said to have EPISTEUSAN in
> him go on to call him demon-possessed and take up stones against him, and
> it is of them that Jesus says they are of their father the devil (verse
44)
> and do not belong to God (verse 47)?
>
> I have a real problem with this. John has said that to believe in Jesus is
> to have life eternal and to be not condemned, whereas those who are
> condemned are condemned already precisely because they have NOT believed
> (John 3:15-18). My problem is that I cannot see the John who said this
> (chapter 3) going on a little later (chapter 8) to use PISTEUW of those
who
> are described as children of the devil and who do not belong to God but
> seek to stone Jesus.
>
> So I see John 8 in these terms:
>
> 1. Jesus is speaking in the temple area (verse 20) to a crowd of people
> some of whom quite clearly do not accept him (cf. verses 13, 22) - who, he
> says, will die in their sins (vese 24).
>
> 2. But many (POLLOI) amongst this group of hearers DO believe in him, in
> the usual sense of PISTEUW in John (verse 30).
>
> 3. Jesus addresses this group of people, TOUS PEPISTEUKOTAS AUTWi
IOUDAIOUS
> - that is, the ones who have just been said to have believed in him - but
> in the comnpany of the larger group which still surrounds him. So the
> members of that crowd who have NOT "believed in him" are present still to
> hear what he says.
>
> 4. Thus it is these other people (and not those described as having become
> believers) who answer Jesus (verse 33) with their indignant dissent, and
> with whom the escalating argument continues.
>
> 5. Thus I would take it that the subject of APEKRIQHSAN (verse 33) is NOT
> the previously-referred-to "believing Jews", but a generalized "they",
> i.e., "people in general"; in context here, others in the crowd which the
> context indicates was still present.
>
> Is my understanding of John 8 permitted by the Greek text? Is it indicated
> by the Greek text? Can we adduce other examples of where John uses a
plural
> verb without a specific external subject, and its subject is "some
people",
> "people in general"?
>
> Or is this just the best example you have met this week of prime
eisegesis? >>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: John 8: Who are they?
> From: Polycarp66@aol.com
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:17:43 EST
> X-Message-Number: 6
>
> In a message dated 2/27/2000 5:57:20 AM Central Daylight Time,
> bwpowers@eagles.com.au writes:
>
> <<
> Now, it is commonly held by commentators that the Jews of verse 31, who
are
> said in this verse to have believed in him, had only a superficial
belief,
> and so in verse 32 Jesus is telling them that to be true, genuine
disciples
> (MAQHTAI) they need to keep going (EAN hUMEIS MEINHTE ...) - they aren't
> there yet. But (from verse 33 onwards) they start dissenting from his
> comments and then strongly disagreeing with him, wanting to kill him,
> accusing him of demon possession, and finally taking up stones to stone
him.
> >>
>
> I would think that it is necessary to go all the way back to 7.40-44 to
pick
> up the thread. There are two groups envisioned there. This creates a
> problem of reference for the pronouns. Sometimes one group is addressed
and
> sometimes the other. A small part of the problem is the interpolation of
the
> story of the woman taken in adultery. The impression is given that Jesus'
> opposition departs at that point. Once the interpolation is removed, there
> are still the two groups (less the temple police) -- those who believe in
him
> and those who don't. Unfortunately there is no "them (1)" and "them (2)."
> It is simply necessary to realize that the author has set up two groups
which
> are being spoken to somewhat alternately. The only way to distinguish
which
> group is being addressed is by the content and tone of the speech.
>
> gfsomsel
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Baptism of Jesus -- rival claims
> From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" <mauros@iol.ie>
> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:18:36 +0000
> X-Message-Number: 7
>
> In today's edition of Ha'aretz, there is a story about rival claims for
the
> place at which Jesus was baptised.
> The story [ at:
>
http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/scripts/article.asp?mador=5&datee=02/27/00&id=
70396
> includes this passage:
>
> Furthermore, on the opposite bank of
> the Jordan from Qasr al-Yahud, the Jordanians
> have been developing their own sacred baptism
> site. At a place known as Wadi Harar,
> approximately two kilometers east of the river, the
> remnants of an ancient church have been found.
> Jordanian tourism officials based themselves on a
> verse from the New Testament: "All this happened
> at the home of a poor woman on the other side of
> the Jordan, at the place where John the Baptist
> was." According to this verse, John the Baptist
> was east of the Jordan, and the Jordanian tourism
> minister managed to convince the pope to visit
> there.
>
> Anybody have a notion what verse the Jordanians are relying on?
>
> Maurice
> Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]
> mauros@iol.ie
>
> [ subscribed to MSN Messenger
> o_sullivanmauric@hotmail.com ]
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Baptism of Jesus -- rival claims
> From: Polycarp66@aol.com
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 19:38:39 EST
> X-Message-Number: 8
>
> In a message dated 2/27/2000 7:16:52 PM Central Daylight Time,
mauros@iol.ie=
> =20
> writes:
>
> <<=20
> Furthermore, on the opposite bank of
> the Jordan from Qasr al-Yahud, the Jordanians
> have been developing their own sacred baptism
> site. At a place known as Wadi Harar,
> approximately two kilometers east of the river, the
> remnants of an ancient church have been found.
> Jordanian tourism officials based themselves on a
> verse from the New Testament: "All this happened
> at the home of a poor woman on the other side of
> the Jordan, at the place where John the Baptist
> was." According to this verse, John the Baptist
> was east of the Jordan, and the Jordanian tourism
> minister managed to convince the pope to visit
> there.
> =20
> Anybody have a notion what verse the Jordanians are relying on?
> >>
>
> How about John 1?
>
> 24 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 25 They asked him,
=E2=80=9CT=
> hen why=20
> are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the=20
> prophet?=E2=80=9D 26 John answered them, =E2=80=9CI baptize with water;
but=20=
> among you stands=20
> one whom you do not know, 27 even he who comes after me, the thong of
whose=20
> sandal I am not worthy to untie.=E2=80=9D=20
>
> 28 This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was
baptizing.=20
>
> 29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said,
=E2=80=9CBehold,=20=
> the Lamb=20
> of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I
said,=20
> =E2=80=98After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before
me.=E2=
> =80=99 31 I=20
> myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that
he=20
> might be revealed to Israel.=E2=80=9D 32 And John bore witness, =E2=80=9CI
s=
> aw the Spirit=20
> descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did
not=20
> know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, =E2=80=98He
o=
> n whom=20
> you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the
Holy=
> =20
> Spirit.=E2=80=99 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is
the=20=
> Son of=20
> God.=E2=80=9D
> 35 The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples; 36 and
h=
> e=20
> looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, =E2=80=9CBehold, the Lamb of God!=
> =E2=80=9D 37 The=20
> two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. 38 Jesus
turned,=20
> and saw them following, and said to them, =E2=80=9CWhat do you
seek?=E2=80=
> =9D And they said=20
> to him, =E2=80=9CRabbi=E2=80=9D (which means Teacher), =E2=80=9Cwhere are
yo=
> u staying?=E2=80=9D 39 He said=20
> to them, =E2=80=9CCome and see.=E2=80=9D They came and saw where he was
stay=
> ing; and they=20
> stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. 40 One of the
two=
> =20
> who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter=E2=80=99s
br=
> other. 41=20
> He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, =E2=80=9CWe have found
th=
> e=20
> Messiah=E2=80=9D (which means Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus
loo=
> ked at=20
> him, and said, =E2=80=9CSo you are Simon the son of John? You shall be
calle=
> d=20
> Cephas=E2=80=9D (which means Peter).=20
>
> gsomsel
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Baptism of Jesus -- rival claims
> From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@speedgate.net>
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:52:14 -0600
> X-Message-Number: 9
>
> Maurice A. O'Sullivan wrote;
>
> I have no idea where such a verse is found, but some have some have
> identified SALIM in Jn 3:23 with a site east of the Jordan in the vicinity
> of wadi Harar.
> Some have also identified it with an area close to the head of the wadi
Faria.
>
> >Furthermore, on the opposite bank of
> > the Jordan from Qasr al-Yahud, the Jordanians
> > have been developing their own sacred baptism
> > site. At a place known as Wadi Harar,
> > approximately two kilometers east of the river, the
> > remnants of an ancient church have been found.
> > Jordanian tourism officials based themselves on a
> > verse from the New Testament: "All this happened
> > at the home of a poor woman on the other side of
> > the Jordan, at the place where John the Baptist
> > was." According to this verse, John the Baptist
> > was east of the Jordan, and the Jordanian tourism
> > minister managed to convince the pope to visit
> > there.
> >
> >Anybody have a notion what verse the Jordanians are relying on?
>
>
> Dr. Carlton L. Winbery
> Foggleman Professor of Religion
> Louisiana College
> winbery@speedgate.net
> winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
> Ph. 1 318 448 6103 hm
> Ph. 1 318 487 7241 off
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> END OF DIGEST
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
> You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: ges@faithalone.org
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
>
>
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu</x-charset>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:59 EDT