I would appreciate your criticism of my rendition of John 17:3

And this is everlasting life, that they should intimately know and understand* the only true God and him whom you did send, Jesus Christ.

I intend to have a footnote that reads...

* ginōskō: perceive, understand, to know not just intellectually but in an intimate way.

The text actually indicates *purpose* - more like: "and this is everlasting life *in order that* they might know you, the only true God, and also know the person you sent... Jesus the anointed one.

Hello WoundedEgo,

Just noticed a typo in post #1. The text should have read "And this is everlasting life, that they should intimately know and understand you, the only true God, and who you sent, Jesus Christ."

Originally posted by WoundedEgo

The text actually indicates *purpose* - more like: "and this is everlasting life *in order that* they might know you, the only true God, and also know the person you sent... Jesus the anointed one.

I agree the text indicates *purpose* = eternal life. However there is a pre-requiste to obtaining such = ginōskō.

Thus my emphasis is on the word ginosko which is more expansive than "know". The lexicon defines it as to perceive, understand, to know not just intellectually but in an intimate way.

Have a look at John 14 where we encounter eidon and ginosko. In many translations both are translated as know thus they do not communicate what is being said. Eidon is the reason the disciples didn't perceive the Father in Jesus. Jesus says if they had ginosko they would have seen the Father in him etc

eg: Jn 14:4-5 "And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?" Here, in all cases we encounter eidon. whereas in verse 7 we encounter ginosko "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him". likewise in verse 9 "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me..."

ὃν ἀπέστειλας=whom you sent (ἀπέστειλας=apesteolas). ὃν= which, what, that, not "this person". Was the Logos a prosōpon or a hypostasis?

Note Heb 1:3 the Son is said to be an exact replica of his father's hypostasis. That is, not his prosopon.

Peace

First of all, "eternal" is a term that has picked up a lot of foolish baggage in pop theology so it has to be ditched for the more accurate "unending life."

Secondly, the "purpose" of "everlasting life" is not "eternal life" but rather "that they might know" the one true God (the Father) - and also know Jesus, that the one true God sent into the lost community ("the world").

Thirdly, yes, Jesus allows one to "know" the Father, but that does not EQUATE Jesus with the Father. Jesus is the one who "exegetes" the father. He is not, himself, the father.

Finally, Heb 1:3 does not say that Jesus is an "exact replica" of the father's hupostasis but rather that he is a XARACTER of his his substance. Obviously, then, he is not HOMOOUSIOS, but rather HOMOIOUSIOUS - an "avatar" of his character, just as a XARACTER of Caesar appeared on Roman coins... NOT his "exact substance."

Originally posted by WoundedEgo

First of all, "eternal" is a term that has picked up a lot of foolish baggage in pop theology so it has to be ditched for the more accurate "unending life."

Fine but note Jesus alternates in the gospels his terms usually translated "eternal life" or "life eternal" there are subtlies in this that probably escape you. In general our aim is not "unending life" but life that has a purpose that perpetuates.

Originally posted by WoundedEgo

Secondly, the "purpose" of "everlasting life" is not "eternal life" but rather "that they might know" the one true God (the Father) - and also know Jesus, that the one true God sent into the lost community ("the world").

Agree. But this is not the intent of John 17:3. The carrot is "eternal life" which leads us to getting a non intellectual relationship with the Father. Notice Jesus' aspirations in later verses.

Originally posted by WoundedEgo

Thirdly, yes, Jesus allows one to "know" the Father, but that does not EQUATE Jesus with the Father. Jesus is the one who "exegetes" the father. He is not, himself, the father.

Mostly agree. Jesus does not "allow" but "causes". See John 3. I'm not a Sabellian, as scripture makes it plain that Jesus is a different hypostasis to the Father (cp Heb 1:3). Jesus never "exegetes" the father but ememplifies him see Jn 14.

Originally posted by WoundedEgo

Finally, Heb 1:3 does not say that Jesus is an "exact replica" of the father's hupostasis but rather that he is a XARACTER of his his substance. Obviously, then, he is not HOMOOUSIOS, but rather HOMOIOUSIOUS - an "avatar" of his character, just as a XARACTER of Caesar appeared on Roman coins... NOT his "exact substance."

Hypostasis is the Greek term for what makes an individual unique (what we refer to as personal individuality). Prospon is the person in his different guises (eg: infant, child, man, husband, father etc). Thus, no one can share anothers hypostasis as it is always unique. However he can be an exact copy. In Heb 1:3 we could translate karacter as "exact imprint" which equates to "exact replica" - not the same indentity but in manifestation an identicle entity. We find the same idea in Phil 2:6, John 1:1.

If the author of Hebrews meant substance he would have used physis or ousia. Ousia is the Nicene component of homoousia which you probably understand from its translation from the latin as "same substance" - an unfortunate anomoly of English as God is spirit (heavenly) and not material (earthy). Physis is the term used at Chalcedon to explain the dual natures of Jesus ie: he does not have two ousia or hypostases but two physes.A lot gets lost in translation.

Be wary of your English sunday school terms (or kingdom hall, eclesia, inglesia terms), most have no support in biblical Greek, but are convenient for simplicity - do as the Bereans and check the facts.

ps. Ah! Just detected you are towing a semi-Arian line. Homoiousia means "like God" (in your terms "of a different substance"). Basically the term implies Jesus is a lesser God, thus you are advocating either Bi-theism or Tri-theism. Basil one of the semi-Arian leaders resolved the terminology issues in the latter part of the 4th century, and converted to the orthodox position ie: adhered to Nicea - as i said a lot gets lost in translation (in that era Greek, Syrian, Latin). Have a read of Eunomius, an extreme Arian from the 4th century. He starts out presenting a good argument but falls flat on his face when he is forced to deny the begetal of the Son as a real generation (no different to the begettal of locusts or the rain).

Let's just imagine for fun (though it is not reality) that the scriptures say that Jesus is an "exact replica" of God's "substance." Does that mean, in your minds, that he IS God? Or does it not mean that he is in fact NOT God, only one made in God's image?!

Okay, let's focus...

What, in your humble opinion, is the function of hINA in the sentence?

Hello WoundedEgo,

Originally posted by WoundedEgo

Let's just imagine for fun (though it is not reality) that the scriptures say that Jesus is an "exact replica" of God's "substance." Does that mean, in your minds, that he IS God? Or does it not mean that he is in fact NOT God, only one made in God's image?!

It means exactly what scripture tells us: He is the only Son of his Father. Thus, it means the Son is a seperate individual from his Father, but has inherited the same qualities etc from which we can perceive what he is (Cp John 12:45, 14:9; Phil 2:6; John 1:1). eg: If you tell me that in knowing you, I know your father, and your that your father is human, I perceive you are human.

Remember the scriptures say "no man has seen God", so how is it that we can perceive God? In Romans, Paul says through the creation. Elsewhere, Paul also tells us that the Son created all things in heaven and earth, but also tells us the Father created through the Son.

It is well worth noting that in the OT YHWH becomes God and even threatens to cease being God. So it is a useful exercise to come to an understanding of what "God" is - I promise you scripture does not define him in terms of the philosophers "primal being" or that he co-existed with a primal matter from which all things were formed.

Heb 1:3 certainly doesn't say the Son is the same "matter" as the Father but rather, is identical in hypostasis (literally: what lays beneath).

Our word "substance" comes from the Latin "substantia". Unfortunately, Latin is not as rich a language as Greek, and so translation choices were/are few. "substantia" / "substance" has two profiles it can refer to the physical or the perceptable (see any English dictionary). In theology it is the later profile that is contemplated.

For instance: It can be argued that man is perceptably an animal (genus) but is distinguishable (species) as man has a unique attribute refered to as reason. However, woman is not a sub-species, but the same species as "man" as they have the same "substance" (outward form is deceptive, there is something more essential to a thing that defines its reality.)

Originally posted by WoundedEgo

Okay, let's focus...

What, in your humble opinion, is the function of hINA in the sentence?

I don't have an opinion, humble or otherwise. I have an understanding - whether it is complete is a different issue.

The function of ἵνα here and elsewhere is as a common conjunction - used as a pointer. It can be understood as "in order that" as you require but what is it pointing to? Does αἰώνιος ζωή cause the γινώσκωσιν, or is γινώσκωσιν required to achieve αἰώνιος ζωή ?

Have a read of John 3:31-36 which parallels 17:1-3 and the answer is clear.

Peace

>>>"...The function of ἵνα here and elsewhere is as a common conjunction - used as a pointer. It can be understood as "in order that" as you require but what is it pointing to? Does αἰώνιος ζωή cause the γινώσκωσιν, or is γινώσκωσιν required to achieve αἰώνιος ζωή ? Have a read of John 3:31-36 which parallels 17:1-3 and the answer is clear."

It is not so clear to scholars:


"..ⓒ ἵνα is found w. the pres. ind. only in passages where the subj. is also attested in the mss.; its presence is prob. due to corruption of the text (B-D-F §369, 6; Rob. 984f; Mlt-Turner 100f. But see the clear instance in PAnt III, 188, 15: ἵνα μή ἐσμεν, and cp. BGU 1081, 3 ἐχάρην, ἵνα σὲ ἀσπάζομαι; TestNapht 8:2; PassPtPl 60 [Aa I, 170, 8] ἵνα κατευθύνει; AcPtPl 58 [Aa I, 203, 17]; AcPlTh 11 [Aa I, 243, 11 v.l.]). φυσιοῦσθε 1 Cor 4:6 and ζηλοῦτε Gal 4:17 could be subj. (B-D-F §91; Rob. 984). But Gal 6:12 v.l. διώκονται; Tit 2:4 v.l. σωφρονίζουσιν; J 5:20 v.l. θαυμάζετε; 17:3 v.l. γινώσκουσιν; 1J 5:20 v.l. γινώσκομεν; Rv 12:6 v.l. τρέφουσιν; 13:17 v.l. δύναται; ἵνα σύνετε B 6:5 v.l. (in text συνιῆτε; v.l. συνῆτε); ἵνα … ᾂδετε IEph 4:2 (Lghtf. ᾂδητε); μετέχετε ibid. (v.l. μετέχητε). διατάσσομαι ITr 3:3 (v.l. διατάσσωμαι). βλασφημεῖται 8:2 v.l.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhüchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) (Page 475). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

What I infer from the convoluted mess that the scholars leave us is that hINA can provide:

* a purpose clause: " In order that they might know thee"
* a result clause: "with the effect that they know thee"
* an infinitive-ish clause: "to know you"

None of this is reflected in your translation, that I can see.

Originally posted by WoundedEgo

>>>"...The function of ἵνα here and elsewhere is as a common conjunction - used as a pointer. It can be understood as "in order that" as you require but what is it pointing to? Does αἰώνιος ζωή cause the γινώσκωσιν, or is γινώσκωσιν required to achieve αἰώνιος ζωή ? Have a read of John 3:31-36 which parallels 17:1-3 and the answer is clear."

It is not so clear to scholars:


"..ⓒ ἵνα is found w. the pres. ind. only in passages where the subj. is also attested in the mss.; its presence is prob. due to corruption of the text (B-D-F §369, 6; Rob. 984f; Mlt-Turner 100f. But see the clear instance in PAnt III, 188, 15: ἵνα μή ἐσμεν, and cp. BGU 1081, 3 ἐχάρην, ἵνα σὲ ἀσπάζομαι; TestNapht 8:2; PassPtPl 60 [Aa I, 170, 8] ἵνα κατευθύνει; AcPtPl 58 [Aa I, 203, 17]; AcPlTh 11 [Aa I, 243, 11 v.l.]). φυσιοῦσθε 1 Cor 4:6 and ζηλοῦτε Gal 4:17 could be subj. (B-D-F §91; Rob. 984). But Gal 6:12 v.l. διώκονται; Tit 2:4 v.l. σωφρονίζουσιν; J 5:20 v.l. θαυμάζετε; 17:3 v.l. γινώσκουσιν; 1J 5:20 v.l. γινώσκομεν; Rv 12:6 v.l. τρέφουσιν; 13:17 v.l. δύναται; ἵνα σύνετε B 6:5 v.l. (in text συνιῆτε; v.l. συνῆτε); ἵνα … ᾂδετε IEph 4:2 (Lghtf. ᾂδητε); μετέχετε ibid. (v.l. μετέχητε). διατάσσομαι ITr 3:3 (v.l. διατάσσωμαι). βλασφημεῖται 8:2 v.l.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhüchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) (Page 475). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

What I infer from the convoluted mess that the scholars leave us is that hINA can provide:

* a purpose clause: " In order that they might know thee"
* a result clause: "with the effect that they know thee"
* an infinitive-ish clause: "to know you"

None of this is reflected in your translation, that I can see.

You can stick your head where the sun never shines or read John 3:31-36 which parallels 17:1-3 and thereby get a clear answer. It isn't rocket science. Why do you have a need to complicate a simple message? Jon 1:1,14 should be enough to clue you in. John is quite repetative in his ascertions. Though he thickens the plot as he leads us ;-)

There are four Greek words that are often translated "know". Do you know what they are? They have already been mentioned. Read back through this thread, and get some semblance of understanding. ἵνα is understood within the overall context not in isolation as you want. As your remarks stand, you lack all credibility. I understand your concerns, but Kione is not English and the expressions do not follow English syntax, it is a more open and at times a more particular language. There are ancient bible versions used by Augustine and other ancients that would have "only true God" applied to both the Father & the Son. So care needs to be taken in accepting opinions.

I assume you are young and so impetuous, and with that infirmity, prone to jumping at straws. My advice is look to the big picture and things will be revealed as not as complicated as you seem to hope.

Um, Moderator please? Apostoli has apparently lost his "equanimity."

Apostoli, your beef seems to be with BDAG, not with me.

You invited criticism and you got it. Apparently, what you wanted with your ego stroked.

By the way, BDAG suggests that since in each of the cases cited in this section there exists a variant that is subjunctive and is probably original, the sense here should probably be "so that they might know you" or "so that they might know you" rather than "in order that they know you" as I suggested.

Apostoli, let's tone down the personal attacks.

And by the way, thank you for mistaking me for a younger man. But as you know, just getting old, doesn't make you sage.

Originally posted by WoundedEgo

Um, Moderator please? Apostoli has apparently lost his "equanimity."

Apostoli, your beef seems to be with BDAG, not with me.

You invited criticism and you got it. Apparently, what you wanted with your ego stroked.

I wanted informed intelligence not predujice! I'm not aiming at any theological meaning, merely the best expression of the Greek.

Originally posted by WoundedEgo

By the way, BDAG suggests that since in each of the cases cited in this section there exists a variant that is subjunctive and is probably original, the sense here should probably be "so that they might know you" or "so that they might know you" rather than "in order that they know you" as I suggested.

Apostoli, let's tone down the personal attacks.

And by the way, thank you for mistaking me for a younger man. But as you know, just getting old, doesn't make you sage.

As far as I know, all Greek mss render Jn 1:1;3;17:3 in the same way.

I apologise for any slight you may have taken, but I get very tired with generic remarks when they are applied to specific segments. Yes there are corruptions in the various mss but if you care to bother to investigate they are few and far between.

I anticipated your youth (immaturity) as I was forced to assume from your remarks you haven't bothered to do a substantial study = you haven't substantianted your remarks, merely parroted other opinion. Its a learning curve. As we dig into the original languages we learn that little bit more.

I'm not your enemy. Though in infirmity I may get irritated, and that may come across - it's more about my impatience. Sleep not, the master comes...

>>>"...I was forced to assume from your remarks you haven't bothered to do a substantial study = you haven't substantianted your remarks, merely parroted other opinion..."

Whom have I parroted? What are you talking about? I do my homework. Are you bothered that I cite BDAG?

If you note, there are some translations that give your reading, others that give mine:

http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=...ter=17&verse=3

I have given solid support for my reading, against yours.

As to variants of John 17:3, if you look closely, you will see the telltale sign of the subjunctive... "that they might know" or "that they should know" THEE, the the one true God. Jesus is the person that God created and sent into the lost community.

Originally posted by WoundedEgo

>>>"...I was forced to assume from your remarks you haven't bothered to do a substantial study = you haven't substantianted your remarks, merely parroted other opinion..."

Whom have I parroted? What are you talking about? I do my homework. Are you bothered that I cite BDAG?

If you note, there are some translations that give your reading, others that give mine:

http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=...ter=17&verse=3

I have given solid support for my reading, against yours.

As to variants of John 17:3, if you look closely, you will see the telltale sign of the subjunctive... "that they might know" or "that they should know" THEE, the the one true God. Jesus is the person that God created and sent into the lost community.

But not grammatically. Parrot who you like, but it is obvious your homework is via set dogmatic text not accademic research.

And you have yet to address ginōskō and its meaning beyond intellectual knowledge. My actual focus...