John 16:32

John 16:23-33 was the reading on a Worship Anew program in May last year (The Sixth Sunday of Easter, 25 May), and in verse 32 in the Vulgate, I found an-other instance of a minor feature I've noted a few times before.

ecce venit hora et iam venit ut dispergamini unusquisque in propria et me solum relinquatis et non sum solus quia Pater mecum est

In the ESV, this is:

"Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone.  Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me."

In Latin, the words in the prepositional phrase "cum me" ("with me") are inverted and combined into mecum.  Consequently, me is directly next to Pater ("the Father"), lending a slightly greater sense of this accompaniment, especially in this instance since these are two figures of the Trinity.

John 14:6

Years ago, I noticed that part of John 14:6 exhibits alliteration in the Vulgate:

dicit ei Iesus ego sum via et veritas et vita nemo venit ad Patrem nisi per me

In the ESV, this is:

Jesus said to him [Thomas], "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me."

Earlier this year, I encountered this verse again and realized that coincidentally, the alliteration matches the meaning in a way.  There's an exclusivity common to both:  Jesus is the only means of reaching the Father, and the words that describe Him here all start with the same letter.

John 3:16

At a church service I attended back in the spring, the pastor mentioned John 3:16 in his sermon.  Later, I had a small realization about the scope of the verse.

'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.'  [ESV]

In a way, the verse demonstrates both a macro view and micro view.  There's a breadth in "'whoever believes in him,'" but since this verse was originally directed to an individual person (as the verses at the beginning of the chapter make clear:  "1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.  2 This man came to Jesus by night..."), there's also a sort of specificity, similar to the intimate familiarity that God has with each person, as described in Psalm 139.

John 15:5

Months ago, I lookt up John 15 in order to confirm a similarity to verses 4-5 in a hymn text I was translating ("Du Lebensbrod, Herr Jesu" by Johann Rist).  Specifically, I referenced the NKJV, in which verse 5 appears as:

"I am the vine, you are the branches.  He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing."

The italics indicate a word that's supplied in the NKJV translation that's not in the Greek:

ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος, ὑμεῖς τὰ κλήματα. ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ, οὗτος φέρει καρπὸν πολύν· ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν.

The verb is explicit in the first clause ("'I am the vine'"), but it's merely implied in the second ("'you [are] the branches'").  The same is true of the Latin Vulgate:

ego sum vitis vos palmites qui manet in me et ego in eo hic fert fructum multum quia sine me nihil potestis facere

By itself, "you the branches" is just a phrase.  Semantically, it can't stand by itself (formally speaking, at least).  The preceding "I am the vine" sets up an instance of ellipsis, indicating that the copulative verb is implied and that this is, in fact, a complete clause.  Grammatically, then, the second clause has a sort of dependence on the first to make its meaning clear, and this matches the broader idea behind the metaphor here ("'without Me you can do nothing'").

According to my Greek textbook (New Testament Greek for Laymen: An Introductory Grammar by Michael A. Merritt, which I got as a .pdf for free from the Daily Dose of Greek website), "Greek differs from English in that the verb εἰμί (to be) may be omitted from a sentence if it is understood from the context" (p. 54), so I'm not sure how applicable my comments are to the Greek (or to the Latin, which I think is comparable in this regard).

John 12:6

Months ago, I watched the Daily Dose of Latin video on John 12:6:

dixit autem hoc non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum sed quia fur erat et loculos habens ea quae mittebantur portabat

In the ESV, this is:

He [Judas Iscariot] said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.

Where the ESV has "not because he cared about the poor," the Latin has "non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum."  This is something like:  "not because about the destitute, it pertained to him."  The Greek text is comparable:

εἶπεν δὲ τοῦτο οὐχ ὅτι περὶ τῶν πτωχῶν ἔμελεν αὐτῷ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι κλέπτης ἦν καὶ τὸ γλωσσόκομον ἔχων τὰ βαλλόμενα ἐβάσταζεν.

Like the Latin pertinēre, the Greek verb μέλω is impersonal.  I'm not sure if a native speaker of either of these languages would take it this way, but it seems to me that this sort of construction (where Judas isn't the subject of the verb) lends a greater sense of the distance between him and the poor.  Even grammatically, there's less of a relationship between them.

John 10:9

A couple weeks ago, the Daily Dose of Latin went over John 10:9:

ego sum ostium per me si quis introierit salvabitur et ingredietur et egredietur et pascua inveniet

"I am the door.  If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture." [ESV]

The foreignness of "ingredietur et egredietur" caught my attention, and I realized that there's an echo of Psalm 121 here.  Although the order is reversed, "go in and out" also appears in Psalm 121:8:  "The LORD will keep your going out and your coming in from this time forth and forevermore" [ESV].  There's also a similarity between "be[ing] saved" and the repeated יִשְׁמֹר in the last two verses of Psalm 121, which the NKJV translates as "shall preserve":  "7 The LORD shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.  8 The LORD shall preserve your going out and your coming in from this time forth, and even forevermore."

John 10:4-5

About a month ago, I read John 10 in the ESV after having run across a reference to it in The Heath Anthology of American Literature, and I noticed a contrast between parts of verses 4 and 5.  Talking about a shepherd, Jesus says, "'the sheep follow him...  A stranger they will not follow.'"  The structure is inverted in the second clause (with the direct object coming first), emphasizing this difference.

I doubt that the word order in the original Greek holds this significance, though, because Greek is a more inflected language than English and word order doesn't matter as much.  In Greek, these clauses are:  τὰ πρόβατα αὐτῷ ἀκολουθεῖ (the sheep him follow) and ἀλλοτρίῳ δὲ οὐ μὴ ἀκολουθήσουσιν (a stranger but not they will follow).

The NIV and NKJV both translate these clauses with the same basic structure:  "his sheep follow him... they will never follow a stranger" and "the sheep follow him... they will by no means follow a stranger," respectively, but this inverted word order is present in my German New Testament, where these clauses are "die Schafe folgen ihm nach" and "Einem Fremden aber folgen sie nicht nach."

John 8:44

Last month, I watched the Daily Dose of Latin video on John 8:44:

In the ESV, this is "'You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires.  He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him.  When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.'"

I don't know how significant this is, but it occurred to me that parts of this contrast with John 1 in a way that seems deliberate.  In this verse, Satan, "your father the devil," is described as "a murderer from the beginning" who "has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him."  John 1 starts with "In the beginning was the Word" (verse 1), Who is "the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth" (verse 14).  An establishment from "the beginning" is common to both passages, but one describes "the father of lies," who "has nothing to do with the truth," and the other describes "the only Son from the Father," who is "full of... truth."

John 18, 21

In the Daily Dose of Greek video for John 21:9, Dr. Plummer mentions almost as a side note that ἀνθρακιά ("charcoal fire," in the accusative form in the verse) occurs only twice in the Bible:  in this verse and in John 18:18.

At first, I didn't give much thought to this, but the day after I watched the video, I realized that the contexts in which this word appears are related.

In John 18:18, Peter is standing by a charcoal fire while the soldiers take Jesus to Annas.  In the surrounding verses (17, 25-27), Peter three times denies knowing Jesus.

In John 21, after the charcoal fire is mentioned, Jesus three times asks Peter if he loves Him (verses 15-17).  The three instances (three denials and three questions) link these two passages, as John 21:17 makes clear ("Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, 'Do you love me?'"), and while the charcoal fire isn't nearly as significant, it's a sensory detail that also connects these two accounts.

John 7:24

A couple months ago, I watched the Daily Dose of Latin video on John 7:24:

Dr. Flatt comes close to mentioning that, of course, the words "iustum iudicium iudicate" alliterate, and I realized that because of this alliteration, there's a sense in the Latin of the orderliness of a just judgement.  

In my German New Testament, this verse is:  "Richtet nicht nach dem, was vor Augen ist, sondern richtet gerecht."  To a lesser degree, the same feature is present here, although with consonance rather than alliteration:  "richtet gerecht."

John 20:26

A couple months ago, I watched the Daily Dose of Greek video on John 20:26:

Καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ πάλιν ἦσαν ἔσω οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ Θωμᾶς μετ᾽ αὐτῶν. ἔρχεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων καὶ ἔστη εἰς τὸ μέσον καὶ εἶπεν· εἰρήνη ὑμῖν.

Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them.  Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." [ESV]

I was surprised to discovered that the "was" in the clause "Thomas was with them" isn't present in the Greek; it's just "Θωμᾶς μετ᾽ αὐτῶν."  I had a couple thoughts about this, although I'll admit they may be a bit far-fetched.

Most of the translations I lookt at render it like the ESV above and supply an implied verb:

Thomas war bei ihnen

Thomas se trouvait avec eux

Thomas was with them [NIV]

The Latin Vulgate and the NKJV are the exceptions:

Thomas cum eis

Thomas with them

I think it's possible to see Thomas as part of the plural subject of the verb "were."  Put an-other way, it would be "his disciples and Thomas with them were inside...."  Granted, the "with them" is a bit redundant then, but if Thomas is included with the other disciples as the subject of the sentence, it provides something of a foreshadowing of his return to faith after seeing Jesus' wounds.  In grammatical structure and in faith, he's part of the group again.

Alternatively, the lack of an explicit verb for Thomas' being there mirrors his lack of faith.

John 7:18

Last month, when I watched the Daily Dose of Latin video on John 7:18, I noticed something that I hadn't noticed when I went over the same verse with the corresponding Daily Dose of Greek video about two years ago.

ὁ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ λαλῶν τὴν δόξαν τὴν ἰδίαν ζητεῖ· ὁ δὲ ζητῶν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτόν, οὗτος ἀληθής ἐστιν, καὶ ἀδικία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν.

qui a semet ipso loquitur gloriam propriam quaerit qui autem quaerit gloriam eius qui misit illum hic verax est et iniustitia in illo non est

In the ESV, this is translated as:

The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.

In both the Greek and the Latin, the direct object in the first clause (τὴν δόξαν τὴν ἰδίαν, gloriam propriam, "his own glory") comes before the verb (ζητεῖ, quaerit, "seeks").  The word order in Greek and Latin is more flexible than in English, so I wouldn't argue for this too strongly, but placing "his own glory" earlier in the clause could provide a sense of this person's vanity.  In terms of his priorities and even in the clause that describes him, his glory comes first.

The word order in the second clause is different (the direct object comes after the verb [or the participle, as it is in the Greek]), and this mirrors the contrast in these two men, signalled more explicitly with δὲ, autem, and "but."

John 20:19, 21

John 20:19-31 was the Gospel reading on Worship Anew last month (16 April).  In his sermon, Pastor Jonker briefly comments on how Jesus says, "Peace be with you" twice in the reading:

Again Jesus says, "Peace be with you."  Wasn't once enough?  Why receive forgiveness when you've already been forgiven?  Why speak peace a second time when you've already said it?  That's not what faith says.  Faith simply delights in receiving whatever the Lord has to give, and if He's giving out double peace on Easter Sunday, that's where I want to be.

I hadn't given much thought to this "double peace" that Jesus gives, but that particular phrase that Pastor Jonker uses brought to mind Isaiah 40:2:  "Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins."  The study notes in my Bible comment that Jerusalem "received from the Lord's hand good things in double proportion to the punishment she deserved for her sins" and also cites Isaiah 61:7:  "Instead of your shame there shall be a double portion; instead of dishonor they shall rejoice in their lot; therefore in their land they shall possess a double portion; they shall have everlasting joy."  The double peace that Jesus speaks in John 20 is an instance of this.

I think the context here is significant, too.  This giving of double peace comes right after Jesus' resurrection and His victory over sin, death, and the devil, and this is also what Isaiah 40:2 describes:  "her warfare is ended... her iniquity is pardoned."

John 20:1

A couple weeks ago, I watched the Daily Dose of Greek video on John 20:1:

In the ESV, this verse is:  "Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb."

I realized that the description "while it was still dark," while providing a veritable detail of the account, could also be understood metaphorically.  Its being "still dark" could also refer either to the gloom of Mary's sadness after Jesus' death or to her ignorance of His resurrection.

On Barabbas

Even before the Daily Dose of Greek got to John 18:40 last month, I started thinking about Barabbas.  Back in August last year, I had a small realization about this particular verse (which I never got around to writing about), and I had an-other realization after watching the Daily Dose of Greek video.

Previously, I'd thought of this exchange between Barabbas and Jesus only as a representation of the exchange between guilt and innocence (aside, of course, from the recounting of an actual event).  In the same way that innocent Jesus takes the place of guilty Barabbas, He also takes the punishment that should be ours.

Considering the passage more closely, I realized that there's a bit more depth than that; there are also specific contrasts between the characters of these two figures.  In John 18:40, the Evangelist comments "Now Barabbas was a robber," and this contrasts with Jesus, Who gives freely (the feeding of the five thousand, for example).  In Mark 15:7, Barabbas is described as one of "the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection."  Jesus is the exact opposite of these attributes, too.  Instead of rebelling, He kept the law perfectly (Hebrews 9:14), and rather than murdering, He creates life (in Acts 3:15, He is called the Author of life).

My other realization, looking at the accounts from a different perspective, is that the crowd is representative of our sinful human nature.  In the same way that the crowd calls for Barabbas and rejects Jesus, we would cling to the darkness of sin and shun the Light of righteousness.

John 6:60

Last week, I watched the Daily Dose of Latin video on John 6:60 and noticed a grammatical ambiguity that I'd missed when I watched the corresponding Daily Dose of Greek video about two years ago.

Multi ergo audientes ex discipulis eius dixerunt durus est hic sermo quis potest eum audire

πολλοὶ οὖν ἀκούσαντες ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ εἶπον· σκληρός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος οὗτος· τίς δύναται αὐτοῦ ἀκούειν;

Of the English translations I have, I like the NIV the best:  "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, 'This is a hard teaching.  Who can accept it?'"

Almost all of the translations I lookt at understand this in the same way and take "sermo" (λόγος in the Greek) as the antecedent of "eum" (αὐτοῦ), but the antecedent could also be Jesus since, grammatically, Jesus is also a masculine singular.  Consequently, "eum" (αὐτοῦ) could be translated as "Him" instead of "it," resulting in:  "Who can hear Him?" or "Who can accept Him?"

In the immediate context, "sermo" (or λόγος) does seem to be a more likely antecedent, but taking Jesus as the antecedent results in a reading that's similar to verse 41, where the Jews grumble about Jesus because of what He said.  Verse 60 could express something similar and show the crowd dismissing Jesus because it is unable to accept this particular point of His teaching.

---

In my French translation, the antecedent is ambiguous:  "Plusieurs de ses disciples, après l'avoir entendu, dirent:  Cette parole est dure; qui peut l'écouter?"  The pronoun is elided into "écouter," and it could be either the feminine la, referring to "cette parole" or the masculine le, referring to Jesus.

John 17:1

When the Daily Dose of Greek went over John 17:1 last week, I noticed a chiasm.

Ταῦτα ἐλάλησεν Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἶπεν· πάτερ, ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα· δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν, ἵνα ὁ υἱὸς δοξάσῃ σε

When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you."

This particular word order ("[You] glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you") illustrates this reciprocity.

John 16:32

The Daily Dose of Greek has been going through John 16.  A couple days ago, I watched the video for John 16:32:

ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ ἐλήλυθεν ἵνα σκορπισθῆτε ἕκαστος εἰς τὰ ἴδια κἀμὲ μόνον ἀφῆτε· καὶ οὐκ εἰμὶ μόνος, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν.

Behold the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone.  Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me.

The verb σκορπισθῆτε ("you will be scattered") has a plural subject, but ἕκαστος is singular ("each"), so even in the language here, there's a sense of this division.  There's a movement from plural to singular.

John 11:5

Yester-day, I watched the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 3 April 2017:

The text was John 11:1-45.  As usual, I was following along in my French New Testament, and I noticed a feature in verse 5:  "Or, Jésus aimait Marthe, et sa sœur, et Lazare."  ("Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.")  Because of the polysyndeton (Martha and her sister and Lazarus), there's a greater sense of each individual person than there would be in a mere list (Martha, her sister, and Lazarus), which gives more of a general overview or distant summary.  Consequently, this way of naming these people provides a greater sense of the specific and personal relationship that Jesus has with each of them.

This feature is also present in the Greek:  Ἠγάπα δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν Μάρθαν καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῆς καὶ τὸν Λάζαρον.

John 6:2, 5

Recently, the Daily Dose of Latin started John 6.  I noticed that in John 6:2 and 6:5, the Greek word ὄχλος is translated in the Vulgate as multitudo.

This struck me as a bit unusual.  Most of the time, ὄχλος is translated as turba.  I did a search with the STEP Bible, and while my numbers might not be entirely accurate, it seems that out of 171 occurrences of a form of ὄχλος, 155 of them are translated as a form of turba.

These instances in particular seem odd because "multitudo magna" and "multitudo maxima" are redundant; both mean something like "a great multitude."  (Maxima is the superlative form of magna.)  Perhaps this is intended to indicate the exceedingly great size of the crowd.

As I've been following along with the Daily Dose of Latin, I've been reading the New King James Version.  There, both of these phrases are translated as "great multitude."  In the ESV, they're both "large crowd," and in the NIV, "great crowd."